let's have a look at the pictures you've sent in.
A lot of us have cameras, don't we! So maybe we could show some of our favourite photos what we have taken. Just for fun.
Here's some I found. In no order and not exhaustive at all.
daughter of a TMO contributor!
I was 32 and this is "Dr Manhattan". I quite like this framing.
a bit rubbish, sort of good though. Signs in the foyer of the ICA two weeks ago. looks like sweets.
my first attempt at "reportage"
more neon
I have a series of these at Canary Wharf and quite like the way the fountains all look frozen.
I have taken enough space for now.
edit to shrink
[ 12 April 2003: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Postman Pat scooters. I'm quite proud of this photo; it was taken in the early days of me owning a Lomo, and I was trying out the "shoot-from-the-hip" style of photography that the camera lends itself to. I think the composition is quite, well, "good".
Holy Week 2002. Easter is magical in southern Spain. Next week I intend to take many more shots like this. Some of them may include Ben.
A horse. Not a real one, but nice all the same.
A 'LomoWall' of a friend of mine.
A toilet.
A view from my terrace.
[ 12 April 2003: Message edited by: mart ]
I have a "The Best Photo I've Ever Taken" kicking around somewhere... when I need to skive off doing some more work I'll fish it out and scan it in for you.
new york
reykjavik
my nanny
tiger bay
modge in stockholm
Thanks very much Mart, I felt a bit shamed when I saw yours alongside mine.
[ 12 April 2003: Message edited by: mart ]
d00d! I didn't know you went to clan meets!
And, as for photos... All of my 'best shots' were done on 35mm and I've since thrown them all out in a pique of anger... And, my other shots are viewable at: www.mylifehere.com/london_eye and www.mylifehere.com/carnival (I won't post them cuz I don't wanna chew up Darryn's bandwidth with pics that have been seen before.)
I tend to like pictures that tell a story. I thought this one did.
Mmm. Breakfast. Near Russell Square, London.
Near Kenmore Square, Boston.
New Orleans...
Boston again...
A cause-and-effect shot. The 'cause' is to the left.
White Mts., New Hampshire
I sound pretentious but, well, what can you do.
Let's try this again.
Self Portrait - 2001
Flower - 2001
Brooklyn - 2002
Times Square - 2002
(MF- You might see doubles on your photo upload thingy...sorry about that. Can you delete the giant photos?)
[ 12 April 2003: Message edited by: Amy ]
[ 12 April 2003: Message edited by: Amy ]
[ 12 April 2003: Message edited by: victoria ]
Here's more:
Cambridge - 2003
Cambridge - 2003
Stonehenge - 2003
Dammit. Stupid spaces in my damn saving. Grr.
[ 12 April 2003: Message edited by: Amy ]
Ditto on encouraging Waynester to post. The more the merrier.
I can't help but be impressed overall though - good stuff from all sides, mine excepted of course.
I've been theorizing on the equipment behind the shots - digital or film? Am asssuming most are 35mm - not sure of what mart's lomos is. (I particularly liked the lomos one with the gnome in the foreground.)
I still haven't found that one shot I had hoped to find... seems my favorites are the ones which I can't locate when I'm looking for them.
Props to whoever knows which film this is taken from.
Well, this is it. My "Best Ever Photo". It looks a little more impressive hanging in my bathroom. Oh well.
And this one has no particular merit, but I'm sure Sabian will appreciate it:
Long kiss g'night?
Froopy: a Lomo is a Russian rangefinder, a copy of the Minox 35 (without replicating it entirely). It's something of a trendy wankie culty camera, cleverly marketed by the "Lomography" people in Vienna to make you think you're buying something incredibly amazing, when really all it has is an impressively luminous lens and an interesting tunnel effect (bright centre, dark corners). It does have its charm though, and since owning one I rarely pick up my SLR.
More below. Who are we waiting for, Misc at least.
this is my mater at home
cheeze
about as good as Brockley gets
this is real corn. I took it out back of a heritage centre in Blackheath.
edit: if i could remember file names, i'd be dangerous
[ 13 April 2003: Message edited by: froopyscot ]
Oh and I do mostly band photography, hence the images of lots of band members.
Leidseplein, Amsterdam, 1.30 am December
Jay from Zen Motel
Donna. I know out of focus, and badly lit, but I just love the unobtrousiveness - just a natural picture of someone I love very much.
Share Pedersen (Bubble/Dogs D'Amour, ex-Vixen)
Amsterdam Riot Police. Waynster gets political
Like I said they are not really much cop - the policeman is badly lit (yeah I could post process in Photoshop but that';s cheating right?) and though the Piccie of Share is badly lit, I do like it.
I so wish I had the artistic eye...
quote:
Originally posted by froopyscot:
I've been theorizing on the equipment behind the shots - digital or film? Am asssuming most are 35mm - not sure of what mart's lomos is. (I particularly liked the lomos one with the gnome in the foreground.)
Well to proove that equipment doth not the picture make I have one of these:
It really is the most outstanding camera I have ever had the pleasure to use, let alone own. Yes it cost me a horrible amount of money, as did for all the peripherals (I reckon a bit above 4000 pounds all told) but its been a progression - I have owned several Cameras - my first was a completely Manual Praktica MTL-5B, Then a Minolta 5000, A Nikon F601, A Sony DSC-P70 (my first Digital) and now the D100. The Praktica was a great learning tool, and I think maybe one of my problems is that I may have forgotten one or two of the skills, though I do hope to rectify this by doing a photography course soon. The move to Digital seemed natural to me, being the techie I am and the Sony was great, but I missed the overall controllability, and I suppose freedom you have with an SLR, so when the D100 came out, I had to have one.
I do find however that I take the Nikon everywhere, like you would your wallet or house keys, and have really started to fall in Love with photography all over again. It also is paying for itself in a way, in that it is opening doors for me - the band photography is starting to take off a bit, and I have a couple of tours to shoot starting next weekend, and I have had some used by the BBC, and this one by the VPRO:
Its a guy called Neil Leyton from Canada who I have seen a couple of times. Its been used a fair bit, and tomorrow I have to get some promo photos made for the record label in the UK, so yeah, the D100 is doing me good!
Be interested to hear what other people used for kit
[ 13 April 2003: Message edited by: Waynster ]
quote:
Originally posted by kovacs:
I really like those Waynester -- the one you're apologising for focus on is so great with the blue of the entire room except for the fire. Every time someone new posts on this thread I think "fuck, my pics are outclassed!"
Thank you so much Kovacs - I am so often dissapointed with the shots I take, but to have them appreciated by another photographer really rebuilds my confidence. But as for your pictures being outclassed - no way! I actually thought that a couple of them were good enough for stock photography - particularly the Daughter shot, the Reykjavik shot and even the one of your Nan - have you ever tried selling or considered this?
(Not that I am suggesting selling your granny you understand? 
)
Aren't we cool.
I do think some of my pictures look like hotel magazine copy but that always struck me as evidence of some inner cheesiness and a kind of kitsch conservatism in my framing -- look even in the above small selection how many have an object like a wine glass all unfocused in the foreground. "'Boasters', the Travel Inn restaurant, with its executive area for entertaining those important clients, is open for your use between 8am and 11pm."
quote:
Originally posted by mart:
Waynster, those are quality photos. I also really like Froopy's diner - pure American Graffiti (except for the rain), and Amy's really sharp b+w one of the bridge in Cambridge, and the Brooklyn subway one, a copy of which hangs on the wall in my office. And I would agree that Ko's coffee-cup pic is pro catalogue quality.
Thanks Mart - as I said to Kovacs, getting positive respoonse from fellows of the art really is so encouraging. I am very tempted to go take the D100 for a walk now actually
quote:
Aren't we cool.
Of course. All Moonies are
[ 13 April 2003: Message edited by: Waynster ]
quote:
Originally posted by kovacs:
I do think some of my pictures look like hotel magazine copy but that always struck me as evidence of some inner cheesiness and a kind of kitsch conservatism in my framing -- look even in the above small selection how many have an object like a wine glass all unfocused in the foreground. "'Boasters', the Travel Inn restaurant, with its executive area for entertaining those important clients, is open for your use between 8am and 11pm."
Cheesiness? Kitsch? Photographers eye - not something you can necessarily learn, allthough I am striving to, but often a gift, a part of your genetic make up. Cherish it, don't doubt it.
I am really impressed with everyones work on here, and it does put some of my work to shame, but however after reading the comments I did look again at the shots I posted, amd realised that they are not that bad after all. I suppose the thing is to appreciate, but still be critical of your own work.
Actually last night I went to see Steve Earle play at the Paradiso - an old church which is now a music venue here in Amsterdam. No real security and I could so have easily have got in with My Lowepro backpack, the guys beiung none the wiser I was packing my camera. As great as the gig was, I did keep finding myself cursing that I had not bought the kit with me as the lighting was so right, and with the 70-300 (effective 105-450 - SLR-CCD conversion problem/benefit) I could have got some cracking shots from right at the back where I stood). Bugger.
Has anyone undergone any formal training in photography, or the arts in general? I (obviously) have not, but am looking at taking the New York Institute of Photography course possibly, and was wondering if anyone could recommend anything - I so love photography and strive to be better, so any pointers would be appreciated.
quote:
Originally posted by sabian:
sorted
Ditto.
quote:
Originally posted by Waynster:
Has anyone undergone any formal training in photography, or the arts in general? I (obviously) have not, but am looking at taking the New York Institute of Photography course possibly, and was wondering if anyone could recommend anything - I so love photography and strive to be better, so any pointers would be appreciated.
I've done a 16mm filmmaking diploma at Goldsmiths', as mentioned above. It wasn't so much about aesthetics as technical aspects of camera, sound, lighting and so on, but it was the first time I had to deal with apertures and film speed. And the last! Very laborious process of measuring distance and reading it off against light meter results on a math chart in a book -- totally old-fashioned and I wonder if people still do that now. The course ended the subsequent year and was replaced with an MA in video.
I might like to do a photography evening class sometime: I expect Goldsmiths' and the City Lit do them.
Still it would be a start to actually buy a camera I guess...
Can anyone direct me to MFs pic hosting location? does it have noddy instructions thereon? I just went outside with my new little holiday digital camera Sony Cyber-shot U20) to see if I could get anything decent (answer: no) but thought I might post them anyway just to lower the average standard and give the rest of us some hope. It doesn't help that it is as murky as a very murky thing outside.
quote:
Originally posted by mart:
Heh, this happy love-in of ours is going to get a veritable pasting on Monday morning, when all the cynical h8rz tune in.
Its just nice to have a discussion on something we all feel a common passion for.
