Canon and Panasonic: updated models
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: J. Clarke on 29 May 2010 12:49 On 5/29/2010 11:50 AM, Dudley Hanks wrote: > "Jeff Jones"<jj197109671(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message > news:4gi1061ia6g7spmhoikfc161ai1gc9a7g9(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 29 May 2010 02:25:19 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" >> <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: >> >>> Once you get past arbitrary standards, a photo by a blind photographer >>> might >>> just well indicate better mastery of the art than that exhibited by the >>> Mona >>> Lisa >> >> And there you have it folks. Precisely the kind of delusional twit that >> you've all come to know and support. >> > > I never said mine were, just that a blind photographer might exhibit a > better mastery of the art than an artist who has exemplary physical > abilities... The end result may not be as pleasing to the eye of a sighted > person, but it may well have taken supreme skills to produce it. But, with > your bigotted outlook on life, you'll never understand that point... I'm noticing that you're doing unexpected things with focus, that don't make for "pretty" pictures but if one put them in a gallery then artsy people would wonder "what is the photographer saying with this?"
From: Dudley Hanks on 29 May 2010 13:19 "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:htrhul21vgf(a)news6.newsguy.com... > On 5/29/2010 11:50 AM, Dudley Hanks wrote: >> "Jeff Jones"<jj197109671(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message >> news:4gi1061ia6g7spmhoikfc161ai1gc9a7g9(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 02:25:19 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" >>> <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> Once you get past arbitrary standards, a photo by a blind photographer >>>> might >>>> just well indicate better mastery of the art than that exhibited by the >>>> Mona >>>> Lisa >>> >>> And there you have it folks. Precisely the kind of delusional twit that >>> you've all come to know and support. >>> >> >> I never said mine were, just that a blind photographer might exhibit a >> better mastery of the art than an artist who has exemplary physical >> abilities... The end result may not be as pleasing to the eye of a >> sighted >> person, but it may well have taken supreme skills to produce it. But, >> with >> your bigotted outlook on life, you'll never understand that point... > > I'm noticing that you're doing unexpected things with focus, that don't > make for "pretty" pictures but if one put them in a gallery then artsy > people would wonder "what is the photographer saying with this?" > My goal is a bit of both... As I've said in the past, I hope to produce pics that sighted people can appreciate... That could mean anything from producing a nice, traditional portrait to something like the "still trying to decide" pic. I'm actually starting to get a wee bit of control over focus, due mainly to a lot of bad shots that the focus did something unexpected. In that apple pic, it wasn't that tough to get the focus off the apple. All I had to do is push the shutter release half way down so the camera focused on something else, and then move the apple into position. What "Jeff" thought was an "over-exposed living room wall" is actually a lamp shade. I held the apple right in front of the lens of the camera, which was just slightly in front of the lamp shade, and the couch was on the other side. Now, I wasn't sure whether the camera would focus on the shade, or on the couch, but I knew it would not be on the apple, or, at least I was fairly certain... (my cams still keep surprising me on a regular basis.) Both the apple and the couch were quite dark in colour, and the apple was closer to the light, so I thought it would come out a lot brighter than the dark material in the background, so I tilted the apple a bit and tried to get my fingers (as well as the top ridge of the apple) to put it in a bit of shadow. I was also hoping that, because it was a bit in front of the shade, a bit of silhouetting might help darken the apple. The idea was to get a source of light (God? Truth?) bracketed by dark things (uncertainty? desire?) which constitute the delemma. The end result of all this was to get that whole "Fall of Man" concept going, but in a modern context, indicating that it wasn't just a one time mistake the human race has made, but rather, an on-going ethical delemma we all face with everyday choices, right down to our very comfort and security... The idea isn't to make it look like we're all horrible sinners, but that we are genetically constituted to want the good life, even though it might be our ruin. Take Care, Dudley
From: Dudley Hanks on 29 May 2010 13:27 "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message news:... > > "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message > news:htrhul21vgf(a)news6.newsguy.com... >> On 5/29/2010 11:50 AM, Dudley Hanks wrote: >>> "Jeff Jones"<jj197109671(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message >>> news:4gi1061ia6g7spmhoikfc161ai1gc9a7g9(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 02:25:19 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" >>>> <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Once you get past arbitrary standards, a photo by a blind photographer >>>>> might >>>>> just well indicate better mastery of the art than that exhibited by >>>>> the >>>>> Mona >>>>> Lisa >>>> >>>> And there you have it folks. Precisely the kind of delusional twit that >>>> you've all come to know and support. >>>> >>> >>> I never said mine were, just that a blind photographer might exhibit a >>> better mastery of the art than an artist who has exemplary physical >>> abilities... The end result may not be as pleasing to the eye of a >>> sighted >>> person, but it may well have taken supreme skills to produce it. But, >>> with >>> your bigotted outlook on life, you'll never understand that point... >> >> I'm noticing that you're doing unexpected things with focus, that don't >> make for "pretty" pictures but if one put them in a gallery then artsy >> people would wonder "what is the photographer saying with this?" >> > > My goal is a bit of both... > > As I've said in the past, I hope to produce pics that sighted people can > appreciate... > > That could mean anything from producing a nice, traditional portrait to > something like the "still trying to decide" pic. > > I'm actually starting to get a wee bit of control over focus, due mainly > to a lot of bad shots that the focus did something unexpected. In that > apple pic, it wasn't that tough to get the focus off the apple. All I had > to do is push the shutter release half way down so the camera focused on > something else, and then move the apple into position. > > What "Jeff" thought was an "over-exposed living room wall" is actually a > lamp shade. I held the apple right in front of the lens of the camera, > which was just slightly in front of the lamp shade, and the couch was on > the other side. > > Now, I wasn't sure whether the camera would focus on the shade, or on the > couch, but I knew it would not be on the apple, or, at least I was fairly > certain... (my cams still keep surprising me on a regular basis.) > > Both the apple and the couch were quite dark in colour, and the apple was > closer to the light, so I thought it would come out a lot brighter than > the dark material in the background, so I tilted the apple a bit and tried > to get my fingers (as well as the top ridge of the apple) to put it in a > bit of shadow. I was also hoping that, because it was a bit in front of > the shade, a bit of silhouetting might help darken the apple. > > The idea was to get a source of light (God? Truth?) bracketed by dark > things (uncertainty? desire?) which constitute the delemma. > > The end result of all this was to get that whole "Fall of Man" concept > going, but in a modern context, indicating that it wasn't just a one time > mistake the human race has made, but rather, an on-going ethical delemma > we all face with everyday choices, right down to our very comfort and > security... > > The idea isn't to make it look like we're all horrible sinners, but that > we are genetically constituted to want the good life, even though it might > be our ruin. > > Take Care, > Dudley > > Sorry, I forgot to add that the fingers, in addition to their technical role of trying to darken the top of the apple, symbolically were intended to convey the idea that we have a "grasp" of the ethical quandry, while the focus shift to the background was meant to show that in spite of that tenuous grip, we still tend to focus on our physical needs. Take Care, Dudley
From: DanP on 29 May 2010 13:45 On May 29, 5:54 pm, "David J Taylor" <david- tay...(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > "Dudley Hanks" <dha...(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message > > news:7waMn.5161$Z6.1914(a)edtnps82... > [] > > > I was wondering when somebody would point that out... > > > My only lenses for the XSi are either 3.5 - 5.6 or 4.0 - 5.6, so the > > f/2.8 - 4.3 is still larger, even at long focal lengths... > > The aperture (as an f/number) may be slightly "smaller" (i.e. higher > f/number), but more light is collected because the actual physical > aperture is greater (i.e. more photons get in). If this was true then the sunny f 16 rule will not work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule It does and does not depend on type of lenses, only the f number. DanP
From: Bowser on 29 May 2010 13:47
On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:21:46 -0700, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:50:35 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote in ><80tvv55kb4q74ie5gf7v2lrvjpvp7b1jjv(a)4ax.com>: > >>On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:17:56 -0700, John Navas >><jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>>I've provided more than adequate proof repeatedly (again today), but you >>>are still entitled to your opinion, no matter how unfounded. >> >>OK, just this once: >> >>You claim that the Panny FZ35 AF is as fast as a DSLR. ... > >I haven't said that. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or is >your position so weak you have to put words in my mouth? > >>When you've conquered that one, post a few samples shot at ISO 3200 >>that match the 5D II. > >I have no interest in ISO 3200. Is your position so weak you have to >resort to fringe situations? > >The FZ28 and FZ35 do the job for 99% of the things I want to do, >and I'm not terribly concerned about the other 1%. Then that explains why you're so satisfied with the Pannys. You have very modest demands and can live within the confines of a P&S. 99% of the time. For some of us, who need to get shots at ISO 6400, well, we need more capable tools to do the job. Happy snap shooting. |