Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Nikon new release D7100

Reply
Thread Tools

Nikon new release D7100

 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2013
In article <51329e7f$0$10805$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>> BTW I have business and personal relationships with several, and
> >>> categorically state that you are blowing smoke out of your ass. IOW you
> >>> don't know WTF you are talking about.
> >>
> >> except you're wrong, which means *you* don't know wtf you are talking
> >> about.
> >>
> >> furthermore, even if your personal relationships included the pope, it
> >> would not invalidate nyquist/shannon. perhaps you've heard of them,
> >> although i suspect not.
> >>
> >> but since you and your cohorts think that you know better, why don't
> >> you put your money where your mouth is and go prove it. you'll be
> >> *very* famous if you can demonstrate nyquist/shannon is bunk.

> >
> > I think he is claiming that your knowledge of creative directors is
> > bunk.

>
> Snce I don't know what his knowledge of creative directors is, I cannot
> make that claim. But, his statements so far have indicated that I could
> indeed make such a claim in good faith.


and you'd be very, very wrong.

> I am simply claiming that good creative directors are far more concerned
> with the impact of the image and the legality of its use, than how it
> was made.


you just contradicted that in another post.

> I am also claiming that the "perfect engineering" solution, is not
> always a good business decision.
> I have yet to see a logical argument that would refute my claim.


nobody said 'perfect engineering'.

you're all over the map.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2013
On 3/2/2013 7:55 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <51329e7f$0$10805$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>>> BTW I have business and personal relationships with several, and
>>>>> categorically state that you are blowing smoke out of your ass. IOW you
>>>>> don't know WTF you are talking about.
>>>>
>>>> except you're wrong, which means *you* don't know wtf you are talking
>>>> about.
>>>>
>>>> furthermore, even if your personal relationships included the pope, it
>>>> would not invalidate nyquist/shannon. perhaps you've heard of them,
>>>> although i suspect not.
>>>>
>>>> but since you and your cohorts think that you know better, why don't
>>>> you put your money where your mouth is and go prove it. you'll be
>>>> *very* famous if you can demonstrate nyquist/shannon is bunk.
>>>
>>> I think he is claiming that your knowledge of creative directors is
>>> bunk.

>>
>> Snce I don't know what his knowledge of creative directors is, I cannot
>> make that claim. But, his statements so far have indicated that I could
>> indeed make such a claim in good faith.

>
> and you'd be very, very wrong.
>
>> I am simply claiming that good creative directors are far more concerned
>> with the impact of the image and the legality of its use, than how it
>> was made.

>
> you just contradicted that in another post.



Where?
>





--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2013
On 3/2/2013 7:49 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <51329c22$0$10772$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>> He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
>>>> acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
>>>> technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
>>>> least the successful ones have that standard.)
>>>
>>> But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
>>> patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
>>> http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

>>
>> Absolutely correct.
>>
>>> Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
>>> aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
>>> would be quite ****ed of.

>>
>> Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
>> problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.

>
> which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.
>


Explain your logic, in clear English. this should be interesting.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2013
In article <5132a228$0$10775$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> I am simply claiming that good creative directors are far more concerned
> >> with the impact of the image and the legality of its use, than how it
> >> was made.

> >
> > you just contradicted that in another post.

>
>
> Where?


you said photographers do need to understand aliasing:

In article <51329c22$0$10772$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On 3/2/2013 7:29 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
> > But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
> > patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
> > http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

>
> Absolutely correct.
>
> >
> > Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
> > aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
> > would be quite ****ed of.

>
>
> Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
> problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.

 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2013
In article <5132a29c$0$10775$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>>> He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
> >>>> acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
> >>>> technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
> >>>> least the successful ones have that standard.)
> >>>
> >>> But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
> >>> patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
> >>> http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg
> >>
> >> Absolutely correct.
> >>
> >>> Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
> >>> aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
> >>> would be quite ****ed of.
> >>
> >> Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
> >> problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.

> >
> > which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.

>
> Explain your logic, in clear English. this should be interesting.


it was clear english. maybe you need to study that too.
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2013
On 3/2/2013 8:29 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <5132a228$0$10775$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>> I am simply claiming that good creative directors are far more concerned
>>>> with the impact of the image and the legality of its use, than how it
>>>> was made.
>>>
>>> you just contradicted that in another post.

>>
>>
>> Where?

>
> you said photographers do need to understand aliasing:


You do understand that I was talking about good creative directors.
Or do you.

>
> In article <51329c22$0$10772$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 3/2/2013 7:29 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
>>> patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
>>> http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

>>
>> Absolutely correct.
>>
>>>
>>> Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
>>> aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
>>> would be quite ****ed of.

>>
>>
>> Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
>> problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.




--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2013
On 3/2/2013 8:29 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <5132a29c$0$10775$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>>>> He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
>>>>>> acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
>>>>>> technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
>>>>>> least the successful ones have that standard.)
>>>>>
>>>>> But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
>>>>> patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
>>>>> http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely correct.
>>>>
>>>>> Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
>>>>> aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
>>>>> would be quite ****ed of.
>>>>
>>>> Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
>>>> problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.
>>>
>>> which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.

>>
>> Explain your logic, in clear English. this should be interesting.

>
> it was clear english. maybe you need to study that too.
>


I wonder if you even know what a creative director does. i.e. In
addition to a lot of other things, they hire the photographer. Few
creative directors have the tine, or inclination to do the photography
themselves. MOST ONLY WORK 70-90 HOURS A WEEK. If you worked half that
time, you would not have the time to post the way you do.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2013
On 3/2/2013 8:29 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <5132a29c$0$10775$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>>>> He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
>>>>>> acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
>>>>>> technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
>>>>>> least the successful ones have that standard.)
>>>>>
>>>>> But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
>>>>> patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
>>>>> http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely correct.
>>>>
>>>>> Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
>>>>> aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
>>>>> would be quite ****ed of.
>>>>
>>>> Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
>>>> problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.
>>>
>>> which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.

>>
>> Explain your logic, in clear English. this should be interesting.

>
> it was clear english. maybe you need to study that too.
>

Your answer lived up to expectations. It should also be noted that you
snipped so that comments appear out of context.

We also note that the English languish uses punctuation and
capitalization as aids to understanding.



--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2013
In article <5132ad7f$0$10756$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I wonder if you even know what a creative director does. i.e. In
> addition to a lot of other things, they hire the photographer. Few
> creative directors have the tine, or inclination to do the photography
> themselves. MOST ONLY WORK 70-90 HOURS A WEEK. If you worked half that
> time, you would not have the time to post the way you do.


wrong again. i know what they do and have worked with some.

you should quit before you dig yourself a deeper hole.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> >> He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
> >> >> acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
> >> >> technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
> >> >> least the successful ones have that standard.)
> >> >
> >> > But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
> >> > patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
> >> > http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg
> >>
> >> Absolutely correct.
> >>
> >> > Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
> >> > aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
> >> > would be quite ****ed of.
> >>
> >> Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
> >> problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.

> >
> >which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.

>
> No they don't. All they have to do is know that they get acceptable
> results. The don't really have to know how or why.


which means knowing that fine detail can cause artifacts, just as i
said originally.
 
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
Would Nikon release new telescopes? RichA Digital Photography 9 08-30-2010 09:43 AM
Nikon hints at "New Concept" camera release, possibly this year Bruce Digital Photography 30 08-16-2010 03:25 AM
J2ME: javac: target release 1.1. conflicts with default source release 1.5 John Goche Java 1 12-17-2005 08:12 PM
Nikon 8800 vs Nikon 990 vs Canon 8MP Rebel vs Nikon D70 fj40rockcrawler@gmail.com Digital Photography 10 06-07-2005 06:53 PM
NEWS RELEASE: Leone's "Nobody" Films 1st time mastered in HD for DVD release with 240 Minutes Extras Torsten Kaiser \(TLEFilms\) DVD Video 1 06-06-2005 03:17 PM



Advertisments