Quick question ???
Brian
What are the advantages shooting in raw vs jpg files ????
Do raw pix look better, easier to edit ???
Thanks
Brian
Pete D
"Brian" <uni...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ft1i4p3pkqms7vnj...@4ax.com...
In general terms you will get a better result shooting raw and post
processing, that is the catch though that you must do at least some PP,
tools like LightRoom can make it pretty easy though. Raw files will almost
always be larger though so expect to use up more of your storgae capacity on
both memory card and PC.
Cheers.
Pete
Brian
What type of processing ???? Will Paint Shop Pro X2 process it ???
Thanks
Brian
terrance-minitel
>
>"Brian" <uni...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7ft1i4p3pkqms7vnj...@4ax.com...
>>
>> What are the advantages shooting in raw vs jpg files ????
>>
>> Do raw pix look better, easier to edit ???
>>
>> Thanks
>> Brian
>
>In general terms you will get a better result shooting raw and post
>processing,
In general terms, what Pete D typed is completely untrue. RAW data became
popularized because of really poor RAW to JPG algorithms in DSLR cameras. DSLR
camera owners wanted better than what the firmware of their camera was doing, so
they demanded to have access to the RAW sensor data that the camera was using
for its JPG image output. They wanted a way to try to fix their camera's errors.
In today's cameras, this is usually untrue. The JPG output from the camera
should be close to what you could do on your own when manipulating the RAW data.
If it is not then you are buying shitty cameras. Since your printout or monitor
display is well below the 16-bit color-depth (8-bit and less), there will be no
difference if you don't retain that 16-bit RAW data. In most instances you will
see little to no gains in manipulating the RAW data if you bought a decent
camera to begin with. You might be able to tweak slightly little more dynamic
range, or slightly more details (pre-camera noise-reduction processes) to try to
correct your own photography errors, but for all intents and purposes if you
bought a good camera and know how to expose a scene properly in the first place
there should be little to no need to have access to the RAW data--unless you
want to try to improve on what your camera failed at providing in the first
place.
This is why so many P&S cameras today have no need to provide RAW data. They've
optimized the RAW -> JPG process so completely that you will find little to no
improvement if you try to better the RAW output on your own. Example: While
people rave about the ability of CHDK to provide RAW sensor data from their
non-RAW Canon cameras (and it is nice to have access to that when needed), few
are finding a reason to use the RAW output regularly. The camera's themselves
are doing a better job at final output than any RAW editor can do.
RAW was mandatory at one time, in earlier DSLR environments where the conversion
to JPG was bad to worse. In better cameras today there's not a lot of need for
RAW data, especially if you are a halfway decent photographer to begin with. RAW
is the lame amateur snapshooter's crutch in today's cameras. If they say they
require RAW, you can be certain that they're just really bad at purchasing good
cameras, really bad at photography, or most likely both.
Pete D
"terrance-minitel" <tmin...@minitel.com> wrote in message
news:sg52i45sih5gg2s6u...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:47:27 +1100, "Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brian" <uni...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:7ft1i4p3pkqms7vnj...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> What are the advantages shooting in raw vs jpg files ????
>>>
>>> Do raw pix look better, easier to edit ???
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Brian
>>
>>In general terms you will get a better result shooting raw and post
>>processing,
>
> In general terms, what Pete D typed is completely untrue. RAW data became
> popularized because of really poor RAW to JPG algorithms in DSLR cameras.
Not at all, wrong again.....
Pete D
As long as that software has a suitable plug in to do so, otherwise convert
with whatever software came with your camera.
Roy G
>
>>
>>"Brian" <uni...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:7ft1i4p3pkqms7vnj...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> What are the advantages shooting in raw vs jpg files ????
>>>
>>> Do raw pix look better, easier to edit ???
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Brian
>>
>>In general terms you will get a better result shooting raw and post
>>processing,
>
You should disregard completely the post from t-minitel, who is a well known
for being anti everything DSLR.
RAW is not exclusive to DSLRs, some of the other digital cameras can also
output it.
If you have some skill and are prepared to do some Post Processing you can
produce a better image than just relying on the Camera's built in
processing.
However you could also make a final result worse than the Camera.
Those who use RAW but then rely on the converter's default processing are
unlikely to get much more than leaving the Camera to do the processing.
Except that they still do have the untouched RAW data available for future
reprocessing.
Roy G
B?wser
Don Stauffer
The advantage is in the shades of color and their accuracy. The
resolution is usually unaffected. One of the mechanisms of the jpeg
compression is that it sort of "compresses" the number of colors. It
alters the colors of some pixels, so you lose color fidelity.
The only time resolution is affected is low contrast resolution where
the detail is due to color differences rather than luminence
differences, but the eye is not very sensitive to that kind of detail
anyway.
But many photographers are sticklers for color fidelity, and have
calibrated the color of their system. For those folks RAW is essential.
Also, for images with subtle color shading, like sunset pictures, the
JPEG can lose some of the subtlety. These shots can benefit from RAW
also, even if you warm the colors in processing.
GaryThomas
>Ignore that post; it's totall BS from a well-known troll.
And yet, why is it that it makes more sense than your reply. Touched a nerve,
did it? Can't refute it, right? I thought so.
DaleDomminick
>Brian wrote:
>> What are the advantages shooting in raw vs jpg files ????
>>
>> Do raw pix look better, easier to edit ???
>>
>> Thanks
>> Brian
>
>The advantage is in the shades of color and their accuracy. The
>resolution is usually unaffected. One of the mechanisms of the jpeg
>compression is that it sort of "compresses" the number of colors. It
>alters the colors of some pixels, so you lose color fidelity.
>
>The only time resolution is affected is low contrast resolution where
>the detail is due to color differences rather than luminence
>differences, but the eye is not very sensitive to that kind of detail
>anyway.
On the contrary. I have found that I can always tweak out a slight bit more
resolution across the board when using RAW. It depends on your editor and the
type of interpolation method that you use on the RAW data. If you have never
seen a full-spectrum increase in resolution then you need to find a better RAW
editor. The question is whether that very minor increase is worth it. It will
depend on the subject you shoot. Some subjects, like scenes in nature, research
photography, etc., can require every last bit of resolution. Other subjects,
like portraits, do not.
>
>But many photographers are sticklers for color fidelity, and have
>calibrated the color of their system. For those folks RAW is essential.
>Also, for images with subtle color shading, like sunset pictures, the
>JPEG can lose some of the subtlety. These shots can benefit from RAW
>also, even if you warm the colors in processing.
The only reason that JPEG images of sunsets lose their fidelity is that most all
DSLR owners are just pretentious snap-shooters. They leave their camera set on
auto-white-balance (auto-focus, auto-everything). Doing that on a rich sunset
will cause the camera to compensate for all the reds and yellows, trying to wash
them out to grays. If they go back to the RAW file they can correct what they
did wrong in the first place. What a waste of time, when al it really needed
was knowing some basic photography knowledge in the first place.
RAW is not "essential". It's only essential to someone who isn't a very good
photographer or they bought a less than adequate camera. Both revealing someone
who doesn't know what they are doing.
ray
Generally - no, they don't look any better and are more difficult to edit.
If you process a raw file, you can probably make it look better -
depending on what 'better' means. You will need some sort of program or
plug-in to your photo editing software to read the raw files to begin with
- since there is no "standard" raw format (Adobe's DNG being the closest
there is, but every manufacturer uses their own proprietary format). Some
software like ufraw (which is free) will allow you to read the raw file,
edit it in various ways and save it as a jpeg - which is then, more or
less, universally usable. The raw file basically save all the raw
information in the camera, so on some shots which might have been over or
underexposed a bit, you might be able to 'rescue' the picture. You'll also
have more latitude for adjusting compensations.
Bottom line - you can get better results from raw files, but it will most
likely take more work than you've been used to in the past.
mich...@fromcardiff.com
Hi, I used to think raw was pointless but then I brought a Nikon D80 DLR and
just for the sake of it set the camera to save each shot both as raw and
jpeg. To my surprise I found that around 80% of my photos were improved if I
spent 30 seconds editing the raw file then converting it into a jpeg.
However, I could just as easily only have saved a jpeg to start with, then
edited that. Theoretically opening a jpeg, editing it, then resaving it
results in quality loss, BUT I could not see any loss in quality. To an
extent it depends on how much spare time you have to spend editing raw
images, how much space you have on your drives, how much ram your computer
has and so on. So, sometimes I still think raw is pointless for me, BUT I
still use it!
Pete D
<mich...@fromCardiff.com> wrote in message
news:Y4SdndLMXZNaXrzU...@bt.com...
Some photos will respond to PP better than others of course, both jpeg and
raw.
Pete D
"DaleDomminick" <ddomm...@domminick.com> wrote in message
news:v423i49a87m1edr5c...@4ax.com...
That would be because you only have rubish cameras.
>>
>>But many photographers are sticklers for color fidelity, and have
>>calibrated the color of their system. For those folks RAW is essential.
>>Also, for images with subtle color shading, like sunset pictures, the
>>JPEG can lose some of the subtlety. These shots can benefit from RAW
>>also, even if you warm the colors in processing.
>
> The only reason that JPEG images of sunsets lose their fidelity is that
> most all
> DSLR owners are just pretentious snap-shooters. They leave their camera
> set on
> auto-white-balance (auto-focus, auto-everything). Doing that on a rich
> sunset
> will cause the camera to compensate for all the reds and yellows, trying
> to wash
> them out to grays. If they go back to the RAW file they can correct what
> they
> did wrong in the first place. What a waste of time, when al it really
> needed
> was knowing some basic photography knowledge in the first place.
Indeed that is not true at all.
> RAW is not "essential". It's only essential to someone who isn't a very
> good
> photographer or they bought a less than adequate camera. Both revealing
> someone
> who doesn't know what they are doing.
