Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Scott Linstead's high-speed photographs capture creatures frozen in time

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Scott Linstead's high-speed photographs capture creatures frozen in time

 
 
Russ D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2010
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...n-in-time.html


What a shame. So many images ruined by too shallow DOF and eye-offending
artificial lighting. I shoot many macro images of small insects in flight
in available light alone, handheld, without all that DOF blur and garish
fake lighting. I was just browsing through one folder of mine where in only
one afternoon I amassed about 150 tight macro shots of bees hovering near
their intended flower-targets. And who hasn't shot a bird coming in for a
landing before? Or similarly a crane flipping a fish into the air and
capturing a shot of it just before the catch. Or an osprey making its
catch. He spent FOUR DAYS to get that shot of the osprey making its catch?
I got about 15 like that in 2 hours one casual afternoon by just sitting
around where some ospreys were fishing, no elaborate camouflage hide
required. (One was especially clumsy and kept dropping his catch, no doubt
a juvenile learning its trade.) The osprey could have cared less if I was
there, they were focused on getting their dinners. This guy's just a
talentless tech-head cityboy hack. ZERO talent.

Totally unimpressed.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nervous Nick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2010
On Jul 21, 5:33*pm, Russ D <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...7902773/Scott-...

>
> What a shame. So many images ruined by too shallow DOF and eye-offending
> artificial lighting. I shoot many macro images of small insects in flight
> in available light alone, handheld, without all that DOF blur and garish
> fake lighting. I was just browsing through one folder of mine where in only
> one afternoon I amassed about 150 tight macro shots of bees hovering near
> their intended flower-targets. And who hasn't shot a bird coming in for a
> landing before? Or similarly a crane flipping a fish into the air and
> capturing a shot of it just before the catch. Or an osprey making its
> catch. He spent FOUR DAYS to get that shot of the osprey making its catch?
> I got about 15 like that in 2 hours one casual afternoon by just sitting
> around where some ospreys were fishing, no elaborate camouflage hide
> required. (One was especially clumsy and kept dropping his catch, no doubt
> a juvenile learning its trade.) The osprey could have cared less if I was
> there, they were focused on getting their dinners. This guy's just a
> talentless tech-head cityboy hack. ZERO talent.
>
> Totally unimpressed.


I think some of them are pretty cool. The fact that he did most of
them in a studio is, IMO, kind of strange but pretty impressive for
the technical side of it. Not that you would bother, but would you be
able to set up some of those shots?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Russ D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2010
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Jul 21, 5:33*pm, Russ D <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...7902773/Scott-...

>>
>> What a shame. So many images ruined by too shallow DOF and eye-offending
>> artificial lighting. I shoot many macro images of small insects in flight
>> in available light alone, handheld, without all that DOF blur and garish
>> fake lighting. I was just browsing through one folder of mine where in only
>> one afternoon I amassed about 150 tight macro shots of bees hovering near
>> their intended flower-targets. And who hasn't shot a bird coming in for a
>> landing before? Or similarly a crane flipping a fish into the air and
>> capturing a shot of it just before the catch. Or an osprey making its
>> catch. He spent FOUR DAYS to get that shot of the osprey making its catch?
>> I got about 15 like that in 2 hours one casual afternoon by just sitting
>> around where some ospreys were fishing, no elaborate camouflage hide
>> required. (One was especially clumsy and kept dropping his catch, no doubt
>> a juvenile learning its trade.) The osprey could have cared less if I was
>> there, they were focused on getting their dinners. This guy's just a
>> talentless tech-head cityboy hack. ZERO talent.
>>
>> Totally unimpressed.

>
>I think some of them are pretty cool. The fact that he did most of
>them in a studio is, IMO, kind of strange but pretty impressive for
>the technical side of it. Not that you would bother, but would you be
>able to set up some of those shots?


Easily. But the more important question is, why on earth would I or anyone
want to? When I can get much better images using available light alone
outside of any contrived artificial setting.

You people are easily entertained and amused by tech-head bullshit.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2010
"rwalker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:33:29 -0500, Russ D <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>ng. I shoot many macro images of small insects in flight
>>in available lig

>
> You're a waste of organic chemistry.


Killfile it, and don't feed it by any form of reply. Please, for all our
sakes.

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Outing Trolls is FUN!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2010
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 03:43:58 -0500, Neil <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:00:57 -0500, Russ D wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:44:54 -0500, Russ D <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jul 21, 5:33*pm, Russ D <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah
>>>>>
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...eries/7902773/

>Scott-...
>>>>>
>>>>> What a shame. So many images ruined by too shallow DOF and
>>>>> eye-offending artificial lighting. I shoot many macro images of small
>>>>> insects in flight in available light alone, handheld, without all
>>>>> that DOF blur and garish fake lighting. I was just browsing through
>>>>> one folder of mine where in only one afternoon I amassed about 150
>>>>> tight macro shots of bees hovering near their intended
>>>>> flower-targets. And who hasn't shot a bird coming in for a landing
>>>>> before? Or similarly a crane flipping a fish into the air and
>>>>> capturing a shot of it just before the catch. Or an osprey making its
>>>>> catch. He spent FOUR DAYS to get that shot of the osprey making its
>>>>> catch? I got about 15 like that in 2 hours one casual afternoon by
>>>>> just sitting around where some ospreys were fishing, no elaborate
>>>>> camouflage hide required. (One was especially clumsy and kept
>>>>> dropping his catch, no doubt a juvenile learning its trade.) The
>>>>> osprey could have cared less if I was there, they were focused on
>>>>> getting their dinners. This guy's just a talentless tech-head cityboy
>>>>> hack. ZERO talent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Totally unimpressed.
>>>>
>>>>I think some of them are pretty cool. The fact that he did most of
>>>>them in a studio is, IMO, kind of strange but pretty impressive for the
>>>>technical side of it. Not that you would bother, but would you be able
>>>>to set up some of those shots?
>>>
>>>Easily. But the more important question is, why on earth would I or
>>>anyone want to? When I can get much better images using available light
>>>alone outside of any contrived artificial setting.
>>>
>>>You people are easily entertained and amused by tech-head bullshit.

>>
>> In case you doubt, here's an example of a tight macro shot of an insect
>> in flight taken with a hand-held camera with flash. The ONLY time I'll
>> make an exception for available light is for nocturnal species where
>> there is no time where you can capture them with available light. No
>> electronic triggers or other tech-head crap required. Just skill and
>> talent.
>>
>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4117/4817084851_5b403f812f_b.jpg>
>>
>> Oh, did I forget to mention this was also taken with a 2002 year model
>> of SLOW SHUTTER-LAG superzoom P&S camera that doesn't even have image
>> stabilization too?
>>
>> Thought you might like to know that.
>>
>> So don't any of you crapshooting trolls give me any bullshit that I
>> don't know what I'm talking about.
>>
>> Haven't any you ever heard of the word "talent" before? Of course not.
>> It's not a label on any of your camera buttons nor in the index of your
>> camera manuals.

>
>
>So this is your excuse for showing a shot that is much less appealling
>than the ones you are complaining about.


So this is your excuse of being unable to show either?

Ain't you heard yet? Dimwit. I *NEVER* post any marketable shots to the
net.

****, are you ever a dense and useless **** of a TROLL.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2010
"Outing Trolls is FUN!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> Ain't you heard yet? Dimwit. I *NEVER* post any marketable shots to the
> net.


We agree on that. My odds making instincts tells me that you have taken few,
if any marketable shots.


--
Peter
(slightly bored this morning)

 
Reply With Quote
 
LOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2010
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:38:53 -0400, "Peter" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>"Outing Trolls is FUN!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>
>>
>> Ain't you heard yet? Dimwit. I *NEVER* post any marketable shots to the
>> net.

>
>We agree on that. My odds making instincts tells me that you have taken few,
>if any marketable shots.


My odds making instincts tells me that you have NEVER produced ANY
photograph even worth printing.

Show me just ONE shot of yours that displays some technical skill or talent
in ANY area of photography. But you can't.

I already have. Dozens and dozens of times, all in different areas of
photography. From micro and macro to astro to artistically solemn to fast
action under all manner of lighting and all conditions . Applied altogether
it means that I have all the skill needed to produce any photograph I
desire in any venue for any purpose.

Where's just ONE sample of your exemplary talent and skill?

We'd all hold our breath but we know that would be a waste of effort, now
wouldn't we.

You useless **** of a ****-hole pretend-photographer TROLL.

LOL!



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bowser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2010
"Russ D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...n-in-time.html

>
> What a shame. So many images ruined by too shallow DOF and eye-offending
> artificial lighting. I shoot many macro images of small insects in flight
> in available light alone, handheld, without all that DOF blur and garish
> fake lighting. I was just browsing through one folder of mine where in
> only
> one afternoon I amassed about 150 tight macro shots of bees hovering near
> their intended flower-targets. And who hasn't shot a bird coming in for a
> landing before? Or similarly a crane flipping a fish into the air and
> capturing a shot of it just before the catch. Or an osprey making its
> catch. He spent FOUR DAYS to get that shot of the osprey making its catch?
> I got about 15 like that in 2 hours one casual afternoon by just sitting
> around where some ospreys were fishing, no elaborate camouflage hide
> required. (One was especially clumsy and kept dropping his catch, no doubt
> a juvenile learning its trade.) The osprey could have cared less if I was
> there, they were focused on getting their dinners. This guy's just a
> talentless tech-head cityboy hack. ZERO talent.
>
> Totally unimpressed.


If his are that bad, I'd love to see yours. Can you post a link?

 
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
Compiling xpython: No rule to make target `runathana.py', needed by `frozen/frozen.c'. est Python 1 10-11-2010 03:35 AM
OT: Creatures of Habit TJ Computer Support 6 10-19-2005 12:23 AM
Converting Film photographs to electronic photographs Rifleman Computer Support 18 06-09-2004 02:38 PM
Frozen string problem, but I haven't frozen anything? LC Geldenhuys Ruby 5 02-18-2004 08:13 AM
No Frills DVD Review: HEAVENLY CREATURES ddmcd DVD Video 18 09-11-2003 08:47 PM



Advertisments