Boi Toy of huge proportions physically and mentally!

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by D-Mac, Aug 19, 2008.

  1. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    It's not often I take notice of a stink boat but this beast just has to
    be taken seriously. From Kiwi too. They must be stark raving mad over
    there. This think gets up to some serious speed!
    http://www.d-mac.info/boi-toy.htm
     
    D-Mac, Aug 19, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. D-Mac

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/08/2008 10:56 AM:

    so shadow/hihlight is an improper technique? make sense...
    so rarely that you don't even know what it does anymore...

    fat arse
     
    Noons, Aug 21, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    I know exactly what it does and the effects it produces.
    Why are you arguing with me about this when you obviously don't know
    what the **** you're talking about?
     
    Annika1980, Aug 21, 2008
    #3
  4. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    Neither do you it would seem.

    When you two get through ripping each other's throats out, I'll tell you
    what I did! LOL.
     
    D-Mac, Aug 21, 2008
    #4
  5. D-Mac

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/08/2008 11:48 PM:
    The difference between us is I don't have the slightest problem
    with that while for you it's the whole purpose of your entire
    sorry existence: without your photoslop techniques you would not
    be able to produce a single image!
     
    Noons, Aug 22, 2008
    #5
  6. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Really? I've got a few thousand slides and negatives laying around
    here that say you're full of crap. Here's a recent one:

    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/97745446

    About the only Photoshop I used on that one was downsizing and crop.

    You need to do something about that jealousy, dude, before it eats you
    up completely.
     
    Annika1980, Aug 22, 2008
    #6
  7. D-Mac

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 23/08/2008 1:34 AM:
    See? The perfect proof you don't have a clue what
    you're talking about!
    WTF has film got to do with photoslop, dickhead?

    Of course one can use photoslop WITH film.
    Of course you can produce dslr images WITHOUT photoslop.

    You just don't. And that is the perfect demonstration
    of your idiocy.
     
    Noons, Aug 24, 2008
    #7
  8. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    No, I don't. Why would I want to?
    My goal is to present the best pic possible and that can only be done
    with post-processing, especially since I shoot everything in RAW mode.
    Kinda hard to post a RAW file on our beloved PBase.

    So what are you advocating? Are you saying that everyone should just
    shoot JPGs and post them straight from the camera? You don't do that.
     
    Annika1980, Aug 24, 2008
    #8
  9. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    Who is "you" in that statement Bret?
    Some of the most successful wedding photographers in Australia never use
    RAW mode capture. Many newspaper camera persons (somehow doesn't sound
    right, does it) reporting critical news and political events are
    forbidden from using RAW capture.

    Why? Because they are not allowed to alter their images or "Photoshop"
    them for legal reasons. Something about forgery. Like making out someone
    is green when they aren't or giving influential women grotesque mouths.

    Face it Bret, you may be a disciple of EOS who worships the God RAW but
    there are those in the community who seriously outnumber your flock and
    believe JPEG done properly, not just saves a huge amount of time but
    also results in the quality they were used to getting with transparency
    film. Nothing at all wrong with that line of thought.

    I've been telling you for years to get it right in the camera and you'll
    have more time for masturbation but you insist you get more satisfaction
    playing with Photoshop than yourself. If you have a problem finding it,
    I can send you some string to use like a lasso next time it sneezes.

    The hardest part of change is the decision to make it. Your 40D is not
    the ideal camera to use for JPEG capture. A 5D is excellent for shooting
    JPEG capture and they are on special right now for under $1500 in Hong
    Kong. I ordered one on Friday. Why don't you get one too?
     
    D-Mac, Aug 24, 2008
    #9
  10. D-Mac

    Noons Guest

    D-Mac wrote,on my timestamp of 25/08/2008 7:57 AM:
    If only it was playing with Photoshop...
    More like playing with Photoslop, unfortunately.

    Well said. One of the things I'll never comprehend is why are
    these canonits still bothering with the crap canon 1.6 form factor
    when they have access to one of the best dslrs ever made for what
    amounts to a pittance!
    I suppose they gotta scam off the excess stock...
     
    Noons, Aug 25, 2008
    #10
  11. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Many successful fast food restaurants microwave their food.
    If speed is more important than quality then shoot your JPGs and take
    what you get.


    Of course. They are on deadlines so it makes sense that they need an
    image fast. It doesn't have to be a great image to get in a paper.
    I prefer not to lower myself to those low standards.
    Your mileage may vary.
    Nothing except the part about quality.

    It is very simplistic to suggest that you should just "get it right in
    camera." You always want the best capture possible, but sometimes it
    is impossible to do that without post-processing. If you have a scene
    with great dynamic range it is impossible to expose for both the
    shadows and the highlights. With RAW, however, you can import two
    different exposures from the same shot and combine them. You can do
    this with JPG, too, just not as effectively.

    And how would I shoot JPGs with my infrared D60 since every shot comes
    out pink?


    I agree the 5D is a great camera. How about ordering me one?
     
    Annika1980, Aug 25, 2008
    #11
  12. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Any capture can be improved in some way by post-processing.
    So if your goal is to present the best final result then you are a
    fool to shoot JPG. You think Ansel Adams printed his pics straight
    from the negatives? Why didn't he just get it right in camera?
    So then answer the question. Are you against post-processing in
    general, or just when I do it?
     
    Annika1980, Aug 25, 2008
    #12
  13. D-Mac

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 25/08/2008 11:43 PM:

    I'll repeat again:
    You don't need photoslop to process raw into jpg.
    I'll repeat again:
    You don't need photoslop to process raw into jpg.

    I'll bet anything you want he printed his pics
    straight from the negatives: he simply could not
    have done otherwise! LOL!

    As to getting it right in camera, apparently he did.
    To the extent that he tuned the camera actions to his
    development times better than anyone else in his time.
    Your point?

    Or IOW: WTF has Ansel Adams got to do with the
    altered digital crap you show?


    I'm against altering the contents and intent of
    an entire image by adding or subtracting elements
    of its content. Which is precisely what you do.
    To call that "post-processing" is only a figment
    of your deranged imagination.
     
    Noons, Aug 25, 2008
    #13
  14. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Oh, please! It is a rare shot like the recent double-hummer shot
    where I actually add or subtract anything that wasn't there. When I
    do add something it is usually just a goof and should be obvious to
    the viewer.

    Like this one where I added one letter.
    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/101724018

    Or the pic of the same bird:
    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/101756408

    Or this combined exposure shot (not really adding or subtracting):
    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98912314

    Or this multiple-exposure:
    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/30362672/large

    Or this one with the added sign:
    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/65753651

    That's 5 pics out of the thousands I've posted. I may have missed a
    couple more, but the point has been made. You just like to bitch
    because that's what you do and that's what you are.
     
    Annika1980, Aug 25, 2008
    #14
  15. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    There you go again mate. All about you.

    You try to make out everyone will somehow get better quality photos in
    raw than in JPEG. That is entirely a false statement.

    Ask Your mate Anal Browne or Gordon Moat if they thinks the 24" x36"
    posters I sent them would have benefited from being shot in RAW. It was
    from a JPEG I printed and I sent them the identical digital negative
    with the poster.

    Some support for your argument may be because your 40D and the 20D
    before it does such a piss poor job of JPEG capture that you can't
    repair the damage the camera does but not all makers use 40% compression
    for their full resolution JPEGS.

    Uncompressed JPEGS are absolutely every bit as good as RAW files for
    editing and in many cases, side step entirely the need for post
    processing. It's all in technique mate.

    You talk about the thousands of photos you post on line. Ask yourself
    what value is there other than your own self indulgence, in having
    10,000 plasticised pictures that were once photos if there is no
    financial value in them?

    How many sales are you going to make of a fly's eye, for Christ Sake?

    Even in retirement (not for long if the boredom keeps up) I still get
    monthly royalty payments for photos I shot in JPEG that are just
    perennial money earners. Sit mate, I still get royalties from photos I
    took in 1992!

    I proved the fallacy of your thought process when you were standing at
    the gate with your case! (well almost). For years I shot parallel RAW
    and JPEG with the thought that if the JPEG was blown or had other image
    flaws I couldn't recover, I at least had a digital negative I could use
    to fix it by hand.

    Guess what? 46 years of getting it right in the camera carried over to
    digital and I invariably discarded the RAW files, using only the JPEGS.
    Maybe 4 or 5 times I went to the RAW file and then discovered that the
    blown highlights were in it too!

    Those photos you altered and called "bridezilla" were all JPEGs. Some,
    when the God awful Canon 580EX speedlite shut down because of a specular
    highlight returning false lighting information that were 4 stops under
    exposed, pulled up in photoslop just as well as any RAW file would have.

    Face it Bret... You are peddling a fake here. Your pictures are more
    like scaled down painting than photos. Recognise the medium you work
    with and stop trying to make it look like something it isn't and never
    will be. Photography is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3
    dimensional scene. Even introducing colour into it, degrades the concept
    of a photograph. Your photosloping just degrades it further.
     
    D-Mac, Aug 25, 2008
    #15
  16. And NOW its all about you, I call bullshit Douggie, we all know your hard
    pressed to make a dollar out fo your wedding photography so why would we
    believe that you can make a dollar out of a photo you took in 1992.
    Again! its now about you again :)
    About you again, do you see a pattern emerging here Douggie??
    How did he alter the bridezilla photos ?? we all saw them directly from YOUR
    web site Douggie, dont get fast and lose with the truth again.
    And yet Brett recieves praise from all corners, you on the other hand get
    nothing but ridecule, how is that walking panno coming along by the way, not
    that abortion you tried to peddel before, but the one you said you could do
    of the Manly Marina ??

    Photography is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3
    speaks the master at degradation.
     
    Atheist Chaplain, Aug 26, 2008
    #16
  17. D-Mac

    Mark Thomas Guest

    I do, too. Guess that makes it true for some, but not Doug.

    It's ok to admit you can't get better quality out of raw. But many of
    us can.
    Strange. I don't recall Gordon or Alan ever referring to any digital
    negatives or discussion about raw. Perhaps Doug can post a link. But
    if I recall the print, it would not have benefited from raw processing
    much as it was not a shot that had a great deal of dynamic range.
    Although I gather it was a little soft and had some visible artifacts,
    so maybe...
    No they aren't. But the difference is only useful in perhaps 10% of
    what I shoot. So I turn it on when I know I will need it - intuition is
    generally enough, or a histogram check if in doubt.
    But yours is the only way? Strange.
    Perhaps if you avoided personal attacks, stuck to the topic and realised
    that it isn't all about money..?
    Perhaps if you realised that it isn't all about money..?
    Perhaps if you realised that it isn't all about money..?
    So why did you keep doing this for 'years'? Maybe you should do a
    course in systems analysis, or problem solving for beginners.
    That's not all that surprising, given some of the examples you posted.
    Once you blow highlights by 2 stops or so, even raw won't help you.
    Like AC, I only saw the original on your site.
    All flash systems will encounter situations where 'anomalies' will cause
    unsuitable exposure. A good photographer will know his equipment and
    what to expect and work *with* it. A bad photographer is easily spotted
    - s/he's the one who blames the equipment, and keeps swapping from brand
    to brand (or from film to digital and back). Ring any bells?
    A good photographer wouldn't have got the image so horribly wrong.

    And they would have taken the time to properly investigate RAW files to
    see exactly what they can do.

    Just out of interest and on the topic of extending dynamic range,
    Douglas also recommends HDR... for *weddings*... (O: He never
    elaborated, though - here's the post from him as 'dreamtime':

    http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/004eed1e520880b3

    I'd love to hear more..
     
    Mark Thomas, Aug 26, 2008
    #17
  18. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    No, not everyone. You obviously can't.
    But even your chances go up considerably when you are working with ALL
    the data in the file instead of what your camera decided you needed
    based on the settings you chose.

    If you and the idiot Noons want to make the claim that JPG is just as
    good as RAW then go for it. The rest of the world will continue
    laughing at your stupid asses.

    Think for a minute (I know it hurts, but try anyway). If a JPG image
    could deliver as good a final result as working from a RAW file, why
    the Hell would anyone shoot raw? Why would there be competing RAW
    converters such as ACR, DPP, DxO, Capture One, Nikon Capture, etc?
    So the pros are all wrong and you and Noons must be right.
    Wake up.
    ======================
    Was that the stitched shot that you claimed was an enlargement from a
    single capture? I have a hard time keeping up with your lies.
    Thank God for Mark Thomas.
    ======================
    Who cares? Do you think people take photos of their family and
    friends to sell? Maybe if you weren't such a whore for a dollar,
    you'd enjoy life a little more. I take pics of things that interest
    me or challenge me.
    If they interest you or not, I could really give a shit.

    ======================
    Sure you do, Douggie. Sure you do.

    ======================
    You and Noons need to get together and decide which argument you are
    making because you always intertwine them.

    You both touch on 3 main points.
    1. My pics are all shit. They all must be fake because you can't get
    similar results even with better gear.
    2. JPG is as good as RAW.
    3. There is no need for post-processing and even if you do have to
    tweak it a little bit the JPG file will work just fine.

    Point #1 is debatable.
    Points #2 and #3 are not. You are clearly wrong there.
     
    Annika1980, Aug 26, 2008
    #18
  19. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    OK, when is the time for RAW?

    If your answer is "When you are seeking to get the absolute best image
    from the file" then I've made my point.


    JPEG = when you want it fast
    RAW = when you want the best

    You might as well be comparing McDonalds to Outback Steakhouse or
    Ruth's Chris.
     
    Annika1980, Aug 26, 2008
    #19
  20. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    When you are on a deadline.
    When "good enough" is good enough.
    When quanity trumps quality.
     
    Annika1980, Aug 26, 2008
    #20
    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.