What do you expect?

It's only a webcam...

http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html

Take Care,
Dudley

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:18:28 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

It's only a webcam...

http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html

Take Care,
Dudley



With the Netbook's full display being your viewfinder ...

I expect: At least one of your subjects to be properly framed and composed,
some day. Today was not it, again.

I expect: Both of your images to be properly exposed. The second one even
has some serious data glitch in it where two images appear to be combined,
as if there was a file-allocation-table (FAT) screw-up and it tried to
merge two different photos, the lower 7/8ths of it all munged in a deep
purple-blue tint. Not unlike what can happen on a corrupt flash-memory
card.

I expect: That you would at least proof these photos through someone who
can actually see them before you waste our time torturing us with them.

Even a webcam in talented hands can provide decent photography. Don't blame
the size of the images nor the equipment that took them. 1280x1024 is
plenty of resolution in really talented hands. A once sold (at great cost
to the buyer) a friend's 1024x768 photo enlarged to a 13"x19" print because
the subject was so overwhelming and rare.

Your images on this page are total user error.

Dudley Hanks wrote:
It's only a webcam...

http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html

Take Care,
Dudley

Thanks, Dudley. The lower image is broken in Firefox and Internet
Explorer.

Do you find the larger display as a viewfinder more helpful? The fixed
focussing suits the background but leaves Mich out of focus.

Cheers,
David

"Tiring of Being Honest" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:18:28 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

It's only a webcam...

http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html

Take Care,
Dudley



With the Netbook's full display being your viewfinder ...

I expect: At least one of your subjects to be properly framed and
composed,
some day. Today was not it, again.

I expect: Both of your images to be properly exposed. The second one even
has some serious data glitch in it where two images appear to be combined,
as if there was a file-allocation-table (FAT) screw-up and it tried to
merge two different photos, the lower 7/8ths of it all munged in a deep
purple-blue tint. Not unlike what can happen on a corrupt flash-memory
card.

I expect: That you would at least proof these photos through someone who
can actually see them before you waste our time torturing us with them.



Well, you don't have to look, do you?

"Tiring of Being Honest" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:18:28 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

It's only a webcam...

http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html

Take Care,
Dudley



With the Netbook's full display being your viewfinder ...

I expect: At least one of your subjects to be properly framed and
composed,
some day. Today was not it, again.

I expect: Both of your images to be properly exposed. The second one even
has some serious data glitch in it where two images appear to be combined,
as if there was a file-allocation-table (FAT) screw-up and it tried to
merge two different photos, the lower 7/8ths of it all munged in a deep
purple-blue tint. Not unlike what can happen on a corrupt flash-memory
card.

I expect: That you would at least proof these photos through someone who
can actually see them before you waste our time torturing us with them.

Even a webcam in talented hands can provide decent photography. Don't
blame
the size of the images nor the equipment that took them. 1280x1024 is
plenty of resolution in really talented hands. A once sold (at great cost
to the buyer) a friend's 1024x768 photo enlarged to a 13"x19" print
because
the subject was so overwhelming and rare.

Your images on this page are total user error.

Dudley takes better photos then anyone I know of who also owns and uses a
guide dog. Love the guy...

Tiring of Being Honest wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:18:28 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

It's only a webcam...

http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html

Take Care,
Dudley



With the Netbook's full display being your viewfinder ...

I expect: At least one of your subjects to be properly framed and composed,
some day. Today was not it, again.

I expect: Both of your images to be properly exposed. The second one even
has some serious data glitch in it where two images appear to be combined,
as if there was a file-allocation-table (FAT) screw-up and it tried to
merge two different photos, the lower 7/8ths of it all munged in a deep
purple-blue tint. Not unlike what can happen on a corrupt flash-memory
card.

I expect: That you would at least proof these photos through someone who
can actually see them before you waste our time torturing us with them.

Even a webcam in talented hands can provide decent photography. Don't blame
the size of the images nor the equipment that took them. 1280x1024 is
plenty of resolution in really talented hands. A once sold (at great cost
to the buyer) a friend's 1024x768 photo enlarged to a 13"x19" print because
the subject was so overwhelming and rare.

Your images on this page are total user error.

A project for you:
1. Put on a blindfold made of slightly translucent material.
2. Find your camera. Oops! Should have done that first.
3. Spend the day taking pictures.
4. Option A: Post the pictures here.
--OR--
Option B: Sit down and shut up.

Allen

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 09:30:28 -0500, Allen wrote:

Tiring of Being Honest wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:18:28 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

It's only a webcam...

http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html

Take Care,
Dudley



With the Netbook's full display being your viewfinder ...

I expect: At least one of your subjects to be properly framed and composed,
some day. Today was not it, again.

I expect: Both of your images to be properly exposed. The second one even
has some serious data glitch in it where two images appear to be combined,
as if there was a file-allocation-table (FAT) screw-up and it tried to
merge two different photos, the lower 7/8ths of it all munged in a deep
purple-blue tint. Not unlike what can happen on a corrupt flash-memory
card.

I expect: That you would at least proof these photos through someone who
can actually see them before you waste our time torturing us with them.

Even a webcam in talented hands can provide decent photography. Don't blame
the size of the images nor the equipment that took them. 1280x1024 is
plenty of resolution in really talented hands. A once sold (at great cost
to the buyer) a friend's 1024x768 photo enlarged to a 13"x19" print because
the subject was so overwhelming and rare.

Your images on this page are total user error.

A project for you:
1. Put on a blindfold made of slightly translucent material.
2. Find your camera. Oops! Should have done that first.
3. Spend the day taking pictures.
4. Option A: Post the pictures here.

I can do better even blindfolded 100%. Taking macro shots would be child's
play blindfolded. Properly focused, composed, and exposed too. How would I
do it? I'm not going to reveal that. But to a non-sighted person those
conditions set would make the method obvious.

If he want's to play at being a photographer he's going to have to provide
something more than blurry snapshots that even his dog could take if the
camera was strapped to his dog with a bark-activated shutter. I don't award
people sympathy points. I used to help many disabled people in the past
with things they were now incapable of doing. They hated those that gave
them special treatment and allowances out of sympathy. They wanted to be
treated just like everyone else. Except for those rare few that act like
needy children, won't ever grow up and face reality, and like to manipulate
all those around them with their new found method of getting attention.
That be Dudley.

"Tiring of Being Honest" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:18:28 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

It's only a webcam...

http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html

Take Care,
Dudley



With the Netbook's full display being your viewfinder ...

I expect: At least one of your subjects to be properly framed and
composed,
some day. Today was not it, again.

I expect: Both of your images to be properly exposed. The second one even
has some serious data glitch in it where two images appear to be combined,
as if there was a file-allocation-table (FAT) screw-up and it tried to
merge two different photos, the lower 7/8ths of it all munged in a deep
purple-blue tint. Not unlike what can happen on a corrupt flash-memory
card.

I expect: That you would at least proof these photos through someone who
can actually see them before you waste our time torturing us with them.

Even a webcam in talented hands can provide decent photography. Don't
blame
the size of the images nor the equipment that took them. 1280x1024 is
plenty of resolution in really talented hands. A once sold (at great cost
to the buyer) a friend's 1024x768 photo enlarged to a 13"x19" print
because
the subject was so overwhelming and rare.

Your images on this page are total user error.


What part of REC PHOTOS DIGITAL do you not understand?

If I were a pro, I would use a different group...

If you don't like, don't look...

Take Care,
Dudley

"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message om...
Dudley Hanks wrote:
It's only a webcam...

http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html

Take Care,
Dudley

Thanks, Dudley. The lower image is broken in Firefox and Internet
Explorer.

Do you find the larger display as a viewfinder more helpful? The fixed
focussing suits the background but leaves Mich out of focus.

Cheers,
David


Given my condition, the larger display is actually less useful than the
smaller one. RP tends to reduce one's field of vision down to a point
where there is only a couple of degrees of anything useful.

The display on the XSi is just about right. I can't take it all in at one
glance, but I can work the edges fairly easily -- given the proper lighting.
The netbook, at about 10 inches, is large enough that my eyes get lost
roaming around the image surface.

As for the broken image, I'm not sure what is happening there. According to
my daughter, the original is good. I'm not sure why it's getting garbled
during browser resizing. here's direct links if anybody wants to take a
look at the originals:

http://snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/bored.jpg
http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/mich.jpg

Given that it's a web cam, it surprises me that Mich is out of focus. The
laptop was set on the floor, farther away from him than it would be for the
normal video chatter, so I didn't even consider worrying about focus, just
thought everything would be clear...

I'll have to play with it a bit to see how it responds.

Thanks, David, your feedback helps me understand how this little cam works
in this sort of situation. I appreciate it a lot.

Take Care,
Dudley

Dudley Hanks wrote:
[]
Given my condition, the larger display is actually less useful than
the smaller one. RP tends to reduce one's field of vision down to a
point where there is only a couple of degrees of anything useful.

The display on the XSi is just about right. I can't take it all in
at one glance, but I can work the edges fairly easily -- given the
proper lighting. The netbook, at about 10 inches, is large enough
that my eyes get lost roaming around the image surface.

OK, Dudley, I appreciate what you mean.

As for the broken image, I'm not sure what is happening there. According
to my daughter, the original is good. I'm not sure why
it's getting garbled during browser resizing. here's direct links if
anybody wants to take a look at the originals:

http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/mich.jpg

The image there is broken.

Given that it's a web cam, it surprises me that Mich is out of focus.
The laptop was set on the floor, farther away from him than it would
be for the normal video chatter, so I didn't even consider worrying
about focus, just thought everything would be clear...

I'll have to play with it a bit to see how it responds.

I imagine that such Webcams might not have a focus control, but I don't
know as I went for a cheaper laptop with no Webcam myself. Perhaps there
is a focus adjustment you can play with. I recall there was one on my
earlier Logitech Webcam.

Thanks, David, your feedback helps me understand how this little cam
works in this sort of situation. I appreciate it a lot.

Take Care,
Dudley

You're welcome.

Cheers,
David