Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > Go Fig writes:
    >
    > > I like low-light/nite photography, the LCD preview is incredibly
    > > valuable in these estimating situations.
    >
    > LCD previews have deceived me in every single case where I've tried to
    > take night photos, and I know of other photographers with digital
    > cameras who have had the same problem.

OK, but certainly less so than no preview at all. It surely gives you
a better place to start bracketing from.

jay
Fri Nov 26, 2004
mailto:[email protected]

Mxsmanic

Go Fig writes:

    > OK, but certainly less so than no preview at all. It surely gives you
    > a better place to start bracketing from.

If you meter the scene properly, you don't need to bracket. When
shooting MF film, I often take only a single shot, after carefully
metering for a few minutes with a spot meter.

See http://www.mxsmanic.com/church.jpg for an example of a film exposure
done in this way, without bracketing.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > Go Fig writes:
    >
    > > OK, but certainly less so than no preview at all. It surely gives you
    > > a better place to start bracketing from.
    >
    > If you meter the scene properly, you don't need to bracket. When
    > shooting MF film, I often take only a single shot, after carefully
    > metering for a few minutes with a spot meter.
    >
    > See http://www.mxsmanic.com/church.jpg for an example of a film exposure
    > done in this way, without bracketing.

There is quite a bit of available light for that shot, could probably
be shot at 1/15 and 5.6 E-6 200. There is so much natural light its
hard to tell if its c-41 or E-6.

Nice shot!

jay
Fri Nov 26, 2004
mailto:[email protected]

Jeremy Henderson

On 2004-11-27 01:37:17 +0100, "Frank F. Matthews"
<[email protected]> said:

    >
    >
    > Magda wrote:
    >> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:58:45 +0100, in rec.travel.europe,
    >> [email protected] arranged some
    >> electrons, so they looked like this :
    >>
    >> ... I was the first to post http://www.dpreview.com/ here.
    >> Et ce n'est pas tombé dans l'oreille d'un sourd, tu vois ! :)
    >>
    >> ... Dpreview is not a consumer association.
    >> ... IMO there are many things that consumer associations are not competent
    >> ... to test, cameras are one of them. I suspect the main motive is that
    >> ... the staff get to keep the objects tested.
    >>
    >> Yes, but who better than the users to judge a camera ?
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    > But the problem is that we have lots of users here who are happy with
    > their digitals but folks are asking for consumer associations.
    >
    >
    > The problem is a question about the competence of the association
    > testers. Are they good photographers?

They don't have to be good photographers, any more than tennis
journalists need a good serve. They need to be aware of the
requirements of photographers, in which regard I agree that they are
often deficient. In fact I don't theink CA reviews are often of much
use - they frequently seem to focus (!) on irrelevant issues - how long
will a 10p ballpoint write for? Who cares - the question is how well it
writes.

J;

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:20:04 +0100, Magda
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:58:45 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, [email protected] arranged some
    >electrons, so they looked like this :
    >
    > ... I was the first to post http://www.dpreview.com/ here.
    >Et ce n'est pas tombé dans l'oreille d'un sourd, tu vois ! :)
    > ... Dpreview is not a consumer association.
    > ... IMO there are many things that consumer associations are not competent
    > ... to test, cameras are one of them. I suspect the main motive is that
    > ... the staff get to keep the objects tested.
    >Yes, but who better than the users to judge a camera ?

The guy that does the reviews for http://www.dpreview.com/ .

I compared a consumer association's reviews with his, the consumer
association test missed most of the important points. If they can't
see that the colours produced are unrealistic or that a camera hasn't
got an optical view finder, they shouldn't be publishing their
misleading test results. I was a member of the UK CA for 30 years, the
tests got worse and worse, the camera test was the last straw and I
terminated my subscription. I am still a member of the Dutch CA.
--
Martin

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:26:20 +0100, Magda
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:13:45 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, [email protected] arranged some
    >electrons, so they looked like this :
    > ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:09:33 +0000, The Reids
    > ... <[email protected]> wrote:
    > ...
    > ... >Following up to Mxsmanic
    > ... >
    > ... >>> He should sell his TV and buy a 2-ring combination oven.
    > ... >>
    > ... >>I don't have a TV. The government seized it in February.
    > ... >
    > ... >why February?
    > ...
    > ... It was probably when they found out he hadn't a license
    >There is no need for a license. You just have to pay the tax once a year.

What's the difference between a tax and a license other than the name?

In NL we don't have to pay either.
--
Martin

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 06:14:18 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> but it does alter what you see.
    >In what way?

Look through your view finder and then look at the object directly.
If you can't see a difference then have your eyes tested.
--
Martin

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:07:58 +0100, Jeremy Henderson <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On 2004-11-27 01:37:17 +0100, "Frank F. Matthews"
    ><[email protected]> said:
    >>
    >>
    >> Magda wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:58:45 +0100, in rec.travel.europe,
    >>> [email protected] arranged some
    >>> electrons, so they looked like this :
    >>>
    >>> ... I was the first to post http://www.dpreview.com/ here.
    >>> Et ce n'est pas tombé dans l'oreille d'un sourd, tu vois ! :)
    >>>
    >>> ... Dpreview is not a consumer association.
    >>> ... IMO there are many things that consumer associations are not competent
    >>> ... to test, cameras are one of them. I suspect the main motive is that
    >>> ... the staff get to keep the objects tested.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, but who better than the users to judge a camera ?
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> But the problem is that we have lots of users here who are happy with
    >> their digitals but folks are asking for consumer associations.
    >>
    >>
    >> The problem is a question about the competence of the association
    >> testers. Are they good photographers?
    >They don't have to be good photographers, any more than tennis
    >journalists need a good serve. They need to be aware of the
    >requirements of photographers, in which regard I agree that they are
    >often deficient. In fact I don't theink CA reviews are often of much
    >use - they frequently seem to focus (!) on irrelevant issues - how long
    >will a 10p ballpoint write for? Who cares - the question is how well it
    >writes.
Yes.

