A blurry photo

In article , MC
wrote:

So, basically, what you are saying is that because technology has moved
on it is OK to be lazy and that to be a half decent photographer you do
not now need to know how to TAKE a photograph, only to how to
manipulate one. Hmmm...

nothing lazy about it. not using the available technology is stupid.

why not go back to glass plates, where you *really* had to think about
each photo.

cropping before or after makes no difference, other than a potential
difference in quality (which might never be noticed anyway).

A zoom (or tele) lens is the proper tool for the job if you need to
compose for a distant subject up close, not the crop the hell out of it
to try and get the same image.

not necessarily. sometimes moving closer is the proper solution.
sometimes a combination of both.

wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:44:42 GMT, "MC" wrote:
Maybe you should start making sure the composition is correct before
you press the shutter button.
Cropping to obtain the composition you failed to get whilst taking the
image is BAD photography.

The above is BAD philosophy, and has nothing to do with
good photography.

The goal is the photograph. Viewers do not see the
methods used to make the photograph, they see only the
picture eventually produced. Any method chosen that
produces what the photographer wants is good
photography. Settling for less that the best result
in order to implement an ideology is BAD photography.

Much of the skill (art) in photography is in
composition.

That is true! So why then distort it with absurd BS
that has nothing to do with the resulting image?

Cropping should only be done to obtain an aspect ratio not
available out of camera and to use the method to obtain the composition
is an unskillful, lazy habit.

Absurd. A reality check tells why...

In only a fraction of all possible cases is it even
within reason to believe that an exact framing can ever
be achieved without cropping after the image is exposed.
Most camera viewfinders do not show exactly what will be
captured, and even with a camera that does it can never
be as precisely considered before exposure to the degree
it can be considred after the exposure.

Neither is cropping a substitute for a
zoom lens. If you want to get closer to your subject, from a distance,
you need to invest in telephoto equipment. It is as simple as that.

It isn't quite that simple though. That is perhaps true
for large variations, but certainly isn't valid for
small critical variations.

You are never going to learn how to take good photographs if you rely
on cropping to obtain the image you want. By doing so, all you end up
achieving is to producing poor, postage stamp sized images.

You will never even approach being a good photographer
by burdening yourself with this sort of absurd
philisophical attachment to ideology that does not
actually relate to better photography.

That may have been true in the days of film, but has no bearing on today's
digital cameras. Most of my cameras don't have a 100% exact view either, and I'm
always surprised by my shots NOT being what I composed!

Since I am composing the shot, whether I do it at the time of shutter press or
in post has no bearing on my art. (My art is my art no matter what I do!)

It's true that it has no bearing on whether your work is
art, but it does have a very direct influence on your
art! Doing things the most effective way (for you as an
individual) has to be a good influence. What MC
suggested are a number of artificial limitations which
are most likely not effective for anyone, and they are
almost necessarily a very bad influence on anyone's art.

They actually sound like a way to mentally rationalize a
lack of artistic skill. He doesn't get the good results
that other do, and his ego adjustment to that is done by
claiming they used "impure" techniques...

And with a 24m pixel camera, I can crop the **** out of it and still end up with
an HD photo. My first camera was 1.8mp.

Your suggestion that you need to use a ZOOM lens to compose a shot is wrong!
Zoom lens were NOT invented to compose shots, but simply for the convenience of
not changing lenses. Zooms alter the scene perspective. Any pro will tell you
that, it's in all my books. The proper way to compose is to move your position.

Nope, it ain't so. The perspective of a photograph
depends absolutely on the angle of view and relative
distances between objects; which is to say it can only
be changed by moving to a different location. Hence the
first objective when visualizing an image should be the
choice of a location.

Then the framing of the image captured can be chosen,
which is done by choosing the appropriate lens focal
length to begin with but is later fine tuned by cropping
to get exactly the right framing for the photograph to
be produced.

To repeat, select perspective first and move to the
appropriate location, only then is the correct focal
length chosen to provide the desired framing and an
exposure made. After the data is captured a detailed
and perhaps even time consuming analysis can be made to
determine the exact cropping needed to produce the best
photograph.

And lastly, most people will tell you to shoot with primes only, if you want pro
results, and proper composition means you have to move closer or farther away,
or replace the lens, and that isn't always possible.

The decision to use a fixed focal length lens instead of
a zoom does not relate to focal length, it is a matter
of specialized characteristics that can be easily be
designed into a lens for one focal length and are
unlikely to exist in a zoom. Bokeh is an example.
There are lenses, such as either Canon or Nikon made
50mm f/1.8 models, that have harsh bokeh and there are
others, such as either Canon or Nikon made 85mm f/1.4
models, that have smooth bokeh. Other characteristics
that are unique to some specific fixed focal length
lenses might be close focusing abilities, fish-eye
projection, and so on.