No one said it was essential, just another tool, bit like you really.
John Smith
>
> Do raw pix look better, easier to edit ???
Good question. There is only one reason, more latitude during post
processing.
I remember when RAW first came out and my question was what can you do with
a RAW file that you couldn't do in PS anyway? I never did get a decent
answer.
That said, I do shoot in RAW.
nospam
wrote:
> Bottom line - you can get better results from raw files, but it will most
> likely take more work than you've been used to in the past.
with the right software, there's no difference in how much work is
needed.
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Brian" <uni...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7ft1i4p3pkqms7vnj...@4ax.com...
>>
>> What are the advantages shooting in raw vs jpg files ????
>>
>> Do raw pix look better, easier to edit ???
>
>Good question. There is only one reason, more latitude during post
>processing.
That's a bit too much of a generalization. There *are*
other reasons.
More precision in post processing is one. For example,
your camera no doubt offers several levels of sharpening
for the JPEG output... perhaps 5 or 6 even. Of course
you will virtually *never* be changing that setting
between shots while using the camera. But if you shoot
raw, you can probably adjust sharpening over a
reasonable range of perhaps 15 or 20 steps, and of
course the biggest selling point is that each and every
image can be set to what is best for it (and it doesn't
even slow down you work as you shoot!).
The same of course is true of other adjustments, such as
exposure, gamma correction, gamma linearity, black
level, color balance, and others.
It adds up in the end. Of course, for some purposes
none of that has significant value, and for others it
does. Hence sometimes RAW is best, sometimes not,
depending on what the purpose is.
>I remember when RAW first came out and my question was what can you do with
>a RAW file that you couldn't do in PS anyway? I never did get a decent
>answer.
Quite a bit! You simply cannot remanufacture the data
that is discarded when image data is converted to JPEG
format, and hence you cannot make use of that data in
PP. (That is why you have more latitude in RAW, as you
initially mentioned.)
You cannot remove in camera sharpening with PP either.
>That said, I do shoot in RAW.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Brian
>On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:42:40 -0500, Brian wrote:
>
>> What are the advantages shooting in raw vs jpg files ????
>>
>> Do raw pix look better, easier to edit ???
>>
>> Thanks
>> Brian
>
>Generally - no, they don't look any better and are more difficult to edit.
>If you process a raw file, you can probably make it look better -
>depending on what 'better' means. You will need some sort of program or
>plug-in to your photo editing software to read the raw files to begin with
>- since there is no "standard" raw format (Adobe's DNG being the closest
>there is, but every manufacturer uses their own proprietary format). Some
>software like ufraw (which is free) will allow you to read the raw file,
>edit it in various ways and save it as a jpeg - which is then, more or
>less, universally usable. The raw file basically save all the raw
>information in the camera, so on some shots which might have been over or
>underexposed a bit, you might be able to 'rescue' the picture. You'll also
>have more latitude for adjusting compensations.
>
Paint shop pro imported the raw files I shot of my dogs without any error messages and displayed
them so I think I'm all set in that department..........
Brian
Brian
What's "PP"
Thanks
Brian
nospam
<uni...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Some photos will respond to PP better than others of course, both jpeg and
> >raw.
>
> What's "PP"
post-processing.
Roy G
"Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:4921c65b$0$7527$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
RAW is just another tool which can help, but it does not keep changing its
name, like a Troll.
Roy G
Doug McDonald
>
> In general terms, what Pete D typed is completely untrue. RAW data became
> popularized because of really poor RAW to JPG algorithms in DSLR cameras. DSLR
> camera owners wanted better than what the firmware of their camera was doing, so
> they demanded to have access to the RAW sensor data that the camera was using
> for its JPG image output. They wanted a way to try to fix their camera's errors.
>
> In today's cameras, this is usually untrue. The JPG output from the camera
> should be close to what you could do on your own when manipulating the RAW data.
> If it is not then you are buying shitty cameras. Since your printout or monitor
> display is well below the 16-bit color-depth (8-bit and less), there will be no
> difference if you don't retain that 16-bit RAW data. In most instances you will
> see little to no gains in manipulating the RAW data if you bought a decent
> camera to begin with. You might be able to tweak slightly little more dynamic
> range, or slightly more details (pre-camera noise-reduction processes) to try to
> correct your own photography errors, but for all intents and purposes if you
> bought a good camera and know how to expose a scene properly in the first place
> there should be little to no need to have access to the RAW data--unless you
> want to try to improve on what your camera failed at providing in the first
> place.
Absurd. What do you mean by "you"? Don't you really mean "I". Meaning
that you (I and do mean YOU) are so artistically blah that you don't
NEED the flexibility of 12 to 14 bits of resolution.
You can't do serious artistic work with the limited range of jpg in very
many cases. Its impossible.
Doug McDonald
Casual Observer
PSP X2 handles very few RAW image formats natively. Corel is killing their
user base of PSP by not directly supporting more of the RAW formats that are
in use. Many people end up using a different program to do initial tweaks
to the RAW image and then save it in another lossless format such as TIF if
they then want to do further processing in PSP.
"Brian" <uni...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s222i4tlb1fmbqnu7...@4ax.com...
John McWilliams
> RAW is just another tool which can help, but it does not keep changing its
> name, like a Troll.
'Tisn't a Troll, Roy; now cometh a pestilence of many nyms.
Please don't reply to his 100 names and jibes.
--
john mcwilliams
VaunBarrins
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your post is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
Toby
"GaryThomas" <g...@gt.com> wrote in message
news:1123i45qnbtk6i24p...@4ax.com...
Actually, you need simply to look at any of the dpreview reviews and compare
the RAW vs JPG results to see how much better a dedicated RAW converter is
to anything in any camera.
Consider the RAW a "digital negative" and any other format a print from that
negative. No matter how good the print, you have lost much of the original
information. If you retain the negative you can make any number of prints
using different parameters. One great thing about using RAW is that you
don't have to worry about white balance, and any corrections to WB can be
done post with no loss. Typically RAW files give you about +1 EV in the
headroom that is lost in the in-camera JPG or TIFF conversion. You simply do
not have the controls to get the best out of the RAW image using the
in-camera controls.
Toby
martincarlisle
>
>"GaryThomas" <g...@gt.com> wrote in message
>news:1123i45qnbtk6i24p...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:46:18 -0500, "B?wser" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
>>
>>>Ignore that post; it's totall BS from a well-known troll.
>>
>> And yet, why is it that it makes more sense than your reply. Touched a
>> nerve,
>> did it? Can't refute it, right? I thought so.
>
>Actually, you need simply to look at any of the dpreview reviews and compare
>the RAW vs JPG results to see how much better a dedicated RAW converter is
>to anything in any camera.
Almost correct. Not better than ANY camera. You'll only find a vast difference
between the RAW and JPG results in cameras that do a poor job at the JPG output.
That means I don't buy that camera. You may not be that discerning and wish to
waste more of your time sitting at your computer editing than being out in the
real word doing photography.
>
>Consider the RAW a "digital negative" and any other format a print from that
>negative. No matter how good the print, you have lost much of the original
>information. If you retain the negative you can make any number of prints
>using different parameters. One great thing about using RAW is that you
>don't have to worry about white balance,
Translation: You don't have to concern yourself with those things a photographer
does naturally, without even thinking about it, as part of your skills. You just
want to be a snap-shooter.
>and any corrections to WB can be
>done post with no loss. Typically RAW files give you about +1 EV in the
>headroom that is lost in the in-camera JPG or TIFF conversion. You simply do
>not have the controls to get the best out of the RAW image using the
>in-camera controls.
Translation: You don't know how to properly expose your scene, you don't know
how to use your camera, and/or your camera is really poor at judging proper
exposures. You ARE a snap-shooter or you don't even know how to buy a good
camera.
>
>Toby
>
See how that works?
Pete D
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C546E1FD.18282%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 11/17/08 4:38 AM, in article
> 492149a9$0$7516$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au, "Pete D"
Yep, accidently came out and is trying squeeze back in?
>
Fran-Furst
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
begin with. The irony is that, by them thinking that they only need to throw
Pete D
"Fran-Furst" <ffu...@furst.org> wrote in message
news:3a86i4d3bhoo0bid9...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:41:04 +1100, "Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:C546E1FD.18282%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/17/08 4:38 AM, in article
>>> 492149a9$0$7516$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au, "Pete D"
>>> <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
> Dear Resident-Troll,
>
> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
> newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
>
>
>
Boy do we all own your ass baby, gotcha again. You are so easy.
Pete D
OMG, OMG, OMG I got you to do it again.
david-crest
>
>OMG, OMG, OMG I got you to do it again.
>
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
Toby
"martincarlisle" <mar...@nospamformeplease.com> wrote in message
news:roi5i4tnfhomvc1jk...@4ax.com...
Translation: some people want to box themselves in--commit to limited
in-camera processing in the field and in the moment when they could be
bringing all the data home to manipulate in any way they choose, such as
lossless color balance alteration, extra dyamic range when processing HDRs,
more sophisticated sharpening, correction of CA and vignetting, not to
mention selective area corrections impossible in-camera, and of course
having the native data available for use as RAW converters get more and more
sophisticated.
And for that one-in-a-lifetime grab shot that fooled the camera's metering,
RAW gives you much more chance of recovering blown highlights and crushed
shadows.
If you want to box yourself in even more, I suggest buying a Polaroid
camera.
Toby
perry jamison
>
>If you want to box yourself in even more, I suggest buying a Polaroid
>camera.
Straw-argument, and you know it.
Keep trying to justify why you're not really any kind of photographer. It's
quite amusing to watch for those that are.
Keep trying. Maybe you'll figure out how to be a real pro one day.
Toby
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87myfy5...@apaflo.com...
The short answer is that since the RAW saves the actual data from the
sensor, you can use any white balance you choose, no matter how wrong, and
change it to any other white balance after. You can't do that with jpgs or
tiffs; too much chroma information is discarded in the latter. You can alter
the color balance to some extent in PS, but this is never as good.
Also, you typically can recover about 1 EV of blown highlights (with some
cameras almost two) using the RAW data. There is an interesting concept
called "expose to the right", which basically says that you purposely
overexpose about 1 EV, no matter that it looks horrible on the camera
preview, and then recover the highlights in a good RAW converter, giving you
more tonal latitude in the shadows (on the left of the histogram).
Toby
JerimiahD
If you are a decent photographer, and know your camera, then there's zero need
to alter it later.
>
>Also, you typically can recover about 1 EV of blown highlights (with some
>cameras almost two) using the RAW data. There is an interesting concept
>called "expose to the right", which basically says that you purposely
>overexpose about 1 EV, no matter that it looks horrible on the camera
>preview, and then recover the highlights in a good RAW converter, giving you
>more tonal latitude in the shadows (on the left of the histogram).
>
>Toby
>
Wow, you ARE a major idiot. You're supposed to underexpose. Expose to the LEFT
comes from P&S camera owners that have the superior advantage of live-histograms
in their more adequate EVF/LCD viewfinders. The dark values are on the left of
histogram graphs. If you underexpose you ensure that you retain all highlights.
The sensor is always going to be able to pick up some details in the shadows.
Thanks for displaying to the world that you are nothing but another idiot
virtual-photographer troll. You can't even parrot the information that you read
elsewhere correctly.
Go ahead, offer more of your misinformed DSLR-TROLL's advice. This is quite
entertaining watching you make a worldwide fool of yourself.
Mark Thomas
and sillyness deleted):
> You're supposed to underexpose.
is a reason to. Often there is not, in which case you should
*overexpose* as much as possible - while controlling wanted highlights -
*if* you want the most image data to work with.
Underexposure is ONLY warranted if there are wanted highlights that are
going to be lost, and of course the reverse applies - it should only be
applied to the extent that you don't lose wanted shadow detail. In
challenging high-DR scenes it will be a balancing act or may require
other techniques (ND grad's, bracketting/HDR, polarisers.. or just get a
camera with higher DR, ie a DSLR.)
> Expose to the LEFT
> comes from P&S camera owners that have the superior advantage of live-histograms
> in their more adequate EVF/LCD viewfinders.
Sadly, very few p&s cameras have 'more adequate' EVF's/LCD's. The
sensor data is processed and goes through a brightness/contrast control
circuit and is then displayed on a screen that has itself got limited
dynamic range. So even without the issues of low-resolution and
sunlight washout, the potential for further degradation of the image is
significant. That is why *real* photographers don't trust evf/LCD
results and still bracket, use HDR, etc.. The histogram is a useful
tool, although it can only help you decide what to do. It can't make a
scene that is beyond the DR of your camera, magically 'fit'.
By the way, 'Vern', the VF in EVF already stands for View Finder, you
don't need to repeat it. An 'LCD viewfinder' *is* an EVF. Don't you
mean 'monitor', or perhaps 'display'?
> The dark values are on the left of
> histogram graphs. If you underexpose you ensure that you retain all highlights.
Simplistic and often not correct. This only applies *if* you
underexpose *sufficiently*, and in some cases this may not be possible
with the desired shutter/aperture values, or as above, in doing so you
may irrevocably damage the shadows instead.
> The sensor is always going to be able to pick up some details in the shadows.
Of course it isn't. Even the best sensors can only just claim a good
*useful* dynamic range of 10-11 stops. Yet a simple scene of a room
interior and sunlit window has a DR of about 18 stops! OK, that's a
little extreme, but even a simple typical sunlit scene has about 12-15
stops. I guess if you don't do landscape photography you might not know
that.
I mean, even *Canon* agrees with all this...
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=1646
So, in very simple terms, the sensor ISN'T always going to be able to
Pete D
"perry jamison" <per...@removetoreply.net> wrote in message
news:93k7i4lq0m8dah4dk...@4ax.com...
So why would you tell anyone how good CHKD is if you recommend not using one
of its greatest features, make up your mind Gloria!
Chris Malcolm
> If you are a decent photographer, and know your camera, then there's zero need
> to alter it later.
Only if three restrictions are placed on the kind of photography you
do, restrictions which many professionals would be very happy with,
because they never do that kind of photography, but which may
represent the bulk of their work to some others.
1. You never take photographs which by their nature will require
considerable processing well beyond what can be done in camera, such
as scenes whose relevant dynamic range is capturable by the camera
sensor but far beyond the capacity of the dynamic range of printing.
2. You never take photographs of unexpected things which happen so
fast that you have no time to set up the camera for the shot, you
simply have to point and shoot as fast as you can, possibly with not
even time to look through the vewfinder, and hope that later editing
will be able to recover something usable from the badly composed and
badly exposed resultant shot.
3. You never try to produce the very highest quality image you
possibly can, such as for an exhibition or to command a very high
price.
--
Chris Malcolm
LeeBarons
You never read anything, do you. You just spew your pretend-photographer's troll
comments.
The only one here claiming that RAW is one of CHDK's greatest features is you.
CHDK has many dozens of features more useful than it enabling RAW on those
cameras. Most people find that the JPG output from those cameras to be so good
just as they are that there is very little improvement attained when using the
RAW data and spending half an hour fiddling with it. This is why you don't
realize your camera (if you even have one) is such a bad purchase. You've never
had a camera that good at the RAW to JPG conversion in the camera. You
automatically assume that all cameras need to spit out RAW data so you can fix
what the camera (or more likely, the snap-shooter) did wrong. Unless you need a
miniscule amount of extra detail from the sensor, a very slight bit of extra
detail in the lights and shadows, then yes, CHDK's RAW is handy to have
available for those rare few subjects that might make use of it. To use all the
time? No. The cameras that CHDK runs on do a good job creating the proper
exposure to begin with and finalizing the image with proper colors and
white-balance all on their own.
Catch up you cretin.
darvin sommes
>JerimiahD <j...@jd.org> wrote:
>
>> If you are a decent photographer, and know your camera, then there's zero need
>> to alter it later.
>
>Only if three restrictions are placed on the kind of photography you
>do, restrictions which many professionals would be very happy with,
>because they never do that kind of photography, but which may
>represent the bulk of their work to some others.
>
> 1. You never take photographs which by their nature will require
>considerable processing well beyond what can be done in camera, such
>as scenes whose relevant dynamic range is capturable by the camera
>sensor but far beyond the capacity of the dynamic range of printing.
>
Quickly hit the burst-bracket button and shoot away. Using 3 shots taken in 1
second you can get 3 times the dynamic range from a P&S camera's JPG than you
can from one RAW image out of a DSLR.
But to tell the truth, in all the brouhaha over HDR photography, I've yet to see
even ONE that looked like it was done properly. A techno-geek gimmick for people
that would rather play with the fun toys and nonsense filters in an editor than
do good photography to begin with, a digital fad that will eventually fade away.
Good riddance when it does.
Digital sensors have more dynamic range than film has ever had. Why is it that
professionals could make use of that lower dynamic range all those years?
Because they knew how to expose properly to take advantage of the full range
that they had to work with. They knew their film, they knew their camera, they
knew light, they knew their subjects, they knew photography. They knew that a
good subject didn't need to have every highlight retained, every shadow have
detail. In fact many times exposures were altered in the darkroom to blow out
non-essential elements from a photo, lessening the dynamic range to make the
image even better. They weren't talentless hack snapshooters taking a
random-exposure shot and thinking "Oh, I can always fix it later, maybe, I shot
with RAW! As long as I have enough dynamic range it'll be a good photo worth
printing, no matter what it is."
> 2. You never take photographs of unexpected things which happen so
>fast that you have no time to set up the camera for the shot, you
>simply have to point and shoot as fast as you can, possibly with not
>even time to look through the vewfinder, and hope that later editing
>will be able to recover something usable from the badly composed and
>badly exposed resultant shot.
The pro will have a good camera with auto-features to be used in an emergency.
Those times are rare. But yes, they do happen. I recall one time where I
captured a wolf-pack attacking a moose this way. The camera in my front-pack,
quickly pulling it out, turning it on as soon as I touched it, and started
shooting before I had it up to my eye. (On one of those lowly P&S cameras that
everyone (i.e. idiots) says is so slow to start up.) RAW is not what is needed,
what is needed is a good camera that can properly set the exposure to begin with
on its own if you need it to. One where you don't have to cover up the
viewfinder eyepiece with your face to make sure that any backlight doesn't get
into the OVF's focusing screen to screw up the exposure. (One of the many
drawbacks to the OVF design.) Back to square one: NEEDS RAW = talentless hack
snapshooter and/or bad camera design.
>
> 3. You never try to produce the very highest quality image you
>possibly can, such as for an exhibition or to command a very high
>price.
Good thing that all those famous photographers had RAW sensor data at their
disposal for the last 80 years. Otherwise they would have never become wealthy
or famous!
Can you invent anything more stupid to say?
charles-edington
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>Underexposure is ONLY warranted if there are wanted highlights that are
>going to be lost, and of course the reverse applies - it should only be
>applied to the extent that you don't lose wanted shadow detail. In
>challenging high-DR scenes it will be a balancing act or may require
>other techniques (ND grad's, bracketting/HDR, polarisers.. or just get a
>camera with higher DR, ie a DSLR.)
Problem solved long ago. Get a CHDK capable camera and use "Zebra Mode":
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_firmware_usage#Zebra_parameters
Have it engaged when you use the "Auto DR" feature in the latest builds for the
last half year:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK/MoreBest#Enable_Curve
No lost highlights, no lost detail in the shadows. All done with an inexpensive
P&S camera, when used properly in the hands of someone with talent. But then
that is true of any camera when in the hands of someone with talent. CHDK just
makes it a little easier to measure exposures more accurately when the eye
cannot.
Enjoy that beloved, though greatly antiquated, OVF of yours. :-)
Pete D
"LeeBarons" <lba...@dot.com> wrote in message
news:coa8i41iub641ql0g...@4ax.com...
Ha ha, cool, great, walk the walk missy or ya just gonna keep on talking,
show me the money!!!
Pete D
"charles-edington" <cedi...@writetoanywhere.com> wrote in message
news:0pf8i4p3odb7am8kr...@4ax.com...
And yet strangely no photos, where are all these fantastic noise free, mega
sharp, extended shots of yours?
Blah, blah, blah, time to walk the walk girly........
Pete D
missy.
TerryD
>
>Ha ha, cool, great, walk the walk missy or ya just gonna keep on talking,
>show me the money!!!
>
edwin-adams
>No that was not the right answer, wrong again........ no cookie for you
>missy.
>
Dear Resident-Troll,
Eric Stevens
<cedi...@writetoanywhere.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:05:12 +1000, Mark Thomas
><markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>
>>Underexposure is ONLY warranted if there are wanted highlights that are
>>going to be lost, and of course the reverse applies - it should only be
>>applied to the extent that you don't lose wanted shadow detail. In
>>challenging high-DR scenes it will be a balancing act or may require
>>other techniques (ND grad's, bracketting/HDR, polarisers.. or just get a
>>camera with higher DR, ie a DSLR.)
>
>Problem solved long ago. Get a CHDK capable camera and use "Zebra Mode":
Why bother? My last two Nikon DSLRs have had it built in.
>
>http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_firmware_usage#Zebra_parameters
>
>Have it engaged when you use the "Auto DR" feature in the latest builds for the
>last half year:
>
>http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK/MoreBest#Enable_Curve
>
>No lost highlights, no lost detail in the shadows. All done with an inexpensive
>P&S camera, when used properly in the hands of someone with talent. But then
>that is true of any camera when in the hands of someone with talent. CHDK just
>makes it a little easier to measure exposures more accurately when the eye
>cannot.
'Zebra' mode may enable you to better fit the exposure to the DR of
your camera but it does nothing to extend the DR. In the worst case
you can end up losing something off each end of the histogram.
>
>Enjoy that beloved, though greatly antiquated, OVF of yours. :-)
Eric Stevens
Rich Toft
>On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:30:41 -0600, charles-edington
><cedi...@writetoanywhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:05:12 +1000, Mark Thomas
>><markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Underexposure is ONLY warranted if there are wanted highlights that are
>>>going to be lost, and of course the reverse applies - it should only be
>>>applied to the extent that you don't lose wanted shadow detail. In
>>>challenging high-DR scenes it will be a balancing act or may require
>>>other techniques (ND grad's, bracketting/HDR, polarisers.. or just get a
>>>camera with higher DR, ie a DSLR.)
>>
>>Problem solved long ago. Get a CHDK capable camera and use "Zebra Mode":
>
>Why bother? My last two Nikon DSLRs have had it built in.
>>
>>http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_firmware_usage#Zebra_parameters
SURE they did. We're not talking about after-shot review that is painfully slow
to make use of it. This is before-shot live-view. Instantly raising or lowering
EV to ensure that no part of your changing scene is lost, in REAL-TIME. Watching
for any hint of over or under-exposure in any portion of your subject as you
focus and frame. No missed shots. Unlike what would happen for you if you used a
feature like that on post-shot REVIEW feature of your DSLR.
Tsk tsk, a DSLR that doesn't have the advanced capabilities of a P&S camera. I
wonder how many more there are like that.
>>
>>Have it engaged when you use the "Auto DR" feature in the latest builds for the
>>last half year:
>>
>>http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK/MoreBest#Enable_Curve
>>
>>No lost highlights, no lost detail in the shadows. All done with an inexpensive
>>P&S camera, when used properly in the hands of someone with talent. But then
>>that is true of any camera when in the hands of someone with talent. CHDK just
>>makes it a little easier to measure exposures more accurately when the eye
>>cannot.
>
>'Zebra' mode may enable you to better fit the exposure to the DR of
>your camera but it does nothing to extend the DR. In the worst case
>you can end up losing something off each end of the histogram.
You've not been paying attention. All digital cameras have more dynamic range
than film. If you can't take professional shots with a smaller sensor that might
only have 10.3EV dynamic range (3EV more than an APS-C sensor as in this 1/2.5"
example http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg ) then
you are obviously doing something very wrong in trying to become a talented
photographer. The best that you'll probably ever be is a pretend-photographer
resident newsgroup troll (your career choice is already well established at
that).
You *are* aware that pro film (less DR) photographers will decreased the dynamic
range of their photography even further by using darkroom techniques, don't you?
Sometimes you can improve a photo by clipping highlights and shadows. Where did
you ever get it in your mind that more dynamic range is ALWAYS better or needed?
Listening to too many other fellow resident trolls no doubt.
From what you type, it starts to become very clear that even if a camera had a
250EV dynamic range it would still be useless feature in your hands.
Mark Thomas
Ingols/Keoeeit/casiobear...) excreted:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:27:47 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:05:12 +1000, Mark Thomas
>>> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Underexposure is ONLY warranted if there are wanted highlights that are
>>>> going to be lost, and of course the reverse applies - it should only be
>>>> applied to the extent that you don't lose wanted shadow detail. In
>>>> challenging high-DR scenes it will be a balancing act or may require
>>>> other techniques (ND grad's, bracketting/HDR, polarisers.. or just get a
>>>> camera with higher DR, ie a DSLR.)
>>> Problem solved long ago.
and lower noise, for reasons Vern chooses to ignore.
>>> Get a CHDK capable camera and use "Zebra Mode":
Q: How does a display reading that simply shows your camera cannot cope
with a scene, help the camera cope with the scene?
A: It doesn't.
> No missed shots. Unlike what would happen for you if you used a
> feature like that on post-shot REVIEW feature of your DSLR.
Just the mere fact of reviewing the histogram on any camera might make
you miss a shot. Why, Vern himself said this:
"Shutter-lag will always be an issue with new digital cameras (unless
you go with a DSLR..".
Remember, Vern? Shall I post the link? (O:
Vern's solution to the problem?
"If your camera has a 3 or 5 shot burst mode .... use your burst mode,
and shoot long before you think you should. One of the resulting photos
should contain the action that you had hoped to catch."
Sage wisdom from an experienced wildlife shooter. (O:
> Tsk tsk, a DSLR that doesn't have the advanced capabilities of a P&S camera. I
> wonder how many more there are like that.
He 'wonders'? One would think he would *know* what the advantages and
disadvantages *actually* are for each format and discuss them sensibly.
But when it all goes wrong, he has nothing to resort to except his
flawed, reposted mantra of misinformation.
>>> Have it engaged when you use the "Auto DR" feature in the latest builds for the
>>> last half year:
>>>
>>> http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK/MoreBest#Enable_Curve
Which simply alters the tone curve and in no way helps the fundamental
problem of the sensor's limited dynamic range, let alone resolution,
noise... (Repeating irrelevance seems to be Vern's stock-in-trade.)
>>> No lost highlights, no lost detail in the shadows.
And now Vern will explain how a camera with a (theoretical) 10 stops of
dynamic range can handle a real world scene containing 12-15 stops.
>>> All done with an inexpensive
>>> P&S camera
Yes, lots of mediocre captures, but Vern is happy with them. Here's
another of his wildlife masterpieces, just so we have an idea of his
quality standards:
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96685
>>> when used properly in the hands of someone with talent.
See above link...
> You've not been paying attention. All digital cameras have more
dynamic range
> than film.
No, they don't. Anyone who has used, say, Fuji NPH/NPS and shot
weddings, etc, will know that only the very best digitals (Eg Fuji S2/S5
and then Nikon D3, Canon 1D/1Ds MkIII) manage to equal or exceed that.
Certainly not any p&s camera like your Canon S3IS. (Having said that,
there *is* a type of wedding photography that it could handle, and it
does handle the details on shotguns quite well...)
In comparison to 'normal' negative/positive film, yes, most digitals
exceed *that* DR, especially when the comparison is made against 1-hour
lab prints. Duh. But anyone who has only used those films cannot be
taken as any sort of authority.
> as in this 1/2.5"
> example http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
I find this very strange. Why would Vern post a Flickr link to a screen
grab of test results, *rather than the actual link to the page
containing those results*. After all, to debate something one should be
able to see the *verified* original in context and to look at similar
tests done *by the same organisation*. One must assume that either Vern
doesn't want us to see the context or comparisons, or the image is
doctored (the dates look a little puzzling - the image was taken on 6
Jan 2006, yet the test was done 26 May?).
If it's a genuine image, *simply post the source, Vern* and then we'll
debate this..
> Sometimes you can improve a photo by clipping highlights and shadows. Where did
> you ever get it in your mind that more dynamic range is ALWAYS better or needed?
Hilarious. *Sometimes* a Barbie camera will be perfectly adequate.
But some of us want to get better quality than either a Barbie camera or
an S3IS with kludged lens adapters, a noisy sensor, CA and other issues.
To Vern, this setup is great, but it's clear from the examples posted
to date what his standards are. Insults, repetitive postings of flawed
data and 'responses' that avoid the issues won't change that. (Nor will
they improve Vern's output, obviously).
> Listening to too many other fellow resident trolls no doubt.
'Keoeeit'/Vern has been banned from several forums because of his
behavior, so I'll leave it to others to judge who has the problem. I'm
happy to debate sensible issues sensibly.
