D-MAC'S PICS !

Anybody seen them? I've been looking everywhere for D-Mac's full-size
Panasonic (oops, I meant Leica) images. You know, the ones that will
show how the FZ50 is superior to the 20D as he claimed. But for some
reason, it got all quiet in here lately. Strange.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
: Anybody seen them? I've been looking everywhere for D-Mac's full-size
: Panasonic (oops, I meant Leica) images. You know, the ones that will
: show how the FZ50 is superior to the 20D as he claimed. But for some
: reason, it got all quiet in here lately. Strange.
:
The most impatient man in the universe. Got the loudest mouth too and the
most obnoxious nature of anyone I have come across since I visited the zoo.

http://www.photosbydouglas.com/image-quality.htm

On Feb 6, 4:45 pm, "Douglas MacDonald" photosbydouglas-
wrote:
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/image-quality.htm

First up, they are poor jpegs. I downloaded the *Canon* one first (so
sue me, Douglas), and the artefacts and almost gif-like posterisation
are glaringly obvious even in that one - how did he miss this..? On
the Panasonic image there are strong sharpening halos and jaggies on
high-contrast leaf edges... But because of his setting choices there
is not a single high contrast edge visible on the Canon image - the
central area of the plant is the only bit that is in focus.

His description also states that he has heavily processed these images
with levels (*and* shadow/highlight adjustments), sharpening (same
settings for both, even though anyone who has used prosumers and dslrs
knows that the sharpening regimes are very different), and then
Neatimage. I thought this was comparing out of camera results rather
than processing skills (or lack thereof)?

Further, one would have thought on a simple subject like this, he
would have at least made a token effort to match the images up, ie
roughly the same framing and a little more depth of field from the
Canon. According to the EXIF the Canon image was shot at 70mm focal
length and f4.5, so he clearly had headroom.. The EXIF on the
Panasonic image shows that he used an aperture of f5.6, presumably in
the full knowledge of the additional d-o-f this was introducing, above
and beyond that due to the different sensor sizes. Why?

I also note with further disillusionment that he has overexposed by
+0.33 (see EXIF 'exposure bias' data) on the Canon - not surprisingly
he notes blown highlights. On the Panasonic? -1.33 exposure
compensation.

Sigh.

The EXIF data makes his 'explanatory' comments interesting:
"The (Canon) image has very clear blown highlights. This is after the
automatic development had reduced the exposure chosen by the camera by
1.25 stops. This suggests to me that the camera is unable to meter
exposure as accurately as it should."

The *camera* didn't choose to overexpose the Canon shot - *Douglas*
did. Processing the RAW images (his 'automatic development') will
*not* bring back data lost because of an initial poor exposure
compensation choice. (Especially when comparing one image at +0.33
with another at -1.33.) You can clearly see that the Canon image is
overexposed - it has nothing remotely approaching the dark tones in
the Panasonic image - not very surprising when Douglas shot the images
with almost two stops different exposure.


I can't be bothered going further.

On Feb 6, 1:45 am, "Douglas MacDonald" photosbydouglas-
wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote in message

ups.com...
: Anybody seen them? I've been looking everywhere for D-Mac's full-size
: Panasonic (oops, I meant Leica) images. You know, the ones that will
: show how the FZ50 is superior to the 20D as he claimed. But for some
: reason, it got all quiet in here lately. Strange.
:
The most impatient man in the universe. Got the loudest mouth too and the
most obnoxious nature of anyone I have come across since I visited the zoo.

http://www.photosbydouglas.com/image-quality.htm


I am a newbie to the digital world. A mere child compared to the pros
that contribute here. I am no where near the caliber of photographers
I have the pleasure to learn from in this NG. But even a newbie such
as I had to stop and giggle for a moment.
Douglas, you stated "The resulting pictures and explanation are as
unbiased as I can make them without seeming to support one or the
other."
Please!! It is very clear you offer a complete biased opinion.
Helen

On Feb 6, 1:45 am, "Douglas MacDonald" photosbydouglas-
wrote:
:
The most impatient man in the universe. Got the loudest mouth too and the
most obnoxious nature of anyone I have come across since I visited the zoo.

http://www.photosbydouglas.com/image-quality.htm


Is this a joke? I think you should have waited until April Fools Day
to post this test.

You made the silly claim that the FZ50 produces better quality pics
than the 20D. Now you claim that the 20D pics need work, but the FZ50
pics are saleable straight from the camera. However, you attempt to
demonstrate this by taking two pics at almost a two-stop difference in
exposure, both of which (especially the FZ50 pic) have been heavily
manipulated (sharpened, noise-reduced, dodged, burned, etc.) in
Photoshop.
What's the point? Is this just a further attempt to insult me?
Or perhaps you are just playing the part of the class clown, who loves
to be laughed at?

You know what's really funny? Even after all your work the 20D pic is
way better. No grotesque oversharpening in the 20D pic. Beautiful
bokeh.
You can't even cheat and win, D-Mac!

It's real simple, D-Mac. Same pic, same exposure, no processing.
How hard is that? Better still, link us to the two RAW files.

I'll give you another "A" for hype and Presentation, but another "D-"
for content. Hey, now I know why your name is "D-Mac!"
It stands for "D-minus" McDonald.
LOL!

Douglas MacDonald wrote:

http://www.photosbydouglas.com/image-quality.htm


I have learned to skip over reviews written by those with axes to grind.

--
john mcwilliams

wrote:

On Feb 6, 4:45 pm, "Douglas MacDonald" photosbydouglas-
wrote:

http://www.photosbydouglas.com/image-quality.htm


First up, they are poor jpegs. I downloaded

"DOWNLOAD NOTICE:
Downloads of the full size images have compromised my bandwidth
allocation. You can still have them but you must ask and I'll Email them
to you."

I'm killing this thread now. Jesus, just give a crop or two this is
completely pointless now.


the *Canon* one first (so
sue me, Douglas), and the artefacts and almost gif-like posterisation
are glaringly obvious even in that one - how did he miss this..? On
the Panasonic image there are strong sharpening halos and jaggies on
high-contrast leaf edges... But because of his setting choices there
is not a single high contrast edge visible on the Canon image - the
central area of the plant is the only bit that is in focus.

His description also states that he has heavily processed these images
with levels (*and* shadow/highlight adjustments), sharpening (same
settings for both, even though anyone who has used prosumers and dslrs
knows that the sharpening regimes are very different), and then
Neatimage. I thought this was comparing out of camera results rather
than processing skills (or lack thereof)?

Further, one would have thought on a simple subject like this, he
would have at least made a token effort to match the images up, ie
roughly the same framing and a little more depth of field from the
Canon. According to the EXIF the Canon image was shot at 70mm focal
length and f4.5, so he clearly had headroom.. The EXIF on the
Panasonic image shows that he used an aperture of f5.6, presumably in
the full knowledge of the additional d-o-f this was introducing, above
and beyond that due to the different sensor sizes. Why?

I also note with further disillusionment that he has overexposed by
+0.33 (see EXIF 'exposure bias' data) on the Canon - not surprisingly
he notes blown highlights. On the Panasonic? -1.33 exposure
compensation.

Sigh.

The EXIF data makes his 'explanatory' comments interesting:
"The (Canon) image has very clear blown highlights. This is after the
automatic development had reduced the exposure chosen by the camera by
1.25 stops. This suggests to me that the camera is unable to meter
exposure as accurately as it should."

The *camera* didn't choose to overexpose the Canon shot - *Douglas*
did. Processing the RAW images (his 'automatic development') will
*not* bring back data lost because of an initial poor exposure
compensation choice. (Especially when comparing one image at +0.33
with another at -1.33.) You can clearly see that the Canon image is
overexposed - it has nothing remotely approaching the dark tones in
the Panasonic image - not very surprising when Douglas shot the images
with almost two stops different exposure.


I can't be bothered going further.

On Feb 6, 2:25 pm, Paul Furman wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 6, 4:45 pm, "Douglas MacDonald" photosbydouglas-
wrote:

http://www.photosbydouglas.com/image-quality.htm

First up, they are poor jpegs. I downloaded

"DOWNLOAD NOTICE:
Downloads of the full size images have compromised my bandwidth
allocation. You can still have them but you must ask and I'll Email them
to you."

I'm killing this thread now. Jesus, just give a crop or two this is
completely pointless now.

Wow just what kind of limits must Douglas have if this is staining his
bandwidth allocation. I get 2,500 GB a month, at the size his photos
are this would be 183,000 down loads of both photos.

Hey Douglas if you need some place to store the photos I would be glad
to put them on my site, you can link to them from your page. I rather
doubt there will be enough downloads of them to use even 0.1% of my
bandwidth.

Scott

On Feb 6, 7:48 pm, "Scott W" wrote:
Hey Douglas if you need some place to store the photos I would be glad
to put them on my site, you can link to them from your page. I rather
doubt there will be enough downloads of them to use even 0.1% of my
bandwidth.

I saved them before D-Mac could snatch them back down as is his habit.
Maybe I'll just post them on my Pbase page. LOL!

Scott W wrote:
On Feb 6, 2:25 pm, Paul Furman wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 6, 4:45 pm, "Douglas MacDonald" photosbydouglas-
wrote:

http://www.photosbydouglas.com/image-quality.htm

First up, they are poor jpegs. I downloaded

"DOWNLOAD NOTICE:
Downloads of the full size images have compromised my bandwidth
allocation. You can still have them but you must ask and I'll Email
them to you."

I'm killing this thread now. Jesus, just give a crop or two this is
completely pointless now.

Wow just what kind of limits must Douglas have if this is staining his
bandwidth allocation. I get 2,500 GB a month, at the size his photos
are this would be 183,000 down loads of both photos.

There are no limits with Pbase. Maybe Doug should spend 10 bucks and get an
account there.

He won't...because he's lose his excuse to not post...but he most certainly
COULD.

Hey Douglas if you need some place to store the photos I would be glad
to put them on my site, you can link to them from your page. I rather
doubt there will be enough downloads of them to use even 0.1% of my
bandwidth.

Ya, but then he'd call you a thief.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson