# Jenkins Photography



## spider (Nov 26, 2009)

Good Afternoon!



As you all may have known in the past, when dealing with my depressing nonsense, I always searched for a way out of my problems with myself and to forget any negative things around me. Well... I have stumbled upon the cliche of Photography.

Now I'm not very good but I'd love to learn more about mainly controlling my aperture on my newly acquired Canon EOS 50D. This baby is very different from my old, miniscule (in comparison) Canon Powershot SX10 IS.

So here are a few shots from recently. Positive and constructive Feedback is Welcomed 


note: these are all taken with the basic kit lens of 72-135mm.
If anyone is looking to sell their lenses for cheap, let me know. I also need a highquality carbon fiber tripod. Also, I need an External flash. I'll settle for a 270ex.


----------



## spider (Nov 26, 2009)

I'll build on the thread with more photos as I go along


----------



## fartkowski (Nov 26, 2009)

Very nice pictures.
You've got a great eye for photography.


----------



## aracnophiliac (Nov 26, 2009)

Great Pics!!!


----------



## Taryllton (Nov 26, 2009)

Better than anything I could do haha...


----------



## spider (Nov 26, 2009)

Much appreciated, everyone


----------



## the nature boy (Nov 26, 2009)

Keep em' coming!


----------



## spider (Nov 26, 2009)




----------



## PinkZebraBooty (Nov 26, 2009)

Ooh, I love that last one especially!


----------



## codykrr (Nov 26, 2009)

very nice.  but you should try and step your apature up some.  this will bring more of the pictures into detale. for instance the last shot(say the focus wasnt the bug)  you could have made all the words readable.


----------



## arachnorama (Nov 27, 2009)

these are really good!


----------



## Botar (Nov 27, 2009)

Awesome work dude... love the tree with the vines growing up and the lone coffee cup.

Botar


----------



## spider (Nov 27, 2009)

Thanks for all the feedback everyone!

I did some exploring at the local photography shop today, decided I am going to buy a Tamron 60mm f/2-something for 600 unless someone has one cheaper. I did some messing around with it and Ill upload some pics from that and My journey on Natchez trace day. Oh, and I will be out on the coast tomorrow

and I'll definately work on the Aperture, Codykrr. Thanks for the info


----------



## Lucille (Nov 27, 2009)

Those pix look pro, I really enjoyed them.  You've got The Eye.


----------



## Noexcuse4you (Nov 28, 2009)

Sweet pics!  You should create an account on flickr.  Its a pretty sweet online photo community where people can leave comments on individual pics and such.


----------



## spider (Nov 28, 2009)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40020582@N02/


here's a "photo of the day" type of thing. Really, I was just too lazy and muchtoo tired to plug my camera up from Biloxi to give a better photo for today 

I call it, A Thorn That I Took a Picture of Kinda Close-like.


----------



## ZergFront (Nov 28, 2009)

Cool. Macro shots are really fun to take.

BTW, think that the link is broken.


----------



## spider (Nov 29, 2009)

*EDIT- Flickr Link*

Edit : http://www.flickr.com/photos/40020582@N02/




Thanks for letting me know 

Also, a lot of those flicks on there are from my old SX10 IS.

edit edit : 687 pictures to sort through in the morning then pick the best of the best to go in this thread


----------



## ZergFront (Nov 29, 2009)

Great. You have a new contact.


----------



## spider (Nov 29, 2009)

Even though I took this picture, it still makes you kind of scratch your head










Here's another nice one. There's several different angles of this bird, this is just the one I edited.


----------



## spider (Nov 29, 2009)

So after sitting here, listening to the easy listening sounds of Team Sleep, I've discovered what I want to accomplish with my "photography" -- I just want people to take a step back, close their eyes, and then open them with an all new outlook on life. There are so many beautiful things in your life, all you have to do is take a step back from the ordinary and see them right infront of you. 


This sunset was the most beautiful thing I'd seen in a very long time. I could not explain the overwhelming feeling of just awe at the colors, the smells, the sights.. It was a perfect evening spent just walking on the sand.


----------



## Rick McJimsey (Nov 30, 2009)

spider said:


> Even though I took this picture, it still makes you kind of scratch your head


Cool reflection shot!


----------



## PinkZebraBooty (Dec 1, 2009)

Good for you, spider.   <insert cliched comment about how life is chock-full of pain, terror and chaos, but assuaging suffering in the self and others is as good a mission statement and moral code as any>


----------



## spider (Dec 1, 2009)

Rick McJimsey said:


> Cool reflection shot!


It's not a reflection shot


----------



## spider (Dec 13, 2009)

Sorry for my lack of update, everyone.
The constant sorting of pictures is a tedious task :/
I have three photoshoots this month too 


hope these look decent


----------



## spider (Dec 20, 2009)




----------



## pinktoe23 (Dec 20, 2009)

Your pictures are amazing!!! You are very talented


----------



## spider (Dec 20, 2009)

Much appreciated  

I just use photography to keep me out of the hole that I was always in. I'm putting away a shiney penny for a new Tamron 60mm Macro lens,  with that, my pictures will be extra entising to me


----------



## spider (Jan 5, 2010)

Don't know if anyone wanted to really see them, but here are some recent photographs..


----------



## spider (Jan 5, 2010)

and a Self portrait


----------



## Avicularia Man (Jan 5, 2010)

spider said:


> Don't know if anyone wanted to really see them, but here are some recent photographs..


