Quoting Christian Skofteland:
> I was impressed with Tiger on the green. It's funny... you confused the hell outta me at first. I'm thinkin "tiger? what tiger? ain't no tiger on my website. There's a lion, but.... OH!!!" You obviously meant the tiger of the wooden persuasion. duh! forgot about him. > What camera and lens? I designed the site to be PDML friendly <g>. If you lay your mouse over 95% of the photos, it'll give you camera, lens, flash, and film info. Actually, now that I look, those are the ONLY photos on the website (I think) that don't have camera body info [leave it to Christian to pick a winner]. My ZX-5n was in Colorado that week, and I'm not sure if it was back in time or if I used the ZX- 10. But the lens was the FA 300mm f2.8 with a very bad filter (long story). > Was it noisy? did they give you a hard time? Nope. It was a practice round. AFAIK, EVERYONE is allowed to bring photo equipment to the practice rounds. I don't think it's something they publicize, but it was the only reason I agreed to volunteer to work the concession stand at all. It's funny, because I was the only one fighting to get a time slot on a non-tournament day for that reason... they thought I was nuts. While I was working, I also scored 2 tickets to come back and watch (not work) the final round. But I gave 'em away. (a) tiger was no longer in contention (b) I couldn't bring a camera, and (c) for me, golf is better watched on the tube anyway. You see wayyy more action. Glad you like the photos, by the way. > One more question regarding this one: > http://www.exposedfilm.net/g1_00313.htm > How are the dragons housed in Atlanta? At the Natl. > Zoo they are behind glass which is exposed to the > outdoors; i.e.: fogged, smeared, clouded and scratched. Don'tcha just hate that?! This one is behind glass, too (phew!)... but I suppose the glass is in better condition. It's only 1/2-way exposed to the outdoors. The area where the people stand to observe is kinda like an open-air shack (hard to explain). The point is, it has a roof, so there's some protection from the elements [but not the fingerprints and scratches]. > I can never get a good shot of them due to the condition of the > glass. I'd like to know your technique. Nothing secret. Windex and a paper towel. Actually, I never remember the windex, and end up just using my shirt. People'll look at you funny while you start cleaning up, but hey! Getting as close to the glass as possible helps (which is essential if you use flash), too. My problem with this guy is that he is partially lit by flourescent lighting, and partially by ambient. I wanted more shots of this guy, so I went back about 3 weeks ago with two rolls: EliteChrome 200, and Kodak 160T (tungsten film). It was my first time using it, but it seems like to use Tungsten film you have to have (almost?) ALL tungsten lighting. The presence of ambient lighting left me with VERY ugly color casts (entire roll unusable). So then I used the other (regular) roll, only using flash for fill... turns out that not enough flash nor ambient left me with color cast AGAIN (and another entire roll unusable...dammit). So I haven't figured it out yet. The photo in my gallery, by the way, is the product of a TON of color correction due to this same issue. I'll get it right eventually... or I'll just by an *ist-D and press a button or something and call it a day [somewhere, Tom is smiling]. Good luck, Christian. Thanks!
