-
March 12th, 2005, 02:16 AM
#11
Hostboard Member
thanks all,
it is good to hear praise, a pity the frames loose it some what when captured, compressed, and transfered to video. often i have to watch my stuff projected just to remind myself "i knew i liked that bit."
i am hoping to post some recent images using, (embarrased) a web cam to transfer. so far it has come out surprisingly well.
until then, cheers.
-
April 4th, 2005, 08:20 AM
#12
Inactive Member
I'm a little late on this one, but they are nice shots.
On "tool shed" did you use existing lighting or did you "light the set?"
-
April 4th, 2005, 08:23 AM
#13
Inactive Member
by the way, photos submitted to that fotki website will show up in google's image search rather quickly . . . get your film's name in the image filename and you'll get free publicity!
-
April 9th, 2005, 09:43 AM
#14
Hostboard Member
thanks for the comments,
i was a little nervous posting images, you know, is thiers better, clearer, etc.
for the tool shed scene we used natural light and a reflector(tin foil glued onto large cardboard) it came out darker than i wanted, but the silhoette image came out great i thought. the meter read less than 1.8, so i manually bottomed it out.
and i will add the films name to the photo's, one never knows!
gareth
-
April 10th, 2005, 06:34 AM
#15
Inactive Member
thanks for your comments.
in filmmaking however, having the "better looking" shots doesn't translate into the better film. I thought your shots were interesting enough to comment on so you must be doing something right! good luck.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks