Somewhere out there, a monkey just got his drivers licence...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dudley Hanks, Mar 8, 2009.

  1. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    After reading the Real Deal's tyrade, yesterday, I started to think that,
    "Hey, maybe my pics were just accidents." So, I took Mich for a bus ride
    and took another picture of him.

    You be the judge:

    MichOnBus-:


    http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.jpg (full size)

    http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg (quick
    loading)

    http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.cr2 (original RAW)

    Sorry, though, I have to copyright this one...

    The above links address pictures which are Copyrighted by Dudley Hanks,
    2009, all rights reserved.

    You are granted permission to download and view these images for personal
    use and critical review. However, permission must be granted by myself for
    any commercial use, display in a web site / gallery, or for any method of
    publication.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 8, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dudley Hanks

    Paul Furman Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >
    > You be the judge:
    > http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg
    > (quick loading)


    Well done!


    > Sorry, though, I have to copyright this one...


    Ha, yeah right, like you are ever going to know <evil grin>.

    BTW as mentioned, that was the P&S troll the other day...

    PS are you going to post these to the blog? The link above goes to what
    appears to be a dead domain, if I clip off the details... so no way to
    find these other than your posts here.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 8, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
    news:8KLsl.1560$...
    > Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >>
    >> You be the judge:
    >> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg
    >> (quick loading)

    >
    > Well done!
    >
    >
    >> Sorry, though, I have to copyright this one...

    >
    > Ha, yeah right, like you are ever going to know <evil grin>.


    Did I forget to mention that click activated virus embeddede in the image?
    In graphical terms, it helps embellish the glint in his eye, but, I wouldn't
    want to be on the wrong end of a copyright violation... :)
    >
    > BTW as mentioned, that was the P&S troll the other day...


    Yeah, I know. He actually makes a nice whipping boy for some long-standing
    frustrations... :)

    >
    > PS are you going to post these to the blog? The link above goes to what
    > appears to be a dead domain, if I clip off the details... so no way to
    > find these other than your posts here.


    Yep, I'm in the final stages of moving my blog from blogspot to my own
    site -- this pic will probably accompany my first article. Also, I've got
    sstreaming video ready to go, so I should be doing some short video clips
    (with the help of my daughter's new video cam, another Canon).

    But, what pleases me the most is that my XSi finally feels good in my hands.
    The mindset has changed from "Can I do it?" to "I can do it!" So, I don't
    overthink pics as much. I've always been more of a reactive shooter than a
    studio dweller, so I do the best work when a scene pops up in front of my
    lens.

    I've had to reprogram a few "muscle memories," but I think my shooting days
    have definitely gotten their second wind.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 8, 2009
    #3
  4. Dudley Hanks

    Justin C Guest

    In article <H4Gsl.16874$PH1.4134@edtnps82>, Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg


    At the risk of upsetting another, focus should be on the eye(s), not the
    back of the head. But it look like a shot you didn't take through the
    viewfinder, more likely at arms length, maybe without even being able to
    see the display.

    It's a great shot. I especially like the out of focus woman(?) in the
    background. There's enough detail in her face to see her enjoying seeing
    you enjoying the dog - or at least, that's how I see it. Shame about
    your(?) legs and jacket in the shot, but I really like the portrait.

    Have you looked at Elliot Erwitt's work? He enjoyed taking photos of
    dogs - among other things.

    Justin.

    --
    Justin C, by the sea.
     
    Justin C, Mar 8, 2009
    #4
  5. Dudley Hanks

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > After reading the Real Deal's tyrade, yesterday, I started to think that,
    > "Hey, maybe my pics were just accidents." So, I took Mich for a bus ride
    > and took another picture of him.
    >
    > You be the judge:
    >
    > MichOnBus-:
    >
    >
    > http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.jpg (full size)
    >
    > http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg (quick
    > loading)
    >
    > http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.cr2 (original RAW)
    >
    > Sorry, though, I have to copyright this one...
    >
    > The above links address pictures which are Copyrighted by Dudley Hanks,
    > 2009, all rights reserved.
    >
    > You are granted permission to download and view these images for personal
    > use and critical review. However, permission must be granted by myself for
    > any commercial use, display in a web site / gallery, or for any method of
    > publication.
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley
    >
    >


    Dudley - that's a corker. Everything works well in that image. Print
    it big and display it!


    And as pointed out by others, ignore the troll. He's well known and
    completely out of his tree.
     
    Mark Thomas, Mar 9, 2009
    #5
  6. Dudley Hanks

    Mark Thomas Guest

    OT, on the Keoeeit troll Re: Somewhere out there...

    Get Real wrote:
    (abuse deleted)
    > Get Real.


    Please folks, do not respond to this poster further until you are fully
    aware of his background.

    "Get Real" is the anti-dslr- and chdk-troll, aka Keoeeit, Vern, X-Man,
    Baumbadier, Casiobear, etc, ad infinitum.

    He's well known for the 'attitude', and that's being kind. He can be
    found on many forums, is frequently banned (eg Steve's Forums,
    photography-on-the.net) and he's usually quite easy to spot, by his
    withdrawn posts and images. He doesn't like leaving a trail, but is too
    incompetent to not be recognised wherever he goes..

    Stands out like the proverbial puppy nuts.. (O:


    For further details, google "keoeeit minnesota". You'll see his posts
    are often lamenting about how he lives alone...

    Umm, any questions?


    Feel free to follow his sad path of self-destruction by searching on the
    names above, but you may need a strong stomach..

    If anyone is in Minnesota and sees him (here's a picture!):
    http://www.eotacforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=24769&p=300369#p300369

    ...maybe you can pass on my thoughts, which are probably similar to yours
    after reading that vomit he just posted..
     
    Mark Thomas, Mar 9, 2009
    #6
  7. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Mark Thomas" <> wrote in message
    news:gp2vk9$m1e$...
    > Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >> After reading the Real Deal's tyrade, yesterday, I started to think that,
    >> "Hey, maybe my pics were just accidents." So, I took Mich for a bus ride
    >> and took another picture of him.
    >>
    >> You be the judge:
    >>
    >> MichOnBus-:
    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.jpg (full size)
    >>
    >> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg
    >> (quick loading)
    >>
    >> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.cr2 (original
    >> RAW)
    >>
    >> Sorry, though, I have to copyright this one...
    >>
    >> The above links address pictures which are Copyrighted by Dudley Hanks,
    >> 2009, all rights reserved.
    >>
    >> You are granted permission to download and view these images for personal
    >> use and critical review. However, permission must be granted by myself
    >> for any commercial use, display in a web site / gallery, or for any
    >> method of publication.
    >>
    >> Take Care,
    >> Dudley
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Dudley - that's a corker. Everything works well in that image. Print it
    > big and display it!
    >
    >
    > And as pointed out by others, ignore the troll. He's well known and
    > completely out of his tree.
    >


    Thanks, Mark, appreciate the comments. I'm going to print it later this
    week, on my trusty laser printer.

    Regarding the resident Troll, he's no prob. He just gives me a reason to
    vent...

    Sadly, though, I've encountered 'people' just like him, face-to-face.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 9, 2009
    #7
  8. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Re: Somewhere out there, a monkey just chewed up someone's drivers licence and flung more feces ...

    "Get Real" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 02:29:59 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>After reading the Real Deal's tyrade, yesterday, I started to think that,
    >>"Hey, maybe my pics were just accidents." So, I took Mich for a bus ride
    >>and took another picture of him.
    >>
    >>You be the judge:
    >>
    >>MichOnBus-:
    >>
    >>
    >>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.jpg (full size)
    >>
    >>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg (quick
    >>loading)
    >>
    >>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.cr2 (original
    >>RAW)
    >>
    >>Sorry, though, I have to copyright this one...
    >>
    >>The above links address pictures which are Copyrighted by Dudley Hanks,
    >>2009, all rights reserved.
    >>
    >>You are granted permission to download and view these images for personal
    >>use and critical review. However, permission must be granted by myself
    >>for
    >>any commercial use, display in a web site / gallery, or for any method of
    >>publication.
    >>
    >>Take Care,
    >>Dudley
    >>

    >
    > Commercial use? You're losing your mind along with your sight.
    >
    > This is better, how? Another ordinary snapshot like any school-kid would
    > take with their cell-phone camera when on a field-trip bus outing. To top
    > it off your P&S camera focused on the dog's ear and leash around its neck,
    > putting the main features of the dog's face out of focus, including the
    > eyes. If you were going to do it right you would have focused somewhere on
    > the dog's snout just in front of the eye, so the nose to ear were all in
    > focus. Unless you are trying to portray a vehicle out of control then you
    > should have at least held the camera more level, or straightened and
    > cropped in editing. The exposure is wrong, you lost valuable detail in all
    > the shadows and didn't properly expose for the highlights. That's what
    > people get for wishfully depending on a "fancy" camera do all the work for
    > them.
    >
    > The woman with chin in hand in the background of the image is just as
    > amused as everyone else being subjected to your carnival sideshow act.
    > Watching a blind guy trying to pretend he can do photography. "Awwww....
    > isn't that cute, look at what the monkey is trying to do ..." To bad that
    > she didn't get to see the results too--more flung feces.
    >
    > Consumer camera technology is not going to replace your eyes. Grow-up and
    > face reality. If I lost my eyesight I would face it like an adult and
    > switch gears; probably devote more to my music interests; taking another
    > stab at honing my skills on shakuhachi or maybe some other instrument I
    > haven't tried yet. Maybe go back to sculpting or some other artistic
    > interest that's not wholly vision dependent. There are thousands of things
    > that one can pursue without eyesight. It wouldn't bother me in the least
    > if
    > I lost my eyesight. Just as a personal test I lived that way once for two
    > weeks, alone, to see what it would be like and if it would bother me. I
    > found hundreds of things to do while living without eyesight. But at least
    > I wouldn't make a public fool of myself trying to pretend to do what I
    > would now be incapable of doing. Or in your case, could never do to begin
    > with, your skills so far have proved that you never were talented with a
    > camera.
    >
    > Want some constructive criticism? In case you refuse to grow up and face
    > realty. Quit trying to use shallow DOF in your photography. You can't see
    > well enough to make proper use of it. Any time that you try you only
    > destroy the photo that you were hoping to capture. Auto-focus is not
    > intelligent enough to do it for you, in any camera. Set your camera to
    > manual focus and leave it set on a hyperfocal setting, turn it into even
    > more of an Instamatic snapshot camera so all your faults and limitations
    > aren't so blatantly obvious to those with functional eyes. Make
    > composition
    > your goal, not the individual subjects. I'm not sure what you'll do about
    > your dependency on auto-exposure too, other than to learn the faults of
    > your camera and count how many EV button presses it should take to
    > override
    > the camera designer's stupidity. Learn to hide your limitations with your
    > camera. Then it won't look like you're an insecure idiot trying to be what
    > you can never be. Instead you'll only be one of the many millions of
    > mundane snapshot photographers with a grade-school level of field-trip
    > cell-phone-camera talent. You're only amplifying your faults and
    > limitations and then broadcasting them to the world with what you are
    > doing
    > now. You're looking like a delusional dwarf running around on the
    > basketball court who is hoping to be drafted by a pro team. Embarrassingly
    > entertaining.
    >
    > Find something else you might be good at one day because it's never going
    > to be photography. I'm doing you a huge favor in being the only one here
    > who is completely honest with you. The rest are only amusing you out of
    > their own personal fears, insecurities, and the worst self-serving motive
    > of all--pity. Grow up and deal with it.
    >
    > Get Real.
    >
    >


    Ah, you did say a couple of semi-intelligent things in this post. Nice
    change. But, obviously, we still have a ways to go.

    Too bad you shot yourself in the foot when you said that my
    "point-and-shoot" camera focused on the dogs ears and collar, followed by,
    you should quit using shallow DOF. Taken together, these two statements
    show how little you really know about photography. First of all, P&S
    cameras can't achieve that shallow of DOF, see:

    http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip.jpg (full size)

    http://www.photographic.dudley-hanks.com/Images/BusTrip-small.jpg

    This pic, although shot on a P&S at a wider aperture than the one with
    shallow DOF, definitely has more DOF. Most knowledgeable shooters know that
    you can't do shallow DOF with a P&S, but I'm flattered you think I have the
    skills to get that shallow DOF from a P&S cam.

    Still, if you are going to offer vitriolic critiques, at least, get your
    facts right... Perhaps you'll garner a wee bit of credibility that way.

