Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nice macro shot of a wasp

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 5:42:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Looks like the prices asked for macro lenses are definitely
worth it.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&m...

More about : nice macro shot wasp

Anonymous
June 3, 2005 2:15:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> Looks like the prices asked for macro lenses are definitely
> worth it.
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&m...

Judging by contrasty edge halos a little heavy on the sharpenning and/or
contrast in PS. The scale is very nice of course.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 5:14:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:p crv9192l2o6tsja1n31ms07sh45ed8k2r@4ax.com...
> Looks like the prices asked for macro lenses are definitely
> worth it.
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&m...

Nice shot. I guess you got lucky finding a deaf, dumb and blind bee. <LOL>
Related resources
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 12:40:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Wow...superb....


"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:p crv9192l2o6tsja1n31ms07sh45ed8k2r@4ax.com...
> Looks like the prices asked for macro lenses are definitely
> worth it.
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&m...
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 1:14:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steve Franklin wrote:
> Wow...superb....
>
>
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:p crv9192l2o6tsja1n31ms07sh45ed8k2r@4ax.com...
>
>>Looks like the prices asked for macro lenses are definitely
>>worth it.
>>
>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&m...
>
>
>
So where is all the noise these E300's are supposed to generate?

--
Douglas...
It's traditional, painter's use it, Rembrandt used it.
Now you can put your photos on it too!
http://www.canvasphotos.com.au
June 4, 2005 1:14:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>>
>>
> So where is all the noise these E300's are supposed to generate?
>

Looks like it been noise reduced by resizing etc and then sharpened, if you
look closely at the flower there are signs of noise, but still a pretty good
picture at this size
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 1:14:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia@Home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Steve Franklin wrote:
>> Wow...superb....
>>
>>
>> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:p crv9192l2o6tsja1n31ms07sh45ed8k2r@4ax.com...
>>
>>>Looks like the prices asked for macro lenses are definitely
>>>worth it.
>>>
>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&m...
>>
>>
>>
>So where is all the noise these E300's are supposed to generate?


It is an absolute certainty in the mind of people who haven't ever
used the E300, for example Alan Browne.

It is also to be found on digital photography web sites that are not
sponsored by Olympus, such as dpr*****.com, often quoted or used as a
source by people who know next to nothing about photography to make
"authoritative" statements on here about equipment they haven't ever
used, for example ...

.... I'm sure you can guess.

;-)
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 2:39:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 13:14:24 -0600, "Sheldon"
<sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>
>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:p crv9192l2o6tsja1n31ms07sh45ed8k2r@4ax.com...
>> Looks like the prices asked for macro lenses are definitely
>> worth it.
>>
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&m...
>
>Nice shot. I guess you got lucky finding a deaf, dumb and blind bee. <LOL>
>

Not my shot, but similar questions were asked of the shooter!
-Rich
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 4:48:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia@Home wrote:

> Ahhh, Feel better now?

No. Where it comes to Polson there is never relief. Regardless of our
differences Dougie, I consider you a valuable contributor to this NG and
photography. Tony Polson is a blowhard who has never shown even a shred
of capability despite various claims and implied capability.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 8:06:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <pcrv9192l2o6tsja1n31ms07sh45ed8k2r@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>Looks like the prices asked for macro lenses are definitely
>worth it.

>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&m...

Perhaps, but how can you really tell from this tiny image how sharp the
lens is? Even a fairly dull lens at 8MP can be CA-corrected, downsized
like this, and sharpened into aliasing. Contrast and saturation are
easy to boost with digital.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
June 4, 2005 8:06:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <pcrv9192l2o6tsja1n31ms07sh45ed8k2r@4ax.com>,
> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>Looks like the prices asked for macro lenses are definitely
>>worth it.
>
>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&m...
>
> Perhaps, but how can you really tell from this tiny image how sharp the
> lens is? Even a fairly dull lens at 8MP can be CA-corrected, downsized
> like this, and sharpened into aliasing. Contrast and saturation are
> easy to boost with digital.

Damn right! The ONLY thing that matters in digital photography is 100%
crops straight out of the camera with zero post processing!!

Why even bother to look at the actual full image processed at all, we all
know "processing" is cheating, noise at high ISO's is the only thing to be
concerned with and the actual image itself isn't what we shoot for anyway.
It's just about shooting test shots to prove our camare choice is "worthy".

Sheeze you guys are TOO much!
--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 8:07:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <42a03b7b@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
"Ryadia@Home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>So where is all the noise these E300's are supposed to generate?

Dowsized away, or filtered before downsizing. Perhaps this wasn't at
ISO 1600 or greater, as well.

Are you really this dull?

This image is proof of nothing.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 10:14:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <3ge7otFc22qiU1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:

>> In message <pcrv9192l2o6tsja1n31ms07sh45ed8k2r@4ax.com>,
>> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>>>Looks like the prices asked for macro lenses are definitely
>>>worth it.

>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&m...

>> Perhaps, but how can you really tell from this tiny image how sharp the
>> lens is? Even a fairly dull lens at 8MP can be CA-corrected, downsized
>> like this, and sharpened into aliasing. Contrast and saturation are
>> easy to boost with digital.

> Damn right! The ONLY thing that matters in digital photography is 100%
>crops straight out of the camera with zero post processing!!

The discussion was about the quality of a lens; the image given is not
capable of showing much about its quality.

>Why even bother to look at the actual full image processed at all,

I would, but I'd have to print it, to see all the original pixels. My
monitor gets a bit soft going above 1400 by 1050, and I don't think it
would synch to an 8MP screenmode at all, even if it was interlaced. I
did manage to make a 5MP interlaced mode for my Sony F707.

