Well, I for one am staying the hell out of this.
MARK!
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Define blown out :-)
Well, I for one am staying the hell out of this.
On 4/5/2010
Blown out is a state of mind.
Jostein
(do I need the smiley?)
--
http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/
http://alunfoto.blogspot.com
--
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
On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:52 AM, steve harley wrote:
in digital signal processing [...] there is no way to turn the volume to 11
Yes there is... it's called 2.
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please
Yes, that and my waistline. :(
Jack
--- On Tue, 4/6/10, AlunFoto alunf...@gmail.com wrote:
From: AlunFoto alunf...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Define blown out :-)
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Tuesday, April 6, 2010, 2:21 AM
Blown out is a state of mind.
Jostein
(do
- Original Message
From: Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Mon, April 5, 2010 10:27:45 AM
Subject: Define blown out :-)
I'll offer mine the nebulous term by saying that if at least some surface
areas
are rendered featureless
From: David Mann
On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:52 AM, steve harley wrote:
in digital signal processing [...] there is no way to turn the volume to 11
Yes there is... it's called 2.
Only works for very large values of 1.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On 2010-04-06 04:18 , David Mann wrote:
On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:52 AM, steve harley wrote:
in digital signal processing [...] there is no way to turn the volume to 11
Yes there is... it's called 2.
again, 11 not meant literally
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On 4/6/2010 2:13 PM, steve harley wrote:
On 2010-04-06 04:18 , David Mann wrote:
On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:52 AM, steve harley wrote:
in digital signal processing [...] there is no way to turn the
volume to 11
Yes there is... it's called 2.
again, 11 not meant literally
Wouldn't that be 3?
I'll offer mine the nebulous term by saying that if at least some surface areas
are rendered featureless by virtue of being too bright, I'd consider those
areas blown out. Many images can tolerate a certain amount of this condition,
but it's amount is the criteria and varies with each viewer.
On 2010-04-05 11:27 , Jack Davis wrote:
I'll offer mine the nebulous term by saying that if at least some surface areas are
rendered featureless by virtue of being too bright, I'd consider those areas blown
out. Many images can tolerate a certain amount of this condition, but it's amount
is
comes down to the fact that with digital signals, there is no
way to turn the volume to 11
Volume at 11 isn't much in digital - are you sure you're not thinking of
1011?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the
Technically well stated, Steve. My point is about the difficulty in defining
the general visual impact tolerated. That's a job for each viewer.
Jack
--- On Mon, 4/5/10, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
From: steve harley p...@paper-ape.com
Subject: Re: Define blown out :-)
To: Pentax
On 2010-04-05 11:57 , Bob W wrote:
comes down to the fact that with digital signals, there is no
way to turn the volume to 11
Volume at 11 isn't much in digital - are you sure you're not thinking of
1011?
try thinking about it a little less literally
sure, you could say taking it to 256 or
On 2010-04-05 12:05 , Jack Davis wrote:
My point is about the difficulty in defining the general visual impact
tolerated. That's a job for each viewer.
well, you could say that areas too bright for the camera to handle will
be displayed as pure white, with no detail; adjacent areas not quite
95% of people would have no idea what
you were talking about
No change there then.
Bob
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On
Behalf Of steve harley
Sent: 05 April 2010 19:16
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Define blown out
the question
without resentment. Monitor performance always my first suspect.
Jack
--- On Mon, 4/5/10, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
From: steve harley p...@paper-ape.com
Subject: Re: Define blown out :-)
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 11:28 AM
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'll offer mine the nebulous term by saying that if at least some surface
areas are rendered featureless by virtue of being too bright, I'd consider
those areas blown out. Many images can tolerate a certain amount of this
On Apr 5, 2010, at 10:57 , Bob W wrote:
comes down to the fact that with digital signals, there is no
way to turn the volume to 11
Volume at 11 isn't much in digital - are you sure you're not
thinking of
1011?
Nerds who think only in binary have only a limited world view of
black, or
comes down to the fact that with digital signals, there is
no way to
turn the volume to 11
Volume at 11 isn't much in digital - are you sure you're
not thinking
of 1011?
Nerds who think only in binary have only a limited world view
of black, or white.
:-)
Well, yes and
On Apr 5, 2010, at 12:08 , Bob W wrote:
comes down to the fact that with digital signals, there is
no way to
turn the volume to 11
Volume at 11 isn't much in digital - are you sure you're
not thinking
of 1011?
Nerds who think only in binary have only a limited world view
of black, or
I only read as far as about half of your first sentence. I didn't need to read
further as it was obvious you had missed the point of the question.
Jack
--- On Mon, 4/5/10, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Define blown out
read as far as about half of your first sentence. I didn't need to
read further as it was obvious you had missed the point of the question.
Jack
--- On Mon, 4/5/10, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Define blown out
Then what, pray tell, is the point of the question?
