April 25, 2014, 12:06:32 AM

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 - Krob78

Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 84
646
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: May 09, 2013, 05:13:52 PM »


Red-Winged Blackbird, taken with my 7d/600mm f6.3 - 1/800 iso 160

I didn't crop the image at all just re-sized.
Nice image Magical, good exposure and nice and sharp!

647
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: May 09, 2013, 05:12:56 PM »


I believe these are Golden-Eyes, but unsure. Used my wife's shoulder as my monopod. Taken with 5d2 w/600mm.


Yes, female Common Goldeneye. Nice little brood she's got there...six strong?
Actually, she may be considered a Bi-pod, no?  Seems to work pretty well for you!  Nice image!

648
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: May 09, 2013, 05:11:46 PM »
Willets, Western variety, at Cherry Creek State Park:






(See more full size images at my site)
I see your still having issues getting nice images with that 7D Jon!   ;)  Seriously, very nice!  Thanks for posting!

649
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: May 09, 2013, 05:07:04 PM »
possible, but you can make/develope  two copies from the same raw file/exposure , one after highlights and one after the shadows and blend them, handhold and no worry about the subject moving or not.
Have to be a blistering fast shutter speed, I believe I've seen it done but the tripod is most certainly the option to go with!

650
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 05:04:43 PM »
"I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!"

That's the whole point right there but gear makes the job more convenient.  ;D


No, that's not the point. It was never anyone's point. Its been YOUR point, but you've been ignoring everyone elses' point.

I'll try one last time. Lets see whether you succeed or fail at this test.

You see a Western Grebe off the sandy shore you are standing on. You are standing right at the waters edge. The Grebe some 65 feet off shore. The water out there is 10 feet deep. You have at your disposal a supercheap $109 Canon PowerShot A1400, and a 5D III with a 600mm f/4 L lens. Which camera will take the better photo?

And I don't mean something that is more convenient. I mean, BETTER PHOTO. Sharper detail. Less noise. Thinner DOF. Brighter exposure. No blur from camera shake. BETTER FRIKKIN PHOTO!! Which camera?


Let's do one better, I'll get a better shot from the A1400 wading water getting the shot closer than you will with that 600L you have.
Wading up close to a Western Grebe??  Ya, that's not going to happen... no matter how inconvenient... ::)


LOL...I got a chuckle out of that one for sure. :D

Just to prove I'm not spouting smoke and mirrors out of my rear end, as I photograph birds almost every day. Here is a "Western Grebe with a Fish" shot...at least 60+ feet off shore (maybe this one was about 90-100 feet, actually), taken with a 400mm lens and the 7D:



If I had a 5D III, 600mm lens (and probably a 2x TC, given how far off shore this grebe was)...I could have gotten a FAR better shot...from the exact same spot on shore. No question in my mind that I could have gotten a better perspective, sharper detail, and better exposure (and thus lower ISO, less noise) than would ever be possible with the 7D and 100-400mm lens. I can't wait to get better photographic tools in my hands...I'm a fairly skilled photographer, but there is no alternative to having the best money can buy in combination with that skill.
I thought you'd like that Jon!  So now let's see the one taken with a Canon PowerShot A1400 at 90'-100'!  Nice image!  ;D

651
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 09, 2013, 05:02:07 PM »
This is the "I remember when......., things were so much better back in the day" argument. We are in today not in the past and today provides the tools to do all sorts of magical things. It amazes me how we torture innovators to desperately cling to the past. Turner, one of the worlds great painters was roundly abused in his day for his vision which was only reality as he saw it, now of course we recognize his genius. Surely photography is art, not just a representation or photocopy of the world around us. Manipulate your photo's however you wish and I for one will judge them purely based upon my own taste and not on others rules of right or wrong.   
Perfect!  Nuff said!  ;)

652
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 09, 2013, 05:01:36 PM »
As long as the photographer is not entering a competition and not breaking its rules, to me it doesn't matter what the photographer does with the image, it is his image, his vision  ...as far as I'm concerned he can remove/add whatever he wants. Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.
Yes and my quick little global adjustments didn't mean that I didn't like the OP's edit.  Just throwing it up for comparison.  Personally, I think the clouds added a nice touch...  Conversely, I see you don't have to do that if you choose not too, there are other options, ie: global edits...

653
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 04:57:31 PM »
Arguments don't matter, they're only an inconvenience.  ::)
+1 Ha!  Good one!

654
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 04:55:42 PM »
"I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!"

That's the whole point right there but gear makes the job more convenient.  ;D

No, that's not the point. It was never anyone's point. Its been YOUR point, but you've been ignoring everyone elses' point.

I'll try one last time. Lets see whether you succeed or fail at this test.

You see a Western Grebe off the sandy shore you are standing on. You are standing right at the waters edge. The Grebe some 65 feet off shore. The water out there is 10 feet deep. You have at your disposal a supercheap $109 Canon PowerShot A1400, and a 5D III with a 600mm f/4 L lens. Which camera will take the better photo?

And I don't mean something that is more convenient. I mean, BETTER PHOTO. Sharper detail. Less noise. Thinner DOF. Brighter exposure. No blur from camera shake. BETTER FRIKKIN PHOTO!! Which camera?

Let's do one better, I'll get a better shot from the A1400 wading water getting the shot closer than you will with that 600L you have.
Wading up close to a Western Grebe??  Ya, that's not going to happen... no matter how inconvenient... ::)

655
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 03:25:42 PM »
The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.

Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.
What about an insinuation that drools with repetition?  Does it perhaps make a cogent argument more cogent?

Touché.

Let me put it like this - RLPhoto has been clamoring up, down, and sideways for an EF 135mm f/1.8L IS for months (his recent poll, and IIRC, he even photoshopped a mockup of one).  Why not just use a 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus or even an old manual focus FD 135mm f/3.5?  Because...gear matters.

It would be more convenient to use slower shutter speeds at times but hey, I'm getting it done with my 135L. If I only had a FD 135mm F/3.5 I would use it and get results but hey, F/2 would be more convenient.

Give me a camera, and I'll get something out of it. It may not be as convenient but I will get my photo, It'd just  be more In-convenient to do so.

Lol, I never photo-shopped that 135L F/1.8 IS USM but thanks for the compliment anyway.
Agreed, it is a matter of convenience and we can all say, "give me a camera and I'll get something out of it".  The difference is that getting something out of it and getting something great out of it may be two different things, no?  So I agree that gear is a matter of convenience, yet I also would be inclined to say "gear matters" for a myriad of other reasons as well, such as quality of your images, which isn't so much of a convenience as it is a benefit... 

So for me, "gear matters" and it is a "matter" of convenience as well...   :o  You are both correct!

Ah ha! Let's say we have a brownie box cam, virtually no controls, with enough fore-thought could you take the presidential portrait with it? I would bet yes, and would wager that it would even be pretty cool.

I started with pretty lousy equipment but when I look back, Some of my favorite shots are with that lousy equipment.
Indeed, yet it doesn't negate the fact that gear matters... Cave drawings are quite artistic as well, yet the same drawing may look better when rendered with colored pencil than chisels... Although it certainly wouldn't survive the ages! 

656
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 09, 2013, 03:22:54 PM »
All that is done before the shutter is closed, thus is taken as photography.

So it's okay to change the background before the shutter is pressed ("Please step over hear for a better background to this shot") but not after?  What is so magic about closing the shutter?

Don't get me wrong or take me as too antagonistic--I get what you're saying, I'm just challenging the idea that there is something magical about pushing the button to capture an image.  If you're shooting a portrait in front of the Eiffel tower, you can buy plane tickets and fly over there and do it "for real" or use an Eiffel tower backdrop or green screen and composite it.  The only difference in the net result (if well done) is the cost of flying to Paris.  It's hard to get past the emotional push of the "true" or "pure" photograph, but again, if there is no discernible difference in the resulting photo, what is the justification for the hassle and expense?

The camera captured the image as it was through the lens, That is Photography. Editing and tweaking is allowed, but adding element that were not there invalidates that.

Compositing Images into a new image is Digital Art. It just as valid and can be more awe-inspiring but it's not photography.

IE: This image is Digital art, Not Photography.
I'll buy that, so it combines both genres, is it Artography?  :)

657
Black & White / Re: Black & White
« on: May 09, 2013, 03:21:01 PM »
American as Coca Cola~

658
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 03:16:35 PM »
The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.

Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.
What about an insinuation that drools with repetition?  Does it perhaps make a cogent argument more cogent?

Touché.

Let me put it like this - RLPhoto has been clamoring up, down, and sideways for an EF 135mm f/1.8L IS for months (his recent poll, and IIRC, he even photoshopped a mockup of one).  Why not just use a 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus or even an old manual focus FD 135mm f/3.5?  Because...gear matters.

It would be more convenient to use slower shutter speeds at times but hey, I'm getting it done with my 135L. If I only had a FD 135mm F/3.5 I would use it and get results but hey, F/2 would be more convenient.

Give me a camera, and I'll get something out of it. It may not be as convenient but I will get my photo, It'd just  be more In-convenient to do so.

Lol, I never photo-shopped that 135L F/1.8 IS USM but thanks for the compliment anyway.
Agreed, it is a matter of convenience and we can all say, "give me a camera and I'll get something out of it".  The difference is that getting something out of it and getting something great out of it may be two different things, no?  So I agree that gear is a matter of convenience, yet I also would be inclined to say "gear matters" for a myriad of other reasons as well, such as quality of your images, which isn't so much of a convenience as it is a benefit... 

So for me, "gear matters" and it is a "matter" of convenience as well...   :o  You are both correct!

659
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 03:10:08 PM »
That being said, I think gear matters.  If not, I'd be shooting with my Xsi or my 7D as much as ever.  The fact is however I don't, the XSi is long sold and my 7D sits in solitude not seeing much action these days as the acquisition of my 5D Mk III has moved into a place of more relevance, not as a matter of convenience, as a matter of the gear made a notable difference, hence, the gear matters.  In my instance anyway!  ;)

And to try to get back on subject, I shoot with a 60D. I am thinking VERY hard about upgrading to a 7D2 when it comes out. The 7D is better, but not enough so as to tempt me to buy one. For me, the two big things that would (hopefully) help me are better AF system and higher burst rate, but there are a lot of little things I would not turn my nose up at. I'd like to have it NOW!!!!, but that's just not going to happen. Realistically, I had expected to see it in stores by Christmas.... so a few month's more won't hurt. After all, if you are into wildlife photography, patience may well be the most important skill of all.

I think the 7D2 will certainly have an upgraded AF system, which will be great!  Burst rate on the 7D is great but I'm with you, if it was a bit more that would be great, if not, I'm okay with 8fps.  I like so many others would love to see a dramatic difference in the high ISO area though...  :)

660
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 09, 2013, 02:57:53 PM »
Well said and agreed.  It would be like saying that if in someone else's opinion you take it too far, then perhaps we should ban digital photography all together and simply shoot film.  Although as you aptly put, those of us that worked with film, pushed the processing in film as well...

Is there a line which creates a dichotomy between photographer and artist?  Perhaps some are "Artographers".  If so, perhaps it is all subject to the Artographer's vision?

I'm not offended or dismayed by anyone's vision of what they did with their photos.  It's "theirs" not mine, whether I like it or not...  ::)

In my humble opinion (which is often wrong - not the humble part), unless you are taking photos to go into a newspaper or photos that are intended to prove a point (i.e. polar bears swimming and drowning in iceless water etc. - no need to debate the example I chose) there is no such thing as ethics.

Any line that anyone choses to stand on is simply aesthetics and preference.  There is no absolute.  Photography and art are supposed to be interpretations of reality.  Now, if you tell me your photo is pure reality and it isn’t that’d be cheating.  If you just ask me if I like it, the fact that it is a composite is not relevant.

The idea that great photos are created in the camera is a myth.  True, some great photos are created in the camera alone.  I won’t argue that.  However, Adams was notorious for spending hours in the darkroom in order to push his negatives and prints to replicate what he saw, his interpretation of reality.  Take a look at how dark half-dome is in some of his most well-known photos.  Take a look at the cemetery stones glowing in moon rise.  Then watch a few documentaries or read a few books about him (not by him) and see what people say about the time he spent in the darkroom on those photos alone.  The idea that beauty is created when the shutter is pressed isn’t fair, nor is it reality. 

Reflecting reality the way you see it is just that, reflecting reality.  It isn’t reality in and of itself.  We don’t have to get into a philosophical debate and start citing Kant.  But art is, I assume, wildly recognized as reflecting.  You can choose to reflect it anyway you want.  Some may think that it is bad art, but it is still art.

I’m often reminded of one of my favorite long-running best-friend adversarial relationships.  Wordsworth and Coleridge.  Wordsworth represented that his poetry was written on the fly, that something struck him and this beautiful complicated language rolled out of his head and on to his page.  He even started to name poems in a way to imply this “Lines composed a few miles above Tinturn Abbey”.  Excuse my butchering of his title.  Coleridge, suffering from addiction and a raft of other social problems tried so hard to replicate Wordsworth’s easy-going technique.  He suffered so much trying to let the words just flow.  Instead he suffered, he wrote for hours on end, locked himself away for months to get the right rhyme or pattern.  He did write some of the best Romantic poetry ever written – Ancient Mariner, Kubla Kahn.  But he suffered.  Funny thing is Wordsworth was having him on.  He worked just as hard.  The poetry didn’t spill out of him, he agonized over it, just like Coleridge.  Difference is he never let on. 

Long way to say, I think that this type of mentality, that beauty just spills out, particularly when there are dozens of tools in photography, and there always has been, to manipulate the raw negative, is way-of-base.
If Adams, Man Ray and their buddies can manipulate an image to reflect the reality they wanted, then so be it.  It’s their art.  It’s still a photo.

I do think that photos will suffer when pushed to far.  I do like your image, but if you look at the fur, it just doesn’t look at good in the manipulated version.  It suffers from the electronic manipulation.  Noise, degradation.  That doesn’t mean that it can’t be art though.

Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 84