Lives in United States San Jose, CA, United States
Works as a author/photographer/musician/teacher
Has a website at www.wendellworld.com
Joined on Apr 19, 2004
About me:

Reach a higher level of consciousness.


Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11
In reply to:

Pati Feroolz: 460 pixels wide? What this is trying to prove ?

Apparently that you are a pixel peeper, not a photographer.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 08:14 UTC
In reply to:

dkord: I like to see bigger images, they're great in this small size but how practical is it?

OK, here it is.

NOBODY is saying they are practical or suitable for newspapers, the internet or anything else.

You have missed the point completely.

This is about the art of photography. Of course that isn't a really popular subject on this site, home of the gear heads.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 08:12 UTC
In reply to:

dav1dz: With the type of equipment he's working with I'm thoroughly impressed. I've been following the site for a few days now.

Thank you for getting it. You seem to be in the minority though.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 08:09 UTC
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: Fundamentals for sports photography: location, location, location.

Seriously, if you give an average photographer a high FPS body and supertelephotos (i.e. what the pros use) and put them in the stadium, their photos will be just as good as the pros.

It's simply about recognizing colors and mindless shutter blasting.

Dan Chung's photos demonstrated some skills, at least they are shot in single-shot drive. But, heck, why a PRO will use the wrong tool for the job...LOL

Another person who has no clue. Do you really think that anyone could do as well as Dan if they had his equipment? That is all there is to it? That is like saying that you could be a virtuoso violin player if you had a Stradivarius. This is totally amusing and quite shocking.

Wow the world of photography has certainly changed over the years.

Not to mention the fact that you too, do not get the point.


Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 08:08 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: I agree with (qwertyasdf) why would a PRO use the wrong tool for something like this? Gee whiz, I just came back from a vacation in the Ozark mountains, I took an Olympus E-PL1 and Nikon D5100. The camera in my phone never saw the light of day--and I know what I was doing was hardly as significant as this.

The gear doesn't matter, not one bit--okay, fine. I guess it's time for Nikon & Canon to close their doors? Maybe the chefs there who cook for the important people can bring their Stouffer's microwave "meals in a bag," since--you know, "if you're a good cook you should be able to make a great meal using a hot plate and a bag of dirt." Or--maybe the reporters can write their stories using a box of Crayons & coloring books. If these guys are such good swimmers, wouldn't a mud hole be good enough, why bother with a pool with specific dimensions--after all, "it's all in the swimmer's skill level?"

Ugh. Enough of this. Just change your name to "cameras-are-for-luddites.com" already.

geez, nobody said that this was the only camera he used. Wow a lot of you people really have no idea what this is about. We really do live in a culture of gear heads and people who have no connection with any sort of artistic subtlety or something that might challenge the mind a bit. I am just shocked. really. Such narrow, off point thinking. Amazing.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 08:05 UTC
In reply to:

Nmphoto: Like I said with the G5. All you people out there that think if you guy the best gear available you become a good photographer. Think again. It does not matter what you use. A good photo is a good photo regardless of what you use. I have seen some terrible photos taken with D4's and 1D's using the best glass. And....welcome to the digital age, where 90% of your photos will be viewed at around 2 megapixels. When was the last time you printed one of your photos larger than A3 ?

So basically you are saying that you missed the point of the article entirely and decided to just write a rant about how gear heads rule?

OK Then.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 07:59 UTC
In reply to:

Gary Leland: Ho Dan Chung! I hope you are having a blast! What are you proving? You are proving that no matter what camera we own, what we can afford, we can have fun with photography and create photos that we can look back on with great memories. Yes you could do better with a more "professional" piece of equipment, we all know that, but I really appreciate what you have done with what you have been given! Great talent, the oportunity to be there, and lot's of just plain hard work. I do not have a TV. I would have missed the Olympics once again. But these were a treat. Too bad you could not have been everwhere at once. :)
Thank you very much. You inspire me to work harder at my photography. After all, is'nt hard work what the Olympics are all about?

See everyone.
Here is someone who gets it and can express himself well.

great post!

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 07:52 UTC
In reply to:

dylanbarnhart: What Dan Chung really proved is the limitation of the iPhone. Just compare to other professional photos like those on olympics.org and you can see what's lacking:

. Resolution
. Athlete's face expressions
. Actions at their peak
. Sharpness for low light actions
. Subject isolation

Now imagine what the pics look like without binoculars and the clip-on Schneider lens, and without Dan Chung. Actually you don't have to, there are plenty of them from the audience posted on Flickr and Facebook. Horrid.

OK, great.
Thanks for expressing your opinion.
You don't get it.
Thanks for playing.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 07:51 UTC
In reply to:

alexzn: To the a...holes posting snide comments about this: when was the last time you took a picture with your expensive gear that was half as good as those posted by Dan Chung? When was the last time you got half as many good pictures as are in that blog? Probably not in your whole lifetime. Losers...

Dan- Congratulations with a great image stream, you proved that gear is not a limitation when it is in good hands. Of course that goes poorly on a gadget frak site like DPR.

Thank you for making sense and understanding the original intent of these pictures. We live in a world of nit pickers and pixel peepers who don't even know or like people like Ansel Adams and Galen Rowell. I have heard some of these fools complain about both of these photographers because they were out of focus or there was some distortion in their images.
There is no way to get through to them, either.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 07:49 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Heard this young, talented piano player the other day. He created magic with a Pearl River. Can't wait to hear him again on a Steinway...


Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 07:44 UTC
In reply to:

Cincojoe: WOW this site amazes me. You call yourselfs photographers? Really? Shouldnt you be supporting a fellow photographer no matter what he used to take the photos? They are photos. Just that. Nothing more. A moment captured in time. You guys are nothing but gear heads that pixel peep and totally miss out on the big picture. I can only hope you're not like this in your everyday lives and I surely hope you don't act like this around your children if you have any. WOW.

You are so right. The gear heads will never get it. They live in a different world. They have no idea what this article is about or what you are saying. They aren't even real photographers.
Excellent post. Keep it up!.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 07:43 UTC
Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11