If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Camera For Photographing Animals?
On 2008-10-29 07:19:18 -0700, G.Adams said:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:03:23 -0700, C J Campbell wrote: On 2008-10-28 13:33:37 -0700, G.Adams said: On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:55:08 -0700, C J Campbell wrote: On 2008-10-22 10:30:53 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" said: Can anybody recommend something for photographing animals? The main problem seems tb that the animal will look this way and that - faster than one can click the shutter. I'm thinking burst mode... Professional wildlife photographers use DSLRs, often in burst mode. Not all of them do, and none of them that I know personally do. You don't know any professional wildlife photographers. No one cares what you think. I defy you to name even one professional photographer who makes his primary living shooting wildlife who uses a point and shoot as his primary camera. Also, show me the major magazines that publish photos mostly taken with point and shoots. In fact, show me the major wildlife photography magazines that show even 5% of their photos taken with point and shoots. Show me *any* photos published in National Geographic, Currents, or even Outdoor Photography that were taken with point and shoots. Show me even one photographer licensed to photograph in Denali who primarily uses a point and shoot. You have been challenged to do this before. You can't do it. You don't know any professional photographers. You are not a professional photographer. As I said, check out what the pros really use. I recommend you start with Joe McNally, Moose Peterson, and Thom Hogan. These are well-known professionals who regularly publish in Life, National Geographic and nature and outdoor photography magazines. What? And finally shut you up and stop you from revealing your ignorance? Psssst. Here's a clue for you. Not all professional wildlife photographers pander to the lowly magazine door-to-door-trade subscriptions. Some of us only offer our works where they stand on their own in our own studios, and are hired when the rest just can't cut it for important projects. Is that the extent of your photography experience and exposure to the photography trade? Magazines?? (I bet that's your only exposure to women too.) Where images need to be printed no larger than 9"x14" (destroyed by the gutter) on a 2-page spread in the larger format popularity-contest rags. More often only 7"x5" prints in your beloved NG rags. LOL!!! Those photographers would do better posting their images on webpages as thumbnails. Go ahead, reveal some more of your "experience" and who you base your "excellence" on. RAG PHOTOGRAPHERS!! LOL!!! QED You don't know any professional photographers. You are not a professional photographer. You cannot name even one "important project" you have worked on. You cannot name any professional photographers who make their main living from photographer who use point and shoots as their primary camera. Your abusive language reveals far more about you than it does anyone else. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Camera For Photographing Animals?
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:27:21 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote: On 2008-10-29 07:19:18 -0700, G.Adams said: On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:03:23 -0700, C J Campbell wrote: On 2008-10-28 13:33:37 -0700, G.Adams said: On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:55:08 -0700, C J Campbell wrote: On 2008-10-22 10:30:53 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" said: Can anybody recommend something for photographing animals? The main problem seems tb that the animal will look this way and that - faster than one can click the shutter. I'm thinking burst mode... Professional wildlife photographers use DSLRs, often in burst mode. Not all of them do, and none of them that I know personally do. You don't know any professional wildlife photographers. No one cares what you think. I defy you to name even one professional photographer who makes his primary living shooting wildlife who uses a point and shoot as his primary camera. Also, show me the major magazines that publish photos mostly taken with point and shoots. In fact, show me the major wildlife photography magazines that show even 5% of their photos taken with point and shoots. Show me *any* photos published in National Geographic, Currents, or even Outdoor Photography that were taken with point and shoots. Show me even one photographer licensed to photograph in Denali who primarily uses a point and shoot. You have been challenged to do this before. You can't do it. You don't know any professional photographers. You are not a professional photographer. As I said, check out what the pros really use. I recommend you start with Joe McNally, Moose Peterson, and Thom Hogan. These are well-known professionals who regularly publish in Life, National Geographic and nature and outdoor photography magazines. What? And finally shut you up and stop you from revealing your ignorance? Psssst. Here's a clue for you. Not all professional wildlife photographers pander to the lowly magazine door-to-door-trade subscriptions. Some of us only offer our works where they stand on their own in our own studios, and are hired when the rest just can't cut it for important projects. Is that the extent of your photography experience and exposure to the photography trade? Magazines?? (I bet that's your only exposure to women too.) Where images need to be printed no larger than 9"x14" (destroyed by the gutter) on a 2-page spread in the larger format popularity-contest rags. More often only 7"x5" prints in your beloved NG rags. LOL!!! Those photographers would do better posting their images on webpages as thumbnails. Go ahead, reveal some more of your "experience" and who you base your "excellence" on. RAG PHOTOGRAPHERS!! LOL!!! QED You don't know any professional photographers. You are not a professional photographer. You cannot name even one "important project" you have worked on. You cannot name any professional photographers who make their main living from photographer who use point and shoots as their primary camera. Your abusive language reveals far more about you than it does anyone else. Oh, but if I did that, named names, projects, etc., then I couldn't speak so honestly in this public forum. Revealing you trolls for what you truly are. You're not too bright, but then we've already all figured that out. Keep trolling, fool! |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Don't feed the anti-dslr troll Camera For Photographing Animals?
