Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Thread started 01 Aug 2017 (Tuesday) 14:35
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

You should see these SL1 photos...

 
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Levina de Ruijter's Avatar
Joined Sep 2008
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Aug 02, 2017 17:24 |  #16

Actually, I don't think it's the camera that is responsible for the bad IQ, but the lens. I have to say I only looked at the birds, as that's the genre of photography I know most about. And the birds shots I saw were all taken with the Canon 75-300mm lens, which is a notoriously bad lens. The amount of colour fringing alone kills everything as does the lack of definition. Put some decent glass on the camera and I'm sure we would see something else. So no, I wasn't too impressed with the shots. Also because the photographer often focused on the wing or body of the bird, leaving the head soft. And there was some pretty bad processing going on as well. Lots of artefacts as a result of too much cropping and over sharpening. Some shots had definitely potential in terms of colour, light and DOF, but the photographer needs to learn how to shoot birds better and really needs to get decent glass for it.


Levina
Please quote when responding to a post!!!
There is no such thing as ect. It's etc. (with period) from latin et cetera.
Colours are not complimentary but complementary.
My flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Perfectly ­ Frank
THREAD ­ STARTER
I'm too sexy for my lens
Joined Oct 2010
Aug 02, 2017 19:31 |  #17

Some will point out flaws with the Doctor's photos...lack of DR, blown highlights, poor lens quality, etc.
Those who are deep into photography will spot those flaws. But others will just enjoy the photos as they are.

Base on the large number of views, favs, and comments, his photos are very well liked.
And that's what matters most.


My flickr albums (external link)
My Best Aviation Photos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
2,915 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Atlanta, GA
Aug 02, 2017 21:52 |  #18

Well on these forums, people will be more critical, that is assumed. It is interesting to see what photogs here identify with. I don't like over-saturation...it does cut down significantly on DR and resolution (so I saw that immediately while others saw some flaws in their respected areas). I wouldn't go as far as to say his compositions are bad (there's a lot of photos he does post)...I see some as engaging. The internet is also fickle: you can gain a lot of web hits and likes if you're so inclined, but not be a "master" of that field. I even don't disparage Ken Rockwell: he has a good business model. I did interact with him once when I saw his review of the Canon 5D and complained about ISO 50 not being different then 100. I showed him resources confirming that it was a software expansion that wasn't meant to offer better detail then ISO 100. He thanked me and said good info. I still think his photos are over-saturated and cringe at his exclamations of RAW is not necessary, but to each his/her own!


Canon 5D mk III , 7D mk II
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Levina de Ruijter's Avatar
Joined Sep 2008
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Post has been edited 4 months ago by Levina de Ruijter.
Aug 03, 2017 05:36 |  #19

Perfectly Frank wrote in post #18417821 (external link)
Some will point out flaws with the Doctor's photos...lack of DR, blown highlights, poor lens quality, etc.
Those who are deep into photography will spot those flaws. But others will just enjoy the photos as they are.

Base on the large number of views, favs, and comments, his photos are very well liked.
And that's what matters most.

I see you don't know the workings of flickr. The man has 97.7k followers (and follows 72.2k people himself), which if you know flickr a bit, should tell you that he is interested only in getting as much views, likes and comments as he possibly can. He himself has faved 1.4M images from other people, another sure way of getting many likes back. In his profile he says he's a statistician. Well, he worked out very well how the flickr system works and he works the numbers! This is not a man who is interested in photography or in interaction with others. I mean, how do you get personal with almost 100k people eh? There are a lot of people like that at flickr. Their images are bad but from the number of views, likes and comments you would think they're the best photographers in the world.

By the way, I do agree with the basic principle that you don't need expensive gear to take great shots. Years ago there was somebody here at POTN who shot birds with very humble gear and his images were great. Pity I can't remember who it was.


Levina
Please quote when responding to a post!!!
There is no such thing as ect. It's etc. (with period) from latin et cetera.
Colours are not complimentary but complementary.
My flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Larry ­ Weinman
Goldmember
1,401 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Post has been edited 4 months ago by Larry Weinman.
Aug 03, 2017 07:59 |  #20

I looked at some of the photos and I am not impressed. His bird photos all lack feather detail, his macro shots are for the most part out of focus. For years I got sucked into the hype of a new camera release only to buy the latest and greatest newest model. I really found only small overall improvements each time. I shot a rodeo with a friend last summer. I used a 7D Mk ll and he used a 6D. I can't say that my photos were better then his even though the 7D Mk ll should have been because of being hyped as an action camera. The 6D "lousy " focusing system seemed to work fine for him. I don't doubt that a camera like the 5D Mk IV is better then the 5D Mk lll but in the end how much better will your photos be if at all.


7D Mark II 6D 100mm f 2.8 macro 180mm f 3.5 macro, MP-E-65 300mm f 2.8 500mm f4 Tokina 10-17mm fisheye 10-22mm 17-55mm 24-105mm 70-300mm 70-200 f 2.8 Mk II 100-400mm Mk II 1.4 TCIII 2X TCIII 580EX II 430 EX II MT 24 EX Tamron 150-600

LOG IN TO REPLY
Perfectly ­ Frank
THREAD ­ STARTER
I'm too sexy for my lens
Joined Oct 2010
Aug 03, 2017 10:18 |  #21

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18418102 (external link)
This is not a man who is interested in photography or in interaction with others.

Really? :rolleyes:


My flickr albums (external link)
My Best Aviation Photos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lbsimon
...never exercised in my life
Lbsimon's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
Boston, MA
Aug 03, 2017 10:24 |  #22

Perfectly Frank wrote in post #18418258 (external link)
Really? :rolleyes:

I think Levina provided a very good reasoning of why she thought that way.


5D Mark IV | 6D | S110
EF 17-40L | EF 24-105L (two) | EF 70-200L F4 IS | EF 100-400L II | EF 85 1.8 | EF 50 1.8 STM | Canon 1.4x III | Canon 1.4x II
Yongnuo 685 | Nissin Di622 M2 | Nissin Di422

LOG IN TO REPLY
repete7
Member
repete7's Avatar
Joined Nov 2010
Aug 03, 2017 10:49 |  #23

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18418102 (external link)
I see you don't know the workings of flickr. The man has 97.7k followers (and follows 72.2k people himself), which if you know flickr a bit, should tell you that he is interested only in getting as much views, likes and comments as he possibly can. He himself has faved 1.4M images from other people, another sure way of getting many likes back. In his profile he says he's a statistician. Well, he worked out very well how flickr works all right! This is not a man who is interested in photography or in interaction with others. I mean, how do you get personal with almost 100k people eh? There are a lot of people like that at flickr. Their images are bad but from the number of views, likes and comments you would think they're the best photographers in the world.

By the way, I do agree with the basic principle that you don't need expensive gear to take great shots. Years ago there was somebody here at POTN who shot birds with very humble gear and his images were great. Pity I can't remember who it was.

I wonder if he's using a bot? But I like his stuff. I wouldn't buy a print or anything like that, but it is pleasant to scroll through.

BTW, Flickr popularity is not a good indication of photo quality. Here's my highest rated photo taken with the SL1 At Dog Park (external link). I missed the focus, it's noisy, the bokeh looks weird, and the lighting is flat. But it's got over 16,000 views. Go figure.


Karen Flickr (external link)
Canon 6D2|Canon Eos-m|Canon ef-m 22|Samyang 14mm f/2.8|Canon 40 stm|Canon 50 f/1.8 stm|Canon FD 50mm macro|Canon Macro 100L|Canon 16-35 f/4L IS USM |Canon 24-105L IS USM II|Canon 70-300 IS II USM|Canon 100-400L|

LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,822 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Aug 03, 2017 11:04 |  #24

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18418102 (external link)
I see you don't know the workings of flickr. The man has 97.7k followers (and follows 72.2k people himself), which if you know flickr a bit, should tell you that he is interested only in getting as much views, likes and comments as he possibly can. He himself has faved 1.4M images from other people, another sure way of getting many likes back. In his profile he says he's a statistician. Well, he worked out very well how flickr works all right! This is not a man who is interested in photography or in interaction with others. I mean, how do you get personal with almost 100k people eh? There are a lot of people like that at flickr. Their images are bad but from the number of views, likes and comments you would think they're the best photographers in the world.

By the way, I do agree with the basic principle that you don't need expensive gear to take great shots. Years ago there was somebody here at POTN who shot birds with very humble gear and his images were great. Pity I can't remember who it was.

jeeze, I didnt know you can follow that many on flickr. Instagram sets a limit of 7K you can follow. Following 72K is kind of outrageous.


Sony A7rii x2 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VC

LOG IN TO REPLY
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Levina de Ruijter's Avatar
Joined Sep 2008
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Aug 03, 2017 11:21 |  #25

Perfectly Frank wrote in post #18418258 (external link)
Really? :rolleyes:

Yes, really, Frank. There is rather large group of people on flickr who are only interested in numbers and they work hard to get them. These are the people that roam the largest and most popular groups and fave every photo they can find. They also follow as many people as they can, because often when you follow somebody they will follow you right back. All this ensures an amazing number of views, faves and comments. Personally I avoid these people like the plague.

repete7 wrote in post #18418276 (external link)
I wonder if he's using a bot? But I like his stuff. I wouldn't buy a print or anything like that, but it is pleasant to scroll through.

BTW, Flickr popularity is not a good indication of photo quality. Here's my highest rated photo taken with the SL1 At Dog Park (external link). I missed the focus, it's noisy, the bokeh looks weird, and the lighting is flat. But it's got over 16,000 views. Go figure.

I don't think popularity at any place, be it flickr or facebook or wherever is much of an indication of anything, to be honest. Like you I've had pics in Explore that were mere snapshots but generated thousands of views, hundreds of faves and what have you. And then quality shots are just visited by the few contacts that I have. I know a few world class bird photographers on flickr that generate little traffic to their photostream but they couldn't care less. They have better things to do. :)

Charlie wrote in post #18418285 (external link)
jeeze, I didnt know you can follow that many on flickr. Instagram sets a limit of 7K you can follow. Following 72K is kind of outrageous.

Yes, you can. You can also have an insane amount of faves. It's often discussed in the help forum, as many people hate those that hunt for numbers, but I don't think flickr can do too much against it. Or maybe doesn't want to. I'm not on Instagram but that 7K limit is a good thing!


Levina
Please quote when responding to a post!!!
There is no such thing as ect. It's etc. (with period) from latin et cetera.
Colours are not complimentary but complementary.
My flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
waterrockets
Goldmember
waterrockets's Avatar
3,842 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Austin (near TX)
Aug 03, 2017 11:23 |  #26

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18418102 (external link)
I see you don't know the workings of flickr. The man has 97.7k followers (and follows 72.2k people himself), which if you know flickr a bit, should tell you that he is interested only in getting as much views, likes and comments as he possibly can. He himself has faved 1.4M images from other people, another sure way of getting many likes back. In his profile he says he's a statistician. Well, he worked out very well how flickr works all right! This is not a man who is interested in photography or in interaction with others. I mean, how do you get personal with almost 100k people eh? There are a lot of people like that at flickr. Their images are bad but from the number of views, likes and comments you would think they're the best photographers in the world.

By the way, I do agree with the basic principle that you don't need expensive gear to take great shots. Years ago there was somebody here at POTN who shot birds with very humble gear and his images were great. Pity I can't remember who it was.

Yeah, this looks more like a social media effort than a photography effort. I certainly wouldn't classify the Dr as a deep master of photography on humble equipment.


1D MkIV | 1D MkIII | 550D w/grip & ML| EF 70-200mm f2.8L| EF 24-105mm f4L IS | Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC | 430EXii | EF 50mm f1.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

2,355 views & 6 likes for this thread
You should see these SL1 photos...
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00138 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.05s
Latest registered member is Wanda Donald
828 guests, 438 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017