TR: First epic walk of the year - 9th Jan
Paul Saunders
thought it was over, it would start again. As soon as the sky cleared
to a tempting clear blue, the dark grey shrouds quickly returned to
douse us once again. Was there any point in attempting to go out on
this day?
Well according to the weather forecast, yes. The showers were due to
stop by the afternoon, and even though it was still belting down at 2pm,
I believed the forecast. Perhaps it was just ignorant optimism, but I
wanted the rain to stop and I wanted to go out for a walk.
Parking near to the Angel Inn, my friend Carl and I set off up the muddy
track. The river was well filled with wet stuff. Not in flood by any
means, the waters had obviously dropped after the endless deluge of the
previous few days, but still a respectable amount of water nonetheless.
Far more than I'd seen during the dry, dusty days of October past, the
pleasant end to a desert of a year.
There was water in surround sound, quadraphonic, 3D. It splashed and
trickled everywhere, the river to our right and the tiny rapid torrents
waterfalling down the grassy slopes to our left, the other left, further
up the path a bit on the left, on the other side of the river on the
right, behind those old ruined mine buildings. Water, water everywhere!
Splashing and gurgling and waterfalling all over the place. And the
pools. Did I mention the pools? We had to hop and jump and sidestep
over the pools. Yes, it was wet. Not at all like October. It was so
nice to see all that wetness again!
To cut a short story even shorter, a very awkward negotiation over a
fallen tree next to a steep stream led to the critical riverbank. Big
black coaly rock on the left, fallen trees to the right, grassy stones
in the water to the front. Behind was the high tide mark, the washed up
grass and detritus that indicated the extent of the previous day's
flood. A raging torrent that must have been most impressive, but which
had sadly died down somewhat by the time of my visit.
The viewpoint chosen, the tripod placed, the photo taken. Sgwd Gwladus.
With a respectable amount of water on show. No walking out onto the
pebbles mid-river this time. The flattened grass on the rocks give a
hint of the height of the river in previous days.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/sgwdgwladus750.jpg
After some time spent messing around with cameras in the fading
afternoon light, we retreated to the Lime Pool, scene of the death of a
teenager early last year. Usually having so little water flowing over
it as to fail to make any impression at all, it actually looked quite
decent when we were there. We got there at sunset, when an eerie orange
glow lit the scene, probably from the clouds above.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/limepool750.jpg
We stayed at the Lime Pool for quite some time. As it got darker and
darker our shutter speeds got longer and longer, recording the swirling
shapes in the water in the fading light. Large lumps of froth circled
around reminiscent of miniature icebergs. It was almost dark when we
finally left the scene, to trudge through the mud and tiptoe past the
pools without the aid of torchlight, to finally reach civilisation just
before the final fall of blackness.
And it didn't rain...
Paul
--
Calendars for 2004
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/cal/cal.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
Gordon
>It was a deluge of a day. One downpour after another. Just when we
>thought it was over, it would start again. As soon as the sky cleared
>to a tempting clear blue, the dark grey shrouds quickly returned to
>douse us once again. Was there any point in attempting to go out on
>this day?
>
>Well according to the weather forecast, yes.
Ha Ha! The weather forecast. In other words the Home Counties
forecast. It was dry all day here after slight rain overnight.
Because of the forecast I planned nothing, got up late, and looked out
in dismay to see a pale blue sky and few clouds.
We did about 5 miles including an hour in our 'hide' watching birds, and
the weather improved steadily.
No woodpecker today, but dozens of nuthatches and tits, then a
goldcrest, a pair of goosanders, and a group of voracious siskins
feeding a few feet above our heads. They always seem to be in a
feeding frenzy whenever I see them...
--
Gordon
ste mc ©
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:btsli9$jbg$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snip>
> The viewpoint chosen, the tripod placed, the photo taken. Sgwd Gwladus.
> With a respectable amount of water on show. No walking out onto the
> pebbles mid-river this time. The flattened grass on the rocks give a
> hint of the height of the river in previous days.
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/sgwdgwladus750.jpg
>
> After some time spent messing around with cameras in the fading
> afternoon light, we retreated to the Lime Pool, scene of the death of a
> teenager early last year. Usually having so little water flowing over
> it as to fail to make any impression at all, it actually looked quite
> decent when we were there. We got there at sunset, when an eerie orange
> glow lit the scene, probably from the clouds above.
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/limepool750.jpg
<snip>
Very nice, haven't seen any photos from you since October, so about time
too! ;-)
> Paul
Ste
Paul Saunders
> Very nice, haven't seen any photos from you since October, so about
> time too! ;-)
Well I have taken some, but not many. Haven't been out much since
October. Perhaps going out so much in one month had a negative effect.
No matter, I'm eager to get out more now. The drab wet weather, cold
stormy days and long winter nights are making me very keen to get out
there, once I finally get over this flu (if it ever ends). A few new
bits of camping gear will see me well prepared for the worst conditions.
Looks like I've got a buyer for my G3. The 300D is on order. Two weeks
say Jessops. The age of the G3 is coming to an end, along with most of
my film photography quite possibly.
Interesting times ahead.
Paul Lydon
wrote:
>Paul Saunders <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
>>It was a deluge of a day. One downpour after another. Just when we
>>thought it was over, it would start again. As soon as the sky cleared
>>to a tempting clear blue, the dark grey shrouds quickly returned to
>>douse us once again. Was there any point in attempting to go out on
>>this day?
>>
>>Well according to the weather forecast, yes.
>
>Ha Ha! The weather forecast. In other words the Home Counties
>forecast. It was dry all day here after slight rain overnight.
>
Yes - and today was supposed to have high winds! Huh!
--
Paul Lydon
Winster, Derbyshire, UK
--> Remove the 'DELETE' in email address to reply <--
Tim Jackson
> Ha Ha! The weather forecast. In other words the Home Counties
> forecast. It was dry all day here after slight rain overnight.
The forecast was dead on for the Mendips yesterday. (Windy with
blustery showers).
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@winterbourne.freeserve.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
Paul Saunders
>> Well according to the weather forecast, yes.
>
> Ha Ha! The weather forecast. In other words the Home Counties
> forecast.
Well I was looking at the bit of the country further west than that.
Mind you, they did a thing about the Met Office on Countryfile on Sunday
and at one point, wossname went up onto the roof saying that it was a
good place to check what the weather was doing. So now you know.
Their supercomputer is just for playing games on, when they're about to
make a forecast they just send someone up to the roof to have a look at
what the weather is doing, then make a rough guess for the rest of the
country. ;-)
> It was dry all day here after slight rain overnight.
My TR was of a walk I did last Friday mind, a couple of days before I
posted it.
Paul Saunders
Carl at an entrance to one of the silica mines in the area, showing one
of the many streams flowing down the steep valley sides.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/carl1750.jpg
Carl with his tripod and G3 (what a coincidence!) set up, ready to shoot
Sgwd Gwladus. Notice the "high tide" mark behind him. All of that in
the foreground would have been underwater the day before.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/carl1750.jpg
Another shot at the same location from behind Carl, giving an overview
of the scene. All these shots were taken at ISO 400 to allow hand held
shooting in the dull light.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/carl3750.jpg
My shot of Sgwd Gwladus once more (I've moved it into a different
folder). Notice the difference in quality compared to the previous
shots. Even without being able to see the noise in the previous
photographs (which you can up close) this shot has a certain "quality"
that the others don't, due to the slower film speed and the small
aperture.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/sgwdgwladus750.jpg
Now this one was an interesting experiment, it's a blended exposure. I
took five or six shots of this scene using different shutter speed and
aperture combinations, ranging from very slow (bright background,
blurred water) to fast shutter speeds (freezing the water but making the
background very dark). I chose two exposures, one blurred one frozen,
and pasted the frozen shot onto a layer above the blurred shot. I
created a layer mask to allow only the waterfall on the top layer to be
visible, using gaussian blur to smooth the edges of the mask. I then
set the opacity of the upper layer to 50%, thus allowing the blurred
water to show through the frozen water. The result is a mixture of fast
and slow shutter speeds in the same shot. Unusual eh?
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/fastslow750.jpg
The Lime Pool shot once more. In case you think the camera was tilted,
it wasn't. I used the hot shoe spirit level to ensure that it was
level, however the strong barrel distortion of the wide-angle converter
has given the impression of the river tilting to the left. I forgot to
correct this.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/limepool750.jpg
An arty shot for a change, converted to black and white using the green
channel.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/art.jpg
A very rare shot of myself at work, taken whilst I was setting the
camera up for the arty shot. Photo reproduced with Carl Ryan's kind
permission.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/sgwd0022750.jpg
A very long exposure shot of the Lime Pool - 15 seconds - capturing the
swirling trails of foam in the water. This was taken long after sunset,
when it was getting quite dark.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/swirl750.jpg
Carl surprised by flashlight. This gives a better idea of just how dark
it was at the time.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/carlflash.jpg
Bernard Hill
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>A few more pics from the walk.
>
>Carl at an entrance to one of the silica mines in the area, showing one
>of the many streams flowing down the steep valley sides.
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/carl1750.jpg
>
>Carl with his tripod and G3 (what a coincidence!) set up, ready to shoot
>Sgwd Gwladus. Notice the "high tide" mark behind him. All of that in
>the foreground would have been underwater the day before.
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/carl1750.jpg
Same link as last link :-(
>
>Another shot at the same location from behind Carl, giving an overview
>of the scene. All these shots were taken at ISO 400 to allow hand held
>shooting in the dull light.
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/carl3750.jpg
>
>My shot of Sgwd Gwladus once more (I've moved it into a different
>folder). Notice the difference in quality compared to the previous
>shots. Even without being able to see the noise in the previous
>photographs (which you can up close) this shot has a certain "quality"
>that the others don't, due to the slower film speed and the small
>aperture.
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/sgwdgwladus750.jpg
>
>Now this one was an interesting experiment, it's a blended exposure. I
>took five or six shots of this scene using different shutter speed and
>aperture combinations, ranging from very slow (bright background,
>blurred water) to fast shutter speeds (freezing the water but making the
>background very dark). I chose two exposures, one blurred one frozen,
>and pasted the frozen shot onto a layer above the blurred shot. I
>created a layer mask to allow only the waterfall on the top layer to be
>visible, using gaussian blur to smooth the edges of the mask. I then
>set the opacity of the upper layer to 50%, thus allowing the blurred
>water to show through the frozen water. The result is a mixture of fast
>and slow shutter speeds in the same shot. Unusual eh?
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/fastslow750.jpg
Coming very close to addressing the argument between us about waterfalls
time exposure!
>
>The Lime Pool shot once more. In case you think the camera was tilted,
>it wasn't. I used the hot shoe spirit level to ensure that it was
>level, however the strong barrel distortion of the wide-angle converter
>has given the impression of the river tilting to the left. I forgot to
>correct this.
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/limepool750.jpg
>
>An arty shot for a change, converted to black and white using the green
>channel.
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/art.jpg
>
>A very rare shot of myself at work, taken whilst I was setting the
>camera up for the arty shot. Photo reproduced with Carl Ryan's kind
>permission.
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/sgwd0022750.jpg
That's a great shot. So that's the guy I talk with!
>
>A very long exposure shot of the Lime Pool - 15 seconds - capturing the
>swirling trails of foam in the water. This was taken long after sunset,
>when it was getting quite dark.
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/swirl750.jpg
>
>Carl surprised by flashlight. This gives a better idea of just how dark
>it was at the time.
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/carlflash.jpg
>
>Paul
>--
>
Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Music Publisher system
Music Software written by musicians for musicians
http://www.braeburn.co.uk
Selkirk, Scotland
Paul Saunders
>> Carl with his tripod and G3 (what a coincidence!) set up, ready to
>> shoot Sgwd Gwladus. Notice the "high tide" mark behind him. All of
>> that in the foreground would have been underwater the day before.
>> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/carl1750.jpg
>
> Same link as last link :-(
Oops! Sorry.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/carl2750.jpg
ste mc ©
> ste mc Š wrote:
>
> > Very nice, haven't seen any photos from you since October, so about
> > time too! ;-)
>
> Well I have taken some, but not many. Haven't been out much since
> October. Perhaps going out so much in one month had a negative effect.
>
> No matter, I'm eager to get out more now. The drab wet weather, cold
> stormy days and long winter nights are making me very keen to get out
> there, once I finally get over this flu (if it ever ends). A few new
> bits of camping gear will see me well prepared for the worst conditions.
>
> Looks like I've got a buyer for my G3. The 300D is on order. Two weeks
> say Jessops. The age of the G3 is coming to an end, along with most of
> my film photography quite possibly.
>
> Interesting times ahead.
>
> Paul
Yes, the October project has certainly had a negative effect if it means
that a professional photographer no longer takes many photos! :-) So the
300D is on order? Very good, we'll all look forward to seeing what your
results with it are, no doubt. You'll have to get Bill to start uploading
more of his photos too! ;-)
Do you think that 6 megapixels is all you'll need then? Or is there s pixel
count that you'd be satisified with?
Regards,
Stephen
W. D. Grey
<pa...@palydonDELETE.demon.co.uk> writes
>Yes - and today was supposed to have high winds! Huh!
You should have been up at the Western Fans -Fan Brycheiniog for
example. I left home in the Swansea valley in quiet sunshine, up on the
moorland I had to wear two topcoats with the hood well tightened down
because the wind was so strong. It didn't rain and apart from the
chilling wind was quite pleasant walking the dog - who had his own coat
to keep him warm!
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk
ste mc ©
> A few more pics from the walk.
<snip>
> Carl with his tripod and G3 (what a coincidence!) set up, ready to shoot
> Sgwd Gwladus. Notice the "high tide" mark behind him. All of that in
> the foreground would have been underwater the day before.
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/carl1750.jpg
Has he bought your camera then? ;-)
<snip>
> My shot of Sgwd Gwladus once more (I've moved it into a different
> folder). Notice the difference in quality compared to the previous
> shots. Even without being able to see the noise in the previous
> photographs (which you can up close) this shot has a certain "quality"
> that the others don't, due to the slower film speed and the small
> aperture.
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/sgwdgwladus750.jpg
Yes, the water looks like it's made of oil or something, very nice. And the
grasses on the rocks look so sharp, and very saturated in colour - you sure
this wasn't Velvia? :-)
> Now this one was an interesting experiment, it's a blended exposure. I
> took five or six shots of this scene using different shutter speed and
> aperture combinations, ranging from very slow (bright background,
> blurred water) to fast shutter speeds (freezing the water but making the
> background very dark). I chose two exposures, one blurred one frozen,
> and pasted the frozen shot onto a layer above the blurred shot. I
> created a layer mask to allow only the waterfall on the top layer to be
> visible, using gaussian blur to smooth the edges of the mask. I then
> set the opacity of the upper layer to 50%, thus allowing the blurred
> water to show through the frozen water. The result is a mixture of fast
> and slow shutter speeds in the same shot. Unusual eh?
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/fastslow750.jpg
Excellent idea! And it looks good too. I can't put my finger on it, but
when I look at this photo, I can hear the waterfall making a roaring sound,
if you know what I mean. I guess it conveys the feeling og movement more
than either photo would on its own. I'll try some of these myself, just
find me a local waterfall! :-)
> The Lime Pool shot once more. In case you think the camera was tilted,
> it wasn't. I used the hot shoe spirit level to ensure that it was
> level, however the strong barrel distortion of the wide-angle converter
> has given the impression of the river tilting to the left. I forgot to
> correct this.
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/limepool750.jpg
>
> An arty shot for a change, converted to black and white using the green
> channel.
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/art.jpg
Very nice, at first, I thought it was a tree on a mountain peak. But it's a
twig on a rock isn't it?
> A very rare shot of myself at work, taken whilst I was setting the
> camera up for the arty shot. Photo reproduced with Carl Ryan's kind
> permission.
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/sgwd0022750.jpg
You're such a poser Paul! :-)
> A very long exposure shot of the Lime Pool - 15 seconds - capturing the
> swirling trails of foam in the water. This was taken long after sunset,
> when it was getting quite dark.
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/SG/swirl750.jpg
Very interesting. I took a long exposure of water once, and I noticed that
I could see currents in the photo that weren't noticable in real life.
<snip>
> Paul
Stephen
Phil Cook
>
>Do you think that 6 megapixels is all you'll need then? Or is there s pixel
>count that you'd be satisified with?
I'd be satisfied with 11Mpix, and a porter to carry the rest of my gear. Those
1Ds's are pretty heavy! Even a 6Mpix 10D is a meaty beast, but I think i could
live with that.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
ste mc ©
"Phil Cook" <urw...@p-t-cook.freeserveSPAMTRAP.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tv3d00h00vnln5o6o...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:40:57 -0000, ste mc Š wrote:
> >
> >Do you think that 6 megapixels is all you'll need then? Or is there s
pixel
> >count that you'd be satisified with?
>
> I'd be satisfied with 11Mpix, and a porter to carry the rest of my gear.
Those
> 1Ds's are pretty heavy! Even a 6Mpix 10D is a meaty beast, but I think i
could
> live with that.
> --
> Phil Cook
I'd be satisifed with 11MP too! :-) I wonder if the replacement for the 10D
gets close to this? I hope so because I'd then buy one! But it will
probably be in between 6 and 8. When I had my Fuji F601, the sizes of
D-SLR's put me off, they're very big in comparison. I'm sure that the size
is normal to people who are used to having SLR's, but not me. ...but like
you say, I could live with it. ;-)
Stephen
Phil Cook
>
>"Phil Cook" <urw...@p-t-cook.freeserveSPAMTRAP.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:tv3d00h00vnln5o6o...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:40:57 -0000, ste mc Š wrote:
>> >
>> >Do you think that 6 megapixels is all you'll need then? Or is there s
>pixel
>> >count that you'd be satisified with?
>>
>> I'd be satisfied with 11Mpix, and a porter to carry the rest of my gear.
>Those
>> 1Ds's are pretty heavy! Even a 6Mpix 10D is a meaty beast, but I think i
>could
>> live with that.
>I'd be satisifed with 11MP too! :-) I wonder if the replacement for the 10D
>gets close to this? I hope so because I'd then buy one! But it will
>probably be in between 6 and 8. When I had my Fuji F601, the sizes of
>D-SLR's put me off, they're very big in comparison. I'm sure that the size
>is normal to people who are used to having SLR's, but not me. ...but like
>you say, I could live with it. ;-)
Try the Sony DSC-F828 8 Mpix 28-200mm (equivalent) f/2-f/2.8 lens. About the
same size a DSLR though, have a look at this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony828.shtml
ste mc ©
Thanks for the link Phil, I have already read that one! :-) I've had an eye
on this camera for months, due to the 8 megapixels and decent zoom lens - I
even recommended it to Paul Saunders as an alternative to the 300D/10D
(before the reviews came out). Although it's an excellent 'prosumer'
camera, the reviews for it have shown (in my opinion), that for my money,
it's better to go for the 300D or save a few hundred for the 10D.
Seeing that this camera has 8 megapixels, I'd hope that it persuades other
manufacturers to also push up their megapixels too; though if you look at
figure 2 on the link above, it shows that it's not just the megapixels that
count, it's the size of the sensor that makes the difference.
Ste
Paul Saunders
> Has he bought your camera then? ;-)
Nope, he bought one after seeing how good mine was. Although he uses
expensive Nikons with big telephoto lenses for all his serious stuff, he
finds the G3 great for reportage shots (he takes a lot of photos of
local incidents and gets quite a few of them in the local paper).
> Yes, the water looks like it's made of oil or something, very nice.
Well that's the slow shutter speed. I think it was 4 seconds, it was
very dark that day.
> And the grasses on the rocks look so sharp,
Focus Magic.
> and very saturated in colour
Well I must admit to boosting the saturation a bit in Photoshop, it was
a very dull day.
> - you sure this wasn't Velvia? :-)
Well it could have been! Velvia may well have had that effect on the
colours, one of the reasons I always loved shooting with it before I
started doing digital processing, where the saturation can easily be
altered later instead.
I did also take the photo with my "proper" camera using Astia, but it
will be a while before those shots are developed (it's a new roll, and I
usually take no more than a handful of shots on film each time I go out
these days - I'm very sparing with it now). It will be very interesting
to see how Astia has recorded the scene, and how the 4000dpi processed
scan will look in comparison.
>> Now this one was an interesting experiment, it's a blended exposure.
> Excellent idea! And it looks good too. I can't put my finger on it,
> but when I look at this photo, I can hear the waterfall making a
> roaring sound, if you know what I mean.
Oh yes!
> I guess it conveys the
> feeling og movement more than either photo would on its own. I'll
> try some of these myself, just find me a local waterfall! :-)
You seem to have a distinct lack of waterfalls up your way. You're not
that far from North Wales are you? Why not take a trip along the A55 to
Abergwyngregyn (between Bangor and Llanfairfechan) and take a stroll up
to Aber Falls? One of the highest waterfalls in Wales and quite easy to
get to, no serious walking gear required. Waterproofs and a pair of
boots is all you need, plus a camera and a tripod of course.
> Very nice, at first, I thought it was a tree on a mountain peak. But
> it's a twig on a rock isn't it?
Yep. Do you think it would look better in colour? (There wasn't much
colour in it anyway.)
> You're such a poser Paul! :-)
Actually I didn't even know he was taking the photo, I was too engrossed
in what I was doing at the time.
> Very interesting. I took a long exposure of water once, and I
> noticed that I could see currents in the photo that weren't noticable
> in real life.
I took quite a few different shots of that scene, all with quite
different results. Difficult to choose the best one. I'm not sure that
was it. There was an extremely strong blue cast on those pictures, I
had to do a lot of colour correction to get something that looked
believable.
Pat Bennett
>
>"Phil Cook" <urw...@p-t-cook.freeserveSPAMTRAP.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ei9d00t196d4v7ejb...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:25:58 -0000, ste mc Š wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Phil Cook" <urw...@p-t-cook.freeserveSPAMTRAP.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:tv3d00h00vnln5o6o...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:40:57 -0000, ste mc Š wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Do you think that 6 megapixels is all you'll need then? Or is there s
<snip>
>Seeing that this camera has 8 megapixels, I'd hope that it persuades other
>manufacturers to also push up their megapixels too; though if you look at
>figure 2 on the link above, it shows that it's not just the megapixels that
>count, it's the size of the sensor that makes the difference.
>
>Ste
What do you want 8MP for, Ste? My D30 produces very acceptable A3+
prints from just 3.1 MP (acceptable enough for people to shell out
very acceptable amounts of cash). The main reasons why I intend to
upgrade to the 10D eventually are :
(1) I sometimes need to crop action wildlife pics, so I need some
extra pixels to throw away.
(2) There is a nine frame buffer in the 10D, which means that I will
rarely be waiting for the buffer to clear while the shot of a lifetime
is happening in front of me
There is a downside to having extra pixels. At the moment, my hard
discs, removeable hard disc for backup, my camera CF cards, my
computer's processing speed, my computer's memory, and half a dozen
other things which I probably can't think of just now, are all geared
to my D30's 3.1MP and the file sizes (raw, jpg and tiff) that it
produces.
When I buy a 10D, or its successor, I shall have a lot of bother and
expense upgrading the above to cope with the larger file sizes.
Thereafter, however, I will have no need for more pixels, and any
further cameras I buy will have to have very considerable improvements
in other areas.
Pat
Pat Bennett
From Cheshire in the U.K.
p...@cheshirewildlife.co.uk
www.cheshirewildlife.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> Yes, the October project has certainly had a negative effect if it
> means that a professional photographer no longer takes many photos!
> :-)
No big deal. I get my up and down periods. I'll be back! ;-)
> So the 300D is on order? Very good, we'll all look forward to
> seeing what your results with it are, no doubt.
Yes. How much longer before Canon release an 8MP DSLR? I have a
horrible feeling that if I buy a 300D now there'll be a better camera
out next month. Now that the 8MP compacts are starting to appear this
might not be the best time to buy a 6MP DSLR. Starting to get
worried...
> You'll have to get
> Bill to start uploading more of his photos too! ;-)
Indeed. Hear that Bill? Bill's taken some very nice photos with his
300D recently, he really should put some on his website.
> Do you think that 6 megapixels is all you'll need then?
Ultimately no. At the moment, quite possibly. I'll really have to make
some detailed quality comparsons with my 20MP film scans before I can be
sure. I think 6MP is probably enough that I won't need to take my film
cameras with me every time I go out. In fact, I've been getting fed up
of photographing all my best shots twice, once with film and once with
digital, but I've been doing it because 4MP wasn't enough. 6MP may be
enough to stop me duplicating everything, but it still may not be better
than film in all respects.
I believe that film still has a higher resolution than digital, more
than 6MP, but that other advantages of digital offset that, in
particular the high dynamic range and the low noise. Although I always
used to think that resolution was the most important thing, I'm not so
sure anymore. The high dynamic range is wonderful and is the main
reason I want to stop using film. Using digital is so much more
convenient, particularly with regard to post processing, that I really
don't want to use film any more unless I absolutely have to.
> Or is there
> s pixel count that you'd be satisified with?
Yep, 20MP! ;-) I'd certainly have no complaints if I had a camera that
could produce images as large as I get from my pro scanner. There'd be
no question of film having better resolution than digital then. Once
digital resolution equals or exceeds film scanners, there'll be no more
arguments, and that will kill off film for most people, even many of the
current die-hards. Seriously though, 8-10MP would probably be quite
enough to finish off the film arguments.
One interesting aspect of the 300D is that it can be used to take 12MP
pictures of static subjects, with a little effort. The resolution of a
6MP image is roughly 3000 x 2000 pixels. If you turn the camera
vertically and take three shots (widthways) with a 50% overlap on each,
when you stitch the result with panoramic software you'll end up with a
12MP image - 4000 x 3000 pixels. Provided the joins are seamless you'll
have an image that equals a 1Ds (for a bit more effort but a lot less
cost).
This 12MP image would have image dimensions of 4x3, instead of the usual
3x2 for 35mm film and DSLRs. This is compatible with compact digicams
and of course computer screens. If you prefer the 3:2 ratio (which is
pretty close to the golden mean - probably why it's such a popular
format), then using a smaller overlap (just less than 40%) would enable
you to produce a 13.5MP image which is 4500 x 3000 pixels in size, thus
exceeding the quality of the 1Ds.
Alternatively you could take four vertical shots overlapping at 50% to
produce a 15MP image with dimensions of 5000 x 3000. This could be
cropped to 3:2 if you want, or left as it is, in which case it wouldn't
fit an A4 sheet quite so well. However, 5000 x 3000 fits the golden
mean almost exactly (to be precise it would be 4854 x 3000) so not only
would your 4 shots give an outstanding 15MP image (which could be
printed at a considerable size), but it would also have "perfect"
dimensions.
The commonplace rule of thirds actually derives from the golden section,
but it is a simplification.
http://www.tcm.rmit.edu.au/notes/GoldenMean/golden4.htm
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/g/goldenmean.html
Another advantage of creating normal ratio horizontal images by
stitching vertical shots is that by using your widest angle lens you'd
get a much wider angle. In fact this would offset the digital
multiplication factor nicely. If your sensor multiplies the focal
length by 1.5, turning the camera vertically would give the same
vertical angle of view as the lens would when used horizontally on a
film camera. So using this technique with a 15mm lens (24mm equivalent)
would give you a true 15mm shot. So this technique solves both the
wide-angle / full frame problem and the high resolution problem, in
effect giving you a "virtual" 1Ds for a much lower price.
Of course, it only works with static subjects, is fiddly to take the
photos (tripod essential for best results), consumes much more flash
card memory and creates more work stiching the shots afterwards. But it
does give you huge megapixel capability and full wide-angles at
considerably lower cost than a 1Ds. The lens quality would be less
critical also. Also, it wouldn't only work for wide-angle shots, you
could take any shot using this technique, just zoom in as required.
I plan to use this technique for my most important shots.
Paul Saunders
> I'd be satisfied with 11Mpix, and a porter to carry the rest of my
> gear. Those 1Ds's are pretty heavy! Even a 6Mpix 10D is a meaty
> beast, but I think i could live with that.
But the 300D is much lighter. I know that the 10D has the edge in most
respects, but I see the plastic body as an advantage in this particular
case. Having played with Bill's 300D I have no problems with the build
quality, it has a sturdy well built feel. The plastic does not feel
cheap in any way.
As for the common comment of "what if you dropped it?", well for a
start, I'm not in the habit of dropping my cameras, but if I did, I'd be
more worried about damaging the lens than the camera, some of which
could easily cost as much if not more than the camera. I think all that
heavy glass would be far more prone to damage than a relatively
lightweight camera body. As far as I'm concerned, dropping the camera
just isn't an option.
Carrying it however, is. For walking and backpacking the lighter weight
of the 300D would be a constant advantage, to be enjoyed with every step
that you take, weighed against the possible disadvantage of dropping it,
which may never happen.
If anything the 300D is a little bulky for my liking, my Olympus SLRs
are much smaller and more streamlined, but I could live with that.
The only real disadvantage with the 300D from my point of view is the
lack of mirror lock. As for the software differences, pretty much all
of them affect customisation and automatic shooting so are not really
relevant to me. Custom settings are nice but not essential, and
automation is irrelevant when you shoot manually anyway.
The bottom line is image quality, which is pretty much identical to the
10D. Some of the extra features may be desirable, but I don't really
want to carry the extra weight.
Pat Bennett
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>ste mc © wrote:
>
>> Yes, the October project has certainly had a negative effect if it
>> means that a professional photographer no longer takes many photos!
<snip>
>One interesting aspect of the 300D is that it can be used to take 12MP
>pictures of static subjects, with a little effort. The resolution of a
>6MP image is roughly 3000 x 2000 pixels. If you turn the camera
>vertically and take three shots (widthways) with a 50% overlap on each,
>when you stitch the result with panoramic software you'll end up with a
>12MP image - 4000 x 3000 pixels. Provided the joins are seamless you'll
>have an image that equals a 1Ds (for a bit more effort but a lot less
>cost).
Used this technique last June in the Shetlands :
http://www.cheshirewildlife.co.uk/Pictures/CRW_6976-78S.jpg
These are the cliffs of Hermaness, just along a bit from the rocky
islet of Muckle Flugga, the most northerly point in the UK. It's a
panorama made up of three handheld shots with my D30 and Canon 100-400
IS lens. I stitched the three images together in Photoshop - didn't
bother with stitching software. I don't know where the joins are now.
The resulting file is just under 22MB - here's a sample at full size
taken from the top of the cliff. The birds you can see are gannets,
but there were lots of puffins and fulmars nesting there as well.
http://www.cheshirewildlife.co.uk/Pictures/CRW_6976-78sample.jpg
The lens was set at 100mm. Of course, if I had used a lens of shorter
focal length, it would have been impossible to join them up without
stitching software.
The print is framed A3+ on the wall, reminding us of an awesome sight,
both of landscape and birds.
Paul Saunders
>> One interesting aspect of the 300D is that it can be used to take
>> 12MP pictures of static subjects, with a little effort. The
>> resolution of a 6MP image is roughly 3000 x 2000 pixels. If you
>> turn the camera vertically and take three shots (widthways) with a
>> 50% overlap on each, when you stitch the result with panoramic
>> software you'll end up with a 12MP image - 4000 x 3000 pixels.
> Used this technique last June in the Shetlands :
>
> http://www.cheshirewildlife.co.uk/Pictures/CRW_6976-78S.jpg
Very interesting pic. Nice one!
> These are the cliffs of Hermaness, just along a bit from the rocky
> islet of Muckle Flugga, the most northerly point in the UK. It's a
> panorama made up of three handheld shots with my D30 and
> Canon 100-400 IS lens.
I'm not sure if you've misunderstood what I've written or if I've
misunderstood what you've done. With a normal panorama, the usual
technique is to stitch the short ends of the images together, so
horizontal photographs would be stitched horizontally and vertical
photos stitched vertically. What I'm suggesting is stitching the long
ends together for maximum pixel width, thus vertical photos would be
stitched horizontally and horizontal photos would be stitched
vertically. Thus you can create a panorama of three or four shots which
ends up having a normal ratio, and so doesn't look like a panorama at
all, instead it's just a normal looking photo but with a lot more
megapixels.
Your photo looks long and thin, leading me to believe that you stitched
three vertical shots vertically, but it depends on the overlap. You
might have stitched three horizontal photos vertically, in which case
the overlap must have been very small. So which did you do?
> I stitched the three images together in Photoshop - didn't
> bother with stitching software. I don't know where the joins are now.
> The lens was set at 100mm. Of course, if I had used a lens of shorter
> focal length, it would have been impossible to join them up without
> stitching software.
So you may have used a small overlap. As you say, with wider angle
lenses the distortion is so great that stitching software is essential
to "uncurve" the images to get them to fit. In my experience so far,
such wide angle photographs need to have a very generous overlap to
ensure the best stiching, thus I've settled on 50%. May seem a bit
wasteful but since it's digital it doesn't cost anything, it's just a
question of having enough memory storage available.
> The print is framed A3+ on the wall, reminding us of an awesome sight,
> both of landscape and birds.
Cool. I bet it looks great.
Paul Saunders
> I'd be satisifed with 11MP too! :-)
But would you be happy carrying a camera that weighs half a ton? ;-)
> I wonder if the replacement for
> the 10D gets close to this?
Don't know much about the 10D. When are Canon likely to bring out their
next DSLR? I don't want to commit myself to a 300D if there's a newer
better DSLR about to be released. I know there will be eventually, but
I'll be gutted if they bring one out a month after I buy one.
> I hope so because I'd then buy one! But
> it will probably be in between 6 and 8.
They'd be mad not to do 8MP now that many new 8MP compacts will be
released this year (so I've read).
> When I had my Fuji F601, the
> sizes of D-SLR's put me off, they're very big in comparison. I'm
> sure that the size is normal to people who are used to having SLR's,
> but not me. ...but like you say, I could live with it. ;-)
Actually the 300D is pretty big compared to what I'm used to. One of
the reasons I chose Olympus SLRs because they were so small and light.
I don't know why DSLRs are so big. I hope there's a reason, I wouldn't
like to think they make them that big just to impress people.
Paul Saunders
> "Phil Cook" <urw...@p-t-cook.freeserveSPAMTRAP.co.uk> wrote
>>
>> Try the Sony DSC-F828 8 Mpix 28-200mm (equivalent) f/2-f/2.8 lens.
>> About the same size a DSLR though, have a look at this:
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony828.shtml
> Thanks for the link Phil, I have already read that one! :-) I've had
> an eye on this camera for months, due to the 8 megapixels and decent
> zoom lens - I even recommended it to Paul Saunders as an alternative
> to the 300D/10D (before the reviews came out).
Yes, I was going to get back to you on that. It looks a very
interesting camera, great resolution and focal length. Unfortunately at
the end of the day it's still a compact, not an SLR, which means that
apart from the difference in sensor size (larger sensors in SLRs are
much better noise wise) you can't use interchangeable lenses, which has
always been the big advantage of SLRs. 28-200 may be a superb range for
a compact, but you're stuck with it. With a DSLR you can use lenses up
to 500mm with a little extra expense, and 1000mm with a 2x adapter.
With the 1.6x multiplier that's 1600mm, which is a phenomenal focal
length! No digital compact can come even close to that. Of course
lenses that big (like the Sigma 50-500mm for £700, plus 2x adapter) are
pretty big and heavy, and require heavy tripods to match, putting you in
a completely different league to the point and shoot compacts, but
that's what serious photography is all about.
My big grudge against the Sony is that it only saves 24 bit images and
when using RAW mode the limited memory means that it takes some 15
seconds to save the image before you can take the next shot! This is
unacceptable in a camera of this type. This makes it a terrific camera
for high res "snapshots", but limited for serious shots. Being able to
work in 48 bit mode is very important if you want to make big
adjustments to brightness and contrast, which is exactly what I do now
on a regular basis.
> Seeing that this camera has 8 megapixels, I'd hope that it persuades
> other manufacturers to also push up their megapixels too;
That's exactly what I've been thinking. I've read that many other 8MP
cameras are due to be released this year, so I doubt that Canon will
allow themselves to get left behind. That's why I'm worrying about
investing in the 300D if there's a better SLR just around the corner.
Paul Saunders
> What do you want 8MP for, Ste? My D30 produces very acceptable A3+
> prints from just 3.1 MP
I must be honest, I find that hard to believe. I know that you have a
much larger, and thus better quality, sensor, but 3MP just doesn't seem
to be enough resolution for a print that large. I now regularly
interpolate my 4MP pics just to make an A4 print, and I'm not
particularly happy about A3+ prints from a 4MP image, even interpolated
with Genuine Fractals. They look okay from a distance, but I'm very
fussy about these things and they aren't all that sharp close up.
My new Nikon scanner produces 20MP scans that are perfect for 18" x 12"
prints at 300dpi with no interpolation. Digital images are still a long
way off that resolution wise.
> The main reasons why I intend to
> upgrade to the 10D eventually are :
>
> (1) I sometimes need to crop action wildlife pics, so I need some
> extra pixels to throw away.
With only 6MP, I wouldn't want to throw anything away, not for a large
print.
> (2) There is a nine frame buffer in the 10D, which means that I will
> rarely be waiting for the buffer to clear while the shot of a lifetime
> is happening in front of me
That's a good point.
> There is a downside to having extra pixels. At the moment, my hard
> discs, removeable hard disc for backup, my camera CF cards, my
> computer's processing speed, my computer's memory, and half a dozen
> other things which I probably can't think of just now, are all geared
> to my D30's 3.1MP and the file sizes (raw, jpg and tiff) that it
> produces.
>
> When I buy a 10D, or its successor, I shall have a lot of bother and
> expense upgrading the above to cope with the larger file sizes.
Upgrades like these are a fact of life. In a few years time we'll be
laughing about these tiny 120 gig drives and only having half a gig of
memory. Image storage may be a problem now, but it won't be in the not
so distant future. Do you worry about storage space for all your text
files these days?
> Thereafter, however, I will have no need for more pixels, and any
> further cameras I buy will have to have very considerable improvements
> in other areas.
A strong statement. Pixel count will have to get a lot higher before I
proclaim satisfaction and no need for anything bigger. Having said
that, I would like to be able to produce *very* large prints in the
future, and I'm not talking about A3+.
Pat Bennett
Three horizontal shots vertically.
>
>> I stitched the three images together in Photoshop - didn't
>> bother with stitching software. I don't know where the joins are now.
>
>> The lens was set at 100mm. Of course, if I had used a lens of shorter
>> focal length, it would have been impossible to join them up without
>> stitching software.
>
>So you may have used a small overlap. As you say, with wider angle
>lenses the distortion is so great that stitching software is essential
>to "uncurve" the images to get them to fit. In my experience so far,
>such wide angle photographs need to have a very generous overlap to
>ensure the best stiching, thus I've settled on 50%. May seem a bit
>wasteful but since it's digital it doesn't cost anything, it's just a
>question of having enough memory storage available.
Yes, very small overlap, as a large overlap is unneccessary when
stitching by hand in Photoshop.
Paul Saunders
> Three horizontal shots vertically.
> Yes, very small overlap, as a large overlap is unneccessary when
> stitching by hand in Photoshop.
I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Pat Bennett
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Pat Bennett wrote:
>
>> What do you want 8MP for, Ste? My D30 produces very acceptable A3+
>> prints from just 3.1 MP
>
>I must be honest, I find that hard to believe. I know that you have a
>much larger, and thus better quality, sensor, but 3MP just doesn't seem
>to be enough resolution for a print that large. I now regularly
>interpolate my 4MP pics just to make an A4 print, and I'm not
>particularly happy about A3+ prints from a 4MP image, even interpolated
>with Genuine Fractals. They look okay from a distance, but I'm very
>fussy about these things and they aren't all that sharp close up.
I did say "acceptable", and I know this is true because of the number
of prints that I have sold. I do interpolate up to 300dpi before
printing.
I agree with Michael Reichmann when he said in his review of the D30 :
"At the beginning of this review I had made the controversial
statement that this camera is capable of producing prints that in
sizes up to about 11 X 14 are the equal of those than can be produced
by a 35mm camera on fine grained transparency film scanned with a
high-end scanner.
When the D30 first arrived I was very eager to do such a comparison.
After countless tests over several weeks, (some detailed on my web
site, others not) I have concluded that the D30 when shooting at IS0
100 actually exceeds Provia 100F scanned on an Imacon FlexTight (a
$10,000 desktop scanner) on 8X10 prints from an Epson 870/1270 or
2000P. When Genuine Fractals is used prints up to 13X19 can be made
that are arguably the equal of those from film made to that size.
When I first made this statement on my web site in late October 2000,
it raised a storm of controversy. Almost 20,000 people visited that
page within the first week and I was inundated with emails, both pro
and con. Since then though, as more and more people have purchased
D30’s and done their own tests, this evaluation has been echoed by an
increasing number of professional photographers. Even skeptics who
have requested prints have almost all agreed, sometimes reluctantly,
that the quality difference is awfully close."
>My new Nikon scanner produces 20MP scans that are perfect for 18" x 12"
>prints at 300dpi with no interpolation. Digital images are still a long
>way off that resolution wise.
Resolution is not what it was when we compared negative or slide
images. Then we were concerned with the make of film, the variables in
the chemical processing used, and most of all, the lens used to form
the image - after eliminating all the other ways in which the
resolution of the image can be degraded (camera-shake, etc).
A digital image from a scanner is still affected by all the above,
plus the technical properties of the scanner, the processing in
Photoshop, the sharpening (I think it is still sharpening in Focus
Magic - just a different algorithm), the relative quantity of edges in
the image, the printer dpi and the interaction between the ink spots
and the print surface.
The resolution of a digital camera image, when printed, depends upon
the technical qualities of the sensor, the lens that formed the image,
the processing, sharpening and printing.
My point is that the only way to compare the performance of scanned
film and a digital camera is to compare the printed output. My scanner
produces 16 bit files of over 50 MB, and the print quality is not as
good as D30 prints (which is 3.3MP, by the way, not 3.1MP as I said).
>> The main reasons why I intend to
>> upgrade to the 10D eventually are :
>>
>> (1) I sometimes need to crop action wildlife pics, so I need some
>> extra pixels to throw away.
>
>With only 6MP, I wouldn't want to throw anything away, not for a large
>print.
>
>> (2) There is a nine frame buffer in the 10D, which means that I will
>> rarely be waiting for the buffer to clear while the shot of a lifetime
>> is happening in front of me
>
>That's a good point.
>
>> There is a downside to having extra pixels. At the moment, my hard
>> discs, removeable hard disc for backup, my camera CF cards, my
>> computer's processing speed, my computer's memory, and half a dozen
>> other things which I probably can't think of just now, are all geared
>> to my D30's 3.1MP and the file sizes (raw, jpg and tiff) that it
>> produces.
>>
>> When I buy a 10D, or its successor, I shall have a lot of bother and
>> expense upgrading the above to cope with the larger file sizes.
>
>Upgrades like these are a fact of life.
Agreed - I am reconciled to this additional expense when I upgrade my
camera. I was just pointing out to Ste the consequences of more
megapixels.
>
>> Thereafter, however, I will have no need for more pixels, and any
>> further cameras I buy will have to have very considerable improvements
>> in other areas.
>
>A strong statement. Pixel count will have to get a lot higher before I
>proclaim satisfaction and no need for anything bigger. Having said
>that, I would like to be able to produce *very* large prints in the
>future, and I'm not talking about A3+.
I find I sell more framed A4 prints than A3, so I'm happy producing
prints up to A3+. Still, a megamegapixel digital camera would be the
equivalent of a large format film camera, and the output would have
similar uses.
Gordon
>Pat Bennett wrote:
>
>> Three horizontal shots vertically.
>
>> Yes, very small overlap, as a large overlap is unneccessary when
>> stitching by hand in Photoshop.
>
>I see. Thanks for the clarification.
>
--
Gordon
Paul Saunders
> I did say "acceptable", and I know this is true because of the number
> of prints that I have sold. I do interpolate up to 300dpi before
> printing.
So do I. It depends how you define acceptable. I've shown prints to
people that I wasn't happy with but which the viewer thought were
excellent. Even when I pointed out the flaws they insisted that they
weren't important or that they didn't notice them. I guess most people
look at prints in a different way to me. They probably look at the
whole picture whereas I tend to study it closely and look for faults.
Maybe I'm too much of a perfectionist.
> I agree with Michael Reichmann when he said in his review of the D30 :
>
> "At the beginning of this review I had made the controversial
> statement that this camera is capable of producing prints that in
> sizes up to about 11 X 14 are the equal of those than can be produced
> by a 35mm camera on fine grained transparency film scanned with a
> high-end scanner.
He later claimed that the 1Ds produces prints that are equal to medium
format in quality. I believe he made his comparison with 6x7cm. So
let's look at some numbers.
The width of a 1Ds image is 4064 pixels. The width of a 6x7cm slide is
66mm (I think). If we divide the former by the latter, the result works
out at 62 pixels per millimetre (ppm).
If we do the same calculation with the D30's pixel width of 2160,
dividing it by 36mm (35mm film), we get a result of 60ppm, which
effectively implies the same relationship between the D30 and 35mm as
the 1Ds with medium format.
> When the D30 first arrived I was very eager to do such a comparison.
> After countless tests over several weeks, (some detailed on my web
> site, others not) I have concluded that the D30 when shooting at IS0
> 100 actually exceeds Provia 100F scanned on an Imacon FlexTight (a
> $10,000 desktop scanner) on 8X10 prints from an Epson 870/1270 or
> 2000P. When Genuine Fractals is used prints up to 13X19 can be made
> that are arguably the equal of those from film made to that size.
What resolution is the FlexTight scanner?
> When I first made this statement on my web site in late October 2000,
> it raised a storm of controversy. Almost 20,000 people visited that
> page within the first week and I was inundated with emails, both pro
> and con. Since then though, as more and more people have purchased
> D30's and done their own tests, this evaluation has been echoed by an
> increasing number of professional photographers. Even skeptics who
> have requested prints have almost all agreed, sometimes reluctantly,
> that the quality difference is awfully close."
I know from my own tests that the differences between film and digital
are not as simple as comparing pixel resolution from a scanner and a
camera, it's a lot more complex than that, and whilst I still find the
claims of yourself and Michael Reichmann to be hard to believe, I'm not
going to argue that film is better simply on the basis of pixels.
Whilst I'm still skeptical, I'm keeping an open mind about this. I
respect the opinions of yourself and Mr Reichmann, and Mark Baigent has
bought a 1Ds and confirmed these assertions also, choosing not to use
medium format anymore as a result. He's sent me a few full size images
from the 1Ds which are most impressive, but of course I can't make a
valid print comparison since I have no equivalent film images to test
them against.
The bottom line is that I won't really believe it until I see it with my
own eyes, and I'm quite prepared to believe it if it turns out to be
true. So far I can only base my assumptions on my own tests.
The one proper test that I've done compared a G3 image (4MP, 2272 pixels
wide) with a film image scanned on a Minolta scanner (2438dpi, roughly
3300 pixels wide). Without going into all the details I interpolated
with GF and without, experimented with different sharpening settings and
made numerous prints at different sizes and enlargements, even enlarging
one section of the pictures to A1 equivalent.
After careful study the differences were clear to see. The film image
resolved more textural detail (grass, wood etc.) but was more grainy.
The digital image was much "cleaner" and had sharper edges, but did not
resolve fine textural detail so well (grass was a green blur whereas
with film the blades of grass could be seen).
My conclusion was that the film definitely had more resolution than the
digital, but that the digital was better in some respects, i.e. cleaner
and sharper. The reason it was sharper was because I sharpened it more
than the film image. This may seem unfair, but as a real world test I
wanted to get the best out of each image and I found that the clean
digital image allowed more sharpening than the grainy film image. An
equivalent amount of sharpening on the film image produced unacceptable
grain and even when adjusting the threshold setting I couldn't sharpen
the film image to a comparable degree without ruining the image. So
based on this test alone I'm still in no doubt that film has more
resolution than a 4MP digital image, but I now know that resolution
isn't everything.
I showed the comparative prints to a number of people and some preferred
the film and others preferred the digital. It may be very pertinent to
note that all those who preferred the film were themselves photographers
(of the film variety) while all those who preferred the digital were
non-photographers. This may be due to photographers having
preconceptions about what they expect to see in a print. Presumable the
grain didn't bother them because they accept that as being unavoidable,
and they probably placed more importance on the textural detail than the
sharp edges.
Of course, this was not a definitive test. Although the G3 is a very
good digital compact, it does not have a professional sized sensor, so
your D30 probably produces much higher quality pixels, and even though
yours is only a 3.3MP sensor, due to the difference in aspect ratio, the
width of your pictures is almost as wide as my G3's - 2160 compared to
2272. Compared to 35mm film the G3 rates as 63 pixels per millimetre.
Also of course, I wasn't using a top quality scanner. Although the
Minolta is an excellent scanner for the price, it can't compare to my
new 4000dpi Nikon scanner, which reviews have claimed produces scans
that are almost as good as a drum scanner.
When I get the 300D I will be doing similar comparisons between that and
film scanned with the Nikon. That will be a far more "professional"
comparison. However, in order to make such a comparison as fair as
possible, exactly the same lens should be used, at exactly the same
settings. This won't be possible immediately, but will be once I get a
Canon film body it will. But even then, there's still the 1.6x
multiplication factor to be taken into account.
>> My new Nikon scanner produces 20MP scans that are perfect for 18" x
>> 12" prints at 300dpi with no interpolation. Digital images are
>> still a long way off that resolution wise.
>
> Resolution is not what it was when we compared negative or slide
> images. Then we were concerned with the make of film, the variables in
> the chemical processing used, and most of all, the lens used to form
> the image - after eliminating all the other ways in which the
> resolution of the image can be degraded (camera-shake, etc).
>
> A digital image from a scanner is still affected by all the above,
> plus the technical properties of the scanner,
Of course, which is why a top quality scanner is vital. But even a top
quality film scan is still a second-generation copy, which may be very
slightly softer than the original.
The significant thing about film scanners is that even though the
scanner may produce a lot of pixels, that doesn't necessarily mean that
there's that much detail in the original image. It's nice to boast
about 20MP scans, but there's not 20MP of sharpness in there. From
tests I've read about on the net it seems to be agreed that using the
very best lenses in laboratory conditions, film can contain a bit more
than 4000dpi worth of detail, perhaps as much as 5000dpi or so
(apparently scanning at 8000dpi has shown a difference). However in the
real world, using less than perfect lenses in real life situations, film
rarely contains as much as 4000dpi of detail.
How much detail there really is in film I can't say with any certainty,
and it obviously varies with the lens and film used, and whether it was
taken hand held and so on. There can be considerable variation in
sharpness even with a single lens. The scanner reviewers do seem to
agree that a 4000dpi scanner pulls out more detail than a more typical
2800dpi scanner, and it certainly pulls out more than my 2438dpi scanner
did, so at a rough guess, I'd say that a typical photograph might
contain somewhere between 3000 and 3500dpi of detail, perhaps 3200dpi as
an average?
You also have to consider that much of this extra detail may simply be
grain. Using NeatImage to remove film grain I've found in extreme cases
that it makes a film image look much softer (and smoother - more like a
digital image), yet close inspection seems to indicate that very little
actual detail has been removed - so I find myself wondering if much of
the textural detail we see in film photographs is nothing more than
grain masquerading as detail.
Anyway, the bottom line is that digital images are undoubtedly sharper
at 1:1 magnification than film scans are. Focus Magic tries to detect
the amount of blurring (measured as a pixel radius) and I've found that
most of my digital images have a blur radius of 1 pixel, whereas my film
scans (Minolta scanner) typically had a blur radius of 3 pixels (haven't
done any proper tests with the Nikon scanner yet).
I wouldn't take these numbers too literally, I don't think that the
digital images are exactly three times sharper than the film scans, but
they are undoubtedly sharper, and when you take that into account, the
20MP film scans obviously don't contain that much real resolution. If a
20MP scan were reduced by three that would produce an image 6.7MP in
size, which is very close to the 6.3MP images that the 300D and 10D
provide. For this reason I suspect that the resolution of those cameras
will be very close to the "real" resolution of my film shots, although I
won't arrive at a definite conclusion until I do the tests and make
comparative prints.
It may not be a coincidence that when Kodak established their PhotoCD
format, they decided on a maximum resolution of 3072 x 2048, which is
6.3MP, exactly the same as the current 6MP DSLRs. Another reason to
suspect that this represents the "real" resolution of film, under ideal
conditions of course.
By your reasoning though, and those of others, 6MP would be greater than
the resolution of film. In fact if we reverse the formula and divide
the 3072 pixel width of a 6MP image by the 62ppm resolution of the 1Ds,
that would indicate that a 6MP image would be equivalent to a film image
50mm wide, which is almost as wide as 6x6cm MF (actual width 56mm).
At the moment I'm more inclined to believe that 6MP is equivalent to
35mm, especially after doing my G3 tests, but perhaps the higher quality
pixels of a DSLR will make the difference? If I am right about 6MP,
that would indicate a "resolution" of 85ppm.
> the processing in
> Photoshop, the sharpening (I think it is still sharpening in Focus
> Magic - just a different algorithm),
Oh undoubtedly, Focus Magic is definitely sharpening the image, but it's
*really* sharpening the image, unlike what's commonly called sharpening,
which isn't really sharpening at all. Conventional sharpening is
actually "edge-enhancement", which simply give the *appearance* of
sharpening, in much the same way that a high contrast lens looks sharper
than a low contrast lens, or high contrast film (Velvia) looks sharper
than a lower contrast film. Contrast and sharpness are inextricably
linked.
Focus Magic on the other hand uses a complex algorithm to reverse the
effect of blurring, thus truly sharpening an image. When used correctly
the effect is very subtle. The sharpening is not so blatant as with
conventional sharpening, since edge contrast is not increased (unless
you use it incorrectly and overdo the effect, which then produces
similar artefacts to conventional sharpening).
> the relative quantity of edges in
> the image, the printer dpi and the interaction between the ink spots
> and the print surface.
Indeed.
> The resolution of a digital camera image, when printed, depends upon
> the technical qualities of the sensor, the lens that formed the image,
> the processing, sharpening and printing.
>
> My point is that the only way to compare the performance of scanned
> film and a digital camera is to compare the printed output.
Well I disagree with that. It's perfectly possible to compare the
images onscreen, and in fact that's the only way to compare them if the
intended use is on a computer, such as on websites. Of course if that's
the case then the resolution of both film scans and digital images far
exceeds what is necessary, so there's no real difference.
Only if the images are intended for printing are prints the only valid
way of comparing them, in which case I agree completely. I've been
quite horrified to find that over-sharpening an image so that it looks
terrible onscreen produces a better looking print than one which looks
great onscreen (but produces a softer print).
> My scanner
> produces 16 bit files of over 50 MB, and the print quality is not as
> good as D30 prints (which is 3.3MP, by the way, not 3.1MP as I said).
As I say, I'll reserve judgement on this until I get the 300D and do
some tests of my own. Although skeptical I won't disagree with you
until I've seen proof with my own eyes. In fact I hope that you're
correct. If 6MP exceeds the quality of 35mm I'll be very happy indeed,
and that will give me one less camera to carry around.
> I find I sell more framed A4 prints than A3, so I'm happy producing
> prints up to A3+. Still, a megamegapixel digital camera would be the
> equivalent of a large format film camera, and the output would have
> similar uses.
Indeed.
Pat Bennett
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Pat Bennett wrote:
>
>> I did say "acceptable", and I know this is true because of the number
>> of prints that I have sold. I do interpolate up to 300dpi before
>> printing.
>
>So do I. It depends how you define acceptable. I've shown prints to
>people that I wasn't happy with but which the viewer thought were
>excellent. Even when I pointed out the flaws they insisted that they
>weren't important or that they didn't notice them. I guess most people
>look at prints in a different way to me. They probably look at the
>whole picture whereas I tend to study it closely and look for faults.
>Maybe I'm too much of a perfectionist.
When I look at a print, I do both - first whole picture, then closely.
The close examination is to see how the technology has worked, where
it needs improving, but bottom line is whether the whole picture
works.
>
>> I agree with Michael Reichmann when he said in his review of the D30 :
>>
>> "At the beginning of this review I had made the controversial
>> statement that this camera is capable of producing prints that in
>> sizes up to about 11 X 14 are the equal of those than can be produced
>> by a 35mm camera on fine grained transparency film scanned with a
>> high-end scanner.
