Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: dalethorn on July 02, 2009, 04:47:22 pm
-
It has some technical problems to be sure, but I thought it looked good enough at arm's length to offer up here.
-
It has some technical problems to be sure
I don't like it. The focus is poor, the bokeh is ugly, the colors aren't interesting and neither is the subject. What's interesting to you about this image?
Dale, I'd like to see you post something you think exemplifies your "best" in some sense.
Frankly, you seem to be primarily doing two things here:
1) Posting lots of images, most of which I think even you know aren't very good
2) Having a silly pissing match with Russ
On 1 ... post something good that you can stand behind 100%. Show us your stuff. Show off. I'm sure lots of regular readers would like to see this.
On 2 ... while I don't agree with everything Russ says, he's far from "uninformed" ... and at least he's made a deep sample of his work available for us to review ... and that makes it easier to respect him even when I disagree with him. He's a really good photographer!
If it seems like I'm challenging you, I am ...
-
Jeremy,
Thank you. By the way, number 2, above, is finished. I haven't answered any of Dale's remarks for some time and I won't be answering any of them in the future.
-
I think its nice. Not fine art, but a bird in ok light with a pleasant backdrop. I would crop more, as in my attachment.
Christian
-
Christian, You got the bird moved to the right position in the print, but, as Jeremy pointed out, the focus is poor and the bokeh is execrable. It's unfortunate, but this one isn't salvageable.
-
I don't like it. The focus is poor, the bokeh is ugly, the colors aren't interesting and neither is the subject. What's interesting to you about this image?
Dale, I'd like to see you post something you think exemplifies your "best" in some sense.
Frankly, you seem to be primarily doing two things here:
1) Posting lots of images, most of which I think even you know aren't very good
2) Having a silly pissing match with Russ
On 1 ... post something good that you can stand behind 100%. Show us your stuff. Show off. I'm sure lots of regular readers would like to see this.
On 2 ... while I don't agree with everything Russ says, he's far from "uninformed" ... and at least he's made a deep sample of his work available for us to review ... and that makes it easier to respect him even when I disagree with him. He's a really good photographer!
If it seems like I'm challenging you, I am ...
Well, we don't want to create any new "pissing matches", do we? I respect your opinion of Russ, but of course, I think he's very common, in spite of his constant name-dropping. Do I want to show off? No. I just want to do better is all. Thanks anyway.
-
I think its nice. Not fine art, but a bird in ok light with a pleasant backdrop. I would crop more, as in my attachment.
Christian
The crop looks good to me. One of the things I strive for in wildlife photos is to try to give the animals a dignified presentation, without being exploitative. The alternate crop here preserves that look, which is good.
-
....the bokeh is ugly, ...
Almost forgot, sorry. I read somewhere here what bokeh is, but I've forgotten again. Goes to show how important I thought it was.
-
One of the things I strive for in wildlife photos is to try to give the animals a dignified presentation, without being exploitative.
Try getting them in focus.
-
Almost forgot, sorry. I read somewhere here what bokeh is, but I've forgotten again. Goes to show how important I thought it was.
You aren't interested in criticism or getting better.
-
By the way, number 2, above, is finished. I haven't answered any of Dale's remarks for some time and I won't be answering any of them in the future.
I'd noticed. That's why I raised the issue with the other party and not you.
I guess I'll move him to that folder myself.
-
Christian, You got the bird moved to the right position in the print, but, as Jeremy pointed out, the focus is poor and the bokeh is execrable. It's unfortunate, but this one isn't salvageable.
I think the bokeh is fine, and preferable to a totally out-of-focus background (too common and banal). Here, the background is out of focus enough to not compete with the main subject but you can still identify the background *water running over rocks), and I think that adds to the picture.
The bird is soft, and that's the main problem that I see. I would also crop a bit at the right and top - no need to see the background above the upper fence rail (or whatever it is).
Peter
-
I'd noticed. That's why I raised the issue with the other party and not you.
I guess I'll move him to that folder myself.
Three postings in a row by you, on this little ol' bird pic. Now that's a recommendation I can take to the bank! (Thanx)
-
The bird is soft, and that's the main problem that I see.
Yep - I'm seeing that a lot with the G1's 45-200 at maximum zoom, and there have been many comments by other folks in other similar postings. So I think this is not a particularly good lens, but maybe that's par for a $305 (discounted) telephoto lens. All I need now is a replacement that will do fast autofocus with the G1 at max. zoom, have at least 400 mm (35 mm equivalent) focal length, and be sharp at the long end. The silly part of this is I could probably get about the same results on average with the Panasonic FZ-50, with the tiny 1/1.8 sensor. Maybe the various equipment reviewers should issue a warning -- If you're thinking of upgrading from a tiny-sensor superzoom to a micro 4/3 (or even 4/3 ?), forget about it.
-
Try getting them in focus.
BTW, I work as a professional software engineer, and in our business, we call this result "working as designed". You probably wouldn't understand that, because you probably believe those equipment reviews you've read. Which stands to reason, else why would you have all of that expensive gear instead of a p&s? And just in case you don't get it, that means the G1 and 45-200 was not designed to produce good focus on most objects at max. zoom, even in daylight conditions. So why post such things? People need to know. Plus it's all good fun anyway.
-
I'd noticed. That's why I raised the issue with the other party and not you.
I guess I'll move him to that folder myself.
I didn't put him in the ignore folder. He posts too much misinformation on here that can mislead beginners. I won't respond to his asides, but if something needs to be corrected I'll try to correct it.
-
the G1 and 45-200 was not designed to produce good focus on most objects at max. zoom, even in daylight conditions.
Dale, Dale, Dale ... you are completely full of it.
Guess these are fakes?
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/panasoncdmcg1_samples/ (http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/panasoncdmcg1_samples/)
(http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/panasoncdmcg1_samples/p1000746_sj_acr.jpg)
(http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/panasoncdmcg1_samples/p1000958_sj_iso400.jpg)
(http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/panasoncdmcg1_samples/p1000868_sj_iso100.jpg)
-
I didn't put him in the ignore folder. He posts too much misinformation on here that can mislead beginners. I won't respond to his asides, but if something needs to be corrected I'll try to correct it.
Good point.
-
I didn't put him in the ignore folder. He posts too much misinformation on here that can mislead beginners. I won't respond to his asides, but if something needs to be corrected I'll try to correct it.
So you'd rather SPAM Michael's site with your tripe than let one simple little bird photo go uncritiqued by your holiness?
-
Dale, Dale, Dale ... you are completely full of it.
Guess these are fakes?
In case you're actually serious instead of just angry and jealous, I let it be known exactly what the limitations of the G1 are, with real photos posted by a real user (me), not by someone with a vested interest in promoting hardware (DpReview).
Now your little mind should be able to comprehend the difference between the two entities I just mentioned, but I'm not optimistic.
-
You're crazier than I thought you were.
... The bird is out of focus and it is the camera's fault. ... Amazon is posting fake images on dpreview to sell more cameras ...
I see.
-
You're crazier than I thought you were.
... The bird is out of focus and it is the camera's fault. ... Amazon is posting fake images on dpreview to sell more cameras ...
I see.
I'm crazy? You and the old dude are some kind of megalomaniacs, deciding that YOU are the arbiters of correctness on the LL forum.
And no, in the sane world (not yours) the entity that has a commercial interest in pushing hardware and taking Panasonic's money for ads does indeed have a very real incentive to, er, not mention certain things.
I wouldn't say you're crazy other than what I mentioned, but you're either a bad liar or terribly naive.
-
And no surprise on the actual review contained at the DPReview site: They used the kit (14-45) lens, and an Olympus 50 mm lens. Other than a mere mention that a 45-200 lens was available, they did absolutely no tests with it, nor did they comment one word about it.
-
And no surprise on the actual review contained at the DPReview site: They used the kit (14-45) lens, and an Olympus 50 mm lens. Other than a mere mention that a 45-200 lens was available, they did absolutely no tests with it, nor did they comment one word about it.
More research from the (I'm crazy?) person: I read the full review at Cameralabs.com - same deal as DPReview - nary a mention of the 45-200 except "it exists".
Then I read the 27 user reviews at DPReview - 4 people mentioned the 45-200, but only 3 commented on the quality:
1. 45-200 not sharp.
2. 45-200 good, but not as good as the 14-45.
3. 45-200 resolution goes down the more you zoom.
I'd say the evidence is coming in in my favor as far as facts are concerned, unfortunately not as far as having good equipment is concerned.
-
One of the things I strive for in wildlife photos is to try to give the animals a dignified presentation, without being exploitative.
Yes, I can see that too. (Just wanted to stop by and say that, now Im off here since I dont like whats going on here.)
