Are we demanding too much of our digital cameras these days?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by aniramca, Oct 14, 2007.

  1. aniramca

    George Kerby Guest

    Oh, I get it. Coming out from under the bridge are we? Thanks for your
    contribution, but if I had wanted to hear from somebody with your IQ, I'd be
    at my local supermarket talking to the vegetables.

    Is that a conclusion or simply the place where you got tired of thinking?
    Reading your post makes blindness a wonderful thing to look forward to. I
    suggest you need Mark Twain's advice; "It is better to be silent and be
    thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

    You are nastier than a five-dollar whore getting a shit enema. You're a
    waste of time, space, air, flesh, and the rectum you were born from, retard.

    In conclusion, why don't you go away and play Russian roulette with all
    chambers fully-loaded?
    George Kerby, Oct 16, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. aniramca

    The One Guest

    So you think its the software which makes nice photos? I see in camera
    software doesn't get a mention.....
    The One, Oct 16, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. aniramca

    The One Guest

    So its the software which gives you nice results does it?

    For starters I have never seen any HDR shots which look realistic, I agree
    stacking shots has its place but what about getting the shot right in camera
    first, or at least as close as possible.....
    The One, Oct 16, 2007
  4. aniramca

    The One Guest

    I see someone has their head screwed on right.
    The One, Oct 16, 2007
  5. aniramca

    The One Guest

    If you master the settings and working of a digital camera, you don't need
    to shoot RAW, shock horror. I shot in Jpeg for the first time in agesssss
    yesterday and landscapes too. I noticed no difference whatsoever since I do
    not use a shot if it needs more that 2 minutes of post processing. The
    camera is the powerful tool not PS.
    The One, Oct 16, 2007
  6. aniramca

    acl Guest

    That's silly. What does retouching have to do with the format in which
    you shoot?
    acl, Oct 16, 2007
  7. aniramca

    The One Guest

    Post processing will not make a shot better than what a camera can produce.
    If you are a perfectionist and use digital tools post processing will be
    practically non existant, maximising time out in the field not the other way
    The One, Oct 16, 2007
  8. aniramca

    The One Guest

    Content will beat quality EVERY TIME.

    So 500 average shots will be better than 3 superb shots.... hmmmmm
    The One, Oct 16, 2007
  9. aniramca

    The One Guest

    Indeed these pictures are 'Crap'. Embarrassing indeed.
    The One, Oct 16, 2007
  10. aniramca

    The One Guest

    So far that two people in the whole world that have the same phylososy as
    The One, Oct 16, 2007
  11. The above is simply uninformed. While I shoot jpeg and raw, and
    I agree that getting it right in camera is best, even when
    you do that there can be a large difference in raw versus
    in camera jpegs. For example, some in camera jpegs produce
    images with less dynamic range. Many cameras have
    very low noise and jpegs limit the S/N achievable.
    Imaging raw allows use of a larger color space, and with high
    S/N, post processing sharpening with sophisticated algorithms,
    (e.g. Richardson-Lucy deconvolution) can boost resolution.
    Raw converters have evolved with more sophisticated algorithms
    and now produce far superior images to jpegs. And raw converters
    have become very efficient and many images can be converted
    with little user input (e.g. select a block of images,
    adjust settings for the group and convert them all).

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 16, 2007
  12. "phylososy"

    Well, that explains a lot!
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 16, 2007
  13. aniramca

    Allen Guest

    Your bluff is called. Post your pictures so that we can see how
    wonderful you really are. I suspect that are just "One" of many millions.
    Allen, Oct 16, 2007
  14. aniramca

    Allen Guest

    Please define.
    Allen, Oct 16, 2007
  15. You missed the point. Data from many digital cameras have
    high signal-to-noise ratios over a huge dynamic range.
    Raw preserves the entire data set allowing one to do
    everything possible the the data, including use of possibly
    better algorithms in the future. Use of jpeg generated
    in camera has reduced dynamic range and higher noise.
    Keeping the raw data is analogous to keeping your negatives
    in film days, versus the jpeg is like keeping a
    process print and throwing away the negative.
    Both can produce a good picture and subject is the most
    important, but personally, I want the negatives so I
    can make better prints when I want to.

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 16, 2007
  16. And of many faces. Think the ever morphing x-man and similar pests.
    John McWilliams, Oct 16, 2007
  17. It has to do with plants?

    I just hope that no one takes any more time to reply to these - fun and
    funny replies, oh yes, but not "serious" ones that actually contain real
    John McWilliams, Oct 16, 2007
  18. aniramca

    UC Guest

    I want a camera that will give me a blow job....
    UC, Oct 16, 2007
  19. aniramca

    >G Guest

    >G, Oct 16, 2007
  20. I fully agree, you buy a sophisticated digital camera that has lots of
    electronics & software built in, so all that electronic gubbins should earn
    its keep!
    Mike Cawood, HND BIT, Oct 16, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.