Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Don't shoot blank areas with a DSLR!

Tags:
  • SLR
  • Photo
  • Systems
  • DSLRs
  • Cameras
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 4:10:50 AM

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

The EXIF data is interesting.

What are we looking for?

T.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 9:35:08 AM

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

Dust motes.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 12:36:00 AM

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

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:slb4j1ht4knerffe9kl59khl9glj7852fv@4ax.com...
> http://dc.watch.impress.
>
> http://dc.watch.

Thanks - YET again - to our roving reporter.
September 23, 2005 3:11:46 AM

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

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:36:00 +0100, "Gormless" <simeon@gormless.com>
wrote:

>
>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:slb4j1ht4knerffe9kl59khl9glj7852fv@4ax.com...
>> http://dc.watch.impress.
>>
>> http://dc.watch.
>
>Thanks - YET again - to our roving reporter.
>
>

Don't you love it? All the DSLR buyers (except
Olympus owners) saying what
a "non-issue" dust is, and yet many times when you
see images posted, there it is.
-Rich
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 3:23:58 AM

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

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:36:00 +0100, "Gormless" <simeon@gormless.com>
wrote:

>
>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:slb4j1ht4knerffe9kl59khl9glj7852fv@4ax.com...
>> http://dc.watch.impress.
>>
>> http://dc.watch.
>
>Thanks - YET again - to our roving reporter.
>
>

Don't you mean "raving" rather than "roving"?


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 5:06:07 AM

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

Rich wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:36:00 +0100, "Gormless" <simeon@gormless.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> >news:slb4j1ht4knerffe9kl59khl9glj7852fv@4ax.com...
> >> http://dc.watch.impress.
> >>
> >> http://dc.watch.
> >
> >Thanks - YET again - to our roving reporter.
> >
> >
>
> Don't you love it? All the DSLR buyers (except
> Olympus owners) saying what
> a "non-issue" dust is, and yet many times when you
> see images posted, there it is.
> -Rich

Dust is not a non-issue. The non-issue is the difficulty of removing
it. It's easy, quick, and over with. If you have a zoom lens P&S, or
prosumer, good luck when dust does infiltrate--and it will. There's no
way to clean it.

Any other stupidities or mistaken readings for the week?
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 10:35:49 AM

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

Rich wrote:

Oh, how disappointing. I thought you had discovered why not to take
self-portraits.

Dave
September 23, 2005 5:31:03 PM

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

John A. Stovall wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:36:00 +0100, "Gormless" <simeon@gormless.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>news:slb4j1ht4knerffe9kl59khl9glj7852fv@4ax.com...
>>
>>>http://dc.watch.impress.
>>>
>>>http://dc.watch.
>>
>>Thanks - YET again - to our roving reporter.
>>
>>
>
>
> Don't you mean "raving" rather than "roving"?

Is the glass half full or half empty?
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 10:54:19 PM

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

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:8hs6j1lmm6kfk7f7875brk1jou3h5ugmnr@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:36:00 +0100, "Gormless" <simeon@gormless.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >Thanks - YET again - to our roving reporter.
> >
> >
>
> Don't you love it? All the DSLR buyers (except
> Olympus owners) saying what
> a "non-issue" dust is, and yet many times when you
> see images posted, there it is.
> -Rich

You make a peculiarly small amount of sense there.
I haven't a clue what you mean.
Where did you learn your English?
September 24, 2005 12:16:16 AM

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

Alan Bremner wrote:

> It's not that it's a "non-issue" to DSLR owners, more that it's simply
> not the major one that you seem to think it is.

It's like high ISO sensor noise isn't a "non-issue" with the 4/3 cameras,
but for me it's not the major deal it might be for other people.
Individuals have to look at the plus and minuses of each camera, look at
how they are going to use it and decide for themselves what they want to
use.

To me running neat image on the few high ISO images isn't a big deal, but
I'd be bothered if I had to clone out dust spots very often.. It's all
about what you want as NONE of these are perfect for everything.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 2:52:11 AM

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

In message <8hs6j1lmm6kfk7f7875brk1jou3h5ugmnr@4ax.com>,
Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>Don't you love it? All the DSLR buyers (except
>Olympus owners) saying what
>a "non-issue" dust is, and yet many times when you
>see images posted, there it is.

It's usually the result of Tv-priority or program mode with too high an
ISO setting. Most of those images where you see the dust are ones where
the aperture is much smaller than it really needs to be.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 12:30:09 PM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3pjk6gFaoa1vU2@individual.net...
> Alan Bremner wrote:
>
>> It's not that it's a "non-issue" to DSLR owners, more that it's simply
>> not the major one that you seem to think it is.
>
> It's like high ISO sensor noise isn't a "non-issue" with the 4/3 cameras,
> but for me it's not the major deal it might be for other people.
> Individuals have to look at the plus and minuses of each camera, look at
> how they are going to use it and decide for themselves what they want to
> use.

If you don't care so much why are you so anal about telling everyone so
bloody often?

> To me running neat image on the few high ISO images isn't a big deal, but
> I'd be bothered if I had to clone out dust spots very often.. It's all
> about what you want as NONE of these are perfect for everything.

I am glad you cleared that up, I was a bit worried though that you were
going to tell us all once again how much you like the look of the E300.
September 24, 2005 12:40:34 PM

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

Is it possible that there was something on the front element or a
filter? I've had the same thing happen when I was using a small
apperture and a slightly dirty polarising filter.

> Dust motes.
>
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 12:57:27 PM

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

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:11:46 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>Don't you love it? All the DSLR buyers (except
>Olympus owners) saying what
>a "non-issue" dust is, and yet many times when you
>see images posted, there it is.

My neighbour sees fairies at the bottom of the garden.
She has tried all sorts of filters to photograph 'em.
Nothing seems to work. But they are there. She sais.
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 4:14:46 PM

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

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:31:03 GMT, no_name <no_name@no.where.invalid>
wrote:

>John A. Stovall wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:36:00 +0100, "Gormless" <simeon@gormless.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>>news:slb4j1ht4knerffe9kl59khl9glj7852fv@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>http://dc.watch.impress.
>>>>
>>>>http://dc.watch.
>>>
>>>Thanks - YET again - to our roving reporter.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Don't you mean "raving" rather than "roving"?
>
>Is the glass half full or half empty?

In Rich's case it's ways half empty. Particularly when it comes to
content.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
September 24, 2005 4:59:04 PM

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

"Gormless" <simeon@gormless.com> wrote in message
news:GbWdnf1hYd6m3KnenZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:8hs6j1lmm6kfk7f7875brk1jou3h5ugmnr@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:36:00 +0100, "Gormless" <simeon@gormless.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Thanks - YET again - to our roving reporter.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Don't you love it? All the DSLR buyers (except
>> Olympus owners) saying what
>> a "non-issue" dust is, and yet many times when you
>> see images posted, there it is.
>> -Rich
>
> You make a peculiarly small amount of sense there.
> I haven't a clue what you mean.
> Where did you learn your English?

I think it is a type of colonial english, a lingua franca - or pidgin.

Trapper
September 25, 2005 5:27:40 AM

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

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:52:11 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <8hs6j1lmm6kfk7f7875brk1jou3h5ugmnr@4ax.com>,
>Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>Don't you love it? All the DSLR buyers (except
>>Olympus owners) saying what
>>a "non-issue" dust is, and yet many times when you
>>see images posted, there it is.
>
>It's usually the result of Tv-priority or program mode with too high an
>ISO setting. Most of those images where you see the dust are ones where
>the aperture is much smaller than it really needs to be.

Well, when a lens's max aperture is something like f6 and you need to
set it to f9-11 to get a decently sharp image, can you blame them?
-Rich
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 8:02:15 PM

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

In message <29dcj15atf6jno50baj4jgp59e7tlm3f2u@4ax.com>,
Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:52:11 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>>In message <8hs6j1lmm6kfk7f7875brk1jou3h5ugmnr@4ax.com>,
>>Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Don't you love it? All the DSLR buyers (except
>>>Olympus owners) saying what
>>>a "non-issue" dust is, and yet many times when you
>>>see images posted, there it is.
>>
>>It's usually the result of Tv-priority or program mode with too high an
>>ISO setting. Most of those images where you see the dust are ones where
>>the aperture is much smaller than it really needs to be.
>
>Well, when a lens's max aperture is something like f6 and you need to
>set it to f9-11 to get a decently sharp image, can you blame them?

Regardless of whether or not that need is real, f9 to f11 only shows
dust very lightly; you have to be looking for it at those f-stops. It's
the upper teens where it starts to become vivid; f-stops that I usually
try to avoid because of diffraction issues.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 8:12:49 PM

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

In message <gadcj1l8g04kloaaic33fh1ud2l96f85d5@4ax.com>,
Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>Canon owners on dust:

>http://www.explicacoes.com/php_nuke/html/images/upload/...

I hardly think so. I've never heard of anyone who doesn't wish there
was no dust. Your problem is that you think that your comments are
supposed to be lightning bolts that bring down big towers, to compensate
for your short stature or member, and it doesn't happen, because it
isn't the insurmountable problem that you like to pretend that it is. I
can use aperture-priority when aiming at the sky; I can clean the
sensor, and I can brighten the darkened spots back up in PS.

If another company made a camera that took my Canon lenses, and had the
same or better quality features as the current Canon, and I was looking
to upgrade, it would have no problems going non-Canon on the body.
Canon just happened to be the company with the best reputation for
low-light performance when I bought a DSLR.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 1:19:12 AM

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

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:gadcj1l8g04kloaaic33fh1ud2l96f85d5@4ax.com...
SNIP
> Canon owners on dust: [...]

Why Canon? Do you really think that e.g. Nikon DSLRs don't have dust
on their sensor array?

Bart
September 26, 2005 2:16:01 AM

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

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:19:12 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

>
>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:gadcj1l8g04kloaaic33fh1ud2l96f85d5@4ax.com...
>SNIP
>> Canon owners on dust: [...]
>
>Why Canon? Do you really think that e.g. Nikon DSLRs don't have dust
>on their sensor array?
>
>Bart

They do, but their owners don't try to deny it.
-Rich
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 6:19:05 AM

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

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:16:16 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Individuals have to look at the plus and minuses of each camera, look at
>how they are going to use it and decide for themselves what they want to
>use.

Rich, despite not owning a DSLR, obviously thinks he knows everything
about them and considers anyone who dares to contradict his pearls of
wisdom in denial.

>To me running neat image on the few high ISO images isn't a big deal, but
>I'd be bothered if I had to clone out dust spots very often..

I would be too, but I consider the occasional spot a reasonable
trade-off for the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. I'm a realist
and know that changing lenses on top of a windswept mountain isn't the
best idea, but if the photo requires it then I say to hell with the
risk! :-)

Al
--
[This space intentionally left blank]
September 26, 2005 6:19:06 AM

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

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:19:05 +0100, Alan Bremner <alan@domain.invalid>
wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:16:16 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Individuals have to look at the plus and minuses of each camera, look at
>>how they are going to use it and decide for themselves what they want to
>>use.
>
> Rich, despite not owning a DSLR, obviously thinks he knows everything
>about them and considers anyone who dares to contradict his pearls of
>wisdom in denial.
>
>>To me running neat image on the few high ISO images isn't a big deal, but
>>I'd be bothered if I had to clone out dust spots very often..
>
>I would be too, but I consider the occasional spot a reasonable
>trade-off for the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. I'm a realist
>and know that changing lenses on top of a windswept mountain isn't the
>best idea, but if the photo requires it then I say to hell with the
>risk! :-)
>
>Al

You would, I wouldn't. They ruin the whole shot.
-Rich
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 10:29:03 AM

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

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:tfmej1ha7c5be74p14js15ld92pofm3tee@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:19:05 +0100, Alan Bremner <alan@domain.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:16:16 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Individuals have to look at the plus and minuses of each camera, look at
>>>how they are going to use it and decide for themselves what they want to
>>>use.
>>
>> Rich, despite not owning a DSLR, obviously thinks he knows everything
>>about them and considers anyone who dares to contradict his pearls of
>>wisdom in denial.
>>
>>>To me running neat image on the few high ISO images isn't a big deal, but
>>>I'd be bothered if I had to clone out dust spots very often..
>>
>>I would be too, but I consider the occasional spot a reasonable
>>trade-off for the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. I'm a realist
>>and know that changing lenses on top of a windswept mountain isn't the
>>best idea, but if the photo requires it then I say to hell with the
>>risk! :-)
>>
>>Al
>
> You would, I wouldn't. They ruin the whole shot.

Idiot. They do not, well none of mine ever have, seconds to get rid of.
September 26, 2005 7:17:56 PM

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

Actually I just discovered today that the marks I was seeing where
actually caused by stuff on my sensor, rather than something on the
filter. The odd thing is that it only seems to appear when I stop the
lens down a fair way. Does this make any sense? Also the marks become
much more noticeable when I'm using my longer lens 100-300mm.

> Is it possible that there was something on the front element or a
> filter? I've had the same thing happen when I was using a small
> apperture and a slightly dirty polarising filter.
>
>> Dust motes.
>>
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 2:15:41 AM

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

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:29:03 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:tfmej1ha7c5be74p14js15ld92pofm3tee@4ax.com...

>> You would, I wouldn't. They ruin the whole shot.

>Idiot. They do not, well none of mine ever have, seconds to get rid of.

Ignore him, for he knows not of what he speaks....

At least with digital you *can* remove it. I can't be the only one to
have found a once-in-a-lifetime transparency ruined by a hair trapped
in the film gate. A grown man weeping is not a pretty sight!

Al
--
[This space intentionally left blank]
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 6:21:08 AM

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

"Alan Bremner" <alan@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:fpogj1t1b3mb4ni4rn78tkcvh2bmhbm5bi@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:29:03 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>news:tfmej1ha7c5be74p14js15ld92pofm3tee@4ax.com...
>
>>> You would, I wouldn't. They ruin the whole shot.
>
>>Idiot. They do not, well none of mine ever have, seconds to get rid of.
>
> Ignore him, for he knows not of what he speaks....
>
> At least with digital you *can* remove it. I can't be the only one to
> have found a once-in-a-lifetime transparency ruined by a hair trapped
> in the film gate. A grown man weeping is not a pretty sight!
>
> Al
> --
> [This space intentionally left blank]

Bugga!
September 28, 2005 3:49:08 AM

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

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:08 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

If dust spots are SO easy to get rid of, then how come we see them
in so many shots, even example shots posted to show off the camera's
"attributes?"
-Rich
Anonymous
September 28, 2005 9:16:41 AM

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

In article <tj4kj1dm4aodd36sle8d9i4bevasa0nial@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:08 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
> If dust spots are SO easy to get rid of, then how come we see them
> in so many shots, even example shots posted to show off the camera's
> "attributes?"
> -Rich

Because you're not supposed to retouch sample shots. Isn't that
painfully obvious?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
September 28, 2005 12:06:16 PM

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

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:tj4kj1dm4aodd36sle8d9i4bevasa0nial@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:08 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
> If dust spots are SO easy to get rid of, then how come we see them
> in so many shots, even example shots posted to show off the camera's
> "attributes?"
> -Rich

So you are saying you can't do the occasional one, either you are very, very
stupid or you are not telling the truth or perhaps you don't actually have a
D-SLR and have not actually experienced the problem or non problem? Of over
100 photos I have posted to www.shuttertalk.com I have had to clean spots
from only one or two photos, feel free to look.
Anonymous
September 28, 2005 6:59:43 PM

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

>"Alan Bremner" <alan@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>news:fpogj1t1b3mb4ni4rn78tkcvh2bmhbm5bi@4ax.com...

>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:29:03 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>> I can't be the only one to have found a once-in-a-lifetime transparency
>> ruined by a hair trapped in the film gate. A grown man weeping is not
>> a pretty sight!

>Bugga!

Or (somewhat stronger) words to that effect. <BG>

Al
--
[This space intentionally left blank]
Anonymous
September 28, 2005 8:19:53 PM

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

Rich once again proves he is a moron, or a reasonable facsimile
thereof:

> But dust has nothing to do with the qualities of the sensor or lens
> and removing a few spots won't change the overall quality of the
> image.

If removing a few spots doesn't change the quality much, then leaving
the spots in can't change it much either. Idiot.

> It's like selling a suit with lint all over it, it just looks bad.

If they did remove the dust, you would be on their ass about "ODIOUS
DIGITAL MANIPULATIONS" and the like, right? Even more hilarious, is
that you are (somehow) expecting third parties to act like salesdroids
or something. Maybe that is your modus operandi (how much does Olympus
pay you?), but others have better things to do with their lives than
play stupid games with nitwits like you.

