Olympus refusal to add an AF-assist light (cost-cutting lunacy)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Dec 29, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Instead, they stick with that ridiculous strobbing flash in order to
    assist AF. This is perhaps the stupidest add-on any camera ever had.
    Yet they refuse to shell-out for an amber LED worth about $0.03.
     
    RichA, Dec 29, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Rich Guest

    George Kerby wrote:
    > On 12/29/10 12:17 PM, in article
    > 2010122910172011272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On 2010-12-29 10:12:59 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    > > said:
    > >
    > >> On 2010-12-29 07:17:44 -0800, RichA <> said:
    > >>
    > >>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 02:10:57 -0500, tony cooper
    > >>> <> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> In an earlier post I mentioned that there were some photographs where
    > >>>> those ominous, dark skies with swirling black clouds do work.
    > >>>
    > >>> This is a photo of a scene that could have been shot differently and
    > >>> processed with the sky effect. Unfortunately, it was taken from an
    > >>> angle where sky couldn't be included. I was on the road, and the road
    > >>> was quite a bit higher than the barn door. I had to shoot down.
    > >>>
    > >>> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/2009-11-30-02.jpg
    > >>>
    > >>> An ominous sky would have tied in with the horses staying in the
    > >>> shelter of the doorway. Not enough sky in image to work with, though,
    > >>> to add anything to this.
    > >>>
    > >>> I don't oppose the treatment entirely. I just think there should be a
    > >>> connection with the treatment and the subject.
    > >>>
    > >>> As you can tell, I have no objection to dull, dead grass in a photo or
    > >>> dull, leaden sky. That was Virginia (near the Blue Ridge Parkway) in
    > >>> November, and that's what the scene was.
    > >>
    > >> That is a nice shot regardless of the sky. Certainly some deepening of
    > >> shadows and contrast could add some dramatic effect. I am sure you
    > >> could make some adjustment to the clouds without too much trouble.

    > >
    > > WTF happened to this post?
    > > I was responding to Tony, and I have no idea how the Rich subject line
    > > got co-mingled???

    >
    > Since Rich has never shown anything that he shot


    Lying asshole.
     
    Rich, Dec 29, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Dec 29, 8:59 pm, George Kerby <> wrote:
    > On 12/29/10 1:04 PM, in article
    > , "Rich"
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > George Kerby wrote:
    > >> On 12/29/10 12:17 PM, in article
    > >> 2010122910172011272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
    > >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >
    > >>> On 2010-12-29 10:12:59 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    > >>> said:

    >
    > >>>> On 2010-12-29 07:17:44 -0800, RichA <> said:

    >
    > >>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 02:10:57 -0500, tony cooper
    > >>>>> <> wrote:

    >
    > >>>>>> In an earlier post I mentioned that there were some photographs where
    > >>>>>> those ominous, dark skies with swirling black clouds do work.

    >
    > >>>>> This is a photo of a scene that could have been shot differently and
    > >>>>> processed with the sky effect.  Unfortunately, it was taken from an
    > >>>>> angle where sky couldn't be included.  I was on the road, and the road
    > >>>>> was quite a bit higher than the barn door.  I had to shoot down.

    >
    > >>>>>http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/2009-11-30-02.jpg

    >
    > >>>>> An ominous sky would have tied in with the horses staying in the
    > >>>>> shelter of the doorway.  Not enough sky in image to work with, though,
    > >>>>> to add anything to this.

    >
    > >>>>> I don't oppose the treatment entirely.  I just think there should be a
    > >>>>> connection with the treatment and the subject.

    >
    > >>>>> As you can tell, I have no objection to dull, dead grass in a photo or
    > >>>>> dull, leaden sky.  That was Virginia (near the Blue Ridge Parkway) in
    > >>>>> November, and that's what the scene was.

    >
    > >>>> That is a nice shot regardless of the sky. Certainly some deepening of
    > >>>> shadows and contrast could add some dramatic effect. I am sure you
    > >>>> could make some adjustment to the clouds without too much trouble.

    >
    > >>> WTF happened to this post?
    > >>> I was responding to Tony, and I have no idea how the Rich subject line
    > >>> got co-mingled???

    >
    > >> Since Rich has never shown anything that he shot

    >
    > > Lying asshole.

    >
    > Suck-me.


    Why? Does your dog have lock-jaw?
     
    Rich, Dec 30, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:17:20 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    : On 2010-12-29 10:12:59 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
    :
    : > On 2010-12-29 07:17:44 -0800, RichA <> said:
    : >
    : >> On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 02:10:57 -0500, tony cooper
    : >> <> wrote:
    : >>
    : >>> In an earlier post I mentioned that there were some photographs where
    : >>> those ominous, dark skies with swirling black clouds do work.
    : >>
    : >> This is a photo of a scene that could have been shot differently and
    : >> processed with the sky effect. Unfortunately, it was taken from an
    : >> angle where sky couldn't be included. I was on the road, and the road
    : >> was quite a bit higher than the barn door. I had to shoot down.
    : >>
    : >> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/2009-11-30-02.jpg
    : >>
    : >> An ominous sky would have tied in with the horses staying in the
    : >> shelter of the doorway. Not enough sky in image to work with, though,
    : >> to add anything to this.
    : >>
    : >> I don't oppose the treatment entirely. I just think there should be a
    : >> connection with the treatment and the subject.
    : >>
    : >> As you can tell, I have no objection to dull, dead grass in a photo or
    : >> dull, leaden sky. That was Virginia (near the Blue Ridge Parkway) in
    : >> November, and that's what the scene was.
    : >
    : > That is a nice shot regardless of the sky. Certainly some deepening of
    : > shadows and contrast could add some dramatic effect. I am sure you
    : > could make some adjustment to the clouds without too much trouble.
    :
    : WTF happened to this post?
    : I was responding to Tony, and I have no idea how the Rich subject line
    : got co-mingled???

    Well, thank goodness for that. When I saw the garbling, I assumed that my
    newsreader had gone bonkers. If you see it too, I guess that lets my reader
    off the hook. ;^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 31, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Savageduck wrote:
    >
    > On 2010-12-29 10:12:59 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
    >
    > > On 2010-12-29 07:17:44 -0800, RichA <> said:
    > >
    > >> On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 02:10:57 -0500, tony cooper
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> In an earlier post I mentioned that there were some photographs where
    > >>> those ominous, dark skies with swirling black clouds do work.
    > >>
    > >> This is a photo of a scene that could have been shot differently and
    > >> processed with the sky effect. Unfortunately, it was taken from an
    > >> angle where sky couldn't be included. I was on the road, and the road
    > >> was quite a bit higher than the barn door. I had to shoot down.
    > >>
    > >> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/2009-11-30-02.jpg
    > >>
    > >> An ominous sky would have tied in with the horses staying in the
    > >> shelter of the doorway. Not enough sky in image to work with, though,
    > >> to add anything to this.
    > >>
    > >> I don't oppose the treatment entirely. I just think there should be a
    > >> connection with the treatment and the subject.
    > >>
    > >> As you can tell, I have no objection to dull, dead grass in a photo or
    > >> dull, leaden sky. That was Virginia (near the Blue Ridge Parkway) in
    > >> November, and that's what the scene was.

    > >
    > > That is a nice shot regardless of the sky. Certainly some deepening of
    > > shadows and contrast could add some dramatic effect. I am sure you
    > > could make some adjustment to the clouds without too much trouble.

    >
    > WTF happened to this post?
    > I was responding to Tony, and I have no idea how the Rich subject line
    > got co-mingled???



    Somebody "hijacked" your reply, it seems. I've also seen this phenomenon,
    occasionally (but, know little about it).

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Jan 12, 2011
    #5
    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. Bob

    Mail refusal query

    Bob, Aug 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    9,789
    Plato
    Aug 13, 2004
  2. IG

    PC refusal to start

    IG, Jun 19, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,890
  3. RichA

    Cost-cutting in lesser brands rampant

    RichA, Jun 29, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    442
    Robert Coe
    Jul 3, 2010
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    308
    peter
    Jan 29, 2011
  5. RichA

    Everything today is an effort in cost-cutting

    RichA, May 27, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    427
    John Turco
    Jun 30, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page