You can't do That with medium format

[amsp]

Ray, I think I speak for everyone who actually WORKS as a photographer and uses both formats on a daily basis when I say; Thanks for the endless stream of chuckles, please keep posting! Oh, and here's a novel idea, instead of whining about the lack of MFD tests on the internet how about testing it yourself? Naaah, just kidding, better to just write another lengthy post on this forum about how everyone is elitist and doesn't respect your opinion just because of trivial details such as actually having experience on the subject. Enjoy the armchair!

[Dustbak]

Nonsense! With a good DSLR like the D3x, you could get that background as sharp as you want.  I appreciate the creative idea of shooting the married couple against an interesting background of graffiti, but I just can't understand the concept of getting the interesting background out of focus. Make up your mind. If the background is interesting, it deserves to be in focus. If it's not interesting, by all means get it out of focus, or choose another background.

Your response is nonsense. Where is it carved in stone that interesting things need to be in sharp focus? Colored figures or colored areas can be a very interesting background without the need of being in sharp focus. Actually, most people believe they should remain OOF so it doesn't distract from what the picture is actually about.

In this case the image would have been worse with the background in focus and would have made it flat. The separation between the persons and background makes it more interesting.

In your case you probably should have left out the couple and only shot the background. Make up your mind, are you making an image of the background or an image of a just married couple?

[eronald]

Dustbak,

 Don't you understand the symbology of the Graffiti as representing the silent surrounding social discourse, accompanying the explicit ceremonial planning of the marriage? And the fact that a private ceremony momentarily silences (puts out of focus) the pressing public discourse?

Humor aside, I do find that these days the couples who can afford wedding photography are those who in some way make it the most ironic. The youth and "innocence" and in some ways the look into the future which came with the look into the camera in old photos is now gone; marriage used to be about adolescents turning into adults,it is now about adults who are turning middle aged. At least those who pay for the imagery.

Edmund

Your response is nonsense. Where is it carved in stone that interesting things need to be in sharp focus? Colored figures or colored areas can be a very interesting background without the need of being in sharp focus. Actually, most people believe they should remain OOF so it doesn't distract from what the picture is actually about.

In this case the image would have been worse with the background in focus and would have made it flat. The separation between the persons and background makes it more interesting.

In your case you probably should have left out the couple and only shot the background. Make up your mind, are you making an image of the background or an image of a just married couple?

[Dustbak]

True, very true. It does make wedding photography a lot more interesting IMO. I totally respect those that have made this type of photography an art form.

[Rob C]

I have never seen an interesting wedding photograph.

To me, it represents all that's wrong with high street photography. Even those superstars of the lens who have fallen for the 'royal appointment' have also fallen flat on their faeces faces when they touch the genre.

Marriage is made in heaven; marriage photographs in artistic despair.

All that pomp, all that money and all that excitement wasted on people that have no ability to do one simple thing: look good.

Better varnishing wooden shutters on a hot day.

Rob C

[Martin Kristiansen]

I dont like wedding photography most likely because I am so bad at it. I think the last wedding image above with the graffiti to be a fine image. The amount of OOF seems just right. Sharp enough to see whats there and soft enough to nudge the eye back to the couple. Well done

[Dick Roadnight]

I have to say I find that such notions about the need to personally handle and fondle a piece of hi tech equipment before one can express a meaningful opinion on its uses and performance, are very quaint indeed.

Some of us weren't born yesterday, ya know!

Before there had been a man on the the moon, the best information we had about it was from people who had never been there, but we do have, on this forum, people who can express meaningful opinions about MF kit... as they have not only handled and fondled it, but have used it and earned there living with it!

Some of us were not born yesterday, you know!

[Christopher]

Ray keep it coming, I haven't been laughing that much in a long time.

[BrendanStewart]

Guys... hold on.

I want to see what Ray has to share. After all, 7000 posts, he must have something. Right?

[tho_mas]

don't feed the troll

[Ray]

Your response is nonsense. Where is it carved in stone that interesting things need to be in sharp focus?

Here! This is where it's carved in stone. See?

[bcooter]

Guys... hold on.

I dig this.

This is the direction blogs and forums are going, the notion that every voice has equal weight.  

Heck, you see it under a NYTimes article some unknown from wherever giving opinion on politics, the economy, the moon and their voice is just as important as the author of the article. (at least to them).

It's crazy and this forum gets sucked into it every time.

I have this feeling that ol' Ray Ray is just laughing his ass off.   Here's a guy that spends about 50 bucks a year on photography and can stir the pot of people that buy, use make and sell images and equipment around the world.

All he's gotta do is just write some silliness that nobody will do a proper test to his satisfaction, even though he's not able, or willing to do it himself, this place goes ape s##t trying to prove him wrong.

This format fixation is hilarious and has absolutely nothing to do with the art, or commerce of making a photograph.  

Funny stuff.

BC

[BrendanStewart]

I agree on his lack of experience and intent to stir up the pot and make people laugh.

However, there is a pattern with people like him on forums. If i were to profile, i'd guess the following:

1. Has trouble affording gear for his hobby.
2. Is miserable in his own life on some level.
3. Isn't willing to show any shots of their own because he has low self-confidence.
4. Posts a lot on forums that have post counts listed to seemingly have some sort of rank. :rolleyes:

It's sad really. It makes you wonder what's really going on in their real life?...  i hate people who hide behind usernames. Stand up and be a man.

</Psychiatrist>

[Guy Mancuso]

Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Do not feed the trolls" and its abbreviation "DNFTT" redirect here. For the Wikimedia essay, see "What is a troll?".
For other uses, see Troll (disambiguation).


A prank cake using common troll motifs such as the acronym 'YHBT' (You Have Been Trolled), the term 'pwned', and Guy Fawkes masks.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in "that was an excellent troll you posted". While the term troll and its associated action trolling are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with trolling being used to describe intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, recent media accounts have used the term troll to describe "a person who defaces internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[3][4]

Bottom line we all been sandbagged. LOL No worries folks it's done everyday

[bjanes]

I agree on his lack of experience and intent to stir up the pot and make people laugh.

However, there is a pattern with people like him on forums. If i were to profile, i'd guess the following:

1. Has trouble affording gear for his hobby.
2. Is miserable in his own life on some level.
3. Isn't willing to show any shots of their own because he has low self-confidence.
4. Posts a lot on forums that have post counts listed to seemingly have some sort of rank. :rolleyes:

It's sad really. It makes you wonder what's really going on in their real life?...  i hate people who hide behind usernames. Stand up and be a man.

</Psychiatrist>

Brendan, I see that you are new on the forum and might not know that much about Ray. Actually, he is pretty well heeled and has good equipment and has posted many images online, as he stated previously in this thread. I don't know if he is satisfied with his life, but he travels extensively around the world and many of us would be glad to trade places with him. You should tone down your amateur psychobabble. I assume that you are not a real psychiatrist.

His comments in this thread challenge some of the outlandish and scientifically impossible claims made by some MFDB users who should know better.

Regards,

Bill

[Dick Roadnight]

Your response is nonsense. Where is it carved in stone that interesting things need to be in sharp focus?

We learn the basics of pointing the camera at the subject, getting it in focus and correctly exposed, and then we go advanced... and point the camera at random,, and produce blurred images of nothing, with large areas of black or white, and then try to convince buyers (or failing that us) that it is marketable art!

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community,

As the OP defines the subject matter for the topic, by definition you cannot be a troll in your own topic?

Respect and appreciation where it is due... if Ray confines his posts to his own topics, we can easily avoid reading it.

[BrendanStewart]

Brendan, I see that you are new on the forum and might not know that much about Ray. Actually, he is pretty well heeled and has good equipment and has posted many images online, as he stated previously in this thread. I don't know if he is satisfied with his life, but he travels extensively around the world and many of us would be glad to trade places with him.

Damn, that makes it even sadder....  

[BrendanStewart]

You should tone down your amateur psychobabble. I assume that you are not a real psychiatrist.

His comments in this thread challenge some of the outlandish and scientifically impossible claims made by some MFDB users who should know better.

Right. I guess pointing out the obvious helps nobody. Point taken.

As for helping the community by challenging them  , there are much more constructive ways to do so.

[Guy Mancuso]

We learn the basics of pointing the camera at the subject, getting it in focus and correctly exposed, and then we go advanced... and point the camera at random,, and produce blurred images of nothing, with large areas of black or white, and then try to convince buyers (or failing that us) that it is marketable art!
As the OP defines the subject matter for the topic, by definition you cannot be a troll in your own topic?

Respect and appreciation where it is due... if Ray confines his posts to his own topics, we can easily avoid reading it.

Sorry Dick but that don't wash. I see it everyday. BTW i really don't care I shoot what I shoot because i want too and don't have to defend any of my buying decisions. I always loved MF even in my film days . MF digital is just a bonus to me and my clients love the files. That alone is a good enough reason to shoot it. No other reason needed and more important no other proof needed.

[Ray]

I agree on his lack of experience and intent to stir up the pot and make people laugh.

However, there is a pattern with people like him on forums. If i were to profile, i'd guess the following:

1. Has trouble affording gear for his hobby.
2. Is miserable in his own life on some level.
3. Isn't willing to show any shots of their own because he has low self-confidence.
4. Posts a lot on forums that have post counts listed to seemingly have some sort of rank. :rolleyes:

It's sad really. It makes you wonder what's really going on in their real life?...  i hate people who hide behind usernames. Stand up and be a man.

</Psychiatrist>

Those are not only a rather nasty and spiteful comments to make, Brendan, but there's not a skerrick of truth to any of them.

I actually get a great deal of satisfaction from my hobby. I find digital photography a vast improvement on the old system of film and chemical darkroom. I enjoy immensely the activity of travelling to exotic locations to photograph new scenes, and sometimes returning to the same locations with better equipment and more experience.

I enjoy the activity of processing the images I take, after I return home, as well as the activity of discussing photographic matters and exploring the continual new developments in image processing software and hardware.

Since I'm retired, I could certainly afford an MFDB system, but I would have a hard time justifying to myself the purchase of such expensive equipment, considering it's weight and lack of flexibility for my purposes.

As for not being willing to show my shots because of low self-confidence, what on earth are you talking about? You don't seem to be making any sense at all. The first image that appeared in this long thread was mine, on page 10 or so.

After more than 7,000 posts on this forum there's probably a couple of hundred or more of my images in various threads on various topics.

As for posting a lot on forums, that's not true again. I post on only one forum, Luminous Landscape, and I only post in topics that interest me, unlike some people who find it necessary to post in topics they find boring.

By the way, Ray (abbreviation for Raymond) is actually my real name.

Can I suggest if you fancy yourself as a psychiatrist, you change occupations  .