 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / June 2008A stunning summer sunset
Summer is really the best time of year for sunsets http://www.flickr.com/photos/nammo/2566787761/sizes/l/ > Summer is really the best time of year for sunsets > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/nammo/2566787761/sizes/l/ Found it. As usual all the muppets are telling you, your photo is good, it isn't. Its very average unfortunately. Flickr has this amazing ability to twist peoples arm into giving only positive comments only when really your photography would benifit more from harsh critique. Currently you are in the comfort zone and while idiots tell you your photos are quote "Spectacular", you won't move onwards and upwards. Your photo could be improved somewhat in composition, timing and exposure. I rate it 5/10. However as expected I will be shot down in flames because this isn't what you want to hear. The grim truth of modern photography and the internet. >> Summer is really the best time of year for sunsets >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > this isn't what you want to hear. The grim truth of modern photography and > the internet. I so agree. Too many people being too kind for fear of hurting someones feelings. Just because a photo is better than viewers efforts doen't make it good. More damage is done to the nurture of creativity and skill when someone is told their photo is great when it's not than when they are told there photo is crap when it is. MC >>> Summer is really the best time of year for sunsets >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > MC I'm glad I have finally come across someone who agrees with me. Modern Photography is cheap and cheerful and is fueled by the convenience of cheap computers, cameras and printers. Users don't have the patience and ability to learn the proper hard way and instead want to become brilliant instantly. Photography is so much like singing for example. Very few people can actually sing brilliantly, a few more are OK, a few more are average and a few more are crap. There is people who are photographers who will always be crap no matter what they do to improve. I'm my honest opinion someone who goes out and takes 100 photos of the same thing then chooses the best one isn't in my eyes a very good photographer. Someone who goes out and shoots 3 shots and chooses the best one is a good one. Sadly Digital is just an excuse for sloppy photographers. Oh, ability to accept critism and move forward using it is essential and makes a good photographer. However 99.9% of people who submit to Flickr and the like are unable to do this. : I'm my honest opinion someone who goes out and takes 100 photos of the same : thing then chooses the best one isn't in my eyes a very good photographer. : Someone who goes out and shoots 3 shots and chooses the best one is a good : one. Thank you for your "honest opinion", Clyde. But your problem is that we don't have to tell you how many shots it took to get a keeper. It could be three or three hundred, but how would you know? You can't even tell by perusing the bankruptcy records, because in the Digital World it costs nothing to take extra shots. I'm not a professional photographer (or even a very good amateur), but I can tell you that every (yes, EVERY) professional I ever saw at work took at least an order of magnitude more pictures than (s)he could possibly use. I believe there's a lesson there, and I suspect that even you may see what it is if you think abut it long enough. ;^) Bob > I'm not a professional photographer (or even a very good amateur), but I can > tell you that every (yes, EVERY) professional I ever saw at work took at least > an order of magnitude more pictures than (s)he could possibly use. Among most of the professionals I am coming across every now and then, it's common that you use or consider to use perhaps somewhere around 10% of the shots you actually take. Of course there is a huge difference in if you are taking the shots in a "studio like environment" or "freely out in the open". It's not the number of shots you take that makes you a good photographer, it is the ability to adopt to different situations and cope with them in a professional way. *end of my humble opinion* San : > I'm not a professional photographer (or even a very good amateur), but : > I can tell you that every (yes, EVERY) professional I ever saw at work [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : difference in if you are taking the shots in a "studio like : environment" or "freely out in the open". I haven't spent much time in a studio-like environment, but the last time I had my picture taken professionally, the photographer took about fifteen shots. (This was in the film era, FWIW.) And I was glad he did, because I thought the difference between the image I liked most and the one I liked least was rather considerable. : It's not the number of shots you take that makes you a good : photographer, it is the ability to adapt to different situations and : cope with them in a professional way. Absolutely. And taking extra shots, valuable as it can be, is certainly not a panacea. If you don't understand why you're taking the extra shots and don't know what to do differently from one shot to the next, you can end up with nothing but junk anyway. Bob On Jun 14, 4:43 am, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote: > I'm not a professional photographer (or even a very good amateur), but I > can > tell you that every (yes, EVERY) professional I ever saw at work took at > least > an order of magnitude more pictures than (s)he could possibly use. Among most of the professionals I am coming across every now and then, it's common that you use or consider to use perhaps somewhere around 10% of the shots you actually take. Of course there is a huge difference in if you are taking the shots in a "studio like environment" or "freely out in the open". It's not the number of shots you take that makes you a good photographer, it is the ability to adopt to different situations and cope with them in a professional way. *end of my humble opinion* San -------------------------------------------------------------------- In the studio, I shoot for 90% 'keepers'. On location, I shoot for 75%. Maybe that's because I've always used (and still do use) film, which tends to make one a bit more careful about getting the shot. > : I'm my honest opinion someone who goes out and takes 100 photos of the > same [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Bob I am told that Ansel Adams would sometimes take his camera out to a favorite location and set it up, but not take any picture at all. Then he would come back another day, and perhaps take a picture, and perhaps not.....Pretty soon, he would find the conditions he liked, and actually take a photo after setting up. He was a professional, and he never took an order of magnitude more photos than he actually needed or wanted.....He actually took less than he wanted. >> : I'm my honest opinion someone who goes out and takes 100 photos of the >> same [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > more photos than he actually needed or wanted.....He actually took less than > he wanted. I'm not sure abut that, he used to use an 8x10 camera so it's not exactly convenient to take a ton (in weight) of darkslides up a mountain. I know that he used to take 'insurance' pictures, which are two identical exposures, just in case an accident happened in the darkroom or similar. He coined the phrase 'pre-visualisation', he knew the response of the film he was using, the contrast range, how to increase or reduce contrast with exposure and development modifications, compressing or expanding the light 'values' and also the paper it would be printed on. He was a great photographer and technician and did actually try prototype electronic (digital) cameras and predicted that photography would take that path. In the end though, if you get a result, who cares how you did it? By the way, your 100mm macro shot is quite underexposed. >>> : I'm my honest opinion someone who goes out and takes 100 photos of the >>> same [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > (digital) cameras and predicted that photography would take that path. In > the end though, if you get a result, who cares how you did it? Today, the digitals have turned our photography into the equivalent of using a machine gun instead of one well placed shot......If the "ammunition" costs nothing, then why not? But like the machine gun, all the skill of using the machine well is taken out of it. IOW, we have no marksmanship anymore.... > Today, the digitals have turned our photography into the equivalent of > using a machine gun instead of one well placed shot......If the > "ammunition" costs nothing, then why not? But like the machine gun, all > the skill of using the machine well is taken out of it. IOW, we have no > marksmanship anymore.... If you ever fired a a machine gun you would know that it takes more skill than a rifle. I qualified as expert with my rifle, but only marksman with my sub-ma;chine gun. BTW few pros take just one shot. I have seen fashion shoots, (film) where a magazine is used because a 36 shot roll would have been gone in a few seconds. Many landscape and product photographers bracket like crazy. Yeah! I know the infinite monkey theory, but that doesn't mean if I take 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 shots of a lousy subject, with poor exposure and composition, one of them will be great.  SignaturePeter > >>> : I'm my honest opinion someone who goes out and takes 100 photos of the > >>> same [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > nothing, then why not? But like the machine gun, all the skill of using the > machine well is taken out of it. IOW, we have no marksmanship anymore.... Interesting theory but I don’t think the evidence backs it up. Most of the people I know who have switched from film to digital have gotten better at photography. Getting fast feed back is a great way to learn as is the freedom to try shots that you migth not is you were using film. Putting this another way, just because someone has a crappy camera, that limits how many shots they can take, does not mean that they will become a good photographer. Scott On Jun 18, 6:15 am, "William Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote: > "The Royal Spam" <spama...@dontspamme.com> wrote in > messagenews:C47E96AC.F3F6%spamalot@dontspamme.com... snip > Today, the digitals have turned our photography into the equivalent of > using [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the > machine well is taken out of it. IOW, we have no marksmanship anymore.... Interesting theory but I don’t think the evidence backs it up. Most of the people I know who have switched from film to digital have gotten better at photography. Getting fast feed back is a great way to learn as is the freedom to try shots that you migth not is you were using film. Putting this another way, just because someone has a crappy camera, that limits how many shots they can take, does not mean that they will become a good photographer. --------------------------------------------------------- Instant feedback is an important element of learning a new process, but a working professional should know how the process works and be able to predict what will result under various situations. In the 'good old days', if we were experimenting with a lighting setup, we made our best estimates that we had what we wanted, then shot a Polaroid; but that instant feedback cost real money, so we tried to get everything right even before we shot the Polaroid. Having a camera that limits the number of shots you can take does not make you a better photographer automatically, but hopefully it will cause you to think before shooting. That will make you a better photographer. : Instant feedback is an important element of learning a new process, but a : working professional should know how the process works and be able to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : you a better photographer automatically, but hopefully it will cause you to : think before shooting. That will make you a better photographer. and will help you miss shots that you might otherwise have gotten. The one thing that's obvious is that this entire discussion is being conducted by amateurs. A professional photographer wouldn't even consider limiting the number of shots he takes in order to "think" before shooting. "That will make you a better photographer"?? The idea is almost too laughable to contemplate. The last picture taken of Abraham Lincoln was printed from a broken plate. Why? Because the photographer didn't manage to get off another shot. He had an excuse, sort of: it was 1865, and serious photography was in its infancy. But how do you suppose he would explain that to an editor today? Bob > Interesting theory but I don’t think the evidence backs it up. Most > of the people I know who have switched from film to digital have > gotten better at photography. True that. This isn't just because of the sheer volume of shots either, although that surely helps with the overall number of keepers. I still shoot the occasional roll of slide film with my Fabulous EOS-1V. But the sad truth (for you film luddites) is that my digital cameras simply give me better pics. This week I rented the full-frame 5D just to see how it would compare to what I was used to. When I saw those big (12MP) beautiful images that came from it I thought, "DAMN!" You don't notice it at web resolutions, but at actual size the pics stunned me with their low noise and overall quality. Now I'm wondering, "What would a 1DsMKIII do for me?" Canon will supposedly be updating the 5D soon, so that's something that bears watching. My point is that the people who say that the camera doesn't matter are full of .... themselves. Once you use a top digital camera and have seen the results for yourself, you'll know the truth. > Once you use a top digital camera and have > seen the results for yourself, you'll know the truth. Yes, that's true but when are you going to use one? Get a D3 and stop playing with that plastic crap. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com : > Once you use a top digital camera and have : > seen the results for yourself, you'll know the truth. : : Yes, that's true but when are you going to use one? Get a D3 and stop : playing with that plastic crap. If everyone could afford a D3, what would you buy to maintain your bragging rights? If Bret bought a D3, you'd have to move up at least to a $20,000 Hasselblad, wouldn't you? Be careful what you wish for; you may get it. BTW, this may be a quibble; but I believe Bret has a 40D, and Popular Photography thinks the 40D has a metal body. Bob Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 9:50 PM: > BTW, this may be a quibble; but I believe Bret has a 40D, and Popular > Photography thinks the 40D has a metal body. and the 5D has a plastic one... > : > Once you use a top digital camera and have > : > seen the results for yourself, you'll know the truth. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bob The 40D is made of magnesium alloy and it's weatherproof. From an ergonomics point of view it's solid reliable, well sorted and feels great handling. >> : > Once you use a top digital camera and have >> : > seen the results for yourself, you'll know the truth. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ergonomics point of view it's solid reliable, well sorted and feels > great handling. I think this equipment argument is tiresome, I have tons of equipment, I made a tiresome list; 1 Olympus XA, 1 Contax G2, 1 Konica Hexar, 3x EOS 5's, a 1ds, a 5d, a Nikon F3t, a Hassleblad 500CM, an SX70, lots of expensive glass and accessories for all of these, but you know what? I still prefer the look of the prints I get from an XA than I do from the 1ds or 5d and as for the Blad? Forget about it, no comparison. The Royal Spam wrote,on my timestamp of 22/06/2008 12:54 AM: >> The 40D is made of magnesium alloy and it's weatherproof. From an >> ergonomics point of view it's solid reliable, well sorted and feels [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > get from an XA than I do from the 1ds or 5d and as for the Blad? Forget > about it, no comparison. Hehehe! Now you done it: you replied to a scam post from a Canon low-life marketeer with a claim you prefer film prints to their over-processed crap! Man: are you in for some real trouble now! Careful: Helen will now proceed to insult me and my family. Stay away while that carries through and I reply in kind. <yawn> over to you, "helen" <snork> > The Royal Spam wrote,on my timestamp of 22/06/2008 12:54 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > over to you, "helen" > <snork> I have never insulted your family. I stated that you set a horrible example for your children.....which is true. Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 22/06/2008 2:12 AM: > I have never insulted your family. I stated that you set a horrible > example for your children.....which is true. Yeah, I teach them to be aware of scam artists and low-life marketeers and car yard sales reps like you. >>> Once you use a top digital camera and have >>> seen the results for yourself, you'll know the truth. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to a $20,000 Hasselblad, wouldn't you? Be careful what you wish for; > you may get it. Who's bragging? I simply love the D3 and the performance it gives. Though, with my superior photographic skills I have a feeling I might be outgrowing the D3 soon. As for the Hassy, the price is cheap and if I really want one I could call tomorrow and have a complete outfit the next business day. I much prefer the superior Nikon and only have 12-months left before I get a new one. As for Bret, I'm sad that he's not enjoying the privilege of using top notch gear. Really, I would love to see him get a D3 and Nikkors so that he can learn what real photography is all about. > BTW, this may be a quibble; but I believe Bret has a 40D, and Popular > Photography thinks the 40D has a metal body. The 5D is plastic sh.t wrapped around a nice but dated sensor and the 40D is metal that produces plastic sh.t images. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com > >>> Once you use a top digital camera and have > >>> seen the results for yourself, you'll know the truth. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I much prefer the superior Nikon and only have 12-months left before I get a > new one. Bragging!?! That would be you... Don't get me wrong, *IF* you've got the means to get a complete Hasselblad system overnighted, then good for you. Most of the denizens of these newsgroups can't. I've looked at some of the stuff you've posted links to... let's just say that "superior photographic skill" wasn't a phrase that immediately came to mind, as always YMMV. It's an apple to oranges thing Nikon to Hasselblad, but if you really think Nikon is so much better, then can you offer us (tinu) some of what you were just smoking. ;-) > As for Bret, I'm sad that he's not enjoying the privilege of using top notch > gear. Really, I would love to see him get a D3 and Nikkors so that he can > learn what real photography is all about. Gotta love that sense of humor you have... ;-) > > BTW, this may be a quibble; but I believe Bret has a 40D, and Popular > > Photography thinks the 40D has a metal body. > > The 5D is plastic sh.t wrapped around a nice but dated sensor and the 40D is > metal that produces plastic sh.t images. LOL! - JT thanking TPKA Rita Berkowitz for providing the humor SignatureSee Header for Improving Usenet's Signal-To-Noise Ratio "The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong." - Carl Jung Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/06/2008 12:35 PM: >> Interesting theory but I don’t think the evidence backs it up. Most >> of the people I know who have switched from film to digital have >> gotten better at photography. > > True that. This isn't just because of the sheer volume of shots > either, although that surely helps with the overall number of keepers. Anyone actually taking photos tends to improve their technique. It doesn't matter one bit if it's film or digital. What matters is that photos are taken. The statement as exposed is a load of crap invented by sellers and marketeers of digital material to help prop-up demand for their overpriced and soon obsoleted crap. > But the sad truth (for you film luddites) is that my digital cameras > simply give me better pics. It's only sad for you, not for the film "luddites". The "better" pics are taken by you, not them. The problem is with you and your film technique. Not theirs. This week I rented the full-frame 5D just > to see how it would compare to what I was used to. When I saw those > big (12MP) beautiful images that came from it I thought, "DAMN!" > You don't notice it at web resolutions, but at actual size the pics > stunned me with their low noise and overall quality. There you go. Like I said many times: stop showing that miniature pbase crap you you insist on pushing on everyone and start using proper images. Try 16MP and higher with film. It's as impressive as the 12MP from the 5D. OR use digital. Who cares. Just show it properly, instead of the asthmatic "web" crap you post. > Now I'm > wondering, "What would a 1DsMKIII do for me?" Canon will supposedly > be updating the 5D soon, so that's something that bears watching. Let's hope it happens soon. But quite frankly: the 5D is such a breadwinner for them, it's stupid to stop milking it until Nikon provides a real reason to bother. The D3 ain't it, totally different market. And the D300 doesn't have a hope in hell: with digital, just like with film, size of sensor rules. Period. > My point is that the people who say that the camera doesn't matter are > full of .... themselves. Once you use a top digital camera and have > seen the results for yourself, you'll know the truth. Absolutely. The camera is what fundamentally matters, with digital: it's where the sensor and processing are. With film, what matters is the emulsion and the processing. Same principle, different location. Above all, the glass. Amazing what even 30 year old good glass can do. Examples available. >> Summer is really the best time of year for sunsets >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > this isn't what you want to hear. The grim truth of modern photography and > the internet. It would be nice if you offered some concrete suggestions for improvement. Whether a shot is crap or first rate, a positive or negative comment containing constructive suggestions for improvement, or articulating why you think it is good, is always = helpful. SignaturePeter > Currently you are in the comfort zone and while idiots tell you your photos > are quote "Spectacular", you won't move onwards and upwards. kinda like the over-sharpened and over-cropped shots we get to see here, gushed over by the bought groupies... > Your photo could be improved somewhat in composition, timing and exposure. I > rate it 5/10. However as expected I will be shot down in flames because this > isn't what you want to hear. The grim truth of modern photography and the > internet. don't forget "it's canon, therefore it must gooood": most important for the scammers here! >> Currently you are in the comfort zone and while idiots tell you your >> photos [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > shots we get to see here, gushed over by the > bought groupies... Plenty of gushing on internet forums. I was once a member of phototakers.com and got kicked off for not liking someones work. Amazing that. > don't forget "it's canon, therefore it must gooood": Or Rita's "it's Nikon, therefore it must be spectacular". MrT. > > don't forget "it's canon, therefore it must gooood": > > Or Rita's "it's Nikon, therefore it must be spectacular". > > MrT. True But at least Rita is only one. The canon scam contingent is a mob. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.