![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Use YouTube then little server space required, just link to YouTube.
You might still have autofocus Nick but most people progressively lose that as they get older. I have absolutely nil autofocus with my left eye with the new acrylic lens implant. The 72 year old original in my right eye is only marginally better. This is a sad fact of life called "getting older".Even the eye can not focus on everything in a panorama at once; but it does have a very-fast autofocus to build a picture in the mind of the whole scene.
i submitted a caterpillar pic with deliberately detailed background foliage recently... it came lastpadfield wrote:Just for the record, I stopped rating the photo competitions (and therefore entering them, as its unfair to enter and not rate) precisely because all the best photographers were going for this blurry, pastel background effect, which I find actively unattractive - almost claustrophobic.
Guy
'Undesirable image'? Surely an opinion rather than a fact?These are photography competitions, In natural history photography, and especially in macro photography, a messy, busy, cluttered background makes for an undesirable image.
'Lower quality images'? Says who?I hardly think it fair that just because a couple of people don't like the results of the competitions, that we should even start consider inventing a new format to accommodate lower quality images.
Patronising (and ignorant).I personally have nothing but respect for the enthusiastic people armed with simplest of equipment, that happily , ( without complaint ) put their images up against experienced photographers with thousands of pounds worth of gear.
The opinion of every judge, at every assessment, or competition I've ever attended.celery wrote:These are photography competitions, In natural history photography, and especially in macro photography, a messy, busy, cluttered background makes for an undesirable image.
'Undesirable image'? Surely an opinion rather than a fact?
The results speak for themselves.celery wrote:I hardly think it fair that just because a couple of people don't like the results of the competitions, that we should even start consider inventing a new format to accommodate lower quality images.
'Lower quality images'? Says who?
celery wrote:Patronising (and ignorant).
This is in no way patronising, or ignorant. It is realistic. Just look at the results Neil and Paul and Jack get with thier Lumix. Superb stuff. I wish I could do as well with my DSLR and specialist lenses.I personally have nothing but respect for the enthusiastic people armed with simplest of equipment, that happily , ( without complaint ) put their images up against experienced photographers with thousands of pounds worth of gear.
This is a bit silly. The only way you will not do well is if you post photographs that aren't popular or aren't of good quality.I don't suppose I'll be doing well in any of the competition categories now...
Of course, you're right, Roger - that is the ideal that the best photographers are aiming at and it is obviously popular. No one can argue with that: de gustibus non est disputandum.Rogerdodge wrote:From April to October every one of the top 21 photographs, that got placed by a popular vote, have markedly out of focus backgrounds.
Cripes Guy. I have pretty much kept out of this thread but .......Translation please.de gustibus non est disputandum. I think it's quite legitimate, though, to suggest there are other paradigms
You're taking the p*** again, aren't you Jack!Jack Harrison wrote:Padfield:Cripes Guy. I have pretty much kept out of this thread but .......Translation please.de gustibus non est disputandum. I think it's quite legitimate, though, to suggest there are other paradigms
Jack
We may of had differing opinions form time to time, but I don't think I've ever shown anything but the up most respect for Pete, Felix, padfield, NickB and Zonda.celery wrote:Gruditch, please stop making me out to be the bad guy. I believe Peter Eeles, Felix, padfield, NickB and Zonda have expressed similar reservations to mine. Even if you have no respect for me then show some common courtesy to these esteemed others.
No you didn't, you had a self confessed rant, and that's why we are where we are now, side tracked.celery wrote:I have not sidetracked this thread. I made the suggestion that 'habitat' should be included as a category in my first post and the idea of 'Butterflies in their Environment'
You actually said.celery wrote:The winning entries are always splendid photographs worthy of their acclaim. I merely suggested that they are often thematically and aesthetically similar - and argued the case for the inclusion of a more varied choice of categories.
Well, yes and no.You're taking the p*** again, aren't you Jack!![]()
Hey, I'm enjoying this from the stalls with Felix....don't drag me into the bear-pit as wellcelery wrote: I believe Peter Eeles, Felix, padfield, NickB and Zonda have expressed similar reservations to mine. Even if you have no respect for me then show some common courtesy to these esteemed others.
cheers, celery
I could use to describe someone's appalling wife. I must remember that. (Or am I misunderstanding its usage?)The maxim de gustibus non est disputandum translates roughly as there is no disputing about tastes meaning in this context that matters of taste are epistemologically subjective and therefore can not be argued about because such things are not objectively right or wrong.
If that's the birding term, is it not 'giss' (general impression of size and shape). I could be very wrong of course...Susie wrote:I could certainly spend plenty of time over the winter months studing the jizz of various butterflies and honing my skills for the coming season with great pleasure.