Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Requirements for Good Photography -- Re: Digital Dynamic Range and Exposure Latitude

Reply
Thread Tools

Requirements for Good Photography -- Re: Digital Dynamic Range and Exposure Latitude

 
 
Except for one thing ...
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2009
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 00:42:17 -0400, "BobS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>snip.......>
>> He'll never be able to provide answers to "what is good photography"
>> though. His snapshots are perfect proof of that.
>>

>
>Then why don't you answer that question?
>
>Bob S.
>


To "focus" on that answer I can start by telling you what it is not, what
is out of focus. If you are concerned with any of the following issues then
you are out of the realm of "good photography" and don't have one clue:

It is not dependent on a large dynamic range.

It is not dependent on the number of pixels in your camera.

It is not dependent on high ISOs.

It is not dependent on fast auto-focusing.

It is not dependent on fast burst rates.

It is not dependent on how much your camera costs.

It is not dependent on the most expensive editor software.

It is not dependent on RAW image file formats.

It is not dependent on buying the latest camera.

It is not dependent on being a tourist and standing in the same spot, with
the same point of view, and taking the same snapshot that every other
snapshooting tourist with a camera has taken in that location before.


There are more to add, but I think that covers the vast majority of
"requirements" that snapshooters think they need for good photography.
Roger Clark exemplifies all of these that he focuses on, especially the
last one.


The other side of the coin, what is "in focus" for good photography, for
starters:

It is dependent on talent.

It is dependent on creativity.

It is dependent on the composition of an artist's eye.

It is dependent on uniqueness.

It is dependent on experience.

It is dependent on impact.


These first six, of many, listed in a possible order of importance.

None of the requirements for "good photography", if even all of them were
listed, are camera-hardware dependent. Roger Clark and far too many others
know of none of these things. Otherwise they'd be far more concerned on how
to improve those abilities than the abilities of their cameras. I guess
they don't because they found their own artistic limits long ago and now
hope that by focusing on the hardware instead that they don't have to look
in their mirror to see where the real problem lies.

The next time that you receive a meal from an award-winning chef tell him
how good his cookware must be in order for him to provide such a fine meal.
Hopefully he'll pick up his great-great-grandmother's 200-year-old
cast-iron skillet that he used that day and swing it swiftly against your
face as his way of thanking you for the complement.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Except for One Thing
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2009
On Aug 9, 4:06*pm, "Matt Clara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Except for one thing ..." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in messagenews:f1ps75lusbos4fih0gt3pudpcq0rtabr5d@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 00:42:17 -0400, "BobS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >>snip.......>
> >>> He'll never be able to provide answers to "what is good photography"
> >>> though. His snapshots are perfect proof of that.

>
> >>Then why don't you answer that question?

>
> >>Bob S.

>
> > To "focus" on that answer I can start by telling you what it is not, what
> > is out of focus. If you are concerned with any of the following issues
> > then
> > you are out of the realm of "good photography" and don't have one clue:

>
> <snip>
>
> as far as trolls go, this one's kinda weak.
>
> 3/10
>
> --www.mattclara.com


Sorry, I was off my medications when I wrote that post. I'm okay now,
and I realize that everything I wrote was ridiculous.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Except for one thing ...
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2009
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 19:06:36 -0400, "Matt Clara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Except for one thing ..." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 00:42:17 -0400, "BobS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>snip.......>
>>>> He'll never be able to provide answers to "what is good photography"
>>>> though. His snapshots are perfect proof of that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Then why don't you answer that question?
>>>
>>>Bob S.
>>>

>>
>> To "focus" on that answer I can start by telling you what it is not, what
>> is out of focus. If you are concerned with any of the following issues
>> then
>> you are out of the realm of "good photography" and don't have one clue:
>>

>
><snip>
>
>as far as trolls go, this one's kinda weak.
>
>3/10


As far as photographers go, you're not even "kinda" weak, you don't even
come close to being one. Clearly revealed in your values. For not being
able to recognize, know, nor comprehend the simplest requirements for good
photography I give you a score of:

0 out of10 as photographer, 5 out of 10 as snapshooter. The other 5
unawarded snapshooter points are for your general stupidity and for not
even being a decent snapshooter.



 
Reply With Quote
 
SPAM ALERT
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2009
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:32:55 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
spammer)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I invite everyone to view my "crappy" photos at:
>http://www.spamvision.com


Good photographers don't have to invite anyone. This is self-evident proof
that you really do have "crappy" photography. The only time anyone goes to
look at your snapshots is when you spam the hell out of some newsgroup or
forum to manipulate them into doing so.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Spam Alert
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2009
On Aug 9, 9:32*pm, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Matt Clara wrote:
> > as far as trolls go,...

>
> Same old, same old
>
> He actually forgot the most important thing in photography:
> It's the light.
>
> I invite everyone to view my "crappy" photos at:http://www.clarkvision.com
>
> If anyone is tired of the bickering and name calling on usenet,
> try these moderated groups (no trolls allowed):
>
> Yahoo group with a lot of good activity:
> (E-Mail Removed)
>
> If you are into nature photography, whether birds, other wildlife,
> macro, landscapes, or questions about gear, check out:http://www.birdphotographers.net
>
> birdphotographers.net has many professional photographers and is
> geared to photography and improving ones photography.
> Again, no trolls allowed. *It is a great learning site.
>
> Roger


Thanks Roger, those are great photos. I apologize for my earlier
comment regarding your photography. I'm trying to get the dosage of my
meds right, but sometimes it's tough and I go off at people like that.
Sorry.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, SPAM ALERT
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:32:55 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
> spammer)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >I invite everyone to view my "crappy" photos at:
> >http://www.spamvision.com

>
> Good photographers don't have to invite anyone. This is self-evident proof
> that you really do have "crappy" photography. The only time anyone goes to
> look at your snapshots is when you spam the hell out of some newsgroup or
> forum to manipulate them into doing so.


roger is not spamming. he has contributed far more to this group than
you ever have, so kindly **** off.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SPAM ALERT
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2009
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:53:08 -0400, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, SPAM ALERT
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:32:55 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
>> spammer)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >I invite everyone to view my "crappy" photos at:
>> >http://www.spamvision.com

>>
>> Good photographers don't have to invite anyone. This is self-evident proof
>> that you really do have "crappy" photography. The only time anyone goes to
>> look at your snapshots is when you spam the hell out of some newsgroup or
>> forum to manipulate them into doing so.

>
>roger is not spamming. he has contributed far more to this group than
>you ever have, so kindly **** off.


How would you know, you've never been right about even one thing concerning
photography. Not only that but Clark's pages and data have been
consistently wrong too. I've proved it, many many times.

Here's just one example, where he doesn't even measure dynamic range of
sensors properly.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

He's a proven biased DSLR-Troll and Spammer, nothing more. He posts
controversial crap just to get people to his web pages to sell his
beginner's snapshots. He's never been more than that.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Spam Alert
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2009
On Aug 10, 7:53*am, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, SPAM ALERT
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:32:55 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
> > spammer)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> > >I invite everyone to view my "crappy" photos at:
> > >http://www.spamvision.com

>
> > Good photographers don't have to invite anyone. This is self-evident proof
> > that you really do have "crappy" photography. The only time anyone goes to
> > look at your snapshots is when you spam the hell out of some newsgroup or
> > forum to manipulate them into doing so.

>
> roger is not spamming. he has contributed far more to this group than
> you ever have, so kindly **** off.


You're right, and I'm sorry. I'm having some problems with my
medications and sometimes I go off like this. Indeed Roger is a very
knowledgeable photographer and has been a big help in my own
education, as well as the education of others in this group.

Again, please accept my apologies for acting like an idiot.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob Larter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2009
nospam wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, SPAM ALERT
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:32:55 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
>> spammer)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> I invite everyone to view my "crappy" photos at:
>>> http://www.spamvision.com

>> Good photographers don't have to invite anyone. This is self-evident proof
>> that you really do have "crappy" photography. The only time anyone goes to
>> look at your snapshots is when you spam the hell out of some newsgroup or
>> forum to manipulate them into doing so.

>
> roger is not spamming. he has contributed far more to this group than
> you ever have, so kindly **** off.


Very true. The P&S troll isn't good for anything than a laugh or two.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob Larter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2009
SPAM ALERT wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:53:08 -0400, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, SPAM ALERT
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:32:55 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
>>> spammer)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I invite everyone to view my "crappy" photos at:
>>>> http://www.spamvision.com
>>> Good photographers don't have to invite anyone. This is self-evident proof
>>> that you really do have "crappy" photography. The only time anyone goes to
>>> look at your snapshots is when you spam the hell out of some newsgroup or
>>> forum to manipulate them into doing so.

>> roger is not spamming. he has contributed far more to this group than
>> you ever have, so kindly **** off.

>
> How would you know, you've never been right about even one thing concerning
> photography. Not only that but Clark's pages and data have been
> consistently wrong too. I've proved it, many many times.


You've proved nothing, kook.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Digital Exposure Question -- Middle Gray vs Exposure At Highlights S. S. Digital Photography 3 06-24-2004 07:04 AM
Re: A70 exposure latitude Gary Fritz Digital Photography 3 04-09-2004 10:15 PM
Exposure Latitude Matthew Digital Photography 16 02-08-2004 05:36 PM
Digital Exposure Latitude cwvalle Digital Photography 7 01-18-2004 05:19 PM
exposure latitude of digital "film" PrincePete01 Digital Photography 4 08-11-2003 12:29 PM



Advertisments