Couple of newbie questions about speed and light.

"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:53:04 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:


Flash ruins any nature-photography subject. It also imparts unnatural
colors due to its intensity and UV light output, causing many structures
like feathers of birds and exoskeletons of insects to fluoresce in
unnatural hues.

Here's a good example of what high-powered flash does to the colors in
birds' feathers.

Broad-tailed Hummingbird (female, both images)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/1027755241_f0b4caf468.jpg

Compare to the same species taken using available light alone.

http://www.hocus-phocus.com/Images/CRW_6518BroadtailedHb1.jpg

You'd never find the artificially and garishly colored one taken with
flash
in any birder's ID guide. People who put photos like that on their walls
also have a collection of black-velvet fluorescent Elvis paintings lit by
black-lights. The have no concept of reality left.



Gee, was that really taken by you. It actually is a nice shot.

--
Peter

On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:21:57 -0400, "Peter The TROLL"
wrote:




I see you have also managed to bend light so the rays appear to come at
different angles in different parts of the image. Good work.

And I see that your'e a total moron pretend-photographer troll that doesn't
know how to use reflecting light off existing nearby structures to benefit
their subjects. How could you, when you don't even own a camera.

"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:21:57 -0400, "Peter The TROLL"
wrote:




I see you have also managed to bend light so the rays appear to come at
different angles in different parts of the image. Good work.

And I see that your'e a total moron pretend-photographer troll that
doesn't
know how to use reflecting light off existing nearby structures to benefit
their subjects. How could you, when you don't even own a camera.


We all know that swamp water has a highly reflective surface.

--
Peter

On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 17:51:07 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-09-06 17:30:03 -0700, "Peter" said:

"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:53:04 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:


Flash ruins any nature-photography subject. It also imparts unnatural
colors due to its intensity and UV light output, causing many structures
like feathers of birds and exoskeletons of insects to fluoresce in
unnatural hues.

Here's a good example of what high-powered flash does to the colors in
birds' feathers.

Broad-tailed Hummingbird (female, both images)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/1027755241_f0b4caf468.jpg

Compare to the same species taken using available light alone.

http://www.hocus-phocus.com/Images/CRW_6518BroadtailedHb1.jpg

You'd never find the artificially and garishly colored one taken with flash
in any birder's ID guide. People who put photos like that on their walls
also have a collection of black-velvet fluorescent Elvis paintings lit by
black-lights. The have no concept of reality left.



Gee, was that really taken by you. It actually is a nice shot.

Of course it isn't his.
It was processed with PS, and he has told us he wouldn't touch PS.
...and then there is the © notification to consider. So he is just
using others' work as usual.
His stuff is usually postage stamp size, and degraded to the point of
being useless.

Now, why would you want them to be useful to you? So you can steal them and
use them for your own gain like so many images of mine have been stolen and
used in the past?

The above two are not mine but were good examples to show how flash
destroys all nature photography, especially bird photography, nothing more.
A very simple way to tell--those two will still be on the net at those same
links 24-36 hours from now. Mine will not. Just as every photo of my own
that I posted is no longer available on any past discussion threads.

Still can't get enough attention, eh? You ****ingly useless off-topic
thread-hijacking crapshooting TROLL.

LOL!

On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 21:10:18 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:53:04 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:


Flash ruins any nature-photography subject. It also imparts unnatural
colors due to its intensity and UV light output, causing many structures
like feathers of birds and exoskeletons of insects to fluoresce in
unnatural hues.

Here's a good example of what high-powered flash does to the colors in
birds' feathers.

Broad-tailed Hummingbird (female, both images)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/1027755241_f0b4caf468.jpg

Compare to the same species taken using available light alone.

http://www.hocus-phocus.com/Images/CRW_6518BroadtailedHb1.jpg

You'd never find the artificially and garishly colored one taken with
flash
in any birder's ID guide. People who put photos like that on their walls
also have a collection of black-velvet fluorescent Elvis paintings lit by
black-lights. The have no concept of reality left.



Gee, was that really taken by you.

No, it wasn't taken by the troll. He does this frequently, swipes the work
of photographers who know what they're doing and passes it off here as his
own. He has various phony excuses for why he never presents the images in a
larger size; the actual reason is that he just takes them off the Internet
at the sizes he finds them in.

You're nothing but a ****ing slanderous liar. Nothing more.

On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 21:10:18 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:53:04 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:


Flash ruins any nature-photography subject. It also imparts unnatural
colors due to its intensity and UV light output, causing many structures
like feathers of birds and exoskeletons of insects to fluoresce in
unnatural hues.

Here's a good example of what high-powered flash does to the colors in
birds' feathers.

Broad-tailed Hummingbird (female, both images)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/1027755241_f0b4caf468.jpg

Compare to the same species taken using available light alone.

http://www.hocus-phocus.com/Images/CRW_6518BroadtailedHb1.jpg

You'd never find the artificially and garishly colored one taken with
flash
in any birder's ID guide. People who put photos like that on their walls
also have a collection of black-velvet fluorescent Elvis paintings lit by
black-lights. The have no concept of reality left.



Gee, was that really taken by you.

No, it wasn't taken by the troll. He does this frequently, swipes the work
of photographers who know what they're doing and passes it off here as his
own. He has various phony excuses for why he never presents the images in a
larger size; the actual reason is that he just takes them off the Internet
at the sizes he finds them in.

Correction:

You're ALL nothing but ****ing slanderous liar TROLLS. Nothing more.


Here's 100% proof that that's all that you are and will ever be.

Downsize just posted:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4964883939_71fc42a8c5_z.jpg

100% pixel crop:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/4966255846_107ce516f3_t.jpga


Downsize just posted:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/4964883943_6c45c771a9.jpg

100% pixel crop:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4966255870_376bc6e6ff_t.jpg

Where oh where did I get those 100% pixel crops if I stole the images?

Enjoy eating your decaying fetid crow.

What a ****ing waste of my time. Having to show the whole world what
pathetic liars you are. I'm sure others must be aware enough to have
figured that out on their own from your past behaviors, but just in case --
the above is 100% proof that you all are just that, lousy slanderous liar
trolls, and only that. Absolutely nothing more than that. Nor will you ever
be more than that in your sorry excuses for lives.

Of course, if you had seen the image of the rare white Tiger Swallowtail
butterfly that I posted in the past and then the 100% pixel crop showing
resolution detail down to individual wing scales, shot from 7 feet away,
that too would prove you all to be the pathetic liar trolls that you are.
Why you even bother trying to continue to prove that's all you are is
beyond me. What a legacy you leave of yourselves on the net, and to the
world.

All links to my own photos now working (for 24-36 hours).

On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 21:10:18 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:53:04 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:


Flash ruins any nature-photography subject. It also imparts unnatural
colors due to its intensity and UV light output, causing many structures
like feathers of birds and exoskeletons of insects to fluoresce in
unnatural hues.

Here's a good example of what high-powered flash does to the colors in
birds' feathers.

Broad-tailed Hummingbird (female, both images)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/1027755241_f0b4caf468.jpg

Compare to the same species taken using available light alone.

http://www.hocus-phocus.com/Images/CRW_6518BroadtailedHb1.jpg

You'd never find the artificially and garishly colored one taken with
flash
in any birder's ID guide. People who put photos like that on their walls
also have a collection of black-velvet fluorescent Elvis paintings lit by
black-lights. The have no concept of reality left.



Gee, was that really taken by you.

No, it wasn't taken by the troll. He does this frequently, swipes the work
of photographers who know what they're doing and passes it off here as his
own. He has various phony excuses for why he never presents the images in a
larger size; the actual reason is that he just takes them off the Internet
at the sizes he finds them in.

Correction:

You're ALL nothing but ****ing slanderous liar TROLLS. Nothing more.


Here's 100% proof that that's all that you are and will ever be.

Downsize just posted:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4964883939_71fc42a8c5_z.jpg

100% pixel crop:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/4966255846_107ce516f3_t.jpg


Downsize just posted:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/4964883943_6c45c771a9.jpg

100% pixel crop:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4966255870_376bc6e6ff_t.jpg

Where oh where did I get those 100% pixel crops if I stole the images?

Enjoy eating your decaying fetid crow.

What a ****ing waste of my time. Having to show the whole world what
pathetic liars you are. I'm sure others must be aware enough to have
figured that out on their own from your past behaviors, but just in case --
the above is 100% proof that you all are just that, lousy slanderous liar
trolls, and only that. Absolutely nothing more than that. Nor will you ever
be more than that in your sorry excuses for lives.

Of course, if you had seen the image of the rare white Tiger Swallowtail
butterfly that I posted in the past and then the 100% pixel crop showing
resolution detail down to individual wing scales, shot from 7 feet away,
that too would prove you all to be the pathetic liar trolls that you are.
Why you even bother trying to continue to prove that's all you are is
beyond me. What a legacy you leave of yourselves on the net, and to the
world.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:21:57 -0400, "Peter The TROLL"
wrote:




I see you have also managed to bend light so the rays appear to come at
different angles in different parts of the image. Good work.

And I see that your'e a total moron pretend-photographer troll that
doesn't
know how to use reflecting light off existing nearby structures to
benefit
their subjects. How could you, when you don't even own a camera.


We all know that swamp water has a highly reflective surface.

probably swamp gas. not only a ufo, but also unidentified photography
"skill".

On 2010-09-06 18:10:18 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:53:04 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:


Flash ruins any nature-photography subject. It also imparts unnatural
colors due to its intensity and UV light output, causing many structures
like feathers of birds and exoskeletons of insects to fluoresce in
unnatural hues.

Here's a good example of what high-powered flash does to the colors in
birds' feathers.

Broad-tailed Hummingbird (female, both images)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/1027755241_f0b4caf468.jpg

Compare to the same species taken using available light alone.

http://www.hocus-phocus.com/Images/CRW_6518BroadtailedHb1.jpg

You'd never find the artificially and garishly colored one taken with
flash
in any birder's ID guide. People who put photos like that on their walls
also have a collection of black-velvet fluorescent Elvis paintings lit by
black-lights. The have no concept of reality left.



Gee, was that really taken by you.

No, it wasn't taken by the troll. He does this frequently, swipes the work
of photographers who know what they're doing and passes it off here as his
own. He has various phony excuses for why he never presents the images in a
larger size; the actual reason is that he just takes them off the Internet
at the sizes he finds them in.

It actually is a nice shot.

Yes indeed. A very nice shot by P.H. Chuah, more of whose work appears he

http://www.hocus-phocus.com/hppage1.htm

Chuah's copyright notice appears in the lower right of the shot.

What do you want to bet that Chuah used a DSLR, too?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 07/09/2010 03:51, Superzooms Still Win wrote:
All links to my own photos now working (for 24-36 hours).

On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 21:10:18 -0400, "Neil
wrote:


wrote in message
...
"Superzooms Still wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:53:04 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:


Flash ruins any nature-photography subject. It also imparts unnatural
colors due to its intensity and UV light output, causing many structures
like feathers of birds and exoskeletons of insects to fluoresce in
unnatural hues.

Here's a good example of what high-powered flash does to the colors in
birds' feathers.

Broad-tailed Hummingbird (female, both images)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/1027755241_f0b4caf468.jpg

Compare to the same species taken using available light alone.

http://www.hocus-phocus.com/Images/CRW_6518BroadtailedHb1.jpg

You'd never find the artificially and garishly colored one taken with
flash
in any birder's ID guide. People who put photos like that on their walls
also have a collection of black-velvet fluorescent Elvis paintings lit by
black-lights. The have no concept of reality left.



Gee, was that really taken by you.

No, it wasn't taken by the troll. He does this frequently, swipes the work
of photographers who know what they're doing and passes it off here as his
own. He has various phony excuses for why he never presents the images in a
larger size; the actual reason is that he just takes them off the Internet
at the sizes he finds them in.

Correction:

You're ALL nothing but ****ing slanderous liar TROLLS. Nothing more.


Here's 100% proof that that's all that you are and will ever be.

Downsize just posted:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4964883939_71fc42a8c5_z.jpg

100% pixel crop:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/4966255846_107ce516f3_t.jpg


Downsize just posted:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/4964883943_6c45c771a9.jpg

100% pixel crop:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4966255870_376bc6e6ff_t.jpg

Where oh where did I get those 100% pixel crops if I stole the images?


Indeed yours... the 100% crop is indeed of P&S "quality". Now, the
curious thing is that the 100% crop of the first shows that the image
you honor us with is a 25% reduction, so the original image would be
about 2248 pixels wide, so that would be a 3.8Mpix camera and I doubt
such an oldie could have been used to take that kind of picture. So you
do happen to crop your pictures now and then?
--
Bertrand