Official Photography Thread

[Tim]

I have no idea whether a comparison of me with "MikeWaters" is good or bad... but I'll assume it's bad.

Was this photo of a soldier posted on a thread about "photography" or was it posted on a thread about, I don't know, some military event. If it was posted to a thread about "photography" then I would find little fault that Mr. Waters pointed out an obvious flaw in the photo.

I posted a simple mathematical tip about selecting the right shutter speed based on the focal length of the lens being used, taking into account the crop factor of the sensor if the camera body is not full frame. That isn't rocket science... and it certainly isn't, as Tim implied, being "too focused on the technical side of getting the picture to be 'perfect'". Tim was being absurd IMHO, and I responded in kind.

If I had a son out surfing and I had the technical know how to figure out that I could get a nice clean image of him catching the big wave... and I could do so by simply computing in my head that I could go no slower than 1/480 for my 300mm lens... then I would (as soon as I arrived at the location) dial the camera to shutter priority, set my shutter speed to 1/480 (or faster), and a low ISO and then see if my camera can get a decent exposure (given the lighting) to capture the moment. If the camera couldn't then I'd incrementally dial up the ISO setting until it could capture the moment and then I'd be all ready. In about 1 minute, using a small measure of technical knowledge, I could correctly set up my camera for the photo shoot of my son surfing.

Now, given the alternatives... would you rather have a sharp picture of your son riding across a big wave, or a blurry one? If you can't see the obvious benefit of possessing a wee bit of technical knowledge and applying it for the sake of "enjoying the moment", then we can agree to disagree or whatever. You'll be left with your blurry image and the memories. I'll have the same memories, but a kick-ass set of photos to go along with it.

cheers.

SG, I'm not offended by your responses to me. I would just suggest that perhaps it's time to go to bed and give my comment a re-read tomorrow. Tonight you appear to be a bit on the edge to the point that you're reading the worst into everything. Seriously, it's cool, I don't want to argue or make it personal. You gave a photography tip, I gave a design minimalism tip, it's all good. Let's talk about photography and design some other time when you're less irritable.

[Tim]

This exchange reminds me of the photo you got of the soldier and how all MikeWaters could see was that it was out of focus.

I remember that, and I thought of the same thing after I responded to SG earlier. It was a photo my buddy in Iraq (a combat photographer) took from a moving Humvee of some Iraqi police standing in front a sign-covered concrete wall. It was a good photo that captured a moment and an emotion. Then MikeWaters crapped all over it by suggesting that some technical element wasn't absolutely perfect in the photo. He couldn't even see what the photo was of because all he kept focusing on was that the photo was imperfect.

[Babs]

I have no idea whether a comparison of me with "MikeWaters" is good or bad... but I'll assume it's bad.

Was this photo of a soldier posted on a thread about "photography" or was it posted on a thread about, I don't know, some military event. If it was posted to a thread about "photography" then I would find little fault that Mr. Waters pointed out an obvious flaw in the photo.

I posted a simple mathematical tip about selecting the right shutter speed based on the focal length of the lens being used, taking into account the crop factor of the sensor if the camera body is not full frame. That isn't rocket science... and it certainly isn't, as Tim implied, being "too focused on the technical side of getting the picture to be 'perfect'". Tim was being absurd IMHO, and I responded in kind.

If I had a son out surfing and I had the technical know how to figure out that I could get a nice clean image of him catching the big wave... and I could do so by simply computing in my head that I could go no slower than 1/480 for my 300mm lens... then I would (as soon as I arrived at the location) dial the camera to shutter priority, set my shutter speed to 1/480 (or faster), and a low ISO and then see if my camera can get a decent exposure (given the lighting) to capture the moment. If the camera couldn't then I'd incrementally dial up the ISO setting until it could capture the moment and then I'd be all ready. In about 1 minute, using a small measure of technical knowledge, I could correctly set up my camera for the photo shoot of my son surfing.

Now, given the alternatives... would you rather have a sharp picture of your son riding across a big wave, or a blurry one? If you can't see the obvious benefit of possessing a wee bit of technical knowledge and applying it for the sake of "enjoying the moment", then we can agree to disagree or whatever. You'll be left with your blurry image and the memories. I'll have the same memories, but a kick-ass set of photos to go along with it.

cheers.

Nobody's undermining the value of technical proficiency, but it's only one aspect of what makes a great photo. It's easy for beginning photographers to get so lost in the specs or staging that they miss the genuine smile or a spontaneous moment, etc. I think that's all that Tim's trying to say, and honestly it's pretty hard to argue with that.

[Tim]

Oh brother. Follow the thread Babs FFS.

1. Nelson posts a picture of surfers... obviously out of focus, taken with a 300mm lens.
2. I point out some technical problems with the picture including the lack of sharpness.
3. Nelson responds that he didn't have a tripod, he was holding the 300mm lens in his hand.
4. I respond with a simple math formula to compute the slowest shutter speed for handheld shots given the focal length of the lens.
5. On the very next post, Tim wonders if "maybe [I'm] missing the whole thing" and the "actual beauty" of the photograph for giving such a simple suggestion to improve the technical aspect of the photo?!

Um, yeah.

Maybe Art's wife was right. *sigh*

cheers.

SG: You're painting it like I was somehow aiming to insulting you. The fact that I made my comment after your response to Scott Nelson wasn't even really aimed at you in specific. I was just re-posting a thought I've shared a number of times on multiple boards over the years. It's a general philosophy about simplicity and minimalism that has little to do with your comments to Scott. I apologize if my comments offended you -- no offense was intended. My thought process was more like this: "Hmm, SG is a master of photo settings and editing. I've noticed that he's posted a lot in the photo thread and that he's highly-technical in pretty much all of his photo-related posts since he joined CUF. I think it's time for to make my periodic post about design minimalism and the experiential value of documentary-style photography rather than highly-technical/manipulated photography." It wasn't intended to be a knock on you -- hopefully you'll accept my apology.

[Babs]

Oh brother. Follow the thread Babs FFS.

you, sir, are not a very nice person.

You can have your thread. I won't bother you again. There's never been much worth seeing in here, anyhow.

[Scott R Nelson]

I love this photo. It must be the subject. I'm pretty sure that I had my Canon S5-IS set on AUTO for this one, not worrying in the slightest about F-stop or shutter speed.

It's too bad that planes like this rarely leave their hangars except for airshows. This was at the Livermore airport on Memorial Day. The photo looks better in a larger size, but I'm stuck with a maximum of 800 x 600 on my free PhotoBucket account.

____________________
Scott R. Nelson, Pleasanton, CA

[Surfah]

A grocer's apostrophe on top of an improper plural! Awesome.

Sweet, eh?

Lenses. Lenses. Lenses. The Humanities Department just called and they're going to cut a corner off my degree.

[Katy Lied]

I have a mature Southern yard (.52 acres). We have over 500 azaleas, 4 camellias, a red-tip hedge, a sego palm, a Japanese magnolia, a gigantic tea olive, a rose bush, 6 hydrangeas, 2 dogwoods, about 1,000 stalks of bamboo, oaks, ferns, blueberries, pines, sweet gums, 8 magnolias (including an 80+-year-old one), 10 mature holly bushes, and a 15 foot holly tree. The photo was taken in our backyard and shows only the smallest section of our awesome azaleas (all-told we have fuschias, reds, whites, pinks, and a couple of pink-to-reds). The horrific winter we had killed my satsuma tree .

You've been sitting on a gardening goldmine, and nary a word to the rest of CUF? You sir, need to go take a bunch of breathtaking photos of your yard in all its spring glory and post them. Go on, make us jealous.

Are you the gardener, or does someone else do it?

If you have IS or VR on your lens, then divide focal length by 4 before taking the reciprocal.

And if you are using a tripod, at times I will turn the VR off, because even though it works wonders for steadying the image sans tripod, with a tripod it introduces the teensiest bit of camera shake.

[wuapinmon]

Oh brother. Follow the thread Babs FFS.


Maybe Art's wife was right. *sigh*

cheers.

No one gives a flying <redacted> how good your photos are if you're going to be a dick about stuff when people ask you an honest question about the image vs the experience, FFS.

Oh, and you would be wise not to anger Babs. That's not a person you want gunning for you.

[wuapinmon]

You've been sitting on a gardening goldmine, and nary a word to the rest of CUF? You sir, need to go take a bunch of breathtaking photos of your yard in all its spring glory and post them. Go on, make us jealous.

Are you the gardener, or does someone else do it?

I'm the gardener. Have you not seen this thread? http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showth...hlight=azaleas

I didn't post them in here because I wasn't concerned about the technical side of the photos, but about the joy of seeing my memories preserved and being able to share a glimpse of them with the CUF community.

[Surfah]

This exchange has been pretty funny to watch from someone who has no photography skills and only owns a little Sony point and shoot. You guys are all touchy. This is the Official Photography Thread. I'd think that advice on becoming a better photographer would be welcome. There is a random picture thread you know for those not wanting to be critiqued.

Anyhow, carry on.

*Bro. Nelson, was your son-in-law surfing that wave? Because I read your post that you went with him to watch the competition. If he was in it, mad props. You SIL has giant stones. RIP Mark Foo.

[Tim]

This exchange has been pretty funny to watch from someone who has no photography skills and only owns a little Sony point and shoot. You guys are all touchy. This is the Official Photography Thread. I'd think that advice on becoming a better photographer would be welcome. There is a random picture thread you know for those not wanting to be critiqued.

Anyhow, carry on.

*Bro. Nelson, was your son-in-law surfing that wave? Because I read your post that you went with him to watch the competition. If he was in it, mad props. You SIL has giant stones. RIP Mark Foo.

There's room in the world of photography for people who don't want to be uber-technical. Look, for example, at practically every major award-winning journalistic photo from the last century. They capture moments and they're usually not the most technical photos. I think a highly-technical posed photo is great for some contexts, but it seems like there are other elements of photography, and they're just as important. If this is now going to be changed to the "Official uber-technical photography thread," I guess that's fine, and we can then start another thread for the people who want to talk about documentary photography or other just-as-important (if not MORE important, in my view) aspects of photography. If a post about the appreciation of minimalism and simplicity in photography is not right for this thread, let's start a new thread and rename this one to be about technical photography only.

"But you need to burn that reflected sunlight out of the wave (or get a polarizer). I'd try and saturate the water color a bit more too and, well, the lack of sharpness is a problem. Also, a tighter crop (without the wave runner) would be better..." vs. "holy crap, look at Lee Harvey Oswald's face as he gets shot." Aren't both welcome in a thread about photography? Does the latter (the art side of photography, not the technical side) really belong in a "Random photos" thread?

[Scott R Nelson]

Maybe I missed something in this thread, but the very first post that started this whole thing said:

I'm hoping this thread can be a place we can submit photos regardless of our talent, or in my case lack thereof, we have personally taken. I would appreciate any constructive (hopefully not too brutal) feedback.

To me that implies that there should be a separate thread dealing with the technical aspects of photography, and leave this one alone for people like Art and me who want to show a few of our photos that we happen to like, and maybe receive a few suggestions on what we might do better next time.

Am I out of line with this reasoning, being a CUF newbie and all?
____________________
Scott R. Nelson, Pleasanton, CA
[/QUOTE]

[Tim]

Maybe I missed something in this thread, but the very first post that started this whole thing said:

To me that implies that there should be a separate thread dealing with the technical aspects of photography, and leave this one alone for people like Art and me who want to show a few of our photos that we happen to like, and maybe receive a few suggestions on what we might do better next time.

Am I out of line with this reasoning, being a CUF newbie and all?

No, you're right in line with the expectation. The thread used to be a place for us to show cool pictures that we take.

[Surfah]

There's room in the world of photography for people who don't want to be uber-technical. Look, for example, at practically every major award-winning journalistic photo from the last century. They capture moments and they're usually not the most technical photos. I think a highly-technical posed photo is great for some contexts, but it seems like there are other elements of photography, and they're just as important. If this is now going to be changed to the "Official uber-technical photography thread," I guess that's fine, and we can then start another thread for the people who want to talk about documentary photography or other just-as-important (if not MORE important, in my view) aspects of photography. If a post about the appreciation of minimalism and simplicity in photography is not right for this thread, let's start a new thread and rename this one to be about technical photography only.

"But you need to burn that reflected sunlight out of the wave (or get a polarizer). I'd try and saturate the water color a bit more too and, well, the lack of sharpness is a problem. Also, a tighter crop (without the wave runner) would be better..." vs. "holy crap, look at Lee Harvey Oswald's face as he gets shot." Aren't both welcome in a thread about photography? Does the latter (the art side of photography, not the technical side) really belong in a "Random photos" thread?

I get that. And that's what I was trying to say. I wasn't implying that Space Ghost was right or that you were right. Aren't you guys arguing different sides of the same coin? Why does one have to trump the other? Space Ghost offered advice on how the photo could be better technically. You argued that the minimalist approach captured the essence of the moment better. So what? Why is everyone getting their panties in a twist over this?