Recent epiphany in EXR blog article

Since you may be getting the HS20 soon.....

BTW the people who were promoting hard sharpening with these cameras need to recheck their shots, I did soft sharpening and hard sharpening side by side and hard sharpening is full of noise, even at ISO 100, not to mention crazy artifacting. Soft sharpening is MUCH clearer and you actually see MORE detail.
Way back when I did my comparison test photos (HS10 vs HS20) I had them both set with standard sharpening. Someone (possibly AdamT) mentioned in another thread soon afterward about how soft sharpening produced more detail. I had known that as a general rule that held for Nikon's DSLRs, so I changed the HS10 to soft, shot a few more and the detail improved and the artifacts diminished. One doesn't really expect to see much in the way of artifacts at the lowest ISO, but if it's there, it won't get by the pixel peepers. :)

The settings with the HS20 that I am using now is what Boo recommended awhile back and they seem to work best:

Provia
M size
DR 400
Tone Low
Sharpening Soft
NR Low
I'd agree with that except for the DR 400%. While it may be the best setting to use if you have to use one for all or your photos, there are times when DR 100% will be better.
 
Kim I was surprised how bad it is even in good light at ISO 100, I cant even stomach default sharpening any more, just keep it as low as possible, and I wish there was an off setting for it and noise reduction.
--
http://Alex_the_GREAT.photoshop.com
 
I was using AUTO DR for awhile, but unfortunately it seems to overexpose (it increases the shutter speeds up to 1 stop----- no clue why) but I concur with what you're saying as using DR 100 at M size seems to provide some noise improvement at higher ISO (800 and higher.) I'd use that in low contrast low light situations.
--
http://Alex_the_GREAT.photoshop.com
 
haha I just noticed that! I was so captivated with all the superb feather detail! How far away was that shot taken from? Did he say?
I don't recall him saying much about the photo, but the link to the reply/thread that it's in is below the photos. I only looked at the EXIF using Irfanview but I didn't see much there ("SubjectDistanceRange Unknown"). I'd like to see what the full size image looks like. He only posted a very reduced image.
 
Hmmm ... you constantly whinge about me "benefiting" from traffic ... you constantly whinge about me "sending people to my blog" ... yet when I pin you down on the monetization issue -- which is obviously the only way I could possibly benefit from a visit to my blog -- you tuck your tail and run ...
You are still confusing me with some other poster. Not only did I not mention or care for the "monetization" of your blog, but I also never "constantly whinged" about you benefiting from traffic. What I did was to mention that your blog will (likely) benefit more from the attention by this thread than I do (benefit from the attention). That was a reply to you implying that I was benefiting much from what I write (as in self-serving or serving once self or simply attention whoring).

I don't know if and what benefits you get from your blog other than just the gratification of sharing your knowledge and thoughts with others and getting feedback for your work and thought. Nothing wrong with that.
Your inability to be cogent is going to be a legend for a long time around these parts ...
Whatever floats your boat. You could have stepped down to discuss content back and forth with me, but you choose to just dismiss and seem to prefer the discrediting (by yourself or others) of a person more than the falsification of arguments. Two can go that way, but frankly, it's rather boring.
Actually, I rarely post links any more. No need. Other people do that now and again these days and my traffic remains steady at a basal rate without doing any of that.
So you blame me for taking the knowledge about your thread as granted (which I apologized for), ask me to include a link and then exclaim that it isn't needed anyway? Well, in any case we now covered all possible angles to handle such a thing.
And as for the semi-professionalism, some people like the way I review EXR cameras. And some of those are vocal about it at times. I don't promote myself as a professional, or even as your typically diminished and somewhat acerbic ( semi ) professional.
But you do promote yourself and your articles, at least in the past up to a point where the main content of your replies on this (DPR) forum was not more than pointing to a respective article that covered the topic of a (DPR) thread.
On the other hand, I do criticize others for a total lack of professionalism. But several clear thinkers on the forum do that as well. It is no surprise that your volumes of obfuscation come under their scrutiny rather frequently.
As forum poster I am not bound to fulfill the specific requirements of an article or say "publication". While I'd surely like to be able to write eloquently and to the point - while using a non native language - without having to give too much thought and needing time for refinement the reality is that I cannot do so intuitively. In forums where it's possible I often have to edit posts for corrections of both grammar, style and substance. One reason being that when one has time for posting is not necessarily when one has time for refinement. That may be a personal weakness, but it's a forum after all, not a site/blog/publication, and sometimes meant for unpolished discussion which may or may not lead to a better written summary.

And until someone drags a thread into an argument about my personality (and even thereafter) I try to keep the argument on the original content, which usually is not about me. :P
 
Anytime I hit on Kim's blog weather it's of use to me or not, he benefits....period. He can argue all he wants, but thats a fact.

