Nikon 24-120 f4 samples

On 12/28/2010 4:16 PM, eNo wrote:
On Dec 28, 12:43 pm, wrote:
On Dec 28, 12:35 pm, wrote:

I've posted a few on my blog:

http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?tag=24-120

~~~
eNohttp://esfotoclix.com

Of what value are 2"x3" images as "samples" from a lens? P.S. Blogs
are (hopefully) dead.

Thanks for the positive outlook. You must lead a joy-filled existence.
Actually, I keep praying that full resolution pixel peeping will soon
die, but broke down and still posted some 100% crops to satisfy the
peepers. FWIW, in my experience, 1024 wide web images give a very good
indication of what the image will look like when printed up to 5x7
sizes, and a somewhat good indicator of quality up to 11x17... though
I've never been able to convice the peers about the latter.

You're a brave soul ENo, I wouldn't post my photos to the group even if
they were as good as the one's you show.
There is good news though, Rich is making a New Year's resolution to say
something positive every five posts or so, even if he chokes on the
effort. The bad news is he'll be compelled to be even more critical on
the other four.

On 12/28/2010 6:40 PM, Dave Cohen wrote:
On 12/28/2010 4:16 PM, eNo wrote:
On Dec 28, 12:43 pm, wrote:
On Dec 28, 12:35 pm, wrote:

I've posted a few on my blog:

http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?tag=24-120

~~~
eNohttp://esfotoclix.com

Of what value are 2"x3" images as "samples" from a lens? P.S. Blogs
are (hopefully) dead.

Thanks for the positive outlook. You must lead a joy-filled existence.
Actually, I keep praying that full resolution pixel peeping will soon
die, but broke down and still posted some 100% crops to satisfy the
peepers. FWIW, in my experience, 1024 wide web images give a very good
indication of what the image will look like when printed up to 5x7
sizes, and a somewhat good indicator of quality up to 11x17... though
I've never been able to convice the peers about the latter.

You're a brave soul ENo, I wouldn't post my photos to the group even if
they were as good as the one's you show.
There is good news though, Rich is making a New Year's resolution to say
something positive every five posts or so, even if he chokes on the
effort. The bad news is he'll be compelled to be even more critical on
the other four.

I have a fairly think skin when it comes to comments from the pixel
peepers. Post the work you like, either for comment, or to share. As
others here have said, the important thing is whether YOU like the image.

--
Peter

On 12/28/2010 10:21 PM, peter wrote:
On 12/28/2010 6:40 PM, Dave Cohen wrote:
On 12/28/2010 4:16 PM, eNo wrote:
On Dec 28, 12:43 pm, wrote:
On Dec 28, 12:35 pm, wrote:

I've posted a few on my blog:

http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?tag=24-120

~~~
eNohttp://esfotoclix.com

Of what value are 2"x3" images as "samples" from a lens? P.S. Blogs
are (hopefully) dead.

Thanks for the positive outlook. You must lead a joy-filled existence.
Actually, I keep praying that full resolution pixel peeping will soon
die, but broke down and still posted some 100% crops to satisfy the
peepers. FWIW, in my experience, 1024 wide web images give a very good
indication of what the image will look like when printed up to 5x7
sizes, and a somewhat good indicator of quality up to 11x17... though
I've never been able to convice the peers about the latter.

You're a brave soul ENo, I wouldn't post my photos to the group even if
they were as good as the one's you show.
There is good news though, Rich is making a New Year's resolution to say
something positive every five posts or so, even if he chokes on the
effort. The bad news is he'll be compelled to be even more critical on
the other four.

I have a fairly think skin when it comes to comments from the pixel
peepers. Post the work you like, either for comment, or to share. As
others here have said, the important thing is whether YOU like the image.


Oops! that should have re3ad "....thick skin...."

--
Peter

Dave Cohen wrote in -
september.org:

On 12/28/2010 4:16 PM, eNo wrote:
On Dec 28, 12:43 pm, wrote:
On Dec 28, 12:35 pm, wrote:

I've posted a few on my blog:

http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?tag=24-120

~~~
eNohttp://esfotoclix.com

Of what value are 2"x3" images as "samples" from a lens? P.S. Blogs
are (hopefully) dead.

Thanks for the positive outlook. You must lead a joy-filled existence.
Actually, I keep praying that full resolution pixel peeping will soon
die, but broke down and still posted some 100% crops to satisfy the
peepers. FWIW, in my experience, 1024 wide web images give a very good
indication of what the image will look like when printed up to 5x7
sizes, and a somewhat good indicator of quality up to 11x17... though
I've never been able to convice the peers about the latter.

You're a brave soul ENo, I wouldn't post my photos to the group even if
they were as good as the one's you show.
There is good news though, Rich is making a New Year's resolution to
say
something positive every five posts or so, even if he chokes on the
effort. The bad news is he'll be compelled to be even more critical on
the other four.


You people really are sheep. The pictures posted told us NOTHING about
the differences between the 24-120mm and the 16-85mm. The premise of
posting them was nothing but another in an endless line of posts designed
to drive TRAFFIC to someone's website or blog.

On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:52:12 -0500, peter
wrote:
: On 12/28/2010 10:21 PM, peter wrote:
: I have a fairly think skin when it comes to comments from the pixel
: peepers. Post the work you like, either for comment, or to share. As
: others here have said, the important thing is whether YOU like the image.
:
: Oops! that should have re3ad "....thick skin...."

We just thought you were trying to have it both ways. ;^)

Bob

On 1/1/2011 11:07 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:52:12 -0500,
wrote:
: On 12/28/2010 10:21 PM, peter wrote:
: I have a fairly think skin when it comes to comments from the pixel
: peepers. Post the work you like, either for comment, or to share. As
: others here have said, the important thing is whether YOU like the image.
:
: Oops! that should have re3ad "....thick skin...."

We just thought you were trying to have it both ways. ;^)

Bob

Not always an invalid assumption. ;-)


--
Peter