DSLR sales static, mirrorless heavy growth?

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012072421405517709-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
However, sniping/editing to deliberately change the context of the dialog
is pure gamesmanship.

Agreed, *IF* it's the case. Editing irrelevant parts you are not referring
to simply makes it easier to read. Personally I *HATE* scrolling down 5000
lines of text to see someone has added "me too", but it happens! :-(

Trevor.

On 2012-07-24 21:31 , Trevor wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
2. You don't select the curves in-camera, it's pre-programmed.
Exactly, which *IS* the problem!
No it isn't.

It *is* the problem for those claiming dynamic range is not affected.

Editing prior posters content to exclude context is plain rude.

Editing stuff superflous to what you are replying to is curteous.

Horse****.

I made a statement with two qualifiers after it.

You inserted a rebuttal to the statement without consideration of the
qualifiers - and deleted one of the qualifiers only retaining the one
that negated the need for your rebuttal in the first place.

Plain rude.

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 21:40:55 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-07-24 21:31:54 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:31:37 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
2. You don't select the curves in-camera, it's pre-programmed.
Exactly, which *IS* the problem!
No it isn't.

It *is* the problem for those claiming dynamic range is not affected.

Editing prior posters content to exclude context is plain rude.

Editing stuff superflous to what you are replying to is curteous. Not doing
so is rude. As is complaining what others choose to do when they probably
think the same of your actions but weren't rude enough or stupid enough to
bitch about it.

It is considered permissible to remove text from the article to which
you are replying if you in some way indicate that you have done so.
e.g.
--- snip ---

[...]

... and similar.

'Editing' someone else's text by deleting some of it without
indicating the fact is commonly used by less scrupulous subscribers to
help them unfairly win arguments. It's a cunning way of lying.

If you delete parts of someone else's text without indicating the
fact, you run the risk of people thinking you are trying to run a
dishonest argument. I have no idea of whether or not that is what you
are trying to do.

As you say, editing stuff to remove unnecessary text from the article
is both a good idea and good nettiquette, but doing it in such a way
that you leave yourself open to suspicions of dishonesty is not.

However, sniping/editing to deliberately change the context of the
dialog is pure gamesmanship.

That's what I call lying.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:46:29 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012072421405517709-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
However, sniping/editing to deliberately change the context of the dialog
is pure gamesmanship.

Agreed, *IF* it's the case. Editing irrelevant parts you are not referring
to simply makes it easier to read. Personally I *HATE* scrolling down 5000
lines of text to see someone has added "me too", but it happens! :-(


Nothing wrong with that, but tell people you have done it, unless it's
glaringly obvious.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:42:42 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:31:37 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news:bqOdnZ3yTYGLfpPNnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@giganews. com...
2. You don't select the curves in-camera, it's pre-programmed.
Exactly, which *IS* the problem!
No it isn't.

It *is* the problem for those claiming dynamic range is not affected.

Editing prior posters content to exclude context is plain rude.

Editing stuff superflous to what you are replying to is curteous. Not
doing
so is rude. As is complaining what others choose to do when they probably
think the same of your actions but weren't rude enough or stupid enough to
bitch about it.

It is considered permissible to remove text from the article to which
you are replying if you in some way indicate that you have done so.
e.g.
--- snip ---

[...]

... and similar.

'Editing' someone else's text by deleting some of it without
indicating the fact is commonly used by less scrupulous subscribers to
help them unfairly win arguments. It's a cunning way of lying.

If you delete parts of someone else's text without indicating the
fact, you run the risk of people thinking you are trying to run a
dishonest argument. I have no idea of whether or not that is what you
are trying to do.

As you say, editing stuff to remove unnecessary text from the article
is both a good idea and good nettiquette, but doing it in such a way
that you leave yourself open to suspicions of dishonesty is not.


Well anyone can go back and check if they want to accuse me of being
dishonest. Just bitching because someone doesn't post exactly the same as
they do is another mater entirely.

Putting it bluntly, you posting practices mean that your posts are not
trustworthy.

Is that what you really want?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:42:42 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:31:37 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news:bqOdnZ3yTYGLfpPNnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@giganews .com...
2. You don't select the curves in-camera, it's pre-programmed.
Exactly, which *IS* the problem!
No it isn't.

It *is* the problem for those claiming dynamic range is not affected.

Editing prior posters content to exclude context is plain rude.

Editing stuff superflous to what you are replying to is curteous. Not
doing
so is rude. As is complaining what others choose to do when they
probably
think the same of your actions but weren't rude enough or stupid enough
to
bitch about it.

It is considered permissible to remove text from the article to which
you are replying if you in some way indicate that you have done so.
e.g.
--- snip ---

[...]

... and similar.

'Editing' someone else's text by deleting some of it without
indicating the fact is commonly used by less scrupulous subscribers to
help them unfairly win arguments. It's a cunning way of lying.

If you delete parts of someone else's text without indicating the
fact, you run the risk of people thinking you are trying to run a
dishonest argument. I have no idea of whether or not that is what you
are trying to do.

As you say, editing stuff to remove unnecessary text from the article
is both a good idea and good nettiquette, but doing it in such a way
that you leave yourself open to suspicions of dishonesty is not.


Well anyone can go back and check if they want to accuse me of being
dishonest. Just bitching because someone doesn't post exactly the same as
they do is another mater entirely.

Putting it bluntly, you posting practices mean that your posts are not
trustworthy.

Is that what you really want?

For those unable to remember what they wrote, or look at the previous post
to find out, I don't really care. But if you like lot's of superflous stuff
to scroll through, I've left it in for you :-)

Trevor.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Trevor wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Likewise slide film - very narrow range (a little more than 5 stops).

5 stops, hell what film were you using? But yes slides were definitely
inferior to current digital. That's why I don't use it any more.

Depends what you were shooting. Photogaphers who were aiming at the
best possible print reproductions of paintings or other graphic art
work would often choose slide film because the subject had inherently
low dynamic range, so that limitation of slide film didn't matter, and
the other superior virtues of slide film mattered.

Yet, many of my best film images were from slide.

How sad for you. Whilst I have *many* great photo's taken on film of all
sorts (it's the image after all) I sure wish I had todays equipment 40 years
ago! I can only imagine what people will be able to take for granted 40
years from now.

But if the chosen final product is a print then slide film has more
than enough dynamic range. What that limitation means is that you have
to be able to get much closer to the correct selection of dynamic
range at the time of shooting, and the kinds of selection you can make
are limited.

When a phtographer shows you their latest black and white print do you
shake your sadly and explain to the poor fool that they've thrown away
most of the information by dropping the colour?

--
Chris Malcolm

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:06:50 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:42:42 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:31:37 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news:bqOdnZ3yTYGLfpPNnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@giganew s.com...
2. You don't select the curves in-camera, it's pre-programmed.
Exactly, which *IS* the problem!
No it isn't.

It *is* the problem for those claiming dynamic range is not affected.

Editing prior posters content to exclude context is plain rude.

Editing stuff superflous to what you are replying to is curteous. Not
doing
so is rude. As is complaining what others choose to do when they
probably
think the same of your actions but weren't rude enough or stupid enough
to
bitch about it.

It is considered permissible to remove text from the article to which
you are replying if you in some way indicate that you have done so.
e.g.
--- snip ---

[...]

... and similar.

'Editing' someone else's text by deleting some of it without
indicating the fact is commonly used by less scrupulous subscribers to
help them unfairly win arguments. It's a cunning way of lying.

If you delete parts of someone else's text without indicating the
fact, you run the risk of people thinking you are trying to run a
dishonest argument. I have no idea of whether or not that is what you
are trying to do.

As you say, editing stuff to remove unnecessary text from the article
is both a good idea and good nettiquette, but doing it in such a way
that you leave yourself open to suspicions of dishonesty is not.


Well anyone can go back and check if they want to accuse me of being
dishonest. Just bitching because someone doesn't post exactly the same as
they do is another mater entirely.

Putting it bluntly, you posting practices mean that your posts are not
trustworthy.

Is that what you really want?

For those unable to remember what they wrote, or look at the previous post
to find out, I don't really care. But if you like lot's of superflous stuff
to scroll through, I've left it in for you :-)

You know very well that's not the point. The question is do you engage
in concealed editing/deletion of text which changes the meaning of
what you are purporting to be replying to?

The answer appears to be 'yes' by the way you expect your readers to
have to compare what you claim to have quoted to the previous text
which you claim to be replying to, to confirm your accuracy. By your
own words, what you write is not trustworthy.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Trevor wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Likewise slide film - very narrow range (a little more than 5 stops).

5 stops, hell what film were you using? But yes slides were definitely
inferior to current digital. That's why I don't use it any more.

Depends what you were shooting. Photogaphers who were aiming at the
best possible print reproductions of paintings or other graphic art
work would often choose slide film because the subject had inherently
low dynamic range, so that limitation of slide film didn't matter, and
the other superior virtues of slide film mattered.

What "superior virtues" would those be?


Yet, many of my best film images were from slide.

How sad for you. Whilst I have *many* great photo's taken on film of all
sorts (it's the image after all) I sure wish I had todays equipment 40
years
ago! I can only imagine what people will be able to take for granted 40
years from now.

But if the chosen final product is a print then slide film has more
than enough dynamic range.


5 stops (according to you) is "more than enough dynamic range"! :-)
My slides and Cibachromes managed more than that, and I still have many to
prove it. But it's nice to be freed from the *many* limitations of slide
film. Just being able to change ISO from one image to the next, effectively
change from daylight balanced to tungsten balanced film from one image to
the next, effectively change from Velvia to Ektachrome or Kodachrome etc.
style from one image to the next (I could go on) is a *massive* benefit for
me. And *most* importantly for me, being able to get low noise images at
1600+ ISO, which was imposible with film (and still is)



What that limitation means is that you have
to be able to get much closer to the correct selection of dynamic
range at the time of shooting, and the kinds of selection you can make
are limited.

Yep, been there done that, don't want to go back.


When a phtographer shows you their latest black and white print do you
shake your sadly and explain to the poor fool that they've thrown away
most of the information by dropping the colour?

Not at all, but if they buy a Leica-M and have to carry a dozen filters
again, I'd want to see far better shots than I usually see these days!
IMO B&W still has a place, but I far too often see people who think a crap
photo is "artistic" simply because it is monochrome! :-(
I rarely see anything these days that comes close to B&W in it's hey day,
but equally some of the iconic B&W images of the past would look as good, or
even better in color. There is a good example of that on the web somewhere
in which iconic press images of the past have been colorised. Many are
actually an improvement IMO. (YMMV, art is in the eye of the beholder after
all) And I still prefer my 6x6cm and darkroom for real B&W. (no longer have
a proper view camera though) I do love digital post "filtration" when I'm
shooting for newspaper reproduction however, especially since it gives them,
or me, the option of printing in color if necessary.

Trevor.

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
For those unable to remember what they wrote, or look at the previous post
to find out, I don't really care. But if you like lot's of superflous
stuff
to scroll through, I've left it in for you :-)

You know very well that's not the point. The question is do you engage
in concealed editing/deletion of text which changes the meaning of
what you are purporting to be replying to?

Not IMO.

The answer appears to be 'yes' by the way you expect your readers to
have to compare what you claim to have quoted to the previous text
which you claim to be replying to, to confirm your accuracy. By your
own words, what you write is not trustworthy.

So if they can't remember what they wrote, and can't be bothered to check,
I'm untrustworthy? You are entitled to your opinion I guess, but I'm not
losing any sleep over it.

Trevor.