Reason for so many focus errors we see today?
RichA
it could very well be why we are seeing focus issues that need "lens
re-calibration" at service depots or that we see the need for in-
camera focus fine-tuning. Even cameras and lenses that appear to be
metal today may have plastic cells holding lenses, components in
cameras. The cameras are produced in a control temp environment but
that isn't real life use where temps can vary by 10's of degrees. I
don't remember all metal AF SLRs needing focus fine-tuning (or having
that facility) in the film days.
Pete D
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa0df788-7e2c-4b79...@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
You mean like with Canon D1's and L glass, cos they all have this problem?
Sometimes Rich even I think you are an idiot.
Doug Jewell
> Plastic? Thermal expansion of plastic is much greater than metal and
Coefficients of Linear thermal expansion (10^-6 m/m/C):
Aluminium 23.1
Magnesium 26
Brass 19
Stainless Steel 17
Steel 11-13
Glass reinforced Polycarbonate 22
So there's not a lot in it.
> it could very well be why we are seeing focus issues that need "lens
> re-calibration" at service depots or that we see the need for in-
> camera focus fine-tuning. Even cameras and lenses that appear to be
> metal today may have plastic cells holding lenses, components in
> cameras. The cameras are produced in a control temp environment but
> that isn't real life use where temps can vary by 10's of degrees. I
To put expansion in perspective, a 30 degree C change in
temp on a 300mm lens made of Magnesium would be a mere
0.2mm. Every lens I've ever seen has that much play in it's
movement if not more.
> don't remember all metal AF SLRs needing focus fine-tuning (or having
> that facility) in the film days.
Because of the lower resolution of the sensor it wasn't as
critical. Consider that a typical 35mm frame of film can
resolve the equivalent of maybe 12-15MP. Modern DSLR's will
cram 12-15MP on a sensor that has half the surface area, or
are putting 24MP onto the 35mm frame. Because of this higher
resolution they require more critical focus from the lens,
and so errors that have always existed are now noticed.
--
Don't blame me - I didn't vote for Kevin Rudd or Anna Bligh!
Don Stauffer
I can see that in open loop focusing, where you estimate the distance
and dial that distance on lens. However, in any closed loop operation
that source of error would not lead to a focus error. Also, there are a
some plastics that have a thermal expansion less than many metals. So
one cannot use generalities on this.
John O'Flaherty
Focusing with a phase contrast system isn't closed loop with regard
to the picture sensor, since it uses a separate, simple sensor array
for focusing. Thus the focus system can get out of calibration.
--
John
Nobody
"Doug Jewell" <a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in message
news:4a40c593$0$2602$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> > don't remember all metal AF SLRs needing focus fine-tuning (or having
>> that facility) in the film days.
> Because of the lower resolution of the sensor it wasn't as critical.
> Consider that a typical 35mm frame of film can resolve the equivalent of
> maybe 12-15MP. Modern DSLR's will cram 12-15MP on a sensor that has half
> the surface area, or are putting 24MP onto the 35mm frame. Because of this
> higher resolution they require more critical focus from the lens, and so
> errors that have always existed are now noticed.
>
hazard to suggest a CCD/CMOS is more critical than film.
bugbear
> Focusing with a phase contrast system isn't closed loop with regard
> to the picture sensor, since it uses a separate, simple sensor array
> for focusing. Thus the focus system can get out of calibration.
(jargon as per
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus
)
Interesting - since contrast measurement can be done in software,
a camera with phase detection (which can, as you say, get out of
calibration) could use contrast measurement to self-calibrate.
BugBear
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Doug Jewell <a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>> Plastic? Thermal expansion of plastic is much greater than metal and
> Bzzt, wrong.
Kindly do not confuse the RichA with facts. It doesn't understand
the concept.
> Modern DSLR's will
> cram 12-15MP on a sensor that has half the surface area, or
> are putting 24MP onto the 35mm frame.
24 MPix on the 35mm frame is equivalent to 9.4 MPix on a 1.6x
crop (10.7 MPix on a 1.5x crop). That's not so much.
> Because of this higher
> resolution they require more critical focus from the lens,
> and so errors that have always existed are now noticed.
On the other hand, a '100%' pixel-for-pixel view on a 80-100 PPI
monitor has nothing to do with it. :-)
-Wolfgang
John O'Flaherty
That sounds like a good idea - you'd just have to take a special shot
of something with detail after each lens change.
Also, I wonder if it would be possible to make a main sensor chip with
special data paths to some small subset of the pixels, so they could
be digitized really fast, doing phase contrast right there. But maybe
that would be too hard to do on a uniform sensor with maximum pixel
density.
--
John
Charles
"John O'Flaherty" <quia...@yeeha.com> wrote in message
news:28o1455hrfq3qu9vr...@4ax.com...
Agreed about the separate sensor array. However, the phase system (at least
on some cameras) seems to be a hybrid servo (open loop for fast response,
then switches to closed loop for the final tweak ... that's where the
hunting comes in). There was a protracted debate about this on one Canon
forum and it never was resolved, since some of the information is
proprietary.
Chris Malcolm
True, but thermal expansion in the lens *is* within the AF closed
loop, so that particular problem won't give rise to focus errors in an
AF system.
--
Chris Malcolm
John Navas
<charles...@comcast.net> wrote in
<h1rbqc$iv9$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
It's the dark side (secret) of phase detection. Fast focusing
inevitably involves some focus error, since it's predictive, and
affected by lens errors. To fix that requires fine tuning, which can
slow down focusing considerably. The reason more people don't notice is
that it's lens sensitive, so focusing with a good lens, as in the case
of most reviews, may still be fast. The issue doesn't exist for
contrast detection, which is now fast enough for speed not to be an
issue.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
John Navas
in <7acsr2F...@mid.individual.net>:
What closed loop? Many (most?) phase detection autofocus is open loop.
David J Taylor
[]
> It's the dark side (secret) of phase detection. Fast focusing
> inevitably involves some focus error, since it's predictive, and
> affected by lens errors. To fix that requires fine tuning, which can
> slow down focusing considerably. The reason more people don't notice
> is that it's lens sensitive, so focusing with a good lens, as in the
> case of most reviews, may still be fast. The issue doesn't exist for
> contrast detection, which is now fast enough for speed not to be an
> issue.
But, contrast detection relies on detecting a maximum, with no information
about what direction the focus system should be driven. With phase
detection you are seeking a zero, and the sensor output tell you which way
to drive the focus, making a very fast, one-shot, open-loop movement
possible. Iterate further /i/f there is any need. On the other hand,
detecting a maximum can be quite a lot slower as you need to seek on
either side of the maximum and make a best guess as to the peak. Swings
and roundabouts for both systems.
David
Rich
> RichA wrote:
> > Plastic? Thermal expansion of plastic is much greater than metal and
>
> Bzzt, wrong.
> Coefficients of Linear thermal expansion (10^-6 m/m/C):
> Aluminium 23.1
> Magnesium 26
> Brass 19
> Stainless Steel 17
> Steel 11-13
> Glass reinforced Polycarbonate 22
> So there's not a lot in it.
That is for glass-filled. Non-glass filled is three times that. Not
all polycarbs are glass-filled. It is
also the differential of expansion between two different materials
that is the problem. All aluminum and maybe all plasic on their own
might be ok, but combined it causes problems, like the binding of lens
elements when temperatures drop.
bugbear
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:20:03 +0100, bugbear
> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>> John O'Flaherty wrote:
>>
>>> Focusing with a phase contrast system isn't closed loop with regard
>>> to the picture sensor, since it uses a separate, simple sensor array
>>> for focusing. Thus the focus system can get out of calibration.
>> (jargon as per
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus
>> )
>>
>> Interesting - since contrast measurement can be done in software,
>> a camera with phase detection (which can, as you say, get out of
>> calibration) could use contrast measurement to self-calibrate.
>
> That sounds like a good idea - you'd just have to take a special shot
> of something with detail after each lens change.
>
> Also, I wonder if it would be possible to make a main sensor chip with
> special data paths to some small subset of the pixels, so they could
> be digitized really fast, doing phase contrast
The article speaks of "phase detection" and "contrast measurement"; what do you mean
by "phase contrast", which sounds like a mixture?
BugBear
Chris Malcolm
Most is open loop with respect to focus on the image sensor, and
closed loop for at least the final approach on the AF sensor. There's
a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation on this topic. Try the
experiment of locking focus with a half press on something near when a
big slow focusing lens is at infinity. Then complete the press, and
after the lens has started to move, but before it has stopped, remove
the thing it's focussed on from the view of the AF sensor. If the lens
runs past that point without stopping then it's a closed loop system
whose terminating condition has not been found. If it's a predictive
system it will stop focused on the distance the object was earlier
found to be at, even though it's no longer there.
--
Chris Malcolm
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Fast focusing
> inevitably involves some focus error, since it's predictive, and
> affected by lens errors.
Please explain how lens errors are affecting focus detection in
DSLRs, but not when using contrast detection.
> To fix that requires fine tuning, which can
> slow down focusing considerably. The reason more people don't notice is
> that it's lens sensitive, so focusing with a good lens, as in the case
> of most reviews, may still be fast. The issue doesn't exist for
> contrast detection, which is now fast enough for speed not to be an
> issue.
Sure, and P&S cameras focus near instantly, too. Pull the
other one.
-Wolfgang
Don Stauffer
I was under the impression that the OP was talking about lens cell
materials. The structure holding the image chip and the focusing chip
is in the body of the camera, so a movement of something within the lens
itself should affect both chips the same, shouldn't it?
