Comments on: Chicago’s Field Museum

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:59:48 +0000

Unfortunately I’ve not upgraded to a DSLR yet, so all my recent photos are done with a Canon PowerShot S500. I’ve still got an old Pentax K1000SE packed away somewhere. But my eyes are getting bad and these days I rely on auto-focus to avoid blurry photos.

Yeah, it was pretty disappointing that the mask wasn’t there given all the advertising for the exhibit featured it.

By: db smith

db smith — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:56:05 +0000

I’ve gotten some pretty cool shots there with a 50mm f/1.4 lens I have, and some from a 20mm f/1.8. I still had to use ISO 800 or 1600, I think. It’s really dark in a lot of places. And those cases make it impossible sometimes…

I must admit, the gold was amazing. I think I do remember the cartouche. The craftsmanship on one of the chairs blew me away, too, not to mention how well preserved it was.

I think I was just hoping to see the famous face mask… :(

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 04:36:50 +0000

Amen to that. There’s so much I want to photograph in the Field Museum. But with all the other patrons, the highly reflective cases and low lighting; it’s a royal pain to get any good shots. Especially when what you want is in one of those cases (e.g. 99% of what I want to shot). *sigh*

And while I’d agree the permanent Egyptian exhibit is quite good; it lacks the shiny, shiny gold of the King Tut exhibit. Also, did you see that cartouche box in the Tut exhibit? The finish on that wood looked brand, spanking new and it’s positively ancient. Kind of blows my mind how well that was preserved.

By: db smith

db smith — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:10:06 +0000

Good choice, the Field Museum is probably my favorite of the ones around here. It is a challenging photographic environment, though. Their permanent Egypt exhibit is so good that I was almost disappointed with the King Tut one… :(