Belasco
Leading Member
I would think.
2nd--Lockness, bigfoot!
2nd--Lockness, bigfoot!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What is the most difficult type of photography???
- Thread starter springbock
- Start date
N
neil holmes
Guest
I apologise as I am tired and cranky having spent the last three days (when not on here), shooting 1200 plus live music photos in all lighting conditions.
I have come home with around 800 and will end up giving a cd of 300 plus. Many of the deleted ones being duplicates and maybe 300 being garbage (feel free to say they all are),
I am an average photographer who shoots jpegs and hates post processing. My flickr shots are not meant to be a portfolio but i use it as an on line storage for dpreview posts or similar. Despite being average , I keep getting asked to do live music shots or get photo passes for more popular bands I ask to do, including some of Australias most popular as well as the odd international band.
You have completely missed the point.
Live music IS easy by comparison with high magnification macros outdoors, I am not talking about normal macro. I simply ask you to try it. I know that if i had shot 1200 3:1 bug shots I would have got less than a hundred that would have been useable. Ok you tell me....how many would YOU get?
You may resume posting disparaging remarks about me and my lousy photos in reply and elsewhere in this thread while showing your true genius.
Me, I will get back to pretending to reply to customers being ripped off.....oh wait thats not me..
neil
springbock
Senior Member
No.... number ONE has to be Dave Luttman and Luttman Photography! Luttman Photography turns up nada on 411.ca and nada on yellowpages.ca AND nada with Google. He is the most elusive and difficult to photograph, little alone prove even exists 
Also has anyone noticed that the pic , presumably of him on his web site doesn't resemble anybody on the astronomical web site linked to earlier.
And for a good laugh people read this from Sept. 2008, talking about the Sony A900...
" Man, I wish people would get off this high iso nonsense. I’ve never used anything higher than 400iso for landscape or studio work. This is the target market of a camera like this. It is not designed as a high speed camera.
Using a high rez camera like this requires excellent technique and processing. Mounting on a tripod is also a must for the best work.
This infatuation with needing clean iso 25,600 files is plain silly. I mentioned elsewhere that I have printed 11×14 crops from the Imaging Resource sites house scene samples. I used both iso 200 and 800. I never shoot landscapes at 800 or higher. I printed from 16×24 and 20×30 full sizes. The 800 iso shot showed some noise….but not much and it didn’t look like the painterly artifacts from the old Kodaks, nor the plasticy lifeless look from the Canon (my reason for switching to Pentax). They left the chroma noise alone and let it fall where it may.
As to the iso 200 shots…..no noise at all, regardless of print size. It’s enough that I am considering giving up 4×5 film use as the results were the same at 16×24…..and only a bit better for film at 20×30. As my print sales are normally 16×20 (16×24), my need for 4×5 has been greatly reduced!!! All at a great price.
It’s starting to look like the people complaining don’t really use this gear professionally and spend all their time measurebating, pixel peeping, and running test shots of their cats!"
http://www.davidchinphoto.com/dave-luttmann-speaks-out-on-the-high-iso-noise-of-the-sony-a900/
And then read this from Aug. 2009 talking about the Sony A850....
Dave Luttmann , Aug 31, 2009; 11:59 a.m.
Marc,
"Whil I agree about the optics for the Sony A900 and the 24-70.....if you're shooting in relatively low light, and using iso 800 or 1600....or higher, the best optics in the world are simply being smeared away by noise. At least, this is what I see in samples online.
I was excited about the A850 news release. I'd love to hear your opinions of how the 900 works with these superb optics during weddings where candid shooting are involved without flash at 1600 or 3200. What are your thoughts as to the noise from the Sony in that regard? While I figure it won't equal a 5D2 or D3X.....how bad is is really for prints at 8x10 and 11x14?"
http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00UM9U
Does anybody see a contradiction here?
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
Also has anyone noticed that the pic , presumably of him on his web site doesn't resemble anybody on the astronomical web site linked to earlier.
And for a good laugh people read this from Sept. 2008, talking about the Sony A900...
" Man, I wish people would get off this high iso nonsense. I’ve never used anything higher than 400iso for landscape or studio work. This is the target market of a camera like this. It is not designed as a high speed camera.
Using a high rez camera like this requires excellent technique and processing. Mounting on a tripod is also a must for the best work.
This infatuation with needing clean iso 25,600 files is plain silly. I mentioned elsewhere that I have printed 11×14 crops from the Imaging Resource sites house scene samples. I used both iso 200 and 800. I never shoot landscapes at 800 or higher. I printed from 16×24 and 20×30 full sizes. The 800 iso shot showed some noise….but not much and it didn’t look like the painterly artifacts from the old Kodaks, nor the plasticy lifeless look from the Canon (my reason for switching to Pentax). They left the chroma noise alone and let it fall where it may.
As to the iso 200 shots…..no noise at all, regardless of print size. It’s enough that I am considering giving up 4×5 film use as the results were the same at 16×24…..and only a bit better for film at 20×30. As my print sales are normally 16×20 (16×24), my need for 4×5 has been greatly reduced!!! All at a great price.
It’s starting to look like the people complaining don’t really use this gear professionally and spend all their time measurebating, pixel peeping, and running test shots of their cats!"
http://www.davidchinphoto.com/dave-luttmann-speaks-out-on-the-high-iso-noise-of-the-sony-a900/
And then read this from Aug. 2009 talking about the Sony A850....
Dave Luttmann , Aug 31, 2009; 11:59 a.m.
Marc,
"Whil I agree about the optics for the Sony A900 and the 24-70.....if you're shooting in relatively low light, and using iso 800 or 1600....or higher, the best optics in the world are simply being smeared away by noise. At least, this is what I see in samples online.
I was excited about the A850 news release. I'd love to hear your opinions of how the 900 works with these superb optics during weddings where candid shooting are involved without flash at 1600 or 3200. What are your thoughts as to the noise from the Sony in that regard? While I figure it won't equal a 5D2 or D3X.....how bad is is really for prints at 8x10 and 11x14?"
http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00UM9U
Does anybody see a contradiction here?
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
No.... number ONE has to be Dave Luttman and Luttman Photography! Luttman Photography turns up nada on 411.ca and nada on yellowpages.ca AND nada with Google. He is the most elusive and difficult to photograph, little alone prove even exists
Also has anyone noticed that the pic , presumably of him on his web site doesn't resemble anybody on the astronomical web site linked to earlier.
And for a good laugh people read this from Sept. 2008, talking about the Sony A900...
" Man, I wish people would get off this high iso nonsense. I’ve never used anything higher than 400iso for landscape or studio work. This is the target market of a camera like this. It is not designed as a high speed camera.
Using a high rez camera like this requires excellent technique and processing. Mounting on a tripod is also a must for the best work.
This infatuation with needing clean iso 25,600 files is plain silly. I mentioned elsewhere that I have printed 11×14 crops from the Imaging Resource sites house scene samples. I used both iso 200 and 800. I never shoot landscapes at 800 or higher. I printed from 16×24 and 20×30 full sizes. The 800 iso shot showed some noise….but not much and it didn’t look like the painterly artifacts from the old Kodaks, nor the plasticy lifeless look from the Canon (my reason for switching to Pentax). They left the chroma noise alone and let it fall where it may.
As to the iso 200 shots…..no noise at all, regardless of print size. It’s enough that I am considering giving up 4×5 film use as the results were the same at 16×24…..and only a bit better for film at 20×30. As my print sales are normally 16×20 (16×24), my need for 4×5 has been greatly reduced!!! All at a great price.
It’s starting to look like the people complaining don’t really use this gear professionally and spend all their time measurebating, pixel peeping, and running test shots of their cats!"
http://www.davidchinphoto.com/dave-luttmann-speaks-out-on-the-high-iso-noise-of-the-sony-a900/
And then read this from Aug. 2009 talking about the Sony A850....
Dave Luttmann , Aug 31, 2009; 11:59 a.m.
Marc,
"Whil I agree about the optics for the Sony A900 and the 24-70.....if you're shooting in relatively low light, and using iso 800 or 1600....or higher, the best optics in the world are simply being smeared away by noise. At least, this is what I see in samples online.
I was excited about the A850 news release. I'd love to hear your opinions of how the 900 works with these superb optics during weddings where candid shooting are involved without flash at 1600 or 3200. What are your thoughts as to the noise from the Sony in that regard? While I figure it won't equal a 5D2 or D3X.....how bad is is really for prints at 8x10 and 11x14?"
http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00UM9U
Does anybody see a contradiction here?
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
This guy is a pretender , a true web expert.
He has no address & no indication in his web site, where he is from.
How does he want his clients to find him? I tried search engine "wedding photographer in Vancouver" and he cannot be found
You inset his name and find his web site and this:
http://members.shaw.ca/cheryl.dewolfe/wedding/
All his images are dated (by his own admission, 3-4 years old) and nothing current.
He keeps talking about his "portraiture work" and yet has nothing to show, not even one image.
Mr Film Stitcher & Mr super Pro are basically Mr. B.S.
He has no address & no indication in his web site, where he is from.
How does he want his clients to find him? I tried search engine "wedding photographer in Vancouver" and he cannot be found
You inset his name and find his web site and this:
http://members.shaw.ca/cheryl.dewolfe/wedding/
All his images are dated (by his own admission, 3-4 years old) and nothing current.
He keeps talking about his "portraiture work" and yet has nothing to show, not even one image.
Mr Film Stitcher & Mr super Pro are basically Mr. B.S.
Yes, I have noticed. I have thought that he had under went plastic surgery in the meantime.No.... number ONE has to be Dave Luttman and Luttman Photography! Luttman Photography turns up nada on 411.ca and nada on yellowpages.ca AND nada with Google. He is the most elusive and difficult to photograph, little alone prove even exists
Also has anyone noticed that the pic , presumably of him on his web site doesn't resemble anybody on the astronomical web site linked to earlier.
Darryl Lessere
Forum Enthusiast
Pffffffffft - You have got to be kidding me. Do you need a tissue?
I actually have not posted anything disparaging about you and have not referred to your photos as 'lousy'.
If you are reading all my posts you may have ran across the word "unimpressed" along with 'utterly' and 'completely' which was not directed to ANYONE directly.
Unlike you who throws a big 'Darryl" out there on the board.
Hi. Howyadoin? This was all you. Go back and read it. I gave you a pass twice.
I ignored your last reply O' Great Bug macro challenger.
Like I give a damn about taking pictures of bugs.
Come back when you are not tired and cranky anymore and we maybe can talk.
Better yet, just email me direct. My email is on my profile.
Dredging up a complaint from a client who I offered to refund out of my own pocket because he couldn't get me on the phone while I was in the hospital for 2 weeks is not going to get you invited to Christmas dinner either.
We're done.
I actually have not posted anything disparaging about you and have not referred to your photos as 'lousy'.
If you are reading all my posts you may have ran across the word "unimpressed" along with 'utterly' and 'completely' which was not directed to ANYONE directly.
Unlike you who throws a big 'Darryl" out there on the board.
Hi. Howyadoin? This was all you. Go back and read it. I gave you a pass twice.
I ignored your last reply O' Great Bug macro challenger.
Like I give a damn about taking pictures of bugs.
Come back when you are not tired and cranky anymore and we maybe can talk.
Better yet, just email me direct. My email is on my profile.
Dredging up a complaint from a client who I offered to refund out of my own pocket because he couldn't get me on the phone while I was in the hospital for 2 weeks is not going to get you invited to Christmas dinner either.
We're done.
springbock
Senior Member
We are not alone in disliking his pro self designation, and his trying to elevate his opinion above others by throwing around the pro thing every chance he gets. It's very annoying in all respects, and even more irritating when it appears that it's all a lie. In fact some of you may remember Joe Lavee. He was banned after a long dispute with Dave. Joe was cantankerous, although no more than Dave Luttmann, but at least Joe was a real pro with real credentials that could easily be found on the web.
I remember a post where Dave even claimed that he was basically friends with Phil Askey... lol, remember that one Dave? Phil then came back and more or less said.... NOT
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
I remember a post where Dave even claimed that he was basically friends with Phil Askey... lol, remember that one Dave? Phil then came back and more or less said.... NOT
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
springbock
Senior Member
Baby photography, I have never done this type of photography before but I would guess that it must be flippin frustrating. Not difficult to set up or light but you probably only have 1 or 2 minutes before the baby is falling over and maybe 2 to 5 minutes before the baby is crying .
Anyway like Soenda said, war photography has to be the most physically and mentally demanding type of photography there is. BUT it can never be the most technical because of the nature of the environment. Besides war pics are dramatic by nature and don't need to be perfectly executed to draw upon emotions.
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
.Anyway like Soenda said, war photography has to be the most physically and mentally demanding type of photography there is. BUT it can never be the most technical because of the nature of the environment. Besides war pics are dramatic by nature and don't need to be perfectly executed to draw upon emotions.
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
N
neil holmes
Guest
Reread that post again...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=33017937
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=33021678
This was a nice thread turned sour.
neil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26884588@N00/
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=33017937
LOL you are the one getting tetchy because a couple of people posted to you...sorry for the offence!
And the previous post to which I just replied is not??
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=33021678
See below.
Reread that first post "Darryl" and the tone it was posted and compare that to a few of yours
Actually I do not give a damn about them either...except it can be fun on occassion and BECAUSE it is so hard to do will take a lot more practice than I care to do to be any good at it.
Nah, I have enough of this to know that you seem to take offence to even posts asking questions....as you are always right.
Did I? I do not see your name mentioned anywhere there directly either.
On that I am agreed.
This was a nice thread turned sour.
neil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26884588@N00/
Darryl Lessere
Forum Enthusiast
That's a good one!
The one or two times I got suckered into doing it made me realize it was not for me.
I just don't have the patience for it. Crying babies make my blood pressure shoot up 50 points.
The one or two times I got suckered into doing it made me realize it was not for me.
I just don't have the patience for it. Crying babies make my blood pressure shoot up 50 points.
springbock
Senior Member
What makes a type of photography difficult? To me it's these things but not necessarily in this order.
1- Subjects that don't sit still, the faster they move the harder, if they fly... then even harder, AND if they fly and are small and are skiddish.. then EVEN harder.
2 - Changing light conditions, which as we know effects shutter speeds and iso and apertures. This is compounded even more if the light changes and your subject moves quickly AND is so small that it doesn't fill your frame, This makes AF tracking and frezing shutter speeds and dof difficult.
3 - Not a clue what's going to happen next. This one is REALLY TOUGH, no hoops, no nets, no alters, no stages, no pre determined places of action or placement. Quick reflexes and knowing EVERY animal's behavior (that you shoot) is absolutely necessary and not easily learned by everybody.
4 - Patience... that rules out 1 or 2 hour events. After all isn't it easier to shoot lots of pics over 2 hours with skill than it is to lye in wait perfectly silent for 8 or 10 hours until something appears and then take your pics with skill? Or to stealthy follow your subject without being detected.
To me the toughest type of photography and the greatest photographers are wildlife ... imo.
Edit... but all good photographers in their genre stand out because THEY are good! It's probably nitpicking to say which is harder! But .... I still stick to nature photography
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
1- Subjects that don't sit still, the faster they move the harder, if they fly... then even harder, AND if they fly and are small and are skiddish.. then EVEN harder.
2 - Changing light conditions, which as we know effects shutter speeds and iso and apertures. This is compounded even more if the light changes and your subject moves quickly AND is so small that it doesn't fill your frame, This makes AF tracking and frezing shutter speeds and dof difficult.
3 - Not a clue what's going to happen next. This one is REALLY TOUGH, no hoops, no nets, no alters, no stages, no pre determined places of action or placement. Quick reflexes and knowing EVERY animal's behavior (that you shoot) is absolutely necessary and not easily learned by everybody.
4 - Patience... that rules out 1 or 2 hour events. After all isn't it easier to shoot lots of pics over 2 hours with skill than it is to lye in wait perfectly silent for 8 or 10 hours until something appears and then take your pics with skill? Or to stealthy follow your subject without being detected.
To me the toughest type of photography and the greatest photographers are wildlife ... imo.
Edit... but all good photographers in their genre stand out because THEY are good! It's probably nitpicking to say which is harder! But .... I still stick to nature photography
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
No, it's not. It's actually pretty easy. Takes a while perhaps, but it's not difficult.
Weddings are hard from the point of view of energy output. They can be long, painful endeavors with a lot of running around carrying a lot of equipment. They're stressful because you can't get the shots another time. They're somewhat difficult because of poor lighting, in many cases.
Nothing comes close to astro, IMHO. In what other area of photography is it routine for it to take days, weeks or months of very careful shooting with high-performance equipment just to get the data for a single shot, and then another week or more of very careful processing to get the final image - a single image?
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
springbock
Senior Member
I understand your point, but doesn't Hubble make land based astro photography irrelevant? (except for fun).
I don't know anything about astronomical photography, so I believe you, but I'm just wondering.
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
I don't know anything about astronomical photography, so I believe you, but I'm just wondering.
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
Actually, no, but that's a whole other story because we are talking about back-yard astro for fun.
Projects like this would not be happening if what you said was true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Meter_Telescope
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
springbock
Senior Member
Cool, I didn't see a date for that article though, or when it will be completed. How does it compare do you think with the new camera just recently installed in the Hubble? Considering there is no pollution etc. for it to penetrate. I saw on PBS that it took them 10 years to build this new digital camera for Hubble. It's hard to imaging anything reaching further or more clearly into space than that. But like I say I don't know and I'm only asking.
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
Hubble is a unique, highly-successful scientific instrument. But ultimately, it's still a small telescope (2.4 meters). And it can only look in one place at one time. It tends to be about 6x to 9x overbooked.
30 meters versus 2.4 meters is still a big gap to close, even with the lack of an atmosphere. These big scopes go into very good locations and have adaptive optics. They also can possess unique instruments that HST may not have. Ultimately, they are useful in different ways, often with partial overlap.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
springbock
Senior Member
Wow sounds pretty amazing. The mirrors are very different in size aren't they. I'm not sure what that all means though in the big scheme of things but I believe you that it's important.
The Hubble doesn't have a lot longer left does it (5 to 10 years maybe). And it will probably be some time for something better to replace it.
Interesting, thanks for the info.... To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations.., to boldly go where no man has gone before...
I'm so tempted to ask if the local astro pro has anything of substance to post regarding this matter, but I won't. Because I don't want to take anything away from real astro photographers!
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
The Hubble doesn't have a lot longer left does it (5 to 10 years maybe). And it will probably be some time for something better to replace it.
Interesting, thanks for the info.... To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations.., to boldly go where no man has gone before...
I'm so tempted to ask if the local astro pro has anything of substance to post regarding this matter, but I won't. Because I don't want to take anything away from real astro photographers!
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
Two things - light gathering speed (bigger aperture = shorter shutter speed just like with our little cameras). When shutter speeds are often measured in tens of hours, that matters. Second thing is diffraction - the diffraction limit of resolving power goes up linearly with aperture diameter.
JWST - James Webb Space Telescope. But it's basically IR only. Very different instrument, much more useful in some ways, much less in others.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
At one point he even claimed that his work is on display at some major art galleries in British Columbia, Canada.We are not alone in disliking his pro self designation, and his trying to elevate his opinion above others by throwing around the pro thing every chance he gets. It's very annoying in all respects, and even more irritating when it appears that it's all a lie. In fact some of you may remember Joe Lavee. He was banned after a long dispute with Dave. Joe was cantankerous, although no more than Dave Luttmann, but at least Joe was a real pro with real credentials that could easily be found on the web.
I remember a post where Dave even claimed that he was basically friends with Phil Askey... lol, remember that one Dave? Phil then came back and more or less said.... NOT
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum