Re: Bad News For Nikon As Pros Turn Their Back To The D3x!!
Annika1980
> It was bound to happen when Nikon releases a killer camera like this.
> Society just isn't ready for this beast.
>
> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Red_Back.jpg>
A little blurry ain't it? Did you shoot this one out of a moving car?
Noons
> It was bound to happen when Nikon releases a killer camera like this.
> Society just isn't ready for this beast.
>
> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Red_Back.jpg>
I think you're confusing DOF with car engines...
Gemini
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6a2b656e-2a4a-4a33...@r34g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Does Larry have a car too?
G
Atheist Chaplain
news:497cf74a$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
yeah and its not a beat up old Audi like yours Douggie boi :-)
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
Robert Coe
wrote:
: It was bound to happen when Nikon releases a killer camera like this.
: Society just isn't ready for this beast.
:
: <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Red_Back.jpg>
He does look a bit irked. Did he think you were scaring away the mice?
Bob
John McWilliams
looks sharp to me.
--
john mcwilliams
Focus
"Larry Thong" <larry...@shitstring.com> wrote in message
news:oJWdne5Cv7D7ZOHU...@supernews.com...
> Annika1980 wrote:
>
>>> It was bound to happen when Nikon releases a killer camera like this.
>>> Society just isn't ready for this beast.
>>>
>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Red_Back.jpg>
>>
>> A little blurry ain't it? Did you shoot this one out of a moving car?
>
> have to do.
Don't mind him: he's so used to shooting blurry pictures, he doesn't
recognize a sharp one anymore ;-)
--
Focus
Annika1980
>
> Don't mind him: he's so used to shooting blurry pictures, he doesn't
> recognize a sharp one anymore ;-)
If you think that pic is sharp you need to change your monitor and
your name.
Here's a sharp hawk pic or two, for ya.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/25038934/original
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/24337887/original
Let's ask Harry if he thinks that's a sharp pic:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/24436504
Helen
> On Jan 26, 12:35 pm, "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Don't mind him: he's so used to shooting blurry pictures, he doesn't
> > recognize a sharp one anymore ;-)
>
> If you think that pic is sharp you need to change your monitor and
> your name.
>
They are a couple of your best:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/24337887/original
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/25038934/original
They are incredible. Yeah, even worthy of National Geographic. I know
everyone makes fun of me for such statements, but I am sincere.
As you know, I'm going away for the reason I explained to you. I won't
have access to the internet. I just want to say you keep posting
those amazing shots. All the best of everything Bret.
your #1 fan,
Helen 11:11
tony cooper
<helensi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 26, 9:12 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 26, 12:35 pm, "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Don't mind him: he's so used to shooting blurry pictures, he doesn't
>> > recognize a sharp one anymore ;-)
>>
>> If you think that pic is sharp you need to change your monitor and
>> your name.
>>
>> Here's a sharp hawk pic or two, for ya.http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/25038934/originalhttp://www.pbase.com/bret/image/24337887/original
>>
>> Let's ask Harry if he thinks that's a sharp pic:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/24436504
>
>
>They are a couple of your best:
>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/24337887/original
>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/25038934/original
>They are incredible. Yeah, even worthy of National Geographic. I know
>everyone makes fun of me for such statements,
I don't know why others make fun of you, but the reason that I do is
exemplified by your comment about d-mac's "Peter the Pelican":
http://www.d-mac.info/fun-pix/Peter-the-pelican.jpg when you said the
sky was too bright.
Bret posts an image with a sky the color of a cheap hooker's dress,
(25038934) and, and you want to enshrine him in the Photographer's
Hall of Fame. You find fault in everyone's images (that you comment
on) except Bret's.
Maybe the sky *was* that color the day d-mac took that photo, and it
*was* that color the day that Bret took his shot. But you come off as
Bret's claque.
Don't get me wrong...Bret's images are very good. It's just that you
are laughingly predictable in your critiques.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Helen
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:16:41 -0800 (PST), Helen
>
> >On Jan 26, 9:12 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 26, 12:35 pm, "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
>
> >> > Don't mind him: he's so used to shooting blurry pictures, he doesn't
> >> > recognize a sharp one anymore ;-)
>
> >> If you think that pic is sharp you need to change your monitor and
> >> your name.
>
>
> >> Let's ask Harry if he thinks that's a sharp pic:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/24436504
>
> >They are a couple of your best:
> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/24337887/original
> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/25038934/original
> >They are incredible. Yeah, even worthy of National Geographic. I know
> >everyone makes fun of me for such statements,
>
> I don't know why others make fun of you, but the reason that I do is
> sky was too bright.
>
> Bret posts an image with a sky the color of a cheap hooker's dress,
> (25038934) and, and you want to enshrine him in the Photographer's
> Hall of Fame. You find fault in everyone's images (that you comment
> on) except Bret's.
>
> Maybe the sky *was* that color the day d-mac took that photo, and it
> *was* that color the day that Bret took his shot. But you come off as
> Bret's claque.
>
> Don't get me wrong...Bret's images are very good. It's just that you
> are laughingly predictable in your critiques.
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
You said I find fault in everyone's images except Bret's. Check back
in the archives. I've given positive comments on a lot of people's
work, not just Bret's. Last SI Mandate I said your image of the "evil
eye" man was a great piece of photojournalism. You acknowledged
everyone elses comment but mine. No big deal, but don't say things
that aren't true.
"Bret posts an image with a sky the color of a cheap hooker's dress,
(25038934) and, and you want to enshrine him in the Photographer's
Hall of Fame."
It's no secret that Bret is my fav. photographer, and I tend to gush
about his work, but wanting to enshrine him in the Photographer's Hall
of Fame is over-exaggerating. I'm also on record for saying a few
things that would have improved one of his shots too. If I see
something that needs to be improved, I'll say it. As for the sky in
Bret's pic, I still say the original looks better then the PS version,
which looked too phoney for me.
"you are laughingly predictable in your critiques."
I'm sure you and even Bret has a good laugh about my "critiques". I'm
the first to admit they lack the technical jargon of say Ken
Nadvornick, Alan Browne or other pros. But they were always honest in
the way the image made me feel.
Noons
>
> LOL! First you guys cry because my pics are too sharp. Now that I put the
> D3x's selector switch in "Canon Intermediate Mode" you now cry that they
> are
> blurry. I can't win.
>
They are so used to Bret's crap of over-sharpened feathers
looking like they were dipped in hair-spray, they forgot
what a truly sharp image looks like!
Noons
> in the archives. I've given positive comments on a lot of people's
> work, not just Bret's. Last SI Mandate I said your image of the "evil
And the lies continue. Appparently, the stupid woman can't fathom
that ONE example is not the same as "lots". But she always had
a problem discerning between singular and plural anyways.
Must be that crap monitor she claims to have replaced now...
> It's no secret that Bret is my fav. photographer, and I tend to gush
> about his work, but wanting to enshrine him in the Photographer's Hall
> of Fame is over-exaggerating.
Ya reckon?
> "you are laughingly predictable in your critiques."
>
> I'm sure you and even Bret has a good laugh about my "critiques".
Not just those two, believe you me...
Focus
Those are good. But why do you show some old D60 pictures? Haven't mastered
the 5D MII yet? No shame in admitting that...
--
Focus
DanP
> "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in message
not any more, he part exchanged it for that camera.
Annika1980
>
> Those are good. But why do you show some old D60 pictures? Haven't mastered
> the 5D MII yet? No shame in admitting that...
>
No. I haven't trained any hawks lately. I don't believe I've even
take a hawk pic with the Fab 5D2.
I've been spending time inside this Winter working on my specialty.
Annika1980
> sky was too bright.
The main problem with D-Mac's pic is the halo around the bird. In an
attempt to lighten the bird against the bright sky he has illustrated
his sloppy Photoshop techniques. This is a common problem with
misusing Photoshop's Shadow/Highlight command. I think he probably
lightened the sky as well in an attempt to mask this halo.
Annika1980
> (25038934) and, and you want to enshrine him in the Photographer's
> Hall of Fame.
There's a Hall of Fame? COOL !!!
tony cooper
It was a typo on my part. It should have been "Hall of Frame".
John McWilliams
Please exhibit only the better looking players and cheer-persons.....
Love the lighting on this one.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108587243&exif=Y
Almost all HS gyms here have crap lighting, but that arena looks
pro-like. Are there 45 degree angled lights?
--
John McWilliams
Annika1980
>
> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108587238
>
> Please exhibit only the better looking players and cheer-persons.....
>
>
> Almost all HS gyms here have crap lighting, but that arena looks
> pro-like. Are there 45 degree angled lights?
The only thing pro-like was my camera.
It's a college arena .... better lit than most high school gyms, but
still not the best. The action shot you mentioned was taken @ f/28,
ISO 6400. That's pretty extreme conditions for most gear, but no prob
for the Fab 5D2.
The cheerleader shot was taken with my Pocketwizard firing the house
strobes so I was able to take it down to a more normal f/4 @ ISO 400.
Using the strobes with the Fab 5D2 is like cheating.
Alan Browne
Did you have permission to fire the house strobes?
--
-- 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.
Annika1980
wrote:
>
> Did you have permission to fire the house strobes?
Permission?