Two photos

Xman

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2004
116
0
18,630
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On the second photo, how did the picture taker get the end of the door in
focus as well with the outside area too?

"Quostat" <quostat@libero.it> wrote in message
news:040220052321297870%quostat@libero.it...
>
> Can I have your opinions ?
> Camera 10d + 17-40
> Thanks.
>
> Quostat
>
> http://www.quostat.com/immagini/Genova/pretramonto-su-Portofino.jpg
>
> Portofino - Italy, before sunset
>
>
>
> http://www.quostat.com/immagini/Roma/Cippo-romano-da-un-interno.jpg
>
> Rome, archeological rest in the court
 

yoyo

Distinguished
May 26, 2004
30
0
18,580
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nice timming with catching the wave, gotta love the EF 17-40

"Quostat" <quostat@libero.it> wrote in message
news:040220052321297870%quostat@libero.it...
>
> Can I have your opinions ?
> Camera 10d + 17-40
> Thanks.
>
> Quostat
>
> http://www.quostat.com/immagini/Genova/pretramonto-su-Portofino.jpg
>
> Portofino - Italy, before sunset
>
>
>
> http://www.quostat.com/immagini/Roma/Cippo-romano-da-un-interno.jpg
>
> Rome, archeological rest in the court
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <11083tfniajhbdb@corp.supernews.com>, YoYo wrote:

> Nice timming with catching the wave, gotta love the EF 17-40

Thank you !

Quostat
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

xman@thedripper.com wrote:
> On the second photo, how did the picture taker get the end of the
> door in focus as well with the outside area too?
>

my guess is by increasing f number and thus getting overall sharpness

> "Quostat" <quostat@libero.it> wrote in message
> news:040220052321297870%quostat@libero.it...
>>
>> Can I have your opinions ?
>> Camera 10d + 17-40
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Quostat
>>
>> http://www.quostat.com/immagini/Genova/pretramonto-su-Portofino.jpg
>>
>> Portofino - Italy, before sunset
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.quostat.com/immagini/Roma/Cippo-romano-da-un-interno.jpg
>>
>> Rome, archeological rest in the court
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1108c7mb4ogomc3@corp.supernews.com>, <xman@thedripper.com>
wrote:

> On the second photo, how did the picture taker get the end of the door in
> focus as well with the outside area too?

The most important info-exif are:

Shutter Speed: 1/80
Aperture; f/7.1
ISO: 100
Focal Lenght: 17 mm
Flash: Fired
Metering Mode: Partial 6
Color Space: sRGB
White Balance: 0

I think that I have had good luck. I am only a photo-amateur.
Thank you.

Quostat
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Quostat wrote:
>
> Can I have your opinions ?
> Camera 10d + 17-40
> Thanks.
>
> Quostat
>
> http://www.quostat.com/immagini/Genova/pretramonto-su-Portofino.jpg
>
> Portofino - Italy, before sunset
>
> http://www.quostat.com/immagini/Roma/Cippo-romano-da-un-interno.jpg
>
> Rome, archeological rest in the court

I don't know whether you are looking for technical or pictorial
comments, but here's a couple of quick remarks.

The pretramonto-su-Portofino.jpg seascape is clear and sharp as would be
expected from a 10D and the 17-40L. Composition reasonable, the boat
exiting left adds a bit of balance to the hills on the right, but the
shadows on the nearside of the breakwaters are, on my reasonably
calibrated monitor, somewhat dark. I loaded the image into photoshop
and lightened the shadow areas, and there's plenty of detail available
in those areas. Possibly you are using a Mac computer, images from Macs
frequently appear too dark on PC's due to the different gamma settings.
The distant range of hills is well rendered, with atmospheric haze
lightening them to a pleasing tone.

The romano-da-un-interno.jpg is again clear and sharp, and could be a
very interesting shot, except, in my view at least, the door leading
into the room beyond extends right the way down the image, from top to
bottom borders. It has the effect of cutting the image clean in two,
totally isolating the left from the right. I wonder if the image was
cropped, and if some floor below the door is in the original shot.
Again, the shadows are a little dark, and on my monitor look better
lightened.

Please tell us what computer you use, whether the images are cropped,
and whether you attempted to adjust the tonal values in the images.

Colin
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42041F2E.6B098B85@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

> Please tell us what computer you use, whether the images are cropped,
> and whether you attempted to adjust the tonal values in the images.

