Lying in wait.. for James Bond fans only?

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Mark Thomas, Jul 27, 2008.

  1. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    (Heavens, this is almost sensible... keep it up, Doug)

    Correct, *if* the intention was, for some reason, to render that very
    small area of sky accurately. Had you read my initial comments, you
    would have noticed that I stated that it was just a grab shot and I was
    suprised to find I like the result.

    But neither would a DSLR have the ability to do this. As I mentioned, a
    quick visit to Doug's gallery here:

    http://www.douglasjames.com.au/portfolio/weddings/

    and a look at images 2 and 9, will show you what I mean. Perhaps Doug
    can explain this apparent dichotomy?

    HDR would be the only way - but here's the rub... Even tho it was just
    a grab shot, it was my intention to get a very low-key, sinister image,
    with the car in deep shadow. The sky was irrelevant to me - tell us
    Doug, why do you think the sky was important? But not in your own
    images 2 and 9 above?
    Given I was disinterested in the sky, HDR wasn't even a consideration.
    Correct, I added a small amount of fill to 'sparkle up' the front. Mr T
    obviously hasn't much experience in spotting clues.
    No diffuser. Only a twit would use a diffuser if he was after specular
    highlights.
    No, I dialled it down so it wouldn't look like a harshly lit wedding
    portraits.
    There we go again.
    As above, only a twit would use a lot of flash for a shot like that.
     
    Mark Thomas, Jul 30, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mark Thomas

    Mr.T Guest

    And only a twit would be happy with the shot as is IMO, that's why I also
    suggested a reflector and/or a bit of tweaking in Photoshop.
    But as long as you're happy to put your name on it, fine by me.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jul 30, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    So, show us a shot in a similar vein *where flash has been used*, and
    tell us how you would get a realistic effect that didn't overlight the
    front of the car? Feel free to use google images.

    Also, have you checked your monitor gamma lately? When I do something
    low-key, I get the shadow detail down to levels that will look black on
    a badly adjusted screen. I have adjusted that image to where I want it
    to be, dark but detail in the shadows, and contrasty.

    You have my permission to tweak it as you wish in PS and re-post it -
    show us how you would do it. There is plenty of detail in the shadows
    to play with, and the fact it will go a bit noisy should not be a
    problem for the effect you want.

    I'm all eyes...

    (O:
     
    Mark Thomas, Jul 30, 2008
    #23
  4. Mark Thomas

    Jeff R. Guest

    Nonsense.
    The shot is evocative and very compelling just as it is.

    Why don't you bore us with how it doesn't comply perfectly with the rule of
    thirds?

    Photography isn't paint-by-numbers. You actually have to apply judgement,
    not work to some brainless formula designed to keep idiots from stuffing up.
    How's it working for you, BTW?
     
    Jeff R., Jul 30, 2008
    #24
  5. Mark Thomas

    tony cooper Guest

    The printer is a device, and is called a device in many computer
    manuals and references. And in your "Device Manager" if you use
    Windows. The "devise" spelling is sometimes used in the UK and by
    people in other countries that follow the UK spelling conventions. I
    don't see it spelled this way very often, but it's not rare. We see
    Brits writing "advise" when we would use "advice", and there are
    other, similar, examples of the "s" used for the "c" in Brit spelling.
    Was this a joke? A play on what you perceive as his spelling error?
    The phrase is "bated breath". "Bated" is a contraction by aphesis of
    "abated" or "held back".

    “Shall I bend low and, in a bondman’s key,
    With bated breath and whisp’ring humbleness,"

    Shylock to Antonio in "The Merchant of Venice", WS.
     
    tony cooper, Jul 30, 2008
    #25
  6. Mark Thomas

    dj_nme Guest

    Are you sure about that?
    The country I live in uses English (not American) spellings and the
    only time I've ever seen the spelling "devise" it has meant "to think
    up" or "create in the mind" and used something like "He had to devise a
    plan.".
    The word "devise" rhymes with "rise" and the end of "device" sounds like
    "ice" (as in frozen water).
    "to advise" is the act of giving advice.
    There is no word "advicer", it's spelled "adviser" (one who gives advice).
    "baited breath" a rather common spelling error.
    It would seem far more likely that Mark Thomas's intention is to allude
    to your somewhat "fishy" claims.
    Unless Mark actually intends to chew on worms while awaiting your response.
    Although, I believe that it's rather incautious to rely on The Bard for
    exact spellings.
    He apparently couldn't even decide on how to spell "Shakespear", there
    are several different spellings from different signatures which I've
    seen reproduced photographically in textbooks.
     
    dj_nme, Jul 30, 2008
    #26
  7. Mark Thomas

    tony cooper Guest

    Sure that I've seen it? Yes. Sure that it's common? No, and it's
    not. Sure that it's not rare? Yes.
    See, there you go. More than one way to correctly spell a word.
    Spelling it "advisor" yields three times the number of hits in Google
    over "adviser". Either is correct, but the main M-W dictionary entry
    is "adviser" with "advisor" as "also".
    I'm quite willing to assume that Mark injected a subtle bit of humor.
    That's the first verified sighting of the term, and why it's cited.
     
    tony cooper, Jul 30, 2008
    #27
  8. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    I'll concede one out of two..

    ??? Can you provide a cite for this? The only definitions I can find,
    or have ever heard used, indicate that "devise" is only used as a verb..
    "We will devise a clever plan."
    or (very rarely and only in legal documents) as a noun meaning a gift of
    property via a will.

    Besides, my point was simply to show that D-Mac and his 'daughter'
    (2squid), who both used the term identically, were one and the same person.
    I beg to differ - like I said, cites?

    Again, the s form is the verb. I can find no references whatsoever to
    advise ever being used as a noun.
    Yes, you got me on this one. My bad.
     
    Mark Thomas, Jul 31, 2008
    #28
  9. Mark Thomas

    Ron Hunter Guest

    ????
    Advise and advice are two different words. Both pertain to giving
    information, and suggestions, but one is the verb form and the other is
    the noun form, and our British cousins would spell 'advise' as 'advize'.
    At least they would if they were consistent. But who can expect that
    from the English language....?? After all, they put bonnets on lories!
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 31, 2008
    #29
  10. Mark Thomas

    tony cooper Guest

    Well, my daughter has picked up many terms and phrases from me, and I
    assure you that I really have a daughter.
    I went to Google.UK and typed in "printer devise". First result up:
    http://www.myofficemonkey.co.uk/id4.html Second result up:
    http://www.art4all.co.uk/collectprint2.htm (right column under
    "Digital Printing Process". Enuf? You won't find it using Google
    unless you specify Google.UK and UK pages.

    I brought up Google.aus and specified Australian pages only. First
    two hits use the "devise" spelling for "device". Many more for
    "device", but I'm looking for some, not most.

    To find this variation in a dictionary you would have to use a
    dictionary that lists UK spellings as the primary spelling. The
    online dictionaries are US-centric. I don't have access to the OED,
    but I'd expect that it's at least listed as a variation there.

    Before we say that someone is wrong, it's best to see what might be
    right for them that is wrong for us.
     
    tony cooper, Jul 31, 2008
    #30
  11. Mark Thomas

    Mr.T Guest

    Have a look at almost any car sales brochure for example.
    Did I say a single on camera flash?
    Maybe you should learn by your mistakes rather than defending them.
    Feel free to do your own research and try to learn something in the process.
    Yep, have you?
    If it was mine I wouldn't waste time on it. Since it's not, I'm even less
    inclined.
    If you want to learn something, try it yourself, if not, no skin off my
    nose.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jul 31, 2008
    #31
  12. Mark Thomas

    Mr.T Guest

    If you think so, fine by me.
    Never have, is it something you have a fixation about?
    Who said it was?
    up.

