didereaux

March 24, 2017

270A0401.jpg.1d5d6b41eeb28298b3cef39f3466b7ca.jpg

March 24, 2017

IMG_0510print11x17web.jpg.9a4ea40eff480900866150f9e355fd22.jpg

March 24, 2017

March 24, 2017

March 23, 2017

Lots of missing info....too much in fact fro anyone to give you an answer. First thing up though is you have to remember where that noise is generated. It is in the camera, more specifically the sensor. The sensor is an electronic device and so has energy applied at all times. this creates a certain level of heat which in turn causes spurious bursts of energy. It is latent, always there at a very low level. So when you have lots of light striking the sensor then the noise is drowned out since it resides only in the dark regions. Different sensors have differing sensitivities to light. the more sensitive they are the less noise appears because the sensor is grabbing that incoming light energy and over-riding the background levels....you pay more....much more the more sensitive your sensor is. So the sensor sets the inherent noise levels and sensitivity, noise is in the dark regions of the picture. too drop the noise in the picture you must increase the total amount of light absorbed. This means longer shutter times, wider apertures. Which in turn gives you less and less leeway against motion blur and ever decreasing DoF.s. That is a very mumbled explanation and if someone wants to jusmp in and correct or clarify please do so!

October 26, 2014

I suspect what you are seeing is the TTL exposure flash (the first one). Set your flash to manual mode. Also double check that you actually have set your 2d curtain flash on the camera (not part of your problem, just a reminder to double check everything).

September 21, 2014

The closest thing to a universal lens for portrait/group shooting is the 24-105mm lens. More successful pros use that lens than any other. read their interviews, blogs, books whatever...that is THE mandatory lens. All others can be added later.

September 16, 2014

I may be all wrong, but I wondered the same thing. Eventually I found the 'submit for rating' selection with the 'submit for critique' one. Apparently if you submit for critique the rating is not activated, but if you submit for rating the critique is active. As I said I may be all wet on this, but no matter what it is a ridiculously convoluted way of doing things, and I think totally unnecessarally complicated.

September 8, 2014

Okay I will avoid the screaming to be said, 'Doesn't anyone RTFM anymore', and instead ask if anyone actually looks at their menus on these cameras/

Like any Custom Function, you can always return the camera back to factory-default operation by returning that Custom Function to option “zero”, or returning the Custom Controls C.Fn for the shutter button, AF-ON, and/or AEL button to the first of each button's available options.

September 3, 2014

Golf? Proper lens? I'd use a Lyman 6x12 on a .270 Winchester. Some might go lighter. ;)

September 3, 2014

I agree with Michael, but as some of the responses show clearly there are those that are unwilling to change anything. This is what happens when a thing stagnates, or maybe it is what causes the stagnation.

One mentioning the 'Philosophy' thread as having many thoughtful responses, I would suggest that all those comments are made by a very tiny number of the same people. I have witnessed how newcomers, not knowing the 'traditions' get squeezed out very quickly. This is the case in a couple of other long running sections as well.

Some judicious experimentation is what keeps something like a forum or blog interesting, when forgotten so is the forum.

September 1, 2014

Steve Gubin wrote, "

Very often – too often, I fear – I look at another photographer's work and allow the feeling it gives me to guide me in my appreciation of it. I am capable of discerning certain basic technical elements (composition, color, tonality, etc.) but I am often at a loss to “see” what critics praise so highly in certain images.

For me, this applies especially to some contemporary work, and to many abstract works from the past. (A few brief examples and not limited to these – Minor White, Man Ray, or some of the selections made for the annual photography show in Paris.)

My impression of much of certain contemporary work which seems highly regarded is that it seems to be possessed of either an extreme post-postmodern ironic banality, or it is a highly produced, fantastical neo-pictorialist construct. I am not railing, as some are fond of, against the so-called “Art World”. I am seeking greater understanding."

Your view is entirely valid. What is said in reviews and professional critiques is heavily biased by the fact that almost all of the contributors have a vested interest. Their livelihood depends upon their acceptance within a very closed group (both numerically, and psychological). They must adopt the current jargon, and respond in the current fashion when considering 'Art' in any form. this in turn is aped by the ignorant, and smelly masses.

At the more mundane level of say Wedding photography we are being inundated by over-exposures. While other photography is being viewed as good only if over processed to the point of being fit for only fantasy comic books. Any critic who points out that such things are not artistic will be shunned and have no say, or place (paying) in which to say it. Ten years from now those so-called techniques will be as pooh-poohed as pink glossy lipstick and plastic hair of the 60's.

August 19, 2014

"

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2290293">Jamie Robertson</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 19, 2014; 12:27 p.m.

I think we're all wasting our time. The OP hasn't been back with a response or even left a comment to say thanks."

But there is a good chance that someone else needing some advice might actually read this thread before asking. hmmmm, then again probably not. ;)

August 8, 2014

robert R asked, "What are your opinions on this body and lens combonation ?"

That is an impossible question to answer because you failed to say what purpose you had in mind for it.

...But I second Robin Smiths' observation!

August 2, 2014

That's just a good example of very bad photography. In reference to the OP link.

July 30, 2014

Move along, nothing to see here. Just another fool with more money than sense.

July 28, 2014

"

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=8261737">Ashley Dickerson</a> , Jul 06, 2014; 10:44 p.m.

I started shooting raw a few months ago, that's helped a ton. Good to know about how high I should go.

<a name="00cgpW"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=8261737">Ashley Dickerson</a> , Jul 06, 2014; 11:37 p.m.

If I have a dog in a stay, lock that focus on it's face, and then have it jump over a bar..do I need to keep that back button held or do I let go while I press the shutter?"

-----------------------------

I think those two posts highlight the problem. If after several months of shooting you did not have the curiosity to at least do a little experimenting (after reading the manual several times. and researching the subject.). You then conclude after all that to find people to do your work for you...in photography that simply does not work out well. Experienced people cannot give you concrete answers to overly generalized questions from people with no fundamental knowledge base. Sorry if that seems harsh, but it is true.

July 19, 2014

"What is the greatest need of a young photographer who is just starting out?"

Experience! And the common-sense to wait while they are getting it.

July 18, 2014

"<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 13, 2014; 05:31 p.m.

Here's a way to think about this. Using what I suspect is a similar criterion for the list, the most socially influential musicians are Justin Bieber, Lady GaGa, Katy Perry, Rihanna, Taylor Swift and Britney Spears."

That sums it up PERFECTLY! Well stated.

July 8, 2014

Shun said "It is not my primary interest to debate the definition for nature photography and engage in some philosophical argument. ..."

Two things: One It was YOU, and Laura who brought this discussion to the fore. Second, if you have no intentions of discussing the guidelines, philosophically or otherwise then close the thread, do what you feel you must do, and let the forum live or die on the merits of those decisions.

Personally I find your statement to fall along the lines of the old saw, "I'm here from the government, and I am going to help you. "

July 7, 2014

Where do you think Snow Geese feed on their migration? I'll tell you in GRAIN fields ( and by the way EVERY National Wildlife refuge is contract farmed to a certain percentage, in order to provide food for migrating birds)...which are often alongside roads etc. In my opinion your 'guidelines' are not only restrictive, but unusable as a basis for nature photography. Why not just restrict it to designated national wilderness areas and avoid the hassles?

Suggestion? Get rid of the formal guidelines and go back to the way you have operated the past few years...as some much wiser people have noted "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

July 7, 2014

Laura wrote:"Kudzu was introduced to parts of southeastern United States to help control soil erosion."

The Brahma was introduced to the same area for two reasons. First its thick hide which resists stinging and biting insects, and secondly because the Brahma's rumen is smaller and thus produces less heat making the animal more comfortable in higher heat. That last is why you see Brahma cattle eating at all times when the European is lying in the shade.

A Brahma cow in her natur(e)al setting? ;)

July 4, 2014

"

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5581841">Clive Murray-White</a> , Jul 03, 2014; 10:50 p.m.

Jake - I'd say your that your personal definition of creativity is far too narrow, you may enjoy reading:<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity</a>

Creativity is doing something you have not seen done before, or in a manner you have not seen before - so the more ignorant you are about what other people have done the greater the chance you have of being creative - I think not. "

I believe it is you who are restricting the definition. As you correctly noted I said "Creativity is doing something you have not seen done before, or in a manner you have not seen before". But your "so the more ignorant you are about what other people have done the greater the chance you have of being creative - I think not""Is extremely narrow, implying that only the knowledgeable can be creative. I thought the discussion was about creativity as a whole, and not just about creativity of select individuals.

I stand by my definition as being far more definitive of creativity as a whole than yours which applies to a select sub-group.

July 3, 2014

"

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=172915">Lex Jenkins</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 03, 2014; 06:19 p.m.

"Focus, girl, focus!"

</blockquote>

Unless you're using diminutives in real life with close friends and family who are receptive to casual and familiar terms of endearment, it's generally impolite to refer to a woman as a "girl" or resort to any other diminishing, demeaning or marginalizing characterization or epithet."

------------

Apparently there are several in here not willing to address my original statement about what creativity is. Whether from lack of understanding, or oversight I cannot tell...though the former tends to hold the higher ground in my opinion.

It is a common tactic for those who disagree with something, or don't understand it and want to hide the fact, by tossing red herrings about in such profusion that the conversation becomes one about the stench of dead fish and never returns to the initial statement. So be it.

If someone cares to scroll back to my original statement and comment on it directly then I will gladly reply. Until such I will not be sucked into a nursery school brouhaha.

July 3, 2014

"

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3885114">Julie H</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 03, 2014; 12:53 p.m.

"Hogwash, and blather." Steiner was blunter than that. He called it "lying" (later in the same writing quoted from above). But who remembers Steiner? And the guys he called "liars," Stieglitz and White?"

What the h e double L has Steiner got to do with anything I just wrote? My comment was directed at the portion of your comment that I quoted. Focus, girl, focus!

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by didereaux