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: Peter on 7 Aug 2010 05:51 "Superzooms Still Win" <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote in message news:q3ip569ge86ka3ev3s8tb6kscchmfg8hlh(a)4ax.com... > > (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.) > Mr. Mitty, whatever you say. You certainly have such superior experience and intelligence that I don't understand why you even bother with us mere mortals. If you want credibility, tell us the name of your publisher. -- Peter
From: Peter on 7 Aug 2010 05:45 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:l9mp56dq9al1b3hagaqfuq8531uu45aji0(a)4ax.com... > 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? > Tony, I was strictly referring to reversing images. Since I was not there, I obviously do not have first hand knowledge. You certainly are free to check with the Times photography editor on that policy. -- Peter
From: Allen on 7 Aug 2010 10:17 tony cooper 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. > > > > Another explanation of "retired at 24" might be that he was born on February 29. Based on the number of birthdays he has celebrated that would make him 96--a prime age for brain failure. Allen
From: TheRealSteve on 7 Aug 2010 10:49 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. Not at smaller newpapers and not when you're on a deadline. Where I worked, the photographer only took the picture. He would turn in the film (yes, this was before digital) to the darkroom manager who would process the film and print it. The layout editor would then mark the print for cropping and size. Then the darkroom manager would make a halftone to that cropping and size using the halftone camera. But sometimes the layout editor would also ask that the image be flipped if it made for better layout. But we had to make sure nothing was noticeably reversed in the flipped image, like maybe signs in the background. Steve
From: TheRealSteve on 7 Aug 2010 10:50
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 19:02:57 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2010-08-06 17:49:28 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > >> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:03:05 -0400, TheRealSteve <steve(a)example.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> Yeah, makes sense. I do believe in the "drawing the eye" concept. > >...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 You obviously have to flip judicously. Steve |