But it is an absurdity to think that a bag full of fixed
focal length lenses is what is needed for "pro results"
as opposed to the typical 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lenses
that are available. How does one get a 140mm or 165mm
fixed focal length lens???

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 07/11/2013 04:07, nospam wrote:
[]
why not go back to glass plates, where you *really* had to think about
each photo.
[]

Perhaps that's why using an iPad to take photos can help your
composition....
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 2013-11-07 07:41:53 +0000, David Taylor
said:

On 07/11/2013 04:07, nospam wrote:
[]
why not go back to glass plates, where you *really* had to think about
each photo.
[]

Perhaps that's why using an iPad to take photos can help your composition....

:-)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 11/6/2013 5:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-06 21:17:59 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/6/2013 11:50 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-05 20:04:07 +0000, PeterN
said:

Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

There is no accounting for taste.

True.

It seems to me that this is one of those shots which should have been
considered a reject (I have a whole bunch of those) and you have cropped
to find something which comes into your definition of artistic
expression. That does not make a blurry, OoF shot in anyway good. This
is a poor capture which you are trying to tell us is actually good when
it isn't.

As you say "some photos are not supposed to be sharp", but just saying
that and implying that this is somehow better for the blur is
dellusional in your part.
Let me go through some of my artistic rejects, and post them here with
the claim that my screw-ups are ultimately works of art. Not in my
wildest dreams would I think that, and I am sorry to say this shot of
yours doesn't rise to the occasion either.


That shot can never be "in focus."

Hmmm...
Could this be the time for, "Never, say never"?

The bird was diving through the wave and was covered with water.

I suspect the crop section was never near the active AF point.



The entire shot, or should I say the crop section is entirely OoF. You
had the shutter speed fast enough at 1/2000 @f/11 to freeze the bird in
flight, the wave, or anything else moving in that area. What would be
interesting would be to see the pre-cropped image and I suspect the
primary focus point would have been somewhere other than that bird, or
that general target area. Somewhere in that image is a nice sharp,
in-focus area, but that bird and the wave behind it never had a chance,
I doubt if you had any of the focus points anywhere near the bird when
you tripped the shutter. I also doubt that you were panning with the
bird as it flew along the wave front.

Personally, as a fellow Nikon shooter, I would have used 3D-Tracking for
the Dynamic Area AF points, along will AF-C rather than AF-S. This is
what I use for stuff in motion, card, planes, cyclists, birds, etc. That
way your birdie and its wave might have had a chance to be captured
cleanly.

In theory you are right. In reality, we can't always achieve the ideal.
I was looking for the birds along hte shore, and I saw this guy. No time
to switch or worry a bout composition. Just a swing and wing, shot.

However, to my eye the blur looks interesting.

...in the eye of the beholder, etc.

I do appreciate your comment, even if you don't like the shot.

I would have been more inclined to like it if there had been a tad more
deliberation in capture.


I asked him to go back, but he wouldn't cooperate.

Give me a day or two and I will post a link ot the .nef file.

--
PeterN

On 11/6/2013 10:38 PM, MC wrote:
wrote:

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:44:42 GMT, "MC" wrote:

PeterN wrote

snip

Thanks for your comments.
It is a severe crop, I can't say how much, because I crop and
recrop until I get the composition I want.

Maybe you should start making sure the composition is correct before
you press the shutter button.
Cropping to obtain the composition you failed to get whilst taking
the image is BAD photography. Much of the skill (art) in
photography is in composition. Cropping should only be done to
obtain an aspect ratio not available out of camera and to use the
method to obtain the composition is an unskillful, lazy habit.
Neither is cropping a substitute for a zoom lens. If you want to
get closer to your subject, from a distance, you need to invest in
telephoto equipment. It is as simple as that.

You are never going to learn how to take good photographs if you
rely on cropping to obtain the image you want. By doing so, all
you end up achieving is to producing poor, postage stamp sized
images.

MC

That may have been true in the days of film, but has no bearing on
today's digital cameras...

...Since I am composing the shot, whether I do it at the time of
shutter
press or in post has no bearing on my art. (My art is my art no
matter what I do!)

And with a 24m pixel camera, I can crop the **** out of it and still
end up with an HD photo. My first camera was 1.8mp.


So, basically, what you are saying is that because technology has moved
on it is OK to be lazy and that to be a half decent photographer you do
not now need to know how to TAKE a photograph, only to how to
manipulate one. Hmmm...


Your suggestion that you need to use a ZOOM lens to compose a shot is
wrong! Zoom lens were NOT invented to compose shots, but simply for
the convenience of not changing lenses. Zooms alter the scene
perspective. Any pro will tell you that, it's in all my books. The
proper way to compose is to move your position.


A zoom (or tele) lens is the proper tool for the job if you need to
compose for a distant subject up close, not the crop the hell out of it
to try and get the same image.

There is no question that we should try to get it right in the camera.
However, since it is not a perfect world, that goal is not always
achieved. Here is a link to a serious crop. the original image wsas
taken at the closest distance my equipment would allow.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1%20Needs%20A%20Shower.jpg

Yes I did some PS.


--
PeterN

On 11/6/2013 10:38 PM, MC wrote:

snip


A zoom (or tele) lens is the proper tool for the job if you need to
compose for a distant subject up close, not the crop the hell out of it
to try and get the same image.


With Kodachrome, I would sometimes get three or four different images
for the smae slide, by cropping, and printing on Cibachrome. Folks then
called it photo mining. Also, since I do not, and probably never will,
own a 1,000 mm lens, I sometimes have a need to "crop the hell" out of
my images. As long as the image doesn't fall apart, ther is nothing
wrong with that.


--
PeterN

PeterN wrote:
And with a 24m pixel camera, I can crop the **** out of it and still
end up with an HD photo. My first camera was 1.8mp.


So, basically, what you are saying is that because technology has moved
on it is OK to be lazy and that to be a half decent photographer you do
not now need to know how to TAKE a photograph, only to how to
manipulate one. Hmmm...


Your suggestion that you need to use a ZOOM lens to compose a shot is
wrong! Zoom lens were NOT invented to compose shots, but simply for
the convenience of not changing lenses. Zooms alter the scene
perspective. Any pro will tell you that, it's in all my books. The
proper way to compose is to move your position.


A zoom (or tele) lens is the proper tool for the job if you need to
compose for a distant subject up close, not the crop the hell out of it
to try and get the same image.

There is no question that we should try to get it right in the camera.

People need to put the ideological whimsy aside, and
understand what it means to "get it right in the
camera". Since *all* images are manipulated both before
and after the actual exposure is made, the idea that "in
the camera" should reference a finished product is
simply absurd.

To "get it right" means that the camera captures and
produces a data set that can be best manipulated with
external "post processing" to produce the photograph
that was previsualized before the shutter was released.

That finished photograph is *never* going to be the
best one possible without post processing external
to the camera. Camera's are great tools, but fabulous
photo processing machines they are not.

However, since it is not a perfect world, that goal is not always
achieved. Here is a link to a serious crop. the original image wsas
taken at the closest distance my equipment would allow.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1%20Needs%20A%20Shower.jpg

Yes I did some PS.

Not post processing means accepting less than the best product.
As you say, the world is not perfect, and sometimes that is
a necessary workflow. But there is no reason why your or I would
want to avoid trying to get the best we can...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , David Taylor
wrote:

why not go back to glass plates, where you *really* had to think about
each photo.

Perhaps that's why using an iPad to take photos can help your
composition....

it can take photos fairly fast, so no.

On 11/7/2013 11:25 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
And with a 24m pixel camera, I can crop the **** out of it and still
end up with an HD photo. My first camera was 1.8mp.


So, basically, what you are saying is that because technology has moved
on it is OK to be lazy and that to be a half decent photographer you do
not now need to know how to TAKE a photograph, only to how to
manipulate one. Hmmm...


Your suggestion that you need to use a ZOOM lens to compose a shot is
wrong! Zoom lens were NOT invented to compose shots, but simply for
the convenience of not changing lenses. Zooms alter the scene
perspective. Any pro will tell you that, it's in all my books. The
proper way to compose is to move your position.


A zoom (or tele) lens is the proper tool for the job if you need to
compose for a distant subject up close, not the crop the hell out of it
to try and get the same image.

There is no question that we should try to get it right in the camera.

People need to put the ideological whimsy aside, and
understand what it means to "get it right in the
camera". Since *all* images are manipulated both before
and after the actual exposure is made, the idea that "in
the camera" should reference a finished product is
simply absurd.

Agreed.

To "get it right" means that the camera captures and
produces a data set that can be best manipulated with
external "post processing" to produce the photograph
that was previsualized before the shutter was released.

That finished photograph is *never* going to be the
best one possible without post processing external
to the camera. Camera's are great tools, but fabulous
photo processing machines they are not.

Yup!


However, since it is not a perfect world, that goal is not always
achieved. Here is a link to a serious crop. the original image wsas
taken at the closest distance my equipment would allow.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1%20Needs%20A%20Shower.jpg

Yes I did some PS.

Not post processing means accepting less than the best product.
As you say, the world is not perfect, and sometimes that is
a necessary workflow. But there is no reason why your or I would
want to avoid trying to get the best we can...



--
PeterN