morning shot

bugbear wrote: I therefore took a 5 shot HDR set
in jpg, at 1 2/3 stop intervals

Here they a

http://s48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...rent=mist5.jpg

BugBear

"Arthur K. Rhiteek" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:52:30 +1100, "Atheist Chaplain"
wrote:


WOW thanks for lowering your obviously high standards to even talk to us
lowly peasants, what with all our fancy magic and ability to manipulate a
PHOTOGRAPH to make it better,

Rarely do any of you make your photography "better". You have to have
something
useful to begin with to make it better. The most I've seen on this
newsgroup is
very poor photography made only poorer with their abysmal editing skills.

it must stab at your very core to know that
lives as lowly as our are capable of producing "Adequate" images, again,

"Stab at (my) very core"? Are you also one of those trolls that tries to
get all
your emotional needs met through your computer by over-exaggerating the
original
author's intent? How sad for you. (qualitatively, not emotionally, lest
you
misread my text yet again to get your emotional needs met)

I type a textbook opinion. Nothing more. Anything emotional that you read
into
my text comes solely from you. I.e. "Emotional onanism with inanimate
objects: A
coping mechanism for people to get their emotional needs met because they
can't
obtain them from real people in real life. Usually due to the fact that
nobody
can stand to be around them." The shoe fits, doesn't it.

The only part that I do agree with is your truthful self-assessment of
"lives as
lowly as our(s)". You are greatly self-deceived if you think that you can
produce anything "adequate", let alone, "again". If it were true that you
personally could produce anything "adequate" I would have commented on it
long
ago. Unfortunately, you fall into that vast realm of snapshooter
"photographers"
whose half-assed attempts aren't even worth critiquing.

many thanks oh lord and master...............

I'd say you are welcome, but the expert advice and experienced opinion of
my
post was not intended for your education nor improvement. Nobody in their
right
mind would waste their time intentionally assisting and ameliorating
something
like you, and not for free. You'd have to pay. But after knowing you
they'd end
up charging you four-fold their usual price. Otherwise it still wouldn't
be
worth it for them, it might still not be worth it. I know it wouldn't be
worth
it.


Oh I'm sorry, did you try and talk down to me again oh condescending one ??
how very imperious of you, now please do us all a favor and go and have a
nice time in your gentleman's club, I'm sure the hired help have to talk to
you, I imagine everyone else is to awed by your intellect to want to
interact with you, or maybe your just a right royal dickhead, I'll let you
decide for yourself, but the rest of us already know :-)

--
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:21:08 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

Arthur K. Rhiteek wrote:

However, after having read your mention of "computer involvement" and taking
another quick look, I can easily see the more obvious evidence of manipulation
in your "photograph".

And yet before you had that piece of information,
you quite liked it. And yet the image is unchanged
by the information.

How odd.


Not odd at all. Were I an impulse buyer (just like my first quick glance), I
would take it home and then after studying it more (just like commenting 2 days
later), trying to continue to enjoy it, I would start to notice the obvious wide
haloing and oversaturated monochrome colors. The lack of green on the lawn, even
though the sun is that high. All caused by your wanting to use a popularized
"fad" editing technique. I would forever think, "Hmm ... something's not right,
something's wrong. This really couldn't exist. I think I've been had. This was
hardly what I first agreed to pay for and thought I saw at first. I allowed
someone to fool me. I can't enjoy this photo anymore. It's going in the next
yard-sale." (In fact this is precisely why I hesitated to critique your photo.
Even on the first glance I knew that something wasn't quite right but I didn't
bother to investigate it that deeply. I had no investment after first viewing it
to want to bother.)

Is that what you want your audience to be left with in knowing your "art"?

Like I said, it's a good image. The available compositional elements and light
create one of the better photos I've seen presented in this newsgroup. But you
could have captured and presented it without all that manipulation. Present HDR
techniques will be looked down on in the very near future once the pop-culture
novelty has worn off. HDR is a gimmick for people that like playing with
software more than advancing their skills in photography. Don't rely on
gimmicks.

