20D: ROLLING INTO SPRING!
Annika1980
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original
A couple of other shots taken this AM:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229975
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229979
Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter,
well it sucks to be you!
helensi...@hotmail.com
> Everybody loves Springtime and the 20D!http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original
>
> A couple of other shots taken this AM:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229975http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229979
>
> Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter,
> well it sucks to be you!
You live in such a gorgeous state! That tree is stunning. I do love
horses and they look so happy and content. The flowers are
beautifully captured, especially this one http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229975
I like how the dark background brings it out more. Beautiful
Bret....Excellent work as always.
Fred
Winter here isn't cold so it doesn't suck at all
nice try though.
Mike Warren
> Everybody loves Springtime and the 20D!
I like the pic of the horses.
> Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter,
> well it sucks to be you!
In my part of Australia winter is the best time of the year. The Great
Barrier reef is just a 30 minute boat ride away. :-)
--
-Mike
vlad....@yahoo.com
> Everybody loves Springtime and the 20D!http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original
>
> A couple of other shots taken this AM:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229975http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229979
>
> Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter,
> well it sucks to be you!
This is a good photo?
What did you use? a kodak camera?
You really must be joking? Did you actually check the focus and
contrast or did you just snap it off and hope we are all blind?
Learn some composition basics and get your monitor fixed. There are no
details in horses.
Vlad
Mark˛
Time to check YOUR monitor, bub.
For dark horses in diffused light, the detail is very good.
As for the flower:
He focused on the stamen, and he shot at f4.
Do you know the difference between shallow DOF and an out-of-focus image?
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
Scott W
> On Mar 27, 10:21 am, "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Everybody loves Springtime and the 20D!http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original
>
>
> > Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter,
> > well it sucks to be you!
>
> This is a good photo?
> What did you use? a kodak camera?
> You really must be joking? Did you actually check the focus and
> contrast or did you just snap it off and hope we are all blind?
> Learn some composition basics and get your monitor fixed. There are no
> details in horses.
>
> Vlad
Take a careful look at this and tell me what you see.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/76243413
Scott
Mark˛
You win POST OF THE WEEK, Scott!
Do you mind if I use that image, or shall I create my own?
It might save a minute or two...but what a great idea... Really.
-Mark²
Scott W
Scott
Mark˛
What, no $500 royalty?
:)
Scott W
it.
Scott
Mark˛
But what about the huge white text across it, claiming it as your own??
Rob
Maybe Dmac has another alias :)
Richard Polhill
> Vlad
Regular readers will already know that Bret is proof that the ability to run
of thousands of photos a week does not improve your composition skills one
iota. No matter how much self-promotion. At least he attributes the good
points in his pictures - generally well exposed and sharp - to the equipment.
Max Bialystock
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174954877.5...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Beautiful!!
helensi...@hotmail.com
<richard.n...@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote:
> vlad.bo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 10:21 am, "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Everybody loves Springtime and the 20D!http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original
> >> Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter,
> >> well it sucks to be you!
> > This is a good photo?
> > What did you use? a kodak camera?
> > You really must be joking? Did you actually check the focus and
> > contrast or did you just snap it off and hope we are all blind?
> > Learn some composition basics and get your monitor fixed. There are no
> > details in horses.
> > Vlad
>
> Regular readers will already know that Bret is proof that the ability to run
> of thousands of photos a week does not improve your composition skills one
> iota. No matter how much self-promotion. At least he attributes the good
> points in his pictures - generally well exposed and sharp - to the equipment.
The reason why I'm such a big fan of Brets is simple. He has proven
to be a great photographer....period. His composition skills along
with his well exposed and sharp images say it all. I see a man who is
a dedicated photographer who enjoys sharing his work for others to
view. He takes critique very well, and actually finds it helpful.
He's got the guts to post his images on a regular basis, which is more
than most on this NG. As for attributing his great images to his
equipment, I stongly disagree. My brother has a friend who owns a
very sophisticated Canon camera, but he couldn't take a decent pic if
his life depended on it. Give credit where credit is due. It's
Bret's skill that makes his images stand out.
Helen
Joan
year?
Come on down, we can show you how good a winter can be.
--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174954877.5...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
:
: Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter,
:
Richard Polhill
> It's
> Bret's skill that makes his images stand out.
> Helen
But that's my point: they don't. They look like any typical snapshooter's
photo album, enhanced by the 20D's capacity generate very sharp and saturated
photos, and the use of very long lenses to acquire close cropped photos of the
wildlife that is obviously prolific in his part of the world.
They're fine and pleasant, but almost entirely artless.
Joan
--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly
"Richard Polhill" <richar...@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote in
message news:a598d$460906a0$3e18e6cb$25...@news.vispa.com...
:
: But that's my point: they don't. They look like any typical
Fred
It's about capturing the moment.
Bret's photo is not arty but it captures the moment perfectly.
Draco
<richard.n...@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote:
> helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > It's
> > Bret's skill that makes his images stand out.
> > Helen
>
> But that's my point: they don't. They look like any typical snapshooter's
> photo album, enhanced by the 20D's capacity generate very sharp and saturated
> photos, and the use of very long lenses to acquire close cropped photos of the
> wildlife that is obviously prolific in his part of the world.
>
If Bret's photography looks like"...any typical snapshooter's photo
album..." in your part of the world, then why would anyone make any
comment about his images? The equipment is only a part of the factor
in capturing the image. Being able to reconize and "see" the image is
a huge part. I have seen others with the same equipment produce images
that should have been trashed and not shown to the public.
> They're fine and pleasant, but almost entirely artless.
Ah but, that is the point of this critque is art is in the eye of the
beholder. In your opinion his images here are "...almost entirely
artless." One of the images, http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229979
Is more like a catalog of the flower. Than what some folks would say
is an "artsy" image. But his others do come across a style of art that
is straight foward. As is Bret.
IMHO Bret is a very acomplished photographer with a good eye to
capture nature and is lucky enough to be able to be close to it. Even
with a 400mm f/4L lens.;-) He has also shown others the effects of
differant lenses in combination with his equipment. Something I have
not seen from anyone else.
Draco
Getting even isn't good enough.
helensi...@hotmail.com
<richard.n...@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote:
What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics
that people love? Are their pics "snapshooter's"? The pics consist
mainly of wildlife shots. I see no difference between those pros and
Bret. His work rates right up there with them. Yes he lives in a
beautiful part of the country, and he takes advantage of that and
shares it with us. But I bet where you live you have some stunning
sights that we are not privy to.
Helen
Annika1980
<richard.n...@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote:
>
> They're fine and pleasant, but almost entirely artless.
Thank God for that!
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Richard Polhill
> Please show us your portfolio.
I don't think any of my photos are good enough to digitize and post yet. I'm
struggling to find the time, what with a new baby and a real life to live, to
actually go out and make pictures that I'd like to publish.
I'm not here for self promotion either.
If you want to see what I do have you'll have to come round and look at the
prints. I'm in Surrey, UK.
There seems to be a belief here that this is a competition. Usenet has always
been a forum for discussion and allows people to share their views. As I said,
I find nothing terrible about Bret's pictures but for all the self promotion
and congratulation, I don't see anything that I'd want to put on the wall.
For me, photography is about making a picture that I want to sit and look at,
put on the wall, enjoy. There are many fine photographs out there that are
simply images. Many are perfectly exposed and worthy of any industrial
catalogue or being used to illustrate wildlife books, but they are not art,
they do not provide an uplifting experience, I do not want to hang them up and
enjoy them.
So I stand by what I said, for all his self promotion and bluster, Bret has so
far proved he can take a picture, but not make art.
Annika1980
> Nice photos, Bret, but how long since you've been to Australia in mid
> year?
>
> Come on down, we can show you how good a winter can be.
Haven't yet made it down that far.
Perhaps I'll come after D-Mac dies? Or maybe the day before.
Richard Polhill
> What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics
> that people love? Are their pics "snapshooter's"? The pics consist
> mainly of wildlife shots. I see no difference between those pros and
> Bret. His work rates right up there with them. Yes he lives in a
> beautiful part of the country, and he takes advantage of that and
> shares it with us. But I bet where you live you have some stunning
> sights that we are not privy to.
> Helen
NG's photos are reportage and usually beautifully illustrate the articles they
are combined with.
I'm sure Bret is quite capable of documenting a story with photos that, in
context, enhance a story. Unfortunately, we are bombarded with images that are
out of context and so lacking the narrative quality that would make them
interesting.
Take the pictures of Spike; they'd be much better publicized on a group
dedicated to wildlife and birds to document the story of Spike and his plight.
Instead of sticking his photos on PBase and publicizing them in here why does
he not sell them to a library?
You'll note that there aren't very many NG photographers on here touting their
photos and demanding obeisance.
Annika1980
<richard.n...@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote:
> vlad.bo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Regular readers will already know that Bret is proof that the ability to run
> of thousands of photos a week does not improve your composition skills one
> iota. No matter how much self-promotion. At least he attributes the good
> points in his pictures - generally well exposed and sharp - to the equipment.
I'm wondering how you might have composed that scene differently?
That pic was really about the colors of the blooming trees, not the
horses.
So seeing the horses there, I went to a spot that put the trees in the
background. The horses were in a fenced-in field so I couldn't get
any closer to them from this angle (hence the 70-200 f/2.8L). There
was a fence just out of the frame to the left. I could have included
it with a wider lens, but it would be a distraction and the horses and
the trees would become smaller in the frame. A longer lens would have
been tighter on the horses, but would have cut out the trees in the
background.
All of this "planning" was made in a split-second. I jumped out of
the car, grabbed the 70-200f/2.8L from the trunk, ran to the fence,
and had about 10 seconds before the horse on the ground got up.
No time for tripods, light meters, remote shutter cables and all that
sissy stuff.
My point is that sometimes photography is more than just trying to be
"artsy-fartsy." Sometimes it is just capturing a scene that might
otherwise be missed.
"Snapshooting," you might call it. And I take no offense since I am
arguably one of the world's greatest snapshooters. One of my strengths
as a photographer is seeing (and capturing) scenes that others might
not see. I have a very good eye, but often find it difficult to
capture what I see when the moment is fleeting. Just this week I've
missed a red-headed (pileated) woodpecker and a beautiful shot of a
Kingfisher because I wasn't fast enough, and I'm faster than most.
Right now I'm sitting here looking out the window at the floor of my
back deck.
All those lines, perfectly parallel. Perhaps I'll go out and make a
"composition" turn it into B/W and sell it for a few thousand bucks?
Such is art.
helensi...@hotmail.com
<richard.n...@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be dissing my Spike! He's a hero here on the NG. Bret shares
his pics for others to view, and to be critiqued. I don't agree that
he demands obeisance. He's a tough guy and can be harsh at times, but
that's just him. I for one appreciate his reviews on different lenses
and the pics he shows for examples. I enjoy viewing his work and
anyone else's work for that matter. But not too many have the guts to
post them........and have them critiqued.
Richard Polhill
I'm going to have to go through the boxes of photos I've taken in the last few
years and actually pick out those that I'm pleased with. I may even digitize a
couple to get a critique of if I find yet more time to do that. ;-)
Paul Furman
> Scott W wrote:
>>
>>Take a careful look at this and tell me what you see.
>>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/76243413
>
> LOL! Very funny. Now you just need one for the other end of the tone
> curve.
If I invert it in photoshop, it's real easy to see. Interesting that I
could barely make out that there was some text in my browser but it was
pretty clear in photoshop sRGB. Here's both, with the white one boosted
+12 brightness: http://www.edgehill.net/temp/calibrate.jpg
Paul Furman
> Joan wrote:
>
>> Please show us your portfolio.
>
> I don't think any of my photos are good enough to digitize and post yet.
They don't have to be world class art to share.
First off, he doesn't post more than maybe 10 pics a week. Pretty good
culling habits compared to myself. I went out Sunday & got a couple
hundred shots (mostly tripod for a change) and culled that down to 36
favs & 96 total. None of them are really worthy of framing, I'm lucky if
I get a couple a month at that pace, here's a few of the best or most
interesting IMO:
Misty Bay tree trunks.
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Mt-Tam/2007-03-25-steep-ravine&PG=2&PIC=7>
-kind of art-ish but really not all that great, maybe a pleasant screen
saver desktop image.
Steep Ravine trail.
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Mt-Tam/2007-03-25-steep-ravine&PG=5&PIC=25>
-this and many others would be good for a trail guide, etc.
Arching Bay tree.
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Mt-Tam/2007-03-25-steep-ravine&PG=6&PIC=31>
-maybe worth framing, just because it's a beautiful subject, no special
composition or technique though.
Insane Bay tree.
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Mt-Tam/2007-03-25-steep-ravine&PG=6&PIC=33>
-just an interesting subject captured competently.
I think Bret makes a few that would be worth of framing but AFAIK he
doesn't frame any of them, that's not really his goal. The horse shot is
very good, the second flower is pretty lame but hey that's my specialty
(plant portraits) and he kicks my ass with the wildlife shots. But it's
not a competition, I enjoy looking & learning & sometimes enjoy sharing
my work, to teach and learn from critiques. When I've posted only my
very best frameworthy stuff I really don't get any comments back, I
share my 30 or so a week with friends & like to hear which ones they
think are particularly appealing, like the 'Insane Bay tree', someone
said was their favorite. I think just because of the humor & curiosity
of the subject <g>.
Magic Lantern
> What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics
> that people love? Are their pics "snapshooter's"? The pics consist
> mainly of wildlife shots. I see no difference between those pros and
> Bret.
well, that must be your problem. i also know some people who would not see a
difference. frankly, i think there are ones that would put a muddy low-contrast
underexposed out-of-focus disposable-camera flash-into-the-forehead red-eyed
snapshot of their nephews into the sane category as well.
sorry, bret's pics are just endless flow of completely mediocre snapshots any
grandma would take given the right equipment. most pictures in NG convey certain
idea, certain mood hidden behind the mechanical details of the photograph. that
what makes a real photographer. bret's pictures are just, well, plain frame
fillers. literally, they would work fine as temporary frame-filler pictures for
photo frame store, but no more. there are many galleries on the net that contain
wildlife pictures that are several levels of magnitude more interesting than
bret's, and still bore the hell out if you just because they are available in
hundreds and thousands. when i bought my first SLR i was firstly getting lots of
pictures like this, but i got bored with them rather quickly. now i send stuff
like that in garbage bin without giving it a second thought. what amazes me most
is that bret is still not bored with this stuff and, moreover, believes that it
is OK to troll and torture the group with endless flow of this photowaste.
usually people either grow or quit. this one somehow stuck in an infinite cycle.
i had a few good laughs at douglases pictures, but nevertheless his pictures are
actually interesting to see, even if it is just because of their flaws. seeing
bret's pictures is like watching paint dry.
i couldn't have said it better than richard: it's amazing to see a person shoot
so much for such a long time and never improve even the slightest bit, and, i
add from myself, never get affected by the infinite boredom of his own pictures.
Paul Furman
> Everybody loves Springtime and the 20D!
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original
>
> A couple of other shots taken this AM:
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229975
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229979
>
> Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter,
> well it sucks to be you!
The first is a very nice capture with the horses & flowering tree. I'm
not impressed with the flower closeups though, especially the second.
