 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / September 2006[SI] Shoot-In, Chrome Comments
Mardon arose from his sleep around 1000 GMT, and went to his computer located at N47º37.832'W052º41.253'(WGS84), to check the glorious images of bright, shiny, polished chrome that were scheduled to appear on that holiest of holies, the Pbase SI gallery. Here is what he found: Doug Payne http://www.pbase.com/shootin/chrome The red is a good compliment to the chrome. Was the red in the number "6" really a different colour than the red in "PONTIAC" or does it merely appear that way in this image? For me, that difference in the reds takes away a small bit from the overall image. I like geometrical shots, so perhaps this is why I'm fond of this one. Strangely, the image looks to my eye like it's rotated slightly too far to the right and yet I put it in PS to check against the guidelines and it's almost spot on. Odd. God job of centreing the camera lens both vertically and horizontally with the centre of the subject. Rich Pos http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/67586656 Bonus points for being the best example I've seen of meeting the mandate without meeting the mandate. I don't know exactly what to say about the image. I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling from looking at a guy's bald head. (Sorry about that pun.) The highlights look blown to me but I'm not completely sure if they really are. I'm glad it isn't in colour. Thank you for that. :) The crop is interesting. Normally I'd say there is not enough head room in this image but I guess I can't really say that in this case. Jim Kramer http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/67586663 Maybe we've both been spending too much time over at BugGuide.net. When the mandate was posted, I thought about submitting this archived shot: http://www.JustPhotos.ca/galleries/macro/images/017209.jpg I'm glad I didn't. Yours is a much better macro. I like that the texture of the eyes are visible in this shot. Insects fascinate me so you have an unfair advantage with me reviewing this image. I like the composition with the yellow on the bottom. It offsets what looks to my eye to be a slightly under exposure in the remainder of the image. Mardon Erbland http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/67586924 It was the next to last day for the mandate, so I went out for a drive with my father-in-law to get a shot of some chrome for the mandate. A tour bus from Alberta was parked along a downtown street and this is the result. I should not have 'apologized' for getting my reflection in the image; I was one among many! ;) Here was my 2nd choice for a submission: http://www.JustPhotos.ca/galleries/equipment/images/021179.jpg See, by reviewing my own image I was able to sneak in 2 additional photos! ;) Quercus http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/67586931 Interesting subject matter. My son is going moose hunting with a bow when the season opens in 2 weeks. Is that really chrome or just burnished metal? You get a 10 point deduction if it's burnished metal. I'm curious why you shot aperture priority at f8? I think I would have preferred wide open to get as much background blur as possible. The background is quite distracting to my eye. The image also seems a tiny bit soft. I can't tell if it's a focus issue or just under sharpened. Duncan Chesley http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/67586959 Too bad it wasn't a dog being reflected in the chrome. (Opps. Twenty lashes for me. I actually like cats but love dogs!) I find this a rather intriguing image. It seems to have just the right colour tones for my eye. The only negative is that the horizontal black bar is not horizontal. The vertical line is fine, so the picture couldn't be rotated. It would have required a different viewpoint to correct this problem and that probably wasn't possible given the location of the cat and perhaps the size of the computer face plate. Bowser http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/67589560 I know your red shirt matched the rest of the image, Bowser, but I still don't like your reflection in the horn; too overpowering and distracting. My guess is that you might have actually planned the reflection as part of the image but I'm not fond of it. Was it planned? I also am not fond of the orange and the red together. Sometimes I don't fully know why I like or don't like an image. Duncan's is an example of one that I like when I'm not sure why and this is an example of an image that doesn't catch my fancy even though I'm not entirely sure why. Sorry. Ken Nadvornick http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/67594765 Undeniably meets the mandate. I'm glad those plug wires are there to prevent eye damage from all that bright chrome. Mandate aside, the image is a bit too congested for my liking. Is that your fill- flash reflection at the centre of the air cleaner? I wonder how this image would have looked without the flash. Did you take one that way by any chance? > Doug Payne > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/chrome [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > job of centreing the camera lens both vertically and horizontally > with the centre of the subject. Thanks for the comments, Mardon. You have a very keen eye. The image was indeed taken a bit off-center, and then cropped a bit. You know, I don't recall if the reds were different or not. It was the grill on a 1939 Pontiac so it's entirely possible that the upper 'Pontiac' red has faded a bit more than the lower '6' (cylinders) red. It's also in a different light, not being so shaded as the lower part. The marbled look on the upper leading edge of the hood is a reflection of the clouds; it was a very 'bright' cloudy day, so I think it's just a lighting thing. I picked this shot out of the dozen or so that I came home with because it didn't show my reflection. To the rest of you, yeah I know it's my mandate and I should offer some commentary, but I'm leaving in a couple of hours for a 2+ week canoe trip, so it'll have to wait until I return on Oct 16. Sorry, just bad timing. All I'll say now is that I'm a bit disappointed that Ken's isn't B&W :-) > All I'll say now is that I'm a bit disappointed that Ken's isn't > B&W :-) Embarrassing to be caught in public, but yes, I've been socializing with that harlot Color again. But only until my true love B&W returns from her fling with Recalibration... Ken (who's not quite sure exactly what he just said) > Embarrassing to be caught in public, but yes, I've been socializing with > that harlot Color again. But only until my true love B&W returns from her > fling with Recalibration... > > Ken (who's not quite sure exactly what he just said) Maybe you've just been conversing with the wrong type of people? I'll have you shooting color digital yet! BTW folks, Ken's newly calibrated B/W lab is now open for business. And guess who was the first customer? And now you know the rest of the story. >It would have required a different >viewpoint to correct this problem and that probably wasn't possible >given the location of the cat and perhaps the size of the computer >face plate. Mardon, That's right. I've been looking at the rug's reflection in the faceplate ever since I got the new box. I had taken a whole bunch of experimental shots when Bobby got into one of his "I like SI, too!" moods and plopped down right in the middle of this shot. I chose this one for the colors, for the combination of the mechanical and the living, and for the strange blur of it all. I wish my ceiling wasn't so far away so I could stopped down more. As usual the mandate made me try something new. Thank you for the comments. I'm glad you liked it. Cheers, DuncanC > Quercus > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/67586931 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The image also seems a tiny bit soft. I can't tell if it's a focus > issue or just under sharpened. First of all, thanks for the comments, they do help a lot... Now, about the chrome thing, you make me doubt, but I'm nearly sure that this limb socket is "chromed", I'll try to find out, 10 point deduction makes a difference in the field :D I shot at f8 because I was shooting other things when I found this picture... And I forgot changing the aperture :-) In my defense I will say that I'm in the DSL world from a long time with a -nearly- full automatic point&shoot... and sometimes I just forget about these things. But now it is happening less often. About the sharpness... Well, it was taken with a Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II, that is not the sharpest lens in the world. Anyway, I'll check which was the focus point in this shot. There's a lot of work to do yet with the new camera, as you can see :-) >Rich Pos >http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/67586656 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >interesting. Normally I'd say there is not enough head room in >this image but I guess I can't really say that in this case. Hi Mardon. Thanks for commenting. Chad was standing between a small window camera right and a large window on the left. He rubbed some sun tan oil on his head to make it even more shiny than it already is. Some parts are indeed blown out. Wish I could have bracketed the shot a bit more as I only had four frames left on the roll. In my haste I never noticed his ears where so shadowed. Oh well... once again, live and learn. Best, RP© > Mardon arose from his sleep around 1000 GMT, and went to his > computer located at N47º37.832'W052º41.253'(WGS84), to check the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > this is an example of an image that doesn't catch my fancy even > though I'm not entirely sure why. Sorry. Apology accepted. ;-) OK, the shot isn't really very good, I admit. But there are reasons (excuses) for it. The shot sux not because of what I had, but because of what I didn't have: I didn't have the imagination of Rich and shoot a bald guy. I didn't have the subject matter of Coug, Quercus, Duncan and Ken. Especially Ken. Nice shot! I'm not a big fan of small-block Fords, though, so I deduct points for that alone. If there were points involved here. I didn't know there were chrome-looking bugs, like you. I didn't want to shoot a wheel, like Mardon because I thought someone else would submit a wheel. I was right. So I found something with some chrome on it, and tried to make the best of it. And yes, I did include my reflection to try and add something to combat the flatness of the horn. And I don't like the orange light at the lower left. But hey, it's chrome, isn't it? I'd score it 3/10. 1 point for getting chrome in the shot, 1 point for proper exposure, and 1 point for proper focus. Your scoring may vary. BTW, thanks for taking the time to look and comment! >I didn't have the imagination of Rich and shoot a bald guy. Not much imagination. We've been calling him "Chrome Dome" for years.... that or 7- head, which is meant to be a play on words.... you know... 7-head / 4-head. <groan> RP© >>I didn't have the imagination of Rich and shoot a bald guy. > > Not much imagination. > We've been calling him "Chrome Dome" for years.... that or 7- head, > which is meant to be a play on words.... you know... > 7-head / 4-head. Or, as Buddy Sorrell would say to Mel, "you have enough forehead for four heads." As swiped from the Dick van Dyke show... > <groan> > > RP© >>>I didn't have the imagination of Rich and shoot a bald guy. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >As swiped from the Dick van Dyke show... Yep... ole Buddy was tough on Mel :)) RP© |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.