The next time that you purchase a camera make sure it is not being sold on its
typical consumer demanded "pop" and "wow" out-of-the-camera images. Find one
with lower than usual contrast or can be adjusted for low-contrast so it can
better portray the full dynamic range of the sensor and more accurately record
what you see. Get one with a live-histogram feature so you are sure that you're
not clipping either end of its range by accidentally relying on its error-prone
auto-exposure, or technician-designed light-metering methods. A camera designing
technician has as little to do with the art of photography as a salamander has
with the desert. They don't have a clue how it should and will be used. I don't
purchase a camera unless I am certain that it can present the full dynamic range
as the sensor detects it. Later, in editing, you can select and fine-tune the
luminance values that are needed in regions photo to emphasize a more
pleasing-to-the-eye composition. You could have captured that image in just one
shot without all the obvious artifacts. The photos that I spoke of earlier, with
the 3D fog-mirrored shadows, were done precisely that way. The sensor fully
captured what already existed, from hazy shadows to the full intensity of the
tree-glancing rising sun. One shot. Done. No digital manipulations to ever make
the viewer doubt its authenticity.

I'll make images using whatever tools come to hand,
including cameras.

BugBear

No problem there. Just make sure you that you label your "enhanced artwork"
accordingly so people don't eventually figure it out and feel as if they've been
duped by yet another quick-talking salesman.

Lesson: One apprentice wanted to know how to transpose elements in his
photographs and make them look real. I taught him how. He loved nothing better
than trying to take a fish out of the talons of a hawk and replace it with some
venomous snake, because, in his words, "Hey! It looks way cool and much better!
So what if that kind of hawk don't eat that kind of snake. Who's gonna know?" He
got good at it. As good as I could do it, mimicking the required new shadows and
all. Imperceptible to the viewer, even to me, when he would use my shrewd
discernment as a test before presenting it to the public. Lots of editing fun.
But I warned him. He lost all credibility when people discovered his ruse
through investigation of those species on their own. They didn't care to see any
of his photography at all after that. No matter how good it was. (And he was
good. I taught him. I even envied some of his photography he got so good.
Student surpassing master at times.)

People are craving any semblance of truth, there's so little of it in their
society and personal lives. Nature is truth. Photography can capture truth. Give
them truth. You'll have them beating a path to your door.

That's all I'm saying. You appear have the photographer's-eye to do just that.
Don't miss that chance by following the mindless sheep on the internet who only
rely on pop-culture digital editing fads and gimmicks. Their values and "talent"
will be long forgotten next month or next year. Yours will be forgotten too if
you similarly follow them.

p.s. If you find a scene that you know is worth capturing and you feel it in
your heart that it could become a classic masterpiece, don't hesitate to bust
out that bathroom window. The window can be replaced. That moment in time might
never present itself again. When in the same area, I've been watching on and off
for 8 years now, for the morning light to lay the same shadows on the side of a
particular barn that I once captured with an earlier lower-resolution camera.
Hoping to capture it again with a newer higher resolution camera. I purposely go
there at the same time of year for a period of days hoping for the position of
the sun to duplicate that event. I'm still waiting. 8 years of mornings have
come and gone and still the same masterpiece of light and shadows have failed to
reappear. The trees and weathered-wood of the barn have changed too much to
recreate the original event. But I keep hoping, and checking. That something
just as good might happen again.

The audience will just have to make do with the lower resolution photo until
that happens. And they do. I just wish I could present it in larger format for
their appreciation. A timeless classic masterpiece of light and shadows that
might never happen again.

Bust out that window if you have to. (realistically, and metaphorically)

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:57:04 +1100, "Atheist Chaplain" wrote:



Oh I'm sorry, did you try and talk down to me again oh condescending one ??
how very imperious of you, now please do us all a favor and go and have a
nice time in your gentleman's club, I'm sure the hired help have to talk to
you, I imagine everyone else is to awed by your intellect to want to
interact with you, or maybe your just a right royal dickhead, I'll let you
decide for yourself, but the rest of us already know :-)

Thanks for playing. And revealing to the world how drastically you fear your own
insignificance. If you did not, it wouldn't bother you so. Now you've let
everyone know that not only ARE you insignificant but that that is your greatest
fear in life. With good reason.

