|
|
Yutaka Itinose
{K:22586} 2/22/2004
|
Woah! Nice moment.
|
|
|
|
|
charlie f. kohn
{K:25919} 2/14/2004
|
dear stefan,
thank you very much for your *clarification*. mind you, i suffer the similar if not same syndrom regarding the very formal discussion of technicalities which i regard very little. especially as far as a used camera or lens or filters or suchlike is concerned. i believe those details are not really important or very relevant for the good or rewarding photographic result. in a similar context i recently described the story of one of our high class professionals who was robbed all his equipment on the way to an assignment on a seagoing explorer. he finally delivered an excellent portfolio he had to take with a regular "tourist" automatic, the only and best he could acquire at the last minute before boarding the ship. so much for the questions regarding equipment.
that should not mean i would love to forego my lovely nikon and sony and pentax and hasselblad cameras. far from it... but just in case, i would have to show i am able without all their properties.
thank you for injecting a little fun and irony where normally mainly seriousness prevails...
best regards
charlie.f.kohn@sixpence-pictures.com // madrid
|
|
|
|
|
Sachiko Kanasashi
{K:3025} 2/13/2004
|
Excellent done,lovely!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Engström
{K:24473} 2/13/2004
|
Dear Charlie, forgive my sardonic, albeit good-humoured, comment which was perhaps intended as much for Tim as for you. The photographer's task is to make all the choices behind the camera, and so much of the discussion here revolves about what different choices would have meant in terms of the final result. Sometimes there are obvious problems in judgement on the photographer's part, but in this case, I am pretty confident you knew what you were after and you got it. Surely shorter or longer shutters would give different results, and these are valid alternatives, but constructive criticism in this case probably should not be about the choices that were clear in your mind... Quite possibly I now have you *really* confused so I'll stop here.
|
|
|
|
|
charlie f. kohn
{K:25919} 2/13/2004
|
dear stefan,
that correction i don't understand. surely i intentionally choose some rather slow shutter speed to keep "the water flowing". as slow as i could hold in the position over the water basin of the fountain. a shorter shutter speed should have "iced" the sculpture and frozen the water. or didn't i catch your point?
best regards
charlie.f.kohn@sixpence-pictures.com // madrid
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Marquis
{K:2172} 2/12/2004
|
Very nice. I love the fuzzy background you made in this photo.
Dave
www.japanish.org
|
|
|
|
|
jon parsons
{K:13639} 2/12/2004
|
Charlie, a wonderful and very creative well thought out presentation my friend! lovely work as is your trademark....jon
|
|
|
|
Jan Symank
{K:22030} 2/12/2004
|
Yes...thats true.
The water against the background with the light reflections is very nice
Bravo and regards from Jan
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Engström
{K:24473} 2/12/2004
|
Actually, I meant: "Fun, maybe a shorter shutter would add something". The hazards of cut and paste.
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Engström
{K:24473} 2/12/2004
|
Fun, maybe a longer shutter would add something :-)
I'm glad you found that backdrop. I tried similar things last summer and found it surprisingly hard to get something I liked.
|
|
|
|
Roberto Arcari Farinetti
{K:209486} 2/12/2004
|
hi charlie.. a great idea with a great DOF!
roby
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny K
{K:12635} 2/12/2004
|
Nice capture ! Nice DOF !
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Bronkhorst
{K:9391} 2/12/2004
|
Fun, maybe a longer shutter would add something.
Greets Tim.
|
|
0 
