On Fri, Aug 23, 2013, Matthew Hunt wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:26 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've never heard of get it exact in the camera before.
I've always heard get it right in camera ... not the same thing.
I sure have. There are absolutely no-crop fetishists on the
Cropping was a lot more exacting in the days before zooms.
You didn't just zoom in or out to get your cropping right.
You had to zoom with your feet.
Regards, Bob S.
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:53 AM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
on 2013-08-23 21:34 Matthew Hunt wrote
On Fri, Aug 23,
Or change to a prime with an appropriate focal length.
We were required to print full frame my first semester in school, just
to demonstrate we had not inadvertently composed an image that cropped
elements of the scene out of the image frame.
On 8/24/2013 1:11 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
Yes, that's why Pentax made primes of 85mm, 100mm, 120mm, 135mm,150mm,
and 200mm.
From 50.mm down they made 40mm, 35mm, 30mm, 28mm, 20mm, and 15mm.
Regards, Bob S.
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:06 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote:
Or change to a prime with an appropriate focal length.
We were
OOps, frogot the 24mm. Bob S.
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that's why Pentax made primes of 85mm, 100mm, 120mm, 135mm,150mm,
and 200mm.
From 50.mm down they made 40mm, 35mm, 30mm, 28mm, 20mm, and 15mm.
Regards, Bob S.
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013
And the 77, 55, 43, and 31mm.
On Aug 24, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
OOps, frogot the 24mm. Bob S.
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that's why Pentax made primes of 85mm, 100mm, 120mm, 135mm,150mm,
and 200mm.
From 50.mm down they
Actually, I have more problems with zooms than with primes. With primes, I know
that I am most likely going to be cropping later and I can deal with that. With
zooms, I try to get it just right in the frame. I have trouble convincing
myself to back off a bit, sacrifice just a touch of close-up
On 8/23/2013 7:42 PM, Stan Halpin wrote:
Paper can be trimmed, mats and frames can be custom cut. But it is
still a nuisance. I would love to have firmware in the camera that
would show the viewing area with an 4x5 ratio (or other selectable
ratio) partial mask. Many PS cameras have a
Rick Wormer recently posted a very nice PESO:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17505433size=lg
Comments he has received so far mention the good composition. I totally agree -
it is a boffo shot as presented.
However, viewing it quickly brought to mind some mild struggles I have been
Hi Stan
The problem you present is one of the reasons I don't agree with the
get it exact in the camera philosophy. My theory is that a lot of
that type of thinking was a result of technology limitations of
historic days. There was a time when the only thing most people could
make from a large
I dont worry about standard formats. I format image proportions suitable to the
visual language I'm constructing and lay out book pages (or exhibition framing)
to suit.
Of course, there are those occasions when having a regular format throughout a
particular exhibit or book makes good sense.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013, Stan Halpin wrote:
However, viewing it quickly brought to mind some mild struggles I have
been having. The recent workshop I attended yielded several shots I
have been motivated to print, and I have started layout of a Blurb
book based on that week's shots. The problem I
Book page formats have (next-to) nothing to do with the aspect ratio
of the images put on those pages.
White Space Is Your Friend™.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013, Stan Halpin wrote:
However, viewing it quickly brought to mind some mild
mats several at a time in my favorite sizes.
In short, not a problem.
Rick
http://photo.net/photos/RickW
- Original Message -
From: Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net
Cc:
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 12:42 PM
Subject: Musings about image
I've never heard of get it exact in the camera before.
I've always heard get it right in camera ... not the same thing.
I've always interpreted that to mean expose it properly frame it so
that you don't chop off heads feet or any other features you might
want in your print later.
You can
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:26 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've never heard of get it exact in the camera before.
I've always heard get it right in camera ... not the same thing.
I sure have. There are absolutely no-crop fetishists on the
Internet... and there were in the film days,
on 2013-08-23 21:34 Matthew Hunt wrote
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:26 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've never heard of get it exact in the camera before.
I've always heard get it right in camera ... not the same thing.
I sure have. There are absolutely no-crop fetishists on the
on 2013-08-23 19:01 Rick Womer wrote
Stan,
Thanks for the compliment on the pic!
I get my prints done by Denver Digital Imaging (slideprinter.com), which
consistently produces prints that match what's on my screen (they honor color
space). I can get 10 x 15, 11 x 16, 12 x 18, 16 x 24...
18 matches
Mail list logo
