It's true, compare a photo taken in film and one taken in digital, the colors and clarity differences are there. There is a kind of brightness and good contrast latitude in digital photos that film cannot produce.
I always tell people that I'm nobody,
but people always say nobody is perfect.
so I'm very confuse,
anyway, most of my photos is "money shots", people pay me to shoot, not all can show, beside these, nothing much to show.
if you really want to see, can do a search lor.
If you like to consider yourself a pro, then go & buy a truly pro camera that cost several thousands of dollars, and also, a few pro lenses. And, if you think you are a top-notch pro, then go & buy a medium format camera with a digital back. That's truly for the Pro of Pro!
I think someone does not get the message.
The message is: Anyone can use a DSLR; The camera is not made for the pro & the self-proclaimed pro only. It that is so, the prices will not come down, then nobody is able to afford the hobby. Get it!
The learning curves between the two are quite distinctive. Digital has shorten that path. At least, the days that you have to wait for the processed films to arrrive does not exist now. This alone will explain it all.
By all means say what didn't work in the photo, why you didn't like it. It is possible to give honest feedback without sounding rude. e.g. "Photos do not work for me at all". Better still if you can be constructive and give specific suggestions how to improve the photos. Just implying that he is a lousy photographer won't help him much.If an image is like sh!t, do you say so? or do you just say, nevermind will improve next time? If a user doesnt even know clearly the state/level of his skills/works, then how does he ever improve, whn he doesnt even know that he has to..
There is really no need to denigrate CS by implying that it is not a "real photography" site. CS caters to wide range of members of differing skill levels and interests. And the wide range of photos posted in CS attest to that. Chit Chat (aka Kopitiam) is only a minor part of CS, not its main focus. May I suggest that you reflect on how your comments to TS have helped him progress to the next level? IMHO, constructive criticism is more helpful any day. There is a difference between calling a bad shot "good" (sugarcoating) and giving serious and constructive pointers how to improve the bad shot (critique).I personally find crap a relatively fine word for critique. For those stucked on on CS, perhaps they can widen their perpectives by looking at some overseas well known and real photography instead of chit chat forums, and see how even images which will get the "nice" comment on CS get slammed upside down. Which is also why i rarely post images on CS for critiques. I dont need people to tell me nice, i need to know instead, how to progress to the next level.
Then why did you target your comments at TS? They come across as personal attacks IMHO. For example, mocking him by asking if the photos are taken by DSLR, and that a handphone camera can take better pics is tantamount to saying that he is a lousy photographer, which is a personal attack. Instead, you should comment on the photos instead, what worked, what didn't, and what *specifically* TS could have done to achieve better photographic results. For example, "the photos lack sharpness, you could try increasing iso next time to shoot at higher shutter speeds or shoot with a faster lens" etc. Or, "The WB is off for all the shots IMHO, I suggest you adjust the WB settings with more blue and less red for this kind of lighting condition."I strongly feel that so long comments are targetted towards the works and not the person, anything goes. At least for me, i would appreciate that someone even bothers to tell me that my images are bad.
As mentioned above, be polite, honest and constructive without getting personal.So the purpose of this thread, i would like to hear views of others? and if possible tell me how am i supposed to comment? Instead of lousy, do i say Very not Excellent ?
Last edited by zaren; 6th June 2007 at 01:44 PM.