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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


Interesting. BTW, you didn't offer up the correct URL for your tripod,
but I am familiar with it, since a salesman tried to convince me it was
the one I wanted.

(you posted the manfrotto grip URL twice)

I tried that same 322 a couple of times, and I think I agree that a
conventional ball head would be mo' betta'. Maybe a Kirk:

http://www.kirkphoto.com/ballheads.html

Boater wrote:
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.

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.


Interesting. BTW, you didn't offer up the correct URL for your tripod,
but I am familiar with it, since a salesman tried to convince me it was
the one I wanted.

This is the correct link
http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/...fonce/pid/2280



(you posted the manfrotto grip URL twice)

I tried that same 322 a couple of times, and I think I agree that a
conventional ball head would be mo' betta'. Maybe a Kirk:

http://www.kirkphoto.com/ballheads.html

If I change ball heads Kirk with a L-Bracket will be on the short list.

I have ordered a hot shoe ball level to see it if it makes it easier to
level the ball grip.

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.

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.

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.