From: Pete on
On 2010-07-03 19:33:27 +0100, John Navas said:

> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:43:13 -0700, in
> <i0nsrj$l8a$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> But do this: Draw a line from the water at building on the right, then
>> to the water line on the left. Increase the image size and then pull the
>> line down to the bottom crop. It's off. Not by enough to ruin a fine
>> shot, but it's off (unless John recrops it again.)
>
> There's your mistake -- parallax -- the water line is not horizonal
> because the distance to the water line varies greatly.

You forgot to add that lens obviously had zero distortion.

--
Pete

From: John Navas on
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:37:06 -0700, in
<i0o3h4$de5$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams
<jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:43:13 -0700, in
>> <i0nsrj$l8a$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams
>> <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> But do this: Draw a line from the water at building on the right, then
>>> to the water line on the left. Increase the image size and then pull the
>>> line down to the bottom crop. It's off. Not by enough to ruin a fine
>>> shot, but it's off (unless John recrops it again.)
>>
>> There's your mistake -- parallax -- the water line is not horizonal
>> because the distance to the water line varies greatly.
>
>Nah, not by more than a quarter mile at that part of the Bay.

You must be thinking of a different part of the Bay --
the range in that shot is over 2 nm.

--
Best regards,
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern´┐Żs Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: Kev Hubbard on
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 13:43:11 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

>Navas seems to be a person who has to defend his choices.

Which wouldn't be necessary if none of you ignorant fools who know nothing
about using P&S cameras properly wouldn't invent outlandish lies about them
so that he DOES have to defend his choice in camera gear.

Are you this daft? Apparently so.

In your own words you admit attacking others who are capable of using P&S
cameras at a professional level.

That insecure are you?

Just because you lack the skills to use any camera properly. Anyone who can
use a P&S camera to produce images better than you can use $50,000 of DSLR
gear puts you all to shame. And you just can't handle that because it
shouts loud and clear of your OWN incompetence.

Pity.

The only images I've seen posted to these newsgroups that are worth looking
at are those who have submitted them from their P&S cameras. None of the
DSLR images have been worth anyone's time. That says tomes right there.





From: me on
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:44:52 -0400, "Larry Thong"
<larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote:

>Just think. If Einstein were alive and he had a 500/4 Nikkor we would have
>a new set of theories ponder upon. He would have quickly realized that his
>laws were meant to be not only broken, but shattered.
>
>
><http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Rule_Breaker.jpg>
>

I prefer the money shot at the end of the morning breakfast hunt.

http://edwardgruf.com/2010-07-01+/slides/_DSC1652.jpg

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Prev: It's been a slice...
Next: Any tips for enhancing rainbows?