A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Camera For Photographing Animals?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old October 29th 08, 03:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,272
Default Camera For Photographing Animals?

On 2008-10-29 07:19:18 -0700, G.Adams said:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:03:23 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-28 13:33:37 -0700, G.Adams said:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:55:08 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-22 10:30:53 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" said:

Can anybody recommend something for photographing animals?

The main problem seems tb that the animal will look this way and
that - faster than one can click the shutter.

I'm thinking burst mode...

Professional wildlife photographers use DSLRs, often in burst mode.

Not all of them do, and none of them that I know personally do.


You don't know any professional wildlife photographers. No one cares
what you think. I defy you to name even one professional photographer
who makes his primary living shooting wildlife who uses a point and
shoot as his primary camera. Also, show me the major magazines that
publish photos mostly taken with point and shoots. In fact, show me the
major wildlife photography magazines that show even 5% of their photos
taken with point and shoots. Show me *any* photos published in National
Geographic, Currents, or even Outdoor Photography that were taken with
point and shoots. Show me even one photographer licensed to photograph
in Denali who primarily uses a point and shoot.

You have been challenged to do this before. You can't do it. You don't
know any professional photographers. You are not a professional
photographer.

As I said, check out what the pros really use. I recommend you start
with Joe McNally, Moose Peterson, and Thom Hogan. These are well-known
professionals who regularly publish in Life, National Geographic and
nature and outdoor photography magazines.


What? And finally shut you up and stop you from revealing your ignorance?

Psssst. Here's a clue for you. Not all professional wildlife photographers
pander to the lowly magazine door-to-door-trade subscriptions. Some of us only
offer our works where they stand on their own in our own studios, and are hired
when the rest just can't cut it for important projects.

Is that the extent of your photography experience and exposure to the
photography trade? Magazines?? (I bet that's your only exposure to women too.)
Where images need to be printed no larger than 9"x14" (destroyed by the gutter)
on a 2-page spread in the larger format popularity-contest rags. More
often only
7"x5" prints in your beloved NG rags. LOL!!! Those photographers would
do better
posting their images on webpages as thumbnails.

Go ahead, reveal some more of your "experience" and who you base your
"excellence" on. RAG PHOTOGRAPHERS!! LOL!!!


QED

You don't know any professional photographers. You are not a
professional photographer. You cannot name even one "important project"
you have worked on. You cannot name any professional photographers who
make their main living from photographer who use point and shoots as
their primary camera. Your abusive language reveals far more about you
than it does anyone else.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

  #112  
Old October 29th 08, 03:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
G.Adams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Camera For Photographing Animals?

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:27:21 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-29 07:19:18 -0700, G.Adams said:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:03:23 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-28 13:33:37 -0700, G.Adams said:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:55:08 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-22 10:30:53 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" said:

Can anybody recommend something for photographing animals?

The main problem seems tb that the animal will look this way and
that - faster than one can click the shutter.

I'm thinking burst mode...

Professional wildlife photographers use DSLRs, often in burst mode.

Not all of them do, and none of them that I know personally do.

You don't know any professional wildlife photographers. No one cares
what you think. I defy you to name even one professional photographer
who makes his primary living shooting wildlife who uses a point and
shoot as his primary camera. Also, show me the major magazines that
publish photos mostly taken with point and shoots. In fact, show me the
major wildlife photography magazines that show even 5% of their photos
taken with point and shoots. Show me *any* photos published in National
Geographic, Currents, or even Outdoor Photography that were taken with
point and shoots. Show me even one photographer licensed to photograph
in Denali who primarily uses a point and shoot.

You have been challenged to do this before. You can't do it. You don't
know any professional photographers. You are not a professional
photographer.

As I said, check out what the pros really use. I recommend you start
with Joe McNally, Moose Peterson, and Thom Hogan. These are well-known
professionals who regularly publish in Life, National Geographic and
nature and outdoor photography magazines.


What? And finally shut you up and stop you from revealing your ignorance?

Psssst. Here's a clue for you. Not all professional wildlife photographers
pander to the lowly magazine door-to-door-trade subscriptions. Some of us only
offer our works where they stand on their own in our own studios, and are hired
when the rest just can't cut it for important projects.

Is that the extent of your photography experience and exposure to the
photography trade? Magazines?? (I bet that's your only exposure to women too.)
Where images need to be printed no larger than 9"x14" (destroyed by the gutter)
on a 2-page spread in the larger format popularity-contest rags. More
often only
7"x5" prints in your beloved NG rags. LOL!!! Those photographers would
do better
posting their images on webpages as thumbnails.

Go ahead, reveal some more of your "experience" and who you base your
"excellence" on. RAG PHOTOGRAPHERS!! LOL!!!


QED

You don't know any professional photographers. You are not a
professional photographer. You cannot name even one "important project"
you have worked on. You cannot name any professional photographers who
make their main living from photographer who use point and shoots as
their primary camera. Your abusive language reveals far more about you
than it does anyone else.


Oh, but if I did that, named names, projects, etc., then I couldn't speak so
honestly in this public forum. Revealing you trolls for what you truly are.

You're not too bright, but then we've already all figured that out.

Keep trolling, fool!

  #113  
Old October 29th 08, 03:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Don't feed the anti-dslr troll Camera For Photographing Animals?

ResidentTrollHighlighter wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:55:56 -0000, "Roy G" wrote:

"JT's Keeper" wrote in message
...
Mark Thomas wrote:

ng." - Carl Jung


I think you should all stop baiting or goading the pathetic soul. ( G
Adams, etc.)

It must be obvious to everyone here that there is something seriously wrong
with him.

He is need of specialised care, and all this provocation is obviously
driving him to become even more detached from reality than usual, ( his
usual).

In the name of common humanity please do not cause him any more damage,
please just let him rant on until he becomes bored with our silence, and
stops of his own accord.



Yes, listen to his advice. Then every time I have to painfully and relentlessly
correct your blatant misinformation and net-parroted ignorance from all of you
moronic DSLR trolls, I'll finally have the last word on it!

It's so ****ing tedious having to explain, again and again and again and prove
over again and again why you are nothing but pathetic useless resident troll
morons.


Stupid is as Stupid does. Bugger off, pestilence!

--
lsmft
  #114  
Old October 29th 08, 04:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,272
Default Camera For Photographing Animals?

On 2008-10-29 07:31:26 -0700, G.Adams said:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:27:21 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-29 07:19:18 -0700, G.Adams said:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:03:23 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-28 13:33:37 -0700, G.Adams said:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:55:08 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-22 10:30:53 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" said:

Can anybody recommend something for photographing animals?

The main problem seems tb that the animal will look this way and
that - faster than one can click the shutter.

I'm thinking burst mode...

Professional wildlife photographers use DSLRs, often in burst mode.

Not all of them do, and none of them that I know personally do.

You don't know any professional wildlife photographers. No one cares
what you think. I defy you to name even one professional photographer
who makes his primary living shooting wildlife who uses a point and
shoot as his primary camera. Also, show me the major magazines that
publish photos mostly taken with point and shoots. In fact, show me the
major wildlife photography magazines that show even 5% of their photos
taken with point and shoots. Show me *any* photos published in National
Geographic, Currents, or even Outdoor Photography that were taken with
point and shoots. Show me even one photographer licensed to photograph
in Denali who primarily uses a point and shoot.

You have been challenged to do this before. You can't do it. You don't
know any professional photographers. You are not a professional
photographer.

As I said, check out what the pros really use. I recommend you start
with Joe McNally, Moose Peterson, and Thom Hogan. These are well-known
professionals who regularly publish in Life, National Geographic and
nature and outdoor photography magazines.

What? And finally shut you up and stop you from revealing your ignorance?

Psssst. Here's a clue for you. Not all professional wildlife photographers
pander to the lowly magazine door-to-door-trade subscriptions. Some of us only
offer our works where they stand on their own in our own studios, and are hired
when the rest just can't cut it for important projects.

Is that the extent of your photography experience and exposure to the
photography trade? Magazines?? (I bet that's your only exposure to women too.)
Where images need to be printed no larger than 9"x14" (destroyed by the gutter)
on a 2-page spread in the larger format popularity-contest rags. More
often only
7"x5" prints in your beloved NG rags. LOL!!! Those photographers would
do better
posting their images on webpages as thumbnails.

Go ahead, reveal some more of your "experience" and who you base your
"excellence" on. RAG PHOTOGRAPHERS!! LOL!!!


QED

You don't know any professional photographers. You are not a
professional photographer. You cannot name even one "important project"
you have worked on. You cannot name any professional photographers who
make their main living from photographer who use point and shoots as
their primary camera. Your abusive language reveals far more about you
than it does anyone else.


Oh, but if I did that, named names, projects, etc., then I couldn't speak so
honestly in this public forum. Revealing you trolls for what you truly are.

You're not too bright, but then we've already all figured that out.

Keep trolling, fool!


Actually, you are one of the most dishonest and unpleasant people I
have ever had the unfortunate experience of encountering.

