A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

If there's no shake, I can't be responsible



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 17th 10, 12:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.point+shoot,rec.photo.digital
Dudley Hanks[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,282
Default If there's no shake, I can't be responsible

for LOL's actions ...

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...tingPretty.jpg (Full Size)

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...rettySmall.jpg (Fast
Loading)

Handheld @ 1/3 sec...

If it's clean, LOL's gonna flip his lid ...

Take Care,
Dudley


  #2  
Old June 17th 10, 12:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.point+shoot,rec.photo.digital
LOL!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 469
Default If there's no shake, I can't be responsible

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:32:57 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

for LOL's actions ...

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...tingPretty.jpg (Full Size)

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...rettySmall.jpg (Fast
Loading)

Handheld @ 1/3 sec...

If it's clean, LOL's gonna flip his lid ...


Why? I tested my own handheld skills on IS equipped cameras. I can shoot a
tack-sharp image at a full 1-second long exposure with a 432mm lens. Just
to see where my and its limits lie. But it requires knowing how IS works,
its limitations, using the proper IS setting, and having exceptional
handheld skills to begin with.

In your image you're not so skilled, nor even lucky. Everything illuminated
by available light is blurred. Only those features stopped by the higher
speed of the fill-flash burst are clearer. Not to mention the focus is off,
the camera focused on the oven behind the randomly placed, badly tilted,
and aroused dog. Is your spatial acuity and motor-control so poor that you
can't even tell when you are holding a camera level? Apparently so. You're
not going to make a very good blind person. You'll even suck at that.

LOL!

  #3  
Old June 17th 10, 01:06 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.point+shoot,rec.photo.digital
Dudley Hanks[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,282
Default If there's no shake, I can't be responsible


"LOL!" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:32:57 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

for LOL's actions ...

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...tingPretty.jpg (Full Size)

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...rettySmall.jpg (Fast
Loading)

Handheld @ 1/3 sec...

If it's clean, LOL's gonna flip his lid ...


Why? I tested my own handheld skills on IS equipped cameras. I can shoot a
tack-sharp image at a full 1-second long exposure with a 432mm lens. Just
to see where my and its limits lie. But it requires knowing how IS works,
its limitations, using the proper IS setting, and having exceptional
handheld skills to begin with.

In your image you're not so skilled, nor even lucky. Everything
illuminated
by available light is blurred. Only those features stopped by the higher
speed of the fill-flash burst are clearer. Not to mention the focus is
off,
the camera focused on the oven behind the randomly placed, badly tilted,
and aroused dog. Is your spatial acuity and motor-control so poor that you
can't even tell when you are holding a camera level? Apparently so. You're
not going to make a very good blind person. You'll even suck at that.

LOL!


LOL, why don't you try blind-folding yourself and doing that one second
exposure, and post the result?

You'll find that it's a bit tricky with no visual cues to orient yourself...

Besides, I'm a blind photographer, my pics should look the part, should they
not?

This is what you'll never understand. I'm not after traditional pics; I'm
after pics that depict the world as a blind photographer interacts with it.
What else could it be?

You don't even know how to interact properly with the sighted world as a
sighted person, so I guess I should not be surprised...

Take Care,
Dudley


  #4  
Old June 17th 10, 01:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.point+shoot,rec.photo.digital
LOL!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 469
Default If there's no shake, I can't be responsible

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:06:15 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"LOL!" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:32:57 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

for LOL's actions ...

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...tingPretty.jpg (Full Size)

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...rettySmall.jpg (Fast
Loading)

Handheld @ 1/3 sec...

If it's clean, LOL's gonna flip his lid ...


Why? I tested my own handheld skills on IS equipped cameras. I can shoot a
tack-sharp image at a full 1-second long exposure with a 432mm lens. Just
to see where my and its limits lie. But it requires knowing how IS works,
its limitations, using the proper IS setting, and having exceptional
handheld skills to begin with.

In your image you're not so skilled, nor even lucky. Everything
illuminated
by available light is blurred. Only those features stopped by the higher
speed of the fill-flash burst are clearer. Not to mention the focus is
off,
the camera focused on the oven behind the randomly placed, badly tilted,
and aroused dog. Is your spatial acuity and motor-control so poor that you
can't even tell when you are holding a camera level? Apparently so. You're
not going to make a very good blind person. You'll even suck at that.

LOL!


LOL, why don't you try blind-folding yourself and doing that one second
exposure, and post the result?

You'll find that it's a bit tricky with no visual cues to orient yourself...

Besides, I'm a blind photographer, my pics should look the part, should they
not?



That's easy. Just super-glue a lens-cap over your lens. All problem solved,
for everyone.

LOL!

  #5  
Old June 17th 10, 01:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.point+shoot,rec.photo.digital
Dudley Hanks[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,282
Default If there's no shake, I can't be responsible


"LOL!" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:06:15 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"LOL!" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:32:57 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

for LOL's actions ...

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...tingPretty.jpg (Full Size)

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...rettySmall.jpg (Fast
Loading)

Handheld @ 1/3 sec...

If it's clean, LOL's gonna flip his lid ...


Why? I tested my own handheld skills on IS equipped cameras. I can shoot
a
tack-sharp image at a full 1-second long exposure with a 432mm lens.
Just
to see where my and its limits lie. But it requires knowing how IS
works,
its limitations, using the proper IS setting, and having exceptional
handheld skills to begin with.

In your image you're not so skilled, nor even lucky. Everything
illuminated
by available light is blurred. Only those features stopped by the higher
speed of the fill-flash burst are clearer. Not to mention the focus is
off,
the camera focused on the oven behind the randomly placed, badly tilted,
and aroused dog. Is your spatial acuity and motor-control so poor that
you
can't even tell when you are holding a camera level? Apparently so.
You're
not going to make a very good blind person. You'll even suck at that.

LOL!


LOL, why don't you try blind-folding yourself and doing that one second
exposure, and post the result?

You'll find that it's a bit tricky with no visual cues to orient
yourself...

Besides, I'm a blind photographer, my pics should look the part, should
they
not?



That's easy. Just super-glue a lens-cap over your lens. All problem
solved,
for everyone.

LOL!


You're the only one with a problem, and it's really none of your business
what I do...

I've come across some incredible bigots in my life, but, LOL, you really
take the cake ...

I'm curious, why does somebody like yourself, somebody who can't appreciate
beauty in anybody else (and that's based on your general responses to all
the other members of the group and not just those to myself) choose to
critique a subject as subjective as photography?

Is it because you can't be proven wrong when all your doing is expressing an
opinion? as opposed to facts?

I must admit, I'd love to have coffee with you some day, just to hear if
there's a sneer or a snicker as you let loose your vitriol...

Take Care,
Dudley



  #6  
Old June 17th 10, 01:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.point+shoot,rec.photo.digital
LOL!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 469
Default If there's no shake, I can't be responsible

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:26:22 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"LOL!" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:06:15 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"LOL!" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:32:57 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

for LOL's actions ...

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...tingPretty.jpg (Full Size)

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...rettySmall.jpg (Fast
Loading)

Handheld @ 1/3 sec...

If it's clean, LOL's gonna flip his lid ...


Why? I tested my own handheld skills on IS equipped cameras. I can shoot
a
tack-sharp image at a full 1-second long exposure with a 432mm lens.
Just
to see where my and its limits lie. But it requires knowing how IS
works,
its limitations, using the proper IS setting, and having exceptional
handheld skills to begin with.

In your image you're not so skilled, nor even lucky. Everything
illuminated
by available light is blurred. Only those features stopped by the higher
speed of the fill-flash burst are clearer. Not to mention the focus is
off,
the camera focused on the oven behind the randomly placed, badly tilted,
and aroused dog. Is your spatial acuity and motor-control so poor that
you
can't even tell when you are holding a camera level? Apparently so.
You're
not going to make a very good blind person. You'll even suck at that.

LOL!


LOL, why don't you try blind-folding yourself and doing that one second
exposure, and post the result?

You'll find that it's a bit tricky with no visual cues to orient
yourself...

Besides, I'm a blind photographer, my pics should look the part, should
they
not?



That's easy. Just super-glue a lens-cap over your lens. All problem
solved,
for everyone.

LOL!


You're the only one with a problem, and it's really none of your business
what I do...


Then why did you ask for my opinion specifically? You lying and
manipulative self-victimizing cretin.


I've come across some incredible bigots in my life, but, LOL, you really
take the cake ...

I'm curious, why does somebody like yourself, somebody who can't appreciate
beauty in anybody else (and that's based on your general responses to all
the other members of the group and not just those to myself) choose to
critique a subject as subjective as photography?


Someone who professes to be as talented as Da Vinci yet can't take a
snapshot any better than a 2 year-old randomly clicking a shutter in the
general direction of something by using a fully automated camera doesn't
deserve respect. You disrespect the world by spamming and scamming everyone
with your poor-pitiful-me carnival side-show act.
  #7  
Old June 17th 10, 01:53 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.point+shoot,rec.photo.digital
Dudley Hanks[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,282
Default If there's no shake, I can't be responsible


"LOL!" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:26:22 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"LOL!" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:06:15 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"LOL!" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:32:57 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

for LOL's actions ...

