Newport harbor, around sundown today
Model: NIKON D300
ISO: 1600
Exposure: 1/200 sec
Aperture: 4.0
Focal Length: 300mm
Model: NIKON D300
ISO: 1600
Exposure: 1/200 sec
Aperture: 4.0
Focal Length: 300mm
I'm grateful that you take the time to share these images of antiquity with us. It is always interesting and inspiring to me to see things that have survived for so long, left for us as memories of the distant past. Art is timeless.
The only thing I don't like are the fences, barriers and signs needed to keep people at a respectful distance. But that will never change, I'm afraid.
Dale
ps: Have you solved that mass file management problem that was slowing you down? Libraries tend to only get bigger, as you know......
I keep going back to the same places, to see how they'll look in different light...
Rampside hall, with its wonderful array of chimneys...
Used the PowerShot A70 to take this lovely photo of our garden at night time:
Despite being only a 3.2MP PowerShot model, it still takes nice photos.
pretty colors
nikon d40, 30mm (4sec, f/4, iso200)
Blue Heron (I think...)
Model: NIKON D300
ISO: 1600
Exposure: 1/320 sec
Aperture: 4.0
Focal Length: 300mm
I even came across, for the first time ever, an archaeological site at which photography is completely forbidden! I've been to plenty of museums that do not allow photography, but never before have I found an outdoor (and highly published) archaeological site with such a restriction. Disgusting!!
Blue Heron (I think...)
This is, IMHO, a big reason many of the museums don't allow non-flash photography. They all have gift shops that sell over-priced photos that you can buy.
Beaut lighting!
Love the atmosphere in your evening shots Doylem.
Bet your happy with this. Great work.
Really nice pdxflint, love the golden reflections.
Let me guess, the site has a gift shop that sells postcards and images of the site? Banning photography gives them exclusive rights on all images, except for the ones they license to select others. Either way, they get the money. This is, IMHO, a big reason many of the museums don't allow non-flash photography. They all have gift shops that sell over-priced photos that you can buy.
It also helps them with sidestepping copyright issues with modern artists, as well as not having to deal with the whole "messing with other visitors" thing.
I can only guess their reasoning for the prohibition of photography involves the licensing of site photos for publication. However, it seems really foolish to pursue that kind of income instead of popularizing the site as a destination. People don't like visiting places they can't photograph, and places that are more popularly photographed are getting free publicity and, in turn, more paying visitors.
I had to 'jump through hoops' to get permission to photograph a restored mill in a major English town. This was a 'tourist attraction' so under-promoted that most locals have never even heard of it. Even the mill's own brochure describes it as a "well-kept secret"!
I suggested that being featured in a book might help to promote the mill: yes, free publicity. But the suspicion of photographers runs deep in some quarters... meaning that "well-kept secrets" will remain unknown. I don't get it...
Typical! I really don't understand this mindset. It reminds me of something that happened to my husband a few months ago when he was photographing a field full of wildflowers. A car pulled up, and a man got out to question him. The conversation went something like this:
"Is something wrong?"
"No."
"Well then why are you photographing my field?"
"Because it looks good."
The owner's first thought was that the photo was part of a property tax reassessment or some kind of scam--something bad, at any rate. It hadn't occurred to him that his field full of flowers simply looked stunning in the morning light.