[gaweidert]

Interesting story about the incredible resolution of the Daguerreotype process. And this was with 1848 technology.

Cincinnati Daguerreotype :: University of Rochester

[traderdrew]

rant on?
sure.

i'm sure there are things that you hear others say about photography that bug you.
'you use pentax and not sonikcon? you suck'
or whatever it is. what bugs you?


for me, its not gear related. its portrait related. whenever taking pics of someone, if on a certain frame the picture is perfect, with great lighting, sharp, bokeh etc, composition everything is perfect; and you as a photographer think its a perfect subject. and then someone comes along saying 'you cut off their feet. it implies they dont have feet' or 'you cut off their hand/finger/elbow/hair/etc, it means they dont have that part'.....

who thinks that? why is that implied? no one thinks that the subject is missing a limb or something if its not photographed.

and that yet that is a popular belief i keep coming across. not just on my photos, but on a lot of other peoples work too. i dont get it.

what irritates you?

None of what they say really irritates me anymore. If they start up I'll say, "Let's see your photographs." I want a link so I can see them on a larger screen.

[ffking]

I'd change it to "Some kinds of photography are more strongly affected by X than others."

I'm not employing you as my advertising copy writer

[normhead]

After you've heard it on the forum a thousand times, none of it irritates you. It's just "ho, hum that again." Every irritating thing anyone can say about photography is here somewhere. After a while you become immune to it.

[pepperberry farm]

If this wasn't a work day I might have time to respond to this thread...

don't worry - this dreck will be here the next day you're off...

[normhead]

don't worry - this dreck will be here the next day you're off...

That will give him time to seriously contemplate the issue. I hate it when people give off the top of the head answers to such serious matters.

[mcleoud151]

I'm tired of hearing the "Glass is forever" myth. That is true only if you don't like improvements.

My first Pentax, in 1979, provided a strict K-mount. I still use, on occasion, the few "M" lenses I got for that camera. A few years later, Pentax announced the KA-mount; I still use, on occasion, the few "A" lenses I got for that camera, but I largely retired it when Pentax announced the KAF-mount and I went autofocus. I consider in-lens AF motors to be vastly superior to in-body AF motors, so I have retired perfectly OK KAF-mount lenses as I'm able to purchase in-lens motored replacements, so I have several generations of lenses packed away and seldom used. They may last as long as I do, but their usefulness to me is not quite what the myth would imply.

you should probably PM me so I can save you some valuable storage space from all those outdated lenses!!!! 😎

[Schraubstock]

...the myth that one would be a better photographer if one had better gear.

Have no fear, he is a good surgeon they say.

(Laughing)

[robgski]

The myth that participating in forums will improve your photography instead of actually taking photos.

[clackers]

The myth that participating in forums will improve your photography instead of actually taking photos.

(Laughs) There *are* a lot of loudmouths on the web (including sadly, some at PF) who don't dare post a picture they've taken.

What's that Texan saying, "All hat, no cattle"?

[Rondec]

Post processing is bad. (Post processing is neither bad nor good it just is. I'm not a big fan of HDR-ish photos, but certainly there is nothing particularly noble about ceding control of your image to your camera's jpeg engine either. When I look at "straight out of camera" jpegs, regardless of the brand, I usually think about how things could have been improved).

Manual focusing is best. And the corollary, that professionals don't need auto focus and revert to manual focus all of the time. Now, I know many pros and they rely exclusively on auto focus. The only folks I know who don't use auto focus are those who shoot a bunch of macros. Once again, there is nothing innately good or bad about manual or auto focus, it is best to use what works for you and for me, I prefer auto focus.

Black and white photos should be really dark and contrasty. I'm just not a big fan of the sort of noire style of black and white photography. Obviously this is a personal taste, but I like things brighter where I can actually identify things in the scene.

High iso can take the place of a tripod. I see photos all of the time that just would be better if people would use a tripod. Tripods have been around for ages and ages. Just use them people!

What doesn't bother me is the "Nice photo, you must have a nice camera," comments. It is true, I do have a nice camera and it is a complement, even if people don't really know what they are talking about.

[BrianR]

I'm not a big fan of HDR-ish photos...

I want to add the myth that HDR is synonymous with cartoonish. As I'm sure you know, there's no particular reason that the local tone-mapping type of HDR needs to look like a bad acid trip. It can be done subtly, and these subtle ones don't stand out as HDR and are forgotten.

Likewise, 'flash makes photos look unnatural' falls into this category - the subtle use of flashes to augment or mimic 'natural light' will often go unnoticed by people who believe 'flash is bad'. A more accurate statement would be 'crappily used flash looks crappy'. This applies whether you're hoping to pass an image off as natural light or not.

[Lowell Goudge]

rant on?
sure.

i'm sure there are things that you hear others say about photography that bug you.
'you use pentax and not sonikcon? you suck'
or whatever it is. what bugs you?


for me, its not gear related. its portrait related. whenever taking pics of someone, if on a certain frame the picture is perfect, with great lighting, sharp, bokeh etc, composition everything is perfect; and you as a photographer think its a perfect subject. and then someone comes along saying 'you cut off their feet. it implies they dont have feet' or 'you cut off their hand/finger/elbow/hair/etc, it means they dont have that part'.....

who thinks that? why is that implied? no one thinks that the subject is missing a limb or something if its not photographed.

and that yet that is a popular belief i keep coming across. not just on my photos, but on a lot of other peoples work too. i dont get it.

what irritates you?

without reading all the posts, but starting just with your comment, there are two aspects to photography, for sake of argument, we have the technical and the composition

technical include exposure, lighting, focus, aperture and bokeh (yes bokeh because this is an aspect that is controlled by lens selection background selection aperture...) etc.....

composition includes framing of the subject, (including cutting off hands and feet, location of the subject in the frame, background selection etc...)

a perfect technical picture is not enough

[AggieDad]

One Myth and One Truth

I work with a sadly mistaken young teen-aged girl helping her with her photography. She thinks I am knowledgeable enough to help her with her photo skills. MYTH

The photographs with which I am pleased make me a photographer in my own eyes which is all I need. TRUTH

[Rondec]

I want to add the myth that HDR is synonymous with cartoonish. As I'm sure you know, there's no particular reason that the local tone-mapping type of HDR needs to look like a bad acid trip. It can be done subtly, and these subtle ones don't stand out as HDR and are forgotten.

I agree. I use a lot less HDR these days since sensors have gotten better and you get a lot out of a single image. But it does seem as though a few folks out there get carried away with the sliders in their favorite HDR program.