"Ifff you go out in the sun today..." Better make sure your camera/lens is metal!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: "Ifff you go out in the sun today..." Better make sure your camera/lens is metal!
Next: [RICH] Don't forget to send your "Pinhole" shots, due tomorrow!
From: Peter on 22 Jul 2010 08:34 "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:rr9hh7-gms.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... > Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>>> The very definition of black is the absence of radiation. > >>> ITYM reflection. > >>> Just because usual black stuff radiates warmth on earth and >>> you cannot see it, that doesn't mean no radiation. > >> I am usually reasonably precise in my language. If there was any >> ambiguity I >> cleared it up. > > You cleared up that you have no idea what black does or is. > >> Reread you own statement. > > My statement is correct. > >> Believe what you will, I have said >> all I care to.. > > So you intent to stop digging your own hole? Whatever you say! My comment was made in the context of photography. As we should have learned from recent events, context is important to understanding. -- Peter
From: Peter on 24 Jul 2010 08:10 "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:0frph7-145.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... > Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >>>>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>>>>> The very definition of black is the absence of radiation. > > [...] > >>>> Believe what you will, I have said >>>> all I care to.. > >>> So you intent to stop digging your own hole? > >> Whatever you say! >> My comment was made in the context of photography. As we should have >> learned >> from recent events, context is important to understanding. > > And here I thought you stopped digging. In what context of > photography does black not radiate? Exactly how does your claimed black radiation affect fine art photography? -- Peter
From: James Nagler on 24 Jul 2010 08:20 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:10:07 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >news:0frph7-145.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... >> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >>>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>>> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>> The very definition of black is the absence of radiation. >> >> [...] >> >>>>> Believe what you will, I have said >>>>> all I care to.. >> >>>> So you intent to stop digging your own hole? >> >>> Whatever you say! >>> My comment was made in the context of photography. As we should have >>> learned >>> from recent events, context is important to understanding. >> >> And here I thought you stopped digging. In what context of >> photography does black not radiate? > > >Exactly how does your claimed black radiation affect fine art photography? Higher thermal energy driven deeper into the camera faster will also cause much more noise on any digital camera sensor. Black coated metal was okay for film photography, the higher temperatures only shortened the retention of the image on the film (or caused haze if in great excess), it didn't induce more grain. But for digital photography black metal is the worst possible option. "Pros" who pushed for "Pro Black" on digital cameras have never been too intelligent. They're just blind following peer-pressured apes trying to impress the next guy without ever thinking about what they are really doing. Monkey see, monkey do.
From: Peter on 24 Jul 2010 20:27
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:nn8rh7-rv5.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... > Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message > >>> And here I thought you stopped digging. In what context of >>> photography does black not radiate? > >> Exactly how does your claimed black radiation affect fine art >> photography? > > China doesn't affect fine art photography either, do you > suppose in the context of photography it does not exist? > > BTW, your goal post moving becomes very obvious. > It is obvious that you know a little about a lot of things and are seeking to demonstrate your superiority. But, your argument is getting downright silly, (in the British use of the word.) I repeat, the context of my remarks has consistently been photography. I shall be delighted to discuss Hawkins, Einstein, black hole theory and its effect on gamma particles, quantum computing or relativity. But not in this forum. Here I am a pragmatist, not a theorist. -- Peter |