Breaking All The Laws Of Physics With The 500/4 Nikkor!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John Navas on 3 Jul 2010 14:33 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:43:13 -0700, in <i0nsrj$l8a$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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.) There's your mistake -- parallax -- the water line is not horizonal because the distance to the water line varies greatly. -- Best regards, John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: tony cooper on 3 Jul 2010 15:14 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:31:09 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >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. ;) Oh, you manage to get some homily in somewhere in your lengthy defenses. Such magnitude of open-mindedness is not the thrust of your posts, though. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: John Navas on 3 Jul 2010 15:23 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:14:56 -0400, in <ct2v26dp9di9eaqvjdqs4tdv5plldqv7mc(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:31:09 -0700, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>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. ;) > >Oh, you manage to get some homily in somewhere in your lengthy >defenses. Such magnitude of open-mindedness is not the thrust of your >posts, though. 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
From: John McWilliams on 3 Jul 2010 15:37 John Navas wrote: > On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:43:13 -0700, in > <i0nsrj$l8a$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams > <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> 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.) > > There's your mistake -- parallax -- the water line is not horizonal > because the distance to the water line varies greatly. Nah, not by more than a quarter mile at that part of the Bay. But, again, you've got it close enough to still be considered high quality work; recropping did the trick. -- john mcwilliams
From: Jeff Jones on 3 Jul 2010 16:01
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. Too funny. You're one of the resident trolls that perpetuates it the most. |