Things are getting a bit spotty with the 500/4 Nikkor!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Savageduck on 1 Aug 2010 15:17 On 2010-08-01 11:36:35 -0700, Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> said: > >>> >>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4847902759_058421b547_b.jpg> >>> > > > Why do people post URLs that are "unavailable"? > > Doug As for those posted by "Buffalo Bill" or one of his skins, availability seems to be related to his level of medication, or the lack of awe filled praise from all of the lesser beings who refuse to accept him as a photographic messiah. I can't speak for others, but in my case, I might remove a year old file from my server to make space. I have 20GB on my mac.com iDisk and I use it for different stuff. So from time to time I do some clean up of files which are no longer relevant for me, and in all likelihood the rest of the World. I wouldn't expect further comment on a post much older than a few months, so keeping it available for 6 months to a year seems reasonable to me. If the URL was to an image, or other file I need to keep longer for whatever reason, that URL will probably be good for some time. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Bruce on 1 Aug 2010 16:28 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:47:39 -0500, Superzooms Still Win <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:25:10 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:06:35 -0500, Superzooms Still Win >><ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:51:22 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> 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 ... >>> >>>Whoosh! Right over that cavity on your neck. >>> >>>You don't get out much into the real world. That much is more than clear. >> >> >>You're right. I don't take an afternoon drive, stop to take a >>snapshot of a waterfall from the roadside, then claim it was some work >>of art taken after a 14 day trek in the wilderness. >> >>No, I don't do that at all. ;-) >> > >Doesn't matter what you believe. What I believe obviously matters to you, otherwise why reply?
From: George Kerby on 1 Aug 2010 16:36 On 8/1/10 1:25 PM, in article 2teb56d09620vic9mrvhgv2j1tc2t9ekng(a)4ax.com, "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:06:35 -0500, Superzooms Still Win > <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:51:22 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> 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 ... >> >> Whoosh! Right over that cavity on your neck. >> >> You don't get out much into the real world. That much is more than clear. > > > You're right. I don't take an afternoon drive, stop to take a > snapshot of a waterfall from the roadside, then claim it was some work > of art taken after a 14 day trek in the wilderness. > > No, I don't do that at all. ;-) > Hell, Tonto was on the tour bus. How else would he been able to find it?!?
From: George Kerby on 1 Aug 2010 16:42 On 8/1/10 3:28 PM, in article f5mb56lt7ie9a4ql9fjqd1nshsh30v7ne4(a)4ax.com, "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:47:39 -0500, Superzooms Still Win > <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:25:10 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:06:35 -0500, Superzooms Still Win >>> <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:51:22 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> 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 ... >>>> >>>> Whoosh! Right over that cavity on your neck. >>>> >>>> You don't get out much into the real world. That much is more than clear. >>> >>> >>> You're right. I don't take an afternoon drive, stop to take a >>> snapshot of a waterfall from the roadside, then claim it was some work >>> of art taken after a 14 day trek in the wilderness. >>> >>> No, I don't do that at all. ;-) >>> >> >> Doesn't matter what you believe. > > > What I believe obviously matters to you, otherwise why reply? > Tonto/BuffaloBill is much like a moth to a porch light, it cannot resist impulses it doesn't understand.
From: Robert Coe on 1 Aug 2010 19:22
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 21:06:58 +1000, "N" <N(a)onyx.com> wrote: : : "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? He eats them for lunch. He used to run a sushi bar on the Ginza, you know. Bob |