Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

^ But of course. All you really need is a super wide angle lens, just zoom with your feet!
Gee.gif


Ken Rockwell made zoos to distract wannabe nature photographers, and made peacocks to keep them distracted.

https://pic.armedcats.net/a/an/anonymous/2009/08/29/peafowl_lulz.jpg
 
bahahaha, I just watched the video.

Pfft, who needs tele lenses. If you want to shoot a sports guy just go to his house. You'll be able to get some sweet shots of him in action at the game last night with your wide angle lens- wait a second...

Speaking of B&H being run by orthodox jews, they seem to employ a lot of their brothers in faith. Lots of beards. Yup. *reads wikipedia entry on B&H* Hundreds of jews even. Anywho, that is a truly beautiful store.
 
LEARN TO TUCK YOUR SHIRT IN YOU SCHLUB
Tucking the shirt into the pants is for people who have sensitive skin, so that the pants gives them rash. D'oh..

Using telelens is for people who are not good enough to get closer...:lmao:

Ken Rockwell, ladies and gentleman!
I kind of agree with him.. To a surtan extent. I prefer using wide angle instead of using a tele if I can.

There are situations where the whole tele-thing is just a little more practical.

- Sports. If you walk on the pitch, the ref will get grumpy.
- War, conflict, violent protest
- Birds
- Stealth

I'd prefer to use wide angle for all these, I like the way it gives a picture more depth and life. But when you can't move closer, fetch the tele, Batman!


Speaking of B&H being run by orthodox jews, they seem to employ a lot of their brothers in faith. Lots of beards. Yup. *reads wikipedia entry on B&H* Hundreds of jews even. Anywho, that is a truly beautiful store.
Yup, I'd love to go there. The two things that judaism makes me grumpy over is that B&H are closed during the hollidays and the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get a cheeseburger in Israel! :mad:

:lol:
 
the text on ultra wide should be stretched horizontally to make it _u_l_t_r_a_ _w_i_d_e_

browsing B&H's online store is one thing, but to actually be at the store would be like........ heaven? Huge electronic stores only have a few exciting things, lots of either crap you don't care about or boring things like cables and junk - huge music stores, ehhh, walls covered in guitars that are all pretty much the same when you get down to it (or if you're a non musician a huge music store is a place with endless rows of CDs, of which you wouldn't care to listen to all of them from every section, meh) - but a giant store filled with every imaginable piece of photographic/video equipment and accessories, as well as computers and computer parts, TVs/home theatre systems, audio equipment and mp3 players? Being able to play with said products? Oh my god, I'm having a crisis just thinking about it. And do they really have the oh my god you could buy a Mazzer GT for that money Canon 1200mm just sitting out like that? That's just awesome.

and I don't see them selling that 1200mm... ever. Unless someone incredibly wealthy comes along or something wins the lottery, I don't see it happening. 600/4 + 2x on a 1D series, there you go, 1200/8 IS, it may be a bit slower but it has IS and weighs a third as much, and you have $110 000 left for other things, like plane tickets to places to use that lens. National Geographic already owns a couple 1200's, I could even see them putting teleconverters on them to shoot armur leopards and such, but anyone else who for whatever strange reason could possibly need over 1200mm of reach should just use a telescope, and it would probably weigh less too. You can get some really nice telescopes for under $120 000. Apparently some sports agencies or somesuch own a few 1200s, but the only thing you could even use it for is action waaaaay down on the other end of the field when a better solution is probably to just hire two photographers. How would you even transport such a giant lens, donkeys?
 
Last edited:
But, then you have a 1200/8.

with IS though. The guy that reviewed the 1200 for B&H said that not having IS was a problem mounted on a tripod because it was windy and the camera was so far away from the fulcrum that even tiny movements would cause shakiness, so looking through the viewfinder there was massive vibrations. Whatevar.
 
Nikon Shooters: Do you ever feel like your meter is just 'off'? I was just out shooting in a forest, and while there was some contrast in some scenes, nothing off the wall. I had some scenes where just to get a normal exposure I was at -2.66 EV :?
 
^ If you're talking about the D40 or D80, then, yes. The matrix meter is crap on those bodies.
 
D60. If I'm outside setting the EV to -.7 usually does it. But there's just times where it seems to go haywire and I have to dial in huge negative EV values to get a properly exposed shot.
 
^ Ah. I believe it's cursed with the same affliction. My EV compensation is almost permanently at -0.7 as well. I have to go an additional -0.7 when I use my 35/1.8!

It really helps if you learn how to use spot metering, though.
 
Bah, I'm too lazy to use spot when I'm out for a walk. Weird, this was with my 35/1.8 too...
 
bahahaha, I just watched the video.

Pfft, who needs tele lenses. If you want to shoot a sports guy just go to his house. You'll be able to get some sweet shots of him in action at the game last night with your wide angle lens- wait a second...

I only know about Rockwell from this forum, that video could have been a comedy skit. WTF. People actually listen to that guy?

After watching that vid I think I know what his problem is, but it relies on me explaining a theory I have on photographers which may not hold true internationally and which I can't be bothered explaining fully. But anyway...

There are 2 types of photographers;

Those who tuck their button-up, short-sleeved shirts into their jeans (or chinos) and clip their massive key chains onto their jean's belt loop.

And those who don't.

The former are technically very knowledgeable, they like glamour nudes and landscapes. You'll often find them working in a camera store, as a lab technician or a photography teacher. While they may be technically proficient and may even become somewhat successful, they'll never set the world on fire with their originality.

