JohnH wrote:
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?


D'oh. The building was on relatively flat ground. The park area where I
was standing was hilly. Even a former "combat engineer" in the Army
should be able to figure that out, eh?

As I have stated here many times, what the right-wing turds like you
think or believe matters not to me. You should do the world a favor and
turn yourself in at the local Soylent Green Fish Food franchise.

On Nov 4, 8:35*pm, "Calif Bill" 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.

Who gives a **** about your pictures?

The asshole whines like a friggin' baby if Scotty proudly posts a pic
or movie of the Mouse MXing, JohnH posts pics of places he's visited
etc. but then HE can do it.

On Nov 4, 9:31*pm, 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please post the exif data.

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.

Very sharp. They gray sky and gray building didn't help out any, but
overall, crisp.

Pretty good for a handheld shot at that distance.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 07:26:57 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
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?


D'oh. The building was on relatively flat ground. The park area where I
was standing was hilly. Even a former "combat engineer" in the Army
should be able to figure that out, eh?

As I have stated here many times, what the right-wing turds like you
think or believe matters not to me. You should do the world a favor and
turn yourself in at the local Soylent Green Fish Food franchise.

We got from your (maybe) inability to hold a camera, to my Army background,
to politics in one post.

Not in to changing the subject, are you?

WAFDS!
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

Tom Francis - SWSports 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.

Very sharp. They gray sky and gray building didn't help out any, but
overall, crisp.

Pretty good for a handheld shot at that distance.


This was the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I haven't shot anything with the lens
wide open yet. I'm hoping it has nice bokeh.

On Nov 5, 11:47*am, Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports 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.

Very sharp. *They gray sky and gray building didn't help out any, but
overall, crisp.

Pretty good for a handheld shot at that distance.

This was the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. *I haven't shot anything with the lens
wide open yet. I'm hoping it has nice bokeh.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, I'm sure your lens will have such nice bokeh that it must actually
defy the laws of physics.......
Yours, but no one elses.... But, seeing how most of your pictures are
blurred because of movement, and usually out of focus, the bokeh won't
matter much.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:47:11 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports 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.

Very sharp. They gray sky and gray building didn't help out any, but
overall, crisp.

Pretty good for a handheld shot at that distance.

This was the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I haven't shot anything with the lens
wide open yet. I'm hoping it has nice bokeh.

I have had a long running "discussion" about bokeh and the relative
value of induced bokeh vs "faux" bokeh with my pro buddies which pops
up every once in a while when we're dissecting images.

My position is that bokeh is strictly aperature induced at the camera
- basically how exact the spherical component of the shutter is in
relation to the spherical component of the lens and, of course, the
speed of the medium and shutter. The "hard" position is that it
depends on the temper of the glass, how it's ground and it's surface
structure. Probably the most accurate is in the middle.

I really don't want to get into another "discussion" of the relative
merits of either argument other than to say that in my opinon, the
subject is not clearly understood by most amateurs and even the pros
have problems truly understanding the whole concept. :)

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:47:11 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports 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.
Very sharp. They gray sky and gray building didn't help out any, but
overall, crisp.

Pretty good for a handheld shot at that distance.
This was the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I haven't shot anything with the lens
wide open yet. I'm hoping it has nice bokeh.

I have had a long running "discussion" about bokeh and the relative
value of induced bokeh vs "faux" bokeh with my pro buddies which pops
up every once in a while when we're dissecting images.

My position is that bokeh is strictly aperature induced at the camera
- basically how exact the spherical component of the shutter is in
relation to the spherical component of the lens and, of course, the
speed of the medium and shutter. The "hard" position is that it
depends on the temper of the glass, how it's ground and it's surface
structure. Probably the most accurate is in the middle.

I really don't want to get into another "discussion" of the relative
merits of either argument other than to say that in my opinon, the
subject is not clearly understood by most amateurs and even the pros
have problems truly understanding the whole concept. :)


My limited experience with *deliberate* "bokeh" was when I used to do a
lot of "head shots" with my 35mm film camera and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikon
lens. If you focused properly and opened up the lens, you'd get a nice
portrait with the background in soft focus around your subject. For
about a year, I did a feature for one of the union news services in
which I interviewed an AFL-CIO exec council member. When possible, I'd
drag the union prez over to the park down the street from the AFL-CIO
(the park across the street from the front of the white house), where
there was a nice park bench and interesting foilage. I had no lights
other than a flash, so I always wanted to go outdoors where lights were
not an issue.

The lens was a real gem, always one of my favorites.

On Nov 5, 5:18*pm, Boater wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:47:11 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports 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.
Very sharp. *They gray sky and gray building didn't help out any, but
overall, crisp.

Pretty good for a handheld shot at that distance.
This was the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. *I haven't shot anything with the lens
wide open yet. I'm hoping it has nice bokeh.

I have had a long running "discussion" about bokeh and the relative
value of induced bokeh vs "faux" bokeh with my pro buddies which pops
up every once in a while when we're dissecting images.

My position is that bokeh is strictly aperature induced at the camera
- basically how exact the spherical component of the shutter is in
relation to the spherical component of the lens and, of course, the
speed of the medium and shutter. *The "hard" position is that it
depends on the temper of the glass, how it's ground and it's surface
structure. *Probably the most accurate is in the middle.

I really don't want to get into another "discussion" of the relative
merits of either argument other than to say that in my opinon, the
subject is not clearly understood by most amateurs and even the pros
have problems truly understanding the whole concept. * :)

My limited experience with *deliberate* "bokeh" was when I used to do a
lot of "head shots" with my 35mm film camera and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikon
lens. If you focused properly and opened up the lens, you'd get a nice
portrait with the background in soft focus around your subject. For
about a year, I did a feature for one of the union news services in
which I interviewed an AFL-CIO exec council member. When possible, I'd
drag the union prez over to the park down the street from the AFL-CIO
(the park across the street from the front of the white house), where
there was a nice park bench and interesting foilage. I had no lights
other than a flash, so I always wanted to go outdoors where lights were
not an issue.

The lens was a real gem, always one of my favorites.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Liar WAFA