A Humble Suggestion (Page 5): I ABSOLUTELY share your words about MosheR. If I recall some of his postings were 20 years ago and I think it was him used a 3mg point'n shoot camera but...

riderxlx Loc: DFW area Texas

KTJohnson wrote:

First off, thank you MosheR for sharing the photos... (show quote)

I ABSOLUTELY share your words about MosheR. If I recall some of his postings were 20 years ago and I think it was him used a 3mg point'n shoot camera but captured some excellent images.
I look forward to more of his postings.
Bruce.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Bridges wrote:

I appreciate the technical knowledge you at times post -- the resizing one you mention is very well written and I have used those parameters constantly. I do have a question though -- if you take a reduced file and put it through Topaz Gigapixel, how will that compare to an original larger file?

If you started with 5 oranges (pixels) in your shopping bag, and then reduced the total count to 3 oranges, what would Gigapixel do when you ask the 3-orange image file to be increased to a new total of 6-oranges? The software guesses (aka AI) what those 3 new oranges would need to look like. Will they be real oranges or even the exact 2 removed earlier, as well as one added that never actually existed in the shopping bag? You be the judge, inspecting the resulting image file (6-oranges) to either the 5-orange original or the 3-orange reduction. Run that 'inspection' at the 1:1 pixel level details.

Dr. Joel Germond Loc: California Central Coast

I think so too. Here is a photo taken hand held with my Nikon P1000. I bought it used and hardly use it, but will use it more when the birds arrive here in the winter (on a tripod). I mostly use my trusty old Canon 5D Mark IV with a 4oomm stabilized Canon lens. I also have a Canon mirrorless camera, which I am using a bit more, but don't trust yet to get the shots I want (birds and wildlife for the most part.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

Dr. Joel Germond wrote:

I think so too. Here is a photo taken hand held with my Nikon P1000. I bought it used and hardly use it, but will use it more when the birds arrive here in the winter (on a tripod). I mostly use my trusty old Canon 5D Mark IV with a 4oomm stabilized Canon lens. I also have a Canon mirrorless camera, which I am using a bit more, but don't trust yet to get the shots I want (birds and wildlife for the most part.

Please add the poster you are addressing so we can follow the thread. Also, your photo did not come through -- you need to press "Add Attachment" at the very least and if you want us to see it in its best presentation, check the (store original) box as well.

Thanks

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Bridges wrote:

Please add the poster you are addressing so we can follow the thread. Also, your photo did not come through -- you need to press "Add Attachment" at the very least and if you want us to see it in its best presentation, check the (store original) box as well.

Thanks

Photo sharing is really the purpose of the Photo Gallery ... we don't need image litter here.

markwilliam1

billnikon wrote:

HA HA HA. Oh, that's rich. A photography site for photographers WITHOUT any posted images. What a joke.
The truth is most folks who are here will NOT post their images, cause they are not good enough to post. They are just TALKING HEADS with no real photographic skills.

Bill as I’ve said before you are The Best Bird photographer I’ve ever had the pleasure viewing your images! Can’t imagine the time it takes you to compose and shoot. Keep on shooting to the end Brother. Thanks!

phot0n0ob

Hi MosheR

In this day and age where even the most innocent comment can quickly turn one into a target for all sorts of verbal abuse, I applaud your courage to post this.

Having said that I do not at all share your sentiment / concern. Between the thousands of members (I assume) of these forums you will find all kinds of reasons for why we take photos and approaches to how we do it.

I take photos as a hobby (and as an "excuse" to spend time in nature

). Fortunately I can afford to spend some serious money on this hobby, therefore my equipment is way more advanced than my skills as a photographer. I sometimes post or comment here, but - as far as I remember - have never posted even a single photo I have taken on this site.

Why does any of that bother you? (honest question!)
Me not posting my photos does not prevent you from posting yours. My interest in the technical aspect of modern photography does not prevent you from focusing on the artistic aspect.
If there's a "GAS topic" you don't care about - simply don't read it.

Go ahead and enjoy photography your way - but allow everyone else to enjoy it their way, too.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

joer wrote:

It is quite simple...if you don't know their work, don't take their advice. But keep in mind, reading their posts is your choice.

I don’t know if it’s quite that simple. I think there are plenty of people here that can give great advice, that have a great understanding of techniques and tools, but maybe lack in artistic sensibility. By the same token there are those with a great eye that maybe lack the technical expertise to fully bring their vision to fruition. I’ll take advice from either in the areas of their strengths. I occasionally post in the gallery but it’s pretty rare because I don’t spend much time there. I find it’s mostly well-executed snapshots. I do like it if during a discussion in the main forum a poster includes a photo as a demonstration of the topic being discussed.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Bridges wrote:

There are two sides to photography -- technical an... (show quote)

Pretty much what I said in response to another comment.

tgreenhaw

I accept people for who they are. Life is much less frustrating for me since I've adopted this philosophy. I like when people share, but am fine with those that aren't here for that as well.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

CHG_CANON wrote:

If you started with 5 oranges (pixels) in your sho... (show quote)

I also think a point to be made here is that all that software is best used on the original raw file, or at least the original source full resolution JPEG.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

tgreenhaw wrote:

I accept people for who they are. Life is much less frustrating for me since I've adopted this philosophy. I like when people share, but am fine with those that aren't here for that as well.

Some people are really nice, some in-between, some are posterior portals.

"Next subject?"

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

Longshadow wrote:

Some people are really nice, some in-between, some are posterior portals.

"Next subject?"

Ah, a diplomat!

Guyserman Loc: Benton, AR

riderxlx wrote:

Guy...
Where tha hell have you been ?
Have you not seen the numerous posts of his travels ?
He has provided detailed explanations of the travels and this images he posted were very good even considering some are several years in the past.
He has offered some wonderful adventures in photos and descriptions that most of us will never see NOR have ever heard of.
bruce.

I have seen numerous posts of his travels and I agree with everything said here. Does that mean we should not acknowledge just a tiny bit of irony in his latest post? Perhaps so. I apologize.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

billnikon wrote:

It's because folks spend thousands of dollars on equipment and still take dull uninteresting images that they could have got with a point and shoot.
As I have always said, the photographer takes the image, not the equipment. Skill, knowledge, practice and experience will always win the day.

Absolutely, stunningly breathtaking 🤍🤍🔟🤍🤍