Selector,
thanks for the comments on the photos - thats pretty much what I'm looking for, the "fix this or that" with the setting up of the shot and timings and stuff. Yeah, there's no modelling going on in any of those photos... just me trying to figure out the camera.
As for weathering the cars - not a chance . They're (and I'm)still too "new" for me to want to try and weather... I'd rather start with something less... er... expensive.
Guess I'll have to work on geting the right kind of lighting for the time being... then maybe a module or something to actually take pictures on (Now, THATS the hard part being in college and all... no room or money )... I'll be back with "modelling" pictures at some point, you can count on it
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
Hmm. Maybe we should consider adding another topic to the taboo list:
(Or, at the very least a temporary moratorium on the topic.) The past couple of weeks have only served to antagonize and polarize folks. This is getting really old...
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
spectratone wrote: jeffers_mz wrote: jktrains wrote: I DON'T SEE ANY MODEL RAILROADS. THAT'S WHAT WE ASKED FOR. Calm down, JK, no need to scream.Don't have any mrr pics I put any time into, the layout's not even ballasted yet.In fact, when we started the layout, the digi was in the shop and those were taken with an Aiptec...the kind of camera that sent you off on Jeff and Bayou...You're pretty used to having your orders followed, aren't you?Why would a professional photographer have a Aiptec? Now you have had your say. I suggest you start an advanced photo thread and stop disrupting the class. I came here to learn how to use my camera. When I graduate I will move over to your classroom. Now get out and take your friends with you. Stop wasting our time. This is not Jr. high school.Glenn
jeffers_mz wrote: jktrains wrote: I DON'T SEE ANY MODEL RAILROADS. THAT'S WHAT WE ASKED FOR. Calm down, JK, no need to scream.Don't have any mrr pics I put any time into, the layout's not even ballasted yet.In fact, when we started the layout, the digi was in the shop and those were taken with an Aiptec...the kind of camera that sent you off on Jeff and Bayou...You're pretty used to having your orders followed, aren't you?
jktrains wrote: I DON'T SEE ANY MODEL RAILROADS. THAT'S WHAT WE ASKED FOR.
I DON'T SEE ANY MODEL RAILROADS. THAT'S WHAT WE ASKED FOR.
Calm down, JK, no need to scream.
Don't have any mrr pics I put any time into, the layout's not even ballasted yet.
In fact, when we started the layout, the digi was in the shop and those were taken with an Aiptec...the kind of camera that sent you off on Jeff and Bayou...
You're pretty used to having your orders followed, aren't you?
Why would a professional photographer have a Aiptec? Now you have had your say. I suggest you start an advanced photo thread and stop disrupting the class. I came here to learn how to use my camera. When I graduate I will move over to your classroom. Now get out and take your friends with you. Stop wasting our time. This is not Jr. high school.
Glenn
If you don't want to discuss this, why are you asking me questions?
I shot pro from about 84 through 88. Around early to mid 90s, I sold my Nikon F3, F2 and F1, a couple Nikkormat manuals, all my motordrives, a Pentax MG, about 20 Nikkor and Takumar lenses, a pair of Mamiya medium format bodies, all those lenses, and the studio lights, stands, backdrops, cabling, etc.
When you shoot for a living, photography becomes a job, and stops being fun. I hung on to my darkroom, a Beseler 23C, several thousand sheets of paper, unmixed chemicals, trays, timers, reels cans, all the accessories you need to process film and prints.
I bought a Pentax 35mm point and shoot around 2000, for pix of the kids and backpacking trips, and somewhere around in there, the Aiptec, for it's intended use, as a webcam. As time went by, I grew dissatisfued with the workflow involved with 33mm film, scanning, and the low quality of scanned print images and picked up an Olympus C4000Z, digital, call it 2002.
When we started the layout, the Oly was in the shop, and the Aiptec was all we had. It was either that, or no pictures at all.
Flame wars.
Not my style. The exact opposite of what I come here for. This is a hobby for me, not a reflection of my value or self worth. As you note, I've had my say. Stop asking me questions, and I'll stop answering them. If I see photography related BS here, (and aside from a minor error in nomenclature, JK's information has largely been correct) or opinions as to what is acceptible in photography in general, or posted photography on this site, then I intend to comment.
As a matter of fact, this thread and the ones that led up to it have raised an important question. Based on the terms of service for this forum I though the answer was obvious, but from some responses in this thread, I see that this may not be so. As soon as I hit send for this post, I intend to open that question for debate in another thread.
Well I'm not signing up for any of HIS classes. And most of those look like they were taken in the 80's. Man look at those hair do's on the girls. LOL.
Oh Pleeze. Who needs to get over it?
I guess it's the rule of the forum, after 3 pages or so of a post, things tend to get nasty.
What the man was trying to do here was good. I don't think he was trying to teach people how to perform brain surgery, just trying to pass along some acquired knowledge that would help the great majority of us. Just like other MR tutorials here. He never said he was a professional, just that he had some hints that might help. I found the thread very interesting and engaging, until the pedantry took over.
I normally try not to interject myself into the silly catfights here, but IMHO, I've never seen JKTrains say anything personally nasty, or even particularly obtuse for that matter, just an honest and informed point of view. And I think his opinion has helped folks on occasion. For instance, see Jeff's recent thread, which BTW, i read just before this one. I think the quality Jeff's modeling is really showing better now. I really enjoyed checking out his new pics. It doesn't look to me like he holds a grudge. He's a good man too.
You just don't get it do you?
TONY
"If we never take the time, how can we ever have the time." - Merovingian (Matrix Reloaded)
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but the pictures looked "clearer" at the lower ISO setting. "
That's right. Lower ISO in digital cameras is the same as lower ISO in film cameras, the slower the speed (ISO), the higher the quality image. If you're shooting with a tripod and do not need a high shutter speed, the lowest ISO is always the best one to choose.
Cameras are provided with the ability to make their image sensors more sensitive to light - higher ISOs - so you can take photos in low light situations. There is always a tradeoff, the images become more grainy, with more "noise" - colored speckles in the photos.
Bob Boudreau
CANADA
Visit my model railroad photography website: http://sites.google.com/site/railphotog/
Dan, I would say that the first shot suffers from a misapplication of lighting in that the vestibule at the close end is essentially unlit for the purposes of showing off this model.
The second image is essentially the same...not enough "ambient" light of the kind incident on the side such that the appliances below the frame are sufficiently illuminated and visible thereby.
In each of those two cases, there is no modeling per se. Tracks and a car, and that is it. It's not really a fair comparison since you have no ballast, no weathering, no details, no backdrop, no foreground bits to please the eye, and so on. Really, they are merely trial shots of a heavyweight car, as you have stated.
The third shot is interesting enough in that we sense the motion of the drivers, but the presentation is, to say the least, unusual, and it also suffers from the paucities that I mentioned in the previous paragraphs.
I hope that I have offered instructive feedback...it is what I sensed you were seeking...maybe I'm wrong. In any event, you seem to have a good camera and the right ideas, and with time and some experimentation I expect, and look forward to, some very nice images from you.
After reading this and the instruction book for my camera a million times, I came up with these shots. They're the best of the bunch (IMO) that I took... All were taken with a Nikon D40 with the generic 18-55 lens that came as part of the bundle.
NYC Walthers Pullman Heavyweight car. This one's from the end,with the main point of focus on the 'C' in Central. 25 second exposure at f/36 with and ISO 200. Anything else was soft everywhere except for the lettering...
NYC Walthers Pullman Heavyweight car. This one is straight on the side, 0.5 sec exposure at f36 and ISO 400.
And this one was just for fun. 15 sec exposure at f/20 and ISO 200.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the pictures looked "clearer" at the lower ISO setting. Oh, and the only post shot "editing" was converting them from RAW to JPG and the subsequent scaling down that entails (they're 2048x1362 from the 3008x2000 that the camera natively shoots in)
Now, I personally think that these look pretty good... at least they look loads better than other things I've taken pics of. But, they're still lacking a bit compared to some of the other shots I've seen on the forums... so I have to be missing something..
jktrains wrote: Jeffers,First off, I made very clear that at the start of this that I was not a professional photographer. I also made it clear that this was meant to be a non-technical discussion in the hope of not losing people by making them feel that was much too difficult for them to even attempt. Since you are the professional, I'll yield to you to continue and show us how to master this subject in a more precise, technically correct manner. As a starter, please share with us some examples of your model railroad photography, especially those that have not been digitally enhanced for things such as brightness, contrast, saturation, hue etc. but a simple picture straight from the camera to the forum.
Jeffers,
First off, I made very clear that at the start of this that I was not a professional photographer. I also made it clear that this was meant to be a non-technical discussion in the hope of not losing people by making them feel that was much too difficult for them to even attempt.
