 |
 | 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 / Photo Technique / Nature Photography / June 2006time of day for your shooting
Question: do you see more quality shots using color film if you shoot early and late in the day versus mid afternoon. I exclusively try to limit my shooting to times when the sunlight is warm and colorful. I've lost too many good compositions because of the harsh direct afternoon light. I have had great shots taken at mid day but usually under specific compositons - under shade or cloud cover, or places where reflections are preferred such as water surfaces, river beds with bright colored dirt, etc. But in general, I prefer dusk/dawn shooting becasue of the warmer results - and the creativity seems to be pumping more because of the more vibrant colors. Also, I like to take into the cost of film and devolping/processing charges. It's a waste when you only get 1-2 keepers per roll. The % should be higher if you want to make a profit. Any thoughts on this? Agree/disagree? Jim It really depends on what and where you're shooting. If you're in the Badlands, or Utah, it seems like you have about 10 seconds before sunrise and 10 seconds after sunset to get some interesting light. If you're shooting glacial lakes, the sun needs to be fairly high in order to light up the water and give the nice blue-green color. Jay (that's why I like B&W) Wenner >Question: do you see more quality shots using color film if you shoot >early and late in the day versus mid afternoon. ... >Any thoughts on this? Agree/disagree? You've been beaten to a wimpering pulp on this topic by "dadiOH" in the alt.photography thread titled "A novice looking for tips, hints, suggestions and critique., and for good reason. Now you have made the mistake of *multi-posting* the same topic on fishing expedition to at least three newsgroups (I am *properly* crossposting to those (rec.photo.equipment.35mm, rec.photo.misc, and rec.photo.techique.nature), plus I've added alt.photography for readers of the original thread.). My thought? Drop it!  SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com Do whatever you want Floyd - I'm just getting the proof that others feel the same way as I do - I know I;m right. You must be a loser like dadio. Bring it on shithead. > Do whatever you want Floyd - I'm just getting the proof that others > feel the same way as I do - I know I;m right. You must be a loser like > dadio. Bring it on shithead. No, he's not a loser, and his points are correct, even if stated a bit strenuously. Are you new to usenet? Signaturejohn mcwilliams > Do whatever you want Floyd - I'm just getting the proof that others > feel the same way as I do - I know I;m right. You must be a loser like > dadio. Bring it on shithead. As I said, you are touchy. You also have zero people skills. And pray tell, Kermit, do you believe the earth is flat? Some do and even offer "proof". Ditto moon landing, holocaust et al. Man, talk about a *loser*... SignaturedadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico >> Do whatever you want Floyd - I'm just getting the proof that others >> feel the same way as I do - I know I;m right. You must be a loser [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Man, talk about a *loser*... Jervis _lives_? > Do whatever you want Floyd - I'm just getting the proof that others > feel the same way as I do - I know I;m right. You must be a loser like > dadio. Bring it on shithead. Kernix against the world. Most of us were just hoping you would come to your senses and DROP IT, obviously that is beyond you abilities. So, Just to let you know, yet one more reader believes YOU ARE WRONG!!! Do yourself a BIG favor, don't start calling me names too, quit while you are BEHIND! > Do whatever you want Floyd - I'm just getting the proof that others > feel the same way as I do - I know I;m right. You must be a loser like > dadio. Bring it on shithead. Floyd is one of those people who can recite facts and figures all day, but put a camera in his hands and he can't produce sh.t. > > Do whatever you want Floyd - I'm just getting the proof that others > > feel the same way as I do - I know I;m right. You must be a loser like > > dadio. Bring it on shithead. > > Floyd is one of those people who can recite facts and figures all day, > but put a camera in his hands and he can't produce sh.t. Lovely stuff. Just the kind of rational, informative debate that people log on to the 'Net for. Roger >> > Do whatever you want Floyd - I'm just getting the proof that others >> > feel the same way as I do - I know I;m right. You must be a loser like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Lovely stuff. Just the kind of rational, informative debate that people >log on to the 'Net for. Well, actually Randall was just pointing out, as he commonly does, that what I said was accurate. I can and sometimes *do* cite facts and figures all day long. And that *is* what Usenet is all about! SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Well, actually Randall was just pointing out, as he commonly > does, that what I said was accurate. I can and sometimes *do* > cite facts and figures all day long. Unfortunately, your knowledge of facts and figures does not translate into the ability to create quality images. >> Well, actually Randall was just pointing out, as he commonly >> does, that what I said was accurate. I can and sometimes *do* >> cite facts and figures all day long. > >Unfortunately, your knowledge of facts and figures does not translate >into the ability to create quality images. This is a Usenet thread Randall. All that counts here is knowledge of facts and figures. You don't have any, and you don't count. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Lovely stuff. Just the kind of rational, informative debate that people > log on to the 'Net for. Read his posts, then look at his images. Quacks like this abound in any hobby/profession. > Read his posts, then look at his images. Quacks like this abound in any > hobby/profession. And that justifies your adding to the effluvium? Roger >>Read his posts, then look at his images. Quacks like this abound in any >>hobby/profession. > > And that justifies your adding to the effluvium? > > Roger Usenet's a throw-away. The advice you get is worth pretty much what you paid for it. Sometimes good entertainment value though. "no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in message news:_jqbg.730> Usenet's a throw-away. The advice you get is worth pretty much what you > paid for it. Actually, you can get excellent advice from it. But it does cost you. In many hours of reading and posting on it in order to find out who knows what. Once you have paid that price, however, you can use it for much fine information about photography, and the equipment involved with photography...... >"no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in message news:_jqbg.730> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >information about photography, and the equipment involved with >photography...... It requires, however, developing a very effective filtering system, which must be of the "very thick hide" variety. All Usenet advice comes as a mixture of good and bad, and there are no flags to make it easy for people who cannot distinguish between them. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>"no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in message news:_jqbg.730> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > are no flags to make it easy for people who cannot distinguish > between them. I was commenting on "justifies ... adding to the effluvium?". There are the occasional gems of wisdom to be gained, but in general usenet is "effluvium". Anyone can be a usenet xpert. It's a perpetual 15 minutes of fame. >>>"no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in message news:_jqbg.730> >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Anyone can be a usenet xpert. It's a perpetual 15 minutes of fame. To me, it's a meeting room where only the people who are interested in the topic at hand come to the meeting and voice their opinions. The others stand out on the street, waiting for another meeting that is discussing topics that they are interested in, so they can go in and join that meeting......Pretty neat, actually...... > > Anyone can be a usenet xpert. It's a perpetual 15 minutes of fame. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that they are interested in, so they can go in and join that > meeting......Pretty neat, actually...... The internet is the greatest classroom you can have. You can learn almost anything if you are persistent enough. If something breaks around here like an appliance, a stereo component, or my car, I can usually find out what's wrong from this very chair and many times I can fix it myself. Ironically, the thing I have the most trouble fixing is my computer. There is tons of free computer advice available online, but most of it isn't worth what you pay for it. Everybody has a computer so now everyone's an expert. The most troubling thing is when my computer can't connect to the internet. I have to go get the wife's laptop to connect so I can look up the problem. >> > Anyone can be a usenet xpert. It's a perpetual 15 minutes of fame. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > internet. I have to go get the wife's laptop to connect so I can look > up the problem. Yes. What I did was to write down every setting while everything was working well.....IOW, go to all your internet settings....The name of your server and all that stuff, and write it down in a notebook that you keep by your machine....Then when it doesn't connect, check all that stuff out to make sure no settings have been changed....Also write down the phone numbers of all the people who can help you....Your internet providers and the like. Once, after I had checked everything, I telephoned my provider, and found out that that they were down, so nobody could connect.....:^) >>>Anyone can be a usenet xpert. It's a perpetual 15 minutes of fame. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > internet. I have to go get the wife's laptop to connect so I can look > up the problem. My point is - it's a waste of time to complain about another poster wasting your time ... > My point is - it's a waste of time to complain about another poster > wasting your time ... OK damnit, I'm marking this thread ignored... : - ) > Floyd is one of those people who can recite facts and figures all day, > but put a camera in his hands and he can't produce sh.t. Personally, I found his photographs interesting. True, they aren't "art" but, then, neither are the vast majority of photos made. A photograph need not be "art" to be worthwhile and informative. SignaturedadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico > A photograph need > not be "art" to be worthwhile and informative. There's a statement made by obviously an amateur. Yeah, no need to strive for artistic quality pics - just point and shoot and say, "Ah, that's a pretty picture. I'll post a link when I have my pics scanned. Will you? >> A photograph need >> not be "art" to be worthwhile and informative. > > There's a statement made by obviously an amateur. No, Kermit, one made by a realist. SignaturedadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico >>>A photograph need >>>not be "art" to be worthwhile and informative. >> >>There's a statement made by obviously an amateur. > > No, Kermit, one made by a realist. Post Dadaism and Surrealism, it is kind of silly to say that anything can't be art. Marcel Duchamp proved that even an ordinary urinal or a bicycle wheel can be art. _You_ may think that a plain, simple photo used as an illustration on a website isn't art; I can guarantee that some-one, some-where will believe that it is and treat it as though it's an art object. >_You_ may think that a plain, simple photo used as an >illustration on a website isn't art; You are not wrong... but what he was talking about was "art", not art. The quotes denote a limited definition that is not generally accepted. He is quite correct, in that documentation need not be a demonstration of the fine art of photography. If you want the ultimate example, take a picture of a page of text. Art? sure! But it is not photographic art, it's just a photocopy... made on a common copy machine. >I can guarantee that >some-one, some-where will believe that it is and treat it as >though it's an art object. Maybe, maybe not. But your comment (while not necessarily strictly true) does make a valid point. Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. We can see that readily in the photography newsgroups where anyone who posts even so much as a single image (or hundreds), will find an equal number of critics who say "horrible, amateurish", and another group who say "wonderful art!". And the makeup of the two groups will change for different sets if images! Basically, anyone who says "*I* am an artist, and he isn't!", probably isn't worth listening to. I can't imagine paying attention to someone who cannot recognize art different than their own. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>_You_ may think that a plain, simple photo used as an >>illustration on a website isn't art; [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Art? sure! But it is not photographic art, it's just a > photocopy... made on a common copy machine. Just like a urinal can be art, so can a photo of a page of text. Why not photographic art? I suppose it depends if some "art lover" would be prepared to fork over a big wad of cash to hang it on their wall. >>I can guarantee that >>some-one, some-where will believe that it is and treat it as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "wonderful art!". And the makeup of the two groups will change > for different sets if images! Art (or should I write "fine art"?) is more of a confidence trick than anything else, how else could an art movement that relies on ready made items (Andy Warhol?) or produces items that could be mistaken for abandoned trash (don't laugh, it's happened twice in the past two months and made it to the international "oddball" columns of various news services) be ever taken as art? > Basically, anyone who says "*I* am an artist, and he isn't!", > probably isn't worth listening to. I can't imagine paying > attention to someone who cannot recognize art different than > their own. They are also probably fearful that the rest of the "art crowd" will recognise that the items they produce could in another context be considered refuse/waste, and be carted off to the tip/dump if they left it in one place for any length of time :) > There's a statement made by obviously an amateur. Ugh! That's certainly a sentence not made by a professional. Roger >>There's a statement made by obviously an amateur. > > Ugh! That's certainly a sentence not made by a professional. ESL perhaps? >>A photograph need >>not be "art" to be worthwhile and informative. > > There's a statement made by obviously an amateur. Yeah, no need to > strive for artistic quality pics - just point and shoot and say, "Ah, > that's a pretty picture. I'll disagree. Art and quality are not the same thing. Quality images may not be artistic and artistic images may have no discernable quality. Either alone may be worthwhile and informative. Or some worthwhile and informative images have neither art nor quality. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Bodies_on_the_battlefield_at_antie tam.jpg The above image is neither artistic nor of good quality (although it may once have been). Nevertheless, the image is worthwhile and informative. >>>A photograph need >>>not be "art" to be worthwhile and informative. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Or some worthwhile and informative images have neither art nor quality. Yes. I don't know how to be, "artistic". I don't think it is something that can be learned from a book. So, I only strive for the best quality image I can get. If some of them are artistic, or show good composition, well, that's great, and I will take as much credit for it as possible, but I will have to admit that all I was trying to do was to get a good clean image of whatever it was that interested me. > Yes. I don't know how to be, "artistic". I don't think it is something that > can be learned from a book. Depends on the book. You won't find out how to make a beautiful image from the vast majority of how-to photography books. You *can* learn it from a book full of beautiful images once you re-learn how to see. You don't even have to invest in a book, there are hundreds of excellent websites to look through. > So, I only strive for the best quality image I > can get. If some of them are artistic, or show good composition, well, > that's great, and I will take as much credit for it as possible, but I will > have to admit that all I was trying to do was to get a good clean image of > whatever it was that interested me. Well, if this is what you strive for, it is undoubtedly what you will achieve. SignatureAngela M. Cable Paint Shop Pro 8, 9, X Private Beta Tester Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source: http://www.neocognition.com/ PSP Tutorial Links: http://www.psplinks.com/ 5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and more: http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/ >>>>A photograph need >>>>not be "art" to be worthwhile and informative. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yes. I don't know how to be, "artistic". I don't think it is something that > can be learned from a book. Art's easy ... tilt the camera so the horizon runs at a diagonal. Frame the subject so the head is right at the bottom and the rest of the picture is nothing but background or give so much foreground you cut your subject off at the knees. Viola! Yer' an artiste. > Art's easy ... tilt the camera so the horizon runs at a diagonal. Frame > the subject so the head is right at the bottom and the rest of the > picture is nothing but background or give so much foreground you cut > your subject off at the knees. I've always felt that I could fool any art critic - just eat a pizza and throw up on a piece of canvas - then act effeminate and/or talk with an accent, spout some existential garbage - you can fool 'em every time. >> Art's easy ... tilt the camera so the horizon runs at a diagonal. Frame >> the subject so the head is right at the bottom and the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with an accent, spout some existential garbage - you can fool 'em every > time. Now there's an idea for a new rock group....They could call themselves the "Regurgitators", and they could throw up on stage...... >>>Art's easy ... tilt the camera so the horizon runs at a diagonal. Frame >>>the subject so the head is right at the bottom and the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Now there's an idea for a new rock group....They could call themselves the > "Regurgitators", and they could throw up on stage...... I think that you bad aiming at the wrong target, rock n roll is a bit too viscerial for most "art" critics. If they vomitted on canvas and then submitted it to some sort of art gallery with a slightly believable fictional back story (usualy about your tortured soul or some such claptrap), then they may end up being touted as the next Jackson Pollock. > If they vomitted on canvas and then submitted it to some sort of art > gallery with a slightly believable fictional back story (usualy about > your tortured soul or some such claptrap), then they may end up being > touted as the next Jackson Pollock. Maybe not the best aspiration considering how he ended up. >> If they vomitted on canvas and then submitted it to some sort of art >> gallery with a slightly believable fictional back story (usualy about >> your tortured soul or some such claptrap), then they may end up being >> touted as the next Jackson Pollock. > > Maybe not the best aspiration considering how he ended up. It could be worse, you could be touted as the next Sid Vicious of the photo world :0 >>>>>A photograph need >>>>>not be "art" to be worthwhile and informative. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Viola! Yer' an artiste. Ha! - I sometimes suspect that, but it is hard for me, an amateur, to say that about those who make their living doing it. I feel the same way about "music". I sit in front of the TV and see a bunch of people dressed like gorillas screaming and making unbelievably bad noises on a stage, and I think it's terrible. (I play the trumpet in a local community band) But they are making money doing what they are doing, and nobody has ever paid to hear me do anything, so I have no creditability......... >> Art's easy ... tilt the camera so the horizon runs at a diagonal. Frame >> the subject so the head is right at the bottom and the rest of the picture >> is nothing but background or give so much foreground you cut your subject >> off at the knees. >> Viola! Yer' an artiste. You'd certainly think that if you went to the photography degree shows of the colleges around here. > I sit in front of the TV and see a bunch of people dressed like > gorillas screaming and making unbelievably bad noises on a stage, and I > think it's terrible. Ah. You didn't like the result of the Eurovision Song Contest, then? Thought they looked more like Klingons myself! Slainte Liz Signaturehttp://www.v-liz.com Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Galapagos Photo galleries: http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/free/gallery.asp?memberID=165111" http://www.photoshopuser.com/napmem/gallery/view_img.php?id=39466 >>> Art's easy ... tilt the camera so the horizon runs at a diagonal. Frame >>> the subject so the head is right at the bottom and the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Liz I have to confess, I get most of my information about up and coming rock groups from the last 5 minutes of the Jay Leno show every night.....But then, I guess I should understand that it is, after all, a comedy show........ > I have to confess, I get most of my information about up and coming rock > groups from the last 5 minutes of the Jay Leno show every night.....But > then, I guess I should understand that it is, after all, a comedy > show........ Just like the Eurovision. Slainte Liz Signaturehttp://www.v-liz.com Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Galapagos Photo galleries: http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/free/gallery.asp?memberID=165111" http://www.photoshopuser.com/napmem/gallery/view_img.php?id=39466 >> Floyd is one of those people who can recite facts and figures all day, >> but put a camera in his hands and he can't produce sh.t. > >Personally, I found his photographs interesting. True, they aren't "art" >but, then, neither are the vast majority of photos made. A photograph need >not be "art" to be worthwhile and informative. Anyone expecting to find "art" on my website, is looking in the wrong place. There is *no* intention of it being artistic. Or, at least not "art" in the way it is defined when it has to be enclosed in parens! Which is to say, the art on my website is not the "fine art of photography" as such. It is the art of documentation, which is to say an exhibition of the art of providing informative, or the art of communications. And of course that is an art where Randall can't produce 'sh.t'! SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > And of course that is an art where Randall can't produce 'sh.t'! Yeah, I only made a living at it for 16+ years. Lets put the context back, just to give Randall a second chance, "It is the art of documentation, which is to say an exhibition of the art of providing informative, or the art of communications. And of course that is an art where Randall can't produce 'sh.t'!" >> And of course that is an art where Randall can't produce 'sh.t'! > >Yeah, I only made a living at it for 16+ years. At *what*? You don't appear able to even read, and aren't communicating worth the 'sh.t' you can't produce. I made a living at the art communicating for 40 years. Whoopee! SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > At *what*? You don't appear able to even read, and aren't > communicating worth the 'sh.t' you can't produce. OK, here's the resume again. Served on the Board of Trustees for the Pacific Northwest School of Professional Photography for 10 years; one fo the first three CPPs in the state of WA, awarded AFPh by PPW, had several articles published in The Professional Photographer magazine, was jujst 6-7 merits shy of Craftsman when I dropped out of PPA; numerous awards in print competition; photographed hundreds of weddings, thousands of high school seniors, families, and individuals. Now, you come on here and spout all kinds of technical crap, but can't produce a decent image. I'm not asking for art, some well exposed/composed snapshots would be nice. Bottom line, you're a blowhard who can talk the talk but can't walk the walk. Randall Ainsworth skrev i 200520060900465459%rag@nospam.techline.com dette: >> At *what*? You don't appear able to even read, and aren't >> communicating worth the 'sh.t' you can't produce. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > numerous awards in print competition; photographed hundreds of > weddings, thousands of high school seniors, families, and individuals. Instead of all that bashing and selfpromotion - show us some pictures, not all this reciting facts and figures all day, if I may say so! regards prom at pure amateur with absolutely no regrets. Jan SignatureA few photos can be found on http://jan.boegh.net/foto.htm > Instead of all that bashing and selfpromotion - show us some pictures, not > all this reciting facts and figures all day, if I may say so! I'm not bashing, just stating the truth...and I have nothing to promote. One more time: http://users.techline.com/randya >> At *what*? You don't appear able to even read, and aren't >> communicating worth the 'sh.t' you can't produce. See what I said above? >OK, here's the resume again. Served on the Board of Trustees for the >Pacific Northwest School of Professional Photography for 10 years; one [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >exposed/composed snapshots would be nice. Bottom line, you're a >blowhard who can talk the talk but can't walk the walk. Proof positive that you cannot communicate effectively. But at least we can see why now. The constriction from all that swelling above the shoulders must leave you barely able to breath, never mind think. Damned man, go to a doctor. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Proof positive that you cannot communicate effectively. Yeah...I'm only employed as a technical writer. Try again... >> Proof positive that you cannot communicate effectively. > >Yeah...I'm only employed as a technical writer. Try again... You've been trying quite hard for quite some time now Randall, but nobody has missed the message except you. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com OK OK OK enough already! One of you has 16+ years experience in one thing, and the other has 40 years experience in another thing. Bravo to both of you! Obviously, with this much experience, neither of you are spring chickens anymore. So how about dumping the childish tit-for-tat game and engaging in meaningful and respectful dialog about photography? A mature person would walk away from this childish behaviour without having to get the last word in. Henry > Do whatever you want Floyd - I'm just getting the proof that others > feel the same way as I do - I know I;m right. You must be a loser like > dadio. Bring it on shithead. It's easy to obtain "proof" others agree when you immediately and invariably dismiss anyone who doesn't. >Question: do you see more quality shots using color film if you shoot >early and late in the day versus mid afternoon. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Jim Of the dozen or so copies I sell per week the majority are golden hour shots. Spain/Middle east/Canada But that really depends on the marketing. Most of my gallery work is industrial and doesn't sell nearly as much yet gets much better review. Something to match the color of the couch will always sell better than a compositional print. Other than that what I like the most is on a print by print basis. I have no favorite subject or time to shoot. Good question K My main point was you'll get more keepers with the warm light than harsh lighting. I've shot midday and have keepers but I do have to be much more aware of my composition. This other guy didn't seem to understand that. I suppose you could purposely compose a shot with a washed out sky and have the washed out sky as a meaningful part of the composition - but really - how often will you need or want to do that. This all came from a comment I made about preferring the warm light hours. Whateva - to each his own. Jim >My main point was you'll get more keepers with the warm light than >harsh lighting. I've shot midday and have keepers but I do have to be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Jim I'm not sure if you meant me or someone else, but warm colors or washed out sky aren't you're only choices are they? I shoot architectural at various times in the day and the sky is always deep blue. I don't take the shot if the sky is washed out. If your favorite shots are golden hour that's great. You can study that niche and excel at it. It's all preference and subjective anyway. If you mean the public preference I agree with you. Keep shooting Jim, recording the moment is all that matters. |
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.