New Pics Of Old Downtown Buildings Part III
Posted 31 May 2004 - 01:52 AM
Upper floors of west side of Hotel Texas.
Details of first and second floor of Hotel Texas.
Hotel Texas detail.
Hotel Texas detail. I have no idea what sort of creature this is supposed to be.
Hotel Texas detail.
Hotel Texas detail.
Hotel Texas detail.
One of the Flatiron Building cats.
Flatiron Building detail.
Flatiron Building detail. Just another example of how much higher the aesthetic standards were 100 years ago compared with the drab unimaginative blandness of recent decades.
I have always been a bit amazed that the swastika like shapes were not taken down during the World War II years as being unpatriotic. The swastika, of course, had been around for centuries before the Nazis turned it into a symbol of murder and hatred. When the Flatiron Building was built, it was widely considered to be a symbol of good luck.
Flatiron Building detail. Stupid bird! Don't you know that you are not supposed to fly into the mouth of a cat?
Texas & Pacific Depot. The old I-30 overhead being gone is a good thing.
Detail of northwest corner of Texas & Pacific Freight Warehouse.
Texas & Pacific Freight Warehouse. The building is too big to fit into the picture. Since the building is empty and has windows without glass in them that must mean that it is an "eyesore" and we should probably either tear it down or build a road through it.
Posted 31 May 2004 - 06:02 AM
Posted 31 May 2004 - 06:57 AM
Posted 31 May 2004 - 09:12 AM
It's really surprising how in most cities around the country, there are a number of interesting architectural features all around the downtown areas which most people don't even realize. There is a professor up here in Boston at Harvard who actually specializes in that sort of thing. Apparently he conducts "field trips" with his classes to view all of these "invisible" oddities like manhole covers, old street signs, etc., as well as buildings, which due to their ages, tell a story. Really fascinating.
I remember reading in the Startlegram, back in the late 60's an article about old remnants of interesting things in downtown FTW. One of them was an old telephone/power pole which still had a sign and blackout switch mounted on it which could be used during WW2 to shut down the power associated with this pole in the event of an air raid at night.
I'd like to see more pictures of interesting architecture in downtown FTW, so when you get a chance shoot some more! I'm sure we'd all like to see more of these!
Posted 31 May 2004 - 12:05 PM
Posted 31 May 2004 - 02:22 PM
The camera is a Fujifilm FinePix 5000. You can read about its specs at this link.
Thanks for testing out your camera and showing us the results. What kind did you purchase and what are some of the specs of the camera?
I had been holding off on getting one for a while because the prices kept falling and, just as is the case with computers, if you can "make do" for a few months longer, you can often get considerably more for your money - which can be a good thing if the high end features are things you actually have use for and you plan on using it for a few years. The downside to that approach, however, is that you "pay" for it by not being able to enjoy the benefits of the product That's the position I was increasingly in.
When I went shopping the other day, I basically told myself I could spend up to $500. I was looking for a 5 megapixel camera with as big a zoon lens as possible. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any. There were some 8 megapixel cameras with nice zoom lenses but they were several hundred dollars more than I was willing to spend. The one I ended up getting was 3.1 megapixel with a 10x optical zoon and a 2x digital zoom. However, the camera has a software enhancement called Super CCD which interpolates to take photos equal to 6 megapixels in quality. The camera was $379 - but when all was said and done, I went over the $500 budget I set for myself. A 128 mb xD card was $79 (The 16 mb one that came with the camera simply wasm't big enough - and I now regret not paying the extra $50 or so to get a 256 mb card). The 4 year product replacement warranty was another $59 or so (I always get it when buying electronics because there are so many things that can go wrong and you cannot fix them when they do). Plus I got a carrying case and a NiMH battery charger. After taxes, it ended up being a bit over $600. Turns out I could have save about $100 plus taxes on the camera by ordering online - but I hate sitting around waiting for a purchase I am excited about to arrive by mail. I will gladly pay a bit extra to have something NOW.
My initial thought was that, once better cameras come down in price, I could always upgrade. But the more I think about it, I don't really know that I would have much of a need for anything better. It is rare that I would ever actually want to make print copies of my photos. I am perfectly happy viewing most of them on the computer and it is certainly far more convenient to store digital images than it is prints and negatives. And I have never had any of my photos enlarged more than 8x10s - and it is rare for me to need them elarged that much. I guess for me there is a certain value in knowing that I could do so if I ever took a shot I liked enough to want to. I guess the question is how much am I willing to pay for keeping such an option open.
I have a question for those who are more experienced with digital photography. Do any of you ever use the lower megapixel settings and, if so, why? All of the photos I took yesterday were at the 3 megapixel setting - though I also had the option of using 6M, 2M and 1M. I decided not to use the 6M because of the memory it takes up and because I knew that I wouldn't be taking any pictures that were particularly special. In order to put up the images I posted to the Forum, I had to significantly reduce the image size and resolution - so I suppose that if I were merely shooting for that purpose the 1M setting would be sufficient. However, one of the things I like about the 3M setting is it is absolutely amazing just how much detail shows up on the images even when taken from a great distance - much more detail than one can actually see in real life. Since long term storage space on CD-Rs is dirt cheap these days, my thought is to take ordinary photos in the 3M setting so that I can preserve as much detail as possible if I should ever want it and just reduce the image size for those photos I wish to publish on the Internet. I guess my question is this: so long as I am not running short on available storage on my xD card, why would I ever want to use the 2M and 1M settings?
Posted 31 May 2004 - 02:35 PM
Sure, I would be glad to let you have any photos I take. Buildings are mostly what I take pictures of. I like to take pictures of scenery too - but I find that I have a harder time getting good results.
Dismuke, if you are willing to contribute, I could use some of your pictures. Also, I prefer my shots to be 800 x 600 pixels, do you have larger versions of these, or will you have to re-shoot them?
All the images I took are 2045 x 1356 so reducing them to 800 x 600 is an easy matter.
Question: What is so special about 800 x 600? Does this corrolate in any way with the DPI? I understand that it is a total waste of bandwidth and disc space to post images on the net more than 72 dpi or so because of the limitiations of monitor screens (unless, of course, one wishes to make the image available for download).
Posted 31 May 2004 - 04:19 PM
As for resolution, I take my original digital photos at the highest settings and then reduce them down for use on the web site. The reason that I do this is that I know the camera has captured the most amount of detail possible and that it may show up when resolution is lowered. I have also found that many people have e-mailed me with requests to purchase high resolution photos. That way, if they are taken originally, I don't have to go re-shoot for a sale. I have also started to work out some jobs on the side for various building owners and they want high resolution photos for their use.
This week, I will be shooting the interior of an early Fort Worth Skyscraper Landmark, so those photos will be showing up on the web site soon.
Posted 21 November 2004 - 11:48 PM
Posted 21 November 2004 - 11:58 PM
Btw, the pic w/ the bird in the panther's mouth is awesome..
Posted 22 November 2004 - 01:39 AM
Posted 22 November 2004 - 11:01 AM
Posted 22 November 2004 - 11:28 AM
Posted 22 November 2004 - 11:39 AM
Posted 22 November 2004 - 02:14 PM
Posted 22 November 2004 - 03:25 PM
Either that or the Nazi's took Korea. LOL!! I know what you mean. When you see this you do a double take.
Hmm... Now that I think about it, there is a slight correlation between kimchi and really bland sauerkraut..
Posted 02 January 2005 - 09:59 PM
Posted 02 January 2005 - 10:03 PM
Posted 23 August 2009 - 04:07 PM
Most amazing building in town. Really old. Really gorgeous. Timeless beauty. A masterpiece for a 1919 building.
Posted 23 August 2009 - 08:59 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users