Wayne Culberson wrote:
>
> Along the same line of thought, some few weeks ago I took some photos of our
> church with a rather unusual rainbow in the background. Wanting to get in as
> much of it as I could, I used the 17mm on the OM camera.
Nice shot. I assume, from the angle of the rainbow, that the sun was
almost directly behind you.
[snip]
> I don't have the skills to straighten the perspective on the buildings, or
> remove the utility pole and wires, but I did play around some with exposure
> and saturation, etc.
The perspective distortion doesn't bug me, but those blasted
power/cable/telephone poles/wires! Man, those things have ruined more
pictures of mine over the years than I care to admit. One of my
commercial photography buddies created a calendar a few years ago of
many of the more unusual Ukrainian Orthodox churches in Alberta, and
spent far too much time in Photoshop getting rid of these things.
Calendar sold reasonably well, but still...
[snip]
> Of course the ones who've already seen the pictures mentioned enlargements.
> So I had to explain to them (not the easiest to get across) that standard
> enlargements would more or less ruin this picture, as both ends of the
> rainbow would be gone. It's harder for folks not into photography more than
> point-and-shoot level, to comprehend this. So I told them it could be done
> in say, 8"x12", but that would be somewhat higher in cost as it eliminates
> Walmart, and that also it would require a more expensive framing option than
> what you might grab at Walmart.
Y'know, if enough people wanted an enlargement, it might almost be worth
it to purchase a lower-end printer to pump these babies out. Hmmmm...
Garth
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|