Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Photo projects, was Great Sand Dunes National Monument

Subject: [OM] Re: Photo projects, was Great Sand Dunes National Monument
From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:37:36 +0000
Interesting stuff, Moose.  I'll look closer later.  I just came back inside 
from digging holes and planting wifey things by the mailbox.  When my 
heartrate, blood pressure, temperature, and attitude settle back close to 
normal, I'm going out again to shoot some stuff for my yard shooting project -- 
new butterflies and some strange-looking bugs have arrived.

And if I take a picture of my cute and naked neighbor lady sunbathing on her 
deck (she doesn't care if I see her; we are close friends!) and I stand in my 
own yard to do so, does that still count as a "taken in the yard shot"?

Walt

-------------- Original message from Moose : -------------- 
> That's not too far from what I've done for the last year and more. In 
> my case, though, it's more closely related to laziness that clear 
> purpose. :-) That's where the pics in the Our Garden - 2003 ame from. 
> Actually, it's just the front yard, the back would be more work. And 
> that front yard is a great deal smaller than an acre, more like 1,000 
> sq.ft. I don't go in for critters much, although I get the occasional 
> insect (and of course, the Cat, but she is in another little gallery.) 
> 
> My latest little project is two-fold, initiated by different things. 
> 
> I didn't take all that many pictures from mid May to mid June, just one 
> roll. Then I ended up scanning the whole thing myself with no prints. I 
> had tried some Portra 160VC and had it developed and scanned by my 
> regular shop a whole ago. With Portra NC and various Supras, I've 
> received excellent scans from them and only needed to scan the 
> occasional frame myself. On the NC, the highs were seriously blown out 
> and the images too contrasty. I'd bought 2 rolls of the VC and when I 
> took the 2nd in, I asked if they could do it better. At least the guy 
> was honest. "We don't adjust the machine for different rolls, so if you 
> didn't like that last one, you won't like this one." So I had it 
> developed only. Without even crummy prints to look at, I had to at least 
> preview every image on the scanner to see what I had. 
> 
> In the process of scanning, I was thinking about the recent questions 
> about the quality of scans people were getting. And you know what? Many 
> of mine were pretty blah too. I guess I'd not really looked at it that 
> way before, since the scan is just part of the overall process for me. I 
> thought it might be nice to post some scans just as they came out of the 
> scanner along with the eventual images. 
> 
> Then I was thinking about past posts about film 'burn rate' and the 
> comments from the MF/LF crowd about how it helps/forces the photographer 
> to slow down and pay attention, rather than just burn film. Now I only 
> use 35mm, but I usually take my time and at least think about making 
> every shot count. Looking at every image carefully as I scanned them, it 
> struck me that there was a pretty good image somewhere in each one. A 
> couple were just to test something, but I did what I could with all of them. 
> 
> So I started a little gallery I think of as "One Roll, 38 shots". In few 
> cases, I made multiple, virtually identical shots to bracket DOF or 
> because of real or imagined subject movement. By the time I subtract 
> those dups and add 2 extra images where I got 2 different results from 
> one frame, I end up with 34 images. I won't say they are all serious 
> keepers, but they are all at least interesting to me. 
> 
> For the second part, I worked out a way to automate changes to the web 
> pages generated by PS to provide for a second image below each primary 
> one. That way, I can show the original, uncropped, unadjusted scan, too. 
> So far there are 2 exceptions, where the image below shows more of the 
> story. The first image shows shows the steps to the final image. The 
> last image on the first row shows an image that looks pretty decent 
> gussied up, sharpened and displayed fairly small. Underneath, you can 
> see that it is really wildly unsharp, with a double image from subject 
> movement in the breeze. 
> 
> No captions yet on anything but the first image, but I'd be interested 
> in comments as a work in progress 
> . 
> 
> Oh, another little comment. I used Fred Miranda's Web Presenter Pro 
> (WPPro) to do the downsizing for the primary images and I'm impressed. 
> Even if it didn't do a better job than I often (ever?) do in maintaining 
> quality in a downsampled image, the speed and convenience when called in 
> an action is a huge timesaver when dealing with a bunch of images. 
> 
> Moose 
> 
> Walt Wayman wrote: 
> 
> >I've decided to spend a year -- yeah, that's right, one full year, four full 
> seasons -- photographing almost nothing but my yard and the stuff that's in 
> it 
> or that I catch passing through. (I'll make an exception or two for TOPE 
> shots 
> and vacation expeditions.) Otherwise, this means I'm confined to one acre of 
> woods in the northwest Atlanta suburbs. I've got six months to go, and I'll 
> put 
> up some stuff when I'm done. So far, pretty damn good. 
> > 
==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz