Photography Courses

[Tingnongnoi]

Yawn.... Don't confuse knowledge and experience with being pompous. Would you call an expert in another field, say like an engineer or an architect or a doctor or a lawyer or some other QUALIFIED professional pompous because they offered you their professional opinion of an obviously amateur reply to a question? Probably not. There is no substitute for experience but you need to be educated on how to obtain that experience or else you may not progress.

IF you actually read my post I did invite the OP to contact me where I offered to instruct them on the basics.

This forum is an exchange of information and ideas but if I see a post that is so full of holes it would sink faster than the Titanic then I'll say so. Up to you take that advice, or not...

you can call it professional opinion all you want, but it still reads as a personal attack by a pompous know all. Maybe if you combined knowledge and experience with humble and polite it would make for a nicer atmosphere

[Tingnongnoi]

Hey Ting,

Psssst, off topic I know, but Ive decided to get a new lense to add to my kit & I went to check her out the other day and she's very nice.

check out this baby http://www.nikon.com...1327-06b93960b8

Cant wait to start botching up fotos with that one.

I've got the 18 to 200 lense and it covers most of what I want for "snapshots" but leaves a bit to be desired for telephoto. I do like the 18 mm wide angle, though. I'd rather have a 300 mm lens or stronger if I wanted to take wildlife photos. The 2.8 lens is pretty good for available light, though, and will give you some latitude in lower light conditions. Sometimes it's awkard to carry too much photography equipment, and we leave stuff behind that OCCASIONALLY we might use.

You were right that the photos I used to illustrate what I was trying to say in the original topic were not my best. But, I'm not going to waste hours scanning slides into digital format just to make a point. It's often hard to find something that illustrates exactly what you are trying to say, and all you can do is post something close.

the 70-300 vr is a decent value for money and lightweight lens that would be good for travel, nowhere near as fast as the 70-200 though

[neverdie]

Hey Ting,

Psssst, off topic I know, but Ive decided to get a new lense to add to my kit & I went to check her out the other day and she's very nice.

check out this baby http://www.nikon.com...1327-06b93960b8

Cant wait to start botching up fotos with that one.

I've got the 18 to 200 lense and it covers most of what I want for "snapshots" but leaves a bit to be desired for telephoto. I do like the 18 mm wide angle, though. I'd rather have a 300 mm lens or stronger if I wanted to take wildlife photos. The 2.8 lens is pretty good for available light, though, and will give you some latitude in lower light conditions. Sometimes it's awkard to carry too much photography equipment, and we leave stuff behind that OCCASIONALLY we might use.

You were right that the photos I used to illustrate what I was trying to say in the original topic were not my best. But, I'm not going to waste hours scanning slides into digital format just to make a point. It's often hard to find something that illustrates exactly what you are trying to say, and all you can do is post something close.

Ian,

I have a 24-70mm Nikkor, a Macro 105mm, this other lense I speak of will be the third one & I feel the 70-200mm is enuf for us (we've been lucky enuf to sample it). The final lense I am shopping for is going to be either the 12-24 or the 14-24 Nikkor (the latter of the two being rather pricey & probably a bit elaborate for the D300S). But, I feel in a few years when I upgrade to a full frame sensor such as a D700 or whatever replaces it, I may kick myself if I dont get the 14-24 because by all reports its a sensational wide lense. I feel my lenses I will keep for a long time (hopefully), although the camera bodies will probably change a few times. TO BE HONEST, my photography sucks but the chefs work is really quite good, so its more for her than me. I can bugger up the easiest shots and she can produce better shots with the point and shoot, which just goes to prove I AM A RAT WITH A GOLD TOOTH!

Anyway, its a fun hobby but an expensive one. I use to say if it has titttts, wheels or floats it will cost you a fortune, but I really need to incorporate cameras into my saying now.

PS: I really feel the 18-200 & 70-200mm are lenses of different leages & testing of them also suggests this. i was wondering about greater zoom than 200 but thought if the case arose where I wanted that, I could throw a teleconverter onto the 70-200mm although Im not exactly sure how that will affect the lense, Ive got no experience with teleconverters.

Edited July 2, 2010 by neverdie

[t.s]

The Vulcan - you take the words right out of my mouth.... Well said.

from one pompous full of their own importance so called pro to another thats hardly suprising, no wonder not many people want to get involved with this section of the forum when you two are around

As usual, well said Ting. I think the guys that are critical of Ian's work failed to notice or make any mention of the positive aspects of his work.

they are to busy telling everyone how many years they have been pro and showing off their vastly superior knowldege to everyone to do anything positive like that or actually try and help the op

having seen the photos of both, i know whose advice i would take. I am not a professional but Mr Forbes advice was well intentioned utter <deleted>. His examples certain do him little credit.

As for not wanting to be a part of the forum because of them being around, speak for yourself.

As an electrical engineer could you sit idly by while someone recommends aluminium foil as an excellent insulator?

[Tingnongnoi]

a guy came on asking for advice on any courses to learn about photography and got a few tips, he wasn't asking how to shoot a vogue or national geographic cover shoot! So not everything Ian came out with was right and he put up some not good quality snaps to basically illustrate a few points, again he wasn't trying to win a competition or get a cover shoot with them. Was there any real need for him to get flamed like that? You really think it will make more people want to join in the forum when you already have other posters saying they don't want to post any images for fear of getting slated, nothing wrong with advice from people with more knowledge, but does it really have to come as a rude lecture?

[t.s]

having not followed this forum for a while, i became somewhat out of touch.

It seems the vulcan has become a bit of a nasty <deleted> of late. i based my previous comment on some of his earlier posts in this forum. a quick scan through evaluate my photo has turned up some pretty nasty commentary.

[Tingnongnoi]

exactly why I posted what I did, can't see any need for it myself and surely puts a lot of people off posting their images and joining in.

[astral]

OK guys.

Can we please try and get passed this and on with the matter of photography.

Thanks

[IanForbes]

Hey Ting,

Psssst, off topic I know, but Ive decided to get a new lense to add to my kit & I went to check her out the other day and she's very nice.

check out this baby http://www.nikon.com...1327-06b93960b8

Cant wait to start botching up fotos with that one.

I've got the 18 to 200 lense and it covers most of what I want for "snapshots" but leaves a bit to be desired for telephoto. I do like the 18 mm wide angle, though. I'd rather have a 300 mm lens or stronger if I wanted to take wildlife photos. The 2.8 lens is pretty good for available light, though, and will give you some latitude in lower light conditions. Sometimes it's awkard to carry too much photography equipment, and we leave stuff behind that OCCASIONALLY we might use.

You were right that the photos I used to illustrate what I was trying to say in the original topic were not my best. But, I'm not going to waste hours scanning slides into digital format just to make a point. It's often hard to find something that illustrates exactly what you are trying to say, and all you can do is post something close.

Ian,

I have a 24-70mm Nikkor, a Macro 105mm, this other lense I speak of will be the third one & I feel the 70-200mm is enuf for us (we've been lucky enuf to sample it). The final lense I am shopping for is going to be either the 12-24 or the 14-24 Nikkor (the latter of the two being rather pricey & probably a bit elaborate for the D300S). But, I feel in a few years when I upgrade to a full frame sensor such as a D700 or whatever replaces it, I may kick myself if I dont get the 14-24 because by all reports its a sensational wide lense. I feel my lenses I will keep for a long time (hopefully), although the camera bodies will probably change a few times. TO BE HONEST, my photography sucks but the chefs work is really quite good, so its more for her than me. I can bugger up the easiest shots and she can produce better shots with the point and shoot, which just goes to prove I AM A RAT WITH A GOLD TOOTH!

Anyway, its a fun hobby but an expensive one. I use to say if it has titttts, wheels or floats it will cost you a fortune, but I really need to incorporate cameras into my saying now.

PS: I really feel the 18-200 & 70-200mm are lenses of different leages & testing of them also suggests this. i was wondering about greater zoom than 200 but thought if the case arose where I wanted that, I could throw a teleconverter onto the 70-200mm although Im not exactly sure how that will affect the lense, Ive got no experience with teleconverters.

I have a teleconverter for my old Nikon film cameras, but not for my D200. As I have said many times, it's just not worth it to me to buy a $5000 lens just to shoot the occasional snapshot of wild life. I'm not a professional sports photographer so I can hardly justify the cost. Only a very few magazines accept wild life photographs and the ones that do demand perfection in a high quality format.

As far as the criticism of my help is concerned I'm only repeating what magazine editors have told me what they want and don't want. I'll still say you will learn more by going into the field with a digital camera and try out all the various settings, and make notes on the results.