Sorry to waste time and space, but need to try posting this again...

-- Michael Stern (hoof@optonline.net), March 11, 2002

Answers

I'm getting fed up with the recent tendency of this otherwise great list to become a receptacle for totally void of interest images, especially when they are intentionally presented with subject lines that are supposed to attract the attention of the time constrained technically minded leicaphile.

Next time please use adequate subject line like "snapshot of my parrot", and post the thing in a budgies newsgroups.

And others: please have the modesty of posting your snaps in ad hoc image oriented websites and mailing lists, unless they do really show something worthwhile about leica for the leica community.

And please, please, always use the words "image for critique" in your subject line, allowing filtering out at browsing stage...

How much crap we have to endure from all over the place for the rare pleasure of seeing a couple of great Dixon portraits.

This is getting even worse than the dreaded PAW project in vogue in other circles....

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Michael,

Please comment about the bird's eye color. I think I see some redeye. Everytime I use flash with my pets (dog and cat) I get tremendous redeye. Does your original show redeye? Does the parrot have a colored pupil or is it black?

Is there strong backlight coming in from the window or is this reflected flash?

Thanks

-- David Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), March 11, 2002.

I do have some sympathy with Jacques view, it is simply a snapshot (and not sharp) of a dumb parrot with (coincidently) some out of focus highlights in the background that would have occurred with any reasonable lens.

Bokeh, bokeh, bokeh........

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), March 11, 2002.

Hey Jacques and Giles why so "toffee nosed" with someone simply having a go? It's hardly in the spirit of this great forum (which I know you value) to be intolerant. OK so it's not a great shot. Show us something better or offer constructive advice.

Seems we've been spoiled by Mike Dixon and others who have set such a high standard - but they like Michael had to learn too.

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), March 11, 2002.

Jacques,

Just how did a "time constrained technically minded leicaphile" like yourself ever find the time to compose this diatribe because Michael had the audacity to actually place a Leica photo in a Leica forum? Yes we all love Mike Dixon's work, as a matter of fact he has a great website with only his photos to look at, but this is a forum made up of many people of varying degrees of experience and interests. One of the common things asked on the forum is why don't more people post more photographs? I'm sure your judgmental reply to Michael has prevented us from "suffering" from seeing many other pictures here.

If you are truly time constrained, I know a good way for you to save 15 or 20 minutes a day.

Michael, I am sorry to have hijacked your thread, but I was offended at the first reply and had to say something. Thanks for the effort and hope to see more.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 11, 2002.

Michael, dun worry...keep your postings coming. This forum does not belong to any one person. I myself like to see more pictures.

jacques, why dun u post some pictures so that we can appreciate how "time constrained" u r? o, did u say u were time constrained?? sorry.

just had to say something...this kindda response is totally ungentlemanly and low-class.

and u think u r the only one with "constrained time"?

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Tim,

Deep inside, I would like people to abstain from posting their own snaps alltogether in an equipment oriented discussion group such as this one.

I know it is not realistic to ask this to be imposed, so I am asking of posters to clearly identify the reason for posting in the subject line, and not attract people in a thread under false pretenses, as Michael does in this case.

That said, I am grateful for some of the pics posted in this discussion list (Dixon!), but do prefer a simple optional link to a web page rather than being forced to view an imposed image that slows down the browsing...

Also many pictures posted here are plain beginners snapshots, and an insult to the capabilities of the Leica products. Deep inside, I cannot help but wish for more humility from some posters. I do not easily post my images because I find most of them to be of very little relevance to a worldwide audience discussing things Leica. This is not false modesty, it is respect for the viewers.

I'm asking same respect from the others: there are sites specialised in discussing images and/or sites specialised in subjects such as parrots. Please let such snaps be posted and discussed there, and keep this territory for our red dot/black tape trivia !

It is perfectly OK to be a rookie, a beginner, a learner and to be keen to progress. But, for me, this is not the place for boring snaps of flashlit-parrot-in-front-of-window...

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Please comment about the bird's eye color. I think I see some redeye. Everytime I use flash with my pets (dog and cat) I get tremendous redeye. Does your original show redeye? Does the parrot have a colored pupil or is it black?

Is there strong backlight coming in from the window or is this reflected flash?

Hi, David Smith; There is no red-eye in the parrot picture (perhaps amber-eye, as that is what her eye color is around the pupil). I've photographed a lot of parrots, including a few in dark places with direct flash, and never had a problem with red-eye. I'm guessing their retinas don't reflect light the same way our mammal ones do. And there was lots of back light from the window, which is why I needed flash. As for dog and cat red-eye (which from my dogs is actually green-eye), if the ambient lighting is low, those glowing retinas are inevitable. In fact, that's why I got the Metz 32-Z2 ... because you can bounce the light and get nice, lovely eyes like these on Allstar's Darling Clementine:

-- Michael Stern (hoof@optonline.net), March 11, 2002.

