Grumpy Tech
2024-10-15 03:28:24 UTC
Discussion:
(too old to reply)
Daryl
2024-10-15 05:18:12 UTC
Clocky
2024-10-15 05:24:47 UTC
Nice shots.
--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."
On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."
On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
Mighty Mouse
2024-10-15 06:07:37 UTC
wow! good pics
--
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
Mighty Mouse
2024-10-15 13:35:20 UTC
signature looks good too
--
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
Noddy
2024-10-15 10:20:19 UTC
Awesome pics.
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
alvey
2024-10-15 12:31:12 UTC
And what sort of sushi-sucking, Op shop clothes wearing, Friend of the
ABC-type *wouldn't* "enjoy" barring up over a couple of pix of some
obscenely expensive, 100% function over form, redundant technology whose
sole purpose is to kill people?
ABC-type *wouldn't* "enjoy" barring up over a couple of pix of some
obscenely expensive, 100% function over form, redundant technology whose
sole purpose is to kill people?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Grumpy Tech
2024-10-15 13:17:30 UTC
Post by alvey
And what sort of sushi-sucking, Op shop clothes wearing, Friend of the
ABC-type *wouldn't* "enjoy" barring up over a couple of pix of some
obscenely expensive, 100% function over form, redundant technology whose
sole purpose is to kill people?
Oh dear, I'm sorry you barred up. Take 2 panadol and the swelling willAnd what sort of sushi-sucking, Op shop clothes wearing, Friend of the
ABC-type *wouldn't* "enjoy" barring up over a couple of pix of some
obscenely expensive, 100% function over form, redundant technology whose
sole purpose is to kill people?
go down by the morning.
Noddy
2024-10-15 21:12:11 UTC
Post by Grumpy Tech
go down by the morning.
It's a fucking imbecile, isn't it? I mean, I know the term "mental case"Post by alvey
And what sort of sushi-sucking, Op shop clothes wearing, Friend of the
ABC-type *wouldn't* "enjoy" barring up over a couple of pix of some
obscenely expensive, 100% function over form, redundant technology
whose sole purpose is to kill people?
Oh dear, I'm sorry you barred up. Take 2 panadol and the swelling willAnd what sort of sushi-sucking, Op shop clothes wearing, Friend of the
ABC-type *wouldn't* "enjoy" barring up over a couple of pix of some
obscenely expensive, 100% function over form, redundant technology
whose sole purpose is to kill people?
go down by the morning.
is used a lot around here, but this fucking retard has got genuine issues :)
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
alvey
2024-10-15 21:59:46 UTC
Post by Noddy
It's a fucking imbecile, isn't it? I mean, I know the term "mental case"
is used a lot around here,
Only by you Fraudster, only by you. Now, would you like me to delve intoIt's a fucking imbecile, isn't it? I mean, I know the term "mental case"
is used a lot around here,
why that is? Why you have this obsession with mental health? It won't be
pretty, but on the bright side, you won't look any more flawed and
idiotic than you already are.
As a many times proven liar, serial fantasist and all-round buffoon,
your opinion on *anything* Gibbens is, like your pathetic self,
completely and utterly worthless. All you have achieved by this childish
name-calling campaign is to highlight who the "fucking retard" is here.
That'd be you Gibbens. So just another of your failures then. Well Done
you!
alvey
Xeno
2024-10-16 02:03:00 UTC
Post by Noddy
is used a lot around here, but this fucking retard has got genuine issues :)
As a sociopathic narcissist, *you* are the mental case around here.Post by Grumpy Tech
go down by the morning.
It's a fucking imbecile, isn't it? I mean, I know the term "mental case"Post by alvey
And what sort of sushi-sucking, Op shop clothes wearing, Friend of
the ABC-type *wouldn't* "enjoy" barring up over a couple of pix of
some obscenely expensive, 100% function over form, redundant
technology whose sole purpose is to kill people?
Oh dear, I'm sorry you barred up. Take 2 panadol and the swelling willAnd what sort of sushi-sucking, Op shop clothes wearing, Friend of
the ABC-type *wouldn't* "enjoy" barring up over a couple of pix of
some obscenely expensive, 100% function over form, redundant
technology whose sole purpose is to kill people?
go down by the morning.
is used a lot around here, but this fucking retard has got genuine issues :)
Remember, you are the one who fraudulently claims multiple trade
qualifications when you didn't even qualify for entry into any
apprenticeship ever. All you're doing is projecting your own
insecurities onto others!
--
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Mighty Mouse
2024-10-16 03:27:11 UTC
Post by Xeno
you'll be glad we have them if they're ever neededPost by Noddy
Post by Grumpy Tech
Post by alvey
And what sort of sushi-sucking, Op shop clothes wearing, Friend of
the ABC-type *wouldn't* "enjoy" barring up over a couple of pix of
some obscenely expensive, 100% function over form, redundant
technology whose sole purpose is to kill people?
And what sort of sushi-sucking, Op shop clothes wearing, Friend of
the ABC-type *wouldn't* "enjoy" barring up over a couple of pix of
some obscenely expensive, 100% function over form, redundant
technology whose sole purpose is to kill people?
Post by Xeno
Remember, you are the one who fraudulently claims multiple trade
qualifications when you didn't even qualify for entry into any
apprenticeship ever.
and who tries to chase away anyone he doesn't like by abusing andPost by Noddy
case" is used a lot around here, but this fucking retard has got
genuine issues :)
As a sociopathic narcissist, *you* are the mental case around here.Post by Grumpy Tech
Oh dear, I'm sorry you barred up. Take 2 panadol and the swelling
will go down by the morning.
It's a fucking imbecile, isn't it? I mean, I know the term "mentalOh dear, I'm sorry you barred up. Take 2 panadol and the swelling
will go down by the morning.
case" is used a lot around here, but this fucking retard has got
genuine issues :)
Remember, you are the one who fraudulently claims multiple trade
qualifications when you didn't even qualify for entry into any
apprenticeship ever.
denigrating them. glad I don't see his posts anymore.
yeh, he does that
--
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
alvey
2024-10-16 07:07:51 UTC
Post by Mighty Mouse
you'll be glad we have them if they're ever needed
Ok then. Tell me who they'll be needed against.Post by alvey
And what sort of sushi-sucking, Op shop clothes wearing, Friend of
the ABC-type *wouldn't* "enjoy" barring up over a couple of pix of
some obscenely expensive, 100% function over form, redundant
technology whose sole purpose is to kill people?
And what sort of sushi-sucking, Op shop clothes wearing, Friend of
the ABC-type *wouldn't* "enjoy" barring up over a couple of pix of
some obscenely expensive, 100% function over form, redundant
technology whose sole purpose is to kill people?
alvey
Lindsay
2024-10-15 19:58:22 UTC
Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
Daryl
2024-10-15 22:27:37 UTC
Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
You should go visit Keith, he has a real F-111 in his shed:-)Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
Lots of other cool shit too.
--
Daryl
Daryl
Xeno
2024-10-16 01:23:47 UTC
Post by Daryl
Lots of other cool shit too.
Not *his* shed! Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
You should go visit Keith, he has a real F-111 in his shed:-)Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
Lots of other cool shit too.
--
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Grumpy Tech
2024-10-16 01:11:13 UTC
Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near the qualityWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Daryl
2024-10-16 01:21:52 UTC
Post by Grumpy Tech
of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Wow, spectacular clarity. Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near the qualityWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
--
Daryl
Daryl
Mighty Mouse
2024-10-16 03:17:09 UTC
Post by Grumpy Tech
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is absolutely
brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
what camera is it? Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near theWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is absolutely
brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
--
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
alvey
2024-10-16 05:23:39 UTC
Post by Grumpy Tech
of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Canon. Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near the qualityWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me of
Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a camera
and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and then feed
your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will almost
certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the current AI editors
are even free! (And will be for quite some time yet)
alvey
Grumpy Tech
2024-10-16 06:18:01 UTC
Post by alvey
Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me of
Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree the CorellaPost by Grumpy Tech
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is absolutely
brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Canon. Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near theWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is absolutely
brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me of
Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a camera
and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and then feed
your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will almost
certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the current AI editors
are even free! (And will be for quite some time yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a camera
and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and then feed
your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will almost
certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the current AI editors
are even free! (And will be for quite some time yet)
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to turn
Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image which
only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are looking for. AI
on the other hand can really mess things up and often does. Photoshop's
noise reduction for example is awful in comparison to other noise
reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on eyes
at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently that had no
knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in the
field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in front of
a screen typing on a keyboard.
Mighty Mouse
2024-10-16 07:29:56 UTC
Post by Grumpy Tech
was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to turn
Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image which
only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are looking for.
AI on the other hand can really mess things up and often does.
Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in comparison to
other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently that
had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in the
field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in front of
a screen typing on a keyboard.
modern phone cameras take exceptionally good pics. unless you're reallyPost by alvey
Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me of
Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree the CorellaPost by Grumpy Tech
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Canon. Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near theWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me of
Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a
camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and
then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will
almost certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the current
AI editors are even free! (And will be for quite some time yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a
camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and
then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will
almost certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the current
AI editors are even free! (And will be for quite some time yet)
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to turn
Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image which
only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are looking for.
AI on the other hand can really mess things up and often does.
Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in comparison to
other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently that
had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in the
field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in front of
a screen typing on a keyboard.
into photography, as you obviously are, no one really needs to buy a camera
--
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
Xeno
2024-10-16 08:26:51 UTC
Post by Mighty Mouse
Good pics for the average amateur.Post by Grumpy Tech
was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to turn
Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image which
only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are looking for.
AI on the other hand can really mess things up and often does.
Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in comparison to
other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently that
had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in the
field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in front of
a screen typing on a keyboard.
modern phone cameras take exceptionally good pics. unless you're reallyPost by alvey
Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me of
Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree the CorellaPost by Grumpy Tech
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Canon. Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near theWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me of
Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a
camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and
then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will
almost certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the current
AI editors are even free! (And will be for quite some time yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a
camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and
then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will
almost certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the current
AI editors are even free! (And will be for quite some time yet)
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to turn
Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image which
only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are looking for.
AI on the other hand can really mess things up and often does.
Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in comparison to
other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently that
had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in the
field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in front of
a screen typing on a keyboard.
The phone cameras are good for general use, a good digital SLR will
leave it in the dust for picture quality, lens quality and CCD
resolution. The sensor in a typical DSLR is about 860 sq mm, not far
removed from the size of a 35mm film. You can change lens to any type
you fancy and they are much more accurate letting much more light
through than *any phone*. Look at the chunk of glass on a DSLR camera
lens, then compare it to those dinky little things on current phones. If
you want professional output, then the phone won't supply it. I used to
have pro gear when I was travelling OS. When I settled down, I found I
didn't use it much any more, too busy, so I sold it all. Besides, the
college had full professional still and video gear as well as all the
associated equipment like a darkroom, a UMatic editing suite and more. I
could borrow or use all of it.
That said, the phone is *flexible* and *convenient*, you can always have
it on you for that candid shot. A professional DSLR is big, bulky and
*noticeable*, especially if you need to cart a variety of lenses around
with you.
--
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
alvey
2024-10-16 10:31:33 UTC
Post by Mighty Mouse
Ooooooohhhh no they don't.Post by Grumpy Tech
was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to turn
Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image which
only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are looking for.
AI on the other hand can really mess things up and often does.
Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in comparison to
other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently that
had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in the
field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in front of
a screen typing on a keyboard.
modern phone cameras take exceptionally good pics.Post by alvey
Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me of
Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree the CorellaPost by Grumpy Tech
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Canon. Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near theWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me of
Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a
camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and
then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will
almost certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the current
AI editors are even free! (And will be for quite some time yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a
camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and
then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will
almost certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the current
AI editors are even free! (And will be for quite some time yet)
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to turn
Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image which
only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are looking for.
AI on the other hand can really mess things up and often does.
Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in comparison to
other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently that
had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in the
field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in front of
a screen typing on a keyboard.
Post by Mighty Mouse
unless you're really
into photography, as you obviously are, no one really needs to buy a camera
Yep, if you only take pix of you and your Friends having lunch in aunless you're really
into photography, as you obviously are, no one really needs to buy a camera
walled beer garden then you'll have absolutely no need at all for a
'proper' camera.
alvey
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Xeno
2024-10-16 11:39:31 UTC
Post by alvey
Lenses are too small - for a start.Post by Mighty Mouse
Ooooooohhhh no they don't.Post by Grumpy Tech
was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to turn
Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image
which only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are
looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess things up and often
does. Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in comparison
to other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently
that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in the
field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in front
of a screen typing on a keyboard.
modern phone cameras take exceptionally good pics.Post by alvey
Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me of
Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree the CorellaPost by Grumpy Tech
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Canon. Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near theWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me of
Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a
camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and
then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will
almost certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the current
AI editors are even free! (And will be for quite some time yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a
camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and
then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will
almost certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the current
AI editors are even free! (And will be for quite some time yet)
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to turn
Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image
which only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are
looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess things up and often
does. Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in comparison
to other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently
that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in the
field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in front
of a screen typing on a keyboard.
Post by alvey
walled beer garden then you'll have absolutely no need at all for a
'proper' camera.
alvey
Post by Mighty Mouse
unless you're really into photography, as you obviously are, no one
really needs to buy a camera
Yep, if you only take pix of you and your Friends having lunch in aunless you're really into photography, as you obviously are, no one
really needs to buy a camera
walled beer garden then you'll have absolutely no need at all for a
'proper' camera.
alvey
--
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Mighty Mouse
2024-10-16 12:40:33 UTC
Post by alvey
so what's wrong with these then? I took at Melbourne Museum last monthPost by Mighty Mouse
Ooooooohhhh no they don't.Post by Grumpy Tech
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image
which only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are
looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess things up and
often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in
comparison to other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently
that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column
legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in
the field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in
front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
modern phone cameras take exceptionally good pics.Post by alvey
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me
of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree thePost by Grumpy Tech
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near theWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me
of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a
camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and
then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will
almost certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the
current AI editors are even free! (And will be for quite some time
yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a
camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and
then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will
almost certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the
current AI editors are even free! (And will be for quite some time
yet)
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image
which only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are
looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess things up and
often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in
comparison to other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently
that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column
legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in
the field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in
front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
in low light..
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no good
outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
Post by alvey
walled beer garden then you'll have absolutely no need at all for a
'proper' camera.
alvey
Post by Mighty Mouse
unless you're really into photography, as you obviously are, no one
really needs to buy a camera
Yep, if you only take pix of you and your Friends having lunch in aunless you're really into photography, as you obviously are, no one
really needs to buy a camera
walled beer garden then you'll have absolutely no need at all for a
'proper' camera.
alvey
--
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
Clocky
2024-10-16 20:48:46 UTC
Post by Mighty Mouse
in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no good
outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
Those photos are fine for happy snap photos, but they lack definitionPost by alvey
so what's wrong with these then? I took at Melbourne Museum last monthPost by Mighty Mouse
Ooooooohhhh no they don't.Post by Grumpy Tech
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image
which only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are
looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess things up and
often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in
comparison to other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently
that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column
legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in
the field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in
front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
modern phone cameras take exceptionally good pics.Post by alvey
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me
of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree thePost by Grumpy Tech
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near theWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me
of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a
camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and
then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will
almost certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the
current AI editors are even free! (And will be for quite some time
yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a
camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and
then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will
almost certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the
current AI editors are even free! (And will be for quite some time
yet)
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image
which only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are
looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess things up and
often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in
comparison to other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently
that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column
legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in
the field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in
front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no good
outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone cameras are still
pretty average really, but they are good considering that it's a camera
you have in your pocket.
--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."
On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."
On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
Mighty Mouse
2024-10-16 21:11:11 UTC
Post by Clocky
and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone cameras are still
pretty average really, but they are good considering that it's a
camera you have in your pocket.
but we haven't seen grubby's full size. when you look at them at thePost by Mighty Mouse
month in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no
good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
Those photos are fine for happy snap photos, but they lack definitionPost by alvey
so what's wrong with these then? I took at Melbourne Museum lastPost by Mighty Mouse
Ooooooohhhh no they don't.Post by Grumpy Tech
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image
which only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are
looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess things up and
often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in
comparison to other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently
that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column
legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in
the field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in
front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
modern phone cameras take exceptionally good pics.Post by alvey
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds
me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree thePost by Grumpy Tech
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near theWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds
me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to
take quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars
on a camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper
hardware and then feed your shots into an AI and/or
Photoshop-genre program will almost certainly produce better
results? Crikey! Some of the current AI editors are even free!
(And will be for quite some time yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to
take quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars
on a camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper
hardware and then feed your shots into an AI and/or
Photoshop-genre program will almost certainly produce better
results? Crikey! Some of the current AI editors are even free!
(And will be for quite some time yet)
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image
which only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are
looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess things up and
often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in
comparison to other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently
that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column
legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in
the field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in
front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
month in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no
good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone cameras are still
pretty average really, but they are good considering that it's a
camera you have in your pocket.
same size as the ones he posted, there's no real difference. I'm not
saying my phone camera is as good as his super duper one, just disputing
what alvey said.
--
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
Grumpy Tech
2024-10-16 21:36:14 UTC
Post by Mighty Mouse
same size as the ones he posted, there's no real difference. I'm not
saying my phone camera is as good as his super duper one, just disputing
what alvey said.
