Digital Dynamic Range and Exposure Latitude

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
The Believe Crap wrote:
And of course, that someone who has never tested these things for
themselves would find out that "x-spurt" Roger is in total error on 80% of
the crap he leaves laying around on the net. But go ahead, believe it if
you don't test it for yourself. Fools are like that.

I probably argue technical details and their
interpretation with Roger Clark more often than any
other individual. Roger's work is right at least 98% of
the time. He is human, he does make mistakes and like
most humans he gets defensive. But the *facts* are that
Roger produces more, and better, information than just
about anyone.


Why thank you Floyd! I'm honored.

The slander by the troll doesn't phase me. I have over 200
peer-reviewed scientific publications, am quite confident
in my work, and happy in life unlike some bitter, jealous
trolls here. And I agree I do make mistakes, as does everyone.
But I do try and admit to those mistakes, learn and move on,
even if sometimes being stubborn, like many of us ;-).

What amazes me is after being away from the newsgroup for abut
a year how much further it has gone downhill, and why so many
regulars have stayed and not moved on to troll-free photo-forums.

I'll check in occasionally, but there are better places to
learn about photography, and I do see a few others who post here
over in those other groups (see you there Floyd):

For others:
Try troll free Yahoo group with a lot of good activity:


If you are into nature photography, whether birds, other wildlife,
macro, landscapes, or questions about gear, check out:
http://www.birdphotographers.net
This web forum has the technical discussions of gear that was once
very good here (5+years ago) as well as real discussions on
photography and places for great photography. There are also
cities and families photography. And no trolls!

Rise up and leave the trolls in the dust (and please don't feed
them when they spew hate in response to this post).

Are there other good troll-free forums on photography?

Roger
http://www.clarkvision.com

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:53:59 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

What amazes me is after being away from the newsgroup for abut
a year how much further it has gone downhill, and why so many
regulars have stayed and not moved on to troll-free photo-forums.

Roger's definition of a troll:

"Anyone who disagrees with me and continually proves me wrong."

Roger's definition of a troll-free forum:

"Anywhere that I have managed to manipulate the inexperienced or ignorant
forum owners into giving me moderator status so I can ban anyone that
disagrees with me.

p.s. You shouldn't be calling those calendars you print up that you hand
out to acquaintances and are quickly thrown in the trash as
"scientific-publications".

Some Clarity and Reason wrote:

p.s. You shouldn't be calling those calendars you print up that you hand
out to acquaintances and are quickly thrown in the trash as
"scientific-publications".

Here is my scientific publist from 2008; I have 20+ publications to add:
http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/publist.html

Some Clarity and Reason wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:

What amazes me is after being away from the newsgroup for abut
a year how much further it has gone downhill, and why so many
regulars have stayed and not moved on to troll-free photo-forums.

Roger's definition of a troll:

Anonymous cowards who cannot use their own name because they keep
getting killfiled.

--
Ray Fischer

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:58:48 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

Some Clarity and Reason wrote:

p.s. You shouldn't be calling those calendars you print up that you hand
out to acquaintances and are quickly thrown in the trash as
"scientific-publications".

Here is my scientific publist from 2008; I have 20+ publications to add:
http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/publist.html

LOL

Not one of those publications actually deals with cameras and photography.
Like that's any surprise. And all those analyses must be done with sensors
unrelated to cameras.

Too funny!

LOL!

I, Too Funny wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:58:48 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

Here is my scientific publist from 2008; I have 20+ publications to add:
http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/publist.html

Not one of those publications actually deals with cameras and photography.
Like that's any surprise. And all those analyses must be done with sensors
unrelated to cameras.

LOL

I must retract my statement. I don't know what got me, but looking
over the list, Roger obviously has vast knowledge about evaluating data
coming out from optics and sensor packages, like cameras.

LOL

Too Funny wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:58:48 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

Some Clarity and Reason wrote:

p.s. You shouldn't be calling those calendars you print up that you hand
out to acquaintances and are quickly thrown in the trash as
"scientific-publications".

