TR: Suffering for Art in Mid-Wales
Paul Saunders
Stop at a fossilised waterfall on the Black Mountain. Take some photos.
Overcast, hint of sun, showers.
Llandovery. Time for a break. Coffee in a cafe. Downpour outside. Wait
for the rain to stop.
Near Rhandirmwyn. See a high waterfall from a distance, Nant y Rhaedr,
Mynydd Mallaen. Stop the car, get out, take some telephotos. Overcast,
occasional sun.
Drive to the small bridge over the Afon Pysgotwr. Get out and take loads of
photos. Cloud and sun. Red Kite. Low flying jets. Talk to a bloke from
the Environment Commission for a while.
Drive to a viewpoint over Dinas waterfall. Shower. Wait in the car. Still
showering. Getting very heavy. Still raining. It won't stop. Easing off
now. No, it's starting again. Easing off again. It's stopped. Quick!
Walk a few yards, set up the tripod, starts to rain again. Work faster.
Photo, photo, photo, photo, pouring down now, photo, photo, photo, camera
getting soaked, photo, photo, photo. Right, back to the car. Careful on
those slippery rocks, it's a big drop down there.
Back in the car. Rain again. Try to dry the camera.
Llyn Brianne Reservoir. Overcast, showers. Waiting. The Reservoir is in
overflow mode today. Okay, the sun's out. Get that tripod set up. Where
did all these people come from? Where are the ice cream vans? Lots of
photos, and more photos, and more, and why not? It's nice and sunny now.
Back in Llandovery. Another break. Plaice and chips this time. Still
sunny.
Black Mountain again, looking good from the north. Stop to photograph the
summits. The polariser makes a big difference. Getting very windy and
chilly now. Sunlight bright and clear.
Telephoto sheep against the light. Cute lambs dashing about. Wild
red-wooled ewe gives me the evil eye. Click!
Time: 11 hours
Walking Distance: A few yards from the car.
Ascent: A few metres, if that.
Photos: Approx 60 Provia F, mostly telephoto, mostly arty.
Summary: A damn good day out. Thanks Bill. Who needs to walk anyway? :-)
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/expedition11/expedition11.html
Anderz
>From: c.st...@despam.ntlworld.com (Chris Street)
>Date: 31/05/2002 01:59 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3cf7cae4...@news.cable.ntlworld.com>
>
>On Thu, 30 May 2002 22:35:51 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
><pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Time: 11 hours
>>Walking Distance: A few yards from the car.
>>Ascent: A few metres, if that.
>>Photos: Approx 60 Provia F, mostly telephoto, mostly arty.
>
>
Get yourself a good digital. Great quality images and if your talking serious
money like I am sure there are plenty of people who post here are for analouge
stills cameras then you can get some VERY nice images.
I have a Sony 21.MP cybershot whihc I picked up for £190 pretty much brand new.
Great quality images and 128MB sony stick will see you fine for roughly 120 @
1600X1200 not to mention the ability to preview the image and deleting it off
teh stick if your mate happend to be pulling his pants out of his bum at that
time or something! ;)
The only drawback with that is the batteries will run down but you either get a
battery pack or just take out a couple of high grade rechargables with you like
I do.
Burn them on CD and you can vie wthem on your TV as a wee slide show or print
them on photostatic paper which in itself is quite expensive but I only plan to
do taht with real beauties and just compress the rest for the web.
Cheers,
Anderz
Chris Street
wrote:
>>Subject: Re: TR: Suffering for Art in Mid-Wales
>>From: c.st...@despam.ntlworld.com (Chris Street)
>>Date: 31/05/2002 01:59 GMT Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3cf7cae4...@news.cable.ntlworld.com>
>>
>>On Thu, 30 May 2002 22:35:51 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
>><pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Time: 11 hours
>>>Walking Distance: A few yards from the car.
>>>Ascent: A few metres, if that.
>>>Photos: Approx 60 Provia F, mostly telephoto, mostly arty.
>>
>>Sounds like your processing costs are going to be just as bad as mine!
>>
>
>Get yourself a good digital. Great quality images and if your talking serious
>money like I am sure there are plenty of people who post here are for analouge
>stills cameras then you can get some VERY nice images.
Yet to find any digital camera that cen even come close to 35mm in
terms of image quality. They don't have the resolution and none of
them have any lenses close to the ones I currently use. Also they
don't give me the image quality and control that I need.
>
>I have a Sony 21.MP cybershot whihc I picked up for £190 pretty much brand new.
> Great quality images and 128MB sony stick will see you fine for roughly 120 @
>1600X1200 not to mention the ability to preview the image and deleting it off
>teh stick if your mate happend to be pulling his pants out of his bum at that
>time or something! ;)
>
>The only drawback with that is the batteries will run down but you either get a
>battery pack or just take out a couple of high grade rechargables with you like
>I do.
Batteries have a habit of freezing solid at cold temperatures, one of
the reasons my cameras are fully manual.
Chris Boughay
> Two invalids and a car. Go for a drive up to Mid-Wales. Overcast.
<snip>
> Time: 11 hours
> Walking Distance: A few yards from the car.
> Ascent: A few metres, if that.
> Photos: Approx 60 Provia F, mostly telephoto, mostly arty.
> Summary: A damn good day out. Thanks Bill. Who needs to walk anyway? :-)
>
> Paul
Sounds too strenuous for me ;-)
Chris
ps I expect to see some of those arty shots on your site soon.....please...
Dominic Sexton
<despam....@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>Batteries have a habit of freezing solid at cold temperatures, one of
>the reasons my cameras are fully manual.
I have used my Minox 35ML and Olympus Mju Zoom in rather chilly winter
temperatures in North Russia (don't remember taking any photographs
below -30C ;-). I have also used my Canon EOS500 in somewhat warmer late
winter / early spring where the temperatures were from -20C to -5C.
None of them suffered from battery problems - all main batteries were
lithium but the flash for the Minox was powered by standard AAA
alkalines and got a lot of use as it was dark for 22 hours per day in
mid winter! What conditions are you taking your snaps in?
--
Dominic Sexton
http://www.dscs.demon.co.uk/
Gordon
Boughay <Chris....@linpac-containers.co.uk> writes
>> Two invalids and a car. Go for a drive up to Mid-Wales. Overcast.
>
><snip>
>
>> Time: 11 hours
>> Walking Distance: A few yards from the car.
>> Ascent: A few metres, if that.
>> Photos: Approx 60 Provia F, mostly telephoto, mostly arty.
>> Summary: A damn good day out. Thanks Bill. Who needs to walk anyway? :-)
>>
>> Paul
>
>Sounds too strenuous for me ;-)
>
--
Gordon
The Reids
>Photos: Approx 60 Provia F, mostly telephoto, mostly arty.
60 in one day, did you miss a decimal point? :-)
--
Mike Reid
Photography released art from the shackles of illustration and
set it free to destroy itself?
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict052.htm"
Chris Street
-40C in the Alps in winter. Not recommended for almost anything. This
was also when I found that parrafin at that temperature is more like
glue, and impossible to burn....
Phil Cook
>Yet to find any digital camera that cen even come close to 35mm in
>terms of image quality. They don't have the resolution and none of
>them have any lenses close to the ones I currently use. Also they
>don't give me the image quality and control that I need.
Speaking as a 35mm owner (Pentax MX and my favourite lens is a 24mm or
a 19-35mm) I am just about to take the plunge and get a Canon A40.
This is only 2 Mpix but it's purpose is to take all those less than
masterpiece shots. It has full manual control of shutter and aperture
if I want it and an accessory lens will bring the lens down to an
equivalent 24mm from the 35-105 that it is fitted with. The cost of
camera lens and a 128 Mb card is in the region of £400.
The MX will still be therein my kit and used on a tripod for serious
photography. Combined with a Minolta scanner it will give 8 Mpix and a
digital camera equivalent to that, the new Canon D60 digital SLR with
6 Mpix costs too much (over £2000) for me to consider. And if I did
have that kind of money I might want to go the medium format route.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Paul Saunders
> > Photos: Approx 60 Provia F, mostly telephoto, mostly arty.
> Sounds too strenuous for me ;-)
Yep, it costs a lot of film to keep up with me... ;-)
> ps I expect to see some of those arty shots on your site
soon.....please...
Yes, I've been planning to completely revamp the Photo Galleries section of
my site, replacing the current "area photos" with arty portfolios instead,
which is what photo galleries should be about IMO.
I'll probably move the area photos in with the trip reports, changing the
Wilderness Walks section into a Walking Areas section, with photos and TRs
in the same place. Seems more logical to me.
I need to finish scanning the rest of the Peak District pics first though,
and put the Dartmoor pics on.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/expedition11/expedition11.html
Paul Saunders
> Get yourself a good digital.
I'd like to, but to supplement my film photography, not replace it. Digital
could save me a lot of money on "snaps", but I'd still use film for my
serious shots.
> Great quality images and if your talking serious
> money like I am sure there are plenty of people who post here are for
analouge
> stills cameras then you can get some VERY nice images.
The very best digital cameras can compete with film now, but we are talking
serious money, i.e. thousands of pounds. Sub-£1000 digital cameras still
can't compete with film.
Serious film photographers might want to read this article though. On the
one hand it's a little disturbing, but on the other, very promising.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm
That article challenges a few assumptions, especially since it's *only* a 3
megapixel camera. However, all CCDs are not the same, there's more to
assessing the quality of a digital camera than simply counting the number of
pixels. You also have to consider things like digital noise, chromatic
aberrations and contrast range.
Due to the lack of grain, a digital photo doesn't need to be as large as a
film scan (apparently film scans are typically reduced by 50% before
printing in a book or magazine).
Another important factor is lens quality. The D30 is a digital SLR which
accepts a wide range of lenses, so it's no surpise that it costs £1800.
Here's a review;
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/review/10/2/19.html
> I have a Sony 21.MP cybershot whihc I picked up for £190 pretty much brand
new.
> Great quality images and 128MB sony stick will see you fine for roughly
120 @
> 1600X1200
Is that the DSC-P50? Sounds good, but lacks manual control, which is very
important to me.
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_p50-review/
Phil Cook recently pointed out the Canon PowerShot A40 to me, which looks
very promising. Similar stats to the above but with manual controls and the
option of a wide-angle converter. Not good enough to compete with film of
course, but a great looking camera for digital "snaps". 1600x1200 is the
ideal size for digital images IMO, since they perfectly match the highest
resolution possible on most graphics cards, and is the resolution most
likely to be used by those fortunate enough to own a really big monitor.
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/a40-review/
> not to mention the ability to preview the image and deleting it off
> teh stick if your mate happend to be pulling his pants out of his bum at
that
> time or something! ;)
I do like the fact that you can shoot dozens of images and then delete all
the crap ones (don't try this Ian, you'd end up with no photos at all...),
ideal for any kind of action photography where the percentage of bad photos
is likely to be high.
> The only drawback with that is the batteries will run down but you either
get a
> battery pack or just take out a couple of high grade rechargables with you
like
> I do.
Well batteries themselves are a drawback for me. All my cameras, yep all
six of them (two MF, three SLR and one rangefinder) are completely manual
with mechanical shutters. No auto-anything! I can't stand automatic.
Three of my cameras don't even have exposure meters built in.
The only SLR I owned with an electronic shutter (Minolta) let me down on a
few occasions and even my trusty Olympus XA compact eventually let me down
with a knackered (electronic) shutter, which was not cost-effective to
repair. The exposure meter on my OM3 has conked out a few times in very wet
conditions, but I was always able to continue shooting because of the
mechanical shutter, and a hand held exposure meter.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/expedition11/expedition11.html
Paul Saunders
> >Photos: Approx 60 Provia F, mostly telephoto, mostly arty.
>
> Sounds like your processing costs are going to be just as bad as mine!
Yep. Ah well, this is the price we pay for quality.
It's amazing how many different photos you can take from just one spot with
a long telephoto!
I took quite a few shots at 600mm (300mm with a x2 matched converter) using
my big solid video tripod (no wobble due to a stupid tilt head). Also made
good use of the mirror lock-up feature on my OM1n, so it will be interesting
to see just how sharp these photos turn out.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/expedition11/expedition11.html
Paul Saunders
> Yet to find any digital camera that cen even come close to 35mm in
> terms of image quality.
Why not try a Power Phase FX Scanning Back? 12,600 x 10,500 pixels, 5" x 4"
fit only, 380 megabyte file. Only £18,995! (Camera and lenses not
included.)
Apparently, these scanning backs have an unbelievable contrast range of 11
stops! Unfortunately, they take about 10-30 minutes to take a single
photograph, so they're not ideal for action photography.
> They don't have the resolution
See above. :-)
> and none of
> them have any lenses close to the ones I currently use.
That's really what it's all about, isn't it? Film photographers talk about
lens quality, digital photographers talk about mega-pixels. As long as the
number of pixels in an image is the most important factor in determining
image quality, then digital can't be as good as film. When digital
photographers start arguing about lens quality, then I'll start taking
digital seriously.
Film is sharper than lenses, so lens quality is the bottleneck. But with
digital, the resolution is the bottleneck, so you can effectively stick any
old lens on the front and it won't make much difference. I am of course
talking about "consumer grade" digital cameras here.
> Also they
> don't give me the image quality and control that I need.
Indeed. I'm currently saving for a Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED, which
apparently gives "drum scanner quality". From info I've read on the net
recently it seems that 35mm film has a resolution that equates to roughly
5000 to 7000 pixels wide. The Nikon produces 6000 pixel wide scans, in
42-bits with a dMax of 4.2. Not to mention the Digital ICE (dust, scratches
and Fuji "pepper grain" removal) and GEM (grain reduction). The ultimate
home scanner!
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/LS4K/L40A.HTM
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/expedition11/expedition11.html
Paul Saunders
> >Batteries have a habit of freezing solid at cold temperatures, one of
> >the reasons my cameras are fully manual.
>
> I have used my Minox 35ML and Olympus Mju Zoom in rather chilly winter
> temperatures in North Russia
>
> None of them suffered from battery problems - all main batteries were
> lithium but the flash for the Minox was powered by standard AAA
> alkalines and got a lot of use as it was dark for 22 hours per day in
> mid winter! What conditions are you taking your snaps in?
I don't think Chris takes "snaps" actually... ;-)
My Minolta SLR once conked out on top of Craig y Llyn at sunset, in full-on
snow conditions (Feb 86, a very cold winter as I recall) after working fine
for most of the day.
It also conked out in light drizzle once. That's when I sold it.
My OM3's exposure meter has conked out a few times when photographing
waterfalls in the rain, but the mechanical shutter enabled me to keep on
shooting.
My video camera stopped working on top of Snowdon in hill fog and rain (the
camera complained of "condensation").
Ian's video camera conked out on the last day of the Gower meet, in heavy
rain, as did my brother's digital camera on the same day.
It would seem therefore, that moisture is a far greater problem than cold.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/expedition11/expedition11.html
Phil Cook
>Serious film photographers might want to read this article though. On the
>one hand it's a little disturbing, but on the other, very promising.
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm
Things have moved on from there. See these two pages
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d60.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d60-field.htm
Which conclude
>D30 Owners: If you've been using a D30 for a while and are wondering whether or not to upgrade to a D60, the answer will depend on whether or not the D30's main limitation for you is image size. If that's it then the D60 will thrill you since it's essentially the same camera but with a much larger output image. Poor autofocus, limited shooting speed and so forth are all still there. But, so is the vibrant image quality and freedom from dust on the sensor.
>
>35mm Photographers: If you've been waiting to make the move to digital but haven't felt that the cost / quality / image size equation worked for you yet — well, I think the time has come — especially if you already own some Canon EOS lenses. On A3 (11X17") and smaller prints the D60 is a champ and there's little advantage to film anymore.
>
>Medium Format Photographers: No, the revolution isn't over yet. If you shoot 645, 6X6 or 6X7 and have a high quality scanner, such as a Nikon 8000ED, Polaroid LS120, Minolta Dimage Multi or Imacon Flextight, then you are getting image quality and print sizes that digital SLRs can't yet touch. But, it's getting close. Give it maybe one more digital camera generation and the tables may well turn for many users and applications.
Paul Saunders
> Speaking as a 35mm owner (Pentax MX and my favourite lens is a 24mm or
> a 19-35mm) I am just about to take the plunge and get a Canon A40.
Yes, this does look like a very good choice for a "cheap" digital.
> This is only 2 Mpix
Which is an ideal size for computer images IMO.
> but it's purpose is to take all those less than
> masterpiece shots. It has full manual control of shutter and aperture
> if I want it and an accessory lens will bring the lens down to an
> equivalent 24mm from the 35-105 that it is fitted with. The cost of
> camera lens and a 128 Mb card is in the region of £400.
You're trying to distract me from my goal of saving for that Nikon scanner,
aren't you? The question is though, how much money would I save in film if
I did get one? Paradoxically, buying a digital camera might help me to save
for the scanner faster, although right now, I'm planning to spend more time
taking "arty" shots, which I have to take on film anyway.
> The MX will still be therein my kit and used on a tripod for serious
> photography.
Exactly, if you can't be bothered to put it on a tripod, how serious can it
be?
> Combined with a Minolta scanner it will give 8 Mpix
The Nikon scanner is 24 Mpix!
> and a
> digital camera equivalent to that, the new Canon D60 digital SLR with
> 6 Mpix costs too much (over £2000) for me to consider. And if I did
> have that kind of money I might want to go the medium format route.
