People who shoot photos with their lens hood on backwards

[discokermit]

What did he take the photo with though?

pinhole camera. he left his dslr at home with his moral compass.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

More noisy shite....

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

pinhole camera. he left his dslr at home with his moral compass.

Are you his solicitor?

 

[editor]

Is there some reason for not answering it?

Yes, because I've already got bored with you not bothering to read what I've repeatedly said already, missing the point altogether and bombard me with irrelevant questions, and pointless rubbish about a photo from 1982.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

More noisy shite....

Some camera phone shots:

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes, because I've already got bored with you not bothering to read what I've repeatedly said already, missing the point altogether and bombard me with irrelevant questions, and pointless rubbish about a photo from 1982.

Right.

This bombardment has been so heavy, a helmet might be necessary.

Two 'bunker buster' questions.

 

[editor]

Some camera phone shots:

So people don't take bad pictures on 'proper' cameras then?
Oh, OK. Great point, brilliantly made with that collection of photos from fuck knows when and taken on fuck knows what .

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Some camera phone shots:

WTF...?

A DSLR shot...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So people don't take bad pictures on 'proper' cameras then?.

Apparently they do. Dr Herbs has been posting examples, right above mine.

 

[editor]

Right.

This bombardment has been so heavy, a helmet might be necessary.

Two 'bunker buster' questions.

I'll leave you to continue your seemingly totally random stream of uncredited photos. Perhaps a coherent point may have emerged in the morning.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'll leave you to continue your seemingly totally random stream of uncredited photos. Perhaps a coherent point may have emerged in the morning.

Actually, I'm going to go and make some nachos, to be accompanied by juicer-made juice. We'll see how it goes after that.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Apparently they do. Dr Herbs has been posting examples, right above mine.

That's the thing... I like those photos, regardless of noise but in Johnny Bungle's world, they're shite.

I guess it takes all kinds..

 

[existentialist]

That's more like it; but it's not quite what I posted is it.

No you didn't. You went off and Google image searched a bunch of pictures that you *thought* would do, but in reality you had no idea what you were supposed to be searching for, and now you've been found out you don't want to admit it.

Why did you "Like" that post then? It's obviously because you thought the images posted had me done up like a kipper. That only proves you had no idea what I'm talking about, or what a DSLR is truly capable of, and what a phone isn't.

A mind reader, too. Is there no end to your talents?

 

[existentialist]

Oh, and disrespectful about me too! Calling me a "deceitful little shit" just because I told someone exactly what it is you are arguing here. Nice.

And don't fucking deny it again, because you are. You have been arguing it for 22 fucking pages.

Given the way you behave, it'd be bloody difficult for anyone to be OTHER than disrespectful to you.

 

[kabbes]

I know nothing whatsoever about photography and have a Nikon Coolpix from about 2005. But I do know about arguments, I know about how to influence people and I know about how to play to a gallery. And by those measures, Bungle has lost this argument spectacularly.

 

[gabi]

Crikey - what a pack of fucking weirdos Only looked at a couple of pages, but seriously guys, you need to get out more.

 

[Hulot]

Very persuasive arguments on both sides. I'm going to find a compromise between the two: from now on I'm going to put my lens hood on sideways.

 

[Corax]

That's the thing... I like those photos, regardless of noise but in Johnny Bungle's world, they're shite.

I guess it takes all kinds..

Oh, so now good photography is about people *liking* the photo is it?

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Oh, so now good photography is about people *liking* the photo is it?

Well I thought it was but I'm not sure now... Perhaps it really is all about taking pictures of badly lit brick walls from 90 degrees and checking the resulting images to make sure they're straight and noise free.

I'm confused...

 

[neonwilderness]

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.

I was under the impression that there are at least a couple of members posting here who make at least some sort of living from photography

But they probably don't count

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not forgetting when Leica and Panasonic were selling the exact same camera (made in the same factory to the same spec) and the Leica was £80 more because it had a Leica badge on it.

Although to be fair, the software/firmware is different between the cameras.
Not enough difference to make it worth the extra money for a Leica badge, though.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Same thing happens with cars, tvs, loads of stuff. It's kinda depressing how much it succeeds tbh.

Badge-engineering (the name given to the practice about 60 years ago) is ridiculously common, but can sometimes work in the consumer's favour, if you can spot the (lack of) difference between branded and "cheapo" products.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Fuck me, can you hear yourself?!?

Nope, he's deaf to his wn stupidity, and totally incapable of the self-awareness needed to admit what a prick he is.
Still, at least he hasn't threatened to report anyone to his friends on the RailUK boards, so that's an improvement, I suppose...

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

So basically he's a fresh convert. What one might call a zealot. It explains why he's full of opinions that aremeaningless if one chooses to remember that photography is an art, rather than merely a series of practices dependent upon having "the right gear".

I got into photography as part of a "Graphic Art" O level course at school about 38 years ago, which taught me about the rules of composition and how to break them creatively; which taught me how to wring quality results from cheap or home-made kit; when a "painterly" eye serves your purpose, and when a technician's eye does; how to process film and make prints, and to perform the various arcane rites of "darkroom wizardry", and many other things. One of the first things we were taught, though, is that it's never about the quality of the gear.

It's not about whether you're a "professional" or an "amateur", either. I've met professional photographers (mostly established wedding photographers) whose work was of a quality so quotidian you'd almost think they'd worked down to a poor standard, even though their kit was high-quality (invariably, 'blads and Nikons), and amateurs whose "erotica" would have given Bob Carlos Clarke a stonking boner. A label is exactly that - a label.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

Although, of course, "the vast majority of professional work" is still just a drop in the ocean of photographic art.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Have you sold any film or digital camera photos? How many?

He's sold an awful lot. That's why Bungle's buglings have been so hilarious.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What did he take the photo with though?

I liked this not because of your question, but because IIRC the answer is quite amusing and informative.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Those are quality photo manipulations. They are no more "made by a computer", than a photograph is "made by a camera". Both require a creative talent to produce good results.

People still get hung up on seeing photography as a way of presenting an snapshot "true record" of an event, often ignoring or simply not bothering with the fact that photography is actually mostly representational, that even the smallest choice made at the taking or processing stage can change the way that others will "read" the picture. It's an art-form that has a grounding in technology, not a science, as some people hope it is (because to do so validates their expensive gear, and lends them the hope that they can master photography through rote learning).

And if anyone reading this gets the impression that I dislike gearheads, damn right!

 

[ViolentPanda]

A mind reader, too. Is there no end to your talents?

There isn't even a beginning to them, let alone an end.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Crikey - what a pack of fucking weirdos Only looked at a couple of pages, but seriously guys, you need to get out more.

Don't worry, we think you're a weirdo too.