 |
 | 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 / July 2007Displaying photos
Some time back Doug posted a picture of his titled "beam me up scottie". I made a relatively small - 24"(600mm) wide canvas print of it from a "roll end" we can't use in orders due to a ridge that forms where the canvas starts to roll on the spool. It doesn't matter if the print is to be vacuum mounted so I started using up these scraps to make some "craft market stock". I just finished framing it and thought there'd be some interest in a twist to conventional framing anyone handy with tools can achieve themselves. The "trick" is to print on canvas and coat it with archival laminate. This lets you display it without glass and not concern yourself with image decay from the atmosphere. I use an EVA glue to bond the canvas to some ply or MDF board but you could get away with PVA glue in this instance. The frames might be an issue. We have our own shaper to make custom frame shapes but I'm sure you can find some mouldings for the task if you tried hard enough. http://www.ryadia.com/POD/July/09-07-07.htm JA  SignatureMy site is humble but it's a hobby thing, you know? http://www.julianabbot.com -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Some time back Doug posted a picture of his titled "beam me up scottie". > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > JA There is a noticeable problem with your picture, and it's not to do with your mounting and framing. Your horizon in the picture is not level. I measured the angles in Photoshop, and found the frame was out of level by 0.57° due to photographing while not level, but the horizon was out by 0.92°, so with respect to the frame the horizon is off by 0.35°, enough to be noticeable. At your print size of 1200 mm long approximately, a 0.35° tilt translates to nearly 7.5mm off level. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Some time back Doug posted a picture of his titled "beam me up scottie". >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Colin D. --------- Get your eyes checked Colin. I said "relatively small 24" wide print". Where did you get twice the size in that? You didn't add any detail to it did you? Yes the horizon is off kilter. That's what happens when you start work at 4:00AM to do some foreigners for yourself! JA SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> Some time back Doug posted a picture of his titled "beam me up scottie". >>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > JA It's not my eyes need checking Julian, it's what you wrote. You said the print was 600mm *wide*. Since it's about twice as long as it is wide, it's approximately 1200 mm long. From a printing point of view, *width* refers to the width of the printing stock, length is measured by how much stock is used. One doesn't normally print 'crosswise', that is, the width across the printer greater than the length printed. At the very least, your width remark is ambiguous. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> I made a relatively small - 24"(600mm) wide canvas print of it from a >>>> "roll end" we can't use in orders due to a ridge that forms where the >>>> canvas starts to roll on the spool. It doesn't matter if the print is >>>> to be vacuum mounted so I started using up these scraps to make some >>>> "craft market stock". > It's not my eyes need checking Julian, it's what you wrote. You said the > print was 600mm *wide*. Since it's about twice as long as it is wide, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Colin D. You got your messages mixed up mate. I clipped everything but what I said and your reply. Maybe it's not your eyes but how you select what you want to believe I wrote. Common enough in this group! JA SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > "Colin_D" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> be noticeable. At your print size of 1200 mm long approximately, a 0.35° >> tilt translates to nearly 7.5mm off level. > Get your eyes checked Colin. I said "relatively small 24" wide print". Where > did you get twice the size in that? You didn't add any detail to it did you? > Yes the horizon is off kilter. That's what happens when you start work at > 4:00AM to do some foreigners for yourself! What does "doing foreigners" have to do with a slanted horizon?? *Anytime* there's major water-horizons in a photo, they should be dead level. It's really quite easy to do in PS and in Lightroom. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > > "Colin_D" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > -- > john mcwilliams Level horizons are important and must be maintained. http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/level.htm Jim On Jul 13, 2:48 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote: > Julian. wrote: > > "Colin_D" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > -- > john mcwilliams Level horizons are important and must be maintained. Not true....I stood on the pitching deck of a ship and took a picture of the launching of another smaller boat, and the horizon was not horizontal.....Not only that, but the picture looked the better for it..... > On Jul 13, 2:48 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote: >> Julian. wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > horizontal.....Not only that, but the picture looked the better for > it..... I found the image....It is a 50 year old Kodachrome slide.....Here it is: http://www.pbase.com/w_e_graham/image/82174713/medium >> On Jul 13, 2:48 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> Julian. wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > I found the image....It is a 50 year old Kodachrome slide.....Here it is: > http://www.pbase.com/w_e_graham/image/82174713/medium Yeah, I should have limited my overly broad statement, although I'm not sure how the (nicely done and preserved) photo above is enhanced by a wee slant. For me, level, or max. pitch the vessel encountered! Thanks for posting it up. I was going to say, "for sea scapes done from land", but there gotta be a bunch of exceptions to that, too. Signaturejohn mcwilliams William Graham wrote: > "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message >>> john mcwilliams >> Level horizons are important and must be maintained. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I found the image....It is a 50 year old Kodachrome slide.....Here it is: > http://www.pbase.com/w_e_graham/image/82174713/medium Yeah, I should have limited my overly broad statement, although I'm not sure how the (nicely done and preserved) photo above is enhanced by a wee slant. For me, level, or max. pitch the vessel encountered! Thanks for posting it up. I was going to say, "for sea scapes done from land", but there gotta be a bunch of exceptions to that, too. Signaturejohn mcwilliams I have some images here of ships and boats. None have horizontal horizons but all look 'right' until you change the horizon and then the look wrong. I always though how a picture "looked" was the important part, not how a protractor measured parts of it. I learn more every day. JA -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message > Yeah, I should have limited my overly broad statement, although I'm not > sure how the (nicely done and preserved) photo above is enhanced by a > wee slant. For me, level, or max. pitch the vessel encountered! > > Thanks for posting it up. I was going to say, "for sea scapes done from > land", but there gotta be a bunch of exceptions to that, too. > I have some images here of ships and boats. I did not find a link anywhere. Please post some showing your point. > None have horizontal horizons > but all look 'right' until you change the horizon and then the look > wrong. I always though how a picture "looked" was the important part, > not how a protractor measured parts of it. Oh, you sly dog; such archness. I think a lot of folks have opined that most seascapes look off with a slanted horizon. At least the ones you have posted in the past. > I learn more every day. As do all with open minds. Also, it's customary to trim the sig line, or to use a real newsreader that will do it automatically. Signaturelsmft Please BE SURE to capitalize IMPORTANT WORDS in case you think your audience is NOT very bright, or you have a limited vocabulary. > > I have some images here of ships and boats. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > most seascapes look off with a slanted horizon. At least the ones you have > posted in the past. The images I mentioned are copyright to one or the other of the Macas. I have specific instructions about NOT (paying attention are we?) posting such images. What I can do is post a photo of some of the prints in the gallery, instead of the images themselves. You'll need to wait until tomorrow for that. I'm going fishing today. Probably the reason you see 'tilted' pictures posted on the Internet from us is to create a talking point or because we (any of the 82 of us that make up the 'club') don't actually post final images with any fiscal value after some wannabe nature photographer in Chattanooga decided he had fee access to whatever he wanted so he could improve his own self importance. (He should have practiced on being a human being) I don't know if you noticed but readers in these groups are not satisfied to "look" at a picture. They download them and open them in Photoshop, making precise calculations with protractors and examining every pixel for perfection, then posting highly intelligent remarks like: "It's 0.423 degrees out of alignment" or, It's been to highly compressed, or "pity about the colour cast". WTF does it matter? Photographs are not computer images. Razor blades are cheap. It takes a second or two to trim a photo. I'd hate to see the results of trying to trim a tilted monitor! Personally I miss the days when people just discussed things like placement of the elements in a picture, the rule of thirds (broken or not). Lighting. How a picture may have been improved with a different film/filter or better photographer! BTW. I replaced the picture in question with the one that belonged in that frame. This is what happens when you try to introduce a fresh idea into a bunch of shiny bums who got that way because they never get out and take photos. JA SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message > Personally I miss the days when people just discussed things like placement > of the elements in a picture, the rule of thirds (broken or not). Lighting. > How a picture may have been improved with a different film/filter or better > photographer! Um, horizons fit nicely with the above, and in some cases make or break the photo. > BTW. I replaced the picture in question with the one that belonged in that > frame. This is what happens when you try to introduce a fresh idea into a > bunch of shiny bums who got that way because they never get out and take > photos. You've got to learn to not take pot shots either individually or group as a whole. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You've got to learn to not take pot shots either individually or group as > a whole. Maybe John, it my reaction to the intent of some people rather than the words they use. Colin D actually downloaded my picture, opened it in Photoshop and measured the exact tilt of the horizon (and got it wrong). This is a long way from the comments we get in the gallery when people stand back and take in the view before passing judgment, some of which is similar to the negative comments we get here. None of us here at Doug's place have ever been able to understand the motives for someone doing what Colin did. Moreover, I in particular, cannot understand his obsession with arguing about the definition of the word detail. Colin Donahue has long been on the "unfriendly" list on the PC in our studio and work rooms. In case you are wondering - there are 5 people on the list. Maybe if THEY (paying attention are we) modified their behaviour to a more socially acceptable form, people like me and Doug would have no need to conceal our identity and locations or refuse to answer questions relating to his business. As it is, Usenet is a hostile environment. This group in particular has a few of Usenet's worst people in it. Aus.Photo is probably the world's worst group for social behaviour dropouts. We consider these two groups the most hostile for ANYONE to post a question to. Followed closely by most of the Alt groups. Coming to this group requires you to suit up, check the magazine and carry plenty of Ammo. JA SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > JA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder "Delusional disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental illness that involves holding one or more non- bizarre delusions in the absence of any other significant psychopathology (signs or symptoms of mental illness)." "Persecutory Type: delusion that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way." Willa Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/willarojo “I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad.” Thoreau, Civil Disobedience “We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph line from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate.” Thoreau, Walden > Coming to this group requires you to suit up, check the magazine and carry > plenty of Ammo. That's your world, not mine, nor is it that of the majority of folks who hang out here. I'd say there're no more than a dozen folks (excluding socks) who take that road. Most of them know who they are. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> Coming to this group requires you to suit up, check the magazine and >> carry plenty of Ammo. > > That's your world, not mine, nor is it that of the majority of folks who > hang out here. I'd say there're no more than a dozen folks (excluding > socks) who take that road. Most of them know who they are. Yes.....I don't find it that bad....But you can't let people whom you don't care about affect your sensibilities.......IOW, you come to know the ones you respect, and learn to have rational discussions with those, and don't worry about what the trolls think and say........ > Colin Donahue has long been on the "unfriendly" list on the PC in > our studio and work rooms. In case you are wondering - there are 5 people on > the list. How many have entire websites dedicated to them? WHO RULES ??? >> Colin Donahue has long been on the "unfriendly" list on the PC in >> our studio and work rooms. In case you are wondering - there are 5 people [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > WHO RULES ??? Yep. You got it right there. You top the list of all time Usenet idiots. VOTE ONE BRET DOUGLAS, WORLD'S MOST STUPID COMPUTER HACKER. Details at: http://www.annika1980.com/cracking.htm Wear the badge with pride mate. Maybe a fee Tshirt hand out in downtown Chatannooga with the slogan on them might be nice, what do you think? JA SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> Colin Donahue has long been on the "unfriendly" list on the PC >>> in our studio and work rooms. In case you are wondering - [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > JA At least you misspelled Chattanooga differently this time, to throw the FBI (F**king Bananas Investigators) off your trail. Willa Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/willarojo “I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad.” Thoreau, Civil Disobedience “We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph line from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate.” Thoreau, Walden ****** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder William Graham wrote: > "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:m8qdnQbsOse-mAXbnZ2dnUVZ_o6gnZ2d@comcast.com... [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > I found the image....It is a 50 year old Kodachrome slide.....Here it is: > http://www.pbase.com/w_e_graham/image/82174713/medium Yeah, I should have limited my overly broad statement, although I'm not sure how the (nicely done and preserved) photo above is enhanced by a wee slant. For me, level, or max. pitch the vessel encountered! Thanks for posting it up. I was going to say, "for sea scapes done from land", but there gotta be a bunch of exceptions to that, too. Well, perhaps I shouldn't say that the skew enhances the photo....but it does give it a feeling of pitching and rolling a bit. It would have been better if the sea was a little rougher.....It was a pretty calm day, so I probably could have been more careful and held it to a straighter horizon....... > William Graham wrote: >> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > probably could have been more careful and held it to a straighter > horizon....... I've seen motion pictures where the director/cameraman filmed the whole thing with skewed horizons whenever they possibly could.....They drive me crazy.....After 90 minutes of that, I leave with a headache.....:^) > William Graham wrote: >> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > probably could have been more careful and held it to a straighter > horizon....... Whyncha try both with a min. of cropping: one with horizon dead straight, one with it pitched 3-4 degrees more.... Signaturejohn mcwilliams Coach: "Are you just ignorant, or merely apathetic?" Player: "Coach, I don't know, and I don't care." "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message > better if the sea was a little rougher.....It was a pretty calm day, so I > probably could have been more careful and held it to a straighter > horizon....... Whyncha try both with a min. of cropping: one with horizon dead straight, one with it pitched 3-4 degrees more.... I might try that, but my time is limited, and I do a lot of scanning of old slides into my computer and cleaning them up.....I try not to change the compositions very much, unless they are really bad, and I see something that I need to crop out....I would rather the shot show just what my artistic development was when the picture was first taken, (which in this case was when I was about 22 years old.) Also, when I straighten a horizon, I always lose some picture near the edges, and I seldom really want to do this...... Julian. wrote: > "Colin_D" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> to be noticeable. At your print size of 1200 mm long approximately, a >> 0.35° tilt translates to nearly 7.5mm off level. > Get your eyes checked Colin. I said "relatively small 24" wide print". > Where did you get twice the size in that? You didn't add any detail to it > did you? Yes the horizon is off kilter. That's what happens when you start > work at 4:00AM to do some foreigners for yourself! What does "doing foreigners" have to do with a slanted horizon?? *Anytime* there's major water-horizons in a photo, they should be dead level. It's really quite easy to do in PS and in Lightroom. Signaturejohn mcwilliams Oceania slang John. When you make something for yourself at work, it's called a "foreigner" and is usually done in a hurry and under secrecy so the "Boss" doesn't find out about it. When I do one it invariably has errors in it from too much speed and too little care. Like the example. BTW. The post was about how to make a 'different' frame, not crooked horizons. JA -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > http://www.ryadia.com/POD/July/09-07-07.htm Man, I gotta get this chair fixed! It's leaning again. >> http://www.ryadia.com/POD/July/09-07-07.htm > > Man, I gotta get this chair fixed! It's leaning again. Clearly the remote leg shortner is working again. JA SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
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.