Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 21, 2010, 7:28 PM   #51
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
I could do this in a private message but I will say it in the open as I would prefer to do anyway. Dear Bahadir, I hope you will not be avoiding this forum because of the stupid actions of one pissant. Your input here has been enjoyable and informative for me and others as well. And I hope it continues.
A characteristic of religious fanatics is to ignore criticism that hits home to their beliefs. It is also characteristic of such people to avoid debate and move the discussion over to perceived faults of those that attack their beliefs.

I find it surprising to meet these traits in a discussion of photography - But it's happened before. Brand names arouse such fanaticism.

Quote:
"...you can see the otherwise impossible details behind the harsh shadows in the ionic column and the ground as well as in the mountains in the back. You can't show that level of detail in a single pick."

"You've hit the nail on the head with your comment, which signals to a great deal of visual literacy as well"

"Anyway, there you can observe the subtle shading even on the surface directly exposed to sunlight preserving the amount of observable detail gradually going into the deep shadows even in the shadows of tiny plants and the column itself as if you’re really there."

Again you showed your intellect: ‘’I did read that it was a 100 percent crop. Is that supposed to actually mean something?’’

Then I realized you were feeling airy while bothering people with your random assumptions, pretending not to understand them while repeating the same feeble reply ‘so what?’, attaching pointless images of 100% and 200% images, and thus trying to set them on mistake tactfully knowing that sanity will ultimately find itself in a desperate situation while trying to help insanity.
So in the classic response of a threat to deeply held beliefs (if over a trivial matter) we have the stress on showing carefully graduated detail, which, Ahh, "cannot be shown in a single shot," to making fun of carefully graduated detail shown in a single shot...

I too don't want anyone to "avoid this forum," least of all people who mock their own arguments when they discuss matters...

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Feb 21, 2010, 8:55 PM   #52
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amcam View Post
Hi Bahadir,

Here's my version of your jpg, edited with Sagelight.

Rereading this thread from the start and coming upon this one which resurrected it from almost 2 years ago Im not sure what you did exactly here. But I have to say, as it appears in my monitor it is definately NOT an improvement in any way shape or color than versions previously posted.
Bynx is offline  
Old Feb 21, 2010, 9:10 PM   #53
Senior Member
 
jolly 007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 145
Default

hi bahadir agree with Bynx nice shots
jolly 007 is offline  
Old Feb 22, 2010, 6:40 AM   #54
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Dear Bahadir, I hope you will not be avoiding this forum because of the stupid actions of one pissant. Your input here has been enjoyable and informative for me and others as well. And I hope it continues.
Oh, thank you for your kind concern, dear Paul! You know, I wasn’t able to attend the forums often in the past five months and if I won’t for some time, it would be due to my busy schedule , certainly not because of some pissant : )

Surely I could bear someone constantly asking and suspecting if I could see highlights and shadows at the same time as in the images I attain! I know that other than the lack of observation skills and personal perceptional differences there are some certain eye disorders preventing to see contrasty scenes, some brain tumours effecting the sight as well!

Or, I could explain at length the merit of gradual shading and gradual tonal gradation in attaining a three dimensional look, without a blown background even on marble exposed to strong sunlight.

I could explain that it’s not true one cannot capture a ‘wide dynamic range’ from a single raw file, and add that one can even capture a ‘wide dynamic range’ from a single jpeg file referring to the famous jpeg vs. raw debate, but without missing the point that the order of ‘wideness’ should be 3 raw files> 1 raw file >1jpeg file in terms of dynamic range (of course ragarding ceteris paribus ).

For someone comparing the highlight/shadow detail of some underexposed subject in shade and that of the well exposed one under under harsh lighting…Then asking if the lack of detail alone (just x kind of, since most look for similarities that work!!) makes an image inartistic, I could explain that the lack of detail alone doesn’t necessarily make a picture inartistic, besides adding that; one should not expect all kind of photography be artistic referring to genres.

As a person who’s been making his living partly from photography for some time, I, when asked, certainly wouldn’t mind revealing my opinion on the concerns of the inquirer about newcomers to photography, which is my hobby horse : )

And I did! All above and the ones I did not even list...

However, it is all about repeating the same feeble but annoying ‘so, what?’ kind of reply right from the beginning, the irrelevant and time wasting claims as if I’m meaning or literally calling someone’s pictures garbage, stinking, etc. or the reminding of imaginary questions which hadn’t been asked, the bewildering oversimplification of my statements etc. etc, which would unfortunately lead a thread to a ‘did-didn’t’ ‘me-you’ kind of argument, and which I’d avoid to endure like the daily routine of Sisyphus!

And, whether or not one calls it throwing insults around with class and style, I’d ultimately start to question the quality as well as the sincerity of my correspondent announcing himself ‘a strong debater’ and god knows believing himself smart enough to play the devil’s advocate!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
...Now how about sticking to the photos and stop the personality attacks.
Well put, indeed! If only they were were wise enough to get it right. After all, we're photographers rather than orators : )

.................................................. ..........

Quote:
Originally Posted by jolly 007 View Post
hi bahadir agree with Bynx nice shots
Thank you! They'll keep on coming : )

Last edited by bahadir; Feb 22, 2010 at 9:05 AM.
bahadir is offline  
Old Feb 22, 2010, 7:21 AM   #55
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 92
Default

Bahadir, it's nice to have you back, mate. Always appreciated your input and your positive and respectful feedback.
tsjiaotai is offline  
Old Feb 22, 2010, 5:21 PM   #56
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Bahadir"...you can see the otherwise impossible details behind the harsh shadows in the ionic column and the ground as well as in the mountains in the back. You can't show that level of detail in a single pick."

"You've hit the nail on the head with your comment, which signals to a great deal of visual literacy as well"

"Anyway, there you can observe the subtle shading even on the surface directly exposed to sunlight preserving the amount of observable detail gradually going into the deep shadows even in the shadows of tiny plants and the column itself as if you’re really there."
There's obviously a need for a new forum which will allow people to comment on this absolutely amazing new field of one shot photography!

Notice that using this new method, we can get detail going from light to dark, in gradual incremental steps. Unlike standard, three or five shot photography, all that is necessary to achieve these results is actually learning how to use a camera. Shocking but true...

I post these 100 percent crops to show the results...







Now if you note, some of the images lack detail.

Science, to which I've provided links, tells me that cameras have a three stop advantage over the human eye. Yet, with this amazing new method, used appropriately, these images are far superior to the standard method used on this forum. Some of course regard science as the land of make believe. They will (with a straight fact) tell us that the eye needs no adjustment to see both dark and light at the same time. Well, these people having invested their ego's in the standard method of photography, have become understandably fanatical about defending their intellectual investments...

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Feb 22, 2010, 5:45 PM   #57
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

i think i let this go on way too long. there are some good discussions within it, but i think i better shut this down before it takes another turn in the wrong direction.

if you want to discuss the merits of HDR vs Not, there is a forum for that. but please keep it civil and respect each others opinions, and not make it personal.
Hards80 is offline  
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:48 PM.