Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Waterfalls - Part I Article

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
ron - 12 Jul 2006 13:59 GMT
I have just posted Part I of a four part series on photographing
waterfalls. The first article focuses on the basics of setting up for a
waterfall shot. The subsequent articles focus on the more advanced
issues encountered when shooting a waterfall. The article can be found
on my web at:

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/waterfalls-1/waterfalls-1.htm

Other articles can be found at:

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm

Ron Bigelow
http://ronbigelow.com
Randall Ainsworth - 12 Jul 2006 14:08 GMT
> I have just posted Part I of a four part series on photographing
> waterfalls. The first article focuses on the basics of setting up for a
> waterfall shot. The subsequent articles focus on the more advanced
> issues encountered when shooting a waterfall. The article can be found
> on my web at:

The master of useless information returns...
G.T. - 12 Jul 2006 18:01 GMT
>>I have just posted Part I of a four part series on photographing
>>waterfalls. The first article focuses on the basics of setting up for a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> The master of useless information returns...

Are you jealous that Ron is contributing to photography and you're
sucking the life out of it?

Greg

Signature

"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

Bill K - 12 Jul 2006 20:25 GMT
> >>I have just posted Part I of a four part series on photographing
> >>waterfalls. The first article focuses on the basics of setting up for a
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Waking to the sound of laughter
> Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

I almost always find Ron's posts interesting and informative
Signature

Bill

Randall Ainsworth - 13 Jul 2006 02:40 GMT
> Are you jealous that Ron is contributing to photography and you're
> sucking the life out of it?

That's it. I'm jealous of some idiot who routinely posts articles
containing meaningless drivel.
Pete D - 13 Jul 2006 03:24 GMT
>> Are you jealous that Ron is contributing to photography and you're
>> sucking the life out of it?
>
> That's it. I'm jealous of some idiot who routinely posts articles
> containing meaningless drivel.

Perhaps you should post links to some of your work so that we may learn from
you oh master??
Randall Ainsworth - 13 Jul 2006 03:56 GMT
In article
<44b5aec3$0$21721$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D
<no@email.com> wrote:

> Perhaps you should post links to some of your work so that we may learn from
> you oh master??

One more time:

http://users.techline.com/randya
Joan - 13 Jul 2006 12:44 GMT
And all the Aussies snigger at the URL.

Signature

Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

: In article
: <44b5aec3$0$21721$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
:
: http://users.techline.com/randya 
Pete D - 13 Jul 2006 21:13 GMT
> And all the Aussies snigger at the URL.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> :
> : http://users.techline.com/randya

Possibly, I also snigger because the photos are pretty average.
C J Southern - 14 Jul 2006 01:49 GMT
> The master of useless information returns...

There are 2 broad categories that most people can be catagorized in to: (1)
Those (like Ron) who create values for society, and (2) those who seek only
to destroy the values created by others - usually in a vain attempt to usurp
unearned respect and bolster their sagging egos.

Pretty clear which group you fit in to Randall.

Considering that you're always making these kinds of attacks, I think it's
time for you to take a long hard look at yourself, and ask yourself if
you're going to continue to be a value destroyer for the rest of your life,
or if you're going to "step up to the plate" and actually contribute
something?
Eric Schreiber - 14 Jul 2006 02:34 GMT
> There are 2 broad categories that most people can be catagorized in
> to: (1) Those (like Ron) who create values for society, and (2) those
> who seek only to destroy the values created by others - usually in a
> vain attempt to usurp unearned respect and bolster their sagging egos.
> Pretty clear which group you fit in to Randall.

Well stated.

> it's time for you to take a long hard look at yourself, and ask
> yourself if you're going to continue to be a value destroyer

Good luck!

Signature

www.ericschreiber.com

Little Green Eyed Dragon - 14 Jul 2006 03:33 GMT
> > There are 2 broad categories that most people can be catagorized in
> > to: (1) Those (like Ron) who create values for society, and (2) those
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Good luck!

Teeth marks the spot.

Signature

Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".

Little Green Eyed Dragon - 14 Jul 2006 03:32 GMT
>  > The master of useless information returns...
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> or if you're going to "step up to the plate" and actually contribute
> something?

Then there are of course those compelled for what ever reason to feed
trolls, feed the fire, feed whatever to make themselves feel justified
and impotent in a seemingly chaotic world (you poor belabored soul) and
sanctimonious. Why don't you practice ignoring the BS and Randall if
that floats your boat...after all your response is what he feeds on, or
did you flunk psych 101 ?

Go up- instead of out- a message for Americans.

Signature

Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".

C J Southern - 14 Jul 2006 04:56 GMT
> In article <b9CdnQesc7BadCvZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@giganews.com>,

> Then there are of course those compelled for what ever reason to feed
> trolls, feed the fire, feed whatever to make themselves feel justified
> and impotent in a seemingly chaotic world (you poor belabored soul) and
> sanctimonious. Why don't you practice ignoring the BS and Randall if
> that floats your boat...after all your response is what he feeds on, or
> did you flunk psych 101 ?

I never made it to university - so perhaps you're right on the "Psychology
101 bit".

Personally, I've never percieved Randall as a troll - just someone who needs
to grow up and learn that when he constantly chips in with his usual
psudo-ego-boosting put downs on those who are doing a lot more to help than
he's ever done, he actually reveals a lot more about himself than he does
about the other party. Nobody respects someone who constantly devalues the
hard work of others.

