D300 lightning

Atheist Chaplain wrote:
> "Douglas" <just DeleteThis @the.group> wrote in message
> news:fjuuf5$kqv$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "Tully" <tully.albrecht DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:tully.albrecht-D39D13.07004214122007@news.phx.highwinds-media.com...
>>> It's a huge turnoff to me when gadget freaks want to lecture me on why
>>> they think their 50/1.4 is really a better choice than my 50/1.8 after
>>> having "known" me for ninety seconds, and without any inquiry about what
>>> KIND of photography I like to do.
>>>
>>> Even worse are the geeks who only seem interested in the dollar value of
>>> equipment. "Oooh, a Nikon! Those are expensive, huh!" That happened a
>>> few times when my wife and I were doing street photography, nobody
>>> paying attention to her classic M3 which was worth a lot more, just
>>> discreetly so.
>>>
>>> But the worst, THE worst, are people who get on a soapbox about the
>>> evils of Photoshop.
>>>
>>> Kidding.
>>> --
>>
>> Yeah...
>> I know the type. Just the other day I was sitting quietly with my
>> laptop while I waited for the tide to come in and this guy came up and
>> started lecturing me about using Photoshop and the evils of digital
>> cameras. Probably because I had a camera on a tripod that was tethered
>> to the laptop... Shooting RAW would not have got the shots I need to
>> finish that particular assignment! (Kidding too!)
>>
>> The tide came in, I missed the pelicans and told him in no uncertain
>> terms he'd stuffed my day and he got the shits!
>>
>> Douglas
>>
> your a real "People Person" aren't you Douggie
> Its a wonder you haven't ended up on the bottom of the nearest stretch
> of deep water with chains around your ankles, with your l33t social skills

Hahaha Missed the pelicans.

Poor Dogless can't do two things as once. What you want me to talk and
take photos at the same time. hahahaha

I think Dog's day was stuff when his eyes opened and he realised he was
still alive.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:48:31 +1000, "Douglas" <just.RemoveThis@the.group> wrote:

>
>"John McWilliams" <jpmcw.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:a6ydndFGT_YNQf_anZ2dnUVZ_oninZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Cynicor wrote:
>>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Douglas <just.RemoveThis@the.group> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Shooting in Hi quality Jpeg is more likely to render faithful colours
>>>>>> Sounds clear enough to me. Carries with it the presumption you get it
>>>>>> right in the camera first -- like giving up on auto WB and instead
>>>>>> using custom white balance with a diffuser over the lens.
>>>>>
>>>>> This week's homework exercise is in one sentence to describe the
>>>>> common situation in which that will give you the wrong white balance
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Hmmmm. Church with tungsten lights and beams of sun shining in here and
>>>> there, and a few candles thrown in??
>>>
>>> The correct white balance for this scene is black-and-white.
>>
>> Brilliant!
>>
>> What ISO??
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> John McWilliams
>
>6400... Let's get some texture in the scene if you going to lose the colour!
>And oh... Lomo is the MF camera of choice too!
>
>Douglas
>

Wonderful. The virtual-photographers playing with their virtual cameras are now
inventing virtual exercises of virtual photographs to show off their virtual
arm-chair photographer's skills in a virtual world of their own delusional
making.

It doesn't get clearer than this, people. You've all been reading advice from
people that have never touched a real camera during their whole lives, only
their keyboards. This is their role-play world where they can "pretend" to be
photographers. They win if they can trick you into thinking they know the least
bit of anything worthwhile about photography. When it's clear that none of them
do. Only they don't realize this, having never used any real cameras before.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

