Overproof wrote:



Just accept the fact that you don't have a clue as to what causes red
eye.... if you did.. it wouldn't happen. That Lil' Billiard Boy is just the
facts! Deal with it..... or mail me a certified money order and I'll
provide you with a detailed explanation.


Don't forget my copyright fees!

Cheers

"Bobsprit" wrote in message But the camera makers of
most digicams say red eye is generally unavoidable.
Why can't you just tell us and them how you've solved the problem!!??
Here's more facts showing what an idiot Mooron is...
http://www.epinions.com/elec-review-...3907D24E-prod5

Boy are you ever dense.... it's an article about how not to get red eye...
which you claim can't be avoided and that all photographers suffer from....
Thanks for posting the proof that you are an IDIOT!

BTW... no mention that the makers of every digicam state any such thing
about red-eye.

Sheesh... that was easy.

CM

"Nav" wrote in message
...


Bobsprit wrote:

...and will you friggin pair of cry babies quit with the whining about
"built in" camera flash!!

It's part of what causes red eye. Except for you, who can avoid it with
such
cameras.


Of course he can, he's a professional!

You might want to check out Bob's link in this thread.... you'll look
sillier than usual... as usual!

CM

Overproof wrote:

"Nav" wrote in message

I'm shocked!


No Nav... you're just stunned! .... but we all knew that.


Stunned, shocked it makes no difference. I had a regard for your
upstanding demeanor but now I wonder what manner of fish you are.

Cheers

"Nav" wrote in message
Are you sure you are not Booby bragging about camera equipment?

Bwhahahahhahahaha

Oh you mean like you bragging about celestial plots and advanced
equipment??.... No.. I'm stating facts.

CM

Yes I take "face on" [excuse while I laugh at your terminology] .... but if
you are aware of what causes red eye... then you take steps to avoid it.

It's not Rocket Science Nav....

CM



"Nav" wrote in message
...
Then you don't take any face on pictures with a built in flash or are
subjects asleep?

Cheers

Overproof wrote:

I don't ever get red eye... on any shots.

CM

"Nav" wrote in message
...

No need to cry. If you ask nicely we'll explain it to you.

Cheers

Overproof wrote:


On axis.... Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

CM

"Nav" wrote in message
...


I worried that he would not understand what "on axis" meant when I
tried to explain the basics to him. Waste of time really.

Cheers

Bobsprit wrote:



Wake up... no professional photographer gets "red-eye"... really!
Even Wedding Photographers don't get red eye....


They use off camera flash units Mooron. Get it? And they still have
the problem
on occasion, especially in dark rooms.
The camera you questioned had a built in flash. We're all waiting (and
so is
Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Sony) on how to cure red eye 100% with built in
flash.....and waiting....and waiting...and waiting!

STOMP!!! Bwahahahahahaha!

RB

Overproof wrote:

"Nav" wrote in message
...


Bobsprit wrote:


...and will you friggin pair of cry babies quit with the whining about
"built in" camera flash!!

It's part of what causes red eye. Except for you, who can avoid it with
such
cameras.


Of course he can, he's a professional!


You might want to check out Bob's link in this thread.... you'll look
sillier than usual... as usual!


This ad hominem proves you've lost.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Let me explain it to you
even more simply. The light from the built in camera flash bounces off
the retina back to the camera lens when a person looks at the camera.
Happens every time - it's physics. If the person is not looking at the
camera or if their pupil is constricted then the effect gets smaller but
any light coming off the retina back into the camera is 'red eye'.

Cheers

"Nav" wrote in message
...


Overproof wrote:

"Nav" wrote in message
...


Overproof wrote:


"Nav" wrote in message
...


Overproof wrote:



"Nav" wrote in message




Still claiming your lens is a 2000 mm F5.6???

Bwhahahhahaha


It's not a claim...


No -it's pure fiction. It's not f5.6 at 1000mm either.

Bwhahahhahahhahaha


That's not at all what I said.....


So now you are saying you didn't say f5.6 at all?


I'm not saying I didn't say that.....


So you are saying that you thought it was f5.6 but now acknowlege it is
niether 2000mm nor f5.6 at 1000mm? What f number is it at 1000mm?

Here's a hint.... I stated it was an f11 with the doubler attached. Of
course that would preclude any of the 17 alternate lenses inserted to the
lens. Says right on it... f5.6.

CM

"Nav" wrote in message
...


Overproof wrote:



Just accept the fact that you don't have a clue as to what causes red
eye.... if you did.. it wouldn't happen. That Lil' Billiard Boy is just
the facts! Deal with it..... or mail me a certified money order and I'll
provide you with a detailed explanation.


Don't forget my copyright fees!

Mail me the address... I'll forward the 10% as soon as Bill sends the money
order. :-D

CM

Overproof wrote:

"Nav" wrote in message
...


Overproof wrote:


"Nav" wrote in message
...


Overproof wrote:



"Nav" wrote in message
...



Overproof wrote:




"Nav" wrote in message





Still claiming your lens is a 2000 mm F5.6???

Bwhahahhahaha


It's not a claim...


No -it's pure fiction. It's not f5.6 at 1000mm either.

Bwhahahhahahhahaha


That's not at all what I said.....


So now you are saying you didn't say f5.6 at all?


I'm not saying I didn't say that.....


So you are saying that you thought it was f5.6 but now acknowlege it is
niether 2000mm nor f5.6 at 1000mm? What f number is it at 1000mm?


Here's a hint.... I stated it was an f11 with the doubler attached. Of
course that would preclude any of the 17 alternate lenses inserted to the
lens. Says right on it... f5.6.


Good lord.

Cheers