I don't think that sounds harsh at all, bopie. It just sounds like you're being honest. At least that's what I think.
this thread is full of truth and hearts hnnngh
I still maintain that if it wasn't for the standards and criticism of this section, I would still be taking pictures like this (circa 3-4 months ago):
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29758673/Other/IMG_8993.jpg[/img]
And many others wouldn't have improved (most people would know that there's many people in this section that have improved dramatically over the past few months). if it weren't for this. I'm not sure if Bopies taking at my harsh criticism I have given to photos lately or my general attitude but this point should be made anyway.
I'm well aware of how criticism works, and that isn't what I was getting at. I'm actually writing with the understanding that we all agree on that whole concept, as I'm sort of going full circle here.
Jumping to "Light leaks are dumb" every-time you see a light leak is not criticism, it's essentially making a snap judgement that the photographer is incompetent and inferior while simultaneously and subconsciously raising yourself above them . It's not the light leaks themselves that are the problem, but it's the fact that you're carrying around concrete 'on's and 'off's that guide your photographic thinking. It's a trap of falling into 'shortcut thinking'. Someone does X, so the attitude is that they are thrown in to group Y. You (really, us as a community) form an automatic thinking pattern to determine what's okay and what isn't. With heavy focus on what isn't. I agree with the sentiment that light leaks are generally done in an inauthentic way, and it's usually an attempt to be 'trendy and cool', but I like to stay open to the idea that it is possible to pull off, and if someone happens to do it and [i]doesn't[/i] pull it off to my ~glorious standards~ (which is quite often, and I agree it looks bad), I try not to think less of them or cast judgement down upon them. [b]To criticize[/b] them, you explain why it doesn't work and how they can fix the problem.
I'm trying to say that it's easy for us to ascend into our [i]ivory towers[/i] and develop a sense of superiority over others who don't share the same tastes and ideas. Judgement is not criticism.
[b]You need to be open to accepting people who you view as inferior.[/b]
Although I agree, you're saying this about someone who I do not know nor can give proper criticism.
I got a Rebel Xsi w/ a kit lens, 50mm, and a zoom lens and that is about it for glass. I got a wireless shutter release and wired release that has a built in timer for time lapses
I haven't actually tried or attempted taking anything artistic or actually "photography" in the longest time. I dunno what it is, I'm really uninspired right now and have been for the last year or so. I did go on vacation and take a little over 3000-4000 thousand shots, just because.
But i know what you're talking about, i had a friend like that. This person had some decent shots every now and then, but most of the shots where boring and had no composition or anything. Hell to even get attention this person started taking nude photos of people and shit. Not even artistic nudity, just disgusting nudity. Then you would hear on facebook how this person is like "lolz im so broke, i just bought this lens, so coolz."
yet another SC post, this time a bit more direct.
[img]http://gyazo.com/e6c86de98bfd8edc130e7aa9fed99f43.png[/img]
in other news, yet another con photographer I met- who uses a canon powershot thing and never seems to understand how to work with low/indoor light- has somehow landed a gig as a convention staff photographer. He now dumped a ton of money on a canon of some sort, and some tamron glass, and he's suddenly boasting about every piece he buys; every time he mentions stuff, he uses the full product name. I asked him why he bought the below lens and he told me it's because it handles good in low light so he can shoot indoors better.
[img]http://gyazo.com/8a32235c8a937eeadd5313d45b170b46.png[/img]
mmmmmhm.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;31541938]yet another SC post, this time a bit more direct.
[img]http://gyazo.com/e6c86de98bfd8edc130e7aa9fed99f43.png[/img]
in other news, yet another con photographer I met- who uses a canon powershot thing and never seems to understand how to work with low/indoor light- has somehow landed a gig as a convention staff photographer. He now dumped a ton of money on a canon of some sort, and some tamron glass, and he's suddenly boasting about every piece he buys; every time he mentions stuff, he uses the full product name. I asked him why he bought the below lens and he told me it's because it handles good in low light so he can shoot indoors better.
[img]http://gyazo.com/8a32235c8a937eeadd5313d45b170b46.png[/img]
mmmmmhm.[/QUOTE]
I hate seeing people like this when I still only have a second hand 1000d+ old version kit lens (the terribly unsharp and useless one), and am now broke after spending the last of my money on a scanner for film, which ended up arriving broken anyway.
[QUOTE=Skyhawk;31568828]5D Mark IV lol[/QUOTE]
That's what it'll be at by the time he can afford one
[QUOTE=daijitsu;31570169]That's what it'll be at by the time he can afford one[/QUOTE]
that was the comment right after i screened it
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2066782/Pics/ugh.png[/img]
the red one thinks she's really good at photography but she just isn't
18-55? For sports? Maybe if you're a participant.
Depends what kind of sport.
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/sameiru/3645575698/][img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3397/3645575698_23576f7ebb_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/sameiru/3645575698/]Whiteman [/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/sameiru/]Sam Haberman[/url], on Flickr
I think "sports photography" [i]generally[/i] refers to stuff on a field, track, or court. Even if a few skate, biking etc. applications work, I think calling the 18-55 a good "sports" lens is giving it a little more credit than it's worth. But then, we're looking into this far too much.
you'll find most saleskids at stores saying the lens that comes with it is good for sports, since they want to sell them soccermoms on it. The cameras in general do loads more than point and clicks for sports what with the fast shooting, but a [i]good[/i] sports lens has a nice wide aperture and bit longer zoom so you really get the frame in close but can still freeze the moment with faster shutter speeds.
good sports lenses are some of the most expensive lenses ever
[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;31607094]good sports lenses are some of the most expensive lenses ever[/QUOTE]
~understatement~
I'm sure you've seen this picture. It's the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8, commonly mounted in football stadiums for the pressboxes.
[img]http://thepirata.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/juza_sigma_lense-500x333.jpg[/img]
[h2]$24,000[/h2]
You won't need it anytime soon unless you're shooting for big bucks on a regular basis at the stadium, but you get the idea.
[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;31607094]good sports lenses are some of the most expensive lenses ever[/QUOTE]
This. Still, any half-decent telepotato is better than the kit, as ijyt pointed out. The zoom on the kit is almost worthless from the sidelines/stands.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;31607215]~understatement~
I'm sure you've seen this picture. It's the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8, commonly mounted in football stadiums for the pressboxes.
[img]http://thepirata.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/juza_sigma_lense-500x333.jpg[/img]
[h2]$24,000[/h2]
You won't need it anytime soon unless you're shooting for big bucks on a regular basis at the stadium, but you get the idea.[/QUOTE]
Challenge of the day: Shoot candid street shots with that handheld.
[QUOTE=B-hazard;31607578]Challenge of the day: Shoot candid street shots with that handheld.[/QUOTE]
I'll do it from my bedroom.
[QUOTE=ijyt;31607833]I'll do it from my bedroom.[/QUOTE]
You're also only allowed to use a 24 shot roll of ISO 3200 B&W film on an EOS 3, and can only shoot manual. Oh and you have to do it from street level, not inside a building.
[QUOTE=B-hazard;31607578]Challenge of the day: Shoot candid street shots with that handheld.[/QUOTE]
Bonus points if you're always shouting when asking people to take their picture.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;31607988]Bonus points if you're always shouting when asking people to take their picture.[/QUOTE]
Loudspeaker attached to your lens.
[QUOTE=ijyt;31591331]18-55? For sports? Maybe if you're a participant.[/QUOTE]
Right now all I can think of is a F1 driver taking photos and driving with that "sports lens" :v:
I can think of a semi-decent use for an 18-55 as a "sports" lens.
[img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5142/5597984621_f643452844_z.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;31608111]I can think of a semi-decent use for an 18-55 as a "sports" lens.
[img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5142/5597984621_f643452844_z.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Come to Edinburgh more, we have the UK's largest dry slope 8D
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;31609483]Come to Edinburgh more, we have the UK's largest dry slope 8D[/QUOTE]
im going on thursday, i'll be climbing arthurs seat so if you're there it will be good to see you
[QUOTE=ijyt;31591331]18-55? For sports? Maybe if you're a participant.[/QUOTE]
Goddamn right. It would be a dream of mine to play football and take pictures at the same time...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
