Bit of a con, really ... ?

[Bob Larter]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It does not and cannot, because there is a fucking great mirror between
the lens and the CCD as well as a closed shutter.

OK?
Arfa
Calm down my boy ! It's just a newsgroup discussion ... d


If you really want to stir him up, tell him all tobacco should be
banned. Then he will throw a hissy fit Phil Allison would be proud of.

Hrmph! <as I roll myself a cigarette..>

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Man at B&Q wrote:
On May 13, 12:31 pm, "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net
wrote:
"Arfa Daily" <arfa.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:dFpOl.123771$A85.94314@newsfe03.ams2...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital
SLRs,
one because he is a professional photographer, and the other because
he is
a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder images closely on
both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh tones in all the
varieties is excellent, and the professional of the two has
commented to
me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour rendition under all
light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder,
its all
done with mirrors.

And your posts use smoke and mirrors.
In this case strangely rarely and uniquely, Dennis is correct. My SLR
has no electronics in the viewfinder. Its all done with mirrors.

And a pentaprism, presumably. ;^)


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article <gueklt$aga$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder,
its all done with mirrors. There are only a few that use electronic
viewfinders and they are low end.

Correct. I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
electronic viewfinders.

Don't they have an LCD screen for viewing purposes, though?

Yes, they do.

Not that you
can judge the variety of tones that make up a face on something so small.

No, you can't. What they're good for is to check the histogram to make
sure that you haven't blown out any of the colour channels, to check the
composition, & to make sure that the subject didn't blink at the wrong time.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article <gufj4l$6eq$2@news.albasani.net>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Don't they have an LCD screen for viewing purposes, though? Not that
you can judge the variety of tones that make up a face on something so
small.

Not really, no.

The LCD on mine is for menu items and occasionally a quick postview of
shots already taken.,

That's what I mean. No point in having a digital camera if you can't look
at a pic instantly. Might as well stick to film.

I do lots of nightclub photography, & it's great to be able to show the
subject the shot right after you've taken it.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gui2lt$rdo$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

It'll certainly tell you if you're using the wrong WB setting, but it's
no substitute for checking the RAW image on a calibrated CRT.

Yes, BUT WHAT IF YOU NEED AN IMMEDIATE IMAGE AND CAN'T PROCESS THE RAW
DATA!!!!!!

 

[Bob Larter]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
[only] electronic viewfinders.

Are there any?

I hope not.

Nearly 40 years ago, I imagined a film-based SLR with an electronic
viewfinder that showed how the final image would look, depending on the film
you used, and (with B&W materials) the way you developed and printed.

That would be technically possible these days, but shooting in RAW mode,
there wouldn't be much use for it.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gui2rt$rdo$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...

William Sommerwerck wrote:

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the
color
balance in real time.

Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions
you
want when you "develop" your pictures.

True, but what if you want or need to use the JPG immediately?

Most of the time, (on my Canons, at least) the automatic WB is good
enough for a casual observer. However, I find it unacceptable for
printing.

bang... bang... bang... bang... bang... [sound of William Sommerwerck
banging his head against a concrete wall]

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I was making the point that Live View is a good way to get accurate color
balance at the time the photo is taken, especially under light sources
without continuous spectra. The issue is not whether a camera can take
raw
and compressed images at the same time, but whether one /needs/ a
properly
balanced JPG image /right away/. This is impossible with a raw file.

And how would you suggest that someone gets around that problem? It's
not always practical to shoot a white card & create a custom WB at the
time. (And in my case, I can't do it because the light's changing too
fast to get a useful WB from a white card anyway.)

Is deliberately misreading and misunderstanding what people post your
principal hobby?

 

[Stephen Howard]

On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:52:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:02:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:
snip
The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques, such
as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.
You dont have a depth of field preview on the camera?

Indeed I do - but like most DOF previews it requires you to press the
button and hold it to maintain the function. You'd then have to
select the zoom focus function to magnify the portion of the image you
wanted to work on and make suitable adjustments - then move it to the
other end of the depth of field and do likewise...then move it back to
check the previous setting...and so on - and all on a three inch
screen. That's assuming you don't regard such conveniences as being
for wimps and prefer to squint through the viewfinder. You'd need a
particularly good tripod too with all that button pressing.
Using the data cable and a computer makes the operation faster, more
precise and realistically more feasible - all of which are benefits a
professional would consider essential.
In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.

I wouldn't even say that.

See above.


If that's what you are up to, get a full frame film camera.

I'll give it some consideration.

There.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard
Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Nearly 40 years ago, I imagined a film-based SLR with an electronic
viewfinder that showed how the final image would look, depending
on the film you used, and (with B&W materials) the way you
developed and printed.

That would be technically possible these days, but shooting in
RAW mode, there wouldn't be much use for it.

There would be, if you were shooting film. (See above.)

 

[geoff]

In message <gui2pa$rdo$3@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Bob Larter
<bobbylarter@gmail.com> writes

dennis@home wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:guem2g$unc$1@news.motzarella.org...
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.
Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions
you want when you "develop" your pictures.

Yes, that's what I do. It's especially important for my photography,
because I usually shoot under weird lighting, so it's impossible to set
an appropriate WB at the time.


The peculiar demands of pornography, eh ?

--
geoff

 

[geoff]

In message <gui449$ru0$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Sommerwerck
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> writes

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gui2lt$rdo$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

It'll certainly tell you if you're using the wrong WB setting, but it's
no substitute for checking the RAW image on a calibrated CRT.

Yes, BUT WHAT IF YOU NEED AN IMMEDIATE IMAGE AND CAN'T PROCESS THE RAW
DATA!!!!!!

You cry in the corner ...

--
geoff

 

[Arfa Daily]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:guhg4e$9ae$1@news.motzarella.org...

Considering some of the cases that William S cited in a
thread last year, that had been successfully prosecuted
as being misleading in the US, I am surprised that someone
has not picked up on it over there...

This is one of those cases in which the people most-likely to object to
the
advertising are those aware of the ad's meaning, who therefore don't see
it
as a misrepresentation.

Sets that generate the image directly using LEDs or OLEDs are not
perceived
as having fundamental advantages *, so even if the display is incorrectly
called "LED", rather than "LED backlight", it is not seen as misleading.

Does that make any sense?

I'm not sure that it does, to be honest. I'm aware of the ad's meaning, and
it was exactly that which made me see it as a misrepresentation.

PS: Samsung's Website calls it an "LED TV" -- as distinct from "LCD TV" --
which is at least confusing.

No. More than that. It is patently *not* an LED TV. It is an LCD TV. Nothing
more, nothing less. I don't find that confusing - it is at the very least
misleading.

PPS: I've seen it in Fry's, and was not particularly impressed.

I haven't seen one yet, but hope to this coming weekend ...

Arfa

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I've seen it in Fry's, and was not particularly impressed.

I haven't seen one yet, but hope to this coming weekend ...

The Fry's set appeared to have been set up in Garish mode, which, of course,
does nothing to make it look good.

"Frame Interpolate" was on, which I do not like, in any set using it. It
makes film look like video, which is Really Weird when watching material you
know was sourced from film.

 

[PeterC]

On Fri, 15 May 2009 02:15:08 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

This is one of those cases in which the people most-likely to object to
the
advertising are those aware of the ad's meaning, who therefore don't see
it
as a misrepresentation.

Sets that generate the image directly using LEDs or OLEDs are not
perceived
as having fundamental advantages *, so even if the display is incorrectly
called "LED", rather than "LED backlight", it is not seen as misleading.

Does that make any sense?

I'm not sure that it does, to be honest. I'm aware of the ad's meaning, and
it was exactly that which made me see it as a misrepresentation.


PS: Samsung's Website calls it an "LED TV" -- as distinct from "LCD TV" --
which is at least confusing.

No. More than that. It is patently *not* an LED TV. It is an LCD TV. Nothing
more, nothing less. I don't find that confusing - it is at the very least
misleading.

I saw the ad. on TV last night and, had I seen it /before/ this thread
would have picked up on it, but how many viewers would? Most of us here
know the current state of OLED screens (and I'm waiting 'til they go to
32"+ and are affordable) but joe public will believe even politicians (and
they aren't affordable).

On similar lines is the 'digital' radio that's advertised - has LCD info
but is still analogue reception. IMO that's misleading as well.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

 

[Bob Larter]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I was making the point that Live View is a good way to get accurate color
balance at the time the photo is taken, especially under light sources
without continuous spectra. The issue is not whether a camera can take
raw
and compressed images at the same time, but whether one /needs/ a
properly
balanced JPG image /right away/. This is impossible with a raw file.

And how would you suggest that someone gets around that problem? It's
not always practical to shoot a white card & create a custom WB at the
time. (And in my case, I can't do it because the light's changing too
fast to get a useful WB from a white card anyway.)

Is deliberately misreading and misunderstanding what people post your
principal hobby?

Nobody else seems to have a problem with my posts.

Again, how do you think that LiveView helps you get a properly
white-balanced JPEG, in camera? Or do you perhaps consider one of the
standard WB settings to be 'properly balanced'? If so, you & I are
talking about two different things.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

geoff wrote:

In message <gui2pa$rdo$3@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Bob Larter
bobbylarter@gmail.com> writes
dennis@home wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:guem2g$unc$1@news.motzarella.org...
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.
Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions
you want when you "develop" your pictures.

Yes, that's what I do. It's especially important for my photography,
because I usually shoot under weird lighting, so it's impossible to
set an appropriate WB at the time.


The peculiar demands of pornography, eh ?

No such luck. ;^) Nightclub pix, mostly.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gui2lt$rdo$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

It'll certainly tell you if you're using the wrong WB setting, but it's
no substitute for checking the RAW image on a calibrated CRT.

Yes, BUT WHAT IF YOU NEED AN IMMEDIATE IMAGE AND CAN'T PROCESS THE RAW
DATA!!!!!!

THEN I SHOOT RAW+JPEG & USE THE JPEG WITH THE CRAPPY WB!!11!!!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

geoff wrote:

In message <gui449$ru0$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Sommerwerck
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> writes
"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gui2lt$rdo$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the
color
balance in real time.

It'll certainly tell you if you're using the wrong WB setting, but it's
no substitute for checking the RAW image on a calibrated CRT.

Yes, BUT WHAT IF YOU NEED AN IMMEDIATE IMAGE AND CAN'T PROCESS THE RAW
DATA!!!!!!

You cry in the corner ...

LOL.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gui2lt$rdo$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

It'll certainly tell you if you're using the wrong WB setting, but it's
no substitute for checking the RAW image on a calibrated CRT.

Yes, BUT WHAT IF YOU NEED AN IMMEDIATE IMAGE AND CAN'T PROCESS THE RAW
DATA!!!!!!

I do not understand what an immediate image is. If I want an immediate
image, I use my eyes.

If I want a record, I take a photograph. Which has to be do9wnloaded
ontp a copmputer or printed out to be any use.

So what on earth are you on about?