Andy, Andy, Andy... I have nothing better to do for a few minuets so, the drama continues I guess... Just please don't try to toss me off of the bridge the next time you see me, eh?
Now then, by the other posts on this forum I am lead to believe that you were, in fact, not alone since there is a nearly identical shot to yours, except that one of them is flipped and seems to have enjoyed more pp work but that's ok. It is art after all.. Wonderful that you saw the opportunity and set up for it but (why do I feel like I'm speaking to a wall here?) does that incident set you up as the local Kahuna? You made a wise choice, you were not alone, you got a nice picture but you seem to be demanding praise. If you believe that your work is superior you ought not to be trying to elevate it by putting anyone else's down. That is a fools foundation.
Really, you really think you could demand anything from this bunch?
Who cares what the cost of the gear is? You ever hear of a pro try to sell a shot because it was made with some lesser equipment? Many of us have far more modest equipment than others but does that mean that one who chooses to hunt by throwing stones at a deer is better or smarter than one whacks the animal with a bow and arrow or spear or rifle? The goal was to get a meal. Note how fast the First Nations Peoples (note another of my peeves) bought up or traded for rifles. Only the hungry continued to throw rocks! If a stone thrower was fortunate enough to cap Bambi would he be held above those who chose to be less retro? More likely he would trade his cachet for a new Winchester.
This thread seems to have taken on a life of it's own alright, and I seem to be guilty of contributing to it but what fun is PM ing anyway. Anyway, accolades aside, you seem to be upset that not everyone is joining your party. If you REALLY want "get along" and want "Peace", Get over it. I would caution you that your entire argument seems to hinge on this one very fortunate shot. Do you really want to do that?
Once again, if you truly wish for peace on the prairie here, I think that if you simply let your work speak for your ability and skills, "the others" will see you more as you might like it.
Time for a glass of wine, ciao!.
Beer next time? I'll buy.
Hi Steve,
You certainly are entitled to your own opinion. I will not waste my time to try to defend myself, first, you've already made up your mind about the issue, second, most other members in this forum show their support to me whole-heartedly in an open-minded manner. I find your reasoning quite subjective, and one-sided.
Now then, by the other posts on this forum I am lead to believe that you were, in fact, not alone since there is a nearly identical shot to yours
There's no secret of where the image was taken. Some others were trying to put down the fact that the trouts were stocked at the pond. So what? Did they stock the Egret too? Was the Egret controlled or tampered in any way? No!
One thing that mystifies me is while the other photographer's "identical" (i call it similar, not identical) image as far as we know, was submitted and PAID to enter a local Vietnamese Photography Club (there were ONLY 34 entries) and COULD NOT win First, Second, or even Third Prize in the Nature & Wildlife category; my image was submitted and picked from over 350,000 photos WORLD WIDE as the top Favorite and to be published in the magazine. Enough said!
If you believe that your work is superior you ought not to be trying to elevate it by putting anyone else's down.
Where/when did I put anyone else's work down? Without proof, it's just an accusation.
Who cares what the cost of the gear is?
(From a regular member) You're kidding yourself. The gear makes a HUGE difference. You can do 'just fine', with lesser gear, but the gear makes a HUGE difference. A 21mpix capture through an 800 is something to behold, my friend
Probably a more accurate question to ask is: would the other photographer's "skill" be equal to mine IF he was shooting with much lesser equipment? That remains to be seen.
I would caution you that your entire argument seems to hinge on this one very fortunate shot.
This "one very fortunate shot" wouldn't have been picked by NatGeo if it was incorrectly exposed, shot from a worse angle, or simply not worthy (in the view of the editor).
This thread seems to have taken on a life of it's own alright, and I seem to be guilty of contributing to it
This thread has taken a life of its own, with or without you or those backstabbers contributing to it.
you seem to be upset that not everyone is joining your party
I've got more than 100 people supporting me (in this thread alone), why would I care about 5 or 6 extremely envious individuals who just can't stand the sight of any of my posts?
Read it if you like. But I'm not about to back down from a gang of dirty players who's trying to rain on my parade. Keep in mind, this is a photography forum. It's for photography lovers, and nature lovers, NOT for haters!! I feel sorry that this kind of jealous attitude is dragging the forum down. (I wish there was an emoticon to express that I'm shaking my head)... so much about hoping the world to be better.
LCollector wrote:
Hey, Thunder, where are you quoting this 350k number from ? Would be interested to see a reference, thx !
Actually at ngm.com in the my shot section the photo count is 500,000+. Andy, keep those shots coming. The moment you added the data helps me plan ahead for my next shot.
LCollector wrote:
Hey, Thunder, where are you quoting this 350k number from ? Would be interested to see a reference, thx !
I submitted the picture in Feb, at the time, the number of photos was just over 350,000. Anyone of those photos were eligible to be picked, and then voted by the readers for the top Favorite of the Month to be published.Here's a capture of that number as it appears TODAY. http://www.ndshow.com/FTP/number.jpg
No, that's a "total" number of "My Shots" posted by you and me and others (and hosted) on Nat Geo's site till date. Those have been submitted over a period of years....but only 2 (afaik) are chosen weekly and/or monthly.
What I am trying to say is, when yours was chosen as a weekly pick...as a viewer's favorite, it wasn't competing with the 500k pics that were present on NatGeo's site. It was only competing with February's pictures...fyi.
Anyway, you do deserve my congrats, it's a big accomplishment and a real milestone, kudos !
Cincy Bruce wrote:
Actually at ngm.com in the my shot section the photo count is 500,000+. Andy, keep those shots coming. The moment you added the data helps me plan ahead for my next shot.
Bruce
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for the confirmation. I have a feeling I'm an open target for the doubters. Why do I need to keep proving myself? Can't anyone just accept that hard work pays?
LCollector wrote:
No, that's a "total" number of "My Shots" posted by you and me and others (and hosted) on Nat Geo's site till date. Those have been submitted over a period of years....but only 2 (afaik) are chosen weekly and/or monthly.
What I am trying to say is, when yours was chosen as a weekly pick...as a viewer's favorite, it wasn't competing with the 500k pics that were present on NatGeo's site. It was only competing with February's pictures...fyi.
Anyway, you do deserve my congrats, it's a big accomplishment and a real milestone, kudos !
The first step for selection by the NG Editor was by competing with all the hundreds of thousands of shots in their database. After that first step, the second step was put up for a voting process, competing with (12 photos x 20 days) = 240 shots to be top of the month.
Two Your Shot photos are selected for publication each month in National Geographic magazine.
There's no competing with 300k photos...those are just user photos/collection that stay in "My Shot" category and add up everyday. Anyone can submit a Your Shot pic only 1 time a month....after 15th of each month. Only 2 get chosen for "that month's edition".
So here we go again... for the other readers, you may want to just skip this bit of spirited repartee but I have to do something while my wife monopolizes the TV.
Andy, let's retreat a bit lest we get lost in the bird walks.
First, thank you for not including me as one of your "back stabbers". I am not drinking anyone's Kool-Aid and I tend to prefer frontal attacks.
You keep mentioning "hate" although I've not seen that term used by others. Some folks see this shot in a different reality than you do. If they disagree with your claims must you leap to 'they hate me'? If people disagree with you must you hate them? Also, to call those who aren't anxious to agree with you and all or your claims "jealous" is, I think, delusional. They just don't agree. Let that be OK and move on!
You captured, processed, produced, posted and entered a fine shot. I think no one is discounting that. But, the notion that it was the more the result of your unique "skill" or "instinct" than luck is, I think, to suggest that the rest of those shooting were idiots. Surely you are not going to offer that you read the tea leaves and KNEW that the bird was going to screw its head around like that.
Big question then, what would we all be doing now if the egret had only made the usual direct approach? Tell me now; was that part not all luck? Sure you had your camera set for the proper exposure etc. You also pointed the camera at a likely target and you hit it big. I would not agree with anyone who said that it wasn't a great shot and deserving of the prizes you have won. It's just that I don't find cause for presumed deification that you seem to feel should flow from it.
This issue, then, is not the image!!
If you want to declare extra points for using what you seem to feel is lesser equipment I have to refer you back to the hunt for Bambi cited earlier.
Ah, I hear the shower running. My chance to capture the TV so bye for now.
Steve,
I'll have a draw a line here, seeing that the issue is not about the image. It would be unfair to expose other members to this increasingly private conversation. I appreciate you for being as straight forward as I am. I didn't mean to use the word "hate" as it is such a strong word. "dislike" would be a word I meant to say, but how can you replace "haters" with "dislikers"?
On the subject of disagreeing, I'm totally open to people disagreeing with me. If they disagree with me, they're welcome to discuss with me openly. If I disagree with someone on his/her view, it would be inappropriate for me to bad-mouth about him/her to a third person or group of persons. If you were in my shoes, I'd be interested to see how you feel. To continue this discussion, I suggest you take it up in PM, if you wish. Time to let others enjoy photography, not controversy.
Angel M. Leal wrote:
Andy,
just beautiful!
I just got a D700 and a 70-200 2.8 VR, will this lens do good with a TC17 or is it to SOFT?
I also want to get that 300 f/4.....
later,
angel m. leal jr
Angel,
I'm so sorry that your comment/question got lost in the shuffle, it was not my intention to skip anyone.
Thank you for your patience.
My wife also owns a 70-200 2.8 and I get to use it from time to time, sometimes I put the TC17 on it. To answer your question, the TC17 does perform VERY well with either the 70-200 or the 300 f/4 but that's only my personal opinion. It works fine for me. On the other hand, Hanh (my wife) is not crazy about using the 1.7x on her 70-200, she rather use the 1.4x. Don't just take my word for it, borrow or rent the TCs and try them with your lens, see what you're comfortable with. Mind you, it works well for me because I'm a technical nut and will not give up practicing until I get the results I want.
Between the 70-200 and the 300... If you feel you'll need the extra reach, go for the 300mm. If you need the zoomability, then then answer is easy. Me, I'd rather carry them both on two separate bodies.
