Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-26-2014, 02:24 PM   #1
New Member




Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3
Generic Hello!

Not sure who reads these things, perhaps they are only here for searches after a post in another thread is encountered? Someone thinks: "Who IS this person!?!?" and then they go search here? That's what I'm guessing.

First, let me apologize if you're offended by something I said. That happens online, and chances are you fairly read something I wrote... but it just wasn't the way I intended it to be read. I enjoy different opinions and really don't have much use for total agreement. If everyone has the same thoughts and opinions as I do - I might as well go talk to myself. If it seems like I don't agree with you, I think that's a good thing. If it seems like I'm insulting you - rest assured that's not at all what I meant to say.

Photography... I've LOVED picture taking since I was old enough to hold a camera. Even before I was permitted near a camera, I would find and collect "antique" cameras. In quotes because even a 10-year old camera was, to me at the time, "practically ancient". For some reason, my neighborhood was a great place to find cameras. At yard sales, thrift markets, and even in the woods (long story, but yeah, I know!) they seemed to be everywhere!!

Pentax - I can't really say how I wound up fixating on Pentax. By all rights, I should have been 100% Canon due to the cameras I intended to buy. I doubt it was the price point, but let's say that was the reason? I really don't know, but one day I woke up to a fairly extensive set of Pentax gear. My first "real" camera was a Vivitar film SLR but it was really just pure coincidence that I came back around to the land of the K mount.

Obsession - Natural light. As a consequence, I'm also obsessed with fast lenses and anything (ANY-THING) I can do to reduce noise and blur and improve IQ for natural light photography. In my mind, applying the proper array of lights to a scene is less about art and more about "cheating". See? I probably offended someone, already. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the skill of setting up the light and all the care that it takes. I might even give it a try, but it forever feels and looks terribly artificial to me.

Oh, and... Hello!

07-26-2014, 02:38 PM - 1 Like   #2
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,618
Generic welcome.
07-26-2014, 04:01 PM - 1 Like   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 428
Hi the great thing about this sight you can take or leave people's opinions but each suggestion or quote is a new and different way of looking at things so it's all good welcome.👍
07-26-2014, 05:01 PM - 1 Like   #4
Veteran Member
JayBee451's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 379
Welcome to PF good of you to join us.

07-26-2014, 05:05 PM   #5
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,539
Welcome - show some of the results.
07-26-2014, 05:37 PM   #6
Des
Loyal Site Supporter
Des's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Sth Gippsland Victoria Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,010
Welcome. And it is an interesting first post.

Occasionally the disagreements here get heated and personal, but mostly it is respectful and civil, even friendly and sometimes funny. Trolling is frowned on - I would encourage you to report it to a moderator if you come across it.

Your comments about preferring natural light are interesting. It is good that you have your own photographic credo, although it strikes me as rather Spartan. But how far would you take this? Would you baulk at illuminating a waterfall with a flash, or using fill flash to reduce shadows in a portrait? People have accepted the use of flashes in photography for years. Would you refuse to alter the white balance in post-processing? In fact most people now are quite comfortable with at least some measure of post-processing of images, to change the white balance, exposure, contrast, saturation and so on. Is all this "cheating"?

You could argue that ALL photography is an artificial representation of reflected or diffused light - there is no objective "reality" of light, just what we perceive. Some birds, for example, perceive reflected UV light so objects must look different to them. One human might perceive colour differently to another (colour-blindness being just the most obvious example).

My point is that the dichotomy you suggest between "real" photography and "cheating" (or at least artifice) is rather elusive.
07-27-2014, 02:23 AM   #7
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 32,742
QuoteOriginally posted by PatDen Quote
Generic Hello!
Welcome, interesting intro, I'm looking forward to seeing some of your work.

I also don't know any General Erics, so you'll be my first.

Last edited by Kerrowdown; 07-29-2014 at 03:32 AM.
07-27-2014, 09:45 AM   #8
Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lowlands of Norway
Posts: 8,673
Welcome, and thanks for the intro! I think a lot here actually read the introductions, being a friendly and welcoming lot

I, too, prefer natural light photography, but mainly because I'm lazy (and usually prefer the quality of natural light), not because I see anything wrong with artificial lighting. Whatever it takes to make the image is OK with me.

07-29-2014, 06:58 AM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,834
Welcome aboard!
Generally I prefer natural light because it's less obtrusive in most situations, and I'm usually outdoors anyway...
Though I do know I have a lot to learn about flash use.
08-22-2014, 03:36 AM   #10
New Member




Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3
Original Poster
How far would I go? Far enough!

QuoteOriginally posted by Des Quote
Would you baulk at illuminating a waterfall with a flash, or using fill flash to reduce shadows in a portrait?
Absolutely, yes!

QuoteOriginally posted by Des Quote
People have accepted the use of flashes in photography for years.
People have accepted a lot of things that aren't to my liking... and fortunately, they don't need me to like it.

QuoteOriginally posted by Des Quote
Would you refuse to alter the white balance in post-processing?
If it changed the image from how I saw it through the camera lens - yes. No doubt about that. What if it didn't? Well, if it corrected a mistake to make it look the way I saw the scene, I'd probably play around with the settings, reach a reasonable compromise, but ultimately not like the results, anyway. This is one of the many paths followed to arrive where I am.

I have and do use a lot of tools to play around with pictures to do things that need to be done. Compressive sensing, super resolution, deblur, focal distortion corrections, HDR, digital filters, etc. But I really don't like the results. I do it when I have to. For example, there are some family photos that required extensive digital restoration. They preserve the record of the images, but that doesn't mean I like the way they look.

QuoteOriginally posted by Des Quote
In fact most people now are quite comfortable with at least some measure of post-processing of images..
This is fine (of course), and I'll trust that you know I'm aware of such things, but you seem to imply this should weigh upon my own sense of aesthetic. If that's what you mean, I think it's a very interesting perspective. Do you find that your preferences are significantly affected by the preferences of others? I think that trait would be very important for a commercial photographer. The only one who has to like my pictures is me. That might not always be easy, but it's refreshingly straightforward. The complexity of catering to someone else's tastes would stress me to headaches.

QuoteOriginally posted by Des Quote
You could argue that ALL photography is an artificial representation of reflected or diffused light...
I never underestimate the capacity of people to argue. For me, overcoming the artificiality is the challenge.

QuoteOriginally posted by Des Quote
My point is that the dichotomy you suggest between "real" photography and "cheating" (or at least artifice) is rather elusive.
Personally, I find it to be a bit elusive, challenging, and when the shots matter most to me - frustrating. But that's okay. It's also fascinating.

If it wasn't clear, I do appreciate the talent and effort and skill required to manipulate an image. Like a Picasso... I can appreciate it without actually liking the result. I hope that analogy hit the right chord for anyone upset that I think they're "cheating"... but now with apologies to all the Picasso aficionados out there. And so on.
08-22-2014, 04:40 AM   #11
Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,076
PatDen, let me guess... Have you been on some canon forum for a while? Here is one great thing about Pentax- its owners are not so easy offended
I'm looking forward to offensively great pictures!
08-22-2014, 04:53 AM   #12
Senior Member
Aksel's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 212
QuoteOriginally posted by PatDen Quote
Not sure who reads these things...
Welcome to the forum! As you can see, there are quite a lot who read this thread.
08-23-2014, 05:17 PM   #13
Des
Loyal Site Supporter
Des's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Sth Gippsland Victoria Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,010
QuoteOriginally posted by PatDen Quote
This is fine (of course), and I'll trust that you know I'm aware of such things, but you seem to imply this should weigh upon my own sense of aesthetic. If that's what you mean, I think it's a very interesting perspective. Do you find that your preferences are significantly affected by the preferences of others? I think that trait would be very important for a commercial photographer. The only one who has to like my pictures is me. That might not always be easy, but it's refreshingly straightforward. The complexity of catering to someone else's tastes would stress me to headaches.
I have the luxury and privilege of shooting only for the pleasure of it. I agree that anyone in that position need take no heed of anyone else's preferences. I wasn't arguing that they should. My observation was empirical not normative.

The question is simply how much lighting, digital processing and manipulation and so on each individual is comfortable with. I don't know exactly where I draw the line myself. Like you, I admire the skill and respect the artistry of people who do it well. Like you, I generally keep it to a minimum. Our tastes are probably quite similar. Perhaps where we differ is that supplementary lighting and PP don't feel like cheating to me.

I've enjoyed our discussion - it has made me think about the philosophy of photography. It's good that we don't all agree. Jane Austen has a line about paying "the compliment of rational oppostion".

Look forward to some more lively contributions, and to seeing some of your images.
11-07-2014, 09:35 AM   #14
New Member




Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
PatDen, let me guess... Have you been on some canon forum for a while? Here is one great thing about Pentax- its owners are not so easy offended
I'm looking forward to offensively great pictures!
Thanks for all the warm responses. I had hoped to at least post one photo by now but my inner critic is very loud. I've got maybe a dozen shots that I regularly enjoy looking at, but I don't have a single example of a photo that represents the sort of thing I'm trying to achieve. That quest is part of what I enjoy but at the moment it is feeling a bit daffy for me to be this way about sharing them. I'll work on that. They're just snapshots, after all.

And to the one who wondered if I was overly cautious due to another form. Yes and no. I'm far more concerned that I not be rude, myself. Because I can be a bit ... much. I truly love to discuss and debate and "argue a point" but wanna keep it in check. Would be nice to get through at least a dozen posts before coming off as a total ass. Ya know? After that, hopefully, folks will realize I'm tact-challenged, and not trolling.
11-09-2014, 08:08 AM   #15
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 969
Welcome to PF. Have a de-light-ful time!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, cameras, light, opinions, pentax, reason
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Generic Battery Caution photoJ Pentax Q 16 04-02-2014 10:27 PM
Generic question about image stabilization feature frascati Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 2 03-27-2014 03:18 PM
Lens caps-Generic? wombat2go Pentax Medium Format 4 09-25-2013 05:39 AM
For Sale - Sold: Two Generic D-Li90 Batteries and Travel charger photomission Sold Items 4 12-11-2012 07:05 PM
Canon generic inkjet cartridges wildman Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 4 09-13-2012 01:34 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:39 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top