DSLRUsers.com

Ok, so these photos were shown to me, and i was told there was no Photoshopping of any sort done to them at all





There seems to be some light painting on the car itself, but myself and another photographer seem to think its a HDR style shot, They brag about a 14k camera etc and when i showed these images, showing light painting (note: not my photos, images i used as an example)





I got this reply

The photos aren't HDR'd, it's a single exposure. I like your lightpainting photos, however I shoot a soft light through a double-diffused softbox, hence it looks HDR. I can assure you (actually I'd be willing to bet that SLK in your photos, plus some more) that it's single exposure, and the only alterations I do in postprocessing is white balance and the occasional brightness/contrast tweak.

Now, how did they get this effect without HDR? It looks very HDR to me and another photographer..... Is it a single shot, with 3 different exposure settings saved from photoshop and put together?

Cheers for helping me settle an argument

Doc, i have had the pleasure of working with some real strobist masters and while i cant comment on those photos in particualr, that "effect" is indeed possible with correct use of strobes, without HDR and with minimal PP. you;d be stunned at what some people can do "straight out of camera" when they get their strobes working well. truly.

........ if the photo's are not yours, then there could be a copyright issue with your usage, unless you have permission for the use of the above pixs ?

big pix wrote:........ if the photo's are not yours, then there could be a copyright issue with your usage, unless you have permission for the use of the above pixs ?

As it happens, we (the mods) are actively discussing exactly this very issue, for this thread.

I personally know the guy who took the photos and they're definitely not HDR. Why? Look at the light swirls across the body of the car where it's supposed to be smooth. If it was HDR, then the lines would be smooth to follow the contour of the car body.

In the second photo, look at the bonnet of the car and the front quarter panel that's closest to you. The swirls look good but makes it look like the car was made out of silk and doesn't hold true once again if it was HDR. The softbox he used is evident in the reflection on the car bonnet.

To achieve this, set the camera on a tripod and the shutter on say 10 to 30 seconds, run around like a mad person with the strobe and fire it off at each angle.

Lol he doesn't have a 14k camera, so not sure if whose exaggeration that is.

PiroStitch wrote:I personally know the guy who took the photos and they're definitely not HDR. Why? Look at the light swirls across the body of the car where it's supposed to be smooth. If it was HDR, then the lines would be smooth to follow the contour of the car body.

In the second photo, look at the bonnet of the car and the front quarter panel that's closest to you. The swirls look good but makes it look like the car was made out of silk and doesn't hold true once again if it was HDR. The softbox he used is evident in the reflection on the car bonnet.

To achieve this, set the camera on a tripod and the shutter on say 10 to 30 seconds, run around like a mad person with the strobe and fire it off at each angle.

Lol he doesn't have a 14k camera, so not sure if whose exaggeration that is.

Cheers for the replies guys, you have squashed what myself and a few other photographers thought about the photo, but nothing wrong with being wrong and learning.

Nothing against the photographer either, was just a discussion, they have done some great work and the effects do look good. Expensive camera or not, some good results thats for sure

Gary, PM sent

Cheers

Chris

Doctor wrote:Gary, PM sent

Thanx, Chris.

All is in order; I appreciate the clarifications.

I have achieved very similar effects myself with cars, using torches and strobes to paint the vehicles with light. The only ones i would suspect as shoped would be number 1 and 2, the swirls look completley wrong, but this could be achieved by dodging and burning the already underlying tones onf the paintwork to emphasise them.

Example stright from camera with a WB adjustment.


Cheers
Adam

adame wrote:I have achieved very similar effects myself with cars, using torches and strobes to paint the vehicles with light. The only ones i would suspect as shoped would be number 1 and 2, the swirls look completley wrong, but this could be achieved by dodging and burning the already underlying tones onf the paintwork to emphasise them.

Example stright from camera with a WB adjustment.


Cheers
Adam

Ive seen your photos around before (i am a fan and given the chance would love to learn from you), photos of the silver VR owned by the detailer, his name slips my mind at this stage. That is the sort of thing that is more like what i know as light painting. All the photos ive seen that indicate light painting come up like that, not like the first two photos which are claimed to be un-shopped.

Chris,

Doctor wrote:light painting come up like that, not like the first two photos which are claimed to be un-shopped.

Well, they are not unshopped ....

Doctor wrote:I got this reply

The photos aren't HDR'd, it's a single exposure. I like your lightpainting photos, however I shoot a soft light through a double-diffused softbox, hence it looks HDR. I can assure you (actually I'd be willing to bet that SLK in your photos, plus some more) that it's single exposure, and the only alterations I do in postprocessing is white balance and the occasional brightness/contrast tweak.

IMHO, any sort of tweaking, after the event, is PP. He's also neglected to mention that he's added a watermark/signature to the image, which I'll be willing to see that SLK and raise it Glen's ( ) and say that those would also have been added in post.

No, not HDR, but yes, there is some post. And by saying "the occasional brightness/contrast tweak", what exactly does he mean? I'd be willing to accept that there's been some pulling and pushing of curves in that realm, and so, if he truly believes that there's no post in these images, we then turn to "The Castle" for the appropriate response.



I'll even take this further: unless he is willing to publish the raw image, as shot, wb as shot, zero contrast, zero brightness settings, then even the OOC shot that he probably started with already had some in-camera post applied. As soon as any settings are applied to the image, regardless of whether they're in-camera or on the computer, they're still some form of PP. And I have no issues with that: photos, forever and a day, film or digital, have always been subject to PP. It's just a matter of how, where, and how much.

Where the hell is EnergyPolice when we need him?

Doctor wrote:Ive seen your photos around before (i am a fan and given the chance would love to learn from you),

Cheers mate would be only to hapy to show you how it's done next time im shooting in Adelaide.

Doctor wrote:photos of the silver VR owned by the detailer, his name slips my mind at this stage

Yeah Jarrod's his name top bloke!


The 4th pic of the Merc has definetly been painted with a torch look at the swirls on the rear quater. IMO the first 2 images are the only ones that dont seem so credible. Almost looks like they have been draganised.

Cheers
Adam

adame wrote:

Doctor wrote:Ive seen your photos around before (i am a fan and given the chance would love to learn from you),

Cheers mate would be only to hapy to show you how it's done next time im shooting in Adelaide.

Doctor wrote:photos of the silver VR owned by the detailer, his name slips my mind at this stage

Yeah Jarrod's his name top bloke!


The 4th pic of the Merc has definetly been painted with a torch look at the swirls on the rear quater. IMO the first 2 images are the only ones that dont seem so credible. Almost looks like they have been draganised.

Cheers
Adam

Thats him! i have spoken to him a few times, i know a few people in his group of friends, and use a few forums he frequents as well.

Let me know next time your in Adelaide, be keen to catch up

I agree,the photos of the SLK Merc are light painted, for sure, but the two of the VR Commo, they look HDR to me, and very processed, but i think ive been proven wrong......

Doctor wrote: but i think ive been proven wrong......

Proof comes with evidence until then everything is just speculation, but that being said, who cares? if that’s someone’s style or technique it's their prerogative.

adame wrote:

Doctor wrote: but i think ive been proven wrong......

Proof comes with evidence until then everything is just speculation, but that being said, who cares? if that’s someone’s style or technique it's their prerogative.

Im not saying its a bad style or technique, it works, no question about it, just that they are claiming something that i feel is untruthful.......

 LOL

I'm the photographer of those pics Vanessa showed me the posts and I asked her to post in it, but I couldn't as I couldn't register the account at work.

I'm quite bemused I caused such a fuss about my pics but if you have a look through my gallery (http://www.tangcla.com) you'll see a few more - some with varying degrees of success. btw - $14K of equipment - I think that's just something I told Vanessa offhand. It's not an exaageration, that's what everything I have is insured for.
However that's at rrp, which is what the insurance company required. so it's a bit of a stretch of truth
(see my sig)


To be honest, I'm not sure whether I should be flattered or annoyed that people think the photos look surreal - I guess it's a compliment in itself. I also don't mind my photos being posted on other forums, hence the watermark. However, I do wish that since my watermark was there, that you took the liberty to contact me directly about the photo, instead of creating a thread about it. As you may well be aware, there are a few photographers who do know me in person, who have linked me to this thread.

I'll reply to these if I can get to DSLRusers at work. btw - just to settle - this is the direct RAW to JPEG conversion.
I have no qualms with showing what the image looks like prior to any sort of 'tweaking' as I have done - most of my tweaks are so minor that I'm not 'ashamed' to show what the original product looks like.

The watermark was part of a Lightroom plugin (LR2/mogrify) which is done automatically across all my images on export. The only change I've made here was:
First pic: +25 brightness, -52 yellow saturation shift, -23 tint.
Second pic: +25 brightness, -300 temperature, -22 tint.

gstark wrote:I'll even take this further: unless he is willing to publish the raw image, as shot, wb as shot, zero contrast, zero brightness settings, then even the OOC shot that he probably started with already had some in-camera post applied. As soon as any settings are applied to the image, regardless of whether they're in-camera or on the computer, they're still some form of PP. And I have no issues with that: photos, forever and a day, film or digital, have always been subject to PP. It's just a matter of how, where, and how much.

Gary: I'd like to make the distionction between postprocessing (Lightroom) and digital manipulation (Photoshop, photoshopping, photochopping etc).

In my books, postprocessing is allowed and is fair game - anything I can do in Lightroom, a film photographer would be able to do in the darkroom.

However, taking that further into Photoshop or another program, blending layers, HDR, dodging and burning - that's where I consider my boundaries to be stepped, turning a photo into a picture.

That's the difference I make - and I guess the lines are a bit blurred, with the availability of plugins for Lightroom which allow manipulation tools to be run inline. However I only use those plugins for LR2/Mogrify and Metadata Wrangler.

My opinion above may change with time

P.S. The difference between my lightpainting and Chris' SLK is that his light source was far away from the car, whereas mine was literally within 30cm of the car all the way around.

The reason why it is so close to the car, is because the light source is relatively weak compared to the surroundings, and also I don't have time to have the shutter open for long enough to let the weak light source to burn it in.

tangcla wrote:Gary: I'd like to make the distionction between postprocessing (Lightroom) and digital manipulation (Photoshop, photoshopping, photochopping etc).

In my books, postprocessing is allowed and is fair game - anything I can do in Lightroom, a film photographer would be able to do in the darkroom.

However, taking that further into Photoshop or another program, blending layers, HDR, dodging and burning - that's where I consider my boundaries to be stepped, turning a photo into a picture.

Tangcla, I'm confused. Are you saying dodging and burning wasn't part of a film photographer's darkroom arsenal?

Also, would you mind letting us know what your light source was? I'm curious.

Thanks,

ABG wrote:Tangcla, I'm confused. Are you saying dodging and burning wasn't part of a film photographer's darkroom arsenal?

Spose it is permissible

ABG wrote:Also, would you mind letting us know what your light source was? I'm curious.

It's an LED lamp, through a 60x60cm double-diffused softbox.

Hi, and welcome.

tangcla wrote:

gstark wrote:I'll even take this further: unless he is willing to publish the raw image, as shot, wb as shot, zero contrast, zero brightness settings, then even the OOC shot that he probably started with already had some in-camera post applied. As soon as any settings are applied to the image, regardless of whether they're in-camera or on the computer, they're still some form of PP. And I have no issues with that: photos, forever and a day, film or digital, have always been subject to PP. It's just a matter of how, where, and how much.

Gary: I'd like to make the distionction between postprocessing (Lightroom) and digital manipulation (Photoshop, photoshopping, photochopping etc).

In my books, postprocessing is allowed and is fair game - anything I can do in Lightroom, a film photographer would be able to do in the darkroom.

However, taking that further into Photoshop or another program, blending layers, HDR, dodging and burning - that's where I consider my boundaries to be stepped, turning a photo into a picture.

I don't recognise that there's any such difference, and I don't accept that there are things that one might be able to do on a computer that cannot be done in a wet darkroom. Dodging and burning have long been wet (darkroom) staples. Blending layers: slightly more difficult, but piss easy in a wet darkroom, once you understand just how much and how varied the manipulation techniques you have available to you are.

Once you start making changes, you're making changes, and the extent of those changes just becomes a point of detail, nothing more.

From a purist PoV, the only image that has not been manipulated might be a film neg or tranny.

Might: there are ways that these can easily be manipulated too, so that even an OOC film image will not be a representation of ... reality. I've done way too many in-camera manipulations to count, both on film, as well as in-camera digital. Want a car with two fronts? Easy as. In camera, even! Film or digital; I don't give a damn.

This was done with 5 seconds' notice, no special equipment beyond a D200 with 85mm f/1.4. And a shoe. This is from the out of camera jpg, resized for the web. It was done at one of our lighting workshops, last year, and there were a half dozen people present who watched me do this.



So, I can honestly claim that this images has had no postprocessing, by your definition, applied to it. Has it been manipulated? You tell me.


...

...


I'll even go further and reiterate that there is nothing that one can do in a digital darkroom that cannot be done in a wet darkroom. In a wet darkroom I've been known to produce images that showed, for instance, the turret on Sydney Tower just halfway up the tower, and another of my then wife climbing out of a kid's sandshoe that we found at Agnes Banks one day. The former was published in an in-house AMP Society magazine back in the late 70s (I guess), about the time that Sydney Tower was opened, and was created following an April Fools' Day joke on Sydney radio station 2SM, where they suggested that there were no elevators in the tower, but that the turret itself moved up and down the shaft.

I cant understand the argument here.

The OP mentioned "photoshopping".

Photoshopping to me is flat out editing..not contrast/blah/curves adjustments. I think the point's been made that the shots hasn't been 'photoshopped'

Also I can't see how 'photographers' can't look at the photo and work out how its done..was pretty obvious to me. btw, can you do HDR or IR images on film/in a darkroom?

aaronactive wrote:The OP mentioned "photoshopping".

Photoshopping to me is flat out editing..not contrast/blah/curves adjustments. I think the point's been made that the shots hasn't been 'photoshopped'

This is my thoughts too.

And Gary - I understand where you're coming from I suppose it *is* a very fine line between what is a photo and what is a picture. As software and technology advances, the line will become more and more blurred - however to the OP, the 'image' hotlinked above is in fact a photo.

Happy to post up the RAW file if that helps to settle it once and for all.

This is bloody hilarious, I know Clarence through another site, His shots are not "manipulated" and would easily pass manipulation tests of large press agencies which now-days dont allow Dodge/Burn even. You can ever tell that these are not Manipulated. This banter is one of the very reasons i rarely visit this site.

aaronactive wrote:I cant understand the argument here.

The OP mentioned "photoshopping".

Photoshopping to me is flat out editing..not contrast/blah/curves adjustments.

And many would argue that point. Especially when the most basic adjustments - contrast, curves, etc - are so easily and blatantly available in Photoshop. It is, with respect, a very narrow point of view: one can make a whole raft of changes with just curves and nothing else, but by your definition, that does not count.

I prefer to use the term "postprocessiing", as I think it is far clearer, and it does not refer to any particular product. Is somebody who manipulates an image using, say, The Gimp, or maybe Capture One, not "photoshopping" ? Regardless of whatever they're doing, they are most definitely postprocessing.

And regardless of your camera, as it creates a jpg version of your raw file, and applies whatever in-camera settings you have chosen to use for any given image, it is most definitely also performing some element of postprocessing to the taken image.

And regardless of the film stock that you may be using, when you make a print from a film negative (or tranny), there will always be some element of postprocessing involved, if only, at least, to adjust the colour to something approaching reasonable.

I think the point's been made that the shots hasn't been 'photoshopped'

But there has most definitely been some element of postprocessing applied. Are the images, as originally presented, straight out of the camera?

No.

Does that matter? Not at all: I will argue that the in-camera images have already been manipulated, as has the one image I have presented, even though there has been no work done to that image - save resizing - once it was released from the camera. My image has not been photoshopped, nor edited in any way. It is as pure as the non-driven snow. But so bloody what? Who gives a damn? I certainly do not.

btw, can you do HDR or IR images on film/in a darkroom?

To both questions, yes.

Consider that HDR has been with us for about 60 years; it's nothing new. HDR is essentially just a method of dodging and burning: most film stock has a far greater latitude and contrast range than any digital camera presents to the user, but the concept of bracketing and combining images has been around for ... <yawn> ... a bloody long time.

IR film has been around for years; I would have been using it in the late '70s. Many older lenses contain special markings on their focus rings to assist the photographer in attaining focus, as IR light resolves to a different focal plane than white light. The only item of note is that IR film has different sensitivity to normal film, and thus is also requires special handling.

Having seen the difference between the SOOC RAW conversion and the one with tweaks, how similar and how different is it?

tangcla wrote:I suppose it *is* a very fine line between what is a photo and what is a picture.

For most instances, I don't see a distinction, and I really don't care: I take the view that pretty well every photo will have been manipulated in some way. I don't see that the manipulation creates any fundamental problems, btw, but I do see, very frequently, that much of the manipulation applied goes way too far and destroys, for me, the image.

That may or may not be important: what is important is the photographer's vision, and if that has been satisfied with the final outcome, that is, ultimately, what really matters.

The only other issue then becomes one of, for those who wish to learn the technique, "how was this done?". To some it may seem obvious, but there are those amongst us who are less experienced, who are new to the craft of photography, who do not understand the jargon and/or who may not yet have the understanding of the techniques involved.

And that is, I believe, the purpose of the OP in this thread: the images challenged Chris's perceptions of how the images were made, and he raised those questions.

tangcla wrote:Having seen the difference between the SOOC RAW conversion and the one with tweaks, how similar and how different is it?

Well, there's more than just "tweaks" that are different here.

For brevity, I'm only going to address the second image, but there's some cropping that's occured: there's a world of building tops that have been removed from the finished image. Nothing wrong with that. The Pulitzer Prize winning image of Kim Phuc from the Vietnam war image was also very heavily cropped from the image, as shot on film, to what was presented on the cover of Life Magazine.

In this image, that actually affects one's perception of the contrast in the buildings in the background, but there are noticeable, but subtle, differences in the contrast levels of the background. That's where I'm perceiving these tweaks have been made ...

but ...

I'm perceiving some significant losses of acuity too: the front license plate appears to be dirty and scarred in the OOC image; it appears to be significantly softer in the finished image. There's a hot spot on the front bumper and spoiler of the OOC shot, just below the horizontal center of the driver's side headlamp; they're missing from the finished image. On the spoiler, directly below the license plate too, a reflection that has been significantly softened. and just look at the edges of the front tyre.

gstark wrote:I'm perceiving some significant losses of acuity too: the front license plate appears to be dirty and scarred in the OOC image; it appears to be significantly softer in the finished image. There's a hot spot on the front bumper and spoiler of the OOC shot, just below the horizontal center of the driver's side headlamp; they're missing from the finished image. On the spoiler, directly below the license plate too, a reflection that has been significantly softened. and just look at the edges of the front tyre.

hmmm, interesting. Everything else is the same, might have been the JPEG resize/compression going funny. I haven't done any local adjustments with this picture that I recall.

Good point about the crop, I totally forgot about that. I just did a reset on the image this morning (I think I posted it at 7:47am and I am meant to be at work at 8am

tangcla wrote:might have been the JPEG resize/compression going funny.

Perhaps, but I'd expect this would not manifest itself in an apparent greater smoothing of the image. This almost looks as if it's due to some NR being applied to the image.

Good point about the crop, I totally forgot about that.

posted it at 7:47am and I am meant to be at work at 8am

You say that as if it's problematic.

gstark wrote:Perhaps, but I'd expect this would not manifest itself in an apparent greater smoothing of the image. This almost looks as if it's due to some NR being applied to the image.

Nope, definitely haven't done noise reduction to it. Might be Lightroom's sharpen on export, but I odn't remember changing it - unless one of my profiles has it altered.

gstark wrote:You say that as if it's problematic.

I wouldn't say problematic... just that I had to rush to get my posts and exports out

tangcla wrote:

ABG wrote:Also, would you mind letting us know what your light source was? I'm curious.

It's an LED lamp, through a 60x60cm double-diffused softbox.

Thanks mate. I suspected it was a torch through a diffuser. Wrong again...

NSWESP wrote:This is bloody hilarious, I know Clarence through another site, His shots are not "manipulated" and would easily pass manipulation tests of large press agencies which now-days dont allow Dodge/Burn even. You can ever tell that these are not Manipulated. This banter is one of the very reasons i rarely visit this site.

I don't see why you have a problem? This has always been a positive discussion of photographs and their techniques on their merits, certainly not a personal attack. Yes ti would have been good to involve the photographer from the start, but if you don't know of a person or that they are a silent member here, I know I would potentially ask here the question of people that I interact with and respect the knowledge of.

And the OP (original poster) was wanting to know how to evaluate the pics for their manipulation or lack thereof. Put it this way - he didn't just dismiss it as - yeah right, that's BS - but questioned how it could be, due to the look of the pictures.

And that is one thing I do liek about this site. If you don't - that's great, everyone is an individual. And life woudl be boring if we were all the same.

who wrote:And the OP (original poster) was wanting to know how to evaluate the pics for their manipulation or lack thereof. Put it this way - he didn't just dismiss it as - yeah right, that's BS - but questioned how it could be, due to the look of the pictures.

Actually - on the other forum which this was initially 'questioned' - he called bullshit from day one, hence I wrote something for my friend to post. The conversation has since drifted here.

tangcla wrote:Actually - on the other forum which this was initially 'questioned' - he called bullshit

And that is precisely where those discussions should remain.

who wrote:This has always been a positive discussion of photographs and their techniques on their merits

And this is precisely where and how these discussions should remain.

Don't forget that with film we had the benefit of both pre and post processing. Our choice of film and shooting ASA could be used to give the output specific qualities.

These days, I'm thinking that PP is a given for any image. It's nearly impossible to present a digital image that has no PP if you take into consideration things like raw converter or camera presets.

In my book, Photoshopping is pixel editing above and beyond local or general exposure alterations or WB/saturation tuning, resulting in major alterations to the original elements of the composition.

Michael

As an aside, have the rules changed regarding image sizes posted here?

Those Merc photos certainly stretch beyond the right of my screen and hence 'stretch' the size of the comment field. The end result is that I can no longer read comments without continually sliding my 'horizontal slider' back and forth to read comments.

Perhaps someone could give me a wider monitor? Or do I have to accept that using a screen size of 1024 * 768 is no longer appropriate for participation in the forum?

BullcreekBob wrote:As an aside, have the rules changed regarding image sizes posted here?

No, they have not. While your point is certainly valid, I've just chosen to not comment on that aspect of the images in this thread, because the thread's more about techniques applied rather than seeking critique of the images.

As an aside, I think that 1024x768 is long extinct.

tangcla wrote:

who wrote:And the OP (original poster) was wanting to know how to evaluate the pics for their manipulation or lack thereof. Put it this way - he didn't just dismiss it as - yeah right, that's BS - but questioned how it could be, due to the look of the pictures.

Actually - on the other forum which this was initially 'questioned' - he called bullshit from day one, hence I wrote something for my friend to post. The conversation has since drifted here.

Ok, lets get this straight, on the original forum where these photos were questioned, i never called bullshit, check the original post, in fact, ill quote it here for you, i never once called bullshit, i just questioned it......

Doctor wrote:Light painting wont get that effect.... Thats definatly HDR, light painting will get effects like this....



14k for a camera doesnt mean the photos will instantly be good. Ive seen photos from a $300 point and shoot that can rival a pro setup, and having the gear doesnt make you a photographer! Those small LCD's arnt great for much, might look good on that 2.5inch screen, but put it on a proper LCD and things arnt what they seemed..... Minux can back that up....

Ok, so if you check that against the original, its unmodified, and the original post is unedited..... (heres the link http://forums.justcommodores.com.au/923851-post32.html) Where does it say bullshit, from my knowledge, i suspected HDR as did another photographer on the site......

Was not a personal attack, far from it, just learning, and thanks for sharing your technique, its an interesting one and gets some good effects... Some of the photos of the exotics it looks awesome on, i dont think it suits the commodore to the same extent, but its a good technique regardless, and again, thanks for sharing. In fact, the other photographer who was questioning this today spend over $100 to build something to achieve a similar effect..... so it cant all be bad.......

And for everyone else, thanks for your input

Chris, I should probably apologise. We got off on the wrong foot, let me explain.

Your post comes at a time where on several other car forums (which are not exactly reknowned to be of intelligent folk who know the difference between a camera and a phone) were 'discussing' at length as to how my photos were not photos. I've tried to reason with them, and it comes down to the point of, never argue with an idiot, because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

With the JC forum, I couldn't access it from work, and some people I know (who would happen to be in the same category as the people I mentioned above - all brawn, no brains) told me that you were calling bs on my photos. I didn't stop to think that they might have been exaggerating, which I probably should have - and since I couldn't view the thread myself, I couldn't confirm the posts. I had no real interest in asking them to see the thread, until now when you posted to it - in which case I noticed that much of what they said were a bit on the optimistic side.

I guess it just a bad timing of me having had enough of trying to explain it to people who have no apparent understanding of the fourth dimension of time, that I just gave up.

So again, I'm sorry I judged you wrongly, and stereotyped you as 'one of them' who refuse to listen to reason. I myself am made entirely of flaws, stitched together with good intentions.


Next time you're in Melbourne, let me know, I'll buy you a drink

Not a problem

It was posted here more so for discussion so i could learn, i could have picked a different title to the thread, but thats the first thing that came to mind! Thanks for clearing it all up and sharing your secrets with us

When im in Melbourne next, ill get in contact with you, we can sit down, have a drink, talk photography, laugh about this and maybe i can learn a bit from you!

Cheers

Chris

All good

tangcla wrote:As an aside, I think that 1024x768 is long extinct.

Having only just had my work laptop (which was 1024x768) replaced, I disagree. There are still people with whom I work that are stuck on 1024x768. Bob, above, is using 1024x768. Consider others.

ATJ wrote:Having only just had my work laptop (which was 1024x768) replaced, I disagree. There are still people with whom I work that are stuck on 1024x768. Bob, above, is using 1024x768. Consider others.

I was referring to the pace of technological change - it wasn't long ago since 800x600 was considered extinct.

It's still being used, however 1280x1024 (or 1280x800) is the new norm.

And how am I being inconsiderate??

tangcla wrote:And how am I being inconsiderate??

I never suggested you were.

ATJ wrote:

tangcla wrote:And how am I being inconsiderate??

I never suggested you were.

Children, please!

Stop this now, and please stop displaying a negative/defensive posture, where one is being displayed.

This is a simple discussion for me to resolve. My own equipment, or any other individual's equipment is irrelevant. The maximum size for an image posting made here should not exceed 800 pixels. This is stated in the FAQ and in many other places on ths site, and that's that!

While many people may have screens that exceed this dimension, many do not, and that is why we have this rule in place, at this site.

As it happens, I think that discussion on this thread has now been exhausted, and to prevent any further outbursts, I am locking the thread.