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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Except for one thing ..., Aug 9, 2009.

  1. On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 00:42:17 -0400, "BobS" <> 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.
     
    Except for one thing ..., Aug 9, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Re: Requirements for Good Photography -- Re: Digital Dynamic Rangeand Exposure Latitude

    On Aug 9, 4:06 pm, "Matt Clara" <> wrote:
    > "Except for one thing ..." <> wrote in messagenews:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 00:42:17 -0400, "BobS" <> 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.
     
    Except for One Thing, Aug 10, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 19:06:36 -0400, "Matt Clara" <> wrote:

    >"Except for one thing ..." <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 00:42:17 -0400, "BobS" <> 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.
     
    Except for one thing ..., Aug 10, 2009
    #3
  4. Except for one thing ...

    SPAM ALERT Guest

    On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:32:55 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
    spammer)" <> 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.
     
    SPAM ALERT, Aug 10, 2009
    #4
  5. Except for one thing ...

    Spam Alert Guest

    Re: Requirements for Good Photography -- Re: Digital Dynamic Rangeand Exposure Latitude

    On Aug 9, 9:32 pm, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
    <> 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:
    >
    >
    > 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.
     
    Spam Alert, Aug 10, 2009
    #5
  6. Except for one thing ...

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, SPAM ALERT
    <> wrote:

    > On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:32:55 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
    > spammer)" <> 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.
     
    nospam, Aug 10, 2009
    #6
  7. Except for one thing ...

    SPAM ALERT Guest

    On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:53:08 -0400, nospam <> wrote:

    >In article <>, SPAM ALERT
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:32:55 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
    >> spammer)" <> 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/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_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.
     
    SPAM ALERT, Aug 10, 2009
    #7
  8. Except for one thing ...

    Spam Alert Guest

    Re: Requirements for Good Photography -- Re: Digital Dynamic Rangeand Exposure Latitude

    On Aug 10, 7:53 am, nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, SPAM ALERT
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > > On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:32:55 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
    > > spammer)" <> 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.
     
    Spam Alert, Aug 10, 2009
    #8
  9. Except for one thing ...

    Bob Larter Guest

    Re: Requirements for Good Photography -- Re: Digital Dynamic Rangeand Exposure Latitude

    nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, SPAM ALERT
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:32:55 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
    >> spammer)" <> 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
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Aug 11, 2009
    #9
  10. Except for one thing ...

    Bob Larter Guest

    Re: Requirements for Good Photography -- Re: Digital Dynamic Rangeand Exposure Latitude

    SPAM ALERT wrote:
    > On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:53:08 -0400, nospam <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, SPAM ALERT
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:32:55 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
    >>> spammer)" <> 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
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Aug 11, 2009
    #10
    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. PrincePete01

    exposure latitude of digital "film"

    PrincePete01, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,652
    Rafe B.
    Aug 11, 2003
  2. cwvalle

    Digital Exposure Latitude

    cwvalle, Jan 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    523
  3. Robert Feinman

    Scene range vs dynamic range

    Robert Feinman, Jun 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    708
    Marvin
    Jul 4, 2005
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,418
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Dale

    dynamic range and exposure latitude?

    Dale, Feb 27, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    139
Loading...

Share This Page