On Sep 11, 2011, at 5:04 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com> wrote: >> I only ever use my computer to write plain ASCII text, so this desire for >> fast clocks speeds and graphical interfaces, to me, utter and complete >> nonsense. > > So stick with a Linux or UNIX system running in the terminal. Why > complain about it? No one's stopping you from doing so.
Do I really need to explain that I wrote the above as a metaphor? That just because some performance limitation doesn't significantly affect you doesn't mean that it's not vitally important to some people. > >> Godfrey, you might get into fewer arguments if you phrased things more like: >> I only ever photograph still moving things in good light, and since I'm >> more interested in artistic effects than image quality, I don't really need >> high ISO. > > Because it's not true. I often do need ISO 800-ISO 1600. Even ISO 3200 > has proven useful once in a great while. I've never *needed* ISO > 6400-ISO 12800 ... Ever ... although I've used them to see what they > did. > > I am not arguing. We're having a discussion. Participate if you care > to, but cut it with the ad hominem bullshit, ok? Oh come on Godfrey, you know that wasn't meant as an attack. We've both seen, and made, far better attacks than that. I was pointing out that your writing style is not always the most conducive to love, peace and understanding, and that it often comes off as your saying that there is no reason for anybody to have different needs from yours. >> By the way, do you still have a link to that post you made after >> photographing an indoors event, where you commented that your then current >> camera was right on the edge of its performance envelope? > > I've taken that one down, I think. For that event, I was shooting at > ISO 800 as the assignment needed color and that camera, with the raw > converter of LR2, didn't pass muster for color work at ISO 1600. With > LR3's better raw converter, no problem: I could have used ISO 1600, > that would have done the job nicely. The camera was on the edge of > its performance envelope more on the basis of its responsiveness and > viewfinder than because of its sensitivity. Excuse me, I misremembered which limitations you were referring to. > > There are legitimate uses for extraordinary sensitivity. There's never > any point to being obsessed with it as some sort of Holy Grail. Unless, for example, it is the performance limitation that keeps you from getting the pictures that you're trying to take. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
