Re: Things are getting a bit spotty with the 500/4 Nikkor!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tim Conway, Aug 1, 2010.

  1. Tim Conway

    Tim Conway Guest

    "Larry Thong" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > Well, maybe just a little spotty.
    >
    > <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Spots.jpg>
    >

    Nice shot. Just needs a catchlight in the eyes. ;-)
     
    Tim Conway, Aug 1, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tim Conway

    Tim Conway Guest

    "Superzooms Still Win" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:30:23 -0400, "Tim Conway" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Larry Thong" <> wrote in message
    >>news:eek:...
    >>> Well, maybe just a little spotty.
    >>>
    >>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Spots.jpg>
    >>>

    >>Nice shot. Just needs a catchlight in the eyes. ;-)

    >
    > Blue foliage, red fur, someone sorely needs a camera, monitor, or eyes
    > adjusted. Did anyone mention the worthless underexposed composition yet?
    > Interesting that the leaves in front are more in focus than the deer.
    > Looks
    > like its just as much of a problem with camera and lenses as it is the
    > snapshooter.
    >
    > <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4847902759_058421b547_b.jpg>


    No. Rita's is better by far. And the leaves aren't blue.
     
    Tim Conway, Aug 1, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tim Conway

    Tim Conway Guest

    "Superzooms Still Win" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 01:05:55 -0400, "Tim Conway" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>And the leaves aren't blue.

    >
    > RGB samples:
    > 11,134,118
    > 11,107,85
    >
    > Green, Blue
    >
    > 134,118
    >
    > 107,85
    >
    > That's about a blue as you can get for any shade of green and still try to
    > call it green. If both values were equal then it'd be a shade of pure
    > cyan.
    > Get your monitor adjusted, or something. I suspect the problem might be
    > what's looking at your monitor, considering you can't even determine
    > horse-shit compositions and underexposure too.
    >
    >

    You talk pretty big for someone sitting behind a keyboard. If you'd say
    those things in person to some of the people in neighborhoods that I've been
    in you'd wind up shot - to say the least.

    Take it as a warning. Other people might not be so patient with you as
    those in these newsgroups.
     
    Tim Conway, Aug 1, 2010
    #3
  4. On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 04:37:40 -0400, "Tim Conway" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Superzooms Still Win" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 01:05:55 -0400, "Tim Conway" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>And the leaves aren't blue.

    >>
    >> RGB samples:
    >> 11,134,118
    >> 11,107,85
    >>
    >> Green, Blue
    >>
    >> 134,118
    >>
    >> 107,85
    >>
    >> That's about a blue as you can get for any shade of green and still try to
    >> call it green. If both values were equal then it'd be a shade of pure
    >> cyan.
    >> Get your monitor adjusted, or something. I suspect the problem might be
    >> what's looking at your monitor, considering you can't even determine
    >> horse-shit compositions and underexposure too.
    >>
    >>

    >You talk pretty big for someone sitting behind a keyboard. If you'd say
    >those things in person to some of the people in neighborhoods that I've been
    >in you'd wind up shot - to say the least.
    >
    >Take it as a warning. Other people might not be so patient with you as
    >those in these newsgroups.


    Trolling off-topic again?

    Ask me if I give a ****. I also used to tend bar in a rowdy biker-bar for a
    few years. I'm also an excellent marksman with both rifle and compound bow
    (crossbow too, but those are so easy it shouldn't count). People like you I
    chew up and spit out for breakfast.

    Next....
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Aug 1, 2010
    #4
  5. On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 19:36:02 +1000, "N" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Superzooms Still Win" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:30:23 -0400, "Tim Conway" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Larry Thong" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:eek:...
    >>>> Well, maybe just a little spotty.
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Spots.jpg>
    >>>>
    >>>Nice shot. Just needs a catchlight in the eyes. ;-)

    >>
    >> Blue foliage, red fur, someone sorely needs a camera, monitor, or eyes
    >> adjusted. Did anyone mention the worthless underexposed composition yet?
    >> Interesting that the leaves in front are more in focus than the deer.
    >> Looks
    >> like its just as much of a problem with camera and lenses as it is the
    >> snapshooter.
    >>
    >> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4847902759_058421b547_b.jpg>
    >>

    >
    >Have you ever seen an Australian Eucalypt tree?