>we all
>know "processing" is cheating,

It depends on what the outcome is being presented as. To downsize an
image to demonstrate optical sharpness is deceptive, to say the least,
and so is linking to such an image to demonstrate sharpness of the lens.

The contrast of the lens can't be demonstrated, either, if the
saturation is way above default, or the contrast has been boosted.

>noise at high ISO's is the only thing to be
>concerned with and the actual image itself isn't what we shoot for anyway.

It's very important to many people when discussing a camera's
capabilities.

>It's just about shooting test shots to prove our camare choice is "worthy".

What's just about this?

There is nothing that "it is all about". You have major philosophical
issues.

>Sheeze you guys are TOO much!

I am only one guy.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 10:14:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 18:14:17 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <3ge7otFc22qiU1@individual.net>,
>Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>>> In message <pcrv9192l2o6tsja1n31ms07sh45ed8k2r@4ax.com>,
>>> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Looks like the prices asked for macro lenses are definitely
>>>>worth it.
>
>>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&m...
>
>>> Perhaps, but how can you really tell from this tiny image how sharp the
>>> lens is? Even a fairly dull lens at 8MP can be CA-corrected, downsized
>>> like this, and sharpened into aliasing. Contrast and saturation are
>>> easy to boost with digital.
>
>> Damn right! The ONLY thing that matters in digital photography is 100%
>>crops straight out of the camera with zero post processing!!
>
>The discussion was about the quality of a lens; the image given is not
>capable of showing much about its quality.
>
>>Why even bother to look at the actual full image processed at all,
>
>I would, but I'd have to print it, to see all the original pixels. My
>monitor gets a bit soft going above 1400 by 1050, and I don't think it
>would synch to an 8MP screenmode at all, even if it was interlaced. I
>did manage to make a 5MP interlaced mode for my Sony F707.
>
>>we all
>>know "processing" is cheating,
>
>It depends on what the outcome is being presented as. To downsize an
>image to demonstrate optical sharpness is deceptive, to say the least,
>and so is linking to such an image to demonstrate sharpness of the lens.

But how "downsized" is the image? The camera lens front was 5" away
according to the photographer.
-Rich
June 5, 2005 12:50:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:


>
>>noise at high ISO's is the only thing to be
>>concerned with and the actual image itself isn't what we shoot for anyway.
>
> It's very important to many people when discussing a camera's
> capabilities.
>

I'm sure it is when the image itself is never going to be worth viewing on
it's own merits... Noise issues and technical details is ALL there is left
to focus on.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 5:51:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 7sm04$lh8$6@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Ryadia@Home wrote:
>
>> Ahhh, Feel better now?
>
> No. Where it comes to Polson there is never relief. Regardless of our
> differences Dougie, I consider you a valuable contributor to this NG and
> photography. Tony Polson is a blowhard who has never shown even a shred
> of capability despite various claims and implied capability.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>

I haven't been following TP much in the last year or so, but then, I haven't
seen him around until recently, either. I must say, however, I've never
heard Tony claim he's a great photographer. I've heard him talk about
equipment in a knowledgeable manner, and I've heard him claim to make a
living from photography. Neither of those necessarily add up to talented
photography. I therefore don't understand anyone's _need_ to see Tony's
photography. Logically speaking, if he says something about equipment, and
it's true, what does it matter whether he can take a picture or not? He
could be blind, for all I care. If the information is valid, that's all
that matters. Yeah, he's pissed me off in the past, too. But he's just
another part of the usenet landscape, same as you and me.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 6:10:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <3gf0i2Fc2b5uU3@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:

>>>noise at high ISO's is the only thing to be
>>>concerned with and the actual image itself isn't what we shoot for anyway.

>> It's very important to many people when discussing a camera's
>> capabilities.

>I'm sure it is when the image itself is never going to be worth viewing on
>it's own merits... Noise issues and technical details is ALL there is left
>to focus on.

I don't care how artistic anyone here is or isn't, for the purposes of
these discussions. This is a technology newsgroup, and someone who
shoots charts has no more or less to say here than anyone else.

*YOU* are trying to turn this technology-based newsgroup into an
artistic competition.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
June 5, 2005 8:10:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

>
> *YOU* are trying to turn this technology-based newsgroup into an
> artistic competition.

Actually I'm TRYING to get people to see there is more to image quality that
noise graphs and looking for noise in 100% crops of an 8MP image. Maybe
when you were trying to make an 8X10 print from a 2MP camera that was
critical? With 8MP, those 100% crops aren't an issue for most uses.

What I'm sick of is: the noise nerds ignore color saturation, tonal
separation in the highlight areas etc and ONLY consider high ISO noise when
judging image quality. I guess those aren't important? This shot is a great
example of good contrast, color saturation with tonal separation and all
you can do is say "I bet it's noisy at 100%. $100 says if this was a canon
shot you'd be bragging about how great it is..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 4:00:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <3gfqbkFc5bkuU1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:

>> *YOU* are trying to turn this technology-based newsgroup into an
>> artistic competition.

>Actually I'm TRYING to get people to see there is more to image quality that
>noise graphs and looking for noise in 100% crops of an 8MP image.

>Maybe
>when you were trying to make an 8X10 print from a 2MP camera that was
>critical?

My 2MP camera (a Fuji P&S) doesn't have much noise, but it is only ISO
100.

>With 8MP, those 100% crops aren't an issue for most uses.

No, but for some reason you can't seem to stand mention of what *is*
seen at 100%. Some of us like to push our equipment, and these things
are what we are going to talk about. Many of my subjects are tiny in
the frame, and I have to crop quite a bit for the subject to be seen.

>What I'm sick of is: the noise nerds ignore color saturation, tonal
>separation in the highlight areas etc and ONLY consider high ISO noise when
>judging image quality. I guess those aren't important? This shot is a great
>example of good contrast, color saturation with tonal separation and all
>you can do is say "I bet it's noisy at 100%. $100 says if this was a canon
>shot you'd be bragging about how great it is..

Color saturation is a *SOFTWARE* issue, unless the RAW data clips. If
the RAW data is clipping, then you have to back off on the exposure. We
already know these things.

This is what is called "skill". If you see a red flower against a dark
background, you don't "expose to the right"; you expose a little to the
left in RAW, or you expose a lot to the left in JPEG.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 9:09:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <3gf0i2Fc2b5uU3@individual.net>,
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>noise at high ISO's is the only thing to be
>>>>concerned with and the actual image itself isn't what we shoot for anyway.
>
>
>
>>>It's very important to many people when discussing a camera's
>>>capabilities.
>
>
>>I'm sure it is when the image itself is never going to be worth viewing on
>>it's own merits... Noise issues and technical details is ALL there is left
>>to focus on.
>
>
> I don't care how artistic anyone here is or isn't, for the purposes of
> these discussions. This is a technology newsgroup, and someone who
> shoots charts has no more or less to say here than anyone else.
>
> *YOU* are trying to turn this technology-based newsgroup into an
> artistic competition.

In the not to distant past I tried to demonstrate image quality with a
web image. I followed the advise of one of my clients who is a web
developer and it all went haywire when jokers here who have to opinion
that if you can't post the original, you are somehow cheating, gave me a
hard time. How you post a 150 Mb 'original' file has not yet been posted.

This image is no different. It is clearly over life size picture (or
there are some killer bees out there). The black area should have some
noise in it if what all the nerds are saying about Olympus being noisy
cameras is correct.

To listen to some of you, I got the idea any picture shot with a E300
over 100 ISO was a total waste of effort due to the noise of the sensor.
From my examination of that image I'd say the noise is from the nerds,
not the camera.
Unless...
1. The bee was dead.
2. The camera had been in the fridge all night.
3. Someone found a new way to light macro shots at low ISO.

Otherwise, I'm trotting on down to my local camera store in the morning
to shoot a few frames on a E300 and see for myself. If they ain't as
noisy as you lot have been claiming, I'll buy it and use it for an
upcoming assignment and let you all see the pics. Hell. If Stacey uses
one it can't be all that bad, eh?

--
Douglas...
It's traditional, painter's use it, Rembrandt used it.
Now you can put your photos on it too!
http://www.canvasphotos.com.au
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 9:09:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <42a2a522@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
"Ryadia@Home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>> In message <3gf0i2Fc2b5uU3@individual.net>,
>> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>noise at high ISO's is the only thing to be
>>>>>concerned with and the actual image itself isn't what we shoot for anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>It's very important to many people when discussing a camera's
>>>>capabilities.
>>
>>
>>>I'm sure it is when the image itself is never going to be worth viewing on
>>>it's own merits... Noise issues and technical details is ALL there is left
>>>to focus on.
>>
>>
>> I don't care how artistic anyone here is or isn't, for the purposes of
>> these discussions. This is a technology newsgroup, and someone who
>> shoots charts has no more or less to say here than anyone else.
>>
>> *YOU* are trying to turn this technology-based newsgroup into an
>> artistic competition.
>
>In the not to distant past I tried to demonstrate image quality with a
>web image. I followed the advise of one of my clients who is a web
>developer and it all went haywire when jokers here who have to opinion
>that if you can't post the original, you are somehow cheating, gave me a
>hard time. How you post a 150 Mb 'original' file has not yet been posted.
>
>This image is no different. It is clearly over life size picture (or
>there are some killer bees out there). The black area should have some
>noise in it if what all the nerds are saying about Olympus being noisy
>cameras is correct.

Well, actually, black areas are the easiest areas to hide noise in.
It's the slightly-brighter-than-black areas that show off the noise.
You can raise the gamma at the toe of the transfer curve, or simply
raise the blackpoint, and the noise disappears where it is most visible,
and moves up to the next zone, but it may represent a smaller percentage
of the image.

>To listen to some of you, I got the idea any picture shot with a E300
>over 100 ISO was a total waste of effort due to the noise of the sensor.

Really? And you believe it?

> From my examination of that image I'd say the noise is from the nerds,
>not the camera.
>Unless...
>1. The bee was dead.
>2. The camera had been in the fridge all night.
>3. Someone found a new way to light macro shots at low ISO.

Can't tell from the image. The image's history is unknown. You don't
know if it is 100% of the original image, or 25%. You don't know what
processing is done, so it is not useful as a demonstration of the
camera's noise characteristics, which I believe, can only be properly
done in RAW mode, as any conversion has its own recipe which affects
noise differently than another's. I get really tired of having to look
at processed JPEGs to answer people's "what's wrong with my picture"
questions. If I had the RAW, it would be *SOOOO* much easier.

>Otherwise, I'm trotting on down to my local camera store in the morning
>to shoot a few frames on a E300 and see for myself. If they ain't as
>noisy as you lot have been claiming, I'll buy it and use it for an
>upcoming assignment and let you all see the pics. Hell. If Stacey uses
>one it can't be all that bad, eh?

I wouldn't mind a 4/3 camera with an EOS mount. 8MP has a pixel pitch
the same as 32MP in a full-frame. Of course, I wouldn't expect to be
able to use it in low light, the way I do with my 20D, unless it helps
to leave off TCs, which waste light. I can set my 20D to ISO 1600, and
use exposure indexes up to 25,600 and still get usable images. I can
recognize subjects, read text, etc, with EIs up to 400,000 or so (of
course, banding is big at those levels).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 9:09:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:52:45 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <42a2a522@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
>"Ryadia@Home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>> In message <3gf0i2Fc2b5uU3@individual.net>,
>>> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>noise at high ISO's is the only thing to be
>>>>>>concerned with and the actual image itself isn't what we shoot for anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>It's very important to many people when discussing a camera's
>>>>>capabilities.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm sure it is when the image itself is never going to be worth viewing on
>>>>it's own merits... Noise issues and technical details is ALL there is left
>>>>to focus on.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't care how artistic anyone here is or isn't, for the purposes of
>>> these discussions. This is a technology newsgroup, and someone who
>>> shoots charts has no more or less to say here than anyone else.
>>>
>>> *YOU* are trying to turn this technology-based newsgroup into an
>>> artistic competition.
>>
>>In the not to distant past I tried to demonstrate image quality with a
>>web image. I followed the advise of one of my clients who is a web
>>developer and it all went haywire when jokers here who have to opinion
>>that if you can't post the original, you are somehow cheating, gave me a
>>hard time. How you post a 150 Mb 'original' file has not yet been posted.
>>
>>This image is no different. It is clearly over life size picture (or
>>there are some killer bees out there). The black area should have some
>>noise in it if what all the nerds are saying about Olympus being noisy
>>cameras is correct.
>
>Well, actually, black areas are the easiest areas to hide noise in.
>It's the slightly-brighter-than-black areas that show off the noise.
>You can raise the gamma at the toe of the transfer curve, or simply
>raise the blackpoint, and the noise disappears where it is most visible,
>and moves up to the next zone, but it may represent a smaller percentage
>of the image.
>
>>To listen to some of you, I got the idea any picture shot with a E300
>>over 100 ISO was a total waste of effort due to the noise of the sensor.
>
>Really? And you believe it?
>
>> From my examination of that image I'd say the noise is from the nerds,
>>not the camera.
>>Unless...
>>1. The bee was dead.
>>2. The camera had been in the fridge all night.
>>3. Someone found a new way to light macro shots at low ISO.
>
>Can't tell from the image. The image's history is unknown. You don't
>know if it is 100% of the original image, or 25%. You don't know what
>processing is done, so it is not useful as a demonstration of the
>camera's noise characteristics, which I believe, can only be properly
>done in RAW mode, as any conversion has its own recipe which affects
>noise differently than another's. I get really tired of having to look
>at processed JPEGs to answer people's "what's wrong with my picture"
>questions. If I had the RAW, it would be *SOOOO* much easier.
>
>>Otherwise, I'm trotting on down to my local camera store in the morning
>>to shoot a few frames on a E300 and see for myself. If they ain't as
>>noisy as you lot have been claiming, I'll buy it and use it for an
>>upcoming assignment and let you all see the pics. Hell. If Stacey uses
>>one it can't be all that bad, eh?
>
>I wouldn't mind a 4/3 camera with an EOS mount. 8MP has a pixel pitch
>the same as 32MP in a full-frame. Of course, I wouldn't expect to be
>able to use it in low light, the way I do with my 20D, unless it helps
>to leave off TCs, which waste light. I can set my 20D to ISO 1600, and
>use exposure indexes up to 25,600 and still get usable images. I can
>recognize subjects, read text, etc, with EIs up to 400,000 or so (of
>course, banding is big at those levels).

It's amazing. I wouldn't have though enough pixels would have "turned
on" at those speeds to produce any image. From what I can tell, you
get squeeze "usable" images out of a digital exposure about 4 stops
underexposed, so with camera set at 1600, = 25,600, exactly what you
said. However, the scene or subject being photographed has to have
good tonal range otherwise, it's horribly washed out.
-Rich
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 9:58:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:
>
> From what I can tell, you
> get squeeze "usable" images out of a digital exposure about 4 stops
> underexposed

The thing I was most amazed about with my D70 compared to the circa 2000
oly C3030 was that I could easily squeeze underexposed images way above
what I was used to on the oly, even using D70 jpegs.

I'm not criticising the 4/3, I think it's probably a real nice
middle-ground, just commenting on the above snippet. My idea of what was
acceptable for pushing an exposure changed dramatically.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 3:26:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 17:58:20 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>>
>> From what I can tell, you
>> get squeeze "usable" images out of a digital exposure about 4 stops
>> underexposed
>
>The thing I was most amazed about with my D70 compared to the circa 2000
>oly C3030 was that I could easily squeeze underexposed images way above
>what I was used to on the oly, even using D70 jpegs.
>
>I'm not criticising the 4/3, I think it's probably a real nice
>middle-ground, just commenting on the above snippet. My idea of what was
>acceptable for pushing an exposure changed dramatically.

People perhaps worry to much about the technical virtuosity of the
shot rather than the composition or what the shot is about.
If you shoot pictures for colour, sharpness and contrast sake, yes,
then you have to be cogniscent of things like ISO, exposure, etc,
but if you are trying to record some specific piece of information
about a scene in an urgent situation (car crash, etc) you won't be
worrying about "blowing out" some detail on a white part of the
vehicle. People don't remember when all news photos were done with
grainy Tri-X, arguably the worst of the black and white emulsions,
except for speed.
It's job was to capture a scene using speed as it's main attribute.
Tonality, grain, contrast, was all secondary.
-Rich
June 6, 2005 3:35:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

>>
>>This image is no different. It is clearly over life size picture (or
>>there are some killer bees out there). The black area should have some
>>noise in it if what all the nerds are saying about Olympus being noisy
>>cameras is correct.
>
> Well, actually, black areas are the easiest areas to hide noise in.
> It's the slightly-brighter-than-black areas that show off the noise.
> You can raise the gamma at the toe of the transfer curve, or simply
> raise the blackpoint, and the noise disappears where it is most visible,
> and moves up to the next zone, but it may represent a smaller percentage
> of the image.

So that makes this is so extremly important because? I've found even major
noise from my little 2MP nikon can be fixed fairly easily with GOOD
software and someone with some skill using it. IMHO it's much easier to
deal with this than poor color or lack of tonal separation.

>
>>Otherwise, I'm trotting on down to my local camera store in the morning
>>to shoot a few frames on a E300 and see for myself. If they ain't as
>>noisy as you lot have been claiming, I'll buy it and use it for an
>>upcoming assignment and let you all see the pics. Hell. If Stacey uses
>>one it can't be all that bad, eh?
>
> I wouldn't mind a 4/3 camera with an EOS mount. 8MP has a pixel pitch
> the same as 32MP in a full-frame. Of course, I wouldn't expect to be
> able to use it in low light, the way I do with my 20D,

Why? You really believe making the sensor 1.5mm shorter is going to kill any
chance of good performance?

>
> I can
> recognize subjects, read text, etc, with EIs up to 400,000 or so (of
> course, banding is big at those levels).

LOL so banding is acceptable but noise isn't? How about back focusing, is
that also acceptable performance? Intesting to me how your sole focus is on
the ONE point a 20D has in it's favor.

It also kills me how all these 20D users "know" so much about the 4/3 system
and constantly -HAVE- to bash the camera anytime someone posts an image or
says ANYTHING about them..
--

Stacey
June 6, 2005 3:40:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <3gfqbkFc5bkuU1@individual.net>,
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>>> *YOU* are trying to turn this technology-based newsgroup into an
>>> artistic competition.
>
>>Actually I'm TRYING to get people to see there is more to image quality
>>that noise graphs and looking for noise in 100% crops of an 8MP image.
>
>>Maybe
>>when you were trying to make an 8X10 print from a 2MP camera that was
>>critical?
>
> My 2MP camera (a Fuji P&S) doesn't have much noise, but it is only ISO
> 100.

Exactly, it CAN'T have much noise or it wouldn't be usable.
>
>>With 8MP, those 100% crops aren't an issue for most uses.
>
> No, but for some reason you can't seem to stand mention of what *is*
> seen at 100%. Some of us like to push our equipment,

Like what, making fuzzy 20X30 prints from a 6MP camera just to say you did
it?


> and these things
> are what we are going to talk about. Many of my subjects are tiny in
> the frame, and I have to crop quite a bit for the subject to be seen.

Why not just use the right lens? Did you shoot like this with 35mm as well?

>
>>What I'm sick of is: the noise nerds ignore color saturation, tonal
>>separation in the highlight areas etc and ONLY consider high ISO noise
>>when judging image quality. I guess those aren't important? This shot is a
>>great example of good contrast, color saturation with tonal separation and
>>all you can do is say "I bet it's noisy at 100%. $100 says if this was a
>>canon shot you'd be bragging about how great it is..
>
> Color saturation is a *SOFTWARE* issue, unless the RAW data clips.

Or the sensor clips it. Remeber there ARE highly saturated colors in the
real world. Seen too many shot that were correctly exposed yet the tonal
separation in the highlights or saturated parts of the image were gone.
Unless you are claiming ALL sensors have the same dynamic range?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 9:16:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 06:04:46 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>When, in the past he's made claims about what he does and doesn't do; or
>when he criticizes what others do, it is outrageous to me that he does
>it while implying capability without proof. The plain fact is that he
>did post some attrocious photos a few years ago and does not like being
>reminded about it. His criticism of harmless activities such as the SI
>are an indicator of his intense jealousy and anger. Claims about Paris
>Match covers and shooting prodigious amounts of film are bids for
>respectibility without putting up any indication of real ability.

I felt that way a couple of years ago until I did a little research on
Tony. Now I just feel sorry for him. Usenet allows him the anonymity
to be whatever he wishes and he can forget about his life. If you
don't believe me just take a few minutes to do your own research.
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 12:40:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>
>>In message <3gfqbkFc5bkuU1@individual.net>,
>>Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>*YOU* are trying to turn this technology-based newsgroup into an
>>>>artistic competition.
>>
>>>Actually I'm TRYING to get people to see there is more to image quality
>>>that noise graphs and looking for noise in 100% crops of an 8MP image.
>>
>>>Maybe
>>>when you were trying to make an 8X10 print from a 2MP camera that was
>>>critical?
>>
>>My 2MP camera (a Fuji P&S) doesn't have much noise, but it is only ISO
>>100.
>
>
> Exactly, it CAN'T have much noise or it wouldn't be usable.
>
>>>With 8MP, those 100% crops aren't an issue for most uses.
>>
>>No, but for some reason you can't seem to stand mention of what *is*
>>seen at 100%. Some of us like to push our equipment,
>
>
> Like what, making fuzzy 20X30 prints from a 6MP camera just to say you did
> it?
>
>
>
>>and these things
>>are what we are going to talk about. Many of my subjects are tiny in
>>the frame, and I have to crop quite a bit for the subject to be seen.
>
>
> Why not just use the right lens? Did you shoot like this with 35mm as well?
>
>
>>>What I'm sick of is: the noise nerds ignore color saturation, tonal
>>>separation in the highlight areas etc and ONLY consider high ISO noise
>>>when judging image quality. I guess those aren't important? This shot is a
>>>great example of good contrast, color saturation with tonal separation and
>>>all you can do is say "I bet it's noisy at 100%. $100 says if this was a
>>>canon shot you'd be bragging about how great it is..
>>
>>Color saturation is a *SOFTWARE* issue, unless the RAW data clips.
>
>
> Or the sensor clips it. Remeber there ARE highly saturated colors in the
> real world. Seen too many shot that were correctly exposed yet the tonal
> separation in the highlights or saturated parts of the image were gone.
> Unless you are claiming ALL sensors have the same dynamic range?
>

