 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005Sailor lost on beach!
The suggestion I made a few weeks ago that a Panasonic P&S might capture detail in shadows past when a (Canon) DSLR sensor stops recording information would seem to hold up in view of some recent pics I took in ultra strong sunlight. I suppose almost everyong with a digital camera knows that the contrast range from full black and full white is pretty well impossible to meter for. Wedding Photographers use "fill flash" to avoid blowing highlights in a wedding dress and blacking out the groom's dark suit. Interestingly enough, I shot some scenes on Sunday in just those conditions. I used a speedlight on my 1D but the FZ20 I took along, I just used it "point and shoot", held in one hand. One of the shots here. http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm Douglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. > The suggestion I made a few weeks ago that a Panasonic P&S might capture > detail in shadows past when a (Canon) DSLR sensor stops recording [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > used it "point and shoot", held in one hand. One of the shots here. > http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm You make a claim but don't show any proof other than your opinion that the FZ20 is better than a dSLR. Well they both use a sensor so how can your claim about blown highlights. I contend you just don't understand photography. The fact you put a copyright notice on a "snapshot" that has no commercial value will support this claim. Bad photo busy background. Trying to show a historical event, bet those tourists weren't there the first time. > You make a claim but don't show any proof other than your opinion that the > FZ20 is better than a dSLR. Well they both use a sensor so how can your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Bad photo busy background. Trying to show a historical event, bet those > tourists weren't there the first time. Very well put Darrell. And your contribution to photography is?  SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. >> You make a claim but don't show any proof other than your opinion that >> the FZ20 is better than a dSLR. Well they both use a sensor so how can [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Very well put Darrell. > And your contribution to photography is? Doesn't matter what my contribution is. You put an example up for public discussion. You claim you 1D is bad compared to your FZ-20. My observation is based on a "snapshot" that you claim proves a point that is not backed up with a similar image. Your previous example had the Canon shot grossly underexposed... > > The suggestion I made a few weeks ago that a Panasonic P&S might capture > > detail in shadows past when a (Canon) DSLR sensor stops recording [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > photography. The fact you put a copyright notice on a "snapshot" that has no > commercial value will support this claim. Commericial value is decided by the marketplace, not by one guy sitting at his computer swilling one-too-many brewskis letting his I-AM-THE-GOD-OF-PHOTOGRAPHY temporal-lobe-neuron impluses play out over his keyboard. After all, there might be someone out there who's been waiting his whole life for a picture of a man in a Colonial uniform operating a sextant (or whatever). I wouldn't buy the shot, but, hey, it's a big world. Indeed, I'm always surprised by the kinds of things bought and sold on Ebay. Somewhere, someone is probably willing to part with good money for mouse placenta. > Bad photo busy background. Trying to show a historical event, bet those > tourists weren't there the first time. I guess that's rule #53 of the photographer's composition handbook: Thou shalt not take a shot with a busy background, even if it's the only shot thou hast? Maybe the guy was trying to capture the "event" of the re-enactment, in which case the tourists in the background are essential. Or maybe it was a contract job for which the client demanded, "..and I want a dork in a ball cap decorating every picture, too!" Who knows? And what's that got to with the dynamic range, anyway? It is a bit cheeky to attempt a comparison between two differents types of cameras using a single photo from the camera you liked the best, though I also get tired of the "DSLR's are so great you can get great exposures right through the lens cap as long as you shoot RAW!" type of post, too. > The suggestion I made a few weeks ago that a Panasonic P&S might capture > detail in shadows past when a (Canon) DSLR sensor stops recording [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Zero care factor for negative responses > from anonymous posters. This would only be valid if you had a shot from the 1D taken at the same time, otherwise it's just a nice shot that proves nothing. >The suggestion I made a few weeks ago that a Panasonic P&S might capture >detail in shadows past when a (Canon) DSLR sensor stops recording [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >just used it "point and shoot", held in one hand. One of the shots here. >http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm Both the shadows and highlights of this image are solid 8*8 jpeg blocks of color, and the highlights are blown. What exactly is your point? Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Both the shadows and highlights of this image are solid 8*8 jpeg blocks > of color, and the highlights are blown. > > What exactly is your point? Trolling again are we John? I'm awfully curious how you came to the conclusion that an image I posted for display - as opposed to one I post as a file for downloading... Which has been captured in TIFF mode and had all the EXIF data stripped from it during 30% compression and conversion to a JPG ...then saved at something like 20% of it's original size... Can yield such a wealth of information for your critique... Care to enlighten us? SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. >> Both the shadows and highlights of this image are solid 8*8 jpeg blocks >> of color, and the highlights are blown. >> What exactly is your point? >Trolling again are we John? I am not prone to trolling. You just don't like what I write. >I'm awfully curious how you came to the conclusion that an image I >posted for display - as opposed to one I post as a file for >downloading... Which has been captured in TIFF mode and had all the EXIF >data stripped from it during 30% compression and conversion to a JPG >...then saved at something like 20% of it's original size... Can yield >such a wealth of information for your critique... Care to enlighten us? Cut the crap. *YOU* offered this image to illustrate a point. If it is worthless to the point, then why have you linked to it? Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Interestingly enough, I shot some scenes on Sunday in just those > conditions. I used a speedlight on my 1D but the FZ20 I took along, I > just used it "point and shoot", held in one hand. One of the shots here. > http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm A shot with blown highlights and no shadow detail. Great example! It really illustrates the camera's ability to deal with wide dynamic range! I bet the 1D could have done much better, if you knew how to use it. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>Interestingly enough, I shot some scenes on Sunday in just those >>conditions. I used a speedlight on my 1D but the FZ20 I took along, I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I bet the 1D could have done much better, if you knew how to use it. Ahh yes. You just press the button, don't you Jeremy? No 1D that day but a 20D. Sorry, the 1D was doing wedding. http://www.ryadia.com/flinders-20D.htm Now before you start... Apples with apples, someone said. OK so the unfair advantage the 20D has is RAW mode capture. I minimized that advantage when I converted it to a JPEG with "Irfanview" and added my name then resized it and compressed it, exactly the same as I did with the Panasonic image. For all intent and purpose these images were brought to the Internet in exactly the same way. Program mode on both cameras. You could print the FZ20 pic but not the 20D one without editing. Douglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. > No 1D that day but a 20D. Sorry, the 1D was doing wedding. > http://www.ryadia.com/flinders-20D.htm Looks underexposed. Not surprising, given the subject; bright white in the center of the frame, and sand lit by the sun, with partial metering. You've lost shadow detail because of that. So, basically, what I said was correct. You underexposed the shot and are blaming the loss of shadow detail on the camera. I suppose if you want to complain about the ability of the automatic exposure system to deal with a scene like this, versus your p+s camera, then you'd have a point. Your p+s blew the highlights and lost shadow detail, but produced (near as can be determined from what you've posted) a better out-of-camera exposure than the SLR. The SLR underexposed the shot by, what do you figure, a full stop? In addition, your statement, "If this image were to be brightened to bring up the shadows, the highlights would blow out" is not correct. You should learn a little about post-processing. Of course, for this particular image, you can't bring all of the shadows up because they are clipped, according to the histogram, which is a different thing. But what is particularly amusing is that you specifically said that the p+s shot was an example of holding both highlight and shadow detail, when in that shot the camera did neither. What it did was produce a better (more pleasing) out-of-camera exposure at the expense of both highlight and shadow detail. So when you're wondering why people (even those not in the habit of unthinkingly defending Canon, like me) are saying you're wrong, it's because, from everything you're posting, the faults you are seeing appear to be from operator error. Or, more fairly, operator inexperience or lack of skill with the equipment in question. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > So when you're wondering why people (even those not in the habit of > unthinkingly defending Canon, like me) are saying you're wrong, it's > because, from everything you're posting, the faults you are seeing > appear to be from operator error. Or, more fairly, operator > inexperience or lack of skill with the equipment in question. Very well put Jeremy. Not many people (like you) are such total bigots as to make a comment like: "1D could have done much better, if you knew how to use it." when the EV range is outside what a 1D sensor can capture by 4 stops. Absolutely brilliant stuff, Jeremy. Puts you right up there with all the other Zealots who haven't got a clue. What do you do? Not take the shot because the sun's out! Great stuff, mate. Better stick to something you know about than post your load of garbage. It only shows you for the idiot you are. You made a call thinking I wouldn't/couldn't call your bluff and when I did, get down to personal insults. What a piss poor example of human trash you are. At least the other trolls spread their bullshit thinner so it isn't as easily discovered. SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters and Jeremy Nixon's bullshit. > Very well put Jeremy. Not many people (like you) are such total bigots > as to make a comment like: "1D could have done much better, if you knew > how to use it." when the EV range is outside what a 1D sensor can > capture by 4 stops. Actually, if you look back up the thread, what I said was, "I bet the 1D could have done much better". That is, I've never used a 1D, so I can only go on experience using other cameras, and cannot say definitively that a 1D (or a 20D, for that matter) could do better. However, my bet is that it could, and I would be very surprised if it could not. > What do you do? Not take the shot because the sun's out! No. What I would do is expose the shot properly, which anyone looking at what you posted can tell that you didn't do. If I took the shot the way you did, I would consider that I blew the shot. I wouldn't be trying to blame it on the camera. > You made a call thinking I wouldn't/couldn't call your bluff What bluff? The shot was underexposed. That's not a bluff, that's what you posted -- an underexposed shot accompanied by a histogram showing even more clearly that it was underexposed. Have I misinterpreted the data you presented? If so, someone else will surely point out where I went wrong. What you're saying here is that the amount of shadow detail you lost was lost due to the inability of the camera to capture it. Yet the data you posted says that you had quite a lot of headroom and that the picture was underexposed -- that the picture *did not* capture the full range the camera was capable of capturing in that scene. Operator error. > and when I did, get down to personal insults. I didn't do that, either. I said it was down to operator error, and that you need to learn to use the equipment before you start blaming your faults on it. That's not an insult; there's nothing wrong with not being an expert. There's also nothing wrong, regardless of your level of experience, with blowing a shot. It happens. Some of us try to learn from it. Others blame the equipment. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Very well put Jeremy. Not many people (like you) are such total bigots >> as to make a comment like: "1D could have done much better, if you knew [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Others > blame the equipment. I suspect that Douglas will be the only person on the planet that is selling his 1D to get a fleet of FZ20's to use in auto mode. >What bluff? The shot was underexposed. We really can't tell from this image what the exposure was, but I guarantee, I could have taken the RAW data from this shot and mad a much better image out of it; even with the original JPEG. I don't have the 1D, but I have the 20D and 10D, and for bright sun with white, glossy fabrics, sunny f/14 is a safe-but-well-saturated exposure, if you're shooting RAW (sunny f/11 if the brightest highlights are matte). Shooting in the sun like that, there is really very little reason to use automatic exposure. Manual works much better, unless you're going to be zooming into shadow areas, etc. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >We really can't tell from this image what the exposure was, Oh, sorry; I didn't notice the EXIF data the first time I looked. This shot is under-exposed for most of the range by about 2 stops (it's sunny-f/22), which should still be quite useable, but he chose to leave it dark. I'd only under-expose this about a half stop (I consider sunny-f/11 normal matte exposure on the 20D) for the glossy white shirt, so it is about 1.5 stops darker than I would have exposed it. Should be somewhat salvageable, but with about 1.5 stops of missing latitude. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Jeremy posted a very accurate review of your image, Douglas, with no hint of a personal insult. His observation on the (lack of) skill of the operator was spot on. I note that *any* questioning of your 'skills' results in a blast of profanity - some people just refuse to learn. What sort of 'technician' would shoot a mainly white-clad person on a sunlit sandy beach in.. wait for it.. program mode, no exposure compensation, and partial metering...? And then you post the horribly (but *correctly*) underexposed result (that's what you *told* the camera to do), along with a histogram that should have taught you a valuable lesson. And then, of course, you blame the equipment. When your wrong choice of exposure methodology was pointed out, you respond with insults befitting the playground again. Any questions, folks? Take another look while it lasts - check out his comments, the EXIF data, and histogram: http://www.ryadia.com/flinders-20D.htm I've grabbed a copy of the page for non-commercial use (O; - anyone who wants to see it after Douglas inevitably pulls it, just ask here... > Jeremy posted a very accurate review of your image, Douglas, with no > hint of a personal insult. His observation on the (lack of) skill of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I've grabbed a copy of the page for non-commercial use (O; - anyone > who wants to see it after Douglas inevitably pulls it, just ask here... Troll is too kind a word for you Stevens. Vandal is more appropriate. How lucky are you your net worth is not enough to recover the costs of suing you for the defamation you posted about me? I might yet do it. Examples of differences are the things neither you or any of your kind ever post. No need to wonder why either with the responses you and Nixon make. Too scared someone will give you a basting for your effort. Not happy that I posted an unusual picture demonstrating the broad contrast range a FZ20 can capture. No. He speculated then that If I "knew how to use" my 1D I might get better results without him having a clue what the EV range of the camera actually is. Bait and more bait. As if that's not a troll. When I post a picture from a 20D, taken the same way as the FZ's was, demonstrating you can't have highlight and shadow detail when the (read Canon) sensor can't capture it ...and the shot is metered for the highlights. You and he go on an attack about my metering technique as if you actually have a clue yourself - which you don't. Not bad for couple of wannabes who've never owned the gear, used the gear or even seen it close up except to maybe drool over it in a magazine. Despite that, you're a couple of "experts" right enough. Just see Jeremy now with his Fisheye lens getting a portrait into perspective. LOL. Anyone interested in discovering if the $800 FZ20 will do what they want instead of a DSLR with many (often expensive)lenses will benefit from seeing what they can expect to get from either one if used the way most people would use their consumer cameras. In fact I'd say from the people I see with DSLR s that they rely on 'full auto' (green box mode) more often than any other mode. Like your little DSLR Sony is a really hot toy with manual exposure too, eh? Somewhere along the way you have to meter the light. I have a camera that is promoted by it's manufacturer as being "state of the art" at doing this... And just like your little plastic digicam, It's not. Take a vote and see how many people use program mode on their cameras. As if it's somehow a sin to buy a $2500 camera with an advanced exposure program and actually use it to let the camera calculate an exposure of an ever changing subject. Do you think for one minute, Canon could justify the cost of one of these things if you had to manually meter every scene? Wake up fool. If it's there, it's there to be used and if it doesn't work and another camera 1/3rd the price has the same function that does work, you'd have people believe I'm grossly incompetent for showing that to them... You're really are one sorry dude, Stevens. Not every subject is tied to a mooring pole at Port Lincoln, you know. You actually know what a histogram is?... That's a revelation. Now try and use it while an event is in progress and cloud moving around from overcast to bright sun. While you're at it, keep the white balance in check too. Watch your gear as you fight a bunch of other photographers for a shot at the action. Go on, you can do it. Just take a shot. Check the Histogram. Take another shot. fix the white balance. Take the final one... Oh sorry the subject got up and went home! That's why I sell my photos and you only dream about it, w.nker. SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. > Despite that, you're a couple of "experts" right enough. Just > see Jeremy now with his Fisheye lens getting a portrait into > perspective. LOL. At least mine would be in *focus*. Interesting, though. Of all the pictures I posted that I did with a fisheye, which ones did you think were portraits? > Take a vote and see how many people use program mode on their cameras. > As if it's somehow a sin to buy a $2500 camera with an advanced exposure > program and actually use it to let the camera calculate an exposure of > an ever changing subject. What's really sad is that I think it's possible that even *you* don't know whether you're complaining about the sensor's dynamic range or the camera's automatic exposure system. Partial metering, pointed at a dude wearing white on a beach in the sun? Underexposing? My God, how can they charge *money* for this thing?! > Not every subject is tied to a mooring pole at Port Lincoln, you know. > You actually know what a histogram is?... That's a revelation. Now try > and use it while an event is in progress and cloud moving around from > overcast to bright sun. Dang... how did photographers manage for all these years before they had histograms? Take the shot, run home, develop the film, check the density, run back out, take another one? That must have really sucked. Pity they couldn't have... you know... learned how light meters worked. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Jeremy Nixon a écrit : > Dang... how did photographers manage for all these years before they > had histograms? Take the shot, run home, develop the film, check the > density, run back out, take another one? That must have really sucked. Sunny 16? best, Frankie (insulting, blathering reply snipped) Zero care factor, huh? All that for an allegedly anonymous poster..? Zero skill, more like it. All of that verbiage was to justify Douglas' *choice* of no exposure compensation, Program mode, and partial metering on a semi-pro DSLR, shooting on a sunny, white-sandy beach (although you would never guess). Gee, I bet his weddings are interesting... Just as well there is one born every minute - that's the only way he could possibly make a buck out of photography (his business only operates out of a PO Box, I note - a suitable shopfront for a pretender like Douglas).. And Douglas has a bit of a reputation for bending the truth - how many frangipani prints have you sold again? (giggle) And now that your gallery is password protected (smirk), your sales may drop a little don't you think? Read *all* the replies, Douglas. Anyone supporting you? Do you think they are all me? They, and I, are all wrong, you're right as usual. Don't know why we just don't hand the group over to your inimitable expertise.. (Although perhaps it's best if we stay around - because 99% of the posts you make are of the 'look at me' type.) Anyway, keep dreamin'. Because *none* of your work is going to the Pool Room. (Last sentence will only mean something to those who have seen the classic Oz movie 'The Castle'.) Remainder is offtopic, read at your peril.. PS - In regard to my 'defamation' (bwahahah! - see 'Enlarging Digital Images' thread) - Douglas, unlike you, I don't bluff. I *have* sent a letter to ASIC and cc'd to the Qld Office of Fair Trading. It quotes your 'Graham Hunt' attempt to inflate the value of your alleged 'franchise', gives all the sordid details and IP traces, and I *fully*, and happily, identify myself to them. Actually, I doubt if anything much will come of it, as we all know your 'franchise', like your business, and your photography skills, are just pipedreams. But you keep smoking it.. and good luck. (O: > (insulting, blathering reply snipped) > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > business, and your photography skills, are just pipedreams. But you > keep smoking it.. and good luck. (O: You know bloody well nothing will happen *IF* you actually sent anything. It sounds to me like more of your fantastic imagination at work... Got some fresh dope, did you? Only people like you who break the law by inventing circumstances to suit their own idea of reality and defame honest and reputable business people need to concern themselves about what will happen to them. You know full well, you are the one at risk of legal action. It must get up your nose to discover I run a 100% totally legal corporate enterprise. That I pay my taxes when they are due and donate to charity as well as participate in community events. I suppose the fact you can't put up anything to support you absurd claims of my "seedy Past" has enraged your tiny mind to the point it caught your hair on fire - or is that just your bald patch showing through? But then you never bothered to find out anything about me or my companies, did you? Never asked who it was you were getting stuck into. Just sink the boot in, eh? He'll cave in like everyone you've piled sh.t on before. Not likely Stevens. I'm here and you better get used to it or get a job to occupy your sick and idle mind. When I refused to participate in Gisle's offer you goaded and prodded me with your taunts because I decided not to provide a mathematician with my formula. That's my choice, not yours. You can't taunt or gourd me into doing what I choose not to. Don't think I'll respond to your taunts about my business either because it need a real man, not a loser like you to actually pick up the phone and have a conversation with me... Never bothered to do that either, did you? Afraid I might discover your real age from the squeaky voice? Too late! When my factory manager posted about my process, you decided it was me, even though the IP address put him in another state to me at the time. Not good enough for you, you invent a whole load of bullshit like some science fiction writer and set about trying to make it true by repeating it at every opportunity... Nice tactics mate, nice. When I posted a crop of an image you claimed was out of focus which proves it was not, Which made you look about as amateurish and stupid as you surely are in real life... You come out slinging all your lies and fabricated fantasy while behaving like the disgusting excuse for a human being you are. What's up Stevens? did someone reposes your little green car or something? What is it about you that makes you taunt someone until they've had enough and no amount of money will matter in pursuing you? You are the sickest of sick people Stevens. You lie, you scheme, you taunt and why? Because you invented some load of bullshit and are hell bent on throwing it around so some might stick? Pathetic is the only word to describe you. In fact it's too nice for you but I refuse to lower myself any further towards your level. Arguing further with an idiot like you will only result in raising my BP. Not going to happen. Douglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. OT - Please pass this message by unless interested in soap operas that go nowhere... (Perhaps, Douglas, you might want to do the courteous thing and also mark *your* rants..) >When my factory manager posted about my process.. It's fascinating how the story changes as the months go by. First you wouldn't acknowledge it. Then you say it was your factory manager, ie an EMPLOYEE who fraudulently tried to boost the value of your (non-existent) franchise. Even though, in an earlier post from the EXACT SAME million pictures email address, you signed it off as DOUGLAS. Give me a break. And then you say: >.. even though the IP address put him in another state to me at the time NO, That is demonstrably FALSE. Here's the posting info: First, the one from GRAHAM HUNT (May 3, 2005) ..From: Graham Hunt <million_p...@yahoo.com> ..NNTP-Posting-Host: 60.240.147.45 ..X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 60.240.147.45 ..Message-ID: <4276eb7a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au> ..X-Trace: dnews.tpgi.com.au!tpg.com.au 1115089786 60.240.147.45 (3 May 2005 13:09:46 +1000) Then, the indignant retort from.. RYADIA (May 3, 2005) ..From: Ryadia <rya...@hotmail.com> ..NNTP-Posting-Host: 60.240.147.45 ..X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 60.240.147.45 ..Message-ID: <42772777@dnews.tpgi.com.au> ..X-Trace: dnews.tpgi.com.au!tpg.com.au 1115105143 60.240.147.45 (3 May 2005 ..17:25:43 +1000) SNAP!! Stop LYING, Douglas. Anyone here can check this. You were BUSTED. Wear it like a man, not a mouse. >Arguing further with an idiot like you will only result in raising my >BP. Not going to happen. Umm, but it already did (after 5 days?).. Why aren't you applying that zero care factor? And how *deep* can you dig? (O; > OT - Please pass this message by unless interested in soap operas that > go nowhere... [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > (O; So now we can read a header, can we. Good Troll, Sit boy. All you need to do now is discover the geographic location of the IP address and you'll really make some progress. Uh, uh... No looking in the phone book now. Play fair and do it right this time or you'll get it wrong again. Didn't your last master tell you what could happen if you keep getting it wrong? I suppose the fact your mind is quite tiny from all that masturbation you been doing, you can't grasp the concept of a network or how a private network's gateway works. Don't worry, some of us know and that's all that matters. One day you'll learn to query an IP for information. If you had the skill to do that and actually taken the time to do it, you'd have gotten a reply that it was a Linux SME gateway server. This machine holds all our web sites, mail servers groupware and calendaring applications. It stands guard over my network and post's it own IP address when queried or when posting to the Internet. Pretty nifty, huh? Not good enough Troll, keep practicing, you need lots of that to get your next feed. Sure as hell won't get it from me with that sort of dismal effort. Douglas... "You finally make it on the Internet when you get your own personal Troll". Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. >> ..X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 60.240.147.45 <snip> > One day you'll learn to query an IP for information. If you had the > Douglas... http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=60.240.147.45 Toa OT. Move on, nothing photographic to see here. >... it was a Linux SME gateway >server. This machine holds all our web sites, mail servers >groupware and calendaring applications. It stands guard >over my network and post's it own IP address when queried >or when posting to the Internet. Pretty nifty, huh? So, let's juts clarify that. You have now admitted BOTH posts, including the one about Asian interests and the high value of your 'franchise', came from YOUR network. The posts are yours, and your responsibility. You *claim* that Graham Hunt is your employee (even though you have signed off as 'Douglas' on Graham Hunt posts in the past -oops). 'Graham' (whether he is you or not) posted fraudulently. So you have now fully admitted guilt. Thanks. Game over. By the way, how exactly does the fact that you have that 'nifty' gateway server, show that *you* were in a different state? Do educate me, Douglas. Or I might get it 'wrong' again. (O; > One day you'll learn to query an IP for information. If you had the > skill to do that and actually taken the time to do it, you'd have gotten > a reply that it was a Linux SME gateway server. This machine holds all > our web sites, mail servers groupware and calendaring applications. It > stands guard over my network and post's it own IP address when queried > or when posting to the Internet. Pretty nifty, huh? There are so many holes in your story I don't even know where to begin shooting them down. Greg > Not happy that I posted an unusual picture demonstrating the broad > contrast range a FZ20 can capture. You didn't demonstrate anything as pointed out by several people. > Watch your gear as you fight a bunch of other photographers for a shot > at the action. Go on, you can do it. Just take a shot. Check the > Histogram. Take another shot. fix the white balance. Take the final > one... Oh sorry the subject got up and went home! That's why I sell my > photos and you only dream about it, w.nker. If you sell your photos I'm moving to Australia because I could become a billionaire selling my photos down there. Greg On 7/20/05 8:39 AM, in article 11dss14mq0rppeb@corp.supernews.com, "G.T." wrote: >> Not happy that I posted an unusual picture demonstrating the broad >> contrast range a FZ20 can capture. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Greg When will all you stop this incredibly silly thread and focus on photography and digital cameras? This childish "pushing and shoving" has grown tedious....looks like five year olds fighting over the Oreos at recess..... PC > I've grabbed a copy of the page for non-commercial use (O; - anyone > who wants to see it after Douglas inevitably pulls it, just ask here... Well, it was bound to happen -- he's pulled all the pages. Good call! SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >You made a call thinking I wouldn't/couldn't call your bluff and when I >did, get down to personal insults. What a piss poor example of human >trash you are. At least the other trolls spread their bullshit thinner >so it isn't as easily discovered. Being insulted by you is like being insulted by a clown with Turret's syndrome. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >You made a call thinking I wouldn't/couldn't call your bluff and when I > >did, get down to personal insults. What a piss poor example of human [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Doesn't it piss you off when your smart reply is stuffed by a spelling mistake? You mean Tourette, of course {:-) Colin >Doesn't it piss you off when your smart reply is stuffed by a spelling >mistake? You mean Tourette, of course {:-) Not especially. I considered both possibilities, and did a quick "google" with the spelling I used, and saw a lot of references, and figured it was fairly safe. I was too lazy to google "tourette", too, and figured there was a chance it was wrong. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >You made a call thinking I wouldn't/couldn't call your bluff and when I > >did, get down to personal insults. What a piss poor example of human [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Being insulted by you is like being insulted by a clown with Turret's > syndrome. You mean Tourette's? Greg >> >You made a call thinking I wouldn't/couldn't call your bluff and when I >> >did, get down to personal insults. What a piss poor example of human [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Being insulted by you is like being insulted by a clown with Turret's >> syndrome. Nah he means insulted by a clown in a gun turret ;) > >>Interestingly enough, I shot some scenes on Sunday in just those > >>conditions. I used a speedlight on my 1D but the FZ20 I took along, I [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > brought to the Internet in exactly the same way. Program mode on both > cameras. You could print the FZ20 pic but not the 20D one without editing. Doug, there seems no doubt that the 20D underexposed that shot. The exif shows 1/640 second at f/9, 100 ISO, on a winter's day, with the sun a bit lower than noontime, judging by the shadows. 'Sunny f/16' at 100 ISO would have given about 1/400 sec at f/8, and adjusting for the light you had would make it about 1/200 or 1/250 sec at f/9, so 1/640 at f/9 is about two stops or so underexposed. Since the sailor's white leg and thigh is about where the partial meter would have read the light, I would say the meter was fooled into giving underexposure, and this is borne out by the histogram, where the brightest highlights are less than three-quarters of the histo scale. I tried lightening the shadows in PS, but no luck. I would think though, that since the camera image is a RAW file, the ISO speed could be adjusted in the RAW converter to lift the shadows without losing the highlights before conversion to jpg. Forgive me, but I have to ask: could you not have moved left or right a little to lose the microphone? Colin > Since the sailor's white leg and thigh is about where the partial meter > would have read the light, I would say the meter was fooled into giving [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Colin A pack of Photographers from the Queensland Photographic Society descended on the scene which was cordoned off with people standing 4 deep, all trying to take a picture, makes for an exciting time. About 1:15 PM if my memory serves me right. Sunny 16 doesn't work when you try to capture a scene 4 stops outside the EV of the sensor. Something has to be lost. This picture is not one I edited or even considered keeping. I posted it because Jeremy seemed to think a DSLR would meter - collect data or somehow make a picture out of a scene outside it's contrast range somehow better than a digicam can. I think he doesn't realize a 20D or 1D's value is not in what the camera produces but with fodder for Photoshop which can later be manipulated. The dark area of that scene is 5 stops away from the exposure metered on the white, which is correctly metered to produce detail. If you moved the histogram to get shadow detail, you won't get any highlight detail. The only fix is to fill flash the scene. Some people would just accept blocked shadows to see detail in the clothing, incidently. The other 30 or so shots of the display (some with fill flash) are all quite acceptable. The old adage: "meter for the highlights" doesn't always work. This is why I have an FX580 Speedlight on the 1D which was off on another job. It has proven itself at several weddings now, even in bright sunlight. I am still very impressed with how the FZ20 was able to produce as good an exposure as could be expected, without later processing in Photoshop on the same setting as the 20D. The Dye-Sub printers I have rely on camera files to print on the spot. The FZ files all look very nice but the 20D files can't be printed straight from the camera. They need post processing. This is simply not possible when you have to ship all your gear in via a small runabout. SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. >>>>Interestingly enough, I shot some scenes on Sunday in just those >>>>conditions. I used a speedlight on my 1D but the FZ20 I took along, I [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Colin 20D's with FX 580 Speedlight's attached. The Custom functions of a 20D allow you to set the speedlight to fire at 1/250th fixed speed when you choose aperture priority mode. You have to deliberately choose this in the functions. It has one really nice advantage over other flashlights in that you can capture movement (like someone dancing around a fire before dawn) but it also locks the exposure when lighting gets too bright for the aperture/speed you have selected. The simple way to overcome moving inside to outside and back again while keeping the flash primed for action capture in low light is to switch between program mode and Av mode when you move from one set of conditions to another. The flash was switched off on that shot because a minute or so before, I took a picture of a rubber boat at high speed. I forgot to switch it back on for that shot. When Jeremy said "a 1D would do better", I couldn't help but show him it could not. That's how that picture came to be posted. No way to move in a crowd of 20 Photographers who descended on the re-enactment like a plague of locusts. I realize now it is impossible to post an image on the Internet which looks like a true photograph. You either sacrifice image quality so dial up users can see the picture or you consume all your bandwidth with people downloading high resolution image just "to see if they are focused". Here's one you might be interested in. Shot with 20D and FX 580 Speedlight. SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. > When Jeremy said "a 1D would do better", I couldn't help but show him it > could not. All you really showed was that *you* could not. Since even a lowly Nikon D70 could do better, I remain unconvinced that a higher-spec Canon cannot. I mean, if they were really that bad, so many people wouldn't be using them. > I realize now it is impossible to post an image on the Internet which > looks like a true photograph. You either sacrifice image quality so dial > up users can see the picture or you consume all your bandwidth with > people downloading high resolution image just "to see if they are focused". Perhaps people wouldn't try to hard to find technical faults in your work if you didn't try so hard to come across as the master technician who knows more about photography than anyone else. No one tried to find faults in the batch of shots I recently posted, even though I used a Nikon. > Here's one you might be interested in. Shot with 20D and FX 580 Speedlight. Where? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>Here's one you might be interested in. Shot with 20D and FX 580 Speedlight. > > Where? You got it Jeremy. 255 255 255 LOL! SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. >I realize now it is impossible to post an image on the Internet which >looks like a true photograph. You either sacrifice image quality so dial >up users can see the picture or you consume all your bandwidth with >people downloading high resolution image just "to see if they are focused". http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/26046785 Anything else I can help you with? Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< |
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
|
©2009 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.