 |
 | 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 200520D with 24~70 f2.8 tells a story in a face
Last Sunday on a small island in Moreton Bay, History was re-enacted as it is every year to celebrate the landing by Mathew Finders on the "6th Island". One man has taken part in the celebration every year. Almost as old as the event, his face tells it all. http://www.ryadia.com/Storyinaface.htm  SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. >Last Sunday on a small island in Moreton Bay, History was re-enacted as >it is every year to celebrate the landing by Mathew Finders on the "6th >Island". One man has taken part in the celebration every year. Almost as >old as the event, his face tells it all. Apart from the poor choice of background, which might be excused because you may not have had any choice, can you explain why the subject's eyes are not in sharp focus but the tips of his ears are? > Apart from the poor choice of background, which might be excused > because you may not have had any choice, can you explain why the > subject's eyes are not in sharp focus but the tips of his ears are? I'm sure it was the camera's fault. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Jeremy said: >> Apart from the poor choice of background, which might be excused >> because you may not have had any choice, can you explain why the >> subject's eyes are not in sharp focus but the tips of his ears are? > >I'm sure it was the camera's fault. Yes. 'Back focus', it's called. Douglas has a *lot* of trouble with that.. If you want a laugh, try a g-groups search on "ryadia back focus canon". >>Last Sunday on a small island in Moreton Bay, History was re-enacted as >>it is every year to celebrate the landing by Mathew Finders on the "6th [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > because you may not have had any choice, can you explain why the > subject's eyes are not in sharp focus but the tips of his ears are? My policy Tony, is to never post an image to the Internet that I would not be prepared to donate to the public domain... Eventually it will be downloaded by someone and all the copyright information in the world will have no effect at preventing it's use without your knowledge or permission. Wasted effort, trying to swim against the tide. Some stock libraries address this problem by posting minuscule pictures they just expect you to believe are perfect. Others try protective measures which only work for casual users. Me? I just accept now, that you can't stop it and never post salable images on the Internet. This one was shot at an Island fair - like a country market. In context with the article, the picture with a busy background is quite appropriate. I've posted it here in the expectation someone might like to see the old man. If you want to see the final shot, you'll have to buy the magazine, I'm afraid. SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. >>>Last Sunday on a small island in Moreton Bay, History was re-enacted as >>>it is every year to celebrate the landing by Mathew Finders on the "6th [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >someone might like to see the old man. If you want to see the final >shot, you'll have to buy the magazine, I'm afraid. 14 lines of reply, none of which even address the question of why the subjects eyes are out of focus, but his ears are pin sharp. Thanks. >>> Last Sunday on a small island in Moreton Bay, History was re-enacted >>> as it is every year to celebrate the landing by Mathew Finders on the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > someone might like to see the old man. If you want to see the final > shot, you'll have to buy the magazine, I'm afraid. I am sorry to disappoint you doug, I have not yet seen any single picture from you that is worth the trouble to "steal." Not impressed! > I am sorry to disappoint you doug, I have not yet seen any single > picture from you that is worth the trouble to "steal." Not impressed! Well of course, Leo. That's the whole idea. Thanks for your contribution SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. >> I am sorry to disappoint you doug, I have not yet seen any single >> picture from you that is worth the trouble to "steal." Not impressed! > > Well of course, Leo. That's the whole idea. > Thanks for your contribution the flip side is you haven't establish you're a pro but just a grumpy old man. >>> I am sorry to disappoint you doug, I have not yet seen any single >>> picture from you that is worth the trouble to "steal." Not impressed! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the flip side is you haven't establish you're a pro but just a grumpy > old man. Maybe the possibility I'm both has escaped you Leo? SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. I keep getting a "404 - Page not found error". Is the photo still up? > Last Sunday on a small island in Moreton Bay, History was re-enacted as > it is every year to celebrate the landing by Mathew Finders on the "6th > Island". One man has taken part in the celebration every year. Almost as > old as the event, his face tells it all. > http://www.ryadia.com/Storyinaface.htm > I keep getting a "404 - Page not found error". Is the photo still > up? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> http://www.ryadia.com/Storyinaface.htm >> -- Me too. I did see it earlier, and thought it unremarkable. The subject's story seemed to be, "Ruddy snappers. Get thee hence!" If you really want to see a 20D 24-70 2.8L face or two: http://www.fototime.com/8C8CA2B941AEE35/standard.jpg http://www.fototime.com/DBFCC42D7E6FB18/standard.jpg http://www.fototime.com/911ADFE09166053/standard.jpg http://www.fototime.com/41784B7FA524FC5/standard.jpg http://www.fototime.com/A77AA172E6E8C47/orig.jpg SignatureFrank ess I've just joined fototime.com - how do you generate the URLs in the format that you posted - I end up with a much longer URL that also includes user info etc. Thanks in advance, CC > I've just joined fototime.com - how do you generate the URLs in the > format that you posted - I end up with a much longer URL that also [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > CC Are you talking to me? You must be talking to me. Although I'm not the only one here. When you are looking at a picture, check the left column. There is a choice "Create Link". Click it, choose the size you want your viewer to see, copy the link and paste it. http://www.fototime.com/24E192519588076/standard.jpg SignatureFrank ess Many thanks. Yes, I was talking to you - that's why I replied to your post, and not to someone elses. Thanks again. > > I've just joined fototime.com - how do you generate the URLs in the > > format that you posted - I end up with a much longer URL that also [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to see, copy the link and paste it. > http://www.fototime.com/24E192519588076/standard.jpg > Many thanks. > > Yes, I was talking to you - that's why I replied to your post, and > not to someone elses. > > Thanks again. It's "else's". You're welcome. The reason I asked, there was no indication which message you were replying to in the part of the thread included in your post: >>> I've just joined fototime.com - how do you generate the URLs in >>> the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> >>> CC" That's all I had to go on, so I queried: ">> Are you talking to me? You must be talking to me. Although I'm not >> the only one here. " Point(s) being: trim some if you can, but leave enough to hang a reply on, and bottom post, so the Q and the A are in logical, sensible order. >> When you are looking at a picture, check the left column. There is >> a >> choice "Create Link". Click it, choose the size you want your >> viewer >> to see, copy the link and paste it. >> http://www.fototime.com/24E192519588076/standard.jpg -- Frank ess > > Many thanks. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The reason I asked, there was no indication which message you were > replying to in the part of the thread included in your post: It's "... no indication of which message ..." Thanks again. > >>> I've just joined fototime.com - how do you generate the URLs in > >>> the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > -- > Frank ess >>> Many thanks. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Thanks again. No; thank _you_. And the horse you rode in on. SignatureFrank S "Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten-up a chump." —William Claude Dukenfeld > No; thank _you_. > > And the horse you rode in on. I have not succeeded in correcting all of my grammar - the corrections given serve only to raise a whole set of new possibilities. In some ways I feel I am as confused as ever, but I believe I am now confused on a higher level and about more important things. Thank you again for contributing to that :) > I keep getting a "404 - Page not found error". Is the photo still up? The Ryadia Server is off-line and the local network is being dismantled. Probably will down be for several days while the network is relocated to it's new premises. There is a response to Polson's stupid remark and the masterbating clown's of the group who chimed in on queue without knowing why, with an enlargement of the image here: http://users.tpg.com.au/tecaus/faceoftime.htm The original photo is here now: http://users.tpg.com.au/tecaus/faceofpast.jpg How anyone can pass judgement on an image posted to the Internet without it's EXIF data is beyond my comprehension. The pundits who do this can't explain either how they derive their "Information" when the images don't contain any in the first place. They must surely be the advance vanguard of a race of people from another planet who speak our language but don't say anything anyone can understand. Ryadia's new premises is due to be open by 26th of the month. Probably it will be then before the server is back on-line... If I decide to bother with a web presence again. The absolute jerk offs who get their rocks off by attacking anyone and everyone with anything to contribute about Photography when they haven't got a clue themselves is likely the best reason to abandon the site altogether. I might have given them some consideration if they showed any real evidence any of them had a clue. Sadly they all melt back into cyberspace when called on to do so or worse... Come up with some argument on a tangent. We're yet to see a photo posted by Polson - don't hold your breath now - and Nixon who argued so strongly about the perspective of a photograph not being related to focal length a few month's ago, now can't recall his own posts. Lets hope he still strives to take a traditional portrait with his fisheye lens and one day posts the results. Don't hold your breath for this one either. The ferrel w.nker from South Australia's rural coast "Chrlz Stevens" who uses Australian Government computers to defame and deride people, mysteriously can't explain how he deciphers information either. He posts lies and innuendos based on his warped sense "a fair go" yet when called on to substantiate them disappears off the groups for a while only to come back with more bullshit and defamation when he thinks no one remembers. Nice line up of human trash in these three. You could be excused for racial prejudice if they all came from the same country but they don't. Sometimes I'm ashamed to say I'm Australian. Certainly my father who all those years ago risked so much and fought under such terrible conditions to defend the freedom of this country would turn in his grave if he though the behaviour of Chrlz and his ilk was what so many of his fellow countrymen died to protect. Sub human behaviour from a total loser. I'm starting to think Alan Browne might not be so far off the mark when he branded Polson as someone unable to provide any evidence he even owns a camera, much less has ever taken a photograph. Where I sit I'd say he needs to see an eye specialist or get decent monitor. Anyone who could claim a 600 pixel high image has an area about 15% of it's total with part of it out of focus is clearly too good to be wasting their time on my images. Maybe the enlargement I provided might give him more to go on. Douglas Err - "thanks" for "all that" - although really, a simple "no" would have sufficed! :) > > I keep getting a "404 - Page not found error". Is the photo still up? > > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Douglas OT - move along, nothing to see here... >The Ryadia Server is off-line and the local network is being >dismantled. Probably will down be.. Doing Yoda impressions now? Is there no limit to your identities, Doug, Ryadia, One Million Pics, Techno Aussie, Sebastian Po, Alvie, The Yowie, Alien Jones..? (and a few others, I see - we'll bring those out a little later.. you've left quite a trail, Douglas, especially for one who decries those who 'hide behind aliases'). How do you reconcile that? >..for several days while the network is relocated to >it's new premises. There is a response to Polson's stupid remark.. and misspelled, I note.. > and the masterbating (sic) clown's of the group who chimed in >on queue without knowing why, with an enlargement of the image [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >How anyone can pass judgement on an image posted to the >Internet without it's EXIF data is beyond my comprehension. Yes, that *would* be beyond your comprehension. It's beyond mine too, because EXIF data tells you zero about whether the image is correctly focussed. Most sane folk would agree that you have to go by the image as posted. YOUR image, exactly as posted, when blown up to the size you supplied later ACTUALLY looked like this: http://community.webshots.com/photo/262782767/400670436SsDEHl (sorry about popups - webshots sucks nowadays) Forgive my mirth again. But *you* posted it. *You* jpegged it. *You* decided how much compression to apply. And *we* all saw what looked like out-of-focus eyes. Gee, wonder how we were sooooo misled...? Whose fault would that be exactly? >The pundits who do this can't explain either how they derive >their "Information" when the images don't contain any in the > first place. I just explained. *You* posted the image. Perhaps when you get the hang of jpeg compression, and the other basic digital concepts in Digital Photography 101, we might be better able to judge your images. For now, you are posting bad images. It is little wonder that people call them.. bad images. >They must surely be the advance vanguard of a race of people >from another planet who speak our language but don't say anything >anyone can understand. Well, we haven't yet got the ability to somehow see a good image, when it is cleverly hidden by bad processing. And your record for providing good images is a little slim. >Ryadia's new premises is due to be open by 26th of the month. >Probably it will be then before the server is back on-line... >If I decide to bother with a web presence again. There ain't much point if you keep pulling your images, and password protecting your galleries! >The absolute jerk offs... It's good to see *you* don't deride people... >... who get their rocks off by attacking anyone and everyone Actually, most other posters seem to get a pretty fair hearing. Again, I wonder why that is? >..with anything to contribute about Photography The problem is, your contributions are either flawed, of very poor quality, or you simply tell lies, and then get caught. Just as ONE example, remember that magical algorithm that you 'patented' (hahah) for enlargements? Well, perhaps you should explain why you said this in another thread: >The software I use alters some parts of the image to vector >and others it leaves as bitmap. It cost an arm and a leg but it >gets the results! Hang on, Douglas - you said *you* developed it and have it patented... Yet there you said you had to buy it... Although we noticed you did get VERY shy when asked to quote a patent number. That's because no such patent exists. I checked. Do prove me wrong, and I'll profusely apologise. >I might have given them some consideration if they showed >any real evidence any of them had a clue. No, Doug, that's not how it works. *We* are all pointing to recognised reviewers and sites that use at least some semblance of reasonable methodology to prove their assertions. And we agree with them. You, however, keep posting assertions like that your prosumer outperforms your DSLR. You 'back it up' by examples that simply show you have a lack of understanding of the basics, let alone any grasp of advanced concepts, like actually *measuring* dynamic range. > Sadly they all melt back into cyberspace when called on to do so >or worse... Come up with some argument on a tangent. I'm here. No melting. I have a life. This stuff is just idly amusing, and I'm not going to run around according to your timetable. The problem is, Douglas, *here* you have run into people who actually know what they are talking about. I'm sure you impress folk at *parties*.. >We're yet to see a photo posted by Polson - don't hold >your breath now - and Nixon who argued so strongly.... The fact that anyone posts images or not is irrelevant when it is YOU posting YOUR stuff to prove YOUR fallacies. If a person posts *correct* information that refutes your fallacy, they win. It's pretty simple. >The ferrel (sic) w.nker from South Australia's rural coast... Does 'ferrel' mean 'iron-willed'? Yep, that's me. If not... it's good to see *you* don't deride people... >"Chrlz Stevens" who uses Australian Government computers to >defame and deride people, mysteriously can't explain how he >deciphers information either. Yes, I can. I just have to look. And, given the example shown above - your image looks out-of-focus. And that's all I said on this thread, without a single insult - you brought up all this other stuff. >He posts lies and innuendos based on his warped sense "a fair go" >yet when called on to substantiate them disappears off the groups >for a while Was it a lie that 'Graham Hunt' posted from your computer, and tried to boost the value of your business? Would you care to post *any* of my lies? I think it is a little rich to just say that and not give a single example. Are you afraid of me dragging up your background again, for all to see? >only to come back with more bullshit and defamation when >he thinks no one remembers. Oh, don't worry, *I'll* remember. Anyone else interested can just read the record and judge for themselves. And I'm still here. Your bluff doesn't seem to be working. And a lot more folk seem to be, well, shall we say, not exactly supporting you. >Nice line up of human trash in these three. It's good to see *you* don't deride people... (sorry, I seem to be repeating myself) >You could be excused for racial prejudice if they all came >from the same country but they don't. It's good to see *you* don't deride people... (oh dear...) >Sometimes I'm ashamed to say I'm Australian. Certainly my >father who all those years ago risked so much and fought >under such terrible conditions to defend the freedom of this >country would turn in his grave.. Umm, which country would that be? According to 'Kiah', who claims to be your daughter and posts from that same old computer: >I doubt someone with your fixed attitude could comprehend >that an impovished (sic) family of rejected Poms laughed >out of Oxford for a radical concept and an independent voice >could actually find creativity after migrating to the colonies >and come up with anything mathematically correct, much >less make it work and actually do something with the formula. Hmm. Gee, doesn't she sound just like her dear old Dad. But according to that, your father would very likely have been British, not Australian.. Feel free to tell us the whole story though, it sounds fascinating!!! >Sub human behaviour from a total loser. It's good to see *you* don't deride people... (Dang there I go again) >I'm starting to think Alan Browne might not be so far off the mark >when he branded Polson.... Why don't you just stick to the subject, and express *your* views instead of clinging to Alan's shirt-tail.. >Anyone who could claim a 600 pixel high image has an area >about 15% of it's total with part of it out of focus is clearly too >good to be wasting their time on my images. Maybe the >enlargement I provided might give him more to go on. Or perhaps you could have posted a better original in the first place... It's not that hard... Over to you Douglas. I have refrained from any naughty words or insults (go on, check!), now see if *you* can do it. Betcha can't. (O: <...> > Yes, that *would* be beyond your comprehension. It's beyond mine too, > because EXIF data tells you zero about whether the image is correctly [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > like out-of-focus eyes. Gee, wonder how we were sooooo misled...? > Whose fault would that be exactly? No, "*we*" saw nothing like that. It was a small image - a couple of hundred pix wide. The "ears and eyes" section was tiny. On my monitor - a humble Samsung 17" - the portrait looked perfectly clear and sharp, within the confines of its size. Of course it wouldn't stand enlargement as posted - who would reasonably suggest it could? Who would be silly enough to attempt to enlarge such a web-compressed image (?) Anyone who claimed the "out-of-focus" criticism of that shot - as originally posted - was clutching at straws and seeking to find a lame excuse to bag out Douglas. Uninteresting - arguably. Composition - dull. Poor background - maybe. Compressed for the web - certainly! Out of focus? Specious argument. By all means, go ahead and taunt my northern countryman for his spelling and grammar and somewhat silly views of life - he asks for that - but if you want to cling onto some measure of credibility then at least get your criticisms *right*. -- Jeff R. (who *can* tell the difference between jpg dithering and focus problems) It's good to see Douglas has at least some support.. Jeff R. said: >>And *we* all saw what looked >> like out-of-focus eyes. Gee, wonder how we were sooooo misled...? >> Whose fault would that be exactly? > >No, "*we*" saw nothing like that. Douglas made specific reference to Tony Polson, Jeremy Nixon and me. That's 3 people - hence my reference to 'we'. Did I say 'everyone here'? Did I name you? So, shouldn't your correct response be '*I* saw nothing like that'? Otherwise you are doing exactly what you seem to be criticising me for. >It was a small image - a couple of hundred pix wide. The "ears >and eyes" section was tiny. Yes, indeed it was. And as shown by my enlargement, it was ridiculously OVER-compressed, and there is significant blurring/artefacting *everywhere*. because the ears are against an almost black background, they appear relatively sharp compared to the mess around the eyes - that was what my enlargement was meant to show. If you look at it again, you will note that there is only one 8x8 jpeg block in the eye area that looks vaguely sharp. So my point was, it was OVER-compressed. >On my monitor - a humble Samsung 17" - the portrait looked perfectly >clear and sharp, within the confines of its size. OK, how about you take a look at THIS version, and look carefully at the left eye versus the right. *You* do the magnification if you want.. http://community.webshots.com/photo/262782767/401064104qzJZKF (Before Douglas whinges, the image is posted for educational purposes only, his copyright message remains, and it will be removed after 2 days. I think the financial losses he will sustain will be minimal.) Do you notice *anything*? Is the right eye sharp? The left? All I did was use Douglas' own large version of the area around his right eye, roughly resize it and *properly* sharpen that small area before pasting it back roughly in position. I then resaved the jpeg at a low compression level to try to keep the original quality as close as possible (but it is still only about 60Kb). Feel free to compare it with Douglas' original image to ensure I haven't fudged it too much. Now, if you can't see the difference around the right eye, well.... what can I say? >Of course it wouldn't stand enlargement as posted - who would >reasonably suggest it could? Nobody did. I posted that first enlargement to show why 'we' (that's Tony, Jeremy, me, ok?) thought the eyes looked unsharp - they *are* unsharp, compared to a *properly* resized, sharpened and compressed image.. >Who would be silly enough to attempt to enlarge such a >web-compressed image (?) Me. *Where it serves a purpose*... If you still can't tell the difference, if you still think Douglas' image was appropriately compressed, and if you still can't follow this line of logic, I simply can't help you further. If there is still some problem with my methodology, please state it. I realise that the double compression has slightly lessened the quality of the original, but as I stated, you are welcome to check the original to determine for yourself if that is in any way significant. I can't be much fairer than that, but if you have further requests for proof, fire away... > Nobody did. I posted that first enlargement to show why 'we' (that's > Tony, Jeremy, me, ok?) thought the eyes looked unsharp - they *are* > unsharp, compared to a *properly* resized, sharpened and compressed > image.. *shrug* Doesn't really matter anyway. Maybe the shot was properly focused. If so, oh well, it didn't look that way as it was posted, so, whatever, my bad. Douglas is a bit of a kook, anyway. I hadn't even remembered he was involved in the whole "perspective is a product of focal length" discussion a while back until he mentioned it. But he's someone who thinks he knows all about photography, probably largely because he Gets Paid For It, as if that matters; goes around posting his arrogant nonsense as if he's above everyone else; and then refuses to accept that someone else might know something he doesn't. Indeed, he just sent a somewhat-insulting reply from this thread directly to my email. When I replied asking why he had emailed me directly, he said: "To discover who you are, who your ISP is and where you are. Thank you." So, what, I'm supposed to think he's coming after me now? Anyone here who happens to actually know who I am will of course know that 30 seconds at Google could have told him that and a whole lot more. It's not like I've been exactly low-profile. It's no secret who I am, where I am, whom I work for, or whatever else might happen to be out there. But still, one has to wonder about someone who feels the need to "discover who you are, who your ISP is and where you are", just because you happen to know more about photography than he does. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>>And *we* all saw what looked >>>like out-of-focus eyes. Gee, wonder how we were sooooo misled...? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > compressed, and if you still can't follow this line of logic, I simply > can't help you further. Somewhere along the way you have lost the plot Stevens. There is absolutely no purpose which can excuse the theft and reposting of copyright material without so much as a please.. You stole my images to repost for your own purpose without even asking. That's Illegal. This whole thread is nothing more or less then your failed attempt to do some head kicking on me after Tony Polson's trolling hooked me. It didn't work. Stop now or you'll get in further than you really want to. Take the images down from webshots and do it now or discover how the legal system favors copyright owners, not those who misappropriate it. All you're doing now by illegally posting my images on webshots is floundering around trying to justify your own really, really bad behavior. Give it up, you are starting to look like a kindergarten child throwing a tantrum. Keep it up and there won't be a mountain high enough for you to hide behind. SignatureDouglas > >>>And *we* all saw what looked > >>>like out-of-focus eyes. Gee, wonder how we were sooooo misled...? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > copyright material without so much as a please.. You stole my images to > repost for your own purpose without even asking. That's Illegal. Oh, pull your head in, Douglas. If there was *ever* a case of fair dealing - justified use - not for profit - (etc etc) this would have to be it. Argue the logic instead - not the twisted legality. You'd be on a winner with the logic. -- Jeff R. (shutting up and bowing out) > Oh, pull your head in, Douglas. > If there was *ever* a case of fair dealing - justified use - not for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Jeff R. > (shutting up and bowing out) Happy to oblige Jeff... Er, What is the logic, by the way? There is a response to Polson's stupid remark and the masterbating clown's of the group who chimed in on queue without knowing why, with an enlargement of the image here: http://users.tpg.com.au/tecaus/faceoftime.htm The original photo is here now: http://users.tpg.com.au/tecaus/faceofpast.jpg They must surely be the advance vanguard of a race of people from another planet who speak our language but don't say anything anyone can understand. SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. > > Oh, pull your head in, Douglas. > > If there was *ever* a case of fair dealing - justified use - not for [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > another planet who speak our language but don't say anything anyone can > understand. You're getting more bizarre by the day. Greg >> > Oh, pull your head in, Douglas. >> > If there was *ever* a case of fair dealing - justified use - not for [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >You're getting more bizarre by the day. Yep, madness is just a short step away for Ryadia. The detail at full size doesn't prove anything; in fact it just muddies the waters still further. A major problem with evaluating digital shots is that you can never really know how much unsharp mask has been applied, and where, unless you are told. This was never a problem with 35mm/120 slides, a loupe and a lightbox. ;-) Why is it "Tony Polson" that when you get caught out with a totally wrong call - right along with the other masterbaters in this thread - who chimed in on your queue - Just postulate and stamp around like a spoilt brat who didn't get his way when it becomes obvious you are clueless? You though you'd just join in with a bit the group sport of head kicking, didn't you? What a total loser you are. Instead of ask *IF* the picture is in focus, you make the outragious statement that it is and when I don't reply with a "yes Mr Polson, sorry sir" reply, you prod me like you and Chrlz are from the same school of dorks. You're out of line and wrong. Don't try and make excuses for yourself. -- Douglas. My name never changes... Just the name of the computer the messages are sent from sometimes does. As is my right to do as the owner of the computer. This one is called pixby. > >> > Oh, pull your head in, Douglas. > >> > If there was *ever* a case of fair dealing - justified use - not for [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > ;-) >Why is it "Tony Polson" that when you get caught out with a totally wrong >call - right along with the other masterbaters in this thread - who chimed >in on your queue - Just postulate and stamp around like a spoilt brat who >didn't get his way when it becomes obvious you are clueless? I stand by my comments on the original (small) shot you posted. The eyes look out of focus, the ears look sharp. Several people here agreed with me. Not surprising, because the effect seems clear. I asked the opinion of several photographer friends, including two with ARPS qualifications. They all agreed, and we enjoyed a laugh at your expense. Now you post an enlarged version which is inconclusive. You haven't told us how much unsharp mask was applied, and to which areas of the shot. It is impossible to draw any conclusion, one way or the other, from this enlarged portion. Typically, however, you feel that this enlarged portion entitles you to rant and rave about ... well about nothing of any importance. Well go ahead, and enjoy. <g> Perhaps, when you have both hands on the camera, or the keyboard, instead of one permanently working away inside your trousers, you might take better photos *and* make more sense. Until then, please feel free to continue to make a fool of yourself on here. Some more comparisons of your point and shoot and DSLR would be nice. ;-) > > Oh, pull your head in, Douglas. > > If there was *ever* a case of fair dealing - justified use - not for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Happy to oblige Jeff... > Er, What is the logic, by the way? The quality of the pic, not the "legality" or otherwise of someone else posting a modified version of the pic. -- Jeff R. (*Trying" to bow out of this one - honest!) > It's good to see Douglas has at least some support.. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > saw nothing like that'? Otherwise you are doing exactly what you seem > to be criticising me for. Sighhh. "We" seemed so inclusive at the time. In context it sounded like "all of us". > >It was a small image - a couple of hundred pix wide. The "ears > >and eyes" section was tiny. > > Yes, indeed it was. And as shown by my enlargement, it was > ridiculously OVER-compressed, and there is significant > blurring/artefacting *everywhere*. Phooey. Its entirely appropriately-processed for a web image. Repeat: For a *web* image. >... because the ears are against an > almost black background, they appear relatively sharp compared to the > mess around the eyes - that was what my enlargement was meant to show. Well it didn't. > If you look at it again, you will note that there is only one 8x8 jpeg > block in the eye area that looks vaguely sharp. So my point was, it > was OVER-compressed. Disagree. (see above) > >On my monitor - a humble Samsung 17" - the portrait looked perfectly > >clear and sharp, within the confines of its size. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://community.webshots.com/photo/262782767/401064104qzJZKF No-o-o-o Magnification don't count for nuffink, since that's not how the image is/was presented. > (Before Douglas whinges, the image is posted for educational purposes > only, his copyright message remains, and it will be removed after 2 > days. I think the financial losses he will sustain will be minimal.) > > Do you notice *anything*? Is the right eye sharp? The left? Yes. and Yes. ...and? >.. All I > did was use Douglas' own large version of the area around his right [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > possible (but it is still only about 60Kb). Feel free to compare it > with Douglas' original image to ensure I haven't fudged it too much. No can do. ryadia.com appears to be... ummm... "missing" and I didn't archive the shot - but - I don't recall being upset by the allegedly out-of-focus ears of the original. > Now, if you can't see the difference around the right eye, well.... > what can I say? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nobody did. I posted that first enlargement to show why 'we' (that's > Tony, Jeremy, me, ok?) Yes yes yes >...thought the eyes looked unsharp - they *are* > unsharp, compared to a *properly* resized, sharpened and compressed > image.. Fussy tart. :-) Sorry if I post my fullstops upside down. > >Who would be silly enough to attempt to enlarge such a > >web-compressed image (?) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > compressed, and if you still can't follow this line of logic, I simply > can't help you further. OK. > If there is still some problem with my methodology, please state it. I > realise that the double compression has slightly lessened the quality > of the original, but as I stated, you are welcome to check the original > to determine for yourself if that is in any way significant. I can't > be much fairer than that, but if you have further requests for proof, > fire away... Well, I can't check the original (now) but... I still reckon the original (from memory) was adequately sharp and reasonably compressed for_use_on_the_web. Obviously no good for print. If the problem was so obviously over-compression (!) then why was Douglas accused of posting an incompetently *focussed* image. Oh never mind. This is a silly feud and I really shouldn't push "Send' (But I bet I will) -- Jeff R. > I still reckon the original (from memory) was adequately sharp >and reasonably compressed for_use_on_the_web. Actually, I (sort of) agree. It was fairly typical of what is posted on the web nowadays. The original is still there, by the way, at: http://users.tpg.com.au/tecaus/faceofpast.jpg But my shot shows the difference (admittedly subtle) that an (humility off) expertly- (humility on) sharpened image should look like, or at least around the right eye, anyway. And just so i don't get accused of not 'walking the walk', if you want an example of (IMO) good sharpening and appropriate compression levels, here's an old one of mine that is by no means a perfect image, but sharpness-wise it is pretty close to the optimum - compare her eyes to Douglas' image... http://community.webshots.com/photo/262782767/262783799qiQirO Before making a judgement, make sure you do NOT have 'automatic resizing' turned on (it's an option on the right hand side of that webpage), and of course that you are viewing it on a high-resolution, well adjusted monitor - *then* feel free to flame away! (There's not even a copyright message on that one, Douglas - feel free to steal it, or any of mine, as retribution. I'm here to educate, not threaten.) >If the problem was so obviously over-compression (!) then why was >Douglas accused of posting an incompetently *focussed* image. At that size, and *without* the enlargement I did later, it is very difficult to tell - the difference between a 'nailed' image, and a misfire, can be just a pixel, or even a half, and low quality jpegging can look o-o-f unless you zoom right in.. My initial comment was a short, flippant one - to which I received Douglas' lengthy, ballistic, insulting reply and to which I then replied in kind (minus any childish insults). Douglas is claiming high ground everywhere he goes, as *the* expert on exposure, enlargement, sharpness, detail...... And examples like this prove he's not. In fact, not even close.. I don't claim to be the expert, but I do have a fair bit of knowledge in this area - I happily let others judge me on my information and examples, and unlike Douglas, I do not pull my images offline when/if they get a bad reception. It seems the only way to keep him honest is to grab the image while you can, and wait for the inevitable withdrawal. >This is a silly feud and I really shouldn't push "Send'. Yep, very true - but I think it's pretty funny, actually. And I *do* think it is important that people (not you, Jeff) who post pretentious rubbish and misinformation be brought to task. If you haven't seen some of the other stuff that Douglas has posted recently, I suggest you take a look around... FZ20's that beat Canon DSLR's, magical enlarging algorithms that defy physics, perspective that doesn't depend on distance.. you name it, Douglas knows about it.. >(But I bet I will) Me too! No hard feelings! And if you *like* feuds, and you have a half hour to waste, check out some of the full story on Douglas over in the 'Enlarging Digital Images' thread, at: http://tinyurl.com/9wuwl And then look up 'One Million Pics', 'technoaussie', 'Joe Bailey', 'Alvie', 'The Yowie', 'Alien Jones', 'Graham Hunt', even 'healthypcs' (and the saga of the illegal warranty..). Our Douglas is quite a character! (er.. characterS) > And just so i don't get accused of not 'walking the walk', if you want > an example of (IMO) good sharpening and appropriate compression levels, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://community.webshots.com/photo/262782767/262783799qiQirO She has *eyes*? Where? <...> >... No hard feelings! And if you *like* feuds, and you have a > half hour to waste, check out some of the full story on Douglas over in > the 'Enlarging Digital Images' thread, at: > > http://tinyurl.com/9wuwl Uh huh. Actually, I've been lurking long enough to catch at least the tail-end of much of the stuff you quote. Fun, actually. Feuds are much more fun than completely rational discussions. Sometimes the truth will out only when passions are inflamed. The focal length vs perspective debate actually taught me (*me*! a cranky old goat!) something. I'm trying very hard not to come across as a cranky, supercilious, know-it-all bastard, as I usually do in other NGs. So far.... -- Jeff R. (batting .500 ?) >http://community.webshots.com/ photo/... (rest of link snipped) > >(Before Douglas whinges, the image is posted for educational >purposes only, his copyright message remains, and it will be >removed after 2 days. Sorry if anyone is now chasing my versions of Douglas' images - as I promised I would, I have taken them down. It seems this thread has run it's course. I don't make a habit of pulling any of my *own* images down if they ever get a bad review, and all of my stuff is still there. > The absolute jerk offs who get their rocks off by attacking anyone and > everyone with anything to contribute about Photography when they haven't got > a clue themselves is likely the best reason to abandon the site altogether. Oh, please, abandon it! It's not like you have every contributed anything about photography here. > and Nixon who argued so strongly about the perspective of a photograph not > being related to focal length a few month's ago, Oh yeah, that *was* you, who insisted so incorrectly that perspective has something to do with focal length. It's hard to keep track, with all the different names you use. Funny how you would bring this up, since it's just another example of how woefully little you know about photography. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com |
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.