Posted by Ty Simone: 

Myopic - No program can render 3d lighting on a 2d plane
Ty- Deep Paint
Myopic - Ok. But it sucks.

Again, what I had said from the get go is a program that uses 2D technology (ie. photoshop) to recreate 3D lighting effect on a form.  With deep paint you have to map objects in 3D HENCE it is not a 2D program.

You still have not proved my point NOR have you shown one example of what this program can do.  By your own admission you have never even seen what this program can do yet for some reason you praise it as the end all be all of photography.

Without ever seeing it.

You have too much faith in things you know nothing about.

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Myopic - you can not create on of my images, without duplicating it by friday the 25th (note it is the Friday teh 27th moron)
Ty- here it is.
Myopic - you got the lighting all wrong. You do no understandmy work.
Ty- Want me to duplicate the lighting, tell me where you had the lights, and I will move them in the program and re-render....
Myopic {SILENCE}

Another gross oversimplification of statements (you are really good at that).

I never said you have the lighting wrong (which you obiviously did but that's beside the point), I said the image looked like shit, which it did, and still does.
You show me where you asked this and I'll believe you.

Posted by Ty Simone: 

and you question my credibility because I screwed up the fact that the stabilization was in the lens, not the body.

No, I question your credibility because you misinterpret EVERY statement that people have made in this forum.

You did not only screw up, you have remained completely ignorant without repeal.

You are a sad, sad person who should seek some help.

Posted by Ty Simone: 
Amateurs have Amateur Careers.

Basic English.

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!! YES TY, BASIC ENGLISH!!!

You are so full of yourself it is amazing.  Can I bring you to school and claim you as my science project?  People will be fascinated!

Posted by Ty Simone: 

actually Lucas art has mastered it to the point of believability, with humans and creatures alike.

Oh really?

So if you didn't know that Yoda was CG you would have believed that Lucas hired a little green fella from outerspace? 

Heh, you make me laugh.

And yes, Jar Jar Binks, WHOA!! He was like... TOTALLY REAL MAN!!! Like WHOA!

And you mention LOTR, so if you didn't know Gollum was CG you would have believed that a creature like him existed and was hired to act in this movie?

Dude what kind of ignorance drug are you taking?

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Do I know what real photographers do?
Yes, I already stated how I know.

See, this is the statement which proves you have absolutely no idea.

Where do you get your knowledge from?  Popular Photography Magazine, Shutterbut and other mags that are there to sell you something? 

Those magazines are glossy advertisments packaged with stats to make you think you are actually learning something about equipment.  They are 150 page advertisements. 

PLUS you have never touched a DSLR or any camera that is advanced beyond point and shoot.  Your own example of being in the military and being handed a camera that was already set with aperture and shutter so you can snap away does not mean you know what real photographers do.

So where does this knowledge come from?  Advertisement magazines.  What is that knowledge worth?  Literally nothing.  How skewed and wrong are you?  Completely.

There is seriously something wrong with you yet as Sam pointed out the insane never know they are.

Posted by Ty Simone: ...Yet, the 6 year old did all that with almost no knowledge (I am assuming since he started at 3 years old, and some of the pictures he shot at age 4 sold....)Was good enough to have a show...

Guy.
I've been to a lot of shows.  I've been to see paintings made by elephants.  And monkeys. 
I've seen shows where an artist put strips of unexposed film on the ground during the 2002 Winter Olympics when there were shitloads of people walking around on it.  He then took the scratched up, spit on, gross ass negs and made prints.

Point?
It's not always about the end result.  It's the concept.
Why did your 6 year old get a show?
Because he had the best exposed images the world had ever seen?  Because his images were beautiful examples of form and light?
I really doubt it.
It was the concept.
And I guarantee you, as someone said already, it wasn't his concept.
Just like it wasn't the elephants idea to paint some shit on a canvas and show it in a gallery.
Art is open to concepts beyond perfect technical ability.  That's why your six year old had a show.
If that elephant could squeeze the shutter button, I'm sure he'd have had a show, too.  Why?  Because they're technically and formally perfect?  No... probably not.  But would it be interesting to see what an elephant shot (even if he had no idea he was doing it)?  Yeah... I'd probably take a look.
Drop the six year old thing.  It doesn't mean shit.

Posted by Ty Simone: 

As for you Myopic.

You are still stuck on the word "is" like Mr. Clinton.

Photography is your career. You profile says so.
That makes you a professional.

Mince the words and say it is a "course" using a meaning from websters that is almost never used in today's society...

Yeah ok.

You Make a false statement - No software can make 3d lighting on a 2d Plain.
You are proven wrong - deep space 3d
your rebuttal is, It sucks.

OK here is exactly what I said on page 3:
If you can provide one decent compelling example of how to completely recreate 3D lighting in a 2D graphics environment then I'll buy it.

You should be able to "click wham bang" this in about an hour ehh?

That is exactly what I said, 2D graphics environment, like photoshop, you idiot.

Who cares what your opinion is of the software, the fact is, it does what you said no software could do.

Deep Paint? 
How can you say that, you have never seen it's capabilities.
By your own admission nobody has so where are you getting this information from?

PLUS I have never seen the software in action so I don't nor have I made an opinion of it beyond the ONE example I have seen of it, that would be in the website of the program itself, and judging by that one image, yes, its sucks.

You said that the software could not take a crappy picture in bad lighting and make it good.

Software does not take pictures Ty.

You are really confused.

I showed you a photographer's artical that shows he did that Exact thing in PS using the Mark II.
It even talks about how the E-TTL II uses a different system to balance light, which made it possible for him to make it into a picture he absolutely loved. (the Jag Mark II, not the candy strippers you tried to then divert everyone too.)
Your response, I can do the same thing, No big Deal, and oh, the E-TTL requires a flash.

No, again Ty, the article was about how he fixed the image in photoshop.  The method of how he rescued the image had nothing to do with the camera.

You are QUITE confused.

Well, I guess he does not know what he is talking about then.
It is his article, It is his picture, it says specifically because the E-TTL II balances light across the plane and not on the focal yadda yadda yadda yadda, even in poor lighting conditions, and no flash, I was able to take this and in photoshop .... yadda yadda yadda.

The parts you are yaddaing are the important parts that you don't understand.

I gave you the link, But of course, He is lying.
IT IS Not possible
Because the Pro not Pro Career Photographer not Photographer Myopic says it is not possible.

Dumbass, I never doubted the validity that the MkII (either one) is a great camera.  It just does not do what you say it does.  I'm sure he knows what he is talking about but you fail to understand that what he did with the image AFTER capture is more important in rescuing the image.

So, Try to make me look like a fool.

You have already done a fine job of that.

say what you want.

You lie, Sam lies, and no amount of twisting of words will show otherwise.

Others see it too.

Keep right on posting Myopic.
Hope you enjoy the show!

Oh I will, this is great fun, I have never seen anyone like you.  You are an anomaly, like that 6 year old kid you keep mentioning. 

Posted by Ty Simone: 

You Make a false statement - No software can make 3d lighting on a 2d Plain.
You are proven wrong - deep space 3d

Excuse me but "deep space"?

Hey moron, it's called "Deep Paint"

You don't even know the name of the program that YOU brought up but have never seen in action but are putting  all your faith in.
HAHAA!!!

Really man, admit it, you are now confused about even what YOU have said! LOL!

Plus that is a 3D graphics environment, not a 2D graphics environment which is what I was talking about, y'know, like Photoshop, a program you know nothing about.

Posted by Ty Simone: 
Sam.
You are a bold face liar.

Wait, now you're calling me a font AND a liar? You accusations get more bizarre by the minute.

Posted by Ty Simone: 
Let's analyze your statements once again...

Posted by Sam Bennett:
"* There is very little difference in the "lighting" that the $800 Rebel can capture versus the $8,000 1Ds. You are giving attributes to cameras which simply do not exist.

This is a factually accurate statement. There really isn't much of a difference. Both cameras in terms of auto-exposure are quite similar. The differences between them lay mainly in regards to a highly more advanced AF system in the 1 series, coupled with the stronger chassis, battery system, much larger sensor/resolution and so forth. In terms of their control over "lighting" the results you're going to get are pretty much the same - especially if you're an amateur.

Posted by Sam Bennett:

Posted by Ty Simone:
Go read the Specs.

Posted by Sam Bennett:
Dude, get a grip already. I use these cameras every day - I know what the specs are. Feel free to prove me wrong about what I've said above"

Now- We are talking about two, and only two cameras - the $800 Rebel and the $8000 1Ds

I brought up the 1Ds specifically because it illustrated a bigger gap in price than the $4000 1D MK II. I haven't used the 1Ds MKII, but the differences between the 1D MK II which I have used are pretty negligible, especially in regards to the aspects of them to which you're referring.

However, regardless of what I said, you made from the very first page blanket statements about "the new line of Canon EOS cameras" - and over the course of the discussion you have jumped from specs and reviews of three EOS cameras - the 1Ds MKII, the 1D MKII and the Rebel XT. You were making comments about EOS cameras. I own and use EOS cameras every day (well, just about every day). There is only ONE person in the thread who thinks that I was trying to say I own a 1Ds - you. You should realize by now that I'm not a stupid person - and to try to say in a public forum FILLED with photographers that I own arguably the single best dSLR on the planet would be very VERY stupid.

Posted by Sam Bennett:
You say "I use these cameras every day "
Please note it is CAMERAS
Not I use one of the cameras.
Not I use the Rebel.

I use these Cameras

Yes, plural because, once again, was engaged with a confused and deluded person who was referring to a family of cameras and clearly couldn't seperate the $800 XT from the $8,000 1Ds. It wouldn't really have made sense to say "I use the XT! And the 20D, which you don't mention, even though it would probably support your argument much better since it's a great camera that people could actually afford!" because then you'd say, "What is an XT? What is a 20D? I'm talking about the 'MK II!', which has Landscape and Portrait and Close-Up mode and will liberate the entire planet from the oppressive control of our 'true photographer' overlords" or something equally asinine, and then it would have been even more confusing.

Posted by Sam Bennett:
Ok, Let's go based on that assumption for a minute
You use the Rebel.
You say that the two cameras are vastly different in at least 4 other posts (especiall when trying to claim I assigned Rebel features to the 1Ds camera)
So the Two Cameras are vastly different, You only use the Rebel.
Yet you miraculously know the Specs to the Vastly Different 1Ds because you use the Rebel....

"I use these cameras every day - I know what the specs are"

No, the point was that I'm familiar with the EOS family, since I use several of the cameras in it regularly. I own the Rebel XT, I own the 20D, I used to own the original Rebel, I've used the 10D pretty extensively, I've used the 1D and the 1D MK II less frequently. The photographer from whom I borrow the MK II from frequently jokes with me that I know the camera better than she does. The point which you've so conveniently ignored is that my knowledge of the cameras comes from first hand use of them - yours comes from reading, but not understanding, various reviews and spec sheets.

Posted by Sam Bennett:
You took something in response to a statement by myopic, that had nothing to do with the Mark II and because I mentioned Mark II somewhere else on that same page, but not the same post... I was attributing it to the mark II....

Again, it seemed quite obvious to me that you were confusing the entire EOS range - quoting the XT literature to support an argument you were initially making with one of the MK IIs, for instance. But you never referred to the XT specifically outside of the cut-and-paste, only the "MK II" - and have proceeded to refer to it as the camera that's going to save the universe, enable 6 yr olds to take our jobs, etc. So when you started bring up features from the XT in the same context without saying you were talking about the XT it was pretty clear you didn't realize that the functionality you were referring to wasn't in the camera you were trying to say it was. You can wriggle around and say that you never explicitly said that the "MK II" has a Landscape mode - but everyone here knows that you're so confused that you don't even realize it.

Posted by Sam Bennett:
You lie, Sam lies, and no amount of twisting of words will show otherwise.

You know, I'd be worried if I thought there was even the most remote chance in hell anyone else thought I was lying. But I'm pretty confident that people see what's going on.

Posted by Ty Simone: 
It is his article, It is his picture, it says specifically because the E-TTL II balances light across the plane and not on the focal yadda yadda yadda yadda, even in poor lighting conditions, and no flash, I was able to take this and in photoshop .... yadda yadda yadda.

I gave you the link, But of course, He is lying.
IT IS Not possible
Because the Pro not Pro Career Photographer not Photographer Myopic says it is not possible.

Ummm... What the hell are you going on about? Here's exactly what he says:

The Mark II has a smarter “E-TTL” flash metering system that, while compatible with all EX-series flashes, is designed to illuminate the subject as a “plane” to ensure that images of various colors and levels of reflection are accurately captured. This was useful when I was commandeered to shoot some “grip and grins” (argghhhhhh) at the ground breaking of a new Land Rover dealership. The new system compares ambient light with the reflected pre-flash in all 17 metering modes and selects the areas with small differences to be weighted for flash exposure compensation. This, I expect, will be of most use to wedding and other shoot-and-scoot photographers working with Canon’s 550EX flash.

See that bit at the bottom? The E-TTL II system he's referring requires a flash because, err... it's a system for get more accurate results while using Flash. None of the 1 Series cameras have built in flashes. So this is yet again where a "true photographer" needs to whip out their E-TTL II-compatible Flash and an E-TTL II-compatible lens (which returns distance information) to get the best possible calculations. Of course, how you actually USE the Flash is also up to the photographer. Are you going to point it directly at your subject and get that "deer in headlights" look? Are you going to aim it up and bounce the light off the ceiling to get a more natural look? Are you going to use a diffusor to get a less directional look? Or more likely for studio photographers - are you going to use a series of Flashs in different positions to get everything in the right place. Again, none of this is done by the camera and requires the experience that a true photographer would have.

Posted by Sam Bennett: 
Are you going to point it directly at your subject and get that "deer in headlights" look? Are you going to aim it up and bounce the light off the ceiling to get a more natural look? Are you going to use a diffusor to get a less directional look? Or more likely for studio photographers - are you going to use a series of Flashs in different positions to get everything in the right place. Again, none of this is done by the camera and requires the experience that a true photographer would have.

Sam, haven't you learned at thing Ty has taught you?  None of this matters, you just change the "lighting" in photoshop! HA!