>
>He later claimed that the 1Ds produces prints that are equal to medium
>format in quality. I believe he made his comparison with 6x7cm. So
>let's look at some numbers.
>
>The width of a 1Ds image is 4064 pixels. The width of a 6x7cm slide is
>66mm (I think). If we divide the former by the latter, the result works
>out at 62 pixels per millimetre (ppm).
>
>If we do the same calculation with the D30's pixel width of 2160,
>dividing it by 36mm (35mm film), we get a result of 60ppm, which
>effectively implies the same relationship between the D30 and 35mm as
>the 1Ds with medium format.
>
>> When the D30 first arrived I was very eager to do such a comparison.
>> After countless tests over several weeks, (some detailed on my web
>> site, others not) I have concluded that the D30 when shooting at IS0
>> 100 actually exceeds Provia 100F scanned on an Imacon FlexTight (a
>> $10,000 desktop scanner) on 8X10 prints from an Epson 870/1270 or
>> 2000P. When Genuine Fractals is used prints up to 13X19 can be made
>> that are arguably the equal of those from film made to that size.
>
>What resolution is the FlexTight scanner?
Don't know, but if it costs $10,000, I guess it will be quite high.
>
>> When I first made this statement on my web site in late October 2000,
>> it raised a storm of controversy. Almost 20,000 people visited that
>> page within the first week and I was inundated with emails, both pro
>> and con. Since then though, as more and more people have purchased
>> D30's and done their own tests, this evaluation has been echoed by an
>> increasing number of professional photographers. Even skeptics who
>> have requested prints have almost all agreed, sometimes reluctantly,
>> that the quality difference is awfully close."
>
>I know from my own tests that the differences between film and digital
>are not as simple as comparing pixel resolution from a scanner and a
>camera, it's a lot more complex than that, and whilst I still find the
>claims of yourself and Michael Reichmann to be hard to believe, I'm not
>going to argue that film is better simply on the basis of pixels.
>Whilst I'm still skeptical, I'm keeping an open mind about this. I
>respect the opinions of yourself and Mr Reichmann, and Mark Baigent has
>bought a 1Ds and confirmed these assertions also, choosing not to use
>medium format anymore as a result. He's sent me a few full size images
>from the 1Ds which are most impressive, but of course I can't make a
>valid print comparison since I have no equivalent film images to test
>them against.
>
>The bottom line is that I won't really believe it until I see it with my
>own eyes, and I'm quite prepared to believe it if it turns out to be
>true. So far I can only base my assumptions on my own tests.
The best approach!
>
>The one proper test that I've done compared a G3 image (4MP, 2272 pixels
>wide) with a film image scanned on a Minolta scanner (2438dpi, roughly
>3300 pixels wide). Without going into all the details I interpolated
>with GF and without, experimented with different sharpening settings and
>made numerous prints at different sizes and enlargements, even enlarging
>one section of the pictures to A1 equivalent.
>
>After careful study the differences were clear to see. The film image
>resolved more textural detail (grass, wood etc.) but was more grainy.
>The digital image was much "cleaner" and had sharper edges, but did not
>resolve fine textural detail so well (grass was a green blur whereas
>with film the blades of grass could be seen).
>
>My conclusion was that the film definitely had more resolution than the
>digital, but that the digital was better in some respects, i.e. cleaner
>and sharper. The reason it was sharper was because I sharpened it more
>than the film image. This may seem unfair, but as a real world test I
>wanted to get the best out of each image and I found that the clean
>digital image allowed more sharpening than the grainy film image. An
>equivalent amount of sharpening on the film image produced unacceptable
>grain and even when adjusting the threshold setting I couldn't sharpen
>the film image to a comparable degree without ruining the image. So
>based on this test alone I'm still in no doubt that film has more
>resolution than a 4MP digital image, but I now know that resolution
>isn't everything.
I agree that film has more resolution than my D30 images, but then I
have printed B&W photos (on PanF) on 20x16 paper, so I know what
results are achievable with 35mm film. I would consider few of my
images suitable to be printed at that size. However, I would stand by
my statement that I have printed many D30 images on A3 which I and
others consider very acceptable.
>
>I showed the comparative prints to a number of people and some preferred
>the film and others preferred the digital. It may be very pertinent to
>note that all those who preferred the film were themselves photographers
>(of the film variety) while all those who preferred the digital were
>non-photographers. This may be due to photographers having
>preconceptions about what they expect to see in a print. Presumable the
>grain didn't bother them because they accept that as being unavoidable,
>and they probably placed more importance on the textural detail than the
>sharp edges.
Very interesting point, and I can see the truth in it. Friends and
relatives who look at my pictures are rarely interested when I point
out limitations (a better word, I think, than faults!) in them that
are obvious to me as a photographer.
>
>Of course, this was not a definitive test. Although the G3 is a very
>good digital compact, it does not have a professional sized sensor, so
>your D30 probably produces much higher quality pixels, and even though
>yours is only a 3.3MP sensor, due to the difference in aspect ratio, the
>width of your pictures is almost as wide as my G3's - 2160 compared to
>2272. Compared to 35mm film the G3 rates as 63 pixels per millimetre.
>
>Also of course, I wasn't using a top quality scanner. Although the
>Minolta is an excellent scanner for the price, it can't compare to my
>new 4000dpi Nikon scanner, which reviews have claimed produces scans
>that are almost as good as a drum scanner.
>
>When I get the 300D I will be doing similar comparisons between that and
>film scanned with the Nikon. That will be a far more "professional"
>comparison. However, in order to make such a comparison as fair as
>possible, exactly the same lens should be used, at exactly the same
>settings. This won't be possible immediately, but will be once I get a
>Canon film body it will. But even then, there's still the 1.6x
>multiplication factor to be taken into account.
I look forward to hearing the results - my money would be on the 300D
totally displacing your 35mm film camera in short order!
>
>>> My new Nikon scanner produces 20MP scans that are perfect for 18" x
>>> 12" prints at 300dpi with no interpolation. Digital images are
>>> still a long way off that resolution wise.
>>
>> Resolution is not what it was when we compared negative or slide
>> images. Then we were concerned with the make of film, the variables in
>> the chemical processing used, and most of all, the lens used to form
>> the image - after eliminating all the other ways in which the
>> resolution of the image can be degraded (camera-shake, etc).
>>
>> A digital image from a scanner is still affected by all the above,
>> plus the technical properties of the scanner,
>
>Of course, which is why a top quality scanner is vital. But even a top
>quality film scan is still a second-generation copy, which may be very
>slightly softer than the original.
>
>The significant thing about film scanners is that even though the
>scanner may produce a lot of pixels, that doesn't necessarily mean that
>there's that much detail in the original image. It's nice to boast
>about 20MP scans, but there's not 20MP of sharpness in there. From
>tests I've read about on the net it seems to be agreed that using the
>very best lenses in laboratory conditions, film can contain a bit more
>than 4000dpi worth of detail, perhaps as much as 5000dpi or so
>(apparently scanning at 8000dpi has shown a difference). However in the
>real world, using less than perfect lenses in real life situations, film
>rarely contains as much as 4000dpi of detail.
Agree entirely.
>
>How much detail there really is in film I can't say with any certainty,
>and it obviously varies with the lens and film used, and whether it was
>taken hand held and so on. There can be considerable variation in
>sharpness even with a single lens. The scanner reviewers do seem to
>agree that a 4000dpi scanner pulls out more detail than a more typical
>2800dpi scanner, and it certainly pulls out more than my 2438dpi scanner
>did, so at a rough guess, I'd say that a typical photograph might
>contain somewhere between 3000 and 3500dpi of detail, perhaps 3200dpi as
>an average?
>
>You also have to consider that much of this extra detail may simply be
>grain. Using NeatImage to remove film grain I've found in extreme cases
>that it makes a film image look much softer (and smoother - more like a
>digital image), yet close inspection seems to indicate that very little
>actual detail has been removed - so I find myself wondering if much of
>the textural detail we see in film photographs is nothing more than
>grain masquerading as detail.
>
>Anyway, the bottom line is that digital images are undoubtedly sharper
>at 1:1 magnification than film scans are. Focus Magic tries to detect
>the amount of blurring (measured as a pixel radius) and I've found that
>most of my digital images have a blur radius of 1 pixel, whereas my film
>scans (Minolta scanner) typically had a blur radius of 3 pixels (haven't
>done any proper tests with the Nikon scanner yet).
Yes, that's what I find.
>
>I wouldn't take these numbers too literally, I don't think that the
>digital images are exactly three times sharper than the film scans, but
>they are undoubtedly sharper, and when you take that into account, the
>20MP film scans obviously don't contain that much real resolution. If a
>20MP scan were reduced by three that would produce an image 6.7MP in
>size, which is very close to the 6.3MP images that the 300D and 10D
>provide. For this reason I suspect that the resolution of those cameras
>will be very close to the "real" resolution of my film shots, although I
>won't arrive at a definite conclusion until I do the tests and make
>comparative prints.
>
>It may not be a coincidence that when Kodak established their PhotoCD
>format, they decided on a maximum resolution of 3072 x 2048, which is
>6.3MP, exactly the same as the current 6MP DSLRs. Another reason to
>suspect that this represents the "real" resolution of film, under ideal
>conditions of course.
>
>By your reasoning though, and those of others, 6MP would be greater than
>the resolution of film. In fact if we reverse the formula and divide
>the 3072 pixel width of a 6MP image by the 62ppm resolution of the 1Ds,
>that would indicate that a 6MP image would be equivalent to a film image
>50mm wide, which is almost as wide as 6x6cm MF (actual width 56mm).
>
>At the moment I'm more inclined to believe that 6MP is equivalent to
>35mm, especially after doing my G3 tests, but perhaps the higher quality
>pixels of a DSLR will make the difference? If I am right about 6MP,
>that would indicate a "resolution" of 85ppm.
I think you are probably right, which is why I will upgrade to a 10D
eventually. Don't forget that I was not claiming that my D30 images
are the equivalent of film, only that they produce very acceptable
prints up to A3+.
I meant, of course, that the only way to *usefully* compare the
performance of scanned film and digital camera is to compare the
printed output. After all, what are we going to do with the images we
produce? If we are going to put them on the web or otherwise view them
on monitors, there is no need for high resolution. If not, we are
going to print them, and then it is the print that matters. Any
difference in resolution that can *only* be seen by blowing up small
bits of images and comparing them on-screen is irrelevant.
>
>Only if the images are intended for printing are prints the only valid
>way of comparing them, in which case I agree completely.
But what else are they for?
> I've been
>quite horrified to find that over-sharpening an image so that it looks
>terrible onscreen produces a better looking print than one which looks
>great onscreen (but produces a softer print).
Yes, I've noticed that.
I'm looking forward to your getting the 300D, but probably not as much
as you are!
mark henries
That would be a bit cheesy.
Sorry couldn't resist.
Mark
ste mc ©
"Pat Bennett" <p...@cheshirewildlifeNOSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4006bb11...@usenet.force9.net...
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:42:13 -0000, "ste mc ©" <s...@sm9.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> <snip>
> >Seeing that this camera has 8 megapixels, I'd hope that it persuades
other
> >manufacturers to also push up their megapixels too; though if you look at
> >figure 2 on the link above, it shows that it's not just the megapixels
that
> >count, it's the size of the sensor that makes the difference.
> >
> >Ste
>
> What do you want 8MP for, Ste? My D30 produces very acceptable A3+
> prints from just 3.1 MP (acceptable enough for people to shell out
> very acceptable amounts of cash). The main reasons why I intend to
> upgrade to the 10D eventually are :
I don't want 8MP, I want 20MP! :-) But seriously, I'd want it in order to
produce pin sharp A3+ prints, rather than just 'very good' A3+ prints or
'acceptable prints,' if you know what I mean.
> (1) I sometimes need to crop action wildlife pics, so I need some
> extra pixels to throw away.
Yes, that's another one, as it would give me more freedom with cropping,
rather than now, when i hardly ever crop before printing as I know that I
can't afford to lose too many pixels.
> (2) There is a nine frame buffer in the 10D, which means that I will
> rarely be waiting for the buffer to clear while the shot of a lifetime
> is happening in front of me
I'm not too bothered about this, but of course, if it comes with the camera,
then I'll take it!
> There is a downside to having extra pixels. At the moment, my hard
> discs, removeable hard disc for backup, my camera CF cards, my
> computer's processing speed, my computer's memory, and half a dozen
> other things which I probably can't think of just now, are all geared
> to my D30's 3.1MP and the file sizes (raw, jpg and tiff) that it
> produces.
What computer do you have Pat? Mine is nearly 3 years old now, an Athlon
1000Ghz processor with 1024MB of RAM, and two 80GB Hard Drives. It's not
the fastest, but it does the job quite well. I'm not really looking to
upgrade any time soon either, and my G5 is producing 5MP images, so could
more than handle 6MP images that the 10D/300D produce. I find that you know
when it's time to upgrade your computer, because everything starts to stall.
I bought extra memory for mine, and some bigger hard drives too.
> When I buy a 10D, or its successor, I shall have a lot of bother and
> expense upgrading the above to cope with the larger file sizes.
> Thereafter, however, I will have no need for more pixels, and any
> further cameras I buy will have to have very considerable improvements
> in other areas.
The 10D came out last February, so you never know, they might bring out a
replacement soon?
> Pat
Ste
ste mc ©
> ste mc Š wrote:
>
> > Has he bought your camera then? ;-)
>
> Nope, he bought one after seeing how good mine was. Although he uses
> expensive Nikons with big telephoto lenses for all his serious stuff, he
> finds the G3 great for reportage shots (he takes a lot of photos of
> local incidents and gets quite a few of them in the local paper).
Keep your ears glued to the local radio, you might be able to take some
reportage shots yourself, cha-ching! ;-)
> > Yes, the water looks like it's made of oil or something, very nice.
>
> Well that's the slow shutter speed. I think it was 4 seconds, it was
> very dark that day.
Yes, and it looks really nice like that.
> > And the grasses on the rocks look so sharp,
>
> Focus Magic.
>
> > and very saturated in colour
>
> Well I must admit to boosting the saturation a bit in Photoshop, it was
> a very dull day.
Ok, if it was a dull they, we'll let you off with that then! ;-)
> > - you sure this wasn't Velvia? :-)
>
> Well it could have been! Velvia may well have had that effect on the
> colours, one of the reasons I always loved shooting with it before I
> started doing digital processing, where the saturation can easily be
> altered later instead.
>
> I did also take the photo with my "proper" camera using Astia, but it
> will be a while before those shots are developed (it's a new roll, and I
> usually take no more than a handful of shots on film each time I go out
> these days - I'm very sparing with it now). It will be very interesting
> to see how Astia has recorded the scene, and how the 4000dpi processed
> scan will look in comparison.
It will definitely be interesting to hear how the two images compare.
> >> Now this one was an interesting experiment, it's a blended exposure.
>
> > Excellent idea! And it looks good too. I can't put my finger on it,
> > but when I look at this photo, I can hear the waterfall making a
> > roaring sound, if you know what I mean.
>
> Oh yes!
>
> > I guess it conveys the
> > feeling og movement more than either photo would on its own. I'll
> > try some of these myself, just find me a local waterfall! :-)
>
> You seem to have a distinct lack of waterfalls up your way. You're not
> that far from North Wales are you? Why not take a trip along the A55 to
> Abergwyngregyn (between Bangor and Llanfairfechan) and take a stroll up
> to Aber Falls? One of the highest waterfalls in Wales and quite easy to
> get to, no serious walking gear required. Waterproofs and a pair of
> boots is all you need, plus a camera and a tripod of course.
Not too far from North Wales, but it's still out my way. I will keep this
in mind for the future though. The last time I went to Wales was exactly a
year ago, to Conwy Castle and Grych Castle in Abergele.
My main problem, and this applies to feeding birds in my garden and also
visiting new locations, is that I travel from Merseyside to Rotherham every
weekend to stay at my girlfriend's parents house. Therefore, I never get
the chance to visit places that are fairly local to my parental home in
Merseyside, ie, North Wales, Lake District; apart from on the odd days
holiday during the week. We should really find some nice waterfalls around
Rotherham, but after driving for 1 hour and 40 minutes EVERY Friday and
Sunday night for 2.5 years, driving again on the Satursday and Sunday
daytimes isn't something we can always be bothered doing. :-( Saying that
though, we've not been anywhere for a while, so I fancy getting back into
the photography mood again, pretty much like you've not taken a massive
amount since October. Also, we should be buying our own house this year, so
then we'll be living there 7 days a week, and can then have the time and
energy to do a bit more at the weekend.
> > Very nice, at first, I thought it was a tree on a mountain peak. But
> > it's a twig on a rock isn't it?
>
> Yep. Do you think it would look better in colour? (There wasn't much
> colour in it anyway.)
It looks fine, and if there wasn't much colour it in, then the black and
white effect might work better anyway?
> > You're such a poser Paul! :-)
>
> Actually I didn't even know he was taking the photo, I was too engrossed
> in what I was doing at the time.
Yeah right, I bet you stood there frozen for a minute whilst he took shots
from differenct angles! ;-)
> > Very interesting. I took a long exposure of water once, and I
> > noticed that I could see currents in the photo that weren't noticable
> > in real life.
>
> I took quite a few different shots of that scene, all with quite
> different results. Difficult to choose the best one. I'm not sure that
> was it. There was an extremely strong blue cast on those pictures, I
> had to do a lot of colour correction to get something that looked
> believable.
The shot looks fine, I'm just saying that it's interesting what long
exposures of water do, and you can see all sorts of patterns.
> Paul
Ste
Phil Cook
>>What resolution is the FlexTight scanner?
>
>Don't know, but if it costs $10,000, I guess it will be quite high.
IIRC it is 3200 dpi. I't's on the LL somewhere.
John Laird
You could always turn it into a b*tter thread.
I'll get me coat.
--
When all else fails... take a nap.
Mail john rather than nospam...
Gordon
>On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:56:25 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
><pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Pat Bennett wrote:
>>
Three hundred and something lines. :-(
<Thinks>
Must start killing on GT 200 again.......
--
Gordon
Paul Saunders
> I look forward to hearing the results
I'll keep you informed.
> - my money would be on the 300D
> totally displacing your 35mm film camera in short order!
I expect that to happen too. Even if it doesn't quite equal film in
resolution, provided it gives me decent quality A3+ prints, that will be
reason enough to stop taking the film camera. If nothing else I don't
like the hassle of carrying so many cameras around, so only having one
main camera will be a boon. The one advantage of continuing to use a
film camera would be for ultra-wide angle shots, but even if I buy a
15-30mm lens (which is my plan), I'd still need a Canon film body to put
it on. Alternatively I could use the mega-panoramic technique (vertical
shots stiched horizontally) to get the equivalent effect of such a wide
lens, thus negating the need to carry a film body. That just leaves the
true panoramic camera, which I don't plan to stop using anytime soon.
>> If I am right
>> about 6MP, that would indicate a "resolution" of 85ppm.
>
> I think you are probably right, which is why I will upgrade to a 10D
> eventually. Don't forget that I was not claiming that my D30 images
> are the equivalent of film, only that they produce very acceptable
> prints up to A3+.
I thought you said that you agreed with Michael Reichmann that "this
camera is capable of producing prints that in sizes up to about 11 X 14
are the equal of those than can be produced by a 35mm camera". But no
matter, I take your point.
> I'm looking forward to your getting the 300D, but probably not as much
> as you are!
I'm looking forward to the next camera Canon produces, I just hope they
release it before I splash out on a 300D! :-)
ste mc ©
| Pat Bennett wrote:
|
| > I look forward to hearing the results
|
| I'll keep you informed.
Add me to your mailing list too! :-)
I thought that the 300D was on order? Doesn't that mean that you've already
put a deposit on and are committed to buying it?
| Paul
Ste
Paul Saunders
> Must start killing on GT 200 again.......
Wassat? Racing shoot-em-up?
Paul Saunders
> I thought that the 300D was on order? Doesn't that mean that you've
> already put a deposit on and are committed to buying it?
No deposit. They know me very well in Jessops, and I know that they'd
have no trouble selling it to someone else if I choose not to purchase
it - there's a long waiting list for these cameras apparently.
They're quite happy to order stuff just to let you take a look at it,
with no commitment to purchase, unless it's a very special item (one
they'd be unlikely to sell otherwise). I remember I had to pay for my
yellow-blue polariser in advance - one seriously weird filter (one that
I've had very little use out of, I really should use it more - better
suited to really arty shots, especially when used in conjunction with a
normal polariser).
ste mc ©
| ste mc Š wrote:
|
| > I thought that the 300D was on order? Doesn't that mean that you've
| > already put a deposit on and are committed to buying it?
|
| No deposit. They know me very well in Jessops, and I know that they'd
| have no trouble selling it to someone else if I choose not to purchase
| it - there's a long waiting list for these cameras apparently.
Excellent, I hate it when you have to leave a deposit, then change your mind
about buying it. Not that this has happened much, but it's annoying all the
same.
| They're quite happy to order stuff just to let you take a look at it,
| with no commitment to purchase, unless it's a very special item (one
| they'd be unlikely to sell otherwise). I remember I had to pay for my
| yellow-blue polariser in advance - one seriously weird filter (one that
| I've had very little use out of, I really should use it more - better
| suited to really arty shots, especially when used in conjunction with a
| normal polariser).
That's a weird sounding polariser! I once made a special order through
Jessops, for a reversing ring for my G5. Trouble is, when it arrived, it
was a proper reversing ring for a film camera, even though I explained to
the guy exactly what I was wanting - basically, a adaptor ring with male
threads on both sides, so I can attach the 50mm lens in reverse for those
extreme macro shots, where a fly's face will fill the frame. Oh well, only
cost a few quid, and I got my money back.
| Paul
Ste
Paul Saunders
>> (he takes a lot of
>> photos of local incidents and gets quite a few of them in the local
>> paper).
>
> Keep your ears glued to the local radio, you might be able to take
> some reportage shots yourself, cha-ching! ;-)
I'd be better off tapping Carl's phone! He's an ex-policeman and thus
has contacts in the police force. It's they who give him all his leads,
so he usually reaches an incident before the local reporters get there,
and they let him through to take shots that other photographers probably
wouldn't be allowed to. He's tried phoning me up one or twice and
giving me a few leads, but to be honest, I'm really not interested in
that sort of thing.
> Ok, if it was a dull they, we'll let you off with that then! ;-)
Well arguably it isn't strictly realistic, but then arguably neither is
Velvia. So if one is allowable, why not the other? I think it's called
artistic licence. I try not to overdo it though.
> Not too far from North Wales, but it's still out my way. I will keep
> this in mind for the future though. The last time I went to Wales
> was exactly a year ago, to Conwy Castle and Grych Castle in Abergele.
Just up the road from there.
> My main problem, and this applies to feeding birds in my garden and
> also visiting new locations, is that I travel from Merseyside to
> Rotherham every weekend
I can see that would be a problem. I might even appreciate the extent
of the problem more if I actually knew where Rotherham was! Don't tell
me, it's one of those places "oop north" isn't it?
>> Actually I didn't even know he was taking the photo, I was too
>> engrossed in what I was doing at the time.
>
> Yeah right, I bet you stood there frozen for a minute whilst he took
> shots from differenct angles! ;-)
Best way to take photos of someone is when their busy doing something.
I knew he was taking photos of me, but he took quite a few and I didn't
know exactly when he was taking them. Since his idea was to take shots
of me "at work" there was no posing required. I just did what I
normally do and left him to it.
Here's a tip. If you want to take candid photos of people, just keep
pointing the camera at them. At first they're self concious, but if you
keep doing it, it becomes a bore after a while and they stop noticing.
That's when you start getting the good shots. Have you noticed how
famous people don't seem to notice all the cameras going off around
them? They get so used to it they take no notice after a while. That's
what it was like on the first expedition, there were so many photos
taken in the pub on the first night you'd think there was never going to
be another one!
W. D. Grey
<urw...@p-t-cook.freeserveSPAMTRAP.co.uk> writes
>Even a 6Mpix 10D is a meaty beast, but I think i could
>live with that.
Go on - force yourself Phil :-)
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk
Martin Richardson
<Gor...@g3snx.demon.co.uk> writes
Is that domestic or wild (feral) goats?
--
Martin Richardson
216/284 Munros (34/34 'Furths')
32/89 Donalds 397/1552 Marilyns 439/439 Nuttalls
Paul Saunders
>> yellow-blue polariser
> That's a weird sounding polariser!
Well it's your lucky day Ste, because I just happen to have a few sample
shots conveniently to hand that I've just dumped onto my website for you
(and others?) to take a look at.
Please note that no adjustments have been made to these images
whatsoever (other than some basic sharpening when converting to the
smaller file sizes). That means no brightness, contrast or colour
adjustments which would affect the effect of the filter. These images
look exactly as they did straight out of the camera.
Also note that these images have not been chosen to show off the filter
to its best effect. In fact they don't seem particularly appropriate,
it would be better used on quite different images. These images just
show the effect of the filter, not how it should be used. I was just
experimenting with it having recently bought it.
The original scene unfiltered. A cold January day somewhere in the
Swansea valley.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ybpol/0301110001.JPG
Almost the same scene with the filter set to maximum blue. This is
equivalent to the normal polarised setting. Like a normal polariser it
makes the sky a darker blue, but a more pure blue, different to the more
natural blue of a conventional polariser. Notice too the golden or
yellowish hue on the land, similar to late afternoon sunshine when the
sun is setting.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ybpol/0301110007.JPG
The same scene with the filter set to maximum yellow. This is
equivalent to a normal polariser in the non-polarised position. The
land has much the same yellow cast, but the sky has turned yellow too,
or even a light pink on the left hand side, as in the previous picture.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ybpol/0301110008.JPG
As I said, not the best examples of how this filter should be used. The
"golden" glow (other companies make the same filter but call it a
"gold-blue" polariser) can simulate late afternoon sunlight, and the
blue sky is somewhat surreal. Remember that the filter can be used in
any position between these two extremes so there's a constant variation
between the two. The best effect may be somewhere in between.
On a normal shot like this I think it just looks silly, but I've seen
examples where it's been used for close-ups of leaves floating on a
lake, and the different renditions have been very interesting - quite
arty in fact. Remember that this is a polariser, so it doesn't just
change colours, it changes the colours of polarised light, so it doesn't
do much on a cloudy day, and you can't create an effect like this in
Photoshop. You need sunshine, reflections, blue sky, water and so on.
I don't really know how to get the best out of this filter, but the
examples I saw were good enough to persuade me to buy one. I've yet to
produce any worthwhile photos with it though. Maybe it would help if I
actually bothered to try! (I haven't bothered to take it out with me
and experiment with it properly.)
When used in conjunction with a normal polariser it creates a total blue
or yellow cast over the image, rather like monochrome blue or monochrome
yellow, i.e. black and white photographs in blue or yellow, with the
added curiousity of being polarised, not to mention very dark, so don't
forget the tripod. Recommended if you want to experiment with
weirdness. You can get other polarisers like this too, such as red-blue
and green-purple I think.
John Laird
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I now regularly
>interpolate my 4MP pics just to make an A4 print, and I'm not
>particularly happy about A3+ prints from a 4MP image, even interpolated
>with Genuine Fractals. They look okay from a distance, but I'm very
>fussy about these things and they aren't all that sharp close up.
I'm curious if you photography buffs ever look at real art in galleries. I
mean, do you wander right up to the canvas and inspect every brush stroke
for visibility and/or flaws ?
Is it not the totality of the image that matters ?
--
Another brilyunt mind diztroyed by publik edukashn.
Paul Saunders
> I'm curious if you photography buffs ever look at real art in
> galleries.
Yeah, it was crap. How do I do a half smiley?
> I mean, do you wander right up to the canvas and inspect
> every brush stroke for visibility and/or flaws ?
Didn't even have to look closely, the flaws were obvious from a long way
off. But art is quite a different thing to photography.
> Is it not the totality of the image that matters ?
In art certainly. With photography a certain technical quality is
expected too. It's the nature of the medium. In landscapes fine
details tend to be a very important factor.
Gordon
>Gordon wrote:
>
>> Must start killing on GT 200 again.......
>
>Wassat? Racing shoot-em-up?
>
--
Gordon
Phil Cook
>John Laird wrote:
>
>> I'm curious if you photography buffs ever look at real art in
>> galleries.
