Mine fall more in the snapshot category, but I got a few I like during one of the situations where your hands were otherwise occupied. I'll try to work with them a bit this weekend...during a break from that project you're no doubt wondering about...and send the best ones your way.

The pictures I took at the late-night music circle are uniformly horrid, save for one ultra-low-res shot of you that I captured on my cell phone and now have programmed to pop up when you call.

I'm glad (and not at all surprised) that you got at least some good photos from your efforts. Looking forward to seeing them whenever.

Sorry to hear you think almost all your late-night pictures are "horrid." Any chance I could see the "one ultra-low-res shot" of me that is the exception?

Any good shots from elsewhere/elsewhen at the convention? Care to share them?

...who don't have time to take pictures, would like to see them anyway!

The ConcertMistress :)

But, of course, Most Fair & High Mistress of the Concert! Sharing the photos has been my plan all along, although one never tires of hearing they'll be welcomed.

There are some photos I shall hold back, a few because they simply should never again see the light of day (for example, none of the photos of Michael and Susan Glicksohn do them any favors), and others because I took a number of a person or tableau at a particular time and will only show the more successful images.

I think part of what has me upset about the results is that normally the camera sees pretty much what I do; whereas this time there are a number of pictures which surprise me — with people looking really not at all the way I see them. I guess maybe it has something to do with the effects of the flash unit. Or maybe I'm losing the knack and have to work harder to get back into practice….

Every serious photographer I know has a very low good-shot-to-bad-shot ratio. There's always a ton of dross... So I'm not surprised you feel the same.

Do we get to see them?

I'd love to see 'em, Fred.

K. [do I have to come over?]

Thanks. I'll post a link once they're up.

[You're certainly welcome to come over most any time, but it isn't required…]

There's always a ton of dross... Yeah, I know. I just forget sometimes. It all comes of expecting myself to be perfect, even though I don't hold anyone else to that standard…

Yes, you'll get to see (most of) them. I'll post a link once they're up. I want to do a little post-processing on the ones that are worth it.

(One of the surprising things I found is how much my photos of you resemble my internal self-image. Interestin'…)

Hi Fred,

You're much too modest, your photos were always wonderful; and I'm sure they're even better now. Do you use a digital camera these days? I apologize if you're repeating info, but I am curious. My 30 year old Bell and Howell SLR isn't working; the light meter went in it, so Derek bought me a Pentax which I was wary of at first, but they've gotten away from the old bayonet mounting that used to make them so annoying. I have a Toshiba digital camera I bought two years ago, which has been rendered obsolete, I'm sure. Anyway, post some of those pictures, would love to see your recent work.
LPC

…your photos were always wonderful; and I'm sure they're even better now. — *blush* Thanks.

Do you use a digital camera these days? — No, although my trusty 1969-era Nikkormat did expire some years back, and we replaced it with a Nikon F100 about two or three years ago. I still use film because I like the artifacts film imparts (and probably because I'm an old stick-in-the mud who's resistant to change). On run-of-the-mill stuff I have the local non-drugstore photofinisher, ProEx, process the film and scan it onto a disc — for more important stuff, and/or for my old slides and negatives I have a Nikon LS-2000 film scanner which does a pretty nice job; problem is the Nikon software won't crawl through OS X and the SCSI interface to the scanner. I have to figure out how to proceed at this point. I can reboot in 9, but that's kind of a hassle and it leaves me scanning into PhotoShop 5.5 instead of CS…. In the meantime, they've just introduced the Super Coolscan 5000 ED which looks appealing, even though it's a USB 2.0 interface instead of the FireWire that the LS-4000 had. Its list price is only (heh!) about eleven-hundred dollars. Erm…. Maybe I should think about a digital camera, eh?

…Pentax … gotten away from the old bayonet mounting…. — My recollection is the Pentax in the Good Old Days had a screw lens mount, which was swell when one had the time and attention to devote to c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y changing lenses….

Anyway, post some of those pictures, would love to see your recent work. — I will, I will. In the meantime, this is where you can find some of my stuff: Fred’s ClubPhoto Albums.