Forum menu
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. 🙂
Yeah wot Graham said about creepy trees. That's it!
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.
this is a particular coincidence where an artifact of optics simulates visual attention, but it's such old hat that it would be shocking to try to pass it off as creativity when it conforms so solidly to convention. Yes, it's an available tool, nothing more, and risks crowbarring the viewer's attention.
how are your photoshop skills progressing SB?
Yes, it's an available tool, nothing more, and risks crowbarring the viewer's attention.
But that's the whole point, not a risk!
If you are merely trying to make a record of what you see to look at later then your point stands.
If you are trying to go beyond that into the realms of art or creativity in any way, then it doesn't.
how are your photoshop skills progressing SB?
mixed review. I've got used to the tedious multiple confirmations and I love the spot heal tool for removing blemishes, but for instance, going back to Paintshop Pro it's such a relief to be able to right click to select the source for the clone tool instead of having to locate the ALT key. Photoshop insists on using far more RAM that the limit I've set it, even when there are no files loaded (like 3.5GB!) and every now and then it just stops working with the cursor stuck on some tool or other but not doing anything useful, or it'll complain about being about to overwrite a file that does not exist, and if it loses mouse focus, the first time you click back onto it, nothing happens, it just selects the window, and you have to click again to do whatever it was you wanted. A great program limited by a crappy interface and careless implementation.
But that's the whole point, not a risk!
what I mean is, if the subject is sufficiently compelling people won't look at the background anyway, and forcing it out of focus is a photographic conceit. It was creative 150 years ago, now it's just same old same old.
Also consider these two images by a [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/profile/simonfbarnes ]well-known amateur photographer[/url] that depict the same composition with two different exposure settings:
[url= http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2010/2oct/thumb/DSC_0889.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2010/2oct/thumb/DSC_0889.jp g"/> [/img]
1/200s, f/7.1, ISO400[/url]
[url= http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2010/2oct/thumb/DSC_0886.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2010/2oct/thumb/DSC_0886.jp g"/> [/img]
1/6s, f/20, ISO100[/url]
In the first he has frozen the action to capture the detail of the individual water droplets, whereas in the second he allows the water to blur to convey the continuous motion of the rapids.
So the two images manage to convey different things, neither simply reflects what the scene actually looked like, and the difference is purely down to altering the camera controls 😀
maybe complain to adobe they do listen to customers.
it's such a relief to be able to right click to select the source for the clone tool instead of having to locate the ALT key.
you can assign any key to a shortcut/modifier key, i set up my wacom pen so add point/delete point are on the rocker switch. no need to touch alt/ctrl.
photoshop will use all available ram because it's faster than a scratch disk.
try turning openGL off, reducing the history states and cache this will help speed things up (i'm on mac dunno if this is the same for pc)
but it's such old hat that it would be shocking to try to pass it off as creativity when it conforms so solidly to convention
You might as well say 'paint is just a convention' when talking about art. Yes, it's traditional, but it's what you DO with it that counts.
Likewise DOF and all the other effects you can deploy. It's not the effect itself that you're presenting to the viewer - it's your USE of that effect to convey a thought.
You are showing that you REALLY don't understand the concept of art. I don't either, but at least I know that and try to learn 🙂
this is a particular coincidence where an artifact of optics simulates visual attention, but it's such old hat that it would be shocking to try to pass it off as creativity when it conforms so solidly to convention. Yes, it's an available tool, nothing more, and risks crowbarring the viewer's attention.
As I said before when you create a photograph you throw away huge dimensions of information, including depth.
You rob your viewer of the ability to refocus on different parts of the image and the ability to judge depth by binocular vision.
Therefore it is your responsibility to select a suitable focus for them and ensure that you provide other depth cues if you require them for your composition.
Alternatively.... get yourself the [url= http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/23/adobe-shows-off-plenoptic-lenses-that-let-you-refocus-an-image-a/ ]new Adobe Plenoptic Lens that lets you select focus after you take the picture[/url], then rig up a video display which tracks your eye movements and automatically re-focuses the image on the bit you are looking at. Might cost a bit though 😀
You are showing that you REALLY don't understand the concept of art.
you are showing you have no idea what I think is all 🙂 This is normal.
you can assign any key to a shortcut/modifier key, i set up my wacom pen so add point/delete point are on the rocker switch. no need to touch alt/ctrl.
ooh, thanks, I'll try that!
photoshop will use all available ram because it's faster than a scratch disk.
except it has a setting to tell it the maximum amount of RAM to use, which it ignores, and 3.5GB to hold zero files is excessive, particularly when I spend less than 1% of my postprocessing time loading images and I'd like that RAM for other stuff I'm doing 🙁
Molgrips, yep, agreed.
You rob your viewer of the ability to refocus on different parts of the image and the ability to judge depth by binocular vision.
good point! I'd been thinking about that but forgotten 🙂
Personally I only use manual because I can decide on the image I want to take and take it, and secondly once I decide on a particular setting, usually sutter speed, I then only have to worry about one control, making life a lot easier. I don't think there is anything wrong with using fully auto as a viewer of the photo I niether know or want to know how it was taken, as a photographer I am often interested though.
I don't particularly like photos that have had too much PS editing and make them look unrealistic, creativity from the camera is another thing.
From the two pictures from Elfin, the TT picture has too much movement for my tastes, I'd like to see at least a small area being clearly defined, the eyes or face for example.
The track photo is quite beautiful, not just as an image, but also it is a quite difficult image to take from a technical point of view. How many pictures were rejected from that shoot????
My two-penneth.
you are showing you have no idea what I think is all This is normal.
I'm really trying hard to figure it out mate. You are doing a terrible job getting your point across, since none of seem to be able to work it out.
and secondly once I decide on a particular setting, usually sutter speed, I then only have to worry about one control
Is that not priority mode?
In the first he has frozen the action to capture the detail of the individual water droplets, whereas in the second he allows the water to blur to convey the continuous motion of the rapids.
but the eye can do either too - you can choose to track the water movement and see the droplets or widen your attention to see the bulk flow 🙂
And I didn't mean that settings were irrelevant, only that they don't need to be elevated to some hallowed, faux creative status
You are doing a terrible job getting your point across, since none of seem to be able to work it out.
my working hypothesis is that they're speed reading or fondling themselves...
my working hypothesis is that they're speed reading or fondling themselves...
Mine is that you can't communicate and are unable to read our reactions and react appropriately!
Is that not priority mode?
I assume the "M" signifies manual, I might be wrong though, but when I take a series of photos I don't want to be pi55ing around with two buttons for every shot. Slow shutter speed, lots of blur and the apeture I want, then the sun disappears behind a cloud, what do I do? Change everything or just one setting?