Re: Digital camera again...

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Etienne Garbaux wrote:
>> My first question is: I'm usually about two
>> feet, maybe a tad more, from my subject... if I shoot at chest level,
>> often the legs dwindle, a funny perspective effect. I figure that's NOT
>> another effect of digital perspective, but just the way the 35 mm (or 28
>> mm??) of the lens behaves.... I rarely saw anything like it in analog
>> because I rarely shot that close and rarely with less than 50 mm.
>
> As Loris noted, that is simply perspective. You can fix it in Photoshop if
> you want. (I often find that a partial correction looks best.) In
> essence, you stretch the picture into a trapezoid and then crop back to a
> rectangle. Or, you could hold the camera at waist level and let your
> subjects' feet and heads both dwindle compared to their giant bellies....

I figure I'll fix some in Photoshop (which could get fairly labor
intensive when you're doing hundreds), and crop some...and leave some as
charming camera artifacts. But it only happens some of the time -- if I
frame from about the hips up it doesn't happen.

I'd figured on trapezoiding just the bottom, not the whole frame. Do you
think that's feasible?

> Actually, there are any number of recreational paths and such that are
> teeming with pedestrians and joggers. Most NYC parks fit the bill. I
> don't know what's below 14th St. in Manhattan, but a short subway ride to
> Brooklyn Heights will score you ... I forget what they call it ... the
> Promenade? ... right up against the river (with lower Manhattan in full
> view so you don't feel too anxious).

I elided two thoughts in that complaint about no pedestrians -- that's why
NYC is such a marvel to shoot in... it is teeming, swarming, heaving,
bursting with pedestrians, all sizes types ages sexes and races... in
fact I don't have to go to a park, just out my front door -- Union Square
never fails, almost any avenue has its charms, and there are delightful
surprises around every corner. (A favorite today was a fellow at Sheridan
Square with "I Speak English.")

My problem -- and I wasn't going to discuss this on the list, but you
force me -- is that such politics as appear on shirts in NYC are flaming
furious fullbore anti-Bush. In the interests of a SURVEY, which is my
project, I need some Republican, pro gun, pro Bush, shirts -- and tho
there is the occasional muttered aside passing the fellows at Union Square
selling, um,what you might call strong (STRONG !) anti-Bush shirts out of
milk crates, I've walked probably 100 miles and 100 hours in the city
since May, east and west, uptown & down, and never saw a single pro-Bush
body. I've mentioned this to a few people who assure me (what I'd
surmised) that such a person would be promptly ripped limb from limb.

A friend told me today that I have to go to Oklahoma, or maybe
Tennessee... but I think I'll try DC first... Allentown was nice, but
doesn't do political -- and the only pedestrians were at the mall.
Passing through several towns on the way there, I figured everyone had
moved out -- but left behind some wonderful wonderful buildings, around
Easton, for instance -- which would be a great and marvelous place to
photograph some day.

> By the way, if you want to use larger apertures without blowing out the
> highlights, lower the "film speed" and/or use the "ND Filter" setting in
> the menu on the G5. Or, get the adapter that allows you to mount 58mm
> accessories and use a real 58mm neutral density filter.

The problem is that as I walk conditions change, constantly, rapidly,
under trees, in the shade of buildings, turning a corner, lights from a
store window, etc., and of course the skies also change rapidly and
continually on some days. And there is simply no time to do these
adjustments for a given shot... I'm glad, grateful, that folks will stop
at the request of a stranger -- but the encounter doesn't allow for
fiddling with the camera... Or let me amend that to say if I'd spent more
time practicing I might have that under control enough to switch on the
fly, tho I think it would still be tricky -- Anyway, I've spent the time
shooting.

Though on second thought -- diddling the film speed is a good idea -- in
either direction. I've kept it at a steady 200, but --- maybe I'm ready
to get fancy on that...

However, while we're talking about handling the camera -- I meant to ask
about the viewfinder on Gord's Olympus... As he discussed it, the
viewfinder was a major factor in his choice... But doesn't the camera have
a monitor? Of course the viewfinder on the G5 is an abomination -- not
only tiny but it's got the lens barrel covering the lower left quadrant...
But why would one use any of those tiny view finders when there's a
monitor? (Or maybe it isn't so tiny?)

Question #2 under separate cover... Meanwhile, again thank you...

Judy
Received on Sat Jul 31 00:04:28 2004