Commenting On Unused Equipment

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:17:51 -0400, "BobS" <no-> wrote:
>
>>
>>But since you brought it up, can you tell us what experience you have
>>with DSLRs such as make and model. That way, one could better judge how
>>up to date your views are and how broad your experience level is with
>>various makes.
>
>I could, but that wouldn't matter. The problem is in their design. All of
>them. Problems that do not exist on any P&S cameras.
>
I didn't check the exif date on the entries, but were any of the
photos in the Shoot-In done with a P&S camera? Most of the people who
have the balls to put their stuff up for open review probably own both
a dslr and a P&S. I know I do.

It seems our P&S (excuse me, John, "compact zuperzooms") adherents are
shy about displaying their creations. Probably just a humanitarian
gesture on their part because they don't want to blow us away.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:19:18 -0400, tony cooper
<> wrote:

>
>Probably just a humanitarian
>gesture on their part because they don't want to blow us away.

You aren't far from wrong. The other larger reason being, I would never
post my photographs amongst a collection of beginner's snapshots. Pretty
demeaning doing that. I have no need to try to get attention for my
photography, as all of you must do try to encourage yourselves to do
better. (How can anyone not do better? It's all "up" when you're that low.)
I removed all my sites online years ago just because of how many people
were stealing them for screen-savers and other unauthorized uses. Even
though they were only 640 x 480 images they still found them worthy for
their own gains. Resolution means nothing when the images are worth seeing.
But if you were any kind of photographer, you'd know that.

Want to play the "slam cameras that you know nothing about" game, again?
You just outted yourself as nothing more than another useless, pathetic,
and insecure DSLR-Troll.

I wonder how many more of them that this thread can trap and cause them to
out themselves. Should be mildly interesting.

Curiouser and Curiouser

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:51:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
<> wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:43:21 -0700, Mike Russell
><> wrote:
>
>>something resembling a discussion
>
>Translation: Any comments that blindly and foolishly agree with Mike
>Russel's far lesser experience in the field of photography and related
>equipment.

I gotta laugh at this. Here's Mike - the Curvemeister - who could
write a book on digital photography and post-processing (or maybe he
has) being belittled by someone who has never taken a photograph good
enough to show us.

Mike's got cattle. You just have a hat.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:44:38 -0400, tony cooper
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:51:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
><> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:43:21 -0700, Mike Russell
>><> wrote:
>>
>>>something resembling a discussion
>>
>>Translation: Any comments that blindly and foolishly agree with Mike
>>Russel's far lesser experience in the field of photography and related
>>equipment.
>
>I gotta laugh at this. Here's Mike - the Spam-meister - who could
>write a book on digital photography and post-processing (or maybe he
>has) being belittled by someone who has never taken a photograph good
>enough to show us.
>
>Mike's got cattle. You just have a hat.

Mike is here to spam his software. Probably lost sales due to the economy
so he's not even caring that he's violating Usenet policies. An act of
desperation on his part. Nothing more. I've tested his software. It's not
that great. I no longer recommend it to anyone else. Did at one time, years
ago, but other programs have become far better.

You might want to look into the curve-generator for CHDK capable cameras,
for custom curves done in-camera. Where you tweak all 4 RGGB channels. Can
you count higher than 3?

Are you going to hijack yet another thread as a desperate act of
attention-getting behavior for yourself instead of staying on topic? No, of
course not, you're just proving yourself to be nothing but a low-life
troll, AGAIN. You can do no differently, and that is what is now expected
of you. 2 or 3 hijacks in one day is way below average for normal trolls.
Hijack a few more threads, you have a ways to go yet to reach troll's-par.

Curiouser and Curiouser

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:51:54 +1100, Bob Larter <>
wrote:

>Curiouser and Curiouser wrote:
>> I sometimes wonder why people feel the ne[*Yawn!*]



see: alt.kooks.lionel-lauer

A valid group in the known net-trolls groups.

Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up

Curiouser and Curiouser wrote:
> I sometimes wonder why people feel the ne[*Yawn!*]


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:23:58 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2009-10-26 23:19:18 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:17:51 -0400, "BobS" <no-> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But since you brought it up, can you tell us what experience you have
>>>> with DSLRs such as make and model. That way, one could better judge how
>>>> up to date your views are and how broad your experience level is with
>>>> various makes.
>>>
>>> I could, but that wouldn't matter. The problem is in their design. All of
>>> them. Problems that do not exist on any P&S cameras.
>>>
>> I didn't check the exif date on the entries, but were any of the
>> photos in the Shoot-In done with a P&S camera? Most of the people who
>> have the balls to put their stuff up for open review probably own both
>> a dslr and a P&S. I know I do.
>
>My digital armory includes CP775 (permanently out to the step-daughter
>from Hell), CP5700 (gathering dust), Fujifilm E-900, D70, D300 & my
>latest purchase, my first Canon, a G11.
>
>>

Be sure to leave that G11 on full auto mode. It might teach you how to take
pictures some day. Well, at least poorly composed snapshots that don't have
pink granite mountains and pink clouds during noon daylight. You know, the
kind you take with a DSLR that you don't even know how to use. The rest
about cameras and photography you'll have to learn on your own, a camera
won't help you there. (Learning is not likely, we've see it. What a
mountain to climb that'll be.)

Going to troll off-topic again? Of course. The hallmark of a troll. You can
be no less no more than that.

Thom Kast

Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:51:54 +1100, Bob Larter <>
> wrote:
>
>> Curiouser and Curiouser wrote:
>>> I sometimes wonder why people feel the ne[*Yawn!*]
>
>
>
> see: alt.kooks.lionel-lauer
>
> A valid group in the known net-trolls groups.

Really? - I don't know any servers that carry it. ;^)

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:12:41 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:44:38 -0400, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:51:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
>><> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:43:21 -0700, Mike Russell
>>><> wrote:
>>>
>>>>something resembling a discussion
>>>
>>>Translation: Any comments that blindly and foolishly agree with Mike
>>>Russel's far lesser experience in the field of photography and related
>>>equipment.
>>
>>I gotta laugh at this. Here's Mike - the Spam-meister - who could
>>write a book on digital photography and post-processing (or maybe he
>>has) being belittled by someone who has never taken a photograph good
>>enough to show us.
>>
>>Mike's got cattle. You just have a hat.
>
>Mike is here to spam his software. Probably lost sales due to the economy
>so he's not even caring that he's violating Usenet policies. An act of
>desperation on his part. Nothing more. I've tested his software. It's not
>that great. I no longer recommend it to anyone else.

Mike is probably grateful for this.

>Did at one time, years
>ago, but other programs have become far better.
>
>You might want to look into the curve-generator for CHDK capable cameras,
>for custom curves done in-camera. Where you tweak all 4 RGGB channels. Can
>you count higher than 3?

What are the four "RGGB" channels? Here's me thinking that there is
only one RGB channel and three other channels: red, green, and blue.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

tony cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:12:41 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
> <> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:44:38 -0400, tony cooper
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:51:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:43:21 -0700, Mike Russell
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> something resembling a discussion
>>>> Translation: Any comments that blindly and foolishly agree with Mike
>>>> Russel's far lesser experience in the field of photography and related
>>>> equipment.
>>> I gotta laugh at this. Here's Mike - the Spam-meister - who could
>>> write a book on digital photography and post-processing (or maybe he
>>> has) being belittled by someone who has never taken a photograph good
>>> enough to show us.
>>>
>>> Mike's got cattle. You just have a hat.
>> Mike is here to spam his software. Probably lost sales due to the economy
>> so he's not even caring that he's violating Usenet policies. An act of
>> desperation on his part. Nothing more. I've tested his software. It's not
>> that great. I no longer recommend it to anyone else.
>
> Mike is probably grateful for this.
>
>> Did at one time, years
>> ago, but other programs have become far better.
>>
>> You might want to look into the curve-generator for CHDK capable cameras,
>> for custom curves done in-camera. Where you tweak all 4 RGGB channels. Can
>> you count higher than 3?
>
> What are the four "RGGB" channels? Here's me thinking that there is
> only one RGB channel and three other channels: red, green, and blue.

On the usual Bayer matrix there are two sensors for green for one blue
and one red. So the sensor output is four channels with two green ones.


--
Bertrand

Ofnuts