Digital photography, changing the world
Dec 15th 2004, 7:28 pm
#1096
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:58:50 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> Are you backing down?
>
> No, I'm correcting.
Ok. Fair enough, that's why I asked.
--
Tim C.
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> Are you backing down?
>
> No, I'm correcting.
Ok. Fair enough, that's why I asked.
--
Tim C.
Dec 15th 2004, 7:30 pm
#1097
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:04:55 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> Neither does putting a filter in front of a film.
>
> Ah, but it does. Putting something _in front_ of the sensor makes it
> possible to change the effective spectral sensitivity of the sensor
> (although it won't make the sensor capable of recording wavelengths that
> it could not already record without a filter). This is why the CCDs in
> digital cameras have IR filters.
>
> This cannot be done after the image is captured.
>
>> Of course, there's nothing stopping you using filters on a digital camera
>> either.
>
> I've never claimed otherwise. But those who claim that filters are
> unnecessary because everything can be done in Photoshop after the image
> is captured are seriously mistaken.
>
>> If you've loaded the wrong film, you're buggered.
>
> Spend $6 and buy a different roll of film.
A bit late by then isn't it.
> If you've got the wrong sensor in your camera, spend $8000 and buy a new
> camera body.
No, just let the camera reset the balance, or do it yourself.
--
Tim C.
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> Neither does putting a filter in front of a film.
>
> Ah, but it does. Putting something _in front_ of the sensor makes it
> possible to change the effective spectral sensitivity of the sensor
> (although it won't make the sensor capable of recording wavelengths that
> it could not already record without a filter). This is why the CCDs in
> digital cameras have IR filters.
>
> This cannot be done after the image is captured.
>
>> Of course, there's nothing stopping you using filters on a digital camera
>> either.
>
> I've never claimed otherwise. But those who claim that filters are
> unnecessary because everything can be done in Photoshop after the image
> is captured are seriously mistaken.
>
>> If you've loaded the wrong film, you're buggered.
>
> Spend $6 and buy a different roll of film.
A bit late by then isn't it.
> If you've got the wrong sensor in your camera, spend $8000 and buy a new
> camera body.
No, just let the camera reset the balance, or do it yourself.
--
Tim C.
Dec 15th 2004, 7:30 pm
#1098
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:06:08 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> You are no different, witness your complaint to Mike about his alleged
>> personal attack on you.
>
> It was an observation, not a complaint. I don't care if people
> personally attack me, but if the attacks become so numerous that they
> drown out all other conversation, I tend to lose interest in the thread.
Why mention it then?
--
Tim C.
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> You are no different, witness your complaint to Mike about his alleged
>> personal attack on you.
>
> It was an observation, not a complaint. I don't care if people
> personally attack me, but if the attacks become so numerous that they
> drown out all other conversation, I tend to lose interest in the thread.
Why mention it then?
--
Tim C.
Dec 15th 2004, 7:54 pm
#1099
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:08:14 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Any of them can say that he is not included in "all," and the smart ones
> will.
I could say "you", and you could define the word to mean "someone but not
me" if you like.
--
Tim C.
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Any of them can say that he is not included in "all," and the smart ones
> will.
I could say "you", and you could define the word to mean "someone but not
me" if you like.
--
Tim C.
Dec 15th 2004, 7:54 pm
#1100
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:05:19 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> We're all over-emotional.
>
> I'm not.
I was being sarcastic. But then you wouldn't know about that. My bad.
--
Tim C.
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> We're all over-emotional.
>
> I'm not.
I was being sarcastic. But then you wouldn't know about that. My bad.
--
Tim C.
Dec 15th 2004, 8:42 pm
#1101
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:30:20 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:04:55 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Tim Challenger writes:
>>
>>> Neither does putting a filter in front of a film.
>>
>> Ah, but it does. Putting something _in front_ of the sensor makes it
>> possible to change the effective spectral sensitivity of the sensor
>> (although it won't make the sensor capable of recording wavelengths that
>> it could not already record without a filter). This is why the CCDs in
>> digital cameras have IR filters.
>>
>> This cannot be done after the image is captured.
>>
>>> Of course, there's nothing stopping you using filters on a digital camera
>>> either.
>>
>> I've never claimed otherwise. But those who claim that filters are
>> unnecessary because everything can be done in Photoshop after the image
>> is captured are seriously mistaken.
>>
>>> If you've loaded the wrong film, you're buggered.
>>
>> Spend $6 and buy a different roll of film.
> A bit late by then isn't it.
There'll be another sunset soon. ;-)
>
>> If you've got the wrong sensor in your camera, spend $8000 and buy a new
>> camera body.
>No, just let the camera reset the balance, or do it yourself.
$8000 ?
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:04:55 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Tim Challenger writes:
>>
>>> Neither does putting a filter in front of a film.
>>
>> Ah, but it does. Putting something _in front_ of the sensor makes it
>> possible to change the effective spectral sensitivity of the sensor
>> (although it won't make the sensor capable of recording wavelengths that
>> it could not already record without a filter). This is why the CCDs in
>> digital cameras have IR filters.
>>
>> This cannot be done after the image is captured.
>>
>>> Of course, there's nothing stopping you using filters on a digital camera
>>> either.
>>
>> I've never claimed otherwise. But those who claim that filters are
>> unnecessary because everything can be done in Photoshop after the image
>> is captured are seriously mistaken.
>>
>>> If you've loaded the wrong film, you're buggered.
>>
>> Spend $6 and buy a different roll of film.
> A bit late by then isn't it.
There'll be another sunset soon. ;-)
>
>> If you've got the wrong sensor in your camera, spend $8000 and buy a new
>> camera body.
>No, just let the camera reset the balance, or do it yourself.
$8000 ?
--
Martin
Dec 15th 2004, 8:57 pm
#1102
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to S Viemeister
>> I'm happy with SIR
>>
>How does Carol feel about that?
As long as she's is SWMBO, SIR is fine :-)
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>> I'm happy with SIR
>>
>How does Carol feel about that?
As long as she's is SWMBO, SIR is fine :-)
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Dec 15th 2004, 8:58 pm
#1103
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to Mxsmanic
>> Last time I saw it in all uppercase was back in the BITNET days when some of
>> the protocols involved couldn't deal with lowercase letters.
>Ah, so you saw it in uppercase. Well, I've seen it frequenly in
>uppercase even on systems that can deal with lowercase letters.
used by people who thought it a true acronym?
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>> Last time I saw it in all uppercase was back in the BITNET days when some of
>> the protocols involved couldn't deal with lowercase letters.
>Ah, so you saw it in uppercase. Well, I've seen it frequenly in
>uppercase even on systems that can deal with lowercase letters.
used by people who thought it a true acronym?
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Dec 15th 2004, 8:59 pm
#1104
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to Mxsmanic
>> ever photographed a volcano or a forest fire?
>Or Saint Elmo's fire, or earthquake lights?
nice move, snip the context and then argue against yourself.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>> ever photographed a volcano or a forest fire?
>Or Saint Elmo's fire, or earthquake lights?
nice move, snip the context and then argue against yourself.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Dec 15th 2004, 9:01 pm
#1105
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to [email protected]
>Sound familar? I accused Anthony of being Andrew
>once and he denied it so I accept that there are two
>of them. Strangely, Andrew is an american expat living
>in Paris too. It's something about Paris.
It did sound very familiar.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>Sound familar? I accused Anthony of being Andrew
>once and he denied it so I accept that there are two
>of them. Strangely, Andrew is an american expat living
>in Paris too. It's something about Paris.
It did sound very familiar.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Dec 15th 2004, 9:21 pm
#1106
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to Mxsmanic
>> Why are you bothering at all? Apart from the troll-ness of it.
>A lot of people read groups like these without participating in them.
>Not all of them have minds closed by testosterone, and so they may be
>willing and able to learn new things from what they read. I post in
>large part for their benefit, even as I realize that the targets of my
>posts will often never change their minds.
total bollocks (thats as neat to testosterone as we will get) you
have very clearly demonstrated a strong desire *not* to explain
or educate.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>> Why are you bothering at all? Apart from the troll-ness of it.
>A lot of people read groups like these without participating in them.
>Not all of them have minds closed by testosterone, and so they may be
>willing and able to learn new things from what they read. I post in
>large part for their benefit, even as I realize that the targets of my
>posts will often never change their minds.
total bollocks (thats as neat to testosterone as we will get) you
have very clearly demonstrated a strong desire *not* to explain
or educate.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Dec 15th 2004, 9:22 pm
#1107
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to [email protected]
>There are times to be a pedant, and times to be pragmatic,
>and my personal suspicion is that you are probably as guilty
>of not knowing the former as Anthony is of the latter.
That's quite possible, I have little interest in persuing the
technicalities, knowing there are legions of others will do it
for me, while fewer take an interest in things like good
composition, hence photo ngs tend to talk about cameras.
I usually find Mixis arguments amusing, but in this case, where
he probably had something useful to say, his obfuscation got on
my nerves and his defence that his argument style is designed to
ferret out the truth became exposed for what they are.
>The vast majority of digital camera users us NO post
>processing techniques, and buy cameras so cheap they
>do not have any sophisticated features. They also
>can't use filters either.
Same for any type of camera (I don't have a digital as I cant
justify a large outlay for no improvement).
>Somewhere between you
>and Anthony is a dividing line where pragmatism
>and pedantry collide. And no, I don't know
>where that line is.
It probably doesn't matter where it is, what has emerged here is
the difference between wish to share knowledge and wish to
gainsay.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>There are times to be a pedant, and times to be pragmatic,
>and my personal suspicion is that you are probably as guilty
>of not knowing the former as Anthony is of the latter.
That's quite possible, I have little interest in persuing the
technicalities, knowing there are legions of others will do it
for me, while fewer take an interest in things like good
composition, hence photo ngs tend to talk about cameras.
I usually find Mixis arguments amusing, but in this case, where
he probably had something useful to say, his obfuscation got on
my nerves and his defence that his argument style is designed to
ferret out the truth became exposed for what they are.
>The vast majority of digital camera users us NO post
>processing techniques, and buy cameras so cheap they
>do not have any sophisticated features. They also
>can't use filters either.
Same for any type of camera (I don't have a digital as I cant
justify a large outlay for no improvement).
>Somewhere between you
>and Anthony is a dividing line where pragmatism
>and pedantry collide. And no, I don't know
>where that line is.
It probably doesn't matter where it is, what has emerged here is
the difference between wish to share knowledge and wish to
gainsay.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Dec 15th 2004, 9:23 pm
#1108
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to Mxsmanic
>I've never claimed otherwise. But those who claim that filters are
>unnecessary because everything can be done in Photoshop after the image
>is captured are seriously mistaken.
and as that was nobodys position......
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>I've never claimed otherwise. But those who claim that filters are
>unnecessary because everything can be done in Photoshop after the image
>is captured are seriously mistaken.
and as that was nobodys position......
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Dec 15th 2004, 9:24 pm
#1109
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to Mxsmanic
>> You are no different, witness your complaint to Mike about his alleged
>> personal attack on you.
>It was an observation, not a complaint. I don't care if people
>personally attack me, but if the attacks become so numerous that they
>drown out all other conversation, I tend to lose interest in the thread.
perhaps if you listened and corrected your behaviour, they would
end.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>> You are no different, witness your complaint to Mike about his alleged
>> personal attack on you.
>It was an observation, not a complaint. I don't care if people
>personally attack me, but if the attacks become so numerous that they
>drown out all other conversation, I tend to lose interest in the thread.
perhaps if you listened and corrected your behaviour, they would
end.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Dec 15th 2004, 9:28 pm
#1110
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:59:52 +0000, The Reids wrote:
> Following up to Mxsmanic
>
>>> ever photographed a volcano or a forest fire?
>>Or Saint Elmo's fire, or earthquake lights?
>
> nice move, snip the context and then argue against yourself.
Yeah, I wondered about that too. Maybe Miguel has released another version.
Clever idea, set two Mixis onto each other and see which one survives.
--
Tim C.
> Following up to Mxsmanic
>
>>> ever photographed a volcano or a forest fire?
>>Or Saint Elmo's fire, or earthquake lights?
>
> nice move, snip the context and then argue against yourself.
Yeah, I wondered about that too. Maybe Miguel has released another version.
Clever idea, set two Mixis onto each other and see which one survives.
--
Tim C.