ResidentTrollHighlighter wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:55:56 -0000, "Roy G" wrote: "JT's Keeper" wrote in message ... Mark Thomas wrote: ng." - Carl Jung I think you should all stop baiting or goading the pathetic soul. ( G Adams, etc.) It must be obvious to everyone here that there is something seriously wrong with him. He is need of specialised care, and all this provocation is obviously driving him to become even more detached from reality than usual, ( his usual). In the name of common humanity please do not cause him any more damage, please just let him rant on until he becomes bored with our silence, and stops of his own accord. Yes, listen to his advice. Then every time I have to painfully and relentlessly correct your blatant misinformation and net-parroted ignorance from all of you moronic DSLR trolls, I'll finally have the last word on it! It's so ****ing tedious having to explain, again and again and again and prove over again and again why you are nothing but pathetic useless resident troll morons. Stupid is as Stupid does. Bugger off, pestilence! -- lsmft |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Camera For Photographing Animals?
On 2008-10-29 07:31:26 -0700, G.Adams said:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:27:21 -0700, C J Campbell wrote: On 2008-10-29 07:19:18 -0700, G.Adams said: On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:03:23 -0700, C J Campbell wrote: On 2008-10-28 13:33:37 -0700, G.Adams said: On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:55:08 -0700, C J Campbell wrote: On 2008-10-22 10:30:53 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" said: Can anybody recommend something for photographing animals? The main problem seems tb that the animal will look this way and that - faster than one can click the shutter. I'm thinking burst mode... Professional wildlife photographers use DSLRs, often in burst mode. Not all of them do, and none of them that I know personally do. You don't know any professional wildlife photographers. No one cares what you think. I defy you to name even one professional photographer who makes his primary living shooting wildlife who uses a point and shoot as his primary camera. Also, show me the major magazines that publish photos mostly taken with point and shoots. In fact, show me the major wildlife photography magazines that show even 5% of their photos taken with point and shoots. Show me *any* photos published in National Geographic, Currents, or even Outdoor Photography that were taken with point and shoots. Show me even one photographer licensed to photograph in Denali who primarily uses a point and shoot. You have been challenged to do this before. You can't do it. You don't know any professional photographers. You are not a professional photographer. As I said, check out what the pros really use. I recommend you start with Joe McNally, Moose Peterson, and Thom Hogan. These are well-known professionals who regularly publish in Life, National Geographic and nature and outdoor photography magazines. What? And finally shut you up and stop you from revealing your ignorance? Psssst. Here's a clue for you. Not all professional wildlife photographers pander to the lowly magazine door-to-door-trade subscriptions. Some of us only offer our works where they stand on their own in our own studios, and are hired when the rest just can't cut it for important projects. Is that the extent of your photography experience and exposure to the photography trade? Magazines?? (I bet that's your only exposure to women too.) Where images need to be printed no larger than 9"x14" (destroyed by the gutter) on a 2-page spread in the larger format popularity-contest rags. More often only 7"x5" prints in your beloved NG rags. LOL!!! Those photographers would do better posting their images on webpages as thumbnails. Go ahead, reveal some more of your "experience" and who you base your "excellence" on. RAG PHOTOGRAPHERS!! LOL!!! QED You don't know any professional photographers. You are not a professional photographer. You cannot name even one "important project" you have worked on. You cannot name any professional photographers who make their main living from photographer who use point and shoots as their primary camera. Your abusive language reveals far more about you than it does anyone else. Oh, but if I did that, named names, projects, etc., then I couldn't speak so honestly in this public forum. Revealing you trolls for what you truly are. You're not too bright, but then we've already all figured that out. Keep trolling, fool! Actually, you are one of the most dishonest and unpleasant people I have ever had the unfortunate experience of encountering. No one will ever believe your wild claims until you provide some evidence supporting them. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Camera For Photographing Animals?
