Dave Roberts
02-14-2004, 11:45 PM
Thanks for your interest. I've had several people ask that question in some of their comments below my pictures. I tried to answer the question this morning in the comment section of one of the pictures I posted today. I'm new to this game, and I didn't realize that the post response option in the forum would be a good way to make a response to questions originating in the gallery.
To answer your question, most of my pictures were taken using a 4 megapixel Kodak, Model DX4900. I recently acquired a 5 meg Kodak DX 4530, and a few of my pictures were taken with that.
I also sometimes use the photo enhancing software package, Adobe Photoshop Elements - it can often do a pretty good job of correcting the flaws and other shortcomings that all too often are seen in the raw pictures that come directly from the camera.
I have enjoyed looking at the many great photos that so many other users have posted. It is enriching to see such a wide variety of styles and interests demonstrated in the photos which other folks take.
To answer your question, most of my pictures were taken using a 4 megapixel Kodak, Model DX4900. I recently acquired a 5 meg Kodak DX 4530, and a few of my pictures were taken with that.
I also sometimes use the photo enhancing software package, Adobe Photoshop Elements - it can often do a pretty good job of correcting the flaws and other shortcomings that all too often are seen in the raw pictures that come directly from the camera.
I have enjoyed looking at the many great photos that so many other users have posted. It is enriching to see such a wide variety of styles and interests demonstrated in the photos which other folks take.
Island Girl
02-15-2004, 07:36 AM
Thanks Dave, Not only do I enjoy your pictures, I especially like the long descriptions. My late husband spent a lot of time looking at those mountains trying to identify the different peaks. I will be doing the same with your photos. The geography of this area is of great interest and I like knowing the names of the places.
Thanks again for sharing with all of us.
Island Girl.
Thanks again for sharing with all of us.
Island Girl.
jim-e
02-15-2004, 06:39 PM
Seems to me that any digital picture should carry a
"good housekeeping seal of approval" to attest that
it's the original. Either that or owner should have to explain that some editing took place.
I get the feeling that dcr didn't want to say if any or what editing took place.
Anyone?
"good housekeeping seal of approval" to attest that
it's the original. Either that or owner should have to explain that some editing took place.
I get the feeling that dcr didn't want to say if any or what editing took place.
Anyone?
madrasahs
02-16-2004, 06:29 AM
Photography is an art form, which means...anything goes.
Ansel Adams used double-exposures and use of dark filters to create dramatic, if never-duplicatable scenes. Clyde Butcher does the same in his Florida Everglades photographs.
Last summer, a Los Angeles Times photographer was fired for "editing" a shot of a Guardman intimidating Iraqi civilians with his rifle. That was a fake.
This week, you may have encountered two photographs on Internet news sites of John Kerry pictured with Jane Fonda.
If -- in the black and white photo -- you compared the shadows on Kerry's— and Fonda's— faces, you would see that it was a fake. The color photo is, however, genuine.
The problem with "edited photographs" is when they are "edited" in order to deceive.
Ansel Adams used double-exposures and use of dark filters to create dramatic, if never-duplicatable scenes. Clyde Butcher does the same in his Florida Everglades photographs.
Last summer, a Los Angeles Times photographer was fired for "editing" a shot of a Guardman intimidating Iraqi civilians with his rifle. That was a fake.
This week, you may have encountered two photographs on Internet news sites of John Kerry pictured with Jane Fonda.
If -- in the black and white photo -- you compared the shadows on Kerry's— and Fonda's— faces, you would see that it was a fake. The color photo is, however, genuine.
The problem with "edited photographs" is when they are "edited" in order to deceive.
Island Girl
02-16-2004, 07:55 AM
IMHO good photography has always been about the result not the original picture. Photographers and photo labs have been cropping and enhancing pictures long before digital camera days to get the best result. Taking the kind of pictures that dcr is doing will almost always require post processing to get the distances to stand out.
Previous posters mentioned dpreview and Steve's Digicams. They are both great sites for Digital Camera users. There is a forum on dpreview devoted to the art and science of making pictures look the way they did before the user clicked the shutter. See the link.