    No, the brainless idiots are happy with whatever crap they produce. And
    wouldn't understand a formula in any case.
    Fine thanks, let me know how much money THAT picture makes :)

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jul 31, 2008
    #32
  13. Mark Thomas

    Doug Jewell Guest

    Is that the only judge of the quality of a photo, how much
    money it makes?
    There are many many fine photographs taken every day, that
    will never make a cent, and never be seen by anyone other
    than the family of the person that took it. Does that mean
    they are all crap because they don't make money?
    If a photo is taken for the purpose of being sold, then yes,
    by all means strive for technical excellence. Striving for
    technical excellence is also something that should be done
    while practising the craft. But when you are taking a quick
    grab so you can remember an event / person / place etc, then
    technical excellence can be pushed aside a little and still
    result in a decent picture. Yeah Mark's photo isn't going to
    grace the covers of a magazine - but snapshots taken of a
    car parked at an event never do. I'm sure that had Mark's
    intent been to get a cover-photo, he would have consulted
    with the owner of the vehicle, and got it postitioned in
    better light, set up additional flashguns etc. Such a shoot
    would have been done over the course of hours, perhaps days,
    not in the couple of minutes he'd have had to do this shot.
     
    Doug Jewell, Jul 31, 2008
    #33
  14. Mark Thomas

    Jeff R. Guest

    Good.
    I'm tired of point-by-point pissing contests, so feel free to fill your own
    pocket.
     
    Jeff R., Jul 31, 2008
    #34
  15. Mark Thomas

    MJW Guest

    Yay! At last a post that supports the
    "non-professional" photographer. My photos may not
    be that good, but the people I show them to think
    they're ok. I ask stupid questions here from time
    to time, in the hope that I can learn & get
    better, but have been taken to task by
    B.A.Baraccus for asking such questions! I
    sometimes think that "use-net" is a waste of
    Clubber Langs time, & everyone should stop posting
    offensive questions/posts!

    Maybe he should stop his jibber-jabbering, get
    some nuts, & show everyone how this whole
    photography thing is done!

    P.S. Sorry Mark for not responding to your
    original post, I thought your pic was cool!


    --
     
    MJW, Jul 31, 2008
    #35
  16. Mark Thomas

    D-Mac Guest

    Photos of rare or historically significant vehicles taken at places like
    Ormiston House are definitely saleable either outright to a print maker
    or as LE "royalty" prints through print galleries.

    Someone with foresight could have assembled a very nice collection on
    the day suitable for a coffee table book and for an investment of less
    than a grand (including the hire of a D3 or 1D), produced half a dozen
    or so LE books that had the potential to sell for anything up to $500 each.

    Without the glaring defects and taken with a high resolution camera,
    that shot had the potential to sell as an LE canvas print maybe 4 or 5
    times a year and actually pay for the camera that took it many times over.

    A less expensive exercise is screen savers. It takes about 20 minutes to
    make a screen saver collection that people like the Atheist spend money
    on. My "automotive portrait collections" - posters I made as far back as
    2000 still produce income, 8 years after I took the photos.
    http://www.d_mac.info/example1 for a look at one of them.

    What I don't understand is why Mark whines about his inability to
    "afford" a decent outfit and spends a lot of time excusing the poor
    quality of the images he posts when, with a tiny bit of advise from
    those he manages to alienate, he could actually pay for top flight gear
    by using it to do what I just described.

    You can all pick shit at me as much as you like but since 1994, I've
    made a rewarding income from selling photographs. If I can do it, anyone
    can. Anyone that is ...with enough humility to admit they need help and
    not bugger it all up by trying to make out they are some sort of God of
    imagery and can't produces any evidence that might suggest that could be
    true.


    Doug.
     
    D-Mac, Jul 31, 2008
    #36
  17. Mark Thomas

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    Ron,
    We are consistent. The bonnet is the cover over the engine compartment of
    any front engined vehicle whether car, lorry, bus etc. If the vehicle has
    the engine in an alternative place then other names will usually be found.
     
    Neil Ellwood, Jul 31, 2008
    #37
  18. Mark Thomas

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    You can't trust the web for anything and modern magazines and newspapers
    are just as bad when it comes to spelling.
     
