ThrillaMozilla

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jan 25, 2011

Comments

Total: 245, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

JE River: I used to think in terms of lines and balance and weights, when I was a lot greener in photography. Over time, one has to accept and learn to leave the process up to the subconscious mind. It's quite simple. Does the image work or does it not?

This is an important distinction to make when producing work for other people to enjoy, vs. only producing work for yourself and like-minded people to enjoy. I feel like when people put a lot of effort into tangible "lines, weights, etc." aspects they might become detached from the human emotional element; which is the subconscious mind deciding how to react to the image.

If one posts to photo sharing websites, it is inevitable that sometimes that person will have an image they think will be a knockout for likes, due to the great choice of lines and compo, but fall completely flat because they lacked an emotional connection.

Wow! Some uncommonly wise comments in this thread. Everyone knows, the secret to composition is drawing grids and diagonals and spirals all over your photographs, and then ignoring them.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2022 at 16:45 UTC
In reply to:

kciuk aka Ken60: Strikes me that Mr Marom has a contradiction in his advice. One moment we hear that copying is WRONG! Then a set of rules for creation are declared, the likes of which would produce similar clone images with the same structure. Rather like the forum insistence that water must move over several seconds.
I only ever suggested building a scrap book of tear sheets ( in the paper days ) both of photography and other disciplines, because this selection process was rather like asking someone what food they like.

While I detest compositional "rules", I rather like the fact that he presented a novel point of view illustrated with nice pictures. The literature and internet are full of buzzword clichés about composition.

I would be hard-pressed to write an article on composition. All I can say is that I know it when I see it. I have few rules myself, but one of them is that if I gasp when I see a picture, and my viewers do the same, then I have a winner. But every stinkin' picture has different -- and often contradictory -- rules. how to write an article on that? I won't be taking shots at the author for his contribution.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2022 at 16:36 UTC
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: I don't agree with the highly subjective argument about lines and masses. I think the most important elements in these photos are the landscapes themselves (which are interesting and difficult to get to), and the fact that extreme aspects/focal lengths were used. The images could have been shot from slightly different angles without any loss of interest or beauty.

In fact, in several of the shots, I felt the compositions were inadequate. For example, the Laguna Amarga shot looks unbalanced with the lake cut off at a weird angle. The Beautiful red rock near Moab, Utah shot is cut off at the top, right where you want the image to continue so you can see the top of the rocks.

I think his photos are very nice, and I appreciate the fact that he has taken the time to explain his point of view on composition, without the use of clichés. Everybody here wants to be a great photographer, and everybody sees something that they would have done slightly differently -- for better or worse. But taking random shots does not improve your photography or your esteem.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2022 at 16:01 UTC
In reply to:

Roger C: Although subjective, lots of good information being shared in a easy to understand format! Personally, I don't always look for leading lines or perfect foregrounds. Sometimes a little imperfection makes the scene more realistic. I like articles like this because:
#1- Great information about composition
#2- Strikes a real discussion about best shooting methods and practices
#3- Takes me to places I'd never be able to afford otherwise
Hate these articles because:
#1- Seems to bring out the worst in photographers who think they know it all.
#2- Instant harsh criticism of original photographer attempting to help others, discouraging others from displaying their photography work.

Erez Marom, it's best not to take the bait from trolls.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2022 at 15:41 UTC
In reply to:

semorg: Decent images, however, most of these compositions are not that good.

It's clear the author doesn't really understand composition himself and does not haver an in-depth knowledge.
The fact that the author doesn't even know words like "positive" and "negative" space tells me he doesn't even have a basic understanding of the subject he is trying to teach.

Not saying you need to know "negative space" to have a good eye, but if you want to teach something you better do your homework and have the basic lingo down.

This seems like a content marketing post to promote his photo tour business.

Don't get me wrong, these are great locations and I give him credit for going to all these spots. I'm just saying the photos/compositions are generally above average. I'm not saying they're bad, but I'm drawn to these images not because of his composition but because of the location.
I just wish DPreview editors had a higher standards for these types of content marketing article.

'"positive" and "negative" space'

Well, at least you've learned the buzzwords. But taking random shots at an article doesn't build your photography or your esteem.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2022 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS:

I now have read many of the comments and did not expect so many people to share my view that, as @SteveAnderson puts it "Cheap crap corrected by software is still cheap crap". Not so sure about the "cheap" though!

The bad news is that manufacturers will ignore us, carry on regardless.

How do you organise a world wide strike by the general public - that the vast majority refuses to buy any more until they stop this?

You go first.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2022 at 03:14 UTC
On photo Kenai River, Alaska in the In The Style Of ANSEL ADAMS challenge (2 comments in total)

.

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2021 at 16:48 UTC as 1st comment
On photo Mingus Mountain in the In The Style Of ANSEL ADAMS challenge (5 comments in total)

.

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2021 at 16:47 UTC as 1st comment
On photo YOSEMITY in the In The Style Of ANSEL ADAMS challenge (10 comments in total)

Yosemite is misspelled.

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2021 at 16:39 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Idaho_X: Now I'd like you to publish an article on how heavily Hubble's images are edited before they are shown to the world ...

For scientific purposes you can be sure that the images are carefully processed to preserve information. The objective is not necessarily to preserve the appearance as the eye would see it. For light with wavelengths beyond the visible spectrum, the image must be presented either in monochrome or in false color.

For presentation to the public, the objective might be different. But you should realize that the sky is a lot more colorful than it appears to the eye, because the eye does not see color in dim light.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2021 at 15:19 UTC
In reply to:

Fotoni: What is the equivalent aperture compared to a full frame sensor? I tried some vague numbers and got F0.007692, but it is probably very wrong. How many stops more light this telescope can offer compared to a F1.4 full frame lens?

The focal length is 131.4 m. The diameter is approximately 6.5 m, so it is an f/20 lens.

That's how it works with astronomical mirrors and lenses. The most important parameter is the diameter, so it can collect as much light as possible. Plus, they typically need a lot of magnification, so the focal length is long.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2021 at 15:11 UTC
In reply to:

Bayonet: Anyone know how many degrees its field of view is? Couldn't find it in the article.

"@Bayonet according to your link, the fields of view of its sensors are about 2' x 2' each."

That's right. The field of view is measured not in degrees, but in arc minutes. An arc minute is 1/60 degree.

The focal length is 131.4 m. The diameter is approximately 6.5 m, so it is an f/20 lens.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2021 at 15:01 UTC
In reply to:

xlucine: For 90% of the cost of their 100mm f/2.8 (which is also 2:1), this is an expensive way to get a smaller kit. Shame - if it was substantially cheaper than their flagship macro lens I'd probably have bought it

Don't forget that a small macro lens is especially useful because a large lens blocks the light and may scare subjects.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2021 at 15:00 UTC
In reply to:

xlucine: For 90% of the cost of their 100mm f/2.8 (which is also 2:1), this is an expensive way to get a smaller kit. Shame - if it was substantially cheaper than their flagship macro lens I'd probably have bought it

"An f/5.6 APO lens for $500 isn't great when compared to a $500 APO f/2.8 lens with better image quality."

I would say $500 for an apochromat is spectacular on any scale.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2021 at 00:37 UTC
In reply to:

xlucine: For 90% of the cost of their 100mm f/2.8 (which is also 2:1), this is an expensive way to get a smaller kit. Shame - if it was substantially cheaper than their flagship macro lens I'd probably have bought it

"I was talking about without a tripod. The amount of movement you cause when you breathe or your heart beats will immediately counteract the autofocus at real macro distances. It's easier just to approximate focus and then move the camera a hair at a time to focus. With or without AF."

That's the basic technique, all right. I didn't think you could do it at f/16, but I tried it and by gosh you probably can. On my camera, peaking even works, although I didn't try it in the macro range.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2021 at 00:34 UTC
In reply to:

xlucine: For 90% of the cost of their 100mm f/2.8 (which is also 2:1), this is an expensive way to get a smaller kit. Shame - if it was substantially cheaper than their flagship macro lens I'd probably have bought it

"I don't see lack of auto aperture or autofocus as big issues for macro."

That's fine for static subjects with a tripod, but not OK for live subjects or without a tripod. I haven't tried it with a mirrorless camera, but I doubt that focusing or even viewing would be adequate at f/16. And none of the focusing aids except perhaps magnification will work beyond approximately f/5.6 or f/8.

That does bring up another question: whether focusing aids will work at all at 2x magnification and f/5.6. I think it depends on the camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2021 at 17:50 UTC
In reply to:

xlucine: For 90% of the cost of their 100mm f/2.8 (which is also 2:1), this is an expensive way to get a smaller kit. Shame - if it was substantially cheaper than their flagship macro lens I'd probably have bought it

"this is an expensive way to get a smaller kit"

What?!! It's an apochromat for $500. And it's a macro lens with a maximum magnification of 2. With these specs. they might be their only competition, and high-quality lenses don't get any cheaper than this. Max. f stop of 5.6 makes for easy aberration correction.

The downsides no auto aperture, no auto focus. Ouch.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2021 at 16:50 UTC
In reply to:

Radovan: I wish they included Olympus and Panasonic in this comparison. Make it a crop sensor comparison rather than just APSC.

Yes, it is unfortunate. Olympus and Panasonic make worthy alternatives.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2021 at 16:13 UTC

Now we don't have to spend all that money on expensive lenses. Or lenses.

Now I can get back to hiking. I won't need to carry a heavy camera. I won't need to stop for photos, so I can keep up with other people. Now I can recreate all those photos that I missed -- my children's childhood, the mountains that were fogged in, the UFO I saw last week, those Ansel Adams photos I couldn't afford to buy. Heck, now I am truly obsolete. :D

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2021 at 18:12 UTC as 50th comment | 2 replies
On article Choosing a camera Part 3: the trade-offs of sensor size (432 comments in total)
In reply to:

GenaricName: For whatever reason, it seems like the "Full Frame" 36x24mm format is the one that has the best selection of lenses. You can't even buy a 24-70 f2.8 equivalent lens on micro four thirds sensors, as the closest there is is that 12-35 f2.8 (f5.6 equivalent) from Panasonic. In the GFX line, it seems like they've released only one lens that doesn't have a full frame equivalent, the 80mm f1.7, but you could match the depth of field of all their other lenses on a full frame camera. APS-C is only very recently catching up to full frame glass with the introduction of a handful of f0.95 lenses, but a lot of them seem to be much softer at wide open than the equivalent f1.2 full frame lenses are, such that you probably would only use them when stopped down.

Nolejd50,
You really need to take your discussion to the Photo Science and Tech. Forum. There you can attempt to explain your ideas to the people who invented much of the technology that you are using.

In digital photography the ISO setting determines the exposure that you need to attain a certain image lightness. Nothing more, nothing less.

Calling people fools or ridiculous does not change that.

42-bit TIFF,
The equivalence of lenses and sensors is not determined by exposure, for a good reason. For a good explanation, read http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/ .

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2021 at 14:58 UTC
Total: 245, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »