Colin Prior - Landscape Photographer extraordinaire - TGO Jan 2005 edition
SteveO
The current edition of TGO (Jan 2005) makes quite a noise about a new
columnist joinging their books, Colin Prior. Who he? Well, as the
bullet point on the cover says "Britain's Finest Landscape
Photographer"
...so if photography isn't your bag you can select <<ignore>> for this
thread now ;-)
Mind you, you'd be missing out big timeif you didn't have a rummage
through the magazine, even if it returns to the shelves when you've
finihsed, because there are some reproductions of absolutely stunning
photographs.
There are two articles from him, one a general article entitled
"Highland Wilderness - the invisible essence". The second is what is
tabled as the first of a regular column contrubutions. Both are
interesting reads.
The second is an emminently readable treatise on digital photography
taking over, why this is a "good thing" (my quotes), film photography
being a "dead" technology (my wording) and the significant benefits of
using Photoshop... and where the use of Photoshop can and should be
decried [in serious/published photography].
A lot of the focus of the discussion mirrors what has been said in
here, by Mr Saunders especially, but in the mag its coming out as a
huge statement in the general press, at least that's how I see it.
Interesting stuff... and awesome photographs!
/me decides to mothball camera and pretentions of ever being able to
take a decent photo ;-)
SteveO
--
NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php
NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk
superted
>
>The current edition of TGO (Jan 2005) makes quite a noise about a new
>columnist joinging their books, Colin Prior. Who he? Well, as the
>bullet point on the cover says "Britain's Finest Landscape
>Photographer"
>
>...so if photography isn't your bag you can select <<ignore>> for this
>thread now ;-)
>
>Mind you, you'd be missing out big timeif you didn't have a rummage
>through the magazine, even if it returns to the shelves when you've
>finihsed, because there are some reproductions of absolutely stunning
>photographs.
>
>There are two articles from him, one a general article entitled
>"Highland Wilderness - the invisible essence". The second is what is
>tabled as the first of a regular column contrubutions. Both are
>interesting reads.
>
>The second is an emminently readable treatise on digital photography
>taking over, why this is a "good thing" (my quotes), film photography
>being a "dead" technology (my wording) and the significant benefits of
>using Photoshop... and where the use of Photoshop can and should be
>decried [in serious/published photography].
Funny that as basically a similar article in 'Outdoor Photography' says
a similar story. He has regular contributions to that mag.
He is packing up his medium format stuff to use the Canon 1dsmk2 etc.
I have his book 'Scotland the wild places' nice to look at: think of how
i can get similar views and dream of being on holiday up there
--
superted
SteveO
wrote:
> Funny that as basically a similar article in 'Outdoor Photography' says
>a similar story. He has regular contributions to that mag.
<g> he's obviously getting value for money with his musings by
reaching different markets! ;-)
superted
>On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 11:51:44 +0000, superted <supe...@barfly.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>> Funny that as basically a similar article in 'Outdoor Photography' says
>>a similar story. He has regular contributions to that mag.
>
><g> he's obviously getting value for money with his musings by
>reaching different markets! ;-)
>
None using digital but the image of K2
an erratic at Loch Ba
an erratic on the Baltoro glacier in Pakistan has to be seen to be
believed.
--
superted
Chris Gilbert
SteveO wrote:
> Colin Prior. Who he? Well
<COUGH>
A coffee/keyboard moment, there.
Steve, you're a bit of photographer. Have you not come across
his work before ? He uses a fancy and very expensive wide-angle
camera for much of his work and anyone who is prepared to camp
on top of mountains in winter just to get pics of the sunrise
has my respect. I also have Colin Prior to thank for drawing to
my attention the beauty of the beaches on the Western Isles. Top
bloke IMO.
Chris
Chris Gilbert
Duncan Gray
"Chris Gilbert" <chris_...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1102431641.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Yeah decent bloke. He was on the Tiso stand at Dundee Mountain Film Festival
last month signing copies of his new calendar.
Talking of the Western Isles, have you seen the horrendous windfarm
proposals for Lewis? I've just put on a webpage about them.
--
Duncan Gray
The Mountaineering Council of Scotland
www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk
Chris Gilbert
Duncan Gray wrote:
> Talking of the Western Isles, have you seen the horrendous windfarm
> proposals for Lewis? I've just put on a webpage about them.
Crumbs. I hadn't realise that they were going to be that extensive.
I would be prepared to tolerate something smaller, concentrated on
the northern end of the island, away from habitation and concentrating
any habitat destruction in a small area, away from Eagle ranges but
a development on this scale is nothing short of madness.
But then I don't live there so what does my opinion count ?
Chris
Chris Gilbert
> Talking of the Western Isles, have you seen the horrendous windfarm
> proposals for Lewis? I've just put on a webpage about them.
Crumbs. I hadn't realise that they were going to be that extensive.
Chris Gilbert
> Talking of the Western Isles, have you seen the horrendous windfarm
> proposals for Lewis? I've just put on a webpage about them.
Crumbs. I hadn't realise that they were going to be that extensive.
Duncan Gray
The Scottish Executive have been pretty receptive to objections and
responses they receive to these sort of things and numbers of responses seem
to impress them. We did well out of the Land Reform Act, and the Sheildaig
Hydro Scheme was refused.
I don't live there either, but I'll still put in an objection.
--
Duncan Gray
www.duncolm.co.uk
also The Mountaineering Council of Scotland
www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk
RJ Webb
>
>The current edition of TGO (Jan 2005) makes quite a noise about a new
>columnist joinging their books, Colin Prior. Who he? Well, as the
>bullet point on the cover says "Britain's Finest Landscape
>Photographer"
Some good stuff in the gear shops for the last few years which I have
never considered buying because of the big text that comes with the
picture and spoils the presentation.
Nice photos though
Richard Webb
Simon Caldwell
>
>The current edition of TGO (Jan 2005) makes quite a noise about a new
>columnist joinging their books, Colin Prior. Who he? Well, as the
>bullet point on the cover says "Britain's Finest Landscape
>Photographer"
>
Colin Prior is one of my least favourite mountain photographers. His
best pictures could easily be taken by anyone with access to the
expensive equipment he uses. The majority could easily be taken by
anyone with access to any camera, and they'd reject most of them as
'nothing special'.
S.
--
York Alpine Club - http://www.yorkalpineclub.org.uk
Recent Photos - http://climbing.me.uk
Old Photos - http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk
My Brother's Photos - http://www.caldwellcreations.co.uk
Chris Gilbert
like even when it reports a posting error, which happened when I
created this post, it actually succeeds in NNTP.post. I often feel
like I'm repeating myself but in this instance its not my fault :-)
Chris
Darren G
>
> The current edition of TGO (Jan 2005) makes quite a noise about a new
> columnist joinging their books, Colin Prior. Who he? Well, as the
> bullet point on the cover says "Britain's Finest Landscape
> Photographer"
> A lot of the focus of the discussion mirrors what has been said in
> here, by Mr Saunders especially, but in the mag its coming out as a
> huge statement in the general press, at least that's how I see it.
>
> Interesting stuff... and awesome photographs!
to some extent, but once again the discussions is reasonable common, not
particularly advanced and once again as for all the mags I feel like
I've read it before. Though maybe that is also 'cos I also read photo
mags.
To me, with the exception of the gear side of things, I almost get the
feeling that tgo is becoming more of a coffee table mag than an outdoor
one.
--
Darren
Paul Saunders
>> Colin Prior. Who he? Well, as the
>> bullet point on the cover says "Britain's Finest Landscape
>> Photographer"
>
> Colin Prior is one of my least favourite mountain photographers. His
> best pictures could easily be taken by anyone with access to the
> expensive equipment he uses. The majority could easily be taken by
> anyone with access to any camera, and they'd reject most of them as
> 'nothing special'.
Most interesting reply so far. Before I comment, can I ask you out of
curiostity what you personally consider to be "special" in the field of
landscape photography?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> The second is an emminently readable treatise on digital photography
> taking over, why this is a "good thing" (my quotes), film photography
> being a "dead" technology (my wording) and the significant benefits of
> using Photoshop... and where the use of Photoshop can and should be
> decried [in serious/published photography].
>
> A lot of the focus of the discussion mirrors what has been said in
> here, by Mr Saunders especially,
Really? What has he said exactly? In particular, where did he draw the
line in Photoshop use?
> /me decides to mothball camera and pretentions of ever being able to
> take a decent photo ;-)
No, no, no! That's a glass-half-full attitude. Be positive! Be
inspired! Learn and improve!
What one man can do another man can do! (Anthony Hopkins, The Edge.)
Paul Saunders
> To me, with the exception of the gear side of things, I almost get the
> feeling that tgo is becoming more of a coffee table mag than an
> outdoor one.
In what way? Too much OT stuff?
SteveO
<chris_...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>SteveO wrote:
>
>> Colin Prior. Who he? Well
>
><COUGH>
>A coffee/keyboard moment, there.
>
>Steve, you're a bit of photographer. Have you not come across
>his work before ?
No-eeew! Yer daft herbert, I wa penning the above for those who I
imagined would be saying "who he?"
SteveO
<simonjc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Colin Prior is one of my least favourite mountain photographers. His
>best pictures could easily be taken by anyone with access to the
>expensive equipment he uses.
That prinicipal goes for every single photo ever taken, but where it
falls down is in analysing reality: even with the same equipment
results would differ, some would say markedly.
There's a lot to be said for the input from the "creative" side of the
photographer taking a pic, any pic. In fact I think its this aspect
which, imho, sorts the wheat from the chaff.
>The majority could easily be taken by anyone with access to any
> camera, and they'd reject most of them as 'nothing special'.
Anyone viewing the photos is, of course entitled, in fact I'd go so
far as to say expected, to make up their own mind as to whether or not
a pic appeals to them. For me, Colin Prior's work has a "luminosity"
which I would hesitantly suggest is a "trade mark". This is something
that few other folk would be able to capture.
Colin Prior gave a slide-show in Alnwick a couple of week's ago, which
I wasn't able to get to but a few folk in our club did. One of the
comments passed on by soemone talking about the talk afterwards was
the effort CP goes to in trying to get the light he wants to capture
in his photo; time of day, time of year and specific viewpoint being
important (one pic taking him four years to get the image he wanted).
This approach is mirrored elsewhere; Galen Rowell's "Split Rock and
Cloud" (I think that's the correct title) has to be one such picture.
In a similar vein I recall our own Paul Saunders mentioning that he's
camped out for four days+ to try and get the photo he was after.
Personal opinions are extremely valid, and should never be denegrated
(imho) but I don't think its true to say that anyone coud take the
same pic. That's a different kettle of fish to wheter or not you like
a photo.
SteveO
>> Interesting stuff... and awesome photographs!
>
>to some extent, but once again the discussions is reasonable common, not
>particularly advanced and once again as for all the mags I feel like
>I've read it before.
T'was ever thus and so will it always be.
However, can you recall when discussion about such things as trekking
(sic.) poles was rife? That they were indeed the tools of Satan? Now
discussions are accepting, in the majority, and few and far between.
By the same token the discussions in the mags will change... its just
on a slow wash cycle, is all!! ;-)
>Though maybe that is also 'cos I also read photo mags.
Yup, that's the way it goes.
>To me, with the exception of the gear side of things, I almost get the
>feeling that tgo is becoming more of a coffee table mag than an outdoor
>one.
Its a commercial reality, appeal to as wider audience as possible
within your trget group to make sure you don't go the way of all
flesh. Nowt wrong with that from a business sense. From the POV of a
readre who sees nothing but same-old same-old it something to contend
with, if it bugs you - move on.
SteveO
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> A lot of the focus of the discussion mirrors what has been said in
>> here, by Mr Saunders especially,
>
>Really? What has he said exactly? In particular, where did he draw the
>line in Photoshop use?
He absolutely decried to production of composite images (the addition
of a silhouette of a deer/moose on a skyline, for instance) which he
says he has seen in the work of some pro photographers.
To be acknowledged and encouraged (my summation) was the value in
exposure bracketing, taking the images into photoshop and merging, for
instance, the sky from one exposure with the foreground from another -
to more faithfully reproduce what the photographer remembers his eye
saw at the time (his words-ish).
>> /me decides to mothball camera and pretentions of ever being able to
>> take a decent photo ;-)
>
>No, no, no! That's a glass-half-full attitude. Be positive! Be
>inspired! Learn and improve!
:-) indeedo.
'cept I'm suffering a momentary hiatus - I've lost all of my photos
from this year, yep all, every single one. >1GB data. A new hard drive
(bought to add redundancy) failed with everything on it. So, I've got
nothing to work with at the mo' :-(
...don't believe what you tell yourself when the little voice says
"the new drive has got to be more stable than the old one's you've
got"
Peewiglet
non-expert opinion.
http://www.photoblink.com/net/mshop.aspx?uid=3987
Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \
Paul Saunders
>> Really? What has he said exactly? In particular, where did he draw
>> the line in Photoshop use?
>
> He absolutely decried to production of composite images (the addition
> of a silhouette of a deer/moose on a skyline, for instance) which he
> says he has seen in the work of some pro photographers.
I'd agree with that. In fact, I bought the mag earlier so I'll have a
read for myself soon.
> To be acknowledged and encouraged (my summation) was the value in
> exposure bracketing, taking the images into photoshop and merging, for
> instance, the sky from one exposure with the foreground from another -
> to more faithfully reproduce what the photographer remembers his eye
> saw at the time (his words-ish).
Ah good! Layer masking and blending. Cool stuff! I hate it when
people think that anything beyond the simplest changing of contrast and
brightness is heretical manipulation and trickery.
As for faithfully remembering what your eye saw, can anyone remember
visual imagery that accurately? I doubt it. I suspect we just alter it
to look how we "think" it looked at the time.
Anyway, I was out earlier at Threecliff Bay doing some exposure
bracketing myself, not just because you mentioned it, but because it was
absolutely essential (massive contrast range - couldn't possibly capture
it all in a single exposure). Besides, twas a good opportunity to play
with my new lenses, in particular the 10-22mm. :-) I may post one or
two later.
> 'cept I'm suffering a momentary hiatus - I've lost all of my photos
> from this year, yep all, every single one. >1GB data.
Commiserations. Ever heard of backing up?
I'm thinking it's probably about time I started backing up my photo
backup CDs onto new CDs, the oldest are 2 years old now.
> ...don't believe what you tell yourself when the little voice says
> "the new drive has got to be more stable than the old one's you've
> got"
No, but storing everything on three separate hard drives is a lot safer.
They're unlikely to all fail at the same time, although the computers
could get nicked... So storing everything on a removable hard drive
safely hidden away somewhere else would help in case of theft. Then
there's the CD backups, and the backups of the backups...
I'm really getting paranoid about this as my collection grows.
Chris Gilbert
> No-eeew! Yer daft herbert, I wa penning the above for those who I
> imagined would be saying "who he?"
Ah oui, je comprends. Desole.
Paul Saunders
> I came across this page recently: stunning photography, in my
> non-expert opinion.
>
> http://www.photoblink.com/net/mshop.aspx?uid=3987
You don't need to be an expert to see that those are excellent shots.
Thanks for bringing them to my attention pw.
Blurred water and extreme wide angle perspectives feature a lot,
enhanced with polarisers and grads, with high contrast and saturation.
Very distinctive style.
Peewiglet
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Peewiglet wrote:
>
>> I came across this page recently: stunning photography, in my
>> non-expert opinion.
>>
>> http://www.photoblink.com/net/mshop.aspx?uid=3987
>
>You don't need to be an expert to see that those are excellent shots.
>Thanks for bringing them to my attention pw.
You're welcome! I'm v. glad someone else enjoys them: they blew me
away!
Nice to see you back, btw - you were missed :)
Darren G
@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk says...
> Darren G wrote:
>
> > To me, with the exception of the gear side of things, I almost get the
> > feeling that tgo is becoming more of a coffee table mag than an
> > outdoor one.
>
> In what way? Too much OT stuff?
It does go off a bit at times, though the focus on photography would be
OK but it seems to be trying to all things to all men and just reaches
the lowest common denominator (yes, I accept the commercial realities of
breadth of readership). I suppose it depends whether you take tgo to
mean 'outdoor walking/backpacking/etc' or just 'outdoors' in its most
general sense.
I suppose more than anything it's almost a gut feel I get from the mag.
I've just looked back through this months (I still buy it off and on) to
try and pinpoint what was irking me but couldn't really find any one
thing, so maybe I'm being a bit harsh on them. Maybe it is the more
polished presentation and editorial style that is putting me off.
I dunno ... it just isn't 'grabbing me' that much any more.
--
Darren
Darren G
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 23:51:54 -0000, Darren G <n...@gillman.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> Interesting stuff... and awesome photographs!
> >
> >to some extent, but once again the discussions is reasonable common, not
> >particularly advanced and once again as for all the mags I feel like
> >I've read it before.
>
> T'was ever thus and so will it always be.
probably. the oft discussed yearly cycle of articles, though it does
seem to have a greater variety than Trail
> However, can you recall when discussion about such things as trekking
> (sic.) poles was rife? That they were indeed the tools of Satan? Now
> discussions are accepting, in the majority, and few and far between.
yes. be thankful for small mercies!
> By the same token the discussions in the mags will change... its just
> on a slow wash cycle, is all!! ;-)
true, partly due to the forward planning of editorial content. Looking
at the letters in this months, apparently Chris is reviewing trail pants
next September. If the content is planned that far in advance it will
make it slow to respond to the latest fads. I suppose a good example
was the review of the Argos PA1 months after it had been covered here.
> >Though maybe that is also 'cos I also read photo mags.
>
> Yup, that's the way it goes.
and again other than the occasional useful gear review, you can pretty
much guess what will be coming up each month.
> >To me, with the exception of the gear side of things, I almost get the
> >feeling that tgo is becoming more of a coffee table mag than an outdoor
> >one.
>
> Its a commercial reality, appeal to as wider audience as possible
> within your trget group to make sure you don't go the way of all
> flesh. Nowt wrong with that from a business sense. From the POV of a
> readre who sees nothing but same-old same-old it something to contend
> with, if it bugs you - move on.
>
fair comment. If I could find something better to read I probably
would, but until then I will still need something to read on the loo!
--
Darren
W. D. Grey
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>SteveO wrote:
>
>>> Really? What has he said exactly? In particular, where did he draw
>>> the line in Photoshop use?
>>
>> He absolutely decried to production of composite images (the addition
>> of a silhouette of a deer/moose on a skyline, for instance) which he
>> says he has seen in the work of some pro photographers.
>
>I'd agree with that. In fact, I bought the mag earlier so I'll have a
>read for myself soon.
There is no truth in the rumour that you have a "blow-up" sheep in the
boot of your car for those shots that need a bit of "foreground"
interest ! :-)
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk
Darren G
@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk says...
you think that's paranoid?
I'm working on raided hard drives in my pc, mirrored to my local server
and real time backed up wirelessly to a server in a nearby property.
Oh, and backing up onto DVD-RAM which (mostly) live off=site. Other
than being nuked, I think I'm ... Actually perhaps I won't tempt fate
that much :-)
--
Darren
Darren G
p...@theretreadplant.com says...
> I came across this page recently: stunning photography, in my
> non-expert opinion.
>
> http://www.photoblink.com/net/mshop.aspx?uid=3987
yep. cracking portfolio. I've some of his work before on the OM
gallery. Constant high standard; and long exposure water seems to be a
bit of a trademark (and when you can do it so well, why not)
If you haven;t checked out the OM gallery it's worth a look. there's
some good pics on there.
--
Darren
superted
>fair comment. If I could find something better to read I probably
>would, but until then I will still need something to read on the loo!
>
Clausewitz 'On War'
The Sun - not too difficult
whatever is today's version of 'Penthouse' at the newsagents. Anyway
one of those mags from the top shelf with a white cover sheet
--
superted
Richard G.
<Bi...@graigroad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>There is no truth in the rumour that you have a "blow-up" sheep in the
>boot of your car for those shots that need a bit of "foreground"
>interest ! :-)
So erm... what is it for then? ;)
Regards,
Richard G.
Chris Malcolm
>In article <plhdr0p9pgt1nicea...@4ax.com>, SteveO says...
>> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 23:51:54 -0000, Darren G <n...@gillman.org.uk> wrote:
>> By the same token the discussions in the mags will change... its just
>> on a slow wash cycle, is all!! ;-)
>true, partly due to the forward planning of editorial content. Looking
>at the letters in this months, apparently Chris is reviewing trail pants
>next September. If the content is planned that far in advance it will
>make it slow to respond to the latest fads. I suppose a good example
>was the review of the Argos PA1 months after it had been covered here.
Months? Wasn't it more than a year? And pretty close to the point
where they had become unobtainable after over a year of enthusiastic
sales?
What annoys me is they rarely rise above the level of trivial
gossip. For example, take the interesting category of GPS units with
autocalibrating altimeters. These are specifically aimed at hill
walkers, and have been on the market for years now. Where is the TGO
(or any other magazine) review that has even explained properly how
they work, let alone whether they're any use?
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
W. D. Grey
<ric...@plus.com> writes
Same as the "blow-up" rock ;-)
SteveO
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> 'cept I'm suffering a momentary hiatus - I've lost all of my photos
>> from this year, yep all, every single one. >1GB data.
>
>Commiserations. Ever heard of backing up?
That's what the new hard drive was for; redundancy. Imagine the scene
- 3 hard drives almost full, photos scattered across all of them,
needs sorting/consolidation and backup/redundancy... get rid of teeny
hd and expand on the redundancy. New hd installed, all photos pulled
onto one drive prior ro further backup, etc.. I get distracted by 100+
photos from me WHW trundle that *needed* processing. New hard drive
decides it doesn't like new home, dies, big style. Something major
went wrong because the drive can't even be accessed at "lowest level"
to try and recover data. :-( :-(
>I'm thinking it's probably about time I started backing up my photo
>backup CDs onto new CDs, the oldest are 2 years old now.
It was partly because of similar thoughts of my own that I thought of
expanding my hard drive redundancy.
>I'm really getting paranoid about this as my collection grows.
Its a real sickener losing so much.
Paul Saunders
> yep. cracking portfolio. I've some of his work before on the OM
> gallery. Constant high standard;
That can be an illusion. If you only show your best pics you may seem
to have a constant high standard, but not be very prolific. If you show
all your pics you may seem to be prolific, but inconsistent quality
wise. I've got too many sub-standard pics on my website, but many are
there for reasons other than quality, to illustrate walks for example.
The fewer pics you show the better a photographer you seem to be. Take
a look at Ansel Adams portfolios for example. A lifetime of his best
work in one book. Very impressive.
> and long exposure water seems to be
> a bit of a trademark (and when you can do it so well, why not)
It's not actually that difficult if you can be bothered to put the
camera on a tripod and set your exposures manually, using a neutral
density filter if necessary.
Coming back to Les' water shots, two things I noticed are that there are
often good colours reflected in the water, and that he often uses a
polariser. I keep meaning to do the latter but I keep forgetting for
some reason, probably because I rarely use filters. Using a polariser
gives the added advantage of even slower shutter speeds for more blurred
water.
As for good colour reflections, these are often due to taking shots
during the magic hours, which again is something I tend not to do when
photographing waterfalls. I usually choose overcast days for waterfall
photography to avoid stray bits of sunlight ruining the scene and in
particular to avoid that horrible blue cast you get from the sky
reflection. Of course the blue cast can easily be fixed digitally these
days, but sky reflections can work for you as well as against you, when
clouds turn red at sunset for example.
In this shot, orange clouds overhead gave a warmer look to the scene;
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/limepool750.jpg
Contrast that with the colder light earlier on;
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/sgwdgwladus750.jpg
> If you haven;t checked out the OM gallery it's worth a look. there's
> some good pics on there.
What's the OM gallery?
Paul Saunders
> That's what the new hard drive was for; redundancy. Imagine the scene
> - 3 hard drives almost full, photos scattered across all of them,
> needs sorting/consolidation and backup/redundancy... get rid of teeny
> hd and expand on the redundancy. New hd installed, all photos pulled
> onto one drive prior ro further backup, etc..
Ah, now there's your mistake! Never delete the old ones until you've
backed them all up. I keep three copies of all photos (on three
separate hard drives) until I archive onto CD, then I trash one copy, so
I still have three versions.
> I get distracted by 100+
> photos from me WHW trundle that *needed* processing. New hard drive
> decides it doesn't like new home, dies, big style. Something major
> went wrong because the drive can't even be accessed at "lowest level"
> to try and recover data. :-( :-(
There are companies that specialise in recovering data from hard drives.
Might cost a bit, but if the photos are that important it may be worth
it. I'd certainly try that if it happened to my collection.
> Its a real sickener losing so much.
I bet. Check out my suggestion above.
SteveO
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>SteveO wrote:
>
>> That's what the new hard drive was for; redundancy. Imagine the scene
>> - 3 hard drives almost full, photos scattered across all of them,
>> needs sorting/consolidation and backup/redundancy... get rid of teeny
>> hd and expand on the redundancy. New hd installed, all photos pulled
>> onto one drive prior ro further backup, etc..
>
>Ah, now there's your mistake! Never delete the old ones until you've
>backed them all up.
<g> aye, well, in akshual fact I hadn't deleted any... I was
collecting them all in the same place because they were scattered
higgledy piggledy across hard drives/var. Subsequently I was to copy
to other media.... didn't get that far.
ste®
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cp7qo7$er9$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
| SteveO wrote:
|
| >> Really? What has he said exactly? In particular, where did he draw
| >> the line in Photoshop use?
| >
| > He absolutely decried to production of composite images (the addition
| > of a silhouette of a deer/moose on a skyline, for instance) which he
| > says he has seen in the work of some pro photographers.
|
| I'd agree with that. In fact, I bought the mag earlier so I'll have a
| read for myself soon.
Me too. SteveO should be a salesman and be on commission... :-)
| > To be acknowledged and encouraged (my summation) was the value in
| > exposure bracketing, taking the images into photoshop and merging, for
| > instance, the sky from one exposure with the foreground from another -
| > to more faithfully reproduce what the photographer remembers his eye
| > saw at the time (his words-ish).
|
| Ah good! Layer masking and blending. Cool stuff! I hate it when
| people think that anything beyond the simplest changing of contrast and
| brightness is heretical manipulation and trickery.
But of course, you can't beat using filters... ;-) (when you can be arsed
faffing about that is!)
| As for faithfully remembering what your eye saw, can anyone remember
| visual imagery that accurately? I doubt it. I suspect we just alter it
| to look how we "think" it looked at the time.
|
| Anyway, I was out earlier at Threecliff Bay doing some exposure
| bracketing myself, not just because you mentioned it, but because it was
| absolutely essential (massive contrast range - couldn't possibly capture
| it all in a single exposure). Besides, twas a good opportunity to play
| with my new lenses, in particular the 10-22mm. :-) I may post one or
| two later.
Well I've waited for nearly a day now, and still no images posted! :-(
| > 'cept I'm suffering a momentary hiatus - I've lost all of my photos
| > from this year, yep all, every single one. >1GB data.
|
| Commiserations. Ever heard of backing up?
Chin him Steve! I lost a few gig of photos a year or so ago, and I was
gutted. The amount of people who told me I *should* be backing up *after*
I'd lost them...GRRR!!!
| I'm thinking it's probably about time I started backing up my photo
| backup CDs onto new CDs, the oldest are 2 years old now.
Yes, I read somewhere that CD's aren't rated for long-term storage.
| > ...don't believe what you tell yourself when the little voice says
| > "the new drive has got to be more stable than the old one's you've
| > got"
|
| No, but storing everything on three separate hard drives is a lot safer.
| They're unlikely to all fail at the same time, although the computers
| could get nicked... So storing everything on a removable hard drive
| safely hidden away somewhere else would help in case of theft. Then
| there's the CD backups, and the backups of the backups...
I'm just backing up from my primary to my secondary hard disk. I really
need to get a new PC with a DVD ROM, as they hold a good few gig and it
would be preferable to burn 2-3 DVD's to backup my images rather than about
15 CD's! Then the DVD's can be kept in my Mum's house.
| I'm really getting paranoid about this as my collection grows.
Don't blame you! And I would be even more paranoid if I had all those
slides and film too! You can't really back them up as easily can you.
| Paul
Ste
Peewiglet
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> yep. cracking portfolio. I've some of his work before on the OM
>> gallery. Constant high standard;
>
>That can be an illusion. If you only show your best pics you may seem
>to have a constant high standard, but not be very prolific.
More than one piccy of that sort of quality seems to me to speak for
itself, though.
[...]
Peewiglet
[...]
>>> 'cept I'm suffering a momentary hiatus - I've lost all of my photos
>>> from this year, yep all, every single one. >1GB data.
>>
>>Commiserations. Ever heard of backing up?
>
>That's what the new hard drive was for; redundancy.
<snip>
What restraint! I'm not sure I could have managed it.
Paul Saunders
> Nice to see you back, btw - you were missed :)
Thanks pw, and to others who missed me.
Peewiglet
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Peewiglet wrote:
>
>>> That can be an illusion. If you only show your best pics you may
>>> seem to have a constant high standard, but not be very prolific.
>>
>> More than one piccy of that sort of quality seems to me to speak for
>> itself, though.
>
>Of course. Anyone can take the odd good pic by sheer accident. That's
>why photo libraries have traditionally required a mininum submission of
>say, 200 photos, to be sure that a photographer isn't just sending in a
>few lucky shots.
199 lucky shots??
:-) Nothing gets past these photo libraries, then...
>
>However, taking good photos requires practice, and practice means
>experimentation, i.e. taking lots of crap shots.
Of course.
>
>Professional photographers not only take better photos, they also take
>more photos. On Galen Rowell's first 3 day photoshoot for National
>Geographic, he shot 90 rolls of film (IIRC). While ordinary mortals may
>be astonished at the thought of shooting 30 rolls of film a day, NG were
>surprised that he got so many good shots with "only" 90 rolls. They
>thought he was being conservative.
That's a lot of film: more than I've used in my entire life!
>In fact, Galen admitted to sometimes shooting an entire roll of film on
>a single scene, if he thought it was worth it.
>I've never had the luxury to waste so much money on film, so I've always
>been much more conservative, not even bothering to bracket most of the
>time. However, now that I've gone digital, I can afford that luxury, if
>I have the memory to spare. I think my record so far is 22 shots of a
>single scene.
>
>This one, if you're curious;
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/marsh_ponies.jpg
>
That's a beautiful photo!
SteveO
<ContactMeUsing...@sm9.co.uk> wrote:
>| I'd agree with that. In fact, I bought the mag earlier so I'll have a
>| read for myself soon.
>
>Me too. SteveO should be a salesman and be on commission... :-)
Drat!! Missed me chance!!
;-)
>But of course, you can't beat using filters... ;-) (when you can be arsed
>faffing about that is!)
I can't get away with filters, anything except polarising is always
too "false" for my tastes.
>| with my new lenses, in particular the 10-22mm. :-) I may post one or
>| two later.
>
>Well I've waited for nearly a day now, and still no images posted! :-(
I was thinking that as well!!
C'MON PAUL!!
;-)
>| > 'cept I'm suffering a momentary hiatus - I've lost all of my photos
>| > from this year, yep all, every single one. >1GB data.
>|
>| Commiserations. Ever heard of backing up?
>
>Chin him Steve! I lost a few gig of photos a year or so ago, and I was
>gutted. The amount of people who told me I *should* be backing up *after*
>I'd lost them...GRRR!!!
Aye. Its even more frustrating when I think the new drive was bought
specifically to *improve* my back-up situation... well, it certainly
made sure I've nothing to worry about [now!] :-(
>| I'm really getting paranoid about this as my collection grows.
>
>Don't blame you! And I would be even more paranoid if I had all those
>slides and film too! You can't really back them up as easily can you.
The hard drive the sied was a few weeks ago... it conking out dented
my faith in back-up systems. Two weeks ago my motherboard/cpu/psu died
which meant the 'puta ws totally dead... (I'm good with technology,
huh?) I *was* thinking of storing my stuff on an external server
*because* CD's are not a long-term solution... but I'm going to give
up the idea of storage in any way, shape or form from now on; now more
headaches for me!! ;-)
Paul Saunders
>> That can be an illusion. If you only show your best pics you may
>> seem to have a constant high standard, but not be very prolific.
>
> More than one piccy of that sort of quality seems to me to speak for
> itself, though.
Of course. Anyone can take the odd good pic by sheer accident. That's
why photo libraries have traditionally required a mininum submission of
say, 200 photos, to be sure that a photographer isn't just sending in a
few lucky shots.
However, taking good photos requires practice, and practice means
experimentation, i.e. taking lots of crap shots.
Professional photographers not only take better photos, they also take
more photos. On Galen Rowell's first 3 day photoshoot for National
Geographic, he shot 90 rolls of film (IIRC). While ordinary mortals may
be astonished at the thought of shooting 30 rolls of film a day, NG were
surprised that he got so many good shots with "only" 90 rolls. They
thought he was being conservative.
In fact, Galen admitted to sometimes shooting an entire roll of film on
a single scene, if he thought it was worth it.
I've never had the luxury to waste so much money on film, so I've always
been much more conservative, not even bothering to bracket most of the
time. However, now that I've gone digital, I can afford that luxury, if
I have the memory to spare. I think my record so far is 22 shots of a
single scene.
This one, if you're curious;
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/marsh_ponies.jpg
Paul
Paul Saunders
>> Ah good! Layer masking and blending. Cool stuff! I hate it when
>> people think that anything beyond the simplest changing of contrast
>> and brightness is heretical manipulation and trickery.
>
> But of course, you can't beat using filters... ;-) (when you can be
> arsed faffing about that is!)
Which is rather my point. He talks about faithful representation, but
you don't get that you put a polariser in front of the camera, or a grey
grad, or take shots in black and white, and so on and so forth. Fact
is, film photography has often not been a "faithful representation" of
reality. The camera does lie, it always has. In landscape photography
a great looking image is usually better than a truly faithful
representation. Look at Galen, look at Ansel.
>> I may post one or two later.
>
> Well I've waited for nearly a day now, and still no images posted! :-(
Sorry, too busy last night. Maybe I'll do one now. I just posted a
bird shot in the bagging thread. 255mm if you're curious (408 equiv).
>> Commiserations. Ever heard of backing up?
>
> Chin him Steve!
I was going to not mention it, but then I thought...
> I'm just backing up from my primary to my secondary hard disk. I
> really need to get a new PC with a DVD ROM, as they hold a good few
> gig and it would be preferable to burn 2-3 DVD's to backup my images
> rather than about 15 CD's! Then the DVD's can be kept in my Mum's
> house.
Yes, I desperately need a DVD writer to cut down on backups. By the
way, write at a slow speed for the deepest burn. More likely to last
longer.
I'm thinking that a couple of 250 meg removable drives would be ideal.
Back up everything onto both, then store each in two different places,
ideally off-site.
>> I'm really getting paranoid about this as my collection grows.
>
> Don't blame you! And I would be even more paranoid if I had all those
> slides and film too! You can't really back them up as easily can you.
No, but they do last a lot longer in their "raw" form, and they don't
suddenly become corrupted like digital files, they deteriorate
gradually. Of course that's no protection against fire or theft, but
boxes of slides are probably not the sort of thing that most thieves are
after, and houses don't burn down very often if you take appropriate
precautions.
Richard G.
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Of course. Anyone can take the odd good pic by sheer accident. That's
>why photo libraries have traditionally required a mininum submission of
>say, 200 photos, to be sure that a photographer isn't just sending in a
>few lucky shots.
I've never really understood this, a few good lucky shots would still sell
and make the library money surely? And one of them might just be a best
seller, that's the thing with lucky shots.
>I think my record so far is 22 shots of a
>single scene.
>
>This one, if you're curious;
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/marsh_ponies.jpg
Very nice. Do I detect a touch of Polygonal Lasso there?
Regards,
Richard G.
W. D. Grey
<ric...@plus.com> writes
>>This one, if you're curious;
>>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/marsh_ponies.jpg
>
>Very nice. Do I detect a touch of Polygonal Lasso there?
Did you spot the "blow-up" ponies Richard ?....:-)
Paul Saunders
> I've never really understood this, a few good lucky shots would still
> sell and make the library money surely?
Fair point.
> And one of them might just be
> a best seller, that's the thing with lucky shots.
Indeed.
>> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/marsh_ponies.jpg
>
> Very nice. Do I detect a touch of Polygonal Lasso there?
Um, no. What were you thinking of exactly? Perhaps slightly
oversharpened for the web. Or maybe it was the contrast masking? I've
just redone this shot for my local calendar and didn't use contrast
masking this time. Colour balance a little different too, more orange.
The shot in the link above is a bit too yellow, not sure why, maybe I
did it from the jpeg instead of the RAW.
Richard G.
<Bi...@graigroad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Did you spot the "blow-up" ponies Richard ?....:-)
ROTFLMHO!!!
Richard G.
Richard G.
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Um, no. What were you thinking of exactly?
Just the shafts of light from the sun, in fact more the dark shaft to the
right of the ponies. It's just a technique I've seen used from time to time
to enhance or even fabricate this sort of effect, but it usually looks more
exagerated and obvious than your shot.
>Perhaps slightly
>oversharpened for the web. Or maybe it was the contrast masking? I've
>just redone this shot for my local calendar and didn't use contrast
>masking this time. Colour balance a little different too, more orange.
Yeah, that would be a slight improvement perhaps, but overall it's a class
shot.
Regards,
Richard G.
Paul Saunders
>> Um, no. What were you thinking of exactly?
>
> Just the shafts of light from the sun, in fact more the dark shaft to
> the right of the ponies.
Nope, no fabrication there, quite natural. In fact, it looks just the
same in the new version, so it's nothing to do with the post processing.
> It's just a technique I've seen used from
> time to time to enhance or even fabricate this sort of effect, but it
> usually looks more exagerated and obvious than your shot.
Perhaps it would look more obvious if fabricated, but it wasn't. It's
quite genuine.
>> I've just redone this shot for my local calendar and didn't use
>> contrast masking this time. Colour balance a little different too,
>> more orange.
>
> Yeah, that would be a slight improvement perhaps, but overall it's a
> class shot.
Thanks.
Paul Saunders
>>> with my new lenses, in particular the 10-22mm. :-) I may post one
>>> or two later.
>>
>> Well I've waited for nearly a day now, and still no images posted!
>> :-(
>
> I was thinking that as well!!
>
> C'MON PAUL!!
> ;-)
Okay then, here's a few ultrawides;
A 10mm (16mm equiv) shot of the sky at Threecliff Bay;
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/marsh_ponies.jpg
The stepping stones. A blended shot (4 stops difference between the sky
and foreground).
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ultrawide/stepping_stones.jpg
Log. Another blended shot.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ultrawide/log.jpg
Log2. Not blended. I've warmed this up slightly.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ultrawide/log2.jpg
Tree. Not blended either (seemed to get a better result this way).
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ultrawide/tree.jpg
Oxwich Head. Not ultrawide. This was 85mm (136mm equiv).
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ultrawide/oxwich%20head.jpg
Paul Saunders
> Okay then, here's a few ultrawides;
>
> A 10mm (16mm equiv) shot of the sky at Threecliff Bay;
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/marsh_ponies.jpg
Sorry, don't know how that link got in there. This is the correct one;
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ultrawide/big_sky.jpg
Geoff Berrow
Saunders contained the following:
> I think my record so far is 22 shots of a
>single scene.
Dunno why you bother. Just take the best bits of all your photos and
clone them together.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
John Yale
@news6.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
> What's the OM gallery?
>
Outdoors Magic recently added a gallery for photos:
http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/gallery/gallery.asp?sp=&v=6
John
Koen Velle
> SteveO wrote:
>
>
>>>>with my new lenses, in particular the 10-22mm. :-) I may post one
>>>>or two later.
>>>
>>>Well I've waited for nearly a day now, and still no images posted!
>>>:-(
>>
>>I was thinking that as well!!
>>
>>C'MON PAUL!!
>>;-)
>
>
> Okay then, here's a few ultrawides;
Excellent shots Paul !
So how do you feel about the lens ? Worth the cash ? A lot better
than the 18-55 @18mm and up ?
Thanks,
Koen
<snip>
The Reids
>Colin Prior is one of my least favourite mountain photographers. His
>best pictures could easily be taken by anyone with access to the
>expensive equipment he uses. The majority could easily be taken by
>anyone with access to any camera, and they'd reject most of them as
>'nothing special'.
I had a look here:-
"http://www.colinprior.co.uk"
I liked his Scottish pictures, but the ELD were not as good as my
own, very pedestrian.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Rooney
<don...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I had a look here:-
>"http://www.colinprior.co.uk"
So did I but the page took too long to load so I lost interest!
--
R
o
o
n
e
y
Phil Cook
>Paul Saunders wrote:
>
>> Okay then, here's a few ultrawides;
>>
>> A 10mm (16mm equiv) shot of the sky at Threecliff Bay;
>> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/marsh_ponies.jpg
>
>Sorry, don't know how that link got in there. This is the correct one;
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ultrawide/big_sky.jpg
I thought it looked familiar...
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Phil Cook
>SteveO wrote:
>
>>>> with my new lenses, in particular the 10-22mm. :-) I may post one
>>>> or two later.
Aha.You got one then. Have you seen the review on the LL?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml
>A 10mm (16mm equiv) shot of the sky at Threecliff Bay;
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/marsh_ponies.jpg
>
>The stepping stones. A blended shot (4 stops difference between the sky
>and foreground).
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ultrawide/stepping_stones.jpg
Nice and wide....
The Reids
>>"http://www.colinprior.co.uk"
>
>
>So did I but the page took too long to load so I lost interest!
try again, make a cup of coffee and then check the cover of his
calendar.
(The site works in a slightly odd way)
The Reids
>>Sorry, don't know how that link got in there. This is the correct one;
>>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ultrawide/big_sky.jpg
Very nice.Any photoshoppery?
(i'm going for top next month)
ste®
| SteveO wrote:
|
| >>> with my new lenses, in particular the 10-22mm. :-) I may post one
| >>> or two later.
| >>
| >> Well I've waited for nearly a day now, and still no images posted!
| >> :-(
| >
| > I was thinking that as well!!
| >
| > C'MON PAUL!!
| > ;-)
|
| Okay then, here's a few ultrawides;
|
| A 10mm (16mm equiv) shot of the sky at Threecliff Bay;
<link above replaced>
Very dramatic sky! I'd love to see this at sunset, with a big red fiery
sky, that's got to be a shot to add to the list! (my list at least!)
| The stepping stones. A blended shot (4 stops difference between the sky
| and foreground).
| http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ultrawide/stepping_stones.jpg
Fantastic Paul, I really like this one. Just the sort of shot I want to
start taking myself. I've seen lots of shots like this (but with a
jetty/pier entering the water) from the Lake District, from places like
Derwent Water. All on my 'to do' list of course.
| Log. Another blended shot.
| http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ultrawide/log.jpg
Again, very nice indeed!
| Log2. Not blended. I've warmed this up slightly.
| http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ultrawide/log2.jpg
Very good Paul, however, when I look at it, and especially the rocks in the
bottom corners, it hurts my eyes it's so wide! How far where you from the
ground for this one? Perhaps it wouldn't hurt so much if it was taken any
lower to the ground? And what about a beach/sand-ripples shot? That might
be very interesting!
| Tree. Not blended either (seemed to get a better result this way).
| http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ultrawide/tree.jpg
That's not a tree, it's a large spider or insect which is about to jump out
on you! :-)
| Oxwich Head. Not ultrawide. This was 85mm (136mm equiv).
| http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ultrawide/oxwich%20head.jpg
Ahh, now that has soothed my eyes after seeing them wide-angles! Very
tranquil.
| Paul
Thanks for sharing Paul, some very impressive shots there. I really want a
good wide-angle now. I must get out soon and return the favour. The most
I've got recently is a snap taken out of my office window across the Mersey
at a ventillation shaft for the Mersey Tunnel! ...plus a few pet photos too
with the new 50mm 1.8.
Ste
Phil Cook
>Following up to Phil Cook
>
>>>Sorry, don't know how that link got in there. This is the correct one;
>>>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ultrawide/big_sky.jpg
>
>Very nice.Any photoshoppery?
I don't know for certain but I'd say of course. PS never posts an
un-PSed picture except to show us how it came out of the camera.
Peewiglet
[...]
>(i'm going for top next month)
heh heh... we'll see about that....
hehehe :-)
Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ (Gear monster and top poster in training)
Phil Cook
>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:54:00 +0000, The Reids
><don...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[...]
>>(i'm going for top next month)
>
>heh heh... we'll see about that....
>
>
>
>hehehe :-)
If you were *serious* about going for top you'd have put the hehehe in
a separate post :-)
Michael S
I'm not necessarily saying I could do better, but there are dozens and
dozens of photographers (pro and am) whi, IMO, produce far better images.
I feel that much of Colin Prior's success is due to his use of the panoramic
format, something that Joe Public thinks is very different, and beyond what
they can take on their digital compact, and therefore 'amazing'. His Lake
District shots are uninspiring, and I must say I think his shot of Scafell
Pikes is pretty darned awful - I'm not sure why he thought composing the
image with approximately one quarter of it occupied by a diagonal line of
autumnal grass was a good idea...
Still, respect to the bloke - he's sold a heck of a lot more than I have.
Michael S
"The Reids" <don...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pt2jr0hu155g5slop...@4ax.com...
> Following up to Simon Caldwell
> I had a look here:-
Darren G
says...
> Darren G <n...@gillman.org.uk> writes:
> >In article <plhdr0p9pgt1nicea...@4ax.com>, SteveO says...
> >> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 23:51:54 -0000, Darren G <n...@gillman.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >> By the same token the discussions in the mags will change... its just
> >> on a slow wash cycle, is all!! ;-)
>
> >true, partly due to the forward planning of editorial content. Looking
> >at the letters in this months, apparently Chris is reviewing trail pants
> >next September. If the content is planned that far in advance it will
> >make it slow to respond to the latest fads. I suppose a good example
> >was the review of the Argos PA1 months after it had been covered here.
>
> Months? Wasn't it more than a year? And pretty close to the point
> where they had become unobtainable after over a year of enthusiastic
> sales?
>
> What annoys me is they rarely rise above the level of trivial
> gossip. For example, take the interesting category of GPS units with
> autocalibrating altimeters. These are specifically aimed at hill
> walkers, and have been on the market for years now. Where is the TGO
> (or any other magazine) review that has even explained properly how
> they work, let alone whether they're any use?
> --
> Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
>
>
My point exactly (thanks for clarifying to me what it was!). These
supposedly specialist, technical magazines seem to fail to either
specialist or technical, and just result to sound bytes and superficial
commentary.
--
Darren
Michael S
I'm not necessarily saying I could do better, but there are dozens and
dozens of photographers (pro and am) whi, IMO, produce far better images.
I feel that much of Colin Prior's success is due to his use of the panoramic
format, something that Joe Public thinks is very different, and beyond what
they can take on their digital compact, and therefore 'amazing'. His Lake
District shots are uninspiring, and I must say I think his shot of Scafell
Pikes is pretty darned awful - I'm not sure why he thought composing the
image with approximately one quarter of it occupied by a diagonal line of
autumnal grass was a good idea...
Still, respect to the bloke - he's sold a heck of a lot more than I have.
Michael S
"The Reids" <don...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pt2jr0hu155g5slop...@4ax.com...
> Following up to Simon Caldwell
> I had a look here:-
Stuart Mann
> Following up to Simon Caldwell
>
>>Colin Prior is one of my least favourite mountain photographers. His
>>best pictures could easily be taken by anyone with access to the
>>expensive equipment he uses. The majority could easily be taken by
>>anyone with access to any camera, and they'd reject most of them as
>>'nothing special'.
>
> I had a look here:-
> "http://www.colinprior.co.uk"
>
> I liked his Scottish pictures, but the ELD were not as good as my
> own, very pedestrian.
>
I agree about the Lakes ones. I buy his calendar some years because I really
like some of his Scottish panoramas, but when I do I still feel that I'm
buying twelve pictures to get two or three. I think the good ones require a
bit more than just any old Joe with the right equipment, though.
Stuart
Phil Cook
>SteveO wrote:
>> /me decides to mothball camera and pretentions of ever being able to
>> take a decent photo ;-)
>
>No, no, no! That's a glass-half-full attitude.
>inspired!
Err, surely it's a glass-half-empty attiude?
> Be positive! Be Learn and improve!
It's not your photograpy that needs improving, rather your vison, and
I don't mean you need glasses :-) Any Joe can take a photograph. It
needs vision to see a picture and capture it.
Darren G
@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk says...
> Darren G wrote:
>
> > yep. cracking portfolio. I've some of his work before on the OM
> > gallery. Constant high standard;
>
> That can be an illusion. If you only show your best pics you may seem
> to have a constant high standard, but not be very prolific. If you show
> all your pics you may seem to be prolific, but inconsistent quality
> wise. I've got too many sub-standard pics on my website, but many are
> there for reasons other than quality, to illustrate walks for example.
You're correct. I'll rephrase: cracking collection of images!
>
> > and long exposure water seems to be
> > a bit of a trademark (and when you can do it so well, why not)
>
> It's not actually that difficult if you can be bothered to put the
> camera on a tripod and set your exposures manually, using a neutral
> density filter if necessary.
The technical bit is relatively easy. But it's not just the water it
the setting and the use of the water that make the images. I think
that's what makes the shots stand out. We're back to the old
"photographers eye" again.
[...]
>
> What's the OM gallery?
outdoorsmagazine have recently (along with everybody else it seems) put
a picture gallery on the site
http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/gallery/gallery.asp?sp=&v=6
--
Darren
Chris Townsend
<n...@gillman.org.uk> writes
>true, partly due to the forward planning of editorial content. Looking
>at the letters in this months, apparently Chris is reviewing trail pants
>next September. If the content is planned that far in advance it will
>make it slow to respond to the latest fads.
The content has to be planned that far in advance in order for companies
to send test samples. Between now and the end of June (my copy date as
the September issue comes out the first week of August) I'll be testing
whatever trail pants arrive (one pair so far - though I'll also include
some I've had a while that are still available). If companies have new
models out this spring and supply them in time they will be tested and
reviewed.
New items that appear are often mentioned in the news pages - which is
purely reporting what the companies say about the products.
> I suppose a good example
>was the review of the Argos PA1 months after it had been covered here.
Nothing to do with me! Cameron bought one out of curiosity, like it and
so did a review.
>
Chris Townsend
>
Darren G
@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk says...
> Richard G. wrote:
>
> > I've never really understood this, a few good lucky shots would still
> > sell and make the library money surely?
>
> Fair point.
>
> > And one of them might just be
> > a best seller, that's the thing with lucky shots.
>
> Indeed.
>
> >> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/marsh_ponies.jpg
> >
> > Very nice. Do I detect a touch of Polygonal Lasso there?
>
> Um, no. What were you thinking of exactly? Perhaps slightly
> oversharpened for the web. Or maybe it was the contrast masking? I've
> just redone this shot for my local calendar and didn't use contrast
> masking this time. Colour balance a little different too, more orange.
> did it from the jpeg instead of the RAW.
>
Thing that would help. Have to day that (unusually for your work) this
one didn't grab me and it took me a while to work out why. I couldn't
find a line to draw the eye through and retain the interest in the
picture. I've just cropped it back (with the browser) to a more normal
ration losing roughly a 1/4 of either side with the ponies roughly on
the RHS third and it works better for me. The ponies give more of a
foreground way into the image while keeping the dramatic bits of the
lighting. However, seeing as it's your image... :-)
--
Darren
Chris Townsend
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>Darren G <n...@gillman.org.uk> writes:
>>In article <plhdr0p9pgt1nicea...@4ax.com>, SteveO says...
>>> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 23:51:54 -0000, Darren G <n...@gillman.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>> By the same token the discussions in the mags will change... its just
>>> on a slow wash cycle, is all!! ;-)
>
>>true, partly due to the forward planning of editorial content. Looking
>>at the letters in this months, apparently Chris is reviewing trail pants
>>next September. If the content is planned that far in advance it will
>>make it slow to respond to the latest fads. I suppose a good example
>>was the review of the Argos PA1 months after it had been covered here.
>
>Months? Wasn't it more than a year? And pretty close to the point
>where they had become unobtainable after over a year of enthusiastic
>sales?
An unusual one-off though.
>
>What annoys me is they rarely rise above the level of trivial
>gossip.
I object to that :-). In what way does testing a tent and assessing it
for wind resistance, space for weight, ease of pitching, cooking and
storage space, headroom, quality, value for money and more amount to
trivial gossip?
>For example, take the interesting category of GPS units with
>autocalibrating altimeters. These are specifically aimed at hill
>walkers, and have been on the market for years now. Where is the TGO
>(or any other magazine) review that has even explained properly how
>they work, let alone whether they're any use?
In the November 2005 issue I hope to be covering GPS units - if any
companies supply test models. And I will be covering GPS altimeters,
presuming test models with these are supplied.
Peewiglet
wrote:
>[...] I must say I think his shot of Scafell
>Pikes is pretty darned awful - I'm not sure why he thought composing the
>image with approximately one quarter of it occupied by a diagonal line of
>autumnal grass was a good idea...
[...]
Yes, I thought that was rather strange too. I don't get it at all.
Paul Saunders
> Excellent shots Paul !
Thanks.
> So how do you feel about the lens ?
Well chuffed!
> Worth the cash ?
Absolutely. BTW, I got Jessops to price match it for £525, so I saved
£125.
> A lot better
> than the 18-55 @18mm and up ?
Can't say anything definitive about that yet. I haven't had a chance to
use it much because of the damn cold I had, and most of the shots I've
taken so far have all been at the 10mm end! (Novelty factor)
From the moment I first looked through it I could tell it was a good
lens. Distortion is very well controlled for such a wide angle and
there's no noticeable vignetting or obvious quality loss in the corners.
Lots of people have mentioned the noticeable barrel distortion at the
widest angle, and I've noticed it too, but only with very close
subjects. On the coast the other day I tilted the camera all the way up
and the horizon remained level. I'm thinking that photographing test
charts from a very close distance may be literally "distorting" the
results. The curvature of the lens is so great that it doesn't match a
flat plane at close range. I'll check that in more detail later.
In fact I recently got a large test chart scan off the net and printed
my own at very high res. I've been testing all my lenses at different
focal lengths and apertures (but not the 10-22 yet) and got some very
interesting results. When I get my new web host sorted I'll publish the
results, but I made a few errors during testing (camera shake on some
shots) so I want to redo them all.
I have identified all the sweet spots of my lenses though. It may
interest you to know that as far as the 18-55 is concerned, the sweet
spot at 18mm is f8, at 35mm it's f11 and at 55mm it's f16.
With the 90-300, at 90 it's f11, at 155 it's f11 and at 300 it's f22.
With the 24-85, at 24 it's f16, at 50 it's f16, at 85 it's f11, which is
not at all what I expected, and it just goes to show that people who
test lenses at just f8 may often miss a good lens.
According to that LL review it looks like f8 is the sweet spot for the
10-22. I'll do my own tests soon. Pity, because I was rather hoping to
use smaller apertures. Still, it'll be good for hand held use,
especially with the slow shutter speeds possible with such a wide angle.
Chris Malcolm
>In message <cp9h71$aee$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, Chris Malcolm
><c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>Darren G <n...@gillman.org.uk> writes:
[about walking mags]
>>>true, partly due to the forward planning of editorial content. Looking
>>>at the letters in this months, apparently Chris is reviewing trail pants
>>>next September. If the content is planned that far in advance it will
>>>make it slow to respond to the latest fads. I suppose a good example
>>>was the review of the Argos PA1 months after it had been covered here.
>>Months? Wasn't it more than a year? And pretty close to the point
>>where they had become unobtainable after over a year of enthusiastic
>>sales?
>An unusual one-off though.
One which had excited huge amounts on interest in the walkers here,
and to judge by their sales, in general. Yet when the review came out
it talked as though here was an interesting and novel rarity which the
editor had noticed. I remember thinking when reading it "I wonder how
often this guy actually wanders around in a camp site, or talks to
campers?" Most of the campers I know take an interest in novel kit
that turns up in a camp site.
I could be maligning him, and he does deserve congrats for actually
printing something about the tent, thus establishing that at least
some of the folk in some magazines go further outdoors than driving to
the photo shoot :-)
The worst offender is Trail, whose articles about the outdoors are
about as credible as those theatre reviews that are composed after
leaving the pub for a quick visit to the theatre bar in the drinks
interval.
>>What annoys me is they rarely rise above the level of trivial
>>gossip.
>I object to that :-). In what way does testing a tent and assessing it
>for wind resistance, space for weight, ease of pitching, cooking and
>storage space, headroom, quality, value for money and more amount to
>trivial gossip?
Your articles are always excellent! My point is that your articles are
rather out of keeping with most of the rest of the content. Hadn't you
noticed that ?-)
>>For example, take the interesting category of GPS units with
>>autocalibrating altimeters. These are specifically aimed at hill
>>walkers, and have been on the market for years now. Where is the TGO
>>(or any other magazine) review that has even explained properly how
>>they work, let alone whether they're any use?
>In the November 2005 issue I hope to be covering GPS units - if any
>companies supply test models. And I will be covering GPS altimeters,
>presuming test models with these are supplied.
In which case we may see a good intelligent summary wreview about
three years (more?) after these expensivre and popular devices arrived
on the market. H'ever, I'd like to make the point that you can't
really cover autocalibrated altimeter GPSs as part of an article about
GPS. Plain vanilla GPS is sufficiently beset on its own with
misunderstandings and urban rumours, even by those who use them.
The thing about autocalibrated altimeter models is that how they work,
when they perform well and badly and why, etc., requires an
understanding of GPS errors, barometric altimeter errors, and the
mysterious topic of autocalibration, which the manufacturers don't
explain because it's a trade secret and they don't want to confuse the
mass market with technicalities.
It's a complicated enough topic that it could form the basis of a
final year undergraduate informatics project, and it would be too hard
for some of them (I know, I've tried :-).
AFAIK there is no book or magazine article which contains an
explanation. The most authoritative information is probably the stuff
which has been collected via reviews and articles by Joe and Jack at
"gpsinformation.net". Googling on me and "altimeter" would probably
work well too :-)
Chris Townsend
Well, Cameron goes backpacking frequently but I don't think he often
uses camp sites. Most of his camping is in the wilds.
>
>The worst offender is Trail, whose articles about the outdoors are
>about as credible as those theatre reviews that are composed after
>leaving the pub for a quick visit to the theatre bar in the drinks
>interval.
I'm not making any comment on Trail :-)
>
>>>What annoys me is they rarely rise above the level of trivial
>>>gossip.
>
>>I object to that :-). In what way does testing a tent and assessing it
>>for wind resistance, space for weight, ease of pitching, cooking and
>>storage space, headroom, quality, value for money and more amount to
>>trivial gossip?
>
>Your articles are always excellent!
Thank you. Sorry, I thought you were referring to my reviews.
> My point is that your articles are
>rather out of keeping with most of the rest of the content. Hadn't you
>noticed that ?-)
I find the content mixed to be honest. Some months there's quite a few
articles I'm interested in reading, some months there isn't. I like
Andrew Terrill's writing and Jim Perrin is usually interesting. Ronald
Turnbull is often worth reading too. Ed Douglas is a good investigative
journalist. I don't usually bother with route features or area guides
but I know readers like them.
>
>>>For example, take the interesting category of GPS units with
>>>autocalibrating altimeters. These are specifically aimed at hill
>>>walkers, and have been on the market for years now. Where is the TGO
>>>(or any other magazine) review that has even explained properly how
>>>they work, let alone whether they're any use?
>
>>In the November 2005 issue I hope to be covering GPS units - if any
>>companies supply test models. And I will be covering GPS altimeters,
>>presuming test models with these are supplied.
>
>In which case we may see a good intelligent summary wreview about
>three years (more?) after these expensivre and popular devices arrived
>on the market. H'ever, I'd like to make the point that you can't
>really cover autocalibrated altimeter GPSs as part of an article about
>GPS. Plain vanilla GPS is sufficiently beset on its own with
>misunderstandings and urban rumours, even by those who use them.
It certainly is. At present the only current GPS I'm familiar with is
the Silva Multi-Navigator. I have been playing with the Suunto altimeter
watch, which I don't like much so far. I hope that Garmin, Magellan and
Silva will all supply test models - though one of the problems is that
they usually want them back within a couple of weeks and as I am not a
full time gear reviewer this often doesn't give me enough time to fully
learn about them.
>
>The thing about autocalibrated altimeter models is that how they work,
>when they perform well and badly and why, etc., requires an
>understanding of GPS errors, barometric altimeter errors, and the
>mysterious topic of autocalibration, which the manufacturers don't
>explain because it's a trade secret and they don't want to confuse the
>mass market with technicalities.
>
>It's a complicated enough topic that it could form the basis of a
>final year undergraduate informatics project, and it would be too hard
>for some of them (I know, I've tried :-).
Unfortunately I'm expected to review GPS units every two or three years
and not to be too technical.
>
>AFAIK there is no book or magazine article which contains an
>explanation.
I've never seen one. Neither of the books I have on GPS mention it.
>The most authoritative information is probably the stuff
>which has been collected via reviews and articles by Joe and Jack at
>"gpsinformation.net".
That's where I get most of my information.
>Googling on me and "altimeter" would probably
>work well too :-)
So I see :-)
Darren G
Ch...@DELETEauchnarrow.demon.co.uk says...
> In message <MPG.1c21aa5c...@news.individual.de>, Darren G
> <n...@gillman.org.uk> writes
>
> >true, partly due to the forward planning of editorial content. Looking
> >at the letters in this months, apparently Chris is reviewing trail pants
> >next September. If the content is planned that far in advance it will
> >make it slow to respond to the latest fads.
>
> The content has to be planned that far in advance in order for companies
> to send test samples. Between now and the end of June (my copy date as
> the September issue comes out the first week of August) I'll be testing
> whatever trail pants arrive (one pair so far - though I'll also include
> some I've had a while that are still available). If companies have new
> models out this spring and supply them in time they will be tested and
> reviewed.
Obviously makes sense in practical terms (and it wasn't intended as a
criticism in case that's how it came across) but it can, as I think the
OP was about, mean that it can take a while for the editorial planning
to respond to events/trends in anything other than a high level news
article. I assume the content for article is in on a slightly shorter
cycle than for your reviews.
> New items that appear are often mentioned in the news pages - which is
> purely reporting what the companies say about the products.
And therefore to be taken with at least a grain of salt :-)
> > I suppose a good example
> >was the review of the Argos PA1 months after it had been covered here.
>
> Nothing to do with me! Cameron bought one out of curiosity, like it and
> so did a review.
And helped Argos shift the remains of their summer stock just when they
were getting worried it was becoming out of season. I hope they send
him a bottle for Christmas!!
--
Darren
Darren G
Ch...@DELETEauchnarrow.demon.co.uk says...
Objection noted :-) No personal criticism intended.
I was "shooting" at more at the feature articles (and by no means tgo,
or even outdoor mags, in particular) rather than your gear reviews, of
which I've read many and bought happily on the back of. In fact it is
probably only the reviews that keep me buying. personally I'd like to
see more technical guidance/tutorial type articles than general TRs and
summaries. However that is my personal bent and I am conscious that
others might want different, and at the end of the day the mag has to
sell too as wide as an audience as possible to be viable.
And perhaps 'superficial' and 'sound byte' where slightly too aggressive
terms; although I do stand my overall view as IMO it applies generically
of most outdoor, photo, IT/PC, etc. mags.
--
Darren
Darren G
says...
> Darren G <n...@gillman.org.uk> writes:
> >In article <plhdr0p9pgt1nicea...@4ax.com>, SteveO says...
> >> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 23:51:54 -0000, Darren G <n...@gillman.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >> By the same token the discussions in the mags will change... its just
> >> on a slow wash cycle, is all!! ;-)
>
> >true, partly due to the forward planning of editorial content. Looking
> >at the letters in this months, apparently Chris is reviewing trail pants
> >next September. If the content is planned that far in advance it will
> >make it slow to respond to the latest fads. I suppose a good example
> >was the review of the Argos PA1 months after it had been covered here.
>
> Months? Wasn't it more than a year? And pretty close to the point
> where they had become unobtainable after over a year of enthusiastic
> sales?
>
> What annoys me is they rarely rise above the level of trivial
> gossip. For example, take the interesting category of GPS units with
> autocalibrating altimeters. These are specifically aimed at hill
> walkers, and have been on the market for years now. Where is the TGO
> (or any other magazine) review that has even explained properly how
> they work, let alone whether they're any use?
> --
Is it reviews you are looking for here or tutorials? While I find
Chris's reviews (and occaisonally those in that other mag :-) ) a great
help in selecting the kit, I think what is needed is far more in depth
articles on /using/ the kit, especially those which are based on in-
depth, hands-on experience.
We can all google and even RTFM to get a understanding, but it is the
real-world experience of how it works and possibly more importantly, how
it fails to work as it is meant to, that IMO is the really valuable
content. It's why I find the depth of experience and knowledge on this
ng to be so valuable.
--
Darren
Tony Simpkins
"The Reids" <don...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote in message...>.........the ELD were not as good as my
> own, very pedestrian.
>
What does "not as good as" mean?
My dictionary defines "pedestrian" as "dull and commonplace".
Colin Prior's pictures of the ELD are certainly not that.
Tony Simpkins
Peewiglet
<Ch...@DELETEauchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>I'm not making any comment on Trail :-)
Very wise...! :-)
Chris Townsend
Fair enough. I've just had a hard disc failure so I'm a bit touchy at
present :-)
>
>I was "shooting" at more at the feature articles (and by no means tgo,
>or even outdoor mags, in particular) rather than your gear reviews, of
>which I've read many and bought happily on the back of. In fact it is
>probably only the reviews that keep me buying. personally I'd like to
>see more technical guidance/tutorial type articles than general TRs and
>summaries. However that is my personal bent and I am conscious that
>others might want different, and at the end of the day the mag has to
>sell too as wide as an audience as possible to be viable.
