KINGFISHERS LOVE THE 40D!

On Jan 10, 10:38*am, "Rita Berkowitz" wrote:
Draco wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91462097/original

Very good quality image of the Kingfisher. I placed it next to Rita's
on screen and yours has a deeper, richer color saturation than does
Rita's. Both are very sharp and given the focal lenths involved the
backgrounds arenot very busy at all.

I'm not sure how you can call either one sharp? *Bret's was over processed
and lacks detail and depth, natural or otherwise. *My crop was taken from a
100% image that was clearly beyond the range of having a usable image. *This
was taken handheld at 500mm and is a bit soft. *There is no post processing
other than cropping. *Even with the blown highlights it has much more
natural detail and depth.

* Rita's does have a better angle of the light. But Bret's has a
better saturation of color. Both are very good.

That's because when you try to create an animation in Photoshop you need to
have skills sufficient enough to be able to get these small details good
enough to pull of the deception.

Rita

I'm not sure what you mean by "animation"? But any post processing
would be "printing" a bit darker or even softening the background with
lamp black. Both of your images have detail in the darks and high
lights. It is just that yours, Rita, seem to right on the edge of blow
out.

As I had said, both of you have very good images. Saddly a heck of a
lot better than mine. But one day. One day...


Draco

Scott W wrote:
On Jan 10, 5:43 am, "Rita Berkowitz" wrote:
jean wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91462097/original

EXIF data shows only the 400, was the TC on too? (not a Canon
TC??)

Like we are going to believe Bret's EXIF data! Yeah, right.


At times you show the same level of intelligence as D-Mac.

Scott

Anyone ever seen them in the same room at the same time?

--
Frank ess

On Jan 10, 6:56*pm, "Rita Berkowitz" wrote:
*Funny thing is D-Mac has shown to
have a hell of a lot more credibility than Bret.

Only in your backward-ass world where every day is "Opposite Day."
Almost anything that you or D-Mac claim is the opposite of the truth.

On Jan 10, 1:56*pm, "Rita Berkowitz" wrote:
Scott W wrote:
EXIF data shows only the 400, was the TC on too? (not a Canon TC??)
Like we are going to believe Bret's EXIF data! Yeah, right.
At times you show the same level of intelligence as D-Mac.

LOL! *I'll take that as a compliment. *Funny thing is D-Mac has shown to
have a hell of a lot more credibility than Bret. *I haven't yet heard D-Mac
publicly brag about using a fixed copy of CS3 and a keygen. *I haven't seen
D-Mac trying to pass of Photoshopped manipulations as photographs. *That
being said, it's not beyond Bret's character to "hack" EXIF data.


If you can take that as a compliment I worry about you.

Scott

Scott

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...

That's not 'her' hat. It's 'her' pants that are muffiling where 'she's'
speaking from.

speaking from an ass that size, I'm surprised we didn't actually hear her.

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
Scott W wrote:

EXIF data shows only the 400, was the TC on too? (not a Canon TC??)
Like we are going to believe Bret's EXIF data! Yeah, right.
At times you show the same level of intelligence as D-Mac.

LOL! I'll take that as a compliment. Funny thing is D-Mac has shown to
have a hell of a lot more credibility than Bret. I haven't yet heard
D-Mac
publicly brag about using a fixed copy of CS3 and a keygen. I haven't
seen
D-Mac trying to pass of Photoshopped manipulations as photographs. That
being said, it's not beyond Bret's character to "hack" EXIF data.

So the times that Douggie has been shown to have *altered* a photo and when
the questions got to hard he pulls it from the web and threatens legal
action is classed as Credibility in your strange deluded world, or maybe the
time it has been shown that Douggie has altered EXIF info and when push
comes to shove he pulls the photo in question down, and then denies all
knowledge, blaming someone in his *office* for using his computer to post
that stuff. or the times that one of Douggies many socks is caught out
talking up douggies abilities or one of his *business opportunities* and
when discovered is never to be seen or heard from again.

****, you probably voted for George W Bush because you thought he was an
honest man with loads of integrity and a high IQ.



--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg

"Rita Berkowitz" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
jean wrote:

Sure, if it came straight out of the camera that way. We all know
that it didn't. The kingfisher is so over Photoshoped that it lacks
any detail and
is lucky to have 16-colors. I'll stick with top notch images
straight out of the camera and let the trickery up to the people
that can't take a decent
picture and need to draw them in Photoshop.


So phtoshop yours to see if it is better than Bret's!

NO! That's not the point or goal. I could do an animation like Bret's
but
that's not my goal. First off, this isn't a Photoshop group and I have no
intentions of creating the plastic excrement that Bret puts out and try to
pass them off as photographs.


OK then, steer me right, cameras like Bret's and yours don't have any or
very few "enhancements" done in camera and rely on post processing to bring
out the best in color and shapness so why post an unprocessed picture and
expect it to be superb? As it was, I was nor overly impressed by either
your formidable 500 or the whatever you call it Nikon. I am sure Nikon does
not post any UNprocessed pictures in their brochures, otherwise everyone
would buy point and shoot cameras where the pictures are much better
straight out of the camera (and just as blurry as your example I might add)

Jean

Annika1980 wrote:

On Jan 10, 1:13*am, Bob AZ wrote:

Where does one find Kingfishers?

Over creeks and ponds. You'll need a long lens because they are
flighty buggers.

A fantastic shot, technically and artistically.

For a remarkable film of a kingfisher, see the excellent BBC series
"The Life of Birds". The kingfisher sequence is shot from underwater
up into the sky. You see the bird perching on its tree, diving, and
splashing directly to towards the camera to spear a fish.

http://www.amazon.ca/Life-Birds-Set-...ews/B00004WG2U
--
Ken Tough

jean wrote:

"Rita Berkowitz" a écrit dans le message de news:
NO! That's not the point or goal. I could do an animation like Bret's
but
that's not my goal. First off, this isn't a Photoshop group and I have no
intentions of creating the plastic excrement that Bret puts out and try to
pass them off as photographs.

OK then, steer me right, cameras like Bret's and yours don't have any or
very few "enhancements" done in camera and rely on post processing to bring
out the best in color and shapness so why post an unprocessed picture and
expect it to be superb? As it was, I was nor overly impressed by either
your formidable 500 or the whatever you call it Nikon. I am sure Nikon does
not post any UNprocessed pictures in their brochures, otherwise everyone
would buy point and shoot cameras where the pictures are much better
straight out of the camera (and just as blurry as your example I might add)

Exactly; why the implied superiority of a mediocre shot straight out of
the camera vs one post-processed to some degree. Any good photo print
(shot on film) is appreciated for the print technique as well as for
the shot qualities.

Any serious shooter will shoot raw and post-process anyway, so the
fascination at how a high-end camera works as a point'n'shoot is a
bit of a laugh.

--
Ken Tough

On Jan 10, 10:36*pm, Ken Tough wrote:

For a remarkable film of a kingfisher, see the excellent BBC series
"The Life of Birds". *The kingfisher sequence is shot from underwater
up into the sky. *You see the bird perching on its tree, diving, and
splashing directly to towards the camera to spear a fish.

*http://www.amazon.ca/Life-Birds-Set-...dp/customer-re....
--

Thanks for the heads up. I just added it to my Netflix queue.