Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Yesterday, my wife and I went to North Georgia to enjoy a quiet
Thanksgiving Day in the mountains.

We visited a beautiful waterfall, Minnehaha Falls, off of the beaten
path. It was about a 5 miles drive on a one lane dirt/gravel road so it
really was quiet and secluded, especially on Thanksgiving.

Of course, I had to screw around with mother nature. Absolutely NONE of
my photos come close to the way it looked in real life.

This is the way it looks in real life:

http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/ne-ga-wate...ha-falls.shtml

This slide show shows how an amateur can screw up perfection:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/slideshow/568959352vWicBu


I loved those pictures, particularly how you worked with the motion.

These Qs will show what a dummy I am.
How did you get the pics so sharp yet blur the motion just right in some
shots and a little too much in others?
Were you using a tripod?
Is there a shutter speed that simulates how we see movement?

Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Yesterday, my wife and I went to North Georgia to enjoy a quiet
Thanksgiving Day in the mountains.

We visited a beautiful waterfall, Minnehaha Falls, off of the beaten
path. It was about a 5 miles drive on a one lane dirt/gravel road so
it really was quiet and secluded, especially on Thanksgiving.

Of course, I had to screw around with mother nature. Absolutely NONE
of my photos come close to the way it looked in real life.

This is the way it looks in real life:

http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/ne-ga-wate...ha-falls.shtml

This slide show shows how an amateur can screw up perfection:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/slideshow/568959352vWicBu

PS - If you move the mouse to the bottom of the screen an option bar
will pop up so you can speed up the slide show so each photo is only
up for 3 secs. No one really wants to look at them any longer than 3
seconds.


You can also get entirely out of the slide show and look at the shots
individually, and at a larger size. When you do that, though, they look
fuzzy and out of focus, starting with photo #1. But I suspect that has
more to do with sizing/resizing for the photo site than for the actual
photos being out of focus. I liked #8322, because it gave me a sense of
the scale of the falls.

I think that was a photo of about 1/2 of the falls. When I tried to get
all of the falls in the photo, i didn't like the way it looked. No
detail, so I didn't even snap the photo. The photos were taken using a
tripod, and using the timer with a 2 sec delay, so my hand was not on
the camera when it was taken. So if they were fuzzy and out of focus it
was the result of operator error.

Jim wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Yesterday, my wife and I went to North Georgia to enjoy a quiet
Thanksgiving Day in the mountains.

We visited a beautiful waterfall, Minnehaha Falls, off of the beaten
path. It was about a 5 miles drive on a one lane dirt/gravel road so
it really was quiet and secluded, especially on Thanksgiving.

Of course, I had to screw around with mother nature. Absolutely NONE
of my photos come close to the way it looked in real life.

This is the way it looks in real life:

http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/ne-ga-wate...ha-falls.shtml

This slide show shows how an amateur can screw up perfection:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/slideshow/568959352vWicBu


I loved those pictures, particularly how you worked with the motion.

These Qs will show what a dummy I am.
How did you get the pics so sharp yet blur the motion just right in some
shots and a little too much in others?
Were you using a tripod?
Is there a shutter speed that simulates how we see movement?

I used a heavy tripod and focused on the rock or a patch of leaves, so
that the non movement area was in focus. I had the camera set on
manual. so I could adjust the aperture and shutter speed separately. I
played with the shutter speed and it ranged from 1/15 of a sec, to
probably 4 secs. By adjusting the aperture I could balance the exposure
so I could get the detail on the rocks and leaves, without blowing out
the water. I had the camera set up on Matrix Exposure, and found I
would have to under expose the photo by 2 or 3 stops to compensate for
the white water. If I used the exposure setting the camera told me was
correct, it would completely blow out the water, so the water would just
be white with no detail.

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Yesterday, my wife and I went to North Georgia to enjoy a quiet
Thanksgiving Day in the mountains.

We visited a beautiful waterfall, Minnehaha Falls, off of the beaten
path. It was about a 5 miles drive on a one lane dirt/gravel road
so it really was quiet and secluded, especially on Thanksgiving.

Of course, I had to screw around with mother nature. Absolutely
NONE of my photos come close to the way it looked in real life.

This is the way it looks in real life:

http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/ne-ga-wate...ha-falls.shtml

This slide show shows how an amateur can screw up perfection:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/slideshow/568959352vWicBu

PS - If you move the mouse to the bottom of the screen an option bar
will pop up so you can speed up the slide show so each photo is only
up for 3 secs. No one really wants to look at them any longer than 3
seconds.


You can also get entirely out of the slide show and look at the shots
individually, and at a larger size. When you do that, though, they
look fuzzy and out of focus, starting with photo #1. But I suspect
that has more to do with sizing/resizing for the photo site than for
the actual photos being out of focus. I liked #8322, because it gave
me a sense of the scale of the falls.

I think that was a photo of about 1/2 of the falls. When I tried to get
all of the falls in the photo, i didn't like the way it looked. No
detail, so I didn't even snap the photo. The photos were taken using a
tripod, and using the timer with a 2 sec delay, so my hand was not on
the camera when it was taken. So if they were fuzzy and out of focus it
was the result of operator error.


If that is the case, maybe you need a heavier tripod. What are you
using? D-SLRs are kinda heavy, compared to film cameras, and require a
chunkier tripod. But I wonder if "the problem" lies elsewhere, and not
necessarily with the "operator." Using a tripod and self-timer should
produce snappy results. I'm sure you can focus your camera properly.

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Jim wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Yesterday, my wife and I went to North Georgia to enjoy a quiet
Thanksgiving Day in the mountains.

We visited a beautiful waterfall, Minnehaha Falls, off of the beaten
path. It was about a 5 miles drive on a one lane dirt/gravel road so
it really was quiet and secluded, especially on Thanksgiving.

Of course, I had to screw around with mother nature. Absolutely NONE
of my photos come close to the way it looked in real life.

This is the way it looks in real life:

http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/ne-ga-wate...ha-falls.shtml

This slide show shows how an amateur can screw up perfection:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/slideshow/568959352vWicBu


I loved those pictures, particularly how you worked with the motion.

These Qs will show what a dummy I am.
How did you get the pics so sharp yet blur the motion just right in
some shots and a little too much in others?
Were you using a tripod?
Is there a shutter speed that simulates how we see movement?

I used a heavy tripod and focused on the rock or a patch of leaves, so
that the non movement area was in focus. I had the camera set on
manual. so I could adjust the aperture and shutter speed separately. I
played with the shutter speed and it ranged from 1/15 of a sec, to
probably 4 secs. By adjusting the aperture I could balance the exposure
so I could get the detail on the rocks and leaves, without blowing out
the water. I had the camera set up on Matrix Exposure, and found I
would have to under expose the photo by 2 or 3 stops to compensate for
the white water. If I used the exposure setting the camera told me was
correct, it would completely blow out the water, so the water would just
be white with no detail.


So you are using a heavy tripod. As careful as you are, I wonder if your
camera has a problem. Look at the photos you posted "full size" on that
site. Something is happening there with focus.

Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Yesterday, my wife and I went to North Georgia to enjoy a quiet
Thanksgiving Day in the mountains.

We visited a beautiful waterfall, Minnehaha Falls, off of the
beaten path. It was about a 5 miles drive on a one lane
dirt/gravel road so it really was quiet and secluded, especially on
Thanksgiving.

Of course, I had to screw around with mother nature. Absolutely
NONE of my photos come close to the way it looked in real life.

This is the way it looks in real life:

http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/ne-ga-wate...ha-falls.shtml

This slide show shows how an amateur can screw up perfection:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/slideshow/568959352vWicBu

PS - If you move the mouse to the bottom of the screen an option
bar will pop up so you can speed up the slide show so each photo is
only up for 3 secs. No one really wants to look at them any longer
than 3 seconds.


