Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Photo of the Day - December 2009

Newport harbor, around sundown today

DSC_1989.jpg

Model: NIKON D300
ISO: 1600
Exposure: 1/200 sec
Aperture: 4.0
Focal Length: 300mm
 
Just had my little point-and-shoot Canon S5-IS with me for this shot, turned out decent......

organmountainssnow_001.jpg
 
Designer Dale said:
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...:)...
Click to expand...

Yes, the signs and barriers are unfortunate, especially the tall, chain-link-fence variety. I don't much mind the low, minimalist barriers; they often give nice lines to a photo. However, none of these number among my worst problems with photographing archaeological sites. Most sites have prohibitions against tripods, and most are not open during the golden hours of each day, regardless of the season.

Fortunately, there are a few exceptions:


ArchesAndWings.jpg



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!! :mad:

No, I haven't decided what to do about my Aperture/file management problem. Right now Aperture still doesn't support my new camera, so I'm increasingly tempted to jump back over to LightRoom. In the meantime, I'm limping along with DPP and Adobe Bridge for my newest images.
 
Our garden at night time

Used the PowerShot A70 to take this lovely photo of our garden at night time:
img0001cl.jpg


Despite being only a 3.2MP PowerShot model, it still takes nice photos.
 
Doylem said:
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...

rampsidehall1.jpg
rampsidehall2.jpg
Click to expand...

Terrific example of different light hitting a subject. I think I prefer the softer, warmer light of the more recent photo. It looks as though they've added on to the building since your first take.

aafuss1 said:
Used the PowerShot A70 to take this lovely photo of our garden at night time:
img0001cl.jpg


Despite being only a 3.2MP PowerShot model, it still takes nice photos.
Click to expand...

There's certainly a lot of photographic opportunity with a nice garden like that. I'm pretty sure the A70 is capable of doing long exposures in manual mode, so you might try putting it on a tripod and forgoing the flash for your next garden shot after dark.
 
Done fishing, now chillin' in the fading light and 22ºF

Blue Heron (I think...)

DSC_1945.jpg

Model: NIKON D300
ISO: 1600
Exposure: 1/320 sec
Aperture: 4.0
Focal Length: 300mm
 
Phrasikleia said:
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!! :mad:
Click to expand...

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.
 
pdxflint said:
Blue Heron (I think...)

DSC_1945.jpg
Click to expand...

It is a juvenile male Great Blue Heron. Males have the black feathers coming off of their heads which grow longer as they reach maturity. The wing coloring will darken with age, and the rest of the feathers will lengthen, including those on the front of the neck. Unlike most birds, the males are generally larger than the females.

When they're young like this, they'll generally allow approach to within 10-20 feet, sometimes closer with a lot of patience and familiarity. When they mature, you generally have 30-50' at the best, though occasionally small rivers, canals and inlets will give them enough comfort for closer approaches.

Paul
 
spitfirejd said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fun in my Digital Darkroom class, we went to the National Arboretum with Holga 120s. Only got a couple shots out of the film but had a great time with the Holga, especially when Penn develops for so cheap :p

Fairy Train
4172620125_1fa55eb94b_b.jpg
 
spitfirejd said:
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.
Click to expand...

No gift shop. No postcards or site guides for sale, but if there were, people would buy them regardless of whether or not they could take photos there themselves.

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. For example, the Italians recently let Google do a street view of Pompeii, saying they hoped it would boost tourism to the site.

compuwar said:
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.
Click to expand...

The museums I'm complaining about have no modern works in them. Nothing in these archaeological museums is subject to any kind of copyright law. Regardless, I think photography for touristic, artistic, and editorial purposes should be allowed in all museums, as should sketching. I think art should be able to have the greatest possible knock-on effect in culture; it shouldn't exist in a vacuum.

encephalon said:
726945502_sigMx-L.jpg
Click to expand...

I love the lines in this one. Great composition.
 
Phrasikleia said:
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.
Click to expand...

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... :confused:
 
Doylem said:
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... :confused:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Phrasikleia said:
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.
Click to expand...

I had this happen to me, I was shooting in the city at a market and the owneer was wondering why i was taking pictures and I simply showed him the back of the camera and he was like "please come back any time, those are gorgeous" People just get worried at first glance like you said they fear they are in trouble more than not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back