Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Finally got my sunset photos on the Web

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 4:31:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thanks again for everybody's help. Here's the link to those sunsets I shot
yesterday. Keep in mind that all photos were shot in jpeg mode (normal) and
no processing was used between the camera and the Web, except to shrink the
photos to fit. My photo Web skills are still pretty crude, so I don't know
how to post them so you can download the original full-size image.

http://sopris.net/byteme/images.htm

Sheldon
sheldon@sopris.net
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:52:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sheldon wrote:

> Thanks again for everybody's help. Here's the link to those sunsets I shot
> yesterday. Keep in mind that all photos were shot in jpeg mode (normal) and
> no processing was used between the camera and the Web, except to shrink the
> photos to fit. My photo Web skills are still pretty crude, so I don't know
> how to post them so you can download the original full-size image.
>
> http://sopris.net/byteme/images.htm

Good start, Sheldon, I esp. like the color, saturation and contrast in
the second image.

Regarding metering you're still not following what I meant you to try.

Point the camera at the brightest part of the scene, in Manual/spot
meter. Watch the meter, and adjust aperture &| speed so that it reads
+1.7 to +2.0. Shoot that and adjust from there. If you're recording
RAW, then you can spill out of the histogram on the right and recover
the detail later. This will also help with any foreground (objects near
you) recording detail if they are lit by that same light.

Finally, if, as in http://www.aliasimages.com/images/MF/D1000003S.jpg
you can include some foreground object that is lit by that light, then
you will be cooking with gas.

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:52:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 6o014$20i$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Sheldon wrote:
>
>> Thanks again for everybody's help. Here's the link to those sunsets I
>> shot yesterday. Keep in mind that all photos were shot in jpeg mode
>> (normal) and no processing was used between the camera and the Web,
>> except to shrink the photos to fit. My photo Web skills are still pretty
>> crude, so I don't know how to post them so you can download the original
>> full-size image.
>>
>> http://sopris.net/byteme/images.htm
>
> Good start, Sheldon, I esp. like the color, saturation and contrast in the
> second image.
>
> Regarding metering you're still not following what I meant you to try.
>
> Point the camera at the brightest part of the scene, in Manual/spot meter.
> Watch the meter, and adjust aperture &| speed so that it reads +1.7 to
> +2.0. Shoot that and adjust from there. If you're recording RAW, then
> you can spill out of the histogram on the right and recover the detail
> later. This will also help with any foreground (objects near you)
> recording detail if they are lit by that same light.

I understand. Thanks. Not much in the foreground. Maybe I'll use
Photoshop and "borrow" your lake. <BG> Nice shot, BTW.

Sheldon
Related resources
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 9:11:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <JtmdnZyiXJkI4xLfRVn-rA@comcast.com>,
Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>Thanks again for everybody's help. Here's the link to those sunsets I shot
>yesterday. Keep in mind that all photos were shot in jpeg mode (normal) and
>no processing was used between the camera and the Web, except to shrink the
>photos to fit. My photo Web skills are still pretty crude, so I don't know
>how to post them so you can download the original full-size image.
>
>http://sopris.net/byteme/images.htm

I particularly like that second shot.

As for how to make it so you can optionally download the
full-sized image, here is an example (you'll have to view the message
in plain text mode to see the HTML as it is):

======================================================================
<LI>
<A HREF=http://www2.d-and-d.com/EXAMPLES/flowers-001/smaller/ds...;
dsc_1507.jpg
<IMG SRC=http://www2.d-and-d.com/EXAMPLES/flowers-001/thumbnails... ALIGN=MIDDLE>
</A>
Date: 2005:05:12 17:55:49


1170097 Bytes
<P><P><P><P>
======================================================================

This was generated by a script, and has not yet been edited to add
comments. My script generates two subdirectories -- "thumbnails" and
"smaller" each having copies of the original reduced by a different
amount, and with the same filename other than the path. I normally
don't provide links to the full sized image, but explain (in some
boilerplate which the script adds) how to see the full-sized image if
someone so desires.

Obviously, "thumbnails" contains the smallest image, and
"smaller" contains the size of image which I expect to be a reasonable
fit on the screen. You could make it simply thumbnails and full-sized
images.

The line of <P><P><P><P> at the bottom of the entry is intended
to be split by editing to put in up to three paragraphs of comments
about the image above.

The date information was automatically extracted from the image
by use of "epinfo" (I'll probably switch to exiftool soon.) I'm
currently only pulling the date, because most of my pages are
documenting projects, where the exif information is irrelevant.

Obviously, the URLs in the HTML need to be changed to point to
your pages, not mine.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 9:11:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:D 6o85a$14j$1@Fuego.d-and-d.com...
> In article <JtmdnZyiXJkI4xLfRVn-rA@comcast.com>,
> Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>>Thanks again for everybody's help. Here's the link to those sunsets I
>>shot
>>yesterday. Keep in mind that all photos were shot in jpeg mode (normal)
>>and
>>no processing was used between the camera and the Web, except to shrink
>>the
>>photos to fit. My photo Web skills are still pretty crude, so I don't
>>know
>>how to post them so you can download the original full-size image.
>>
>>http://sopris.net/byteme/images.htm
>
> I particularly like that second shot.

Well, the second shot is the "money" shot. The others were to demonstrate
what I'd been talking about.

>
> As for how to make it so you can optionally download the
> full-sized image, here is an example (you'll have to view the message
> in plain text mode to see the HTML as it is):

Thanks. I've been using Front Page (got lazy), so my HTML is a bit weak
these days.

Sheldon
>
> ======================================================================
> <LI>
> <A HREF=http://www2.d-and-d.com/EXAMPLES/flowers-001/smaller/ds...;
> dsc_1507.jpg
> <IMG
> SRC=http://www2.d-and-d.com/EXAMPLES/flowers-001/thumbnails...
> ALIGN=MIDDLE>
> </A>
> Date: 2005:05:12 17:55:49
>

> 1170097 Bytes
> <P><P><P><P>
> ======================================================================
>
> This was generated by a script, and has not yet been edited to add
> comments. My script generates two subdirectories -- "thumbnails" and
> "smaller" each having copies of the original reduced by a different
> amount, and with the same filename other than the path. I normally
> don't provide links to the full sized image, but explain (in some
> boilerplate which the script adds) how to see the full-sized image if
> someone so desires.
>
> Obviously, "thumbnails" contains the smallest image, and
> "smaller" contains the size of image which I expect to be a reasonable
> fit on the screen. You could make it simply thumbnails and full-sized
> images.
>
> The line of <P><P><P><P> at the bottom of the entry is intended
> to be split by editing to put in up to three paragraphs of comments
> about the image above.
>
> The date information was automatically extracted from the image
> by use of "epinfo" (I'll probably switch to exiftool soon.) I'm
> currently only pulling the date, because most of my pages are
> documenting projects, where the exif information is irrelevant.
>
> Obviously, the URLs in the HTML need to be changed to point to
> your pages, not mine.
>
> Enjoy,
> DoN.
> --
> Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
> (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
> --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 11:50:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sheldon wrote:
> Thanks again for everybody's help. Here's the link to those sunsets I shot
> yesterday. Keep in mind that all photos were shot in jpeg mode (normal) and
> no processing was used between the camera and the Web, except to shrink the
> photos to fit. My photo Web skills are still pretty crude, so I don't know
> how to post them so you can download the original full-size image.
>
> http://sopris.net/byteme/images.htm
>
> Sheldon
> sheldon@sopris.net
>
>
Nice job...I liked the last one the best...
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 5:54:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sheldon <sheldon@xxxxxxxxsopris.net> wrote:
> Thanks again for everybody's help. Here's the link to those sunsets I shot
> yesterday. Keep in mind that all photos were shot in jpeg mode (normal) and
> no processing was used between the camera and the Web, except to shrink the
> photos to fit. My photo Web skills are still pretty crude, so I don't know
> how to post them so you can download the original full-size image.
>
> http://sopris.net/byteme/images.htm
>
> Sheldon
> sheldon@sopris.net
>
>

I like the last one best. The first one has too much black and the
second has too much sky (IMHO). The last one is balanced alright. My
only criticism about the last one is that it should perhaps be cropped
to remove the tree on the right to avoid distraction and pulling ones
attention out of the picture.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 6:17:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:31:58 -0600, "Sheldon"
<sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>Thanks again for everybody's help. Here's the link to those sunsets I shot
>yesterday. Keep in mind that all photos were shot in jpeg mode (normal) and
>no processing was used between the camera and the Web, except to shrink the
>photos to fit. My photo Web skills are still pretty crude, so I don't know
>how to post them so you can download the original full-size image.
>
>http://sopris.net/byteme/images.htm

Shot two is great. Maybe Photoshop in a silhouette of a radio antenna
or astronomy telescope on those hills at the far right to add some
interest... A lone joshua tree perhaps? Or even a dragon. :-)

This is art, photography has rules, art doesn't.

I'd be tempted to do some more playing with the scene at shot one -
maybe try some fill flash angled at the tree, just to bring it out of
silhouette slightly. Most sunset pictures suffer 'flatness', only with
careful inclusion of easily distinguishable foreground and mid ground
objects can the sense of the 3D scene be retained - possibly helped
with additional front lighting.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 6:17:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:

> This is art, photography has rules, art doesn't.

Most artists are quite constrained in their range of art. Whether they
label this constraint 'rules' or something else is irrelevant.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 6:50:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Gambo" <gambo2work@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ssydncsc79CkVBLfRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Sheldon wrote:
>> Thanks again for everybody's help. Here's the link to those sunsets I
>> shot yesterday. Keep in mind that all photos were shot in jpeg mode
>> (normal) and no processing was used between the camera and the Web,
>> except to shrink the photos to fit. My photo Web skills are still pretty
>> crude, so I don't know how to post them so you can download the original
>> full-size image.
>>
>> http://sopris.net/byteme/images.htm
>>
>> Sheldon
>> sheldon@sopris.net
>>
>>
> Nice job...I liked the last one the best...

Well, you could save a lot of money. That one was taken with my "new"
refurbished $150 Optio set to sunset mode.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 9:02:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 12:02:23 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Owamanga wrote:
>
>> This is art, photography has rules, art doesn't.
>
>Most artists are quite constrained in their range of art. Whether they
>label this constraint 'rules' or something else is irrelevant.

Yes, but is that always a good thing?

Many people would stop short of what I suggested (adding an artificial
silhouette to a sunset image to add interest) because they feel it's
cheating.

....and it is... sort of.. but should that prevent someone from doing
it?

If I did add something so significant to the composition in photoshop,
then it is no longer photography, but it is still art.

Each school of art has rules/constraints, I agree - photography,
dance, song, painting, acting, drawing - but in the name of
creativity, we should sometimes be prepared to push the envelope - at
the very least, consider it.

I forget the film title now, but am reminded of a scene quite a while
into the film where a girl is making love to her boyfriend and
suddenly looks directly into the camera and starts talking to the
audience. No warning, just wham.... Rule broken. Great effect.
Audience wakes up....

Last weeks SI demonstrates that rules can, and should be broken
sometimes. Here I'm talking about a cardinal rule that sadly nobody
submitted for the SI (it's against the SI rules, strangely enough) -
fake it in photoshop and be proud of your creation.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 9:30:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:

> On Mon, 23 May 2005 12:02:23 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Owamanga wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is art, photography has rules, art doesn't.
>>
>>Most artists are quite constrained in their range of art. Whether they
>>label this constraint 'rules' or something else is irrelevant.
>
>
> Yes, but is that always a good thing?

I was just stating what is, I really don't care if artists constrain
themsleves or not.

The successful ones are those who either do something very well, very
often that pleases a market; or those who bash the barriers and create
coninuously and in new areas. Artists that are truly successful in the
later extreme are very, very rare.


>
> Many people would stop short of what I suggested (adding an artificial
> silhouette to a sunset image to add interest) because they feel it's
> cheating.
>
> ...and it is... sort of.. but should that prevent someone from doing
> it?

I really don't care. But if a photographer presents an image as an
original image without enhancement, then it would be not be appreciated.
if it were in fact enhanced. There is an art in getting the whole image
right, exposed for eventual display without modification. Printing
allows for some 'tuning', but adding or removing elements is not in the
spirit of original work.

> If I did add something so significant to the composition in photoshop,
> then it is no longer photography, but it is still art.

Sure. But it is no longer a photograph. It is a graphic.

> Each school of art has rules/constraints, I agree - photography,
> dance, song, painting, acting, drawing - but in the name of
> creativity, we should sometimes be prepared to push the envelope - at
> the very least, consider it.

See above.

>
> I forget the film title now, but am reminded of a scene quite a while
> into the film where a girl is making love to her boyfriend and
> suddenly looks directly into the camera and starts talking to the
> audience. No warning, just wham.... Rule broken. Great effect.
> Audience wakes up....

Gimmick.

> Last weeks SI demonstrates that rules can, and should be broken
> sometimes. Here I'm talking about a cardinal rule that sadly nobody
> submitted for the SI (it's against the SI rules, strangely enough) -
> fake it in photoshop and be proud of your creation.

The 'break the rules' and the current "Best Worst" are examples of
things in the SI that do not challenge us to do better photography.

I hope the remaining mandators get back to challenging us to do
interesting things instead of pony tricks.

Cheers,
Alam

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 9:30:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> Owamanga wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 May 2005 12:02:23 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Owamanga wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is art, photography has rules, art doesn't.
>>>
>>>
>>> Most artists are quite constrained in their range of art. Whether
>>> they label this constraint 'rules' or something else is irrelevant.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, but is that always a good thing?
>
>
> I was just stating what is, I really don't care if artists constrain
> themsleves or not.
>
> The successful ones are those who either do something very well, very
> often that pleases a market; or those who bash the barriers and create
> coninuously and in new areas. Artists that are truly successful in the
> later extreme are very, very rare.



That sounds about right. I'll add that many talented artists follow a
tightly constrained style/method/technique for a while till they get
sick of it (months or maybe years) then move on to another "series"
exploring new ideas.

The rule breaking is often what gives a distinctive style, though not
necessarily. So maybe they will practice breaking a particular rule for
a while, making it their rule to break that rule <grin> with the intent
of really learning how to do that. And it's quite possible they learn
how to follow the rule by learning how to break it.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 4:26:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 17:30:20 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Owamanga wrote:
>
>> Last weeks SI demonstrates that rules can, and should be broken
>> sometimes. Here I'm talking about a cardinal rule that sadly nobody
>> submitted for the SI (it's against the SI rules, strangely enough) -
>> fake it in photoshop and be proud of your creation.
>
>The 'break the rules' and the current "Best Worst" are examples of
>things in the SI that do not challenge us to do better photography.

I disagree with the first half: Break the rules was a challenge
because the mandate was "Break the rules and come up with an image
*that still works*". That last bit is important to the mandate. As it
turned out, I had a recent shot that met (IMHO) the criteria so never
did get around to shooting something specifically for it.

Best Worse, and any mandate that basically requires you to dig out an
archive shot is relatively pointless, I'd agree.

An exception may be a mandate that asks you to take the same subject
you used for a previous submission, photograph it again but reverse
the meaning - eg, cute becomes evil, parents become children, solid
becomes liquid (actually, there aren't many previous challenges that
can be reversed)...

>I hope the remaining mandators get back to challenging us to do
>interesting things instead of pony tricks.

Harsh...

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 4:26:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:

> I disagree with the first half: Break the rules was a challenge
> because the mandate was "Break the rules and come up with an image
> *that still works*". That last bit is important to the mandate. As it
> turned out, I had a recent shot that met (IMHO) the criteria so never
> did get around to shooting something specifically for it.

"Break the rules", IMO, focuses on what it is supposed to be breaking
away from.

I'd rather make photos that reply to a need for a themed photo and not a
need to focus on rules, positively or negatively.

(Note: in my former photo club, there would be a variety of themes.
Whenever the themes were subject oriented ("non studio portraits",
"Rivers", "Trees", etc. the photography presented would be great.
Whenever the themes were 'technical', that is to say: "Contrast",
"Vertical perspective", etc., the photography was the most stilted. On
could say that the aspect themese were more challenging. I would say
that the themes that produced the best photography were the most useful
for everyone. Hence my position above.)

>>I hope the remaining mandators get back to challenging us to do
>>interesting things instead of pony tricks.
>
>
> Harsh...

Maybe. I just want some target that's inspiring. To me the last two
mandates were anything but.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 10:47:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:02:21 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>I just want some target that's inspiring. To me the last two
>mandates were anything but.

Alan, I've replied to this in rec.photo.equipment.35mm under a new
thread:

[SI] Pony trick mandates - Time for improvement?

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 10:47:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:

> Alan, I've replied to this in rec.photo.equipment.35mm under a new
> thread:
>
> [SI] Pony trick mandates - Time for improvement?

I don't see it there yet, but my answer is "Hell, yes!"

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
!