Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/03/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Chris Crawford < chris at chriscrawfordphoto.com> wrote: > Moonrise wasn't in Yosemite, it was in Hernandez, New Mexico. Hernandez is > not a town, its a collection of rundown trailers around an old church. I > visited it one day when I lived in Santa Fe. The place is about an hour > drive north from Santa, if I remember right. > > I shot this photo of the church Adams photographed: > http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/chris-details.php?product=1274 > > Adams shot it from the highway, which is behind the church, while I made > my photo from the front of it. The crosses and gravestones he saw behind > the church were not visible when I was there because the whole churchyard > was overgrown with tall weeds when I was there in the summer of 2006. > Thanks. I clarified that in a later post. Doesn't change the point I was trying to make. > > -- > Chris Crawford > Fine Art Photography > Fort Wayne, Indiana > 260-437-8990 > > http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio > > http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work! > > http://www.facebook.com/pages/Christopher-Crawford/48229272798 > Become a fan on Facebook > > > > On 3/25/13 10:56 PM, "Sonny Carter" <sonc.hegr at gmail.com> wrote: > > >But Adam, They could paint three dots on the ground at Yellowstone, > >and at the appointed hour with an identical camera and identical > >plates and, well, you get the picture, Actually, I mean, you would not > >get the picture. Moonrise is a non-repeatable. > > > >You might come close, but why would you want to? So you might have > >gotten a better result shooting wider, or faster or at a different > >ISO. The conditions are gonna be different next time unless you are > >in a studio. > > > >The whole point of what we do is to see something and show someone > >else what we see. > > > >Look Adam, See what I see! > > > >Behold! Look! See! Emblepo! > > > >There are lots of variables in Photography, what we do out there is > >try to get them right. > > > > > > > > > >On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Adam Bridge <abridge at mac.com> wrote: > >> Maybe for you guys who have been shooting for ages. For us neophytes > >>that information is actually instructive: I look at an image, mostly I > >>remember what I was trying to achieve. How did I shoot this? Hmmm, > >>interesting choice but I might have gotten a better result shooting > >>wider, or faster, or at a different ISO. There are lots of variables in > >>photography. Not all of us are adept at getting them right. > >> > >> I don't think having that available is harmful or useless. I find it > >>invaluable. > >> > >> I've found a somewhat snotty vibe to the responses to this post mostly > >>because Nathan's original post was a bit edgy and judgmental since he > >>dissed the entire idea of metadata from the git-go. > >> > >> Metadata are a tool, just as the captured image is a tool, to making a > >>better image the next time. > >> > >> That's the important part. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> On Mar 24, 2013, at 2:21 PM, Nathan Wajsman <photo at frozenlight.eu> > >>wrote: > >>> techhnical details are useless at best, and harmful at worst. > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > > >-- > >Regards, > > > >Sonny > >http://sonc.com/look/ > >Natchitoches, Louisiana > > > >USA > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Leica Users Group. > >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- Regards, Sonny http://sonc.com/look/ Natchitoches, Louisiana USA