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:01:54 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote: On 2008-10-29 07:31:26 -0700, G.Adams said: On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:27:21 -0700, C J Campbell wrote: On 2008-10-29 07:19:18 -0700, G.Adams said: On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:03:23 -0700, C J Campbell wrote: On 2008-10-28 13:33:37 -0700, G.Adams said: On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:55:08 -0700, C J Campbell wrote: On 2008-10-22 10:30:53 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" said: Can anybody recommend something for photographing animals? The main problem seems tb that the animal will look this way and that - faster than one can click the shutter. I'm thinking burst mode... Professional wildlife photographers use DSLRs, often in burst mode. Not all of them do, and none of them that I know personally do. You don't know any professional wildlife photographers. No one cares what you think. I defy you to name even one professional photographer who makes his primary living shooting wildlife who uses a point and shoot as his primary camera. Also, show me the major magazines that publish photos mostly taken with point and shoots. In fact, show me the major wildlife photography magazines that show even 5% of their photos taken with point and shoots. Show me *any* photos published in National Geographic, Currents, or even Outdoor Photography that were taken with point and shoots. Show me even one photographer licensed to photograph in Denali who primarily uses a point and shoot. You have been challenged to do this before. You can't do it. You don't know any professional photographers. You are not a professional photographer. As I said, check out what the pros really use. I recommend you start with Joe McNally, Moose Peterson, and Thom Hogan. These are well-known professionals who regularly publish in Life, National Geographic and nature and outdoor photography magazines. What? And finally shut you up and stop you from revealing your ignorance? Psssst. Here's a clue for you. Not all professional wildlife photographers pander to the lowly magazine door-to-door-trade subscriptions. Some of us only offer our works where they stand on their own in our own studios, and are hired when the rest just can't cut it for important projects. Is that the extent of your photography experience and exposure to the photography trade? Magazines?? (I bet that's your only exposure to women too.) Where images need to be printed no larger than 9"x14" (destroyed by the gutter) on a 2-page spread in the larger format popularity-contest rags. More often only 7"x5" prints in your beloved NG rags. LOL!!! Those photographers would do better posting their images on webpages as thumbnails. Go ahead, reveal some more of your "experience" and who you base your "excellence" on. RAG PHOTOGRAPHERS!! LOL!!! QED You don't know any professional photographers. You are not a professional photographer. You cannot name even one "important project" you have worked on. You cannot name any professional photographers who make their main living from photographer who use point and shoots as their primary camera. Your abusive language reveals far more about you than it does anyone else. Oh, but if I did that, named names, projects, etc., then I couldn't speak so honestly in this public forum. Revealing you trolls for what you truly are. You're not too bright, but then we've already all figured that out. Keep trolling, fool! Actually, you are one of the most dishonest and unpleasant people I have ever had the unfortunate experience of encountering. No one will ever believe your wild claims until you provide some evidence supporting them. Troll troll troll your bloat, relentless in your "green", Moronically, moronically, your wisdom never seen. Aww... boo hoo.... didn't one of the real photographers that you try to manipulate with your childish virtual-photographer role-playing follow along and play your pathetic game this time? People who know how to use cameras properly and effectively (ALL cameras) and provide excellent photography with any of them aren't as stupid as the rest of the fools on the net that you manage to manipulate with your blatant displays of ignorance and proven total lack of experience. Isn't that your mother that I hear calling you from upstairs on the first-floor? I think it's time for you to go brush her hair and give her another sponge-bath again. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Camera For Photographing Animals?
C J Campbell wrote:
On 2008-10-29 07:31:26 -0700, G.Adams said: You're not too bright, but then we've already all figured that out. Keep trolling, fool! Actually, you are one of the most dishonest and unpleasant people I have ever had the unfortunate experience of encountering. You shoulda been here four or so years ago. No one will ever believe your wild claims until you provide some evidence supporting them. Of course he won't, nor can he. I hope that I have finished replying to his rants as of this morning, regardless of the new handles he'll create. -- John McWilliams |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Camera For Photographing Animals?
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Camera For Photographing Animals?
