>On 7 Nov 2009 16:32:35 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>> Pushing a broom and emptying waste-baskets in a publisher's collating >>> department could also be construed as "working alongside .... (authors)". >>> If I was forced to assume your trolls' comment above was conveying your >>> truth, from the vast amount of misinformation you spew that would be my >>> guess of how you came to believe what you believe.
>>Your research skills are pathetic. It's ridiculously easy to discover >>my academic affilation and status.
>Why on earth do you think anyone would be interested enough in you to do >something as hugely pointless a waste of time as that? Your words here >speak for themselves. You're an idiot. A semi-educated idiot. The world is >crawling with them. Some of the most stupid people I have ever met in life >even had PhD and Dr prefacing their names.
>>> exponentially proportional to size. There is no law on which area of that >>> lens may have the greatest error.
>>Let's get down to specifics and try to avoid confusing the issue with >>a smokescreen of rare exceptions.
>No smokescreen at all. Poor lens figuring is DIRECTLY RELATED to why you >CANNOT MEASURE the amount of diffraction, especially when stopped down. If >you cannot obtain the sharpest image at full aperture, then that means YOUR >OPTICS ARE NOT DIFFRACTION-LIMITED. Therefore, stopping down that lens is >NO GUARANTEE that the softness you are observing is in any way related to >diffraction. Are you this pathetically stupid that you can't grasp >something so simple?
>> Let's take one of the largest and >>simplest kinds of lens aberration -- chromatic aberration.
>>Do you really seriously claim that what you wrote above usually >>applies to chromatic aberration in DSLR camera lenses?
>Ahhh.... the bleats of a pure troll. Red-herring CA bullshit smokescreens >that have has nothing to do with the diffraction problems being discussed.
>>>>2. Lens diffraction errors vary with aperture.
>>> Wrong. It varies with distance of aperture edge to imaging plane.
>>Of course it does! But do you not realise that there is no >>contradiction between that fact and the fact that the proportion of >>diffraction error in an image formed by a given camera lens at a given >>image distance increases with aperture?
>This will be the last time I tell you this. If the optics are not of >diffraction-limited quality, then your optics CANNOT create diffraction >artifacts to even measure it or detect it.
>You only asked that I disagree with three of your points. ALL THREE were >wrong.
>I suggest you pay for some courses on these areas of study instead of >trying to manipulate someone far more intelligent than you into educating >you for free.
One minor problem, that won't help at all with individual lenses. Ever hear of "The Lemon Law" concerning cars?
Lens figures between any two lenses of the same model number can differ wildly. This is why pros will take home 4 or more lenses of the same model number to pick out one that might be better. (For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the same camera model.) The surest and simplest way for the novice to find out if their lens is NOT of diffraction-limited quality is if the details become softer at widest apertures. If that is true, then all tests for diffraction problems at any f-stop become pointless. Diffraction artifacts only reveal themselves with diffraction-limited quality optics. That is why they call it that. The image resolution is now only limited by the physics of light and diffraction itself because the lens figures are that precise.
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless
Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote: >For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but >for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the same camera model.
A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as skis.
<tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: >On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless >Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but >>for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the same camera model.
>A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as >skis.
Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the hands of a pro.
Those who think it's the camera that makes or breaks a photo is nothing but a hardware worshipping snapshooter or pretend-photographer troll. They have proved themselves no sort of photographer by claiming just so.
>One minor problem, that won't help at all with individual lenses. Ever hear >of "The Lemon Law" concerning cars?
Here's a thought: buy a lens based on the ISO12233 chart and if it does not measure up, send it back. You pay good money for something, now get off your ass and get what you paid for.
>Lens figures between any two lenses of the same model number can differ >wildly. This is why pros will take home 4 or more lenses of the same model >number to pick out one that might be better. (For the same reason that pros >that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but >for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the >same camera model.) The surest and simplest way for the novice to find out >if their lens is NOT of diffraction-limited quality is if the details >become softer at widest apertures. If that is true, then all tests for >diffraction problems at any f-stop become pointless. Diffraction artifacts >only reveal themselves with diffraction-limited quality optics. That is why >they call it that. The image resolution is now only limited by the physics >of light and diffraction itself because the lens figures are that precise.
>One minor problem, that won't help at all with individual lenses. Ever hear >of "The Lemon Law" concerning cars?
>Lens figures between any two lenses of the same model number can differ >wildly. This is why pros will take home 4 or more lenses of the same model >number to pick out one that might be better. (For the same reason that pros >that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but >for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the >same camera model.) The surest and simplest way for the novice to find out >if their lens is NOT of diffraction-limited quality is if the details >become softer at widest apertures. If that is true, then all tests for >diffraction problems at any f-stop become pointless. Diffraction artifacts >only reveal themselves with diffraction-limited quality optics. That is why >they call it that. The image resolution is now only limited by the physics >of light and diffraction itself because the lens figures are that precise.
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:45 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN!
<o...@trollouters.org> wrote: >On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper ><tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless >>Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but >>>for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the same camera model.
>>A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as >>skis.
>Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the >hands of a pro.
Probably true. However a pro - a person who makes a living taking photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed.
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:45 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN! > <o...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper >> <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless >>> Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>> For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the >>>> same, not only for the lens, but >>>> for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for >>>> the same camera model.
>>> A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as >>> skis.
>> Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the >> hands of a pro.
> Probably true. However a pro - a person who makes a living taking > photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of > taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a > charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed.
I think we have somebody close at hand who would be able to stop that charging lion with a pointed stick, and capture the "tack sharp, frozen in mid-stride" image of the event at the same time.
> On 2009-11-07 16:16:23 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> > said:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:45 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN! >> <o...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper >>> <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless >>>> Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>>> For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the >>>>> same, not only for the lens, but >>>>> for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for >>>>> the same camera model.
>>>> A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as >>>> skis.
>>> Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the >>> hands of a pro.
>> Probably true. However a pro - a person who makes a living taking >> photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of >> taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a >> charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed.
> I think we have somebody close at hand who would be able to stop that > charging lion with a pointed stick, and capture the "tack sharp, frozen in > mid-stride" image of the event at the same time.
> -- > Regards,
> Savageduck
Claiming all the while a pin-hole camera was used to capture the shot...
<tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: >On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:45 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN! ><o...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper >><tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless >>>Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>>For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but >>>>for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the same camera model.
>>>A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as >>>skis.
>>Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the >>hands of a pro.
>Probably true.
Not probably. It *IS* true.
> However a pro - a person who makes a living taking >photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of >taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a >charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed.
Yes, arm them with a $798,000 heat-seeking automatic scud-missile launcher that can be fired at 30 MPS (missiles per second) by any fool that points it in the general direction of any Serengeti plain. That should take some hunting skill to kill that lion. Maybe it'll leave part of a paw to mount for their collection.
Are you snapshooting DSLR-Trolls this seriously inept, insecure, desperate, and stupid to come up with such inane analogies? But of course you are, you prove it with every post you make.
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2009-11-07 16:16:23 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> said:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:45 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN! >> <o...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper >>> <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless >>>> Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>>> For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the >>>>> same, not only for the lens, but >>>>> for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for >>>>> the same camera model.
>>>> A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as >>>> skis.
>>> Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the >>> hands of a pro.
>> Probably true. However a pro - a person who makes a living taking >> photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of >> taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a >> charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed.
>I think we have somebody close at hand who would be able to stop that >charging lion with a pointed stick, and capture the "tack sharp, frozen >in mid-stride" image of the event at the same time.
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:34:03 -0600, Oy! The Snapshooting Idiots!
<o...@myprivateurl.net> wrote: >Yes, arm them with a $798,000 heat-seeking automatic scud-missile launcher >that can be fired at 30 MPS (missiles per second) by any fool that points >it in the general direction of any Serengeti plain. That should take some >hunting skill to kill that lion. Maybe it'll leave part of a paw to mount >for their collection.
What's the sale price on a bullshit-seeking automatic spam-writer launcher?
>>On 2009-11-07 16:16:23 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> said:
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:45 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN! >>> <o...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper >>>> <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless >>>>> Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>> For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the >>>>>> same, not only for the lens, but >>>>>> for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for >>>>>> the same camera model.
>>>>> A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as >>>>> skis.
>>>> Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the >>>> hands of a pro.
>>> Probably true. However a pro - a person who makes a living taking >>> photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of >>> taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a >>> charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed.
>>I think we have somebody close at hand who would be able to stop that >>charging lion with a pointed stick, and capture the "tack sharp, frozen >>in mid-stride" image of the event at the same time.
>The fucker could *talk* the lion to death.
You forget, all of civilization is founded on people skilled enough to kill those lions with a pointed stick.
Holy fuck, are you ever talentless, insecure, and desperate idiot DSLR-Trolls.
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:45:41 -0500, tony cooper > <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:53:29 -0800, Savageduck >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> On 2009-11-07 16:16:23 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> said:
>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:45 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN! >>>> <o...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper >>>>> <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless >>>>>> Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the >>>>>>> same, not only for the lens, but >>>>>>> for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for >>>>>>> the same camera model.
>>>>>> A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as >>>>>> skis.
>>>>> Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the >>>>> hands of a pro.
>>>> Probably true. However a pro - a person who makes a living taking >>>> photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of >>>> taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a >>>> charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed.
>>> I think we have somebody close at hand who would be able to stop that >>> charging lion with a pointed stick, and capture the "tack sharp, frozen >>> in mid-stride" image of the event at the same time.
>> The fucker could *talk* the lion to death.
> You forget, all of civilization is founded on people skilled enough to kill > those lions with a pointed stick.
This thread has taken on a Monty Pythonesque quality.
I can see a pride of lions faced by "He who shall bear many names" impaling themselves on pointed sticks to avoid image capture by shoe-box pinhole camera.
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:45:41 -0500, tony cooper >> <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:53:29 -0800, Savageduck >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2009-11-07 16:16:23 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> said:
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:45 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN! >>>>> <o...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper >>>>>> <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless >>>>>>> Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the >>>>>>>> same, not only for the lens, but >>>>>>>> for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for >>>>>>>> the same camera model.
>>>>>>> A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as >>>>>>> skis.
>>>>>> Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the >>>>>> hands of a pro.
>>>>> Probably true. However a pro - a person who makes a living taking >>>>> photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of >>>>> taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a >>>>> charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed.
>>>> I think we have somebody close at hand who would be able to stop that >>>> charging lion with a pointed stick, and capture the "tack sharp, frozen >>>> in mid-stride" image of the event at the same time.
>>> The fucker could *talk* the lion to death.
>> You forget, all of civilization is founded on people skilled enough to kill >> those lions with a pointed stick.
>This thread has taken on a Monty Pythonesque quality.
>I can see a pride of lions faced by "He who shall bear many names" >impaling themselves on pointed sticks to avoid image capture by >shoe-box pinhole camera.
Then they'll stay there long enough for a pinhole camera exposure, won't they. You didn't think this through very well, did you. Just like your camera purchases.
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:05:40 -0800, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-11-07 17:55:33 -0800, Holy FUCK! What Idiots! >> <h...@somethinggoeshere.com> said:
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:45:41 -0500, tony cooper >>> <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:53:29 -0800, Savageduck >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2009-11-07 16:16:23 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> said:
>>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:45 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN! >>>>>> <o...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper >>>>>>> <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless >>>>>>>> Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the >>>>>>>>> same, not only for the lens, but >>>>>>>>> for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for >>>>>>>>> the same camera model.
>>>>>>>> A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as >>>>>>>> skis.
>>>>>>> Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the >>>>>>> hands of a pro.
>>>>>> Probably true. However a pro - a person who makes a living taking >>>>>> photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of >>>>>> taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a >>>>>> charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed.
>>>>> I think we have somebody close at hand who would be able to stop that >>>>> charging lion with a pointed stick, and capture the "tack sharp, frozen >>>>> in mid-stride" image of the event at the same time.
>>>> The fucker could *talk* the lion to death.
>>> You forget, all of civilization is founded on people skilled enough to kill >>> those lions with a pointed stick.
>> This thread has taken on a Monty Pythonesque quality.
>> I can see a pride of lions faced by "He who shall bear many names" >> impaling themselves on pointed sticks to avoid image capture by >> shoe-box pinhole camera.
> Then they'll stay there long enough for a pinhole camera exposure, won't > they. You didn't think this through very well, did you. Just like your > camera purchases.
Certainly you would have them quite stationary for your purpose, but they would have avoided the shame of knowing they were the subject of your image capture.
Which camera purchase? The D70, the D300, the E-900, the G11, or maybe I need to go back to 1968 for the Yashica Electro 35, or '64 for the Spotmatic, or 1976 for the K1000.
...and I know you wouldn't even have selected the G11, or E-900 for whatever reason you will be sure to let us know.
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:16:23 -0500, tony cooper > <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:45 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN! >><o...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper >>><tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless >>>>Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the >>>>>same, not only for the lens, but >>>>>for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for >>>>>the same camera model.
>>>>A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as >>>>skis.
>>>Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the >>>hands of a pro.
>>Probably true.
> Not probably. It *IS* true.
>> However a pro - a person who makes a living taking >>photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of >>taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a >>charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed.
> Yes, arm them with a $798,000 heat-seeking automatic scud-missile launcher > that can be fired at 30 MPS (missiles per second) by any fool that points > it in the general direction of any Serengeti plain. That should take some > hunting skill to kill that lion. Maybe it'll leave part of a paw to mount > for their collection.
> Are you snapshooting DSLR-Trolls this seriously inept, insecure, > desperate, > and stupid to come up with such inane analogies? But of course you are, > you > prove it with every post you make.
Somebody with a wee bit of common sense would have opted for something a bit more appropriate...
tony cooper wrote: > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:53:29 -0800, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-11-07 16:16:23 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> said:
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:45 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN! >>> <o...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper >>>> <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless >>>>> Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>> For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the >>>>>> same, not only for the lens, but >>>>>> for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for >>>>>> the same camera model. >>>>> A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as >>>>> skis. >>>> Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the >>>> hands of a pro. >>> Probably true. However a pro - a person who makes a living taking >>> photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of >>> taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a >>> charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed. >> I think we have somebody close at hand who would be able to stop that >> charging lion with a pointed stick, and capture the "tack sharp, frozen >> in mid-stride" image of the event at the same time.
> The fucker could *talk* the lion to death.
LOL. Too true.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Brown wrote: > Ofnuts wrote: >> _____ wrote: >>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> <snip prespoterous claims>
>> I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
> Google is your friend.
> One such plugin is even unimaginatively called "Bokeh". I don't like the > results but then I have never been into lenses smeared in vaseline etc. eg.
Not sure exactly how that software works but to do it manually when there are overlaps, you need to mask out the foreground & clone in some fake background or you get a halo with the blur. It's impractical for some kinds of scenes with a lot of overlap.
I'm not awaiting help, at least not from you obviously, since, being part of the crowd of DSLR dummies/minions/trolls I don't need this software.
I am awaiting some proof of your claims. Einstein did make some that where preposterous at the time, but he also gave ways to prove them. And this means giving enough information so that the people in doubt can check by themselves (I still have a P&S somewhere).
|