    Second, you seem to think it is an acceptable goal for a sighted shooter to
    tilt a camera in order to portray a bus out of control. So, why can't I use
    that technique, or lost detail in shadows for that matter, to depict an
    event experienced by a blind individual, after all, I lose way more shadow
    detail than that when I look at a scene. You operate on the wrong premise
    that the picture you would have tried to capture in my situation is the same
    image I want to capture. You're wrong. The image I WANT is drastically
    different than any image you would shoot. I'd go so far as to say that YOU
    CANNOT EVEN IMAGINE AN IMAGE I WOULD WANT TO CAPTURE, which will always
    result in my shooting pics you can't understand. But, hey, you might at
    least TRY to exercise your imagination in order to tentatively ponder
    alternative interpretations of my work? Or, is your mind so narrow you are
    incapable of that. I guess that's why you are critiquing pics here in
    Usenet, as opposed to getting paid for your opinions by a media outlet /
    trades newsletter.

    Regarding the shallow DOF, many of my current pics use it because it yields
    a result I am after: rendering visible a world that isn't perfectly
    focused. After all, I DO NOT LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE EVERYTHING IS PERFECTLY
    FOCUSED.

    And, no, I won't put down my camera just because you get embarrassed by my
    pics.

    By your logic, Beethoven should have stopped his hammerings long before
    composing his 5th symphony; Hellen Keller should have given up and
    committed suicide; and Governor Patterson should be working for a charity.
    Fortunately, some of us can see past our limitations.

    It was once pointed out that "it takes a village" to raise a child. Well,
    in my case, it takes a team to make a photograph, which isn't all that much
    different than for sighted shooters, most just don't realize it.

    When learning their trade, photographers learn from others what works, what
    doesn't and how to interpret scenes they are confronted by. They then apply
    that knowledge to future pics. And, especially in the early days, they
    learn a great deal from feedback they receive from friends, family members
    and clients after each pic is reviewed (either formally, or informally).

    Why should I be denied the benefit of feedback simply because I have a
    vision limitation? According to your logic, people shouldn't be given
    wheelchairs when they lose their legs, because their pathetic attempts to
    get around their community is an embarrassment to the able-bodied people
    they meet strolling down the sidewalk?

    The biggest hurdle I have to overcome when displaying my work is to educate
    my viewers that I am NOT trying to photograph images in a traditional
    fashion. Instead, I am trying to use traditional techniques to photograph
    scenes which REPRESENT small slices of my world.

    You seem to think that your twisted logic is superior to others. But, what
    you fail to realize is that your comments simply highlight your lack of
    empathetic development. According to Stephen Covey (in Seven Habits of
    Highly Effective People), achieving symbiotic relationships with others is
    preferable to self-sufficiency because it allows each individual to not only
    benefit from their own skills and talents, but to achieve an even higher
    standard of living because each member of the relationship gains from
    others' abilities.

    But, so much for my rant. Now, back to the picture.

    I actually appreciate your feedback. Indeed, you do tell me things others
    won't, and that helps a great deal (whether you want it to or not, I can't
    say).

    I was aware of some of what you wrote, in particular that the camera wasn't
    level, and that the face isn't entirely in focus. But, if you could just
    hold your attitude in check for a moment, you might understand, as I've
    explained, that my pics SHOULD NOT look like pics of sighted shooters. I
    have always shot with the premise that my pics should contain a bit of me in
    each, because it is that personal touch which makes pics unique /
    indellible.

    Hence, if I want to shoot pics about a blind person's world, why would I
    want to remove all indications that the shooter is blind? That would defeat
    my purpose and would truly reduce my work to run-of-the-mill snapshots.
    Right? But, when you can look at my shots and see my stamp and think, "Hey,
    his world is kind of neat, even though it is a bit unstable." Then, I have
    conveyed a bit of what it's like to live in a blind person's world. I can't
    say it enough: If a sighted shooter shot pics like these and said, "Hey,
    I'm trying to portray a bit of what it's like to live in a blind person's
    world," he'd probably get tons of critical acclaim and awards would roll in.
    Right? I'd bet on it. Why can't I use the technique when I'm an actual
    blind person trying to shoot pics that portray that same reality?

    Regarding the woman looking at us, how do you know that she is looking at us
    because I'm trying to take a picture. Believe me, when I step onto a bus
    (where dogs are not allowed) with my rather large shepherd, all eyes are on
    us. And, they continue to watch us simply because we are a distraction from
    the daily humdrum of their lives.

    I had one bus driver say to me once, when I boarded his bus with a previous
    shepherd guide, "I love it when you get on the bus."

    At first, I thought he was glad because he got to experience my wonderful
    wit and fluent small talk, but he set me straight when he added, "...
    because when you are sitting there with that big shepherd, everyone is so
    well behaved."

    So, once again, your interpretation of my work is based on your projecting
    your dissatisfaction with your own existance onto my reality. If I can make
    people smile, whether it be because of bringing a dog into a place where it
    isn't normally found, or whether it is because they find my antics amusing,
    pathetic, or whatever, great! I've made the world a more beautiful place,
    even if it is just for a moment, or for a few minutes.

    You said you tried living as a blind person for a short time, by
    blindfolding yourself. But, that doesn't give you the whole picture. You
    KNEW you weren't actually blind, so it is easy for you to think, hey, I can
    do this. The fact that you can take the blinders off should you truly face
    a life and death situation is always in the back of your mind, whether you
    admit that to yourself or not. Things look WAY different when that safety
    net is removed, and you TRULY have to face reality. Ask any blind person
    who has had to confront a sightless future.

    Sadly, though, by blindfolding yourself, you missed the good side of the
    situation, too. You didn't see the reactions of the people you were
    interacting with.

    When it comes to photography, I get to experience a bit of that interaction.
    In many of my pics, there are people watching me, or my dog, or both of us
    together. To experience a bi-species team at work, communicating with each
    other and solving a problem is something I hope you get to experience in
    your life time. For me, I have been fortunate enough not only to watch such
    a team, but to actually be an integral part of three teams.

    For me, having my dog help me find my way to the mall is no different than
    asking people for information about a scene I want to shoot, or for feedback
    about shots I've already taken. It is all part of the process, and, while
    it becomes an integral component in my work, it does not void my work. Just
    like any other photographer's talent is not negated by his mentors /
    instructors / clients' feedback, even though the photog makes adjustments
    based on their comments and ideas.

    As I've told other detractors in the past, please, keep the feedback coming.
    I may use it; I may not. But, whatever you say, it gives me something to
    think about, and it gives me very valuable details about my images, details
    I couldn't use (even if I wanted to) if I didn't get it.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 9, 2009
    #8
  9. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Re: Somewhere out there, a monkey just chewed up someone's drivers licence and flung more feces ...

