Well done, Moose.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On May 3, 2006, at 9:18 PM, Moose wrote:
> While this thread was 'raging', I went off and took a bunch of
> pictures.
>
> Saturday was Carol Anne's birthday, when we usually go off for a few
> days. But everyplace we were interested in was problematic from the
> enormous rainfall of the last few weeks, so we've put that off a bit.
> And Saturday isn't the best day to go out wandering in popular places.
> And the weather Thursday was perfect and it might not be by Saturday.
>
> Sooo... We went to Golden Gate Park and visited the Conservatory of
> flowers, DeYoung Museum and the Beach Chalet. Funny how easy it is to
> ignore wonderful places that are close by. I hadn't been to the
> Conservatory since before it closed for major restoration, nor to the
> DeYoung since it was rebuilt. I'd never seen the inside of the Chalet,
> since it had been either under private control or simply closed up as
> long as I can remember. None of the shot were taken with Oly
> equipment,
> but I find them relevant to this thread about our different
> relationships to our vocation/avocation
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/GGPark/>.
>
> I especially recommend the shots of the 1920s art deco carved
> balustrades and the 1930s WPA supported frescoes recently restored in
> the Beach Chalet. Not great photography, although some pretty good
> post
> processing of shots taken in difficult circumstances, bad angles
> and bad
> light, but great subjects
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/GGPark/Frescos/pages/FR11.htm>! I
> also
> like the shots of a construction hidden in the back of the sculpture
> garden, especially this one
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/GGPark/Scenics/pages/SC17.htm>.
>
> It was particularly interesting to me, considering the thread going
> on,
> that I took 179 shots with two cameras and throughly enjoyed the
> process
> of photography intertwined with exploring places new to my sweetie and
> that I hadn't seen for some time. Even if the memory cards had failed,
> and I got no captured images, I would still have enjoyed the
> process of
> looking at things with an eye to images, then taking the shot.
> There are
> a lot of flower pictures, and heaven knows I've taken a lot before.
> But
> somehow, looking at them with an eye to what kind of image I could
> make
> of them makes me see them more closely than I would just wandering by.
> And a camera with telephoto with reasonable close focus ability,
> allows
> me to see some of them in better detail at home than I could in
> person.
> The water lily close ups are prime examples. Leaning out over the
> water,
> I couldn't see the magic detail that's in the images.
>
> I also enjoyed most of the process of post processing the images. A
> few
> were frustrating and/or didn't work out and some were just no good.
> But
> I really enjoyed the process of bringing out the vision I had when I
> took most of them. The digital darkroom, whether the original image
> comes from film or sensor, has dramatically changed my relationship to
> photography. I can now often do what I hardly ever could before,
> envision the finished image before doing anything with the camera,
> then
> use camera and processing to realize that vision. Before, the
> result was
> almost always less, mostly much less, than what I envisioned when I
> took
> the shot.
>
> I have since discovered that the image I wanted was quite often
> imprisoned in the film by the lack of a way to realize it. I've had a
> great time slowly working my way through old photos, scanning and
> playing.
>
> Another thing that seems unintuitive to me is that with digital, I'm
> taking more shots, but my keeper ratio has clearly increased. My
> original thought was that digital would allow me to take more
> versions/variations of individual subjects and more shots that would
> have seemed too risky when paying for every shot and print, good or
> bad.
> My keeper ratio would then decrease, but the total number of keepers
> would increase. Instead, what seems to have happened is that the
> feeling
> of freedom has loosened me up in some way that has improved my overall
> results. Of 179 shots, I like 112 of them enough to put them in a
> gallery for my own pleasure and that of family and friends.
> Considering
> that a fair number of those not included were duplicates with slightly
> different angles, exposures, trying two different lenses on the same
> subject, etc. that's an exceptional hit rate for me.
>
> Are they all great shots? No, but I find them all pleasant to
> contemplate. And I like several of them extravagantly. At least one
> qualifies for me as new and different enough to feel like a
> breakthrough
> from what I've done before. I also tried a rather new to me
> technique on
> a few flower shots, taking shots with different focal planes and
> combining them in order to get an effective DOF much greater than I
> could with a single shot. Worked rather well I think. So in one way
> the
> results are "just some more flower shots", but the process that made
> them different and better in somewhat subtle ways informs them with
> something special for me.
>
> Also, I've never been a great one for taking shots of strangers, but I
> made a modest effort. Nothing an accomplished street photographer
> would
> be proud of, but it was new to me and I'm pleased with them as a new
> form for me. Actually, the picnic in the flower beds strikes me as
> rather good <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/GGPark/People/pages/
> PE02.htm>.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|