David, I didn't anticipate a film less world but I have always taken photo goods references and people taking photos. I know how they will be perceived as time goes on. The way costs change is always a wonder. These days there is hardly any film in stores and I can't imagine paying five bucks a pack for cigarettes. AZ LOOKAROUND - Since 1978 Build a 120/35mm Lookaround! The Lookaround E-Book FREE COPY http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [SPAM] Gallery comments > From: David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> > Date: Sun, March 07, 2010 9:23 am > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > The Photoforum Gallery is online at > <http://people.rit.edu/andpph/gallery.html> > > Dan Mitchell <javascript:{}>, Fast Horse: I was puzzling over "1200 > type" until I realized it was a Polaroid, about the same time my eye got > down that far. I think the blanket (or do they call it a coat or > something?) makes this photo; just a horse by the speed limit sign would > be nice, but this strangely-dressed horse is much better. I have to say > that generally, and including this case, I really don't like the very > weird things Polaroid does to the color space, though. > > Alan Zinn, <javascript:{}>FILM. Don't Run Out: Yeah, and cigarettes for > $1.50! Do you remember if the film sign was an important part of your > plan at the time you took the shot? I'm wondering if this is a case of > a photo whose meaning has changed significantly over time. > > John Retallack, <javascript:{}>Winter in Upstate New York: This looks > dark and dingy to me, which is never what I want with snow pictures. > It's not just my eyes (or my monitor); there are essentially no pixels > above luminosity 200. But there doesn't seem to be any detail in the > snow on the roofs, looks burned out. I suspect this of having been > pulled down too far in an attempt to recover from overexposure. > > Mark Harris <javascript:{}>, Inna's Hair: I don't have much experience > with shared model shoots, but I'll bet that's more interesting than what > most of the people got when they had her put her hair back again. I'd > like just a tad less hair in front of the eye on the right, but that's > pretty minor really. This is quite neat, and I'm not shocked she wants > to use it. > > Michael Hughes, <javascript:{}>Milliner and model: It's an interesting > bit of hat, but it's not sharp, and neither are her eyes or any other > facial features. > > It's great to see a gallery posted again! Thanks to all who participate > this week. > > -- > David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ > Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ > Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ > Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