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:01:21 GMT, JT's Keeper
wrote: waiting for you to finally dazzle me with brilliance Await some more, you ignorant troll of maximum proportions. I've already dazzled you with brilliance dozens of times, but you're too ****ingly stupid to even realize it. A Partial List of the DSLR-Resident-Trolls' Perpetual Misinformation and Net-Parroted Ignorance That's Now Been 100% Disproved: 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) (100% proved in another thread.) 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5), and higher quality full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any DSLR and its glass in existence. (100% proved in another thread.) 3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger sensor cameras E.g. 1/2.5" has 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. APS-C's 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range, one quick example: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg ) 4. P&S cameras are silent. Will not endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous wildlife by alerting them to your presence. 5. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. Allowing you to capture fast subject motion in nature (E.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. 6. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g. http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_...%26_Flash-Sync 7. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions (focal-plane-shutter distortions, E.g. http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg ), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive repair costs, etc. 8. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which allows for lightning-fast motion detection so that you may capture more elusive animals (in still-frame and video) where any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance, without the need of carrying a laptop along or any other hardware into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those more elusive subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation and reproduction, that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse hardware 9. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh environments you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud or lake while you do, and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having gotten crud on the sensor. 10. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can be done with nearly any P&S camera. 11. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. 12. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens. 13. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders that can be increased in gain as light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by using IR illumination alone. No other multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals without disturbing their natural behavior from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. 14. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature. 15. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras will capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality. 16. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded. 17. ..... this is getting tedious, restating again just some of the resident-troll's misinformation that I've already disproved, dozens of times over. I just thought it might be fun to put a few of them all in one place to make JT Keeper's glaringly obvious stupidity (and the ignorance and stupidity of all the other DSLR-trolls just like him) even more glaringly obvious to the world. So much more can be listed here but these resident-trolls STILL won't be able to comprehend that they've been dead wrong their whole, ignorant, pathetic, virtual-photographer, basement-living lives. JT's Keeper comment above, wholly proves that, this too ( their ignorance and stupidity) is also 100% true. But then, how can a moron recognize brilliance? As they say, "A book is a mirror, if a moron peers into it you can't expect a wise man to peer back out." Never has that been proven more true than by using these moronic DSLR-resident-trolls for examples. So many more of these resident troll's ignorant beliefs have been similarly disproved now, by myself alone. But as you can see, they are TOO ****INGLY STUPID to even realize that their idiotic net-parroted ignorant beliefs HAVE been disproved! So they continue to spew their ignorance and stupidity to the world. E.g. JT's Keeper, Mark Thomas, ASAAR, CG Campbell, George Kerby, David J. Taylor, John McWilliams, Roy G, Tony Cooper, etc. etc. ... there's just too many resident-trolls in this newsgroup to bother to list. Useless ****ed-up virtual-photographer resident DSLR-trolls. That's all they are and will ever be. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Camera For Photographing Animals?
JT's Keeper wrote:
In article , G.Adams wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:01:21 GMT, JT's Keeper wrote: waiting for you to finally dazzle me with brilliance Await some more, you ignorant troll of maximum proportions. I've already dazzled you with brilliance dozens of times, but you're too ****ingly stupid to even realize it. You conveniently snip out everything but "waiting for you to finally dazzle me with brilliance" and use that as the basis of a reply to me? A person that YOU claimed to have PLONKED LOL! And your reply was yet-another-shining-example of TROLLING-101 (evade any and all questions asked, by whatever means). I'm just so happy to have provided you with the means to make another long winded kook-out rant. YAWN! - JT go ahead rant on again for the last word, we all eagerly await your words of wisdom Actually, a number of us are eagerly awaiting no one replying to this pest at all; then we don't see him at all. -- lsmft |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Camera For Photographing Animals?
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 03:15:13 GMT, JT's Keeper
wrote: (evade any and all questions asked, by whatever means) You idiotically read "evasion" where I read it as "I never let some ****ing moron control what I say and do in life." Those who "act" are in control, those who "REact" are being controlled. You are being controlled by all those around you in life, but you're too ****ingly stupid to realize it. :-) go ahead rant on again for the last word, we all eagerly await your words of wisdom Ah, therein lies the rub. See, everyone else that reads the previous post without their ignorant resident-troll-educated DSLR-biases will already see the wisdom. But you? You on the other hand, are left with nothing but continually proving to the world that the following is 100% true: "A book is a mirror, if a moron peers into it you can't expect a wise man to peer back out." Dang, I left one of the more fun things off that list, let's call it #16b. 16b. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders. Thanks for giving me a good excuse to reply and include some more important information, that will similarly go completely over your sad-excuse for a head. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Photographing birds with a remotely controlled digital camera? | Dean Keaton | Digital Photography | 7 | February 15th 05 02:44 PM |
Photographing birds with a remotely controlled digital camera? | Dean Keaton | Photographing Nature | 7 | February 15th 05 02:44 PM |
Photographing birds with a remotely controlled digital camera? | Dean Keaton | Digital SLR Cameras | 10 | February 15th 05 02:44 PM |
Best digital camera for photographing jewellery? | bandysbabe | Digital Photography | 15 | October 7th 04 03:43 PM |
Photographing red paintings with a digital camera | John Purcell | General Photography Techniques | 4 | February 25th 04 11:40 AM |