While you slept. was Re: landscape Photos, boring?
Douglas.
Photos like this!
http://www.ryadia.com/morning.htm
The topic of landscape photos being boring tells me many things about the
people who contributed to it... I would like to offer a few words of
encouragement to anyone feeling the "boring" syndrome is invading their
Photography.
Consider where you are. Where you go and what you see. Then throw it all
away and go and LOOK for a photograph to take. I drove less than 150 Klm to
"find" this location. I stayed in a nearby motel that night just so I could
see this breathtaking sunrise... I climbed the mountain (so-to-speak) and
found I really did have to come to it. So... Get off your bums, you aren't
going to get a photo sitting on them!
Douglas St James-Macdonald
Wedding Photographer
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com
Pete D
"Douglas." <dj4grou...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:tK7Lh.12877$8U4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Lucky my wheelchair has a big battery hey!!
Pete D
not big enough??
Douglas.
"Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:45fd0db8$0$17543$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
: Must have been very early before the sun came up or perhaps your flash was: >
:
:
Peter, Peter, Peter.
Have you lost the remote tonight?
Tony Polson
Poor Douglas, he needs to do some post-processing to remove that
dreadful distortion of the lighthouse. Spoils an otherwise nice
snapshot.
He seems to have trouble with lighthouses - remember his shot of a
lighthouse, allegedly for a magazine cover, where the lighthouse was
actually hidden behind a tree?
Pete D
Actually I thought I was being helpful pointing out that the link you gave
was just showing a black square with no picture, I am over it now though.
helensi...@hotmail.com
> You really have to get up early in the morning to get boring landscape
>
> The topic of landscape photos being boring tells me many things about the
> people who contributed to it... I would like to offer a few words of
> encouragement to anyone feeling the "boring" syndrome is invading their
> Photography.
>
> Consider where you are. Where you go and what you see. Then throw it all
> away and go and LOOK for a photograph to take. I drove less than 150 Klm to
> "find" this location. I stayed in a nearby motel that night just so I could
> see this breathtaking sunrise... I climbed the mountain (so-to-speak) and
> found I really did have to come to it. So... Get off your bums, you aren't
> going to get a photo sitting on them!
>
> Douglas St James-Macdonald
> Wedding Photographerhttp://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com
I am only giving my humble opinion, as it is something that I would
appreciate. This is no attack on you personally Douglas. I just feel
it would be helpful for you to hear other's critiques on your work.
This is how we all strive to better ourselves as photographers.
I find the pic suffers from distortion....the lighthouse, and I also
notice vignetting. Otherwise it would be a lovely pic.
Helen
Duncan Chesley
>I find the pic suffers from distortion....the lighthouse,
In this case I kind of like the distortion as it makes the lighthouse
appear to be some strange metallic alien that is looking at the
sunrise with me.
I think the writing all over the pic, including at the bottom, just
ruins it. I find it a little strange that people (and not just Doug)
post pictures that they want others to appreciate, and then wreck them
on purpose.
But, then again, I still don't have my PBase account...
Cheers,
DuncanC
Mark˛
It's a pretty scene. Next time, back up and use a little more extension so
you're lighthouse won't look so warped.
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
TheDave©
> On 18 Mar 2007 05:57:18 -0700, helensi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > I find the pic suffers from distortion....the lighthouse,
>
> In this case I kind of like the distortion as it makes the lighthouse
> appear to be some strange metallic alien that is looking at the
> sunrise with me.
The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The lighting
of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, though. The
sun is behind the lighthouse, so where's the lighting for the
lighthouse coming from? Yes, we know a flash or something similar, but
that's the point... it's unnatural. Maybe a silhouette of the
lighthouse would have been more effective.
A little less forground, I think, would have been better, too.
Especially since it's unnaturally lit, also.
Maybe "painting" the lighthouse only with a flashlight so that only it
and not the foreground is lit might be a good effect? Just thinking
out loud.
Overall, I like the mood and feel of it, just think a couple technical
aspects could be better.
> I think the writing all over the pic, including at the bottom, just
> ruins it. I find it a little strange that people (and not just Doug)
> post pictures that they want others to appreciate, and then wreck them
> on purpose.
Agree completely. My first thought upon seeing was "Ugh!", and it had
nothing to do with the photo itself and everything to do with the
copyright notice.
Beach Bum
> The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The lighting
> of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, though. The
> sun is behind the lighthouse, so where's the lighting for the
> lighthouse coming from? Yes, we know a flash or something similar, but
> that's the point... it's unnatural.
Yeah, makes it look like a bad wedding photo. I don't understand why people
use a flash. Two exposures of this scene could have been combined to
increase the dynamic range in a way that would have appeared more natural
and pleasing.
> Overall, I like the mood and feel of it, just think a couple technical
> aspects could be better.
Might be more interesting during a storm. Sunrise/Sunset photos can be
cliché, and since this sunrise is nothing special it falls into that
category. IMHO.
> > I think the writing all over the pic, including at the bottom, just
> > ruins it. I find it a little strange that people (and not just Doug)
> > post pictures that they want others to appreciate, and then wreck them
> > on purpose.
>
> Agree completely. My first thought upon seeing was "Ugh!", and it had
> nothing to do with the photo itself and everything to do with the
> copyright notice.
One might be considered lucky if someone liked their photos enough for them
to be stolen. I always beam with pride when I see that someone has taken
one of my images to be used as a desktop background, or for use on their
website.
--
Mark
Mostly photography...
http://www.marklauter.com
I was heavily armed and absent minded. You pay a high price for that in
the Army.
- Dom
Pete D
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:G2eLh.129110$dO6....@newsfe07.phx...
What I was wondering is why hide the sun behind the bushes, looks wrong.
William Graham
"Beach Bum" <e.ca...@southpark.com> wrote in message
news:45fd8797$0$28180$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> "TheDave©" <n...@no.com> wrote
>
>> The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The lighting
>> of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, though. The
>> sun is behind the lighthouse, so where's the lighting for the
>> lighthouse coming from? Yes, we know a flash or something similar, but
>> that's the point... it's unnatural.
>
> Yeah, makes it look like a bad wedding photo. I don't understand why
> people
> use a flash. Two exposures of this scene could have been combined to
> increase the dynamic range in a way that would have appeared more natural
> and pleasing.
I believe you could lasso and brighten the lighthouse in
Photoshop....Perhaps that was what he did.....I don't see the
distortion....I think the lighthouse was build that way...With spiral stairs
near the top.....the distortion can be blamed on the A
architect......
Trent Fellows
>>>http://www.ryadia.com/morning.htm
> Poor Douglas, he needs to do some post-processing to remove that
> dreadful distortion of the lighthouse. Spoils an otherwise nice
> snapshot.
>
> He seems to have trouble with lighthouses - remember his shot of a
> lighthouse, allegedly for a magazine cover, where the lighthouse was
> actually hidden behind a tree?
Do show us yours, Tony. Distortion corrected or otherwise.
As to magazine cover shots, we'd love to see your "Paris Match" cover
From the late 1970's. In case you've forgotten, here is the reference:
====================================================================
<< But I must be fair to the 75-150mm f/4 Zuiko; it made me money,
because the results were good enough for several picture editors. One
of my shots taken with this lens was on the cover of "Paris Match" in
the late 1970s. The two most "profitable" lenses I owned were this and
the 24mm f/2.8 Zuiko, which is a fine lens and every bit the equal of
the Nikkor.>>
-Tony Polson, 2001-02-03::13:32:02, uk.rec.photo.misc,
<u41o7to7cs20au6df...@4ax.com>
====================================================================
;-)
Trent F.
--
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick
themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
> Sir Winston Churchill
Douglas.
