Things are getting a bit spotty with the 500/4 Nikkor!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Peter on 2 Aug 2010 06:06 "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:edidnQVbV_OHw8vRnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > 1.2x green shown. It looks awful. > >> and -30% blue is just about right. > > .83x blue show, as I suggested, if anything. > > I combined those two for your recipe... > Paul, I don't understand why you take it seriously. Obviously, it's the same deer I refer to when my wife insists on something. The green deer is a "yes deer." It can be whatever color the troll wants it to be. -- Peter
From: DanP on 2 Aug 2010 08:08 On Aug 2, 10:19 am, Superzooms Still Win <s...(a)noaddress.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 02:11:52 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(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. > You picked on WB and now you are blaming the sensor. Which is stupid because the subject is in focus. BTW, the larger the sensor the bigger the DOF. Easy to check with a DOF calculator. DanP
From: ROFLMAO! on 2 Aug 2010 08:33 On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 05:08:27 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Aug 2, 10:19�am, Superzooms Still Win <s...(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 02:11:52 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(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. >> > >You picked on WB and now you are blaming the sensor. >Which is stupid because the subject is in focus. > >BTW, the larger the sensor the bigger the DOF. Easy to check with a >DOF calculator. > >DanP LOL!
From: otter on 2 Aug 2010 10:07 On Aug 2, 5:06 am, "Peter" <peter...(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > "Paul Furman" <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote in message > > news:edidnQVbV_OHw8vRnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > > > > 1.2x green shown. It looks awful. > > >> and -30% blue is just about right. > > > .83x blue show, as I suggested, if anything. > > > I combined those two for your recipe... > > Paul, I don't understand why you take it seriously. > > Obviously, it's the same deer I refer to when my wife insists on something. > The green deer is a "yes deer." It can be whatever color the troll wants it > to be. > > -- > Peter It's not here to reason with you, or even argue or debate. Facts mean nothing to it. It is only here to draw attention to itself, and tick people off. Better to not feed it.
From: Paul Furman on 2 Aug 2010 11:02
otter wrote: > On Aug 2, 5:06 am, "Peter"<peter...(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> "Paul Furman"<pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote in message >> news:edidnQVbV_OHw8vRnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> >>> I combined those two for your recipe... >> >> Paul, I don't understand why you take it seriously. >> > Better to not feed it. Yeah, I know - hard to resist though once in a while. |