A few photos, no particular theme. (small thumbnails)

[sjl]

The remains after I heavily culled the collection I took over Easter.

Peppercorns:


A water feature taken from outside the Crown Casino in Melbourne:


Underneath an old bridge:


And the area of that same bridge that most people see:


I took a few other shots as well, some of them pretty decent, but I think that those -- along with the other shots I've already posted -- are the pick of the bunch.

My comments: the water feature was tricky to shoot; AF was never going to be any help, as the water is too ephemeral, and the contrast insufficient for the system to pick up. Overall, though, I think they turned out reasonably well, especially since I didn't have a tripod with me at the time.

The peppercorns: I actually prefered the colour in the shots I took without the flash. Trouble was, the lighting was a bit too low; I didn't have a tripod; and the camera shake was just a bit too much. The one (underexposed, bracketed) shot that was any good was also out of focus. Damnit.

Above the bridge: nice enough shot, and it does convey a certain image of old times, but I have this feeling that there's something lacking. I'm not sure exactly what, though.

Under the bridge: alignment was a little out, but otherwise, not a bad shot. I would have done better if I'd taken it in overcast lighting, though, I think.

Anybody care to make comment?

 

[Abstract]

The photos are a bit too small for me to make a real comment, even after you erase the "_m" from the links.

Actually, why did you even bother posting thumbnails when the "original" size you posted at Flickr were so darned small anyway?

I like the 3rd photo. Cool. I just can't see enough details from the Melbourne water feature photo.

 

[sjl]

Actually, why did you even bother posting thumbnails when the "original" size you posted at Flickr were so darned small anyway?

I like the 3rd photo. Cool. I just can't see enough details from the Melbourne water feature photo.

I don't like posting anything more than small thumbnails -- enough to give an impression of the image -- for the sake of those on dialup. I have a dial-up link at home; I know what it's like to wait for lots of images (even if they're relatively small) to come down a tiny pipe.

This is as large as Flickr allows, unfortunately. (1024x683). I don't have easy access to any alternatives at this stage (read: I'm too lazy to manually resize and copy across to another host. ) The full sized image of it is here though (~3 MB in size, 3504x2336 pixels.) Focus isn't as good as I'd like it to be, alas; I need to work on that (memo to self: bring a tripod next time, and try using the 50mm instead of the 17-85. Hooray for foot zoom ...)

 

[Abstract]

Oh okay. I tend to resize my photos (using Automator, if I want a quick batch resizing, or even a single image to be resized) to be 640x480, or 560 x 4??. But ok, I do understand.

Anyway, your Melbourne photo isn't THAT out of focus. Not bad for handheld, and hey, you can't bring your tripod everywhere.

I have a shot from the same spot. My friend took the photo. Not a very clear photo, but rays of water were shooting from the ground and I was pretending to be evil or something.

 

[Clix Pix]

Smugmug has a good setup so that one can have images of varying sizes; the nice thing is that the photographer can set it so that people cannot download or copy the largest or the originals, and that way viewers who have broadband can see the photos in large enough sizes to really appreciate them and those who are stuck with dialup also can enjoy them without worrying about downloading over the phone wires. Smugmug galleries can be set up so that they are much more attractive and professional looking than Flickr, too.

 

[Clix Pix]

The remains after I heavily culled the collection I took over Easter.

My favorite of these is the one of the bridge; I very much like the architectural details and the way you set up the shot to capture those. This, and the one of Melbourne at night, would be better appreciated in a larger size so that the viewer could really see them, but nonetheless I would say that all of these show a good eye and a good sense of how to use a camera's lens to really capture interesting details.

 

[Sdashiki]

I was going to say Photoshop the bridge into something cool. THen I said, why dont I just do it!

 

[sjl]

Anyway, your Melbourne photo isn't THAT out of focus. Not bad for handheld, and hey, you can't bring your tripod everywhere.

Who said it was handheld? I rested the camera on a nearby bench, which made framing the shot tricky -- the shot I posted is the only one with even remotely good framing (as far as I'm concerned); the others all have the tops of the water cut off. Damnit.

My favorite of these is the one of the bridge; I very much like the architectural details and the way you set up the shot to capture those. This, and the one of Melbourne at night, would be better appreciated in a larger size so that the viewer could really see them, but nonetheless I would say that all of these show a good eye and a good sense of how to use a camera's lens to really capture interesting details.

Yes, some of the shots I'd prefer to be a higher resolution than Flickr allows (thanks for the smugmug tip, btw; I'll have a look at it soon), but c'est la vie. I'm still very much learning, though; the cull ratio was far too high this time round for my liking. At least it shows that I can pick out the winners from a horde of also-rans, though. Thanks for the comments.

And, Sdashiki: Pbbbbbbbbbt.