Nikon new release D7100

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rob, Feb 22, 2013.

  1. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2013 1:30 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51324115$0$10809$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> BTW I suspect that you are not aware that for high fashion the results
    >>>> from Apple monitors and unacceptable, because they do not accurately
    >>>> produce the necessary gradations in the shadows. For that work people
    >>>> use other monitors such as high end NEC, LaCie, at the lower end and
    >>>> Eizo, at the upper end.
    >>>
    >>> so what? different tools for different jobs.
    >>>
    >>> apple targets the masses. for every eizo that's sold, apple sells
    >>> hundreds of imacs, macbooks, displays, iphones, ipads and more.

    >>
    >> So that's irrelevant to my point. Non-avid photographers do not want, or
    >> see the need for undertone subtlety. Or, the cost may be outside their
    >> budget.

    >
    > your point itself is irrelevant. this isn't about undertone subtlety or
    > what apple sells.


    If you bother reading, I said that Apple monitors are unsuitable for
    critical photographic work. I'm glad you agree.


    >
    > this discussion is about aliasing until you tried to twist it into
    > something else because you have nothing better to do than argue.
    >
    > apple caters to the masses while eizo caters to the pros who do precise
    > colour work. if you think apple should make high end displays or eizo
    > should make low end displays, feel free to contact either company and
    > voice your concerns.
    >
    > either way, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of aliasing
    > and the nikon d800e and its lack of an aa filter.
    >


    Just where did I ever say there was no aliasing?
    The issue is how the filter, or lack thereof affects the image. Or, have
    you forgotten that the purpose of photography is to create images.


    >> Yes but this is a photography group. Many of us like to discuss what's
    >> best for photographic purposes, within our spending budgets. While I
    >> would like a LaCie, or an Eizo, Both are outside my budget. So I settle
    >> for an NEC, which BTW may, or may not outsell Apple products.

    >
    > nobody but you gives a shit if it outsells apple products. different
    > products for different tasks.
    >


    So you have never ranted about sales of Apple products. If you make it
    worth my while, I could easily show your unsupported claims about Apple
    sales. Even in this thread, you were the first to mention: "apple [sic]
    caters to the masses. Oh! I get it. Apple wants to become a priest.


    BTW:
    It is easy to tell when you are losing an argument. Like all trolls you
    resort to personal insults.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Mar 2, 2013
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2013 1:17 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >>> the truly successful ones understand both.
    >>>

    >> They are too busy to get involved with techno-babble. They want results.
    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    > Peter, you are full of prunes. Take a hike and talk
    > to yourself, nobody else need hear this crap.
    >

    Wattasmatter Floyd, have you lost interest in reality, or is the Winter
    getting to you.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Mar 2, 2013
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2013 1:30 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51323e69$0$10787$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> He may be technically correct,
    >>>
    >>> at least you finally admit i'm correct.

    >>
    >> Only partially.

    >
    > nope. what i said is completely correct. again, go read a book on
    > signal theory.


    i only care how it affects my photography. You have yet to produce any
    image.


    >
    >>>> but the discussion is about commercially
    >>>> acceptable results.
    >>>
    >>> no it isn't.

    >> than you changed it without fair notice.

    >
    > i didn't change a thing.
    >


    So you lost your ability to read, or is it your ability to comprehend
    what you write?
    >>> the original post to which i responded was about *sampling* *errors*,
    >>> not what is commercially acceptable:
    >>>>>>>>>> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.
    >>>
    >>>> Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
    >>>> technicalities.
    >>>
    >>> yes they do.
    >>>

    >> Typical pissing from you.
    >>
    >>>> They look for the impression created by the image. (At
    >>>> least the successful ones have that standard.)
    >>>
    >>> that's true, but it does not negate knowing about the technical side of
    >>> things.
    >>>
    >>> the truly successful ones understand both.
    >>>

    >> They are too busy to get involved with techno-babble. They want results.

    >
    > they can't get results if technical issues prevent it.
    >
    > nobody, not even creative directors, can get around sampling theory.
    >
    >> 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.
    >


    I used to know an engineer who was only interested in producing a
    perfectly shaped wave. His company went out of business.

    > 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.
    >


    Maybe they are. All I care about is image production. Other than that
    you can take your theory and......

    Bye.
    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Mar 2, 2013
    #23
  4. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <51326c5a$0$10823$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>> BTW I suspect that you are not aware that for high fashion the results
    > >>>> from Apple monitors and unacceptable, because they do not accurately
    > >>>> produce the necessary gradations in the shadows. For that work people
    > >>>> use other monitors such as high end NEC, LaCie, at the lower end and
    > >>>> Eizo, at the upper end.
    > >>>
    > >>> so what? different tools for different jobs.
    > >>>
    > >>> apple targets the masses. for every eizo that's sold, apple sells
    > >>> hundreds of imacs, macbooks, displays, iphones, ipads and more.
    > >>
    > >> So that's irrelevant to my point. Non-avid photographers do not want, or
    > >> see the need for undertone subtlety. Or, the cost may be outside their
    > >> budget.

    > >
    > > your point itself is irrelevant. this isn't about undertone subtlety or
    > > what apple sells.

    >
    > If you bother reading, I said that Apple monitors are unsuitable for
    > critical photographic work. I'm glad you agree.


    they're not unsuitable and many people use them for exactly that
    purpose, however, it doesn't mean that for some purposes there are
    better choices.

    nikon and canon are unsuitable for critical photographic work too. a
    much better choice is a medium format camera with a phase one back.

    > > this discussion is about aliasing until you tried to twist it into
    > > something else because you have nothing better to do than argue.
    > >
    > > apple caters to the masses while eizo caters to the pros who do precise
    > > colour work. if you think apple should make high end displays or eizo
    > > should make low end displays, feel free to contact either company and
    > > voice your concerns.
    > >
    > > either way, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of aliasing
    > > and the nikon d800e and its lack of an aa filter.

    >
    > Just where did I ever say there was no aliasing?
    > The issue is how the filter, or lack thereof affects the image.


    then why did you bring up apple and shadow detail?

    > Or, have
    > you forgotten that the purpose of photography is to create images.


    since when do you speak for everyone?

    > >> Yes but this is a photography group. Many of us like to discuss what's
    > >> best for photographic purposes, within our spending budgets. While I
    > >> would like a LaCie, or an Eizo, Both are outside my budget. So I settle
    > >> for an NEC, which BTW may, or may not outsell Apple products.

    > >
    > > nobody but you gives a shit if it outsells apple products. different
    > > products for different tasks.

    >
    > So you have never ranted about sales of Apple products. If you make it
    > worth my while, I could easily show your unsupported claims about Apple
    > sales. Even in this thread, you were the first to mention: "apple [sic]
    > caters to the masses. Oh! I get it. Apple wants to become a priest.


    no, you don't get it.

    > BTW:
    > It is easy to tell when you are losing an argument. Like all trolls you
    > resort to personal insults.


    that makes you a troll. glad we cleared that up.
    nospam, Mar 3, 2013
    #24
  5. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <51326e38$0$10754$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>> He may be technically correct,
    > >>>
    > >>> at least you finally admit i'm correct.
    > >>
    > >> Only partially.

    > >
    > > nope. what i said is completely correct. again, go read a book on
    > > signal theory.

    >
    > i only care how it affects my photography.


    then go learn about it.

    > You have yet to produce any
    > image.


    wrong, but more importantly, how many images i've produced doesn't
    change the math, physics or sampling theory that governs all cameras.

    > >>>> but the discussion is about commercially
    > >>>> acceptable results.
    > >>>
    > >>> no it isn't.
    > >> than you changed it without fair notice.

    > >
    > > i didn't change a thing.

    >
    > So you lost your ability to read, or is it your ability to comprehend
    > what you write?


    neither.

    > I used to know an engineer who was only interested in producing a
    > perfectly shaped wave. His company went out of business.


    that's nice. what does that have to do with anything?

    > > 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.

    >
    > Maybe they are. All I care about is image production. Other than that
    > you can take your theory and......


    in other words, you don't know what you're talking about.
    nospam, Mar 3, 2013
    #25
  6. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> 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.


    and he's wrong.
    nospam, Mar 3, 2013
    #26
  7. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> If you wade through all of
    > >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml you will
    > >> eventually reach the conclusion:

    > >
    > >the only conclusion i've reached by reading that site is michael
    > >reichmann wouldn't know aliasing if it bit him on the ass.
    > >
    > >he loves foveon cameras because he thinks they have incredible detail
    > >when it's really nothing more than a lot of alias artifacts, excessive
    > >sharpening and a boost in contrast. that's the entire 'secret sauce' of
    > >foveon.
    > >
    > >in other words, he is fooled into thinking alias artifacts is real
    > >detail, not the false detail it actually is.

    >
    > The article about which you are so steaming is not by Michael Reichman
    > but "by Rubén Osuna and Efraín García"


    that doesn't matter. it's on reichmann's site. he is hosting it. he
    knows full well what it says and he isn't about to post anything that
    he doesn't think is true. if you think either one of those two authors
    hacked lula and uploaded it without reichmann knowing, you're crazy.
    nospam, Mar 3, 2013
    #27
  8. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2013 7:29 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <51323675$0$10783$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > says...
    >> 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 pissed 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
    PeterN, Mar 3, 2013
    #28
  9. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <51329c22$0$10772$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> 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 pissed 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.
    nospam, Mar 3, 2013
    #29
  10. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2013 5:31 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 13:30:41 -0500, nospam <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In article <51323e69$0$10787$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> He may be technically correct,
    >>>>
    >>>> at least you finally admit i'm correct.
    >>>
    >>> Only partially.

    >>
    >> nope. what i said is completely correct. again, go read a book on
    >> signal theory.
    >>
    >>>>> but the discussion is about commercially
    >>>>> acceptable results.
    >>>>
    >>>> no it isn't.
    >>> than you changed it without fair notice.

    >>
    >> i didn't change a thing.
    >>
    >>>> the original post to which i responded was about *sampling* *errors*,
    >>>> not what is commercially acceptable:
    >>>>>>>>>>> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
    >>>>> technicalities.
    >>>>
    >>>> yes they do.
    >>>>
    >>> Typical pissing from you.
    >>>
    >>>>> They look for the impression created by the image. (At
    >>>>> least the successful ones have that standard.)
    >>>>
    >>>> that's true, but it does not negate knowing about the technical side of
    >>>> things.
    >>>>
    >>>> the truly successful ones understand both.
    >>>>
    >>> They are too busy to get involved with techno-babble. They want results.

    >>
    >> they can't get results if technical issues prevent it.
    >>
    >> nobody, not even creative directors, can get around sampling theory.
    >>
    >>> 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.


    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.

    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.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Mar 3, 2013
    #30
  11. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <51329e7f$0$10805$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> 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.
    nospam, Mar 3, 2013
    #31
  12. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2013 7:55 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51329e7f$0$10805$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> 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
    PeterN, Mar 3, 2013
    #32
  13. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2013 7:49 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51329c22$0$10772$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> 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 pissed 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
    PeterN, Mar 3, 2013
    #33
  14. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <5132a228$0$10775$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> 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$10772$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> 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 pissed 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.
    nospam, Mar 3, 2013
    #34
  15. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <5132a29c$0$10775$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> 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 pissed 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.
    nospam, Mar 3, 2013
    #35
  16. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2013 8:29 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <5132a228$0$10775$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> 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$10772$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> 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 pissed 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
    PeterN, Mar 3, 2013
    #36
  17. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2013 8:29 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <5132a29c$0$10775$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> 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 pissed 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
    PeterN, Mar 3, 2013
    #37
  18. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2013 8:29 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <5132a29c$0$10775$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> 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 pissed 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
    PeterN, Mar 3, 2013
    #38
  19. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <5132ad7f$0$10756$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> 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.
    nospam, Mar 3, 2013
    #39
  20. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> 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 pissed 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.
    nospam, Mar 3, 2013
    #40
    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. Torsten Kaiser \(TLEFilms\)
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    906
    Allan
    Jun 6, 2005
  2. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    485
    George K
    Nov 20, 2006
  3. Mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    459
  4. Bruce
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    999
    John Turco
    Aug 16, 2010
  5. RichA

    Would Nikon release new telescopes?

    RichA, Aug 26, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    461
    Martin Brown
    Aug 30, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page