--
A horrific misconception. Most blogs don't make a penny off of visits. I make absolutely nothing off of mine. If there are ads on the page and someone clicks - that's where the blogger benefits. Mine is ad-free as are most of the other blogs that people have who post here.
--
Jada
Yes...I agree. A horrific misconception. Pity you couldn't understand my text that you quoted above. You would have avoided your own horrific misconcerption.

I only mentioned a specific singular blog which was Kim's. I said "Anytime I hit on Kim's Blog he benefits". Kim's blog has adverts. He benefits in some shape or form from that arrangement. Fact. Don't try to tell me otherwise. What you get or not get from your blog is irrelevant. I wasn't discussing your blog. I wasn't discussing blogs in general . I was only discussing one specific blog, which was Kims.

--
Stephen
 
Anytime I hit on Kim's blog weather it's of use to me or not, he benefits....period. He can argue all he wants, but thats a fact.

--
A horrific misconception. Most blogs don't make a penny off of visits. I make absolutely nothing off of mine. If there are ads on the page and someone clicks - that's where the blogger benefits. Mine is ad-free as are most of the other blogs that people have who post here.
--
Jada
Yes...I agree. A horrific misconception. Pity you couldn't understand my text that you quoted above. You would have avoided your own horrific misconcerption.

I only mentioned a specific singular blog which was Kim's. I said "Anytime I hit on Kim's Blog he benefits". Kim's blog has adverts. He benefits in some shape or form from that arrangement. Fact. Don't try to tell me otherwise. What you get or not get from your blog is irrelevant. I wasn't discussing your blog. I wasn't discussing blogs in general . I was only discussing one specific blog, which was Kims.

--
Stephen
--
Jada

http://silentoracle.weebly.com/blog.html
 
Stephen 06 wrote:
You need to practice what you preach, Packy:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=40855051
--
Jada
Huh??? Is that the best you do?? LOL!

Sorry Jada....but you can't rewrite the past. The fact of the matter is that you subjected Kim (and Dave Llyodd) to some of the most savage personal abuse that this forum had ever witnessed. It was seriously chronic and perverse to say the least. And not you have the nerve to hit the complaint button over what the OP posted here because he was expressing his viewpoint towards Kim?? It's not even a drop in the Ocean to what you subjected Kim to, untill you sucked up to him, after falling out with Dave Llyodd. We are not fools.


Stephen
 
Yes - we both said the same thing. No need to repeat. Unless someone clicks on an advert - or unless the blog is strengthened by traffic boost, there is no benefit.

Patrick - thanks for offering the pity party, but no thanks; I'll pass because anything that you have ever contributed here is absolutely worthless other than the one band photo you took that you shared here which I thought was quite nice.

This continuous stalking that you're doing - following me around and chastising me about my relationship with others here makes you look childish; I can pull up countless threads where you have attacked me since my return - and it's all about your tantrums concerning my relationship with Kim. You're mega irritated that we're friends - but there is nothing that you or anyone else here can do to change that.

Fact is, you befriended me - then you turned coats royally - attacking me here. the very behavior that you're trying to criticize here is exactly what you-yourself are guilty of. BUT WORSE. I have apologized to Kim, Bill and others here - after my return; the incident which caused the rift involved Gary NW whom I like very much and I felt he was being 'pecked at'. I should have allowed Gary to solve his own issues with others as he is more than capable. It was silly. But I wasn't the only one who said things that I regret - the other side did, too. I was attacked quite brutally here and off-site. It wasn't just my fault - and again, it happened because I was taking up for another photographer here. Both sides regret the incident, and Stephen - it's in the past. You really need to stay out of other people's relationships and quit judging them as well as bringing up issues. What you're saying is that you don't want people to get along. You're causing grief to others - when you yourself attacked Kim and others in your PM to me. You want it two ways; I was gobsmacked the first time you attacked me here involving Kim. You have some significant issues that you need to work through - and as I said, perhaps it would be best if you continue stalking and attacking me if I posted your pm so that everyone reading your BS could see how you hold a double-standard.

Also, ADULTS realize that once apologies have been made, people shake hands - they march forward. Some of the best relationships around aren’t perfect; people argue - they disagree, they even call one another some terrible names at times. But the mature individuals go forward - and they don't hold onto the past.

You do. That's a major fault in your person that you need to deal with. It's a major weakness. Yes - you are very weak in this area.

Also, you are very nosy - sticking it into other relationships that do not concern you. My relationship with Kim and others here is none of your business. You're acting like a nosy neighbor and a gossip - and you're attacking me in the process. You're also being laughed at behind the scenes and people here think you're very childish for this behavior - which you are. Paul was also quite childish for agreeing with you - and has been the only poster or viewer out of heaven knows how many people who read this - to have said anything on the matter negatively. He too needs to grow up and stay out of other relationships - but like you, he is harboring some ill-will that goes back 2-3 years when I told him he was commercially pushing his photos at his site. However, with you - I have no idea what it is that I have personally done to offend you; simply put - it appears that you can't get over the fact that Kim and I are friends - as well as the other people you targeted - Bill, Dot, JB and others here. Get over it Stephen, or get help - or at minimal, quit stalking me as you are significantly disrupting the forum.
--
Jada
 
Stephen 06 wrote:
You need to practice what you preach, Packy:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=40855051
--
Jada
Huh??? Is that the best you do?? LOL!

Sorry Jada....but you can't rewrite the past. The fact of the matter is that you subjected Kim (and Dave Llyodd) to some of the most savage personal abuse that this forum had ever witnessed. It was seriously chronic and perverse to say the least. And not you have the nerve to hit the complaint button over what the OP posted here because he was expressing his viewpoint towards Kim?? It's not even a drop in the Ocean to what you subjected Kim to, untill you sucked up to him, after falling out with Dave Llyodd. We are not fools.
Patrick, I've addressed this situation below - so please read. Fact is, you're nothing but a troublemaker dabbling into things that aren't any of your business or concern. It is a personal weakness of yours that you need help with. In case you didn't get the memo - we've all kissed and made-up. Both sides were guilty of things; I was shredded here too. Let's not forget that.

What you're doing now is quite savage, idiotic and brutal to me. People who are liars, or who are often guilty of certain things commonly accuse others who are totally innocent of such.

As to hitting the compliant button - Timor was mocking Kim and attacking him in a savage manner himself and look what this thread has created - a living monster. It should have been removed. There is not one thing in this thread that is useful to the photographer. Except - at this point, people can see how you are stalking me here - and how you are into other people's businesses, as well as nosing yourself like some gossiping female or neighbor into other people's relationships.

After you mutulated Kim in your PM to me, along with others - you're pretty darn foolish to play the accuser. But this is what dumb people do. So go ahead - keep making a fool of yourself; you aren't well-liked here.

Go play in your band - make some music and quit acting like a total stalker-jerk.

Actually, it was mentioned to me that you're acting like this to get my attention in a sick sort of way. YUCK!
--
Jada

http://silentoracle.weebly.com/blog.html
 
Silent Oracle....you are some joke...seriously!
Thanks for making it obvious to one and all that what follows shouldn't be taken seriously.
If we want to see some shameful attack posts, all we have to do is dig up some of YOUR past posts (if there is any left after being deleted).
You could find similar posts from a number of other people. Most of them never admitted that they what they wrote was wrong, apologized or even changed their ways. Silent Oracle did, and that's a lesson you should learn because as anyone can plainly see, she also is a good contributor, an asset to the forum. And you? What do you contribute? All anyone can see is that you lie back in the weeds waiting to pounce and attack. How many times are you going to refer to the same old history? How about ending it now, or will you subject the forum to your acrimony for years to come?
So someone should complain you for wasting the moderators time. There is nothing wrong with the OP's post. He is challenging some of Kim's articles and is entitled to do so if he feels there is mis-information on them.
Everything in the OP would have been appropriate if written in a PM. As the OP of a new thread it was unwarranted and only served to allow the OP to turn the spotlight on himself, an incessant and undignified trait that needs to be curbed.
I mean, Kim always touted that one of the reasons he posts here is to correct mis-information himself. What good for the goose is good for the gander.
What he corrects here is what is written here, not what might have been written on non-existent blogs. There's one exception to that, but the owner of that blog imposes heavy censorship, and doesn't tolerate corrections from most people, let alone from Kim. Timor could also have added his "corrections" and theories on Kim's blog instead, in the form of comments, which is what a reasonable person would have done.
Well-stated Bill! He needs to move on; he's just causing trouble at this point and it's all confusing as to his behavior. He is so obsessed with our friendships that he's really saying some crazy stuff which only makes him look bad.
--
Jada

http://silentoracle.weebly.com/blog.html
 
Because of your overly aggressive behavior which you continue to exhibit here, I highly suspect that you are the one who attacked by blog with the 'who gives a f* ' comment.

If so, you need to know that everything is tracked online - and it's not beyond my powers to ask Weebly to run a check on the IP. This type of activity is indeed a criminal offense.

Take a look at your posting history here - and anyone can see at a glance why you're here - and it's not for photography. You are one of the most aggressive attackers at DPR to date.
--
Jada

http://silentoracle.weebly.com/blog.html
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top