Very delicate work Marilyn! It's delicious.
Scenic, beautiful close-up, Marilyn !Greetings, Tamás
Wow, wonderful detail, Marilyn! Showing both frost spots and water drops together is very rare. The leaf can't have been in this condition for very long.
Many thanks, eme jota, Tamás, and Ryan. Yes, when I saw what was going on in my yard, I worked very quickly!
You spot the beauty in details :)
Thanks for your comment, Roger. I like to think I'm continually learning to do that.
That morning's shooting and this shot in particular also caused me to answer something I'd wondered about. If you zoom in on this as far as you can, you'll see that ultimately the quality is not as good as some wonderful macros on Panoramio. (Not that I'm suggesting that you do that!!) My camera is larger than the pocket-size digitals, but significantly smaller than a DSLR, so it is easy to carry in a moderate size purse (or a very large pocket!). And it's all there: I can go from this shot to an 18x zoom simply by changing the settings. So for that convenience--and thus for the greater likelihood that I will actually have the camera with me, and use it--I am willing to trade off a little bit of image quality!
PP's (Pixel Peepers) do rate cameras from hugely large blowup's, so what you'll find discussed in various forums is in my opinion only at interrest for 3 reasons/occasions; 1) Academic (no practical reason), 2) You want to make large posters and/or 3) You want to sell photos to pro buyers like ad. agencies and magazines which have standards to be met (?). Well, some magazines has lowered their (dumb) criteria. I just read an article of a man and wife who dropped their highly paid jobs, bought themselves two compact cameras and started to travel the world taking pictures of anything related to travel, and hiking trips during these travels. They sell lots of pictures to travel/hiking/outdoor magazines, enough to pay for their trips and as a regular income.
I think there's only one practical reason regarding image quality of using a DSLR over a compact, and that is noise. Noise is usually evident as artificial color pixels in dark or black areas in a picture. In other fairly well lit situations it may be evident as a little haze/dull/grey in the picture, but nothing that can't easily be handled in any free or affordable software. Also, that kind of noise is only detectable (my own experience) in any sky image where you have a relatively large area that has an "even" color. In fact, it's hard to notice anyway without PP'ing.
Then of course there is the fact that DSLR's might have one or two more tools on board than the average compact. On the other hand, most newer advanced compacts has just as many tools. That said, both my compact and my DSLR have tools that I don't know of, will never be found, will never be learned, and will never be missed. Just like any other tech gizmo or software one buy.
I had at one time two advanced compacts for a few years. One got stolen, so now I only have the first one I bought some odd years ago. I will never sell it because it produces great pictures. This fall however, I bought my self a new DSLR. Why? Hm? Good question! I used to have film based SLR's when I was a teenager. Since then, I've missed the feeling of control of manually operating focus, zoom, apperature and more. I guess that was what drove me to buy a DSLR. So, there you have it. Most of my pictures in this forum are from compacts, 2 and 3 year old cameras, not that they are any great, but that's not due to the camera, but me :)
What produces the best images? The photographer, not the camera! It all comes down to observation abilities, creativity, artistic skills, imagination, and of course some technical skill regarding the camera at hand, to take advantage of the tool it is.
When reading comments from serious photographers with expensive and heavy equipment, I learn that they very often rather take with them their compact cameras (they always have one) that fit in a coat pocket when going out to take pictures for pure pleassure. They don't want to be bothered by heavy gear and all extras. Reason? It spoils their pleasure of photography when going for an evening stroll, or a Sunday hike. So overall, in my opinion it's hardly any "trade off a little bit of image quality". Using a fairly adequate compact camera produces the same wonderful pictures. Suggestion! Take a good look at your own gallery!
Many thanks, Roger, for your useful sharing of thoughts and observations. I'm aware of noise in low-light shots, but hadn't analyzed it further and hadn't thought of that as an advantage of DSLR. (I'm going to have to learn to deal with noise in computer editing because I've set myself the project this winter of scanning and editing some of my vast collection of slides, and there I certainly get noise.)
Another project I've set for myself is to become familiar with the manual controls that I do have on this camera. In special situations I tend to take a short-cut by using one of the program modes that I know will lead to basically the same result I would get by the setting aperture or shutter speed. But of course I would have better control by doing the settings directly.
I like your outline of the reasons for high quality blow-ups since clearly none of them applies to me!
And I'm well aware that "a fairly adequate" camera can produce fine images. Years ago I made Cibachrome prints from my slides and (with a bit of self-taught calligraphy) turned them into calendars as Christmas presents for family and close friends. A work colleague's first comment was, "Did your husband take these?" (I won't comment on that one!!) Then she observed (as did others), "You must have a very good camera." Well, it was, in its day: it was my first SLR, purchased in the early days of widespread availabilities of SLRs--25 years earlier! (Not only was it not automatic: it had no built-in light meter!) It takes more than a camera to take a good picture.
Noise removal is everything between "push-a-button" and an interface with a few choices. I use the easy "push-a-button" style :)
I'm kind of old fashion and like to experiment by dialling those manual settings, just to make sure I have a chance to learn a little bit of what I'm doing. Don't always understand what, why and how, but I guess that's part of the fun.
Only things I ever blew up has been fireworks :) so it doesn't regard me either :)
And I might comment the comment: I don't understand the reason for the question from your colleague? Why wouldn't it be you who took the pictures?
Anyway, the fun part for me as an amateur is that there's a lot to explore and a lot to learn about photography. I don't always know how things work, and why they do or don't, but by trial and error some things get stuck in my memory, now and then on a good day, ha ha ha ha :)
Much more than "now and then on a good day," Roger! ;)
My colleague's remark shows that even women can (or at least used to ... ) fall into the trap of assuming that if something is well done, it must have been done by a man! But maybe that never happens in Sweden ...
By Sweeden, you probably refer to a previous remark I had to your mentioning something about Sweeden. Some of your family way back then came from Sweeden ... I believe? Sorry to have mislead you. I live in Norway :) Sweeden is our friendly neighbour, though we have lots of jokes about them, same as they have with us.
About your colleagues remark ...well, there are numbnuts here too, but I haven't heared such comments since ... well since .... can't remember when. I might just be so fortunate to have friends and colleagues who don't think that way. Well, not that I know of, anyway. The people I hang around are outspoken so I think I'd know if it wasn't so.
Now thank you very much for your kind words about my pictures. It's not that it feeds my ego, but it encourage me to develope and learn what also works for others, not just me. Keeps me diverisfied in my picture taking, or picture making as I like to think. Sounds odd to say, but I guess that is what we actually do :)
Sorry for the slip of the mind! I did know it was Norway--I was evening picturing the mapping of one of your photos, quite far south as I recall! (And yes, I know about the jokes both directions, spending summers in an area that has a strong heritage if immigrants from both countries.)
I think such comments are becoming less frequent here, too--at least among the people I know. That remark would probably have been from the late '70s.
In my experience, both the conversation and the observation help me to learn and to develop. "Picture making" is a good description, in part because it refers to a longer process than simply pushing the button.
I've also read about "receiving a picture" rather than "taking" one. That suggests looking at the world with eyes not limited by preconceptions but open to possibilities: what pictures might we receive there? I'm trying to cultivate that attitude.
Like the saying I used a few times in a dpreview(dotcom) comments and questions. "It's all in the eye. It's all about perception". "Receiving a picture" is another and a very good description I think. I remember the times when I wanted to make beautiful pictures, but had no "understanding" or eye. Not even the open mind to perceive. Click click. Now I find a challenge to describe what I feel when being places that I like or interest me. As I said in another thread, what I feel can also come from the 3D effect by being in motion, smells, sounds, temperature and so on. Then trying to figure out what it is, if it is possible to present as a picture, and finally how to present it. It sounds like a great deal of work, but it may happen very fast when things are obvious. So fast that I sometimes wonder if the "snapshot" would be sufficient to present what I had perceived. Kind of long and elaborated consideration, but that's how it is when it's hard to describe :)
Back in the 70's! Yes, in the old days things were different. Some things have improved, and still improves. Some things could improve a little faster though since all it takes is often just a pen stroke. It's amazing how fast an opinion is formed, conventions are altered, and traditions are reformed, as long as there is willpower. And all easily accepted, when to the better for everyone.
Simple and perfect.
Interesting conversations on this one regarding photography, cameras, life, etc. Ultimately, you've created an exquisite image that has captured time, color, light and most importantly, a memory. Thanks again. -alicia
Thank you, Alicia, for noticing the picture. I'm glad you also seem to have enjoyed the conversation. For me, one of the delights of Panoramio is the interesting and often unexpected conversations that take place. Marilyn
I hate to barge in on this conversation as it's very provocative, however having experienced both compact and DSLR's, I must say there is a significant difference other than just a lack of noise. The ability to process in RAW versus camera dependant Jpeg is artistic license, as well as other worldly. Resolution and sensor size only enhance the reception. I will never go back to compact, as the magnificence of the abilities of a good DSLR far out weight the short learning curve needed to grasp it as a tool. The enhancements are incomparable. Check out this low light hand held,Forest it makes even me look good. You should see the 45mb RAW file! I love that you can crop half of the original away if you wish, and still end up with a 8mgp image! It gives you the ability to frame with no degradation in instances that present themselves. Artistic freedom, I love it. Some times you step back and say "I did that?". Marilyn, I can only imagine what you could do!!
Panoramio is acting up again and I can't see your comment as I write, Tom, though I know it's there. Thank you for picking up the conversational thread with remarks that are both thoughtful and thought-provoking.
You led me to a discovery today that I was sorry to make. I knew that my compact will shoot RAW, and I knew that my photo-editing software will handle RAW. What I didn't know is that it can't the process the RAW from my particular camera. Hence I can't readily do the experiment of shooting a few RAW images to try it out, something I'd long intended to do. So my resolve this morning led me into a blind alley. Perhaps it would have been nice to shoot in RAW some of the time.
As I've already commented, I was impressed by the richness of your photographic example. And of course there are times when my camera won't do everything I would like it to do. This is true in the quality of close-ups, for example. And from my 46 years of experience using an SLR before I got my first digital, I know the advantages of their flexibility long before DSLRs came along. (I got my first one when they were just becoming available to "real people." I'm old!)
So is it worth it to me now? Your arguments are compelling, but I'm not yet convinced. My aspirations for my photos are modest and for most of what I do, I find my compact satisfactory. I recently had 11 x 14 prints made of two of my New Jersey industrial shots, and I was pleasantly surprised at how they hold up under close inspection. (I'd never had more than an 8 x 10, and rarely that. I ordered these because there's a possibility of doing a very low-key exhibit in a local library in NJ, and I wanted to see samples that size.)
The other is a personality thing. Even at 71, I still feel uncomfortable making a "big thing" of my picture-taking when I'm with others. Hence I don't like fussing with lenses and delaying (more than necessary!) whoever I may be with. Also since I am a woman and carry a purse, I can always have the compact camera with me. That paid off recently when I spotted the "horizontal icicles"!
I have more to say, but this is already more than want to read. Accept it as testimony that I found your thoughts very stimulating indeed! Thank you for your comment. Marilyn
Marilyn, I hope I don't make you feel like you have to justify what you are doing, as it is marvelous. My subject is rather - the capabilities of the technology that is available, and what it can mean to us. Your art speaks for itself. As I have learned from my years on this earth, the most important thing is "whatever works." For each individual that means something different. You have found what works for you. I hope you can find a way to make RAW work for you because it gives you more accuracy in your results. If you want to pursue this, I might be able to help you figure out how to get your RAW images processed. I think you'll like it very much, especially if it's with your compact. I hope you have fun in Zion and I will be looking forward to your new photos.
Tom, I hope I didn't sound either defensive or belligerent. It's just how my mind works: receiving an opinion, feeling a reaction, and then figuring out why I've reacted that way. The end product is always a greater (self)understanding, which is satisfying. Most of the time I keep this mulling process to myself!
Stimulated by all this, I've already seen from a spec sheet that Bibble Pro (regular and Lite) will work with RAW images from my camera. Will I take the plunge? Stay tuned!! So again thanks for stimulating this. Marilyn
Sign up to comment.
Sign in if you already did it.
Photo taken in Exhibition Park, Guelph, ON, Canada
Misplaced? Suggest new location