Finally, an interesting Antarctica shot

I can't describe how sick I am of looking at endless shots of frigging
Penguins. Ever since that movie came out, and the "yuppies" decided it was
trendy to spend lots of money to go to that barren waste of a continent,
we've been inundated with them. Penguins and icebergs. Well finally, here
is a shot that shows something different. Bravo to M. Reichman
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1p...bandoned.shtml

He's also not the only one to begin questioning the validity/value of DXO
Mark scores.

"Rich" wrote in message
...
I can't describe how sick I am of looking at endless shots of frigging
Penguins. Ever since that movie came out, and the "yuppies" decided it
was
trendy to spend lots of money to go to that barren waste of a continent,
we've been inundated with them. Penguins and icebergs. Well finally,
here
is a shot that shows something different. Bravo to M. Reichman
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1p...bandoned.shtml

He's also not the only one to begin questioning the validity/value of DXO
Mark scores.


some of his other shots are not bad.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/lo...tarctica.shtml

Rich wrote:

He's also not the only one to begin questioning the validity/value of DXO
Mark scores.

About time too. DxO's figures are being touted around various amateur
forums and review sites as if they were the final word on the subjective
matter of "image quality". Their figures ignore negative effects of
on-chip NR with cmos sensors. That provides incentive for manufacturers
to tweak raw output to suit the measurement tool.

Rich wrote:


He's also not the only one to begin questioning the validity/value of
DXO Mark scores.



There may be those who "question" the value or validity (what does that
mean) of DxO but undeniably... It's output of technically correct
images from technically flawed lenses would not be in question.

If you bought DxO for editing, you wasted your money.
If you bought DxO to replace Lightroom, you wasted your money.
If you own German made "Leica" lenses and bought DxO you wasted your
money too but...

If you bought DxO (under $300) to fix the crap from Canon's consumer
grade lenses and the rubbish they label as "L" series, you saved some
serious money and achieved exceptional image quality at exceptionally
low cost.

Personally, I bought DxO when I owned Canon DSLR cameras. Canon (even
"L") lenses have some pretty rough engineering in them. DxO fixes their
shortcomings. It's as simple as that. Worth every cent it costs.

After having used it for several years it makes me wonder at the
motives of someone who "questions" the value of such a product. Maybe
he's expecting it too cook his toast in the mornings?

--
Meet D-Mac, the man they love to hate.
http://www.D-mac.info
4/02/2009 6:26:56 AM

"D-Mac" wrote in news:gmac5m$8uq$1@d-
mac.motzarella.org:

Rich wrote:


He's also not the only one to begin questioning the validity/value of
DXO Mark scores.



There may be those who "question" the value or validity (what does that
mean) of DxO but undeniably... It's output of technically correct
images from technically flawed lenses would not be in question.

If you bought DxO for editing, you wasted your money.
If you bought DxO to replace Lightroom, you wasted your money.
If you own German made "Leica" lenses and bought DxO you wasted your
money too but...

If you bought DxO (under $300) to fix the crap from Canon's consumer
grade lenses and the rubbish they label as "L" series, you saved some
serious money and achieved exceptional image quality at exceptionally
low cost.

Personally, I bought DxO when I owned Canon DSLR cameras. Canon (even
"L") lenses have some pretty rough engineering in them. DxO fixes their
shortcomings. It's as simple as that. Worth every cent it costs.

After having used it for several years it makes me wonder at the
motives of someone who "questions" the value of such a product. Maybe
he's expecting it too cook his toast in the mornings?


Dxo Mark isn't the program, Dxo Optics Pro.

Pete D wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message
...
I can't describe how sick I am of looking at endless shots of frigging
Penguins. Ever since that movie came out, and the "yuppies" decided it
was
trendy to spend lots of money to go to that barren waste of a continent,
we've been inundated with them. Penguins and icebergs. Well finally,
here
is a shot that shows something different. Bravo to M. Reichman
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1p...bandoned.shtml

He's also not the only one to begin questioning the validity/value of DXO
Mark scores.

some of his other shots are not bad.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/lo...tarctica.shtml

Where's the caption for the rusty (military?) tanks? It's not a very
appealing photo but looks like an interesting story.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-02-03 15:18:19 -0800, Paul Furman said:

Pete D wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message
...
I can't describe how sick I am of looking at endless shots of frigging
Penguins. Ever since that movie came out, and the "yuppies" decided
it was
trendy to spend lots of money to go to that barren waste of a
continent,
we've been inundated with them. Penguins and icebergs. Well
finally, here
is a shot that shows something different. Bravo to M. Reichman
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1p...bandoned.shtml

He's also not the only one to begin questioning the validity/value
of DXO
Mark scores.

some of his other shots are not bad.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/lo...tarctica.shtml

Where's the caption for the rusty (military?) tanks? It's not a very
appealing photo but looks like an interesting story.

I think you will find those are war surplus M4 Sherman tanks (possibly
M18 or M36 variants)converted to early Sno-Cats for the late 1940's &
early 1950's Antartica explorations. The reveal is the R975 radial engine.
Once they were beyond use it was probably not cost effective to salvage
them, and they were abandoned.

Makes sense, thanks.
Here's the article that talks about DXO Mark & features that pic:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...-numbers.shtml
actually the 'measurebater' story starts he
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...vs-value.shtml


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Rich wrote:

"D-Mac" wrote in news:gmac5m$8uq$1@d-
mac.motzarella.org:

Rich wrote:


He's also not the only one to begin questioning the validity/value
of DXO Mark scores.



There may be those who "question" the value or validity (what does
that mean) of DxO but undeniably... It's output of technically
correct images from technically flawed lenses would not be in
question.

If you bought DxO for editing, you wasted your money.
If you bought DxO to replace Lightroom, you wasted your money.
If you own German made "Leica" lenses and bought DxO you wasted your
money too but...

If you bought DxO (under $300) to fix the crap from Canon's consumer
grade lenses and the rubbish they label as "L" series, you saved
some serious money and achieved exceptional image quality at
exceptionally low cost.

Personally, I bought DxO when I owned Canon DSLR cameras. Canon
(even "L") lenses have some pretty rough engineering in them. DxO
fixes their shortcomings. It's as simple as that. Worth every cent
it costs.

After having used it for several years it makes me wonder at the
motives of someone who "questions" the value of such a product.
Maybe he's expecting it too cook his toast in the mornings?


Dxo Mark isn't the program, Dxo Optics Pro.



Their methodology is optically and math correct. The program has few
rivals and those that might be considered rivals use flawed methodology
or unexplainable math.

Just because you don't get the answer you want is no reason to shoot
the messenger, is it?

--
Meet D-Mac, the man they love to hate.
http://www.D-mac.info
4/02/2009 8:20:00 PM

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:32:52 -0600, Rich wrote:

I can't describe how sick I am of looking at endless shots of frigging
Penguins. Ever since that movie came out, and the "yuppies" decided it was

Then you won't like this:
http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/rook.htm

Heh, heh, heh!

What movie?

I don't think that I'd call Reichmann a yuppie

And whoever does go to Antarctica, it's their money, their time,
their experience. I'd say "Go for it". Why not?

And well done Reichmann & Co, some of those photos are much better
than those from 2005, but I wasn't too impressed with the tractored
vehicles. But each to their own
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!

On 2009-02-03 11:32:52 -0800, Rich said:

I can't describe how sick I am of looking at endless shots of frigging
Penguins. Ever since that movie came out, and the "yuppies" decided it was
trendy to spend lots of money to go to that barren waste of a continent,
we've been inundated with them. Penguins and icebergs. Well finally, here
is a shot that shows something different. Bravo to M. Reichman
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1p...bandoned.shtml

He's also not the only one to begin questioning the validity/value of DXO
Mark scores.

Hey. I like penguins.

What I do with my money is none of your business, whether I am a yuppie
or not (I am far too old to be a yuppie -- plus I am retired, so if I
am a professional anything it would be professional grandpa).

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor