The Pinhole II gallery is up!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Savageduck on 20 Jul 2010 21:33 On 2010-07-20 16:18:51 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:20:42 -0400, tony cooper > <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:16:06 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: >> >>> Available for viewing, and located here: >>> >>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pinhole_ii >>> > > My comments: > > > Signs (SavageDuck): Kinda confusing. Not a particularly interesting > photo because the signs are no more than informative. If the pin was > exactly centered at this intersection, you gotta take the photo I > guess, but there's just not much here. Well that was the mandate. Sometime you are not fated to end up in interesting pinholes. Actually, I should have gone a little further, but who am I to ignore the signs? I had other candidate shots a little further back, before reaching that gate. < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/SI-candidate_DNC3680w.jpg > one with "Sisker sky"! < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/SI-candidate_DNC3681w.jpg > ....but I thought the forbidden nature of the property might be of some interest. > > Gravestone (SavageDuck) I like this even though there's not a great > deal to it. Lotta contrast between the warmth of the surroundings and > the bleakness of the stone. Not Duck's fault, buy why no date? The > 6th Missouri Infantry was a CSA unit in the Civil War and a unit that > fought in the Spanish-American War. > > He's not on the CSA 6th Missouri Infantry roster at > http://www.missouridivision-scv.org/mounits/6mo-infantry.htm > > There is a Lt Jon McElheny, Company A, 6th Missouri Infantry buried at > the Fort Hunter Liggett Cemetary > http://www.militarymuseum.org/FtHLiggett.html > > C'mon, Duck. There's a story here. I thought so too, so I also did some research, thinking the same as you that it was strange to find a "Missouri CSA" vet buried in California. Don't believe everything you find on the internet. They got the cemetery right at Pleyto, but the name wrong. St. Luke's Episcopal Church is at Jolon, about 15 miles further North near the gates of Ft. Hunter-Liggett. That is the Pleyto Community Cemetery, and is not on the Hunter-Liggett reservation. However Lt. McElheny was part of the 6th Mounted Infantry, part of the 6th Regiment of the California Volunteer Infantry, not the 6th Missouri Infantry. I though it might have been a California forerunner of the US 6th Cavalry. i was wrong. The 6th Mo. Infantry was based at the Presidio, and Fort Benicia barracks. It was mostly involved in Indian fighting in Northern California and providing security in the Bay area during the Civil War. I am not familiar with the LT's story, and have found no more information on him. Pleyto was a small community which was flooded by Lake San Antonio in 1965. All that is left is the cemetery which is about 15 miles South of Fort Hunter-Liggett. There are other military graves there, including some victims of the 1918 influenza epidemic. Here is one of those, which I had also considered as an SI candidate; < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/SI-candidate_DNC3710w.jpg > The US 6th Cavalry was involved Eastern Civil War fights, and in the Indian Wars in Arizona and Texas after the Civil War. If you ever make the trip to California, one of the great unbeaten paths, is the Nacimiento-Ferguson Road, which runs through Fort Hunter-Liggett over the mountains, and winds 3500 ft down to Hwy 1 and Big Sur. Just spectacular! > > Fence (SavageDuck): Shrug. Just trying to show Sisker a blue sky? That was where I ended up on that road. I could have given you the other shot 50 feet away, but that is what made the cut. Just for Sisker. Here is the other, probably more interesting shot; < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/SI-candidate_DNC3733w.jpg > Hey! I tried. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: tony cooper on 20 Jul 2010 22:07 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:33:54 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >I had other candidate shots a little further back, before reaching that gate. >< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/SI-candidate_DNC3680w.jpg > >one with "Sisker sky"! I like this one. Very warm. >That was where I ended up on that road. I could have given you the >other shot 50 feet away, but that is what made the cut. Just for Sisker. >Here is the other, probably more interesting shot; >< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/SI-candidate_DNC3733w.jpg > Oooooh. That one I like. I'd pull that orange thing out, though. Takes the eye away from the bike. > >Hey! I tried. Isn't that what it's all about? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Robert Coe on 20 Jul 2010 22:11 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:16:06 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: : Available for viewing, and located here: : : http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pinhole_ii : : For more information and future mandates, please look here: : : http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage : : Reminder: : : We still have two "live" mandates, Rogues Gallery and Sounds of the : Season. Please visit the rulz page for additional info and submittal : dates for each of those mandates. We'll have the usual nitpicking, of course. (It's already started.) But I think we got an exceptionally good group of pictures this time. With the possible exception of the infrared lighthouse that nobody can see (but which arguably still deserves a solid B for innovative effort), I don't see a really weak picture among them. Nice job, everybody! Bob
From: Elliott Roper on 20 Jul 2010 22:20 In article <1qsb46dcdoiank1ka7b1efeo1b3sikeo8j(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:16:06 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: > > >Available for viewing, and located here: > > > >http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pinhole_ii > > > >For more information and future mandates, please look here: > > > >http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage > > > > A word of explanation about mine...I used a city map and my pin would > have put me in the middle of a lake. Odds are about 50/50 it would in > this area. I picked the nearest shore and took the photographs > outside the Maitland Art Gallery. > > Two of the photos were manipulated with Photoshop. The "Lady in the > Garden" is a small statuette, and - in Curves - I set a Black Point in > an area that was bluish-white. That resulted in a rather strange > change in the green leaves, but one I like. And, a little painting to > make the background solid black. > > The "Water Fireworks" are some kind of water lily floating in a pond > of brown water. Ugly water. I used "Replace Color" to turn the brown > water black for contrast. I did a little editing on some blown-out > parts where the midday sun reflected off the wet plant. > > I would have like to modified the Stone Cat to make the shadows more > intensely black, but didn't get around to it. > > No one's said anything about Photoshop manipulation being outside of > the rules, but I like to make full disclosure. These are the ones that worked for me:- Grapes Otter: Simple subject, elegant composition and ethereal light. The shadows of the grapes on the translucent leaf is what makes it. Stone Cat Cooper: Delightful framing -the cat's frame and the picture! I wonder if it would have been better had the leaves been pin sharp? That way their shadow on the wall would make more sense. Water Fireworks Cooper: Now I know the story of how you tweaked it in Photoshop, I'm even more impressed you saw the shot at all. The result is electric. Savageduck-02: That works so well. /Dead/ simple. ph01 Bowser: That hits the mandate best of all. Like the others you went where the pin decided and saw something that would have passed most of us by and you brought the picture home. I didn't need no explanation to see they were two very thirsty birds. I like Bob Coe 2 and TimConway's red shed even they are more 'obvious' shots once the pin had done its magic. The curves of Bob's bank and path are pleasing and lead the eye back across the bridge to the rowing clubhouse, which is satisfying and restful somehow. The red shed looks like Tim had to kick aside a swarm of impressionist painters to get the shot. Classic! -- To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
From: tony cooper on 20 Jul 2010 22:43
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:54:28 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:29:36 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> >wrote: >: A bit off the subject for the Shoot-In, but one of the guest judges (a >: magazine photo editor in real life) for a recent competition night >: lectured sensibly on "tangents". >: >: A "tangent", as he described it, is a bit of the central point of >: interest of a photo that touches the edge of the frame. He advises to >: avoid this because it stops the eye from moving all around the major >: subject. >: >: This came to mind looking at Bowser's pigeons: >: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/126699235 >: >: The tail feathers at the left are exactly what this judge was >: commenting on. He would have Bowser crop just outside that tangent >: point. >: >: When he first brought this up, I was skeptical. Then, I started >: noticing photographs where this exists and found that I *am* stopped >: at this point. I wouldn't notice the effect if there was a slivver of >: space twixt subject and edge. >: >: Naturally, this doesn't pertain to ordinary background or a >: deliberately offset image. >: >: Comments? > >There are undoubtedly cases where you could make that argument regarding a >specific photo. As a general rule, I think it's bunk. And I don't think >there's a thing wrong with Bowser's pigeons. It wouldn't have hurt to have a >little space to the left of the bird's tail, but the picture doesn't need it. I like Bowser's pigeons. Prolly my favorite in the group. The point is not to disparage Bowser's image, but to introduce a different way of looking at any photograph. It's going to affect how I crop, and the results will be that you will not notice the difference. Good cropping is when you notice the entire image and not the crop. >The "rule" We all know that "rules" are an anathema to the photographer. We don't like to say we followed any. But, we also know that instinctively following the rules leads to better compositions. The really successful photo is one that you take to immediately without being conscious of the use of any rule having been employed. Yet, that result may be because the processing took some of the rules into account. Take, for example, the rule of the diagonal. The convention is to end the diagonal at a corner of the image or at least have the diagonal point to a corner. (Case in point: Peter's water bird and the splashes forming a diagonal to the corner or the stem in my Water Fireworks.) So what if the diagonal ends or directs the eye to a point higher up? We may look at the image and say the lower area needs cropping out unaware that the end-point of the diagonal is why we think that. Now, before someone brings it up, I am in complete agreement that the exception to the rule often results in the best-possible image. In the right circumstances. When you go against a rule, if you do so because you absolutely know the result will be the better for breaking the rule then you are doing the right thing. (Case in point: Bowser's monoplane. The roof line diagonal ends above the corner, but it would make the building too truncated to crop it that way. What, though, if the framing would have been such that the right roof line was included down to the corner and the much of the left side of the image was cropped out? That would also make the image more in the rule of thirds area) -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |