Bob W wrote:
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're
not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white.
Bob
That is rather brilliant. I'd say, another surrealist shot in the vein
of your girl in the
Bob W wrote:
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown
out, but they're
not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white.
Bob
That is rather brilliant. I'd say, another surrealist shot in
the vein
Very good capture Bob. Agree white should not offer detail other than
any other colors or shades (didn't work so well this
transtation, but I
always get tired by this time of night).
I keep trying to adjust the horizon, CCW just a little bit...
minor nit
indeed. One shot or did you
Here comes another vote from the Norwegian jury.
--
MaritimTim
2009/5/25 Bob W p...@web-options.com:
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're
not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white.
Bob
--
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're
not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white.
Death, destruction, people with weapons - wait,
On Mon, 25 May 2009 22:55:07 +0100
Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but
they're not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white.
Bob
would like a higher def version but...
I like
Very good capture Bob. Agree white should not offer detail other than
any other colors or shades (didn't work so well this transtation, but I
always get tired by this time of night).
I keep trying to adjust the horizon, CCW just a little bit... minor nit
indeed. One shot or did you bracket?
From: Bob W p...@web-options.com
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but
they're
not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white.
I like it ... it looks like a figure in a diorama rather than a real
child,
On 25/5/09, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're
not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white.
Looks fine to me, I can see plenty of detail. Nice pic.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
Exposure looks fine to me. I like it.
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're
not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white.
Bob
He's a red-head. Like me at his age, he has no color to his skin. But
there are freckles, I'd wager. Move in closer!
On May 25, 2009, at 14:55 , Bob W wrote:
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but
they're
not
I like it. I'm looking at it on my laptop, so much is lost. But it
projects a mood that I'd describe as mysterious if not dark. The child
appears almost as a mannequin, and his position in frame and tightly
programmed look contribute to a somewhat unnatural feeling. Strange,
interesting,
What Godfrey said
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com
Subject: Re: Opinions please
From: Bob W p...@web-options.com
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly
This has red hair. Therefore the way his face came out is only
natural... Or at least this is what I am thinking.
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown
On Dec 11, 2007, at 17:11, Bob Blakely wrote:
Which one is the TARDIS and why isn't it blue?
(Digging into what I remember from 25 years ago...)
The TARDIS is a Police box, not a phone booth (that's why).
No idea what a police box is, though. Maybe Wikipedia could help
there. Yes, it
All photographs are ordinary. In the past 160 years everything has been done,
over, and over, and over again. So, they are all ordinary, but some are
interesting despite that.
Graywolf
Website: http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Blog:http://www.graywolfphoto.com/journal/
graywolf wrote:
All photographs are ordinary. In the past 160 years everything has been done,
over, and over, and over again. So, they are all ordinary, but some are
interesting despite that.
Definitely deserves a Mark!.
:-)
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Bob, it is good but somehow ordinary...
Boris
Bob W wrote:
This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have
photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this photo
last week, and quite like it. It's only occurred to me today why this
composition is (in my
Which one is the TARDIS and why isn't it blue?
Regards,
Bob...
-
Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message,
but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of graywolf
Sent: 08 December 2007 20:06
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions please
OK, I think that if it were my photo, I would crop it just
below the top of the
window sills. I
On 09/12/07, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
Here's a version with no people:
http://www.web-options.com/_B296673.jpg
I like that a lot more.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
the camera pointing slightly upwards.
--
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alastair Robertson
Sent: 08 December 2007 22:31
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions please
I like this a lot. The two people match the two
Subject: Re: Opinions please
OK, I think that if it were my photo, I would crop it just
below the top of the
window sills. I might crop a bit off the left too, making the
phone booths
balanced and letting the people and the tree give it
dynamics; although I would
have to try
I like both of these photos, Bob. Sans people, it presents more of a
formal study. Quite different photos, really, and both good. Lots to
look at and enjoy.
Which do I like more? I don't think I can say without more context to
pose the question.
