[SI] More Sounds Posted

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:15:42 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 19:07:06 -0400, tony cooper

wrote:

: One other point is that all three use depth-of-focus very well. In
: the biker image the depth goes on forever and gives a feeling of the
: biker having traveled very far. The background is a little softer in
: the other two because it's not part of the story.

I agree.


You agree?

Do neither of you know the difference between depth of focus and depth
of field?

I should have written depth-of-field. Dunno why focus came out.



Why. Your meaning was clear.

--
Peter

In article , Peter
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 19:07:06 -0400, tony cooper

wrote:

: One other point is that all three use depth-of-focus very well. In
: the biker image the depth goes on forever and gives a feeling of the
: biker having traveled very far. The background is a little softer in
: the other two because it's not part of the story.

I agree.


You agree?

Do neither of you know the difference between depth of focus and depth
of field?



Another helpful contribution.

It was for me. I thought they were synonyms. A little googling later
I'm better informed, but probably no wiser. g

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

On 2010-09-27 18:01:01 +0100, Elliott Roper said:

In article , Peter
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 19:07:06 -0400, tony cooper

wrote:

: One other point is that all three use depth-of-focus very well. In
: the biker image the depth goes on forever and gives a feeling of the
: biker having traveled very far. The background is a little softer in
: the other two because it's not part of the story.

I agree.


You agree?

Do neither of you know the difference between depth of focus and depth
of field?



Another helpful contribution.

It was for me. I thought they were synonyms. A little googling later
I'm better informed, but probably no wiser. g

There is a very long history to this differentiation, which I've found
interesting.

Your post has led me to ask the question: Is is acceptable in
photography newsgroups to just write "DoF" instead of "depth of field"?

--
Pete

tony cooper wrote:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 18:06:36 -0400, Bowser wrote:

Sid sent a few, so please take a look at the three new entries:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/seasonal_sounds


All three are nice, sharp photos and good choices of subject matter
for the mandate. It might help his composition to not place the
center of attention in the vertical center of each image, though. If
centering works the best, do it. However, thinking what might work
better at the cropping stage may lead to better compositions.

I might think about that a bit more next time, looking through a good
selection of my stuff shows me that this is the case in about 70-80% of
shots. Only 1 of these 3 was cropped at all, the bike was a horizontal shot.


I'm not crazy about the sky treatment in the second two. Dramatic,
but the people are what these photographs are about and the sky
competes with the primary subject. That sky treatment works best with
a landscape where the scenery is the subject.

The bike shot I like the added drama the sky gives, it was a day of *really*
heavy downpours, but I can see your point. The beach shot I didn't think the
sky is big enough to take attention away from the kids.


One other point is that all three use depth-of-focus very well. In
the biker image the depth goes on forever and gives a feeling of the
biker having traveled very far. The background is a little softer in
the other two because it's not part of the story.

Thanks for the comments, food for thought

cheers

--
sid
RLU 300284
2010.1

On 2010-09-27 19:24:16 +0100, Bruce said:

Pete wrote:

On 2010-09-27 18:01:01 +0100, Elliott Roper said:

In article , Peter
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 19:07:06 -0400, tony cooper

wrote:

: One other point is that all three use depth-of-focus very well. In
: the biker image the depth goes on forever and gives a feeling of the
: biker having traveled very far. The background is a little softer in
: the other two because it's not part of the story.

I agree.


You agree?

Do neither of you know the difference between depth of focus and depth
of field?



Another helpful contribution.

It was for me. I thought they were synonyms. A little googling later
I'm better informed, but probably no wiser. g

There is a very long history to this differentiation, which I've found
interesting.


Differentiation? The two terms mean completely different things.

Yes, differentiation as in "recognize or ascertain what makes something
different" is what I meant.

It becomes very difficult to have a sensible discussion about
photography on newsgroups where so many contributors have not even a
basic knowledge of the topic.

I am interested in the history behind the confusion because it *may*
explain why some posters are non-culpable for their error.

Any thoughts on the question I raised in my post?

--
Pete

Tim Conway wrote:


"Bowser" wrote in message
...
Sid sent a few, so please take a look at the three new entries:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/seasonal_sounds

Some comments:

babbling brook
Nice tranquil scene. You must've been standing on a rock.

I was, quite a large flat one at that

racing
Beautiful light. Beautiful scenery. A slower shutter speed might've been
nice to show motion, but then the rider/subject wouldn't have been as
sharp;
and the background too. I think you did right. I really like this.

this was 1 of a sequence of 5 or 6 shots as he came through the corner, it
is the one with his eyes looking the best and his riding position is good.
He really likes the shot too.
I have a number of panned shots from the day but they just don't have the
background which gives location. A blurred green background could be
anywhere.


sceaming girls
This is good sound of summer. Perhaps placing the people on the right
third
would make a better composition. It's good positioning of the girl
admidst the guys, but it would have been nice to see her expression too.

This one is uncropped and it was taken in a hurry as the boys didn't really
give her any warning, no time for me to move in front, although to do that I
would have got wet. I do have a couple of good shots of after the dunking as
she comes out the sea.

Thanks for taking the time to comment

cheers

--
sid
RLU 300284
2010.1

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:24:16 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Pete wrote:

On 2010-09-27 18:01:01 +0100, Elliott Roper said:

In article , Peter
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 19:07:06 -0400, tony cooper

wrote:

: One other point is that all three use depth-of-focus very well. In
: the biker image the depth goes on forever and gives a feeling of the
: biker having traveled very far. The background is a little softer in
: the other two because it's not part of the story.

I agree.


You agree?

Do neither of you know the difference between depth of focus and depth
of field?



Another helpful contribution.

It was for me. I thought they were synonyms. A little googling later
I'm better informed, but probably no wiser. g

There is a very long history to this differentiation, which I've found
interesting.


Differentiation? The two terms mean completely different things.

It becomes very difficult to have a sensible discussion about
photography on newsgroups where so many contributors have not even a
basic knowledge of the topic.

I don't mind being corrected on my use of "depth of focus" when I was
thinking of, and should have used, "depth of field".

However, if you want a good discussion, then you should explain the
difference between the two terms. Contribute something positive.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2010-09-27 11:24:16 -0700, Bruce said:

Pete wrote:

On 2010-09-27 18:01:01 +0100, Elliott Roper said:

In article , Peter
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 19:07:06 -0400, tony cooper

wrote:

: One other point is that all three use depth-of-focus very well. In
: the biker image the depth goes on forever and gives a feeling of the
: biker having traveled very far. The background is a little softer in
: the other two because it's not part of the story.

I agree.


You agree?

Do neither of you know the difference between depth of focus and depth
of field?



Another helpful contribution.

It was for me. I thought they were synonyms. A little googling later
I'm better informed, but probably no wiser. g

There is a very long history to this differentiation, which I've found
interesting.


Differentiation? The two terms mean completely different things.

It becomes very difficult to have a sensible discussion about
photography on newsgroups where so many contributors have not even a
basic knowledge of the topic.

Why is any knowledge of photography required to participate, or
contribute to the photo groups?
Some are here to learn and some have misconceptions clarified.

....and yet, without some demonstration of such knowledge, or
capability, or admission of ignorance, we have no idea of where any, or
most of us are placed on the photography learning curve.
Few of those filled will pedantic bluster in these groups have
established their credentials, or photographic ability, other than
their own claims of a history of photographic professionalism.

I for one, am a strictly amateur/hobbyist still climbing the learning
curve after over 50 years of using a camera to capture an image.

We have had submissions of examples of work from some professionals,
some talented and capable amateurs/hobbyists, and from some snap
shooters trying to improve their game and learn.

It seems your academic knowledge of photography is encyclopedic,
perhaps one of these days you will demonstrate your practical
photographic skills by blessing us with an example of your work.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Peter wrote:


I'm not crazy about the sky treatment in the second two. Dramatic,
but the people are what these photographs are about and the sky
competes with the primary subject. That sky treatment works best with
a landscape where the scenery is the subject.

To me the sky adds a little drama to the lone biker. Though I would have
liked to see the biker comming into the scene.

I can hear the girl giving a phoney scream as she is about to get dunked.
However the entire image on the right of the action is wasted.

Thanks for the useful comment, every little helps

cheers

--
sid
RLU 300284
2010.1

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:39:27 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:


Why is any knowledge of photography required to participate, or
contribute to the photo groups?

ROFLMAO!

What a wonderful question for you to ask. It PERFECTLY explains, AND
reveals, the depth of your involvement in "photography". Also perfectly
reflected in every last one of your useless CRAPSHOTS.

ROFLMAO!

The blind wanting to lead the blind has never been truer.

ROFLMAO!