didereaux

<p>"</p> <p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=8261737">Ashley Dickerson</a> , Jul 06, 2014; 10:44 p.m.</p> <p>I started shooting raw a few months ago, that's helped a ton. Good to know about how high I should go.</p> <p ><a name="00cgpW"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=8261737">Ashley Dickerson</a> , Jul 06, 2014; 11:37 p.m.</p> <p>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?"<br> -----------------------------</p> <p>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.</p>

<p>"What is the greatest need of a young photographer who is just starting out?"<br> Experience! And the common-sense to wait while they are getting it.</p>

<p>"<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.</p> <p>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."</p> <p>That sums it up PERFECTLY! Well stated.</p>

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

<p>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?</p> <p>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."</p>

<p>Laura wrote:"Kudzu was introduced to parts of southeastern United States to help control soil erosion."<br> 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.<br> A Brahma cow in her natur(e)al setting? ;)<br> <img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bDQYcw4A-BI/U7g219LLQwI/AAAAAAAADRM/JNBHZql2ij4/s800/IMG_0229.JPG" alt="" /></p>

<p>"</p> <p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5581841">Clive Murray-White</a> , Jul 03, 2014; 10:50 p.m.</p> <p>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><br> <em>Creativity is doing something you have not seen done before, or in a manner you have not seen before</em> - so the more ignorant you are about what other people have done the greater the chance you have of being creative - I think not. "</p> <p>I believe it is you who are restricting the definition. As you correctly noted I said "<em>Creativity is doing something you have not seen done before, or in a manner you have not seen before". But your </em> "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.<br> I stand by my definition as being far more definitive of creativity as a whole than yours which applies to a select sub-group.</p>

<p>"</p> <p ><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.</p> <blockquote> <p>"Focus, girl, focus!"</p> </blockquote> <p>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."<br> ------------<br> 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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p>

<p>"</p> <p ><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.</p> <p>"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?"</p> <p>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!</p>

<p>Julie said "Creativity is about this kind of putting one's beliefs in danger."<br> <br> Hogwash, and blather. Creativity is doing something you have not seen done before, or in a manner you have not seen before. Any other other appellation such as you lay upon it is just that, an appellation. <br> Jargon and babble are not the exclusive domains of the social/psychology crowd.</p>

<p>Any 'essence' in a photograph can only be the perceived one by the viewer. The essence of the moment may be accidental on the photographers part, or it can be thoroughly planned...and everything in between. <br> Why can some photographers seemingly grab the essence of the moment more often than others? Probably because of their empathy to the subject at that moment. Which harks back to the very first thing I wrote.<br> Essence as I understand its meaning in this thread is transitory...appearing and disappearing. If time is truly an arrow then essence is merely its attribute at an infinitesimally tiny moment in its path. <br> ...or essence may be quantum in nature, and merely a manifestation created by the observer.</p> <p>Contradictory? Obfuscated? No wonder in that, it is the same dilemma as the old Greeks faced in trying to define beauty, or goodness, or any other virtue.</p>

<p>Here's a shot to left field, the farthest from where I was located above and behind 1st base. It is highly cropped, and shows well the quality of pic that this camera and lens is capable of I think.<br /><br /><br> <img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-JhaGJycHZog/U7QTOTsUepI/AAAAAAAADPI/laK4mUDVtJY/s800/IMG_2759%2520v4.JPG" alt="" /></p>

<p>Thank you.<br> Yes, the both eye thing should work fine. Never gave it any thought that day because I had someone calling the action. I shoot skeet with both eyes open so that is not a problem. Good reminder...thank you!</p>

<p>Okay, got some pics in the gallery. Not so difficult as I thought. ;)</p>

<p>Not certain how to do the gallery thing, will look it up in the FAQ but<br /> A full EXIF is available with each pic at this link<br />https://picasaweb.google.com/monte.phillips/ActionSports#<br> <br /> I was up on the second tier above and behind 1st base. and so the view was okay, but above and quite aways from the players.<br />As for the equipment it was just one camera and lens all day: Canon 6D with a Canon 100-400mm IS USM L lens. Most of the shots, you will notice from the EXIFs were 200-400mm)<br /> As for camera settings I shoot all these in Av (aperture) mode Usually F5,6,to keep shutter speeds high and at those distances DOF was not an issue. AWB, Partial metering generally, but If some shadow areas were going to play a part I reset to spot. To catch the action shots on 2d base (when a runner was on 1st I would autofocus lock on 2d base. and return to first so I had the runner in the camera. Also, and this was critical for the action shots of batters and runners, I had the camera set to continuous shots and would hold the button down, trying to do so a little before the action and also getting a couple frames after. When shooting the batter swinging I would get the batter in the frame, and have someone tell me the instant the pitcher was about to release the pitch. I kept the shutter button pressed until the action stopped. The 4+ fps of the 6D is the bare minimum I think. These were handheld, as the shutter speeds were always high enough. Although I had brought along a monopod, just in case.<br /> Hope this helps. It was far more fun than I thought it would be, and surprising to me really didn't interfere with watching the game, maybe enhanced it a little buit because you are forced to think about what and where the next most likely action was going to be. Now on short fast infield grounders? HA! Good luck!:D<br /> A couple more from that shoot:<br />Safe!<br /> <img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ZOOTzeGZwLM/U7FPC51_yFI/AAAAAAAADJs/0laZVV02HWw/s800/IMG_2758%2520V3.JPG" alt="" width="800" height="620" /><br /><br /> Streeettccchhh!<br /> <img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-jl_61sqEhyo/U7FPO9PgOII/AAAAAAAADKE/HVGCuWhKwBk/s800/IMG_2631.JPG" alt="" width="770" height="800" /><br /><br /><br /> Bush League limo ;) ...<br /> <img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-M1XqVPJNCng/U7GWdXcUgbI/AAAAAAAADNI/ci97iXY9Wrs/s800/IMG_2930.JPG" alt="" width="800" height="608" /></p>