Nine photos of the Boston/Cambridge meetup on Saturday. August 29, 2006 3:42 PM Subscribe
Nine photos of the Boston/Cambridge meetup on Saturday.
I can only imagine how out of place I would have been had I showed up.
posted by danb at 4:09 PM on August 29, 2006
posted by danb at 4:09 PM on August 29, 2006
As long as you wore red or green, you'd have fit right in.
posted by languagehat at 5:37 PM on August 29, 2006
posted by languagehat at 5:37 PM on August 29, 2006
Thanks, Plutor, they look good!
danb: This may not matter, but FWIW, most of the pictures are from when we moved on to pool and darts. The crowd was more diverse at dinner.
posted by brett at 6:16 PM on August 29, 2006
danb: This may not matter, but FWIW, most of the pictures are from when we moved on to pool and darts. The crowd was more diverse at dinner.
posted by brett at 6:16 PM on August 29, 2006
I really hope Brett didn't shoot from under the cue ball for the jump shot. Because it looks like he did, and if so, that's very frowned upon. Nice pics, btw.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:33 PM on August 29, 2006
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:33 PM on August 29, 2006
Hey, that shot of me playing pool almost makes it look like I know what I'm doing!
posted by robocop is bleeding at 7:46 PM on August 29, 2006
posted by robocop is bleeding at 7:46 PM on August 29, 2006
I feel bad that...
1) ...I grabbed my 135mm, f/2.8 lens, and not my more manageable (and faster) 55mm, f/1.4.
2) ...because of that, the dinner photos didn't turn out any good. We had 11 people at dinner at 6 at pool (IIRC). The one dinner photo is the best of the bunch, and it's pretty dark.
3) ...I don't remember everyone's name.
4) ...every picture I took of banjo_and_the_pork has her either blinking or looks like she's doing something embarassing to a bottle of PBR. Or both.
posted by Plutor at 8:12 PM on August 29, 2006
1) ...I grabbed my 135mm, f/2.8 lens, and not my more manageable (and faster) 55mm, f/1.4.
2) ...because of that, the dinner photos didn't turn out any good. We had 11 people at dinner at 6 at pool (IIRC). The one dinner photo is the best of the bunch, and it's pretty dark.
3) ...I don't remember everyone's name.
4) ...every picture I took of banjo_and_the_pork has her either blinking or looks like she's doing something embarassing to a bottle of PBR. Or both.
posted by Plutor at 8:12 PM on August 29, 2006
I'm curious - why don't people use flash photography at these gatherings?
posted by SteveInMaine at 5:38 AM on August 30, 2006
posted by SteveInMaine at 5:38 AM on August 30, 2006
Plutor, no worries, I have a knack for looking as horrible in pictures as humanly possible. It's almost a skill at this point. Your pictures of everyone else are top-notch!
posted by banjo_and_the_pork at 5:47 AM on August 30, 2006
posted by banjo_and_the_pork at 5:47 AM on August 30, 2006
Why don't people use flash photography at these gatherings?
Some people do. We call those people "owners of a functioning flash".
posted by Plutor at 6:02 AM on August 30, 2006
Some people do. We call those people "owners of a functioning flash".
posted by Plutor at 6:02 AM on August 30, 2006
why don't people use flash photography at these gatherings
As a more general photographic answer, available-light photography tends to give a much more natural-looking and pleasing result, since it is the same lighting we are used to. Flash on the other hand, tends to give a harsh and unflattering light (think of the deer-in-the-headlights look you often see in snapshots). Flash is much harder to use with good results than a lot of people realize. Finally, the shallow depth of field afforded by shooting with a fast lens wide open seperates the subject from the background, another desirable quality.
Anyway, very nice camera work, Plutor.
posted by TedW at 9:21 AM on August 30, 2006
As a more general photographic answer, available-light photography tends to give a much more natural-looking and pleasing result, since it is the same lighting we are used to. Flash on the other hand, tends to give a harsh and unflattering light (think of the deer-in-the-headlights look you often see in snapshots). Flash is much harder to use with good results than a lot of people realize. Finally, the shallow depth of field afforded by shooting with a fast lens wide open seperates the subject from the background, another desirable quality.
Anyway, very nice camera work, Plutor.
posted by TedW at 9:21 AM on August 30, 2006
While y'all were shooting pool and pictures on the 26th, I was across the river staging something similar for a bunch of ex- record store employees. I mention it here partly because (1) it was concurrent, but mostly because (2) having browsed Flickr sets of past MetaFilter meetups was a tremendous help in assembling my own Flickr set. So, to everyone who has posted Flickr sets on MeTa over the past couple years: Thanks for setting the example.
I also mention it here because I know dick about photography, but I've read a couple of "idiot" books and FAQs which all say to use the flash always, so that's what I do — but seeing the contrast between the photos that I took (with flash) and the photos my friends took (without flash), I think TedW is right and I'm going to try that next time.
posted by cribcage at 8:55 AM on September 8, 2006
I also mention it here because I know dick about photography, but I've read a couple of "idiot" books and FAQs which all say to use the flash always, so that's what I do — but seeing the contrast between the photos that I took (with flash) and the photos my friends took (without flash), I think TedW is right and I'm going to try that next time.
posted by cribcage at 8:55 AM on September 8, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by scrump at 4:04 PM on August 29, 2006