Lens question

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:54:59 +1000, Bob Larter <>
wrote:

>Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:17:11 -0800 (PST), -hh
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> the lame Copy & Paste troll writes:
>>>> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ...but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of
>>>>> which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions...
>>>> And there was a stone in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, you forgot
>>>> your glasses, there was a string broken in your tennis racket, and your
>>>> shoelace was untied ... yadda yadda yadda ...
>>> Try to make whatever lame excuses you want, but the reality is that I
>>> also had a new digital P&S with me, yet what I chose to put online
>>> years before this debate as the better shot wasn't one from the P&S.
>>
>> BETTER?? LOL!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>> And naturally, we can expect to never see any image from you that
>>> represents something comparable...call it a long telephoto at a gloomy
>>> & flat EV 5-9 lighting (semitropical cloud forest), which is far
>>> revmoved from the nice and bright EV 14-16 that was present in John's
>>> sunlit shot.
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed
>> from sunlight. LOL! (Yet he thinks he can get away with his DSLR-Trolls'
>> bullshit as often as he does.)
>>
>> And the stone was in your shoe, your girdle was too tight yadda yadda
>> yadda... LOL!
>>
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2723/...1b811770_o.jpg
>
>Jeez, do you think you could over-sharpen that tiny shot even more?
>ROTFL.


Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."

<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>

"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."

Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 03:38:26 -0800 (PST), -hh
<> wrote:

>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>> >Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed
>>
>> It's not in sunlight, asshole. *Get a clue.
>
>I recall doing some research awhile back on solar-based power systems
>for dismounted military. Stuff was looking pretty promising until
>someone pointed out the 'all terrains' requirement and asked, "How
>well would this have worked in Vietnam?" Long story short is that in
>jungle triple canopy, roughly 95% of available light is absorbed
>before it hits the ground...and despite arguments of "find a patch of
>sunlight", this solar project was killed.
>
>Applying that 95% loss in photographic terms, that's four (4) stops.

Provide proof.

>
>Plus armchair guesstimates based on pupil dilation fails when not
>comparing same-to-same. All bets are off as soon as one changes
>species. For example, here's resized but totally unedited images of a
>kingfisher and a bee eater...both with dilated eyes ... and for both,
>when you check the EXIF, one finds that it is a clearly non-gloomy EV
>14.
>
><http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2008/tanzania/20D_20081119_20506.jpg>
><http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2008/tanzania/20D_20081119_20594.jpg>
>
>
>-hh

And that's what you offer as proof? Images where you can't even discern the
pupil diameter? (Hint: the iris in any species never totally disappears.)

You're a pretty pathetic troll based against your average troll.

Outing Trolls is FUN!

On Nov 5, 6:06*pm, the Copy & Paste troll whines
>
> ><http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2008/tanzania/20D_20081119_20506.jpg>
> ><http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2008/tanzania/20D_20081119_20594.jpg>
>
> >-hh
>
> And that's what you offer as proof? Images where you can't even discern the
> pupil diameter? (Hint: the iris in any species never totally disappears.)

Sorry, but I'm not going to publish the full sized, full rez image ...
afterall, since you keep on telling us about how paranoid you are
about showing off "works", I'm merely following your lead.

The regular readers know that I'm good to back up my statements. If
any of them ask for a 100% crop, that's doable.

In the meantime...for the curious:

Host: 211.30.213.211 Date: Nov 05 03:42:03
Host: 110.175.202.173 Date: Nov 05 03:56:19
Host: 138.253.178.42 Date: Nov 05 04:05:00
Host: 94.71.68.14 Date: Nov 05 09:53:49
Host: 99.52.200.137 Date: Nov 05 08:32:22
Host: 205.156.36.15 Date: Nov 05 10:47:34
Host: 12.73.131.174 - Date: Nov 05 14:58:45


-hh

-hh

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 17:51:59 -0800 (PST), -hh
<> wrote:

>On Nov 5, 6:06*pm, the Copy & Paste troll whines
>>
>> ><http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2008/tanzania/20D_20081119_20506.jpg>
>> ><http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2008/tanzania/20D_20081119_20594.jpg>
>>
>> >-hh
>>
>> And that's what you offer as proof? Images where you can't even discern the
>> pupil diameter? (Hint: the iris in any species never totally disappears.)
>
>Sorry, but I'm not going to publish the full sized, full rez image ...
>afterall, since you keep on telling us about how paranoid you are
>about showing off "works", I'm merely following your lead.

Ah, the plaintive cries of a troll proved dead-wrong again. You can't post
a crop of just the eyes. Instead you try to baffle them with bullshit. LOL

>
>The regular readers know that I'm good to back up my statements. If
>any of them ask for a 100% crop, that's doable.
>

Now onto the troll's standard red-herring crap. Yes, he does that too. You
are right. You do exactly everything needed to back up proving exactly what
you are. Thanks! LOL I couldn't have proved you being a troll any better if
I did it for you.

>In the meantime...for the curious:
>
>Host: 211.30.213.211 Date: Nov 05 03:42:03
>Host: 110.175.202.173 Date: Nov 05 03:56:19
>Host: 138.253.178.42 Date: Nov 05 04:05:00
>Host: 94.71.68.14 Date: Nov 05 09:53:49
>Host: 99.52.200.137 Date: Nov 05 08:32:22
>Host: 205.156.36.15 Date: Nov 05 10:47:34
>Host: 12.73.131.174 - Date: Nov 05 14:58:45
>
>
>-hh

Outing Trolls is FUN!

Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:
><> wrote:
>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>
>>> >Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed
>>>
>>> It's not in sunlight, asshole. *Get a clue.
>>
>>I recall doing some research awhile back on solar-based power systems
>>for dismounted military. Stuff was looking pretty promising until
>>someone pointed out the 'all terrains' requirement and asked, "How
>>well would this have worked in Vietnam?" Long story short is that in
>>jungle triple canopy, roughly 95% of available light is absorbed
>>before it hits the ground...and despite arguments of "find a patch of
>>sunlight", this solar project was killed.
>>
>>Applying that 95% loss in photographic terms, that's four (4) stops.
>
>Provide proof.

Oooo! The lying troll that NEVER provides proof is now demanding
proof from someone else!

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer wrote:
> [the Copy & Paste troll wrote]:
> >
> >Provide proof.
>
> Oooo! *The lying troll that NEVER provides proof is now demanding
> proof from someone else!


Yes, and his level of hypocrisy is ... not at all surprising.


In the meantime, for his challenge on tropical canopy light
penetration, mister "Copy & Paste" couldn't even have tried to read
Wikipedia:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforest>

....which states, "Only about 5 percent of the sunlight shining on the
rainforest reaches the understory", which confirms my recollection of
a ~95% light loss.

As I reminded him...even if others do not (for reasons of hypocrisy,
etc), the regular readers know that I'm good to back up my
statements.

Of course, the real impliations of his display of ignorance merely
goes to illustrate that despite his attempted claims to the contrary,
he has no actual real world experience in trying to work & photograph
within jungle understory canopy environment.


-hh

-hh

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:45:05 +1000, Bob Larter <>
wrote:

>-hh wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> [the Copy & Paste troll wrote]:
>>>> Provide proof.
>>> Oooo! The lying troll that NEVER provides proof is now demanding
>>> proof from someone else!
>>
>>
>> Yes, and his level of hypocrisy is ... not at all surprising.
>>
>>
>> In the meantime, for his challenge on tropical canopy light
>> penetration, mister "Copy & Paste" couldn't even have tried to read
>> Wikipedia:
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforest>
>>
>> ...which states, "Only about 5 percent of the sunlight shining on the
>> rainforest reaches the understory", which confirms my recollection of
>> a ~95% light loss.
>
><nods> As usual the P&S troll has been caught making up his 'facts' again.
>
>> As I reminded him...even if others do not (for reasons of hypocrisy,
>> etc), the regular readers know that I'm good to back up my
>> statements.
>
>Indeed.
>
>> Of course, the real impliations of his display of ignorance merely
>> goes to illustrate that despite his attempted claims to the contrary,
>> he has no actual real world experience in trying to work & photograph
>> within jungle understory canopy environment.
>
>Of course he hasn't. Every time he's talked about anything on which I'm
>an authority, he's gotten it wrong. No surprise that he gets other stuff
>wrong as well.


Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."

<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>

"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."

Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:39:43 +1000, Bob Larter <>
wrote:

>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>> Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed
>>>>> It's not in sunlight, asshole. Get a clue.
>>>> I recall doing some research awhile back on solar-based power systems
>>>> for dismounted military. Stuff was looking pretty promising until
>>>> someone pointed out the 'all terrains' requirement and asked, "How
>>>> well would this have worked in Vietnam?" Long story short is that in
>>>> jungle triple canopy, roughly 95% of available light is absorbed
>>>> before it hits the ground...and despite arguments of "find a patch of
>>>> sunlight", this solar project was killed.
>>>>
>>>> Applying that 95% loss in photographic terms, that's four (4) stops.
>>> Provide proof.
>>
>> Oooo! The lying troll that NEVER provides proof is now demanding
>> proof from someone else!
>
>What a surprise!


Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."

<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>

"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."

Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.

Ray Fischer wrote:
> Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:
>> <> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed
>>>> It's not in sunlight, asshole. Get a clue.
>>> I recall doing some research awhile back on solar-based power systems
>>> for dismounted military. Stuff was looking pretty promising until
>>> someone pointed out the 'all terrains' requirement and asked, "How
>>> well would this have worked in Vietnam?" Long story short is that in
>>> jungle triple canopy, roughly 95% of available light is absorbed
>>> before it hits the ground...and despite arguments of "find a patch of
>>> sunlight", this solar project was killed.
>>>
>>> Applying that 95% loss in photographic terms, that's four (4) stops.
>> Provide proof.
>
> Oooo! The lying troll that NEVER provides proof is now demanding
> proof from someone else!

What a surprise!

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

Bob Larter

-hh wrote:
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> [the Copy & Paste troll wrote]:
>>> Provide proof.
>> Oooo! The lying troll that NEVER provides proof is now demanding
>> proof from someone else!
>
>
> Yes, and his level of hypocrisy is ... not at all surprising.
>
>
> In the meantime, for his challenge on tropical canopy light
> penetration, mister "Copy & Paste" couldn't even have tried to read
> Wikipedia:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforest>
>
> ...which states, "Only about 5 percent of the sunlight shining on the
> rainforest reaches the understory", which confirms my recollection of
> a ~95% light loss.

<nods> As usual the P&S troll has been caught making up his 'facts' again.

> As I reminded him...even if others do not (for reasons of hypocrisy,
> etc), the regular readers know that I'm good to back up my
> statements.

Indeed.

> Of course, the real impliations of his display of ignorance merely
> goes to illustrate that despite his attempted claims to the contrary,
> he has no actual real world experience in trying to work & photograph
> within jungle understory canopy environment.

Of course he hasn't. Every time he's talked about anything on which I'm
an authority, he's gotten it wrong. No surprise that he gets other stuff
wrong as well.

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

Bob Larter