Sorry about that red X. I guess I don't have this uploading-picture process correct yet. I'll try again...

-- Michael Stern (hoof@optonline.net), March 11, 2002.

Oops, again. I apologize, but I'm going to try once more to upload this picture.

-- Michael Stern (hoof@optonline.net), March 11, 2002.

Fourth time's the charm, I hope:

-- Michael Stern (hoof@optonline.net), March 11, 2002.

Honestly, last try to post this picture:

-- Michael Stern (hoof@optonline.net), March 11, 2002.

Sheesh, how embarrassing. No anamorphic lens required. Here it is correctly:

-- Michael Stern (hoof@optonline.net), March 11, 2002.

Al, Travis,

I know that some people here qualify straightforwardness as rudeness, and, well, I do not really care.

Today, my time management priority is to question why I am so often lured into looking at pics that a 10 year old in summer photo class would not dare show off. I am into Leica because I strive for quality in general and have specific imaging ambitions for myself and for others. I visit a couple of Leica groups because I find there people with similar ambitions (abandonned LUG/LEG due to the horrors of PAW).

I do not give a hoot about supersharp/unique-Leica- 3D/bokeh/roundness/ etc in the images of others (but I do in mine). What I do care about when looking at pictures by others, or when considering showing my own to specific audiences, is *relevance*.

The web has become a poor excuse to post to a worldwide audience images that would NEVER have made it past the family shoebox 10 years ago. Not because they are crap, but because they are totally irrelevant and uninteresting.

Posting such IRRELEVANT snaps in a Leica dedicated newsgroup under the title "Fill flash & 50mm Summilux bokeh" is adding insult to injury. Call me a snotty jerk if you will, but this parrot would get a bashing even on instamatic.com (if it existed).

Sorry this has fallen on Michael. Had he given a clear subject line, I would not have looked at the thread and he would never have had seen my diatribe fall upon him.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

I'm getting tired of this forum. Thousands of dollars' worth of equipment and.....pet photos?

-- Peter Mackay (pm@novonordisk.com), March 11, 2002.

thats ok. See how many of us would click on a thread by u in future. Parrot or no parrot.

by u dun care, of cos.

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Guys, in future, please make sure all pics are RELEVANT before u post.

and i mean RELEVANT!

u dunno when u gonna get it.

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

There is scientific evidence that pets lower peoples' blood pressure. Clearly that's not true of photos of pets. Nevertheless, I do apologize for my vague subject line and promise to be more clear about exactly what I'm posting in the future. Just to veer back to the topic of photography and photographic equipment here, I have found that Leica Ms are great for taking pictures of potentially nervous animals (birds and horses in particular) for the same reason they're good with people who might otherwise be intimidated by noisier gear. One thing's for sure with such critters: you learn to focus fast!

-- Michael Stern (hoof@optonline.net), March 11, 2002.

"Time-constrained technically-minded leicaphile" -fun, but takes too long write in time available. Suggest use Bill Pierce's shorthand for the same demographic: "rich dentist."............

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), March 11, 2002.

Well I generally like the parrot photo, the green background mixes nicely with the green color of the birds feathers. And FWIW, parrots are not dumb animals, they are quite intelligent and clever (including this one a yellow headed Amazonian parrot).

However, the poster deserves some legitimate critique. The fill flash is tecnically fine. However, the bird's eye/head is not in focus as it should be and the framing could be better. It's not easy taking really good pet photos, and it's particularly hard to show them!

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 11, 2002.

Hi, Michael:

Just two short items:

First: Yes, the title WAS missleading. And the photo WAS irrelevant (as most of our postings, perhaps; technique is not relevant on itself, I think. Unless we speak about Mike's technique; at that high level it is an issue on itself)

Second: You deserve my admiration for your fairplay attitude. Elegant answer, indeed.

Regards.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), March 11, 2002.

This post is as good an image as I've seen on this ng. I am the only one doing real photography. The rest of you are only showing inane snapshots, yet I haven't complained about the lack of talent, skill, or photographic vision, no matter how trite, hackneyed, or boring. Nor have I complained about the "clique orgy suck" that is going on. Mike Dixon must be hung like a stallion.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

"There is scientific evidence that pets lower peoples' blood pressure. Clearly that's not true of photos of pets."

LOL! That's one of the best lines I've heard here in a while! You seem to have the right temperament for dealing with this bunch.

Glenn, I have no idea how my anatomy is in any way relavent to the discussion here or to photography in general (since I'm not a porn model), but I might want to incorporate your comment in a press release--you mind??

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 12, 2002.