View Single Post
  #593  
Old December 27th 08, 11:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Erin J. R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:41:03 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:47:22 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:01:40 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" wrote
in :

David, I'd rather not get involved in parts of this debate but what
seems to be happening is some disagreement over the interpretation
of one or two specific images that John is somehow translating into
the perception that his choice of camera type is being attacked. Of
course, it is not as best I can see. Quality is quality is quality,
and not is not is not. Since I have no skin in the game, I'm not
going to further engage.


With all due respect, Jerry, there's a world of difference between a
fair and balanced critique, and focusing on just negative issues, real
and imagined. Worse, this wasn't about images I posted, it was about
bashing of an image dredged up from my website by someone looking for a
bad image to put down, and after I had explained the image was not
representative of the camera. This was then compounded by posting a
good image claimed to be comparable (on only superficial grounds).
If it's not an "attack", then it's at least an unfair putdown that
strongly suggests bias.


Regardless of your mistaken impression of the motives of others, it is
only a comparison of cameras... NOT you or your ability. Why do you
keep making it to be so?

Many of your pictures do in fact demonstrate a keen eye for
photography. It's just that you could be doing a much better job at
it with a better camera.

You've been told before that the images in question were taken AT
RANDOM from your website. They were NOT chosen to be the worst
possible example in order to put you down. There were many worse
images there to choose from if the goal was just to be nit picking.
(Again, that refers to the CAMERA, not to you.)

And the same comments have applied toward some of the images that you
specifically chose as examples.


When I shoot an event, I often do a lot of snaps for competitors, and
because of limited time between the event and post-event socializing,
put them through a crude automated correction and compression that
results in a pleasing screen/slide-show image, but that degrades the
image at the pixel level. Thus these images are not representative of
the camera, and using them to put it down is unfair bashing.



But don't you see, this just further illustrates the point. Images
from a better camera simply don't need the same level of post
processing correction to make them look acceptable.


Self-evident. You've just proved that DSLR's are not the better camera.

Instead of using the lower quality of DSLR gear where you must resort to tedious
editing of the RAW data to get any image worth using out of it, you can very
often use the properly produced JPG file right from the P&S camera.

By your own comment you have just proved that P&S cameras are better than any
DSLR, otherwise you wouldn't need your camera to produce RAW files.

Get your dslr-troll-schtick worked out. You ****ed-up royally on this one.