You asked Define 'blown out'. I answered in summary, In the
context of the Zone System's scale, 'blown out' is defined to be
values in the final image above Zone 8 where you wanted to show
detail.
So ... what is the point of your question
, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Define blown out :-)
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 12:05 PM
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Jack
Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I'll offer mine
further as it was obvious you had missed the point of the question.
Jack
--- On Mon, 4/5/10, Godfrey DiGiorgigdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Godfrey DiGiorgigdigio...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Define blown out :-)
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail Listpdml@pdml.net
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 12:05 PM
On 2010-04-05 12:43 , Bob W wrote:
95% of people would have no idea what
you were talking about
No change there then.
if 1011 were meant as binary, it didn't make sense; if you were
indicating that lots of people would have missed the Spinal Tap
reference, i think it's pretty much a meme
Thanks, Toine!
Jack
--- On Mon, 4/5/10, Toine to...@repiuk.nl wrote:
From: Toine to...@repiuk.nl
Subject: Re: Define blown out :-)
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 1:02 PM
He did answer your question. Most
images have or should have blown out
parts
.
Jack
--- On Mon, 4/5/10, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Define blown out :-)
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 1:07 PM
I didn't see a question in your first
post.
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010
LoL..kinda wish I could let go. Actually, I knew better and have no excuses. I
was honestly curious..yes, I know about the stiff cat.
Jack
--- On Mon, 4/5/10, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
From: P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Define blown out
On 2010-04-05 12:43 , Bob W wrote:
95% of people would have no idea what you were talking about
No change there then.
if 1011 were meant as binary, it didn't make sense; if you
were indicating that lots of people would have missed the
Spinal Tap reference, i think it's pretty much
On 2010-04-05 14:37 , Bob W wrote:
[attributions mangled]
if 1011 were meant as binary, it didn't make sense; if you
were indicating that lots of people would have missed the
Spinal Tap reference, i think it's pretty much a meme by now
Now I've no idea what you're talking about. 1011 in
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Well the conversation went on for several posts and finally I invited posters
to define what they consider a blown out image. IOW, how featureless must
the image be to meet your criteria of blown out.
Thought it might
On Apr 5, 2010, at 14:36 , Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Well the conversation went on for several posts and finally I
invited posters to define what they consider a blown out image.
IOW, how featureless must the image be to
If you watched this mornings shuttle launch, you would have seen that
the shuttle, it's external tank, and the boosters were well defined.
The result of the combustion of the contents of all but the shuttle
were blown out.
Apparently a better outcome than blown up.
On Apr 5, 2010, at
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 5, 2010, at 14:36 , Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Well the conversation went on for several posts and finally I invited
posters to define what they
McAllister pentax...@mac.com
Subject: Re: Define blown out :-)
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 2:38 PM
On Apr 5, 2010, at 14:36 , Godfrey
DiGiorgi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Well the conversation went
Good..let's go with that. ;)
Jack
--- On Mon, 4/5/10, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:
From: Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com
Subject: Re: Define blown out :-)
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 2:42 PM
If you watched this mornings shuttle
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com wrote:
I gave my honest reaction to the crude first half dozen words of your first
sentence. I read no further nor do I intend to.
Well then, just fuck off.
--
Godfrey
godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/
--- On Mon, 4/5/10, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:
From: Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com
Subject: Re: Define blown out :-)
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 2:38 PM
On Apr 5, 2010, at 14:36 , Godfrey
Brian Walters wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:24 -0700, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I gave my honest reaction to the crude first half dozen words of your
first sentence. I read no further nor do I intend to.
You're obviously still stinging from the dressing down you receive some
time
I'm sure I was diverted by his swaggering manner and some history.
If it was of some value to someone, it wasn't a complete waste.
Jack
--- On Mon, 4/5/10, Brian Walters supera1...@fastmail.fm wrote:
From: Brian Walters supera1...@fastmail.fm
Subject: Re: Define blown out :-)
To: Pentax
Thanks for your thoughts, Mark. If the info was useful to anyone, great.
Immediately apparent it wasn't to my point.
Jack
--- On Mon, 4/5/10, Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com wrote:
From: Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com
Subject: Re: Define blown out :-)
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml
On Apr 5, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Brian Walters wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:24 -0700, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I gave my honest reaction to the crude first half dozen words of your
first sentence. I read no further nor do I intend to.
You're obviously still
While, as I've said, I didn't read the subject message, I heartily agree with
your comments, Paul!
Jack
--- On Mon, 4/5/10, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
From: paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Define blown out :-)
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm sure I was diverted by his swaggering manner ...
If you can read a 'swaggering manner' in the words There's nothing
nebulous about 'blown out' then you are the biggest drama queen I've
ever come across. But so much for
45 matches
Mail list logo
