rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Why Use That POS Photomatix When There's Better Software? - 7 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/756bc8a732d2cc09?hl=en
* Photomatix & HDR (REDUX) - 11 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/438bde75c5450595?hl=en
* Photo of Pyrrhopterus - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8176eb8ffb060d4d?hl=en
* Dileep's Hungry Heron - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1b017725f67663d8?hl=en
* Proud Performer - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f5e7547338ad4134?hl=en
* Future of the megapixel race - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c78a5377356e2e48?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why Use That POS Photomatix When There's Better Software?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/756bc8a732d2cc09?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 9:27 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-28 09:17:18 -0700, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
> On 28-06-09 12:02, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> It uses all the terrible Windows design features which good OSX software
>> avoids. The lack of familiarity with OSX programing by these developers
>> is all too obvious.
>
> Actually I find many OS X specific programs poorly designed, needing
> more mouse moves and clicks than on comparable Windows apps. The
> included OS X calculator's unit conversion method is an absolute bore
> to use compared to a Win app such as PCalc. Apple's own "Pages" and
> "Numbers" (word processing and spreadsheet) programs are atrocious
> designs - so bad I might buy the MS office pack (which I returned last
> year).
>
> Other programs I've recently DL'd designed for Mac OS X have been
> really badly designed.
>
> I really hate in OS X how 'drop down' menus start at the top of the
> primary display, esp. when the application window is in a second
> display.
>
> As an OS, OS X is superior in almost all ways, but the GUI paradigm
> could use many improvements. The notion that a program's menu bar be
> detached to the top of the primary display is one of the worst aspects
> of the Mac OS X GUI IMO.
That may be true for many of the over simplified pieces of OSX SW,
however keeping the discussion on this piece of SW, which undoubtably
has its value, remains a terrible translation from Windows to OSX. The
interface is probably just as awkward to work with on a Windows machine.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 9:49 am
From: And ... THEY'RE OFF!
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:27:04 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-06-28 09:17:18 -0700, Alan Browne
><alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
>
>> On 28-06-09 12:02, Savageduck wrote:
>>
>>> It uses all the terrible Windows design features which good OSX software
>>> avoids. The lack of familiarity with OSX programing by these developers
>>> is all too obvious.
>>
>> Actually I find many OS X specific programs poorly designed, needing
>> more mouse moves and clicks than on comparable Windows apps. The
>> included OS X calculator's unit conversion method is an absolute bore
>> to use compared to a Win app such as PCalc. Apple's own "Pages" and
>> "Numbers" (word processing and spreadsheet) programs are atrocious
>> designs - so bad I might buy the MS office pack (which I returned last
>> year).
>>
>> Other programs I've recently DL'd designed for Mac OS X have been
>> really badly designed.
>>
>> I really hate in OS X how 'drop down' menus start at the top of the
>> primary display, esp. when the application window is in a second
>> display.
>>
>> As an OS, OS X is superior in almost all ways, but the GUI paradigm
>> could use many improvements. The notion that a program's menu bar be
>> detached to the top of the primary display is one of the worst aspects
>> of the Mac OS X GUI IMO.
>
>That may be true for many of the over simplified pieces of OSX SW,
>however keeping the discussion on this piece of SW, which undoubtably
>has its value, remains a terrible translation from Windows to OSX. The
>interface is probably just as awkward to work with on a Windows machine.
And now the pretend-photographers quickly veer off into an area that they
know a little something about, the computers under their fingers. And prove
that they know absolutely nothing about cameras and photography. They stay
away from those scary topics every chance they get.
Do go on proving how you avoid all topics about photography. It's quite
revealing.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 9:52 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-28 09:27:04 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
> On 2009-06-28 09:17:18 -0700, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
>
>> On 28-06-09 12:02, Savageduck wrote:
>>
>>> It uses all the terrible Windows design features which good OSX software
>>> avoids. The lack of familiarity with OSX programing by these developers
>>> is all too obvious.
>>
>> Actually I find many OS X specific programs poorly designed, needing
>> more mouse moves and clicks than on comparable Windows apps. The
>> included OS X calculator's unit conversion method is an absolute bore
>> to use compared to a Win app such as PCalc. Apple's own "Pages" and
>> "Numbers" (word processing and spreadsheet) programs are atrocious
>> designs - so bad I might buy the MS office pack (which I returned last
>> year).
>>
>> Other programs I've recently DL'd designed for Mac OS X have been
>> really badly designed.
>>
>> I really hate in OS X how 'drop down' menus start at the top of the
>> primary display, esp. when the application window is in a second
>> display.
>>
>> As an OS, OS X is superior in almost all ways, but the GUI paradigm
>> could use many improvements. The notion that a program's menu bar be
>> detached to the top of the primary display is one of the worst aspects
>> of the Mac OS X GUI IMO.
>
> That may be true for many of the over simplified pieces of OSX SW,
> however keeping the discussion on this piece of SW, which undoubtably
> has its value, remains a terrible translation from Windows to OSX. The
> interface is probably just as awkward to work with on a Windows machine.
BTW I did actually try the Dynamc Photo HDR trial and the results
aren't too bad, just awkward to work with, and the price isn't too bad
either.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1121-DynamicPhoto-w.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:15 am
From: Robert Spanjaard
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:52:22 -0700, Savageduck wrote:
>> That may be true for many of the over simplified pieces of OSX SW,
>> however keeping the discussion on this piece of SW, which undoubtably
>> has its value, remains a terrible translation from Windows to OSX. The
>> interface is probably just as awkward to work with on a Windows
>> machine.
>
> BTW I did actually try the Dynamc Photo HDR trial and the results aren't
> too bad, just awkward to work with, and the price isn't too bad either.
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1121-DynamicPhoto-w.jpg
I certainly wouldn't pay for it based on this result. Your Photomatix-
versions, although far from perfect, were much better than this one.
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:22 am
From: Alan Browne
On 28-06-09 12:52, Savageduck wrote:
> BTW I did actually try the Dynamc Photo HDR trial and the results aren't
> too bad, just awkward to work with, and the price isn't too bad either.
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1121-DynamicPhoto-w.jpg
I think you need to take a walk away from the monitor. They seem to be
getting worse and worse.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:23 am
From: Alan Browne
On 28-06-09 12:49, And ... THEY'RE OFF! wrote:
> Do go on proving how you avoid all topics about photography. It's quite
> revealing.
Well you know you're the master so please do show us your fantastic
photography.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:36 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-28 10:22:40 -0700, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
> On 28-06-09 12:52, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> BTW I did actually try the Dynamc Photo HDR trial and the results aren't
>> too bad, just awkward to work with, and the price isn't too bad either.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1121-DynamicPhoto-w.jpg
>
> I think you need to take a walk away from the monitor. They seem to be
> getting worse and worse.
sigh! :-)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photomatix & HDR (REDUX)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/438bde75c5450595?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 9:43 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-28 09:11:52 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> said:
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-06-27 20:31:58 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>>
>>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>>> reasonable results.
>>>
>>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>>> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>>
>>> Any suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks to all who have commented, I have taken the suggestions to heart.
>>
>> I have revisited the problem and have made tweeks in Photomatix
>> tonemapping and CS4 to come up with this:
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1119_20_21_tonemapped-w.jpg
>>
>>
> Both represent good work. I find neither quite right, but it may well
> be because I know in advance it's HDR, and so I am subconsciously
> looking for reasons it looks at odds with other photos of similar
> content.
>
> How dark was the mountain face in the 'normal' exposure?
Well just so you can see what I was working with here are the 3
exposures resized only, no PP:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1119w.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1120w.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1121w.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 9:43 am
From: Yeah - you're pathetic - no doubt about it now.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:05:45 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-06-27 20:31:58 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>
>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>> reasonable results.
>>
>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>
>Thanks to all who have commented, I have taken the suggestions to heart.
>
>I have revisited the problem and have made tweeks in Photomatix
>tonemapping and CS4 to come up with this:
>http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1119_20_21_tonemapped-w.jpg
Now tell us again why you're such a lame photographer that you couldn't
have done that with just one properly exposed frame in less than one minute
of editing by using curves? Are you trying to tell me that the dynamic
range of your camera's sensor is even less than that in all my P&S cameras?
Seems to be the case if you need HDR for a simple tourist's snapshot like
this one. You even have the sun to your back so the area of sky in your FOV
is already dark enough to be adequately captured by any camera on earth.
Still a boring composition, there's nothing you can ever do about that. And
it's still crooked. How much more "beginner" can you possibly get. At least
you're learning how to use simple tools like white-balance and not
oversaturate your images so much that it burns out everyone's cones in
their eyes. Again, simple beginner's mistakes unrelated to any HDR work.
Learn the basics of editing and composition before you try something more
complex like HDR. This is like watching someone trying to drive a Harley
with training-wheels on it and they keep falling over every 2 ft. It'd be
funny if it wasn't so pathetically sad.
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:02 am
From: tony cooper
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:43:57 -0500, Yeah - you're pathetic - no doubt
about it now. <nocontact@noaddress.com> wrote:
>Now tell us again why you're such a lame photographer that you couldn't
>have done that with just one properly exposed frame in less than one minute
>of editing by using curves?
I have never seen an HDR image that I find to be appealing. It seems
to me that it involves taking a good photograph and making something
harsh and unappealing of it.
That said, I completely understand Savageduck's interest. Part of the
fun of photography is trying new techniques and pushing the envelope.
The process can be an enjoyable learning experience even if the
results are not something better than the original.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:07 am
From: "Peter"
"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009062809054597157-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-06-27 20:31:58 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
> said:
>
>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>> reasonable results.
>>
>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks to all who have commented, I have taken the suggestions to heart.
>
> I have revisited the problem and have made tweeks in Photomatix
> tonemapping and CS4 to come up with this:
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1119_20_21_tonemapped-w.jpg
>
I would like somewhere in between.
The second try looks color balanced to me, but under saturated with too
little contrast on the mountain and the clouds just over the mountain look
washed out to me.
If you used layers, try some selective masking.
--
Peter
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:08 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-28 09:26:43 -0700, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
> On 28-06-09 12:20, Savageduck wrote:
>
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1119_20_21_tonemapped-2w.jpg
>
> Has a 1960's postcard look to it. The whites in the clouds here are
> often flat burned out.
>
> Just shows that scenic photos should be shot in the morning or late
> afternoon, not mid-day. (I know that photography was not your primary
> reason for the trip).
Yup. Timing, timing, timing.
As far as photography not being the primary reason for the trip goes
you are probably more right than wrong. It was a part of the trip.
I was last in Yosemite over 10 years ago. My wife had been ill and that
precluded any lengthy road trips over the last 10 or so years, we had
other travels, but it was limited to some cruises and some trips back
East.
She died 18 months ago and I retired at the end of February, so it was
time for me to start revisiting some of those places.
Zion NP, Kings Canyon-Sequoia NP, Glacier NP, Yellowstone NP, Lake
Louise, more Alaska & more BC next.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:16 am
From: Robert Spanjaard
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:02:45 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:43:57 -0500, Yeah - you're pathetic - no doubt
> about it now. <nocontact@noaddress.com> wrote:
>
>>Now tell us again why you're such a lame photographer that you couldn't
>>have done that with just one properly exposed frame in less than one
>>minute of editing by using curves?
>
> I have never seen an HDR image that I find to be appealing.
How about these?
http://www.arumes.com/photo/fullsize/CRW_2840.jpg
http://www.arumes.com/photo/fullsize/CRW_3356.jpg
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:18 am
From: Paul Furman
Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-06-28 09:11:52 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> said:
>
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2009-06-27 20:31:58 -0700, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>>>
>>>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>>>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>>>> reasonable results.
>>>>
>>>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite
>>>> road trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>
>>> Thanks to all who have commented, I have taken the suggestions to heart.
>>>
>>> I have revisited the problem and have made tweeks in Photomatix
>>> tonemapping and CS4 to come up with this:
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1119_20_21_tonemapped-w.jpg
>>>
>>>
>> Both represent good work. I find neither quite right, but it may well
>> be because I know in advance it's HDR, and so I am subconsciously
>> looking for reasons it looks at odds with other photos of similar
>> content.
>>
>> How dark was the mountain face in the 'normal' exposure?
>
> Well just so you can see what I was working with here are the 3
> exposures resized only, no PP:
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1119w.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1120w.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1121w.jpg
I tried overlaying those in PS and used a soft-edged 200-pixel eraser
for a manual graduated neutral density effect and it was pretty easy for
this particular shot. The dark sky frame was only used for a slight
translucent overlay on the clouds, the foreground looks fine in the
overexposed shot.
Then I overlaid your new tonemapped version & tried luminosity & color
mode... I prefer the manual version. It took some fiddling to get them
to align, set mode to difference & free transform using arrow keys to
nudge & a little rotating too.
Here's the layered photoshop file: http://edgehill.net/1/temp/1119w.psd
-hdr on the top layer, turned off
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:25 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-28 10:16:14 -0700, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> said:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:02:45 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:43:57 -0500, Yeah - you're pathetic - no doubt
>> about it now. <nocontact@noaddress.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now tell us again why you're such a lame photographer that you couldn't
>>> have done that with just one properly exposed frame in less than one
>>> minute of editing by using curves?
>>
>> I have never seen an HDR image that I find to be appealing.
>
> How about these?
>
> http://www.arumes.com/photo/fullsize/CRW_2840.jpg
> http://www.arumes.com/photo/fullsize/CRW_3356.jpg
Very nice.
As I said, I am just starting out on the climb up this learning curve,
and I will probably find more suitable subjects for HDR in the future.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:35 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-28 10:18:57 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> said:
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-06-28 09:11:52 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2009-06-27 20:31:58 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>>>>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>>>>> reasonable results.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>>>>> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to all who have commented, I have taken the suggestions to heart.
>>>>
>>>> I have revisited the problem and have made tweeks in Photomatix
>>>> tonemapping and CS4 to come up with this:
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1119_20_21_tonemapped-w.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Both represent good work. I find neither quite right, but it may well
>>> be because I know in advance it's HDR, and so I am subconsciously
>>> looking for reasons it looks at odds with other photos of similar
>>> content.
>>>
>>> How dark was the mountain face in the 'normal' exposure?
>>
>> Well just so you can see what I was working with here are the 3
>> exposures resized only, no PP:
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1119w.jpg
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1120w.jpg
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1121w.jpg
>
> I tried overlaying those in PS and used a soft-edged 200-pixel eraser
> for a manual graduated neutral density effect and it was pretty easy
> for this particular shot. The dark sky frame was only used for a slight
> translucent overlay on the clouds, the foreground looks fine in the
> overexposed shot.
>
> Then I overlaid your new tonemapped version & tried luminosity & color
> mode... I prefer the manual version. It took some fiddling to get them
> to align, set mode to difference & free transform using arrow keys to
> nudge & a little rotating too.
> Here's the layered photoshop file: http://edgehill.net/1/temp/1119w.psd
> -hdr on the top layer, turned off
Thanks for the effort.
Not bad at all.
As I was saying this is all an exercise in solving problem exposures at
the wrong time of day using HDR (when a ND Grad might have been better)
and I (and I hope some others) can only learn from it.
Who cares about the critics if they can't add something constructive
and useful to the debate.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:45 am
From: burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson)
Yeah - you're pathetic - no doubt about it now.
<nocontact@noaddress.com> wrote:
> >Thanks to all who have commented, I have taken the suggestions to heart.
> >
> >I have revisited the problem and have made tweeks in Photomatix
> >tonemapping and CS4 to come up with this:
> >http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1119_20_21_tonemapped-w.jpg
>
> Now tell us again why you're such a lame photographer
Now tell us again why you are such a lame excuse for a human being?
Oh well, one more for the killfile...
--
- Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:45 am
From: burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson)
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>> > Well just so you can see what I was working with here are the 3
> > exposures resized only, no PP:
> > http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1119w.jpg
> > http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1120w.jpg
> > http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1121w.jpg
>
> I tried overlaying those in PS and used a soft-edged 200-pixel eraser
> for a manual graduated neutral density effect and it was pretty easy for
> this particular shot. The dark sky frame was only used for a slight
> translucent overlay on the clouds, the foreground looks fine in the
> overexposed shot.
>
> Then I overlaid your new tonemapped version & tried luminosity & color
> mode... I prefer the manual version. It took some fiddling to get them
> to align, set mode to difference & free transform using arrow keys to
> nudge & a little rotating too.
> Here's the layered photoshop file: http://edgehill.net/1/temp/1119w.psd
> -hdr on the top layer, turned off
Rather nicely done. I think I agree that I prefer your manual result
over the Photomatrix one.
As for the aligning though, Photoshop can do that automatically for you.
Did it not succeed here for some reason?
--
- Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photo of Pyrrhopterus
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8176eb8ffb060d4d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 9:49 am
From: "Miguel"
"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> escribió en el mensaje
news:3ene459mhc2f7ho6mjk7e6rbhap3drdl3t@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:01:05 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
> : Miguel wrote:
> : > "rwalker" <rwalker@despammed.com> escribió en el mensaje
> : > news:spdd45husapc9krvqg6r4t331iuuhfmt7k@4ax.com...
> : >> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:00:11 -0500, terry andersen
> : >> <tandersen@myisp.org> wrote:
> : >>
> : >>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:34:04 -0500, "Miguel"
> : >>> <responderalgrupo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> : >>>
> : >>>> Hello:
> : >>>>
> : >>>> I have just done this photo about this interesting species:
> : >>>>
> : >>>> http://...
> : >>>>
> : >>>> Thanks to all for your comments about photography.
> : >>> Caged birds and other caged animals are not very interesting, and
> not
> : >>> just because of the ugly cage-bar lines with no chance of any decent
> : >>> composition. Some people even find caged-animal photos to be
> annoying, if
> : >>> not disturbing. Try to get out into their native habitat and
> photograph
> : >>> them in their natural environment. You'd be far better off by
> learning
> : >>> photography with common sparrows on a branch or pigeons in the park
> than
> : >>> you'll ever be by photographing caged birds.
> : >> Or for that matter, if he's tame enough, let him out of the cage and
> : >> try a few shots.
> : >
> : > Yes, It is a good option, as soon as, thoses parrots will have a
> special
> : > processing, but now I only can take photos "as is".
> :
> : Then don't take the photos, or do tell the story...
> :
> : Maybe it's art, calling attention to the cruel caging of animals?
> : The bad composition just makes it more painful.
> :
> : Seriously, do these birds have owners? Much more interesting to shoot
> : them interacting with their owner, otherwise I get an image of abandoned
> : birds in cages going insane. These are very smart, highly social
> creatures.
>
> Intelligent animals get bored easily, and almost anything you do with them
> can
> attract their interest. Remember the National Geo cover of a gorilla,
> Nikon in
> hand, taking a picture of herself in a full-length mirror? Maybe Miguel
> should
> show the parrot the pictures he takes of him. ;^)
That remember me this photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3257895183/in/set-72157613403875084/
By the way, these parrots, and other animals that I am taking photos, they
are registered and protected by The National Institute of Natural Resources
(INRENA).
--
Miguel M. Yalán
http://mmyv.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dileep's Hungry Heron
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1b017725f67663d8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:26 am
From: George Kerby
On 6/27/09 6:12 PM, in article pq8d451fdh4c2k0hs59u7dh750mr7ap5tn@4ax.com,
"Calvin T" <ct@spamprevention.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:19:41 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Wonderful sequence, from Qatar :
>
> You don't get out much, do you.
>
>>
>>
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=32237552
>
> The poster/photographer there is a moron. I've not seen one heron species
> yet that didn't fish that way. This allows for plenty of time to set up for
> the "strike shot". Then you just remain as patient as the heron. Some of
> the more interesting photos I've taken are where a heron will form a
> full-circle umbrella with their wings. Makes for some very artistic
> compositions with the included reflection in mirror-still waters. The fish
> will look for and are attracted to this shade in warmer climates and waters
> when in direct sunlight. I am amazed then at how they can hold their
> outstretched wings so still for so long. I think my most favorite heron
> shot is where an alligator on the bank was just a yard away from the heron.
> The heron determined to keep fishing/waiting there, the alligator hoping to
> steal either fish or heron. It was a tense 20-30 minutes of waiting on my
> part. The heron won his stance, the alligator too slow to get either when
> the heron was finally successful. A "keeper" photograph the results.
>
Care to share?
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:39 am
From: Robert Coe
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:08:37 -0500, Calvin T <ct@spamprevention.net> wrote:
: On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:20:25 -0400, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
:
: >On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:12:16 -0500, Calvin T <ct@spamprevention.net> wrote:
: >: On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:19:41 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
: >:
: >: > Wonderful sequence, from Qatar :
: >:
: >: You don't get out much, do you.
: >:
: >: >
: >: >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=32237552
: >:
: >: The poster/photographer there is a moron. I've not seen one heron species
: >: yet that didn't fish that way. This allows for plenty of time to set up
: >: for the "strike shot". Then you just remain as patient as the heron. Some
: >: of the more interesting photos I've taken are where a heron will form a
: >: full-circle umbrella with their wings. Makes for some very artistic
: >: compositions with the included reflection in mirror-still waters. The fish
: >: will look for and are attracted to this shade in warmer climates and waters
: >: when in direct sunlight. I am amazed then at how they can hold their
: >: outstretched wings so still for so long. I think my most favorite heron
: >: shot is where an alligator on the bank was just a yard away from the heron.
: >: The heron determined to keep fishing/waiting there, the alligator hoping
: >: to steal either fish or heron. It was a tense 20-30 minutes of waiting on
: >: my part. The heron won his stance, the alligator too slow to get either
: >: when the heron was finally successful. A "keeper" photograph the results.
: >
: >IOW, "The picture is a piece of crap because I'm not the one who took it."
: >Does that about sum it up?
: >
: >Bob
:
: No.
:
: The pictures are, "Eh, there's thousands like that in the world, but the
: creator of them is blowing smoke up everyone's ass because he knows nothing
: about bird behavior. Which makes his claims about being a bird photographer
: a bunch of bullshit. He was probably taking burst-mode snapshots while on
: vacation, as he normally does using his camera in automatic machine-gun
: point and shoot mode, and just happened to get some from a nearby ditch
: that are better than he's done before. Never once has he taken photos of
: any kind of heron before or he'd know better about how they commonly fish.
: All species of herons hunt similarly. His being 'astounded' about their
: photographed behavior says it all. Green-around-the-gills is putting it
: mildly."
:
: That about sums it up.
:
: Got it now?
Yes, I think so. At least I'm confident that I've deduced a couple of tenets
of your philosophy:
1. "I'm smart, and the rest of those yokels are stupid."
2. "Never use ten words when 100 will suffice."
Bob
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:44 am
From: ASAAR
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:20:25 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
> IOW, "The picture is a piece of crap because I'm not the one who took it."
> Does that about sum it up?
Not really. It might be the case if links were ever posted to any
of the supposedly "award winning" shots that she/he/it claims to
have taken.
Its next post showed that it hasn't even the slightest
understanding of what he saw. And it's nice that the troll did go
out of its way to view the images [I trolled the troll! <g>], but
the troll showed that it either hasn't the slightest understanding
of what was seen ("He was probably taking burst-mode snapshots"), or
more likely, it's just here to fabricate and troll.
In fact, the 8 shot sequence (shot with a D300 and 500mm VR f/4
with 1.4 TC) took just a bit over 4 minutes to complete. The
compliments for the shots of the Squacco Heron patiently waiting
for, catching and managing to get a rather large fish down its
gullet were quite a bit more enthusiastic than any I've seen before
on DPR, and the "fantastic"s and "AWESOME!"s seemed much more
sincere than the usual rubber stamp variety. Full EXIFs were also
embedded in the images. Well worth a look for any that missed it :
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=32237552
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Proud Performer
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f5e7547338ad4134?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:43 am
From: George Kerby
On 6/27/09 9:34 PM, in article
de8c9e8c-477c-4843-92a2-b19cfd113ceb@m19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, "PatM"
<groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 12:49 pm, More-Reality <m...@sigh.com> wrote:
>> Congratulations! Your post was voted the most likely to use for my own
>> entertainment! No other offers nor coupons implied. ...... I'd type up the
>> rest of the standard disclaimer but it's about 20 pages long. (honest, it's
>> long, but fun to read)
>>
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:01:26 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@spammers.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.spamlink.ca/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=130
>>
>>> For GDB supporters, the economic downturn has hurt everybody, including
>>> charities. Guide Dogs for the Blind needs donations now more than ever.
>>> Last year, the school paid out about $1.3 million in vet costs alone --
>>> part of that was for Dima.
>>
>>> http://www.spamlink.com
>>
>> And here I thought that blind people all want to be treated just like
>> everyone else. Live and learn. What's the matter? Aren't they gainfully
>> employed? Did people write all that free accessibility software for your
>> computers for nothing? Can't they afford to have their own dogs trained?
>> Pay for their own vets? I've taken in up to 25 abused, abandoned, or
>> otherwise suffering and neglected dogs at one time, nurturing and feeding
>> all of them until they all finally died of old-age. Quite a few of them
>> died from complications caused by the Lyme-vaccine being pushed at the
>> time, testing it in vets offices before they were going to use it on
>> humans. But nobody saw me asking for donations. In fact the one vet that I
>> finally learned to trust even put together an emergency field-kit that she
>> sold to me for her cost. With cauterizing swabs and injectable anesthetics
>> so I could stitch up gaping wounds, set bones, and do basic emergency tasks
>> on my own. Then I wouldn't have to always be bringing in every new dog to
>> her. With living so far in the country it was difficult to get them to the
>> vet in time, better I should do as much as I can on my own, on-site. The
>> "wholesome" christian farmers in this area treat their dogs worse than
>> livestock. You know why, christians don't believe that animals have souls,
>> they can do anything that they want to them. Things like gashes around legs
>> down to the bone from being tied to fences with thin bare wire. So many
>> kept coming to my door of their own accord when they finally got free. I
>> guess they sensed where to go for help.
