 |
 | 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 / April 200720D: ROLLING INTO SPRING!
Everybody loves Springtime and the 20D! http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original A couple of other shots taken this AM: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229975 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229979 Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter, well it sucks to be you! > Everybody loves Springtime and the 20D! I like the pic of the horses. > Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter, > well it sucks to be you! In my part of Australia winter is the best time of the year. The Great Barrier reef is just a 30 minute boat ride away. :-)  Signature-Mike > Everybody loves Springtime and the 20D!http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original > > A couple of other shots taken this AM:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229975http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229979 > > Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter, > well it sucks to be you! You live in such a gorgeous state! That tree is stunning. I do love horses and they look so happy and content. The flowers are beautifully captured, especially this one http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229975 I like how the dark background brings it out more. Beautiful Bret....Excellent work as always. > Everybody loves Springtime and the 20D! > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter, > well it sucks to be you! Winter here isn't cold so it doesn't suck at all nice try though. >> Everybody loves Springtime and the 20D! >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Winter here isn't cold so it doesn't suck at all > nice try though. Well in my part it gets cold but skiing is then on the agenda among many other things. > Everybody loves Springtime and the 20D!http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original > > A couple of other shots taken this AM:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229975http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229979 > > Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter, > well it sucks to be you! This is a good photo? What did you use? a kodak camera? You really must be joking? Did you actually check the focus and contrast or did you just snap it off and hope we are all blind? Learn some composition basics and get your monitor fixed. There are no details in horses. Vlad >> Everybody loves Springtime and the >> 20D!http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > contrast or did you just snap it off and hope we are all blind? > Learn some composition basics and get your monitor fixed. >There are no > details in horses. Time to check YOUR monitor, bub. For dark horses in diffused light, the detail is very good. As for the flower: He focused on the stamen, and he shot at f4. Do you know the difference between shallow DOF and an out-of-focus image? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>Everybody loves Springtime and the >>>20D!http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > He focused on the stamen, and he shot at f4. > Do you know the difference between shallow DOF and an out-of-focus image? Maybe Dmac has another alias :) On Mar 26, 4:57 pm, vlad.bo...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Everybody loves Springtime and the 20D!http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Vlad Take a careful look at this and tell me what you see. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/76243413 Scott > On Mar 26, 4:57 pm, vlad.bo...@yahoo.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Scott You win POST OF THE WEEK, Scott! Do you mind if I use that image, or shall I create my own? It might save a minute or two...but what a great idea... Really. -Mark² SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson On Mar 26, 7:38 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > > On Mar 26, 4:57 pm, vlad.bo...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > It might save a minute or two...but what a great idea... Really. > -Mark² Feel free to use it, I hereby put it in the public domain. Scott > On Mar 26, 7:38 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Scott What, no $500 royalty? :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson On Mar 26, 8:05 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > > On Mar 26, 7:38 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number > > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > What, no $500 royalty? > :) Now if I were Douglas I would be threatening to sue anyone who used it. Scott > On Mar 26, 8:05 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Now if I were Douglas I would be threatening to sue anyone who used > it. But what about the huge white text across it, claiming it as your own?? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >On Mar 26, 4:57 pm, vlad.bo...@yahoo.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Take a careful look at this and tell me what you see. >http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/76243413 LOL! Very funny. Now you just need one for the other end of the tone curve. SignatureW "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them." . | ,. w , \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >>Take a careful look at this and tell me what you see. >>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/76243413 > > LOL! Very funny. Now you just need one for the other end of the tone > curve. If I invert it in photoshop, it's real easy to see. Interesting that I could barely make out that there was some text in my browser but it was pretty clear in photoshop sRGB. Here's both, with the white one boosted +12 brightness: http://www.edgehill.net/temp/calibrate.jpg >>>Take a careful look at this and tell me what you see. >>>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/76243413 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >pretty clear in photoshop sRGB. Here's both, with the white one boosted >+12 brightness: http://www.edgehill.net/temp/calibrate.jpg Yeah, I can just barely see the grey on white text, on my calibrated monitor. The grey on black text is much more visible. SignatureW "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them." . | ,. w , \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- > Take a careful look at this and tell me what you see.http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/76243413 > > Scott is that one of your stitched images? <gd&r,vvf> > > Take a careful look at this and tell me what you see.http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/76243413 > > > Scott > > is that one of your stitched images? LOL, nope that is straight out of Photoshop. Scott >> Take a careful look at this and tell me what you see.http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/76243413 >> >> Scott > > is that one of your stitched images? > <gd&r,vvf> Why are you still talking, idiot? On Apr 4, 1:14 pm, "o...@demon.co.uk" <o...@demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> Take a careful look at this and tell me what you see.http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/76243413 > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why are you still talking, idiot? because I don't take orders from subhuman arseholes fuckwits like you and your lot. > On Apr 4, 1:14 pm, "o...@demon.co.uk" <o...@demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Take a careful look at this and tell me what you see.http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/76243413 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > because I don't take orders from subhuman > arseholes fuckwits like you and your lot. Your mother called. She wants her bra and panties back, you f.cking transsexual pig. > On Mar 26, 4:57 pm, vlad.bo...@yahoo.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > A couple of other shots taken this >> > AM:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229975http://www.pbase.com/bret/ ima... >> > Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter, well it >> > sucks to be you! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Scott For once you've posted a picture truly representative of your ability to compose and expose for the highlights. Now if you just take the lens cap off and do it again... Douglas > > On Mar 26, 4:57 pm, vlad.bo...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > compose and expose for the highlights. Now if you just take the lens cap > off and do it again... Your response explains a lot about the photos you have posted, you might want to take a closer look at my image. Scott >> On Mar 26, 4:57 pm, vlad.bo...@yahoo.com wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Douglas Oops! You just proved that you're not using an accurate monitor, D-Mac. Perhaps you can use that as an excuse for your images? :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson On Mar 27, 5:16 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > >> On Mar 26, 4:57 pm, vlad.bo...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Perhaps you can use that as an excuse for your images? > :) Naw, wait for the post where he claims he was just fooling with us. Scott > On Mar 27, 5:16 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Scott Ah. Of course! Silly me. He meant to fall down the stairs... ;) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> Everybody loves Springtime and the 20D!http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original >> A couple of other shots taken this AM:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229975http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229979 >> Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter, >> well it sucks to be you! > This is a good photo? > What did you use? a kodak camera? > You really must be joking? Did you actually check the focus and > contrast or did you just snap it off and hope we are all blind? > Learn some composition basics and get your monitor fixed. There are no > details in horses. > Vlad Regular readers will already know that Bret is proof that the ability to run of thousands of photos a week does not improve your composition skills one iota. No matter how much self-promotion. At least he attributes the good points in his pictures - generally well exposed and sharp - to the equipment. On Mar 27, 4:49 am, Richard Polhill <richard.n...@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote: > vlad.bo...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Everybody loves Springtime and the 20D!http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > iota. No matter how much self-promotion. At least he attributes the good > points in his pictures - generally well exposed and sharp - to the equipment. The reason why I'm such a big fan of Brets is simple. He has proven to be a great photographer....period. His composition skills along with his well exposed and sharp images say it all. I see a man who is a dedicated photographer who enjoys sharing his work for others to view. He takes critique very well, and actually finds it helpful. He's got the guts to post his images on a regular basis, which is more than most on this NG. As for attributing his great images to his equipment, I stongly disagree. My brother has a friend who owns a very sophisticated Canon camera, but he couldn't take a decent pic if his life depended on it. Give credit where credit is due. It's Bret's skill that makes his images stand out. Helen > It's > Bret's skill that makes his images stand out. > Helen But that's my point: they don't. They look like any typical snapshooter's photo album, enhanced by the 20D's capacity generate very sharp and saturated photos, and the use of very long lenses to acquire close cropped photos of the wildlife that is obviously prolific in his part of the world. They're fine and pleasant, but almost entirely artless. Please show us your portfolio. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : But that's my point: they don't. They look like any typical snapshooter's : photo album, enhanced by the 20D's capacity generate very sharp and saturated : photos, and the use of very long lenses to acquire close cropped photos of the : wildlife that is obviously prolific in his part of the world. : : They're fine and pleasant, but almost entirely artless. > Please show us your portfolio. I don't think any of my photos are good enough to digitize and post yet. I'm struggling to find the time, what with a new baby and a real life to live, to actually go out and make pictures that I'd like to publish. I'm not here for self promotion either. If you want to see what I do have you'll have to come round and look at the prints. I'm in Surrey, UK. There seems to be a belief here that this is a competition. Usenet has always been a forum for discussion and allows people to share their views. As I said, I find nothing terrible about Bret's pictures but for all the self promotion and congratulation, I don't see anything that I'd want to put on the wall. For me, photography is about making a picture that I want to sit and look at, put on the wall, enjoy. There are many fine photographs out there that are simply images. Many are perfectly exposed and worthy of any industrial catalogue or being used to illustrate wildlife books, but they are not art, they do not provide an uplifting experience, I do not want to hang them up and enjoy them. So I stand by what I said, for all his self promotion and bluster, Bret has so far proved he can take a picture, but not make art. >> Please show us your portfolio. > > I don't think any of my photos are good enough to digitize and post yet. They don't have to be world class art to share. > I'm struggling to find the time, what with a new baby and a real life to > live, to actually go out and make pictures that I'd like to publish. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > So I stand by what I said, for all his self promotion and bluster, Bret > has so far proved he can take a picture, but not make art. First off, he doesn't post more than maybe 10 pics a week. Pretty good culling habits compared to myself. I went out Sunday & got a couple hundred shots (mostly tripod for a change) and culled that down to 36 favs & 96 total. None of them are really worthy of framing, I'm lucky if I get a couple a month at that pace, here's a few of the best or most interesting IMO: Misty Bay tree trunks. <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Mt-Tam/2007-03-25-s teep-ravine&PG=2&PIC=7> -kind of art-ish but really not all that great, maybe a pleasant screen saver desktop image. Steep Ravine trail. <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Mt-Tam/2007-03-25-s teep-ravine&PG=5&PIC=25> -this and many others would be good for a trail guide, etc. Arching Bay tree. <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Mt-Tam/2007-03-25-s teep-ravine&PG=6&PIC=31> -maybe worth framing, just because it's a beautiful subject, no special composition or technique though. Insane Bay tree. <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Mt-Tam/2007-03-25-s teep-ravine&PG=6&PIC=33> -just an interesting subject captured competently. I think Bret makes a few that would be worth of framing but AFAIK he doesn't frame any of them, that's not really his goal. The horse shot is very good, the second flower is pretty lame but hey that's my specialty (plant portraits) and he kicks my a.s with the wildlife shots. But it's not a competition, I enjoy looking & learning & sometimes enjoy sharing my work, to teach and learn from critiques. When I've posted only my very best frameworthy stuff I really don't get any comments back, I share my 30 or so a week with friends & like to hear which ones they think are particularly appealing, like the 'Insane Bay tree', someone said was their favorite. I think just because of the humor & curiosity of the subject <g>. >> Please show us your portfolio. > > I don't think any of my photos are good enough to digitize and post > yet. I'm struggling to find the time, what with a new baby and a real > life to live, to actually go out and make pictures that I'd like to > publish. I would encourage you to post something. If nothing else, it separates you from the folks here who have plenty to say...yet nothing to show. I don't think it's a competition. It's good to share. It gives a basis for knowing people here. Even if they're crappy...it at least gives you credibility that comes from simply having the cajones to look people in the eye (so to speak). People post images all the time that aren't great (take mine, for example!). ;) The only time people usually take to slamming you is if you make some sort of lofty claim. Bret's claims are mostly goofy. It's usually only those who don't get his schtick that go after him. I say post away. I think you'll be surprised how nice people are... Just avoid adding tag-lines like "world recognized wedding photographer" or some such BS. :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> It's >> Bret's skill that makes his images stand out. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > They're fine and pleasant, but almost entirely artless Photography isn't just about art It's about capturing the moment. Bret's photo is not arty but it captures the moment perfectly. On Mar 27, 8:03 am, Richard Polhill <richard.n...@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote: > helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote: > > It's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > photos, and the use of very long lenses to acquire close cropped photos of the > wildlife that is obviously prolific in his part of the world. Morning Richard, If Bret's photography looks like"...any typical snapshooter's photo album..." in your part of the world, then why would anyone make any comment about his images? The equipment is only a part of the factor in capturing the image. Being able to reconize and "see" the image is a huge part. I have seen others with the same equipment produce images that should have been trashed and not shown to the public. > They're fine and pleasant, but almost entirely artless. Ah but, that is the point of this critque is art is in the eye of the beholder. In your opinion his images here are "...almost entirely artless." One of the images, http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229979 Is more like a catalog of the flower. Than what some folks would say is an "artsy" image. But his others do come across a style of art that is straight foward. As is Bret. IMHO Bret is a very acomplished photographer with a good eye to capture nature and is lucky enough to be able to be close to it. Even with a 400mm f/4L lens.;-) He has also shown others the effects of differant lenses in combination with his equipment. Something I have not seen from anyone else. Draco Getting even isn't good enough. On Mar 27, 8:03 am, Richard Polhill <richard.n...@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote: > helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote: > > It's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > They're fine and pleasant, but almost entirely artless. What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics that people love? Are their pics "snapshooter's"? The pics consist mainly of wildlife shots. I see no difference between those pros and Bret. His work rates right up there with them. Yes he lives in a beautiful part of the country, and he takes advantage of that and shares it with us. But I bet where you live you have some stunning sights that we are not privy to. Helen > What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics > that people love? Are their pics "snapshooter's"? The pics consist [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sights that we are not privy to. > Helen NG's photos are reportage and usually beautifully illustrate the articles they are combined with. I'm sure Bret is quite capable of documenting a story with photos that, in context, enhance a story. Unfortunately, we are bombarded with images that are out of context and so lacking the narrative quality that would make them interesting. Take the pictures of Spike; they'd be much better publicized on a group dedicated to wildlife and birds to document the story of Spike and his plight. Instead of sticking his photos on PBase and publicizing them in here why does he not sell them to a library? You'll note that there aren't very many NG photographers on here touting their photos and demanding obeisance. On Mar 27, 9:59 am, Richard Polhill <richard.n...@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote: > helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote: > > What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > You'll note that there aren't very many NG photographers on here touting their > photos and demanding obeisance. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't be dissing my Spike! He's a hero here on the NG. Bret shares his pics for others to view, and to be critiqued. I don't agree that he demands obeisance. He's a tough guy and can be harsh at times, but that's just him. I for one appreciate his reviews on different lenses and the pics he shows for examples. I enjoy viewing his work and anyone else's work for that matter. But not too many have the guts to post them........and have them critiqued. > On Mar 27, 9:59 am, Richard Polhill > <richard.n...@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > anyone else's work for that matter. But not too many have the guts to > post them........and have them critiqued. I'm going to have to go through the boxes of photos I've taken in the last few years and actually pick out those that I'm pleased with. I may even digitize a couple to get a critique of if I find yet more time to do that. ;-) >> On Mar 27, 9:59 am, Richard Polhill >> <richard.n...@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > may even digitize a couple to get a critique of if I find yet more > time to do that. ;-) If you'll even post ONE photo...you'll instantly break out of the "all-mouth...no-photo" crowd. :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics >> that people love? Are their pics "snapshooter's"? The pics consist [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > group dedicated to wildlife and birds to document the story of Spike > and his plight. Funny that you choose that example, since it's perhaps the most "story oriented" of any photos posted by him. Birds with nails and arrows sticking out of them make the NATIONAL news, for crying out loud. Why? Because it's interesting. Better pick a different example... :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics >>> that people love? Are their pics "snapshooter's"? The pics consist [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> NG's photos are reportage and usually beautifully illustrate the >> articles they are combined with. >> I'm sure Bret is quite capable of documenting a story with photos >> that, in context, enhance a story. Unfortunately, we are bombarded >> with images that are out of context and so lacking the narrative >> quality that would make them interesting. >> Take the pictures of Spike; they'd be much better publicized on a >> group dedicated to wildlife and birds to document the story of Spike >> and his plight. > Funny that you choose that example, since it's perhaps the most "story > oriented" of any photos posted by him. Birds with nails and arrows sticking > out of them make the NATIONAL news, for crying out loud. Why? Because it's > interesting. Better pick a different example... :) They were the only pictures memorable enough to remember. > What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics > that people love? Are their pics "snapshooter's"? The pics consist > mainly of wildlife shots. I see no difference between those pros and > Bret. well, that must be your problem. i also know some people who would not see a difference. frankly, i think there are ones that would put a muddy low-contrast underexposed out-of-focus disposable-camera flash-into-the-forehead red-eyed snapshot of their nephews into the sane category as well. sorry, bret's pics are just endless flow of completely mediocre snapshots any grandma would take given the right equipment. most pictures in NG convey certain idea, certain mood hidden behind the mechanical details of the photograph. that what makes a real photographer. bret's pictures are just, well, plain frame fillers. literally, they would work fine as temporary frame-filler pictures for photo frame store, but no more. there are many galleries on the net that contain wildlife pictures that are several levels of magnitude more interesting than bret's, and still bore the hell out if you just because they are available in hundreds and thousands. when i bought my first SLR i was firstly getting lots of pictures like this, but i got bored with them rather quickly. now i send stuff like that in garbage bin without giving it a second thought. what amazes me most is that bret is still not bored with this stuff and, moreover, believes that it is OK to troll and torture the group with endless flow of this photowaste. usually people either grow or quit. this one somehow stuck in an infinite cycle. i had a few good laughs at douglases pictures, but nevertheless his pictures are actually interesting to see, even if it is just because of their flaws. seeing bret's pictures is like watching paint dry. i couldn't have said it better than richard: it's amazing to see a person shoot so much for such a long time and never improve even the slightest bit, and, i add from myself, never get affected by the infinite boredom of his own pictures. > helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote: > > What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > so much for such a long time and never improve even the slightest bit, and, i > add from myself, never get affected by the infinite boredom of his own pictures. You are entitled to your opinion, and so am I. Other people on the NG enjoy viewing his work as much as I do. It's not like they are right there smack in your face. You have to click on a link to his Pbase. If you know his work will bore you, don't click on the link. Saying that he is trolling or torturing the group is going too far. Helen On Mar 27, 9:41 am, helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote: > > helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > that he is trolling or torturing the group is going too far. > Helen The torture for him is not that Bret posts his photos, it is that other people like Bret's photos. I enjoy Bret's photos, as well as photos many other people who have been kind enough to post their's. There are some people who's photos don't really grab me, but I can see where others might like them. There are some people who feel the only legitimate form of photography is when it is artistic, then we have UC who claims that photography can never be a art form. Some of the artistic photograph works very well, and some of it bores me to tears, like the people who feel we need one more photos of a curved staircase (sorry to all of you who photograph curved staircases). I think some people strive to be artistic in their photograph and judge their own photos on how well they believe they are doing. But when looking at another photographer's work they still are in the mode of judging it as an artistic work. News flash for people, not all photograph has to be artistic to be worthwhile. For me I almost always enjoy looking at Bret's photos. Some of them are simply pleasant to view, like horses in a field with spring colors, other I go wow when I see them, this to me is a wow photo. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/75457158 Whereas this is not a wow photo for me I still rather enjoyed seeing it. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/56377046 And then he has some shots that really impress me, like this one. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110182 So is Bret a good photographer? To tell the true I don't care if he is or not, what I do care about is whether he takes photos that are worthwhile looking at. It does not matter one bit if he gets he wow shots by taking 1000 throwaway ones to get it. It does not matter to me that he gets his impressive bird photos because he has the right gear and is in the right place. > On Mar 27, 9:41 am, helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > me that he gets his impressive bird photos because he has the right > gear and is in the right place. All I'm going to say is that I am privy to a new side of Bret! Stay tuned fans for further developments!! Helen > All I'm going to say is that I am privy to a new side of Bret! Stay > tuned fans for further developments!! He's finally getting the gender change he's been saving up for? It's about time, considering all the female personae he's developed in the last little while. mike > The torture for him is not that Bret posts his photos, it is that > other people like Bret's photos. incorrect. but i have to admit: it is a step in the right direction. the torture for me is to see that most of the people left in this group are the kind of people who will praise bret's mediocre pictures out of any proportion. it is testament to the death of this Usenet group, as many already noted. > > The torture for him is not that Bret posts his photos, it is that > > other people like Bret's photos. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people who will praise bret's mediocre pictures out of any proportion. it is > testament to the death of this Usenet group, as many already noted. And since you have been posting as Magic Lantern since when? Feb. of this year? I have to assume you are one of those people who either change their name often or go under a number of different names. So not only have I not seen any of your work I don't even know who you are. To me this makes your whining about the demise of the group a bit weak Scott >> incorrect. but i have to admit: it is a step in the right direction. the torture >> for me is to see that most of the people left in this group are the kind of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And since you have been posting as Magic Lantern since when? Feb. of > this year? posting? what does it have to do with _posting_ specifically? > So > not only have I not seen any of your work I don't even know who you > are. i'm extremely critical of my own work and i don't believe my work is up to those standards when i can show it off in front of other people. that's the entire point, btw. > To me this makes your whining about the demise of the group a > bit weak you sound like one of those people who believe into such idiotic nonsense as "in order to tell a bad photograph you have to be a photographer yourself" or "if you've never built a car, you don't get to say that that car is bad" or "only movie makers can recognize a bad movie" and so on. this has been a popular piece of ridiculous nonsense in this group even in its better years. if you really see it that way then sorry, i don't give a flying squirrel about what you think. >> > The torture for him is not that Bret posts his photos, it is that >> > other people like Bret's photos. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >are. To me this makes your whining about the demise of the group a >bit weak But true..... RP© >> The torture for him is not that Bret posts his photos, it is that >> other people like Bret's photos. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is > testament to the death of this Usenet group, as many already noted. "out of any proportion" you say. I suspect we can all await your providing us with the "correct" proportion so we can bask in the knowledge that our praises are truly correctly bestowed only on those considered worthy by knowledgeable folk like yourself. What truly unadulterated bullshit! Reminds me that "those who can, do, and those who can't end up as critics". Bob >> The torture for him is not that Bret posts his photos, it is that >> other people like Bret's photos. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >people who will praise bret's mediocre pictures out of any proportion. it is >testament to the death of this Usenet group, as many already noted. Not dead yet but certainly well into it's stay at Hospice. RP© - www.pbase.com/that_rich > >incorrect. but i have to admit: it is a step in the right direction. the torture > >for me is to see that most of the people left in this group are the kind of > >people who will praise bret's mediocre pictures out of any proportion. it is > >testament to the death of this Usenet group, as many already noted. > > Not dead yet but certainly well into it's stay at Hospice. I'm sure you'd love to blame me for the death of this Newsgroup, but the numbers don't support your contention. True, the number of posts has decreased slightly since last year, but you will find that to be true on almost every newsgroup these days. The RPE-medium-format group, for example, has seen their numbers cut by over 50% in the last year. Can't lay that one on me since I don't post there. There is just a lot more choices for your surfing dollar these days. >>> The torture for him is not that Bret posts his photos, it is that >>> other people like Bret's photos. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > RP© Nearly all historically film-centered newsgroups are dwindling. Why? Simple: -Because film shooter numbers are dwindling. This isn't rocket science, folks. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > >>> The torture for him is not that Bret posts his photos, it is that > >>> other people like Bret's photos. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -Because film shooter numbers are dwindling. > This isn't rocket science, folks. Maybe what should be buried is "film vs digital" and focus on... photography. HFL SignatureChange hlockwood to hflockwood in email address >Nearly all historically film-centered newsgroups are dwindling. >Why? Simple: >-Because film shooter numbers are dwindling. >This isn't rocket science, folks. Yet you and the three stooges always argue that this is a "digital" group because your digi cams use *some* lenses that can ALSO be used on REAL 35mm cameras.... if this is true, this group *should* be attracting the masses of digi cam users making the group more active. Now I really don't give at rats a.s where the digirati post but I find it odd why the digirati wouldn't want to post on one of the many groups specifically dedicated to digital cameras (comments appreciated). Seems with the disdain most of the digi users show toward film users you all would (should?) take great pleasure in having this "35mm" group die a slow death after your exit. For the sake of argument, can you or any of the others supply a white paper, users manual, advert flyer, etc... that uses "35mm" in the description of a digital slr? I know all the manuals for the 35mm cameras I own specifically refer to my cameras as "35mm camera". I remain, curious, RP© - www.pbase,com/that_rich >> Nearly all historically film-centered newsgroups are dwindling. >> Why? Simple: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I remain, I'm here because I've been here since before adding a digital body to my 35mm kit bag. I still reference the same gear (EOS 3, Elan IIe). The only thing that's changed is that I've added digital bodies to that same 35mm kit. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> Nearly all historically film-centered newsgroups are dwindling. >>> Why? Simple: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >thing that's changed is that I've added digital bodies to that same 35mm >kit. So you agree that this group is not the place for posts relating to digital slrs? RP© >>>> Nearly all historically film-centered newsgroups are dwindling. >>>> Why? Simple: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > So you agree that this group is not the place for posts relating to > digital slrs? 35mm kits belong here, and dslrs are now legitimate parts of that kit. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>>> Nearly all historically film-centered newsgroups are dwindling. >>>>> Why? Simple: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >35mm kits belong here, and dslrs are now legitimate parts of that kit. That makes no sense to me. The body of a dslr is no more 35mm camera than an Apple computer is a Windows machine. Each have their appropriate groups. RP© >>>>>> Nearly all historically film-centered newsgroups are dwindling. >>>>>> Why? Simple: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Each have their appropriate groups. The DSLR is basically a digital back, quite similar to the way some medium format users add a digital back. Everything else in the kit remains intact. Lenses...flash...filters...remotes...etc. Why should the people who add a digital back to their kit suddenly have to vacate their group? Now THAT...makes no sense to me. Another comparison would be the notion of kicking someone out of this groups because they chose a particular film. The sensor is simply a "film" of sorts, and that is all it is. You wouldn't kick someone out of 35mm because they used a different film, and you shouldn't kick them out for using digital film. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson How do you kick someone out of a newsgroup? SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : Another comparison would be the notion of kicking someone out of this groups : because they chose a particular film. The sensor is simply a "film" of : sorts, and that is all it is. You wouldn't kick someone out of 35mm because : they used a different film, and you shouldn't kick them out for using : digital film. > How do you kick someone out of a newsgroup? You can't. But some people sure can WHINE and MOAN... Sheesh...This whole argument is as old as the hills, and should be put to rest. >> Another comparison would be the notion of kicking someone out of >> this groups because they chose a particular film. The sensor is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: >> www.pbase.com/markuson SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson On Mar 30, 11:08 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > > How do you kick someone out of a newsgroup? > > You can't. But some people sure can WHINE and MOAN... Sheesh...This whole > argument is as old as the hills, and should be put to rest. I never quite understood the Luddites objections to digital posts in this newsgroup. It's not like we're taking away from all the great film posts. Oh that's right, there aren't any. Maybe we're just disturbing their sleep? Quick, name the most recently released 35mm SLR! Maybe the F6, and that was how many years ago? >On Mar 30, 11:08 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number >here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Quick, name the most recently released 35mm SLR! >Maybe the F6, and that was how many years ago? Prolly time to move on then, eh? rec.photo.digital.slr RP© > this newsgroup. It's not like we're taking away from all the great > film posts. Oh that's right, there aren't any. Erm,...... > Maybe we're just disturbing their sleep? Narh. They all got bored with your posts. :-) > Quick, name the most recently released 35mm SLR! > Maybe the F6, and that was how many years ago? Dead wrong. The Canon EOS300X. In 2006. Then again, I'm sure the 20D is the latest dslr? ;-) >How do you kick someone out of a newsgroup? Jeez... if you ever find the answer let me know ;) RP© >>>>>>> Nearly all historically film-centered newsgroups are dwindling. >>>>>>> Why? Simple: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >digital back to their kit suddenly have to vacate their group? >Now THAT...makes no sense to me. Because it's not a digital back.....It's not a MF group..... It's a digital camera..... duh! I can run windoze on a mac but I can't run OSX on windoze. (geez, sound familiar?) When I have an issue with windoze on the mac I don't post to the windoze group I post to the mac group. I can run all the same peripherals on both computers but when I have issues with one or the other I post to the APPROPRIATE group. >Another comparison would be the notion of kicking someone out of this groups >because they chose a particular film. The sensor is simply a "film" of >sorts, and that is all it is. You wouldn't kick someone out of 35mm because >they used a different film, and you shouldn't kick them out for using >digital film. The film is 35mm anyway you slice it. Poor analogy Mark. RP© >>>>>>>> Nearly all historically film-centered newsgroups are dwindling. >>>>>>>> Why? Simple: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > The film is 35mm anyway you slice it. > Poor analogy Mark. Note the word "equipment." Film--even when that was my primary capture device--had nothing to do with the vast majority of my kit, which consisted (and still consists) primarily of lenses, flashes, remotes, filters and other doodads. Film is rarely considered "equipment" at all. Film is merely an analog capture device. The lenses, flashes, and assorted other doodads that gather, direct and control light don't care what device records that light, nor do they cease to function...or change their function just because you switch the analog capture device out for a digital capture device. You'rearguing over the nature of what records the light from various IDENTICAL equipment. Film is merely a capture device, and all it ever was...all it ever will be. The other parts of my kit don't morph into something else just because you object to my "film." > RP© SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >Film is rarely considered "equipment" at all. Film is merely an analog >capture device. The lenses, flashes, and assorted other doodads that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >was...all it ever will be. The other parts of my kit don't morph into >something else just because you object to my "film." rec.photo.digital.slr I'm guessing they discuss all the above there. RP© >> Film is rarely considered "equipment" at all. Film is merely an >> analog capture device. The lenses, flashes, and assorted other [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I'm guessing they discuss all the above there. They do indeed. I like both forums, and your endless whining isn't going to have any impact other than to make you look like a whiner. Frankly, were it not for some of the cross-over here(and D-Mac's hideous display of his insanity), this NG would be nearly dead. A HUGE proportion of professional photographers who used primarily 35mm film have switched. This is still their home. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> Film is rarely considered "equipment" at all. Film is merely an >>> analog capture device. The lenses, flashes, and assorted other [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >They do indeed. >Frankly, were it not for some of the cross-over here(and D-Mac's hideous >display of his insanity), this NG would be nearly dead. A HUGE proportion >of professional photographers who used primarily 35mm film have switched. >This is still their home. Professional photogs.... on this group.... surely you jest. There hasn't been a professional photographer posting to this group since the digirati took over (coincidence I guess). BTW: everything is relative. IMO, /you/ seem unstable. rec.photo.dslr RP© - "you know why I take 1000mg of zoloft every day.... to keep from killing you all" - Mike Tyson - >>>> Film is rarely considered "equipment" at all. Film is merely an >>>> analog capture device. The lenses, flashes, and assorted other [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > BTW: everything is relative. IMO, /you/ seem unstable. Ya think? IS helps with that... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>> Film is rarely considered "equipment" at all. Film is merely an >>>> analog capture device. The lenses, flashes, and assorted other [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > hasn't been a professional photographer posting to this group since > the digirati took over (coincidence I guess). OK. Change that to "serious" photogs, and it works just the same. What are you primarily shooting these days? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Professional photogs.... on this group.... surely you jest. There > hasn't been a professional photographer posting to this group since > the digirati took over What crap, there seems to be a number of people who make money from their photo's, still posting. Now you can argue the ability of people like D-Mac maybe, but it appears he is just one of the professionals on at least one of the unspecified groups you are cross posting to. MrT. > Note the word "equipment." > Film--even when that was my primary capture device--had nothing to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ever was...all it ever will be. The other parts of my kit don't morph > into something else just because you object to my "film." That makes sense to me. If the group name was ".35mmfilm", there might be a valid distinction. Do you ever "dial" a number on a telephone with a keypad? If you wrote down the number with a "lead" pencil, should you be barred from "dialing" because there is no lead in your pencil? Could we then shoot you with a "gun" using "ball" ammunition if the "gun" has a rifled bore and fires a non-spherical bullet? Old names stick around after the technology changes. BTW, I'm only here because this is where ShootIns lives. If that was a separate group .... > The body of a dslr is no more 35mm camera than an Apple computer is a > Windows machine. True, a new Apple can quite happily run Windows, and a full frame DSLR has a 35mm sensor! MrT. > Yet you and the three stooges always argue that this is a "digital" > group because your digi cams use *some* lenses that can ALSO be used [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I remain, curious, I'm even more curious why you would think Aus.photo (included in your crosspost) should not attract both film and digital photographers? Not to mention there are far more film sizes than 35mm anyway. And if you want to be truly specific, you should specify whether 35mm movie equipment is included or not :-) MrT. > Not to mention there are far more film sizes than 35mm anyway. Well don't then. ;-) Seriously, the fact that there are more film sizes than 35mm is relevant as this group is dedicated to 35mm, not the other sizes. > And if you want to be truly specific, you should specify whether 35mm movie > equipment is included or not :-) Not as rec.photo... as cinematography is not photography. >> Not to mention there are far more film sizes than 35mm anyway. > >Well don't then. ;-) > >Seriously, the fact that there are more film sizes than 35mm is relevant as >this group is dedicated to 35mm, not the other sizes. There are newsgroups specifically dedicated to other FILM sizes too, just as this one is dedicated to 35mm FILM. news:rec.photo.equipment.aps news:rec.photo.equipment.medium-format news:rec.photo.equipment.large-format > There are newsgroups specifically dedicated to other FILM sizes too, > just as this one is dedicated to 35mm FILM. > > news:rec.photo.equipment.aps > news:rec.photo.equipment.medium-format > news:rec.photo.equipment.large-format Very true there are newsgroups for the other formats, and why is that? I mean they all use pretty much the same film, just different sizes so that can't be it. Of course the reason is that a LF camera is a lot different in its operation then a 35mm camera and both are different from a MF camera. I mean I am not going to use a lens from a LF camera on my 35mm camera, at least it is not very likely. And the tripod needed for a LF camera is not necessarily the tripod I would need for my 35mm camera. And for the most part both 35mm FILM cameras and DSLR fill the same roll, making very nice 8 x 10 prints but both being pushed just a bit to go past that level. Clearly the reason for having a 35mm, MF and LF group is that the equipment used is enough different between them to make a real difference. But I find the difference between a film 35mm camera and a DSLR to be very small, perhaps this is because my film SLRs were Canon and my DSLRs are also Canon. Scott >> There are newsgroups specifically dedicated to other FILM sizes too, >> just as this one is dedicated to 35mm FILM. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Scott That's right. Operation is identical, and most of the equipment used is also identical. All but the body *IS* the same equipment. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > That's right. Operation is identical, and most of the equipment used is > also identical. All but the body *IS* the same equipment. And the EF-S lenses if you want to be pedantic :-) MrT. >> That's right. Operation is identical, and most of the equipment >> used is also identical. All but the body *IS* the same equipment. > > And the EF-S lenses if you want to be pedantic :-) I don't own any of those. :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > >> That's right. Operation is identical, and most of the equipment > >> used is also identical. All but the body *IS* the same equipment. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't own any of those. > :) Sorry, I didn't know the discussion was limited to what *you* own :-) MrT. > There are newsgroups specifically dedicated to other FILM sizes too, > just as this one is dedicated to 35mm FILM. > > news:rec.photo.equipment.aps > news:rec.photo.equipment.medium-format > news:rec.photo.equipment.large-format One wonders why they aren't called: news:rec.photo.FILM.aps news:rec.photo.FILM.medium-format news:rec.photo.FILM.large-format >> There are newsgroups specifically dedicated to other FILM sizes too, >> just as this one is dedicated to 35mm FILM. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >news:rec.photo.FILM.medium-format >news:rec.photo.FILM.large-format You wonder about an awful lot of things. > > news:rec.photo.equipment.aps > > news:rec.photo.equipment.medium-format [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > news:rec.photo.FILM.medium-format > news:rec.photo.FILM.large-format can I get your large-format dslr? :-D > can I get your large-format dslr? Talk about mirror slap, it would be enough to yank the camera right out of your hands. Scott >>> Not to mention there are far more film sizes than 35mm anyway. >> Well don't then. ;-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There are newsgroups specifically dedicated to other FILM sizes too, > just as this one is dedicated to 35mm FILM. You've made that point ad nauseum. Lots of posters don't agree with you, and few do. Learn. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> Not to mention there are far more film sizes than 35mm anyway. >>> Well don't then. ;-) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >You've made that point ad nauseum. Lots of posters don't agree with >you, and few do. Learn. What I have learnt is that many film users have abandoned this newsgroup permanently over the last few years because it has been hijacked by ignorant, aggressive digital users who use the forum to denigrate film and those who use it. There is no doubt that this is a film newsgroup, hence the "35mm" in the newsgroup's title. "35mm" has no relevance to digital. It refers exclusively to a film format, and this newsgroup got its name when virtually all imaging was done on film. So that makes anti-film postings here extremely offensive to film users. Faced with a relentless barrage of anti-film propaganda from over-assertive digital users, they have had no option but to find other forums to discuss film photography. Yet many film users still feel that this newsgroup is their spiritual home on Usenet. I know that I speak for many, not a few, when I say that digital users should use the forums that were specifically created for them on Usenet and leave the film newsgroups for people who enjoy using and discussing film. When such a range of digital forums exists, you have no reason to discuss purely digital topics here. The relentless, biased and factually incorrect attacks on film and its users have no place on Usenet at all, but this is the last place that they should appear. The fact that so many attacks on film and film users are posted here, on a film newsgroup, is an indication that the reasons for posting them are entirely malicious and spiteful. > There is no doubt that this is a film newsgroup, hence the "35mm" in > the newsgroup's title. There is no doubting the ignorance of crossposters who fail to acknowledge that aus.photo is not just film related either! > "35mm" has no relevance to digital. It refers > exclusively to a film format, Bullshit! What size do you think the sensor is on a full frame DSLR? MrT. >Bullshit! What size do you think the sensor is on a full frame DSLR? You're the one full of BS. Why do you think the newsgroup news:rec.photo.digital.slr-systems was established? Does it |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message