"Trent Fellows" <TF...@photsworld.net> wrote in message
news:XOjLh.16674$YK6.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
: Tony Polson wrote:
:
: >>>http://www.ryadia.com/morning.htm
:
: > Poor Douglas, he needs to do some post-processing to remove that
: > dreadful distortion of the lighthouse. Spoils an otherwise nice
: > snapshot.
: >
: > He seems to have trouble with lighthouses - remember his shot of a
: > lighthouse, allegedly for a magazine cover, where the lighthouse was
: > actually hidden behind a tree?
====================================================================
: << But I must be fair to the 75-150mm f/4 Zuiko; it made me money,
: because the results were good enough for several picture editors. One
: of my shots taken with this lens was on the cover of "Paris Match" in
: the late 1970s. The two most "profitable" lenses I owned were this and
: the 24mm f/2.8 Zuiko, which is a fine lens and every bit the equal of
: the Nikkor.>>
:
: -Tony Polson, 2001-02-03::13:32:02, uk.rec.photo.misc,
: <u41o7to7cs20au6df...@4ax.com>
: ====================================================================
Ha, ha ha... ROTFL at this one!
Maybe I ought to post a scan of the letter they sent me about this creep?
Terminally ill, not expected to live, I think were his words whilst looking
for sympathy in another group... Right up until he got the pension.
That was an absolute miracle of the first order!
Side Splitting laughter here...
Douglas
Duncan Chesley
<dj4grou...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>Sorry Duncan but when you do actually get your pbase account, you'll find
>exactly the same situation at some time or another.
Yes I understand. And I understand your special circumstances. I'm
just trying to decide if I would care so much that I would wreck the
experience of viewing the picture when providing that experience is
the main reason for posting it in the first place.
I don't like to put myself into the same category as the RIAA who
insists that they are losing billions by people copying and listening
to songs for which they would never have paid.
So what if people put my images on their web site. It's happened. So
what if people use my photos for their desktops. So what if someone
criticizes my photos. I might improve. And if someone steals an
800x600 approximation of a photo of mine and makes money from it,
maybe I should talk to them. I might learn something about marketing.
I have enough to worry about with real customers and real money,
without worrying about imaginary money.
But, of course, I still don't have the PBase account.
Cheers,
DuncanC
PS I live in Maine, the most distant part of the US from Brisbane.
Not that I wouldn't like to visit some day.
Tony Polson
>Tony Polson wrote:
>
>>>>http://www.ryadia.com/morning.htm
>
>> Poor Douglas, he needs to do some post-processing to remove that
>> dreadful distortion of the lighthouse. Spoils an otherwise nice
>> snapshot.
>>
>> He seems to have trouble with lighthouses - remember his shot of a
>> lighthouse, allegedly for a magazine cover, where the lighthouse was
>> actually hidden behind a tree?
>
>Do show us yours, Tony.
Yet another identity for Alan Browne.
What a surprise. Just like his friend Dougie.
Plonked.
Douglas.
"THO" <t...@tho.tho.23.invalid> wrote in message
news:tho-FF9172.1...@news.giganews.com...
: In article <45fd8797$0$28180$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
: "Beach Bum" <e.ca...@southpark.com> wrote:
:
: > "TheDaveŠ" <n...@no.com> wrote
: >
: > > The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The
lighting
: > > of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, though. The
: > > sun is behind the lighthouse, so where's the lighting for the
: > > lighthouse coming from? Yes, we know a flash or something similar,
but
: > > that's the point... it's unnatural.
: >
: > Yeah, makes it look like a bad wedding photo. I don't understand why
people
: > use a flash. Two exposures of this scene could have been combined to
: > increase the dynamic range in a way that would have appeared more
natural
: > and pleasing.
: You could also decrease the intensity of the flash to make it look less
: harsh.
:
: HDR hasn't been around that long so that everyone knows about it. Then
: there are those who object to it as fake.
------------------------------------------
Lesson number 2/01/(a) - Anti-creativity... This is a new lesson created
especially for those who's only artistic outlet is a digital camera and
computer screen.
PREAMBLE:
This is the theory of anti-creative genius. Basically it's the guidelines
for ensuring only your photos are ever considered for merit in a critical
analysis.It relies on the standardisation of pictures and that your work
should look like everyone else's work. The people well into the beta testing
phase of this principal are the people who would foster the creation of ISO
standard 200000... Standards for photographic critique.
1.
By making all photographs measurable to a known (ISO) standard, dud photos
with no merit can quickly be compared to those from your collection which
have great merit, being the basis the (ISO) standard was created from.
2.
Everything shall be the same, measurable by a known (ISO) standard derived
from you idea of perfect and no deviations shall be acceptable. Lighthouses
shall all be photographed with a tilt/shift lens, shifted 0.009% vertically
and tilted -0.1000.02% in the vertical plane. Obscuring broken railing and
graffiti with trees and other obstacles shall be absolutely forbidden as
will placing picture elements in the path of bright light to reduce the EV
reading.
3.
Absolutely no use of creative lighting will be permitted. If you can't see
what you are doing, wait for daylight where upon you will not need to light
the scene and can proceed to take an ISO 200000 compliant photograph. If
there is deep shadows, wait until they are gone but under no circumstances
are you to use reflective discs, flash lights or flash guns to compensate
for digital cameras not recording detail in black areas.
4.
Absolutely no artist interpretation in the form of merged, layered or
PhotoShop manipulated images will be tolerated. Forget any idea you might
sell your photos, someone else already does that and we don't want to get
involved in charges of fraud and forgery just because your image is more (or
less) ISO 200000 compliant than the one already making someone else rich and
famous.
5.
Pounce on any and every opportunity to criticize someone else (anyone else)
who has the cheek to suggest they are doing something you are perfectly
capable of doing yourself but never do. This includes such absurd
suggestions that you may care to de-sleep at the un Godly time of 4:00 AM on
Sunday morning after shooting a wedding reception until 10:00 PM the night
before, just to take some non-compliant pictures of a derelict lighthouse.
6.
Never entertain the idea that whilst driving home after a horror breakfast
at McDonalds, you might take the opportunity to stop and walk a mile or two
in the midday sun just to take even more non-compliant photos of
non-compliant subjects...
Where are they? Well, one is right here:
http://www.ryadia.com/flyer.htm There's a movie sequence of this boat in
action I shot with my Panasonic FZ50 too. As soon as I figure out how to put
it on the 'net I'll give you a look at it!
Douglas.
Thumper the cat
You really like to have the horizon in the center don't you.. I
suppose you don't subscribe to the rule of thirds.
The lighting of the lighthouse is somewhat off kilter and the POV is
really bad...
Maybe you ought to stick to weddings. Everything else I've seen is
pretty average..
Thumper
Annika1980
> Pounce on any and every opportunity to criticize someone else (anyone else)
> who has the cheek to suggest they are doing something you are perfectly
> capable of doing yourself but never do. This includes such absurd
> suggestions that you may care to de-sleep at the un Godly time of 4:00 AM on
> Sunday morning after shooting a wedding reception until 10:00 PM the night
> before, just to take some non-compliant pictures of a derelict lighthouse.
So you had to travel to shoot a wedding and as is your policy charged
the happy couple for the room? No problem there. And you took
advantage of the situation by getting up early the next morning to
capture the sunrise.
Makes sense to me .... really. I would've done the same thing.
So why did you write this?
Alan Browne
Ah Tony, you're so perceptive.
But please *do* show us a corrected perspective photo of your own. Or
your Paris Match cover. C'mon, please. Pretty-please?
;-)
Alan.
Douglas.
"Thumper the cat" <fuzzball@the_world.com> wrote in message
news:63lrv2d2m04ednp73...@4ax.com...
:
: You really like to have the horizon in the center don't you.. I
: suppose you don't subscribe to the rule of thirds.
:
: The lighting of the lighthouse is somewhat off kilter and the POV is
: really bad...
