rec.photo.digital Google Group

Re: Cult of Sharpness

c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:47:48 UT

I'm not clear what you want to achieve. I thought that for any given
exchangeable lens camera it was possible to get a lens with at least
slightly higher resolution than its sensor -- if you were prepared to
pay for it.
But it sounds as though you want to stop them making soft lenses
altogether. If you can buy the sharp lenses you want, why would you

Re: Portrait lighting using compact camera's flash

c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:38:23 UT

But those will only work if you turn off both the red eye reduction
pre-flash and the metering pre-flash in the compact camera. I suspect
few compact cameras permit you to turn off the metering pre-flash. In
which case you'd have to get one of the more expensive kinds of
optical trigger which is capable of ignoring the appropriate number

Re: small aperture test

c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:32:35 UT

Your research skills are pathetic. It's ridiculously easy to discover
my academic affilation and status.
Let's get down to specifics and try to avoid confusing the issue with
a smokescreen of rare exceptions. Let's take one of the largest and
simplest kinds of lens aberration -- chromatic aberration.

Re: Cult of Sharpness

alan.bro...@freelunchvideotron.ca (Alan Browne) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:55:15 UT

There isn't much wrong with the available sharp lenses.
Sharp (and fast) goes with price, esp as FL goes up.
Sharp lenses can be made to produce soft shots.
Soft lenses can be made softer still. But not sharper.

Re: small aperture test

eti...@somewhere.net (Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:07:54 UT

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:04:20 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task
Some interesting images found while bored. Referred to as "Grimaldi's
Shadows" in days of yore. Circa 17th century. The resident-trolls posting
in these news-groups today are 300 to 400 years behind the learning curve.
They're not mental-throw-backs to just last century. I'm not at all

Re: Adding WB to the exposure triangle… err… square?

my...@myaddress.com (My POV) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:05:42 UT

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:13:59 -0800, Charlie Groh
"too green", intended.
It depends on what RAW editor you use. RAW files usually get white-point
flags set in the RAW file header info. (Typically recorded as multipliers
to the red and blue channels where green = 1.00000000.) In your editor you
can usually choose to select whether the editor honors those RAW file

Re: Adding WB to the exposure triangle… err… square?

my...@myaddress.com (My POV) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:41:41 UT

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 02:04:07 -0800, Savageduck
And this information coming from someone who professes to be an experienced
photo editor, DSLR expert, and RAW-always-required fanboy.
Too funny.
What was that I was saying about all DSLR proponents being total idiots?
It's why they select the cameras they do, the same amount of ignorance and

Re: Adding WB to the exposure triangle… err… square?

my...@myaddress.com (My POV) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:34:02 UT

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:13:59 -0800, Charlie Groh
"too green", intended.
It depends on what RAW editor you use. RAW files usually get white-point
flags set in the RAW file header info. (Typically recorded as multipliers
to the red and blue channels were green = 1.00000000.) In your editor you
can usually choose to select whether the editor honors those RAW file

Re: Adding WB to the exposure triangle… err… square?

savagedu...@{removespam}me.com (Savageduck) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:04:07 UT

<----------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ --->
...I
Me too.
As far as I know, no.

Request for patrons participation in a Green study

anandrmoor...@gmail.com (arm) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:26:09 UT

Dear Friends
I am doing my MBA project in the area of green product development
and
this includes a survey to understand consumer behavior in the
context
of green products. I need your participation to succeed in obtaining
150 responses which is my target for the study by the end of Nov 09.
The link to the online survey is [link]

Re: AFRICOONS ARE STILL BURNING WITCHES

ken.wil...@shawno.caspam (Rick N. Backer) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:57:39 UT

fuck you, and the sow who squatted to shit you out

Re: 7D full review at dpreview

david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid (David J Taylor) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:40:32 UT

Live View and no swivel finder - what an omission considering the price.
David

Re: Adding WB to the exposure triangle… err… square?

chasg...@dslextremerage.com (Charlie Groh) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:13:59 UT

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:49:33 -0600, My POV <my...@myaddress.com>
wrote:
...is that "to green" or is "too green" intended?
...I shoot RAW and wrestle with WB in post, but I'm inexperienced
enough to ask this: Does the WB I set in-camera have any effect
whatsoever on a RAW file?
cg

Re: Cult of Sharpness

kevin...@sonic.net (Kevin McMurtrie) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:48:05 UT

In article <mhs9f5ht04j7arv57rnnsnm4rr0r6 ms...@4ax.com>,
The 'Cult of Cheapness' is a powerful foe. Be careful of your words.

Re: Cult of Sharpness

n...@nowhere.com (Rich) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:27:45 UT

Fr...@Zappa.com wrote in
You can make a sharp lens soft, but you can't make a soft lens sharp.