A blurry photo

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 21:01:51 -0500, nospam wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
Your suggestion that you need to use a ZOOM lens to compose a shot is
wrong! Zoom lens were NOT invented to compose shots, but simply for the
convenience of not changing lenses. Zooms alter the scene perspective. Any
pro will tell you that, it's in all my books. The proper way to compose is to
move your position.

no pro will tell you that and you either misread the books you have or
you need to get better books.

I'll look it up again and see. I'll quote whatever I find.

please do. then you'll see that it didn't say what you thought it did.

zooms do *not* alter the perspective. moving your position does.

I don't agree.

then you're wrong.

Zooming in compresses the view.

no it doesn't.

you get *exactly* the same effect whether you zoom or crop.

EG lets say I'm 20 feet from a
person, and 1 mile from a mountain. if I zoom in the mountain will "move"
closer. whereas walking over to the person leaves the mountain in the
background, as it was before. On the other hand, if you want the whole
mountain
you zoom out and push the mountain away. The person in your shot remains
relatively the same. Moving away would leave the mountain the same and make
the
person smaller. It's the zoom that changes the scene perspective, walking back
and forth affects the person (closer subject) and leaves the background alone,
so only the zoom changes the angles, the relative size of the person and
mountain remain the same when walking back and forth 15 feet.

nope. perspective changed because you moved your position relative to
the subject.

if you don't move, then nothing changes.

you can use a wide angle lens and then crop and you will have the exact
same photo with the same perspective, only it's lower quality due to
cropping.

That I know. I've tested it myself... I must be looking at things backwards! I
do remember being told not to use zoom to frame an image... I do anyway!

Photography 101.

i don't know what class you took but they got it wrong too.

geometry 101.

zooms are a convenience over having multiple lenses. that's all.

That's what I said.

but not for the reasons you gave. choice of lens, whether it's zoom or
fixed focal length, has no effect on perspective.

the choice between changing the focal length (zoom or swap) versus
moving position, or even a combination of both, depends on what you
want the photo to look like. one does not replace the other.

That's what I said. I am free to do either, or crop if I want. It's my image.

yes.

And lastly, most people will tell you to shoot with primes only, if you
want pro results, and proper composition means you have to move
closer or farther away, or replace the lens, and that isn't always possible.

not anymore they won't.

Then why am I hearing that? All I ever hear from my nephew is prime prime
prime. He's a photographer and works for other photographers.

it used to be true that fixed focal length lenses were better, because
zooms are more complex.

that is no longer true, yet the belief lives on.

modern zooms are *extremely* good, and in some cases (nikon 14-24mm),
better than fixed focal length lenses in its range.

the rest of the time, you can only measure a difference in the lab.

some zooms are *very* good, even better than many fixed focal length
lenses in the same range, notably the nikon 14-24mm.

That's what I say too. I own more zooms than primes, and I only own the primes
to get the speed. EG I have the 16-35 f4 but I also have a 24 f1.8. One is fast,
one is convenient.

that part is true.

On 11/5/2013 2:04 PM, PeterN wrote:
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg


Those that can, do. Those that can't, apply Photoshop "artistic" filters.

On 11/10/2013 12:49 PM, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 11/5/2013 2:04 PM, PeterN wrote:
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg


Those that can, do. Those that can't, apply Photoshop "artistic" filters.

That image was pretty much of a crop. No filters were used, except for
some sharpening and noise removal.

--
PeterN

PeterN wrote:
On 11/10/2013 12:49 PM, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 11/5/2013 2:04 PM, PeterN wrote:
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg


Those that can, do. Those that can't, apply Photoshop "artistic" filters.

That image was pretty much of a crop. No filters were used, except for
some sharpening and noise removal.

The problem isn't Photoshop, nor its "artistic" filters.
It's just that Ansel Adams got it wrong! His famous
quote about "nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy
concept" misses, by some distance, the true horror of a
fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept...

That's clearly what you've got there. We all make such
things now and then, but my advice is to toss it and
anything else like it, and do not ever show such things
to anyone.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 2013-11-10 17:49:09 +0000, Doug McDonald said:

On 11/5/2013 2:04 PM, PeterN wrote:
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg


Those that can, do. Those that can't, apply Photoshop "artistic" filters.

There is a place and use for all the tools Photoshop and the third
party vendors provide with the goal of reaching the particular final
image the shooter has in mind. While that might not match the
individual taste of some "purists" here, it does not mean the results
are necessarily bad.

