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

STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 29th 07, 11:05 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo, rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,311
Default STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !

Ooh look at all that effort he just had to put in..
On Dec 30, 2:04 am, russ templeton wrote:
you insecure idiots
Only a fool would play

(but he did)
You want to see them? Pay me for prints. $25,000 per print

(O;
****ingly useless

He loves the word '****ingly', have you noticed?
wastes of flesh.
**** off you loser asswipes.
You're not even good enough to lick the
buffalo-**** off of the bottom of my hiking boots after I've traipsed through a
field.

"Traipsed"? How quaint.
I'm not as gullible and insecure

(this post certainly proves that, n'est ce pas?
I don't have to prove one thing to idiots like you.
**** OFF you useless talentless hacks.


The spittle flies, the troll is trolled.

1-0.
  #22  
Old December 30th 07, 12:01 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo, rec.photo.digital
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,898
Default STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !

On Dec 29, 10:59*am, wrote:
But one small note - Bret, how can you criticise jpeg artefacts and
then post this:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/51947453
????


Where are the artifacts? Are you looking at the original version?
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/51947453/original
  #23  
Old December 30th 07, 12:04 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo, rec.photo.digital
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,898
Default STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !

On Dec 29, 10:46*am, wrote:
On Dec 30, 1:11 am, Annika1980 wrote: Image thief!

You got it. *I've already made a coupla thou' on this one. *Wanna buy
a print? - I'll sign it for you an' everything.. (O;

Here's another one that has been reduced. *I just used plain old
Bicubic on it.


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90940773


Composition wise, that one is better - the rain looks great! *pity
there aren't a few more on the other one *(heheh, easily fixed...)
But, let me use my super-x-ray-vision.... I'm thinking that second one
isn't as sharp around the eyes/head and may have even got a little
selective ps help. *The reason I say that is - his backside looks very
sharp, but his neck and ears don't.. *So it gives the impression that
you mighta used the sharpening tool on his face..

Do I get a cigar, or is my detective work at it's usual low standard?


How do you know I didn't use Photokit Sharpener to selectively sharpen
the deer's butt and a little Gaussian Blur on the head just to fool
your ass? I try not to make em too sharp or else D-Mac will accuse me
of using freeze spray.






  #24  
Old December 30th 07, 02:41 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo, rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,311
Default STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !

On Dec 30, 9:01 am, Annika1980 wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:59 am, wrote:

But one small note - Bret, how can you criticise jpeg artefacts and
then post this:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/51947453
????


Where are the artifacts? Are you looking at the original version?
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/51947453/original


Nope, I just clicked on the thumb and got the "Large" version, inc.
artefacts (look in sky around the text). The original size looks
fine.

Here's the image that is directly linked for the large version:
http://i.pbase.com/g4/33/20333/2/51947453.pole.jpg

I dunno how the pbase system works, but if pbase did that to any of my
images, I'd be complaining!
  #25  
Old December 30th 07, 03:38 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital
russ templeton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:52:35 -0600, Neil Ellwood
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:02:36 -0600, russ templeton wrote:


You could have at least done something about that rotten white-balance
that your camera created. A deer's coat isn't magenta. Get your monitor
adjusted, or get a better camera, or something. How about some talent,
see if you can buy that somewhere while you're at it.

I think you need a new monitor or lessons in setting it up.


What a waste of time.

At least you realise you are.


If you people can't see the 5+% magenta cast in the mid-tones of that animal's
coat you sorely need some time in a darkroom, or at least some decent eye
examinations that will reveal your inability to detect colors adequately. Not
only do the midrange tones have a magenta cast but the whites are decidedly too
blue (-Y). I even detect a bit of a blue-green cast in some of the white in the
ear tuft. That camera has some nasty color-channel problems.

My monitor displays perfect gray levels from blacks to whites, smoothly without
even one minor range of values getting a color cast in it. It will even show an
intensity difference between 0 and 1 and 244 and 255. I have tested it with
every method known, some of those methods even revealing their own inherent
flaws when I found they couldn't compete with my own ability to detect slight
color shifts. I spent 25 years of my life in a darkroom manually adjusting
colorhead enlargers for the slightest color corrections needed. I can adjust any
video display better than any technician doing his rote benchwork by the book.
When doing photomicrography I can hand-stack a layer of filters to provide a
purer daylight light source for incandescent lights than filters that come from
laboratories specifically designed for the purpose. I can detect as little as a
1% color shift in any one channel easily, sometimes even 0.5%. In fact, I find
incandescent color shifts so annoying that I just built my own filter stacks for
my yard flood-lights so they put out pure daylight at night because that nasty
yellow-orange cast on white snow at night was driving me up a wall. If you can't
see those color problems in those images no wonder companies like Canon and
Nikon can get away with selling overpriced crap like that to people like you.
You're hopelessly color blind.

You're just more losers proving that fact to the world. If it isn't proved in
the images you post then it's proved in how you can't even see the flaws in all
of them. It never ends with you ****ing fools.

Go ahead, throw that image through any utility that will auto-correct for
improper color shifts. Watch any one of them correct for a bad magenta cast in
that image. You're just too ****ing stupid and inept to see that on your own
without having to resort to that. You just proved it.


  #26  
Old December 30th 07, 05:05 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo, rec.photo.digital
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,898
Default STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !

On Dec 29, 8:41*pm, wrote:

Where are the artifacts? *Are you looking at the original version?
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/51947453/original


Nope, I just clicked on the thumb and got the "Large" version, inc.
artefacts (look in sky around the text). *The original size looks
fine.


Well that explains it then. PBase keeps the original version as is
and compresses the smaller ones. Works for me since I usually only
view the orignal versions, unless I'm looking at some fool's gallery
that posts everything too large.

  #27  
Old December 30th 07, 05:06 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo, rec.photo.digital
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,898
Default STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !

On Dec 29, 10:46*am, wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90940773


Composition wise, that one is better - the rain looks great! *pity
there aren't a few more on the other one *(heheh, easily fixed...)
But, let me use my super-x-ray-vision.... I'm thinking that second one
isn't as sharp around the eyes/head and may have even got a little
selective ps help. *The reason I say that is - his backside looks very
sharp, but his neck and ears don't.. *


Gee, haven't ya ever heard of backfocus? The 40D does this
exceptionally well.

  #28  
Old December 30th 07, 08:18 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,361
Default STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !


"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
On Dec 29, 10:46 am, wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90940773


Composition wise, that one is better - the rain looks great! pity
there aren't a few more on the other one (heheh, easily fixed...)
But, let me use my super-x-ray-vision.... I'm thinking that second one
isn't as sharp around the eyes/head and may have even got a little
selective ps help. The reason I say that is - his backside looks very
sharp, but his neck and ears don't..


Gee, haven't ya ever heard of backfocus? The 40D does this
exceptionally well.

Depends on which end you find most interesting.....


  #29  
Old December 30th 07, 11:00 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital
Matthew Winn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:17:42 -0600, l v wrote:

russ templeton wrote:
You could have at least done something about that rotten white-balance that your
camera created. A deer's coat isn't magenta. Get your monitor adjusted, or get a
better camera, or something. How about some talent, see if you can buy that
somewhere while you're at it.


Magenta? My monitor does not show any magenta in the deer's coat.


There is some magenta. Here's a copy of the image (with apologies for
being an image thief) with the magenta parts of the image replaced by
a saturated yellow to make them stand out.

http://i11.tinypic.com/80v5mwp.jpg (200kB image)

You can see a few pixels near the border of one ear that were magenta.

By the way, don't be tempted to skip over "russ templeton"'s long post
dated 2007-12-29 20:38 (2007-12-30 02:38 GMT). It's a keeper.

--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]
  #30  
Old December 30th 07, 12:52 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital
Chris Malcolm[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,142
Default STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !

In rec.photo.digital russ templeton wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:52:35 -0600, Neil Ellwood
wrote:


On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:02:36 -0600, russ templeton wrote:


You could have at least done something about that rotten white-balance
that your camera created. A deer's coat isn't magenta. Get your monitor
adjusted, or get a better camera, or something. How about some talent,
see if you can buy that somewhere while you're at it.

I think you need a new monitor or lessons in setting it up.

What a waste of time.


At least you realise you are.


I spent 25 years of my life in a darkroom manually adjusting
colorhead enlargers for the slightest color corrections needed. I can adjust any
video display better than any technician doing his rote benchwork by the book.
When doing photomicrography I can hand-stack a layer of filters to provide a
purer daylight light source for incandescent lights than filters that come from
laboratories specifically designed for the purpose. I can detect as little as a
1% color shift in any one channel easily, sometimes even 0.5%. In fact, I find
incandescent color shifts so annoying that I just built my own filter stacks for
my yard flood-lights so they put out pure daylight at night because that nasty
yellow-orange cast on white snow at night was driving me up a wall.


So you're a superhero with superhuman colour vision. What relevance
has that to photography as practised by people with normal human
colour vision?

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[
http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:47 PM.


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.