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...tingPretty.jpg (Full Size)

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...rettySmall.jpg (Fast
Loading)

Handheld @ 1/3 sec...

If it's clean, LOL's gonna flip his lid ...


Why? I tested my own handheld skills on IS equipped cameras. I can
shoot
a
tack-sharp image at a full 1-second long exposure with a 432mm lens.
Just
to see where my and its limits lie. But it requires knowing how IS
works,
its limitations, using the proper IS setting, and having exceptional
handheld skills to begin with.

In your image you're not so skilled, nor even lucky. Everything
illuminated
by available light is blurred. Only those features stopped by the
higher
speed of the fill-flash burst are clearer. Not to mention the focus is
off,
the camera focused on the oven behind the randomly placed, badly
tilted,
and aroused dog. Is your spatial acuity and motor-control so poor that
you
can't even tell when you are holding a camera level? Apparently so.
You're
not going to make a very good blind person. You'll even suck at that.

LOL!


LOL, why don't you try blind-folding yourself and doing that one second
exposure, and post the result?

You'll find that it's a bit tricky with no visual cues to orient
yourself...

Besides, I'm a blind photographer, my pics should look the part, should
they
not?


That's easy. Just super-glue a lens-cap over your lens. All problem
solved,
for everyone.

LOL!


You're the only one with a problem, and it's really none of your business
what I do...


Then why did you ask for my opinion specifically? You lying and
manipulative self-victimizing cretin.


I've come across some incredible bigots in my life, but, LOL, you really
take the cake ...

I'm curious, why does somebody like yourself, somebody who can't
appreciate
beauty in anybody else (and that's based on your general responses to all
the other members of the group and not just those to myself) choose to
critique a subject as subjective as photography?


Someone who professes to be as talented as Da Vinci yet can't take a
snapshot any better than a 2 year-old randomly clicking a shutter in the
general direction of something by using a fully automated camera doesn't
deserve respect. You disrespect the world by spamming and scamming
everyone
with your poor-pitiful-me carnival side-show act.


You're also very adept at misrepresenting what others say...

I never claimed to have the talent of Da Vinci... I just said it is
conceivable that a blind photographer could equal or exceed Da Vinci in
talent, yet not produce as visually pleasing works. That simply means that
the level of skill it takes for the blind person to produce even a visually
mediocre picture is quite extensive... Only somebody as bigoted as yourself
would misconstrue that as claiming to produce works that are the equal of Da
Vinci's, especially when only test pics are being posted in an attempt to
gain feedback and foster progress...

I don't care if you respect me or not, couldn't care less. And, once again,
you side-stepped the question. The question is why do you critique
photography when you clearly have no appreciation for the beauty others
produce? Not mine, not any of the other sighted members of the group. You
simply insult. That doesn't say much about your character...

Take Care,
Dudley


  #8  
Old June 17th 10, 06:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.point+shoot,rec.photo.digital
LOL!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 469
Default If there's no shake, I can't be responsible

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:31:56 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
wrote:

On Jun 16, 5:53*pm, "Dudley Hanks" wrote:


I don't care if you respect me or not, couldn't care less. *And, once again,
you side-stepped the question. *The question is why do you critique
photography when you clearly have no appreciation for the beauty others
produce? *Not mine, not any of the other sighted members of the group. *You
simply insult. *That doesn't say much about your character...


There seem to be at least one or two of these trolls on every
Newsgroup, Dudley, and they're generally people whose real lives are
so unfulfilling that they can only pump up their own sad little egos
by attacking people who are happier and more talented than they are.
Everybody but the troll knows this -and he no doubt knows it too,
deep inside- but for him it's the verbal equivalant of public
masturbation, and admitting the truth would be an act of self-
castration: giving up his only form of emotional pleasure.

We really should feel sorry for the poor little thing; particularly
because of the contrast between you two: you're an outstanding example
of someone who refuses to be defined by his limitations, and he's
someone who's completely helpless in the face of his.


Are you done feeling better about yourself by doing exactly what you claim
others do?

Project much?

****in' easily manipulated hypocrite morons, all.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  #9  
Old June 17th 10, 06:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.point+shoot,rec.photo.digital
Dudley Hanks[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,282
Default If there's no shake, I can't be responsible


"Twibil" wrote in message
...
On Jun 16, 5:53 pm, "Dudley Hanks" wrote:


I don't care if you respect me or not, couldn't care less. And, once
again,
you side-stepped the question. The question is why do you critique
photography when you clearly have no appreciation for the beauty others
produce? Not mine, not any of the other sighted members of the group. You
simply insult. That doesn't say much about your character...


There seem to be at least one or two of these trolls on every
Newsgroup, Dudley, and they're generally people whose real lives are
so unfulfilling that they can only pump up their own sad little egos
by attacking people who are happier and more talented than they are.
Everybody but the troll knows this -and he no doubt knows it too,
deep inside- but for him it's the verbal equivalant of public
masturbation, and admitting the truth would be an act of self-
castration: giving up his only form of emotional pleasure.

We really should feel sorry for the poor little thing; particularly
because of the contrast between you two: you're an outstanding example
of someone who refuses to be defined by his limitations, and he's
someone who's completely helpless in the face of his.

Socially, I feel quite sorry for him, most of the time, though sometimes I
think he just has a weird sense of humour ... He wouldn't be the first
grump I've met who really has a heart of gold.

Still, I like to keep him / her talking as it gives me some good feedback.

In this case, once the crap is sifted, I've figured out I still need to work
on focus (with the SX120) -- which surprises me a bit for that picture.

I thought Mich was front and center enough to pretty much cover the central
focus points, but LOL noted the focus was on the stove behind, though there
can't have been much of a problem with the focus on Mich given the f/8 the
pic was shot at and the wide depth of field of most point and shoots. True,
I can actually get a bit of a blurred background in macro shots, but I
didn't think there'd be much trouble with blurry foregrounds.

Perhaps Mich's fur through off the AF enough for it to look further in the
room for something it could get sharp. I'll have to play around with that a
bit more.

LOL was also ranting about the slanted stove, but I think that was more a
product of the angle I was positioned. I was shooting diagonally across the
room because of a table to my right, so, even if the camera was level, the
stove and cupboards would have photographed at an angle, sloping up from
left to right (if my mental image of the scene is correct).

I really wasn't too concerned about the background. I was just practicing
getting the subject framed fairly centrally.

I would get Mich sitting beside me; then I'd take two steps forward, turn
180 degrees, and take a shot with the camera positioned about waste height.
If I got the turn just right and held the camera fairly straight, I'd get
Mich pretty decently framed.

It's kind of muscle memory training. If I do it enough, it becomes routine
when I get him in a better setting. And, it never fails at 35mm, or
something pretty close. If I use the XSi, with the 28mm lens, it's only
about 1 1/2 step, and I have to hold the camera a bit lower. It's one of
the routine shots I like to do, and it works with anything about the size of
Mich sitting pretty...

Anyway, LOL's a double edged sword. I don't want to puff up his ego, but he
does have a keen eye, and I appreciate whatever he points out.

It's just too bad he can't tone it down, ever so slightly...

Take Care,
Dudley


  #10  
Old June 17th 10, 06:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.point+shoot,rec.photo.digital
Dudley Hanks[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,282
Default If there's no shake, I can't be responsible


"LOL!" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:31:56 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
wrote:

On Jun 16, 5:53 pm, "Dudley Hanks" wrote:


I don't care if you respect me or not, couldn't care less. And, once
again,
you side-stepped the question. The question is why do you critique
photography when you clearly have no appreciation for the beauty others
produce? Not mine, not any of the other sighted members of the group.
You
simply insult. That doesn't say much about your character...


There seem to be at least one or two of these trolls on every
Newsgroup, Dudley, and they're generally people whose real lives are
so unfulfilling that they can only pump up their own sad little egos
by attacking people who are happier and more talented than they are.
Everybody but the troll knows this -and he no doubt knows it too,
deep inside- but for him it's the verbal equivalant of public
masturbation, and admitting the truth would be an act of self-
castration: giving up his only form of emotional pleasure.

We really should feel sorry for the poor little thing; particularly
because of the contrast between you two: you're an outstanding example
of someone who refuses to be defined by his limitations, and he's
someone who's completely helpless in the face of his.


Are you done feeling better about yourself by doing exactly what you claim
others do?

Project much?

****in' easily manipulated hypocrite morons, all.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The funny thing is, LOL, you're the easiest to manipulate of all ...
downright Pavlovian ...

Take Care,
Dudley


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WOW - A wreck! (Not responsible if it works for you!) Lorem Ipsum Large Format Equipment For Sale 0 October 1st 05 11:22 PM
Camera Shake rda Digital Photography 29 October 10th 04 02:22 AM
Camera shake and lp/mm RolandRB Medium Format Photography Equipment 97 August 25th 04 09:23 PM
Responsible For All World Problems William Graham 35mm Photo Equipment 1 July 26th 04 09:59 PM
FORGERY: Responsible For All World Problems Susan Cohen Digital Photography 0 July 26th 04 06:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.