Incidentally, I read Kovacs' comments on his formal training in 16mm filmaking. Now moving images is something that never appealed to me - I rented a video camera once for a trip to Heidelberg and really didn't like it - theres a certain laziness I suppose with video where more often than not, the projection is very self explanatory. The beauty for me in a photograph (and a painting as well) is you not only admire the image, but you question it - you try and read into the situation, fire up your imagination with whats going on - particularly in pictures that tell a story like froopys one of the police and children outside the church, or with Kovacs reportage offering.
Whilst I am not being critical of filmmaking - I believe there is probably a very wide difference between that and video camera work, its just something I just didn't take to. I love film, don't get me wrong - in fact subsequently since having the camera, I have started to see them in a different light, and have started appreciating the beauty of classy films - Mulholland Drive and Amelie are two films that a couple of years ago I might have enjoyed, but not necessarily appreciated, but now I see some more of the beauty, perhaps even get a feel for what Lynch or Jeunet wanted to portay. But as for making movies, I'd rather stick with the stills - I guess I just don't have the inclination - I'd rather appreciate others talent - admire as opposed to produce.
I was also senior editor/photographer for our school yearbook.
EDIT:
I'd just like to point out the yearbook thing wasn't for the Geek-Factorİ, but again another excuse to skip school. As long as I had a camera around my neck, I could come and go as I pleased. Something I took great advantage of.
[ 13 April 2003: Message edited by: sabian ]
Selva Gardena, 2003
lavender's blue, dilly dilly
primrose hill
eyethankewe
edit - woops, me sizes are just on the boundary of indecent. I'll tinker a bit later but now I know how to do this, I have something I must post elsewhere...
[ 13 April 2003: Message edited by: Hippychick ]
where did everyone go?
quote:
Originally posted by Waynster:
Incidentally, I read Kovacs' comments on his formal training in 16mm filmaking. Now moving images is something that never appealed to me - I rented a video camera once for a trip to Heidelberg and really didn't like it - theres a certain laziness I suppose with video where more often than not, the projection is very self explanatory. The beauty for me in a photograph (and a painting as well) is you not only admire the image, but you question it - you try and read into the situation, fire up your imagination with whats going on - particularly in pictures that tell a story like froopys one of the police and children outside the church, or with Kovacs reportage offering.
Yeah, but there's as much difference between a good shot in a feature film and a holiday video as there is between a good photo and a pissed snap in a pub. (Although I'm sure you can find something of quality in quick, lucky pub and holiday shooting.) In my experience with 16mm, and this may be very different from the way films are made these days, a shot took absolutely ages -- sometimes literally hours -- to set up. The lighting could take half a day. Film stock is very expensive and you're not going to waste it. As I said, we had to take light-readings, measure the distance between camera and whatever we wanted in focus, adjust according to depth of field charts, record the distances and apertures in tables. There was immense care going into every shot, a crew of at least three people (director of photography, clapper loader, camera operator) clustered around like scientists making sure everything was just so before depressing the shutter -- leagues away from the practice of raising a digital video camera and shooting without even aiming, like Han Solo with a laser pistol.
Film is very different from still photography, of course, in the way it tells stories -- it's rare that you have a single shot held on screen for minutes while the viewer works out the relationships between each element. But I think it would be a mistake to claim that still images were superior to moving ones.
quote:
Originally posted by kovacs:
But I think it would be a mistake to claim that still images were superior to moving ones.
I didn't mean to bring the point across that one is better than the other - both are equally wonderful mediums. Photography is just a personal preference with me.
quote:
Originally posted by mart:
I like your hosebeast Hippychick.
Also- nice framing of the last one, with the three areas of color, almost as if Mercedes were trying to tout their environmental friendliness.
You are all grrrrrreat. I especially like Amy's self-portrait and the breakfast shot. And mart's bestest ever shot. and Ko's nanny.
Thanks for the complements.
You all have an amazing eye. I'm very very impressed with all of the photos.
Waynster, don't be disappointed with the shots you take. You've got a great eye. Remember, professional photographers take many many shots and only come up with a handful that are good. I remember reading a National Geographic article about how many rolls of film one of their photographers took on expedition. About 2000. How many of those shots do you think he used? 3 maybe 4? When CP used me for their cover, the photographer took 90+ photos. They used 2. How many of those 90+ even turned out well? Maybe 9 or 10.
I need to buy a digital camera.
Amy, glad to finally see some pictures from your few hours in Cambrige.
Anyway out of those 160, I got perhaps a dozen I like (though I hadn't properly sussed the white balance so they all have a bluey hue, and the joy of the Nikon is with a 512MB card you can run up to 600 images at the lowest setting (which is fine for web work, though I prefer to use the higher settings).
Came out alright (excuse the copyright info) I suppose.
And Amy, if you do decide to go for a digital camera, be thankful that in the US you will prbably pay around a $1000 less than I did, and you can use on your lenses from your N8000 (?) on it.
Unitl we get them going and dazzle you all with wierd and wonderful shots, here are a few pics I dug up, Misc is busy but I'm sure he'll be around to show you all his excellent troll pics later.
quote:
Originally posted by Kellifer:
Misc and I have just found ourselves a box of old cameras. For £12, we have 9 cameras dating back to 1922 and two 8mm film cameras. Not a bad deal, particularly as most look like they are in working order.
Yeah? Cool - can you fill us in on the details - makes and stuff?
Nice photos too - that one of Misc is a peach
This one is for CB.
