Some snapshots

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Vance, Oct 25, 2008.

  1. Vance

    Vance Guest

    Vance, Oct 25, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Vance

    Noons Guest

    Vance wrote,on my timestamp of 25/10/2008 6:35 PM:

    If that's your "walk around" stuff, I want
    to walk with you!
    Excellent work, congratulations!
     
    Noons, Oct 25, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I rather liked that it jumped right into no fuss no muss slideshow mode.
    Otherwise I might not have looked at near as many shots. The 3 seconds
    was perfect, time wise. Black background is my preference.

    Oh, and great selection of acrosss the spectrum pictures.

    Good job

    Doug in Fremont
     
    Doug.Chadduck, Oct 25, 2008
    #3
  4. Vance

    Vance Guest

    Vance, Oct 26, 2008
    #4
  5. Vance

    Vance Guest

    Thank you. I'm glad you liked them. They are walk around shots. I
    try to find and take at least one decent shot a day and some days,
    like today, I make up short projects for myself. I take snapshots to
    relax from photographing for a living. Go figure.

    Vance
     
    Vance, Oct 27, 2008
    #5
  6. Vance

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Vance - some really interesting work here - thanks for sharing it.

    I particularly like the way you compose your images - nice sense of
    balance and you follow what I think should be the golden rule - if it
    doesn't add to the image, crop it!
     
    Mark Thomas, Oct 27, 2008
    #6
  7. Vance

    Peter Guest

    Thank you. I'm glad you liked them. They are walk around shots. I
    try to find and take at least one decent shot a day and some days,
    like today, I make up short projects for myself. I take snapshots to
    relax from photographing for a living. Go figure.



    Busman's holiday, Eh!
    I think it's great that you obviously enjoy your work. It shows in your snap
    shots and I would guess that your enjoyment is reflected in your
    professional shots, too.




    Peter
     
    Peter, Oct 27, 2008
    #7
  8. Vance

    Joel Guest

    I had a quick look and they look fine (more like interesting, exciting
    style ) for viewing, and because the INK isn't easy forgiven like our eyes
    so I really wonder how they may look on the print. And I mean both small
    and large print (larger print shows more error and more visible), and the
    ink tone is the worst enemy around the edge where the 2 tones are not
    carefully blend/smooth them well.
     
    Joel, Oct 28, 2008
    #8
  9. Vance

    Vance Guest

    You're right, Joel. All those things can effect an image and
    sometimes we forget that and things don't turn out the same when we go
    to print.

    The images that I post, the rare times I do, are processed for viewing
    on a monitor. They are not correct to Web safe colors, however.
    Images meant for printing are processed differently and specifically
    for that. In many cases, they do look terrible on the monitor, but
    print very nicely.

    Other than proofs or exhibit/show images, my commercial printer does
    all the printing and does a very good job. My color management is
    coordinated to theirs so what I proof out is very close to what I know
    I will get. I am almost neurotic about what I see on the screen being
    as close as possible to the eventual output as I can get.

    As far as size goes, everything is predicated on a 11"x14" minimum
    print size because that is pretty much the smallest 'large' prints I
    do. Most stuff is destined for corporate office displays, convention
    booth displays, advertising panels, backlit ad transparencies, legal
    displays for court trials and that type of thing. Not very exciting
    or creative, but someone has to do the job. After all, how would you
    know that my customers purple widgets are superior to the competitions
    green framisnatchs without a picture? Would you really buy something
    without a really sharp, high saturation picture of the box it comes
    in?

    Vance
     
    Vance, Oct 29, 2008
    #9
  10. Vance

    Peter Guest

    After all, how would you
    know that my customers purple widgets are superior to the competitions
    green framisnatchs without a picture? Would you really buy something
    without a really sharp, high saturation picture of the box it comes
    in?


    Radio promotions & advertising? :)
     
    Peter, Oct 29, 2008
    #10
  11. Vance

    Vance Guest

    I'm one of those who is guilty of the images you see in kiosks, on top
    of taxi cabs, inside and outside transit busses and any number of
    posters and things stuck in shop windows. What I do is bad enough,
    but replace all those images with speakers blaring? That would be
    inhuman!

    Vance
     
    Vance, Oct 29, 2008
    #11
  12. Vance

    Peter Guest

    I'm one of those who is guilty of the images you see in kiosks, on top
    of taxi cabs, inside and outside transit busses and any number of
    posters and things stuck in shop windows. What I do is bad enough,
    but replace all those images with speakers blaring? That would be
    inhuman!




    Blaring speakers = noise pollution = lack of consideration. At least if I
    don't like your photos I can turn the other way.
     
    Peter, Oct 29, 2008
    #12
  13. Vance

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Hey, the photos don't bug me at all ... :) But, the radio ads are a real
    pane.

    Still, I'll take either, if the alternative is telemarketing or door-to-door
    sales...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 29, 2008
    #13
  14. Vance

    Buerste Guest


    Thanks for the use of your eye! I'd be interested in some technical
    information and how you task yourself. One good image a day would be a tall
    order for me.
     
    Buerste, Oct 30, 2008
    #14
  15. Vance

    Vance Guest

    What an interesting question. I have never thought about it. What do
    you mean by technical information?

    Vance
     
    Vance, Oct 30, 2008
    #15
  16. Vance

    Peter Guest

    What an interesting question. I have never thought about it. What do
    you mean by technical information?



    That brings up a point. I wonder how many here mine their shots to find
    shots within shots.
    Many beginners, even more experienced photographers, have a tendency to show
    every pixel within the frame, which is not really necessary all the time.
     
    Peter, Oct 30, 2008
    #16
  17. Vance

    Vance Guest

    I frame in the camera as well as I can. You can't always get a great
    frame. You may not be able to get close enough, your lens isn't long
    enough and it's what you have. If it's an assignment, I will stand in
    water up to my neck, lay in the mud, climb trees that I have no
    business climbing at my age (though I still like climbing trees) and
    anything else that seems to be what to do to get the shot. I tone all
    that way down for my own stuff. Well, I will still climb on things
    because I just like climbing things.

    Also, as you point out, sometimes there is a better image hidden in
    the image than what you actually took. That happens a lot. It's not
    that what you take is bad, you just didn't see what might be better.
    I accept it as a reality of photography, or the reality of me behind
    the camera if I am going to be accurate. Another thing is that no
    matter how well you frame the subject, it might not be compatible with
    the frame format. Some shots are just meant to be square, or, at
    least something other than the shape of your sensor/film.

    There are all sorts of 'rules' about photography and I have seen them
    applied very restrictively, if not stupidly. Things like you never
    put your subject in the center of the frame. If thats where the
    subject belongs, then bloody put it there. Correct exposure? That's
    subject to interpretation. I shoot the 'wrong' exposure all the
    time. In fact, I am glad my equipment can't argue with me because we
    often don't agree! WB is a big one. It seems that with digital and
    the ability to adjust it per image everyone wants the 'correct' WB. I
    wonder how many images are less than they could be because someone was
    more interested in technically correct colors than they were in
    getting the colors that really compliment the image?

    OOPS. Ranting again.

    I'm still wondering what you wanted to know about technically tasking
    myself. I would try and answer if I understood the question.

    Vance
     
    Vance, Oct 30, 2008
    #17
  18. Vance

    Peter Guest

    I frame in the camera as well as I can. You can't always get a great
    frame. You may not be able to get close enough, your lens isn't long
    enough and it's what you have. If it's an assignment, I will stand in
    water up to my neck, lay in the mud, climb trees that I have no
    business climbing at my age (though I still like climbing trees) and
    anything else that seems to be what to do to get the shot. I tone all
    that way down for my own stuff. Well, I will still climb on things
    because I just like climbing things.

    Also, as you point out, sometimes there is a better image hidden in
    the image than what you actually took. That happens a lot. It's not
    that what you take is bad, you just didn't see what might be better.
    I accept it as a reality of photography, or the reality of me behind
    the camera if I am going to be accurate. Another thing is that no
    matter how well you frame the subject, it might not be compatible with
    the frame format. Some shots are just meant to be square, or, at
    least something other than the shape of your sensor/film.

    There are all sorts of 'rules' about photography and I have seen them
    applied very restrictively, if not stupidly. Things like you never
    put your subject in the center of the frame. If thats where the
    subject belongs, then bloody put it there. Correct exposure? That's
    subject to interpretation. I shoot the 'wrong' exposure all the
    time. In fact, I am glad my equipment can't argue with me because we
    often don't agree! WB is a big one. It seems that with digital and
    the ability to adjust it per image everyone wants the 'correct' WB. I
    wonder how many images are less than they could be because someone was
    more interested in technically correct colors than they were in
    getting the colors that really compliment the image?

    OOPS. Ranting again.

    Good, instructional rant.

    I'm still wondering what you wanted to know about technically tasking
    myself. I would try and answer if I understood the question.

    Not me - someone else's point. I too would like to see the answer.
     
    Peter, Oct 31, 2008
    #18
  19. Vance

    Vance Guest

    [Snipped]
    Sorry. I got confused.

    Vance
     
    Vance, Oct 31, 2008
    #19
  20. Vance

    Buerste Guest

    I frame in the camera as well as I can. You can't always get a great
    frame. You may not be able to get close enough, your lens isn't long
    enough and it's what you have. If it's an assignment, I will stand in
    water up to my neck, lay in the mud, climb trees that I have no
    business climbing at my age (though I still like climbing trees) and
    anything else that seems to be what to do to get the shot. I tone all
    that way down for my own stuff. Well, I will still climb on things
    because I just like climbing things.

    Also, as you point out, sometimes there is a better image hidden in
    the image than what you actually took. That happens a lot. It's not
    that what you take is bad, you just didn't see what might be better.
    I accept it as a reality of photography, or the reality of me behind
    the camera if I am going to be accurate. Another thing is that no
    matter how well you frame the subject, it might not be compatible with
    the frame format. Some shots are just meant to be square, or, at
    least something other than the shape of your sensor/film.

    There are all sorts of 'rules' about photography and I have seen them
    applied very restrictively, if not stupidly. Things like you never
    put your subject in the center of the frame. If thats where the
    subject belongs, then bloody put it there. Correct exposure? That's
    subject to interpretation. I shoot the 'wrong' exposure all the
    time. In fact, I am glad my equipment can't argue with me because we
    often don't agree! WB is a big one. It seems that with digital and
    the ability to adjust it per image everyone wants the 'correct' WB. I
    wonder how many images are less than they could be because someone was
    more interested in technically correct colors than they were in
    getting the colors that really compliment the image?

    OOPS. Ranting again.

    I'm still wondering what you wanted to know about technically tasking
    myself. I would try and answer if I understood the question.

    Vance

    Well, You really answered the technical question...you are intuitive. I
    keep forgetting that digital is the media, I'm using 120 film for my
    endeavors. I do use digital a lot for work to document things but I somehow
    enjoy hauling and setting up 50 lbs of really old gear. I log each exposure
    with spotmeter readings of shadows and highlights, shutter times and
    apertures, and filter info. Technically, I can make very good photos yet
    only one in a hundred have that "spark". You seem to have much better
    ratios. I truly enjoyed some of your images and I'm somewhat jealous.

    The other question is how you task yourself. What is the motivation that
    drives you to capture/compose what you see in the mind's eye and how do you
    translate to the media? What is the goal you have before you even leave the
    house.
     
    Buerste, Oct 31, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.