Breaking All The Laws Of Physics With The 500/4 Nikkor!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John Navas on 3 Jul 2010 11:28 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:12:57 -0700, in <i0nk1r$kou$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: >John Navas wrote: > >>> I didn't say it wasn't close enough; merely that is wasn't perfectly >>> level. You could measure it yourself. >> >> It is perfectly level. There are clues in the image. ;) > >Yes, there are, showing it's not "perfectly" level. About 1.5 degrees off. It's not, but you are free to think and argue whatever you wish. >I'm not going to argue the sailing points, as unless someone is >experienced as a skipper or top crew, it's just you vs. me. Anyone? <http://sail.navas.us/#Author> -- Best regards, John Navas' Sailing and Racing in the San Francisco Bay Area http://sail.navas.us
From: John McWilliams on 3 Jul 2010 11:39 John Navas wrote: > On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:12:57 -0700, in > <i0nk1r$kou$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams > <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> John Navas wrote: >> >>>> I didn't say it wasn't close enough; merely that is wasn't perfectly >>>> level. You could measure it yourself. >>> It is perfectly level. There are clues in the image. ;) >> Yes, there are, showing it's not "perfectly" level. About 1.5 degrees off. > > It's not, but you are free to think and argue whatever you wish. But it's there and anyone can measure. Did you? Was there any cropping to the image? > >> I'm not going to argue the sailing points, as unless someone is >> experienced as a skipper or top crew, it's just you vs. me. Anyone? > > <http://sail.navas.us/#Author> A fine resume, indeed! But not what is needed: An objective third party with thorough knowledge of racing. -- john mcwilliams
From: Paul Furman on 3 Jul 2010 12:45 John McWilliams wrote: > John Navas wrote: >> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:12:57 -0700, in >> <i0nk1r$kou$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams >> <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> John Navas wrote: >>> >>>>> I didn't say it wasn't close enough; merely that is wasn't >>>>> perfectly level. You could measure it yourself. >>>> It is perfectly level. There are clues in the image. ;) >>> Yes, there are, showing it's not "perfectly" level. About 1.5 degrees >>> off. >> >> It's not, but you are free to think and argue whatever you wish. > > But it's there and anyone can measure. Did you? Was there any cropping > to the image? The only cues I see are the buildings, which look perfectly level at this resolution. The shore line isn't reliable because it'd be different distances from the camera. >>> I'm not going to argue the sailing points, as unless someone is >>> experienced as a skipper or top crew, it's just you vs. me. Anyone? >> >> <http://sail.navas.us/#Author> > > A fine resume, indeed! But not what is needed: An objective third party > with thorough knowledge of racing. >
From: tony cooper on 3 Jul 2010 13:00 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:12:57 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: >John Navas wrote: > >>> I didn't say it wasn't close enough; merely that is wasn't perfectly >>> level. You could measure it yourself. >> >> It is perfectly level. There are clues in the image. ;) > > >Yes, there are, showing it's not "perfectly" level. About 1.5 degrees off. > >I'm not going to argue the sailing points, as unless someone is >experienced as a skipper or top crew, it's just you vs. me. Anyone? Jeezus! Who cares about the horizon being perfectly level in a photo like this? There are scenes where, if the horizon is off, its distracting. Not this one. When you start nitpicking over 1.5 degrees in a sea scene, you've reached the point of no longer seeing the whole image. Navas is just as bad in his defense of the image. He is so tightly-wound about defending his camera that he blows any observation out of proportion and it becomes a major deal. He's one of those "'tis not' 'tis too" arguers who can go on forever. He should have sense enough to ignore petty comments about the horizon. There are people who will like the image, and people who will never be satisfied with someone else's image. Personally, I think it's probably a very good shot but it really can't be judged at this size and this resolution. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: John McWilliams on 3 Jul 2010 13:13
tony cooper wrote: > On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:12:57 -0700, John McWilliams > <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> John Navas wrote: >> >>>> I didn't say it wasn't close enough; merely that is wasn't perfectly >>>> level. You could measure it yourself. >>> It is perfectly level. There are clues in the image. ;) >> >> Yes, there are, showing it's not "perfectly" level. About 1.5 degrees off. >> >> I'm not going to argue the sailing points, as unless someone is >> experienced as a skipper or top crew, it's just you vs. me. Anyone? > > Jeezus! Who cares about the horizon being perfectly level in a photo > like this? > > There are scenes where, if the horizon is off, its distracting. Not > this one. When you start nitpicking over 1.5 degrees in a sea scene, > you've reached the point of no longer seeing the whole image. > > Navas is just as bad in his defense of the image. He is so > tightly-wound about defending his camera that he blows any observation > out of proportion and it becomes a major deal. He's one of those > "'tis not' 'tis too" arguers who can go on forever. > > He should have sense enough to ignore petty comments about the > horizon. There are people who will like the image, and people who > will never be satisfied with someone else's image. > > Personally, I think it's probably a very good shot but it really can't > be judged at this size and this resolution. Tony- I think if you read the whole thread, you'd understand that my original comment was in light only of the original photo that John linked to being given as an example of straight horizons....... otherwise, it is indeed nitpicking, and I wouldn't have commented. As I also commented originally, it's a fine shot, and John occasionally exhibits mastery of nautical imagery; competence at other times. When it comes to his arguments, though, we tend to see quantity over quality in many cases. -- john mcwilliams |