John O'Flaherty
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
Sorry, "phase contrast" is a term from microscopy which was floating
around in my head. I meant phase detection.
--
John
John O'Flaherty
<stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
My impression of the o.p. was that it was about the camera in general,
anything that could require recalibration of focus. Anyway, I think a
phase system is open loop in general, since it moves the lens focus in
a direction and amount indicated by the comparison of two adjacent
sensor strips (at least for a first pass). So, maybe changes in the
lens itself will affect the accuracy.
--
John
Chris Malcolm
I think rather than open loop "in general" you mean "at first". It's
difficult getting at the technical details of phase detection
autofocus, since it's both highly technical, and at least in some
cases the details are regarded as a trade secret by the
manufacturer. However, having read the workshop repair manual for one
set of Canon lenses, which in passing mentioned various aspects of
autofocus as relevent to a service engineer, the impression I was left
with was that in those particular lenses, which were made for specially
fast focusing, what happens is as follows.
The AF phase detection makes a first measurement of the direction
and approximate distance to focus. The focus motor control then sets
up the parameters for the focus movement. If the distance is long
enough to warrant it this is a four phase movement.
The first phase is an acceleration of the lens up to its maximum speed
of focus travel. This is terminated automatically when the motor is
spinning at maximum speed, and the second phase begun. The second
phase travels at maximum speed until it gets to the deceleration
position, at which point it automatically starts the third phase, the
deceleration ramp down to the final focus approach speed. That final
fourth phase approach speed is slow enough to allow a closed loop
approach to focus detection by the AF sensor which given the inertia
of the lens etc.. can be stopped close enough to exact focus that
there will be no overshoot.
If the lens overshot the focus point it would have to
reverse. Reversal of direction is expensive in time, so like a car
approaching a stop light it decelerates at a speed at which it can
reliably stop close enough to the line. In the case of these lenses
"close enough" is a permissible error parameter previously read by the
camera from a table in ROM in the lens, and which is alterable by
service engineers in the lens focus calibration procedure. That
parameter may also be adjusted by the camera depending on the chosen
aperture. In that way smaller apertures can focus the lens a bit
faster. That parameter may also incorporate an early stop factor to
take account for the delays, inertia, etc. in the system, which mean
that it will always stop a little bit further on than where it was
when the software loop decided to stop the motor.
When the deceleration phase finishes the lens is now not quite at the
required focus point, and moving slowly enough to operate in closed
loop manner, closed on good enough focus detection by the AF
sensor. That'a the fourth final closed loop phase. It drives on at
that speed reading the sensor, and stops when it detects near enough
focus. Of course sometimes it won't detect focus, because the squirrel
may have moved away or the light changed enough to lose the necessary
contrast in the sensor while the lens was moving. So there is also a
timing watchdog to terminate this loop if it goes on for too
long. Other lenses/AF systems don't use a watchdog and simply keep
running the lens until it hits the end stop. Simpler, but slower.
Termination on the final focus approach loop on a focus find failure
condition will automatically initiate another complete focus from
scratch loop. This is how "hunting" happens, and whether it runs from
end to end of complete focus travel, or dithers about the focus point,
depends on whether the system uses timer watchdog or end stop failure,
and what kind of outer loop control system is operating.
Of course if the camera is doing a more complicated kind of focus such
as predictive focus of a moving object, or approaching a compromise
focus between the readings from a number of previously selected AF
sensors, a more complicated procedure is used. I'm describing here the
simplest long distance high speed AF procedure. If the focus point is
close to where the lens is of course it will only use the final
approach phase.
The manual also made it clear that not all Canon lenses were
sophisticated enough to use this sophisticated long distance high
speed focus method. Simpler modelds have only a single speed focus
system.
I also get the impression that there is another two speed AF system
used by some lens/body combinations, where the high speed checks the
AF sensor only every several motor steps, and when it gets near slows
down to checking every step.
I think it's an oversimplification to talk of THE phase detection AF
system of DSLRs, since in the search for highest speed and highest
accuracy the camera makers have kept improving the sophistication of
both their AF sensors and the focus control loops using them. In some
cases we've seen a camera maker offer a camera model software upgrade
which has improved focus performance not by fixing a bug but by
introducing a more sophisticated control system.
There are a number of different phase detection AF systems out there,
of different levels of sophistication and accuracy. Some, I suspect
these days at least most, always operate a closed loop approach of
monitoring the AF sensor during the final approach to the focus point.
Some camera makers have caused confusion on this question of whether
their DSLR AF systems are open or closed loop by describing them as
open loop because the closed loop they operate is closed around the AF
sensor and not the image sensor, whereas their compact cameras operate
a loop closed around the image sensor. In terms of control theory it's
technically correct to describe DSLR phase detection autofocus systems
as open loop, because they don't close the loop by measuring the
achievement of the purpose of the system, which is an image focused on
the image sensor. Instead they close the loop around the proxy of the
AF sensor. Hence all the focus calibration problems of DSLR autofocus.
Unfortunately that technically correct description of DSLR autofocus
as "open loop" without qualification has misled a lot of camera users
unfamiliar with the technicalities of control systems theory into
supposing that that "open loop" means that no DSLRs use the AF sensor
in a closed loop fashion.
--
Chris Malcolm
Wilba
Thanks for that Chris. There's a lot of stuff there I didn't know.
Is that "workshop repair manual" available online? I have a copy of the "EF
50mm 1.8, 28mm 2.8, and 15mm 2.8 Service Manual", but AFAIK that doesn't go
into the operation like you described.
John O'Flaherty
wrote:
That's a lot more detailed information than I've ever read before -
thanks for that. So, they are already decelerating short of the target
point, then closing the loop. Do you think it would be possible to get
quick end-point contrast readings from the image sensor itself, or
from small parts of it, to make a hybrid system that would have the
advantage of both speed and accuracy?
--
John
Don Stauffer
>
> I think rather than open loop "in general" you mean "at first". It's
> difficult getting at the technical details of phase detection
> autofocus, since it's both highly technical, and at least in some
> cases the details are regarded as a trade secret by the
> manufacturer. However, having read the workshop repair manual for one
> set of Canon lenses, which in passing mentioned various aspects of
> autofocus as relevent to a service engineer, the impression I was left
> with was that in those particular lenses, which were made for specially
> fast focusing, what happens is as follows.
>
There was a big patent fight between Honeywell and someone (I forget who
right at the moment. I followed the case because I worked for Honeywell
at the time. The lawyers even gave a noontime seminar one day for folks
interested in the case). It was over the details of that particular
autofocus method. The material disclosed in court is voluminous, but is
at least part of public record.
nospam
<stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
> There was a big patent fight between Honeywell and someone (I forget who
> right at the moment. I followed the case because I worked for Honeywell
> at the time. The lawyers even gave a noontime seminar one day for folks
> interested in the case). It was over the details of that particular
> autofocus method. The material disclosed in court is voluminous, but is
> at least part of public record.
minolta.
Kennedy McEwen
<stau...@usfamily.net> writes
>
>I was under the impression that the OP was talking about lens cell
>materials.
No, the OP was continuing a decade long rant about something he has
little knowledge of but finds it a convenient subject to troll with.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Truer Dat
wrote:
>Plastic? Thermal expansion of plastic is much greater than metal and
>it could very well be why we are seeing focus issues that need "lens
>re-calibration" at service depots or that we see the need for in-
>camera focus fine-tuning. Even cameras and lenses that appear to be
>metal today may have plastic cells holding lenses, components in
>cameras. The cameras are produced in a control temp environment but
>that isn't real life use where temps can vary by 10's of degrees. I
>don't remember all metal AF SLRs needing focus fine-tuning (or having
>that facility) in the film days.
The top #1 reason for so many focusing errors:
Idiots who have become dependent on automated focusing systems. Especially
those snapshooters who are so stupid as to justify their common user-error
by blaming it on materials, focusing systems, or camera designs.
Do you honestly think that any automatic focusing system in the world is
ever going to be smart enough to figure out if you want the leading edge of
that small-butterfly's wing, the antennae, or the further wing edges in
precise focus?
There's only so much that any auto-anything system will ever be able to do.
This is why you have Snapshooters and Photographers. No photographer worth
his salt will ever depend on any automated focusing system. Nor do they
ever expect that some point and shoot feature in any camera, all DSLRs
included, should be expected to do the work correctly for them. They know
better. Do you ever wholly depend on your camera's automatic metering
system too? That makes you a point and shoot Snapshooter, whether you use a
P&S camera or DSLR. Every real photographer on earth knows that the camera
will never be able to select the proper exposure for them. That's why they
like cameras with a handy EV compensation dial or toggle, always at the
ready. The camera might get you in the ballpark for focusing and exposure
settings but then you have to take it from there. That's what real
photographers always do. That's what snapshooters won't ever comprehend.
Instead they would rather loudly proclaim the meager benefits of RAW to try
to recover their badly exposed and color-shifted shots, because they're
nothing but snapshooters in the first place.
People reveal much about their total lack of talent by what they find most
important in their cameras.
Snapshooter-Detection System
_________________________________________
What their camera requires or is already best at = what it really means
when they say it.
High ISO = I don't know how to pan properly to give my photo a much needed
sense of motion and action, nor do I know how to predict when to capture
the right shot at the peak moment. High ISO lets me use very fast shutter
speeds in dimly lit sports-fields so I don't have to do all that, then each
and every one of my shots look sterile and lifeless. So what if all those
masters took all their sports shots at ISOs of 64 or less. Big deal. They
probably didn't realize why you NEED ISO3200, or even know what they were
doing and why they were doing it. But *I* do! Because I'm so much better at
photography than they ever were.