    Neil Ellwood, Jul 31, 2008
    #38
  19. Mark Thomas

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    In his day and for a century plus afterwards spelling was variable and
    the educated man was rated by the number of different ways he could spell
    words, good manners entailed using a different spelling each time a word
    was used in (for example) a letter or essay.
     
    Neil Ellwood, Jul 31, 2008
    #39
  20. Mark Thomas

    Doug Jewell Guest

    Most definitely, but doing so would normally require the
    co-operation of the vehicle owner and/or the event organiser
    and/or the venue owners. A lot of these events though, being
    a private event, don't just allow professional photographers
    to go in, snap a few shots, and sell them. It is normal that
    they would request at the very least that you seek
    permission, but would also likely charge a fee or request a
    commission on sales. Just like taking photos at the footy
    (i'm still sour at Suncorp Stadium, but that's another story).
    Not quite so sure of the $500 part, but yes certainly
    saleable. Again though, the event organisers, vehicle
    owners, and/or venue owners may not be impressed if you are
    making money from photos you took.
    I tend to disagree here. The "glaring defects" from what I
    can tell come from the position of the vehicle and the
    lighting. A car positioned under a tree, getting dappled
    lighting, with a background varying between trees,
    buildings, and bright sky, will take more than a D3 to get
    right. Possibly could get something half decent with
    multiple flashguns and/or HDR. Reala might be able to nail
    that image, but I still think you'd be pushing it. By the
    time you set up a multiple lighting scenario or stick a D3
    on a tripod, you'll likely draw attention to yourself as a
    pro photographer and the above scenarios start playing out.

    Better to get the co-operation of the owner of the vehicle
    to get it positioned better, and take the shot when the
    lighting is better. Once that is done, it would be very
    plausible to get a very saleable image
    Do people actually spend money on screen savers? Not having
    a go at you - if you're making money from it, then well and
    good. I'm just amazed that people actually spring money for
    something so mundane as a screen saver, especially when
    there are thousands of free photos on sites like webshots.
    Come to think of it, do people still use screen savers? I
    thought power saving had pretty much done away with them.
    BTW, that website doesn't work for me.
    Not all of us can afford the top end gear. I have no idea
    what Mark's financial status is, but for myself, I don't
    have top end gear because I can't afford it. Actually not
    quite true, I could afford it, but I wouldn't consider it
    prudent to spring a couple of grand on something that is
    essentially a hobby. Plus, apart from the more mundane
    obligations of life, I have numerous hobbies all clamouring
    for the attention of a few dollars, and a significant other
    who puts the handbrake on.
    I don't need an invitation to pick shit at you :p
    This is going to sound like I'm picking shit = I'm not, I'm
    just being blunt. Your line "If I can do it, anyone can".
    Doug, I'm sure you have to admit that for the most part, the
    photos that you have posted are hardly prize winners. Over
    the last year or so that I've been watching here, I've seen
    a handful of your photos I liked, and a lot that I thought
    were pretty crook. Could it be, that your rewarding income
    indicates that your entrepreneurial skills far exceed your
    photographic skills. I'm not pretending to be a photographic
    God myself - I've posted a few pics of mine that I've liked,
    and had them picked to shreds, and also a couple that others
    have liked. But one thing I am sure of, is that with the
    very odd exception, most of my photos are not saleable, so I
    don't even bother trying to sell them.
    Having said that, I have been called upon to do Santa
    photos, have been paid to do product shots for some of the
    local retailers, and currently have a couple of my shots
    being used in local advertising campaigns, so I guess I'm a
    "professional photographer" whatever that means. This work
    has come purely from people getting onto me, rather than me
    going out to look for it though.
    The way I view it though, is the difference between me and a
    true "professional photographer" is not my gear vs theirs,
    and it is not my technical photographic knowledge vs theirs,
    but is the ability to reliably and consistently take photos
    with attention to detail - nailing the composition,
    exposure, framing, colour, focus etc every time. Composition
    is probably the thing I'm finding toughest.
    Ok the above could be levelled at a number of posters here,
    but with all due respect Doug, it does describe you too. Or
    at least describes your online persona.
    Doug also.
     
    Doug Jewell, Jul 31, 2008
    #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.