Whither high resolution Digital Images?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: gorilla
Next: I was recently at an all-around outdoors store, and the proprietortold me that some people use spotting scopes...
From: Dave Cohen on 4 Aug 2010 12:39 Jeff Jones wrote: > On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:45:33 +0200, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> > wrote: > >> On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote: >>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile >>>>>>> content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a >>>>>>> wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and >>>>>>> appreciated. >>>>>>> A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as >>>>>>> any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it. >>>>>> Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)! >>>>> Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare >>>>> sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been >>>>> previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest >>>>> gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both >>>>> start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after >>>>> one month. >>>> More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a >>>> couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a >>>> grand total of 3 readers. >>>> >>>> But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel >>>> Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise, >>>> blow it back to original size, and compare. >>> I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with. >> Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that >> you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture. > > And you have a very different understanding of what the words "I *NEVER* > post any marketable shots to the net" means. I learned my lesson long ago > when even 240x180 pixel images of mine can be stolen for printed > publications. You stupid fuckwad. > > [Aside: Good thing I learned that lesson too, because just last evening I > found another one of those rarest-insects-on-earth (the subject of the > original 240x180 images of mine that were stolen). An insect that hasn't > been seen alive since 1908 and the only two known specimens in a NY museum > were lost to storage conditions and time, back in the 1940's. This one was > slowly dying on my porch, having been attacked by a spider. So I took many > more photographs of it (after freeing it from the spider) before it died. > This particular genus of insects, /Otiocerus/, have a unique antenna > structure that doesn't survive any preservation process. Its full structure > only visible on live or recently deceased specimens. After it finally > expired from the spider venom I preserved it in a small jar with label for > concrete proof that they still exist, and exist on my land. Had I not > learned that lesson that even a 240x180 image can be stolen for > publications, you would all be seeing a high-resolution image of one of the > rarest insects on earth. Now you won't even get to see a 24x18 pixel one. A > good lesson for all.] > > Show us some images of yours from the latest and greatest full-frame or > medium-format camera that can beat a 1 megapixel Adams photo. We'll all > wait while you to prepare one of YOUR photos for uploading. Oh hell, just > upload any photo of YOURS at all. Because we already know that you don't > even own one camera. > > YOU FUCKINGLY USELESS, BLATANTLY TRANSPARENT, CHILDISHLY MANIPULATIVE, > OFF-TOPIC, THREAD-HIJACKING, PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER TROLL. > Again you post twice. Is this because you don't know how to post or are you anxious we not miss one word of your rant.
From: Scotius on 4 Aug 2010 13:42
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 05:16:56 -0500, Jeff Jones <jj197109671(a)mailinator.com> wrote: >On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> >wrote: > >>On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote: >> >>> And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile >>> content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a >>> wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and >>> appreciated. >> >>> A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as >>> any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it. >> >>Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)! > >Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare >sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been >previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest >gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both >start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after >one month. > >You fuckingly useless IDIOT TROLL. I know what you mean, although you're being a bit harsh about it. I had a Cybershot point and shoot before the Nikon D3000 I just got, and I took a lot of very good shots with it. I'm just not quite accustomed to the 3000 yet, but once I am moreso I'm sure my images will be much better. I seem to have gotten a bit distracted with the greater amount of choices available with it, and so far most of my better images were with the P & S. I am confident though that once I'm more up to speed on the Nikon it will produce even better images, all things about me being equal. |