More Panasonic P&S perfection

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:17:04 -0800 (PST), Noons
wrote in
:

On Nov 15, 9:14 pm, "Sosumi" wrote:


Now, what were you saying about red and yellow and panasonic?

I can offer you a solution to your problem. It's commonly refered to
as... RTFM. Custom functions, mate... That's what they are there for!

So? Where are the red and yellow bright flower close ups??
I do see the washed out skin tones and the washed out whites and skies. You
just end up proofing my point. Thanks!

ah well:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/John/Red.jpg
for some true reds and about to be washed out skies!
;-)
then again, it's film: it's got correct colours, without
the need for filtering or PS adjustments...

NO image has "correct" colors -- ALL images are only rough
approximations of reality.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:44:13 GMT, John Navas
wrote in
:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:17:04 -0800 (PST), Noons
wrote in
:

On Nov 15, 9:14 pm, "Sosumi" wrote:


Now, what were you saying about red and yellow and panasonic?

I can offer you a solution to your problem. It's commonly refered to
as... RTFM. Custom functions, mate... That's what they are there for!

So? Where are the red and yellow bright flower close ups??
I do see the washed out skin tones and the washed out whites and skies. You
just end up proofing my point. Thanks!

ah well:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/John/Red.jpg
for some true reds and about to be washed out skies!
;-)
then again, it's film: it's got correct colours, without
the need for filtering or PS adjustments...

NO image has "correct" colors -- ALL images are only rough
approximations of reality.

p.s. That's true of the human eye as well,
not to mention vision perception.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:45:05 +0000, John Navas wrote:

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:44:13 GMT, John Navas
wrote in
:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:17:04 -0800 (PST), Noons
wrote in
:

On Nov 15, 9:14 pm, "Sosumi" wrote:


Now, what were you saying about red and yellow and panasonic?

I can offer you a solution to your problem. It's commonly refered
to as... RTFM. Custom functions, mate... That's what they are there
for!

So? Where are the red and yellow bright flower close ups?? I do see
the washed out skin tones and the washed out whites and skies. You
just end up proofing my point. Thanks!

ah well:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/John/Red.jpg for some true
reds and about to be washed out skies! ;-)
then again, it's film: it's got correct colours, without the need for
filtering or PS adjustments...

NO image has "correct" colors -- ALL images are only rough
approximations of reality.

p.s. That's true of the human eye as well, not to mention vision
perception.

Curious you mention that John... There is a discussion on aus.photo about
colours and density. It's nice to hear someone else mention colours are
"seen" differently by different people.

Douglas



--
If you don't defend your rights... You end up without any!

Douglas wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:45:05 +0000, John Navas wrote:
NO image has "correct" colors -- ALL images are only rough
approximations of reality.

p.s. That's true of the human eye as well, not to mention vision
perception.

Curious you mention that John... There is a discussion on aus.photo
about colours and density. It's nice to hear someone else mention
colours are "seen" differently by different people.

Well, just consider the different forms of color-blindness. I firmly believe
it's not a black-and-white issue (no pun intended) but that it's a graduated
scale and virtually everyone has some sort of 'mild' color vision deficiancy
or as you put it everyone sees colors a little differently.

On top of that you have social conditioning from e.g. news papers and
magazines, where color prints have been oversatured for decades (they look
and sell better than those faded photos, don't they?) that people became
used to exaggerated colors and think they are "normal".

jue

On Nov 17, 12:45 pm, John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:44:13 GMT, John Navas
wrote in
:



On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:17:04 -0800 (PST), Noons
wrote in
:

On Nov 15, 9:14 pm, "Sosumi" wrote:

Now, what were you saying about red and yellow and panasonic?

I can offer you a solution to your problem. It's commonly refered to
as... RTFM. Custom functions, mate... That's what they are there for!

So? Where are the red and yellow bright flower close ups??
I do see the washed out skin tones and the washed out whites and skies. You
just end up proofing my point. Thanks!

ah well:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/John/Red.jpg
for some true reds and about to be washed out skies!
;-)
then again, it's film: it's got correct colours, without
the need for filtering or PS adjustments...

NO image has "correct" colors -- ALL images are only rough
approximations of reality.

p.s. That's true of the human eye as well,
not to mention vision perception.


you mean the colours associated with
the voices are not reality?
awwwww...........
:-(



g,d&r

In rec.photo.digital "Jurgen Exner" wrote:
Douglas wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:45:05 +0000, John Navas wrote:
NO image has "correct" colors -- ALL images are only rough
approximations of reality.

p.s. That's true of the human eye as well, not to mention vision
perception.

Curious you mention that John... There is a discussion on aus.photo
about colours and density. It's nice to hear someone else mention
colours are "seen" differently by different people.

Well, just consider the different forms of color-blindness. I firmly believe
it's not a black-and-white issue (no pun intended) but that it's a graduated
scale and virtually everyone has some sort of 'mild' color vision deficiancy
or as you put it everyone sees colors a little differently.

On top of that you have social conditioning from e.g. news papers and
magazines, where color prints have been oversatured for decades (they look
and sell better than those faded photos, don't they?) that people became
used to exaggerated colors and think they are "normal".

Many people have eyes which see colours slightly differently. My left
eye is better with red, and my right with blue. My brain automatically
combines the best of both. Of course it's not accurate :-)

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On 2007-11-17 05:18:39 -0700, Chris Malcolm said:

In rec.photo.digital "Jurgen Exner" wrote:
Douglas wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:45:05 +0000, John Navas wrote:
NO image has "correct" colors -- ALL images are only rough
approximations of reality.

p.s. That's true of the human eye as well, not to mention vision
perception.

Curious you mention that John... There is a discussion on aus.photo
about colours and density. It's nice to hear someone else mention
colours are "seen" differently by different people.

Well, just consider the different forms of color-blindness. I firmly
believe it's not a black-and-white issue (no pun intended) but that
it's a graduated scale and virtually everyone has some sort of 'mild'
color vision deficiancy or as you put it everyone sees colors a little
differently.

On top of that you have social conditioning from e.g. news papers and
magazines, where color prints have been oversatured for decades (they
look and sell better than those faded photos, don't they?) that people
became used to exaggerated colors and think they are "normal".

Many people have eyes which see colours slightly differently. My left
eye is better with red, and my right with blue. My brain automatically
combines the best of both. Of course it's not accurate :-)

yes, but I'll bet you can enjoy #D movies without the glasses
--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."

On Nov 17, 10:18 pm, Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital "Jurgen Exner" wrote:



Douglas wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:45:05 +0000, John Navas wrote:
NO image has "correct" colors -- ALL images are only rough
approximations of reality.

p.s. That's true of the human eye as well, not to mention vision
perception.

Curious you mention that John... There is a discussion on aus.photo
about colours and density. It's nice to hear someone else mention
colours are "seen" differently by different people.
Well, just consider the different forms of color-blindness. I firmly believe
it's not a black-and-white issue (no pun intended) but that it's a graduated
scale and virtually everyone has some sort of 'mild' color vision deficiancy
or as you put it everyone sees colors a little differently.
On top of that you have social conditioning from e.g. news papers and
magazines, where color prints have been oversatured for decades (they look
and sell better than those faded photos, don't they?) that people became
used to exaggerated colors and think they are "normal".

Many people have eyes which see colours slightly differently. My left
eye is better with red, and my right with blue. My brain automatically
combines the best of both. Of course it's not accurate :-)

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

All the more reason that we adopt the ICC industry standard that can
be physically calibrated, thus minimising the "perceptual" issues. ;-)

On Nov 15, 9:21 am, Trent T. wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:53:15 +1000, Doug Jewell
wrote:

The ability of an SLR is totally dependent on the lens that
is fitted to it - that is one of the key strengths of SLR.
If you want a general purpose, 10X zoom, all-in-one lens
just like you'd get on a P&S, you can buy it. You can also
buy a flat-field, fast aperture, telephoto primemacrolens
if you wish. If photographing ant's eyes is your thing, you
can even buy micro lenses that deliver 5x magnification. The
lens you use on a DSLR is a compromise between versatility,
size, weight, performance, price, and most systems have
enough lens choice that it is up to the buyer to decide
which compromises he will make. With a P&S, the compromise
choices have been made in the factory.

