?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile ABMann.net Previous Previous Next Next
Nostrovia - Portrait of a Young Man as The Artist — LiveJournal
abmann
abmann
Nostrovia


From sculplady's art show. This is the guy I was following around most of the night.
I like his shirt.

I learned two things from that night. 1) stand still when shooting from the hip. And 2) adjust depth of field to infinity to avoid blur.
I forgot this important point so many shots were blurry because I had a shallow depth of field.

Headache getting worse. Going to bed.
Maybe tomorrow will be really productive.

Shit, no. I'm in a lab all tomorrow in Verona. Damn. I think I'm going to try to bike the 8 miles tomorrow.
evilevi: lunch tomorrow if you actually take them? :)
If I'm not there, please scrape me off M.

...
And molly got out of the basement. Electra will probably come out some time next year.
Damn cats.
Aaand I seem to be bleeding from pinning molly down....
Finish a deceent ending in mediocre night with a meme.
<td align="center"> Angrybunnyman --
[noun]:

A dance involving little to no clothing

'How will you be defined in the dictionary?' at QuizGalaxy.com</td>


And how!
This entry brought to you by the Anti-Dialup League.

Current Mood: lonely lonely

24 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
evilevi From: evilevi Date: July 13th, 2006 03:47 am (UTC) (Link)
Lunch would be wonderful. :)
abmann From: abmann Date: July 13th, 2006 01:28 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'll try to come by around 11:30.
evilevi From: evilevi Date: July 13th, 2006 02:08 pm (UTC) (Link)
*steeples hands* Eeeeeeeeeexcellent.
evilevi From: evilevi Date: July 13th, 2006 10:14 pm (UTC) (Link)
Here is the journal entry about my first acupuncture appointment that I told you about over lunch.
fiendishx From: fiendishx Date: July 13th, 2006 04:41 am (UTC) (Link)
Narrow depth of field is not a bad thing. Without it you'll lose all sense of depth in photos without geometric spacial indicators (like the one above), and a very small field can produce an emotional closeness to the target. It all depends on what you want your photo to portray. Have you figured out the different focus locking modes yet? That's probably the most useful feature on a digital camera, especially since autofocus always needs either a little help or a swift boot to the noggin to be just right. If you aren't already, you might consider a tighter focal region (center spot instead of matrix, for instance) combined with the occasional focus lock for when you want an off-center focal point.
From: (Anonymous) Date: July 13th, 2006 01:07 pm (UTC) (Link)
Not sure what you mean by focus lock. I leraned last night that the numbers on the depth focus on the lense means objectsw within X meters will be in focus.

In the case of the art show, I really needed infinite focus because my distance was pretty far from people. Serruptitious pictures and all. :)
fiendishx From: fiendishx Date: July 13th, 2006 10:25 pm (UTC) (Link)
Not sure what you mean by focus lock
Have you read the manual yet? ^_^
http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/tnirp/D70_en.pdf

The following assumes use of auto-focus and not manual focus. I assume auto-focus, because 1) manual focus is so 20 years ago, and 2) I'm an insensitive clod and you've only got one hand (We can still make out on weekends though).

Focus lock is a feature of the autofocus mechanism whereby you lock the focus on a particular setting so that you can move the camera to shoot something else in autofocus mode without refocusing on the new object. This is useful because autofocus is easily confused by extraneous objects like hats and breasts. It is achieved by either using single servo mode (as opposed to continuous servo) or the AF-L button.

My reference to center spot and matrix is actually for exposure, not focus. Appologies, I was misremembering icons. I meant to say selectable region focus versus nearest object focus.

In the case of the art show, I really needed infinite focus because my distance was pretty far from people.
While I'm not disputing the use of infinity as a good general purpose field depth, this particular statement doesn't make sense to me unless you mean that you were trying to shoot large groups of people that were scattered about and wanted to get them all in focus. Shots like the one above would not benefit from increased field depth no matter how far away you are.
abmann From: abmann Date: July 14th, 2006 12:19 am (UTC) (Link)
I think it helps to know that I wasn't looking through the viewfinder. I was shooting from my "I'm carying my camera" pose." Thus the desire to use infinite focus. :) I shoulda mentioned that.

