April 18, 2014, 08:23:41 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - tolusina

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
Canon General / Re: How to remove image information
« on: April 16, 2014, 02:07:53 PM »
thanks guys
i'm on a mac
anyone know the quickest easiest way to remove on a mac?
Boot Camp.

.............sorry, couldn't resist..............

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« on: April 09, 2014, 02:50:49 AM »
Stop. Stop right there, please? Just stop.

There are plenty threads. Who said stop and reply to this one :-)
Your inanity suggested it.


...The person that sent them to us didn’t have an issue with Canon keeping this stuff internal. …..

Yes, but what about the corporation that these documents might have been stolen from?
Litigation may already be in progress, do you desire involvement?
- - -
Both GM and Toyota have got caught with their pants down because of internal documents and ignoring problems. Why should Canon get away too just because it's a camera maker?

Because GM and Toyota manufacture ton and more vehicles that effortlessly hurtle fragile humans down roads at un-natural speeds, flaws can cause death. Is a 1Dx mirror box flaw going to cause anyone physical injury or death?
- - -
.........and if you don´t dare to publish them.... then there are other ways to get information out to the people.

- - -
yes you should publish internal Canon documents not meant to be realeased in public and obtained maybe illegally so that Canon lawyers can sue your ass off, claim damages and shut down website in minutes....

This ^^..........
- - -
Technically there should be a legal issue only for the person that sends/steals them. …...

When did receiving stolen goods become moral, legal or ethical?
- - -
......If Canon has redesigned a part then it's faulty - right?  Can't argue with that logic. ….

Very incomplete logic, no argument required.
Sure, faulty components deserve re-design.
But what about re-designs for purposes of improvement? That applies to just about every product ever manufactured. While new models are improvements on their predecessors, that doesn't automatically infer that the predecessors were faulty.
I'm trying hard to think of a product, any product, that has been in production for any significant period of time without design changes to implement improvements.
By your logic as stated, Ford Model Ts were faulty because they did not have hydraulic disc brakes with ABS, nor EcoBoost engine technology.
- - -

All that said, sure, I'd love to know if Canon is aware of issues common to my Canon gear.
I doubt it's appropriate for CR to publish though.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« on: April 09, 2014, 01:14:38 AM »
........What does it mean "OK, here we go again" ? …...

It means that temple guy has been here already, now he's gone. Are you he?
..... sensor discussions and comparisons of 35 to MF …...

Stop. Stop right there, please? Just stop.

Macro / Re: macro question
« on: April 09, 2014, 12:54:58 AM »
I've sure no definitive answer, several possibilities do come to mind, all may be hooey.
I'm liking mackguyver's suggestion that it might be vignetting, I think that would be easy to test.
With the same set up, change out the circuit board as subject with plain paper as subject, if lens/extension tube vignetting is the issue it should be readily apparent.
I'm thinking this one is way off the wall, but I'm thinking it anyway.
Wondering if light is reflecting off the solder pads, maybe bouncing around between the pads and the lens.
Try shifting the part that now shows brighter off to one side of the frame. If that part remains brighter, it's a light distribution issue, see Jim Saunders' radial filter in LR suggested fix.
Is it possible in your set up that light is coming through from the other side of the circuit board? If so, that should be easy to block. The central, green part of the board might well be able to pass light that would be blocked by the adjacent IC chips.
And, it's quite possible that the answer you seek is something else entirely, I freely admit I'm only guessing.

I'm happy to inform you all that the "soap" ended very well.
The photographer told me that I did the right thing calling him to talk about the bride approached me asking for my images and he's still calling me for other jobs.
Lesson learnt, I feel happy and relieved.
Well, did you get any MONEY for your shots in the end?
Sounds like you did the right thing by both the pro and the bride, did the pro do the right thing by you?

Salesperson probably didn't know any better. Was likely looking out for your best interests, oblivious to his/her level of mis-information.
You'd probably get the same sort of 'help' at Walmart or any other mass market retailer.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Speedlite Tutorials?
« on: April 06, 2014, 01:10:50 PM »
David Hobby at http://strobist.blogspot.com/
Search youtube for Syl Arena's videos.
Lots of great stuff on B&H's youtube channel.

I'm now curious, wondering what the OP's original intent was, specifically regarding the disposition of the photos he expected to shoot at the wedding?
I'd think that they were originally intended for the bride, if so, she should get them and from the pro she contracted with.
The OP having essentially a verbal contract with the pro which would include implications that work would be done and product produced, I'd think the OP is duty bound to deliver to the pro.
Legally, I dunno.
Morally, what will the neighbors (read, local wedding planning industry) think and say?

Hmm, reputations at stake here, most specifically yours as you are just starting out, tread carefully.
I'd suggest you get the hired pro involved as middleman. (S)he has gotten paid to deliver, you were there as the pro's guest. Pass your photos to that pro, let the pro pass them to the bride.
Hopefully, the pro will do the honorable thing and compensate you appropriately, certainly there's a possibility they'll offer only a pittance or nothing.
Take whatever is offered, write it up as experience, experience is why you were there, right?
You should at least end up with the bride as a reference, the pro should have naught to criticize.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 04, 2014, 09:58:09 AM »
.......at what point did anybody say it was 100% CGI?...
100% it is CGI.

But this isn't.

....It is just CGI, so what?...
.......IT IS A COMPOSITE, it is CGI.

This conclusive enough?
Shot almost entirely as separate elements, ...
Um, er, what part of almost escapes your reading comprehension skills? Almost means not all, doesn't it?

..... …...digital artists that was responsible for the actual work, Brenda Busstra-Smink?

She says "The majority of the eyes where shot clean with no active reflections . ....
You missed majority right there, kind of implies that while the majority of images were composites, some were not.
At no point did you ever concede that any of that video might have been shot in camera, you repeatedly insisted emphatically that it was CGI, just GCI, 100% it is CGI.

Goodness you really do have a bug up your butt....

Yes, please crawl out.
I phrase my writings carefully. When I am less that 100% certain of any topic, I use terms like might, possibly, maybe, could, not 100%, is, certain, conclusive etc.
Even in light of multiple examples from others, including links from yourself to a Franz Lanting example and an entire flickr page demonstrating the concept and technique for showing reflections from distance showing clearly on the surface of an eye, the eye being the focus point of the camera/lens, you continued going on about auto focus blather which is totally irrelevant from a technical standpoint.
You apparently learned nothing even from your own examples, possibly forgot some that you might have known previously.

Your foot stamping petulance comes across as infantile, pompous, contradictory self aggrandizement.

I'd consider it a favor if you would please, block me so you won't reads my posts nor offensively reply to them.
“If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots” – Robert Kiyosaki
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” – Mark Twain
This idjit is done.


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Not sure which Canon body to get
« on: April 04, 2014, 07:25:10 AM »

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 04, 2014, 07:04:28 AM »
....Thanks but it's a bit "apple and oranges". ........(I guess that was your point?)....

My only point was to point out the wide price range for Rolleis.
I'd love to have my Grandfather's Rollei, both as a photography relic and as a family heirloom. Grew up near Grandma & Grandpa's place, clearly recall his darkroom, also recall never learning anything about photography from him, I had no interest back then. I do think I caught a spark that smouldered a few decades. His photos have become family treasures, there's one on my mantle, a couple on my phone.
Otherwise, I've no interest in any other Rollei.
If Cousin Ted were to send Grandpa's Rollei my way, I'd probably run a roll through it just to do it, after that, it'd sit on display on the mantle with Dad's AE-1 and Grandpa's self portrait. For that sort of use, the price you found is way high for my tastes.
You obviously have different interests, maybe you'll load it and work it, maybe you collect pristine artifacts. If so, the price you've found seems reasonable. All good.

Conversely, you might be a more casual sort of collector where the object itself and what it represents is most important to you, it's condition and serviceability less so. If that is the case, I thought the prices shown on the ebay link might be of interest.
Absolutely nothing else was expressed or implied by my post above, I hope no offense was taken.
I can barely make my own value judgements sometimes, I'm sure not qualified to judge your values.


Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Curved Sensor Tech by Sony
« on: April 04, 2014, 04:53:39 AM »
Curved sensors are well proven and effective, been in use at least a few million years.
Took long enough for humans to engineer technology that mimics the retina, eh?
Leads me thinking about beautiful and efficient automotive designs patterned after the aerodynamic shapes of birds and fishes, here's hoping that curved sensors arrive and become refined enough for similar success.
Hmm, will curved sensors allow for shallow depth of field?
How soon before the flat vs curved arguments begin?
Has Ken Rockwell weighed in yet?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11