BIG RED LOVES THE 40D !

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90356002/original

560mm, handheld.
(Don't try this at home.)

 

Handheld?! With that big glass?! A great achievement I must say!
They are actually tiny birds. Gorgeous image. Vibrant colors and the
bokeh is lovely, resembling a watercolor effect. Outstanding work
Bret!
Helen

 

Handheld 1/40th at 560mm without IS - that's quite an effort!
Good shot, well done.

 

Yes, TOO well done. Over done.
Or better: BS!
It's impossible! First of all: how do you get 560 out of a 400mm? Much
people can't even handle a 50 mm at 1/40 of second.
I tried it with a 300mm and I need much higher to get clear pictures.
How I know? I've been a marksman for years and won some medals. My hand is
rock steady, but this is impossible..
At 1/40 you also should see the bird move, specially the open beak. Yet it's
completely frozen!!!

BS, nothing but BS...

 

I agree that 98% of what Bret posts is bullshit and phony manipulations.
That doesn't mean that it can't be done on a regular basis and in-camera.
He's using your backwoods county police technique of shooting full auto and
spraying enough lead to hopefully get a hit. In my efforts to determine if
I had any backfocus issues with the old Mk III and Fabulous 500/2x TC, I
shot this at 1000mm at 1/640 handheld with IS off. You get the shutter
speed up high enough and it can be done almost every time with little
effort. I got lucky and shot perfectly clear handheld shots at 1000mm 1/40
with IS off, but I admit that it was pure luck. So, in fairness to Bret it
can be done, it's just that he lost all his credibility and nobody believes
his bullshit anymore.

<http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/backfocus.htm>




Rita

 

Like I give a flyin **** what you believe. But if you or Sosumi want
to challenge the authenticity of that pic put up some cash and I'll
post the RAW file and you can see for yourself.

 

You give a flyin ****. And if your selective memory works right you should
remember you did post a RAW file when I called you out on that plastic shit
you post. I worked the RAW file for a few seconds and got a better image
from it than that excrement you made in Photoshop.





Rita

 

Gee, that's a tough one ..... let me guess. Mmmmm.
560/400=1.4. Hey, I'll bet you use a 1.4x converter!

If you were a marksman did you try to steady yourself?
Like say, by leaning up against a tree or better yet, holding the
lens .... oops, I meant the rifle up against the tree?
As the idiot troll points out, this isn't a failsafe method, but if
you have a great camera like the 40D that fires 6.5fps you are bound
to get a sharp one every now and then.

The only thing I changed in the EXIF data was the FL and the aperture.
The original data shows 400mm, 1/40 at f/5.6, but it isn't aware of
the 1.4x since I taped the pins to retain autofocus. So with the 1.4x
the actual FL is 560mm and the actual aperture is f/8.

My point is that the shot in question was difficult, but not
impossible.
I'm reminded of the story of the great golfer Ben Hogan, who faced a
long second shot to a par-5 hole. His caddie handed him a Brassie and
piped up, "It's all you got, Mr. Hogan!"
Hogan stared a hole through the fool and said, "You don't know all
I've got."

 

Actually, I give considerably less than a flying **** about anything
you or your butt-buddy, D-Mac, writes. Sometimes I feel the need to
correct your lies, but other times I just let them pass. It's not
like anybody believes your bullshit.
How's that 1D3 workin out for ya?

 

What lies? The only one lying here is you with that plastic excrement you
try to pass off as photography. Maybe if you had a set of balls you can
prove that I'm lying.

Great, I guess. It made me $100 and the new owner loves it.





Rita

 

Well we could start with this one in this very thread:
"98% of what Bret posts is bullshit and phony manipulations."

That's clearly a lie, unless you consider converting the RAW file and
simple editing in Photoshop (cropping, resizing, etc.) to be "phony
manipulations."

Translation: "I got my $100 deposit back and now it is being rented by
someone else."

 

You're a funny man! We all have you figured out to be the phony you really
are. No amount of backpedaling is going to change that, son.

It was a sweet rental, indeed. Everything in life is a rental; you just got
to know how to get the max out of a small investment.





Rita

 

We all, huh?!! You, misguided young man, or fucked up old fart, speak
for no one here but your lil ole Balmer self.
Sure, you can get Douggie and his socks to jump and dance to your tune,
but does that really count?

 

It doesn't matter who it is that says something derogatory, or what
the subject matter is about. As long as they are saying something
derogatory about Bret, D-Mac jumps on the band-wagon and is very
supportive of them. The only friends he has is the ones he's made
up.
Helen

 

The reverse is true often enough. Both boys own more than enough
culpability than anyone. "Rita" is simply opportunistic, and will do
whatever he can to fan the flames. He imagines he's a puppet master.

But it'd be ever so cool if you'd refrain from the subject, as Bret is
quite capable of defending himself.

Best holiday wishes!

 

I humbly agree that Bret does not need me, and he handles himself
better without me. OTOH I am entitled to my say, after being called
so many vile names and lied about by this person we all know as D-
Mac.

Happy Holiday wishes to you!
Helen

 

Yes, it's really unfortunate that a number of folks have either no
boundaries or have had horrid upbringing.

All best wishes to you, Helen.

 

And yet I have you dancing the jig. I know I'm always on your mind. I'll
let you have the holidays off, John.




Rita