People who shoot photos with their lens hood on backwards

[Zapp Brannigan]

editor the bike silhouette is a stunning shot. It's such a shame that you can't get sports action shots with a phone though.

Keep it up folks. This thread has gone from a really daft bunfight into a brilliant, eclectic gallery. Good work all

 

[editor]

editor the bike silhouette is a stunning shot. It's such a shame that you can't get sports action shots with a phone though.

Not just a sports action shot, but a low light sports action shot! Double impossible!

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Stunning work.

Doesn't count... There must be 3 people in the shot to balance the image!

... and the walls are too steep.

 

[Bungle73]

You can post as many images as you like, but it doesn't change the facts. Why don't you try going onto a photography forum and trying the same line you're using here? You won't, because you know what answer you'll get.

 

[Fez909]

 

[Bungle73]

Not just a sports action shot, but a low light sports action shot! Double impossible!

You really are someone who claims to know a lot but actually knows very little. That shot is noise city - and is not very good quality, as I already said. If you actually knew anything you'd know noise is the price for shooting in low light with a small sensor camera, but you obviously don't.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

You can post as many images as you like, but it doesn't change the facts. Why don't you try going onto a photography forum and trying the same line you're using here? You won't, because you know what answer you'll get.

In case you hadn't noticed... we're in the photography forum

(or does it only count if the domain name contains 'photography'?)

 

[Fez909]

 

[Bungle73]

In case you hadn't noticed... we're in the photography forum

(or does it only count if the domain name contains 'photography'?)

I mean a forum that actually has a bunch of people who are experts on photography, rather than a bunch of people who think they are.

 

[Fez909]

I mean a forum that actually has a bunch of people who are experts on photography, rather than a bunch of people who think they are.

Experts don't use photography forums. They don't need them.

 

[Bungle73]

Experts don't use photography forums. They don't need them.

That would be why Tony and Chelsea Northrup frequent their private forum on FB then?

And of course no expert on something would want to take part in a forum on their subject of interest would they?

 

[Fez909]

That would be why Tony and Chelsea Northrup frequent their private forum on FB then?

And of course no expert on something would want to take part in a forum on their subject of interest would they?

Two experts using a private Facebook group isn't great evidence.

Of course some people will choose to take part in online forums, but they'll be in the minority. Most people on forums (in any subject) are beginners, casuals and amateurs. Which is why when you find the odd expert on a forum they stand out so much.

 

[Bungle73]

Two experts using a private Facebook group isn't great evidence.

Um, why not? They're there, and able to answer questions.

Of course some people will choose to take part in online forums, but they'll be in the minority. Most people on forums (in any subject) are beginners, casuals and amateurs. Which is why when you find the odd expert on a forum they stand out so much.

Um, exactly how many "experts" do you think you need?? By my count you only need the one. And why can't someone be both an "expert" and an amateur? Many amateurs, in lots of fields, are exactly that.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

You really are someone who claims to know a lot but actually knows very little. That shot is noise city - and is not very good quality, as I already said. If you actually knew anything you'd know noise is the price for shooting in low light with a small sensor camera, but you obviously don't.

Are you serious?

So what it boils down to (on planet Bungle), is that a photograph is shite unless it's clinically perfect?

So this is a shit photograph (on planet Bungle)?

Not a great example but it'll do.

And what about film? Film is grainy as fuck... are all shots taken with a film camera shite too?

You're accusing people of knowing nothing about photography... Ironic poster is ironic.

 

[Fez909]

Um, why not? They're there, and able to answer questions.


Um, exactly how many "experts" do you think you need?? By my count you only need the one. And why can't someone be both an "expert" and an amateur? Many amateurs, in lots of fields, are exactly that.

am·a·teur (ăm′ə-tûr′, -tər, -cho͝or′, -chər, -tyo͝or′)
n.
1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
2. Sports An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.
3. One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.

 

[Bungle73]

Are you serious?

So what it boils down to (on planet Bungle), is that a photograph is shite unless it's clinically perfect?

So this is a shit photograph (on planet Bungle)?

Not a great example but it'll do.

And what about film? Film is grainy as fuck... are all shots taken with a film camera shite too?

You're accusing people of knowing nothing about photography... Ironic poster is ironic.

LOL! You don't give up do you. So you think that any stock photo site or somewhere like Getty would accept an image like that of the cyclist, with that much noise in it, and of such low quality. News images are 100% different. I can tell you now that some stock photo sites are very, very picky about what they will and won't accept.

Do you actually know why people buy DSLRs (and I'll give you a clue, it's not to make the user look "cool"), and why they are used for the majority of professional photography? I suggest you go and find out.

 

[Bungle73]

am·a·teur (ăm′ə-tûr′, -tər, -cho͝or′, -chər, -tyo͝or′)
n.
1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
2. Sports An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.
3. One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.

expert
ˈɛkspəːt/
noun
noun: expert; plural noun: experts

1. 1.
   a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.
   "an expert in health care"
   synonyms:specialist, authority, pundit, oracle;More
   adept, maestro, virtuoso, master, past master, professional, genius, wizard;
   connoisseur, aficionado, one of the cognoscenti, cognoscente, doyen, savant;
   informalace, buff, pro, whizz, hotshot, old hand, alpha geek;
   informaldab hand;
   informalmaven, crackerjack;
   rareproficient
   "he is an expert in kendo"
   antonyms:inexpert, amateur

adjective
adjective: expert
1.
having or involving a great deal of knowledge or skill in a particular area.

 

[Fez909]

OK, so you're agreeing with me now?

 

[discokermit]

And what about film? Film is grainy as fuck.

lol!

 

[Bungle73]

OK, so you're agreeing with me now?

Um, how so?

a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.

How can that not apply to an amateur?

 

[discokermit]

News images are 100% different.

next up, zapruder film is broadcast standard. ''but it's been on telly!''.

 

[editor]

You really are someone who claims to know a lot but actually knows very little. That shot is noise city - and is not very good quality, as I already said. If you actually knew anything you'd know noise is the price for shooting in low light with a small sensor camera, but you obviously don't.

I do know that it was used by National Geographic.

I think that says enough about:
(a) how good it is and (b) what your opinion on the matter is worth.

 

[editor]

Hey Bungle73 - what do you think of this photo? Too much noise to be any good?

 

[Fez909]

Um, how so?


How can that not apply to an amateur?

your own definition of expert included "amateur" as an antonym

 

[Dr_Herbz]

LOL! You don't give up do you. So you think that any stock photo site or somewhere like Getty would accept an image like that of the cyclist, with that much noise in it, and of such low quality. News images are 100% different. I can tell you now that some stock photo sites are very, very picky about what they will and won't accept.

Do you actually know why people buy DSLRs (and I'll give you a clue, it's not to make the user look "cool"), and why they are used for the majority of professional photography? I suggest you go and find out.

Ah, right, I see... National Grographic don't know what they're talking about, and the images they use aren't even fit for stock photo sites.

I'm not sure I agree with you but you're entitled to your opinion... as ridiculously stupid as it is may be.

lol!

I am, of course, talking about planet Bungle, where unless it can be blown up to a billboard sized print, with pixel perfect quality, it's shite.

 

[Bungle73]

I do know that it was used by National Geographic.

I think that says enough about:
(a) how good it is and (b) what your opinion on the matter is worth.

In an article about taking pictures with a phone.................

http://www.friends-arc.com/national-geographic

Do you think they'd put that image on their cover? Of course they wouldn't

 

[discokermit]

I am, of course, talking about planet Bungle, where unless it can be blown up to a billboard sized print, with pixel perfect quality, it's shite.

that was pretty much what i was taught on my hnd. and for the vast majority of professional work it stood true.

 

[Bungle73]

next up, zapruder film is broadcast standard. ''but it's been on telly!''.

I've no idea what you are talking about.

Ah, right, I see... National Grographic don't know what they're talking about, and the images they use aren't even fit for stock photo sites.

In an article about phone pictures...............................

I'm not sure I agree with you but you're entitled to your opinion... as ridiculously stupid as it is may be.

The only thing that's ridiculous is you continue post like you know anything about it, where as those images you posted show that you don't, and that you are still refusing to accept were not what I was talking about at at all.

I am, of course, talking about planet Bungle, where unless it can be blown up to a billboard sized print, with pixel perfect quality, it's shite.

Did you find out what people buy DSLRs, and why they're used by pros? You didn't, did you?

 

[fuck seals]

You really are someone who claims to know a lot but actually knows very little /snip. If you actually knew anything /snip

are you a dslr expert bungle? - i only ask as you bought your first dslr just 6 months ago. and only got into photography 18 months before that. http://500px.com/GrahamWest/about

eta - your photosets are not too bad, to be fair.

 

[discokermit]

I've no idea what you are talking about.

i was agreeing with you. a piece of film of exceptionally bad quality that is broadcast despite not being of broadcast standard.