Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Street, Documentary, and Portrait' started by heli-mech, Jun 17, 2012.
Pretty impressed with "higher" ISO's on the OM-D, great detail at ISO1000
At least here you won't run in to Tedolf or whatever his name is.
He truly is a awful person.
Great shot btw.
Excellent detail, nice!
LOL, not my proudest moment either but that was probably my last attempt at posting on DPreview. Alot of good people there but the vocal idiots just ruin it time and time again. Every sub-forum is the same, I find it completely unbelievable that it is still basically unmoderated. My personality and DPreview just don't mix..... I donated to this forum today, do what I can to keep it going.
Site supporter fist bump!
- Eliot@Austin, TX
Wow... Just read the thread in question on DPR - there really are a lot of wanksrs over there...
Oh well, I'll risk tedolf's wrath and like the picture
Well, guess I am just an idiot who knows nothing about photography, but I happen to like your picture as well. It's a cute, candid shot, and the eyes are captivating... Not to mention that the details are amazing...
BTW, "donkeybutt" is a good one...
I said it there, and I'll say it here -- great shot. It demonstrates the technical piece you are talking about -- good high ISO and sharpness, and is IMO a great shot that shows the tot's character! Well done, and thanks for posting.
yes that's the main reason why I hardly ever post anything over there.
Sent from my iPad using Mu-43 App
I'm glad I got to see the image in question after the flap at dPreview. I had something to say about it there and have something to say here as well.
Sorry about the ridiculous exchange at the 'other' place!
I find no objectionable distortion in the image, which is wonderful. The 25mm(50mm) FOV is great for this sort of thing, yielding a nice, intimate shot, free of weird distortion. If you'd got this close with the 20 or 17, you'd probably notice more (your choice though) but with the 25 I think you were well within the capabilities of the lens and FOV. If the guy on DP is so pathetic that he needs written authority to do anything, he's part of the problem, on many fronts, not someone whose advice needs to be taken seriously. It's a terrific shot, the kind you get when you SEE what a lens does. I don't see distortion; I feel like a baby has stuck his/her face really close to mine-- kind of lovely, really.
A bit more. I don't notice the nose elongated, the mouth widened, the face spread unnaturally. I don't see any obvious geometric distortion. I see CLOSE. It makes some people nervous.
Thanks guys. That guy is really a piece of work. Saw this quote on dpreview today and I think I should take it to heart:
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” Mark Twain
And for the record I do like the shot, not for technical reasons, just because I think it was a cute picture. What really got me when I was processing my photos was the detail at ISO1000, while not really high ISO it still impressed me.
I like the shot myself as well! Despite the grain, tons of sharpness and detail remins. Was this JPEG or RAW?
Any distortion here is imo, insignificant. In fact I like the minimal distortion because it highlights the fact that he's a small child, adds playfulness, emphasizes the stare. The underexposure also highlights the detail/noise performance, since a well exposed high iso shot will look better than an dark one.
I may be a recent photographer, but I do know a little bit more about other visual arts. If every painter looked for technical perfection, the world would be missing most of its greatest paintings!
In truth I actually wrote a long-winded response to tedolf before I decided I was wasting my time and didn't post. My main thing was that if he's going to criticize the photo, AT LEAST comment on the technical aspect of the photo. At no moment did you ask for C&C, and though he's allowed to post his opinion, he could've at least tried to stay relevant to the topic by commenting on the detail at 1000. Instead he instigates a troll parade by irrelevantly commenting on your technique.
For me the worst part are when people think it's better to capture no shot than to capture a technically imperfect one. Maybe when you only had 24 exposures for film, then yea, and you needed to place these in art gallery. If you just want to share a nice snapshot with people, then no. Dpreview's m43 forums really push me to the limits sometimes.
Jpeg, pretty much straight from the camera. Just a touch of local contrast and slight resize (for the full size version if you click on the picture).
why do i hear violin music?