 |
 | 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 / March 2008Habitat For Humanity Loves The D3!!
Even at a 1,000mm handheld I didn't get a shot of Jimmy Carter, but I did get an ultra sharp shot of this guy kicking up some sawdust. Damn, that old 2X TC kicks a.s! <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/habitat.htm> Rita > Even at a 1,000mm handheld I didn't get a shot of Jimmy Carter, but I did > get an ultra sharp shot of this guy kicking up some sawdust. Damn, that > old > 2X TC kicks a.s! > > <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/habitat.htm> Is that harsh over-sharpening just inherent to the D3 then? It appears in all your shots and so far you haven't admitted to doing it in post-processing, so that only leaves us to assume the camera is doing it. >> Even at a 1,000mm handheld I didn't get a shot of Jimmy Carter, but >> I did get an ultra sharp shot of this guy kicking up some sawdust. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > in post-processing, so that only leaves us to assume the camera is > doing it. Are you looking at the 1024 x 768 or the one in the web page? The one in the web page is HTML resized and is terribly oversharpened due to that. The 1024 x 768 image is what is coming out of the D3 except for being resized for web viewing. The 500/4 is a very sharp lens, even with the 2X TC. It's just a great combination that brings out a lot of detail that most people aren't used to seeing, it seems. Rita > >> Even at a 1,000mm handheld I didn't get a shot of Jimmy Carter, but > >> I did get an ultra sharp shot of this guy kicking up some sawdust. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Rita Sharpening issue aside, you need to watch those highlights as the blown areas are quite distracting. > Sharpening issue aside, you need to watch those highlights as the > blown areas are quite distracting. Oh well, lighting wasn't the best for this but it will do. Rita > > Sharpening issue aside, you need to watch those highlights as the > > blown areas are quite distracting. > > Oh well, lighting wasn't the best for this but it will do. > > Rita ....and just what has that got to do with the price of eggs in China?? Over-exposure is over-exposure. I guess it's a pity that you can't practice what you preach and "get it right in camera". >>> Sharpening issue aside, you need to watch those highlights as the >>> blown areas are quite distracting. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > China?? Over-exposure is over-exposure. I guess it's a pity that you > can't practice what you preach and "get it right in camera". The sad thing (I believe) is that "Rita" thinks that he/she/it _is_ getting it right. Pity that it can't sees its pictures the way that most of us do. Allen >>> Even at a 1,000mm handheld I didn't get a shot of Jimmy Carter, but >>> I did get an ultra sharp shot of this guy kicking up some sawdust. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > just a great combination that brings out a lot of detail that most people > aren't used to seeing, it seems. Still looks over-sharpened. And why do you still say "Best viewed full size to be awed by the D3's magical properties." yet only provide an SVGA version. Or is SVGA the D3's maximum size? > Still looks over-sharpened. And why do you still say "Best viewed > full size to be awed by the D3's magical properties." yet only > provide an SVGA version. Or is SVGA the D3's maximum size? It is what it is and you got exactly what you paid for. Rita >> Still looks over-sharpened. And why do you still say "Best viewed >> full size to be awed by the D3's magical properties." yet only >> provide an SVGA version. Or is SVGA the D3's maximum size? > > It is what it is and you got exactly what you paid for. Guess you got ripped off then. Shoulda used a camera phone. In rec.photo.digital Rita Berkowitz <ritaberk2008@aol.com> wrote: >>> Even at a 1,000mm handheld I didn't get a shot of Jimmy Carter, but >>> I did get an ultra sharp shot of this guy kicking up some sawdust. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> in post-processing, so that only leaves us to assume the camera is >> doing it. > Are you looking at the 1024 x 768 or the one in the web page? The one in > the web page is HTML resized and is terribly oversharpened due to that. The > 1024 x 768 image is what is coming out of the D3 except for being resized > for web viewing. The 500/4 is a very sharp lens, even with the 2X TC. It's > just a great combination that brings out a lot of detail that most people > aren't used to seeing, it seems. You don't need a particularly good camera or lens to produce very sharp 1024x768 images! Or are the photographs with which you advertise the virtues of this camera a subtle form of American irony?  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/] > Even at a 1,000mm handheld I didn't get a shot of Jimmy Carter, but I did > get an ultra sharp shot of this guy kicking up some sawdust. Damn, that old [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rita My American Robin would like to check your Chickadee. http://snipr.com/22ej8-kjyqbg Savageduck > My American Robin would like to check your Chickadee. > > http://snipr.com/22ej8-kjyqbg My inner-city chicken is so plump it will raise you two robins. <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/baltimore_chicken.htm> Rita > Rita Berkowitz wrote: > Even at a 1,000mm handheld I didn't get a shot of Jimmy Carter, but I > did get an ultra sharp shot of this guy kicking up some sawdust. > Damn, that old 2X TC kicks a.s! > > <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/habitat.htm> That's an odd shape for 1024x768. The Nikon must have elongated vertical pixels. ;-) I like the tree, though... almost looks like an old man's face. > Even at a 1,000mm handheld I didn't get a shot of Jimmy Carter, but I did > get an ultra sharp shot of this guy kicking up some sawdust. Damn, that old [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rita Rita - that is an amazing picture for handheld / 1000... and it shows off the terrific resolution of the camera too. >> Even at a 1,000mm handheld I didn't get a shot of Jimmy Carter, but I did >> get an ultra sharp shot of this guy kicking up some sawdust. Damn, that old [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Rita - that is an amazing picture for handheld / 1000... and it shows > off the terrific resolution of the camera too. It does? At 1024x768? How??? > >> Even at a 1,000mm handheld I didn't get a shot of Jimmy Carter, but I did > >> get an ultra sharp shot of this guy kicking up some sawdust. Damn, that old [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It does? At 1024x768? How??? It has "magical properties" remember. lol ;-) >>> Even at a 1,000mm handheld I didn't get a shot of Jimmy Carter, but I did >>> get an ultra sharp shot of this guy kicking up some sawdust. Damn, that old [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >It does? At 1024x768? How??? ITYM 1024x682 (or 682x1024). The "magical properties" must include getting the image size wrong. TR >>>> Even at a 1,000mm handheld I didn't get a shot of Jimmy Carter, but I did >>>> get an ultra sharp shot of this guy kicking up some sawdust. Damn, that old [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > TR Copied from the original post: For 1024 x 768 click here. Allen >>>>> Even at a 1,000mm handheld I didn't get a shot of Jimmy Carter, but I did >>>>> get an ultra sharp shot of this guy kicking up some sawdust. Damn, that old [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Allen The dimensions for Rita's full size, 1024 x 768 image is 682 x 1024. TR >>>> Even at a 1,000mm handheld I didn't get a shot of Jimmy Carter, but I did >>>> get an ultra sharp shot of this guy kicking up some sawdust. Damn, that old [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >ITYM 1024x682 (or 682x1024). The "magical properties" must include >getting the image size wrong. The D3 and D300 images sizes are ~ 1:1.5 in aspect ratio. It is impossible to get a 4:3 image without cropping. Now her BS about full size is another story. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.