IR Converted EPL1 (photos)

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:02:09 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 9/1/10 12:35 AM, in article ,
"C. Werner" wrote:

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:15:30 -0400, swandy wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:20:12 -0500, C. Werner
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:28:06 -0400, swandy wrote:


(And I still don't understand what he meant by "splotchy".)

In these images (as well as others):

http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127965459

The blue hues appear only in some areas on the roof. Making it look like
you painted them in but missed some areas.

Did you ever think that what you are refering to is the natural
difference in the source material (sky, water, leaves) that are all
not constant in their color/hues?

Yes, but unfortunately it shows up as distinct patches of garish
oversaturated colors splattered around on a B&W image, not any natural
looking graded hues. Like the badly done "color studio photography" images
created long ago, where painters hand-painted in dyes over B&W prints. One
limited set of hues fits all parts of the subject. Red lips were painted
the same hue as the red hat, the blue eyes painted the same color of blue
as the vase on the table, etc. All exposed skin was giving the same wash of
flesh-tone dye. None of which ever got any graduation of hues, only one
color, changed by the luminosity of the B&W image behind the transparent
dyes. At least they were aware enough to color in the whole image so that
no areas of B&W showed through to destroy the effect. Unlike all your
pseudo-color images.

What you are pointing out I am sure would have occured as slight
differnces in the colors if a non-IR shot was taken.

But they're NOT "slight differences", the colors are either ON or OFF.
Making them look like some darkroom or editing disaster took place.

You wanted free feedback, well you got it. Now stop ****ing and moaning
because it wasn't what you had hoped for. You know, undying appreciation
and praise for your beginner's crapshot IR experiments.

You *ALMOST* made it through in a civil manner. But, you just HAD to end
with a rude snide remark, did you not?!?

You are much like a Tourette's sufferer. As much as you try, you just cannot
control that inner child and blurt out obscenities.

God, you are a sick puppy, drooling that hydrophobic nausea...

You *ALMOST* made it through without posting an off-topic TROLL today. But,
you just HAD to end with a useless off-topic thread-hijacking comment for
anyone's attention, did you not?!? You are much like every other useless
pretend-photographer troll. As much as you have never tried, you just
cannot stay on topic because you know nothing about any photography related
topic. Gods you are a sick puppy, drooling that hydrophobic nausea....

On 9/1/10 2:33 PM, in article ,
"C. Werner" wrote:

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:02:09 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 9/1/10 12:35 AM, in article ,
"C. Werner" wrote:

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:15:30 -0400, swandy wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:20:12 -0500, C. Werner
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:28:06 -0400, swandy wrote:


(And I still don't understand what he meant by "splotchy".)

In these images (as well as others):

http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127965459

The blue hues appear only in some areas on the roof. Making it look like
you painted them in but missed some areas.

Did you ever think that what you are refering to is the natural
difference in the source material (sky, water, leaves) that are all
not constant in their color/hues?

Yes, but unfortunately it shows up as distinct patches of garish
oversaturated colors splattered around on a B&W image, not any natural
looking graded hues. Like the badly done "color studio photography" images
created long ago, where painters hand-painted in dyes over B&W prints. One
limited set of hues fits all parts of the subject. Red lips were painted
the same hue as the red hat, the blue eyes painted the same color of blue
as the vase on the table, etc. All exposed skin was giving the same wash of
flesh-tone dye. None of which ever got any graduation of hues, only one
color, changed by the luminosity of the B&W image behind the transparent
dyes. At least they were aware enough to color in the whole image so that
no areas of B&W showed through to destroy the effect. Unlike all your
pseudo-color images.

What you are pointing out I am sure would have occured as slight
differnces in the colors if a non-IR shot was taken.

But they're NOT "slight differences", the colors are either ON or OFF.
Making them look like some darkroom or editing disaster took place.

You wanted free feedback, well you got it. Now stop ****ing and moaning
because it wasn't what you had hoped for. You know, undying appreciation
and praise for your beginner's crapshot IR experiments.

