Anyone want to offload their Zeiss Softar or equivalent [Hoya Soft Focus
maybe?] ? :)
Heard its a magic filter that will eliminate all the imperfection in a
person's face .
=bob=
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/2003
"[BnH]" <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> writes:
> Anyone want to offload their Zeiss Softar or equivalent [Hoya Soft Focus
> maybe?] ? :)
> Heard its a magic filter that will eliminate all the imperfection in a
> person's face .
That's called a lens cap, isn't it?
B>
"[BnH]" <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> wrote in message
news:3ef98138$0$31498$5a62ac22@no-spam
> Anyone want to offload their Zeiss Softar or equivalent [Hoya Soft Focus
> maybe?] ? :)
> Heard its a magic filter that will eliminate all the imperfection in a
> person's face .
Try Clear Skin from www.mediachance.com ...it does wonders at removing
imperfections.
LOL :)
C'mon .. anyone ?
=bob=
"Bruce Murphy" <pack-news@no-spam> wrote in message
news:m2llvqs9e7.fsf@no-spam
> "[BnH]" <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> writes:
>
> > Anyone want to offload their Zeiss Softar or equivalent [Hoya Soft Focus
> > maybe?] ? :)
> > Heard its a magic filter that will eliminate all the imperfection in a
> > person's face .
>
> That's called a lens cap, isn't it?
>
> B>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/2003
"[BnH]" <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> wrote in message
news:3ef9942e$0$31518$5a62ac22@no-spam
> err. that's digital :(
>
> i want analog :)
>
> =bob=
For the last 100 years before 1980 it was a UVa + stockings or Vaseline.
"[BnH]" <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> wrote in message
news:3ef98138$0$31498$5a62ac22@no-spam
> Anyone want to offload their Zeiss Softar or equivalent [Hoya Soft Focus
> maybe?] ? :)
> Heard its a magic filter that will eliminate all the imperfection in a
> person's face .
>
> =bob=
>
At the risk of offending all dSLR shooters, thats see how well this goes as
a joke: try shooting with a crappy lens, or just dont USM ;)
(ah, the same cannot be said of shooting with crappy film SLRs, because you
also pick up heaps o grain/noise from film itself or scanning)
"Valar" <remove@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdc6ch$988$1@no-spam
>
> "[BnH]" <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> wrote in message
> news:3ef98138$0$31498$5a62ac22@no-spam
> > Anyone want to offload their Zeiss Softar or equivalent [Hoya Soft Focus
> > maybe?] ? :)
> > Heard its a magic filter that will eliminate all the imperfection in a
> > person's face .
> >
> > =bob=
> >
>
> At the risk of offending all dSLR shooters, thats see how well this goes
as
> a joke: try shooting with a crappy lens, or just dont USM ;)
A bad lens doesnt have good contrast or colour balance. Whereas a good lens
does even when soft.
he's right on that one
" > A bad lens doesnt have good contrast or colour balance. Whereas a good
lens
> does even when soft.
>
>
Miro was right about the stocking over the lens thing.
I used to fog a UV filter by breathing on it sometimes and if you use
petroleum jelly you can get quite mild effects. There's a filter you can buy
to soften an image. I sometimes use star filters which only produce a star
from bright highlights... Of course there are none in portraiture so the
softening effect does help. "Duto" filter, I think is the name of the filter
most closely matching a softar lens.
JT
"[BnH]" <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> wrote in message
news:3ef98138$0$31498$5a62ac22@no-spam
> Anyone want to offload their Zeiss Softar or equivalent [Hoya Soft Focus
> maybe?] ? :)
> Heard its a magic filter that will eliminate all the imperfection in a
> person's face .
>
> =bob=
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/2003
>
>
I've got a "Fotar Diffusion 55mm", yields quite a nice soft focus effect on
portraits, if that's any good to you
"[BnH]" <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> wrote in message
news:3ef98138$0$31498$5a62ac22@no-spam
> Anyone want to offload their Zeiss Softar or equivalent [Hoya Soft Focus
> maybe?] ? :)
> Heard its a magic filter that will eliminate all the imperfection in a
> person's face .
>
> =bob=
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/2003
>
>
Actually any size would be good if the price is right as I am only using it
to test out the filters.
And eventually will buy one as filter from pro get worn off after a while :(
Anyway if you have, any 52 | 58 | 67 | 72 | 77 mm would be fine.
=bob=
"Derek" <doleary@no-spam> wrote in message
news:WSAKa.795$Py2.8387@no-spam
> might be a good idea if you actually mention the filter size you need, I
> might have something.
>
> "[BnH]" <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> wrote in message
> news:3ef98138$0$31498$5a62ac22@no-spam
> > Anyone want to offload their Zeiss Softar or equivalent [Hoya Soft Focus
> > maybe?] ? :)
> > Heard its a magic filter that will eliminate all the imperfection in a
> > person's face .
> >
> > =bob=
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/2003
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efa041d$0$26636$afc38c87@no-spam
>
> "Valar" <remove@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:bdc6ch$988$1@no-spam
> >
> > "[BnH]" <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> wrote in message
> > news:3ef98138$0$31498$5a62ac22@no-spam
> > > Anyone want to offload their Zeiss Softar or equivalent [Hoya Soft
Focus
> > > maybe?] ? :)
> > > Heard its a magic filter that will eliminate all the imperfection in a
> > > person's face .
> > >
> > > =bob=
> > >
> >
> > At the risk of offending all dSLR shooters, thats see how well this goes
> as
> > a joke: try shooting with a crappy lens, or just dont USM ;)
>
> A bad lens doesnt have good contrast or colour balance. Whereas a good
lens
> does even when soft.
softness is simply interpreted by the brain as being low contrast, due to
the reduction in high spatial frequency. The unintentional softness is
created by the inferior optical quality, sort of like astigmatism, the same
is acheived by using a soft filter to filter out the high spatial frequency,
no?
PS. I wish i was a physics major, so i'd understand optics better.
"Valar" <remove@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdg83s$s0g$1@no-spam
>
> " Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3efb8636$0$26639$afc38c87@no-spam
> <snip>
> > Spatial frequency is a "fluffy" word at best as it does not corelate
> > percptual to lateral inhibition of the retina. It is in the retina that
> > "softness" is determined. The visual cortex integrates the information
and
> > signals the brain with fewer "hard edges" than usual.
> >
> > PS: I am a neuroscience major, so I'd understand the brain better.
> >
>
> Arh, in that case do you mind if I ask you a few neurophys questions
because
> ive got a neurophys exam coming? ;)
>
> My understanding is that the ganglion cells that code for different
spatial
> frequencies are divided up in the LGN by going to different layers of the
> LGN, and that the lateral inhibition occuring on the retinal level is more
> like sharpening to achieve maximal contrast/acuity. obviously our eyes
> interpret differently something as being intrinsically soft or something
> that is out of focus, perhaps by totally different mechanisms, one is by
> detecting high-spatial freq in the higher cortical level, and the other
> happens at lower level due to retinal blur- near triad (thats why im still
a
> little bit confused about, how does the brain know whether something is
> intrinsically soft- if theres such a thing in real life, and something as
> being out of focus, does it try to focus it first, and determine to be
soft
> if focus is to no avail?)
Firstly you must consider the role of binocular vision and integration.
Secondly the brain does not know softness at all. It only knows hard
boundaries. Therefore the lack of hard boundaries is a fuzzy level of
information which is difficult to integrate.
>
> Now without knowing much about the physics, putting a softar filter on is
> essentially putting on a high-frequency filter on to eliminate the high-f
> info, and then our brain will interpret it as being soft by lack of high
f.
> I argue the same occurs when you use an inferior lens, seeing how it
doesn't
> record high f with great fidelity, but as we all know the contrast is crap
> on crap lenses due to coating etc, but again, how does our brain know the
> difference between softar & crap lens? tonality? but what is tonality to
our
> brain if theres so much edge detection and lateral inhibition going on in
> the background to sharpen our visual perception anyway? (and how about
those
> portrait lenses that are naturally soft?)
Since we work in colour that becomes relevant to definition. Consider this
same function in poor light where the fovea does not function. Then it is
entirely determined by monochromatic rods. The large integration of rods is
responsible for increased acuity and therefore greater sensitivity but as
always lower definition.
contrast has several defining features, it is colour transition, spatial
position and boundaries. It think that the image be it softer or fuzzy
depending on the lens, is encoded on all of these levels.
Chromatic abberation seen in poor lenses detracts from tonal uniformity and
blurs edges such as eyelash, facial features and subtle lighting effects.
Poor lenses introduce artifacts which are entirely apart from the function
of the softar. The absence of artifacts is apparent to even an untrained
person.
To me ..... in my way of looking at things ..... soft lenses add white to a
scene.
In a nutshell ....... the brain is responsible for the perception not the
filter. The filter modifies the product to the satisfaction of the eye.
>
> Have you heard of a Fourier transform? How about the Fourier transform of
> a square wave? And what happens when you try and approximate a square wave
> by successive sinusoids?
>
I understand what a Fourier transformation is but in all honesty I dont
think anyone asserts that is how the brain is controlled.
As for your very fuzzy notion of "nobody knows how it happens" - I think
there is a class distinction between the molecular transformation and the
process.
In 2003 you can easily win a Nobel Prize for describing the process and not
be the least bit informed on the mechanism. This is the distinction you are
making and it doesnt hold any weight. It is perfectly valid to attribute
functions to a region of the brain and not know how or why it is possible.
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efc2b6f$0$26633$afc38c87@no-spam
>
> > And when precisely did you finish studying neuroscince and start
> > washing testtubes, becuase a lot of the interesting research
> > about precisely /where/ these things happen (And it's not well
> > understood, despite your assertions) has happened quite recently.
I hold Majors in several science fields. I also hold several Minors.
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> writes:
> >
> > Have you heard of a Fourier transform? How about the Fourier transform of
> > a square wave? And what happens when you try and approximate a square wave
> > by successive sinusoids?
> >
>
> I understand what a Fourier transformation is but in all honesty I dont
> think anyone asserts that is how the brain is controlled.
Alright, so you can't see any relation between spatial frequencies are
hard edges. That's fair enough, I doubt you deal with fourier space
much while you're washing test-tubes. HOwever, your lack of
understanding doesn't prevent their being intimately related. See my
square-wave case in point.
> As for your very fuzzy notion of "nobody knows how it happens" - I think
> there is a class distinction between the molecular transformation and the
> process.
That's nice, but since noone knows what the hell happens between the
level fo about two neurons and the top where we have some vague
models, your statements are still meaningless.
> In 2003 you can easily win a Nobel Prize for describing the process and not
> be the least bit informed on the mechanism. This is the distinction you are
> making and it doesnt hold any weight. It is perfectly valid to attribute
> functions to a region of the brain and not know how or why it is possible.
It's not currently open to disproof, but that doesn' tmake it any less
a stupid statement based on tiny scraps of information that don't fit
together.
In short, you don't know, and neither does anyone else.
B>
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> writes:
> " Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3efc2b6f$0$26633$afc38c87@no-spam
> >
> > > And when precisely did you finish studying neuroscince and start
> > > washing testtubes, becuase a lot of the interesting research
> > > about precisely /where/ these things happen (And it's not well
> > > understood, despite your assertions) has happened quite recently.
>
> I hold Majors in several science fields. I also hold several Minors.
Tell you what, why don't you tell us precisely what they are /now/ and
then we can point and laugh at you when you next invent a new one.
No? Don't want to commit yourself?
B>
"Bruce Murphy" <pack-news@no-spam> wrote in message
news:m27k77le7a.fsf@no-spam
> " Miro" <miro01@no-spam> writes:
>
> > " Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3efc2b6f$0$26633$afc38c87@no-spam
> > >
> > > > And when precisely did you finish studying neuroscince and start
> > > > washing testtubes, becuase a lot of the interesting research
> > > > about precisely /where/ these things happen (And it's not well
> > > > understood, despite your assertions) has happened quite recently.
> >
> > I hold Majors in several science fields. I also hold several Minors.
>
> Tell you what, why don't you tell us precisely what they are /now/ and
> then we can point and laugh at you when you next invent a new one.
>
> No? Don't want to commit yourself?
>
You are a jerk bruce. I happen to have gained 3 in the last year whilst you
were pounding your pelvis with your idealism.
>
> In short, you don't know, and neither does anyone else.
>
> B>
You really are the love child of Rod Speed.
