shots worth sharing

Back in the day, they were very popular as cannabis containers (or so I've heard :>))

Thanks all for the commentary and advice. Dave you confirm my preliminary assessment that <pix was probably the best option. I may also go to a local printer for posters in a custom design--high end, I know, but something I need to explore.

Please help me understand this:

My dslr has a 2:3 aspect ratio and it's easy to get 4x6 inch prints (sort

of--see below) but few on-line printers offer 2:3 enlargements between 4x6 and

20x30. If 2:3 is so darn standard why is is so hard to get 6x9, 8x12 or 12x18

prints?

 

Also, I ordered a bunch of 4x6 prints from ritzpix and thought it would be nice

if they had borders: turns out the borders came at the expense of image (that is

things got cut off)--is that standard operating procedure?

The k100d & Tamron 18-250 served me well traveling this summer--but then I'm a newbie. At home, I start out with the 43mm prime on the camera and the Tamron in the bag: on the road, the reverse.

Thanks for the input and encouragement, Bill! I'm kind of fond of that one, too because it's sharp in the center and softens toward the near edge. I only wish I'd gotten all the edge in the frame but I'm learning that's not necessarily a major defect.

 

I really like your Dallas Texas Waterfall, by the way.

Gordon, When it comes to wild mushrooms, I eat with my lens. It didn't occur to me to use the tripod & remote as there seemed to be sufficient light. Call it a lesson learned--thanks!

Wonderful response, Matt! You can wash my dog any day! ;>)

Geoff, yeah I may sneak that one into my single photos as an "Abstract."

Pnina, These were on a log (or, in Monty Python terms, an "ex-tree.") I just included a wider view of the log in the folder but that photo is not a candidate for the portfolio.)

The Log (or a part of it.):

http://www.photo.net/photo/6506131

I agree, James. The group in F2 & 9, for example, was about 18 inches across. I couldn't figure out how to provide some reference with regard to scale without inserting something jarringly incongruous-- like, what, car keys or a cigarette lighter? All I could do was focus on them as visual objects.

 

Also, the shots I took to give some indication of the breadth of the group as a whole (spanning 10-12 feet of log) were aesthetic rejects.

I'm attaching one.

Christopher, I was being facetious about the green ring: it's a reference to the superficial cosmetic difference between the Tamron and Pentax versions. Justin and I suspect there's little else which distinguishes them.

Love the quote, James!

Not to worry, I rarely trash anything. A friend has ID'd it as Laetiporus sulphureus. The size of the specimens and scale of the grouping was absolutely spectacular!

Don't worry, my gear is fine--this is an infestation of a different kind.

 

I lucked into an amazing group of wild fungus yesterday and went nuts, shooting

like a sit-com glutton at a wedding reception. After a moderately ruthless

preliminary winnowing, I've ended up with nine shots which I think have

reasonable merit but that's still way more than I think I want to include in my

portfolio--I was thinking maybe two or three.

 

So, before I get down to the agonizing choices, I thought I'd invite you folks

to weigh in. If you're inclined, check 'em out at

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=772234

and let me know (either here or as comments on the photos themselves) which ones

you'd recommend as "keepers." As always, suggestions for improvements are

welcomed.

 

Thanks!

<div></div>

Man, if I hada held out, I coulda had had a green ring!

Not me--they'll have to pry these shoe-boxes of negatives out of my cold, dead hands!

I hope I made clear that it doesn't blow my mind because I can't begin to comprehend it. Here, I'm with my Dad who recently remarked, "It's a wonderful century you live in!"

 

Relating this back to a previous thread, however, doesn't this mean that Fickr images and metadata have, to some extent, been appropriated by this technology?

Yeah I saw this but, given my obtuseness with RAW conversion, you will not be surprised when I tell you it did not blow my mind--it wasn't even a near miss.

This would make a pretty good sit-com plot--or a movie where the photo guy runs away with the bride...

No, you should not get this--your photographs are already too good.

Thanks all for your suggestions. I did go spend the rebate on my 43mm prime on Lightroom (with an educational discount) It'll take a while for me to get acquainted with it but my intialy reaction is the usual combination of "OH, WOW!" and "@%%$#!" Wish me luck!

I'm with Emre.

Those aren't spelling errors--the post was written in Farsi! (Firefox seems to disagree with Wikipedia about the spelling of Farsi--and Wikipedia!)

 

Keep in mind that one of the delightful things about this site is that it's an international community. My (American) English spell checker isn't any help if I tried to post in Romanian and, presumably, the reverse is true.

"kinda hard to compare those two programs, as they're designed to do different things." Actually, that was exactly the clarification I was after. The Adobe website really isn't very clear about these distinctions since they package some editing functionality into Lightroom and some organizing features into PS/e and describe them both in all-in-one terms (with heavy emphasis on how you can turn your photos into doilies and other creations).

 

Based on this discussion, I think I'll acquire Lightroom--because my immediate need is for the file conversion and work flow functionality --and continue to use the familiar PS/e3 for image enhancement purposes.

 

Thanks, all, for your help!