GONE FISHIN' WITH THE FAB 5D2 !

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Annika1980, Jan 19, 2009.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    That ain't Rich back there, babe.
     
    Annika1980, Jan 21, 2009
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Giving meaning to their shitty little lives, I hope.
    My personal sacrifice.
     
    Annika1980, Jan 21, 2009
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Annika1980

    Mark Thomas Guest

    I note you avoided repeating the actual content. Go on, be a man and
    verify that you think it's ok to call people autistic and for that
    reason they should have been aborted?

    If you don't think that, then, gee, perhaps your answer should have
    been.. no.
    So you actually *read* the paragraph, and believe that? If that's how
    you wish to be perceived, go for it.
    I didn't offer analogies, nor refer specifically to Helen's post. Are
    you obsessed with her and Bret, by any chance (no need to answer).

    I deeply object to Keoeeit's language and inferences, and anyone who
    supports it (that would be you). I suggest it is better to play the
    ball, not the player and to avoid using offensive language and death
    wishes, whether intended in jest or otherwise.

    You don't? Like I said, your choice.
    Didn't see any sign of a smilie. Nor do I see it amongst your vitriol,
    although I can imagine the type of person that might think it was hilarious.
     
    Mark Thomas, Jan 21, 2009
    #43
  4. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Mr.T wrote,on my timestamp of 21/01/2009 10:58 AM:
    You are kidding, right?
    Did you miss the whole episode about Bret's claims
    that he uses flash but pbase misses its exif?
     
    Noons, Jan 21, 2009
    #44
  5. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 21/01/2009 11:27 AM:
    And that makes YOU an expert on Hitler, as you stated.
    Have you ever been told you are a total fake?
     
    Noons, Jan 21, 2009
    #45
  6. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    I take it as a compliment when someone has to look at the EXIF data to
    see if a flash was used. A compliment to me and Gary Fong.
     
    Annika1980, Jan 21, 2009
    #46
  7. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/01/2009 6:23 AM:
    "a bit"? Amazing...
    Perhaps it needs a new monitor. Told you that months ago,
    when you posted a fabricated sunset shot with horrible banding.
    And then you proceeded to abuse everyone who said it was
    no good.

    Which is probably its true colour? But truth and reality
    have nothing to do with your deranged world, have they?

    Abusing those who point it out and sending your pack of
    imbecile trolls after them claiming he is someone else is
    your concept of "easy to admit"?
    Shewt, but you are specially thick today...
    Ah yes: it'd have been pbase's missing exif, no doubt...
     
    Noons, Jan 21, 2009
    #47
  8. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/01/2009 12:40 PM:
    Oh dear, cry me a river...
    So, what happened to admitting you f'd-up?
    And of course, that imbecile Alan Arse-Kisser
    jumped in at the right moment to "defend"
    your "admission"...
     
    Noons, Jan 21, 2009
    #48
  9. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/01/2009 1:19 PM:
    "Not great shots true, but how come you can't read the exif?
    Doesn't "Flash Used - NO" actually mean without flash?

    MrT"
     
    Noons, Jan 21, 2009
    #49
  10. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Gemini wrote,on my timestamp of 22/01/2009 12:10 PM:
    BWAHAHAHAHA!

    I love it when Helen's lying arse is shown for all to see!
    This ignorant bitch wouldn't even have a CLUE where Auschwitz is. I'll bet
    she's never set her arse anywhere within earshot of any of those places but
    she speaks about them with "authority"...
    About the same authority as her "deep" knowledge of pedophilia, her constant
    "work" with pedophiles, her "perfectly adjusted" monitor and all the other lies
    she engages in at every single post.
     
    Noons, Jan 21, 2009
    #50
  11. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Gemini wrote,on my timestamp of 22/01/2009 12:36 PM:
    Wait until he calls you the voices in his head...
     
    Noons, Jan 21, 2009
    #51
  12. Annika1980

    Jeff R. Guest


    I saw no obscenities.
    No extreme vulgarities.
    No spelling mistakes.
    No gratuitous use of the salutation "mate"...

    Either it isn't Doug, or the pills are working.
     
    Jeff R., Jan 21, 2009
    #52
  13. Annika1980

    Jeff R. Guest

    Don't go overboard, Doug.
    As I said, that's a nice enough snapshot.

    But:

    Reduced to thumbnail size,
    showing aliasing,
    showing oversharpening,
    blown highlights.

    That's why its only a passable *snapshot*, Doug.

    And yes, Bret's stuff is sweet by comparison.

    Your colour green is not a very attractive hue.
     
    Jeff R., Jan 21, 2009
    #53
  14. Annika1980

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Please note, Keoeeit, as a courtesy to other users I have removed all
    the insults, as they reflect rather poorly on you. Now I'll just
    address the misinformation.

    One minute?? I, and Bret obviously, would simply look at the scene and
    recognise two important factors pointing to simple ev comp rather than
    spot-metering, and that takes less than 5 seconds.

    1. A fairly consistent background that should be exposed about .5 to 1
    stop under, which will give the desired highlight control in the birds.
    2. *Changing* light conditions in the late afternoon light (which would
    mean you would have to redo the process you explained periodically)

    Yes, you *could* use your method, but:
    - you would have to take great care with the reading, watching for dark
    feathers and shadows (a moving bird is not exactly the ideal spot subject)
    - the whole process takes much longer
    - you must NOT leave it on spot-metering unless you always have the bird
    in 'spot'
    - you need to recheck it as the light changes, as you admit later
    Like I said, an awful lot of extra effort. For this suituation I would
    either do one manual white balance, or more likely just leave it on
    daylight and use/enjoy the changing colours. And using ev comp there is
    no need to recheck, just keep a rough eye on the scene content which you
    should be doing no matter what method you use.

    The proof, as you agree, is in the images - and I don't see *anything*
    from you. So that means...
    At least we agree there.
    So, show us better results, or be specific about where the exposure is
    wrong.
    It's worth noting that earlier you implied he should white balance off
    the bird. I think that's a really bad idea, as you cannot guarantee
    that the bird is pure white. And if shot raw, the white balance is
    pretty immaterial. I trust you realise how easy it is to adjust
    afterwards, especially if only slightly out? The cast being referred to
    was very slight.
    So you don't think objects, other birds, clouds over water, etc can
    reflect light and affect the image? That's a very strange assertion.
    So where are the results? And you just proved my point - "simple
    matter" to fix, even from a small jpeg? They must be very close to
    perfect then..


    G'nite Keoeeit. See how easy it is to be helpful without insults?
     
    Mark Thomas, Jan 21, 2009
    #54
  15. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Jeff R. wrote,on my timestamp of 21/01/2009 5:37 PM:
    It doesn't matter, moron. When the chief imbecile
    Mark says it is, you just follow sheepishly.
    Capice?
     
    Noons, Jan 21, 2009
    #55
  16. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Mark Thomas wrote,on my timestamp of 21/01/2009 6:53 PM:

    Apparently, a simple concept that anyone could grasp:
    "turn off auto-everything".

    OK, let's see what Wank-Mark-the-self-photo-expert makes of that:

    Amazing. After being told to turn off auto-everything, he concludes that
    leaving the spot meter on will cause the camera to change its settings.
    Unreal.
    This so-called "expert" exceeds himself in stupidity with every single post.




    Ah,OK: this means of course that seeing NOTHING from the self-appointed "expert"
    we can safely conclude he is just another bumbling Usenet idiot masquerading as
    an expert while using aggressive saturation posting techniques.

    Then why don't you follow your own recipe?
     
    Noons, Jan 21, 2009
    #56
  17. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Gemini wrote,on my timestamp of 22/01/2009 5:38 AM:

    Careful, Gemini. You have now incurred the ire of the pack of arse-kisser
    trolls that follow this bumbling idiot around, classifying anyone who criticizes
    him and shows him for the fake he is, as obvious "multiple personas of D-Mac".
    Or myself. Or a multitude of others, no matter who it might be.
    Including now you, who have clearly pointed out to this imbecile how wrong he
    can be.

    Next Mark will claim you are really D-Mac in disguise, Helen will once again
    confirm her deranged and confused state by claiming you are I and that bumbling
    imbecile Alan will claim that he follows no one because he has kill-filed all
    the world yet he still manages to reply via other's quotes. Did I forget anyone?
    Oh yes: MrT will threaten everyone, the sheep-lover Colin D will jump in
    insulting everyone who disagrees with his online love and the McWilliams-troll
    will insult me for interfering with his "reality".

    Do yourself a favour and do not waste sensible advice on this sorry lot: their
    only purpose here is to scam their little online businesses selling crap Canon
    gear.

    The only way to deal with this sorry lot of bumbling imbeciles is to use on them
    the same techniques they use on everyone else: just troll the troll and enjoy
    the ride.
     
    Noons, Jan 21, 2009
    #57
  18. No, it means the camera didn't know about any flash being used. Many
    cameras have at least one mode of use (such as Manual) in which a
    flash trigger firing circuit is available if required, but the camera
    doesn't know whether it was used.

    Not to mention the possibility of the EXIF data being wrong.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 21, 2009
    #58
  19. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Yes, do you? That's why you don't see the dresser in the background.
    Stick to your little point and shit with it's infinite DOF and leave
    the real cameras for us that know how to use them.
     
    Annika1980, Jan 21, 2009
    #59
  20. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Actually, I said just the opposite. Learn to read.
     
    Annika1980, Jan 21, 2009
    #60
    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.