PORTRAITS LOVE THE 20D !

joe mama wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
Got to test out my new portrait lens (the 85mm f/1.8) today with one
of my most willing subjects.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76509239/original

classic example of a bad portrait (are snapshots of animals considered
portraits?) trying to be passed off as a bokeh shot. always..ALWAYS have
both eyes in sharp focus. that is just sloppy work, and indicative of many
of your shots in that forum. we are so lucky to have you posting all these
examples of your shoddy work here, even though anyone interested could just
check your open page whenever they wanted.

it's a good thing you didn't plunk down the extra coin for the 1.2 lens. as
it is, you were wasting a good three hundred anyway.

keep up the great work, salieri! someday you may be able to publish a kitty
calendar....

Salieri? He was Mozart's pupil, and saw himself as Mozart's successor,
but couldn't make the grade.

If Bret is Salieri, who then, in your opinion, is Mozart?

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

he sure does

"223rem" wrote in message
...
joe mama wrote:
ahh, the obligatory rush of toadie static. how refreshing. maybe if you
all posted elsewhere, in relevant newsgroups...

who am i kidding?

Perhaps your criticism would be better received if you skipped the
insults. You simply came across as a bitter asshole.

On Apr 1, 6:21 pm, "Annika1980" wrote:
Got to test out my new portrait lens (the 85mm f/1.8) today with one
of my most willing subjects.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76509239/original

Beautiful Kitty-kat Bret. To bad that you lost the right eye to out of
focus. The detail captured by the lens was very sharp. Moving back six
inches or closing down to f/2 would have brought the right eye and
maybe the ear into focus. Great lens. I had one a few years back but,
I liked either the 105mm f/2.8 of a 50mm f/1.4.


Keep shooting.


Draco


Getting even isn't good enough.



Being better does.

On Apr 1, 9:23 pm, "joe mama" wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76509239/original

classic example of a bad portrait (are snapshots of animals considered
portraits?) trying to be passed off as a bokeh shot. always..ALWAYS have
both eyes in sharp focus. that is just sloppy work, and indicative of many
of your shots in that forum.

I had that pic as my desktop wallpaper and my wife loved it. But
after reading your comments she looked at it a bit more critically.
Then she flew into a tirade and now she is leaving me. As she swept
up the cats and bolted out the door I could hear her shouting, "I'm
tired of you trying to pass off all your crap as ****in bokeh shots!"

Thanks a lot, homewrecker!

"joe mama" wrote in message
...
:
: "Annika1980" wrote in message
: ups.com...
: On Apr 1, 10:23 pm, "joe mama" wrote:
: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76509239/original
:
: Is this a hard and fast rule like the Rule of Thirds?
: The trouble with rules like that is that they limit what you can
: shoot.
:
: standard cop out from bad shooters. of course rules are meant to be
broken,
: but usually for effect, and good effect. hardly what i'd say was going on
: here. one slight twist to your right could have solved the problem.
:
: There is no way to get both the eyes in focus shooting @ f/1.8 unless
: I am equidistant from both eyes (the cat is looking right at me).
:
: the other poster already explained other alternatives. look, it's a
: snapshot, and a rather pedestrian one at that. if you really wanted to
show
: the beauty of the lens, then shoot something that would have allowed for
it.
:
: you can't post twenty things in here (incorrectly placed posts too) a day,
: and not expect any criticism. i sense you have a regular group of buddies
: that give you the proper ego massage, but that's not always going to be
the
: case. did you actually post this in a relevant newsgroup as well?
:
:
------------------------------------
You're being a bit hard Joe.
In his own words he's "just an amateur and has nothing to lose".
Anyone who thinks F/1.8 is a "Portrait" specific aperture is most definitely
an amateur.

You are entirely right about the picture. Just a happy snap that is sharply
presented, thanks to expensive gear. If it amuses the child to take pics of
his cat, he just joins with every kid who gets a digicam for Christmas.
Those who fawn over him are probably like minded individuals with nothing
else to do but massage each other with cyber sex.

FWIW. The rule of thirds is impossible to adhere to. It is a concept rather
than a rule. The concept being that one tries to accommodate elements in a
picture which comprise quantity rather than measurement. With portraiture of
a single creature (human or feline), for example, there is some support for
breaking up the features of the subject into thirds rather than the whole
picture itself. In such case, having a third eye would produce a
technically correct "rule of thirds" compliant picture. Do you get a monthly
nose bleed, by any chance Bret?

