DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Sep 16, 2008.

  1. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 9:31 AM:


    > Why would you post that boast about film and provide the link if you
    > were going to show an image that was not capable of substantiating your
    > claim?


    Once again, you are demonstrating your complete
    ignorance: read the WHOLE thing, you moron.


    > and, 1280x850 *is* capable of showing more than that image does, so, as
    > I said, that image sucks. As do you.


    Prove it, moron. Don't just make empty claims: PROVE it!




    > The day you're embarrassed by anything will be the day, Noons. You're a
    > bullshit artist of the first order, a champion of the art. To
    > paraphrase the old saying, you have no science so you try to baffle with
    > bullshit. Try you might, but few here would be baffled by you. and yes,
    > in case you missed it, that was an ad hominem attack, just so you might
    > recognise another one when it comes along.


    You're a complete ignorant and a demonstrable moron,
    COlin. There is not ONE instance of ANY post
    of yours that demonstrates you are capable
    of ANY smidgeon of reasoning.
    Take some time off with the sheep, you need it!
    <plonk>
     
    Noons, Sep 25, 2008
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Doug McDonald wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 10:27 AM:
    > Colin.D wrote:
    >
    >> Not to forget that the original zone system strictly applies to
    >> monochrome film. Very limited development variation can be applied to
    >> color film without color shifts.

    >
    >
    > At least with ordinary Kodak consumer color film that's not true.
    > The contrast can be varied dramatically, especially in the "contrastier"
    > direction, without serious color shifts. Even before Photoshop I had no
    > trouble makng prints from such negatives. With Photoshop even the
    > worst color shifts I ever saw are completely correctable.


    Oh for Pete's sake! Do you even BOTHER
    answering this idiot moron?
    Last time he used film Kodachrome 25
    didn't even exist!
     
    Noons, Sep 25, 2008
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 12:14 PM:

    >> I can do MUCH better rez than that with film, and I have.
    >> Here is the demonstration:http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/colourful-rescue-98461919
    >> same image type, same sunny conditions, look at the colour
    >> saturation DIFFERENCE!

    >
    > So you boosted the saturation? So what?


    No. I left the sat exactly at default.
    THAT, is the little flaw in your argument!

    > The color balance looks much more natural in the 5DII pic, and there
    > is details in the shadows as well. In your pic the shadows are gone.


    When was the last time you saw an orange boat that looks
    EXACTLY the same in the shade as in the sun? You call
    that "natural"? NO WONDER you can't see the problem...


    > Oh yeah, it is no great feat to read wrting on a boat that is sitting
    > on a trailer. Try doing it on a speeding boat and get back to us. I
    > have a few of those shots myself.


    Bret, don't be thick, ok? It's demeaning, even for you!
    You can read SMALLER text in that image, then on the hat
    it disappears?
    Can't you pull your head off Canon's arse for long enough
    to even reason that is simply NOT natural and is IMPOSSIBLE
    unless there is something very wrong with that processor?
     
    Noons, Sep 25, 2008
    #43
  4. Annika1980

    Colin.D Guest

    Noons, 9/25/2008 10:21 PM:

    > Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 9:31 AM:
    >
    >
    >> Why would you post that boast about film and provide the link if you
    >> were going to show an image that was not capable of substantiating
    >> your claim?

    >
    > Once again, you are demonstrating your complete
    > ignorance: read the WHOLE thing, you moron.
    >
    >
    >> and, 1280x850 *is* capable of showing more than that image does, so,
    >> as I said, that image sucks. As do you.

    >
    > Prove it, moron. Don't just make empty claims: PROVE it!
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> The day you're embarrassed by anything will be the day, Noons. You're
    >> a bullshit artist of the first order, a champion of the art. To
    >> paraphrase the old saying, you have no science so you try to baffle
    >> with bullshit. Try you might, but few here would be baffled by you.
    >> and yes, in case you missed it, that was an ad hominem attack, just so
    >> you might recognise another one when it comes along.

    >
    > You're a complete ignorant and a demonstrable moron,
    > COlin. There is not ONE instance of ANY post
    > of yours that demonstrates you are capable
    > of ANY smidgeon of reasoning.
    > Take some time off with the sheep, you need it!
    > <plonk>


    Clearly Noons is nonplussed by logical argument, so the usual ad hominem
    attacks ensue. A sad case.

    Lessee, what words descriptive of Noons come to mind? Argumentative,
    yes; truculent, often; abusive, mostly; belligerent, nearly always;
    bellicose, the same; ignorant, certainly; word-challenged, well proven;
    repetitive, obviously; knowledgeable, only in his dreams; a credit to
    his country, not likely; foul-mouthed, to the nth degree; a useful
    contributor to general photographic knowledge, not often.

    Yes, a truly sad case.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin.D, Sep 26, 2008
    #44
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Robert Feinman

    Scene range vs dynamic range

    Robert Feinman, Jun 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    696
    Marvin
    Jul 4, 2005
  2. M-M

    THE MOON LOVES THE 40D !

    M-M, Oct 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    341
  3. Annika1980

    LATE-BREAKING NEWS LOVES THE 40D!

    Annika1980, Nov 4, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    325
  4. Annika1980

    2008 LOVES THE 40D!

    Annika1980, Jan 1, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    537
    Eric Miller
    Jan 3, 2008
  5. Annika1980

    FUNNY FACES LOVES THE 40D!

    Annika1980, Sep 13, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    331
    tony cooper
    Sep 13, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page