Interesting camera these E300's. I spent an hour with one today. Not in
the same league as a 20D but then it isn't supposed to be. I was
particularly impressed by how much detail it can capture in the noise.
Yes, in the noise. A 20D doesn't capture detail in the noise, just
creates noise as the ISO rises and when you de-noise the image you are
often left with no detail in things like a bird's wing. I suspect much
of the low noise of a 20D is obtained not from a low noise sensor but
from post, in camera processing.

I have noticed in the past that Nikon (D100)images shot at ISO 400 are
terribly noisy after enlargement and also that the noise is easily
removed without killing detail. The same thing with the E300 which leads
me to the conclusion that Canon use a form of software de-noising to get
their high ISO shots low in noise which is detrimental to the image detail.

I would have brought one of these E300 kits home with me but I didn't
think they were at the level I wanted just yet. If I still had a 10D and
was about to replace it, I might have decided on the E300. As it is I
will follow closely the developments towards a new "Pro" DSLR from
Olympus. I like the lens line up too.

Even if the wasp shot had been de-noised in Photoshop, my conclusion
that noise in Olympus sensors is also in Canon sensors and (somewhat
poorly) removed in camera, leads me to believe that Olympus E300 is at
least as good a DSLR as the 300D. I'm a little tired of cropping off the
top of a shot when I make portraits. The 4/3 system really is the ideal
format. When (not if) I do take the plunge and ditch Canon, if Oly can
come up with a Pro camera as good as this little example, Olympus will
be the short list.

--
Douglas...
It's traditional, painter's use it, Rembrandt used it.
Now you can put your photos on it too!
http://www.canvasphotos.com.au
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 12:40:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia@Home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Interesting camera these E300's. I spent an hour with one today. Not in
>the same league as a 20D but then it isn't supposed to be. I was
>particularly impressed by how much detail it can capture in the noise.
>Yes, in the noise. A 20D doesn't capture detail in the noise, just
>creates noise as the ISO rises and when you de-noise the image you are
>often left with no detail in things like a bird's wing. I suspect much
>of the low noise of a 20D is obtained not from a low noise sensor but
>from post, in camera processing.
>
>I have noticed in the past that Nikon (D100)images shot at ISO 400 are
>terribly noisy after enlargement and also that the noise is easily
>removed without killing detail. The same thing with the E300 which leads
>me to the conclusion that Canon use a form of software de-noising to get
>their high ISO shots low in noise which is detrimental to the image detail.
>
>I would have brought one of these E300 kits home with me but I didn't
>think they were at the level I wanted just yet. If I still had a 10D and
>was about to replace it, I might have decided on the E300. As it is I
>will follow closely the developments towards a new "Pro" DSLR from
>Olympus. I like the lens line up too.
>
>Even if the wasp shot had been de-noised in Photoshop, my conclusion
>that noise in Olympus sensors is also in Canon sensors and (somewhat
>poorly) removed in camera, leads me to believe that Olympus E300 is at
>least as good a DSLR as the 300D. I'm a little tired of cropping off the
>top of a shot when I make portraits. The 4/3 system really is the ideal
>format. When (not if) I do take the plunge and ditch Canon, if Oly can
>come up with a Pro camera as good as this little example, Olympus will
>be the short list.


Doug,

I have extensively tested the E1 and E300 (E-VOLT) against the Canon
300D and 20D. Your experience exactly parallels mine. Canon's
aggressive noise reduction removes so much detail it makes an 8 MP
DSLR perform like it has only 6 MP, or even less.

Of course those who have never made such comparisons, and rely instead
on misleading information published on certain digital photography
review sites (not mentioning any names!), will jump to entirely the
wrong conclusions when comparing the Olympus DSLRs with others.

Tony
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 12:40:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:
> I have extensively tested the E1 and E300 (E-VOLT) against the Canon
> 300D and 20D.

Really? Please post your comapartive results in order that people be
better informed.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 12:40:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:18:11 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Tony Polson wrote:
>> I have extensively tested the E1 and E300 (E-VOLT) against the Canon
>> 300D and 20D.
>
>Really? Please post your comapartive results in order that people be
>better informed.

Couldn't this all be determined by examining noise specs provided by
the manufacturers of the CCD/CMOS sensors?
-Rich
June 7, 2005 2:20:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia@Home wrote:

>
> I would have brought one of these E300 kits home with me but I didn't
> think they were at the level I wanted just yet.

There are issues with the camera I wish it didn't have. The metering isn't
the best I've ever seen and the auto WB is easily fooled. There are a
couple of other issues but at the time I bought mine (last fall) there
wasn't an E1 replacement on the horizon. I too am looking forward to the
next version to get a more "pro" designed body than the E300 but for the
money these go for, it's a great little camera.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 1:15:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> Ryadia@Home wrote:
>
>
>>I would have brought one of these E300 kits home with me but I didn't
>>think they were at the level I wanted just yet.
>
>
> There are issues with the camera I wish it didn't have. The metering isn't
> the best I've ever seen and the auto WB is easily fooled. There are a

I doubt there's a camera that has a reliable and consistent WB. Best to
set the temperature in K and leave it at that. Consistency pays. OTOH,
if you work from the RAW's then it shouldn't matter at all, as you can
set the temp during conversion to the desired temperature.

5500K - flash, direct sunlight
7000K - cloudy
8000K - 10,000K open shade (shade under blue skies)
2800K - Tungsten (100W household)
3200K - Photoflood tungsten (500W white)
5000K - Blue photoflood tungsten (500W blue)
2000K - Ordinary candle

Fluorescents : there are other color issues here... better
to throw on a magenta (FL-D, FL-W)filter and expose /
process it at 5500K




--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 11:20:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:15:11 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> 5500K - flash, direct sunlight
> 7000K - cloudy
> 8000K - 10,000K open shade (shade under blue skies)
> 2800K - Tungsten (100W household)
> 3200K - Photoflood tungsten (500W white)
> 5000K - Blue photoflood tungsten (500W blue)
> 2000K - Ordinary candle
>
> Fluorescents : there are other color issues here... better
> to throw on a magenta (FL-D, FL-W)filter and expose /
> process it at 5500K

The only thing that would make me more miserable than high-pressure
sodium lamps would be if they up and vanished. :-)

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 11:20:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:15:11 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>5500K - flash, direct sunlight
>>7000K - cloudy
>>8000K - 10,000K open shade (shade under blue skies)
>>2800K - Tungsten (100W household)
>>3200K - Photoflood tungsten (500W white)
>>5000K - Blue photoflood tungsten (500W blue)
>>2000K - Ordinary candle
>>
>> Fluorescents : there are other color issues here... better
>> to throw on a magenta (FL-D, FL-W)filter and expose /
>> process it at 5500K
>
>
> The only thing that would make me more miserable than high-pressure
> sodium lamps would be if they up and vanished. :-)

Please explain?

They can be a nice touch in a night city scape, but otherwise have very
ugly spectrum.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 11:59:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"McLeod" <cerveza@xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:e6f9a1d631uds6e2nbjsv9oeoei78aog8u@4ax.com...


> I felt that way a couple of years ago until I did a little research on
> Tony. Now I just feel sorry for him. Usenet allows him the anonymity
> to be whatever he wishes and he can forget about his life. If you
> don't believe me just take a few minutes to do your own research.
------------

If this is the same supposedly" terminally ill" Tony Polson whom a regular
contributor to these groups identified as the person responsible for
slandering my wife's name and falsely accusing me of theft and fraud, I
think something is quite out of kilter here. Either this Tony Polson is
pulling a swifty on everyone or he is not the same person.

For starters being "Terminally Ill" means your death is iminent. Certainly
within a year at any rate but it was 18 months ago that the informant said
"I know positively it was Tony Polson". When I asked for the evidence, he
didn't have any. The Private investigator from London I hired, could not
confirm his "Terminal Illness" although there was plenty of rumor about it.
He suggested a miraculious recovery may be iminent. In any event I am
satisfied he may be many things but the villan, he is not.

Secondly... Several people regularly posting to these groups from the
Oceania region (where I live) have steadfastly refused to put up any
evidence they can take a photo yet I know first hand they can, I've seen
their work. I myself will never again publish a photograph on the 'net I
would not otherwise be willing to put in the public domain and I sympathise
with those who feel the same and have no pictures they would give away so
refrain from offering any. Who are we to say this is not happening with
Tony? Until he actually clarifies the situation, we may never know.

Thirdly, as much as some people would welcome the demise of some posters
(probably me included), they have the same right to post such bullshit as
they please ...as do those who target them.

From where I sit, Tony Polson has the same rights as all other Usenet
posters so the thought that he could (should?) be ridiculed and derided for
posting his views and occasional sideswipes at the popular targets here is
somewhat repulsive and says a lot about those who target him. Far too many
people use Usenet for their own personal entertainment and want to stop
others from doing the same. These groups are after all, an entertainment
medium and nothing else.

I target Alan Browne specifically for his double standards and hypocrisy,
nothing more or less. That doesn't mean I have less respect for his views,
just contempt for his attitude. As long as he puts himself up as the source
of rules (suggestions even) or publisher of behaviour standards and does the
opposite himself, I retain the right to highlight such hypocrisy.

I really don't know why Tony Polson uses Alan for target practice or for
that matter who fired the first shot but if Alan's recent broadside at Tony
is any indication, each give as good as they get.

Gentlemen... Shall we continue?

Douglas
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 12:00:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadias_Kiosk wrote:

> I target Alan Browne specifically for his double standards and hypocrisy,
> nothing more or less. That doesn't mean I have less respect for his views,
> just contempt for his attitude. As long as he puts himself up as the source
> of rules (suggestions even) or publisher of behaviour standards and does the
> opposite himself, I retain the right to highlight such hypocrisy.

We know you like targetting me Dougie, but the point is that Tony Polson
is the biggest hyposcrite around here.

He is quick to criticize others, yet fails to prove his own ability. A
few years ago he posted some images that a rank amateur would hesitate
in posting. He got lambasted for it. Not because the images were so
bad; but because he had built up an expectation that he was at least a
competent photographer. Since then, he has refused to post images, but
has continued his insinuous attacks. (His direct attack of the SI is
pathetic in itself. He hates it becasue he "can't" participate. In
hate he lashes out against the participants.)

As to my behaviour here, I really could care less about your opinion, as
your own behaviour has often reduced to personal attacks, slurs and
insults in retaliation for simple debate. With me, with others. Truly
pathetic and contemptible. I would bet that in face to face discussion
you're 'bravado' is much diminished. You have no right to label anyone
a hypocrite in the face of your behavior.

Despite all that, you are head and shoulders above Tony Polson. You at
least have shown your work and ability. Tony Polson has shown nothing
except declarations that he does not and cannot back up.

Regarding the person who suggested that TP was at the root of some of
your problems, he is best plonked.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 12:00:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 19:59:59 +1000, "Ryadias_Kiosk" <ryadia@hotmail>
wrote:

>If this is the same supposedly" terminally ill" Tony Polson whom a regular
>contributor to these groups identified as the person responsible for
>slandering my wife's name and falsely accusing me of theft and fraud, I
>think something is quite out of kilter here. Either this Tony Polson is
>pulling a swifty on everyone or he is not the same person.

I never said he was terminally ill or even suggested it.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 12:50:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:46:36 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> Ben Rosengart wrote:
>
>> The only thing that would make me more miserable than high-pressure
>> sodium lamps would be if they up and vanished. :-)
>
> Please explain?

I live in NYC and do a lot of photography at night. Sodium lamps
look *awful* in color -- but without them, I'd be shooting in the
dark.

I mostly prefer black and white anyway. But even then, those orange
lamps are a pain, because I end up with an underexposed/noisy blue
channel.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 12:50:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart wrote:


> I live in NYC and do a lot of photography at night. Sodium lamps
> look *awful* in color -- but without them, I'd be shooting in the
> dark.

That's what I thought you meant.

>
> I mostly prefer black and white anyway. But even then, those orange
> lamps are a pain, because I end up with an underexposed/noisy blue
> channel.

Use Tmax 100 / 400. Both are pretty responsive from 400 to 675 nm.



Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 4:00:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 19:44:03 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> Ben Rosengart wrote:
>
>> I mostly prefer black and white anyway. But even then, those orange
>> lamps are a pain, because I end up with an underexposed/noisy blue
>> channel.
>
> Use Tmax 100 / 400. Both are pretty responsive from 400 to 675 nm.

I couldn't fit a whole roll into my CF slot.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
June 8, 2005 4:13:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>
>> Ryadia@Home wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I would have brought one of these E300 kits home with me but I didn't
>>>think they were at the level I wanted just yet.
>>
>>
>> There are issues with the camera I wish it didn't have. The metering
>> isn't the best I've ever seen and the auto WB is easily fooled. There are
>> a
>
> I doubt there's a camera that has a reliable and consistent WB. Best to
> set the temperature in K and leave it at that.

Yep already learned that one, shooting RAW it really doesn't matter and even
a bit of exposure "issues" doesn't seem to be a problem either.


--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 5:55:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <f3r5a19eevclb8ilo5b1rmmlsh7tf5d3tg@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:52:45 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:
>> I can
>> recognize subjects, read text, etc, with EIs up to 400,000 or so (of
>> course, banding is big at those levels).

>It's amazing. I wouldn't have though enough pixels would have "turned
>on" at those speeds to produce any image.

There's a lot of talk going around, which may be very accurate for a
single pixel, but much like missing the forest for the trees, one can
miss the image for the pixels. Any given pixel is not likely to show a
photon response at EI 400,000, but any given area will have enough
pixels jumping up to higher-than-average-noise levels than another,
darker area. Don't expect to see any detail anywhere close to the
nyquist, though.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 5:55:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 01:55:27 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <f3r5a19eevclb8ilo5b1rmmlsh7tf5d3tg@4ax.com>,
>RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:52:45 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>> I can
>>> recognize subjects, read text, etc, with EIs up to 400,000 or so (of
>>> course, banding is big at those levels).
>
>>It's amazing. I wouldn't have though enough pixels would have "turned
>>on" at those speeds to produce any image.
>
>There's a lot of talk going around, which may be very accurate for a
>single pixel, but much like missing the forest for the trees, one can
>miss the image for the pixels. Any given pixel is not likely to show a
>photon response at EI 400,000, but any given area will have enough
>pixels jumping up to higher-than-average-noise levels than another,
>darker area. Don't expect to see any detail anywhere close to the
>nyquist, though.

No, it's not something you'd likely post as "art" but it's an
interesting experiment.
-Rich
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 11:31:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 848p8$qha$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
> Regarding the person who suggested that TP was at the root of some of your
> problems, he is best plonked.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>
Now there's a thing Alan...
Everyone has a right to post often irrelevant and sometimes false
information in here. Why then should I seek to set myself up with some sort
of police action and pretend they don't exist?

Noone ever forces anyone to read their posts. If you see a post from a known
troll or someone who gets up your nose, you don't have to read it anymore
than I do. This makes the process of "plonking" something of an enigma.
"from the mouths of babes"... Goes the line. Even you, Alan have an
occasional grain of wisdom worth reading. Should I plonk you because I don't
agree with your attitude of : do as I say, not as I do?

Douglas
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 11:31:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadias_Kiosk wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:D 848p8$qha$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>>Regarding the person who suggested that TP was at the root of some of your
>>problems, he is best plonked.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Alan.
>>
>
> Now there's a thing Alan...
> Everyone has a right to post often irrelevant and sometimes false
> information in here. Why then should I seek to set myself up with some sort
> of police action and pretend they don't exist?

You can do as you like, of course. FWIW, there is but one person in my
killfile.

>
> Noone ever forces anyone to read their posts. If you see a post from a known
> troll or someone who gets up your nose, you don't have to read it anymore
> than I do. This makes the process of "plonking" something of an enigma.
> "from the mouths of babes"... Goes the line. Even you, Alan have an
> occasional grain of wisdom worth reading. Should I plonk you because I don't
> agree with your attitude of : do as I say, not as I do?

See above.

As to writing about your woes with regard to somebody else (Mr. X)
suggesting that another person (Mr. Y) is causing you grief to the point
of hiring private investigators in a country 10,000 miles from your home
.... rant all you want ... please just leave my name out of the posting.

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
!