On Sep 23, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > 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:
You don't have to understand why people do it, you just have to remember that people do it. You do seem to occasionally react to friendly ribbing as a direct insult, and once in a while your discussions seem to devolve into a heated flame war rather than light hearted banter. > I'm trying > to concentrate on the discussion, not on providing entertainment. Geez Godfrey, must you hand me straight lines like that on a silver platter? > >> 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. This is an ongoing aesthetic choice. It depends on whether the goal is to show pictures of people dancing in a dimly lit room, or to show a picture of Meagan and Josh having an enjoyable dance. Do note that it is almost always possible to darken a photo in post processing, with little loss of quality, and possibly even reducing the noise (similar to how Dolby NR on tape works), while it is rarely possible to brighten an underexposed photo without loss of quality. > >> 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. OK, you are right. Looking back through the archives I can see how you might have been joking about "change the light". I've had enough people make that same statement, not understanding why it isn't possible (for social reasons) in many circumstances that I missed the fact that you were joking. I'm also afraid that I seem to have the faulty impression that you take yourself far too seriously far too often, for which I apologize, that it probably didn't even occur to me that you were making a joke. I'm sorry, I'll try to do a better job of keeping your jovial side in mind in the future. I will note in my defense however, that I don't seem to be the only one that misinterpreted your joke as a serious statement. > >> 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. Funny, I think that my jokes are perfectly obvious too. :-) -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- 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.
