A Warm Refreshment

[jcoffin]

Ur an idiot....post something other than 2 shots of your buddy and something over ISO 100 or shut your mouth! The camera was stuck for the BMX event...I had no control over the aperture and it would not have made a ton of difference on much of it anyway as I was shooting from a fixed trackside position with s 28-75 whirling 360 degrees to catch the start, the first jump, 2 large turns, and the last big jump on every rider...Shoot with too wide of an aperture and you would be asking for more trouble than it's worth. At this event if a rider had crashed in my direction I could have been killed as I was standing inside the track between a turn an jump no further than 3 feet away from either at any time during the event.

You can't show us any low light or high ISO work so move your rookiea$$ on down the road....You have not a clue about shooting sports....Show us some sports shots and stop spewing your nonsense.

You don't have a clue and you know it!

You don't have any other sports shots or you would be showing them...you are just a punk spewing a bunch of misinformation and lies from your sorry piehole.

Only a fools think outdoor shooting is easier than indoor action..only fools.

Take your 3 pictures and horrible advice and move on down the road.

-Sonolta

I haven't posted more, because it would clearly break at least the spirit (if not quite the letter) of David's new rule. It'd be interesting which of these guys you think of as my "buddy". The bicycle shot is from the prolog of the 2007 Tour de France -- in other words, he's one of the absolute best riders on earth, and while I wish I could claim his acquaintance, I'm afraid I can't.

Likewise, the two motorcycle jumpers are a couple of the top professionals in their fields, each world famous in his own right. Hopefully David won't mind too much if I stretch the spirit of his rule to include a link to another shot of a motorcycle jumper:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3267/318 ... 8e70_o.jpg

Again, these guys are world famous. Just for one example, along with motorcycle jumping, Carey Heart played bass with Pennywise on tour, co-starred in a season of Surreal Life, and is apparently the "Ex" that Pink sings about in "I'm still a Rock Star" (or whatever the name of the song really is). I'm not exactly the sort of person who cares much about celebrities, but this guy has enough talent that I'd be happy if I could count his as a buddy -- unfortunately, I'd be lying if I did.

One last point: since you made noises about the shot being "soft" I thought I'd toss in a couple of 100% crops:




In short, you're just plain wrong. Even at 1/90th of a second, panning with a motorcycle moving around 80 MPH this shot is sharp even by nerdy pixel-peeping standards.

[jcoffin]

You are a (banned term) and an idiot and you don't have a clue on how to set up your camera to shoot sports. Worse yet, you removed the lousy underexposed and out-of-focus photo you called great earlier and now you are trying to play games with another photo's minature crops! Lowlife indeed! Sports shooters use shutter speeds near 1/500 so get it through your thick skull! I don't care about your one panned photo for gosh sake! I already touched on panning earlier in the thread. Stop talking about your one panned photo and start talking indoor sports or better yet the OP's icicle shots! Nobody cares about your motorcycle shot at 1/90!

I included two photos in the original post, and have since posted 100% crops from one of them. I haven't taken anything down from anywhere -- but taking a copy and putting it on another web site without permission sounds an awful lot like copyright violation. You should take it down immediately. As it stands, it looks like you've descended from simply being a tasteless boor to outright law breaking.

[jcoffin]

Page 3 of the Popular Photography article How to Photograph Football

The AP's "Secret" Formula for Pushing Film

[ ... ]

I do not see Kodachrome 64 or Velvia 50 being mentioned.

-Sonolta

Of course not -- these films are about reproducing color exceptionally -- but the AP dealt primarily with newspapers that printed primarily in black and white, and even that was pretty poor quality. For them, great quality color was pointless, useless and way too expensive to think about. Their job was to get a mediocre B&W photo of whatever they needed to under any circumstances they might encounter.

Kodachrome also didn't fit with their schedules at all. Newspapers are typically written primarily during the night. They plan to cover anything up until 10 PM or so (later if it's important enough). The photographer(s) develop and print from then until about midnight, when the pictures are due to the editors. Layout happens from around midnight to around 2 or 3 AM, when printing starts, and the newspapers are ready for delivery by 5 AM or so.

Turnaround time for developing Kodachrome is about a week to ten days in most parts of the country. Newspapers are about what's new, not what happened a week to ten days ago, so even if they could print high quality color, Kodachrome would be useless to them anyway. Just glancing at them, it looks nearly certain that these techniques predate Velvia by a decade or so (e.g. my brother was using Acufine to push Tri-X when he was photo editor of a newspaper starting around 1978 or '79).

[jcoffin]

No...you blocked access to the photo (or it blocked, crashed, or removed itself) so I re-posted it for you. It suddenly became available again and I figure it was probably you playing games like the punk that you are. In hindsight I should have screenshot the denied access page that was displayed.

I did nothing of the sort. I suppose it's barely possible that Flickr's servers had some sort of momentary glitch, but I certainly didn't take it down, make it unavailable, or anything of the sort. Given your level of dependability versus Flickr's, there's no question in my mind who's really at fault here though.

Re-posting photos that are already posted to a public forum is not illegal nor is it a copyright violation. In-fact it's been done in forums for a very long time. Look around and you will see it goes around here at times.

Here's the actual text of US copyright law:

§ 102 · Subject matter of copyright:
In general
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.

§ 106 · Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

So, the work in question falls under "pictorial" (§102(a)(5)) and you (without permission) both reproduced the work (§106(1) and distributed that copy to the public (§106(3)). The second might be open to some question (whether you attempted to transfer ownership) but the first is clear and incontrovertible.

There are, of course, exceptions made for "fair use" of copyrighted material -- for example, reproducing part of a copyrighted work for the sake of criticism is usually allowed. There are also exceptions for things like reproductions by libraries/archives, some types of performances such as in a class room, etc. -- but your infringement appears to bear no similarity to any of these at all.

It's arguably true that posting a picture in a public forum implies permission to reproduce that picture to at least some extent -- clearly viewing it is intended, and that's only possible by copying it to your computer. In doing so, however, you're taking for granted a permission that's never been given explicitly. To avoid obvious violations of the law, you need to restrict yourself to permissions that are obvious and unavoidably part of the posting, which clearly does NOT include anything like your actions in this case.

In case you prefer not to trust my copy/paste of the text of the law, feel free to examine the original at:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

[jcoffin]

How does it feel man?

[ yet another mediocre photo elided... ]

BTW, I was a 25cent internet lawyer in my earlier life and I have posted a few bits of legal mumbo jumbo over the past several years... You basically gave everyone permission to use the photo on this forum when you offered it up for public discussion. Case closed.

You're clearly not any kind of lawyer, and don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

Please stop flapping your ugly trap and post some icicle photos, indoor sports photos, or links to your sports galleries and/or publications.

I've put up a gallery of motorcycle jumpers at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerrycoffi ... 363830006/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They're really two sets -- one from 2005 and the other from 2006. The ones you've seen previously are from 2005, and I've added about 30 more from that year. There are also 30+ from 2006. Unfortunately, I was lazy that year, and shot them about as you'd recommend -- ISO 1600 and (as it got darker) 3200, with the lens at f/3.5 (this lens is really soft wide open, but sharpens up a lot stopped down even half a stop) and shutter speeds around 1/250th to 1/350th. Except as a technical demonstration, I wouldn't normally display them though -- the noise is obvious and intrusive, and even if there wasn't any noise, they'd be boring and static looking. Granted, even that can't completely ruin something as intrinsically exciting as motorcycle jumping, but they're clearly inferior to the previous year's shots anyway.

Oh, and in case anybody cares, the numbers on the pictures are those the camera originally assigned -- as you can see, in both cases, the percentage of keepers was actually reasonably high. Few of the rejects are really from technical problems with the shot either -- most were rejected because gusts of wind prevented them from doing any tricks during some jumps.

I see we are still waiting on those crops as well, rook.

We're still waiting on you to post 100% crops from even one challenging shot. As a minimum, the subject should be moving at least 75 MPH, taken from close enough that it occupies at least 1/2 the frame, and the shutter speed should be no faster than 1/125th of a second. So far, I've shown 100% crops from one shot that exceeded every one of those requirements, and the 100% crops you've shown have only been of a brick wall!

[jcoffin]

Hey, rook...back for more of the same I see! You clearly do not know how to operate a camera! Look at the settings you used you mindless nutcase!