>>
>> I think the saddest one of all was Rocket. I woke up one morning before
>> sunrise to see this dog I've never seen before push open the dog-door on
>> the porch. From her jaws she dropped a newborn pup inside. So thin and
>> weak, just rib-bones with sticks for legs -- her, not her pup. She ran off,
>> came back a half-hour later with another one, pushed it through the
>> dog-door and left it inside the porch. Did this 8 more times that long
>> morning. How she found my place originally I'll never know, or how she even
>> knew what that dog-door was for. All of mine were inside still snoring when
>> this started. She was desperate, not even enough energy to produce milk for
>> her pups. With care, they all survived and became plump and happy jumpy
>> dogs. Come to find out weeks later she came from a devout-christian's farm
>> about a mile down the road, they were breeding her to sell expensive
>> hunting-dog pups. She came all that way 10 times, 20 miles total, to save
>> her pups that morning. She's also the one that had the gaping wound around
>> her leg from being tied-up with bare wire. An amazing animal, once owned by
>> disgusting humans that should rot forever in their hell. But they don't,
>> they still think they are the best people on earth! Just ask them! As they
>> drive around in their fancy new refrigerated semi's hauling their goods to
>> market as all their animals suffer a life worse than death. (Yes, I
>> reported them to 3 different agencies. Didn't do much good. I was told to
>> only keep the dogs long enough to bring them back to health then return
>> them to the christian-fuckhead owners. Rocket would occasionally bring some
>> of her pups by a few times that summer to let me know they were doing okay.
>> Or, if abused again, she would stay a few days to a week until the pain was
>> past and the owners decided to come get her again. 'Til one year that I saw
>> none of them anymore. I didn't want to know what happened.)
>>
>> Are you telling me that none of you can even teach your dogs how to stop at
>> the curb? (Let alone stitch up their wounds if they get them.) How about
>> this: You get a bunch of blind people together, with dogs they adopt from
>> the Humane Society. All agree to converge in the local park for a few hours
>> for 5 days a week for a couple of months. Teach your own dogs how to not
>> have them run you into trees. Instant feedback, instant lessons for all,
>> FOR FREE. I'm starting to suspect that the blind should succumb to
>> Darwinism if all they're ever going to do is survive off of donations and
>> the learning and skills of others their whole lives. Sell that camera of
>> yours that you can't ever and never will be able to focus or compose scenes
>> in properly, you'll then be able to afford your vet bills if you're not
>> willing to do something as simple as giving them their shots on your own.
>> [Lightly pinch the skin a few inches in front of their tail, on the top of
>> their back. Form a little pocket of skin. Inject there between your
>> fingers. Easy-peasy. They don't even notice it and still slobber all over
>> your face when done. Go to your local livestock feed-mill for all
>> antibiotics and syringes needed. I've even used the powdered forms for
>> myself, it's the exact same stuff they put in capsules for humans. 100%
>> identical, I've checked. Just relabeled for livestock use but at 1/100th to
>> 1/1000th the cost. The only thing you have to learn is how to convert
>> dosages per lb. of swine or bovine to dog or human weights.]
>>
>> Is this Guide-Dog program just like those organizations that exploit
>> suffering children so they can sit back on the gravy-train raking in all
>> that cash while pretending to do something beneficial? You know, those
>> christians who would actually do better by handing out condoms and RU-486
>> abortion pills so they wouldn't be condemning the next generation to
>> starvation, disease, and abject poverty. All the while the Vatican and its
>> millions of churches smugly sitting on more gold and land-possessions than
>> the wealth in Fort Knox and Wall St. combined, while their fool followers
>> still "donate". But oh no, they are wholesome pro-life christians who don't
>> believe in population control. Every sperm is sacred! Every sperm is good!
>> The only way they're going to overtake the planet with their fool-beliefs
>> is by out-breeding all others. The biggest evil of the last century was
>> that Mother-Fuckin' Theresa. Not only did she perpetuate the suffering for
>> this generation while her church benefited from it, but she also ensured
>> that the suffering of those she "helped" would continue for many more
>> generations to come. All on the premise that her church and belief system
>> should have a reason to exist, with no other goal nor purpose to her
>> efforts.
>>
>> How "saintly" of her, playing Satan's right-hand gal her whole life. What a
>> fine and upstanding missionary. Just like all of them that have come before
>> and after her. Spreading and ensuring the perpetuation of suffering so
>> their church may benefit from it and have a reason to exist. That's some
>> really piss-poor faith if you have to perpetuate and exploit that much
>> suffering so you can maybe one day believe in your chosen god. Dole out the
>> gold contained in the Vatican to everyone and give them back their lands
>> (which the churches originally stole) to grow food on, then there'd be no
>> starvation to exploit. Ooops, then the church wouldn't have a reason to
>> exist. Catch-22, they have to hoard all that wealth and land to give
>> themselves a purpose for being. Got starving children in your area? Tear
>> down that stupid soulless and useless church that you wasted all your time,
>> money and energy in building. Instead use what supplies you can recycle
>> from that ghastly spiritual-monstrosity to plant a community-owned field of
>> food there. Much less effort with vastly greater benefit for many
>> generations to come. What's that? You're too busy praying for food and
>> asking for hand-outs? Starve sucker. Death by Darwinism is too good for
>> you.
>>
>> But I digress, with a real solution instead of some psychotic
>> daddy-in-the-sky nonsense. One of those greedy self-serving and disgusting
>> christian "Save the Children" exploitations was on TV and it got me
>> distracted. Let's get back to the problem at hand.
>>
>> Sure, I could donate to the Guide-Dogs program, but then what would that
>> teach you? How to leach off of society your whole life? Oh wait, you've
>> already learned that, as I see by your next statement.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Also, if you would like to support my passion for art, remember you can
>>> Paypal donations to: dha...@spamlink.com
>>
>>> All donations very much appreciated.
>>
>> I'm sure they would be appreciated very much. I'm going to start up a
>> passion for hangnails and get donations started for that too. The unsung
>> suffering of society--Hangnails. Do you know how many tasks have been
>> prevented by hangnails? How many accidents have been caused by distracting
>> and painful hangnails? Donate now! We will find a way to wipe-out this
>> scourge of modern society. All donations very much appreciated. Donate
>> before you get your next hangnail. Each donor will receive a small packet
>> of Palmolive Dishwashing Liquid so that you may soak your cuticles in a
>> dilute solution of it. This temporary cure found by "Mother Madge", the
>> Hangnail Saint. She didn't just exploit those with hangnails, she stopped
>> hangnails in their tracks. We may not be able to prevent all hangnails yet,
>> that's what your donations are for. But we can damned sure try to ease the
>> suffering of those that still get them. DONATE NOW! So I too can live off
>> of your donations until I am confronted with pleas of "Hey? What happened
>> to my donations?" Then you get the usual reply about advertising costs,
>> supplies, assistant's paychecks, overhead, start-up fees, private jets to
>> cut down on transportation costs ... you know. Lots of money is ...
>>
>> read more »
>
> I don't know what set you off, dude, but take a pill. A regular
> poster solicited for a charity in a not-too-obnoxious way. It's
> okay. If you don't like it, ignore it. But your reaction was a bit
> overboard.
Some people have a lot of time when in mental confinement.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:46 am
From: George Kerby
On 6/27/09 11:29 PM, in article 6qrd455n6dmv8114ivjsn1ochm5cpkoju4@4ax.com,
"Oh Look! I Found Another MORON" <olifam@ss.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:34:37 -0700 (PDT), PatM
> <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't know what set you off, dude, but take a pill. A regular
>> poster solicited for a charity in a not-too-obnoxious way. It's
>> okay. If you don't like it, ignore it. But your reaction was a bit
>> overboard.
>
> Do not misconstrue your overreaction in trying to defend some lame-assed
> begging spammer who can't even take a decent photo to save his life vs.
> someone who types 130wpm and was having a good ol' time making the useless
> beggar oh-so obvious to all; as their "being set off", "needing a pill", or
> going "overboard". If you have a difficult time understanding words more
> than two syllables long or reading more complex sentence structures of
> length, then don't.
>
> Here, try this:
>
> Jane met Sally. See Spot chase the red ball.
>
> Better for you?
>
> Shove it up your beggar boyfriend's blind talentless ass.
>
>
I would guess the electroshock therapy is not doing much for your anger
management, no?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Future of the megapixel race
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c78a5377356e2e48?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 10:45 am
From: "Tzorzakakis Dimitrios"
? "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> ?????? ??? ??????
news:270620090310554763%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <4a45c2a7$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't get me started on audiophools...
>> <http://grumpyoldarts.com/2009/04/18/audiophools/>
>
> they're a hoot. how about a 770 pound turntable that uses bullet-proof
> wood, for only $150k:
> <http://www.needledoctor.com/Clearaudio-Statement-Turntable>
>
> and don't cheap out on the needle:
> <http://www.needledoctor.com/Clearaudio-Goldfinger-Phono-Cartridge>
My turntable, a Project Debut III, goes for 370 euros, complete with Ortofon
OM5 moving magnet cartridge, and Cambridge Audio 540 P MM preamplifier. If
someone has $ 150,000 and is willing to spend them on this trurntable...but
the chinese have a proverb, that even if you have acres of rice-plantages,
you still eat one helping of rice in your supper....
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitris
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment