Block user

Recent

Marlfox87 scottsecco's article
Aug 14, 2014 at 9:53
Aug 14, 2014
Behind the Lens - Matt Wragg
2) When submitting photos to magazines (or even during your work with pinkbike) what steps did you take in your selection process? What things will almost always result in the photo being rejected? 3) Where can someone find good technical post-processing techniques? I know I'm not perfect, and I want to learn everything I can. But what bugs me alot is, that 9 times out of 10 any tutorial I can find is incredible vague or overly basic. I'm a little frustrated with finding tutorial after tutorial on how a faster aperture will give you a "blurry" background, and almost nothing on the subtle changes a photographer will make to really refine their photos into professional quality pieces and works of art. Is this something that can be found, or does one simply need to find another more skilled photographer to help guide them?
Marlfox87 scottsecco's article
Aug 14, 2014 at 9:53
Aug 14, 2014
Behind the Lens - Matt Wragg
Great interview, and it helped me to take a fresh look at my photography. One thing I've noticed about a lot of these Behind the Lens interviews is that many of these guys have been making the transition from amateur to professional at around two to three years. Which is where I am. For the past three years I've avoided even contemplating the word "professional" simply because I wanted to learn elements of composition/lighting/post processing etc. I've gotten to a point where, even though my photos are still imperfect, I've begun making a name for myself in the local community and have had a few requests for sports photography.I don't know if Matt will read these comments, but if he has a moment I'd like to ask him a little bit more about making the leap from amateur to professional. 1) How do you fund your start-up costs? Obviously one needs a camera, but all of the other things- website, travel expenses, extra gear etc... whenever I sit down and crunch the numbers I find that I just can't afford to set myself up in a professional way. It feels like a horrible catch 22- can't market myself professionally until I have the money, won't have the money until I can charge myself professionally(REALLY REALLY trying to avoid the "Facebook" photography business page as it seems anyone with an iPhone has one).
Marlfox87 bkcphotography's photo
Jul 30, 2014 at 17:27
Jul 30, 2014
Still disagree. Coming from an area with very similar dirt all I can say is that the dust clouds look just fine. That and the fact that your accusations of him inserting such a prolific rider such as Kyle Strait into his photo is the equivalent of calling the photographer a fraud with no artistic integrity. I can't speak for the photographer himself, but as a photographer myself I know how much time, effort, and planning it takes to get a short even half this good. I can see what robb was talking about with the double exposure, but with a skilled eye it's not too hard to get this kind of shot with a single exposure. I personally would love to hear how this shot came to be and what techniques went into is development.

Jul 30, 2014 at 16:40
Jul 30, 2014
Marlfox87 bkcphotography's photo
Jul 30, 2014 at 15:41
Jul 30, 2014
I am an English major and approve this ridicule.

Marlfox87 bkcphotography's photo
Jul 30, 2014 at 15:40
Jul 30, 2014
I'd have to disagree. I'm not sure what Brian Camp's post processing routine is, but all that looks to be adjusted here are the "levels", and a very slight touch of saturation.

Marlfox87 mikekazimer's article
Jul 26, 2014 at 19:03
Jul 26, 2014
Pit Stop: Enduro World Series Round 5 - Winter Park
Not to sound like a jerk, but that's not Dan Atherton's GT Sanction. Dan is number 62, that my friend is Martin Maes' bike.
Marlfox87 mikelevy's article
Jul 11, 2014 at 12:37
Jul 11, 2014
Opinion - Cater To Your Weaknesses
However, I do agree that optimizing a bike is a very important element of successful racing. However, whenever the cycling community discusses optimization it tends to focus primarily on optimizing the bike to the rider (probably because this in turn encourages bike sales). This opinion piece is also playing into this trend. I, however, feel that it's more important to optimize a bike to the terrain/conditions than to the rider. For example, each of your perfectly valid reasons for not using a dropper post on the descents are dependent upon condition external to the rider. The first one is dependent upon how crowded the trail is, the second is dependent upon the definition of a "non-technical descent"(which is a perspective/opinion, not a measurable quantity), and finally the third one is dependent upon length of time in the descent and the perceived need to stand or sit. Like you said, "weight matters, if you are going to run something heavier it better give you advantages else where", but when you boil it all down each of your reasons for why a dropper post isn't worth the weight penalty are dependent upon neither the rider or the bike but rather the conditions of the race. What do you think? What should take precedence when optimizing a bike: rider or terrain? Would you agree with me if I said that "not enough riders take enough time studying course conditions/layout, and don't take the time to customize their bike to those conditions"? I'd also love to hear what you have to say about wheel sizes. I think we'd agree on a lot there.
Marlfox87 mikelevy's article
Jul 11, 2014 at 12:36
Jul 11, 2014
Opinion - Cater To Your Weaknesses
Very nice reply. You sound like a smart enough guy, so instead of turning this into a trolling rant fest maybe we can actually turn this into a discussion. I don't doubt your expertise in optimizing bicycles (I've worked as a bike mechanic for over 6 years and I'm sure we'd agree on a lot), but what I do in the off season is analyze arguments and find flaws in seemingly logical conclusions. The thing that I'm questioning most about your claims is a guarantee of saved time. The fact of the matter is that weight does not directly factor into how slow or fast a rider is. Weight directly effects the amount of energy necessary to propel an object at a certain speed over a certain distance. We're talking about saving calories and joules, not seconds. Saved time is a side affect of saved energy along with a variety of other factors. However, because there are so many other variables that go into saving or losing time I find it hard to buy into a set formula for saving time. SIDENOTE: I'm curious about your formula. I'm sure you simplified it for this post, but I'd like to see it in it's full form. I'm specifically curious to know if "total climbing" a measure of time or distance? If it's distance then your conclusion of saved time is mathematically impossible because you can't balance out each of the individual units of time, mass, distance,and wattage. Your answer would have to be something like saved watt per gram per kilometer. If it's measured in time, then your answer still isn't saved seconds, but rather saved watt per gram per seconds. In the end it's energy that is being saved, not time. Obviously I could be way off, but without the originally formula I'm having to make some assumptions.
Load more...
You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2014. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv14 0.035471
Mobile Version of Website