Things are getting a bit spotty with the 500/4 Nikkor!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Tim Conway on 31 Jul 2010 22:30 "Larry Thong" <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote in message news:o8GdnRoVeqeTR8nRnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d(a)supernews.com... > Well, maybe just a little spotty. > > <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Spots.jpg> > Nice shot. Just needs a catchlight in the eyes. ;-)
From: Superzooms Still Win on 1 Aug 2010 00:50 On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:30:23 -0400, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >"Larry Thong" <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote in message >news:o8GdnRoVeqeTR8nRnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d(a)supernews.com... >> Well, maybe just a little spotty. >> >> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Spots.jpg> >> >Nice shot. Just needs a catchlight in the eyes. ;-) Blue foliage, red fur, someone sorely needs a camera, monitor, or eyes adjusted. Did anyone mention the worthless underexposed composition yet? Interesting that the leaves in front are more in focus than the deer. Looks like its just as much of a problem with camera and lenses as it is the snapshooter. <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4847902759_058421b547_b.jpg>
From: Tim Conway on 1 Aug 2010 01:05 "Superzooms Still Win" <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote in message news:dou956h5f9r0ro571nd3dc1n8fv5f92i6t(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:30:23 -0400, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >> >>"Larry Thong" <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote in message >>news:o8GdnRoVeqeTR8nRnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d(a)supernews.com... >>> Well, maybe just a little spotty. >>> >>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Spots.jpg> >>> >>Nice shot. Just needs a catchlight in the eyes. ;-) > > Blue foliage, red fur, someone sorely needs a camera, monitor, or eyes > adjusted. Did anyone mention the worthless underexposed composition yet? > Interesting that the leaves in front are more in focus than the deer. > Looks > like its just as much of a problem with camera and lenses as it is the > snapshooter. > > <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4847902759_058421b547_b.jpg> No. Rita's is better by far. And the leaves aren't blue.
From: N on 1 Aug 2010 05:36 "Superzooms Still Win" <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote in message news:dou956h5f9r0ro571nd3dc1n8fv5f92i6t(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:30:23 -0400, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >> >>"Larry Thong" <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote in message >>news:o8GdnRoVeqeTR8nRnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d(a)supernews.com... >>> Well, maybe just a little spotty. >>> >>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Spots.jpg> >>> >>Nice shot. Just needs a catchlight in the eyes. ;-) > > Blue foliage, red fur, someone sorely needs a camera, monitor, or eyes > adjusted. Did anyone mention the worthless underexposed composition yet? > Interesting that the leaves in front are more in focus than the deer. > Looks > like its just as much of a problem with camera and lenses as it is the > snapshooter. > > <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4847902759_058421b547_b.jpg> > Have you ever seen an Australian Eucalypt tree? -- N
From: Superzooms Still Win on 1 Aug 2010 06:41
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 19:36:02 +1000, "N" <N(a)onyx.com> wrote: > >"Superzooms Still Win" <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote in message >news:dou956h5f9r0ro571nd3dc1n8fv5f92i6t(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:30:23 -0400, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Larry Thong" <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote in message >>>news:o8GdnRoVeqeTR8nRnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d(a)supernews.com... >>>> Well, maybe just a little spotty. >>>> >>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Spots.jpg> >>>> >>>Nice shot. Just needs a catchlight in the eyes. ;-) >> >> Blue foliage, red fur, someone sorely needs a camera, monitor, or eyes >> adjusted. Did anyone mention the worthless underexposed composition yet? >> Interesting that the leaves in front are more in focus than the deer. >> Looks >> like its just as much of a problem with camera and lenses as it is the >> snapshooter. >> >> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4847902759_058421b547_b.jpg> >> > >Have you ever seen an Australian Eucalypt tree? No, but other varieties, which generally are grayish-green. What does an Australian Eucalypt tree have to do with the severely bad color shifts in this image? There's not one Eucalypt leaf anywhere in that photo. It looks like the numbnutz forgot to take it off of cloudy white-balance or something. Or even worse, left it on auto white-balance which would easily account for the odd colors in this image. The auto white-balance trying to overcompensate for the green light source from the canopy so it removed green from the leaves turning them blue and removed green from the brown of the fur giving it that nasty red magenta cast. If you've not done a lot of photography under a dense foliage canopy you probably don't have one clue about any of these things. There are many many many situations in nature photography where you CANNOT use auto white-balance. But then how would any of you crappy snapshooters know about this when all of you use your cameras in full auto point and shoot mode at all times. If the camera won't do it for you then you think it's supposed to be that way or you just didn't buy a camera that was expensive enough. Idiots, one and all. |