File :-(, x, )
heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Took some pictars with my first "real" lens on the 5D, a 35mm f/1.4 Ai-S Nikkor. Beautiful glass.

Re: regular dSLR focusing screens not being reliable for lenses faster than f/2.8... I've got to eat my own words here, because it really is impossible to get accurate focusing. The screen gets no brighter and no less depth of field after f/2.8. Fortunately I've now got the EE-S focusing screen, and it works like a charm. I can reliably focus even my 50mm f/1.2 with it. Really easy procedure to swap them out, too. Pics from the 50 to follow, likely tomorrow...
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
Oh, btw, no vignetting added in post. I bumped the black point up, which exacerbates it a little, but this lens just vignettes like a motherfucker at 1.4... and I couldn't be happier about it. :D
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
I just love this lens for the separation I can get. On my D50 with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, I'd be shooting this focal length at the 24mm mark, and at 2.8... I'm sure I can dig up examples, but suffice to say... it's a whole new world of derricious brokeh.
>> Anonymous
Awesome gear thread, heavyweather.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>225128
No, this>>224843is a gear thread.
This is a photo thread involving a particular piece of gear. It would be the same if he hadn't mentioned the specific lens.
>> Anonymous
Except all heavyweather does is talk about his gear.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>>225155
And post pictures. Don't forget that part.
>> Anonymous
That's just a side effect, though.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>>225163
Actually, the gear talk is the side effect. I post pictures to get commentary and critique, and my own words are for any of those curious about what was used to create the image. If you don't care about it, fine, just look at the pictures.
>> Anonymous
>>225166Actually, the gear talk is the side effect.

That's a pretty twisted sense of reality you have. Should I pull out my heavyweather quotes from my /p/ archive?

Introductions always starts off as a product description and how _fucking_ great it is. Then it just so happens you have pictures to go with it.

If you had any sense of professionalism, you would just not say anything about your amazing gear at all.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>>225167
Fuck, crucify me for enjoying my tools.

If I was professional, I wouldn't be coming here at all, would I? I'm a student having fun discovering photography, chill the fuck out. Yes I talk about gear while I post pictures. On an internet photography forum. Why does this bother you so much? I'm perplexed by your particular brand of douchebaggery.
>> Anonymous
>>225171I'm perplexed by your particular brand of douchebaggery.

That makes 2 of us.
>> Anonymous
Stop the fucking trolling!!!!!!

Heavyweather, continue on, i enjoy reading about the gear when you post your photos. Much better than "C&C PLZ I TOOK DIS WITH MY HOLGA"
>> Srs Critique Fag !2y1il5Qy0g
>>225171
You need to understand, Heavyweather. This is somebody who probably doesn't understand photography and looks at all of DC's original stuff and think it's awesome. The only reason he rages so hard against any kind of gear talk is the same reason he automatically rages against any tiny bit of vignetting, HDR, or more involved post-processing (whether tastefully done or otherwise): He knows jack shit about photography and feels that in order to seem like he's a pro he has to react exactly as the bulk of anon does. However, because he's "totally pro lol" he reacts strongly to ANY trace of it instead of acting like any of the other dumbass anons out there.
tl;dr: It's like closet homophobics hating gays.
Onto the photos.

>>225113
Nice, a little glimpse of the side-action at a rock wall. I think I would've bumped up the aperture a little to help sharpen the detail in his hands, but I understand that you were probably just having fun shooting and playing around at f1.4.

>>225114
I tell you what, I feel like a dumbass after staring at this shot for about 5secs trying to find out if he was leaping at the wall, or what. Then I realized he was clinging to the bottom and hit myself, lol. Great perspective, really made for an interesting shot. Got me to go, "Wha-?" for a few secs, which is always a good thing for a photo.
>> Srs Critique Fag !2y1il5Qy0g
     File :-(, x)
>>225115
I love the contrast created by the exposure here. I was arguing with someone new here about how I didn't like him giving all this room in the shot for some random ramp here or a boring block of the half-pipe there with his skating shots, but that was mostly because he was shooting with a wide-angle and from his perspective, he was just making the ramp a huge chunk of the frame just for composition sake (at least that's how I felt). However, this gives it some real depth and really helps with the contrast between light and dark that's working for this exposure. Maybe crop out the floor there. It'll add some tension and just help keep the image from being too cluttered.

>>225117
Nice, "golden triangle" composition's really pleasing here. The repetition and unity between all the little bolted rock grips and their color tags is great.

>>225119
lol, your mum I'm guessing? My folks always get start to get a little pissed at me when I just sit there and watch TV with 'em and snap photos of them. Sharp lens, smooth lighting. Neat.

>>225166
Not the most interesting shot in the world. This is what everyone sees when they watch some guy climbing a rock wall. Maybe try getting closer? Also, weak fill-flash with a diffuser.

Oh, and I cropped that shot just to give you an idea of what I mean.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:07:17 14:39:04Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width506Image Height758
>> Anonymous
>>225221

>looks at all of DC's original stuff and think it's awesome.
>rages against any tiny bit of vignetting

DOES NOT COMPUTE
>> Anonymous
Most of these are underexposed and most need some work on the color/white balance to get the skin tones right.
>> Anonymous
>>225167

If he insisted his photo editor include in the caption, "Hey, readers, this was taken with an awesome 35/1.5 AI-S Nikkor!" then he would be being unprofessional.

This is no different than a bunch of musicians hanging out, playing some for each other, and one of them talks about his new guitar.

>>225221
DC's original stuff was better than his new stuff, becaues it was actually about something interesting and had a really distinctive look to it, instead of just being shots of random pretty girls off Model Mayhem with shallow depth of field and high saturation.

http://flickr.com/photos/soloxide/2367175343/in/set-72157604329376164/

http://flickr.com/photos/soloxide/2345786163/in/set-72157603521126774/

These (for instance) had a sense of personality and life the new stuff doesn't.
>> Srs Critique Fag !2y1il5Qy0g
>>225229
SECRETLY thinks DC's original stuff's awesome. Then rages against vignetting because everybody else does.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>225221
There's a few in every forum, I guess.
>>225222
Love the crop. I uploaded all of these full-frame this morning as I was rushing out the door, but the one you cropped was one I was toying with before I said "fuckit". You cropped exactly as I would, I like it.

I think I'll need to get a Canon flash at some point for fill. Any suggestions? I have no idea what Canon's flash system is like. I'd want the equivalent of an SB-600.

>>225232
White balance was rushed as well, not really to my satisfaction. I just picked a value that worked well in one photo and sync'd it across the lot of them, again, just to get it done before I left for work. The underexposure was intentional to match the lighting and color conditions.
>>225244
God, thank you, the voice of reason. I thought I was in crazy-ville. Oh, wait, this is 4chan, lulz...
>> Anonymous
>>225244If he insisted his photo editor include in the caption, "Hey, readers, this was taken with an awesome 35/1.5 AI-S Nikkor!" then he would be being unprofessional.

He does insist on advertising very loudly the gear he used to take the pictures.

>> This is no different than a bunch of musicians hanging out, playing some for each other, and one of them talks about his new guitar.

That's a very flawed analogy.

heavyweather pulls this kind of shenanigans consistently. In fact, he does it in every picture thread he makes.

He makes gear threads under the guise of photo threads. He may very well be the most accomplished troll ever.
>> Anonymous
>>225221

Who died and made you /p/ police?

The way you jump at those conclusions you're making is incredible. You should be a writer for NCIS or Pokémon.

>> This is somebody who probably doesn't understand photography and looks at all of DC's original stuff and think it's awesome.

How exactly do you come to this deduction?

_MY_ deduction of you mentioning DC out of the blue is that you are probably a closet homosexual for him.

Bullet proof logic is bullet proof.

>> The only reason he rages so hard against any kind of gear talk is the same reason he automatically rages against any tiny bit of vignetting, HDR, or more involved post-processing (whether tastefully done or otherwise)

I probably make about a good quarter of the gear threads on /p/. Mostly the very bad ones, they are highly entertaining to me.

Again, your deduction abilities are astounding. Really.

>> He knows jack shit about photography and feels that in order to seem like he's a pro he has to react exactly as the bulk of anon does. However, because he's "totally pro lol" he reacts strongly to ANY trace of it instead of acting like any of the other dumbass anons out there.

I'm going to try my hand at this deduction thing.

I think that all this "pro" thrown around, you're an aspiring photographer who has been shut down and shat on way too many times with self-esteem issues and no confidence who likes to come on /p/ to rant about his own problems.

Oh wow, I was way off, man.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>225275
He talks about the gear he used to take the picture on /p/, a photography imageboard, because there actually are people interested in those details as well as the pictures. That's not the same as publishing the information in the Daily Texan, and I'm sure he doesn't post gear info there because it's completely unrelated. It's relevant here.

if it has pictures taken with the gear, not pictures of the gear, it is a picture thread. It's not a "lol gear thread", it's a picture thread where he detailed what he used to take the picture. Funnily enough, the rules here encourage people to do that.

Also, how is the musician analogy flawed? Musicians hanging out with musicians versus photographers talking to other photographers. I hang out with more musicians in real life than anything else and hear them talk about their gear/instruments all the time.
>> Anonymous
I sent my friend a link to this thread because you did an awesome job of taking pictures of rock wall climbing, Heavyweather.

