"Boater" wrote in message
...


http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/29737c6c.jpg


This was shot handheld, no "VR," at 56mm, f9 at 1/200th from a
considerable distance, and cropped. See if you can read the words just
below the center top row of windows...

Relatively inexpensive lens, too.




Who gives a **** about your pictures?

D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/29737c6c.jpg


This was shot handheld, no "VR," at 56mm, f9 at 1/200th from a
considerable distance, and cropped. See if you can read the words just
below the center top row of windows...

Relatively inexpensive lens, too.
PHILOSOPHY

Only after 250X magnification in Paint Shop Pro. After knowing what is
was I could make it out at 100X.
Hmmm. There actually are three words there, which I can see clearly at
80%. Most likely due to differences in software and perhaps video cards
and monitors? Your guess?

In any event, the lens seems pretty sharp to me. At 80%, even the mortar
joints look pretty good. Here's some rooftiles on a different building
but at the same distance (lens at 75mm, f/10):

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/9c7dc4d5.jpg

Did you do your building viewing before jpeg compression? What was the
file size and what format?

No, I shot the photo and viewed it in jpeg. Before I cropped it, the file
size was about 4200 x 2800

File size in kilobytes..The version on PhotoBucket is 900K



4.3 megs

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:03:45 -0500, Boater wrote:



http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/29737c6c.jpg


This was shot handheld, no "VR," at 56mm, f9 at 1/200th from a
considerable distance, and cropped. See if you can read the words just
below the center top row of windows...

Relatively inexpensive lens, too.



Tell whoever took the picture to invest in a level. Perhaps some work on
depth of field would be appropriate.

BTW, who took the picture?
--
A Harry Krause truism:

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Narcissistic Hypocrite]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:46:30 -0500, Boater wrote:

D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/29737c6c.jpg


This was shot handheld, no "VR," at 56mm, f9 at 1/200th from a
considerable distance, and cropped. See if you can read the words just
below the center top row of windows...

Relatively inexpensive lens, too.


PHILOSOPHY

Only after 250X magnification in Paint Shop Pro. After knowing what is was
I could make it out at 100X.




Hmmm. There actually are three words there, which I can see clearly at
80%. Most likely due to differences in software and perhaps video cards
and monitors? Your guess?

In any event, the lens seems pretty sharp to me. At 80%, even the mortar
joints look pretty good. Here's some rooftiles on a different building
but at the same distance (lens at 75mm, f/10):

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/9c7dc4d5.jpg


Harry, who took that one?
--
A Harry Krause truism:

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Narcissistic Hypocrite]

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"Boater" wrote in message
...


http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/29737c6c.jpg


This was shot handheld, no "VR," at 56mm, f9 at 1/200th from a
considerable distance, and cropped. See if you can read the words just
below the center top row of windows...

Relatively inexpensive lens, too.




Who gives a **** about your pictures?


Never mind that. I find it funny how he's sucking Tom again. You know, after
Tom banned him permanently from Chuck's, and he came back here calling Tom
all sorts of names. He even tried to make fun of Tom's low transom Ranger,
which is also a low freeboard Ranger... WAFA doesn't get the difference
between his boat and Tom's.

WAFA is beyond pathetic.

--Mike

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:03:45 -0500, Boater wrote:


http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/29737c6c.jpg


This was shot handheld, no "VR," at 56mm, f9 at 1/200th from a
considerable distance, and cropped. See if you can read the words just
below the center top row of windows...

Relatively inexpensive lens, too.



Tell whoever took the picture to invest in a level. Perhaps some work on
depth of field would be appropriate.

BTW, who took the picture?


D'oh. I took the photo. Yesterday. I was testing a lens, not looking for
an art photo. The ground in the park area where I was is not even close
to level. I have a new lens to try out, and I wanted to see what it
could do on a building with some interesting units. I cropped out the
bottom third of the photo...just more grass.

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:46:30 -0500, Boater wrote:

D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/29737c6c.jpg


This was shot handheld, no "VR," at 56mm, f9 at 1/200th from a
considerable distance, and cropped. See if you can read the words just
below the center top row of windows...

Relatively inexpensive lens, too.

PHILOSOPHY

Only after 250X magnification in Paint Shop Pro. After knowing what is was
I could make it out at 100X.



Hmmm. There actually are three words there, which I can see clearly at
80%. Most likely due to differences in software and perhaps video cards
and monitors? Your guess?

In any event, the lens seems pretty sharp to me. At 80%, even the mortar
joints look pretty good. Here's some rooftiles on a different building
but at the same distance (lens at 75mm, f/10):

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/9c7dc4d5.jpg


Harry, who took that one?


I took that one, too...as I said, I've been testing a lens. So far, I'm
pretty well pleased with it, especially considering its relatively low
price point and speed. It is an f2.8 zoom, 28-75 mm. The portion of the
roof tiles depicted here is a tiny portion of the entire photo.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/29737c6c.jpg


This was shot handheld, no "VR," at 56mm, f9 at 1/200th from a
considerable distance, and cropped. See if you can read the words
just below the center top row of windows...

Relatively inexpensive lens, too.
PHILOSOPHY

Only after 250X magnification in Paint Shop Pro. After knowing what
is was I could make it out at 100X.
Hmmm. There actually are three words there, which I can see clearly at
80%. Most likely due to differences in software and perhaps video
cards and monitors? Your guess?

In any event, the lens seems pretty sharp to me. At 80%, even the
mortar joints look pretty good. Here's some rooftiles on a different
building but at the same distance (lens at 75mm, f/10):

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/9c7dc4d5.jpg

Did you do your building viewing before jpeg compression? What was the
file size and what format?

No, I shot the photo and viewed it in jpeg. Before I cropped it, the
file size was about 4200 x 2800

File size in kilobytes..The version on PhotoBucket is 900K

4.3 megs

That could be the difference.

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:31:33 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:03:45 -0500, Boater wrote:


http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/29737c6c.jpg


This was shot handheld, no "VR," at 56mm, f9 at 1/200th from a
considerable distance, and cropped. See if you can read the words just
below the center top row of windows...

Relatively inexpensive lens, too.



Tell whoever took the picture to invest in a level. Perhaps some work on
depth of field would be appropriate.

BTW, who took the picture?


D'oh. I took the photo. Yesterday. I was testing a lens, not looking for
an art photo. The ground in the park area where I was is not even close
to level. I have a new lens to try out, and I wanted to see what it
could do on a building with some interesting units. I cropped out the
bottom third of the photo...just more grass.

Oh. You're right. Sometimes the engineers will design a building to have
the same slope as the ground beneath it.

Do you *really* expect folks to believe you took a picture you're posting
as your own?
--
A Harry Krause truism:

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Narcissistic Hypocrite]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:33:50 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:46:30 -0500, Boater wrote:

D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/29737c6c.jpg


This was shot handheld, no "VR," at 56mm, f9 at 1/200th from a
considerable distance, and cropped. See if you can read the words just
below the center top row of windows...

Relatively inexpensive lens, too.

PHILOSOPHY

Only after 250X magnification in Paint Shop Pro. After knowing what is was
I could make it out at 100X.



Hmmm. There actually are three words there, which I can see clearly at
80%. Most likely due to differences in software and perhaps video cards
and monitors? Your guess?

In any event, the lens seems pretty sharp to me. At 80%, even the mortar
joints look pretty good. Here's some rooftiles on a different building
but at the same distance (lens at 75mm, f/10):

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/9c7dc4d5.jpg


Harry, who took that one?


I took that one, too...as I said, I've been testing a lens. So far, I'm
pretty well pleased with it, especially considering its relatively low
price point and speed. It is an f2.8 zoom, 28-75 mm. The portion of the
roof tiles depicted here is a tiny portion of the entire photo.

Oh Harry. You know it's just a matter of time before someone finds the
picture on the internet.

Plagiarism is your style.
--
A Harry Krause truism:

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Narcissistic Hypocrite]