Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Moonset Over Zion

Reply
Thread Tools

Moonset Over Zion

 
 
LOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2010
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:48:01 +0200, Ofnuts <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On 27/07/2010 13:00, LOL! wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:56:38 +0200, Ofnuts<(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/07/2010 05:29, LOL! wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Just wondering... f/4, 1/40000s is about 19.3EV at 100ISO (and f/2.7,
>>>>> 1/12500s is 19.5), and still 17.3EV@400ISO. Given that the best natural
>>>>> lighting is 16EV@100ISO (midday sunlight on sand or snow) what kind of
>>>>> natural, non-flash lighting is used to take pictures at f/4, 1/40000s?
>>>>> Because we aren't talking about shooting fried animals, are we?
>>>>
>>>> I suggest you use Google to find all the interesting ways that those
>>>> shutter speeds are being used today.
>>>
>>> I suggest you learn to read.... I asked about natural light... we are
>>> talking abour shooting hummingbirds here.
>>>

>>
>> And one shot using those shutter speeds outside of the range of ANY DSLR
>> ever made was already posted, you useless **** of a DSLR-TROLL.

>
>Yes, but also outside the range of the CHDK camera,because it won't have
>the natural light for it.


Right. I guess that's why this one taken in available light ONLY at
1/12,500 second shutter speed is outside of the range of natural light for
it.

<http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/4822194301_20db930412_b.jpg>

Holy **** are you ever a **** of an ignorant troll.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ofnuts
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2010
On 27/07/2010 14:15, LOL! wrote:

>> Yes, but also outside the range of the CHDK camera,because it won't have
>> the natural light for it.

>
> Right. I guess that's why this one taken in available light ONLY at
> 1/12,500 second shutter speed is outside of the range of natural light for
> it.
>
> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/4822194301_20db930412_b.jpg>
>
> Holy **** are you ever a **** of an ignorant troll.


Nothing in that shot indicates it has been taken at such a speed. The
bird isn't even flying. Of course, given the slow AF of a P&S, shooting
a perched bird is a lot easier. And assuming it has really been taken at
that speed, is that the best picture quality you can get? It's appalling...

--
Bertrand, FUMLIPPUFOADTCOAIT (****ing useless moron, lame ignorant,
pretend photographer, useless **** of a DSLR-TROLL, **** of an ignorant
troll)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tzortzakakis Dimitris
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2010

? "Ofnuts" <(E-Mail Removed)> ?????? ??? ??????
news:4c4ee6f6$0$2781$(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 27/07/2010 14:15, LOL! wrote:
>
>>> Yes, but also outside the range of the CHDK camera,because it won't have
>>> the natural light for it.

>>
>> Right. I guess that's why this one taken in available light ONLY at
>> 1/12,500 second shutter speed is outside of the range of natural light
>> for
>> it.
>>
>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/4822194301_20db930412_b.jpg>
>>
>> Holy **** are you ever a **** of an ignorant troll.

>
> Nothing in that shot indicates it has been taken at such a speed. The bird
> isn't even flying. Of course, given the slow AF of a P&S, shooting a
> perched bird is a lot easier. And assuming it has really been taken at
> that speed, is that the best picture quality you can get? It's
> appalling...
>

You can take such a photo with available light, at 1/40,000. Just detonate a
nuclear bomb. You probably will have 1ns to confess your sins....


--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ofnuts
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2010
On 27/07/2010 19:03, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:02:29 +0200, Ofnuts<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Of course, given the slow AF of a P&S,

>
> Handheld shots taken with a P&S camera auto-focusing in the pitch dark ...


Hand-held: of course... using the flash all pictures can be hand-held.
Why do you make it sound like an achievement?

And as you say, your camera is using its AF LED assist, so what? Are you
surprised that it works? Anything else on your superzoom camera that
wouldn't work as advertised? As to the moth... so either the camera AFs
on the flowers, and the moth happens to be in the large DOF... or it AFs
on a *hovering* moth which isn't that hard either.

> [As always, high JPG compression applied to entertain the thieves and
> armchair-photographer trolls.]


Er... look like you sent the wrong pictures then

--
Bertrand, FUMLIPPUFOADTCOAIT (****ing useless moron, lame ignorant,
pretend photographer, useless **** of a DSLR-TROLL, **** of an ignorant
troll, )
 
Reply With Quote
 
Outing Trolls is FUN!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2010
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:17:45 +0200, Ofnuts <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On 27/07/2010 19:03, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:02:29 +0200, Ofnuts<(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, given the slow AF of a P&S,

>>
>> Handheld shots taken with a P&S camera auto-focusing in the pitch dark ...

>
>Hand-held: of course... using the flash all pictures can be hand-held.
>Why do you make it sound like an achievement?
>
>And as you say, your camera is using its AF LED assist, so what? Are you
>surprised that it works? Anything else on your superzoom camera that
>wouldn't work as advertised? As to the moth... so either the camera AFs
>on the flowers, and the moth happens to be in the large DOF... or it AFs
>on a *hovering* moth which isn't that hard either.
>
>> [As always, high JPG compression applied to entertain the thieves and
>> armchair-photographer trolls.]

>
>Er... look like you sent the wrong pictures then


Er...I knew it and this confirms it. You're ****ing blind. You probably
have your browser set to interpolate all images so they're ALL a muddy
bicubic mess on your end and you can never tell the difference.

While we all await your images of insects in flight focused and framed
outside in the dark with your SUPER-FAST ACCURATELY FOCUSING DSLR WITH ITS
MUCH COVETED BUT USELESS-IN-THE-DARK OPTICAL VIEWFINDER.

LOL!!!!!!!!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Outing DSLR-Trolls is FUN!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2010
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:17:45 +0200, Ofnuts <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On 27/07/2010 19:03, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:02:29 +0200, Ofnuts<(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, given the slow AF of a P&S,

>>
>> Handheld shots taken with a P&S camera auto-focusing in the pitch dark ...

>
>Hand-held: of course... using the flash all pictures can be hand-held.
>Why do you make it sound like an achievement?


Thanks for proving that you've never used any camera under these
circumstances. (You most likely have never used ANY camera under ANY
circumstances, or you'd know better.)

The main points being, MORON, that the zoom lens was set to 432mm EFL in
all of these. Being able to frame and focus ACCURATELY in the dark with an
EVF equipped superzoom camera set to use its auto contrast-detection
focusing while being HANDHELD at that focal-length. All are situations that
you ****ingly stupid DSLR-TROLL ***** relentlessly claim to be impossible.

On top of that, you don't even know the behavior of sphinx moths when
feeding. They hover at each flower for about 1 second, if you're lucky.
Their flight much more erratic and randomly darting than any hummingbird
I've ever caught on camera. This particular moth would cover the span of a
15 ft. area of flowers in under 5 seconds. They purposely dart often in
widely divergent directions while feeding to evade nightly predators. Let's
see YOU follow a sphinx moth, at night, in the dark, with a 432mm EFL lens
on YOUR DSLR. Out of the five images that I took (the properly exposed ones
after I found the 13 levels of flash adjustment) ALL of them were properly
framed and in focus. No more were needed than that. Burst mode wasn't even
necessary because I know what I'm doing.

So until YOU show us close-up images of your own, of a sphinx moth feeding
outside at night, using that much focal-length on ANY camera, you will
forever remain a useless role-playing pretend-photographer DSLR-TROLL who
can only lie and deceive others. I've just proved your DSLR-TROLL's claims
about P&S cameras to be complete lies. I can do it just as easily again
with every one of your other lies about them.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ofnuts
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2010
On 28/07/2010 07:04, Outing DSLR-Trolls is FUN! wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:17:45 +0200, Ofnuts<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> On 27/07/2010 19:03, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:02:29 +0200, Ofnuts<(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of course, given the slow AF of a P&S,
>>>
>>> Handheld shots taken with a P&S camera auto-focusing in the pitch dark ...

>>
>> Hand-held: of course... using the flash all pictures can be hand-held.
>> Why do you make it sound like an achievement?

>
> Thanks for proving that you've never used any camera under these
> circumstances. (You most likely have never used ANY camera under ANY
> circumstances, or you'd know better.)
>
> The main points being, MORON, that the zoom lens was set to 432mm EFL in
> all of these. Being able to frame and focus ACCURATELY in the dark with an
> EVF equipped superzoom camera set to use its auto contrast-detection
> focusing while being HANDHELD at that focal-length. All are situations that
> you ****ingly stupid DSLR-TROLL ***** relentlessly claim to be impossible.


Did *I* say so? For me it's not impossible, it's just slow. As you say
you are shooting something which isn't that far away, so well within the
range of the AF-assist LED and your camera has some kind of
stabilization (lens- or sensor-based).

> On top of that, you don't even know the behavior of sphinx moths when
> feeding. They hover at each flower for about 1 second, if you're lucky.


One second is plenty of time even for a slow AF.

> Their flight much more erratic and randomly darting than any hummingbird
> I've ever caught on camera. This particular moth would cover the span of a
> 15 ft. area of flowers in under 5 seconds. They purposely dart often in
> widely divergent directions while feeding to evade nightly predators. Let's
> see YOU follow a sphinx moth, at night, in the dark, with a 432mm EFL lens
> on YOUR DSLR.
> So until YOU show us close-up images of your own, of a sphinx moth feeding
> outside at night, using that much focal-length on ANY camera, you will
> forever remain a useless role-playing pretend-photographer DSLR-TROLL who
> can only lie and deceive others. I've just proved your DSLR-TROLL's claims
> about P&S cameras to be complete lies.


> I can do it just as easily again
> with every one of your other lies about them.


Go ahead, quote *me*.

> Er...I knew it and this confirms it. You're ****ing blind. You probably
> have your browser set to interpolate all images so they're ALL a muddy
> bicubic mess on your end and you can never tell the difference.


No, I assumed that your hummingbird picture was your standard
thief-deterrent quality. These are much better; I may be blind, but no
more than most web users, so your pictures would be usable on a web
site. Come to think of it, Wikipedia is a bit lacking in pictures in the
Sphingidae article...

--
Bertrand
 
Reply With Quote
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2010
On Jul 28, 4:28*pm, George Kerby <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 7/26/10 2:13 PM, in article
> (E-Mail Removed), "DanP"
>
>
>
>
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 5:08*pm, zulu <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>> LOL!!!!!!!!

>
> >> when LOL! Better Info Outing Trolls is FUN! Truman has to use 2 of his
> >> personalities to act like he 2 different people right after each other
> >> he need to learn not to sign off with LOL when he pretending to be
> >> Outing Trolls is FUN!. *make you look more sick then you really are.

>
> >> cancer in human form. *so sad

>
> > He has many names but only one face:
> >http://forums.steves-digicams.com/cu...tar87335_2.gif
> > I say redneck. Anyone to disagree?

>
> > DanP

>
> Where did the Lone Ranger go? He left his faithful companion alone for the
> picture.


There is no Lone Ranger. If it was he would have been OK.
His old alias was keoeeit till he got banned from some forums.
This is an insight into his personality http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts9205152.aspx
Go straight to message 5. BTW, I don't have a problem with gay people.

DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-16-2010
"Outing Trolls is FUN!" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 06:23:10 -0700 (PDT), DanP <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:


<edited for brevity>

> >It is quite hard to focus on the trees, they are completely dark.
> >I would have taken quite a few shots with manual focusing nudging it
> >manually.

>
> That's why an EVF/LCD finder is so handy. It can easily ramp up the gain in
> dim lighting conditions to provide precise focusing and framing accuracy
> under conditions exactly like are available for this image.


<edited>

Plus, an EVF can even go B&W, if necessary.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
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
Seeking advice for moonset photography Paul Ciszek Digital Photography 7 07-23-2011 11:19 PM
Re: Seeking advice for moonset photography DanP Digital Photography 2 07-22-2011 01:16 PM
Re: Seeking advice for moonset photography DanP Digital Photography 2 07-21-2011 11:03 PM
Moonset at sunrise in Portugal Sosumi Digital Photography 1 09-27-2007 08:42 AM
911 FORGERY bigger than the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion pope_ratzinger_benedict@india.com Python 8 09-18-2006 12:33 PM



Advertisments