No one will ever believe your wild claims until you provide some
evidence supporting them.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

  #115  
Old October 29th 08, 04:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
G.Adams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Camera For Photographing Animals?

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:01:54 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-29 07:31:26 -0700, G.Adams said:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:27:21 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-29 07:19:18 -0700, G.Adams said:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:03:23 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-28 13:33:37 -0700, G.Adams said:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:55:08 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-22 10:30:53 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" said:

Can anybody recommend something for photographing animals?

The main problem seems tb that the animal will look this way and
that - faster than one can click the shutter.

I'm thinking burst mode...

Professional wildlife photographers use DSLRs, often in burst mode.

Not all of them do, and none of them that I know personally do.

You don't know any professional wildlife photographers. No one cares
what you think. I defy you to name even one professional photographer
who makes his primary living shooting wildlife who uses a point and
shoot as his primary camera. Also, show me the major magazines that
publish photos mostly taken with point and shoots. In fact, show me the
major wildlife photography magazines that show even 5% of their photos
taken with point and shoots. Show me *any* photos published in National
Geographic, Currents, or even Outdoor Photography that were taken with
point and shoots. Show me even one photographer licensed to photograph
in Denali who primarily uses a point and shoot.

You have been challenged to do this before. You can't do it. You don't
know any professional photographers. You are not a professional
photographer.

As I said, check out what the pros really use. I recommend you start
with Joe McNally, Moose Peterson, and Thom Hogan. These are well-known
professionals who regularly publish in Life, National Geographic and
nature and outdoor photography magazines.

What? And finally shut you up and stop you from revealing your ignorance?

Psssst. Here's a clue for you. Not all professional wildlife photographers
pander to the lowly magazine door-to-door-trade subscriptions. Some of us only
offer our works where they stand on their own in our own studios, and are hired
when the rest just can't cut it for important projects.

Is that the extent of your photography experience and exposure to the
photography trade? Magazines?? (I bet that's your only exposure to women too.)
Where images need to be printed no larger than 9"x14" (destroyed by the gutter)
on a 2-page spread in the larger format popularity-contest rags. More
often only
7"x5" prints in your beloved NG rags. LOL!!! Those photographers would
do better
posting their images on webpages as thumbnails.

Go ahead, reveal some more of your "experience" and who you base your
"excellence" on. RAG PHOTOGRAPHERS!! LOL!!!

QED

You don't know any professional photographers. You are not a
professional photographer. You cannot name even one "important project"
you have worked on. You cannot name any professional photographers who
make their main living from photographer who use point and shoots as
their primary camera. Your abusive language reveals far more about you
than it does anyone else.


Oh, but if I did that, named names, projects, etc., then I couldn't speak so
honestly in this public forum. Revealing you trolls for what you truly are.

You're not too bright, but then we've already all figured that out.

Keep trolling, fool!


Actually, you are one of the most dishonest and unpleasant people I
have ever had the unfortunate experience of encountering.

No one will ever believe your wild claims until you provide some
evidence supporting them.


Troll troll troll your bloat, relentless in your "green",
Moronically, moronically, your wisdom never seen.

Aww... boo hoo.... didn't one of the real photographers that you try to
manipulate with your childish virtual-photographer role-playing follow along and
play your pathetic game this time? People who know how to use cameras properly
and effectively (ALL cameras) and provide excellent photography with any of them
aren't as stupid as the rest of the fools on the net that you manage to
manipulate with your blatant displays of ignorance and proven total lack of
experience.

Isn't that your mother that I hear calling you from upstairs on the first-floor?
I think it's time for you to go brush her hair and give her another sponge-bath
again.


  #116  
Old October 29th 08, 04:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Camera For Photographing Animals?

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2008-10-29 07:31:26 -0700, G.Adams said:



You're not too bright, but then we've already all figured that out.

Keep trolling, fool!


Actually, you are one of the most dishonest and unpleasant people I have
ever had the unfortunate experience of encountering.


You shoulda been here four or so years ago.

No one will ever believe your wild claims until you provide some
evidence supporting them.


Of course he won't, nor can he. I hope that I have finished replying to
his rants as of this morning, regardless of the new handles he'll create.

--
John McWilliams
  #117  
Old October 29th 08, 11:58 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
George Kerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Camera For Photographing Animals?




On 10/29/08 10:12 AM, in article ,
"G.Adams" wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:01:54 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-29 07:31:26 -0700, G.Adams said:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:27:21 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-29 07:19:18 -0700, G.Adams said:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:03:23 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-28 13:33:37 -0700, G.Adams said:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:55:08 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-22 10:30:53 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" said:

Can anybody recommend something for photographing animals?

The main problem seems tb that the animal will look this way and
that - faster than one can click the shutter.

I'm thinking burst mode...

Professional wildlife photographers use DSLRs, often in burst mode.

Not all of them do, and none of them that I know personally do.

You don't know any professional wildlife photographers. No one cares
what you think. I defy you to name even one professional photographer
who makes his primary living shooting wildlife who uses a point and
shoot as his primary camera. Also, show me the major magazines that
publish photos mostly taken with point and shoots. In fact, show me the
major wildlife photography magazines that show even 5% of their photos
taken with point and shoots. Show me *any* photos published in National
Geographic, Currents, or even Outdoor Photography that were taken with
point and shoots. Show me even one photographer licensed to photograph
in Denali who primarily uses a point and shoot.

You have been challenged to do this before. You can't do it. You don't
know any professional photographers. You are not a professional
photographer.

As I said, check out what the pros really use. I recommend you start
with Joe McNally, Moose Peterson, and Thom Hogan. These are well-known
professionals who regularly publish in Life, National Geographic and
nature and outdoor photography magazines.

What? And finally shut you up and stop you from revealing your ignorance?

Psssst. Here's a clue for you. Not all professional wildlife photographers
pander to the lowly magazine door-to-door-trade subscriptions. Some of us
only
offer our works where they stand on their own in our own studios, and are
hired
when the rest just can't cut it for important projects.

Is that the extent of your photography experience and exposure to the
photography trade? Magazines?? (I bet that's your only exposure to women
too.)
Where images need to be printed no larger than 9"x14" (destroyed by the
gutter)
on a 2-page spread in the larger format popularity-contest rags. More
often only
7"x5" prints in your beloved NG rags. LOL!!! Those photographers would
do better
posting their images on webpages as thumbnails.

Go ahead, reveal some more of your "experience" and who you base your
"excellence" on. RAG PHOTOGRAPHERS!! LOL!!!

QED

You don't know any professional photographers. You are not a
professional photographer. You cannot name even one "important project"
you have worked on. You cannot name any professional photographers who
make their main living from photographer who use point and shoots as
their primary camera. Your abusive language reveals far more about you
than it does anyone else.

Oh, but if I did that, named names, projects, etc., then I couldn't speak so
honestly in this public forum. Revealing you trolls for what you truly are.

You're not too bright, but then we've already all figured that out.

Keep trolling, fool!


Actually, you are one of the most dishonest and unpleasant people I
have ever had the unfortunate experience of encountering.

No one will ever believe your wild claims until you provide some
evidence supporting them.


Isn't that your mother that I hear calling you from upstairs on the
first-floor?
I think it's time for you to go brush her hair and give her another
sponge-bath
again.


I've been following this for awhile. But you have just proven yourself to be
a dispicable derogatory dip****.

Bringing someone's mother into an argument proves that the only taste you
have is in your dirty mouth. Now is the time to wash it out - with a
revolver.

Into the ****can with you already...

  #118  
Old October 30th 08, 03:28 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
G.Adams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Camera For Photographing Animals?

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:01:21 GMT, JT's Keeper
wrote:

waiting for you to finally dazzle me with brilliance


Await some more, you ignorant troll of maximum proportions. I've already dazzled
you with brilliance dozens of times, but you're too ****ingly stupid to even
realize it.

A Partial List of the DSLR-Resident-Trolls' Perpetual Misinformation and
Net-Parroted Ignorance That's Now Been 100% Disproved:

1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) (100% proved in another thread.)

2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5), and higher quality
full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views
than any DSLR and its glass in existence. (100% proved in another thread.)

3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. 1/2.5" has 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. APS-C's 7.0-8.0EV
Dynamic Range, one quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg )

4. P&S cameras are silent. Will not endanger your life when photographing
potentially dangerous wildlife by alerting them to your presence.

5. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. Allowing
you to capture fast subject motion in nature (E.g. insect and hummingbird wings)
WITHOUT the need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light
alone.

6. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_...%26_Flash-Sync

7. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and limitations.
Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions (focal-plane-shutter
distortions, E.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg
), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping mirrors and shutter
curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive repair costs, etc.

8. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection so that you may capture more elusive
animals (in still-frame and video) where any evidence of your presence at all
might prevent their appearance, without the need of carrying a laptop along or
any other hardware into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance,
and time allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for
unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may
capture those more elusive subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's
propagation and reproduction, that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine,
10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse hardware

9. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get
that shot (fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud or lake while you do,
and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten crud on the sensor.

10. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be done with nearly any P&S camera.

11. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice.

12. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.

13. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders that can be
increased in gain as light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images
(AND videos) in total darkness by using IR illumination alone. No other
multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal
wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal
animals without disturbing their natural behavior from 90 ft. away with a 549mm
f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself.

14. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.

15. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.

16. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.

17. ..... this is getting tedious, restating again just some of the
resident-troll's misinformation that I've already disproved, dozens of times
over. I just thought it might be fun to put a few of them all in one place to
make JT Keeper's glaringly obvious stupidity (and the ignorance and stupidity of
all the other DSLR-trolls just like him) even more glaringly obvious to the
world.

So much more can be listed here but these resident-trolls STILL won't be able to
comprehend that they've been dead wrong their whole, ignorant, pathetic,
virtual-photographer, basement-living lives. JT's Keeper comment above, wholly
proves that, this too ( their ignorance and stupidity) is also 100% true. But
then, how can a moron recognize brilliance? As they say, "A book is a mirror, if
a moron peers into it you can't expect a wise man to peer back out." Never has
that been proven more true than by using these moronic DSLR-resident-trolls for
examples.

So many more of these resident troll's ignorant beliefs have been similarly
disproved now, by myself alone. But as you can see, they are TOO ****INGLY
STUPID to even realize that their idiotic net-parroted ignorant beliefs HAVE
been disproved! So they continue to spew their ignorance and stupidity to the
world. E.g. JT's Keeper, Mark Thomas, ASAAR, CG Campbell, George Kerby, David J.
Taylor, John McWilliams, Roy G, Tony Cooper, etc. etc. ... there's just too many
resident-trolls in this newsgroup to bother to list. Useless ****ed-up
virtual-photographer resident DSLR-trolls. That's all they are and will ever be.

  #119  
Old October 30th 08, 04:30 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Camera For Photographing Animals?

JT's Keeper wrote:
In article ,
G.Adams wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:01:21 GMT, JT's Keeper
wrote:

waiting for you to finally dazzle me with brilliance

Await some more, you ignorant troll of maximum proportions. I've already
dazzled
you with brilliance dozens of times, but you're too ****ingly stupid to even
realize it.


You conveniently snip out everything but "waiting for you to finally
dazzle me with brilliance" and use that as the basis of a reply to me? A
person that YOU claimed to have PLONKED LOL! And your reply was
yet-another-shining-example of TROLLING-101 (evade any and all
questions asked, by whatever means). I'm just so happy to have provided
you with the means to make another long winded kook-out rant. YAWN!


- JT
go ahead rant on again for the last word, we all eagerly await your
words of wisdom


Actually, a number of us are eagerly awaiting no one replying to this
pest at all; then we don't see him at all.

--
lsmft
  #120  
Old October 30th 08, 04:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
G.Adams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Camera For Photographing Animals?

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 03:15:13 GMT, JT's Keeper
wrote:

(evade any and all questions asked, by whatever means)


You idiotically read "evasion" where I read it as "I never let some ****ing
moron control what I say and do in life." Those who "act" are in control, those
who "REact" are being controlled. You are being controlled by all those around
you in life, but you're too ****ingly stupid to realize it. :-)


go ahead rant on again for the last word, we all eagerly await your
words of wisdom


Ah, therein lies the rub. See, everyone else that reads the previous post
without their ignorant resident-troll-educated DSLR-biases will already see the
wisdom.

But you? You on the other hand, are left with nothing but continually proving to
the world that the following is 100% true:

"A book is a mirror, if a moron peers into it you can't expect a wise man to
peer back out."



Dang, I left one of the more fun things off that list, let's call it #16b.

16b. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately
relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate
preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds
or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp
outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately
depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a
P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what
shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically
accurate nature studies that you require or that your client requires. When
testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of
a second, I was amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the
viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp
detail in real time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly
true when lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids
and falls, instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will
never realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane
shutters and wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.


Thanks for giving me a good excuse to reply and include some more important
information, that will similarly go completely over your sad-excuse for a head.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photographing birds with a remotely controlled digital camera? Dean Keaton Digital Photography 7 February 15th 05 02:44 PM
Photographing birds with a remotely controlled digital camera? Dean Keaton Photographing Nature 7 February 15th 05 02:44 PM
Photographing birds with a remotely controlled digital camera? Dean Keaton Digital SLR Cameras 10 February 15th 05 02:44 PM
Best digital camera for photographing jewellery? bandysbabe Digital Photography 15 October 7th 04 03:43 PM
Photographing red paintings with a digital camera John Purcell General Photography Techniques 4 February 25th 04 11:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.