This thread has a lot to do with Canon gear...seriously though, you know what I hate? Stepping in puppy shit in the shower after its been running for a couple minutes. Now that, IMHO, is something to hate.
n0b0 wrote:
Obviously you've never done either of them, heh.
How is this so obvious?
Either way, you are entirely incorrect. The forest? C'mon, I grew up in Northern Alberta (spent enough time half-naked in the forest that I am now immune to mosquitoes).
Admittedly, the hospital was only a one shot deal, so to speak. Like I said, I prefer the forest.
I don't know about you but 5D2 looks very KAPOW to me, 30D and 40D have that Shakalaka look, while the 1DMK2n never failed to give me some VROOM. From what I can see the 1Ds3 have that ChaChing characteristics, and most Rebel looks SQUAWKY to me....
The term "organic" is far older even in common use than 2008--we were certainly using it in the 1960s. And at that website I saw no references to "organic' being used to describe photography, whether digital or film.
As an example, I know for a fact that I can use the following terms to discuss bokeh in the Alternative forum and 90% of the photographers there will know exactly what I mean:
These terms do have meaning, whether anyone likes them or not. Those who would express their annoyance with these terms would only be displaying their ignorance.
"Smooth," "charged," and "swirly" maybe. But you're attempting to blow smoke up our fannies if you're asserting that "funky" and "ugly" describe distinctly different visual effects consistently recognizable by 90 % of the forum correspondents.
RDKirk wrote:
"Smooth," "charged," and "swirly" maybe. But you're attempting to blow smoke up our fannies if you're asserting that "funky" and "ugly" describe distinctly different visual effects consistently recognizable by 90 % of the forum correspondents.
"Funky" is widely accepted and understood. "Ugly" is more debatable. It's more subjective, but there is still a majority consensus. Probably not 90% though.
cogitech wrote:
"Funky" is widely accepted and understood. "Ugly" is more debatable. It's more subjective, but there is still a majority consensus. Probably not 90% though.
So can we show several images displaying bad bokeh and task people to distinguish consistently between the ones with "ugly" bokeh and the ones with "funky" bokeh?
PetKal wrote:
Don't have to look very far........my 1DMkIIN produces that "organic" feel.
Hilarious! But very organic, and very real.
I can relate. I have a favorite photograph I made of a very dense flock of seagulls in flight, shot with a long telephoto so that the birds fill the frame very densely. Working on the photograph I had an opportunity to look more closely, at which point I noticed a quantity of, uh, "organic detail" emerging from a significant number of the birds. I decided to remove some of the, uh, "organic" quality of the image in post so as to avoid grossing out those who might view the photograph.
Fun thread!
I have to admit, the term "organic" annoys me less now in the context of image character than it did when it first began to be used to describe healthful, sustainable farming practices. I mean, come on, organic food? Who the $%&* eats inorganic food (other than traces)? If you do, and you post here, I'm eager to meet the first robot that can pass the Turing test.
