Sunsets



In message <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders
<[email protected]> writes
>Fran wrote:
>
>> You seem to get a great deal
>> of enjoyment out of explaining this sort of thing, after all.
>
>On the net yes, typing yes. But I'm sitting here alone. That's how I
>like it. Maybe I should write a book?

Good idea. You explain photography matters very well. Write a book on
it!

Many photography books are pretty poor, as you probably know. The
writers may know their stuff but they can't explain it an interesting
and easily understood manner.
 
Chris Townsend wrote:

> One of the most spectacular sunsets I've seen was in the Yukon many
> years ago. The sun turned deep red long before it reached the horizon
> and the river and the forest glowed golden. The cause was a huge
> forest fire burning hundreds of miles away in Alaska.

Ah, that would help!

> I could smell the smoke.

Really?

>> I bet. I've had a few too, like when I hurt my knee descending
>> Tryfan via a gully on the west side.
>
> Ouch. Sounds grim.

Well it ruined the rest of my week in Snowdonia, best I managed after
that was to limp up to Glaslyn on the PYG track. Didn't even have a
torch with me at the time, didn't plan on staying up there that late.
Still, injuries heal but the photos last much longer;
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/pg/gl/aes75.jpg

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
 
Chris Townsend wrote:

>> Maybe I should write a book?
>
> Good idea. You explain photography matters very well. Write a book on
> it!

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

> Many photography books are pretty poor, as you probably know. The
> writers may know their stuff but they can't explain it an interesting
> and easily understood manner.

I've noticed. Galen's Mountain Light is the best book I've ever read on
the subject.

What's the best way to go about getting a book published if you're
unknown?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
 
"Fran" <[email protected]> wrote

> It is very good. So much so that this non-scientific brain
> managed to understand it. I've filed it away for future
> reference; I'm also going to print off a copy for Catharine,
> who's just embarked on her GCSE science course.

Is there much on weather in GCSE science these days? Teachers at our school
don't seem to do much on it but any good science teacher could demonstrate
the point Paul was explaining about the blue light scattering effect by
shining a torch through a fish tank of water with a small amount of milk
added, the milk representing dust in the atmosphere and the torch obviously
being the sun.

> Catharine wanted to do the single award (one GCSE and so 'lower'
> than double) because she dislikes the subject;

Dislikes science? How can anyone dislike science? Ok, you might not care
how many electrons an atom of sodium has got in its outer shell but chucking
half a jam jar full of it into a lake is going to impress anyone (should
they have such a low regard for their personal safety as to contemplate such
a thing, don't do it kiddies).

> Paul, couldn't you do teacher training, and spare the next generation
> some appallingly boring teachers?

I think a lot of the science teachers at our school try hard to make science
interesting. They were doing pop bottle rockets this morning in a lesson on
gravity. Making slime is always a favourite with the kids, dissecting
hearts and stuff they love too, lots of burning magnesium and sodium &
potassium in water wherever they can fit it into a lesson, exploding cans,
the thermit reaction, hydrogen peroxide foaming volcanoes, iodine clock
reactions. Although thinking about it someone using the sound meter to
measure the loudness of different sounds this morning missed a good chance
to fit making ammonia/iodine contact explosive into their lesson for added
interest.
 
In message <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders
<[email protected]> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>>> Maybe I should write a book?
>>
>> Good idea. You explain photography matters very well. Write a book on
>> it!
>
>Thanks for the vote of confidence.
>
>> Many photography books are pretty poor, as you probably know. The
>> writers may know their stuff but they can't explain it an interesting
>> and easily understood manner.
>
>I've noticed. Galen's Mountain Light is the best book I've ever read on
>the subject.

Same here. And the other good ones are the other books by Galen Rowell
:)
>
>What's the best way to go about getting a book published if you're
>unknown?

Write a detailed synopsis and send it to publishers of photography books
with a selection of images. It may be possible to do this by email. The
annual Writers' and Artists' Yearbook lists every publisher, the type of
books they publish and how to approach them.

A portfolio of magazine articles and photographs is also worth having to
show book publishers. I'd been writing for magazines for six years
before I got my first book contract.

