Availability of WA lenses

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Robert Coe, Nov 21, 2009.

  1. Robert Coe

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Don't overrate yourself, asshole troll.
    Ray Fischer, Nov 22, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. Robert Coe

    OldBoy Guest

    I stand corrected: for all lenses for which I found pictures with original
    I would be delighted when proven wrong. :)
    AFAIK, all lenses with ring-type USM do and the recent cheap EF-S 18-55 IS.
    It's there for the 40D and up, the DxO program uses this info.
    A very good EXIF-viewer (based on Phil Harvey's ExifTool) shows it too:
    OldBoy, Nov 22, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. The Sigma 10-20mm samples I posted earlier all have EXIF-data.
    The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a USM-lens.
    Robert Spanjaard, Nov 22, 2009
  4. Robert Coe

    OldBoy Guest

    I'm amazed, CRW_3639 shows indeed FocusDistanceUpper/Lower.
    To be exact a micro-USM. :)

    Could you somewhere upload a couple of RAW's taken with Sigma lenses?
    OldBoy, Nov 22, 2009
  5. Robert Coe

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Nah. Not worth the trouble.
    Ray Fischer, Nov 22, 2009
  6. Robert Coe

    SayWhat Guest

    Fer cripes sake. He's taking a photo of a building across the street with
    no intervening foreground subjects near the camera that would show parallax
    problems. Just because you pretend-photographer trolls read how you should
    always use a tripod for panos doesn't make it true. Thousands of subjects
    can be shot for panos with a hand-held camera. If you have nothing closer
    than about 10 ft. to you, go ahead, shoot the frames hand-held. In fact,
    with some of the new plugins like smartblend and enblend for pano stitching
    software I even took a hand-held panorama indoors of a tourists' trinket
    shop. Thousands of necklaces and beads and other tourist crap hanging from
    ceilings and shelves from front to back of the store, dozens of items
    hanging from shelves and ceiling only a couple feet from the camera lens.
    The parallax problems by doing it hand-held became enormous. But with the
    right stitching tools it automatically sorted it all out. Nobody can even
    find the stitched seams.
    SayWhat, Nov 23, 2009
  7. [handheld panos and nearby objects]
    OBVIOUSLY nobody can finde stitched seams in nonexisting
    photographs. Sure, you could prove me wrong by posting the full
    resolution shot ... but you will^H^H^H^Hcannot, can you?

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 23, 2009
  8. Not all of them did, BTW. I was wrong. Some samples were processed with
    software that didn't save the EXIF (like qtpfsgui for tonemapping). And
    while the Ninglinspo-series does have EXIF-data, it's not available
    through the flash presentation. :)
    Sure. They're about 5 MB per file.

    + 10-20mm: http://www.arumes.com/temp/sigma/CRW_4201.CRW
    - 15-30mm: http://www.arumes.com/temp/sigma/CRW_2166.CRW
    + 30mm: http://www.arumes.com/temp/sigma/CRW_4088.CRW
    - 105mm: http://www.arumes.com/temp/sigma/CRW_2381.CRW
    - 50-500mm: http://www.arumes.com/temp/sigma/CRW_1604.CRW

    As you can see, the two newer lenses do have focus distance information.
    The three older models don't.

    Oh, and no comments about the quality of the photographs, please. I
    deliberately selected images that are unlikely to be abused. :)
    Robert Spanjaard, Nov 23, 2009
  9. Robert Coe

    OldBoy Guest

    Thanks a lot!
    OldBoy, Nov 24, 2009
  10. Robert Coe

    SayWhat Guest

    That far-left almost looks like Gardner Lake in Shoshone National Forest,
    but I don't recall any road switchbacks anywhere near it. (As there seems
    to be in the far left of your pano, and again lots of sign of habitation in
    the far right, nothing at all like that in Shoshone.) The peaks also seem
    to be too muted (less rugged) for that region of the Rockies that I hiked,
    no signs of glacier caps too. Where is that pano from?
    SayWhat, Nov 24, 2009
  11. Robert Coe

    SayWhat Guest

    It was already posted numerous times as a perfect example of how parallax
    problems of hand-held panos are now a thing of the past. Didn't you manage
    to see the 205-degree pano of the tourist shop interior with the 16 ft.
    mounted alligator hanging upside-down from the ceiling with a price-tag on
    it? That panorama even included one of my own photos mounted in an
    alligator-tooth-necklace display in the store. I gave them that shot of
    alligators so they put it on display. I recall kneeling about 7 ft. away
    from the two 10-12 ft. gators when I shot it. That's why they loved it so
    much, they were gator-hunters at one time and knew the risk. It surprised
    me later when I noticed one of my own photos showing up in the very
    panorama I was making of that store's interior.

    All done with a hand-held P&S camera with available light using a 0.33X
    wide-angle adapter (which caused no extra CA nor softness), setting the
    P&S's zoom lens to an 18mm EFL, using 5 portrait oriented frames. From a
    variety of light-source types; north-facing daylight filtering through the
    narrow shop-door, a couple incandescent bulbs, and a few fluorescent
    strip-lights. ONE PHOTO proving all of you trolls wrong on EVERY point
    you've ever tried to make all these pathetic years of your lives. I guess
    that's why you don't recall seeing it. It hurt too much to see it, creating
    a trauma in that pea-brain of yours. You had to forget ever seeing
    something like that or your psychotic pretend-photographer's beliefs would
    have had to collapse under their own weight.

