April 16, 2014, 01:32:58 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Larry

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Landscape / Re: jrista et al, Why Astrophotography?
« on: April 10, 2014, 12:11:33 PM »
Sorry for the late reply...I did not see this thread till now.
…………………
………………...
………………...


Wow! First let me say that I am delighted by the serious, thoughtful responses, with no raised feathers in evidence ;-)

Don and Soulless; I can relate, to a degree, to the flat on the back, staring-at and contemplating the night sky experience. The "degree" being such that I bought a nice small telescope (Tele-Vue 76 and a bunch of eyepieces, Wimberly head, etc.), and spent more than one "meteor shower" night on top of a nearby hill-top with eyes/tele/and binoculars, learning a basic few of the constellations and pondering the imponderables of "What's out there?"

I am amazed and awestruck by photos such as the "dime sized portion of the sky" content shown us by Hubble, …
and some of the recent TV programs about space are fascinating .

My willingness/ability to spend the time/money/study needed to get to the more satisfying capability-levels, vs. devoting the same to my other interests seem have dictated that this will be the limit of my personal astronomical exploration.

To each his own however, and I wish much pleasurable enjoyment to those who choose to delve deeper. ( I suppose there is such a thing as "dis-pleasurable" enjoyment, … but that is for the kinkier types ;-)

jrista,

I am stunned by the thoroughness of your reply!  :P  You have provoked a lot of thought indeed, …and enlightened me far beyond my previous limited understanding of "astrophotography".

I have some idea of the time and effort required to put so much meat into a response, and want you to know it is very much acknowledged and appreciated.

I relate most to your description of the involved processes as "art", satisfying in its challenges and the achievable results. I have all I can find motivation, time, and money for in my other interests -- guitar, art (hands-on, not computer) and most captivatingly, small boat design(also sans computer, …only old-fashioned calculator, eye, ducks and splines) which somehow relate to one another through the commonality of pleasing curves (there is something about the lines of a figure, a guitar, and a beautiful hull, that I find inspiring).

I especially note your comments that many of the astrophotographs closely approximate what the human eye might see, if properly placed in space. The belief that this was not so has been one of the factors in my feeling that these photographs were more fantasy than reality. Since I am more interested in what beauty actually exists to be seen, rather than in what fantasies someone might "imagine" for me, I was pleased by your statements.

I think that the series of images entitled (something like) "Powers of Ten", makes clear that a person could spend a lifetime observing and learning at any of the levels, and still remain ignorant of the universes contained within each of the others.

So, I guess it is appropriate that we each be guided by our own inner compass, in traveling our individual paths.

I would be interested to see the products of your efforts, or those of others of a like mind-set, which are achieved after both the $100,000+ investment in equipment you describe, and the years of study and experiment that would enable its competent use.

To all;

Thank you, again, for taking the time to give attention to my inquiry :)

Best wishes,

Larry



2
Landscape / Re: jrista et al, Why Astrophotography?
« on: April 10, 2014, 11:12:08 AM »
Does this question also apply to landscape shooters? 

http://www.coloradoplateauphototours.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Mesa-Arch-Scene.jpg


Yes, LOL,… I would not be a part of that crowd, any more than I would want to be elbow to elbow with other steelhead fishermen on opening day at a "hot" fishing hole. (…or part of the "New iPhone" madness outside the Apple store  ;-) I guess it depends upon what you are looking for in your experiences.

3
Landscape / jrista et al, Why Astrophotography?
« on: March 22, 2014, 01:03:41 PM »
Nothing I say here is meant to be critical or disapproving, it is an honest inquiry in an attempt to understand the appeal of this type of photography.  :)

I seem to be motivated primarily by a desire to capture scenes that are in some way unique or especially attractive, at least to me, and prefer that they be something real, as nearly as possible representing what was seen. By this I mean as a "standard human being" might happily experience some personal discovery of natural beauty. The image hopefully allowing an after-the-event reasonable facsimile sharing with others who were not present to hear "Wow, look at that!".

Here is my (very)limited understanding of astrophotography;

One sets up an unusually specialized and expensive amount of gear (scope, camera, filters, cooled sensor, tracker,etc.) …then goes through a usually quite complicated post-process (stacking, etc), and, if successful, ends up with an image which is practically identical with thousands of other photos of the same subject, taken from the same distance, with the same perspective, and in "enhanced"colors which vary according to the processor's taste, and may be nothing at all like the view of the subject which a space ship passenger might see with his own eyes, if close enough.

If this is a roughly correct description of what is going on,  it seems that only the basic form/density(ies) of the subject is actually captured, with the rest of the visual impression being more or less filter-effect digital artwork.

Add to these thoughts the fact that most all of the popular targets have "been done" in a practically un-matchable manner by Hubble, and I, personally, am left with a sort of "What's the point?" feeling.

I can understand the satisfaction of meeting the technical challenge of doing it oneself, …but beyond this, I am puzzled by the appeal vs. effort vs result factors.

More power to those who enjoy this type of photography (I agree that the results can be quite beautiful, taken at face value), but If comments are possible without ruffled feathers, i would appreciate some educating, …as i seem to be missing a gene re something that for many seems to be quite a passion.

Happy to have my vision broadened, and any errors above corrected.  ???

Thanks! 

4
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: March 12, 2014, 01:55:27 AM »
Anyone else sick and tired of seeing threads about 7D MK II ???

Up to 3 pages as I type this.
Some interesting thoughts have been provoked and posted.
Its a "Canon rumor" on a Canon Rumors forum.
Nothing sickening or tiring to this viewer.
Exactly what the forum claims to be about, what I therefore expect, and what I come here for.

For a contrast, see the "bird" posts, which seldom address anything rumor-ish. (As it happens, I enjoy them also, …but they are definitely not what brings me to CR.)

5
  The water line sags pretty bad in the middle.  Is that because of the way the camera pivoted on the tripod?  I was very careful with the placement of the tripod, I'm pretty sure it was level all the way across. .

Let's call what you refer to as the waterline, …"the shoreline".

You can not accurately portray the far shoreline as a straight line, if in fact the shore in the center is closer to you than  at the sides.

A simple compositional correction, to give a more satisfying "balance" to the eye, would be to tilt the image so that the "chord" of the shoreline curve ( a straight line between the ends of what you call the waterline, i.e., the dark streak approximately midway up the image) is "level".

You will lose a bit of the left foreground shore, but the image will, IMO, "Feel" more "right".

HTH.  ;)

6
  I know I want to take photos that are worth a thousand words.

I would like mine to be worth one word, …"Wow!"  :P

7
Video & Movie / Re: Galapagos Underwater - Darwin's Dream - Bronze Award
« on: February 28, 2014, 01:56:50 PM »
Hello Everyone,

I wanted to share my latest underwater film - Darwin's Dream. I was lucky enough to have it awarded the bronze award at the Our World Underwater film competition. Galapagos is an amazing destination both below and above the surface. This was shot in only 5 short days of diving. At the end of the film you will see we had a special visitor. It was very exciting. Let me know what you think.
Please feel free to like, share and comment!

Dustin

Very nice, Dustin, …A pleasure to watch!

Quite a variety of sea life.  :P

I enjoyed the interspersed quotes, especially the last. Great title, too!

Thanks for sharing your work.


8
EOS Bodies / Full Frame vs Crop
« on: February 25, 2014, 11:47:56 AM »
First and foremost should be the subject being interesting... then maybe being enhanced.. but just like boobs... going from an a cup to a c cup is good.... a to a double f... just kinda weird.

We are going to get in trouble wandering around like this. ::)

But if we're going to compare full-frame vs. crop, I've an (subjective, of course) opinion:

There are both esthetic and experiential aspects to boobology. When we consider elements beyond simply shape and appearance, I believe hand-filling and a pleasing "heft" add certain somethings.

D - DD works for me. :P

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor ( somewhat adrift)
« on: February 25, 2014, 10:42:33 AM »

Larry - I need to totally disagree with you. Photography is the skill of producing photographs. There is a big difference between a photograph and digital picture.  "digital art" produces stunning pictures - which more often then not do NOT reflect anything real.

Photography as I understand it - is about recording a real moment or object in the most accurate way.

Yes I understand that some tweaks can be allowed - but these should be minor and unnoticeable. The "photo" should remain something real that the photographer saw. Photography is about VISION - NOT about enhanced photoshop / lightroom skills.

My 2 cents


Hi Koolman,

"totally" disagree?

 You have broadened the subject from the definition of a photographer  to what his subject should be, i.e., what he chooses to present, and how he chooses to present it, to the viewer. Now we are in subjectivity-land.

I'll go back to my carpenter analogy - the carpenter may be a good or poor craftsman. He may choose to make a fine home (by YOUR standards), or some piece of woodworking "art" to take to the Burning Man Festival. Or the very same carpenter may do both on different occasions. What he chooses to "carpent", makes him no less a carpenter. ;-)

In any case, he will likely make use of the best tools available to him to do his type of creating.

I made no mention of "digital art", and my comments about what defines a photographer, I believe, hold while discussing your preferred "realism" style.

I  personally think that your preference that the photograph represent "something that the photographer saw" is reasonable, considering that digital art may readily be created on a computer alone, with no camera involved at all..

I believe that the usual expectation is that a photographer would use a camera. With that understood, I would then expect him to point the lens at something of his choosing, operate the camera as he chooses or as his ability allows, and then, using the image presented to his recording medium by the lens, complete the photograph per his personal "vision", using his "completing" tools, …the same as A. Adams and the host of  acknowledged-to-be-great-photographers have (usually) done. "Usually", because there is always, among any numerous group of creators, some few "purists" who have decided that less is more. These same few might declare that the artistic fine woodworker is not a carpenter, because he decided to add some particular finish or stain, to, in his opinion' "enhance" the piece.

I hardly think this would disqualify him as a carpenter. But the purist might be left wondering what the natural wood would look like, if the so-called carpenter hadn't "messed it up", with his post-processing.

When the definition of photographer is a person who "realistically " presents all his subject material, …if this could be perfectly done, and if numerous persons attained this level of expertise, there would be no such thing as a recognizable "style" by which to differentiate among them.

If we add the requirement that the composition be perfect ( by some arbitrary standard), that the lighting be perfect also, by the same arbitrarily decided standard, then when all was done, there would be ONE style. Any one's work would be perceptually the same as that of any other.

"Vision" would be limited by decree, and any expression of personal style, a digression, …disqualifying the offender, one would expect, as "a photographer".  :-[

If the intent is more than the "accuracy" expected in photographic recording in the fields of science, medicine, archeology, etc., … if the objective is to create something pleasing to look at or display,then some degree of artistic license has to be permitted, if all work is not to be the same in presenting "Just the facts, Ma'am" ;-)

I wonder if you would consider A. A. less than a photographer, because the lighting he presents in a print of "Moonrise" (or some other work of his) wasn't REALLY as dramatic in the flesh? ( For a before-and-after example of Ansel's "post-processing" see this link:

http://whitherthebook.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/ansel-adams-and-photography-before-photoshop/

There is discussion on the above linked-page that will be of great interest, I'm sure, to anyone participating in or enjoying this part of this thread! Accuracy vs. Interpretation(or "Vision")

(Is a bell pepper really seen as in Weston's print without some contrivance as to lighting , and without a few darkroom touches? Set one on your table, and see if it looks the same :

http://www.edward-weston.com

It would cause somewhat of stir to declare either of these two men "not a photographer!".

Do we think they would have used Photoshop?  ;)

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 24, 2014, 04:21:23 PM »
Perhaps you should just focus on perfecting your quoting technique first  ;)

What?

I have an imperfection?

I was afraid it would happen someday!

How can I go on? :-[

( …at least I know how to spell screwball.)

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 24, 2014, 04:08:25 PM »
Quote from: neuroanatomist
[/quote

I am way over my head in this company!

What does one do with the atoms in a neuroan?

 :P

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 24, 2014, 02:25:16 PM »
If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree...

Nope. Don't have to agree.

A photograph is a thing. The person who makes the thing is a photograph-er. The thing is not made until the image captured by the camera is made visible on the paper or other viewing surface. This "making" consists of the entire process from choosing/arranging/lighting the subject, adjusting/aiming/operating the camera and doing what one will to get it onto the paper. Ansel has already been mentioned as an example of a "back in the day" photograph-er who certainly made use of his dark room, his enlarger, and whatever other tools he chose, to create his "art". The photographs thusly made have  been greatly admired by many, and few of the admirers fail to call him a "photographer", rather than an "editor". (Ansel the dodger/burner?)

Adams and the numerous other "photographers" one could mention as widely recognized and acclaimed, used the tools available to them in their time, just as we do today. I don't doubt that they would envy us our new tools.

It hardly seems appropriate to try to differentiate a carpenter from a measurer, a sawer or a hammerer. Perhaps we should further distinguish him as a laser level technician, an adhesives  applier, or a plumb(vs. apple)-bobber.

Are we having fun yet?  :-)
 

13
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 07, 2014, 11:19:45 AM »
Many Canon devotees may also experience sour gripes …

Grapes make wine.

Gripes make whine?  ???

14
Software & Accessories / Re: How long a Monopod should be
« on: February 05, 2014, 12:45:41 PM »

I had tendonitis in my shoulder where the tension attaches to the humorous... and that was some of the worst pain I ever felt.  You hear about tennis elbow and you make fun of it, and I'm a pretty tough guy... and it just knocked me on my ass.

I believe that you had tensionitis, not tendonitis. If the pain had been where the tendon attaches to the serious(humerus), rather than where the tension attaches to the humorous, it might have been tendonitis.  ;)

Never having made a single mistake of any kind during my 73 years, I feel qualified to help you with your spelling. :P

15
The Hummingbirds  are Tiny birds and super fast bird in this world.


Hi Surapon,

Nice shots! ;-)

Here's a link:

http://earthsky.org/earth/fastest-bird

Pages: [1] 2 3 4