P.S. If you don't like the suit, don't buy it ... oh right, you can't
even afford one anyways.
September 28, 2005 10:43:45 PM

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

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 05:16:41 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <tj4kj1dm4aodd36sle8d9i4bevasa0nial@4ax.com>, none@none.com
>says...
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:08 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> If dust spots are SO easy to get rid of, then how come we see them
>> in so many shots, even example shots posted to show off the camera's
>> "attributes?"
>> -Rich
>
>Because you're not supposed to retouch sample shots. Isn't that
>painfully obvious?

But dust has nothing to do with the qualities of the sensor or lens
and removing a few spots won't change the overall quality of the
image. It's like selling a suit with lint all over it, it just looks
bad.
-Rich
September 28, 2005 10:44:29 PM

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

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:06:16 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:tj4kj1dm4aodd36sle8d9i4bevasa0nial@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:08 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> If dust spots are SO easy to get rid of, then how come we see them
>> in so many shots, even example shots posted to show off the camera's
>> "attributes?"
>> -Rich
>
>So you are saying you can't do the occasional one, either you are very, very
>stupid or you are not telling the truth or perhaps you don't actually have a
>D-SLR and have not actually experienced the problem or non problem? Of over
>100 photos I have posted to www.shuttertalk.com I have had to clean spots
>from only one or two photos, feel free to look.
>

If you admit to cleaning them, how would I know you only had to do a
couple?
-Rich
September 29, 2005 2:01:47 AM

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

On 28 Sep 2005 16:19:53 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Rich once again proves he is a moron, or a reasonable facsimile
>thereof:
>
>> But dust has nothing to do with the qualities of the sensor or lens
>> and removing a few spots won't change the overall quality of the
>> image.
>
>If removing a few spots doesn't change the quality much, then leaving
>the spots in can't change it much either. Idiot.

They horribly detract from that quality. Something that occupies a
small fraction of an image, but it's like having a burned out pixel
in an LCD display. I think the term is, "sore thumb."

>
>> It's like selling a suit with lint all over it, it just looks bad.
>
>If they did remove the dust, you would be on their ass about "ODIOUS
>DIGITAL MANIPULATIONS" and the like, right? Even more hilarious, is
>that you are (somehow) expecting third parties to act like salesdroids
>or something. Maybe that is your modus operandi (how much does Olympus
>pay you?), but others have better things to do with their lives than
>play stupid games with nitwits like you.
>

This "me too" stuff is getting old. You really should try using
your imagination.

>P.S. If you don't like the suit, don't buy it ... oh right, you can't
>even afford one anyways.

My income tax rate is 36%. Do the math.
-Rich
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 3:23:37 AM

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

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:o 57mj1pkbiu0nscqgb40ha1jrhc7ahf2tp@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:06:16 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>news:tj4kj1dm4aodd36sle8d9i4bevasa0nial@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:08 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If dust spots are SO easy to get rid of, then how come we see them
>>> in so many shots, even example shots posted to show off the camera's
>>> "attributes?"
>>> -Rich
>>
>>So you are saying you can't do the occasional one, either you are very,
>>very
>>stupid or you are not telling the truth or perhaps you don't actually have
>>a
>>D-SLR and have not actually experienced the problem or non problem? Of
>>over
>>100 photos I have posted to www.shuttertalk.com I have had to clean spots
>>from only one or two photos, feel free to look.
>>
>
> If you admit to cleaning them, how would I know you only had to do a
> couple?
> -Rich

Did you actually look at the photos? Go on, actually have a look, only a few
would actually show any spots anyway and that is my point you fool.
September 29, 2005 3:23:38 AM

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

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:23:37 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:o 57mj1pkbiu0nscqgb40ha1jrhc7ahf2tp@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:06:16 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>>news:tj4kj1dm4aodd36sle8d9i4bevasa0nial@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:08 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If dust spots are SO easy to get rid of, then how come we see them
>>>> in so many shots, even example shots posted to show off the camera's
>>>> "attributes?"
>>>> -Rich
>>>
>>>So you are saying you can't do the occasional one, either you are very,
>>>very
>>>stupid or you are not telling the truth or perhaps you don't actually have
>>>a
>>>D-SLR and have not actually experienced the problem or non problem? Of
>>>over
>>>100 photos I have posted to www.shuttertalk.com I have had to clean spots
>>>from only one or two photos, feel free to look.
>>>
>>
>> If you admit to cleaning them, how would I know you only had to do a
>> couple?
>> -Rich
>
>Did you actually look at the photos? Go on, actually have a look, only a few
>would actually show any spots anyway and that is my point you fool.
>

And on the other hand, another poster on another group was complaining
about them being in many photos. They suggested she clean out her
camera bag. Why do you PERSIST in thinking YOUR experience is the
WAY it is, or that it's even typical?
-Rich
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 3:35:24 AM

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

In message <tj4kj1dm4aodd36sle8d9i4bevasa0nial@4ax.com>,
Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:08 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>If dust spots are SO easy to get rid of, then how come we see them
>in so many shots, even example shots posted to show off the camera's
>"attributes?"

Because people are sloppy. They often use much smaller apertures than
necessary, and they post without concern.

I would not leave dust in a plain area like sky, if "showing off" an
image.

In any event, most of my "dust spot sky" images were ruined anyway by
diffraction. I don't know how many times I've pointed my camera at a
hawk or falcon in the sky with the same settings that I used for
shooting in shade, in TV-priority mode, and the image was unusable
because it was too soft. If the cameras had more useful auto-exposure
modes, this would rarely ever happen.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
September 29, 2005 3:35:25 AM

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

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:35:24 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <tj4kj1dm4aodd36sle8d9i4bevasa0nial@4ax.com>,
>Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:08 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>If dust spots are SO easy to get rid of, then how come we see them
>>in so many shots, even example shots posted to show off the camera's
>>"attributes?"
>
>Because people are sloppy. They often use much smaller apertures than
>necessary, and they post without concern.
>
>I would not leave dust in a plain area like sky, if "showing off" an
>image.
>
>In any event, most of my "dust spot sky" images were ruined anyway by
>diffraction. I don't know how many times I've pointed my camera at a
>hawk or falcon in the sky with the same settings that I used for
>shooting in shade, in TV-priority mode, and the image was unusable
>because it was too soft. If the cameras had more useful auto-exposure
>modes, this would rarely ever happen.

What shutter speeds as fast as 1/4000 at hand, why not just set it
on aperture priority?
-Rich
September 29, 2005 6:09:22 AM

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

Pete D wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3pjk6gFaoa1vU2@individual.net...
>> Alan Bremner wrote:
>>
>>> It's not that it's a "non-issue" to DSLR owners, more that it's simply
>>> not the major one that you seem to think it is.
>>
>> It's like high ISO sensor noise isn't a "non-issue" with the 4/3 cameras,
>> but for me it's not the major deal it might be for other people.
>> Individuals have to look at the plus and minuses of each camera, look at
>> how they are going to use it and decide for themselves what they want to
>> use.
>
> If you don't care so much why are you so anal about telling everyone so
> bloody often?

Because people like you continually make a big deal out of it?

>
>> To me running neat image on the few high ISO images isn't a big deal, but
>> I'd be bothered if I had to clone out dust spots very often.. It's all
>> about what you want as NONE of these are perfect for everything.
>
> I am glad you cleared that up, I was a bit worried though that you were
> going to tell us all once again how much you like the look of the E300.

And here you are once again bashing a camera you've never used...

--

Stacey
September 29, 2005 6:14:10 AM

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

Pete D wrote:

>
> "Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:o 57mj1pkbiu0nscqgb40ha1jrhc7ahf2tp@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:06:16 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>>news:tj4kj1dm4aodd36sle8d9i4bevasa0nial@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:08 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If dust spots are SO easy to get rid of, then how come we see them
>>>> in so many shots, even example shots posted to show off the camera's
>>>> "attributes?"
>>>> -Rich
>>>
>>>So you are saying you can't do the occasional one, either you are very,
>>>very
>>>stupid or you are not telling the truth or perhaps you don't actually
>>>have a
>>>D-SLR and have not actually experienced the problem or non problem? Of
>>>over
>>>100 photos I have posted to www.shuttertalk.com I have had to clean spots
>>>from only one or two photos, feel free to look.
>>>
>>
>> If you admit to cleaning them, how would I know you only had to do a
>> couple?
>> -Rich
>
> Did you actually look at the photos?


And which ones are you talking about there?
--

Stacey
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 7:26:06 AM

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

In message <upimj19gsn2risdebtj9giidk6q3jceb9g@4ax.com>,
Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:35:24 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>>In any event, most of my "dust spot sky" images were ruined anyway by
>>diffraction. I don't know how many times I've pointed my camera at a
>>hawk or falcon in the sky with the same settings that I used for
>>shooting in shade, in TV-priority mode, and the image was unusable
>>because it was too soft. If the cameras had more useful auto-exposure
>>modes, this would rarely ever happen.

>What shutter speeds as fast as 1/4000 at hand, why not just set it
>on aperture priority?

Just set it at aperture priority? Have you ever done any photography of
non-posing living creatures?

Aperture priority with a telephoto in low light will result in decently
exposed, but totally blurred and worthless pictures when the scene
suddenly becomes darker.

What is needed is user-programmable, or hybrid modes, such as one that
doesn't allow apertures to go smaller than a certain size, unless it is
necessary to avoid blow-out, and a maximum exposure time to avoid blur
for the focal length, with ISO varying to maintain these limits as an
option. The manufacturers are asleep at the wheel, as usual.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 10:08:33 AM

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

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:0gimj1lma8iul1bkqcqgigbun71gr1cv50@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:23:37 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>news:o 57mj1pkbiu0nscqgb40ha1jrhc7ahf2tp@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:06:16 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:tj4kj1dm4aodd36sle8d9i4bevasa0nial@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:08 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If dust spots are SO easy to get rid of, then how come we see them
>>>>> in so many shots, even example shots posted to show off the camera's
>>>>> "attributes?"
>>>>> -Rich
>>>>
>>>>So you are saying you can't do the occasional one, either you are very,
>>>>very
>>>>stupid or you are not telling the truth or perhaps you don't actually
>>>>have
>>>>a
>>>>D-SLR and have not actually experienced the problem or non problem? Of
>>>>over
>>>>100 photos I have posted to www.shuttertalk.com I have had to clean
>>>>spots
>>>>from only one or two photos, feel free to look.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you admit to cleaning them, how would I know you only had to do a
>>> couple?
>>> -Rich
>>
>>Did you actually look at the photos? Go on, actually have a look, only a
>>few
>>would actually show any spots anyway and that is my point you fool.
>>
>
> And on the other hand, another poster on another group was complaining
> about them being in many photos. They suggested she clean out her
> camera bag. Why do you PERSIST in thinking YOUR experience is the
> WAY it is, or that it's even typical?
> -Rich

Why would you ass u me that it isn't?
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 10:48:06 AM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>In any event, most of my "dust spot sky" images were ruined anyway by
>diffraction. I don't know how many times I've pointed my camera at a
>hawk or falcon in the sky with the same settings that I used for
>shooting in shade, in TV-priority mode, and the image was unusable
>because it was too soft. If the cameras had more useful auto-exposure
>modes, this would rarely ever happen.


A photographer would select manual exposure mode, and choose a
combination of aperture and shutter speed that gave the desired
exposure, ability to 'freeze' motion, appropriate depth of field and
avoiding apertures at which the lens performs less well.

Someone who lets the camera make all these decisions for him/her is
not a photographer, just a button-pusher.

Someone who uses "TV-priority mode" to make images of a bird in
flight, then complains about the results, is probably beyond
redemption.

;-)
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 10:52:47 AM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:

>What is needed is user-programmable, or hybrid modes, such as one that
>doesn't allow apertures to go smaller than a certain size, unless it is
>necessary to avoid blow-out, and a maximum exposure time to avoid blur
>for the focal length, with ISO varying to maintain these limits as an
>option.


What is needed is someone who knows how to choose combinations of lens
apertures and shutter speeds to make correct exposures. Someone who
doesn't have rely on dumb automation to make their images for them.

That someone is a "competent photographer". Alas, it would appear to
be an increasingly endangered species. Perhaps we should make as many
images as possible of this rapidly diminishing breed before it
disappears altogether.

;-)
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!