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> writes:
> "Bruce Murphy" <pack-news@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:m27k77le7a.fsf@no-spam
> > " Miro" <miro01@no-spam> writes:
> >
> > > " Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3efc2b6f$0$26633$afc38c87@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > > And when precisely did you finish studying neuroscince and start
> > > > > washing testtubes, becuase a lot of the interesting research
> > > > > about precisely /where/ these things happen (And it's not well
> > > > > understood, despite your assertions) has happened quite recently.
> > >
> > > I hold Majors in several science fields. I also hold several Minors.
> >
> > Tell you what, why don't you tell us precisely what they are /now/ and
> > then we can point and laugh at you when you next invent a new one.
> >
> > No? Don't want to commit yourself?
> >
>
> You are a jerk bruce. I happen to have gained 3 in the last year whilst you
> were pounding your pelvis with your idealism.
3 Majors in one year, eh? And how many dozen does this make in total? Now
why don't you tell us precisely what these majors are and then we can all
go look them up next time you claim to be qualified in yet another field.
Well? surely that's a pretty reasonable request. You're a bit old to be
doing a degree now though, aren't you? Or isn't there an age requirement
on cereal boxes anymore.
B>
>
> 3 Majors in one year, eh? And how many dozen does this make in total? Now
> why don't you tell us precisely what these majors are and then we can all
> go look them up next time you claim to be qualified in yet another field.
>
> Well? surely that's a pretty reasonable request. You're a bit old to be
> doing a degree now though, aren't you? Or isn't there an age requirement
> on cereal boxes anymore.
Like always you show your true ignorance by being unduely sceptical. What
does it take to convert a minor into a major ? How many years or should I
say months does that take ?
I would be happy to let the relevant professors decide what I am qualified
to at. You on the other hand are quick to assert your critical mind and
prove that dogmas do exist.
Have you been formally trained or did you get your validation from standing
in the aisles of Dymocks.
>
> When you're ready to describe precisely what these 'majors' you claim
> to have gotten are, why don't you tell us, otherwise we'll all
> continue along our standard path, which is assuming you're a
> pathological self-aggrandiser.
>
> B>
Get stuffed.
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> writes:
> >
> > When you're ready to describe precisely what these 'majors' you claim
> > to have gotten are, why don't you tell us, otherwise we'll all
> > continue along our standard path, which is assuming you're a
> > pathological self-aggrandiser.
>
> Get stuffed.
No, I wasn't expecting you to come clean. Ah well, it'll just be a
manner of time, you know, since you can't help yourself and always
leap into a discussion claiming ot have invented it, or recently,
having a major in it.
You should keep notes, you're not a very effective troll.
B>
Rob <audiobANTISPAM@no-spam> writes:
> Bruce Murphy wrote:
>
> > When you're ready to describe precisely what these 'majors' you claim
> > to have gotten are, why don't you tell us, otherwise we'll all
> > continue along our standard path, which is assuming you're a
> > pathological self-aggrandiser.
>
> Is that the royal "we"?
I include all the other people who have made sarcastic remarks about
Miros claims to have, for example, introduced the internet into
Australia.
B>
> > > When you're ready to describe precisely what these 'majors' you claim
> > > to have gotten are, why don't you tell us, otherwise we'll all
> > > continue along our standard path, which is assuming you're a
> > > pathological self-aggrandiser.
> >
> > Get stuffed.
>
> No, I wasn't expecting you to come clean.
You are a nobody from nowhere, hardly the sort of person I confide in.
"Bruce Murphy" <pack-news@no-spam> wrote in message
news:m2wuf52d59.fsf@no-spam
> Rob <audiobANTISPAM@no-spam> writes:
>
> > Bruce Murphy wrote:
> >
> > > When you're ready to describe precisely what these 'majors' you claim
> > > to have gotten are, why don't you tell us, otherwise we'll all
> > > continue along our standard path, which is assuming you're a
> > > pathological self-aggrandiser.
> >
> > Is that the royal "we"?
>
> I include all the other people who have made sarcastic remarks about
> Miros claims to have, for example, introduced the internet into
> Australia.
>
Dont bother Rob, Bruce has it in his head that nothing goes on in Australia
unless he does it. Not only can he not cite properly but he ridicules the
truth as all fools do.
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> writes:
> > > > When you're ready to describe precisely what these 'majors' you claim
> > > > to have gotten are, why don't you tell us, otherwise we'll all
> > > > continue along our standard path, which is assuming you're a
> > > > pathological self-aggrandiser.
> > >
> > > Get stuffed.
> >
> > No, I wasn't expecting you to come clean.
>
> You are a nobody from nowhere, hardly the sort of person I confide in.
The entirety of aus.photo watches you refuse to tell us what all these
'majors' of yours that you've suddenly developed actually are. Why
precisely are you refusing? Apart from the obvious, that is.
B>
"Bruce Murphy" <pack-news@no-spam> wrote in message
news:m2smpt2bzb.fsf@no-spam
> " Miro" <miro01@no-spam> writes:
>
> > > > > When you're ready to describe precisely what these 'majors' you
claim
> > > > > to have gotten are, why don't you tell us, otherwise we'll all
> > > > > continue along our standard path, which is assuming you're a
> > > > > pathological self-aggrandiser.
> > > >
> > > > Get stuffed.
> > >
> > > No, I wasn't expecting you to come clean.
> >
> > You are a nobody from nowhere, hardly the sort of person I confide in.
>
> The entirety of aus.photo watches you refuse to tell us what all these
> 'majors' of yours that you've suddenly developed actually are. Why
> precisely are you refusing? Apart from the obvious, that is.
>
> B>
Because you are a jerk.
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> writes:
> "Bruce Murphy" <pack-news@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:m2smpt2bzb.fsf@no-spam
> > " Miro" <miro01@no-spam> writes:
> >
> > > > > > When you're ready to describe precisely what these 'majors' you
> claim
> > > > > > to have gotten are, why don't you tell us, otherwise we'll all
> > > > > > continue along our standard path, which is assuming you're a
> > > > > > pathological self-aggrandiser.
> > > > >
> > > > > Get stuffed.
> > > >
> > > > No, I wasn't expecting you to come clean.
> > >
> > > You are a nobody from nowhere, hardly the sort of person I confide in.
> >
> > The entirety of aus.photo watches you refuse to tell us what all these
> > 'majors' of yours that you've suddenly developed actually are. Why
> > precisely are you refusing? Apart from the obvious, that is.
> Because you are a jerk.
So, in summary you're saying that you aren't going to back up your wild
claims becuase you prefer random personal attacks?
At least you're consistent.
B>
>
> So, in summary you're saying that you aren't going to back up your wild
> claims becuase you prefer random personal attacks?
>
> At least you're consistent.
>
> B>
No, I basically dont have any regard for your opinion. I suspect that comes
easily for you, but I can assure you that I have regard for the opinion of
my garbage collector, so in your case it was earned.
Actually I thought Bruce had some degree of understanding of many things.
Unfortunately he turned out to be so bigoted in his opinion as to attempt
assertion in areas he has no ability.
Clearly he is out of his depth trying to slug it out with a master troll. To
feed the trolls and then actually think he can have the last word... Is
clear demonstration of his inability to grasp the basic concept of
Newsgroups-for-entertainment. Another Miro specialty.
Miro may or may not have introduced the Internet to Australia but he has
certainly grasped the fundamentals of using Usenet for entertainment. All
Bruce has achieved is higher blood pressure and some degree of scorn from
the community.
JT
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efef45a$0$26636$afc38c87@no-spam
>
> Dont bother Rob, Bruce has it in his head that nothing goes on in
Australia
> unless he does it. Not only can he not cite properly but he ridicules the
> truth as all fools do.
>
>
"Auspics" <just@no-spam> wrote in message
news:rfILa.10$VH3.980@no-spam
> Actually I thought Bruce had some degree of understanding of many things.
> Unfortunately he turned out to be so bigoted in his opinion as to attempt
> assertion in areas he has no ability.
>
> Clearly he is out of his depth trying to slug it out with a master troll.
To
> feed the trolls and then actually think he can have the last word... Is
> clear demonstration of his inability to grasp the basic concept of
> Newsgroups-for-entertainment. Another Miro specialty.
>
> Miro may or may not have introduced the Internet to Australia but he has
> certainly grasped the fundamentals of using Usenet for entertainment. All
> Bruce has achieved is higher blood pressure and some degree of scorn from
> the community.
> JT
And now its over to Tracy for the weather.