Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Steve wrote:


There's a good interactive demo of what diffraction does at:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...hotography.htm

For camera type, pick a camera that has a similar pixel density to
yours. The D200 is about halfway between the D2X and EOS20D/350D so
you'll have to guestimate

You'll see that at f/32, your 10MP D200 is only able to resolve the
same detail as an around 2.5MP camera used at a non-diffraction
limited aperture.

Steve

Very good interactive tool, and does highlight the benefit of using the
NG filters. Thanks for the response.

I also looked at the using the Lightroom preset landscape sharpening
option after the batch convert, and it did improve the clarity and
sharpness of the small jpg's.

Feel free to critique and make any suggustions




I hope you didn't take my "critique" the wrong way. I liked those
waterfall photos much more than many photos you have posted because to
me most of them looked as they would if you were strolling in the woods
and came across the site. I was a little surprised by what I perceived
as "soft" focus, though, because I know you don't usually have a problem
with that. Well, not with your camera, anyway! :)

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:10:37 -0500, "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


Very nice! Actually, I think the originals were the photoshopped version.
Yours appear quite natural. Sounds like you had a nice Thanksgiving. Good!
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Steve wrote:


There's a good interactive demo of what diffraction does at:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...hotography.htm

For camera type, pick a camera that has a similar pixel density to
yours. The D200 is about halfway between the D2X and EOS20D/350D so
you'll have to guestimate

You'll see that at f/32, your 10MP D200 is only able to resolve the
same detail as an around 2.5MP camera used at a non-diffraction
limited aperture.

Steve

Very good interactive tool, and does highlight the benefit of using
the NG filters. Thanks for the response.

I also looked at the using the Lightroom preset landscape sharpening
option after the batch convert, and it did improve the clarity and
sharpness of the small jpg's.

Feel free to critique and make any suggustions




I hope you didn't take my "critique" the wrong way. I liked those
waterfall photos much more than many photos you have posted because to
me most of them looked as they would if you were strolling in the woods
and came across the site. I was a little surprised by what I perceived
as "soft" focus, though, because I know you don't usually have a problem
with that. Well, not with your camera, anyway! :)

Nope, I didn't and critiques really don't bother me. Even if I
disagree, I normally learn something from all comments.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:10:37 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:


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

Well, you got the last part right anyway.

I've been guilty of this myself so I can safely say this technique is
way over used for routine imaging.

The whole point of using slower shutter speeds is to invoking water
"movement" and not replicate fire hose type streams of uninteresting
water flow. Done properly, you really don't need to use slower speeds
- just focal length and proper exposures.

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=10461

Shorter times produce images which convey more impression than actual
replication like this:

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=22928

To properly use longer times, you have to at least have an idea of
where you will be taking the image and what you are trying to convey.

For example:

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=35667

And then there are the impressionistic type of images that echo the
true style of light, color and movement in classically open style.

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=39529

Also, I'd be interested if you shot these in RAW and what compression
ratio you used when you brought them out into .jpeg. Just looking a
little closer at them, it seems to me that something was lost in the
translation. Maybe a defraction issue? Did you use auto sharpen on
bringing them out to .jpeg? Something isn't right.

Finally, I think you're trying too hard with this lanscape thing - let
the image speak to you before you try to shoot it. Think about where
you want it to go and what you want to do with it. What is it telling
you? It just seems that you took shots to take shots.

Sorry - you asked. :)

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 went here as a kid...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnehaha_Falls

I didn't know there was another. Nice pictures!

Don White wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in message
...
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




Well...she sure gave you a dirty look!



What are you trying to say, dummy?

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

Lucky you didnt get shot by a fool mistaking you for a Turkey........

Don, is that you?

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 06:25:34 -0800 (PST), wrote:

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

Actually, my E-3 weighs about 2 ounces lighter than my OM-2 and about
the same as my Nikon F-1. In fact, the Nikon F-1 with the mechanical
motor drive weighs the same as my E-300 with the extra battery pack
and the external case for it.

My Dad's Super Speed Graphic weighs a freakin' ton compared to modern
cameras. Seriously. :) I honestly don't know how he managed to
hold the freakin' thing to take pictures. My Dad's photographer when
he was with Hearst newspapers could hold it with one arm the camera
extended and hold the flash unit in the other up high.

Never figured out how he did it.

"D K" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in message
...
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




Well...she sure gave you a dirty look!

What are you trying to say, dummy?

It's a joke...Smithers 'got it'.
Go away and leave the men alone when they're talking.

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 06:25:34 -0800 (PST), wrote:

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

Actually, my E-3 weighs about 2 ounces lighter than my OM-2 and about
the same as my Nikon F-1. In fact, the Nikon F-1 with the mechanical
motor drive weighs the same as my E-300 with the extra battery pack
and the external case for it.

My Dad's Super Speed Graphic weighs a freakin' ton compared to modern
cameras. Seriously. :) I honestly don't know how he managed to
hold the freakin' thing to take pictures. My Dad's photographer when
he was with Hearst newspapers could hold it with one arm the camera
extended and hold the flash unit in the other up high.

Never figured out how he did it.

My digital SLR weighs more than the latest Nikon F6 35mm film camera and
my Nikon F100 film camera.

Did your dad use a Graflex Stroboflash or one of the Honeywell units?
I had both at one time. The Graflex had a humongous external battery
back you wore off your shoulder with a web strap.