More on Canon Rebel XT noise at high ISO - 2 main new data points

All Things Mopar wrote:
[]
Yes. And, I would have apologized by now to those that I
offended if I'd have been treated even moderately well here.
But, what happened yesterday is things went very rapidly
downhill, so I had little incentive to be civil.

Any lack of civility was purely on your part, making false accusations
about me, and refusing to back up those allegations when challenged.
Trying to help you was a great mistake. I await my apology.

David

Today David J Taylor commented courteously on the subject at
hand

All Things Mopar wrote:
[]
Yes. And, I would have apologized by now to those that I
offended if I'd have been treated even moderately well
here. But, what happened yesterday is things went very
rapidly downhill, so I had little incentive to be civil.

Any lack of civility was purely on your part, making false
accusations about me, and refusing to back up those
allegations when challenged. Trying to help you was a great
mistake. I await my apology.

You're gonna wait a long, long time then, David. At least until
/you/ apologize to /me/ for calling me a liar and a dumb-ass,
numerous times. I don't really care if you call those
"allegations" or what, that's what I "heard" and "read", whether
it was what you "said" or "meant". Got it?

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

All Things Mopar wrote:
Today David J Taylor commented courteously on the subject at
hand

All Things Mopar wrote:
[]
Yes. And, I would have apologized by now to those that I
offended if I'd have been treated even moderately well
here. But, what happened yesterday is things went very
rapidly downhill, so I had little incentive to be civil.

Any lack of civility was purely on your part, making false
accusations about me, and refusing to back up those
allegations when challenged. Trying to help you was a great
mistake. I await my apology.

You're gonna wait a long, long time then, David. At least until
/you/ apologize to /me/ for calling me a liar and a dumb-ass,
numerous times. I don't really care if you call those
"allegations" or what, that's what I "heard" and "read", whether
it was what you "said" or "meant". Got it?

As I have said before, if I have called you a liar or dumb-ass at any
time, then it was without intent so to do and, if you can quote my exact
words where I do this, I would have no hesitation in publicly apologising.

I do care about what I say, otherwise I would not wish to bore everyone
with repetition of the above. You continue to accuse me of things and
present no evidence. No-one else perceives that I have called you such
names.

David

Today David J Taylor commented courteously on the subject at
hand

All Things Mopar wrote:
Today David J Taylor commented courteously on the subject
at hand

All Things Mopar wrote: []
Yes. And, I would have apologized by now to those that I
offended if I'd have been treated even moderately well
here. But, what happened yesterday is things went very
rapidly downhill, so I had little incentive to be civil.

Any lack of civility was purely on your part, making
false accusations about me, and refusing to back up those
allegations when challenged. Trying to help you was a
great mistake. I await my apology.

You're gonna wait a long, long time then, David. At least
until /you/ apologize to /me/ for calling me a liar and a
dumb-ass, numerous times. I don't really care if you call
those "allegations" or what, that's what I "heard" and
"read", whether it was what you "said" or "meant". Got it?

As I have said before, if I have called you a liar or
dumb-ass at any time, then it was without intent so to do
and, if you can quote my exact words where I do this, I
would have no hesitation in publicly apologising.

I do care about what I say, otherwise I would not wish to
bore everyone with repetition of the above. You continue
to accuse me of things and present no evidence. No-one
else perceives that I have called you such names.

I don't have to prove the obvious and it matters not what your
apologists say. As I've already stated, it is what /I/
perceived as an unsult. You've done it here, repeatedly,
you've done it to me on CNews, and other places. The only time
we've been on the same page, and polite to each other, is in
the few private E-mails we've exchanged.

I suggest you go back and re-read /your/ words in context, and
in the way I might've viewed them. One hint: you lectured me
on image size, JPEG altering noise, underexposure exacerbated
noise and more, when you are damn well aware I know this
stuff, then you denied everything when I confronted you.

I'd like to keep on reading your comments, to others, because
I can and do learn from you. But I will neither tolerate the
continued attacks on me, your refusal to acknowledge them, and
your continued "I know everything" attitude. 'Nuff said.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

All Things Mopar wrote:
Today David J Taylor commented courteously on the subject at
hand

All Things Mopar wrote:
Today David J Taylor commented courteously on the subject
at hand

All Things Mopar wrote: []
Yes. And, I would have apologized by now to those that I
offended if I'd have been treated even moderately well
here. But, what happened yesterday is things went very
rapidly downhill, so I had little incentive to be civil.

Any lack of civility was purely on your part, making
false accusations about me, and refusing to back up those
allegations when challenged. Trying to help you was a
great mistake. I await my apology.

You're gonna wait a long, long time then, David. At least
until /you/ apologize to /me/ for calling me a liar and a
dumb-ass, numerous times. I don't really care if you call
those "allegations" or what, that's what I "heard" and
"read", whether it was what you "said" or "meant". Got it?

As I have said before, if I have called you a liar or
dumb-ass at any time, then it was without intent so to do
and, if you can quote my exact words where I do this, I
would have no hesitation in publicly apologising.

I do care about what I say, otherwise I would not wish to
bore everyone with repetition of the above. You continue
to accuse me of things and present no evidence. No-one
else perceives that I have called you such names.

I don't have to prove the obvious and it matters not what your
apologists say. As I've already stated, it is what /I/
perceived as an unsult. You've done it here, repeatedly,
you've done it to me on CNews, and other places. The only time
we've been on the same page, and polite to each other, is in
the few private E-mails we've exchanged.

I suggest you go back and re-read /your/ words in context, and
in the way I might've viewed them. One hint: you lectured me
on image size, JPEG altering noise, underexposure exacerbated
noise and more, when you are damn well aware I know this
stuff, then you denied everything when I confronted you.

I'd like to keep on reading your comments, to others, because
I can and do learn from you. But I will neither tolerate the
continued attacks on me, your refusal to acknowledge them, and
your continued "I know everything" attitude. 'Nuff said.

Jerry,

I would not write differently to you privately than I do here. I'm
genuinely sorry that despite a common language, our communication is
faulty. When I post on a newsgroup, I may say more than is strictly
necessary as I know that others without your background or understanding
read the messages, and I don't see it as a strictly one on one
communication. No-one can carry a knowledge profile of every newsgroup
participant. Perhaps if you re-read my comments in that light, you will
see that I have never intended to call you either a liar or a dumb-ass.

David

All Things Mopar wrote:
Today David J Taylor commented courteously on the subject at
hand


All Things Mopar wrote:

Today David J Taylor commented courteously on the subject
at hand


All Things Mopar wrote: []

Yes. And, I would have apologized by now to those that I
offended if I'd have been treated even moderately well
here. But, what happened yesterday is things went very
rapidly downhill, so I had little incentive to be civil.

Any lack of civility was purely on your part, making
false accusations about me, and refusing to back up those
allegations when challenged. Trying to help you was a
great mistake. I await my apology.


You're gonna wait a long, long time then, David. At least
until /you/ apologize to /me/ for calling me a liar and a
dumb-ass, numerous times. I don't really care if you call
those "allegations" or what, that's what I "heard" and
"read", whether it was what you "said" or "meant". Got it?

As I have said before, if I have called you a liar or
dumb-ass at any time, then it was without intent so to do
and, if you can quote my exact words where I do this, I
would have no hesitation in publicly apologising.

I do care about what I say, otherwise I would not wish to
bore everyone with repetition of the above. You continue
to accuse me of things and present no evidence. No-one
else perceives that I have called you such names.


I don't have to prove the obvious and it matters not what your
apologists say. As I've already stated, it is what /I/
perceived as an unsult. You've done it here, repeatedly,
you've done it to me on CNews, and other places. The only time
we've been on the same page, and polite to each other, is in
the few private E-mails we've exchanged.

I suggest you go back and re-read /your/ words in context, and
in the way I might've viewed them. One hint: you lectured me
on image size, JPEG altering noise, underexposure exacerbated
noise and more, when you are damn well aware I know this
stuff, then you denied everything when I confronted you.


If you knew this **** then why are YOU SHOOTING UNDEREXPOSED JPGS? Are
you a completely obstinate moron? If you had shown even the slightest
bit of awareness to the above suggestions DJT wouldn't have bothered
giving that advice. Your credibility is seriously lacking when you
admit you can't figure out what EC is.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message . uk...

Jerry,

I would not write differently to you privately than I do here. I'm
genuinely sorry that despite a common language, our communication is
faulty. When I post on a newsgroup, I may say more than is strictly
necessary as I know that others without your background or understanding
read the messages, and I don't see it as a strictly one on one
communication. No-one can carry a knowledge profile of every newsgroup
participant. Perhaps if you re-read my comments in that light, you will
see that I have never intended to call you either a liar or a dumb-ass.

David,

There is an old saying that goes like this ...

"you can't please all of the people all of the time"

"All Things Mopar" is obviously one that you (nor anybody else) are/is never
going to please. You're attempting to communicate in a rational manner with
someone who's behaving irrationally - someone who's basically "lost the
plot". I'm sure we've all realised now that this just isn't going to get us
anywhere.

I can appreciate that this is frustrating and perhaps embarrasing, but by
now we've all figured out that it's nothing you've done - and that you have
the support of the rest of the group on this.

Who can say what the gentleman's problem is? However it seems to me that
he's "feeding' off all the attention - my suggestion to one and all is to
simply ignore him from now on - it's pretty hard to have an argument when
there's only one person involved in the conversation.

Kindest regards,

Today G.T. commented courteously on the subject at hand

If you knew this **** then why are YOU SHOOTING
UNDEREXPOSED JPGS? Are you a completely obstinate moron?
If you had shown even the slightest bit of awareness to the
above suggestions DJT wouldn't have bothered giving that
advice. Your credibility is seriously lacking when you
admit you can't figure out what EC is.

Look, numb nuts, if /you/ know as much as you spew, /you/ would
know that TTL flash /will/ underexpose on Auto or Programmed
Auto if /anything/ catches the flash pulse and incorrectl
reflects it, such as paint on a car. So, why did I take
underexposed pictures, because the F__king camera made a
mistake, then compounded /its/ mistake by being noisy. Don't
like that, huh? Well, it is true.

Nobody intentionally takes underexposed images except for
"dramatic" reasons, and then, they don't complain about it. I've
got 1,000 more images under my belt today so I know more than I
did when I started this thread, but you have been zero help to
me because you've been too damn busy being an asshole to be
helful. so F__k off.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

In article , All Things Mopar
writes
Look, numb nuts, if /you/ know as much as you spew, /you/ would know
that TTL flash /will/ underexpose on Auto or Programmed Auto if
/anything/ catches the flash pulse and incorrectl reflects it, such as
paint on a car.

Obviously, that is why photographers have brains. It is little different
in principle to having a strong (back) light in the frame, except you
have to think about reflective surfaces instead of just seeing a light.

So, why did I take underexposed pictures,

Good question, perhaps you failed to understand that the subject was not
'average' and tell the camera that your intelligence is better than its.

because the F__king camera made a mistake,

No, you failed to understand the scene you were photographing was not
"average' and the camera did what you chose to let it do.

then compounded /its/ mistake by being noisy. Don't like that, huh?
Well, it is true.

The camera did what you told it to do, treat the scene as average (or to
be more accurate failed not to tell it to do); when you tried to correct
that in the image you enhanced the noise.

*****************************
Not wanting to just criticize you I need to offer you a solution.
=============================

You could always try offsetting the flash and using AFB in such
circumstances, one of a sequence at 0, +1, & +2 should be correct. You
will need to experiment a little and think about the results and how to
apply your new skill in future.

--
Ian G8ILZ

All Things Mopar wrote:

1) /Both/ camera's, my "defective" one and his "working" one
showed the /same/ amount of noise at /all/ ISO from 100 to
1600 on /all/ 3 of my PCs. Naturally, no noise is readily
apparent until ISO 400 on both cameras.

Could you post these images at full size (JPG is fine).


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.