Also, have a look at Outdoor Photography magazine. They have an advert
in almost every issue (page 92 in the October issue) from their
publishers asking for people to submit ideas for books on photography.
The company is GMC Publications, [email protected].
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote

> And get six weeks of holidays during the *worst* time of year? No
> thanks!

Yeh, I'd prefer it more spread out or have the six weeks off in
September/October.

> No. I worked in a school for a year not so long ago, as a technician,
> and all those screaming kids nearly drove me crazy.

Having a laugh with the kids is one of the best bits.
 
In message <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders
<[email protected]> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>> One of the most spectacular sunsets I've seen was in the Yukon many
>> years ago. The sun turned deep red long before it reached the horizon
>> and the river and the forest glowed golden. The cause was a huge
>> forest fire burning hundreds of miles away in Alaska.
>
>Ah, that would help!
>
>> I could smell the smoke.
>
>Really?

Really. It was a huge fire and the wind was from that direction. I
stayed in one place for several days, waiting for a resupply, and the
air just got heavier and hazier.

Just remembered one of the photos is on my site:

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk/photos/10.html
>
>>> I bet. I've had a few too, like when I hurt my knee descending
>>> Tryfan via a gully on the west side.
>>
>> Ouch. Sounds grim.
>
>Well it ruined the rest of my week in Snowdonia, best I managed after
>that was to limp up to Glaslyn on the PYG track. Didn't even have a
>torch with me at the time, didn't plan on staying up there that late.
>Still, injuries heal but the photos last much longer;
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/pg/gl/aes75.jpg

Lovely light. The composition is almost abstract. The stones could be
any size.
 
I noticed that Message-ID:
<[email protected]> from Fran contained the
following:

>> Okay then, here it is, a beginner's guide to sunsets and sunrises. I
>> realise I could write a huge amount about this subject, so I'll try to
>> keep this short and just point out some of the main points.
>>
>Paul, I know I've ribbed you mercilessly on the subject of your
>employment status, but seriously, have you ever considered
>teaching?


I don't know about Paul's employment status but his recent spending
spree doesn't show any serious lack of funds.

I teach for a living. By necessity, I'm afraid. It's a lot tougher
than people imagine.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
 
I noticed that Message-ID: <[email protected]> from Paul
Saunders contained the following:

>> (I photographed my brothers wedding earlier this year - the
>> only wedding photography I've done. It was nerve wracking!)
>
>Same here, I photographed a friend's wedding once. Never again.

Used to so some subcontract work for a friend using my Rolleicord TLR.
He'd give me 3 rolls of film (36 exposures) and expect at least 34
useable shots. The potential for disaster is immense, and with film it
would be a few days before you could relax.

A very high pressure job.

Marginally easier with digital I would have thought, especially if you
have an assistant backing up onto hard disk and CD as you go and I have
been seriously considering doing one or two to fund the purchase of a
20D or similar.

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
 
I noticed that Message-ID: <[email protected]> from Paul
Saunders contained the following:

>> (I photographed my brothers wedding earlier this year - the
>> only wedding photography I've done. It was nerve wracking!)
>
>Same here, I photographed a friend's wedding once. Never again.

Used to so some subcontract work for a friend using my Rolleicord TLR.
He'd give me 3 rolls of film (36 exposures) and expect at least 34
useable shots. The potential for disaster is immense, and with film it
would be a few days before you could relax.

A very high pressure job.

Marginally easier with digital I would have thought, especially if you
have an assistant backing up onto hard disk and CD as you go and I have
been seriously considering doing one or two to fund the purchase of a
20D or similar.

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
 

> Used to so some subcontract work for a friend using my Rolleicord TLR.
> He'd give me 3 rolls of film (36 exposures) and expect at least 34
> useable shots.
Cheapskate, what about blinks. I used to shoot at least five rolls on a
wedding often doubling up on shots if I thought someone had blinked.


> potential for disaster is immense, and with film
> it would be a few days before you could relax.
It's a very scary way to earn a living, I have shot over two hundred
weddings. But I have never shot a relatives wedding I always refused
but I would shoot candids instead.

> A very high pressure job.
Very

> Marginally easier with digital I would have thought,
Nope, even pros are cocking up wedding because you have to be
very accurate with exposure when shooting with digital half a stop
out is enough to screw up. I have seen loads of really bad prints
at my lab where a (so called) pro has been a stop out and lost
all shadow or highlight (the dress) detail.
Film, negative, is much more forgiving.

The problem with shooting a wedding is photographers have to
concentrate on managing people and many get vague with exposure
accuracy.


> and I have
> been seriously considering doing one or two to fund the purchase of a
> 20D or similar.
I don't want to get in to egg sucking lessons but I would not want to
shoot weddings on digital. I know some very good pro photographers who
have reverted to film for weddings.

Just my 2p worth.

Mark



----------------------------------------------------
Industrial - Commercial - Architectural Photography
http://www.markbaigent.co.uk
Tel: 01245 222712
----------------------------------------------------
 
> My brother did say something similar. He didn't want a pro wedding
> photographer. I was still the most nervous person there though :)
The problem is that most "pro" wedding photographers are not
professionals. A typical studio may have 30 weddings on a busy Saturday,
they cannot staff for this so use operators who just shoot weddings at
the weekend. So actually you are booking an amateur at pro rates :-(
 
Following up to Paul Saunders

>If there's a low pressure system to the west of Britain, forget it.
>This is not uncommon.

but of course some of the most unusual effects occur when
something freakish happens. For instance the much more orange
effect you get when there is rain between you and the sun (at
least I believe that is the cause)
"http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/pict064.htm"
I once saw a tremendous effect when it had been raining for hours
and a gap in the clouds occurred at just the right moment for a
sunbeam to light up a summit against dark clouds. I of course
learned the lesson that day to always carry the camera :-(

From a photographic point of view I much prefer dawn to dusk, the
chances of low lying mist seem better, its often still for
reflections and there are far fewer dawn pics around than dusk (I
wonder why? :) ).
--
Mike Reid
If god wanted us to be vegetarians he wouldn't have made animals out of meat.
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to Paul Saunders

>Really? Hard to tell, but it doesn't matter. Actually ponds are much
>better for reflections, lakes are much more ripply.

I have used a tyre rut with a wide angle!
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict053.htm"
--
Mike Reid
If god wanted us to be vegetarians he wouldn't have made animals out of meat.
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...

snip

> :) Thanks for the vote of confidence Fran, but teaching really doesn't
> appeal to me.
>
> Paul

I understand perfectly how you feel about that Paul. Originally I'm an
artteacher for schoolkids from 12 to 16 years. When I was that age I had
this idea(l) to learn people to observe, to really see the world they live
in. But very few kids (and adults) are genuine interested in learning. Most
are just bone lazy or afraid they'll be outsiders, i.e. don't belong to a
group.
Another problem is that if you succeed in learning them a few things the
next year you can start all over again with new pupils. And so on, and so
on. Very frustrating. So instead of teaching I've been working parttime in a
supermarket for the last 24 years. I'm not rich but I'm very happy with not
participating in the 'ratrace'.

Is there a message in this ? Dunno, perhaps : "don't worry, be happy".

Theo
 
In message <[email protected]>, Geoff Berrow
<[email protected]> writes
>I noticed that Message-ID: <[email protected]> from Paul
>Saunders contained the following:
>
>>> (I photographed my brothers wedding earlier this year - the
>>> only wedding photography I've done. It was nerve wracking!)
>>
>>Same here, I photographed a friend's wedding once. Never again.
>
>Used to so some subcontract work for a friend using my Rolleicord TLR.
>He'd give me 3 rolls of film (36 exposures) and expect at least 34
>useable shots. The potential for disaster is immense, and with film it
>would be a few days before you could relax.
>
>A very high pressure job.
>
>Marginally easier with digital I would have thought, especially if you
>have an assistant backing up onto hard disk and CD as you go and I have
>been seriously considering doing one or two to fund the purchase of a
>20D or similar.
>
It was easier with digital, though I didn't have an assistant or any
form of backup. No one was paying me :)

Having digital just meant I could check the results immediately.
 
In message <[email protected]>, [email protected]
writes
>
>> Used to so some subcontract work for a friend using my Rolleicord TLR.
>> He'd give me 3 rolls of film (36 exposures) and expect at least 34
>> useable shots.
>Cheapskate, what about blinks. I used to shoot at least five rolls on a
>wedding often doubling up on shots if I thought someone had blinked.

I took over 200 images at my brothers wedding. I took several of any
group images and was glad I did as there was often one or two where
someone had blinked, looked away, yawned or just looked peculiar!
>
>
>> potential for disaster is immense, and with film
>> it would be a few days before you could relax.
>It's a very scary way to earn a living, I have shot over two hundred
>weddings. But I have never shot a relatives wedding I always refused
>but I would shoot candids instead.
>
>> A very high pressure job.
>Very
>
>> Marginally easier with digital I would have thought,
>Nope, even pros are cocking up wedding because you have to be
>very accurate with exposure when shooting with digital half a stop
>out is enough to screw up. I have seen loads of really bad prints
>at my lab where a (so called) pro has been a stop out and lost
>all shadow or highlight (the dress) detail.
>Film, negative, is much more forgiving.

I'm surprised at that. I'd never photographed a wedding before and I'd
only had a digital SLR for a couple of months but exposure wasn't a
problem. There seems to be a greater exposure latitude with digital than
slow speed slide film.

Perhaps photographers used to working with print film with its wide
latitude don't take enough care with exposure with digital. I'm used to
slide film.
>
>The problem with shooting a wedding is photographers have to
>concentrate on managing people and many get vague with exposure
>accuracy.

I got people to manage each other :)
>
>
>> and I have
>> been seriously considering doing one or two to fund the purchase of a
>> 20D or similar.
>I don't want to get in to egg sucking lessons but I would not want to
>shoot weddings on digital. I know some very good pro photographers who
>have reverted to film for weddings.

If I was asked to shoot a wedding again I'd use digital again.

The local pro wedding photographer uses digital.

I don't want to shoot a wedding again anyway :)
 
In message <[email protected]>, [email protected]
writes
>> My brother did say something similar. He didn't want a pro wedding
>> photographer. I was still the most nervous person there though :)
>The problem is that most "pro" wedding photographers are not
>professionals. A typical studio may have 30 weddings on a busy Saturday,
>they cannot staff for this so use operators who just shoot weddings at
>the weekend. So actually you are booking an amateur at pro rates :-(
>
Instead, they booked me at no rates :)

Where I live the guy who does most of the weddings is a pro photographer
specialising in portraits. But then a busy Saturday is one with three
weddings.
 
> Perhaps photographers used to working with print film with its wide
> latitude don't take enough care with exposure with digital. I'm used
> to slide film.
That is exactly it.
I have seen hundreds of negatives from weddings and there is often
a wide range of exposure error, often 2 stops over and two stops
under, I kid you not.

My local pro lab is currently having a very hard time with wedding
photographers who have switched to digital as the lack of correct
exposure means lost, important, detail.

> I got people to manage each other :)
That is the best option :)
but it is usually not available to the pro :-(

> If I was asked to shoot a wedding again I'd use digital again.
That's because you can expose correctly, like most photographers who are
used to shooting tran.


> The local pro wedding photographer uses digital.
Most of them do, which is why the complaints to the BIPP have risen
sharply

> I don't want to shoot a wedding again anyway :)
Nope, I have not shot wedding since the 80s I'm glad to say.


Mark

----------------------------------------------------
Industrial - Commercial - Architectural Photography
http://www.markbaigent.co.uk
Tel: 01245 222712
----------------------------------------------------
 

> Instead, they booked me at no rates :)
Wise decision :)

> Where I live the guy who does most of the weddings is a pro
> photographer specialising in portraits. But then a busy Saturday is
> one with three weddings.

Wonders...
But can he cover all three himself, in one day?
What would he do if a 4th booking was made?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back