![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Harry Lavo | profile | all galleries >> HFL Photos - Other Intentional Photography >> Odd's 'N Ends | tree view | thumbnails | slideshow |
previous page | pages 1 2 3 ALL | next page |
Macro shot of the front of my phono cartridge, complete with dust from the last playing and subsequent "dust web". Incidentally, this is one terrific-sounding cartridge, a moving coil design, that cost me $300 in 1982. Let's see, that was 29 years ago.....do you think $10 per year is too much to pay for absolutely top quality vinyl sound?
Incidentally, this and the preceding six shots were taken with a cobbled together macro lens, consisting of a Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AF lens coupled to a Kenko Pro 300 1.4X telextender and sporting an Olympus 62mm screw-in macro lens adaptor. This combo does exceptionally well as a close up lens, as witness the clarity and smooth background bokeh shown here.
I did this as a creative excercise for one of my forums. I wanted to see the ordinary and mundane in a fresh new way.
This is a rotary that sits at the South Hadley end of the Holyoke-South Hadley bridge that carries Route 202 across the Connecticut River between the two municipalities.
The bold linear graphic just seems completely the opposite of the word "rotary", so I decided to "scale it up" from a small sign to an imposing linear presence by shooting with a closeup lens and straightening the wide-angle distortion with trusty DxO anti-distortion software.
I like the effect: gigantic, linear, and nothing "rotary" about it!
Another excercise in "seeing fresh".
We are used to seeing clothes tumble in a laundry dryer. Ever imagine what it looks like to the boxer shorts in there looking out?
I was preparing to shoot my first and third rangefinder cameras for yet another excercise. Both of these were classics in their day, and to this day, among non-exotics. Then it hit me: I was an available-light junkie even back in 1963, when I bought myself the Minolta as a combined graduation and honeymoon gift.
Both the Minolta and later the Canon were chosen in part because of their fast lenses. In the case of the Minolta, it was the f/2 lense (as well as the 1/1000ss) at a time when most every other affordable camera was 2.8 if not 3.5. And in the case of the Canon, this was the faster of the two models at f/1.7 and replaced my stolen Minolta HiMatic 9 at a time when f/1.7 and f/1.8 lenses were still rare on rangefinders (f/2.8 the norm).
Both these cameras are exquisitely crafted and heavy...keep in mind these were not exotics...simple good quality consumer cameras. I believe my Minolta cost $87 and change in 1963...a goodly sum perhaps equivalent to buying a Nikon D40 today (the simplest and least expensive Nikon DSLR).
So because of their sentimental value, exquisite industrial design, and the dawning realization of my available-light fixation, I believe these qualify readily for "Seeing it again for the first time"....the gist of the assignment.
previous page | pages 1 2 3 ALL | next page |