Some recent AK photo's (receptions, wedding reception, reduction)

[HighlandLady]

One question, Floyd...why ISO 3200?

I appreciate the time taken and the examples shown. You are certainly a credible source to learn from...and I thank you for it.

[Siouxcia]

Originally Posted by HighlandLady

I cannot tell from this shot It may be a juvenile eagle...

Waiting.......

Oh and I'm going to get a Tamron 28-300 lens to go with the D70s. I'll get some great pictures then. After I master the camera, of course, while it takes over my life.

[notreesininceland]

Floyd,

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

I am familiar with the Nyquist frequency and other matters in DSP (I have a PhD in EE - I don't do engineering any more - and although my specialty area was applied electromagnetics, I have peripheral familiarity with these ideas). But this is something easily settled empirically rather than through math, for all it takes is a pair of good eyes.

What I typically do after resizing from a large file is sharpen the image since the resizing algorithms almost always result in loss of sharpness. I can demonstrate this with my images (if I don't post them here it is simply because they have no relevance to Alaska). If you didn't do it, that would perhaps explain the lack of sharpness I observe (I have a very good Macbook Pro screen and it is well calibrated, so it is not the hardware from this end).

Added: I am now wondering if the ISO3200 is smearing out your edges (say with the inbuilt camera NR algorithms). That may explain it.

[Nephler]

Can your calibration help my color blindness?

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by The Grill God

It seems the tone you write in pee-s people off. Some folks write as if looking for a fight, you strike me as one of these people, sorry if I'm wrong. Maybe, you should examine the tone to your writing or better yet (again), post some of your work so I can bake you a pie and pat you on the back......

I actually agree with notrees about the tone of his response. I certainly took no offense, and did not view it as an attempt to start a fight.

Unfortunately when people post photographs it is virtually impossible to have any discussion whatever about the technical quality (never mind the artistic bent) of a pictures. It can be horrible and at least several readers will say "Great Shot!".

And to them, it is a great shot. Why argue with that????

The way I react to that, is by simply not commenting on photographs except for some rather unusual circumstances. First, if there is a very identifiable reason why I like a picture, and it is unusual, I will point that reason out if it happens that I get the idea the person who posted it will appreciate (i.e., make use of it rather than just be happy about it) the particular reason. The other time I'll comment is when someone specifically asks about a particular technical detail. In that case I try very hard to avoid saying something is good, bad or indifferent, and just discuss the technical detail.

In essense, I don't mind trying to help someone learn something, but I see no point in random commentary, and even less in random "I like it." statements.

[Siouxcia]

Originally Posted by Nephler

Can your calibration help my color blindness?

Are you really color blind? Because, I gotta tell ya, that last picture of yours is incredible. It looks like spirits flowing over the rocks. Beautiful.

I knew a photographer waaaaay back when I was in college. He only did black and white and his pictures using light and shadow were better than any color pictures I've seen. So, maybe, being color blind is an advantage!?!

[notreesininceland]

<duplicate post>

[Nephler]

Sometimes though, even a really horrible (or as I like call it, crappy ) shot, as far as technical, can be great. It depends if the viewer has seen this type, area of, and so-forth (help me with the word) of shot.

[notreesininceland]

To add to what Floyd has said - there are two components to a photograph, its technical aspect and its aesthetics. The former has more or less objective criteria, the latter is person-dependent and culture-dependent. A technically perfect photograph can be pedestrian if its subject matter is of little interest. On the other hand, a less than perfect technique can produce a beautiful photograph. When you get both going, the possibility of a great image arises. Personally, I don't pixel-peep but I thought Floyd's subject was interesting enough that I would have liked to see a technically more crisp composition.

Finally - I am glad Floyd took no offense, for none was intended.

[Nephler]

Originally Posted by Siouxcia

Are you really color blind? Because, I gotta tell ya, that last picture of yours is incredible. It looks like spirits flowing over the rocks. Beautiful.

I knew a photographer waaaaay back when I was in college. He only did black and white and his pictures using light and shadow were better than any color pictures I've seen. So, maybe, being color blind is an advantage!?!

Yes, I am color (colour, wife's spelling) blind. I have the red/green color blindness. I have to tell ya, at times it can be a real pain.

Black and white really do stand out for me though. I may need to play with that more.