Don't shoot blank areas with a DSLR!

[Guest]

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

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news57mj1pkbiu0nscqgb40ha1jrhc7ahf2tp@4ax.com...
> 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

Did you actually look at the photos? Go on, actually have a look, only a few
would actually show any spots anyway and that is my point you fool.

 

[Rich]

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

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:23:37 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news57mj1pkbiu0nscqgb40ha1jrhc7ahf2tp@4ax.com...
>> 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
>
>Did you actually look at the photos? Go on, actually have a look, only a few
>would actually show any spots anyway and that is my point you fool.
>

And on the other hand, another poster on another group was complaining
about them being in many photos. They suggested she clean out her
camera bag. Why do you PERSIST in thinking YOUR experience is the
WAY it is, or that it's even typical?
-Rich

 

[Guest]

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

In message <tj4kj1dm4aodd36sle8d9i4bevasa0nial@4ax.com>,
Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>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?"

Because people are sloppy. They often use much smaller apertures than
necessary, and they post without concern.

I would not leave dust in a plain area like sky, if "showing off" an
image.

In any event, most of my "dust spot sky" images were ruined anyway by
diffraction. I don't know how many times I've pointed my camera at a
hawk or falcon in the sky with the same settings that I used for
shooting in shade, in TV-priority mode, and the image was unusable
because it was too soft. If the cameras had more useful auto-exposure
modes, this would rarely ever happen.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Rich]

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

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:35:24 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <tj4kj1dm4aodd36sle8d9i4bevasa0nial@4ax.com>,
>Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>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?"
>
>Because people are sloppy. They often use much smaller apertures than
>necessary, and they post without concern.
>
>I would not leave dust in a plain area like sky, if "showing off" an
>image.
>
>In any event, most of my "dust spot sky" images were ruined anyway by
>diffraction. I don't know how many times I've pointed my camera at a
>hawk or falcon in the sky with the same settings that I used for
>shooting in shade, in TV-priority mode, and the image was unusable
>because it was too soft. If the cameras had more useful auto-exposure
>modes, this would rarely ever happen.

What shutter speeds as fast as 1/4000 at hand, why not just set it
on aperture priority?
-Rich

 

[Stacey]

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

Pete D wrote:

>
> "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?

Because people like you continually make a big deal out of it?

>
>> 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.

And here you are once again bashing a camera you've never used...

--

Stacey

 

[Stacey]

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

Pete D wrote:

>
> "Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news57mj1pkbiu0nscqgb40ha1jrhc7ahf2tp@4ax.com...
>> 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
>
> Did you actually look at the photos?


And which ones are you talking about there?
--

Stacey

 

[Guest]

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

In message <upimj19gsn2risdebtj9giidk6q3jceb9g@4ax.com>,
Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:35:24 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>>In any event, most of my "dust spot sky" images were ruined anyway by
>>diffraction. I don't know how many times I've pointed my camera at a
>>hawk or falcon in the sky with the same settings that I used for
>>shooting in shade, in TV-priority mode, and the image was unusable
>>because it was too soft. If the cameras had more useful auto-exposure
>>modes, this would rarely ever happen.

>What shutter speeds as fast as 1/4000 at hand, why not just set it
>on aperture priority?

Just set it at aperture priority? Have you ever done any photography of
non-posing living creatures?

Aperture priority with a telephoto in low light will result in decently
exposed, but totally blurred and worthless pictures when the scene
suddenly becomes darker.

What is needed is user-programmable, or hybrid modes, such as one that
doesn't allow apertures to go smaller than a certain size, unless it is
necessary to avoid blow-out, and a maximum exposure time to avoid blur
for the focal length, with ISO varying to maintain these limits as an
option. The manufacturers are asleep at the wheel, as usual.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
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:0gimj1lma8iul1bkqcqgigbun71gr1cv50@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:23:37 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>news57mj1pkbiu0nscqgb40ha1jrhc7ahf2tp@4ax.com...
>>> 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
>>
>>Did you actually look at the photos? Go on, actually have a look, only a
>>few
>>would actually show any spots anyway and that is my point you fool.
>>
>
> And on the other hand, another poster on another group was complaining
> about them being in many photos. They suggested she clean out her
> camera bag. Why do you PERSIST in thinking YOUR experience is the
> WAY it is, or that it's even typical?
> -Rich

Why would you ass u me that it isn't?

 

[Guest]

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>In any event, most of my "dust spot sky" images were ruined anyway by
>diffraction. I don't know how many times I've pointed my camera at a
>hawk or falcon in the sky with the same settings that I used for
>shooting in shade, in TV-priority mode, and the image was unusable
>because it was too soft. If the cameras had more useful auto-exposure
>modes, this would rarely ever happen.


A photographer would select manual exposure mode, and choose a
combination of aperture and shutter speed that gave the desired
exposure, ability to 'freeze' motion, appropriate depth of field and
avoiding apertures at which the lens performs less well.

Someone who lets the camera make all these decisions for him/her is
not a photographer, just a button-pusher.

Someone who uses "TV-priority mode" to make images of a bird in
flight, then complains about the results, is probably beyond
redemption.

;-)

 

[Guest]

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:

>What is needed is user-programmable, or hybrid modes, such as one that
>doesn't allow apertures to go smaller than a certain size, unless it is
>necessary to avoid blow-out, and a maximum exposure time to avoid blur
>for the focal length, with ISO varying to maintain these limits as an
>option.


What is needed is someone who knows how to choose combinations of lens
apertures and shutter speeds to make correct exposures. Someone who
doesn't have rely on dumb automation to make their images for them.

That someone is a "competent photographer". Alas, it would appear to
be an increasingly endangered species. Perhaps we should make as many
images as possible of this rapidly diminishing breed before it
disappears altogether.

;-)

 

[Guest]

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3q1f1iFcim57U2@individual.net...
> Pete D wrote:
>
>>
>> "Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>> news57mj1pkbiu0nscqgb40ha1jrhc7ahf2tp@4ax.com...
>>> 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
>>
>> Did you actually look at the photos?
>
>
> And which ones are you talking about there?
> --
>
> Stacey

All of them. You tell me, how many were affected by dust motes and had to be
"fixed"?

 

[Guest]

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3q1eoiFcim57U1@individual.net...
> Pete D wrote:
>
>>
>> "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?
>
> Because people like you continually make a big deal out of it?
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> And here you are once again bashing a camera you've never used...
>
> --
>
> Stacey

"Bashing a camera that I have never used", you ass u me much grasshopper.

 

[No_name]

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

Tony Polson wrote:

> JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>>In any event, most of my "dust spot sky" images were ruined anyway by
>>diffraction. I don't know how many times I've pointed my camera at a
>>hawk or falcon in the sky with the same settings that I used for
>>shooting in shade, in TV-priority mode, and the image was unusable
>>because it was too soft. If the cameras had more useful auto-exposure
>>modes, this would rarely ever happen.
>
>
>
> A photographer would select manual exposure mode, and choose a
> combination of aperture and shutter speed that gave the desired
> exposure, ability to 'freeze' motion, appropriate depth of field and
> avoiding apertures at which the lens performs less well.

Or use some of the other automated features (exposure compensation, spot
metering ... to override the defaults. But the point is the
"photographer" has to be at least 10% smarter than the camera.

 

[Guest]

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

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

> JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> >What is needed is user-programmable, or hybrid modes, such as one that
> >doesn't allow apertures to go smaller than a certain size, unless it is
> >necessary to avoid blow-out, and a maximum exposure time to avoid blur
> >for the focal length, with ISO varying to maintain these limits as an
> >option.
>
>
> What is needed is someone who knows how to choose combinations of lens
> apertures and shutter speeds to make correct exposures. Someone who
> doesn't have rely on dumb automation to make their images for them.
>
> That someone is a "competent photographer". Alas, it would appear to
> be an increasingly endangered species. Perhaps we should make as many
> images as possible of this rapidly diminishing breed before it
> disappears altogether.
>
> ;-)

or for cameras to incude proper metering on more than just their pro
models.

Roger

 

[Guest]

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

Alan Bremner <alan@domain.invalid> wrote:

> 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

heh yes i have a load of lovely slides from the top of mountain with a
hair just visable....

Roger

 

[Guest]

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

>>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>
>>> Did you actually look at the photos?
>>
>>
>> And which ones are you talking about there?
>> --
>>
>> Stacey
>
> All of them. You tell me, how many were affected by dust motes and had to
> be "fixed"?


Seeing it is taking you a long time to look at them all I will tell you, it
was exactly one. Not a high percentage is it?