DSLRUsers.com

Tried some motion shots with the fish-eye while at Hunter Gardens on the weekend... most will probably hate it / not get it / etc... not sure if I do either... but I don't mind it.

it looks similar to something i did with a 15 sec exposure in daylight with a ND64 filter

but for the first time i dont get it

the underlying theme is just too obscure

Sorry Leigh - hate it

My head is spinning looking at these

And this is why I post shit like this. It's good to be someone's stress ball.

I saw the winelist you guys managed to drink through, I assume this represents your view of the world the next day

I actually don't mind the third one It has that 'walking into the light' type feel

The others, though, are crap Perhaps you could PP them a little more

Actually, I wonder what these would look like defished

interesting, i like the first one as it shows more detail on the background

christian

I don't mind these, it's what I imagine people who are coming out of a coma experience with their vision - these have a really artistic appeal to them Leigh, I like.

I like the 3rd and 4th ones - they really stand out for me.

P

I like them all. They have a lot of aesthetic appeal (to me at any rate). The first two are a bit like paintings. The third has a very nice perspective, and the last one is just cool. I think they would all look great on the wall (preferrably all four in the same room).

As Kate Blanchard would say, "he habitually uses angular fragmentation of pigment, in order to consummate his all-pervading theme of hermetic anarchy, it's as simple as that..."

Cheers
Steffen.

Forgot to add: the blue in the first two images is a bit distracting, as it looks very similar to CA.

Cheers
Steffen.

I think you should go harder on the PP, myself

interesting motion shots in that they still contain some context rather than just being a blur!

Leigh, mate now you are really making me think more on how some of these younger people go to UNI to learn stuff and 1/2 are either dropouts or drug smokers or prtesting over something and call this art. Mate what have they been teaching you????? Leigh these pics are not helping.LOL
But different.

BBJ, the good news is that there's only one of me.

I reckon the photos could very easily make a good 'illy cup' artist series:

http://www.lucacattaneo.net/illy/serie- ... f2-99.html

(obviously very different style, but I could imagine the 4 photos on 4 different cups - the series could even be called "Overboard on the PP")

P

Nnnnsic wrote:BBJ, the good news is that there's only one of me.

Mate all i can say is ThankGod For That.LOL

BBJ wrote:

Nnnnsic wrote:BBJ, the good news is that there's only one of me.

Mate all i can say is ThankGod For That.LOL

And so say all of us!

Leigh, what have you been smoking? I want some.

Macka
When you smoke it the images will look normal.

Leigh, all I can say is, be glad that bonou2 is not around to see this payback big time.

phillipb wrote:Leigh, all I can say is, be glad that bonou2 is not around to see this payback big time.

Nah... mine's all done without PP and is straight from the camera.

phillipb wrote:Leigh, all I can say is, be glad that bonou2 is not around to see this payback big time.

ROTFLMAO

Good one Phillip

Nice work Leigh, but they could use a little sharpening

These images go some way towards proving a point.

Many here would know that it's much harder to achieve a desired result within the camera than it is in PP.

To me, PP is the wimps' way to produce many effects, and doing the same thing in camera is the only pure way. (EnergyPolice, where are you when I need you? )

And in these images we have proof of that point!

How good is Leigh, to be able to turn out crap like this, in the camera, rather than resorting to the wimps' way and using PP to turn his photos into fish wrappers?

This is exactly what I was exhorting Bonou2 to try to do a couple of weeks ago: show us what he could do within the camera first, without the benefit of PP.

As anyone who has a degree of competence with a musical instrument knows, once you have acheived a level of skill with that instrument, it becomes significantly more difficult to play really badly. It really does.

The same applies here, and to turn out this sort of crap, in the camera, requires real skill.

Or not.

gstark wrote:The same applies here, and to turn out this sort of crap, in the camera, requires real skill.

Wonderful

so the measure of excellence is the ability to turn out crap straight from the camera and still have people find meaning in it?

I can do that!

Hey Gary, have you ever thought of running for politics?

Your argument is similar to the one where statistics state that 30% of road crashes are caused by drunk people, therefore 70% are caused by sober people. It stands to reason then that the roads would be a much safer place if we only had drunks on the road.

phillipb wrote:It stands to reason then that the roads would be a much safer place if we only had drunks on the road.

As someone about to go out on the Freeway to Newcastle tonight, this is a sobering thought

gstark wrote:To me, PP is the wimps' way to produce many effects, and doing the same thing in camera is the only pure way. (EnergyPolice, where are you when I need you? )

Gary, I dont know if that statement is dripping with sarcasm or not. From what I have seen around these parts, PP is used extensively. But, I have to say, I agree. Fair enough for people who are pros and know the basics, but really, people should try and get it right in the camera. I know Stubbsy and a few others will probably jump all over me with a big stick, but hey, you know what they say about opinions.

And no, I am not a rebadged EnergyPolice.

norbs wrote:

gstark wrote:To me, PP is the wimps' way to produce many effects, and doing the same thing in camera is the only pure way. (EnergyPolice, where are you when I need you? )

Gary, I dont know if that statement is dripping with sarcasm or not. From what I have seen around these parts, PP is used extensively. But, I have to say, I agree. Fair enough for people who are pros and know the basics, but really, people should try and get it right in the camera. I know Stubbsy and a few others will probably jump all over me with a big stick, but hey, you know what they say about opinions.

