|
Forum: General Photography
07-17-2015, 07:45 PM
|
| |
The camera was ten years old when it reached Pluto. After two years we'd have been wondering when the next model was coming out. After 4 years we'd be concerned about how it's lagging in pixels, buffer size and noise control compared with other cameras. After 8 years we'd consider the camera worthless but still think the lens was quite good despite it being outrageously slow. Also 75mm is a good focal length for portraits but what about entire planets? Is this really the right choice? We'd have spent the entire ten years demanding a much larger sensor camera and being bitterly disappointed that now we have to put up with the lousy smaller sensor resolution photos of the far reaches of the solar system.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
06-07-2015, 04:54 AM
|
| |
I'm going to go ahead and open this up again, since I managed to fix the grip! Here's how:
- Do not open the grip up. You probably won't need to, and getting the casing for the contacts off without breaking something seems nearly impossible.
- Find a drill holder like this one used for making Warhammer models
- Find a drill bit approximately 0.6 - 0.8mm wide.
- Carefully drill into the hole around the stuck contact. Swivel the drill bit around a little while drilling.
- In regular intervals, remove the drill bit and turn the grip upside down. Pat gently on the bottom and the contact should spring out.
- Go forth and take portait-aligned photos without twisting your wrist out of alignment! =)
Good luck!
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
11-19-2014, 03:07 PM
|
| |
I entered the Fuji world a couple of years ago when Fuji was giving away 35mm f/1.4 lenses to entice people to buy the X-Pro1. I like fast standard primes, and for some reason, this is a lens that Pentax hasn't bothered to market for their DSLR cameras.
Anyway, the X-T1 came out and I fell in love with it. I am an old Pentax LX film camera user, and picking up the X-T1 was like reacquainting myself with an old friend that I hadn't seen for far too long. It is, in effect, a digital Pentax LX, and for me, it is darned near perfect.
What I don't like? The viewfinder, as wonderful as it is, gives me eyestrain if I look through it for too long (like more than half a minute). This has cause me to change my shooting style somewhat, though I've never really been one to look through a viewfinder for long periods of time anyway.
And the battery life is pretty bad on the Fuji. It's a small battery hungry camera that carries a small battery. A lot of my user strategy revolves around not wasting the battery. I've heard of people getting as few as 50 shots on a battery, which tells me they are spending a lot of time with the viewfinder or rear screen running. I get around 250 shots on a battery.
The Fuji lenses are every bit as good as Pentax glass, a bit better in some metrics, not quite as good in others. I still think Pentax has better flare control, but so far I have found the Fuji lenses to be sharper, contrastier and having better bokeh, though it's a close race.
I have the full set of Fuji premium primes, and also pretty much every lens Pentax has made in bayonet, and so have been able to do some fairly direct comparisons.
The Fuji 14/2.8 is on par with the 15/4 LTD, but gives an extra stop of speed, the 23/1.4 is far better than the 23/3.2 in every metric but size, the 35/1.4 is as good as the 35/2.8 LTD, but gives up macro for two extra stops of speed, the 56/1.2 runs circles around the DA*55/1.4 (it just makes the Pentax lens look bad in every respect), and the 60/2.4 macro is a very nice lens, but is no better than the 100/2.8WR macro.
If I come across as a bit of a fan boy, I apologize, but the Fuji system is that nice, and should be forcing everyone, Pentax included, to up their games.
The X-T1 has taken it on the chin somewhat for the fact that Adobe doesn't have the best rendering engine for X-Trans raw files. While i am sure the problem exists, I haven't really noticed it, and the AF isn't as good as that from some of the other makers, Pentax included if using the K3 as a comparative.
I am still shooting with Pentax a lot, but if I have the focal length that i need in a Fuji lens, the X-T1 is the camera I am reaching for.
Ironically, pre A series lenses from Pentax work better on the Fuji than they do on Pentax, so if you are like me and have a number of older Pentax primes, the X-T1 and a K-Mount adapter might bring you some joy as well.
Hope this helps
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
09-26-2014, 01:55 PM
|
| |
Quite a few die hard pentaxians around here.... :lol:
In the end each to their own, you have your money and you make your choice.
I’ve not looked back since switching to Fuji, I liked my brief encounter with Pentax but I preferred the feel of the Fuji X-Pro 1 over the K3 which felt and looked like another DSLR, I don’t know why they didn’t continue with the K30 design. An aperture ring is bliss, I never liked the in camera adjustment, why change what isn’t broken!
Don’t get me wrong if I were to get a SLR again it would be a Pentax, but they weren’t making the camera I wanted (still aren’t) Fuji were, though they are moving away with the X30 but they find sense again...
Oh yes I carry around ND filters, doesn’t everyone? I like to get the photo right in camera like I did with film, don’t like to fart about on a computer too much, unless I’m having a play.
Cheers, Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-08-2014, 10:19 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the link! I think I came across that thread in my Google search but I didn't dig too deep into it. It seemed to address a very different problem than mine. The pictures are very good though! Now that I see the pieces you are talking about I also see just how deep they are inside the lens. I generally consider myself pretty handy but I think disassembling the lens that deep is beyond my skills. :( I'm going to try sending the lens to Eric for a quote and see what he comes back with. His hands are much more skilled and practiced than mine. It's good to understand the problem and I appreciate your help in pointing out the pieces causing my grief! :)
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
09-08-2014, 02:25 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
01-11-2014, 12:21 AM
|
| |
I don't like your attitude Norm or your APS-C apologist rants.
As far as "the kid with the phone" having a puffy face goes; what has that got to do with "art" or anything at all? Art doesn't have to be about perfection, glamour, 16-18th century portrait concepts or even 19th century landscape tradition - "serious artists" moved on from those sensibilities over 100 years ago - but like most Photographers, you appear to be confusing Craft with Art.
I'm pretty sure that had APS-C come along after digital FF you'd be trashing the format in favour of FF right now, trying to justify to yourself that you made the right choice. Your evangelism is beyond reform and I don't know why people waste their time trying to open your mind.
You continually see the overlap of the formats as the vindication of your choices without recognizing the fact that what exists inside that overlap is different - Jay attempted, one more time, to explain it to you but you didn't want to know. You don't have to continually justify your own choices by finding ways to get people into arguments so you can end up playing ad hominem when they shoot down your logic.
Earlier on in this thread you were calling out a forum contributor for not posting pictures and tried to use that as justification for not accepting his rational argument. Did Einstein have to be a Watch-Making-Astronaut before anyone took on his ideas re' Time and Space?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
01-08-2014, 04:59 AM
|
| |
Like many others I'm not in the business of selling FF to anyone and I am very happy for everyone feeling that APS-C or Micro Four Thirds, or whatever is all they need.
I do not start "FF is great" or similar threads.
However, again like many others, if I see FF being misinterpreted, I often comment.
For instance,
is a factually wrong statement.
Also,
misses the point because "exposure" is not the deciding factor for image quality. The amount of total light captured is relevant, not the per-unit-square measure of exposure.
A Q with an f/1.8 lens can achieve the same exposure as a D800 with an f/1.8. Yet the latter captures 28 times the amount of light which is almost a 5 stop advantage in terms of noise. Stating that in both cases the exposure is the same, is not helpful.
As a former teacher, you should be keen to make sure that any information / advice you publish is correct. So I suggest that you read up on the topic before you misinform more readers and invite more comments from those who have a hard time seeing wrong information being spread.
A good explanation of what is relevant for image quality and how to compare different formats is the "Equivalence" essay by Joseph James.
Please also know that larger formats are not just about achieving a shallow DOF aesthetic. While I have to admit that I'm keen on a Pentax FF because it will make it easier to achieve subject-background separation at larger distances there are many other reasons why FF isn't just addressing an alleged 2% of photos you cannot take with APS-C.
For one, larger sensors have higher dynamic range, everything else being equal. As a landscape shooter, you may be interested in that aspect.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out before, lenses can operate much nearer their sweet spot (e.g., f/4) while collecting the same amount of light that a lens on APS-C collects wide open (e.g., f/2.8). Clearly, a lens at f/4 has less trouble projecting a quality image than a lens at f/2.8 (which often is wide open on APS-C).
Moreover, to that you need to add that the image from the lens at f/2.8 will receive higher magnification by a factor of 1.5. Hence, lens aberrations (which are higher to begin with) and/or the inevitable tolerances of the AF system will be magnified by a factor of 1.5.
Although it is not always light reading, I highly recommend the "True reasons for Full Frame -- Whitepaper" by Falk Lumo.
Here's a quote:"In theory, every image quality can be made with every sensor size by making an equivalent camera.
...
However, with a sensor too small, this becomes increasingly expensive such that for each given image quality, there is a sweet spot of best sensor size." In other words, at a certain level of image quality, FF does become the cheaper choice. It would just become prohibitively expensive to achieve the same quality with a smaller format. Note how pricey the Zuiko lenses from Olympus are. To the best of my knowledge these are not "rip-off" prices, it is just so expensive to manufacture lenses with such a level of precision that they deliver high image quality despite the small sensor size they are designed for.
Again, I don't think anyone wants to convert you to an FF fan. I'm personally very happy with anyone being fully contend with APS-C. For many, there is no reason not to be fully contend with a smaller than FF sensor size. However, that does not mean that one should spread wrong information regarding larger sensor sizes.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
10-12-2013, 04:15 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
07-30-2013, 08:13 AM
|
| |
Okay, this one's done.
There were some valid questions posed here; some answered to people's satisfaction, some not. It doesn't matter. Ben didn't start the thread. He didn't ask for all the drama.
In the immortal words of Porky Pig:
ebedee, ebedee, th that's all folks...................
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
07-30-2013, 01:16 AM
|
| |
+1
Again, why do people seem so upset about someone making an equipment change? Either you are happy with your equipment or you are not - for whatever reason - any reason that causes you to lose confidence in your ability to deliver is a good reason. A camera manufacturer is NOT your wife, your favorite footballclub or your overall raison d'etre - it is a commercial company manufacturing widgets that half a dozen other companies also manufacture.
What were people to have said if a photographer "leaves" Pentax because he doesn't like the menus? The neckstrap lugs? The LCD screen? Why would any of this cause such a fuss? Why do "we" seem to be personally affronted to the point of getting emotional, insulting, dismissive and more about this?
The guy shoots wonderful images and did so at least for some time with a Pentax, enough for us to wallow in. Now he has progressed in his skills, changed his approach, upgraded/changed his requirements, whatever and makes a choice for a different photographic tool. I think he does what is best for him and I wish him lots of success as a photographer regardless of the brand/type of camera he uses.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
07-29-2013, 08:00 PM
|
| |
I think this ^^ is going too far.
The original K-5 often did have gross AF issues, IIRC Mike Johnston complained about them, as did a not-insignificant percentage of K-5 buyers on this forum and dpreview. There seemed to be quite a few units that were performing sub-par. Do folks have short memories, all of a sudden?
I took his post as a 'straw that broke the camel's back' moment. Sometimes an event will occur that will make you take inventory and see things as they really are - or admit to yourself how things really were. I suspect he probably has not had a "40%" failure rate through the entire period of time that he owned the K-5, but that last session may have been a bit worse that usual, and his editor/retoucher making the comment broke said straw. Nothing odd about that, and the only tie-in with Pentax's lack of sponsorship we can safely make is that his trial of the K-5II would have been funded by him - and it's completely understandable if he didn't want to take that chance on his dime.
I know it's fashionable here to jump on someone when they badmouth Pentax, but I think some folks need to keep in mind that calling someone an outright liar when their account of something is completely within the bounds of reasonable possibility is a bit course.
.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
07-29-2013, 10:33 AM
|
| |
Before you condemn him and even slander him on behalf of a camera company you don't work for, why not ask the particulars? His answer seems very grounded, but no matter how he answers, he's being beaten up by a bunch of people upset a well-established, highly talented professional photographer left their "team"?
There is no team. These are products, these are toys for the majority of us and a tool for people like him.
There's a chance to turn this around, get info from Ben on the K-5 and how to do what he did and how he finds the D600, but instead, it's a sad insultfest, often fueled by overt, undeniable jealousy.
If Pentax doesn't care, why should anyone else? Especially those that don't work for them?
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
07-29-2013, 09:40 AM
|
| |
As I said...I don't like having 30-40 percent of my images not able to focus where I point my camera. I had enough! I was literally suffering from Pre-Production Blur Neurosis, where before every shoot I wasn't sure which images that I really would have loved to present to the magazine would be out of focus and my retoucher would have to comp another head on to the body because, when I focussed on the eye of the model the feet would be sharper than the face. I would literally go in to a minor depression before each shoot, not feeling secure that I would get the kind of results I wanted.
When I say blurry, I mean less sharp on the area I focus on than the area I am not focussed on. Now, if you don't believe me, you are at liberty to speak with some of the retouch artists I have worked with. The results were really haphazard. One day I would get 10-20 percent just okay where I expect to be in focus and other days 30-40 percent. I twas never consistent. Even after calibration, my system would not focus as set under different lighting conditions. When I used Canon, the thought of being out of focus was never even a consideration as so few images were out of focus, I would chock it up to pilot error.
No, my new reality is that I showed up to my shoot for ELLE magazine with my Nikon D600, having never used it professionally, set my focus point and shot over 700 images for a 10 page editorial and none of the images were out of focus. I mean "Zero"...
That is all expect of my material. No excuses. No rationals..Just being able to get on with what I was hired to do in the first place.
If Pentax were able to give me that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I stayed with them through thick and thin and the event that broke the camel's back was when our primary re-touch artist said..."why are so many of your images not very sharp on the face? That's not bad as it makes my job easier..." That is when my Producer said..."enough is enough, you are getting another system. I don't care what, just get something that works! I mean everything is shot at optimal aperture between f5.6 and f11.0 at optimal shutter speeds as well for flash. What else do I have to do? Use a tape measure to execute my focussing? There you have it...That's all folks...Sorry...really very sorry...Ben.
PS...You are an incredible bunch of very, very talented photographers and better than most I have seen on other forums. So do what you do and do it with love, passion and deliberation.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-04-2013, 06:06 AM
|
| |
I've been pricing some Nikon gear in anticipation of moving away from Pentax and getting the Nikon D800E. I was expecting Nikon lenses to be through the roof but was pleasantly surprised. Thing is, it's kind of tough to compare. Try finding a really premium 24-70 f/2.8 in the Pentax line-up (16-50mm cropped...sorry, the DA*16-50 is simply a piece of crap) or try and find a premium super-zoom like the Nikon 24-300. There's several real gems like the Nikon 85 f/1.8G that aren't expensive at all. Besides, there's several really good Sigmas for the Nikon FX format that simply aren't available for Pentax.
I also got to believe the build quality of Nikon is going to be better than Pentax. I've still got my DA* 50-135mm where the focusing motor failed after 18 months..it's been a manual focus lens ever since (4+ years now I think).....and my most recent failure is (was) my jewel-like DA Limited 70mm f/2.4.....the aperture blades are hanging up/closing slowly for some reason. It was my favorite lens but that was the last straw for me. On top of that, my K20D's battery attachment always gives me trouble when I shoot vertical...it loses connection and resets the camera which has burned me numerous times.There's only two bright spots in my Pentax gear....the DA 12-24mm f/4 and my Tamron(!) 17-50mm f/2.8...I hear Tamron makes an awesome 24-70mm f/2.8...but only for Nikon and Canon of course.
I've waited long enough for a full-frame Pentax...times up Pentax, you've got exactly 5 months before you lose a long-time Pentaxian (35+ years) before I go to the dark side. :-|
Terry
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
10-11-2012, 09:54 PM
|
| |
Its not the gear, its you. All the equipment has gotten very capable, even the "consumer" level. A skilled, thoughtful photographer could get a good result with any brand. Learn to understand and see lighting. Learn the elements of design and the principles of composition, most often found in Art courses. Connect with your subjects. There is a big difference between being a camera owner and being a photographer.
|
|
Forum: Flashes, Lighting, and Studio
09-13-2012, 02:27 AM
|
| |
With all due respect, but I'll side with the "trailing sync = less blur on the subject in foreground" group. We're not talking trains, cars or pooltables here, we're talking people in front of a backdrop of a city scape. Technically you are all correct: it shouldn't matter to the blur, only to its direction.
Practically, besides people moving after the flash there's one more point to address:
-If the flash fires at the beginning of the exposure, the people in the foreground will be properly exposed and sharp but as the shutter stays open after the flash is extinguished, light will accumulate on top of (for lack of a better description) the sharp features of the person(s) thereby softening the microcontrast of their features - that results in rather fuzzy (again for lack of...) edges smearing what essentially are clean outlines. As the smearing occurs on top of the sharp outlines, the appearance will be of an overall unsharp image.
-If the flash fires at the end of the exposure, it will freeze a sharp image of the person(s) in the foreground with excellent microcontrast over the already exposed fuzzy image. The overall effect will be that of a sharper image.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
08-28-2012, 05:22 AM
|
| |
I disagree. digital is to photography what windows is to computing.
the ease of attaining a minimal level of proficiency is there, and for someone to start , and I really mean start cold, yes digital is faster to learn how to point the camera etc. but the problem is that it also makes people lazy, and they never go back and learn the basics properly and fully. More often they take the basics for granted until they hit a wall, and then they come and post here (or elsewhere) that their camera is a piece of $#!? and switch to another brand without ever understanding what they are doing wrong
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
06-22-2012, 01:40 AM
|
| |
As far as I am concerned Slacker is by far one of the best photographers on this forum. Every time he posts something new I find myself going back to it again and again to look and learn. His subjects aren't safe, aren't easy or very often pretty. But then neither is life all the time. Life is all about balance accepting there's darkness as well as light. Slacker's work can be hard to take emotionally. It's pretty raw sometimes but it always rings true to me. This is life when it's not so nice and I think it's important to honor that it is. To remember that not everyone is mainstream or fortunate in the course of their lives.
People get upset by his choices of subject but he's not doing anything that many of his predecessors haven't done, many to great acclaim. Some of the most amazing and iconic images ever taken have been of things like war, poverty, death. Years later those images still move people and impact our emotional lives and they should. We should remember that bad things exist, that bad times can happen to anyone, that not everyone is given the blessing of being seen as "normal" to the rest of society. There are lots of images though time that photographers probably shouldn't have taken. But it's important that they did.
The pics taken after the nuclear bombings in Japan come instantly to mind, as does the shot of the naked little girl in Vietnam running down a road screaming in pain because her clothes have literally burned right off her. Jackie O crawling across a car hood her husband's brain matter all over her. Those are iconic and controversial images that are hard to see. But they impacted us, continue to impact us generations later. From what I've seen so far of Slacker's work I think he's in that league and I wouldn't be surprised at all if long after he is gone off of this earth if people aren't looking at his work in museums and arguing about it.
You know what? I think they should be. That's what photography can be in the right hands. That's the impact it can have and that's what IMHO makes his photos far more than just mere snapshots. That it can invoke such hostility and respect at the same time says volumes, I think.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-14-2012, 08:45 AM
|
| |
It's funny. It's obscene; that's why it's funny. Funniness isn't nice. Funniness leers, drools, hurts, pisses-off, slashes, humiliates. Welcome to humanity.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
04-25-2012, 08:04 PM
|
| |
Absolutely, unequivocally wrong (in the US). Work-for-hire has very specific legal requirements, and social conventions don't change that. The 'industry' has not gone to an increased work-for-hire model, and isn't likely to.
If you don't inform your customers what they can and cannot do with the pictures, this situation will happen every single time. It's part of defending your rights to set them straight beforehand.
The problem comes from 'photographers' not being informed, and rolling over when they get pushback. You are making the problem worse by letting them do whatever they want and claiming that you are powerless.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
04-25-2012, 02:40 PM
|
| |
Thanks for ALL the replies!
I'm glad these images were of interest to you. I think any photog dreads to have their work categorized and dismissed as snapshots. So I am grateful my photogrpahs seem to have made it past mere snapshots. But even snapshots were important and had significance to someone at one time. So we should not look down on the lowly snapshot as well.
I'm happy Pentax forums does not censor work like many forums do. (As I am writing this, Pentax forums just informed me they removed one of my images dues to censorship.)
I was kinda surprised at all the commotion from one of the repsonders belittling my work. No, my work is not great photography like Irving Penn's work. But when Penn traveled to remote areas to photograph he had assistants, lights, and a movable studio. I had so such luxuries. I would shoot many time handheld with whatever film I had in the cam. A lot of the people I would met on the street or in bars or wherever. If I saw someone I liked to photograph I went up to them as asked if they would model in exchange for free photos. Then it was off to their house and shoot right then and there.
I paid one of the male prostitutes $20 for modeling instead of sex. The fee was the same, so he didn't care. I would carry around a portfolio of my photos in my car for subjects to see what I was about. A few said no since my samples were not retouched, diffused or in color. I have always liked black and white photography. I knew how to do color processing in the darkroom....type C, E4, Cibachromes, even experiments with dye transfers under the tutelage of one of Irving Penn's dye transfers printers.
But black and white was more forgiving when it came to the types of locations I found myself in for the shoot. Many times the only light would be a bulb dangling from the ceiling. Or maybe a window or two. I just made do with whatever I was given. And black and white far surpasses color when it comes to one area. Black and white forces one to concentrate on the subject and not the colors - the photo must stand in its own and not on vibrance.
This is a good example of what I am talking about.
Shots from the Fair tonight
I really like these photos a fellow shot at the fair. What appeals to me? They have freaky vibrant colors and tonal range. But take the colors away and they loose their interest to me.
A lot of photos are subject to this standard of only 'one thing' makes it interesting. We can see the same effect at work with super sharp photos that have nothing else to say or blurred movement based photos that are abstracts. It just depends on what we like that catches our interest. I never set out to make photos grainy. It is a byproduct of shooting highly pushed film. And as I said, some of the photos were poor since they were scans from reject proof prints as I had lost the original negs.
I was amused at the discussion of whether my work is art or not?
I never knew photography was only about art and if a photograph was not artistic it was a failure. I never considered myself an artist. I have always considered myself a documentary photographer. I never set out to celebrate the transvestites, nor did I set out to degrade homosexuals. I set out to document what I came across that interested me at the time...nothing more nothing less. To embellish them or 'celebrate' them would not be good documentary photography. Either would it be to diminish them due to personal prejudices.
But, artistic wannabe or not, we are all artists to one degree or another when it comes to photography. There is an 'art of craftsmanship' in getting the picture. We have to know focus, exposure, composition if you like. These are all arts just as the blacksmith had his art when he came to banging out horseshoes...we just bang out photos.
As far as future use of the images?
I already have something at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Some other works they rejected at that time as too controversial to collect. I will most likely check back with them, as well as some other museums, to see if they would like some more of my work to expand their collection. I was never into photography for the $$. As Thoreau once noted in Walden..."Trade curses everything it touches and even though you trade in 'messages from heaven' when trade attaches itself the whole thing becomes cursed." I just shot what I wanted too and did not have to satisfy anyone other than myself.
But, I have the greatest respect for pro photogs. They must produce 'on demand' - something I was not under pressure to do. Many a time I failed and it was no big deal. But when a pro shoot has tens of thousands of dollars or more in costs in the setup and you fail it can be a soul crusher. The flip side of the coin is this, I have seen many a pro studio photog fail under a documentary photography environment.
Pentax forums just notified me that one of the images was against the policy of the forum and was removed from the thread. They wanted me to censor the male genitals. So I will include that photo again censored. But it kinda loses the whole point of the photo showing both male and female aspects on the same person. Kinda funny...one mod say OK...one mod says No-Go? I don't know how to blur it, but this the best I could come up with Paint. If this is not good enough mod, then you please fix it as you like.
...one last thing.
Lauren rejected my work as not ever going to win any Pulitzer prizes. Well, I can honesty say in my 45 years in photography it never occurred once to me as a goal or hope to win a Pulitzer prize. The first time that idea popped into my head was when Lauren mentioned it. But, when I look at Lauren's critical comments and looked up what sort of photographs actually won Pulitzer prizes in the past...they were grainy, poorly focused, poorly exposed, poorly crafted, contrasty black and white photographs! (Although in recent years color is becoming more prevalent with digital.)
Lauren, back in the day we did not have HDR, we did not have auto focus, we did not have auto exposure, we did not have cameras that go to 10,000 ASA and could be swithced from color to black and white in a whim. Many a time we had to get the shot with one try, guess at the exposure then push it in the darkroom.
https://www.google.com/search?q=pulitzer+prize+photographs&hl=en&prmd=imvns&...w=1376&bih=683
I think for a photograph to be successful it must touch another person. Touch them enough so they stop and think about it. They may not like like it. they may in fact abhor it. But none the same they are touched enough to comment. So in this respect I am much more successful than any Pulitzer prize photog could ever hope to be by being showered with the multitude of comments from Lauren about my work.
..."The camera is an instrument that teaches people to see without a camera." Dorthea Lange
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
04-11-2012, 02:51 AM
|
| |
Hopefully it's OK to post this here - my own website is the only place I could upload this OK to show people I know, and I thought I'd share.
Capa is a favourite photojournalist and a legendary photographer for all time, and I found this video quite touching.
Robert Capa: Video |
|
Forum: General Talk
03-12-2012, 03:39 PM
|
| |
My wife came into the room and looked over my shoulder this morning as I was looking at some of the market place threads. She said, "Why can't you be a normal man and look at porn".
To which I had to retort, "You would rather I look at some hot little blonde?"
She had the last words with, "Blondes are cheaper than those little Pentax boxes you are looking at."
She might have a point.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
03-10-2012, 08:34 AM
|
| |
My Mom was "Rosie The Riveter", actually "Betty The Riveter " and did work at Douglas Aircraft during the war. She is currently 87 and still going strong. With her 17 inch waist they would slide her into the wing assemblies to do the final inspection on the inside. She stills has the cash box that they had to rivet together in class.
:cool:
|
