Anything for the Perfect Shot
Matt Clara
Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
Semi-Yawning
wrote:
>http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
I fail to see what's so odd about some of those shots with the
photographers who are vying for unique angles and positions. Take for
example the ones where they are patiently composing while chest deep in
water, for just one example. Done that many hundreds of times myself when
on expeditions to document some of the world's rarest of the rare orchids
found only in remote gator and croc infested swamps, or to document the
rare birds, reptiles, insects and other critters in those habitats. Chest
or neck deep with camera held above to keep it dry was common. There's no
other way to bring back the shots because the subjects only live in those
conditions. You won't find them in zoos and hot-houses. It's illegal to
poach the orchids or grow them commercially. You have to go where they are,
there's no other way. Climbing trees, hanging off the edges of narrow
outcrops of rock, been there, done that too. If you know animal behavior
well it also wasn't uncommon to get within 2-3 feet of a 16 ft. alligator
in the wilds to get a close-up shot of its eye or for some other
interesting composition. (One of those also happens to be one of my more
favorite shots over the years.)
Let me guess, the people astounded or amused by those types of examples of
photographers doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing are the
typical snapshooters that take everything from a standing position,
eye-level, and nothing more unusual or interesting than Mabel's Birthday
Party. Then they wonder why, after they've spent $5000+ on camera gear,
they still end up saying to other photographers with less expensive
equipment, "How come your images are so much better than mine? You must
have a more expensive camera, right? You couldn't have possibly shot all
your images with THAT!" So they go merrily on their way, photographing
everything that they can, flash always turned on so they never have to
change any settings, the flash always making all their images flat and
artificial looking, never stepping away from some surface that's been
conveniently paved for them, and all shot from a standing eye-level.
Yawn ....
nick c
As Mr. Clara said "Anything-for-the-perfect-shot" and "Some fun ones
in there, too." I would say what he said was correct.
al-Farrob
So do I. I can't see why not.
José Varela
www.al-farrob.com
Semi-Yawning
wrote:
>Jos� Varela
>www.al-farrob.com
The point being, that these are presented as some form of photographer's
behavioral extremism. When what is being presented there should be just as
natural as anything for all photographers, every time that they have a
camera in their hands. If not, then I guess they can easily count
themselves into that wonderful group of people known as "snapshooters", not
photographers. In fact, that assemblage of photos of photographers could
make a good test. "Do you see anything unusual about the behavior of these
people?" If no, then you might be a photographer. If yes, then you're the
typical brain-dead snapshooter.
Though I do readily admit that those gear-head shots are quite silly. The
ones where people are depending on as much hardware as possible to get a
worthwhile photograph. That's just the blatant spot-on earmark of another
form of brain-dead snapshooter.
I loved this one
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1097/900587272_3bcc1fcd7f.jpg of special
complex gear with an automated triggering system designed to capture
insects in flight. What a talentless hack gear-head snapshooter. I do
insect-flight photos all the time just using available light with any
macro-capable camera. My best shot to date being a hand-held photo of a
flying insect only 4-5mm long, filling the full frame and in perfect focus,
no subject-destroying flash required. May the snapshooter who designed that
ridiculously cumbersome automated point and shoot camera-rig learn how to
focus and manually press a shutter button at the right time sometime during
their life.
al-Farrob
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:11:45 -0700 (PDT), al-Farrob <alFar...@gmail.com>
> >www.al-farrob.com
>
> The point being, that these are presented as some form of photographer's
> behavioral extremism. When what is being presented there should be just as
> natural as anything for all photographers, every time that they have a
> camera in their hands. If not, then I guess they can easily count
> themselves into that wonderful group of people known as "snapshooters", not
> photographers. In fact, that assemblage of photos of photographers could
> make a good test. "Do you see anything unusual about the behavior of these
> people?" If no, then you might be a photographer. If yes, then you're the
> typical brain-dead snapshooter.
>
> Though I do readily admit that those gear-head shots are quite silly. The
> ones where people are depending on as much hardware as possible to get a
> worthwhile photograph. That's just the blatant spot-on earmark of another
> form of brain-dead snapshooter.
>
> complex gear with an automated triggering system designed to capture
> insects in flight. What a talentless hack gear-head snapshooter. I do
> insect-flight photos all the time just using available light with any
> macro-capable camera. My best shot to date being a hand-held photo of a
> flying insect only 4-5mm long, filling the full frame and in perfect focus,
> no subject-destroying flash required. May the snapshooter who designed that
> ridiculously cumbersome automated point and shoot camera-rig learn how to
> focus and manually press a shutter button at the right time sometime during
> their life.
Well, I am just a mortal :)
José Varela
www.al-farrob.com
ASAAR
> Well, I am just a mortal :)
And you've been conversing with the newsgroup's anti-DSLR sock
puppet troll, who will soon switch names in an attempt to avoid
being recognized by newsreader's kill filters. He's used hundreds
of different names, but is quite recognizable, both by his writing
style and by the content of his message headers. Most of what he
claims to have done is pure fiction, but he does suck in the
gullible that haven't read enough of his replies to recognize this.
When exposed, his replies often contain "Oh look, another . . . ."
and "LOL!!!!".
Troll Killer
Dear Resident, Pretend-Photographer, DSLR-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics
that befit these newsgroups. Please consider them for future discussions
and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and
models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your
photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can
far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or
will ever be made for larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than
any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used
with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent).
Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their
teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than
any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters
can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic
aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this
allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm
equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own
lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than
larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic
Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent)
sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much
smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures
and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for
DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than
DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per
lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best
DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that
the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the
amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x
P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens.
After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th
the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get
comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length
ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or
equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at
the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a
heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer
focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment
to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR
you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc.
etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial
DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their
banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera
plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing
just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would
require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in
the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that
*might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to
lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.)
You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a
wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You
also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer,
you will not be barred from using your camera at public events,
stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots
you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious
clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's
images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not
endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by
alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you
may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where
any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance.
Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware
into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time
allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for
unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you
may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a
rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a
mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse
hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the
creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all
here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast
subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the
need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone.
Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane
shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when
photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions
example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync
without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter
flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the
shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to
those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the
faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your
camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when
using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter
the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras
where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast
single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of
a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second,
then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't
require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be
used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that
can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground,
90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously
loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily
damaged, expensive repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street;
you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot
(fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete
while you do; and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos
that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous
photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of
unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like
food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been
able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer
focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent
macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements.
All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating,
natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the
quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with
nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters
who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the
same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do
then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even
your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the
DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and
the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo
audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature
where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong.
E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living
field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't
miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like
the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion,
or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of
the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery
of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of
the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with
you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of
human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your
final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your
composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With
the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area
alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your
electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your
exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from
the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display,
ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and
sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as
light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in
total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other
multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of
nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames
of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural
behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is
not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting
and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an
irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly
100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither
scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence.
Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your
direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some
artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the
greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence,
with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving
subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A
leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will
capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S
photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down
another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all
the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those
agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the
shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will
always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss
auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This
allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S
cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every
shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately
relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate
preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3
seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the
crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100%
accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot.
What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess
in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or
those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your
client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter
speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could
half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's
30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without
ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter
speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly
seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize
what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use
of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender
on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would
with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject
at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens
in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a
computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the
focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up
the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically
related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs
with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up
on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S
camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S
camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in
existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent
camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs
you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings.
Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths
require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs,
you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some
excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any
way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of
around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer
today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award
winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago.
If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able
to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a
good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they
NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same
people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only
had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I
will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their
hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right
offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that
they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these
people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin
with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might
one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is
that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been
all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why
these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras
instantly reveal to them their piss-poor photography skills. It also
reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them
any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera
gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile
and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the
look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that
lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being.
Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that
time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun
experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth
mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that
is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more
award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home,
collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack
or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you.
That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS
STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only
take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with
all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're
not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more
than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras
are just better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of the pretend-photographer usenet trolls yelling "You NEED
a DSLR!" can be summed up in just one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains
a foolish thing."
PatM
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:11:45 -0700 (PDT), al-Farrob <alFar...@gmail.com>
> >www.al-farrob.com
>
> The point being, that these are presented as some form of photographer's
> behavioral extremism. When what is being presented there should be just as
> natural as anything for all photographers, every time that they have a
> camera in their hands. If not, then I guess they can easily count
> themselves into that wonderful group of people known as "snapshooters", not
> photographers. In fact, that assemblage of photos of photographers could
> make a good test. "Do you see anything unusual about the behavior of these
> people?" If no, then you might be a photographer. If yes, then you're the
> typical brain-dead snapshooter.
>
> Though I do readily admit that those gear-head shots are quite silly. The
> ones where people are depending on as much hardware as possible to get a
> worthwhile photograph. That's just the blatant spot-on earmark of another
> form of brain-dead snapshooter.
>
> complex gear with an automated triggering system designed to capture
> insects in flight. What a talentless hack gear-head snapshooter. I do
> insect-flight photos all the time just using available light with any
> macro-capable camera. My best shot to date being a hand-held photo of a
> flying insect only 4-5mm long, filling the full frame and in perfect focus,
> no subject-destroying flash required. May the snapshooter who designed that
> ridiculously cumbersome automated point and shoot camera-rig learn how to
> focus and manually press a shutter button at the right time sometime during
> their life.
The ONLY thing I thought weird about that rig was that there was a
neck-strap on the camera.
PatM
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:25:14 -0400, "Matt Clara" <n...@myexpense.com>
Some of those pictures would have been a hoot if someone had PS'd a
"Kodak Picture Spot" sign (or whatever it is called as Disney). into
the background.
Semi-Yawning
>> >Jos� Varela
How else were they going to try to haul that ungainly, cumbersome,
cinder-block-heavy, and totally unnecessary contraption to where the
insects were flying? Talk about majorly silly on all counts... wow. Someone
like that shouldn't even be allowed to be near a Brownie box camera. This
is a glaring example of what happens when someone has more money and time
than brains and talent. Just like nearly all digital "photographers" these
days.
John McWilliams
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:25:14 -0400, "Matt Clara" <no...@myexpense.com>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>
> I fail to see what's so odd about some of those shots with the
> photographers who are vying for unique angles and positions.
It's just an amusing compendium. Just a web site. Doesn't require a
thesis from an embittered man.
--
lsmft
John Navas
wrote in <h1is6p$4bc$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
Amen.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
Fully-Yawning
Identified too strongly with the snapshooter's and incompetent gear-head's
perception of it, did you?
Thought so.
That can be the only reason for a reply such as yours.
Alan Browne
> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
Those have been posted before, Matt. There are some good ones in there
(the fellow with the view camera on the side of cliff, for example...)
That site had a lot of pop-up ads ("Your computer is a swamp filled with
computer viruses") and persistent ads too. (Cancel the pop up and they
come right up again).
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Alan Browne
> Semi-Yawning wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:25:14 -0400, "Matt Clara" <no...@myexpense.com>
>> wrote:
>> I fail
>
> As Mr. Clara said "Anything-for-the-perfect-shot" and "Some fun ones in
> there, too." I would say what he said was correct.
Best not to reply to trolls, even the semi-intelligent one.
Alan Browne
Embittered troll, you mean.
Troll Killer
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 20-06-09 01:58, nick c wrote:
>> Semi-Yawning wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:25:14 -0400, "Matt Clara" <no...@myexpense.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>> I fail
>>
>> As Mr. Clara said "Anything-for-the-perfect-shot" and "Some fun ones in
>> there, too." I would say what he said was correct.
>
>Best not to reply to trolls, even the semi-intelligent one.
Oh and ...
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 19-06-09 23:25, Matt Clara wrote:
>> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>
>Those have been posted before, Matt. There are some good ones in there
>(the fellow with the view camera on the side of cliff, for example...)
>
>That site had a lot of pop-up ads ("Your computer is a swamp filled with
>computer viruses") and persistent ads too. (Cancel the pop up and they
>come right up again).
Never reply to trolls that are too stupid to know how to filter out all
pop-ups while surfing the net.
John McWilliams
> On 20-06-09 10:35, John McWilliams wrote:
>> Semi-Yawning wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:25:14 -0400, "Matt Clara" <no...@myexpense.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>>>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>>>
>>> I fail to see what's so odd about some of those shots with the
>>> photographers who are vying for unique angles and positions.
>>
>> It's just an amusing compendium. Just a web site. Doesn't require a
>> thesis from an embittered man.
>
> Embittered troll, you mean.
No, I don't. Pest, though.
--
lsmft
Troll Killer
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 20-06-09 10:35, John McWilliams wrote:
>> Semi-Yawning wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:25:14 -0400, "Matt Clara" <no...@myexpense.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>>>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>>>
>>> I fail to see what's so odd about some of those shots with the
>>> photographers who are vying for unique angles and positions.
>>
>> It's just an amusing compendium. Just a web site. Doesn't require a
>> thesis from an embittered man.
>
>Embittered troll, you mean.
John McWilliams
> On 19-06-09 23:25, Matt Clara wrote:
>> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>
> Those have been posted before, Matt. There are some good ones in there
> (the fellow with the view camera on the side of cliff, for example...)
>
> That site had a lot of pop-up ads ("Your computer is a swamp filled with
> computer viruses") and persistent ads too. (Cancel the pop up and they
> come right up again).
Not a single popup using Safari just ten minutes ago.
--
john mcwilliams
Troll Killer
Alan Browne
I was using Firefox with ad-block activated. This was not the pop-over
type, but drop boxes when scrolling or closing the page.
I dislike Safari. Very jerky performance on large page loads. Horrible
response time on Google maps. A few other nits that I don't recall offhand.
John Navas
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in
<VsqdncZrFvOrYaHX...@giganews.com>:
>On 20-06-09 11:01, John McWilliams wrote:
>> Not a single popup using Safari just ten minutes ago.
>
>I was using Firefox with ad-block activated. This was not the pop-over
>type, but drop boxes when scrolling or closing the page.
>
>I dislike Safari. Very jerky performance on large page loads. Horrible
>response time on Google maps. A few other nits that I don't recall offhand.
I likewise use Firefox and dislike Safari.
Chrome is faster, but Firefox more capable.
I'm looking forward to Firefox 3.5,
which closes the speed gap with Chrome.
Alan Browne
I do hope they fix the right button select in Firefox. It is one little
nit (on Google Maps you can use the right button to select a point on
the map, this works in Safari, but not in Firefox on the Mac. It works
in both Chrome and Firefox under WinXP (on a PC and on the Mac).
George Kerby
On 6/20/09 9:50 AM, in article
9JKdnV7bbJajaqHX...@giganews.com, "Alan Browne"
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 19-06-09 23:25, Matt Clara wrote:
>> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>
> Those have been posted before, Matt. There are some good ones in there
> (the fellow with the view camera on the side of cliff, for example...)
>
> That site had a lot of pop-up ads ("Your computer is a swamp filled with
> computer viruses") and persistent ads too. (Cancel the pop up and they
> come right up again).
>
Get a Mac!
George Kerby
On 6/20/09 10:01 AM, in article h1itmb$c8a$2...@news.eternal-september.org,
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
Same here.
I didn't even know about them until Allen mentioned them.
And so it goes..
George Kerby
On 6/20/09 10:26 AM, in article 6rvp359ullk2j5ijn...@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
Who cares?
Robert Spanjaard
>> Those have been posted before, Matt. There are some good ones in there
>> (the fellow with the view camera on the side of cliff, for example...)
>>
>> That site had a lot of pop-up ads ("Your computer is a swamp filled
>> with computer viruses") and persistent ads too. (Cancel the pop up and
>> they come right up again).
>>
> Get a Mac!
Get a Brain!
Alan posted his message using a Mac.
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
Barry Ghastler
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 20-06-09 11:26, John Navas wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:11:50 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in
>> <VsqdncZrFvOrYaHX...@giganews.com>:
>>
>>> On 20-06-09 11:01, John McWilliams wrote:
>>
>>>> Not a single popup using Safari just ten minutes ago.
>>> I was using Firefox with ad-block activated. This was not the pop-over
>>> type, but drop boxes when scrolling or closing the page.
>>>
>>> I dislike Safari. Very jerky performance on large page loads. Horrible
>>> response time on Google maps. A few other nits that I don't recall offhand.
>>
>> I likewise use Firefox and dislike Safari.
>> Chrome is faster, but Firefox more capable.
>> I'm looking forward to Firefox 3.5,
>> which closes the speed gap with Chrome.
>
>I do hope they fix the right button select in Firefox. It is one little
>nit (on Google Maps you can use the right button to select a point on
>the map, this works in Safari, but not in Firefox on the Mac. It works
>in both Chrome and Firefox under WinXP (on a PC and on the Mac).
Ah, it warms the cockles of my heart. To see them finally discussing the
only thing that they know something about, browsing software. Without that
knowledge how else then could they pretend to be photographers online.
Alan Browne
Kerby's been in my filter for a long time. I don't recall anything he's
posted worth reading.
Alan Browne
Well, oh wise one, please do post YOUR photos and show us what a master
can do.
By the way, most competent photographers keep their name the same so
that they can be recognized. There is the problem however where the big
mouths with nothing to show have to keep changing their names so they
can avoid filtering.
So I do wish you would stick to one name so that you could inhabit my
filter set quietly and, well, productively.
Matt Clara
news:9JKdnV7bbJajaqHX...@giganews.com...
> On 19-06-09 23:25, Matt Clara wrote:
>> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>
> Those have been posted before, Matt. There are some good ones in there
> (the fellow with the view camera on the side of cliff, for example...)
>
> That site had a lot of pop-up ads ("Your computer is a swamp filled with
> computer viruses") and persistent ads too. (Cancel the pop up and they
> come right up again).
>
Never saw a single pop up. Kaspersky.
John McWilliams
> On 20-06-09 11:26, John Navas wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:11:50 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in
>> <VsqdncZrFvOrYaHX...@giganews.com>:
>>
>>> On 20-06-09 11:01, John McWilliams wrote:
>>
>>>> Not a single popup using Safari just ten minutes ago.
>>> I was using Firefox with ad-block activated. This was not the pop-over
>>> type, but drop boxes when scrolling or closing the page.
>>>
>>> I dislike Safari. Very jerky performance on large page loads. Horrible
>>> response time on Google maps. A few other nits that I don't recall
>>> offhand.
>>
>> I likewise use Firefox and dislike Safari.
>> Chrome is faster, but Firefox more capable.
>> I'm looking forward to Firefox 3.5,
>> which closes the speed gap with Chrome.
>
> I do hope they fix the right button select in Firefox. It is one little
> nit (on Google Maps you can use the right button to select a point on
> the map, this works in Safari, but not in Firefox on the Mac. It works
> in both Chrome and Firefox under WinXP (on a PC and on the Mac).
I use FF and Camino fairly extensively, also. Safari's seldom if ever
choked, and none of them exhibit speed issues that are irksome.
Have you tried the new version of Safari, recently out of beta?
--
john mcwilliams
Alan Browne
I'll wait for the release.
Alan Browne
Mac.
I rarely see anything like the pop ups from that site. Last time was in
2008, IIRC... ABP in Firefox is quite good.
John McWilliams
> On 20-06-09 13:50, John McWilliams wrote:
>> I use FF and Camino fairly extensively, also. Safari's seldom if ever
>> choked, and none of them exhibit speed issues that are irksome.
>>
>> Have you tried the new version of Safari, recently out of beta?
>
> I'll wait for the release.
It's at 4.0.1; I said out OF beta, not out in beta....
--
john mcwilliams
Alan Browne
Misread that.
Downloading now.
Lloyd W.
news:h8qo35da3pc5i6sfu...@4ax.com...
>
>>http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>>Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>
> example the ones where they are patiently composing while chest deep in
> water, for just one example. Done that many hundreds of times myself when
> on expeditions to document some of the world's rarest of the rare orchids
> found only in remote gator and croc infested swamps, or to document the
> rare birds, reptiles, insects and other critters in those habitats. Chest
> or neck deep with camera held above to keep it dry was common. There's no
> other way to bring back the shots because the subjects only live in those
> conditions. You won't find them in zoos and hot-houses. It's illegal to
> poach the orchids or grow them commercially. You have to go where they
> are,
> there's no other way. Climbing trees, hanging off the edges of narrow
> outcrops of rock, been there, done that too. If you know animal behavior
> well it also wasn't uncommon to get within 2-3 feet of a 16 ft. alligator
> in the wilds to get a close-up shot of its eye or for some other
> interesting composition. (One of those also happens to be one of my more
> favorite shots over the years.)
>
> Let me guess, the people astounded or amused by those types of examples of
> photographers doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing are the
> typical snapshooters that take everything from a standing position,
> eye-level, and nothing more unusual or interesting than Mabel's Birthday
> Party. Then they wonder why, after they've spent $5000+ on camera gear,
> they still end up saying to other photographers with less expensive
> equipment, "How come your images are so much better than mine? You must
> have a more expensive camera, right? You couldn't have possibly shot all
> your images with THAT!" So they go merrily on their way, photographing
> everything that they can, flash always turned on so they never have to
> change any settings, the flash always making all their images flat and
> artificial looking, never stepping away from some surface that's been
> conveniently paved for them, and all shot from a standing eye-level.
>
> Yawn ....
>
>
>
Pompous blowhard
Alan Browne
> "Semi-Yawning"<s...@here.com> wrote in message
> news:h8qo35da3pc5i6sfu...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:25:14 -0400, "Matt Clara"<no...@myexpense.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>> I fail
>
> Pompous blowhard
Yes, but you could have clipped out his diatribe...
Alan Browne
Comparing it on various pages and Firefox is blowing it away 4 times out
of 5. Safari often has a long lag between link punch and showing
content. It now seems pretty good on Google Maps.
lobo
"Matt Clara" <no...@myexpense.com> wrote in message
news:wEY_l.350$W_2...@newsfe02.iad...
>
> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
Be careful viewing this site. Avast! indicated a Trojan.
George Kerby
On 6/20/09 11:30 AM, in article
40dec$4a3d0e88$5469b618$12...@cache90.multikabel.net, "Robert Spanjaard"
<spam...@arumes.com> wrote:
Get lost. I had not a single problem using Mac Safari. FOAD.
George Kerby
On 6/20/09 11:36 AM, in article
D7adnYCDab-WjaDX...@giganews.com, "Alan Browne"
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 20-06-09 12:30, Robert Spanjaard wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:08:14 -0500, George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>>> Those have been posted before, Matt. There are some good ones in there
>>>> (the fellow with the view camera on the side of cliff, for example...)
>>>>
>>>> That site had a lot of pop-up ads ("Your computer is a swamp filled
>>>> with computer viruses") and persistent ads too. (Cancel the pop up and
>>>> they come right up again).
>>>>
>>> Get a Mac!
>>
>> Get a Brain!
>>
>> Alan posted his message using a Mac.
>
> Kerby's been in my filter for a long time. I don't recall anything he's
> posted worth reading.
>
That's because you don't have a lick of intelligence yourself. Let alone
recall...
George Kerby
On 6/20/09 12:54 PM, in article
2-ydnVCwj6HRv6DX...@giganews.com, "Alan Browne"
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
Like I said, comprehension is not your stellar talent:
John said "out of beta", and you replied like an idiot, as usual.
George Kerby
On 6/20/09 1:34 PM, in article h1ja6h$gvg$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
Well, DUHHHHH!!!!!
Alan Browne
I did get some pop ups there, but nothing from my virus detector. Oh, I
don't have a virus detector. I have a Mac.
Lloyd W.
news:sNqdnaCpkpb-rqDX...@giganews.com...
> On 20-06-09 15:03, Lloyd W. wrote:
>> "Semi-Yawning"<s...@here.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8qo35da3pc5i6sfu...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:25:14 -0400, "Matt Clara"<no...@myexpense.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>>>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>
>>> I fail
>>
>> Pompous blowhard
>
> Yes, but you could have clipped out his diatribe...
>
pomposity to a few sentences but, in the end, thought latecomers may not
been able to capture the OPs smug ignorance w/o the full text.
Anyway, your point is well-taken.
ASAAR
Browne wrote:
>> Ah, it warms the cockles of my heart. To see them finally discussing the
>> only thing that they know something about, browsing software. Without that
>> knowledge how else then could they pretend to be photographers online.
>
> Well, oh wise one, please do post YOUR photos and show us what a master
> can do.
>
> By the way, most competent photographers keep their name the same so
> that they can be recognized. There is the problem however where the big
> mouths with nothing to show have to keep changing their names so they
> can avoid filtering.
>
> So I do wish you would stick to one name so that you could inhabit my
> filter set quietly and, well, productively.
Hmm, replying to our anti-DSLR sock puppet troll after advising
others in the ng :
======================================================
> John Navas wrote:
>
>> You may think you're being clever with changing From, but your headers
>> still identify you.
>
> Stop feeding it. Don't reply.
======================================================
> Stephen Bishop wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:59:27 -0600, Don Stauffer
> > <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Don't feed the trolls!
> >
> >
> > But they are SO hungry!
>
> You just reduce your own reputation by feeding them.
======================================================
Rally, Alan, rally. The troll is breaking you down!
Heed your own advice and don't feed the well known troll.
Eric Stevens
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 20-06-09 17:31, lobo wrote:
>> "Matt Clara"<no...@myexpense.com> wrote in message
>> news:wEY_l.350$W_2...@newsfe02.iad...
>>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>>
>> Be careful viewing this site. Avast! indicated a Trojan.
>
>I did get some pop ups there, but nothing from my virus detector. Oh, I
>don't have a virus detector. I have a Mac.
See
http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm
Eric Stevens
John McWilliams
Why? The site says there is mac anti virus software, but for now I say
it's useless, or worse than useless, as AV soft ware can interfere with
O/S ops.
There aren't any proven Mac viruses in the wild.
--
john mcwilliams
Eric Stevens
That site doesn't agree with you.
Eric Stevens
nospam
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >I did get some pop ups there, but nothing from my virus detector. Oh, I
> >don't have a virus detector. I have a Mac.
>
> See
>
> http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Viru
> s_Resources.htm
if you took the time to actually read it rather than just post the
first hit that you found on google, you'd find out that most of what it
says no longer applies or is totally wrong. more importantly, no mac
malware spreads on its own, and instead it requires the user to install
it with an admin password and there's nothing anyone can do about that.
that's a flaw in the user not the system.
it also doesn't mention the drawbacks to mac anti-virus software such
as data loss and disk corruption directly caused by buggy anti-virus
utilities. in other words, the cure is worse than the (non-existent)
disease.
there's also some completely incorrect info, such as:
Can my iPod and iPhone be infected?
Yes. When Apple introduced application support for the iPod and
iPhone touch, they opened the door for malware that specifically
targets these devices (or, rather, the applications running on those
devices).
that's *totally* incorrect. every iphone app is sandboxed and
codesigned. even if something nefarious managed to get into the app
store (apple checks for that, btw), it won't be able to do much of
anything outside itself, and even if it did, the other apps would cease
to work unless it somehow managed to spoof the codesigning too.
nospam
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >There aren't any proven Mac viruses in the wild.
>
> That site doesn't agree with you.
that's because it's wrong.
Bob Larter
> On 19-06-09 23:25, Matt Clara wrote:
>> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>
> (the fellow with the view camera on the side of cliff, for example...)
>
> That site had a lot of pop-up ads ("Your computer is a swamp filled with
> computer viruses") and persistent ads too. (Cancel the pop up and they
> come right up again).
That's where Firefox + NoScript is a life saver.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
David J Taylor
> On 20-06-09 17:31, lobo wrote:
>> "Matt Clara"<no...@myexpense.com> wrote in message
>> news:wEY_l.350$W_2...@newsfe02.iad...
>>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>>
>> Be careful viewing this site. Avast! indicated a Trojan.
>
> I did get some pop ups there, but nothing from my virus detector.
> Oh, I don't have a virus detector. I have a Mac.
You have my sympathy, Alan, but you have only yourself to blame.
<G>
David
J. Clarke
Well of course it doesn't. "Currently, Mary is a Senior Security Researcher
for ScanSafe." She's trying to sell you some piece of crap you don't need.
I've also never had malware affect one of my Windows boxen--I've had far
more damage done by antivirus crap. Use a hardware firewall, don't run as
admin.
Bob Larter
> On 20-06-09 11:01, John McWilliams wrote:
>>> On 19-06-09 23:25, Matt Clara wrote:
>>>> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>>>
>>> (the fellow with the view camera on the side of cliff, for example...)
>>>
>>> That site had a lot of pop-up ads ("Your computer is a swamp filled
>>> with computer viruses") and persistent ads too. (Cancel the pop up and
>>> they come right up again).
>>
>
> I was using Firefox with ad-block activated. This was not the pop-over
> type, but drop boxes when scrolling or closing the page.
Dump ad-block & use no-script instead. I didn't see any rubbish at all
when viewing that page with Firefox + No-Script.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
You can't prove that.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
The question is not whether or not you have been hit by a virus, but
whether or not there are Mac viruses out there.
Eric Stevens
nospam
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >There aren't any proven Mac viruses in the wild.
> >>
> >> That site doesn't agree with you.
> >
> >that's because it's wrong.
>
> You can't prove that.
that site hasn't proved its case. there are no mac viruses in the wild.
the only malware is what the user installs themselves. anyone can be
tricked into installing something that isn't what it's claimed to be.
nospam
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> The question is not whether or not you have been hit by a virus, but
> whether or not there are Mac viruses out there.
and the answer to that is there is not, other than what the user
deliberately installs.
Alan Browne
Not impressed. Fact is there are very, very few actual Mac viruses in
the wild.
--
Alan Browne
Key part of that is "in the wild". I don't even know of anyone with A-V
s/w for their Mac's.
Even MacWorld (a Mac slobber fest magazine) puts up the odd article
saying how "prudent" it would be but concludes that there's little real
need for it.
John McWilliams
And there are not, yet. Hard to prove the existence of the absence of
something.
--
lsmft
Alan Browne
> Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:38:52 -0700, John McWilliams
>> <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:45:09 -0400, Alan Browne
>>>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 20-06-09 17:31, lobo wrote:
>>>>>> "Matt Clara"<no...@myexpense.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:wEY_l.350$W_2...@newsfe02.iad...
>>>>>>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>>>>>> Be careful viewing this site. Avast! indicated a Trojan.
>>>>> I did get some pop ups there, but nothing from my virus detector.
>>>>> Oh, I don't have a virus detector. I have a Mac.
>>>> See
>>>> http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm
>>> Why? The site says there is mac anti virus software, but for now I
>>> say it's useless, or worse than useless, as AV soft ware can
>>> interfere with O/S ops.
>>>
>>> There aren't any proven Mac viruses in the wild.
>> That site doesn't agree with you.
>
> Well of course it doesn't. "Currently, Mary is a Senior Security Researcher
> for ScanSafe." She's trying to sell you some piece of crap you don't need.
>
> I've also never had malware affect one of my Windows boxen
Then you must lead an insular life. My virus checker on the WinXP box
picks up something every so often from e-mail attachments. WinXP now
asks the user to confirm that he really wants to run something the first
time it's tried (and Mac asks for a password to install AND asks to
confirm on the first run of it.)
There is a free AV called AVG that does the job quite well and at an
attractive price.
Alan Browne
It doesn't matter. Ask around whatever mac users you know and see if
they have AV s/w or have ever had a virus do anything to their system.
Savageduck
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
> On 20-06-09 20:02, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:45:09 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20-06-09 17:31, lobo wrote:
>>>> "Matt Clara"<no...@myexpense.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:wEY_l.350$W_2...@newsfe02.iad...
>>>>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>>>> Be careful viewing this site. Avast! indicated a Trojan.
>>> I did get some pop ups there, but nothing from my virus detector. Oh, I
>>> don't have a virus detector. I have a Mac.
>>
>> See
>> http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm
Not
>>
> impressed. Fact is there are very, very few actual Mac viruses in the wild.
Actually there are no Mac viruses per se.
What keep appearing are proof of concept trojans which have been
created for the various security industry competitions, and have always
required a software backdoor hole. The two latest examples were due to
QuickTime vulnerabilities, which Apple patched. These also needed
active implementation by an administrator at root level.
At no time was OSX itself ever vulnerable.
The only justification for Mac users to purchase and use Anti-virus SW
, is to protect careless, unprotected & vulnerable Windows users.
Windows users who are aware of their vulnerabilities and who take the
appropriate precautions for their OS have no need to fear being
infected by contact with an e-mail originating from a Mac.
At this point there is still no convincing reason for a Mac user to
waste money on AV SW.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Alan Browne
There's no reason for a WinXP user to waste money either. There is a
free application called AVG that does the job handily.
I even have it on my Mac! (I run WinXP under VMWare fusion on the Mac).
This may be a bit of overkill however as I don't do e-mail or much
browsing at all from that session.
George Kerby
On 6/20/09 9:39 PM, in article ka7r351gmpij94ba7...@4ax.com,
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
They are SELLING software, why would they?
>
> Eric Stevens
are there any real photographers around
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
Take it to:
alt.nobody.gives.a.damn.about.your.browser.or.cpu.platform.in.a.photography.newsgroup
Alan Browne
>>> users who are aware of their vulnerabilities and who take the
>>> appropriate precautions for their OS have no need to fear being infected
>>> by contact with an e-mail originating from a Mac.
>>>
>>> At this point there is still no convincing reason for a Mac user to
>>> waste money on AV SW.
>> There's no reason for a WinXP user to waste money either. There is a
>> free application called AVG that does the job handily.
>>
>> I even have it on my Mac! (I run WinXP under VMWare fusion on the Mac).
>> This may be a bit of overkill however as I don't do e-mail or much
>> browsing at all from that session.
>
> Take it to:
>
> alt.nobody.gives.a.damn.about.your.browser.or.cpu.platform.in.a.photography.newsgroup
Whatever you say. Of course. I'll obey. Everyone will obey you.
John McWilliams
> Take it to:
>
> alt.nobody.gives.a.damn.about.your.browser.or.cpu.platform.in.a.photography.newsgroup
But real photographers do care about such. as long as real information
is traded, not just whining by anonymous pests.
--
lsmft
"Andre, a simple peasant, had only one thing on his mind as he crept
along the East wall:
'Andre creep ... Andre creep ... Andre creep'."
Wolfgang Weisselberg
J. Clarke <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
> I've also never had malware affect one of my Windows boxen--I've had far
> more damage done by antivirus crap. Use a hardware firewall, don't run as
> admin.
There's no such thing as a hardware firewall, except a pair of
pliers cutting all your network connections.
There *are* dedicated computers in a small packet that do packet
filtering (some may even inspect some of the data passing through
them). Using a dedicated computer for these tasks is of course
a good idea, for a "personal firewall" is trivial to disable by
malware running on the same computer as it. This may be what
you term "hardware firewall".
A proper firewall is a *concept* that usually will include packet
filters, but also rules how to handle USB sticks, if and how
downloaded software is unpacked, tested, quarantined and what to
do with attachments.
Unfortunately, a filter can only protect you against worms
attacking open ports with vulnerable programs behind them.
They can neither protect you against other types of malware (say
a password spying program you downloaded, thinking it was a cool
screen saver) nor against viruses (coming in with the Excel sheet
your business partner sent you, or the mail attachment, or loaded
via the button you clicked on that web page or the software you
just downloaded or the cool new program you bought on a DVD ...).
At best, a firewall (the concept, not any hardware) will include
being careful with mail attachments, downloaded data and new
programs and scanning them with 2 or 3 virus scanners with at
least daily signature updates. That gives you a decent chance to
find *known* malware (including viruses), even though it cannot
find unknown or new malware.
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 20-06-09 11:01, John McWilliams wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> That site had a lot of pop-up ads ("Your computer is a swamp filled
>>>> with computer viruses") and persistent ads too. (Cancel the pop up and
>>>> they come right up again).
>>> Not a single popup using Safari just ten minutes ago.
>> I was using Firefox with ad-block activated. This was not the pop-over
>> type, but drop boxes when scrolling or closing the page.
> Dump ad-block & use no-script instead. I didn't see any rubbish at all
> when viewing that page with Firefox + No-Script.
Better yet, don't visit such sites, and don't make excuses for
them. I prefer muggers to be absent, not to stay away from me
because I have a bigger gun in my hand.
-Wolfgang
Bob Larter
The problem with that is that you don't usually know that a site is like
that until you visit it.
Bill Graham
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:210620090236077163%nos...@nospam.invalid...
Yes. And we live in a world where 95% of everything isn't what its, "claimed
to be".
Chris H
<s...@here.com> writes
>On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:25:14 -0400, "Matt Clara" <no...@myexpense.com>
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>>Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>
>photographers who are vying for unique angles and positions.
The photos are quite humorous. Some are clearly staged others "fake"
Accept them for what they are and stop being such an arse.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
John Navas
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in
<4-6dnX3_7Y6zzaPX...@giganews.com>:
>On 21-06-09 04:59, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:43:16 -0700, nospam<nos...@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article<ka7r351gmpij94ba7...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>>> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There aren't any proven Mac viruses in the wild.
>>>> That site doesn't agree with you.
>>> that's because it's wrong.
>>
>> You can't prove that.
>
>It doesn't matter. Ask around whatever mac users you know and see if
>they have AV s/w or have ever had a virus do anything to their system.
I'm reminded of a guy I used to know who says, "I've been smoking all my
life, and I'm fine!" Think about that. Seriously.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Better yet, don't visit such sites, and don't make excuses for
>> them. I prefer muggers to be absent, not to stay away from me
>> because I have a bigger gun in my hand.
> The problem with that is that you don't usually know that a site is like
> that until you visit it.
There are databases that warn email systems against certain
known-to-be-(currently)-spamming hosts --- some even work fully
automatic. There are databases that warn browsers against
malicious websites. I see no reason why that shouldn't work
against pop-up, pop-under and don't-go-away ads.
The "you use annoying ads" -> "you get less traffic, less views
of your ads, etc." relationship should help, too.
Of course, a remote strangling of the responsible person(s) and
similar tactics would work even better in the long run (and would
probably raise the average IQ, too).
None of this is needed, however, to stop implying the victim
should use a better defense against nasty ads.
-Wolfgang
John Navas
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
<nc92h6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>:
>["Followup-To:" header set to poster.]
>J. Clarke <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> I've also never had malware affect one of my Windows boxen--I've had far
>> more damage done by antivirus crap. Use a hardware firewall, don't run as
>> admin.
>
>There's no such thing as a hardware firewall, except a pair of
>pliers cutting all your network connections.
>
>There *are* dedicated computers in a small packet that do packet
>filtering (some may even inspect some of the data passing through
>them). Using a dedicated computer for these tasks is of course
>a good idea, for a "personal firewall" is trivial to disable by
>malware running on the same computer as it. This may be what
>you term "hardware firewall".
Likewise most everyone else. ;)
John Navas
around <at...@atapa.com> wrote in
<fins35pijuhl87qm8...@4ax.com>:
Amen.
Mac users are so defensive. I guess they have to be.
nospam
<we...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Yes. And we live in a world where 95% of everything isn't what its, "claimed
> to be".
maybe you do, but i certainly don't live in such a world.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Mac users are so defensive. I guess they have to be.
ignoring your insult, it's the constant onslaught of detractors who
claim things that are simply not true over which mac users comment.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> I'm reminded of a guy I used to know who says, "I've been smoking all my
> life, and I'm fine!" Think about that. Seriously.
ok i thought about that, and i realize that it's not at all relevant.
John Navas
in <220620091123024927%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
You don't see any ads in your universe? LOL
John Navas
in <220620091123035008%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
Your loss.
John Navas
in <220620091123045083%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
Just an observation and a guess.
A wee bit defensive, are we? ;)
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> Yes. And we live in a world where 95% of everything isn't what its,
> >> "claimed
> >> to be".
> >
> >maybe you do, but i certainly don't live in such a world.
>
> You don't see any ads in your universe? LOL
very few, actually. i have ad blocking software and watch little tv.
however, i wasn't referring to ads.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> Mac users are so defensive. I guess they have to be.
> >
> >ignoring your insult, it's the constant onslaught of detractors who
> >claim things that are simply not true over which mac users comment.
>
> Just an observation and a guess.
> A wee bit defensive, are we? ;)
not really. a better question is why people care so much about what
other people buy and enjoy and insist on proving why that product is
flawed in some way, usually with bogus claims.
George Kerby
On 6/22/09 9:09 AM, in article 524v35lj2hn3753fv...@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
Obviously, analogies are among your other lack of talents.
Think (if possible) about that.
Seriously!
George Kerby
On 6/22/09 1:43 PM, in article m5kv359pb7g060090...@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:23:04 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote
> in <220620091123045083%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
>
>> In article <u59v35dcldqngqtf0...@4ax.com>, John Navas
>> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mac users are so defensive. I guess they have to be.
>>
>> ignoring your insult, it's the constant onslaught of detractors who
>> claim things that are simply not true over which mac users comment.
>
> Just an observation and a guess.
> A wee bit defensive, are we? ;)
A wee bit way too much time on our hands, don't we?
Idiot!
George Kerby
On 6/22/09 1:58 PM, in article 220620091158423343%nos...@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
NavASS is flawed from the 'factory'.
Pete D
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:qqadnVAes8udraDX...@giganews.com...
> On 20-06-09 14:34, John McWilliams wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>> I use FF and Camino fairly extensively, also. Safari's seldom if ever
>>>> choked, and none of them exhibit speed issues that are irksome.
>>>>
>>>> Have you tried the new version of Safari, recently out of beta?
>>>
>>> I'll wait for the release.
>>
>>
>> It's at 4.0.1; I said out OF beta, not out in beta....
>
> Misread that.
>
> Downloading now.
>
They would have had to have done an awful lot of work on it, the earlier
versions have been so bad I just could not get them of my system fast
enough... Personally I am doubtfull it is that good.
John McWilliams
Onna PC, it probably won't be so hot, but can you tell us, does the
color management work?
--
john mcwilliams
Alan Browne
"I don't have a shotgun by my bed and I've never been burgled and
attacked. Think about that. Seriously."
"I don't buy flight insurance and I've never been in an airplane
accident. Think about that. Seriously."
My computer is backed up. It's not a health issue.
I would only get AV for a Mac when I hear that it's a _real_ issue as it
is for Windblows boxes.
That's the joy of Mac OS X. Everything is compartmented and the OS
itself is unassailable from a user session. Installing anything that
can run requires permission.
The users files might get damaged or destroyed, but not the system.
Backups are really all you need. A 'bot cannot get installed such that
it begins exporting data (or using the system as a vector for spam or
fraud) - unless the user willingly and deliberately does so - or so
unwittingly that he is truly witless.
Viruses have been been successfully attacking PC's since the 80's -
unless AV s/w is installed.
Since Jobs took Apple into Open BSD (foundation for Max OS X) there has
been no damage to Mac OS X systems from viruses in even slightly
significant numbers.
Hate to say so, but since I bought a Mac 18 months ago, I've turned into
one 'them'.
Alan Browne
> Mac users are so defensive. I guess they have to be.
Hardly. Just trying to bring the ignorant out of the dark.
Perhaps the theme song for the Mac should be "Amazing Grace".
nospam
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> My computer is backed up. It's not a health issue.
>
> I would only get AV for a Mac when I hear that it's a _real_ issue as it
> is for Windblows boxes.
that's wise. av software for os x has been fairly crappy, and has
caused a number of problems, including corrupting the system so much
that a reinstall is required and also causing photoshop to write out
corrupt files, much to the surprise of the user the next time they
opened the file. and in a wtf moment, one av utility decided that the
virtual memory swap file was malware and quarantined it. needless to
say, that did not end well.
> That's the joy of Mac OS X. Everything is compartmented and the OS
> itself is unassailable from a user session. Installing anything that
> can run requires permission.
no, you can run a lot of things without permission but access is
restricted. non-admin accounts can't modify the applications folder
but they can run many apps from their own home folder.
> The users files might get damaged or destroyed, but not the system.
> Backups are really all you need. A 'bot cannot get installed such that
> it begins exporting data (or using the system as a vector for spam or
> fraud) - unless the user willingly and deliberately does so - or so
> unwittingly that he is truly witless.
true, and user files can also get damaged or destroyed by a careless
mistake or buggy software. just ask intuit about the quicken update
gone wrong. backups are *very* important.
Alan Browne
> In article<nsydnQ6bPujQb6LX...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> My computer is backed up. It's not a health issue.
>>
>> I would only get AV for a Mac when I hear that it's a _real_ issue as it
>> is for Windblows boxes.
>
> that's wise. av software for os x has been fairly crappy, and has
> caused a number of problems, including corrupting the system so much
> that a reinstall is required and also causing photoshop to write out
> corrupt files, much to the surprise of the user the next time they
> opened the file. and in a wtf moment, one av utility decided that the
> virtual memory swap file was malware and quarantined it. needless to
> say, that did not end well.
>
>> That's the joy of Mac OS X. Everything is compartmented and the OS
>> itself is unassailable from a user session. Installing anything that
>> can run requires permission.
>
> no, you can run a lot of things without permission but access is
> restricted. non-admin accounts can't modify the applications folder
> but they can run many apps from their own home folder.
Just about everything I remember installing required the admin password
and occasionally the "OK" on a DL'd s/w. I could be wrong but that's
how I remember it.
>> The users files might get damaged or destroyed, but not the system.
>> Backups are really all you need. A 'bot cannot get installed such that
>> it begins exporting data (or using the system as a vector for spam or
>> fraud) - unless the user willingly and deliberately does so - or so
>> unwittingly that he is truly witless.
>
> true, and user files can also get damaged or destroyed by a careless
> mistake or buggy software. just ask intuit about the quicken update
> gone wrong. backups are *very* important.
Time Machine is pretty good as a basic "thoughtless" backup system,
though I only run it once every few days or after a lot of work on docs
and sheets.