    Snooze you loose! You lousy troll.

    Have you ever thought about getting a real life? Or maybe a camera? So
    those who have cameras and know how to use them won't make a fool of you so
    astoundingly often?
    SayWhat, Nov 24, 2009
  12. Robert Coe

    SayWhat Guest

    Okay. All I saw here was "Elbertcut.jpg", nothing in any metadata.

    btw: The cloned out part for the backpack is pretty obvious, but only if
    you know to go look for it. Otherwise I doubt anyone's eye would be drawn
    to it.

    [I'm thinking I should write up a tutorial on effective ways to clone
    natural textures. E.g. In order to avoid obvious signs of repetition:
    sample from quite a few areas while using only a 50-70% opacity and using a
    graduated brush. Build up a whole new rock, stretch of gravel, or branch
    (with similar foliage structure) that doesn't even exist in the original
    scene. With careful cloning it would take someone to visit the exact
    location to find out that that rock or branch didn't exist in the real

    Otherwise, nice pano-stitching job. Though there is one seam about 1/4th in
    from the left, near that most prominent peak with the darkest shadows and
    most snow on it, just left of that peak, which could have had a little
    touch-up done on it. It wouldn't be too difficult to clone-out that bit of
    seam in the sky where it's the most obvious. Since it's just a pano for
    personal logging, I'm not sure if fixing that is warranted.
    SayWhat, Nov 24, 2009
  13. On the elbonian Internet, I presume, as it certainly was not
    posted here ...
    Message-ID or URL?
    (I expect you to clam up right now or post non-working or
    imaginary URLs or Message IDs.)
    "no *extra* CA nor (*extra*) softness" merely means that you used
    a terribly bad P&S to begin with. Did you forget to turn of the
    "watercolour mode"?

    (I know, it's plagiarism, but ...):
    Have you ever thought about getting a real life? Or maybe a camera? So
    those who have cameras and know how to use them won't make a fool of you so
    astoundingly often?

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 24, 2009
  14. It's missing the
    | Thousands of necklaces and beads and other tourist crap hanging from
    | ceilings and shelves from front to back of the store, dozens of items
    | hanging from shelves and ceiling only a couple feet from the camera lens.

    I can find the seams between each individual shot. Not only
    is one shot visibly slightly darker, there's not sufficiently
    corrected vignetting against the sky and a repeating dust spot
    near the border ....

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 24, 2009
  15. Robert Coe

    SayWhat Guest

    Here's an example of how taking an extra 5 minutes (would be much better if
    I took 10 minutes), by using random sizes of cloning brushes, sampled from
    random (but similar toned and textured surfaces), at random opacities, and
    by extending existing angles and features, it can make the cloning nearly


    You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that would perceive those rocks in
    that cloned-in portion as not existing in the original scene (except for 2
    groups of 2 rocks that I didn't spend enough time on). Think of using a
    clone-tool like an artist's paint-brush, but instead of painting with
    colors you are painting with natural textures. Not all brush strokes in art
    are the same size, nor do they all go in the same direction. You are merely
    painting in new rocks that didn't exist before. The moment you notice some
    duplication/mirroring that's obvious, sample another similar tone and
    texture from somewhere else with a smaller brush and stamp some of that
    over the obvious-copy area.
    SayWhat, Nov 24, 2009
  16. Robert Coe

    SayWhat Guest

    For one of the more recent postings of that image in this newsgroup:


    Though estimated measurements in that post differ by a foot or two either
    way of my estimates in this more recent post. The previous distance/length
    estimates from memory may be more correct.

    Are you ever going to give up trying to be a foolish pretend-photographer
    troll? Or do you just like making a fool of yourself every day?

    If the latter, then it's getting quite boring proving to the world what an
    idiot and role-playing participant that you are.

    We now await more of your red-herring crap in your desperate attempt to
    have me extend more of my valuable attention upon your waste of a life.
    SayWhat, Nov 24, 2009
  17. First: that's from a certain "Keep It Simple Stupid
    <>", not from you, "SayWhat". It's from a
    completely different usenet provider, too.

    does NOT result in an image ... and thus falls under "non-working
    or imaginary URLs".
    Of course, a proper flickr URL would show who uploaded the shot
    and thus conclusively *prove* it's neither yours nor Stupids,
    but stolen, and probably say in the text that it's not taken with
    a P&S either.

    Third: according to the post, it's downscaled to unusability

    Fourth: Panos with a fish-eye adapter? Suuure. Pull the
    other one.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 25, 2009
  18. Robert Coe

    NameHere Guest

    Holy **** are you ever stupid.
    NameHere, Nov 25, 2009
  19. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:15:38 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    : >Message-ID or URL?
    : >(I expect you to clam up right now or post non-working or
    : >imaginary URLs or Message IDs.)
    : For one of the more recent postings of that image in this newsgroup:
    : <>

    How recent would that be? The news server I subscribe to doesn't seem to have

    Robert Coe, Nov 26, 2009
  20. Robert Coe

    SayWhat Guest

    2009 07 30 c.e.
    SayWhat, Nov 26, 2009
    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.