I'm not sure what you're using to read the EXIF data, but it's clearly producing bogus results -- it's giving "FNumber" as 3.50 (correct) and "ApertureValue" as 9.50 (bogus). Here's what Ps CS4 shows:

You're also showing an incorrect value for the maximum aperture (2.83 instead of 2.. It's possible that's some sort of rounding error, but speaks rather poorly of whatever software you're using. As for Post processing, I intentionally didn't do any (other than the obvious minimum of converting to sRGB and reducing the size to something that was reasonable to upload).

As an aside, after looking at your latest posting of semi-porn, I've realized that my previous advice wasn't quite right either. The third cheerleader under http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... =32&t=1673 is either pretty ugly, or you've managed to take a picture of her with a terrible expression that makes her look that way. After some thought, it appears that your real talent is for adding smilies to your posts!

[jcoffin]

Dude you are busted! You are changing exif's to make yourself look less like an idiot! Sorry, that trick backfired!

What a load of garbage. I've already shown you a screen shot of what Ps CS 4 shows. Checking with Bibble Pro, it shows precisely the same data as Ps. Some of your supposed displays of EXIF data don't even show what picture you're supposedly looking at EXIF data for. The latest one you've posted is one that was taken in 2005 at ISO 100, and 1/90th of a second. ISO 100 with f/6.7 is hardly a terrible combination.

For that matter, anybody who really knows photography can look at the pictures themselves and confirm that they weren't taken at f/9.5. Though the noise covers it up to some degree, many of these pictures are somewhat soft at the closest and farthest parts of the subjects -- that's expected at f/3.5, but at f/9.5 the DoF would easily cover the entire subject.

[jcoffin]

The subjects are blurry because you have used to slow of a shutter speed and you did not stop the motion...You can have a million miles of DOF but when your shutter speed is to slow and your panning did not hit the mark you end up with those OOF web size shots and horrible originals for printing!

You are an exif-altering fraud and a fake and a sorry excuse for a photographer. Everyone can clearly see you have not a clue of what you are doing and now all they have to do is look at my posts or download your photos to see that you trying to pass off bad exif's as well.

Here are the almost completely unedited straight from the camera views of the initial KM5D camera JPG BMX shot I posted to this thread...As you can clearly see from the 100% crops a decent size print for the family and fans is not a problem. Now it is time for you to post the originals on the ones I have asked for.

-Sonolta

Are you honestly so clueless that you claim this BMXer is moving at least 75 MPH? Is your reading comprehension so poor that you believe 1/250th of a second is slower than 1/125th of a second? Even at that, your 100% crops from the BMXer are clearly NOT even close to as sharp as the ones I already posted of the motorcyclist. Your declaring this blurry garbage "good enough for printing" shows only how low your standards are, at least when applied to your own shots.

The newer one I see you just posted is awful as well -- the noise makes this child's skin look as rough as a sixty year old smoker's.

[jcoffin]

Minibikes are for whimps...
-Sonolta

In other words, you still haven't got anything moving more than about 15 MPH to show.

But if you're going to show a big bike moving slow (or not moving at all), why not try something original in either the bike, the angle, or preferably both? Do you really fail to see how boring your pictures are?

And yes, that rider's face is obscured -- being the sort of person I am, I asked his permission before taking the picture, and complied with his request that I emphasize the bike rather than him.

[jcoffin]

Shooting large objects against a blank sky like you did on those motorcycle shots should have been a piece of cake! You should have nailed them all! AF has no problem what-so-ever under those conditions! Trying to get focus lock on the right football player in the middle of the action on a horribly lit indoor football arena is a whole different ballgame.

RookieCon Static Exposure that he is bragging up..

[ picture elided ... ]

Chopper on the move...

[ Yet another dull as dishwater shot by "Sonolta" elided ... ]

You need to learn how to expose an image and if you can't see that fact you may need to adjust your monitor. You may also need some training on how to make sharp images...

-Sonolta

I think I'd better exit this thread now -- if you think you see a problem with the focus or the exposure in that shot, it's clear that your already-tenuous grasp of reality is slipping away. If I keep on, your psychiatrist will probably hold me liable for your complete mental breakdown.

[david antony]

Street Vibrations Reno Nevada 2008 :^)