Do you think that all people who buy P&S cameras are as stupid as you are? What
person in their right mind that is intomacro-photographyand uses a P&S camera
relies on the camera's lens alone? Do you think interchangeable glass is only
available to the DSLR? What kind of obviously ****ed-up idiot are you?

I can fit an exceptional +8 (or higher) diopter achromat on the front of my
P&S's 12x zoom lens and obtain even better quality and more DOF in anymacro
subject than you ever will, with even more working distance. I can also use that
in conjunction with a high-quality 1.7x tele-converter for a tele-macrosetup
which will provide even more working distance to the subject than you could ever
obtain with any DSLR lens on the market. I often use lens combinations on my P&S
cameras that reach well into the realm of micro-photography, let alone TRUE 1:1macro-photographyratios on that smaller sensor, that's easy.

The red-herring nonsense of these DSLR activists with blinders-on speaks tomes
about why only inexperienced idiots push DSLRs. Their limitations to reason and
think also clearly shows in theirphotography.

Hint: next time don't talk about nor offer advice about something that you know
nothing about. It is better to remain silent and thought to be the fool than to
open your mouth and remove all doubt.

At least we DSLR owners don't have foul mouths like you. I own a Canon
EOS 400D & use the Canon MP-E65 for my macro shots - works a treat.
You stick to your primitive gear peasant and let we more wealthy,
intelligent photographers use our DSLR's.

wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 9:21 am, Trent T. wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:53:15 +1000, Doug Jewell

wrote:

The ability of an SLR is totally dependent on the lens that
is fitted to it - that is one of the key strengths of SLR.
If you want a general purpose, 10X zoom, all-in-one lens
just like you'd get on a P&S, you can buy it. You can also
buy a flat-field, fast aperture, telephoto primemacrolens
if you wish. If photographing ant's eyes is your thing, you
can even buy micro lenses that deliver 5x magnification. The
lens you use on a DSLR is a compromise between versatility,
size, weight, performance, price, and most systems have
enough lens choice that it is up to the buyer to decide
which compromises he will make. With a P&S, the compromise
choices have been made in the factory.

Do you think that all people who buy P&S cameras are as stupid as you
are? What
person in their right mind that is intomacro-photographyand uses a P&S
camera
relies on the camera's lens alone? Do you think interchangeable glass is
only
available to the DSLR? What kind of obviously ****ed-up idiot are you?

I can fit an exceptional +8 (or higher) diopter achromat on the front of
my
P&S's 12x zoom lens and obtain even better quality and more DOF in
anymacro
subject than you ever will, with even more working distance. I can also
use that
in conjunction with a high-quality 1.7x tele-converter for a
tele-macrosetup
which will provide even more working distance to the subject than you
could ever
obtain with any DSLR lens on the market. I often use lens combinations on
my P&S
cameras that reach well into the realm of micro-photography, let alone
TRUE 1:1macro-photographyratios on that smaller sensor, that's easy.

The red-herring nonsense of these DSLR activists with blinders-on speaks
tomes
about why only inexperienced idiots push DSLRs. Their limitations to
reason and
think also clearly shows in theirphotography.

Hint: next time don't talk about nor offer advice about something that
you know
nothing about. It is better to remain silent and thought to be the fool
than to
open your mouth and remove all doubt.

At least we DSLR owners don't have foul mouths like you. I own a Canon
EOS 400D & use the Canon MP-E65 for my macro shots - works a treat.
You stick to your primitive gear peasant and let we more wealthy,
intelligent photographers use our DSLR's.

Ha,ha,ha.... ROTFL at that one! Well done Jock. Not Scottish by any chance?
LOL.

Douglas