Was fun!

Ta-ta!

(these silly resident trolls, they're so much fun to play with at times)

Arthur K. Rhiteek wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:12:24 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote:

Hi again, Vern.

Shall we post a new list of all your identities?

Post away.

You still don't know why I do it yet, do you. Of course you don't.
You've proven just how little intellect you have.

Oh what the hell, you'll never figure it out on your own. I'm
convinced of that now.

Because only resident-trolls stalk everyone in a newsgroup. This is
one of the quickest ways of having resident-trolls reveal
themselves.
Usenet-trolls are that obsessed with their one-and-only little
virtual online life that they can't stand to not know who is who,
and
everywhere those people post on the net. Those people ARE their only
social life. Whereas I and others with real lives don't care one bit
what anyone uses for an online name, screen-names inconsequential to
the exchange of knowledge and information.

You're nothing but a sad and miserable little net-stalker
resident-troll with no real life.

And you've proved it! Again!

Thanks!

:-)

Care to walk into another mouse-trap, fool?

Now go get that cheese, we're all still waiting to see if you can.

(What an idiot. He couldn't even figure out that Arthur K. Rhiteek
was for ArtKriteek, art-critique. Do I have to make these names even
more obvious to a dunce like him? And he even acts as if he made
some
amazing discovery by finding another name. LOL. This is much too
easy.)

Why don't you just use your real name and stay with it?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:01:16 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote:


Why don't you just use your real name and stay with it?


Good grief, the parade of resident-trolls never ends.

1. Because it drives resident-trolls up the wall and they're too amazingly
stupid to figure out why anyone would do it, even when just told why, so they
keep asking why.

2. Resident-trolls reveal themselves more rapidly so I know which ones they are
and then know to never take anything that they post seriously. They live on the
net with no real experiences, photographic or otherwise. Then I laugh when they
try to give advice to anyone. With luck, others might see how this works and
also realize who the resident-trolls are from the trolls having quickly outted
themselves.

3. I don't like promoting mindless followers. Let insecure need-to-be leaders
fall into that trap. They too are stupid enough.

4. To prove to others that your name is meaningless. What knowledge and wisdom
that you can convey is what matters. The ego of a public identity is of no real
use in life. The need for that is reserved for the terminally insecure.

5. I don't need any support from others to voice and back-up my opinions. The
moment that I find some mindless idiot applauding what I say from one day to the
next it's time to change names.

6. What good is a real name online. Are you coming for dinner? You'll bring the
wrong wine anyway. Just stay away because you're nothing but a ****ing idiot.
You've already proved that. I don't allow idiots into my personal life. They're
for you to have as "friends". You deserve them, I don't.

7. If I didn't make this entertaining for myself I couldn't stand to be here
trying to help those that might deserve the help. The resident-trolls like
yourself make this tedious enough. It's not much, but the entertainment quotient
of watching resident-trolls, like you, freak out and jump around helps offset
the drawbacks. It's fun knowing how much of their day they waste trying to hunt
down everyone's names, sort them out, and make their meaningless screen-name
lists that only reveals their emotional and psychiatric problems.

8. I'm not so insecure that I need your recognition nor the recognition of
anyone. In fact if I got continual recognition from an idiot like you I'd
probably want to kill myself for having any connection at all with something as
amazingly stupid as you.

9. Posers can be crafty, it's their only life. They have perfected the art of
deception, self-deception, and being a useless psychotic pretender. It's all
they have in life. It's fun to take away their only reason for being. With luck
they'll finally put that oft-considered suicide option higher on their "What to
do today..." list.

10. Why do just one thing? With this technique I can not only help others but
amuse myself and kill 10 resident-usenet-trolls with one stone. Win win win, all
around.

