Gone Swimming

dmp · #1 (**permalink**) 07-23-2006, 10:53 PM

I was at a pool-party for a niece on Saturday and captured a few images I thought were 'kinda neat'

Twas HOT (in the parking lot of the condos we were visiting)

I'm unable to decide which of these I like best. Prolly the 2nd, as the first, her face is a bit out of focus:

her face is 'soft' here - musta focused on her hands, as they seem clear.

Testing the Waters...

"Okay Darin...156 photos is ENOUGH for one afternoon..."

sitarro · #2 (**permalink**) 07-24-2006, 02:53 PM

auto focus is for pussies.:teeth: :teeth: :teeth:

misterblu · #3 (**permalink**) 07-24-2006, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sitarro

auto focus is for pussies.:teeth: :teeth: :teeth:

Manual focus is for old farts ... :bye1: ...and still subjects.

dmp · #4 (**permalink**) 07-24-2006, 07:36 PM

Autofocus is for people who want 'The' Picture

sitarro · #5 (**permalink**) 07-25-2006, 01:19 AM

Auto everything, next it will compose it for you. The problem with all of these no think cameras is it opens up photography to everyone that can afford to get a expensive do everything camera and lenses that will get the photo for you. Oh sure you'll say, that isn't all there is to photography. Sorry, when you decide you want to try and do photography for your vocation you are in for a rude awakening. Now, you are competing with every clown that shoots a snapshot and because he did it with a camera that does everything to make it look good, thinks he too is a photographer. It doesn't matter that the composition sucks or that there isn't anything remotely interesting about it. . . .even though it was nothing but a snapshot before, now it really looks good. The color is perfect, the focus is crisp and the exposure is just what they remember..... they are now a photographer as far as they're concerned, one more customer not needing your services. Not possible ? Think again, go ask a typesetter.

misterblu · #6 (**permalink**) 07-25-2006, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sitarro

Auto everything, next it will compose it for you. The problem with all of these no think cameras is it opens up photography to everyone that can afford to get a expensive do everything camera and lenses that will get the photo for you. Oh sure you'll say, that isn't all there is to photography. Sorry, when you decide you want to try and do photography for your vocation you are in for a rude awakening. Now, you are competing with every clown that shoots a snapshot and because he did it with a camera that does everything to make it look good, thinks he too is a photographer. It doesn't matter that the composition sucks or that there isn't anything remotely interesting about it. . . .even though it was nothing but a snapshot before, now it really looks good. The color is perfect, the focus is crisp and the exposure is just what they remember..... they are now a photographer as far as they're concerned, one more customer not needing your services. Not possible ? Think again, go ask a typesetter.

OK Mr. Grumpy Pants. Who peed in your cornflakes?

First, the Auto White Balance on most of these cameras is barely passable and at times, horrible. Setting up a custom white balance, either before the shot or after in the RAW conversion stage, is almost a necessity. I can't speak for D, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't part of his standard workflow.

Second, most of these 'pro-sumer' DSLRs are designed to use short back focus lenses. As such, the mirror and pentaprism are smaller and the viewfinder is correspondingly smaller and darker. On top of that, the focus screen doesn't have any manual focus aids. Well, they do have a matte screen, but it's nearly unusable. In short, it's very difficult to manually focus these DSLRs even after you replace the focus screen with a split-prism aftermarket unit. If it were worth the trouble, I'd do it. As it is, in situations where I have to manual focus, I just eyeball it the best I can. Thankfully that isn't often.

Third, Auto Exposure is for the birds. You still have to either bracket, or view the histogram on each image to see if you've under/overexposed, override the auto exposure, and shoot again. You can get an 'acceptable' image in auto, but not optimum.

I know that D doesn't just run around and use his 'do everything' camera in Auto mode. He isn't using it as a point and shoot. I'm sure he's using either full manual, shutter priority, or aperture priority, depending on the situation. I know I do.

As to the rest of your rant? Oh well. That's progress for you. One could easily say that if you are using commercially produced film, lenses, camera bodies, etc. then you aren't a 'real' photographer. I suppose you shoot on homemade film, on emulsions you created yourself, using equipment you built and designed yourself? No? Didn't think so. :poke:

Either way, I don't see anyone here claiming that they're a professional photographer. At most, we're just practicing photography. Funny that. A person who practices photography is... wait for it... a photographer.

Thankfully you don't have to be a professional to be a photographer.

Oh, and to clarify, are you suggesting that D and I are 'clowns' that just buy expensive equipment and have no real talent? Just one of us? Or was that more of a general, old fart, rant? I'd just like to know if I should be offended.

sitarro · #7 (**permalink**) 07-25-2006, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by misterblu

OK Mr. Grumpy Pants. Who peed in your cornflakes?

First, the Auto White Balance on most of these cameras is barely passable and at times, horrible. Setting up a custom white balance, either before the shot or after in the RAW conversion stage, is almost a necessity. I can't speak for D, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't part of his standard workflow.

Second, most of these 'pro-sumer' DSLRs are designed to use short back focus lenses. As such, the mirror and pentaprism are smaller and the viewfinder is correspondingly smaller and darker. On top of that, the focus screen doesn't have any manual focus aids. Well, they do have a matte screen, but it's nearly unusable. In short, it's very difficult to manually focus these DSLRs even after you replace the focus screen with a split-prism aftermarket unit. If it were worth the trouble, I'd do it. As it is, in situations where I have to manual focus, I just eyeball it the best I can. Thankfully that isn't often.

Third, Auto Exposure is for the birds. You still have to either bracket, or view the histogram on each image to see if you've under/overexposed, override the auto exposure, and shoot again. You can get an 'acceptable' image in auto, but not optimum.

I know that D doesn't just run around and use his 'do everything' camera in Auto mode. He isn't using it as a point and shoot. I'm sure he's using either full manual, shutter priority, or aperture priority, depending on the situation. I know I do.

As to the rest of your rant? Oh well. That's progress for you. One could easily say that if you are using commercially produced film, lenses, camera bodies, etc. then you aren't a 'real' photographer. I suppose you shoot on homemade film, on emulsions you created yourself, using equipment you built and designed yourself? No? Didn't think so. :poke:

Either way, I don't see anyone here claiming that they're a professional photographer. At most, we're just practicing photography. Funny that. A person who practices photography is... wait for it... a photographer.

Thankfully you don't have to be a professional to be a photographer.

Oh, and to clarify, are you suggesting that D and I are 'clowns' that just buy expensive equipment and have no real talent? Just one of us? Or was that more of a general, old fart, rant? I'd just like to know if I should be offended.

Just a wee bit defensive aren't we..... I have found that typical of Canon users. I don't know why, it is obvious you take photography very seriously just from looking at the bills you have proudly displayed(typically amateurs don't want to budget 3-5 grand on a hobby). I have enjoyed your photos quite a bit and believe I have sent you numerous compliments just as with D. I am merely passing on some of my experience with the public, I have only been shooting photographs for 35 years, what would I know.... right?

As for the auto focus comment, it was a joke..... I could have sworn that :teeth: indicated that. It really isn't important what car you drive or what brand of camera you use, that is your burden to deal with not mine but now that I know how microthin your skin is I will keep the "Canons are for fags" comments to a minimum.

misterblu · #8 (**permalink**) 07-25-2006, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sitarro

Just a wee bit defensive aren't we..... I have found that typical of Canon users. I don't know why, it is obvious you take photography very seriously just from looking at the bills you have proudly displayed(typically amateurs don't want to budget 3-5 grand on a hobby). I have enjoyed your photos quite a bit and believe I have sent you numerous compliments just as with D. I am merely passing on some of my experience with the public, I have only been shooting photographs for 35 years, what would I know.... right?

As for the auto focus comment, it was a joke..... I could have sworn that :teeth: indicated that. It really isn't important what car you drive or what brand of camera you use, that is your burden to deal with not mine but now that I know how microthin your skin is I will keep the "Canons are for fags" comments to a minimum.

Not really defensive over your first comment. I knew it was a :poke: and returned the same, hence my smiley.

As to your 'rant'? I really wasn't sure what to think. You used the words "you" and "you're", etc. I think I responded fairly. I even used smileys as appropriate to let you know I wasn't angry or being 'thin skinned'. I certainly didn't assume that you were referring to D or myself. That's why I asked.

Sometimes it's hard to grasp tone from the written word.

BTW, why bring up the brand of equipment not once, but twice? I suppose that's typical of your average Mac and Nikon user. Elitist much? :p:

With 35 years of experience, I'd certainly love to see more serious critique and advice coming from you. I mean that.

:bye1:

The ClayTaurus · #9 (**permalink**) 07-25-2006, 08:32 AM

For all the shit he talks, there sure is a glaring lack of his own work available for the rest of us newbs to bask in gloriously. I think I saw a low-res owl on a golf course once.

Come on Sitarro, show us how it's done old man. 35 years you outta have some pretty tits pictures.

JOKER96BRAVO · #10 (**permalink**) 07-25-2006, 08:36 AM

Uhh...
I'm here for the gangbang!
Shit, wrong room.

The ClayTaurus · #11 (**permalink**) 07-25-2006, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sitarro

Think again, go ask a typesetter.

Ask them what? Why they didn't pick a new career? Why they didn't evolve to match the marketplace? Why they didn't learn how to use a computer? Why some would think you can just have a job skill and then never have to adapt no matter how out of date the technology surrounding your skill or the skill itself is?

What should I ask the poor, poor typesetter?

The ClayTaurus · #12 (**permalink**) 07-25-2006, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOKER96BRAVO

Uhh...
I'm here for the gangbang!
Shit, wrong room.

Damnit that's my fault. I said tits. Sorry. Gang Bang's two doors down on your left.

JOKER96BRAVO · #13 (**permalink**) 07-25-2006, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ClayTaurus

Damnit that's my fault. I said tits. Sorry. Gang Bang's two doors down on your left.

Thanks dude, but I found it.
I followed the midgets.

dmp · #14 (**permalink**) 07-25-2006, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sitarro

Auto everything, next it will compose it for you. The problem with all of these no think cameras is it opens up photography to everyone that can afford to get a expensive do everything camera and lenses that will get the photo for you. Oh sure you'll say, that isn't all there is to photography. Sorry, when you decide you want to try and do photography for your vocation you are in for a rude awakening. Now, you are competing with every clown that shoots a snapshot and because he did it with a camera that does everything to make it look good, thinks he too is a photographer. It doesn't matter that the composition sucks or that there isn't anything remotely interesting about it. . . .even though it was nothing but a snapshot before, now it really looks good. The color is perfect, the focus is crisp and the exposure is just what they remember..... they are now a photographer as far as they're concerned, one more customer not needing your services. Not possible ? Think again, go ask a typesetter.

So do you like the pics or not?

Here's something for you. See, the thing is, whether it's point-and-shoot, or a pin-hole camera I'll produce good results because I kick ass. I don't take pictures - I am a photographer. My shots are generally composed well, well-lit, and interesting to a degree no less frequent than most. I have plenty of natural ability - an 'eye' for photography - which covers my ass regardless of what equipment I am using.

35MM point and shoot? Been there. 35MM SLR manual focus? I done already been up in there. 35MM Auto Focus? I got that covered like a jimmy-hat. What's missing in your triade are good, honest critiques of my work. What is NOT Missing is you bitching about technology at the expense of my thread.

Gratuitous Ray Allen-Beating-Memphis-with-a-last-second-jumper-collage from Google:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sitarro

Just a wee bit defensive aren't we..... I have found that typical of Canon users. I don't know why, it is obvious you take photography very seriously just from looking at the bills you have proudly displayed(typically amateurs don't want to budget 3-5 grand on a hobby). I have enjoyed your photos quite a bit and believe I have sent you numerous compliments just as with D. I am merely passing on some of my experience with the public, I have only been shooting photographs for 35 years, what would I know.... right?

As for the auto focus comment, it was a joke..... I could have sworn that :teeth: indicated that. It really isn't important what car you drive or what brand of camera you use, that is your burden to deal with not mine but now that I know how microthin your skin is I will keep the "Canons are for fags" comments to a minimum.

Defensive? Maybe Jon and I aren't defensive - maybe you're just 'offensive'. Perhaps your tone was carried wrong - but you can see it was carried about the same way by more than one person. What experience are you passing? I was fine with your autofocus comment - but the rant which follows (and I quoted) bothers me because of your aire of superiority based on your equipment of choice. Of course, since we're stereotyping, that Arrogance permiates Other-than-Canon users. I've met probably 10 Nikon users, for example. 8 of them had their noses so far in the air they'd drown if it rained.

One D1 user: "Oh...that is ONLY 8.2 Megapixels??? MINE is TEN!"

What a crock of horseshit. Knowing you are into photography, I expected your replies to MEAN something - for them to be value-adders to this thread. Instead you've used this thread as a means to soapbox about technology.

GotZoom · #15 (**permalink**) 07-25-2006, 09:34 AM

I remember someone at that game...screaming loudly over and over before the ball was even inbounded, "DON'T LET ALLEN SHOOT!!!....DON'T LET ALLEN SHOOT!!!"

Oh....that someone was ME.

ARGGGGG!!!!