Prev: HP Desket 970 paper feed
Next: quelle imprimante (autre que laser) ne tache pas la feuille (avec de l'eau) une fois imprim� ?
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 10 Feb 2010 14:16
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>
>> [Answer-placeholder, that he snipped

> Huh?

> You wouldn't be obfuscating would you? I snipped nothing, you snipped
> though. Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing whom you are talking to: the Slime (trolls
have a certain level of intelligence and integrity). Right now
you are feeding it, way to much. It's completely insane and
DSLRphobic while P&S is it's GOD. As any mad worshipper who'd
be willing to commit mass murder for the glory of it's god and
to slay all infidels, it's completely unconcerned about truth,
honesty or stealing DSLR shots that it claims are physically
impossible P&S shots. Better trust the worst used car salesman
on the world with all your money and your family's life ...

The worst thing for the Slime one can do is ignoring it
consequently.

>> I have no problems using P&S shutter speeds over 1/500 second to stop
>> insects in flight in hand-held available-light macros. Without high ISO
>> noise nor having to quarter the image size by using pixel-binning

You'll never see any more than a tiny 640x480 image on a by
nature temporary flickr URL stolen from some innocent account
--- and of course with no EXIF. DOF or quality will be near
impossible to judge, and it might even be a scan from a magazine.
Or, most likely, you never see anything at all, ever -- it HAS no
such image. And 1/500s is way to slow to stop many, if not most,
insects' wing beating --- which is why real people do that with
a flash. Which, of course, could theoretically be synced to
the P&S ... whereas a DSLR would likely have a slightly slower
sync speed.

-Wolfgang
From: BD on 10 Feb 2010 18:55

> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2793/4347323170_4c21955dfc_o.jpg

No EXIF data. Your argument is invalid.
From: BD on 10 Feb 2010 19:33

> You're just as fuckingly stupid as the rest of the trolls in these groups.

Nothin' but net...
From: Paul Furman on 10 Feb 2010 20:45
On 2/10/2010 3:52 PM, Educating the Beginner MoronS wrote:
> Here's one that I took, lit with incandescent lab lights only, on an
> outdoor photography stage, hand-held, no flash. Albeit, not one of the many
> marketable shots I took, the framing and composition is wrong. When I frame
> with the EVF or LCD I use the full frame, no room for cropping. None of you
> will ever see the good ones, they are for private sale only.
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2793/4347323170_4c21955dfc_o.jpg

Wow, 560 pixels!
Good for more than a one-inch print at 300dpi.
From: Frank ess on 10 Feb 2010 21:56


Paul Furman wrote:
> On 2/10/2010 3:52 PM, Educating the Beginner MoronS wrote:
>> Here's one that I took, lit with incandescent lab lights only, on
>> an outdoor photography stage, hand-held, no flash. Albeit, not one
>> of the many marketable shots I took, the framing and composition
>> is wrong. When I frame with the EVF or LCD I use the full frame,
>> no room for cropping. None of you will ever see the good ones,
>> they are for private sale only.
>>
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2793/4347323170_4c21955dfc_o.jpg
>

/Self-portrait With Shadow/

> Wow, 560 pixels!
> Good for more than a one-inch print at 300dpi.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: HP Desket 970 paper feed
Next: quelle imprimante (autre que laser) ne tache pas la feuille (avec de l'eau) une fois imprim� ?