On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: > You are very good at what you do. As a matter of fact, when I am > photographing still lifes of found objects, I often think about how you would > shoot it. But just as I get constantly teased about my photos of disrobed > women, or roped up women, I'll tease you about photos of dead leaves on > sidewalks, Ralf about factories at night, or Frank about blurry black and > white photos taken at night in the city.
Thank you for the compliment. What I have never been able to understand is how "teasing" and making a joke in the middle of a discussion seems to be always appropriate to some people. When I'm discussing camera technique or technology, I don't break into a showboat jazz routine for comic relief: I'm trying to concentrate on the discussion, not on providing entertainment. > I would prefer to be able to shoot with less noise, faster shutter speeds and > more depth of field. Wouldn't we all? > ... But the point of the events is not for me to take photos, the point is > for people to have fun dancing. It is my job to get the best pictures > possible without interfering with the event. Then you simply have to deal with the situation as it presents itself using the equipment you have. > These photos were all shot between 1am and 5am at the latenight dances. I > believe that the set should be publicly viewable, and not need a facebook > account. I do intend to sort the set down further before posting them on > flickr, choosing the ones that are the best photographically, rather than > just the shots that the dancers want, i.e. something clear enough of > themselves having a good time. Despite the technical limitations, I wouldn't > call them "crappy blurry, underexposed photographs that look terrible". > > https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151265920339673.513291.653299672&type=3&l=15819e7dcf They look fine to me too, although perhaps a little too fine. They are too literal for my taste in portraying such an event. They look too much like dance pictures on a floor might look under normal lighting. If the situation is dark, the photos should also be dark to portray it accurately. > I wasn't whining. You said something about never finding max ISO to be > useful. I said that I do find it useful because I am often photographing in > situations where I lose less image quality by pushing harder on the ISO, than > I would by slowing the shutter speed down, or shooting several stops > underexposed. Gosh. OF COURSE I'll use maximum ISO *WHEN NEEDED* to get a photo, whether I normally find it 'useful' or not. You vacillate from interpreting what I write in the most literal possible way to interpreting minus one as plus one and joking about, you know? It's hard to have a discussion that way. > But, be that as it may, one of the things that makes the PDML so much fun is > that we don't take ourselves, or each other too seriously, and teasing and > poking fun at each other and ourselves is a lot of that. If you don't like > being teased like one of the gang, then I apologize, I'll try to restrict my > conversations with you to the purely technical and factual. When I joke about, I joke about. When I'm having a technical or technique oriented discussion, I don't joke about unless it is perfectly obvious, by timing and context, that what I'm saying is a joke on the spur of the moment. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