Now I haven't read the whole manual yet. It's dense. I'm about three sections in.
fiendishx From: fiendishx Date: July 14th, 2006 12:49 am (UTC) (Link)
That explains much. So the next question is, "Why?"
abmann From: abmann Date: July 14th, 2006 12:28 pm (UTC) (Link)
Why shooting from a neutral position? So people don't know. Provides a natural shot. Plus everyone thought I was shooting the art instead of them looking at the art.

Also, I can't focus fast enough with my nub to get a candid moment.
fiendishx From: fiendishx Date: July 14th, 2006 06:05 pm (UTC) (Link)
Why shooting from a neutral position? So people don't know. Provides a natural shot.
Yeah, but you said you were far away, right? Combine that with hitting people from behind or from the side, and people wouldn't know anyway.

Plus everyone thought I was shooting the art instead of them looking at the art. Yeah. I can see how that one might screw things up. But you could always tell them. ^_^
"No, no. Really, act natural. No, that's ok, put your shirt back on. Oh alright, but just this once."

Also, I can't focus fast enough with my nub to get a candid moment.
Autofocus is just a single button-press away, and it shouldn't take more than a second or two to complete. I think that once you get more comfortable with the camera, your time-to-planned-shot will also decrease.

So here's a question I never thought I'd have the chance to ask someone...
Have you considered attachments? You know, like Captain Hook?
abmann From: abmann Date: July 14th, 2006 06:14 pm (UTC) (Link)
Not until I can have a blender attachement. :)

I had prosthetics growing up but they're really useless especially when you've never used the arm before. I would pop off the prosthetic whn I needed to do something that required more than a hand.

I don't think I'll ever get a false limb unless they become non-invasive, highly responsive and able to shoot lasers. :)
moocowrich From: moocowrich Date: July 13th, 2006 04:53 am (UTC) (Link)
By that definition, I performed an angrybunnyman in my room tonight. And most other nights.
abmann From: abmann Date: July 13th, 2006 01:21 pm (UTC) (Link)
I don't think that counts.
zesty_pinto From: zesty_pinto Date: July 13th, 2006 11:50 am (UTC) (Link)
Uh oh, potentially practicing for paparazzi work? You're getting used to the use of the camera at least, by the sound of it.

If I ever hear of a porno title called "Angrybunnyman," then I'll now know what to expect in it.
zesty_pinto From: zesty_pinto Date: July 13th, 2006 11:51 am (UTC) (Link)
Actually, now that I think about it; you'd be a Bollywood porn title!
smed From: smed Date: July 13th, 2006 02:50 pm (UTC) (Link)
I think that's the best meme yet...

What are the ethical issues involved in photography strangers? And posting their images on the internet? I've often wondered about this. Mainly just taking the photos...

yay for lunches with beautiful women?
fiendishx From: fiendishx Date: July 13th, 2006 09:46 pm (UTC) (Link)
If a person goes out in public, then that person can not be allowed expectations that noone is going to look at them. Photography is merely long-term looking. Legally, however, you cannot publish a person's likeness without a written release.

You could still go up to any person you photograph and say "Hey, I took a [few] photo[s] of you earlier for . I hope you don't mind. I can send you copies if you'd like." Most people will appreciate it, and you might make a new friend.
smed From: smed Date: July 13th, 2006 09:51 pm (UTC) (Link)
In this setting - what does "publish" refer to? Obviously I'm not going to put out a book, but what about uploading to flickr just for the purpose of personal improvement?

In this image (assuming ABM did not get permission) is he acting illegally?
abmann From: abmann Date: July 13th, 2006 10:08 pm (UTC) (Link)
hmm.. everydaypeople may be a hot bed for illegal activity...
smed From: smed Date: July 13th, 2006 10:09 pm (UTC) (Link)
wrong link or i'm just very confused. The latter is very possible. No more databases.
abmann From: abmann Date: July 13th, 2006 10:24 pm (UTC) (Link)
er.. everyday_people
Too many communities.
fiendishx From: fiendishx Date: July 13th, 2006 10:34 pm (UTC) (Link)
fiendishx From: fiendishx Date: July 13th, 2006 10:41 pm (UTC) (Link)
I should also note, just to get to the more immediate question more...uhh...immediately, since it is addressed in the link I provided...
No bunnies were harmed in the making of this particular photo. As the subject's face does not appear in the image, he (or perhaps she of the balded and bearded persuasion) would not be able to claim infringement on his likeness. The man could never sue Williford, because there is no proof that the person in the photo is actually him.
24 comments or Leave a comment