Breaking All The Laws Of Physics With The 500/4 Nikkor!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Savageduck on 3 Jul 2010 13:20 On 2010-07-02 20:57:22 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> said: > Savageduck wrote: >> On 2010-07-02 18:17:31 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> said: >> >>> John Navas wrote: >>>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:08:47 -0700, in >>>> <i0lo1h$u8o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams >>>> <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> John Navas wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If severely tilted horizons are your thing, then good on ya. >>>>>> My own taste runs to horizontal horizons; e.g., >>>>>> <http://i50.tinypic.com/15quiw8.jpg> >>>>> It's very close! The left hand height of the Bay is about 1/64" higher >>>>> than the right hand side. >>>>> Most would not even notice this, but I've been shooting water scenes >>>>> for 50 years. >>>> >>>> LOL! >>> >>> Not sure what amuses you, but the slant is also perceivable in the line >>> of the jib furling rollers at the bow line. >>> Almost imperceptible. >> >> I hate to say this, but the shot is just fine, in what had to be >> difficult conditions for photography with any camera. >> Nitpicking over horizon in a shot, which given the subject is ridiculous. >> As far as determining "slant" from the "jib furling rollers", I would >> like to know how you make that measurement, given each of the yachts is >> heeled over at slightly different angles. The best bet for a horizon is >> the waterline paint on what looks to be a committee boat, and even that >> would be questionable as it is not perpendicular to the camera. >> The horizon is close enough given the subject. It is not some horizon >> critical landscape or interior. >> >> So give credit where credit is due, it is a good shot. > > I did. And I was the first to say so. > > I wouldn't have commented but for John's original comment about > straight horizons. In this case, nitpicking would be in the eye of the > commentator. > > The racing boats are all on the same tack, all at the same angle to the > wind, all professionally sailed. Any difference due to crew weights, > sail trim, wind pressure (other than trim; they're all trimmed within > millimeters of one another), distribution of weight: All of these > factors wouldn't have accounted for more than an inch at the bow (or > anywhere else along the length), and the heel of all four vessels would > be withing a meter or so vertically, causing at most a few millimeters > rise or fall of the bow. > > I didn't say it wasn't close enough; merely that is wasn't perfectly > level. You could measure it yourself. Are we looking at the same photograph? Yes they are all on the same tack, and same angle to the wind, however the differences at the bow and along the rail says there is something wrong with your perception of the image The two boats on the right have their leeward rails in the water, while the two on the left have rails which are visibly clear of the water. The masts of the two in the middle are at very obvious different angles. The white building on the right shoreline is perpendicular, and the building on the ridge line above it has a horizontal roof edge. It seems you are nitpicking for nitpicking's sake, Come on already! ....and I am a DSLR shooter, who thinks this whole P&S vs DSLR argument is BS. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: tony cooper on 3 Jul 2010 13:43 On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 10:20:40 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >It seems you are nitpicking for nitpicking's sake, Come on already! >...and I am a DSLR shooter, who thinks this whole P&S vs DSLR argument is BS. Yeah. It's a "horses for courses" thing. If I'm going to get into a small boat to photograph a boat race, I'd prefer a p&s to a dslr. There are other times when I'm out shooting candids that I'd prefer a inconspicuous p&s to my dslr. There are other times when the only camera I'd want to use is a dslr. Unless I'm shooting in conditions where the size, inconspicuousness, or zoom range without changing lenses makes a big difference to me, I want a camera with some heft and a viewfinder. (Yes, I know some p&s cameras have viewfinders) Navas seems to be a person who has to defend his choices. Any criticism, however slight, of his choice of type of camera becomes a personal thing with him. The irritating thing is that, by inference, he makes any other choice a mistake. It isn't so much the camera type he defends as it is his decision to pick that camera type. Like, who cares? I have a hunch that, unless he has a beard, he'd be in an alt.shaving newsgroup forever arguing about gel vs foam shaving cream. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: John McWilliams on 3 Jul 2010 13:43 Savageduck wrote: > On 2010-07-02 20:57:22 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> said: > >> Savageduck wrote: >>> On 2010-07-02 18:17:31 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> said: >>> >>>> John Navas wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:08:47 -0700, in >>>>> <i0lo1h$u8o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams >>>>> <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> John Navas wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> If severely tilted horizons are your thing, then good on ya. >>>>>>> My own taste runs to horizontal horizons; e.g., >>>>>>> <http://i50.tinypic.com/15quiw8.jpg> >>>>>> It's very close! The left hand height of the Bay is about 1/64" >>>>>> higher than the right hand side. >>>>>> Most would not even notice this, but I've been shooting water >>>>>> scenes for 50 years. >>>>> >>>>> LOL! >>>> >>>> Not sure what amuses you, but the slant is also perceivable in the >>>> line of the jib furling rollers at the bow line. >>>> Almost imperceptible. >>> >>> I hate to say this, but the shot is just fine, in what had to be >>> difficult conditions for photography with any camera. >>> Nitpicking over horizon in a shot, which given the subject is >>> ridiculous. >>> As far as determining "slant" from the "jib furling rollers", I would >>> like to know how you make that measurement, given each of the yachts >>> is heeled over at slightly different angles. The best bet for a >>> horizon is the waterline paint on what looks to be a committee boat, >>> and even that would be questionable as it is not perpendicular to the >>> camera. >>> The horizon is close enough given the subject. It is not some horizon >>> critical landscape or interior. >>> >>> So give credit where credit is due, it is a good shot. >> >> I did. And I was the first to say so. >> >> I wouldn't have commented but for John's original comment about >> straight horizons. In this case, nitpicking would be in the eye of the >> commentator. >> >> The racing boats are all on the same tack, all at the same angle to >> the wind, all professionally sailed. Any difference due to crew >> weights, sail trim, wind pressure (other than trim; they're all >> trimmed within millimeters of one another), distribution of weight: >> All of these factors wouldn't have accounted for more than an inch at >> the bow (or anywhere else along the length), and the heel of all four >> vessels would be withing a meter or so vertically, causing at most a >> few millimeters rise or fall of the bow. >> >> I didn't say it wasn't close enough; merely that is wasn't perfectly >> level. You could measure it yourself. > > Are we looking at the same photograph? > > Yes they are all on the same tack, and same angle to the wind, however > the differences at the bow and along the rail says there is something > wrong with your perception of the image > The two boats on the right have their leeward rails in the water, while > the two on the left have rails which are visibly clear of the water. > The masts of the two in the middle are at very obvious different angles. > > The white building on the right shoreline is perpendicular, and the > building on the ridge line above it has a horizontal roof edge. > > It seems you are nitpicking for nitpicking's sake, Come on already! > ...and I am a DSLR shooter, who thinks this whole P&S vs DSLR argument > is BS. This has nothing to do with compacts v DSLRs. Please read what I said earlier about why I made the point. Yes, on reexamination, the two windward boats are aren't heeled as much as the leeward two, with the most downwind boat having the greatest heel. But the difference in effect on height of the bow ain't huge, and the resolution of this downsized bit doesn't give a very clear indication of where the rail is in any event! The paint job just makes it harder. But do this: Draw a line from the water at building on the right, then to the water line on the left. Increase the image size and then pull the line down to the bottom crop. It's off. Not by enough to ruin a fine shot, but it's off (unless John recrops it again.) -- john mcwilliams
From: John Navas on 3 Jul 2010 14:08 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:45:27 -0700, in <Z8qdnf17jv2z9LLRnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote: >John McWilliams wrote: >> 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. Bingo! We have a winner! ;) -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: John Navas on 3 Jul 2010 14:31
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 13:43:11 -0400, in <9ssu269est0sg1g97ujqlh4pe5hfdg8lo0(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >Navas seems to be a person who has to defend his choices. Any >criticism, however slight, of his choice of type of camera becomes a >personal thing with him. The irritating thing is that, by inference, >he makes any other choice a mistake. ... What I actually write is, "Different strokes for different folks." Never let facts get in the way of personal bashing. ;) -- Best regards, John "Nothing is as peevish and pedantic as men's judgments of one another." -Desiderius Erasmus |