gib

as far as timing... this would probably be impossible, but it would be interesting to see his face AFTER he turns away from the press scrum, as in AFTER his official moment, he might reveal more.

 

I am no journalist.

 

Getting to positions must be brutally hard.

 

I did get a few interesting shots on one occasion of the Queen of Denmark visiting Quebec City in Canada. I was just a tourist in the old lower Town of Quebec and their was some kind of pre-visit security and scurrying going on and some press photographers. I figured out which entrance into the old square she would likely come and stood on a doorway stone porch like spot about four feet up from the cobblestoned ground level. The main press scrum was 30 yards away in the main part of the square.

 

When she walked up she was flanked by at least 6 security guards, the three on her right saw me as they passed into the square about 6 feet away and gave me just about the hardest look anyone ever burned into my body. I got some pretty good shots. The story of them was more the intensity of the security rather than the Queen herself. This was in 1990 or 91.

 

I hope this was the kind of thing you were asking about. If it wasn't my apologies.

 

Keep posting I find your work interesting and it makes me think. Although that does hurt my head.

 

Regards,

Bill Gibson

of the digital filters available in Adobe Photoshop Elements or just the rolls royce version of PS, I prefer the subtlety of dry brush and watercolour. If you use watercolour, I find it darkens the image considerably, to bring the brightness back, you can use Enhancements, Levels, the sliders on the histogram are easy to preview changes to black, white and midtones.

 

The two digitally effected images look like silkscreens and I suspect that printed and matted in a nice frame would look very very well on anyone's wall. Your first shot is excellent.

 

By the way who is this Art guy anyway?

 

regards, Bill Gibson

if my citing K25 is an error it is based on Hill's remark in the article where he talks about switching to K25 and how well their colour has held up over the years.

I did a search and didnt find the answer. I am thinking of buying a

D60....it will obviously take any Canon EF lens with the dreaded

1.6x factor. What is known about Tamron and the problematic Sigma

lenses. I had a Sigma 28-105 I had to get rechipped to work with my

Canon Elan 7E, which the Canadian distributor did for free. I walked

in and they did the job in 15 minutes, although they first had to

get the correct chip from the US or Japan (took a week).

 

I currently own the following EF lenses: 20 f2.8, 28 f2.8, 50 f1.8

mk II, 85 f1.8

 

Thanks and if I missed this question already answered in the forum,

my apologies.

a slight shift to the left or right and you would have lined up the man with a less cluttered piece of the background. as it is he disappears a little bit. I fully appreciate how hard it is to take thses kinds of shots, not much time to really study all the elements. having said all that, it is an interesting photograph, slightly different from the norm. thanks for posting. regards Bill Gibson

took a look at your web site pages of Java........terrific

photos....you were brave to take a new camera to such a

beautiful place....but results are excellent.

 

regards

Bill Gibson

r+t Hill photo artilce worth the price of the mag. thanks for the tip off. They are mostly Kodachrome 25 slides. Great colour.

there is also a 135 2.8 SF (soft focus) lens you might want to check out.

 

Apparently, and I have not handled it, this lens has two soft focus settings of more or less "soft"and "softer" which are set with a switch. You can also use it without the soft focus set.

 

I am considering buying one.

 

I have the 85 1.8 and it is a fine lens.

 

regards

Bill

Marc and Gerry, thanks for the feedback.

 

Gerry, let me say this about the G2. I rarely use the optical viewfinder at any time and did not use it with this model. The LCD works pretty well with framing. I find myself using the camera like a TLR, a la waist level, and sometimes holding it overhead for a different angle. I took about 120 shots with this model. Some outdoors with good light, some with a tripod, some with a flash and the G2 on a tripod. Of the keepers and there were many cuz the camera likes her a lot about a half a dozen surprised me because the focus was a little soft. It can be a mistake to just switch the camera over to PLAY and look at the full image. A better technique is to look at it in PLAY and then to push the zoom lever once to the right which zooms in to show the image in closeup, and then to press the zoom lever again and super zoom in to check focus. This zoom state persists, which is to say, you dont hold the lever. To zoom out and return to the normal full image you press the zoom lever left twice or once to get back to full image. While zoomed in, you can use the four way control to move around the zoomed in image to see whatever corner or part of the image you want to examine. I didnt do that cuz takes time and I will check that more often. I think the softness of the few shots were from a slight move on my part. I sacrificed the steadiness of using a tripod for the indoor shots which might have been a mistake.

 

For the shoot I also employed a Canon Elan 7E with a Canon 85mm 1.8 lens.

 

One plus of this duo of Canon cameras is that the Canon 420 EX works brilliantly with both cameras.

 

My strategy long term is to let Canon produce one or two more digital SLR bodies and then to buy one of those. I have invested in four Canon AF prime lenses: 20 2.8, 28 2.8, 50 1.8 Mk II, and the 85 1.8. These I plan to use with a Canon digital SLR, although it seems that there will be a multiplier factor of 1.6 for effective use of the lenses with the digi SLR. Also, I have a 512 mb micro drive and a 256 mb cf card already.

 

As for the model, she is a student, a good friend I used to work with in business, who wants to see if she can get into modelling. So we will probably do another session soon. For that one, I would like to vary her wardrobe. One idea in my head is a white blouse and black skirt or slacks. I also may get her to bring along a girlfriend who knows makeup.

 

I will be doing some reading on the merits of either a soft box or a second 420 EX set as a slave unit. I had not thought about umbrellas.

 

thanks again for the feedback

There are more shots of the lady in a folder of mine, just click on my name and you can reach those.

 

regards

Bill Gibson

I may have had ISO set to AUTO....thanks for the ideas on how to improve.

dont forget about the multiplier effect of using af lenses with

digital SLR bodies. In the case of Canon, this is 1.6x with the

D60.

 

focal length 35mm = focal with digital SLR factor

20 =32

28 =44.8

30 =48

50 =80

85 =136

105 =168

135 =216

180 =288

200 =320

300 =480

400 =640

The portrait attached was taken with the Canon G2 and Canon

420 EX flash. Flash bounced off white ceiling and the G2 set to

flash exposure compensation of -1 stop.

 

Suggestions for improvements with this gear.<div></div>

I am looking to get my G35 repaired. I ran a test roll through it

using the mechancial speed and various aperture settings and the

coupled rangefinder and the lens seem to be fine. I am aware of

where to get a non mercury battery adapter for the camera.

 

My question is basically are there any other photographers out there

who have resurrected one of these rangefinders and if so what

results have they had, and any pitfalls to watch out for and any

smart moves not to omit?

 

Any photos taken with this old wonder posted up here in photo.net?

not sure why you asked this question, but look at this folder of mine if you like,

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=217546

Just a thought that may apply.

 

In a slightly different context, poetry writing, I invented a term

"mental addition", which in a nutshell is "you see the result and

add from your memory, mind, soul, left elbow, everything you

wanted to get into the result, whereas others just see the result."

 

Now, in photo selection, it is a little different but still it can creep

in.

 

As others have pointed out, another set of eyes or sets of eyes

can help.

 

As for the crowd pleasers vs. your vision, the points outlined

above by others are well made.

never used Leica, have used Nikon manual and af, currently using Canon Elan 7E, Canon G2, Nikon FM2, and when I feeling really impoverished a 6x9 cm Agfa Record Billy III circa 1950 (120 folding camera)

 

I think Shakespeare used a goose quill. Hemingway a pencil. Steinbeck an Underwood. Same for Farely Mowat.

 

Hey, they're just tools.

 

If you think they are more than that, join the fools forum, I'll be starting one soon.

 

This (photo.net) is a great place and I have learned to look at the photo first, the equipment a distant second, and discount the inane comments. The other comments are surprisingly rich in information, knowledge, and even a nugget or two of wisdom. Everybody is learning if there mind is still open.

 

as old Sgt. Nick Fury used to say in the marvel comics. 'nuff said.

 

take a camera for a walk in the sun......

regards--no matter what tool manufacturer you prefer.

 

Bill Gibson

I did not read every comment posted on this topic. My perhaps not so wise comment.

 

What I have noticed about ratings:

 

I see others'photos and mine receive low ratings as well as high ratings. The same photo may receive a 2 and a 9. When I feel like looking at the photos of the person giving a 2, often they have not posted any photos. Sometimes they have and the photos are in my opinion nothing special or quite special.

 

What I do with ratings:

 

1. I generally rate photos that I like, that catch my eye. I generally ask myself "do I wish I had taken the photo" and would I like to see an enlarged print on my wall". In terms of aesthetics, I respond to the "story" of the photo, what does it tell me, do I wish I was standing where the photo was taken. Does the portrait tell me about the individual as well as add something to a universal impression of mankind. Sometimes I notice technical elements that are not quite as I would like them.... composition - framing.

 

Do I look for a photo to be "perfect"? No, I used to be a perfectionist, but I wasn't a very good one, so I had to stop.

 

2. about öriginality ..... I generally match the number for originality to the number for aesthetics. Sometimes if I think that the shot is a good but flawed attempt then I will rate the originality at say 9 and give a lower number for aesthetics, something like 6 or 7. By doing this I am trying to communicate that it was a good try but needs another attempt. More specifically that the photographer needs to take ä second look.

 

I rate the photos I like and I rate usually 6-10. I believe I have never rated below 5.

 

If I think something is below average, below fair, poor or even lower than that, I just pass by and leave no rating. It is the responsibility of the photographer to see their work first. To look carefully and evaluate.

 

What I have noticed about comments:

 

There are many kind and generous and positive comments made. There are some that zero in on some very, very perfectionist type points. From the context of writing workshops, where I have sat more or less face to face with the person whose work is being critiqued, I have found it valuable to say that my critique may often have more to do with how I would write what they have written, not so much to do with how they have written it, but still an alternative approach is a variable, an idea, to use or not use by the "maker" of the piece of art work.

 

A lot of times it seems that people want short cuts almost. The attitude of the critique forum is sometimes, "tell me what is wrong, so I can fix it, since I don't know and I don't have time to think about it, to reflect more about my own work." Sometimes.

 

I had a photographer who had posted a remarkable portrait email when I gave his photo a 10.10 to ask me why, since I had offered no comment. So, I went back to his photo and looked again and wrote about 300 words and posted it as a comment on his photo here in photo.net. It helped me probably more than him. He sent back an email thanking me and said that I had seen more in the photo than he had when taking it. He told me a little about the choosing of the pose and I learned a little bit more. His photo had received only one rating.

 

As for the revisions, I am in favour of them.

 

I enjoy looking at the photos people post in photo.net. I am very glad I found this site.