-
And no surprise on the actual review contained at the DPReview site: They used the kit (14-45) lens, and an Olympus 50 mm lens. Other than a mere mention that a 45-200 lens was available, they did absolutely no tests with it, nor did they comment one word about it.
Sorry, dude ... all the photos I linked were shot with the 45-200 at 200.
-
Sorry, dude ... all the photos I linked were shot with the 45-200 at 200.
What you should be sorry for is making a personal attack when you don't have your facts straight. The reviews at both sites had a conspicuous absence of commentary about the lens, and the actual users did, which was unfavorable. Your linked photos prove absolutely nothing. I can supply photos "proving" anything. But I don't, because I'm not an attack dog like you.
-
making a personal attack ... But I don't, because I'm not an attack dog like you.
Uh, huh.
"Russ, but of course, I think he's very common"
"Russ's critiques are often dismissive, contemptuous, uninformed or informed on an unrelated topic"
And with respect to your inability to focus a camera ... stop blaming the camera. You are the problem. Invest in a quality tripod or learn how to hold the thing still.
Unless you are accusing dpreview of outright fraud, the images I posted actually do prove my point and disprove your claim that the lens was designed to suck.
The images I posted prove that the Panasonic G1 with the 45-200mm lens can be accurately and effectively focused at 200mm ... if you know how to use the camera.
Your problem is that you've gotten overly used to the forgiveness a tiny senor and a tiny absolute focal length give a hack like you.
Now that you've stepped up to the 'huge' 4/3 sensor, you just can't keep it still in your shaky little hands ... keep at it ... in a year or two you might actually get something in focus.
-
Uh, huh.
"Russ, but of course, I think he's very common"
"Russ's critiques are often dismissive, contemptuous, uninformed or informed on an unrelated topic"
And with respect to your inability to focus a camera ... stop blaming the camera. You are the problem. Invest in a quality tripod or learn how to hold the thing still.
Unless you are accusing dpreview of outright fraud, the images I posted actually do prove my point and disprove your claim that the lens was designed to suck.
The images I posted prove that the Panasonic G1 with the 45-200mm lens can be accurately and effectively focused at 200mm ... if you know how to use the camera.
Your problem is that you've gotten overly used to the forgiveness a tiny senor and a tiny absolute focal length give a hack like you.
Now that you've stepped up to the 'huge' 4/3 sensor, you just can't keep it still in your shaky little hands ... keep at it ... in a year or two you might actually get something in focus.
The truth hurts, doesn't it mr. attack dog? I've been using big cameras since the 1960's, which is yet another fact that your ignorance missed. I know very well what I'm doing, and all you can come up with to cover your embarrassment is tripe, and more attacks.
-
And no surprise on the actual review contained at the DPReview site: They used the kit (14-45) lens, and an Olympus 50 mm lens. Other than a mere mention that a 45-200 lens was available, they did absolutely no tests with it, nor did they comment one word about it.
Who has their facts wrong? Me? Try again ...
"Panasonic Lumix G1 Review Samples (33 of 49), 400 mm equiv, ISO 100, 1/640 sec, F5.6, +0.0 EV, G VARIO 45-200mm/F4.0-F5.6"
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/panasoncdmcg1_samples/ (http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/panasoncdmcg1_samples/)
(http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/panasoncdmcg1_samples/p1010326_iso100.jpg)
Another fraudulent image? Is that your claim?
Do you understand logic? You claim the lens cannot be focused at 200mm to achieve a reasonably sharp image. You claim that your failure to do so is proof of your claim. This is illogical. What you have proved is that YOU have not so far produced an acceptably sharp image with this lens.
The fact that someone else has done so, and that I have shown several images shot with that camera and lens at 200mm is, in fact, proof that your claim is false.
Elementary, my dear Watson ... elementary.
We have proved two things:
1) The lens/camera combo can produce sharp images at 200mm in capable hands
2) You do not have capable hands
Now ... if you want to continue picking on a Korean War veteran who takes damn good photographs and has a lot of valuable insights and experience to share ... be my guest ... but if you do, I will smack you down every time.
Peace.
-
I've been using big cameras since the 1960's
All that proves is that you are a REALLY slow learner.
-
All that proves is that you are a REALLY slow learner.
All this posting proves is that you're a liar and attack dog, devoid of facts and full of bile.
-
I know very well what I'm doing
Then let us see that. Most of what you post isn't even in focus, so it is hard to accept this claim.
Show us some of stuff that would make your daddy proud ... he was an artist, right? Show us some of that genetic advantage.
-
All this posting proves is that you're a liar
Liar? What have I lied about?
-
Who has their facts wrong? Me? Try again ...
"Panasonic Lumix G1 Review Samples (33 of 49), 400 mm equiv, ISO 100, 1/640 sec, F5.6, +0.0 EV, G VARIO 45-200mm/F4.0-F5.6"
Another fraudulent image? Is that your claim?
Do you understand logic? You claim the lens cannot be focused at 200mm to achieve a reasonably sharp image. You claim that your failure to do so is proof of your claim. This is illogical. What you have proved is that YOU have not so far produced an acceptably sharp image with this lens.
The fact that someone else has done so, and that I have shown several images shot with that camera and lens at 200mm is, in fact, proof that your claim is false.
Elementary, my dear Watson ... elementary.
We have proved two things:
1) The lens/camera combo can produce sharp images at 200mm in capable hands
2) You do not have capable hands
Now ... if you want to continue picking on a Korean War veteran who takes damn good photographs and has a lot of valuable insights and experience to share ... be my guest ... but if you do, I will smack you down every time.
Peace.
Peace from a liar and attack dog? Is that like "Mars Attacks", i.e. "we come in peace"?
BTW mr. attack dog, I've posted photos from the 45-200 that have gotten excellent reviews here. But you probably missed those, and would prefer the "official" versions from DPReview. No doubt you believe the Oswald photos are genuine as well.
-
if you want to continue picking on a Korean War veteran....
At your age I'd conclude your eyesight, as well as some other body parts, are probably failing.
-
If that lens was not capable of being focused at 200mm, then they probably would not have sold it. It may not be the sharpest lens in the world, but if a shot is in focus on a soft lens, it is still obvious that it is in focus, and with digital you can sharpen it up even more if need be. Being 400mm equivalent on that camera body, sorry if I missed a detail, but perhaps camera shake was the problem.
Anyway, I reccomend buying a good sharp lens, that way you can't blame your equipment.
This was shot through my back window with Canon 70-200 2.8L IS.
-
At your age
Unless you are lying about your lab experience in the Army in 1967, you are at least 20 years my senior ... so I'm not sure I get the age attacks ... but for the record ...
I was born in 1969. I'll be 40 in September ... I have zero presbyopia and my myopia was laser corrected to 20/10.
My vision is perfect ... hence my ability to see right through your bullshyte.
-
Unless you are lying about your lab experience in the Army in 1967, you are at least 20 years my senior ... so I'm not sure I get the age attacks ... but for the record ...
I was born in 1969. I'll be 40 in September ... I have zero presbyopia and my myopia was laser corrected to 20/10.
My vision is perfect ... hence my ability to see right through your bullshyte.
A Korean War veteran born in 1969? Sure. And your logic, comparing eyesight to being able to digest print - that's classic too.
-
A Korean War veteran born in 1969?
Russ fought in Korea, you idiot.
-
If that lens was not capable of being focused at 200mm, then they probably would not have sold it. It may not be the sharpest lens in the world, but if a shot is in focus on a soft lens, it is still obvious that it is in focus, and with digital you can sharpen it up even more if need be. Being 400mm equivalent on that camera body, sorry if I missed a detail, but perhaps camera shake was the problem.
Anyway, I reccomend buying a good sharp lens, that way you can't blame your equipment.
This was shot through my back window with Canon 70-200 2.8L IS.
Thanks for that. This topic and what precedes it goes back a ways. From the beginning, the lens can't auto-focus even as well as the 420 mm (35 mm equiv.) lens on the P&S Panasonic FZ-50. It's a crappy lens, and the whole point of this thread (from what I read of Jeremy's posts) is to attack the messenger rather than the message. The conspicuous absense of mention in both DPReview and Cameralabs' thorough reviews, at a time when it was only one of two lenses available, and thus very important, tell a lot.
-
One fact that's conveniently forgotten by Jeremy and others is the "feature" that Pana set in the G1 to prevent you from taking the photo when the camera "thinks" it isn't in focus. This occurs in autofocus even when the camera is resting on a solid support, and pointing at a still object 20 ft. away. Once you turn that feature off, the trouble starts. Perhaps Jeremy thinks that that's a good feature, but it sure shows design intent. As I said previously, "functioning as designed."