Things are getting a bit spotty with the 500/4 Nikkor!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bruce on 1 Aug 2010 14:25 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:06:35 -0500, Superzooms Still Win <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:51:22 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 06:41:15 -0500, Superzooms Still Win >><ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:21:28 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Your inability to control depth of field (because of your camera's >>>>small sensor) means that foreground and background elements of the >>>>shot that should be rendered out of focus, can't be. The result is >>>>that they detract from the subject. >>> >>>Using shallow DOF in this shot would totally destroy why it was taken and >>>why it has to be shot this way in order for it to work. >>> >>><http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4849242652_76160e4a2c.jpg> >> >> >>Nice grass. And so sharp! >> >>Look how well it hides that inconvenient animal ... > >Whoosh! Right over that cavity on your neck. > >You don't get out much into the real world. That much is more than clear. You're right. I don't take an afternoon drive, stop to take a snapshot of a waterfall from the roadside, then claim it was some work of art taken after a 14 day trek in the wilderness. No, I don't do that at all. ;-)
From: Doug McDonald on 1 Aug 2010 14:36 >> >> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4847902759_058421b547_b.jpg> >> Why do people post URLs that are "unavailable"? Doug
From: Superzooms Still Win on 1 Aug 2010 14:47 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:25:10 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:06:35 -0500, Superzooms Still Win ><ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:51:22 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 06:41:15 -0500, Superzooms Still Win >>><ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:21:28 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Your inability to control depth of field (because of your camera's >>>>>small sensor) means that foreground and background elements of the >>>>>shot that should be rendered out of focus, can't be. The result is >>>>>that they detract from the subject. >>>> >>>>Using shallow DOF in this shot would totally destroy why it was taken and >>>>why it has to be shot this way in order for it to work. >>>> >>>><http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4849242652_76160e4a2c.jpg> >>> >>> >>>Nice grass. And so sharp! >>> >>>Look how well it hides that inconvenient animal ... >> >>Whoosh! Right over that cavity on your neck. >> >>You don't get out much into the real world. That much is more than clear. > > >You're right. I don't take an afternoon drive, stop to take a >snapshot of a waterfall from the roadside, then claim it was some work >of art taken after a 14 day trek in the wilderness. > >No, I don't do that at all. ;-) > Doesn't matter what you believe. I know I wasn't on any road or in any vehicle when I shot that photo. But why is it that in all other images of those falls posted on the net that you can't see the east wall of the falls but in my photo it is clearly seen and makes the falls look so much better? Now explain how I drove a car to that peak far above the tree-lines in the Rockies where it was snowing in August and took that shot overlooking that valley a mile below. Must have been one helluva jeep, eh? Or how about that extremely rare plant deep in the swamps, must have been an Amphicar for that one, right? It's illegal to propagate that plant (they even made a movie about it), in case you didn't know that, so it can't be found anywhere near civilization. Or maybe that Mule-deer in the plains grasses just happened to be lying next to the road because it was hit. How come you didn't come up with these lies too? They're just as obvious, aren't they? You fuckingly useless insecure city-boy momma's-boy of a troll. I'm sorry that your life hasn't been as adventurous and wondrous as mine. And that you haven't seen and photographed as amazing things as I have all my life. But that's your own sorry excuse of a life and pathetic fault. Try to not take out your regret of a life on those who haven't lived as sheltered and wuss of a life as you have lived. You've made that quite obvious.
From: Superzooms Still Win on 1 Aug 2010 14:53 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:36:35 -0500, Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote: > >>> >>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4847902759_058421b547_b.jpg> >>> > > >Why do people post URLs that are "unavailable"? > >Doug It already served its purpose.
From: Peter on 1 Aug 2010 14:44
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in message news:i34eka$q0a$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu... > >>> >>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4847902759_058421b547_b.jpg> >>> > > > Why do people post URLs that are "unavailable"? > Obviously because we are not worthy of getting more than a limited view of this "great art." <\end sarcastic tag> -- Peter |