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 18th 10, 08:44 PM 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


"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message news:...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"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


Just curious, Dudley -- how blind are you? How do you view the images you
capture, and how do you read the posts in this newsgroup?

Also, I don't know why you bother replying to "LOL" -- he's just a pest
and a complete waste of time.


Regarding my sight:

I see only gross light perception, which means I can tell if there is
light, but I can't make out any detail other than gross shapes.

For instance, If there is a large plant in front of a window, I would see
a bright area where the window is, but I probably wouldn't see the plant
in front -- except maybe if it were a very large and bulky one. On the
other hand, If a person is standing in front of the window, I would see a
dark rather ill-defined silhouette, as the person would block enough light
to negate part of the window

As for what I see in my pictures, usually not much.

In the pic I posted a while back of the $1 coin on a keyboard, I just saw
a bright circle carved out of the remaining darkness. I couldn't see
anything in the last flower pics I posted, or the shot of Mich sitting
pretty. And, I saw a dark blog where the fig newton was in that shot of
the treat sitting on a plate.

There are some exquisite moments, where the light is just right, when I
can see enough to actually compose the shapes I see in the viewfinder /
display, but those seem to get fewer and farther between all the time.

Regarding why I bother with LOL, you might say it's "force of habit."

I've come across people like him in real life, and I haven't backed down.
Why would I back down to some one not even brave enough to step out of the
shadow of anonymity?

If other disabled people read these posts, I want them to get the message
that blindness is just one more feature of their day they need to cope
with. It isn't anything they need be ashamed of, nothing that others can
use against them, not a freakish deformity that should cause them to
shrink into the murky background, definitely not a force strong enough to
keep them from achieving their goals -- regardless of what their goals
might be.

I regard giving the silent treatment to LOL / Jeff / Jerry / etc much like
trying to appease Hitler; it just doesn't work, at least not so far as
LOL's comments about how blindness should limit my options.

You'll notice I usually don't say too much when he's just spouting off
about cams and other equipment. In that area he's harmless. But, when it
comes to his bigoted, narcissistic, self-aggrandisement of himself through
the debasement of another's physical, emotional or mental limitation
simply because he's intent on destroying another's soul in order for him
to feel a warm fuzzy glow where his heart should be, I say my piece.

It may not help him, or further my pursuit of progress, but I hope it
serves as an example to other blind people to step up and try to hit their
home run, in whatever art / sport / business venture they have chosen...

Take Care,
Dudley

While I'm at it, I should also explain a bit about my infamous comment
about Da Vinci which LOL seems to like twisting around so much.


I'm sure most of you understand what I meant when I said that a blind
photographer might have more skill than Da Vinci, yet produce works not so
grand.

But, for those who don't, in particular, LOL, look at it like this.

Helen Keller had extremely limited talents and natural ability, at least in
the area of sight and hearing. Obviously, those limitations made her life
more difficult than it might have been had her senses been more fully
developed.

Her sensory limitations thus made it tougher for her to learn the basics,
like speech. It took an extraordinary effort on the part of both herself
and those shhe worked with for her to master even the most mundane tasks.
Hence, she had to develop a higher skill level just to talk than almost
anybody else who's ever lived.

Accordingly, in my opinion, it took her more skill (not to be confused with
talent) for her to communicate effectively than other orators. Bill Clinton
might be considered a more talented orator than Keller, but she definitely
was a more skilled one than he -- even if she didn't sound quite as slick...

Take Care,
Dudley


  #2  
Old June 18th 10, 09:39 PM 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 Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:44:56 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


Her sensory limitations thus made it tougher for her to learn the basics,
like speech. It took an extraordinary effort on the part of both herself
and those shhe worked with for her to master even the most mundane tasks.
Hence, she had to develop a higher skill level just to talk than almost
anybody else who's ever lived.


Good, she get's an honorable mention award in The Special Olympics for
learning how to sign language for water.

Quick! Someone sign her up for being the leading authority on quantum
mechanics because she can finally ask for a drink of water! Her skills
with knowing what water is composed of must far surpass that of anyone due
to her setbacks in life!

LOL!

You're so ****ingly twisted in your perception of yourself (and others
encouraging that distorted perception of yourself) that it's not even funny
anymore.

 




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
If there's no shake, I can't be responsible Dudley Hanks[_4_] Digital Photography 36 June 20th 10 12:46 AM
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 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 02:21 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.