They also do much criticising of commercial organisations where their
own organisation suffers from the same problems. Look in Which? and
tell me what the subscription rates are. They are deliberately not
published, because not everybody pays the same rate.
Which? doubled my subscription and took the new subscription by direct
debit without informing me first. I phoned and complained and they
said, that they had sent me a letter first, they hadn't. I asked what
the subscription rates were and they told me they were published in
their magazines, they weren't.
--
Martin

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 06:15:29 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Frank F. Matthews writes:
    >> Why not?
    >Unless you're one of those teenagers who takes pictures solely for the
    >purpose of looking at them briefly on the LCD screen and then discarding
    >them, the LCD screen is never the final output device. Typically the
    >image will be displayed, projected, or printed on a very different
    >device later, and it may well look very different in consequence.

and in this respect, how does this differ to the image in an SLR view
finder?
--
Martin

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:07:17 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Go Fig writes:
    >> I like low-light/nite photography, the LCD preview is incredibly
    >> valuable in these estimating situations.
    >LCD previews have deceived me in every single case where I've tried to
    >take night photos, and I know of other photographers with digital
    >cameras who have had the same problem.

and taking photos in low light situations with an SLR using film have
never deceived you?

Hint: The eyes sensitivity is different to a film sensitivity.


--
Martin

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:49:56 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Go Fig writes:
    >> OK, but certainly less so than no preview at all. It surely gives you
    >> a better place to start bracketing from.
    >If you meter the scene properly, you don't need to bracket. When
    >shooting MF film, I often take only a single shot, after carefully
    >metering for a few minutes with a spot meter.
    >See http://www.mxsmanic.com/church.jpg for an example of a film exposure
    >done in this way, without bracketing.

and the 95% of your shots that you discard?
--
Martin

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 06:10:37 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> The CIA or the French?
    >The French government.

I suppose that's good news :-)
--
Martin

Magda

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:39:51 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, [email protected] arranged some
electrons, so they looked like this :

... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:26:20 +0100, Magda
... <[email protected]> wrote:
...
... >On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:13:45 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, [email protected] arranged some
... >electrons, so they looked like this :
... >
... > ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:09:33 +0000, The Reids
... > ... <[email protected]> wrote:
... > ...
... > ... >Following up to Mxsmanic
... > ... >
... > ... >>> He should sell his TV and buy a 2-ring combination oven.
... > ... >>
... > ... >>I don't have a TV. The government seized it in February.
... > ... >
... > ... >why February?
... > ...
... > ... It was probably when they found out he hadn't a license
... >
... >There is no need for a license. You just have to pay the tax once a year.
...
... What's the difference between a tax and a license other than the name?
...
... In NL we don't have to pay either.

How many hours of commercials a day ?

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:38:35 +0100, Magda
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:39:51 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, [email protected] arranged some
    >electrons, so they looked like this :
    > ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:26:20 +0100, Magda
    > ... <[email protected]> wrote:
    > ...
    > ... >On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:13:45 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, [email protected] arranged some
    > ... >electrons, so they looked like this :
    > ... >
    > ... > ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:09:33 +0000, The Reids
    > ... > ... <[email protected]> wrote:
    > ... > ...
    > ... > ... >Following up to Mxsmanic
    > ... > ... >
    > ... > ... >>> He should sell his TV and buy a 2-ring combination oven.
    > ... > ... >>
    > ... > ... >>I don't have a TV. The government seized it in February.
    > ... > ... >
    > ... > ... >why February?
    > ... > ...
    > ... > ... It was probably when they found out he hadn't a license
    > ... >
    > ... >There is no need for a license. You just have to pay the tax once a year.
    > ...
    > ... What's the difference between a tax and a license other than the name?
    > ...
    > ... In NL we don't have to pay either.
    >How many hours of commercials a day ?

In general, nothing like in the USA or UK.
AFAIR he Dutch government stopped charging a license fee and instead
it is paid for from the national budget, because the cost of
collection and enforcement was expensive. I think this is a good
policy.
Dutch TV is organised differently from elsewhere, there are many
organisations sharing channels plus commercial channels. A Dutch
person can probably explain better than I can.
--
Martin

Magda

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:50:17 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, [email protected] arranged some
electrons, so they looked like this :


... In general, nothing like in the USA or UK.
... AFAIR he Dutch government stopped charging a license fee and instead
... it is paid for from the national budget, because the cost of
... collection and enforcement was expensive. I think this is a good
... policy.

That's what the French are realising too (it was about time !) : the tax barely covers its
own costs. But they are so afraid of change it will stay this way for many years to come.