 |
 | 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 / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / December 2005The myth of 1600 ISO
Some time back I made the outrageous claim that a Panasonic FZ20 'Digicam' took better pictures in low light than a Canon 20D. At the time I didn't have any interest in documenting the claim. I just accepted that there were unshakable believers in the God of EOS who cry foul whenever anyone questions the ability of a Canon product, and went on with my life. Today, I have a 5D to compare the FZ against. I really like this 5D but I gotta tell you, I'm having some issues trying to get the best from it. No doubt I will overcome them but along the way, I'm re-discovering what I found with the 20D in low light is pretty much the same for the 5D. http://www.photosbydouglas.com/ISO-myth.htm Please yourself if you choose to believe or not believe my sincerity. Choose yourself too, if you see this as a beat up on Canon or a genuine attempt at enlightenment. In the event you disagree, see if you can find someone who cares, eh?  SignatureAnonymously I post, knowing Microsoft and Google are recording ever keystroke, every source IP and every poster's name for all eternity. How big is big brother, for Christ sake? Interesting read and I agree completely with your introduction. IMHO the fastest way to improved results with any camera is to understand it's strong and weak points and control them during use. In your comparos the use of a tripod and MLU would've allowed the use of a much lower ISO on the dslr and changed the result, IMHO, by a country mile. I also would've liked to have seen the use of an IS lens on the dslr. As the shot from the P&S demonstrates, this is the prefect scene, (low-light and static objects), to show off the advantage of IS. Thanks for sharing. cheers, bazz. Signaturesir_bazz > Today, I have a 5D to compare the FZ against. I really like this 5D but > I gotta tell you, I'm having some issues trying to get the best from it. > No doubt I will overcome them but along the way, I'm re-discovering what > I found with the 20D in low light is pretty much the same for the 5D. > > http://www.photosbydouglas.com/ISO-myth.htm CANON: Exposure Time: 1/40 sec PANASONIC: Exposure Time: 10/40 sec I gave up reading after that... Scott >>Today, I have a 5D to compare the FZ against. I really like this 5D but >>I gotta tell you, I'm having some issues trying to get the best from it. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Scott Have you never seen split odds Scott? It might not mean anything to you but to someone analyzing their images, it is important. One of the least important things I want to see is the timing of the shutter. I already know what it was in the viewfinder, this data tells me if it actually fired for the period it should have. 10/40th is an accurate measurement of the duration of exposure. Just to bore you further, here is the full EXIF header minus the camera owner and serial number. --- EXIF Data --- Make = Panasonic Model = DMC-FZ20 Orientation = Normal XResolution = 72.00 YResolution = 72.00 Resolution Unit = Inch Software = Ver1.0 Date Time = 2005:12:18 09:07:29 YCb Cr Positioning = Co-sited Exif Offset = 418 Exposure Time = 10/40 sec FNumber = F2.8 Exposure Program = Normal ISOSpeed Ratings = 200 Exif Version = "0220" Date Time Original = 2005:12:18 09:07:29 Date Time Digitized = 2005:12:18 09:07:29 Components Configuration = YCbCr Compressed Bits Per Pixel = 4/1 Exposure Bias Value = 0/100 Max Aperture Value = F3.0 Metering Mode = MultiSegment Light Source = Unidentified Flash = Off, surpressed Focal Length = 10.80 mm Maker Note = "Panasonic" Flash Pix Version = "0100" Color Space = sRGB Exif Image Width = 2560 Exif Image Length = 1920 Interoperability Offset = 6652 Interoperability Index = R98 Interoperability Version = "0100" Sensing Method = OneChipColorArea File Source = "." Scene Type = "." Custom Rendered = Custom process Exposure Mode = Auto White Balance = Auto Digital Zoom Ratio = 0/10 Focal Lengthin35mm Film = 65.00 mm Scene Capture Type = Standard Gain Control = Low gain up Contrast = Normal Saturation = Normal Sharpness = Normal SignatureAnonymously I post, knowing Microsoft and Google are recording ever keystroke, every source IP and every poster's name for all eternity. How big is big brother, for Christ sake? Scott Howard skrev: >>Today, I have a 5D to compare the FZ against. I really like this 5D but >>I gotta tell you, I'm having some issues trying to get the best from it. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Scott It seems to be ok: 10/40= 1/4 at 200 iso= 1/8 at 400 iso=1/16 at 800 iso= 1/32 at 1600 plus Canons reputation for being a little faster (isowise) But what is the big deal? The FZ is noisier at 200 than the 5D at 1600 (see the shadows to the right) Thats how it is supposed to be or even worse than that for the FZ SignatureMed venlig hilsen, Ole Larsen. New Images And Design 2005-11-17 http://home.tiscali.dk/muggler > Today, I have a 5D to compare the FZ against. I really like this 5D but > I gotta tell you, I'm having some issues trying to get the best from it. Understandable. > No doubt I will overcome them but along the way, I'm re-discovering what > I found with the 20D in low light is pretty much the same for the 5D. > > http://www.photosbydouglas.com/ISO-myth.htm > In the event you disagree, see if you can find > someone who cares, eh? Well, I'll post in the off chance there is someone reading who cares, eh? Realistically, there isn't much demonstrated by the full-frame shots when they have been resized to 320 pixels wide. Many defects just wouldn't show at that size. The cropped full size pics tell a bit more, but with the cropped areas showing portions of the image that do not contain a lot of detail it is had to make a useful comparsion, that said a few observations: On the FZ crop: It looks like an artistic filter has been run over the image, something like colored pencil in photoshop. I'm not accusing Mr. Anonymous of doing this, I think it is a feature of the FZ, is the front of the computer case really that textured, or the edge of the USB cable that rough? The is a loss of detail evident, look at the "TM" of Gigabyte, the word "TECHNOLOGY" under Gigabyte There is significant posterisation of the chrome on the case, even at ISO200. There is significant shadow noise. If you are interested in doing some more tests I would suggest a few things: * A scene that contains a level of detail that will demonstrate the cameras ability to resolve the detail at higher ISOs. * Camera settings that would allow one to capture a scene with some movement, eg a wedding ceremony where subjects are not holding still for a quarter of a second. * Tripods for both cameras or IS lenses on both cameras. I'd also like to see the newspaper print test shots for these claims that the FZ lens out classes all your Canon/Sigma lenses bar the 50m prime. KC >>Today, I have a 5D to compare the FZ against. I really like this 5D but >>I gotta tell you, I'm having some issues trying to get the best from it. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > KC Not going to happen Ken. Feel free to continue testing on your own volition. I'm sure you'll find someone in Sydney who'll lend you a FZ for a while so you can carry on. It's not as if they are a sellout. The focus problem I uncovered with the 5D while doing this test is a back focus error. The camera is focusing 30mm past the focus point at 900 mm using a f2.8 lens. Back to Canon in the morning with a list of warranty faults with this one. This is the 3rd (out of 5)DSLR from them I've had in 3 years with this same problem. You'd think for 5 grand you'd get a camera someone had actually done a few pre-delivery tests on, wouldn't you? I can only imagine the damage this lack of Quality Control does to the spirits of those who can't afford to get to know their cameras properly before putting them to work. I was able to adjust the back focus myself on the 10D but this one is a wee bit more complicated. Just under 500 frames and I think I know it well enough now to use it in battle. My D2X and none of the E300s have this problem. Of course they aren't up to the level of this one either although the Nikon is not far off if you discount the fractional sensor. I guess I should feel lucky. At least it hasn't locked up, fried itself, shut down or needed a couple of firmware upgrades to get it working :-) And I still keep coming back for more! SignatureAnonymously I post, knowing Microsoft and Google are recording ever keystroke, every source IP and every poster's name for all eternity. How big is big brother, for Christ sake? > Not going to happen Ken. Fair enough, thanks for what you've done so far. I think from what you've shown the FZ at ISO200 gives a lower quality output than the 5D at ISO1600 and that ISO1600 is more than capable of achieving a result in demanding conditions which is what I would have expected. I don't think that ISO1600 on the 5D (20D, and piers) can be bettered by any other camera (or color film) available today. KC > Some time back I made the outrageous claim that a Panasonic FZ20 > 'Digicam' took better pictures in low light than a Canon 20D. At the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.photosbydouglas.com/ISO-myth.htm I don't understand - you are showing that an image from the Canon shot at ISO 1600 and 1/40s has similar noise to an image shot on a Panasonic at ISO 200 and 1/4s. Doesn't this just show that the Canon has very good noise performance at a high ISO? >>Some time back I made the outrageous claim that a Panasonic FZ20 >>'Digicam' took better pictures in low light than a Canon 20D. At the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 200 and 1/4s. Doesn't this just show that the Canon has very good noise > performance at a high ISO? Yes it does but it comes at a huge cost. The little FZ cost $900. The 5D over $5000. It is not until you do some "pixel peeping" - get down to the pixel level like the noise pictures show, that either camera makes low light pictures with distractingly noisy images. Don't forget also that the noise pictures are roughly the same size now but started out with the 5D being twice the resolution (therefore -supposedly- twice the definition)of the FZ images. They certainly are better in the area of noise but definitely not twice as good. Also what I didn't post was a capture/save from the 5D roughly equal to the image size of the FZ. I didn't because at the same file size the Canon image is so bad, I figured some people waiting to pounce might say I fudged the figures. Just like the lens thing. With the only prime lens from Canon widely accepted as 'nearly' equal to Leica legend, and only when I manually focused the camera, did I get images from the Canon as clear as the FZ produces. If I had to make a choice and had a small budget, I would certainly look closely at some of these hi-end consumer cameras before I'd jump into a DSLR. I see a lot of images from point and shoot cameras and DSLRs with people wanting enlargements from them. Maybe I'm in a better position than most to know which cameras produce the best pictures. So far I have yet to see a 5D image from mine or any of my client's 5D cameras that is as sharp as those from an Olympus, Canon 20D or Nikon DSLR. Either all 5Ds are soft or all of them have focus errors, or no one I know has yet mastered the art of holding one still! In any case, I think I missed the mark with that article. I tried to show that the fable of ISO 1600 was just folk lore. Other cameras from other makers, using different methods, could produce the same quality pictures at much lower ISO settings. A lot of noise (pardon the pun) is made about the poor performance of various makes of sensors at ISO 800 and above. This was meant to demonstrate that image quality at ISO 1600 has nothing to do with low light photography. Other makers than Canon achieve the same as Canon at much lower ISO settings buy using different design criteria. SignatureAnonymously I post, knowing Microsoft and Google are recording ever keystroke, every source IP and every poster's name for all eternity. How big is big brother, for Christ sake? > With the only prime lens from Canon widely accepted as 'nearly' equal to > Leica legend, and only when I manually focused the camera, did I get > images from the Canon as clear as the FZ produces. The EXIF of the cropped image from the 5D states Auto focus. Is the EXIF incorrect? Interesting to note also is that the Sharpness is set to "Low" I find it hard to believe that the 6-72mm lens on a sub $1000 digi-cam out classes the other lenses you have told us that you own, but would be more than happy to be proven wrong. > If I had to make a choice and had a small budget, I would certainly look > closely at some of these hi-end consumer cameras before I'd jump into a > DSLR. Sure, if the budget was limited, or a small compact camera was preferred, or the ability to shoot movies, or the ability to have a live preview on the LCD, or ... > I see a lot of images from point and shoot cameras and DSLRs with > people wanting enlargements from them. Maybe I'm in a better position > than most to know which cameras produce the best pictures. Which cameras produce the best pictures? What is it about the output that is better? > So far I have yet to see a 5D image from mine or any of my client's 5D > cameras that is as sharp as those from an Olympus, Canon 20D or Nikon > DSLR. Either all 5Ds are soft or all of them have focus errors, or no > one I know has yet mastered the art of holding one still! I would suggest changing the Sharpness setting from the "Low" setting used on your demonstration at a starting point. If holding one still is a problem give a tripod a whirl. > In any case, I think I missed the mark with that article. I tried to > show that the fable of ISO 1600 was just folk lore. What does that mean? > Other cameras from > other makers, using different methods, could produce the same quality > pictures at much lower ISO settings. You haven't explained how the FZ is going to capture a subject that moves, like the church example you keep refering to, when the light is low. A quarter of a second will not cut it. You might get lucky, if the subjects stay still. Do you brief the happy couple to pause and hold their breath during the exchanging of the rings? The first kiss? > A lot of noise (pardon the pun) is made about the poor performance of > various makes of sensors at ISO 800 and above. By you, in two recent threads. > This was meant to > demonstrate that image quality at ISO 1600 has nothing to do with low > light photography. Other makers than Canon achieve the same as Canon at > much lower ISO settings buy using different design criteria. By different design criteria you mean full body braces for low light portraits? To summarise, high ISO should only be used where the shooting conditions necessitate it. Shooting at lower ISOs equates to better photos (on the same camera) if conditions allow (still subject, IS lens, sufficient light). We also learnt that ISO1600 on a 5D outclasses ISO200 on a Panasonic FZ20. KC [CHOMP] > We also learnt that ISO1600 on a 5D outclasses ISO200 on a Panasonic FZ20. No... it's just a myth Ken. ;-) > You haven't explained how the FZ is going to capture a subject that moves, > like the church example you keep refering to, when the light is low. A > quarter of a second will not cut it. You might get lucky, if the subjects > stay still. Do you brief the happy couple to pause and hold their breath > during the exchanging of the rings? The first kiss? As is your form Ken, You have resorted to the poorest form of wit when you have no response of any value. How many couples have you seen at the altar doing an Irish Jig during the ceremony? SignatureAnonymously I post, knowing Microsoft and Google are recording ever keystroke, every source IP and every poster's name for all eternity. How big is big brother, for Christ sake? >> You haven't explained how the FZ is going to capture a subject that >> moves, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You have resorted to the poorest form of wit when you have no response of > any value. But it IS a response of value and Ken makes a very valid point.... but as usual you have resorted to insults when you have no answers for valid points! > How many couples have you seen at the altar doing an Irish Jig during the > ceremony? Irish jig or not, there will always be some degree of subject movement in the shutter speeds that you are talking about. > > You haven't explained how the FZ is going to capture a subject that moves, > > like the church example you keep refering to, when the light is low. A > > quarter of a second will not cut it. You might get lucky, if the subjects > > stay still. Do you brief the happy couple to pause and hold their breath > > during the exchanging of the rings? The first kiss? > As is your form Ken, > You have resorted to the poorest form of wit when you have no response > of any value. How many couples have you seen at the altar doing an Irish > Jig during the ceremony? You have ignored all the questions I put forward in my reply. You seem to believe that 1/4 second is sufficient for capturing the subtle movement of placing the ring on a finger or the first kiss and would take this route over ISO1600 at 1/60 because of a little ISO noise. Quite frankly these are two wedding moments I personally wouldn't be taking at 1/4 of a second but each to their own, you obviously have a lot more experience in these matters than I. KC >You have ignored all the questions I put forward in my reply. Ken, meet Douglas MacDonald. (O; >You seem to believe that 1/4 second is sufficient for capturing the subtle >movement of placing the ring on a finger or the first kiss and would take >this route over ISO1600 at 1/60 because of a little ISO noise. Quite >frankly these are two wedding moments I personally wouldn't be taking at 1/4 >of a second but each to their own, you obviously have a lot more experience >in these matters than I. Do not denigrate yourself, Ken - trust me, you probably have a *load* more *useful* experience. Any 'photographer' who seriously thinks he will capture important one-chance moments shooting at 1/4 second on a shutter-lagged prosumer, has to be kidding us, himself.. and God help his poor clients. This 'Panasonic beats Canon in low-light' thing is Douglas' current obsession, and he won't let facts get in the way. In fact the more information he posts, the sillier his comparisons are displayed to be.. If you look at the shots, apart from the rather important issues of it being 200 versus 1600, and 1/4 second versus 1/40.. the Panasonic shot is TERRIBLE anyway. The FZ20 is a nice camera, but only someone who doesn't know how to drive the Canon would make such meaningless, flawed comparisons. If anything, the page proves exactly the reverse of his claim. (PS - I don't own, or even like Canon much...) >>>You haven't explained how the FZ is going to capture a subject that > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > KC Ken... I hope you have a happy festive season. Merry Christmas in the hope it doesn't offend your religion ...and tell someone who cares if it does :-) The reason I haven't answered any, all or even some of your questions is because I have never taken a photo at a wedding at less than 1/30th second. The fact I probably could do it (maybe not reliably) at 1/4 second means nothing more or less than I have some headroom if pushed. I took the test pics in my workroom with all the shutters closed and no lights on. Quite a bit lower light value than most church interiors. I am not here to answer your questions Ken. I am attempting to obtain opinions from people. Maybe even suggestions. Your suggestion of using a tripod in a situation requiring mobility is not the sort of suggestion I was hoping for. If you want to ask some questions about natural light photography, maybe a forum could yield some answers I can't provide? I am still exploring the subject. What I offer in my quick and dirty web pages - on my wedding site to be sure but not linked from it - is a basic situation I may not be entirely satisfied that I am using best practice to obtain results with and hope someone with more of a clue than me might point out something I don't know that will make my work easier/better/simpler/more productive. I use a monopod quite often and even that is a pain in the arse when you need to change orientation... What do you do with the stick poking out into someone's face? ...and no, the ball head mono pods are not a good idea either. Holding the camera is the answer. How you avoid the problems associated with doing that is a moot point. Any suggestion of the obvious or the basic is worse than telling a Photographer not to forget the film. You simply can't use a tripod in a church during a wedding ceremony, baptism or christening. For starters the Priest is the fellow you don't want to upset and setting up a film studio in his church or flashing him with a GN80 Speedlite is just about the fastest way to get thrown out, never to return to that church again. The principal reason I don't use a DSLR or even a SLR inside a church during a ceremony is the same reason I don't use a flash in a church - distraction. The FZ20 can be totally silent when it's sound is switched off and as I demonstrated, works quite OK without a flash. Any SLR, be it a RB67 or SR110, makes a considerable noise when the mirror swings away. It wouldn't matter how good a SLR is in low light, it is simply a totally unsuitable camera when a Photographer is trying to be as unnoticed as possible. Once you get past the ceremony and onto signing, kissing and such, there is no point in NOT using a camera able to capture the highest quality images possible - flash included. Always believe the EXIF Ken. People - me in particular often get it wrong. I took a dozen shots with that camera lens combination, all at the same position, trying to get a sharp picture from the 5D at such low shutter speeds. It is entirely possible I pulled the EXIF from an image I had the Auto focus on with, and used it in place of the real one. All else is identical so does it matter? I'll go through all the images and check which one I used and precisely what the EXIF is if you really, absolutely, must know. SignatureAnonymously I post, knowing Microsoft and Google are recording ever keystroke, every source IP and every poster's name for all eternity. How big is big brother, for Christ sake? >>>>You haven't explained how the FZ is going to capture a subject that >> [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > which one I used and precisely what the EXIF is if you really, absolutely, > must know. you obviously have way too much time on your hands... business a little quiet? > I hope you have a happy festive season. Merry Christmas in the hope it > doesn't offend your religion ...and tell someone who cares if it does :-) Merry Christmas to you and yours too. > Your suggestion of using a > tripod in a situation requiring mobility is not the sort of suggestion I > was hoping for. I did not suggest using a tripod in the church, I suggested using a tripod in you 'test' shots to eliminate the chance of blur at slower shutter speeds, as did others. The other suggestion was to use an IS lens, also suggested by others. > If you want to ask some questions about natural light > photography, maybe a forum could yield some answers I can't provide? I > am still exploring the subject. I don't need answers right now, but thanks. If I did need some pointers I m sure that *many* in this forum could help. Cam, Russ, Karl, kosh, Rob, Dave E ... many experienced and accomplished photographers right here in aus.photo. <chomp> > For starters > the Priest is the fellow you don't want to upset and setting up a film > studio in his church or flashing him with a GN80 Speedlite is just about > the fastest way to get thrown out, never to return to that church again. You are firing a GN80 at full whack in a low light wedding situation? I'd ask why only you'd ignore me. If you are not firing it at full whack, why mention the guide number? As a matter of interest, how many/what percentage of priests/brides/... have you had refuse flash when asked? > The principal reason I don't use a DSLR or even a SLR inside a church > during a ceremony is the same reason I don't use a flash in a church - > distraction. The FZ20 can be totally silent when it's sound is switched > off and as I demonstrated, works quite OK without a flash. Where did you demonstrate the FZ's capabilities at a wedding, I must have missed that sorry. Could you repost the link? I should think the bride and her Mum would be happier with the occasional burst of light and shutter slap than having 'the shot' blurred. > Always believe the EXIF Ken. People - me in particular often get it > wrong. I took a dozen shots with that camera lens combination, all at > the same position, trying to get a sharp picture from the 5D at such low > shutter speeds. It is entirely possible I pulled the EXIF from an image > I had the Auto focus on with, and used it in place of the real one. All > else is identical so does it matter? 5D: Sharpness = Low FZ: Sharpness = Normal > I'll go through all the images and > check which one I used and precisely what the EXIF is if you really, > absolutely, must know. No Douglas, I don't. But thanks. If you ever get a break in your schedule I wouldn't mind hearing the response to these: * Examples of where the FZ lens outperforms your arsenal of EF mount lenses (I assume you've already done the tests?) In response to: > I see a lot of images from point and shoot cameras and DSLRs with > people wanting enlargements from them. Maybe I'm in a better position > than most to know which cameras produce the best pictures. * Which cameras produce the best pictures? * What is it about the output that is better? * What does the "the fable of ISO 1600 was just folk lore" mean? Okay, scrap the last one ... only messing about. Ho Ho Ho. KC > As is your form Ken, > You have resorted to the poorest form of wit when you have no response of > any value. Come on oxygen burgler... in the value stakes you are definitely on the receiving end and not giving much. > How many couples have you seen at the altar doing an Irish Jig during the > ceremony? I am glad you never shot our wedding... every shot a blur at 1.4sec But then again, I would get a pretty box of 50 blurry snapshots for $650 shot with a compact point and shoot. > I am glad you never shot our wedding... every shot a blur at 1.4sec > But then again, I would get a pretty box of 50 blurry snapshots for $650 > shot with a compact point and shoot. I guess you must feel extremely fortunate then? I've just gotten through processing the films from 25 throw aways a bride decided would get her all she needed in the way of memories of the event. Maybe she's lucky I phoned her before making any prints? It's only going to cost here $75 for the processing instead of another $300 for a box full of "Blurry snapshots". How much did she save off my budget price? Nothing. $250 for cameras, $75 for processing and not a single picture worth printing. Even if she'd gotten a high level of keepers It still would have cost her more. None of my customers in the last 42 years have offered any complaints of "blurry images". Why would they start now? It seems to me that you presume because 1/4th of a second shutter speed is the slowest I've been able to get clear pictures with from this camera, I go around with that speed glued to ever shot. From your sarcasm I also glean you have no idea what a picture from a FZ20 Panasonic with a Leica Vario-Elmarit, f2.8 lens actually looks like. Well here is an example, bastardized for web display but still sharp enough to blow away most pictures from consumer zoom lenses ...offered at absurd prices by the Japanese camera makers: http://www.photosbydouglas.com/cat's-whisker.htm And merry Christmas to you too :-) SignatureAnonymously I post, knowing Microsoft and Google are recording ever keystroke, every source IP and every poster's name for all eternity. How big is big brother, for Christ sake? > From your sarcasm I also glean you have no idea what a picture from a FZ20 > Panasonic with a Leica Vario-Elmarit, f2.8 lens actually looks like. Well > here is an example, bastardized for web display but still sharp enough to > blow away most pictures from consumer zoom lenses ...offered at absurd > prices by the Japanese camera makers: > http://www.photosbydouglas.com/cat's-whisker.htm You are joking right? >>From your sarcasm I also glean you have no idea what a picture from a FZ20 >>Panasonic with a Leica Vario-Elmarit, f2.8 lens actually looks like. Well [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are joking right? What do you think Russell? SignatureAnonymously I post, knowing Microsoft and Google are recording ever keystroke, every source IP and every poster's name for all eternity. How big is big brother, for Christ sake? >>>From your sarcasm I also glean you have no idea what a picture from a >>>FZ20 Panasonic with a Leica Vario-Elmarit, f2.8 lens actually looks like. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> You are joking right? > What do you think Russell? Presenting that image to backup "sharp enough to blow away most pictures from consumer zoom lenses"..... you would have to be! Funny guy! :-) >>>>From your sarcasm I also glean you have no idea what a picture from a >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Funny guy! :-) With your saber like wit, I'm surprised Russell, you even had to ask. Must be a slow day in paradise, eh? SignatureAnonymously I post, knowing Microsoft and Google are recording ever keystroke, every source IP and every poster's name for all eternity. How big is big brother, for Christ sake? >> From your sarcasm I also glean you have no idea what a picture from >> a FZ20 Panasonic with a Leica Vario-Elmarit, f2.8 lens actually [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are joking right? I think that's pretty obvious. >> I am glad you never shot our wedding... every shot a blur at 1.4sec >> But then again, I would get a pretty box of 50 blurry snapshots for $650 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to cost here $75 for the processing instead of another $300 for a box full > of "Blurry snapshots". Not sure what you mean here I was referring to the following package http://www.photosbydouglas.com/packages.htm "This package consists of a collage of photographs including arrival of the Wedding party at the venue. Photos of the ceremony, signing of the registry and Wedding portraits following the ceremony. We provide 50, 125mm x 150mm photos in a beautiful presentation box. An option is to purchase a CD of all your images for an extra $50.00." and yes was referring to your FZ20 as a point and shoot. I recall an article from a leading UK wedding photographer who used Leica rangefinder cameras to shoot weddings. He said he could often blend in with the crowd as they just thought he had a point and shoot. Often got a jeer and laugh from some guests when stated he was wedding photographer. The results were always outstanding (the last laugh) > From your sarcasm I also glean you have no idea what a picture from a FZ20 > Panasonic with a Leica Vario-Elmarit, f2.8 lens actually looks like. Well > here is an example, bastardized for web display but still sharp enough to > blow away most pictures from consumer zoom lenses ...offered at absurd > prices by the Japanese camera makers: > http://www.photosbydouglas.com/cat's-whisker.htm I guess I should remain in sarcastic mode, as the caption states: >Now you know what "Sharp as a cat's whisker looks like! However it aint that sharp, and to state the obvious the overall image looks shocking!! > And merry Christmas to you too :-) Yep although being a nitpicker... merry Christmas... aint worth getting wound up.. hopefully that means a break from work and time with family The autofocus is zzzzzzzzzzzzzz slow on the Panosonic compared to my Fuji s2pro and Minolta 7d, both are not known for speedy autofocus. As i use the school one instead of my own gear when i shoot concerts and school productions I can say that most shots end up being blurry due to SUBJECT MOVEMENT and zzzzzzzzzzzzzz autofocus. So Doug why dont you get a MInolta 5D and you will have antishake, fast autofocus and 1600iso???? > Some time back I made the outrageous claim that a Panasonic FZ20 'Digicam' > took better pictures in low light than a Canon 20D. At the time I didn't [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > attempt at enlightenment. In the event you disagree, see if you can find > someone who cares, eh? > The autofocus is zzzzzzzzzzzzzz slow on the Panosonic compared to my Fuji > s2pro and Minolta 7d, both are not known for speedy autofocus. As i use the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So Doug why dont you get a MInolta 5D and you will have antishake, fast > autofocus and 1600iso???? That would be a backward step, don't you think? >> The autofocus is zzzzzzzzzzzzzz slow on the Panosonic compared to my Fuji >> s2pro and Minolta 7d, both are not known for speedy autofocus. As i use [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That would be a backward step, don't you think? Er...no, you can sell the FZ20 and come out ahead. //Adam F Douglas, Did you ever stop to ask yourself why the FZ20's Noise reduction modes only offer 'Low', 'Standard' & 'High', and why there's no 'Off'? Or why there's no 'RAW' output? The bleeding obvious answer, and widely documented too, is that the FZ20 has to pre-process and soften the images to get rid of the inherent pixel noise the FZ20 suffers from at all ISO levels. In spite of Panasonic's efforts, "Noise is an ever-present problem at higher ISOs (a 'feature' of this sensor)" - dpreview - and "noise is low but detectable at ISOs 80 and 100. At ISO 200, it becomes more evident (although still within what I'd consider to be an acceptable range), but some detail is lost to the anti-noise processing, in areas of subtle contrast. At ISO 400, the noise is more pronounced, as is the detail loss. ... The large blotches from noise and the associated noise-reduction processing gave the long-exposure ISO 400 images an almost painterly look, blurring details slightly in the process." - imaging resource. And you have the hide to compare a pre-processed and post-processed ISO 80 image (and most recently an ISO 200 image) from an FZ20 to the post-processed image at ISO 1600 (but no pre-processing) from the Canon 5D and try to pass this off as a real world example image of the FZ20 outclassing the 5D in low light, under the same conditions, with the former as being superior to the latter. Even with all the help you've given it, the FZ20's ISO 200 image is patently noisier, 'blotchy' and lacking in detail compared to the Canon 5D image. I think I know now what that purple fringing is you're suffering from. > Douglas, > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > I think I know now what that purple fringing is you're suffering from. Another worshiper of the God of EOS pays homage. Praise EOS. You too miss the painfully obvious. And such an eminent deciple too. I am not surprised. The new potions from EOS are blinding people far and wide. Are there any amongst you who have not been either blinded by the hype or turned to salt for daring to look with open eyes? There is still time. One or two may surface. Let's see you print a photograph Macropod, at 72 PPI and have any clarity in it. It is only when you engage in the relatively new pastime of "pixel peeping" you ever see what I showed you in those images. Print them and it isn't there. But you knew this didn't you? >> Douglas, >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > You too miss the painfully obvious. And such an eminent deciple too. I am > not surprised. The new potions from EOS are blinding people far and wide. And the "2005 Ken Rockwell Award" goes to..... >>>Douglas, >>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > And the "2005 Ken Rockwell Award" goes to..... Don't use the name of my idol in vain Russell SignatureAnonymouse? >>>>Douglas, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Don't use the name of my idol in vain Russell Why doesn't that surprise me? After reading about half of these post I can only say that as a photographer who edits over 2000 images per week....alot of you people have way to much time on your hands worrying about how sharp, how noisey, how contrasty and how to search for the "perfect image" from a $500 or for that matter $3000 camera. I mean Js Chrst...what are you folks looking for? A camera is only as good as the person behind the shutter. I don't care if it's a Fuji Fine Pix or a Canon Mark 1Ds with a $5000 L glass lens. HELLO...IT'S NOT GOING TO DO ALL THE WORK FOR YOU. First of all, learn how to take pictures and make a proper exposure. Second of all Ansil said it best "It's not about photography...it's about the picture." Now forget about all this anal bull crap about the mechanics of some camera....TAKE SOME DAMN PICTURES!!! By the way I shoot a Canon 20D with Tokina 2.8 glass. I do weddings...about 75 to 100 a year and fine art. The 20D is hands down the best camera on the market for the price. I would put my work up against anybody with a camera at twice the price. I never, never, never have the need or the inclination to shoot above ISO 400. Unless it's almost pitch black dark...and then why would I want a picture in that setting unless I want to piss off some client with some artsy shot that he or she would probably send to the round file. I vary rarely need a tripod because I know how to use a flash and a light meter...even in a church or a semi-dark reception hall. Maybe some lessons in flash photography are in order. So, you do 'fine art', do you, Ben? And yet: > I vary rarely need a tripod because I know how to use a flash >and a light meter...even in a church or a semi-dark reception hall. Eeeurgh. Good attitude. (You and Douglas would probably get on fine - you produce similar quality work, and obviously have a similar grasp of high-level photography techniques.....(grin)) ..and you call persons who use high ISO's 'idiots'.. ..and you are seemingly the *only* poster in the 'worlds-greatest-wedding-photographers' newsgroup. A post well worth reading, for a laugh. I think we have heard enough, Ben. You are a troll, a w.nker, or a complete frigging loony. By the way... nice shooting, Tex..: http://www.worldsgreatestweddingphotographer.com/mp_photos/4363/CORY_AND_AMANDA_ FROM_WYOMING_030f.jpg That link shows one of Ben's beeeaautiful flash shots. Yes, we can certainly see your talent. (Note that he is also one of those twits who uses Javascript to disable right-clicking, so you can't *possibly* get at his images..... Oh. Whoops. Sorry, Ben. Try harder. . > So, you do 'fine art', do you, Ben? And yet: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Oh. Whoops. Sorry, Ben. Try harder. > . Well, I can right-click and save that shot - at least I right-clicked and got the save screen - but who would want to save *that* image?? It must have been taken with a 20mm lens, right up the noses of the poor subjects from about a foot away - rampant distortion, a travesty of a photograph. We know who the IDIOT PHOTOGRAPHER is. Major mistake posting here, boyo. Colin D. >> So, you do 'fine art', do you, Ben? And yet: >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Colin D. There was a similar site in the UK that was discussed in DPReview recently and it was a joke site.... surely this site with a URL like http://www.worldsgreatestweddingphotographer.com is the same??? OK OK sorry for the idiot comment...it was meant tougue in cheek and not really to be insulting but in hindsight it was bad form of me to say that. However insults from some of you photogs are not lacking on this site and since it's a Message Board and not a Billboard on I95 I see it the same as all of us sitting at the bar and having a few laughs. As one who shoots 3 to 6 weddings a month and many corporate events. I vary rarly have the need to shoot at 1600. Yes all the noise stuff can be somewhat relavent but I have done some nice shots with noise a'plenty and its the composition and emotion that makes a picture way more than it's technical aspect. Do I use a tripod...of course I do. Do I lug one around 200 people at an event...hell no. Then I'd be the idiot. Thats an accident just waiting to happen. Even though I have the domain name worlds greatest w p ... that name is for promotion only. I have to pay my bills and mortgage with my photography not to mention FEED MY FAMILY and I do so very well...how many of you pri madonnas can do that. I don't believe for a minute that I am better than anyone skilled with an SLR. Photography is a subjective art form. Whats crap to one person it absolute beauty from God to another. The only things that makes photography an objective art are insecure photographers with huge egos. Photographers don't pay my bills...clients do. I could care less what anyone post about photography in general or even less about all the anal techno jargon that goes on in these messages boards. I shoot for some clients that most condescending technotogs on this board could only wish and pray for.( Hey "technotogs" ya heard it here first folks!!!) I don't like to put down other peoples work in public. As far as I am concerned that's a judgement call reserved for the people who write the checks for the shoots. Not some poster from who knows where. My sole reason for even being on this site is indexing in the search engines...not to engage anyone in photographic religiousity. And since this stuff doesn't seem to get picked up by the google engine...writing this stuff really gets reduced to an excerise in futility. However...there does seem to be some people on this board who have some excellent advice. Unlike the days of film, which for the most part is OVER! The digital world represents changes that take place in weeks as opposed to years. Who can keep up with all of it...I can't. But one thing seems certain...there will always be wannabies who know better than anyone else. There will always be photographers who think their way is the only way, even with 100 combinations of speed and aperture in 100 different light settings at 500 different locations. Their will always be photographers who think that being a photographer holds some cool and social high ground. There will always be photographers who take pictures for a hobby and there will always be photographers who live to shoot and shoot to live. I shoot from my heart first and my head second...I'll let you folks worry about the mechanics. I take pictures...not hostages. As for the complements of my work from my peers...THANK YOU so much. Please give me the opportunity to return the complement. Now go take some pictures!!!! Ben Michalski www.myultimateaffair.com Marylands One Stop Wedding and Event Shop. Are you finished? Did the same person/s who wrote those glowing reviews, *also* write this?: >Ben Michalski has to be one of the best wedding photographer >in Maryland. His work is unbelievable! Why do I ask? Because YOU wrote that, Ben. About yourself. And when people do silly things like that (amongst all the other efforts you've tried on so far) - one tends to think that *anything* they write will be of equal value, and be just as much an egocentric lie. If you want to be taken seriously, don't treat people as fools. Yes, there may well be enough of them born every minute to keep you and your family fed - more power to you if that is the case. But there will be others who don't take so kindly to that treatment, and will treat you in a similar way in return. Good luck with your business, nevertheless. You may need it. And for what it is worth, and as others here know, I used to shoot weddings professionally on MF equipment (you know - that stuff that some of us 'idiots' use because their clients *do* want sharp prints over-and-above 11x8's...) for a large metropolitan studio. But this isn't a group intended for self-aggrandisement and advertising, so I'll spare everyone the accolades. Maybe you might do the same. well, well....aren't we a bit egocentric too. My post to test indexing may have been self -aggrandizing however I never though for a minute I would stumble on what seems to be " the pompous a.s...or should I saw arse...board" Yes I do thank you for your left field complements or maybe those were from Colon...opps sorry o'le chap...Colin. Yes, I can be an idiot as I am sure you with all your dazzlng and witty arrogance are somehow immune to. It seems that if some photographer where to stumble onto this board and was looking to make a comment he or she had better watch out for all you benevolent and moral high ground watchers of the halls of the high and mighty. I did realize after the fact I was posting on ARS.PHOTO...opps! sorry mate :) AUS PHOTO. and did not intend to offend your sensibilities nor raise your eyebrows any higher than they already are. As for treating people as fools this seems to be the place to do it...and you seem to be the honcho. That's a word we yanks use for "big shot." I did not think for a minute that posting a tongue in cheek comment about myself to check indexing would garner such scorn and smug replies. I thought I was pretty good at ego centricity but I am just "bush league" when it comes to your prosaic diatribe. And to think I can't even address you by name...but maybe that's just how you cover your own insecurities. So let me "finish" by saying...Kiss My Arse?:) And "good luck" to you tooooo!!! tally ho! Now...ca'mon back and try to condescend better than you already have. O...by the way, aggrandizement is spelled with a Z...not an S :) > O...by the way, aggrandizement is spelled with a Z...not an S :) Is that a zed or a zee? it's a Zeeeeeee!!!! > it's a Zeeeeeee!!!! Nothing like Christmas booze, is there! -- Jeff R. (whose OED allows both) P.P.S...In order to cease from offending anyone else I have removed my post...however this one shall stay....let's just say as a tribute to your pious writ. (OT, sorry.) Yes, art/Ben, for the *uneducated*, the 'correct' spelling is with a Z... *In America*. Some folks seem to think the USA is the only place that exists. http://dict.die.net/aggrandisement/ http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=aggrandisement Anyway, I must go take some pictures - I wonder what *flavour* of *colour* photography I will pick today - I *apologise* for all this offensive spelling, but perhaps you might want to look these words up in something other than a US-only dictionary - expand your cultural knowledge. 'Pious wit'? Hmm. Perhaps justifiably... I note you have not disputed any of what I said, just *tried to* pick on the spelling.. (O: no charz or whomever...I did post something in addition to the spelling comment. But removed it post haste after considering how you "band of nothing else to do but gang up on the yanks...w.nkers" group ply your internet wherewithal. I have come to the conclusion that I did...by accident...invade your turf with what I will admit was "egregious" on my part. I gave it careful thought and examined my intent. I did initially do it for a test on indexing. Nothing more. However you...blokes?? guys/gals..dudes or whatever you call yourselves seem intent on exerting your pedantic wit irrispective of anyones intent. I do aggree with you that in order to be taken seriously one does have to respect the boundries of internet protocal and photographic knowledge and I violated this "holy arena" with a self-aggrandizing and selfish post. However this does not preclude in any way shape or form, your *polemique sanctimony*...shall we say???? But when I guess one such as your self and the seemingly rest of the "aussie board bangers" have no other outlet to display such dazzling and wry wit but by beating up one someone with words who you could never go "mano a mano" with in person...than I respect this utter and insecure need that you seem to display. I think it was you who asked me with such *penchant for diatribe* "are you finished" Ben...??? Only to continue your post with such *existintial glee* Actually *tis* I who was wrong to begin with...and you, who I am sure, seek out venues such as this to exert your intellectual babble and mental superiority to somehow enhance your obvious genteel and insipidly petty life. (smile) Frankly and in retrospect...I find you somewhat as pathetic as my first post. ( big smile) So in conclusion I will take my leave of you and "the halls of the photographic high and mighty" and "get bout my bizzzzzzness!!!!" I will however leave you wonderful psudo intellectuals with a comment that after giving more thought fits vary well in this group....to you and all the rest of you w.nkers and trolls ( your words not mine) talk about name calling...isn't that one rich. ( huge smile) I shall go with three words...kiss....my....(and I'll leave the last one for you to do a search on) (biggest smile of all) ta ta.... However, I am certain, that now..... you may be the one who isn't finished... >I shall go with three words...kiss....my....(and I'll leave the last >one for you to do a search on) (biggest smile of all) That would be a small donkey to you, and a protracted (or is it 'prolapsed') vowel (or is it 'bowel') sound, for us antipodeans.. Don't let the door hit it on the way out.. Do check *all* your responses - do you see *anybody* who is agreeing with you and supporting you? I'm sure you *are* right.... but I'll stay pious. And in my quest for the last word, may I *also* say, pulling your posts back tells a lot about you... (O: (That's just a little smile - you can retain the 'biggest smile' crown - it's just like your 'best wedding photographer' one..) That would be a small donkey to you, and a protracted (or is it 'prolapsed') vowel (or is it 'bowel') sound, for us antipodeans.. I knew you couldn,t resist....antipodeans... wouldn't Clacker... be a better word for you ..C I think * prolapsed* better suits you and your ilk. Not to mention the *date* with the Sylvester comment. ROFL > So in conclusion I will take my leave of you and "the halls of the > photographic high and mighty" and "get bout my bizzzzzzness!!!!" > I will however leave you wonderful psudo intellectuals with a comment > that after giving more thought fits vary well in this group....to you > and all the rest of you w.nkers and trolls ( your words not mine) > talk about name calling...isn't that one rich. ( huge smile) You write like Sylvester Stallone spoke when he decided he needed to re-invent himself - he too sounded like he'd inhaled a dictionary. I think your only egregious error was that you posted a link to a site - greatest wedding photographer or something - which was full of surprisingly bad photographs. Either it was an inspired piece of satire that flew over most of our heads, or you photograph comme la merde, and to add insult to injury, you actually charge cash money for it. Colin...I don't know Java script from Java Cup....that site is a cookie cutter site. Its a electronic business card. Not some alter to my work...as some folks on here obviously feel their sites are. Thanks for the review ...mate! Rob...I will apologize to you personally for calling into question your use of 1600 ISO for your horse shots ( do you shoot horses in a dark barn?) what a novel concept:) I guess they look great in ambient light. I bet the horses really like it:) By the way folks....here is the latest email from a wedding I shot last month. Here is what some of you "w.nkers and "trolls" can only fantasize about. And also by the way thanks for getting my site indexed into google...it worked after all... I guess this little review will also get indexed...thank you so much fellas...I just love you guys!!! :) Ben, When I first contacted Pam about your services I was initially just struck by the obvious honesty and integrity she has. I was beginning to think that I might not be able to afford a photographer at all. Then I talked to Pam and she invited me to come to the shop that night. Tom and I walked in and were struck by the beauty of your images. We signed a contract with you for our wedding that night. At the wedding you were wonderful. So helpful and professional and we have been anxiously awaiting your call to let us know that the pictures were ready for us to see them. When we came last night we were blown away by the images you took. We loved the 20 you printed out for us and we were so excited to go home and see the rest. We put in the disk and sat back in awe and watched the slide show. The pictures are amazing!!!!!! You did such a wonderful job. As Tom told you last night you have truly found your calling in life. We will recommend you to anyone we know who has any upcoming events. You are amazing and so is Pam. We thank you for your wonderful work, your integrity, your honesty and your true pleasure in doing your job well. Thank you!! Thank you!! Thank You!! Forever Grateful Tom and Rebecca New comments regarding THE WORLDS GREATEST WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHER!!! :) Ben Michalski www.myultimateaffair.com Ben, When I first contacted Pam about your services I was initially just struck by the obvious honesty and integrity she has. I was beginning to think that I might not be able to afford a photographer at all. Then I talked to Pam and she invited me to come to the shop that night. Tom and I walked in and were struck by the beauty of your images. We signed a contract with you for our wedding that night. At the wedding you were wonderful. So helpful and professional and we have been anxiously awaiting your call to let us know that the pictures were ready for us to see them. When we came last night we were blown away by the images you took. We loved the 20 you printed out for us and we were so excited to go home and see the rest. We put in the disk and sat back in awe and watched the slide show. The pictures are amazing!!!!!! You did such a wonderful job. As Tom told you last night you have truly found your calling in life. We will recommend you to anyone we know who has any upcoming events. You are amazing and so is Pam. We thank you for your wonderful work, your integrity, your honesty and your true pleasure in doing your job well. Thank you!! Thank you!! Thank You!! Forever Grateful Tom and Rebecca Thank you Tom and Rebecca...let me know when the little one eventually arrives...the first pictures are "On The House!" Ben Michalski www.myultimateaffair.com www.worldsgreatestweddingphotographer.com wgwp... all the way to the bank. AMF > Colin...I don't know Java script from Java Cup....that site is a cookie > cutter site. Its a electronic business card. Not some alter to my > work...as some folks on here obviously feel their sites are. Thanks for > the review ...mate! Ok, you say it's an electronic business card. The question in my mind is, 1) was that shot I commented on a serious shot of yours; 2) a fun shot of yours; or 3) not your shot at all? If 1), then I do in all seriousness say it is a terrible shot. It's too close, too 'up the nose' and the features are almost a caricature of the poor subjects, because of the perspective distortion. Not a shot I would expect even to be taken by a pro, let alone published. If 2), then the above still applies, but it should be made more obvious that it's a spoof shot. if 3), then my apologies for attributing it to you. Perhaps you might post some representative shots of yours. And, it's not only this newsgroup. All the photographic NG's I inhabit get pretty direct with posters who are seen as pompous, or ignorant while posing as a pro, etc. This group is no different. Colin D. colon...I really don't care...I mean who the "f '' are you anyway? just another C...@go.com looking for a fight? piss off! > colon...I really don't care...I mean who the "f '' are you anyway? just > another C...@go.com looking for a fight? piss off! I tried to not look for a fight. My post was reasonable, unlike yours. My old man used to say "don't throw pearls before swine (pigs to you)". Go figure. I apologize for calling you an arseographer. The arse- part was right, though. The -grapher part is clearly wong. My mistake. Colin D. >>colon...I really don't care...I mean who the "f '' are you anyway? just >>another C...@go.com looking for a fight? piss off! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Colin D. hmmm I read this nwewsgroup as I am in the Australian photo industry... sometimes offer some help... keep up to date (as the reps don't seem particularly profficient).... and often am somewhat put off by the high and mighty attitudes, people more focussed on the equipment than the photography. I have often called the internet "The worlds biggest soap box". It appears that comment is both warraneted and justified. anyone notice the lack of aactual photography posts during this mud slinnging match? c'mon peoples..... get with the program. Stop the mudslingning... get outdoors and take some pictures. On the side.... as an American living in Australia (25 years)... colour IS spelt with a 'U', and the metric system is the only REAL system of measure... but don't hold that against them..... they are not to blame.... they simply don't know they are in the minority. Its what happens when a very narrow view of the world is the only window you are fed by the media etc..... but that is for another discussion! kosh welcome to the halls of the high and mighty photo clackers kosh...I believe in the same thing...take pictures. But not here...let me introduce to you some of the "Chairmen of the Board" You have C...@go.com watch out for him...he will take any shot he can to excerise his homo....sapien wit and start calling you names if you don't aggree with him while consescending on anyone else who does the same. Then there is Rob. Now here is a guy that seems to try to live up to C's pedantics but still has quite a way to go. But don't let me forget Colon... colon is in a class all by himself...I guess that's why his name is COLON as for the rest...there are some interesting and nice people. I started out by posting some retorical comments and boy am I ever sorry, and found out to late where I was...no help here...just blantant and nasty critiques of one's work. By so called "Professional Photographers" who won't even show links to their own work...I guess they are to insecure. Me..I just take pictures. However not all of mine turn out ...as for these guys...they seem to be somewhat infallable. So stay tuned and see what happens next...I am sure they will come runn'in to post some snappy comback to this post. Watch out for them though....they are really nasty people and will go to any length to get into some verbal sparring. I have just about had it and am throwing in the towel with these nitwits...so good posting...but if you want to discuss photography you might want to go somewhere else. O and one more thing...take a tip from and make sure you spell check everything...they love to talk dirty. >anyone notice the lack of aactual photography posts during this mud >slinnging match? So, kkosh, what exactly was there in *your* post about photography, and the 'myth' of 1600 ISO images? I started out by pointing out that a Panasonic FZ20 will only outshoot a decent SLR in low-light IF the decent SLR is owned and driven by an amateur. And then went on to point out that: - shooting in low-light (*without flash*) - usable 1600 ISO images - cameras that can support images of larger sizes than 11x8 ..are all *good things*. It got a little nasty when I and others suggested that if someone says otherwise.. they need to be questioned. Especially if they claim to be a 'good', let alone 'great', wedding photographer. I stand by that view. Do you have anything pertinent to add to the debate? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart-arse (grin) - I'm just puzzled by your post. It didn't make it very clear what your opinion of the *actual topic* was... - I'm just puzzled by your post. It > didn't make it very clear what your opinion of the *actual topic* > was... to STAY in topic and stop bitching and whinning at each other... how about this "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" get back onto photography... let it go..... you'll excuse me for not contributing to todays photogrpahic discussions, but all I could find was bitching. thank you... my 2nd post about bitching and not 1 on photogrpahy today... ou rlittle workd is insideous .. isn't it ! no more from me about this topic.. as it is obvious others can not move on! > anyone notice the lack of aactual photography posts during this mud > slinnging match? > > c'mon peoples..... get with the program. Stop the mudslingning... get > outdoors and take some pictures. No one posts any photography posts anymore Kosh. Why? Because no matter what they are about or what they represent, some jerk will come along and take the piss out the poster for having the gall to have posted such crap. All the best pics all the best troll ever took have all been posted before (a whole page full of them by my guess)and they have no new images to offer so they start flaming those who do for some entertainment. You see... Australian's are no longer the once great nation of larikins, returned from the war and hell bent on making the most of what the didn't destroy... No more cooperation, mateship, not even cordial banter. Even those wanna be w.nkers over the Tasman have sunken to new lows in their ridicule of people's pictures when they themselves, have no alternatives to offer for fear they might get some of the same back for their out of focus, blown highlight, flooded shadow images we've all had to endure for years from mini-labs. For a while there I thought the white supremacy brigade from the good old USA might have led the way in ethics of not commenting about other photographer's pictures unless asked to. But no, they too are so hesitant to post now, the "groups" are well and truly in the "don't bother" region for everyone except a poor pathetic golf caddie who one slept with a golfer and can't contain himself by publicizing it in his signature. I'm surprised the Sorenson lawyers haven't hit him with a writ before this. He must surely be in more kill files than even me. Do you think for one moment, the sort of God awful language that is now common place in these groups would stand a snowflake's change in hell of passing a moderator's screen? What about that penile deprived troll of mine (Chrlz@go.net) (Disneyland incidently) who despite being confronted with documentary evidence to the contrary, still goes on to post defamation, slander and absolute lies about me? Do you think he would have a hope in hell of retaining posting right in a moderated forum with the crap he posts? Always looking for a fight just as long as he remains hiding behind his monitor. Of course he wouldn't and this is why whenever the subject of moderating a group comes up, none of the mindless morons who want the right to remain anonymous and defame and slander whoever they like, actually think a moderated forum is a good idea. The real tragedy of all this and the mostly 100% useless 'RE:s" from the w.nkers to this thread is that what started out as a photographic discussion has quite predictably degraded into a Testerone induced battle of the keyboards by people who really ought to have something better to do but seeing as they don't, use "the groups" for their own personal battleground of entertainment. Whatever happened to the playstation? Kosh, if you ever thought for one moment you might have gotten something - anything of value out of this group - or any other for that matter, you sadly misjudged the mentality of the people who spend their (far too many) idle hours looking for something to entertain themselves and land here when no other forum will tolerate them. Is it my imagination, or is most of the personal abuse in this newsgroup coming from posters complaining about all the personal abuse in this newsgroup? If you want to see generosity of spirit amongst Australian photographers, go to http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/ and click on the "Last Comments" link. >> anyone notice the lack of aactual photography posts during this mud >> slinnging match? [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > idle hours looking for something to entertain themselves and land here > when no other forum will tolerate them. snip > Kosh, if you ever thought for one moment you might have gotten something > - anything of value out of this group - or any other for that matter, actually Ihave .. from time ot time > you sadly misjudged the mentality of the people who spend their (far too > many) idle hours looking for something to entertain themselves actually, no... it generally keeps them out of the shops and away from me ! ther are 3 type of customers 1. the one who will not buy from you if you are overpriced (as an example) 2. the one who will give you the opprotunity and advise they have seen a cheaper price 3. and the ones who will point out your competitor is cheaper... will persist to do so over many visits while real customers walk out.... and are likely to spend more driving to the other store in petrol alone.... but they got it cheaper ! sadly.... I would have to say many (but not all) are in the latter group. believe it or not... many discussions in this group contribute to many decisions made about my business. The fact that many.. belong to the last group (listed above) is also... a major consideration. I said I was not going to post again on this topic...DOH! kosh Wow...My friend you said it all. I have spent quite a bit of time with you mates in Pearth, Geareldton (sp?) and a wonderfull little town in WA called Bunbury. I was very impressed with all the wonderful aussies, they almost adopted me...showed me everything from "roo hunting" to guzzling pitchers of Swan Lager. When I arrived on the scene at aus photo I did not know at the time where I was since this google group thing was all new to me. I made a few provocative comments myself...but they where about photography not about anything directed to anyone in particular...but provocative none the less. I also posted a link to see if indexing was something that happened on this site. BOY...was I wrong. The first thing that happened was an instant smear campaign started by this unbelievably full of himself *date* named C...@go.com only to be followed by his obvious clones and cohorts whos names I will not say as they may have just been led astray by the most infamous one C. I thought to myself....are these guys brits or aussies....I was totally blown away and was placed in a defensive posture from there on. These guys are psycotic....I mean internet pathigens. And to wit...none of then...not a single one! has the rounders to post their own work....and they call themselves pros. I thought these clackers must not be aussie...they have got be displaced from some other country. I would love to talk about photography...and the business of photography. In the US the wedding biz is becoming as cut throat as ever with the advent of digital and the competition is choking....anyone with a camera who wants to make a few bucks on the weekend is doing it....and giving a bad name to real photojournalist around the world by calling wedding coverage "photojournalistic" and producing nothing short of snap shots. Anyway...got to go...just got an emergency call from my better half...hope its nothing serious...more later if you care to chat...about photography. Sorry for any mis-spells as I do not have time to spell check. Ben WARNING - More mindless off-topic ravings follow. If you proceed to read it, don't whinge - geez, it's not like anything much else is being posted *anyway*... (O: Ben said: >.instant smear campaign started by this >unbelievably full of himself *date* named C...@go.com [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >...these clackers must not be aussie...they have got >be displaced from some other country. (all that just from ONE post..) Ben, just a small tip. Re-read my posts. Count the number of personal insults. Then do the same with yours. Notice anything? Have I called you 'psycotic' (sic) or anything similar, or just disagreed with you and criticised your work? And then you really said it all, Ben: >..anyone with a camera who wants to make a few bucks on >the weekend is doing it....and giving a bad name to real >photojournalist around the world by calling wedding coverage >"photojournalistic" and producing nothing short of snap shots. You mean like these carefully selected gems?: /mp_photos/4342/COLIN_AND_YANIQUE_009f.jpg (maybe spot-metering would have helped, and what on earth happened to the sharpness at right/bottom?) http://www.worldsgreatestweddingphotographer.com/mp_photos/4342/COLIN_AND_YANIQU E_ONE_007f.jpg (what a decisive moment..) http://www.worldsgreatestweddingphotographer.com/mp_photos/4342/COLIN_AND_YANIQU E_ONE_008f.jpg (ahh, I see why he normally uses flash and doesn't go much for natural light/high ISOs...Douglas will fondly appreciate the noise in that one - but the problem here is more likely just underexposure) http://www.worldsgreatestweddingphotographer.com/mp_photos/4342/COLIN_AND_YANIQU E_ONE_004f.jpg (you can't be serious - that was a *keeper*???) http://www.worldsgreatestweddingphotographer.com/mp_photos/4342/COLIN_AND_YANIQU E_ONE_047f.jpg (.........words fail me....) Yes, I see what you mean about snapshot photographers giving people a bad name. And it is clear that you and Doug have a lot in common - it's not surprising to see you too have hit it off.. Carry on. (O: (Crikey, I can be annoying sometimes, can't I?) PS - I have, and do, post my work and if you hunt around you will find it. Feel free to criticise - I love to hear different views and suggestions on why my shots are good or bad - that's how I learn. I don't take it personally - it makes me try harder. Some folk, however, get very upset when their work is criticised....... don't .. they ..! Sorry about broken first link - it *should* read: >http://www.worldsgreatestweddingphotographer.com/mp_photos/4342/COLIN_AND_YANIQU E_009f.jpg >(maybe spot-metering would have helped, and what on earth happened >to the sharpness at right/bottom?) hey big shot...why don't you put some of your own links in..I am sure some folks in here including myself are just waiting with baited breath to see what you do...since you are the all knowing photo god...then lets see your work. are you afraid?? camon c..go lets all see just what the great C...Go can do...I dare you.. My work...good or bad is open to all.....for praise or scorn ca'mon ya big sissy...lets see what you can do. as for t |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message