Nightski

Very Well said :thumbup:

bali

Its only a hobby not man slaughter.
Just live an learn. I am

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Hey - - no problemo :!: :!:
Try changing your flash memory card one-handed instead :!: :!:

gerry908 Loc: An Aussie from Scotland

In the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's, I had an SLR but I never used it much as I was a 'Crap' photographer and then along came the DSLR and that's when I started to learn photography.

At a glance, I can tell whether my photos are good or not and make the necessary adjustments. If it was not for the DSLR, I most likely would still be a 'Crap' photographer who only took the occasional 'Crap' photo

Dlevon Loc: New Jersey

That is one great shot! Thanks for sharing.

Dlevon Loc: New Jersey

I happen to shoot outdoors all the time, but 600 rolls? That's almost 20,000 shots just to get three great one? Still a lousy photographer!

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Maybe he only goes out once a year and spends the other 364 days photoshopping them...........lol

Dlevon Loc: New Jersey

Great answer! Maybe!

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

For example, here is a picture of a hummingbird with clouds in the background. The bird and branches were out of focus and, one might think, a picture that should be thrown away. However, in today's world of Photoshop CC, Paintshop Pro X5, Photo-Paint X6, GIMP, Picasa, ACDSee, Aperature, and probably some others that I'm forgetting, there really is never a reason to throw away a picture if you have any imagination at all.

I used Photoshop CC to change the dull, boring, and uninteresting cloud cover into a little more ominous-looking storm clouds and took the hummingbird and branches to B&W, giving me quite an interesting effect for an otherwise worthless picture.

altheman Loc: Christchurch, New Zealand

I haven't read this thread right through but here are two photos
showing the effect of the camera phone
I was told a story years ago of a National Geographic photographer who was photographing our Treaty of Waitangi (New Zealand's founding document) Celebrations many years ago (well before digital), he had 3 or 4 cameras all motor driven and he was just shooting roll after roll of film so in a sense nothing has changed except it has become a lot cheaper and has sped up the process from camera to illustrations editor.

Comparison of Pope Announcements: 2005 vs 2013 (Is it more important to record a moment than experience it??) source: imgur

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

Stunning, absolutely, stunning.
I'm referring to the recovery of a neg that most of us would probably reject/delete.
Having read all 10 pages of this 'post' since it was first put up, I have bitten my tongue and had
decided not to get into it.
But . .

As a relatively 'old timer' in photography I have watched (listened) to comments from
members (even some who profess to be 'professionals') about post processing their files.
Many boast that they dont need to PP, happy with their camera settings and just cropping
a little.
Well, for happy snap shooters and those that are really just photographers of record (and that
includes many of the self professed pros on here) and others that use it as an excuse, because
they arent capable or cant be bothered, learning how to, thats great. Do whatever makes you happy.

But the subject was raised about the Craft of Photography, maybe read, the Art of Photography.

As someone who learned his Craft, over a number of years, from rather anal masters of the craft,
I was taught that the click of the shutter is just the beginning, of the making of a photograph.

It takes, maybe, a few minutes to arrange, compose, organise the subject of our attention.
Then anything from, say, 1/30th to 1/1000th of a second, to capture the result.
I guess its the mark of a true artist that can count on every brush stroke being the perfect answer,
first time, every time.
Maybe the 'pro's' on here are perfect.

I was never known as a 'pro'. We were called Commercial Photographers back in my day.
Meaning, we earned money from our efforts. Thats commercial. And to make money and
earn the mark of being successful and staying in business, we had to be good at what we did.

My peers were good photographers and I like to think I was pretty good too (well I supported a growing
family as Ken Rockwell says), for quite awhile, but it wasnt by just being a good 'clicker'.
I would guess 60 - 70% of my time, and other 'commercial' photographers time, was spent
in the Darkroom back then.

And, its no different today. If you want to lift your photographic results above the norm,
you have to learn Post Processing and all it entails.

I spend quite a lot of time looking at the Photo section of UHH.
There are many excellent pics posted and I enjoy looking and learning, from those that
take the time to post them and ask for a critique.
But I can count on maybe just both hands, the number of truly stunning pieces of art that have been
put up (regardless of the sometimes gushy compliments that almost all seem to earn from someone).
And I think, without exception, the really excellent pics have all had maybe hours, spent on them in Photoshop,
Lightroom or whatever programme the photographer (artist) chose.

I see Ansell held up, more often than not, as the icon many US contributors revere
(and others too of course), and rightly so.
But, he made no secret of the fact that he spent hours, if not days, in his darkroom, fine tuning
his efforts.
I do wonder, reading some comments, how many that cite his name, actually have spent time
studying his technique and the effort he put into his most acclaimed work. Also, look how many
pics he often took, just to get the one he wanted.


After a 30 plus year break in photography, I am back, enjoying my old 'craft' as a hobby
and having to learn it all again in the Digital Age.
I can still take a good photograph (well my wife thinks so), but I am spending hours learning
Lightroom and Photoshop, my new Darkroom, all over again.
I want to be as good as I was, back then, when people paid for my work and were proud to
display it on their wall.

Thats my rant for the day. Time for bed.
Once again, nice work Russell :thumbup: :wink:

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Thanks, and I like your rant!

gerry908 Loc: An Aussie from Scotland

During the ‘Film’ age, and not knowing anything about photography, I expected my ‘GOOD CAMERA’ to do the work for me but I was sadly disappointed and I suppose that’s why I didn’t take many photos and the ones I took were very bland and over/under exposed.

It’s only since the ‘Digital’ age took off that I got the passion for photography, as I could see instantly whether my photo was good or not and if it wasn’t, there was an abundance of information on Forums such as UHH to give a helping hand when needed.

I’ve only been interested in photography for less than 3 years and I’m amazed at the improvements in my photos in such short a time and I put that down to the ‘Digital Age’, I know I must take some of the credit for my improvement because I was willing to learn, but 90% of the credit would have to go to the ‘Digital Age’ and for that, I’m thankful

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

What's SKY?

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

The advent of $129 Fender Squire guitars did not destroy the talent and craft of Eddie Van Halen and others who use the $2000 Fender guitars.

The advent of a Kia Rio didn't destroy the driving skills of Jeff Gordon.

The advent of the microphone didn't destroy the talents of singers.

The advent of computer word processing didn't destroy the talents of writers who previously used a typewriter.

So just because everybody and his brother and uncle has an iPhone with a pitiful camera in it doesn't mean that those who spend $5,000+ on their pro camera system are having their craft destroyed. Absurd...