Godfrey
On Dec 9, 2007, at 1:14 AM, Bob W
I like the tighter composition, but I would rather have people in it
as well. And the two walkeers in the other version wouldn't fit in
this frame. I think what would be idea would be to have this version,
but have one person in each phone booth, talking on their respective
phones, each
On Dec 9, 2007, at 3:14, Bob W wrote:
http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg
The 2 men make the picture more successful than previous attempts.
With noone in the frame it is too flat and static for me. Other
versions have people walking parallel with the picture plane, and lack
life or
People would think I was an American tourist...
--
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stan Halpin
Sent: 09 December 2007 16:52
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions please
I like the tighter composition, but I
Bob W wrote:
This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have
photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this photo
last week, and quite like it. It's only occurred to me today why this
composition is (in my view) more successful than previous attempts.
I'd be
In a message dated 12/9/2007 1:14:04 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's a version with no people:
http://www.web-options.com/_B296673.jpg
As for the phone boxes, I think they are probably listed. Listing is
something that one of the cultural quangos can do to things
OK, I think that if it were my photo, I would crop it just below the top of the
window sills. I might crop a bit off the left too, making the phone booths
balanced and letting the people and the tree give it dynamics; although I would
have to try that to know if I would really like it that way.
I like the graphic aspect of it, but the people aren't needed.
I'd level it the little bit it needs.
I may be a shot to put away for it's historic value. I understand those
coin operated pay phones are no longer being produced in the US.
Jack
--- Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a scene
Since I don't remember seeing any of the others you may have been
disappointed with, but I'd venture to guess that having the two young
men walking through the scene in just about the right place helps quite
a bit.
Bob W wrote:
This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and
It would have more contrast of color if taken in late spring. Some green with
the bright red phone booths would look nice. That asside I like the shot
anyway.
This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have
photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this
Nice crisp image, but it doesn't work for me, not sure why.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Subject: Opinions please
This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have
photographed quite often - and
Yes, I agree with Peter on this. Without the two men it would be a nice scene
but those two guys are obviously enjoying themselves and it adds a great deal
more interest to the image.
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney, Australia
I like it. And I asked my resident photo critic (aka wife) and she
mostly likes it.
1. The red phone booths work well as the color contrast against an
otherwise monochromatic scene.
2. Nice dynamics of the two guys walking and talking and seeming to
enjoy themselves.
3. Nice framing of the
I like this a lot. The two people match the two boxes well, and I
like the overarching tree and the patches of light which adds depth.
It looks level to me though with slight converging verticals
presumably a wide-angle lens was used?
Alastair
On Dec 9, 2007 10:48 AM, Brian Walters [EMAIL
A lot to like here. The light is very nice. The rays of light
splashing across the sidewalk and hitting the phone booth and
beautiful are excellent. While there is balance to the composition,
you didn't try to make it symmetrical. And it's far enough removed
from symmetrical to make it
It has nice balance, color, tonality and sharpness.
A good one. :-)
Godfrey
On Dec 8, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Bob W wrote:
This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have
photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this photo
last week, and quite like it. It's
The LX is an amazingly good camera for low light work. I've made perfect
exposures in a room that was completely dark but for a flickering TV
screen, the light from which was constantly changing. The LX, with the
shutter open, just kept measuring the light until the proper exposure was
made,
I tend to make long exposures in RAW and sort in out in Photoshop. How
does the LX cope with reciprocity failure? I've often wondered whether
there is a digital sensor equivalent
Peter
On 11/9/05, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The LX is an amazingly good camera for low light work.
