SOOC abused by fraudsters
Dec 31, 2016 23:19:39 #
smiling fox
Loc: Baltimore, md
Can we stop now. I posted a question. I got a lot of support.
Ron is more than welcome to have his position. And I can meander my way thru my hobby.....! Lol.
Happy new year.
X0
Ron is more than welcome to have his position. And I can meander my way thru my hobby.....! Lol.
Happy new year.
X0
Dec 31, 2016 23:32:22 #
I never said I disagreed with Ron, I just said let people do what they want, he is entitled to his opinion, no matter how jaded it is.
btbg wrote:
I hate to say it, because it's not very nice, but you are helping prove Ron's point.
Dec 31, 2016 23:45:18 #
btbg wrote:
.../...
You just are not reading.
We all need the best SOOC capture in order to create a photograph.
The problem is with folks who claim that SOOC capture is an end in itself. It is not.
The same folks try to
- convince others that SOOC is all that matter. It is not.
- promote that using any form of post processing is bad. It is not.
- claim that a sub-par format is sufficient*. It is not.
The above are deliberate disservices to beginners and mid range hobbyists.
Who are you? One that claims that SOOC capture is an end or one that pushes his limits by using PP?
Answer requested, please.
-----
* When a raw format is available. Can't blame folks who have a camera that do not offer raw. Beside the format really does not matter but if a camera offers an incredible potential why not encourage folks to use it instead of promoting a crippled format when editing?
Jan 1, 2017 01:47:59 #
Rongnongno wrote:
You just are not reading. br br We all need the b... (show quote)
I did read. I am in agreement with what you said about individuals who think sooc is a means to an end. Every photo can be improved with post processing, whether that is adjusting exposure, contrast, sharpness, white balance, cropping, etc.... If you did a good job taking the initial photo then hopefully it will take minimal post processing.
All I was saying is that the photo posted is definitely sooc, and it is a perfect example of why post processing is necessary.
I do everything possible to get it right in camera and then do whatever post processing is necessary to improve the photo. For work that is minimal since there are journalistic standards that must be followed. For my own use I do whatever post processing will give me the image that I envisioned.
Hope that answers your question.
Jan 1, 2017 03:24:45 #
Jan 1, 2017 06:57:39 #
Tom G
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Delderby wrote:
There used to be a regular programme on UK TV called "The Two Ronnies" - They also were clowns. 
Yes ! I remember them, and Benny Hill, and another with one finger missing (name?).
Great Stuff... All very funny, witty, intelligent, entertaining, and the lot... not at all like Ronnie Congo...
Jan 1, 2017 07:25:08 #
Tom G wrote:
Yes ! I remember them, and Benny Hill, and another with one finger missing (name?).
Great Stuff... All very funny, witty, intelligent, entertaining, and the lot... not at all like Ronnie Congo...
Great Stuff... All very funny, witty, intelligent, entertaining, and the lot... not at all like Ronnie Congo...
Dave Allen was the one with the missing digit.
Jan 1, 2017 09:46:22 #
Tom G wrote:
Yes ! I remember them, and Benny Hill, and another with one finger missing (name?).
Great Stuff... All very funny, witty, intelligent, entertaining, and the lot... not at all like Ronnie Congo...
Great Stuff... All very funny, witty, intelligent, entertaining, and the lot... not at all like Ronnie Congo...
Good bye.
Jan 1, 2017 09:53:30 #
Delderby wrote:
There used to be a regular programme on UK TV called "The Two Ronnies" - They also were clowns.
Good bye
Jan 1, 2017 15:09:11 #
Kissel vonKeister
Loc: Georgia
My point was (implied) Ansel Adams never shot 35mm, only 4x5", 6x6cm, 8x10", and perhaps early on 11x14", so he's probably opt for a "Medium" format digital today.
According to an autobiographical book I have, Ansel Adams did indeed shoot with a Leica 35mm on occasion, and he produced an entire book of dmall Polaroids.
According to an autobiographical book I have, Ansel Adams did indeed shoot with a Leica 35mm on occasion, and he produced an entire book of dmall Polaroids.
Jan 1, 2017 18:19:29 #
therwol
Loc: USA
Rongnongno wrote:
I believe you are correct on that. This is why we... (show quote)
Just to finish a thought, even though it has nothing to do with the original post in this topic. When I bought my D810 two years ago, I made a conscious effort to buy older AF-D lenses for several reasons. They're smaller and lighter than the newer lenses. They're cheaper. They can be used on older film cameras like that Nikon FA that I gave my son in law, and I figured we'd share the lenses. I can't complain about the 50mm f1.4 that I bought, but all of the other AF-D lenses will eventually be replaced. (24,35, 28-105). My son in law will be happy to get them, and I'll be happy to get rid of them. I agree that you don't buy a top of the line camera and skimp on lenses. If you don't care so much, you should have bought a cheaper camera to begin with.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.