a little digital controversy to stir up things :-)
David Cazier
a wannabe pro-photog forever - but I have to make a living :-)
I see the results of people's work in here and the bantering back and forth
about what camera is the best and what megapixel should be selected for
whatever goal .. blah...blah...blah
Whatever happened to the 'fun" in photography?
There are very few web galleries I have visited that have impressed me in
terms of crystal clear sharpness and color rendition/saturation.
Keep in mind that I do NOT like natural color renditions - but more vivid
results.
I visited one site by www.wgeorge.com and was very impressed by the "fine
art" work he produces - and after corresponding with him a couple of times
and a phone chat - it seems to me to NOT boil down to the camera, but to the
artist technique for capturing and post production tweaking to get such
great results.
IN essence, forget the pixels - there are software programs that can make
you pixel count increase by 4 or more anyway and render a very nice finished
product. There may even be ways to increase 16 times the pixel count. But
what the heck does that matter on a web site anyway?
If we are talking PRINTS then the pixel count gets to be significant. SO are
most of you folks even on the same page when debating the pixel issue? the
CCD or CMOS technology? or the size of the chip?
Some of the discussion is likely to miss the point of the poster unless the
responder asks a few more questions.
I'd like to see this group focus more on technique of capturing and post
producing the work than debating cameras, lenses, and pixels PLEASE.
Some of us simply cannot afford the high end machines that capture better
images in the first place :-) So how do I make my work better with what I
have?
Now, I bought a CoolPix 990 and a D-30 Canon. I see NO difference in the
final result. None of you would be able to tell the difference in the images
captured even in TIF format.
What IS different is the creativity afforded me by the D-30 vs. the CoolPix
system. And I can select any number of Canon (or Tamron) lenses I want.
Story - I went to Atlanta to do a model photoshoot. I whip out the 3MP
CoolPix 990 and the girls leave snickering.
I whip out my 3MP D-30 and that 2.8 300mm lens and ... whoaaaa ... it looks,
smells and feels like a pro-camera :-)
The difference in the results - NADA.
The kicker comes when the girls ask for print - ooooops - should have
brought my Nikon 90 with it's awesome suite of lenses to get C-41 pics and
send that in to Walgreens for development/printing. The girls would then be
happy.
So, let's stick to techniques for acquiring digital images that will
facilitate post production manipulation and how to best store and print
those images.
BTW - my CoolPix only lasts about 40-60 minutes on it's set of batteries.
The D-30 lasts almost like the old standard Canon or Nikon.
Hurry with your replies, because once my wife figures out that I spent
$3,700 on my camera and accessories, I'm dead :-)
Mark Morgan
990,
then you're doing something wrong. Used as a point and shoot, the D30 isn't
gong to make you a better photographer...or make your pictures better.
The purpose of the D30 is flexibility, and complete control.
If you don't want that control, then you wasted your money.
But hey... If you're that displeased with your 300mm lens' results,
I'd be happy to take it off your hands...
:-)
I think a great deal of discussion here does revolve around *prints* -so I
don't know where you're getting the impression of an obsession over web-site
photos... Web-site photos just happen to be the only way we can view
anyone's samples for discussion.
As for me, I could care less about screen presentation.
I only care about the screen to the extent that it helps me determine what
will be in a frame at some point.
"David Cazier" <DCA...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oiTB6.79841$8y.17...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
Tony Spadaro
fastest and cheapest way to learn. Or, if you must spend more money, try the
used bookstores. There are only a couple details where digital differs from
film in the actual shooting stage.
You have the perfect learning instrument - a high quality camera that
gives you instant feedback. This is much better than a forum where everyone
argues about things they can't actually see - it being a text only medium.
You might also want to check out the articles on my sites
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro
Dark Alley Photography - a Java site
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"David Cazier" <DCA...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oiTB6.79841$8y.17...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
Mark Morgan
It's a good thing you're here for David...
...I'm in far too grumpy a mood to be very helpful...
-Guess I should go to bed.
:-)
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:FoUB6.11540$KQ2.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Timo Autiokari
>Whatever happened to the 'fun" in photography?
Everything in digital imaging has to do with accuracy, the fun and the
strength of digital imaging is totally in colorimetric accuracy.
There is absolutely nothing fun when you are forced to start your
enhancements from highly inaccurate in-camera tweaked data, it takes many
hours to arrive to a pleasantly looking nicely enhanced art from such a
mess. It is like running in the forest blindfolded.
When you can start from colorimetrically accurate image data you can
achieve great appearance within minutes.
>There are very few web galleries I have visited that have impressed me in
>terms of crystal clear sharpness and color rendition/saturation.
Indeed, when you apply the enhancements over strongly tweaked image data
you are only deeper in the mess.
>Keep in mind that I do NOT like natural color renditions -
>but more vivid results.
That vivid appearance (I like it too) you can easily get when you have
accurate image data to start with, you simply apply photometric saturation
enhancement. But over strongly tweaked image data you just get poor
appearance with plenty of color errors.
>I visited one site by www.wgeorge.com and was very impressed by the "fine
>art" work he produces - and after corresponding with him a couple of times
>and a phone chat - it seems to me to NOT boil down to the camera, but to the
>artist technique for capturing and post production tweaking to get such
>great results.
An experienced operator can de-tweak almost what ever mess but it is
painful as it will take many hours of working time. An experienced operator
can create wonders just in a couple of minutes when you give him
colorimetrically accurate image data.
>Some of us simply cannot afford the high end machines that capture better
>images in the first place
We should require/demand accuracy from the lesser devices too. The accuracy
is there *inherently* in these devices also (CCDs are the same in respect
to this) it is the in-camera tweaking that makes the images so bad, almost
uneditable.
>Now, I bought a CoolPix 990 and a D-30 Canon. I see NO difference
>in the final result.
I can now fully understand why you posted your message.
>What IS different is the creativity afforded me by the D-30 vs.
>the CoolPix system.
It is the 16-bit/color linear acquire with D-30. But you do need to know
how to use it.
>So, let's stick to techniques for acquiring digital images
>that will facilitate post production manipulation and how
>to best store and print those images.
First we need digital cameras that give the data in such condition that
allows post processing well.
Timo Autiokari
http://www.aim-dtp.net
KenJr
DCA...@houston.rr.com says...
> it seems to me to NOT boil down to the camera, but to the
> artist technique for capturing and post production tweaking to get such
> great results.
>
>
That's it in a nutshell. I learned that way back when I got my first
"real" 35mm camera. All the fancy lens and filters didn't make me a
better photographer. It took years of experimenting, making mistakes and
learning from them, and many, many rolls of film.
Lars Clausen
> BTW - my CoolPix only lasts about 40-60 minutes on it's set of batteries.
> The D-30 lasts almost like the old standard Canon or Nikon.
Are those NiMH batteries? If not, definitely get some. If so, what mAh
are they?
As for "where's the fun in photography" (there is no fun, but there's a hot
graph:), thie is rec.photo.digital. The issues of composition, exposure
etc. are not different from normal cameras, and are a) well covered in tons
of books, and b) also covered in rec.photo.
-Lars
--
Lars Clausen (http://shasta.cs.uiuc.edu/~lrclause) | Hårdgrim of Numenor
"I do not agree with a word that you say, but I | Retainer of Sir Kegg
will defend to the death your right to say it." | of Westfield
--Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrasing Voltaire | Chaos Berserker of Khorne
Roger N. Clark
David Cazier wrote:
> I want to preface this post by saying I'm only a computer geek who has been a
> wannabe pro-photog forever - but I have to make a living :-)
This is a geek dominated newsgroup! You won't change them.
(I'm a geek too, so no flames please).
> I see the results of people's work in here and the bantering back and forth
> about what camera is the best and what megapixel should be selected for
> whatever goal .. blah...blah...blah
You'll have to select through the techno stuff
for photo methods. Better yet--go to a newsgroup
that has more photo composition discussions.
I frequent rec.photo.technique.nature more than
here for that reason. HOWEVER: this group is
extremely valuable with many insightfull discussions.
In a new and rapidly growing field, those geeky
discussions need to happen and you can learn a lot
(I have).
> Whatever happened to the 'fun" in photography?
People ARE having fun, Note all those posts
that have WOW in the title.
I offer my own web site for your perusal:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark
It has some nice images (just my opinion) that you
might find interesting, both large format and 35mm, and geeky
stuff on digital pixels and image quality. I have a
new page on digital print advantage over traditional
enlarger prints (and many printer examples yet to add).
With any web site: you can't judge true image quality
that a large print would show, so it is a very restrictive
compromise in presentation. The texture and detail that
"knocks your socks off" that large format prints in the
30x40 inch (and larger) range shows just can't be
presented on the web. So all you can do is get a rough
approximation of the composition.
Visit real galleries to see what photography
can really do! (another just my opinion)
Roger Clark
LeftCoast C.C.
--
"I think we're making progress. We understand where the power of this
country lay. It lays in the hearts and souls of Americans. It must lay in
our pocketbooks. It lays in the willingness for people to work hard. But as
importantly, it lays in the fact that we've got citizens from all walks of
life, all political parties, that are willing to say, I want to love my
neighbor. I want to make somebody's life just a little bit better."-- our
president, Concord Middle School, Concord, N.C., April 11, 2001
"Roger N. Clark" <rnc...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:3AD86FA3...@qwest.net...
David B.
<DCA...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>Whatever happened to the 'fun" in photography?
"Fun" in digital photography varies with the shooter. For some, it's
the actual taking, for others it's the "digital darkroom" work, for
still others it's having the latest and greatest tech toy. Film
photography is strange at times too, with the "capturing of light"
crowd, the "never crop" group and the "Zone System" devotees. Let
alone the B&W vs. color debate.
>There are very few web galleries I have visited that have impressed me in
>terms of crystal clear sharpness and color rendition/saturation.
That's because the web allows virtually anyone to become published,
even if their talent/skill doesn't warrant it.
>I visited one site by www.wgeorge.com and was very impressed by the "fine
>art" work he produces - and after corresponding with him a couple of times
>and a phone chat - it seems to me to NOT boil down to the camera, but to the
>artist technique for capturing and post production tweaking to get such
>great results.
>
>IN essence, forget the pixels - there are software programs that can make
>you pixel count increase by 4 or more anyway and render a very nice finished
>product. There may even be ways to increase 16 times the pixel count. But
>what the heck does that matter on a web site anyway?
>If we are talking PRINTS then the pixel count gets to be significant. SO are
>most of you folks even on the same page when debating the pixel issue? the
>CCD or CMOS technology? or the size of the chip?
I'm sure you've read many posts regarding "interpolation". In fact,
the Fuji SuperCCD cameras have a terrible reputation for this
practice. Truth is, there are people who believe in it, and those who
hate it. Genuine Fractals is a good example - a lot of folks swear by
it. Of course we're talking prints here. Nobody needs anything
beyond 1024x768 for a website, the average net user is still at
800x600 at best. Of course pixel count matters. Why else would there
be a long debate over what dpi is needed to produce a good 8x10?
>I'd like to see this group focus more on technique of capturing and post
>producing the work than debating cameras, lenses, and pixels PLEASE.
>Some of us simply cannot afford the high end machines that capture better
>images in the first place :-) So how do I make my work better with what I
>have?
Sorry, wrong group. This group has been, and always will be, devoted
to the "prosumer" buyer of digital cameras. And because it's geek
frequented, the latest and greatest will be worshipped. Technique
isn't geeky, technology is. Also, if you notice, once a camera gets
above a certain price point, there is less discussion of it.
>Now, I bought a CoolPix 990 and a D-30 Canon. I see NO difference in the
>final result. None of you would be able to tell the difference in the images
>captured even in TIF format.
That's a scary statement.
>Story - I went to Atlanta to do a model photoshoot. I whip out the 3MP
>CoolPix 990 and the girls leave snickering.
>I whip out my 3MP D-30 and that 2.8 300mm lens and ... whoaaaa ... it looks,
>smells and feels like a pro-camera :-)
>
>The difference in the results - NADA.
Same thing would have happened if using a 35 SLR with motor drive
attached and a Leica rangefinder. Who cares what the ditzes think?
The photographic equivalent of driving a Viper or a Neon?
>The kicker comes when the girls ask for print - ooooops - should have
>brought my Nikon 90 with it's awesome suite of lenses to get C-41 pics and
>send that in to Walgreens for development/printing. The girls would then be
>happy.
No need for Walgreens. Buy a photo printer, and print them out while
they wait :-)
>So, let's stick to techniques for acquiring digital images that will
>facilitate post production manipulation and how to best store and print
>those images.
Again, wrong group.
Have a great day!
David B.
Bernard Saper
David Cazier <DCA...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oiTB6.79841$8y.17...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
Chris Bennett
photography.
I have the Agfa CL-20. It is a 1.3 mega pixel camera (1280 by 960)
fixed focus camera that cost me $240 Canadian (under $160 US). I
figured it was a "toy" camera I could play with to see how I liked
digital photography.
What a surprise! I have been very impressed with the quality of the
pictures that it takes. Even blown up to 8.5 by 11.
Printing at the 4 by 6 size produces pictures that look like regular
"photos". I took some pictures of my niece and her new baby and had
glossy prints ready in 30 minutes. Something I couldn't do in the
past.
Eventually, I will replace my 35mm cameras with a more capable digital
camera (6+ megapixel????) but for the time being the Agfa is doing the
job and complements my 35mm cameras.
Chris Bennett
== To send E-Mail, replace "abc" with "sympatico.ca".==
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 07:49:40 GMT, "David Cazier"
<DCA...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
Aron W. Hajde
was somewhat frustrated. I could never remember what I had done to take a
series of pictures by the time I had received the photos back. I spent a
lot of time and money with so-so results. I eventually moved over to other
hobbies.
The thing I am looking forward to most with digital photography is the
instant feedback, which I believe will help anyone, but especially people
that are new to photography. You can see the affects of your changes/tweaks
and adjust on the spot.
Just some thoughts...
Aron
"KenJr" <kennyjr...@floodcity.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.154200e79...@news.floodcity.net...
Matt
wrote:
>Not everyone need high end digital cameras to enjoy the fun of digital
>photography.
>
>I have the Agfa CL-20. It is a 1.3 mega pixel camera (1280 by 960)
>fixed focus camera that cost me $240 Canadian (under $160 US). I
>figured it was a "toy" camera I could play with to see how I liked
>digital photography.
I'll second that - my current (first) DigiCam is a Samsung Digimax
800k (though I hesitate to mention such a lowly item against the
massed ranks of 2-3 Megapixels here!)
The FUN is in discovering how MUCH it can do....
I LOVE the macro mode - every new flower that comes out in the garden
gets the camera shoved at it!
I have discovered how to alter the exposure by locking, so you can
take good pictures against backlight or excess sky.
The most important thing I've discovered, is that my composition
usually stinks! - partly because I often "shoot blind", just targeting
the camera from an awkward position without using the viewfinder.
So I can see a very valid point in that...
Anybody can take a snap - taking a PICTURE requires skill,
observation, luck, and equipment that can handle what you're trying to
do.
And with digital, the ones that don't come out only cost you some
battery - use Ni-MH, you know it makes sense.
--
http://www.junkroom.freeserve.co.uk/jvc2080.htm
JVC XR-W2080 based drives, problems, fixes, updates
Jim Martin
take!!!
"Matt" <MTDay.n...@ic24.net> wrote in message
news:d1ghdt8tbdlg82oke...@4ax.com...
KenJr
says...
> I have the Agfa CL-20. It is a 1.3 mega pixel camera (1280 by 960)
> fixed focus camera that cost me $240 Canadian (under $160 US). I
> figured it was a "toy" camera I could play with to see how I liked
> digital photography.
>
> pictures that it takes. Even blown up to 8.5 by 11.
>
I agree. I have a Panasonic SuperDisk camera with the same resolution as
yours. My wife and I just got back from taking the dog for a walk in the
park and I printed out a picture of the dog at 8x10 and it looks better
than the prints you get from Walmart.
In article <9ba8qq$b7s$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, aha...@mindspring.com
says...
> The thing I am looking forward to most with digital photography is the
> instant feedback, which I believe will help anyone, but especially people
> that are new to photography. You can see the affects of your changes/tweaks
> and adjust on the spot.
>
Right. With a digital camera you can review the results instantly on the
LCD screen. If you find a bad picture you can delete it and take another.
With film cameras once you take the shot the film is exposed. If the shot
is bad your stuck with it.
There are many advantages to digital photography. I took pictures at my
cousins wedding and was able to email them to relatives who were unable
to attend that night. Another time I took a picture of my grandmother
with several of the grandchildren. She wanted a picture when I got it
developed. Imagine her surprise when I walked out with an 8x10 in less
than 10 minutes.
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> Right. With a digital camera you can review the results instantly on the
> LCD screen. If you find a bad picture you can delete it and take another.
> With film cameras once you take the shot the film is exposed. If the shot
> is bad your stuck with it.
Not only that, but you don't even get to _see_ the bad picture until
you finish the film (unless you want to waste exposures), and process
it/get it back from a lab.
--
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <to...@chello.no>
Thought of the day: A follow-up article stating that an article
was off-topic, is itself off-topic.
Elliott Johnson
<aha...@mindspring.com> wrotc:
>Years ago I was heavily into 35 mm photography, although I must admit that I
>was somewhat frustrated. I could never remember what I had done to take a
>series of pictures by the time I had received the photos back. I spent a
>lot of time and money with so-so results. I eventually moved over to other
>hobbies.
Aron, I recently retired and can share exactly the same sentiments
about 35mm photography. I also could never remember what worked for me
between trips to the Kodak labs. Consequently I turned to other
diversions. Since my first digital camera, I now take dozens of shots
at a clip and the learning curve has definitely been breached.
With film I had to be satisfied with what came in the envelope with
12, 24 or 36 other surprises. Now I can tweak 'till the cows come home
before discarding a mess or keeping a masterpiece.