Thank you for sharing. This is a great set.
>> Anonymous
>>225277

Angry Troll is Angry.

I really liked the, "I make a 1/4 of the gear threads" comment.
>> Anonymous
>>225307(First two paragraphs)

Apparently on /p/, it's highly encouraged to talk about gear all you want, as long as you put random snapshots with the posts.

Funnily enough, the rules here do not say no gear threads. But you are chastised if you just want to discuss gear.

So from now on, guys. Just take a random snapshot with your camera before you want to discuss gear because that is entirely okay and acceptable.

In fact, I'll do that for my next thread.

>>225307Also, how is the musician analogy flawed? Musicians hanging out with musicians versus photographers talking to other photographers. I hang out with more musicians in real life than anything else and hear them talk about their gear/instruments all the time.

It's flawed because you don't see any name user pulling shenanigans like heavyweather does.

Follow up questions may arise where the OP would have to talk about his gear but heavyweather consistently uses his pictures as an excuse to talk about his gear.

It is flawed.

>>225346

I really do. I spend as much time as ac does on here.

/p/ is killing my productivity.
>> Anonymous
i like the drama these threads cause!
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>225361
>It's flawed because you don't see any name user pulling shenanigans like heavyweather does.

I remember someone saying the other day that /p/ seems to hold tripfags to a higher standard for no particular reason. You're proving that true.
>> Anonymous
No, not really. It's the same on every board.

If someone, in all their wisdom, decides to take on a name, you will reap the consequences. And there are only consequences in a place like 4chan, no matter which board.

So I take it you will not participate in this argument again or are you having a another wonderful day today and wish not to ruin it by throwing yourself in the mud with me?

Let me know soon, it's almost dinner time.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>225392
"No, not really." and "It's flawed because you don't see any name user pulling shenanigans like heavyweather does."

One of these says you're lying.

>>Apparently on /p/, it's highly encouraged to talk about gear all you want, as long as you put random snapshots with the posts.

I see no random snapshots here.

>>Funnily enough, the rules here do not say no gear threads. But you are chastised if you just want to discuss gear.

Correction: you are chastised if you use a name and are actually posting pictures taken with the gear. If you're asking "wut DSLR should I get?!" with a stock image of a random DSLR, then it's okay. You still get chastised, but people mostly don't care because you're Anon.

>>So from now on, guys. Just take a random snapshot with your camera before you want to discuss gear because that is entirely okay and acceptable.

I looked at this thread because I saw his name, and I saw a picture. I like a lot of his work, and I like looking at pictures, so I clicked on it. I read the gear stuff after looking through it.

I'm not going to be clicking any actual gear threads for the picture.

>>In fact, I'll do that for my next thread.

/r/ pictures from your previous threads.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>225377
My mother was actually a daughter of the shitstorm spiritking, so shitstorms sort of naturally gravitate to me.
>> Anonymous
>>225403

"No, not really" was a direct reply to what you said about holding name users in higher regard.

The "not really" part is me being nice because I didn't want to sound like a douchebag. I didn't want to belittle you.

And really, no other name user pulls this kind of shenanigans like heavyweather does.

I have an almost full page of quotes. It's a shame 4chan has no archives like a forum.

>> I see no random snapshots here.

I have no issues admitting heavyweather knows how to do photo documenting. But these are snapshots.

The lensbaby thread was even worse.

>> you are chastised if you use a name and are actually posting pictures taken with the gear.

I have to say that doesn't happen a whole lot, aside from people trolling Depressed Cheesecake. And if you meant this thread, I just had to step in and call him out on it. It's what I do.

>> (Next paragraph)

That was me being facetious if it wasn't obvious enough.

And I only post gear threads, so you definitely do not want any of the pictures.

I have to go now, it's dinner time. :/

I'll be back soon after I finish.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>225443
Either you do, or you do not hold tripfags to a higher standard. You say you don't, but "It's flawed because you don't see any name user pulling shenanigans like heavyweather does."
says that you do. Make up your mind?
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>225113
cool, got nothing bad to say about this one.. really nice
>>225114
very nice action shot considering the low light.. well composed at the same time
>>225115
not bad
>>225117
don't like this one, the blur on the left just feels very unappealing to me
>>225119
nice and endearing portrait
>>225171
kickass

i don't think heavy is a gearfag at all btw.
because he always posts new shit and doesn't get into huge arguments over what gear is better.
>> Anonymous
>>225451Either you do, or you do not hold tripfags to a higher standard. You say you don't, but "It's flawed because you don't see any name user pulling shenanigans like heavyweather does."
says that you do.

Why do you always stretch other people's words into a really far fetched statement? Good that you dropped the "so cute" part, eh. That was really condescending of you.

This is your post:

>> I remember someone saying the other day that /p/ seems to hold tripfags to a higher standard for no particular reason. You're proving that true.
>> that /p/ seems to hold tripfags to a higher standard for no particular reason.
>> that /p/ seems to hold tripfags to a higher standard
>> that /p/

I replied "No, not really."

Can you explain how _exactly_ me saying /p/ does not hold name users to a higher standard, means I personally do?

I would love for you to tell me.
>> Anonymous
>>225443

>I have no issues admitting heavyweather knows how to do photo documenting
there is more to photography than just "LOL ART"

e.g. photojournalism, sports photography, nature photography
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>225460
A direct quote from you is stretching. You're right.
>> Anonymous
>>225462

That was actually a compliment, so I don't see your issue?

Is english not your first language?
>> Anonymous
>>225463

Oh, so please explain how "It's flawed because you don't see any name user pulling shenanigans like heavyweather does." means I impersonally hold name users in higher regard?

It's a flawed analogy because other users aren't making posts like heavyweather does.

So, please, explain how I am personally holding namer users in higher regard.
>> Anonymous
sage this fucking retarded garbage
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
Okay, idea guys. Next time I make a thread, how about you make a thread ABOUT my thread, and keep the shitstorm in there? That way, everyone who wants to bitch and moan can have a grand ol' time in their thread, and the people who want to look at and talk about pictures can stay in this thread. Best of both worlds, amirite?
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>225502
haha now that's a good idea
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>225502
holy shit, its Jesus!

>>225467
Because you specify that other "name users" don't post gear threads, you're expecting something different from tripfags than you are from Anonymous.

Last post Im going to make on it because its Heavyweathers thread, not always-gotta-shitstorm Anon's.
>> Anonymous
>>225538Because you specify that other "name users" don't post gear threads, you're expecting something different from tripfags than you are from Anonymous.

Don't twist my words.

I said other name users do not post the way heavyweather does.

I like how there's such a leap in logic as to read that as me expecting something different from name users than anonymous.

That's really fucking rich.

Enjoy the rest of your good day.
>> Anonymous
>>225551
reread what you just typed and facepalm yourself. hard.
no one is twisting your words, you expect name users to know better than to post gear threads but you dont expect the same thing from anonymous. thats the only explanation for why you said namefags dont post stuff like this, because you know anonymous does and you expect it from anonymous but not namefags.
>> Anonymous
>>225555

I told you to enjoy the rest of your day.

Now you really are throwing yourself in the mud.

>> you expect name users to know better than to post gear threads but you dont expect the same thing from anonymous.

I said other name users do not post the way heavyweather does.

Did I even remotely ever mention anything about anonymous?

How exactly can you come to that conclusion? You are putting words in my mouth and claiming you speak the truth at the same time.

You should have let it die with some dignity left.
>> Anonymous
ok what's a tripfag.?
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>225561
I thought the stereotype was for the tripfag to call samefag? If you want to argue with me that bad, do it somewhere else.
>> Anonymous
The thread is already entirely derailed.

There's no reason for us to go in another one.

So either play ball here or just leave it gracefully.
>> Anonymous
hmm i thought it was a photography board...
>> Anonymous
>>225676
hmm i thought you'd LIKE TO LICK MY BALLS YOU FUCKING COCKSTAIN GO FUCK A RACCOON AND TELL ME IF YOU LIKED IT OR NOT
RACCOON FUCKER
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
     File :-(, x)
>>225677
>> Srs Critique Fag !2y1il5Qy0g
>>225277
Just calling it as I see it. There's absolutely no reason to have an issue with the way somebody posts here whether it's true or not.

>>225379
Actually, that was me! :P

Hey, Heavyweather, when are you going to really fine-tune those shots? I'd like to see how they come out.
>> Anonymous
This photo also belongs to:

Black and White (Pool)
FlickrCentral (Pool)
Canon DSLR User Group (Pool)
B&W (Pool)
Portrait (Pool)
Faces ( Human Faces) only PHOTOS! (Pool)
People Portraits (Pool)
Aperture Priority (Pool)
Action Photography (Pool)
Canon 450D/40D/5D/1ds & 1d mkIII(& past models)
50mm (The original 50mm group) (Pool)
Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT (Pool)
Interesting Portraits ? [people] (Pool)
prime lenses (fixed focal length) (Pool)
EOS Squad (Pool)
The Portrait Group (Pool)
Self Taught Photographers (Pool)