Couple of newbie questions about speed and light.

"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...
On 07/09/2010 03:51, Superzooms Still Win wrote:

[ . . . ]

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". [ . . . ]

Exactly. The crummy pictures are taken by the troll; any really good shots
he posts are invariably swiped from someone else, and of course he can
provide no 100% crops of those.

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...

"Ollie Clark" wrote in message
...

[ . . . ]

2. Similarly, all else being equal, if you have a lens with a larger
front element could you use a faster shutter speed because more light
would be collected?

I am going to disagree with other posters here - the answer is probably
because it would almost certainly have a lower f number.

It might or might not, but the lower f-number would be the important thing
as far as getting more light on the sensor is concerned -- not the size of
the front element.

My 18-200mm Nikkor has a much larger front element than my 55-200mm Nikkor,
but *both* lenses are f/5.6 at the 200mm end.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:28:51 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

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?

Proving that your vision, sense of scale, and math skills are just as
feeble as the rest of your trolling, lies, and slander.

On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 10:00:14 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...
On 07/09/2010 03:51, Superzooms Still Win wrote:

[ . . . ]

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". [ . . . ]

Exactly. The crummy pictures are taken by the troll; any really good shots
he posts are invariably swiped from someone else, and of course he can
provide no 100% crops of those.


Which one do you have in mind? I'll post a 100% crop from it.

You ****ingly USELESS LYING AND SLANDERING TROLL.

On 9/7/10 PDT 7:00 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 07/09/2010 03:51, Superzooms Still Win wrote:

[ . . . ]

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". [ . . . ]

Exactly. The crummy pictures are taken by the troll; any really good shots
he posts are invariably swiped from someone else, and of course he can
provide no 100% crops of those.

His trolldom has long since passed. He's a pest, a blight, an annoyance.

As soon as we all stop replying or talking about him, he'll wither away.

As if.

--
john mcwilliams

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:07:25 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 9/7/10 PDT 7:00 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 07/09/2010 03:51, Superzooms Still Win wrote:

[ . . . ]

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". [ . . . ]

Exactly. The crummy pictures are taken by the troll; any really good shots
he posts are invariably swiped from someone else, and of course he can
provide no 100% crops of those.

His greater photography experience has proved us to be inept with cameras
and photography. He's an experienced pro of light, a master. He's more than
proved that in the past.

As soon as we all stop lying about him or slandering him he might treat us
like human beings deserving of respect. But only if we act respecful first.

IF he forgives us for all the rotten things we've said and done as the trolls
that we've proved ourselves to be.

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
On 9/7/10 PDT 7:00 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 07/09/2010 03:51, Superzooms Still Win wrote:

[ . . . ]

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". [ . . . ]

Exactly. The crummy pictures are taken by the troll; any really good
shots
he posts are invariably swiped from someone else, and of course he can
provide no 100% crops of those.

His trolldom has long since passed. He's a pest, a blight, an annoyance.

As soon as we all stop replying or talking about him, he'll wither away.

That hasn't worked with him even when everyone or almost everyone did ignore
him. It's like ignoring a mosquito -- that doesn't stop the mosquito.

I don't read his posts (once I've identified any post as his) or reply to
him. From the fractions I *have* read, this annoys *him* terribly and makes
him jump up and down and flap his arms while screeching a lot. It is sort of
satisfying to see that the mosquito himself can be annoyed, and very easily
at that.

He will almost certainly never go away no matter what we do or don't do, so
he might as well be used to provide a little amusement.


As if.

--
john mcwilliams

On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 19:37:41 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
On 9/7/10 PDT 7:00 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 07/09/2010 03:51, Superzooms Still Win wrote:

[ . . . ]

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". [ . . . ]

Exactly. The crummy pictures are taken by the troll; any really good
shots
he posts are invariably swiped from someone else, and of course he can
provide no 100% crops of those.

His trolldom has long since passed. He's a pest, a blight, an annoyance.

As soon as we all stop replying or talking about him, he'll wither away.

That hasn't worked with him even when everyone or almost everyone did ignore
him. It's like ignoring a mosquito -- that doesn't stop the mosquito.

I don't read his posts (once I've identified any post as his) or reply to
him. From the fractions I *have* read, this annoys *him* terribly and makes
him jump up and down and flap his arms while screeching a lot. It is sort of
satisfying to see that the mosquito himself can be annoyed, and very easily
at that.


Awww... does this mean you're not going to request a 100% pixel crop from
one of the many excellent photos I've posted which you've claimed I've
stolen?

That's a pretty childish way of weaseling out of my being able to instantly
prove, without one doubt, that you are nothing but a ****ingly pathetic
slanderous liar and off-topic thread-hijacking troll. Now isn't it.

LOL!

Neil Harrington wrote:
Ollie Clark wrote:

1. With all else being equal (lens, light, aperture etc. etc.) if you
have a FF sensor instead of a cropped one could you use a faster
shutter speed for a given image because of more light falling on the
sensor?

No. Usable shutter speed depends on the amount of light, the ISO speed and
the aperture. Size of the sensor (or film) does not change any of that. At
any given f-number, the quantity of light falling on any given sized part of
the sensor is the same regardless of sensor size, all else being equal. This
is because larger sensors imply larger apertures at the same f-number,
assuming the same field of view.

Of course. Bigger sensor just means the light's spread out more.

2. Similarly, all else being equal, if you have a lens with a larger
front element could you use a faster shutter speed because more light
would be collected?

No. If more image-forming light is collected, this will be reflected in the
f-number. Certain lens designs (e.g., some wide angles) have very large
front elements, but this does not necessarily imply anything about the
amount of image-forming light falling on the sensor.

Ah, so a larger front element simply means you can have a larger aperture
for a given focal length. Obvious when you think about it.

The solution to your problem is in most cases a faster lens (one which will
pass more light in the same fraction of a second). Unfortunately, faster
lenses are more expensive, often very much more expensive.

Yep. I've noticed. :-)

I'm hoping these aren't completely stupid questions. If they are, at
least it will show the gaps in my understanding.

No, it's never stupid to ask questions about something you're not sure of.
The stupid thing would be to *not* ask the question, and not learn.

Turns out they were questions with obvious answers when you think about it.
Thanks for the very clear explanations.

Cheers,

Ollie

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
news

"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.


I know, I know. Just wanted to see how far the troll would carry the scam.

--
Peter