 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / January 200850mm pictures with D300
While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left. So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures without a zoomlens to learn composition. So for all you boys and girls I hauled my camera around town and tried to see.... I think there's absolutely some truth in this. You do feel that you have to "create" instead of zooming. If I was successful? You´ll be the judge and jury. Leave a comment and a rating, preferably with an explanation. http://nikon-box.com/ I did use some cool filters and tools from Nik software: Dfine, Nik Sharpener and Color Efex. Very nice stuff! Questions? Just ask...  SignatureSosumi >http://nikon-box.com/ If Nikon knew of this domain name I would certainly think they would disapprove. Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom). > While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left. > So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think there's absolutely some truth in this. You do feel that you > have to "create" instead of zooming. You got it! You did good. I love the old 50 and it is nice to be able to get the results you want by zooming with your feet. Rita >> While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left. >> So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You got it! You did good. I love the old 50 and it is nice to be able to > get the results you want by zooming with your feet. Zooming with your feet. Spoken like a true clueless imbecile. Sorry, you can change your position, but you cannot zoom, oh fattest of a.ses. > >> While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left. > >> So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Sorry, you can change your position, but you cannot zoom, oh fattest of > a.ses. I never bothered considering the statement until now and you are right.... it is impossible to "zoom with your feet". Lens zooming maintains perspective, while moving closer alters the perspective. So you while each of the two methods are useful in their own right and will maximise the use of the pixel count (as apposed to cropping), they will not produce the same result and it comes down to the image that the photographer wishes to create. >>> While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left. >>> So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Sorry, you can change your position, but you cannot zoom, oh fattest of > a.ses. When I read unsolicited insulence such as this, I almost think that retroactive abortion can be justified. Some people are just too lazy to zoom with their feet. They would rather spend money, lots of it, and let technology create their art. So Long, Dudley > Some people are just too lazy to zoom with their feet. People who suggest zooming with their feet should be introduced to the nearest superhighway. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> Some people are just too lazy to zoom with their feet. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan Some people are just too dependant on a technilogical crutch. Take Care, Dudley Beauty isn't always in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, it can be found in the mind as well. >>> Some people are just too lazy to zoom with their feet. >> >> People who suggest zooming with their feet should be introduced to the >> nearest superhighway. >Some people are just too dependant on a technilogical crutch. Zoom isn't a crutch -- it's a tool. When I want long perspective, moving in isn't an option. You do understand perspective, right? SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >>>> Some people are just too lazy to zoom with their feet. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You do understand perspective, right? Probably better than you can imagine. But, this thread started out with the suggestion that, once and a while, we should put the zooms away and trudge around town a bit in order to check out the 50mm perspective, and what effects can be obtained by "zooming" with our feet. You do understand the original intent of the thread, right? These posts received a resounding, unwarranted, ridicule, and I merely attempted to support the original two posters by defending the proposal. Given the high tech, mega-featured cameras we all have today, it's easy to rely on the technology to capture a stunning image. But, how many of today's point and shooters would even own a camera if they had to put in the same degree of work that photographers routinely exerted 30, 50, or more yeears ago? Of course, the flip side is: if people tried the 50mm challenge and found out that a bit of physical exertion and creative thought can yield as much of an improvement in our current images, imagine what could happen if a similar degree of effort and creative thought were to be employed in using our little pocket sized cameras. I think the exercise at least deserves a try, and the proponents of the concept a bit of respect. Take Care, Dudley Beauty isn't always found in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, it can be found in the mind as well. >> Zoom isn't a crutch -- it's a tool. >> When I want long perspective, moving in isn't an option. >> You do understand perspective, right? >Probably better than you can imagine. > >But, this thread started out with the suggestion that, once and a while, we >should put the zooms away and trudge around town a bit in order to check out >the 50mm perspective, and what effects can be obtained by "zooming" with our >feet. It actually started off with a zoom not being available. >You do understand the original intent of the thread, right? You did read the OP, right? SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >>> Zoom isn't a crutch -- it's a tool. >>> When I want long perspective, moving in isn't an option. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You did read the OP, right? Okay, now it's starting to make sense. You don't know how to read. Please note the following: While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left. So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures without a zoomlens to learn composition. So for all you boys and girls I hauled my camera around town and tried to see.... I think there's absolutely some truth in this. You do feel that you have to "create" instead of zooming. If I was successful? Now, you are right that the first sentence is about waiting for the lens, the restt is about "zooming" with one's feet (although that particular term didn't come in until a later reply). I take it you didn't do very well in litrature class when your instructor asked, "What's the main idea of this essay?" Right? Take Care, Dudley Beauty isn't always found in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes it is found in the mind as well. >> It actually started off with a zoom not being available. >> >>>You do understand the original intent of the thread, right? >> >> You did read the OP, right? >Okay, now it's starting to make sense. You don't know how to read. "Discussion" over. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) > Probably better than you can imagine. > > But, this thread started out with the suggestion that, once and a > while, we should put the zooms away and trudge around town a bit in > order to check out the 50mm perspective, and what effects can be > obtained by "zooming" with our feet. Man! It's refreshing to see someone that knows how to read and comprehend while not wanting to get into mindless pissing contests. > You do understand the original intent of the thread, right? Don't be too sure, John has been struggling through life ever since the 28.8K modem was replaced. He lost his 15-minutes of fame and has been very bitter ever since. Life moves on, John. > These posts received a resounding, unwarranted, ridicule, and I merely > attempted to support the original two posters by defending the > proposal. Thanks for the support, but what you describe is standard operating procedures for Usenet. > Given the high tech, mega-featured cameras we all have today, it's > easy to rely on the technology to capture a stunning image. But, how > many of today's point and shooters would even own a camera if they > had to put in the same degree of work that photographers routinely > exerted 30, 50, or more yeears ago? You got it! I love my primes on the D3. And many of these same people couldn't comprehend the enjoyment I had when using my Nikkors on the Mk III. Getting back to basics can be a very amazing and rewarding experience. Some people are simply frightened of manual focus. > Of course, the flip side is: if people tried the 50mm challenge and > found out that a bit of physical exertion and creative thought can > yield as much of an improvement in our current images, imagine what > could happen if a similar degree of effort and creative thought were > to be employed in using our little pocket sized cameras. Yep! > I think the exercise at least deserves a try, and the proponents of > the concept a bit of respect. Absolutely! Most of the people fighting the concept are nothing more than mindless antagonists that very rarely if ever contribute images to the group. Rita >> You do understand the original intent of the thread, right? > >Don't be too sure, John has been struggling through life ever since the >28.8K modem was replaced. He lost his 15-minutes of fame and has been very >bitter ever since. Life moves on, John. When someone stoops to insults, all they really accomplish is to make it clear to others that they have nothing more meaningful to say and are insecure about their own abilities. >> These posts received a resounding, unwarranted, ridicule, and I merely >> attempted to support the original two posters by defending the >> proposal. > >Thanks for the support, but what you describe is standard operating >procedures for Usenet. You would of course know, as you've demonstrated in this post. >> Given the high tech, mega-featured cameras we all have today, it's >> easy to rely on the technology to capture a stunning image. But, how [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Getting back to basics can be a very amazing and rewarding experience. Some >people are simply frightened of manual focus. Basics have nothing to do with the issue at hand. If you have a prime long lens at hand and time to use it, then you may have no need for a zoom (no matter how good) or to move closer to the subject (which may not be possible). >> Of course, the flip side is: if people tried the 50mm challenge and >> found out that a bit of physical exertion and creative thought can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Yep! So how exactly would you zoom with your feet in these cases: <http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8fr5.jpg> <http://img408.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030792filteredcropge6.jpg> <http://img107.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030774filterednt2.jpg> <http://img256.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030708filteredmo8.jpg> <http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1020078il3.jpg> >> I think the exercise at least deserves a try, and the proponents of >> the concept a bit of respect. > >Absolutely! Most of the people fighting the concept are nothing more than >mindless antagonists that very rarely if ever contribute images to the >group. Again, you would know, as you've demonstrated in this post. To suggest zooming with feet is a real substitute for lens zoom as a general proposition is both wrongheaded and offensive. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >>> You do understand the original intent of the thread, right? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it clear to others that they have nothing more meaningful to say and > are insecure about their own abilities. No, John, I'm not insulting you as you have clearly made it apparent to everyone that you are more than capable of insulting yourself. I'm just pointing out the obvious for those newbies that haven't yet seen that your reputation precedes you. >> You got it! I love my primes on the D3. And many of these same >> people couldn't comprehend the enjoyment I had when using my Nikkors [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > zoom (no matter how good) or to move closer to the subject (which may > not be possible). Sure it does! You quickly learn to work with what you got. If you are creative enough you are able to create a decent shot where everyone else thought there was none to be had. >>> Of course, the flip side is: if people tried the 50mm challenge and >>> found out that a bit of physical exertion and creative thought can [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > <http://img256.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030708filteredmo8.jpg> > <http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1020078il3.jpg> You move back or forth. If you get a creative spark you can move side to side. > To suggest zooming with feet is a real substitute for lens zoom as a > general proposition is both wrongheaded and offensive. Only to the idiots that try to split hairs where there are none. Rita >> So how exactly would you zoom with your feet in these cases: >> <http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8fr5.jpg> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >You move back or forth. If you get a creative spark you can move side to >side. Side to side is not zooming. Oops! Moving forward gets you and your gear seriously wet. OOPS! It's a bitch when your ego is pricked, isn't it? ;) SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >> You move back or forth. If you get a creative spark you can move >> side to side. > > Side to side is not zooming. Oops! > Moving forward gets you and your gear seriously wet. OOPS! > It's a bitch when your ego is pricked, isn't it? ;) Not at all! It's called being prepared. You bring your Boston Whaler, dumbass. Rita >>> You move back or forth. If you get a creative spark you can move >>> side to side. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Not at all! It's called being prepared. You bring your Boston Whaler, >dumbass. Ahhh. Thanks so much. That's so helpful. LOL. You are too funny, especially when your ego is pricked. :) Oh, and by the way, my local parks dept takes a dim view of boating. Oops. again. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >>>> While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left. >>>> So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Some people are just too lazy to zoom with their feet. They would rather >spend money, lots of it, and let technology create their art. That childish response is actually correct. Moving with your feet is *not* the same thing as zooming (changing focal length) because it changes *perspective*, which zooming does not. It's why a "dolly zoom" is not the same as lens zoom alone. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >>>>> While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left. >>>>> So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > changes *perspective*, which zooming does not. It's why a "dolly zoom" > is not the same as lens zoom alone. Aw, but does every zoom lens maintain the same degree of depth of field, perspective, etc? I think not. So, the only thing that is constant throughout a variety of zoom lenses is that the area covered by the shot decreases and the objects in it become larger. For instance, are the effects produced by a 35mm to 80mm zoom exactly the same as, let us say, a 100mm to 300mm zoom? No, the shots from each would be much different, but the characteristical magnification of the image is what is the goal. So, why can't one "zoom" with one's feet? Take Care, Dudley Beauty isn't always in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, it can be found in the mind as well. >> That childish response is actually correct. Moving with your feet is >> *not* the same thing as zooming (changing focal length) because it >> changes *perspective*, which zooming does not. It's why a "dolly zoom" >> is not the same as lens zoom alone. >Aw, but does every zoom lens maintain the same degree of depth of field, >perspective, etc? > >I think not. I'm afraid you're wrong. Zoom lenses do maintain perspective, since the distance to the subject doesn't change. As for depth of field: <http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm> Larger apertures (smaller F-stop number) and closer focal distances produce a shallower depth of field. ... Even though telephoto lenses appear to create a much shallower depth of field, this is mainly because they are often used to make the subject appear bigger when one is unable to get closer. If the subject occupies the same fraction of the viewfinder (constant magnification) for both a wide angle and a telephoto lens, the total depth of field is virtually constant with focal length! ... This exposes a limitation of the traditional DoF concept: it only accounts for the total DoF and not its distribution around the focal plane, even though both may contribute to the perception of sharpness. A wide angle lens provides a more gradually fading DoF behind the focal plane than in front, which is important for traditional landscape photographs. On the other hand, when standing in the same place and focusing on a subject at the same distance, a longer focal length lens will have a shallower depth of field (even though the pictures will show something entirely different). This is more representative of everyday use, but is an effect due to higher magnification, not focal length. Longer focal lengths also appear to have a shallow depth of field because they flatten perspective. This renders a background much larger relative to the foreground-- even if no more detail is resolved. Depth of field also appears shallower for SLR cameras than for compact digital cameras, because SLR cameras require a longer focal length to achieve the same field of view. >So, the only thing that is constant throughout a variety of zoom lenses is >that the area covered by the shot decreases and the objects in it become >larger. They all have the same performance at a given focal length and aperature. >For instance, are the effects produced by a 35mm to 80mm zoom exactly the >same as, let us say, a 100mm to 300mm zoom? Of course not -- different focal lengths. >No, the shots from each would be much different, but the characteristical >magnification of the image is what is the goal. The entire composition is the goal! >So, why can't one "zoom" with one's feet? Because perspective changes. Compare the image taken with a 300 mm lens to the same subject size with a 50 mm lens, and you'll find the background is totally different! See <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml> SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >>> That childish response is actually correct. Moving with your feet is >>> *not* the same thing as zooming (changing focal length) because it [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > background is totally different! See > <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml> But, you are missing my point. You admitted, above, that the effects of a small zoom are not the same as the effects produced by a bigger zoom because "they don't have the same focal length. And, this is the basis of my point. While both lenses are different, and produce different affects, which is to say that the depth of field and perspective of images produced with differing zooms are different, we still refer to the process of magnifying the effective image area as "zooming." So, why can we not use the term when refering to the magnification of an image by physically moving closer. The depth of field and perspective may be different from those produced by physically changing the focal length of a lens, but then, so are the effects of changing the focal lengths of any two not identical "zoom" lenses. Right? Take Care, Dudley Beauty isn't always in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, it can be found in the mind as well. >But, you are missing my point. > >You admitted, above, that the effects of a small zoom are not the same as >the effects produced by a bigger zoom because "they don't have the same >focal length. And, this is the basis of my point. What is your point? >While both lenses are different, and produce different affects, which is to >say that the depth of field and perspective of images produced with >differing zooms are different, we still refer to the process of magnifying >the effective image area as "zooming." Depth of field does not change with focal length -- it changes with focal distance. See the links in my prior message. >So, why can we not use the term when refering to the magnification of an >image by physically moving closer. The depth of field and perspective may [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Right? No. If you keep subject magnification the same, depth of field doesn't change. What does change with focal length is perspective, which is why "walking zoom" and lens zoom are different. The change in perspective may be desirable, or it may not. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >>But, you are missing my point. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>differing zooms are different, we still refer to the process of magnifying >>the effective image area as "zooming." The above is my point. > Depth of field does not change with focal length -- it changes with > focal distance. See the links in my prior message. But, two different telephotos will likely produce differing depth of field at the same focal length, right? Besides, find an old telephoto lens, lets say a pre 1980's vintage, and look at the depth of field scale on the lens as you move the focal length. Then come back and tell me that the depth of field does not change with focal length. >>So, why can we not use the term when refering to the magnification of an >>image by physically moving closer. The depth of field and perspective may [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No. If you keep subject magnification the same, depth But, this is the crux of the matter. We don't want to keep the subject magnification constant. We want to play with subject magnification which is what the whole idea of this thread is about. of field doesn't > change. What does change with focal length is perspective, which is why > "walking zoom" and lens zoom are different. The change in perspective > may be desirable, or it may not. Let me try this from a different angle. Imagine for a moment that you and I are the first two opticians in the world who think up the idea of moving one element of a multiple element lens farther away from the other. I say to you, "Isn't this neat? As we zoom this element farther away, the image gets bigger!" And, you reply, "Yeah, that's nice. But what's going to sell this baby is what it does to perspective!" We immediately part company, and start marketing our own version of the lens. Who do you think will be the better sales person? Take Care, Dudley Beauty isn't always in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, it can be found in the mind as well. > > Depth of field does not change with focal length -- it changes with > > focal distance. See the links in my prior message. > > But, two different telephotos will likely produce differing depth of field > at the same focal length, right? Given the same magnification, wrong. >Besides, find an old telephoto lens, lets > say a pre 1980's vintage, and look at the depth of field scale on the lens > as you move the focal length. Then come back and tell me that the depth of > field does not change with focal length. Now try that again but this time changing the focus distance to maintain the same magnification as you zoom. > But, this is the crux of the matter. We don't want to keep the subject > magnification constant. No point in comparing apples to oranges then. >We want to play with subject magnification which is > what the whole idea of this thread is about. I don't remember the OP saying that? In fact these were his words : "take pictures without a zoom lens to learn composition". MrT. MrT. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>>> While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left. >>>>> So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>Some people are just too lazy to zoom with their feet. They would rather >>spend money, lots of it, and let technology create their art. > That childish response is actually correct. Moving with your feet is > *not* the same thing as zooming (changing focal length) because it > changes *perspective*, which zooming does not. It's why a "dolly zoom" > is not the same as lens zoom alone. True, but since we often use zoom not to acquire the specific kind of perspective which only a specific focal length can give, but simply to catch the object of interest at an image filling size, "zooming with the feet" is a perfectly intelligible and useful concept. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > True, but since we often use zoom not to acquire the specific kind of > perspective which only a specific focal length can give This where everyone seem to get messed up. Focal length has no effect on perspective, so "acquire the specific kind of perspective which only a specific focal length can give" is a false statement, because it is only subject distance that effects perspective. > but simply to > catch the object of interest at an image filling size, "zooming with > the feet" is a perfectly intelligible and useful concept. "Filling the frame" is THE important concept here, as it maximises the use of the capture medium. "Filling the frame" can be achieved "Zooming" OR "Getting closer", but these are mutually exclusive and you can't combine the two and "Zoom closer". In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got confused from there. On Jan 22, 7:57 pm, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > True, but since we often use zoom not to acquire the specific kind of > perspective which only a specific focal length can give This where everyone seem to get messed up. Focal length has no effect on perspective, so "acquire the specific kind of perspective which only a specific focal length can give" is a false statement, because it is only subject distance that effects perspective. > but simply to > catch the object of interest at an image filling size, "zooming with > the feet" is a perfectly intelligible and useful concept. "Filling the frame" is THE important concept here, as it maximises the use of the capture medium. "Filling the frame" can be achieved "Zooming" OR "Getting closer", but these are mutually exclusive and you can't combine the two and "Zoom closer". In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got confused from there. Oh gosh is that what happened? Look more to me like a couple of idiots waving their wangs at each other for no good reason when it was obvious what the OP meant.. > "Filling the frame" is THE important concept here, as it maximises the > use of the capture medium. "Filling the frame" can be achieved > "Zooming" OR "Getting closer", but these are mutually exclusive and > you can't combine the two and "Zoom closer". The important concept here is to maximize your capture medium while maximizing your creativity engine. If the theme of your picture doesn't require you to "Fill the frame" with the subject one can still get off their dead a.s and strive for proper composition by "zooming with their feet." > In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical > one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got > confused from there. No, it started out, as usual, with that little piece of toilet paper I had clinging to the bottom of my shoe making another funny comment about my beautiful sweet succulent a.s. > Oh gosh is that what happened? Look more to me like a couple of idiots > waving their wangs at each other for no good reason when it was > obvious what the OP meant.. Welcome to Usenet. This is what happens when a couple of old farts that have nothing else left in life other than getting into mindless pissing contests and trying to split hairs that were never there. Rita > > "Filling the frame" is THE important concept here, as it maximises the > > use of the capture medium. "Filling the frame" can be achieved [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Rita Hi Rita, I was going to ask why you insist on cross-posting this and several other things across so many groups. But instead after reading this thread I will thank you for the entertainment. That Dudley fellow is a hoot! Too bad about his lack of basic photographic knowledge and his lack of redirection skills, but watching him and Navas go at it was hilarious. Classic! Give your dog a good hard pat on the side from me. Thanks again for the laughs, all my best, Jim >> Welcome to Usenet. This is what happens when a couple of old farts >> that have nothing else left in life other than getting into mindless [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > hilarious. Classic! Give your dog a good hard pat on the side from > me. Cross-posting is mandatory for everyone's enjoyment. I wouldn't want to leave out the folks down under. Yep, I enjoyed this one as well. It's good to see Dudley spank Navas! The truth, though, is Navas is not a challenge and after tearing him a new a.shole back in the 28.8 days, I now consider him irrelevant. Remy says thank you. > Thanks again for the laughs, all my best, Glad to be of service! Rita In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got confused from there. I'd say it's a case of purists versus pragmatists. But, I'd like to know when the term zoom (which probably referred simply to the moving of one lens element away from another when applied to the first zoom lens) suddenly aquired such a rigidly legalistic and inflexible meaning. Is it against the law to think of getting closer to the subject as "zooming in on it"? Sometimes the mould of academia does more to kill creativity than it does to foster it. So Long Folks, Dudley Beauty isn't always found in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, it can be found in the mind as well. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems PixelPix <mail@pixelpix.com.au> wrote: >> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >>>>> While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left. >> >>>>> So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> True, but since we often use zoom not to acquire the specific kind of >> perspective which only a specific focal length can give > This where everyone seem to get messed up. Focal length has no > effect on perspective, so "acquire the specific kind of perspective > which only a specific focal length can give" is a false statement, > because it is only subject distance that effects perspective. What is the "distance to the subject" in the case of a landscape photograph ranging from near foreground to distant horizon? Is the subject the person leaning against a tree six feet from the camera, or the full moon rising over the horizon, some quarter of a million miles away? The impossibility of answering such questions, plus the theory of perspective projection in images which began with the painters and geometers of the Renaissance, is the reason many of us consider that perspective is a property of the entire image, not just "the subject", and certainly not "distance to the subject". > In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical > one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got > confused from there. It's impossible to escape confusion if you think perspective has to do with "distance to the subject". SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] >> In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical >> one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got >> confused from there. > > It's impossible to escape confusion if you think perspective has to do > with "distance to the subject". It's interesting that, if you talk to 98% of the photographers and camera sales persons, they will think about "zooming" in terms of image magnification and not perspective. Why else does it say "4x" or "6x" or "10x" on the front of most point and shoot cameras? Is the manufacturer referring to a six times flattening effect of perspective as you zoom in? I think not. The remaining 2% of academic photographic purists seem to be confusing the telephoto effect of compressing perspective as the most identifiable characteristic of a "zoom" lens. True, its one characteristic, but it's neither the only characteristic, nor the most significant. Why is it that the 2% of academic purists must always think they are right and the 98% of practitioners must always be wrong? Take Care, Dudley Beauty isn't always found in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, it is found in the mind as well. > >> In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical > >> one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Beauty isn't always found in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, it is > found in the mind as well. Have you used or heard the term "hot water heater"? Why would you need to heat water that is already hot? And yet 98% of water heater users refer to the water heater as a "hot water heater." I hope the power of analogy is not lost on you. :-) >> It's interesting that, if you talk to 98% of the photographers and camera >> sales persons, they will think about "zooming" in terms of image [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> Why is it that the 2% of academic purists must always think they are right >> and the 98% of practitioners must always be wrong? >Have you used or heard the term "hot water heater"? Why would you >need to heat water that is already hot? And yet 98% of water heater >users refer to the water heater as a "hot water heater." > >I hope the power of analogy is not lost on you. :-) LOL! Like my ex, having said something nonsensical, exclaiming, "You knew what I meant!" (If I really knew what she meant, I wouldn't have asked.) When we use terms improperly, we only serve to confuse the discussion and hinder understanding, a serious disservice to those that aren't sufficiently expert to know the difference. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >>> It's interesting that, if you talk to 98% of the photographers and >>> camera [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > and hinder understanding, a serious disservice to those that aren't > sufficiently expert to know the difference. By the way, does your "hot water heater" let your hot water become "cold" water before it heats it? No, your "hot water heater" heats your hot water so that it doesn't become cold. If it allowed water to become like ice, would not you call a repair person? Like I said, John, have you heard of logic? Even More Amused, Dudley > No, your "hot water heater" heats your hot water so that it doesn't > become cold. If it allowed water to become like ice, would not you > call a repair person? > > Like I said, John, have you heard of logic? COOL! You're wasting your breath on John. Rita >> No, your "hot water heater" heats your hot water so that it doesn't >> become cold. If it allowed water to become like ice, would not you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >COOL! You're wasting your breath on John. He is indeed. I'm not persuaded by illogic no matter how many times it's repeated, and I'm totally unimpressed by insults, including yours. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >>> No, your "hot water heater" heats your hot water so that it doesn't >>> become cold. If it allowed water to become like ice, would not you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > He is indeed. I'm not persuaded by illogic no matter how many times > it's repeated, and I'm totally unimpressed by insults, including yours. I know, John. You are only impressed with your own wit. But, judging by your hot water heater logic, you really shouldn't engage others in a battle of wits when you are so completely unarmed. Feeling Philosophical, Dudley > Have you used or heard the term "hot water heater"? Why would you > need to heat water that is already hot? And yet 98% of water heater > users refer to the water heater as a "hot water heater." Wrong! Depending on the application it can be called a booster heater or tempering tank. Some commercial applications need to boost standard 120º-140º hot water to 180º for safety and sanitary reasons. Nothing beats a kick-a.s 480V three-phase booster heater! Rita >> Have you used or heard the term "hot water heater"? Why would you >> need to heat water that is already hot? And yet 98% of water heater [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >120º-140º hot water to 180º for safety and sanitary reasons. Nothing beats >a kick-a.s 480V three-phase booster heater! Talk about scrambling -- LOL! SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) > > Have you used or heard the term "hot water heater"? Why would you > > need to heat water that is already hot? And yet 98% of water heater [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Rita Got one of those in your house? Delta or Y configuration for the elements? What other 3-phase devices do you have installed at home? What are you washing that needs to be sanitized so? :-) Hmm... Got a picture? :-) No, never mind. :-) Typically, I've seen a tempering valve used with a commercial water heater to supply domestic hot water if a stand alone domestic water heater was not warranted, i.e. a restaurant setting, but not a school with a cafeteria. I suspect you should look up what a tempering tank really is and then I will let you use the term "tepid water heater" when referring to the water heater when installed in such situations. I always find it interesting to see what people actual do and don't know. :-) Pleasant wishes, Jim >> > Have you used or heard the term "hot water heater"? Why would you >> > need to heat water that is already hot? And yet 98% of water heater [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >I always find it interesting to see what people actual do and don't >know. :-) Especially in the case of Rita. :) SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >>> > Have you used or heard the term "hot water heater"? Why would you >>> > need to heat water that is already hot? And yet 98% of water heater [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Especially in the case of Rita. :) At least, John, Rita isn't running around telling people to get their hot water heaters fixed. Wink, Dudley >>> Have you used or heard the term "hot water heater"? Why would you >>> need to heat water that is already hot? And yet 98% of water heater [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What are you washing that needs to be sanitized so? :-) Hmm... Got a > picture? :-) No, never mind. :-) Geez! I must have pricked a nerve? > Typically, I've seen a tempering valve used with a commercial water > heater to supply domestic hot water if a stand alone domestic water > heater was not warranted, i.e. a restaurant setting, but not a school > with a cafeteria. Haven't been out much? Some food service establishments have strict requirements of instantaneous and constant180º water. It's easier and more efficient to boost it from 120º-140º than it is from the sub 60º of the cold supply. > I suspect you should look up what a tempering tank really is and then > I will let you use the term "tepid water heater" when referring to the > water heater when installed in such situations. It's all perspective and what level of "tempering" is needed for certain applications. But if you are thinking of residential tempering tanks of yesteryear you are corect. > I always find it interesting to see what people actual do and don't > know. :-) I always find it necessary to follow net etiquette and sprinkle in a little bullshit with facts so as to stimulate and weed out the idiots. :-) Rita >> I always find it interesting to see what people actual do and don't >> know. :-) > >I always find it necessary to follow net etiquette and sprinkle in a little >bullshit with facts so as to stimulate and weed out the idiots. :-) And here we thought it was just plain old bullshit. Live and learn I guess. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) On Jan 22, 12:07 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical > >> one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Beauty isn't always found in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, it is > found in the mind as well. Have you used or heard the term "hot water heater"? Why would you need to heat water that is already hot? And yet 98% of water heater users refer to the water heater as a "hot water heater." I hope the power of analogy is not lost on you. :-) Have you heard of logical falacies, John? It seems that the power of logic is lost on you. I notice that you didn't have a rebuttal. Somewhat Amused, Dudley > On Jan 22, 12:07 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It appears that you also have difficulty using a news reader. I'm sorry you are confused and wrong; but other than as a very limited form of entertainment you have said nothing correctly. You seem to have a fundamental failure to understand the difference between perspective, magnification, focal length, optical zoom and the concept of "zooming with your feet" which is, weather you like it or not, changing your perspective and is not the equivalent of optically zooming. The post below from PixelPix clearly explains perspective. I hope you will read it and become somewhat educated. I would like to think that you are not the idiot that you appear to be from your posts, but I have been wrong before. Have a Happy Day, Jim > >> In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical > >> one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > sales persons, they will think about "zooming" in terms of image > magnification and not perspective. That's because zooming has nothing to do with perspective. (personally I think of it in terms of FOV) > Why else does it say "4x" or "6x" or > "10x" on the front of most point and shoot cameras? Is the manufacturer > referring to a six times flattening effect of perspective as you zoom in? I > think not. There is no flattening effect, perspective does not change (see above). Take a photo with a 28mm.... from the same camera position now take a section of that original photo using a 300mm. Print the 300mm..... now print the 28mm at a size that will overlay the 300mm. What happens? They match perfectly! > The remaining 2% of academic photographic purists seem to be confusing the > telephoto effect of compressing perspective as the most identifiable > characteristic of a "zoom" lens. True, its one characteristic, but it's > neither the only characteristic, nor the most significant. No the "academic purists" don't think that at all.... see above. > It's interesting that, if you talk to 98% of the photographers and camera > sales persons, they will think about "zooming" in terms of image > magnification and not perspective. That's because zooming has nothing to do with perspective. (personally I think of it in terms of FOV) > Why else does it say "4x" or "6x" or > "10x" on the front of most point and shoot cameras? Is the manufacturer > referring to a six times flattening effect of perspective as you zoom in? > I > think not. There is no flattening effect, perspective does not change (see above). See Below. Take a photo with a 28mm.... from the same camera position now take a section of that original photo using a 300mm. Print the 300mm..... now print the 28mm at a size that will overlay the 300mm. What happens? They match perfectly! I think your eyes are worse than mind, and Ive only got 2% vision. See Below. > The remaining 2% of academic photographic purists seem to be confusing the > telephoto effect of compressing perspective as the most identifiable > characteristic of a "zoom" lens. True, its one characteristic, but it's > neither the only characteristic, nor the most significant. No the "academic purists" don't think that at all.... see above. You're wrong, and so am I. The academics I've talked to do, I've just mistaken you folks for academics. See Below. Here's a section from an article you might want to check out, and I can point you to about another 60, if you want. FOCAL-LENGTH AND PERSPECTIVE There's a bit more about the focal length than just the coverage of a certain angle of view - there's always distinct effect on the relationship between the objects within a scene. All picture by Michael Wagner. Let's have a look at a relatively wide focal lenght first: 28mm. The following image samples show 4 trees with an equal distance between neighbour trees. At the wide setting it seems that this distance actually increases dramatically towards the foreground (exponential behaviour of the distance). It other words: the tree to the left seems to be totally seperated from the rest of the gang. The background seems to be far in the distance. The next picture has a more natural view at about 50mm. The perspective is obviously much less extreme. Due to our real life experience we can guess that the distance between the trees is roughly the same though the seperation is still visible (d^2 behaviour). Now we have a 100mm lens. The trees seem to group here with a seemingly small distance between the trees. Compared to the previous sample the now enlarged background suddenly moved towards the main object. The scene is compressed now. At 200mm the effect increases even more. The group of trees seems to be virtually on the same distance plane. The background may be blurry (due to the small depth-of-field) but it seems to be just a few meters away. We speak of a "flat" perspective in this case. OBJECT ISOLATION An object can be seperated from its environment by various methods. E.g. you can use a very wide lens to sort the scene into distinctive layers. However, while you seperate the object the environment is still visible which may be disturbing because -say- the background is very ugly. Sometimes there's a workaround for this problem: we choose a very small depth-of-field so only the main subject is in focus while everything in front or behind the focus plane gets blurry and therefore virtually unimportant. Have a look at the 1st sample below. The blue marble to right right sucks the view from the first look. This is a natural reaction because the brain scans for the most contrasty subject first. The isolation of the object due to its "outstanding" sharpness is very significant here. by Michael Wagner Wanna see a perverse example ... Imagine to be in the Himalayas at a nice sunset and all you shoot is a beautiful rose ... The result is not all too bad I think! A small DOF is also a common technique for portrait photography. Usually it is quite difficult to find the right balance between people, that are chosen to be the main subject, and their environment. A sharp background is often distracting here so a large aperture should be used to focus the attention on the point of interest. by Randhir Amoganathan See Link: http://photoinf.com/General/Klaus_Schroiff/Perspective.htm Those of you who have been perpetuating the myth that focal length does not effect depth of field, or that the perspective is not flattened by a telephoto lens really must read from more sources. Hysterically Amused, Dudley > > It's interesting that, if you talk to 98% of the photographers and camera > > sales persons, they will think about "zooming" in terms of image [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > Hysterically Amused, > Dudley If you look at the samples you will notice that the CAMERA POSITION HAS CHANGED..... eg the distance to the objects within the image has been altered and IT IS THIS that has changed the perspective and the relationship between the objects and NOT the focal length. >> [SNIP] >> Hysterically Amused, >> Dudley >If you look at the samples you will notice that the CAMERA POSITION >HAS CHANGED..... eg the distance to the objects within the image has >been altered and IT IS THIS that has changed the perspective and the >relationship between the objects and NOT the focal length. You're wasting your time. I'm beginning to think he's a troll. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:53:14 -0800 (PST), PixelPix > <m...@pixelpix.com.au> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > John Navas > Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) Perhaps. :-( "Watch out for that revolving door! ......What re-re-vol-vol-ving- ving-door-door?" lol On Jan 23, 8:36 am, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It's interesting that, if you talk to 98% of the photographers and > > camera [quoted text clipped - 127 lines] > Hysterically Amused, > Dudley If you look at the samples you will notice that the CAMERA POSITION HAS CHANGED..... eg the distance to the objects within the image has been altered and IT IS THIS that has changed the perspective and the relationship between the objects and NOT the focal length. But, it's exactly what we are talking about. You take what equipment you have, decide what shot you want, or wander around until you find one you can take with the camera and lens you have at your disposal, and then you take the picture. Nobody said anything about maintaining a certain perspective, depth of field, or anything else. Especially camera position. In its most generic sense, zooming is commonly taken as the magnification of an image. In an earlier post, someone stated that to use a word in a non-standard way simply muddies the waters. Well, if you are using the term zoom in a way that only 2% of people use it, and are ridiculing the other 98%, then are you not the one who is muddying the water? Think about this ligically. Curious, Dudley > On Jan 23, 8:36 am, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 153 lines] > Curious, > Dudley It seems that you have failed to understand the thread itself, as much as the concepts that it contains. :( Giving up, Rusty On Jan 23, 9:35 am, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud...@gmail.com> wrote: > "PixelPix" <m...@pixelpix.com.au> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 170 lines] > Curious, > Dudley It seems that you have failed to understand the thread itself, as much as the concepts that it contains. :( Giving up, Rusty Rusty, this thread started because someone used a word in its generic sense, and was ridiculed for it. I supported the original poster, and now I am being ridiculed for not using a word in the same way that you would have me use it. This thread is really about symantix, and has little to do with lenses in any other aspect than the verbiage is the pretext for intolerence. Now, if I can't use a word in a slightly different way, yet in a way that 98% of the people both understand and accept, then what hope have we in coming to a common ground of acceptance in more volatile areas like religion, politics, civil rights? I can truthfully say that this conference contains some of THE most intolerant people I have ever met. But, it's been sooo much fun shooting you down, especially John's water-heater logic. I can asure you, he'll never hear the end of that one. On the other hand, it sounds like there are some good photographers here. Stick around, and maybe I'll tell you about when I chatted with Sir Bob Geldorf, the then lead singer of the Boomtown Rats. That was a concert, John, you would have given your eye teeth to shoot. Grinning, Dudley > On Jan 23, 9:35 am, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 181 lines] > Rusty, this thread started because someone used a word in its generic sense, > and was ridiculed for it. Yes it started that way, but then quickly changed to where the majority of this thread has been about your statements that clearly display a lack of understanding of the interaction between focal length & subject distance and how this effects perspective. > I supported the original poster, and now I am being ridiculed for not using > a word in the same way that you would have me use it. We know what Rita meant by the original statement, but this does not change the fact that it is an incorrect use of word "zoom". The word implies a particular technique with very particular results.... As I stated earlier, both zooming and moving your feet are valid techniques, but they are mutually exclusive and cannot be interchanged while expecting the same results. It's like petrol and diesel, both are fuels, but get them mixed up and the desire result of going from A to B will not achieved. > This thread is really about symantix, and has little to do with lenses in > any other aspect than the verbiage is the pretext for intolerence. The vast majority of this thread has been to do with lenses. > Now, if I can't use a word in a slightly different way, yet in a way that > 98% of the people both understand and accept, then what hope have we in > coming to a common ground of acceptance in more volatile areas like > religion, politics, civil rights? Quoting % that you picked out of the air is total BS and does nothing to support your argument. > I can truthfully say that this conference contains some of THE most > intolerant people I have ever met. > > But, it's been sooo much fun shooting you down, especially John's > water-heater logic. I can asure you, he'll never hear the end of that one. The only person that you have "shot down" is yourself, as you have repeatedly displayed you lack of understanding of the subject. Many people have simply tried to explain the matter at hand and before you cast the "intolerance" stone, I would suggest that you have a re-read of your own threads and the insults that they contain. > On the other hand, it sounds like there are some good photographers here. There are and it's a pity that you fail to recognise them. > Stick around, and maybe I'll tell you about when I chatted with Sir Bob > Geldorf, the then lead singer of the Boomtown Rats. That was a concert, > John, you would have given your eye teeth to shoot. Woop Doop! Totally given up, Rusty On Jan 23, 11:10 am, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud...@gmail.com> wrote: > "PixelPix" <m...@pixelpix.com.au> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 207 lines] > sense, > and was ridiculed for it. Yes it started that way, but then quickly changed to where the majority of this thread has been about your statements that clearly display a lack of understanding of the interaction between focal length & subject distance and how this effects perspective. > I supported the original poster, and now I am being ridiculed for not > using > a word in the same way that you would have me use it. We know what Rita meant by the original statement, but this does not change the fact that it is an incorrect use of word "zoom". The word implies a particular technique with very particular results.... As I stated earlier, both zooming and moving your feet are valid techniques, but they are mutually exclusive and cannot be interchanged while expecting the same results. It's like petrol and diesel, both are fuels, but get them mixed up and the desire result of going from A to B will not achieved. > This thread is really about symantix, and has little to do with lenses in > any other aspect than the verbiage is the pretext for intolerence. The vast majority of this thread has been to do with lenses. > Now, if I can't use a word in a slightly different way, yet in a way that > 98% of the people both understand and accept, then what hope have we in > coming to a common ground of acceptance in more volatile areas like > religion, politics, civil rights? Quoting % that you picked out of the air is total BS and does nothing to support your argument. > I can truthfully say that this conference contains some of THE most > intolerant people I have ever met. > > But, it's been sooo much fun shooting you down, especially John's > water-heater logic. I can asure you, he'll never hear the end of that one. The only person that you have "shot down" is yourself, as you have repeatedly displayed you lack of understanding of the subject. Many people have simply tried to explain the matter at hand and before you cast the "intolerance" stone, I would suggest that you have a re-read of your own threads and the insults that they contain. > On the other hand, it sounds like there are some good photographers here. There are and it's a pity that you fail to recognise them. > Stick around, and maybe I'll tell you about when I chatted with Sir Bob > Geldorf, the then lead singer of the Boomtown Rats. That was a concert, > John, you would have given your eye teeth to shoot. Woop Doop! Totally given up, Rusty Good, then maybe we can get a serious discussion underway. Hopeful, Dudley > On Jan 23, 11:10 am, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 270 lines] > Hopeful, > Dudley If it has nothing to do with photography, then maybe you will have a chance. On Jan 23, 12:13 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud...@gmail.com> wrote: > "PixelPix" <m...@pixelpix.com.au> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 285 lines] > Hopeful, > Dudley If it has nothing to do with photography, then maybe you will have a chance. Rusty, I thought you had given up? Here's a question for you: Let's say you've just been given a shot at covering a major news event for a big circulation newspaper. When you get to the event, your subject is surrounded by an impenetrable circle of newshounds, and you can't get past the outer perimeter of the group to get a shot. You've talked your way into the position, and all you have is an auto-focus point-and-shoot camera with which to capture your award winning image. I'll give you this much, it's a Canon "A" series camera, or something similar, so you have a good lens, manual control should you want to use it, and fairly adequate white balance / ISO range. But, a limited flash. How can you get a well-framed, properly exposed / focused image that will need minimal cropping in order to get your picture on the front page and command the big pay cheque? Interested, Dudley [CHOMP] > Rusty, I thought you had given up? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You've talked your way into the position, and all you have is an auto-focus > point-and-shoot camera with which to capture your award winning image. Why was I given a shot at covering a major new event for a big circulation newspaper, when all I have is a P&S? The news editor needs his head read! lol > I'll > give you this much, it's a Canon "A" series camera, or something similar, so [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > need minimal cropping in order to get your picture on the front page and > command the big pay cheque? Well seeing that I cant get closer, it depends on the shot...... I could shoot longer FL to selectively compose minimal elements within the frame, or I could shoot wider and go for a more overall view of the scene. Both compositions could well be worthy of media release if they depict the moment, event, story or editor's "angle" faithfully. Depending on the light, I could select a higher ISO to help maximise the use of ambient and flash, and this would also help minimise motion blur due to camera movement when longer FLs are used. Shooting shorter FLs may allow for a lower ISO to be used effectively. In the extreme (and if light is very low) I could also "push" beyond the camera's correct exposure in order to gain a faster shutter speed, knowing full well that some post capture processing will be required to lift exposure and minimise noise... knowing the editor and intended use of the image would be handy here, as this would allow me to access just how far things could be pushed. Then of course there is the final option.... and that is despite all my best efforts, I still come away empty handed. > [CHOMP] > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Then of course there is the final option.... and that is despite all > my best efforts, I still come away empty handed. Oh I forgot my question..... The point of this is?? > Dudley Hanks wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Then of course there is the final option.... and that is despite all > my best efforts, I still come away empty handed. Oh I forgot my question..... The point of this is?? Oh, I don't know, If you pay attention, you might just learn something from an old, blind photog who's been around the block a few times. > > Dudley Hanks wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > Oh, I don't know, If you pay attention, you might just learn something from > an old, blind photog who's been around the block a few times. Just make your point drop the BS. >> Oh, I don't know, If you pay attention, you might just learn something from >> an old, blind photog who's been around the block a few times. > >Just make your point drop the BS. Also: * Quote and trim properly * Start a new thread SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >>> Oh, I don't know, If you pay attention, you might just learn something >>> from [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > * Quote and trim properly > * Start a new thread I didn't realize there are legal rquirements for quoting and trimming, John. As mentioned before, I have only 2% of normal vision, so your visual expectations don't really mean much to me. You really are a mean SOB; not even making allowances for a disabled user. (tsk, tsk, tsk) Your intolerance is showing again, John. By the way, the challenge is open to you, too. What do you say? Can you improve on Rusty's fairly good start? Somewhat Taken Aback, Dudley >> Also: >> * Quote and trim properly >> * Start a new thread >I didn't realize there are legal rquirements for quoting and trimming, John. >As mentioned before, I have only 2% of normal vision, so your visual >expectations don't really mean much to me. That's rude. If you're not going to respect others, then you shouldn't be participating. >You really are a mean SOB; not even making allowances for a disabled user. >(tsk, tsk, tsk) Playing on your disability is offensive. >Your intolerance is showing again, John. Your discourtesy is showing again. >By the way, the challenge is open >to you, too. >What do you say? Can you improve on Rusty's fairly good start? I'm not into pointless games. Thank you for at least doing a better job of quoting. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >>> Also: >>> * Quote and trim properly [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Thank you for at least doing a better job of quoting. That's interesting, John, I didn't do anything different. Wonder why it looks better to you? Baffled, Dudley >> Thank you for at least doing a better job of quoting. >That's interesting, John, I didn't do anything different. Wonder why it >looks better to you? Probably because of the material you were quoting. Ouchlook Express is a crappy newsreader with serious quoting problems that can depend on the material being quoted. Either install the tool I recommended, or get a better newsreader. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >>> Thank you for at least doing a better job of quoting. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > material being quoted. Either install the tool I recommended, or get a > better newsreader. But, John, first of all, where do you get the authority to tell me to do anything? Please give me a link and point me toward your legal authority. God, you really are an arrogant a.shole! Second, what makes you think that the tool you "ordered" me to use is accessible with my screen reader, hardware profile, and operating system. You really do assume a lot, and you have heard what that does? Finally, I really have problems taking advice from someone who thinks hot water heaters should let the water cool down in order to avoid verbal redundancy. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message