 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / August 2004[SI] heat comments
Time again for abuse and accolades: Comments on Heat http://www.pbase.com/shootin/heat Michael J. Hoffman* - You get points for a great picture but you lose them all by submitting an archive shot. 2001, wow did they have cameras back then? Matthew White - That's with the AC on? Tell maintenance they have an emergency. Direct and to the point, I like it. Might have cleaned off the thermometer though. Vic Mason - The color correction was fun? I now know what it is like to be toast. Good picture, I hope nobody got burned. Ken Nadvornick*- Frankly this was not what I was expecting from you given your other contributions. The fire feels nice and warm even through the monitor. But you lose points for an archive shot. Steely Dan* - A sunburned hippo, more angry than hot, I'd think. Points off for an archive shot. Doug Payne - It's hot, but not warm as the little car's wheels are not melting. Great colors. Bowser - Beaches are always hot; especially when crowded. What do you think of the 828 after you've played with it for a couple of weeks? Alan Browne - I almost did the candle thing. Not "heat" enough, too small, too soft. Just doesn't work for me. Colin Donoghue - Now this is heat! I think the colors are great. Should the focus be just a little closer? Bruce Murphy - I grasp the concept, but it's just not working. I'm just seeing "a headlight in the fog" Jim Kramer - The dog was not that hot, this was her second run in the water. But the photographer was baking after 3 hours in 90+ standing in the sun. Simon Lee - Color stands out well. Try some Sterno on the stem? Eric Quesnel-Williams - Sorry, this just doesn't do it for me. Rich Pos - Now this one has me confused. was it the car or the girl that was supposed to be hotter? Great pic. Bob Hickey - But where's the coke? I spent a great deal of time playing with an old fashioned coke glass with the condensation rolling down the side, but didn't get anything that really appealed to me. Al Denelsbeck - A cat, you took a picture of your cat? How is Ben BTW? Like the placement of his eyes in the shadow. jimkramer choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell out: > Time again for abuse and accolades: > > Comments on Heat > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/heat > Simon Lee - Color stands out well. Try some Sterno on the stem? Sterno, heh... did you see my other post with the rejected shot list?  Signature__ A L L D O N E! B Y E B Y E! (__ * _ _ _ _ __)|| | |(_)| \ "...and then, the squirrels attacked." > jimkramer choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell > out: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sterno, heh... did you see my other post with the rejected shot list? Yes I did, even looked at them. The wax & wicks look too fake, which is why I suggested the Sterno, unless you want to play with Napalm? ;) "I Like Fire" Jim Kramer jimkramer choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell out: > "S Lee" <not@this.edu> wrote in message >> jimkramer choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to >> spell out: >> > Simon Lee - Color stands out well. Try some Sterno on the stem? >> >> Sterno, heh... did you see my other post with the rejected shot list? > Yes I did, even looked at them. The wax & wicks look too fake, which > is why I suggested the Sterno, unless you want to play with Napalm? ;) Funny you should ask. Last week when I was fueling up the lawnmower I spilled gasoline on a chunk of styrofoam in the garage and, well, the cleanup was messy. At least I didn't set it on fire! Signature__ A L L D O N E! B Y E B Y E! (__ * _ _ _ _ __)|| | |(_)| \ "...and then, the squirrels attacked." > Time again for abuse and accolades: > > Comments on Heat > Doug Payne - It's hot, but not warm as the little car's wheels are not > melting. Great colors. :-) You noticed. I was going for implied heat. It's truly a hot car, much nicer than the "modern" version. Thanks for the comments. > > Time again for abuse and accolades: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > :-) You noticed. I was going for implied heat. It's truly a hot car, > much nicer than the "modern" version. Thanks for the comments. I see a custom plenum sitting over the SU's, but no forced induction? What's been done to her? Cheers, Steve > Bowser - Beaches are always hot; especially when crowded. What do you > think > of the 828 after you've played with it for a couple of weeks? Well, I received it as a perk from work, and was skeptical due to the heavy volume of negative press it's received. So I just took it and fired away. It's excellent! It's the only one of the 8MP digicams that feels like a camera. Granted, it's still no match for any DSLR when it comes to focusing speed, but the handling is top-notch for this class camera. The manual zoom is a pleasure, since I can't stand any zoom by wire system, the range of the lens is nice, battery life is excellent, and the dreaded "purple fringe" has not reared it's ugly head yet (at least not enough to ruin a shot). Yes, if you want to see it, you can set up a shot with areas of extreme contrast, shoot at a wide angle, and wide open, zoom to 200% and there it is. But I simply can't believe this camera has received such negative press. Here's a full-frame shot from Santa Monica if you want to see a typical example: http://home.comcast.net/~xelbon/pier.jpg This is a 3.7M download, and is a shot straight from the camera, all default settings, taken hand-held. On a recent vacation to Martha's Vineyard, I took over 200 shots, in all manner of lighting, and didn't lose a shot. Nor did I see any of the dreaded purple fring. Here's a shot that has some, but tell me if it affects the shot: http://home.comcast.net/~xelbon/gingerbread.jpg Look in the trees where the sky can be seen. It's there, but didn't show up on any of the prints. In my opinion, a very overstated problem. Especially since you can do something about it after the fact in PS. Anyway, I really like the camera, and plan on keeping it for a while. > On a recent vacation to Martha's Vineyard, I took over 200 shots, in all > manner of lighting, and didn't lose a shot. Nor did I see any of the dreaded > purple fring. Here's a shot that has some, but tell me if it affects the > shot: > > http://home.comcast.net/~xelbon/gingerbread.jpg ...of course it does. And that is not "some" that is gross. As to fixing it in PS, then you're removed from the 1st generation image that is supposed to be digital's strong point. The shots you have shown aren't undewhelming, but they certainly are not an advert for the camera either. Cheers, Alan Signature-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- >> On a recent vacation to Martha's Vineyard, I took over 200 shots, in all >> manner of lighting, and didn't lose a shot. Nor did I see any of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > supposed to be digital's strong point. The shots you have shown aren't > undewhelming, but they certainly are not an advert for the camera either. My tolerances for a little PF are based on what I see in the prints. And, even at 11x14, it's invisible. So it doesn't affect the shot, by my standards. If that much PF isn't to your liking, avoid the Sony, it isn't for you. But, for me, the camera's strengths far outweighed its weaknesses. The metering, focusing, zooming, handling, color accuracy, and ease of use made it right for me. And the shots I posted weren't intended to be ads, they were simply hand-held JPG/Fine snapshots. That's it. But the shot of the Pacific Wheel is sharp, and can be enlarged to pretty decent sizes, and still look good. Overall, I did try each of the other 8MP ZSLRs, and I couldn't tolerate any of them due to abysmally slow handling. Zoom by wire is, for me, a death sentence. And all of them exhibit some sort of PF, so that was a wash. The Minolta handled great, but produced very soft pix, so it was out. The Oly produced nice images, but the zooming action was simply intolerable. The Canon, in some cases, simply couldn't focus! The Sony was the only one I hadn't looked at, due to the negative press. But when one was presented to me as a perk, I just used it, and loved it. To each his own. Anyway, if I ever decide to move on, I'd look at whatever DSLRs are available next year. For now, this is it. When I want real quality, I'll do what I always do: break out the pentax 645 NII and shoot some film. Film still rules! > Cheers, > Alan > > Bowser - Beaches are always hot; especially when crowded. What do you > > think [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Anyway, I really like the camera, and plan on keeping it for a while. I also love my 828, feels like a real camera (even has a spot meter), but I kept pushing it past what it was meant to do and for obvious reasons, was dissatisfied with the results. So I rolled on to the Canon Band Wagon with a 10D, it has the purple fringe issue too, not as bad as the 828, but it is there if the highlights are against a dark edge. That is hidden mostly Canon's gross over-processing of the image which is just as irritating in other aspects. Go shoot some water splashing in direct sunlight and you can look at the green fringing on the side opposite the purple. ;) If you do any flash photography the HVL-F32X is worth it, but the E-TTL tends to under expose, wonder why? Have fun and don't fill up the hard drives too fast. Jim Kramer >>sa-nip > I also love my 828, feels like a real camera (even has a spot meter), but [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Go shoot some water splashing in direct sunlight and you can look at the > green fringing on the side opposite the purple. ;) Oh, I can see it in some shots, like this one: http://home.comcast.net/~xelbon/cycles.jpg You can see the fringing at 100%, and more at 200%, but it doesn't bother me in the least. I guess my tolerance for PF is higher than most other people. But every digicam I've ever seen has some PF. I've been looking at that flash, too. Did you have one? Other than the E-TTL issue, how was it? > If you do any flash photography the HVL-F32X is worth it, but the E-TTL > tends to under expose, wonder why? > > Have fun and don't fill up the hard drives too fast. > > Jim Kramer > I've been looking at that flash, too. Did you have one? Other than the E-TTL > issue, how was it? The only thing I find that it really lacks is a swivel head, the bounce head is great for horizontals and you can dismount the flash and use the (way too short, 8") ACC cable, to do verticals. I've asked Sony about an extension and it doesn't seam likely. Modeling light, manual, TTL and E-TTL(i.e. wo and w preflash) Overall I'm pleased with it, much better than the built in and faster than trying to do everthing manual. If you're in NC swing by and I'll let you try it out. Jim >> I've been looking at that flash, too. Did you have one? Other than the > E-TTL [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and it doesn't seam likely. Modeling light, manual, TTL and E-TTL(i.e. wo > and w preflash) Something else I find missing is a wireless remote for the camera. Is there one I haven't found yet? > Overall I'm pleased with it, much better than the built in and faster than > trying to do everthing manual. > > If you're in NC swing by and I'll let you try it out. > > Jim >> On a recent vacation to Martha's Vineyard, I took over 200 shots, in all >> manner of lighting, and didn't lose a shot. Nor did I see any of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> http://home.comcast.net/~xelbon/gingerbread.jpg Good God, man! Put down that crapastic Sony and get a real camera before you hurt somebody with those purple fringes. Might work well at a Minnesota Viking game, but outdoors? No. Btw, does your Sony have a RAW mode? If so, much of that fringing can be eliminated upon conversion. >>> On a recent vacation to Martha's Vineyard, I took over 200 shots, in all >>> manner of lighting, and didn't lose a shot. Nor did I see any of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > hurt somebody with those purple fringes. > Might work well at a Minnesota Viking game, but outdoors? No. Vikings suck. All potential, no results. Until they bench that big stupid QB they have, they're going nowhere. And don't get me started on that damned big-mouthed lazy wide receiver! And purple uniforms. How 70s. Nah, I follow the local team who have finally, after decades of truly sucking, won something. You may have seen them on TV last February. Then again, unless they carry clubs, you may have missed them. > Btw, does your Sony have a RAW mode? > If so, much of that fringing can be eliminated upon conversion. It shoots RAW, TIFF, and JPG, and if the PF bothers me, it's easily solved. Even at the extreme, in the shot above, it isn't visible in the prints. To me, the biggest drawback is the noise at 800. It's tolerable at 400, but at 800 it's truly awful. The Sony, as with any piece of equipment, has strength and weaknesses, so you play to the strengths. Now get back in your parent's basement and find me some cheerleader shots. HEY! What's up with little Tiger? Too much blonde poon tang? Is he really gonna let an Indian pass him in the rankings? How humiliating. > Ken Nadvornick*- Frankly this was not what I was expecting > from you given your other contributions. The fire feels nice > and warm even through the monitor. But you lose points for > an archive shot. Hi Jim, Yes, rest assured I've already brutally flogged myself for submitting an archive. But... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Since there's only about 16-18 people who submit for any given mandate, I didn't want my lack of free time for a camera and/or darkroom session during these previous two weeks to reduce that number any further. So I'll take my "archive" lumps in good humor. "...not what I was expecting..." is a bit scary, but also intriguing. Could be either good or bad. Could be both. But definitely not neither... <g> On the other hand, "feels nice and warm even through the monitor" is exactly what I was hoping for. It's word-for-word what my wife said when she first saw it. And it's just what I was aiming for when I was sitting out in the cold with the kids making the photo. So in that regard I guess it's a small success. At least for me. Thanks for looking and commenting, Ken Archived from "jimkramer" <Sophomoric_Jim@NOSPAMjlkramer.net> on Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:40:18 -0400: >Vic Mason - The color correction was fun? I now know what it is like to be >toast. Good picture, I hope nobody got burned. Hi Jim. Actually, no color correction, just as shot. This will be the last time too I try that trick. It's a 500 watt halogen worklight. I took off the protective cage to get closer and have nothing in the way. My face was roasting being so close. My eye complained every time I looked through the viewfinder to frame the shot. Eventually I just held the camera while looking away and incremented movement between frames. Thanks for your comments. Vic > Archived from "jimkramer" <Sophomoric_Jim@NOSPAMjlkramer.net> on Mon, 30 Aug > 2004 10:40:18 -0400: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Vic I remember doing documentation photography, 10-15 years ago, under underwhelming fluorescent lighting and overwhelming halogen lighting ever worked under a dual head 1500W lamps, that is hot, especially lighting up a fire investigation in the middle of Summer. Anyway, back in the film days, everything always had that nasty orange cast to it when working with the halogens. Jim Kramer >Now this one has me confused. was it the car or the girl that was >supposed to be hotter? Great pic. Hi Jim. Both are hot but one has much higher maintenance costs. Thanks for the comments. RP© > Eric Quesnel-Williams - Sorry, this just doesn't do it for me. Ummm... Fair enough... Thanks for the explanation, I guess... eqw > > Eric Quesnel-Williams - Sorry, this just doesn't do it for me. > > Ummm... > Fair enough... > Thanks for the explanation, I guess... > eqw The picture says "I have a hair dryer and I'm not afraid to use it. " That in itself isn't bad, but it just doesn't say "heat" loudly to me. Technically the picture was fine, but aesthetically it didn't strike me. Jim Kramer > The picture says "I have a hair dryer and I'm not afraid to use it. " That > in itself isn't bad, but it just doesn't say "heat" loudly to me. > Technically the picture was fine, but aesthetically it didn't strike me. > > Jim Kramer Thank you. eqw > Time again for abuse and accolades: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Bruce Murphy - I grasp the concept, but it's just not working. I'm just > seeing "a headlight in the fog" Think desert, dammit! Actually, this might be a shot where monitor calibration pays rather too large a part, so what can other people see here? If I don't get some more positive comments, I'm going to be extremely nasty when my turn for a mandate comes around :> B Bruce Murphy choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell out: >> Time again for abuse and accolades: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Actually, this might be a shot where monitor calibration pays rather > too large a part, so what can other people see here? I see a bright blob in the mid-upper right, the rest of the picture is filled with bright- to mid-toned glowy yellowness. No particular details visible, and no dark tones. > If I don't get some more positive comments, I'm going to be extremely > nasty when my turn for a mandate comes around :> Well, I like its abstractness :) Signature__ A L L D O N E! B Y E B Y E! (__ * _ _ _ _ __)|| | |(_)| \ "...and then, the squirrels attacked." > Bruce Murphy choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to > spell out: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > is filled with bright- to mid-toned glowy yellowness. No particular > details visible, and no dark tones. Not a lot of details there to be seen, although you /should/ be able to see dun/yellow tones from the ground and blue tones from the sky. > > If I don't get some more positive comments, I'm going to be extremely > > nasty when my turn for a mandate comes around :> > > Well, I like its abstractness :) *moves to second-nastiest planned mandate* :) B Bruce Murphy choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell out: > Not a lot of details there to be seen, although you /should/ be able > to see dun/yellow tones from the ground and blue tones from the sky. Barely... the blue is very faint. Signature__ A L L D O N E! B Y E B Y E! (__ * _ _ _ _ __)|| | |(_)| \ "...and then, the squirrels attacked." > Bruce Murphy choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to > spell out: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Barely... the blue is very faint. Deliberate, bright azure skies don't really fit in with the heat-haze desert theme :) B Bruce Murphy choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell out: > Deliberate, bright azure skies don't really fit in with the heat-haze > desert theme :) Okay, but I'm just offering my comments re: your monitor calibration vs. mine... > Bruce Murphy choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell > out: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Okay, but I'm just offering my comments re: your monitor calibration > vs. mine... Thanks. I was perilously close to the deadline and didn't have an opportunity to check on many machines (more than two, in fact) Of course, before anyone jumps down my throat, the entirety of digital manipulation of the image included a single mild crop. Does that count as extensive? B >Actually, this might be a shot where monitor calibration pays rather >too large a part, so what can other people see here? Looks like the sun over the desert in a smoggy sky. Heat. Nice shot that meets the mandate. RP© > > Time again for abuse and accolades: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > B> I'm not supposed to think, I'm supposed to feel, and this feels like a headlamp in the fog, and fog to me feels cool, not hot. Sorry. Jim Kramer > > > Time again for abuse and accolades: > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I'm not supposed to think, I'm supposed to feel, and this feels like a > headlamp in the fog, and fog to me feels cool, not hot. Sorry. I may possibly be somewhat prejudiced by there being a lot more desert hereabouts than fog, but to me, fog tends to be darker and a different colour. Bah! B > > > > Time again for abuse and accolades: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > B> I'm in the middle of North Carolina, what is a "desert?" ;) Jim Kramer > Time again for abuse and accolades: > <snip> > Colin Donoghue - Now this is heat! I think the colors are great. Should the > focus be just a little closer? Well,Jim, thank you for those kind comments {:-) It was late at night, my wife had just stirred the embers of our evening fire, I was playing with my new EOS300D, saw the embers and just aimed the 300D and let drive. A small crop and size reduction to a .jpg and there she was. Colors as was, straight off the sensor. As for the focus, I wanted it in the hottest - almost white-hot interior. The nearer parts are a bit oof, though. Colin D. > Time again for abuse and accolades: > > Comments on Heat > > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/heat <snip> > Al Denelsbeck - A cat, you took a picture of your cat? How is Ben BTW? > Like the placement of his eyes in the shadow. Where's Tony when you're trying to bait him? ;-) Yep, that's asthmatic ol' Ben, who pointedly declined stretching out in the sporadic sunlight for a shot, so had to be induced to "bask" with the cat-whip (which isn't what it sounds, but instead a felt string on the end of a long handle, providing great amusement to stalking predators). He's actually pausing here as I dragged the toy out of sight. The eyes-in-shadow was actually semi-intentional - he shifted his head and I grabbed the shot quick. I had several different shots for Heat, but some are on a roll I won't finish for a little while. And the fireball I created with a spritz of WD-40 through a candle flame overexposed the frame by a huge degree - *you* try to meter off an event like that. Had a few other ideas, just couldn't bring them together. Next time around... ;-) - Al. SignatureTo reply, insert a dash between "wading" and "in". Please excuse the changed format, I'm working remotely. Archived from "Al Denelsbeck" <news@wadingin.net> on Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:02:34 -0400: >> Time again for abuse and accolades: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> Al Denelsbeck - A cat, you took a picture of your cat? How is Ben BTW? >> Like the placement of his eyes in the shadow. [cut] > And the fireball I created with a spritz of WD-40 >through a candle flame overexposed the frame by a huge degree > - Al. Holy Fireball Batman, you can't be serious! I hope you've selected an understudy for your position as SI Admin. <g> vm |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.