Returned from Borneo trip

In article , Rob Stanley
says...

are you missing the point on purpose? constructive critique is a tool used
to motivate, help and encourage the individual to improve in whatever it is
they do, but to manage this the effectivly it needs to be a balanced view
and yours wasnt.

That's your definition of constructive critique. But there is no point
arguing about this definition.

the OP has placed 80 excellent images on his site from his borneo visit,
but instead of mentioning any of this you chose to give 100% negative
critique based on 4 or 5 images just because theyre a little dark for your
taste and dont quite fit inside " " the box.

either way i stand by my original comment regarding *ridicule*, and id also
like to point out that you youself have not been willing or able to take
on-board the critique given regarding your posts within this thread..

Speaking about ridiculing, you have been ridiculing me from the
beginning, while at the same time claiming I was ridiculing the OP. Do I
need to give proof of this?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 20:33:04 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

[snip]
Did you use a polariser filter in Borneo?

Funnily enough, this is the first trip I've been on where I didn't
use a polarising filter! My 70-300mm front-end rotates when focusing
so makes using a polariser very fiddly and time consuming. And I
wasn't sure that a polariser-gradient effect on the sky on my 10-22mm
lens would look good. In addition, for macro shots a polariser may
not have had any benefit. So I that was the end of the polarisers!

Also, I normally have a UV filter (for protection) on my lenses but I
found that when moving from a cooled room to outside that
condensation would build up on the lenses and especially on the
insides of the filters which would take a few minutes to evaporate.
So I ended up removing all the UV filters.

So yes, this trip I had no filters at all on my lenses.

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.MetalVortex.com
Contact : www.MetalVortex.com/contact

Blog : www.MetalVortex.com/blog
Experimental : www.NinjaTrek.com

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!

U¿ytkownik "Dudley Hanks" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:O39Jj.26473$_v3.25980@edtnps90...

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article , Allen says...

Well, I guess that all of this just proves that some people like to look
at pictures and some people prefer to look at histograms. To each
his/her/its own.

I don't prefer to look at histograms. The point simply is that some
photos are dark and this can be proven with a histogram check.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Actually, most people can tell if a picture is dark simply by looking at
the image itself...

Take Care,
Dudley


Yes, that's right,
eg the moon photos , there are no way to check it using histogram

Take Care
Martin
www.gorgolewski.com

On 5 Apr, 13:25, Rob Stanley rob.vm.ng@[remove-this]rob-
stanley.co.uk wrote:
Alfred Molon after much deep thought made the following comment/s within
rec.photo.digital :

In article , Rob Stanley
says...

are you missing the point on purpose? constructive critique is a
tool used to motivate, help and encourage the individual to improve
in whatever it is they do, but to manage this the effectivly it needs
to be a balanced view and yours wasnt.

That's your definition of constructive critique. But there is no point
arguing about this definition.

tossing a valid opinion asside in this way just because it doesnt fit
comfortably in your box just makes you appear both childish and arrogant,
which im sure your not.

the OP has placed 80 excellent images on his site from his borneo
visit, but instead of mentioning any of this you chose to give 100%
negative critique based on 4 or 5 images just because theyre a
little dark for your taste and dont quite fit inside " " the box.

either way i stand by my original comment regarding *ridicule*, and
id also like to point out that you youself have not been willing or
able to take on-board the critique given regarding your posts within
this thread..

Speaking about ridiculing, you have been ridiculing me from the
beginning, while at the same time claiming I was ridiculing the OP. Do
I need to give proof of this?

if youd taken the time to read my full reply youd have noticed that ive
actually admitted this.. I call it the rule of 1 alfie.

and seeing as you missed it the first time, here it is again.

/quote self
maybe thats because ive followed the same rules that you did and only
concentrated on the negative aspect of your posts?

Has the penny dropped yet?
/end

hth

--
Rob
Life through my lenshttp://www.rob-stanley.co.uk

u sound arrogant....

In article , Kulvinder Singh
Matharu says...

So yes, this trip I had no filters at all on my lenses.

A polariser filter is almost a must in the tropics, given that the sun
can be extremely strong there.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
I've returned from Borneo and have done an initial trawl of my images
and put them online he

I like this 'spikey plant':
http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/boa/spikes.htm
-interesting shadows in the diffraction circles.

In article , says...

And exactly which of the posted photos do you feel suffered from such
effects and would have benefited from a polarizer?

See here for an introduction into the topic, which explains what
polariser filters do and how they can help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_filter

Or you might do a Google search. I'm quite sure there is a lot of
information on the web.

Generally speaking polariser filters help when the sun is very strong
and there are many big and small reflecting surfaces.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , says...

No F-wit, I know what they do. You are implying these images needed them. I
again ask which ones. Or are you just again just trolling to get hits at
your pages?

If you have trouble understanding that a polariser filter helps under
the strong tropical sun, you should take some basic photography courses
(I'm assuming for the moment that you are not mentally challenged).

But if you insist, tomorrow I will browse through the images and post
the links of the images which would have benefited from a polariser
filter.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , says...

No F-wit, I know what they do. You are implying these images needed them. I
again ask which ones.

To cut it short: all daytime outdoor shots under the direct sun would
have benefited (fewer clipped highlights, stronger contrast/saturation).

A polariser filter has no effect under an overcast sky or at night
(unless for instance you are photographing through a glass window in an
illuminated building and want to remove the reflections).

The polariser filter also would not have helped in the jungle, unless
some direct light passed through. Personally I remove the polasiser
filter when I'm in a dense jungle because it's dark and the polariser
takes away two stops of light.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Tully Albrecht wrote:
Wilba said:
Tully Albrecht wrote:

"A properly exposed photo has a histogram that looks like..."
is slathered with mistakes from the first phrase onward.

Yes, but that's not what he said. :-) He was talking about an "average
scene", without significant dark or light areas. I imagine he meant
something like a grassy landscape with blue sky. Sure, you take a big
risk in stating that the histogram for that image will have a bell shape,
but it's a very different statement to the idea you are criticising.

OK, to avoid the impression that I'm arguing against a specific statement
made in this thread, try this:

"A properly composed photo will always follow the rule of thirds" is an
example of opinion expressed as absolute truth. When dealing with creative
judgment, There are no hard-and-fast rules. Instead of saying "you blew
your chance for proper composition in this scene because you placed this
model here and this one here" based on some rule learned in art class, it
would be both factually accurate and more constructive to offer an opinion
such as "I think this might look better with both models on a line - so -
and drawing the viewer into this part of the scene" etc.

Ansel Adams was quite technical in his discussions about the choices he
made. Yet he includes many guidelines like this one:
"Various rule-of thumb instructions for the use of filters in recording
clouds have been published, but no adequate interpretation is possible
unless each subject is analyzed individually and the print is thoroughly
visuallized." (_Natural-light Photography_, 1952, p.66).

The photographer may thoroughly embrace Zone Sytems, densitometers
and histograms while retaining the essence of creativity, which is to
"break the rules" at will.

Ah. I took the impression from your first statement above that you were
referring only to content. Now I understand that you were referring to the
tone.

I'm willing to give Alfred the benefit of the doubt - when he said, "The
histogram of a properly exposed average scene (not one of for instance a
dark room, or of a hill covered with white snow under the sunshine) has a
bell shape.", I think he meant, "The histogram of a properly exposed average
scene I have in mind (not one of for instance a dark room, or of a hill
covered with white snow under the sunshine) has a bell shape." I don't
believe he was proclaiming an immutable truth.

The bottom line for me is, don't let your objection to the tone of Master
Talk blind you to what he's trying to communicate. :-)