"they_just_get_sad_and_sadder" <email.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote in message
news:muj6m3d9lunbm7g7gbc2ta8hpj7c7t4l15@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:48:31 +1000, "Douglas" <just.DeleteThis@the.group> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John McWilliams" <jpmcw.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:a6ydndFGT_YNQf_anZ2dnUVZ_oninZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Cynicor wrote:
>>>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>>>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Douglas <just.DeleteThis@the.group> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shooting in Hi quality Jpeg is more likely to render faithful
>>>>>>> colours
>>>>>>> Sounds clear enough to me. Carries with it the presumption you get
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> right in the camera first -- like giving up on auto WB and instead
>>>>>>> using custom white balance with a diffuser over the lens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This week's homework exercise is in one sentence to describe the
>>>>>> common situation in which that will give you the wrong white balance
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmmm. Church with tungsten lights and beams of sun shining in here
>>>>> and
>>>>> there, and a few candles thrown in??
>>>>
>>>> The correct white balance for this scene is black-and-white.
>>>
>>> Brilliant!
>>>
>>> What ISO??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> John McWilliams
>>
>>6400... Let's get some texture in the scene if you going to lose the
>>colour!
>>And oh... Lomo is the MF camera of choice too!
>>
>>Douglas
>>
>
> Wonderful. The virtual-photographers playing with their virtual cameras
> are now
> inventing virtual exercises of virtual photographs to show off their
> virtual
> arm-chair photographer's skills in a virtual world of their own delusional
> making.
>
> It doesn't get clearer than this, people. You've all been reading advice
> from
> people that have never touched a real camera during their whole lives,
> only
> their keyboards. This is their role-play world where they can "pretend" to
> be
> photographers. They win if they can trick you into thinking they know the
> least
> bit of anything worthwhile about photography. When it's clear that none of
> them
> do. Only they don't realize this, having never used any real cameras
> before.
>
>
>

Every so often a jerk of the highest order comes along, making wild and
unsubstantiated accusations about people they know zero about and on a
subject they haven't a clue on themselves.

Invariably these children make up preposterous names to post under using
mail2news gateways or other obfuscation methods so they can't be identified.
After AIOE got read the riot act recently about hiding these mongrels, they
began identifying them in postings so the process of getting Interpol
involved (should they need to be) is much. much easier now.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 0U4Tn+gc7/52SzeT/RSGow.user.aioe.org

So Mr. Gow, if you care to look here:
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/examples/ you'll see a couple of
pictures I pulled randomly from this year's weddings that fit the criteria
of the "church" with mixed lighting. No B&W needed. No need to get the Lomo
out either. A little tweaking in Photoshop for one but basically as shot.

Now why don't you just post using your real name? No one gives a hoot in
hell about your insignificant posts anyway. It's not as if you amount to
anything, now is it?

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

"Rebecca Ore" <macogoense RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:macogoense-762FEC.20595714122007@list.xcski.com...
> In article
> <a3d542cc-d625-4ad8-9976-426eb5b1d108 RemoveThis @e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Annika1980 <annika1980 RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
>> D-Mac has produced the same number of spectacular images as you have.
>> None. Zip. Zilch. Zippo. Nada.
>
> You know you must not read rec.photo.digital.slr-systems on a regular
> basis. (Looks at the group line and makes plans for another filter).

Now here's a really curious post if ever I found one.
Using a private news server from a crippled ski racer who proclaims only to
offer services to other "named" ski racers yet using a Gmail account and...
Completely unknown the news server owner.

news.xcski.com!macogoense
From: Rebecca Ore <macogoense RemoveThis @gmail.com>

Who are you Rebecca? Is your real name Jewish, perhaps? Are all Canadian
females enthatuated with the master of plastic images?

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

mark.thomas.7.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 15, 8:22 am, "Douglas" <j....DeleteThis@the.group> wrote:
>> Sensor pixel flooding is often mistaken for chromatic aberrations. Because it is often mixed in with CA, it is hardly surprising, and largely irrelevant to the process of fixing it.

Actually the other way around: blooming is pretty rare and quite
different looking. Purple fringing is another kind of chromatic
aberration which is not so easily fixed. I had that mixed up too for a
long as most people did, and apparently it's not well understood.

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/chromatic.html
"
Purple fringing: lens or sensor?
Chromatic aberration, and purple fringing in particular, have received
considerable attention with the advent of digital cameras. Indeed,
although chromatic aberrations can be noticed on film (Fig. 7), they do
look more intense on CCD or CMOS images. On the one hand the digital
photographer is only a few mouse clicks away from a full screen display,
and few lenses stand image inspection at high magnification. On the
other hand it is possible that digital imaging somehow renders the color
fringes due to chromatic aberration more distinct. One of the proposed
mechanisms is an enhanced spectral sensitivity in the (ultra)violet and
(infra)red regimes, where lenses tend to be poorly corrected for
chromatic aberration. Purple fringing is often blamed on sensor bloom,
which is odd as blooming is a quite different phenomenon [14, 15]. In
fact, there are as many arguments against sensor bloom as there are in
favor of chromatic aberration to account for purple fringing. The
examples shown on the present page are all demonstrably due to the lens
and not to the sensor. Sensor bloom has no known color preference, and
if it had, it would not change its colors upon defocusing a lens (as in
Fig. 3) or upon swapping lenses (as in Fig. 4). The list of arguments is
long [16].
[14]
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/digitalimaging/concepts/ccdsatandbl...ing.htm
[15]
http://www.ccd.com/ccd102.html
"

Anyways the new Nikons correct the red/green lateral CA just like DXO
with a library of lens corrections (for jpegs). It's pretty tedious in
photoshop's ACR.

Not much to be done about longitudinal/axial purple/green fringing CA.
The examples on that page in figure 3 talk about it mostly being a
problem with very fast lenses and that's where I've seen it, and also
slower less well corrected lenses with very high contrast scenes.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 15, 12:39 am, "Douglas" <j....RemoveThis@the.group> wrote:
> "Rebecca Ore" <macogoe....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:macogoense-762FEC.20595714122007@list.xcski.com...
>
> > In article
> > <a3d542cc-d625-4ad8-9976-426eb5b1d....RemoveThis@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Annika1980 <annika1....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> D-Mac has produced the same number of spectacular images as you have.
> >> None. Zip. Zilch. Zippo. Nada.
>
> > You know you must not read rec.photo.digital.slr-systems on a regular
> > basis. (Looks at the group line and makes plans for another filter).
>
> Now here's a really curious post if ever I found one.
> Using a private news server from a crippled ski racer who proclaims only to
> offer services to other "named" ski racers yet using a Gmail account and...
> Completely unknown the news server owner.
>
> news.xcski.com!macogoense
> From: Rebecca Ore <macogoe....RemoveThis@gmail.com>
>
> Who are you Rebecca? Is your real name Jewish, perhaps? Are all Canadian
> females enthatuated with the master of plastic images?
>
> Douglas



WARNING: You're treading on dangerous grounds Douglas!
Yes I frequent this group!
Helen
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

"Douglas" <just.DeleteThis@the.group> wrote in message
news:fjvoki$h5h$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "they_just_get_sad_and_sadder" <email.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote in message
> news:muj6m3d9lunbm7g7gbc2ta8hpj7c7t4l15@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:48:31 +1000, "Douglas" <just.DeleteThis@the.group> wrote:

Lest you think I'm cherry picking to post negative thoughts, I really
like your generic attitude on striving to get the ideal shot and in JPG,
rather then postprocess each shot with some software package. If you
didn't always use a hammer to get your point across. Use these tools on
an exception basis. Despite the dialog that got a little rough, it was
very interesting


> So Mr. Gow, if you care to look here:
> http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/examples/ you'll see a couple of


Wasn't it you that just a little bit ago busting some serious cajones on
someone that posted some pictures to see but also had a click to come
and buy said book? As I looked at your wedding shots I also noticed
lots of commercial clicks. How do you justify spanking someone else for
doing the same thing? Personally I don't think either of you were "off
USENET" although you have some selective values.

Anyway, keep up the dialog so armatures like myself can learn and apply.
If you could only learn to turn down what he kids call "tude" for
attitude you would be more effective and spend less time in defense
mode. Then again I think you like playing the badass righteous role
which is fine as long as you continue to salt with some photographic
gems. You are very analogous to the TV character 'House' who I reall
like.

-D
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

In article <fL-dnYWRU88apv7anZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d.TakeThisOut@comcast.com>,
John McWilliams <jpmcw.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:

> Tully wrote:
> >
> > I think you like the combat. Otherwise you wouldn't claim to be put out
> > by someone who wants to foist his favorite on you, followed by a
> > commercial for your own preference.
>
> And one, D-Macs sometime apparent ally, likes to instigate.
>
> Corel vs. Adobe is as pointless a
> > squabble as Nikon vs. Canon or Mac vs. PC.
>
> Zackly. The correct answers are: Adobe, Canon, Mac.

Two out of three ain't bad =^)
--
"It is the individual alone who is timeless. The individual's
hungers, anxieties, dreams, and preoccupations have remained
unchanged throughout the millennia." Eric Hoffer (1902-1983)
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

Tully wrote:
> In article <fL-dnYWRU88apv7anZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d RemoveThis @comcast.com>,
> John McWilliams <jpmcw RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Tully wrote:
>>> I think you like the combat. Otherwise you wouldn't claim to be put out
>>> by someone who wants to foist his favorite on you, followed by a
>>> commercial for your own preference.
>> And one, D-Macs sometime apparent ally, likes to instigate.
>>
>> Corel vs. Adobe is as pointless a
>>> squabble as Nikon vs. Canon or Mac vs. PC.
>> Zackly. The correct answers are: Adobe, Canon, Mac.
>
> Two out of three ain't bad =^)

You do grade on a curve, right?
aus.photo removed.

--
john mcwilliams
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

Annika1980 wrote:
> On Dec 14, 11:41 am, "David J Taylor" <david-tay... RemoveThis @blueyonder.not-
> this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>> Annika1980 wrote:
>>
>> []
>>
>>> You misunderstood the question. The question was how I can set up
>>> my camera for shooting JPGs to that I can "get it right in the
>>> camera" without having to do any post-processing. The answer is
>>> that I cannot. CA is just one of the problems JPG shooters have to
>>> live with and it is very apparent in many of their pics, especially
>>> those taken with point-and-shoots.
>>
>> Eh? Many programs, including Paint Shop Pro, can fix so-called CA
>> in JPEG images.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>
> What part of "without having to do any post-processing" don't you
> understand?
> If you are going to do post-processing you should be shooting RAW.

OK, but the way the rest of the statement sounded as if shooting JPEG
precluded CA correction, which it does not. You do /not/ have to shoot
RAW to be able to fix CA.

I do not take the view that you may only do post-processing if you are
shooting RAW - there are many adjustments which you can make even if you
only have JPEG data.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 15, 4:04 am, "David J Taylor" <david-tay....DeleteThis@blueyonder.not-this-
bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I do not take the view that you may only do post-processing if you are
> shooting RAW - there are many adjustments which you can make even if you
> only have JPEG data.

We agree on that. My point is that if you know you are going to do
post-processing, it makes no sense to shoot JPG.
The ONLY benefits I see to shooting JPG is the very small amount of
space that the smaller files will save you (more shots per card), and
the speed with which you get the pics. Sports shooters on a deadline
shoot RAW+JPG so they can transmit the smaller JPG files quickly.
But if you are under no time constraints there really isn't a good
reason to handicap yourself by shooting JPG.

If you hired a photographer to shoot pics that will last a lifetime
(wedding pics, for example) would you want him shooting JPGs with
grandma's point & shoot?
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

In article <T_CdnXPsl9_HnvnanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d.DeleteThis@comcast.com>,
John McWilliams <jpmcw.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:

> Tully wrote:
> > In article <fL-dnYWRU88apv7anZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d.DeleteThis@comcast.com>,
> > John McWilliams <jpmcw.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Tully wrote:
> >>> I think you like the combat. Otherwise you wouldn't claim to be put out
> >>> by someone who wants to foist his favorite on you, followed by a
> >>> commercial for your own preference.
> >> And one, D-Macs sometime apparent ally, likes to instigate.
> >>
> >> Corel vs. Adobe is as pointless a
> >>> squabble as Nikon vs. Canon or Mac vs. PC.
> >> Zackly. The correct answers are: Adobe, Canon, Mac.
> >
> > Two out of three ain't bad =^)
>
> You do grade on a curve, right?
> aus.photo removed.

For extra credit:
Ford vs. Chevy
stirred vs. shaken
--
"It is the individual alone who is timeless. The individual's
hungers, anxieties, dreams, and preoccupations have remained
unchanged throughout the millennia." Eric Hoffer (1902-1983)
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning