Hundreds of Colorado Cyclocross pix

[Zeno]

Man, what happened to RBR? I hope somebody reads this.

Last fall I took several thousand pics of the fall 2007 Boulder CO
Cyclocross series plus the ACA championships in Lyons.

I spent the last few months whittling them down to a more manageable
500 plus pix which I have posted on my photo site in galleries keyed
to each event.

My goal was to give the feel of actually attending the event. One
great thing about cyclocross is that you can get up close with a
camera.

So if you need your cyclocross fix, here it is:

http://www.winsorwhite-photos.com/Sports/488152

[Fred Fredburger]

Zeno wrote:
> Man, what happened to RBR?

It's been decimated by global warming.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
>,
Zeno > wrote:

> Man, what happened to RBR? I hope somebody reads this.
>
> Last fall I took several thousand pics of the fall 2007 Boulder CO
> Cyclocross series plus the ACA championships in Lyons.
>
> I spent the last few months whittling them down to a more manageable
> 500 plus pix which I have posted on my photo site in galleries keyed
> to each event.
>
> My goal was to give the feel of actually attending the event. One
> great thing about cyclocross is that you can get up close with a
> camera.
>
> So if you need your cyclocross fix, here it is:
>
> http://www.winsorwhite-photos.com/Sports/488152

Thanks for the photos. There's some nice shots in there. My cursory
glance at the B/W gallery suggests that going to black and white for
this kind of photography isn't the right choice. The snowy shots seem to
register especially weirdly.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Zeno]

On Apr 9, 8:32 pm, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
> Zeno > wrote:
> > Man, what happened to RBR? I hope somebody reads this.
>
> > Last fall I took several thousand pics of the fall 2007 Boulder CO
> > Cyclocross series plus the ACA championships in Lyons.
>
> > I spent the last few months whittling them down to a more manageable
> > 500 plus pix which I have posted on my photo site in galleries keyed
> > to each event.
>
> > My goal was to give the feel of actually attending the event. One
> > great thing about cyclocross is that you can get up close with a
> > camera.
>
> > So if you need your cyclocross fix, here it is:
>
> >http://www.winsorwhite-photos.com/Sports/488152
>
> Thanks for the photos. There's some nice shots in there. My cursory
> glance at the B/W gallery suggests that going to black and white for
> this kind of photography isn't the right choice. The snowy shots seem to
> register especially weirdly.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau /
> "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
> "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

The new LCD monitors are great for brightness and color saturation,
but their pitch (dot size) is much coarser than a good CRT. That can
make the details look like blocky chicletts on some photos. If you can
use an older CRT (tube) monitor to view the pix, the B&W photos will
benefit the most. Also, the pics on my web site are automatically
reduced in size from the 8X10 size originals when they are shown in
the gallery. That can produce artifacts too . Prints are much
cleaner.

WW

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
>,
Zeno > wrote:

> On Apr 9, 8:32 pm, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> > Zeno > wrote:
> > > Man, what happened to RBR? I hope somebody reads this.
> >
> > > Last fall I took several thousand pics of the fall 2007 Boulder CO
> > > Cyclocross series plus the ACA championships in Lyons.
> >
> > > I spent the last few months whittling them down to a more manageable
> > > 500 plus pix which I have posted on my photo site in galleries keyed
> > > to each event.
> >
> > > My goal was to give the feel of actually attending the event. One
> > > great thing about cyclocross is that you can get up close with a
> > > camera.
> >
> > > So if you need your cyclocross fix, here it is:
> >
> > >http://www.winsorwhite-photos.com/Sports/488152
> >
> > Thanks for the photos. There's some nice shots in there. My cursory
> > glance at the B/W gallery suggests that going to black and white for
> > this kind of photography isn't the right choice. The snowy shots seem to
> > register especially weirdly.
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Cousineau /
> > "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
> > "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
>
> The new LCD monitors are great for brightness and color saturation,
> but their pitch (dot size) is much coarser than a good CRT. That can
> make the details look like blocky chicletts on some photos. If you can
> use an older CRT (tube) monitor to view the pix, the B&W photos will
> benefit the most. Also, the pics on my web site are automatically
> reduced in size from the 8X10 size originals when they are shown in
> the gallery. That can produce artifacts too . Prints are much
> cleaner.

That may have been it, but dot pitch isn't likely to have been an issue
on my device of choice, a 13.3" WXGA laptop screen.

I think I was responding more to how contrasty the shots ended up. I
expect more tonal variation in most B&W shots, though I realize
high-contrast photography can be its own aesthetic. In this case, it
simply didn't work for me.

There is of course the issue of reproduction size and medium. I take
your word for it that they look great on paper, but this is a paperless
computer :).

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[[email protected]]

On Apr 10, 6:03 pm, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

> That may have been it, but dot pitch isn't likely to have been an issue
> on my device of choice, a 13.3" WXGA laptop screen.
>
> I think I was responding more to how contrasty the shots ended up. I
> expect more tonal variation in most B&W shots, though I realize
> high-contrast photography can be its own aesthetic. In this case, it
> simply didn't work for me.
>
> There is of course the issue of reproduction size and medium. I take
> your word for it that they look great on paper, but this is a paperless
> computer :).
>

High contrast pictures have a lot of tonal variation,
or at least a large range. You mean you expect less
variation, or a more evenly sampled histogram of
luminosity. Sorry for nitpicking, but this is a pet
peeve; photography nuts rant and rave about
"tonal range" (often while in search of the perfect
developer, at least in the old days) without ever
acknowledging that most photos have the same tonal range,
from white to black. What they are really trying to
talk about is management of the contrast curve.

In the black and white cross pictures, especially the
snow ones, what's a bit disconcerting is the largish
areas of pure black. However, it's hard to manage
those as long as racers insist on wearing black arm and
leg warmers on sunny snowy days. There is a school
of photography that tries never to blow out the highlights
(esp. hard with digital) and that frequently loses the
shadows.

I think because B&W photography is so dependent on the
range of tones, it suffers in small images on screens,
while color benefits from the "pop" due to transmissive
rather than reflective illumination.

Thatnks to the OP for posting the pictures. It looks
like fun, in a very photogenic setting.

Ben

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> On Apr 10, 6:03 pm, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
>
> > That may have been it, but dot pitch isn't likely to have been an issue
> > on my device of choice, a 13.3" WXGA laptop screen.
> >
> > I think I was responding more to how contrasty the shots ended up. I
> > expect more tonal variation in most B&W shots, though I realize
> > high-contrast photography can be its own aesthetic. In this case, it
> > simply didn't work for me.
> >
> > There is of course the issue of reproduction size and medium. I take
> > your word for it that they look great on paper, but this is a paperless
> > computer :).
> >
>
> High contrast pictures have a lot of tonal variation,
> or at least a large range. You mean you expect less
> variation, or a more evenly sampled histogram of
> luminosity. Sorry for nitpicking, but this is a pet
> peeve; photography nuts rant and rave about
> "tonal range" (often while in search of the perfect
> developer, at least in the old days) without ever
> acknowledging that most photos have the same tonal range,
> from white to black. What they are really trying to
> talk about is management of the contrast curve.

You're of course quite right, and have explained it pretty well.

Is part of the problem on screen the limited number of shades of gray
available on screen? On paper, a lot of these photos might have nice
pretty tonal roll-off (so the blacks aren't just full-black, but have
lots of dark grey parts; similarly, the white bits) that gets flattened
to something less on screen.

> In the black and white cross pictures, especially the
> snow ones, what's a bit disconcerting is the largish
> areas of pure black. However, it's hard to manage
> those as long as racers insist on wearing black arm and
> leg warmers on sunny snowy days. There is a school
> of photography that tries never to blow out the highlights
> (esp. hard with digital) and that frequently loses the
> shadows.
>
> I think because B&W photography is so dependent on the
> range of tones, it suffers in small images on screens,
> while color benefits from the "pop" due to transmissive
> rather than reflective illumination.
>
> Thatnks to the OP for posting the pictures. It looks
> like fun, in a very photogenic setting.
>
> Ben

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."