Messing with Mother Nature
 

On Nov 28, 9:36*am, wrote:
On Nov 28, 9:48*am, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."



wrote:
wrote:
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-Hidequoted 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.

Or even better, go back and take some with your new camera.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, I'd like to go back. I've heard that the state or county has
taken it over, I hope they don't do something stupid!

They usually do, but it's good to think positive though.

Messing with Mother Nature
 

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:48:50 -0500, Boater
wrote:

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.

He had a Stroboflash - I remember that one because of that battery
pack - I don't have that one anymore - don't remember what happened to
it. The one that came with it when it was passed down to me was a
Honeywell - I'd have to go look up the model number, but it has a long
round handle (a little bigger than a D-cell), tall - maybe16 inches?
and that classic Honeywell strobe face - looked like one of their
early "Auto Temp" thermostats. :)

My favorite camera of all time was a Rolleiflex T which I picked up at
the AF PX at Bein Hoa when we were passisng through. I carried that
damn thing in my pack along with a Zenith Model 1000 Transoceanic
radio. :)

Oh, I could tell you some stories about that radio. :)

Messing with Mother Nature
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:48:50 -0500, Boater
wrote:

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.

He had a Stroboflash - I remember that one because of that battery
pack - I don't have that one anymore - don't remember what happened to
it. The one that came with it when it was passed down to me was a
Honeywell - I'd have to go look up the model number, but it has a long
round handle (a little bigger than a D-cell), tall - maybe16 inches?
and that classic Honeywell strobe face - looked like one of their
early "Auto Temp" thermostats. :)

My favorite camera of all time was a Rolleiflex T which I picked up at
the AF PX at Bein Hoa when we were passisng through. I carried that
damn thing in my pack along with a Zenith Model 1000 Transoceanic
radio. :)

Oh, I could tell you some stories about that radio. :)


Relive your youth:

http://photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=823131

Messing with Mother Nature
 

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

As always, you do provide very detailed and well thought out critiques.

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

Very nice photo, and very subtle use of HDR.


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.

I did shoot these in RAW with no compression on the RAW. I use a batch
conversion macro in Lightroom (I think), and had it set up 640x480 size
with auto sharpen Landscape. I have never seen a jpg compression ratio,
I thought jpg just compressed it as much as possible. I also have never
used a batch conversion before, and never reduce the size so small, so I
really don't know if this is the result to expect or not.

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. :)

Nope I am not sorry I asked. As I have always said, I do try to learn
from all critique's and my feeling are never hurt. As with most of your
critiques, you do give your honest opinion and spend a lot of time
providing detail to reinforce your opinion. I appreciate it, I would
just recommend that for the next few week's, you look under your car
before you crank the engine. ;)

Messing with Mother Nature
 

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:19:13 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:48:50 -0500, Boater
wrote:

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.

He had a Stroboflash - I remember that one because of that battery
pack - I don't have that one anymore - don't remember what happened to
it. The one that came with it when it was passed down to me was a
Honeywell - I'd have to go look up the model number, but it has a long
round handle (a little bigger than a D-cell), tall - maybe16 inches?
and that classic Honeywell strobe face - looked like one of their
early "Auto Temp" thermostats. :)

My favorite camera of all time was a Rolleiflex T which I picked up at
the AF PX at Bein Hoa when we were passisng through. I carried that
damn thing in my pack along with a Zenith Model 1000 Transoceanic
radio. :)

Oh, I could tell you some stories about that radio. :)

Relive your youth:

http://photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=823131

Ah - well, I have enough junk around here - don't need more. :)

I just sentTim some of my older cameras - he's a Luddite and can
appreciate them. :)

Once I finish cleaning out my office, giving away and or selling some
of my antique stuff, I can think about maybe reliving my yute. :)

I swear - I found nine cameras in the back of the closet that I didn't
even recognize - had no idea they were there. I don't even remember
where I got them or what I was doing with them.

Fortunately, I got a great price for the lot which paid for my E-3 -
which should be arriving Monday.

WHOO HOO!!!

(Of course, now that I think about it, I'm starting a Olympus Digital
collection - I have an E-1 (which I bought used a couple of years
ago), E-300, E-330, an E-520 and the E-3 I just bought plus various
lenses from my OM-1/2 days and several of the Oly 4/3rds speciality
lenses. Maybe I need to sell my 300 series cameras. :)

Messing with Mother Nature
 

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:19:32 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Pardon the interruption...

I was reading in a travel trailer forum yesterday, and came across some
very nice comments about this park:

http://www.gastateparks.org/info/tallulah/

Initially I thought it was the one you mentioned. This morning I realized
it was different. Looks interesting.

Been there?
--
John H

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

Messing with Mother Nature
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in message
...

snip

I did shoot these in RAW with no compression on the RAW. I use a batch
conversion macro in Lightroom (I think), and had it set up 640x480 size
with auto sharpen Landscape. I have never seen a jpg compression ratio, I
thought jpg just compressed it as much as possible. I also have never
used a batch conversion before, and never reduce the size so small, so I
really don't know if this is the result to expect or not.

If you're not familiar with jpeg file compression you may want to check out
the link below. Every time you compress a jpeg file it will lose detail.
It's cumulative and you can't go back. It's always best to work on a copy
so the original retains its detail.

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/for...mythsfacts.htm

Messing with Mother Nature
 

JohnH wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:19:32 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Pardon the interruption...

I was reading in a travel trailer forum yesterday, and came across some
very nice comments about this park:

http://www.gastateparks.org/info/tallulah/

Initially I thought it was the one you mentioned. This morning I realized
it was different. Looks interesting.

Been there?
--
John H

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

Yes, the photos I took were taken about 8-10 miles from Tallulah Gorge.
I have always found the Gorge an interesting place to look over for a
few minutes and then move on. It used to be a major tourist attraction
until GA Power built a series of dams to provide electricity to run
Atlanta Streetcars. The dams turned the river from roaring thunder to a
trickle. The dirt/gravel road I used to get to the waterfall I visited
was the old stagecoach road that took the rich tourist from Tallulah
Gorge to a secluded Country Inn.

Some State Parks I would recommend a

http://www.gastateparks.org/net/go/p...D=98&s=0.0.1.5

http://www.gastateparks.org/net/go/p...=100&s=0.0.1.5

http://www.gastateparks.org/net/go/p...D=64&s=0.0.1.5

All in the general area of TG, but I prefer them over TG.


http://www.gastateparks.org/net/go/p...D=88&s=0.0.1.5

Further south, and very close to Calloway Gardens. A great place for
golf and gardens etc.

http://www.callawaygardens.com/

Messing with Mother Nature
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:19:13 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:48:50 -0500, Boater
wrote:

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.
He had a Stroboflash - I remember that one because of that battery
pack - I don't have that one anymore - don't remember what happened to
it. The one that came with it when it was passed down to me was a
Honeywell - I'd have to go look up the model number, but it has a long
round handle (a little bigger than a D-cell), tall - maybe16 inches?
and that classic Honeywell strobe face - looked like one of their
early "Auto Temp" thermostats. :)

My favorite camera of all time was a Rolleiflex T which I picked up at
the AF PX at Bein Hoa when we were passisng through. I carried that
damn thing in my pack along with a Zenith Model 1000 Transoceanic
radio. :)

Oh, I could tell you some stories about that radio. :)
Relive your youth:

http://photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=823131

Ah - well, I have enough junk around here - don't need more. :)

I just sentTim some of my older cameras - he's a Luddite and can
appreciate them. :)

Once I finish cleaning out my office, giving away and or selling some
of my antique stuff, I can think about maybe reliving my yute. :)

I swear - I found nine cameras in the back of the closet that I didn't
even recognize - had no idea they were there. I don't even remember
where I got them or what I was doing with them.

Fortunately, I got a great price for the lot which paid for my E-3 -
which should be arriving Monday.

WHOO HOO!!!

(Of course, now that I think about it, I'm starting a Olympus Digital
collection - I have an E-1 (which I bought used a couple of years
ago), E-300, E-330, an E-520 and the E-3 I just bought plus various
lenses from my OM-1/2 days and several of the Oly 4/3rds speciality
lenses. Maybe I need to sell my 300 series cameras. :)


Wow..I haven't seen an olympus SLR, digital or film, for years. I
remember the film SLRs were smaller than the nikons and canons, and very
popular because of that.

I'm down to one film SLR, one digital SLR, and one old Leica I love to
use but I am afraid of breaking. I sold off the D200. I just did not
want to contend with "DX" lens issues, as I explained to you previously.

But I love rangefinder cameras. They're quiet, they're compact, they're
fairly low tech. I have my eyes on a slightly used but cherry Zeiss Ikon
and a new Voigtlander Bessa. Both use M mount lenses. The new Zeiss
lenses, though, are very expensive. But there are plenty of used M
lenses around.

Messing with Mother Nature
 

D.Duck wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in message
...

snip

I did shoot these in RAW with no compression on the RAW. I use a batch
conversion macro in Lightroom (I think), and had it set up 640x480 size
with auto sharpen Landscape. I have never seen a jpg compression ratio, I
thought jpg just compressed it as much as possible. I also have never
used a batch conversion before, and never reduce the size so small, so I
really don't know if this is the result to expect or not.

If you're not familiar with jpeg file compression you may want to check out
the link below. Every time you compress a jpeg file it will lose detail.
It's cumulative and you can't go back. It's always best to work on a copy
so the original retains its detail.

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/for...mythsfacts.htm



Thanks for the link. That is why I shot in RAW, and don't use jpgs
except to upload to the web, which I normally set the quality to
"maximum", but since I was uploading a batch of files, I set the quality
to a small size. After reading your web site, I can see that is what
Tom meant by compression. I just thought it reduced the size of the
physical size of the image, it looks like it also changes the
compression ratio.