From: Peter Fairweather [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/11/09 Wed AM 09:15:28 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Opinions, please
I tend to make long exposures in RAW and sort in out in Photoshop. How
does the LX cope with reciprocity failure? I've often wondered whether
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The LX is an amazingly good camera for low light work. I've
made perfect exposures in a room that was completely dark but
for a flickering TV screen, the light from which was
constantly changing. The LX, with the shutter open, just
kept measuring the light until
On 9 Nov 2005 at 9:15, Peter Fairweather wrote:
I tend to make long exposures in RAW and sort in out in Photoshop. How
does the LX cope with reciprocity failure? I've often wondered whether
there is a digital sensor equivalent
I believe that the LX is one of the best ever low light cameras,
- Original Message -
From: Peter Fairweather
Subject: Re: Opinions, please
I tend to make long exposures in RAW and sort in out in Photoshop. How
does the LX cope with reciprocity failure? I've often wondered whether
there is a digital sensor equivalent
No camera can cope
Ironically, I can justify the purchase of the LX but not an MX. The MX
isn't sufficiently different from my little Ricoh (Better build, winder,
but lower max shutter than the Ricoh). The LX has sufficient advantages
to make it justifiable.
But I really would like the DA14, of course, I could
I can't speak to color issues - never ran a roll of color through the LX
when making long exposures (and rarely did so when making normal
exposures). However, the Tri-X / LX combination produced very good
exposures in automatic mode in low light, with no thought to, or adjustment
because of,
Adam Maas wrote:
Ironically, I can justify the purchase of the LX but not an MX. The MX
isn't sufficiently different from my little Ricoh (Better build, winder,
but lower max shutter than the Ricoh). The LX has sufficient advantages
to make it justifiable.
But I really would like the DA14,
Adam Maas wrote:
LX + lens. Probably a 24 or 20, If the 20, I'm likely to grab a CZJ 20mm
Distagon.
-Adam
Carl Zeiss Jena never made Distagon lens, they are made by western part
of Zeiss. Easern part of Zeiss, located in Jena, made Flektogon 20/2.8
on M42 and Praktika B mount - nice
My bad, I was thinking of the Flektogon, the german lens naming scheme
is still a little foreign to me. The 18 is just a little too wide for me
on 35mm and not wide enough on Digital. Might keep an eye out for the
SMC 20.
-Adam
luben karavelov wrote:
Carl Zeiss Jena never made Distagon
Hi Luben
I would love to see the results of your Tamron SP 17mm shooting later
here... ;-)
greetings
Markus
(I have just recieved Tamron SP
17/3.5 and I will give it a try tomorrow because I have to trade the
adapter with a friend).
Best regard
luben
the LX would be nice but, man...you shooting any film anymore? I probably
can't justify having one with the pitiful lens collection I've got...I need
more glass before I can buy another body.
CW
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent:
I still shoot BW, stopped for a bit while the D was new, but I'm on my
2nd roll of Tri-X this week (Least I hope it's Tri-X, it's labelled
Tri-X 24exp, but I'm up to exp33 and the rewind know indicates it's
feeding, so no idea what's actually in the can)
I'm also up to a nice number of
If you already have a good film body, why buy another?
I like the DA14 a lot.
Godfrey
On Nov 8, 2005, at 5:51 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
I'm going to have some disposable income next week, and am planning
on some acquisitions.
Possibilities include:
14mm DA for my *istD (Giving me an
Couple of Reasons. The LX meters down to EV-6.5 (I shoot a lot of
low-light stuff), offers aperture priority, a winder (I've been spoiled
by my AF Nikons), solid build and TTL flash. It's also likely to still
work in 5 years.
My current K mount film body is El Plastic Cosina (Aka the Ricoh
Hmm. Honestly, I'd go for an MX over an LX but then I always
preferred the Nikon FM/FE over the F2-3 as well (except for the hp
viewfinder). In truly low light, I never bother with the meter ... I
use a Kodak Pocket Photo Guide with its table of available light
exposure suggestions. :-)
Wendy;
Try some Fuji Provia 100 or 400 (depending on what kind of speed you are
looking for. I like Velvia but it's VERY slow.
I've never tried photographing black subjects on a white background with the
LX or MX but I'm sure it would be difficult to say the least. I'd be tempted
to stop
57 matches
Mail list logo