High-Speed Burst Rates = I can't get any shot for the life of me, ever. Nor
do I ever know when to shoot an image. I can now machine-gun my way through
life and see if I can find any so-so photo later in my talentless pile of
garbage. Sure, the loud sound of my camera is annoying as hell to everyone
for a block around, but so what? Only PRO photographers with PRO cameras do
what I do. We don't care about anyone else as long as we get some good
photos ..... someday.
Fast Auto-Focus = Huh? You're supposed to know how to focus these damn
things too or know what part of your subject that you want in focus? Go on.
You must be kidding me. You're insane. NOBODY who is a real photographer
EVER focuses their own cameras these days! My camera knows EXACTLY what I
want in focus! Besides, my camera has an optical viewfinder! I can tell
exactly what's in focus in that dim tunnel-view image. So what if the
shallow DOF of my camera didn't allow me to see that my main subject was
really out of focus in the small image in my superior optical viewfinder.
It looked like it was, everything around looked like it was in focus, so
shouldn't the main subject be in focus too? It must be an auto-focusing
defect. I bet that's what it was. I'll send my camera in again to have my
auto-focusing system recalibrated. After all, look at how much money I
spent! A camera this expensive shouldn't fail on some simple point and
shoot feature like this. You get what you pay for and I'm going to prove
it! No matter how many times I have to send it in to have its
phase-detection focusing system recalibrated!
Evaluative Metering = Oh, c'mon now. You expect me to be able to tell when
my subject is underexposed due to backlight too? My camera is supposed to
do that for me with all its fancy point and shoot features. Isn't it? ISN'T
IT? You get what you pay for, right? RIGHT?! My camera even relies on a
built-in database of the most commonly lit scenes so my Evaluative Metering
can make the right choice for me based on what every other snapshooter has
ever done before. Surely that MUST be a good system. Right? I don't want to
have to think and reason, I just want my photo done correctly for me by the
camera, based on a database of simple snapshots. That's why I paid so much
for that new point and shoot feature. Only an idiot would buy a camera that
didn't have this.
Fastest Start-up Time = Sorry, but I totally fail to comprehend why any
camera that is ready by the time I touch it and bring it up to my eye is
all the speed it ever needs to have for start-up time. So I buy cameras
with just the fastest, latest, and greatest, then relentlessly try to
justify why I spent $5000 more on my camera gear than anyone else, by
posting about it on-ad-infinauseum in news-groups. Hang on a minute ... my
camera started up just fine, super fast, but let me rummage through my
camera bags and find the right prime lens to use on it, after it started up
so fast. It's in here somewhere, I know it is ... damn, I left that one
back home. Never mind. See how fast my camera started up though? SEE! Now
THAT'S a camera worth buying!
Shallow DOF = I don't know how to compose any scene properly so I MUST
depend on a very shallow DOF, to isolate my subject from the very scene
that gives the subject its reason for being there. Nor do I realize that
for all macro shots I'll never be able to get even a whole flower or insect
in focus. I'm that amazingly stupid. Some idiots talk about how you can
decrease the DOF the very same way if needed by just using longer focal
lengths, but then that would require I change lenses or carry
poorly-figured 10 lb. monster glass that costs over $10,000. Losing my shot
in the time needed to change the lens, then getting dust all over my sensor
so all my shots are ruined. No, I need shallow DOF with the only lens that
I'm willing to carry and keep on my camera all day. I'm actually that poor
at this "photography" stuff. I really don't have one clue about how optics
and well done compositions are related. I'm just so overwhelmed and proud
of how blurry I can make everything! That's the sign of a good camera. The
only kind worth having and paying a small fortune for. REAL PROs even go on
and on about how the blurry parts of their photos are better and more
important than the in-focus parts. They even came up with a name for it,
calling it "bokeh" today, because it's more important than what's actually
in focus in any of their photos. That's the sign of a REAL PRO. Umm ...
isn't it? You know, the same PROs that go on and on about how much detail
is in some other image, because the whole image itself isn't worth talking
about nor worth looking at. You know. Those kind of "PRO"s.
RAW = Yeah? So what if the JPG output from my expensive camera sucks
big-time. So what if I don't know how to set exposure or white-balance
properly. I can shoot any image any way I want and then spend hours trying
to recover something, well, maybe something, from my superior RAW data. So
there! That's why I'm a better photographer than you'll ever be! Even
though all digital cameras made today have more dynamic range than most any
film of the past. Even 1/2.5 size sensors can have 10 stops of dynamic
range, film only 7 stops. So what if those films provided proper exposures
and dynamic range for all photographers for a century because they knew how
to expose them properly in the first place. This doesn't mean that I don't
need more dynamic range. Remember, I don't know how to expose the image
correctly in the first place. I've become dependent on my camera's point
and shoot "Evaluative Metering" system. It's doing it all correctly for me.
Right? Isn't it? OH well. If not, I have RAW to try to recover from my
camera automatically under-exposing or over-exposing all my shots by 3 or
more stops. So there.
Highest Resolution = I never capture any images with any content worth
seeing, but look how sharp and clear it is! Well, the small parts that I
can view at any one time on my much smaller resolution monitor. So what if
it's been proven that even 3 megapixels can rival the best 35mm film. So
what if no publication on earth ever prints photos larger than the pages in
it. So what if no web page shows the "large size" selection over 1024
pixels wide or high. So what if I do have the full resolution original
image and I can never view it on any monitor that exists on earth at full
view at 1:1 resolution. So what if that award-winning image can be fully
appreciated in just 640x480 pixels on my monitor because the content is so
striking and the original resolution really means nothing. I can even make
poster-size prints of my snapshots that nobody else ever wants to look at!
Besides, the most important use of all -- if really lucky I can crop out
something interesting from my snapshot that royally-sucked when I first
shot it. I'm that bad at photography that I don't know how to compose a
good shot worth viewing or printing in the first place. All that useless
and unnecessary resolution in my hands is what makes me a PRO! You're not a
PRO unless you choose the same camera as I have! No PRO would ever use
anything less. I read all about that on the internet so it must be true.
Right?
_________________________________________
The list goes on and on. All you have to do is stop to realize why they
NEED those camera features. Each and every time it points directly to them
being nothing but a talentless-hack, point and shoot, snapshooter; or total
gear-head, not even a lowly snapshooter; crippled and dependent on their
automated point and shoot cameras.
Lloyd W.
news:td3745l7ovjsj4j1t...@4ax.com...
[Demented ramblings deleted]
>
> The list goes on and on. All you have to do is stop to realize why they
> NEED those camera features. Each and every time it points directly to them
> being nothing but a talentless-hack, point and shoot, snapshooter; or
> total
> gear-head, not even a lowly snapshooter; crippled and dependent on their
> automated point and shoot cameras.
>
The list may go on and on but so do you. This smells like that pompous
blowhard, Semi-Yawning from the "Anything for a Perfect Shot" thread.
LloydW.
Ron Hunter
faster, and more accurate than most humans. Now if you have something
like a case where something large is closer than your subject, the
camera can be confused, and the photographer can compensate. I always
take note of this situation, and allow the camera to focus on my
subject, then lock the focus, and recompose the shot.
John McWilliams
--
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'."
John Navas
wrote in <bfydnac3nZLFUN7X...@giganews.com>:
>Truer Dat wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:50:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>[HUGE SNIP]
>>
>I think you will find that the focusing systems on modern cameras are
>faster, and more accurate than most humans. Now if you have something
>like a case where something large is closer than your subject, the
>camera can be confused, and the photographer can compensate. I always
>take note of this situation, and allow the camera to focus on my
>subject, then lock the focus, and recompose the shot.
Please trim huge quotes to just a relevant portion, not the whole thing.
Thanks.
ASAAR
>> The list goes on and on. All you have to do is stop to realize why they
>> NEED those camera features. Each and every time it points directly to them
>> being nothing but a talentless-hack, point and shoot, snapshooter; or total
>> gear-head, not even a lowly snapshooter; crippled and dependent on their
>> automated point and shoot cameras.
>
> I think you will find that the focusing systems on modern cameras are
> faster, and more accurate than most humans. Now if you have something
> like a case where something large is closer than your subject, the
> camera can be confused, and the photographer can compensate. I always
> take note of this situation, and allow the camera to focus on my
> subject, then lock the focus, and recompose the shot.
I can tolerate your ridiculous insistence on quoting an entire
reply even when your reply is only to a single sentence of it. But
quoting neary 200 lines of an easily identifiable troll is pathetic.
In some ways the "better half" that you occasionally ridicule is
probably *really* your better half. Or do you think that she'd also
share your stubbornly held style? If you were younger I'd ask you
to grow up. Is it too late to try, Ron?
Ron Hunter
> Is it too late to try, Ron?
>
>
>
Her is what trimming looks like. It takes 10 times as long, and results
in little information for the person who reads the post. What were we
talking about? Sigh.
Ron Hunter
Maybe you have the time to do that, or a newsreader that makes it
easy, but I have neither. Skipping to the end is vastly easier, and
unless you are one of the 5% of people who are still using dialup for
newsgroup access, why bother?
J�rgen Exner
>John Navas wrote:
>> Please trim huge quotes to just a relevant portion, not the whole thing.
>
> Maybe you have the time to do that,
Oh, your time is more important than the time of your readers? Good to
know.