Looks like a bunch of steel hands giving us the bird.


----------



## GartenSpinnen (Jan 5, 2010)

You sir have found your niche! VERY nice photos, I could sit and stare at some of these all night.


----------



## arachnorama (Jan 5, 2010)

Excellent!  Guess who gets a PIZZA TROPHY!!!!


----------



## spider (Jan 6, 2010)

Best Pizza is CiCi's pizza 

Thanks guys


----------



## Nerri1029 (Jan 8, 2010)

I like these 

Funny thing about Photography..

There is NEVER only one perfect way to get a shot.

Enjoy what you do.
Listen to those who will offer edvice

Try new things too.

I'm just starting portrait photography. ( ebay is awesome )

my only advice ( from my own exp ) is to find a faster lens. many more possible shots will open up for you. ( faster lens = one with a larger aperture, of F-number that is lower )


----------



## spider (Jan 10, 2010)

I just ordered a nice little lens. Sigma 28mm f/2.8 Macro lens with a Minolta MD Mount. I'll be using this for some Macro/Portrait shots for sure. 

What Camera are you using?

For both images shutter: 1/13", f/5.6 (could have gone as low as 3.2 but wanted some background clarity)


----------



## blacktara (Jan 10, 2010)

The 5D is AWESOME in low light. Which lenses do you have? 

I have a 5D body with Canon EF f2.8 lenses 15, 20, 24-70 and 70-200 lenses with a 2x extender. I shoot mainly weather and critters and this kit serves well - the fish eye lens is actually just a toy I dont use very often

Anyway, if you're lookin for hints

1. Do some basic reading on composition - not saying yours isnt good but just a little background info can give u new ideas

2. ALWAYS shoot things a couple of different ways - different depths of field for the same shot and try a couple of different angles even if you think you have a great shot - ya never know when just a slight change of perspective or angle gives you one that much greater

3. ALWAYS have a camera with you - cuz you never know when the next great picture is staring at you - a whole 5D kit might be a bit cumbersome to always have around so a lesser but maybe more convenient backup handy. I have an old Leica Digilux 2 that is limited because it only goes to 90mm but still is a great cam to have around so quick shots

4. Shoot RAW if you can. That said, while anything can be edited to look decent these days, truly great shots usually require little editing. I dont know what software you use, but Adobe Lightroom is a decent package for modestly complex work with RAW files

5. When you have a kit like yours, it's absolutely worth the few extra bucks to invest in better quality filters and cf cards. Like a stereo, your kit's limitation is it's worst component. With the card, the dealers make a big deal out of write/transfer times. If you're shooting runway models or sporting events professionally, that might be a major factor, but to average go it really isnt. But FIDELITY and absolute reliablity ARE big deals, and worth paying two or three times the money for a better card. One great shot lost to a crappy cf card is worth the cost of a better card. If you shoot RAW only, it is worthwhile to spend the bucks for Hoodman RAW cf cards. Older Hoodman cards will write jpg as well. They may be tough ro find but theyve always worked great for me

6. Avoid memory at the current extremes. It always seems that the biggest current cards are likely to be less reliable for fidelity than with lesser memory. I have two 4gb cards, which aint much these days, but even shooting RAW theyve always been enough for a days work

Keep at it. It's an awesome hobby


----------



## blacktara (Jan 10, 2010)

As far as tripods, think Manfrotto

I have a flash unit for the 5D, but I think in three years I've rarely used it. The art is working with the light god gives you (just an opinion)


----------



## spider (Jan 10, 2010)

I've been hearing a lot about Manfrotto lately..
I have a Canon EOS 50D, not the 5D, though I would love to have such, I find myself exceptionally happy with the 50D!

You say you have a fisheye, what sort of deal would you possibly be willing to work out for this? 

I use a 4gig CF card in my camera, and never remove it simply because shooting on Raw, the images are almost 6 MB a piece and the card shows that it will hold almost 600 at a time, depending on the adjustments of the photos (ISO, Shutter Speed, Fstop, etc..) I always shoot on raw, as well. I never use photoshop for adjusting my images. I have a strict belief that the image should be as good as I make it via the camera. I absolutely refuse to shoot image on Auto with my camera. In photoshop, I only add a border, crop occasionaly, and Put Jenkins Photography on the images. (so myspace users can steal my photos)

I picked up a Promaster 7500edf External Flash not too long ago and am very thrilled with the quality of lighting it helps me produce.


----------



## The Spider Faery (Jan 10, 2010)

The last 15 'urban' pics (sections 29 & 30) are my favourites.  I think this is _your style_, in my opinion.


----------



## blacktara (Jan 10, 2010)

"I have a strict belief that the image should be as good as I make it via the camera"

Amen bro.

As far as the fisheye lens, not inclined to sell it. You could pick 'em up on ebay easy enuff

And the first shot in panel 36 is my favorite. Works in all kinds of ways. Just an awesome shot

1st, 6th and 7th shots in panel 29 are real nice too as well as the silhouetted wading bird sunset shot


----------



## spider (Jan 10, 2010)

Much appreciated 
I am going to put some money aside and buy myself the Minolta MD/MC Adaptor to EOS for my 50D so I can use the same Minolta lenses my dad used in the Mid-80s


----------



## spider (Jan 11, 2010)

I'll try and update as frequently as possible

from today

nothing fancy, just some shots


----------



## spider (Feb 20, 2010)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40020582@N02/


Add me, Comment, and Check out the frequent updates


----------



## Texas Blonde (Feb 20, 2010)

I am so proud of you Docy!  You have come soooo far from the kid I first met!  The photographs are amazing, let me know when I can order prints!


