Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2006
Waterfalls - Part I Article
|
|
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
|
|
|