>>> Enjoy that beloved, though greatly antiquated, OVF of yours. :-)
I'm using a p&s at the moment. Unlike Vern, I recognise its limitations.
trent-harrington
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>'Rich Toft' (aka Vern/anti-dslr-troll/Baumbadier/Dave
>Ingols/Keoeeit/casiobear...) excreted:
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:27:47 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:05:12 +1000, Mark Thomas
>>>> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Underexposure is ONLY warranted if there are wanted highlights that are
>>>>> going to be lost, and of course the reverse applies - it should only be
>>>>> applied to the extent that you don't lose wanted shadow detail. In
>>>>> challenging high-DR scenes it will be a balancing act or may require
>>>>> other techniques (ND grad's, bracketting/HDR, polarisers.. or just get a
>>>>> camera with higher DR, ie a DSLR.)
>>>> Problem solved long ago.
>No. Larger sensors will by their nature always be capable of better DR
>and lower noise, for reasons Vern chooses to ignore.
Not true:
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
>
>>>> Get a CHDK capable camera and use "Zebra Mode":
>Q: How does a display reading that simply shows your camera cannot cope
>with a scene, help the camera cope with the scene?
>A: It doesn't.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You do realize that, don't you?
>
>> No missed shots. Unlike what would happen for you if you used a
>> feature like that on post-shot REVIEW feature of your DSLR.
>Just the mere fact of reviewing the histogram on any camera might make
>you miss a shot. Why, Vern himself said this:
>"Shutter-lag will always be an issue with new digital cameras (unless
>you go with a DSLR..".
>Remember, Vern? Shall I post the link? (O:
You are in such obvious denial that you'll even invent words for others? Is this
part of your psychosis where you believe that everyone online that doesn't agree
with you are indeed all the same person? Time to turn off that computer.
>
>Vern's solution to the problem?
>"If your camera has a 3 or 5 shot burst mode .... use your burst mode,
>and shoot long before you think you should. One of the resulting photos
>should contain the action that you had hoped to catch."
>
>Sage wisdom from an experienced wildlife shooter. (O:
Who are you quoting? It obviously isn't me. I would never suggest that someone
do that. I suggest they become a better photographer rather than relying on
machine-gun random chance hit & miss methods.
>
>> Tsk tsk, a DSLR that doesn't have the advanced capabilities of a P&S camera. I
>> wonder how many more there are like that.
>He 'wonders'? One would think he would *know* what the advantages and
>disadvantages *actually* are for each format and discuss them sensibly.
> But when it all goes wrong, he has nothing to resort to except his
>flawed, reposted mantra of misinformation.
>
>>>> Have it engaged when you use the "Auto DR" feature in the latest builds for the
>>>> last half year:
>>>>
>>>> http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK/MoreBest#Enable_Curve
>Which simply alters the tone curve and in no way helps the fundamental
>problem of the sensor's limited dynamic range, let alone resolution,
>noise... (Repeating irrelevance seems to be Vern's stock-in-trade.)
You rant your dynamic range mantra like that's all that a camera needs. I've yet
to see any good photography made or broken by the available dynamic range.
>
>>>> No lost highlights, no lost detail in the shadows.
>And now Vern will explain how a camera with a (theoretical) 10 stops of
>dynamic range can handle a real world scene containing 12-15 stops.
You reveal your total lack of talent as a photographer. But then you could do
nothing better than that.
>
>>>> All done with an inexpensive
>>>> P&S camera
>Yes, lots of mediocre captures, but Vern is happy with them. Here's
>another of his wildlife masterpieces, just so we have an idea of his
>quality standards:
>http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96685
>
Nice shot, it looks like it was done in infrared at night, probably taken
through a less than pristine window. How good is your DSLR at that?
>>>> when used properly in the hands of someone with talent.
>See above link...
>
> > You've not been paying attention. All digital cameras have more
>dynamic range
>> than film.
>No, they don't. Anyone who has used, say, Fuji NPH/NPS and shot
>weddings, etc, will know that only the very best digitals (Eg Fuji S2/S5
>and then Nikon D3, Canon 1D/1Ds MkIII) manage to equal or exceed that.
Oh dear. Now we're getting advice from a low-life wedding photographer? Some
people will do anything for money I guess.
The rest of your comments aren't even worth considering after reading this.
Wow. I thought you might have actually been a reputable photographer. But to
find out that you're just a backwater starving wedding photographer that never
made it ...
Ah, his psychosis is totally revealed now. Thanks.
Mark Thomas
Ingols/Casiobear) wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:45:36 +1000, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> No. Larger sensors will by their nature always be capable of better DR
>> and lower noise, for reasons Vern chooses to ignore.
>
> Not true:
>
> 3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
> sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
> APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
http://img.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E30D/ZIMG_2029_Step_2.gif
That *verifiable* link shows 11.3 Ev by the same criteria as 'Vern's'
*alleged* 'reference'.
FAIL. Score: 0/10
>>>>> Get a CHDK capable camera and use "Zebra Mode":
>> Q: How does a display reading that simply shows your camera cannot cope
>> with a scene, help the camera cope with the scene?
>> A: It doesn't.
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about. You do realize that, don't you?
No response, just insults.
FAIL. Score: 0/10
>>> No missed shots. Unlike what would happen for you if you used a
>>> feature like that on post-shot REVIEW feature of your DSLR.
>> Just the mere fact of reviewing the histogram on any camera might make
>> you miss a shot. Why, Vern himself said this:
>> "Shutter-lag will always be an issue with new digital cameras (unless
>> you go with a DSLR..".
>> Remember, Vern? Shall I post the link? (O:
>
> You are in such obvious denial..
OK, here's the quote:
http://www.eotacforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=24769&p=300369#p300369
So, 'Vern'/Keoeeit, that isn't you? Be *very* careful with your answer.
> Who are you quoting? It obviously isn't me.
Sure. It's *me* in denial.
>>>>> http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK/MoreBest#Enable_Curve
>> Which simply alters the tone curve and in no way helps the fundamental
>> problem of the sensor's limited dynamic range, let alone resolution,
>> noise... (Repeating irrelevance seems to be Vern's stock-in-trade.)
>
> You rant your dynamic range mantra like that's all that a camera needs. I've yet
> to see any good photography made or broken by the available dynamic range.
So now he concedes the point completely. It was VERN touting this as a
big thing, but now it doesn't matter.
FAIL. Score: 0/10
>> And now Vern will explain how a camera with a (theoretical) 10 stops of
>> dynamic range can handle a real world scene containing 12-15 stops.
>
> You reveal your total lack of talent as a photographer. But then you could do
> nothing better than that.
No response, just insults.
FAIL. Score: 0/10
>>>>> All done with an inexpensive
>>>>> P&S camera
>> Yes, lots of mediocre captures, but Vern is happy with them. Here's
>> another of his wildlife masterpieces, just so we have an idea of his
>> quality standards:
>> http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96685
>>
>
> Nice shot, it looks like it was done in infrared at night, probably taken
> through a less than pristine window. How good is your DSLR at that?
Oh, what a good 'guess'! Here's *your* post about it, back before you
were banned on Steve's forums:
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=121499&forum_id=11
By the way, do you have a reading comprehension issue? I don't
currently use a DSLR and many do have good IR abilities. I have
owned/used both the F717/F828, and know what IR can and can't do. And I
would not embarrass myself by posting something like *that*, no matter
how dirty the window was, or what other excuses I could think up.
>>>>> when used properly in the hands of someone with talent.
>> See above link...
>>
>> > You've not been paying attention. All digital cameras have more
>> dynamic range
>>> than film.
>> No, they don't. Anyone who has used, say, Fuji NPH/NPS and shot
>> weddings, etc, will know that only the very best digitals (Eg Fuji S2/S5
>> and then Nikon D3, Canon 1D/1Ds MkIII) manage to equal or exceed that.
>
> Oh dear. Now we're getting advice from a low-life wedding photographer? Some
> people will do anything for money I guess.
No response, just insults.
FAIL. Score: 0/10
> The rest of your comments aren't even worth considering after reading this.
No response, just insults.
FAIL. Score: 0/10
> Ah, his psychosis is totally revealed now. Thanks.
Didn't he just say he wouldn't consider the rest? (O:
FAIL. Score: 0/10
Total: 0/10
jeffrey altquist
Looks like someone has serious mental issues. He can't deal with the fact that
some people buy cameras based on their talent instead of how a camera might try
to compenstate for someone's lack of talent--Mark Thomas' selection criteria.
What a pity.
jeffrey altquist
Looks like someone has serious mental issues. He can't deal with the fact that
some people buy cameras based on their talent instead of how a camera might try
What a pity.
Chris Malcolm
> On 19 Nov 2008 11:09:06 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>JerimiahD <j...@jd.org> wrote:
>>
>>> If you are a decent photographer, and know your camera, then there's zero need
>>> to alter it later.
>>
>>Only if three restrictions are placed on the kind of photography you
>>do, restrictions which many professionals would be very happy with,
>>because they never do that kind of photography, but which may
>>represent the bulk of their work to some others.
>>
>> 1. You never take photographs which by their nature will require
>>considerable processing well beyond what can be done in camera, such
>>as scenes whose relevant dynamic range is capturable by the camera
>>sensor but far beyond the capacity of the dynamic range of printing.
> Quickly hit the burst-bracket button and shoot away. Using 3 shots taken in 1
> second you can get 3 times the dynamic range from a P&S camera's JPG than you
> can from one RAW image out of a DSLR.
Only if nothing is moving. If it isn't, you can get more dynamic range
from 3 DSLR burst shots than P&S.
> But to tell the truth, in all the brouhaha over HDR photography, I've yet to see
> even ONE that looked like it was done properly.
You should get out more. Or perhaps the reason you haven't noticed the
good ones is that they don't look unnatural.
> Digital sensors have more dynamic range than film has ever had. Why is it that
> professionals could make use of that lower dynamic range all those years?
> Because they knew how to expose properly to take advantage of the full range
> that they had to work with. They knew their film, they knew their camera, they
> knew light, they knew their subjects, they knew photography. They knew that a
> good subject didn't need to have every highlight retained, every shadow have
> detail. In fact many times exposures were altered in the darkroom to blow out
> non-essential elements from a photo, lessening the dynamic range to make the
> image even better. They weren't talentless hack snapshooters taking a
> random-exposure shot and thinking "Oh, I can always fix it later, maybe, I shot
> with RAW! As long as I have enough dynamic range it'll be a good photo worth
> printing, no matter what it is."
In other words they knew the limitations of their kit and how to get
the best from it. When your kit has fewer limitation you can take good
photographs in a wider variety of situations. That's why you sometimes
see professionals using such innovations as telephoto lenses or
flash. But you have a rather odd attitude to photographic
innovations. You are greatly in favour of those that are present in
digital P&S cameras, and don't think it unprofessional to exploit
them, but you seem to think it's amateurish cheating to want to use
those innovations which are only available to DSLRs.
How come that specific technological boundary matches so precisely a
boundary in photography talent and art? Wouldn't it be a most
extraordinary coincidence if that happened to be the case? And if it
was the case, would it therefore not only apply to a particular point
in time and technology development?
>> 2. You never take photographs of unexpected things which happen so
>>fast that you have no time to set up the camera for the shot, you
>>simply have to point and shoot as fast as you can, possibly with not
>>even time to look through the vewfinder, and hope that later editing
>>will be able to recover something usable from the badly composed and
>>badly exposed resultant shot.
> The pro will have a good camera with auto-features to be used in an emergency.
> Those times are rare.
Depends what kind of photography you do. Street and wilfe
photographers and journalists quite often kick themselves for not
having reacted fast enough to have been able to catch something of one
of those golden opportunities. And as I'm sure someone of your great
experience must be aware, situations in which the best autoexposure
will make a mess of the exposure are not uncommon. What is more,
nobody has yet devised a camera which has good autozoom and
composition features.
>> 3. You never try to produce the very highest quality image you
>>possibly can, such as for an exhibition or to command a very high
>>price.
> Good thing that all those famous photographers had RAW sensor data at their
> disposal for the last 80 years. Otherwise they would have never become wealthy
> or famous!
They were better than anyone else with the technology of their
day. Today's famous photographers are expert with getting the best
from today's technology. Of course there are some who like to make a
virtue of getting the best from limited means, like that famous
photographer who recently did a photographic tour of the US using only
a cellphone camera.
> Can you invent anything more stupid to say?
I bow to your graatly superior talent.
--
Chris Malcolm
Lowel Abrahms
>You are greatly in favour of those that are present in
>digital P&S cameras, and don't think it unprofessional to exploit
>them, but you seem to think it's amateurish cheating to want to use
>those innovations which are only available to DSLRs.
What "innovations" in DSLRs? A possible 2 stop advantage in ISO that is quickly
negated by the larger apertures at longer focal lengths on P&S cameras? Faster
auto-focusing by .2 seconds? Surely you jest.
That's it. That's the sum total of "innovations" that a DSLR has over a decent
P&S camera.
All the disadvantages of lugging around and paying for a DSLR, putting up with
all the drawbacks of a focal-plane shutter, a viewfinder that's useless in
low-light, ... (the list is long, last count there were over 100 drawbacks to
using a DSLR), compared to the hundreds of advantages that come from learning to
use a P&S camera properly, don't even come close to compensating for those two
meager "innovations" in DSLRs.
You've clearly lost your common-sense math ability long ago.
Still trying to justify why you paid out the ass for a DSLR + useful glass, eh?
Chris Malcolm
> On 20 Nov 2008 11:57:01 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>You are greatly in favour of those that are present in
>>digital P&S cameras, and don't think it unprofessional to exploit
>>them, but you seem to think it's amateurish cheating to want to use
>>those innovations which are only available to DSLRs.
> What "innovations" in DSLRs? A possible 2 stop advantage in ISO that is quickly
> negated by the larger apertures at longer focal lengths on P&S cameras? Faster
> auto-focusing by .2 seconds? Surely you jest.
> That's it. That's the sum total of "innovations" that a DSLR has over a decent
> P&S camera.
If that's the state of your knowledge of digital camera technology it
goes a long way to explaining your unusual point of view.
> Still trying to justify why you paid out the ass for a DSLR + useful glass, eh?
Not in the slightest. It's not difficult to discover that my P&S cost
about the same new as my DSLR plus equivalent lenses. I guess you
must be new around here. I am, as it happens very pleased with both my
P&S and my DSLR. Each has its specific virtues, which is why I'll
continue to use both.
--
Chris Malcolm
sanders_t
>It's not difficult to discover that my P&S cost
>about the same new as my DSLR plus equivalent lenses.
Thanks for the laugh. :-)
Ray Fischer
>On 20 Nov 2008 11:57:01 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>You are greatly in favour of those that are present in
>>digital P&S cameras, and don't think it unprofessional to exploit
>>them, but you seem to think it's amateurish cheating to want to use
>>those innovations which are only available to DSLRs.
>
>What "innovations" in DSLRs? A possible 2 stop advantage in ISO that is quickly
>negated by the larger apertures at longer focal lengths on P&S cameras?
How many P&S cameras have f1.4 lenses?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
baxter-G
>How many P&S cameras have f1.4 lenses?
How many talented photographers really need one?
How many DSLRs have an excellent 1248mm f/3.5 lens? (as exists on one of my P&S
cameras) How many wildlife photographers could really use one?
Deep Reset
"baxter-G" <bax...@myprivatedomain.org> wrote in message
news:i69bi4166ci9de6sk...@4ax.com...
1248/3.5 = 356mm (that's what "f/3.5" means, in case you didn't know).
(fourteen inches across for the metrically-challenged)
That's a mighty big front element.
Care to explain?
Deep.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>How many P&S cameras have f1.4 lenses?
>
>How many talented photographers really need one?
Evasion.
But I'll note that professional photographers almost universally use
dSLRs and not P&S cameras.
>How many DSLRs have an excellent 1248mm f/3.5 lens?
Any.
> (as exists on one of my P&S
>cameras)
You're either a liar or stupid.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Seth G Chisolm
Trying again (for those that don't know and are mathematically, optically, and
camera-challenged):
That's a P&S's 72mm (true focal length) x 2.89X Zeiss-designed tel-converter
(80mm aperture, prime optics, no CA) with 6X small-sensor "crop factor" to
convert it to a 35mm equivalent focal-length.
72mm x 2.89 x 6 = 1248.48mm (35mm equivalent)
Apparent new focal length of native lens is 72mm x 2.89 = 208.1mm
208.1mm / 80mm (entrance-pupil dia.) can afford a real aperture up to f/2.6, if
the camera's own lens would have allowed for that when fully zoomed in. You
don't figure in the sensor's "crop factor" when evaluating the true f-ratio.
That's only used to find a 35mm equivalent.
This is why this can't be done for any dslr. It's physically impossible. Only
fast mirror systems weighing over 200 lbs. can do this and then only at f/4.5
with any degree of usefulness for magnified imagery, faster mirror-optics than
that are plagued with irreparable coma distortions. Yet mine, plus camera, all
fits in one roomy jacket pocket. Go figure (literally).
Go learn some basic math, basic optics, and how different cameras work.
Ray Fischer
>On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:02:08 -0000, "Deep Reset" <Deep...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"baxter-G" <bax...@myprivatedomain.org> wrote in message
>>news:i69bi4166ci9de6sk...@4ax.com...
>>> On 20 Nov 2008 17:38:08 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>How many P&S cameras have f1.4 lenses?
>>>
>>> How many talented photographers really need one?
>>>
>>> How many DSLRs have an excellent 1248mm f/3.5 lens? (as exists on one of
>>> my P&S
>>> cameras) How many wildlife photographers could really use one?
>>
>> 1248/3.5 = 356mm (that's what "f/3.5" means, in case you didn't know).
>>(fourteen inches across for the metrically-challenged)
>>That's a mighty big front element.
>>Care to explain?
>>
>>Deep.
>
>Trying again (for those that don't know and are mathematically, optically, and
>camera-challenged):
>
>That's a P&S's 72mm (true focal length) x 2.89X Zeiss-designed tel-converter
>(80mm aperture, prime optics, no CA) with 6X small-sensor "crop factor" to
>convert it to a 35mm equivalent focal-length.
Ah, so P&S lens "superiority" comes at the cost of having a tiny and
poor-quality sensor.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Deep Reset
"Seth G Chisolm" <sethc...@removedduetospam.org> wrote in message
news:t6ebi4h8r1ca0sjr7...@4ax.com...
No, no, no.
For the linguistically-challenged, let's examine two simple sentences:
>>> How many DSLRs have an excellent 1248mm f/3.5 lens?
and
>>>> (as exists on one of my P&S cameras)
Do you see the word "equivalent?
Take as long as you obviously need.
No? Not there?
Thought not.
Now, do you know what the word "exists" means?
So, let's not talk about "learning math" or basic optics.
Learn basic English then and only then, post your drivel.
Deep.
Merrel-J-Linder
>Now, do you know what the word "exists" means?
While the teleconverter is attached, then it does indeed "exist". Do you have a
problem with basic english? Or do you just like to find the most obscure of
loopholes in people's words to practice your troll-exercises for the day? Trying
to save-face are you? Didn't work. Try again.
Pete D
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4925b9b2$0$2807$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Stupid liar she is!
Petroff_Portense
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
Neil Ellwood
He is both.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
Neil Ellwood
You should go and learn some history. During the second world war some
aircraft (such as pathfinder Lancaster bombers ) carried cameras with 200
inch lenses with f3.5 apertures and after the war surplus disposal
companies were selling them on the open market.
Neil Ellwood
You have just failed your reading comprehension test. Nowhere was
teleconverter mentioned until you brought it up.
SMS
Good point. The 50mm f/1.4 lenses are still very big sellers. Once new
SLR owners get over the glee of being able to have long telephoto sooms
and super-wide angle zooms they will often want a fast prime lens. The
f/1.8 isn't fast enough, and the f/1.2's are too expensive ($1400 for
the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L). Canon even had a 50mm f/1.0 lens for a while,
but it was nearly $3000 (Nikon couldn't do a lens like that because of
the limitations of their lens mount). Nikon does have a manual focus
50mm f/1.2 lens that sells for about $500, if you can find one.
Deep Reset
"Merrel-J-Linder" <mjli...@youcanthaveit.org> wrote in message
news:hflbi45qs9lqf40t4...@4ax.com...
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
We really have put our sense of humour on standby, haven't we?
The 1248mm lens f/3.5 does not exist, except, perhaps in your mind.
It doesn't exist on *any* of your P&S cameras.
Indeed, it doesn't.
("Say, is that a P&S in your pocket, or are you just *very* glad to see
me?")
You must use flash photography a lot, because I can't imagine there's much
light where your head is.
Deep.
ToEducateTrolls
Shall we try to educate this resident troll moron just one more time? Sure, why
not.
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:12:58 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:39:04 -0500, Si Taylor
><keepyo...@nothanks.org> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:26:05 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>OMFG! I cannot even fathom someone being this unbelievably stupid.
>>
>>>
>>>Now I know you don't know what you are talking about. A 432mm lense
>>>with an aperture of f3.5 has a diameter of 123mm (quite a lump of
>>>glass for a P&S). A lens assembly with an effective focal length of
>>>2.89 x 432 = 1248mm and a diameter of 123mm has an f number of
>>>1248/123 = 10.15.
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:53:02 -0500, Si Taylor <keepyo...@nothanks.org> wrote:
>>
>>>The true focal-length in this instance (not 35mm equivalent) is 208.08mm for
>>>that sensor, 72mm x 2.89. You only need a primary lens diameter of 59.45mm to
>>>equal the light-grasp of an effective f/3.5 aperture at that focal-length with
>>>that sensor. 208.08mm / 3.5 = 59.45mm. The extremely high-quality telextender
>>>setup that I use has a full effective aperture of 80mm. This is enough to allow
>>>for an f-stop as large as f/2.6 on the same sensor at that focal length,
>>>208.08mm / 80mm = f/2.6.
>
>You jumble numbers. You talk sh*t. Why should I take you seriously?
>
>
>
>Eric Stevens
If you think those grade-school calculations are "jumbled", no wonder that other
idiots and DSLR camera manufacturers can so easily pull the wool over your
ignorant-consumer's eyes.
Follow close:
The camera has a 432mm f/3.5 lens, as advertised. That's the 35MM CAMERA
EQUIVALENT FOCAL LENGTH. That number is only to give you an idea what "reach" it
has, what FOV it's going to provide when shooting, because everyone grew up on
full-frame 35mm cameras. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL FOCAL-LENGTH OF
THE P&S's CAMERA LENS. The ONLY reason it acts as the same FOV and zoom-reach as
that 432mm f.l. 35mm-camera's full-frame lens is that the sensor is much smaller
than a 35mm full-frame size. This is no different than why you use the 1.6x crop
factor when figuring out the 35mm eq. focal length of DSLR lenses on the most
common DSLR bodies. This camera has a 6x crop factor. (What an amazingly stupid
name to give it, "crop factor", but then look at the vast majority of idiots
that are ignorantly perpetuating info about cameras online and why that stupid
term has become popular.)
The TRUE focal length of this lens is 72mm when zoomed to that setting. Its
actual, true, in reality, front lens element is only 32mm in diameter (just
measured it for this post). This allows it to have an f/ratio going from f/2.7
to f/3.5 throughout its whole zoom range. (72mm/3.5 = 20.5mm dia. 20.5mm dia. is
all that's really necessary for an aperture of f/3.5 if this was a fixed 72mm
focal-length lens, and if there were no internal stops to ensure full resolution
and sharpness at the full aperture.)
If this lens really was a 432mm focal-length lens then its OEM lens would have
to be at LEAST 123.5mm in dia. (432mm/3.5=123.5mm) That is not going to happen.
The whole camera is only 75mm tall, including the bump in the body for the
built-in flash.
Now we add a high-quality 2.89x, 80mm dia. telextender optical assembly on the
front. This OPTICALLY multiplies its _REAL_ focal length by that amount. (In
practice this is NO different than if you hooked up that camera and lens to the
Keck telescope and obtained images at high-resolution with an enormous
light-grasp. Or practiced the art of "digiscoping" where you might add your
camera to a 6" dia. f/4.5 Newtonian telescope where it might afford a 60x
telextender quotient (eyepiece dependent). But then your aperture would be
limited to the weakest link. In that case it would lower your camera's
performance to an f/4.5 aperture, the same as the telescope's.)
For all intents and purposes, with that 80mm dia. 2.89x telextender, it is now
giving us the 35MM EQUIVALENT FOCAL LENGTH reach of a 35MM CAMERA'S 1248mm lens.
2.89 x 432mm (35mm eq.)
This is not the TRUE focal length of this lens. In reality it is now behaving as
a 2.89 x 72mm focal length = 208.08mm. Its TRUE focal-length. One only needs a
59.45mm diameter lens to give that TRUE focal-length an f/ratio of f/3.5.
(208.08mmx3.5=59.45mm)
I'm using a telextender with a full 80mm diameter. Far more diameter than is
needed to afford an f/ratio of f/3.5. Zero light-loss (except for minor
air-to-glass transitions), zero f/ratio lost. Would that the original camera
manufacturer had originally built-in more aperture into their own lens affixed
to the camera, then that telextender lens could provide enough light gathering
ability for an f/2.6 aperture at a 35MM EQUIVALENT FOCAL-LENGTH 1248mm zoom lens
(2.89x432mm).
You have to figure the f/ratio from its TRUE focal-length and TRUE lens
diameters, not its imaginary 35mm equivalent focal length. You must use the
actual physical dimensions, not its advertised human-perception 35mm eq. value
which only give you a familiar idea its performance.
Got it? Did you follow any of that at all? Probably not. I explained it by
approaching it from every way that you might possibly misinterpret things again,
in the hopes that it might get through that pea-brain of yours and others'
similarly sized brains, but I still I feel it was just more wasted typing.
If, however, that intermittently shorted lightbulb in that empty little cavity
you have in that excuse you call a head finally did illuminate by a few
nanowatts, from at least one of the various ways I've proved it, then now do you
see why I'm laughing so hard at these moronic resident-trolls that don't know a
thing about optics and photography? The same relentless and idiotic band of
R.P.D. virtual-reality-living trolls that have been mindlessly parroting the
same stupid nonsense for years now, post after post, their whole pathetic lives.
Even worse are those that are so stupid as to ignorantly believe them without
bothering to figure it out on their own. Worse than that are those that haven't
bothered to correct the resident-trolls' blatant stupidity and reveal their
ignorance to the world, their stupidity borne of their entrenched
virtual-life-psychosis, to finally make them come to terms with the real world
and FACTS.
Hey, everyone is saying it in this newsgroup, it MUST be true. Right?
Fucking retards, all around.
Note to self: Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity -- ESPECIALLY
online.
Deep Reset
"ToEducateTrolls" <somena...@somedomainhere.gov> wrote in message
news:945ei4hlj5i0vhreh...@4ax.com...
No, you're not getting it.
A 1248mm lens f/3.5 lens does not (despite your claims - re-read your own
post) exist on the front/sides/bottom/rear/top of your P&S camera.
Really, look at it.
Very, very carefully.
Is it 14 inches across?
No, it isn't, is it?
Don't be such a silly chump.
Not a "loophole", but your words.
Admit it, you're delusional.
Ask your doctor about your meds; I think its time to up the dosage.
Or see an English (note the capital "E") teacher.
Deep.
Art Doerfeld
Of course it doesn't. It doesn't have to be that size to still qualify for those
35mm equivalent numbers. If a lens only has a focal length of 10mm and it is
2.9mm across, then it still remains an f/3.5 lens. If the sensor's "crop-factor"
is 100x then that 10mm focal-length 2.9mm dia. lens would be a 1,000mm f/3.5
lens in 35mm equivalent numbers. Read and UNDERSTAND the post that you are
trying to refute. You'll start to realize why you're making a bigger and bigger
fool of yourself with every reply that you type.
(Note to self: What a silly request. Asking an ignorant fool to comprehend
something that is, and will always be, clearly beyond them. I.e. "Never wrastle
with a pig, you only get dirty and the pig has all the fun.")
Deep Reset
"Art Doerfeld" <adeo...@tipparrary.org> wrote in message
news:gj9ei4t6u3hfqm5bl...@4ax.com...
"It doesn't" ?
"It doesn't" ?
In response to the question "is it?"
Now, what kind of example of English grammar is that to set for the young
ones?
You stated that, for your P&S, a 1248mm f/3.5 lens exists.
Really; read your post again..
It does state that, doesn't it?
Now, come on, who can dispute that?
(apart, perhaps from non-native English speakers)
Not you, <insert your various names here>, I hope.
I wonder who is making a bigger and bigger imbecile each time s/he replies.
