Pulling Strings With The 70-200 VR2!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Things are getting a bit spotty with the 500/4 Nikkor!!
Next: But will MS's overheat in the sun, like the Crapple iPad?
From: tony cooper on 7 Aug 2010 00:35 On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 23:14:44 -0500, Superzooms Still Win <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 00:03:24 -0400, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >>On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 21:37:03 -0400, "Peter" >><peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> >>>"TheRealSteve" <steve(a)example.com> wrote in message >>>news:ag8p565uivm9dmn5f6ug44tj4kv5sub0q4(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:53:34 -0500, Superzooms Still Win >>>> <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>What I don't understand is how flipping an image left/right is going to >>>>>ever improve an image. If the image has good composition, viewing its >>>>>mirror counterpart will make absolutely no difference at all (except in >>>>>the >>>> >>>> When I was in the newspaper biz, we would sometimes flip images not >>>> due to the composition of the image but for the composition of the >>>> page. For instance, if the image fit better to the left of the story >>>> but the subject is looking left, we might flip it so the subject is >>>> looking at the text of the story. It draws the reader's eye in the >>>> right direction and attaches the story to the picture better than if >>>> the subject was looking the other way. >>> >>> >>>At some papers that would be a big no - no. e.g. The NY Times has fired >>>photographers for doing just that. It may sound harmless and work as an aid >>>to the story, but they consider it unethical. >> >>Hunh? The photographer has absolutely nothing to do with the placement >>of the photograph in the newspaper's format. The photographer takes >>the photograph, turns it in, and then he's no longer involved. He >>doesn't have any say-so in if it's used, how it's cropped, where it's >>placed, or how it's placed. >> >>It's the same with reporters. They have no say-so in any of those >>aspects of if, where, how much, or how the story is placed. They >>don't even write the headlines for the story. >> >>All those decisions belong to the copy editors, art editors, and >>sub-editors. Each section of a large newspaper will have a staff for >>that section. >> >>Someone's been feeding you a line, Peter. You haven't been taking >>advice from the poster of a thousand names, have you? > >Yet a photographer will be sent back out to get another image that works >better in a publication, after showing him what is needed and why, if it is >at all possible. > This could be a first. That very well could be your first accurate and true statement in this newsgroup. Still, the photographer's job stops at providing the image. The photographers who have been fired have been fired for altering photographs before they turned them in. Some of the famous incidents involved free lance contributing photographers like Adnan Hajj (Reuters) and staff photographers like Brian Walski of the _Los Angeles Times_. I don't recall a _New York Times_ photographer being fired for this, but it may have happened. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 7 Aug 2010 00:54 On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 19:02:57 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >...but what if we take a well known subject and just create confusion >by flipping the image to "draw the eye?' >This lady for example, by gazing off to the right, inexplicably becomes >left handed. >http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/SoL-Flip-A.jpg > >or this famous flipped shot which led to a certain Western character >being known, incorrectly as a "left-hand gun." >< http://www.walker47.com/assets/images/articles/art_billykid1.gif > >< http://www.cardcow.com/images/set57/card00192_fr.jpg > I tried to make my position pretty clear when I said: "When there's something in the image that doesn't make sense if you flop it horizontally, then you don't do it because it doesn't make sense. You don't not do it because of the rules; you don't do it because the result doesn't make sense. You have a cat sitting on a sidewalk, a toddler taking his/her first steps, or something where there's no landmark of direction, then flopping doesn't change anything. Of course, there'd have to be a reason to flop the image. Flop a flower photo and no blood, no foul." Your examples fall under my exceptions because they don't make sense if they are flopped (Liberty and Bonney) and there's no need to flop. (Bonney) -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 7 Aug 2010 01:50 On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 23:56:53 -0500, Superzooms Still Win <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 00:15:25 -0400, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >>On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 21:55:59 -0500, Superzooms Still Win >><ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >> >>>(For the incredulously affected basement-life trolls: How about that, he >>>even knows about the printing arts! I spent five years as chief editor for >>>a series of books at one point. Where does this person's experience and >>>knowledge ever end? .... it doesn't, deal with it.) >> >>The lies just don't hold up. You've said you worked as a bartender >>for several years, I think there have been other claims of jobs, and >>now you've worked as chief editor for five years. Yet, you claim to >>have retired at 24. You need to keep your stories straight. > >Retired = doing anything that I damn well please. And that was 25, not 24. OK. Let's do the math. You couldn't have been a bartender before you were 21, so two years of that puts you at 23. Jumping straight from biker joint bartender to five years of chief editor puts you at...wait....28. So, the book editing must have come before the bartending. That means going straight from high school to chief editor of books for a publishing company. Yeah, that's believable. Time to doctor the story. Being a Mensa-plus genius, you graduated high school at 16, built a duplicate of Thor Heyerdahl's Kon-Tiki out of the high school's cafeteria drinking straws, and sailed it single-handedly to Sweden in a two-year trip pausing only to photograph rare moths that had been blown out to sea. The photographs were taken with a pin-hole camera you fashioned out of an empty J&J Band-Aid can (after using the Band-Aids to re-attach an arm severed by a Great White Shark that made a wrong turn out of Port Douglas) and then were strained through a fishnet you made out of woven pubic hair so they would not be stolen when uploaded to the net. You landed the raft in Bergen, Norway and trekked across Norway living only on lutefisk and a previously-undiscovered variety of cloudberries (now named after you) and ended up in Malm�, Sweden (legal drinking age 18) where you got a job as a bartender in a hang-out for the Solidos. In your evenings off at the bar, you stitched up a hang glider made from waxed Mariestads beer bottle labels and rode the air currents back to the US where you immediately were hired as chief editor for the publisher of Janet Cooke's expanded version of "Jimmy's World", Jayson Blair's autobiography, and Stephen Glass's collection of his stories for _The New Republic_ . Your experiences with these clients formed your current writing style. There. The time-line's right. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Superzooms Still Win on 7 Aug 2010 02:09 On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 01:50:37 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 23:56:53 -0500, Superzooms Still Win ><ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: > >>On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 00:15:25 -0400, tony cooper >><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 21:55:59 -0500, Superzooms Still Win >>><ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >>> >>>>(For the incredulously affected basement-life trolls: How about that, he >>>>even knows about the printing arts! I spent five years as chief editor for >>>>a series of books at one point. Where does this person's experience and >>>>knowledge ever end? .... it doesn't, deal with it.) >>> >>>The lies just don't hold up. You've said you worked as a bartender >>>for several years, I think there have been other claims of jobs, and >>>now you've worked as chief editor for five years. Yet, you claim to >>>have retired at 24. You need to keep your stories straight. >> >>Retired = doing anything that I damn well please. And that was 25, not 24. > >OK. Let's do the math. You couldn't have been a bartender before you >were 21, so two years of that puts you at 23. Jumping straight from >biker joint bartender to five years of chief editor puts you >at...wait....28. So, the book editing must have come before the >bartending. That means going straight from high school to chief >editor of books for a publishing company. Yeah, that's believable. > >Time to doctor the story. Being a Mensa-plus genius, you graduated >high school at 16, built a duplicate of Thor Heyerdahl's Kon-Tiki out >of the high school's cafeteria drinking straws, and sailed it >single-handedly to Sweden in a two-year trip pausing only to >photograph rare moths that had been blown out to sea. The photographs >were taken with a pin-hole camera you fashioned out of an empty J&J >Band-Aid can (after using the Band-Aids to re-attach an arm severed by >a Great White Shark that made a wrong turn out of Port Douglas) and >then were strained through a fishnet you made out of woven pubic hair >so they would not be stolen when uploaded to the net. > >You landed the raft in Bergen, Norway and trekked across Norway living >only on lutefisk and a previously-undiscovered variety of cloudberries >(now named after you) and ended up in Malm�, Sweden (legal drinking >age 18) where you got a job as a bartender in a hang-out for the >Solidos. > >In your evenings off at the bar, you stitched up a hang glider made >from waxed Mariestads beer bottle labels and rode the air currents >back to the US where you immediately were hired as chief editor for >the publisher of Janet Cooke's expanded version of "Jimmy's World", >Jayson Blair's autobiography, and Stephen Glass's collection of his >stories for _The New Republic_ . Your experiences with these clients >formed your current writing style. > >There. The time-line's right. Feeling pretty insecure in never having accomplished anything of interest in your life, eh? But that's okay, there's billions just like you on the planet that have likewise wasted their lives. At least you can take pride in being part of the vast and vastly useless majority, if nothing else.
From: SneakyP on 7 Aug 2010 02:31
tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in news:8jnp56pstgglf82vvuednhd2ffh19m36at(a)4ax.com: > On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 23:14:44 -0500, Superzooms Still Win > <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: > >>On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 00:03:24 -0400, tony cooper >><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 21:37:03 -0400, "Peter" >>><peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>> >>>>"TheRealSteve" <steve(a)example.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ag8p565uivm9dmn5f6ug44tj4kv5sub0q4(a)4ax.com... >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:53:34 -0500, Superzooms Still Win >>>>> <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>What I don't understand is how flipping an image left/right is >>>>>>going to ever improve an image. If the image has good composition, >>>>>>viewing its mirror counterpart will make absolutely no difference >>>>>>at all (except in the >>>>> >>>>> When I was in the newspaper biz, we would sometimes flip images >>>>> not due to the composition of the image but for the composition of >>>>> the page. For instance, if the image fit better to the left of >>>>> the story but the subject is looking left, we might flip it so the >>>>> subject is looking at the text of the story. It draws the >>>>> reader's eye in the right direction and attaches the story to the >>>>> picture better than if the subject was looking the other way. >>>> >>>> >>>>At some papers that would be a big no - no. e.g. The NY Times has >>>>fired photographers for doing just that. It may sound harmless and >>>>work as an aid to the story, but they consider it unethical. >>> >>>Hunh? The photographer has absolutely nothing to do with the >>>placement of the photograph in the newspaper's format. The >>>photographer takes the photograph, turns it in, and then he's no >>>longer involved. He doesn't have any say-so in if it's used, how >>>it's cropped, where it's placed, or how it's placed. >>> >>>It's the same with reporters. They have no say-so in any of those >>>aspects of if, where, how much, or how the story is placed. They >>>don't even write the headlines for the story. >>> >>>All those decisions belong to the copy editors, art editors, and >>>sub-editors. Each section of a large newspaper will have a staff for >>>that section. >>> >>>Someone's been feeding you a line, Peter. You haven't been taking >>>advice from the poster of a thousand names, have you? >> >>Yet a photographer will be sent back out to get another image that >>works better in a publication, after showing him what is needed and >>why, if it is at all possible. >> > This could be a first. That very well could be your first accurate > and true statement in this newsgroup. > > Still, the photographer's job stops at providing the image. The > photographers who have been fired have been fired for altering > photographs before they turned them in. Some of the famous incidents > involved free lance contributing photographers like Adnan Hajj > (Reuters) and staff photographers like Brian Walski of the _Los > Angeles Times_. I don't recall a _New York Times_ photographer being > fired for this, but it may have happened. > Remember the Iran missile test picture showing not one, but three missiles? And all that smoke was pretty much a clonejob gone bad. It was funny that such a faked picture made the headlines of such prestegious news reporting services. -- SneakyP To email me, you know what to do. |