"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| ste© wrote:
|
| > Far too arrogant, stop it!
|
| Arrogant? You started it!
I joked, you did a genuine reply! :-P
| > Just wait until Michael Reichmaan from The
| > Luminous Landscape catches up with you and puts you in your place! ;-)
| > ...When you've worked up the courage to challenge him that is! :-P
|
| You see this is the reason why I should quit this newsgroup. Wasting
| all my damn time... ;-)
You'll always have 'distractions' Paul, you're just one of those types! ;-)
However, and this isn't a criticism - I do enjoy reading most of your posts,
I'm thinking about the long and detailed ones, but I believe they are wasted
in a group like this. I think that you would be better served in saving all
the long stuff for your new website, and it could almost be like your blog
column. Perhaps an alternative or similar site to The Luminous Landscape,
if you added tutorials, articles and reviews etc. What do you think?
| > My money is on him now, his website is there, his proof is there! ;-)
|
| And mine will be there in due course. No point arguing until I've got
| my case prepared properly.
Look forward to it, it's just a shame to waste all your words on this
newsgroup for that type of thing. But to be honest, all the photography
newsgroups are [censored]. Why do you think I come here? ;-)
| > Just hope he doesn't do you for slander, after having his articles
| > dismissed all over usenet (okay, just uk.rec.walking!) as wrong! ;-)
| > (smiley here, please note!)
|
| Yeah I note. For the record, I haven't dissed all his articles, just
| that one. His is an excellent site.
Oh well, that's okay then. :-)
| >> No-one takes
| >> "snapshots" with a tripod, that's a contradiction in terms.
| >
| > But who cares,
|
| You do apparently! :-)
I do? :-)
| > why feel the need to create categories to put people
| > in? Just get on with it, that's what I say.
|
| You created the category...
If others can mention the word serious, then what's the opposite? I'm not
exactly inventing a new category here... :-s
| > So you're only half serious for not using filters much?
|
| Exactly. But you're triple serious for doing post processing instead to
| get an even better effect than the filter. :-)
Nahh, I'm just to lazy to get my filters out! ;-) I'm just too unserious
really... ;-)
| > And take away
| > another quarter of a mark for that flimsy Jessops tripod! :-)
|
| You should take away a lot more than that. No self respecting
| professional photographer would be seen dead with a crappy tripod like
| that, you need one that weighs at least 10 kilos!
|
| However, I'll play my Galen Rowell card at this point. Galen advocated
| use of a lightweight flimsy tripod for ultralight backpacking. So
| there! Advice from the master! :-P
Well, if you play the Galen Rowell card, I can't really argue with this one!
;-)
| > I believe that you hardly ever use filters any more because it's too
| > much fussing about.
|
| No, I hardly use filters anymore because I get better results through
| post processing.
I don't really agree with this. Didn't we 'agree' via email recently that
the more post processing you do, the more noisy the image becomes? So if
you do x amount of work in Photoshop to achieve a similar effect as from a
ND grad filter - if you compare the grad image to the photoshopped image,
the grad one would be less noisy, in general, better quality?
| But that's only grads. There's no digital replacement
| for a polariser or an infrared filter, which I do use.
Of course.
| > Even though you admit that it could produce
| > superior results to a heavily photoshopped image. ;-)
|
| Only if the horizon is perfectly straight, which it rarely ever is. And
| even if it is, you can still produce a superior quality result with
| multiple exposures and layer blending.
If you look at photographers like David Noton (whose work appears in
Practical Photography magazine a lot), he seems to use ND grad filters with
just about every shot, even with mountainous peaks. Works well for him and
a lot of others.
| > I just take photos and that's it.
|
| Yet you were the one who brought it up!
I joked, that's all. :-P
| >>> ...AND, it proves my point that you and others put the term
| >>> 'serious' with the term 'good photos.'
| >>
| >> It proves nothing of the sort.
| >
| > Nonsense. I (jokingly) said Bill was un-serious. You immediately
| > replied, "Who says Bill's not a serious photographer? You should see
| > some of the framed prints that he's entered into camera club
| > competitions. Many of them are really good."
|
| Correct, that's exactly what I said.
I know it is, I copied and pasted it! :-P
| > So I will repeat, at the first mention of the term 'un-serious,' you
| > immediately replied that he wasn't 'un-serious' because many of his
| > photos are 'really good.'
|
| No, I didn't say that at all. You've just combined two separate
| statements and assumed a causal relationship between the two.
No casual relationship about it, it's a pretty safe assumption to make,
unless you're trying to squirm your way out of it that is! :-P If you
really want to cling onto this Paul, then please tell me this - if you're
questioning why Bill is not an unserious photographer, then why in the next
sentence did you not state a reason for this question? My response is that
you did! And the reason is that Bill is a serious photographer *because*
many of his prints are really good!!!
It's the same as me saying "Who said Canon don't produce the best D-SLR's?
You should see the quality of the images, many of them are really good!" :-P
| I said
| that Bill was serious and I said that his photos are good, but I never
| said that his photos are good *because* he is serious.
Oh come on Paul, pllleeeassee!!!! Keep your dignity and self respect in
tact for this one my friend, don't keep scraping the barrell to try and
squirm out of it! :-) You have already admitted the serious photographers
generally produce the best photos. What's there to argue? Not wrong with
this, but why keep squirming? ;-)
| You imagined
| that connection. I made no such claim.
LOL!!! ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
| > I rest my case,
|
| Pretty pathetic case I must say! Since it's based on a
| misunderstanding. *Your* misunderstanding.
Haha! :-)
| Let's clarify.
Here we go... ;-)
| If I believed that serious equalled good, I would not
| have needed to say that Bill's photos were good. All I'd have needed to
| say was that Bill was serious.
Yes fine, except...
| But serious doesn't equal good.
....EXACTLY! You said it Paul, which is why you need to qualify this by also
stating that his photos are good! I rest my case for the x'th time! ;-)
| There
| are many serious photographers whose pics are [censored]!
Yes, this is why I've always though the term was quite snide. By using it,
it's like having a dig at those less serious. :-)
| That's why I also
| added the statement that Bill's photos were good! Because being serious
| does not guarantee good photos.
That's got to be the least likely meaning of that paragraph that you can
possibly scrape out of it! :-)
| > as it's pretty clear and
| > not worth debating further - to be honest, I'm not that bothered
| > either way Paul. :-P
|
| But you seem to be! :-)
I'm just chatting away to you Paul. I can live with being called serious or
unserious. :-P
| > Not twisting anything, and not that you don't have a habit of doing
| > the same Mr Saunders! :-O
|
| I'm not twisting, I'm clarifying what you misunderstood.
Of course, you scraped an unlikely meaning out of a straight forward
paragraph! :-)
| > So again, you said above that "As a general rule, taking it seriously
| > tends to produce the best images."
|
| Yes, that's right. As a general rule it does. But all rules have
| exceptions, and plenty of them in this case.
Most things have exceptions, but we'd be going around all day long if we
kept bringing them up. As you say, they are *exceptions.*
| > And don't forget the bit where
| > you said he wasn't 'un-serious' because many of his photos are
| > 'really good.'
|
| Don't forget something that I never said? You said that, not me. I
| never said "because". You imagined a causal relationship between two
| separate facts. A relationship that does not exist.
Nahh, a pretty logical relationship to assume.
| > So the opposite of this, if serious=good, is that un-serious=[censored] (or
| > not good).
|
| So the opposite of what I never said, but which you merely imagined...
Yes, I imagined you said Bill was serious. Then in the next sentence, I
imagined that you qualified this by stating that his photos are good. LOL!
:-)
| > Therefore, being un-serious is just another term for
| > being [censored] (or not good), but saying it in a snide and discrete way.
|
| I think you're suffering from paranoid delusions Ste!
How would you know? Have you ever studied any psychological disorders Paul?
Just as I have studied logic? :-P
