From: Allen on
Superzooms Still Win wrote:
<snip>
You obviously are far too knowledgeable for the normal folks here to
read your posts. Or perhaps you just need to visit your ophthalmologist.
Either way, I see no reason to read them. Goodbye.
Allen
From: N on

"Superzooms Still Win" <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote in message
news:d1ja565op1i2t28d9dntlaa1iokrj4k2l7(a)4ax.com...
>
> No, but other varieties, which generally are grayish-green. What does an
> Australian Eucalypt tree have to do with the severely bad color shifts in
> this image? There's not one Eucalypt leaf anywhere in that photo. It looks
> like the numbnutz forgot to take it off of cloudy white-balance or
> something. Or even worse, left it on auto white-balance which would easily
> account for the odd colors in this image. The auto white-balance trying to
> overcompensate for the green light source from the canopy so it removed
> green from the leaves turning them blue and removed green from the brown
> of
> the fur giving it that nasty red magenta cast. If you've not done a lot of
> photography under a dense foliage canopy you probably don't have one clue
> about any of these things. There are many many many situations in nature
> photography where you CANNOT use auto white-balance.
>
> But then how would any of you crappy snapshooters know about this when all
> of you use your cameras in full auto point and shoot mode at all times. If
> the camera won't do it for you then you think it's supposed to be that way
> or you just didn't buy a camera that was expensive enough. Idiots, one and
> all.
>
>
>

Gawd, have you never processed a RAW file?

--
N

From: Bruce on
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:50:15 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
<ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:30:23 -0400, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Larry Thong" <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote in message
>>news:o8GdnRoVeqeTR8nRnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d(a)supernews.com...
>>> Well, maybe just a little spotty.
>>>
>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Spots.jpg>
>>>
>>Nice shot. Just needs a catchlight in the eyes. ;-)
>
>Blue foliage, red fur, someone sorely needs a camera, monitor, or eyes
>adjusted. Did anyone mention the worthless underexposed composition yet?
>Interesting that the leaves in front are more in focus than the deer. Looks
>like its just as much of a problem with camera and lenses as it is the
>snapshooter.
>
><http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4847902759_058421b547_b.jpg>


Your inability to control depth of field (because of your camera's
small sensor) means that foreground and background elements of the
shot that should be rendered out of focus, can't be. The result is
that they detract from the subject.

A camera with a larger sensor would give you the much greater control
over depth of field that you need for shots like this.

But thanks for posting a shot that so amply illustrates a very
fundamental deficiency of all small sensor digital cameras.

Larger sensors rule.

From: Bruce on
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 06:41:15 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
<ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:21:28 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Your inability to control depth of field (because of your camera's
>>small sensor) means that foreground and background elements of the
>>shot that should be rendered out of focus, can't be. The result is
>>that they detract from the subject.
>
>Using shallow DOF in this shot would totally destroy why it was taken and
>why it has to be shot this way in order for it to work.
>
><http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4849242652_76160e4a2c.jpg>


Nice grass. And so sharp!

Look how well it hides that inconvenient animal ...

From: Allen on
Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 06:41:15 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
> <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:21:28 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Your inability to control depth of field (because of your camera's
>>> small sensor) means that foreground and background elements of the
>>> shot that should be rendered out of focus, can't be. The result is
>>> that they detract from the subject.
>> Using shallow DOF in this shot would totally destroy why it was taken and
>> why it has to be shot this way in order for it to work.
>>
>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4849242652_76160e4a2c.jpg>
>
>
> Nice grass. And so sharp!
>
> Look how well it hides that inconvenient animal ...
>
And in an orange and fuzzy world, too. Any chlorophyll in those plants?
I have put this idiot in myy killfile (perhaps he/she/it is already in
there under several nyms) but I clicked on a link in posted material
just to see what kind of ignorance this creature exhibits. This is the
only time I've ever been on Rita's side, but her picture is orders of
magnitude better.
Allen