Sunday, August 28, 2011

Aperture seems cured - but how long can it last?

My investigation into the problems with Aperture seem to have resulted in a cure, at last temporalily. Today the photographs which I deleted also got removed from disk (I checked).

Well, that is good. Maybe I can start spending less time in front of the computer now. However, some kind of flu is circulating in the family, and I'm having a headache and sore throat. Well, this isn't so unusual for autumn; all kinds of bugs start going around.


Sven W said...

The third image - Construction - reminds me of something Mark Hobson would shoot.

I've picked up on his square format idea but vary between 4:3, 16:9 and 1:1. I even use 16:9 for people shots (but I have yet to frame anything as 9:16).

Juha Haataja said...

@Sven W: When I saw the construction site my immediate thought was "This is from a Mark Hobson photograph!" So I just had to take a photograph of this.

I'm mostly using 1:1, but sometimes switch to 4:3 or even 3:2, though seldom, and usually the results aren't that good.

Sven W said...

I started photography many years ago with a film SLR ... and never liked the 3:2 ratio. The frame has either got to be square-ish or wide-screen; 3:2 kinda sits in no-mans land.

Juha Haataja said...

@Sven W: Indeed!

I still have my first "real" camera, Minolta XG-1, and it is true that the 3:2 format didn't seem to suit most subjects.

My mother had a camera which used 6x6/120 film, and I liked the photographs she took of the family.

Hmmm... Maybe that is one reason why I like the square format. I sort of grew into it.