Mike Drew - Calgary Sun photog...
Steven C (Doktersteve)
thread, but in the sun today there is a letter to the editor giving kudos to
mike drew, the nature photographer who travels around Alberta, taking
landscape and nature shots.
The editor replies "Drew is Calgary's best kept secret".
Drew's prints appear in the Sunday Sun's "Get Out" section, he has a full
two page spread each Sunday.
The thing is, I am hardly ever very impressed by his photos. I don't
understand how people ooh and ah over them. The part that bothers me is that
I know many photographers on photosig.com and deviantart.com who make
amazing landscape/nature shots, and who have never ever been published.
I have actually seen photos in the sun by Kevin Udhal and Jack Cusano that I
like more than Drew's, but they are in a different style, they are
photojournalism shots, while Drew is nature
Is it really a matter of who you know over what you know?
I have submitted photos to the sun. In fact, I used to submit two or three
photos to the sun per week. Kevin Udhal was great in helping me out with
general guidelines for submissions (dimensions, DPI, and how to put
ownership info on the photo).
I stopped doing this because in the entire time I had sent the photos off,
only once had an email been opened. Every other time, I did not receive a
read receipt. I got discouraged and stopped.
So what was the point of this post?
I don't know. I am confident with my work, but it seems to me that time and
time again, I see photos which are sub par receive accolades for being
better than they really are.
Not that Mike Drew is bad, but not spectacular. Then again, it is all
subjective. One person won't be impressed, and the next 100 might love the
photos. Doesn't mean that the first person is any more right or wrong than
the other 100 that loved the shot. You cannot satisfy everyone all of the
time.
Steve.
P.S. Last year at stampede, I spoke to a herald photographer who claimed
that at some point, Mike Drew was using a Canon Powershot G3 for a number of
his photos.
Interesting stuff.
MadRedHatter
"Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:srlMb.9015$n44.1669@clgrps13...
> Yeah, I risk opening up a whole new can of worms by starting another photo
Well .. look at it this way Steve. Lots of people heaped praise on Justin
Timberlake's solo album. Personally I think it's shite. Most of my favorite
bands are lucky to sell 100,000 copies. It's all about perspective. What you
like isn't always what others would like. Also your background in
photography would let you examine photos with a more critical eye.
veranda
news:srlMb.9015$n44.1669@clgrps13...
> photos to the sun per week. Kevin Udhal was great in helping me out with
> general guidelines for submissions (dimensions, DPI, and how to put
> ownership info on the photo).
> I stopped doing this because in the entire time I had sent the photos off,
> only once had an email been opened. Every other time, I did not receive a
> read receipt. I got discouraged and stopped.
>
clicking on "yes" or "no" obviously there is something fishy going on .
Watch like a hawk just in case your pictures ( maybe cropped ) appear
somewhere else - relate to the subjects send . Just the paranoid in me :)
Any links to drew's photos .
Let's make a rule : provide links .
So far I asked twice for the link to Jon's picture and I have being
ignored :(
Steven C (Doktersteve)
"veranda" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
news:BJlMb.64094$JQ1.39470@pd7tw1no...
ARGHH.
Veranda, dearest.
http://members.shaw.ca/anonomoose
^that is Johnny's page
www.google.com and search for this exact phrase:
"mike drew" +"Calgary sun"
look in the top few links google gives back, and you should see the official
mike drew page.
I am afraid I cant access http here to give you an exact link to the mike
drew page.
Jon Pike
news:srlMb.9015$n44.1669@clgrps13:
> The thing is, I am hardly ever very impressed by his photos. I don't
> understand how people ooh and ah over them. The part that bothers me
> is that I know many photographers on photosig.com and deviantart.com
> who make amazing landscape/nature shots, and who have never ever been
> published.
You're hardly impressed by anything that you didn't do. You seem to only
value pictures that were taken as snapshots of 1/4 naked chicks downtown.
You don't even appreciate adams' work because it's mostly nature
photography, not snapshot picture taking.
> I have actually seen photos in the sun by Kevin Udhal and Jack Cusano
> that I like more than Drew's, but they are in a different style, they
> are photojournalism shots, while Drew is nature
http://www.calgarysun.com/perl-bin/niveau2.cgi?s=drew&p=80503.html&a=1
None of those pictures look like nature pictures to me. But of course,
according to steve, everything I say is wrong.
> Is it really a matter of who you know over what you know?
Did you also not notice that he's writing articles too?
> I have submitted photos to the sun. In fact, I used to submit two or
> three photos to the sun per week. Kevin Udhal was great in helping me
> out with general guidelines for submissions (dimensions, DPI, and how
> to put ownership info on the photo).
> I stopped doing this because in the entire time I had sent the photos
> off, only once had an email been opened. Every other time, I did not
> receive a read receipt. I got discouraged and stopped.
Do you think the sun wants every fool with a cheap digicam out there
sending pictures into the sun hoping to get published? Definately not.
They have on staff photographers for 99% of their local needs. The only
chance a noname shmuck has of getting pictures put into the paper is if
they manage to stumble across a fatal accident where no one else is
taking pictures.
Did you even stop to think about writing articles to go along with your
pictures, or did you just spam them with various images of exposed chicks
downtown?
> So what was the point of this post?
> I don't know. I am confident with my work, but it seems to me that
> time and time again, I see photos which are sub par receive accolades
> for being better than they really are.
Do you think that maybe, just MAYBE you're the one who's off then? When
most of the people in the world agree about what's good, and you can see
evidence of that by who gets put into galleries or even published in a
shitty paper like the sun, it MIGHT serve you well to take a moment or
two and re-examine why your stand is the way it is.
> Not that Mike Drew is bad, but not spectacular. Then again, it is all
> subjective. One person won't be impressed, and the next 100 might love
> the photos. Doesn't mean that the first person is any more right or
> wrong than the other 100 that loved the shot. You cannot satisfy
> everyone all of the time.
"You cannot satisfy everyone all the time" is the lamest cop-out
available. Well, maybe not the absolute lamest, but it's -way- down
there. Like I said, when you're in such a small minority with your
opinions, it's never a bad idea to see why your opinion is considered
wrong by everyone else in the world.
IE, you think they're not very good but other people apparently do.
And if he indeed does have a 2 page spread every week, then there HAVE to
be enough people around who like his section so much that it contributes
to the financial success of the paper.
Otherwise they wouldn't do it.
It's VERY rare that any one photographer gets a 2 page section in a
sunday paper, let alone has a guarentee for an extended position like
that.
> Steve.
>
> P.S. Last year at stampede, I spoke to a herald photographer who
> claimed that at some point, Mike Drew was using a Canon Powershot G3
> for a number of his photos.
> Interesting stuff.
Great source! Rival photographer from a rival newspaper!
Drew's email is up on the sun webpage so you could, if you know how to
muster the manners, simply email him and ask what equipment he does in
fact use, instead of gossipmongering like this.
Steven C (Doktersteve)
"Jon Pike" <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946DB17B2702FL...@24.71.223.159...
> "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)" <real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:srlMb.9015$n44.1669@clgrps13:
>
> > The thing is, I am hardly ever very impressed by his photos. I don't
> > understand how people ooh and ah over them. The part that bothers me
> > is that I know many photographers on photosig.com and deviantart.com
> > who make amazing landscape/nature shots, and who have never ever been
> > published.
>
> You're hardly impressed by anything that you didn't do. You seem to only
> value pictures that were taken as snapshots of 1/4 naked chicks downtown.
> You don't even appreciate adams' work because it's mostly nature
> photography, not snapshot picture taking.
yadda yadda yadda.
I am Jon Pike, I am an abusive blowhard who everyone should pay attention
to.
See your pattern Jon? attack over and over.
veranda
news:srlMb.9015$n44.1669@clgrps13...
> understand how people ooh and ah over them. The part that bothers me is
that
> I know many photographers on photosig.com and deviantart.com who make
> amazing landscape/nature shots, and who have never ever been published.
>
I just looked at Drew's work and I would like to point to this one with
the baby raised :
http://www.calgarysun.com/cgi-bin/niveau2.cgi?s=generic16&p=gp__photog_photo1.htm&a=1
Look where the sun is placed . I would have moved to have the sun on
the other side , near the baby . Drew had a choice . But my taste prefers
the sun on the other side . What do You think ?
Jon Pike
Abusive? I was simply stating facts. Here's proof:
http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/dancer-sharp-b.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/tower-02.jpg
and 03 and 04... all steve trying to be sneaky and take pics of the chick
behind the desk...
http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/stampede/DSC04967.jpg
always with the chicks eh steve
how stalkerish of you.
http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/stampede/DSC04968.jpg
more chicks!
http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/stampede/DSC04985.jpg
not too subtle there eh?
http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/stampede/DSC04989.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/stampede/DSC04997.jpg
cougar alert!
http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/cday/DSC04607.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/cday/DSC04609.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/cday/DSC04644.jpg
you're just -obsessed- aren't you?
http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/cday/DSC04656.jpg
I dunno steve, that one's looking a little young for you...
aaaaaaaand here's why you -really- carry cameras around!
http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/cday/DSC04660.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/cday/DSC04662.jpg
oh geeze this one's not even GOOD looking! but you probably get a stiffy
from seeing the bra-strap don't you?
http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/cday/DSC04663.jpg
yet another cougar...
http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/cday/DSC04664.jpg
oh and when you can't find real ones, you have to use manequins! ROFL!
http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/cday/DSC04667.jpg
tsktsk steve. stating facts isn't abuse, it's just the facts.
Jon Pike
news:S2mMb.65308$X%5.42878@pd7tw2no:
It's actually good where it is, it provides balance. Baby's up high on the
right, sun's down low on the left. Also, he managed to use the post to
block the sun a little bit which was a wise decision.
Jon Pike
> "veranda" <nob...@home.net> wrote in
> news:S2mMb.65308$X%5.42878@pd7tw2no:
>
>> "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:srlMb.9015$n44.1669@clgrps13...
>>> The thing is, I am hardly ever very impressed by his photos. I don't
>>> understand how people ooh and ah over them. The part that bothers me
>>> is
>> that
>>> I know many photographers on photosig.com and deviantart.com who
>>> make amazing landscape/nature shots, and who have never ever been
>>> published.
>>>
>>
>> I just looked at Drew's work and I would like to point to this
>> one with
>> the baby raised :
>> http://www.calgarysun.com/cgi-bin/niveau2.cgi?s=generic16&p=gp__photog
>> _ photo1.htm&a=1
>>
>> Look where the sun is placed . I would have moved to have the
>> sun on
>> the other side , near the baby . Drew had a choice . But my taste
>> prefers the sun on the other side . What do You think ?
>>
>>
>>
>
> It's actually good where it is, it provides balance. Baby's up high on
> the right, sun's down low on the left. Also, he managed to use the
> post to block the sun a little bit which was a wise decision.
>
Notice, however, that it's not a nature shot, as steve said. He does have
trouble getting his facts straight *sigh*.
Steven C (Doktersteve)
> "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)" <real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:ZUlMb.9034$n44.3957@clgrps13:
>
> >
> > "Jon Pike" <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns946DB17B2702FL...@24.71.223.159...
> >> "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)" <real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:srlMb.9015$n44.1669@clgrps13:
> >>
> >> > The thing is, I am hardly ever very impressed by his photos. I
> >> > don't understand how people ooh and ah over them. The part that
> >> > bothers me is that I know many photographers on photosig.com and
> >> > deviantart.com who make amazing landscape/nature shots, and who
> >> > have never ever been published.
