Posts: dsturr | Ugly Hedgehog

Racmanaz wrote:

Is it the physical book or e-book?

Hardcover used. 2 of them: $3.30 and $6.75. Probably all the rest of them are also there. Type in "Ansel Adams" and there's 101 pages.

Jan 26, 2014 14:26:30 #

Racmanaz wrote:

LOL well........I call it "Global Defrost", the Earth knows what it's time to defrost on it's own and when to heat back up. Heck even our own freezers detect when it's time to defrost. :)

You can pick this one up for under 4 bucks used on Amazon. I got it new, back when everyone wanted to own a Nikon. His prints are stiil great so expect to see his time cropping up now and again. Photoshop is a lot easier on the feet than standing in a darkroom.

Jan 26, 2014 13:58:16 #

Racmanaz wrote:

Can we ever have a conversation with out mentioning the name of Ansel Adams and what he did in the dark room?

What are your thoughts on global warming?

Jan 25, 2014 19:19:06 #

ebbote wrote:

I agree Racmanaz, once you PP a photo it is no longer a
photo, it is art. If I can not take a good photo with my
camera I discard it. Photography is only photography when
it comes straight out of the camera.

So the more in camera features one's camera has the more processing that's allowed and the result will still be called a photo. Where did the rule about it having to come out of the camera come from? Was there a burning bush involved?

Jan 25, 2014 16:14:57 #

cheineck wrote:

He does say "Just a little humor" having fun. AND, this site is for all levels of photographic experience, from novice to pro. That's how people learn. Let's see some of your "pro" work.

I think you're backing the wrong horse. I like the work you've posted on flickr but a lot of the "idiots" referred to would say they're not photos any longer.

Jan 25, 2014 15:28:35 #

Racmanaz wrote:

Grr NOOOOOOOO....don't temp me lol.....well I might do it...I might really enjoy it. OH I forgot...I was going to stop responding to my post...it's just getting too long to pay attention. :)

If you'd shot raw+jpeg you'd have more to work with when you finally get past the snapshot stage. Then again maybe you did hedge your bet.

Jan 25, 2014 11:43:33 #

Racmanaz wrote:

LOL I don't have Photoshophobie, if you read all my posts in here you would have not said that. You are right to an extent, I don't think Ansel Adams wasa great field Photographer, but he was a great darkroom artist. That does not devalue his work as an artist at all, I just think he is WAY over rated as a Photographer. I still love viewing his work regardless of what was done in "PP".

I did and it still sounds like you do. And you still sound more like an art critic than a photographer.

Jan 25, 2014 08:19:20 #

Racmanaz wrote:

I'm not against PP'ing at all, but can you really claim it is a "Photgraph" after it has been over proccessed?? If it is over PP, then call it a something else besides a photograph. I see many images over PP and they are beautiful, but personally I would not consider them a true photograph> It's simply a graphic design, beautiful as it may be...it's still art in my eyes.

So, you can tell which one's are unedited. You don't post any of your "beautiful pictures". All you offer are your opinions. You', sir, sound more like an art critic than a photographer.

Jan 25, 2014 00:32:11 #

Racmanaz wrote:

Actually you are incorrect, a great photography can make beautiful images with or without PP. Most who photographed did even edit their photographs at all, unless they lacked the photographic skills to accomplish a decent image. Photography did not change a bit, editing or manipulating is what changed. Get over it :) . It's amazing how some are so defensive about PP'ing....kinda speak volumes.

So let's see some of your "beautiful images" without PP. And no in camera special effects, no camera styles, no in camera HDR etc because the discussion is about photographic skills, not technology. At least that's the talk. And leave the data intact.

Jan 24, 2014 23:38:42 #

Racmanaz wrote:

What does Ansel Adams have to do with what we are talking about???

It's relevant because Ansel Adams was unable to get it right in the camera, at least to his satisfaction. According to your definition he wasn't a photographer, which is ludicrous. Get over your Photoshopophobia.

Jan 9, 2014 21:50:43 #

Is RAW format becoming obsolete?

FredB wrote:

Raw = transparency or print film that needs to be developed.
JPEG = Polaroid.

Just remember that a GOOD photographer can get a great shot from a Polaroid camera. The tool does not make the photo any more than the hammer makes the house.

On the other hand, I doubt seriously that very many professional photographers would trade their current camera for an SX-70.

Isn't it just a little bit possible that sometimes it is the equipment that's responsible for the photo?

Jan 8, 2014 13:13:26 #

kegler wrote:

So, you are saying that climbing a steep hill(Y axis) will be faster (X axis) than climbing a small hill?

And that sir is called a strawman argument; or what my grandmother used to describe as "putting words in someone's mouth." You are the only one confusing height (small hill) with grade (steep hill).

Jan 8, 2014 11:03:46 #

Toby wrote:

At the risk of seeding another 5 pages of response... (show quote)

The Captain isn't "suggesting" anything. "Steep learning curve" has been defined long ago. Anyone is free to call anything whatever they want. If you want to call a dog a cat feel free to do so. The word "knothead" also has a meaning and it doesn't mean an attractive piece of furniture.

Jan 8, 2014 10:22:56 #

tomw wrote:

A steep learning curve reflects having to learn a great deal in a short time, which is hard.

False. It reflects the amount actually learned in the time given; learn a lot in a short time, steep is easy.

Jan 8, 2014 09:50:09 #

CaptainC wrote:

OK, I admit it- I cannot stand it any longer. EVER... (show quote)

After almost 5 pages, 27 understand and 20 do not; I had to guess at some of the intents. This is much better than I would have expected in this forum, so perhaps some have learned something from your last post on this topic. You can chalk this up as a success, at this point anyway. There still could be a late inning surge the other way. Maybe your next thread could be on something simple, like say effective focal length?