Don't shoot blank areas with a DSLR!

[Rich]

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

 

[Guest]

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>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

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>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Rich]

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

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:16:16 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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.

Rich, despite not owning a DSLR, obviously thinks he knows everything
about them and considers anyone who dares to contradict his pearls of
wisdom in denial.

>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..

I would be too, but I consider the occasional spot a reasonable
trade-off for the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. I'm a realist
and know that changing lenses on top of a windswept mountain isn't the
best idea, but if the photo requires it then I say to hell with the
risk!

Al
--
[This space intentionally left blank]

 

[Rich]

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

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:19:05 +0100, Alan Bremner <alan@domain.invalid>
wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:16:16 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Rich, despite not owning a DSLR, obviously thinks he knows everything
>about them and considers anyone who dares to contradict his pearls of
>wisdom in denial.
>
>>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..
>
>I would be too, but I consider the occasional spot a reasonable
>trade-off for the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. I'm a realist
>and know that changing lenses on top of a windswept mountain isn't the
>best idea, but if the photo requires it then I say to hell with the
>risk!
>
>Al

You would, I wouldn't. They ruin the whole shot.
-Rich

 

[Guest]

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

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:tfmej1ha7c5be74p14js15ld92pofm3tee@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:19:05 +0100, Alan Bremner <alan@domain.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:16:16 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> Rich, despite not owning a DSLR, obviously thinks he knows everything
>>about them and considers anyone who dares to contradict his pearls of
>>wisdom in denial.
>>
>>>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..
>>
>>I would be too, but I consider the occasional spot a reasonable
>>trade-off for the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. I'm a realist
>>and know that changing lenses on top of a windswept mountain isn't the
>>best idea, but if the photo requires it then I say to hell with the
>>risk!
>>
>>Al
>
> You would, I wouldn't. They ruin the whole shot.

Idiot. They do not, well none of mine ever have, seconds to get rid of.

 

[Eugene]

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

Actually I just discovered today that the marks I was seeing where
actually caused by stuff on my sensor, rather than something on the
filter. The odd thing is that it only seems to appear when I stop the
lens down a fair way. Does this make any sense? Also the marks become
much more noticeable when I'm using my longer lens 100-300mm.

> 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.
>>

 

[Guest]

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

Rich wrote:

> Canon owners on dust:
>
> http/www.explicacoes.com/php_nuke/html/images/upload/Three_Monkeys.jpg

Rich, consulting his source of information:

http/www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:29:03 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:tfmej1ha7c5be74p14js15ld92pofm3tee@4ax.com...

>> You would, I wouldn't. They ruin the whole shot.

>Idiot. They do not, well none of mine ever have, seconds to get rid of.

Ignore him, for he knows not of what he speaks....

At least with digital you *can* remove it. I can't be the only one to
have found a once-in-a-lifetime transparency ruined by a hair trapped
in the film gate. A grown man weeping is not a pretty sight!

Al
--
[This space intentionally left blank]

 

[Guest]

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

"Alan Bremner" <alan@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:fpogj1t1b3mb4ni4rn78tkcvh2bmhbm5bi@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:29:03 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>news:tfmej1ha7c5be74p14js15ld92pofm3tee@4ax.com...
>
>>> You would, I wouldn't. They ruin the whole shot.
>
>>Idiot. They do not, well none of mine ever have, seconds to get rid of.
>
> Ignore him, for he knows not of what he speaks....
>
> At least with digital you *can* remove it. I can't be the only one to
> have found a once-in-a-lifetime transparency ruined by a hair trapped
> in the film gate. A grown man weeping is not a pretty sight!
>
> Al
> --
> [This space intentionally left blank]

Bugga!

 

[Rich]

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

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:08 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

If dust spots are SO easy to get rid of, then how come we see them
in so many shots, even example shots posted to show off the camera's
"attributes?"
-Rich

 

[Guest]

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

In article <tj4kj1dm4aodd36sle8d9i4bevasa0nial@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:08 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
> If dust spots are SO easy to get rid of, then how come we see them
> in so many shots, even example shots posted to show off the camera's
> "attributes?"
> -Rich

Because you're not supposed to retouch sample shots. Isn't that
painfully obvious?
--
http/www.pbase.com/bcbaird

 

[Guest]

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

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:tj4kj1dm4aodd36sle8d9i4bevasa0nial@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:08 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
> If dust spots are SO easy to get rid of, then how come we see them
> in so many shots, even example shots posted to show off the camera's
> "attributes?"
> -Rich

So you are saying you can't do the occasional one, either you are very, very
stupid or you are not telling the truth or perhaps you don't actually have a
D-SLR and have not actually experienced the problem or non problem? Of over
100 photos I have posted to www.shuttertalk.com I have had to clean spots
from only one or two photos, feel free to look.

 

[Guest]

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

>"Alan Bremner" <alan@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>news:fpogj1t1b3mb4ni4rn78tkcvh2bmhbm5bi@4ax.com...

>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:29:03 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>> I can't be the only one to have found a once-in-a-lifetime transparency
>> ruined by a hair trapped in the film gate. A grown man weeping is not
>> a pretty sight!

>Bugga!

Or (somewhat stronger) words to that effect. <BG>

Al
--
[This space intentionally left blank]

 

[Guest]

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

Rich once again proves he is a moron, or a reasonable facsimile
thereof:

> But dust has nothing to do with the qualities of the sensor or lens
> and removing a few spots won't change the overall quality of the
> image.

If removing a few spots doesn't change the quality much, then leaving
the spots in can't change it much either. Idiot.

> It's like selling a suit with lint all over it, it just looks bad.

If they did remove the dust, you would be on their ass about "ODIOUS
DIGITAL MANIPULATIONS" and the like, right? Even more hilarious, is
that you are (somehow) expecting third parties to act like salesdroids
or something. Maybe that is your modus operandi (how much does Olympus
pay you?), but others have better things to do with their lives than
play stupid games with nitwits like you.

P.S. If you don't like the suit, don't buy it ... oh right, you can't
even afford one anyways.

 

[Rich]

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

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 05:16:41 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <tj4kj1dm4aodd36sle8d9i4bevasa0nial@4ax.com>, none@none.com
>says...
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:08 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> If dust spots are SO easy to get rid of, then how come we see them
>> in so many shots, even example shots posted to show off the camera's
>> "attributes?"
>> -Rich
>
>Because you're not supposed to retouch sample shots. Isn't that
>painfully obvious?

But dust has nothing to do with the qualities of the sensor or lens
and removing a few spots won't change the overall quality of the
image. It's like selling a suit with lint all over it, it just looks
bad.
-Rich

 

[Rich]

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

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:06:16 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:tj4kj1dm4aodd36sle8d9i4bevasa0nial@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:08 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> If dust spots are SO easy to get rid of, then how come we see them
>> in so many shots, even example shots posted to show off the camera's
>> "attributes?"
>> -Rich
>
>So you are saying you can't do the occasional one, either you are very, very
>stupid or you are not telling the truth or perhaps you don't actually have a
>D-SLR and have not actually experienced the problem or non problem? Of over
>100 photos I have posted to www.shuttertalk.com I have had to clean spots
>from only one or two photos, feel free to look.
>

If you admit to cleaning them, how would I know you only had to do a
couple?
-Rich

 

[Rich]

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

On 28 Sep 2005 16:19:53 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Rich once again proves he is a moron, or a reasonable facsimile
>thereof:
>
>> But dust has nothing to do with the qualities of the sensor or lens
>> and removing a few spots won't change the overall quality of the
>> image.
>
>If removing a few spots doesn't change the quality much, then leaving
>the spots in can't change it much either. Idiot.

They horribly detract from that quality. Something that occupies a
small fraction of an image, but it's like having a burned out pixel
in an LCD display. I think the term is, "sore thumb."

>
>> It's like selling a suit with lint all over it, it just looks bad.
>
>If they did remove the dust, you would be on their ass about "ODIOUS
>DIGITAL MANIPULATIONS" and the like, right? Even more hilarious, is
>that you are (somehow) expecting third parties to act like salesdroids
>or something. Maybe that is your modus operandi (how much does Olympus
>pay you?), but others have better things to do with their lives than
>play stupid games with nitwits like you.
>

This "me too" stuff is getting old. You really should try using
your imagination.

>P.S. If you don't like the suit, don't buy it ... oh right, you can't
>even afford one anyways.

My income tax rate is 36%. Do the math.
-Rich