|
Author
|
Topic: looking for pictures of castles to frame and hang in my home
|
shary
Member
|
posted 02-14-2001 07:21 PM
  
please help i am looking for pictures of castles and cant really find what i am looking for,something maybe fairytale or real
amm doing this as a theme in my bedroom i am remodeling. someone help please!!!!!! |
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 02-15-2001 01:12 AM
Well pictures of castles ain't that uncommon. Jigsaws often feature castles and when completed can be framed and hung. Otherwise calendars are another good source (and cheap at this time of year). Of course, if you've lots of money, you could try buying one of Turner's original paintings of a castle (he painted quite a few different castles)Alternatively contact English Heritage and get a mail order catalogue and order some of their prints of castles (see http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/shopping/gifts.asp) ------------------
And the astronomyours beheldyne the constellacions of hys bryth by thare castle, and foundyn that he sholde bene wyse and curteyse, good of consaill
Secreta Secretorum Visit Castellarium Philippis |
AJR
Senior Member
|
posted 02-15-2001 04:05 AM
You could always try and find an atmospheric print by Sam & Nath Buck (1720s to 1740s) - cheap, with originals at around £80 (approximately US$120). I have one hanging at the top of the stairs.I have two of Turner's pictures (not originals of course), which are also atmospheric, but in a completely different way to the Bucks' prints. Additionally, postcards make good framed pictures, although rather small, and vintage cards sell for anything from £1 (US$1.50) upwards. Even a collage of a number of different pictures - maybe different views of the same castle - make very effective wall-hangings. [This message has been edited by AJR (edited 02-15-2001).] |
Peter
Member
|
posted 02-16-2001 12:03 PM
I don't know what your set up is .. do you have a half decent printer ?
This site has some excellent pictures you could pull off and print. I should think as they are for your own use people wouldn't mind. I know I shouldn't!
Many shops & markets now sell a variety of cheapish frames, so a mix of frames would give a good effect.
Another thing to try is, travel shops. Do they have any large posters advertising travel to Germany, France, Italy; they often have a castle or palace on. I use them myself. Nothing like being cheeky you know! |
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 02-16-2001 02:29 PM
I'm sorry Peter but with the best printer in the world you'll not get a web picture of 100kb to look anything but dreadful. To make simple black and white (and I mean two tone not hundreds of shades of grey) plans look acceptable when printed out I've had to make them about 100 kb. My still simple but coloured plan of Chepstow is nearly 700kb. A picture worth printing would have to be several Mb. Hopefully, sometime in the future, when we all have super quick online access this will be possible but for the moment shopping for prints is the only reasonable way to get quality pictures.Actually one of the reasons I don't submit pictures to the Photo Achive (other than not being a very good photographer) is that the quality is so poor it doesn't really do the castles justice. [This message has been edited by Philip Davis (edited 02-16-2001).] |
Peter
Member
|
posted 02-17-2001 10:50 AM
Hm!
wouldn't quite agree with that one Philip. Taken a second look at some of the pictures in the archive, and they aren't that bad. Seeing that they have been taken first by a standard camara, then pushed through a scanner, then compressed to be downloaded. A picture of a site (or part of) that you need or would like to see, is better than nothing.
Must admit I haven't tried to take anything off the site, so I don't know of quality. But I do scout Italian sites for my Italian castle file. And whilst the quality isn't brill; it is certainly better than nothing. But you're right .. I wouldn't frame them ! |
Philip Davis
unregistered
|
posted 02-17-2001 03:14 PM
I suppose in the end it's very much about what you want the pictures for. I've just been goig through Mike Salter's books again and have actually been quite impressed by the quality and depth of his writing, but his pictures (and indeed fonts in the early books) are very poor and do little to illustrate the castle's design details. However, they do usually give an idea of the amount of remains and a general impresion of style and I suppose that the photo's in the archive do much the same. What seems much rarer both in guides and on the web is photo's that show detail of specific parts of castles. Gateways are photographed but door hinges and putlog holes aren't. Perhaps I get round to putting some details up in the Archive. |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 02-17-2001 04:59 PM
Some publishers like nice pictures which give a wider view of the castle, something with a twist so that when a browser flicks through a book, it catches the attention and can win a sale. That's why very expensive colour sections tend to be limited and tend to be grouped in the centre of a book (it's also a cheaper option to group). Most browsers will head for that first. Close ups of details don't meet the needs of the majority of browsers, who are looking for an overview, rather than detailed architectural description. The content of a book is often the subject of negotiation between the author and the publisher.
Close ups might be seen as being 'specialist' photos, and would be reserved for a specialist book. Not a big seller in the castle book market, which is either seen as general interest- which sells in big numbers- or specialist which don't. The general interest books offer bigger sales, and profits. Specialist books tend to be expensive to produce and buy.
I might add a few more photos to the archive myself. |
Peter
Member
|
posted 02-18-2001 02:19 AM
In the book section I have mentioned the newish book of Ludlow Castle. The pictures in this for a specialist castle book are terrible, ie: out of focus.
Also, far too often we are fobbed off with pictures from someone elses archive. You can always tell by the age of the cars & clothes (if such things are in the picture).
An exception is something like (on the shelf infront of me) the RCAHM, The Early Castles, Glamorgan, to 1217:
Taking pictures of buildings\castles, is, in itself an artform.
Sometimes we all ere on the side of quantity rather quality. I'd now rather visits my sites in a greater time span, rather than squeeze as many in as I can.
I used to carry around a great big 200mm+ lens for those close up shots. Now having one shoulder lower than the other due to the weight of my camara bag! I don't any more, but I should.
Yes! When something is under discussion like gates, put-holes, merlons etc: We should post several pictures to illustrate what we mean, giving greater clarity to the question. That's what people are asking us for. |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 02-18-2001 06:10 AM
Then lets agree which section we will post our 'Illustrated Glossary' to.
Clip Art seems innappropriate, we could use the Miscellaneous category.
Apologies for the poor definition on my latest offerings, I over-did the compression a little.
Or could Ted open a new category for it?------------------
Demeure par la verite
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm Gordon.
|
AJR
Senior Member
|
posted 02-19-2001 01:37 AM
I must agree with Philip about Salter's books (map referencing although not being up to scratch or double-checked), but I have used the photos he provides as a guide to identifying the site, then photographing it myself.
As for close-ups and pictures of finer details of castles, personally, I would hesitate to download photos of such to the Photo Archive, suspecting that most (but not all) people who access the COTW are interested in general views only. To the layman, one putlog hole is much like another (to quote my wife - indeed, she thinks one stone or motte is much like another, and when I returned from my latest jaunt in Powys, one day's photos comprised only mounds and earthworks, resultint in the comment "why didn't you just take lots of pictures of the same earthworks and pass them off as different ones, 'cos they all look the same to me. It would have saved you a lot of time and effort, and who would know the difference". Imagine my response !!!***&%$???!!@!!!).
I concur with wurdsmiff - a separate section is needed for something like this, just as there is a section dedicated to floor plans.------------------
The broken stones, the ruined walls,
'Tis few who know where hist'ry falls.
|
AJR
Senior Member
|
posted 02-19-2001 01:54 AM
Hey !! Whoops !!! I clicked on the "submit" button by mistake - I'm not finished yet !!Now where was I ? I must admit that I have sacrificed quality for quantity, in the hope to obtain pictures of many sites, as I probably wouldn't get the chance to return to the area for some time (work commitments and the need to placate the wife by fitting in holidays with her, and to places she would like to go - you already get the idea she's not a castle fan like me).
Also, I'm not an accomplished photographer, (as you can see by my efforts in the Photo Archive) but do enjoy walking around sites to obtain what I consider to be the best views. I would certainly be interested to see some of the Moderators' pictures (already seen some from wurdsmiff and Peter - thanks). |
wurdsmiff
unregistered
|
posted 02-20-2001 05:31 PM
There's a few new pics added to the Miscellaneous section of the Photo archive by way of a starter for an illustrated glossary, to which we can provide links if required.------------------
Demeure par la verite
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm Gordon.
| |
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
Castle Quest
