Daniel Craig --- too good to be true??

[Daniel Craig]

Dan, I will give you credit for 2 things:
1- You have the balls to place your largely unimpressive photos
before us, knowing that several here are ready to pounce on you.
2- You are at least making an attempt at artistic expression, which
I commend you for.
But-- we cannot accurately evaluate the quality of your 'RAW'
photography skills with most of these images. There is nothing at
all wrong with taking a photograph and manipulating it to the
extent that you did with many of the chess shots. I liked some of
them. But you can take a $50 and a $1000 digital (or film) camera
and after heavy post shot alteration end up with basically the same
final image. I think most of us on this forum are 'purist'
digitial photographers who are instead trying to attain accurate,
film quality images that more closely resemble reality. To that
end, I believe that the G2 does a fine job, crack and all.

--
http://www.pbase.com/dnewell228/

I would think that a purist wouldn't have any problem with many of my shots--particuarly the ones of my cat. And I would think a purist would be after something more than just realism. My site will never be inclined towards realism. I wondr why no one has commented on my web design, ie, my rollover buttons--my leaf design--and so forth? Well, I would think that were I to add on another album--that quite a few people here would go to see if for the mere purpose to see what I have created next--not for just some day to day ho-hum shot. At least my pictures--most of them--are not boring people with realism.

 

[mike savad]

in my case i have 2 camera sites, http://www.savad.0catch.com/
which shows off the camera (though it has a terrible bandwidth
problem). the pictures there highlight the camera's abilities and
bad points. all pictures are un touched, except for size.

and my other page http://www.pbase.com/savad/ which shows off the
work that i've taken lately with the camera, in which light editing
was done, mostly to the backrounds. in this case i show the best
work of the bunch that i took. and it's this page that i direct
people too. so if someone want's to learn more about me, and wants
to know if what i say is valid (even in a creative nature), they
can view the site and determin if my merit is worth.

Yes that first site has major bandwidth problems--I quit it. the
second one--well--since no one is going to try to guess--the cheap
camera shot I have in my album is the panaronic one. In other
words, your outdoor shots could easily be acheived by a camera
under $100. You would do the world a big favor if you learned how
to crop more--or resize better. Maybe you do have better stuff at
the first site--I'll never know. I wished that the chess
tournament would have been held outdoors either during the day or
at night with a fair amount of outdoor lighting. And no I couldn't
have gotten the angled shots that you suggested--nor would I have
wanted to on account that I would of been PO'd if someone tried
such a shot on me while I was playing chess. "Stay back so as they
won't know that you are there--and don't use any flash"--those were
my instructions. I have been invited to take pictures at their
next event--but I will not do it.

first off, i used one single camera for all the shots, it was your game to see what you used on your little site, your getting your lies mixed up. so far i've seen the 2 outdoor shots and i'm not impressed. as they were as blurred as your other shots. and they were shots of nothing.

secondly, you boasted that your camera had great night shot ability and yet those shots are not exactly that great. and there was a huge window that had light and they were still bad.

third, you could have easily have gotten better shots. as i saw quite a few people pretty near the players. plus you have that wonderful zoom, don't you. you just weren't trying very hard. if i took pictures of that event, and they came out like that, i'd be ashamed of myself. quite frankly even if it was outdoors, i doubt the quality or the creativity would be improved any.

---Mike Savad
-- http://www.pbase.com/savad/

 

[mike savad]

Dan, I will give you credit for 2 things:
1- You have the balls to place your largely unimpressive photos
before us, knowing that several here are ready to pounce on you.
2- You are at least making an attempt at artistic expression, which
I commend you for.
But-- we cannot accurately evaluate the quality of your 'RAW'
photography skills with most of these images. There is nothing at
all wrong with taking a photograph and manipulating it to the
extent that you did with many of the chess shots. I liked some of
them. But you can take a $50 and a $1000 digital (or film) camera
and after heavy post shot alteration end up with basically the same
final image. I think most of us on this forum are 'purist'
digitial photographers who are instead trying to attain accurate,
film quality images that more closely resemble reality. To that
end, I believe that the G2 does a fine job, crack and all.

--
http://www.pbase.com/dnewell228/

I would think that a purist wouldn't have any problem with many of
my shots--particuarly the ones of my cat. And I would think a
purist would be after something more than just realism. My site
will never be inclined towards realism.

yeah i can see that.

I wondr why no one has

commented on my web design, ie, my rollover buttons--my leaf
design--and so forth?

because no cares maybe? because it's not that fancy? because i've seen 7 year old, half blind, retarded, children make nicer looking sites? maybe that's why?

Well, I would think that were I to add on

another album--that quite a few people here would go to see if for
the mere purpose to see what I have created next--not for just some
day to day ho-hum shot. At least my pictures--most of them--are
not boring people with realism.

most of your shots are of boring people. people that don't even have an expression except for boredom, waiting for the the guy to play them next. only one guy had a good expression, and instead you got some guy in a messy red shirt.

you boast, then you back away. then you boast some more, then start piddling around with all the comments you said at what a wonderful camera this is.

oh and btw, though you think the effects are nice, and lot's of people are doing it, it's used only on select things. in general a water color filter would be used on a house, or maybe a portrait. not some guy leaning on the back of a chair.

---Mike Savad
-- http://www.pbase.com/savad/

 

[Fender]

Mike - Those are some GREAT pictures. I own an s30 and miss the zoom that the pro90 has for those wildlife photos. Great job!

mike schmidt

i'm mostly saying all of this, because in other posts, you stated
that you can take better pictures then the people you critized (by
giving a "i'm better then thou attitude"). making it seem that you
are some kind of creative king.

Maybe my attitude indicated that I am a better photograher, but I
neveer said such. As far as my statements regarding what the S30
could do, I only re-stated what is well-know and from my own
experiences. But 95% of the pictures I see posted on here are not
very appealing. When they aren't I say so, and when they are I say
so. The truth is the truth, isn't it?

i've always felt, that one can critisize, provided that one has
more talent then the one being critisized. giving an answer with a
snooty attitude, would indicate that you actually know more about
something then the other person.

in the case of photography, a picture speaks a thousand words
(especially under this topic). advice and words of wisdom should
come from someone who knows what they are doing. and in this case
have pictures to prove that.

over and over you stated that the s30 is the BOSS that it beats out
the g2. which it really doesn't. but over and over, you keep
repeating, shouting and touting at times that the camera rules.

then you provide a site to show us your skill and the strength with
the camera, and it's not all that great....

it is true that not all pictures here, or even around the web are
masterpieces. but they are usually clear, and they are usually not
touched by photoshop.

in my case i have 2 camera sites, http://www.savad.0catch.com/
which shows off the camera (though it has a terrible bandwidth
problem). the pictures there highlight the camera's abilities and
bad points. all pictures are un touched, except for size.

and my other page http://www.pbase.com/savad/ which shows off the
work that i've taken lately with the camera, in which light editing
was done, mostly to the backrounds. in this case i show the best
work of the bunch that i took. and it's this page that i direct
people too. so if someone want's to learn more about me, and wants
to know if what i say is valid (even in a creative nature), they
can view the site and determin if my merit is worth.

---Mike Savad

--
http://www.pbase.com/savad/

 

[Gordon McGregor]

oh and btw, though you think the effects are nice, and lot's of
people are doing it, it's used only on select things. in general a
water color filter would be used on a house, or maybe a portrait.
not some guy leaning on the back of a chair.

So you think it is a very creative use of an extremely cliched filter ?

Gordon

 

[mike savad]

thanks.

i just wish they were my flowers. i have to get them on people's lawns. so far so good, no one's asking questions. though if they did, i would think they would be honored if i tell them i was taking pictures of their flowers.

---Mike Savad

mike schmidt

i'm mostly saying all of this, because in other posts, you stated
that you can take better pictures then the people you critized (by
giving a "i'm better then thou attitude"). making it seem that you
are some kind of creative king.

Maybe my attitude indicated that I am a better photograher, but I
neveer said such. As far as my statements regarding what the S30
could do, I only re-stated what is well-know and from my own
experiences. But 95% of the pictures I see posted on here are not
very appealing. When they aren't I say so, and when they are I say
so. The truth is the truth, isn't it?

i've always felt, that one can critisize, provided that one has
more talent then the one being critisized. giving an answer with a
snooty attitude, would indicate that you actually know more about
something then the other person.

in the case of photography, a picture speaks a thousand words
(especially under this topic). advice and words of wisdom should
come from someone who knows what they are doing. and in this case
have pictures to prove that.

over and over you stated that the s30 is the BOSS that it beats out
the g2. which it really doesn't. but over and over, you keep
repeating, shouting and touting at times that the camera rules.

then you provide a site to show us your skill and the strength with
the camera, and it's not all that great....

it is true that not all pictures here, or even around the web are
masterpieces. but they are usually clear, and they are usually not
touched by photoshop.

in my case i have 2 camera sites, http://www.savad.0catch.com/
which shows off the camera (though it has a terrible bandwidth
problem). the pictures there highlight the camera's abilities and
bad points. all pictures are un touched, except for size.

and my other page http://www.pbase.com/savad/ which shows off the
work that i've taken lately with the camera, in which light editing
was done, mostly to the backrounds. in this case i show the best
work of the bunch that i took. and it's this page that i direct
people too. so if someone want's to learn more about me, and wants
to know if what i say is valid (even in a creative nature), they
can view the site and determin if my merit is worth.

---Mike Savad

--
http://www.pbase.com/savad/

-- http://www.pbase.com/savad/

 

[Brian D. Schneider]

Daniel Craig wrote:
Most people would rather not

have a super fine picture taken of them.

WHAT... who told you that?
Well, if someone wants BAD pictures of themselves, I'll send them to you.

 

[Brian D. Schneider]

OMG I hope someone put this up as a joke.

http://www.pbase.com/image/1706805

--
MateoV, Cannon G2
http://www.pbase.com/mateov

Is that real?

 

[Brian D. Schneider]

Hello all

This thred is beginning to turn cruel - lets be gentlemen/women and
stop this thread now.

In the future, we all need to behave, think about what we write,
and think about if we might hurt someone with our wording, instead
of keep on treading in people toes.

Lets live in harmony and photography, please?

JJ

Oh come on, Dan's asking for it.

 

[Daniel Craig]

Gordon, I think (hope, pray) that Pierre was sarcastic in his
comments. Lord help him if he truly goes out and buys "the boss"
based on our resident crack-head's conclusions...

Paige

Paige, you don't know how close I came to putting that piegon shot of yours on my site--the one that someone else repaired. OMG that would have been funny. And you would deserve it for taking the original down and then not sending it to me like I asked. I do pause at the thought of doing it . . . hmmmm. It will be on my mind for a while at least. I do believe you disowned that shot by taking it down like you did right after I had complimented it. Hmmmmmm

 

[Will53889]

Vell, leetle Daneeyell axed if I em heppy. Tink about eet he axed. So, I tink. Teek not much tyme. Olay. I em much heppy and lotsa content. I feelz like dat guy dere who tippy toz true da toolips plucking eez leetle youko-lay-lee. Tink tink tink tink tink. Lalalalalala. Okay, okay, me no vunt to meek you seek wid my giddyup. But he axed. Pooh Daneeyell, he no sound so good doh. Meebee I kin hep zim, no?

Paige

Dee docteur eez in. Pleez seat down and explain you problem. How
long been feelin dis hostility? Deez forum only vay for you to
vent zee fustration? Meebee takz sup hobbie
lika...lika....photo-graffy? Dont a seem to be helpin mooch?
Keepa at teet. Und...count to 10 nix time. Und keep busy wid da
school werk. Vut grade you in now? Next time we werk on you a
maturity. Feelin betta? Dis forum did sum good, no? No charges
zees time.

 

[mike savad]

OMG I hope someone put this up as a joke.

http://www.pbase.com/image/1706805

--
MateoV, Cannon G2
http://www.pbase.com/mateov

Is that real?

yep..

and that's the black and white, non enhanced version.

the max headroom version is somewhere on here, i think under self portrait or something.

---Mike Savad
-- http://www.pbase.com/savad/

 

[mike savad]

Gordon, I think (hope, pray) that Pierre was sarcastic in his
comments. Lord help him if he truly goes out and buys "the boss"
based on our resident crack-head's conclusions...

Paige

Paige, you don't know how close I came to putting that piegon shot
of yours on my site--the one that someone else repaired. OMG that
would have been funny. And you would deserve it for taking the
original down and then not sending it to me like I asked. I do
pause at the thought of doing it . . . hmmmm. It will be on my
mind for a while at least. I do believe you disowned that shot by
taking it down like you did right after I had complimented it.
Hmmmmmm

as an example of a clear shot?

as an example of any better shot then yours?

sounds odd, but ok.

---Mike Savad
-- http://www.pbase.com/savad/

 

[Lisa Neal]

Mike:

I visited your site prior to this thread and really enjoyed it. I was impressed by your composition and framing techniques that are suggested by all the great photography pros (National Geographic included) that suggests framing shots properly.

I enjoyed your panos too! They are a million times better than my first and only attempt at a pano.

I'm sure that you are secure enough with your talent not to worry about the opinion of someone that is stricking out at you because you have challenged his credibility.
--Keep on shooting!Lisa

 

[Lisa Neal]

If you are proud of your web design, that is a personal thing for yourself. Until you can appreciate the work that 12-yr olds are doing (such as my daughter and all her friends) with designing web pages - you would keep that boast to yourself. Where is your computer degree from? If you have one, your professor would be ashamed of what you produce.

If you find your photos interesting, is there anything else that matters? No one else's opinion should matter. Its just not our cup of tea. No one says that we have to like everything that is considered photography -- accept that you will not get the expression of approval here and move on. Abandon this thread.

I wondr why no one has
commented on my web design, ie, my rollover buttons--my leaf
design--and so forth? Well, I would think that were I to add on
another album--that quite a few people here would go to see if for
the mere purpose to see what I have created next--not for just some
day to day ho-hum shot. At least my pictures--most of them--are
not boring people with realism.

--Keep on shooting!Lisa

 

[mike savad]

Mike:

I visited your site prior to this thread and really enjoyed it. I
was impressed by your composition and framing techniques that are
suggested by all the great photography pros (National Geographic
included) that suggests framing shots properly.

I enjoyed your panos too! They are a million times better than my
first and only attempt at a pano.

I'm sure that you are secure enough with your talent not to worry
about the opinion of someone that is stricking out at you because
you have challenged his credibility.

--
Keep on shooting!
Lisa

thanks...

each shot is carefully sellected from the day that i took them. it's a bit of a pain, to get the right one at the right angle. and i'm still trying other posistions, but i'm kind of limited since i do this while biking. (the bike is in the westfield, cherry tree's, kind of small but you get the idea.

i try to keep a low cover as possible, but it's a little hard with the camera that i have, with the bike that i have, and the backpack that i have on (for water, close up lens, and a homemade monopod tube.

right now the site will feature tulips, because their in bloom. red one's are impossible to photograph.

i just uploaded a few more things in the flower section. i even tried one of those filters that dan seems to love so much. i wanted a particular look, though i'm still not crazy about it, it does blur the bridge.

and if you want some see real good photo's take a look at the pictures in the smithsonian magazine. with certain photographers there you can get a theme of how they took the shot. all of which is stored in my head somewhere, waiting to be used.

i just wish i had better backrounds. one of the tulips has a sidewalk as a background. i rather it be anything but that, slate or even pavers. but it's not and oh well...

while it's free (and it's actually a pretty nice place, i may even pay for it), i'll be updating that site daily or bi-daily, depending on where i go.

---Mike Savad
-- http://www.pbase.com/savad/

 

[Daniel Craig]

No one says that we have to like everything that is

considered photography -- accept that you will not get the
expression of approval here and move on. Abandon this thread.

What? I can't even be in a thread about me? Hey, since you think my web design is so childish, then perchance you might give me a link to your web page so as I can learn from someone more sophisticated? That's what I thought. Move on.

 

[Daniel Craig]

Mike:

I visited your site prior to this thread and really enjoyed it. I
was impressed by your composition and framing techniques that are
suggested by all the great photography pros (National Geographic
included) that suggests framing shots properly.

I enjoyed your panos too! They are a million times better than my
first and only attempt at a pano.

I'm sure that you are secure enough with your talent not to worry
about the opinion of someone that is stricking out at you because
you have challenged his credibility.

--
Keep on shooting!
Lisa

thanks...

each shot is carefully sellected from the day that i took them.
it's a bit of a pain, to get the right one at the right angle. and
i'm still trying other posistions, but i'm kind of limited since i
do this while biking. (the bike is in the westfield, cherry tree's,
kind of small but you get the idea.

i try to keep a low cover as possible, but it's a little hard with
the camera that i have, with the bike that i have, and the backpack
that i have on (for water, close up lens, and a homemade monopod
tube.

right now the site will feature tulips, because their in bloom. red
one's are impossible to photograph.

i just uploaded a few more things in the flower section. i even
tried one of those filters that dan seems to love so much. i wanted
a particular look, though i'm still not crazy about it, it does
blur the bridge.

and if you want some see real good photo's take a look at the
pictures in the smithsonian magazine. with certain photographers
there you can get a theme of how they took the shot. all of which
is stored in my head somewhere, waiting to be used.

i just wish i had better backrounds. one of the tulips has a
sidewalk as a background. i rather it be anything but that, slate
or even pavers. but it's not and oh well...

while it's free (and it's actually a pretty nice place, i may even
pay for it), i'll be updating that site daily or bi-daily,
depending on where i go.

---Mike Savad

--
http://www.pbase.com/savad/

Mike, Mike. She is only jesting. She is only superficially complimenting you to vent her hatred towards me. Read her little thread to me entitled "Web Design." I think I must have said something pretty awful about some flowers that she took a picture of. Or perhaps she feels scorned by me. You know, no fury hath a woman scorned. Everybody is her hero in this world because I represent the lover that she never had. Or maybe because I wasn't in awe of her flower composition--heaping praises upon her for something I knew in my heart was dreadful like everyone else. Or maybe I said that she had cats that were not pretty--who can remember? I gotta kinda wonder what she is doing in this thread--except for making heros out of everybody to get back at some TRUTH I told. The truth is the truth, isn't it?

 

[Paige87621]

First of all, Danny Boy, I'd been taking pictures for about a month when I took that picture. I used the other person's "tweaking" of my decent picture and used it as CONSTRUCTIVE critcism to make my work even better. You NEVER complimented my work, you insulted me. Actually I am grateful you didn't like it. It is still on my site, I am not ashamed of it. as a matter of fact...



I am actually proud of that picture! And quite proud to admit it.

Paige

Paige, you don't know how close I came to putting that piegon shot
of yours on my site--the one that someone else repaired. OMG that
would have been funny. And you would deserve it for taking the
original down and then not sending it to me like I asked. I do
pause at the thought of doing it . . . hmmmm. It will be on my
mind for a while at least. I do believe you disowned that shot by
taking it down like you did right after I had complimented it.
Hmmmmmm

as an example of a clear shot?

as an example of any better shot then yours?

sounds odd, but ok.

---Mike Savad

--
http://www.pbase.com/savad/

 

[Remy84678]

This is the first I have seen your picture of the baby chick..A great shot
Ivan
=======

I am actually proud of that picture! And quite proud to admit it.

Paige

Paige, you don't know how close I came to putting that piegon shot
of yours on my site--the one that someone else repaired. OMG that
would have been funny. And you would deserve it for taking the
original down and then not sending it to me like I asked. I do
pause at the thought of doing it . . . hmmmm. It will be on my
mind for a while at least. I do believe you disowned that shot by
taking it down like you did right after I had complimented it.
Hmmmmmm

as an example of a clear shot?

as an example of any better shot then yours?

sounds odd, but ok.

---Mike Savad

--
http://www.pbase.com/savad/