If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !
Ooh look at all that effort he just had to put in..
On Dec 30, 2:04 am, russ templeton wrote: you insecure idiots Only a fool would play (but he did) You want to see them? Pay me for prints. $25,000 per print (O; ****ingly useless He loves the word '****ingly', have you noticed? wastes of flesh. **** off you loser asswipes. You're not even good enough to lick the buffalo-**** off of the bottom of my hiking boots after I've traipsed through a field. "Traipsed"? How quaint. I'm not as gullible and insecure (this post certainly proves that, n'est ce pas? I don't have to prove one thing to idiots like you. **** OFF you useless talentless hacks. The spittle flies, the troll is trolled. 1-0. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !
On Dec 29, 10:59*am, wrote:
But one small note - Bret, how can you criticise jpeg artefacts and then post this:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/51947453 ???? Where are the artifacts? Are you looking at the original version? http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/51947453/original |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !
On Dec 29, 10:46*am, wrote:
On Dec 30, 1:11 am, Annika1980 wrote: Image thief! You got it. *I've already made a coupla thou' on this one. *Wanna buy a print? - I'll sign it for you an' everything.. (O; Here's another one that has been reduced. *I just used plain old Bicubic on it. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90940773 Composition wise, that one is better - the rain looks great! *pity there aren't a few more on the other one *(heheh, easily fixed...) But, let me use my super-x-ray-vision.... I'm thinking that second one isn't as sharp around the eyes/head and may have even got a little selective ps help. *The reason I say that is - his backside looks very sharp, but his neck and ears don't.. *So it gives the impression that you mighta used the sharpening tool on his face.. Do I get a cigar, or is my detective work at it's usual low standard? How do you know I didn't use Photokit Sharpener to selectively sharpen the deer's butt and a little Gaussian Blur on the head just to fool your ass? I try not to make em too sharp or else D-Mac will accuse me of using freeze spray. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !
On Dec 30, 9:01 am, Annika1980 wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:59 am, wrote: But one small note - Bret, how can you criticise jpeg artefacts and then post this:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/51947453 ???? Where are the artifacts? Are you looking at the original version? http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/51947453/original Nope, I just clicked on the thumb and got the "Large" version, inc. artefacts (look in sky around the text). The original size looks fine. Here's the image that is directly linked for the large version: http://i.pbase.com/g4/33/20333/2/51947453.pole.jpg I dunno how the pbase system works, but if pbase did that to any of my images, I'd be complaining! |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:52:35 -0600, Neil Ellwood
wrote: On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:02:36 -0600, russ templeton wrote: You could have at least done something about that rotten white-balance that your camera created. A deer's coat isn't magenta. Get your monitor adjusted, or get a better camera, or something. How about some talent, see if you can buy that somewhere while you're at it. I think you need a new monitor or lessons in setting it up. What a waste of time. At least you realise you are. If you people can't see the 5+% magenta cast in the mid-tones of that animal's coat you sorely need some time in a darkroom, or at least some decent eye examinations that will reveal your inability to detect colors adequately. Not only do the midrange tones have a magenta cast but the whites are decidedly too blue (-Y). I even detect a bit of a blue-green cast in some of the white in the ear tuft. That camera has some nasty color-channel problems. My monitor displays perfect gray levels from blacks to whites, smoothly without even one minor range of values getting a color cast in it. It will even show an intensity difference between 0 and 1 and 244 and 255. I have tested it with every method known, some of those methods even revealing their own inherent flaws when I found they couldn't compete with my own ability to detect slight color shifts. I spent 25 years of my life in a darkroom manually adjusting colorhead enlargers for the slightest color corrections needed. I can adjust any video display better than any technician doing his rote benchwork by the book. When doing photomicrography I can hand-stack a layer of filters to provide a purer daylight light source for incandescent lights than filters that come from laboratories specifically designed for the purpose. I can detect as little as a 1% color shift in any one channel easily, sometimes even 0.5%. In fact, I find incandescent color shifts so annoying that I just built my own filter stacks for my yard flood-lights so they put out pure daylight at night because that nasty yellow-orange cast on white snow at night was driving me up a wall. If you can't see those color problems in those images no wonder companies like Canon and Nikon can get away with selling overpriced crap like that to people like you. You're hopelessly color blind. You're just more losers proving that fact to the world. If it isn't proved in the images you post then it's proved in how you can't even see the flaws in all of them. It never ends with you ****ing fools. Go ahead, throw that image through any utility that will auto-correct for improper color shifts. Watch any one of them correct for a bad magenta cast in that image. You're just too ****ing stupid and inept to see that on your own without having to resort to that. You just proved it. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !
On Dec 29, 8:41*pm, wrote:
Where are the artifacts? *Are you looking at the original version? http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/51947453/original Nope, I just clicked on the thumb and got the "Large" version, inc. artefacts (look in sky around the text). *The original size looks fine. Well that explains it then. PBase keeps the original version as is and compresses the smaller ones. Works for me since I usually only view the orignal versions, unless I'm looking at some fool's gallery that posts everything too large. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !
On Dec 29, 10:46*am, wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90940773 Composition wise, that one is better - the rain looks great! *pity there aren't a few more on the other one *(heheh, easily fixed...) But, let me use my super-x-ray-vision.... I'm thinking that second one isn't as sharp around the eyes/head and may have even got a little selective ps help. *The reason I say that is - his backside looks very sharp, but his neck and ears don't.. * Gee, haven't ya ever heard of backfocus? The 40D does this exceptionally well. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !
"Annika1980" wrote in message ... On Dec 29, 10:46 am, wrote: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90940773 Composition wise, that one is better - the rain looks great! pity there aren't a few more on the other one (heheh, easily fixed...) But, let me use my super-x-ray-vision.... I'm thinking that second one isn't as sharp around the eyes/head and may have even got a little selective ps help. The reason I say that is - his backside looks very sharp, but his neck and ears don't.. Gee, haven't ya ever heard of backfocus? The 40D does this exceptionally well. Depends on which end you find most interesting..... |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:17:42 -0600, l v wrote:
russ templeton wrote: You could have at least done something about that rotten white-balance that your camera created. A deer's coat isn't magenta. Get your monitor adjusted, or get a better camera, or something. How about some talent, see if you can buy that somewhere while you're at it. Magenta? My monitor does not show any magenta in the deer's coat. There is some magenta. Here's a copy of the image (with apologies for being an image thief) with the magenta parts of the image replaced by a saturated yellow to make them stand out. http://i11.tinypic.com/80v5mwp.jpg (200kB image) You can see a few pixels near the border of one ear that were magenta. By the way, don't be tempted to skip over "russ templeton"'s long post dated 2007-12-29 20:38 (2007-12-30 02:38 GMT). It's a keeper. -- Matthew Winn [If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"] |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !
In rec.photo.digital russ templeton wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:52:35 -0600, Neil Ellwood wrote: On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:02:36 -0600, russ templeton wrote: You could have at least done something about that rotten white-balance that your camera created. A deer's coat isn't magenta. Get your monitor adjusted, or get a better camera, or something. How about some talent, see if you can buy that somewhere while you're at it. I think you need a new monitor or lessons in setting it up. What a waste of time. At least you realise you are. I spent 25 years of my life in a darkroom manually adjusting colorhead enlargers for the slightest color corrections needed. I can adjust any video display better than any technician doing his rote benchwork by the book. When doing photomicrography I can hand-stack a layer of filters to provide a purer daylight light source for incandescent lights than filters that come from laboratories specifically designed for the purpose. I can detect as little as a 1% color shift in any one channel easily, sometimes even 0.5%. In fact, I find incandescent color shifts so annoying that I just built my own filter stacks for my yard flood-lights so they put out pure daylight at night because that nasty yellow-orange cast on white snow at night was driving me up a wall. So you're a superhero with superhuman colour vision. What relevance has that to photography as practised by people with normal human colour vision? -- Chris Malcolm DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D ! | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 46 | January 6th 08 02:14 AM |