Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
2 Comments:
- Unknown said...
-
I like the idea, the geometry of the framing. If the picture is the flag and pole framing the boat, then try filling the whole frame with the flag, pole and boat. The extra space takes away from the form for me. Increasing the focal length of the lens would eliminate the surrounding space and flattened the image exaggerating the framing effect. Try zooming a little more next time. tc
- Warren T. said...
-
TC, thanks for the comments. I was wondering when you would jump into the fray :). In your opinion, would a tighter crop of the subject in question suffice, or would the picture be improved by a change in the relative positions of the 3 elements (pole, flag, boat). --Warren
2 Comments:
- Unknown said...
-
Warren,
The picture is beautiful. The mist provides a great mood with just the right amount of light shining through to keep the picture from being muddy. Nice catch!
Tony - said...
-
I don't think one can take a bad photo of Yosemite. We were there in July with some friends from Toronto and they marveled at the serene and unspoiled beauty. You captured these qualities in this photo.
--Joao
Monday, September 27, 2004
B/W Night Scene from Twin Peaks
Here's a shot I did earlier this month from Twin Peaks. Nikon F3, 105mm lens, 1 sec @ f/8, Ilford HP5 film. This was scanned, I'll try to make some prints from the neg later in the week.
3 Comments:
- Warren T. said...
-
Very cool night shot. This is a different take on the classic Twin Peaks view. I don't think the small version of this picture does it justice. It would probably view better as a larger print where some of the landmarks would be recognized easier. The only problem that I can see is the horizon may be tilted ever so slightly, or maybe it's an optical illusion.
--WT - said...
-
"The photo from the top of Twin Peaks reminds me of the Ansel Adams
technique of encompassing expansive scenery. I'm sure if he had been alive today, that he would likely have shot a similar photo. It's a great
photo. Do you have it in color, too? I'm just wondering how the
black-and-white would compare to the color version."
--Joao - martin said...
-
Thanks for your kind words.
I tried to shoot it in color with my digital camera with poor results. Here are a few problems I encountered: I could not set the exposure on my digital camera manually which was a major problem. Digital has less exposure latitude and the scene is not evenly lit. Some areas would be overexposed and others underexposed. I could shoot it on color film but I've had problems getting sharp prints at an affordable price. I wish I had access to a color darkroom like I did in the old days!
If I were to do this shot again I would like to try it in medium format to retain detail.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
2 Comments:
- martin said...
-
Are you cropping your photos much? I ask this not because I dislike the crop, but many of your photos have a lot of depth of field. You shouldn't have this depth of field when shooting at 135mm. Some of the earlier photos from the bike race are nicely composed or cropped but the backgrounds are distracting and detract from the image. Maybe try a longer lens or a larger shooting aperture.
- Warren T. said...
-
Hi Martin, I crop differently between pictures, some more than others. I would be happy to use a longer focal length lens if you give me one. Currently, my longest AF focal length is 135mm on that 24-135mm zoom. I use my 500mm Reflex Nikkor on some race days, but I chose not to bring it to my last two events. Given the 1.5x crop factor on my digital camera, my 135mm has a 202.5mm equivalent field of view. But I think the DOF is still equivalent to a 135mm.
WT
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Saturday, September 18, 2004
More T-Mobile action: Leg Muscles! This was taken with D100 and Nikkor 18-70mm that I borrowed from Benson for a few shots that day. Shot info: 1/320, f8 @ 35mm. I really like this lens very much. It's fast, quiet, and quite sharp. Hey everyone, I am enjoying seeing our photo coverage from different points of view. I can't wait until we have a photo assignment or theme contributions from the group. --Warren
Friday, September 17, 2004
T-Mobile International 2
DSC_0095
Originally uploaded by bhwong.
Here's another from the T-Mobile bike race in San Francisco. Interestingly the photograph was taken with the same settings as the 1st (70mm, 1/640, f4.5) but keeping the camera still this time. This one I like seeing the expression on the faces of the riders and, being a cyclist myself, it's nice to see the bikes.
1 Comments:
- Warren T. said...
-
Benson, this is another good shot. I think this one can benefit from a little adjustment in Photoshop, maybe lighten up the faces and shadows a bit. I shot from the same place that day. The sky fools the meter a bit here.
--Warren
T-Mobile International 1
DSC_0068
Originally uploaded by bhwong.
Here is my first post. This is my 4th T-Mobile International bicycle race (previously known as the San Francisco Gran Prix). Over the prior 3 years, I've taken pictures but this is the first year with my more professional camera, a newly acquired Nikon D70. What a difference in overall speed of focusing, exposure, and writing to memory. This first photo was taken at 70mm, 1/640, f4.5. I have always loved the illusion of speed by following the subject and blurring the background. These guys are zipping by very quickly so it is not just an illusion but I can definitely see how sports photographers need to take hundreds of shots to get the few really good photos.
2 Comments:
- martin said...
-
A very nice photograph! Using your panning technique you have captured the speed and intensity of the moment. Nice that the other two bikers are blurred and that the focus is directed at just one biker.
- Warren T. said...
-
Great shot! I can feel the excitement and speed of the chase. -Warren
Here's a shot from the recent T-Mobile International bike race in San Francisco. Nikon D100, Tamron 24-135mm @ 135mm, 1/500 f5.6.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Autumn Dew
Have you ever walked in the forest and come across something that looks beautiful to the naked eye, take a picture, then come home and find a challenge on how best to present it as a picture? We were walking on a trail in Zion National Park when I spotted some dewdrops on some fallen leaves. This was cropped from the original. Nikon D100, Tamron 24-135mm at 31mm, 1/180 f5.
3 Comments:
- martin said...
-
Photography is not as easy as it seems. Making good photographs require much thought. I believe many of us have been duped by the camera manufacturers as they make photography look so easy.
OK, getting back to the topic. The problem here is visualization or "seeing a photograph". Ansel Adams wrote about this. But I believe there is more. We try to record what our eyes see as a photograph and capture this with our cameras. Our brains then processes the information and puts together an image. But something is wrong as what we perceived as a beautiful is recorded yet the final product is not as we envisioned it. What you recorded in your photo is more than you wanted. You have the the small branches which are very straight and going in different directions (very strong visually and distracting) and the added color elements (which can add and distract). You need to pay attention to everything in the viewfinder!
Getting around this problem: I would suggest trying to shoot more close-ups to emphasize the positive elements in your photo. This would simplify your images and make the size of elements larger. The photos will have more visual impact.
Another idea is to shoot details or close-ups of a scene and present the images as a series instead of a single image. Another extreme is to alter the scene and remove what you don't want.
Look at a lot of photographs. I have found that browsing the online photo galleries at pbase.com quite interesting. - Warren T. said...
-
Great comments, Martin. Actually, my original shot was MUCH more than what I wanted to capture. This cropped version helped for me personally, as I actually want to remember that tangle of branches, and leaves, and color. It represents my memory of the moment, but I can see how someone else may see it differently.
So, it's safe to say that this particular shot didn't work for you on any level?
That's what I was curious about on this one.
As a side note, what does everyone think about altering the scene to create a better shot? I could have easily brushed aside all the branches to just leave the foliage, but my opinion at that moment was that it would then become an unnaturally altered scene.
Thanks,
Warren - martin said...
-
I would not say that the photo doesn't work at any level. I like the shape of the leaves, I like the red leaf against the green in the top half of the photo, I like the water droplets on the lower leaf. I like the natural untouched look. But I still have a problem with the lines of the twigs as they are a visual distraction from the other elements.
When looking at scenes in nature, there is a randomness that is in most cases imperfect. Maybe we are expecting too much. I would like to hear what others in the group see in the photo.
Monday, September 13, 2004
3 Comments:
- Warren T. said...
-
The kids are very cute and charming. They must be very close, brother & sister? It shows. You must have a steady hand to be able to handhold an 85mm at f2, and still get such sharp results. The pose is great, very natural and fun.
It might be due to the scanning process, but at first glance, the picture is a tad on the contrasty side. There is little to no detail in the shadows and black areas. While using the wall as a background is uncluttered, I feel that it's a bit too stark compared to the festive and lighthearted mood of the kids. Because of the side lighting and the closeness to the wall, there is a disturbing dark shadow next to the boy's head. If there was time to set it up, perhaps a reflector placed to the left of the shot would have opened up some of the shadows.
It's a great shot! Did you know these kids, they seemed very comfortable posing for you.
Thanks,
Warren - Warren T. said...
-
oops, meant to say: hold an 85mm at 1/30sec and f2.
WT - martin said...
-
Thanks for the comments. Your comments are helpful as I have difficultly evaluating my personal work objectively. I shot the photo several years ago at a family wedding. The boy was the ringbearer and the girl, the flowergirl. I was not the official photographer and found them during a break after the wedding. I think the bride and groom were changing or something. We were in a hallway next to a window and I posed them with a little encouragement from their mother. I had little choice but to handhold the camera as I wanted to used the diffused light from the window. Sometimes you just have to take a chance.
As to the scan, this was one of the first I did with my home computer and I had problems as the neg was underexposed and the scan was bad. And what's worse was at the time, I didn't know how to properly correct it, all I knew was to use the auto levels or use the white eyedropper to set the white. Since then, I figured most of the stuff out. Interesting that you noticed that it lacked shadow detail as I actually made the photo worse by my Photoshop manipulations. The photo I posted is too contrasty and the black value too dark. I redid it and the photo has a softer look with a little more detail.
Friday, September 10, 2004
10 Comments:
- martin said...
-
Nice shot but something is missing and I can't exactly put my finger on it. Maybe there is a loss of sharpness because of the small size on the blog. Those branches should be really sharp but I can't tell from a small print size. Colors look a bit muted but can be adjusted. Did the scene look like the photo?
- Warren T. said...
-
Martin, did you click on the thumbnail to see the larger sized picture? Yes, the colors were muted that day, so I chose not to further enhance. In fact, I was considering converting this shot to black & white.
Warren - Warren T. said...
-
Interesting. I think something is missing too! Perhaps the lack of a strong center of interest?? WT
- Warren T. said...
-
Thinking back to the moment, I think I was going for the look of the layers between the bare tree branches, the green trees, then the peak in the background. --WT
- martin said...
-
Did you sharpen the photo before uploading it?
- Warren T. said...
-
yes, I did. I could spend more time to do it better, but I decided not to. Part of the problem is the noise from the high ISO that I used. --WT
- martin said...
-
Noise? High ISO? How bad was the light? Or did you resort to the high ISO because of the slow lens? You should be able to still get a sharp photo at 1/60 of a sec. unless the wind is moving the branches.
- Warren T. said...
-
All of the above. Light was dim, late winter day in Yosemite valley, plus slow lens, handheld. Actually, the original picture is pretty sharp. I can get make a sharper image from the original if I ever needed to. --WT
- martin said...
-
I thought the original would be sharp. I think the problem is the image the way it is presented in its form on the internet is not doing it justice. Much of the fine detail is lost. Maybe the image can be enhanced to show the detail a bit more but it would take a little work. I'm not sure if you realize that there is a quality (sharpness) loss when an image in digitally downsampled. There is also another degradation of the image when the JPEG file format is used due to compression.
I wouldn't worry about it as the image still looks good on the internet but in print form look even better. - Warren T. said...
-
Yes, of course. I don't worry too much about sharpness when I downsized and compress my 6MP images to show on the Internet. I played with different unsharp mask settings this morning on this image, and I was able to significantly improve the downsized image even at the 760 pixels max that I set for it. I didn't bother to upload another version, however. I was mainly interested in aesthetic impressions in this case anyway.
Thanks,
Warren
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Fooling around with photostitching
One of my latest creations using my $200 digital camera and the stitching software that came with it. This can get old if you do it too much but is different and great for the internet. There is also a way to make a 360 degree panorama. I've made a few but the resolution isn't that great. I'll post one later.
2 Comments:
- Warren T. said...
-
Cool! This format definitely has interesting possibilities. How many pictures were stitched together? It would be fun if the same person was in each picture with a different pose. It's probably been done before though. I've seen the 360 degree ones, and I think they are too weird visually, but that's just me.
- Dolph Brust said...
-
I would love to see the 360 degree photo, as it would give me a sense of being in the area. How this would be viewed on an internet site is something to consider. Nice job...I can feel the cool air of park.
1 Comments:
- martin said...
-
It's pretty straight forward. You have two different exposures. The easy way is to burn the left side of the photo to match the right and then readjust the levels.
There is another way using a gradient layer and blend mode. The first is easiest.
I'll email you a sample.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Infrared street shot
Here's a shot I did years ago when I was trying out infrared film. Shot from streetcar on Market while going to school at SF State..
Martin
2 Comments:
- Warren T. said...
-
Surreal. I think that about covers infrared for shooting people, right? It has a supernatural, or otherworldly look to it. Did you shoot with this effect in mind? By the way, what are some "conventional" uses for infrared photography anyway?
- martin said...
-
I had an idea that it would look like based on what others told me. Basically anything living such as people or plants will glow and if you use a red filter, the sky will be black. Good for special effects. There is also a infrared color slide film which I never did try. Good for artistic or creative work. Grain is much sharper than regular film. If you take a black and white photo class, one of the assignments is usually a special effects assignment where you use an alternative process.
As for common uses, other than creative, there are industrial uses for agriculture and forestry, to see if plants are healthy or not. Much is done today using infrared video or digital photography.
Kodak Tri-X Film
It has been many, many years since I shot Tri-X and developed my film at home in my makeshift photo lab (in my parents' bathroom). I recently decided to shoot a few rolls to re-acquaint myself with this classic film. I thought it would go well with my vintage Soviet-made rangefinder cameras. After having gone digital for the last few years, I still enjoy shooting film. I'm pleasantly surprised by my latest results. In my opinion, the look and feel are not easily reproduced with digital equipment.
Read more about it here:
Kodak Tri-X Page
Warren
2 Comments:
- martin said...
-
Did you make a print or is this from a scanned neg? My experience is shooting under uncontrolled lighting situations is that dodging and burning is required when making a print. With Photoshop you can do it digitally. Scratches and dust spots can be taken out. Some photographers claim that the controls using Photoshop are superior to traditional methods.
My latest thing is shooting Ilford HP5 and Kodak HC-110 developer. I'm also started doing my own printing with an enlarger. I've tried film scanners (not high end ones) and my experience is there is a sharpness loss due to scanning. The image can be sharpened in Photoshop but it's not the same as Photoshop is manipulating pixels. - Warren T. said...
-
Martin, I think you're referring to my previous picture (the girl). I scanned the negative, and in my haste to publish it to this new site, I decided to leave the scratches and other imperfections in the scan. I'm one of those photographers who believes that the controls available in the digital darkroom are superior to traditional methods. Well, at the very least, they are much more convenient than before, but no less difficult to do well. I routinely do minor corrections in Photoshop, but I still have a lot to learn. I agree, scanning negatives will always require sharpening in Photoshop, but I think if done correctly, the results are very good. Hey, I'd love to see some of your current work! Post it!
Warren
Street Shooting: same day as my previous picture. This little girl was playing peek-a-boo with me as we were watching the grand opening of the restaurant across the street. The framing was estimated. We were looking at each other while my camera was at around waist level when I snapped the picture. I like the vintage look and feel of the shot. Camera: Zorki 4 w/50mm f2 lens. Film was Tri-X.
5 Comments:
- Benson said...
-
Again, I'm not familiar with Tri-X but the photo is quite grainy. I also noticed some scratches on the shot, is it on the negative or print? Is it from the camera? If it was in color, I could say that it was taken in the current time. However, being B&W, grainy, scratchy, and no background for reference, it could easily pass for a very old photograph much like some pictures of relatives from a long time ago.
- martin said...
-
This photo is a better than the previous photo of the photographers. Showing faces can tell much about the subject. But maybe you should show more. How was she dressed? What were the surroundings? Showing more would give more information to the viewer showing the context in which the photo was taken. Cropping of the shot was a bit tight, tight cropping is good for a headshot or a portrait but maybe not in this case.
- Warren T. said...
-
Thanks Martin. I agree with your comments regarding cropping, etc, especially about the importance of showing context. Unfortunately, I was standing right next to her and photographing from the hip with a 50mm!
- Warren T. said...
-
Just some additional thoughts...
Upon further reflection, I think that this particular picture does not require additional context, but rather can stand alone as a character study. I think the girl's face tells enough on it's own. I like that fact this portrait has a timeless quality in that it could be a vintage shot, and not the recent picture that it is. You can see enough of her clothing to tell that she is not dressed in the finest clothes.
Her expression would be different if I had the camera at eye level.
Warren - Warren T. said...
-
Jill, when you shoot from the hip, you are most likely NOT looking through the viewfinder. The composition is purely by the "guess-and-pray-that-it-works" method. I had the focus and exposure preset, then I watched the expression on the subjects face to determine when to click the shutter. When you are looking through the viewfinder at someone (say a stranger on the street, or the girl in this picture), that person often does not have as natural an expression as when they are unaware that you took a picture. The Zorki 4 is very quiet in operation and like a Leica rangefinder, is very well suited to this kind of photography. --Warren
Monday, September 06, 2004
4 Comments:
- Warren T. said...
-
Dolph,
Nice shot! I can almost feel the wind blowing that palm tree. I can't wait to see more shots that may hopefully show the surrounding environment a little more than this one.
Warren - Benson said...
-
I'd be curious to see how this shot would look on a tripod at a slower shutter speed to get some of the blur of the palm fronds. However, I'm sure when you're in hurricane-type winds, your last thought is to run for the tripod and set up a shot. Was this in Florida?
- martin said...
-
Where were you? Getting dramatic weather photos can be dangerous! I remember shooting photos in the rain and getting me and my camera very wet.
The problem I have with this photo is there is no sense of scale. I don't know how tall the palm trees are. If there was something else in the photo such as a person or car or building, the viewer would have a point of reference and a sense of scale. - Dolph Brust said...
-
To all:
This was a challenge. I had just been pushed once by the wind at over 60 mph at my back. You have given me some great ideas for this next weekend. I will try and get other objects in the photo so the 30 foot trees have some perspective. However, it is dangerous in these condition with object flying all around you. I had tried to get a picture of a palm tree fron flying in the air.
I'll use your ideas to see what I get this weekend.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
4 Comments:
- Warren T. said...
-
The original shot was a bit wider. I cropped it a bit to take out a guy standing apart from the other photographers. He was obviously holding a P&S camera, and didn't seem to fit the group. I thought the picture might look better with just this tightly packed group of people all using SLR's.
- Benson said...
-
I am not familiar with Tri-X but I am guessing it must be a high speed film because it appears a little grainy. I like the look, though, for this shot because it has a photojournalistic look to it. Not knowing how the original looked, this crop looks good focusing on the main subjects of the pro photographers.
- martin said...
-
I've been holding my comments on this shot as I'm not attracted to it. OK, it has that timeless black and white look to it. Street photography is difficult as the scene is uncontrolled. You are not posing the subject, you and your camera are merely an observer and recorder. I would like to see the rest of the scene, what were they photographing?
Some street photography techniques I remember from years ago was to shoot with a wide angle lens and shooting from the hip (waist level). This takes some practice and a lot of exposures. Doing this with a small digital camera in your hand is ideal. - Warren T. said...
-
Martin,
They were photographing a restaurant grand opening. There were politicians and other dignitaries there, hence all the photographers. I'll post the scene that they were shooting next. Interesting that you mentioned shooting from the hip. That's what I did on that picture of the girl in my other post. I was curious as to whether or not a picture of the photographers would stand on its own.
Thanks,
Warren
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Project of the Month List
Think about what you would enjoy working on. Please let me know if you have a new idea for a project-of-the-month. Unused ideas will be left on the list for future consideration.
This post is linked on the main page under the Biographies link on the contents sidebar.
Thanks,
Warren
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 2005-- Autumn
Dec. 2005-- Christmas in the City
Jan. 2006-- Relections
Feb. 2006-- Love
Mar. 2006-- Peace
Apr. 2006-- Spring
May 2006-- People at Work
Jun. 2006-- Joy vs. Sorrow
Jul. 2006-- Decisive Moment
Pending ideas:
- Self Portrait
- Animals
- People in Love
- Lines
Sept. 2013 -- Fog/Mist
Oct. 2013 -- Lines That Don't Like Being Lines
Nov. 2013 -- Soft
Dec. 2013 -- No Project
Jan. 2014 -- Documentary
Feb. 2014 -- Windows
Contributor Biographies
Photo by Dennis Fong, proving that it IS possible to do a portrait with a wide angle.
My first camera was a Kodak 124 Instamatic. It used 126 film cartridges and flashcubes. I think I was about 9 or 10 years old. I joined the Photography Club at Marina Jr. High School where I learned the basics from shooting with a roll film, box camera, to developing the film, and printing the pictures. My first serious camera was a Nikkormat (by Nikon) FTn with a 50mm f1.4 lens. In high school, I shot yearbook pictures, and used a Nikon F2 with various lenses. I set up a portable photo lab in the bathroom of my parents' house where I developed B&W film and made enlargments with my a Durst, then later a Bogen enlarger. I moved onto medium format, first using a twin lens Yashicamat 124G, then moved onto a Hasselblad 500CM that I still have today.In the mid-80's, I apprenticed for a local wedding photographer for 3 years. I learned the different phases of the wedding photography business, and I was prepared to take over the business when my mentor retired. Unfortunately for him, I made a major decision at the time NOT to continue in thephotography business, but rather to devote my time and energy towards furthering my computer consulting business which was just taking off at that time. Fast forward to 2004, I'm still working in the computer industry, and I'm still into photography. I'm currently shooting about 90 to 95% digital with my Nikon D100, but as you can see from my first few posts to FPCF, I still dabble in film now and then. I am still learning new things, and as you can tell, photography is deeply ingrained in me from an early age. It's what I would be doing if I didn't already have so much invested in my computer career. In fact, after I retire from computers, I may get into the photography business in one aspect or another. I have no allusions though, I know that photography is a very tough business to make a living especially in today's world. Right now, I just want to explore and share the hobby more, which is part of what prompted me to start this photoblog. Sorry for being so long winded, but that's my story, what's yours?
--Warren
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve R.'s Intro:
I first met Steve through our mutual interest in cameras of the former Soviet Union. We are both members of a Russian camera forum. Through that forum, I found Steve's photoblog, and I was very impressed by Steve's work, so I invited him to join our group. I'm happy that he agreed.
Steve posted an intro article to FPCF here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dolph's Intro:
(Dolph has not written his intro, but I do have a picture of him)
Proof that Dolph likes sushi:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lea's Intro/Bio:
My approach to taking photos so far has been, if I like it, I'm going to take a picture of it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been using a Digital SLR now for about three years (Canon 5D MK I) and continue to practice and try to capture what I see, sometimes it works and obviously most of the time "ack".
I currently, work in SF and live in West Marin so I shoot a lot of landscapes and macro flowers. I am just retiring from a 35 year career in horticulture/arboriculture and hope to start a BFA or MFA program in photography. Although, I consider myself strictly an amateur, I am enthusiastic and hope to hone my skills. Hopefully, by sharing some of my shots I can learn from you all. I met Warren through his wife Gail (we work together) and look forward to posting some of my work. I truly appreciate the broad spectrum of great work posted on the forum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl's Bio:
I love photography because even though the world is constantly changing, a picture can capture a feeling, a moment, or a scene forever... I see it in my daily world, I love it. I prefer to take scenery and portraits. I use a Nikon D90 with two Nikkor zoom lenses: 18-200mm and 70-300mm, and also a Canon S100 P&S.
I have a photoblog on Aminus3 (www.lenasworldvision.aminus3.com), and I am also on Facebook.
I have known Warren since 2007 from our weekly Tai Chi class at Golden Gate Park.
Lena
Keshav's Bio:
3 Comments:
- SteveR said...
-
The new look is great - thanks to Warren and Prairie Girl!
Warren - with Blooger, I think that only "Administrators" can edit/delete posts that they themselves didn't post.
Hey Tony - where in Maryland did you live?
Best regards,
SteveR - Benson said...
-
I will agree that the new look is clean and pleasing to the eye.
I will also agree that probably only the administrator of the site will have access to editing posts. I tried clicking all sorts of links and was not able to add to Warren's original posting. - Eric said...
-
Welcome Tom! I hope you have fun contributing and that you learn a lot.
Eric
0 Comments:
Post a Comment