Since you are the professional, I'll yield to you to continue and show us how to master this subject in a more precise, technically correct manner. As a starter, please share with us some examples of your model railroad photography, especially those that have not been digitally enhanced for things such as brightness, contrast, saturation, hue etc. but a simple picture straight from the camera to the forum.
...straight from the camera...no can do...my professional work was well before the advent of digital photography...you'll have to settle for straight from a (cheap) scanner...as requested, no post production processing... (eagle) scout's honor...
this guy just turned the first ever lap over 210 mph at IMS...
this guy just turned the first ever lap over 225 at Indy...that's the computer printout in his hand...
one of those nights you wish you hadn't turned the scanner on...people were throwing their stuff, including huge TVs, out of the third floor of the connecting building...and it was hot too...
these three show Bernhard Langer winning the 1985 Heritage Classic at Sea Pines Plantation outside Charleston, S.C., in triple sudden death...it went so late, we were losing light bigtime but it was a clear day and the sun was angling in over the water, got lucky with these, else it'd have been too late to get anything...first time on 17, Chi Chi did his little dance, lined up his putt, and somebody right next to me in the press gallery squeezed one red one too hard and tripped the shutter...it was REALLY loud...Mr. Rodriguez wasn't happy, pointed his putter at me like he was lining up a pistol and let me, and the whole world, know what was on his mind...it wasn't me, I swear, I was still cocked and locked...you don't use a motor drive for golf, too noisy...I was lucky to get anything at all that day...the gods were NOT happy with me...popped the zipper on a brand new pair of Polo pants, grubbing up at the fine spread Sea Pines laid out for the press at the clubhouse Sunday morning...extended the neckstrap on my F3 as far as possible, and had to drive upstream against 150,000 people inbound to find new pants since every TV camera on earth was there that day...southern belle at the pro shop when I complained about the $200 price tag on the cheapest ugly pants they had, "this is Hilton Hay-ed, hunny, this ain't Kayee-mart"...K-mart wouldn't sell me any either, blue laws...ended up buying a pair of shorts with "Hilton Head" stamped on them, souveniers are legal for Sunday sales...
this is what I was talking about earlier, using depth of field to make the bars disappear at the zoo...50mm f/1.2 Nikkor if I recall...
Low light work with one of my Nikkor architectural lenses:
this one got me a front page, above the fold, over the cutline "Catch Me, Mommy!"... my ME at the time was female and ate stuff like this up...photo of the month, too...
random pics from my studio, in order, friend, pageant contestant, ex-gf...
this guy had an anger management problem, ended up costing him his job...I should probably print some more of these, think the cats chewed on this one...easy to fix, but you said no PS...
when you shoot B-ball, SOP is an 85mm for the near end (press sits on the floor under the baskets), and a second body with a 300 for the far end...when the ref threw the technical, a TV guy ran out to center court and I went with him...in all the mayhem it seemed unlikely I'd get thrown out...all the other photogs either had a near end shot of his back, or a very long shot from the front...the 300 was what I had in my hands, and I was worried about being too tight...nothing happened at first, looked like he was reaching for his coat...when the chair came up I just stood on the old MD-4 motor drive and nailed the whole five shot sequence...you'll notice the following doesn't get any bigger when you click on it...and that this particular print didn't get all the fix washed off it...sorry but that's on purpose...I don't want this one just floating around the net in usable form...it was probably worth an SI cover at the time...the one they used was from the back, probably why it was an inset and not the whole front page...I never put any of these on the wire...long story...who knows what the future will bring though, eh?
as for here and now...I'm not willing to give your work a bye while you bash newbies...either/or, pick one, no double standards...
as for you continuing your efforts here, "helping" beginners...within the confines of "no double standards"... carry on...or not...I'm good either way..I like to see beginners learn, but I'm not the only one who questioned your timing and motivation with this thread...whatever floats your boat...
as for me finishing it for you...zero chance right now, two reasons...
one...Bob's how-to is very comprehensive...but on reading this thread, maybe he went over the heads of beginners, not for me to say...I didn't have any trouble understanding it and learned quite a bit...
two...bad timing...I'm busy, and there's no way around the fact that me starting a new thread or me continuing this one is going to come across as a continuation of our...issue...just like your's came across as another way to bash jeff...
finish what you started or not...if not, I'll let the dust settle down, and later, when I get time, I'll take another look at Bob's how-to and see if it really does need a...bridge...built for beginners, and if he wants to build it...or someone else does...fine, and if not...hmm...I guess I'd rather not leave the beg
Hey, Gary, that was very instructive seeing the two photos, one being taken with the timer. I think that has been my problem all along, even with a tripod. I move the camera just enough when I press the shutter button to mess up the picture. I'm going to start using the self-timer and see what that does.
I've learned a lot for most of the contibutions here. I know that artists tend to have egos that are easily bruised but it seem to me that should be handled by PM instead of in public. Everyone has something to share here but what we don't need to share is grudges and personal attacks. If you want to do that privately, have at. It just uses up valuable bandwidth here.
Very interesting about the sensor size Bob.
When I bought my Sony DSC-S75 5 years ago, the salesperson was talking about the same thing. Bigger, heavier camera will have a bigger sensor, and possibly as (or more?) important, larger / better optics.
It seems these days you practically get "megapixels" for free. This isn't surprising, as computers naturally get more powerful, and cheaper.
I can fully appreciate how much better the digital SLR's are. Rather trying to "really" get into photography, I'm trying to figure out how to "get by" with a point and shoot. Frankly, I was surprised to see in this thread the results people are getting with point and shoot cameras.
We recently attended another 2-yr old's birthday party with our 2-yr old. The other "Dad" has a digital SLR. Man, he took some razor sharp pictures of the kids with it. Like crazy razor-sharp. But, this requires carrying around a big piece of equipment. This is where it becomes a second hobby of it's own, which I have much respect for, just not ready to dive into - uh, yet : ) I'm starting to file certain hobby ventures into the "in 20 years after the kids are out of the house and I have nothing to do but twiddle my thumbs" category!
MR has their requirements here on the website somewhere - if I remember correctly, it was 6 megapixels or something. (a big deal a couple years ago, not such a big deal now)
Hyun - very cool. Maybe we'll see you there sometime! (my son and I ride the train all the time)
SBCA wrote: That is interesting what you mentioned about the "hired guns". I would have never been able to imagine getting into MR in the pre-digital world, but figured it might just be a possibility in the digital world. Then I began to realize how much had to be invested into digital equipment. It wouldn't break the bank, but I don't really want to invest that much into sort of a tangential hobby.
That is interesting what you mentioned about the "hired guns". I would have never been able to imagine getting into MR in the pre-digital world, but figured it might just be a possibility in the digital world. Then I began to realize how much had to be invested into digital equipment. It wouldn't break the bank, but I don't really want to invest that much into sort of a tangential hobby.
I haven't checked out MR's requirement for digital images lately, so don't know what their minimum standards might be. Keep in mind one of the reasons for using the more expensive DSLRs is their image sensors are quite a lot bigger than those on the smaller models. Larger sensors equals larger/better digital images. Canon's sensors are 60% the size of 35mm film, the small camera sensors are maybe one eigth the size. See below:
The sensor on the left is from a Canon Rebel 300 DSLR, the one on the right is from a smaller Canon camera with the same number of pixels.
Not saying smaller cameras cannot take images suitable for publication, but are probably less likely to do so.
Thanks for the comments on my past submissions! Yes, taking photos on slide film was quite a chore. Most times I had to wait until I got the slides back to see if they were OK. If not, then the photos had to be taken again. Digital is a lot better!
Hey! I was at the Goleta Depot (South Coast Railroad Museum) last Friday! Our son (2.5 years old) just LOVES trains and it was our first visit. I didn't know before the visit that they had a HO scale layout in one of the buildings--that was his favorite part, even more so than the train ride.
Small world!
Bob,
I recently discovered that a local depot (Old SP depot in Goleta, CA) has old MR issues for 50cents. Needless to say, I spend a handful of quarters every time I'm there. I just picked up the issue with your roundhouse module on the cover. It seems every issue I pickup from the 80's-90's has a picture of yours in it in one form or another (contest, trackside photos - always something!)
Great work!
I have a lot of respect for the skills it must have taken to get all those pictures "just right" back before the instant gratification of digital photography.
My wife and I are going to pickup a very small digital camera - making it way easier to put in my pocket and take on family trips, etc. I have a Sony DSC-S75 - a 5 year old 3.3 megapixel digital camera ($500 at the time). I love it, but it is nowhere near small enough to put in my pocket.
Next, we will likely get a $300-ish "pocket" 7 megapixel camera. I can't wait to just whip that out of my pocket and take family pictures! Should grab one this weekend.
When I met my wife (back in 98), I remember we looked at digital cameras when we were dating - there was a "1 megapixel" camera for about $1,000. The "consumer" digital cameras were like 640x480 pixels. Hah!
This thread has shown that I could possibly take some decent pictures without stepping up to the "real" photo equipment. Probably not MR-mag quality, but nice enough to share.
Oh wait, I have to build a layout first. Doh!
I hadn't thought about this last aspect, Bob, but I see your point. Once someone feels that there is a "club" to have to join, it might put some folks off the idea of submitting what they think are worthy photos.
SBCA wrote: I've often wondered if all of the high quality stuff in MR mag is a product of people who are great at 2 hobbies - photography and modelling. It's almost like you have to be good at both to share your work with others (with the exception of seeing layouts up-close & personal)
I've often wondered if all of the high quality stuff in MR mag is a product of people who are great at 2 hobbies - photography and modelling. It's almost like you have to be good at both to share your work with others (with the exception of seeing layouts up-close & personal)
That has been the way it has been for some time, or someone into both hobbies who takes photos of friends' layouts; I've done this. But it seems more and more in the past few years that MR sends out commissioned photographers such as Lou Sassi and Paul Dolkos to photograph layouts for them. I've never read a reason why, are they not getting suitable articles and photos submitted by readers? Or do they prefer to work with experienced people they know?
Even the "Trackside Photos" which used to be photos submitted by readers or ones that did not win in their annual photo contests now usually contain one or more by these photographers. All the more power to them, but it certainly does not encourage newbies to submit material.
All I have to say is I'm encouraged to see the level of pictures that could be taken with a camera with an F-stop of F8! I'm encouraged that I'll be able to take some decent pictures with my "consumer" camera.
Guys,
I like the way Crandell thinks. (And at the risk of being imprudent, can I have him as a running mate?)
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
It would be nice, now that all the egos are bruised, to get back to the topic, and maybe later to healing. We've had our slugfest.
We have come through a swamp, gentlemen, and are not very happy about the experience. Maybe, though, just maybe, we can all grow a bit from what we look back on over the past two and a half weeks. If we could retract our horns a bit, acknowledge that none of us is perfect, and try to be less hurtful with our choices of words as we string them together, we would be better off on this place that we like to frequent every day. Let's clean house a bit, air out the rugs, and enjoy our forum. Yes, our forum.
We would all be happier here if we were to address topics or subjects respectfully, never "taking it to the man". In formal logic, a course university students in the Arts often take their first year, there are what we call "informal fallacies". One of them, a very common one in public discourse and on editorial pages, is the error of attacking the person instead of using proven facts and prior argument to point out the flaws in what the other person is saying. The error, or fallacy, is one of relevance. Who the person is, their educational level, their marital status, what car they drive, or how many teeth they still have is almost never relevant to the topic being discussed, and that fallacy is what we often see here. In the study of logic, it is called an Ad Hominem argument, literally "taking it to the man."
Direct attacks on people, even if they are meant to be instructive, are not welcome when they serve to isolate or to injure, even if by accident or incident. No one should be treated that way. If I have a problem with people, I almost aways contact them offline (no, my record is not perfect, I admit that now). We all should. At least, make an attempt to do the arguing the more private way. If you get ignored, you would then be entitled to make your point directly on the forum.
Let us try to preserve our mutual dignity here. We are all humans, mothers' sons and daughters, every one of us. If we would not speak to our own mothers the way we treat each other, why would we stoop and debase ourselves on a public forum that way? It doesn't matter that we use avatars, we are still generating the outcomes, and they reflect on our personas, no matter what we call ourselves.
We are known only by our words here. Let us endeavour to make that a positive undertaking...please. Always meant to help, never to injure.
I can't do more than this.
SpaceMouse wrote: jktrains wrote:I'll let the professionals take over. Hopefully we won't get lost in the techno speak.I don't think for a minute they were questioning the validity of the tread, rather they were pointing out that they could do to you what you did to Jeffery. In the end, it seems you feel the same way Jeffery did. Don't stop helping people, but be tactful in the way you criticize. People can learn without being hurt.
jktrains wrote:I'll let the professionals take over. Hopefully we won't get lost in the techno speak.
I don't think for a minute they were questioning the validity of the tread, rather they were pointing out that they could do to you what you did to Jeffery. In the end, it seems you feel the same way Jeffery did.
Don't stop helping people, but be tactful in the way you criticize. People can learn without being hurt.
Can't you for just one minute let this stuff go. Geesh. This was a great informative tutorial until you and jeffers had to bring your baggage here. PM the guy if you have a problem with him, but don't drag the rest of us down with your petty squabbling.
jeffers_mz wrote:As a former professional photojournalist and commercial photographer, I have to ask you, Jktrains, if you feel it would be fair for me to take it upon myself to point out the obvious flaws in your photography, in a public forum such as this one, and, after judging your work by the much higher standards my profession requires, ask you refrain from posting further images?What would your reaction be, how would it make you feel, to have me publicly note that in an image you used as an example of "quality" photography, in an image that you held up as a standard for others to emulate, that the plane of focus was two or more inches BEHIND the primary subject, as the grass on either end of the locomotive above clearly indicates?If I were to explain to the whole world that your color temperature was off by several hundred degrees Kelvin, and that your exposure settings left the image too dark by one third to one half stop, exhibiting considerably less than the full spectrum offered by 32 bit digital color, would I be performing a service to the readers of this forum, or would I simply be comparing my superior experience and knowlege in the field to yours, in an attempt to gratify my ego and look good at your expense?Would it make any difference if I did any of the above, if you had already done exactly the same thing to another member of the forum?Personally, I don't believe it would.I don't believe it would be fair to hold you to the standards my editors used in determining whether I got paid enough to eat, when photography was my only source of income.I don't believe it would be fair to you, to ask that you refrain from posting your work until and unless you could match those standards.I think that to do so, would undermine one of the primary purposes of this forum, which is to introduce new modelers to advanced techniques, and to help all modelers, regardless of skill level, to improve their work.I think that any attempt to exclude any imagery that failed to meet my standards would cheapen both this forum, and also my own work.No-one respects a bully, whether he has read one book on photography, a hundred books on photography, or never read a single book on photography.I think it's great that many modelers were able to learn from your work in creating this tutorial. That is one of the primary purposes of this forum.I must question, however, your motivation and timing in creating this thread, whether or not you realize that in doing so, you exacerbated a long-standing and previously unrelated problem here, and whether or not the imagery in this tutorial should be used as an example for others to emulate.I learned a long time ago that no matter how much or little my skills advanced, there's always someone better than me, and that the moment I started acting superior and exclusive towards those with less experience, lesser ability, or lesser equipment, I was opening the door for my betters to do the same thing to me.There are photographers who post here on a regular basis who have much stronger skills than I do. Since most of us are here for enjoyment, I'd rather not have those individuals exclude my work from this forum.For that reason, and more importantly, because I don't feel that posturing has any place excluding anyone here, I don't ask you not to post pictures, and by the same token, believe you should sit down and think, as many times more than once as is necessary, about whether you are in a position to exclude anyone else's work either.If only the best photographer here is allowed to post images, I won't be posting, and neither will you. if the forum is open for us "mere mortals" to post less than perfect imagery, then I don't believe it's up to me, or to you, to self appoint ourselves as arbiter, judge, and moderator to determine the minimum standards here.Decide what you think is right, but understand going in, a simple fact of human nature determines that however you choose to treat others, is quite likely how others will choose to treat you.
As a former professional photojournalist and commercial photographer, I have to ask you, Jktrains, if you feel it would be fair for me to take it upon myself to point out the obvious flaws in your photography, in a public forum such as this one, and, after judging your work by the much higher standards my profession requires, ask you refrain from posting further images?
What would your reaction be, how would it make you feel, to have me publicly note that in an image you used as an example of "quality" photography, in an image that you held up as a standard for others to emulate, that the plane of focus was two or more inches BEHIND the primary subject, as the grass on either end of the locomotive above clearly indicates?
If I were to explain to the whole world that your color temperature was off by several hundred degrees Kelvin, and that your exposure settings left the image too dark by one third to one half stop, exhibiting considerably less than the full spectrum offered by 32 bit digital color, would I be performing a service to the readers of this forum, or would I simply be comparing my superior experience and knowlege in the field to yours, in an attempt to gratify my ego and look good at your expense?
Would it make any difference if I did any of the above, if you had already done exactly the same thing to another member of the forum?
Personally, I don't believe it would.
I don't believe it would be fair to hold you to the standards my editors used in determining whether I got paid enough to eat, when photography was my only source of income.
I don't believe it would be fair to you, to ask that you refrain from posting your work until and unless you could match those standards.
I think that to do so, would undermine one of the primary purposes of this forum, which is to introduce new modelers to advanced techniques, and to help all modelers, regardless of skill level, to improve their work.
I think that any attempt to exclude any imagery that failed to meet my standards would cheapen both this forum, and also my own work.
No-one respects a bully, whether he has read one book on photography, a hundred books on photography, or never read a single book on photography.
I think it's great that many modelers were able to learn from your work in creating this tutorial. That is one of the primary purposes of this forum.
I must question, however, your motivation and timing in creating this thread, whether or not you realize that in doing so, you exacerbated a long-standing and previously unrelated problem here, and whether or not the imagery in this tutorial should be used as an example for others to emulate.
I learned a long time ago that no matter how much or little my skills advanced, there's always someone better than me, and that the moment I started acting superior and exclusive towards those with less experience, lesser ability, or lesser equipment, I was opening the door for my betters to do the same thing to me.
There are photographers who post here on a regular basis who have much stronger skills than I do. Since most of us are here for enjoyment, I'd rather not have those individuals exclude my work from this forum.
For that reason, and more importantly, because I don't feel that posturing has any place excluding anyone here, I don't ask you not to post pictures, and by the same token, believe you should sit down and think, as many times more than once as is necessary, about whether you are in a position to exclude anyone else's work either.
If only the best photographer here is allowed to post images, I won't be posting, and neither will you. if the forum is open for us "mere mortals" to post less than perfect imagery, then I don't believe it's up to me, or to you, to self appoint ourselves as arbiter, judge, and moderator to determine the minimum standards here.
Decide what you think is right, but understand going in, a simple fact of human nature determines that however you choose to treat others, is quite likely how others will choose to treat you.
This little tirade should have been sent to JK in a PM. I don't see you sharing your vast knowledge of skills with the rest of us. I for one appreciated this thread. Its simple and to the point for us other amatuers.
jktrains wrote: Chip,No I don't feel the same way as Jeffrey. I haven't gone on a rant swearing at people. I've merely said that since someone with more knowledge has step forward then they should continue this thread, or start their own, and share with us less knowledgeable individuals the vastly more knowledge that they have. So convince them to continue. BTW, weren't you the same one who contacted me offline about contributing photos to a project you were compiling. Can't have it both ways. Don't attack me online and then ask me to send you pics off line. Don't contact me offline and say that you agree with my comments about Jeff, but remain silent online. You did a nice thing by starting the process to get Jeffrey a better camera. But one could ask why did it take my comments about his photos for you to start this process? You're a regular contributor and have seen his pics for along time, why did you all of a sudden start that process? Coincidence??Don't be a hypocrite.
Chip,
No I don't feel the same way as Jeffrey. I haven't gone on a rant swearing at people. I've merely said that since someone with more knowledge has step forward then they should continue this thread, or start their own, and share with us less knowledgeable individuals the vastly more knowledge that they have. So convince them to continue.
BTW, weren't you the same one who contacted me offline about contributing photos to a project you were compiling. Can't have it both ways. Don't attack me online and then ask me to send you pics off line. Don't contact me offline and say that you agree with my comments about Jeff, but remain silent online. You did a nice thing by starting the process to get Jeffrey a better camera. But one could ask why did it take my comments about his photos for you to start this process? You're a regular contributor and have seen his pics for along time, why did you all of a sudden start that process? Coincidence??
Don't be a hypocrite.
Actually Crandell contacted us both. I feel you do have something to contribute. If I remember the conversation, we talked about sandwiching criticism with praise. I also have had a dialog with Jeffery offline. I told him how I felt when a conversation I had was bumped off the top page. I didn't mention it to you, sorry.
As to what instigated the camera drive idea, it was probably the attack on him personally. I saw a person trying to do what he could with what he was dealt and taking flack for it. It seemed a good solution in a lot of ways. As to why it took so long, well sometimes I need to be hit with a 2 x 4 to wake up.
As to you feeling like Jeffery, well, no one feels exactly like someone else so there was generalization. In fact no one really knows how you feel. So I apologise for making the comparison. Some people "get it" faster than others and others are pushed to the breaking point and still don't get it. At some point it is the responsibility of the pusher to recognize when his comments are not having a desired effect and back off. If I've done this to you, once again, I apologise.