Trying to make contructive criticism... It often looks better to get
down on your belly rather than just pointing at the ground
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Mt-Tam/2007-03-25-steep-ravine&PG=2>
... and I usually try to avoid a black background. Your butterfly shots
on that page are much better than the boring flowers.
helensi...@hotmail.com
You are entitled to your opinion, and so am I. Other people on the NG
enjoy viewing his work as much as I do. It's not like they are right
there smack in your face. You have to click on a link to his Pbase.
If you know his work will bore you, don't click on the link. Saying
that he is trolling or torturing the group is going too far.
Helen
Scott W
The torture for him is not that Bret posts his photos, it is that
other people like Bret's photos.
I enjoy Bret's photos, as well as photos many other people who have
been kind enough to post their's. There are some people who's photos
don't really grab me, but I can see where others might like them.
There are some people who feel the only legitimate form of photography
is when it is artistic, then we have UC who claims that photography
can never be a art form. Some of the artistic photograph works very
well, and some of it bores me to tears, like the people who feel we
need one more photos of a curved staircase (sorry to all of you who
photograph curved staircases).
I think some people strive to be artistic in their photograph and
judge their own photos on how well they believe they are doing. But
when looking at another photographer's work they still are in the mode
of judging it as an artistic work. News flash for people, not all
photograph has to be artistic to be worthwhile.
For me I almost always enjoy looking at Bret's photos. Some of them
are simply pleasant to view, like horses in a field with spring
colors, other I go wow when I see them, this to me is a wow photo.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/75457158
Whereas this is not a wow photo for me I still rather enjoyed seeing
it.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/56377046
And then he has some shots that really impress me, like this one.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110182
So is Bret a good photographer? To tell the true I don't care if he
is or not, what I do care about is whether he takes photos that are
worthwhile looking at. It does not matter one bit if he gets he wow
shots by taking 1000 throwaway ones to get it. It does not matter to
me that he gets his impressive bird photos because he has the right
gear and is in the right place.
Pete D
"Fred" <fr...@ner.com> wrote in message news:46086...@x-privat.org...
> Annika1980 wrote:
>> Everybody loves Springtime and the 20D!
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original
>>
>> A couple of other shots taken this AM:
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229975
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229979
>>
>> Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter,
>> well it sucks to be you!
>>
>
>
> nice try though.
Well in my part it gets cold but skiing is then on the agenda among many
other things.
helensi...@hotmail.com
>
> Whereas this is not a wow photo for me I still rather enjoyed seeing
>
> And then he has some shots that really impress me, like this one.http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110182
>
> So is Bret a good photographer? To tell the true I don't care if he
> is or not, what I do care about is whether he takes photos that are
> worthwhile looking at. It does not matter one bit if he gets he wow
> shots by taking 1000 throwaway ones to get it. It does not matter to
> me that he gets his impressive bird photos because he has the right
> gear and is in the right place.
All I'm going to say is that I am privy to a new side of Bret! Stay
tuned fans for further developments!!
Helen
Magic Lantern
> The torture for him is not that Bret posts his photos, it is that
> other people like Bret's photos.
incorrect. but i have to admit: it is a step in the right direction. the torture
for me is to see that most of the people left in this group are the kind of
people who will praise bret's mediocre pictures out of any proportion. it is
testament to the death of this Usenet group, as many already noted.
Scott W
And since you have been posting as Magic Lantern since when? Feb. of
this year? I have to assume you are one of those people who either
change their name often or go under a number of different names. So
not only have I not seen any of your work I don't even know who you
are. To me this makes your whining about the demise of the group a
bit weak
Scott
Robert Brace
"Magic Lantern" <m...@hm.com> wrote in message
news:130j14u...@news.supernews.com...
"out of any proportion" you say.
I suspect we can all await your providing us with the "correct" proportion
so we can bask in the knowledge that our praises are truly correctly
bestowed only on those considered worthy by knowledgeable folk like
yourself.
What truly unadulterated bullshit!
Reminds me that "those who can, do, and those who can't end up as critics".
Bob
Annika1980
> fillers. literally, they would work fine as temporary frame-filler pictures for
> photo frame store, but no more. there are many galleries on the net that contain
> wildlife pictures that are several levels of magnitude more interesting than
> bret's, and still bore the hell out if you just because they are available in
> hundreds and thousands. when i bought my first SLR i was firstly getting lots of
> pictures like this, but i got bored with them rather quickly. now i send stuff
> like that in garbage bin without giving it a second thought. what amazes me most
> is that bret is still not bored with this stuff and, moreover, believes that it
> is OK to troll and torture the group with endless flow of this photowaste.
> usually people either grow or quit. this one somehow stuck in an infinite cycle.
I appreciate your comments, even though they are negative. I usually
learn more from negative comments than positive ones so I welcome
anyone to give me their best shot without holding back. I can take
it.
However, your comments seem more to do with the type of photos I take
rather than the photos themselves so I didn't really learn a lot by
reading them, other than the fact that you don't like nature or
wildlife photos. It would be like me commenting on a B&W gallery of
food shots when those shots bore me.
So what types of photos do you like?
I take what I see. So you won't see too many snow-capped mountains or
beautiful beaches from me since we don't have those here. But cats,
birds, dogs, rivers, fish, and trees .... those we have plenty of.
I try to take lotsa of different types of photos. I like the
challenge of sports and wildlife pics, for example.
Still lifes and abstracts bore the crap outta me much as the nature
photos bore you, I suppose. Macro photos are always a challenge so I
enjoy those as well. You can look for more of them from me in the
months ahead now that the bugs are out.
Your comments about the number of wildlife pics on the net seem silly
to me, since you can find almost any subject and claim it has been
overdone.
All except one, of course, and I intend to take that one on starting
this weekend. Look for my upcoming post called, "DIGITAL INFRARED
STITCHED PANORMAS OF CATS LOVE THE TOTALLY DIGITAL INFRARED D60!!!"
Andrey Tarasevich
>> incorrect. but i have to admit: it is a step in the right direction. the torture
>> for me is to see that most of the people left in this group are the kind of
>> people who will praise bret's mediocre pictures out of any proportion. it is
>> testament to the death of this Usenet group, as many already noted.
>
> And since you have been posting as Magic Lantern since when? Feb. of
> this year?
posting? what does it have to do with _posting_ specifically?
> So
> not only have I not seen any of your work I don't even know who you
> are.
i'm extremely critical of my own work and i don't believe my work is up to those
standards when i can show it off in front of other people. that's the entire
point, btw.
> To me this makes your whining about the demise of the group a
> bit weak
you sound like one of those people who believe into such idiotic nonsense as "in
order to tell a bad photograph you have to be a photographer yourself" or "if
you've never built a car, you don't get to say that that car is bad" or "only
movie makers can recognize a bad movie" and so on. this has been a popular piece
of ridiculous nonsense in this group even in its better years. if you really see
it that way then sorry, i don't give a flying squirrel about what you think.
Noons
> Take a careful look at this and tell me what you see.http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/76243413
>
> Scott
is that one of your stitched images?
<gd&r,vvf>
Scott W
Scott
D-Mac
> On Mar 26, 4:57 pm, vlad.bo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 10:21 am, "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Everybody loves Springtime and the
>> > 20D!http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229970/original
>>
>> > A couple of other shots taken this
>> > AM:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229975http://www.pbase.com/bret/
ima...
>>
>> > Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter, well it
>> > sucks to be you!
>>
>> This is a good photo?
>> What did you use? a kodak camera?
>> You really must be joking? Did you actually check the focus and
>> contrast or did you just snap it off and hope we are all blind? Learn
>> some composition basics and get your monitor fixed. There are no
>> details in horses.
>>
>> Vlad
>
> Take a careful look at this and tell me what you see.
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/76243413
>
> Scott
For once you've posted a picture truly representative of your ability to
compose and expose for the highlights. Now if you just take the lens cap
off and do it again...
Douglas
Scott W
might want to take a closer look at my image.
Scott
Mark˛
Oops! You just proved that you're not using an accurate monitor, D-Mac.
Perhaps you can use that as an excuse for your images?
:)
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
Annika1980
>
> >incorrect. but i have to admit: it is a step in the right direction. the torture
> >for me is to see that most of the people left in this group are the kind of
> >people who will praise bret's mediocre pictures out of any proportion. it is
> >testament to the death of this Usenet group, as many already noted.
>
>
I'm sure you'd love to blame me for the death of this Newsgroup, but
the numbers don't support your contention. True, the number of posts
has decreased slightly since last year, but you will find that to be
true on almost every newsgroup these days. The RPE-medium-format
group, for example, has seen their numbers cut by over 50% in the last
year. Can't lay that one on me since I don't post there.
There is just a lot more choices for your surfing dollar these days.
Scott W
Scott
Noons
> Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter,
> well it sucks to be you!
:-) Obviously, you've never seen one of our winters!
Try this:
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/41176140/?qo=23&q=by%3Awizofoz2k+in%3Ascraps&qh=sort%3Atime
<neenerneenerneener>
Scott W
> On Mar 27, 10:21 am, "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter,
> > well it sucks to be you!
>
> :-) Obviously, you've never seen one of our winters!
> <neenerneenerneener>
It looks cold as hell to me.
This is what winter should look like
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/72264881
Scott
Noons
> > > Oh, and for those of you down under getting ready for Winter,
> > > well it sucks to be you!
>
> > :-) Obviously, you've never seen one of our winters!
> > Try this:http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/41176140/?qo=23&q=by%3Awizofoz2k+...
> > <neenerneenerneener>
>
> It looks cold as hell to me.
> This is what winter should look likehttp://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/72264881
LOL!
Posers!...
Mark˛
Ah. Of course! Silly me. He meant to fall down the stairs...
;)
Mark˛
> helensi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics
>> that people love? Are their pics "snapshooter's"? The pics consist
>> mainly of wildlife shots. I see no difference between those pros and
>> Bret.
>
> well, that must be your problem. i also know some people who would
> not see a difference. frankly, i think there are ones that would put
> a muddy low-contrast underexposed out-of-focus disposable-camera
> flash-into-the-forehead red-eyed snapshot of their nephews into the
> sane category as well.
>
> sorry, bret's pics are just endless flow of completely mediocre
> snapshots any grandma would take given the right equipment. most
> pictures in NG convey certain idea,
Whatever gave you the idea that it matters whether they please YOU...or
anyone else, for that matter? They please Bret...and until he relies on
photography for his income...he has no reason whatsoever to care whether his
images please anyone but himself. Frankly, he's one of few folks here who
seems to be having fun with his camera. Most here seem more interested in
telling people how much they suck...or how much someone else's fun is crap.
This is one reason I hesitate to ever consider doing photography primarily
for pay. As soon as it become an exercise in shooting merely to please
someone ELSE'S eyes, rather than doing what pleases my eyes...photography
loses its draw for me. The money I've made "on the side" has come because
people have responded to what I already did, and they paid for it. If I
could do THAT for a living...then becoming a "professional" might hold some
allure. But that's rarely how it works for full-time pros... :(
Mark˛
>
Nearly all historically film-centered newsgroups are dwindling.
Why? Simple:
-Because film shooter numbers are dwindling.
This isn't rocket science, folks.
Mark˛
> Joan wrote:
>> Please show us your portfolio.
>
> I don't think any of my photos are good enough to digitize and post
> yet. I'm struggling to find the time, what with a new baby and a real
> life to live, to actually go out and make pictures that I'd like to
> publish.
I would encourage you to post something.
If nothing else, it separates you from the folks here who have plenty to
say...yet nothing to show. I don't think it's a competition. It's good to
share. It gives a basis for knowing people here.
Even if they're crappy...it at least gives you credibility that comes from
simply having the cajones to look people in the eye (so to speak). People
post images all the time that aren't great (take mine, for example!). ;)
The only time people usually take to slamming you is if you make some sort
of lofty claim. Bret's claims are mostly goofy. It's usually only those
who don't get his schtick that go after him.
I say post away.
I think you'll be surprised how nice people are... Just avoid adding
tag-lines like "world recognized wedding photographer" or some such BS. :)
Mark˛
> helensi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics
>> that people love? Are their pics "snapshooter's"? The pics consist
>> mainly of wildlife shots. I see no difference between those pros and
>> beautiful part of the country, and he takes advantage of that and
>> shares it with us. But I bet where you live you have some stunning
>> sights that we are not privy to.
>> Helen
>
> NG's photos are reportage and usually beautifully illustrate the
> articles they are combined with.
>
> I'm sure Bret is quite capable of documenting a story with photos
> that, in context, enhance a story. Unfortunately, we are bombarded
> with images that are out of context and so lacking the narrative
> quality that would make them interesting.
>
> Take the pictures of Spike; they'd be much better publicized on a
> group dedicated to wildlife and birds to document the story of Spike
> and his plight.
Funny that you choose that example, since it's perhaps the most "story
oriented" of any photos posted by him. Birds with nails and arrows sticking
out of them make the NATIONAL news, for crying out loud. Why? Because it's
interesting. Better pick a different example... :)
Mark˛
>> <richard.n...@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote:
>>> helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and
>>>> pics that people love? Are their pics "snapshooter's"? The pics
>>>> consist mainly of wildlife shots. I see no difference between
>>>> those pros and Bret. His work rates right up there with them. Yes he
>>>> lives in a beautiful part of the country, and he takes
>>>> advantage of that and shares it with us. But I bet where you live
>>>> you have some stunning sights that we are not privy to.
>>>> Helen
>>> NG's photos are reportage and usually beautifully illustrate the
>>> articles they are combined with.
>>>
>>> I'm sure Bret is quite capable of documenting a story with photos
>>> that, in context, enhance a story. Unfortunately, we are bombarded
>>> with images that are out of context and so lacking the narrative
>>> quality that would make them interesting.
>>>
>>> Take the pictures of Spike; they'd be much better publicized on a
>>> group dedicated to wildlife and birds to document the story of
>>> publicizing them in
>>> here why does he not sell them to a library?
>>>
>>> You'll note that there aren't very many NG photographers on here
>>> touting their photos and demanding obeisance.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Don't be dissing my Spike! He's a hero here on the NG. Bret shares
>> his pics for others to view, and to be critiqued. I don't agree that
>> he demands obeisance. He's a tough guy and can be harsh at times,
>> but that's just him. I for one appreciate his reviews on different
>> lenses and the pics he shows for examples. I enjoy viewing his work
>> and anyone else's work for that matter. But not too many have the
>> guts to post them........and have them critiqued.
>>
>
> I'm going to have to go through the boxes of photos I've taken in the
> last few years and actually pick out those that I'm pleased with. I
> may even digitize a couple to get a critique of if I find yet more
> time to do that. ;-)
If you'll even post ONE photo...you'll instantly break out of the
"all-mouth...no-photo" crowd. :)
Scott W
They pretty much give me the same look even when I don't have a camera
in my hand :)
Scott
Richard Polhill
They were the only pictures memorable enough to remember.
Joan
Northern Queensland (how am I doing Mike?) and then come down the
coast to Sydney and go inland over the big hills we call the Blue
Mountains. Then get thee to Victoria, Tasmania and over to New
Zealand.
Shouldn't take more than..... oh I'd say a double lifetime.
--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175003184.5...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
: On Mar 27, 7:52 am, "Joan" <J...@home.t2> wrote:
: > Nice photos, Bret, but how long since you've been to Australia in
mid
: > year?
: >
: > Come on down, we can show you how good a winter can be.
:
: Haven't yet made it down that far.
: Perhaps I'll come after D-Mac dies? Or maybe the day before.
:
:
:
Mike Warren
> You need to see Northern Queensland (how am I doing Mike?) and
> then come down the coast to Sydney and go inland over the big
> hills we call the Blue Mountains. Then get thee to Victoria,
> Tasmania and over to New Zealand.
Sounds like a good trip. :-) Lots of birds and crocs up here to take
pics of.
--
-Mike
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly/194669781/in/set-72157594206607932/
--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly
"Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-csas.net.au> wrote in message
news:xn0f496z...@news.brisbane.pipenetworks.com...
Harry Lockwood
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
Maybe what should be buried is "film vs digital" and focus on...
photography.
HFL
--
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address
Mike Warren
> How's Barren Falls these days?
Quite dry. This is what it looked like on the 11th on March this year.
http://www.mike-warren.net/M20070311134829-web.jpg
Compared to this about 15 years ago at the same time of year.
http://www.mike-warren.net/234-web.jpg
--
-Mike
m II
> All I'm going to say is that I am privy to a new side of Bret! Stay
> tuned fans for further developments!!
He's finally getting the gender change he's been saving up for? It's
about time, considering all the female personae he's developed in the
last little while.
mike
Joan
2005 (before the wet season).
--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly
"Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-csas.net.au> wrote in message
news:xn0f499r...@news.brisbane.pipenetworks.com...
Pete D
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175061834.1...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
I think they were complaining about the beer!
kosh
coors..... ????
short of pelican boy... do any posters actually live in Australia? being
an australian newsgroup and all.... I am starting to get confused!
a special note to those in the northers hemisphere..... it is going into
winter... not spring!
kosh
Mike Warren
> short of pelican boy... do any posters actually live in Australia?
> being an australian newsgroup and all.... I am starting to get
> confused!
Yes. I do.
This thread is cross-posted to aus.photo and rec.photo.equipment.35mm.
--
-Mike
Mark˛
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:49:57 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> Nearly all historically film-centered newsgroups are dwindling.
>> Why? Simple:
>> -Because film shooter numbers are dwindling.
>> This isn't rocket science, folks.
>
>
> group because your digi cams use *some* lenses that can ALSO be used
> on REAL 35mm cameras.... if this is true, this group *should* be
> attracting the masses of digi cam users making the group more active.
> Now I really don't give at rats ass where the digirati post but I find
> it odd why the digirati wouldn't want to post on one of the many
> groups specifically dedicated to digital cameras (comments
> appreciated). Seems with the disdain most of the digi users show
> toward film users you all would (should?) take great pleasure in
> having this "35mm" group die a slow death after your exit.
> For the sake of argument, can you or any of the others supply a white
> paper, users manual, advert flyer, etc... that uses "35mm" in the
> description of a digital slr? I know all the manuals for the 35mm
> cameras I own specifically refer to my cameras as "35mm camera".
>
> I remain,
I'm here because I've been here since before adding a digital body to my
35mm kit bag. I still reference the same gear (EOS 3, Elan IIe). The only
thing that's changed is that I've added digital bodies to that same 35mm
kit.
Mark˛
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:23:20 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> digital slrs?
35mm kits belong here, and dslrs are now legitimate parts of that kit.
Mark˛
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:59:10 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> The body of a dslr is no more 35mm camera than an Apple computer is a
> Windows machine.
>
> Each have their appropriate groups.
The DSLR is basically a digital back, quite similar to the way some medium
format users add a digital back. Everything else in the kit remains intact.
Lenses...flash...filters...remotes...etc. Why should the people who add a
digital back to their kit suddenly have to vacate their group?
Now THAT...makes no sense to me.
Another comparison would be the notion of kicking someone out of this groups
because they chose a particular film. The sensor is simply a "film" of
sorts, and that is all it is. You wouldn't kick someone out of 35mm because
they used a different film, and you shouldn't kick them out for using
digital film.
Joan
--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:aVjPh.111658$p17....@newsfe11.phx...
:
: Another comparison would be the notion of kicking someone out of
:
:
Mark˛
> How do you kick someone out of a newsgroup?
You can't. But some people sure can WHINE and MOAN... Sheesh...This whole
argument is as old as the hills, and should be put to rest.
Mark˛
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:43:20 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> digital camera..... duh!
>
> I can run windoze on a mac but I can't run OSX on windoze. (geez,
> sound familiar?) When I have an issue with windoze on the mac I don't
> post to the windoze group I post to the mac group.
> I can run all the same peripherals on both computers but when I have
> issues with one or the other I post to the APPROPRIATE group.
>
>>
>> Another comparison would be the notion of kicking someone out of
>> this groups because they chose a particular film. The sensor is
>> simply a "film" of sorts, and that is all it is. You wouldn't kick
>> someone out of 35mm because they used a different film, and you
>> shouldn't kick them out for using digital film.
>
> Poor analogy Mark.
Note the word "equipment."
Film--even when that was my primary capture device--had nothing to do with
the vast majority of my kit, which consisted (and still consists) primarily
of lenses, flashes, remotes, filters and other doodads.
Film is rarely considered "equipment" at all. Film is merely an analog
capture device. The lenses, flashes, and assorted other doodads that
gather, direct and control light don't care what device records that light,
nor do they cease to function...or change their function just because you
switch the analog capture device out for a digital capture device.
You'rearguing over the nature of what records the light from various
IDENTICAL equipment. Film is merely a capture device, and all it ever
was...all it ever will be. The other parts of my kit don't morph into
something else just because you object to my "film."
>
> RP©
Annika1980
here)@cox..net> wrote:
> > How do you kick someone out of a newsgroup?
>
> You can't. But some people sure can WHINE and MOAN... Sheesh...This whole
> argument is as old as the hills, and should be put to rest.
I never quite understood the Luddites objections to digital posts in
this newsgroup. It's not like we're taking away from all the great
film posts. Oh that's right, there aren't any.
Maybe we're just disturbing their sleep?
Quick, name the most recently released 35mm SLR!
Maybe the F6, and that was how many years ago?
Annika1980
>
> a special note to those in the northers hemisphere..... it is going into
> winter... not spring!
>
Do you guys just skip Autumn and go straight to Winter?
Mark˛
>
> I'm guessing they discuss all the above there.
They do indeed.
I like both forums, and your endless whining isn't going to have any impact
other than to make you look like a whiner.
Frankly, were it not for some of the cross-over here(and D-Mac's hideous
display of his insanity), this NG would be nearly dead. A HUGE proportion
of professional photographers who used primarily 35mm film have switched.
This is still their home.
Mark˛
Where I grew up in Colombia, South America, we never even used the words
Summer and Winter. NEVER. We simply referred to the "rainy season" and the
"dry season."
That was it...and that was all that was needed.
Wilba
>
> Note the word "equipment."
> Film--even when that was my primary capture device--had nothing to
> do with the vast majority of my kit, which consisted (and still consists)
> primarily of lenses, flashes, remotes, filters and other doodads.
>
> Film is rarely considered "equipment" at all. Film is merely an analog
> capture device. The lenses, flashes, and assorted other doodads that
> gather, direct and control light don't care what device records that
> light, nor do they cease to function...or change their function just
> because you switch the analog capture device out for a digital capture
> device. You'rearguing over the nature of what records the light from
> various IDENTICAL equipment. Film is merely a capture device, and all it
> ever was...all it ever will be. The other parts of my kit don't morph
> into something else just because you object to my "film."
That makes sense to me. If the group name was ".35mmfilm", there might be a
valid distinction.
Do you ever "dial" a number on a telephone with a keypad? If you wrote down
the number with a "lead" pencil, should you be barred from "dialing" because
there is no lead in your pencil? Could we then shoot you with a "gun" using
"ball" ammunition if the "gun" has a rifled bore and fires a non-spherical
bullet? Old names stick around after the technology changes.
BTW, I'm only here because this is where ShootIns lives. If that was a
separate group ....
Mark˛
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:40:03 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> That_Rich wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:18:49 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Film is rarely considered "equipment" at all. Film is merely an
>>>> analog capture device. The lenses, flashes, and assorted other
>>>> doodads that gather, direct and control light don't care what
>>>> device records that light, nor do they cease to function...or
>>>> change their function just because you switch the analog capture
>>>> device out for a digital capture device. You'rearguing over the
>>>> nature of what records the light from various IDENTICAL equipment.
>>>> Film is merely a capture device, and all it ever was...all it ever
>>>> will be. The other parts of my kit don't morph into something
>>>> else just because you object to my "film."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> rec.photo.digital.slr
>>>
>>> I'm guessing they discuss all the above there.
>>
>> They do indeed.
>
>>
>> hideous display of his insanity), this NG would be nearly dead. A
>> HUGE proportion of professional photographers who used primarily
>> 35mm film have switched. This is still their home.
>
> hasn't been a professional photographer posting to this group since
> the digirati took over (coincidence I guess).
>
> BTW: everything is relative. IMO, /you/ seem unstable.
Ya think?
IS helps with that...
Mark˛
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:40:03 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> That_Rich wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:18:49 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Film is rarely considered "equipment" at all. Film is merely an
>>>> analog capture device. The lenses, flashes, and assorted other
>>>> doodads that gather, direct and control light don't care what
>>>> device records that light, nor do they cease to function...or
>>>> change their function just because you switch the analog capture
>>>> device out for a digital capture device. You'rearguing over the
>>>> nature of what records the light from various IDENTICAL equipment.
>>>> Film is merely a capture device, and all it ever was...all it ever
>>>> will be. The other parts of my kit don't morph into something
>>>> else just because you object to my "film."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> rec.photo.digital.slr
>>>
>>> I'm guessing they discuss all the above there.
>>
>> They do indeed.
>
>>
>> hideous display of his insanity), this NG would be nearly dead. A
>> HUGE proportion of professional photographers who used primarily
>> 35mm film have switched. This is still their home.
>
> hasn't been a professional photographer posting to this group since
> the digirati took over (coincidence I guess).
OK. Change that to "serious" photogs, and it works just the same.
What are you primarily shooting these days?
kosh
in Melbourne...... daily!
Mike Warren
> Where I grew up in Colombia, South America, we never even used the
> words Summer and Winter. NEVER. We simply referred to the "rainy
> season" and the "dry season."
Same where I live.
--
-Mike
Joan
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_066062.shtml
--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175312036....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
:
:
:
Pete D
"Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-csas.net.au> wrote in message
news:xn0f4cx5...@news.brisbane.pipenetworks.com...
Me too.