Don't shoot blank areas with a DSLR!

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

The EXIF data is interesting.

What are we looking for?

T.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:slb4j1ht4knerffe9kl59khl9glj7852fv@4ax.com...
> http://dc.watch.impress.
>
> http://dc.watch.

Thanks - YET again - to our roving reporter.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:36:00 +0100, "Gormless" <simeon@gormless.com>
wrote:

>
>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:slb4j1ht4knerffe9kl59khl9glj7852fv@4ax.com...
>> http://dc.watch.impress.
>>
>> http://dc.watch.
>
>Thanks - YET again - to our roving reporter.
>
>

Don't you love it? All the DSLR buyers (except
Olympus owners) saying what
a "non-issue" dust is, and yet many times when you
see images posted, there it is.
-Rich
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:36:00 +0100, "Gormless" <simeon@gormless.com>
wrote:

>
>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:slb4j1ht4knerffe9kl59khl9glj7852fv@4ax.com...
>> http://dc.watch.impress.
>>
>> http://dc.watch.
>
>Thanks - YET again - to our roving reporter.
>
>

Don't you mean "raving" rather than "roving"?


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:36:00 +0100, "Gormless" <simeon@gormless.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> >news:slb4j1ht4knerffe9kl59khl9glj7852fv@4ax.com...
> >> http://dc.watch.impress.
> >>
> >> http://dc.watch.
> >
> >Thanks - YET again - to our roving reporter.
> >
> >
>
> Don't you love it? All the DSLR buyers (except
> Olympus owners) saying what
> a "non-issue" dust is, and yet many times when you
> see images posted, there it is.
> -Rich

Dust is not a non-issue. The non-issue is the difficulty of removing
it. It's easy, quick, and over with. If you have a zoom lens P&S, or
prosumer, good luck when dust does infiltrate--and it will. There's no
way to clean it.

Any other stupidities or mistaken readings for the week?
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich wrote:

Oh, how disappointing. I thought you had discovered why not to take
self-portraits.

Dave
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:36:00 +0100, "Gormless" <simeon@gormless.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>news:slb4j1ht4knerffe9kl59khl9glj7852fv@4ax.com...
>>
>>>http://dc.watch.impress.
>>>
>>>http://dc.watch.
>>
>>Thanks - YET again - to our roving reporter.
>>
>>
>
>
> Don't you mean "raving" rather than "roving"?

Is the glass half full or half empty?
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:8hs6j1lmm6kfk7f7875brk1jou3h5ugmnr@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:36:00 +0100, "Gormless" <simeon@gormless.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >Thanks - YET again - to our roving reporter.
> >
> >
>
> Don't you love it? All the DSLR buyers (except
> Olympus owners) saying what
> a "non-issue" dust is, and yet many times when you
> see images posted, there it is.
> -Rich

You make a peculiarly small amount of sense there.
I haven't a clue what you mean.
Where did you learn your English?
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Bremner wrote:

> It's not that it's a "non-issue" to DSLR owners, more that it's simply
> not the major one that you seem to think it is.

It's like high ISO sensor noise isn't a "non-issue" with the 4/3 cameras,
but for me it's not the major deal it might be for other people.
Individuals have to look at the plus and minuses of each camera, look at
how they are going to use it and decide for themselves what they want to
use.

To me running neat image on the few high ISO images isn't a big deal, but
I'd be bothered if I had to clone out dust spots very often.. It's all
about what you want as NONE of these are perfect for everything.
--

Stacey
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DD (Rox) wrote:
> In article <slb4j1ht4knerffe9kl59khl9glj7852fv@4ax.com>, none@none.com
> says...
>
>>http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/31744-2346-14-1.html
>>
>>http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/31762-2346-20-2.html
>>
>
>
> Are you like extremely bored or something?
>

No. As a child his parents didn't give him enough attention, so now he
acts out to get it from strangers.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <8hs6j1lmm6kfk7f7875brk1jou3h5ugmnr@4ax.com>,
Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>Don't you love it? All the DSLR buyers (except
>Olympus owners) saying what
>a "non-issue" dust is, and yet many times when you
>see images posted, there it is.

It's usually the result of Tv-priority or program mode with too high an
ISO setting. Most of those images where you see the dust are ones where
the aperture is much smaller than it really needs to be.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3pjk6gFaoa1vU2@individual.net...
> Alan Bremner wrote:
>
>> It's not that it's a "non-issue" to DSLR owners, more that it's simply
>> not the major one that you seem to think it is.
>
> It's like high ISO sensor noise isn't a "non-issue" with the 4/3 cameras,
> but for me it's not the major deal it might be for other people.
> Individuals have to look at the plus and minuses of each camera, look at
> how they are going to use it and decide for themselves what they want to
> use.

If you don't care so much why are you so anal about telling everyone so
bloody often?

> To me running neat image on the few high ISO images isn't a big deal, but
> I'd be bothered if I had to clone out dust spots very often.. It's all
> about what you want as NONE of these are perfect for everything.

I am glad you cleared that up, I was a bit worried though that you were
going to tell us all once again how much you like the look of the E300.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Is it possible that there was something on the front element or a
filter? I've had the same thing happen when I was using a small
apperture and a slightly dirty polarising filter.

> Dust motes.
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:11:46 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>Don't you love it? All the DSLR buyers (except
>Olympus owners) saying what
>a "non-issue" dust is, and yet many times when you
>see images posted, there it is.

My neighbour sees fairies at the bottom of the garden.
She has tried all sorts of filters to photograph 'em.
Nothing seems to work. But they are there. She sais.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:31:03 GMT, no_name <no_name@no.where.invalid>
wrote:

>John A. Stovall wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:36:00 +0100, "Gormless" <simeon@gormless.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>>news:slb4j1ht4knerffe9kl59khl9glj7852fv@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>http://dc.watch.impress.
>>>>
>>>>http://dc.watch.
>>>
>>>Thanks - YET again - to our roving reporter.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Don't you mean "raving" rather than "roving"?
>
>Is the glass half full or half empty?

In Rich's case it's ways half empty. Particularly when it comes to
content.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Gormless" <simeon@gormless.com> wrote in message
news:GbWdnf1hYd6m3KnenZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:8hs6j1lmm6kfk7f7875brk1jou3h5ugmnr@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:36:00 +0100, "Gormless" <simeon@gormless.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Thanks - YET again - to our roving reporter.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Don't you love it? All the DSLR buyers (except
>> Olympus owners) saying what
>> a "non-issue" dust is, and yet many times when you
>> see images posted, there it is.
>> -Rich
>
> You make a peculiarly small amount of sense there.
> I haven't a clue what you mean.
> Where did you learn your English?

I think it is a type of colonial english, a lingua franca - or pidgin.

Trapper
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:52:11 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <8hs6j1lmm6kfk7f7875brk1jou3h5ugmnr@4ax.com>,
>Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>Don't you love it? All the DSLR buyers (except
>>Olympus owners) saying what
>>a "non-issue" dust is, and yet many times when you
>>see images posted, there it is.
>
>It's usually the result of Tv-priority or program mode with too high an
>ISO setting. Most of those images where you see the dust are ones where
>the aperture is much smaller than it really needs to be.

Well, when a lens's max aperture is something like f6 and you need to
set it to f9-11 to get a decently sharp image, can you blame them?
-Rich
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <29dcj15atf6jno50baj4jgp59e7tlm3f2u@4ax.com>,
Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:52:11 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>>In message <8hs6j1lmm6kfk7f7875brk1jou3h5ugmnr@4ax.com>,
>>Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Don't you love it? All the DSLR buyers (except
>>>Olympus owners) saying what
>>>a "non-issue" dust is, and yet many times when you
>>>see images posted, there it is.
>>
>>It's usually the result of Tv-priority or program mode with too high an
>>ISO setting. Most of those images where you see the dust are ones where
>>the aperture is much smaller than it really needs to be.
>
>Well, when a lens's max aperture is something like f6 and you need to
>set it to f9-11 to get a decently sharp image, can you blame them?

Regardless of whether or not that need is real, f9 to f11 only shows
dust very lightly; you have to be looking for it at those f-stops. It's
the upper teens where it starts to become vivid; f-stops that I usually
try to avoid because of diffraction issues.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <gadcj1l8g04kloaaic33fh1ud2l96f85d5@4ax.com>,
Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>Canon owners on dust:

>http://www.explicacoes.com/php_nuke/html/images/upload/Three_Monkeys.jpg

I hardly think so. I've never heard of anyone who doesn't wish there
was no dust. Your problem is that you think that your comments are
supposed to be lightning bolts that bring down big towers, to compensate
for your short stature or member, and it doesn't happen, because it
isn't the insurmountable problem that you like to pretend that it is. I
can use aperture-priority when aiming at the sky; I can clean the
sensor, and I can brighten the darkened spots back up in PS.

If another company made a camera that took my Canon lenses, and had the
same or better quality features as the current Canon, and I was looking
to upgrade, it would have no problems going non-Canon on the body.
Canon just happened to be the company with the best reputation for
low-light performance when I bought a DSLR.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:gadcj1l8g04kloaaic33fh1ud2l96f85d5@4ax.com...
SNIP
> Canon owners on dust: [...]

Why Canon? Do you really think that e.g. Nikon DSLRs don't have dust
on their sensor array?

Bart
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:19:12 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

>
>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:gadcj1l8g04kloaaic33fh1ud2l96f85d5@4ax.com...
>SNIP
>> Canon owners on dust: [...]
>
>Why Canon? Do you really think that e.g. Nikon DSLRs don't have dust
>on their sensor array?
>
>Bart

They do, but their owners don't try to deny it.
-Rich
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom