TOTALLY TRIPPIN WITH THE D60!

On Dec 5, 6:51 am, Noons wrote:

And yes, I know I will be flogged for my critique/opinion of this one,
but hey, at least I'm honest.

Why? It's a real photo, it's quite original, it's not
falsely presented as some unique attribute of a
particular piece of hardware, the technique used is
clearly pointed out and explained and you liked it
for whatever reasons.

It is no more a "real photo" than the pentium pic.
Both of them are photos, plain and simple.

From Wiki:
========================
Photography is the process of recording pictures by means of capturing
light on a light-sensitive medium, such as a film or electronic
sensor.

Traditionally, the product of photography has been called a
photograph, commonly shortened to photo.
========================

Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the word "image," but it
means the same thing. It's just a pic.
The process of creating it is irrelevant. If I pour 10 cups of water
into a bowl, I still end up with water. Or in Photoshop terms, if I
leave the layers intact and save as a .PSD it is a file. But once I
flatten it and save it then it becomes a photo. These are my
definitions .... yours may be different. But it's still a photo.

On Dec 5, 5:32 am, ReailtyBytes wrote:

This clinches it. Kill-filters all around for anyone who partakes in this
thread, starting with the originator.

Why not save us the trouble and kill yourself instead?
Idiot troll.


Enjoy your delusions in any of you thinking that you know anything about art or
photography.
It doesn't get more self-evident than this one,. The only ones that don't notice
are this little delusional mutual admiration society

I don't know if it is Art or Photography. It's just a pic.
I happen to like looking at it, so **** what you think.
Here's what The Rock says about what you think:
http://members.aol.com/annika1980/youthink.mp3

On Dec 5, 11:21 pm, Annika1980 wrote:


It is no more a "real photo" than the pentium pic.
Both of them are photos, plain and simple.

Pentiums are "light sensitive media"?
Hmmm.... yes, of course....


From Wiki:
========================
Photography is the process of recording pictures by means of capturing
light on a light-sensitive medium, such as a film or electronic
sensor.
Traditionally, the product of photography has been called a
photograph, commonly shortened to photo.
========================


That is supposed to prove photography
is not the recording of pictures on
light sensitive media?


Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the word "image," but it
means the same thing. It's just a pic.

No, not at all. "Image" is most definitely not comfortable
to me, as it is off-topic in aus.photo. Image is what you
do in your composite work as well as the over-sharpened
crops. Photography is what you shot in this one.


The process of creating it is irrelevant.

Of course it isn't. Read the Wiki entry you quoted:
it says very clearly "photography *IS* the process
of recording pictures". Nowhere does it say it is
the process of *adding* photos to make them
look like something else. It says "recording", it
does NOT say "adding".


If I pour 10 cups of water
into a bowl, I still end up with water.

Agreed. But in a bowl, not in
cups. So?

Or in Photoshop terms, if I
leave the layers intact and save as a .PSD it is a file.

A Photoshop file. Not a photo.
The fact that Adobe calls it "Photo"shop
is just a marketing brand: it's got nothing to
do with photos.


But once I
flatten it and save it then it becomes a photo.

Assuming you modded before you flattened:
oh no, it doesn't. It is a Photoshop image now.
It ceased to be a photo.

These are my
definitions ....

No: you mentioned wiki's, then yours, then
you implied that wiki's are yours. Clearly they
aren't, as I just demonstrated.

yours may be different. But it's still a photo.

This one *is* a photo. It started life as one,
a single picture recorded in a light sensitive media.
The only thing you did was desaturate the colours,
or colour mix them away. If that. And maybe a bit
of sharpen, hard to say with such a small image.

In other words: you removed the colour data in the
original photo, but you didn't add or modify anything
from somewhere else to make it look like something
else.


Therefore, it is a photo and it richly deserves the
accolade as such, in the group of aus.PHOTO.

On Dec 5, 8:00 am, Noons wrote:
Read the Wiki entry you quoted:
it says very clearly "photography *IS* the process
of recording pictures". Nowhere does it say it is
the process of *adding* photos to make them
look like something else. It says "recording", it
does NOT say "adding".

By your definition a double-exposure is not a photograph.
I don't think too many people would agree with your definition.


This one *is* a photo. It started life as one,
a single picture recorded in a light sensitive media.
The only thing you did was desaturate the colours,
or colour mix them away. If that. And maybe a bit
of sharpen, hard to say with such a small image.

In other words: you removed the colour data in the
original photo, but you didn't add or modify anything
from somewhere else to make it look like something
else.

How do you know that? You only see the end result of what I did.
Without going into detail, let's just say that the end result looks
way different than what was originally captured. And that's all that
counts .... the end result ... the photo.

I started out in photography as a purist, like you seem to be. I
wanted to be able to capture the scene faithfully as it appeared so
that others could see what I saw. This requires excellent equipment
and sharp lenses, which may explain my fascination with equipment.
However, as I grew in photography I learned that it isn't always about
capturing a faithful image. A photograph can show the photographer's
interpretation of a scene as well. So if you look at one of my pics
and say, "But that isn't what it looked like!" then I might respond
with, "Yes, but that's how I saw it."

The B/W pic of the heron I posted is a good example. Most people
wouldn't have even seen the bird at such a distance, dwarfed by the
water intake structure it was on, which itself measures taller than
the Statue of Liberty. But I've been to that place so often I know
what to look for, so the seeing of an image is as important as the
capture. The first requirement of being a good photographer is the
ability to see. I'm not quite there yet, but I'm working on it.

wrote:
On Dec 5, 12:43 am, Scott W wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
Scott W wrote:

Take your time, Scott! Long 'bout dawn odder duit. s
Well it is not for lack of trying, but I don't think I have enough booze
in the house to make that photo look good.

I will get back to you in an hour to two.


You have to look at it artistically, not technically. It reminds me
of charcoal drawings I did in college. Abstracts have a way to make
people look into the depth of the art.

I know that; Scott knows that. From my perspective, we're just having a
bit of fun.

Now, your replies to the nym-shifting troll won't be replied to by me-
you might give some thought as to where a given poster is "coming from".
Whatever its name is today won't go away until he's ignored.

--
john mcwilliams

"ReailtyBytes" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 00:44:59 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 5, 12:43 am, Scott W wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
Scott W wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
Scott W wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
We delve even deeper into the Artsy-Fartsy category with
this infrared
shot.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89911233/original

Let this be a lesson for you kids out there...
One should never do drugs while driving or shooting with the
Totally
Digital D60!

You will have to wait for my comments on this one, I need one
more
drink and then I will see how it looks..maybe two more
drinks.

Bad acid; Technicolor gone very wrong.

groups adjusted.

No, it might be a very good shot, but I really need at least
one more
drink yet before I can tell.

Ok, the one more drink was not enough, I will try one more and
let you
know.

Take your time, Scott! Long 'bout dawn odder duit. s

Well it is not for lack of trying, but I don't think I have enough
booze
in the house to make that photo look good.

I will get back to you in an hour to two.

Scott

You have to look at it artistically, not technically. It reminds me
of charcoal drawings I did in college. Abstracts have a way to
make
people look into the depth of the art.

Holy ****. Self admission of zero talent from two at once.

Why I even bothered I don't know. The only thing "Totally Trippin'"
here is
anyone that would have bothered to waste their time taking this
image, viewing,
or commenting on it. What a useless pack of trolls.

This clinches it. Kill-filters all around for anyone who partakes in
this
thread, starting with the originator.

Okay, done.

Enjoy your delusions in any of you thinking that you know anything
about art or
photography.

It doesn't get more self-evident than this one,. The only ones that
don't notice
are this little delusional mutual admiration society.


You haven't figured it out. Annika can't get the hang of doing any
photography that's worth looking at when it's in focus. Now he's
trying to go the other way and cash in on his only true photography
skill, "crap photography". It's still not going to work but don't try
explaining that to them. Let's give them a E at least, for Extremely
Annoying Effort.

I'm with you, time to put them all in the cretin-basket.

Maybe it's a case of Down's Syndrome gone amuck.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 6:51 am, Noons wrote:

And yes, I know I will be flogged for my critique/opinion of this one,
but hey, at least I'm honest.

Why? It's a real photo, it's quite original, it's not
falsely presented as some unique attribute of a
particular piece of hardware, the technique used is
clearly pointed out and explained and you liked it
for whatever reasons.

It is no more a "real photo" than the pentium pic.
Both of them are photos, plain and simple.

From Wiki:
========================
Photography is the process of recording pictures by means of capturing
light on a light-sensitive medium, such as a film or electronic
sensor.

Traditionally, the product of photography has been called a
photograph, commonly shortened to photo.
========================

Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the word "image," but it
means the same thing. It's just a pic.
The process of creating it is irrelevant. If I pour 10 cups of water
into a bowl, I still end up with water. Or in Photoshop terms, if I
leave the layers intact and save as a .PSD it is a file. But once I
flatten it and save it then it becomes a photo. These are my
definitions .... yours may be different. But it's still a photo.

And as in painting, the term can be corrupted.....Today, anything that any
person and/or animal throws onto a piece of canvas can be called a painting
and/or a "work of art". Jackson Pollock dribbled paint onto canvases from
above out of a glass and today these things sell for over a million dollars
a piece. And there are art "experts" who claim that they can tell a Pollock
from someone else's dribbles, and can make their opinions stick even when
forensic science can determine (by fingerprints) that a painting that they
say isn't a Pollock really is, because it has his fingerprints on it. Today,
photography is much the same....Anything that had a camera involved in it's
creation in any way whatsoever can be called a photograph. Far from
excluding a Photoshop reworking, it is welcomed, and makes the photograph
even more "artsy", and valuable.

On Dec 6, 2:34 am, Annika1980 wrote:

it says very clearly "photography *IS* the process
of recording pictures". Nowhere does it say it is
the process of *adding* photos to make them
look like something else. It says "recording", it
does NOT say "adding".

By your definition a double-exposure is not a photograph.
I don't think too many people would agree with your definition.

did you notice this was the definition that
YOU brought in, from wikipedia? It's got nothing
to do with me.

and no, a multiple exposure is a photo. Something
you wouldn't know anyway, because Canon's simply
can't do them. ;-)

How do you know that? You only see the end result of what I did.

wanna tell me that once again the exif info in your
photo is false?

counts .... the end result ... the photo.

you're the only one classing "end result" = "photo".
no one else in his right mind does.


I started out in photography as a purist, like you seem to be. I
wanted to be able to capture the scene faithfully as it appeared so
that others could see what I saw.

Wrong: that is most definitely not what I am.
I don't post them often as few folks like my
"interpretation" photos. But that's what I do most
of the time. Or rather: try to do.


However, as I grew in photography I learned that it isn't always about
capturing a faithful image.

Tell me something I don't know?

A photograph can show the photographer's
interpretation of a scene as well.

So why don't you do it with the camera?
It's really not that hard. This:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/Coruscant-61629749
was taken with a piddly fuji f31fd, but I reduced
the exposure to saturate the colours. This particular
sensor responds well to that, just like film. That's
why I carry this litle p&s just about everywhe I can
relate to its reactions even better than my d80.

and say, "But that isn't what it looked like!" then I might respond
with, "Yes, but that's how I saw it."

Good. Now, learn to make what you saw into
what you take. Rather than imagining it later in
fron of a computer screen. It does work,
and you know that.

capture. The first requirement of being a good photographer is the
ability to see. I'm not quite there yet, but I'm working on it.

I don't think anyone is claiming you have to be.
It's part of the journey we all take in this hobby.

On Dec 8, 3:05 am, Noons wrote:
On Dec 6, 2:34 am, Annika1980 wrote:

it says very clearly "photography *IS* the process
of recording pictures". Nowhere does it say it is
the process of *adding* photos to make them
look like something else. It says "recording", it
does NOT say "adding".

By your definition a double-exposure is not a photograph.
I don't think too many people would agree with your definition.

did you notice this was the definition that
YOU brought in, from wikipedia? It's got nothing
to do with me.

and no, a multiple exposure is a photo. Something
you wouldn't know anyway, because Canon's simply
can't do them. ;-)


You can't have it both ways. A multiple exposure is adding images just
like stacking or stitching.

"That Rich" wrote in message Not exactly. To
do multiple exposures in camera on would actually need
photographic skills to be able to properly compensate exposure...
unlike a digitally stitched panorama where one selects 5 photos and
presses the go button.

Is it that easy? What is the best software for this?