September 01, 2014, 03:54:26 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 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 86
676
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 05:23:39 PM »
Quote
...from the exact same spot on shore. No question in my mind that I could have gotten a better perspective

Well if it had been from the exact same spot, it would have had the exact same perspective!  :)


Quote
So now let's see the one taken with a Canon PowerShot A1400 at 90'-100'!  Nice image!

Just to throw a spanner in the works, there has been a rather well mannered thread about this kind of thing http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12154.0

I can see both sides of this argument, only a fool couldn't, or an argumentative troll who wouldn't. Some photographers can achieve amazing results with comparatively modest equipment, eg, most of these images were shot with a 5D MkII and a 50mm f1.8 http://tamarlevine.com/. On the flip side some photographers wiill always find images they can't shoot due to equipment limitations even when they are using the best currently available, eg, http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?pageno=6&link=blog&category=7 now those images, however skilled you are, could never ever be shot with a point and shoot, an SX50, or a 4x5 field camera.
I like your spanner!  And I agree!  As I mentioned earlier, both sides win!  It is more convenient and gear matters!  Good for us!

677
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 09, 2013, 05:20:35 PM »
This is a pretty stupid topic. It's all opinions vs opinions. It's never going to go anywhere. To the OP I like your photo either way, heck put the trees back and add a thunderstorm enter it into a contest and win. Heck if the contest doesn't state you can't edit photos then go for it! Everyone else has access to the same tools as you do. People can take photos of cheetahs if they want to. What's the big deal? No one wants a boring photo, if that's what the OP saw but nature changed before he could get the photo then recreate to how it was in the minds eye. If I bought that PHOTO from the OP I wouldn't care about the edit because looking at it everyday would better my mood. Is the film negative the photo and everything after is a print or copy of the photo? This debate will be even worse 100 years from now, when photography will probably have evolved yet again. How about Instagram are those photos or digital art? Just enjoy life and take photos or whatever you want to call them! Print them share them sell them. Enjoy what you and others create and stop wasting time criticizing!
Quote
This is a pretty stupid topic.
Quote
Enjoy what you and others create and stop wasting time criticizing!
That was a bit critical, no?  :)  Seems like, "I like his image" would have been more apropos!

678
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!

679
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!

680
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!

681
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!

682
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

683
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!  ;)

684
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...

685
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!

686
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... ::)

687
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! 

688
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?  :)

689
Black & White / Re: Black & White
« on: May 09, 2013, 03:21:01 PM »
American as Coca Cola~

690
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!

Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 86