> >>
> >> You're hardly impressed by anything that you didn't do. You seem to
> >> only value pictures that were taken as snapshots of 1/4 naked chicks
> >> downtown. You don't even appreciate adams' work because it's mostly
> >> nature photography, not snapshot picture taking.
> >
> > yadda yadda yadda.
> > I am Jon Pike, I am an abusive blowhard who everyone should pay
> > attention to.
> >
Wow, you were able to find two and three year old pictures!
good work.
you fucking clown.
Jon Pike
Two and three years eh? If you weren't so embaressed of them then howcome
you snipped them all from the post, but nothing else? :P And uh, that was
last canada day and last stampede, but nice try.
We all know you're trying to use picture taking to try to get laid :P
Steven C (Doktersteve)
Are you blind?
I posted a link to where I have current pictures posted.
That site you have there, it has images that date back like, four years
almost... They are mixed in with various things, they are all public. I have
nothing to hide - really Jon.
Why compete with everyone if you are so sure you have already won.
Who the f*ck cares. Its the internet. You stand nothing to gain if you win,
and nothing to lose if you do not win.
You are a classic narcissistic personality case.
Steven C (Doktersteve)
"MisNomer" <misn...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:hps30052ipo3bgafc...@4ax.com...
> Wow steve is a healthy 20 something male! I would be surprised if he had
half
> neekid men in his portfolio.
>
> The pic of the dancer is great! He has managed to capture innocence and
yet
> some pride in herself, along with the ambience of the street.
>
> take care
> Liz
Liz, check this link out, please:
http://calgary-steven.deviantart.com
it is much more recent.
cud...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> You're hardly impressed by anything that you didn't do. You seem to only
> value pictures that were taken as snapshots of 1/4 naked chicks downtown.
I'd like to evaludate Steve's work for myself.
--
.............................................................................
"I don't sign orders to destroy the houses of Jews, only of Arabs,"
-Haim Miller, deputy mayor of Jerusalem
(Yediot Aharonot, Feb 7, 1998)
.............................................................................
ds...@m3m3t1ccand1ru.com http://www.memeticcandiru.com
Steven C (Doktersteve)
> Wow Jon...
>
> Methinks he doth protest too much...
>
> take care
> Liz
>
He hates me. I don't understand the rationality behind it, because I could
care less what he does in his spare time, but he sure does dislike me for
taking photograph's.
Steven C (Doktersteve)
<cud...@salmahayeksknockers.edu> wrote in message
news:QEmMb.10554$De.6977@edtnps84...
> Jon Pike <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You're hardly impressed by anything that you didn't do. You seem to only
> > value pictures that were taken as snapshots of 1/4 naked chicks
downtown.
>
> I'd like to evaludate Steve's work for myself.
http://calgary-steven.deviantart.com
there you are.
cud...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> tsktsk steve. stating facts isn't abuse, it's just the facts.
Had you simply posted a link to his website, that would be a fact, but it is
the manner of presentation, and the hostile interpretation that makes it an
attack.
With that being said, there's nothing wrong with taking pics of gurlz!
--
.............................................................................
"The main difference between Bosnia and Palestine is that ethnic cleansing
in the former took place in the form of dramatic massacres and slaughters
which caught the world's attention, whereas in Palestine what is taking
place is a drop-by-drop tactic in which one or two houses are demolished
daily, a few acres are taken here and there every day, a few people are
forced to leave"
- Professor Edward Said
(Washington Report 09/1998)
.............................................................................
ds...@m3m3t1ccand1ru.com http://www.memeticcandiru.com
Steven C (Doktersteve)
<cud...@salmahayeksknockers.edu> wrote in message
news:0KmMb.10555$De.5573@edtnps84...
> Jon Pike <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > tsktsk steve. stating facts isn't abuse, it's just the facts.
>
> Had you simply posted a link to his website, that would be a fact, but it
is
> the manner of presentation, and the hostile interpretation that makes it
an
> attack.
>
> With that being said, there's nothing wrong with taking pics of gurlz!
>
Chances are cuddles, that you will now be put on Jon's "hitlist" for not
agreeing with him.
however, I thank you for the support.
Steve.
cud...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> Two and three years eh? If you weren't so embaressed of them then howcome
> you snipped them all from the post, but nothing else?
It's called trimming. The links are still in the previous message if anyone
cares to refer to them.
> We all know you're trying to use picture taking to try to get laid :P
Well I certainly hope so! I'd be worried if the lad didn't. But that's not
mutually exclusive with honing his photography skills.
--
.............................................................................
Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger. -Abbie Hoffman
.............................................................................
ds...@m3m3t1ccand1ru.com http://www.memeticcandiru.com
cud...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> Notice, however, that it's not a nature shot, as steve said. He does have
> trouble getting his facts straight *sigh*.
You will employ any degree of granularity to convince yourself you are right
--
.............................................................................
Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt.
.............................................................................
ds...@m3m3t1ccand1ru.com http://www.memeticcandiru.com
Jon Pike
I don't hate anyone. I've never said that I hate you.
And you don't take photographs, you take pictures.
You also need to learn how to use apostrophies properly.
Jon Pike
news:0KmMb.10555$De.5573@edtnps84:
> Jon Pike <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> tsktsk steve. stating facts isn't abuse, it's just the facts.
>
> Had you simply posted a link to his website, that would be a fact, but
> it is the manner of presentation, and the hostile interpretation that
> makes it an attack.
>
> With that being said, there's nothing wrong with taking pics of gurlz!
I never said that there was anything wrong with taking pictures of females.
However, when you use picture taking to try and gain the attention of the
opposite sex, as steve always does, you not only make yourself look
creepie, but you also give the rest of the photographers a really bad name.
Steven C (Doktersteve)
<cud...@salmahayeksknockers.edu> wrote in message
news:9SmMb.10560$De.6325@edtnps84...
> Jon Pike <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Notice, however, that it's not a nature shot, as steve said. He does
have
> > trouble getting his facts straight *sigh*.
>
> You will employ any degree of granularity to convince yourself you are
right
>
LOL.
I have said this over and over.
He cannot be wrong, and is always right.
You cannot reason with a person such as this, unfortunately.
Jon Pike
news:OOmMb.10557$De.9038@edtnps84:
> Jon Pike <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Two and three years eh? If you weren't so embaressed of them then
>> howcome you snipped them all from the post, but nothing else?
>
> It's called trimming. The links are still in the previous message if
> anyone cares to refer to them.
It's not trimming when he cuts out everything that makes him look like a
fool but leaves nearly a hundred other lines in.
>> We all know you're trying to use picture taking to try to get laid :P
>
> Well I certainly hope so! I'd be worried if the lad didn't. But
> that's not mutually exclusive with honing his photography skills.
It's a pathetic and desperate reason to get into photography. And like I
said, he gives everyone who's in it for any intelligent reason a bad name.
He'll probably end up like Sy the photo guy.
Jon Pike
And of course, you can't ever admit when you're wrong. Especially when it
stares you straight in the face. Especially when it comes from your own
hands. How pathetic.
You're simply wrong in what you said about the sun photographer, and I was
plainly pointing that out. If that means that I'm not wrong... then sure.
Okay, I'm not wrong.
however, if you can't use your own peasized brain to figure out what you
said was wrong, then you've got no justification on using a word like
"reason" in any of your posts.
Steven C (Doktersteve)
"Jon Pike" <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946DC0732E0F1L...@24.71.223.159...
> "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)" <real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:R_mMb.9074$n44.112@clgrps13:
>
> >
> > <cud...@salmahayeksknockers.edu> wrote in message
> > news:9SmMb.10560$De.6325@edtnps84...
> >> Jon Pike <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Notice, however, that it's not a nature shot, as steve said. He does
> > have
> >> > trouble getting his facts straight *sigh*.
> >>
> >> You will employ any degree of granularity to convince yourself you are
> > right
> >>
> >
> > LOL.
> > I have said this over and over.
> > He cannot be wrong, and is always right.
> > You cannot reason with a person such as this, unfortunately.
>
> And of course, you can't ever admit when you're wrong. Especially when it
> stares you straight in the face. Especially when it comes from your own
> hands. How pathetic.
Why is it then, that people post things like the above about YOU, but not
about ME?
> You're simply wrong in what you said about the sun photographer, and I was
> plainly pointing that out. If that means that I'm not wrong... then sure.
> Okay, I'm not wrong.
> however, if you can't use your own peasized brain to figure out what you
> said was wrong, then you've got no justification on using a word like
> "reason" in any of your posts.
You know not of reason Jon.
For example:
(to paraphrase, but I feel if I don't point out the OBVIOUS you will tell me
you never said it in that exact way)
"Ayr, I doubt you even own a camera at all"
"Hey Jon, here is a picture of my camera"
"That is a shitty picture of the camera ayr" <---- SEE THAT? You change the
subject there. It is not in your capacity to reason and think why the
picture is crappy, and you never stop to say "oh, I guess I was wrong", you
just attack something else, to change the subject.
So it is not possible to reason with you, because you just change the
subject.
Like how I posted my current site, after you said I did not have the guts
to, and you changed the subject to "well, both collections of pictures
suck".
No reason, just broad, ignorant, and baseless generalizations about why I
(or anyone else on this group who owns a camera it seems) is not as good as
you are.
veranda
cute too . Jon , at this rate you gona make Steven look even better :)
"Jon Pike" <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946DB3DA25277L...@24.71.223.159...
veranda
> Abusive? I was simply stating facts. Here's proof:
> http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/dancer-sharp-b.jpg
>
> http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/tower-02.jpg
> and 03 and 04... all steve trying to be sneaky and take pics of the chick
> behind the desk...
>
> http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/stampede/DSC04967.jpg
> always with the chicks eh steve
> how stalkerish of you.
>
Nice pictures , Steven ! Keep up the good work !
veranda
to the right ) you create a Pyramid with the baby at the pinnacle . Beat
this balance .
veranda
news:Xns946DC0732E0F1L...@24.71.223.159...
> "reason" in any of your posts.
>
I saw your web site , good processing room .
But where are the pictures ?? I am sure that you have way more than
what you show there . So far the dark street picture is appealing . The
rest are what I call normal . We need way more pictures from you to compare
with Steven .
btw , do you talk like that with your family and friends ?
cud...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> It's a pathetic and desperate reason to get into photography. And like I
> said, he gives everyone who's in it for any intelligent reason a bad name.
Hey, I got a praying mantis and some crickets because I thought it'd be cool
to raise one - If that happens to help get me some chicks, who am I to argue?
--
.............................................................................
There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth:
One, not going all the way; and two, not starting.
-Buddha (Siddhartha Gotoma)
.............................................................................
ds...@m3m3t1ccand1ru.com http://www.memeticcandiru.com
Pham Nuwen
> He hates me. I don't understand the rationality behind it, because I could
> care less what he does in his spare time, but he sure does dislike me for
> taking photograph's.
He hates everyone Steve, himself most of all. That is the only thing
that I can think of that explains his constant need to pick fights with
everyone here, and for him to act like he knows everything under the
sun, and is so great (contrary to evidence otherwise).
The truly telling thing I think is that people like you, Dan, (some
others who all know who they are) and I contribute to this group, by
starting threads and trying to conduct reasonable discussions. Jon, AST,
and the other haters never contribute, they always move into the thread
and do nothing, but pick fights, and act like general assholes.
Anyways I personally think your photos are great. You put effort in
them, without making them so over polished that they look forced. I'll
put some of my own up, but I suspect the end result will just be a bunch
of crap from Jon, about how I'm obviously unfit to take pictures as well
as everything else I do.
http://www.libertydice.org/images/redneck_hs_2003.JPG
http://www.libertydice.org/images/wildflowers_hs_2003.JPG
http://www.libertydice.org/images/topofdeceptionpass_hs_2003.JPG
http://www.libertydice.org/images/flowers_cgy_2003.JPG
All were taken with my Olympus C-700 10x Ultra Zoom 2.1MP Camera.
I'll leave them up for a week at least, but will probably take them down
after that, as I use the space.
--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I pham.n...@libertydice.org II I
I http://www.libertydice.org II I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Steven C (Doktersteve)
"Pham Nuwen" <pham.n...@libertydice.org> wrote in message
news:4002083C...@libertydice.org...
> Steven C (Doktersteve) wrote:
> > He hates me. I don't understand the rationality behind it, because I
could
> > care less what he does in his spare time, but he sure does dislike me
for
> > taking photograph's.
>
> He hates everyone Steve, himself most of all. That is the only thing
> that I can think of that explains his constant need to pick fights with
> everyone here, and for him to act like he knows everything under the
> sun, and is so great (contrary to evidence otherwise).
>
What it comes down to, and i dont have a degree to make this call, something
Jon always points out... Is a generally narcissistic personality disorder.
The push to project an amazingly brilliant image of ones self on others,
although inside you see things differently, you see yourself as broken,
flawed, and bad.
If you project yourself as flawless to others, you hope that they accept you
for that superficial image, and that they never find out the "Real you",
however wrong you may be about the image you hold for yourself.
Most of the time, this prevents people like this from having long term
relationships. Even though they are good people, they are so convinced they
are "bad" and need to convince everyone how "great" they are, they find it
impossible to keep up the charade of greatness for long periods of time, and
eventually sabotage their own relationships before the other person can find
out how they are.
They rationalize things by saying "well, better that she thinks i am a dink
than find out how bad i really am inside months/years/etc from now".
> The truly telling thing I think is that people like you, Dan, (some
> others who all know who they are) and I contribute to this group, by
> starting threads and trying to conduct reasonable discussions. Jon, AST,
> and the other haters never contribute, they always move into the thread
> and do nothing, but pick fights, and act like general assholes.
>
I agree there.
> Anyways I personally think your photos are great. You put effort in
> them, without making them so over polished that they look forced. I'll
> put some of my own up, but I suspect the end result will just be a bunch
> of crap from Jon, about how I'm obviously unfit to take pictures as well
> as everything else I do.
>
> http://www.libertydice.org/images/redneck_hs_2003.JPG
> http://www.libertydice.org/images/wildflowers_hs_2003.JPG
> http://www.libertydice.org/images/topofdeceptionpass_hs_2003.JPG
> http://www.libertydice.org/images/flowers_cgy_2003.JPG
>
> All were taken with my Olympus C-700 10x Ultra Zoom 2.1MP Camera.
>
> I'll leave them up for a week at least, but will probably take them down
> after that, as I use the space.
I will look later on when I can get home to my computer there which allows
me HTTP access.
thanks alot Pham.
Steve
Pham Nuwen
> I don't hate anyone. I've never said that I hate you.
Of course not, because your perfect....... <rolls eyes>
> And you don't take photographs, you take pictures.
Ok, I'll bite, what is the difference? Better yet who other than you cares?
> You also need to learn how to use apostrophies properly.
And you need to learn how to pull that gigantic stick out of your ass.
Steven C (Doktersteve)
> Jon Pike wrote:
> > I don't hate anyone. I've never said that I hate you.
>
> Of course not, because your perfect....... <rolls eyes>
>
> > And you don't take photographs, you take pictures.
>
> Ok, I'll bite, what is the difference? Better yet who other than you
cares?
>
I can answer this one for Jon.
The difference is "the process".
You need to use an SLR camera to partake in "the process".
Everything that is not an SLR is a "cheap digicam".
cud...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> You also need to learn how to use apostrophies properly.
OMG. Simmer down!
--
.............................................................................
"The intifada is the Palestinian people's war of national liberation. We
enthusiastically chose to become a colonialist society, ignoring
international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from
Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding
justification for all these activities we established an apartheid regime"
-Micahe Ben-Yair, Former Attorney general of Israel
.............................................................................
ds...@m3m3t1ccand1ru.com http://www.memeticcandiru.com
Pham Nuwen
> Jon Pike wrote:
>
>> I don't hate anyone. I've never said that I hate you.
>
> Of course not, because your perfect....... <rolls eyes>
Sorry that should be *You're*. Obviously I'm not.
Dr. Fred Mbogo
> Jon Pike wrote:
>> And you don't take photographs, you take pictures.
>
> Ok, I'll bite, what is the difference? Better yet who other than you cares?
I think Steven hit it right on, but my second guess would be that
photographs use indicent light and a chemical (or electronic) process
to produce an image, whereas pictures can be produced with finger paint
or bodily fluids. Photographs are a subset of pictures, obviously.
Steven C (Doktersteve)
"Dr. Fred Mbogo" <fred-...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns946DC15...@24.69.255.211...
Exactly right.
The definition of the photographic process?
Recording a photo using light, and a lens to focus light on a recording
substance.
In the case of old fashioned photography, silver plates.
35mm? Its film.
Digital photography? its an image sensor.
I asked someone at the camera store what he thought of my camera, and about
people who put cameras down, and he said it is a moot point.
In the end, a camera body is a light tight box, you attach a good lens to
it, and put manual controls on it.
A good photographer will take good photos with the above setup.
bob
<Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>"Steven C \(Doktersteve\)" <real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:srlMb.9015$n44.1669@clgrps13:
>
>> The thing is, I am hardly ever very impressed by his photos. I don't
>> understand how people ooh and ah over them. The part that bothers me
>> is that I know many photographers on photosig.com and deviantart.com
>> who make amazing landscape/nature shots, and who have never ever been
>> published.
>
>You're hardly impressed by anything that you didn't do. You seem to only
>value pictures that were taken as snapshots of 1/4 naked chicks downtown.
>You don't even appreciate adams' work because it's mostly nature
>photography, not snapshot picture taking.
Jon, How can you make a ridiculous statement like that when in his
post Steven says.
"I know many photographers on photosig.com and deviantart.com who make
amazing landscape/nature shots,"
He obviously appreciates others work. You on the other hand complain
about everything. I can only assume that your own work is shite.
Steven C (Doktersteve)
"bob" <b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0e5400dsov0ia4oei...@4ax.com...
his work can be found at this url:
MadRedHatter
>
> "MisNomer" <misn...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> news:gbt300hh3kj78vpea...@4ax.com...
> > Wow Jon...
> >
> > Methinks he doth protest too much...
> >
> > take care
> > Liz
> >
>
> care less what he does in his spare time, but he sure does dislike me for
> taking photograph's.
You know why he does it? Because you respond to him. You are giving Jon the
Troll exactly what he craves. Killfile him and forget about him.
MadRedHatter
<cud...@salmahayeksknockers.edu> wrote in message
news:dZnMb.10579$De.8430@edtnps84...
> Jon Pike <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You also need to learn how to use apostrophies properly.
>
> OMG. Simmer down!
This coming from a guy who can barely make a post without a spelling mistake
in it. :P
(Jon Pike I mean)
Ayr-Kabir
<Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>You're hardly impressed by anything that you didn't do. You seem to only
>value pictures that were taken as snapshots of 1/4 naked chicks downtown.
>You don't even appreciate adams' work because it's mostly nature
>photography, not snapshot picture taking.
Adam Stasiak is an excellent photographer. Did you see his Capalano
bridge? How about his "Adam laying in front of a Jetta", or the ever
popular "Officer Stettlar released me to drive home with my wife and
daughter"
Adam is a pro.
>Did you also not notice that he's writing articles too?
His pictures are good.... if you have a duck fetish.
>Did you even stop to think about writing articles to go along with your
>pictures, or did you just spam them with various images of exposed chicks
>downtown?
Ill gladly be spamed with "exposed chicks"... maybe you can whip out
your MF camera, and get one of them to hold still for a bit, between
you and Steven, I bet could get together a volumous portfolio.
Ayr-Kabir
<Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/stampede/DSC04989.jpg
>http://members.shaw.ca/steven.campbell/images/stampede/DSC04997.jpg
>cougar alert!
Im pretty sure those were on http://members.shaw.ca/anonomoose/
and before Steven renamed them they were called "mom1.jpg" and
"mom2.jpg"
>you're just -obsessed- aren't you?
>I dunno steve, that one's looking a little young for you...
>aaaaaaaand here's why you -really- carry cameras around!
>oh geeze this one's not even GOOD looking! but you probably get a stiffy
>from seeing the bra-strap don't you?
>yet another cougar...
>oh and when you can't find real ones, you have to use manequins! ROFL!
>tsktsk steve. stating facts isn't abuse, it's just the facts.
All of these comments seem to indicate that you dont like women
Jonny... maybe its your sad history with them, or perhaps an over
bearing mother. Then again, maybe you were touched in your 'bathing
suit area' as a kid, by your babysitter.
You really should work out your hostillities, especially those towards
the female sex.
Ayr-Kabir
<Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>> Well I certainly hope so! I'd be worried if the lad didn't. But
>> that's not mutually exclusive with honing his photography skills.
>
>It's a pathetic and desperate reason to get into photography. And like I
>said, he gives everyone who's in it for any intelligent reason a bad name.
All cameras and no bitches makes Jonny a bitter boy.
Ayr-Kabir
<real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"MisNomer" <misn...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>news:gbt300hh3kj78vpea...@4ax.com...
>> Wow Jon...
>>
>> Methinks he doth protest too much...
>>
>> take care
>> Liz
>>
>
>He hates me. I don't understand the rationality behind it, because I could
>care less what he does in his spare time, but he sure does dislike me for
>taking photograph's.
>
Jon doesnt hate anyone.... once he's properly medicated.
Ayr-Kabir
<real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><cud...@salmahayeksknockers.edu> wrote in message
>news:0KmMb.10555$De.5573@edtnps84...
>> Jon Pike <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > tsktsk steve. stating facts isn't abuse, it's just the facts.
>>
>> Had you simply posted a link to his website, that would be a fact, but it
>is
>> the manner of presentation, and the hostile interpretation that makes it
>an
>> attack.
>>
>> With that being said, there's nothing wrong with taking pics of gurlz!
>>
>
>Chances are cuddles, that you will now be put on Jon's "hitlist" for not
>agreeing with him.
>however, I thank you for the support.
>
>Steve.
>
Dan is used to retarded, and psychotic people "hating" him.
Ayr-Kabir
<Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>cud...@salmahayeksknockers.edu wrote in
>news:0KmMb.10555$De.5573@edtnps84:
>
>> Jon Pike <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> tsktsk steve. stating facts isn't abuse, it's just the facts.
>>
>> Had you simply posted a link to his website, that would be a fact, but
>> it is the manner of presentation, and the hostile interpretation that
>> makes it an attack.
>>
>> With that being said, there's nothing wrong with taking pics of gurlz!
>
>I never said that there was anything wrong with taking pictures of females.
>However, when you use picture taking to try and gain the attention of the
>opposite sex, as steve always does, you not only make yourself look
>creepie, but you also give the rest of the photographers a really bad name.
Personally, I am dissapointed that Steven doesnt have any "pink" in
his photos....
Get to work Doctor Steve, those of us that arnt psychotic women haters
want to see the "good stuff" so to speak.
Ayr-Kabir
A) His family has issues disowning him at this point, as he still
lives at home
B) he has no real friends, he only has the friends that live in his
head, and talk to him through his stuffed animals and sock puppets.
Jon Pike
news:ZwnMb.67718$ts4.37929@pd7tw3no:
> "Jon Pike" <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns946DB41BC46AFL...@24.71.223.159...
>> "veranda" <nob...@home.net> wrote in
>> news:S2mMb.65308$X%5.42878@pd7tw2no:
>>
>> > "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> > message news:srlMb.9015$n44.1669@clgrps13...
>> >> The thing is, I am hardly ever very impressed by his photos. I
>> >> don't understand how people ooh and ah over them. The part that
>> >> bothers me is
>> > that
>> >> I know many photographers on photosig.com and deviantart.com who
>> >> make amazing landscape/nature shots, and who have never ever been
>> >> published.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I just looked at Drew's work and I would like to point to this
>> > one with
>> > the baby raised :
>> > http://www.calgarysun.com/cgi-bin/niveau2.cgi?s=generic16&p=gp__phot
>> > og_ photo1.htm&a=1
>> >
>> > Look where the sun is placed . I would have moved to have the
>> > sun on
>> > the other side , near the baby . Drew had a choice . But my taste
>> > prefers the sun on the other side . What do You think ?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It's actually good where it is, it provides balance. Baby's up high
>> on the right, sun's down low on the left. Also, he managed to use the
>> post to block the sun a little bit which was a wise decision.
>>
> Au contraire , he lost the balance . If you put the sun where I
> said (
> to the right ) you create a Pyramid with the baby at the pinnacle .
> Beat this balance .
The sun is not a large enough object in the frame to balance against the
whole of the old man. Nor, I doubt, would he have been able to get the
sun part way behind a post as he did in the current composition, and that
would have created much too much glare.
Jon Pike
news:fFnMb.66635$X%5.55293@pd7tw2no:
> I saw your web site , good processing room .
> But where are the pictures ?? I am sure that you have way more
> than
> what you show there . So far the dark street picture is appealing .
> The rest are what I call normal . We need way more pictures from you
> to compare with Steven .
> btw , do you talk like that with your family and friends ?
The term is "darkroom" :P
And as I already pointed out in other posts, good photographers don't take
the shotgun approach. Nor do they post entire series from excursions
downtown. One of the most important qualities in a photographer is to know
when to trim away all the fat. Steve hasn't learned that yet, either, since
he posted a half dozen pics of the same "model" to his deviantart site. You
don't need quantity to compare quality.
Jon Pike
> Steven C (Doktersteve) wrote:
>> He hates me. I don't understand the rationality behind it, because I
>> could care less what he does in his spare time, but he sure does
>> dislike me for taking photograph's.
>
> He hates everyone Steve, himself most of all. That is the only thing
> that I can think of that explains his constant need to pick fights
> with everyone here, and for him to act like he knows everything under
> the sun, and is so great (contrary to evidence otherwise).
I never act like I know everything under the sun. However, the topics
discussed in this group are typically topics on which I do know a great
deal. When it's something that I'm not sure about, I'll say so, and make
the necessary qualifiers, something you haven't figured out yet. If there
were a topic that I didn't know much about, automechanics for example,
then I would either not comment, or I'd be much more willing to accept
facts from other people.
> The truly telling thing I think is that people like you, Dan, (some
> others who all know who they are) and I contribute to this group, by
> starting threads and trying to conduct reasonable discussions. Jon,
> AST, and the other haters never contribute, they always move into the
> thread and do nothing, but pick fights, and act like general assholes.
Never and always eh? You and your absolutes. Maybe you should go and
check the recent cd price thread that *I* started :P
> Anyways I personally think your photos are great. You put effort in
> them, without making them so over polished that they look forced. I'll
> put some of my own up, but I suspect the end result will just be a
> bunch of crap from Jon, about how I'm obviously unfit to take pictures
> as well as everything else I do.
As long as you realize you're just taking pictures and not doing
photography, that's fine by me :D
> http://www.libertydice.org/images/redneck_hs_2003.JPG
> http://www.libertydice.org/images/wildflowers_hs_2003.JPG
> http://www.libertydice.org/images/topofdeceptionpass_hs_2003.JPG
> http://www.libertydice.org/images/flowers_cgy_2003.JPG
>
> All were taken with my Olympus C-700 10x Ultra Zoom 2.1MP Camera.
>
> I'll leave them up for a week at least, but will probably take them
> down after that, as I use the space.
Well, since it doesn't seem at all like you're playing at photography,
no, I won't give you crap for it.
However, here are some suggestions/comments:
The dog is blurry and in shadows, and the title of 'redneck' doesn't seem
to make much sense. If you'd used a flash for this one (although hard to
force a p&s digicam to do) it would have been a fairly decent picture.
When taking pictures of flowers, people usually choose to either find an
angle which isolates a single flower, or they choose a scene where they
can take a wider shot and encompass more flowers and more colour. The
abundance of surrounding folliage is a little distracting to the eye and
to the camera. By that I mean, in wildflowers especially, you'll notice
that the focus is just a little forward from the majority of the flowers
and they end up just a touch out of focus. This can be a -very- difficult
thing to rectify with a p&s digicam, and sometimes even with a half
decent 35mm because as I said, the amount of shapes there confuses the
eye. This is why people generally take either -very- close up shots of a
single flower (lots do, I don't like it so much), or do whole flowerbed
situations.
Finally, you might want to think about how you set up your picture of the
mountain. The gape and the tree make it a little too much off center, and
the slide area isn't strong enough to counter it. Perhaps if you had
zoomed out just a touch to get more of the tree on the left it would have
been better framed. Other than that, you're obviously dealing with a low-
light (for outdoors) situation. As far as picture taking goes, that's
fine. A photographer might decide to not make that shot because of the
lack of contrast available due to the low light.
Hope you don't take these comments as shots, because they're not. Just
suggestions on how you might do things differently to attain better
pictures in the future. Even when just taking pictures, it's nice to have
them come out really well.
Jon Pike
news:sSnMb.9141$n44.1084@clgrps13:
ROFL! You and your pop psychology steve, what a JOKE! Not only is your
analysis 100% wrong, but you've got -nothing- to base it on! waddar00b!
>> The truly telling thing I think is that people like you, Dan, (some
>> others who all know who they are) and I contribute to this group, by
>> starting threads and trying to conduct reasonable discussions. Jon,
>> AST, and the other haters never contribute, they always move into the
>> thread and do nothing, but pick fights, and act like general
>> assholes.
>>
>
> I agree there.
Then you're as blind as he is :P
Jon Pike
> Jon Pike wrote:
>> I don't hate anyone. I've never said that I hate you.
>
> Of course not, because your perfect....... <rolls eyes>
I never said that either. The two of you sure love to put words into my
mouth :P
>> And you don't take photographs, you take pictures.
>
> Ok, I'll bite, what is the difference? Better yet who other than you
> cares?
The difference is picture taking is typically point and shoot, maybe with
some consideration to things like framing, lighting, whatever, but maybe
not. 99% of digicam users out there are just taking pictures. So are
almost all the disposable camera users.
Photography, however, is -all- about the process. A photographer needs to
understand everything from how their camera, film, and paper work, to
issues of lighting, composition, interaction with your subject, and a
host of other things. By doing this, and taking the time to make sure
they do it all properly, photographers can ensure that every image they
take is a good photograph. Maybe not perfect, but -always- good. Adams
himself had times when images didn't turn out perfectly, but I never
heard of him taking one that simply wasn't good. As far as who cares?
Well, adams did. He cared enough not only to write a whole book on how
cameras work, one on how film works, and one on how paper works, but he
also wrote many other books about the creative processes that
photographers should engage in before they even pick up the camera.
Any photographer out there knows who Adams was and realizes the
contribution that he made to photography. They also know that the entire
process of taking photos is the very definition of photography; not
simply pointing and shooting.
>> You also need to learn how to use apostrophies properly.
>
> And you need to learn how to pull that gigantic stick out of your ass.
What, you advocate looking stupid by not knowing your own language?
BTW, that's a question, not an attack. Feel free to answer yes or no and
explain why.
Jon Pike
WnMb.9151$n44.4078@clgrps13:
>
> "Pham Nuwen" <pham.n...@libertydice.org> wrote in message
> news:40020A64...@libertydice.org...
>> Jon Pike wrote:
>> > I don't hate anyone. I've never said that I hate you.
>>
>> Of course not, because your perfect....... <rolls eyes>
>>
>> > And you don't take photographs, you take pictures.
>>
>> Ok, I'll bite, what is the difference? Better yet who other than you
> cares?
>>
>
> I can answer this one for Jon.
> The difference is "the process".
> You need to use an SLR camera to partake in "the process".
> Everything that is not an SLR is a "cheap digicam".
Wow, you sure don't know what you're talking about do you? There are plenty
of things that are at the same time not slr's and not digicams.
C'mon steve, you can do better than this.
Jon Pike
Hehe. You beat me on the anal-meter that time fred, I hadn't thought of
that one ;)
Of course, one wonders if you can -take- a picture using bodily fluids,
rather than -make- a picture.
Jon Pike
> I asked someone at the camera store what he thought of my camera, and
> about people who put cameras down, and he said it is a moot point.
> In the end, a camera body is a light tight box, you attach a good lens
> to it, and put manual controls on it.
>
> A good photographer will take good photos with the above setup.
And your digicams have neither good lenses nor manual controls. C'mon
steve, get with the program! Maybe you should go back and ask him what he
thinks about people who want to be called photographers when all they do is
run around pointing and shooting, which is a much more honest question than
what you asked :P
Jon Pike
> Jon Pike <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You also need to learn how to use apostrophies properly.
>
> OMG. Simmer down!
>
>
Do I not seem calm ? :P
Jon Pike
4ax.com:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:28:54 GMT, Jon Pike
> <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Steven C \(Doktersteve\)" <real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:srlMb.9015$n44.1669@clgrps13:
>>
>>> The thing is, I am hardly ever very impressed by his photos. I don't
>>> understand how people ooh and ah over them. The part that bothers me
>>> is that I know many photographers on photosig.com and deviantart.com
>>> who make amazing landscape/nature shots, and who have never ever been
>>> published.
>>
>>You're hardly impressed by anything that you didn't do. You seem to only
>>value pictures that were taken as snapshots of 1/4 naked chicks downtown.
>>You don't even appreciate adams' work because it's mostly nature
>>photography, not snapshot picture taking.
>
> Jon, How can you make a ridiculous statement like that when in his
> post Steven says.
>
> "I know many photographers on photosig.com and deviantart.com who make
> amazing landscape/nature shots,"
And yet he criticizes Mike's pictures because in his mind they're all
nature pictures which he finds boring. How pictures of groups of people are
nature pictures, I'll never know.
And I can say these things because I follow the thread and have a good
memory :P
> He obviously appreciates others work. You on the other hand complain
> about everything. I can only assume that your own work is shite.
>
Assumptions make you look stupid.
Jon Pike
news:g9c4009b3a5n5cceb...@4ax.com:
> Who is Sy the photo guy?
>
> and how come your link to your pics don't work?
>
> take care
> Liz
>
>
> Hey! Look what Jon Pike <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote :
>
>>He'll probably end up like Sy the photo guy.
>
>
The link does work, maybe shaw was having troubles when you tried? *shrug*
Which link were you trying?
Sy the photo guy is the main character in One Hour Photo, played by Robin
Williams. Good movie, you should go rent it :)
Jon Pike
news:AwrMb.69979$ts4.11272@pd7tw3no:
For someone who has apparently killfiled me, you sure don't seem to be able
to forget about anything, as you take every chance you can find to make
some quip or comment in an effort to insult me. :P
Jon Pike
news:50q400p6e8ta7r4gf...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:28:54 GMT, Jon Pike
> <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You're hardly impressed by anything that you didn't do. You seem to
>>only value pictures that were taken as snapshots of 1/4 naked chicks
>>downtown. You don't even appreciate adams' work because it's mostly
>>nature photography, not snapshot picture taking.
>
> Adam Stasiak is an excellent photographer. Did you see his Capalano
> bridge? How about his "Adam laying in front of a Jetta", or the ever
> popular "Officer Stettlar released me to drive home with my wife and
> daughter"
>
> Adam is a pro.
Have you started smoking pot or something? Noone's talking about adam here.
I don't even see why you bring it up.
>>Did you also not notice that he's writing articles too?
>
> His pictures are good.... if you have a duck fetish.
Ahhh for the immature everything comes down to sex, doesn't it.
>>Did you even stop to think about writing articles to go along with
>>your pictures, or did you just spam them with various images of
>>exposed chicks downtown?
>
> Ill gladly be spamed with "exposed chicks"... maybe you can whip out
> your MF camera, and get one of them to hold still for a bit, between
> you and Steven, I bet could get together a volumous portfolio.
"I bet *I* could get..." silly typo. anyway.
And again, everything comes down to sex for you and steve. Maybe if you
ever actually got it, instead of fantasized about it then you wouldn't be
so obsessed. Who knows? If I still had a MF camera around, I wouldn't need
them to hold still for me, since it too was an slr of sorts. LF, however,
does require a bit more patience and practice.
Steven C. (Doktersteve)
Jon, You are confusing photography with washing pieces of film and paper in
chemical wash.
There is a difference.
Steven C. (Doktersteve)
"Ayr-Kabir" <`Iron.sheik`@iran.info> wrote in message
news:91r40051er44uv1k1...@4ax.com...
lol.
thanls ;-)
Steven C. (Doktersteve)
He was joking Jon.
You are so intense, you cant even see it when it is a joke.
Steven C. (Doktersteve)
"Ayr-Kabir" <`Iron.sheik`@iran.info> wrote in message
news:beq400lcov7b6ff0g...@4ax.com...
And that is deanna, the hypnotist that does the stampede... And who gives a
shit anyways.
h1nd00_p$...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> What it comes down to, and i dont have a degree to make this call, something
> Jon always points out... Is a generally narcissistic personality disorder.
> The push to project an amazingly brilliant image of ones self on others,
> although inside you see things differently, you see yourself as broken,
> flawed, and bad.
I'm no shrink either, but I don't think narcissim necessarily means you've
got a bad self-image. I think it means you're completely convinced of your
greatness.
--
.............................................................................
chown -R us /yourbase
.............................................................................
ds...@m3m3t1ccand1ru.com http://www.memeticcandiru.com
h1nd00_p$...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> I never act like I know everything under the sun. However, the topics
> discussed in this group are typically topics on which I do know a great
> deal.
I suspect you find yourself in many situations where the topics being
discussed are ones which you "happen" to know a great deal about.
> When it's something that I'm not sure about, I'll say so, and make
> the necessary qualifiers,
Wrong. You spoke authoritatively on your Mantis knowledge, and were
completely off the mark.
--
.............................................................................
"We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by
procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any
employment in our own country expropriation and the removal of the poor
must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly"
- Theodore Herzl, Ideological father of Israel,
(The Complete Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Vol I, 1895)
.............................................................................
ds...@m3m3t1ccand1ru.com http://www.memeticcandiru.com
h1nd00_p$...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> Personally, I am dissapointed that Steven doesnt have any "pink" in
> his photos....
No shit, eh. That makes the difference between a photographer, and a guy
just taking pictures.
--
.............................................................................
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society
.............................................................................
ds...@m3m3t1ccand1ru.com http://www.memeticcandiru.com
h1nd00_p$...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> Then again, maybe you were touched in your 'bathing
> suit area' as a kid, by your babysitter.
How come cool shit like that never happened to me?
--
.............................................................................
"People ask me if we are going to stop applying [financial] pressure on the
Germans I'll tell you now we will keep going back to the Germans again and
again We expect this ammount may dwarf payments up to now"
-World Jewish Congress leader Edgar Bronfman
.............................................................................
ds...@m3m3t1ccand1ru.com http://www.memeticcandiru.com
h1nd00_p$...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> Adam Stasiak is an excellent photographer. Did you see his Capalano
> bridge? How about his "Adam laying in front of a Jetta", or the ever
> popular "Officer Stettlar released me to drive home with my wife and
> daughter"
Are these really the pics he's been posting? (I never look at them).
--
.............................................................................
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually
come to believe it.
-Joseph Goebbels
.............................................................................
ds...@m3m3t1ccand1ru.com http://www.memeticcandiru.com
h1nd00_p$...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> Have you started smoking pot or something? Noone's talking about adam here.
> I don't even see why you bring it up.
Hey, one doesn't need a reason to bring up Adam. One just *does*.
It's sort of a post-modern tribute to his own non-sequiter style.
Pham Nuwen
> And as I already pointed out in other posts, good photographers don't take
> the shotgun approach. Nor do they post entire series from excursions
> downtown.
Of course this is just patently false. Lots of good photographers make
good money based on getting lucky with the right shot at just the right
time, and/or by publishing their excursions 'downtown'.
> One of the most important qualities in a photographer is to know
> when to trim away all the fat. Steve hasn't learned that yet, either, since
> he posted a half dozen pics of the same "model" to his deviantart site. You
> don't need quantity to compare quality.
Obviously you have never heard of a important tool real photographers
use called a 'contact sheet'. Other terms you might want to investigate
are "spread" and "photo set".
--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I pham.n...@libertydice.org II I
I http://www.libertydice.org II I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Pham Nuwen
> I never act like I know everything under the sun.
Could have fooled me......
> However, the topics discussed in this group are typically topics on
> which I do know a great deal. When it's something that I'm not sure
> about, I'll say so, and make the necessary qualifiers, something you
> haven't figured out yet. If there were a topic that I didn't know
> much about, automechanics for example, then I would either not
> comment, or I'd be much more willing to accept facts from other
> people.
Sure, you do.
> Never and always eh? You and your absolutes. Maybe you should go and
> check the recent cd price thread that *I* started :P
Gee Whiz, One whole thread, in how long Jon?
>> Anyways I personally think your photos are great. You put effort in
>> them, without making them so over polished that they look forced.
>> I'll put some of my own up, but I suspect the end result will just
>> be a bunch of crap from Jon, about how I'm obviously unfit to take
>> pictures as well as everything else I do.
>
> As long as you realize you're just taking pictures and not doing
> photography, that's fine by me :D
Then you are a twit. I'm taking photos.
Main Entry: pho·tog·ra·phy
Pronunciation: f&-'tä-gr&-fE
Function: noun
Date: 1839
: the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a
film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light.
>> http://www.libertydice.org/images/redneck_hs_2003.JPG
>> http://www.libertydice.org/images/wildflowers_hs_2003.JPG
>> http://www.libertydice.org/images/topofdeceptionpass_hs_2003.JPG
>> http://www.libertydice.org/images/flowers_cgy_2003.JPG
>>
>> All were taken with my Olympus C-700 10x Ultra Zoom 2.1MP Camera.
>>
>> I'll leave them up for a week at least, but will probably take them
>> down after that, as I use the space.
>
> Well, since it doesn't seem at all like you're playing at
> photography, no, I won't give you crap for it. However, here are some
> suggestions/comments:
And here it comes from Mr. Know it all. Jon I never asked for your comments.
> The dog is blurry
Sorry next time I'll nail his paws to the ground.
> and in shadows,
Duh, Tree there, of course there is going to be shadow.
> and the title of 'redneck' doesn't seem to make much sense.
Gee, couldn't be the dogs name could it?
> If you'd used a flash for this one (although hard to force a p&s
> digicam to do) it would have been a fairly decent picture.
No, it would have ruined what I was trying to get. I didn't want a
clean, and cold picture, I wanted the play of shadow, and light. Notice
if you draw a line through Rednecks leg, and tail, and another along the
side of the tree trunk, how they frame the photo. It was done on
purpose, having one side of the photo dark and shadowy, and fairly plain
(the tree), on the other side a clutter of different shapes and very
light and airy, in the middle and object of motion, and in mixed light.
It makes for a dynamic photo, and it took me several trys to get one
like it, as Redneck was to busy chasing the squirrel to pose for me
nicely. Actually at this point I was pointing at a log on the ground,
and tricking him to look there, just to get his attention fixated for
the moment I took the picture.
As for forcing the camera to flash, it is a single fucking button, so I
don't know why you think that is hard to do. What would have been better
is if I had bumped the ASA up to inhibit the slight blurring you see,
but hey, I was on vacation, and it's not like I sell my photos.
> When taking pictures of flowers, people usually choose to either find
> an angle which isolates a single flower, or they choose a scene
> where they can take a wider shot and encompass more flowers and more
> colour. The abundance of surrounding folliage is a little
> distracting to the eye and to the camera. By that I mean, in
> wildflowers especially, you'll notice that the focus is just a little
> forward from the majority of the flowers and they end up just a touch
> out of focus. This can be a -very- difficult thing to rectify with a
> p&s digicam, and sometimes even with a half decent 35mm because as I
> said, the amount of shapes there confuses the eye. This is why
> people generally take either -very- close up shots of a single flower
> (lots do, I don't like it so much), or do whole flowerbed situations.
>
Of course that is all fine and dandy, but you again miss the point.
First I don't take pictures of flowers for botanical studies or
anything, so IMHO taking a picture of a single flower tends to be
pointless, unless there is another reason to focus in on that one
flower. Secondly I don't give two craps what the flowerbed looks like, I
want the flowers. In the case of the flowers downtown, I took great
care, and about 10 shots of this to get it just right. The flowerbed in
question has a red sign just above the frame, which I didn't want
screwing with the photo, also you'll notice how I centered the main
plant so the fern is behind it, giving the photo a place for the eye to
move along from the center out to the sides.
In the case of the wild flowers again you miss the point, all that extra
foliage is wilderness, which is kinda the point, If I wanted a nice
clean shot, I'd have pulled the flowers and set them up for a photo. As
it is, not that you can see it, I broke the stem of the the middle one
there to shorten it a bit so it fell more in line with the angles that
travel from the high left to the low right in the picture.
> Finally, you might want to think about how you set up your picture of
> the mountain. The gape and the tree make it a little too much off
> center,
I'll get God to fix that. The tree is there to add depth, I hate flat
looking pictures.
> and the slide area isn't strong enough to counter it. Perhaps if you
> had zoomed out just a touch to get more of the tree on the left it
> would have been better framed.
Possibly but considering I was sitting on top of a horse at the time,
I'd say I did none too bad.
> Other than that, you're obviously dealing with a low- light (for
> outdoors) situation. As far as picture taking goes, that's fine. A
> photographer might decide to not make that shot because of the lack
> of contrast available due to the low light.
Considering how many chances I get to make that shot, I'll take it every
time.
> Hope you don't take these comments as shots, because they're not.
Nope, not shots, just you pushing that you think you know better than
others. You didn't frame any of this as your opinion, but as "what to
do", and Jon, that is the condescending attitude of yours that people
don't like.
> Just suggestions on how you might do things differently to attain
> better pictures in the future.
Thing is you dismissed these photos altogether, before you even looked
at them, as having any chance of being good photos, or that I might
actually put some though into the pictures I take. Sorry but I'm more
than happy with how I take photos, and nothing you have said would make
for a 'better' photo, just a different one.
> Even when just taking pictures, it's nice to have them come out
> really well.
So no matter how well taken you wouldn't consider mine photos? That's
interesting....
An Unexploded Scotsman
<Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Two and three years eh? If you weren't so embaressed of them then howcome
>you snipped them all from the post, but nothing else? :P And uh, that was
>last canada day and last stampede, but nice try.
>We all know you're trying to use picture taking to try to get laid :P
And what's wrong with that? It certainly beats playing keyboard
cowboy.
An Unexploded Scotsman
<real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"MisNomer" <misn...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>news:gbt300hh3kj78vpea...@4ax.com...
>> Wow Jon...
>>
>> Methinks he doth protest too much...
>>
>> take care
>> Liz
>>
>
>He hates me. I don't understand the rationality behind it, because I could
>care less what he does in his spare time, but he sure does dislike me for
>taking photograph's.
>
Dude, he hates everybody, and not in a healthy way.
Pham Nuwen
> Pham Nuwen <pham.n...@libertydice.org> wrote in
> news:40020A64...@libertydice.org:
>
>> Jon Pike wrote:
>>
>>> I don't hate anyone. I've never said that I hate you.
>>
>> Of course not, because your perfect....... <rolls eyes>
>
> I never said that either. The two of you sure love to put words into
> my mouth :P
You don't have to say it, you just act like it.
>>> And you don't take photographs, you take pictures.
>>
>> Ok, I'll bite, what is the difference? Better yet who other than
>> you cares?
>
> The difference is picture taking is typically point and shoot, maybe
> with some consideration to things like framing, lighting, whatever,
> but maybe not. 99% of digicam users out there are just taking
> pictures. So are almost all the disposable camera users.
Ok so other than saying, you think 99% is picture taking, and 1% is
photography, you actually haven't said anything at all.
> Photography, however, is -all- about the process.
Ah, good a process, so you think photography is definable by a series of
steps or a formula.
> A photographer needs to understand everything from how their camera,
> film, and paper work, to issues of lighting, composition,
> interaction with your subject, and a host of other things.
Ok, but even taking all these considerations into account isn't a
process, it's just knowledge.
> By doing this, and taking the time to make sure they do it all
> properly, photographers can ensure that every image they take is a
> good photograph.
So, what you are saying is unless someone sets up every shot, they can
never take a photograph, just pictures????
> Maybe not perfect, but -always- good. Adams himself had times when
> images didn't turn out perfectly, but I never heard of him taking one
> that simply wasn't good.
But as I doubt you have seen every photo he ever took, it is very
conceivable he had his fair share of spoiled shots for whatever reason.
> As far as who cares? Well, adams did. He cared enough not only to
> write a whole book on how cameras work, one on how film works, and
> one on how paper works, but he also wrote many other books about the
> creative processes that photographers should engage in before they
> even pick up the camera. Any photographer out there knows who Adams
> was and realizes the contribution that he made to photography. They
> also know that the entire process of taking photos is the very
> definition of photography; not simply pointing and shooting.
Yes, he was a great photographer, but he was only one style of
photographer. Photography is a subjective process Jon, what you think is
crap, is another man's treasure, and vise versa. Photography isn't a
just a formula or process it is an applied art. I can't just take a bowl
and two apples, and turn it into a inspired photo. If you could then all
the photos in the world would be of bowls of apples. That isn't to say
you can't have a good photo of a bowl of apples, or a bad photo, sure
you can, but it is based on an artistic perspective, not a process or
formula. I think you are mixing up the technical process of photography
which is very simple with the artistic which is very hard. Yes both are
important, but they are also separate.
veranda
news:wtAMb.12169$De.10577@edtnps84...
> Ayr-Kabir <`Iron.sheik`@iran.info> wrote:
>
> > Then again, maybe you were touched in your 'bathing
> > suit area' as a kid, by your babysitter.
>
> How come cool shit like that never happened to me?
>
Jon Pike
in news:ZUzMb.70729$JQ1.57018@pd7tw1no:
> Jon, You are confusing photography with washing pieces of film and
> paper in chemical wash.
> There is a difference.
Uhm, that's part of the photographic process steve.
Guess you really didn't read Adams' books as you claimed to have.
Jon Pike
>> > Ill gladly be spamed with "exposed chicks"... maybe you can whip
>> > out your MF camera, and get one of them to hold still for a bit,
>> > between you and Steven, I bet could get together a volumous
>> > portfolio.
>>
>> "I bet *I* could get..." silly typo. anyway.
>> And again, everything comes down to sex for you and steve. Maybe if
>> you ever actually got it, instead of fantasized about it then you
>> wouldn't be so obsessed. Who knows? If I still had a MF camera
>> around, I wouldn't need them to hold still for me, since it too was
>> an slr of sorts. LF, however, does require a bit more patience and
>> practice.
>>
>
> He was joking Jon.
> You are so intense, you cant even see it when it is a joke.
Your ignorance is showing again. MF is operated very differently from 35mm,
as 35 is much easier to use for 'action' type shots. Although MF does allow
TTL viewing along with the speed of SLR, it takes longer to set up your
frame since most of the MF cameras don't come with auto correcting prisms.
It also takes longer to set your aperature and shutter speed since they're
located on the lense usually. That's why a lot of people prefer only to use
MF cameras in studios or still life situations.
Course, you'd know this if you'd read Adams' books. You know, the one
called The Camera ?
Jon Pike
news:qhAMb.12166$De.10827@edtnps84:
> "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)" <real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What it comes down to, and i dont have a degree to make this call,
>> something Jon always points out... Is a generally narcissistic
>> personality disorder. The push to project an amazingly brilliant
>> image of ones self on others, although inside you see things
>> differently, you see yourself as broken, flawed, and bad.
>
> I'm no shrink either, but I don't think narcissim necessarily means
> you've got a bad self-image. I think it means you're completely
> convinced of your greatness.
You're right, "narcissism" is a synonym for egoism, and can even extend to
loving yourself so much that you get turned on by your own body. But of
course, steve's the pop-psychologist here so you and I both, along with
Webster's dictionary MUST be wrong ;)
CalgaryBill
<h1nd00_p$ych1a7r1$7...@salmahayeksknockers.edu> wrote in message
news:LqAMb.12167$De.7773@edtnps84...
> Jon Pike <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I never act like I know everything under the sun. However, the
topics
> > discussed in this group are typically topics on which I do know a
great
> > deal.
>
> I suspect you find yourself in many situations where the topics being
> discussed are ones which you "happen" to know a great deal about.
>
>
> > When it's something that I'm not sure about, I'll say so, and make
> > the necessary qualifiers,
>
> Wrong. You spoke authoritatively on your Mantis knowledge, and were
> completely off the mark.
>
Just like he tried the same thing, in relating backup / recovery to
RAID. Although he finally shut up when everyone started posting about
his total lack of knowledge; but he never actually stated that he had
been way off base.
Jon Pike
$De.7773@edtnps84:
> Jon Pike <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I never act like I know everything under the sun. However, the topics
>> discussed in this group are typically topics on which I do know a great
>> deal.
>
> I suspect you find yourself in many situations where the topics being
> discussed are ones which you "happen" to know a great deal about.
Considering how wide an array of topics I'm interested in, that may in fact
be true!
>> When it's something that I'm not sure about, I'll say so, and make
>> the necessary qualifiers,
>
> Wrong. You spoke authoritatively on your Mantis knowledge, and were
> completely off the mark.
I asked in another post, don't know if you replied to it yet, but what
exactly was I wrong about? I said they can eat crickets, and they can. I
also said they like to wait for their food, and they do that too.
Jon Pike
$De.3461@edtnps84:
> Ayr-Kabir <`Iron.sheik`@iran.info> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I am dissapointed that Steven doesnt have any "pink" in
>> his photos....
>
> No shit, eh. That makes the difference between a photographer, and a guy
> just taking pictures.
>
>
>
what, being able to con chicks into taking off their clothes? :P
Jon Pike
news:VvAMb.12171$De.7168@edtnps84:
> Jon Pike <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Have you started smoking pot or something? Noone's talking about adam
>> here. I don't even see why you bring it up.
>
> Hey, one doesn't need a reason to bring up Adam. One just *does*.
>
> It's sort of a post-modern tribute to his own non-sequiter style.
Define "post-modern" ;)
Jon Pike
> Jon Pike wrote:
>> And as I already pointed out in other posts, good photographers don't
>> take the shotgun approach. Nor do they post entire series from
>> excursions downtown.
>
> Of course this is just patently false. Lots of good photographers make
> good money based on getting lucky with the right shot at just the
> right time, and/or by publishing their excursions 'downtown'.
You're twisting what I said. Being lucky and taking a shotgun approach
are two different things. Lucky is standing there when the flag was
raised by 5 guys at the end of the war. Shotgun is taking 30 pictures of
it to make sure you got a good one. A good photographer, like the person
who took that picture
http://www.gallerym.com/pixs/photogs/pulitzer/pages/iwo_jima_joe_rosentha
l.htm
was lucky to be in the right place at the right time, but was a good
photographer because he only took one picture of it. Maybe 3, tops.
Equipment then didn't allow for much more.
And -no- photographer worth his salt publishes entire series' of every
picture they took when they went out. They choose the best two or three
and that's -all-.
>> One of the most important qualities in a photographer is to know
>> when to trim away all the fat. Steve hasn't learned that yet, either,
>> since he posted a half dozen pics of the same "model" to his
>> deviantart site. You don't need quantity to compare quality.
>
> Obviously you have never heard of a important tool real photographers
> use called a 'contact sheet'. Other terms you might want to
> investigate are "spread" and "photo set".
I know what contact sheets are, thank you very much. Contact sheets have
very little to do with the shotgun approach, unless you're a really
terrible hack.
But thanks for coming out.
Oh, and incase you didn't notice... what he's got on his site is nothing
even resembling a contact sheet. For that you need ... dare i say it...
something to put -in contact- with the paper! not cheap digicam pics.
What you MAY be thinking about is an -index- page, but he didn't do that
either.
veranda
> "veranda" <nob...@home.net> wrote in
> news:fFnMb.66635$X%5.55293@pd7tw2no:
>
> The term is "darkroom" :P
> And as I already pointed out in other posts, good photographers don't take
> the shotgun approach. Nor do they post entire series from excursions
> when to trim away all the fat. Steve hasn't learned that yet, either,
since
> he posted a half dozen pics of the same "model" to his deviantart site.
You
> don't need quantity to compare quality.
>
I agree , I have over 3,000 slides in my colection but only 140 that I
can show . BTW , if you ( or someone else ) can arrange to have my slides
( 140 or less ) scaned for free I have no problem in showing them on the
web .
Talking about series , you need to show way more than you do now . You
are exposing your self to a crude joke which may say that ' considering the
little meat you show , you must shoot a lot of fat ' . Avoid this by
speaking with your work rather than your mouth . It looks so far that you
are controling better your maners ... keep at it .
Jon Pike
> Jon Pike wrote:
>> I never act like I know everything under the sun.
>
> Could have fooled me......
So could a two year old. What's your point?
>> However, the topics discussed in this group are typically topics on
>> which I do know a great deal. When it's something that I'm not sure
>> about, I'll say so, and make the necessary qualifiers, something you
>> haven't figured out yet. If there were a topic that I didn't know
>> much about, automechanics for example, then I would either not
>> comment, or I'd be much more willing to accept facts from other
>> people.
>
> Sure, you do.
You've not proved me wrong yet.
>>> Anyways I personally think your photos are great. You put effort in
>>> them, without making them so over polished that they look forced.
>>> I'll put some of my own up, but I suspect the end result will just
>>> be a bunch of crap from Jon, about how I'm obviously unfit to take
>>> pictures as well as everything else I do.
>>
>> As long as you realize you're just taking pictures and not doing
>> photography, that's fine by me :D
>
> Then you are a twit. I'm taking photos.
>
> Main Entry: pho·tog·ra·phy
> Pronunciation: f&-'tä-gr&-fE
> Function: noun
> Date: 1839
>: the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a
> film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light.
ROFL. Now you're taking a page from steve's book eh? Give me a break. How
'bout you go read The Camera, The Negative, The Print, as well as some of
his books relating to the creative process and then come back and try to
tell me you're still taking photographs.
>> If you'd used a flash for this one (although hard to force a p&s
>> digicam to do) it would have been a fairly decent picture.
>
> No, it would have ruined what I was trying to get. I didn't want a
> clean, and cold picture, I wanted the play of shadow, and light.
> Notice if you draw a line through Rednecks leg, and tail, and another
> along the side of the tree trunk, how they frame the photo. It was
> done on purpose,
Now you're contradicting yourself again. First you say something to the
effect that he was moving and that's why you couldn't make him sharp.
Then you turn around and say that you took the picture -exactly- when all
these things were in perfect alignment to frame things perfectly? C'mon
sp(h)am, we all know better.
> having one side of the photo dark and shadowy, and
> fairly plain (the tree), on the other side a clutter of different
> shapes and very light and airy, in the middle and object of motion,
> and in mixed light.
>
> It makes for a dynamic photo,
No, it makes it look blurry, lopsided, and generally of poor quality.
> and it took me several trys to get one
> like it, as Redneck was to busy chasing the squirrel to pose for me
> nicely. Actually at this point I was pointing at a log on the ground,
> and tricking him to look there, just to get his attention fixated for
> the moment I took the picture.
>
> As for forcing the camera to flash, it is a single fucking button, so
> I don't know why you think that is hard to do.
Maybe it is on your camera, on most cheap digicams NOTHING is one "single
fucking button".
> What would have been
> better is if I had bumped the ASA up to inhibit the slight blurring
> you see,
There you go again showing that you don't know what you're talking about.
If you had increased the 'asa' all that would have happened would be a
picture that's too bright.
> Of course that is all fine and dandy, but you again miss the point.
> First I don't take pictures of flowers for botanical studies or
> anything, so IMHO taking a picture of a single flower tends to be
> pointless, unless there is another reason to focus in on that one
> flower. Secondly I don't give two craps what the flowerbed looks like,
> I want the flowers.
In going in so close to get the flowers, you confuse the image with
everything else around it.
> In the case of the flowers downtown, I took great
> care, and about 10 shots of this to get it just right. The flowerbed
> in question has a red sign just above the frame, which I didn't want
> screwing with the photo,
Ever hear of cropping?
> also you'll notice how I centered the main
> plant so the fern is behind it,
That's a fern? I've never seen any fern like that.
> giving the photo a place for the eye
> to move along from the center out to the sides.
Too much grean surrounding everything else. It may have been what you
were trying to do, but like I said, the abundance of folliage makes it
not work.
> In the case of the wild flowers again you miss the point, all that
> extra foliage is wilderness, which is kinda the point, If I wanted a
> nice clean shot, I'd have pulled the flowers and set them up for a
> photo. As it is, not that you can see it, I broke the stem of the the
> middle one there to shorten it a bit so it fell more in line with the
> angles that travel from the high left to the low right in the picture.
You -totally- missed my entire comment. A shame. You'll learn nothing.
Your focal plane was -not- on the flowers.
As far as an angle of travel, like I said before, it's -way- too busy for
anything like that.
>> Finally, you might want to think about how you set up your picture of
>> the mountain. The gape and the tree make it a little too much off
>> center,
>
> I'll get God to fix that. The tree is there to add depth, I hate flat
> looking pictures.
That's not up to god, you twat, that's up to you as the photographer. Two
seconds of examining your frame would have shown you how off balance it
was. A tiny bit of zooming out or even stepping backward (as the case
often is with a cheap digicam) would have improved this picture to no end
and still preserved your precious notion of depth (of which there is very
little anyway because you took it in such poor light).
>> and the slide area isn't strong enough to counter it. Perhaps if you
>> had zoomed out just a touch to get more of the tree on the left it
>> would have been better framed.
>
> Possibly but considering I was sitting on top of a horse at the time,
> I'd say I did none too bad.
Hah. What did i tell ya, point and shoot garbage :P
If you want to be a photographer you have to be ready to put a little
effort forth. you know, ask the trail ride leader to stop for a second so
you can get off your horse and take the picture properly.
This degree of laziness is shameful if you want to call yourself a
photographer.
>> Other than that, you're obviously dealing with a low- light (for
>> outdoors) situation. As far as picture taking goes, that's fine. A
>> photographer might decide to not make that shot because of the lack
>> of contrast available due to the low light.
>
> Considering how many chances I get to make that shot, I'll take it
> every time.
Photographers make chances to take shots.
>> Hope you don't take these comments as shots, because they're not.
>
> Nope, not shots, just you pushing that you think you know better than
> others. You didn't frame any of this as your opinion, but as "what to
> do", and Jon, that is the condescending attitude of yours that people
> don't like.
My comments about the dog -were- facts. It -was- blurry. It -was- in the
shadows. The title DOESN'T make any sense unless you KNOW that's his
name, since the term "redneck" has other meanings that are much more
likely to spring to mind.
My comments about flowers were started with:
"When taking pictures of flowers, people usually choose"
You know what the word usually means, right? Go out and look at calendars
with pictures of flowers in them, you'll see that I'm right.
I'm also factual in stating that the abundance of other folliage DOES
confuse the eye and the camera and you can SEE that by the fact that the
focal plane is NOT resting on the flowers.
These are all plain and simple facts sp(h)am, not just my opinion.
But hey, if you don't want to learn from what other people have done,
that's up to you.
>> Just suggestions on how you might do things differently to attain
>> better pictures in the future.
>
> Thing is you dismissed these photos altogether, before you even looked
> at them, as having any chance of being good photos, or that I might
> actually put some though into the pictures I take.
Did I? Really? How do you know that?
If you had actually paid attention to what I said, you'd notice that I
looked at each PICTURE -very- carefully and gave clear and concise and
supported comments for each.
> Sorry but I'm more
> than happy with how I take photos, and nothing you have said would
> make for a 'better' photo, just a different one.
So what you're saying is you've got no artistic style, I can understand
that :)
>> Even when just taking pictures, it's nice to have them come out
>> really well.
>
> So no matter how well taken you wouldn't consider mine photos? That's
> interesting....
Pointing and clicking isn't photography sp(h)am, it's just that simple :P
Jon Pike
news:m3u500t5gvit9b8v3...@4ax.com:
hehehe. I've not heard that term before :)
Jon Pike
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:05:36 GMT, Jon Pike
And what's wrong with it? Like I've already said before, it gives all real
photographers a bad name.
veranda
. Shotgun is taking 30 pictures of
> it to make sure you got a good one. A good photographer, like the person
> who took that picture
> http://www.gallerym.com/pixs/photogs/pulitzer/pages/iwo_jima_joe_rosentha
> l.htm
> was lucky to be in the right place at the right time, but was a good
> photographer because he only took one picture of it. Maybe 3, tops.
The top Jewish professional photographers in Montreal brought to the
studio I worked commercial staff as well as weddings and Bars . You need
close attention to the frames to distinguish between them as there were
dozens of shots without changing the angle but only varying the exposure and
light arrangement a bit at a time .
An experienced prof photographer knows not to be cocky ... not to
mention that if you would have visited a prof studio and watch how they
shoot commercial staff you would know that when the flash is going on is NO
way that you can make a judgment of how one f stop differs from the next and
yes , they do use light meters .
Regarding your dark room , when I was 18 I was doing the same thing (
B&W) in the kitchen late at night . After some time of experimenting with
solarization ( both film and paper ) , double exposure and other tricks , I
lost interest in the processing aspect of photography . I understood that a
GOOD shot can be processed even at Wal-Mart ... ( I hope that you will not
get into color separation ) .
qu07a_...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> I said they can eat crickets, and they can.
Actually, that's a lie. Had you said something so general, you would have
been correct. But that isn't what you said.
When I stated that Butterfingers requires flying food[1], you
proceeded to correct me, stating that he needs "Slow moving food" [2],
insisting your bogus suggestion was correct.
If I'd listened to it, Butterfingers would be pushing up daisies by now.
Thankfully, he's happily sitting at home snatching flies out of the air.
We won't get into all of your crap about needing a permit to own an exotic
mantid, and the requirement to have a super-duper re-inforced terrarium.
Anyways, we covered all of this before, Jon... and I really don't have the
energy or patience to engage in your word games.
--
.............................................................................
Just say "Know"
.............................................................................
ds...@m3m3t1ccand1ru.com http://www.memeticcandiru.com
Jon Pike
@libertydice.org:
> You don't have to say it, you just act like it.
Your assumptions make you look silly.
>>>> And you don't take photographs, you take pictures.
>>>
>>> Ok, I'll bite, what is the difference? Better yet who other than
>>> you cares?
>>
>> The difference is picture taking is typically point and shoot, maybe
>> with some consideration to things like framing, lighting, whatever,
>> but maybe not. 99% of digicam users out there are just taking
>> pictures. So are almost all the disposable camera users.
>
> Ok so other than saying, you think 99% is picture taking, and 1% is
> photography, you actually haven't said anything at all.
I was just starting, didn't you notice that? Jumping the gun a bit aren't
you?
>> Photography, however, is -all- about the process.
>
> Ah, good a process, so you think photography is definable by a series
of
> steps or a formula.
Did I say that? There you go putting words into my mouth again.
tsktsk.
That's not even what the word "process" means.
1 a : PROGRESS, ADVANCE <in the process of time> b : something going on :
PROCEEDING
2 a (1) : a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward
a particular result <the process of growth> (2) : a natural continuing
activity or function <such life processes as breathing> b : a series of
actions or operations conducing to an end; especially : a continuous
operation or treatment especially in manufacture
C'mon sp(h)am, before you try to trap me in silly wordplay, make sure you
know what the words you're trying to entangle me with mean.
>> A photographer needs to understand everything from how their camera,
>> film, and paper work, to issues of lighting, composition,
>> interaction with your subject, and a host of other things.
>
> Ok, but even taking all these considerations into account isn't a
> process, it's just knowledge.
You just didn't know what the word "process" meant when you wrote this,
so I'll forgive you for that.
>> By doing this, and taking the time to make sure they do it all
>> properly, photographers can ensure that every image they take is a
>> good photograph.
>
> So, what you are saying is unless someone sets up every shot, they can
> never take a photograph, just pictures????
Point & shoot = picture taking. How hard is that to accept?
>> Maybe not perfect, but -always- good. Adams himself had times when
>> images didn't turn out perfectly, but I never heard of him taking one
>> that simply wasn't good.
>
> But as I doubt you have seen every photo he ever took, it is very
> conceivable he had his fair share of spoiled shots for whatever reason.
Adams didn't release an image until he had it perfected. Like I said, he
had many that didn't turn out perfectly, but out and out spoiled? I very
much doubt that he had any of those after the first 6 months of studying
photography.
>> As far as who cares? Well, adams did. He cared enough not only to
>> write a whole book on how cameras work, one on how film works, and
>> one on how paper works, but he also wrote many other books about the
>> creative processes that photographers should engage in before they
>> even pick up the camera. Any photographer out there knows who Adams
>> was and realizes the contribution that he made to photography. They
>> also know that the entire process of taking photos is the very
>> definition of photography; not simply pointing and shooting.
>
> Yes, he was a great photographer, but he was only one style of
> photographer. Photography is a subjective process Jon, what you think
is
> crap, is another man's treasure, and vise versa. Photography isn't a
> just a formula or process it is an applied art. I can't just take a
bowl
> and two apples, and turn it into a inspired photo. If you could then
all
> the photos in the world would be of bowls of apples. That isn't to say
> you can't have a good photo of a bowl of apples, or a bad photo, sure
> you can, but it is based on an artistic perspective, not a process or
> formula. I think you are mixing up the technical process of photography
> which is very simple with the artistic which is very hard. Yes both are
> important, but they are also separate.
Now you're changing the subject again. You do that an awful lot when you
get caught by not knowing enough about something. If you want to talk
about ART for arts sake, then start a different thread. If you want to
talk about -photography- then it's not JUST art.
MOST photography, easily 99% of photography that gets 'published' isn't
anything NEAR art, it's just good photography.
However, you don't seem to have either going for you, from what I've seen
of your PICTURES.
LOTS of people have taken photographs of bowls of apples for cookbooks
and magazines and catalogues. However, none of the people who did this
simply pointed and shot, as you and steve love so much doing. They knew
what they had to do to make a good photograph and did it. Neither of you
apparently know what makes a good photograph, and you hide behind
socalled "artistic license."
You can't make art without knowing which end of the paintbrush the paint
goes on, and you DEFINATELY can't make photographic art without a hell of
a lot more knowledge than either of you have or practice.
Like I said, if you want to talk about art, start a different thread.
This thread was discussing whether or not Mike's photographs were good
photographs or not, and the most definately are.
Jon Pike
news:maGMb.72625$JQ1.14582@pd7tw1no:
> "Jon Pike" <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns946EA1E04FF2EL...@24.71.223.159...
> . Shotgun is taking 30 pictures of
>> it to make sure you got a good one. A good photographer, like the
>> person who took that picture
>> http://www.gallerym.com/pixs/photogs/pulitzer/pages/iwo_jima_joe_rosen
>> tha l.htm
>> was lucky to be in the right place at the right time, but was a good
>> photographer because he only took one picture of it. Maybe 3, tops.
>
> The top Jewish professional photographers in Montreal brought to
> the
> studio I worked commercial staff as well as weddings and Bars .
I'm not really sure if that sentence makes sense... want to re-word it
for me?
> You
> need close attention to the frames to distinguish between them as
> there were dozens of shots without changing the angle but only varying
> the exposure and light arrangement a bit at a time .
That's called bracketing. That's a common practice when you've got a
difficult subject and difficult lighting. However, if they were really
that good, then they shouldn't've needed dozens of shots at all. 6 shots
MAX will give you the full range of appropriate light for any given
situation.
> An experienced prof photographer knows not to be cocky ... not to
> mention that if you would have visited a prof studio and watch how
> they shoot commercial staff you would know that when the flash is
> going on is NO way that you can make a judgment of how one f stop
> differs from the next and yes , they do use light meters .
Well DUH! EVERYBODY uses light meters! There's a difference between being
cocky and KNOWING your stuff. If someone's making a living doing
commercial or stock photography, then they really ought to have learned
the basics of how light works with regards to film. Once you do this you
can figure MOST of your shot out on paper before even going to the one or
two polaroids that you might use just to be sure.
As for how one f-stop differs from the next, if you DON'T know this, then
you're obviously not a professional. It's a very simple relationship (to
a point). They also have these wonderful things called FLASH meters that
will tell you just how bright your flash is so you can adjust your camera
before taking a single shot.
> Regarding your dark room , when I was 18 I was doing the same
> thing (
> B&W) in the kitchen late at night . After some time of experimenting
> with solarization ( both film and paper ) , double exposure and other
> tricks , I lost interest in the processing aspect of photography . I
> understood that a GOOD shot can be processed even at Wal-Mart ... ( I
> hope that you will not get into color separation ) .
Erg. As far as wal-mart goes, they may be able to develop your film for
you but for printing.... they make grey things come out pink. And I'm
colourblind!
Jon Pike
news:2VFMb.73861$X%5.70003@pd7tw2no:
> "Jon Pike" <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns946E3806C8D78L...@24.71.223.159...
>> "veranda" <nob...@home.net> wrote in
>> news:fFnMb.66635$X%5.55293@pd7tw2no:
>> > btw , do you talk like that with your family and friends ?
>>
>> The term is "darkroom" :P
>> And as I already pointed out in other posts, good photographers don't
>> take the shotgun approach. Nor do they post entire series from
>> excursions downtown. One of the most important qualities in a
>> photographer is to know when to trim away all the fat. Steve hasn't
>> learned that yet, either,
> since
>> he posted a half dozen pics of the same "model" to his deviantart
>> site.
> You
>> don't need quantity to compare quality.
>>
>
> I agree , I have over 3,000 slides in my colection but only 140
> that I
> can show . BTW , if you ( or someone else ) can arrange to have my
> slides ( 140 or less ) scaned for free I have no problem in showing
> them on the web .
gmph. take a half dozen of your fav's in and have them printed :P
> Talking about series , you need to show way more than you do now .
A proper photographic series isn't the same person in different poses at
different c-train stations. It's much more general than that.
> You
> are exposing your self to a crude joke which may say that '
> considering the little meat you show , you must shoot a lot of fat ' .
> Avoid this by speaking with your work rather than your mouth . It
> looks so far that you are controling better your maners ... keep at it
My manners are fine for those who deserve them. They were also fine to
steve until he oh so 'accidently' dropped the ball about where my photos
were online. But since it was obvious he's playing the same old games as
always, I figure he's not worth being polite to.
As I said before though, quantity doesn't = quality. A half dozen good
photos like the ones I have up are much preferred than 20 bad ones.
You should never ever include a not great photo in a portfolio, that's
one of the most basic lessons that steve hasn't learned, because
obviously, he hasn't done nearly as much research as he claims to have
done.
As for sp(h)am's stuff.... until he figures out how to focus on things
properly and frame his subject in a way that doesn't make people go
"WTF?!", well, I'll just leave it there.
qu07a_...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> And what's wrong with it? Like I've already said before, it gives all real
> photographers a bad name.
Not really.
--
.............................................................................
The search for truth is more precious than its possession.
.............................................................................
ds...@m3m3t1ccand1ru.com http://www.memeticcandiru.com
Ayr-Kabir
<Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>Ayr-Kabir <`Iron.sheik`@iran.info> wrote in
>news:50q400p6e8ta7r4gf...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:28:54 GMT, Jon Pike
>> <Anono...@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You're hardly impressed by anything that you didn't do. You seem to
>>>only value pictures that were taken as snapshots of 1/4 naked chicks
>>>downtown. You don't even appreciate adams' work because it's mostly
>>>nature photography, not snapshot picture taking.
>>
>> Adam Stasiak is an excellent photographer. Did you see his Capalano
>> bridge? How about his "Adam laying in front of a Jetta", or the ever
>> popular "Officer Stettlar released me to drive home with my wife and
>> daughter"
>>
>> Adam is a pro.
>
>Have you started smoking pot or something? Noone's talking about adam here.
>I don't even see why you bring it up.
He Einstien.... see how I left the quote in there. "You don't even
appreciate adams' work because it's mostly nature photography"
>Ahhh for the immature everything comes down to sex, doesn't it.
no, for the mature it does. You having never had sex, would not
know... I realise you're comming up on 25 soon, and have yet to "do
it" and I applaud your "no sex before marriage" mentality. For the
mature, it is used as a forms of reproduction, to prolong the blood
line.
>"I bet *I* could get..." silly typo. anyway.
no, not "I". "I bet could get a....." was a genericised comment, so
that I dont have to say you, or we, or I, and not type in Pikey +
Steve.
>And again, everything comes down to sex for you and steve. Maybe if you
>ever actually got it, instead of fantasized about it then you wouldn't be
>so obsessed. Who knows?
Its ok that you are afraid of women. Maybe you just havnt realised
you are gay yet? You should go on a journey of self discovery, and
figure it out.
> If I still had a MF camera around, I wouldn't need
>them to hold still for me, since it too was an slr of sorts. LF, however,
>does require a bit more patience and practice.
if it was an "SLR of sorts" you're really saying it wasnt an SLR.
veranda
However, if they were really
> that good, then they shouldn't've needed dozens of shots at all. 6 shots
> MAX will give you the full range of appropriate light for any given
> situation.
>
'Cough' , those profs liked to change also the lenses so they can 'play'
with the depth-of-field ... not to mention filters ... you see how it adds
up ? But you need to work in prof photography to be aware how they do it ,
no ? details like if the customer gets back that parfume bottle we worked
on , it will a pain to go accross the city to get it back to experiment some
more , and so on . So yes , true professionals shoot a dozen or more frames
for good reasons .
> > An experienced prof photographer knows not to be cocky ... not to
> > mention that if you would have visited a prof studio and watch how
> > they shoot commercial staff you would know that when the flash is
> > going on is NO way that you can make a judgment of how one f stop
> > differs from the next and yes , they do use light meters .
>
> Well DUH! EVERYBODY uses light meters! There's a difference between being
cocky and KNOWING your stuff. If someone's making a living doing
> commercial or stock photography, then they really ought to have learned
> the basics of how light works with regards to film.
You are slipping deeper and deeper .
It is clear to me now that you learned some from books but your
experience and view on photography is at an 'amateur' level . I am saying
that not just based on the handful of photos you displayed but also because
your understanding of commercial photography without realising the wide
variety of conditions that can be applied to create the feel and mood a
customer desires.
You need more time to experiment . Good luck and feel free to ask
related questions .