Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Soft or hard ND filter?

  1. #1
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Question Soft or hard ND filter?

    I have a 40D with 10-22, 24-105, and 100-400 (all 77mm). I have a Hoya Pro 1 UV and Hoya Pro 1 DMC CP. I want to add some ND filters. I see that most of the graduated ND filters require slots to hold them. While many regular ND filters are circular screw on type. I saw the Singh Ray Vari-ND that is adjustable from 2-5 stops. Is that worth the money for regular ND shots. I don't mind spending the money. I would prefer to even to be sure I have what I need the first time round. But I am lost. Anyone using soft or hard ND? And regular ND filters for that matter. My main motivator is the washed out mountain/tundra shots I get on our yearly NW Alaska floats. We spend 14 days at a time up there in Aug/Sept fly fishing for dollies and I never come home with the kind of pictures I would have hoped for. When the sun is out, most all my pics look the same. A dull brown tundra with a carolina blue sky. I want the colors to stand out. I want a golden tundra amist a deep blue sky with well defined clouds. I realize the CP will help here, but I want to employ the use of ND filters to help me get better shots. Anyone willing to throw me a line?

    I will attach a link to some pics from our last three float trips. You can see what I mean about how dull and boring many of the landscape pictures are. All these pics were taken with Sony and Pentax point and shoots. I just got my first DSLR a few months ago. I largely justified buying it so I could take better images on our float trips. When the link opens, click on "view slideshow" in the upper right side.

    http://www.flickr.com/gp/21144083@N02/6pGG51
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  2. #2
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    I'm going to be nice and only give you Hell to begin with... You repeatedly gave someone biased advice in another thread, and now admit here that you have only had a DSLR for a short time, and with or without it you can't get good Alaskan pictures! The shame of it all! :-) Perhaps my only response should be "Get a Nikon. Ha Ha Ha", and let it go at that???

    I'll try to avoid more "Cranky Old Alaskan" syndrome; lets look at some serious discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    I have a 40D with 10-22, 24-105, and 100-400 (all 77mm). I have a Hoya Pro 1 UV and Hoya Pro 1 DMC CP. I want to add some ND filters.
    I don't understand how ND filters would improve the images you pointed to. That UV filter isn't worth much either. Here is a very good discussion of Skylight, UV, Haze and Polarizing filters.

    http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm#uv

    In particular, look at the short paragraph titled "Post-Processing Haze".

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    My main motivator is the washed out mountain/tundra shots I get on our yearly NW Alaska floats.
    An ND filter isn't going to improve that. The polarizing filter might, but probably not much. The biggest problem you've got with the mountains is that you don't like what you are photographing! You're getting images that show what actually is there. In low areas like that, at that time of the year, what you have is atmospherics that don't make for sharp objects in the distance. On a cool clear day in March, all of those mountains would be crisp!

    The tundra is a different matter. Digital cameras have a very hard time with greens and yellows. You will probably find that post processing RAW image data is the only way to get the snap you want. Which does suggest that your DSLR will probably lead to better images, just because it will allow you to think of RAW mode as more natural.
    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    We spend 14 days at a time up there in Aug/Sept fly fishing for dollies
    For dollies? Yuck.

    I should tell you a story about my oldest son and another avid fisherman (about 35 years ago) catching dolly varden in the Buckstock River in southwestern Alaska. I was standing there, in cold water, being a good patient dad, freezing to death, while these two clowns were literally pre-selecting which fish to catch. There were hundreds of them that could be seen, and tossing a lure into the water would cause a mass attack on it, so the trick was not catching a fish, but to catch that fish. An 8 year old and a school teacher... and I was the guard, watching for bears.

    But a Dolly Varden is trash, not worth eating, and should be left alone!

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    ... and I never come home with the kind of pictures I would have hoped for. When the sun is out, most all my pics look the same. A dull brown tundra with a carolina blue sky. I want the colors to stand out. I want a golden tundra amist a deep blue sky with well defined clouds. I realize the CP will help here, but I want to employ the use of ND filters to help me get better shots. Anyone willing to throw me a line?
    Whatever an ND filter would give you, you can usually get by simply using a higher shutter speed. (It is true that you don't want to use apertures smaller than f/11 at the most, due to higher dispersion at smaller apertures.) Your ability to accomplish that might well be improved with a DSLR, but the effects are very slight anyway, and will only be obvious on otherwise extremely sharp images (e.g., where you use a tripod).
    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    Hmmm... I'm not much of a landscape photographer myself, and it doesn't appear to me that you are either! Your pictures of people are better, though they suffer from the same problems. I would suggest reading Ansel Adams' book on composition as a starting point.

    Everyone learns differently, and maybe it is worthless to many people, but for me this works really really well... I mostly photograph people, and one of my favority inspirations is to spend 3-4 hours going through photo books by Lange, Evans, Eisenstadt or others who were great at the photography I like (few people realize that Ansel Adams did great portraits too!). I enjoy their photographs; but what I do is try to figure out what it is about each one that I like. I then try to reproduce that "what" in a few shots of my own.

    I have at least one very concrete example of how that works. Adams photographed an internment camp for Japanese people during WWII, and he described very purposely shooting most of the portraits from an angle that had the camera just below eye level. The obvious lesson is that the angle has a subtle effect. Since becoming aware of the difference it made for Adams' pictures, I can virtually never do a portrait without specifically thinking of which angle I want from the camera to the eyes for this particular subject.

    Here's an example. This is Aiko Hamaguchi, who apparently caught the eye of Adams more than others, as he took perhaps three times as many pictures of her as any other single individual. This is the one that just knocks me over every time I look at it.



    Look at that image, and imagine the difference for an equal camera angle above, to the left, or to the right. Each would have been a totally different person. That angle was not an accident, and the art of composition is making use of many similar subtle nuances to get an image that just stands out and slaps the viewer. (Of course, it's also a great deal of luck too, because closed vs open eyes just isn't something you can plan.)

    Now, consider one of Adams famous pictures of a rock somewhere... and realize that to him a huge rock and Aiko Hamaguci were just about the same thing in terms of an object to photograph! (I have to admire Adams for that, but I just can't photograph rocks with the same feelings that an Aiko Hamaguchi gives me!)

    Whatever... better composition and post processing are probably the most productive improvements you could make.

  3. #3
    Member EricL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska to Stay
    Posts
    670

    Default

    Hey Dan, Floyd covered most bases pretty well. I will tell you that I have a couple Singh Ray ND grad filters in my bag. Both are 2 stop, 1 hard and 1 soft. When I do use them, I usually go for the soft. I actually use the circular polarizer on most of my landscape shots. CS3 actually has a nice addition called "recovery" that almost takes the need for ND grad filters away. (They are still in my bag, though). Floyd hit the nail on the head when he referred to the composition of the shots. Trying playing around with that. RAW, well, once you shoot RAW you never go back. I do believe that!! It is the only way to get the richness and vibrancy you are looking for. Well, maybe not the only way, but that is what I rely on!!
    EricL

  4. #4
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Thumbs down Great..

    Thanks for your time and candor. It ceases to amaze me what wonderful personalities photographers seem to have. Perhaps it is the solitary nature of a hobby like this that draws us in. I appreciate the constructive comments on using an ND vs graduated ND filter. And as a bonus, I got some perils of wisdom on fishing. It is amazing how much we reveal about ourselves with our rants.


    Over $ 300,000 was spent in Western Alaska from 1920 to 1941 for bounties on dolly varden in the belief that they were serious salmon predators. Turned out that they were no more of an egg eater than the bows and grayling. Unfortunately over 6 million "trash fish" were killed in the process. Their tails had a 10 cent bounty on them. Only about 1/2 turned in were even dollies. Many were small silvers and bull trout. Wonder why you don't have many bull trout left in Alaska? I don't. NW Alaska is where the state record 27 lb dolly was caught in 2002. If people were catching 10-20 lb dollies in southern Alaska, I assure you they would not be called "trash fish". On our float trips we catch them over 10 lbs on fly rods and 20-40 fish/day is not uncommon when we find the good holes. This is an amazing fish and is excellent table fare. I thought the "trash fish" was an old and ignorant pespective on dollies from the past. Apparently it is still alive and well.
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    will attach a link to some pics from our last three float trips. You can see what I mean about how dull and boring many of the landscape pictures are. All these pics were taken with Sony and Pentax point and shoots. I just got my first DSLR a few months ago. I largely justified buying it so I could take better images on our float trips. When the link opens, click on "view slideshow" in the upper right side.
    First of all, you have said that you didn't use your new camera to take those photos, but next time try the following on your new camera. Just set your new camera to take RAW images. these use more memory, but SD cards are quite cheap these days. I just bought a couple of SanDisk Ultra II 2GB cards for $20.00 each, brand new in the packs. Next, you don't have to buy the full version of PhotoShop. Buy PhotoShop Elements (version 4 for the Mac, or version 6 for the PC), and do some post processing of the RAW images.

    #1 photo, a person sitting on a chair, and #2 (light sky background): The light background overpowers the subject. You can set your camera to Partial Metering. This is useful for metering the subject when the background is very light, or very dark. Makes the subject "popup" from the rest of the photo. You could have also used fill flash to illuminate the subject, or simply moved so the light is on you back and on the subject's face. Also, try to take pictures of people before midday (in the morning, and afternoon), when the sunlight is sort of golden. On harsh light, use the flash to fill in. Not much you could do with the blown sky, however. You have to decide what's more important, the subject, or the background.

    #3 photo, dark shadow under the hat, right over the eyes: A clear example of harsh midday light. Use fill flash to illuminate the subject's face.

    $4, mountain: Not much you can do about that one. There is a lot of haze, and contrast.

    #5, holding a salmon: This photo looks fine. A polarizer would have helped with the sky, but it would have placed the subjects face in the darker zone of the polarizer, too.

    Never mind, this is taking too long. Just take this free training. It's for the XT-series (XT, XTi...). If you learn these lessons, you will know what to do next time:
    http://images.photoworkshop.com/rebe...interface.html

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    I'm not sure, but it seems that you have some confusion about the purpose of ND and ND grad filters. The Neutral Density filter is just a shade of gray that covers the whole filter, and serves the purpose of allowing a longer shutter speed or a larger aperture. It only effects the image indirectly; as the longer shutter might allow moving water to blur more, or the larger aperture might make for less DOF. You can use a polarizer in place of a ND filter, and using two of them together and turning them against each other, will make a clever adjustable ND filter. ND filters have fairly limited use for most subjects and probably won't do anything for your tundra shots. There is no hard or soft in describing D filters and getting round ones that thread directly onto the lens are easier to use than rectangular types.

    The ND grad filter has a gray area and a clear area, and the transition between them is described as hard if it a fairly abrupt transition, and soft if it is a more gradual transition. Both are useful in different situations. Either one is generally used to darken an area, usually the sky. You place the transition area on the horizon with the dark half of the filter on top. This allows you to keep a bright sky from blowing out while increasing the exposure on the foreground. Depending on what you are shooting, this might actually help with some tundra shots. Always get ND grad filters in rectangular form so by sliding it around you can adjust the transition area to fit your composition. Also, the dark end of a ND grad can be used as a plain ND filter if your lens isn't to big.

    As has been mentioned, post processing (especially RAW files) can do most of what a ND grad can do, and you can be more precise in it's placement, even making it irregular in shape. And if you take multiple shots of the same scene at several different exposures, you can do way more than a ND grad with Photoshop's HDR merge option. In fact it's good enough to align them for you even if you don't use a tripod. It's quite amazing.

  7. #7
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Thumbs up Thanks...

    Jim and Ray,


    Thanks for sharing some of your knowledge with me. I will spend lots of time reading up on what you suggest. That will keep me busy for a while. Great information you two just shared and I will spend the time it takes to assimilate it all. Aside from composition, I feel that more knowledge of RAW and the use of graduated ND filters will help me get the results I am looking for. I appreciate you guys taking the time to share.
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    Jim and Ray,


    Thanks for sharing some of your knowledge with me. I will spend lots of time reading up on what you suggest. That will keep me busy for a while. Great information you two just shared and I will spend the time it takes to assimilate it all. Aside from composition, I feel that more knowledge of RAW and the use of graduated ND filters will help me get the results I am looking for. I appreciate you guys taking the time to share.
    Don't spend too much time on filters for now, and use the time to learn all you can about the camera's built-in features as explained in the lessons (link I posted for you). A polarizer does help quite a lot blocking a lot of the reflected light that comes straight into the camera. For example, you use polarizing eyeglasses to "kind of see" the fish swimming in the water. Take the glasses off, and more than likely you won't see the fish. That's what a polarizer does for you.

    A ND filter does a great job enhancing colors of the foliage, earth, etc. It does a beautiful job when taking pictures where there are lots of different foliage colors.

    Filter use is not a big priority, since a good quality lens already does a lot of the filtering for you. Here is a link about filters:
    http://www.bythom.com/filters.htm

    I do use a Hoya polarizer every now and then. However, on this one I used the kit lens of my XT (a $60.00 lens), plus a $20.00 circular polarizer. That's all I could afford at the time:

    The polarizer blocked a lot of the light being reflected from the water into the lens. By doing so, you can see more details in the water, including the riverbed (sand, etc.). The sky also looks bluer, and the clouds much white and clearer.


  9. #9
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    If people were catching 10-20 lb dollies in southern Alaska, I assure you they would not be called "trash fish". On our float trips we catch them over 10 lbs on fly rods and 20-40 fish/day is not uncommon when we find the good holes. This is an amazing fish and is excellent table fare. I thought the "trash fish" was an old and ignorant pespective on dollies from the past. Apparently it is still alive and well.
    What did you do with 20-40 fish/day? Many people who are aware of how subsistence in bush Alaska actually works have a very serious dislike for the concept of "catch and release". Playing with our food is not acceptable as sport! (I realize that half the people in Alaska, never mind those from Outside, have never heard of that concept. It is generally how Native cultures think of "sport fishing" though.)

    Dolly Varden (Arctic Char) are basically garbage eaters. They aren't particularly good to eat, are not fat and have flesh that is too soft to taste good. Incidentally, rainbow trout aren't generally much better, and neither are pike.

    Compare it any day to virtually any of the various "whitefish" usually available in the same rivers and lakes. Compare it to any salmon except "Pink Salmon", or to burbot (aka lingcod or lush, depending on where you find them).

    Dolly Varden are "trash fish" because if you are fishing for food, that's the last thing you'd want to catch, most of the time. Watch the kids in local villages to see which fish they take home to mom, and which ones they toss. If whitefish are available, nobody eats a Dolly.

  10. #10
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Default Interesting...

    "Watch the kids in local villages to see which fish they take home to mom, and which ones they toss."

    I thought they looked down on catch and release. You better get on to them about throwing the dollies back. Are they aware of how disrespectful it is to let that fish live. I wonder if the fish find it disrespectful? Or perhaps they just throw them on the bank to die. At this point, there is not much you could say to surprise me. While I am mildly entertained by your post, they are almost as offensive as the smell of a rotting corpse. I am aware that many of the natives don't like catch and release. And while I respect there values as a whole, I am not going to kill every fish I catch no matter who it offends.


    "Playing with our food is not acceptable as sport!"

    I thought dollies were "trash" fish that were unfit to eat. Which is it? Food now?? I know they are certainly not "trash" fish to residents of Kivalina, Noatak, etc.. They harvest them by the thousands. You can read the ADFG report on it if you would like. However, it would not be as entertaining as argueing with me about it. As I said before, you reveal a lot about yourself with your rants.

    And for what its worth, I saw dead walruses with their heads missing as I traveled down the coast along Kotzebue. They had been shot several times by natives in boats and had their tusk removed. I had guys coming up to me at the hospital (where I was working) trying to sell me walrus tusk and ivory carvings once a week or so. Many of them smelling of R&R. Much of the younger generation would be well served with a greater respect for their resources. Yet you say it is disrespectful to put a fish back?? Many of the locals I met in my two years in NW Alaska had far less respect for the land and its wildlife than I do. You have a hell of a lot worse things to worry about than me returning a healthy fish to the water from which I found it.

    "What did you do with 20-40 fish/day?"

    We put them all back. If one is bleeding or hooked too deep, we eat it for lunch/dinner. Using barbless hooks helps keep the stress on the fish to a minimal. We also use fast action 8 wts so we can get them to the bank quickly. That prevents us from tiring them out too much and contributes to their survival as well. We will usually eat fish every day. There are tons of recipes for preparing them. Many people (including me) will disagree with you about them not being fit to eat. It is delicious meat that I would say is between trout and salmon in texture and taste. I am willing to bet your thoughts of dollies taste worse to you than the meat. You seem to have a real lack of appreciation for the species. We have a long history of this way of thinking. That is why elk and brown bear are no longer in NC. Why buffalo was hunted to the brink of extinction. Why wolves survive largely in places like Yellowstone. From what the media is forcing on us, it appears as if polar bears are next. A long list of "trash" in our history. We take, take, and take. We deserve what our future holds. The animals (and fish) do not. With oil exploration on and off shore in north Alaska, ANWR's future being uncertain, global warming, the rising cost of gas, lack of healthcare in the country, war, genocide, a seemingly open border, and civil unrest in various parts of the world, I would think you would have more to complain about than someone catching dollies for sport.
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  11. #11
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Thumbs up Thanks Ray!!

    Ray,

    Nice picture! Thanks for posting it. I also appreciate the additional thoughts on ND filters and their efficacy with landscape photography. I am soaking it up like a sponge. Thanks for taking the time to share some knowledge with me.
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  12. #12
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    "Watch the kids in local villages to see which fish they take home to mom, and which ones they toss."

    I thought they looked down on catch and release. You better get on to them about throwing the dollies back. Are they aware of how disrespectful it is to let that fish live.
    They are children. They are not yet old enough to be "aware". When they are, they throw Dolly Vardens into a dog food pot, or eat them rather than waste them.

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    At this point, there is not much you could say to surprise me. While I am mildly entertained by your post, they are almost as offensive as the smell of a rotting corpse.
    You are a visitor to our home. If you find advice from your elders that offensive, perhaps this is not an appropriate place for you to visit?

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    I am aware that many of the natives don't like catch and release. And while I respect there values as a whole, I am not going to kill every fish I catch no matter who it offends.
    Part of the objection is that you ARE killing many of them, and for no purpose. If you don't want to eat it, please try to avoid catching it.
    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    "Playing with our food is not acceptable as sport!"

    I thought dollies were "trash" fish that were unfit to eat. Which is it? Food now??
    I used to process a lot of fish for dog food; and once teased an old man because he was cutting dog food just as carefully as he would if it were for his table. Pleats 1 inch wide instead of the faster three slices per side that I did with dog food. The late Carl Morgan Sr. was a wonderful teacher, and his reply to me was "You never know who will be the dog."

    Dolly Varden may not be my favorite food, it may not be a fish that I would target, but it is an innate part of my food chain (and on occasion may unavoidably rise to the level of my dinner too).

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    I know they are certainly not "trash" fish to residents of Kivalina, Noatak, etc.. They harvest them by the thousands. You can read the ADFG report on it if you would like. However, it would not be as entertaining as argueing with me about it. As I said before, you reveal a lot about yourself with your rants.
    Well, yes they do catch them... basically as incidental catch when fishing for salmon. For example, one ADFG report said that over 4000 were caught. Note that 62.7 percent were sold, and the rest used for "personal consumption" (which includes dog food). Dolly varden were roughly just under 10 percent of the catch, so it does not appear to be a significant target.
    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    And for what its worth, I saw dead walruses with their heads missing as I traveled down the coast along Kotzebue. They had been shot several times by natives in boats and had their tusk removed.
    You do realize that dead walrus washing up on the beach is normal, and is in no way an indication that anyone is "head hunting". And that every single time someone is caught and charged with "head hunting", they have been turned in by local Native people (who happen to be the ones most upset by that practice).

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    I had guys coming up to me at the hospital (where I was working) trying to sell me walrus tusk and ivory carvings once a week or so. Many of them smelling of R&R. Much of the younger generation would be well served with a greater respect for their resources. Yet you say it is disrespectful to put a fish back?? Many of the locals I met in my two years in NW Alaska had far less respect for the land and its wildlife than I do. You have a hell of a lot worse things to worry about than me returning a healthy fish to the water from which I found it.
    (This line of reasoning smacks of the same type of bias you showed with all of those "get the Canon, ha ha ha" comments. You don't have much experience with DSLRs or with Alaskan cultures, and probably shouldn't argue race based distinctions.)

    And note that I did NOT say putting healthy fish back is disrespectful. I said that catching fish, just for fun, that you do not intend to use is considered disrepectful by many who live in the bush, if they actually do understand subsistence as a way of life.

    Note that I said nothing at all about Natives, because it is not an issue of race, but one of understanding our way of life in bush Alaska.

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    "What did you do with 20-40 fish/day?"

    We put them all back. If one is bleeding or hooked too deep, we eat it for lunch/dinner. Using barbless hooks helps keep the stress on the fish to a minimal. We also use fast action 8 wts so we can get them to the bank quickly. That prevents us from tiring them out too much and contributes to their survival as well. We will usually eat fish every day. There are tons of recipes for preparing them. Many people (including me) will disagree with you about them not being fit to eat. It is delicious meat that I would say is between trout and salmon in texture and taste. I am willing to bet your thoughts of dollies taste worse to you than the meat. You seem to have a real lack of appreciation for the species. We have a long history of this way of thinking. That is why elk and brown bear are no longer in NC. Why buffalo was hunted to the brink of extinction. Why wolves survive largely in places like Yellowstone. From what the media is forcing on us, it appears as if polar bears are next. A long list of "trash" in our history. We take, take, and take. We deserve what our future holds. The animals (and fish) do not. With oil exploration on and off shore in north Alaska, ANWR's future being uncertain, global warming, the rising cost of gas, lack of healthcare in the country, war, genocide, a seemingly open border, and civil unrest in various parts of the world, I would think you would have more to complain about than someone catching dollies for sport.
    "We take, take, and take." Keep in mind that you are the one killing those "trash" fish, and I am the one saying that taking them is not appropriate.

  13. #13
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Default Narcissism...

    What are you trying to say Floyd?

    You voice your sharp opinions very well yet you have no respect for mine. Do you think your thoughts are even the slightest bit more important than other peoples? Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. You are either trying to pick a fight with a complete stranger just for kicks or you are an absolute idiot. At this point, I can't tell which. Do remember it was my asking about ND filters that started you on your rants. What does that say about you? You live in Barrow based on the information here, yet act as if you own the land hundreds of miles away where I go fishing once a year. Speaking for all the people that live there to make matters worse. These traits are characteristic of a personality disorder Floyd. It is called narcissism. As for walrus heads, I have never seen a walrus shoot itself three times. And don't give me the "respect the elders" line. Respect is earned where I come from. You are sucking hind tit in this department. I suspect those closest to you hold you in the same high regard. No doubt why you are lashing out at me through your keyboard. Feeling empowered yet? Getting your rocks off? How exactly are you benefiting from this? Are you having fun yet? I know I am. At best you are fragile and powerless, at worst you have some emotional/mental health issues. Nothing like meeting an ********* every time you ask for advice on photography equipment. I met lots of wonderful people while in Alaska. But I met a few like you too. Some people live in remote places out of choice. Others out of necessity.
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  14. #14
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    As for walrus heads, I have never seen a walrus shoot itself three times. And don't give me the "respect the elders" line. Respect is earned where I come from.
    Respect is earned by, people who can observe and learn.

    Walrus often sink when shot, to later wash up on shore after internal bacteria action produces gas that causes the body to float. Only the head can be salvaged as trying to save the meat risks botulism. Which is why I mentioned that it is "normal" to have headless walrus with gunshot wounds on the beaches, a fact commonly known to everyone who makes their home in Kotzebue.

    If you wish to discuss photograpy in Alaska, or anything else about Alaska, please do so. Except it is not within the quidelines of this forum to post gratuitous personal attacks.

  15. #15
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Thumbs up Agreed...

    Good points all agreed on. Except for the walrus. I did not deduce what happened to the walruses on my own. That was my first time in Alaska. There were several shot and they washed up on shore headless. I wish it would have happened like you suggest. Glad to hear you would rather talk about photography than ethics. Between the two, it is only your thoughts on photography that I would be interested in hearing about.
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •