rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Proud Performer - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f5e7547338ad4134?hl=en
* Why Non-Correlating Print, Negative and CMOS Sizes? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a72842738be30c46?hl=en
* Future of the megapixel race - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c78a5377356e2e48?hl=en
* OT - Michael Jackson's Noses - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d5dcf5265d2b2089?hl=en
* Kodak kills Kodachrome film after 74 years - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ffab234a019b33ac?hl=en
* canon SX10is - max memory card capacity - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a0bc81c99be36e20?hl=en
* Photo of Pyrrhopterus - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8176eb8ffb060d4d?hl=en
* Photomatix & HDR - 8 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/438bde75c5450595?hl=en
* Running OS X on my PC!!! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bb50fbf2b3ff2f37?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Proud Performer
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f5e7547338ad4134?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 9:05 pm
From: John McWilliams
PatM wrote:
> On Jun 27, 12:49 pm, More-Reality <m...@sigh.com> 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.
..............
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 9:29 pm
From: Oh Look! I Found Another MORON
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.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 10:48 pm
From: Paul Furman
PatM wrote:
> More-Reality wrote:
>> <the usual crap>
>
> 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.
He's always like that.
Changes names but easily recognized.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why Non-Correlating Print, Negative and CMOS Sizes?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a72842738be30c46?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 9:12 pm
From: Bob Larter
Astounded wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:13:58 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>> Bob Larter wrote:
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:35:44 -0700, Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net>
>>>>> wrote in <kMR_l.9352$FI5.6956@newsfe12.iad>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Some people LIKE the shallow depth of field effect, because it keeps
>>>>>> mundane backgrounds from distracting the eye from the central image.
>>>>>> In fact, one reason that many people CHOOSE a DSLR over a good P/S,
>>>>>> is because it is much harder to get a shallow depth of field with
>>>>>> small sensor cameras like most P/S on the market.
>>>>> Because they'ye been sold a bill of goods, since a good compact digital
>>>>> can produce depth of field sufficiently shallow for most purposes.
>>>>> <http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jnavas/images/detail/#384/p1030671bb9ca2.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>> Hrm. The bokeh in that shot is pretty ugly, & you can clearly see the
>>>> cars in the background.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a DLSR shot with moderately shallow DoF (F4.0)(warning - large
>>>> file):
>>>> <http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//CRW_4710.jpg>
>> Bah! - I uploaded the wrong file.
>> This is the good one:
>> <http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//CRW_4708-1.jpg>
>
> The "good" one? LOL!
>
> Same parts of the flower are in focus. By using your machine-gun burst mode
> (ContinuousDrive in EXIF) you managed to luckily get one shot where the bee
> moved to where, for the most part, it's in meagerly better focus. 3 frames
> before the other one that you posted, proving how your camera can't focus
> on the intended subject. Proving even more how desperate snapshooters must
> depend on their point and shoot machine-gun mode to hopefully get something
> worth looking at one day. Even then, in this one, the parts of the flowers
> closer to the lens are still more in focus than the bee. I think I'll use
> your same method the next time I'm shooting elk. I'll just wait until one
> comes within range. Firing continuously until one almost does, but then
> gets only slightly maimed by accident from a ricochet.
>
> Try to save face some other way. It's not working. You know nothing about
> how to use DOF effectively without it totally ruining your photography, nor
> how to compose any shot into something worth seeing. Even when you do it by
> using your point and shoot and pray machine-gun shooting method.
>
> Consider Hara-Kiri next time to try to save-face. It would be much simpler,
> quicker, and vastly fewer would have to suffer in your attempts to do so.
>
> (Everyone, do note the "-1" added to the filename. That means he even tried
> to fix this in editing.)
*yawn* That shot is an order of magnitude better than anything you've
posted, troll.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Future of the megapixel race
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c78a5377356e2e48?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 3:31 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <270620091120268880%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
> and there's a luminance change in those examples, so a bayer sensor
> will resolve it.
Not necessarily, and even if there was it would not help a Bayer sensor
to accurately reconstruct the image.
> how does colour change within a pixel???
Scene having more detail than the sensor can capture?
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 10:53 pm
From: Bob Larter
nospam wrote:
> 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.
To bring it back to photography, check out one of the comments on the
post, which compares audiophool idiocy to the photographic equivalent:
---
Exactly the same debate exists in photography: Photoshop does not
replace the fun of darkroom, for those of us who enjoy darkroom, but
that has nothing to do with objective resolution and dynamics, where
digital has won the battle years ago.
---
> how about a 770 pound turntable that uses bullet-proof
> wood, for only $150k:
> <http://www.needledoctor.com/Clearaudio-Statement-Turntable>
Jesus!
> and don't cheap out on the needle:
> <http://www.needledoctor.com/Clearaudio-Goldfinger-Phono-Cartridge>
*cough* *splutter*
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 11:06 pm
From: "David J Taylor"
Bob Larter wrote:
> nospam wrote:
[]
>> how about a 770 pound turntable that uses bullet-proof
>> wood, for only $150k:
>> <http://www.needledoctor.com/Clearaudio-Statement-Turntable>
>
> Jesus!
>
>> and don't cheap out on the needle:
>> <http://www.needledoctor.com/Clearaudio-Goldfinger-Phono-Cartridge>
>
> *cough* *splutter*
Somehow it would be more believable at $147K and $9625 for the needle!
Even more expensive than Leica!
David
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 12:16 am
From: nospam
In article <MPG.24b164e929fee1df98c058@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > and there's a luminance change in those examples, so a bayer sensor
> > will resolve it.
>
> Not necessarily, and even if there was it would not help a Bayer sensor
> to accurately reconstruct the image.
actually it would.
> > how does colour change within a pixel???
>
> Scene having more detail than the sensor can capture?
if it's beyond the capabilities of the sensor, then it doesn't matter
if it's full colour or not. it's not going to be resolved.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT - Michael Jackson's Noses
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d5dcf5265d2b2089?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 10:12 pm
From: "Paul Bartram"
> "dave" <example@example.net> wrote
>> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> Not sure how true this is.
> Then why post, this is a photo group.
What? And be the only group on Usenet NOT to have a Michael Jackson post
this week? Good luck...
Paul
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kodak kills Kodachrome film after 74 years
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ffab234a019b33ac?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 10:37 pm
From: Bob Larter
Twibil wrote:
> On Jun 26, 11:51 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 74 years is a pretty darn good run for ANY technology, don't you think?
>>> In an unrelated story, a bone flute was found not too long ago in a
>>> stone-aged German cave. It works just exactly like a modern flute
>>> except that it plays fewer notes.
>>> It carbon dates to plus or minus 35,000 years.
>> What, it might come from as much as 35,000 years in the future?
>
> Kool! A kamera-toting Kreationist!
>
> But in reality (as you no doubt knew perfectly well)
Of course. I was just making pedantic fun of your error.
> carbon dating
> cannot give you an exact date-specific age: all it can do is give you
> a *range* of dates -and that's the plus or minus.
>
> So the flute in question is *most likely* 35,000 years old, but it
> might be anywhere from (for instance) 31,000 years to 39,000 years
> old,
In other words, it's 35,000 years old, +/- 4,000 years.
> and, that being the case, it's a pretty fair bet that we're not
> going to have to wait another 35,000 years for it to be built.
>
> http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2009/06/25/news_pm_flute0625+Z.jpg
>
> Comprende? ):-P
;^)
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 10:37 pm
From: Bob Larter
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article
> <5b5e581f-660e-4465-9019-94f98c07bd16@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> Twibil <nowayjose6@gmail.com> writes
>> On Jun 26, 11:51 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> 74 years is a pretty darn good run for ANY technology, don't you
>>> think?
>>>
>>> > In an unrelated story, a bone flute was found not too long ago in a
>>> > stone-aged German cave. It works just exactly like a modern flute
>>> > except that it plays fewer notes.
>>>
>>> > It carbon dates to plus or minus 35,000 years.
>>>
>>> What, it might come from as much as 35,000 years in the future?
>>
>> But in reality (as you no doubt knew perfectly well) carbon dating
>> cannot give you an exact date-specific age: all it can do is give you
>> a *range* of dates -and that's the plus or minus.
>>
>> So the flute in question is *most likely* 35,000 years old, but it
>> might be anywhere from (for instance) 31,000 years to 39,000 years
>> old
>
> That would be 35,000 plus or minus 4,000 years, not "plus or minus
> 35,000 years" of an unknown age, which could be zero.
