| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Messing with Mother Nature
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 |
Messing with Mother Nature
On Nov 28, 7:10*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 Yep, yo' sure screwed them up really good, Reg! Happy Thanksgiving! |
Messing with Mother Nature
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. |
Messing with Mother Nature
On Nov 28, 7:14*am, "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. I wen't though them pretty quickly. I thought they looked quite good myself. |
Messing with Mother Nature
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. |
Messing with Mother Nature
"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! |
Messing with Mother Nature
Tim wrote:
On Nov 28, 7:10 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 Yep, yo' sure screwed them up really good, Reg! Happy Thanksgiving! I tried. We also had a great Thanksgiving Dinner in a tiny 100 yr old General Store that someone had converted to a 1st class restaurant. We just happened to drive by at 12:45 and they had a table for two available at 1:00. Most of the restaurants open for Thanksgiving, had been booked for months. This one was a last minute cancellation and was the only table they had available for the day. Mother Nature was looking out for us, even though I was messing with her work. At the waterfall, our two dogs had a ball running in the water and mud pretending they were puppies. All in all, a really good day. |
Messing with Mother Nature
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! I know, one should not mess with mother nature. |
Messing with Mother Nature
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. |
Messing with Mother Nature
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? |
Messing with Mother Nature
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. |
Messing with Mother Nature
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. |
Messing with Mother Nature
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. |
Messing with Mother Nature
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. |
Messing with Mother Nature
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. |
Messing with Mother Nature
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. |
Messing with Mother Nature
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! |
Messing with Mother Nature
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. |
Messing with Mother Nature
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. |
Messing with Mother Nature
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- 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. Or even better, go back and take some with your new camera. |
Messing with Mother Nature
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 |
Messing with Mother Nature
On Nov 28, 8:24*am, wrote:
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!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I noticed that also. Maybe Harold should cross-post to alt.california, alt.rush-limbaugh, alt.impeach.bush, alt.politics.gw- bush, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.society.liberalism, alt.politics.republicans, alt.culture.alaska, to have his comrades add their gainful knowledge and carefully critique Mr. Smithers photo skills as well. |
Messing with Mother Nature
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. |
Messing with Mother Nature
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:49:08 -0500, Boater wrote: 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. It could be a few things besides the focus. First, jpegs right out of a D200 are notoriously soft compared to other cameras. It's just the way it's set up by default. But they take sharpening very well. So after you resize (using sinc/lanczos as the resizing method and if your program doesn't do that, get one that does) apply some sharpening. If you shot raw, you also have to apply some sharpening as the last step. Second, if you resized or rotated (to fix a non-level image althought with a tripod there's no reason you should have to do that) with a program that doesn't use sinc/lanczos interpolator, that could be what you're seeing. Get one that does. I think Lightroom does, but I was reading online about some bugs in their implementation. I use XnView as the last step in my workflow to batch resize (using lanczos), sharpen (around 15 or so on the slider) and then save to final jpeg (jpeg options DCT method set to float, SubSampling set to 1x1, and the quality slider to whatever you want the final size to be. I use 85 for web shots.) Third, when you're doing long exposures in bright light, you have to stop down the lens so far that you're diffraction limited. Too small an aperture will soften the image. I didn't look at the exif data (is it available?) and different lenses show different effects, mostly because their sharpness where diffraction isn't a problem are different. But once you get down to f/11 or so, it can start showing up and soften your image. Some lenses that are super sharp will even show softening at f/8. Once you get down to f/16 and smaller, it can be a real problem with any lens. What you need to do is open the lens up to where it's sharpest (usually a stop or three smaller than it's max aperturn) and use a neutral density filter to reduce the light so you can take a longer exposure. If you want more depth of field, you can stop it down some. But once you get to f/12 and higher, you'll probably notice more softening due to diffraction than any better focus due to more depth of field. Steve |
Messing with Mother Nature
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-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. 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! |
Messing with Mother Nature
Steve wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:49:08 -0500, Boater wrote: 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. It could be a few things besides the focus. First, jpegs right out of a D200 are notoriously soft compared to other cameras. It's just the way it's set up by default. But they take sharpening very well. So after you resize (using sinc/lanczos as the resizing method and if your program doesn't do that, get one that does) apply some sharpening. If you shot raw, you also have to apply some sharpening as the last step. Second, if you resized or rotated (to fix a non-level image althought with a tripod there's no reason you should have to do that) with a program that doesn't use sinc/lanczos interpolator, that could be what you're seeing. Get one that does. I think Lightroom does, but I was reading online about some bugs in their implementation. I use XnView as the last step in my workflow to batch resize (using lanczos), sharpen (around 15 or so on the slider) and then save to final jpeg (jpeg options DCT method set to float, SubSampling set to 1x1, and the quality slider to whatever you want the final size to be. I use 85 for web shots.) Third, when you're doing long exposures in bright light, you have to stop down the lens so far that you're diffraction limited. Too small an aperture will soften the image. I didn't look at the exif data (is it available?) and different lenses show different effects, mostly because their sharpness where diffraction isn't a problem are different. But once you get down to f/11 or so, it can start showing up and soften your image. Some lenses that are super sharp will even show softening at f/8. Once you get down to f/16 and smaller, it can be a real problem with any lens. What you need to do is open the lens up to where it's sharpest (usually a stop or three smaller than it's max aperturn) and use a neutral density filter to reduce the light so you can take a longer exposure. If you want more depth of field, you can stop it down some. But once you get to f/12 and higher, you'll probably notice more softening due to diffraction than any better focus due to more depth of field. Steve My aperture was probably in the F11-F32 range, depending upon the shutter speed. Since F8 really is the sharpest for my lens, they would have been sharper if I had used a ND Filter, but really in RAW using Lightroom standard "Landscape Sharpening" they do look sharp. |
Messing with Mother Nature
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:55:57 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote: Steve wrote: On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:49:08 -0500, Boater wrote: 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. It could be a few things besides the focus. First, jpegs right out of a D200 are notoriously soft compared to other cameras. It's just the way it's set up by default. But they take sharpening very well. So after you resize (using sinc/lanczos as the resizing method and if your program doesn't do that, get one that does) apply some sharpening. If you shot raw, you also have to apply some sharpening as the last step. Second, if you resized or rotated (to fix a non-level image althought with a tripod there's no reason you should have to do that) with a program that doesn't use sinc/lanczos interpolator, that could be what you're seeing. Get one that does. I think Lightroom does, but I was reading online about some bugs in their implementation. I use XnView as the last step in my workflow to batch resize (using lanczos), sharpen (around 15 or so on the slider) and then save to final jpeg (jpeg options DCT method set to float, SubSampling set to 1x1, and the quality slider to whatever you want the final size to be. I use 85 for web shots.) Third, when you're doing long exposures in bright light, you have to stop down the lens so far that you're diffraction limited. Too small an aperture will soften the image. I didn't look at the exif data (is it available?) and different lenses show different effects, mostly because their sharpness where diffraction isn't a problem are different. But once you get down to f/11 or so, it can start showing up and soften your image. Some lenses that are super sharp will even show softening at f/8. Once you get down to f/16 and smaller, it can be a real problem with any lens. What you need to do is open the lens up to where it's sharpest (usually a stop or three smaller than it's max aperturn) and use a neutral density filter to reduce the light so you can take a longer exposure. If you want more depth of field, you can stop it down some. But once you get to f/12 and higher, you'll probably notice more softening due to diffraction than any better focus due to more depth of field. Steve My aperture was probably in the F11-F32 range, depending upon the shutter speed. Since F8 really is the sharpest for my lens, they would have been sharper if I had used a ND Filter, but really in RAW using Lightroom standard "Landscape Sharpening" they do look sharp. 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 |
Messing with Mother Nature
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........ |
Messing with Mother Nature
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 |
Messing with Mother Nature
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! :) |
Messing with Mother Nature
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!* |
Messing with Mother Nature
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. |
Messing with Mother Nature
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. :) |
Messing with Mother Nature
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! |
Messing with Mother Nature
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? |
Messing with Mother Nature
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? |
Messing with Mother Nature
|
Messing with Mother Nature
"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. |
Messing with Mother Nature
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:42 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com