Scott Linstead's high-speed photographs capture creatures frozen in time

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah
wrote:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...n-in-time.html

What a shame. So many images ruined by too shallow DOF and eye-offending
artificial lighting. I shoot many macro images of small insects in flight
in available light alone, handheld, without all that DOF blur and garish
fake lighting. I was just browsing through one folder of mine where in only
one afternoon I amassed about 150 tight macro shots of bees hovering near
their intended flower-targets. And who hasn't shot a bird coming in for a
landing before? Or similarly a crane flipping a fish into the air and
capturing a shot of it just before the catch. Or an osprey making its
catch. He spent FOUR DAYS to get that shot of the osprey making its catch?
I got about 15 like that in 2 hours one casual afternoon by just sitting
around where some ospreys were fishing, no elaborate camouflage hide
required. (One was especially clumsy and kept dropping his catch, no doubt
a juvenile learning its trade.) The osprey could have cared less if I was
there, they were focused on getting their dinners. This guy's just a
talentless tech-head cityboy hack. ZERO talent.

Totally unimpressed.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:33:29 -0500, Russ D
wrote:

ng. I shoot many macro images of small insects in flight
in available lig

You're a waste of organic chemistry.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
wrote:

On Jul 21, 5:33*pm, Russ D wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah

wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...7902773/Scott-...

What a shame. So many images ruined by too shallow DOF and eye-offending
artificial lighting. I shoot many macro images of small insects in flight
in available light alone, handheld, without all that DOF blur and garish
fake lighting. I was just browsing through one folder of mine where in only
one afternoon I amassed about 150 tight macro shots of bees hovering near
their intended flower-targets. And who hasn't shot a bird coming in for a
landing before? Or similarly a crane flipping a fish into the air and
capturing a shot of it just before the catch. Or an osprey making its
catch. He spent FOUR DAYS to get that shot of the osprey making its catch?
I got about 15 like that in 2 hours one casual afternoon by just sitting
around where some ospreys were fishing, no elaborate camouflage hide
required. (One was especially clumsy and kept dropping his catch, no doubt
a juvenile learning its trade.) The osprey could have cared less if I was
there, they were focused on getting their dinners. This guy's just a
talentless tech-head cityboy hack. ZERO talent.

Totally unimpressed.

I think some of them are pretty cool. The fact that he did most of
them in a studio is, IMO, kind of strange but pretty impressive for
the technical side of it. Not that you would bother, but would you be
able to set up some of those shots?

Easily. But the more important question is, why on earth would I or anyone
want to? When I can get much better images using available light alone
outside of any contrived artificial setting.

You people are easily entertained and amused by tech-head bull****.

"rwalker" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:33:29 -0500, Russ D
wrote:

ng. I shoot many macro images of small insects in flight
in available lig

You're a waste of organic chemistry.

Killfile it, and don't feed it by any form of reply. Please, for all our
sakes.

David

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:44:54 -0500, Russ D wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
wrote:

On Jul 21, 5:33*pm, Russ D wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah

wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...7902773/Scott-...

What a shame. So many images ruined by too shallow DOF and eye-offending
artificial lighting. I shoot many macro images of small insects in flight
in available light alone, handheld, without all that DOF blur and garish
fake lighting. I was just browsing through one folder of mine where in only
one afternoon I amassed about 150 tight macro shots of bees hovering near
their intended flower-targets. And who hasn't shot a bird coming in for a
landing before? Or similarly a crane flipping a fish into the air and
capturing a shot of it just before the catch. Or an osprey making its
catch. He spent FOUR DAYS to get that shot of the osprey making its catch?
I got about 15 like that in 2 hours one casual afternoon by just sitting
around where some ospreys were fishing, no elaborate camouflage hide
required. (One was especially clumsy and kept dropping his catch, no doubt
a juvenile learning its trade.) The osprey could have cared less if I was
there, they were focused on getting their dinners. This guy's just a
talentless tech-head cityboy hack. ZERO talent.

Totally unimpressed.

I think some of them are pretty cool. The fact that he did most of
them in a studio is, IMO, kind of strange but pretty impressive for
the technical side of it. Not that you would bother, but would you be
able to set up some of those shots?

Easily. But the more important question is, why on earth would I or anyone
want to? When I can get much better images using available light alone
outside of any contrived artificial setting.

You people are easily entertained and amused by tech-head bull****.

In case you doubt, here's an example of a tight macro shot of an insect in
flight taken with a hand-held camera with flash. The ONLY time I'll make
an exception for available light is for nocturnal species where there is no
time where you can capture them with available light. No electronic
triggers or other tech-head crap required. Just skill and talent.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4117/4817084851_5b403f812f_b.jpg

Oh, did I forget to mention this was also taken with a 2002 year model of
SLOW SHUTTER-LAG superzoom P&S camera that doesn't even have image
stabilization too?

Thought you might like to know that.

So don't any of you crapshooting trolls give me any bull**** that I don't
know what I'm talking about.

Haven't any you ever heard of the word "talent" before? Of course not. It's
not a label on any of your camera buttons nor in the index of your camera
manuals.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:27:06 +0100, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

"rwalker" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:33:29 -0500, Russ D
wrote:

ng. I shoot many macro images of small insects in flight
in available lig

You're a waste of organic chemistry.

Killfile it, and don't feed it by any form of reply. Please, for all our
sakes.

David

Yes, please. Poke your own eyes out.

Trying to retain your bliss of self-induced ignorance demands it!

LOL!

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:00:57 -0500, Russ D wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:44:54 -0500, Russ D
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
wrote:

On Jul 21, 5:33Â*pm, Russ D wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah

wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...eries/7902773/
Scott-...

What a shame. So many images ruined by too shallow DOF and
eye-offending artificial lighting. I shoot many macro images of small
insects in flight in available light alone, handheld, without all
that DOF blur and garish fake lighting. I was just browsing through
one folder of mine where in only one afternoon I amassed about 150
tight macro shots of bees hovering near their intended
flower-targets. And who hasn't shot a bird coming in for a landing
before? Or similarly a crane flipping a fish into the air and
capturing a shot of it just before the catch. Or an osprey making its
catch. He spent FOUR DAYS to get that shot of the osprey making its
catch? I got about 15 like that in 2 hours one casual afternoon by
just sitting around where some ospreys were fishing, no elaborate
camouflage hide required. (One was especially clumsy and kept
dropping his catch, no doubt a juvenile learning its trade.) The
osprey could have cared less if I was there, they were focused on
getting their dinners. This guy's just a talentless tech-head cityboy
hack. ZERO talent.

Totally unimpressed.

I think some of them are pretty cool. The fact that he did most of
them in a studio is, IMO, kind of strange but pretty impressive for the
technical side of it. Not that you would bother, but would you be able
to set up some of those shots?

Easily. But the more important question is, why on earth would I or
anyone want to? When I can get much better images using available light
alone outside of any contrived artificial setting.

You people are easily entertained and amused by tech-head bull****.

In case you doubt, here's an example of a tight macro shot of an insect
in flight taken with a hand-held camera with flash. The ONLY time I'll
make an exception for available light is for nocturnal species where
there is no time where you can capture them with available light. No
electronic triggers or other tech-head crap required. Just skill and
talent.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4117/4817084851_5b403f812f_b.jpg

Oh, did I forget to mention this was also taken with a 2002 year model
of SLOW SHUTTER-LAG superzoom P&S camera that doesn't even have image
stabilization too?

Thought you might like to know that.

So don't any of you crapshooting trolls give me any bull**** that I
don't know what I'm talking about.

Haven't any you ever heard of the word "talent" before? Of course not.
It's not a label on any of your camera buttons nor in the index of your
camera manuals.


So this is your excuse for showing a shot that is much less appealling
than the ones you are complaining about.


--
Neil - reverse 'ra' and delete 'l'.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 03:43:58 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:00:57 -0500, Russ D wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:44:54 -0500, Russ D
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
wrote:

On Jul 21, 5:33*pm, Russ D wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah

wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...eries/7902773/
Scott-...

What a shame. So many images ruined by too shallow DOF and
eye-offending artificial lighting. I shoot many macro images of small
insects in flight in available light alone, handheld, without all
that DOF blur and garish fake lighting. I was just browsing through
one folder of mine where in only one afternoon I amassed about 150
tight macro shots of bees hovering near their intended
flower-targets. And who hasn't shot a bird coming in for a landing
before? Or similarly a crane flipping a fish into the air and
capturing a shot of it just before the catch. Or an osprey making its
catch. He spent FOUR DAYS to get that shot of the osprey making its
catch? I got about 15 like that in 2 hours one casual afternoon by
just sitting around where some ospreys were fishing, no elaborate
camouflage hide required. (One was especially clumsy and kept
dropping his catch, no doubt a juvenile learning its trade.) The
osprey could have cared less if I was there, they were focused on
getting their dinners. This guy's just a talentless tech-head cityboy
hack. ZERO talent.

Totally unimpressed.

I think some of them are pretty cool. The fact that he did most of
them in a studio is, IMO, kind of strange but pretty impressive for the
technical side of it. Not that you would bother, but would you be able
to set up some of those shots?

Easily. But the more important question is, why on earth would I or
anyone want to? When I can get much better images using available light
alone outside of any contrived artificial setting.

You people are easily entertained and amused by tech-head bull****.

In case you doubt, here's an example of a tight macro shot of an insect
in flight taken with a hand-held camera with flash. The ONLY time I'll
make an exception for available light is for nocturnal species where
there is no time where you can capture them with available light. No
electronic triggers or other tech-head crap required. Just skill and
talent.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4117/4817084851_5b403f812f_b.jpg

Oh, did I forget to mention this was also taken with a 2002 year model
of SLOW SHUTTER-LAG superzoom P&S camera that doesn't even have image
stabilization too?

Thought you might like to know that.

So don't any of you crapshooting trolls give me any bull**** that I
don't know what I'm talking about.

Haven't any you ever heard of the word "talent" before? Of course not.
It's not a label on any of your camera buttons nor in the index of your
camera manuals.


So this is your excuse for showing a shot that is much less appealling
than the ones you are complaining about.

So this is your excuse of being unable to show either?

Ain't you heard yet? Dimwit. I *NEVER* post any marketable shots to the
net.

****, are you ever a dense and useless **** of a TROLL.

"Outing Trolls is FUN!" wrote in message
...


Ain't you heard yet? Dimwit. I *NEVER* post any marketable shots to the
net.

We agree on that. My odds making instincts tells me that you have taken few,
if any marketable shots.


--
Peter
(slightly bored this morning)

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:38:53 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"Outing Trolls is FUN!" wrote in message
.. .


Ain't you heard yet? Dimwit. I *NEVER* post any marketable shots to the
net.

We agree on that. My odds making instincts tells me that you have taken few,
if any marketable shots.

My odds making instincts tells me that you have NEVER produced ANY
photograph even worth printing.

Show me just ONE shot of yours that displays some technical skill or talent
in ANY area of photography. But you can't.

I already have. Dozens and dozens of times, all in different areas of
photography. From micro and macro to astro to artistically solemn to fast
action under all manner of lighting and all conditions . Applied altogether
it means that I have all the skill needed to produce any photograph I
desire in any venue for any purpose.

Where's just ONE sample of your exemplary talent and skill?

We'd all hold our breath but we know that would be a waste of effort, now
wouldn't we.

You useless **** of a ****-hole pretend-photographer TROLL.

LOL!