For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

[Bearface]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

To identify sarcasm, intended provocativeness or any type of wit or humour in the context of someone's written post, you first have to understand those concepts, or better still the person who writes such things. As you have the benefit of neither, you are hardly placed to reach the conclusions you're reaching.

It's fair to say that I regularly use sarcasm and humour in my posts (life would be pretty dull if everyone behaved identically, don't you think..?), but you have completely misinterpreted the intent and context of my posts and it's this that I'm responding to. You have no idea what my intentions are when I post here, and until you do I'd suggest that you stick to what you know.

There is nowhere in any of my postings in this thread anything against Canon, anything against any other user and everywhere in my posts is stated just my personal opinion and not any judgment of opinions of others.

And nobody is suggesting otherwise, George.

...There is no necessity for me to justify any error as I didn't do any..........It doesn't seem to me that Archangels need forgiveness. In the contrary, they give forgiveness.

That pretty much sums up my general understanding of what it is to be George. In fact I'd be shocked if you suddenly adopted some humility and admitted to being infallible, like the rest of us...

I'll leave it there, as experience tells me you need the last word far more than I do

[Archangel]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

To identify sarcasm, intended provocativeness or any type of wit or humour in the context of someone's written post, you first have to understand those concepts, or better still the person who writes such things. As you have the benefit of neither, you are hardly placed to reach the conclusions you're reaching.

Again you do the same wrong move Tim, you are rushing to draw conclusions.

It's fair to say that I regularly use sarcasm and humour in my posts (life would be pretty dull if everyone behaved identically, don't you think..?), but you have completely misinterpreted the intent and context of my posts and it's this that I'm responding to. You have no idea what my intentions are when I post here, and until you do I'd suggest that you stick to what you know.

I'm glad you almost admitted that you use sarcasm and a "smile" at the end to pretend humorous. As far as your intentions are concerned Tim, have you ever thought that it might be you that you don't make them completely clear by mixing them with sarcasm? And that doesn't have to do anything with English being your mother language.

That pretty much sums up my general understanding of what it is to be George. In fact I'd be shocked if you suddenly adopted some humility and admitted to being infallible, like the rest of us...

I'll leave it there, as experience tells me you need the last word far more than I do

Never saw any adoption of humility or any infallibility from your part so far Tim. All I saw was sarcastic arguments with a dose of irony along with an attached "smile" at the end.

Experience tells you right Tim, but the last word is not for those who need it, but for those who have it.
And it has been like that since the World was created.


George

[Ian]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

OK guys, I feel I must step in here. I feel that this has evolved in to a personal debate, so can I politely ask for you both to continue this in private?

Thanks,

Ian

[coupekid]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Though too many things were written in the way they were written to be humorous and it was the second or the third time of this "nonsense" thing to be humorous coincidence.

George

Hey, like I said, dont take it too seriously, 'nonsense' isnt a 'harsh' or 'strong' word in the contenxt that Tim has used it.

I honestly believe this is just a breakdown in communication. What you have to remember is that us Brits have a strange sense of humour, and one that can often be lost on the rest of the English speaking world!

[lumix]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Just imagine Pol if you had a Panasonic you'd be deprived of all that fun Only joking you panny lovers

One of the worlds best lens/camera manufactures teamed up with Panny. I respect their judgement. Why you lot have to make life sooo Hard for yourselves I do not know. You pay enormous amounts for your gear, then have to spend like wise amounts on software to get a decent picture. I reckon your all pushing too many buttons but not necessary the right buttons. Pol let him buy a Panny, or are you afraid he will show you and your Pantax up. Just thought I'd add my bit of jolly to this thread.

[Stephen]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

One of the worlds best lens/camera manufactures teamed up with Panny. I respect their judgement. Why you lot have to make life sooo Hard for yourselves I do not know. You pay enormous amounts for your gear, then have to spend like wise amounts on software to get a decent picture. I reckon your all pushing too many buttons but not necessary the right buttons. Pol let him buy a Panny, or are you afraid he will show you and your Pantax up. Just thought I'd add my bit of jolly to this thread.

Haha, Ron do you mean that we should all buy Pannys and not only accept all the in camera processing but also deprive ourselves of all the satisfaction of getting the result we want

[Archangel]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

One of the worlds best lens/camera manufactures teamed up with Panny. I respect their judgement. Why you lot have to make life sooo Hard for yourselves I do not know. You pay enormous amounts for your gear, then have to spend like wise amounts on software to get a decent picture. I reckon your all pushing too many buttons but not necessary the right buttons. Pol let him buy a Panny, or are you afraid he will show you and your Pantax up. Just thought I'd add my bit of jolly to this thread.

Ron,

The less the Pannys in this forum, the better
That makes only few of us with punchy, bright, sharp, detailed, all weather, any occasion photos and something any soft image lens attached and detached DSLR would be jealous of
I think I added my jolly to this thread too.

Now I'm off for 12 days for the Easter vacation.
I will return with punchy things


George

[Pol]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

One of the worlds best lens/camera manufactures teamed up with Panny. I respect their judgement. Why you lot have to make life sooo Hard for yourselves I do not know. You pay enormous amounts for your gear, then have to spend like wise amounts on software to get a decent picture. I reckon your all pushing too many buttons but not necessary the right buttons. Pol let him buy a Panny, or are you afraid he will show you and your Pantax up. Just thought I'd add my bit of jolly to this thread.

Gert shows me up whatever camera he uses! He's not getting any more, he already has more than enough! End of story! Besides - the shop closed where everything was apparently a bargain costing no more than "oh about ten quid so the assistant must have made a mistake on the receipt"

As for post processing - why shouldn't I enjoy it?
At least I don't stink the place out as he and our son did with their darkroom .... and their darkroom cost as much and more than my software so go boil yer eggs, Ron.

Pols

[Tinka]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Hi all,
Very amusing and jolly Banter,

"Hrrmph! Tis not the camera but the wally pressing the shutter button that really counts! "

Well I must agree with the above by Ian, I have used loads of different cameras (35mm) of various and makes and models and can confirm that the make an model did not make an iota of difference to the end result, They all turned out amateurish, since going digital the learning curve has become much cheaper and practical so this wally can learn a bit easier I have found that "all being equal", it is the glass on the front of the camera that makes a difference. As an aside, my wifes (my old and first digi)3mp canon takes sharper and higher quality images than my 9mp Fuji ( size for size).

[lumix]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Haha, Ron do you mean that we should all buy Pannys and not only accept all the in camera processing but also deprive ourselves of all the satisfaction of getting the result we want

Far from it. Go spend spend spend. Your keeping people in work and me being retired and all that, have nothing to complain about. While your prepared to keep learning how to use your over complicated equipment, I'm doing what most simple people do, enjoying using my simple kit.

[Stephen]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Far from it.

Thats OK then

Go spend spend spend. Your keeping people in work and me being retired and all that, have nothing to complain about.

Its what keeps the industry going Ron I mean Panasonic may well just be keeping their heads above water with the likes of you retired folk (sarcastic wit)

While your prepared to keep learning how to use your over complicated equipment, I'm doing what most simple people do, enjoying using my simple kit.

I certainly wouldn't knock you for doing that, but us not so simple folk also enjoy using that complicated equipment and software. Well at least I can justify it

Seriously though, they are just tools at the end of the day, though we can still lust after better tools. Your tools of choice which seem to fulfill the job you do with them, are no good to fulfill the job I need to do with mine.

Perhaps if Panasonic entered the Pro market we would then be able to re assess our choices. If they did of course I'm sure they would be producing a far different and more expensive beast than they do now, which no doubt would be able to take advantage of some of that expensive software

[lumix]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Gert shows me up whatever camera he uses! He's not getting any more, he already has more than enough! End of story! Besides - the shop closed where everything was apparently a bargain costing no more than "oh about ten quid so the assistant must have made a mistake on the receipt"

As for post processing - why shouldn't I enjoy it?
At least I don't stink the place out as he and our son did with their darkroom .... and their darkroom cost as much and more than my software so go boil yer eggs, Ron.

Pols

Gert if your looking over Poll's shoulder, Ebay Ebay Ebay. Loads of cameras, Panny's as well, all under a tenner. Poll I know you love your Pentax and If, Just If, I ever got a DSLR then I think I would consider a Pentax. All the time you spend learning how to use Photoshop is time well spent. Must keep you out of Gerts way and I'm all for that as there's a lot to do when you are scanning Ebays pages.

[Tom]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

The day my eye manages to record that one, honest,brilliant, totally original image of anything, that the world has never seen before, nobody will be giving two hoots what camera I used.
Dream On

[Patrick]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Forgive me if someone has already done this but I couldn't plough through all of the posts.

I have had a play with the Canon image, amazingly there is still quite a lot of information in the file.
The principle problem was it was overexposed by about two stops, how this happened I can only guess. I reduced the exposure in Lightroom played with the yellows and saturation, now much closer to the correctly exposed Nikon shot.
I did however have trouble posting it to best advantage, I am experiencing a shift in both colour and contrast when posting, I had to overdo the adjustments for it to post the way it does. This is an ongoing problem I have had for a very long time now.

Patrick

[Ian]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Forgive me if someone has already done this but I couldn't plough through all of the posts.

I have had a play with the Canon image, amazingly there is still quite a lot of information in the file.
The principle problem was it was overexposed by about two stops, how this happened I can only guess. I reduced the exposure in Lightroom played with the yellows and saturation, now much closer to the correctly exposed Nikon shot.
I did however have trouble posting it to best advantage, I am experiencing a shift in both colour and contrast when posting, I had to overdo the adjustments for it to post the way it does. This is an ongoing problem I have had for a very long time now.

Patrick

The issue of colour shifts when displaying an image via a web browser is one I was discussing after the Adobe training day the other week. Although sRGB is supposed to be the colour space of the Web, clearly its not perfect.

Research indicates that true colour management is not implemented in most Web browsers. So what you see when an image is being rendered by, say, Photoshop, is not guaranteed to be the same when you view the same image in a browser.

I don't know about you, but I find the biggest difference noticeable is when an image has undergone a fair amount of post processing. Even though I use sRGB as the working space in Photoshop, it seems that when a lot of adjustments are made, the colour space is somehow stretched and when the image gets rendered in a browser, the colour space gets compressed again - or something like that.

The problem is - like you did; compensating for browser display, this will make the picture look wrong in browser that does implement colour management - like Safari on a Mac, for example.

Ian