Heartland

Posted: **19 Jul 2008, 21:02**

I didn't need to see that again

Posted: **22 Jul 2008, 12:45**

A holiday piccie (and the only one in which I ended up myself too)

The ones I made are at the lab and will be developed tomorrow so stand-by for s**t loads of Berlin pictures

Posted: **22 Jul 2008, 15:02**

Get a haircut, Hippy!

Posted: **22 Jul 2008, 15:05**

James Blast wrote:Get a haircut, Hippy!

oh yes go to ...
but nice shoes

re~decorating room starts tomorrow

Posted: **22 Jul 2008, 15:10**

Bartek wrote:but nice shoes

his feet are that shape, we don't like to mention it...

Posted: **22 Jul 2008, 15:31**

Oi!

Posted: **22 Jul 2008, 17:06**

Obviousman wrote:

A holiday piccie (and the only one in which I ended up myself too)

The ones I made are at the lab and will be developed tomorrow so stand-by for s**t loads of Berlin pictures

Is that your Merc parked there?!

Posted: **22 Jul 2008, 17:36**

Course not, I was just walking/U-bahning/S-bahning through Berlin and found a funny street name

Posted: **22 Jul 2008, 17:41**

Oh well ... Looking forward to your photos anywayz ...

Posted: **22 Jul 2008, 23:26**

Votes please?

Sunset @ 4.5K

or Sunset @ 10K

Posted: **23 Jul 2008, 00:50**

the second set ..

but at 10k i'm not buyin'

Posted: **23 Jul 2008, 00:59**

darkparticle wrote:the second set .. but at 10k i'm not buyin'

I don't blame you either! - 'K' = Kelvin, a 'techy' measure of White Balance, which one of our wise peers will probably elaborate on ...

Posted: **23 Jul 2008, 10:35**

Digital cameras eh, always make it complicated

Prefer the top one myself, the two next ones are fine too, the last one is my least favourite probably... Nice!

Posted: **23 Jul 2008, 11:58**

Obviousman wrote:Digital cameras eh, always make it complicated

Prefer the top one myself, the two next ones are fine too, the last one is my least favourite probably... Nice!

Thanks for the feedback Matey!

I'm trying to learn as much as I can about White Balance as this is a very tricky subject and let's face it very personal choice? - Perception/'Reality' ... We could go on for ever, eh? - I and you can 'cheat' with RAW images and various pieces of software, but I long for a really good Light Meter which will accurately measure WB if this is at all possible? I would be very interested too, to hear from someone who is scientifically minded who can explain this to us less 'savvy'? ...

p.s. Looking forward to seeing the next chapter in your 'Travelogue'?

p.p.s. I love 'Head' in your Gallery on Flickr - The Dalmatian dog! - Yours?

Posted: **23 Jul 2008, 15:18**

Light meters, bloody expensive aren't they

I use this until I can afford one, works pretty well I find. Only when I'm indoors or so I start to doubt and things go wrong, but mostly I encounter very little problems...

Thanks for loving the dog, tis an English Setter but she is indeed mine

For more on where my photos are, check the Seething thread

Posted: **23 Jul 2008, 15:21**

Shouldn't it come down to what pleases you most, what looks correct to your eye not some scientific formula or device. I mean there's absolutely nae point in producing a mathematically precise photograph if it looks pish.

Posted: **23 Jul 2008, 15:22**

I'd go for 4.5K The light just seems to have a better quality on the first set. Colder somehow.

Posted: **23 Jul 2008, 15:25**

James Blast wrote:Shouldn't it come down to what pleases you most, what looks correct to your eye not some scientific formula or device. I mean there's absolutely nae point in producing a mathematically precise photograph if it looks pish.

Fact, though obviously you need to make sure you actually have a picture and not a blacked out square on a roll of film/sensor, no?

Posted: **23 Jul 2008, 15:44**

Peter Murphy

more here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/b52t/

yes, it's a double wankin'

Posted: **23 Jul 2008, 16:02**

yours?

Posted: **23 Jul 2008, 17:34**

yup

Posted: **23 Jul 2008, 17:35**

Nice!

Posted: **23 Jul 2008, 17:41**

Exceptional work, Sir!

Posted: **23 Jul 2008, 17:46**

got more good or over the average pics on my disc. don't if i'm going to upload them. maybe. but thanks, that words from mista Blast

, now i'm really proud.

Posted: **23 Jul 2008, 18:19**

it was FACT! Sir

makes mine look a bit wooly
but they were taken 20+ years ago and they aren't correctly scanned on a dedicated 35mm film scanner