> I thought, on the whole, this was quite a good showing. > <--------------------------------------------------> > Savageduck's submissions seem to shout out "I love taking pictures of > airplanes!". The T-28 Trojan engine is the only one, though, that > comes across as interesting.
Curses! You have me pegged.
I am fascinated by aircraft of all types, sort of bred into me by my father, as such I tend to gravitate towards prop powered planes, particularly WWII types. They had 3 T-28's parked on that row, and I took multiple shots of all of them, but the one I submitted worked the best for me. You have just got to love big radial engines. The big problem was that darn building in the background.
I thought of the P-51 radiator scoop and gear doors as "interesting" because it was a view of an easily recognizable fighter plane overlooked in favor of the classic image normally shot.
The A-10 gun? Damn since when weren't big guns interesting?
I guess we will just have to get it right next time.
>> I thought, on the whole, this was quite a good showing. >> <--------------------------------------------------> >> Savageduck's submissions seem to shout out "I love taking pictures of >> airplanes!". The T-28 Trojan engine is the only one, though, that >> comes across as interesting.
>Curses! You have me pegged.
> I am fascinated by aircraft of all types, sort of bred into me by my >father, as such I tend to gravitate towards prop powered planes, >particularly WWII types. >They had 3 T-28's parked on that row, and I took multiple shots of all >of them, but the one I submitted worked the best for me. You have just >got to love big radial engines. >The big problem was that darn building in the background.
>I thought of the P-51 radiator scoop and gear doors as "interesting" >because it was a view of an easily recognizable fighter plane >overlooked in favor of the classic image normally shot.
>The A-10 gun? Damn since when weren't big guns interesting?
>I guess we will just have to get it right next time.
I would find the airplanes interesting, but I was commenting on the photographs...the view you selected; the composition.
Airplanes are tough to photograph. It's almost impossible to get the whole airplane in the frame without some sort of busy background. I've seen very few airplane photographs that are interesting as photographs. Most are interesting only in the subject matter, and that to people who like to look at photographs of airplanes.
>>> I thought, on the whole, this was quite a good showing. >>> <--------------------------------------------------> >>> Savageduck's submissions seem to shout out "I love taking pictures of >>> airplanes!". The T-28 Trojan engine is the only one, though, that >>> comes across as interesting.
>> Curses! You have me pegged.
>> I am fascinated by aircraft of all types, sort of bred into me by my >> father, as such I tend to gravitate towards prop powered planes, >> particularly WWII types. >> They had 3 T-28's parked on that row, and I took multiple shots of all >> of them, but the one I submitted worked the best for me. You have just >> got to love big radial engines. >> The big problem was that darn building in the background.
>> I thought of the P-51 radiator scoop and gear doors as "interesting" >> because it was a view of an easily recognizable fighter plane >> overlooked in favor of the classic image normally shot.
>> The A-10 gun? Damn since when weren't big guns interesting?
>> I guess we will just have to get it right next time.
> I would find the airplanes interesting, but I was commenting on the > photographs...the view you selected; the composition.
> Airplanes are tough to photograph. It's almost impossible to get the > whole airplane in the frame without some sort of busy background. > I've seen very few airplane photographs that are interesting as > photographs. Most are interesting only in the subject matter, and > that to people who like to look at photographs of airplanes.
> The Sunshine Express is on the ground at Camp Blanding (near > Jacksonville Florida)
> Someday I'll stop at the Florida Air Museum at Sun'n Fun (Lakeland, > Florida) and see if I can find a way to take an interesting airplane > photograph.
Give it a try, you might be surprised. Actually they can be quite challenging to shoot. Here are a few more from the Salinas Air Show which was the source of my SI shots. ...and some of these could be deemed interesting.
>I thought, on the whole, this was quite a good showing.
>The photographs of the equipment that Eric Stevens submitted are >excellent photographs, but not really interesting as subject matter. >The kite photograph, though, is quite clever. Here's where a snapshot >works as "interesting", but two very well done photograph don't.
Left brain or right brain? Is it the subject which is interesting or the photograph?
I thought the example picture of the ancient V8 engine in an equally ancient aeroplane was interesting but I would like to have known a lot more about them (was it a Bleriot?). The curiousity stimulated by my interest was not satisfied. Is this intersting as you, Tony Cooper, understands it?
I thought the beam engine was interesting (please don't confuse this with me saying that photographs of the beam engine were necessarily interesting) and thats why I explained what they were about. Without the explanation the viewer would have been left almost totally puzzled as to what it was they were looking at.
Funnily enough, I didn't think the kite photograph was at all clever. That's why I felt the need to explain why I took it (and why I didn't take it) and what it was all about.
This is my first experience in 50 years of submitting photographs for review by others (other than family, lawyers and judges) and I have found the whole experience very interesting. :-)
--- snip ----
>Perhaps Bret has a point in that "Interesting", as a mandate, was too >vague. Several people submitted very good photographs, but they were >not really photographs of interesting things or ordinary things >presented in an interesting way. Eric's kite, Bob Coe's >presentation, Tim's way of photographing the dandelion, and some other >as mentioned above came across as interesting to me. I felt my own >shot of the very realistic-looking manikin was interesting. Some of >the others, even though they were good as photographs, didn't come >across as interesting.
>>>> I thought, on the whole, this was quite a good showing. >>>> <--------------------------------------------------> >>>> Savageduck's submissions seem to shout out "I love taking pictures of >>>> airplanes!". The T-28 Trojan engine is the only one, though, that >>>> comes across as interesting.
>>> Curses! You have me pegged.
>>> I am fascinated by aircraft of all types, sort of bred into me by my >>> father, as such I tend to gravitate towards prop powered planes, >>> particularly WWII types. >>> They had 3 T-28's parked on that row, and I took multiple shots of all >>> of them, but the one I submitted worked the best for me. You have just >>> got to love big radial engines. >>> The big problem was that darn building in the background.
>>> I thought of the P-51 radiator scoop and gear doors as "interesting" >>> because it was a view of an easily recognizable fighter plane >>> overlooked in favor of the classic image normally shot.
>>> The A-10 gun? Damn since when weren't big guns interesting?
>>> I guess we will just have to get it right next time.
>> I would find the airplanes interesting, but I was commenting on the >> photographs...the view you selected; the composition.
>> Airplanes are tough to photograph. It's almost impossible to get the >> whole airplane in the frame without some sort of busy background. >> I've seen very few airplane photographs that are interesting as >> photographs. Most are interesting only in the subject matter, and >> that to people who like to look at photographs of airplanes.
>> I have one - and only one - airplane photograph in my file. I had to >> use "vehicles" as the keyword in Lightroom to find it since there's no >> need for "airplane" as a keyword. >> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/sunshine.jpg
>Nice old C-47.
>> The Sunshine Express is on the ground at Camp Blanding (near >> Jacksonville Florida)
>> Someday I'll stop at the Florida Air Museum at Sun'n Fun (Lakeland, >> Florida) and see if I can find a way to take an interesting airplane >> photograph.
>Give it a try, you might be surprised. >Actually they can be quite challenging to shoot. >Here are a few more from the Salinas Air Show which was the source of >my SI shots. >...and some of these could be deemed interesting.
>>>>> I thought, on the whole, this was quite a good showing. >>>>> <--------------------------------------------------> >>>>> Savageduck's submissions seem to shout out "I love taking pictures of >>>>> airplanes!". The T-28 Trojan engine is the only one, though, that >>>>> comes across as interesting.
>>>> Curses! You have me pegged.
>>>> I am fascinated by aircraft of all types, sort of bred into me by my >>>> father, as such I tend to gravitate towards prop powered planes, >>>> particularly WWII types. >>>> They had 3 T-28's parked on that row, and I took multiple shots of all >>>> of them, but the one I submitted worked the best for me. You have just >>>> got to love big radial engines. >>>> The big problem was that darn building in the background.
>>>> I thought of the P-51 radiator scoop and gear doors as "interesting" >>>> because it was a view of an easily recognizable fighter plane >>>> overlooked in favor of the classic image normally shot.
>>>> The A-10 gun? Damn since when weren't big guns interesting?
>>>> I guess we will just have to get it right next time.
>>> I would find the airplanes interesting, but I was commenting on the >>> photographs...the view you selected; the composition.
>>> Airplanes are tough to photograph. It's almost impossible to get the >>> whole airplane in the frame without some sort of busy background. >>> I've seen very few airplane photographs that are interesting as >>> photographs. Most are interesting only in the subject matter, and >>> that to people who like to look at photographs of airplanes.
>>> I have one - and only one - airplane photograph in my file. I had to >>> use "vehicles" as the keyword in Lightroom to find it since there's no >>> need for "airplane" as a keyword. >>> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/sunshine.jpg
>> Nice old C-47.
>>> The Sunshine Express is on the ground at Camp Blanding (near >>> Jacksonville Florida)
>>> Someday I'll stop at the Florida Air Museum at Sun'n Fun (Lakeland, >>> Florida) and see if I can find a way to take an interesting airplane >>> photograph.
>> Give it a try, you might be surprised. >> Actually they can be quite challenging to shoot. >> Here are a few more from the Salinas Air Show which was the source of >> my SI shots. >> ...and some of these could be deemed interesting.
Now you are talking! That is truly an interesting and valuable project and I will join you in following it. The restoration of these rare Warbirds wherever they are done is dedicated work. Mosquitos, P-38's, P-47's, Spitfires, Bf-109's, etc are among the rareist of the rare, and I am thankful these projects exist.
>>I thought, on the whole, this was quite a good showing.
>>The photographs of the equipment that Eric Stevens submitted are >>excellent photographs, but not really interesting as subject matter. >>The kite photograph, though, is quite clever. Here's where a snapshot >>works as "interesting", but two very well done photograph don't.
>Left brain or right brain? Is it the subject which is interesting or >the photograph?
>I thought the example picture of the ancient V8 engine in an equally >ancient aeroplane was interesting but I would like to have known a lot >more about them (was it a Bleriot?). The curiousity stimulated by my >interest was not satisfied. Is this intersting as you, Tony Cooper, >understands it?
>I thought the beam engine was interesting (please don't confuse this >with me saying that photographs of the beam engine were necessarily >interesting) and thats why I explained what they were about. Without >the explanation the viewer would have been left almost totally puzzled >as to what it was they were looking at.
>Funnily enough, I didn't think the kite photograph was at all clever. >That's why I felt the need to explain why I took it (and why I didn't >take it) and what it was all about.
I'm one of those people who visit specialty museums, look at all the exhibits, and read the plaques that explain what's on exhibit. I recently spent hours in the Edison & Ford museum - located in Edison's winter home in Ft Myers, Florida - looking at the stuff as shown here: http://www.efwefla.org/museum.asp Some of those photos are much like yours.
That beam engine would be interesting to me to look at. The photo, though, wasn't interesting. I recognize it as being a superior photograph and one worthy of being in a brochure on a web site, but it isn't a photograph that is - of itself - an eye-grabber.
The kite photo, though, is. I looked at it and thought "Hey! Cool!". That makes it, in my opinion, a success at "Interesting".
>This is my first experience in 50 years of submitting photographs for >review by others (other than family, lawyers and judges) and I have >found the whole experience very interesting. :-)
Rough, innit? Personally, I was devastated when Annika/Bret said my photos weren't any good. (Is there a emoticon for "sarcastic"?)
I hope that what you are getting out of this first-time experience is an understanding that what you are reading are personal reactions and comments to the specific piece(s) you submitted. No matter how written, they are not comments about you.
John McWilliams wrote: > "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote: >> tony cooper wrote: >>> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:03:36 -0400, "Bowser" <u...@gone.now> wrote:
>>>> All the interesting shots have been posted here:
>> The best are Bob Sosenko, CD Cooper (round) and bowser-3
>> BUT ... why are almost every one of them so infernally dark >> as to be almost invisible on the screen?
> Any chance at all it's your screen?????
I don't think so. Pictures on most web sites are just fine. Pictures from a friend who uses a P&S camera in full auto ("green square") mode are just fine. Pictures from my camera taken in program mode and saved as raw and developed in Canon's DPP with default parameters are OK (unless pathological subjects, of course).
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Solomon Peachy is probably my favorite photographer for the Shoot-Ins. > He always comes up with something that makes me think "I wish I would > have done something like this".
...Wow. Thank you..
"The frightening and most difficult thing about being what somebody calls a creative person is that you have absolutely no idea where any of your thoughts come from really and especially you don’t have any idea about where they’re going to come from tomorrow." -— Hal Riney
"I never have taken a picture I've intended. They're always better or worse." -- Diane Arbus
(or in my case, usually MUCH worse...)
I usually have a very hard time shooting to a particular theme; it's just not how I generally think or see the world. This mandate however matches up well with my "technique" which is to lug a camera everywhere and well, see what interests me and/or catches my eye.
- Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Stuffed Crust wrote: > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> Solomon Peachy is probably my favorite photographer for the Shoot-Ins. >> He always comes up with something that makes me think "I wish I would >> have done something like this".
