[Leica] Aaron's PAW 50: Concentration

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

Aaron Sandler said:
Subject: Re: [Leica] Aaron's PAW 50: Concentration
>> Strong statements to wake up to, Ted, especially with no coffee in my
> system yet!  ;)
>
> But I'll take my lumps, especially since they came with a healthy dose of 
> advice, which I appreciate.  Yup, I should have moved/leaned right to get 
> his other eye in cleanly...I see that now.  As far as the highlights go, I 
> think that was a lost cause in the lighting at the time, at least it 
> seemed so to me...The only light came from a surgical microscope which was 
> a bit like a uni-directional sun in the room.  Bright bright bright. 
> Perhaps that should have killed it there...but I least I provided a 
> learning example!  Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Aaron,
"Yer a good man Charlie Brown!" ;-)

Nice to have a fellow photographer take kick in the pants advice that's 
meant well! There wasn't any room for pussy footing ass kissing comfy make 
the guy feel good about a scene that could've been fixed if he'd had the 
experience. Certainly when the advice came from shooting similar situations 
hundreds of times.

Yep the highlight thing is always a killer situation to get around.

I try to get by using a longer lens isolating the eyes if it still makes for 
a solid photograph. If hands and eyes and gear are required to make the shot 
work then it's copious amounts of burning and dodging in the darkroom.

I'm not quite as skilful on the machine screen, but I'm improving with 
practice. :-)  Maybe after I've spent 50 years experience in PShp I'll be as 
good as I am in the wet darkroom.;-) After all playing in the dark is a 
piece of cake after getting hands in the soup for 54 years! :-)

>>The only light came from a surgical microscope which was a bit
> like a uni-directional sun in the room.<<<<

And that's why sometimes you have to go tight on the subject to get by it. 
Like a longer lens, 180mm or 200mm to reach right into the eyes because 
that's where the picture is and the gear was only supplying light. The gear 
was of no consequence to the subject looking good other than supplying light 
for the exposure.

>>Perhaps that should have killed it there...but I least I provided a 
>>learning
> example!  Nothing ventured, nothing gained.<<<

No need to kill it all, it only required a longer lens to reach passed the 
highlight area. Your "Nothing ventured, nothing gained!" Is absolutely the 
way to look at this because now you'll know exactly what's required next 
time around. Not only that you've made a bunch of people open their eyes to 
better use of their gear and to see how to make light work instead of 
blowing the picture away due to a lack of understanding. Certainly when it 
comes to "eyes!"

ted

Ted Grant Photography Limited
1817 Feltham Road
Victoria BC  V8N 2A4
250-477-2156