bug photos
rw
Instead of the usual boring, insufferable photos of big fish :-), here
are some photos of big bugs. I collected these this afternoon.
Here's a representative sample I got with one good scoop:
http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/web/scoop.jpg
They were mostly stonefly nymphs, with the occasional mayfly nymph,
cased caddis, or free-swimming caddis (GRW) mixed in.
This photo indicates the size of the larger stonefly nymphs:
http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/web/size.jpg
All bugs shown in these photos were released back into the stream
unharmed, if rather pissed off. :-)
--
visit my web site:
http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/
Bruiser
When I'm examining bugs on river rocks, I always drop the rock back into the
river before the big scary Stonefly nymph crawls onto my hand. It's a
really quick inventory. Lot's of caddis cases, some small mayfly nymphs...
splash!
bruce h
Peter Charles
This whole business of photographing stream bugs has me a bit
intrigued - the aquarium bit too. There's some tricks to make a 3 or
4 power field microscope out of an ordinary 35mm SLR and when I get a
few test shots developed, I'll post them.
I mention this because when I screen for bugs then go home and try
identify them, then tie up imitations, the memory always fails at some
point - the photo won't.
Peter
Visit The Streamer Page at http://home.cogeco.ca/~pcharles/streamers/index.html
rw
Peter Charles wrote:
>
> This whole business of photographing stream bugs has me a bit
> intrigued - the aquarium bit too. There's some tricks to make a 3 or
> 4 power field microscope out of an ordinary 35mm SLR and when I get a
> few test shots developed, I'll post them.
>
> I mention this because when I screen for bugs then go home and try
> identify them, then tie up imitations, the memory always fails at some
> point - the photo won't.
A digital camera with a decent macro mode is ideal. Then you can look
at the photos right away, without waiting for development and printing.
If you're away from home (camped or on a trip or whatever) and you've
taken along a laptop computer, you have everything you need.
Of course, they'll never be fine art. :-)
Peter Charles
>
>A digital camera with a decent macro mode is ideal. Then you can look
>at the photos right away, without waiting for development and printing.
>If you're away from home (camped or on a trip or whatever) and you've
>taken along a laptop computer, you have everything you need.
>
>Of course, they'll never be fine art. :-)
Apart from the fine art . . .
I've never seen anything in digital that will approach these
magnification rates. Sure you can crop and resize but the image
quality is degraded. To turn a typical 1:3 or 1:4 into 3:1 or 4:1 by
resizing is going to produce a low quality image.
Before I turned to making money with my cameras, bug shots were one of
my pastimes. On some shots, I could count the eyes on a spider.
I could've used the rig last summer - I screened up a number of very
small mayfly nymphs (probably a BWO or trico) that the fish were
taking. It had some unusual features but I really couldn't discern
them that clearly - too small.
GaryM
news:oth7ju0mska4jlvu0...@4ax.com:
> I've never seen anything in digital that will approach
> these magnification rates. Sure you can crop and resize
> but the image quality is degraded.
Peter it depends on what you want to do with them. If it is for
purposes of tying the quality is excellent. I even printed out a
cropped version and it looked ok.
Here is an example taken with a 3.3 Megapixel Fujimax Finepix
6800z and a flash. I also think I could have been closer but it
was hard in the dark:
http://friends.rockypond.com/closeup.jpg
http://friends.rockypond.com/full.jpg
Both pics above were saved at 50% compression, so you lose a bit
especially around the head.
--
Gary M
rw
GaryM wrote:
>
> Peter Charles <p_s_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:oth7ju0mska4jlvu0...@4ax.com:
>
> > I've never seen anything in digital that will approach
> > these magnification rates. Sure you can crop and resize
> > but the image quality is degraded.
>
> Peter it depends on what you want to do with them. If it is for
> purposes of tying the quality is excellent. I even printed out a
> cropped version and it looked ok.
Here's an uncropped (but reduced for the Web) photo of a really tiny
artificial fly I took with my digital camera:
http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/web/emerger.jpg
It's clear that for purposes of documenting images of aquatic insects
there's no real advantage that a 35mm SLR has over a digital camera with
a good macro mode. If anything, the superior depth of field of digital
cameras makes the job easier.
Peter Charles
Gary, I should've been more specific - I'm not using web or monitor
resolutions as a standard. Even my cheap Kodak DC215 will turn out
decent web stuff.
Having been a macro junkie in a former life, the typical rangefinder
digital cameras don't hold a candle to a decent 35mm. The rules
change of course, if you pay the big bucks to buy a digital SLR camera
that takes standard 35mm lenses. I've tried doing digital macro with
a rangefinder using the manufacturer's closeup lenses and attachments
and frankly from an overall performance standpoint, they suck. If you
use the rangefinder, the parallax error is severe. Under strong
ambient light, the rear LCD is unusable.
I'm not anti-digital, hell I have two of them, but the rangefinder PhD
versions have major limitations vs. SLR technology. I had a chat
earlier today with a local camera store owner and he was hoping
(according to industry estimates) that digital SLR bodies will be in
the 10 Megapixel, $1,000.00 CAD range in three years. If that proves
true, it's a different story but until then, I'll stick with my
Nikons.
BTW, my 35mm rig uses a 200mm f4 prime lens with a 50mm f2 lens
reverse mounted on the end of the 200mm using a male-male adapter
ring. I also have a bayonet mount filter ring to protect the rear
element of the 50mm. I use a small, direct flash to illuminate the
subject. Typically, the 50 is left wide open and the 200 is at f32 so
depth of field is no problem. As it's flash photography, I can shoot
hand held. Given the close flash ranges, the subject appears lit with
a soft box. This rig gives a 4:1 macro magnification. My earlier
Pentax rig used a 135mm f3.5 instead of a 200 so the magnification
ratio is about 2.7:1. I found the Pentax rig to give a more usable
range than did the Nikon as 4:1 is awful small.
If anyone is interested in creating one of these rigs, drop me an
email as it is more than just reversing any old lens in front of any
old lens.
rw
Peter Charles wrote:
>
> Gary, I should've been more specific - I'm not using web or monitor
> resolutions as a standard. Even my cheap Kodak DC215 will turn out
> decent web stuff.
>
> Having been a macro junkie in a former life, the typical rangefinder
> digital cameras don't hold a candle to a decent 35mm. The rules
> change of course, if you pay the big bucks to buy a digital SLR camera
> that takes standard 35mm lenses. I've tried doing digital macro with
> a rangefinder using the manufacturer's closeup lenses and attachments
> and frankly from an overall performance standpoint, they suck. If you
> use the rangefinder, the parallax error is severe. Under strong
> ambient light, the rear LCD is unusable.
You don't use the rangefinder for closeups, Peter. You use the LCD. That
should have been covered in the manual.
Peter Charles
Like I said, at times the LCD is unusable. Actually, I use the
rangerfinder for focus and the LCD for framing - even so - the results
are iffy. Doing good macro photography with a PhD digital is like
making love while wearing boxing gloves. It can be done but it ain't
fun.
rw
Peter Charles wrote:
>
> Like I said, at times the LCD is unusable.
Bright sunlight is a problem. You have to use some sort of hood. I find
that a shirt or a rain slicker or even a hat usually does the job.
> Actually, I use the
> rangerfinder for focus and the LCD for framing - even so - the results
> are iffy.
If you're taking photos of bugs on a reasonably flat surface autofocus
will do just fine.
> Doing good macro photography with a PhD digital is like
> making love while wearing boxing gloves. It can be done but it ain't
> fun.
Different strokes. What I find to be not fun is carrying around several
extra pounds of bulky, expensive equipment, buying film, paying
processing fees, and then having to wait around for the results.
rw
Bruiser wrote:
>
> That's a pretty fertile stream.
It must be. That's unusual for around here. The frustrating thing is
that there aren't any sizable fish in the stream yet, aside from some
very early chinook.
BTW, I saw watched a guy catch about a 25lb chinook today, on a yellow
Panther Martin. First cast. Fortunately for some in this newsgroup, I
wasn't carrying my camera.
Jeff Miller
>
>
> Different strokes. What I find to be not fun is carrying around several
> extra pounds of bulky, expensive equipment, buying film, paying
> processing fees, and then having to wait around for the results.
>
btw...your stuff is terrific.
jeff (potter stewart disciple)
Peter Charles
>
>
>Different strokes. What I find to be not fun is carrying around several
>extra pounds of bulky, expensive equipment, buying film, paying
>processing fees, and then having to wait around for the results.
The weight is relative - in that former life when I was making money
at it, I lugged around two F3s,with MD4s, eight to ten lenses
including a 135mm f2 and 180mm f2.8. My current rig is light by
comparison.
About the wait . . . anticipaaaation!
You have low tolerance for waiting, I have low tolerance for equipment
that frustrates my purpose. It's all relative.
rw
Peter Charles wrote:
>
> The weight is relative - in that former life when I was making money
> at it, I lugged around two F3s,with MD4s, eight to ten lenses
> including a 135mm f2 and 180mm f2.8. My current rig is light by
> comparison.
Weight may be relative to you, but it's absolute to me. An extra pound
is an extra pound, no matter how one tries to rationalize it. That's a
big reason why professional photojournalists have switched to digital
big time.
> About the wait . . . anticipaaaation!
There's not only the wait (which I find intolerable after having gotten
accustomed to the immediacy of digital photography), but there's also
the fact that you have no control over the outcome unless you pay big
bucks at a custom lab. And then there's the expense.
Charlie Choc
>Fortunately for some in this newsgroup, I
>wasn't carrying my camera.
Too inconvenient to carry it? <g>
--
Charlie...
Peter Charles
>
>Weight may be relative to you, but it's absolute to me. An extra pound
>is an extra pound, no matter how one tries to rationalize it. That's a
>big reason why professional photojournalists have switched to digital
>big time.
>
Nope, pros are much more interested in functionality and durability.
Take a look a the gear being lugged by sports photojournalists. Pros
don't use light, cheap, fragile amateur PhD digitals. The film vs.
digital issue at the pro level is strictly about using the best tool
for the job and that varies depending on the job. I don't see eBay
and the camera stores being flooded with film equipment being dumped
by pros.
>> About the wait . . . anticipaaaation!
>
>There's not only the wait (which I find intolerable after having gotten
>accustomed to the immediacy of digital photography), but there's also
>the fact that you have no control over the outcome unless you pay big
>bucks at a custom lab. And then there's the expense.
That's a crock. Digital is way more expensive for most applications
when you examine total cost of ownership. Web work is one area where
digital is faster cheaper, quicker, better as the image never has to
go through intermediate steps and the computer is already a given, but
beyond that . . .
Average film PhD $200 CAD, average digital PhD $700 CAD.
If you want to print it yourself - add $3,000 for the computer, $1,000
for the high quality printer, plus the cost of the expensive quality
papers and ink cartridges. So the total now stands at $200 for the
film camera plus film and processing vs. $4,700 plus paper and ink for
digital. If you want big enlargements, double the printer and related
costs. We won't talk about the need for a CD burner either.
A good amateur 35mm SLR is about $1,000, the cheapest amateur digital
SLR using standard lenses is $3,500 - pro film SLR is about $3,000,
digital is about $10,000. (all prices CAD)
And we're talking about choices made by people like you and I,
computer=literate photographers. What about that portion of the
population that doesn't what one and runs screaming from the room at
the mere sound of computer words like 'digital'? I support 150
business users and trust me, two thirds of them can't manage the
digital camera/computer challenge with any fluency. Virtually all of
these people are BCOMs or MBAs with a few BAs and PEngs thrown in.
Education and smarts-wise, they are above Joe Average yet they have a
lot of difficulty with this process. We are converting our cameras
over to digital as it matches the high degree of automation in the
rest of our operations. Yet, I have only encountered about ten users
who manage the digital camera/computer process well. The rest, have
learned by rote. I had to write a step-by-step manual so people could
get their images out of the camera and into our loan submission
applications (from camera to MS Word). Also, we're (the IT guys)
recently trading emails on the rapid escalation in file size when one
embeds a JPEG in Word. It has major ramifications for our WAN
bandwidth and storage, plus the colour printing - costs we still
haven't got a handle on yet. The jury is still out on this corner of
the digital revolution.
I presently own (not counting display antiques) five film cameras and
two digitals. After flirting with the digitals, I'm back to the film
cameras, a trend the camera shops see repeated in other serious
amateurs. I haven't taken a non-business digital shot in over six
months. This will change somewhat if I get my hands on a good SLR
digital that will accept my 35mm lenses but I will always have film
cameras. The typical amateur 35mm PhD digital camera just doesn't cut
it for me when it comes to functionality.
All of the above is why camera manufacturers continue to churn out new
model film cameras, lenses, and accessories for a supposedly 'dead'
medium.
Charlie Choc
>I presently own (not counting display antiques) five film cameras and
>two digitals. After flirting with the digitals, I'm back to the film
>cameras, a trend the camera shops see repeated in other serious
>amateurs. I haven't taken a non-business digital shot in over six
>months.
I'm sort of the opposite. I have a good collection of 35mm cameras, but
my darkroom isn't even set up any more. For me these days it's all about
having a camera handy when a photo-op happens rather than going out to
take pictures. I travel enough that it just got to be a hassle lugging
around all my 35mm gear. My digital camera fit's in my briefcase along
with my laptop, and I can email shots home while I am on a trip if I
want to share something with the folks back home.
It's all relative as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't matter what type
of gear you have if you don't have it with you when you need it. I'm not
getting rid of my 35mm gear, but my digital cameras are my 'go to' photo
tools these days.
--
Charlie...
Ken Janik
> That's a crock. Digital is way more expensive for most applications
> when you examine total cost of ownership. Web work is one area where
> digital is faster cheaper, quicker, better as the image never has to
> go through intermediate steps and the computer is already a given, but
> beyond that . . .
>
> Average film PhD $200 CAD, average digital PhD $700 CAD.
>
> If you want to print it yourself - add $3,000 for the computer, $1,000
> for the high quality printer, plus the cost of the expensive quality
> papers and ink cartridges. So the total now stands at $200 for the
> film camera plus film and processing vs. $4,700 plus paper and ink for
> digital. If you want big enlargements, double the printer and related
> costs. We won't talk about the need for a CD burner either.
You're overstating a lot of the costs. Many people already have
a computer (and $3k buys one hell of a computer anyway). I bought
my photo printer for ~$100 about 6 months ago and have seen it
going for $50 lately (does borderless 8.5x11" prints great).
Photo paper is cheap, the ink is spendy. Bargain basement film
processing is $4 a pop. Film's a buck or two a roll.
It'll all depend on how many pictures you take. I take ~2000 shots
a year. So around $500/year in film and processing. It wouldn't
take me long to hit the break even point given that if I went digital
I wouldn't print every picture I took. For the average person who
only takes a roll or two a year, from a cost perspective they'd be
crazy to go digital right now. Convenience and the benefits of
getting your pictures instantly are a whole 'nother topic.
> A good amateur 35mm SLR is about $1,000, the cheapest amateur digital
> SLR using standard lenses is $3,500
Good amateur 35mm SLR is more like $300.
Digital SLR is $2,199.95 (not that I'm watching too closely :-)
And nope, I still don't own a digital camera yet. Almost got
convinced this weekend when out mountain climbing. I whittled
my 35mm stuff down to the body, a 24mm and a 50mm lens (and a handful
of filters). The guy with me had a digital Elph. Whenever we
stopped, he pulled that adorable little camera out of his pocket
and snapped off some shots. I didn't take my equipment out until
reaching the top. I certainly got better pictures, but he was able
to take a lot more.
There's something to be said to having a camera always available.
- Ken
Scott Seidman
@news.or.intel.com:
Compare apples to apples, though. There are plenty of zoom point and shoots
that will do everything the elph does (except for macro) in terms of image
acquisition, so you wouldn't need to carry two lenses. You still need to
carry film, though. Also, as the CCD's get larger, doesn't this miraculous
macro capability diminish?
Scott
Charlie Choc
> The guy with me had a digital Elph. Whenever we
>stopped, he pulled that adorable little camera out of his pocket
>and snapped off some shots. I didn't take my equipment out until
>reaching the top. I certainly got better pictures, but he was able
>to take a lot more.
>
I just got a S330 (Digital Elph) in addition to the CoolPix I already
have. Even with the WP-DC500 waterproof case it still fits in the
pocket of my fly vest.
--
Charlie...
rw
Peter Charles wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 02:11:34 GMT, rw <royal...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Nope, pros are much more interested in functionality and durability.
> Take a look a the gear being lugged by sports photojournalists. Pros
> don't use light, cheap, fragile amateur PhD digitals. The film vs.
> digital issue at the pro level is strictly about using the best tool
> for the job and that varies depending on the job. I don't see eBay
> and the camera stores being flooded with film equipment being dumped
> by pros.
Please stop with the red herrings, Peter. I said a pound is a pound.
There's nothing relative about it. When you're fishing all day, wearing
waders and heavy boots, a full vest, a net (unless you're Willi),
carrying a rod & reel, water, a rain slicker, candy bars, a whiskey
flask, one or more sidearms, safety equipment, and God knows what else,
weight is an important consideration in choosing a camera.
> That's a crock. Digital is way more expensive for most applications
> when you examine total cost of ownership. Web work is one area where
> digital is faster cheaper, quicker, better as the image never has to
> go through intermediate steps and the computer is already a given, but
> beyond that . . .
I take thousands of photographs a year. Digital is FAR more cost
effective for me. For someone who takes only a handful of "fine art"
photographs a year, maybe not.
> If you want to print it yourself - add $3,000 for the computer, $1,000
> for the high quality printer, plus the cost of the expensive quality
> papers and ink cartridges.
Or you can use an online service like Shutterfly, pay a per-print price
comparable to or cheaper than that charged by a printing lab, and
they'll mail the prints to whomever you want, with a personalized note
from you. And you'll get better quality than printing yourself. Not to
mention that you only have to print your good shots (which IMHO is the
most cost-effective aspect of digital). I doubt that I spend more than
$50/year on printing costs.
Sometimes I wonder what it is that starts you 35mm guys frothing at the
mouth. Why is this so polarizing? Whenever I mention what I consider the
advantages of digital FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHY I DO, such as taking
streamside photos of insects -- the topic of this thread, you start
raving about how digital sucks and 35mm rules. Sheesh.
Wolfgang
"rw" <royal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D35C4FC...@earthlink.net...
> .....Sometimes I wonder what it is that starts you 35mm guys frothing at
the
> mouth......
Most likely it is the fact that you are a supercilious patronizing asshole
addicted to doing whatever it takes (however unsuccessful the efforts prove
in the long run) to enhance your self perceived status at the expense of
others.
Wolfgang
then again, it could be the bigotry. :)
rw
Wolfgang wrote:
>
> Most likely it is the fact that you are a supercilious patronizing asshole
> addicted to doing whatever it takes (however unsuccessful the efforts prove
> in the long run) to enhance your self perceived status at the expense of
> others.
>
> Wolfgang
> then again, it could be the bigotry. :)
I thought it was all those poorly composed photographs of big fish.
Wolfgang
> I thought it was all those poorly composed photographs of big fish.
What, you STILL think this has something to do with photographs?
Wolfgang
well, ya got yer slow, and then ya got yer SLOOOOOWW! :)
Ken Janik
Yeah that credit card is wiggling pretty hard trying to get out of
my wallet this morning. B&H has the S200 for $320.
- Ken
rw
Wolfgang wrote:
>
> What, you STILL think this has something to do with photographs?
Well, there's always the stalker factor to consider.
Wayne Harrison
>to take a lot more.
well, now, i guess that's just what the whole damn thing comes
down to. some people prefer quality over quantity.
>
>There's something to be said to having a camera always available.
> - Ken
agreed. and my leica minilux fits in the palm of my hand and
will render stunning 8x12s. course, if you just want to see post
cards on a computer monitor, any piece of shit will do.
wayno
Ken Janik
> > convinced this weekend when out mountain climbing. I whittled
> > my 35mm stuff down to the body, a 24mm and a 50mm lens (and a handful
> > of filters). The guy with me had a digital Elph. Whenever we
> > stopped, he pulled that adorable little camera out of his pocket
> > and snapped off some shots. I didn't take my equipment out until
> > reaching the top. I certainly got better pictures, but he was able
> > to take a lot more.
> >
> > There's something to be said to having a camera always available.
> > - Ken
> >
>
> Compare apples to apples, though. There are plenty of zoom point and shoots
> that will do everything the elph does (except for macro) in terms of image
> acquisition, so you wouldn't need to carry two lenses. You still need to
> carry film, though.
But you need to carry film (which probably doubles the effective size of
the camera for me), pay for film, pay for processing, the PnS will be larger,
etc. Also, since I don't own a point and shoot, the start up costs are
similar. Why would I choose a point n shoot over digital?
> Also, as the CCD's get larger, doesn't this miraculous
> macro capability diminish?
Personally, I think too much gets made of the macro capability.
Whenever I do macro work I'm using a tripod so I just stop down
the aperture. IMHO the bigger fear is that CCD sizes will further
decrease with increasing process technology. Great for macro and
telephoto work, crappy for wide-angle photography. I haven't heard
anyone worrying that CCD sizes will increase with bigger pixel counts.
- Ken
Wayne Harrison
>
>
>Wolfgang wrote:
>>
>> Most likely it is the fact that you are a supercilious patronizing asshole
>> addicted to doing whatever it takes (however unsuccessful the efforts prove
>> in the long run) to enhance your self perceived status at the expense of
>> others.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>> then again, it could be the bigotry. :)
>
>I thought it was all those poorly composed photographs of big fish.
it's both, actually.
wayno
Charlie Choc
>Yeah that credit card is wiggling pretty hard trying to get out of
>my wallet this morning. B&H has the S200 for $320.
>
The S330 I got was around $380, I think.
--
Charlie...
Charlie Choc
wrote:
>
> agreed. and my leica minilux fits in the palm of my hand and
>will render stunning 8x12s. course, if you just want to see post
>cards on a computer monitor, any piece of shit will do.
>
I don't believe I've ever seen one of yours, but I do imagine they are
stunning. The key word is 'imagine'. <g>
--
Charlie...
Wolfgang
>
>
> Wolfgang wrote:
> >
> > What, you STILL think this has something to do with photographs?
>
> Well, there's always the stalker factor to consider.
But then, consideration is not an equitably distributed commodity, is it?
Wolfgang
aaaahhhhh! it's like havin' old cf back again! :)
rw
Ken Janik wrote:
>
> Personally, I think too much gets made of the macro capability.
> Whenever I do macro work I'm using a tripod so I just stop down
> the aperture. IMHO the bigger fear is that CCD sizes will further
> decrease with increasing process technology. Great for macro and
> telephoto work, crappy for wide-angle photography. I haven't heard
> anyone worrying that CCD sizes will increase with bigger pixel counts.
Small CCD sizes are GREAT for macro and wide-angle photography. They
suck for telephoto portraiture, or generally whenever you want to throw
the background out of focus.
Ken Janik
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:14:14 -0700, Ken Janik <jan...@orst.edu> wrote:
> I certainly got better pictures, but he was able
> >to take a lot more.
>
> well, now, i guess that's just what the whole damn thing comes
> down to. some people prefer quality over quantity.
And some people prefer both. There are times I've left my camera
at home due to risk or weight (or in this case had it in the bottom
of my pack) and regretted missing out on great photo opportunities.
What is the quality of a missed shot?
I'm not giving up my SLR, but I won't feel the least bit hypocritical
buying a digital point n shoot for those occasions where I won't
have my SLR.
> >There's something to be said to having a camera always available.
> > - Ken
>
> agreed. and my leica minilux fits in the palm of my hand and
> will render stunning 8x12s. course, if you just want to see post
> cards on a computer monitor, any piece of shit will do.
With all due respect, you know not of what you speak. There are
things I can do in the digital domain that you just can "reasonably"
do in the analog domain. Photo quality 8x12s are a piece of cake.
Combining multiple shots from high contrast scenes is easy in digital.
My set of digital panoramics is quickly growing too. I have a
12" x 60" panoramic (greater than 270 degree view) which is absolutely
stunning. None of these things are reasonably doable (on my hobbyist
budget) purely in the analog domain.
- Ken
Ken Janik
You're only considering depth of field. Small CCDs effectively
magnify the image. Making telephotos more telephoto and
wide-angles less wide-angle. My 300mm lens becomes a 450mm,
but my 24mm becomes a 36mm.
It's the reason why digital SLR folks are snapping up Sigma's
15-35mm lens. It's the only afforable wide-angle lens which
remains wide-angle on a digital.
- Ken
William Loehman/Susan Schwarz
Digital is BY FAR the easiest way to share photos with other people. I'm
guessing that the reason we haven't seen much of your work is that it is
a hassle for you to share it with us. Piece of cake with digital.
I don't care how good your (or anyone's) stuff is, if I don't get to see
it (or a copy in a book or magazine or even a digital copy) it's pretty
meaningless to me. I'd much rather see a "shitty postcard" than try and
imagine some "stunning 8X12."
Willi
gol...@frii.com
Peter Charles
That's been my point all along, you use what is appropriate. It's the
'Digital Rules' stuff that always starts this. If I want pictures for
electronic repro, I take the digital. If I want prints, I take a film
camera. I don't understand why I'm considered a few bricks short of a
load, because of this.
Go figure.
Peter Charles
[a foreign exchange snip]
>There's something to be said to having a camera always available.
> - Ken
Ahh, Ken - those were CAD prices - Canadian dollars - Northern pesos.
Take your prices and add 50% - same thing. And about the printer, yes
you can get cheap ones that are decent ($500 up here) but they can't
do anything more than an 8X10. As soon as you want bigger, the
printer costs way more,
rw
Peter Charles wrote:
>
> I don't understand why I'm considered a few bricks short of a
> load, because of this.
>
> Go figure.
It might be because you both vastly overestimate the costs of digital
and at the same time ignore its advantages in for many people and many
stutations. Just a suggestion.
Peter Charles
>
>Please stop with the red herrings, Peter. I said a pound is a pound.
>There's nothing relative about it. When you're fishing all day, wearing
>waders and heavy boots, a full vest, a net (unless you're Willi),
>carrying a rod & reel, water, a rain slicker, candy bars, a whiskey
>flask, one or more sidearms, safety equipment, and God knows what else,
>weight is an important consideration in choosing a camera.
Hold the phone - you raised the pro issue and weight - a pro with a
digital SLR and three zooms is carrying the same weight as he would
with a film SLR and three zooms. A pro isn't going to use a cheapshit
plastic PhD rangefinder so don't drag the two issues together. I
carry an Olympus Stylus Epic when I want to travel light. It's
probably smaller and lighter than your digital if you're trying to
crank up some sort of (I've got the lightest) weight competition.
>
>
>I take thousands of photographs a year. Digital is FAR more cost
>effective for me. For someone who takes only a handful of "fine art"
>photographs a year, maybe not.
You don't get it - never mind.
>
>> If you want to print it yourself - add $3,000 for the computer, $1,000
>> for the high quality printer, plus the cost of the expensive quality
>> papers and ink cartridges.
>
>Or you can use an online service like Shutterfly, pay a per-print price
>comparable to or cheaper than that charged by a printing lab, and
>they'll mail the prints to whomever you want, with a personalized note
>from you. And you'll get better quality than printing yourself. Not to
>mention that you only have to print your good shots (which IMHO is the
>most cost-effective aspect of digital). I doubt that I spend more than
>$50/year on printing costs.
I thought this was all about control and instant gratification - now
you're waiting for prints and somebody else is making the printing
decisions. Lets keep this train on the same track, OK? If you're
going to hand off your images and wait, why not a roll of film at the
local lab and get it back in one hour?
>
>Sometimes I wonder what it is that starts you 35mm guys frothing at the
>mouth. Why is this so polarizing? Whenever I mention what I consider the
>advantages of digital FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHY I DO, such as taking
>streamside photos of insects -- the topic of this thread, you start
>raving about how digital sucks and 35mm rules. Sheesh.
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about all you (one) digital
freaks.
BTW, Considering that I own two digital cameras that I use both for
business and for web applications, I'm hardly the dogmatic one in this
pound.
rw
Ken Janik wrote:
>
> You're only considering depth of field. Small CCDs effectively
> magnify the image. Making telephotos more telephoto and
> wide-angles less wide-angle. My 300mm lens becomes a 450mm,
> but my 24mm becomes a 36mm.
That's one good reason NOT to use lenses designed for 35mm on digital
cameras. There are other reasons, too. The whole scheme is an
engineering kludge designed to satisfy people with a large investment in
lenses for 35mm cameras. It's the old "upward compatibility" bugaboo
that stifles so much technological innovation. I understand the economic
imperative, but I don't like the concept. It's not clean engineering.
Eventually (and maybe even now, but I doubt it) there will be a well
designed system of interchangeable lenses for the digital format.
Peter Charles
<gol...@frii.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Digital is BY FAR the easiest way to share photos with other people. I'm
>guessing that the reason we haven't seen much of your work is that it is
>a hassle for you to share it with us. Piece of cake with digital.
>
>I don't care how good your (or anyone's) stuff is, if I don't get to see
>it (or a copy in a book or magazine or even a digital copy) it's pretty
>meaningless to me. I'd much rather see a "shitty postcard" than try and
>imagine some "stunning 8X12."
>
>
>Willi
>gol...@frii.com
Well Willi, it's all about how you do your sharing - I email images
either scanned or from digital and I show albums of prints from film
when appropriate. I like to have both options open, not just one.
rw
Wolfgang wrote:
>
> But then, consideration is not an equitably distributed commodity, is it?
Is that supposed to mean something? Too ironic for me.
Peter Charles
>
>
>Peter Charles wrote:
>>
>> I don't understand why I'm considered a few bricks short of a
>> load, because of this.
>>
>> Go figure.
>
>It might be because you both vastly overestimate the costs of digital
>and at the same time ignore its advantages in for many people and many
>stutations. Just a suggestion.
Funny, feel the same way about your approach to film. You still don't
get the picture (no pun intended) that the world isn't made up of
Steve clones. I've always argued the digital vs. film from a Joe
Average point of view, not from the POV of bunch of computer geeks.
For someone who has a 35mm camera and a few lenses and no computer who
reads your comments (printed out for him, natch) and decides to go buy
everything he needs to control and print his own digital stuff, my
estimates are right on. Most of the people in the world still do not
own a computer.
rw
Peter Charles wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:13:47 GMT, rw <royal...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >I take thousands of photographs a year. Digital is FAR more cost
> >effective for me. For someone who takes only a handful of "fine art"
> >photographs a year, maybe not.
>
> You don't get it - never mind.
I get it perfectly. I'm tight as a tick when it comes to spending money
I don't have to spend on processing film and making prints. Film and
printing costs would be a MAJOR expense for me if I didn't use digital.
As it is, it's a trivial expense.
> >> If you want to print it yourself - add $3,000 for the computer, $1,000
> >> for the high quality printer, plus the cost of the expensive quality
> >> papers and ink cartridges.
> >
> >Or you can use an online service like Shutterfly, pay a per-print price
> >comparable to or cheaper than that charged by a printing lab, and
> >they'll mail the prints to whomever you want, with a personalized note
> >from you. And you'll get better quality than printing yourself. Not to
> >mention that you only have to print your good shots (which IMHO is the
> >most cost-effective aspect of digital). I doubt that I spend more than
> >$50/year on printing costs.
>
> I thought this was all about control and instant gratification - now
> you're waiting for prints and somebody else is making the printing
> decisions. Lets keep this train on the same track, OK? If you're
> going to hand off your images and wait, why not a roll of film at the
> local lab and get it back in one hour?
Anyone with the most rudimentary computer skills and some bundled
software (that comes with their camera) can easily do all the level
adjustment, color balance, dodging and burning, and other manipulations
BEFORE they upload their photos to an online printing service. In fact,
it's possible (and easy) to do far more image manipulation on your
personal computer than is even possible in the fanciest 35mm custom lab.
> BTW, Considering that I own two digital cameras that I use both for
> business and for web applications, I'm hardly the dogmatic one in this
> pound.
I really don't care how much gear you have.
I have one used digital camera.
Ken Janik
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:14:14 -0700, Ken Janik <jan...@orst.edu> wrote:
>
> [a foreign exchange snip]
>
> >There's something to be said to having a camera always available.
> > - Ken
>
> Ahh, Ken - those were CAD prices - Canadian dollars - Northern pesos.
> Take your prices and add 50% - same thing.
Whoops, pardon my American-ness.
> And about the printer, yes
> you can get cheap ones that are decent ($500 up here) but they can't
> do anything more than an 8X10. As soon as you want bigger, the
> printer costs way more,
Absolutely. I contemplated paying more for a large-format printer
and then realized that I could never hit the break-even point.
For anything > 8.5"x11" I send it to a company on the web who
prints sizes up to 20"x30" (for $20). Panoramas for $1.25/6".
You can't tell they aren't "real" photographs.
- Ken
rw
Peter Charles wrote:
>
> I've always argued the digital vs. film from a Joe
> Average point of view, not from the POV of bunch of computer geeks.
That's a strange point of view -- that someone has to be a "computer
geek" to use digital photography.
Ken Janik
>
>
> Ken Janik wrote:
> >
> > You're only considering depth of field. Small CCDs effectively
> > magnify the image. Making telephotos more telephoto and
> > wide-angles less wide-angle. My 300mm lens becomes a 450mm,
> > but my 24mm becomes a 36mm.
>
> That's one good reason NOT to use lenses designed for 35mm on digital
> cameras. There are other reasons, too. The whole scheme is an
> engineering kludge designed to satisfy people with a large investment in
> lenses for 35mm cameras. It's the old "upward compatibility" bugaboo
> that stifles so much technological innovation. I understand the economic
> imperative, but I don't like the concept. It's not clean engineering.
"Clean engineering" is an oxymoron IMHO. Unless (and even then) you are
developing something brand new, from scratch everything is a series of
compromises. Engineering, like life, is not perfect.
Personally, I'm betting that at least in professional SLR type digital
cameras they will try to keep the CCD sizes fairly near where they
are now. It helps yield, noise tolerance, makes some awesome telephoto
lenses and has extended depth of field. There's no reason why they
then can't come out with new wide-angle lenses which still fit the
standard SLR, but are engineered for the smaller CCD array.
Best of both worlds, protect your customers' investments, and can
sell new lenses to people who want superwide angle.
Time will tell,
- Ken
rw
Ken Janik wrote:
>
> "Clean engineering" is an oxymoron IMHO.
You work for Intel, right? :-)
Peter Charles
>
>
>I get it perfectly. I'm tight as a tick when it comes to spending money
[snip]
>
>I really don't care how much gear you have.
>
>I have one used digital camera.
Up until now, I didn't think you had the balls to come right out and
boldly proclaim your qualifications for your strongly held beliefs.
Given that it is common in technical arguments of this kind, for each
side to present their credentials, and since you have just presented
yours, I'll present mine.
- 35 years of film photography using assorted 35mm gear plus 645, 6X6,
6X7, 6X9, and 4X5 cameras and darkroom equipment applied to personal,
hobby, nature, commercial, and art photography.
- former president of major photo club and contributing member of a
large, multi-discipline art guild.
- contributor to two stock agencies for over ten years - my
photographs have been used in many publications and for business
advertising purposes.
- for five years the photo editor and main photographer for a business
tabloid with a circulation of 700,000
- owner of two digital cameras used for personal, web, and business
applications and user of about ten different models of digital cameras
in the company
- analyst for the comparison and purchase of digital cameras for the
corporation and advisor on this issue to senior management.
- analyst and writer of technical and business cases for ancillary
equipment for digital cameras including colour laser printing and
optical and other storage solutions.
- provide computer support to a user community of 150 that utilize 25
digital cameras representing the ten different models.
- writer of training manuals for digital camera users.
- trainer and coach for approximately 50 people who are the most
frequent users the cameras and/or related equipment and software.
- troubleshooter for problems, maintenance, and ensuring the
equipment and software remains compatible with our operating systems,
polices, and applications, - includes field trials on storage and WAN
implications.
- and over the years, friend and informal business confident to a half
dozen camera shop owners in three cities.
nuff said
EOT
William Loehman/Susan Schwarz
This was directed at Wayne's comment.
But since you bring it up, every picture you've shared with me has been
digital (and there have been some nice ones) no matter what camera you
used. If you hadn't used a digital format, it wouldn't matter to me how
good your pictures were because I never would have seen them.
I also like looking at "real" photographs but sharing them is much more
difficult.
We publish a newsletter three times a year, for the people that have
purchased puppies from us in the past. We've been doing this for about
twenty years and have always requested pictures of their dogs to include
in the newletters. Before people started using digital cameras, we got
maybe a dozen pictures a year. Now that digital is popular we get
several pictures a week. The quality of the images is also, in general,
much better than the tiny prints they used to send.
When's the last time someone on ROFF sent you photographs of one of
their trips?
I enjoy the digital images of the people, places, fish etc. that
Roffians post. I've yet to get a photograph from anyone on ROFF.
Willi
gol...@frii.com
Wolfgang Siebeneich
>
> Wolfgang wrote:
> >
> > But then, consideration is not an equitably distributed commodity, is it?
>
> Is that supposed to mean something?
Oh yes, it does mean something.
> Too ironic for me.
Doubtless.
Wolfgang
well hell, at least he's heard of A rhetorical device.
Wolfgang Siebeneich
>
> Digital is BY FAR the easiest way to share photos with other people.
Context dependent. I'm going to be fishing with George Cleveland near
his home this weekend. If I want to bring some pictures to share with
him over breakfast at Champ's, whether they were originally captured
digitally or on film doesn't amount to a hill of shit with regard to
ease.
> I'm
> guessing that the reason we haven't seen much of your work is that it is
> a hassle for you to share it with us. Piece of cake with digital.
Piece of cake with film and a scanner. Again, the capture medium is
pretty much irrelevant. Might want to consider the notion that there
may be other reasons for not "sharing".
> I don't care how good your (or anyone's) stuff is, if I don't get to see
> it (or a copy in a book or magazine or even a digital copy) it's pretty
> meaningless to me. I'd much rather see a "shitty postcard" than try and
> imagine some "stunning 8X12."
Has the potential to be a great contest, eh? But then, rumor has it
that some people don't like contests in public fora.
Wolfgang
maybe if we meet again at another clave i'll show you how high i can
count......purely in the interest of sharing, of course.
Ken Janik
>
>
> Ken Janik wrote:
> >
> > "Clean engineering" is an oxymoron IMHO.
>
> You work for Intel, right? :-)
Absolutely. I honestly find it funny that you
think it's humorous. The entire engineering process,
especially at a place like Intel, is based on the
concept of making difficult design choices in an
imperfect decision space. I have a multi-dimensional
design space where I have to optimize for cost, area,
speed, power, performance, schedule, etc at the same
time. All oppose one another and all are important.
To compound that, you have different end uses (server,
desktop, mobile) which use the same basic design and
have different weightings on the various constraints.
Anyone who believes in "clean engineering" obviously
isn't an engineer.
- Ken
---
Not speaking for Intel.
Ken Janik
[Snipped WAY more experience than I've got]
> nuff said
>
> EOT
Oh yeah, but what about digital's superior depth of field?
:-),
- Ken
rw
Peter Charles wrote:
>
> Up until now, I didn't think you had the balls to come right out and
> boldly proclaim your qualifications for your strongly held beliefs.
> Given that it is common in technical arguments of this kind, for each
> side to present their credentials, and since you have just presented
> yours, I'll present mine.
>
> - 35 years of film photography using assorted 35mm gear plus 645, 6X6,
> 6X7, 6X9, and 4X5 cameras and darkroom equipment applied to personal,
> hobby, nature, commercial, and art photography.
<snip>
Am I supposed to be impressed?
William Loehman/Susan Schwarz
Wolfgang Siebeneich wrote:
> William Loehman/Susan Schwarz wrote:
>
>
>>Digital is BY FAR the easiest way to share photos with other people.
>
>
> Context dependent.
Alright, people other than those sitting in the same room with you
>
>
>>I'm
>>guessing that the reason we haven't seen much of your work is that it is
>>a hassle for you to share it with us. Piece of cake with digital.
>
>
> Piece of cake with film and a scanner.
Then it's digital.
> Again, the capture medium is
> pretty much irrelevant.
I don't disagree, I just said that digital is simpler to share.
>Might want to consider the notion that there
> may be other reasons for not "sharing".
I think that maybe be so, but I don't think you can speak for Wayne.
>
>
>>I don't care how good your (or anyone's) stuff is, if I don't get to see
>>it (or a copy in a book or magazine or even a digital copy) it's pretty
>>meaningless to me. I'd much rather see a "shitty postcard" than try and
>>imagine some "stunning 8X12."
>
>
> Has the potential to be a great contest, eh?
I don't need what Steve may think about it, but he's never claimed to be
a great "artistic" photographer. I, for one, appreciate the pictures he
posts. I also think that some of them are fine compositions. I also
appreciate the pictures that other Roffians post. These digital postings
have shown me faces I've never seen, places I've never been to, and
pieces of the posters'lives. If I had to relie on the prints that
Roffians have been sent to me...........
Willi
gol...@frii.com
daytripper
>
>Ken Janik wrote:
>>
>> "Clean engineering" is an oxymoron IMHO.
>
>You work for Intel, right? :-)
Funny, if cheap...But you're squeezing those shiny nickels...
OK. Pop quiz, hot shot:
You've produced the first pass of a design for a 250,000 gate piece of silicon
(aka an "asic"). The bug rate is still running around 10 per week, and your
group is fixing bugs within a day or so of submission, and burning a thousand
compute-hours per day re-running the regression test suite.
The NRE cost is a half million dollars per pass. For 25 parts.
The program manager wants you to commit to releasing the design to the foundry
- in two weeks.
If those first parts don't work, it's a two month time-to-market hit, minimum,
plus another half-million buckaroos. With your ass on a hook.
What do you do?
/daytripper
(Engineering is a scary, dirty bidness. But someone's gotta do it... ;-)
daytripper
wrote:
>
>Up until now, I didn't think you had the balls to come right out and
>boldly proclaim your qualifications for your strongly held beliefs.
>Given that it is common in technical arguments of this kind, for each
>side to present their credentials, and since you have just presented
>yours, I'll present mine.
>
>nuff said
>
>EOT
Blimey! I didn't know they got THAT big!
/daytripper (Unsullied by credentials. Thankfully, for all... ;-)
rw
Ken Janik wrote:
>
> rw <royal...@earthlink.net> says...
> >
> >
> > Ken Janik wrote:
> > >
> > > "Clean engineering" is an oxymoron IMHO.
> >
> > You work for Intel, right? :-)
>
> Absolutely. I honestly find it funny that you
> think it's humorous. The entire engineering process,
> especially at a place like Intel, is based on the
> concept of making difficult design choices in an
> imperfect decision space.
The next time your pointy haired boss gives you the functional design
requirements from Marketing, tell him to go fuck himself. You'll feel
better in the morning. :-)
Wolfgang Siebeneich
>
> Wolfgang Siebeneich wrote:
> > William Loehman/Susan Schwarz wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Digital is BY FAR the easiest way to share photos with other people.
> >
> >
> > Context dependent.
>
> Alright, people other than those sitting in the same room with you
>
> >
> >
> >>I'm
> >>guessing that the reason we haven't seen much of your work is that it is
> >>a hassle for you to share it with us. Piece of cake with digital.
> >
> >
> > Piece of cake with film and a scanner.
>
> Then it's digital.
>
> > Again, the capture medium is
> > pretty much irrelevant.
>
> I don't disagree, I just said that digital is simpler to share.
Yes, but you "SEEM" to be confused about the distinctions between
capture and display media.
> >Might want to consider the notion that there
> > may be other reasons for not "sharing".
>
> I think that maybe be so, but I don't think you can speak for Wayne.
I can if I want to! He don't scare me none.
> >
> >
> >>I don't care how good your (or anyone's) stuff is, if I don't get to see
> >>it (or a copy in a book or magazine or even a digital copy) it's pretty
> >>meaningless to me. I'd much rather see a "shitty postcard" than try and
> >>imagine some "stunning 8X12."
> >
> >
> > Has the potential to be a great contest, eh?
>
> I don't need what Steve may think about it, but he's never claimed to be
> a great "artistic" photographer.
Hasn't he? :)
> I, for one, appreciate the pictures he posts.
O.K.
> I also think that some of them are fine compositions.
Well, we're agreed then.
> I also
> appreciate the pictures that other Roffians post.
What?! Even if they're poorly composed, poorly exposed, and out of
focus?! Mercy, you ARE easy to please!
> These digital postings
> have shown me faces I've never seen, places I've never been to, and
> pieces of the posters'lives. If I had to relie on the prints that
> Roffians have been sent to me...........
I've got HUNDREDS (not that I've counted them or anything!) of prints of
construction projects I've done over the years which I would grudgingly
(due entirely to humility, mind you) "share". How many you want?
Wolfgang
who, ever in tune with the latest technological marvels, will happily
digitize the prints and insert fish of choice.
rw
daytripper wrote:
>
> Blimey! I didn't know they got THAT big!
>
> /daytripper (Unsullied by credentials. Thankfully, for all... ;-)
I'm afraid my "credentials" are somewhat lacking in relation to Peter's.
I'm pretty sure, however, that I'm taller than he is. :-)
Wolfgang Siebeneich
>
> Am I supposed to be impressed?
Good Lord no! We would only expect that of people with a modicum of
good sense and basic human decency.
Wolfgang
who is very impressed!.....well, i DID say "modicum".
William Loehman/Susan Schwarz
Wolfgang Siebeneich wrote:
>>>
>>>Piece of cake with film and a scanner.
>>
>>Then it's digital.
>>
>>
>>>Again, the capture medium is
>>>pretty much irrelevant.
>>
>>I don't disagree, I just said that digital is simpler to share.
>
>
> Yes, but you "SEEM" to be confused about the distinctions between
> capture and display media.
I might be but don't think so. I just made the statement: "Digital is
BY FAR the easiest way to share photos with other people." This is true
whether the pictures are taken with a film or digital camera.
I also think, but didn't state, that if you want digital output, using a
digital camera makes it easier.
Willi
gol...@frii.com
rw
William Loehman/Susan Schwarz wrote:
>
> I don't need what Steve may think about it, but he's never claimed to be
> a great "artistic" photographer. I, for one, appreciate the pictures he
> posts. I also think that some of them are fine compositions.
Since you wonder, Willi, I'll explain what I think about it.
I enjoy showing people photographs that tell a story. If a photograph is
a lousy, P.O.S., underexposed snapshot that adds to the story, I don't
mind showing it.
I especially enjoy showing people photographs of my friends on fishing
trips, and especially if they're holding a very large fish, and most
especially if it's Bruce, with his butt sticking out and a silly grin on
his face. He rarely disappoints. I still regret not wading over those
300 yards or so at HF last September to get a photo of his monster Brown.
Part of telling a story is immediacy. If I'm lucky enough to get a
decent photo that takes longer than one day to put on the Web, and that
is part of the story, I consider it a failure. (note: Clave photos may
take a bit longer.)
Now there may be (and probably are) "fine art" photographers out there
in ROFF who think this is all wrong. I respect that. Different people
have different goals.
Wolfgang Siebeneich
>
> I'm afraid my "credentials" are somewhat lacking in relation to Peter's.
> I'm pretty sure, however, that I'm taller than he is. :-)
Are we supposed to be amused?
Wolfgang
daytripper
>
>
>daytripper wrote:
>>
>> Blimey! I didn't know they got THAT big!
>>
>> /daytripper (Unsullied by credentials. Thankfully, for all... ;-)
>
>I'm afraid my "credentials" are somewhat lacking in relation to Peter's.
>I'm pretty sure, however, that I'm taller than he is. :-)
I am equally sure you are correct ;-)
rw
daytripper wrote:
>
> I am equally sure you are correct ;-)
Judging from the smiley, you seem to be amused. :-)
daytripper
>
>daytripper wrote:
>>
>> I am equally sure you are correct ;-)
>
>Judging from the smiley, you seem to be amused. :-)
I am. And wouldn't that be about the best one could hope for from this thread?
William Loehman/Susan Schwarz
rw wrote:
>
> daytripper wrote:
>
>>I am equally sure you are correct ;-)
>
>
> Judging from the smiley, you seem to be amused. :-)
>
I switched my browser from Netscape to Mozilla 1.1 (so far I like it
better - stable, less bloated, more compatable, faster but it doesn't
have a spell checker)
Anyway, the default setting is for the software to interpret an emoticon
into graphic faces that are smiling, winking, frowning, etc. It was cute
for about five minutes, then I ignored, now it's getting irritating. I
need to shut off that "feature."
Willi
gol...@frii.com
ezflyfisher
rw wrote:
> Since you wonder, Willi, I'll explain what I think about it.
<more silver halide anti-thetical verbiage snipped>
oftentimes, you go steve..... i, the poor fishless floridiot nc bastard stuck
in a flyshop *off* the blue ridge, do appreciate your efforts, diligence, and
most importantly, your compulsion to share..... thanks.......
i also enjoy the SH buddies art... wayno, petah and others...thankee...
--waldo, who does have a cool tale, maybe later ;^)
Jeff Miller
>
> I don't believe I've ever seen one of yours, but I do imagine they are
> stunning. The key word is 'imagine'. <g>
well...let me be the first to confirm an actual sighting of wayno's
pics...received several in the mail...all of my stunning fat arse in
hazel...one set of 4 is a series of my approach, cast, and hook-up in an
across-the-stream sluice. i had forgotten about that nice little brown
and the difficult drift getting him to take. nice stuff...thanks wayno!
jeff (btw...weren't those wayno's pics displayed on the table of the
house at waldo's may clave in foscoe?)
Charlie Choc
>jeff (btw...weren't those wayno's pics displayed on the table of the
>house at waldo's may clave in foscoe?)
I don't recall any stunning 8x12's there, but I do remember seeing some
post card sized snapshots. <g>
--
Charlie...
Rusty Hook
> >>Digital is BY FAR the easiest way to share photos with other people.
Wolfgang:
> > Context dependent.
Willi:
> Alright, people other than those sitting in the same room with you
One of the highlights of last year's Yellowstone Clave was the nightly slide
shows rw put together of the day's fishing, taken with a digital camera and
shown on a laptop. I'm not sure how that would have been possible without
the digital camera.
--
Rusty Hook
Laramie, Wyoming
c...@eightysixthis.uwyo.edu
Scott Seidman
news:MPG.179f78db3...@news.or.intel.com:
> None of these things are reasonably doable (on my hobbyist
> budget) purely in the analog domain.
>
> - Ken
>
But film cameras never rule out anything in the digital domain. Slide
scanners capture images very nicely, and you're free to do anything at all
from that point. Flatbeds work almost as well on prints.
Scott
Wolfgang Siebeneich
>
>
> ..Slide
> scanners capture images very nicely, and you're free to do anything at all
> from that point. Flatbeds work almost as well on prints.
I recently bought an HP flatbed scanner which has an attachment that
allows me to scan slides as well. I've been very pleased with the way
it handles prints, documents etc., but it's performance on slides leaves
something to be desired. Presumably this results from the fact that
slides in the little cardboard sleeves which allow their use in a
projector are not held perfectly flat and that they are also suspended
slightly above the surface of the plate in the scanner. Do the slide
scanners you mentioned somehow compensate for these problems or do they
rely on removing the slides from the sleeves?
Wolfgang
daytripper
wrote:
I assume you're using one of those roof-mirror widgets on top of the scanning
bed.
Aside from whatever distortions the widget itself causes, the most significant
problem with this is the comparatively low optical resolution of your flatbed
verses a film scanner: most likely your optical resolution tops out at 600 dpi
- or perhaps 1200 dpi.
otoh, my film scanner (an HP S20 - positioned between the truly low end and
the middle range films scanners) has an optical resolution of 2700 dpi. When
you're starting with something not much more than an inch square, 600 dpi
resolution results in a rather significant loss of information.
Most film scanners have autofocus, so there's no need to remove slides from
sleeves (thank God)...
/daytripper
Ken Janik
I guess you missed it, but I don't own a digital camera.
My current solution is a film SLR and a negative scanner.
As soon as I can afford a digital SLR that meets the resolution
of my current solution (6Mpixels) I'll likely never pick up my
film SLR again.
- Ken
Ken Janik
>
>
> Ken Janik wrote:
> >
> > rw <royal...@earthlink.net> says...
> > >
> > >
> > > Ken Janik wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Clean engineering" is an oxymoron IMHO.
> > >
> > > You work for Intel, right? :-)
> >
> > Absolutely. I honestly find it funny that you
> > think it's humorous. The entire engineering process,
> > especially at a place like Intel, is based on the
> > concept of making difficult design choices in an
> > imperfect decision space.
>
> The next time your pointy haired boss gives you the functional design
> requirements from Marketing, tell him to go fuck himself. You'll feel
> better in the morning. :-)
Wow, you're just bent on proving you aren't an engineer.
That reminds me that I forgot another one. Design cycles
long enough so that the marketing requirements at the start
of a project are radically different than those at the end.
Now that's fun!
Ken Janik
Mickey Mouse stuff. :-) Try the same with multiple $2B a pop fabs
sitting there waiting for your design.
Clean engineering, <snicker>
RockTrout
> long enough so that the marketing requirements at the start
> of a project are radically different than those at the end.
> Now that's fun!
I guess I'm a lucky man. I get to wear both the marketing and
engineering hats on my development projects! It works great and the
marketing department appears to communicate very well with the
development engineer.... :)
Charlie Choc
>daytripper <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> says...
>
>> What do you do?
>
>Mickey Mouse stuff. :-) Try the same with multiple $2B a pop fabs
>sitting there waiting for your design.
>
>Clean engineering, <snicker>
> - Ken
>
>---
>Not speaking for Intel.
I believe Steve said a while back that the stuff he worked on was all
blue-sky and none of it made it to production. Now *that's* clean
engineering! <g>
--
Charlie...
Wolfgang Siebeneich
>
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:17:59 -0500, Wolfgang Siebeneich <wolf...@mcw.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Scott Seidman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> ..Slide
> >> scanners capture images very nicely, and you're free to do anything at all
> >> from that point. Flatbeds work almost as well on prints.
> >
> >I recently bought an HP flatbed scanner which has an attachment that
> >allows me to scan slides as well. I've been very pleased with the way
> >it handles prints, documents etc., but it's performance on slides leaves
> >something to be desired. Presumably this results from the fact that
> >slides in the little cardboard sleeves which allow their use in a
> >projector are not held perfectly flat and that they are also suspended
> >slightly above the surface of the plate in the scanner. Do the slide
> >scanners you mentioned somehow compensate for these problems or do they
> >rely on removing the slides from the sleeves?
> >
> >Wolfgang
>
> I assume you're using one of those roof-mirror widgets on top of the scanning
> bed.
Well, it's a widget of some sort. Not a mirror though, it has it's own
light source.
> Aside from whatever distortions the widget itself causes, the most significant
> problem with this is the comparatively low optical resolution of your flatbed
> verses a film scanner: most likely your optical resolution tops out at 600 dpi
> - or perhaps 1200 dpi.
Yep, 1200. Allegedly digitally boosted to 2400, whatever the hell that
might mean.
> otoh, my film scanner (an HP S20 - positioned between the truly low end and
> the middle range films scanners) has an optical resolution of 2700 dpi. When
> you're starting with something not much more than an inch square, 600 dpi
> resolution results in a rather significant loss of information.
Even at the highest available resolution the results are less than
stellar.....and the file size and scanning times grow alarmingly!
> Most film scanners have autofocus, so there's no need to remove slides from
> sleeves (thank God)...
I thought that might be the case, but I'm guessing that the depth of
field (insofar as the term even applies to scanner focusing.....I don't
know all that much about these machines) is minimal and thus the
autofocus won't help alleviate the problem inherent in the sleeve's
inability to hold the film perfectly flat.
Wolfgang
Ken Janik
> I believe Steve said a while back that the stuff he worked on was all
> blue-sky and none of it made it to production. Now *that's* clean
> engineering! <g>
Sure explains a lot. Must be nice never having to get your
hands dirty with those nasty little details like actually building
something.
People ask me why I think it's so important for architects
to at least take a class in layout design. It's hard to
get through to pie-in-the-sky people that very "minor" decisions
that they make can have devastating effects on the people
who actually have to do the work.
:-),
- Ken
Scott Seidman
news:3D36DC27...@mcw.edu:
Don't understood exactly why, but the widgets that come with the flatbeds
just never work real well. The slide scanner is specifically set up to
accept negatives or 35mm slides, scan them at amazing resolution using a
real good light source, and do pretty well. These must be similar to what
Kodak uses to provide photo disk.
Scott
Wolfgang Siebeneich
A friend's 24 year old son is a recent graduate of the University of
Wisconsin, Milwaukee's school of architecture. His excellent grades,
stellar recommendations from professors, and a very successful
internship combined to land him a job with a fairly prestigious local
architectural firm. As far as I know, Matt has never actually built
anything himself. He told me a couple of months ago that he had just
made his first visit to a client in the company of his boss, who gave
him just one piece of advice in preparation for the visit...."Don't say
ANYTHING!" :)
Wolfgang
Ken Janik
> Yep, 1200. Allegedly digitally boosted to 2400, whatever the hell that
> might mean.
They use interpolation (usually with fractals) to guess at the data
between the actual sampled data. It helps, especially when done while
printing the picture, but will always be considerably worse than if
the data was sampled at a higher rate.
> > otoh, my film scanner (an HP S20 - positioned between the truly low end and
> > the middle range films scanners) has an optical resolution of 2700 dpi. When
> > you're starting with something not much more than an inch square, 600 dpi
> > resolution results in a rather significant loss of information.
>
> Even at the highest available resolution the results are less than
> stellar.....and the file size and scanning times grow alarmingly!
I've never had any luck scanning negatives or slides on flatbed scanners.
I have the same scanner as daytripper and it does a great job.
I think it is the limited depth of field. Yet another one of those
damn "unclean" engineering tradeoffs. :-)
- Ken
Scott Seidman
Actually, I've never said I prefer either medium, and pretty much share your
opinion. I just find it silly that some could defend either medium to the
exclusion of all others. If somebody were applying the same little-endian
approach to digital image collection, I'd likely be defending the digital
camera.
For those who prefer very high res images for super projection or
enlargements of some type, using super high quality optics, or needs rapid
frame advance (not even mentioned so far) or wants less dependence on
batteries, film is probably the way to go.
For those who want the convenience of not getting film developed, or want to
do limited macro on the cheap, or like the digital archiving tools, but are
willing to sacrifice super high res images, digital is fine at the moment.
I consider image manipulation and image sharing a non issue. Both platforms
support this--one just needs a scanning step in between. However, I would
think that the pros shudder (or shutter??) at the thought of their sweat-
stained intellectual property spreading across cyberspace without monetary
compensation, and they might not want their shots to enter the digital
domain.
I guess I'm a hybrid user. I shoot film, and let it sit there undeveloped!!
If I had a digital camera, I probably would just overwrite my own shots
before I got around to uploading them. At least with film, I can kid myself
into thinking that I will develop my pictures someday, and that exposed film
has an infinate shelf life.
Scott Seidman
@news.or.intel.com:
> I think it is the limited depth of field.
Perhaps the scanner should try using a digital camera
Scott
George Cleveland
wrote:
>Ken Janik wrote:
Yo Wolfman-
Are you still going to fish this weekend? The hippies have all left Watersmeet
(Rainbow Family thingamajig was the first 2 weeks of July) and it's supposed to
cool off some.
Enquiring minds and all that.
George C.
Ken Janik
> Actually, I've never said I prefer either medium, and pretty much share your
> opinion. I just find it silly that some could defend either medium to the
> exclusion of all others.
Agreed. There are only a few topics that I'm dogmatic about and I pretty
much freely admit them (I hear that OS X is finally acceptable though).
I will go so far as to predict that as soon as the digital resolution
meets/exceeds that of film, film is dead. But most people don't
particularly care what medium their photos are captured on. Whether
you capture photons chemically or electrically *SHOULDN'T* matter.
- Ken
rw
Ken Janik wrote:
>
> I will go so far as to predict that as soon as the digital resolution
> meets/exceeds that of film, film is dead.
I agree, with the caveat that digital resolution ALREADY meets that of
film, if you're willing to pay a pretty steep price. The price of
digital cameras has declined steadily, and will most likely continue to
decline for some time.
> But most people don't
> particularly care what medium their photos are captured on. Whether
> you capture photons chemically or electrically *SHOULDN'T* matter.
You can't capture "fine art" photons electrically. :-)
Ken Janik
>
>
> Ken Janik wrote:
> >
> > I will go so far as to predict that as soon as the digital resolution
> > meets/exceeds that of film, film is dead.
>
> I agree, with the caveat that digital resolution ALREADY meets that of
> film, if you're willing to pay a pretty steep price. The price of
> digital cameras has declined steadily, and will most likely continue to
> decline for some time.
Not quite.
http://pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/pixels.html
has a good summary on the topic.
6Mpixels is around my quality point. Once it hits ~20Mpixels,
no objective person, will complain.
> > But most people don't
> > particularly care what medium their photos are captured on. Whether
> > you capture photons chemically or electrically *SHOULDN'T* matter.
>
> You can't capture "fine art" photons electrically. :-)
There are upsides and downsides to the properties of your medium.
Electrical and chemical have different properties.
- Ken
Dave Mohnsen
"Ken Janik" <jan...@orst.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.17a0a0ae1...@news.or.intel.com...
Agreed Ken. I have too many times, said to myself, why didn't I have a
camera for this? I don't care about the medium, but once you see it, any
way to get it, in my mind counts.
Took pictures this morning with a digital. Wrong light, wrong zoom . . .
trashed them all. . . great targets. Would have been better with a 35mm,
or other format. Took pictures yesterday with the digital . . . impressed
with prints, at 8 x10. Using a Nikon Coolpix 995.
What I know is this. Since getting the digital camera a couple months ago
I've taken about 1550 photos. In the last year with my regular SLR I've
taken about 250. Giving prints to my friends of the digital stuff is fun.
at a nice size. Giving prints to my friends in analog format requires much
more time, especially if we want to resize . . . for this, or for that.
Thanks for you observation. I'm still using both . . . but digital only
the last two months.
Best Wishes,
DaveMohnsen
Denver
Scott Seidman
@news.or.intel.com:
> 6Mpixels is around my quality point. Once it hits ~20Mpixels,
> no objective person, will complain.
>
Sure they will- there needs to be a HUGE improvement in storage before this
is anywhere near practical. 6 Megapixels is already pushing it.
20Megapixels X however many bits you need for true color is something like
320 megabytes per image-- or 2 images per CD-R!! The cost involved in
storing this stuff likely FAR EXCEEDS the cost of film. Even when you're
talking 5 bucks for a 4.7 gig DVD-R (which would hold about a dozen 20
megapixel images), you need to consider the time it would take to manage
these huge tomes.
Dare I say the easiest way to manage this data overload would be to STORE
PRINTS, and TOSS THE FILE??
Until this storage issue is resolved, there will be a resolution sacrifice
when shooting digital. Again, this shortcoming to some will not be a killer
for others.
Scott
Tom Littleton
>Wolfgang
>who, ever in tune with the latest technological marvels, will happily
>digitize the prints and insert fish of choice.
I can't wait to continue through this thread and see who tells you what fish to
insert and where to insert it<g>.
On a more serious note, I am mildly amused at the level of vitrol this thread
seems to have generated. It would seem to come down to different strokes for
different folks...but, what do I know? I take photos as momentos and, once in a
while to inspire some ideas for things. I own a 35mm and a pretty basic Olympus
digital, use the digi camera more, because it is smaller and lighter. Both have
their plusses and minuses. FWIW, your clarifications regarding capture media
and output media are well put, and informative.....Arrgggh!!!!!! First, I
dine with RDean, now I'm complimenting Wolfgang! Pirate, Indian Joe, Warren
and Gherke are all going to the same clave! This is all getting too weird...
....where's my Medication!!!!
Tom L
David Snedeker
Thanx for the bug pix. Im wondering when all these "pro"s are going to share
some of their bug pix?
On the "fine art" thing: I was under the impression that the term "fine art"
was generally reserved for sculpture, music and painting. There are slippery
colloquial usage's, as in "The FINE ART of pouring a cup of tea." And do
dance and bell ringing and dress making, fiction writing and acting and,
and, and, . . . and photography fit into some sort of macro taxonomy of
what(?) . . . "art?" Unanswerable questions, bound to offend the ilk of
many, from matchstick modelers to ska composers. But Im fairly certain that
sculpture, music and painting are commonly considered fine arts, and
uncertain what else is included.
New technology re-shuffles the deck. For example, my own study of some of
the early painters says that some of these guys (Ver Meer for example) were
capturing images that they would have used a camera to get . . . if one was
available. They were often documenting their times and places, and they used
any tool available to speed the process or make it more accurate. (They used
the camera obscura for example to get initial drawings.) Today, photo
realist painting be dammed, the camera (chem or electronic) is a better and
quicker way to collect that momentary image, . . . than painting with
polymer or mineral pigment. HOWEVER, painting is still vastly superior for
accurately capturing color and light, how the brain "sees" an image,
depicting what doesn't physically exist, conveying the atmospherics of an
image, dealing with perspective etc.. Arguably, paint, sculpture and mosaic
also are "permanent, " while film rapidly deteriorates. Permanency is to me
the most interesting thing about digital . . . that is if devices to "read"
the specific digital recording media survive.
Anyway, thats my musing on it.
And thanx again for your photos and those bugs.
Dave
Ken Janik
> Ken Janik <jan...@orst.edu> wrote in news:MPG.17a0adae313b286a989749
> @news.or.intel.com:
>
> > 6Mpixels is around my quality point. Once it hits ~20Mpixels,
> > no objective person, will complain.
> >
>
> Sure they will- there needs to be a HUGE improvement in storage before this
> is anywhere near practical. 6 Megapixels is already pushing it.
6Mpixels, (from the D-60 webpage)
Raw: 7.4MB
Fine: 2.5MB
Normal: 1.3MB
This is the resolution that I scan at and I store them (approximately)
at "Fine". A CD, at less than $1/pop holds well over 250 images.
Your DVD-R example would hold over 1800 images.
My computer handles 2.5MB images just fine. Actually I regularly
stitch multiple full-size "Raw" images together with no problems.
Although if people need to upgrade their computers to manipulate
photos who am I to complain. :-)
- Ken
Wayne Harrison
>
>
>Ken Janik wrote:
>>
>> I will go so far as to predict that as soon as the digital resolution
>> meets/exceeds that of film, film is dead.
>
>I agree, with the caveat that digital resolution ALREADY meets that of
>film, if you're willing to pay a pretty steep price. The price of
>digital cameras has declined steadily, and will most likely continue to
>decline for some time.
of course, what you fail to understand is that resolution is
only one factor in the creation of an image.
>
>> But most people don't
>> particularly care what medium their photos are captured on. Whether
>> you capture photons chemically or electrically *SHOULDN'T* matter.
>
>You can't capture "fine art" photons electrically. :-)
no, you can't. but what you overlook is that i agree that a
digicam is a wonderful tool to dissimenate immediate visual
information to the largest possible audience. it's just that those
pictures are a world apart from ansel adams, or any number of
wonderful photographers who are concerned with something quite
different than a shot of bruiser with a 16" rainbow wherein his face
is a black hole.
iow, willi wouldn't give a shit whether i took my shots of him
waist deep in penns creek with a digicam, my leica, or a fucking
throwaway kodak. but if you want to try to make a statement about
something or someone by the use of a camera, film remains the finest
method to utilize.
wayno