    No, but other varieties, which generally are grayish-green. What does an
    Australian Eucalypt tree have to do with the severely bad color shifts in
    this image? There's not one Eucalypt leaf anywhere in that photo. It looks
    like the numbnutz forgot to take it off of cloudy white-balance or
    something. Or even worse, left it on auto white-balance which would easily
    account for the odd colors in this image. The auto white-balance trying to
    overcompensate for the green light source from the canopy so it removed
    green from the leaves turning them blue and removed green from the brown of
    the fur giving it that nasty red magenta cast. If you've not done a lot of
    photography under a dense foliage canopy you probably don't have one clue
    about any of these things. There are many many many situations in nature
    photography where you CANNOT use auto white-balance.

    But then how would any of you crappy snapshooters know about this when all
    of you use your cameras in full auto point and shoot mode at all times. If
    the camera won't do it for you then you think it's supposed to be that way
    or you just didn't buy a camera that was expensive enough. Idiots, one and
    all.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Aug 1, 2010
    #5
  6. Tim Conway

    DanP Guest

    On Aug 1, 10:19 am, Superzooms Still Win <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 04:37:40 -0400, "Tim Conway" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >"Superzooms Still Win" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 01:05:55 -0400, "Tim Conway" <>
    > >> wrote:

    >
    > >>>And the leaves aren't blue.

    >
    > >> RGB samples:
    > >> 11,134,118
    > >> 11,107,85

    >
    > >> Green, Blue

    >
    > >> 134,118

    >
    > >> 107,85

    >
    > >> That's about a blue as you can get for any shade of green and still try to
    > >> call it green. If both values were equal then it'd be a shade of pure
    > >> cyan.
    > >> Get your monitor adjusted, or something. I suspect the problem might be
    > >> what's looking at your monitor, considering you can't even determine
    > >> horse-shit compositions and underexposure too.

    >
    > >You talk pretty big for someone sitting behind a keyboard.  If you'd say
    > >those things in person to some of the people in neighborhoods that I've been
    > >in you'd wind up shot - to say the least.

    >
    > >Take it as a warning.  Other people might not be so patient with you as
    > >those in these newsgroups.

    >
    > Trolling off-topic again?
    >
    > Ask me if I give a ****. I also used to tend bar in a rowdy biker-bar for a
    > few years. I'm also an excellent marksman with both rifle and compound bow
    > (crossbow too, but those are so easy it shouldn't count). People like you I
    > chew up and spit out for breakfast.
    >
    > Next....


    You are as scary as this http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/images/2008/09/22/329629543_e8bc99cb83_b.jpg

    DanP
     
    DanP, Aug 1, 2010
    #6
  7. On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 21:06:58 +1000, "N" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Superzooms Still Win" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> No, but other varieties, which generally are grayish-green. What does an
    >> Australian Eucalypt tree have to do with the severely bad color shifts in
    >> this image? There's not one Eucalypt leaf anywhere in that photo. It looks
    >> like the numbnutz forgot to take it off of cloudy white-balance or
    >> something. Or even worse, left it on auto white-balance which would easily
    >> account for the odd colors in this image. The auto white-balance trying to
    >> overcompensate for the green light source from the canopy so it removed
    >> green from the leaves turning them blue and removed green from the brown
    >> of
    >> the fur giving it that nasty red magenta cast. If you've not done a lot of
    >> photography under a dense foliage canopy you probably don't have one clue
    >> about any of these things. There are many many many situations in nature
    >> photography where you CANNOT use auto white-balance.
    >>
    >> But then how would any of you crappy snapshooters know about this when all
    >> of you use your cameras in full auto point and shoot mode at all times. If
    >> the camera won't do it for you then you think it's supposed to be that way
    >> or you just didn't buy a camera that was expensive enough. Idiots, one and
    >> all.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Gawd, have you never processed a RAW file?


    Yes, many times. When testing to find out that the JPG output from my
    cameras is every bit as good as anything that can be dragged out of the RAW
    sensor data (cameras that can't do this are crap cameras). I never use any
    auto modes in RAW processing either.

    This image reeks of auto induced color-balance problems. So either the
    camera did it while spitting out a JPG file or the snapshooter did it in
    processing. Either being caused by operator error.

    Don't you know how cameras work? It's obvious that you don't know colors in
    the natural world, or their various light-source colors. That much is
    clear. How's that CFL illumination working out for you in the corner of
    your mommy's basement?
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Aug 1, 2010
    #7
  8. Tim Conway

    Bruce Guest

    On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:50:15 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
    <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:30:23 -0400, "Tim Conway" <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Larry Thong" <> wrote in message
    >>news:eek:...
    >>> Well, maybe just a little spotty.
    >>>
    >>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Spots.jpg>
    >>>

    >>Nice shot. Just needs a catchlight in the eyes. ;-)

    >
    >Blue foliage, red fur, someone sorely needs a camera, monitor, or eyes
    >adjusted. Did anyone mention the worthless underexposed composition yet?
    >Interesting that the leaves in front are more in focus than the deer. Looks
    >like its just as much of a problem with camera and lenses as it is the
    >snapshooter.
    >
    ><http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4847902759_058421b547_b.jpg>



    Your inability to control depth of field (because of your camera's
    small sensor) means that foreground and background elements of the
    shot that should be rendered out of focus, can't be. The result is
    that they detract from the subject.

    A camera with a larger sensor would give you the much greater control
    over depth of field that you need for shots like this.

    But thanks for posting a shot that so amply illustrates a very
    fundamental deficiency of all small sensor digital cameras.

    Larger sensors rule.
     
    Bruce, Aug 1, 2010
    #8
  9. On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:21:28 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:50:15 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:30:23 -0400, "Tim Conway" <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Larry Thong" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:eek:...
    >>>> Well, maybe just a little spotty.
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Spots.jpg>
    >>>>
    >>>Nice shot. Just needs a catchlight in the eyes. ;-)

    >>
    >>Blue foliage, red fur, someone sorely needs a camera, monitor, or eyes
    >>adjusted. Did anyone mention the worthless underexposed composition yet?
    >>Interesting that the leaves in front are more in focus than the deer. Looks
    >>like its just as much of a problem with camera and lenses as it is the
    >>snapshooter.
    >>
    >><http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4847902759_058421b547_b.jpg>

    >
    >
    >Your inability to control depth of field (because of your camera's
    >small sensor) means that foreground and background elements of the
    >shot that should be rendered out of focus, can't be. The result is
    >that they detract from the subject.


    When you can't even get two birds on the same branch in focus because you
    have too shallow DOF, that detracts from the image too. When you shoot a
    face and only the eyes are in focus but the nose and ears are not, that too
    detracts from the image. Making any of them useless for anything but a
    5"x3" print. How many images taken with DSLRs that have become useless from
    too shallow DOF were posted to these forums in the last year? 99% of them
    were DESTROYED by too shallow DOF. We all have eyes too you know.

    >
    >A camera with a larger sensor would give you the much greater control
    >over depth of field that you need for shots like this.


    I wouldn't want shallow DOF in a shot like that. But you're to much of a
    moron to know why I wouldn't.

    Never before in the history of photography have people bragged about how
    blurry they can make their images. Talk about inane insanity. But then who
    else but a bunch of talentless hack crapshooters in a newsgroup would admit
    to something as stupid as that.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Aug 1, 2010
    #9
  10. On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:21:28 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:

    >
    >Your inability to control depth of field (because of your camera's
    >small sensor) means that foreground and background elements of the
    >shot that should be rendered out of focus, can't be. The result is
    >that they detract from the subject.


    Using shallow DOF in this shot would totally destroy why it was taken and
    why it has to be shot this way in order for it to work.

    <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4849242652_76160e4a2c.jpg>

    I'd explain to you why, but you are far too much of a moron to understand.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Aug 1, 2010
    #10
  11. Tim Conway

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 06:41:15 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
    <> wrote:
    >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:21:28 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>Your inability to control depth of field (because of your camera's
    >>small sensor) means that foreground and background elements of the
    >>shot that should be rendered out of focus, can't be. The result is
    >>that they detract from the subject.