You have to be kidding. Your photo's lack clarity and whilst okay for aPost by Clocky
and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone cameras are still
pretty average really, but they are good considering that it's a
camera you have in your pocket.
but we haven't seen grubby's full size. when you look at them at thePost by Mighty Mouse
month in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no
good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
Those photos are fine for happy snap photos, but they lack definitionPost by alvey
so what's wrong with these then? I took at Melbourne Museum lastPost by Mighty Mouse
Ooooooohhhh no they don't.Post by Grumpy Tech
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image
which only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are
looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess things up and
often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in
comparison to other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently
that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column
legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in
the field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in
front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
modern phone cameras take exceptionally good pics.Post by alvey
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds
me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree thePost by Grumpy Tech
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near theWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds
me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to
take quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars
on a camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper
hardware and then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-
genre program will almost certainly produce better results?
Crikey! Some of the current AI editors are even free! (And will
be for quite some time yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to
take quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars
on a camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper
hardware and then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-
genre program will almost certainly produce better results?
Crikey! Some of the current AI editors are even free! (And will
be for quite some time yet)
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image
which only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are
looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess things up and
often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in
comparison to other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently
that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column
legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in
the field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in
front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
month in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no
good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone cameras are still
pretty average really, but they are good considering that it's a
camera you have in your pocket.
same size as the ones he posted, there's no real difference. I'm not
saying my phone camera is as good as his super duper one, just disputing
what alvey said.
quick snap, there is no way it is anywhere near the quality of the pics
I posted.
Here's one of them on flickr which you can download and see for
yourself. Just don't post it anywhere...
https://flic.kr/p/2qocuju
Warning it's about 15mb
Mighty Mouse
2024-10-16 23:53:01 UTC
Post by Grumpy Tech
a quick snap, there is no way it is anywhere near the quality of the
pics I posted.
I never said it was. I'd have to be stupid to suggest a phone camera isPost by Mighty Mouse
same size as the ones he posted, there's no real difference. I'm not
saying my phone camera is as good as his super duper one, just
disputing what alvey said.
You have to be kidding. Your photo's lack clarity and whilst okay forPost by Clocky
definition and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone
cameras are still pretty average really, but they are good
considering that it's a camera you have in your pocket.
but we haven't seen grubby's full size. when you look at them at thePost by Mighty Mouse
month in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no
good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
Those photos are fine for happy snap photos, but they lackPost by alvey
so what's wrong with these then? I took at Melbourne Museum lastPost by Mighty Mouse
Ooooooohhhh no they don't.Post by Grumpy Tech
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high
quality camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high
quality image which only needs minimal editing to achieve the
effect you are looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess
things up and often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for
example is awful in comparison to other noise reduction software
that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job
on eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp
recently that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four
straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera
in the field means you get out and walk around instead of
sitting in front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
modern phone cameras take exceptionally good pics.Post by alvey
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it
reminds me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree thePost by Grumpy Tech
the quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere nearWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
the quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it
reminds me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to
take quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big
dollars on a camera and lenses now when using significantly
cheaper hardware and then feed your shots into an AI and/or
Photoshop- genre program will almost certainly produce better
results? Crikey! Some of the current AI editors are even free!
(And will be for quite some time yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to
take quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big
dollars on a camera and lenses now when using significantly
cheaper hardware and then feed your shots into an AI and/or
Photoshop- genre program will almost certainly produce better
results? Crikey! Some of the current AI editors are even free!
(And will be for quite some time yet)
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high
quality camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high
quality image which only needs minimal editing to achieve the
effect you are looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess
things up and often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for
example is awful in comparison to other noise reduction software
that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job
on eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp
recently that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four
straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera
in the field means you get out and walk around instead of
sitting in front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
month in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no
good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
definition and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone
cameras are still pretty average really, but they are good
considering that it's a camera you have in your pocket.
same size as the ones he posted, there's no real difference. I'm not
saying my phone camera is as good as his super duper one, just
disputing what alvey said.
a quick snap, there is no way it is anywhere near the quality of the
pics I posted.
as good as your expensive one, whatever it is. what I said was, when you
see your pics and mine at the same size .ie. on a computer screen, they
appear similar in quality. also, I made the point that the photos I
posted were taken in low light, ie. not the best conditions for
producing the best quality photos. in any case my argument is with what
alvey said. but I suppose whether he's right or not depends on the
definition of "exceptionally", and so in this scenario what one
considers to be "exceptionally good" photos. yours are of course, so
maybe I'll restate my remark as "modern phone cameras take very good
pics", which should satisfy both alvey and you.
Post by Grumpy Tech
Here's one of them on flickr which you can download and see for
yourself. Just don't post it anywhere...
https://flic.kr/p/2qocuju
Warning it's about 15mb
Here's one of them on flickr which you can download and see for
yourself. Just don't post it anywhere...
https://flic.kr/p/2qocuju
Warning it's about 15mb
--
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
alvey
2024-10-17 02:37:46 UTC
Post by Mighty Mouse
as good as your expensive one, whatever it is. what I said was, when you
see your pics and mine at the same size .ie. on a computer screen, they
appear similar in quality. also, I made the point that the photos I
posted were taken in low light, ie. not the best conditions for
producing the best quality photos. in any case my argument is with what
alvey said. but I suppose whether he's right or not depends on the
definition of "exceptionally", and so in this scenario what one
considers to be "exceptionally good" photos. yours are of course, so
maybe I'll restate my remark as "modern phone cameras take very good
pics", which should satisfy both alvey and you.
You were doing well right up until that last sentence... :)Post by Grumpy Tech
a quick snap, there is no way it is anywhere near the quality of the
pics I posted.
I never said it was. I'd have to be stupid to suggest a phone camera isPost by Mighty Mouse
same size as the ones he posted, there's no real difference. I'm not
saying my phone camera is as good as his super duper one, just
disputing what alvey said.
You have to be kidding. Your photo's lack clarity and whilst okay forPost by Clocky
definition and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone
cameras are still pretty average really, but they are good
considering that it's a camera you have in your pocket.
but we haven't seen grubby's full size. when you look at them at thePost by Mighty Mouse
month in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no
good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
Those photos are fine for happy snap photos, but they lackPost by alvey
so what's wrong with these then? I took at Melbourne Museum lastPost by Mighty Mouse
Ooooooohhhh no they don't.Post by Grumpy Tech
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high
quality camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high
quality image which only needs minimal editing to achieve the
effect you are looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess
things up and often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for
example is awful in comparison to other noise reduction software
that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job
on eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp
recently that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four
straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera
in the field means you get out and walk around instead of
sitting in front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
modern phone cameras take exceptionally good pics.Post by alvey
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it
reminds me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree thePost by Grumpy Tech
the quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere nearWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
the quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it
reminds me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to
take quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big
dollars on a camera and lenses now when using significantly
cheaper hardware and then feed your shots into an AI and/or
Photoshop- genre program will almost certainly produce better
results? Crikey! Some of the current AI editors are even free!
(And will be for quite some time yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to
take quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big
dollars on a camera and lenses now when using significantly
cheaper hardware and then feed your shots into an AI and/or
Photoshop- genre program will almost certainly produce better
results? Crikey! Some of the current AI editors are even free!
(And will be for quite some time yet)
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high
quality camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high
quality image which only needs minimal editing to achieve the
effect you are looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess
things up and often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for
example is awful in comparison to other noise reduction software
that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job
on eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp
recently that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four
straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera
in the field means you get out and walk around instead of
sitting in front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
month in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no
good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
definition and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone
cameras are still pretty average really, but they are good
considering that it's a camera you have in your pocket.
same size as the ones he posted, there's no real difference. I'm not
saying my phone camera is as good as his super duper one, just
disputing what alvey said.
a quick snap, there is no way it is anywhere near the quality of the
pics I posted.
as good as your expensive one, whatever it is. what I said was, when you
see your pics and mine at the same size .ie. on a computer screen, they
appear similar in quality. also, I made the point that the photos I
posted were taken in low light, ie. not the best conditions for
producing the best quality photos. in any case my argument is with what
alvey said. but I suppose whether he's right or not depends on the
definition of "exceptionally", and so in this scenario what one
considers to be "exceptionally good" photos. yours are of course, so
maybe I'll restate my remark as "modern phone cameras take very good
pics", which should satisfy both alvey and you.
Try, "The modern phone can take very good pix, but only within narrow
criteria".
eg. I was just down the beach, and only about 250m offshore was a pod of
Humpbacks having a playful frolic. The thought of whipping out my
Huwawei never entered my mind. Guess why.
Btw, I'll do some cosmetic surgery on your T Rex pic in the next couple
of days just to demonstrate how worthwhile AI/editing is. "The photo
that can't be improved by editing doesn't exist."
Post by Mighty Mouse
Post by Grumpy Tech
Here's one of them on flickr which you can download and see for
yourself. Just don't post it anywhere...
https://flic.kr/p/2qocuju
Warning it's about 15mb
Here's one of them on flickr which you can download and see for
yourself. Just don't post it anywhere...
https://flic.kr/p/2qocuju
Warning it's about 15mb
Xeno
2024-10-17 04:18:46 UTC
Post by alvey
Try, "The modern phone can take very good pix, but only within narrow
criteria".
eg. I was just down the beach, and only about 250m offshore was a pod of
Humpbacks having a playful frolic. The thought of whipping out my
Huwawei never entered my mind. Guess why.
Ah, let me guess - you couldn't snap on a *decent lens* to the phone?Post by Mighty Mouse
is as good as your expensive one, whatever it is. what I said was,
when you see your pics and mine at the same size .ie. on a computer
screen, they appear similar in quality. also, I made the point that
the photos I posted were taken in low light, ie. not the best
conditions for producing the best quality photos. in any case my
argument is with what alvey said. but I suppose whether he's right or
not depends on the definition of "exceptionally", and so in this
scenario what one considers to be "exceptionally good" photos. yours
are of course, so maybe I'll restate my remark as "modern phone
cameras take very good pics", which should satisfy both alvey and you.
You were doing well right up until that last sentence... :)Post by Grumpy Tech
a quick snap, there is no way it is anywhere near the quality of the
pics I posted.
I never said it was. I'd have to be stupid to suggest a phone cameraPost by Mighty Mouse
same size as the ones he posted, there's no real difference. I'm not
saying my phone camera is as good as his super duper one, just
disputing what alvey said.
You have to be kidding. Your photo's lack clarity and whilst okay forPost by Clocky
definition and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone
cameras are still pretty average really, but they are good
considering that it's a camera you have in your pocket.
but we haven't seen grubby's full size. when you look at them at thePost by Mighty Mouse
month in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no
good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
Those photos are fine for happy snap photos, but they lackPost by alvey
so what's wrong with these then? I took at Melbourne Museum lastPost by Mighty Mouse
Ooooooohhhh no they don't.Post by Grumpy Tech
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is
to turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on
your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high
quality camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high
quality image which only needs minimal editing to achieve the
effect you are looking for. AI on the other hand can really
mess things up and often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for
example is awful in comparison to other noise reduction
software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job
on eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp
recently that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four
straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera
in the field means you get out and walk around instead of
sitting in front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
modern phone cameras take exceptionally good pics.Post by alvey
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it
reminds me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree thePost by Grumpy Tech
the quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it
is absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky
in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere nearWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky
in half? :-)
Cheers!!
the quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it
is absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it
reminds me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to
take quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big
dollars on a camera and lenses now when using significantly
cheaper hardware and then feed your shots into an AI and/or
Photoshop- genre program will almost certainly produce better
results? Crikey! Some of the current AI editors are even free!
(And will be for quite some time yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to
take quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big
dollars on a camera and lenses now when using significantly
cheaper hardware and then feed your shots into an AI and/or
Photoshop- genre program will almost certainly produce better
results? Crikey! Some of the current AI editors are even free!
(And will be for quite some time yet)
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is
to turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on
your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high
quality camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high
quality image which only needs minimal editing to achieve the
effect you are looking for. AI on the other hand can really
mess things up and often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for
example is awful in comparison to other noise reduction
software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job
on eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp
recently that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four
straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera
in the field means you get out and walk around instead of
sitting in front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
month in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no
good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
definition and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone
cameras are still pretty average really, but they are good
considering that it's a camera you have in your pocket.
same size as the ones he posted, there's no real difference. I'm not
saying my phone camera is as good as his super duper one, just
disputing what alvey said.
a quick snap, there is no way it is anywhere near the quality of the
pics I posted.
is as good as your expensive one, whatever it is. what I said was,
when you see your pics and mine at the same size .ie. on a computer
screen, they appear similar in quality. also, I made the point that
the photos I posted were taken in low light, ie. not the best
conditions for producing the best quality photos. in any case my
argument is with what alvey said. but I suppose whether he's right or
not depends on the definition of "exceptionally", and so in this
scenario what one considers to be "exceptionally good" photos. yours
are of course, so maybe I'll restate my remark as "modern phone
cameras take very good pics", which should satisfy both alvey and you.
Try, "The modern phone can take very good pix, but only within narrow
criteria".
eg. I was just down the beach, and only about 250m offshore was a pod of
Humpbacks having a playful frolic. The thought of whipping out my
Huwawei never entered my mind. Guess why.
Post by alvey
Btw, I'll do some cosmetic surgery on your T Rex pic in the next couple
of days just to demonstrate how worthwhile AI/editing is. "The photo
that can't be improved by editing doesn't exist."
Btw, I'll do some cosmetic surgery on your T Rex pic in the next couple
of days just to demonstrate how worthwhile AI/editing is. "The photo
that can't be improved by editing doesn't exist."
Post by Mighty Mouse
Post by Grumpy Tech
Here's one of them on flickr which you can download and see for
yourself. Just don't post it anywhere...
https://flic.kr/p/2qocuju
Warning it's about 15mb
Here's one of them on flickr which you can download and see for
yourself. Just don't post it anywhere...
https://flic.kr/p/2qocuju
Warning it's about 15mb
--
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Mighty Mouse
2024-10-17 07:06:45 UTC
Post by alvey
Try, "The modern phone can take very good pix, but only within narrow
criteria".
eg. I was just down the beach, and only about 250m offshore was a pod
of Humpbacks having a playful frolic. The thought of whipping out my
Huwawei never entered my mind. Guess why.
Btw, I'll do some cosmetic surgery on your T Rex pic in the next
couple of days just to demonstrate how worthwhile AI/editing is. "The
photo that can't be improved by editing doesn't exist."
that will be interestingPost by Mighty Mouse
is as good as your expensive one, whatever it is. what I said was,
when you see your pics and mine at the same size .ie. on a computer
screen, they appear similar in quality. also, I made the point that
the photos I posted were taken in low light, ie. not the best
conditions for producing the best quality photos. in any case my
argument is with what alvey said. but I suppose whether he's right or
not depends on the definition of "exceptionally", and so in this
scenario what one considers to be "exceptionally good" photos. yours
are of course, so maybe I'll restate my remark as "modern phone
cameras take very good pics", which should satisfy both alvey and you.
You were doing well right up until that last sentence... :)Post by Grumpy Tech
for a quick snap, there is no way it is anywhere near the quality of
the pics I posted.
I never said it was. I'd have to be stupid to suggest a phone cameraPost by Mighty Mouse
the same size as the ones he posted, there's no real difference.
I'm not saying my phone camera is as good as his super duper one,
just disputing what alvey said.
You have to be kidding. Your photo's lack clarity and whilst okayPost by Clocky
definition and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone
cameras are still pretty average really, but they are good
considering that it's a camera you have in your pocket.
but we haven't seen grubby's full size. when you look at them atPost by Mighty Mouse
month in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so
no good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
Those photos are fine for happy snap photos, but they lackPost by alvey
so what's wrong with these then? I took at Melbourne Museum lastPost by Mighty Mouse
Ooooooohhhh no they don't.Post by Grumpy Tech
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is
to turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on
your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high
quality camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high
quality image which only needs minimal editing to achieve the
effect you are looking for. AI on the other hand can really
mess things up and often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for
example is awful in comparison to other noise reduction
software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible
job on eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a
comp recently that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with
four straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera
in the field means you get out and walk around instead of
sitting in front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
modern phone cameras take exceptionally good pics.Post by alvey
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it
reminds me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree thePost by Grumpy Tech
the quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it
is absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky
in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere nearWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky
in half? :-)
Cheers!!
the quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it
is absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it
reminds me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to
take quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big
dollars on a camera and lenses now when using significantly
cheaper hardware and then feed your shots into an AI and/or
Photoshop- genre program will almost certainly produce better
results? Crikey! Some of the current AI editors are even
free! (And will be for quite some time yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to
take quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big
dollars on a camera and lenses now when using significantly
cheaper hardware and then feed your shots into an AI and/or
Photoshop- genre program will almost certainly produce better
results? Crikey! Some of the current AI editors are even
free! (And will be for quite some time yet)
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is
to turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on
your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high
quality camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high
quality image which only needs minimal editing to achieve the
effect you are looking for. AI on the other hand can really
mess things up and often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for
example is awful in comparison to other noise reduction
software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible
job on eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a
comp recently that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with
four straight column legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera
in the field means you get out and walk around instead of
sitting in front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
month in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so
no good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
definition and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone
cameras are still pretty average really, but they are good
considering that it's a camera you have in your pocket.
the same size as the ones he posted, there's no real difference.
I'm not saying my phone camera is as good as his super duper one,
just disputing what alvey said.
for a quick snap, there is no way it is anywhere near the quality of
the pics I posted.
is as good as your expensive one, whatever it is. what I said was,
when you see your pics and mine at the same size .ie. on a computer
screen, they appear similar in quality. also, I made the point that
the photos I posted were taken in low light, ie. not the best
conditions for producing the best quality photos. in any case my
argument is with what alvey said. but I suppose whether he's right or
not depends on the definition of "exceptionally", and so in this
scenario what one considers to be "exceptionally good" photos. yours
are of course, so maybe I'll restate my remark as "modern phone
cameras take very good pics", which should satisfy both alvey and you.
