If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Dynamic Range and Exposure Latitude
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
The Believe Crap wrote: And of course, that someone who has never tested these things for themselves would find out that "x-spurt" Roger is in total error on 80% of the crap he leaves laying around on the net. But go ahead, believe it if you don't test it for yourself. Fools are like that. I probably argue technical details and their interpretation with Roger Clark more often than any other individual. Roger's work is right at least 98% of the time. He is human, he does make mistakes and like most humans he gets defensive. But the *facts* are that Roger produces more, and better, information than just about anyone. Why thank you Floyd! I'm honored. The slander by the troll doesn't phase me. I have over 200 peer-reviewed scientific publications, am quite confident in my work, and happy in life unlike some bitter, jealous trolls here. And I agree I do make mistakes, as does everyone. But I do try and admit to those mistakes, learn and move on, even if sometimes being stubborn, like many of us ;-). What amazes me is after being away from the newsgroup for abut a year how much further it has gone downhill, and why so many regulars have stayed and not moved on to troll-free photo-forums. I'll check in occasionally, but there are better places to learn about photography, and I do see a few others who post here over in those other groups (see you there Floyd): For others: Try troll free Yahoo group with a lot of good activity: If you are into nature photography, whether birds, other wildlife, macro, landscapes, or questions about gear, check out: http://www.birdphotographers.net This web forum has the technical discussions of gear that was once very good here (5+years ago) as well as real discussions on photography and places for great photography. There are also cities and families photography. And no trolls! Rise up and leave the trolls in the dust (and please don't feed them when they spew hate in response to this post). Are there other good troll-free forums on photography? Roger http://www.clarkvision.com |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Dynamic Range and Exposure Latitude
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:53:59 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote: What amazes me is after being away from the newsgroup for abut a year how much further it has gone downhill, and why so many regulars have stayed and not moved on to troll-free photo-forums. Roger's definition of a troll: "Anyone who disagrees with me and continually proves me wrong." Roger's definition of a troll-free forum: "Anywhere that I have managed to manipulate the inexperienced or ignorant forum owners into giving me moderator status so I can ban anyone that disagrees with me. p.s. You shouldn't be calling those calendars you print up that you hand out to acquaintances and are quickly thrown in the trash as "scientific-publications". |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Dynamic Range and Exposure Latitude
Some Clarity and Reason wrote:
p.s. You shouldn't be calling those calendars you print up that you hand out to acquaintances and are quickly thrown in the trash as "scientific-publications". Here is my scientific publist from 2008; I have 20+ publications to add: http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/publist.html |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Dynamic Range and Exposure Latitude
Some Clarity and Reason wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote: What amazes me is after being away from the newsgroup for abut a year how much further it has gone downhill, and why so many regulars have stayed and not moved on to troll-free photo-forums. Roger's definition of a troll: Anonymous cowards who cannot use their own name because they keep getting killfiled. -- Ray Fischer |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Dynamic Range and Exposure Latitude
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:58:48 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote: Some Clarity and Reason wrote: p.s. You shouldn't be calling those calendars you print up that you hand out to acquaintances and are quickly thrown in the trash as "scientific-publications". Here is my scientific publist from 2008; I have 20+ publications to add: http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/publist.html LOL Not one of those publications actually deals with cameras and photography. Like that's any surprise. And all those analyses must be done with sensors unrelated to cameras. Too funny! LOL! |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Retraction (was: Digital Dynamic Range and Exposure Latitude)
I, Too Funny wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:58:48 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote: Here is my scientific publist from 2008; I have 20+ publications to add: http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/publist.html Not one of those publications actually deals with cameras and photography. Like that's any surprise. And all those analyses must be done with sensors unrelated to cameras. LOL I must retract my statement. I don't know what got me, but looking over the list, Roger obviously has vast knowledge about evaluating data coming out from optics and sensor packages, like cameras. LOL |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Dynamic Range and Exposure Latitude
Too Funny wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:58:48 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote: Some Clarity and Reason wrote: p.s. You shouldn't be calling those calendars you print up that you hand out to acquaintances and are quickly thrown in the trash as "scientific-publications". Here is my scientific publist from 2008; I have 20+ publications to add: http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/publist.html LOL Not one of those publications actually deals with cameras and photography. Like that's any surprise. And all those analyses must be done with sensors unrelated to cameras. Too funny! LOL! Boy you really are jealous. If you actually took the time to read them you would find thousands of images in my publications, ranging from film photographs with regular and digital cameras, macro to telescope, as well as numerous sensors in labs, field, aircraft, and spacecraft. I also calibrate and evaluate electronic, UV, Visible, and IR sensors in the lab, in the field (Earth), on aircraft, and on spacecraft. I also monitor system performance and plan the framing, exposure times and design the instrument commanding for spacecraft to take those photos. Roger |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Dynamic Range and Exposure Latitude
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:28:14 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote: Too Funny wrote: On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:58:48 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote: Some Clarity and Reason wrote: p.s. You shouldn't be calling those calendars you print up that you hand out to acquaintances and are quickly thrown in the trash as "scientific-publications". Here is my scientific publist from 2008; I have 20+ publications to add: http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/publist.html LOL Not one of those publications actually deals with cameras and photography. Like that's any surprise. And all those analyses must be done with sensors unrelated to cameras. Too funny! LOL! Boy you really are jealous. If you actually took the time to read them you would find thousands of images in my publications, ranging from film photographs with regular and digital cameras, macro to telescope, as well as numerous sensors in labs, field, aircraft, and spacecraft. I also calibrate and evaluate electronic, UV, Visible, and IR sensors in the lab, in the field (Earth), on aircraft, and on spacecraft. I also monitor system performance and plan the framing, exposure times and design the instrument commanding for spacecraft to take those photos. Roger Yet for all that you still can't take a picture worth a damn. You still think it's the camera that matters. Easily shown to you time and time again in how simple P&S cameras can out-shoot anything that's ever come from your precious dslr crap. You ran away last year in shame when a simple $250 P&S camera used hand-held out-resolved your beloved photos of the moon that you boasted and bragged about, taken with over $5000 of body and L-glass lenses of yours. Even when you had your camera gear solidly mounted in a tripod and you had the mirror locked up and triggered with a cable release to prevent camera shake. Still beat by a $250 HAND-HELD P&S camera. Now you're back to be proved wrong again and be made an even bigger fool of again. Go ahead, spam the group some more. Plead for everyone to come look at your photos again. Self-promotion is a wonderful thing for those with no real talent, it's all they've got. It is blatant self-evident proof of how lame you really are. Those with real talent have people flocking to their doors whether they want them there or not. They don't beg and plead for people to come look at their work, their work stands on its own merit. You have clearly proved through your arrogant chest-beating self-promotion that you have no talent whatsoever. The truth about this is what really bothers you or you wouldn't go so far out of your way to try to prove how (uselessly) important you are. As I've always said, some of the most stupid, ignorant, and untalented people I have ever met in my life have PhD and Dr next to their names. You are nothing more than further living proof of that. The fun part is, you keep proving it! |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Dynamic Range and Exposure Latitude
How Lame Can He Get? wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:28:14 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote: Too Funny wrote: On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:58:48 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote: Some Clarity and Reason wrote: p.s. You shouldn't be calling those calendars you print up that you hand out to acquaintances and are quickly thrown in the trash as "scientific-publications". Here is my scientific publist from 2008; I have 20+ publications to add: http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/publist.html LOL Not one of those publications actually deals with cameras and photography. Like that's any surprise. And all those analyses must be done with sensors unrelated to cameras. Too funny! LOL! Boy you really are jealous. If you actually took the time to read them you would find thousands of images in my publications, ranging from film photographs with regular and digital cameras, macro to telescope, as well as numerous sensors in labs, field, aircraft, and spacecraft. I also calibrate and evaluate electronic, UV, Visible, and IR sensors in the lab, in the field (Earth), on aircraft, and on spacecraft. I also monitor system performance and plan the framing, exposure times and design the instrument commanding for spacecraft to take those photos. Roger Yet for all that you still can't take a picture worth a damn. You still think it's the camera that matters. Easily shown to you time and time again in how simple P&S cameras can out-shoot anything that's ever come from your precious dslr crap. You ran away last year in shame when a simple $250 P&S camera used hand-held out-resolved your beloved photos of the moon that you boasted and bragged about, taken with over $5000 of body and L-glass lenses of yours. Even when you had your camera gear solidly mounted in a tripod and you had the mirror locked up and triggered with a cable release to prevent camera shake. Still beat by a $250 HAND-HELD P&S camera. Now you're back to be proved wrong again and be made an even bigger fool of again. Go ahead, spam the group some more. Plead for everyone to come look at your photos again. Self-promotion is a wonderful thing for those with no real talent, it's all they've got. It is blatant self-evident proof of how lame you really are. Those with real talent have people flocking to their doors whether they want them there or not. They don't beg and plead for people to come look at their work, their work stands on its own merit. You have clearly proved through your arrogant chest-beating self-promotion that you have no talent whatsoever. The truth about this is what really bothers you or you wouldn't go so far out of your way to try to prove how (uselessly) important you are. As I've always said, some of the most stupid, ignorant, and untalented people I have ever met in my life have PhD and Dr next to their names. You are nothing more than further living proof of that. The fun part is, you keep proving it! Show us your hand held image of the moon done with available lenses and your $250 P&S camera that is better than this: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...3f-8s-800.html here is the full resolution image: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...3f6583f-8s.jpg or from a tripod: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...-c-5x-700.html (link to the full resolution image is on the page). And don't respond you already have, no you haven't. Roger |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Dynamic Range and Exposure Latitude
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:22:23 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote: How Lame Can He Get? wrote: Yet for all that you still can't take a picture worth a damn. You still think it's the camera that matters. Easily shown to you time and time again in how simple P&S cameras can out-shoot anything that's ever come from your precious dslr crap. You ran away last year in shame when a simple $250 P&S camera used hand-held out-resolved your beloved photos of the moon that you boasted and bragged about, taken with over $5000 of body and L-glass lenses of yours. Even when you had your camera gear solidly mounted in a tripod and you had the mirror locked up and triggered with a cable release to prevent camera shake. Still beat by a $250 HAND-HELD P&S camera. Now you're back to be proved wrong again and be made an even bigger fool of again. Show us your hand held image of the moon done with available lenses and your $250 P&S camera that is better than this: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...3f-8s-800.html here is the full resolution image: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...3f6583f-8s.jpg or from a tripod: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...-c-5x-700.html (link to the full resolution image is on the page). And don't respond you already have, no you haven't. Roger LOL! Right on cue! And he moves the goal-posts one more time to try to out-do P&S cameras again. He's so insecure over his beloved cameras that he wasted his money on and his questionable logic that he refuses to be outdone by P&S cameras every year. Now he's bought better glass, better cameras, in the hopes that P&S cameras won't beat him again this year. Yes, it's all about the camera gear, isn't it Roger. (You lame and ignorant POS.) See if you can find a "Talent" button on that camera of yours. You sorely need one. LOL What was it that was just said? Oh yes, this: Go ahead, spam the group some more. Plead for everyone to come look at your photos again. Self-promotion is a wonderful thing for those with no real talent, it's all they've got. It is blatant self-evident proof of how lame you really are. Those with real talent have people flocking to their doors whether they want them there or not. They don't beg and plead for people to come look at their work, their work stands on its own merit. You have clearly proved through your arrogant chest-beating self-promotion that you have no talent whatsoever. The truth about this is what really bothers you or you wouldn't go so far out of your way to try to prove how (uselessly) important you are. As I've always said, some of the most stupid, ignorant, and untalented people I have ever met in my life have PhD and Dr next to their names. You are nothing more than further living proof of that. The fun part is, you keep proving it! I love that "... you keep proving it!" part. He just did, again! LOL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dynamic Range of RAW digital sensor data | Timo Autiokari | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | February 4th 07 06:44 AM |
dynamic range of digital image sensors | Mr.Adams | Digital Photography | 20 | April 5th 05 11:15 PM |
dynamic range of digital image sensors | Mr.Adams | Digital Photography | 0 | April 5th 05 11:23 AM |
Dynamic range of digital and film: new data | Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) | Digital Photography | 51 | November 14th 04 06:09 AM |
Dynamic range of digital and film: more data | Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) | Digital Photography | 0 | November 12th 04 12:45 AM |