On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Lon Williamson wrote:
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Lon Williamson wrote:
If yout shoot a 50, you are stupid unless you read Mike Johnston.
Can you elaborate please?
Mike Johnston is a semi-famous writer who used to hang
around here and might yet
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, graywolf wrote:
I guess, I wonder, does anyone apperciate my efforts here?
I do very much so, please keep it up. Same for everyone.
Kostas
Mike Johnston wrote some pretty specific opinions on Pentax 50mm glass being
outstanding. Last I read, the old metal 50mm Super Multi Coated Takumar was
his favorite for images it produced and for feel. They feel much like a
Limited lens, but focus without the whirr.
Regards, Bob S.
[EMAIL
On 26/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
I shot 154 exposures at a concert the other night, the light was poor and
they
weren't staying still for me. Discarding outright rejects due to focus,
shake,
subject movement, blown out highlights and unpleasant expressions left me
with
38 usable shots.
On 26/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
I hear what you're saying, Lon.
If it's real dark in a bar or at a party, I'll use a flash. But never a
tri
or monopod.
In Saskatchewan, I am pretty sure they have not repealed the post
Prohibition law forbidding photography in a licensed
On 27 Jan 2004 at 18:50, Cotty wrote:
SHOCK. Rob S finds something positive about a DSLR - it's official.
It's just another tool :-)
Did find another thing to bitch about though. The metering mode is one of the
few controls that there is no quick way to assess when working in darkness. No
Hi!
SB And I agree as well. Only thing is, Boris keeps asking what
SB everyone else thinks, and there are a lot of opinions here,
SB including the opinion to not pay attention to other opinions LOL
SB Bill Owens wrote:
I agree whole heartedly with Lon. Unless you're shooting for pay, shoot to
Mike Johnston is a semi-famous writer who used to hang
around here and might yet again. Do a Google search on
Mike Johnston Sunday Morning Photographer. Then read
any of the Hot Sites that carry him. Make up yer own mind.
Personally, I like him.
-Lon
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan
Yes you CAN use a tri-monopod in bar situations.
And it is ugly. You CAN do it. I have. As you all
know, it's a blessing and a curse. For eggsample,
some surly folks can get you thrown out. Really.
As for street, I have no opinion.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hey, when you're out street shooting
Mike Johnston sorta loves a Pentax M 50mm 1.4 on a purty
old body, shooting BW film.
I like almost any Pentax Prime on a purty old body, shooting
slow as I can get away with Color Film.
Mike is Famous. Lon is Not.
Any questions? Grin.
BTW, I think this mail list took a slight uphike when Boris
Sure, and you can use a flash and a big honkin' lens and a loud motor drive while
you're at it.
Some people appreciate the subtlety inherent in available light and hand held
photography, and
others like to let everyone know they're taking pictures.
Whatever floats your boat, Lon ...
Lon
Now, I feel bad. I did not think I was criticizing Boris's photos. He aked, I
though, for help in improving his photography in the future. I thought I
addressed that very thoroughly in fact giving what amounted to a free class in
advanced photo techniques. Now it seems that all that I should
Boris DID ask for suggestions ... iac, your comments were well thought out and quite
germane to the general subject of this list. And if
Boris or someone else thought they were out of line, or that you are full of crap, the
heck with them.
Frankly, I get the sense that very nice is a good
Nope. Gimme an Mx, a 50 1.4, and a monopod.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Sure, and you can use a flash and a big honkin' lens and a loud motor drive while you're at it.
Some people appreciate the subtlety inherent in available light and hand held
photography, and
others like to let everyone know
Second the motion. Graywolf is good. Even if he shoots Pentax.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please don't Tom.I for one listen and learn.:-)
Gee, Bill, I though the reflection of the barber pole in the mirror kind of made
the shot.
Also that sink helps show that this is an old, old barber shop. In fact if you
look at it the only thing in this photo that shows it wasn't taken 50 years ago
is the plastic product containers on the
It seems to me that most hurled darts at Boris had to do with flash.
The Available Light contingency smote him. That's kinda bad.
I've seen a LOT of available light photos that I don't think much
of. But I thought GrayWolf was both brave (Old?) and kind in his
review.
Keith Whaley wrote:
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Now, I feel bad. I did not think I was criticizing Boris's photos. He
aked, I
though, for help in improving his photography in the future. I thought I
addressed that very thoroughly
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Now, I feel bad. I did not think I was criticizing Boris's photos. He
aked, I
though, for help in improving his photography in the future. I thought
I
addressed
On 26 Jan 2004 at 16:54, Lon Williamson wrote:
It seems to me that most hurled darts at Boris had to do with flash.
The Available Light contingency smote him. That's kinda bad.
I've seen a LOT of available light photos that I don't think much
of.
I think that the thrust of suggestions was
On 26 Jan 2004 at 11:54, Lon Williamson wrote:
And I have been in bars where, say, a 50mm f1.4, gives me hand-held
shooting speeds arount 1/4 or 1/8. These situations cost a LOT
of wasted film, no matter what Shell says abut hand holding.
I love my DSLR just for this reason :-)
I shot 154
this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:33:33 -0800
Boris DID ask for suggestions
PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:47:22 -0500
Needs cropping on the left side. The sink is distracting.
_
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:41:43 -0500
Nope. Gimme an Mx, a 50 1.4, and a monopod.
_
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2
I kind of thought that mostly the suggestions were to think about where that
shadow is going to wind, up and what it is going to look like when it does. That
is a long way from don't use flash.
I guess, what we are seeing is comments on very much different levels. To start
with Boris's photos
Quoting graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[SNIP]
One of the interesting things I have seen, and the interview with Helmut
Newton
that Lasse posted a link to seems to show this, is the best photographers do
not
seem to think they are all that good.
Certainly they'd never claim that a post to a
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault
Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought
I hear what you're saying, Lon.
If it's real dark in a bar or at a party, I'll use a flash. But never a
tri
or monopod.
In Saskatchewan, I am pretty sure they have not repealed the post
Excellent reason to go to unlicensed establishments. Speakeasy, here I come.
--
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault
Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought
I hear what you're saying, Lon.
If it's real dark in a bar or at a party, I'll use a flash
When I first lived in Saskatchewan, stores were closed on Monday as well as on
Sunday. What a bizarre policy THAT was, especially moving there from
Montreal.
Obligatory Pentax remark: I knew a guy that worked at Woolco Northgate in
the '70s and early '80s (long before it was sold to
- Original Message -
From:
Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Obligatory Pentax remark: I knew a guy that worked at Woolco Northgate
in
the '70s and early '80s (long before it was sold to Sauron) who used to
write
up K1000 invoices in advance because they flew out the door
Ya? Well, some folks understand hyperbole, some do not.
But, at least you are reading my posts. ;)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[SNIP]
One of the interesting things I have seen, and the interview with Helmut
Newton
that Lasse posted a link to seems to show
There are lots of places down here like that, too. In fact, just taking
a camera into these places could result in a serious butt kicking. Some
folks are afraid their spouse or S.O. might see them with someone.
Len
* There's no place like 127.0.0.1
In Saskatchewan, I am pretty sure they
Hi!
SB Boris DID ask for suggestions ... iac, your comments were well
SB thought out and quite germane to the general subject of this list.
SB And if Boris or someone else thought they were out of line, or
SB that you are full of crap, the heck with them.
I must rush for work, but I must type in
Boris's shots did show shadows cast by what looked
to be a flash mounted directly on a hot shoe. Sometimes
this can work out OK, usually not. I've sometimes
gotten a shot where this works in vertical, but it's
a bit of a crap shoot. It's a good idea to consider
which WAY to shoot the vertical,
I'd like to hear more about this, tv.
You've done a lot more flash work than I have.
-Lon
tom wrote, in part:
. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom
here, it takes a lot more skill to use flash and get interesting results
than to use available light and get
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
I am not Boris, but I am about his age and I am sure you are joking
here, particularly for an upright. 1/30 is my absolute limit (perhaps
the practice bit is my problem).
I got some very sharp shots the other night at a concert shooting 125mm @
1/15th f2.4 ISO800,
Hi,
it is still a peaceful thread.
--
Cheers,
Bob
Sunday, January 25, 2004, 11:09:41 AM, you wrote:
Hi!
His 'autobiography' is called 'Slightly Out of Focus'. He is supposed to
have said that it was better for a war photographer if your pictures were
slightly out of focus because it
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought
I'd like to hear more about this, tv.
You've done a lot more flash work than I have.
-Lon
tom wrote, in part:
. Contrary to the
prevailing wisdom
here, it takes a lot more skill to use
Comments interspersed:
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Talk of HCB - I know I told the list about seeing the Magnum at 50 Years
retrospective with the print of the grinning kid with the wine bottles
(Rue
Muffon or something like that).
rue Mouffetard.
Yes, well, I was close. 1 out of 2
Tom's not joking ... it takes a bit of practice to hand hold at low shutter speeds,
but it's very doable. Numerous techniques to aid in such a practice have been
mentioned here in the past few days. Leave your tripod or monopod at home, and
practice, practice, practice.
Kostas Kavoussanakis
I tend to agree with Capa's comment. Having seen the Requiem show, and looked at
the photos in the book, it became clear that those pics that were less than
perfect technically - OOF, showing camera movement - had, in general, a far
greater impact than the nicely exposed, sharp pics.
Can't speak
Hi!
RS I got some very sharp shots the other night at a concert shooting 125mm @
RS 1/15th f2.4 ISO800, I was sitting but had no arm rests to lean on. Of course
RS I made more soft and medium sharpness shots than really sharp ones but most
RS were still quite usable and I'm not sure but I
Hi!
SB Tom's not joking ... it takes a bit of practice to hand hold at low shutter speeds,
SB but it's very doable. Numerous techniques to aid in such a practice have been
SB mentioned here in the past few days. Leave your tripod or monopod at home, and
SB practice, practice, practice.
The
Hi!
ft I went back and looked at the pics again, and I ~really~ like the second one
ft a lot. The guy's face has a great deal of character. He has a sort of
ft self-satisfied smile; he seems a very confident and friendly person, very
ft outgoing. I think you captured a great deal of his
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Boris Liberman wrote:
ft I went back and looked at the pics again, and I ~really~ like the second one
ft a lot. The guy's face has a great deal of character. He has a sort of
ft self-satisfied smile; he seems a very confident and friendly person, very
ft outgoing. I
At 06:00 PM 1/23/2004, Shel wrote:
More and more the photographs we see have a generic look about them ...
so many people are using slower zoom lenses, 400 speed film, lab
processing, and relying on cameras with meters that do the thinking, that
it's becoming rare to find photographs that are
Hi!
g OK, 1. You did not have the camera level. If it was the subject would have been
g leaning slightly forward into the frame, as it is he is leaning back slightly
g and it give the view a teetery feeling almost with out knowing why. If you had
g errored in the other direction it would not
Hi!
DM Yes, I am glad that I saw the photo before I read that.
DM On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Also, would the balls and face be in focus if shooting at f2?
DM Now I'm scared to open this photo. :)
And you say I am the one being *behind* the language barrier
VBBroadG...
Hi!
g As I said subtile. The emotional undercurrent in a photo is far more important
g than most photographers seem to realize.
I am afraid I am going to admit that I still have to start scratching
the surface of that.
g Is he? Or is he explaining, or is he arguing. The feeling from the photo
Shel,
Adding in-law to both mother and son wherever applicable gives this
joke totally different perspective, does it not? VBG
SB A nice Jewish mother gave her son two ties for his birthday. Wanting to show
SB his appreciation for the gift, he wore one to dinner the next evening. Upon
SB
Hi!
SB I'd agree with that, yet for the type of work Boris was showing, such
SB creative work with flash is not gonna cut it. For ambient light
SB photography (I almost said available light, but some smartass would counter
SB that the camera flash IS available) one will do much better by
SB
Hi!
PS How true. When you don't have to think about exposure, you stop
PS thinking about light. When you stop thinking about light, you produce
PS crap. I didn't look at the photos in question, so I can't comment on
PS that. But I agree that an on camera flash is almost never the right
PS
Hi!
SB I recently put up a pic for a few people to comment upon. Ann really tore
SB into me for posting such crap. One of her comments was that it was obvious
SB that I wasn't thinking about the light. So, while the subject was good (she
SB allowed me that much g) the photograph was poor. I
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm a bit of an odd duck here ... never used a flash, don't
own a flash, can't see any reason to do so.
So, basically you have no experience with what you're talking about?
Your way or the highway?
Boris - you
In this instance, yes ... for party pics, flash is Oh so cool. Nice for
weddings too, and product shots.
tom wrote:
Your way or the highway?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Timing (was: As usual: photo advise sought)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:54:22 +0200
Hi!
SB I recently put up a pic for a few people to comment upon. Ann really
tore
SB into me for posting such crap. One of her comments was that it was
obvious
SB that I wasn't thinking
On Jan 24, 2004, at 1:06 PM, tom wrote:
Contrary to the prevailing wisdom
here, it takes a lot more skill to use flash and get interesting
results
than to use available light and get interesting results.
I agree wholeheartedly. There are so many options with flash that can
alter your results.
Call it muscle memory, or whatever.
Damn, Frank ... that was the term i was looking for.
Recently read a few articles about it, even how it's
used in the military for certain maneuvers.
And, sometimes, despite being quite flawed, a shot works anyway.
How true ... a perusal of
Firstly I didn't do anything revolutionary to the pictures, secondly I don't usually
upload pictures anywhere (except to an old test folder at photo.net), thirdly I don't
know if Boris would like to have his pictures uploaded anywhere...
Having said that - I guess I could mail it to anyone
One area where I find flash invaluable is moving macro subjects. It would be virtually
impossible to take a picture of a honeybee on a flower with sufficient depth of field
without flash (I don't believe in faking such pictures by stunning the subject). Even
more true of a bee in flight.
Nick
worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: As usual: photo advise sought
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:05:13 +0200
Hi!
Few weeks ago we went to a local pub. Excellent beer even
Hi!
AC For the 2nd pic, I think I would handle the camera with the grip downward to
AC avoid the flash shadow.
J His expression is really one of a guy at ease and enjoying himself.
J Framing and focus is very nice too, imo.
Alan, Jostein, you both seem to like the second of the two.
Please,
There is really nothing wrong with the 1st one, just that the 2nd one shows
more character about the person. But I am really poor at people photography
so don't take my word for it. :-)
Regards,
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Alan, Jostein, you both seem to like the second of the two.
I, too, like the beer shot more than the pool table shot.
The man at the pool table has a facial expression that makes
me wonder what he's doing. On the other hand, maybe thats
the point of it. The finger on the ball is a nice touch,
though.
-Lon
Jostein wrote:
OK, 1. You did not have the camera level. If it was the subject would have been
leaning slightly forward into the frame, as it is he is leaning back slightly
and it give the view a teetery feeling almost with out knowing why. If you had
errored in the other direction it would not have been so
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, graywolf wrote:
4. More subtilely the shot lacks the dynamic look that would indicate the
intensity to go with his expression. Also he is obviously has his attention on
something out of the frame but no indication of what.
The first bit I don't understand, but did not
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Also, would the balls and face be in focus if shooting at f2?
Now I'm scared to open this photo. :)
chris
Yes, I am glad that I saw the photo before I read that.
David Madsen
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.davidmadsen.com
-Original Message-
From: Chris Brogden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 11:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise
]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 11:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Also, would the balls and face be in focus if shooting at f2?
Now I'm scared to open this photo. :)
chris
Lewis Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, BW photography is all about light and shadow,
Isn't this a rather restricted interpretation? Aren't line and form of
considerable significance?
Not to mention flowers and kittens.
;-)
--
Mark Roberts
Don't try
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please, can you tell me what is wrong/has to be fixed with the first
one that made you not to chose it?
Um...
Like Alan, I don't usually do people photography, so what counts for me is
the general impression more than the
Hi Boris ... while there may be numerous reasons to chose one photo over
another, your questions begs this little joke.
A nice Jewish mother gave her son two ties for his birthday. Wanting to show
his appreciation for the gift, he wore one to dinner the next evening. Upon
seeing the tie, his
Hi Boris ... Flash sucks ... the second photo is not
diminished as much by the use of flash as the first due to the
way the scene is naturally light. I think Tom made the
comment about BW photography being about light and shadow,
and I agree with his comment. Actually, I pretty much agree
with
Lewis Matthew wrote:
From: graywolf
Remember, BW photography is all about light and shadow,
Isn't this a rather restricted interpretation? Aren't line and form of
considerable significance?
;^) only if line form make a significant emphasis of
existing light shadow
Hello Shel,
Then there is all those times when the wedding is at noon and pictures
are right before or after. Some of them can use fill flash - even in
the shade - to put a tiny catchlight in the eyes or to soften a harsh
shadow. Of course, receptions tend to be quite dim. There are shots
Bruce ...
Weddings are a different type of photography, Paul's product shots are different,
too. What Boris was trying to do, and what I was addressing, is different. In
such situations, and in such type of photography, flash is definitely a detriment.
All the naturalness goes out of the
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Now, with conventional BW there's another way ... overexpose a stop or
more and then cut back on the development time. That'll even out the
contrast, have the photos looking more natural, and keep your subjects more
relaxed.
I do that quite often... every time I shoot a roll
Shel,
I would say that we are in violent agreement then. There are
certainly reasons to use flash, but what Boris was shooting was
severely affected by the flash. My first choice is to not use flash,
but when the situation warrants it, I use it. The shots Boris showed
were not the right
78 matches
Mail list logo