Somewhere in London
Philadelphia
[ 13 April 2003: Message edited by: Amy ]
and this lil' feller was investigating when I was mooching about with my camera...here's one for Amy...
pallycat
PS sorry about all my awful puns.
edited to make em a bit smaller, Misc if the larger duplicates are still there please feel free to bin them.
[ 13 April 2003: Message edited by: Hippychick ]
quote:
Originally posted by mart:
They're not good enough to post up here
Hasn't stopped me so far, has it?
I really like Vista, by the way. The land underneath, the blues at the edges contrasted with the orange of the wing thingummies.
[ 13 April 2003: Message edited by: Hippychick ]
Can you email me a high-res copy of that pic of Junior Buns pls? I haven't taken any black and white pics for at least a year or two, and that picture has reminded me that I should do more often.
Really interesting ones from Kellifer. I would be very curious to see what pics from a 1922 camera look like now.
Zeiss Ikon Nettar 518/16 (1958)
Yashica Electro 35 GS (1970)
Electro 35 again
Coronet Twelve-20 (1950)
Kodak Hawk-eye No.2 Cartridge Model B(1926)
Hawk-eye again
Meopta Admira 8F (1960)
Admira 8F Instrction Manual (!)
Admira 8F Interior
Bell & Howell Sportster IV (1955)
Sportster IV Lenses
I'm really keen to get these cameras working again but I'm not sure if these types of film are still produced...
Any help would be gr9fully received.
Some lovely cameras there - I'll do a bit of hunting see what I can find on them, but the fact that the Hawk-eye is still in its original box makes me think you have got one hell of a bargain there - David Dickinson would shed his tan with pride!
For advice you might be best contacting Jessops Classic Cameras who might be able to help with film and evaluation - there store is somewhere near the British museum if I recall correctly.
What I can tell you is the Ikon (so nearly wrote Nikon!) Zeiss is worth about 50 quid, The Yashica around 35 quid, The Coronet 12 between 10 and 20 quid, The Kodak with the box around 20 quid, The Meopta around 24 quid (maybe a tad more with the instruction manual) and the Sportster for about 40 quid.
These are all from Google searches, so don't hold me to them. Still a bloody bargain to boot mate
The Yashica states it is a type 35, and after a short check this is relevant to 35mm, in other words the film size, so it uses the standard film of today.
You may have to for the Yashica find a new battery, and I have seen a lot on the web about this - try PhotoBattery as they seemed to offer some advice.
Also for more general information on the Yashica try Thiis Guy who seems to know a thing or two.
As for the cine cameras, Kovacs might know a thing or two about this so maybe he can help?
I've had a scout about on the net and I'm slowly picking up a bit about these cameras. A lunchtime jaunt to Station Cameras should sort me out.
Beware! The famous IXUS may not make it to the next meat. Now where did I put my scanner?
Ostia
A street near the Basilica.
quote:
Originally posted by Waynster:
As for the cine cameras, Kovacs might know a thing or two about this so maybe he can help?
I'm afraid those are way before my time. We used Bolex and...can't remember, Arriflex? I had "Eclair" on the tip of my tongue so that's probably another type I have used.
quote:
Originally posted by kovacs:
I'm afraid those are way before my time. We used Bolex and...can't remember, Arriflex? I had "Eclair" on the tip of my tongue so that's probably another type I have used.
Well Misc has the instruction manual for one of them - maybe it will say in there what size film it takes and maybe I can look from there. Just think how cool a Cine shot of a meat will look converted to MPEG for all the people on here to see.
quote:
Originally posted by Waynster:
Well Misc has the instruction manual for one of them - maybe it will say in there what size film it takes and maybe I can look from there. Just think how cool a Cine shot of a meat will look converted to MPEG for all the people on here to see.
It's 8mm I think (hopefully not like the movie of the same name). Sadly none of these cameras had secret undeveloped films in them. I was half expecting to find some vintage pron on cine...
Dancer on Stage at '287' club in Paris, Nov 2002.
En route to Murren schilthorn, Switzerland, Feb 2003.
Lates
[ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: Stakker ]
Misc. for anything you may need for your Electro 35 or others please go to Station Cameras in Reading (the one near the station not near Burger King) it is accross the road from the station. Ask for Alan and tell him Marcus sent you. If it's camera related and gettable Alan can get it for you. I should know I spent 6 years working there....
Also this is without a doubt the 'winner' so far....(as far as I am concerned anyhoot)
Misc - I noticed the Yashica Electro 35 - I have one of them, given to me by my dad.
If this thread is still going when I finish reformat/reinstall I shall post them.
quote:
Originally posted by Amy:
CB - I'll email you a copy of Junior Buns. Any particular size?
Nope, just decent enough that I can print a copy at about 8" x 10".
Cheers
here's a couple I have online already. Don't have access to any more from work.
Brooklyn Bridge
This was a blind woman begging on the steps of a church in a small town called Lalibella, Ethiopia.
I don't think this photo is particularly good in terms of composition/framing, but I really like it.
Mucking around with some mates in the pub, but I liked the way it turned out.
[ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: fish ]
quote:
Originally posted by Teflon:
Two things.Misc. for anything you may need for your Electro 35 or others please go to Station Cameras in Reading (the one near the station not near Burger King) it is accross the road from the station. Ask for Alan and tell him Marcus sent you. If it's camera related and gettable Alan can get it for you. I should know I spent 6 years working there....
Cheers Teffers! I presume it was Alan I spoke to. He really knew his stuff and was very helpful. I bought a few 120 size films so I should be able to get some photos at some point...
[ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: Colenski ]
quote:
Originally posted by kovacs:
Colenski, you are not permitted to just take pix from the BBC website.
Unless his friend actually DID take them and works for the beeb.
I'm certainly not posting any of mine: I have shite equipment, zero technical knowledge and none of whatever it takes to realise art while squinting through a little glass square with lines round it!
Loved 'em all, but there's one thing I have to ask .. Sabian. In your Notting Hill pics, HOW did you get such incredible depth of field??? (Serious question; I've never known how to make the camera "see" a crowded perspective the way we do... or, at least, I see it when I've got me lenses in!)
Um, this might be a stupid idea.
The idea is that, maybe, some of you would donate the copyright on some of your pictures for TMO to make cards out of them?
Admittedly, it's only even a half-good idea if somebody has ready printing & distribution contacts. Just thought I'd mention it, in case anybody has .... there are a lot of truly cracking photos on this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Colenski:
It shat on it!
That picture would be better if the boat was exploding in some sort of huge fireball...
quote:
Originally posted by Ringo:
That picture would be better if the boat was exploding in some sort of huge fireball...
My phoo skills have been weighed, measured, and found wanting...
quote:
Originally posted by AgeingGrace:
I'm certainly not posting any of mine: I have shite equipment, zero technical knowledge and none of whatever it takes to realise art while squinting through a little glass square with lines round it!
Believe me AG, equipment does not always maketh the picture - the Lomo for example Mart uses is a very cheap little camera which is loved by photographers throughout the world, and some of the best photos I took have been with my old Praktica, which cost me about 60 quid (and that was for an SLR with two lenses new)
quote:
Loved 'em all, but there's one thing I have to ask .. Sabian. In your Notting Hill pics, HOW did you get such incredible depth of field??? (Serious question; I've never known how to make the camera "see" a crowded perspective the way we do... or, at least, I see it when I've got me lenses in!)
I think Sab uses a Fuji Digital, and Digital compacts do have some amazing DOF - this is not a particluarly good example, but it was just a point and shoot and very rapid shutter speed using my old Sony digital - the DOF I was really impressed with on this one too:
Plus you say you have no skills, but you know all about Depth of field - yes it might be rudimentary but you would be surprised at the amount of people who own and use cameras, and do not know or understand this concept. So go on post something up - don't be perturbed - I was at first but did anyway, and people liked them - I am sure we will like yours too.
quote:
Um, this might be a stupid idea.
The idea is that, maybe, some of you would donate the copyright on some of your pictures for TMO to make cards out of them?
Could be an idea - what does everyone think?
[ 15 April 2003: Message edited by: Waynster ]
Throw in some ideas of a subject we could go and shoot to maybe display up here next week
Remember ladies of the night do not allow their photo to be taken, so somthing a bit more original please - also outside of Amsterdam as there are only so many picture postcard piccies I can take....
quote:
Originally posted by Waynster:
Throw in some ideas of a subject we could go and shoot to maybe display up here next week
how about rotterdam? isn't that supposed to be technocityjapanesestylekindating?
or various shots of people struggling on the pedalos?
or you could do me a huge favour? if you could goto de dampkring coffee shop and take a picture of the buddha on the wall for me? as you go in, its by the first table on the right hand side. that would be well appreciated....
quote:
Originally posted by Harlequin:
June the 18th 1999 City of London.
So you are called Nick Cobbing are you?
No I didn't think so steely - you are supposed to put up your own photos, prat.
quote:
Originally posted by d666:
how about rotterdam? isn't that supposed to be technocityjapanesestylekindating?or various shots of people struggling on the pedalos?
or you could do me a huge favour? if you could goto de dampkring coffee shop and take a picture of the buddha on the wall for me? as you go in, its by the first table on the right hand side. that would be well appreciated....
Rotterdam is very concrete - but maybe one day I will go there with the camera. As for the Buddha, if I am out with the camera and I see the place, sure I'll get a shot
Do we get to mark your little project?
[ 15 April 2003: Message edited by: Colenski ]
quote:
Originally posted by Vogon Poetess:
Waynester, how about you and Colenski only take pics of things that are red. Or things that have writing on them. Or things from the wrong angle.Do we get to mark your little project?
Now thats good ideas - I l=ike the wrong angle one - Colenski what do you reckon?
Keep the ideas coming, who knows perhaps we can get some pseudo, virtual real-time gallery going, by request. Watch out Damian Hirst this could be the revolution in ART! -
Dynamicism
quote:That is my photo I was right there when it happened and I didn't see any sign of Nick Cobbing. He was probably hiding down an alley way when all the fighting broke out. He's the prat!
Originally posted by Waynster:
So you are called Nick Cobbing are you?No I didn't think so steely - you are supposed to put up your own photos, prat.
quote:
Originally posted by Harlequin:
That is my photo I was right there when it happened and I didn't see any sign of Nick Cobbing.
You have a very good eye, Angus.
What type of camera do you use?
my sister took a lovely photo of me making baskets at kentwell last year though. if i can find it i will scan it in.
quote:
Originally posted by discodamage:
im really really bad at photography. i dont have much of an eye, although that said its a bit of a vicious circle because i dont take photos much because they always turn out so badly. i do want to get a decent camera and start practising though, i hate gettting photies back that i wish were decent and having them repeatedly be utter shit.
You could get a cheap (£80) digital camera. That way you can practise composition without the delay & cost of films & developing. If you don't like a photo, just delete it and learn from your mistake.
When you've mastered this and feel you have more of a trained eye for what might be a good photo, you could get a more sophisticated / better quality real film camera to experiment with apertures / depth of field / other stuff I don't understand...
Throw in some ideas of a subject we could go and shoot to maybe display up here next week
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That road that runs along the top of the Zuider Zee is spectacular, I think.
You still get some amazing traditional-meets-new encounters in the North: where are you thinking of going?
I love the theme ideas, though. Looking forward to seeing the results!
Thanks for your encouraging remarks & advice, Waynster. I'll try harder!
Cheers,
Shapes/Patterns.
Do you have fire escapes there? This is a project I keep meaning to start. Might be cool to try and take photos of them, at different angles and different times of the day (re: lighting).
Or try shooting close ups. Doesn't matter of what, could be anything. A leaf, a grate in the street.
A few of us forites actually started up something called IPEP last year. IPEP stands for International Photography Exchange Project. Lasted a little while, we even had a webpage through Nikon so that we could see each others work. Maybe we should start something like that again?
A composite picture I put together - the arena at Pompeii.
quote:
Originally posted by Harlequin:
That is my photo I was right there when it happened and I didn't see any sign of Nick Cobbing. He was probably hiding down an alley way when all the fighting broke out. He's the prat!
quote:
Originally posted by Waynster:
Really?????
The bastard!
When we did this last year, someone (think it was Sky) picked out the first theme. It was Hands, Happiness and Heaven. Your interpretation of those words. Maybe we should do something similar? Who wants to pick the 1st theme? How long should we give to take develop and then post the photos? A week or two? Longer?
quote:
Originally posted by kovacs:
This Harlequin thing is making kovacs giggle. .
Me too one large LOL!
Perhaps everybody's working for the Beeb!
quote:
Originally posted by AgeingGrace:
That road that runs along the top of the Zuider Zee is spectacular, I think.
Yep, some dyke shots would be a good one, excellent for depth of field work!!especially NICE with the new windturbines that sit all over the place now! perhaps with a bit of moody dockland influence.
quote:
Originally posted by Colenski:
Yep, some dyke shots would be a good one,
no no no must say nothing can't state the obvious.....
quote:
Originally posted by d666:
no no no must say nothing can't state the obvious.....
OK then I will as it was asking for it, "There is this story about the little boy with his finger in the dyke, saving holland from being engulfed by the big bad North sea!"
quote:A cheap disposable one that costs around £5.99!
Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles:
You have a very good eye, Angus.
What type of camera do you use?
The baboon attack (yesterday afternoon) was quite fun though. A proper photographer could have had a lovely time with it. In the top left pic, Monkey A is holding a rubber sealing grommet he's just pulled out of the front of my new car. An advanced driving course would no doubt advise: brakes on hard, baboon off front, accelerate. Except there were wardens watching. Damn.
quote:
Originally posted by dang65:
here
Excellent.
Dangclan
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
Excellent.Dangclan
I really wish I knew enough about phooing to edit swords and ninja uniforms (or even oversized clothing and mics) onto Dang's kids then I could capion the resulting image "(Wu) Dang Clan". But, I don't.
quote:
Originally posted by Bamba:
"(Wu) Dang Clan".
Like the Wu Tangs. But really really scary.
quote:
Originally posted by chocolatebuns:
Dang, I'll trade Junior Buns (as previously posted by Amy) for the little fella in the red T-shirt. I'll also throw in her entire Barbie collection.
Sounds good, but I must warn you... in all those pictures you'll notice that Clem is strapped down, either in a car seat or baby carrier thing. That's not for his safety. Know what I'm saying?
One small boy that can (and will) be tied down is a peanuts compared to the above.
quote:Would you mind just fucking off and not reminding those of us suited and booted in offices that there is a world of sun out there?
Originally posted by StevieX:
I just logged on for as brief shufty at the boards while I take a break from the garden.
This is why I preferred working for a tiny company - days like this you blow at 1 and don't come back till Tuesday.
quote:
Originally posted by Octavia:
[QUOTE]days like this you blow at 1 and don't come back till Tuesday.
Grateful boss, eh?
[ 16 April 2003: Message edited by: Octavia ]
Well Misc's posted it now anyway. Thanks lover.
[ 16 April 2003: Message edited by: Kellifer ]
[ 16 April 2003: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Telletubbies, Tweenies, and Rock&Roll
Or does that mean it will be locked and "dead", and is it too soon for that?
[ 16 April 2003: Message edited by: Harlequin ]
and finally - some original pirate material...not photo but artwork...
jazzman
edit for cocking UBB - about 5th time lucky 
[ 16 April 2003: Message edited by: Hippychick ]
quote:
Originally posted by Hippychick:
I don't suppose you could resize and repost your pic could you Steely? Margins are all to cock.
Stuff resizing - I wish he would stop posting other peoples work and passing it off as his own.
Tosser.
I know they're not technically great, they are after all taken with a weeny little digital camera with no zoom at all and no viewfinder (you have to use the LCD screen and hence are trying to frame things from about 30 cm away). By the way the reason most of them are from my skiing holiday is because I only got the camera just before it, i.e. about 6 weeks ago. I've probably got some OK older pictures somewhere but I would need to dig them out and scan them in and I couldn't really be arsed.
I'm putting off going to bed by writing random drivel to an audience of zero.
Must. Sleep. Now.
parting shots...
worm's eye view - grapeforest
life's a drag
OK I promise I'll stop now, this thread is already consuming Misc's bandwidth like an Arrakeen sandworm.
quote:
Originally posted by Hippychick:
I know they're not technically great,
Hippychick, don't be put off by the quality of the equipment, it appears like you have the eye for it, which is 90% of the battle, the rest of it is just perfectionist bullshit. I took these pictures with an old Olympus OM10 that I bought for about 20 quid to take to Curacao because I did not want my Nikon stolen by some Steely man. the composition is crap in the sun meets boat and the horizon is not level, but its the moment thats important to me, sometimes timing is everything.
[ 17 April 2003: Message edited by: Colenski ]
quote:
Originally posted by kovacs:
it is more down to luck, to ratio (one good pic out of 20) and perhaps to a creative instinct.
In my opinion, this is the main value of digital cameras. It allows you to experiment with things that you would otherwise never try because the "probably wouldn't work". Liberated from any cost for mistakes, you can take those potential shots, which just might work - something you might never bother to try with film. It's hit-and-miss and often doesn't require the techical knowledge and discipline of traditional photography, but it's certainly a valid new form of the medium.
quote:
Originally posted by kovacs:
Can we have this wonderful thread archived please Darryn.
I'd be happy to set up a gallery on TMOuncovered for members to upload and display their pics.
quote:
Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles:
I'd be happy to set up a gallery on TMOuncovered for members to upload and display their pics.
I don't know how much bandwidth you have Misc.. But, I have 18Gb of transfer per month I can spare... If you want, as soon as I have a few extra pounds, I can reg a domain of some sort (or you can if you want to 'own' it) and I can set up a hosting account for it...
quote:
Originally posted by sabian:
I don't know how much bandwidth you have Misc.. But, I have 18Gb of transfer per month I can spare... If you want, as soon as I have a few extra pounds, I can reg a domain of some sort (or you can if you want to 'own' it) and I can set up a hosting account for it...
My web space is allegedly "unlimited", as is the bandwidth. I'd really like to test this theory and max them out, just to prove the point. But seriously, I'm happy to host it, but if you have the space & time then feel free...
quote:
Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles:
My web space is allegedly "unlimited", as is the bandwidth. I'd really like to test this theory and max them out, just to prove the point. But seriously, I'm happy to host it, but if you have the space & time then feel free...
Well, I lack the 'technical' ability to make it look nice... I'd be able to slap together something basic and a php gallery... But, that'd be the extent of it. That's why I offered the account to you... But, if you have 'unlimited' bandwidth/space, I guess it's not needed!
Just thought I'd offer!
quote:
Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles:
Liberated from any cost for mistakes, you can take those potential shots, which just might work...
My cheapo digital camera takes the picture and then immediately displays a dustbin icon for about ten seconds so you can immediately delete it if/when it's shite. I presume most digitals have this, but it's very useful I must say - especially when you're as crap at photos as me. Mrs Dang has the skillz though and takes superb pics with a proper camera. But they'd need scanning, and who can ever be bothered with that?
Changing topic slightly: What do people here do about storing all their digital photos/movie clips? Do you put them on to sensibly organised CD-Rs or print out the best ones on photo paper with a laser printer? Or are you like me and have them dotted around in 267 seperate folders on three hard drives and 12 web sites?
But I don't know the name of the site.
quote:
Originally posted by dang65:
Mrs Dang has the skillz though and takes superb pics with a proper camera. But they'd need scanning, and who can ever be bothered with that?
Why not get your photos put on CD alongside your prints when you get them developed? It's not half as expensive as it used to be - and there always seem to be vouchers and offers so you can get them free.
quote:
Originally posted by dang65:
Changing topic slightly: What do people here do about storing all their digital photos/movie clips?
I archive all my photos on CD-Rs. I tend to archive a batch off the Flash Card in a particular folder (almost like a roll of film). I keep all the original images, so when I've mucked about with them in Photoshop, I always have the full quality starting point to go back to.
Yes folks, I have 1600x1200 images of you all from the meets - and yes you can see those wrinkles!
I'm going to get it from Argos, which might not be the cheapest option but I've got nearly 150 quid on my Sainsburys Nectar card, due to some 5 years worth of Barclaycard points being transferred onto it, and you can use Nectar cards to pay for things in Argos.
See what you've done now.
quote:
Originally posted by dang65:
[QB]Right, all this talk - and the hot weather too - has inspired me to go out and buy a Canon Digital Ixus V3 which is about 12 billion times better than the redundant semi-toy Kodak MC3 I've got at the moment.
[QB]
ARRRGGHHHHH
I went and had a look at one of those last night, its much better looking than the Nikon Coolpix 3100 but I a still not convinced it offers better functionality, plus the 3100 has 3x optical zoom and the IXUS v3 only has 2x.
I can't cope with this decision.
quote:
Originally posted by Vogon Poetess:
Dang, my dad saves his up and then there's some website that you can send your faves to and get them printed off like real photos, and sent to you in real post for a reasonable price.But I don't know the name of the site.
You can take a floppy into Boots Tott Ct Rd and get this done.
Misc, a gallery on your site would be excellent as you already have so much TMO material there. Could you copy the pix already on this thread? Apart from Stealy's.
Re. your point about digital pix being a different form of or at least approach to photography, I wonder if camera-phones won't push this even further in the same direction. The casual, throwaway shot -- photography far more as cheap and snatched experiment. I know a bit about the wet collodion process that was dominant in photography until (?) 1880 or so, and it was a chemistry lesson involving a cartload of kit. See Carroll, "Hiawatha's Photographing" for details.
quote:
Hippychick:
I don't suppose you could resize and repost your cock could you Steely?
quote:
Originally posted by Gemini:
I can't cope with this decision.
I think the fact that I can't find the Nikon in the Argos catalogue has helped my decision
Another thing that's swayed it is that the technical specification for the Nikon says there's no audio on video clips??? Even my cheapo Kodak has video sound. Is that a typo?
Edited to add: The video clip feature on Kellfier's IXUS V is really good. You can even plug it into your VCR and record to VHS.
[ 17 April 2003: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
quote:
Originally posted by dang65:
I think the fact that I can't find the Nikon in the Argos catalogue has helped my decisionAnother thing that's swayed it is that the technical specification for the Nikon says there's no audio on video clips??? Even my cheapo Kodak has video sound. Is that a typo?
true but I can think of no situation where I would use the video clip anyway.
I am a true Libra.
quote:Would you mind just fucking off.[/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Octavia:
Harsh.
No "Oh, where've you been for the past week or so." Oh, no.
Anyway, enjoy work; I'm off to top up my tan. Got beers and everything.
[ 17 April 2003: Message edited by: StevieX ]
Am better-tempered today for all sorts of reasons. Darryn could this thread be archived also for those of us who are broke but really want to buy a new camera this year, to save the advice?
quote:
Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles:
Buy the IXUS.
You will thank yourself.
It is done. Now need to wait 4hrs for battery to charge. Patience required. Or a trip to pub to thank myself perhaps.
quote:
Edited to add: The video clip feature on Kellfier's IXUS V is really good. You can even plug it into your VCR and record to VHS.
I used the video option a lot on my Kodak so I had to have this, especially as my proper camcorder is ancient and completely knackered. I also find that having limited memory for video provides an excellent restraint on the temptation to film the kids eating breakfast for 20 minutes, or whatever. Short, sharp clips - definitely the way forward for no-hopers like me.
quote:
Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles:
Yes folks, I have 1600x1200 images of you all from the meets - and yes you can see those wrinkles!
Mine are 3008 x 2000 - you can see the wrinkles on the wrinkles!
quote:
Originally posted by Waynster:
Mine are 3008 x 2000 - you can see the wrinkles on the wrinkles!
Show off!
But yours doesn't fit in your pocket...
The ratio of one good shot in 36, perhaps even 136 is a good one. Obviously this costs a lot to develop each time onto prints if you are using negatives.
What I do is use slide film with an older SLR camera for better control and only get the slides developed. In that way it costs me about 3 euros to get the film developed with no prints. then you pick out the best ones, if at all and get them developed in a normal highstreet shop. this means you can go for quality shots that you would not get with a chepear digital camera. And if you have any real stunners to be developed then you get professional cibachrome prints done with contrast masking.
The downside is that getting slides onto prints in a highstreet shop is usually not that good because they don't use contrast masking techniques and the midtones are not so good. ie theres too much contrast between dark and light spots of the picture.
If you pick up a good second-hand SLR you can control the depth of field and speed which is extremely important if you want some control of the creativity in the picture.
Just food for thought.
cute or what?
quote:
Originally posted by Octavia:
Actually while we're on the topic, a friend has a shedload of old films that never got developed for a variety of reasons, and has no idea what's on them, or if any of them are any good. Does anyone know of a cheap way of finding out? I thought of getting contact sheets made up, but have no idea where this can be done.
Just go to any normal respectable looking camera/developing shop and ask them to develop the film without prints, you could ask for a contact sheet to be made from them if looking at the negatives is a bit tiresome. If they can do this with slides, I am sure it must be possible with ordinary negs as they need to be produce before the prints of course.
Hippychick - cool sized camera, reminds me of my Pendrive 256Mb MP3 Player thats the same size as a lighter.
quote:
Originally posted by Hippychick:
This is the camera I took all the pics on this thread with. Except mine is blue.
cute or what?
I have this one too!!
I've got a fab Cannon Eos 300 SLR with lenses and filters and stuff, but I wanted something pocket size as a point and shoot. I've only had it a month or two but I've been having lots of fun with it so far.
Hope this example isn't too big (er, 90k - ouch), but it's a piccy posting thread so who cares:
Might even try and learn how to take proper photos now I can't blame the tools any more.
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Benway:
I've got FOUR working cameras. Can anybody beat that?
YES
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Benway:
I've got FOUR working cameras. Can anybody beat that?
I have about 4 digitals (from one that plugs into my phone to the Nikon D100) plus a Nikon F601 that is officially mine seeing that my mate still has not paid for it, plus I hope to get a Bronnie soon...
Though I think Misc beats you after his find at the weekend....
Its a consuming passion
quote:
Originally posted by dang65:
Bloody hell. It's amazing how something so banal can look so breathtaking.
NTS: give up alliteration for Easter
and assonance
This thread is at a 187 count now, and I will be closing it and moving it over to the dead at the 200 mark.
It's a keeper, and i don't want a misfire on the server to write it off..
Start a follow upper..
Do I (As this thread would seem to say) need to start a photos section ?
I'm closing this now and I'll move it in a second or four thousand six hundred and twelve..
[ 19 April 2003: Message edited by: Darryn.R ]