    >
    >Using shallow DOF in this shot would totally destroy why it was taken and
    >why it has to be shot this way in order for it to work.
    >
    ><http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4849242652_76160e4a2c.jpg>



    Nice grass. And so sharp!

    Look how well it hides that inconvenient animal ...
     
    Bruce, Aug 1, 2010
    #11
  12. On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:51:22 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 06:41:15 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
    ><> wrote:
    >>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:21:28 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>Your inability to control depth of field (because of your camera's
    >>>small sensor) means that foreground and background elements of the
    >>>shot that should be rendered out of focus, can't be. The result is
    >>>that they detract from the subject.

    >>
    >>Using shallow DOF in this shot would totally destroy why it was taken and
    >>why it has to be shot this way in order for it to work.
    >>
    >><http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4849242652_76160e4a2c.jpg>

    >
    >
    >Nice grass. And so sharp!
    >
    >Look how well it hides that inconvenient animal ...


    Whoosh! Right over that cavity on your neck.

    You don't get out much into the real world. That much is more than clear.

    Go ahead, post some more BLURRY shots, so I can keep laughing about them.
    Every DSLR owner posts them with too shallow DOF. Even the OP moron of this
    thread used too shallow DOF (AGAIN), the foreground leaves are sharper than
    the deer. Meaning that image (if it was rescued from its color, exposure,
    and composition disaster) couldn't be printed any larger than 7"x5", if
    lucky, because the eye would always be drawn to the leaves. Every viewer
    wondering why the main subject wasn't as sharp. That's what you get for
    having too shallow DOF. Then they'd move onto anything else to look at that
    wouldn't annoy their senses so much. You're all just too much of fucking
    idiots to realize why shallow DOF works less often than it actually works.
    But you go ahead, keep trying to justify it. Then I just get to laugh more
    often.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Aug 1, 2010
    #12
  13. Tim Conway

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:06:35 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
    <> wrote:
    >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:51:22 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 06:41:15 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
    >><> wrote:
    >>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:21:28 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Your inability to control depth of field (because of your camera's
    >>>>small sensor) means that foreground and background elements of the
    >>>>shot that should be rendered out of focus, can't be. The result is
    >>>>that they detract from the subject.
    >>>
    >>>Using shallow DOF in this shot would totally destroy why it was taken and
    >>>why it has to be shot this way in order for it to work.
    >>>
    >>><http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4849242652_76160e4a2c.jpg>

    >>
    >>
    >>Nice grass. And so sharp!
    >>
    >>Look how well it hides that inconvenient animal ...

    >
    >Whoosh! Right over that cavity on your neck.
    >
    >You don't get out much into the real world. That much is more than clear.



    You're right. I don't take an afternoon drive, stop to take a
    snapshot of a waterfall from the roadside, then claim it was some work
    of art taken after a 14 day trek in the wilderness.

    No, I don't do that at all. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Aug 1, 2010
    #13
  14. Tim Conway

    Peter Guest

    "Doug McDonald" <> wrote in message
    news:i34eka$q0a$...
    >
    >>>
    >>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4847902759_058421b547_b.jpg>
    >>>

    >
    >
    > Why do people post URLs that are "unavailable"?
    >



    Obviously because we are not worthy of getting more than a limited view of
    this "great art."
    <\end sarcastic tag>

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 1, 2010
    #14
  15. Tim Conway

    ransley Guest

    On Jul 31, 11:50 pm, Superzooms Still Win <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:30:23 -0400, "Tim Conway" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >"Larry Thong" <> wrote in message
    > >news:eek:...
    > >> Well, maybe just a little spotty.

    >
    > >> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Spots.jpg>

    >
    > >Nice shot.  Just needs a catchlight in the eyes.  ;-)

    >
    > Blue foliage, red fur, someone sorely needs a camera, monitor, or eyes
    > adjusted. Did anyone mention the worthless underexposed composition yet?
    > Interesting that the leaves in front are more in focus than the deer. Looks
    > like its just as much of a problem with camera and lenses as it is the
    > snapshooter.
    >
    > <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4847902759_058421b547_b.jpg>


    No you have a screwed up computer, I see no blue or red fur and the
    exposure fits the shot, what a bunch of assholes here.
     
    ransley, Aug 1, 2010
    #15
  16. Tim Conway

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:47:39 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
    <> wrote:
    >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:25:10 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:06:35 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
    >><> wrote:
    >>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:51:22 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 06:41:15 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
    >>>><> wrote:
    >>>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:21:28 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Your inability to control depth of field (because of your camera's
    >>>>>>small sensor) means that foreground and background elements of the
    >>>>>>shot that should be rendered out of focus, can't be. The result is
    >>>>>>that they detract from the subject.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Using shallow DOF in this shot would totally destroy why it was taken and
    >>>>>why it has to be shot this way in order for it to work.
    >>>>>
    >>>>><http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4849242652_76160e4a2c.jpg>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Nice grass. And so sharp!
    >>>>
    >>>>Look how well it hides that inconvenient animal ...
    >>>
    >>>Whoosh! Right over that cavity on your neck.
    >>>
    >>>You don't get out much into the real world. That much is more than clear.

    >>
    >>
    >>You're right. I don't take an afternoon drive, stop to take a
    >>snapshot of a waterfall from the roadside, then claim it was some work
    >>of art taken after a 14 day trek in the wilderness.
    >>
    >>No, I don't do that at all. ;-)
    >>

    >
    >Doesn't matter what you believe.



    What I believe obviously matters to you, otherwise why reply?
     
    Bruce, Aug 1, 2010
    #16
  17. Tim Conway

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 21:06:58 +1000, "N" <> wrote:
    :
    : "Superzooms Still Win" <> wrote in message
    : news:...
    : >
    : > No, but other varieties, which generally are grayish-green. What does an
    : > Australian Eucalypt tree have to do with the severely bad color shifts in
    : > this image? There's not one Eucalypt leaf anywhere in that photo. It looks
    : > like the numbnutz forgot to take it off of cloudy white-balance or
    : > something. Or even worse, left it on auto white-balance which would easily
    : > account for the odd colors in this image. The auto white-balance trying to
    : > overcompensate for the green light source from the canopy so it removed
    : > green from the leaves turning them blue and removed green from the brown
    : > of
    : > the fur giving it that nasty red magenta cast. If you've not done a lot of
    : > photography under a dense foliage canopy you probably don't have one clue
    : > about any of these things. There are many many many situations in nature
    : > photography where you CANNOT use auto white-balance.
    : >
    : > But then how would any of you crappy snapshooters know about this when all
    : > of you use your cameras in full auto point and shoot mode at all times. If
    : > the camera won't do it for you then you think it's supposed to be that way
    : > or you just didn't buy a camera that was expensive enough. Idiots, one and
    : > all.
    :
    : Gawd, have you never processed a RAW file?

    He eats them for lunch. He used to run a sushi bar on the Ginza, you know.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Aug 2, 2010
    #17
  18. Tim Conway

    LOL! Guest

    On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 20:08:36 -0700, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >Superzooms Still Win wrote:
    >> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 04:37:40 -0400, "Tim Conway"<>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Superzooms Still Win"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 01:05:55 -0400, "Tim Conway"<>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> And the leaves aren't blue.
    >>>>
    >>>> RGB samples:
    >>>> 11,134,118
    >>>> 11,107,85
    >>>>
    >>>> Green, Blue
    >>>>
    >>>> 134,118
    >>>>
    >>>> 107,85
    >>>>
    >>>> That's about a blue as you can get for any shade of green and still try to
    >>>> call it green. If both values were equal then it'd be a shade of pure
    >>>> cyan.
    >>>> Get your monitor adjusted, or something. I suspect the problem might be
    >>>> what's looking at your monitor, considering you can't even determine
    >>>> horse-shit compositions and underexposure too.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> You talk pretty big for someone sitting behind a keyboard. If you'd say
    >>> those things in person to some of the people in neighborhoods that I've been
    >>> in you'd wind up shot - to say the least.
    >>>
    >>> Take it as a warning. Other people might not be so patient with you as
    >>> those in these newsgroups.

    >>
    >> Trolling off-topic again?
    >>
    >> Ask me if I give a ****. I also used to tend bar in a rowdy biker-bar for a
    >> few years. I'm also an excellent marksman with both rifle and compound bow
    >> (crossbow too, but those are so easy it shouldn't count).

    >
    >I am a dynamic figure, often seen scaling walls and crushing ice. I have
    >been known to remodel train stations on my lunch breaks, making them
    >more efficient in the area of heat retention. I translate ethnic slurs
    >for Cuban refugees, I write award-winning operas, I manage time
    >efficiently. Occasionally, I tread water for three days in a row.
    >
    >I woo women with my sensuous and godlike trombone playing, I can pilot
    >bicycles up severe inclines with unflagging speed, and I cook
    >Thirty-Minute Brownies in twenty minutes. I am an expert in stucco, a
    >veteran in love, and an outlaw in Peru.
    >
    >Using only a hoe and a large glass of water, I once single-handedly
    >defended a small village in the Amazon Basin from a horde of ferocious
    >army ants. I play bluegrass cello, I was scouted by the Mets, I am the
    >subject of numerous documentaries. When I'm bored, I build large
    >suspension bridges in my yard. I enjoy urban hang gliding. On
    >Wednesdays, after school, I repair electrical appliances free of charge.
    >
    >I am an abstract artist, a concrete analyst, and a ruthless bookie.
    >Critics worldwide swoon over my original line of corduroy evening wear.
    >I don't perspire. I am a private citizen, yet I receive fan mail. I have
    >been caller number nine and have won the weekend passes. Last summer I
    >toured New Jersey with a traveling centrifugal-force demonstration. I
    >bat .400. My deft floral arrangements have earned me fame in
    >international botany circles. Children trust me.
    >
    >I can hurl tennis rackets at small moving objects with deadly accuracy.
    >I once read Paradise Lost, Moby Dick, and David Copperfield in one day
    >and still had time to refurbish an entire dining room that evening. I
    >know the exact location of every food item in the supermarket. I have
    >performed several covert operations for the CIA. I sleep once a week;
    >when I do sleep, I sleep in a chair. While on vacation in Canada, I
    >successfully negotiated with a group of terrorists who had seized a
    >small bakery. The laws of physics do not apply to me.
    >
    >I balance, I weave, I dodge, I frolic, and my bills are all paid. On
    >weekends, to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami. Years
    >ago I discovered the meaning of life but forgot to write it down. I have
    >made extraordinary four course meals using only a mouli and a toaster
    >oven. I breed prizewinning clams. I have won bullfights in San Juan,
    >cliff-diving competitions in Sri Lanka, and spelling bees at the
    >Kremlin. I have played Hamlet, I have performed open-heart surgery, and
    >I have spoken with Elvis.


    Sucks to be as astoundingly insecure as you, don't it.

    LOL!

    How many more of these fuckingly useless trolls are going to go on and on
    about anything BUT photography now, is anyone's guess.

    LOL!!!!!
     
    LOL!, Aug 2, 2010
    #18
  19. On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 20:43:01 -0700, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >Superzooms Still Win wrote:
    >> severely bad color shifts in
    >> this image? There's not one Eucalypt leaf anywhere in that photo. It looks
    >> like the numbnutz forgot to take it off of cloudy white-balance or
    >> something. Or even worse, left it on auto white-balance which would easily
    >> account for the odd colors in this image. The auto white-balance trying to
    >> overcompensate for the green light source from the canopy so it removed
    >> green from the leaves turning them blue

    >
    >Reducing the blue channel improves things a little bit (increase
    >yellow).


    > Not increasing green, which makes a mess of it.


    Translation: Restores the natural ambience of the shot but most people are
    so fucking stupid that they need every white and gray object in a naturally
    lit scene to be perfectly white and gray. Destroying the true scene and how
    it should appear to them. Not unlike the minds of everyone for the last
    half of a century who have had their chroma sense blown-out by garish
    advertising and oversaturated media images everywhere. So now they want all
    their nature photography to look just like every neon sign in Times Square
    too.

    p.s. Thanks for proving that you know nothing of the natural world, nor
    decent photography for that matter.


    > If anything the
    >greens could be dropped a little and magenta boosted.
    >
    >
    >> and removed green from the brown of
    >> the fur giving it that nasty red magenta cast. If you've not done a lot of
    >> photography under a dense foliage canopy you probably don't have one clue
    >> about any of these things. There are many many many situations in nature
    >> photography where you CANNOT use auto white-balance.

    >
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Aug 2, 2010
    #19
  20. On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:12:35 -0700, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >Superzooms Still Win wrote:
    >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:25:10 +0100, Bruce<> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:06:35 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:51:22 +0100, Bruce<> wrote:
    >>>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 06:41:15 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:21:28 +0100, Bruce<> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Your inability to control depth of field (because of your camera's
    >>>>>>> small sensor) means that foreground and background elements of the
    >>>>>>> shot that should be rendered out of focus, can't be. The result is
    >>>>>>> that they detract from the subject.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Using shallow DOF in this shot would totally destroy why it was taken and
    >>>>>> why it has to be shot this way in order for it to work.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4849242652_76160e4a2c.jpg>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Nice grass. And so sharp!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Look how well it hides that inconvenient animal ...
    >>>>
    >>>> Whoosh! Right over that cavity on your neck.
    >>>>
    >>>> You don't get out much into the real world. That much is more than clear.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> You're right. I don't take an afternoon drive, stop to take a
    >>> snapshot of a waterfall from the roadside, then claim it was some work
    >>> of art taken after a 14 day trek in the wilderness.
    >>>
    >>> No, I don't do that at all. ;-)
    >>>

    >>
    >> Doesn't matter what you believe. I know I wasn't on any road or in any
    >> vehicle when I shot that photo. But why is it that in all other images of
    >> those falls posted on the net that you can't see the east wall of the falls
    >> but in my photo it is clearly seen and makes the falls look so much better?

    >
    >like this?
    >http://img43.imageshack.us/i/pbasetjodtrollmarthafal.jpg/
    >



    COOL! You found one of the people that stole some of the images from my
    original web-pages. THANKS!

    But the one on the left still doesn't show the image being taken from the
    same location and angle. If you look at the strata in the rock structure on
    that east wall, you can easily tell that mine was taken from a much lower
    and further west vantage point than all motor-tourists shoot from.

    Try again fuckwad! Sucks to never get out into the natural world like you
    never do, doesn't it. This is going to keep burning you to no end. I love
    it! Playing with basement-living trolls is turning into a fun hobby, making
    their lives more miserable than they already are.

    LOL!

    >
    >> Now explain how I drove a car to that peak far above the tree-lines in the
    >> Rockies where it was snowing in August and took that shot overlooking that
    >> valley a mile below. Must have been one helluva jeep, eh? Or how about that
    >> extremely rare plant deep in the swamps, must have been an Amphicar for
    >> that one, right? It's illegal to propagate that plant (they even made a
    >> movie about it), in case you didn't know that, so it can't be found
    >> anywhere near civilization. Or maybe that Mule-deer in the plains grasses
    >> just happened to be lying next to the road because it was hit. How come you
    >> didn't come up with these lies too? They're just as obvious, aren't they?
    >>
    >> You fuckingly useless insecure city-boy momma's-boy of a troll. I'm sorry
    >> that your life hasn't been as adventurous and wondrous as mine. And that
    >> you haven't seen and photographed as amazing things as I have all my life.
    >> But that's your own sorry excuse of a life and pathetic fault. Try to not
    >> take out your regret of a life on those who haven't lived as sheltered and
    >> wuss of a life as you have lived. You've made that quite obvious.
    >>
    >>
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Aug 2, 2010
    #20
    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. John A.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    955
    John A.
    Jul 4, 2004
  2. GTABuySell
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    8,259
    GTABuySell
    Jun 7, 2004
  3. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Nikon Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR vs. Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 17, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    948
  4. Collector»NZ
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    332
    Collector»NZ
    Jul 9, 2006
  5. Mark Thomas

    Re: Spotty PJ photos

    Mark Thomas, Jul 6, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    603
    Poldie
    Jul 10, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page