Re: A random snapshot
Oh the OT stuff comes and goes. CN bashing went out with digital. They are all basically the same camera after all (grin). Mafud has not been heard from in a long, long while. Nice to see you back, Chris. -- Chris Brogden wrote: On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:57:35 -0400, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can shoot totally manual too, even without a light meter. What does that prove with regards to the subject? Nothing. I was arguing open aperture TTL metering is better than stop down TTL metering, not whether I absolutely depended on either...Its an OPTIONAL feature, an inferior OPTIONAL feature compared to the open aperture metering OPTIONAL feature. JCO And a separate spot meter is better than both, and an incident meter is often better than a reflective meter, and a Sony F828 is better than an F717, and Canon is better than Pentax, and who cares? If it works for you, use it. If it doesn't, either learn to make it work or stop whining and do something different. Thought I'd pop by the list again with my brand spankin' new gmail address to see what's been happening, and the only argument going on is about metering? Makes me nostalgic for the good ol' days. Whatever happened to politics, Mafud, and C/N bashing? chris -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: A random snapshot
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:38:02 -0400, Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip. Nice to see you back, Chris. Yeah, welcome back, Chris!! What's shakin'? -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: A random snapshot
Mr. OConnell: I could give more serious consideration to your point of view if you could try to be a little less arrogant. J. C. O'Connell wrote: It must suck to be vision impaired, he states wide open right in the post. I read it right the first time, you didn't. His proof example only proves he doesn't get it. His total lack of understanding is one thing but for him to imply my comments were incorrect when he doesn't even understand them let alone prove them wrong isnt very impressive I must say.
Re: A random snapshot
A double header at that... John Forbes wrote: Talking about interesting juxtapositions, look at the shape of the parking meter. John On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:59:12 -0400, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:07:01 -0600, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one was taken last night. The resteraunt we had supper at is a few doors down from the local adult toy store, and this caught my eye for some reason. Technically, this shot should not have worked, judging from recent discussion. It was shot well afer dark with a K series lens (50mm f/1.4) using the stop down metering method. Handheld, wide open, I think for 1/100 second, sensitivity set to 400. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/lovebike.jpg Okay, now that I've made all sorts of cracks in other replies on this thread, I gotta tell ya, Bill, I really like this one!! Of course, as pointed out by others, and as you yourself obviously know, the bike makes it! Just such a juxtaposition between the sordid shop and the (apparent) innocence of a bicycle. Or is it so innocent? g Great shot!! cheers, frank -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: A random snapshot
- Original Message - From: John Forbes Subject: Re: A random snapshot Talking about interesting juxtapositions, look at the shape of the parking meter. I could have positioned that better. b...
Re: A random snapshot
- Original Message - From: Daniel J. Matyola Subject: Re: A random snapshot Mr. OConnell: I could give more serious consideration to your point of view if you could try to be a little less arrogant. Whee, I missed that one. For the record, my initial metering was done several stops down, not sure how many, the last picture I took was in daylight though, so I expect f/8 or 11. Also for the record, that picture wasn't meant to prove or disprove anything. It's something that caught my eye, and I photographed it, nothing more, nothing less. That it happened while JC was shooting his mouth of (so to speak) was purely coincidental. The meter reading worked fine, and gave me an indicated shutter speed that I felt was within the range that I would expect for the light condition, but was too slow even for my steady hand, so I opened the lens wide and got 1/100 second. What this means to me is that in my shooting conditions, the stop down metering of the istD is capable of satisfying my needs. I had mentioned this in a previous post, but some arguementative soul must not have managed to understand it. Any technical consideration in photography requires compromise. I believe the istD meter is good to around EV-1 or thereabouts, and naturally, any metering done that falls below that light level is going to result in either an exposure inaccuracy or a non responsive meter. This EV value represents a very dim subject, one which most likely will be approached with a relatively wide aperture for pragmatic reasons, if for nothing else. Digital SLRs in general aren't really on their best behaviour for extended exposure times, and my shooting strategy is to try to keep exposure times faster than when noise reduction kicks in anyway. In very dim conditions, it is, of course, possible to meter wide open, stop down to the shooting aperture and then manually adjust the shutter speed to compensate. Not the most convenient, but it is not a shooting condition that is likely to come up very often either. This discussion also presumes that the only lens available for the shot in a pre A lens. So, if you are in a fairly dark situation, and need a small f/stop, and don't have an appropriate A series or newer lens, then you might have to do a bit of fiddling. Thats a lot of ifs ands or buts before the photographer is inconvenienced, and is not likely going to be a problem very often. So, John, hows my grasp of the situation? William Robb J. C. O'Connell wrote: It must suck to be vision impaired, he states wide open right in the post. I read it right the first time, you didn't. His proof example only proves he doesn't get it. His total lack of understanding is one thing but for him to imply my comments were incorrect when he doesn't even understand them let alone prove them wrong isnt very impressive I must say.
Re: A random snapshot
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: A random snapshot You still havent got it yet. Let me explain for the 4th time. No John, I get it, you don't understand that for something that is only going to affect my life once a decade, I am not going to pay much heed to. As a professional photographer, clients paid me to make things work, not whine about how it's too hard, or too inconvenient. This is something that photographers who only go out when conditions are perfect doesn't get. I didn't get your rational until last night, when I finally figured out that if you can find one potential issue that may theoretically cause a problem at some undefined point, however minor the issue or however remote it is that this issue might actually cause some inconvenience, the equipment is deemed to be crap, and cannot be discussed with you. Rest assured, I will keep this in mind in the future. As an aside, I have earned my primary income off of one aspect of photography or another for close to 3 decades now. I have forgotten more than most people will ever know, you included. Regards William Robb
Re: A random snapshot
[sigh] J. C. O'Connell wrote: You still havent got it yet. Let me explain for the 4th time.
Re: A random snapshot
Hear, hear! Shel Belinkoff wrote: Bill, why do you waste your time with JCO on this issue. The friggin thread's been going on for a week or so, nothing's going to get thru to JCO. He's busy talking theoretical hyperbole, you, Paul, and others are talking about what's practical, realistic, and what works for you. It seems that you're having different conversations around the same subject. Until such time as JCO picks up the cameras in question, uses them as has been described in a variety of situations, and determines for himself what works and at what limits, the discussions (and the term is used loosely) are just time wasters and mail box fillers.
RE: A random snapshot
Very nice shot. In some cities, lik Amsterdam, the windows in the red light district look like this. Except it would be real women displayed: http://www.fotokritik.dk/visstort.html?pic=65027 All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 23. september 2004 22:07 Til: Pentax Discuss Emne: A random snapshot This one was taken last night. The resteraunt we had supper at is a few doors down from the local adult toy store, and this caught my eye for some reason. Technically, this shot should not have worked, judging from recent discussion. It was shot well afer dark with a K series lens (50mm f/1.4) using the stop down metering method. Handheld, wide open, I think for 1/100 second, sensitivity set to 400. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/lovebike.jpg William Robb
RE: A random snapshot
I can shoot totally manual too, even without a light meter. What does that prove with regards to the subject? Nothing. I was arguing open aperture TTL metering is better than stop down TTL metering, not whether I absolutely depended on either...Its an OPTIONAL feature, an inferior OPTIONAL feature compared to the open aperture metering OPTIONAL feature. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 1:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A random snapshot - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: A random snapshot You still havent got it yet. Let me explain for the 4th time. No John, I get it, you don't understand that for something that is only going to affect my life once a decade, I am not going to pay much heed to. As a professional photographer, clients paid me to make things work, not whine about how it's too hard, or too inconvenient. This is something that photographers who only go out when conditions are perfect doesn't get. I didn't get your rational until last night, when I finally figured out that if you can find one potential issue that may theoretically cause a problem at some undefined point, however minor the issue or however remote it is that this issue might actually cause some inconvenience, the equipment is deemed to be crap, and cannot be discussed with you. Rest assured, I will keep this in mind in the future. As an aside, I have earned my primary income off of one aspect of photography or another for close to 3 decades now. I have forgotten more than most people will ever know, you included. Regards William Robb
Re: A random snapshot
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:45:52 +0100, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is that the five minute relief, or the full half hour? I paid for five minutes, but it didn't take nearly that long. rimshot -knarf -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: A random snapshot
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Ann Sanfedele Subject: Re: A random snapshot (snip) ann said Your hands are a lot steady than mine - :) Bruce Rubenstein said the same thing. LOL! Thanks for looking b thanks for shotting something worth looking at :) a...
Re: A random snapshot
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:57:35 -0400, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can shoot totally manual too, even without a light meter. What does that prove with regards to the subject? Nothing. I was arguing open aperture TTL metering is better than stop down TTL metering, not whether I absolutely depended on either...Its an OPTIONAL feature, an inferior OPTIONAL feature compared to the open aperture metering OPTIONAL feature. JCO And a separate spot meter is better than both, and an incident meter is often better than a reflective meter, and a Sony F828 is better than an F717, and Canon is better than Pentax, and who cares? If it works for you, use it. If it doesn't, either learn to make it work or stop whining and do something different. Thought I'd pop by the list again with my brand spankin' new gmail address to see what's been happening, and the only argument going on is about metering? Makes me nostalgic for the good ol' days. Whatever happened to politics, Mafud, and C/N bashing? chris
Re: A random snapshot
Chris Brogden wrote: Whatever happened to politics, Mafud, and C/N bashing? Bush will win anyway, Mafud is gone and we all switched either to C or N. So we just post some pics from time to time and debate metering. Sorry, Chris
Re: A random snapshot
Dang. And here I was hoping for at least one good argument on missile defence. Ah well... Oh, I've got a few gmail invites to give away, so if anyone's interested, write me off-list. You get 1GB of storage, the ability to send 10MB attachments, and a cool interface that groups threads as a series of sequential posts on the same page. Very cool. Chris On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:27:04 -0400, Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Brogden wrote: Whatever happened to politics, Mafud, and C/N bashing? Bush will win anyway, Mafud is gone and we all switched either to C or N. So we just post some pics from time to time and debate metering. Sorry, Chris
Re: A random snapshot
If I didn't know you any better, I would believe the restaurant story ;-) C'mon Bill tell us what you really were up to that night ;-) William Robb wrote: This one was taken last night. The resteraunt we had supper at is a few doors down from the local adult toy store, and this caught my eye for some reason. Technically, this shot should not have worked, judging from recent discussion. It was shot well afer dark with a K series lens (50mm f/1.4) using the stop down metering method. Handheld, wide open, I think for 1/100 second, sensitivity set to 400. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/lovebike.jpg William Robb
RE: A random snapshot
-Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This one was taken last night. The resteraunt we had supper at is a few doors down from the local adult toy store, and this caught my eye for some reason. Technically, this shot should not have worked, judging from recent discussion. It was shot well afer dark with a K series lens (50mm f/1.4) using the stop down metering method. Handheld, wide open, I think for 1/100 second, sensitivity set to 400. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/lovebike.jpg That looks like it was shot in about 1975. That's a good thing. So, how much does love cost? tv
Re: A random snapshot
Hi, http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/lovebike.jpg hey, that looks like Frank's bike. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: A random snapshot
- Original Message - From: Bob W Subject: Re: A random snapshot Hi, http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/lovebike.jpg hey, that looks like Frank's bike. I was thinking of him when I took the picture, though not enough to forget to focus. William Robb
Re: A random snapshot
- Original Message - From: tom Subject: RE: A random snapshot So, how much does love cost? Depends, big boy. HAR!!! WW
Re: A random snapshot
On 23/9/04, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/lovebike.jpg Handheld, wide open, I think for 1/100 second, sensitivity set to 400. Very appropriate ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: A random snapshot
tom wrote: So, how much does love cost? If you have to ask, then it's not for you, sir ! ;-)
Re: A random snapshot
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:01:11 -0600, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking of him when I took the picture, though not enough to forget to focus. Okay, Wheatfield, that's the second crack you've made today about me and (non) focusing!! Not that I have a problem with it. Just pointing it out is all... vbg cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: A random snapshot