>or a newsreader that makes it
>easy, but I have neither.
According to your headers you are using Thunderbird. To the best of my
knowledge you can just position the cursor, hold down the shift key, and
either click at the other end of the text or use the down arrow to
select a region. Then just hit the Delete key and the selected text is
gone.
Could hardly be easier than that.
>Skipping to the end is vastly easier, and
For you obviously yes, but what about our readers?
>unless you are one of the 5% of people who are still using dialup for
>newsgroup access, why bother?
Oh, you mean your readers are using newsreader, which automatically jump
the end of posting if and only if the posting originates from Ron
Hauser?
jue
J�rgen Exner
>ASAAR wrote:
>> Is it too late to try, Ron?
>
>Her is what trimming looks like.
If done dumb, sure.
> It takes 10 times as long, and results
>in little information for the person who reads the post. What were we
>talking about? Sigh.
Yeah, meaningful quoting seems to become a lost art.
jue
John McWilliams
We're talking etiquette for one thing. The ten seconds it takes you will
save each of your thousands- or dozens- of readers a second or two.
That's being thoughtful. Courteous. Whatever.
--
john mcwilliams
Two vultures board an airplane, each carrying two dead raccoons. The
flight attendant looks at them and says, "I'm sorry, gentlemen, only one
carrion allowed per passenger."
Robert Spanjaard
ASAAR, are you sure about his age? Considering his childish behaviour, he
still has a lot of growing up to do.
OTOH, Ron seems to care a lot about the two seconds it takes to quote
properly, which suggests he doesn't have much time left...
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
John Navas
wrote in <NqSdnaXe86wFQ97X...@giganews.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> Please trim huge quotes to just a relevant portion, not the whole thing.
>> Thanks.
>>
> Maybe you have the time to do that, or a newsreader that makes it
>easy, but I have neither.
Your headers say Thunderbird, which can do it easily.
Would you like some help?
>Skipping to the end is vastly easier, and
For you.
>unless you are one of the 5% of people who are still using dialup for
>newsgroup access, why bother?
Because it's both wasteful and rude to others, who may be paying for
metered Internet access, and who may have to manually scroll down to see
your response -- I'll often not bother, especially when I'm on a small
screen device.
If you don't care about your audience, why bother posting at all?
Come on, Ron, you're better than that.
Ron Hunter
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> ASAAR wrote:
>>> Is it too late to try, Ron?
>
>> Her is what trimming looks like. It takes 10 times as long, and results
>> in little information for the person who reads the post. What were we
>> talking about? Sigh.
>
> We're talking etiquette for one thing. The ten seconds it takes you will
> save each of your thousands- or dozens- of readers a second or two.
> That's being thoughtful. Courteous. Whatever.
>
time to do that editing to save readers 1 or two keystrokes. All it
takes me to get to the bottom of a long post is one press on my
multi-button pointing device. Hardly an imposition.
Ron Hunter
clipboard, select 'reply', delete old quoted data, dropdown a menu, and
select past as quotation. If can do that in two seconds, you are much
faster than this semi-handicapped 66 year old.
More power to you.
Ron Hunter
>
> Oh, you mean your readers are using newsreader, which automatically jump
> the end of posting if and only if the posting originates from Ron
> Hauser?
>
> jue
Who is Ron Hauser?
Ron Hunter
posts, or likes the way I post. I express my opinion, or I give advice,
or provide information. What you chose to do with it is your business.
Robert Spanjaard
>> OTOH, Ron seems to care a lot about the two seconds it takes to quote
>> properly, which suggests he doesn't have much time left...
>>
> Two seconds? I have to select the text to be quoted, copy to the
> clipboard, select 'reply', delete old quoted data, dropdown a menu, and
> select past as quotation. If can do that in two seconds, you are much
> faster than this semi-handicapped 66 year old. More power to you.
No, I can't do _that_ in two seconds, but that would be a very foolish way
to select the text you want to quote.
In any case, you can just delete the quotes you're _not_ replying to from
the 'old quoted data'. And in most newsreaders, you can select the desired
quotes first, press "reply" (or something similar) next, and your reply-
window will open containing just the selected quotes.
If I say I can cross the street in three seconds, that doesn't mean I can
do it on hands and knees.
John Navas
wrote in <YPidnRicV-JSYt7X...@giganews.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> If you don't care about your audience, why bother posting at all?
>>
>> Come on, Ron, you're better than that.
>>
>Actually, I don't care if you, or anyone else reads my posts, likes my
>posts, or likes the way I post. ...
You clearly do, or you wouldn't be posting.
I expected better of you, but I guess I was wrong.
John Navas
wrote in <YPidnR-cV-JaY97X...@giganews.com>:
>John McWilliams wrote:
>> We're talking etiquette for one thing. The ten seconds it takes you will
>> save each of your thousands- or dozens- of readers a second or two.
>> That's being thoughtful. Courteous. Whatever.
>>
>Chances are they have more time that I do.
What a lame excuse.
>I'm not going to take the
>time to do that editing to save readers 1 or two keystrokes. All it
>takes me to get to the bottom of a long post is one press on my
>multi-button pointing device.
So screw them.
>Hardly an imposition.
This just might quality you for my twit filter.
When you act like a dick, expect to get treated like one.
J�rgen Exner
>Robert Spanjaard wrote:
>> OTOH, Ron seems to care a lot about the two seconds it takes to quote
>> properly, which suggests he doesn't have much time left...
>>
>Two seconds? I have to select the text to be quoted, copy to the
>clipboard, select 'reply', delete old quoted data, dropdown a menu, and
>select past as quotation.
Well, of course you have any right to deliberately choose an awkward and
inefficient way to accomplish a task. But if you do so then complaining
about how inconvenient and time consuming it is sounds kind of silly.
jue
John Navas
wrote in <YPidnR6cV-K6Yt7X...@giganews.com>:
>Robert Spanjaard wrote:
>> OTOH, Ron seems to care a lot about the two seconds it takes to quote
>> properly, which suggests he doesn't have much time left...
>>
>Two seconds? I have to select the text to be quoted, copy to the
>clipboard, select 'reply', delete old quoted data, dropdown a menu, and
>select past as quotation. If can do that in two seconds, you are much
>faster than this semi-handicapped 66 year old.
>More power to you.
That's not how it's done.
You're either ignorant or deliberately obtuse.
Robert is correct that it only takes a second or two.
Savageduck
Why do it that way?
In Thunderbird, hit the "Reply" button; highlight the text you are
going to remove - delete. (or add some snide note that you have snipped
the superfluous text.)
All you should have left is the text your response is aimed at - add
your response below that and post.
No copy & paste is required.
...and old fartdom is also one of my problems so don't use that excuse. :-)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
Then why waste your time posting anything?
You might as well stand on a street corner and rail at the World.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Kennedy McEwen
<rphu...@charter.net> writes
>John Navas wrote:
>> Please trim huge quotes to just a relevant portion, not the whole
>>thing.
>> Thanks.
>>
>John,
> Maybe you have the time to do that, or a newsreader that makes it
>easy, but I have neither.
If you have the time to read it then you have the time to trim it.
If you have neither then you don't have the time to reply to it, so why
troll?
Kennedy McEwen
<rphu...@charter.net> writes
>>
>Chances are they have more time that I do.
Dear Ron,
YOU are an arrogant CUNT!
Regards,
PS. Sorry I don't have enough time to explain my conclusion.
No doubt you have enough time to debate it. ;-)
PPS. I apologise to regular readers for my misuse of Anglo-Saxon
language - a CUNT is a very useful and pleasurable piece of human
anatomy, whilst Ron certainly is not!
John McWilliams
I gave you ten seconds, being generous with a time allocation. Now that
I see that was about on, given you use an extraordinarily inefficient
way to operate. Others have commented on how to do so.
Again, etiquette......
ASAAR
Intentionally incompetent trimming just makes you look silly.
You've made quite a number of one or two line replies after quoting
hundreds of lines in past posts. Usually only a couple of lines or
a paragraph needed quoting. We both know full well that the bulk of
your quoted lines have not been necessary. To supply newsgroup
newcomers with all of the missing context they'd need (according to
your logic) you'd have to quote the entire previous thread. You're
just stubborn, Ron. But that's not so uncommon in these parts, and
I may have a touch of it myself. :)
BTW, although I'm not familiar with your newsreader (Thunderbird),
I'll bet that I could use TB and usually do all of the selective
quoting and trimming in a couple of seconds. Anyone with your
computer experience could also do that. As they say, where there's
a will there's a way.
ASAAR
>> We're talking etiquette for one thing. The ten seconds it takes you will
>> save each of your thousands- or dozens- of readers a second or two.
>> That's being thoughtful. Courteous. Whatever.
>
> Chances are they have more time that I do. I'm not going to take the
> time to do that editing to save readers 1 or two keystrokes. All it
> takes me to get to the bottom of a long post is one press on my
> multi-button pointing device. Hardly an imposition.
That only shows how inconsiderate and self centered you are. You
*incorrectly* assume that anyone reading your replies also assumes
that your replies are always contained at the very bottom of your
posts. Very often replies from others are scattered between long
quotes, and immediately skipping to the bottom guarantees that most
of the new text contained in the reply will never be seen. As I
hinted in my previous reply, trimming the unnecessary quotes can be
quick and easy if you're bright enough to figure out how to do it,
no matter how limited your newsreader is. Mine may be easier, as it
can quote only the text that's highlighted, but that's not the
point. It's much quicker than scrolling down through hundreds of
lines to make sure that any pertinent parts of your replies aren't
missed, which is the burden you impose on those that are patient
enough to read your replies. Had you been royalty, I suppose your
adopted motto would be "Let them eat cake."
