 |
 | 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 / June 2008THE 5D REALLY SHINES!
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98912314/original > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98912314/original WOW! A beautifully captured dreamy scene. What a gorgeous place to go to get away from the madness of the world. Helen > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98912314/original Great use of combining two images. The lake scene and the full moon. At least that what it looks to me. I've tried those types of shots and for a long exposure the moon gets blured and blown out. What lenses for the shots did you use? Even for a composite, a great image. Keep it going. Draco > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98912314/original > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Even for a composite, a great image. Nobody likes a snitch! > > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98912314/original > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nobody likes a snitch! Oh Come on now. Answer the question. Which of those marvolous glass did you use for that tight moon? Besides a snitch is just gaining information to share.hehe Draco > > > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98912314/original > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Draco A snitch is a snitch. Look what happened to Fredo Corleone =:^0 > > > > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98912314/original > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > A snitch is a snitch. Look what happened to Fredo Corleone > =:^0 http://blawgletter.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/31/fredo.jpg > > > > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98912314/original > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Freddy said he had an extra bed for me next to the fishes. I could use the rest. Draco > > > > > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98912314/original > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Draco I feel the same way. >>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98912314/original >>> Great use of combining two images. The lake scene and the full moon. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Draco Hi, Draco.. While I would not presume to speak for Bret, the size of the moon looks about what I would expect for that lens near the 150-200mm end (but without knowing if it was cropped..?) Given the pretty accurate match of the reflections to the moon and the 'feel' of the image, it doesn't look too out-of-perspective to me. Most composited moon shots do, if the size of the moon is changed... If I was shooting this scene, I'd just do two exposures and HDR them. One as a normal night time exposure as shown on the image, and another at maybe between 1/125 and 1/500 at f5.6/8 (depends on haze, etc) to get the correct moon exposure. I'm sure Bret will neither confirm or deny this, but I hope it helps... On Jun 19, 6:28 pm, Mark Thomas <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote: > If I was shooting this scene, I'd just do two exposures and HDR them. > One as a normal night time exposure as shown on the image, and another > at maybe between 1/125 and 1/500 at f5.6/8 (depends on haze, etc) to get > the correct moon exposure. The problem is that the correct exposure for the moon is about 1/60 @ f/5.6, ISO 100 while the rest of the scene required a long exposure of 15 seconds. I took many exposures at 1-stop increments. On the ones where the moon is exposed correctly, everything else is jet black. Of course, the moon gets violently blown out on a long exposure so combining pics is the way to go. The moon was too small in the frame to show much detail at 200mm so I photographed it with the 400mm and the 2x and the 1.4x giving an effective focal length of 1120mm on the full-frame 5D. Then I simply scaled it down to match the size of the disc in the original pic. Last night's full moon was supposed to be the largest of the year so I figured that was a good time to shoot it, especially since the 5D goes back tomorrow. > The moon was too small in the frame to show much detail at 200mm so I > photographed it with the 400mm and the 2x and the 1.4x giving an > effective focal length of 1120mm on the full-frame 5D. Then I simply > scaled it down to match the size of the disc in the original pic. Amazing how you still managed to keep one single "exif" description of a single shot after compsing it with a pile of others. Any other examples of your "single-shots" in your gallery? On second thoughts, don't bother: we know they are all fake, manipulated images, parading as "photography". > Amazing how you still managed to keep one single "exif" description > of a single shot after compsing it with a pile of others. Any other > examples of your "single-shots" in your gallery? > On second thoughts, don't bother: we know they are all fake, > manipulated images, parading as "photography". There was only two pics used .... the main pic and the image of the moon. The EXIF data is obviously from the main pic. Will you also be echoing D-Mac's rant about how a digital image is not a photograph? Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 20/06/2008 10:34 PM: > There was only two pics used .... the main pic and the image of the > moon. The EXIF data is obviously from the main pic. sure... and it's all pbase's fault the EXIF changes... right... > Will you also be echoing D-Mac's rant about how a digital image is not > a photograph? Not really. One day it'll perhaps even dawn on you that I don't know D-Mac, have never met him and couldn't freakin care less what he says or does. But whatever: an extensively manipulated composite of two or more images can hardly be demonstrative of the IQ of a particular camera model or brand to take photos, which is what you're constantly suggesting and why you get called upon. Oh, BTW: there is no such thing as "the largest moon of the year". Go here to learn a couple of basic things about cosmology and imaging: http://www.spaceweather.com/ and follow the "Moon Illusion" article. The moon is always the same size, what changes is our perception of it. Anyways: just to illustrate yet another problem with your PS technique... > Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 20/06/2008 10:34 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Anyways: just to illustrate yet another problem > with your PS technique... Noons, I was just busting Bret's chops as a gag. But your claiming that his images are not photographs are wrong. Through out the history of photography there have been thousands of images created by two or more negatives. Claiming that a photographic image is only what was on a single negative or image file is not only short sighted but wrong as well. In the late 19th century photographers would superimpose a shot of a clouded sky on an image of a landscape. To show what they saw. I see no difference in what Bret has done in this image. He has produced a image the invokes a feeling of calm and romance at the same time. If he produces a printed copy of this image, you would say it is a photograph. So why not this electronic version of the printed page. As for the moon being larger tonight than at any other time? Well in one point you are correct. Then moon doesn't grow. But, it does get closer. In being closer it appers to grow and become larger. And perception is 90% of all we see. Bret keep up the great work. Keep showing the rest of us that IT can be done. Noons, hang in there. Draco Draco wrote,on my timestamp of 20/06/2008 11:59 PM: >>> There was only two pics used .... the main pic and the image of the >>> moon. The EXIF data is obviously from the main pic. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > he produces a printed copy of this image, you would say it is a > photograph. So why not this electronic version of the printed page. Did you read what I wrote? Obviously, not. Mind indicating in the quote above where do I specifically claim "his images are not photographs"? In fact I indicated that is precisely NOT the point! One day you'll start reading, instead of jumping into obviously wrong conclusions. Until then please refrain from the long patronizing tirades: I really don't give a fig. Couldn't care less if you or the Dalai Lama call a composite image with false proportions and colour banding a photo. When it is also insinuated that only one make of camera is capable of those, that is a blatant lie and is exposed as such. > As for the moon being larger tonight than at any other time? Well in > one point you are correct. Then moon doesn't grow. But, it does get > closer. In being closer it appers to grow and become larger. And > perception is 90% of all we see. Wrong again. The moon stays exactly where it is in distance, with minor MONTHLY variations certainly not capable of making the slightest difference in the timespan of a moonrise. And like the article I pointed out goes to lengths in explaining (read it: not my words, those of NASA), individual perception is all you get: take a photo of the event and the extra size will be all but gone. > Draco wrote,on my timestamp of 20/06/2008 11:59 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > specifically claim "his images are not photographs"? > In fact I indicated that is precisely NOT the point! Noons, You have always claimed that his images were not photographs. Weither you say it in this last yannering or not. > One day you'll start reading, instead of jumping > into obviously wrong conclusions. > Until then please refrain from the long > patronizing tirades: I really don't give a fig. Long, patronizing tirades? Me? If I do jump to a wrong conclusion it is only from the wrong information placed in front of me that I reply too. > Couldn't care less if you or the Dalai Lama call > a composite image with false proportions and colour > banding a photo. When it is also insinuated that only > one make of camera is capable of those, that is a > blatant lie and is exposed as such. False proportions? So? I have seen the moon rise that looked like it covered two thirds of the night sky. If I had taken that shot and not done any compositing, would you have challenged it? Color banding? I don't see any banding on my moniter. Nor on a larger moniter that is a precisioned calibrated every week. Only one camera capable of capturing such an image? Now there we agree. I have a Nikon and have tried the Canon and Olympus and Pentax and Fuji and even a Phase 4 back on a Hassy. Of course the Phase 4 gave some wickedly outstanding results. But, I like my Nikon better. JMTCW > > As for the moon being larger tonight than at any other time? Well in > > one point you are correct. Then moon doesn't grow. But, it does get [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with minor MONTHLY variations certainly not capable of > making the slightest difference in the timespan of a moonrise. You said it, "...monthly variations..." It isn't in the time span of moonrise, but in how the moon looks after it has risen. That is what I was getting to. > And like the article I pointed out goes to lengths > in explaining (read it: not my words, those of NASA), individual > perception is all you get: take a photo of the event > and the extra size will be all but gone.- Since I hadn't read that article you added to your post I will take your word on the perception part of it. But the boys of NASA have been wrong before and will be wrong again. Just hopefully not with someones life on the line. Have a great weekend Noons and enjoy yourself. Draco > - Show quoted text - > Draco wrote,on my timestamp of 20/06/2008 11:59 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > specifically claim "his images are not photographs"? > In fact I indicated that is precisely NOT the point! Noons, You have always claimed that his images were not photographs. Weither you say it in this last yannering or not. > One day you'll start reading, instead of jumping > into obviously wrong conclusions. > Until then please refrain from the long > patronizing tirades: I really don't give a fig. Long, patronizing tirades? Me? If I do jump to a wrong conclusion it is only from the wrong information placed in front of me that I reply too. > Couldn't care less if you or the Dalai Lama call > a composite image with false proportions and colour > banding a photo. When it is also insinuated that only > one make of camera is capable of those, that is a > blatant lie and is exposed as such. False proportions? So? I have seen the moon rise that looked like it covered two thirds of the night sky. If I had taken that shot and not done any compositing, would you have challenged it? Color banding? I don't see any banding on my moniter. Nor on a larger moniter that is a precisioned calibrated every week. Only one camera capable of capturing such an image? Now there we agree. I have a Nikon and have tried the Canon and Olympus and Pentax and Fuji and even a Phase 4 back on a Hassy. Of course the Phase 4 gave some wickedly outstanding results. But, I like my Nikon better. JMTCW > > As for the moon being larger tonight than at any other time? Well in > > one point you are correct. Then moon doesn't grow. But, it does get [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with minor MONTHLY variations certainly not capable of > making the slightest difference in the timespan of a moonrise. You said it, "...monthly variations..." It isn't in the time span of moonrise, but in how the moon looks after it has risen. That is what I was getting to. > And like the article I pointed out goes to lengths > in explaining (read it: not my words, those of NASA), individual > perception is all you get: take a photo of the event > and the extra size will be all but gone.- Since I hadn't read that article you added to your post I will take your word on the perception part of it. But the boys of NASA have been wrong before and will be wrong again. Just hopefully not with someones life on the line. Have a great weekend Noons and enjoy yourself. Draco The moon's eccentricity is only .0549 - This means that it's apparent difference in size throughout it's orbital period (around 27.5 days) is only about 5-1/2 percent. This is too small a difference to be measured by the naked eye. The reason why it seems larger at certain times is because when it is low on the horizon, one compares it to objects seen on the horizon, and it seems larger because of those comparisons that it does when it is high in the sky. Draco wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 1:54 AM: > Noons, You have always claimed that his images were not photographs. > Weither you say it in this last yannering or not. And that hasn't stopped you claiming it is in this last "yannering", has it? Nothing like the facts... No, I haven't claimed his shots are not photographs. What I have claimed is he misrepresents how he takes the shots and how he arrives at his images and I stand by it: it's only too obvious. He used to be a lot more careful with his PP. Nowadays he's slacked off completely, mostly because all he hears is "hoo-haas" by that idiot Helen and others. > Long, patronizing tirades? Me? If I do jump to a wrong conclusion it > is only from the wrong information placed in front of me that I reply > too. Yeah, sure. whatever... > False proportions? So? I have seen the moon rise that looked like it > covered two thirds of the night sky. If I had taken that shot and not > done any compositing, would you have challenged it? You couldn't possibly take such a shot. It's a physical impossibility. You might *think* it looks that large. It doesn't. > Color banding? I don't see any banding on my moniter. Nor on a larger > moniter that is a precisioned calibrated every week. Go here: http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm and follow instructions there and in links from there. Then look at his image. And use a browser that accepts icc colour profiles. Not Firefox2, BTW. Around the moon, the halo. Absolutely horrible... I *know* the 5D can do a lot better than that, a friend of mine has one and I've seen his shots. And what's with the drab, brownish overall tone? Horrible. > Only one camera capable of capturing such an image? Now there we > agree. I have a Nikon and have tried the Canon and Olympus and Pentax > and Fuji and even a Phase 4 back on a Hassy. Of course the Phase 4 > gave some wickedly outstanding results. But, I like my Nikon better. > JMTCW Oly has some nice cameras and results, so does Fuji with the S5. But those medium format backs are truly outstanding. Then again so is 6x6 and 6x7 film, and for a lot less moolah... Renting is however a possible workaround. > Since I hadn't read that article you added to your post I will take > your word on the perception part of it. But the boys of NASA have been > wrong before and will be wrong again. Just hopefully not with someones > life on the line. True. Unfortunately, this one is only too easy to confirm: next moonrise take a few shots with 2 minutes interval, same lens, same position, same focus. Then compare the shots side by side. Tried that last night, couldn't believe the result: our eyes really play tricks on us... > Have a great weekend Noons and enjoy yourself. Certainly will. Same to you! > Draco wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 1:54 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Certainly will. Same to you! You dis Bret's work and support "Rita's", LOL! Who is the real idiot noons? Your hatred is in every sentence. What a horrible example you set for your children. Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 11:41 AM: > You dis Bret's work and support "Rita's", LOL! Who is the real idiot > noons? Prove where did I ever support Rita's work? Ah yes: mindlessly shouting your mouth off again. In character with your general stupidity, amply demonstrated every time you post. > Your hatred is in every sentence. > What a horrible example you set for your children. Would you like to repeat that face to face to me, STUPID BITCH? Anytime you want, and bring your "family" too: they would also be most kindly received. But you'd never gather up the courage would you, STUPID BITCH? All wind from the queen of drafts, as usual. > Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 11:41 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > would you, STUPID BITCH? All wind from the > queen of drafts, as usual. noons, I've faced bigger guys, than you, (and yes I've seen your pic), and told them to their face they were an idiot. I slapped one man for grabbing me, and he fled like a little girl. I don't need my family beside me or anyone for that matter. If it makes you feel like a man to hit me, then please do so. I am neither scared nor intimidated. I'll give you my address if you want to face me. Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 22/06/2008 12:16 AM: > noons, I've faced bigger guys, than you, (and yes I've seen your pic), I don't have a "pic" anywhere. What you saw was a thumbnail. But I can post one, if you want. Oh sorry: I forgot thumbnails is all you can perceive, with Bret's pbase miniatures... > and told them to their face they were an idiot. I slapped one man for > grabbing me, and he fled like a little girl. I don't need my family > beside me or anyone for that matter. If it makes you feel like a man > to hit me, then please do so. I am neither scared nor intimidated. > I'll give you my address if you want to face me. LOL! Who the heck cares about you and your address? Don't flatter yourself, poor darling: you're not worth a bitch-slap. Anyway I don't indulge in that sort of sport, you'll have to continue to rely on "hubby" for the violent calisthenics. Should you ever show up in Australia though, make sure you sound off. Would love to demonstrate a few new moves to "hubby" so he can really spank you with gusto: I'm sure he could use some innovation, must get really boring to hit the same rodent all the time. (Man! I love scam artists like you. One thing I must say about your gullible stupidity, "Helen": it's utterly reliable! LOL!) > Would you like to repeat that face to face > to me, STUPID BITCH? Anytime you want, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would you, STUPID BITCH? All wind from the > queen of drafts, as usual. OOOOHHHHH, an internet tough guy! We're all shaking. Noons, don't make me come down there just to whip your old a.s. I'll bust you right in that big nose of yours. Wow, I'll bet you're scared now, pussy! Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 24/06/2008 1:51 AM: >> Would you like to repeat that face to face >> to me, STUPID BITCH? Anytime you want, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Wow, I'll bet you're scared now, pussy! shaking already! BWAHAHAHA! > You couldn't possibly take such a shot. It's a physical > impossibility. You might *think* it looks that large. > It doesn't. Noons, you are more full of sh.t than a Christmas turkey. Just so no newbie might believe the crap you are shoveling, here is a comparison of two of the pics taken during that session. Both of them are full-frame and the only modifications I made were to re-size for the web. http://www.pbase.com/image/98974811 The shot on the left was a 15 second exposure, the shot on the right was 1/4 second. Same tripod setup, same lens settings .... only the shutter speed was changed between the shots. The moon is slightly lower in the sky on the dark pic since it was taken about 90 seconds prior to the long exposure pic. But as you can see, the size of the moon's disc in both pics is the same, except for a slight amount of blooming in the overexposed shot. Oh well, you lose again ....thanks for playing. BTW, the other giveaway that my original pic was a composite (that your dumb a.s missed) was that you could never get a sharp image of the moon in a 15 second exposure. Not on a stationary tripod, anyway. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 12:23 PM: > Noons, you are more full of sh.t than a Christmas turkey. Annika, you're such a sack of sh.t no one can even see the brim anymore. > Just so no newbie might believe the crap you are shoveling, here is a > comparison of two of the pics taken during that session. Both of them > are full-frame and the only modifications I made were to re-size for > the web. > > http://www.pbase.com/image/98974811 Get lost you and your after-the-fact "proofs", only produced once you've been shown for the fraud you really are. > Oh well, you lose again ....thanks for playing. Au contraire, arsehole: it's you who has once again demonstrated VERY CLEARLY that you are nothing but a fraud: only after you are challenged in your claims do you produce "evidence for the noobs" of the arcane manipulations ALL of your images are. Thanks for proving that, yet again. It's becoming a habit, arsehole: you really are losing it... > BTW, the other giveaway that my original pic was a composite (that > your dumb a.s missed) was that you could never get a sharp image of > the moon in a 15 second exposure. Not on a stationary tripod, anyway. <yawn> I missed nothing, dickhead. Don't need to analyze any exposure times to look at your image and figure out it's a composite. > Noons, hang in there. I would have left out the "in." > > Noons, hang in there. > > I would have left out the "in." True, but then he wouldn't be in the noose he created. He has shown what a moron he really is and I don't need to lower myself to its level. Draco Have a good life. Draco wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 5:01 AM: >>> Noons, hang in there. >> I would have left out the "in." You leave out lots of stuff, it's a given. > True, but then he wouldn't be in the noose he created. I'm in no noose whatsoever, dear. It's you and your scammer brigade who can't get one in sideways, since you've been exposed for the fraud you really are. > He has shown > what a moron he really is and I don't need to lower myself to its > level. You'd have to make a supreme effort to even border on the edge of my shoes. > >>> Noons, hang in there. > >> I would have left out the "in." > > You leave out lots of stuff, it's a given. I don't have an obligation to school your stupid a.s by explaining every technique I use. I ain't got to show you sh.t! Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 12:13 PM: > I don't have an obligation to school your stupid a.s by explaining > every technique I use. There is no subject matter anywhere you can school me on, stupid dickhead. > I ain't got to show you sh.t! You got no sh.t whatsoever to show anyone, dickhead. > Oh, BTW: there is no such thing as "the largest moon > of the year". Go here to learn a couple of basic > things about cosmology and imaging:http://www.spaceweather.com/ > and follow the "Moon Illusion" article. Yes, I know it is an illusion. I was referring to this passage in a story I read before I took the shot: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25212851/?GT1=43001 The illusion will be particularly noticeable at this "solstice moon," coming just two days before summer starts in the Northern Hemisphere. The reason, according to NASA, lies in lunar mechanics: The sun and full moon are like kids on a see-saw; when one is high, the other is low. This week's high solstice sun gives us a low, horizon-hugging moon and a strong, long-lasting version of the illusion. > But whatever: > an extensively manipulated composite of two or more images > can hardly be demonstrative of the IQ of a particular camera > model or brand to take photos, which is what you're > constantly suggesting and why you get called upon. Well I never said it was the greatest pic in the world or even a single image. It it what it is. I thought it was a nice pic of the full moon that others would enjoy seeing. And since it gave you an opportunity to piss & moan like a little bitch, I guess I made everyone happy. WHO RULES? Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of photography would realize that the image is impossible from a single image, unless you had about a 7- stop ND filter cut to the size of the moon's disc. As for what constitutes a "real" photograph I'm not sure if such a thing exists, except for maybe a Polaroid. A purist could argue that if you make a film choice you are influencing the look of the final image. So how much manipulation is allowed? People have enjoyed the work of Ansel Adams for years, but his photos were largely darkroom creations with little resemblance to the actual scene. My point is that I don't spend too much time anguishing over whether a photo was manipulated heavily or not. I either like the pic or I don't. As a photographer my job is to present the best image I can, as Malcolm would say, "By Any Means Necessary." Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 2:56 AM: > Well I never said it was the greatest pic in the world or even a > single image. But you insinuated only the 5D can do this, by the obvious title. Which is not true. > It it what it is. True. Then why give it a false title? > I thought it was a nice pic of the full moon that > others would enjoy seeing. And since it gave you an opportunity to > piss & moan like a little bitch, I guess I made everyone happy. > > WHO RULES? Bullshit. Nothing to do with why you posted it. > Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of photography would realize that > the image is impossible from a single image, unless you had about a 7- > stop ND filter cut to the size of the moon's disc. And once again, you only provide that little bit of info AFTER your fake claims are exposed. Had I and others not challenged your claims, you'd have once again created the impression on noobs that this is what they can get straight from the camera, provided of course it's a Canon. Don't try to weasel out now, it's clear what you did. It's called a scam. > As for what constitutes a "real" photograph I'm not sure if such a > thing exists, except for maybe a Polaroid. A purist could argue that > if you make a film choice you are influencing the look of the final > image. So how much manipulation is allowed? As much as anyone wants to put in. Just don't ask me to like it. Look, I don't give two hoots if you, or Ansel Adams in Helen's dreams or the grand poobah himself makes a fried egg out of an image. That is NOT the point. The point is: you do NOT make false claims about a final image. Period. Because if you do, you get called on it. Every single time. > People have enjoyed the work of Ansel Adams for years, but his photos > were largely darkroom creations with little resemblance to the actual > scene. Here we go with the bullshit about Ansel Adams as justification for total slackness. Of course he fooled around in the darkroom. To enhance a mood or a particular aspect of an image. I don't see ONE SINGLE image of him where a false or unnatural result is shown, nor did he ever claim that such and such equipment was the only reason for it. Quite opposite, in fact: he went to great lengths to explain how he obtained his images and what he had done to alter them. Unlike what you do at every turn. So don't use his stuff as justification for your crap. > My point is that I don't spend too much time anguishing over whether a > photo was manipulated heavily or not. I either like the pic or I > don't. As a photographer my job is to present the best image I can, > as Malcolm would say, "By Any Means Necessary." Absolutely 100% in agreement! Then why LIE about how you get them or HIDE how you get them? >> > Well I never said it was the greatest pic in the world or even a > > single image. > > But you insinuated only the 5D can do this, by the obvious title. So "THE 5D REALLY SHINES" means "ONLY THE 5D CAN TAKE THIS PIC?" Learn some reading comprehension and then get back to us. > > It it what it is. > True. Then why give it a false title? What was false about it? > Absolutely 100% in agreement! Then why LIE about how you > get them or HIDE how you get them? I explained xactly how I got the pic. You're the only one lying here (D-Mac and Rita are off this week). Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 11:35 AM: > So "THE 5D REALLY SHINES" means "ONLY THE 5D CAN TAKE THIS PIC?" Precisely. It's what scam artists like you do: you post a few crap shots and you ask paid-for groupies like Helen and other rabble to "hoo-hah" on demand. Meanwhile you imply to anyone who cares to even listen, it's the only equipment that let's you do the stuff. Another variation of the technique: it's the web-site (pbase) that is the only place for good photography. Ask Jim Kramer: he can explain the sordid details to you. On second thought, don't bother: you learned from him. >> True. Then why give it a false title? > What was false about it? The implied claim that it was a single shot made with the 5D. It wasn't. It was a GROUP of shots, manipulated with PS. Could have been produced by ANY camera. Something you never claimed in the title or anywhere else, until challenged. > I explained xactly how I got the pic. Only AFTER you were exposed for the fraud you were trying to perpetrate: in your initial replies, you lied about how it was taken. > You're the only one lying here > (D-Mac and Rita are off this week). I don't need to lie to expose you: all I have to do is prod and you react accordingly, like the well trained animal you are. WHO RULES? But just to enlighten everyone: where did I lie about anything, arsehole? It's you who provides misinformation here and in pbase while lying through your teeth about every single detail of the images you show. Only when openly shown as a fraud do you admit to doing what you do and you OPENLY admit that you will do anything, including lying: "Whatever it takes" is your motto,arsehole. Not mine. > > Amazing how you still managed to keep one single "exif" description > > of a single shot after compsing it with a pile of others. Any other [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Will you also be echoing D-Mac's rant about how a digital image is not > a photograph? It doesn't matter whether it was 1 or 2 images that was used. The point is that it's a brilliant piece of work done by a very talented photographer. All pro photographers do this. That's the art of photography. I can only imagine what Ansel Adams would have done with his pics had he been alive with todays technologies. Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 12:06 AM: > It doesn't matter whether it was 1 or 2 images that was used. The > point is that it's a brilliant piece of work done no it's certainly not. Adjust the gamma of your monitor properly and you'll see the very obvious and obnoxious colour banding around the moon. And the colour of moonlight is not shades of brown, like most of the Canon shots Bret shows. On second thoughts: don't bother, it's obvious you don't have the foggiest what gamma is. Keep gushing, it's entertaining and comical. > All pro photographers do this. They most certainly don't do this: they wouldn't be pro photographers, just like Bret isn't. > That's the art of > photography. No, that's the art of image making. Nothing wrong with it either. Just call it by the proper name. > I can only imagine what Ansel Adams would have done with > his pics had he been alive with todays technologies. Keep imagining, because that's all it is. > Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 12:06 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Keep imagining, because that's all it is. FYI I viewed his pic at work on an LCD monitor and my home monitor and you are wrong. But I've had it trying to reason with you. You are just a classless fool who delights in calling people names. You have it in for Bret, me and anyone else who is a fan of Bret's. Why waste water on weeds. Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 1:46 AM: > FYI I viewed his pic at work on an LCD monitor and my home monitor and > you are wrong. But I've had it trying to reason with you. You are > just a classless fool who delights in calling people names. You have > it in for Bret, me and anyone else who is a fan of Bret's. > Why waste water on weeds. Keep insulting everyone who shows you for the fake you are: it's enlightening. Oh, and BTW: I'd much rather be "classless" than engage in the low intelligence demonstrated with your every single post. > Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 1:46 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > in the low intelligence demonstrated with > your every single post. You ARE too funny for words! Low intelligence?! LOL, who is the one who stoops to slandering me and others with low class name calling? At least I do contribute solid photographic info now and then. Your contributions consist of instigating arguments. You remind me of a skinhead. And that is sad. Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 11:53 AM: > You ARE too funny for words! Low intelligence?! Yes: yours. > LOL, who is the one who stoops to slandering me and others with low class name calling? Every single time, only after YOU and the "others" initiate the slandering. What's the matter: can't take you own medicine, you coward? BTW: have you noticed the ONLY "others" are the bunch of groupies and trolls from the craphole you call pbase? Oh, never mind: I know it's a strain for you to think for more than 5 seconds... > At least I do contribute solid photographic info now and then. BWAHAHAHAHA! Joke of the decade! > Your contributions consist of instigating arguments. You aren't intelligent enough to understand ANY photographic contributions. much less arguments. > You remind me of a skinhead. And that is sad. Please: your memories are revolting. Do refrain from sharing your mental imagery: we don't need to be sickened by the crap that goes on in that abject thing you call a mind... > Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 11:53 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > sickened by the crap that goes on in that abject thing > you call a mind... You bore me noons. cads/brutes always do. As I said, a fine example you set for your children. Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 22/06/2008 1:02 AM: > You bore me noons. cads/brutes always do. As I said, a fine example > you set for your children. I'm glad they've been trained to spot stupid scam artists like you at a distance. On Jun 19, 6:28 pm, Mark Thomas <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote: > >>>>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98912314/original > >>> Great use of combining two images. The lake scene and the full moon. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Hi Mark, I had already know what Bret had done and I thank you for your consideration in your reply, I just wanted to bust his chops a little and get him to tell what he was able to do. He has been one of my favorite photographers for several years. I put his work against Adams, Tony Sweet, Mary Ellen Mark, and a whole bunch of other fine folk whom I had come to know. So thanks for your reply and hope you will contintue contributing to this news group. Draco |
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
|
©2008 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.