«

On 11/07/2010 5:03 p.m., LOL! wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, Me<> wrote:
>
>> Oh - forgot to say this was taken with a P&S. Shutter speed was way too
>> slow to freeze motion blur.
>
> Oh, I forgot to say, this was also shot with a superzoom compact camera
> during sunset.
>
> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/...285b02f4_b.jpg
>
> You're pretty lousy at knowing how to use any camera, aren't you. Thanks
> for proving that to the whole world.
>
You got lucky.
I posed my dog for the shot, sitting still, then pressed the shutter
button. By the time the shutter went off, she'd stood up and had
started wagging her tail.
I suppose with your bird shot, it was much the same...

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:14:37 +1200, Me <> wrote:

>On 11/07/2010 5:03 p.m., LOL! wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, Me<> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh - forgot to say this was taken with a P&S. Shutter speed was way too
>>> slow to freeze motion blur.
>>
>> Oh, I forgot to say, this was also shot with a superzoom compact camera
>> during sunset.
>>
>> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/...285b02f4_b.jpg
>>
>> You're pretty lousy at knowing how to use any camera, aren't you. Thanks
>> for proving that to the whole world.
>>
>You got lucky.

Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. I have about 10,000 more of the
same genre.

>I posed my dog for the shot, sitting still, then pressed the shutter
>button. By the time the shutter went off, she'd stood up and had
>started wagging her tail.
>I suppose with your bird shot, it was much the same...

I suppose you are wrong. The one where it was just lifting from the water
wasn't as interesting as this one with the drops of water trailing it in
the air.

I would also suppose you are an untalented and unskilled idiot, but I
already know you are an untalented and unskilled idiot by your own proof,
so I won't suppose that.

LOL!

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:15:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
wrote:
>
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...es/10bit.shtml


Monitors slowly evolving?

No, you missed the point as usual, Rich. What we have here is Michael
Reichmann *rapidly* evolving into a shill for Eizo monitors!

Is there *any* item of imaging equipment that Reichmann would refuse
to shill for on his "Ludicrous Landscape" site?

No answer sought or needed.

On 11/07/2010 5:27 p.m., LOL! wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:14:37 +1200, Me<> wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/2010 5:03 p.m., LOL! wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, Me<> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh - forgot to say this was taken with a P&S. Shutter speed was way too
>>>> slow to freeze motion blur.
>>>
>>> Oh, I forgot to say, this was also shot with a superzoom compact camera
>>> during sunset.
>>>
>>> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/...285b02f4_b.jpg
>>>
>>> You're pretty lousy at knowing how to use any camera, aren't you. Thanks
>>> for proving that to the whole world.
>>>
>> You got lucky.
>
> Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. I have about 10,000 more of the
> same genre.
>
>
>> I posed my dog for the shot, sitting still, then pressed the shutter
>> button. By the time the shutter went off, she'd stood up and had
>> started wagging her tail.
>> I suppose with your bird shot, it was much the same...
>
> I suppose you are wrong. The one where it was just lifting from the water
> wasn't as interesting as this one with the drops of water trailing it in
> the air.
>
Nice technique - so you stuffed the bird, suspended it by wires, and
used clear polyester resin for the "water droplets".
>

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:26:49 +1200, Me <> wrote:

>On 11/07/2010 5:27 p.m., LOL! wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:14:37 +1200, Me<> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/07/2010 5:03 p.m., LOL! wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, Me<> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oh - forgot to say this was taken with a P&S. Shutter speed was way too
>>>>> slow to freeze motion blur.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I forgot to say, this was also shot with a superzoom compact camera
>>>> during sunset.
>>>>
>>>> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/...285b02f4_b.jpg
>>>>
>>>> You're pretty lousy at knowing how to use any camera, aren't you. Thanks
>>>> for proving that to the whole world.
>>>>
>>> You got lucky.
>>
>> Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. I have about 10,000 more of the
>> same genre.
> >
>>
>>> I posed my dog for the shot, sitting still, then pressed the shutter
>>> button. By the time the shutter went off, she'd stood up and had
>>> started wagging her tail.
>>> I suppose with your bird shot, it was much the same...
>>
>> I suppose you are wrong. The one where it was just lifting from the water
>> wasn't as interesting as this one with the drops of water trailing it in
>> the air.
>>
>Nice technique - so you stuffed the bird, suspended it by wires, and
>used clear polyester resin for the "water droplets".

Yes, and emulated the Everglades' swamp-water with resins as well. The
sunlight glinting off the resins and backlighting the subject provided by a
50 kilowatt, liquid-nitrogen cooled, CREE LED lighting system focused
through a bank of cold-mirrors, filters (to emulate setting-sun
temperature), and condenser system so as not to exceed the ~0.5° angular
spread of the setting sun for authentic water-droplet glints. The Mangrove
bank background was painstakingly duplicated in fiberglass, resin cements,
and various forms of cloth to duplicate the leaves and their textures. All
dyed in natural colors using ash-dyes for authenticity.

You forgot to claim it was also taken with a DSLR, just like all the rest
of your fellow useless pretend-photographer trolls around here always claim
every time I post one of my NON-DSLR images.

Let this be a lesson to you, that *ANY* camera in the hands of a skilled
and talented person will surpass anything you will ever be able to
accomplish with even the most expensive camera in the world. What a shame
that you can't even get a decent photograph with a more-than-capable P&S
camera. It speaks tomes about your own inadequacies. If I was that mutt of
yours I'd be looking for new owners at the very next campsite, just out of
embarrassment of having you as my owner.

LOL!

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:15:08 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
<> wrote:

>
>"RichA" <> wrote in message
>news:2f86bcbe-1145-4e89-a69a-...
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...es/10bit.shtml
>>
>
>More colours than the human eye can discern?
>
>Why pay for that?
>

What? You don't know? BECAUSE .... if they have the latest and greatest,
that which even goes beyond the levels of human perception, this will
automatically make them into a PRO! Absolutely no different in how they
select their cameras or image editing software.

You know, like those audiophiles that insist on having a speaker or
headphone system that can duplicate ultra-sonic and sub-sonic frequencies.
They will never hear those frequencies, but damned if they won't claim they
make a difference to their listening experience.

Isn't technology wonderful? It can so easily expose the true fool.

LOL!

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:15:08 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
<> wrote:
>"RichA" <> wrote in message
>news:2f86bcbe-1145-4e89-a69a-...
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...es/10bit.shtml
>>
>
>More colours than the human eye can discern?
>
>Why pay for that?


The article is typical of the nonsense that regularly appears on the
"Ludicrous Landscape" site.

Best ignored.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:40:55 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
wrote:
>RichA writes:
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...es/10bit.shtml
>I have to wonder why such a bizarre aspect ratio was implemented for this
>monitor. Is it just for editing movies in Panavision, or what?


1920 x 1200 is quite popular in large monitors - 22 inch and larger.

Personally, I would prefer a 16:9 aspect ratio as you can see a full
3:2 frame with toolboxes to one side or the other. But 1920 x 1200 is
not too bad.

On 11/07/2010 11:53 p.m., LOL! wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:26:49 +1200, Me<> wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/2010 5:27 p.m., LOL! wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:14:37 +1200, Me<> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/07/2010 5:03 p.m., LOL! wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, Me<> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh - forgot to say this was taken with a P&S. Shutter speed was way too
>>>>>> slow to freeze motion blur.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I forgot to say, this was also shot with a superzoom compact camera
>>>>> during sunset.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/...285b02f4_b.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> You're pretty lousy at knowing how to use any camera, aren't you. Thanks
>>>>> for proving that to the whole world.
>>>>>
>>>> You got lucky.
>>>
>>> Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. I have about 10,000 more of the
>>> same genre.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I posed my dog for the shot, sitting still, then pressed the shutter
>>>> button. By the time the shutter went off, she'd stood up and had
>>>> started wagging her tail.
>>>> I suppose with your bird shot, it was much the same...
>>>
>>> I suppose you are wrong. The one where it was just lifting from the water
>>> wasn't as interesting as this one with the drops of water trailing it in
>>> the air.
>>>
>> Nice technique - so you stuffed the bird, suspended it by wires, and
>> used clear polyester resin for the "water droplets".
>
> Yes, and emulated the Everglades' swamp-water with resins as well. The
> sunlight glinting off the resins and backlighting the subject provided by a
> 50 kilowatt, liquid-nitrogen cooled, CREE LED lighting system focused
> through a bank of cold-mirrors, filters (to emulate setting-sun
> temperature), and condenser system so as not to exceed the ~0.5° angular
> spread of the setting sun for authentic water-droplet glints. The Mangrove
> bank background was painstakingly duplicated in fiberglass, resin cements,
> and various forms of cloth to duplicate the leaves and their textures. All
> dyed in natural colors using ash-dyes for authenticity.
>
If you went to all that trouble, then how come you didn't compose the
shot properly? The bird in the right hand third flying to the right
draws the eye out of the frame. There's also a lot of blown highlights
and lost shadows, though possibly not a problem as at the resolution
posted, it would only be good for a postage stamp sized print.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:55:06 +1200, Me <> wrote:

>On 11/07/2010 11:53 p.m., LOL! wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:26:49 +1200, Me<> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/07/2010 5:27 p.m., LOL! wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:14:37 +1200, Me<> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/07/2010 5:03 p.m., LOL! wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, Me<> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh - forgot to say this was taken with a P&S. Shutter speed was way too
>>>>>>> slow to freeze motion blur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, I forgot to say, this was also shot with a superzoom compact camera
>>>>>> during sunset.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/...285b02f4_b.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're pretty lousy at knowing how to use any camera, aren't you. Thanks
>>>>>> for proving that to the whole world.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You got lucky.
>>>>
>>>> Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. I have about 10,000 more of the
>>>> same genre.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I posed my dog for the shot, sitting still, then pressed the shutter
>>>>> button. By the time the shutter went off, she'd stood up and had
>>>>> started wagging her tail.
>>>>> I suppose with your bird shot, it was much the same...
>>>>
>>>> I suppose you are wrong. The one where it was just lifting from the water
>>>> wasn't as interesting as this one with the drops of water trailing it in
>>>> the air.
>>>>
>>> Nice technique - so you stuffed the bird, suspended it by wires, and
>>> used clear polyester resin for the "water droplets".
>>
>> Yes, and emulated the Everglades' swamp-water with resins as well. The
>> sunlight glinting off the resins and backlighting the subject provided by a
>> 50 kilowatt, liquid-nitrogen cooled, CREE LED lighting system focused
>> through a bank of cold-mirrors, filters (to emulate setting-sun
>> temperature), and condenser system so as not to exceed the ~0.5° angular
>> spread of the setting sun for authentic water-droplet glints. The Mangrove
>> bank background was painstakingly duplicated in fiberglass, resin cements,
>> and various forms of cloth to duplicate the leaves and their textures. All
>> dyed in natural colors using ash-dyes for authenticity.
>>
>If you went to all that trouble, then how come you didn't compose the
>shot properly? The bird in the right hand third flying to the right
>draws the eye out of the frame.

Duh, because I wanted to emphasize that it was LEAVING? I'd explain to you
why that was the only possible correct composition for that shot, but I
find it so tedious educating those with sub 80 I.Q.s.

Now if you want, I can easily tear apart the composition in your mutt shot.
That one is chock FULL of composition errors. Showing everyone in the world
.... THAT YOU DON'T KNOW ONE DAMN THING ABOUT COMPOSITION.

LOL!

>There's also a lot of blown highlights
>and lost shadows,

Not in any portions of the image that matters. There are no lost shadows.
All details of the backlit white bird in the sunlight are fully intact. The
only parts "blown out" are the glints of setting sun on the water (as they
SHOULD BE) and your mental comprehension.

It prints quite nicely at 18" width.

You might want to learn how to calibrate your monitor some day.

> though possibly not a problem as at the resolution
>posted, it would only be good for a postage stamp sized print.

Now, explain to us again why your mutt shot was so shitty that it can't
even be displayed on a monitor over 640 pixels wide without showing all
that blur.

No wait, don't bother. We already ascertained the problem in that shot. THE
CRAPSHOOTER HOLDING THE CAMERA CAUSED IT.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!