You *ALMOST* made it through in a civil manner. But, you just HAD to end
with a rude snide remark, did you not?!?

You are much like a Tourette's sufferer. As much as you try, you just cannot
control that inner child and blurt out obscenities.

God, you are a sick puppy, drooling that hydrophobic nausea...

You *ALMOST* made it through without posting an off-topic TROLL today. But,
you just HAD to end with a useless off-topic thread-hijacking comment for
anyone's attention, did you not?!? You are much like every other useless
pretend-photographer troll. As much as you have never tried, you just
cannot stay on topic because you know nothing about any photography related
topic. Gods you are a sick puppy, drooling that hydrophobic nausea....


THERE you are! I thought you might be attacking the Discovery Channel
building up at Silver Springs today, LOL!

http://preview.tinyurl.com/25vgapt

Must be your brother, Tonto...

George Kerby wrote:

THERE you are! I thought you might be attacking the Discovery Channel
building up at Silver Springs today, LOL!

http://preview.tinyurl.com/25vgapt

"and, of course, the Squirrels."

heh, he's nuts!

thanks for that, made me laugh


--
sid
RLU 300284
2010.1

On 9/1/10 3:20 PM, in article , "sid"
wrote:

George Kerby wrote:

THERE you are! I thought you might be attacking the Discovery Channel
building up at Silver Springs today, LOL!

http://preview.tinyurl.com/25vgapt

"and, of course, the Squirrels."

heh, he's nuts!

No. He's room temperature.

thanks for that, made me laugh


You are welcome.

Attila Jozsef wrote:
In article ,
George Kerby wrote:

On 9/1/10 3:20 PM, in article , "sid"
wrote:

George Kerby wrote:

THERE you are! I thought you might be attacking the Discovery Channel
building up at Silver Springs today, LOL!

http://preview.tinyurl.com/25vgapt
"and, of course, the Squirrels."

heh, he's nuts!

No. He's room temperature.

thanks for that, made me laugh

You are welcome.

That's funny, I thought the Discovery Channel was in Maryland, not
Florida.

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Tourism-g...lorida-Vacatio
ns.html
And Miami is in Ohio.
Allen

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:31:51 -0500, Allen wrote:

Attila Jozsef wrote:
In article ,
George Kerby wrote:

On 9/1/10 3:20 PM, in article , "sid"
wrote:

George Kerby wrote:

THERE you are! I thought you might be attacking the Discovery Channel
building up at Silver Springs today, LOL!

http://preview.tinyurl.com/25vgapt
"and, of course, the Squirrels."

heh, he's nuts!

No. He's room temperature.

thanks for that, made me laugh

You are welcome.

That's funny, I thought the Discovery Channel was in Maryland, not
Florida.

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Tourism-g...lorida-Vacatio
ns.html
And Miami is in Ohio.
Allen

And so ....

Sid, Kerby, Jozsef, and Allen, *ALL* prove me to be 100% correct. I.e. they
are nothing but useless and meaningless, off-topic, thread-hijacking,
pretend-photographer TROLLS.

Do it some more! I don't believe everyone in the world has set their TROLL
kill-filters accordingly yet.

On 9/1/10 9:01 PM, in article ,
"C. Werner" wrote:

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:31:51 -0500, Allen wrote:

Attila Jozsef wrote:
In article ,
George Kerby wrote:

On 9/1/10 3:20 PM, in article , "sid"
wrote:

George Kerby wrote:

THERE you are! I thought you might be attacking the Discovery Channel
building up at Silver Springs today, LOL!

http://preview.tinyurl.com/25vgapt
"and, of course, the Squirrels."

heh, he's nuts!

No. He's room temperature.

thanks for that, made me laugh

You are welcome.

That's funny, I thought the Discovery Channel was in Maryland, not
Florida.

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Tourism-g...lorida-Vacatio
ns.html
And Miami is in Ohio.
Allen

Do it some more! I don't believe everyone in the world has set their TROLL
kill-filters accordingly yet.

Apparently, you haven't, Tonto. Baw-haw-haw-haw-haw-haw-haw-haw-haw-whoo!