Nikon new release D7100

On 3/2/2013 7:55 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

BTW I have business and personal relationships with several, and
categorically state that you are blowing smoke out of your ass. IOW you
don't know WTF you are talking about.

except you're wrong, which means *you* don't know wtf you are talking
about.

furthermore, even if your personal relationships included the pope, it
would not invalidate nyquist/shannon. perhaps you've heard of them,
although i suspect not.

but since you and your cohorts think that you know better, why don't
you put your money where your mouth is and go prove it. you'll be
*very* famous if you can demonstrate nyquist/shannon is bunk.

I think he is claiming that your knowledge of creative directors is
bunk.

Snce I don't know what his knowledge of creative directors is, I cannot
make that claim. But, his statements so far have indicated that I could
indeed make such a claim in good faith.

and you'd be very, very wrong.

I am simply claiming that good creative directors are far more concerned
with the impact of the image and the legality of its use, than how it
was made.

you just contradicted that in another post.


Where?





--
PeterN

On 3/2/2013 7:49 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
least the successful ones have that standard.)

But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Absolutely correct.

Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
would be quite ****ed of.

Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.

which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.


Explain your logic, in clear English. this should be interesting.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I am simply claiming that good creative directors are far more concerned
with the impact of the image and the legality of its use, than how it
was made.

you just contradicted that in another post.


Where?

you said photographers do need to understand aliasing:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

On 3/2/2013 7:29 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Absolutely correct.


Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
would be quite ****ed of.


Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
least the successful ones have that standard.)

But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Absolutely correct.

Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
would be quite ****ed of.

Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.

which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.

Explain your logic, in clear English. this should be interesting.

it was clear english. maybe you need to study that too.

On 3/2/2013 8:29 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I am simply claiming that good creative directors are far more concerned
with the impact of the image and the legality of its use, than how it
was made.

you just contradicted that in another post.


Where?

you said photographers do need to understand aliasing:

You do understand that I was talking about good creative directors.
Or do you.


In article , PeterN
wrote:

On 3/2/2013 7:29 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Absolutely correct.


Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
would be quite ****ed of.


Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.



--
PeterN

On 3/2/2013 8:29 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
least the successful ones have that standard.)

But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Absolutely correct.

Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
would be quite ****ed of.

Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.

which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.

Explain your logic, in clear English. this should be interesting.

it was clear english. maybe you need to study that too.


I wonder if you even know what a creative director does. i.e. In
addition to a lot of other things, they hire the photographer. Few
creative directors have the tine, or inclination to do the photography
themselves. MOST ONLY WORK 70-90 HOURS A WEEK. If you worked half that
time, you would not have the time to post the way you do.

--
PeterN

On 3/2/2013 8:29 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
least the successful ones have that standard.)

But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Absolutely correct.

Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
would be quite ****ed of.

Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.

which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.

Explain your logic, in clear English. this should be interesting.

it was clear english. maybe you need to study that too.

Your answer lived up to expectations. It should also be noted that you
snipped so that comments appear out of context.

We also note that the English languish uses punctuation and
capitalization as aids to understanding.



--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I wonder if you even know what a creative director does. i.e. In
addition to a lot of other things, they hire the photographer. Few
creative directors have the tine, or inclination to do the photography
themselves. MOST ONLY WORK 70-90 HOURS A WEEK. If you worked half that
time, you would not have the time to post the way you do.

wrong again. i know what they do and have worked with some.

you should quit before you dig yourself a deeper hole.

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:29:56 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , PeterN
says...
He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
least the successful ones have that standard.)

But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
would be quite ****ed of.

I would expect them to be at the sight of a photographer fronting up
with a Samsung GT I9100 cellphone for the shoot.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 19:49:18 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
least the successful ones have that standard.)

But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Absolutely correct.

Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
would be quite ****ed of.

Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.

which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.

No they don't. All they have to do is know that they get acceptable
results. The don't really have to know how or why.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens