Do we really need "look at my pictures" updates here?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Matt Clara, Apr 20, 2007.

  1. As for the original post, I think it is great to see people's
    photos, especially the regulars in the news group.
    It helps us get to know the person better, and that
    helps us understand people's perspectives in discussions.
    It also add a more people touch that could help reduce
    the personal attacks so common in discussions.
    It's also interesting to see people improve over the
    years.

    As to the question above, most photos can be captured
    on both film and digital, just in the high ISO
    range, digital will produce a better image.

    But there is one situation that has never been done on
    film and I think is impossible to do on film:
    that is image faint galaxies and nebulae in full color
    from a very light polluted location. Example:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/gallerie...1/web/m31-500mm-8780-8825-av46_RJ.v5-600.html
    that page shows two images: the top galaxy image
    is a little messed up because light fall-off was not
    compensated for, but look at the second image on the
    page: that is the original from the light polluted
    skies of Denver. Film does not have the signal-to-noise
    ratios needed to dig a faint signal out of that
    bright sky background. This image shows the full
    digital capability:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/gallerie...eb/m45-700MM-8534-8561_C16B-add27-v3-800.html
    and was also done from Denver. The fainter parts of
    blue nebula are over 100 times fainter than the
    sky background.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Apr 21, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest

    Perhaps we're talking apples an oranges here. I'm asking whether the
    practice of frequently creating original posts that say, look at my new
    photographs, isn't counter to what this group was created for, and
    ultimately a source of noise rather than signal. You're knocking against
    signature files, which many use in every post. I say they're not the same
    thing, because one can (and most of us do) ignore signature files, but you
    can't help but read the subject line of a new thread, which occupies space
    and knocks older posts off the newserver. I say, start your own thread
    rallying against sig files instead of trying to make this one about that. I
    don't think you'd get a lot of people saying they agree with you, though,
    'cause it sounds kinda nutty--"No more links to personal pages in sig
    files!!!" Of course, that's not really your point, your point is to try to
    show me the error of my ways, and it ain't happenin'. I may be wrong, but
    not because of my sig file, which utilizes a long accepted format.
     
    Matt Clara, Apr 21, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Matt Clara wrote:
    []
    Well, it's a different topic, but perhaps ones where high ISO or very long
    exposures are required (reciprocity failure), multiple-stitched images or
    ones with significant post-processing? I'm sure others could add to the
    list.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 21, 2007
    #23
  4. Matt Clara wrote:
    []
    You could always use your killfile....

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 21, 2007
    #24
  5. Then perhaps you should petition comcast to use a more sensible metric for
    retiring posts, such as age, if this is a main concern.
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Apr 21, 2007
    #25
  6. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest


    Thanks Ed--it's not my main concern, and I don't think I ever indicated it
    was. I watched r.p.e.35mm denegrate to almost nothing but a few individuals
    shouting, LOOK AT MY PICS, with two individuals always replying saying they
    were the best they'd ever seen, and find the whole thing a complete waste of
    time and space, and ultimately I find it's bad for the group.
     
    Matt Clara, Apr 21, 2007
    #26
  7. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest

    I find the few doing it to otherwise be helpful members of the group. I'm
    not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.
     
    Matt Clara, Apr 21, 2007
    #27
  8. Then don't use it as an argument, as you did. Keep to your main point.
    Never been there so I can't comment. I've posted such articles from time to
    time myself. In some instances hoping to show the capabilities of a given
    lens or lens/tc combo. However, I don't go out of my way necessarily
    stating the lens used in many cases, though that can be found in the exif
    info of the images.

    Perhaps if you would be more specific as to individuals you consider
    offenders this thread might become more productive. Personally, I'm finding
    it more of a problem dealing with the blogspot promoters myself. at this
    point. In the cases you cited above, are those not dealt with by using kill
    files?
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Apr 21, 2007
    #28
  9. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest

    ??? I've had a few classes in logic, undergrad major in philosophy, and
    there's nothing that says one must build an argument based on a single
    "point".
     
    Matt Clara, Apr 21, 2007
    #29
  10.  
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 21, 2007
    #30
  11. Matt Clara

    Pete D Guest

    Just get lots of equipment, what ever you do don't use it. LOL.
     
    Pete D, Apr 21, 2007
    #31
  12. Matt Clara

    John Smith Guest

    Nope, I'm talking about folks who complain about other folks when they put
    up links to their work for C and C, while still doing the same thing, but
    disguising it as a "sig".

    Please note, I have absolutely no problem with either approach. After all, I
    don't read every post in these groups and I doubt if anyone else does
    either, so there is no harm. Makes me wonder about the motivation.

    DP
     
    John Smith, Apr 21, 2007
    #32
  13. Matt Clara

    John Smith Guest

    I see, you're afraid of getting your posts knocked off the newserver. I can
    see your point.

    That makes sense I guess, but it seems to me these "sig" files, and while
    yours may only ask folks to peruse your website to view you snaps, others
    seem to go on forever) would have the same effect.

    But, like I say, I don't have a dog in this race. Doesn't bother me either
    way.

    DP..
     
    John Smith, Apr 21, 2007
    #33
  14. Matt Clara

    M-M Guest


    OK, so digital is better at high ISO and film is better at long
    exposures without noise.

    Besides that?
     
    M-M, Apr 21, 2007
    #34
  15. Matt Clara

    Alan Browne Guest

    Regrettably, that's my case these days... too much work and travel.

    What is welcome is to post links to images related to an equipment
    issue. eg: what is causing this flare? Look at all the light, but no
    flare... look what my flash is (not) doing... etc.

    Just posting images for images sake is somewhat, but not devastatingly
    off topic. There are important exceptions, for example if a certain
    individual who avoids posting altogether would post links to his images
    they would be particularly welcome.

    ;-)

    Cheers,
    Alan

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 21, 2007
    #35
  16. Matt Clara

    Pete D Guest

    Quite seriously Alan last time I looked, photography was about taking
    photos, plenty of room here for a few links to photos. I personally do not
    post links to any of my photography here (some here are familiar with my
    work) but that is my choice. Anyone whining about someone else that is
    actually taking photos should probably get out and a take a few more
    themselves. And that reminds me, must take more photos and worry about what
    others are doing less.

    Cheers.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Apr 21, 2007
    #36

  17. well put.
     
    bob crownfield, Apr 21, 2007
    #37
  18. Matt Clara

    Alan Browne Guest

    "C and C" ?
    "Hits" - quantity is a quality.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 22, 2007
    #38
  19. I think Matt is more concerned about his noise making abilities instead of
    group dynamics. I find it easier to scan through the noise to find a few
    posts worthy of opening than it is to add to the noise level by bitching
    about the noise. Plus, all the off topic political bullshit is very easy to
    ignore.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Apr 22, 2007
    #39
  20. Matt Clara

    Robert Coe Guest

    : I don't believe such activity belongs here, and while I think an occasional,
    : look at this one, or this gallery, is fine, particularly when it's tied to a
    : specific discussion on dSLR equipment, I don't appreciate those folks who
    : seem to feel that we're all waiting eagerly to share in their images again
    : and again. That's nothing but ego tripping, it doesn't help the group, nor
    : is it what 99% of us come here for. Sorry if that steps on some toes.

    I have a suggestion: Don't read the threads that don't interest you. I.e.,
    since you're not interested in the threads dealing with individuals' picture
    galleries, just don't read them! If others feel differently about such
    threads, what do you care? Let's face it: compared to some of the nutball
    subjects that find their way into this newsgroup, the galleries are squarely
    in the mainstream.

    Now I realize that by reading (and even commenting on) your article, I'm not
    taking my own advice. But it's late and I'm getting punchy, so ...
     
    Robert Coe, Apr 22, 2007
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.