Ferrari butchered by Sony A350

Ferrari butchered by Sony A350

Boy, bad colors, no sharpness, useless IS and bad software; Sony has a lot
to learn.

But what do you think of the pics?

* photos-of-portugal . com /


--
Focus

Re: Ferrari butchered by Sony A350

Focus wrote:
> Boy, bad colors, no sharpness, useless IS and bad software; Sony has
> a lot to learn.
>
> But what do you think of the pics?
>
> * photos-of-portugal . com /

I know one thing. Those wheels would look sweet on the old John Deere!



Rita

--
Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
Stimulus Project page.

* ritaberk.myhosting247 . com

Re: Ferrari butchered by Sony A350


"Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008@aol . com > wrote in message
news:d9WdnXZgb5IreIHVnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@supernews . com ...
> Focus wrote:
>> Boy, bad colors, no sharpness, useless IS and bad software; Sony has
>> a lot to learn.
>>
>> But what do you think of the pics?
>>
>> * photos-of-portugal . com /
>
> I know one thing. Those wheels would look sweet on the old John Deere!
>
And trust me: it goes faster, but not more comfortable ;-)


--
Focus

Re: Ferrari butchered by Sony A350



Focus wrote:
> "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008@aol . com > wrote in message
> news:d9WdnXZgb5IreIHVnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@supernews . com ...
>> Focus wrote:
>>> Boy, bad colors, no sharpness, useless IS and bad software; Sony
>>> has a lot to learn.
>>>
>>> But what do you think of the pics?
>>>
>>> * photos-of-portugal . com /
>>
>> I know one thing. Those wheels would look sweet on the old John
>> Deere!
> And trust me: it goes faster, but not more comfortable ;-)

I always learn something of real value in these discussions, even
though some acrimony and brand-zenophilism sometimes creeps in.

Automobile photos: See, I'm old and experienced enough to know all
the stuff that makes a good car picture. It's just that when I get out
there in the field some of it escapes me, so when I get home I realize
the difference between me and a photographer: he remembers it all and
practices it. I get part of it right, some times, all of it right
rarely, and none of it right quite often.

See what I mean:
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/fyougitive/sets/72157604879969909/

We're coming to the part of the year that offers this kind of diffused
lighting, some days until (like these) high noon or cleose to it, here
in San Diego, California, USA. On a couple of the pictures I
remembered the polarizer. On none of them I remembered fill flash. In
spite of its shortcomings, I do have a favorite; can you imagine which
one?

Respy,

--
Frank ess

Re: Ferrari butchered by Sony A350


"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs . com > wrote in message
news:SdGdnetxf443fIDVnZ2dnUVZ_rCtnZ2d@giganews . com ...
>
>
> Focus wrote:
>> "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008@aol . com > wrote in message
>> news:d9WdnXZgb5IreIHVnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@supernews . com ...
>>> Focus wrote:
>>>> Boy, bad colors, no sharpness, useless IS and bad software; Sony
>>>> has a lot to learn.
>>>>
>>>> But what do you think of the pics?
>>>>
>>>> * photos-of-portugal . com /
>>>
>>> I know one thing. Those wheels would look sweet on the old John
>>> Deere!
>> And trust me: it goes faster, but not more comfortable ;-)
>
> I always learn something of real value in these discussions, even though
> some acrimony and brand-zenophilism sometimes creeps in.
>
> Automobile photos: See, I'm old and experienced enough to know all the
> stuff that makes a good car picture. It's just that when I get out there
> in the field some of it escapes me, so when I get home I realize the
> difference between me and a photographer: he remembers it all and
> practices it. I get part of it right, some times, all of it right rarely,
> and none of it right quite often.
>
> See what I mean:
> * w w w .flickr . com /photos/fyougitive/sets/72157604879969909/
>
> We're coming to the part of the year that offers this kind of diffused
> lighting, some days until (like these) high noon or cleose to it, here in
> San Diego, California, USA. On a couple of the pictures I remembered the
> polarizer. On none of them I remembered fill flash. In spite of its
> shortcomings, I do have a favorite; can you imagine which one?

I have no idea, but I would choose the first: 7483. It has the least
distracting background and shows the car the best, I think. The turned
wheels gives a little extra: if you forgot the parking brake....
BTW: I'm old too, so I tend to forget a lot also. But flash is not and
option for me: I don't like it, it ruins the atmosphere.


--
Focus

Re: Ferrari butchered by Sony A350

Focus <focus@home.pt> wrote:

> But flash is not and option for me: I don't like it, it ruins the
> atmosphere.

Flash properly done doesn't ruin the atmosphere. A good flash
photo is one where you don't see flash was used.

-Wolfgang

Re: Ferrari butchered by Sony A350

Focus wrote:

>> I know one thing. Those wheels would look sweet on the old John
>> Deere!
>>
> And trust me: it goes faster, but not more comfortable ;-)

I'm in the market for some new wheels for the old Deere. I'm thinking about
some fancy chrome ones. The tires are getting pretty worn and beat up and
no longer hold a charge of R-22 for more than a half hour.



Rita
--
Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
Stimulus Project page.

* ritaberk.myhosting247 . com

Re: Ferrari butchered by Sony A350

On 2008-05-03 14:38:27 -0700, "Focus" <focus@home.pt> said:

> Boy, bad colors, no sharpness, useless IS and bad software; Sony has a lot
> to learn.
>
> But what do you think of the pics?
>
> * photos-of-portugal . com /

Nice car. Too bad about the terrible lighting conditions. Even shading
it with a bed sheet would have helped.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Re: Ferrari butchered by Sony A350

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2008-05-03 14:38:27 -0700, "Focus" <focus@home.pt> said:
>
>> Boy, bad colors, no sharpness, useless IS and bad software; Sony has a
>> lot
>> to learn.
>>
>> But what do you think of the pics?
>>
>> * photos-of-portugal . com /
>
> Nice car. Too bad about the terrible lighting conditions. Even shading
> it with a bed sheet would have helped.
looks like a typical point and shoot quality camera picture.
composition is excellent so it makes up for the poor quality equipment.

Re: Ferrari butchered by Sony A350

Smeeegles wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> On 2008-05-03 14:38:27 -0700, "Focus" <focus@home.pt> said:
>>
>>> Boy, bad colors, no sharpness, useless IS and bad software; Sony has
>>> a lot
>>> to learn.

Says you.
What, no exif data?

>>> But what do you think of the pics?
>>>
>>> * photos-of-portugal . com /
>>
>>
>> Nice car. Too bad about the terrible lighting conditions. Even shading
>> it with a bed sheet would have helped.
>
> looks like a typical point and shoot quality camera picture.

Or, a "point and shoot" quality user.
To compensate for the high contrast between the top of the car and the
side, infill flash should have been used to fill the shadow and reduce
the contrast between side and top.
Set the camera to expose the rest of the scene correctly (eg ISO 100
1/100th f1:16) and the flash at -2EV to put some light in the shadows on
the car without washing them out completely.

> composition is excellent so it makes up for the poor quality equipment.

We only have the word of the OP that the camera used to take these was
actually a Sony A350, the exif has been stripped and so there is no way
to confirm or disprove his(?) claims.

Re: Ferrari butchered by Sony A350

dj nme wrote:

> We only have the word of the OP that the camera used to take these was
> actually a Sony A350, the exif has been stripped and so there is no way
> to confirm or disprove his(?) claims.

Except he's been posting here (dslr.systems) for a while, seems a
reasonable person - not a troll, and some of us tend to believe him.
EXIF proves nothing anyway - it's very easy to forge.

Re: Ferrari butchered by Sony A350

dj nme wrote:
> Smeeegles wrote:
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-05-03 14:38:27 -0700, "Focus" <focus@home.pt> said:
>>>
>>>> Boy, bad colors, no sharpness, useless IS and bad software; Sony has
>>>> a lot
>>>> to learn.
>
> Says you.
> What, no exif data?
>
>>>> But what do you think of the pics?
>>>>
>>>> * photos-of-portugal . com /
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice car. Too bad about the terrible lighting conditions. Even
>>> shading it with a bed sheet would have helped.
>>
>> looks like a typical point and shoot quality camera picture.
>
> Or, a "point and shoot" quality user.

Many other posts from the OP disprove this statement.
Allen
<snip>

Re: Ferrari butchered by Sony A350

In article <fvitb3$a4p$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Smeeegles says...

> looks like a typical point and shoot quality camera picture.
> composition is excellent so it makes up for the poor quality equipment.

Here:
* photos-of-portugal . com /medium/0013.jpg

the lighting is horrible. As if the owner spot-metered on the car. A
polariser filter and fill-flash would have helped. It looks like a user
error.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
* tech.groups.yahoo . com /group/MyOlympus/
* myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Re: Ferrari butchered by Sony A350


"Smeeegles" <me@here . net .au> wrote in message
news:fvitb3$a4p$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2008-05-03 14:38:27 -0700, "Focus" <focus@home.pt> said:
>>
>>> Boy, bad colors, no sharpness, useless IS and bad software; Sony has a
>>> lot
>>> to learn.
>>>
>>> But what do you think of the pics?
>>>
>>> * photos-of-portugal . com /
>>
>> Nice car. Too bad about the terrible lighting conditions. Even shading it
>> with a bed sheet would have helped.
> looks like a typical point and shoot quality camera picture.
> composition is excellent so it makes up for the poor quality equipment.

Thanks.
That's all I wanted to know: how are the pictures, or better, the
composition.
Too bad other, better camera's don't have that tilting screen. It works
great for these low shots!


--
Focus

Re: Ferrari butchered by Sony A350

In article <5PWdnS-S07nJRoHVnZ2dnUVZ8smgnZ2d@novis.pt>, Focus says...
> Boy, bad colors, no sharpness, useless IS and bad software; Sony has a lot
> to learn.
>
> But what do you think of the pics?
>
> * photos-of-portugal . com /

I don't understand your "no sharpness, useless IS" claim. First of all
to judge sharpness you would have to inspect the high resolution
originals, not some resized images.

Secondly, on such a bright day the exposure times must have been very
short, so IS will not have been used. So why are you complaing about IS?

As for the colours if you shoot RAW, the camera output does not matter.

And what do you mean with bad software?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
* tech.groups.yahoo . com /group/MyOlympus/
* myolympus.org/ photo sharing site