From: John Navas on
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.

--
Best regards,
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern´┐Żs Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: tony cooper on
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:31:09 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 13:43:11 -0400, in
><9ssu269est0sg1g97ujqlh4pe5hfdg8lo0(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Navas seems to be a person who has to defend his choices. Any
>>criticism, however slight, of his choice of type of camera becomes a
>>personal thing with him. The irritating thing is that, by inference,
>>he makes any other choice a mistake. ...
>
>What I actually write is, "Different strokes for different folks."
>Never let facts get in the way of personal bashing. ;)

Oh, you manage to get some homily in somewhere in your lengthy
defenses. Such magnitude of open-mindedness is not the thrust of your
posts, though.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: John Navas on
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:14:56 -0400, in
<ct2v26dp9di9eaqvjdqs4tdv5plldqv7mc(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:31:09 -0700, John Navas
><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 13:43:11 -0400, in
>><9ssu269est0sg1g97ujqlh4pe5hfdg8lo0(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
>><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Navas seems to be a person who has to defend his choices. Any
>>>criticism, however slight, of his choice of type of camera becomes a
>>>personal thing with him. The irritating thing is that, by inference,
>>>he makes any other choice a mistake. ...
>>
>>What I actually write is, "Different strokes for different folks."
>>Never let facts get in the way of personal bashing. ;)
>
>Oh, you manage to get some homily in somewhere in your lengthy
>defenses. Such magnitude of open-mindedness is not the thrust of your
>posts, though.

Never let facts get in the way of personal bashing.

--
Best regards,
John

"Nothing is as peevish and pedantic as men's judgments of one another."
-Desiderius Erasmus
From: John McWilliams on
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.

But, again, you've got it close enough to still be considered high
quality work; recropping did the trick.

--
john mcwilliams
From: Jeff Jones on
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 10:20:40 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>
>It seems you are nitpicking for nitpicking's sake, Come on already!
>...and I am a DSLR shooter, who thinks this whole P&S vs DSLR argument is BS.

Too funny. You're one of the resident trolls that perpetuates it the most.

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