Log in

No account? Create an account
Continuing with the ORC photos - Sunday Morning - a fine day to see a panel of elves, orcs and men! - "You didn't hear about the polar bear?"
January 24th, 2005
11:03 pm


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Continuing with the ORC photos - Sunday Morning - a fine day to see a panel of elves, orcs and men!
Here you go - I hope you enjoy it! *S*


And a few teasers... *G*

(8 comments | Leave a comment)

[User Picture]
Date:January 25th, 2005 09:07 am (UTC)
wonderful piccies, nice to see Peter smiling! And do tell more on how Susan is a fangirl:)
[User Picture]
Date:January 25th, 2005 01:31 pm (UTC)
Well, Viggo came up to her office (in LA, I believe) to drop off some of the photos he took for the DVD specials. Kevin was actually pretty thrilled (they share an office) because he doesn't get to go to NZ and interview these folks, Sue does. Anyway, it's only after Viggo's been there and left that she realizes that he must have seen the photos and other images of him as Aragorn plastered all over her office (as Kevin tells it). *G* Including a photo of his head - on a popsicle stick. Apparently they would use it to see how to position the background in the DVD's! Wonder what he thought about that. "But," she protests, "I also had a Legolas figure! And an R2D2. And a Yoda."

*G* Geek.

Also, she knew the book backwards and forwards and says she could look at a piece from the movie (like a piece of armor, etc.) and tell you exactly which Age it was made in, race, etc. Many expressions of squee were seen - in a very down-to-earth way. And she said it KILLED her not to be able to talk about all the great stuff she knew about before everybody else. She even had to tell people her trips to NZ were all vacations(!). And she talked about not being able to use certain photos in the earlier DVD's because they'd have a drawing of Gollum in the background, or some other top secret thing!
[User Picture]
Date:January 25th, 2005 11:53 am (UTC)
I simply love you!!
[User Picture]
Date:January 25th, 2005 01:35 pm (UTC)
*gasp* But you hardly know me! *L*!
Date:January 25th, 2005 02:52 pm (UTC)
You picked my favourite Royd piccie for your teaser - I can see his grandfather in there, can't you?

The elves look like they had a marvelous Saturday night! *EG*
[User Picture]
Date:January 25th, 2005 05:22 pm (UTC)
Wow - you're right!

And, yes, I'd love to know about the partying that went on between Sat night and Sun morning - *G*!
Date:January 27th, 2005 05:25 am (UTC)

Out of curiosity

I've been an admirer of your photos for a while now (I was so irked to discover you were at ORC and I never got to meet you!) and was just wondering what sort of camera you use. I've got a fairly basic digital which seems to work okay for nature photos but my convention shots never turn out at quite the quality yours do. I hope it's not some sort of trade secret. ^_^

[User Picture]
Date:January 27th, 2005 01:35 pm (UTC)

Re: Out of curiosity

Thank you so much - that's so nice of you to say! *S*

No, it's no trade secret - and it's interesting that you mention nature photography. That's been my main avocation for several years now. You say you use a digital camera, but you don't say if it's a point-and-shoot or an SLR. In other words, is the lens part of the camera, or removable? If it's part of the camera, it probably has a very small opening - so even though the digital cameras are great at picking up light (much better than film), it's still limiting how much light gets in.

I use an SLR (the Nikon D70 or D100) and set it at 1600 ASA (the fastest speed it will go at), and instead of the usual 70 mm to 200 mm zoom lens, I use a 200 mm fixed lens at f 2.8. The "f-2.8" means it has a very wide open fixed opening (aperture). The usual lens only go down to 5.6 (the larger the number, the smaller the aperture, and the less light that comes through the lens). And I sat in the third row - *G*.

So, using a very fast speed (1600 ASA), a lens with a very wide aperture (2.8) that still gets me close (200 mm), and by being as close as possible (3rd row), I could get pretty good photos - without using a flash. I was right at the edge, though. I should have been photographing at 1/200 of a second, since I was using a 200 mm lens, but I usually only got 1/60 or 1/30 of a second. Many of my photos were too blurry to use. So the last factor is - I took a LOT - about 100 per each 1 hour panel. If the subjects moved at all, or my hand shook, or I didn't adjust the focus correctly, they were blurry.

Whew! That's a long post! So, if any of those factors weren't in place (fast "film", fast lens, up close, lots of photos), the photos probably wouldn't have been any good.

The other option - which I usually don't use because you have to be in the front row, and I hate the thought of blinding the celebrities - is to use flash. But since flashes usually don't carry farther than about 20 feet, I think, you have to be pretty up close and personal. And, if you want to take a LOT of photos - it's not pleasant for the person being photographed. And, often, it's banned.

Whew!!!! Long answer - sorry - hope it helped! And the idea for the 200 mm f 2.8 came from Lilithlotr, a truly great photographer - *S*.
Powered by LiveJournal.com