Digital photography, changing the world
Dec 15th 2004, 1:33 am
#1051
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:43:02 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:40:14 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Tim Challenger writes:
>>> You *still* haven't explained anything here, just wined on about how tired
>>> you are of (not) doing it.
>>Yes, I know.
>
> he meant whined.
I forgot Mixi doesn't drink.
Actually I wanted to write "whing(e)ing" but couldn't remember how to spell
it at the time.
--
Tim C.
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:40:14 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Tim Challenger writes:
>>> You *still* haven't explained anything here, just wined on about how tired
>>> you are of (not) doing it.
>>Yes, I know.
>
> he meant whined.
I forgot Mixi doesn't drink.
Actually I wanted to write "whing(e)ing" but couldn't remember how to spell
it at the time.
--
Tim C.
Dec 15th 2004, 1:34 am
#1052
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:40:14 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> You *still* haven't explained anything here, just wined on about how tired
>> you are of (not) doing it.
>
> Yes, I know.
I claim to have found the post with the most amount of factual information
posted by Mixi this month.
--
Tim C.
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> You *still* haven't explained anything here, just wined on about how tired
>> you are of (not) doing it.
>
> Yes, I know.
I claim to have found the post with the most amount of factual information
posted by Mixi this month.
--
Tim C.
Dec 15th 2004, 1:35 am
#1053
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:49:01 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> Why don't you actually tray and explain it.
>
> Because I've tried many times before, and it is a waste of time. Most
> people apparently are not smart enough or informed enough to understand
> it.
>
>> You know we'll never just take your word on something like this ...
>
> So?
Why are you bothering at all? Apart from the troll-ness of it.
Try it here. We've (some of us) expressed, indirectly, a willingness to
hear you out. Whether you convince us is another matter.
--
Tim C.
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> Why don't you actually tray and explain it.
>
> Because I've tried many times before, and it is a waste of time. Most
> people apparently are not smart enough or informed enough to understand
> it.
>
>> You know we'll never just take your word on something like this ...
>
> So?
Why are you bothering at all? Apart from the troll-ness of it.
Try it here. We've (some of us) expressed, indirectly, a willingness to
hear you out. Whether you convince us is another matter.
--
Tim C.
Dec 15th 2004, 1:37 am
#1054
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:41:07 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> So why did you mention it?
>
> Mention what?
It was an example of Mixi-style snipping.
--
Tim C.
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> So why did you mention it?
>
> Mention what?
It was an example of Mixi-style snipping.
--
Tim C.
Dec 15th 2004, 1:41 am
#1055
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:44:26 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> And darkroom filters or changes in chemicals or other manipulations never,
>> ever happen in the film world?
>
> Of course they happen, but they have the same limitations as PS filters.
I think they have greater limitations than PS filters. They are less easy
to reproduce, they cannot be "undone" and they cannot be checked until th e
print is finalised without a lot of time and chemical-consuming trial and
error. And they also only work with the tiny amount of information from the
original scene that's left on the film after being filtered by three (or
four) colour-sensitive layers (more if you include the inter-layer colour
filters to improve the film's sensitivity in some colours).
--
Tim C.
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> And darkroom filters or changes in chemicals or other manipulations never,
>> ever happen in the film world?
>
> Of course they happen, but they have the same limitations as PS filters.
I think they have greater limitations than PS filters. They are less easy
to reproduce, they cannot be "undone" and they cannot be checked until th e
print is finalised without a lot of time and chemical-consuming trial and
error. And they also only work with the tiny amount of information from the
original scene that's left on the film after being filtered by three (or
four) colour-sensitive layers (more if you include the inter-layer colour
filters to improve the film's sensitivity in some colours).
--
Tim C.
Dec 15th 2004, 1:44 am
#1056
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:48:01 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> Have you been selectively reading quantum mechanics?
>
> Quantum mechanics are not relevant to this discussion. Blackbody
> radiation was known before quantum mechanics, and the classical view of
> that radiation is sufficient here.
Are you backing down?
I think our definition of light as being less than all possible wavelengths
and only those that are visible was adequate enough for the discussion at
hand. *You* mentioned infinity.
>> What's the relative sensitivity of a slide film of your choice at these and
>> intermediate frequencies?
>
> R levels are not frequencies, they are magnitudes.
If you insist.
--
Tim C.
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> Have you been selectively reading quantum mechanics?
>
> Quantum mechanics are not relevant to this discussion. Blackbody
> radiation was known before quantum mechanics, and the classical view of
> that radiation is sufficient here.
Are you backing down?
I think our definition of light as being less than all possible wavelengths
and only those that are visible was adequate enough for the discussion at
hand. *You* mentioned infinity.
>> What's the relative sensitivity of a slide film of your choice at these and
>> intermediate frequencies?
>
> R levels are not frequencies, they are magnitudes.
If you insist.
--
Tim C.
Dec 15th 2004, 1:48 am
#1057
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:53:23 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> Quite right. Mixi, your information is 15 years out of date. Time to brush
>> up.
>
> Nothing has changed in 15 years in this domain.
I bow to your greater wisdom. Not.
>> The way the 'custom' or automatic balance often works (this may vary of
>> course) is that the camera takes the brightest spot in view, and adjusts
>> the whole scene until that spot is "white", and has little or no colour
>> cast. How well the camera does this is debatable. Or arguable in Mixi's
>> case, but on the whole they're pretty good at it.
>
> It does not do it by varying the sensitivity of the sensor. And that's
> the problem.
Neither does putting a filter in front of a film.
Only special tungsten/fluorescent balanced films do, and they're only
available in a limited number and really not very good in my out of date
experience. Event those films have some sort of filtering layers to cut out
the unwanted colours.
> Using a filter increases exposure time but holds image noise constant.
> Using compensation for color casts after image capture holds exposure
> relatively constant but introduces a lot of image noise. In addition,
> some corrections simply cannot be performed after image capture.
Of course, there's nothing stopping you using filters on a digital camera
either. If you've loaded the wrong film, you're buggered.
--
Tim C.
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> Quite right. Mixi, your information is 15 years out of date. Time to brush
>> up.
>
> Nothing has changed in 15 years in this domain.
I bow to your greater wisdom. Not.
>> The way the 'custom' or automatic balance often works (this may vary of
>> course) is that the camera takes the brightest spot in view, and adjusts
>> the whole scene until that spot is "white", and has little or no colour
>> cast. How well the camera does this is debatable. Or arguable in Mixi's
>> case, but on the whole they're pretty good at it.
>
> It does not do it by varying the sensitivity of the sensor. And that's
> the problem.
Neither does putting a filter in front of a film.
Only special tungsten/fluorescent balanced films do, and they're only
available in a limited number and really not very good in my out of date
experience. Event those films have some sort of filtering layers to cut out
the unwanted colours.
> Using a filter increases exposure time but holds image noise constant.
> Using compensation for color casts after image capture holds exposure
> relatively constant but introduces a lot of image noise. In addition,
> some corrections simply cannot be performed after image capture.
Of course, there's nothing stopping you using filters on a digital camera
either. If you've loaded the wrong film, you're buggered.
--
Tim C.
Dec 15th 2004, 1:49 am
#1058
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:33:23 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:43:02 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:40:14 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Tim Challenger writes:
>>>> You *still* haven't explained anything here, just wined on about how tired
>>>> you are of (not) doing it.
>>>Yes, I know.
>>
>> he meant whined.
>I forgot Mixi doesn't drink.
>Actually I wanted to write "whing(e)ing" but couldn't remember how to spell
>it at the time.
me too :-)
I saw it written with the "E" since but it still looks wrong
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:43:02 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:40:14 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Tim Challenger writes:
>>>> You *still* haven't explained anything here, just wined on about how tired
>>>> you are of (not) doing it.
>>>Yes, I know.
>>
>> he meant whined.
>I forgot Mixi doesn't drink.
>Actually I wanted to write "whing(e)ing" but couldn't remember how to spell
>it at the time.
me too :-)
I saw it written with the "E" since but it still looks wrong
--
Martin
Dec 15th 2004, 1:49 am
#1059
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:34:12 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:40:14 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Tim Challenger writes:
>>
>>> You *still* haven't explained anything here, just wined on about how tired
>>> you are of (not) doing it.
>>
>> Yes, I know.
>I claim to have found the post with the most amount of factual information
>posted by Mixi this month.
*POTY*!
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:40:14 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Tim Challenger writes:
>>
>>> You *still* haven't explained anything here, just wined on about how tired
>>> you are of (not) doing it.
>>
>> Yes, I know.
>I claim to have found the post with the most amount of factual information
>posted by Mixi this month.
*POTY*!
--
Martin
Dec 15th 2004, 1:49 am
#1060
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:58:47 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> JohnT writes:
>
>> I don't really think that your limitation is low intelligence.
>
> I agree. But I don't resort to personal attacks, either.
>
>> Your limitations are obstinacy, condescension,
>> lack of knowledge of whatever it is you are lecturing us about and, most
>> importantly of all, the total lack of a sense of humour.
>
> All of these are simply ways of characterizing my persistent refusal to
> adopt the opinions of others based solely on their emotional appeals.
> People get upset when they rant and rave and others still refuse to
> agree with them.
>
> I also deliberately attack opinions that I know to be objectively
> baseless. Unfortunately (for those who hold them), these also tend to
> be the opinions to which people cling most strongly for security. They
> were indoctrinated with them or developed them based on emotion alone,
> and they know that the opinions are baseless and fragile, and it upsets
> them to consider abandoning them. Nevertheless, I think it more healthy
> to abandon opinions that are without foundation than it is to cling to
> them in a world of illusion.
You are no different, witness your complaint to Mike about his alleged
personal attack on you.
--
Tim C.
> JohnT writes:
>
>> I don't really think that your limitation is low intelligence.
>
> I agree. But I don't resort to personal attacks, either.
>
>> Your limitations are obstinacy, condescension,
>> lack of knowledge of whatever it is you are lecturing us about and, most
>> importantly of all, the total lack of a sense of humour.
>
> All of these are simply ways of characterizing my persistent refusal to
> adopt the opinions of others based solely on their emotional appeals.
> People get upset when they rant and rave and others still refuse to
> agree with them.
>
> I also deliberately attack opinions that I know to be objectively
> baseless. Unfortunately (for those who hold them), these also tend to
> be the opinions to which people cling most strongly for security. They
> were indoctrinated with them or developed them based on emotion alone,
> and they know that the opinions are baseless and fragile, and it upsets
> them to consider abandoning them. Nevertheless, I think it more healthy
> to abandon opinions that are without foundation than it is to cling to
> them in a world of illusion.
You are no different, witness your complaint to Mike about his alleged
personal attack on you.
--
Tim C.
Dec 15th 2004, 1:50 am
#1061
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:58:47 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> JohnT writes:
>
>> I don't really think that your limitation is low intelligence.
>
> I agree. But I don't resort to personal attacks, either.
>
>> Your limitations are obstinacy, condescension,
>> lack of knowledge of whatever it is you are lecturing us about and, most
>> importantly of all, the total lack of a sense of humour.
>
> All of these are simply ways of characterizing my persistent refusal to
> adopt the opinions of others based solely on their emotional appeals.
> People get upset when they rant and rave and others still refuse to
> agree with them.
>
> I also deliberately attack opinions that I know to be objectively
> baseless. Unfortunately (for those who hold them), these also tend to
> be the opinions to which people cling most strongly for security. They
> were indoctrinated with them or developed them based on emotion alone,
> and they know that the opinions are baseless and fragile, and it upsets
> them to consider abandoning them. Nevertheless, I think it more healthy
> to abandon opinions that are without foundation than it is to cling to
> them in a world of illusion.
Going to show us an example from your life?
--
Tim C.
> JohnT writes:
>
>> I don't really think that your limitation is low intelligence.
>
> I agree. But I don't resort to personal attacks, either.
>
>> Your limitations are obstinacy, condescension,
>> lack of knowledge of whatever it is you are lecturing us about and, most
>> importantly of all, the total lack of a sense of humour.
>
> All of these are simply ways of characterizing my persistent refusal to
> adopt the opinions of others based solely on their emotional appeals.
> People get upset when they rant and rave and others still refuse to
> agree with them.
>
> I also deliberately attack opinions that I know to be objectively
> baseless. Unfortunately (for those who hold them), these also tend to
> be the opinions to which people cling most strongly for security. They
> were indoctrinated with them or developed them based on emotion alone,
> and they know that the opinions are baseless and fragile, and it upsets
> them to consider abandoning them. Nevertheless, I think it more healthy
> to abandon opinions that are without foundation than it is to cling to
> them in a world of illusion.
Going to show us an example from your life?
--
Tim C.
Dec 15th 2004, 1:51 am
#1062
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:35:48 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:49:01 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Tim Challenger writes:
>>
>>> Why don't you actually tray and explain it.
>>
>> Because I've tried many times before, and it is a waste of time. Most
>> people apparently are not smart enough or informed enough to understand
>> it.
>>
>>> You know we'll never just take your word on something like this ...
>>
>> So?
>Why are you bothering at all? Apart from the troll-ness of it.
>Try it here. We've (some of us) expressed, indirectly, a willingness to
>hear you out. Whether you convince us is another matter.
Count me out, there's a limit to the number of iterations I can take.
Maybe it was amusing in August, but now it's almost Xmas and we are
still looping.
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:49:01 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Tim Challenger writes:
>>
>>> Why don't you actually tray and explain it.
>>
>> Because I've tried many times before, and it is a waste of time. Most
>> people apparently are not smart enough or informed enough to understand
>> it.
>>
>>> You know we'll never just take your word on something like this ...
>>
>> So?
>Why are you bothering at all? Apart from the troll-ness of it.
>Try it here. We've (some of us) expressed, indirectly, a willingness to
>hear you out. Whether you convince us is another matter.
Count me out, there's a limit to the number of iterations I can take.
Maybe it was amusing in August, but now it's almost Xmas and we are
still looping.
--
Martin
Dec 15th 2004, 1:52 am
#1063
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:37:17 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:
>It was an example of Mixi-style snipping.
What was? <getting the hang of it>
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>It was an example of Mixi-style snipping.
What was? <getting the hang of it>
--
Martin
Dec 15th 2004, 1:52 am
#1064
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:59:30 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Miguel Cruz writes:
>
>> What pushed you into that personal attack?
>
> A personal attack targets an individual. Which individual did I target?
Not necessarily. I could say "You're all a bunch of useless bloody loonies"
to a group of people. It's personal and not directed at only one of them.
--
Tim C.
> Miguel Cruz writes:
>
>> What pushed you into that personal attack?
>
> A personal attack targets an individual. Which individual did I target?
Not necessarily. I could say "You're all a bunch of useless bloody loonies"
to a group of people. It's personal and not directed at only one of them.
--
Tim C.
Dec 15th 2004, 1:53 am
#1065
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:54:27 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> Go-on tell us. What *exactly* are you taking offence at?
>
> I do not take offense.
>
>> This is the second time I can remember in all of your posts I've ever seen
>> on r.t.e that you've complained of personal attacks - and you've not
>> specified which ones.
>
> I occasionally point it out, when other participants become so
> preoccupied by their attempts to attack me that they communicate little
> or nothing else in their posts.
We're all over-emotional.
So what's your excuse for not communicating anything?
--
Tim C.
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> Go-on tell us. What *exactly* are you taking offence at?
>
> I do not take offense.
>
>> This is the second time I can remember in all of your posts I've ever seen
>> on r.t.e that you've complained of personal attacks - and you've not
>> specified which ones.
>
> I occasionally point it out, when other participants become so
> preoccupied by their attempts to attack me that they communicate little
> or nothing else in their posts.
We're all over-emotional.
So what's your excuse for not communicating anything?
--
Tim C.
