STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !

On Dec 29, 12:20 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
Whenever the 40D goes out to shoot on a rainy day, it always
attracts some stares.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90922173/original

That is an actual size crop, BTW.

Niiice. (O:

On Dec 29, 11:47 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
On Dec 28, 9:38 pm, Scott W wrote:



In this case we are looking at a 100% crop and it is very sharp for a
100% crop, but down size a bit and it would look "over-sharpened" to
your eyes.

Exactly!
I had a helluva time with this one when I tried to downsize for the
web, especially if I used my usual Bicubic Sharper settings. Makes
the fur look like razor blades.
.....


Caniva go, can I can I, huh? What size do you want?

Let's make it a challenge..?

Oh sorry, I guess it is *your* picture.... (O:

On Dec 29, 9:56*am, wrote:
On Dec 29, 11:47 pm, Annika1980 wrote: On Dec 28, 9:38 pm, Scott W wrote:

In this case we are looking at a 100% crop and it is very sharp for a
100% crop, but down size a bit and it would look "over-sharpened" to
your eyes.

Exactly!
I had a helluva time with this one when I tried to downsize for the
web, especially if I used my usual Bicubic Sharper settings. *Makes
the fur look like razor blades.

....

Caniva go, can I can I, huh? *What size do you want?

Let's make it a challenge..?

Oh sorry, I guess it is *your* picture.... *(O:

Image thief!

Here's another one that has been reduced. I just used plain old
Bicubic on it.


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90940773

On Dec 30, 1:11 am, Annika1980 wrote:
Image thief!
You got it. I've already made a coupla thou' on this one. Wanna buy
a print? - I'll sign it for you an' everything.. (O;

Here's another one that has been reduced. I just used plain old
Bicubic on it.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90940773

Composition wise, that one is better - the rain looks great! pity
there aren't a few more on the other one (heheh, easily fixed...)
But, let me use my super-x-ray-vision.... I'm thinking that second one
isn't as sharp around the eyes/head and may have even got a little
selective ps help. The reason I say that is - his backside looks very
sharp, but his neck and ears don't.. So it gives the impression that
you mighta used the sharpening tool on his face..

Do I get a cigar, or is my detective work at it's usual low standard?
(O;

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:02:36 -0600, russ templeton wrote:


You could have at least done something about that rotten white-balance
that your camera created. A deer's coat isn't magenta. Get your monitor
adjusted, or get a better camera, or something. How about some talent,
see if you can buy that somewhere while you're at it.
I think you need a new monitor or lessons in setting it up.


What a waste of time.
At least you realise you are.



--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

By the way, I will give Bret an additional plug - check out the folder
to which that image belongs:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/racmtn

There are some *very* good images there. (I'll rudely say that they
are mixed in with some that I wouldn't have displayed, but never mind
- that's what thumbnails are for..!)

But one small note - Bret, how can you criticise jpeg artefacts and
then post this:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/51947453
????
I expect you to fix and repost this immediately, and write up 50
lines:
I shall always check the resized and compressed image before posting..
I shall always check the resized and compressed image before posting..
....

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:49:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 29, 6:02 pm, 'russ templeton' troll of the multitude of
identities, vomited:
I've got about 150 shots just like it, or much better

Yes, 'russ' of oh-so-many-names, post a few. Or ... just one...

For it is now genberal knowledge that you are a sad little no-talent
liar.

And CAN'T (not 'won't') prove otherwise.

I already have. But you insecure idiots that don't know the first thing about
photography claimed they were all stolen. Because none of you could believe that
P&S cameras can take pictures that nice.

Only a fool would play into your ridiculous resident-troll games again.

You want to see them? Pay me for prints. $25,000 per print is the going cost and
that's just for the 8x10s.

You ****ingly useless wastes of flesh. You think I'm going to show you my best
work for free? Then if I do show you a downsized one then you claim that that's
not good enough or it must be someone else's or the EXIF data was forged. So
what then? I post a large one so you can all steal them like you all have in the
past?

**** off you loser asswipes. You're not even good enough to lick the
buffalo-**** off of the bottom of my hiking boots after I've traipsed through a
field.

Learn to use a camera, ANY camera. If you do you'll find out you wasted money on
those beloved DSLR noise-traps of yours.

Go pick out another virtual camera to go along with that virtual photography
experience that you have. That's all you'll ever have. Then go trick someone
else into entertaining you with their decent photography. I'm not as gullible
and insecure as the rest of your troll-food. I don't have to prove one thing to
idiots like you. I already have and that was a waste of my time. I'm not going
to do it again.

**** OFF you useless talentless hacks.

russ templeton wrote:


**** OFF you useless talentless hacks.

Can't back up your comments and lack the grace to participate in polite society.

It appears that you don't have the credentials to back the rhetoric.

Walter..

On Dec 29, 8:47*am, Annika1980 wrote:
On Dec 28, 9:38*pm, Scott W wrote:



In this case we are looking at a 100% crop and it is very sharp for a
100% crop, but down size a bit and it would look "over-sharpened" to
your eyes.

Exactly!
I had a helluva time with this one when I tried to downsize for the
web, especially if I used my usual Bicubic Sharper settings. *Makes
the fur look like razor blades.
I finally gave up and decided to just post the full-size crop. *The
deer was walking toward me and was ignorant of my presence until I
moved and showed myself when she was about 25 yards away. *I could
have let her get close enough to pet if I'd wanted, but it would have
probably scared the hell out of her.


If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times..........God you
live in a beautiful part of the U.S.! I'd give my eye teeth to have
that experience!
Helen

russ templeton wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:38:20 -0800 (PST), Scott W wrote:

On Dec 28, 4:32 pm, Noons wrote:
On Dec 29, 1:20 pm, Annika1980 wrote:

Whenever the 40D goes out to shoot on a rainy day, it always
attracts some stares.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90922173/original
That is an actual size crop, BTW.
finally! something that is not ridiculously
over-sharpened. good shot!
When you are use to soft images from your film scans any decently
sharp image will look over sharpened to you.

In this case we are looking at a 100% crop and it is very sharp for a
100% crop, but down size a bit and it would look "over-sharpened" to
your eyes.


Scott

I've got about 150 shots just like it, or much better, taken over the years with
P&S cameras. What was the point of posting something so ordinary that anyone can
do with any camera?

Just to waste our bandwidth? To appease your need for attention?

I don't get it.

You could have at least done something about that rotten white-balance that your
camera created. A deer's coat isn't magenta. Get your monitor adjusted, or get a
better camera, or something. How about some talent, see if you can buy that
somewhere while you're at it.

What a waste of time.


Magenta? My monitor does not show any magenta in the deer's coat.

--

Len