MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
not what I could see if I swivelled my eyes around like a loon.
you don't have that choice, your eyes swivel anyway. Try stopping them. I can get to about 10 seconds before my nerve breaks.
Yes but everything is NOT in focus. Only the thing I am [I]focussing[/I] on (in this case a screen).
Even if I do conciously look at various other things in the room then I, in common with I believe most humans except apparently your goodself, only focus on one thing at a time and the rest is blurred.
Graham,
there's no point trying to discuss anything with SFB. His usual tactic is to resort to sophistry when challenged over his tiresome, dogmatic opinions.
Unfortunately, he is drawn to photography threads like a moth to a flame. Shame really, because otherwise interesting, informative threads degenerate into this same fatuous drivel time after time.
I just get bored and go elsewhere.
in common with I believe most humans except apparently your goodself
try holding your hands over your eyes and going "la la I can't read you" 🙂
Yeah can we stop arguing with him and get back to talking about how we use our cameras? That was interesting there.
If you wanted to take close-ups of flowers and crap, would you rather have a 18-180mm lens (36-360) that focused up to 45cm or a fixed 35mm (70mm) that could focus from 14.5cm and could do f3.5?
You'd be better off with a macro lens if you want real close up - otherwise refer to the formula in your other thread 🙂
His usual tactic is to resort to sophistry when challenged over his tiresome, dogmatic opinions.
actually I'm trying to dismantle dogma...
admittedly, the way our eyes work isn't strongly related to photography, which is a very crude approximation
I do object to the "sophistry" as I always tell the truth 🙁
But that zoom would surely produce a bigger image if I stood at 45cm and zoomed in..?
Although I would probably be getting less light if I were up close to something.. hmm.. so the larger aperture would be good.
Fixed 35mm would probably be better if you want the whole flower/crap in the frame, but true macro lenses focus down to a couple of cm and can reproduce an image at 1:1, so something 25mm across would fill a 25mm sensor which when viewed full size = enormous magnification.
but true macro lenses focus down to a couple of cm
Sadly they are way out of my price range for my camera 🙂
Although I would probably be getting less light if I were up close to something
only if you're casting a shadow on it...
I dunno.. you can be obscuring a lot of ambient reflective light.. if you stick your phiz right up to whatever it is 🙂
you can be obscuring a lot of ambient reflective light.. if you stick your phiz right up to whatever it is
AKA "casting a shadow"...
FYI I think the luminosity of an object is invariant with distance, as both its apparent area and the intensity of reflected light obey the same inverse square law 🙂
Barnes ffs.. shadows are only for direct illumination, you can still reduce the amount of light without casting an actual shadow. As evidenced on my other camera - stand too close even outside in completely overcast conditions, light meter readings change.
Don't bother replying since that's all I'm gonna say on the subject - no arguments.
actually I'm trying to dismantle dogma...
No you're not. You're attempting to reject established and soundly thought out principles and practises purely because your ego means you think that you must know better and you believe your superior mind can understand these things with a clarity that those trapped in dogma cannot possibly fathom.
Classic delusional psychosis I'm afraid 😀
you can still reduce the amount of light without casting an actual shadow
OK, a diffuse shadow - but to reduce the light by one stop you'd have to block half of the illuminating field - that's very close!
Sadly they are way out of my price range for my camera
Take a look at close up filters, reversing rings or extension tubes. All offer the same macro capability for your existing lenses with varying price and quality.
purely because your ego means you think that you must know better
I never said I knew any better. I'm interested in the questioning. Did you not watch that Horizon on sensory illusions the other night ? What your brain perceives is only loosely related to what your senses report.
Classic delusional psychosis I'm afraid
yeah, I'll stick that in with the sociopathy and the autism 🙂
The Raynox DCR 250 is an excellent cheap macro solution.
And Barnes, FFS not again - you aren't a lone crusader tirelessly fighting dogma, you are just talking bollox. Again.
you are just talking bollox. Again.
what makes you an authority ? My guesses are just as valid as anyone else's.
I wonder if you're confusing creativity with gimmickism ? Yes you can play about with DOF if you wish (yawn), add streaks or jimmy the exposure, but I prefer to be as true as I can to the original scene/subject(s), not try to add spurious "value"...
It really depends on how important "spurious value" is to you. I believe you take pictures that that either record a place or event in time, or go beyond that and try and be more creative.
The only way to understand how it all works is to go and play with the settings and see what happens. You can make a pigs ear of it and ruin a fantastic shot because you cocked up, but at least you can't blame the camera!
Other peoples guesses are less self-contradictory tho 😉
The only way to understand how it all works is to go and play with the settings and see what happens.
that's not creativity, that's happenstance. Creativity involves forming an idea and finding out how to implement it.
that's not creativity, that's happenstance. Creativity involves forming an idea and finding out how to implement it.
But don't you need to know what's possible so you can develop and form you're ideas? It shouldn't be your only source of inspiration, but to dismiss it...
But don't you need to know what's possible so you can develop and form you're ideas? It shouldn't be your only source of inspiration, but to dismiss it...
I didn't dismiss it, but experimentation isn't creativity, it's part of the development of skill. Once you have the skill, then you can apply it creatively, or for that matter, you can be creative without skill, though the results may then not be very good.
When I was accused of being dogmatic above, I think that was missing the point - I'm not saying abandon conventional wisdom and accept mine instead, I'm saying abandon it and find out for yourself. It goes without saying that following convention is the opposite of creativity. If you stick with the old stuff you'll just be regurgitating, though possibly well executedly.
If you stick with the old stuff you'll just be regurgitating
How do endless similar close-ups of women's bottoms fit into your ceaseless and noble quest for creativity?
Surely it is far better to take the established wisdom and try to build on it, rather than throw it away and then attempt to "find out for yourself" by repeating all the mistakes that have already been made?
How do endless similar close-ups of women's bottoms fit into your ceaseless and noble quest for creativity?
I don't have a single creative spark in me photographically, and never claimed otherwise. I just enjoy taking photos and trying to capture what I see.
Surely it is far better to take the established wisdom and try to build on it, rather than throw it away and then attempt to "find out for yourself"
when half of it is rubbish ?
How do endless similar close-ups of women's bottoms fit into your ceaseless and noble quest for creativity?
😀 by his previous arguments Simon appears to believe that the best way to be creative is to avoid fiddling with any camera controls, leave it all on Auto, hammer away at high-speed burst mode and try to take pictures that exactly match what you see. 🙄
Simon appears to believe that the best way to be creative is to avoid fiddling with any camera controls
ha ha, recording what you see can hardly be described as creative - but when the world and the things in it are so dramatic, fascinating and beautiful creativity isn't necessary 🙂
however I don't pretend that fiddling with the camera is creative.
I don't have a single creative spark in me photographically, and never claimed otherwise.
I am likewise cursed. My engineer's mind understands the technology, the controls and how certain pictures are taken - but I have little artistic vision and my pictures lack creativity.
But I realise that I certainly won't develop any creative spark by sticking the camera on auto and repeatedly taking exactly the same shots.
But I realise that I certainly won't develop any creative spark by sticking the camera on auto and repeatedly taking exactly the same shots.
now you're just being distracted by details. Creativity doesn't depend on implementation. It's about how you look, arrange, interpret, inspire.
when the world and the things in it are so dramatic, fascinating and beautiful creativity isn't necessary
Of course it is. Photos lose a huge dimensions of information: depth, tone, colour, movement, sound, smell, feel... so figuring out how to capture and convey some of that drama, fascination and beauty with the hugely restricted medium you are left with takes great creativity.
however I don't pretend that fiddling with the camera is creative.
And how can you ever hope to be creative if you don't take any control of the process and leave it up to a machine that uses averages of other people's photographs?
y with the hugely restricted medium you are left with takes great creativity.
I disagree, I call the details of how you achieve that craft
And how can you ever hope to be creative if you don't take any control of the process
I don't, but if you replace "you" with "one", I'd say that the details of camera handling are as important to the finished work as say, the brushwork in a painting, necessary but not fundamental or embodying the creative urge of the artist.
Poddy loves it, but tbh I wasn't personally that thrilled about it. You might see it tomorrow and think it's shit.
He's right. I do love it lots. I don't care what anyone else thinks, personally I think it's by far the best cycling pic I've ever seen from ANYONE on STW. It plays with mt brain. I keep wondering why the bike isn't moving, when it looks as though it's not even stopped.
[url= http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1193/5104426390_5ca53f664e_o.pn g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/5104426390/ ]Screen shot 2010-02-18 at 11[1].17.42[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr
And he asked me to put this one up as well, which isn't shoddy either -
[url= http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1057/5104427402_5f52360413_o.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/5104427402/ ]bike[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr
[i]"Shot on fillum, manual focus + exposure, fixed focal length (24mm) lens. No motordrive."[/i]
but true macro lenses focus down to a couple of cmSadly they are way out of my price range for my camera
Molgrips, I like a bit of macro too. My Sigma 17-70 f2.8 will focus right down to having the subject inside the lens hood (It does do macro) I've actually used it to take pictures of bearings so I could enlarge the code numbers on them!
I don't think I've got a macro pic as such online though. I'll have a look....
The Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 is not a true 1-1 macro lens although it will focus fairly close in
For true macro you need something like the Canon Macro 100m f/2.8 USM, had one myself, but didn't use it that often.
Most of the lenses that declare themselves "macro" are not and at best give a 2-1 image
The Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 is not a true 1-1 macro lens although it will focus fairly close in
Oh, I realise that, but it does a pretty darn good job! 🙂
From memory I think grips is using a four/thirds system, not Nikon/Canon.
True, I am, and this is the problem - not a huge choice of cheaper stuff... Although what there is is good.
Why are these things not 'proper' macro? What does that mean, and why's it a problem?
I found this guide quite illuminating: http://bythom.com/qadmacro.htm
(it's a little Nikoncentric but it explains the basics well)
Where is Barnes? I wanted to use them two pics what I done as the basis for a discussion on cam settings/technique....
Where is the bastard? 🙄
I wanted to use them two pics what I done as the basis for a discussion on cam settings/technique....
at least the 2nd one was sharp and in focus, if lacking in colour 🙁
Having said that about lens choice, there are shed loads of old Olympus OM lenses I can use with an adapter but I don't get AF. It might not matter for Macro work tho, but I am worried about being able to MF without a split circle.
Most macro shooters tend to use manual focus anyway, moving the lens backwards and forwards, rathe than adjusting the focus ring.
EDIT; just read your post again - ignore!
Some "macro" shots:
This one is from a compact on "macro" focus setting
[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3216/2522773750_cca0479e60.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/2522773750/ ]Common Dog Violet[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr
Whereas this is from an SLR with a Sigma EX DG f2.8 lens at [i]almost[/i] 1:1. You'll notice 31mm takes up the whole 25mm of the Sony APS-C sensor - view it full size to see just how much magnification you get! The lens will get down to true 1:1 but you need to be careful with lighting so that shadows from the lens body don't impinge. Jesus - I'm such a geek.
[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4379218853_4c80211425.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/4379218853/ ]53/365[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr
Oh - manual focus, small-ish aperture for sufficient DoF and a tripod.
Grips: depends on how good the viewfinder is really. If I take my time I can focus with reasonable accuracy on my D80, despite the 0.94x viewfinder (and poor technique). As I understand it, AF is no use for true macro anyway and the DOF is generally so shallow that pressing the shutter too hard or just breathing will throw off your focus.
but you need to be careful with lighting so that shadows from the lens body don't impinge.
moley doesn't like them being called "shadows" so substitute "proximity vignetting"
at least the 2nd one was sharp and in focus, if lacking in colour
See? What a bastard. You have no soul, Barnes.
The point is, that you don't need fancy auto settings that you seem to rely on, to create decent pics. In the first, I deliberately set a low shutter speed (1/4 sec or so, can't remember) to blur the fast motion, and create a sort of abstract effect. Well, at least Poddy likes it.
In the second, I pre-focussed on a particular point, set me shutter speed fairly high to freeze the action, and pressed the shutter release just a fraction before the rider reached that point. I didn't rely on the motor-drive approach just to get one good pic.
I'm happy with them, anyway. And I think they prove that good technique can negate the need for fancy schmancy kit; many auto settings on cams are to take away the need to actually have half a clue about technique. These still don't compensate for having the ability to take decent pics though. The cam don't take the pics; you do.
That second one was taken using some pretty minimal kit. Nikon FM2, 24mm lens. Spose the light-meter was the only concession to some form of electronic aid.
I find your arguments on threads like this quite amusing. Usually because you're wrong. 😉
Elfred: I'm not sure about the first one to be honest. Not because of the blur itself, that's all good, but because to my perception it looks like the blur is in the wrong direction (a bit in front of the rider and a bit vertical too).
Still way better than my stuff tho 😳
🙁and create a sort of [s]abstract[/s] [b]rubbish [/b]effect
so much effort to so little benefit ...
These still don't compensate for having the ability to take decent pics though
which that isn't!
Usually because you're wrong
If adjusting your camera controls is creative then so is adjusting the contrast on your TV. There's a gulf between skill or craft on one side and creativity on the other. The first time someone thought to pan a camera or use depth of field to draw attention to the subject, that was creative - now it's just established technique.
PS in case anyone had any doubt about the matter Elfin and I are in fact the same person.
Sorry Simon but it is way more interesting than most of the photos I see on your bogtrotters collections, because it actually tries to convey something rather than just being a facsimile of the image.
Sorry Simon but it is way more interesting than most of the photos I see on your bogtrotters collections.
interesting but stupid ?
You can't say it's rubbish if others like it a lot. You can say that it's not working for you... And yes I know that everything's in your opinion, but your tone is really confrontational now when it doens't need to be.
Anyway - looks like the OM mount macro lenses are not particularly cheap, and the adapter is flippin £90..
I agree re moving the camera - on super macro mode on my compact, I used to set the distance and then move the camera to get decent focus on the thing I wanted.
to my perception it looks like the blur is in the wrong direction (a bit in front of the rider and a bit vertical too).
Yes that's a fair comment, and tbh like I said, I'm not all that fussed about it. I was trying something out, and it din't really work for me quite as I'd hoped. I was trying to emulate stuff I've seen before, but discovered it's a pretty tricky technique to master. Involved panning and keeping the cam moving while the shutter was open. Extremely difficult to keep it moving along one horizontal plane, at a completely constant speed, also at the same speed as he rider. But I think the overall effect has been achieved. What I din't want was yet another boring technically perfect cycling pic.
If adjusting your camera controls is creative then so is adjusting the contrast on your TV.
"And this year's prize for worst analogy goes to..."
So your argument is that letting an algorithm in a bit of electronics decide how your picture should look, based on the averages of other people's images is somehow less happenstance and more creative than actively taking control of the image and making decisions about how it should look???
You can't say it's rubbish if others like it a lot.
I think you'll find I can - but you're not obliged to agree. To my mind it's a failed practice shot.
What I din't want was yet another boring technically perfect cycling pic.
in that case it's a huge success 🙂
Barnes is now top on my list of people never to go to an art gallery with. Hell.. I thought I was a Philistine!
So your argument is that letting an algorithm in a bit of electronics decide how your picture should look, based on the averages of other people's images is somehow less happenstance
good argument! However, whatever the camera grabs is just the first stage in the process of trying to render the scene satisfactorily.
"And this year's prize for worst analogy goes to..."
to me it seems exact. Technique is a skill not creativity.
whatever the camera grabs is just the first stage in the process of trying to render the scene satisfactorily.
The first, but also the most important.
The thing is Barnes.. you have to understand that there is a world out there of which you know nothing. It's called art.
You may not be able to understand it (I know I don't) but you have to acknowledge it's there 🙂
The first, but also the most important.
hah, wrong! It's the 2nd and relatively trivial. The most important step takes place in the mind of the snapper 🙂
. It's called art.
both my parents were artists so I have more respect for it than science, which is all I was fit for 🙁
And my repeated claims that technique is not creativity reflect that, and I'm wondering what turning dials and pressing buttons has to do with art and uplifting the soul ?
and create a sort of [s]abstract[/s] [b]rubbish[/b] effect
[img] 
[/img]
You are of course entitled to your opinion, and some of your views are quite interesting. And I agree, just because you have an opinion that differs from a consensus, doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong.
But when it comes to photography, it seems you are bent on bing as deliberately contrary as possible, for reasons which I can't really fathom. Praps you just like being a bastard. 😆
If you are going to rubbish and dismiss alternative techniques to your own, then your opinions will start to look a little worthless, especially if you also lack the technical know-how to do similar, or to be able to produce images which display your own unique view of the world.
You're a competent recorder of visual facts. I've seen one or two 'arty' pics you've done, but tbh, for all your prolific picture taking, you produce little more than visual records, to a reasonable technical standard. Little more. You can of course prove me wrong on this, and I'd love you to, but your arguments against self-expression and individualistic interpretation of a scene are a bit crap really. To each their own, Simon; or would you rather we all followed your rules?
you produce little more than visual records, to a reasonable technical standard.
thanks, that's exactly what I'm intending 🙂 I'm happy to leave art to those capable of it.
but your arguments against self-expression and individualistic interpretation of a scene are a bit crap really
but that's just what I've been arguing [b]for[/b]. Just because I don't think that particular instance works doesn't contradict the idea. [b]But[/b], the mastery of technique does not comprise self expression or individualism, a person could always produce perfectly exposed and lit photos which were entirely without character or interest.
or would you rather we all followed your rules?
I don't have any, and you already knew that 🙂
actually I take that back, I have one rule of thumb:
"the rules are crap and a substitute for thought"
Does anybody remember [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/digital-slr-question#post-1922264 ]this[/url] or [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/digital-slr-question#post-1922281 ]this?[/url]
😆
Barnes, you tell us that your outpourings are simply your opinion.
So why are you trying to convince us that you're right? Just let it go.
It's perfectly possible to take good photos that are just documentary - you don't have to mess about.
HOWEVER we are not wrong for taking krazy picture and liking them. Ok?
I don't have any, and you already knew that
Yes you do; stick the cam on auto, have the motordrive on fast, hold the shutter button down... 😉
I think your comments could be taken more seriously, if you were to display a set of photographs showing your technical ability in all different aspects of photography, and then let others decide on wether or not your opinions are valid.
Instead, you waffle a lot, but don't have owt to prove your point. We don't know if you're actually a technically accomplished photographer, because all we see are photos that are technically ok, that you've taken on auto.
Photos, to be perfectly honest, could be done on a compact, mostly. You owning a D300 is like having a top-end race bike to go down the shops on. Fine, up to you what you spend your money on, but don't think just 'cos you've got a nice cam that it makes you some sort of authority on photography. By your own admission, you're not an artist, yet you see fit to dismiss art.
good argument! However, whatever the camera grabs is just the first stage in the process of trying to render the scene satisfactorily.
Whereas I think that what the camera grabs should be, near as dammit, the finished article, the last stage of the process:
See or think of something to photograph
Decide how best to get the results you want
If you can't get those results, learn or practice until you can
Set up the shot
Set the equipment
Line up the subject (eg wait for rider)
Take the pic
Done. (well maybe a bit of touching up at home)
Yes you do; stick the cam on auto, have the motordrive on fast, hold the shutter button down
I'd characterise that as a habit
HOWEVER we are not wrong for taking krazy picture and liking them. Ok?
I never said you were wrong. I just criticised rudeboy's blurry shot.
We don't know if you're actually a technically accomplished photographer
that's irrelevant. I'm arguing about the nature of creativity, not the mechanisms of exposure. I'm not making any claims for my own abilities.
I think your comments could be taken more seriously, if you were to display a set of photographs showing your technical ability
even wider of the point. One could be unable to hold a camera or blind but still understand the difference between creation and implementation.
you're not an artist, yet you see fit to dismiss art.
exactly 100% wrong. I'm not dismissing [b]art[/b].
that it makes you some sort of authority on photography.
no, I think because I have a brain I can argue my point, but it appears not to be working as people keep attributing me with the opposite of what I say 🙁
Why do you insist that elfin's picture IS rubbish, rather than saying you just don't like it?
I'm gonna start posting some of my really weird shots I reckon.....
Whereas I thing that what the camera grabs should be, near as dammit, the finished article, the last stage of the process
well, you're free to make that choice, but it seems like unnecessarily handicapping yourself! Remember, how you get there is irrelevent to everyone else, who only see or care about the end product.
hat's irrelevant. I'm arguing about the nature of creativity, not the mechanisms of exposure. I'm not making any claims for my own abilities.
Earlier, you dismissed the selective use of Depth of Field. Which is a photographic feature that is manipulated to aid in the creation of an image the photographer wants to produce.
See, if you could prove that you understood the very creative processes which you dismiss so flippantly, then maybe we could take your opinion as that of someone who is skilled in picture taking, rather than just the rantings of some bloke who just uses a fancy cam on auto all the time.
Look, stop being a bastard; give me yer D300B, and get yerself a nice little compact.
hah, wrong! It's the 2nd and relatively trivial. The most important step takes place in the mind of the snapper
🙄
IMO the two are tightly bound together in a dialogue. The "snapper" sees a subject that interests them and then must consider how to capture and convey that interesting aspect within an photograph. That means considering composition, lighting, timing, [u]exposure and camera settings[/u].
Consider these scenario:
"Oh that's a cool tree. It looks kind of old and creepy. I'll take a pic"
1: stick camera in auto. Result: a picture of a tree.
2: stick camera in auto, get low and wide so the tree towers over you. Result: a slightly creepier picture of a tree.
3: get low and wide then stop down the aperture and reduce the exposure to get a darker picture where the detail of the clouds looming over the tree add to the sense of foreboding. Maybe add a fill flash to bring out the texture of the gnarly bark. Result: a picture which captures the creepy feeling you were interested in.
By considering all the options 3 is more successful and creative than 1 or 2.
well, you're free to make that choice, but it seems like unnecessarily handicapping yourself! Remember, how you get there is irrelevent to everyone else, who only see or care about the end product.
Which is why, young Jedi, you fail. 😉
I used to operate like you: photograph EVERYTHING several times in the hope of getting a shot, then go home and delete 400 out of 450 shots taken.
As I've learned what I like to shoot and the results I'm after, and how to achieve it, I've found I take less and less shots. Recently I've been asked to cover 3 events, purely because the organisers liked my stuff. Now THAT makes you think about your technique and every other aspect of what you've been asked to do in some great depth. Since then my hit rate has been something like 400 good shots out of 450, a complete reversal. And I've managed to make some money out of it too, which is nice. 🙂