|
Messing with Mother Nature
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:04:01 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote: 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/ Thanks. I appreciate it. -- John H *Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!* |
Messing with Mother Nature
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in message ... 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. Yep, more compression, more artifacts. |
Messing with Mother Nature
On Nov 29, 8:04*am, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote: 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/- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I'd like to add that if you go to the Callaway area, go to Warm Springs where FDR went alot. That's where his Little White House is, and it's a very nice tour. Warm Springs is a cool little town, too. |
Messing with Mother Nature
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:19:32 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote: I would just recommend that for the next few week's, you look under your car before you crank the engine. ;) Duly noted. |
Messing with Mother Nature
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:19:32 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote: 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. Mr. Duck provided the explanation. This is something that has annoyed me for quite a while now. You would think that the camera manufacturers would get together and come up with a standard RAW format that everybody could use at a base level. Like open source software kind of thing. Each manufacturer could add something of "theirs" for their specific camera, but you could cross platforms if they got their act together. If AOL hadn't of been pricks with their .GIF format, we would have never seen .jpeg and all of it's attendent problems with handling RAW output. Morons. |
Messing with Mother Nature
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... If AOL hadn't of been pricks with their .GIF format, we would have never seen .jpeg and all of it's attendent problems with handling RAW output. Morons. http://www.eisboch.com/gotmail00.wav http://www.eisboch.com/gotmail06.wav |
Messing with Mother Nature
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:36:21 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:19:32 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote: 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. Mr. Duck provided the explanation. This is something that has annoyed me for quite a while now. You would think that the camera manufacturers would get together and come up with a standard RAW format that everybody could use at a base level. Like open source software kind of thing. Each manufacturer could add something of "theirs" for their specific camera, but you could cross platforms if they got their act together. If AOL hadn't of been pricks with their .GIF format, we would have never seen .jpeg and all of it's attendent problems with handling RAW output. Morons. No ****. -- John H *Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!* |
Messing with Mother Nature
On Nov 29, 4:26*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:19:32 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote: I would just recommend that for the next few week's, you look under your car before you crank the engine. *;) Duly noted. I look under my car daily to see if stuff is leaking by the bucket load or look for stuff about to fall off. |
Messing with Mother Nature
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:05:45 -0500, Boater
wrote: 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. As I've told you (and others) my Dad's photographer when he was with the Record American gave me his Nikon F-1 system when I returned from my second tour as kind of a welcome home present. He had replaced it with a Canon system as I remember. At the time, I had purchased an Olympus FTL in Japan - it was a decent early SLR and I liked it. I used both for a few years until Oly came out with the OM-1 and it was off to the races with Oly cameras. Never used another camera except for a Hasselblad I purchased around '84 when I was seriously thinking of doing freelance work. During that period, I purchased quite a few older cameras for different reasons - hence the number of cameras I had in my closet. Each for a reason long forgotten, but I had some classics there. Amazing that I forgot all about them. The interesting thing was that I wasn't an early adopter of the digital camera. When the C-80L was introduced in '97, I borrowed one and didn't like it - thought digital would never replace film. That changed with the C-2000 and the rest is history. To tell the truth, Oly is the best DSLR on the market - they've been ahead of the tech curve with their cameras since the C-2000 - Nikon and Canon have always had to play catch up to Oly tech. The only problem with Oly is that they refuse to market their cameras in the same fashion as Nikon and Canon preferring to stick with a few dedicated users to spread the word. Which is fine with me - not everybody has one. :) I'm going to be using the Hasselblad in the next couple of weeks doing some experiments with the digital back. I want to try really large format digital files and see how they work. 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. I gave Tim a Yashica range finder I had - great camera - loved it actually, but I never used it much - I doubt it's had four roles of film put through it - practically brand new. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com