11. I like typing lists at 130wpm and wasting 4.37 minutes of my time each day.
Because, after all, in the sage advice of Willy Wonka, "A little nonsense now
and then is relished by the wisest of men."

12. And sarcasm, when used judiciously I like sarcasm.

Now copy this post, convert it to a raster-graphic file (GIF format suggested to
conserve file-space), load it into your photo editor, flip it on its vertical
axis--once, print it up, use a staple-gun to affix the resulting print-out to
your upper-lip, then go look in the mirror. Repeat whenever you feel the need to
ask again.

J. Clarke wrote:

(What an idiot. He couldn't even figure out that Arthur K. Rhiteek
was for ArtKriteek, art-critique. Do I have to make these names even
more obvious to a dunce like him? And he even acts as if he made
some
amazing discovery by finding another name. LOL. This is much too
easy.)

Why don't you just use your real name and stay with it?

It's pretty much cowardice, although the song and dance will be lengthy.

--
john mcwilliams

"Arthur K. Rhiteek" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:52:30 +1100, "Atheist Chaplain"
wrote:


WOW thanks for lowering your obviously high standards to even talk to us
lowly peasants, what with all our fancy magic and ability to manipulate a
PHOTOGRAPH to make it better,

Rarely do any of you make your photography "better". You have to have
something
useful to begin with to make it better. The most I've seen on this
newsgroup is
very poor photography made only poorer with their abysmal editing skills.


Not many artist photographers (as opposed to journalists) believe this. The
capture is just the beginning.

Arthur K. Rhiteek wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:52:30 +1100, "Atheist Chaplain" wrote:

WOW thanks for lowering your obviously high standards to even talk to us
lowly peasants, what with all our fancy magic and ability to manipulate a
PHOTOGRAPH to make it better,

Rarely do any of you make your photography "better". You have to have something
useful to begin with to make it better. The most I've seen on this newsgroup is
very poor photography made only poorer with their abysmal editing skills.

What a load of garden enhancer.

Photographers have been improving images in the darkroom for more than one
hundred years. You dodge, burn, crop, vary contrast, use filters, and
generally tweak until the image is closer to what they were originally
hoping for.

All that has changed is that the darkroom is now a computer. (Uses less
water, that should please the green fruitcakes).

Try pretending to be an expert in an area where there fewer people with
real experience. You aren't cutting it here.

Maybe you could pretend to be dress designer, they can get away with all
manner of atrocities and call it fashion. You are gay aren't you? You have
that petty, prissy, petulant, bitchy gay manner emanating from each of your
posts. If you are also a misogynist that would help with the dress design
thing.


BlackShadow

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:52:16 +1000, BlackShadow wrote:

Arthur K. Rhiteek wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:52:30 +1100, "Atheist Chaplain" wrote:

WOW thanks for lowering your obviously high standards to even talk to us
lowly peasants, what with all our fancy magic and ability to manipulate a
PHOTOGRAPH to make it better,

Rarely do any of you make your photography "better". You have to have something
useful to begin with to make it better. The most I've seen on this newsgroup is
very poor photography made only poorer with their abysmal editing skills.

What a load of garden enhancer.

Photographers have been improving images in the darkroom for more than one
hundred years. You dodge, burn, crop, vary contrast, use filters, and
generally tweak until the image is closer to what they were originally
hoping for.

All that has changed is that the darkroom is now a computer. (Uses less
water, that should please the green fruitcakes).

Try pretending to be an expert in an area where there fewer people with
real experience. You aren't cutting it here.

Maybe you could pretend to be dress designer, they can get away with all
manner of atrocities and call it fashion. You are gay aren't you? You have
that petty, prissy, petulant, bitchy gay manner emanating from each of your
posts. If you are also a misogynist that would help with the dress design
thing.


BlackShadow

Ah, "Net-Troll Moron of Zero Worth", you stupidly misread what you read.

The lack of quality of photography on this newsgroup is so bad that they can't
even begin to get something better out of it. Get it? Of course not, you're a
moron. Just like all the rest. Thanks for proving so.