 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / December 2006LOVERS JUST LOVE THE 20D !
Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the ready. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/71223051 > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the > ready. > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/71223051 What's that white "stick" going from the nose of the left horse to the left eye of the horse on the right? > > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What's that white "stick" going from the nose of the left horse to the left > eye of the horse on the right? That's the white marks on the horse's nose, Bill. > > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/71223051 > > > > > What's that white "stick" going from the nose of the left horse to the left > > eye of the horse on the right? > > That's the white marks on the horse's nose, Bill. Better seen here: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/71307354 > > > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/71223051 > > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Better seen here: > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/71307354 A beautiful horse. Looks just like my uncle's horse. Thanks Bret. Helen >> > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/71223051 >> > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Better seen here: > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/71307354 I understand now....It does look a bit weird on your first shot of the two horses touching noses..... > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the > ready. > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/71223051 Awww....what a beautiful shot! Now THAT'S a natural romantic pic! I love it........the pic says it all. Way to catch a moment, Bret! You definitely DESERVE a new lens for Christmas....you hear that Santa?! > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the > ready. > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/7122305 (Sigh), what a beautiful shot! Now THAT'S a natural romantic pic! I love it........the pic says it all. Way to catch a moment, Bret! You definitely DESERVE a new lens for Christmas....you hear that Santa (Mrs. Anni)?! Helen > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/7122305 > > (Sigh), what a beautiful shot! Now THAT'S a natural romantic pic! > I love it........the pic says it all. > Way to catch a moment, Bret! I'm romantic, what can I say? > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/7122305 > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm romantic, what can I say? Lovely! Your wife is a lucky woman. As for me, my heart belongs to one man who is clear cross on the other side of the Atlantic right now. Enough of this mush......before I'm reprimanded for being off topic. Thanks for that lovely pic, Bret! Helen > As for me, my heart belongs to one man who is clear cross on the other > side of the Atlantic right now. The good side or the bad side? > > I'm romantic, what can I say? > > Lovely! Your wife is a lucky woman. > As for me, my heart belongs to one man who is clear cross on the other > side of the Atlantic right now. Rocha? > > > I'm romantic, what can I say? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rocha? LOL......NO. Helen > > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (Mrs. Anni)?! > Helen Helen, really, do you have to fawn over him so? Half the picture is out of focus grass, and yet every stick behind the horses is in sharp relief. A better balance surely could have been found. > > > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > > > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > out of focus grass, and yet every stick behind the horses is in sharp > relief. A better balance surely could have been found. The comment I made about Bret's shot of the horses was clearly meant to be taken as a "romantic" or "emotional" shot. Some of the best shots has nothing to do with great contrast, sharp or better balanced pics. It was the emotion that the pic evoked. For example, an out of focus shot of a couple embracing as they first meet. Nothing is in focus, the contrast is off, etc. But yet the emotion of the pic is there. You can FEEL the emotion there. The horses were shot during a split second that showed a beautiful moment. That is all I meant. Bret, bold as brass? YES! Outspoken...of course! But he is a superb photographer as his portfolio has shown. Regards, Helen > > > > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > > > > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Regards, > Helen Good, skilled, competent, yes. Very good, even. Superb? Only in shots such as the ones featuring the Ohio cop walking up to the car, or the one with the radar gun (might be the same cop, I can't remember). Those are staged, but staged well. There he shows a tendancy to excellence, certainly. For pure asthetics, he's come up short, though I suspect that's because it's not what he's after. And no, there's no emotion in the picture of the horses. Not to me, anyway. It's two horses touching noses, for whatever reason. Perhaps you've seldom been around horses, but I for one am not reading anything into it. ps. sorry for the multiple posts--google's telling me it can't post, try again in 30 seconds, and then posting them all! > > > > > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > > > > > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > ps. sorry for the multiple posts--google's telling me it can't post, > try again in 30 seconds, and then posting them all! I am having problems with Google as well. You are entitled to your opinion......feeling nothing from the horse pic. But I am also entitled to my opionion as well. I respect your opinion, just as mine should be respected as well. And yes, I have been around horses a lot. To me they are God's gift to man. You can analyze the pic to death, but it will still mean something different to everybody. Regards, Helen > > > > > > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > > > > > > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > pic. But I am also entitled to my opionion as well. I respect your > opinion, just as mine should be respected as well. You are entitled to your opinion, but I counter it with real critical examination, and that's what counts. You've got something to counter that, let's hear it. Otherwise, you've got nothing but gushing praise. And that's worth little, you must admit, you gusing praise giver, you. > > > > > > > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > > > > > > > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > that, let's hear it. Otherwise, you've got nothing but gushing praise. > And that's worth little, you must admit, you gusing praise giver, you. You've got the right to critique anyone's work the way you see fit. You hate it, and feel you could do better........great. But leave other people's opinions alone. Accept the fact that everyone has their own opinion, whether you like it or not. If I don't like a pic.....I don't comment. If I do like it, then I'll comment. You have a problem with that.........tough! > > > > > > > > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > > > > > > > > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > If I don't like a pic.....I don't comment. If I do like it, then I'll > comment. You have a problem with that.........tough! Fine, but then don't ask me to omit my own opinion--in my opinion, you're little more than a whore for mediocity. >>>>>>>>> Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found >>>>>>>>> this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Fine, but then don't ask me to omit my own opinion--in my opinion, > you're little more than a whore for mediocity. Hey, buster, that remark is totally uncalled for. How about an apology to the lady? A bit closer physically and you'd be missing some teeth. Colin D.  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>>>>>> Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out >>>>>>>>>> and found this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > apology to the lady? A bit closer physically and you'd be missing > some teeth. How gallant and gentlemanly of you to offer such an example of civilized conflict resolution. SignatureFrank ess >>>>>>>>>>> Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out >>>>>>>>>>> and found this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > How gallant and gentlemanly of you to offer such an example of civilized > conflict resolution. You're another of those softies that don't realize some people respond only to physical retribution. Your soft-spoken replies are just laughed off. Witness some of the young thugs around these days. They're that way because they weren't chastised when small. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>>>>>>>> Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went >>>>>>>>>>>> out [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > laughed off. Witness some of the young thugs around these days. > They're that way because they weren't chastised when small. Yup, I'm an old softie who spent 35 years in law enforcement, where I had daily contact with the living result of the kind of "chastise" you apparently advocate. Did you say you have a darling baby daughter? You going to bust her in the teeth when she gets uppity with her old lady? I hope not. I hope you sign up for a course in parenting. Certainly save you and your darling baby daughter some grief. Maybe your culture still rewards the Wild West behavior you offered to show. Maybe it-and you-should take a step or two into the 21st Century. Dear r.p.e/35mm, most genteel of newsgroups: I apologize for stepping off-thread. I don't have many hot buttons. Freaking Neanderthals seems to be one of them. Very sincerely, SignatureFrank ess "The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it." the rubaiyat - omar khayyam - 11th century >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out >>>>>>>>>>>>> and found this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > Very sincerely, No, I don't have a darling baby daughter. And, although I have not worked in law enforcement, I have some friends who are policemen (due to my 20-odd years involvement in search and rescue activities). I can say that not all subscribe to the softly softly approach. As for your contact with the (supposed) results of chastisement, how do you then explain the attitude of the young thugs today, often the result of being brought up in a solo parent (usually female) environment, allowed to get away with anything, no correction applied except "don't do that, dear."? By the time a person gets to be grown-up and supposedly mature, the die is cast. What would be your reaction if one of these types called your wife a whore? 99 out of 100 blokes would flatten him without further ado. I can imagine you just standing there, while your poor wife, expecting you to defend her, finds you sympathizing with the miscreant because he must have had a deprived childhood. Yeah, right. And if I'm a 'freaking neanderthal' , you most certainly are a PC hand-wringing do-gooder - except do-gooders rarely do. Any good, that is. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > > > > > > > > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > > > > > > > > > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > Fine, but then don't ask me to omit my own opinion--in my opinion, > you're little more than a whore for mediocity. Sir, You truely have no room to be name calling other people. Not knowing that the telephoto lens will always have a shallow DOF for a forground proves the lacking in knowledge you possess. Not learning how to spell marks you even further down the line of intelligence. It is mediocrity and which she is not a whore of nor of any type. SO unless you have any positive comments or ideas or even creative criticism, please keep the name calling to yourself, a.shole. Draco Getting even isn't good enough. > you gushing praise giver, you. <gasp> ;-) For the record, she has complimented lots of folks here and participated in the shootin with a lovely shot at least once I recall and many times commented, answered people helpfully about gear, asked for help, asked interesting questions, etc. > > > > > > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > > > > > > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > pic. But I am also entitled to my opionion as well. I respect your > opinion, just as mine should be respected as well. You are entitled to your opinion, but I counter it with real critical examination, and that's what counts. You've got something to counter that, let's hear it. Otherwise, you've got nothing but gushing praise. And that's worth little, you must admit, you gusing praise giver, you. > > > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > > > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > out of focus grass, and yet every stick behind the horses is in sharp > relief. A better balance surely could have been found. The comment I made about Bret's shot of the horses was clearly meant to be taken as a "romantic" or "emotional" shot. Some of the best shots has nothing to do with great contrast, sharp or better balanced pics. It was the emotion that the pic evoked. For example, an out of focus shot of a couple embracing as they first meet. Nothing is in focus, the contrast is off, etc. But yet the emotion of the pic is there. You can FEEL the emotion there. The horses were shot during a split second that showed a beautiful moment. That is all I meant. Bret, bold as brass? YES! Outspoken...of course! But he is a superb photographer as his portfolio has shown. Regards, Helen > > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (Mrs. Anni)?! > Helen Helen, please, get up off the floor and quit with the fawning. At least one third of the photo in question is comprised of out of focus grass while every stick in the background is sharp. Surely a better focal point could have been chosen. Do yourself a favor and raise your standards a little. > > > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > > > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > focal point could have been chosen. Do yourself a favor and raise your > standards a little. >From what I have read in your posts, it's clear you are the one on the floor....in a tissy-fit. Perhaps you hold a grudge against him. I don't know. But I back-up my comments to everyone's pics that I have had the pleasure to view. Helen > > > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > > > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > focal point could have been chosen. Do yourself a favor and raise your > standards a little. I do resent your comment. I back-up every comment I have made for EVERYONE whose pics I have had the pleasure to view. Why do you hold a grudge against Bret? > > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (Mrs. Anni)?! > Helen Helen, please, get up off the floor and quit with the fawning. At least one third of the photo in question is comprised of out of focus grass while every stick in the background is sharp. Surely a better focal point could have been chosen. Do yourself a favor and raise your standards a little. > Helen, please, get up off the floor and quit with the fawning. At > least one third of the photo in question is comprised of out of focus > grass while every stick in the background is sharp. Surely a better > focal point could have been chosen. Help me out here, coach. You're shooting with a 400mm lens (@ f/8) across a field probably 150 yards away from your subject. About 20 yards behind your subject is a wooded area. How do you go about blurring the background in that situation? I could have increased the aperture to f/5.6, but I don't think that would've made much difference. >> Helen, please, get up off the floor and quit with the fawning. At >> least one third of the photo in question is comprised of out of focus [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > situation? I could have increased the aperture to f/5.6, but I don't > think that would've made much difference. You have to do extensive work in Photoshop. - And, while you're at it, remove that white streak from the nose of that horse on the right......:^) > > Helen, please, get up off the floor and quit with the fawning. At > > least one third of the photo in question is comprised of out of focus [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > situation? I could have increased the aperture to f/5.6, but I don't > think that would've made much difference. You move your focal point forward of your subject. You admit the background is in good focus and the foreground is not? Share it out the other way, brother... > > Help me out here, coach. > > You're shooting with a 400mm lens (@ f/8) across a field probably 150 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > background is in good focus and the foreground is not? Share it out > the other way, brother... The reason the foreground grass is not in focus is because there is 150 yards of it between me and the horses, while the woods are only about 20 yards behind the horses. The look you are after is easily accomplished in Photoshop, but perhaps impossible at the time of shooting (at least with my equipment). The horses in the pic are in focus. I focused on them because that's what I wanted to be in focus. You are suggesting that I move the focus point to a point in front of the horses? Well, what does that do to the horses? Next time I see a horse giving another horse the tongue, I'll whip out my trusty DOF calculator. And why do you want the grass in the foreground to be sharp? You do know