Canon bashing

[Jan Morales]

If I connect to the Canon Forum and even if I do not want to read
the bashing messages, I have to scan the index to see what I do
want to read and logically.........

Of course, but then you did take the time and effort to write a post chastising the "Canon bashers", no? I myself scan these forums as well, and I simply skip the vast majority of threads and posts for lack of interest.

As they say, the opposite of love is not hate; it's apathy. Like me, I suspect most Canon "bashers" are upset not because they dislike Canon, but rather precisely because they like Canon. In my opinion, Canon left out one feature (RAW) that would have cost them literally nothing to retain, a feature many consider valuable. Sorry for wasting your time.

 

[tkpatric]

I like the bashing, it hurts nobody and sometimes it gives a good laugh. In Belgium we say 'High trees catch much wind' or something like that.
--
Oly C-770

 

[Jan Morales]

maybe i'm wrong.

Actually, you sound as though you are absolutely certain that you are right, and all who disagree with you are inferior photographers. It must be great to be you.

 

[Jim]

batch processing RAW files is time consuming. just pulling up a RAW
image for review in ACR or CS2 is time-consuming. everything about
RAW is time-consuming. managing RAW files is another pain in the
butt.

Honestly, RAW is but one issue that the G7 fails to address. The fast lens and swing out LCD are the two most important hardware issues that this offering simply lacks. Given what it doesn't have, this camera is NOT a "G" Series camera despite what its box says. Again, it's become a Toyota...not a Lexus it once was and is missed by so many.

Jim

 

[kellert]

i suppose your speaking about the question of "what percentage use RAW"?

show me i'm wrong.

please, jan.

maybe i'm wrong.

Actually, you sound as though you are absolutely certain that you
are right, and all who disagree with you are inferior
photographers. It must be great to be you.

 

[Robert N]

i have a feeling that most bashers are "sucky" photographers that
spend most of their time measurebating and reviewing specs.

I have a feeling that most bashers are not only bad photographers, but also trying to compensate for something. I mean who needs a fast lens, if you can have a slow one? Who needs RAW if you can trust the in-camera processing? Who needs a tilt/swivel lcd when we all prefer eye-level shots? Who needs a second or third battery when you can shoot 220 pics/battery? Who needs a remote control? Who thinks $600 is too much for a crippled camera?

ONLY BASHERS!
--
Regards,

Robert

 

[Jan Morales]

i suppose your speaking about the question of "what percentage
use RAW"?

No, I'm not. (Not that it should be my job or anyone else's to prove the accuracy of your statements. Shouldn't that be your job?) I was referring to the tone of your entire post. I'd summarize it this way:

"I work this way. It is foolish to work any other way."

 

[kellert]

and with such passion, too.

you guys are funny.

i have a feeling that most bashers are "sucky" photographers that
spend most of their time measurebating and reviewing specs.

I have a feeling that most bashers are not only bad photographers,
but also trying to compensate for something. I mean who needs a
fast lens, if you can have a slow one? Who needs RAW if you can
trust the in-camera processing? Who needs a tilt/swivel lcd when we
all prefer eye-level shots? Who needs a second or third battery
when you can shoot 220 pics/battery? Who needs a remote control?
Who thinks $600 is too much for a crippled camera?

ONLY BASHERS!
--
Regards,

Robert

 

[Jan Morales]

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/irony

(See 2.)

 

[Peter G]

batch processing RAW files is time consuming. just pulling up a RAW
image for review in ACR or CS2 is time-consuming. everything about
RAW is time-consuming. managing RAW files is another pain in the
butt.

If I shoot 100 raw files. How long do you think it it will take me to set up a batch process to do them? I bet less than 10 minutes you claimed it would take to process one raw file. I set up the batch and walk away. Hardly time consuming for me. I guess if my computer was in use around the clock it might be an issue, but since I set it up an walk away. It is not time consumer for me.

After that I only deal with Jpeg unless I want to print or repair an image. So again no more time wasted unless it is important.

The bottom line is I am dealing with Jpegs and the Raw are my negatives for when I want to fix or print. So no extra time is wasted.

you probably use aRGB, too, right? well it don't because i find
that sRGB workspace is better for people pics and skin tones and
everything else i do w/ my digital images.

It is not critical, because if I have raw, I can always get anything I want.

why don't you show me a photo that is significant and important to
you where RAW saved your a$$?

Only my most recent camera has Raw, I did get burned before getting Raw quite a few times, with bizarre color balance issue that cost me much time and would have been simple in RAW. For me RAW would have been a time saver. It is not only about saving my A$$, but getting more detail etc, when I print.

to me, you sound like a tech-type person, not much interested in
the artistic side of photography. maybe i'm wrong.

A: you do realize this is hardware review site and that this is a forum for discussing camera hardware. If you want to discuss artistic issues, you are in the wrong forum.

B: I make no claims about artistic talent. I like to hike/shoot landscapes, my gallery is in my profile.
http://www.pbase.com/peterguidry/day8&page=2
Many of these were Raw. They were batched to jpg. No work done.

But when I get around to picking one or two for printing. I will go back to the Raw file to extract the maximum detail and remove the Canon "Nuttella" smoothing effect that I really don't like. This smoothing in landscapes looks like junk IMO, raw is the only way to shut it off.

Raw is only extra work when you wan't to do something extra. Otherwise it is batch to defaults and use jpegs. Or heck shoot raw+jpeg and ignore raw until you want it.

 

[kellert]

"work this way"? not at all. their are plenty of alternatives for the tech-types to capture their mundane, lousy images in RAW (like your 20d and 5d).

and you won't prove my educated guess wrong because you suspect, if you went a hunting, that i'm close to being right.

sorry jan...stop complaining about some silly point and shoot camera and find some inspiration to work on your photography...to get the most out of your 5d (talk about overkill).

i suppose your speaking about the question of "what percentage
use RAW"?

No, I'm not. (Not that it should be my job or anyone else's to
prove the accuracy of your statements. Shouldn't that be your job?)
I was referring to the tone of your entire post. I'd summarize it
this way:

"I work this way. It is foolish to work any other way."

 

[Jan Morales]

QED.

 

[kellert]

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sarcasm

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/irony

(See 2.)

 

[Virvatulet]

i have a feeling that most bashers are "sucky" photographers that
spend most of their time measurebating and reviewing specs.

If that were true they would love the 10mp like you do. Typical
ignorant consumer!

And this guy tells us, that we are funny...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=20088561

:-(

-Virvatulet

 

[kellert]

funny.

everyone should know that a camera's looks is a very good indicator as to how it will perform.

now, if you'll excuse me, i'm trying to brainstorm a theme that will yield my next masterpiece. i'll be using my $30.00 aiptek mini pen cam for the project.

now get over your silly G7 disappointment. it'll be a great camera. and i know you'll end up with one.

i have a feeling that most bashers are "sucky" photographers that
spend most of their time measurebating and reviewing specs.

If that were true they would love the 10mp like you do. Typical
ignorant consumer!

And this guy tells us, that we are funny...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=20088561

:-(

-Virvatulet

 

[Virvatulet]

You are funny too, I meant more the "But best of all...10mp." part...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=20088561

 

[zebri]

Your "educated guess" is purely, baseless speculation. You are so unbelievably shallow - some nice looks, some more Megapixels, and you're happy? Why someone as clueless as you would even try using RAW, I don't know.

I'd love to see your galleries, no doubt your "work" is garbage

and you won't prove my educated guess wrong because you suspect, if
you went a hunting, that i'm close to being right.

sorry jan...stop complaining about some silly point and shoot
camera and find some inspiration to work on your photography...to
get the most out of your 5d (talk about overkill).

i suppose your speaking about the question of "what percentage
use RAW"?

No, I'm not. (Not that it should be my job or anyone else's to
prove the accuracy of your statements. Shouldn't that be your job?)
I was referring to the tone of your entire post. I'd summarize it
this way:

"I work this way. It is foolish to work any other way."

 

[kellert]

i've posted plenty of images on dpr.

my educated guess is not baseless (like your anger) and you can't seem to produce anything at all that proves me even somewhat wrong.

said it before and i'll say it again: give me something objective and substantial that proves my numbers to be completely wrong...that maybe 5% of powershot users actually use RAW.

i'd be very surprised to find out that, say 10% of all powershot users, actually use raw.

by the way...what inspired you to sign up and start posting here 3 weeks ago? you seem awfully mouthy. i suppose that you've been banned in the past and have reinvented yourself.

I'd love to see your galleries, no doubt your "work" is garbage

and you won't prove my educated guess wrong because you suspect, if
you went a hunting, that i'm close to being right.

sorry jan...stop complaining about some silly point and shoot
camera and find some inspiration to work on your photography...to
get the most out of your 5d (talk about overkill).

i suppose your speaking about the question of "what percentage
use RAW"?

No, I'm not. (Not that it should be my job or anyone else's to
prove the accuracy of your statements. Shouldn't that be your job?)
I was referring to the tone of your entire post. I'd summarize it
this way:

"I work this way. It is foolish to work any other way."

 

[Rock Lee]

nt = no text

--
Pbase:
http://www.pbase.com/robotzer0

Comments are welcomed.

 

[Jan Morales]

said it before and i'll say it again: give me something objective
and substantial that proves my numbers to be completely
wrong...that maybe 5% of powershot users actually use RAW.

Your arrogance appears to prevent you from giving us "something objective and substantial that proves" your numbers to be completely right, even while you ask that we prove you wrong.

And since you just know the "truth", and are here to give it do us, tell us how many PowerShot users actually use full manual exposure mode? Don't worry, I promise not to offend you by asking you to actually support your claims with anything "objective and substantial".