Re: [OM] Yet ... [was Another less conventional image]

[Chuck Norcutt]

OK, that one works for me with the explanation that is was deliberate. 
But the first one doesn't.
Chuck Norcutt


On 7/30/2014 1:16 AM, Moose wrote:
> On 7/15/2014 5:15 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> > f/13 and not much in focus.  What happened?  Slow shutter speed blur?
> If it's in the Alt Dot Moose gallery, it's not meant to be conventional.
> Anything but straight goes there.
>
> Not sure how f13 came about, an error that didn't matter much, as it
> turns out. 100% crop of an effectively ISO 3200 shot in the dim. Some of
> the softness is undoubtedly motion blur, some the result of masked NR.
>
> Meant to be atmospheric, impressionistic, whatever. Perhaps raising
> curiosity about what may lie through the door?
>
> Another from the same visit.
> <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=13932>
>
> In theory, I could have set up on a tripod, facing the shelf alcove,
> rather than a window, and got a much 'better' image. But I think I would
> like it less.
>
> Mysteryous Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/