Douglas

On Apr 3, 4:58 pm, "\(The real\) Douglas"
wrote:
"joe mama" wrote in message

...
:: "Annika1980" wrote in message

oups.com...
: On Apr 1, 10:23 pm, "joe mama" wrote:
: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76509239/original
:
: Is this a hard and fast rule like the Rule of Thirds?
: The trouble with rules like that is that they limit what you can
: shoot.
:
: standard cop out from bad shooters. of course rules are meant to be
broken,
: but usually for effect, and good effect. hardly what i'd say was going on
: here. one slight twist to your right could have solved the problem.
:
: There is no way to get both the eyes in focus shooting @ f/1.8 unless
: I am equidistant from both eyes (the cat is looking right at me).
:
: the other poster already explained other alternatives. look, it's a
: snapshot, and a rather pedestrian one at that. if you really wanted to
show
: the beauty of the lens, then shoot something that would have allowed for
it.
:
: you can't post twenty things in here (incorrectly placed posts too) a day,
: and not expect any criticism. i sense you have a regular group of buddies
: that give you the proper ego massage, but that's not always going to be
the
: case. did you actually post this in a relevant newsgroup as well?
:
:
------------------------------------
You're being a bit hard Joe.
In his own words he's "just an amateur and has nothing to lose".
Anyone who thinks F/1.8 is a "Portrait" specific aperture is most definitely
an amateur.

You are entirely right about the picture. Just a happy snap that is sharply
presented, thanks to expensive gear. If it amuses the child to take pics of
his cat, he just joins with every kid who gets a digicam for Christmas.
Those who fawn over him are probably like minded individuals with nothing
else to do but massage each other with cyber sex.

FWIW. The rule of thirds is impossible to adhere to. It is a concept rather
than a rule. The concept being that one tries to accommodate elements in a
picture which comprise quantity rather than measurement. With portraiture of
a single creature (human or feline), for example, there is some support for
breaking up the features of the subject into thirds rather than the whole
picture itself. In such case, having a third eye would produce a
technically correct "rule of thirds" compliant picture. Do you get a monthly
nose bleed, by any chance Bret?

Douglas

* * *

"Those who fawn over him are probably like minded individuals with
nothing
else to do but massage each other with cyber sex."

Still green with envy I see. You have NO concept at all on what goes
on.
Nobody deserves a nose bleed more than you Douglas.
Helen

The (real) Douglas wrote:
(snip)

Those who fawn over him are probably like minded individuals with nothing
else to do but massage each other with cyber sex.

Now, now Douglas. No need to get snippy. It was a rude comment here.



FWIW. The rule of thirds is impossible to adhere to. It is a concept rather
than a rule. The concept being that one tries to accommodate elements in a
picture which comprise quantity rather than measurement.

One must accommodate the elements because they make up the picture.
Otherwise they would be half in or out of frame. It isn't impossible
to adhere too. You follow the rule in your wedding images. I had a
professor who measured the finished print to insure his students
followed the rule of thirds. If the student didn't have a good enough
reason breaking the rule, he failed that image.


With portraiture of a single creature (human or feline), for example, there is some support for breaking up the features of the subject into thirds rather than the whole
picture itself.

Again the sum of the parts make the picture. To make the image,
picture, photograph stronger in the viewers eye key points should be
aligned according to the rule of thirds. Every photographer, painter,
scetch artist knows this and works with it.

In such case, having a third eye would produce a technically correct
"rule of thirds" compliant picture.

LOL Too funny.


Do you get a monthly nose bleed, by any chance Bret?


Again, you're being snippy and rude.

Douglas


This is what I was taught and it has done me well for many years. Of
course it is just my opinion. No matter how stinky others find it to
be.


Draco


Getting even isn't good enough.


Doing better does.

On Apr 3, 4:58 pm, "\(The real\) Douglas"
wrote:
If it amuses the child to take pics of
his cat, he just joins with every kid who gets a digicam for Christmas.
Those who fawn over him are probably like minded individuals with nothing
else to do but massage each other with cyber sex.

Well Douggie, not everyone owns a boat:
http://www.pbase.com/snoop_doug/image/75959318

"Draco" wrote in message
oups.com...
: The (real) Douglas wrote:

:
:
: This is what I was taught and it has done me well for many years. Of
: course it is just my opinion. No matter how stinky others find it to
: be.
:
:
: Draco
:
I too was taught in a rigid school. So rigid that any deviation from the
teachings meant loss of exam points. This does not mean that because our
teachers were inflexable in their interpretation of a thousand year old
basis for composure, it is absolute.

The rule of thirds does not divide an image into segments as some would
have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds

The concept is a lot more subdued and flexible that that. Bret did not use
the compositional concept of thirds although he did use a deviation of the
rule. This is why it is such a long lasting means of assessing a scene, it
can be squeezed and twisted and broken into it's own segments to suit the
artist. After all, if you do not have art in your heart, all you do is take
happy snaps.

Douglas

On Apr 3, 4:58 pm, "\(The real\) Douglas"
wrote:
Do you get a monthly nose bleed, by any chance Bret?

No, it just looks like my nose is bleeding.
Blame your daughter.