"Twibil" wrote in message
...
On Jun 16, 5:53 pm, "Dudley Hanks" wrote:


I don't care if you respect me or not, couldn't care less. And, once
again,
you side-stepped the question. The question is why do you critique
photography when you clearly have no appreciation for the beauty others
produce? Not mine, not any of the other sighted members of the group. You
simply insult. That doesn't say much about your character...

There seem to be at least one or two of these trolls on every
Newsgroup, Dudley, and they're generally people whose real lives are
so unfulfilling that they can only pump up their own sad little egos
by attacking people who are happier and more talented than they are.
Everybody but the troll knows this -and he no doubt knows it too,
deep inside- but for him it's the verbal equivalant of public
masturbation, and admitting the truth would be an act of self-
castration: giving up his only form of emotional pleasure.

We really should feel sorry for the poor little thing; particularly
because of the contrast between you two: you're an outstanding example
of someone who refuses to be defined by his limitations, and he's
someone who's completely helpless in the face of his.

Socially, I feel quite sorry for him, most of the time, though sometimes I
think he just has a weird sense of humour ... He wouldn't be the first
grump I've met who really has a heart of gold.

Still, I like to keep him / her talking as it gives me some good feedback.

In this case, once the crap is sifted, I've figured out I still need to work
on focus (with the SX120) -- which surprises me a bit for that picture.

I thought Mich was front and center enough to pretty much cover the central
focus points, but LOL noted the focus was on the stove behind, though there
can't have been much of a problem with the focus on Mich given the f/8 the
pic was shot at and the wide depth of field of most point and shoots. True,
I can actually get a bit of a blurred background in macro shots, but I
didn't think there'd be much trouble with blurry foregrounds.

Perhaps Mich's fur through off the AF enough for it to look further in the
room for something it could get sharp. I'll have to play around with that a
bit more.

LOL was also ranting about the slanted stove, but I think that was more a
product of the angle I was positioned. I was shooting diagonally across the
room because of a table to my right, so, even if the camera was level, the
stove and cupboards would have photographed at an angle, sloping up from
left to right (if my mental image of the scene is correct).

I really wasn't too concerned about the background. I was just practicing
getting the subject framed fairly centrally.

I would get Mich sitting beside me; then I'd take two steps forward, turn
180 degrees, and take a shot with the camera positioned about waste height.
If I got the turn just right and held the camera fairly straight, I'd get
Mich pretty decently framed.

It's kind of muscle memory training. If I do it enough, it becomes routine
when I get him in a better setting. And, it never fails at 35mm, or
something pretty close. If I use the XSi, with the 28mm lens, it's only
about 1 1/2 step, and I have to hold the camera a bit lower. It's one of
the routine shots I like to do, and it works with anything about the size of
Mich sitting pretty...

Anyway, LOL's a double edged sword. I don't want to puff up his ego, but he
does have a keen eye, and I appreciate whatever he points out.

It's just too bad he can't tone it down, ever so slightly...

Take Care,
Dudley