The latter, well that's a broad spectrum, but it includes people who are artistically gifted, even if they work in a different field, like design or music - they can pick up a camera and take interesting shots. They care less about the process and more about the result.

Anyway how does Rockwell fit into this? You might have noticed that he had his lemon-yellow button-up shirt tucked into his chinos, but that he tries to distance himself from that category of photographer with his ridiculous point of view.

Well, you know those guys who are gay but for whatever reason, upbringing or religion, they believe that homosexuality is evil? Those guys take the hate to a whole other level. That's Ken Rockwell. He belongs in the first category but desperately wants to fit into the second. He's holding up a cardboard sign outside a gay nightclub screaming, "burn in hell", while deep down he craves the dick.

Anyone follow?

Nikon Shooters: Do you ever feel like your meter is just 'off'? I was just out shooting in a forest, and while there was some contrast in some scenes, nothing off the wall. I had some scenes where just to get a normal exposure I was at -2.66 EV :?

My Canon is the opposite, I usually have it on +1/3. I did a quick check with a greycard and found my suspicion was right, and it varies depending on the WB setting. I suggest doing the same, get a greycard and test in different lightsources, with different settings.

But nearly 3 stops? I just noticed the 2! You sure you aren't talking about high/low key scenes? Obviously you'll need to adjust for that.
 
I only know about Rockwell from this forum, that video could have been a comedy skit. WTF. People actually listen to that guy?

After watching that vid I think I know what his problem is, but it relies on me explaining a theory I have on photographers which may not hold true internationally and which I can't be bothered explaining fully. But anyway...

There are 2 types of photographers;

Those who tuck their button-up, short-sleeved shirts into their jeans (or chinos) and clip their massive key chains onto their jean's belt loop.

And those who don't.

The former are technically very knowledgeable, they like glamour nudes and landscapes. You'll often find them working in a camera store, as a lab technician or a photography teacher. While they may be technically proficient and may even become somewhat successful, they'll never set the world on fire with their originality.

The latter, well that's a broad spectrum, but it includes people who are artistically gifted, even if they work in a different field, like design or music - they can pick up a camera and take interesting shots. They care less about the process and more about the result.

Anyway how does Rockwell fit into this? You might have noticed that he had his lemon-yellow button-up shirt tucked into his chinos, but that he tries to distance himself from that category of photographer with his ridiculous point of view.

Well, you know those guys who are gay but for whatever reason, upbringing or religion, they believe that homosexuality is evil? Those guys take the hate to a whole other level. That's Ken Rockwell. He belongs in the first category but desperately wants to fit into the second. He's holding up a cardboard sign outside a gay nightclub screaming, "burn in hell", while deep down he craves the dick.

Anyone follow?



My Canon is the opposite, I usually have it on +1/3. I did a quick check with a greycard and found my suspicion was right, and it varies depending on the WB setting. I suggest doing the same, get a greycard and test in different lightsources, with different settings.

But nearly 3 stops? I just noticed the 2! You sure you aren't talking about high/low key scenes? Obviously you'll need to adjust for that.

I think your description of Ken Rockwell makes sense.:lol:
 
I only know about Rockwell from this forum
Consider yourself lucky and add "127.0.0.1 kenrockwell.com" to your hosts file.

Well, you know those guys who are gay but for whatever reason, upbringing or religion, they believe that homosexuality is evil? Those guys take the hate to a whole other level. That's Ken Rockwell. He belongs in the first category but desperately wants to fit into the second. He's holding up a cardboard sign outside a gay nightclub screaming, "burn in hell", while deep down he craves the dick.
So, basically, he's a red-hot flamer. Is this news? :p

My Canon is the opposite, I usually have it on +1/3. I did a quick check with a greycard and found my suspicion was right, and it varies depending on the WB setting. I suggest doing the same, get a greycard and test in different lightsources, with different settings.

But nearly 3 stops? I just noticed the 2! You sure you aren't talking about high/low key scenes? Obviously you'll need to adjust for that.
Y'know, sooner or later you realize that evaluative camera meters are nearly always wrong, because they can't possibly know what you are trying to achieve artistically. That's why I spend most of my time in manual mode; or aperture priority mode using the spot meter and EL hold.
 
Last edited:
Consider yourself lucky and add "127.0.0.1 kenrockwell.com" to your hosts file.


So, basically, he's a red-hot flamer. Is this news? :p

Well, that could be true. :)

But it was just the best analogy I could think of at the time.

(I don't know what this means; "127.0.0.1 kenrockwell.com" to your hosts file)

Y'know, sooner or later you realize that evaluative camera meters are nearly always wrong, because they can't possibly know what you are trying to achieve artistically. That's why I spend most of my time in manual mode; or aperture priority mode using the spot meter and EL hold.

But there's a difference between being wrong due to the subject not equating to 20% grey and being wrong when shooting a 20% grey card in daylight with the camera WB set to daylight. The first example is pretty much expected and that's why you need to a) change the metering type b) adjust exposure compensation c) both, but in the second example the camera should give you a spot on exposure even with different settings.

Of course meters do get out of whack and need to be calibrated, but mine was out from new and gives different results depending on the WB setting.

If I can find my grey card I'll do a test and show you what I mean.

When I shot "street" on film, I used a hand held light meter and basically took a daylight reading, shadow before starting and that was all I needed - at least for a couple of hours. I would adjust according to whether the subject was in full sun, part shade or full shade and which part I wanted to expose for, ignoring the camera's meter. If I did use the built in meter, I would usually take a reading off the back of my hand, rather than of the subject, and expose for that.
 
Top