:
: Maybe you ought to stick to weddings. Everything else I've seen is
: pretty average..
:
: Thumper
Who are we today?
NNTP-Posting-Host:
p04d1bfbfff0000009d865363b90282e6565a96937361146a.newsdawg.com
Obfuscated identities.
Hiding from view whilst taking pot shots at people...
Another bloody Troll.
ha...@oracle.com
> You really have to get up early in the morning to get boring landscape
> Photos like this!
> http://www.ryadia.com/morning.htm
>
> The topic of landscape photos being boring tells me many things about the
> people who contributed to it... I would like to offer a few words of
> encouragement to anyone feeling the "boring" syndrome is invading their
> Photography.
>
> Consider where you are. Where you go and what you see. Then throw it all
> "find" this location. I stayed in a nearby motel that night just so I
> could
> found I really did have to come to it. So... Get off your bums, you aren't
> going to get a photo sitting on them!
>
> Douglas St James-Macdonald
> Wedding Photographer
> http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com
>
n.
1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a
pastime rather than as a profession.
2. Sports An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money
under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a
competition.
3. One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.
adj.
1. Of or performed by an amateur.
2. Made up of amateurs: an amateur cast.
3. Not professional; unskillful.
^Temuchin^
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 09:36:25 GMT, "Douglas."
> <dj4grou...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> You really have to get up early in the morning to get boring landscape
>> Photos like this!
>> http://www.ryadia.com/morning.htm
That link makes be feel bad for ever telling Rocha he crap.
Clarence
I live not far from this lighthouse and it doesnt look too distorted
to me. It isnt a very tall lighthouse, more of a light station. The
railing at the top may be a bit more oval than round but not that bad.
>
>
Mark˛
I guess that doesn't bother me. It's also a way of dealing with a
comparatively bright element in an otherwise dark scene. I kinda like it,
actually.
Douglas.
"Clarence" <cla...@prime.com> wrote in message
news:45fe2...@news.iprimus.com.au...
:
:
Ahhh Clarence...
You missed to fun these jokers were having. Take another look at the page.
You might have to press the refresh button to get it. I distorted the
picture I initially posted with a little program from a Frenchman which
normally corrects the rectilinear errors wide angle lenses create. I used it
to create some!
I posted the original for a bit of baiting... These jocks get their jollies
rocking when they can pick the stuffing out of someone like me. More fool
them, I say! Sorry if you saw it as serious. Thanks for your comment
anyway. I just can't resist lighting the flames for these jokers.
Hey... Do you do any fishing there? Some guys were pulling in bucket loads
of decent size fish on the rocks below the light. Here's me with my fishing
gear safely on the boat - 70 miles away!
Douglas
Tony Polson
Because he thought the simple truth would have been less interesting
than an elaborately crafted fiction?
mark.t...@gmail.com
> I posted the original for a bit of baiting...
That's such a cool way of excusing bad pictures. I thought the old "I
meant to fall over" excuse was getting a bit stale nowadays. Kudos to
Doug for not bending to the times..!! I notice he has also corrected
the following faults in the original - well done, Doug!:
- the original was badly oversharpened (see below) - the new one is
better, although now it is a little soft
- the original had some overly bright grass in the foreground (you
know, the bit covered in text?), which was a bit of an indicator of
fill flash..
Anyway, this is a *really cool* idea - posting 'spot-all-the-flaws'
images! I'll have to dig up a few of my bad ones... So thanks for
posting this, Douglas. But it's a real pity that your images don't
stay put - this would make a good reference, but of course it will be
gone soon.. My comments below apply to the original - I have a cached
version if anyone wants to see it, just ask... It's quite different
from the new one. What a fun trick to play, Doug! Sure fooled all us
critics, dincha... (O;
OK, here's my attempt at a critique of the ORIGINAL image - I think it
was clearly designed to show the "what not to do" of the following
cautions:
Caution No 1. - AVOID using fill-flash on sunset or sunrise shots,
unless you want/don't mind the 'unreal' effect of the unnatural, hard,
bluish light. Obviously (well, to most people) a flash is going to
look somewhat blue when added to the gold/orange/red light found at
sunrise or sunset. Even in the late afternoon/early morning, you need
to be careful. Added to this, our brain is very good at knowing what
these scenes 'should' look like - we instinctively know how much light
might be reasonably expected on the front of objects in such a scene.
As has been mentioned by many others the lighthouse looks overly
bright, and possibly a little bluish - certainly the foreground grass
(now deleted) looked a very odd colour - perhaps it is the drought...
Then of course there is the telltale increase in light in the
foreground (now deleted). By the way, the lettering was a good idea
to try to cover the problem, but it didn't quite work.
Some real solutions include - just live with the reality of the scene
- use PS techniques to bring up a little detail in the silhouettes -
use HDR (see below) - use a yellow gel/filter/cellophane over your
flash head - bounce the flash off something big and yellowish... anyone
got any others? If all this fails and the scene still doesn't look
right, just toss it and move on, I reckon. For me, this wouldn't be a
keeper.
Of course, there *could* be a source of light other than flash that is
doing the illumination. But this will usually be tungsten (yellowish)
light and so will not look as out-of-place. The difference between
flash and incandescent lighting is usually easy to spot... Interestingly
in the past this same person has attempted (unsuccessfully) to suggest
otherwise on his famous "Pelicans at Amity Point" image - I refer to
this discussion:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/thread/ddd49783c0ebf018
There, Doug claimed he *didn't* use flash and that the bluish
foreground light in that image (now withdrawn of course) was from
external sources... But unfortunately for Doug, a person who knows that
beach pointed out that there is *no* such lighting there. I have
since verified this myself. Not that I wish to suggest Doug lies - he
... er ... just gets a little confused sometimes..?
Caution No 2. - DON'T overdo HDR - HDR might have been a better
solution here, but similarly you must be very subtle - it is painfully
easy to end up with a result that looks like Doug's image, where the
light balance looks unnatural or 'flattened'. But at least you could
mask out the foreground grass (now deleted) so it wouldn't be so
distracting... (O;
Caution No 3. - DON'T oversharpen. Doug's ORIGINAL image also showed
one of the less known but interesting effects caused by poor
sharpening technique. There were tiny overbright points of light in
the silhouetted foliage. These points looked very odd because they
were *much* brighter than the local background.. Of course that is
because sharpening exaggerates contrast at edges by brightening the
lighter pixels - so (depending on your usm settings) if the bright
detail is small, you can get a little false USM-induced supernova... (O;
So, very careful use of the sharpening tool is required where you have
very fine high contrast details. If you really must overdo the
sharpening, try using masks/layers to fix the bits where it goes wrong
(if you need to know how, just ask - even Douglas should know this..)
... I do wish Douglas would put the original back up - some folks
could learn a thing or two from all those deliberate mistakes he
made. (O;
Anyway, thanks again, Douglas - I hope we have all learned something
about what *not* to do - I know I did... (O;
Douglas.
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174266647.8...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
:
:
150k on the M1 is but an hour and half from home and easy driving too.
Douglas.
"Tony Polson" <t...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:9ljsv2ph2fb13d23i...@4ax.com...
Leaf out of your book, perhaps Tony?
Beach Bum
> HDR hasn't been around that long so that everyone knows about it. Then
> there are those who object to it as fake.
It's been around at least as long as Ansel Adams' book "The Negative".
--
Mark
Mostly photography...
http://www.marklauter.com
I was heavily armed and absent minded. You pay a high price for that in
the Army.
- Dom
Beach Bum
> I posted the original for a bit of baiting...
Then you're the first photographer I've met who posts crap /on purpose/.
Somehow I find that hard to believe.
Look, I'm not saying my photos are better than yours - I suck as a
photographer - but I'm not posting ordinary snaps every day and claiming to
be the bomb digity super-pro that you claim to be. You should either A.
learn to see beyond the ordinary, or B. get a life. (or both). I suggest
some meditation to bring your blood pressure down a few notches and to learn
to be at peace before pressing the shutter release.
Beach Bum
> Back up? As in fall off the narrow cliff top it's perched on?
> 11mm lens used on this one and I could have made excellent use of a swing
> lens camera. Something I'll look seriously at buying to improve these sort
> of shots into an area where digital simply can't compete.
"digital" has nothing to do with anything in this case. You can easily buy
a digital back to go with that swing lens box.
Many effects, such as perspective distortion, can be easily corrected in the
dark room (wet or digital). So I fail to see why you constantly whine about
digital cameras. Maybe you're just pissed cause you can't afford one. I
for one got sick of burning so much money on film and related supplies, as
well as the pain in the butt work required to get a decent scan just to put
a snapshot up on my web site.
Annika1980
> : So why did you write this?
> :
> : "I drove less than 150 Klm to "find" this location. I stayed in a
> : nearby motel that night just so I could see this breathtaking
> : sunrise."
> 150k on the M1 is but an hour and half from home and easy driving too.
So are we to believe that you chose this night, after shooting a late
wedding reception, to then drive the 150 Klm and check into a motel,
just so you could get a few hours sleep before getting up at 4:30AM to
capture the sunrise? As usual, I ain't buyin what you're sellin.
The truth would sound more like, "I was on location and stayed over
since the reception ran late. Taking advantage of the situation, I
got up early to get this sunrise pic."
D-Mac, you'd rather climb a tree to get to tell a lie than to just
stand on the ground and tell the truth. It has been said that the
truth has the same effect on you than sunlight has on Dracula.
Note that I haven't commented on the pic itself, many others have
covered that one already. And of course they got the variation on
your "I meant to do that" excuse. This time it was, "Yeah, I know
that's a bad photo, I was just baiting you."
D-Mac: The only professional photographer in the world who
intentionally only posts his bad images. He meant to do that!
What makes it even more laughable is a bad image with a copyright
stamp all over it. As if!
TheDave©
> I posted the original for a bit of baiting... These jocks get their
> jollies rocking when they can pick the stuffing out of someone like
> me. More fool them, I say! Sorry if you saw it as serious. Thanks
> for your comment anyway. I just can't resist lighting the flames for
> these jokers.
Nice spin after-the-fact, but it's not convincing. This, and your
little lesson about creativity elsewhere in the thread is a clear
indicator why you thought mediocre work was exceptional... you're too
thin-skinned to accept and profit from legitimate constructive
criticism and view it as a personal attack. Get over yourself, you're
not special enough to warrant a grand conspiracy.
The new version is better, btw. "Correcting" the lighthouse
perspective helped, but removing the unnecessary foreground helped the
most, IMHO.
Douglas.
"TheDave©" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:HKyLh.62027$_w.4...@newsfe13.lga...
If you followed the thread (hard, I know) you'd read at the front that my
intention was to make this picture a panorama. Therefore either the
foreground or the sky had to be expendable. Rocket science, I know but pay
attention and you'll get the gist of the thing.
"Flo's tools" from France (not free) is a beautiful set of plugins for
Photoshop to correct perspective errors. REMEMBER THAT THREAD? - You get a
better perspective for a portrait when you use a 70mm or longer lens? Man
did you lot of jerks get off on that one? Here you go now... Saying exactly
what started that thread. Talk about brave! I think I'll get it going again
mate, citing you as the authorities source! ROTFL.
Well anyway... I used his stuff to invoke a perspective error in the first
picture and I left the foreground in place... You all took it hook, line and
sinker. If you actually paid attention, you would have figured out the plot
but instead, you lost it entirely... Good one mate!
Oh yeah... How many wankers claiming superiority beat up on me the
"Perspective of a Portrait" issue? Some people simply can't comprehend the
perspective of a lens doesn't change but the perspective of a photograph
can, as this picture demonstrates. It's the difference between art and
mechanics. Do you have a notion for either Dave?
As for constructive criticism... So far, from the plethora of people who see
it their duty to post a bad or less than flattering opinion about my
pictures, only one or two have actually been constructive. Everyone else
(you included) have been getting some sort of euphoria out of attacking
someone they secretly admire, with comments ranging from subliminal sarcasm
to outright defamation.
Even to the point of one of you getting so jealous as to become a common
criminal trying to hack eBay for my password. I should be flattered. Why am
I not? http://www.annika.com contains the evidence of his foul deeds. Nice
method he's got of diverting attention from his criminal activities... Just
turn the heat up on me while he goes about his disgusting attacks on my
clients and me personally. How good are you to follow blindly in his wake?
Apart from anything else mate. These posts are priming the search engines at
absolutely no cost to me. If enduring all your distorted wit gets my web
sites to a position where I can load my sites into search engines and there
are hundreds and hundreds of qualified links to it from all those so called
"forums" who leach off Usenet already in place...
They will rate out of obscurity into the top 20 or 30 within weeks instead
of cost me $600 plus a month to get them there. Go at it all you what
'DAVE©'. At the end of the day all you're doing is playing the game my way.
How's it feel to me manipulated?
Douglas
Qualified Photographer,
Internationally recognized Wedding Photographer,
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com
--
Cheers, big ears!
Douglas.
: "Douglas." <dj4grou...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
:
: > Back up? As in fall off the narrow cliff top it's perched on?
: > 11mm lens used on this one and I could have made excellent use of a
swing
: > lens camera. Something I'll look seriously at buying to improve these
sort
: > of shots into an area where digital simply can't compete.
:
: "digital" has nothing to do with anything in this case. You can easily
buy
: a digital back to go with that swing lens box.
:
: Many effects, such as perspective distortion, can be easily corrected in
the
: dark room (wet or digital). So I fail to see why you constantly whine
about
: digital cameras. Maybe you're just pissed cause you can't afford one. I
: for one got sick of burning so much money on film and related supplies, as
: well as the pain in the butt work required to get a decent scan just to
put
: a snapshot up on my web site.
:
:
Money is never a consideration when I buy anything, cameras included.
Maybe it's the fact Digital cameras have an immediate start and end to their
dynamic range? Maybe it's the fact that to get any detail at all in the
shadow areas of the lighthouse pic, would produce a horrible noise pattern
in those shadows that film would not produce?
Or maybe it's the fact that digital cameras are responsible for every jerk
with a spare Grand or two thinking if they buy a digital camera it qualifies
them to know everything about Photography?
My film time goes back many decades. In the '70s and '80s my Lab made "real"
unsharp masks for some of the finest Cibachrome prints ever made. You or
anyone else can criticize my photographs... Criticizing my methods and
knowledge of processes related to processing photographs is an area you
simply don't know enough about the take me on.
It's really nice when someone like Andrew Hennell who is constant pain in
the arse to me with his sarcastic barbs intended to follow in the footsteps
of another idiot, proves what I said in Paragraph 2 by posting his best
landscape ...with a crooked horizon.
Digital cameras are very convenient devices. They've been responsible for a
huge surge in photography as a hobby and changed the industry of Photography
forever. What they can't do - at any cost level - and probably never will,
is rival film in areas where film is still the only medium able to produce
results.
If digital images ever reach the point where they can produce detail in
shadow areas with no increase in noise and other unacceptable faults, I
might change my mind. As it is, Film is the only medium I have ever used
that can produce a beautiful print from a scene with severely under exposed
areas and not produce a grain pattern significantly different to any other
part of the scene.
So to answer your question:
When digital images can rival film quality in areas I make a living from,
I'll shut up about their image faults and inability to render detail at the
far ends of their dynamic range. Until then, if it peeves you so much, use
the "message rules" to filter my posts out... There'll still be one or two
for you read now and then.
http://www.annika.com History of an image thief
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com beautiful Wedding portraits
http://www.canvasphotos.com.au Incredibly beautiful canvas prints
--
Have a nice day,
Douglas
William Graham
>
>> "Beach Bum" <e.ca...@southpark.com> wrote in message
>> news:45fd8797$0$28180$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The lighting
>>>>of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, though. The
>>>>sun is behind the lighthouse, so where's the lighting for the
>>>>lighthouse coming from? Yes, we know a flash or something similar, but
>>>>that's the point... it's unnatural.
>>>
>>>Yeah, makes it look like a bad wedding photo. I don't understand why
>>>people
>>>use a flash. Two exposures of this scene could have been combined to
>>>increase the dynamic range in a way that would have appeared more natural
>>>and pleasing.
>>
>>
>> I believe you could lasso and brighten the lighthouse in
>> Photoshop....Perhaps that was what he did.....I don't see the
>> distortion....I think the lighthouse was build that way...With spiral
>> stairs near the top.....the distortion can be blamed on the A
>> architect......
> I live not far from this lighthouse and it doesnt look too distorted to
> me. It isnt a very tall lighthouse, more of a light station. The railing
> at the top may be a bit more oval than round but not that bad.
>
place with your best lens. Then post it so we can compare it's "distortion"
with that of this photograph.....I have seen lots of buildings that look
distorted when viewed from one particular angle.....I'm not sure why this
is, but I suspect it's because the mind expects to see something else other
than what it does see, and this gives rise to the idea of distortion.....
Mark˛
This is progress, Doug!
The first step toward recovery is always acknowledgement of the problem
(inyour case, lying).
Only 11 steps to go!
Mark˛
> Douglas
> Qualified Photographer,
> Internationally recognized Wedding Photographer,
> http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com
I think you'd reduce a lot of the heat if you'd simply change your sig to
something a bit less pompous. Of course you'd have to also change a bit of
your other constant blathering about your own greatness, too. It occurs to
me, however, that if you are truly "internationally recognized"...then you
shouldn't need to inform us of that...since surely we've heard of you,
right?
Note the difference in my sig. No claims, no games. Just a link and an
indication that there are images, with the implication that some are decent,
and some are snapshots. Your photos...with their international
prowess...should speak for itself, I should think. Actually they do...just
not always quite as positively as you assume.
If you don't make the claim...you don't take the blame. :)
If you keep yourself humble...we forgive when you stumble.
Hey! I just made that up! ...Jesse Jackson's got nothin' on me, mate!
Really true, though, Doug. Meant in seriousness...even if a little goofy.
TheDave©
>
> "TheDave)" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
> you what 'DAVE)'. At the end of the day all you're doing is playing
> the game my way. How's it feel to me manipulated?
>
> Douglas
> Qualified Photographer,
> Internationally recognized Wedding Photographer,
> http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com
I feel sorry for you.
Annika1980
> http://www.annika.com History of an image thief
Hey, she's pretty hot! Is that the evil Annika Hogan we've all been
hearing about?
LOL! What a loser!
Beach Bum
> Maybe it's the fact Digital cameras have an immediate start and end to
their
> dynamic range? Maybe it's the fact that to get any detail at all in the
> shadow areas of the lighthouse pic, would produce a horrible noise pattern
> in those shadows that film would not produce?
Might be time for you to buy a book on digital technique.
> Or maybe it's the fact that digital cameras are responsible for every jerk
> with a spare Grand or two thinking if they buy a digital camera it
qualifies
> them to know everything about Photography?
As if there weren't plenty of jerks with a spare grand or two thinking if
they bought the best medium format camera they'd automatically become world
class pros.
I've seen art from a 2mp Kodak clunker and total crap from 12 inch view
cameras. It's not the camera, it's the person using it.
> My film time goes back many decades. In the '70s and '80s my Lab made
"real"
> unsharp masks for some of the finest Cibachrome prints ever made. You or
> anyone else can criticize my photographs... Criticizing my methods and
> knowledge of processes related to processing photographs is an area you
> simply don't know enough about the take me on.
Maybe, maybe not. Based on what I've seen of your work, there are a lot of
amateurs here who are more than qualified to take you on.
Of course, my experience as a software engineer specializing in real time
video image processing doesn't mean I know anything about image processing
technique. <g>
> It's really nice when someone like Andrew Hennell who is constant pain in
> the arse to me with his sarcastic barbs intended to follow in the
footsteps
> of another idiot, proves what I said in Paragraph 2 by posting his best
> landscape ...with a crooked horizon.
No biggy, you just have to print, rotate, crop and frame. Real
photographers don't stress over something that can be fixed at frame time.
> Digital cameras are very convenient devices. They've been responsible for
a
> huge surge in photography as a hobby and changed the industry of
Photography
> forever. What they can't do - at any cost level - and probably never will,
> is rival film in areas where film is still the only medium able to produce
> results.
Yeah, I might have said that 2 years ago. Now I see amazing work done by
local pros who were slow to take up digital.
> If digital images ever reach the point where they can produce detail in
> shadow areas with no increase in noise and other unacceptable faults, I
> might change my mind. As it is, Film is the only medium I have ever used
> that can produce a beautiful print from a scene with severely under
exposed
> areas and not produce a grain pattern significantly different to any other
> part of the scene.
Use the RAW converter correctly, Luke.
> So to answer your question:
> When digital images can rival film quality in areas I make a living from,
> I'll shut up about their image faults and inability to render detail at
the
> far ends of their dynamic range.
I wouldn't worry so much about all that technical BS until you learn to
compose a compelling image that tells an interesting story.
> Until then, if it peeves you so much, use
> the "message rules" to filter my posts out... There'll still be one or two
> for you read now and then.
Nah, too much fun reading the battles between you and the world. Although,
sometimes I think you might not be a real person, but a made up persona for
someone's amusement.
The images on your client recommendations page are broken..
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/recommendations.htm
--
Mark
Mostly photography...
http://www.marklauter.com
I was heavily armed and absent minded. You pay a high price for that in
the Army.
- Dom
> http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com beautiful Wedding portraits
Beach Bum
> If digital images ever reach the point where they can produce detail in
> shadow areas with no increase in noise and other unacceptable faults, I
> might change my mind. As it is, Film is the only medium I have ever used
> that can produce a beautiful print from a scene with severely under
exposed
> areas and not produce a grain pattern significantly different to any other
> part of the scene.
<quote>
Hanging-gull
Photographed with a Canon 5D camera. This photo is an example of the detail
and sharpness needed
for monster enlargements. The canvas print of this picture is 900mm (3 feet)
high and 1200mm (4 feet) wide.
Lens used was a Sigma 24 -70 f/2.8, EX DG.
</quote>
So I wonder what you're doing with a 5D, Mr. Film.
--
Mark
Mostly photography...
http://www.marklauter.com
I was heavily armed and absent minded. You pay a high price for that in
the Army.
- Dom
in message news:cyDLh.13458$8U4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Mike Warren
> Of course, my experience as a software engineer specializing in real
> time video image processing doesn't mean I know anything about image
> processing technique. <g>
Hi Mark,
Do you still visit bpot?
--
-Mike
Mark˛
> "Douglas." <dj4grou...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>> If digital images ever reach the point where they can produce
>> detail in shadow areas with no increase in noise and other
>> unacceptable faults, I might change my mind. As it is, Film is the
>> only medium I have ever used that can produce a beautiful print from
>> a scene with severely under exposed areas and not produce a grain
>> pattern significantly different to any other part of the scene.
>
> <quote>
> Hanging-gull
> Photographed with a Canon 5D camera. This photo is an example of the
> detail and sharpness needed
> for monster enlargements. The canvas print of this picture is 900mm
> (3 feet) high and 1200mm (4 feet) wide.
> Lens used was a Sigma 24 -70 f/2.8, EX DG.
> </quote>
>
> So I wonder what you're doing with a 5D, Mr. Film.
And a 20D...
:)
Douglas.
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
:
And a FZ50
And a Mamiya RZ67
And a EOS 3
And a ToyoField 4x5
And a Nikonos
And some Olympus E300's x 4
I wonder what I'm doing with them? Hmmm. Making a living perhaps?
Maybe getting ready to start a museum?
Maybe I deal in 'em?
For me to know and you to wonder, wonder boy!
Beach Bum
Hi Mike!
No. It's been almost a year. There's private group that grew out of bpot
when it was still called .discussion. It's populated with some TeamB
members, a former borland employee, other techie types. There're a few
photographers in the group too. We even have our own little photography
forum to keep ourselves entertained. I guess that's my primary Usenet
outlet. :)
Thumper the cat
<dj4grou...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Clarence" <cla...@prime.com> wrote in message
>news:45fe2...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>: William Graham wrote:
>:
>: > "Beach Bum" <e.ca...@southpark.com> wrote in message
>: > news:45fd8797$0$28180$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>: >
>: >>"TheDaveŠ" <n...@no.com> wrote
Sure ! You used a program to create soime distortion so yu could poke
fun at us... Wow,how clever of you !.
Seems that the explanation come way to far after the cart... But
whatever you pros use to explain bad photography is okay, I guess.
That is until the viewer sees that work is just plain bad...
Thumper
Mike Warren
> > Do you still visit bpot?
>
> No. It's been almost a year. There's private group that grew out of
> bpot when it was still called .discussion.
I remember when the TeamD group was created. So Vik is still there?
I got too busy to visit bpot for about a year and when I came back a
lot of the old posters were either gone or had changed their names to
"Bo". :-)
--
-Mike
Thumper the cat
Anybody that takes all the pains you do and then places the horizon in
the exact center of the picture really, really needs to attend some of
the symposiums that are available to improve their composition.
Everything of yours that I ahve seen from landscapes to wedding
pictures ? suffers for lack of imagination and there is no sign of the
"good eye" that any professional photographer needs... Stick to the
hack wedding photography and quit trying to impress people who know
better... Brets eye is much more trained than yours and his results
in his ______ likes the 20D are extremely professional and something
that any "Real" photographer would be proud of....
ANd before you start the fake post BS; I am not Bret.
Thumper - Larry B.
Mark˛
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 06:59:43 GMT, "Douglas."
> <dj4grou...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Clarence" <cla...@prime.com> wrote in message
>> news:45fe2...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>>> William Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Beach Bum" <e.ca...@southpark.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:45fd8797$0$28180$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>>
Douglas is still under impression that none of us were ever in the 3rd
grade...where you learn to see through silly excuses like, "I meant to do
that..." after someone trips and falls.
TheDave©
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 06:59:43 GMT, "Douglas."
> > You missed to fun these jokers were having. Take another look at
> > the page. You might have to press the refresh button to get it. I
> > distorted the picture I initially posted with a little program from
> > a Frenchman which normally corrects the rectilinear errors wide
> > angle lenses create. I used it to create some!
> >
> > I posted the original for a bit of baiting... These jocks get their
> > jollies rocking when they can pick the stuffing out of someone like
> > me. More fool them, I say! Sorry if you saw it as serious. Thanks
> > for your comment anyway. I just can't resist lighting the flames
> > for these jokers.
> >
> > Hey... Do you do any fishing there? Some guys were pulling in
> > bucket loads of decent size fish on the rocks below the light.
> > Here's me with my fishing gear safely on the boat - 70 miles away!
> >
> > Douglas
>
> Sure ! You used a program to create soime distortion so yu could poke
> fun at us... Wow,how clever of you !.
>
> Seems that the explanation come way to far after the cart... But
> whatever you pros use to explain bad photography is okay, I guess.
> That is until the viewer sees that work is just plain bad...
First off, I don't buy for one second that Douglas was "tricking"
everybody here as he claims. But, just for the sake of conversation,
let's presume that he was. He takes a supposedly good photo...
disfigures it in some subtle way... then sits back and waits for
critiques so he can show what idiots the rest of us are. Hmmmm, ok.
Problem is, everybody critiques in a way that he later says is what his
original picture looked like and how he... the apparent grand master of
all things photographic... feels it should be.
End result is that all he's really done is confirm, according to his
own standards, that everybody here is, in fact, knowledgable and quite
competent in photographic technique and assessment.
Beach Bum
> > No. It's been almost a year. There's private group that grew out of
> > bpot when it was still called .discussion.
>
> I remember when the TeamD group was created. So Vik is still there?
Very cool. Yeah, Vik's still around, but busy with lots of things it seems.
There was a schism at one point that drove him and a couple other away for a
while.
> I got too busy to visit bpot for about a year and when I came back a
> lot of the old posters were either gone or had changed their names to
> "Bo". :-)
The Bo folks are TeamD. I never got that. :)
It got too militant in bpot, with everyone attacking each other over things
no one has control over.
Have you been taking in pics lately?
Mike Warren
> Have you been taking in pics lately?
Not as many as I would like. I've been working long hours and what I
have taken are sitting on my drive unedited.
I gave my wife a 70-300VR for her birthday last week. We went out to an
area we haven't been to before a couple of hours west of Cairns. It
turned out that most of the photo worthy subjects needed wider angles
so she hardly used it.
Our local birds should be back in the next month or so though.
--
-Mike
Douglas.
"Thumper the cat" <fuzzball@the_world.com> wrote in message
news:c363035hmjrma63l1...@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 06:59:43 GMT, "Douglas."
: <dj4grou...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
:
: >
: >"Clarence" <cla...@prime.com> wrote in message
: >news:45fe2...@news.iprimus.com.au...
: >: William Graham wrote:
: >:
: >: > "Beach Bum" <e.ca...@southpark.com> wrote in message
: >: > news:45fd8797$0$28180$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
: >: >
Yes Bret.
Douglas.
"TheDaveŠ" <n...@no.com> wrote in message news:_qiMh.36710: End result is that
: own standards, that everybody here is, in fact, knowledgable and quite
: competent in photographic technique and assessment.
Is that your best joke for the day Dave?
Come-on, you can do better.
Douglas.
:
: Anybody that takes all the pains you do and then places the horizon in
: the exact center of the picture really, really needs to attend some of
: the symposiums that are available to improve their composition.
: Everything of yours that I ahve seen from landscapes to wedding
: pictures ? suffers for lack of imagination and there is no sign of the
: "good eye" that any professional photographer needs... Stick to the
: hack wedding photography and quit trying to impress people who know
: better... Brets eye is much more trained than yours and his results
: in his ______ likes the 20D are extremely professional and something
: that any "Real" photographer would be proud of....
:
:
: ANd before you start the fake post BS; I am not Bret.
:
: Thumper - Larry B.
OK Larry B...
NNTP-Posting-Host:
p74d1bfbfff000000c9333e92db6978de37d94b68ab74d7e7.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088
If you are such a forthright upstanding citizen - using the exact same
comments as the guy you claim not to be... Why don't you just use your ISP's
news server and let us see who you are for real?
Annika1980
> : Sure ! You used a program to create soime distortion so yu could poke
> : fun at us... Wow,how clever of you !.
> :
> : Seems that the explanation come way to far after the cart... But
> : whatever you pros use to explain bad photography is okay, I guess.
> : That is until the viewer sees that work is just plain bad...
> :
> :
> : Thumper
>
> Yes Bret.
Rats! Busted again! You got me.
Yeah, I'm really Thumper .... and Helen too, of course.
I'm also Mark Morgan, Mark Thomas, Tony Polson (had you goin on that
Paris Match thing didn't I?), and a few others.
William Graham? Me.
Beach Bum? Me.
Scott W? Me, again.
But I am NOT Alan Browne!
Hell, D-Mac, I'm everywhere you look.
I've been more places than Johnny Cash.
I'm beyond your peripheral vision, so you might wanna turn your head.
My real name is Pudentame. Ask me again and I'll tell you the same.
Oops, gotta go .... here comes Nurse Ratchet!
Mike Warren
> Oops, gotta go .... here comes Nurse Ratchet!
:-) The only chuckle I've had out of this whole sordid affair.
--
-Mike
helensi...@hotmail.com
Ooooh I hate her! The only character I have every wanted to put my
hands through the tv screen and choke like Jack Nicolson did.
helensi...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:47:52 GMT, "Douglas."
>
>
> >"Beach Bum" <e.cart...@southpark.com> wrote in message
> >news:45fe7d1a$0$17201$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> >: "Douglas." <dj4groups-o...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
> >http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.combeautiful Wedding portraits
> >http://www.canvasphotos.com.auIncredibly beautiful canvas prints
>
> Anybody that takes all the pains you do and then places the horizon in
> the exact center of the picture really, really needs to attend some of
> the symposiums that are available to improve their composition.
> Everything of yours that I ahve seen from landscapes to wedding
> pictures ? suffers for lack of imagination and there is no sign of the
> "good eye" that any professional photographer needs... Stick to the
> hack wedding photography and quit trying to impress people who know
> better... Brets eye is much more trained than yours and his results
> in his ______ likes the 20D are extremely professional and something
> that any "Real" photographer would be proud of....
>
> ANd before you start the fake post BS; I am not Bret.
>
> Thumper - Larry B.
Very well put Larry. But now you're in a real pickle. You have given
an honest critique and as a result, made an enemy with the infamous D-
Mac. But what really put you on his "bad" list is that you think Bret
is a better photographer with a Professional Photographer's eye and
talent. And no, I am not Bret either!
Helen
Mike Warren
helensi...@hotmail.com
csas.net.au> wrote:
LOL!!
Now, will the REAL Bret (AKA: Annika) please stand up!
TheDave©
Ya know... I have yet to see both of you in the same room at the same
time. :-)
Annika1980
Beach Bum
> I gave my wife a 70-300VR for her birthday last week. We went out to an
> area we haven't been to before a couple of hours west of Cairns. It
> turned out that most of the photo worthy subjects needed wider angles
> so she hardly used it.
That's a nice gift :)
When the birds return I'm sure she'll have a lot of fun with it.
My GF and I are looking for someplace we haven't been to take the cameras
this weekend. I've gotten kinda tired of wildlife, so maybe we'll find a
small town that needs photographing. :)
Mike Warren
> When the birds return I'm sure she'll have a lot of fun with it.
She will. Birds are her favourite subject.
> My GF and I are looking for someplace we haven't been to take the
> cameras this weekend. I've gotten kinda tired of wildlife, so maybe
> we'll find a small town that needs photographing. :)
Sounds like a good idea. Good luck.
--
-Mike
Tony Polson
>On Mar 21, 9:21 pm, "Douglas." <dj4groups-o...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> : Sure ! You used a program to create soime distortion so yu could poke
>> : fun at us... Wow,how clever of you !.
>> :
>> : Seems that the explanation come way to far after the cart... But
>> : whatever you pros use to explain bad photography is okay, I guess.
>> : That is until the viewer sees that work is just plain bad...
>> :
>> :
>> : Thumper
>>
>> Yes Bret.
>
>Rats! Busted again! You got me.
>Yeah, I'm really Thumper .... and Helen too, of course.
>I'm also Mark Morgan, Mark Thomas, Tony Polson
But aren't you Spartacus?
helensi...@hotmail.com
Yep! And he's Tiger Woods....which explains a lot! ;-)
Helen
Beach Bum
> > When the birds return I'm sure she'll have a lot of fun with it.
>
> She will. Birds are her favourite subject.
Not mine, but you wouldn't know by looking at my web site. <g>
http://marklauter.com/albums/onlocation/sanibel2007/
I'm no pro, but I have fun at it. :)
Mike Warren
> "Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-csas.net.au> wrote in message
>
> > > When the birds return I'm sure she'll have a lot of fun with it.
> >
> > She will. Birds are her favourite subject.
>
> Not mine, but you wouldn't know by looking at my web site. <g>
>
> http://marklauter.com/albums/onlocation/sanibel2007/
>
> I'm no pro, but I have fun at it. :)
Neither are we. :-) I had a poke around on your site the other day.
It's much more interesting than ours. I didn't know you had visited Liz.
You have similar wildlife to us.
You've probably seen these before since I haven't updated them since
late 2005.
Roz: http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/roz/
Mine: http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/mike/
--
-Mike
Mark˛
> "Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-csas.net.au> wrote in message
>
>>> When the birds return I'm sure she'll have a lot of fun with it.
>>
>> She will. Birds are her favourite subject.
>
> Not mine, but you wouldn't know by looking at my web site. <g>
>
> http://marklauter.com/albums/onlocation/sanibel2007/
>
> I'm no pro, but I have fun at it. :)
You've got some nice images on your site, Mark.
Thanks for posting a link to them.
One comment on your "No smoking" picture, though...
....Actually I think the sign goes rather well with the ash tray...since
when smoking folks read the sign...they'll have to do something with the
cigarette they have to get rid of... I can see why it looked rather ironic
though...
:)
Thumper the cat
wrote:
Jeez Bret;
You had to go and use a literary reference. Douglas will get lost
on that one...
By the way Dougie, I'm from Texas. Bret is from Tennessee. Split
personalities are tough tomaintain at that distance...
But a lot of us can obviously spot a really, really bad
photographer...
Thumper Larry B
Thumper the cat
Holy Shit. He thinks he know enough to spot me spoofing an ISP.. Wow,
he know nothing about news servers and/or spoofing... Does he have
any verifiable talent ?
Thumper Larry B
Beach Bum
> Neither are we. :-) I had a poke around on your site the other day.
\o/ a fan! :)
> It's much more interesting than ours. I didn't know you had visited Liz.
I used Gallery V2 to rebuild it after the great database disaster of 2005.
It runs a little slower, but it's so easy to configure and mix up with Word
Press. :)
I visited Liz and Rob Claffie came down to NYC from Boston - we had a blast.
I've also met Mart (el marto) several times and Ralph Friedman, formerly of
TeamB, and his wife Ingrid. Ralph and Ingrid vacation not far from here, so
we've met up a few times. Very nice people.
> You have similar wildlife to us.
<looking for photos of spring break parties in australia for comparison>
Yes, we do! <g>
> You've probably seen these before since I haven't updated them since
> late 2005.
>
> Roz: http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/roz/
>
> Mine: http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/mike/
Nice shots! You'll have to update them so we can ooh and ahh some more :)
Beach Bum
> > http://marklauter.com/albums/onlocation/sanibel2007/
> >
> > I'm no pro, but I have fun at it. :)
>
> You've got some nice images on your site, Mark.
> Thanks for posting a link to them.
Thanks, Mark. For every one that is barely good enough to post on my site
there are 50 out of focus, motion blured, over/under exposed, pitiful snap
shots. If I had to make a living at this back in the days film I'd go
broke.
> One comment on your "No smoking" picture, though...
> ....Actually I think the sign goes rather well with the ash tray...since
> when smoking folks read the sign...they'll have to do something with the
> cigarette they have to get rid of... I can see why it looked rather
ironic
> though...
> :)
<g>
I couldn't figure why no cell phones, though. Didn't matter, you walk 2
feet in the door and phones went dead anyway. Was a weird place. I worked
there for 3 days, quit and didn't even invoice them for my time. Just glad
to be free of it.
For sure if you can't smoke in that area, then how do the cigarettes get
that close to the sign? And what area exactly? Do they really mean "don't
burn this sign with your cig" ?
--
Mark
Mostly photography...
http://www.marklauter.com
I was heavily armed and absent minded. You pay a high price for that in
the Army.
- Dom
$907...@newsfe13.phx...
> Beach Bum wrote:
> > "Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-csas.net.au> wrote in message
> >
> >>> When the birds return I'm sure she'll have a lot of fun with it.
> >>
> >> She will. Birds are her favourite subject.
> >
> > Not mine, but you wouldn't know by looking at my web site. <g>
> >
> > http://marklauter.com/albums/onlocation/sanibel2007/
> >
> > I'm no pro, but I have fun at it. :)
>
> You've got some nice images on your site, Mark.
> Thanks for posting a link to them.
>
Mark˛
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote
>
>>> http://marklauter.com/albums/onlocation/sanibel2007/
>>>
>>> I'm no pro, but I have fun at it. :)
>>
>> You've got some nice images on your site, Mark.
>> Thanks for posting a link to them.
>
> Thanks, Mark. For every one that is barely good enough to post on my
> site there are 50 out of focus, motion blured, over/under exposed,
> pitiful snap shots. If I had to make a living at this back in the
> days film I'd go broke.
That's true for most people, though. Well...unless you just go ahead and
post the crappy ones...like some do. :)
You're wise to only show your decent stuff...
Remember the old National Geographic numbers, and you'll feel better.
Hundreds of ROLLS of film for every 20 image spread is a pretty low
shot:presented ratio...
I've even heard up to 1500 rolls per assignment. Yipe!
I wonder what their digital ratio is, now that they've surely moved into
digital use..
>
>> One comment on your "No smoking" picture, though...
>> ....Actually I think the sign goes rather well with the ash
>> tray...since when smoking folks read the sign...they'll have to do
>> something with the cigarette they have to get rid of... I can see
>> why it looked rather ironic though...
>> :)
>
> <g>
>
> I couldn't figure why no cell phones, though. Didn't matter, you
> walk 2 feet in the door and phones went dead anyway. Was a weird
> place. I worked there for 3 days, quit and didn't even invoice them
> for my time. Just glad to be free of it.
>
> For sure if you can't smoke in that area, then how do the cigarettes
> get that close to the sign? And what area exactly? Do they really
> mean "don't burn this sign with your cig" ?
Maybe it was one of those "If you can read this...you're too close" sort of
things. Whatever it is...they need a few lessons on signage... A black &
white, printed peice of paper, taped to the wall with one piece of tape?
Classy joint...
What WAS that place??
Mike Warren
> \o/ a fan! :)
Of course. :-)
> I used Gallery V2 to rebuild it after the great database disaster of
> 2005. It runs a little slower, but it's so easy to configure and mix
> up with Word Press. :)
I like the way you've laid it out and that you have included text. I'll
try to take some inspiration from it when I redo mine. It'll have to
wait until I finish the current work project though. Probably mid year.
I've now scanned a lot of my old photos so will include some of them.
> I visited Liz and Rob Claffie came down to NYC from Boston - we had a
> blast. I've also met Mart (el marto) several times and Ralph
> Friedman, formerly of TeamB, and his wife Ingrid. Ralph and Ingrid
> vacation not far from here, so we've met up a few times. Very nice
> people.
Liz, Rob and Mart still pop into bpot a bit. Bogdan even showed up
briefly a week or so ago. I do miss Ralph, Ingrid and some of the
others. Are Ralph and Ingrid still into photography?
I do try to keep a bit of silliness going in bpot. Since 9/11 the
political threads tend to dominate.
--
-Mike
Annika1980
> >Hell, D-Mac, I'm everywhere you look.
> >I've been more places than Johnny Cash.
> >I'm beyond your peripheral vision, so you might wanna turn your head.
> >My real name is Pudentame. Ask me again and I'll tell you the same.
>
> >Oops, gotta go .... here comes Nurse Ratchet!
>
> Jeez Bret;
> You had to go and use a literary reference. Douglas will get lost
> on that one...
Not only a literary reference, but an Ani DiFranco lyric as well.
Beach Bum
> > 2005. It runs a little slower, but it's so easy to configure and mix
> > up with Word Press. :)
>
> I like the way you've laid it out and that you have included text. I'll
> try to take some inspiration from it when I redo mine. It'll have to
> wait until I finish the current work project though. Probably mid year.
> I've now scanned a lot of my old photos so will include some of them.
Sweet, can't wait to see it updated.
> Liz, Rob and Mart still pop into bpot a bit. Bogdan even showed up
> briefly a week or so ago. I do miss Ralph, Ingrid and some of the
> others. Are Ralph and Ingrid still into photography?
Yes, very much. Here's a their main site. I'm sure they would enjoy
hearing from you. There's an email link on the "info" page.
http://www.in-pulkau.com/
"bildergallerie" and "bild des tages" (picture of the day) have photos of
their home town and their travels.
Ralph has another site, but I seem to have misplaced the link.
Oh, and Mart's photo site as well..
http://www.elmarto.com/
> I do try to keep a bit of silliness going in bpot. Since 9/11 the
> political threads tend to dominate.
Yup. Too bad. Hey, maybe I'll pop in early next week and say hello. :)
Beach Bum
> > pitiful snap shots. If I had to make a living at this back in the
> > days film I'd go broke.
>
> That's true for most people, though. Well...unless you just go ahead and
> post the crappy ones...like some do. :)
I could market them by calling them "beautiful" even though they sucked. <g>
> You're wise to only show your decent stuff...
> Remember the old National Geographic numbers, and you'll feel better.
> Hundreds of ROLLS of film for every 20 image spread is a pretty low
> shot:presented ratio...
> I've even heard up to 1500 rolls per assignment. Yipe!
Yeah, I bet when you have that job you shoot for your life. Come home with
no decent images and you get canned. When in doubt point and shoot. :)
> I wonder what their digital ratio is, now that they've surely moved into
> digital use..
I bet it's a lot higher. It's nothing for me to come home from a full day
of shooting with over 1000 shots in the can. I'm running out of space. I'm
looking at buying a net-storage device for the home network.
> > For sure if you can't smoke in that area, then how do the cigarettes
> > get that close to the sign? And what area exactly? Do they really
> > mean "don't burn this sign with your cig" ?
>
> Maybe it was one of those "If you can read this...you're too close" sort
of
> things. Whatever it is...they need a few lessons on signage... A black &
> white, printed peice of paper, taped to the wall with one piece of tape?
> Classy joint...
LOL! Indeed. Well for the 3 days that I worked there I didn't even have a
computer. That says a lot about their organizational skills as a
corporation.
> What WAS that place??
It was a medical credit/insurance corporation. I wish I could remember the
name.. I'd warn every software engineer in the US to stay away from them.
On the plus side, I met a minor celebrity in the Borland Delphi world there.
That was kinda cool.
Mike Warren
> Oh, and Mart's photo site as well..
> http://www.elmarto.com/
I had a look a Marts site and offered some advice:
http://groups.google.com/group/borland.public.off-topic/browse_thread/th
read/9759980e13c9693a/3d920f62256e72d1?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#3d920f62256e72d1
or
> Hey, maybe I'll pop in early next week and say hello. :)
That would be good. :-)
--
-Mike
Beach Bum
> I had a look a Marts site and offered some advice:
> http://groups.google.com/group/borland.public.off-topic/browse_thread/th
> read/9759980e13c9693a/3d920f62256e72d1?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#3d920f62256e72d1
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3dse55
Oh, cool, I'm reading it now. "where should I send the invoice" LOL! I like
it. :)
> > Hey, maybe I'll pop in early next week and say hello. :)
>
> That would be good. :-)
Look for me after Tuesday. :)