Thanks for the input, Jeffery.
I've been curious about the PAW project, having seen references to it in
subject lines on the list in the past. I just assumed it was an
individual effort. Maybe a kind soul will explain it to me sometime.
Now, I've at least put together the fact that PAW stands for
Picture-a-Week -- or something similar.
As for trying to capture birds ... the funny thing is, that was my main
focus when I got my K-x. It never occurred to me not to try it,
inasmuch as I'd seen photos of birds in flight, so I just took it for
granted that it was possible to do, and set about doing it. I get a
passable shot only about ten percent of the time, but it's sort of like
the old saw about taking a rather forward approach with women: Nine out
of ten times, you get slapped. But, that tenth time...
Thanks again!
Walt
On 10/5/2010 1:53 PM, Jeffery Smith wrote:
I would post it and say "how do y'all like the bokeh in this shot?" Dealing
with focus and shutter lag when trying to photograph a flying bird (not to mention my
poor reflexes) have convinced me never to even try them with my current equipment. So,
you'll never hear me criticizing another one's efforts to do something I'm not even
willing to try. :-)
But all of us have to edit our collection to what is most presentable. Digital
has increased the number of acceptable shots, and has also increased the number
of turkeys (I'n not talking about a flying bird here). When I look at HCB's
collection of work, I am struck by how many photos he didn't publish (the guy
exposed a lot of film!).
The PAW project was good for several things: (1) it got people and and shooting
more regularly, (2) it forced us to edit a week's work down to a single photo,
and (3) it allowed us to post some photos that weren't that good without
feeling ashamed (it's the best one we got for that week).
Jeffery
On Oct 5, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote:
As I hasten to stipulate at every opportunity, I'm pretty new to photography,
and I have what may seem to be a stupid question. So, please indulge me.
That said, what do all of you real photographers do with images that may be
flawed, but still have some redeeming qualities to them. For instance, a shot
that's too poorly focused to rescue with sharpening tools and so forth, but
does capture a sense of action that is somewhat appealing. Like this one, for
example:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7X4Utq1sTP4AoZG2S3S0zQ?feat=directlink
As you can see, it's a fairly severe crop, and has been sharpened already to
the point where it exhibits a pretty prominent halo as a result. I do have a
copy of the image, pre-halo, but not the original file -- which I seem to have
deleted somehow. I don't see the image ever being finessed to the point where
it's printable, but I hate to just discard it because of the sense of action.
Do you all generally keep images like these, or just send them down the memory
hole to rid yourself of torment and temptation to return it in futility?
Any guidance and/or damnation with faint praise are, as always, greatly
appreciated.
Best,
Walt
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
