Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Reply
Thread Tools

DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2008
Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 9:31 AM:


> Why would you post that boast about film and provide the link if you
> were going to show an image that was not capable of substantiating your
> claim?


Once again, you are demonstrating your complete
ignorance: read the WHOLE thing, you moron.


> and, 1280x850 *is* capable of showing more than that image does, so, as
> I said, that image sucks. As do you.


Prove it, moron. Don't just make empty claims: PROVE it!




> The day you're embarrassed by anything will be the day, Noons. You're a
> bullshit artist of the first order, a champion of the art. To
> paraphrase the old saying, you have no science so you try to baffle with
> bullshit. Try you might, but few here would be baffled by you. and yes,
> in case you missed it, that was an ad hominem attack, just so you might
> recognise another one when it comes along.


You're a complete ignorant and a demonstrable moron,
COlin. There is not ONE instance of ANY post
of yours that demonstrates you are capable
of ANY smidgeon of reasoning.
Take some time off with the sheep, you need it!
<plonk>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2008
Doug McDonald wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 10:27 AM:
> Colin.D wrote:
>
>> Not to forget that the original zone system strictly applies to
>> monochrome film. Very limited development variation can be applied to
>> color film without color shifts.

>
>
> At least with ordinary Kodak consumer color film that's not true.
> The contrast can be varied dramatically, especially in the "contrastier"
> direction, without serious color shifts. Even before Photoshop I had no
> trouble makng prints from such negatives. With Photoshop even the
> worst color shifts I ever saw are completely correctable.


Oh for Pete's sake! Do you even BOTHER
answering this idiot moron?
Last time he used film Kodachrome 25
didn't even exist!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2008
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 12:14 PM:

>> I can do MUCH better rez than that with film, and I have.
>> Here is the demonstration:http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/...escue-98461919
>> same image type, same sunny conditions, look at the colour
>> saturation DIFFERENCE!

>
> So you boosted the saturation? So what?


No. I left the sat exactly at default.
THAT, is the little flaw in your argument!

> The color balance looks much more natural in the 5DII pic, and there
> is details in the shadows as well. In your pic the shadows are gone.


When was the last time you saw an orange boat that looks
EXACTLY the same in the shade as in the sun? You call
that "natural"? NO WONDER you can't see the problem...


> Oh yeah, it is no great feat to read wrting on a boat that is sitting
> on a trailer. Try doing it on a speeding boat and get back to us. I
> have a few of those shots myself.


Bret, don't be thick, ok? It's demeaning, even for you!
You can read SMALLER text in that image, then on the hat
it disappears?
Can't you pull your head off Canon's arse for long enough
to even reason that is simply NOT natural and is IMPOSSIBLE
unless there is something very wrong with that processor?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin.D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2008
Noons, 9/25/2008 10:21 PM:

> Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 9:31 AM:
>
>
>> Why would you post that boast about film and provide the link if you
>> were going to show an image that was not capable of substantiating
>> your claim?

>
> Once again, you are demonstrating your complete
> ignorance: read the WHOLE thing, you moron.
>
>
>> and, 1280x850 *is* capable of showing more than that image does, so,
>> as I said, that image sucks. As do you.

>
> Prove it, moron. Don't just make empty claims: PROVE it!
>
>
>
>
>> The day you're embarrassed by anything will be the day, Noons. You're
>> a bullshit artist of the first order, a champion of the art. To
>> paraphrase the old saying, you have no science so you try to baffle
>> with bullshit. Try you might, but few here would be baffled by you.
>> and yes, in case you missed it, that was an ad hominem attack, just so
>> you might recognise another one when it comes along.

>
> You're a complete ignorant and a demonstrable moron,
> COlin. There is not ONE instance of ANY post
> of yours that demonstrates you are capable
> of ANY smidgeon of reasoning.
> Take some time off with the sheep, you need it!
> <plonk>


Clearly Noons is nonplussed by logical argument, so the usual ad hominem
attacks ensue. A sad case.

Lessee, what words descriptive of Noons come to mind? Argumentative,
yes; truculent, often; abusive, mostly; belligerent, nearly always;
bellicose, the same; ignorant, certainly; word-challenged, well proven;
repetitive, obviously; knowledgeable, only in his dreams; a credit to
his country, not likely; foul-mouthed, to the nth degree; a useful
contributor to general photographic knowledge, not often.

Yes, a truly sad case.

Colin D.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How can I transform source range to destination range that is thesame as source? Lambda C++ 2 07-16-2008 05:18 PM
'ArgumentError: bad value for range' for range of Times David Bird Ruby 1 06-23-2008 12:12 PM
range() is not the best way to check range? Summercoolness@gmail.com Python 46 07-25-2006 08:10 PM
Scene range vs dynamic range Robert Feinman Digital Photography 2 07-04-2005 09:30 PM
Range does not take an Range object. Tomoyuki Kosimizu Ruby 3 11-27-2003 12:42 AM



Advertisments