On 5/31/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/05/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, there are millions of folks who can
identify things later. Except
that it's much easier to do it up front.
The other problem is that, with aircraft, the notice saying what it is
is usually a long way away from the good point for an overall picture,
which is a little less true for flowers :-)
It's a freebie. Do as you like, but
sometimes it's nice not to have to
think or seek, especially when the information is right there at hand
just
for the clicking. Even when I'm not dealing
with 16,000 images at a
pop,
it's easier.
I did an entire museum a little while ago - the trick I used was to do
two seperate sets of photos, the good camera taking high-res shots of
every artifact and the small compact running off lots of context
photos ("here is the entire cabinet") and pictures of labels, etc. Put
the two sets together, sort by timestamp, and you're done.
[Or would be had I not forgotten to set one of them to daylight
savings. Still, it was a nice first attempt...]
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
Yeah, I do this if I'm shooting in gardens, take two cameras, shoot the
label and broad shot, then shoot the images I want with my good camera.
Also for my art. For me the flowers don't always come with signs, except
for the ones I'm growing. When I shoot in the field I take a cheap sketch
book and a marker and write a sign and shoot it. But yes, with air shows
the signs are often also crowded with the other folks at the air shows, and
not usually are they the one shot of the plane you want (cutting off nose
and tail)--still, it can be useful.
We're getting more articles on non-French/English war machines, like the
Turk I bullied into working on Turkish battleships, so if there are
non-Western European planes, get good pictures of those.
Wikipedia has some devoted folks taking good pictures.
KP