flamingos love the 20D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dirty Harry, Jun 6, 2005.

  1. Dirty Harry

    Dirty Harry Guest

    Dirty Harry, Jun 6, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dirty Harry

    Celcius Guest

    Hi Dirty Harry!
    Nice shots, but why the "sig"? Better someone copying it than showing a shot
    with a "sig" throuh it.
    My 2 cents
    Marcel

    "Dirty Harry" <> wrote in message
    news:%V_oe.1587390$8l.1116891@pd7tw1no...
    > yay, I got a 20d.
    > http://68.148.30.133/flam.jpg
    > http://68.148.30.133/flam2.jpg
    >
    >
    Celcius, Jun 6, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dirty Harry napisa³(a):
    > yay, I got a 20d.

    yay learn about exposure!
    Marek M. \rogus\, Jun 6, 2005
    #3
  4. Dirty Harry

    Dirty Harry Guest

    "Celcius" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi Dirty Harry!
    > Nice shots, but why the "sig"? Better someone copying it than showing a

    shot
    > with a "sig" throuh it.
    > My 2 cents
    > Marcel
    >
    > "Dirty Harry" <> wrote in message
    > news:%V_oe.1587390$8l.1116891@pd7tw1no...
    > > yay, I got a 20d.
    > > http://68.148.30.133/flam.jpg
    > > http://68.148.30.133/flam2.jpg


    That was because I post in a different forum where I've had stupid kids take
    my stuff. I try and keep them so they don't ruin the image. Thanks :)
    --
    www.harryphotos.com
    Dirty Harry, Jun 6, 2005
    #4
  5. Dirty Harry

    Dirty Harry Guest

    "Marek M. "rogus"" <> wrote in message
    news:d81v2u$o4f$...
    > Dirty Harry napisa³(a):
    > > yay, I got a 20d.

    > yay learn about exposure!


    yay, don't be an asshole!
    Dirty Harry, Jun 6, 2005
    #5
  6. Dirty Harry

    seacrest Guest

    "Celcius" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi Dirty Harry!
    > Nice shots, but why the "sig"? Better someone copying it than showing a

    shot
    > with a "sig" throuh it.
    > My 2 cents
    > Marcel
    >
    > "Dirty Harry" <> wrote in message
    > news:%V_oe.1587390$8l.1116891@pd7tw1no...
    > > yay, I got a 20d.
    > > http://68.148.30.133/flam.jpg
    > > http://68.148.30.133/flam2.jpg
    > >
    > >

    >
    >


    Amazing pictures. The 'sig' is a little distracting but I notice more and
    more web photo's and artwork being stamped with a sig. I'm an artist and
    have considered it myself but I think if someone wants to copy bad enough
    they'll do it. I had someone come on my site and blatently admit she made
    cards from my artwork. Shame, really, when that happens.
    seacrest, Jun 6, 2005
    #6
  7. Dirty Harry

    Owamanga Guest

    On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:59:16 GMT, "seacrest" <>
    wrote:

    >"Celcius" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Hi Dirty Harry!
    >> Nice shots, but why the "sig"? Better someone copying it than showing a

    >shot
    >> with a "sig" throuh it.
    >> My 2 cents
    >> Marcel
    >>
    >> "Dirty Harry" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%V_oe.1587390$8l.1116891@pd7tw1no...
    >> > yay, I got a 20d.
    >> > http://68.148.30.133/flam.jpg
    >> > http://68.148.30.133/flam2.jpg

    >>

    >Amazing pictures. The 'sig' is a little distracting


    Well, no, it's more accurate to say "the sig fucks them up big time".

    >but I notice more and
    >more web photo's and artwork being stamped with a sig.


    Rape is on the increase too. That doesn't make it a good idea.

    > I'm an artist and
    >have considered it myself but I think if someone wants to copy bad enough
    >they'll do it. I had someone come on my site and blatently admit she made
    >cards from my artwork. Shame, really, when that happens.


    It leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, but does the possible theft by
    one outweigh the viewing distraction of the many? Dirty Harry, who
    himself stole his name from a film character seems to think so.

    You can probably tell, I completely disagree with graffiti-ing your
    own work using some feeble excuse that children might copy them.

    In your case, although the girl who stole your artwork is a thief, did
    her action damage you in any real way? Yes she profited from the
    crime, but were you ever going to sell your images to those same
    customers?

    Copyright theft is wrong, no two ways about it. It's also a fact of
    life and when it happens to you it might make you feel better to think
    along the lines I'm suggesting.

    --
    Owamanga!
    http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
    Owamanga, Jun 6, 2005
    #7
  8. Dirty Harry napisa³(a):
    > yay, don't be an asshole!


    ehhhh please have at least rudimenatry knowledge about manners and good
    behaviour?

    YOu should seriously take up some lessons on either correct exposing in
    camera or using a photoedition tool such as gimp to correct the exposure
    in your digital darkroom ;)

    regards be a neat guy!
    Marek M. \rogus\, Jun 6, 2005
    #8
  9. Dirty Harry

    SimonLW Guest

    "Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:59:16 GMT, "seacrest" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >"Celcius" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> Hi Dirty Harry!
    > >> Nice shots, but why the "sig"? Better someone copying it than showing a

    > >shot
    > >> with a "sig" throuh it.
    > >> My 2 cents
    > >> Marcel
    > >>
    > >> "Dirty Harry" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:%V_oe.1587390$8l.1116891@pd7tw1no...
    > >> > yay, I got a 20d.
    > >> > http://68.148.30.133/flam.jpg
    > >> > http://68.148.30.133/flam2.jpg
    > >>

    > >Amazing pictures. The 'sig' is a little distracting

    >
    > Well, no, it's more accurate to say "the sig fucks them up big time".
    >
    > >but I notice more and
    > >more web photo's and artwork being stamped with a sig.

    >
    > Rape is on the increase too. That doesn't make it a good idea.
    >
    > > I'm an artist and
    > >have considered it myself but I think if someone wants to copy bad enough
    > >they'll do it. I had someone come on my site and blatently admit she

    made
    > >cards from my artwork. Shame, really, when that happens.

    >
    > It leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, but does the possible theft by
    > one outweigh the viewing distraction of the many? Dirty Harry, who
    > himself stole his name from a film character seems to think so.
    >
    > You can probably tell, I completely disagree with graffiti-ing your
    > own work using some feeble excuse that children might copy them.
    >
    > In your case, although the girl who stole your artwork is a thief, did
    > her action damage you in any real way? Yes she profited from the
    > crime, but were you ever going to sell your images to those same
    > customers?
    >
    > Copyright theft is wrong, no two ways about it. It's also a fact of
    > life and when it happens to you it might make you feel better to think
    > along the lines I'm suggesting.
    >
    > --
    > Owamanga!
    > http://www.pbase.com/owamanga


    keeping the resolution low enough and the jpeg compression high, but not
    distracting is good enough for most purposes. If they want the full
    resolution image, they would have to ask for it.

    Dirty H., Which lens did you use?
    -S
    SimonLW, Jun 6, 2005
    #9
  10. Dirty Harry

    seacrest Guest

    "Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:59:16 GMT, "seacrest" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >"Celcius" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> Hi Dirty Harry!
    > >> Nice shots, but why the "sig"? Better someone copying it than showing a

    > >shot
    > >> with a "sig" throuh it.
    > >> My 2 cents
    > >> Marcel
    > >>
    > >> "Dirty Harry" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:%V_oe.1587390$8l.1116891@pd7tw1no...
    > >> > yay, I got a 20d.
    > >> > http://68.148.30.133/flam.jpg
    > >> > http://68.148.30.133/flam2.jpg
    > >>

    > >Amazing pictures. The 'sig' is a little distracting

    >
    > Well, no, it's more accurate to say "the sig fucks them up big time".
    >
    > >but I notice more and
    > >more web photo's and artwork being stamped with a sig.

    >
    > Rape is on the increase too. That doesn't make it a good idea.
    >
    > > I'm an artist and
    > >have considered it myself but I think if someone wants to copy bad enough
    > >they'll do it. I had someone come on my site and blatently admit she

    made
    > >cards from my artwork. Shame, really, when that happens.

    >
    > It leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, but does the possible theft by
    > one outweigh the viewing distraction of the many? Dirty Harry, who
    > himself stole his name from a film character seems to think so.
    >
    > You can probably tell, I completely disagree with graffiti-ing your
    > own work using some feeble excuse that children might copy them.
    >
    > In your case, although the girl who stole your artwork is a thief, did
    > her action damage you in any real way? Yes she profited from the
    > crime, but were you ever going to sell your images to those same
    > customers?
    >
    > Copyright theft is wrong, no two ways about it. It's also a fact of
    > life and when it happens to you it might make you feel better to think
    > along the lines I'm suggesting.
    >
    > --
    > Owamanga!
    > http://www.pbase.com/owamanga


    I do understand your point. No, there wasn't any real damage (in my case).
    Actually, I was told by my art friends I should feel flattered but I was
    more taken aback by her admission. I got over it. :) No sigs on my
    artwork....however, I did consider it for a day or so.

    Btw, I'm curious--how would you feel about this:

    I had a look at your photographs on pbase. I paint and sketch Blue Herons
    quite frequently so they caught my eye immediately. Your pictures are such
    high quality but moreover, the compositions are excellent. Say an artist
    decides to use one of your Herons for a painting, how would you feel? One
    day you walk into a gallery and find your photograph has been turned into a
    painting that's selling for X number of big dollars. Would you sue?

    I'm asking this because I know artists that are copying pictures off the
    internet from various sources and literally painting from those
    pictures.....and selling them. And in this crowded market, they'll
    probably never get caught.

    Oh just some thoughts...not important. And sorry, not too applicable to
    digital camera's, either.
    seacrest, Jun 6, 2005
    #10
  11. Dirty Harry

    Owamanga Guest

    On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:02:24 GMT, "seacrest" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:59:16 GMT, "seacrest" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> > I'm an artist and
    >> >have considered it myself but I think if someone wants to copy bad enough
    >> >they'll do it. I had someone come on my site and blatently admit she

    >made
    >> >cards from my artwork. Shame, really, when that happens.

    >>
    >> It leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, but does the possible theft by
    >> one outweigh the viewing distraction of the many? Dirty Harry, who
    >> himself stole his name from a film character seems to think so.
    >>
    >> You can probably tell, I completely disagree with graffiti-ing your
    >> own work using some feeble excuse that children might copy them.
    >>
    >> In your case, although the girl who stole your artwork is a thief, did
    >> her action damage you in any real way? Yes she profited from the
    >> crime, but were you ever going to sell your images to those same
    >> customers?
    >>
    >> Copyright theft is wrong, no two ways about it. It's also a fact of
    >> life and when it happens to you it might make you feel better to think
    >> along the lines I'm suggesting.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Owamanga!
    >> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

    >
    >I do understand your point. No, there wasn't any real damage (in my case).
    >Actually, I was told by my art friends I should feel flattered but I was
    >more taken aback by her admission. I got over it. :) No sigs on my
    >artwork....however, I did consider it for a day or so.
    >
    >Btw, I'm curious--how would you feel about this:
    >
    >I had a look at your photographs on pbase. I paint and sketch Blue Herons
    >quite frequently so they caught my eye immediately. Your pictures are such
    >high quality but moreover, the compositions are excellent.


    Thank you.

    >Say an artist
    >decides to use one of your Herons for a painting, how would you feel? One
    >day you walk into a gallery and find your photograph has been turned into a
    >painting that's selling for X number of big dollars. Would you sue?


    Absolutely not. He's not my heron.

    :)

    Just as I feel I should be able to take a photo of a statue and sell
    that without any concerns of infringing the sculptor's rights.

    I would however start selling my heron photos because their worth has
    just been massively inflated by the fact this great artwork sells for
    big bucks...

    So, if you feel like using an image of mine as a basis for a painting,
    go ahead. I'd love to see a photo of the end result - maybe you could
    email it to me when you are done.

    >I'm asking this because I know artists that are copying pictures off the
    >internet from various sources and literally painting from those
    >pictures.....and selling them.


    I am doing exactly that right now, and don't see a problem. I'm
    currently working on a 5 canvas 'jungle' scene in acrylics (actually
    starts as a beach on one side, transitions to jungle and ends as
    planes with elephants etc. As a reference I'm using lots of images of
    wild animals I've downloaded from the web, usenet or pbase (including
    stuff I've shot myself). No one photo will significantly be
    identifiable in the resulting painting (I can't paint that well...)

    Anyway, as they are destined to hang in my toddler's room, they will
    never hit the marketplace.

    > And in this crowded market, they'll
    >probably never get caught.


    As I've said, I don't see a problem. You can't really claim copyright
    on composition (some pro's do if being ghosted by another photographer
    at a wedding for example) but a shot of wildlife doing what wildlife
    does is a bit of a stretch.

    I'd be extremely interested to hear of any case where a painter has
    been successfully prosecuted for copyright violation. Trademark
    infringement would be easy, as would conspiracy/fraud if the work was
    an exact duplicate and attempting to be sold as an original, but
    copyright violation I just can't see happening. Maybe I'm wrong...

    >Oh just some thoughts...not important. And sorry, not too applicable to
    >digital camera's, either.


    We are allowed to drift within reason, this is still reasonably
    on-topic.

    --
    Owamanga!
    http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
    Owamanga, Jun 6, 2005
    #11
  12. Dirty Harry

    Frank ess Guest

    Owamanga wrote:
    > On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:02:24 GMT, "seacrest" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:59:16 GMT, "seacrest"
    >>> <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I'm an artist and
    >>>> have considered it myself but I think if someone wants to copy
    >>>> bad
    >>>> enough they'll do it. I had someone come on my site and
    >>>> blatently
    >>>> admit she made cards from my artwork. Shame, really, when that
    >>>> happens.
    >>>
    >>> It leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, but does the possible theft
    >>> by
    >>> one outweigh the viewing distraction of the many? Dirty Harry, who
    >>> himself stole his name from a film character seems to think so.
    >>>
    >>> You can probably tell, I completely disagree with graffiti-ing
    >>> your
    >>> own work using some feeble excuse that children might copy them.
    >>>
    >>> In your case, although the girl who stole your artwork is a thief,
    >>> did her action damage you in any real way? Yes she profited from
    >>> the
    >>> crime, but were you ever going to sell your images to those same
    >>> customers?
    >>>
    >>> Copyright theft is wrong, no two ways about it. It's also a fact
    >>> of
    >>> life and when it happens to you it might make you feel better to
    >>> think along the lines I'm suggesting.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Owamanga!
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

    >>
    >> I do understand your point. No, there wasn't any real damage (in
    >> my case). Actually, I was told by my art friends I should feel
    >> flattered but I was more taken aback by her admission. I got over
    >> it. :) No sigs on my artwork....however, I did consider it for a
    >> day or so.
    >>
    >> Btw, I'm curious--how would you feel about this:
    >>
    >> I had a look at your photographs on pbase. I paint and sketch Blue
    >> Herons quite frequently so they caught my eye immediately. Your
    >> pictures are such high quality but moreover, the compositions are
    >> excellent.

    >
    > Thank you.
    >
    >> Say an artist
    >> decides to use one of your Herons for a painting, how would you
    >> feel? One day you walk into a gallery and find your photograph
    >> has
    >> been turned into a painting that's selling for X number of big
    >> dollars. Would you sue?

    >
    > Absolutely not. He's not my heron.
    >
    > :)
    >
    > Just as I feel I should be able to take a photo of a statue and sell
    > that without any concerns of infringing the sculptor's rights.
    >
    > I would however start selling my heron photos because their worth
    > has
    > just been massively inflated by the fact this great artwork sells
    > for
    > big bucks...
    >
    > So, if you feel like using an image of mine as a basis for a
    > painting,
    > go ahead. I'd love to see a photo of the end result - maybe you
    > could
    > email it to me when you are done.
    >
    >> I'm asking this because I know artists that are copying pictures
    >> off
    >> the internet from various sources and literally painting from those
    >> pictures.....and selling them.

    >
    > I am doing exactly that right now, and don't see a problem. I'm
    > currently working on a 5 canvas 'jungle' scene in acrylics (actually
    > starts as a beach on one side, transitions to jungle and ends as
    > planes with elephants etc. As a reference I'm using lots of images
    > of
    > wild animals I've downloaded from the web, usenet or pbase
    > (including
    > stuff I've shot myself). No one photo will significantly be
    > identifiable in the resulting painting (I can't paint that well...)
    >
    > Anyway, as they are destined to hang in my toddler's room, they will
    > never hit the marketplace.
    >
    >> And in this crowded market, they'll
    >> probably never get caught.

    >
    > As I've said, I don't see a problem. You can't really claim
    > copyright
    > on composition (some pro's do if being ghosted by another
    > photographer
    > at a wedding for example) but a shot of wildlife doing what wildlife
    > does is a bit of a stretch.
    >
    > I'd be extremely interested to hear of any case where a painter has
    > been successfully prosecuted for copyright violation. Trademark
    > infringement would be easy, as would conspiracy/fraud if the work
    > was
    > an exact duplicate and attempting to be sold as an original, but
    > copyright violation I just can't see happening. Maybe I'm wrong...
    >
    >> Oh just some thoughts...not important. And sorry, not too
    >> applicable to digital camera's, either.

    >
    > We are allowed to drift within reason, this is still reasonably
    > on-topic.


    I hope one of the drifters is expert in Intellectual Property law, and
    will clarify the status of copied/painted images as "derivative works"
    over which a copyright holder may have some claim.

    --
    Frank ess
    Frank ess, Jun 6, 2005
    #12
  13. Dirty Harry

    Owamanga Guest

    On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:02:15 -0700, "Frank ess" <>
    wrote:

    >I hope one of the drifters is expert in Intellectual Property law, and
    >will clarify the status of copied/painted images as "derivative works"
    >over which a copyright holder may have some claim.


    The weird thing is, they'd have to be interested in Flamingos to see
    this thread....

    ....weird is good though.

    --
    Owamanga!
    http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
    Owamanga, Jun 6, 2005
    #13
  14. Dirty Harry

    Guest

    Marek M. "rogus" wrote:

    > Dirty Harry napisa³(a):
    > > yay, don't be an asshole!

    >
    > ehhhh please have at least rudimenatry knowledge about manners and good
    > behaviour?


    In Art (neglect the capitalization at your peril), every effort is to
    be celebrated, worshipped, and embraced by all. To say a bad thing
    about another's efforts is like squishing gerbils under the wheels of a
    Hummer in the shopping mall parking lot. Those under-exposed,
    motion-blurred, noisy images ... those aren't avoidable technical
    flaws, they are Statements! Declarations! Visual amicus briefs to the
    Supreme Court of Love!!!
    , Jun 6, 2005
    #14
  15. Dirty Harry

    Guest

    , Jun 6, 2005
    #15
  16. Dirty Harry

    Laurent Roy Guest

    Laurent Roy, Jun 6, 2005
    #16
  17. Bart van der Wolf, Jun 6, 2005
    #17
  18. Dirty Harry

    Guest

    Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    > "Dirty Harry" <> wrote in message
    > news:%V_oe.1587390$8l.1116891@pd7tw1no...
    > > yay, I got a 20d.
    > > http://68.148.30.133/flam.jpg
    > > http://68.148.30.133/flam2.jpg

    >
    > Congrats.
    >
    > The images could use a tad sharpening for display.


    Being new to the world of serious digital SLR photography, what is
    wrong with them in terms of sharpness? They look very good to me -
    good contrast, great color, shallow DOF, but I feel like that was what
    he was going for. What am I missing here?

    Ben
    , Jun 6, 2005
    #18
  19. Dirty Harry

    PWW Guest

    Owamanga

    I did file copyright infringement suit against a nationally known Artist.

    We settled out of court and I was happy. Well kind of happy, I wish it never
    happened.

    This was before the digital days. This "artist" bought several of my Bird
    photos at a Outdoor Art show I did. He never told me he was an artist. I
    found out when he had me mail him a print and I saw it was the same address
    of an artist.

    To make long story short.

    He took two of my unique Bird Photos and placed them into one large
    painting. He actually used an artist projector to copy my photos onto his
    painting. He said so in depositions.

    He made one large painting and had a price of about $5,000. And then, this
    is the important part, he made over 2,000 2x3ft prints which he then sold a
    limited edition of 1,500 Prints and some artists proofs. I forget the actual
    sales prices (he had many galleries carry all his prints) but I think it
    averaged out at about $40 per Limited Print (Distributor prices, Wholesale,
    and Retail prices). That equals about $60,000 of prints. Using two of my
    bird photos put together.

    Then I saw newspaper articles about him and the great birds paintings he
    paints, saying how he is so great because he can capture the unique
    character and presence of "his" birds. He never said he used other people
    copyrighted materials to get those special looks. My birds where unique. HE
    DID NOT CAPTURE those expressions, I DID!

    When I confronted him, He said something like.

    It is not copyright Infringement, it is a painting of a photo. Wrong!

    It is not exactly like my photos, he has two images in one. Wrong.

    It is not exactly like my photos, he put flowers in the painting. Wrong.

    That I should be happy with the exposure I would be getting. Wrong! I did
    not get any exposure, certainly not $60,000 worth.

    All artists do it. Wrong, Some do and they open themselves up to copyright
    infringement cases filed against them.

    Plus other gobbly gook. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

    We fought for, I think, well over a year.

    We finally settled with use getting $$$$$ and he promising not to use any
    other of my bird pictures that he bought from me that day.

    Funny thing is I had to provide him with the photos that he bought. He did
    not even try and keep track of whose photographs were whose.

    So Yes, I believe in Watermarking, and low resolution smaller images on the
    internet. And I believe in suing artists who try and make money off my sweat
    stained hard work, images.

    Another reason is, I am a stock photographer, If I sell a Rights managed
    image to a company and someone stole that same image off my site and used
    it, that could cause problems for my client.

    It is not Trademark problem or Fraud, but copyright Infringement, pure and
    simple. And if you don't think a National Geographic photographer or
    National Geographic itself would go after an artist (one who sells prints
    and paintings) who copied some of their photos, as an example some of the
    Polar Bear images, you are wrong. I know they do, for a fact. And I would
    again.

    --
    PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson)
    Over 1,000 Photographs Online at,
    http://PhotoStockFile.com



    > On 6/6/05 2:39 PM, in article ,
    > "Owamanga" <> wrote:


    > On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:02:24 GMT, "seacrest" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > As I've said, I don't see a problem. You can't really claim copyright
    > on composition (some pro's do if being ghosted by another photographer
    > at a wedding for example) but a shot of wildlife doing what wildlife
    > does is a bit of a stretch.
    >
    > I'd be extremely interested to hear of any case where a painter has
    > been successfully prosecuted for copyright violation. Trademark
    > infringement would be easy, as would conspiracy/fraud if the work was
    > an exact duplicate and attempting to be sold as an original, but
    > copyright violation I just can't see happening. Maybe I'm wrong...
    >
    > --
    > Owamanga!
    > http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
    PWW, Jun 6, 2005
    #19
  20. Dirty Harry

    Guest

    wrote:

    > Being new to the world of serious digital SLR photography, what is
    > wrong with them in terms of sharpness?


    flam.jpg: needs more light and sharpness ("snap")
    flam2.jpg: needs more sharpness

    Not much point in doing either until that silly copyright nonsense is
    removed though.

    > They look very good to me - good contrast, great color, shallow DOF,


    Is that the code-word to be used for unsharp images? "Shallow DOF"?

    > but I feel like that was what he was going for. What am I missing here?


    A critical eye? Since you are "new" to "serious digital SLR
    photography" (whatever the hell that means), here is your first lesson:
    anyone can rattle off a few hundred frames of anything. So the main
    job in this business is editing, and one needs to be ruthlessly brutal
    in making the selections and subsequent edits. You have only so much
    wall (or disk) space.
    , Jun 6, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Annika1980

    BRIDES LOVE THE 20D !!!

    Annika1980, Oct 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    466
    mark_digital©
    Oct 19, 2004
  2. Annika1980

    HARD DRIVES LOVE THE 20D !!!

    Annika1980, Oct 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    408
  3. wewa
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    688
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    Nov 10, 2005
  4. Annika1980

    Re: Flamingos, storks and more...

    Annika1980, May 24, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    279
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    May 28, 2008
  5. philo

    flamingos

    philo, Nov 27, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    364
    Mike Yetto
    Nov 27, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page