New D-70 - Lots of problems

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Herman de Vries, Mar 23, 2005.

  1. Herman de Vries

    Cynicor Guest

    I rarely have any problem shooting hockey indoors with a D70 and the 70-200
    f/2.8 lens, with or without flash. If you have any idea about the sport
    you're shooting, you'll have a good idea what's about to happen. You know
    that the skaters will be in the crease momentarily, so you focus there and
    lock it, just like with a manual focus film camera. The shots that I do
    screw up (of which there are plenty, because I'm the World's Worst
    Photographer(tm)), I would've screwed up anyway. Sports photography is about
    taking lots of shots so that a few out of every hundred represent "perfect
    timing."

    As for that rugby shot, if you had taken it with the ball another two inches
    in either direction, it would still be the same, and you'd have the same
    facial expressions on people and same action. It's not like you sat there
    for two weeks lining up the single good possible shot, took it, and left.
    Show the entire contact sheet for that event and let's see that every one of
    your shots was "perfect" like this one.
     
    Cynicor, Mar 28, 2005
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Herman de Vries

    UC Guest

    Yes, the ball could be a few inches either way and it would still be
    basically identical. No, they were not all perfect, because with a
    560mm lens it's hard just to find the ball carrier, as they're flipping
    it back and forth to each other and running in a serpentine pattern. If
    you don't care about CLOSE action you can use a shorter lens, but I
    wanted CLOSE action. This is what's called a scrum, and you have a bit
    more time to set-up for this kind of shot, as the guys are all locked
    arm-in-arm trying to free the ball with their feet. When the ball gets
    loose, one of the players called the halfback is waiting for it. He
    picks it up and immediately pitches it to one of several players
    standing around. All in all, rugby is one of the hardest sports to
    photograph. American football is much easier.

    I cannot imagine trying this with auto-focus. It would be a
    disaster....
     
    UC, Mar 28, 2005
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Herman de Vries

    wavy~dave Guest

    You teach photography and you know nothing about digital? Sad. Then
    again, so are your shots.
     
    wavy~dave, Mar 28, 2005
    #63
  4. Herman de Vries

    UC Guest

    Yeah, no butterflies and sunsets.....

    Fuckwit....
     
    UC, Mar 28, 2005
    #64
  5. Herman de Vries

    Fitpix Guest

    that I am....now how about my appeal for civility? Can't hurt.
     
    Fitpix, Mar 28, 2005
    #65
  6. Herman de Vries

    wavy~dave Guest

    Nope. Just third-rate sports shots like most beginners.
     
    wavy~dave, Mar 28, 2005
    #66
  7. Herman de Vries

    Cynicor Guest

    But if you have a bit of set-up time, the auto-focus would be right around
    the plane of the action, and then you could still make fine adjustments on
    the fly. It's not an either-or situation. Is your lens an f/5.6? How much of
    an acceptable focus range do you get from where you stand?

    It sounds a lot like shooting hockey - you can hone in on a few spots where
    the action is likely to be. Since players (even at age 10) fly by so
    quickly, I find it more useful to stay zoomed out a little or even shoot
    from the front of the stands to get more depth of field. I'm thinking about
    actually tricking teams into letting me shoot their games next year, then
    selling prints of the better photos - they're not usually going to want more
    than 8x10, which is completely doable with 6 MP. Everything has its proper
    application.
     
    Cynicor, Mar 28, 2005
    #67
  8. Herman de Vries

    UC Guest

    This is the lens:

    http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/560r68.html

    Here are some photos by Doug Herr with various Leicaflex lenses:

    http://www.kbcamera.com/herrphotos.htm

    Because of the construction of the lens, the 6,8 speed actually comes
    closer to 6,0 or even 5,6. It consists of one group of two cemented
    elements. Focussing is by push-pull, and is very easy once tou get used
    to it. I can think of no advantage whatsoever to auto-focussing with a
    lens like this.

    Because of the construction of the lens, contrast and color are
    extraordinary.
     
    UC, Mar 28, 2005
    #68
  9. Herman de Vries

    UC Guest

    Beginners don't know shit.

    You could not do anything this good if your life depended on it and
    time stood still.

    AND I don't give a flyin' **** what you think. I'm not here to brag or
    to show my photographs. I'm here to ridicule imbeciles like you. I
    could have been a pro (in fact I did work professionally for a while)
    but the whole thing was so nauseating. Most pros are fuckwits, and I
    did not want to be associated with them...
     
    UC, Mar 28, 2005
    #69
  10. Wow, great to see such useful posters on this group. As a person interested
    in photography casually and for personal use, I come to this group to see
    what the state of digital vs film photography is for the consumer like me.
    I find your attitude similar to the snobs on many Usenet groups. I could
    find several of you on any of the groups that I read. You should know that
    people with your attitude get instantly dismissed and you rarely change
    anyone's perspective.

    As a former educator, I think your perspective is not only offensive, but
    downright unprofessional.

    I do appreciate the information that I have found here. Too bad none of it
    has come from you. Another post like the one below and you will be in my
    killfile.

    Leonard
     
    Leonard Caillouet, Mar 28, 2005
    #70
  11. Herman de Vries

    UC Guest

    I am not a snob. People who don't know what they're doing and give
    advice are sbobs. I am a highly-experienced photographer who prefers to
    work as an amateur, for various personal reasons. I don't wear my
    camera around my neck when I enter a camera shop just so people can see
    it when I walk in. I see this all the time, and I have to laugh. What
    pathetic pieces of shit these people are.

    If you want to know something about photography (not digital), just ask
    me.
     
    UC, Mar 28, 2005
    #71
  12. Herman de Vries

    Fitpix Guest

    oh well....can't say I didn't try.
     
    Fitpix, Mar 28, 2005
    #72
  13. Herman de Vries

    UC Guest

    You have to understand the 'moron factor'. Photography attracts more
    morons than any other activity.
     
    UC, Mar 28, 2005
    #73
  14. Herman de Vries

    wavy~dave Guest

    You're the best proof of that! At least the rest of the known world
    understands digital photography (not to mention film photography). And
    doesn't try to sell off test prints and entry-level sports shots as
    art.
     
    wavy~dave, Mar 28, 2005
    #74
  15. Herman de Vries

    Fitpix Guest

    I also work as a police/fire/EMS dispatcher. Trust me, the people who come
    into alt.photography with their questions are hardly morons. Of course, the
    %2 of the population I deal with, 98% of the time sets a very very very high
    (low?) standard for moronic behavior. Case in point from last week:

    Guy : ummm yeah my girlfriend said the cops were here looking for me
    Me: Okay let me check (At this point I got his name.....hmmm no warrants and
    I tell him that. He insists they were looking for him again, so I check his
    address for activity there. Bingo, 3 officers were there earlier. So I call
    back to report writing (room where they do reports DUH) and talk to Officer
    A
    Me: Hey you were out w B and C at this guy's apartment. You know why they
    may have been looking for him?
    A: I was there to back them up, they arrested who they were after.
    Me: Ok cool, thanks.
    Me: Sir? Yeah I just talked to an officer who was at your address and he
    said that, whoever they were looking for they must have found because they
    arrested a guy.
    Guy: Yeah they did, it was me.
    Me: You? They arrested you?
    Guy: Uh huh
    Me: They arrested you and you asked me why they were looking for you? Don't
    you think that tidbit of info was pertinent to this conversation?
    Guy: Uh I guess....
    Me: They arrested you, so obviously they got what they needed!
    Guy: Well I wanted to see if they still needed me for somethin'
    Me: No, they ARRESTED YOU, that is usually the final step when they come
    looking for you!
    Guy: Oh okay....ummmm bye
    CLICK

    So you see, if someone has a question about photography it can't be all that
    bad. When I worked for Cord Camera I spent many hours educating people and
    getting them to look for materials to help their photography. I have been
    shooting professionally for about 15 years. People feel comfortable asking
    me about photography. I can bet you almost anything that if it was in "real
    life" you wouldn't answer people to their face like you do here. You would
    get your ass kicked! Try civility Mike, on the net. It really can't hurt.

    be safe,
    D
     
    Fitpix, Mar 28, 2005
    #75
  16. Herman de Vries

    UC Guest

    Photography is not and cannot be art. Only fools would believe that!
     
    UC, Mar 28, 2005
    #76
  17. Herman de Vries

    Owamanga Guest

    Having seen what you consider to be 'good' photographs, yes you are
    entirely correct within your own little world.

    Using an extremely un-scientific method of proof I offer the
    following:

    Google on:

    'Photography Art' - 17,000,000 matches.
    'Photography Science' - 8,525,000 matches.

    "photography is an art" - 5,490 matches
    "photography is a science" - 114 matches

    UC, the world disagrees with you, which from the world's perspective,
    makes you wrong... again.
     
    Owamanga, Mar 28, 2005
    #77
  18. Herman de Vries

    UC Guest

    Nope, photography is not art and cannot be art. Art is entirely
    man-made/hand-made. Photographs are produced by lenses.
     
    UC, Mar 28, 2005
    #78
  19. Herman de Vries

    Kitt Guest



    The difference between your photography and real photography proves
    that it's an art beyond any doubt.
     
    Kitt, Mar 28, 2005
    #79
  20. Herman de Vries

    wavy~dave Guest

    My apologies to all for feeding the troll.
     
    wavy~dave, Mar 28, 2005
    #80
    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.