> ...Wow. Thank you..
> "The frightening and most difficult thing about being what somebody > calls a creative person is that you have absolutely no idea where any > of your thoughts come from really and especially you don’t have any > idea about where they’re going to come from tomorrow." > -— Hal Riney
> "I never have taken a picture I've intended. They're always better or > worse." > -- Diane Arbus
> (or in my case, usually MUCH worse...)
> I usually have a very hard time shooting to a particular theme; it's > just not how I generally think or see the world. This mandate however > matches up well with my "technique" which is to lug a camera everywhere > and well, see what interests me and/or catches my eye.
I like to do this in *addition* to my more structured shooting.
On 9/8/09 7:43 PM, in article 0e264328-ac78-4345-9099-e8699c1cd...@38g2000yqr.googlegroups.com,
"Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote: > On Sep 8, 8:40 pm, George Kerby <ghost_top...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Man I don't know where you're coming from. That Calvin Sambrook library shot >> was VERY interesting. Nice shadows on the ass, and the toenails - to boot!
>> What's wrong with you, man?
> I commented favorably on that shot, even though I thought it should > have been resized for web use. > I like the way the chick is putting the book back into the rack > backwards.
>Now you are talking! >That is truly an interesting and valuable project and I will join you >in following it. >The restoration of these rare Warbirds wherever they are done is >dedicated work. >Mosquitos, P-38's, P-47's, Spitfires, Bf-109's, etc are among the >rareist of the rare, and I am thankful these projects exist.
>Thanks for the link.
My point was (and is) that there is more than one way for a photograph to be interesting. I'm sure Helen (no disrespect intended) would find many of these photographs quite boring but you and I find them intensely interesting. Then there are other people who would not find them interesting until they were told a little about what they were looking at.
>That beam engine would be interesting to me to look at. The photo, >though, wasn't interesting. I recognize it as being a superior >photograph and one worthy of being in a brochure on a web site, but it >isn't a photograph that is - of itself - an eye-grabber.
I agree. It was the subject that was interesting.
>The kite photo, though, is. I looked at it and thought "Hey! Cool!". >That makes it, in my opinion, a success at "Interesting".
That's why I submitted it. But I thought that what it said about the camera and lens was also interesting.
: > On Sep 8, 10:17 pm, Helen <helensilverb...@hotmail.com> wrote: : > : >> http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/rr276/greenmilewalker/contactsheet... : >> : >> A scan of the contact sheet. It was clearly my mistake that I stated : >> the wrong exposure and ISO. I was using 2 film cameras that day. : >> : > : > I guess Anal Browne's apology will be forthcoming. : > : > Hey Brownie, what does that ISO 100 do to your calculations? : > Let's see, you had it pegged at 1/500 @ ISO 1600, right? : > Hmmmm, 4 stops difference ..... that's about 1/30 @ ISO 100 if my math : > is right. : > In other words, exactly as Helen said. : > : > She punked you out. : : No. She claimed it was at ISO 1600. That did not wash for a "shaky : shot" as claimed even if the aperture was stopped down to f/16. : : Not that anyone else picked up on it.
>> You can have your way. Let me know and I'll send you the passwords to the >> site and the mail account. Run it the way you want!
> Fuck that! Been there, done that. > i don't even have time to submit, you think I can find time to run it? > Where is Lisa Horton, anyway?
She got tired of being harassed & stalked by Steve Young, et al, & quit the group.
> Or maybe Noons will volunteer?
LOL.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
No inspiration from the mandate. OTOH, your question inspired me to come up with some mandate ideas that I'd find more interesting:
Sad Joy Tiny Shadows Curves Angles Precious Texture High contrast Colourful Machine Soft Wide Open (very shallow DoF) Movement
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
You've got to give them props (sorry!) for taking on such a big project.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
>You've got to give them props (sorry!) for taking on such a big project.
Virtually all the woodwork has been built from new. So too has been much of the metal work.
The work is being done for a US owner and I have to say that I am concerned at the fact that the last reports were dated 31 Mar 2008. Is this restoration another casualty of the stock-market crash?
>>> To me, THAT'S INTERESTING. :-) >> You've got to give them props (sorry!) for taking on such a big project.
> Virtually all the woodwork has been built from new. So too has been > much of the metal work.
> The work is being done for a US owner and I have to say that I am > concerned at the fact that the last reports were dated 31 Mar 2008. Is > this restoration another casualty of the stock-market crash?
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
|
