Thanks for the Moosterization. Always instructive. I like most of them
but not all. Some are a bit too much saturation/contrast for my taste
but you've effectively corrected my own such problem on the B&W. One of
the problems here was a very limited amount of time to get the images
posted (not to mention lack of skills) :-)
As to the distortion with the Tamron 24-135 you may be correct about a
decentered element but the image may also be adversely affected by
trying to apply a correction profile from another lens. Some of the
distortion is so strong that I did apply a couple other profiles in some
cases but I can't recall what was what now. But I don't think I did
anything with 914, 915 and 920 which you specifically mention.
We'll see what happens when I get back from my trip and have time to get
a PTLens profile built for the lens.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> I attended the Binghamton, NY version and there were only about 15 photogs
>> in attendance. We're supposed to load photos to a Flickr group but so far I
>> haven't a clue how to do it and the link I've been sent is distinctly
>> unhelpful. Maybe it's just my aversion to Flickr.
>>
>> Anyhow, I did pick out some shots but there's 49 of them and probably far
>> too many for one person to send up to Flickr. I've temporarily uploaded
>> them to my own site at: <http://www.chucknorcutt.com/Binghamton/>
>>
>> Tell me which you like and don't like and I'll get rid of the chaff.
> Catching up; we had house guests Thurs. to Tues.
>
> I liked many of the images. There are several I personally liked that I
> wouldn't enter in a contest and others that I would.
>
> I generally agree with your comment about tonality of the B&Ws. I would
> handle the skies with separate layers, rather than force the whole image
> for dark skies.
>
> I particularly liked 895, 909, 910, 915, 939, 950, 963, 965 and 975. I
> also liked 941, 955, 956, 971 and 988, but am not sure others would find
> them interesting enough.
>
> I couldn't resist playing with a few, which also allows me to illustrate
> a couple of points.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Others/Norcutt/Binghampton>
>
> That new lens of yours has some 'interesting" characteristics. In 921,
> both edges of the left pillar bow out, while those of the right pillar
> bow in opposite directions.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Others/Norcutt/Binghampton&image=img_6921e_std.jpg>
>
> Then look at the upper left, where the window swoops up. The same thing
> shows up in 625, where the roof line looks like it bends. Maye the
> building is raising an eyebrow about what has been done on the front?
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Others/Norcutt/Binghampton&image=img_6925epc_std.jpg>
>
> It's there again in 914, 915 and 920, where even after correcting the
> barrel distortion, what I assume should be a fairly horizontal detail on
> the building on the left swoops up.
>
> Looks to me like there is a decentered element/group, as the effect is
> only in one corner.
>
> I hope the rest of my alternate approaches are self-explanatory. No, I
> don't think my treatments of 910 and 991 (oops, there's that raised
> eyebrow swoop again) are natural; I see them as abstracts.
>
> Moose
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1650 - Release Date: 9/3/2008
> 4:13 PM
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