what grass looks like, don"t you? So why do I need it in focus? > > Helen, please, get up off the floor and quit with the fawning. At > > least one third of the photo in question is comprised of out of focus [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > situation? I could have increased the aperture to f/5.6, but I don't > think that would've made much difference. You move your focal point forward of your subject. You admit the background is in good focus and the foreground is not? Share it out the other way, brother...don't just let the EOS tell you what to do, sadster... > > Helen, please, get up off the floor and quit with the fawning. At > > least one third of the photo in question is comprised of out of focus [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > situation? I could have increased the aperture to f/5.6, but I don't > think that would've made much difference. You move your focal point forward of your subject. You admit the background is in good focus and the foreground is not? Share it out the other way, brother... > > Helen, please, get up off the floor and quit with the fawning. At > > least one third of the photo in question is comprised of out of focus [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > situation? I could have increased the aperture to f/5.6, but I don't > think that would've made much difference. You move your focal point forward of your subject. You admit the background is in good focus and the foreground is not? Share it out the other way, brother... > > Helen, please, get up off the floor and quit with the fawning. At > > least one third of the photo in question is comprised of out of focus [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > situation? I could have increased the aperture to f/5.6, but I don't > think that would've made much difference. You move your focal point forward of your subject. You admit the background is in good focus and the foreground is not? Share it out the other way, brother... > > Helen, please, get up off the floor and quit with the fawning. At > > least one third of the photo in question is comprised of out of focus [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > situation? I could have increased the aperture to f/5.6, but I don't > think that would've made much difference. You move your focal point forward of your subject. You admit the background is in good focus and the foreground is not? Share it out the other way, brother... > You move your focal point forward of your subject. You admit the > background is in good focus and the foreground is not? Share it out > the other way, brother... Perhaps if you post this a few more times it'll make sense. >> You move your focal point forward of your subject. You admit the >> background is in good focus and the foreground is not? Share it out >> the other way, brother... > > Perhaps if you post this a few more times it'll make sense. He's suggesting that you should have focused too close, so the horses would be at the back end of your depth of field, and the background would have been well out of focus....But I don't know if the viewfinder image was good enough for you to be able to do that....I probably couldn't do it right with my vision...... > > Perhaps if you post this a few more times it'll make sense. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > enough for you to be able to do that....I probably couldn't do it right with > my vision...... I know what he is suggesting. I just don't think it can me done. To illustrate, I made the super-scientific diagram below.. A................................................................................H.F.....TTTTTT A= Annika H= Horses F= Fence T= Trees .= Grass So what should I focus on? >>>Perhaps if you post this a few more times it'll make sense. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > So what should I focus on? I suppose you could just give a little twist back on the focus ring. Probably wasn't time for this though. "guest's" new comment on there is much more polite and helpful. Actually it could be cropped or you could have just pulled out the 800mm f/2 lens! > > > Perhaps if you post this a few more times it'll make sense. > > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > So what should I focus on? There is a rather abrupt edge where the grass goes out of focus, looks like a bit of a bump between you and the horses. So we have a section of near grass and a section of far grass. The far grass is already in focus and I rather doubt you could adjust the focus in such a way as to keep the horses in focus and get the near grass to be focus noticeable better then you already captured. I notice that often the people who want to tell others how to take better photos don't bother to show any of their own. If someone really wanted to be helpful they would show two photos under similar conditions where the shift in focus improved the photo. FWIW a 400mm lens shot at f/8 has very little DOF and trying to get the foreground in focus is a losing battle. Someone use to shooting with much shorter lenses might not understand that. Scott >> > Perhaps if you post this a few more times it'll make sense. >> > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > So what should I focus on? Well, if I were to try to do this, I would first focus on the horses, and then move my lens ring toward the closer in position (manually) until I was at the point where the horses were just starting to go out of focus....Somewhere in that region should be the right place to get the background creamy....But, as I say, I probably wouldn't be able to do it with my vision today. A better way would be to wait until the horses were gone, and then take the background out of focus without the horses being there at all, and then mate the two pictures in Photoshop. > Well, if I were to try to do this, I would first focus on the horses, > and then move my lens ring toward the closer in position (manually) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > without the horses being there at all, and then mate the two pictures > in Photoshop. Selecting the proper lens is what makes or breaks a shot. Had Bret used the world famous 58mm f/1.2 Noct Nikkor and zoomed with his feet he would have had orgasmic bokeh that wouldn't quit. It's still a nice shot as it is. Rita Rita ? Berkowitz wrote: > Selecting the proper lens is what makes or breaks a shot. Had Bret used the > world famous 58mm f/1.2 Noct Nikkor and zoomed with his feet he would have > had orgasmic bokeh that wouldn't quit. It's still a nice shot as it is. LOL! By the time I could've hopped the fence and run across the pasture, those horses would've been long gone. >> Selecting the proper lens is what makes or breaks a shot. Had Bret >> used the world famous 58mm f/1.2 Noct Nikkor and zoomed with his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > LOL! By the time I could've hopped the fence and run across the > pasture, those horses would've been long gone. Probably so, but you never really know for sure. You would be very surprised at how well horses ignore people till you get within a few feet of them. You did the right thing by going long. Great shot! Rita >> Well, if I were to try to do this, I would first focus on the horses, >> and then move my lens ring toward the closer in position (manually) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > world famous 58mm f/1.2 Noct Nikkor and zoomed with his feet he would have > had orgasmic bokeh that wouldn't quit. It's still a nice shot as it is. Yes....The horses might not have put up with too much, "foot zooming".....In my case, I am afraid of horses.....(I'm a city boy) Anything that big with a brain that small (walnut sized, I believe) is dangerous...... >> Selecting the proper lens is what makes or breaks a shot. Had Bret >> used the >> world famous 58mm f/1.2 Noct Nikkor and zoomed with his feet he >> would have had orgasmic bokeh that wouldn't quit. It's still a nice >> shot as it is. > Yes....The horses might not have put up with too much, "foot > zooming".....In my case, I am afraid of horses.....(I'm a city boy) > Anything that big with a brain that small (walnut sized, I believe) > is dangerous...... LOL! You worry too much. Those horses are so docile and probably wouldn't even flinch if you got within 10' of them. Rita Rita ? Berkowitz wrote: > >> Selecting the proper lens is what makes or breaks a shot. Had Bret > >> used the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > LOL! You worry too much. Those horses are so docile and probably wouldn't > even flinch if you got within 10' of them. Ha, try it sometime, most horses I know will stop what they are doing if you start walking at them and come right up to you, my guess is they think you might have something to eat. Any number of times when trying to get a photo of a horse the problem has been keeping the horse far enough away. And then you get photos that look something like this http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/71454469 Scott >> LOL! You worry too much. Those horses are so docile and probably wouldn't >> even flinch if you got within 10' of them. > Ha, try it sometime, most horses I know will stop what they are doing > if you start walking at them and come right up to you, my guess is they > think you might have something to eat. And if you carry an apple or some sugar cubes in your pocket to help foster the notion ... > Any number of times when trying to get a photo of a horse the problem > has been keeping the horse far enough away. And then you get photos > that look something like this > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/71454469 I've noticed that as well. This pic was taken from the opposite side of the field from my original pic. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/70011467 > To illustrate, I made the super-scientific diagram below.. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So what should I focus on? You should focus on the horses and move the trees, of course. Why does nobody ever consider the obvious solution? SignatureMatthew Winn [If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"] > > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (Mrs. Anni)?! > Helen Helen, really, do you have to fawn over him so? Half the picture is out of focus grass, and yet every stick behind the horses is in sharp relief. A better balance surely could have been found. >> > helensilverburg@hotmail.com wrote: >> > I'm romantic, what can I say? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Rocha? No, Tony Polson! >> helensilverburg@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> As for me, my heart belongs to one man who is clear cross on the other >> side of the Atlantic right now. > >The good side or the bad side? No, Tony Polson! > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the > ready. > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/71223051 Nice capture of romance, Bret. But the color seems to be off a little. Draco Getting even isn't good enough. > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/71223051 > > Nice capture of romance, Bret. > > But the color seems to be off a little. I kinda doubt it. Annika1980 Wrote: > Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found > this couple making out in a field. Lucky I had the 400 f/5.6L at the > ready. > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/71223051 A nice image, but what does it have to do with 35mm film cameras -- Keith Tapscott. > Annika1980 Wrote: >> Since Rocha won't give us a romantic shot today, I went out and found [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/71223051 > A nice image, but what does it have to do with 35mm film cameras? Why should it have anything to do with film cameras? This is the umpteenth time somebody has brought this up, because they misunderstand what this group is about. This group is rec.photo.equipment.35mm - note the *equipment*. It does *not* say film. It has long been agreed that since digital slr cameras evolved from 35mm slrs, and many parts are interchangeable, like lenses and flashes, and features like autofocus, autoexposure, motor drive, depth of field, etc., and the style and use of film and digital slrs are common to both, then digital cameras are acceptable in this group. The end results of using these cameras, be it film or digital, are images. Why should we not enjoy images that group members produce, whether film or digitally derived? Note that images placed on the web for your and our enjoyment necessitate film being scanned and digital images produced. Where's the difference? Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > A nice image, but what does it have to do with 35mm film cameras? > Why should it have anything to do with film cameras? OK, OK, we let in digital cameras but only if they have full frame 35mm sensors... That's a joke, son. Sigh, these digital types have little sense of humor though, it's all one or zero to them... SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >> > A nice image, but what does it have to do with 35mm film cameras? >> Why should it have anything to do with film cameras? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's a joke, son. Sigh, these digital types have little > sense of humor though, it's all one or zero to them... They are, for the moast part, so close to film cameras that you can taste it. There is no sense in producing full frame CCD's as long as you can crowd over 10 megapixels into the smaller sensor frame size, and you can use your 35mm film camera lenses on most of them, so what's the real difference? As you say, as soon as I get my slides back from processing, I digitize them with my film scanner and do all further work on them with my computer anyway. I know very few film photographers who ever worked on color slides in their own darkrooms. AAMOF, I have never known any....:^) > OK, OK, we let in digital cameras but only if they have full frame > 35mm sensors... > > That's a joke, son. Sigh, these digital types have little > sense of humor though, it's all one or zero to them... I've said it myself. I think the only real answer is that this group is just plain NICER than the dSLR groups and a better conversation can be had here. I don't think the group's name has much to do with it any more, although it might be nice for those of us who are stuck with/prefer to use 35mm film had a place uncontaminated users of by electronic sensors of other than 24mm x 36mm's comments. That is also a joke. > I've said it myself. I think the only real answer is that this group is > just plain NICER than the dSLR groups Hmmm, I have noticed that too. So are you saying there is some wisdom to keeping out those digirati that aren't here already? We can't be too much purists as we are a little bit digital if we are here at all. > That is also a joke. Ditto & "Many a truth is said in jest" I think a lot of the civility issue is related to the average age of the posters. If you go to the darkroom and large format groups the civility increases further [with the exception of the usual few well known (and well killfiled) posters]. alt.religion.kibology is pretty nice too. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >>I've said it myself. I think the only real answer is that this group is >>just plain NICER than the dSLR groups > > Hmmm, I have noticed that too. So are you saying there is some > wisdom to keeping out those digirati that aren't here already? Not really. I just have a continuous conflict between my liberal inclusive side and my conservative exclusive side. Just don't get me discussing English language - it depends what mood I'm in as to which side I take. > We can't be too much purists as we are a little bit digital if > we are here at all. I have 10 of them. They make typing easier. >>That is also a joke. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > groups the civility increases further [with the exception of > the usual few well known (and well killfiled) posters]. OT: does anyone know how to get Thunderbird to killfile across all groups? Or am I stuck with having to killfile in every group? > alt.religion.kibology is pretty nice too. Kibology! I'd forgotten about that. :D > That's a joke, son. Sigh, these digital types have little > sense of humor though, it's all one or zero to them... Not so, a HEX on you. Scott >>> A nice image, but what does it have to do with 35mm film cameras? >> Why should it have anything to do with film cameras? > > OK, OK, we let in digital cameras but only if they have full frame > 35mm sensors... Aha, what about half-frame and APS film cameras! Full-frame is not a requirement {:-) > That's a joke, son. Sigh, these digital types have little > sense of humor though, it's all one or zero to them... One thing about digital, I can say "I digitall myself.." That's another joke, dad. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Aha, what about ... APS film cameras! Full-frame is not a requirement > {:-) I'll see your 'Aha' and raise you a 'Ta Da': rec.photo.equipment.aps exists for collectors of newsgroup spam... As to half-frame, well sure, shouldn't discriminate against short people. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > > Aha, what about ... APS film cameras! Full-frame is not a requirement > > {:-) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > As to half-frame, well sure, shouldn't discriminate > against short people. DLSRs are exactly like film ones in the one way that most people here seem to find important, and that is the ability to argue whether Nikon or Canon cameras are better. This argument has survived the shift from film to digital without missing a beat. Scott |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.