Here is my scientific publist from 2008; I have 20+ publications to add:
http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/publist.html

LOL

Not one of those publications actually deals with cameras and photography.
Like that's any surprise. And all those analyses must be done with sensors
unrelated to cameras.

Too funny!

LOL!

Boy you really are jealous. If you actually took the time
to read them you would find thousands of images in my
publications, ranging from film photographs with regular and
digital cameras, macro to telescope, as well as numerous
sensors in labs, field, aircraft, and spacecraft. I also
calibrate and evaluate electronic, UV, Visible, and IR
sensors in the lab, in the field (Earth), on aircraft, and
on spacecraft. I also monitor system performance and plan
the framing, exposure times and design the instrument commanding
for spacecraft to take those photos.

Roger

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:28:14 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

Too Funny wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:58:48 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

Some Clarity and Reason wrote:

p.s. You shouldn't be calling those calendars you print up that you hand
out to acquaintances and are quickly thrown in the trash as
"scientific-publications".

Here is my scientific publist from 2008; I have 20+ publications to add:
http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/publist.html

LOL

Not one of those publications actually deals with cameras and photography.
Like that's any surprise. And all those analyses must be done with sensors
unrelated to cameras.

Too funny!

LOL!

Boy you really are jealous. If you actually took the time
to read them you would find thousands of images in my
publications, ranging from film photographs with regular and
digital cameras, macro to telescope, as well as numerous
sensors in labs, field, aircraft, and spacecraft. I also
calibrate and evaluate electronic, UV, Visible, and IR
sensors in the lab, in the field (Earth), on aircraft, and
on spacecraft. I also monitor system performance and plan
the framing, exposure times and design the instrument commanding
for spacecraft to take those photos.

Roger

Yet for all that you still can't take a picture worth a damn. You still
think it's the camera that matters. Easily shown to you time and time again
in how simple P&S cameras can out-shoot anything that's ever come from your
precious dslr crap. You ran away last year in shame when a simple $250 P&S
camera used hand-held out-resolved your beloved photos of the moon that you
boasted and bragged about, taken with over $5000 of body and L-glass lenses
of yours. Even when you had your camera gear solidly mounted in a tripod
and you had the mirror locked up and triggered with a cable release to
prevent camera shake. Still beat by a $250 HAND-HELD P&S camera. Now you're
back to be proved wrong again and be made an even bigger fool of again.

Go ahead, spam the group some more. Plead for everyone to come look at your
photos again. Self-promotion is a wonderful thing for those with no real
talent, it's all they've got. It is blatant self-evident proof of how lame
you really are. Those with real talent have people flocking to their doors
whether they want them there or not. They don't beg and plead for people to
come look at their work, their work stands on its own merit. You have
clearly proved through your arrogant chest-beating self-promotion that you
have no talent whatsoever. The truth about this is what really bothers you
or you wouldn't go so far out of your way to try to prove how (uselessly)
important you are.

As I've always said, some of the most stupid, ignorant, and untalented
people I have ever met in my life have PhD and Dr next to their names. You
are nothing more than further living proof of that. The fun part is, you
keep proving it!

How Lame Can He Get? wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:28:14 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

Too Funny wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:58:48 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

Some Clarity and Reason wrote:

p.s. You shouldn't be calling those calendars you print up that you hand
out to acquaintances and are quickly thrown in the trash as
"scientific-publications".

Here is my scientific publist from 2008; I have 20+ publications to add:
http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/publist.html
LOL

Not one of those publications actually deals with cameras and photography.
Like that's any surprise. And all those analyses must be done with sensors
unrelated to cameras.

Too funny!

LOL!
Boy you really are jealous. If you actually took the time
to read them you would find thousands of images in my
publications, ranging from film photographs with regular and
digital cameras, macro to telescope, as well as numerous
sensors in labs, field, aircraft, and spacecraft. I also
calibrate and evaluate electronic, UV, Visible, and IR
sensors in the lab, in the field (Earth), on aircraft, and
on spacecraft. I also monitor system performance and plan
the framing, exposure times and design the instrument commanding
for spacecraft to take those photos.

Roger

Yet for all that you still can't take a picture worth a damn. You still
think it's the camera that matters. Easily shown to you time and time again
in how simple P&S cameras can out-shoot anything that's ever come from your
precious dslr crap. You ran away last year in shame when a simple $250 P&S
camera used hand-held out-resolved your beloved photos of the moon that you
boasted and bragged about, taken with over $5000 of body and L-glass lenses
of yours. Even when you had your camera gear solidly mounted in a tripod
and you had the mirror locked up and triggered with a cable release to
prevent camera shake. Still beat by a $250 HAND-HELD P&S camera. Now you're
back to be proved wrong again and be made an even bigger fool of again.

Go ahead, spam the group some more. Plead for everyone to come look at your
photos again. Self-promotion is a wonderful thing for those with no real
talent, it's all they've got. It is blatant self-evident proof of how lame
you really are. Those with real talent have people flocking to their doors
whether they want them there or not. They don't beg and plead for people to
come look at their work, their work stands on its own merit. You have
clearly proved through your arrogant chest-beating self-promotion that you
have no talent whatsoever. The truth about this is what really bothers you
or you wouldn't go so far out of your way to try to prove how (uselessly)
important you are.

As I've always said, some of the most stupid, ignorant, and untalented
people I have ever met in my life have PhD and Dr next to their names. You
are nothing more than further living proof of that. The fun part is, you
keep proving it!

Show us your hand held image of the moon done with available lenses
and your $250 P&S camera that is better than this:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...3f-8s-800.html

here is the full resolution image:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...3f6583f-8s.jpg

or from a tripod:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...-c-5x-700.html
(link to the full resolution image is on the page).

And don't respond you already have, no you haven't.

Roger

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:22:23 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

How Lame Can He Get? wrote:


Yet for all that you still can't take a picture worth a damn. You still
think it's the camera that matters. Easily shown to you time and time again
in how simple P&S cameras can out-shoot anything that's ever come from your
precious dslr crap. You ran away last year in shame when a simple $250 P&S
camera used hand-held out-resolved your beloved photos of the moon that you
boasted and bragged about, taken with over $5000 of body and L-glass lenses
of yours. Even when you had your camera gear solidly mounted in a tripod
and you had the mirror locked up and triggered with a cable release to
prevent camera shake. Still beat by a $250 HAND-HELD P&S camera. Now you're
back to be proved wrong again and be made an even bigger fool of again.

Show us your hand held image of the moon done with available lenses
and your $250 P&S camera that is better than this:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...3f-8s-800.html

here is the full resolution image:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...3f6583f-8s.jpg

or from a tripod:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...-c-5x-700.html
(link to the full resolution image is on the page).

And don't respond you already have, no you haven't.

Roger

LOL! Right on cue! And he moves the goal-posts one more time to try to
out-do P&S cameras again. He's so insecure over his beloved cameras that he
wasted his money on and his questionable logic that he refuses to be
outdone by P&S cameras every year. Now he's bought better glass, better
cameras, in the hopes that P&S cameras won't beat him again this year. Yes,
it's all about the camera gear, isn't it Roger. (You lame and ignorant
POS.) See if you can find a "Talent" button on that camera of yours. You
sorely need one.

LOL

What was it that was just said? Oh yes, this:


Go ahead, spam the group some more. Plead for everyone to come look at your
photos again. Self-promotion is a wonderful thing for those with no real
talent, it's all they've got. It is blatant self-evident proof of how lame
you really are. Those with real talent have people flocking to their doors
whether they want them there or not. They don't beg and plead for people to
come look at their work, their work stands on its own merit. You have
clearly proved through your arrogant chest-beating self-promotion that you
have no talent whatsoever. The truth about this is what really bothers you
or you wouldn't go so far out of your way to try to prove how (uselessly)
important you are.

As I've always said, some of the most stupid, ignorant, and untalented
people I have ever met in my life have PhD and Dr next to their names. You
are nothing more than further living proof of that. The fun part is, you
keep proving it!

I love that "... you keep proving it!" part. He just did, again! LOL