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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!
Colin.D wrote:
Not to forget that the original zone system strictly applies to monochrome film. Very limited development variation can be applied to color film without color shifts. At least with ordinary Kodak consumer color film that's not true. The contrast can be varied dramatically, especially in the "contrastier" direction, without serious color shifts. Even before Photoshop I had no trouble makng prints from such negatives. With Photoshop even the worst color shifts I ever saw are completely correctable. Doug McDonald |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!
Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 9:31 AM:
Why would you post that boast about film and provide the link if you were going to show an image that was not capable of substantiating your claim? Once again, you are demonstrating your complete ignorance: read the WHOLE thing, you moron. and, 1280x850 *is* capable of showing more than that image does, so, as I said, that image sucks. As do you. Prove it, moron. Don't just make empty claims: PROVE it! The day you're embarrassed by anything will be the day, Noons. You're a bull**** artist of the first order, a champion of the art. To paraphrase the old saying, you have no science so you try to baffle with bull****. Try you might, but few here would be baffled by you. and yes, in case you missed it, that was an ad hominem attack, just so you might recognise another one when it comes along. You're a complete ignorant and a demonstrable moron, COlin. There is not ONE instance of ANY post of yours that demonstrates you are capable of ANY smidgeon of reasoning. Take some time off with the sheep, you need it! plonk |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!
Doug McDonald wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 10:27 AM:
Colin.D wrote: Not to forget that the original zone system strictly applies to monochrome film. Very limited development variation can be applied to color film without color shifts. At least with ordinary Kodak consumer color film that's not true. The contrast can be varied dramatically, especially in the "contrastier" direction, without serious color shifts. Even before Photoshop I had no trouble makng prints from such negatives. With Photoshop even the worst color shifts I ever saw are completely correctable. Oh for Pete's sake! Do you even BOTHER answering this idiot moron? Last time he used film Kodachrome 25 didn't even exist! |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 12:14 PM:
I can do MUCH better rez than that with film, and I have. Here is the demonstration:http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/...escue-98461919 same image type, same sunny conditions, look at the colour saturation DIFFERENCE! So you boosted the saturation? So what? No. I left the sat exactly at default. THAT, is the little flaw in your argument! The color balance looks much more natural in the 5DII pic, and there is details in the shadows as well. In your pic the shadows are gone. When was the last time you saw an orange boat that looks EXACTLY the same in the shade as in the sun? You call that "natural"? NO WONDER you can't see the problem... Oh yeah, it is no great feat to read wrting on a boat that is sitting on a trailer. Try doing it on a speeding boat and get back to us. I have a few of those shots myself. Bret, don't be thick, ok? It's demeaning, even for you! You can read SMALLER text in that image, then on the hat it disappears? Can't you pull your head off Canon's arse for long enough to even reason that is simply NOT natural and is IMPOSSIBLE unless there is something very wrong with that processor? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The dynamic range is not all that great and the shadows on the horse lack any detail. I don't know about print film but a decent reversal film would do at least as well.
Quote:
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!
Noons, 9/25/2008 10:21 PM:
Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 9:31 AM: Why would you post that boast about film and provide the link if you were going to show an image that was not capable of substantiating your claim? Once again, you are demonstrating your complete ignorance: read the WHOLE thing, you moron. and, 1280x850 *is* capable of showing more than that image does, so, as I said, that image sucks. As do you. Prove it, moron. Don't just make empty claims: PROVE it! The day you're embarrassed by anything will be the day, Noons. You're a bull**** artist of the first order, a champion of the art. To paraphrase the old saying, you have no science so you try to baffle with bull****. Try you might, but few here would be baffled by you. and yes, in case you missed it, that was an ad hominem attack, just so you might recognise another one when it comes along. You're a complete ignorant and a demonstrable moron, COlin. There is not ONE instance of ANY post of yours that demonstrates you are capable of ANY smidgeon of reasoning. Take some time off with the sheep, you need it! plonk Clearly Noons is nonplussed by logical argument, so the usual ad hominem attacks ensue. A sad case. Lessee, what words descriptive of Noons come to mind? Argumentative, yes; truculent, often; abusive, mostly; belligerent, nearly always; bellicose, the same; ignorant, certainly; word-challenged, well proven; repetitive, obviously; knowledgeable, only in his dreams; a credit to his country, not likely; foul-mouthed, to the nth degree; a useful contributor to general photographic knowledge, not often. Yes, a truly sad case. Colin D. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D! | Noons | Digital Photography | 24 | September 26th 08 05:58 AM |
high dynamic range in P&S ?? | minnesotti | Digital Photography | 4 | October 27th 06 03:03 AM |
Measurung dynamic range... | Volker Hetzer | Digital Photography | 16 | August 14th 06 05:23 AM |
dynamic range | Paul Furman | Digital SLR Cameras | 36 | February 22nd 06 04:05 AM |
Are we ignored regarding dynamic range? | ThomasH | Digital Photography | 43 | January 1st 05 11:32 PM |