So as far as condemning all PS filters with a blanket remark, consider
the intent of the photographer and the execution of post processing
techniques he/she has available. There are abusers of PS filters and
there are photographers without behind the lens skills, and no amount
of post processing is going to save the beyond redemption capture.

It all depends on where you are going to end up, after making all those
brightness, contrast, mid-tone, shadows, highlight, sharpening, etc.
tweaks before coming up with an image you are prepared to share.

Neither of these two finished images were in my opinion ready to share
directly from the camera, and I doubt that even the best of the "do it
all by getting it right in the camera with one shot" school truly
believe that all should be done in the camera, even when it came to
Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, or any of the Group f/64 photographers.
https://db.tt/CEiaAZjp
https://db.tt/z2LTtS1S

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013-11-10 19:12:40 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

PeterN wrote:
On 11/10/2013 12:49 PM, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 11/5/2013 2:04 PM, PeterN wrote:
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg


Those that can, do. Those that can't, apply Photoshop "artistic" filters.

That image was pretty much of a crop. No filters were used, except for
some sharpening and noise removal.

The problem isn't Photoshop, nor its "artistic" filters.
It's just that Ansel Adams got it wrong! His famous
quote about "nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy
concept" misses, by some distance, the true horror of a
fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept...

That's clearly what you've got there. We all make such
things now and then, but my advice is to toss it and
anything else like it, and do not ever show such things
to anyone.

There is a time and a place for everything, and to try and sell a bad,
fuzzy OoF, cropped shot as some sort of abstract just doesn't work.
Definitely not for this shot of Peter's. Sometimes the reject bin is
the best option.

I think once more we have a point of agreement there Floyd. :-)
Is Hell freezing over, or is Winter closing in on Barrow?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-10 19:12:40 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

PeterN wrote:
On 11/10/2013 12:49 PM, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 11/5/2013 2:04 PM, PeterN wrote:
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

Those that can, do. Those that can't, apply
Photoshop "artistic" filters.
That image was pretty much of a crop. No filters were
used, except for
some sharpening and noise removal.
The problem isn't Photoshop, nor its "artistic"
filters.
It's just that Ansel Adams got it wrong! His famous
quote about "nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy
concept" misses, by some distance, the true horror of a
fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept...
That's clearly what you've got there. We all make such
things now and then, but my advice is to toss it and
anything else like it, and do not ever show such things
to anyone.

There is a time and a place for everything, and to try and sell a bad,
fuzzy OoF, cropped shot as some sort of abstract just doesn't work.
Definitely not for this shot of Peter's. Sometimes the reject bin is
the best option.

I think once more we have a point of agreement there Floyd. :-)
Is Hell freezing over, or is Winter closing in on Barrow?

All is quite normal here. We've had snow on the ground for well
over a month... But, is it freezing there at your place?

In regard to abstracts that don't work, or anything else
that doesn't fit the photographer's idea of how others
should see their work, I have two bits of experience to
share. The first one is do not *EVER* show un-edited,
un-culled, un-selected images of a child to its mother
(or of a dog to its owner). Once they've seen it, you
can never delete that image, or risk having the kid's
mother know that you did. The picture is in her mind
and you'd better be able to produce it! Cull first, show
later.

Another lesson has to do with these wierd "abstracts"
that are mildly interesting, but belong in the waste
basket. Don't ever let anyone see them!

It's a lesson I learned years back when I printed a few
shots of a young woman in her wedding gown, and the
@#$%^&* printer went crazy! It gave a squirt of cyan
ink anytime it did any other color. Three or four
prints were made before I stopped it. It happened that
the background was mostly blue sky and blue ocean, so
the result was "interesting". Not good, just
interesting. But I made the mistake of showing those
prints to her father.

How was I to know he has goofy ideas about colors? He
likes almost anything that is over saturated! I told him
these were rejects from a malfunctioning printer. He
picked them up, and said thank you! I was sort of dumb
struck, and he walked off with them. I spent the next
two weeks getting used to the idea that for the rest of
his life he would probably show those horrible prints to
people and tell them it was a great example of my
photography! (His house burned to the ground a few
years later and I swear I didn't have anything to do
with it... But I did note it wasn't a total disaster,
he and his family got out alive and those prints
didn't!)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 2013-11-10 21:33:39 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-10 19:12:40 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

PeterN wrote:
On 11/10/2013 12:49 PM, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 11/5/2013 2:04 PM, PeterN wrote:
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

Those that can, do. Those that can't, apply
Photoshop "artistic" filters.
That image was pretty much of a crop. No filters were
used, except for
some sharpening and noise removal.
The problem isn't Photoshop, nor its "artistic"
filters.
It's just that Ansel Adams got it wrong! His famous
quote about "nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy
concept" misses, by some distance, the true horror of a
fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept...
That's clearly what you've got there. We all make such
things now and then, but my advice is to toss it and
anything else like it, and do not ever show such things
to anyone.

There is a time and a place for everything, and to try and sell a bad,
fuzzy OoF, cropped shot as some sort of abstract just doesn't work.
Definitely not for this shot of Peter's. Sometimes the reject bin is
the best option.

I think once more we have a point of agreement there Floyd. :-)
Is Hell freezing over, or is Winter closing in on Barrow?

All is quite normal here. We've had snow on the ground for well
over a month... But, is it freezing there at your place?

Close, but not quite there. We have current highs in the mid 70's and
over night lows in the 37-45 range depending on cloud cover.
....and no precipitation of any kind forecast for the California Central
Coast. Even an Alaskan low front due to come through here
Monday/Tuesday seems to be petering out.


In regard to abstracts that don't work, or anything else
that doesn't fit the photographer's idea of how others
should see their work, I have two bits of experience to
share. The first one is do not *EVER* show un-edited,
un-culled, un-selected images of a child to its mother
(or of a dog to its owner). Once they've seen it, you
can never delete that image, or risk having the kid's
mother know that you did. The picture is in her mind
and you'd better be able to produce it! Cull first, show
later.

Candid kiddie or puppy pics, only show Mom the great ones.

Another lesson has to do with these wierd "abstracts"
that are mildly interesting, but belong in the waste
basket. Don't ever let anyone see them!

;-)

It's a lesson I learned years back when I printed a few
shots of a young woman in her wedding gown, and the
@#$%^&* printer went crazy! It gave a squirt of cyan
ink anytime it did any other color. Three or four
prints were made before I stopped it. It happened that
the background was mostly blue sky and blue ocean, so
the result was "interesting". Not good, just
interesting. But I made the mistake of showing those
prints to her father.

How was I to know he has goofy ideas about colors? He
likes almost anything that is over saturated! I told him
these were rejects from a malfunctioning printer. He
picked them up, and said thank you! I was sort of dumb
struck, and he walked off with them. I spent the next
two weeks getting used to the idea that for the rest of
his life he would probably show those horrible prints to
people and tell them it was a great example of my
photography! (His house burned to the ground a few
years later and I swear I didn't have anything to do
with it... But I did note it wasn't a total disaster,
he and his family got out alive and those prints
didn't!)

....and you just don't have the capability to reproduce those prints any
more. How unfortunate. ;-)
At least your reputation is intact.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
PeterN wrote:
On 11/10/2013 12:49 PM, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 11/5/2013 2:04 PM, PeterN wrote:
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg
Those that can, do. Those that can't, apply Photoshop "artistic"
filters.
That image was pretty much of a crop. No filters were used, except for
some sharpening and noise removal.
The problem isn't Photoshop, nor its "artistic" filters.
It's just that Ansel Adams got it wrong! His famous
quote about "nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy
concept" misses, by some distance, the true horror of a
fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept...
That's clearly what you've got there. We all make such
things now and then, but my advice is to toss it and
anything else like it, and do not ever show such things
to anyone.

Just what I thought, the background would look good if whatever it is in the
foreground was actually sharp. But then I'm always amazed at how many reject
photo's are called "art" rather than admit they missed the real photo there.
As always beauty is in the eye of the beholder though.

Trevor.

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

Hey Peter, I like it. It's kind of impressionistic and depicts the motion.

Would that be an American Oyster Catcher?

I once had a similar photo of some white geese coming upon a nest of
Canadien geese and tormenting them and the standoff between the Canadien
geese couple and the two or three white geese was really
interesting----mainly because my flash batteries died and I didn't have a
replacement, so I captured the scene at a slow blurrred shutter speed. LOL
It actually worked better than a sharp shot with flash cuz it suggested the
movement and action going on.
Tim