 |
 | 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 / December 2006[SI]Tripod Holes Comments
OK, someone has to do it, so here's my usual collection of uninformed observations on the last mandate, "Tripod Holes." The goal was to shoot the same shot as a million others have done, but make it different. I think. There are three very worn out subjects presented among the shots, Delicate Arch, Motif #1, and Multnomah Falls. All three have been beaten to death. Portland Head Lighthouse is also very, very popular, but not as bad as the other three. Anyway, here we go: Alan Browne http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71244103 Delicate Arch, one of the most famous landmarks in all of the southwest USA, no question about. Out of all the shots, I think this one presents the most worn out subject of the lot, except (maybe) Motif #1. It's a nice shot of the arch, but not that much different than the previous 100,000,000 exposures of the arch. Regardless, it's a very nice shot with a great sky behind the arch, and I like the almost-square vertical framing. Nice job. A Bowser http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71244141 The other very popular subject in the group, Motif #1 located on the harbor in Rockport, MA (USA). If this building were photographed using flashes, the paint would have faded to white long ago. This shot sucks. Nothing original here, save for the two dogs in the foreground. But, it is a tripod hole shot, that's for certain. But I like dogs, so..... B Mike Benveniste http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71244144 Another shot of Motif #1, but one with some imagination. And I was right, the building did fade to white! But it is a very different shot of a classic tripod hole location, even without the hokey lobster claw, which I really don't care for. I think a shot of the building in infrared from that angle is OK by itself. But I'll bet most people like the claw. Lobster is very popular here in Massachusetts. What I don't like is the sky and those damned contrails that lead you right to Logan Airport. B+ Duncan Chesley http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71244149 Another New England landmark, Portland Head lighthouse, which is popular, but not totally beaten to death (outside Maine). You've all seen it a thousane times, but not from this angle and not with the smaller lighthouse in the background. Nice sky, nice arrangements of key elements, and it is a very different shot of the Portland Head lighthouse. One of the best in the group, if not the best. A Nichlas Lindan http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71244191 An homage to Warhol? Here again, my lack of sophistication is showing. I don't get it. I'll offer a grade once I figure it out. In the meantime, it gets a CFIO. Jim Kramer http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71244219 A moon shot. Is it upside down? Did you fly into outer space and grab a shot of the dark side, when it wasn't dark? Is this actually a piece of green cheese flung into the air? Can you actually see all the old Hassys we left up there? Not sure about the grade, so it gets a WTF. Al Denelsbeck http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71244219 Finally, another shot I understand; smiling fish. We've all seen this shot a before, but the fish are usually on side view, not swimming right at you. Good use of a craptastic camera, nice "fishal" expresions! I can also surmise from the fact that Al did submit this pic that these were not Pirahanas. A- Peter Boorman http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71306623 This shot certainly qualified as a tripod hole shot, no question. I like the lighting, viewing angle, panoramic format, and composition (the lines in the rock lead your eye to that damned little tree). Nice shot. I'm also giving bonus points for using a film camera, especially one as nice as the Hassy XPan. What a simply wonderful camera! A- Paul Mitchum http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71318154 Good God, Multnomah Falls. I've never been there, and I'm already sick of it. Good for Paul for finding an angle of view that is original, that doesn't incude that damned bridge, and the little figures standing on the bridge! Nice job. Multnomah Falls is a close third to Delicate Arch and Motif #1 for "tripodholeness"* quality, for sure. But I bet in the northwest it's far and away the most photographed scene. OF course, we all need to know what those "herbs and spices" were now. A > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71244191 > > An homage to Warhol? Here again, my lack of sophistication is showing. I > don't get it. Somewhere over the rainbow: We are off to see the Pepper, the wonderful Pepper of Weston: http://www.masters-of-photography.com/W/weston/weston_pepper_number30_full.html If ever a pepper there was ...  SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71244191 > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm > n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com Smithsonian Magazine did a feature article on the pepper photos and the thought process behind it and the man a month or four ago. I was under-whelmed by the photography and the story behind it was a bit ummm... let's go with odd. I think this only counts if it is out of the jar :-) Jim > > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71244191 > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > If ever a pepper there was ... Number *30*!? Sheesh. >Duncan Chesley >http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71244149 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >very different shot of the Portland Head lighthouse. One of the best in the >group, if not the best. A Thanks, K, for taking the time to comment, and for the kind grade. Makes those hours in the cold worth while. Is there anyplace outside Maine? Cheers, DuncanC >>Duncan Chesley >>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71244149 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Makes those hours in the cold worth while. Is there anyplace outside > Maine? Not sure. I've heard rumors... > Cheers, > DuncanC > OK, someone has to do it, so here's my usual collection of uninformed > observations on the last mandate, "Tripod Holes." The goal was to shoot the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cheese flung into the air? Can you actually see all the old Hassys we left > up there? Not sure about the grade, so it gets a WTF. Gee, I thought it was really clear... I intentionally used a flash; none of those other moon pictures used a flash. And the first one of you that points out that I would need at least a 5 second exposure to "successfully" use a flash from earth will be condemned as a know-nothing-hack. It's called a "pre-flash" by the pros. WTF indeed that's worse than an (I). Thanks for commenting. Jim > > OK, someone has to do it, so here's my usual collection of uninformed > > observations on the last mandate, "Tripod Holes." The goal was to shoot the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Jim I reeally love google >> OK, someone has to do it, so here's my usual collection of uninformed >> observations on the last mandate, "Tripod Holes." The goal was to shoot [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Thanks for commenting. NP. That must have been some powerful flash to light up the dark side of the moon! > Jim > OK, someone has to do it, so here's my usual collection of uninformed > observations on the last mandate, "Tripod Holes." The goal was to shoot the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cheese flung into the air? Can you actually see all the old Hassys we left > up there? Not sure about the grade, so it gets a WTF. Gee, I thought it was really clear... I intentionally used a flash; none of those other moon pictures used a flash. And the first one of you that points out that I would need at least a 5 second exposure to "successfully" use a flash from earth will be condemned as a know-nothing-hack. It's called a "pre-flash" by the pros. WTF indeed that's worse than an (I). Thanks for commenting. Jim > OK, someone has to do it, so here's my usual collection of uninformed > observations on the last mandate, "Tripod Holes." The goal was to shoot the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cheese flung into the air? Can you actually see all the old Hassys we left > up there? Not sure about the grade, so it gets a WTF. Gee, I thought it was really clear... I intentionally used a flash; none of those other moon pictures used a flash. And the first one of you that points out that I would need at least a 5 second exposure to "successfully" use a flash from earth will be condemned as a know-nothing-hack. It's called "pre-flash" by the Pros. :-) WTF, indeed, that's worse than an (I). Thanks for commenting. Jim > Another shot of Motif #1, but one with some imagination. And I was > right, the building did fade to white! But it is a very different shot [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > like is the sky and those damned contrails that lead you right to Logan > Airport. B+ Thanks again for the kind words and the thought and time you spend on the critiques. I agree the claw is hokey. I got stuck on the "original" part of the assignment and decided to try for a cartoon. The gull on the top of the shack was a nice coincidence. Since I took the shot, I've been pointed to two other infrared shots of that shack. As for the sky, I liked the wisps over the dead area of the harbor, but the northern approach to logan was quite busy that day. But I did learn from this shoot how much more intrusive contrails are with infrared! Had the timing been different, I would have tried a moonlit shot of the Lexington Minuteman statue. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. > OK, someone has to do it, so here's my usual collection of uninformed > observations on the last mandate, "Tripod Holes." The goal was to shoot the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cheese flung into the air? Can you actually see all the old Hassys we left > up there? Not sure about the grade, so it gets a WTF. Gee, I thought it was really clear... I intentionally used a flash; none of those other moon pictures used a flash. And the first one of you that points out that I would need at least a 5 second exposure to "successfully" use a flash from earth will be condemned as a know-nothing-hack. It's called a "pre-flash" by the pros. WTF indeed that's worse than an (I). Thanks for commenting. Jim > OK, someone has to do it, so here's my usual collection of uninformed > observations on the last mandate, "Tripod Holes." [..] Your sacrifice is appreciated. :-) > Paul Mitchum > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71318154 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > northwest it's far and away the most photographed scene. OF course, we all > need to know what those "herbs and spices" were now. A Every third person there had a fancy camera and they were all taking the same picture. So naturally, I had to take contrarian ones, though I did succumb to getting the bridge. See some here: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/mile23/sets/72157594385251357/> The falls themselves are better in person than in any photo, and worth the stop if you're traveling that way. Plus you can visit the lesser-known falls, as well. As far as herbs and spices... Nothing you wouldn't learn by reading 'The Canyon Conundrum.' :-) Mostly having to do with making the tree on the left stand out from the rocky background. Thanks for the kind words. > Alan Browne > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71244103 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > behind the arch, and I like the almost-square vertical framing. Nice job. > A Very kind of you. I know it's not unusual, nor original, but was something "I had to do". It was my first time up there and the time between a low warm sun and sunset is short. Plus we (about 20 people were there for the photography) had to beg people to get out from under the arch who were posing for snaps. I took a roll and half of 120 and half a dozen handheld digital shots. None of the digital shots were very nice esp. due to too shallow DOF (1/400 or so @ f/4 or so). I should have taken the time to do those on tripod as well as on 35mm film (I had three bodies with me...). In a studio in town I saw the work of the local photo galary owner which was all LF Cibachrome (Ilfochrome) prints. Stunning work. Of course this fellow hikes up there two times a week. Lot's of scenes with snow, rainfall, etc. that a tourist would likely not get many opportunities at. Different persectives as well. As we began the trek down, a photographer showed up for night shoot/light painting. I wish I had stayed but was dehydrated and starving and the boss was too... It's a bit of a trek to get up there, esp. when the ambinet is 39°C (102°F) and a lot of gear, but well worth it. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. (Kinon O'Cann) wrote: Alan Browne http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71244103 Delicate Arch, one of the most famous landmarks in all of the southwest USA, no question about. Out of all the shots, I think this one presents the most worn out subject of the lot, except (maybe) Motif #1. It's a nice shot of the arch, but not that much different than the previous 100,000,000 exposures of the arch. Regardless, it's a very nice shot with a great sky behind the arch, and I like the almost-square vertical framing. Nice job. A ******************************************** There doesn't seem like there is that much difference between the stars in Heaven, but each one has its own name and is unique. I think this is a great shot. Cody, http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks (Kinon O'Cann) wrote: Alan Browne http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/71244103 Delicate Arch, one of the most famous landmarks in all of the southwest USA, no question about. Out of all the shots, I think this one presents the most worn out subject of the lot, except (maybe) Motif #1. It's a nice shot of the arch, but not that much different than the previous 100,000,000 exposures of the arch. Regardless, it's a very nice shot with a great sky behind the arch, and I like the almost-square vertical framing. Nice job. A Don't forget that cypress tree on the 17 mile drive in Monterey, California.....I bet there have been more shots of that than of that desert arch......:^) > (Kinon O'Cann) wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > California.....I bet there have been more shots of that than of that > desert arch......:^) I'ved got a shot of that from a road trip a few years ago; and you are correct, it's a definite tripod-hole shot. And it's copyrighted; you can't use an image of the "lone cypress" commercially without permision... Sheesh. >> Don't forget that cypress tree on the 17 mile drive in Monterey, >> California.....I bet there have been more shots of that than of that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > correct, it's a definite tripod-hole shot. And it's copyrighted; you can't > use an image of the "lone cypress" commercially without permision... Are you saying if I stop and shoot that tree (which I did eons ago), I can't publish, much less sell, the image legally? Do you have any sites to cite? Any published law suits? (yeah, I know Google is a pal, and all. ) <s> Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> I'ved got a shot of that from a road trip a few years ago; and you are >> correct, it's a definite tripod-hole shot. And it's copyrighted; you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Do you have any sites to cite? Any published law suits? (yeah, I know > Google is a pal, and all. ) <s> The image is trademarked by the Pebble Beach Company, not copyrighted. You can't copyright a tree. In addition, I'd be willing to bet that the you took your shot of the tree from private property. When you paided your admission to the drive, the prohibition against commercial publication or exhibition was likely part of the contract. I know it was the last time I was there in the early 1980's. Here's an older article outlining the company's tactics: http://shorterlink.com/?GSWQR9 -- Michael Benveniste -- mhb-of...@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. >>> I'ved got a shot of that from a road trip a few years ago; and you are >>> correct, it's a definite tripod-hole shot. And it's copyrighted; you [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Here's an older article outlining the company's tactics: > http://shorterlink.com/?GSWQR9 Fix that problem in about 2 minutes with a chain saw! >>>> I'ved got a shot of that from a road trip a few years ago; and you >>>> are correct, it's a definite tripod-hole shot. And it's copyrighted; [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Fix that problem in about 2 minutes with a chain saw! I know you're totally joking... it really is a thrill to see the tree in person, for me at least. SignatureJohn McWilliams >>>>> I'ved got a shot of that from a road trip a few years ago; and you >>>>> are correct, it's a definite tripod-hole shot. And it's [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I know you're totally joking... it really is a thrill to see the tree in > person, for me at least. Not so much joking, as exhibiting a cynical lack of respect for bullshit. But, I wasn't really talking about the tree ... http://www.houseofhorrors.com/texas.htm >>>> I'ved got a shot of that from a road trip a few years ago; and you are >>>> correct, it's a definite tripod-hole shot. And it's copyrighted; you [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Fix that problem in about 2 minutes with a chain saw! That wouldn't work....It's the image of the tree that's trademarked, and not the tree itself.....Even if the tree dies, and is removed, and no longer exists, it's image is the logo of the Pebble Beach Company, just as the Rock of Gibraltar is the logo of the Prudential Insurance Group, and you can't use it for commercial purposes without the PBC, permission. You couldn't (for example) find another cypress tree that looks the same somewhere, and photograph it and sell those photos. That would be a trademark infringement too. >That wouldn't work....It's the image of the tree that's trademarked, and not >the tree itself.....Even if the tree dies, and is removed, and no longer [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >photograph it and sell those photos. That would be a trademark infringement >too. How does Cypress Semi-Conductor feel about that? SignatureKen Tough >>That wouldn't work....It's the image of the tree that's trademarked, and >>not [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > How does Cypress Semi-Conductor feel about that? Don't know....But their logo doesn't look very much like the Pebble Beach tree....There is no bend in the main trunk.....Their lawyers probably reached some agreement or other...... >>> Don't forget that cypress tree on the 17 mile drive in Monterey, >>> California.....I bet there have been more shots of that than of that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Do you have any sites to cite? Any published law suits? (yeah, I know > Google is a pal, and all. ) <s> The, "17 mile drive" in Monterey, CA, is a private road, on private property. So, the residents association that administrates the property can make up any rules they want. For example, they don't allow motorcycles on the drive. and the tree and its images are the property of the association, and can't be used commercially without the associations permission...... >>>> Don't forget that cypress tree on the 17 mile drive in Monterey, >>>> California.....I bet there have been more shots of that than of that [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the drive. and the tree and its images are the property of the association, > and can't be used commercially without the associations permission...... Quite so, Bill. This was pointed out earlier today. That the tree and road are property of the MBA isn't in question. The saleability of any images made therefrom isn't with strong opinions on both sides. Let's say it'd be a costly and probably futile undertaking to go up against them in trying to commercialize on any picture of their tree. SignatureJohn McWilliams >I'ved got a shot of that from a road trip a few years ago; and you are >correct, it's a definite tripod-hole shot. And it's copyrighted; you can't >use an image of the "lone cypress" commercially without permision... Is that really possible? I guess if it's on private land, it might be possible for the owner to copyright it. BTW, if it's a "tripod hole" shot, is it valid to shoot from different angles (like from above or the back?) it's a lot harder (and probably a lot more boring) if not, I guess. SignatureKen Tough >> I'ved got a shot of that from a road trip a few years ago; and you >> are correct, it's a definite tripod-hole shot. And it's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > probably > a lot more boring) if not, I guess. Pages and pages of references, if you treat it TRADEMARKish rather than copyright. Well documented and explored in that light. SignatureFrank ess > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > in Heaven, but each one has its own name and is unique. I think this is > a great shot. Too kind Cody. Thanks. Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
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
|
©2009 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.