>
>Yeah, it was crap. How do I do a half smiley?
:-| is halfway between :-) and :-(
Pat Bennett
<mar...@thequiff.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <GjGpjVA1...@g3snx.demon.co.uk>, Gordon
><Gor...@g3snx.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Paul Saunders <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
>>>Pat Bennett wrote:
>>>
>>>> Three horizontal shots vertically.
>>>
>>>> Yes, very small overlap, as a large overlap is unneccessary when
>>>> stitching by hand in Photoshop.
>>>
>>>I see. Thanks for the clarification.
>>>
>>Oh no! Not another butter thread!
>
>Is that domestic or wild (feral) goats?
Didn't you snip a line too far, Martin?
Pat Bennett
<nos...@laird-towers.org.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:32:43 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
><pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I now regularly
>>interpolate my 4MP pics just to make an A4 print, and I'm not
>>particularly happy about A3+ prints from a 4MP image, even interpolated
>>with Genuine Fractals. They look okay from a distance, but I'm very
>>fussy about these things and they aren't all that sharp close up.
>
>I'm curious if you photography buffs ever look at real art in galleries. I
>mean, do you wander right up to the canvas and inspect every brush stroke
>for visibility and/or flaws ?
>
>Is it not the totality of the image that matters ?
Absolutely. My point to Paul.
However, some art is designed such that the totality grabs your
attention, then invites a more detailed attention. Maybe equivalent to
Paul's insistence on the details in landscapes being important.
To address your point more directly, a striking work of art may invite
close inspection from those who want to know how the result is
achieved, either because they want to improve their own technique or
because they just want to know. Similarly, photographers will look
closely at prints for the same reasons - after reaching a judgement on
the "totality of the image", of course!
Paul Saunders
>> Yeah, it was crap. How do I do a half smiley?
>
> :-| is halfway between :-) and :-(
Not really what I meant. I meant that some art is crap and some isn't.
So I was only half joking when I said that.
Paul Saunders
>> Is it not the totality of the image that matters ?
>
> Absolutely. My point to Paul.
>
> However, some art is designed such that the totality grabs your
> attention, then invites a more detailed attention. Maybe equivalent to
> Paul's insistence on the details in landscapes being important.
Ah, now that suddenly makes sense. My favourite art is the highly
detailed stuff, not the impressionist stuff.
> To address your point more directly, a striking work of art may invite
> close inspection from those who want to know how the result is
> achieved, either because they want to improve their own technique or
> because they just want to know. Similarly, photographers will look
> closely at prints for the same reasons - after reaching a judgement on
> the "totality of the image", of course!
True. From a purely technical point of view it's not nice to look
closely and see jpeg or sharpening artefacts, or even grain! Why do you
think medium format has always been so popular with landscape
photographers.
Technical stuff aside, I like to be able to see more when I look more
closely. What first brought this to mind was a panorama I printed (a
crop from a medium format shot) which showed Swansea from across the
bay. With all the tiny little houses in the picture it just begs you to
look more closely at it, but when you do the houses are just blurs. Not
impressive (scanner's fault, the detail is there in the original image).
A cityscape is just the kind of photo that can look impressive from a
distance, but people who live there like to look more closely to see if
they can see the house they live in.
Arguably such detail is less important for landscapes, but I like to be
able to see the blades of grass, the leaves on the trees, the texture in
the rocks and so on. I once read something about the reason medium
format is so good for landscapes is that it captures more detail than
you can see. It was explained that in real life there's always more
detail than we can see, no matter how closely you look at something
there's always more detail, so nothing ever looks blurry in real life.
A good medium format print is like that. From a distance the image
looks great, even though you can't see all the detail. The point is
that because there's more detail than you can see, the image has a
quality which is similar to real life, whereas prints that are viewed on
the "sharpness" limit, don't have that quality.
Yesterday I adjusted the dpi (instead of interpolating) on those shots
that Mark Baigent sent me (from the 1Ds) so that they would fill an A3+
sheet (217dpi), sharpened them a little with Focus Magic (radius 2,
100%) and then printed out a couple of small cropped areas. At close
examination they are pin sharp, with not the slightest hint of grain.
Full A3+ prints would be most impressive.
W. D. Grey
<nos...@laird-towers.org.uk> writes
>Is it not the totality of the image that matters ?
Paul Rooney
<Bi...@graigroad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <f70h001kd9if06i31...@4ax.com>, John Laird
><nos...@laird-towers.org.uk> writes
>>Is it not the totality of the image that matters ?
>Yes - definitely YES.
Agreed. That's why I don't use poles.
--
Paul
My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):
http://paulrooney.netfirms.com
Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at:
http://www.justgiving.com/london2004
ste mc ©
> ste mc Š wrote:
>
> >> yellow-blue polariser
>
> > That's a weird sounding polariser!
>
> Well it's your lucky day Ste, because I just happen to have a few sample
> shots conveniently to hand that I've just dumped onto my website for you
> (and others?) to take a look at.
Thanks Paul. My 'posts to reply to' list on this and other groups are
mounting up, but I'll get there in the end. I replied to one of yours from
4 months ago yesterday! :-)
> Please note that no adjustments have been made to these images
> whatsoever (other than some basic sharpening when converting to the
> smaller file sizes). That means no brightness, contrast or colour
> adjustments which would affect the effect of the filter. These images
> look exactly as they did straight out of the camera.
>
> Also note that these images have not been chosen to show off the filter
> to its best effect. In fact they don't seem particularly appropriate,
> it would be better used on quite different images. These images just
> show the effect of the filter, not how it should be used. I was just
> experimenting with it having recently bought it.
>
> The original scene unfiltered. A cold January day somewhere in the
> Swansea valley.
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ybpol/0301110001.JPG
It's a nice enough scene for a test. I can't see any wild campers though!
:-)
> Almost the same scene with the filter set to maximum blue. This is
> equivalent to the normal polarised setting. Like a normal polariser it
> makes the sky a darker blue, but a more pure blue, different to the more
> natural blue of a conventional polariser. Notice too the golden or
> yellowish hue on the land, similar to late afternoon sunshine when the
> sun is setting.
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ybpol/0301110007.JPG
Yes, the main difference that I noticed was the golden colour of the land.
It's like using a polariser (for the blue sky) and a warm filter (for the
land) in one go. Compared to the original, it has definitely got
potential - no longer will you have to wait around for that golden light!
;-)
> The same scene with the filter set to maximum yellow. This is
> equivalent to a normal polariser in the non-polarised position. The
> land has much the same yellow cast, but the sky has turned yellow too,
> or even a light pink on the left hand side, as in the previous picture.
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/ybpol/0301110008.JPG
Whoa, the sky has turned yellow hasn't it! That looks so strange!
> As I said, not the best examples of how this filter should be used. The
> "golden" glow (other companies make the same filter but call it a
> "gold-blue" polariser) can simulate late afternoon sunlight, and the
> blue sky is somewhat surreal. Remember that the filter can be used in
> any position between these two extremes so there's a constant variation
> between the two. The best effect may be somewhere in between.
>
> On a normal shot like this I think it just looks silly, but I've seen
> examples where it's been used for close-ups of leaves floating on a
> lake, and the different renditions have been very interesting - quite
> arty in fact. Remember that this is a polariser, so it doesn't just
> change colours, it changes the colours of polarised light, so it doesn't
> do much on a cloudy day, and you can't create an effect like this in
> Photoshop. You need sunshine, reflections, blue sky, water and so on.
If it's doing something that you can't do it Photoshop, then it's worth
having. I sometimes get into the line of thinking that I can adjust
anything I want later in Photoshop, but some things just have to be done at
the scene, because of the way they work.
> I don't really know how to get the best out of this filter, but the
> examples I saw were good enough to persuade me to buy one. I've yet to
> produce any worthwhile photos with it though. Maybe it would help if I
> actually bothered to try! (I haven't bothered to take it out with me
> and experiment with it properly.)
Be sure to post up any other examples you get! If you're not sure how to
get the best out of it, just take it everywhere you go and keep using it
until you find the best type of scene.
> When used in conjunction with a normal polariser it creates a total blue
> or yellow cast over the image, rather like monochrome blue or monochrome
> yellow, i.e. black and white photographs in blue or yellow, with the
> added curiousity of being polarised, not to mention very dark, so don't
> forget the tripod. Recommended if you want to experiment with
> weirdness. You can get other polarisers like this too, such as red-blue
> and green-purple I think.
When I think of the red-blue ones, I immediately think of wild sunsets.
That would be interesting - perhaps they're what Ansel Adams uses? ;-)
> Paul
Ste
ste mc ©
> ste mc Š wrote:
>
> >> (he takes a lot of
> >> photos of local incidents and gets quite a few of them in the local
> >> paper).
> >
> > Keep your ears glued to the local radio, you might be able to take
> > some reportage shots yourself, cha-ching! ;-)
>
> I'd be better off tapping Carl's phone! He's an ex-policeman and thus
> has contacts in the police force. It's they who give him all his leads,
> so he usually reaches an incident before the local reporters get there,
> and they let him through to take shots that other photographers probably
> wouldn't be allowed to. He's tried phoning me up one or twice and
> giving me a few leads, but to be honest, I'm really not interested in
> that sort of thing.
Carl is definitely the man to know in Swansea isn't he! ;-) I bet the local
reporters love him! :-D
> > Ok, if it was a dull they, we'll let you off with that then! ;-)
>
> Well arguably it isn't strictly realistic, but then arguably neither is
> Velvia. So if one is allowable, why not the other? I think it's called
> artistic licence. I try not to overdo it though.
Yes, of course.
> > Not too far from North Wales, but it's still out my way. I will keep
> > this in mind for the future though. The last time I went to Wales
> > was exactly a year ago, to Conwy Castle and Grych Castle in Abergele.
>
> Just up the road from there.
Yes, down the A55 you mentioned.
> > My main problem, and this applies to feeding birds in my garden and
> > also visiting new locations, is that I travel from Merseyside to
> > Rotherham every weekend
>
> I can see that would be a problem. I might even appreciate the extent
> of the problem more if I actually knew where Rotherham was! Don't tell
> me, it's one of those places "oop north" isn't it?
Compared to Swansea, yes! :-) It's right next door to Sheffield - imagine
going from Liverpool to Manchester, then keep going as far again in the same
direction and you're there.
> >> Actually I didn't even know he was taking the photo, I was too
> >> engrossed in what I was doing at the time.
> >
> > Yeah right, I bet you stood there frozen for a minute whilst he took
> > shots from differenct angles! ;-)
>
> Best way to take photos of someone is when their busy doing something.
> I knew he was taking photos of me, but he took quite a few and I didn't
> know exactly when he was taking them. Since his idea was to take shots
> of me "at work" there was no posing required. I just did what I
> normally do and left him to it.
Did you ever watch the office? I never, but I've seen certain clips of it
on other programs. There was this hilarious clip where they were taking
photos of David Brent, and every time the camera went back on him, he was in
a different post - laying on his desk, feet up, leaning back 'casually'
etc... :-) I guess that this is an example of *trying* to look natural,
when in actual fact, it looks anything but natural.
> Here's a tip. If you want to take candid photos of people, just keep
> pointing the camera at them. At first they're self concious, but if you
> keep doing it, it becomes a bore after a while and they stop noticing.
> That's when you start getting the good shots. Have you noticed how
> famous people don't seem to notice all the cameras going off around
> them? They get so used to it they take no notice after a while. That's
> what it was like on the first expedition, there were so many photos
> taken in the pub on the first night you'd think there was never going to
> be another one!
Wait there a second, you mean to say that I'm getting tips at taking photos
of people, from Paul Saunders, the landscape photographer?!?! :-) You've
got to be joking... :-) (just kidding!!!)
Seriously though, I do know what you mean about taking photos of people, and
they soon get used to it. The trick is, don't make a big deal out of taking
the photos. Otherwise, before you know it, the person will be blushing and
hiding their face, and everyone in the room will be laughing and shouting
'say cheese!!!' :-D I haven't taken that many photos of people, apart from
my family every now and again. I'm a bit of a shy person so feel
embarressed standing in crowds and taking photos. I remember taking photos
of a cricket match in Rotherham, and as I didn't want to look as though I
was snapping the game, I got my girlfriend to stand in front of the pitch,
and I zoomed over her shoulder and took photos of the match that way! (I'm
just a weirdo really...) :-)
> Paul
Ste
ste mc ©
"Pat Bennett" <p...@cheshirewildlifeNOSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40081e55...@usenet.force9.net...
<snip>
> >Upgrades like these are a fact of life.
>
> Agreed - I am reconciled to this additional expense when I upgrade my
> camera. I was just pointing out to Ste the consequences of more
> megapixels.
Hopefully, the consequences are larger prints that are pin sharp, even when
viewed up close!
<snip>
> Pat
Ste
ste mc ©
"John Laird" <nos...@laird-towers.org.uk> wrote in message
news:f70h001kd9if06i31...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:32:43 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
> <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I now regularly
> >interpolate my 4MP pics just to make an A4 print, and I'm not
> >particularly happy about A3+ prints from a 4MP image, even interpolated
> >with Genuine Fractals. They look okay from a distance, but I'm very
> >fussy about these things and they aren't all that sharp close up.
>
> I'm curious if you photography buffs ever look at real art in galleries.
Not sure if I'm included in the photography buff category, but I'll reply
anyway, if the real photographers out there don't mind! :-)
I'm not really into art, especially when it comes to modern art or things
like that, or these ridiculous 'pieces' that win the Turner prize etc. The
only art I like is when the painting looks so good that it's almost like a
photo, this must take some skill. Anything else, such as squiggles or
patterns, just don't do it for me, it's all just arty-farty.
> I
> mean, do you wander right up to the canvas and inspect every brush stroke
> for visibility and/or flaws ?
I wouldn't look for flaws in a painting, and the brush strokes are expected
as that's the medium used to create the painting in. When it comes to
photos though, they're supposed to record reality and what the eyes see, so
when you can see grain or pixels, I see it as a slight flaw, as that's not
what the eyes see.
> Is it not the totality of the image that matters ?
Yes, it is, but I like to have a perfectly pin-sharp print too, even when
viewed from an inch away. The technology and prices will be there soon...
:-)
Ste
John Laird
>"John Laird" <nos...@laird-towers.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:f70h001kd9if06i31...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I
>> mean, do you wander right up to the canvas and inspect every brush stroke
>> for visibility and/or flaws ?
>
>I wouldn't look for flaws in a painting, and the brush strokes are expected
>as that's the medium used to create the painting in. When it comes to
>photos though, they're supposed to record reality and what the eyes see, so
>when you can see grain or pixels, I see it as a slight flaw, as that's not
>what the eyes see.
You'll forgive me laughing a little at the "record reality" suggestion :-)
Some photographs will be matters "of record" but others are surely more in
the artistic camp ? Very often what might be considered a most striking
image is quite a long way from what the eye saw at the instant of exposure,
by the time it has been cropped, masked, selectively over/under-exposed,
pushed 3 stops, etc etc. (Much of which can apply in the digital domain
too, not to mention the additional enhancements possible there.)
But then, craftsmen are often over-sensitive to perceived flaws in their
work that are only visible to other craftsmen.
--
Every time I have all the answers, they change questions!
Phil Cook
>
>"John Laird" <nos...@laird-towers.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:f70h001kd9if06i31...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:32:43 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
>> <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > I now regularly
>> >interpolate my 4MP pics just to make an A4 print, and I'm not
>> >particularly happy about A3+ prints from a 4MP image, even interpolated
>> >with Genuine Fractals. They look okay from a distance, but I'm very
>> >fussy about these things and they aren't all that sharp close up.
>>
>> I'm curious if you photography buffs ever look at real art in galleries.
>
>Not sure if I'm included in the photography buff category, but I'll reply
>anyway, if the real photographers out there don't mind! :-)
>
>I'm not really into art, especially when it comes to modern art or things
>like that, or these ridiculous 'pieces' that win the Turner prize etc. The
>only art I like is when the painting looks so good that it's almost like a
>photo, this must take some skill. Anything else, such as squiggles or
>patterns, just don't do it for me, it's all just arty-farty.
Thus consigning Turner, Constable, Monet, Goya, etc to the dustbin!
>> Is it not the totality of the image that matters ?
>
>Yes, it is, but I like to have a perfectly pin-sharp print too, even when
>viewed from an inch away. The technology and prices will be there soon...
You might want to introduce a little blur sometimes. Action shots spring to
mind. Also see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/gaussian.shtml
Paul Saunders
> Did you ever watch the office?
Once, and once only.
> I never, but I've seen certain clips
> of it on other programs. There was this hilarious clip where they
> were taking photos of David Brent, and every time the camera went
> back on him, he was in a different post - laying on his desk, feet
> up, leaning back 'casually' etc... :-) I guess that this is an
> example of *trying* to look natural, when in actual fact, it looks
> anything but natural.
Yeah, which is why it's best to photograph people when they don't know
they're being photographed, or when they just don't care.
>> Here's a tip.
> Wait there a second, you mean to say that I'm getting tips at taking
> photos of people, from Paul Saunders, the landscape photographer?!?!
Just something I've noticed when taking snaps of people. Nothing really
deep or inspirational.
> Seriously though, I do know what you mean about taking photos of
> people, and they soon get used to it. The trick is, don't make a big
> deal out of taking the photos.
Yeah.
ste mc ©
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:13:36 -0000, "ste mc ©" <s...@sm9.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"John Laird" <nos...@laird-towers.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:f70h001kd9if06i31...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> I
> >> mean, do you wander right up to the canvas and inspect every brush
stroke
> >> for visibility and/or flaws ?
> >
> >I wouldn't look for flaws in a painting, and the brush strokes are
expected
> >as that's the medium used to create the painting in. When it comes to
> >photos though, they're supposed to record reality and what the eyes see,
so
> >when you can see grain or pixels, I see it as a slight flaw, as that's
not
> >what the eyes see.
>
> You'll forgive me laughing a little at the "record reality" suggestion :-)
Sure, you're forgiven, just this once! ;-)
> Some photographs will be matters "of record" but others are surely more in
> the artistic camp ? Very often what might be considered a most striking
> image is quite a long way from what the eye saw at the instant of
exposure,
> by the time it has been cropped, masked, selectively over/under-exposed,
> pushed 3 stops, etc etc. (Much of which can apply in the digital domain
> too, not to mention the additional enhancements possible there.)
I used the term, "record reality," because I couldn't think of a better way
to put it. What I meant was, the camera records something real that's in
front of it. I didn't want to overly complicate things by going into
shutter speeds etc, but I know what you mean. But imagine an artist and a
photographer, standing in the same field and doing the same
painting/photograph. The photograph will always have finer details than the
painting as it 'records reality,' like taking a snap in time from that
moment, whereas, the artist is human, and only has brushes of a certain size
to paint in the details etc. Does this example explain what I mean a bit
better?
> But then, craftsmen are often over-sensitive to perceived flaws in their
> work that are only visible to other craftsmen.
That's true, people in the office tell me how great some of my photos are,
then I can put them on photosig.com and have them ripped to pieces! :-(
Ste
ste mc ©
"Phil Cook" <urw...@p-t-cook.freeserveSPAMTRAP.co.uk> wrote in message
news:p5ts00h4dhpvt9bov...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:13:36 -0000, ste mc Š wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Laird" <nos...@laird-towers.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:f70h001kd9if06i31...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:32:43 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
> >> <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I now regularly
> >> >interpolate my 4MP pics just to make an A4 print, and I'm not
> >> >particularly happy about A3+ prints from a 4MP image, even
interpolated
> >> >with Genuine Fractals. They look okay from a distance, but I'm very
> >> >fussy about these things and they aren't all that sharp close up.
> >>
> >> I'm curious if you photography buffs ever look at real art in
galleries.
> >
> >Not sure if I'm included in the photography buff category, but I'll reply
> >anyway, if the real photographers out there don't mind! :-)
> >
> >I'm not really into art, especially when it comes to modern art or things
> >like that, or these ridiculous 'pieces' that win the Turner prize etc.
The
> >only art I like is when the painting looks so good that it's almost like
a
> >photo, this must take some skill. Anything else, such as squiggles or
> >patterns, just don't do it for me, it's all just arty-farty.
>
> Thus consigning Turner, Constable, Monet, Goya, etc to the dustbin!
Yes! (in my opinion of course) ...on second thoughts, I'd grab them out the
bin and sell them! ;-)
> >> Is it not the totality of the image that matters ?
> >
> >Yes, it is, but I like to have a perfectly pin-sharp print too, even when
> >viewed from an inch away. The technology and prices will be there
soon...
>
> You might want to introduce a little blur sometimes. Action shots spring
to
> mind. Also see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/gaussian.shtml
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.
> Phil Cook
Ste
W. D. Grey
<s...@sm9.co.uk> writes
>Seriously though, I do know what you mean about taking photos of people, and
>they soon get used to it. The trick is, don't make a big deal out of taking
>the photos. Otherwise, before you know it, the person will be blushing and
>hiding their face, and everyone in the room will be laughing and shouting
>'say cheese!!!' :-D
Or you'll end up with a telephoto rammed up your nose :-)
Paul Saunders
>> You need sunshine, reflections, blue sky, water
>> and so on.
>
> If it's doing something that you can't do it Photoshop, then it's
> worth having. I sometimes get into the line of thinking that I can
> adjust anything I want later in Photoshop, but some things just have
> to be done at the scene, because of the way they work.
With a polariser definitely. Remember that polarisers don't just make
skies a darker blue, the eliminate reflections on shiny surfaces such as
glass and water. I got some strange results looking through the filter
indoors, with various reflective surfaces giving off different colours,
and house scenes with glass windows and doors got strange results too.
Polarisers often work well with water, removing glare from the surface
of lakes to photograph what's underneath for example. With the
blue-yellow polariser it would not only remove the glare but alter the
colour of the water, so shots of lakes, rivers and sea would potentially
produce the most interesting results, particularly arty close up shots I
suspect.
>> You can get other polarisers like this
>> too, such as red-blue and green-purple I think.
>
> When I think of the red-blue ones, I immediately think of wild
> sunsets. That would be interesting
Yes, I originally considered getting the red-blue, thinking of it as a
warm-cold filter, but it probably doesn't work quite like that. I chose
the yellow-blue after reading stuff on the net and looking at some
examples, seems to be the most popular one.
> - perhaps they're what Ansel Adams
> uses? ;-)
Unlikely considering that he's dead, and colour polarisers wouldn't be
much use for black and white photography, or would they?
Or do you mean Galen Rowell? In which case, no. To my knowledge he
never used such filters, he used neutral density grads, polarisers and a
special kind of "warm, enhancing" filter, can't remember the exact
details of the last one.
Paul Saunders
> I'm not really into art, especially when it comes to modern art or
> things like that, or these ridiculous 'pieces' that win the Turner
> prize etc. The only art I like is when the painting looks so good
> that it's almost like a photo, this must take some skill. Anything
> else, such as squiggles or patterns, just don't do it for me, it's
> all just arty-farty.
I tend to prefer "realistic" art too, but that's probably just because
of my photographer's mentality. My favourite has always been Salvador
Dali, who tends to paint realistic looking images of things that are
totally impossible. I think that's the advantage of art over
photography, you can paint what isn't there. Having said that, Dali
occasionally flicked paint at a canvas with surprisingly good results.
> I wouldn't look for flaws in a painting, and the brush strokes are
> expected as that's the medium used to create the painting in. When
> it comes to photos though, they're supposed to record reality and
> what the eyes see,
That's the common misconception yes, that the "camera never lies". But
of course it lies all the time, and good photographers can be very good
at making the camera lie. But I know what you mean. Photographic
imagery is based on reality.
> so when you can see grain or pixels, I see it as a
> slight flaw, as that's not what the eyes see.
I agree.
> Yes, it is, but I like to have a perfectly pin-sharp print too, even
> when viewed from an inch away.
I can't focus that close! Not without a loupe. I don't see much point
in looking at a print from closer than 12 inches anyway.
> The technology and prices will be
> there soon... :-)
Well not that soon, not soon enough for me anyway! ;-)
Apparently Canon are likely to announce new cameras and stuff on Feb 7th
this year.
Paul Saunders
> You'll forgive me laughing a little at the "record reality"
> suggestion :-)
Well reality is the basic subject matter of photographs, but it can be
"interpreted".
> Some photographs will be matters "of record" but
> others are surely more in the artistic camp ? Very often what might
> be considered a most striking image is quite a long way from what the
> eye saw at the instant of exposure,
I guess my Llyn y Fan Fawr pic is a good example then. It certainly
looked nothing like that when I took it.
> But then, craftsmen are often over-sensitive to perceived flaws in
> their work that are only visible to other craftsmen.
That explains it.
Paul Saunders
> But imagine an artist and a photographer, standing in the same field
> and doing the same painting/photograph. The photograph will always
> have finer details than the painting as it 'records reality,' like
> taking a snap in time from that moment, whereas, the artist is human,
> and only has brushes of a certain size to paint in the details etc.
Depends on what equipment they are using. The artist may have a huge
canvas 10 foot wide while the photographer may be using a 1MP digicam!
But I know what you mean.
The biggest difference is that the photographer is limited to capturing
exactly what's in front of his lens. Sure he can modify it with filters
and later manipulation, but the only way he can really alter the content
of the picture is to move around a bit to get a different composition.
The artist on the other hand can move trees, gates, cows etc. into
whatever positions look best on the canvas. He can leave out features
entirely if he chooses and paint in stuff that isn't even there. Rather
than painting a specific cloud pattern that existed in one split second
of time he can paint his own interpretation of the clouds as the breeze
over the scene, or paint a completely different sky altogether. Looking
at the painting later, who would know whether he'd copied reality
precisely or not? And who would care? Unless the painting was
specifically intended to be an accurate record of a scene, it wouldn't
matter. In art it usually doesn't matter, artistic licence is the norm,
but some people nowadays get extremely hung up about a photographer
changing a tiny little detail, like cloning out a telegraph pole that's
ruining the picture.
Bernard Hill
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
Warm polariser? Moose do one (whoever they are), I think it's a
combination of 81A and polariser iirc.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Paul Saunders
>> Or do you mean Galen Rowell? In which case, no. To my knowledge he
>> never used such filters, he used neutral density grads, polarisers
>> and a special kind of "warm, enhancing" filter, can't remember the
>> exact details of the last one.
>
> Warm polariser? Moose do one (whoever they are), I think it's a
> combination of 81A and polariser iirc.
No, this is the one;
http://www.singh-ray.com/colorintens.html
It's a colour intensifier, it boosts saturation.
No need for these things now we've got digital processing.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
stemc ©
| ste mc Š wrote:
|
| > But imagine an artist and a photographer, standing in the same field
| > and doing the same painting/photograph. The photograph will always
| > have finer details than the painting as it 'records reality,' like
| > taking a snap in time from that moment, whereas, the artist is human,
| > and only has brushes of a certain size to paint in the details etc.
|
| Depends on what equipment they are using. The artist may have a huge
| canvas 10 foot wide while the photographer may be using a 1MP digicam!
Of course...
| But I know what you mean.
...hey, that's my phrase! ;-)
| The biggest difference is that the photographer is limited to capturing
| exactly what's in front of his lens. Sure he can modify it with filters
| and later manipulation, but the only way he can really alter the content
| of the picture is to move around a bit to get a different composition.
That's true.
| The artist on the other hand can move trees, gates, cows etc. into
| whatever positions look best on the canvas. He can leave out features
| entirely if he chooses and paint in stuff that isn't even there. Rather
| than painting a specific cloud pattern that existed in one split second
| of time he can paint his own interpretation of the clouds as the breeze
| over the scene, or paint a completely different sky altogether. Looking
| at the painting later, who would know whether he'd copied reality
| precisely or not? And who would care? Unless the painting was
| specifically intended to be an accurate record of a scene, it wouldn't
| matter. In art it usually doesn't matter, artistic licence is the norm,
| but some people nowadays get extremely hung up about a photographer
| changing a tiny little detail, like cloning out a telegraph pole that's
| ruining the picture.
You're right, these bloody artists get a much easier ride. It's crazy the
way people get hung up on digital photography and re-touching. I think it's
almost disrespectful at times, as if to say that what the photographer has
done is shit or something. Grrr! I mean, how dare they! :-)
| Paul
Ste