Should I ignore him? Probably Am I adding fuel to the fire? Perhaps. But
frankly I've just had a guts-full of him dumping on people who are too
polite to respond.

I'm not sure where he learned his "manners" from, but I for one are getting
sick of gutless wonders like him thinking they can say what they like just
because (due to the nature of the medium) it's unlikely that there will ever
be any personal consequences. Trolling I can and do ignore, but plain
rudeness & unjustified attacks on the innocent is something I'm not prepared
to let slip by to the point where it becomes psudo-acceptable.

If your perception is that I take this stand in the interests of feeling
"justified" and "impotent" (I think you mean "important") then so be it.
Little Green Eyed Dragon - 14 Jul 2006 05:19 GMT
>  I'm not prepared
> to let slip by to the point where it becomes psudo-acceptable.

Not that I am a grammatical Wizard but it should be "pseudo".

> If your perception is that I take this stand in the interests of feeling
> "justified" and "impotent" (I think you mean "important") then so be it.

& Sanctimonious. Get over him,...he's not worth the expenditure.
He stays a short hop from my kill file for my amusement.

Although- Look at it this way; the "net" is  full of twits that post how
to or buy it now crap in these groups- only to "hopefully" promote their
Gaah-bage, any-who with a key pad is suddenly an author with gobs of
followers ready swallow their swill . Not Ron fits this title,...but hey
does he post anything but here's my stuff and be gone? My point: "I"
ignore- both types- I do try to actually help those i feel qualified to
do so.  

Signature

Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".

C J Southern - 14 Jul 2006 06:47 GMT
> In article <grOdnc-3yYjaiCrZnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews.com>,

> Not that I am a grammatical Wizard but it should be "pseudo".

Quite correct, although one would perhaps benefit most by being a spelling
wiz, rather than a grammatical one in such a circumstance ;)

> & Sanctimonious. Get over him,...he's not worth the expenditure.

I agree that he's not worth the expenditure - however - I'm also sick of
turning the other cheek when I get to watch people like Randall beating up
on an innocent victim for no reason other than the pseudo (spelt correctly!)
ego-boost gleaned from the implication that his own work and standards are
so superior that he's qualified to speak for us all in dismissing the
efforts of the OP.

> He stays a short hop from my kill file for my amusement.

The irony is that he's already in my kill file - I just wish the software
was smart enough to hide the subsequent replies :(

> Although- Look at it this way; the "net" is  full of twits that post how
> to or buy it now crap in these groups- only to "hopefully" promote their
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> ignore- both types- I do try to actually help those i feel qualified to
> do so.

Any help that's offered on usenet is, of course, offered in a voluntary
capacity - so I don't feel we have the right to criticise anyone who chooses
to contribute "only" a link. Tell you what though, although I don't know
much about Ron I'm willing to bet that writing these tutorials would take up
a bucket load of time. And in making them available to anyone I'm sure he
ultimately helps a lot more people than our one-on-one answers.

Speaking personally, I feel that if we had more people like Ron
(acknowledging that we do already have many very knowledgeable and helpful
people here), and less value-destroyers like Randall, the group would be so
much the better for it.
J. Clarke - 14 Jul 2006 12:59 GMT
> "Little Green Eyed Dragon" <AShadeosPerceptionvanishez@myplace.com> wrote
> in message

news:AShadeosPerceptionvanishez-5A5BE6.00232614072006@news.isp.giganews.com...

>> In article <grOdnc-3yYjaiCrZnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> The irony is that he's already in my kill file - I just wish the software
> was smart enough to hide the subsequent replies :(

Just a comment but you might want to look into hamster, which is Windows
freeware--<http://www.elbiah.de/hamster/>.  Let's you filter on the body
and on other fields that other software doesn't even see.  Bit of a
learning curve but worthwhile--one nice thing is that once you have hamster
set up it will filter for just about any newsreader, even one on a
different machine.

>> Although- Look at it this way; the "net" is  full of twits that post how
>> to or buy it now crap in these groups- only to "hopefully" promote their
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> people here), and less value-destroyers like Randall, the group would be
> so much the better for it.

Signature

--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Randall Ainsworth - 14 Jul 2006 13:21 GMT
> I agree that he's not worth the expenditure - however - I'm also sick of
> turning the other cheek when I get to watch people like Randall beating up
> on an innocent victim for no reason other than the pseudo (spelt correctly!)
> ego-boost gleaned from the implication that his own work and standards are
> so superior that he's qualified to speak for us all in dismissing the
> efforts of the OP.

No ego glorification here. I think it's more a difference related to
levels of proficiency. These groups are, for the most part, amateur
photographers.
Bill K - 14 Jul 2006 14:10 GMT
> > I agree that he's not worth the expenditure - however - I'm also sick of
> > turning the other cheek when I get to watch people like Randall beating up
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> levels of proficiency. These groups are, for the most part, amateur
> photographers.

Those who can't do, teach. Those who can do neither sit on boards of
directors

Signature

Bill in Lake Charles

Randall Ainsworth - 14 Jul 2006 14:23 GMT
> Those who can't do, teach. Those who can do neither sit on boards of
> directors

Uh-huh.
G.T. - 14 Jul 2006 07:07 GMT
>> I'm not prepared
>>to let slip by to the point where it becomes psudo-acceptable.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> followers ready swallow their swill . Not Ron fits this title,...but hey
> does he post anything but here's my stuff and be gone?

He probably gave up posting here because of a.ses like RA.  Many helpful
professionals have left the bicycle newsgroups because of guys like RA.

