[soosh]

soosh: That photo doesn’t really say “low key” to me. There’s clearly a lot of other light filtering into the scene besides the rainbow.

I added the following to the theme description for clarification:

Note: Low key photos show high contrast, and many/most of the tones will be in the shadow range. A bright photo taken with the sun as your only source of light does not qualify.

I didn’t much think it did either, but wasn’t sure.

no sunlit scenes, gotcha. what about moonlight?

or what about a scene like this? the sky is ambient night sky, and the foreground is lit by a sodium light behind me.

[soosh]

hey, what about this shot. I don’t know if I’ll use it or not, but it randomly happened in my cube a few hours ago. I have a prism in my window that isn’t aimed or anything, just sitting there, and for the first time in months, the sun hit it today in an interesting way:

so the rainbow is a single light source, the sun, directed through the prism. but I don’t know if it falls within the guidelines for this contest.

what i’d really like to do for this contest is a green laser pointer and a hell of a lot of small mirrors.

[soosh]

the 100-400 isn’t a particularly fast lens, and for anything indoor with typical lighting, one would have to work to keep the shutter speed up high enough to keep from blurring. I use it for my kids football, and while the reach and flexibility is excellent, the f/4.5-5.6 isn’t the greatest if it’s not broad daylight. it’s got IS and the image quality is great, but it will cost an arm and a leg.

the 70-200 f/4 is a great choice, reasonably priced (especially for what it is) and sharp as hell. don’t know if it would be long enough, but it’s a little faster than the 100-400.

if money is no object, the 70-200 f/2.8, either IS or non would be the way to go. there is also a 300 f/4 non-zoom, but that would probably be too long.

I don’t know much about the various 70-300s, but they are all slower than the ones above, which can limit you if you’re in indoor lighting or outdoor events at night. a lot depends on which camera body is being used – some of the newer ones would allow for a lot higher ISO to be used, so that would somewhat offset having a slower lens.

[soosh]

nice shot!

did I ever post my huge early morning full moon set panoramic I took about a year ago?

[soosh]

b sides:

[soosh]

don’t be modest. you look kinda like a dwarf in all your shots.

[soosh]

if fark outlaws bar-sluts, I’m done.

[soosh]

u-man, you’ll appreciate this:

http://www.photobasement.com/41-hilarious-science-fair-experiments/

[soosh]

I thought you used that one before?

possibly. I’ve got hundreds similar. Do they work? I promise to only submit one dead fish shot, and not one of the ones with the vivid blood.

[soosh]

ok, what about pearlescence if it contains dead fish?

http://sacredartichoke.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=27&pos=41

[soosh]

It’s more likely than you think.

Hey, did you see my new doggie, Oliver?

I don’t know if I posted about it over here, but we lost our 13 year-old rott/mastiff mix to pancreatic cancer this past August. Oliver is our new Large Dog. He is an awesomely energetic-yet-controlled-huge-yet-gentle dog that likes to talk a lot and bark just a little.[/url]

[soosh]

soosh: They’re gorgeous, but I don’t think they really get at what the theme is going for.

no problem at all. I’m just trying to see what I have in the archives to use, as I’m moderately stoned and would just as soon not go out in the garage with the mice tonight to take photos.

[soosh]

what about something like this, where the diffraction is monochrome, but splits a point of light into stars?

[soosh]

do these show enough light-splitting effects to qualify here, or are we going more strictly rainbow type splitting?

[soosh]

still Thursday here.

I totally forgot yesterday was a Wednesday. fucking hell.

well, I would have chosen from among stuff like this:

[Author]

Posts