You can also get entirely out of the slide show and look at the shots
individually, and at a larger size. When you do that, though, they
look fuzzy and out of focus, starting with photo #1. But I suspect
that has more to do with sizing/resizing for the photo site than for
the actual photos being out of focus. I liked #8322, because it gave
me a sense of the scale of the falls.

I think that was a photo of about 1/2 of the falls. When I tried to
get all of the falls in the photo, i didn't like the way it looked.
No detail, so I didn't even snap the photo. The photos were taken
using a tripod, and using the timer with a 2 sec delay, so my hand was
not on the camera when it was taken. So if they were fuzzy and out of
focus it was the result of operator error.


If that is the case, maybe you need a heavier tripod. What are you
using? D-SLRs are kinda heavy, compared to film cameras, and require a
chunkier tripod. But I wonder if "the problem" lies elsewhere, and not
necessarily with the "operator." Using a tripod and self-timer should
produce snappy results. I'm sure you can focus your camera properly.

Tripod:
458B NEOTEC PRO PHOTO TRIPOD
http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/...lsf=80&child=2

Head:
322RC2 HEAVY DUTY GRIP BALL HEAD
http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/...lsf=80&child=2

The tripod is very heavy outdoor tripod, especially when used with a
D200 and 18-200 VR lens. It actually rated for medium formated cameras
with all but the monster telephoto lens.

I still am not "sold' on the grip ball head. I think a conventional
ball head would be easier to compose the photo and have the camera level.

On Nov 28, 8:21*am, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:10 am, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
Yesterday, my wife and I went to North Georgia to enjoy a quiet
Thanksgiving Day in the mountains.

We visited a beautiful waterfall, Minnehaha Falls, off of the beaten
path. *It was about a 5 miles drive on a one lane dirt/gravel road so it
really was quiet and secluded, especially on Thanksgiving.

Of course, I had to screw around with mother nature. *Absolutely NONE of
my photos come close to the way it looked in real life.

This is the way it looks in real life:

http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/ne-ga-wate...ha-falls.shtml

This slide show shows how an amateur can screw up perfection:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/slideshow/568959352vWicBu

I like Minnehaha. Have you ever been to Starr's Mill? I've got some
decent 35mm shots from about ten years ago from there that turned out
well.

I had never heard of it, but are you talking about this place :

http://www.pbase.com/kluken/starrs_mill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep, that's the place. I took a picture from across the creek that
turned out very nice. I'll have to scan it sometime.

On Nov 28, 8:24*am, Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:





Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Yesterday, my wife and I went to North Georgia to enjoy a quiet
Thanksgiving Day in the mountains.

We visited a beautiful waterfall, Minnehaha Falls, off of the beaten
path. *It was about a 5 miles drive on a one lane dirt/gravel road so
it really was quiet and secluded, especially on Thanksgiving.

Of course, I had to screw around with mother nature. *Absolutely NONE
of my photos come close to the way it looked in real life.

This is the way it looks in real life:

http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/ne-ga-wate...ha-falls.shtml

This slide show shows how an amateur can screw up perfection:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/slideshow/568959352vWicBu

PS - *If you move the mouse to the bottom of the screen an option bar
will pop up so you can speed up the slide show so each photo is only up
for 3 secs. *No one really wants to look at them any longer than 3 seconds.

You can also get entirely out of the slide show and look at the shots
individually, and at a larger size. When you do that, though, they look
fuzzy and out of focus, starting with photo #1. But I suspect that has
more to do with sizing/resizing for the photo site than for the actual
photos being out of focus. I liked #8322, because it gave me a sense of
the scale of the falls.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Teeheee!! Harry being judgemental of someone elses photos that are FAR
superior to his!

On Nov 28, 8:47*am, Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:





Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Yesterday, my wife and I went to North Georgia to enjoy a quiet
Thanksgiving Day in the mountains.

We visited a beautiful waterfall, Minnehaha Falls, off of the beaten
path. *It was about a 5 miles drive on a one lane dirt/gravel road
so it really was quiet and secluded, especially on Thanksgiving.

Of course, I had to screw around with mother nature. *Absolutely
NONE of my photos come close to the way it looked in real life.

This is the way it looks in real life:

http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/ne-ga-wate...ha-falls.shtml

This slide show shows how an amateur can screw up perfection:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/slideshow/568959352vWicBu

PS - *If you move the mouse to the bottom of the screen an option bar
will pop up so you can speed up the slide show so each photo is only
up for 3 secs. *No one really wants to look at them any longer than 3
seconds.

You can also get entirely out of the slide show and look at the shots
individually, and at a larger size. When you do that, though, they
look fuzzy and out of focus, starting with photo #1. But I suspect
that has more to do with sizing/resizing for the photo site than for
the actual photos being out of focus. I liked #8322, because it gave
me a sense of the scale of the falls.

I think that was a photo of about 1/2 of the falls. *When I tried to get
all of the falls in the photo, i didn't like the way it looked. *No
detail, so I didn't even snap the photo. *The photos were taken using a
tripod, and using the timer with a 2 sec delay, so my hand was not on
the camera when it was taken. *So if they were fuzzy and out of focus it
was the result of operator error.

If that is the case, maybe you need a heavier tripod. What are you
using? D-SLRs are kinda heavy, compared to film cameras, and require a
chunkier tripod. But I wonder if "the problem" lies elsewhere, and not
necessarily with the "operator." Using a tripod and self-timer should
produce snappy results. I'm sure you can focus your camera properly.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bull****, most DSLR's a LIGHTER than film cameras.

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Yesterday, my wife and I went to North Georgia to enjoy a quiet
Thanksgiving Day in the mountains.

We visited a beautiful waterfall, Minnehaha Falls, off of the
beaten path. It was about a 5 miles drive on a one lane
dirt/gravel road so it really was quiet and secluded, especially
on Thanksgiving.

Of course, I had to screw around with mother nature. Absolutely
NONE of my photos come close to the way it looked in real life.

This is the way it looks in real life:

http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/ne-ga-wate...ha-falls.shtml

This slide show shows how an amateur can screw up perfection:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/slideshow/568959352vWicBu

PS - If you move the mouse to the bottom of the screen an option
bar will pop up so you can speed up the slide show so each photo is
only up for 3 secs. No one really wants to look at them any longer
than 3 seconds.


You can also get entirely out of the slide show and look at the
shots individually, and at a larger size. When you do that, though,
they look fuzzy and out of focus, starting with photo #1. But I
suspect that has more to do with sizing/resizing for the photo site
than for the actual photos being out of focus. I liked #8322,
because it gave me a sense of the scale of the falls.

I think that was a photo of about 1/2 of the falls. When I tried to
get all of the falls in the photo, i didn't like the way it looked.
No detail, so I didn't even snap the photo. The photos were taken
using a tripod, and using the timer with a 2 sec delay, so my hand
was not on the camera when it was taken. So if they were fuzzy and
out of focus it was the result of operator error.


If that is the case, maybe you need a heavier tripod. What are you
using? D-SLRs are kinda heavy, compared to film cameras, and require a
chunkier tripod. But I wonder if "the problem" lies elsewhere, and not
necessarily with the "operator." Using a tripod and self-timer should
produce snappy results. I'm sure you can focus your camera properly.

I compared the original 16 MB RAW 8 bit/channel 3822 x 2592 240 ppi
photo/file with the reduce 120 kb jpg 640 x 428 96 dpi , and there is
definitely a large difference in clarity and sharpness. I used a batch
file to automatically convert these photos to small jpg's, so I am not
sure if this is a function of Lightroom's batch macro, or the size and
dpi. My guess is a 120 kb photo will always lose substantial clarity
and sharpness when compared to the original wither I used batch or did
them individually. I normally keep my photos in RAW and only convert
if I am going to upload them to a web site or send them out for
printing. When I print them, I upload them as full sized tif files and
don't compress or convert them to jpgs. I have been told that you get
much better print results using tif vs jpg, but I am sure this is
debatable.