Remember people who forced you to watch their slide shows?

[RichA]

I was standing in-line at Starbucks and a guy with an iPad looked at
my camera and said, "film camera, isn't it?" Olympus did their job
right, since it was the OM-D. Anyway, turns out the guy owns a Canon
5D-II and we discussed the lenses, etc. Then he decides to show me
his images on his iPad. I cringed a bit thinking I was going to be
exposed to some horrific dog and kid shots. But, the guy's images
were outstanding. Shots in major national parks, in Utah and around
the U.S. Easily pro grade. Apart from a couple garish HRD shots, a
really impressive grouping.
So, it goes to show, you never can tell what you might see from
someone.

[George Kerby]

On 5/19/12 11:27 AM, in article
8fe55751-cd8f-411d...@t2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com, "RichA"

So, is hell freezing over? Rich has something NICE to say about Apple? LOL!

[PeterN]

Maybe he will learn to overcome his prejudices. Or, was it really Rich
posting?

--
Peter

[Savageduck]

No!
Rich has never had anything nice to say about Apple. He had something
nice to say about the work of a Canon shooter, shown to him on an Apple
product.
That said, slide shows and portfolios are very well presented on an
iPad. For that alone it can be a useful tool for some photographers.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

[George Kerby]

On 5/19/12 1:54 PM, in article
4fb7ec74$0$26610$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com, "PeterN"

HMMMMM?!?

Others HAVE used his nick to post racist crap on other newsgroups in the
past.

[George Kerby]

On 5/19/12 2:39 PM, in article
2012051912393495335-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"

Well, since I had just posted back and forth with David about the iPad's
photographic capabilities, somehow I segued that with Rich's post. I was so
surprised that he used "outstanding" and "iPad" in the same paragraph, that
I now see that I DID misread the OP. Thanks for the correction there,
Detective Duck!

BTW: Three years or so ago I stopped carrying my cumbersome print portfolio
to show prospective clients, art directors, and other interested parties,
and put it all on my 1st gen iPad. Got a lot better responses I must tell
you.

[Savageduck]

When the iPad 3/4G came out, I noted that the 32GB & 64GB iPad 2s had
been discontinued. I didn't see the point of paying a premium for the
new edition. So I looked around and found a 64GB iPad 2 for a very
reasonable price. It is set up for a Verizon service plan, which I have
yet to activate. So far all my iPad work has been done via Wi-Fi, and
my local network at home.
...and I like the look of my shots I have loaded into it to create
galleries of my stuff for viewing. I am still exploring all the various
areas of great functionality.
BTW: if you do any birding at all and need a field guide iBird Explorer
Pro is one of the good reasons to pay for an iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch App.

Note; it is on sale for $2.99, a bargain!
< http://ibird.com/products/iphone-ipod-touch/pro >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

BTW: They have the "HD" versions out for the new iPad.
< http://ibird.com/products/ipad/ >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[RichA]

On May 19, 3:39 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2012-05-19 09:44:42 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_top...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/19/12 11:27 AM, in article

> > 8fe55751-cd8f-411d-94f7-d92f1d99f...@t2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com, "RichA"

> > <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I was standing in-line at Starbucks and a guy with an iPad looked at
> >> my camera and said, "film camera, isn't it?"  Olympus did their job
> >> right, since it was the OM-D.  Anyway, turns out the guy owns a Canon
> >> 5D-II and we discussed the lenses, etc.  Then he decides to show me
> >> his images on his iPad.  I cringed a bit thinking I was going to be
> >> exposed to some horrific dog and kid shots.  But, the guy's images
> >> were outstanding.  Shots in major national parks, in Utah and around
> >> the U.S.  Easily pro grade.  Apart from a couple garish HRD shots, a
> >> really impressive grouping.
> >> So, it goes to show, you never can tell what you might see from
> >> someone.
>
> > So, is hell freezing over? Rich has something NICE to say about Apple? LOL!
>
> No!
> Rich has never had anything nice to say about Apple. He had something
> nice to say about the work of a Canon shooter, shown to him on an Apple
> product.
> That said, slide shows and portfolios are very well presented on an
> iPad. For that alone it can be a useful tool for some photographers.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck

It's merely a display product, like those old portable storage units
you could buy, with LCD screens.

[Savageduck]

Sorry Rich, the iPad is far more than a display product, but I guess
that doesn't matter to you as you are locked into your anti-Apple
prejudice.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[N]

RichA wrote on 20/05/2012 :

> On May 19, 3:39ï¿œpm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-05-19 09:44:42 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_top...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5/19/12 11:27 AM, in article
>>> 8fe55751-cd8f-411d-94f7-d92f1d99f...@t2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com, "RichA"
>>> <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I was standing in-line at Starbucks and a guy with an iPad looked at

>>>> my camera and said, "film camera, isn't it?" ï¿œOlympus did their job
>>>> right, since it was the OM-D. ï¿œAnyway, turns out the guy owns a Canon
>>>> 5D-II and we discussed the lenses, etc. ï¿œThen he decides to show me
>>>> his images on his iPad. ï¿œI cringed a bit thinking I was going to be
>>>> exposed to some horrific dog and kid shots. ï¿œBut, the guy's images
>>>> were outstanding. ï¿œShots in major national parks, in Utah and around
>>>> the U.S. ï¿œEasily pro grade. ï¿œApart from a couple garish HRD shots, a

>>>> really impressive grouping.
>>>> So, it goes to show, you never can tell what you might see from
>>>> someone.
>>
>>> So, is hell freezing over? Rich has something NICE to say about Apple? LOL!
>>
>> No!
>> Rich has never had anything nice to say about Apple. He had something
>> nice to say about the work of a Canon shooter, shown to him on an Apple
>> product.
>> That said, slide shows and portfolios are very well presented on an
>> iPad. For that alone it can be a useful tool for some photographers.
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Savageduck
>
> It's merely a display product, like those old portable storage units
> you could buy, with LCD screens.

Would you say the same of an Android tablet?

--
N

[Rich]

N <N...@home.local> wrote in
news:d-KdnZwpLPwkpiXS...@westnet.com.au:

> RichA wrote on 20/05/2012 :
>> On May 19, 3:39�pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>

>> wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-19 09:44:42 -0700, George Kerby
>>> <ghost_top...@hotmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 5/19/12 11:27 AM, in article
>>>> 8fe55751-cd8f-411d-94f7-d92f1d99f...@t2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com,
>>>> "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I was standing in-line at Starbucks and a guy with an iPad looked

>>>>> at my camera and said, "film camera, isn't it?" �Olympus did their
>>>>> job right, since it was the OM-D. �Anyway, turns out the guy owns
>>>>> a Canon 5D-II and we discussed the lenses, etc. �Then he decides
>>>>> to show me his images on his iPad. �I cringed a bit thinking I was
>>>>> going to be exposed to some horrific dog and kid shots. �But, the
>>>>> guy's images were outstanding. �Shots in major national parks, in
>>>>> Utah and around the U.S. �Easily pro grade. �Apart from a couple

>>>>> garish HRD shots, a really impressive grouping.
>>>>> So, it goes to show, you never can tell what you might see from
>>>>> someone.
>>>
>>>> So, is hell freezing over? Rich has something NICE to say about
>>>> Apple? LOL!
>>>
>>> No!
>>> Rich has never had anything nice to say about Apple. He had
>>> something nice to say about the work of a Canon shooter, shown to
>>> him on an Apple product.
>>> That said, slide shows and portfolios are very well presented on an
>>> iPad. For that alone it can be a useful tool for some photographers.
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Savageduck
>>
>> It's merely a display product, like those old portable storage units
>> you could buy, with LCD screens.
>
> Would you say the same of an Android tablet?
>

I know people try to justify their existence, but they really are toys.
The commpetition to see how many apps can be loaded and quickly forgotten
is fierce. I see people doing real work, I see laptops, consistently.

[Trevor]

> I was standing in-line at Starbucks and a guy with an iPad looked at
> my camera and said, "film camera, isn't it?" Olympus did their job
> right, since it was the OM-D. Anyway, turns out the guy owns a Canon
> 5D-II and we discussed the lenses, etc. Then he decides to show me
> his images on his iPad. I cringed a bit thinking I was going to be
> exposed to some horrific dog and kid shots. But, the guy's images
> were outstanding. Shots in major national parks, in Utah and around
> the U.S. Easily pro grade. Apart from a couple garish HRD shots, a
> really impressive grouping.
> So, it goes to show, you never can tell what you might see from
> someone.

And for the exact opposite experience, I went to a talk given by a local
"pro" who works on the local newspaper, and taught at the local college etc.
His talk was the worst cringe worthy experince I have ever seen of hundreds
of very poor holiday "snaps", kids etc. Many people left before it was over,
and I left feeling sorry for any students who had the misfortune to take his
classes. At least it was a free lecture, or I would have demanded my money
back!

BTW he always shoots in jpg only on a 5D2 to save time and storage space!
:-)

Trevor.

[nospam]

In article <stadnYr6H7ZjwyXS...@giganews.com>, Rich

<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >> It's merely a display product, like those old portable storage units
> >> you could buy, with LCD screens.
> >
> > Would you say the same of an Android tablet?
>
> I know people try to justify their existence, but they really are toys.
> The commpetition to see how many apps can be loaded and quickly forgotten
> is fierce. I see people doing real work, I see laptops, consistently.

you really need to get out more.

[Mike]

And about Canon too, in the same post.

--
Mike

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:

> BTW he always shoots in jpg only on a 5D2 to save time and storage space!
> :-)

And that's bad because?

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> N <N...@home.local> wrote in
>> RichA wrote on 20/05/2012 :

iPad.

>>> It's merely a display product, like those old portable storage units
>>> you could buy, with LCD screens.

Yep, and a camera is merely a bad light detector, like those
optical cells they used to trigger flashes.

>> Would you say the same of an Android tablet?

> I know people try to justify their existence, but they really are toys.
> The commpetition to see how many apps can be loaded and quickly forgotten
> is fierce. I see people doing real work, I see laptops, consistently.

Laptops are toys.
Otherwise there wouldn't be any with a glare display.

-Wolfgang

[RichA]

On May 20, 9:17 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com>
wrote:

What?

[Trevor]

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:pego89-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...

I wondered if he threw away his negatives as well to save storage space. :-)
(I told him there was a RAW + JPG option if he needed to save time, and
storage space was rather a non issue for most people these days)

And it's really bad because he told the audience there was no point in
shooting RAW, and he didn't understand the loss of dynamic range being saved
which gives no chance to make satisfactory changes later. He said the only
difference was a very small loss in detail. For someone who taught
photography, the least he could have done is mention that his option may
suit newspaper photo's, but not art photography. But he obviously had no
idea. Of course he had no idea what "unsharp mask" meant either, and his
photo's proved the real extent of his other limitations.

Trevor.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:

> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:pego89-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
>> Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>>> BTW he always shoots in jpg only on a 5D2 to save time and storage space!
>>> :-)

>> And that's bad because?

> I wondered if he threw away his negatives as well to save storage space. :-)

Not comparable. But maybe he shot polaroid.

> (I told him there was a RAW + JPG option if he needed to save time, and
> storage space was rather a non issue for most people these days)

Once you understand
"most people" != "all people"
your amount of photos != everyones amount of photos
10 TB != large
you'll be better off.

> And it's really bad because he told the audience there was no point in
> shooting RAW,

For quite a lot of things there isn't.

> and he didn't understand the loss of dynamic range being saved
> which gives no chance to make satisfactory changes later.

You're supposed to photograph, not to photoshop.

> He said the only
> difference was a very small loss in detail.

And he's right.

> For someone who taught
> photography, the least he could have done is mention that his option may
> suit newspaper photo's, but not art photography.

You have got a strange idea of art. And of newspaper photos.
And the relation between these two. Lots of prejudice or no
thinking.

> But he obviously had no
> idea. Of course he had no idea what "unsharp mask" meant either, and his
> photo's proved the real extent of his other limitations.

Ah, yes, you're the one who'd judge the content of photos or
art only on their technical merit. Anyone who doesn't know
"unsharp mask" doesn't know anything. What do you know about
"artistic vision"?

-Wolfgang

[Robert Coe]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 13:18:56 +1000, "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
:
: "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message

I can muster a bit of sympathy for what it must be like to be a newspaper
photographer, with the constant deadline pressure and crappy reproduction of
one's photos. When I shoot an event (always in RAW), the first thing I usually
have to do is convert a few images to JPEG and make them available to our
local newspapers. That can be a bit of a nuisance, especially if the event
ends late at night. But I cover an event every couple of weeks, on average,
which is nothing like doing several a day with even greater deadline pressure.
So I can understand the temptation of relegating everything to quick and dirty
procedures, eschewing such niceties as RAW mode and unsharp masks, as long as
the editor doesn't give me a hard time.

Come to think of it, do we have any newspaper photographers (active or
retired) in the group? I can't recall anyone mentioning having been one.

Bob

[Savageduck]

Then why not shoot RAW + JPEG?
...and since you have the full RAW file it isn't even necessary to have
the JPEG at full size, or compression. A newspaper is going to be
printing halftones anyway, so image quality is not one of their great
priorities. As has been stated in this thread, shooting RAW+JPEG is not
too much of a penalty memory-wise.

For the few occasions I need to have immediate sharing access to images
for some folks (in your case newspapers), I intentionally change from
my usual RAW only to RAW+JPEG. With my D300s & its dual card slots, it
is simple to save the RAW files to the CF card and the JPEGS to the
SDHC card. Even with a single memory card system, memory is cheap.
With my G11, RAW+JPEG is my standard recording mode as that is the
camera the instant gratification snapshots are primarily sourced from
--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:59:44 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

In my case, the answer is that I'm not that good. The pictures I produce
always seem to need cropping, white balance adjustment, brightness tuning,
etc. And I can make those fixes more effectively in RAW than in JPEG.

I'm not particularly concerned about memory. I work for our Information
Technology Department. I can get as big a computer, and as much disk space on
our servers, as I need. In my cameras I use 16GB CF cards, and I can't
remember the last time I had to change cards during a shoot. (At events I
almost always use two cameras, so I have a capacity of about 1000 shots.)

Bob

[Savageduck]

So? Neither am I.
Shoot WB auto, don't bother with cropping other than to standard sizes
required by the newspaper. If the brightness/contrast isn't to your
liking out of the camera, just hit it with "auto contrast" & "Auto
tone". In most cases you shouldn't even have to bother with that. Your
standard of perfection isn't required in a World where newspapers are
happy to use unprocessed camera phone images.

Shooting for yourself and /or a client who cares about image quality
and composition is one thing, one where tweaking a RAW file is
preferred. That is my usual practice. However submitting a jpeg capture
to a newspaper, where the photo editor is probably going to make
his/her crops to fit, is a quick and dirty affair not worth exerting
the same post effort as you would for your RAW files. (see note on
camera phone images)

Newspaper images are not client PR, or magazine shots, or fine art.
Hell! For the most part they aren't even worthy of online publication.

>
> I'm not particularly concerned about memory.

Good!

> I work for our Information
> Technology Department. I can get as big a computer, and as much disk space on
> our servers, as I need. In my cameras I use 16GB CF cards, and I can't
> remember the last time I had to change cards during a shoot. (At events I
> almost always use two cameras, so I have a capacity of about 1000 shots.)
>
> Bob

Yup! I use 16GB CF cards and 8GB SDHC cards. I usually shoot RAW only
with overflow going to the SCHD card. If shooting RAW+JPEG RAW is
recorded on CF, JPEG on SCHD. I carry extra memory.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:12:32 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:

>Ah, yes, you're the one who'd judge the content of photos or
>art only on their technical merit. Anyone who doesn't know
>"unsharp mask" doesn't know anything. What do you know about
>"artistic vision"?

Hey, a shit slideshow is a shit slideshow. Simple as that.

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:09:52 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

I see your point, and there's a lot of evidence to support what you say. But I
have the good fortune to find myself, as much by dumb luck as by demonstrated
skill, in a situation where photography is a significant part of my day job.
If I screw it up, it isn't going to be because I ever deliberately produced
less than my best work.

Bob

[Trevor]

"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:ckh2s7l4loqb05l02...@4ax.com...

>In my cameras I use 16GB CF cards, and I can't
> remember the last time I had to change cards during a shoot.

I can, it was back when 1GB CF cards were still considered big, and
expensive :-(
Besides multiple cards I had a hard drive backup device I no longer use.

Trevor.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

You used an 's' word. That means what you say is completely
wrong and only shows your stupidity.

Don't like that? Funny, that's the way you rate content ...

-Wolfgang

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:48:20 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:

>> Hey, a shit slideshow is a shit slideshow. Simple as that.
>
>You used an 's' word. That means what you say is completely
>wrong and only shows your stupidity.
>
>Don't like that? Funny, that's the way you rate content ...

Oh dear, an arsehole speaks.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Yep, that's the impression you leave.

-Wolfgang

[Robert Coe]

On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:11:45 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:

Perhaps you should fart for yourself, Wolfgang.

Bob

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:11:45 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

>: Grimly Curmudgeon <gri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>: > On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:48:20 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

>: >>> Hey, a shit slideshow is a shit slideshow. Simple as that.

>: >>You used an 's' word. That means what you say is completely
>: >>wrong and only shows your stupidity.

>: >>Don't like that? Funny, that's the way you rate content ...

>: > Oh dear, an arsehole speaks.

>: Yep, that's the impression you leave.

> Perhaps you should fart for yourself, Wolfgang.

Hey, *I* didn't ask for that service, it was forced upon me
without my consent.

-Wolfgang