Exactly my point. ;^)
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 10:43 pm
From: Bob Larter
Twibil wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2:55 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> So play word games all you want, but kindly leave me out.
>> Only if you don't keep on replying.
>
> In that case, fuck off, you self-important little pussy-lipped prick.
Relax dude, you're just getting a mild ribbing.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 11:49 pm
From: Twibil
On Jun 27, 10:43 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Twibil wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 2:55 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> So play word games all you want, but kindly leave me out.
> >> Only if you don't keep on replying.
>
> > In that case, fuck off, you self-important little pussy-lipped prick.
>
> Relax dude, you're just getting a mild ribbing.
Thanx for the attempted help, but I *really* prefer to decide these
things for myself.
I'll even extend you the same privilege.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: canon SX10is - max memory card capacity
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a0bc81c99be36e20?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 10:41 pm
From: "David J Taylor"
yirgster wrote:
> Thanks for your responses, but I'm not sure they addressed what I'm
> concerned about.
>
> That a memory card is available in a certain capacity does not imply,
> by itself, that the camera can support that capacity. I've run into
> this before. E.g., card can be 4GB, but camera only supports a max of
> 2GB.
>
> From your answers I infer that the SX10is will support whatever
> capacity the card has? Is this correct? That is, what is the maximum
> card capacity that the camera will in fact support (and not
> necessarily the maximum capacity of cards of that type).
>
> That's what my question was or should have been, and what I couldn't
> find on the various websites.
A camera supporting SD cards has a limit of 2GB. Except that some
non-standard 4GB SD cards were produced, and being non-standard, some
cameras worked with them and some did not. If a camera is specified to
work with SDHC cards, it should work up to the specified limit, which has
been stated to be 32GB.
David
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photo of Pyrrhopterus
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8176eb8ffb060d4d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 11:01 pm
From: Paul Furman
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.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photomatix & HDR
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/438bde75c5450595?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 11:05 pm
From: burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson)
Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> 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?
Very nice. I would be proud to have that in my collection.
I have been experimenting with HDR and Photomatrix too, with varying
results. Here is one shot in a monestary in Poblet, Spain on our
vacation last Fall. Very dark interior with a bright skylight at the
end. I wasn't allowed to take in a tripod, but the shadows required 1/4
sec exposure. I used Photomatrix to salvage the shot.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindstorm/2949492473/
--
- Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 11:20 pm
From: Paul Furman
Savageduck wrote:
> 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?
The white balance is kinda funky for what appears to be a mid-day shot
with those magenta clouds and yellowy greens. I also might tone down the
saturation but that's personal preference.
In photoshop I did a curves adjustment layer (could be levels too) and
used the highlight eyedropper on the clouds and it returned to normal
looking with slightly blown clouds... then I set that layer to color
mode only to retain the hdr recovery on the clouds.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 11:25 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-27 23:05:41 -0700, burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) said:
> Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> Very nice. I would be proud to have that in my collection.
Thanks
>
> I have been experimenting with HDR and Photomatrix too, with varying
> results. Here is one shot in a monestary in Poblet, Spain on our
> vacation last Fall. Very dark interior with a bright skylight at the
> end. I wasn't allowed to take in a tripod, but the shadows required 1/4
> sec exposure. I used Photomatrix to salvage the shot.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindstorm/2949492473/
I can see the problems you had with that shot due to the lighting.
The other thing that makes it tough & challenging, is having your lens
wide open, which screws up the DOF.
HDR definitely has its place in the digital darkroom for shooting in
difficult lighting situations, especially if you can restrain from over
processing.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 11:38 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-27 23:20:33 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> said:
> Savageduck wrote:
>> 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?
>
> The white balance is kinda funky for what appears to be a mid-day shot
> with those magenta clouds and yellowy greens. I also might tone down
> the saturation but that's personal preference.
>
> In photoshop I did a curves adjustment layer (could be levels too) and
> used the highlight eyedropper on the clouds and it returned to normal
> looking with slightly blown clouds... then I set that layer to color
> mode only to retain the hdr recovery on the clouds.
That was the lighting issue when I took the shot around 11:00AM, I did
not have a graduated ND filter handy, and I could see it was going to
be tough to get a balanced exposure without blowing the clouds or
having the foreground lost in shadow, so I thought this would be a time
to go for the HDR experiment.
As far as the color balance & saturation goes, it got kind of weird in
Photomatix, so I didn't go much further with CS4. HDR is a new area
for me to play with and it is going to be something I think I am going
to be able to use when the circumstanes demand.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 12:03 am
From: Bob Williams
Savageduck wrote:
> 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?
>
>
The Enemy of Good is Better.....If it ain't broken, don't try to fix it.
What you have now looks pretty fine to me.
If you screw with it much longer it will probably get worse
Bob Williams
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 12:08 am
From: wow
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:05:41 -0700, burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson)
wrote:
>Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>Very nice. I would be proud to have that in my collection.
Wow. And to think I was going to tell him "severely over-processed,
oversaturated, badly composed crap". But someone who is this lame with
editing tools didn't even deserve that much of a critique. I thought I'd
leave it to the beginners to tell him all that he did wrong. It's got a
really nasty red color-shift to it, the granite is supposed to be grays,
not flesh-tones. The clouds are supposed to be whites and grays, not pinks,
it's mid-day in that photo fer cripe's sake. What can one say about an
excruciatingly boring composition where the horizon runs through the
middle, the main focus dead-center, the very same mistakes that any
snapshooter does with their very first beginner's camera. It's also not
even leveled properly, off by nearly 2 whole painfully obvious degrees. He
can't even deduce something that simple let alone know how to get effective
results from HDR methods. (YO! Moron! The stratified bases of cumulous
clouds align themselves with horizontal thermoclines in the atmosphere. Can
you remember that next time? Do you know so very little about the natural
world? The one that you're destroying in your pathetically lame
editing-nightmare presentations of it?)
I don't think you could present that to some back-alley postcard company
even if they were painfully desperate for resources. Even if given to them
they'd probably be polite enough to take it but throw it in a scrapshot
drawer or waste-basket after he left. This is about as substandard from
simple stock-photo quality as one can get.
>
>I have been experimenting with HDR and Photomatrix too, with varying
>results. Here is one shot in a monestary in Poblet, Spain on our
>vacation last Fall. Very dark interior with a bright skylight at the
>end. I wasn't allowed to take in a tripod, but the shadows required 1/4
>sec exposure. I used Photomatrix to salvage the shot.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindstorm/2949492473/
I won't bother going to look at your own photo. Not if you'd be proud to
have shit like the above in your own collection. It'd be a waste of time
after you having already proven what a poor eye you've got.
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 12:06 am
From: "DRS"
"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009062723254543042-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom
[...]
> HDR definitely has its place in the digital darkroom for shooting in
> difficult lighting situations, especially if you can restrain from
> over processing.
Ah, there's the rub.
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 12:13 am
From: Nicko
On Jun 28, 1:05 am, b...@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Very nice. I would be proud to have that in my collection.
>
> I have been experimenting with HDR and Photomatrix too, with varying
> results. Here is one shot in a monestary in Poblet, Spain on our
> vacation last Fall. Very dark interior with a bright skylight at the
> end. I wasn't allowed to take in a tripod, but the shadows required 1/4
> sec exposure. I used Photomatrix to salvage the shot.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindstorm/2949492473/
>
That could be a great photo, just for its composition. It's lovely.
But your post production is way overdone, IMO. This looks like the
background photo for one of those tacky animated transilluminated
Hamm's beer signs you used to see in bars around the Midwest. All it
lacks is some sort of flowing creek. I would love to see a more toned
down version of this, but as it is it's like thwacking the viewers'
eyeballs with a rolled-up carpet.
--
YOP...
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Running OS X on my PC!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bb50fbf2b3ff2f37?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 11:42 pm
From: "DRS"
"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009062617180150878-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom
> On 2009-06-26 17:08:15 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
[...]
>> Feynman, one of the true geniuses.
>>
>> The safe cracking story was in "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman!" in
>> the chapter titled "Safecracker meets Safecracker."
>
> BTW the bottom line on that story was, the safe in question never had
> the combination changed from the factory default settings, and there
> were only 2 of those to check, the second one opened the safe.
Heh. I'm reminded DEC did something similar with VMS. It had a built-in
backdoor system account in case you ever totally screwed things up but it
was rarely used and even more rarely was its default password changed. You
needed physical access to the VAX to use it, but still...
==============================================================================
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
