My Coolpix950/Kenko 8X32 nature/landscape pictures are on-line
Bill Thomson
Kenko 8X32 monocular from http://www.ckcpower.com/ I have
some wildlife pictures taken with this combo. The pictures
live in my album at http://members2.clubphoto.com/bill216194/
L8r,
Bill
Daytripper
Do you have any pictures taken with the monocular that interested
folks can get to that haven't been compressed to death?
The ones at that url are hardly complementary in their current
condition - there's no point at all in clicking on the thumbnails as
all that provides are pixellated blow-ups of the same tiny jpegs...
Ruff-Cut
Daytripper <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o4327sk0aricj3v39...@4ax.com...
What's the best preparation before sending pictures to sites like
that one? My Kenko monocular should be arriving in the mail
tomorrow,and I'd like to put a few shots up. I can't wait to get that
thing attached to my CP950's 38mm-215mm lens...ah...make that
115mm! <snicker>
Ruff-Cut
Bill Thomson
uncompressed
versions. Is there a group consensus on the appropriate compression
level for on-line photos? With my lowly 28.8k service I don't have the
patience to download any images larger than about 200k unless I really,
really like the thumbnail or the image is from the Nikon D1 ;).
L8r,
Bill
daytripper
wrote:
>I replaced a few of the better (IMHO) images with the original
>uncompressed versions. Is there a group consensus on the appropriate compression
>level for on-line photos? With my lowly 28.8k service I don't have the
>patience to download any images larger than about 200k unless I really,
>really like the thumbnail or the image is from the Nikon D1 ;).
LOL! Well heck - I had to download them via MY low-rent 28.8 connection - but
if you're excited about a lens and you want to share (in your case) or find
out what it can do (my case) you gotta take the good with the pain ;^)
Thanks for putting up the full size pic of the GBH. That one pretty much sums
up what that monocular can do. It's a nice picture.
I do have a couple of questions, if you don't mind my asking.
- the exif header claims you shot the GBH at F3.9 and 1/164 second. Really?
I'm just wondering if my software is misinterpreting those figures.
- the center of the picture is fairly well focused, but as you work away from
the center the focus becomes more and more unsharp. Being unfamiliar with the
scene I can't tell if the surrounding foliage was at the same distance from
the lens or not, and thus whether the blurring is due to the shallow DOF at
the aperture used, or due to distortion inherent to the lens. Comments?
- how hard was it to achieve decent focus using the LCD? A "beeyotch"? ;^)
Thanks again for hammering your phone line for us (and thank the GBH for
posing so nicely ;^)
/daytripper
Daniel H Lauring
kind. They don't tell me much about the original cameras quality...just
about the photographers picture taking ability. It is better to have decent
thumbnails (say 320x240) that when clicked on allow you to download the
fully uncompressed original.
--
Daniel Lauring
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Bungalow/9795/
Digital Camera and Video Camera tidbits
.
daytripper wrote in message ...
Pam Niedermayer
uncompressed original; but not all that sure I'd like to
give away my photos or could recommend that anyone else give
away their photos. Granted, not many of us are great
artists, but still.... One of the secondary advantages of
using jpeg is that at least I'm the only one with the original.
It would be nice if we could set permissions via Photoshop,
similarly to what can be done in Acrobat, then the download
could be psd rather than TIFF. Actually, maybe this is
possible, should check it out. Also, may be a good idea to
upload a pdf version with permissions set as desired, so
anyone with the free Reader could see it; but printing
and/or editing would be limited.
Pam
Daniel H Lauring wrote:
>
> Personally, I'm not too interested in looking at compressed pics of any
> kind. They don't tell me much about the original cameras quality...just
> about the photographers picture taking ability. It is better to have decent
> thumbnails (say 320x240) that when clicked on allow you to download the
> fully uncompressed original.
>
> --
--
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
1221 S. Congress Ave., #1225
Austin, TX 78704
512-416-1141
512-416-1440 fax
http://www.pinehill.com
Bill Thomson
best as
my pair of brain cells can recall were:
o Shot from a kayak on Lake Austin (snuck up on the GBH)
o I used aperature priority and set the aperature as low as it would go.
My intent was to sacrifice DOF for the highest possible shutter speed.
o I was fairly close to maximum zoom
o There was a #%$@load of reflected light coming off the water.
Fortunuately I
had a hood for the LCD but it was still hard to see it. This may
account
for some of the haziness of the image. I took about 25 pictures and
the 1 I posted was best. My friend shot the same photo from his Kayak
with a Canon 35mm camera w/300mm lens and his photos came out washed
out.
The increased magnification of the Kenko more than offset his
advantage in lens
and resolution quality. Digital won this battle ;} If I had had a D1
it would
have been a rout.
daytripper
Amazing how long a heron will hold a pose, eh? ;^)
On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 21:24:46 -0600, Bill Thomson <NoSpAm_...@waymark.net>
wrote:
>I believe the exif header is correct. The conditions of the GBH photo as
bob dolson
daytripper <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:es637s0m6i7d1lk2h...@4ax.com...
>
> - the exif header claims you shot the GBH at F3.9 and 1/164 second.
Really?
> I'm just wondering if my software is misinterpreting those figures.
>
That indicates the setting 'in the camera', but of course the actual
effective f-stop is much higher (multiply the number that the exif info says
by the power of the scope roughly). In this case the effective f-stop would
be around f31...
--
Sincerely,
Bob Dolson
Retired since Oct. 1, 1999!
check out our web pages when you get a chance.
Now including some QTVR pans from the Casio 2000UX at:
http://home.sprynet.com/~bdolson
Also check out our PhotoPoint web albums.
Also including some 2000UX samples at:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=49802
daytripper
> At least the ones I saw do not look pixelized to me.
That's because he replaced them with the high-res shots!
Follow the rest of that *really old* thread and you'll discover what
transpired...
/daytripper
John Gerard
On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 15:59:02 -0500, Daytripper
<day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
John Gerard
going to put on my site. You said that thumbnails should be 320x240
pixels what about the enlarged image? It comes off my camera at
1600x1200.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 12:04:21 GMT, "Daniel H Lauring"
<dlaurin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Personally, I'm not too interested in looking at compressed pics of any
>kind. They don't tell me much about the original cameras quality...just
>about the photographers picture taking ability. It is better to have decent
>thumbnails (say 320x240) that when clicked on allow you to download the
>fully uncompressed original.
>
>--
>Daniel Lauring
>http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Bungalow/9795/
>Digital Camera and Video Camera tidbits
>.
>
>daytripper wrote in message ...
>>On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:10:28 -0600, Bill Thomson
><NoSpAm_...@waymark.net>
>>wrote:
>>>I replaced a few of the better (IMHO) images with the original
>>>uncompressed versions. Is there a group consensus on the appropriate
>compression
>>>level for on-line photos? With my lowly 28.8k service I don't have the
>>>patience to download any images larger than about 200k unless I really,
>>>really like the thumbnail or the image is from the Nikon D1 ;).
>>
>>LOL! Well heck - I had to download them via MY low-rent 28.8 connection -
>but
>>if you're excited about a lens and you want to share (in your case) or find
>>out what it can do (my case) you gotta take the good with the pain ;^)
>>
>>Thanks for putting up the full size pic of the GBH. That one pretty much
>sums
>>up what that monocular can do. It's a nice picture.
>>
>>I do have a couple of questions, if you don't mind my asking.
>>
>>- the exif header claims you shot the GBH at F3.9 and 1/164 second. Really?
>>I'm just wondering if my software is misinterpreting those figures.
>>