Things are getting a bit spotty with the 500/4 Nikkor!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Superzooms Still Win on 2 Aug 2010 02:28 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 22:56:19 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote: >Superzooms Still Win wrote: >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 22:01:27 -0700, Paul Furman<paul-@-edgehill.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Superzooms Still Win wrote: >>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 20:43:01 -0700, Paul Furman<paul-@-edgehill.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Superzooms Still Win wrote: >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> Reducing the blue channel improves things a little bit (increase >>>>> yellow). >>>> >>>>> Not increasing green, which makes a mess of it. >>>> >>>> Translation: Restores the natural ambience of the shot >>> >>> Like this? >>> http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/9835/spotswb.jpg >>> Are you sure you want to increase green? >> >> Roughly +10% to +15% green > >1.2x green shown. It looks awful. Did I type +20% above? Oh wait, that's right, you're a troll. You often read 10 or 15 as 20. > >> and -30% blue is just about right. > >.83x blue show, as I suggested, if anything. Did I type -17% blue? Oh, that's right. You perceive -30 as -17 because you're a lousy troll. > >I combined those two for your recipe... No you didn't. > > >> That restores >> the original colors close to what they should be in that lighting. > >So the sickly green deer in the lower left is your preference? >http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/1346/spotswbbleck.jpg > > It's closer to how it appears in nature under that lighting and all the green reflecting off of the foliage, but far from the correct color balance. I leave it up to basement living trolls like you who have never seen a deer in the woods to always get it wrong.
From: Paul Furman on 2 Aug 2010 02:37 Superzooms Still Win 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> >>> >>> I'd explain to you why, but >> >> Shallow DOF could have saved this one. > > The REASON that that image WORKS is because it shows how well they can lie > in the grass and NOT BE SEEN. By a moth. > This is what hunters see. Not unless their eyes are 1/4 inch apart or they're blind in one eye. Stereo vision allows us to to look around twigs and grass blades easily. The 77mm diameter of a typical pro f/2.8 FX zoom is about the same spacing as our eyes, though I'm not sure if that translates directly - it's in the ballpark. I see this a bunch when doing macro focus stacks, you get 'x-ray vision' through foreground elements and have to manually retouch so it doesn't look translucent. Yes it looks different but gets more of the sense of stereo vision, and closer to the functional ability of the critters in the grass. >> It would allow you to see through >> the grass with wider angle rays, it can look a little from left & right, >> making the foreground dissolve. >> http://www.singita.com/images/galleries/lion_grass_large.jpg
From: Superzooms Still Win on 2 Aug 2010 02:52 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 23:37:50 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote: >Superzooms Still Win 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> >>>> >>>> I'd explain to you why, but >>> >>> Shallow DOF could have saved this one. >> >> The REASON that that image WORKS is because it shows how well they can lie >> in the grass and NOT BE SEEN. > >By a moth. > > >> This is what hunters see. > >Not unless their eyes are 1/4 inch apart or they're blind in one eye. >Stereo vision allows us to to look around twigs and grass blades easily. Not at the distance that a hunter or predator would have to spot their prey. Enjoying that basement-experienced life of yours, still? > >The 77mm diameter of a typical pro f/2.8 FX zoom is about the same >spacing as our eyes, though I'm not sure if that translates directly - >it's in the ballpark. I see this a bunch when doing macro focus stacks, >you get 'x-ray vision' through foreground elements and have to manually >retouch so it doesn't look translucent. Yes it looks different but gets >more of the sense of stereo vision, and closer to the functional ability >of the critters in the grass. How fascinating, that you finally noticed such simple things. More tech-head, troll-head bullshit about a subject size that is totally unrelated to what was being discussed. One that has nothing to do with the art of nature photography that was being discussed, but means everything to a pure troll like you. Squirm some more with your reasoning and proofs! This is entertaining! Like when I study other worms and leeches. They wriggle just like you are doing when prodded too. LOL!
From: DanP on 2 Aug 2010 05:11 On Aug 1, 5:50 am, Superzooms Still Win <s...(a)noaddress.org> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:30:23 -0400, "Tim Conway" <tconway_...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > >"Larry Thong" <larry_th...(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> WB is not the point here. You have picked it because you cannot find a fault with the lens (see thread name). And WB can be easily fixed. DanP
From: Superzooms Still Win on 2 Aug 2010 05:19
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 02:11:52 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Aug 1, 5:50�am, Superzooms Still Win <s...(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:30:23 -0400, "Tim Conway" <tconway_...(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >"Larry Thong" <larry_th...(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> > >WB is not the point here. You have picked it because you cannot find a >fault with the lens (see thread name). I guess the too shallow DOF and portions of the subject being blurred are not the fault of the lens. You're right, they're the fault of using too large of a sensor WITH that lens. They're BOTH at fault. Add in the crapshooter holding them and you have the disaster that was posted. >And WB can be easily fixed. Oh really? You haven't read the rest of this thread yet, have you. > >DanP YOU FUCKINGLY USELESS PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER TROLL. |