For really, you can't deny that, according to you, there exists, on your
P&S, a 1248mm f/3.5 lens.
Look, very, very carefully at what you typed.
It's there for all to see, because that's what you typed, despite all your
squirming and weasel-words
(note to self - ignore silly trolls, be they P&S or DSLR exponents)
(BTW, sp. "wrestle")
So long, fuckwit.
Deep
Paul Furman
> Toby wrote:
>
>> Also, you typically can recover about 1 EV of blown highlights (with some
>> cameras almost two) using the RAW data. There is an interesting concept
>> called "expose to the right", which basically says that you purposely
>> overexpose about 1 EV, no matter that it looks horrible on the camera
>> preview, and then recover the highlights in a good RAW converter, giving you
>> more tonal latitude in the shadows (on the left of the histogram).
>>
>
> ... You're supposed to underexpose. Expose to the LEFT
> comes from P&S camera owners that have the superior advantage of live-histograms
> in their more adequate EVF/LCD viewfinders. The dark values are on the left of
> histogram graphs. If you underexpose you ensure that you retain all highlights.
> The sensor is always going to be able to pick up some details in the shadows.
Pushing the histogram as close as possible to the right without going
over (a little over sometimes) is always going to give the best IQ.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
morey-talbert
CHDK to the rescue. With its Zebra-Mode overlay, where in real-time it shows in
your viewfinder exactly what parts of your scene might be blown out, light or
dark, you can instantly adjust accordingly with your "quick EV adjust" button.
If using the RGB-Zebra-Mode then you can even tell which color (or colors) in
all areas might be being blown-out and adjust your custom colors accordingly.
Live histograms are so last-decade.
Stephen Bishop
Of course, nothing beats a camera with a sensor that has adequate
dynamic range, making these kinds of technical toys irrelevant. But I
can see where it would be helpful in the tiny sensors of most p&s type
cameras, so you can decide which parts of the scene you want to
sacrifice to clipping.
Me, I'd rather have the larger sensors and corresponding larger sensor
sites of most dslr cameras, which gives you more dynamic range to
begin with. Even better is the Fuji sensor which gives you another
2 stops of highlight headroom to work with. Too bad it is a bit
limited in resolution.
RonaldADallas
And isn't it so unfortunate that those larger sensors are put into cameras with
fault-prone reflex light-path exposure metering systems. Light entering through
the OVF destroys the proper reading. (Don't use your dSLR's OVF on the beach
with the sunlight to your side, it will greatly destroy the meter reading.)
Different focal-lengths from different prime and zoom lenses hitting the light
sensors from different angles than the one focal-length lens for which that
light-metering system was optimized. Ambiguity errors between what is really
being seen and what is being framed in the image due to less than 100% FOV
coverage. Before pressing the shutter you can't just see what part of your image
is over/under-exposed too. Is it blowing out an important part of your image?
Underexposing the most important shadows in your composition? Something that
you'll regret not having exposed for properly later? You'll never know. You have
to guess which part of it will be. (Live "Zebra Mode" in a 100% coverage EVF of
a P&S camera compensates for all of that while you are framing your subject
before even pressing the shutter.)
NO camera can capture the full dynamic range of reality in one shot anyway, it's
all relative in the world of photography. Or are you just like all the others
that are too clueless to know this?.
The list of metering faults in last-century-designed dSLR light-path is long.
All of the above is why you need that extra dynamic range. Later you can try to
correct everything that your camera did wrong by having to use even more tedious
editing on the RAW data to try to hopefully reclaim anything at all from your
original errors. Errors that your camera never told you that it would make. What
a waste of time, if you bought a good camera to begin with. One that doesn't
have all those problems that every dSLR has.
rwalker
<sp...@whatdomain.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:24:33 +1100, "Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Boy do we all own your ass baby, gotcha again. You are so easy.
>>
>
>
>Dear Resident-Troll,
>
> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
>newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
>
snip
Anybody know a good way to kill-file this nym-shifting jerk in Forte
Agent?
HenryDalton
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests
prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See
this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the
P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of
detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens
easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said
and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera
that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR
camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that SX10 camera with DSLR
glass that *might* approach or equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over
$6,500 to accomplish that (at the time of this writing). This isn't counting the
extra costs of a heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those
longer focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR
investment to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a
DSLR you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc.
The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 15 pounds
of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in the previous example is only
1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that *might* equal it in image quality
comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to lug around all day (not counting the
massive and expensive tripod, et.al.) You can carry the whole P&S kit +
accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit
must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to
pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units is
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer focal-lengths
allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography when using
normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements. All done WITHOUT the need of any
image destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on
the planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that
can be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for
DSLR owners/promoters who don't even know basic photography principles: In order
to obtain the same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly.
When you do then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even your
highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the DSLR user
is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and the image;
turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)
a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" If they just
throw enough money at their hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day,
after just the right offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with
something that they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love
these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin with.
They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might one day come
included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is that they'll
never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been all along.
They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills. It also reveals the harsh reality that
all the wealth in the world won't make them any better at photography. It's
difficult for them to face the truth.
Paul Furman
>
> Anybody know a good way to kill-file this nym-shifting jerk in Forte
> Agent?
He uses Agent so filtering all agent users is one option <g>. NewsProxy
won't work on X-whatever: in the header only those without the 'X-'.
There you will find cpinternet and another... if you can filter that.
J. Clarke
If you set up a hamster it's a lot easier--it can filter on _any_
field, not just the ones that are defined by standards.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
nathan sorensen
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
Good-n-Plenty
>Paul Furman wrote:
>> rwalker wrote:
>>>
>>> Anybody know a good way to kill-file this nym-shifting jerk in
>>> Forte
>>> Agent?
>>
>> He uses Agent so filtering all agent users is one option <g>.
>> NewsProxy won't work on X-whatever: in the header only those without
>> the 'X-'. There you will find cpinternet and another... if you can
>> filter that.
>
>If you set up a hamster it's a lot easier--it can filter on _any_
>field, not just the ones that are defined by standards.
>
>--
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
Stephen Bishop
I don't know about you, but I rely on my experience and use the
exposure compensation controls as needed. I thought you preached
the need to use skill in operating a camera rather than rely on
electronic crutches?
>
>NO camera can capture the full dynamic range of reality in one shot anyway, it's
>all relative in the world of photography. Or are you just like all the others
>that are too clueless to know this?.
Irrelevant. As a rule, dslrs have more dynamic range, and more is
always better. You can always contract the tonal range if you'd
like, but you can't expand what is not there to begin with.
>
>The list of metering faults in last-century-designed dSLR light-path is long.
Funny, I never seem to have a problem with metering.
>
>All of the above is why you need that extra dynamic range. Later you can try to
>correct everything that your camera did wrong by having to use even more tedious
>editing on the RAW data to try to hopefully reclaim anything at all from your
>original errors. Errors that your camera never told you that it would make. What
>a waste of time, if you bought a good camera to begin with. One that doesn't
>have all those problems that every dSLR has.
No, the reason you need the dynamic range is because it puts more
colors and tones in your pallet. It's up to you as to whether or not
you make use of it.
Stephen Bishop
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>Paul Furman wrote:
>> rwalker wrote:
>>>
>>> Anybody know a good way to kill-file this nym-shifting jerk in
>>> Forte
>>> Agent?
>>
>> He uses Agent so filtering all agent users is one option <g>.
>> NewsProxy won't work on X-whatever: in the header only those without
>> the 'X-'. There you will find cpinternet and another... if you can
>> filter that.
>
>If you set up a hamster it's a lot easier--it can filter on _any_
>field, not just the ones that are defined by standards.
>
>--
Maybe must filter any text that contains the phrase, "resident troll"
?
Jürgen Exner
>If you set up a hamster it's a lot easier--it can filter on _any_
>field, not just the ones that are defined by standards.
What we really need is a filter that filters on past posting history. If
it's a new name never seen before (or only seen in the past 2 days or 5
days) then there is a high probability that it's the local village idiot
with yet another of his multiple personalities.
Sorry to any new true person to this group for ignoring them, too, but
that's the price that those trolls make everyone pay.
jue
Paul Furman
I do filter all google groups users that way. And Agent users now. Then
I add a white-list of approved folks, there are very few on that list of
GG posters as they are often first time visitors with a question and
someone will reply so I see it there. I think I've got most of the agent
users in these groups, which is about 20 individuals. The other thing I
do is not delete filtered messages, just mark as read & flag with a
star. That way I won't end up reading them accidentally when advancing
to the next unread message and I can see where they are making a fuss in
a thread.
walt_anders
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original aperture one
bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm f/3.5 P&S lens
increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two high-quality
teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the photographer also
added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage of the RAW sensor's
slightly greater detail retention when upsampled directly in the camera for JPG
output. As opposed to trying to upsample a JPG image on the computer where those
finer RAW sensor details are already lost once it's left the camera's
processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally empty zoom, contrary to all the
net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera
(downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that any
in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with more
powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5 aperture
achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent). Only DSLRs
suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their teleconverters
work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame 180-degree circular
fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any DSLR and its glass for
far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added to your P&S camera
which do not impart any chromatic aberration nor edge softness. When used with a
super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or
even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the
camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests
prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See
this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the
P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of
detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens
easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said
and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera
that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR
camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with
Nate D.
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
Grant K
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
toby_johannson
Dear Resident-Troll,
Many (new & improved) points outlined below completely disprove your usual
resident-troll bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't
read it and continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a
virtual-photographer newsgroup-troll and a fool.
Stephen Bishop
Once again you can't respond to actual points, so you fall back to
posting your list of debunked statements.
dale_eversol
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots you won't so easily alert
all those within a block around, by the obnoxious clattering noise that your
environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street; you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do; and