October 21, 2014, 10:25:17 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 - distant.star

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 102
721
Landscape / Re: How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?
« on: March 09, 2013, 09:28:55 AM »
a couple more for fun  ;)

I like the B & W. It has a lot of power to bring out the starkness. And I especially like the bluish cast over it. That's something I would have done had I thought of it. Should be simple in SilverEfex Pro.

722
Landscape / Re: How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?
« on: March 08, 2013, 09:11:55 PM »
.
You make a good case, Attila. This whole thread seems an exercise in creativity, and it's been perhaps the most entertaining thread I've seen here in a long, long time. Too bad it's been squeezed into one person's perception of what is right.

Personally, I've always subscribed to the Gary Winogrand, "I photograph to see what the world looks like in photographs" philosophy. I've never taken a picture that looked like what I saw, for a hundred reasons. Like Winogrand, the thrill for me is to see what the camera has seen -- and to wonder why it's different from what I saw and/or remembered and/or thought I saw.

Our attempts at manipulation of a scene may be to bring it in line with what we saw. Just as valid is to alter it to make it the way we wanted to see it.

We're talking about pictures here -- pictures, not reality.

No accounting for taste, as they say. I'm sure there are people who don't see a faint smile on "Mona Lisa," but rather a faint scowl.

As for all the renditions of the image in this thread I am surprised no one really broke out of the conventional (except for ducks and bathing beauties that we now know are not allowed). I mean really squirrel it up in some abstract way. If I had the process skills I would have done that as I see a beach and waves up front and a larger sea looming in the background.

No matter, it's all fun.

723
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: March 08, 2013, 03:09:40 PM »
.
I don't think Rockwell gets so much hate as he does envy. Lots of folks here know more than he does, yet he's making a good living spouting off and pretending to be an "expert."

For me, I feel sorry for him. I can't imagine choosing such an undignified way to make a living (one level below "professional wrestling," I guess). And I won't get into pimping his family. Makes me shake my head and feel sad.

I also think he does a disservice to many people who don't know much about photography.


WOW! ... 22 pages of posts for a camera whose specs are not even out ... is that indication of the popularity of 7D? ... there has not been this much speculation for the replacement of D7000 (i.e. D7100) coz according to Ken Rockwell "D7000 is the best APS-C DSLR ever" (I know the name Ken Rockwell invites lots of hate around here. Anyway, the number of posts here on 7D replacement, for me, is an indication of how popular it really is.

Rockwell invites hate because he is a douche (you ever seen him in a video?), and because he calls just about every newest camera on the market the "Best whatever EVER!". I mean, how can you trust a guy who can't be truly objective, and just gravitates towards the newest thing and drools all over it whenever the newest thing hits the street?  :P (And that is nothing to say of the frequent rogue inaccuracies and blatant misrepresentations and incorrect statements he regularly makes, about ANY and ALL brands of camera.)

724
Landscape / Re: How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?
« on: March 08, 2013, 01:40:21 PM »
.
Thanks, K. I saw the duck tucked away in one image. Missed the bikini mirage.

This whole thread seems to annoy some crabby old folks. Hard to understand -- I think this is great, and I'm thoroughly enjoying seeing how people approach this.

I was surprised at two things when I first saw the original file. First, it's so totally neutral. Second, when you look, there is amazing detail throughout. It really speaks well for the power of the 17-40 as a landscape lens. That's what motivated me to even try. There's lots of room for a wide range of interpretation.

For me, I always think there's room for a little humor. Sadly, not everyone agrees.



Thought it was funny but I see now that a girl in a bikini is just too "offensive" for "some" on CR..   ::)

Have I missed something?

Yes you have.... the rubber Duckie came later.... first there was a Girl in Bikini rendition that was quite inspired... unfortunately someone probably complained to the mods... and it was taken down like megaupload.com during the SOPA/PIPA days...

725
Landscape / Re: How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?
« on: March 07, 2013, 09:54:43 PM »
.
I wasn't going to, but it kept calling -- so I did a purely interpretive rendition.


726
Landscape / Re: How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?
« on: March 07, 2013, 03:01:18 PM »
.
Very nice.

Looking forward to other interpretations!

Thanks.

727
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR1]
« on: March 07, 2013, 11:35:06 AM »
.
This is in line with what I wrote here on a sunny Sunday last June:

Predictions based on generalized long-term knowledge of the history of technology with neither scientific basis nor specific speculation. Intended only to provoke thought and discussion. If you're response is that I'm an idiot, fine, I'll say that right up front and save you the trouble. So...

1. The Canon EOS 1DX (if it ever becomes reality) is the last 1-Series flagship DSLR Canon will ever make. Like the EOS 1V was/is the last 35mm film SLR from Canon, the 1DS will be the last DSLR. Like the 1V it will be around a long time. Its "obsolesence buffer" will be plenty of room for "upgrading" through software application.

2. A new "flagship" version of the APS-C line will be introduced (e.g. a 7D2), and like the 1DX it will be the final flagship of the APS-C line. It also will be around a long time and see upgrades through software. Given Canon's predilection for super pricing I predict it will be over $2500 U.S. And most people who have a 7D today will buy one! It will seem spectacular.

Meanwhile, Canon will lead a transition to new formats that require far less mechanical apparatus than the traditional SLR. I'll leave speculation about exactly what that may be to others.

That's what I said, and I'm sticking with it. The only adjustment I may make is to shift the initial price upward, probably over $3K, hard as that is to imagine.

728
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Art Tool or Art Object?
« on: March 06, 2013, 10:44:07 PM »
.
Thanks, agierke.

I appreciate your taking the time to write a thoughtful and interesting response.

Your "how difficult has it become to document the true state of human nature as compared to the times of say Dorthea Lange, Cartier-Bresson, or Alfred Stieglitz?" is something I think/wonder a lot about. Could people really have been that much different? I saw a picture yesterday of an Atlantic City beach scene in 1912. A photographer (big glass plate thing on a tripod with hood, etc.) taking portraits of people sitting on a donkey. There must be 100 people all looking at the photographer at work -- and yet not a single one looking at the photographer taking the picture I was looking at. That suggests something very different, even mystifying to me. But then I also wonder about the whole progression of "street photography." The old rules of only black & white, only candids, only in public, "decisive moment," etc. seem to be changing as color takes over more and more. And more fascinating to me is the posing and interaction, even storytelling that is accompanying a more emotional street photography today. That sure goes to your question about documenting the true state of human nature.

Thanks again. I really appreciate it.

729
Lenses / Re: Advice on a telephoto lens for street photography
« on: March 06, 2013, 04:09:22 PM »
Anything over 50mm is not street photography, it is voyeurism ;)

The longer I do street photography, the less dogma I have or accept, but this is one I subscribe to. Real street photography is in close.

To the OP question:

I wouldn't use any of the lenses you mention for anything I'd consider "street photography." I have used the 135mm for candid portraits on the street sometime, but I use it mostly at night on the street.

Best, I believe, is anything 35mm to 50mm -- the 40mm "pancake" is great. Some of the best stuff can be done with UWA because it makes you get in close and still retains context. I do like the 24-105 suggestion -- it can make life on the street a lot easier. (The older you get, the more you look for easy!)

Oh, and while we're on the subject, if you don't know this site, you should look at it:

http://www.humansofnewyork.com/

It's not classic street photography, but it's a great and very entertaining variation with great street photography attitude. His story of raising $100K to send kids to summer camp is a great outcome of someone inappropriately using his images.

Sorry, don't mean to hijack the thread, but this is worth a look -- especially for anyone interested in street photography and copyright issues.

730
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is this true
« on: March 06, 2013, 01:35:19 PM »
.
I don't trust anyone who doesn't know how to say "ISO."

Beyond that, this is just a lot of picking flypoop out of pepper for me.

731
I was bored so had play. Just took out the power lines and pole, trimmed the trees to get a better look at the second window etc. Just for fun, hope nobody minds..........

Thanks!! That made me feel a lot better.

732
Portrait / Re: First paid photo shoot - DATE: 23 March 2013
« on: March 06, 2013, 11:59:57 AM »
.
Since you're obviously committed to this, only a couple of things come to mind for your situation. Go into it with a joyous and enthusiastic attitude and have fun while doing the best you can. Beyond that, think about this:

1. As others have said, get a 50mm f/1.8 II. I know you said you can't buy anything, but these lenses are everywhere. Someone there has one and will lend it to you or rent it to you for $20 or so. Get one, and play with it in advance. Other than that you have equipment capable of producing fine results. Don't get down by elitists who tell you good work can't be produced without $10,000 worth of equipment.

2. Don't do anything you haven't tried (hopefully perfected) first. That silhouette shot looks great, but creating it may not be as easy as you think.

3. Shoot RAW. That will give you greater latitude for error.

4. Finally, don't do business with friends. Beyond expenses, don't accept money for this job if these people are really friends. So, you should first decide if they are really friends or your first customers/clients.

Just some thoughts, for what they're worth. I promise I won't send an invoice! Have a great time -- no better feeling than seeing a bride tear up at pictures you've taken of her wedding!!!

733
I'm not shooting mine, it's sitting right next to the last Twinkie.

The Twinks are coming back. Kodachrome isn't!

734
Lenses / Re: 35mm lenses and people shots
« on: March 03, 2013, 06:34:19 PM »
.
Wow. Lot of years since I was on a commercial aircraft. Lots of memories -- mostly awful. Had to travel so much for "business" and hated it.

Should have told me you were coming to Philadelphia! The flower show is currently going on (all this week), and it's perhaps the best in the world. A little too pricey for me at $30. though.

I agree about the 35mm. Back in the early days of SLR, that was considered the "normal" lens. It's on all my rangefinders.

735
.
Thanks. That's a lot of great info. While I shot a lot of Kodachrome, I never knew the basis for it. I did experience what you suggest of Kodachrome vs Ektachrome. When I started scanning old slides a few years ago, the Kodachrome, even 20 or 30 years old, was perfect. The Ektachrome was faded, greenish/bluish/pinkish and had to be worked in post to get even close to correct colors.




Young forum members may not realize why Kodachrome is different than other color films.  It is actually a black and white film with no color dies built in - the color is added during the processing stage.  That is also why it is more stable than all the earlier generation color film.  I work at a pro lab and we often scan people's old slides - the kodachromes look great while the ektachromes are all red (or some other color).  BTW the newer films no longer have this problem - especially Fujichrome slide film.

That is also why no one with remaining Kodachrome will ever be able to process it.  The machinery is huge, you need a certified chemist on site, and the chemicals are so toxic they are illegal in many areas.  My lab had to ship ours out to Los Angeles because it was illegal in our county in southern Arizona.  After they stopped doing it and Dwayne's in Kansas was the last place, we just gave people Dwayne's contact info.  Now they are done too.

Back to the original topic, I would shoot one shot at each of America's 36 top national parks.  A shot of the Grand Canyon, as shot of Yosemite Valley, a shot of a redwood at Sequoia, etc.

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 102