Try, "The modern phone can take very good pix, but only within narrow
criteria".
eg. I was just down the beach, and only about 250m offshore was a pod
of Humpbacks having a playful frolic. The thought of whipping out my
Huwawei never entered my mind. Guess why.
Btw, I'll do some cosmetic surgery on your T Rex pic in the next
couple of days just to demonstrate how worthwhile AI/editing is. "The
photo that can't be improved by editing doesn't exist."
Post by alvey
Post by Mighty Mouse
Post by Grumpy Tech
Here's one of them on flickr which you can download and see for
yourself. Just don't post it anywhere...
https://flic.kr/p/2qocuju
Warning it's about 15mb
Here's one of them on flickr which you can download and see for
yourself. Just don't post it anywhere...
https://flic.kr/p/2qocuju
Warning it's about 15mb
--
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
alvey
2024-10-21 21:54:56 UTC
Post by Mighty Mouse
Here you go. It's a quickie enhancement (imo) with not much sharpeningPost by alvey
Btw, I'll do some cosmetic surgery on your T Rex pic in the next
couple of days just to demonstrate how worthwhile AI/editing is. "The
photo that can't be improved by editing doesn't exist."
that will be interestingBtw, I'll do some cosmetic surgery on your T Rex pic in the next
couple of days just to demonstrate how worthwhile AI/editing is. "The
photo that can't be improved by editing doesn't exist."
done. (I didn't think much of the display). Mostly worked with the
latest version of Ps (v.26.0).
https://imgur.com/a/BeGxZXT
cheers
Xeno
2024-10-17 00:55:07 UTC
Post by Mighty Mouse
Any picture you see on spotify and the like will have beenPost by Clocky
and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone cameras are still
pretty average really, but they are good considering that it's a
camera you have in your pocket.
but we haven't seen grubby's full size. when you look at them at thePost by Mighty Mouse
month in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no
good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
Those photos are fine for happy snap photos, but they lack definitionPost by alvey
so what's wrong with these then? I took at Melbourne Museum lastPost by Mighty Mouse
Ooooooohhhh no they don't.Post by Grumpy Tech
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image
which only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are
looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess things up and
often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in
comparison to other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently
that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column
legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in
the field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in
front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
modern phone cameras take exceptionally good pics.Post by alvey
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds
me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree thePost by Grumpy Tech
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near theWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds
me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to
take quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars
on a camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper
hardware and then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-
genre program will almost certainly produce better results?
Crikey! Some of the current AI editors are even free! (And will
be for quite some time yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to
take quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars
on a camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper
hardware and then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-
genre program will almost certainly produce better results?
Crikey! Some of the current AI editors are even free! (And will
be for quite some time yet)
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image
which only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are
looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess things up and
often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in
comparison to other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently
that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column
legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in
the field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in
front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
month in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no
good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone cameras are still
pretty average really, but they are good considering that it's a
camera you have in your pocket.
algorithmically *downgraded*. The only way you can get a decent
objective comparison is to compare RAW data with RAW data. I doubt you
can even get RAW data from most phones but DSLR cameras usually have a
save RAW data and an export RAW data mode. With RAW data, you are seeing
pretty much exactly what the camera sensor sees in its native
resolution. The other thing you get with RAW data is the huge size of
the image. Just look at the uncompressed image Grumpy posted.
Post by Mighty Mouse
same size as the ones he posted, there's no real difference. I'm not
saying my phone camera is as good as his super duper one, just disputing
what alvey said.
same size as the ones he posted, there's no real difference. I'm not
saying my phone camera is as good as his super duper one, just disputing
what alvey said.
--
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Clocky
2024-10-17 01:54:22 UTC
Post by Mighty Mouse
He posted one and even though that has some artifacts (presumably fromPost by Clocky
and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone cameras are still
pretty average really, but they are good considering that it's a
camera you have in your pocket.
but we haven't seen grubby's full size.Post by Mighty Mouse
month in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no
good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
Those photos are fine for happy snap photos, but they lack definitionPost by alvey
so what's wrong with these then? I took at Melbourne Museum lastPost by Mighty Mouse
Ooooooohhhh no they don't.Post by Grumpy Tech
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image
which only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are
looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess things up and
often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in
comparison to other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently
that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column
legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in
the field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in
front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
modern phone cameras take exceptionally good pics.Post by alvey
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds
me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree thePost by Grumpy Tech
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near theWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds
me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to
take quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars
on a camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper
hardware and then feed your shots into an AI and/or
Photoshop-genre program will almost certainly produce better
results? Crikey! Some of the current AI editors are even free!
(And will be for quite some time yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to
take quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars
on a camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper
hardware and then feed your shots into an AI and/or
Photoshop-genre program will almost certainly produce better
results? Crikey! Some of the current AI editors are even free!
(And will be for quite some time yet)
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image
which only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are
looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess things up and
often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in
comparison to other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently
that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column
legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in
the field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in
front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
month in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no
good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone cameras are still
pretty average really, but they are good considering that it's a
camera you have in your pocket.
compression, but you can download RAW data from the camera too) around
the edges it has amazing clarity compared to what you would typically
get from a phone camera viewing a full size photo.
That's not to say camera phones take bad photos but it's just that they
aren't in the same ball park as those taken by say Grumpy's Canon.
Feel free to post a photo taken on your camera in good light at it's
highest native resolution for comparison.
when you look at them at the
Post by Mighty Mouse
same size as the ones he posted, there's no real difference. I'm not
saying my phone camera is as good as his super duper one, just disputing
what alvey said.
same size as the ones he posted, there's no real difference. I'm not
saying my phone camera is as good as his super duper one, just disputing
what alvey said.
--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."
On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."
On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
Xeno
2024-10-17 00:42:00 UTC
Post by Clocky
and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone cameras are still
pretty average really, but they are good considering that it's a camera
you have in your pocket.
Indeed, it's the convenience factor of a phone I value. Carting an SLRPost by Mighty Mouse
in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no
good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
Those photos are fine for happy snap photos, but they lack definitionPost by alvey
so what's wrong with these then? I took at Melbourne Museum last monthPost by Mighty Mouse
Ooooooohhhh no they don't.Post by Grumpy Tech
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image
which only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are
looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess things up and
often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in
comparison to other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently
that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column
legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in
the field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in
front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
modern phone cameras take exceptionally good pics.Post by alvey
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds
me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree thePost by Grumpy Tech
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near theWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is
absolutely brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Canon. Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds
me of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
Corella was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a
camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware
and then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program
will almost certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the
current AI editors are even free! (And will be for quite some time
yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a
camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware
and then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program
will almost certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the
current AI editors are even free! (And will be for quite some time
yet)
identifiable to the average person. Of course if your goal is to
turn Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image
which only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are
looking for. AI on the other hand can really mess things up and
often does. Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in
comparison to other noise reduction software that is out there.
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on
eyes at the moment. Then there was an elephant in a comp recently
that had no knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column
legs?
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in
the field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in
front of a screen typing on a keyboard.
in low light..
https://auslink.info/pics/t-rex.jpg
https://auslink.info/pics/triceratops.jpg
haven't taken anything else other than family/friends stuff, so no
good outdoor pics to post to compare with Grubby's
and clarity when you look at them full size. Phone cameras are still
pretty average really, but they are good considering that it's a camera
you have in your pocket.
camera around is, IMNSHO, a real pain. I always have the phone in my
pocket so the camera, whatever the quality, is on hand at all times.
--
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
alvey
2024-10-16 07:53:39 UTC
Post by Grumpy Tech
was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
identifiable to the average person.
I think that's *very* debatable. There have been numerous 100% AIPost by alvey
Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me of
Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
It's actually caused by some small branches from the tree the CorellaPost by Grumpy Tech
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is absolutely
brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Although the Little Corella shot isn't a great advert for the Canon. Wow! Good job, Grumpy! Clean and sharp!
Where were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
I was around but didn't have a camera that was anywhere near theWhere were you when the F-111's were still tearing the sky in half? :-)
Cheers!!
quality of this new one I have now. The autofocus on it is absolutely
brilliant.
Here's a few photo's I've taken with it since getting it in August.
https://imgur.com/a/bc8yEar
Does that effect have a name? (For some reason it reminds me of
Hitchcock's 'Vertigo')
was under. The image was cropped to highlight the bird.
Post by alvey
And on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a
camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and
then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will
almost certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the current
AI editors are even free! (And will be for quite some time yet)
Except AI is not as good as people think it is and is readilyAnd on a slight tangent... If the object of photography is to take
quality images, is it really worthwhile spending big dollars on a
camera and lenses now when using significantly cheaper hardware and
then feed your shots into an AI and/or Photoshop-genre program will
almost certainly produce better results? Crikey! Some of the current
AI editors are even free! (And will be for quite some time yet)
identifiable to the average person.
compositions over the last couple of years which have won noted photo
comps.( https://tinyurl.com/35msbxjb ) Most notably German photographer
Boris Eldagsen who won the Sony prize.
Ironically, and a tad hilariously, there have also been instances where
genuine pix have won comps for AI generated efforts, which pretty
strongly supports the opinion that even experts in the photo world
*can't* tell the difference.
Post by Grumpy Tech
Of course if your goal is to turn
Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image which
only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are looking for.
Yep, but that "satisfaction" isn't going to last long if no-one can tellOf course if your goal is to turn
Princess Fiona into Shrek then by all means use AI on your photos.
On the other hand there are many benefits of owning a high quality
camera. There is the satisfaction of taking a high quality image which
only needs minimal editing to achieve the effect you are looking for.
it's a great shot.
It sure can. I've been playing with absolute shedloads of progs & APIs
for a while now and some of the results are just appalling. And
hilarious. Faces, hands & bare feet are still the major problem, which
is a tragedy for some of us as they're also the hardest bits of people
to paint.
Boring (but true) Anecdote: I contacted HitPaw a couple of years ago to
point out a weird output glitch in one of their profiles. They gave me a
free lifetime copy of their very good product. (Its latest release is
*very* good. One of the best face restorers on the market).
Post by Grumpy Tech
Photoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in comparison to other noise
reduction software that is out there.
Have you had a play yet with Ps 2025? I mean, c'mon man! It's been outPhotoshop's noise reduction for example is awful in comparison to other noise
reduction software that is out there.
for at least a couple of days now! I haven't looked at its NR yet, but
its AI Expand and Remove Distractions are impressive. Not perfect,
*yet*, but very useful. And that *yet* is a keyword. Remember how EVs
were hammered by the Bah! Humbug! class when they first appeared? And AI
is developing at an incredible pace. Way steeper than EVs development
curve.
Post by Grumpy Tech
People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on eyes
at the moment.
Yep. Especially if the subject isn't looking straight at the lens.People created in AI are easy to pick as AI does a horrible job on eyes
at the moment.
Post by Grumpy Tech
Then there was an elephant in a comp recently that had no
knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column legs?
Pedant of the Sunshine Coast writes: There is no such thing as anThen there was an elephant in a comp recently that had no
knees. Ever seen an elephant with four straight column legs?
elephant with four 'knees'. They only have knees on their back legs. The
front pair consist of wrists & elbows.
Post by Grumpy Tech
The fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in the
field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in front of a
screen typing on a keyboard.
There is that. But otoh, you're far less likely to getThe fact is there is health benefits as well as using a camera in the
field means you get out and walk around instead of sitting in front of a
screen typing on a keyboard.
bitten/stung/eaten/shot by a Katter/run over by a Hulkster etc if you're
at your monitor.
alvey
Exciting times.
Keithr0
2024-10-15 22:48:43 UTC
Grumpy Tech
2024-10-16 00:07:19 UTC
Townsville.