Prev: Think I got lucky - thistle photo
Next: Ugg! Ricoh 28-300mm superzoom module for the GXR (horrific at 800ISO)
From: nospam on 2 Jul 2010 17:13
In article <e9ls26t008h3v3ceg7b3omtb9gfqk7ue5j(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
<jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >You've ruined it in post processing so it doesn't matter what you took it on.
>
> Are you so threatened?

obviously it's you who is threatened since you rely on post processing
to fix the shortcomings of the camera (and photographer).

it's not a bug it's a feature.
From: Pete on 2 Jul 2010 17:55
On 2010-07-02 22:09:35 +0100, John Navas said:

> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 20:54:03 +0100, in
> <2010070220540397864-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid>, Pete
> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-07-02 20:33:56 +0100, John Navas said:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:08:47 +0100, in
>>> <i0fmm0$suv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "David J Taylor"
>>> <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, you obviously have different standards. I have owned and used the
>>>> predecessor to your camera, so I have a good idea how it works in
>>>> practice. I also have a compact Panasonic 28-280mm zoom which I use when
>>>> appropriate. Having seen the limitations of both cameras - particularly
>>>> speed of response - is why I now use a DSLR most of the time. Just two
>>>> example: - zooming by twisting the ring on a DSLR lens is /far/ faster
>>>> than having to press a lever one way and then the other, and the precision
>>>> of framing is far greater on the DSLR with it continuous zoom range than
>>>> with the stepped zoom of the Panasonic, and of course the DSLR has much
>>>> less noisy images at the ISOs I wish to use (e.g. ISO 3200).
>>>
>>> So then if I'd only had a dSLR with fast focusing and manual zoom I'd
>>> have gotten a better image: <http://i49.tinypic.com/s5v5mu.jpg>. OK.
>>
>> You've ruined it in post processing so it doesn't matter what you took it on.
>
> Are you so threatened?

The only possible (but extremely improbable) threat I feel is that you
actually took the photo. I like to think that the US Navy has dismissed
you from your duty of flying a Blue Angel to protect public safety,
your crew members, and its expensive aircraft.

A suitable P&S camera is appropriate to take the image that you posted
because: increased DOF, less mass to keep at bay during high G forces,
and easy to operate with one hand. The shot itself is trivial to take
on any camera if one is not also flying an aircraft in a formation
group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Angels

--
Pete

From: John Navas on 2 Jul 2010 18:58
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 22:55:05 +0100, in
<2010070222550595717-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid>, Pete
<available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote:

>On 2010-07-02 22:09:35 +0100, John Navas said:
>
>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 20:54:03 +0100, in
>> <2010070220540397864-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid>, Pete
>> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-07-02 20:33:56 +0100, John Navas said:

>>>> So then if I'd only had a dSLR with fast focusing and manual zoom I'd
>>>> have gotten a better image: <http://i49.tinypic.com/s5v5mu.jpg>. OK.
>>>
>>> You've ruined it in post processing so it doesn't matter what you took it on.
>>
>> Are you so threatened?
>
>The only possible (but extremely improbable) threat I feel is that you
>actually took the photo. I like to think that the US Navy has dismissed
>you from your duty of flying a Blue Angel to protect public safety,
>your crew members, and its expensive aircraft.
>
>A suitable P&S camera is appropriate to take the image that you posted
>because: increased DOF, less mass to keep at bay during high G forces,
>and easy to operate with one hand. The shot itself is trivial to take
>on any camera if one is not also flying an aircraft in a formation
>group.

My shot was taken from the ground.

I do pilot, but I'm only licensed for gliders. ;)

--
Best regards,
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: Pete on 2 Jul 2010 19:38
On 2010-07-02 23:58:47 +0100, John Navas said:

> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 22:55:05 +0100, Pete wrote:
>
>> On 2010-07-02 22:09:35 +0100, John Navas said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 20:54:03 +0100, Pete wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-07-02 20:33:56 +0100, John Navas said:
>
>>>>> So then if I'd only had a dSLR with fast focusing and manual zoom I'd
>>>>> have gotten a better image: <http://i49.tinypic.com/s5v5mu.jpg>. OK.
>>>>
>>>> You've ruined it in post processing so it doesn't matter what you took it on.
>>>
>>> Are you so threatened?
>>
>> The only possible (but extremely improbable) threat I feel is that you
>> actually took the photo. I like to think that the US Navy has dismissed
>> you from your duty of flying a Blue Angel to protect public safety,
>> your crew members, and its expensive aircraft.
>>
>> A suitable P&S camera is appropriate to take the image that you posted
>> because: increased DOF, less mass to keep at bay during high G forces,
>> and easy to operate with one hand. The shot itself is trivial to take
>> on any camera if one is not also flying an aircraft in a formation
>> group.
>
> My shot was taken from the ground.
>
> I do pilot, but I'm only licensed for gliders. ;)

So, all six planes were flying at almost zero altitude and you held
your camera above your head in the middle of the group. Well done in
avoiding the horizon. How long did it take for the bleeding to stop
from your ears? Has your hair grown back yet?

Ok, so your URL references either a shot taken by one of the pilots or
the Blue Angels flew around your glider. Nice shot, but it has been
ruined by processing: it looks like toy models posed on a blue
background then over-sharpened - not something that needs particularly
fast focusing.

--
Pete

From: tony cooper on 2 Jul 2010 20:23
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:58:47 -0700, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 22:55:05 +0100, in
><2010070222550595717-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid>, Pete
><available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2010-07-02 22:09:35 +0100, John Navas said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 20:54:03 +0100, in
>>> <2010070220540397864-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid>, Pete
>>> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-07-02 20:33:56 +0100, John Navas said:
>
>>>>> So then if I'd only had a dSLR with fast focusing and manual zoom I'd
>>>>> have gotten a better image: <http://i49.tinypic.com/s5v5mu.jpg>. OK.
>>>>
>>>> You've ruined it in post processing so it doesn't matter what you took it on.
>>>
>>> Are you so threatened?
>>
>>The only possible (but extremely improbable) threat I feel is that you
>>actually took the photo. I like to think that the US Navy has dismissed
>>you from your duty of flying a Blue Angel to protect public safety,
>>your crew members, and its expensive aircraft.
>>
>>A suitable P&S camera is appropriate to take the image that you posted
>>because: increased DOF, less mass to keep at bay during high G forces,
>>and easy to operate with one hand. The shot itself is trivial to take
>>on any camera if one is not also flying an aircraft in a formation
>>group.
>
>My shot was taken from the ground.
>
>I do pilot, but I'm only licensed for gliders. ;)

And, I suppose, in your hands a glider can do everything a twin-engine
airplane can do.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Think I got lucky - thistle photo
Next: Ugg! Ricoh 28-300mm superzoom module for the GXR (horrific at 800ISO)