|
|
Post by unclebill on Aug 10, 2006 19:25:08 GMT -5
 Taken with a Pentax Spotmatic II, Super Takumar 24 f3.5 lens and Kodak UC100 film. I got the idea from one of Gene W's shots, mine is not quite as good in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Aug 10, 2006 21:43:23 GMT -5
Looks good to me Bill, maybe you could'a went to the left a little.
|
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Aug 11, 2006 7:13:15 GMT -5
Hey, I've seen that lighthouse before!  Nice one, Bill. It's a little hard to shoot it in bright light like this because it reflects so much highlight. The film did a good job of handling the DR. It gives my digitals the frizzies... Gene |
|
|
|
Post by byuphoto on Aug 11, 2006 12:35:37 GMT -5
Now, if you had moved the building to the left and asked the sun not to cast that shadow and maybe a few clouds to break yup the sky... JK ;-) seems like that is the critiques most people are giving now. Excellent shot in very bright conditions
|
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Aug 11, 2006 13:07:12 GMT -5
A lovely shot Bill - looks like you got a star in there top right of the building!
Rick - haven't noticed any critiques of the sort you've mentioned a couple of times now - other than my reference to training the deer. If that's what's giving you a problem I can only say that it was meant as a joke and if I've given offence I apologise unreservedly.
Regards - John
|
|
|
|
Post by byuphoto on Aug 11, 2006 15:27:59 GMT -5
Oh no, John. I not talking about on here. I was referring to some "PRO" wedding and portrait sights but more to certain nature and wildlife sights. They tend to think that secretive creatures like bobcats and deer can be made to come into certain light or you should use $10,000 worth of digital equipment to get a "BETTER" photo. everyone on here understands how to properly critique the photo and not the equipment. I apologize for the confusion and the rant, again
|
|