    Ooops, I had a typo in one of the links I inserted in this post. The proper
    links should be:

    http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip.jpg (full size)

    http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip-small.jpg (quick
    loading)



    "Get Real" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 02:29:59 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>After reading the Real Deal's tyrade, yesterday, I started to think that,
    >>"Hey, maybe my pics were just accidents." So, I took Mich for a bus ride
    >>and took another picture of him.
    >>
    >>You be the judge:
    >>
    >>MichOnBus-:
    >>
    >>
    >>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.jpg (full size)
    >>
    >>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg (quick
    >>loading)
    >>
    >>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.cr2 (original
    >>RAW)
    >>
    >>Sorry, though, I have to copyright this one...
    >>
    >>The above links address pictures which are Copyrighted by Dudley Hanks,
    >>2009, all rights reserved.
    >>
    >>You are granted permission to download and view these images for personal
    >>use and critical review. However, permission must be granted by myself
    >>for
    >>any commercial use, display in a web site / gallery, or for any method of
    >>publication.
    >>
    >>Take Care,
    >>Dudley
    >>

    >
    > Commercial use? You're losing your mind along with your sight.
    >
    > This is better, how? Another ordinary snapshot like any school-kid would
    > take with their cell-phone camera when on a field-trip bus outing. To top
    > it off your P&S camera focused on the dog's ear and leash around its neck,
    > putting the main features of the dog's face out of focus, including the
    > eyes. If you were going to do it right you would have focused somewhere on
    > the dog's snout just in front of the eye, so the nose to ear were all in
    > focus. Unless you are trying to portray a vehicle out of control then you
    > should have at least held the camera more level, or straightened and
    > cropped in editing. The exposure is wrong, you lost valuable detail in all
    > the shadows and didn't properly expose for the highlights. That's what
    > people get for wishfully depending on a "fancy" camera do all the work for
    > them.
    >
    > The woman with chin in hand in the background of the image is just as
    > amused as everyone else being subjected to your carnival sideshow act.
    > Watching a blind guy trying to pretend he can do photography. "Awwww....
    > isn't that cute, look at what the monkey is trying to do ..." To bad that
    > she didn't get to see the results too--more flung feces.
    >
    > Consumer camera technology is not going to replace your eyes. Grow-up and
    > face reality. If I lost my eyesight I would face it like an adult and
    > switch gears; probably devote more to my music interests; taking another
    > stab at honing my skills on shakuhachi or maybe some other instrument I
    > haven't tried yet. Maybe go back to sculpting or some other artistic
    > interest that's not wholly vision dependent. There are thousands of things
    > that one can pursue without eyesight. It wouldn't bother me in the least
    > if
    > I lost my eyesight. Just as a personal test I lived that way once for two
    > weeks, alone, to see what it would be like and if it would bother me. I
    > found hundreds of things to do while living without eyesight. But at least
    > I wouldn't make a public fool of myself trying to pretend to do what I
    > would now be incapable of doing. Or in your case, could never do to begin
    > with, your skills so far have proved that you never were talented with a
    > camera.
    >
    > Want some constructive criticism? In case you refuse to grow up and face
    > realty. Quit trying to use shallow DOF in your photography. You can't see
    > well enough to make proper use of it. Any time that you try you only
    > destroy the photo that you were hoping to capture. Auto-focus is not
    > intelligent enough to do it for you, in any camera. Set your camera to
    > manual focus and leave it set on a hyperfocal setting, turn it into even
    > more of an Instamatic snapshot camera so all your faults and limitations
    > aren't so blatantly obvious to those with functional eyes. Make
    > composition
    > your goal, not the individual subjects. I'm not sure what you'll do about
    > your dependency on auto-exposure too, other than to learn the faults of
    > your camera and count how many EV button presses it should take to
    > override
    > the camera designer's stupidity. Learn to hide your limitations with your
    > camera. Then it won't look like you're an insecure idiot trying to be what
    > you can never be. Instead you'll only be one of the many millions of
    > mundane snapshot photographers with a grade-school level of field-trip
    > cell-phone-camera talent. You're only amplifying your faults and
    > limitations and then broadcasting them to the world with what you are
    > doing
    > now. You're looking like a delusional dwarf running around on the
    > basketball court who is hoping to be drafted by a pro team. Embarrassingly
    > entertaining.
    >
    > Find something else you might be good at one day because it's never going
    > to be photography. I'm doing you a huge favor in being the only one here
    > who is completely honest with you. The rest are only amusing you out of
    > their own personal fears, insecurities, and the worst self-serving motive
    > of all--pity. Grow up and deal with it.
    >
    > Get Real.
    >
    >


    Ah, you did say a couple of semi-intelligent things in this post. Nice
    change. But, obviously, we still have a ways to go.

    Too bad you shot yourself in the foot when you said that my
    "point-and-shoot" camera focused on the dogs ears and collar, followed by,
    you should quit using shallow DOF. Taken together, these two statements
    show how little you really know about photography. First of all, P&S
    cameras can't achieve that shallow of DOF, see:

    http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip.jpg (full size)

    http://www.photographic.dudley-hanks.com/Images/BusTrip-small.jpg

    This pic, although shot on a P&S at a wider aperture than the one with
    shallow DOF, definitely has more DOF. Most knowledgeable shooters know that
    you can't do shallow DOF with a P&S, but I'm flattered you think I have the
    skills to get that shallow DOF from a P&S cam.

    Still, if you are going to offer vitriolic critiques, at least, get your
    facts right... Perhaps you'll garner a wee bit of credibility that way.

    Second, you seem to think it is an acceptable goal for a sighted shooter to
    tilt a camera in order to portray a bus out of control. So, why can't I use
    that technique, or lost detail in shadows for that matter, to depict an
    event experienced by a blind individual, after all, I lose way more shadow
    detail than that when I look at a scene. You operate on the wrong premise
    that the picture you would have tried to capture in my situation is the same
    image I want to capture. You're wrong. The image I WANT is drastically
    different than any image you would shoot. I'd go so far as to say that YOU
    CANNOT EVEN IMAGINE AN IMAGE I WOULD WANT TO CAPTURE, which will always
    result in my shooting pics you can't understand. But, hey, you might at
    least TRY to exercise your imagination in order to tentatively ponder
    alternative interpretations of my work? Or, is your mind so narrow you are
    incapable of that. I guess that's why you are critiquing pics here in
    Usenet, as opposed to getting paid for your opinions by a media outlet /
    trades newsletter.

    Regarding the shallow DOF, many of my current pics use it because it yields
    a result I am after: rendering visible a world that isn't perfectly
    focused. After all, I DO NOT LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE EVERYTHING IS PERFECTLY
    FOCUSED.

    And, no, I won't put down my camera just because you get embarrassed by my
    pics.

    By your logic, Beethoven should have stopped his hammerings long before
    composing his 5th symphony; Hellen Keller should have given up and
    committed suicide; and Governor Patterson should be working for a charity.
    Fortunately, some of us can see past our limitations.

    It was once pointed out that "it takes a village" to raise a child. Well,
    in my case, it takes a team to make a photograph, which isn't all that much
    different than for sighted shooters, most just don't realize it.

    When learning their trade, photographers learn from others what works, what
    doesn't and how to interpret scenes they are confronted by. They then apply
    that knowledge to future pics. And, especially in the early days, they
    learn a great deal from feedback they receive from friends, family members
    and clients after each pic is reviewed (either formally, or informally).

    Why should I be denied the benefit of feedback simply because I have a
    vision limitation? According to your logic, people shouldn't be given
    wheelchairs when they lose their legs, because their pathetic attempts to
    get around their community is an embarrassment to the able-bodied people
    they meet strolling down the sidewalk?

    The biggest hurdle I have to overcome when displaying my work is to educate
    my viewers that I am NOT trying to photograph images in a traditional
    fashion. Instead, I am trying to use traditional techniques to photograph
    scenes which REPRESENT small slices of my world.

    You seem to think that your twisted logic is superior to others. But, what
    you fail to realize is that your comments simply highlight your lack of
    empathetic development. According to Stephen Covey (in Seven Habits of
    Highly Effective People), achieving symbiotic relationships with others is
    preferable to self-sufficiency because it allows each individual to not only
    benefit from their own skills and talents, but to achieve an even higher
    standard of living because each member of the relationship gains from
    others' abilities.

    But, so much for my rant. Now, back to the picture.

    I actually appreciate your feedback. Indeed, you do tell me things others
    won't, and that helps a great deal (whether you want it to or not, I can't
    say).

    I was aware of some of what you wrote, in particular that the camera wasn't
    level, and that the face isn't entirely in focus. But, if you could just
    hold your attitude in check for a moment, you might understand, as I've
    explained, that my pics SHOULD NOT look like pics of sighted shooters. I
    have always shot with the premise that my pics should contain a bit of me in
    each, because it is that personal touch which makes pics unique /
    indellible.

    Hence, if I want to shoot pics about a blind person's world, why would I
    want to remove all indications that the shooter is blind? That would defeat
    my purpose and would truly reduce my work to run-of-the-mill snapshots.
    Right? But, when you can look at my shots and see my stamp and think, "Hey,
    his world is kind of neat, even though it is a bit unstable." Then, I have
    conveyed a bit of what it's like to live in a blind person's world. I can't
    say it enough: If a sighted shooter shot pics like these and said, "Hey,
    I'm trying to portray a bit of what it's like to live in a blind person's
    world," he'd probably get tons of critical acclaim and awards would roll in.
    Right? I'd bet on it. Why can't I use the technique when I'm an actual
    blind person trying to shoot pics that portray that same reality?

    Regarding the woman looking at us, how do you know that she is looking at us
    because I'm trying to take a picture. Believe me, when I step onto a bus
    (where dogs are not allowed) with my rather large shepherd, all eyes are on
    us. And, they continue to watch us simply because we are a distraction from
    the daily humdrum of their lives.

    I had one bus driver say to me once, when I boarded his bus with a previous
    shepherd guide, "I love it when you get on the bus."

    At first, I thought he was glad because he got to experience my wonderful
    wit and fluent small talk, but he set me straight when he added, "...
    because when you are sitting there with that big shepherd, everyone is so
    well behaved."

    So, once again, your interpretation of my work is based on your projecting
    your dissatisfaction with your own existance onto my reality. If I can make
    people smile, whether it be because of bringing a dog into a place where it
    isn't normally found, or whether it is because they find my antics amusing,
    pathetic, or whatever, great! I've made the world a more beautiful place,
    even if it is just for a moment, or for a few minutes.

    You said you tried living as a blind person for a short time, by
    blindfolding yourself. But, that doesn't give you the whole picture. You
    KNEW you weren't actually blind, so it is easy for you to think, hey, I can
    do this. The fact that you can take the blinders off should you truly face
    a life and death situation is always in the back of your mind, whether you
    admit that to yourself or not. Things look WAY different when that safety
    net is removed, and you TRULY have to face reality. Ask any blind person
    who has had to confront a sightless future.

    Sadly, though, by blindfolding yourself, you missed the good side of the
    situation, too. You didn't see the reactions of the people you were
    interacting with.

    When it comes to photography, I get to experience a bit of that interaction.
    In many of my pics, there are people watching me, or my dog, or both of us
    together. To experience a bi-species team at work, communicating with each
    other and solving a problem is something I hope you get to experience in
    your life time. For me, I have been fortunate enough not only to watch such
    a team, but to actually be an integral part of three teams.

    For me, having my dog help me find my way to the mall is no different than
    asking people for information about a scene I want to shoot, or for feedback
    about shots I've already taken. It is all part of the process, and, while
    it becomes an integral component in my work, it does not void my work. Just
    like any other photographer's talent is not negated by his mentors /
    instructors / clients' feedback, even though the photog makes adjustments
    based on their comments and ideas.

    As I've told other detractors in the past, please, keep the feedback coming.
    I may use it; I may not. But, whatever you say, it gives me something to
    think about, and it gives me very valuable details about my images, details
    I couldn't use (even if I wanted to) if I didn't get it.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 9, 2009
    #9
  10. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Justin C" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <H4Gsl.16874$PH1.4134@edtnps82>, Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg

    >
    > At the risk of upsetting another, focus should be on the eye(s), not the
    > back of the head. But it look like a shot you didn't take through the
    > viewfinder, more likely at arms length, maybe without even being able to
    > see the display.
    >
    > It's a great shot. I especially like the out of focus woman(?) in the
    > background. There's enough detail in her face to see her enjoying seeing
    > you enjoying the dog - or at least, that's how I see it. Shame about
    > your(?) legs and jacket in the shot, but I really like the portrait.
    >
    > Have you looked at Elliot Erwitt's work? He enjoyed taking photos of
    > dogs - among other things.
    >
    > Justin.
    >
    > --
    > Justin C, by the sea.


    You're right, I had the camera at arm's length taking the shot, with my
    wrist twisted around a railing support. For more info about the actual
    taking of the shot, see:

    http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/blindapertures

    Your post is a perfect example of why I love posting images here: each
    person who responds tells me something new about my image. In this case,
    that part of me is showing -- my jacket and pants.

    When still in the camera, I asked a few people if I am visible, everybody
    said no, possibly because the LCD image is too small for them to notice, or
    they didn't look at it close enough.

    If the image were cropped to remove that part, would it cut into Mich or the
    woman?

    Regarding the focus, these candid shots aren't meant as a formal, or even an
    environmental, portrait. They're just pics I take to show people what my
    world is like. Obviously, the shots will never truly demonstrate my
    reality, but I hope they get people thinking.

    Over the next few months, I want to shoot a number of shots on this theme
    and put together a display. With a little luck, maybe a gallery will pick
    up on the idea and feature it.

    Regarding Elliott Erwitt, I haven't heard of him, but I'll try to check out
    his work.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 10, 2009
    #10
  11. Re: Somewhere out there, a monkey just chewed up someone's drivers licence and flung more feces ...

    Ï "Dudley Hanks" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
    news:IKftl.16120$Db2.11733@edtnps83...
    > Ooops, I had a typo in one of the links I inserted in this post. The
    > proper links should be:
    >
    > http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip.jpg (full size)
    >
    > http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip-small.jpg (quick
    > loading)
    >
    >
    >
    > "Get Real" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 02:29:59 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>After reading the Real Deal's tyrade, yesterday, I started to think that,
    >>>"Hey, maybe my pics were just accidents." So, I took Mich for a bus ride
    >>>and took another picture of him.
    >>>
    >>>You be the judge:
    >>>
    >>>MichOnBus-:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.jpg (full size)
    >>>
    >>>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg
    >>>(quick
    >>>loading)
    >>>
    >>>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.cr2 (original
    >>>RAW)
    >>>
    >>>Sorry, though, I have to copyright this one...
    >>>
    >>>The above links address pictures which are Copyrighted by Dudley Hanks,
    >>>2009, all rights reserved.
    >>>
    >>>You are granted permission to download and view these images for personal
    >>>use and critical review. However, permission must be granted by myself
    >>>for
    >>>any commercial use, display in a web site / gallery, or for any method of
    >>>publication.
    >>>
    >>>Take Care,
    >>>Dudley
    >>>

    >>
    >> Commercial use? You're losing your mind along with your sight.
    >>
    >> This is better, how? Another ordinary snapshot like any school-kid would
    >> take with their cell-phone camera when on a field-trip bus outing. To top
    >> it off your P&S camera focused on the dog's ear and leash around its
    >> neck,
    >> putting the main features of the dog's face out of focus, including the
    >> eyes. If you were going to do it right you would have focused somewhere
    >> on
    >> the dog's snout just in front of the eye, so the nose to ear were all in
    >> focus. Unless you are trying to portray a vehicle out of control then you
    >> should have at least held the camera more level, or straightened and
    >> cropped in editing. The exposure is wrong, you lost valuable detail in
    >> all
    >> the shadows and didn't properly expose for the highlights. That's what
    >> people get for wishfully depending on a "fancy" camera do all the work
    >> for
    >> them.
    >>
    >> The woman with chin in hand in the background of the image is just as
    >> amused as everyone else being subjected to your carnival sideshow act.
    >> Watching a blind guy trying to pretend he can do photography. "Awwww....
    >> isn't that cute, look at what the monkey is trying to do ..." To bad that
    >> she didn't get to see the results too--more flung feces.
    >>
    >> Consumer camera technology is not going to replace your eyes. Grow-up and
    >> face reality. If I lost my eyesight I would face it like an adult and
    >> switch gears; probably devote more to my music interests; taking another
    >> stab at honing my skills on shakuhachi or maybe some other instrument I
    >> haven't tried yet. Maybe go back to sculpting or some other artistic
    >> interest that's not wholly vision dependent. There are thousands of
    >> things
    >> that one can pursue without eyesight. It wouldn't bother me in the least
    >> if
    >> I lost my eyesight. Just as a personal test I lived that way once for two
    >> weeks, alone, to see what it would be like and if it would bother me. I
    >> found hundreds of things to do while living without eyesight. But at
    >> least
    >> I wouldn't make a public fool of myself trying to pretend to do what I
    >> would now be incapable of doing. Or in your case, could never do to begin
    >> with, your skills so far have proved that you never were talented with a
    >> camera.
    >>
    >> Want some constructive criticism? In case you refuse to grow up and face
    >> realty. Quit trying to use shallow DOF in your photography. You can't see
    >> well enough to make proper use of it. Any time that you try you only
    >> destroy the photo that you were hoping to capture. Auto-focus is not
    >> intelligent enough to do it for you, in any camera. Set your camera to
    >> manual focus and leave it set on a hyperfocal setting, turn it into even
    >> more of an Instamatic snapshot camera so all your faults and limitations
    >> aren't so blatantly obvious to those with functional eyes. Make
    >> composition
    >> your goal, not the individual subjects. I'm not sure what you'll do about
    >> your dependency on auto-exposure too, other than to learn the faults of
    >> your camera and count how many EV button presses it should take to
    >> override
    >> the camera designer's stupidity. Learn to hide your limitations with your
    >> camera. Then it won't look like you're an insecure idiot trying to be
    >> what
    >> you can never be. Instead you'll only be one of the many millions of
    >> mundane snapshot photographers with a grade-school level of field-trip
    >> cell-phone-camera talent. You're only amplifying your faults and
    >> limitations and then broadcasting them to the world with what you are
    >> doing
    >> now. You're looking like a delusional dwarf running around on the
    >> basketball court who is hoping to be drafted by a pro team.
    >> Embarrassingly
    >> entertaining.
    >>
    >> Find something else you might be good at one day because it's never going
    >> to be photography. I'm doing you a huge favor in being the only one here
    >> who is completely honest with you. The rest are only amusing you out of
    >> their own personal fears, insecurities, and the worst self-serving motive
    >> of all--pity. Grow up and deal with it.
    >>
    >> Get Real.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Ah, you did say a couple of semi-intelligent things in this post. Nice
    > change. But, obviously, we still have a ways to go.
    >
    > Too bad you shot yourself in the foot when you said that my
    > "point-and-shoot" camera focused on the dogs ears and collar, followed by,
    > you should quit using shallow DOF. Taken together, these two statements
    > show how little you really know about photography. First of all, P&S
    > cameras can't achieve that shallow of DOF, see:
    >
    > http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip.jpg (full size)
    >
    > http://www.photographic.dudley-hanks.com/Images/BusTrip-small.jpg
    >
    > This pic, although shot on a P&S at a wider aperture than the one with
    > shallow DOF, definitely has more DOF. Most knowledgeable shooters know
    > that you can't do shallow DOF with a P&S, but I'm flattered you think I
    > have the skills to get that shallow DOF from a P&S cam.
    >
    > Still, if you are going to offer vitriolic critiques, at least, get your
    > facts right... Perhaps you'll garner a wee bit of credibility that way.
    >
    > Second, you seem to think it is an acceptable goal for a sighted shooter
    > to tilt a camera in order to portray a bus out of control. So, why can't
    > I use that technique, or lost detail in shadows for that matter, to depict
    > an event experienced by a blind individual, after all, I lose way more
    > shadow detail than that when I look at a scene. You operate on the wrong
    > premise that the picture you would have tried to capture in my situation
    > is the same image I want to capture. You're wrong. The image I WANT is
    > drastically different than any image you would shoot. I'd go so far as to
    > say that YOU CANNOT EVEN IMAGINE AN IMAGE I WOULD WANT TO CAPTURE, which
    > will always result in my shooting pics you can't understand. But, hey,
    > you might at least TRY to exercise your imagination in order to
    > tentatively ponder alternative interpretations of my work? Or, is your
    > mind so narrow you are incapable of that. I guess that's why you are
    > critiquing pics here in Usenet, as opposed to getting paid for your
    > opinions by a media outlet / trades newsletter.
    >
    > Regarding the shallow DOF, many of my current pics use it because it
    > yields a result I am after: rendering visible a world that isn't
    > perfectly focused. After all, I DO NOT LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE EVERYTHING
    > IS PERFECTLY FOCUSED.
    >
    > And, no, I won't put down my camera just because you get embarrassed by my
    > pics.
    >
    > By your logic, Beethoven should have stopped his hammerings long before
    > composing his 5th symphony; Hellen Keller should have given up and
    > committed suicide; and Governor Patterson should be working for a
    > charity. Fortunately, some of us can see past our limitations.
    >
    > It was once pointed out that "it takes a village" to raise a child. Well,
    > in my case, it takes a team to make a photograph, which isn't all that
    > much different than for sighted shooters, most just don't realize it.
    >
    > When learning their trade, photographers learn from others what works,
    > what doesn't and how to interpret scenes they are confronted by. They
    > then apply that knowledge to future pics. And, especially in the early
    > days, they learn a great deal from feedback they receive from friends,
    > family members and clients after each pic is reviewed (either formally, or
    > informally).
    >
    > Why should I be denied the benefit of feedback simply because I have a
    > vision limitation? According to your logic, people shouldn't be given
    > wheelchairs when they lose their legs, because their pathetic attempts to
    > get around their community is an embarrassment to the able-bodied people
    > they meet strolling down the sidewalk?
    >
    > The biggest hurdle I have to overcome when displaying my work is to
    > educate my viewers that I am NOT trying to photograph images in a
    > traditional fashion. Instead, I am trying to use traditional techniques
    > to photograph scenes which REPRESENT small slices of my world.
    >
    > You seem to think that your twisted logic is superior to others. But,
    > what you fail to realize is that your comments simply highlight your lack
    > of empathetic development. According to Stephen Covey (in Seven Habits of
    > Highly Effective People), achieving symbiotic relationships with others is
    > preferable to self-sufficiency because it allows each individual to not
    > only benefit from their own skills and talents, but to achieve an even
    > higher standard of living because each member of the relationship gains
    > from others' abilities.
    >
    > But, so much for my rant. Now, back to the picture.
    >
    > I actually appreciate your feedback. Indeed, you do tell me things others
    > won't, and that helps a great deal (whether you want it to or not, I can't
    > say).
    >
    > I was aware of some of what you wrote, in particular that the camera
    > wasn't level, and that the face isn't entirely in focus. But, if you
    > could just hold your attitude in check for a moment, you might understand,
    > as I've explained, that my pics SHOULD NOT look like pics of sighted
    > shooters. I have always shot with the premise that my pics should contain
    > a bit of me in each, because it is that personal touch which makes pics
    > unique / indellible.
    >
    > Hence, if I want to shoot pics about a blind person's world, why would I
    > want to remove all indications that the shooter is blind? That would
    > defeat my purpose and would truly reduce my work to run-of-the-mill
    > snapshots. Right? But, when you can look at my shots and see my stamp and
    > think, "Hey, his world is kind of neat, even though it is a bit unstable."
    > Then, I have conveyed a bit of what it's like to live in a blind person's
    > world. I can't say it enough: If a sighted shooter shot pics like these
    > and said, "Hey, I'm trying to portray a bit of what it's like to live in a
    > blind person's world," he'd probably get tons of critical acclaim and
    > awards would roll in. Right? I'd bet on it. Why can't I use the
    > technique when I'm an actual blind person trying to shoot pics that
    > portray that same reality?
    >
    > Regarding the woman looking at us, how do you know that she is looking at
    > us because I'm trying to take a picture. Believe me, when I step onto a
    > bus (where dogs are not allowed) with my rather large shepherd, all eyes
    > are on us. And, they continue to watch us simply because we are a
    > distraction from the daily humdrum of their lives.
    >
    > I had one bus driver say to me once, when I boarded his bus with a
    > previous shepherd guide, "I love it when you get on the bus."
    >
    > At first, I thought he was glad because he got to experience my wonderful
    > wit and fluent small talk, but he set me straight when he added, "...
    > because when you are sitting there with that big shepherd, everyone is so
    > well behaved."
    >
    > So, once again, your interpretation of my work is based on your projecting
    > your dissatisfaction with your own existance onto my reality. If I can
    > make people smile, whether it be because of bringing a dog into a place
    > where it isn't normally found, or whether it is because they find my
    > antics amusing, pathetic, or whatever, great! I've made the world a more
    > beautiful place, even if it is just for a moment, or for a few minutes.
    >
    > You said you tried living as a blind person for a short time, by
    > blindfolding yourself. But, that doesn't give you the whole picture. You
    > KNEW you weren't actually blind, so it is easy for you to think, hey, I
    > can do this. The fact that you can take the blinders off should you truly
    > face a life and death situation is always in the back of your mind,
    > whether you admit that to yourself or not. Things look WAY different when
    > that safety net is removed, and you TRULY have to face reality. Ask any
    > blind person who has had to confront a sightless future.
    >
    > Sadly, though, by blindfolding yourself, you missed the good side of the
    > situation, too. You didn't see the reactions of the people you were
    > interacting with.
    >
    > When it comes to photography, I get to experience a bit of that
    > interaction. In many of my pics, there are people watching me, or my dog,
    > or both of us together. To experience a bi-species team at work,
    > communicating with each other and solving a problem is something I hope
    > you get to experience in your life time. For me, I have been fortunate
    > enough not only to watch such a team, but to actually be an integral part
    > of three teams.
    >
    > For me, having my dog help me find my way to the mall is no different than
    > asking people for information about a scene I want to shoot, or for
    > feedback about shots I've already taken. It is all part of the process,
    > and, while it becomes an integral component in my work, it does not void
    > my work. Just like any other photographer's talent is not negated by his
    > mentors / instructors / clients' feedback, even though the photog makes
    > adjustments based on their comments and ideas.
    >
    > As I've told other detractors in the past, please, keep the feedback
    > coming. I may use it; I may not. But, whatever you say, it gives me
    > something to think about, and it gives me very valuable details about my
    > images, details I couldn't use (even if I wanted to) if I didn't get it.

    I liked very much this photo, we can see now the golden colour of your dog.
    What I especially like about dogs, it's their loyalty, and thay can be
    trained, too, which, of course, is impossible with cats. Don't worry about
    the troll, it's a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black,
    Trying to reason with him is tantamount to emptying the Atlantic Ocean with
    a bucket, better ignore him. I also liked very much the B&W photo you took
    of your dog, that is another good thing with dogs, taking a good photo of a
    cat is almost impossible, mine always came close to the camera out of
    curiosity, to see what it is.


    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    hordad AT otenet DOT gr
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, Mar 10, 2009
    #11
  12. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Re: Somewhere out there, a monkey just chewed up someone's drivers license and flung more feces ...

    First of all, P&S
    >>cameras can't achieve that shallow of DOF, see:

    >
    > Actually they can achieve that shallow DOF and even better than that. If
    > you knew what you were doing. Clearly you don't.


    You can, of course, prove it with shots you've taken?

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 10, 2009
    #12
  13. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Re: Somewhere out there, a monkey just chewed up someone's drivers license and flung more feces ...

    "Get Real" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:24:55 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>First of all, P&S
    >>>>cameras can't achieve that shallow of DOF, see:
    >>>
    >>> Actually they can achieve that shallow DOF and even better than that. If
    >>> you knew what you were doing. Clearly you don't.

    >>
    >>You can, of course, prove it with shots you've taken?
    >>

    >
    > Yes, I can. But as explained, I've already overpaid to watch your
    > embarrassingly sad and trollish carnival act.
    >


    Bang! Another bullet hole in your foot...

    Just a quick aside:

    From your comments about my "hindsight justification," it sounds like you
    actually understand that I am not trying to be a traditional photographer,
    shooting traditional pics, within traditional style norms, and that seems to
    make sense to you. Too bad you didn't think along those lines before
    posting your vitriolic dribble in the first place...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 10, 2009
    #13
  14. Dudley Hanks

    Justin C Guest

    In article <A_itl.16153$Db2.14089@edtnps83>, Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > "Justin C" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In article <H4Gsl.16874$PH1.4134@edtnps82>, Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg

    >>
    >> At the risk of upsetting another, focus should be on the eye(s), not the
    >> back of the head. But it look like a shot you didn't take through the
    >> viewfinder, more likely at arms length, maybe without even being able to
    >> see the display.
    >>
    >> It's a great shot. I especially like the out of focus woman(?) in the
    >> background. There's enough detail in her face to see her enjoying seeing
    >> you enjoying the dog - or at least, that's how I see it. Shame about
    >> your(?) legs and jacket in the shot, but I really like the portrait.
    >>
    >> Have you looked at Elliot Erwitt's work? He enjoyed taking photos of
    >> dogs - among other things.
    >>
    >> Justin.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Justin C, by the sea.

    >
    > You're right, I had the camera at arm's length taking the shot, with my
    > wrist twisted around a railing support. For more info about the actual
    > taking of the shot, see:
    >
    > http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/blindapertures
    >
    > Your post is a perfect example of why I love posting images here: each
    > person who responds tells me something new about my image. In this case,
    > that part of me is showing -- my jacket and pants.
    >
    > When still in the camera, I asked a few people if I am visible, everybody
    > said no, possibly because the LCD image is too small for them to notice, or
    > they didn't look at it close enough.
    >
    > If the image were cropped to remove that part, would it cut into Mich or the
    > woman?


    You'll ruin the shot if you crop yourself out of it. You're just going
    to have to go back and do it again. :)


    > Regarding Elliott Erwitt, I haven't heard of him, but I'll try to check out
    > his work.


    He has an exceptional eye for a shot, sometimes great humour in his
    images too. Really worth checking out - as are most Magnum photogs.

    Justin.

    --
    Justin C, by the sea.
     
    Justin C, Mar 10, 2009
    #14
  15. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    >> If the image were cropped to remove that part, would it cut into Mich or
    >> the
    >> woman?

    >
    > You'll ruin the shot if you crop yourself out of it. You're just going
    > to have to go back and do it again. :)
    >


    I ride the bus a lot, so no shortage of opportunities to reshoot. Staging
    it so we have enough room could be tricky, though... BUT< HEY< I love a
    challenge!

    >
    >> Regarding Elliott Erwitt, I haven't heard of him, but I'll try to check
    >> out
    >> his work.

    >
    > He has an exceptional eye for a shot, sometimes great humour in his
    > images too. Really worth checking out - as are most Magnum photogs.
    >


    I read Mr. Erwitt's bio and was greatly impressed. I'll check out one (or
    two) of his books at earliest opportunity. Thanks for pointing him out.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 11, 2009
    #15
    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. =?Utf-8?B?cnVzc193aWxs?=

    exchanging 32bit licence to 64bit licence problem

    =?Utf-8?B?cnVzc193aWxs?=, May 10, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,272
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    May 12, 2005
  2. Zimri

    Code Monkey want MCTS, Code Monkey take exam

    Zimri, Apr 3, 2007, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    493
    Zimri
    Apr 3, 2007
  3. Zimri
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    606
    Zimri
    Apr 3, 2007
  4. Mike Easter
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    854
    Mike Easter
    May 12, 2010
  5. richard
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,167
    Fred Tehbot
    May 19, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page