And no, I am not a rebadged EnergyPolice.

Norbs

Knowing Gary it's so dripping with sarcasm it's soggy.

As for PP I for one won't jump all over you. You are perfectly entitled to your views - how boring a place would it be if we all thought the same. I am the first to admit I use PP extensively to get the look I'm after to make up for the fact I'm just not skilled enough to get it right in camera 100% of the time. That doesn't mean your images with less PP or mine with more PP are better or worse to me, just different.

PP = dark room practices, the same, just much easier now

Much easier and a whole lot less smelly Chris

stubbsy wrote:As for PP I for one won't jump all over you. You are perfectly entitled to your views - how boring a place would it be if we all thought the same. I am the first to admit I use PP extensively to get the look I'm after to make up for the fact I'm just not skilled enough to get it right in camera 100% of the time. That doesn't mean your images with less PP or mine with more PP are better or worse to me, just different.

And that is the it summed up in a very small nutshell. Thanks for not hitting me with the big stick.

norbs wrote:And that is the it summed up in a very small nutshell. Thanks for not hitting me with the big stick.

I wouldn't worry about Peter, I don't think he owns a Big stick, and he certain isn't into clubbing

I've got the same opinion as Chris on this one.

PP has just taken the place of a darkroom, and that's one place I'd seem to work extensively for effects on images when I was in Uni.

That said, images like this that I can get in camera are less flexible since I can't do a whole lot with them once they come out like this. In case you're wondering, while I was experimenting to pull this off, I did shoot a few to find the sort of feel I wanted.

I seem to have stirred up a few things, haven't I ?

Norbs, I'm a firm believer that one should try to get it right in the camera in the first instance. But as Chris correctly points out, PP is simply the old darkroom in a different guise, and there's all manner of sins that I have had a need to cover up - or actually create - in the darkroom.

Niether process is any more, nor any less, valid than the other, and PP is merely one tool in our toolbox.

My earlier message was exactly as Peter suggested, and an opportunity for us (ok, me) to have a bit of fun at the expense of some of our dearly departed non-members. Something I enjoy doing, given half a chance.

But if, at the same time, it gives people cause to consider why they're using PP, and perhaps encourages one to strive for a better in-camera result, I don't think that it's an unsatisfactory outcome.

The Digital Darkroom. Liz said to me yesterday - all this processing - what's it coming too - and my answer was - where it's always been!

I think the ansell adams quote, which I shall now murder, says it all - "I dodge and burn to get right what God failed to get right in the tone" or something like that!

What is really going on here - we are ALL becoming lab technicians - and we do not all do this full-time 8 hours a day so we have to learn how to get good results quickly. That's why programs like Picasa with an "I'm feeling lucky" button are so good for all the digital happy snaps.


Phillip

Your argument is similar to the one where statistics state that 30% of road crashes are caused by drunk people, therefore 70% are caused by sober people. It stands to reason then that the roads would be a much safer place if we only had drunks on the road.

I gotta say, this would just end up with 100% of crashes caused by drunks. I am such a nerd sometimes.

Your argument is similar to the one where statistics state that 30% of road crashes are caused by drunk people, therefore 70% are caused by sober people. It stands to reason then that the roads would be a much safer place if we only had drunks on the road.

I gotta say, this would just end up with 100% of crashes caused by drunks. I am such a nerd sometimes.[/quote]

A much better theory is one where bloke goes to the airport:

Bloke to security guard: what is the chance of there being a bomb on the plane?
Security guard: about a million to one.
Bloke: what is the chance of there being two bombs on the one plane?
Security Guard: about 10 billion to one.

Thereafter, the bloke always carried a bomb onto the plane.

P

I do not get these at all. sorry - they do not provide any inspiration..

Leigh, you are ahead of your time.

Killakoala wrote:Leigh, you are ahead of your time.

About 6 joints ahead of his time

Leigh,

I don't mind some of these pics you have taken. I think I can see what you were trying to do. It's a bit like what happens if I press this button. Only more like what if I use this lens and expose for that long and move the camera like that. It's expermentation with the variables to see what sort of result is achieved. Perhaps?

sirhc55 wrote:PP = dark room practices, the same, just much easier now

Here, here. Couldn't agree more. Thought I'd share a quote.

Ansel Adams - Basic Techniques of Photography by John P. Schaefer wrote:A negative is only an intermediate step toward the finished print, and means litte as an object in itself. Much effort and control usually go into the making of the negative, not for the negative's own sake, but in order to have the best possible raw material for the final printing.

The making of a print is a unique combination of mechanical excecution and creative activity....The basis of the final work is determined by the content of the negative.

Printing is both a carrying-to-completion of the visualized image and a fresh creative activity in itself. As with other creative processes, understanding craft and controlling the materials are vital to the quality of the final result.

You will find it a continuing delight to watch prints emerge in the developer and see that your original visualisation has been realised, or in many cases enhanced by subtle variations in value.

You should strive to remember the visualisation - what you saw and felt - at the moment of making the exposure. - Ansel Adams

If you relate what Adam's was saying here to our world of digital photography you would have to think Adam's would use pp to obtain the best result possible. Well you could hardly see him settling for a print of the RAW file could you?