|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#341
|
|||
|
|||
Are astronomy gathering safe for children?
In article , "Dave Jessie"
wrote: Shawn Grant wrote in message: My photo http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/photos/buzzardroost.htm Gee I wonder who could use photo 101 Hi Shawn, That is one gorgeous photo. Just beautiful. Dave More like that's good Photoshop work. You can make almost any photo look good with Photoshop or darkroom tinkering. At what point does it stop being an actual photograph? Its the same with CCD images. They're more computer images than real photographs, where Photoshop skills are more important than skill with the camera. Dont get me wrong, I love my digital SLR, but there is also something about my Nikon FM2 and my Bronica that will always appeal to me. They're honest, and make you do the work. Karl |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
Are astronomy gathering safe for children?
In article , "Dave Jessie"
wrote: Shawn Grant wrote in message: My photo http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/photos/buzzardroost.htm Gee I wonder who could use photo 101 Hi Shawn, That is one gorgeous photo. Just beautiful. Dave More like that's good Photoshop work. You can make almost any photo look good with Photoshop or darkroom tinkering. At what point does it stop being an actual photograph? Its the same with CCD images. They're more computer images than real photographs, where Photoshop skills are more important than skill with the camera. Dont get me wrong, I love my digital SLR, but there is also something about my Nikon FM2 and my Bronica that will always appeal to me. They're honest, and make you do the work. Karl |
#343
|
|||
|
|||
Are astronomy gathering safe for children?
"Shawn Grant" wrote in message ...
Photo Tip #1: For the kind of photos you take, Shawn, you should seriously consider buying a portable 4x5. Speed Graphics and Busch Pressmans can be had on E-bay for a few hundred dollars, with lens. You are already using a tripod, so the additional weight and "slowness" should not bother you at all. 4 x 5 is fine for some pros. However I am not a pro nor do I ever wish to be a pro. Fuji Velvia 4x5 including developing is around $3 a photo. I can't afford that. Second I teach people how to work with photos with PhotoShop and I earn quite a bit of money for it. I need lots of photos in its digital form. Purchasing a scanner that scans 4x5 is very expensive and way out of my budget. My next camera purchase will be a digital SLR. Only advantage a 4x5 will give me are larger prints and possibly better depth of field with its tilt lenses. PS in my local area I only know of a few pros that use 4x5 for nature photography. One is George Humphries http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books Who I have had the pleasure of photographing with. The rest use 35mm and some are starting to go to digital. Ken Jenkins http://www.kenjenkins.com/ , Tom and Pat Cory http://hometown.aol.com/tompatcory/ who are judging a photo contest I am chairman of, Harold Stinnette http://www.naturalimpressionsphotography.com/ Chuck Summers http://www.agpix.com/search_catalog.php?agid=summers402 who gave a great presentation at my photo club last week and I will see him again Saturday for the photo judging and Bill Fortney who started and is the chairman of http://www.gapweb.com/ and is also with nikon all use 35mm and many are switching to digital. There are very few nature photographers who use large format. Seeing the light and creativity will improve photography more then a 4x5. My wife uses an old wooden Kodak 8x10. Contact prints are incredible, but there's no room for image manipulation except in film choice, development times, chemistry, and burn&dodge. She knows a LOT about this stuff. No amount of Photoshop work can ever achieve the results of an experienced person and contact printing with large negatives. She's tried to teach me, but with a 40 year head start, I'll never catch up. |
#344
|
|||
|
|||
Are astronomy gathering safe for children?
"Shawn Grant" wrote in message ...
Photo Tip #1: For the kind of photos you take, Shawn, you should seriously consider buying a portable 4x5. Speed Graphics and Busch Pressmans can be had on E-bay for a few hundred dollars, with lens. You are already using a tripod, so the additional weight and "slowness" should not bother you at all. 4 x 5 is fine for some pros. However I am not a pro nor do I ever wish to be a pro. Fuji Velvia 4x5 including developing is around $3 a photo. I can't afford that. Second I teach people how to work with photos with PhotoShop and I earn quite a bit of money for it. I need lots of photos in its digital form. Purchasing a scanner that scans 4x5 is very expensive and way out of my budget. My next camera purchase will be a digital SLR. Only advantage a 4x5 will give me are larger prints and possibly better depth of field with its tilt lenses. PS in my local area I only know of a few pros that use 4x5 for nature photography. One is George Humphries http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books Who I have had the pleasure of photographing with. The rest use 35mm and some are starting to go to digital. Ken Jenkins http://www.kenjenkins.com/ , Tom and Pat Cory http://hometown.aol.com/tompatcory/ who are judging a photo contest I am chairman of, Harold Stinnette http://www.naturalimpressionsphotography.com/ Chuck Summers http://www.agpix.com/search_catalog.php?agid=summers402 who gave a great presentation at my photo club last week and I will see him again Saturday for the photo judging and Bill Fortney who started and is the chairman of http://www.gapweb.com/ and is also with nikon all use 35mm and many are switching to digital. There are very few nature photographers who use large format. Seeing the light and creativity will improve photography more then a 4x5. My wife uses an old wooden Kodak 8x10. Contact prints are incredible, but there's no room for image manipulation except in film choice, development times, chemistry, and burn&dodge. She knows a LOT about this stuff. No amount of Photoshop work can ever achieve the results of an experienced person and contact printing with large negatives. She's tried to teach me, but with a 40 year head start, I'll never catch up. |
#345
|
|||
|
|||
Are astronomy gathering safe for children?
"Shawn Grant" wrote in message ...
Photo Tip #1: For the kind of photos you take, Shawn, you should seriously consider buying a portable 4x5. Speed Graphics and Busch Pressmans can be had on E-bay for a few hundred dollars, with lens. You are already using a tripod, so the additional weight and "slowness" should not bother you at all. 4 x 5 is fine for some pros. However I am not a pro nor do I ever wish to be a pro. Fuji Velvia 4x5 including developing is around $3 a photo. I can't afford that. Second I teach people how to work with photos with PhotoShop and I earn quite a bit of money for it. I need lots of photos in its digital form. Purchasing a scanner that scans 4x5 is very expensive and way out of my budget. My next camera purchase will be a digital SLR. Only advantage a 4x5 will give me are larger prints and possibly better depth of field with its tilt lenses. PS in my local area I only know of a few pros that use 4x5 for nature photography. One is George Humphries http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books Who I have had the pleasure of photographing with. The rest use 35mm and some are starting to go to digital. Ken Jenkins http://www.kenjenkins.com/ , Tom and Pat Cory http://hometown.aol.com/tompatcory/ who are judging a photo contest I am chairman of, Harold Stinnette http://www.naturalimpressionsphotography.com/ Chuck Summers http://www.agpix.com/search_catalog.php?agid=summers402 who gave a great presentation at my photo club last week and I will see him again Saturday for the photo judging and Bill Fortney who started and is the chairman of http://www.gapweb.com/ and is also with nikon all use 35mm and many are switching to digital. There are very few nature photographers who use large format. Seeing the light and creativity will improve photography more then a 4x5. My wife uses an old wooden Kodak 8x10. Contact prints are incredible, but there's no room for image manipulation except in film choice, development times, chemistry, and burn&dodge. She knows a LOT about this stuff. No amount of Photoshop work can ever achieve the results of an experienced person and contact printing with large negatives. She's tried to teach me, but with a 40 year head start, I'll never catch up. |
#347
|
|||
|
|||
Are astronomy gathering safe for children?
(Karl) wrote in message ...
In article , "Dave Jessie" wrote: Shawn Grant wrote in message: My photo http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/photos/buzzardroost.htm Gee I wonder who could use photo 101 Hi Shawn, That is one gorgeous photo. Just beautiful. Dave More like that's good Photoshop work. You can make almost any photo look good with Photoshop or darkroom tinkering. At what point does it stop being an actual photograph? Its the same with CCD images. They're more computer images than real photographs, where Photoshop skills are more important than skill with the camera. Dont get me wrong, I love my digital SLR, but there is also something about my Nikon FM2 and my Bronica that will always appeal to me. They're honest, and make you do the work. Karl This is nice example of the sorts of things they are debating on the "mars color" threads...on my monitor Shawn's image looks distinctly overexposed (too light)--on a Mac flat screen. On my Mac CRT monitor I'm sure it would look warmer in tone. On a PC I bet it would look more "correct." Did NASA produce this image? And in all cases it would have been better if shot on 4x5 (joke!). --Darin |
#348
|
|||
|
|||
Are astronomy gathering safe for children?
In my experience as a Club president and member of several clubs there
isn't any problem at all. For the most part, kids...young kids 5,6,7 etc. just do not come to meetings. They do come, with their parents,to Star Watches or Star Parties. These events usually have several club members with their telescopes as well as many other members of the public. I've never seen nor heard of any problem at all. Like others have said here, I say the same. Most people are decent and there are not any problems. For the most part these kind of problems arise when a child is alone and that's not going to happen at one of these events. |
#349
|
|||
|
|||
Are astronomy gathering safe for children?
In my experience as a Club president and member of several clubs there
isn't any problem at all. For the most part, kids...young kids 5,6,7 etc. just do not come to meetings. They do come, with their parents,to Star Watches or Star Parties. These events usually have several club members with their telescopes as well as many other members of the public. I've never seen nor heard of any problem at all. Like others have said here, I say the same. Most people are decent and there are not any problems. For the most part these kind of problems arise when a child is alone and that's not going to happen at one of these events. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Guide to the Best Spanish Language Astronomy Education MaterialsDebuts at NOAO Web Site (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 6th 04 01:03 AM |
ANN: reprint of Clerke's HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY | Bill McClain | Astronomy Misc | 7 | October 30th 03 08:05 PM |
ANN: reprint of Clerke's HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY | Bill McClain | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | October 30th 03 08:05 PM |
FS: Old Astronomy Books, 23 books at $2 - $6 each | Oldbooks78 | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | October 3rd 03 07:54 PM |