Scuse me but I speak english just a little.
Your critic is punctual, competent and kind. I'll reflect very very
much on this.
Yes, I cropped the image; yes my computer is Mac; yes I'll riexamine
photos.
Tank you, very very much.

Quostat
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42041F2E.6B098B85@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

> I wonder ... if some floor below the door is in the original shot.

Yes.

Quostat
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 21:35:33 -0500, <xman@thedripper.com> wrote:

>On the second photo, how did the picture taker get the end of the door in
>focus as well with the outside area too?
>
>"Quostat" <quostat@libero.it> wrote in message
>news:040220052321297870%quostat@libero.it...
>>
>> Can I have your opinions ?
>> Camera 10d + 17-40
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Quostat
>>
>> http://www.quostat.com/immagini/Genova/pretramonto-su-Portofino.jpg
>>
>> Portofino - Italy, before sunset
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.quostat.com/immagini/Roma/Cippo-romano-da-un-interno.jpg
>>
>> Rome, archeological rest in the court
>
>
wide angle?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42051909.2602672@newsgroups.comcast.net>, ZONED!
<no_email@please_post.net> wrote:

> wide angle?

canon EF 17-40

Quostat
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Quostat wrote:
>
> In article <42041F2E.6B098B85@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
> <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> > I wonder ... if some floor below the door is in the original shot.
>
> Yes.
>
> Quostat

Ok then, if you re-crop that shot leaving some floor below the door, it
will probably look better, as it will unite the two areas each side of
the door.

Colin
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42054589.E8509F8E@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

> if you re-crop that shot leaving some floor below the door, it
> will probably look better, as it will unite the two areas each side of
> the doo

I dont' have the original shot, I have only the cropped shot.
But now I am sure that I made a mistake !
Thank you.

Quostat
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Quostat wrote:
>
> In article <42054589.E8509F8E@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
> <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> > if you re-crop that shot leaving some floor below the door, it
> > will probably look better, as it will unite the two areas each side of
> > the doo
>
> I dont' have the original shot, I have only the cropped shot.
> But now I am sure that I made a mistake !
> Thank you.
>
> Quostat

Aaahh, lesson number 1, Quostat. *Never* overwrite or discard your
original image. Do all editing on a copy. Bad luck, that could have
been an excellent shot.

Technical ability and 'seeing eye' are requirements for a good
photographer. Technical ability can be learned. A 'seeing eye' is much
harder to learn. Basically, you either have a seeing eye or you don't.
From these two shots you posted, you do seem to have a seeing eye, which
is good. The technical side can be learned more easily than the seeing
side. Unfortunately, I have too much technical knowledge and a poor eye
(though I can appreciate a good shot when I see it). Result: perfectly
sharp, well exposed and printed shots, but boring as hell. {:-(

Colin.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <420575C9.704F5A09@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

> *Never* overwrite or discard your original image.

Excuse my tremendous English. I hope that you can at least understand
the sense of my words.
What you write helps me very very much. Obviously, beyond that an
optimal photographer you are a man of refined culture and sensibility.
I am an old man. I live in Genova. My sister lives in Rome.
I have worked in a governmental office of the Fine Arts and it could be
that I have understood something of the life and the beauty.
Could I see one of your photos ?
If you came in Italy my email is this:
quostatTHROWTHIS@ANDTHISmac.com

Thank you.

Quostat
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
> Quostat wrote:
>>
>> In article <42054589.E8509F8E@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
>> <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>> if you re-crop that shot leaving some floor below the door, it
>>> will probably look better, as it will unite the two areas each side
>>> of the doo
>>
>> I dont' have the original shot, I have only the cropped shot.
>> But now I am sure that I made a mistake !
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Quostat
>
> Aaahh, lesson number 1, Quostat. *Never* overwrite or discard your
> original image. Do all editing on a copy. Bad luck, that could have
> been an excellent shot.
>
> Technical ability and 'seeing eye' are requirements for a good
> photographer. Technical ability can be learned. A 'seeing eye' is
> much harder to learn. Basically, you either have a seeing eye or you
> don't. From these two shots you posted, you do seem to have a seeing
> eye, which is good. The technical side can be learned more easily
> than the seeing side. Unfortunately, I have too much technical
> knowledge and a poor eye (though I can appreciate a good shot when I
> see it). Result: perfectly sharp, well exposed and printed shots,
> but boring as hell. {:-(
>
> Colin.