Reader surveys always show gear reviews and route descriptions as the
most popular parts of the magazine.
Personally I like TRs if they are well written and illustrated.
>
>And perhaps 'superficial' and 'sound byte' where slightly too aggressive
>terms; although I do stand my overall view as IMO it applies generically
>of most outdoor, photo, IT/PC, etc. mags.
>
Overall I agree with you. I don't think most magazines are more than
mediocre at best. I get most of the outdoor mags to see what others are
seeing and a few photo mags that I think worth buying. I glance at
others occasionally and am usually unimpressed.
Chris Townsend
>In article <60K0kTB0...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk>,
>Ch...@DELETEauchnarrow.demon.co.uk says...
>> In message <MPG.1c21aa5c...@news.individual.de>, Darren G
>> <n...@gillman.org.uk> writes
>>
>> >true, partly due to the forward planning of editorial content. Looking
>> >at the letters in this months, apparently Chris is reviewing trail pants
>> >next September. If the content is planned that far in advance it will
>> >make it slow to respond to the latest fads.
>>
>> The content has to be planned that far in advance in order for companies
>> to send test samples. Between now and the end of June (my copy date as
>> the September issue comes out the first week of August) I'll be testing
>> whatever trail pants arrive (one pair so far - though I'll also include
>> some I've had a while that are still available). If companies have new
>> models out this spring and supply them in time they will be tested and
>> reviewed.
>
>Obviously makes sense in practical terms (and it wasn't intended as a
>criticism in case that's how it came across) but it can, as I think the
>OP was about, mean that it can take a while for the editorial planning
>to respond to events/trends in anything other than a high level news
>article. I assume the content for article is in on a slightly shorter
>cycle than for your reviews.
It is difficult to respond to events/trends in a monthly magazine. The
news pages are obviously compiled last so that some reasonably current
items can appear. With articles it depends on the content. Obviously if
there's a current big story then the editor will want a piece asap.
However with TRs and route descriptions there's no urgency.
>
>> New items that appear are often mentioned in the news pages - which is
>> purely reporting what the companies say about the products.
>
>And therefore to be taken with at least a grain of salt :-)
At least :-). They are rewritten press releases.
>
>> > I suppose a good example
>> >was the review of the Argos PA1 months after it had been covered here.
>>
>> Nothing to do with me! Cameron bought one out of curiosity, like it and
>> so did a review.
>
>And helped Argos shift the remains of their summer stock just when they
>were getting worried it was becoming out of season. I hope they send
>him a bottle for Christmas!!
>
I don't know that TGO has that much power :-)
Rooney
No, they are long and thin.
--
R
o
o
n
e
y
AndyP
> Reader surveys always show gear reviews and route descriptions as the
> most popular parts of the magazine.
I noticed tgo had pinched Trail's "Routes to the Top" bit that I thought was
pretty good.
> Personally I like TRs if they are well written and illustrated.
Most magazines tend to have a regular comedy writer. tgo ought to get one.
I can still remember laughing at Cliff Parker in Angler's Mail many years
ago and styled many a school essay on his work.
Darren G
Ch...@DELETEauchnarrow.demon.co.uk says...
[...]
> >
> >And helped Argos shift the remains of their summer stock just when they
> >were getting worried it was becoming out of season. I hope they send
> >him a bottle for Christmas!!
> >
> I don't know that TGO has that much power :-)
>
in which case u.r.w should take the credit for clearing out their back
stock. And they can send /all/ of us a bottle for Christmas!!
--
Darren
Darren G
n...@gillman.org.uk says...
Oh God. think I must have been on another planet when I typed the above.
A prize for anyone that can translate it into coherent, accurately
spelt, grammatically correct engleeesh.
--
Darren
Chris Townsend
<An...@ajp100.freeserve.no-spam.co.uk> writes
>"Chris Townsend" <Ch...@DELETEauchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
>> Reader surveys always show gear reviews and route descriptions as the
>> most popular parts of the magazine.
>
>I noticed tgo had pinched Trail's "Routes to the Top" bit that I thought was
>pretty good.
I don't think the idea was Trail's originally. I seem to remember
Climber & Rambler doing something similar back in the 1970s. And they
probably weren't the first.
>
>> Personally I like TRs if they are well written and illustrated.
>
>Most magazines tend to have a regular comedy writer. tgo ought to get one.
>I can still remember laughing at Cliff Parker in Angler's Mail many years
>ago and styled many a school essay on his work.
Suggest this to the editor! I'm just a contributor.
Seriously, if anyone does want to comment on TGO and have the editorial
staff notice you can do so on the "TGO magazine live letters" section of
the Outdoors Magic Forums.
Chris Townsend
<n...@gillman.org.uk> writes
To be honest, I've never even seen one.
Phil Cook
>I must say that I find most of Colin Prior's shots to be fairly ordinary.
>I'm not necessarily saying I could do better, but there are dozens and
>dozens of photographers (pro and am) which, IMO, produce far better images.
>
>I feel that much of Colin Prior's success is due to his use of the panoramic
>format, something that Joe Public thinks is very different, and beyond what
>they can take on their digital compact, and therefore 'amazing'. His Lake
>District shots are uninspiring, and I must say I think his shot of Scafell
>Pikes is pretty darned awful - I'm not sure why he thought composing the
>image with approximately one quarter of it occupied by a diagonal line of
>autumnal grass was a good idea...
It's not grass, its bracken. I can't make up my mind on that one, it
looks better the bigger you make the image. I think it needs something
in the bracken (inflatable portable rock or blow uo sheep?) to give a
bit more interest to that corner.
>
>Still, respect to the bloke - he's sold a heck of a lot more than I have.
Moi Aussi. I've got this one of his on my livingroom wall
http://www.colinprior.co.uk/colinprior.storefront/41bc2e2c0031731e273fd43a3ba50656/Product/View/1195&2D1#
Michael S
"Phil Cook" <u-r-...@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2ebor05fkd4kjjbdb...@4ax.com...
> It's not grass, its bracken. I can't make up my mind on that one, it
> looks better the bigger you make the image. I think it needs something
> in the bracken (inflatable portable rock or blow uo sheep?) to give a
> bit more interest to that corner.
Well, yes, I know it's bracken. Grass was generic enough for me, and easier
to type.
I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion about a single image, but I
don't think anything (rock or sheep) would've helped it. The triangle of
gra- er, bracken - is just plain awkward and obtrusive and lends nothing to
the overall composition. If anything (rock or sheep) were on this triangle
it would not help IMO because the rock or sheep would be given too much
attention, and would detract from the overall purpose of the image, which is
Scafell Pikes. My rating out of 10 for that image could be counted on one
hand.
> >Still, respect to the bloke - he's sold a heck of a lot more than I have.
>
> Moi Aussi. I've got this one of his on my livingroom wall
>
http://www.colinprior.co.uk/colinprior.storefront/41bc2e2c0031731e273fd43a3b
a50656/Product/View/1195&2D1#
That is a nice image, and my rating would require more than one hand. It
looks familiar - is it looking north towards Skiddaw?
> Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Michael S, looking forward to Christmas Eve when he finally leaves London
and returns to the north west...
Michael S
> looks better the bigger you make the image. I think it needs something
> in the bracken (inflatable portable rock or blow uo sheep?) to give a
> bit more interest to that corner.
Well yes, I know it's bracken. 'Grass' was generic enough for me, and
certainly easier and quicker to type as part of my quick reply. Anyway, I
don't think anything (rock, sheep etc.) placed on the gra- er, bracken -
will help, as the triangle is too awkward and obtrusive, and lends nothing
to the overall composition. IMO, anything (rock, sheep etc.) placed on the
triangle will be given too much attention, and will detract from the overall
purpose of the image: Scafell Pikes. My rating out of 10 for that image
could be counted using the fingers of one hand.
> >Still, respect to the bloke - he's sold a heck of a lot more than I have.
>
> Moi Aussi. I've got this one of his on my livingroom wall
>
http://www.colinprior.co.uk/colinprior.storefront/41bc2e2c0031731e273fd43a3b
a50656/Product/View/1195&2D1#
A very nice image, and my rating for that would require more than one hand.
I think I recognise it - is it looking north towards Skiddaw?
> --
> Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Michael S, looking forward to Christmas Eve, when he finally leaves London
Paul Saunders
> It's not grass, its bracken. I can't make up my mind on that one, it
> looks better the bigger you make the image.
I don't know which image you're talking about, so I can't comment on the
composition, but it's worth bearing in mind that he uses MF gear and
makes big prints.
One of the things about big detailed prints is that textures in quite
mundane things can look very impressive, whereas they don't in smaller
lower res images. For example, I've seen hi res shots of things like
sand which filled most of the picture and looked very impressive. I
imagine that bracken might look interesting if it were detailed enough.
In contrast, that's one thing that digital cameras aren't terribly good
at. Currently it's in vogue to take a shot in say 6MP, then enlarge it
using GF or similar, sharpen, then print at 18x12" or so. Now I've
tried doing this and you get a very clean, sharp image, but textures do
tend to be a bit lacking in detail.
This is one area where 35mm is still better IMO - more detailed
textures. Unfortunately everything else about the image may look worse
due to grain, but I think textures look better, perhaps because of the
grain. All my attempts at noise reduction on film scans have resulted
in beautiful smooth skies, but the textures get trashed. I haven't yet
found any settings that will remove grain without destroying texture.
Maybe the grain and the texture are too stronly interlinked, or maybe
the grain *is* the texture?
Anyway, you can't beat MF or large format or super high res digital for
texture, and you really have to see it in a large print to appreciate
it, a web page image just doesn't hack it.