----------



## spider (Feb 20, 2010)

Texas Blonde said:


> I am so proud of you Docy!  You have come soooo far from the kid I first met!  The photographs are amazing, let me know when I can order prints!


you can at any time you wish 
Check out the flickr and just Text me with the images title and what size you'd like and we'll talk about what it's worth


----------



## AudreyElizabeth (Feb 20, 2010)

Those are some very nice shots. You really have an eye for your subject matter. I want to get into photography, and would like to purchase a book for starters. Any recommendations?


----------



## spider (Feb 20, 2010)

There is an endless list of books to choose from. Really all I can suggest, like anyone else would, is to go to your larger end book store, and just get to reading and find what appeals to you more


----------



## spider (Feb 21, 2010)

feedback and comments please 
Also, I sized down all but one so they aren't at full resolution


----------



## What (Feb 21, 2010)

Honest opinion... You are trying way too hard. All I am going to say.


----------



## pinktoe23 (Feb 21, 2010)

Love your new additions!


----------



## Taryllton (Feb 21, 2010)

What said:


> Honest opinion... You are trying way too hard. All I am going to say.


Haha, ouch.


----------



## spider (Feb 21, 2010)

Thank you, Pinktoe
And what, I do not get it. Better luck next time? 

As for anyone who had anything Mature, constructive, and intelligent to add, Thank you


----------



## Pulk (Feb 22, 2010)

spider said:


> Thank you, Pinktoe
> And what, I do not get it. Better luck next time?
> 
> As for anyone who had anything Mature, constructive, and intelligent to add, Thank you


First, his post was mature and intelligent. Constructive is debatable, but it should at least make you think.

Second, the posts you have no problem with, and even thank, are neither constructive nor intelligent. Examples:


fartkowski said:


> Very nice pictures.
> You've got a great eye for photography.





aracnophiliac said:


> Great Pics!!!





Taryllton said:


> Better than anything I could do haha...





PinkZebraBooty said:


> Ooh, I love that last one especially!





arachnorama said:


> these are really good!





Botar said:


> Awesome work dude... love the tree with the vines growing up and the lone coffee cup.
> 
> Botar





Lucille said:


> Those pix look pro, I really enjoyed them.  You've got The Eye.





Rick McJimsey said:


> Cool reflection shot!





pinktoe23 said:


> Your pictures are amazing!!! You are very talented





jadespider1985 said:


> You sir have found your niche! VERY nice photos, I could sit and stare at some of these all night.





Texas Blonde said:


> I am so proud of you Docy!  You have come soooo far from the kid I first met!  The photographs are amazing, let me know when I can order prints!





AudreyElizabeth said:


> Those are some very nice shots. You really have an eye for your subject matter.





pinktoe23 said:


> Love your new additions!


In short, nearly all your comments. These have no content. You like them because they compliment you.

Third, even if there was no difference in content between the negative and positive comments, you should be _thankful_ for What's post. As an artist(ish), you should know how much more sincerity (and respect/lack of condescension) comes with a critical comment.

Fourth, I don't like your photos. I agree with What that you're trying too hard; the shots look forced. Try to get as far as you can from stock photos; don't try to make them, as it looks like you're doing.

I strongly recommend (not just to show you your standing, but also to encourage you to be more creative) going to the "Explore" section on flickr. Go through those photos for least twelve hours (not joking) and see how much people do, and how well.


----------



## spider (Feb 22, 2010)

Ill dive into it

I never thought I'd been trying too hard, nor had it cross my mind. I'd always just gone to a spot, and saw something of interest and invisioned it in my head and did the best of my ability to capture what I saw... Maybe my ideas have been misinterpreted. 

Just always been my style, didn't expect much of anyone to like it.


Question: Anyone else using MF Lenses on their digital cameras? I recently got a Pentax K mount 28-70mm f2.8-22 lens from a friend for 13$ lol. I ordered a kmount adaptor to EF and its worked beautifully!  Very crisp, clean lens


----------



## Taryllton (Feb 22, 2010)

Pulk said:


> First, his post was mature and intelligent. Constructive is debatable, but it should at least make you think.
> 
> Second, the posts you have no problem with, and even thank, are neither constructive nor intelligent. Examples:
> 
> ...


What a tool....The main benefit of vacuous commentary is you can thusly avoid being a total pretentious prick by supposing to give somebody else meaningful advice about how they should or shouldn't be 'expressing themselves artistically' haha...


----------



## Pulk (Feb 22, 2010)

spider said:


> I never thought I'd been trying too hard, nor had it cross my mind. I'd always just gone to a spot, and saw something of interest and invisioned it in my head and did the best of my ability to capture what I saw... Maybe my ideas have been misinterpreted.


What I meant was that the photos themselves look forced. That is, they look unnatural and like the photographer was trying to do something else. I don't know how much effort you did put into it. 



spider said:


> Just always been my style, didn't expect much of anyone to like it.


Heh, are you sure?



Taryllton said:


> What a tool....The main benefit of vacuous commentary is you can thusly avoid being a total pretentious prick by supposing to give somebody else meaningful advice about how they should or shouldn't be 'expressing themselves artistically' haha...


If the goal is just to express oneself, it doesn't matter what other people think, whether it's positive or negative.


----------



## hairmetalspider (Feb 22, 2010)

IMO, the photos themselves are decent, a few of them being somewhat emotive and such, but they do look like stock photos. Try something more...macabre, maybe.

Side note: I wonder how many AB members are going to start their own photography threads, because there are quite a few decent photographers on here...


----------



## Taryllton (Feb 22, 2010)

Pulk said:


> If the goal is just to express oneself, it doesn't matter what other people think, whether it's positive or negative.


Exactly, so just obey the overwhelmingly obvious social niceity that everyone else is adhering to. We all know that asking for artistic 'critique' is more or less rhetorical. After all, you're advice basically amounted to 'don't try so hard', easily as meaningless and devoid of content as anything else on here...


----------



## Pulk (Feb 22, 2010)

Taryllton said:


> Exactly, so just obey the overwhelmingly obvious social niceity that everyone else is adhering to. We all know that asking for artistic 'critique' is more or less rhetorical. After all, you're advice basically amounted to 'don't try so hard', easily as meaningless and devoid of content as anything else on here...


You're not paying attention to what you're saying. If it's just self-expression, it doesn't matter what anyone says. If he's looking for actual response, criticism is at least as good as GRATE PHOTO'S LOL :-D. If he's only looking for compliments... that's kind of a sh**** attitude.

I provided a lot more than "don't try so hard," and a LOT more than "Better than anything I could do haha."

My advice to you is to read the posts of the people you're criticizing.


----------



## Taryllton (Feb 22, 2010)

Pulk said:


> If it's just self-expression, it doesn't matter what anyone says.


I agree.


Pulk said:


> If he's looking for actual response, criticism is at least as good as GRATE PHOTO'S LOL :-D.


Given his reaction to What's initial post, what makes you think he's looking for an 'actual response'?


Pulk said:


> If he's only looking for compliments... that's kind of a sh**** attitude.


What are you, his mother?


Pulk said:


> I provided a lot more than "don't try so hard," and a LOT more than "Better than anything I could do haha."
> My advice to you is to read the posts of the people you're criticizing.


I took your advice, but I still don't see anything of any merit. Please explain to me what you provided him with, exactly. 
And I'm criticizing _you_ for displaying pompousness _far_ outstripping the significance of your commentary (I didn't say anything about your boyfriend, don't get all defensive haha). What experience gives you the right to speak authoritatively on art? Oh, flikr, right...Anyway, if this was coupled with something of significance you'd have a leg to stand on, but as it is you may as well have said 'I'm sensing bad energy vortices in this work, try reaching deep into your creative chakra for artistic improvement'.


----------



## Pulk (Feb 22, 2010)

Taryllton said:


> I agree.
> 
> Given his reaction to What's initial post, what makes you think he's looking for an 'actual response'?


His relatively agreeable response to my post, his OP ("Positive and constructive Feedback is Welcomed"), and his response to What's post ("As for anyone who had anything Mature, constructive, and intelligent to add, Thank you") all suggest that he at least ostensibly welcomes actual responses.



Taryllton said:


> What are you, his mother?


No. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt by implying that _because_ that would be a lousy attitude, the alternative is more likely.



Taryllton said:


> I took your advice, but I still don't see anything of any merit. Please explain to me what you provided him with, exactly.


- general point that he should welcome criticism
- general point that his photos aren't universally liked
- opinion that his photos look forced/unnatural
- opinion that his photos appear to be approaching stock photos
- suggestion to go on flickr explore to see what other photographers have done

I'm not claiming that I'm giving him a huge amount of help, at all. I'm saying it's a) more than nothing, and b) (equivalently) more than what you and a lot of other people provided. 



Taryllton said:


> And I'm criticizing _you_ for displaying pompousness _far_ outstripping the significance of your commentary


So what exactly did I do wrong?



Taryllton said:


> (I didn't say anything about your boyfriend, don't get all defensive haha).


What? I don't have a boyfriend.



Taryllton said:


> What experience gives you the right to speak authoritatively on art? Oh, flikr, right...


What do you mean by "authoritatively"?

I have no right to speak about art under the pretense that I have professional training or a degree in it. I do have a right to voice my personal opinion. Did my post imply that I knew more about art than I actually do?



Taryllton said:


> Anyway, if this was coupled with something of significance you'd have a leg to stand on, but as it is you may as well have said 'I'm sensing bad energy vortices in this work, try reaching deep into your creative chakra for artistic improvement'.


Look... I'll just provide the links. (Taryllton, Pulk)


----------



## spider (Feb 22, 2010)

By stock photos, what exactly do you mean? (don't attack and say, "Oh, this kid does not even know the meaning of Stock blah blah)

And I do not see how my photos are "forced" when all I did was see something in my head, and got my settings where I wanted them (shutter speed, ISO, aperture, etc..) then took the photo..

Also, I had no idea my thread was going to be taken and run with by conversation about something I took into consideration after having read, and acknowledged that maybe I do need work, but also will still stick with my own general style and likings.


----------



## PinkZebraBooty (Feb 22, 2010)

Pulk, are you What's handler?  His interpreter?  His public relations manager?  

Spider, "You're trying too hard" is an utterly meaningless thing for What to say, and it should be ignored unless he himself, and not his lackey, is prepared to come back and say something of substance, something specific.


----------



## Pulk (Feb 22, 2010)

spider said:


> By stock photos, what exactly do you mean? (don't attack and say, "Oh, this kid does not even know the meaning of Stock blah blah)


They're unoffensive, simple photos that photographers take to later sell to advertising companies, etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_photography)



spider said:


> And I do not see how my photos are "forced" when all I did was see something in my head, and got my settings where I wanted them (shutter speed, ISO, aperture, etc..) then took the photo..


It's hard to explain exactly what I mean by that, which is why I withheld comments initially... if you don't use the word "forced" in this context, don't worry about it.



spider said:


> Also, I had no idea my thread was going to be taken and run with by conversation about something I took into consideration after having read, and acknowledged that maybe I do need work, but also will still stick with my own general style and likings.


That's kind of a confusing sentence, but... yeah, do whatever you want. I seriously have no problem with people making art I don't like. My problem is just about the photographer taking criticism. 



PinkZebraBooty said:


> Pulk, are you What's handler?  His interpreter?  His public relations manager?
> 
> Spider, "You're trying too hard" is an utterly meaningless thing for What to say, and it should be ignored unless he himself, and not his lackey, is prepared to come back and say something of substance, something specific.


I agree with him, and had things I wanted to say. It would have been silly for me to *not* post. :wall: I did my best to explain what I meant... I know it's not extremely clear or helpful, but my point is that it's at least as good as vapid positive comments.


----------



## Taryllton (Feb 22, 2010)

Pulk said:


> I did my best to explain what I meant... I know it's not extremely clear or helpful, but my point is that it's at least as good as vapid positive comments.


In other words it's just as meaningless, yes haha...


----------



## Taryllton (Feb 22, 2010)

Pulk said:


> No. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt by implying that _because_ that would be a lousy attitude, the alternative is more likely.


I don't think you're being honest here. You're were obviously implying earlier that he was fishing for compliments. But, supposing you were right, so what?




Pulk said:


> - general point that he should welcome criticism


Ok, that general point is a meaningless platitude. Dr. Phil has provided similar wisdom on numerous occasions, as have any number of guidance counselors, motivational speakers, concerned parents etc etc..The situation does not explicitly call for it. Should he ever get caught on fire, he should also stop-drop-and roll, just for the record....


Pulk said:


> - general point that his photos aren't universally liked


As opposed to who's photos that _are_ universally liked? Again, this is self evident and therefore worthless.


Pulk said:


> - opinion that his photos look forced/unnatural


Ok, define how photos of largely natural landscapes look forced/unnatural and this might warrant some attention on the photographer's part, but as it stands this is more pretentious rhetoric.


Pulk said:


> -opinion that his photos appear to be approaching stock photos.


Oh? Well at least my comment had the benefit of _fact_ behind it, as I'm quite sure I have never taken an 'artistic' photograph in my life...


Pulk said:


> - suggestion to go on flickr explore to see what other photographers have done


Almost certainly the only worthwhile thing you mention, though not likely to produce benefits that far outweigh the self esteem-bolstering influence of positive commentary, vapid or no...




Pulk said:


> So what exactly did I do wrong?


You pointed out what you saw as deficiencies in everyone else's commentary and then promulgated your own, which was equally deficient so far as I can tell, under the _ pretense _ that it should take priority over that of the rest of the board. Hence you behaved _pretentiously_. People don't like when other people behave pretentiously, it's an almost universally loathed quality. I'm not saying you care, but I guess I'm trying to do you a favor.



Pulk said:


> What? I don't have a boyfriend..


Oh? Did you hear that, What?


----------



## hairmetalspider (Feb 22, 2010)

Taryllton said:


> Oh? Did you hear that, What?


Honestly, this thread had a half way decent conversational flow, as well as a debate (On both sides) until you threw this in there.

Seriously, grow up.


----------



## Pulk (Feb 22, 2010)

Taryllton said:


> I don't think you're being honest here. You're were obviously implying earlier that he was fishing for compliments. But, supposing you were right, so what?


Well, that's true. To be more accurate, I was assuming that because you were defending him, you would want to ignore that option. Is that not correct?
Supposing that he did want legit input, What's and my comments are fine (and, as I've tried to explain, at least a little bit better than most of the others).



Taryllton said:


> Ok, that general point is a meaningless platitude. Dr. Phil has provided similar wisdom on numerous occasions, as have any number of guidance counselors, motivational speakers, concerned parents etc etc..The situation does not explicitly call for it. Should he ever get caught on fire, he should also stop-drop-and roll, just for the record....


Do you know what a platitude is? That wasn't a platitude, and it wasn't meaningless.



Taryllton said:


> As opposed to who's photos that _are_ universally liked? Again, this is self evident and therefore worthless.


*whose
People like to know how well other people like their work. Most people, I would assume, prefer to hear positive things, but also care about knowing that they're getting honest feedback. So if people are saying only nice things, but not everyone likes his work, it might be good for some of the latter people to mention it. That's not worthless.



Taryllton said:


> Ok, define how photos of largely natural landscapes look forced/unnatural and this might warrant some attention on the photographer's part, but as it stands this is more pretentious rhetoric.


It's not concrete advice, and I never claimed it was. It's my personal opinion, and like I've said before, it's hard to explain that in more detail than I did. If he had a similar idea of the word "forced" to mine, which apparently is not the case, it would have been helpful.
Saying "The composition seems bad" about a painting obviously isn't extremely helpful to a painter, but it's not useless as part of a large group of people giving their opinions.



Taryllton said:


> Oh? Well at least my comment had the benefit of _fact_ behind it, as I'm quite sure I have never taken an 'artistic' photograph in my life...


Are you serious? "You used a camera" is nowhere near as helpful as "It seems like you chose the exposure poorly." :wall:



Taryllton said:


> ...though not likely to produce benefits that far outweigh the self esteem-bolstering influence of positive commentary, vapid or no...


That's possible. But that kind of insincerity makes me feel uncomfortable, on either end.



Taryllton said:


> You pointed out what you saw as deficiencies in everyone else's commentary and then promulgated your own, which was equally deficient so far as I can tell, under the _ pretense _ that it should take priority over that of the rest of the board. Hence you behaved _pretentiously_. People don't like when other people behave pretentiously, it's an almost universally loathed quality. I'm not saying you care, but I guess I'm trying to do you a favor.


My point wasn't that there was something *bad* about the other people's commentary. (I did find it kind of unpleasant based on how I feel about the photos, but that's completely separate from what I was saying.)
My point *was* that he shouldn't value those comments more than What's.
I did NOT voluntarily promulgate my own comments. I defended them _relative to yours_ when you attacked them as being equally contentless.
I don't think my response should take priority over the rest of the board, just that it should be given as much respect as the "good job" ones.

Hence you're making up your own pretense of mine under which I was supposed to act pretentiously. :wall:



Taryllton said:


> Oh? Did you hear that, What?


Really?


----------



## Taryllton (Feb 22, 2010)

Pulk said:


> Well, that's true. To be more accurate, I was assuming that because you were defending him, you would want to ignore that option. Is that not correct?


No, that's not correct.


Pulk said:


> Supposing that he did want legit input, What's and my comments are fine (*and, as I've tried to explain, at least a little bit better than most of the others)*.


I'd say that's a stretch. 


Pulk said:


> Do you know what a platitude is? That wasn't a platitude, and it wasn't meaningless.


I like to think so. According to Merriam-Webster..."a banal, trite, or stale remark"...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/platitude
Telling someone who is obviously capable and wordly enough to operate a computer and type legibly, not to mention operate a camera, that they should 'generally accept criticism' or whatever is banal, trite, and it's even stale. It's daytime television. I suppose the definition could be incorrect, or that I could be interpreting it incorrectly, but I think it's more likely that you don't know what you're talking about in this instance. As for it being meaningless, see my reasons above, then feel free to _explain_ to me why it _isn't_ meaningless, and I'll repeat.


Pulk said:


> *whose


Why thank you, that one always gets me. 


Pulk said:


> People like to know how well other people like their work. Most people, I would assume, prefer to hear positive things, but also care about knowing that they're getting honest feedback. So if people are saying only nice things, but not everyone likes his work, it might be good for some of the latter people to mention it. That's not worthless.


In so far as you express your dislike for the work, but present no coherent or meanigful criticism or reason why, your statements are easily as worthless as anyone's. I'm not saying mine or anyone else's were terribly profound, but you might as well have just said 'you suck!', admit it. 


Pulk said:


> It's not concrete advice, and I never claimed it was. It's my personal opinion, and like I've said before, it's hard to explain that in more detail than I did.


If it's that hard to explain it probably isn't worth mentioning, you know? 


Pulk said:


> If he had a similar idea of the word "forced" to mine, which apparently is not the case, it would have been helpful.


Why would he be a mind-reader haha? 


Pulk said:


> Saying "The composition seems bad" about a painting obviously isn't extremely helpful to a painter, but it's not useless as part of a large group of people giving their opinions.


Two people doesn't constitute a 'large group' by any definition. Even in a group of three it's just company. 


Pulk said:


> Are you serious? "You used a camera" is nowhere near as helpful as "It seems like you chose the exposure poorly." :wall:.


Really? I dunno, you wouldn't you tell a child that hits his first baseball that he's making the same mistake in his follow-through as a lot of professionals, would you? Of course you wouldn't. The criticism would be lost on him, and would likely do more harm than good (not to mention the unintended effect of making you look like a pretentious prick). I'm not comparing anyone to a child, as I've said I can hardly use a camera, just trying to make a point...Why would you assume that some criticism will have the same beneficial effect across experience levels?


Pulk said:


> That's possible. But that kind of insincerity makes me feel uncomfortable, on either end.


That's fine, but that's not the poster's problem. In case you haven't noticed, the world is full of insincerities, and I seriously doubt you're completely sincere all the time. And if you are, you're a freak, no offense. 


Pulk said:


> My point wasn't that there was something *bad* about the other people's commentary. (I did find it kind of unpleasant based on how I feel about the photos, but that's completely separate from what I was saying.)
> My point *was* that he shouldn't value those comments more than What's.
> I did NOT voluntarily promulgate my own comments. I defended them _relative to yours_ when you attacked them as being equally contentless.


Ok, you initially defended What's comments by intimating that they had more merit than every other comment on the thread. Since you basically share the exact same opinion as him with regard to the photos in question, and made as much known before I said anything, you _vicariously_ promulgated your own commentary as superior via What's, fine...


Pulk said:


> I don't think my response should take priority over the rest of the board, just that it should be given as much respect as the "good job" ones.


What do you mean? You specifically quoted every other comment and claimed they were vapid and _specifically_ excluded your own from that category, or did I miss something?


Pulk said:


> Hence you're making up your own pretense of mine under which I was supposed to act pretentiously. :wall:


No, I don't think that's what's going on.


Pulk said:


> Really?


Sure, why not? I don't judge. But you needn't spoil him, you know?


----------



## Taryllton (Feb 22, 2010)

hairmetalspider said:


> Honestly, this thread had a half way decent conversational flow, as well as a debate (On both sides) until you threw this in there.
> 
> Seriously, grow up.


Haha, awwwww cuuute...


----------



## Pulk (Feb 22, 2010)

Taryllton said:


> No, that's not correct.


So you do think he was fishing for compliments?



Taryllton said:


> I like to think so. According to Merriam-Webster..."a banal, trite, or stale remark"...
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/platitude
> Telling someone who is obviously capable and wordly enough to operate a computer and type legibly, not to mention operate a camera, that they should 'generally accept criticism' or whatever is banal, trite, and it's even stale. It's daytime television. I suppose the definition could be incorrect, or that I could be interpreting it incorrectly, but I think it's more likely that you don't know what you're talking about in this instance. As for it being meaningless, see my reasons above, then feel free to _explain_ to me why it _isn't_ meaningless, and I'll repeat.


I don't hear "artists should welcome criticism" all the time. It's not an overused statement. It's not a platitude. Although... I've never owned a television, so perhaps people do say that a lot on daytime TV and it's just never seeped out into the real world.
I'll admit it's a fairly simple idea, but that doesn't make it a platitude.
It's not meaningless: he clearly wasn't doing it, and I gave him reasons why he should. If I didn't explain it in enough detail to convince one or both of you, that's one problem, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a real semantic implication.



Taryllton said:


> In so far as you express your dislike for the work, but present no coherent or meanigful criticism or reason why, your statements are easily as worthless as anyone's. I'm not saying mine or anyone else's were terribly profound, but you might as well have just said 'you suck!', admit it.


If you don't understand any of the words/phrases "forced", "unnatural", or "like stock photos", that's cool, but don't blame me for it. They aren't highly specific, but they're more than a scalar evaluation. In case you weren't aware, people don't think in precise definitions.



Taryllton said:


> If it's that hard to explain it probably isn't worth mentioning, you know?


Seriously? Do you really think artists/photographers/craftsmen/whatever expect people to explain in precise detail all their opinions of their work? Do you think all the "nice lol" comments *were* worth mentioning? That those posters had explanations of how the composition and colors came together to excite specific pathways around the brain to lead to a favorable view? Give me a break.



Taryllton said:


> Why would he be a mind-reader haha?


Actually, within a language (say, English) most people understand most words most other people say. It's great how that works out.



Taryllton said:


> Two people doesn't constitute a 'large group' by any definition. Even in a group of three it's just company.


The group I was referring to was everyone he's showing his photos to, but that doesn't even matter. Ever heard of sample size? The more people respond, the more accurate his reading of people's views is. That's the whole idea behind, you know, voting... :wall:



Taryllton said:


> Really? I dunno, you wouldn't you tell a child that hits his first baseball that he's making the same mistake in his follow-through as a lot of professionals, would you? Of course you wouldn't. The criticism would be lost on him, and would likely do more harm than good (not to mention the unintended effect of making you look like a pretentious prick). I'm not comparing anyone to a child, as I've said I can hardly use a camera, just trying to make a point...Why would you assume that some criticism will have the same beneficial effect across experience levels?


Unless I'm mistaken, you completely missed my point. It was that whether a comment is based on certain fact or not doesn't determine how helpful/valid the comment is.



Taryllton said:


> That's fine, but that's not the poster's problem. In case you haven't noticed, the world is full of insincerities, and I seriously doubt you're completely sincere all the time. And if you are, you're a freak, no offense.


How did I suggest that my discomfort with that insincerity is his problem? 



Taryllton said:


> Ok, you initially defended What's comments by intimating that they had more merit than every other comment on the thread.


Not "every"... "nearly all."



Taryllton said:


> Since you basically share the exact same opinion as him with regard to the photos in question, and made as much known before I said anything, you _vicariously_ promulgated your own commentary as superior via What's, fine...


I don't know if I share his exact opinion; he hasn't described his in detail.

I guess I was indirectly supporting my own post, in that the point I made about his post could be applied to mine. But your characterization of me as as actively announcing how great my own post was is rather silly.



Taryllton said:


> What do you mean? You specifically quoted every other comment and claimed they were vapid and _specifically_ excluded your own from that category, or did I miss something?


I didn't quote every other comment, I only quoted the ones without much content.
This is just dicking around with words now, as I think I've made my view clear, but... I don't think What's and my post should be given *priority*; I think they should be treated with as much respect as the other posts. But because they have (a little) more content than most of the others, they will end up being more valuable.



Taryllton said:


> Haha, awwwww cuuute...


Being artificially condescending can be funny or persuasive when the person is actually being belligerent or when you make a clever point.


----------



## Scott C. (Feb 22, 2010)

Ain't been around for a long bit, but it's really good to see you pluggin' away at something you enjoy doing, Spider =)

Keep it up, brotha. Use the talk, or ignore it, but please add more as time allows you.

I dug the glass orb (wished it was more of a focal point though, but hey, I ain't no artist), and the cats watchin' the sunset on the skateboard made me smile.


----------



## Taryllton (Feb 22, 2010)

Pulk said:


> So you do think he was fishing for compliments?


Maybe. I'm not really concerned with whether he was or not.


Pulk said:


> Do you think all the "nice lol" comments *were* worth mentioning?


I already gave one fairly obvious reason why they very well may have been, and it had nothing to do with sincerity or specificity.


Pulk said:


> Actually, within a language (say, English) most people understand most words most other people say. It's great how that works out.


With a statement that's inherently subjective like 'it looks forced', there's no way for another person to actually know what your talking about unless you're way more specific, you know this...


Pulk said:


> Ever heard of sample size?


Sure, as I'm sure you've heard of the dangers of making broad generalizations from a small sample.


The rest of your post really is 'dicking around' and circular semantics.


----------



## spider (Feb 22, 2010)

Scott C., I will add as I go on and get the photos I feel are worth seeing.
 Thank you for mentioning the two people on the skateboard. I am glad someone saw the message I wanted to portray there. Also, thanks for talking about focal points, serves as a reminder for keeping the main subject in focus without a distracting background too much in the frame.

Appealing to the likes of the masses or not, I love my work and am happy with what I produce via the camera and my own eye. I am continuously learning, producing, and using different techniques to broaden my horizon as well. Criticism is always read, taken into consideration as well. Expect more photos soon, as well as debates that are worth the reading thanks to some intelligent fellows.


----------



## Pulk (Feb 22, 2010)

Taryllton said:


> I already gave one fairly obvious reason why they very well may have been, and it had nothing to do with sincerity or specificity.


Exactly. A comment doesn't have to be explained in detail to be helpful.



Taryllton said:


> With a statement that's inherently subjective like 'it looks forced', there's no way for another person to actually know what your talking about unless you're way more specific, you know this...


- All the other comments you're defending are far more subjective.
- "you're."
- You seem to have no sense of the concept of degree. Like I've admitted a million times, "forced" isn't very specific. But it does have a general, intuitive direction, mutually understood by people who use it.
- I said more than just the word "forced." I'm sure you just forgot this, and aren't actively trolling. 



Taryllton said:


> Sure, as I'm sure you've heard of the dangers of making broad generalizations from a small sample.



By your logic, no one should give their opinion on an artwork, because it's a tiny sample size of 1 and is therefore not very accurate. Now you're definitely arguing for the sake of it.



Taryllton said:


> The rest of your post really is 'dicking around' and circular semantics.


That's a fun claim... now prove it if you want to be taken seriously.


----------



## hairmetalspider (Feb 22, 2010)

I still vote for something macabre. 

Get bloody.


----------



## spider (Feb 24, 2010)

I found a Local man near me selling his Canon L series 400mm Lens for 4,000. Im trying to work out a Payment plan type of deal with the man because there is really just noone else here who would spend that kind of money on a lens. 

Anyone familiar with working in the Serious Telephoto department?


----------



## Noexcuse4you (Feb 24, 2010)

spider said:


> I found a Local man near me selling his Canon L series 400mm Lens for 4,000. Im trying to work out a Payment plan type of deal with the man because there is really just noone else here who would spend that kind of money on a lens.
> 
> Anyone familiar with working in the Serious Telephoto department?


I can think of a lot of more useful lenses to buy for $4k than the 400mm, but that's just me.

Is that the f2.8 version or f5.6 version?  IS or non-IS?  You might also want to figure in about $1000 for a good tripod and head combo into the cost of the lens.


----------



## spider (Feb 28, 2010)

Yes, f2.8, and yes IS and DO lens

Here are some photographs from the Natchez Trace. A good friend and I took the day and cruised the trace all day and night, saw well over 100 dear, a dozen armadillos, O'possum, 2 forest bandits (lol), one Cotton Mouth, and dozens of bats...

a couple of the photos were just posted because I never really see the animals so up close


----------



## Noexcuse4you (Feb 28, 2010)

spider said:


> Yes, f2.8, and yes IS and DO lens


Canon doesn't make a 400mm f2.8 IS DO.  They make an f4 IS DO and an f2.8 IS.  Which one is it?  Either way, still a good deal if that's a useful focal length for you.


----------



## spider (Feb 28, 2010)




----------



## spider (Feb 28, 2010)

Noexcuse4you said:


> Canon doesn't make a 400mm f2.8 IS DO.  They make an f4 IS DO and an f2.8 IS.  Which one is it?  Either way, still a good deal if that's a useful focal length for you.


My Mistake, here's the lens 

F4.0, sorry lol

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/239654-USA/Canon_7034A002_Telephoto_EF_400mm_f_4_0.html


----------



## spider (Mar 11, 2010)




----------



## Teal (Mar 11, 2010)

*Awesome shots! I like your style  *


----------



## spider (Mar 12, 2010)

Thanks, but I don't know that I have a particular style. 
It really just depends on my mood, but one  that never changes is a loving for Wild life photos.


----------



## spider (Mar 20, 2010)

Wild baby Alligator


----------



## Vys (Mar 20, 2010)

spider said:


> Wild baby Alligator



Hah, there's interesting wildlife and there's interesting wildlife


----------



## spider (Mar 20, 2010)

I suppose you're right. A lot of wildlife has a lot more of an interesting look to it when eye level with the subject. Can't wait til summer is in full swing so I can get some macro work done on Golden silk spiders and other random inverts.


----------



## spider (Apr 4, 2010)

Just been on a B&W trip lately


----------



## spider (Apr 4, 2010)




----------

