That's not too far from what I've done for the last year and more. In
my case, though, it's more closely related to laziness that clear
purpose. :-) That's where the pics in the Our Garden - 2003 ame from.
Actually, it's just the front yard, the back would be more work. And
that front yard is a great deal smaller than an acre, more like 1,000
sq.ft. I don't go in for critters much, although I get the occasional
insect (and of course, the Cat, but she is in another little gallery.)
My latest little project is two-fold, initiated by different things.
I didn't take all that many pictures from mid May to mid June, just one
roll. Then I ended up scanning the whole thing myself with no prints. I
had tried some Portra 160VC and had it developed and scanned by my
regular shop a whole ago. With Portra NC and various Supras, I've
received excellent scans from them and only needed to scan the
occasional frame myself. On the NC, the highs were seriously blown out
and the images too contrasty. I'd bought 2 rolls of the VC and when I
took the 2nd in, I asked if they could do it better. At least the guy
was honest. "We don't adjust the machine for different rolls, so if you
didn't like that last one, you won't like this one." So I had it
developed only. Without even crummy prints to look at, I had to at least
preview every image on the scanner to see what I had.
In the process of scanning, I was thinking about the recent questions
about the quality of scans people were getting. And you know what? Many
of mine were pretty blah too. I guess I'd not really looked at it that
way before, since the scan is just part of the overall process for me. I
thought it might be nice to post some scans just as they came out of the
scanner along with the eventual images.
Then I was thinking about past posts about film 'burn rate' and the
comments from the MF/LF crowd about how it helps/forces the photographer
to slow down and pay attention, rather than just burn film. Now I only
use 35mm, but I usually take my time and at least think about making
every shot count. Looking at every image carefully as I scanned them, it
struck me that there was a pretty good image somewhere in each one. A
couple were just to test something, but I did what I could with all of them.
So I started a little gallery I think of as "One Roll, 38 shots". In few
cases, I made multiple, virtually identical shots to bracket DOF or
because of real or imagined subject movement. By the time I subtract
those dups and add 2 extra images where I got 2 different results from
one frame, I end up with 34 images. I won't say they are all serious
keepers, but they are all at least interesting to me.
For the second part, I worked out a way to automate changes to the web
pages generated by PS to provide for a second image below each primary
one. That way, I can show the original, uncropped, unadjusted scan, too.
So far there are 2 exceptions, where the image below shows more of the
story. The first image shows shows the steps to the final image. The
last image on the first row shows an image that looks pretty decent
gussied up, sharpened and displayed fairly small. Underneath, you can
see that it is really wildly unsharp, with a double image from subject
movement in the breeze.
No captions yet on anything but the first image, but I'd be interested
in comments as a work in progress
Oh, another little comment. I used Fred Miranda's Web Presenter Pro
(WPPro) to do the downsizing for the primary images and I'm impressed.
Even if it didn't do a better job than I often (ever?) do in maintaining
quality in a downsampled image, the speed and convenience when called in
an action is a huge timesaver when dealing with a bunch of images.
Walt Wayman wrote:
>I've decided to spend a year -- yeah, that's right, one full year, four full
>seasons -- photographing almost nothing but my yard and the stuff that's in it
>or that I catch passing through. (I'll make an exception or two for TOPE
>shots and vacation expeditions.) Otherwise, this means I'm confined to one
>acre of woods in the northwest Atlanta suburbs. I've got six months to go,
>and I'll put up some stuff when I'm done. So far, pretty damn good.
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx