"H.E. Day" wrote:

> Oh, and enjoy.

enjoy, enjoy, enjoy...

In one post you wrote that the beams are just flattened cones and that
it gives you more control. I think this makes it harder because you have
to clip them at the bridge to give the right atmospheric effect. It
looks good but not perfect. Some beams are clipped by the bridge but it
seems that some other beams go through the D/M/F tableau.

But who am I to criticize... I will never do such an excellent job (even
not with moray) 8-[

Karl

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote :
>
> Roland Barthes, in his
> essay on photography titled the "Chambre Claire", called this odd stuff
the
> "punctum", for example a small, unexpected detail that shouldn't be there
if the
> picture was actually perfect.
>

    This reminds me of the Buddhist story of a monk who, in preparing the
monastary for the visit of a superior, trimmed and cleaned up the garden,
raking the leaves into a compost pile. When the visitor arrived the monk
asked him if he enjoyed the perfection of the garden. The older monk went
over to the compost pile and got a handful of leaves and scattered them over
the garden and said, "-Now- it is perfect"...

Post a reply to this message

I would interpret this as indicating that no risks had been taken. For
example, imagine a dim turkish bath with beams of sunlight cutting through
the steam from high windows. You would probably want to bracket your
exposures several stops each way from what the camera would recommend. And
you'd know that at least half of 'em were going to be unusable...

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandluf9couk> wrote in message
news:390ec7f8@news.povray.org...
> I would interpret this as indicating that no risks had been taken. For
> example, imagine a dim turkish bath with beams of sunlight cutting through
> the steam from high windows. You would probably want to bracket your
> exposures several stops each way from what the camera would recommend. And
> you'd know that at least half of 'em were going to be unusable...
>

    But what if your years of experience allowed you to get it right the
first time and you knew it. Would you then have failed?

    I wonder at the phrases used. Who is it that judges that the images are
pretty or properly exposed?

Post a reply to this message

> I like a lot! Two thumbs up!

because its vacuumed packed on site for freshness?

Rick

Post a reply to this message

In article <390f04a9@news.povray.org>, kit### [at] dialpipexcom says...
> 
> > I like a lot! Two thumbs up!
> 
> because its vacuumed packed on site for freshness?

I seriously doubt any non-UK readers will make any sense of that 
particular comment <grin>

BTW, You're not called Tommy Singh, are you?

Bye for now,
     Jamie.

Post a reply to this message

> > > I like a lot! Two thumbs up!
> >
> > because its vacuumed packed on site for freshness?
>
> I seriously doubt any non-UK readers will make any sense of that
> particular comment <grin>
>
> BTW, You're not called Tommy Singh, are you?

unfortuantly not!

those ads are the best i ahve seen in a long while, really funny -
especially the standing grinning, and the clapping at the end.. love em..

(not going to make me switch from pg tips tho....)

Rick

Post a reply to this message

> >   "If you ever shoot a roll of film and all the resulting photos are
> > pretty, sharp, and well exposed - you've failed."
>

I don't understand what constitues a failure as stated by this odd quote. Does
this mean that in order to succeed at being an artist you have to produce
things that have flaws in them? What is the universal standard of sucess, and
where can I find it.  does this not raise the question of what actually
constitutes a piece of artwork? I really get tired of people telling me what
is art and what is not. If I like it, I like it. If not, well then I don't,
simple as that. If I produce a sphere on a checkered plane, is that not art?
It may infact not get any message across, or convey any emotion , but if I
like it then that is all that matters.

There is a saying that we have in my lab:
"just because no one understands you does mean you are an artist"

sorry to rant, you don't have to continue this...  ;-)

BTW, I really like H.E. Day's compositional and techinical skill. Very
accomplished.

cheers

paul

Post a reply to this message

In article <390CF25B.DBBAD459@heday.freeservers.com>, H.E. Day
<The### [at] hedayfreeserverscom> writes
>Yes indeedy.  I be done.  I don't think I can wait two weeks for
>feedback,
>so I'd like to request the ng's comments.  Please comment!!
>Someone here said that they should be worried about me, Gilles, and
>Nathan.
>Personally, I'm only scared spitless of Gilles. Nathan and I are about
>even. I guess.
>You judge.
>Oh, and enjoy.
>
>--
>H.E. Day

W..O..W

I wanna 1024x768 version for my wallpaper
-- 
David Parrott

Post a reply to this message

Howard, you've done it again. Even if I'm a bit late joining the acclaims.
Personally, I don't think you should compare youreself to Gilles Tran.
His work is more mystery and thought. Your work is impeccable technique
with a consistent quality level.
The two don't really compare on equal levels.
Both of you are masters of your arts.

Envious greetings,

Cormac.

Post a reply to this message