Greg

Signature

"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

Randall Ainsworth - 14 Jul 2006 13:19 GMT
> Personally, I've never percieved Randall as a troll - just someone who needs
> to grow up and learn that when he constantly chips in with his usual
> psudo-ego-boosting put downs on those who are doing a lot more to help than
> he's ever done, he actually reveals a lot more about himself than he does
> about the other party. Nobody respects someone who constantly devalues the
> hard work of others.

How do you know what I have and haven't done with respect to
photography?

Besides teaching classes through the local junior college on occasion,
and through other venues, I served on the Board of Trustees for a
professional photography school for ten years.
G.T. - 14 Jul 2006 19:02 GMT
>>Personally, I've never percieved Randall as a troll - just someone who needs
>>to grow up and learn that when he constantly chips in with his usual
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> How do you know what I have and haven't done with respect to
> photography?

I don't but I do know that you're avoiding that fact that you can't
judge horizons.

Greg

Signature

"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

Randall Ainsworth - 15 Jul 2006 18:09 GMT
> I don't but I do know that you're avoiding that fact that you can't
> judge horizons.

OH sh.t! I took a picture that was half a degree off.
mark.thomas.7@gmail.com - 16 Jul 2006 09:38 GMT
> > I don't but I do know that you're avoiding that fact that you can't
> > judge horizons.
>
> OH sh.t! I took a picture that was half a degree off.

Actually, there are at least *seven* of your shots which are *bent*,
Randy.  But strangely you didn't seem to see that post of mine below,
which also pointed out how kind we were by not mentioning the dynamic
range problems, poor sharpness, poor composition and lame webpage
design..

It's the one where I said you were worse than dead.  Maybe you should
go down and read it now, slowly and carefully.

For anyone wondering what this is about, ignore all the above, and go
to:

http://www.ronbigelow.com

for some truly excellent tutorials...
Randall Ainsworth - 16 Jul 2006 15:58 GMT
> Actually, there are at least *seven* of your shots which are *bent*,
> Randy.  But strangely you didn't seem to see that post of mine below,
> which also pointed out how kind we were by not mentioning the dynamic
> range problems, poor sharpness, poor composition and lame webpage
> design..

I read it and passed it off as the rantings of yet another untalented
amateur.

Dynamic range problems...each is appropriate for the specific image.
Sharpness? The images are downsized so that people aren't having to
download huge images. But each are appropriately sharp as per the
specific image.
Composition - uh-huh. Let's see you do better.
Web page design - well, I'm not selling anything. The pages are
intended for friends and relatives to see my work. They are done using
an automated process and then slightly cleaned up to my liking. They
look fine to me and serve their intended purpose. I don't care what you
think of them.
mark.thomas.7@gmail.com - 17 Jul 2006 12:24 GMT
Off topic - just some responses to everyone's favorite, Randall
Ainsworth..  (O:

> > Actually, there are at least *seven* of your shots which are *bent*,
> > Randy.  But strangely you didn't seem to see that post of mine below,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I read it and passed it off as the rantings of yet another untalented
> amateur.

But I note you don't argue with the comments..  And apparently you
can't even spot a half degree tilt, let alone one or two degrees?  What
sort of crap amateur are *you*?  Oh, and straying a little,
"incompetent" is spelt with an E, not an A.  You, of all people, should
at least know how to spell it.

> Dynamic range problems...each is appropriate for the specific image.
Haha.  Highly amusing.  Sad, though.  How's your monitor calibrated,
there, amateur boy?  Do we need to send you a gamma test strip?  Do you
know what 0,0,0 means?

Specific examples -
Astoria - has that awful
not-quite-a-silhouette-but-blocked-shadow-detail look.  And you want an
example of trite composition...? Look no further.
Fungus - that image is just embarrassingly awful.  I presume it's meant
to be a texture-type shot and yet the entire dark area is 0,0,0??  What
the hell were you thinking?  That is just INDESCRIBABLY bad.  I mean it
even looks as if it was shot on an overcast day, and yet you've managed
to... no, I can't go on, it's just too ridiculous...
Myrtle Falls - you really think this is good control of dynamic range?
What the hell is all that black area?  But, hey, it's a great example
of how NOT to do it!!
Narada Falls - again, contrasted all to hell.  That black area
*completely* unbalances the image.
Mount Rainier - just roll your eyedropper over those shadows on the
foreground ridge - horrible loss of detail again.  Why?????  Even the
most cursory look at the histogram shows how badly mangled it is.  Do
ya know what a histogram is, Randy???  Well, bloody *use* it.

And it goes on - the sad part is that some of these pictures could have
been wonderful, if you only had a clue.  But you clearly don't. And
even a poorly adjusted monitor doesn't excuse the torture you have
imposed on those poor images.  It's just stupidity and incompetence.
The fact that you can't even recognise these faults is just... well,
let's just say it gives you away.

> Sharpness? The images are downsized so that people aren't having to
> download huge images. But each are appropriately sharp as per the
> specific image.
Haha again.  They are mostly OVER-compressed by the way.

Specific examples -
Bark on Willaby - what a *dead* image.  No sense of texture due to poor
sharpening, in fact the only sharp bits appear to be those annoying and
distracting bright spots eg at mid right.  Hot pixels, or just odd
reflections that should have been cloned away..?
Cannon Beach sunsets - all have horrible jpeg artefacts - not really a
sharpening problem, but the two go hand in hand if you know what you
are doing..
Fall Colors - admittedly this would be a hard one to sharpen well, but
you haven't even got close.
Fungus - again, apart from the awful contrast problems, this one
reveals your lack of mastery - the fungus should be sharp all over -
it's not like it was a grab shot...  Either you screwed up your depth
of field, or you have used lousy USM.
Beach Sunset - the last one sucks - apart from the foreground beach
being unsharp, the sky looks faked (even if it isn't faked, I would
chuck this one just to avoid the suggestion!), and as for the flare -
yeeuch.  Do you think it is somehow clever and exciting to have a big
red blob there?

..I will admit you are better at sharpening than controlling dynamic
range, though..

By the way, I still can't get over the tilt in Seagull on the Beach.
You're a scream, Randy!!!

> Composition - uh-huh. Let's see you do better.
*I'm* not the one making the claims of 40 years of professionalism
(cough-bullshit-cough), and abusing other *decent* photographers who
contribute to helping others.  There *is* stuff of mine around, if you
are that interested, but I'm not here pretending to be great.  *You*
criticised Ron, *you* posted the link, so *you* wear it.

> Web page design - well, I'm not selling anything.
So you even admit it is lame.

> The pages are
> intended for friends and relatives to see my work.
Then *why* did you advertise them here?  And I'm tempted to ask - is
that the best you have to show for those 40 years?  That's just sad.

You are a pretender.  Just like, I note, you used to pretend that you
were an MSCE, some years ago - same crap different day, eh...?  Yes,
it's easy to pretend you aren't a DOG on the Internet, isn't it Randy -
it's the perfect place for a loser to hang out and get all the
recognition you couldn't get in reality.  Well, look around, Randy boy,
no one's fooled - you haven't got a SINGLE supporter here.

> They are done using
> an automated process
You are surely joking.  You use an automated sytem and get that????
Bet you spent a fortune.. (O:

> They look fine to me
Well, that tells us everything we need to know.  Your standards are
obvious.

> and serve their intended purpose.
Showing how flawed your work is?

> I don't care what you think of them.
You are doing a lot of posturing and defending, on a topic that you
don't care about.

But don't mind me, I'm just talentless, so completely ignore my
comments above, and you just continue along in the same vein.  I'm sure
someone will be impressed... one day...
C J Southern - 18 Jul 2006 06:58 GMT
> You are a pretender.  Just like, I note, you used to pretend that you
> were an MSCE, some years ago - same crap different day, eh...?

A pretender with a superiority complex - it's got to be about as deluded and
sad as it gets.
Randall Ainsworth - 19 Jul 2006 02:34 GMT
> And it goes on - the sad part is that some of these pictures could have
> been wonderful, if you only had a clue.  But you clearly don't. And
> even a poorly adjusted monitor doesn't excuse the torture you have
> imposed on those poor images.  It's just stupidity and incompetence.
> The fact that you can't even recognise these faults is just... well,
> let's just say it gives you away.

WOW! I stand in the presence of greatness. And your Web address is?
mark.thomas.7@gmail.com - 19 Jul 2006 10:46 GMT
Off-topic.  Just one last sword into the troll....

> > And it goes on - the sad part is that some of these pictures could have
> > been wonderful, if you only had a clue...It's just stupidity and incompetence.
> > The fact that you can't even recognise these faults is just... well,
> > let's just say it gives you away.

(...So, no comments from Randall, to *any* of the criticisms I made of
his work. His refusal to address or discuss the many faults with those
images was hardly unexpected.)

> WOW! I stand in the presence of greatness.

Why, thanks.  But I only claim *competence* - enough to know rubbish
when I see it.  I've never claimed greatness, I've never criticised
Ron's excellent work, and unlike you I've not posted my website on this
thread in a lame attempt to bignote myself.  That was YOU.

> And your Web address is?
..therefore irrelevant.  Go find it yourself, you lazy mongrel.  YOU
shot your foul mouth off about Ron's website, and then YOU very
foolishly posted YOUR website address to this thread, in some sort of
inexplicable attempt to show people how 'professional' you were.
Clearly it was a dismal failure (I strongly suggest you read ALL
replies to this posting if you think otherwise).  And, not that I would
rub it in (hahah!), but you even showed *by example* that you talked
crap. YOU SAID:
> I guess I'm one of those people who innately get
> horizons and such straight.
and yet you had posted this image among several other 'bent' ones, on
your website:

http://users.techline.com/randya/mediafiles/l30.jpg

Yes, clearly you have that innate sense...... Like I said, you're a
scream, Randy.  And another reminder - here's how a master of 40 years
professional experience handles dynamic range:

http://users.techline.com/randya/mediafiles/l11.jpg

Let us know when you fix all the images, and then talk to us again, ok?
I'm sure there will be new people who will believe you....
Mick Anderson - 19 Jul 2006 12:24 GMT
> Let us know when you fix all the images, and then talk to us again, ok?
> I'm sure there will be new people who will believe you....

I know of some good tutorials that might help him improve ...

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm

Oops - sorry - forgot - Randy thinks he knows it all already.
Randall Ainsworth - 19 Jul 2006 13:20 GMT
> Why, thanks.  But I only claim *competence* - enough to know rubbish
> when I see it.  I've never claimed greatness, I've never criticised
> Ron's excellent work, and unlike you I've not posted my website on this
> thread in a lame attempt to bignote myself.  That was YOU.

I've never claimed greatness either. And for what it's worth, I've been
out of town the past few days.
So you can rip my images, but don't have balls to post any of your own.
Sounds like another Floyd Davidson in the making.

> ..therefore irrelevant.  Go find it yourself, you lazy mongrel.  YOU
> shot your foul mouth off about Ron's website, and then YOU very
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> rub it in (hahah!), but you even showed *by example* that you talked
> crap. YOU SAID:

I posted my address as I have in the past in response to someone who
asked. At least I have the balls to put them up there for everyone to
see.
mark.thomas.7@gmail.com - 19 Jul 2006 14:02 GMT
Off topic again, sorry.

> I've never claimed greatness either.

No?  Umm, what would this be an attempt at, then?

>Besides teaching classes through the local junior college on occasion,
>and through other venues, I served on the Board of Trustees for a
>professional photography school for ten years.

Woohoo.  And from other threads:

>I've done photography for almost 40 years. For 16+ of those years,
>I operated a studio. I've photographed hundreds of weddings
>and thousands of individuals in a wide range of environmental
>conditions. I've taught photography classes for a junior college
>and independently.
(did you forget about the independent ones in your later claims?)

>I served on the Board of Trustees for a professional photography
>school for 10 years
(do you have all this stuff ready as a cut-and-paste?)

>and have studied with some of the best in the photography
>business.

Of couse you have sweety.  Asleep in the back row, perchance?

You, Mr Ainsworth, are what we down-under-ites call a w.nker.

> So you can rip my images, but don't have balls to post any of your own.

Yes, they deserve to be ripped.  They are crap.  And do I really need
to repeat.. - *you* made the claims.  *You* got it in the neck.  I've
posted links to my stuff *where appropriate*, and will continue to do
so for anyone who shows a bit of decency ie, not you.

And you could *easily* find those links if you had a clue.  Hey,
there's even several images that are flawed, and my web page design
isn't yet ready for 'general release', so you could have a field day!!
But the difference is that I *know* my limitations, I *admit* my
errors, I *learn* from people who know their stuff (ie not you).  You
should try that approach one day.

So, yep, my stuff is around, but this is YOUR show, Randy.  You started
it.  Wear it.

> Sounds like another Floyd Davidson in the making.

OK, the classic troll approach, criticise more/other people and try to
get the heat off.  Not working, Randy.  Your images STILL stink, and
you are opinionated, egotistical, live ina fanbtasy world, and add
nothing useful to these forums..  Have you not noticed it's not just me
saying that?

Here's another classic:

http://users.techline.com/randya/mediafiles/l23.jpg

Nice shadow detail.  (Hey, credit where due, it's a nice photo but for
the foreboding forest, and I'm sure it was an 'artistic choice'....(O;)
That image comes from the man who said, on histograms:

> I don't need no steenking graphs, and neither does anybody
>else if they'll take the time to learn simple, basic principles.

Your lack of interest in histograms is quite obvious from your images.
And you'll get some desperately needed help with those basic principles
from this site:

http://www.ronbigelow.com

Don't worry if it's a bit advanced - just keep practising and maybe you
will start to get it.  (O:

> I posted my address as I have in the past in response to someone who
> asked.

As I do all the time.  But here, nobody asked.

(Well, nobody who matters.)

> At least I have the balls to put them up there for everyone to
> see.

Ballsy? No, just stupid.  Everyone now knows how good you aren't.

(O:  Keep digging Randall.  I'm having fun.
Frank ess - 19 Jul 2006 19:58 GMT
> Off topic again, sorry.
>
[quoted text clipped - 95 lines]
>
> (O:  Keep digging Randall.  I'm having fun.

Typing with one hand? (smiley face)

I have don't-liked Randall since the first time I read his
self-important, smug comments, all phrased in a way to maintain his
fragile ego and support his mis-perceived powers of discernment and
his cockeyed perception of his own credibility.

I agree with the opinions of his photography that rate it as other
than "great"; I'd say his skills are like mine: can see potential for
excellent images, can get some of the elements into a frame, can
somehow make just the wrong -- I mean "less appropriate" or "more
nearly counterproductive" -- choices, so a thoughtful eye can see kind
of where the vision wanted to go, but also realize the
miss-by-not-quite-a-mile nature of the product presented. Doesn't mean
it isn't "good" in one or another sense, nor that it isn't satisfying.
Among myriad efforts, even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn.

I will quote this _apropos_ rant (not originally) about Mr Mark's
treatment of Randall:

"Isn't doing even a fine, fine superfine mashed potato in someone
else's decayed, putrefying, maggot-ridden, gorge-raising,
slippery-slope slick, pants-leg adhering gut-grease the mark of ONE
SICK PUPPY ?

"I mean, girds or no, style or none, performance-tuned or no, doesn't
a compulsive carrion-stomper eventually stink like dead animal
entrails? Don't those particles racketing around in the neighborhood
of the stomper's contacts' olfactories leave sense-memories among the
most vivid and influential? Do we not remember best and foremost the
stench when the carrier's shade passes over the cortex?

"Eh?"

Signature

Frank ess
"I can't sing,
but I know how to,
which is quite different."
-- Noel Coward

Randall Ainsworth - 20 Jul 2006 03:04 GMT
> I have don't-liked Randall since the first time I read his
> self-important, smug comments, all phrased in a way to maintain his
> fragile ego and support his mis-perceived powers of discernment and
> his cockeyed perception of his own credibility.

I'm hurt.

> I agree with the opinions of his photography that rate it as other
> than "great"; I'd say his skills are like mine: can see potential for
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> it isn't "good" in one or another sense, nor that it isn't satisfying.
> Among myriad efforts, even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn.

When did I say it was "great?"

Why do I even waste my time with amateurs?
mark.thomas.7@gmail.com - 20 Jul 2006 12:04 GMT
Off topic, somewhat...

> > (O:  Keep digging Randall.  I'm having fun.
>
> Typing with one hand? (smiley face)

Nah, getting a bit old for that sorta thing, and it would need to be
something much better than Randall to excite my somewhat jaded self...
(O;

> I have don't-liked Randall since the first time I read his
> self-important, smug comments

Ditto.  And I in turn always find *your* often terse and clever
comments cut right to the point, and they are very well worth reading,
Mr ess.  You're the sort of character we need more of.  Although some
of your prose and wit, I have to admit, goes over my head... (O:

> I agree with the opinions of his photography that rate it as other
> than "great"

Interestingly, I don't really care too much about the quality of images
that people post, unless they post something that flies in the face of
what they SAY.  For IMNVHO, it's all about what is *said*.  If you
speak with forked tongue you deserve to be lambasted, but if you speak
wisdom, then who cares if you can't apply the wisdom yourself, or can't
be bothered with a webpage..  (refer Noel Coward quote..)

And I, like many of us uncouth Orstralians, *really* dislike smartarses
who bignote themselves, or pretend to be something they clearly aren't.
And if they combine that with arrogance, putdowns, and bad
information... then I get rather singleminded in my desire to show them
for what they are - ie the Douglas MacDonalds and Randall Ainsworths of
this world..  Both of them have, from time to time, spoken well and
logically, and both have posted a few (not many, mark you..) good
images.  But when they keep rolling out the sort of opinionated,
egotistical attitudes as shown here, along with bad information - I get
really sick of it.

> I'd say his skills are like mine: can see potential for
> excellent images, can get some of the elements into a frame, can
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> it isn't "good" in one or another sense, nor that it isn't satisfying.
> Among myriad efforts, even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn.

And there is *nothing* wrong with that, and I think we are all there,
or have been...  I post flawed images myself all the time - see below*.
But I am delighted when people visit those images and tell me what I
can do better, or how they disagree with this or that decision I made.
I judge my success on the 'average' response I get, which is *mostly*
positive (O;.  In a related vein, I do *regularly* teach photography
classes (yes, really! - forgive me for the hypocritical bignoting!) and
I just love dragging out various images of mine and others, good or bad
so that we all, students and I, then rip them to shreds wherever and
however possible - slagging off other peoples work and trying to do
better yourself is a *great* way to become better at your craft!!  By
the way, I'm exaggerating a little - we *do* look for the 'good' in all
images, too!

For the record, I'm not a pro.  But I did shoot weddings (Bronica SQ
mf) for a pretty high end studio for a few years, and I still do a
little commercial work on the side.  I didn't really enjoy photography
*as a profession* (after 50 weddings, you get a little bored with the
subject matter!), so I gave that up, kept it as a hobby, and am now
very picky about what I do - I just have fun.  And I would have to say
that *teaching* photography is unbelievably rewarding - it is by far
the best enjoyment I have had from the subject!

> "Eh?"
Exactly!!

And now that I am not talking to Randall - here are some of my images,
apologetically posted (again, perhaps hypocritically!):

http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm
(Yes, I'm *really* sorry it is webshots - eventually I'll get rid of it
when I have finished my own pages.)
All those images, bar one, were taken in about an hour, testing a new
camera)

http://www.marktphoto.com/landscape/index.htm
(..this, and the related pages are not ready for prime time yet, so my
humblest apologies for the currently very poor navigation...)
A mixture of a few old (film) and new (digital) landscape shots that
*I* like - I'm still trying to decide what stuff to display..

Any visitors are invited to criticise to their heart's content, and I
will be happy to take comments on board, respond courteously, and see
if I can do better..  If my images indicate that I do not practise what
I preach, then I shall make every endeavour to correct my errors, and
apologise as necessary.  *Someone* has to show Randall how to behave
like a gentleman...  (O;

>  I can't sing,
>  but I know how to,
>  which is quite different."
>  -- Noel Coward

He put it so much better than me...  (O:
Randall Ainsworth - 20 Jul 2006 03:03 GMT
> >Besides teaching classes through the local junior college on occasion,
> >and through other venues, I served on the Board of Trustees for a
> >professional photography school for ten years.
>
> Woohoo.  And from other threads:

Somebody asked - I told 'em.

> Yes, they deserve to be ripped.  They are crap.  And do I really need
> to repeat.. - *you* made the claims.  *You* got it in the neck.  I've
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> errors, I *learn* from people who know their stuff (ie not you).  You
> should try that approach one day.

Amateur dickhead.
Mick Anderson - 14 Jul 2006 22:59 GMT
> Besides teaching classes through the local junior college on occasion,
> and through other venues, I served on the Board of Trustees for a
> professional photography school for ten years.

Then how about conducting yourself professionally in the company of other
educators?

If you don't find what Ron posts of any value then feel free to ignore it.
Many however DO find his work of considerable value and I'm sure that he's
earned the respect of many more through the sheer effort it takes to produce
the articles that he has.

On the other hand, your "The master of useless information returns..." jibe
is an unjustified & disrespectful attack that contributed nothing more than
an insight into your persona.

You owe Ron an apology.
Frank ess - 14 Jul 2006 23:36 GMT
>> Besides teaching classes through the local junior college on
>> occasion, and through other venues, I served on the Board of
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> You owe Ron an apology.

If Ainsworth has a point, and sometimes he may, it'll be a valuable
service when he adds it to the discussion.

His influnce ended long ago because of his caustic and
self-aggrandizing presentaion. Small loss, I judge, in light of the
many benefits of removing him from my view.

Signature

Frank ess
Whenever anyone has offended me, I try to raise my soul so high that
the
offense cannot reach it. -Rene Descartes, philosopher and
mathematician
(1596-1650)  But it ain't easy ... Some times impossible, or not worth
the effort.

Randall Ainsworth - 15 Jul 2006 18:10 GMT
> Then how about conducting yourself professionally in the company of other
> educators?

Is this guy an educator or just someone who enjoys seeing their name on
a Web page?
Mick Anderson - 15 Jul 2006 23:33 GMT
>> Then how about conducting yourself professionally in the company of other
>> educators?
>
> Is this guy an educator or just someone who enjoys seeing their name on
> a Web page?

He's an educator - and he's a good one, demonstrated (in part) by the
numbers of your peers here who have come out and said so.

Randall, what we needed was an apology from you, not to read your pathetic
attempts at trying to justify your unjustifiable behaviour.

Your insensitivity is exceeded only by your arrogance - and I suspect I
speak for many when I say that neither contain even a trace of benefit nor
appeal.

My suggestion is "if you don't have anything nice to say about someone then
don't say anything at all" - at your age you shouldn't need lessons in
manners and basic courtesy.

Take the hint for G'd sake.
]
Randall Ainsworth - 16 Jul 2006 05:12 GMT
> He's an educator - and he's a good one, demonstrated (in part) by the
> numbers of your peers here who have come out and said so.

Never heard of him, and I've studied with some of the best in the
business.
Mick Anderson - 16 Jul 2006 11:11 GMT
>> He's an educator - and he's a good one, demonstrated (in part) by the
>> numbers of your peers here who have come out and said so.
>
> Never heard of him, and I've studied with some of the best in the
> business.

So what's your point? Are you saying that nobody can be a good educator
unless you've heard of them?

I've had the privilage of working with some very successful people - very
wealthy - very respected in their industry - and not one of them - NOT ONE
OF THEM would show the disrespect to fellow enthusiasts that you've shown
(and continue to show).

Studying with some of the best is one thing Mr. Ainsworth - learning
something from them is something else.

It appears obvious to most of us here that when it comes to tact -
diplomacy - politeness - manners - (and a lot more) - you still have an
aweful lot to learn.

In the spirit of assisting you in these areas may I suggest you have a
re-read of "How to Win Friends and Influence People"
G.T. - 18 Jul 2006 03:08 GMT
> > He's an educator - and he's a good one, demonstrated (in part) by the
> > numbers of your peers here who have come out and said so.
>
> Never heard of him, and I've studied with some of the best in the
> business.

So then you're just stupid?  Clearly if you've studied with the best in the
business your results should be better than that shown.

Greg
mark.thomas.7@gmail.com - 16 Jul 2006 09:54 GMT
> He's an educator - and he's a good one, demonstrated (in part) by the
> numbers of your peers here who have come out and said so.

Excellent post, Mick.  Just one minor quibble.

I regard myself as a competent photographer, *and* I like both learning
(there is always new stuff to understand) and teaching.  Which means I
am in no way a 'peer' of Ainsworth.

(O;
Mick Anderson - 16 Jul 2006 11:13 GMT
>> He's an educator - and he's a good one, demonstrated (in part) by the
>> numbers of your peers here who have come out and said so.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> (there is always new stuff to understand) and teaching.  Which means I
> am in no way a 'peer' of Ainsworth.

Perhaps a su-peer-ior ;) ?
Jan Böhme - 14 Jul 2006 10:30 GMT
Little Green Eyed Dragon skrev:

> Then there are of course those compelled for what ever reason to feed
> trolls, feed the fire, feed whatever to make themselves feel justified
> and impotent in a seemingly chaotic world (you poor belabored soul) and
> sanctimonious.

...and then there are those who, in the name of being Usenet-savvy,
whine over people "feeding the trolls", without having a accurate
notion of what a troll actually is, and who take pains to perform this
whining in a manner confrontational and inflammatory enough to ensure
that an emotional and prolonged exchange occurs.

Yeah, Usenet...

Jan Böhme
jimmy - 12 Jul 2006 21:45 GMT
> > I have just posted Part I of a four part series on photographing
> > waterfalls. The first article focuses on the basics of setting up for a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> The master of useless information returns...

I found it very useful - bookmarked Ron's site in fact.
Geir Eivind Mork - 12 Jul 2006 22:31 GMT
Randall Ainsworth skrev:

>> I have just posted Part I of a four part series on photographing
>> waterfalls. The first article focuses on the basics of setting up for a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> The master of useless information returns...

From one of your recent postings:

"After almost 40 years of doing photography, I can usually come pretty
close for exposure too."

No wonder you find intro tutorials useless, but remember the people that
reads this newsgroup doesn't usually have 40 years of experience to put
to use.

Feel free to share some of your knowledge with the group, and since you
badmouth mr Ron here you must be a much better teacher, so I'm awaiting
your tutorials. I'd espesially would like some tips and tricks on
portrait photography with just one flash and one reflector at hand - I'm
not that good so the shadows get a bit hash.
Randall Ainsworth - 13 Jul 2006 02:44 GMT
>  From one of your recent postings:
>
> "After almost 40 years of doing photography, I can usually come pretty
> close for exposure too."

Yup, that's what I said.

> No wonder you find intro tutorials useless, but remember the people that
> reads this newsgroup doesn't usually have 40 years of experience to put
> to use.

This guy is always posting useless information. I don't feel like
typing an  essay here, but this waterfall thing was a bit overboard.
I've never used a level for field photography. I guess I'm one of those
people who innately get horizons and such straight. And I've never felt
the need to weight down the tripod with rocks.

I'll give him two points though - looks like he was using a 10D.

> Feel free to share some of your knowledge with the group, and since you
> badmouth mr Ron here you must be a much better teacher, so I'm awaiting
> your tutorials. I'd espesially would like some tips and tricks on
> portrait photography with just one flash and one reflector at hand - I'm
> not that good so the shadows get a bit hash.

Sorry, I don't have the time or desire to write online tutorials about
any subject.
You'll find using flash is much easier if you have a modeling light in
it  though. And learning to feather the reflector makes a difference
too.
G.T. - 13 Jul 2006 05:15 GMT
>> From one of your recent postings:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> I've never used a level for field photography. I guess I'm one of those
> people who innately get horizons and such straight.

So why is your North Head image crooked?  Didn't rotate and crop it
enough in Photoshop?

> And I've never felt
> the need to weight down the tripod with rocks.

I'm glad you're not teaching photography.

Greg

Signature

"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

mark.thomas.7@gmail.com - 14 Jul 2006 11:15 GMT
> This guy is always posting useless information.

Would that be like *your* pearls of wisdom, like this one, about
portraiture:

"Technical merit must be there although following the rules is
certainly
not a necessity.  Beyond that, the point is to capture some semblance
of the subject's personality.  If you're doing it for money, then the
photograph should flatter the subject."

Yes Randy, that's *really* useful stuff.  Frigging hypocrite.  The web
is plastered with absolutely moronic and vitriolic crap like that from
you.  Why don't you take the hints being given here by *every single
person*, and take a flying leap to somewhere else.  Hereabouts, there
are people wanting to learn, and people willing to help them.  You are
neither, which makes you worse than dead.  Ron's site has some
wonderful stuff, some of which YOU should have read before making a
complete fool of yourself, with this....

> I guess I'm one of those people who innately get horizons and such straight.

Very funny, Randy.  I suggest you fix *these* quickly, before too many
people notice your faux pas..
Cannon Beach Sunset - about one degree off
(gee, it's tricky when you don't have much horizon, isn't it, randy,
dear..)
Astoria Column - about .5 degrees off.
Cove (Kalaloch) - one degree off
North Head (both images are skewed)
Ruby Beach (hard to tell for sure because of the blurring on the right
horizon, but probably about .5 degrees
Seagull On The Beach - close to two degrees, even taking account of a
sloping shore
Keys Road - .5 degree

The funny thing is that almost all of them lean the same way, and you
haven't even noticed the habit you have.

When you insert your foot, you really do it properly..

> Sorry, I don't have the time or desire to write online tutorials about
> any subject.

Nor the ability, clearly.

We (very kindly) haven't even begun to discuss the dynamic range and
sharpness  issues with many of your images, nor the layout that must
have taken you at least ten minutes to design..

Pity, because some of them *could* be good.  But *you* think they are
as good as it gets, and that you have nothing to learn.  Wrong on both
counts.  Which is also why you were never the success you frequently
*claim* to have been.  You remind me of dear, but seemingly departed,
Douglas MacDonald.

Keep your site up, though - I'll use Ron's to show people how it is
done, and yours to show various problems, like skewed horizons..
Ken Davey - 13 Jul 2006 05:35 GMT
>> I have just posted Part I of a four part series on photographing
>> waterfalls. The first article focuses on the basics of setting up
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> The master of useless information returns...

If the information Ron posts is useless then it follows that you are not a
jerk - NOT!

Signature

Volunteer your idle computer time for cancer research
http//www.grid.org/download/gold/download.htm
R
My return address is courtesy of Spammotel http://www.spammotel.com/ 

My View - 13 Jul 2006 13:06 GMT
Side issue:
I have never seen a bubble level that attaches to the flash hot shoe. Do you
get these at camera stores?

>I have just posted Part I of a four part series on photographing
> waterfalls. The first article focuses on the basics of setting up for a
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Ron Bigelow
> http://ronbigelow.com
Joan - 13 Jul 2006 13:16 GMT
Yes.

Signature

Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

: Side issue:
: I have never seen a bubble level that attaches to the flash hot shoe. Do you
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
: > Ron Bigelow
: > http://ronbigelow.com
Joan - 14 Jul 2006 10:51 GMT
I'll expand on that last reply.
Search Google for "double bubble spirit level".

Signature

Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

: Side issue:
: I have never seen a bubble level that attaches to the flash hot shoe. Do you
: get these at camera stores?
Ken Ellis - 13 Jul 2006 21:03 GMT
>I have just posted Part I of a four part series on photographing
>waterfalls. The first article focuses on the basics of setting up for a
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>Ron Bigelow
>http://ronbigelow.com

Thanks for the link...very nice article.  A nice gathering of info to
get you started quickly - It took me awhile to learn this stuff on my
own....and I therefore applaud your effort to share your
insights - to further the cause.

So....some detracters, although having estimable good photos; i do not
see explaining their craft. If you do not do it..don't knock it. Or,
if you are able, perhaps you might critique it; and perhaps add to it.
Something "positive" would be nice.

regards
Ken Ellis
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.