A place of war and a place to feed ducks.

DSC_7207DSC_7210DSC_7208

Advertisements
This entry was posted in celtic. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to A place of war and a place to feed ducks.

  1. Ed says:

    I never tire of seeing pictures of castles!

    • V.H says:

      They are remarkably hard to photograph. They tend to be on the ground as distinct from being of the ground. This leaves them sorta suspended since you can rarely make them sit up in the way striking a line under a drawing of a tree or building does. I think the curve of the water with the wildlife solves this by making formal the splits.
      I thing that’s an aspect of their primary function.

  2. Kimberly says:

    A lovely place. I like the first shot with the castle lit by sunlight. Where is this? Even after traveling out of the country where architecture is so old and even seeing it in your posts, I still find it surprising sometimes to see modern-day life happening around these very old structures. It’s not something I’ve lived with here so it’s fascinating. It’s probably old-hat to you, interacting with it on an hourly basis probably.

    • V.H says:

      Cahir, Co. Tipperary. I think it was used for the film Camelot when Sean Connery was king Arthur. Couldn’t swear to that though.
      I tend to view these places much as I suspect the Arapaho and the Apache view lots of things. I’ve never see them as old hat, they are still part of my history, albeit one I d as soon wasn’t.
      I took then in jpeg. I forgot I had the SD card in the slot in the PC -at home- so when I started shooting I had no storage. I thought there was some in the camera, so I switched settings from raw, my usual mode, to store more in a buffer ‘that did not exist’ and forget to which it back when I put in the new one, SD card that is.
      The photos would be impossible but for the filter lowering the light above. Usually you’d get the battlements and the ducks and kids would be in darkness, or, the river with kids ducks and so forth and the sky would be blown out completely. But since it’s in JPEG I cannot post-process as I’d like.
      Any woos, I’ll have to try again another day. I really must make a check list. Save the world of pain. 😥

      • Kimberly says:

        It’s nice that they’re still appreciated.
        Yah, I’ve heard that shooting in RAW is the best for editing and quality, but that they’re HUGE files. Maybe buy another so you always have one in your bag or your car or around the dog’s neck. 🙂

        • V.H says:

          Yes, some of the cameras generate monsters. All the Pro grade are above 24mpix, or 40 to a one gig SD card. That’s why I get them 16gbit north. Anyone shooting people will go through them like nobodies business. But you never use them. They are digital equivalent of negatives. Ill tell you it would be scary the amount of storage needed if you were doing wedding’s. You’d have duplicates at the very least, and probably triplicates. Nowadays, most cameras have two SD slots and WiFi to transmit to a laptop or PC.
          And yes, raw just holds the data, there’s no processing in the camera. Me though, since I work with landscapes, I’m not so bothered. O:-)

  3. Kelly says:

    I’ve always had a fascination with castle (and cathedral) architecture and never grow tired of seeing photos like this (or viewing plans and elevations). The bottom photo is my favorite, though the top runs a close second.

    • V.H says:

      That’s the one Kimberly likes also. I did a bit of work on them and they went back in shuffled.

Comments are closed.