For users looking for a new camera, look up the model in which you are interested on these two sites to find out the pros and cons. I always look at the reviews as well as the forum for the specific camera.
Happy photo taking
Island Girl
On retouching digital pictures (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1006)
Previous posters mentioned dpreview and Steve's Digicams. They are both great sites for Digital Camera users. There is a forum on dpreview devoted to the art and science of making pictures look the way they did before the user clicked the shutter. See the link.
For users looking for a new camera, look up the model in which you are interested on these two sites to find out the pros and cons. I always look at the reviews as well as the forum for the specific camera.
Happy photo taking
Island Girl
On retouching digital pictures (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1006)
FLboater
02-16-2004, 10:20 AM
I am a sometimes photographer. I tried digital when they first came out. The memory and print cost were high plus I lost several important pictures. What is the minimum cost and features of camera, memory, batteries etc that I should be looking for? I take action pictures and occasional family. Zoom becomes important to me for long distance shots.
Anyone...
02-16-2004, 01:52 PM
***** To answer your question, most of my pictures were taken using a 4 megapixel Kodak, Model DX4900. I recently acquired a 5 meg Kodak DX 4530, and a few of my pictures were taken with that.
I also sometimes use the photo enhancing software package, Adobe Photoshop Elements - it can often do a pretty good job of correcting the flaws and other shortcomings that all too often are seen in the raw pictures that come directly from the camera. *****
What part of the above post from DCR, to which you posted, do you not understand?
P.S.- Did a search for your Photoposts:
Search Results (jim-e)
A blank space...
P.P.S.- At least DCR is bringing pleasure to many viewers.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/506/199Pan_Major_winter_web-med.jpg?5949
I also sometimes use the photo enhancing software package, Adobe Photoshop Elements - it can often do a pretty good job of correcting the flaws and other shortcomings that all too often are seen in the raw pictures that come directly from the camera. *****
What part of the above post from DCR, to which you posted, do you not understand?
P.S.- Did a search for your Photoposts:
Search Results (jim-e)
A blank space...
P.P.S.- At least DCR is bringing pleasure to many viewers.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/506/199Pan_Major_winter_web-med.jpg?5949
jim-e
02-16-2004, 03:08 PM
I guess I'm a green horn when it comes to photography knowledge! I didn't realize photographers "doctored" their pictures-even Ansel
Adams! That is unless he so stated to his followers.Using filters before taking the actual picture seems not like editing or doctoring a picture after the fact.
What happens in using a photo as evidence in a court trial or other times? How can you know if the picture is edited or changed?
Maybe it's time in this digital age to consider an authentication mark rendered by some organization!
Adams! That is unless he so stated to his followers.Using filters before taking the actual picture seems not like editing or doctoring a picture after the fact.
What happens in using a photo as evidence in a court trial or other times? How can you know if the picture is edited or changed?
Maybe it's time in this digital age to consider an authentication mark rendered by some organization!
Mee'n'Mac
02-16-2004, 08:22 PM
"The memory and print cost were high plus I lost several important pictures. What is the minimum cost and features of camera, memory, batteries etc that I should be looking for? I take action pictures and occasional family. Zoom becomes important to me for long distance shots. "
It's kind of hard to make any suggestions based on the above. The present field of digi-cams is quite extensive, spanning perhaps $300 for the minimum I'd buy to $3000 (which is beyond my needs). What kind of camera and lenses did you use before (digital or film) ? What's your budget ? How picky, photographically speaking, are you ? For fast action shots most of the sub $1000 cams suffer from long shutter lag, which as IG pointed out, is mostly auto-focus time. Prefocussing on where you'll take the picture, and some anticipation, is needed with most consumer and "prosumer" (gack) digi-cams. Most of these are limited to usage where light conditions allow ISO 200 and lower speeds (OK maybe 400 in a pinch and if you're not too picky). Fast action and low light really require a DSLR which start about $1000 and climb rapidly. Typical zoom range span 3-4X, usually 38 - 115 (35mm equivalents) to 38 - 140. Longer zooms, 10x (38 - 380) are available too (Fuji, Minolta, Panasonic). Quality of the lens varies from cam to cam (and other than a DSLR, you're stuck with the one that's on the cam) so read the reviews. Storage media, at least in compact flash form, isn't too expensive ($25 for 128 MB on sale). Good 4x6 prints from Walmart, using a Fuji Frontier "printer", can be had for less than $0.30 ea. Photo printers, and more so their ink, can run a bit higher if you want to print at home. I'd say a 8.5 x 11 on my HP 7960 runs me ~ $2.00 - $2.50, about the same as Walmart charges. I don't print a lot of these, hehehe. Digital is expensive up front, but if you take a lot of pictures, saves down the road as you only print the "keepers". And how might the commercial go; snapping the perfect Winni sunset - $550, instantly knowing you flubbed the shot and retaking it - priceless
It's kind of hard to make any suggestions based on the above. The present field of digi-cams is quite extensive, spanning perhaps $300 for the minimum I'd buy to $3000 (which is beyond my needs). What kind of camera and lenses did you use before (digital or film) ? What's your budget ? How picky, photographically speaking, are you ? For fast action shots most of the sub $1000 cams suffer from long shutter lag, which as IG pointed out, is mostly auto-focus time. Prefocussing on where you'll take the picture, and some anticipation, is needed with most consumer and "prosumer" (gack) digi-cams. Most of these are limited to usage where light conditions allow ISO 200 and lower speeds (OK maybe 400 in a pinch and if you're not too picky). Fast action and low light really require a DSLR which start about $1000 and climb rapidly. Typical zoom range span 3-4X, usually 38 - 115 (35mm equivalents) to 38 - 140. Longer zooms, 10x (38 - 380) are available too (Fuji, Minolta, Panasonic). Quality of the lens varies from cam to cam (and other than a DSLR, you're stuck with the one that's on the cam) so read the reviews. Storage media, at least in compact flash form, isn't too expensive ($25 for 128 MB on sale). Good 4x6 prints from Walmart, using a Fuji Frontier "printer", can be had for less than $0.30 ea. Photo printers, and more so their ink, can run a bit higher if you want to print at home. I'd say a 8.5 x 11 on my HP 7960 runs me ~ $2.00 - $2.50, about the same as Walmart charges. I don't print a lot of these, hehehe. Digital is expensive up front, but if you take a lot of pictures, saves down the road as you only print the "keepers". And how might the commercial go; snapping the perfect Winni sunset - $550, instantly knowing you flubbed the shot and retaking it - priceless
madrasahs
02-16-2004, 08:24 PM
.
I didn't realize photographers "doctored" their pictures-even Ansel Adams!
He freely admitted that his prints were an idealization of nature. Adams himself referred to the film negative as the [musical] score -- and the print as the performance.
Using filters before taking the actual picture seems not like editing or doctoring a picture after the fact.
In Adam's media, over-the-counter photography filters could turn a light sky to black, intensify light gradients, and remove glare.
Adams used all the "techniques" of the darkroom: dodging, burning, cropping, cutting-in -- and he used large-format cameras.
What happens in using a photo as evidence in a court trial or other times?
In the '70s, crime photographers used inexpensive "medium-format" cameras, using 2¼" film. All enlargements were tack-sharp.
When 35mm cameras replaced the medium-format cameras, courts continued to demand poster-size enlargements "to show the jury".
Enlargements from small 35mm negatives, however, produced no more detail -- and sometimes far less detail -- most often recording the microscopic grainy detail of the negative. Viewed from several inches away, photographic detail (in a person's face for example), would appear as blotches of different colors. So even enlarging from a small-format negative changes it.
Photographer Wegman's famous weimaraners appear particularly sharp because he starts with a 20" by 24" negative. (Really, really large format). (World War II aircraft took night-time aerial photographs with very large format film also, and a really, really, large strobe for a flash).
How can you know if the picture is edited or changed?
One technique is to take several digital photos of the same object, then remove the "objectionables" in the photo -- crowds, trash, shadows, trees -- merging into a single print.
Skillfully done, it would be undetectable -- except, perhaps, to another skilled expert.
I didn't realize photographers "doctored" their pictures-even Ansel Adams!
He freely admitted that his prints were an idealization of nature. Adams himself referred to the film negative as the [musical] score -- and the print as the performance.
Using filters before taking the actual picture seems not like editing or doctoring a picture after the fact.
In Adam's media, over-the-counter photography filters could turn a light sky to black, intensify light gradients, and remove glare.
Adams used all the "techniques" of the darkroom: dodging, burning, cropping, cutting-in -- and he used large-format cameras.
What happens in using a photo as evidence in a court trial or other times?
In the '70s, crime photographers used inexpensive "medium-format" cameras, using 2¼" film. All enlargements were tack-sharp.
When 35mm cameras replaced the medium-format cameras, courts continued to demand poster-size enlargements "to show the jury".
Enlargements from small 35mm negatives, however, produced no more detail -- and sometimes far less detail -- most often recording the microscopic grainy detail of the negative. Viewed from several inches away, photographic detail (in a person's face for example), would appear as blotches of different colors. So even enlarging from a small-format negative changes it.
Photographer Wegman's famous weimaraners appear particularly sharp because he starts with a 20" by 24" negative. (Really, really large format). (World War II aircraft took night-time aerial photographs with very large format film also, and a really, really, large strobe for a flash).
How can you know if the picture is edited or changed?
One technique is to take several digital photos of the same object, then remove the "objectionables" in the photo -- crowds, trash, shadows, trees -- merging into a single print.
Skillfully done, it would be undetectable -- except, perhaps, to another skilled expert.
Throttleman
02-16-2004, 11:23 PM
3 megapixels and a 3x optical zoom is more than enough for a casual photographer. That'll run you about $250-$300 minimum for a decent camera. Memory and rechargable batteries will probably add another $75-$100.
I own a 3 megapixel camera and don't even use the highest quality (3mp) resolution setting because the image sizes are just too large and take up precious memory. I generally use a medium quality (2mp)resolution setting and the results are stunning photographs that can be shared on the web or printed on 4x6 photo quality paper. Don't be fooled by the myth of more megapixels = a better quality picture. 4 or 5 megapixel cameras are only worthwhile if you intend on printing photographs that are larger than 8"x11". When I was researching cameras, I printed and compared identical photographs from a small sample of 3, 4 & 5 megapixel cameras. Among the six cameras that I was interested in, a high quality 3mp camera actually produced better 4x6 images than the more expensive 4 & 5mp cameras.
Also, digital zoom is a gimmick and can result in pixely images so ignore this advertised feature. A 3x optical zoom is basically standard on most cameras. So far, I've found this to be adequate. If a high powered zoom is a priority, Fuji and Olympus offer cameras with a 10x optical.
I own a 3 megapixel camera and don't even use the highest quality (3mp) resolution setting because the image sizes are just too large and take up precious memory. I generally use a medium quality (2mp)resolution setting and the results are stunning photographs that can be shared on the web or printed on 4x6 photo quality paper. Don't be fooled by the myth of more megapixels = a better quality picture. 4 or 5 megapixel cameras are only worthwhile if you intend on printing photographs that are larger than 8"x11". When I was researching cameras, I printed and compared identical photographs from a small sample of 3, 4 & 5 megapixel cameras. Among the six cameras that I was interested in, a high quality 3mp camera actually produced better 4x6 images than the more expensive 4 & 5mp cameras.
Also, digital zoom is a gimmick and can result in pixely images so ignore this advertised feature. A 3x optical zoom is basically standard on most cameras. So far, I've found this to be adequate. If a high powered zoom is a priority, Fuji and Olympus offer cameras with a 10x optical.
FLboater
02-17-2004, 11:30 AM
Thanks all for info. Will help. I have been taking boating photos. Catching a dolphin is a tricky business. I how am searching for the perfect pelican photo. Should I record the sound?
Rattlesnake Gal
02-17-2004, 09:30 PM
What are you going to do with the dolphin once you catch him?
FLboater
02-17-2004, 10:06 PM
How about using the dolphin photo as a wallpaper?
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét