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

Dan, I am not throwing a flame at you. But...

I know I am not a good photographer, therefore I feel humble about criticizing other people's work. Up-to-date, I have not criticize anyone's work. I have been reading your posts quietly and minding my own business. After looking at your website, I really have to ask you one question:

You have been giving people many "good tips and advices". Why have you not use them in your photography work?

Daniel Craig said:

Daniel Craig said:

so what was the point of that page?

you call it an s30 page - and yet none of them are taken with that
camera?

are any of those pictures done with the s30?

you directed us to a page that supposedly highlights, the camera of
all camera's the s30 - and none of those pictures are done with
that camera?

---Mike Savad

Click to expand...

ok a re-did the album--go to this link and click on photos

http://www.iapdatacom.net/members/catman/Dans_Site.htm

By the way, it is still not what I had intended. I created the
album in a way that re-sizes all pictures to fit the screen--it
enlarges them--too much so on most of the pictures--many of which I
intended to take up only a quarter of the page. I'll get it right
soon. Maybe even before you click on the link above.

Click to expand...

--Simon-Ph

At 3:45 PM not 3:30--now go look at them and complain. Now they won't be expanded to take up the entire screen but will show in the size that I reduced most of them to. Besides that, when it comes to my photography I rarely try to impress people with my special effects. I should explain that at the chess tournament I was not allowed to use flash in a poorly florescent room. Hence, I never really got a single outstanding picture at the chess events. But I tried to make up for it in the special effects. I think most who were at the event--at least all that I have heard from--approve of what I did. Now go look and weep.
http://www.iapdatacom.net/members/catman/Dans_Site.htm

Simon-Ph said:

I know I am not a good photographer, therefore I feel humble about
criticizing other people's work. Up-to-date, I have not criticize
anyone's work. I have been reading your posts quietly and minding
my own business. After looking at your website, I really have to
ask you one question:

You have been giving people many "good tips and advices". Why have
you not use them in your photography work?

Daniel Craig said:

Simon-Ph said:

so what was the point of that page?

you call it an s30 page - and yet none of them are taken with that
camera?

are any of those pictures done with the s30?

you directed us to a page that supposedly highlights, the camera of
all camera's the s30 - and none of those pictures are done with
that camera?

---Mike Savad

Click to expand...

ok a re-did the album--go to this link and click on photos

http://www.iapdatacom.net/members/catman/Dans_Site.htm

By the way, it is still not what I had intended. I created the
album in a way that re-sizes all pictures to fit the screen--it
enlarges them--too much so on most of the pictures--many of which I
intended to take up only a quarter of the page. I'll get it right
soon. Maybe even before you click on the link above.

Click to expand...

--
Simon-Ph

Click to expand...

I went, I saw, I wept...

Daniel Craig said:

At 3:45 PM not 3:30--now go look at them and complain. Now they
won't be expanded to take up the entire screen but will show in the
size that I reduced most of them to. Besides that, when it comes
to my photography I rarely try to impress people with my special
effects. I should explain that at the chess tournament I was not
allowed to use flash in a poorly florescent room. Hence, I never
really got a single outstanding picture at the chess events. But I
tried to make up for it in the special effects. I think most who
were at the event--at least all that I have heard from--approve of
what I did. Now go look and weep.
http://www.iapdatacom.net/members/catman/Dans_Site.htm

Click to expand...

With your use of filters on most of your pics should'nt you be giving advice and posting in a different forum!!!!.

Although your filter usage is very basic,and doesnt enhance a a poor pic

Andy

...That guy has posted nearly 200 posts in 2 weeks. I completely agree with the first post of this thread. This is completely surrealistic (is that english ? Sorry I'm french...).

To me, he's doing something like the "blair witch project"... inventing a story (or a character in his case...) that could almost spread like a legend ! (Just look at this thread...)

Anyway, Daniel, I've read a lot of your posts. You're great. I first planned to buy a G2, but will finally go for a S30 based on your conclusions, and I hope you can give me plenty of photography tips in the future.

...and I will definitely go and see "the Daniel Craig Project" at the cinema.

Voicing my opinion -- which shouldn't matter to anyone unless you are looking for constructive criticism -- the first shot is highly overexposed (even with the special effects) and the angle of shot is poor with the pole in the picture as it is.

The second shot was underexposed.

At this point I'll say no more on your photography skills. I don't claim to be anything more than an amateur but I don't open myself up for personal attacks either. I try to treat people in this forum with kindness and respect and appreciate all the sharing of their vast knowledge to help me improve my skills. Everyone has something of value to share with the rest of the forum and usually choose to do it tactfully.

DPReview does work! Its a great place. Rarely have I seen people attacked personally unless they pick for it first.

Good luck in your endeavors to pursue your love of photography.
--Keep on shooting!Lisa

Daniel Craig said:

Simon-Ph said:

Dan, I am not throwing a flame at you. But...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

i see one picture that hasn't been tampered with.

why the effects?

aren't you proud of what the camera can do?

i understand that a flash in the middle of a chess match can be, well, distracting, though not nearly as distracting as an air-horn or playing through with golf.

but do you have any shots' that you didn't need to run through photoshop?

got any flowers? trees, how about your pet's outside? any of those to help your argument?

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

Daniel Craig said:

Daniel Craig said:

so what was the point of that page?

you call it an s30 page - and yet none of them are taken with that
camera?

are any of those pictures done with the s30?

you directed us to a page that supposedly highlights, the camera of
all camera's the s30 - and none of those pictures are done with
that camera?

---Mike Savad

Click to expand...

ok a re-did the album--go to this link and click on photos

http://www.iapdatacom.net/members/catman/Dans_Site.htm

By the way, it is still not what I had intended. I created the
album in a way that re-sizes all pictures to fit the screen--it
enlarges them--too much so on most of the pictures--many of which I
intended to take up only a quarter of the page. I'll get it right
soon. Maybe even before you click on the link above.

Click to expand...

i asked this lower down on the forum, but i'll ask it here too: why all the effects?

it really doesn't show what the camera can do.

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

Daniel Craig said:

By the way, I'm in the process right now of fixing it--it is 2:25
est it will be repaired by 3:30 for sure.

And I did put one pic in that was done by my "cheap" camera.
Though I doubt that you'll be able to figure out which one.

Click to expand...

probably not, the quality is the same throughout, a bit blurred, with low saturation.

and it would be impossible to tell anyway, since all the pictures were squished through photoshop.

though of all of them, the most creative, would be the black and white dog, but that's mostly thanks to the expression on the guy.

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

pierre L said:

Anyway, Daniel, I've read a lot of your posts. You're great. I
first planned to buy a G2, but will finally go for a S30 based on
your conclusions, and I hope you can give me plenty of photography
tips in the future.

Click to expand...

Hi Pierre,

not to confuse the issue further but have you taken a good hard look at the results people have obtained with both the G2 and S30, rather than basing your decision on Daniel's opinion ?

It really depends on the type of photos you want to take and what your main requirements are.

Gordon

http://www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor

mike savad said:

i asked this lower down on the forum, but i'll ask it here too: why
all the effects?

it really doesn't show what the camera can do.

---Mike Savad

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

Click to expand...

1. I find ordinary photos boring with but rare exceptions.

2. Granted, I didn't do a great job with the chess photos for reasons I already cited; but now that I got them up, I can send people from the club to view them. Most people would rather not have a super fine picture taken of them.
3. I did take some good shots of my dog and cat.

4. I'm not into taking pictures of flowers. I did not buy my camera for that purpose.

5. I fully intend to put up better and sharper pictures as time goes by. I just wanted these up first for a variety of reasons.

6. I like special effects done to pictures. It is what I like to see on the net the most by far. And most people would rather see special effects pictures judging by the number of hits made at http://www.imira.com There are a ton of dull pictures at that site--and when people associate your name with an album--and you have such dull pictures there--they won't click to find out the latest picture you've post up of Aunt Mildred. Albeit, I did put up a pretty decent shot of my mom already.

Daniel Craig said:

Daniel Craig said:

i asked this lower down on the forum, but i'll ask it here too: why
all the effects?

it really doesn't show what the camera can do.

---Mike Savad

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

Click to expand...

1. I find ordinary photos boring with but rare exceptions.

Click to expand...

out of curiosity, how would you label an ordinary photo, to your own?

Daniel Craig said:

2. Granted, I didn't do a great job with the chess photos for
reasons I already cited; but now that I got them up, I can send
people from the club to view them. Most people would rather not
have a super fine picture taken of them.

Click to expand...

the camera isn't totally at fault in the chess thing. better angles would have shown what was going.

if i were doing it, i would have chosen much different angles. i would have gotten shots over a shoulder looking down on the board. i would have gotten a better shot of that guy looking at the board, since it was a good pose. i would have gotten another shot, where that guy standing in red was, and got the posed, and the board in the shot. the trophies, would have been good. the guy that was backlit, it would have been better if your back was too the window, and you can use that as your light source.

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.

second, you boasted how great the camera is, but by blurring 90% of the photo's with a tool, you defeated that purpose. the site is to either:

a. show off the abilities of the camera, after all the s30 is BOSS.
b. show off your abilites to use this camera.

so far i see neither.

and though it is true that people don't really want to see a super clear photo of themselves, a normal, non edited shot is best. also the fact that a chess board happened to be in a few shots, doesn't help it. they could have been anywhere. none of the pictures really capture the moment, of what they were doing. even making it a little dark, by choosing a faster shutter speed, could help the mood (maybe he's losing). and since it's will be in photoshop anyway, the dark pictures can easily be lightened, and an unsharp mask would help a little too.

i mostly asked for flowers, because they are comparable, and can be compared to other camera's such as the g2. or in my case the pro 90, which technically only is a 2.6 - and is still much clearer.

just a few thoughts anyway.

---Mike Savad

Daniel Craig said:

3. I did take some good shots of my dog and cat.
4. I'm not into taking pictures of flowers. I did not buy my
camera for that purpose.
5. I fully intend to put up better and sharper pictures as time
goes by. I just wanted these up first for a variety of reasons.
6. I like special effects done to pictures. It is what I like to
see on the net the most by far. And most people would rather see
special effects pictures judging by the number of hits made at
http://www.imira.com There are a ton of dull pictures at that
site--and when people associate your name with an album--and you
have such dull pictures there--they won't click to find out the
latest picture you've post up of Aunt Mildred. Albeit, I did put
up a pretty decent shot of my mom already.

Click to expand...

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

mike savad said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Daniel Craig said:

Daniel Craig said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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/

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/

Will you are one funny man! I'm laughing so hard I'm crying... thanks for the humor ;-)

Paige

Will said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Gordon McGregor said:

pierre L said:

Anyway, Daniel, I've read a lot of your posts. You're great. I
first planned to buy a G2, but will finally go for a S30 based on
your conclusions, and I hope you can give me plenty of photography
tips in the future.

Click to expand...

Hi Pierre,

not to confuse the issue further but have you taken a good hard
look at the results people have obtained with both the G2 and S30,
rather than basing your decision on Daniel's opinion ?

It really depends on the type of photos you want to take and what
your main requirements are.

Gordon

http://www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor

Click to expand...

Paige said:

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...

Click to expand...

Crack-head? That would explain a lot.

Paige87621 said:

Paige

Gordon McGregor said:

pierre L said:

Anyway, Daniel, I've read a lot of your posts. You're great. I
first planned to buy a G2, but will finally go for a S30 based on
your conclusions, and I hope you can give me plenty of photography
tips in the future.

Click to expand...

Hi Pierre,

not to confuse the issue further but have you taken a good hard
look at the results people have obtained with both the G2 and S30,
rather than basing your decision on Daniel's opinion ?

It really depends on the type of photos you want to take and what
your main requirements are.

Gordon

http://www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

mike savad said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Daniel,

My advise to you is take these comments and critisisms and practice practice practice taking photos. You already have a great camera. Try pushing it to its limits. Try different angles as preciously stated. A straight on shot is almost never as appealing as a shot from a different perspective.

You're starting to sound more level-headed than you did a couple weeks ago. Keep the accusations and "s30 beats all" statements to a minimum and use the forum to help you evolve into a better photographer. Instead of telling us to "look and weep" at your photos, ask how you can make them better. Do it in a calm manner and I'm sure people here will be gald to help.--MateoV, Cannon G2 http://www.pbase.com/mateov