Indeed, but how much will the MF scanner cost you? ;-)
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/expedition11/expedition11.html
Phil Cook
>> digital camera equivalent to that, the new Canon D60 digital SLR with
>> 6 Mpix costs too much (over £2000) for me to consider. And if I did
>> have that kind of money I might want to go the medium format route.
>
>Indeed, but how much will the MF scanner cost you? ;-)
If you need to ask the price you can't afford it. :-(
About £4000
Paul Saunders
> 60 in one day, did you miss a decimal point? :-)
That's quite normal for me, I tend to average about 50 photos on a good day.
Most I've ever taken in one day was about 130, including some MF. That was
at Oxwich Bay and Threecliff Bay during an exceptionally rare occurrence of
SNOW, with clear sunshine too! Snow is almost unheard of in Gower, so I had
to make the most of it.
Last year, during my one week outing with Phil Cook (Beacons, Moelwyns,
Rhinogs) I shot 11 rolls, that's an average of 60 per day. Great week.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/expedition11/expedition11.html
Yr Holli (anag.)
message news:gtlefu8t2v31tqdpu...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> This is only 2 Mpix
ISTR seeing an advert for Aldi selling 4.1Mpix for 250GBP. I have no
idea what make it was, or whether it is a box of poo.
Paul Brown
>
> Last year, during my one week outing with Phil Cook (Beacons,
> Moelwyns, Rhinogs) I shot 11 rolls, that's an average of 60
> per day. Great week.
Jeez, you must spend some serious dosh on slides! I bet you could afford a
Power Phase FX Scanning Back by abstaining for a few months. :o]
--
Paul Brown
[melt the ice to reply]
Dominic Sexton
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>"Dominic Sexton" <{d}@dscs.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
>> >Batteries have a habit of freezing solid at cold temperatures, one of
>> >the reasons my cameras are fully manual.
>>
>> I have used my Minox 35ML and Olympus Mju Zoom in rather chilly winter
>> temperatures in North Russia
>>
>> None of them suffered from battery problems - all main batteries were
>> lithium but the flash for the Minox was powered by standard AAA
>> alkalines and got a lot of use as it was dark for 22 hours per day in
>> mid winter! What conditions are you taking your snaps in?
>
>I don't think Chris takes "snaps" actually... ;-)
Hooked the wrong fish! Do you take snaps too Paul ŚŹ)
>
>My Minolta SLR once conked out on top of Craig y Llyn at sunset, in full-on
>snow conditions (Feb 86, a very cold winter as I recall) after working fine
>for most of the day.
>
>It also conked out in light drizzle once. That's when I sold it.
>
[snap]
>
>It would seem therefore, that moisture is a far greater problem than cold.
>
I would agree with that - I only took my XA when I went a jungling and
it has never been the same since :-(
When it is very cold it is also very dry so things don't tend to suffer
real damage and often recover fully upon warming up. The only camera I
have actually killed was the my previous XA which got drowned in milk in
my sack half way up an alp - improved my packing methods considerably
just after that one!
Paul Saunders
> ISTR seeing an advert for Aldi selling 4.1Mpix for 250GBP. I have no
> idea what make it was, or whether it is a box of poo.
No idea either. One of the points I was making is that the number of pixels
is not the only, or even the main, consideration in buying a digital camera.
CCDs vary greatly in quality, so there's no point having a big pixel count
if the quality is naff.
Sharpness is not directly related to the number of pixels. Chromatic
aberrations and noise can degrade picture quality, dynamic range limits the
detail you can capture, and saving images as jpegs can further degrade
quality. Vividness of colour, or colour accuracy, also varies from camera
to camera.
Additionally there are many other things to consider, like auto/manual
functions, ease of use, zoom range and data storage type, so it wouldn't be
wise to select a digital camera purely on the basis of how many megapixels
it can capture.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/expedition11/expedition11.html
Paul Saunders
> >I don't think Chris takes "snaps" actually... ;-)
>
> Hooked the wrong fish! Do you take snaps too Paul ŚŹ)
I do, which is why I'd like a digital camera. I hate wasting expensive pro
film on snaps.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/expedition11/expedition11.html
Paul Saunders
> Jeez, you must spend some serious dosh on slides!
Tell me about it...
> I bet you could afford a
> Power Phase FX Scanning Back by abstaining for a few months. :o]
I might be able to save for that Nikon scanner more quickly if I bought a
digital camera first.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/expedition11/expedition11.html
Chris Malcolm
>Film is sharper than lenses, so lens quality is the bottleneck. But with
>digital, the resolution is the bottleneck, so you can effectively stick any
>old lens on the front and it won't make much difference. I am of course
>talking about "consumer grade" digital cameras here.
I've seen photographs of the same scene taken with several different
consumer grade digital cameras and printed at A4 size. There were
*very* clear differences in lens quality, to the extent that some of
the cameras with less pixels took better quality images. Some of the
lenses were crap. The general tendency was for the lenses from makers
of high quality cameras to be better.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@dai.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085
School of Artificial Intelligence, Division of Informatics
Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/daidb/people/homes/cam/ ] DoD #205
Chris Street
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>"Chris Street" <despam....@ntlworld.com> wrote
>
>> Yet to find any digital camera that cen even come close to 35mm in
>> terms of image quality.
>
>Why not try a Power Phase FX Scanning Back? 12,600 x 10,500 pixels, 5" x 4"
>fit only, 380 megabyte file. Only £18,995! (Camera and lenses not
>included.)
I've got a view camera and lens as well.....
>
>Apparently, these scanning backs have an unbelievable contrast range of 11
>stops! Unfortunately, they take about 10-30 minutes to take a single
>photograph, so they're not ideal for action photography.
Umm. I'll stick with my FP4 I think, set of filters and splitters and
I'll take photos quicker.
Now for sticking the whole lot on the end of a telescope - ummm, yeah!
>
>> They don't have the resolution
>
>See above. :-)
5x4 sheet velvia has a max usable res of about 25000x20000 Scanning it
proves tricky though.
Chris Street
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>"Dominic Sexton" <{d}@dscs.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
>> >Batteries have a habit of freezing solid at cold temperatures, one of
>> >the reasons my cameras are fully manual.
>>
>> I have used my Minox 35ML and Olympus Mju Zoom in rather chilly winter
>> temperatures in North Russia
>>
>> None of them suffered from battery problems - all main batteries were
>> lithium but the flash for the Minox was powered by standard AAA
>> alkalines and got a lot of use as it was dark for 22 hours per day in
>> mid winter! What conditions are you taking your snaps in?
>
>I don't think Chris takes "snaps" actually... ;-)
Thank you Paul.....
Paul Saunders
> >so you can effectively stick any
> >old lens on the front and it won't make much difference.
Perhaps a slightly unfair generalisation there... ;-)
> I've seen photographs of the same scene taken with several different
> consumer grade digital cameras and printed at A4 size. There were
> *very* clear differences in lens quality, to the extent that some of
> the cameras with less pixels took better quality images.
But can you be sure that was attributable solely to the lenses? How much
does the CCD quality affect the sharpness? I'm sure there's a lot of
variance between different CCDs.
> Some of the
> lenses were crap. The general tendency was for the lenses from makers
> of high quality cameras to be better.
Undoubtedly, but isn't it possible that they're using higher quality CCDs as
well?
The only way you could really test lens sharpness on digital cameras is to
use a digital SLR and attach different lenses to it, so as to test the
differences between different lenses with the same CCD.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/expedition11/expedition11.html
Chris Street
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>"Paul Brown" <pa...@ICElithium.co.uk> wrote
>
>> Jeez, you must spend some serious dosh on slides!
>
>Tell me about it...
Results of phase 2 of E6 are out now though - I've got good reliable
home processing down to 65p a roll....
Now all I need is cheap film.....
Paul Saunders
> 5x4 sheet velvia has a max usable res of about 25000x20000 Scanning it
> proves tricky though.
Damn, that's a problem! So how on earth are you going to manage to get
decent images on your website then?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/expedition11/expedition11.html
Paul Saunders
> Results of phase 2 of E6 are out now though - I've got good reliable
> home processing down to 65p a roll....
Good for you. Do you take orders?
> Now all I need is cheap film.....
Provia F in packs of 10 are quite reasonable from Jessops, can't remember
the price offhand. Don't forget to ask for the 10% discount, they always
give it to me.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/expedition11/expedition11.html
Gordon
<despam....@ntlworld.com> writes
>On Fri, 31 May 2002 17:23:33 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
><pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Paul Brown" <pa...@ICElithium.co.uk> wrote
>>
>>> Jeez, you must spend some serious dosh on slides!
>>
>>Tell me about it...
>
>Results of phase 2 of E6 are out now though - I've got good reliable
>home processing down to 65p a roll....
>
the norm, and with a wife and 3 kids in was too expensive.
If only digital cameras had been available then. I do all my own
'processing' now, costs me nowt, and the results are acceptable.
--
Gordon
Gordon
<Roy_J...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
--
Gordon
Paul Saunders
> Photography released art from the shackles of illustration and
> set it free to destroy itself?
> "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict052.htm"
Photo Critique.
1. Sunset Pool, Carneddau. Excellent cloudscape. Most intriguingly shaped
pools in the foreground, rather like a dotted "i". "i" for information? Is
this symbolic of the information age? Or is it an inverted exclamation
mark, with the pools saying "wow, look at that sky"?
Suggestions: The pools are placed a little too close to the centre of the
image for comfort. Perhaps they'd have looked better if they were in the
dead centre of the photo? Perhaps a little cropping? Could you have gone
closer and lower to the pools to emphasise their size?
2. Carneddau Sky. Another excellent sky. Good vertical composition with
the bulk of the clouds balancing the snow foreground perfectly. Good snow
texture, making good use of shooting into the light to emphasise the
shadows. Nice centrally placed rock pointing toward the upper left hand
corner of the scene.
Suggestions: Perhaps you could have gone a little closer to the rock to
increase it's size and importance in the photo?
3. Ogwen Waterfall. Classic blurred waterfall shot. Nice, tight, arty
composition. Good use of the telephoto lens to compress perspective and to
crop just the area of interest. Well focused, with good depth of field
throughout. Nice to see rock detail on the left, balancing with the water
on the right. A nice balance between light and dark.
Suggestions: Getting very picky here, but there are a couple of tiny white
patches of water on the bottom left hand side which irritate me. Perhaps a
slightly closer crop? Or you could airbrush them out so that they don't
distract the attention? The only other minor thing is that the very edge of
the right hand rock has been clipped by the edge of the photo. I'd prefer
to see the whole rock, although other compositional considerations might
have prevented this.
4. Carneddau Cloudsea. Nice shot of successive ridges fading into the
distance surrounded by an inversion sea. Good panoramic style crop.
Suggestions: If anything, this might be slightly overexposed, with some of
the fog detail bleaching out. I'd prefer a darker foreground too. It's not
quite light enough to see the foreground detail clearly, so I'd prefer to
black it out completely. Alternatively, a graduated neutral density filter
could have been used to darken most of the pic and bring out detail in the
foreground. If there is sufficient foreground detail in the photo, maybe
layer masking could be used to brighten the foreground without affecting the
rest of the image.
5. Kynance Cove Storm. Stunning dramatic photo of a wave crash. Excellent
composition, with many objects pointing toward the top left of the photo,
including the wave spray. Superb timing captured the ideal moment of the
wave crash, just as it broke over the rock, not swamping it. The breaking
wave seems unusually bright compared to the rest of the photo, have you done
any dodging or burning here?
Suggestions: None.
6. Penberth. Nice collection of boats fanning out from the bottom right
corner. This is reinforced by the paths leading off in appropriate
directions. Good cropping, good balance, with plenty of space to the left
in the direction that the boats are pointing.
Suggestions: The dark blurred foliage in the bottom left hand corner is
slightly distracting, but possibly unavoidable. It would have been nice to
see a little more of the stone feature in the top left corner, but that
might have compromised the close cropping. Perhaps a wider shot, cropped to
a panoramic shape?
7. Cadgewith Cat. Don't really care for this one much. The shape of the
black cat silhouetted against the lighter rock is okay, but the blurred
baskets take up too much space in the image and the absence of the cat's
eyes fails to provide the impact necessary to really grab your attention.
Having said that, the baskets do add a nice touch of subtle colour to an
otherwise monochromatic shot.
Suggestions: I realise that a fast shutter is necessary for any kind of
action shot so a narrow depth of field is inevitable, and I know you can't
control the actions of animals, but still, what this shot really needs is
the cat looking directly at the camera. That's the make or break factor
here I think, so I reckon this pic is broken.
8. Sennen. Another nice vertical composition, making good use of the theme
of parallel lines. Good colours, nice compressed perspective, tightly
cropped. The twist in one of the ropes adds a nice touch.
Suggestions: Only thing that bothers me is that it's been cropped a little
too closely at the top IMO. I'd like to have seen just a tad more sea up
there, which I think might have balanced the image better. However, it may
have been necessary to crop out undesirable extra detail there.
9. Llyn Ogwen. Very blue. Looks polarised. Nice plain composition,
peaceful and relaxing. You'd never guess how busy the nearby road is
looking at this photo. The reflection isn't perfect though, the surface of
the lake isn't calm enough.
Suggestions: A perfectly still lake would have been better, but you might
have had to wait forever. As an alternative, a really slow shutter speed, 1
sec or more, might have blurred it sufficiently. The polariser would help
to increase the exposure time, as would an f32 lens, and of course a neutral
density filter. Perhaps a neutral density grad to darken the sky to the
same level as the lake?
10. Derwentwater Tree. Excellent shot of an isolated tree framing the
moonrise (or moonset) reflected in the lake. Good composition, good
cropping.
Suggestions: The foreground could be a bit blacker for my liking.
11. Derwentwater reflection. Excellent composition, excellent reflection,
excellent skyline, excellent clouds, excellent colour. The foreground rocks
complete the picture. What can I say? Excellent.
Suggestions: Some might say that the centralised rocks should have been
placed to the left or the right, for a better dynamic balance, whereas
putting them in the centre creates a static feel to the picture. Rather
than considering one method to be right and the other wrong, I think it's
the photographer's choice as to what effect he wants to create. In this
case, I think the "static dynamics" work well, particularly with the most
distant rock fitting well into the shape of the mountain reflection. Also,
moving left or right might have affected other aspects of the picture's
balance.
12. Ullswater. Great wild misty cloudy scene. The low contrast works
well, very moody and atmospheric. Great shot. The island of course makes
the picture, small enough to be tantalisingly far off, but near enough to
clearly see the tree silhouettes.
Suggestions: Being picky again, the bottom of the pic was cropped slightly
too tightly IMO, not giving any breathing room below the reflection of the
mountain. Also, I'd have preferred the island to be a little further to the
right.
13. Upper Borrowdale. Another well balanced composition. The large shadow
area offsets the small sunlit tree perfectly, with a nice strip of sunlight
along the bottom. Very nice.
Suggestions: The photo looks a little cold to me, the sunshine doesn't look
warm. Perhaps subtract a little blue and add a little red? Also, a little
more breathing room at the bottom of the photo might have been nice, but I
don't know what's underneath those walls. Even if it's just a dark wall, an
extra strip of dark at the bottom would balance the photo well, perhaps
better.
14. Crinkle Crag & Bowfell. Very nice inversion pic, great clouds.
Suggestions: I'd like to have seen a bit more of the rocks at the bottom of
the pic.
15. Eastern Fells. Nice parallel banding here, nice compression effect.
Not entirely happy with this one though, the foreground band is slightly out
of focus and I don't like the way the distant summit has been chopped off.
I'm not against chopping the tops off provided all the sky is excluded, but
there's a bit of sky intruding into the photo which spoils the effect for
me.
Suggestions: Either I'd have included the full summit at the top or I'd
have chopped the whole lot off, the sky too, and the very top of the dark
hillside. I think that would work better, especially with a sharper
foreground. If anything had to be blurred, perhaps blurring the background
might have worked better than the foreground.
Best photos:
1. Kynance Cove Storm.
2. Derwentwater Reflection.
3. Ullswater.
All of these are just personal opinions of course.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/expedition11/expedition11.html
Paul Saunders
> I can get good quality 20X30 from colour neg 35mm and 60x40 from slides.
60x40! How the hell do you manage to print them that big?
Can I get an inkjet to do that?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/expedition11/expedition11.html
Phil Cook
>60x40! How the hell do you manage to print them that big?
>
>Can I get an inkjet to do that?
Yes there are printers with 60" carriage width. You nedd bloody big
files though despite being able to get away with less dpi than usual.
for details see the Luminous Landscape site
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new_page_13.htm
W.D.Grey
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Thanks Bill. Who needs to walk anyway? :-)
No Probs! That's what cars are for :-)
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk
The Reids
>Photo Critique.
>
>1. Sunset Pool, Carneddau. Excellent cloudscape. Most intriguingly shaped
>pools in the foreground, rather like a dotted "i". "i" for information? Is
>this symbolic of the information age? Or is it an inverted exclamation
>mark, with the pools saying "wow, look at that sky"?
The pools are in a tyre track (17mm) I like the exclamation mark
idea, I shall use that as if I thought it at the time! (I could have
pulled an art student with chat like that when I was 18, that and a
big lens) :->
>Suggestions: The pools are placed a little too close to the centre of the
>image for comfort. Perhaps they'd have looked better if they were in the
>dead centre of the photo? Perhaps a little cropping? Could you have gone
>closer and lower to the pools to emphasise their size?
No! See above :-)
>2. Carneddau Sky. Another excellent sky. Good vertical composition with
>the bulk of the clouds balancing the snow foreground perfectly. Good snow
>texture, making good use of shooting into the light to emphasise the
>shadows. Nice centrally placed rock pointing toward the upper left hand
>corner of the scene.
I would have liked alittle more sparkle. I had to sprint 100s of
metres to find a rock to go with the sky, you know the Carneddau.
>Suggestions: Perhaps you could have gone a little closer to the rock to
>increase it's size and importance in the photo?
>
>3. Ogwen Waterfall. Classic blurred waterfall shot. Nice, tight, arty
>composition. Good use of the telephoto lens to compress perspective and to
>crop just the area of interest. Well focused, with good depth of field
>throughout. Nice to see rock detail on the left, balancing with the water
>on the right. A nice balance between light and dark.
this is one of my favouites
>Suggestions: Getting very picky here, but there are a couple of tiny white
>patches of water on the bottom left hand side which irritate me. Perhaps a
>slightly closer crop? Or you could airbrush them out so that they don't
>distract the attention? The only other minor thing is that the very edge of
>the right hand rock has been clipped by the edge of the photo. I'd prefer
>to see the whole rock,
agreed
> although other compositional considerations might
>have prevented this.
cant remember now, this was a commercial copy, I might dig the slide
out and see if I can do better.
>4. Carneddau Cloudsea. Nice shot of successive ridges fading into the
>distance surrounded by an inversion sea. Good panoramic style crop.
>
>Suggestions: If anything, this might be slightly overexposed, with some of
>the fog detail bleaching out. I'd prefer a darker foreground too. It's not
>quite light enough to see the foreground detail clearly, so I'd prefer to
>black it out completely. Alternatively, a graduated neutral density filter
>could have been used to darken most of the pic and bring out detail in the
>foreground. If there is sufficient foreground detail in the photo, maybe
>layer masking could be used to brighten the foreground without affecting the
>rest of the image.
this was an underexposed slide, worked up into something viewable.
>5. Kynance Cove Storm. Stunning dramatic photo of a wave crash. Excellent
>composition, with many objects pointing toward the top left of the photo,
>including the wave spray. Superb timing captured the ideal moment of the
>wave crash, just as it broke over the rock, not swamping it. The breaking
>wave seems unusually bright compared to the rest of the photo, have you done
>any dodging or burning here?
>
No, low sun was hitting the breaking wave, sometimes your in the right
place at the right time.
>
>6. Penberth. Nice collection of boats fanning out from the bottom right
>corner. This is reinforced by the paths leading off in appropriate
>directions. Good cropping, good balance, with plenty of space to the left
>in the direction that the boats are pointing.
>
>Suggestions: The dark blurred foliage in the bottom left hand corner is
>slightly distracting, but possibly unavoidable. It would have been nice to
>see a little more of the stone feature in the top left corner, but that
>might have compromised the close cropping. Perhaps a wider shot, cropped to
>a panoramic shape?
Yes, to get more of the old winch would have got a lot more foreground
gorse, IIRC theres lots of old tat around that would have detracted
from the pattern of the boats.
>7. Cadgewith Cat. Don't really care for this one much. The shape of the
>black cat silhouetted against the lighter rock is okay, but the blurred
>baskets take up too much space in the image and the absence of the cat's
>eyes fails to provide the impact necessary to really grab your attention.
>Having said that, the baskets do add a nice touch of subtle colour to an
>otherwise monochromatic shot.
I quite like it but yes, eyes would have been excellent. As in
"http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/gato.htm" in the slide the catseyes are
mimiced by little holes in the barn letting in yellow light, but the
scanning refused to resolve them.Grrr.
>Suggestions: I realise that a fast shutter is necessary for any kind of
>action shot so a narrow depth of field is inevitable, and I know you can't
>control the actions of animals, but still, what this shot really needs is
>the cat looking directly at the camera. That's the make or break factor
>here I think, so I reckon this pic is broken.
>
>8. Sennen. Another nice vertical composition, making good use of the theme
>of parallel lines. Good colours, nice compressed perspective, tightly
>cropped. The twist in one of the ropes adds a nice touch.
>
>Suggestions: Only thing that bothers me is that it's been cropped a little
>too closely at the top IMO. I'd like to have seen just a tad more sea up
>there, which I think might have balanced the image better. However, it may
>have been necessary to crop out undesirable extra detail there.
Interesting you like this one, I sometimes, and others have felt it
weak. I crooped out the skyline at the top as I felt it did not
contribute anything. It was the blue/orange "counterpoint" that
atracted me, along with all the hotizontals of course.
>9. Llyn Ogwen. Very blue. Looks polarised. Nice plain composition,
>peaceful and relaxing. You'd never guess how busy the nearby road is
>looking at this photo. The reflection isn't perfect though, the surface of
>the lake isn't calm enough.
yes,polarised, taken 01-01-00 17mm again.
>Suggestions: A perfectly still lake would have been better, but you might
>have had to wait forever. As an alternative, a really slow shutter speed, 1
>sec or more, might have blurred it sufficiently. The polariser would help
>to increase the exposure time, as would an f32 lens, and of course a neutral
>density filter. Perhaps a neutral density grad to darken the sky to the
>same level as the lake?
interesting idea, never thought of doing that.
>10. Derwentwater Tree. Excellent shot of an isolated tree framing the
>moonrise (or moonset) reflected in the lake. Good composition, good
>cropping.
moonset
>Suggestions: The foreground could be a bit blacker for my liking.
>11. Derwentwater reflection. Excellent composition, excellent reflection,
>excellent skyline, excellent clouds, excellent colour. The foreground rocks
>complete the picture. What can I say? Excellent.
>
>Suggestions: Some might say that the centralised rocks should have been
>placed to the left or the right, for a better dynamic balance, whereas
>putting them in the centre creates a static feel to the picture. Rather
>than considering one method to be right and the other wrong, I think it's
>the photographer's choice as to what effect he wants to create. In this
>case, I think the "static dynamics" work well, particularly with the most
>distant rock fitting well into the shape of the mountain reflection. Also,
>moving left or right might have affected other aspects of the picture's
>balance.
I think if I took it now I would move left or right, as you say.
A variation "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict106" Do you think the naked
girls foreground is "cheap", they cost a fortune and complained
constantly!
>12. Ullswater. Great wild misty cloudy scene. The low contrast works
>well, very moody and atmospheric. Great shot. The island of course makes
>the picture, small enough to be tantalisingly far off, but near enough to
>clearly see the tree silhouettes.
the reward for getting out of bed early! I just got a copy of David
Herrods "Waters of Cumbria" which clearly demonstrates the merits of
the early start.
>Suggestions: Being picky again, the bottom of the pic was cropped slightly
>too tightly IMO, not giving any breathing room below the reflection of the
>mountain. Also, I'd have preferred the island to be a little further to the
>right.
I would have like slightly bigger ripples
>13. Upper Borrowdale. Another well balanced composition. The large shadow
>area offsets the small sunlit tree perfectly, with a nice strip of sunlight
>along the bottom. Very nice.
>
>Suggestions: The photo looks a little cold to me, the sunshine doesn't look
>warm. Perhaps subtract a little blue and add a little red? Also, a little
>more breathing room at the bottom of the photo might have been nice, but I
>don't know what's underneath those walls. Even if it's just a dark wall, an
>extra strip of dark at the bottom would balance the photo well, perhaps
>better.
>
>14. Crinkle Crag & Bowfell. Very nice inversion pic, great clouds.
>
>Suggestions: I'd like to have seen a bit more of the rocks at the bottom of
>the pic.
I do like an inversion :-)
>15. Eastern Fells. Nice parallel banding here, nice compression effect.
>Not entirely happy with this one though, the foreground band is slightly out
>of focus and I don't like the way the distant summit has been chopped off.
>I'm not against chopping the tops off provided all the sky is excluded, but
>there's a bit of sky intruding into the photo which spoils the effect for
>me.
>
>Suggestions: Either I'd have included the full summit at the top or I'd
>have chopped the whole lot off, the sky too, and the very top of the dark
>hillside. I think that would work better, especially with a sharper
>foreground. If anything had to be blurred, perhaps blurring the background
>might have worked better than the foreground.
Hopefully one day there will be enough light to stop down the
telephoto!
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict105.htm" is probably better
>Best photos:
>
>1. Kynance Cove Storm.
Credit to mother nature, I just had to turn up and get wet :-)
>2. Derwentwater Reflection.
>3. Ullswater.
I like the very first one because there wasnt a picture there without
finding the tyre rut and crouching over it to get a reflection at the
end of a perfect hillday (that didnt produce much in the way of
pictures where expected).
My favoutites include:-
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict119"
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict120"
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict123"
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict165"
--
Mike Reid
Cadiz "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/andalus.htm#cadiz"
The Reids
> I was disappointed to find that so much of the width had been
>cropped from most of the photos.
Are you saying you would like them to be nearer 640x480 or bigger?
Its always a compromise between download time and size. As people move
beyond 640x480 and broadband comes in, I will reassess
The Reids
>>Photo Critique.
Oh, and I forgot to say thanks for having a look, second opinions are
*so* interesting.
> Photography released art from the shackles of illustration and
> set it free to destroy itself?
and to what extent does that out pretentious the ICA/Tate
Modern/Gilbert and George WHY :-)
David Laight
Some shots a friend had taken using 1600ASA film didn't seem
very 'sharp' :-)
David
The Reids
>with arty portfolios instead,
>which is what photo galleries should be about IMO.
yeh!
--
Mike Reid
Eating in Cadiz "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/andalus.htm#cadiz"
W.D.Grey
<u...@ynys.fslife.co.uk> writes
>It just seemed to me that the full size image wasn't, in fact, the
>whole image. Many of the photos appealed to me because of the
>overall proportions; the enlargements only seemed to show the main
>theme however rather than the entire image. The actual size in
>terms of pixels doesn't matter to me, although I'd prefer nothing
>bigger than 640x480 because of my own monitor size. That's a
>personal preference though, and if I find that I'm downloading
>images bigger than that I can always reduce the zoom percentage in
>my browser.
Getting back to the originaL thread, you won't have any of the above
technicalities when viewing my photos! (You'll have gathered maybe that
I was with Paul in Mid Wales) After loading my film and taking up the
slack with the winder handle (yes I've done this before) the film became
detached and I ended up with no photos at all :-(
Words like "sick as a parrot" apply :-)
Gordon
<Bi...@graigroad.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Getting back to the originaL thread, you won't have any of the above
>technicalities when viewing my photos! (You'll have gathered maybe that
>I was with Paul in Mid Wales) After loading my film and taking up the
>slack with the winder handle (yes I've done this before) the film became
>detached and I ended up with no photos at all :-(
>
> Words like "sick as a parrot" apply :-)
I would have sacrificed the first few frames by opening the camera back
in as dark a place as I could find, then re-loaded it and tried winding
gently on again.
Or have I misunderstood the problem?
--
Gordon
Paul Saunders
> > > I was disappointed to find that so much of the width had been
> > >cropped from most of the photos.
> >
> > Are you saying you would like them to be nearer 640x480 or bigger?
>
> It just seemed to me that the full size image wasn't, in fact, the
> whole image.
It was. They were. All of them.
> Many of the photos appealed to me because of the
> overall proportions;
Ah, but did you notice that all the thumbnail proportions were exactly the
same?
> the enlargements only seemed to show the main
> theme however rather than the entire image.
No, they showed the whole image. What's confused you is that all the images
have been stretched and squeezed to fit the same size thumnail. So a
vertical photo for example has been squashed vertically and stretched
horizontally.
> As I hope I've said above though, that wasn't the problem. It just
> seemed to me that you'd cropped a lot of the background for the
> enlargements,
No, the full size images are correct, it's the thumbnails that are
misleading. I was surprised with quite a few of them too.
Hey Mike, here's an idea if you want all your thumnails to be the same
shape, even though the images are all different shapes. Create a table with
cells (no visible border, space between cells, inside each cell place
another table, with just one cell - make it square and white, at a fixed
size. Inside that cell place another single celled table but with no
border - put your thumbnail into that. Keep the correct proportions of the
thumbnail, but centre it and use the full width (or height) of the cell,
with a bit of space on the edge.
The end result should look much like a slide. You could arrange your
thumbnails to look like slides on a lightbox. I'm thinking of doing
something like this myself. It would allow for all different shapes and
size thumbnails but within a fixed square format.
Another thing Mike, do you realise that your thumbnail page looks fine at
the correct browser width, but terrible at different widths? The thumbnails
are scattered messily over the page at wider or narrower widths. I'd
recommend setting a fixed page width.
> There are two theories to arguing with women.
> Neither one works.
Actually there's a third, which does work.
Don't argue with them!
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
The Reids
>As I hope I've said above though, that wasn't the problem. It just
>seemed to me that you'd cropped a lot of the background for the
>enlargements, which I thought was a shame because the background can
>be just as important as the thing you're photographing. It sort of
>puts things into context.
I see, thats interesting. I tend to think along the lines, "what can I
leave out" rather than "what else can I get in". Skies, especially,
only get in if interesting.
--
Mike Reid
Photos and description of the strange "Las Bardenas" area of Spain
"http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/page67.htm"
Paul Saunders
> >As I hope I've said above though, that wasn't the problem. It just
> >seemed to me that you'd cropped a lot of the background for the
> >enlargements, which I thought was a shame because the background can
> >be just as important as the thing you're photographing. It sort of
> >puts things into context.
>
> I see, thats interesting. I tend to think along the lines, "what can I
> leave out" rather than "what else can I get in". Skies, especially,
> only get in if interesting.
I think you two are misunderstanding each other. I'm sure Fran's comments
related to the full size photos being a different shape to the thumbnails,
not to the composition of each individual shot. The thumbnails are a bit
too small to see clearly and Fran didn't realise they were squashed to a
standard size. Seeing a vertical photo come out of a horizontal thumbnail
can give the impression that the thumbnail was horizontal but you'd chopped
the sides off for the full size photo. That was what I first thought when I
looked at the second photo.
I agree, it's much more interesting (well, arty anyway) to leave stuff out
rather than in. Context is all very well, but if every photo has
foregrounds and skies they all end up looking rather similar and normal.
Unusual compositions do tend to grab the attention.
I remember seeing a bunch of photos by one guy, can't remember his name
offhand, who rarely ever included the sky in his photos. The focal length
wasn't that long, but he liked to chop the sky off in most of his photos so
there was no skyline. A strange approach, but quite distinctive and
definitely rather odd.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
The Reids
> The thumbnails are a bit
>too small to see clearly and Fran didn't realise they were squashed to a
>standard size. Seeing a vertical photo come out of a horizontal thumbnail
>can give the impression that the thumbnail was horizontal but you'd chopped
>the sides off for the full size photo. That was what I first thought when I
>looked at the second photo.
thanks Paul, got it! The standard size looks tidy, but perhaps I
should at least make the effort to tip the portrait ones over, lazy
git, me.
Or perhaps it imparts a frison of surprise and an insight into the
ambiguous distortions implicit in the unnatural confines of the frame
inherent in the medium.......or I could be talking arty b*****s :-)
>I agree, it's much more interesting (well, arty anyway) to leave stuff out
>rather than in.
arty and interesting
>Context is all very well, but if every photo has
>foregrounds and skies they all end up looking rather similar and normal.
>Unusual compositions do tend to grab the attention.
A camera is good at taking things out of their context, which can be a
good thing. But I tend to just try and leave out the dull bits unless
they provide a contrast or something.
"if in doubt, leave it out" "Less is more".
PS I just picked up a Tamron 90mm f2.5 portrait/macro second hand £130
with the mount. V. interesting being able to get right in close (about
11 inches), dont know if it will earn a place in the rucksack,
flowers? lichen? rocks?
W.D.Grey
<Gor...@g3snx.demon.co.uk> writes
>I would have sacrificed the first few frames by opening the camera back
>in as dark a place as I could find, then re-loaded it and tried winding
>gently on again.
>Or have I misunderstood the problem?
When the counter reached 38 I twigged something was a bit wrong. I
opened the camera and sure enough the tongue was just lying there
begging to be re-threaded. Now it has been re-threaded I'm ready to go
on another expedition :-)
The Reids
>When the counter reached 38 I twigged something was a bit wrong. I
>opened the camera and sure enough the tongue was just lying there
>begging to be re-threaded. Now it has been re-threaded I'm ready to go
>
the picture lost in the post/jammed camera/lost always grow in the
mind to masterpieces, unlike the ones on the processed film that
rapidly disappoint :-)
Paul Saunders
> the picture lost in the post/jammed camera/lost always grow in the
> mind to masterpieces, unlike the ones on the processed film that
> rapidly disappoint :-)
Yeah, the best photos I never took were on my first visit to Snowdon in 1985
(my first year of photography). Beautiful sunny day, really clear (other
walkers were commenting on the clarity, you could see the whole of Anglesey)
and I shot a whole roll of film (or so I thought).
But I hadn't loaded the film properly, that's the only time it's ever
happened to me, but it was the worst possible time! That was the best
hillwalk I did all year.
As you say, I took many masterpieces that day! In reality, most of them
probably weren't, but there had to have been at least a few good shots on
there - the scenery was so good and the light was so clear. Hardly anyone
could fail to take good photos on that day, unless the compositions were
really dire, and even in the early days, most of my compositions were quite
reasonable, if not exactly inspired.
In particular, I remember copying some classic views, one from Poucher's
book of Wales (which I recall looked virtually identical through the
viewfinder) and some others from postcards that I'd bought. I can't believe
I didn't get some good shots that day.
The odd thing is that I've never repeated that walk and tried to repeat
those photos, not that I could remember exactly what I photographed now.
But even if I did, I'd never be able to recapture the memories of my very
first visit, there's something special about the first time...
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> thanks Paul, got it! The standard size looks tidy, but perhaps I
> should at least make the effort to tip the portrait ones over, lazy
> git, me.
But it can look messy, mixing up horizontal and vertical thumbnails, not to
mention unusually cropped images. My current format is pretty much fixed
for horizontal shots and the odd vertical one would mess it up, especially
since I very rarely take vertical shots. One solution has been to crop a
horizontal bit out of the vertical image, but then the thumbnail isn't
really representative of the whole pic anymore.
> Or perhaps it imparts a frison of surprise and an insight into the
> ambiguous distortions implicit in the unnatural confines of the frame
> inherent in the medium.......
Yeah, that sounds about right. :-)
Actually, I found myself wishing that some of those pics were the same shape
as the thumbnails too. Some of the compositions did look better as
horizontals (which I prefer anyway). Perhaps you could stretch the full
size pics too? ;-)
> A camera is good at taking things out of their context, which can be a
> good thing. But I tend to just try and leave out the dull bits unless
> they provide a contrast or something.
Galen Rowell took an amazing photo of a Tibetan monastery at the end of a
rainbow (telephoto shot, big rainbow). The photo is so amazing it hardly
looks real. Galen explained that he realised this at the time so he
purposely included some telegraph poles at the bottom of the photo to give
it some grounding in reality, to provide some contrast with the mundane, and
to show that the photo really was real.
Of couse, one could easily fake a photo like that now (well, maybe not
*easily*). Personally I think it would have looked better without the
telegraph poles. Stuff reality, it was a fantastic image (quite literally).
> "if in doubt, leave it out" "Less is more".
I hate that phrase! Less isn't more! Less is less! That doesn't mean that
less can't be better though. This is a concept I want to explore in my
music, but it's so tempting to keep adding little bits and pieces to fill in
all the gaps. I love busy music with loads going on, but that's all the
more reason to contrast it with music that's full of space... Pink Floyd
were good at leaving big spaces.
> PS I just picked up a Tamron 90mm f2.5 portrait/macro second hand £130
> with the mount. V. interesting being able to get right in close (about
> 11 inches), dont know if it will earn a place in the rucksack,
> flowers? lichen? rocks?
Portraits even? Actually, if that's the lens I'm thinking of, that got
great reviews when it first came out, so you've probably got a cracker of a
lens there. According to one lens test, it looks incredibly sharp, but the
absolute sharpness isn't that sharp. Apparently contrast makes a big
difference in creating the impression of sharpness, and contrast is
something that most telephoto lenses have a problem with, because of the
amount of glass used, but that 90mm has terrific contrast, better than most
others of that focal length.
Actually, I believe Poucher's standard set up was just three lenses, a 28mm,
a 50mm and a 90mm, so you could take some "Poucher telephotos" with that.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
The Reids
>
>> "if in doubt, leave it out" "Less is more".
>
>I hate that phrase! Less isn't more! Less is less! That doesn't mean that
>less can't be better though. This is a concept I want to explore in my
>music, but it's so tempting to keep adding little bits and pieces to fill in
>all the gaps. I love busy music with loads going on, but that's all the
>more reason to contrast it with music that's full of space... Pink Floyd
>were good at leaving big spaces.
Yes, your music is quite busy, isnt it, now you mention it. I'd be a
crap music reviewer, that was obvious!
I'm sure somebody important has said something like "its the silences
between the notes that matter"
Like the opening of Vivaldi's Stabat Mater.
>> PS I just picked up a Tamron 90mm f2.5 portrait/macro second hand £130
>> with the mount. V. interesting being able to get right in close (about
>> 11 inches), dont know if it will earn a place in the rucksack,
>> flowers? lichen? rocks?
>
>Portraits even?
thats an idea :-) Glamour?
> Actually, if that's the lens I'm thinking of, that got
>great reviews when it first came out, so you've probably got a cracker of a
>lens there. According to one lens test, it looks incredibly sharp, but the
>absolute sharpness isn't that sharp. Apparently contrast makes a big
>difference in creating the impression of sharpness, and contrast is
>something that most telephoto lenses have a problem with, because of the
>amount of glass used, but that 90mm has terrific contrast, better than most
>others of that focal length.
Somebody told me it has very good soft out of focus highlights, which
I understand is good for portraiture. (it wasnt the salesman) Also
that unlike some macros it works well at infinity. I understand Tamron
to be good lenses for the money and of course transfer between bodies.
>Actually, I believe Poucher's standard set up was just three lenses, a 28mm,
>a 50mm and a 90mm, so you could take some "Poucher telephotos" with that.
He might have widened that out if working now? I'm probably over
dramatic, always bolting on the 17mm or the 200!
David Laight
> I'm sure somebody important has said something like "its the silences
> between the notes that matter"
> Like the opening of Vivaldi's Stabat Mater.
Or Marcell Marceau's greatest hits single
(lets you buy 5 minutes of silence from the juke box)
David
Katherine
I like that one!
Phil Cook
What about John Cage's 4 minutes 32 seconds?
--
Phil Cook
Paul Saunders
> The pools are in a tyre track (17mm) I like the exclamation mark
> idea, I shall use that as if I thought it at the time!
Be my guest.
> I would have liked alittle more sparkle. I had to sprint 100s of
> metres to find a rock to go with the sky, you know the Carneddau.
Yep.
> >4. Carneddau Cloudsea.
> >Suggestions: If anything, this might be slightly overexposed, with some
of
> >the fog detail bleaching out. I'd prefer a darker foreground too.
> this was an underexposed slide, worked up into something viewable.
In that case, then firstly, how did you you brighten it? You do realise
that if you brighten using Curves you can do so without losing highlight
detail? Secondly, this might be a good candidate for layer masking. Make a
duplicate layer of the image, process one for foreground detail, the other
for sky/highlight detail, then apply a layer mask and use the
paintbrush/erase tools to paint out half of the mask so that the foreground
and sky match perfectly, kind of like using a graduated grey filter but with
a very precise and specific join.
> >5. Kynance Cove Storm.
> No, low sun was hitting the breaking wave, sometimes your in the right
> place at the right time.
Bound to happen sooner or later if you go out often enough, and often it
happens during some of the worst weather conditions in my experience.
> >6. Penberth.
> Yes, to get more of the old winch would have got a lot more foreground
> gorse, IIRC theres lots of old tat around that would have detracted
> from the pattern of the boats.
Fair enough.
> >8. Sennen.
>
> Interesting you like this one, I sometimes, and others have felt it
> weak.
Doesn't look weak to me. Personal taste I suppose.
> >9. Llyn Ogwen.
>
> yes,polarised, taken 01-01-00 17mm again.
Ah, that day! Terrific light, burned into my memory forever (I really must
scan my slides of that day). I wish I had a 17mm... :-(
> >As an alternative, a really slow shutter speed, 1
> >sec or more, might have blurred it sufficiently.
>
> interesting idea, never thought of doing that.
It won't give you a flat reflection, but it will soften the water somewhat.
> >11. Derwentwater reflection.
> A variation "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict106" Do you think the naked
> girls foreground is "cheap", they cost a fortune and complained
> constantly!
Looks like they're frozen stiff!
> >12. Ullswater. Great wild misty cloudy scene.
> the reward for getting out of bed early!
Always a good idea, well if the weather's nice that is...
> I just got a copy of David
> Herrods "Waters of Cumbria" which clearly demonstrates the merits of
> the early start.
Yes, photo books can provide good inspiration. Just picked up a cheap copy
of "Britain" by Paul Wakefield from The Works. Interesting photographer,
very strange photos. Likes to use soft light a lot (or maybe he's just
unlucky with the weather) and takes a lot of close ups of the ground with
slow shutter speeds, the MF (looks like 6x7) bringing out all the detail and
textures. His books are convincing arguments to go out taking photos when
the light is crap!
> >15. Eastern Fells.
> > perhaps blurring the background
> >might have worked better than the foreground.
>
> Hopefully one day there will be enough light to stop down the
> telephoto!
Bean bag, slow shutter speed!
> "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict105.htm" is probably better
Yes it's better.
> My favoutites include:-
> "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict119"
> "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict120"
> "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict123"
> "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict165"
> Oh, and I forgot to say thanks for having a look, second opinions are
> *so* interesting.
My pleasure
> > Photography released art from the shackles of illustration and
> > set it free to destroy itself?
>
> and to what extent does that out pretentious the ICA/Tate
> Modern/Gilbert and George WHY :-)
I don't have a clue what you're talking about...
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
The Reids
>> and to what extent does that out pretentious the ICA/Tate
>> Modern/Gilbert and George WHY :-)
>
>I don't have a clue what you're talking about...
Neither do I now! Thanks for the stuff about layers, i'll look into
it.
--
Mike Reid
"Either the wallpaper goes, or I do" Oscar Wilde, last words.
Walking "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk"
Paul Saunders
> Yes, your music is quite busy, isnt it, now you mention it.
Yes, sometimes I like that but sometimes it's too much, I should have more
variety.
> I'm sure somebody important has said something like "its the silences
> between the notes that matter"
> Like the opening of Vivaldi's Stabat Mater.
Yeah, reggae...
> Somebody told me it has very good soft out of focus highlights, which
> I understand is good for portraiture. (it wasnt the salesman) Also
> that unlike some macros it works well at infinity. I understand Tamron
> to be good lenses for the money and of course transfer between bodies.
Yes, they've often done very well in tests compared against manufacturers
lenses. I used to study a lot of test reports and Nikon usually took the
honours with Canon not being as good as you'd expect from their reputation
as probably the second most popular choice amongst professionals. Things
may have changed in later years but back in the eighties when I bought my
lenses, my Tamron 60-300 scored 2nd best in a test of 5 similar lenses,
beating the Canon equivalent which cost three times as much!
> >Actually, I believe Poucher's standard set up was just three lenses, a
28mm,
> >a 50mm and a 90mm, so you could take some "Poucher telephotos" with that.
>
> He might have widened that out if working now? I'm probably over
> dramatic, always bolting on the 17mm or the 200!
Nothing wrong with being over dramatic, that's what these lenses are for!
There are plenty of people taking landscapes with ordinary focal lengths so
we need to be dramatic to produce something a bit unusual that grabs the
attention. I'm currently more interested in exploring the 300mm and beyond
range.
Oh yes, the photos (the ones this thread was originally about). Many of
them didn't turn out too well unfortunately. A combination of reasons. One
was exposure problems, many were slightly overexposed. This is unusual for
me but it mostly happened with the 2x adaptor so it's possible that it
wasn't linked up to the lens and body properly (there are some fiddly little
connectors). Also I was in a rush taking some waterfall shots as the clouds
started chucking it down so I probably didn't spend enough time with the
spotmeter checking the exposure properly.
Also, a number of the 600mm shots suffered from camera shake, in spite of a
solid tripod and locking up the mirror. Must have been the gentle breeze,
and I tried to shield it from that too. Quite a problem keeping a lens that
long steady, I'll have to use the bean bag next time.
Also the colours weren't as vivid as I expected them to be, that's probably
because I'm so used to using Velvia, this Provia F is a little too neutral
for my liking. I'll have to try to boost them in Photoshop a little.
Having said all that, there are still a number of shots which came out okay,
but far less than I'd hoped, so at least I got something out of it. I guess
you can't expect instant masterpieces when experimenting with a new style, a
bit more practice needed I reckon.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
The Reids
>Having said all that, there are still a number of shots which came out okay,
>but far less than I'd hoped, so at least I got something out of it. I guess
>you can't expect instant masterpieces when experimenting with a new style, a
>bit more practice needed I reckon.
Indeed, re the shake, could it be your tripod isn't ideal?
--
Regards
Mike Reid
Spanish regional cooking at
"http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
Bill Grey
<cleve...@fellwalk.co.uk> writes
>Indeed, re the shake, could it be your tripod isn't ideal?
Most "amateur" tripods are not suitable for long focus lenses outdoors.
Instrument tripods are much more suitable - you know - the ones with the
big steel points that you can push into the ground. My old theodolite
tripod was ideal, but far too heavy to carry around.
The Reids
>Most "amateur" tripods are not suitable for long focus lenses outdoors.
>Instrument tripods are much more suitable - you know - the ones with the
>big steel points that you can push into the ground. My old theodolite
>tripod was ideal, but far too heavy to carry around.
I use a benbo, which is pretty solid and adapts to any position and
you can hang a string bag of rocks underneath. But its a b***** to
carry about.
Paul Saunders
> Indeed, re the shake, could it be your tripod isn't ideal?
The tripod was pretty solid actually. The problem was the length of the
lens, I could see the lens vibrating even though the tripod wasn't. It
really needs a lens tripod mount to attach it to the tripod so that the
centre of gravity is in the centre. I really don't think a bigger, heavier
tripod would make any difference, mine was big and heavy enough, with no
movement in the head (it wasn't one of those pan and tilt heads which do
vibrate easily, it was a video tripod, the head is a solid block).
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
ze...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> lens, I could see the lens vibrating even though the tripod wasn't.
Have you seen this lens support
http://luminous-landscape.com/359.htm
Mark
Paul Saunders
> Have you seen this lens support
> http://luminous-landscape.com/359.htm
Looks very nice, trouble is my long lens rotates when I focus it, which
would be problematical to say the least.
The review mentioned not using two tripods, but how about using a walking
pole for support at the front? Might that be practical?
I still think the best solution is a bean bag on a convenient rock.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Phil Cook
>Following up to Paul Saunders
>
>>Having said all that, there are still a number of shots which came out okay,
>>but far less than I'd hoped, so at least I got something out of it. I guess
>>you can't expect instant masterpieces when experimenting with a new style, a
>>bit more practice needed I reckon.
>
>Indeed, re the shake, could it be your tripod isn't ideal?
Well since its a lightweight job and the combination of lens and
camera makes a great sail to catch the wind, especially if the lens
doesn't have a tripod mount of it's own there could be something in
that.
I've just bought a seriously lightweight tripod a Velbon 343i E see
http://bermangraphics.com/coolpix/velbon.htm Despite the claim
emblazoned down one leg that it is for digital cameras my Pentax SLR
looks fine on it. I'll be off to Somerset next week to give it a
whirl.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Paul Saunders
> >Indeed, re the shake, could it be your tripod isn't ideal?
>
> Well since its a lightweight job
No, it wasn't that one, it was my big heavy video tripod. I've got three
now, the other is a compromise between the two for when I want something a
bit taller and more sturdy but don't want to carry too much extra weight.
The heavy one is best for valley walks when I know I'll be taking lots of
waterfall shots at slow shutter speeds.
and the combination of lens and
> camera makes a great sail to catch the wind, especially if the lens
> doesn't have a tripod mount of it's own there could be something in
> that.
>
> I've just bought a seriously lightweight tripod a Velbon 343i E
Looks nice.
> Despite the claim
> emblazoned down one leg that it is for digital cameras
???
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
The Reids
>> Despite the claim
>> emblazoned down one leg that it is for digital cameras
>
>???
surely Paul, you have a black and white tripod and a colour one?
ze...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> trouble is my long lens rotates when I focus it,
Bummer
> pole for support at the front?
I can't see a pole working.
> I still think the best solution is a bean bag on a convenient rock.
Yup, you can focus and then settle the lens on the bean bag.
A friend always uses two bean bags, 1 under the lens and 1 on top!
but of course that means carrying two..
Mark
Bill Grey
writes
>Yup, you can focus and then settle the lens on the bean bag.
>A friend always uses two bean bags, 1 under the lens and 1 on top!
>but of course that means carrying two..
If I'm with him he can always borrow mine :-)
Bill Grey
<cleve...@fellwalk.co.uk> writes
>Following up to Paul Saunders
>
>>> Despite the claim
>>> emblazoned down one leg that it is for digital cameras
>>
>>???
>
>surely Paul, you have a black and white tripod and a colour one?
>--
LOL
Gordon
<Bi...@graigroad.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <agu2j4$m06$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk>, ze...@cix.compulink.co.uk
>writes
>>Yup, you can focus and then settle the lens on the bean bag.
>>A friend always uses two bean bags, 1 under the lens and 1 on top!
>>but of course that means carrying two..
>
>If I'm with him he can always borrow mine :-)
What are those things?
Bean bags.
I don't want to know what they've been, I want to know what they are
now.....
--
Gordon
Paul Saunders
>surely Paul, you have a black and white tripod and a colour one?
Well I've got two black and white ones and one black one...
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> What are those things?
>
> Bean bags.
>
> I don't want to know what they've been, I want to know what they are
> now.....
I used to use black eye beans, but now I'm using dried peas.
I still have the black eye beans though, best used before Nov 93 apparently,
and I bought them a long time before that.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
The Reids
>
>>surely Paul, you have a black and white tripod and a colour one?
>
>Well I've got two black and white ones and one black one...
black photography!! Existentialist are we?