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:55:57 +0100, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/lovebike.jpg hey, that looks like Frank's bike. So, I'm on a cross-country solo bike tour, and I'm a bit, you know, tense. I'm in this big hick-town, looking for relief, if ya know what I mean. I'm thinking, Hey, who the hell is going to see me going into this Palace of Perpetual Pleasure? Little did I know... -frank (with a red face) -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: A random snapshot
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:07:01 -0600, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one was taken last night. The resteraunt we had supper at is a few doors down from the local adult toy store, and this caught my eye for some reason. Technically, this shot should not have worked, judging from recent discussion. It was shot well afer dark with a K series lens (50mm f/1.4) using the stop down metering method. Handheld, wide open, I think for 1/100 second, sensitivity set to 400. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/lovebike.jpg Okay, now that I've made all sorts of cracks in other replies on this thread, I gotta tell ya, Bill, I really like this one!! Of course, as pointed out by others, and as you yourself obviously know, the bike makes it! Just such a juxtaposition between the sordid shop and the (apparent) innocence of a bicycle. Or is it so innocent? g Great shot!! cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: A random snapshot
It brings up a logical question but I won't ask it. William Robb wrote: This one was taken last night. The resteraunt we had supper at is a few doors down from the local adult toy store, and this caught my eye for some reason. Technically, this shot should not have worked, judging from recent discussion. It was shot well afer dark with a K series lens (50mm f/1.4) using the stop down metering method. Handheld, wide open, I think for 1/100 second, sensitivity set to 400. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/lovebike.jpg William Robb -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
RE: A random snapshot
Incredible comments. Hehe. Stopped all the way down to F1.4 huh? I clearly posted earlier that the loss of metering sensitivity with stop down metering vs. open aperture metering is directly proportional to the number of stops you stop down. You stopped down ZERO stops so your metering sensitivity wasn't affected at all, exactly the same as open aperure actually in terms of sensitivity The sensitivity disadvantage of stop down metering only occurs if you actually stop down! Wide open aperure setting is not stopped down one bit. JCO -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A random snapshot It brings up a logical question but I won't ask it. William Robb wrote: This one was taken last night. The resteraunt we had supper at is a few doors down from the local adult toy store, and this caught my eye for some reason. Technically, this shot should not have worked, judging from recent discussion. It was shot well afer dark with a K series lens (50mm f/1.4) using the stop down metering method. Handheld, wide open, I think for 1/100 second, sensitivity set to 400. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/lovebike.jpg William Robb -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: A random snapshot
I think he said it was shot with a 50/1.4 lens. I don't think he said the stop was 1.4. Reread Bill's message. It must suck to be so angry about cameras. Paul On Sep 24, 2004, at 12:06 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Incredible comments. Hehe. Stopped all the way down to F1.4 huh? I clearly posted earlier that the loss of metering sensitivity with stop down metering vs. open aperture metering is directly proportional to the number of stops you stop down. You stopped down ZERO stops so your metering sensitivity wasn't affected at all, exactly the same as open aperure actually in terms of sensitivity The sensitivity disadvantage of stop down metering only occurs if you actually stop down! Wide open aperure setting is not stopped down one bit. JCO -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A random snapshot It brings up a logical question but I won't ask it. William Robb wrote: This one was taken last night. The resteraunt we had supper at is a few doors down from the local adult toy store, and this caught my eye for some reason. Technically, this shot should not have worked, judging from recent discussion. It was shot well afer dark with a K series lens (50mm f/1.4) using the stop down metering method. Handheld, wide open, I think for 1/100 second, sensitivity set to 400. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/lovebike.jpg William Robb -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: A random snapshot
Nice shot, Bill. It's a subject the goes well with the night lighting. Paul On Sep 24, 2004, at 12:06 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Incredible comments. Hehe. Stopped all the way down to F1.4 huh? I clearly posted earlier that the loss of metering sensitivity with stop down metering vs. open aperture metering is directly proportional to the number of stops you stop down. You stopped down ZERO stops so your metering sensitivity wasn't affected at all, exactly the same as open aperure actually in terms of sensitivity The sensitivity disadvantage of stop down metering only occurs if you actually stop down! Wide open aperure setting is not stopped down one bit. JCO -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A random snapshot It brings up a logical question but I won't ask it. William Robb wrote: This one was taken last night. The resteraunt we had supper at is a few doors down from the local adult toy store, and this caught my eye for some reason. Technically, this shot should not have worked, judging from recent discussion. It was shot well afer dark with a K series lens (50mm f/1.4) using the stop down metering method. Handheld, wide open, I think for 1/100 second, sensitivity set to 400. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/lovebike.jpg William Robb -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: A random snapshot
William Robb wrote: This one was taken last night. The resteraunt we had supper at is a few doors down from the local adult toy store, and this caught my eye for some reason. Technically, this shot should not have worked, judging from recent discussion. It was shot well afer dark with a K series lens (50mm f/1.4) using the stop down metering method. Handheld, wide open, I think for 1/100 second, sensitivity set to 400. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/lovebike.jpg William Robb On the whole, I like this lots, Bill - how about cropping off a smidgen on the right? I was drawn too easily to the yellow (neon?) beyond the edge of the building and I think the geometry would be imporved if you sliced off the right side to the building's edge. Your hands are a lot steady than mine - :) annsan
RE: A random snapshot
It must suck to be vision impaired, he states wide open right in the post. I read it right the first time, you didn't. His proof example only proves he doesn't get it. His total lack of understanding is one thing but for him to imply my comments were incorrect when he doesn't even understand them let alone prove them wrong isnt very impressive I must say. JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 12:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A random snapshot I think he said it was shot with a 50/1.4 lens. I don't think he said the stop was 1.4. Reread Bill's message. It must suck to be so angry about cameras. Paul On Sep 24, 2004, at 12:06 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Incredible comments. Hehe. Stopped all the way down to F1.4 huh? I clearly posted earlier that the loss of metering sensitivity with stop down metering vs. open aperture metering is directly proportional to the number of stops you stop down. You stopped down ZERO stops so your metering sensitivity wasn't affected at all, exactly the same as open aperure actually in terms of sensitivity The sensitivity disadvantage of stop down metering only occurs if you actually stop down! Wide open aperure setting is not stopped down one bit. JCO -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A random snapshot It brings up a logical question but I won't ask it. William Robb wrote: This one was taken last night. The resteraunt we had supper at is a few doors down from the local adult toy store, and this caught my eye for some reason. Technically, this shot should not have worked, judging from recent discussion. It was shot well afer dark with a K series lens (50mm f/1.4) using the stop down metering method. Handheld, wide open, I think for 1/100 second, sensitivity set to 400. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/lovebike.jpg William Robb -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: A random snapshot
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: A random snapshot I think he said it was shot with a 50/1.4 lens. I don't think he said the stop was 1.4. Reread Bill's message. It must suck to be so angry about cameras. It was shot wide open, I think my lens was initially set to something like f/11, and it metered fine, but the time wasn't hand holdable, so I opened it up wide. William Robb
Re: A random snapshot
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: A random snapshot Nice shot, Bill. It's a subject the goes well with the night lighting. Thanks Paul. b...
