Naim Forum photo al***

Posted by: count.d on 18 January 2004

1.

[This message was edited by count.d on SUNDAY 18 January 2004 at 12:42.]
Posted on: 22 January 2004 by Dan M
Inside one of Sapporo's huge electronic stores:
Posted on: 22 January 2004 by Dan M
and one of Sapporo's *$:
Posted on: 23 January 2004 by Misguided Fool
Took this in Kavos, Corfu in May of last year. For a quick snap I thought it came out pretty good.
Posted on: 23 January 2004 by BigH47
Too quick?
Posted on: 23 January 2004 by JBoulder
My daughter last spring



Canon EOS-1N, 70-200/4, Fujicolor Press 800, Microtek ArtixScan 1800f and PhotoShop CS.

JB
Posted on: 23 January 2004 by domfjbrown
quote:
Originally posted by Derek Wright:
Dom - how does the scanner apear on the computer I presume it has an iocon of sorts


No icon I'm afraid - XP acknowledges the scanner (just as Snapscan E20) but the Scanwise software (the driver/interface for Agfa scanners) then refuses to "see" the scanner. So the OS knows the scanner's there, but Scanwise doesn't - should be called Scandumb!

__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.

Posted on: 23 January 2004 by Derek Wright
Dom

The scanner may be a device that is not pluggable - ie it has to be permanantly connected throughout the period the pc is being used.

I suggest you get to the appropriate newsgroup for information

Derek

<< >>
Posted on: 23 January 2004 by Derek Wright
woods for trees



Derek

<< >>
Posted on: 23 January 2004 by jpk73
Korea
Posted on: 23 January 2004 by jpk73
Thailand
Posted on: 23 January 2004 by jpk73
Berlin
Posted on: 23 January 2004 by Dan M
Forgot nerd info for Sapporo shots -- taken with available light by a Pentax ME camera and 50mm/F1.7 lens purchased off ebay for $80. Smile Generic Fuji color film. Scanned on cheap 3in1 printer/scanner/copier. The Starbucks shot was taken by what I think is called "zone focussing" - i.e. I guessed the distance from me to the subject, and shot without focussing. It's a bit out of focus and so I need to work on that. I'm still not comfortable taking snaps in public of strangers, and I feel I might have drawn the attention of the subject if I sat there and focussed.

Anyway, this is a great thread. Some great pics. It would be nice to hear constructive criticism of photos from the local experts.

cheers

Dan

p.s. Matthew - is that Ethel and Dot in your picture?
Posted on: 23 January 2004 by Alex S.
Come back Vuk, all is forgiven.
Posted on: 23 January 2004 by Top Cat
A few images from me. Mainly taken on a Contax with a 45mm lens.

TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."
Posted on: 23 January 2004 by Top Cat
Guitar Heaven (or is it Hell?)
Posted on: 23 January 2004 by Top Cat
Coastal debris, on grainy ol' TriX

TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."
Posted on: 23 January 2004 by Top Cat
...can't be arsed to create another one from the original (I'd highlighted some detail for some reason - that's what the red circle is) - but what the heck...
Posted on: 23 January 2004 by count.d
quote:
Anyway, this is a great thread. Some great pics. It would be nice to hear constructive criticism of photos...



From my point of view, I'm not really the type to criticise individual shots, unless someone specifically asks. I'm my own worst critic and have to stop myself commenting on my work as I present it to clients, as I would talk it down. If I talk it down, they get convinced it's rubbish and vice versa. I've never really been happy with a shot I've ever taken. Satisfied, but never happy.

Saying that, here goes...

All I would say, is most images on this thread have been framed very well and it seems most of you have a very good eye, which is a lot of skill. What lets the images down from being special, is the lighting. Framing generally comes from a good natural eye, but lighting comes from effort, practice, imagination and a little skill,(and of course, your own personal taste).

Take for example Derek's "Wood For Trees", this image looks even better at dawn with a bit of low mist and moody lighting. Or it could have been shot on a moon-lit night, with a 2 minute exposure. I've tried this and they look incredible. The two front trees at the same level don't quite look aesthetically correct. Sorry Derek, just an idea.
Posted on: 24 January 2004 by Bruce Woodhouse
Two from me. Olympus OM4, fujichrome 100, Canon slide scanner. From Nepal, first Ama Dablam at sunset
Posted on: 24 January 2004 by Bruce Woodhouse
...and the next morning at 5am, views from the Pokalde (6000m approx) over towards Makalu. Camera batteries heated by dipping in hot tea to ensure the camera worked at -18 degrees!
Posted on: 24 January 2004 by Derek Wright
Count.d - No worries - Interesting you pointing out the two trees nearest the camera - it helps explain the "discord" I was experiencing with the the picture that I could not indentify the cause of - I was too tied up in enjoying the texture and the low angle evening sun light.

The best I can do is this and just use the right hand side of the image



Derek

<< >>
Posted on: 24 January 2004 by matthewr
<Cropping police arrest Derek>
Posted on: 24 January 2004 by matthewr
I don't normally do landscapes.


Sewage Outfall, Northern Beach, Dusk
Posted on: 24 January 2004 by Steve G
My favourite photo of my daughter:



Pentax Z1p, FA*85mm F1.4 at F1.4, Ilford Delta 400 developed in Rodinal.
Posted on: 24 January 2004 by Steve G


Pentax Z1p, SMC-FA 80-200mm at 200mm, Provia 1600, on camera flash. Taken in a nature reserve in Malaysian Borneo.