> "Let them eat cake" is the traditional but incorrect translation
> of the French phrase "qu'ils mangent de la brioche." Brioche is
> actually a type of egg bread enriched with a large proportion
> of butter, rather than any type of dessert or confection.
>
> The quote, as attributed to Marie Antoinette, was claimed to have
> been uttered during one of the famines that occurred in France
> during the reign of her husband Louis XVI. Upon being alerted
> that the people were suffering due to widespread bread shortages,
> she is said to have replied, "Then let them eat brioche." This type
> of callousness on the part of the monarchy is often referred to when
> studying the possible factors that may have led to the French Revolution.
Charlie Groh
wrote:
...courtesy to the readers of the "thread" (sometimes "hawser").
Better communication.
cg
Ron Hunter
the light changes, and don't honk!
Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter
> In article <YPidnR-cV-JaY97X...@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
> <rphu...@charter.net> writes
>> Chances are they have more time that I do.
>
> Dear Ron,
> YOU are an arrogant CUNT!
>
> Regards,
>
> PS. Sorry I don't have enough time to explain my conclusion.
> No doubt you have enough time to debate it. ;-)
>
> PPS. I apologise to regular readers for my misuse of Anglo-Saxon
> language - a CUNT is a very useful and pleasurable piece of human
> anatomy, whilst Ron certainly is not!
Thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately, I don't have that particular
anatomical part, so your description is inappropriate, and inaccurate.
Why do people with no ability in debating a subject always resort to
insults, and personal attacks when they run out of coherent arguments?
Ron Hunter
through previous posts is quite time consuming, while skipping to the
end of a post is quite easy, at least with my newsreader. Perhaps the
real issue is that you want me to make life easy for you, at my expense.
Could I trim as you indicate? Sure, but then I would spend several
times as much time each day in newsgroups as I currently do.
I have reached an age where I am very aware of the ticking of the clock,
and I would rather have my pleasure than spend my seconds of life
editing newsgroup posts. If you don't like that attitude, by all means
add me to your 'twit list'. Life is way too short to waste doing
something you don't need to do, and which gives you no pleasure.
Ron Hunter
>>
>
> Or a kill-file... I get the impression he doesn't care one way or the
> other.
>
>
> - JT
>
>
You have it!
Now, notice that I have substantially changed the import of your message
by snipping. That is another reason I don't do it often.
Ron Hunter
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:48:38 -0500, "Mean old" Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>> We're talking etiquette for one thing. The ten seconds it takes you will
>>> save each of your thousands- or dozens- of readers a second or two.
>>> That's being thoughtful. Courteous. Whatever.
>> Chances are they have more time that I do. I'm not going to take the
>> time to do that editing to save readers 1 or two keystrokes. All it
>> takes me to get to the bottom of a long post is one press on my
>> multi-button pointing device. Hardly an imposition.
>
> That only shows how inconsiderate and self centered you are. You
> *incorrectly* assume that anyone reading your replies also assumes
> that your replies are always contained at the very bottom of your
> posts. Very often replies from others are scattered between long
> quotes, and immediately skipping to the bottom guarantees that most
> of the new text contained in the reply will never be seen. As I
> hinted in my previous reply, trimming the unnecessary quotes can be
> quick and easy if you're bright enough to figure out how to do it,
> no matter how limited your newsreader is. Mine may be easier, as it
> can quote only the text that's highlighted, but that's not the
> point. It's much quicker than scrolling down through hundreds of
> lines to make sure that any pertinent parts of your replies aren't
> missed, which is the burden you impose on those that are patient
> enough to read your replies. Had you been royalty, I suppose your
> adopted motto would be "Let them eat cake."
What you describe, interspersed posting, is especially difficult to
snip, and may lead to increased confusion about who said what. I really
hate that posting style, but it is sometimes better to do that than wait
until the end when many points are covered. I won't even consider
trying to snip an interspersed post as a long one can take a LONG time
to edit without losing all meaning.
Perhaps, when the next release of my software comes out (it's supposed
to have the ability to quote only selected text, but then they have
promised that before, so....) I will do more snipping, or maybe not.
Ron Hunter
yet.
bugbear
Because you're incompetent? Most people can improve skills
with practice.
BugBear
Bob Larter
> Her is what trimming looks like. It takes 10 times as long, and results
> in little information for the person who reads the post. What were we
> talking about? Sigh.
So you quote a few lines & trim the rest. Really, it's not exactly
rocket science.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> Robert Spanjaard wrote:
>> OTOH, Ron seems to care a lot about the two seconds it takes to quote
>> properly, which suggests he doesn't have much time left...
>>
> Two seconds? I have to select the text to be quoted, copy to the
> clipboard, select 'reply', delete old quoted data, dropdown a menu, and
> select past as quotation. If can do that in two seconds, you are much
> faster than this semi-handicapped 66 year old.
You what? You're running T/bird, as am I. It automatically puts the
cursor at the bottom of the quoted text. You simply cursor up to the
start of the text you wish to quote, hold SHIFT, & cursor up to the
attributions, then hit DELETE. It might have taken me an entire 5
seconds to do it in this post.
ASAAR
>> Intentionally incompetent trimming just makes you look silly.
>> You've made quite a number of one or two line replies after quoting
>> hundreds of lines in past posts. Usually only a couple of lines or
>> a paragraph needed quoting. We both know full well that the bulk of
>> your quoted lines have not been necessary. To supply newsgroup
>> newcomers with all of the missing context they'd need (according to
>> your logic) you'd have to quote the entire previous thread. You're
>> just stubborn, Ron. But that's not so uncommon in these parts, and
>> I may have a touch of it myself. :)
>>
>> BTW, although I'm not familiar with your newsreader (Thunderbird),
>> I'll bet that I could use TB and usually do all of the selective
>> quoting and trimming in a couple of seconds. Anyone with your
>> computer experience could also do that. As they say, where there's
>> a will there's a way.
>
>
> The loss of context is annoying, to me, at least. Threading back
> through previous posts is quite time consuming, while skipping to the
> end of a post is quite easy, at least with my newsreader.
You're so obtuse at times, Ron. I never said or implied that any
useful context should be trimmed. You also completely missed the
point about quoting entire threads. You've never been so out of
touch as to do that (nor have I ever seen anyone else do that in
newsgroups) so what put into your head the idea of reading back
through previous messages in a thread? The point was simply that
you often quote *much* more material than is necessary to provide
sufficient context for your replies, and if you feel that there's a
need to quote even the unnecessary bits, why not take it to an even
more absurd extreme and provide the supposed context provided by
earlier replies in the thread. You show that you're trying only to
find some way to justify your egregious quoting without taking an
extra second or two to understand what you're replying to.
> Perhaps the
> real issue is that you want me to make life easy for you, at my expense.
Yes, just as you're expected to stop your car at red lights, even
though it's at your expense (time and wasted gas). You think that
you're making a logical argument, but it's completely unreasonable,
unless perhaps you have some anarchist genes, and have no truck with
the Golden Rule.
> Could I trim as you indicate? Sure, but then I would spend several
> times as much time each day in newsgroups as I currently do.
That's nonsense, but after repeating it for many years you may
even believe it by now.
> I have reached an age where I am very aware of the ticking of the clock,
> and I would rather have my pleasure than spend my seconds of life
> editing newsgroup posts. If you don't like that attitude, by all means
> add me to your 'twit list'.
I don't generally use twit lists even though I recognize twits
when I see them.
> Life is way too short to waste doing something you don't need to
> do, and which gives you no pleasure.
Then why have you been posting so many defensive replies in this
thread? Is writing them more pleasurable than trimming? You've
used that "ticking of the clock" argument for at least 5 years and
you're still here. It'll probably be many more years before the
grim reaper trims your wide butt. Then we'll expect to see "But
most of all, I did it *my* way" engraved on your tombstone. :)
DRS
news:h20nnt$u83$1...@news.eternal-september.org
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> ASAAR wrote:
>>> Is it too late to try, Ron?
>
>> results in little information for the person who reads the post. What
>> were we talking about? Sigh.
>
> will save each of your thousands- or dozens- of readers a second or
> two. That's being thoughtful. Courteous. Whatever.
Ten seconds? Two, more like. The problem isn't the time it takes, the
problem is the unfortunately large number of posters who have no
consideration for others.
Karl Thompson
>On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:22:36 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> The loss of context is annoying, to me, at least. Threading back
>> through previous posts is quite time consuming, while skipping to the
>> end of a post is quite easy, at least with my newsreader.
>
> You're so obtuse at times, Ron. I never said or implied that any
>useful context should be trimmed.
Well, let's fix that then:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:50:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Plastic? Thermal expansion of plastic is much greater than metal and
>it could very well be why we are seeing focus issues that need "lens
>re-calibration" at service depots or that we see the need for in-
>camera focus fine-tuning. Even cameras and lenses that appear to be
>metal today may have plastic cells holding lenses, components in
>cameras. The cameras are produced in a control temp environment but
>that isn't real life use where temps can vary by 10's of degrees. I
>don't remember all metal AF SLRs needing focus fine-tuning (or having
>that facility) in the film days.
The top #1 reason for so many focusing errors:
Idiots who have become dependent on automated focusing systems. Especially
those snapshooters who are so stupid as to justify their common user-error
by blaming it on materials, focusing systems, or camera designs.
Do you honestly think that any automatic focusing system in the world is
ever going to be smart enough to figure out if you want the leading edge of
that small-butterfly's wing, the antennae, or the further wing edges in
precise focus?
There's only so much that any auto-anything system will ever be able to do.
This is why you have Snapshooters and Photographers. No photographer worth
his salt will ever depend on any automated focusing system. Nor do they
ever expect that some point and shoot feature in any camera, all DSLRs
included, should be expected to do the work correctly for them. They know
better. Do you ever wholly depend on your camera's automatic metering
system too? That makes you a point and shoot Snapshooter, whether you use a
P&S camera or DSLR. Every real photographer on earth knows that the camera
will never be able to select the proper exposure for them. That's why they
like cameras with a handy EV compensation dial or toggle, always at the
ready. The camera might get you in the ballpark for focusing and exposure
settings but then you have to take it from there. That's what real
photographers always do. That's what snapshooters won't ever comprehend.
Instead they would rather loudly proclaim the meager benefits of RAW to try
to recover their badly exposed and color-shifted shots, because they're
nothing but snapshooters in the first place.
People reveal much about their total lack of talent by what they find most
important in their cameras.
Snapshooter-Detection System
_________________________________________
What their camera requires or is already best at = what it really means
when they say it.
High ISO = I don't know how to pan properly to give my photo a much needed
sense of motion and action, nor do I know how to predict when to capture
the right shot at the peak moment. High ISO lets me use very fast shutter
speeds in dimly lit sports-fields so I don't have to do all that, then each
and every one of my shots look sterile and lifeless. So what if all those
masters took all their sports shots at ISOs of 64 or less. Big deal. They
probably didn't realize why you NEED ISO3200, or even know what they were
doing and why they were doing it. But *I* do! Because I'm so much better at
photography than they ever were.
High-Speed Burst Rates = I can't get any shot for the life of me, ever. Nor
do I ever know when to shoot an image. I can now machine-gun my way through
life and see if I can find any so-so photo later in my talentless pile of
garbage. Sure, the loud sound of my camera is annoying as hell to everyone
for a block around, but so what? Only PRO photographers with PRO cameras do
what I do. We don't care about anyone else as long as we get some good
photos ..... someday.
Fast Auto-Focus = Huh? You're supposed to know how to focus these damn
things too or know what part of your subject that you want in focus? Go on.
You must be kidding me. You're insane. NOBODY who is a real photographer
EVER focuses their own cameras these days! My camera knows EXACTLY what I
want in focus! Besides, my camera has an optical viewfinder! I can tell
exactly what's in focus in that dim tunnel-view image. So what if the
shallow DOF of my camera didn't allow me to see that my main subject was
really out of focus in the small image in my superior optical viewfinder.
It looked like it was, everything around looked like it was in focus, so
shouldn't the main subject be in focus too? It must be an auto-focusing
defect. I bet that's what it was. I'll send my camera in again to have my
auto-focusing system recalibrated. After all, look at how much money I
spent! A camera this expensive shouldn't fail on some simple point and
shoot feature like this. You get what you pay for and I'm going to prove
it! No matter how many times I have to send it in to have its
phase-detection focusing system recalibrated!
Evaluative Metering = Oh, c'mon now. You expect me to be able to tell when
my subject is underexposed due to backlight too? My camera is supposed to
do that for me with all its fancy point and shoot features. Isn't it? ISN'T
IT? You get what you pay for, right? RIGHT?! My camera even relies on a
built-in database of the most commonly lit scenes so my Evaluative Metering
can make the right choice for me based on what every other snapshooter has
ever done before. Surely that MUST be a good system. Right? I don't want to
have to think and reason, I just want my photo done correctly for me by the
camera, based on a database of simple snapshots. That's why I paid so much
for that new point and shoot feature. Only an idiot would buy a camera that
didn't have this.
Fastest Start-up Time = Sorry, but I totally fail to comprehend why any
camera that is ready by the time I touch it and bring it up to my eye is
all the speed it ever needs to have for start-up time. So I buy cameras
with just the fastest, latest, and greatest, then relentlessly try to
justify why I spent $5000 more on my camera gear than anyone else, by
posting about it on-ad-infinauseum in news-groups. Hang on a minute ... my
camera started up just fine, super fast, but let me rummage through my
camera bags and find the right prime lens to use on it, after it started up
so fast. It's in here somewhere, I know it is ... damn, I left that one
back home. Never mind. See how fast my camera started up though? SEE! Now
THAT'S a camera worth buying!
Shallow DOF = I don't know how to compose any scene properly so I MUST
depend on a very shallow DOF, to isolate my subject from the very scene
that gives the subject its reason for being there. Nor do I realize that
for all macro shots I'll never be able to get even a whole flower or insect
in focus. I'm that amazingly stupid. Some idiots talk about how you can
decrease the DOF the very same way if needed by just using longer focal
lengths, but then that would require I change lenses or carry
poorly-figured 10 lb. monster glass that costs over $10,000. Losing my shot
in the time needed to change the lens, then getting dust all over my sensor
so all my shots are ruined. No, I need shallow DOF with the only lens that
I'm willing to carry and keep on my camera all day. I'm actually that poor
at this "photography" stuff. I really don't have one clue about how optics
and well done compositions are related. I'm just so overwhelmed and proud
of how blurry I can make everything! That's the sign of a good camera. The
only kind worth having and paying a small fortune for. REAL PROs even go on
and on about how the blurry parts of their photos are better and more
important than the in-focus parts. They even came up with a name for it,
calling it "bokeh" today, because it's more important than what's actually
in focus in any of their photos. That's the sign of a REAL PRO. Umm ...
isn't it? You know, the same PROs that go on and on about how much detail
is in some other image, because the whole image itself isn't worth talking
about nor worth looking at. You know. Those kind of "PRO"s.
RAW = Yeah? So what if the JPG output from my expensive camera sucks
big-time. So what if I don't know how to set exposure or white-balance
properly. I can shoot any image any way I want and then spend hours trying
to recover something, well, maybe something, from my superior RAW data. So
there! That's why I'm a better photographer than you'll ever be! Even
though all digital cameras made today have more dynamic range than most any
film of the past. Even 1/2.5 size sensors can have 10 stops of dynamic
range, film only 7 stops. So what if those films provided proper exposures
and dynamic range for all photographers for a century because they knew how
to expose them properly in the first place. This doesn't mean that I don't
need more dynamic range. Remember, I don't know how to expose the image
correctly in the first place. I've become dependent on my camera's point
and shoot "Evaluative Metering" system. It's doing it all correctly for me.
Right? Isn't it? OH well. If not, I have RAW to try to recover from my
camera automatically under-exposing or over-exposing all my shots by 3 or
more stops. So there.
Highest Resolution = I never capture any images with any content worth
seeing, but look how sharp and clear it is! Well, the small parts that I
can view at any one time on my much smaller resolution monitor. So what if
it's been proven that even 3 megapixels can rival the best 35mm film. So
what if no publication on earth ever prints photos larger than the pages in
it. So what if no web page shows the "large size" selection over 1024
pixels wide or high. So what if I do have the full resolution original
image and I can never view it on any monitor that exists on earth at full
view at 1:1 resolution. So what if that award-winning image can be fully
appreciated in just 640x480 pixels on my monitor because the content is so
striking and the original resolution really means nothing. I can even make
poster-size prints of my snapshots that nobody else ever wants to look at!
Besides, the most important use of all -- if really lucky I can crop out
something interesting from my snapshot that royally-sucked when I first
shot it. I'm that bad at photography that I don't know how to compose a
good shot worth viewing or printing in the first place. All that useless
and unnecessary resolution in my hands is what makes me a PRO! You're not a
PRO unless you choose the same camera as I have! No PRO would ever use
anything less. I read all about that on the internet so it must be true.
Right?
_________________________________________
The list goes on and on. All you have to do is stop to realize why they
NEED those camera features. Each and every time it points directly to them
being nothing but a talentless-hack, point and shoot, snapshooter; or total
gear-head, not even a lowly snapshooter; crippled and dependent on their
automated point and shoot cameras.
whisky-dave
"Truer Dat" <t...@what.com> wrote in message
news:td3745l7ovjsj4j1t...@4ax.com...
>
> The top #1 reason for so many focusing errors:
>
> Idiots who have become dependent on automated focusing systems. Especially
> those snapshooters who are so stupid as to justify their common user-error
> by blaming it on materials, focusing systems, or camera designs.
I guess that's true but I wonder if such people[1] even consider checking
that
the camera is focusing on the image they want. I doubt it as when a person
has brought an auot focus camera they expect it to focus automatically.
> Do you honestly think that any automatic focusing system in the world is
> ever going to be smart enough to figure out if you want the leading edge
> of
> that small-butterfly's wing, the antennae, or the further wing edges in
> precise focus?
Yes in a manor of speaking. The new Apple iPhone, when used as a camera
you touch the screen to select what you want the camera to focus on.
In the near future I expect camera will use this technology in that they'll
store
a picture(s) with varying points of focus a bit like auto-bracking for
exposure
but with focus, you'll then have the option to tape on teh LCD where you
want the
best focus point and teh camera will select that stored image deleteing the
others all done on-the-fly.
>
> There's only so much that any auto-anything system will ever be able to
> do.
I think they will do much more, not that it's really needed by those that
know
what they are doing, but that;s not a good marketing ploy is it.
You supply/offer what people want rather than what they actually need.
Stagnate and die.
> This is why you have Snapshooters and Photographers. No photographer worth
> his salt will ever depend on any automated focusing system.
They will start to depend on it as they have done with internal exposure
meters.
I remember the days when pros and even amateurs didn't 'depend' on the new
fangled
TTL metering systems.
>Nor do they
> ever expect that some point and shoot feature in any camera, all DSLRs
> included, should be expected to do the work correctly for them. They know
> better. Do you ever wholly depend on your camera's automatic metering
> system too?
I think most people do and will use that meter reading as a starting point
at the very least.
>That makes you a point and shoot Snapshooter, whether you use a
> P&S camera or DSLR. Every real photographer on earth knows that the camera
> will never be able to select the proper exposure for them. That's why they
> like cameras with a handy EV compensation dial or toggle,
The EV compensation does rely on an intial reading.
>always at the
> ready. The camera might get you in the ballpark for focusing and exposure
> settings but then you have to take it from there. That's what real
> photographers always do.
And always will, years ago is it was cloudy, sunny or overcast you'd select
an
exposure to suit if you were out a little you'd correct it in the darkroom.
>That's what snapshooters won't ever comprehend.
> Instead they would rather loudly proclaim the meager benefits of RAW to
> try
> to recover their badly exposed and color-shifted shots, because they're
> nothing but snapshooters in the first place.
>
> People reveal much about their total lack of talent by what they find most
> important in their cameras.
Like whether they are Nikon or Canon or Olympus etc....
Or even what shoes they wear, as comfortable shoes are important if you're
taking
photos, bad footwear is painful and may lead you to taking shaky photos.
[1] those that just buy a camera without really understanding the specs.
Ron Hunter
I admit that I sometimes miss the point of a post, but then that means
that should I snip, I might make the situation even more confused. My
main concern about snipping is that aside from the issue of time, it
often leads to confusion, or even unintentional (I hope) changing of the
meaning of a post.
>> Perhaps the
>> real issue is that you want me to make life easy for you, at my expense.
>
> Yes, just as you're expected to stop your car at red lights, even
> though it's at your expense (time and wasted gas). You think that
> you're making a logical argument, but it's completely unreasonable,
> unless perhaps you have some anarchist genes, and have no truck with
> the Golden Rule.
>
>
I don't complain about other's lack of snipping... So that doesn't apply.
>> Could I trim as you indicate? Sure, but then I would spend several
>> times as much time each day in newsgroups as I currently do.
>
> That's nonsense, but after repeating it for many years you may
> even believe it by now.
>
>
It's a fact. I spend very little time quoting, and replying, but would
have to spend several times as long editing and snipping. Sure,
snipping with a hatchet would be easy, but would likely lose the whole
meaning sometimes.
>> I have reached an age where I am very aware of the ticking of the clock,
>> and I would rather have my pleasure than spend my seconds of life
>> editing newsgroup posts. If you don't like that attitude, by all means
>> add me to your 'twit list'.
>
> I don't generally use twit lists even though I recognize twits
> when I see them.
>
>
I have a few entries in my filters that are specifically for
individuals, rather for the spam mongers, but very few as I have a
pretty thick skin.
>> Life is way too short to waste doing something you don't need to
>> do, and which gives you no pleasure.
>
> Then why have you been posting so many defensive replies in this
> thread? Is writing them more pleasurable than trimming? You've
> used that "ticking of the clock" argument for at least 5 years and
> you're still here. It'll probably be many more years before the
> grim reaper trims your wide butt. Then we'll expect to see "But
> most of all, I did it *my* way" engraved on your tombstone. :)
>
Is writing them more pleasurable than trimming? DARN RIGHT!
If I have been using that ticking clock for 5 years, that means I have 5
years less left than when I started it, for certain.
It's summer, and I am not working (substitute teacher for fun and
profit), so maybe I will invest a few minutes snipping, but don't bet
the rent on it.
ASAAR
>>> Life is way too short to waste doing something you don't need to
>>> do, and which gives you no pleasure.
>>
>> Then why have you been posting so many defensive replies in this
>> thread? Is writing them more pleasurable than trimming? You've
>> used that "ticking of the clock" argument for at least 5 years and
>> you're still here. It'll probably be many more years before the
>> grim reaper trims your wide butt. Then we'll expect to see "But
>> most of all, I did it *my* way" engraved on your tombstone. :)
>
>
> Is writing them more pleasurable than trimming? DARN RIGHT!
> If I have been using that ticking clock for 5 years, that means I have 5
> years less left than when I started it, for certain.
> It's summer, and I am not working (substitute teacher for fun and
> profit), so maybe I will invest a few minutes snipping, but don't bet
> the rent on it.
Ok, fair enough, and this reply of yours was even nicely formed,
with interspersed counterpoints following points. It's a good thing
I didn't hit a key to jump to the bottom of your reply or I would
have missed much of what you had to say. :)
John Navas
wrote in <2o2dnao1ePgLH9nX...@giganews.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> When you act like a dick, expect to get treated like one.
>>
>Feel free, John, but then you have acted even worse from time to time.
I'm no worse than I think you are isn't a terribly good defense. ;)
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
John Navas
wrote in <Au6dnewQ4sRZG9nX...@giganews.com>:
>ASAAR wrote:
>> That only shows how inconsiderate and self centered you are. You
>> *incorrectly* assume that anyone reading your replies also assumes
>> that your replies are always contained at the very bottom of your
>> posts. Very often replies from others are scattered between long
>> quotes, and immediately skipping to the bottom guarantees that most
>> of the new text contained in the reply will never be seen. As I
>> hinted in my previous reply, trimming the unnecessary quotes can be
>> quick and easy if you're bright enough to figure out how to do it,
>> no matter how limited your newsreader is. Mine may be easier, as it
>> can quote only the text that's highlighted, but that's not the
>> point. It's much quicker than scrolling down through hundreds of
>> lines to make sure that any pertinent parts of your replies aren't
>> missed, which is the burden you impose on those that are patient
>> enough to read your replies. Had you been royalty, I suppose your
>> adopted motto would be "Let them eat cake."
>
>What you describe, interspersed posting, is especially difficult to
>snip, and may lead to increased confusion about who said what.
Lame excuse -- actually quite easy in most cases.
>Perhaps, when the next release of my software comes out (it's supposed
>to have the ability to quote only selected text, but then they have
>promised that before, so....) I will do more snipping, or maybe not.
Likewise lame -- there's no real issue in the current version of
Thunderbird.
John Navas
wrote in <i6mdndhU7Y4uSNnX...@giganews.com>:
>Is writing them more pleasurable than trimming? DARN RIGHT!
Why, since you claim you don't care if anyone reads it?
"The lad doth protest too much methinks!"
John Navas
wrote in <4a44...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Her is what trimming looks like. It takes 10 times as long, and results
>> in little information for the person who reads the post. What were we
>> talking about? Sigh.
>
>So you quote a few lines & trim the rest. Really, it's not exactly
>rocket science.
Unless you do your very best to make it so.
Try trimming with your eyes closed and you'll see how hard it can be.
;)
ASAAR
>>> When you act like a dick, expect to get treated like one.
>>>
>> Feel free, John, but then you have acted even worse from time to time.
>
> I'm no worse than I think you are isn't a terribly good defense. ;)
True, but Ron didn't say that. What he did say is more like "I'm
less worse than you *really* are.", or better, just read what he
wrote and interpret it correctly. He didn't write or imply "I'm no
worse", and your addition of "I think" shows that you weren't
thinking. :)
Lloyd W.
devours its own.
Kennedy McEwen
<rphu...@charter.net> writes
>Why do people with no ability in debating a subject always resort to
>insults, and personal attacks when they run out of coherent arguments?
Precisely the point I was making about YOUR arrogant response!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Eric Stevens
<whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>"Truer Dat" <t...@what.com> wrote in message
>news:td3745l7ovjsj4j1t...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> The top #1 reason for so many focusing errors:
>>
>> Idiots who have become dependent on automated focusing systems. Especially
>> those snapshooters who are so stupid as to justify their common user-error
>> by blaming it on materials, focusing systems, or camera designs.
>
>I guess that's true but I wonder if such people[1] even consider checking
>that
>the camera is focusing on the image they want. I doubt it as when a person
>has brought an auot focus camera they expect it to focus automatically.
>
>
>
>
>> Do you honestly think that any automatic focusing system in the world is
>> ever going to be smart enough to figure out if you want the leading edge
>> of
>> that small-butterfly's wing, the antennae, or the further wing edges in
>> precise focus?
>
>Yes in a manor of speaking. The new Apple iPhone, when used as a camera
>you touch the screen to select what you want the camera to focus on.
Some Nikon [e.g. D300] cameras allow you to select the point of the
image you wish to focus on.
Eric Stevens
Ron Hunter
> Ok, fair enough, and this reply of yours was even nicely formed,
> with interspersed counterpoints following points. It's a good thing
> I didn't hit a key to jump to the bottom of your reply or I would
> have missed much of what you had to say. :)
>
nterspersed has its strong points, but following a complex thread
through several posters using it can get rather confusing to keep track
of who said what. Fortunately, it isn't used too much.
Ron Hunter
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:05:38 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net>
> wrote in <i6mdndhU7Y4uSNnX...@giganews.com>:
>
>> Is writing them more pleasurable than trimming? DARN RIGHT!
>
> Why, since you claim you don't care if anyone reads it?
> "The lad doth protest too much methinks!"
>
or is helped by it, great. If they don't like it, or don't read it, I
really don't care.
I have been kicking around on the internet, and before that on Fidonet
for about 25 years, and have grown a pretty thick skin, and a back that
sheds flames, and insults pretty well. Getting all that upset about
something on newsgroups isn't worth the trouble.
Ron Hunter
> In article <UaednZo30ppzHtnX...@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
> <rphu...@charter.net> writes
>
>> Why do people with no ability in debating a subject always resort to
>> insults, and personal attacks when they run out of coherent arguments?
>
> Precisely the point I was making about YOUR arrogant response!
I admit to arrogance, but then I don't have to resort to personal
attacks, or obscene language to make my point.
Ron Hunter
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> JustaTroll wrote:
>>
>>> Or a kill-file... I get the impression he doesn't care one way or the
>>> other.
>>>
>>>
>>> - JT
>>>
>>>
>> You have it!
>>
>
>
>> Now, notice that I have substantially changed the import of your message
>> by snipping. That is another reason I don't do it often.
>>
>
> reply to... It does btw change the original message context
>. It does however make it quicker to read.
>
> Best wishes to you Mr. Hunter... Snip or don't snip as you see fit, I'll
> read or not read as I see fit.
>
>
> - JT
> isn't telling you or anyone else how to post messages to Usenet
> Newsgroups
>
OK. Read the above, carefully, and then reply. If snipping is allowed,
what YOU appear to have written MAY be changed to look like something
entirely different. All I did was snip your message.
ASAAR
> I have been kicking around on the internet, and before that on Fidonet
> for about 25 years, and have grown a pretty thick skin, and a back that
> sheds flames, and insults pretty well.
So that explains it, I've got at least 1/2 dozen years on you so
you're a newbie! And that's just considering modem use. My first
computer (completely hand built) preceded that by a good number of
years and it had no OS, just a simple monitor that had to be loaded
from paper tape, and the boot code to load the tape I/O routine into
memory had to be hand toggled into that same memory which at the
time was a whopping 8k bytes, soon to be expanded to 24k so I could
run a better BASIC interpreter. The first improvement for that
ancient system, before the added memory was a monitor in EPROM which
retired the paper tape.
I used several of those BBS networks, some of which were really
large multi-user BBS systems, and they often networked with other
multi-user BBSes. I even ran one (single user, non-network) for a
while. But before that was the first BBS, Ward and Randy's single
user system in Chicago back in the late 1970s. No charge to use it,
but at 300 (with luck) and more often connecting at 110 baud, long
distance rates made it only an occasional and very brief indulgence.
> Getting all that upset about something on newsgroups
> isn't worth the trouble.
There are a couple of guys from the old BBS networks that
habitually got themselves vacations from the moderated BBSes due to
repeatedly being abusive. A couple were quite knowledgeable and the
others much less so, though they didn't realize it. I've seen them
here in newsgroup_land. In some ways, not much has changed. :)
l v
> Plastic? Thermal expansion of plastic is much greater than metal and
> it could very well be why we are seeing focus issues that need "lens
> re-calibration" at service depots or that we see the need for in-
> camera focus fine-tuning. Even cameras and lenses that appear to be
> metal today may have plastic cells holding lenses, components in
> cameras. The cameras are produced in a control temp environment but
> that isn't real life use where temps can vary by 10's of degrees. I
> don't remember all metal AF SLRs needing focus fine-tuning (or having
> that facility) in the film days.
IMO ...
1) Manufacturing quality controls are lacking.
2) The smaller sensor sizes of digital cameras when compared to a 35mm
film camera, results in a smaller depth of field - given all other
factors are kept the same. Less room for error.
#1 + #2 = focus errors you speak of.
--
Len
Ron Hunter
until 1981, and didn't get 'online' until 1983. I ran a local BBS
system for 2.5 years, with an average 100 posts/day before shutting it
down in order to be able to use my computer more for my own purposes.
It was very interesting, and that is the only time I have not used my
real name online, although most of the regular posters knew who I was.
Kennedy McEwen
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>> In article <UaednZo30ppzHtnX...@giganews.com>, Ron
>>Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> writes
>>
>>> Why do people with no ability in debating a subject always resort to
>>>insults, and personal attacks when they run out of coherent
>>>arguments?
>> Precisely the point I was making about YOUR arrogant response!
>
>I admit to arrogance,
> personal attacks, or obscene language
Fixed your post for you!
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> John Navas wrote:
>> Please trim huge quotes to just a relevant portion, not the whole thing.
>> Thanks.
> Maybe you have the time to do that, or a newsreader that makes it
> easy, but I have neither.
Thank you for informing us that we, your audience, aren't
worth even 3 seconds of consideration.
> Skipping to the end is vastly easier,
1000 times skipping is faster than one time snipping? Don't make
me laugh.
> and
> unless you are one of the 5% of people who are still using dialup for
> newsgroup access, why bother?
Please be informed, that at least I, as part of your audience,
feel that you have in the balance nothing valuable to add if you
don't even manage basic courtesy. I will negatively score your
postings accordingly. Why should I bother to read you?
-Wolfgang
Chris Malcolm
It's easy to see how much a poster values their communications --
it's indicated by the care they take to make them clear and
comprehensible. There's no point in reading posts which the author
himself clearly thinks are worthless.
--
Chris Malcolm
Ron Hunter
> In article <Ft6dnc-fdPlgx9jX...@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
> <rphu...@charter.net> writes
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>> In article <UaednZo30ppzHtnX...@giganews.com>, Ron
>>> Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> writes
>>>
>>>> Why do people with no ability in debating a subject always resort to
>>>> insults, and personal attacks when they run out of coherent
>>>> arguments?
>>> Precisely the point I was making about YOUR arrogant response!
>> I admit to arrogance,
> > thus fully deserving of all the
>> personal attacks, or obscene language
> > I receive.
>
> Fixed your post for you!
I think that is what is called putting words in someone else's mouth.
Which is exactly the point I was trying to make.
It's a bad idea.
Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter
I am not able to judge, and wouldn't try, the value of my posts, if any,
for any single individual. For some, they may be useful, for others a
crashing waste of time. In any case, I have no interest in spending
several hours a day on newsgroups so that I can edit every post I make
in order to squeeze every non-essential byte from the post.
John McWilliams
> I am not able to judge, and wouldn't try, the value of my posts, if any,
> for any single individual. For some, they may be useful, for others a
> crashing waste of time. In any case, I have no interest in spending
> several hours a day on newsgroups so that I can edit every post I make
> in order to squeeze every non-essential byte from the post.
No one expects that. Just please remove the bulk of the hulk of the
preceding post.
--
john mcwilliams
"Baldrick, you wouldn't recognize a subtle plan if it painted itself
purple and danced naked on top of a harpsichord singing 'Subtle Plans
Are Here Again'."
-- Blackadder
ASAAR
>> It's easy to see how much a poster values their communications --
>> it's indicated by the care they take to make them clear and
>> comprehensible. There's no point in reading posts which the author
>> himself clearly thinks are worthless.
>
> I am not able to judge, and wouldn't try, the value of my posts, if any,
> for any single individual. For some, they may be useful, for others a
> crashing waste of time. In any case, I have no interest in spending
> several hours a day on newsgroups so that I can edit every post I make
> in order to squeeze every non-essential byte from the post.
Ron, that old canard never flew and still doesn't fly. Checking
both rec.photo.digital.slr-systems and rec.photo.digital I see 43
replies for June, 146 for May, 26 for April, 47 for March, 36 for
February and 64 for January. As today is the 27th, it's close
enough to consider it a full month, and your average for six months
is 60.3333 posts per month, or two per day. I may have missed a
couple of posts (news servers occasionally miss a few) but this
should be pretty representative of what you've actually posted.
Virtually everyone in the newsgroup other than you has said that
they can trim posts in a matter of seconds. How can you expect
anyone to take seriously your claim that it takes you several hours
(on average) to trim two replies? Even in May when you must have
been chugging your Geritol you only averaged 5 replies per day.
This is a good example of arguing for its own sake, credibility be
damned. I hope that you don't really believe your "logic".
I'll close with this. Hours? At your advanced age, time should
seem to be advancing much more rapidly, not more slowly! :)
They Just Get Sad and Sadder
Yet another way to detect snapshooters from photographers. They find
anything at all to post about other than photography, any obscure topic at
all that they might know a little about. GPS units, cell-phones, batteries,
syntax and spelling, top vs. bottom posting ... you name it. Anything at
all to get away from that scary topic of photography. The topic where their
book/manual-learned and net-learned ignorance will be easily revealed by
real photographers.
Actually, the kinds of people like above aren't even snapshooters. They
live on the internet, never held a camera in their lives, stalking down
their only known companions in life, that being the text on their screens.
Deducing their rival posters' every move by how many posts their imaginary
"friends" make and in what newsgroups.
They only hope and pray that someone would stalk them in return the same
way one day, showing that much interest in them. They have yet to figure
out that they aren't worth even that much of anyone's time. That kind of
psychotic behavior serves no purpose to those with real lives.
What a sad sad sad self-evident existence. Oh well. Their choice.
Now, what other ways can we list to deduce point and shoot snapshooters
from real photographers? Point and shoot photography style, not P&S camera
style. Because most every DSLR owner is also nothing but a remedial point
and shoot snapshooting camera owner. Otherwise they wouldn't pride
themselves on and depend on all their camera's automatic features. Touting
the superiority of their camera for having the latest and greatest
automatic features. .... Or have we pretty much covered all the more
obvious ways to flush-out these point and shoot snapshooting posers who try
to pretend to be "X-Spurts" online.
Ron Hunter
It is one of those I post LEAST to.