Nikon D70 - Available Light
Last response: in Digital Camera
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
SLR?
I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
job.
Phil
www.BluegrassBanjo.com
www.BluegrassBanjo.org
Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
SLR?
I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
job.
Phil
www.BluegrassBanjo.com
www.BluegrassBanjo.org
More about : nikon d70 light
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Phillip Mann escribio:
> Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
> SLR?
>
> I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
> and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
> job.
Of course. (with the right *Manual* settings)
--
chidalgo
Phillip Mann escribio:
> Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
> SLR?
>
> I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
> and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
> job.
Of course. (with the right *Manual* settings)
--
chidalgo
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Phillip Mann" <phil@bluegrassbanjo.org> wrote in message
news:shsdt059ejqddhofcde6klrscduhkk49p5@4ax.com...
> Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
> SLR?
>
> I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
> and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
> job.
Personally, I think available light is generally far better than using
flash. I only use flash when I absolutely have to.
"Phillip Mann" <phil@bluegrassbanjo.org> wrote in message
news:shsdt059ejqddhofcde6klrscduhkk49p5@4ax.com...
> Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
> SLR?
>
> I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
> and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
> job.
Personally, I think available light is generally far better than using
flash. I only use flash when I absolutely have to.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
chidalgo wrote:
> Phillip Mann escribio:
>
>> Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
>> SLR?
>>
>> I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
>> and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
>> job.
>
>
> Of course. (with the right *Manual* settings)
And with an expensive lense. I got better low light results with my Oly
C3030 3MP pocket digicam.
chidalgo wrote:
> Phillip Mann escribio:
>
>> Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
>> SLR?
>>
>> I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
>> and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
>> job.
>
>
> Of course. (with the right *Manual* settings)
And with an expensive lense. I got better low light results with my Oly
C3030 3MP pocket digicam.
Related ressources
- Using Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D with Nikon D70 DSLR - Forum
- Question about Nikon D70 - Forum
- Nikon 8800 vs D70 - Forum
- SB-600 or SB-800 Flash for Nikon D70 ??? - Forum
- Nikon D70 and Cobra 700AF flash - Forum
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:03:50 GMT, Phillip Mann
<phil@bluegrassbanjo.org> wrote:
>Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
>SLR?
>
>I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
>and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
>job.
Depends on which lens you want to put on it.
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5
Any of the 1.4's would do it....
***************************************************************
"Americans have plenty of everything and the best of nothing."
John C. Keats
American Writer
1924-2000
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:03:50 GMT, Phillip Mann
<phil@bluegrassbanjo.org> wrote:
>Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
>SLR?
>
>I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
>and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
>job.
Depends on which lens you want to put on it.
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5
Any of the 1.4's would do it....
***************************************************************
"Americans have plenty of everything and the best of nothing."
John C. Keats
American Writer
1924-2000
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Phillip Mann wrote:
[]
> I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
> and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
> job.
Why not? Put your camera on a tripod and use the appropriate exposure.
It should work just fine (if the camera allows a long enough exposure and
can apply any required dark-frame subtraction). Try wide-open aperture
and 1 second exposure. Work up to 30 seconds.
Cheers,
David
Phillip Mann wrote:
[]
> I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
> and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
> job.
Why not? Put your camera on a tripod and use the appropriate exposure.
It should work just fine (if the camera allows a long enough exposure and
can apply any required dark-frame subtraction). Try wide-open aperture
and 1 second exposure. Work up to 30 seconds.
Cheers,
David
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
depends on the effect you want.
Do you want it to be dark and subdued showing the color of the fire? Or
do you want it to be bright and adjusted for the color from the fire?
I've taken to having a hand held light meter with me especially when
shooting snow.
If in doubt I check the light with an incedent light meter reading and
then adjust my manual settings based on how I want it to look.
Phillip Mann wrote:
> Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
> SLR?
>
> I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
> and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
> job.
>
> Phil
>
> www.BluegrassBanjo.com
> www.BluegrassBanjo.org
depends on the effect you want.
Do you want it to be dark and subdued showing the color of the fire? Or
do you want it to be bright and adjusted for the color from the fire?
I've taken to having a hand held light meter with me especially when
shooting snow.
If in doubt I check the light with an incedent light meter reading and
then adjust my manual settings based on how I want it to look.
Phillip Mann wrote:
> Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
> SLR?
>
> I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
> and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
> job.
>
> Phil
>
> www.BluegrassBanjo.com
> www.BluegrassBanjo.org
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Yes. The D70 is very suitable for low light photography. I use the D70
successfully with up to ISO 1600. You will get some digital noise at ISO 800
to 1600, which you might want to remove with an appropriate SW tool. I use
NEF and process the file first with Nikon Capture 4. I then generate a good
quality JPEG, which I further process in PaintShop Pro 9 using its excellent
digital noise removal filter. There are two other tools available:
1) Noise Ninja from PictoreCode (see http://www.neatimage.com/)
2) Neat Image from Neat Image (see http://www.picturecode.com/)
Gregor
"Phillip Mann" <phil@bluegrassbanjo.org> wrote in message
news:shsdt059ejqddhofcde6klrscduhkk49p5@4ax.com...
> Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
> SLR?
>
> I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
> and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
> job.
>
> Phil
>
> www.BluegrassBanjo.com
> www.BluegrassBanjo.org
Yes. The D70 is very suitable for low light photography. I use the D70
successfully with up to ISO 1600. You will get some digital noise at ISO 800
to 1600, which you might want to remove with an appropriate SW tool. I use
NEF and process the file first with Nikon Capture 4. I then generate a good
quality JPEG, which I further process in PaintShop Pro 9 using its excellent
digital noise removal filter. There are two other tools available:
1) Noise Ninja from PictoreCode (see http://www.neatimage.com/)
2) Neat Image from Neat Image (see http://www.picturecode.com/)
Gregor
"Phillip Mann" <phil@bluegrassbanjo.org> wrote in message
news:shsdt059ejqddhofcde6klrscduhkk49p5@4ax.com...
> Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
> SLR?
>
> I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
> and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
> job.
>
> Phil
>
> www.BluegrassBanjo.com
> www.BluegrassBanjo.org
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:03:50 GMT, Phillip Mann <phil@bluegrassbanjo.org>
wrote:
>Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
>SLR?
>
>I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
>and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
>job.
I'm a longtime Leica rangefinder shooter (king of available light, right?)
who just switched to the D70. I had the same concerns, because I never use
either flash or tripods, and I just wasn't convinced that digital could
challenge the king in his own country. Well, I'm no longer worried. I'm
getting as good, indeed in most cases better, available light images with
the D70.
The key to the available light prowess of the D70 is the quality of its
1600 ISO setting. Especially with a noise reduction program (I use Noise
Ninja) the image quality is well beyond any 1600 ISO film I've used, not to
mention 400 film pushed two stops. This lets you use 2.8 lenses in places
you'd have needed 1.4 if you were shooting film. Add in a good cheap lens
like the 50/1.8 or the 35/2.0 for even another stop and you're away to the
races.
This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at the
end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to
17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
anxious about moving away from Leica.
Paul Chefurka
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:03:50 GMT, Phillip Mann <phil@bluegrassbanjo.org>
wrote:
>Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
>SLR?
>
>I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
>and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
>job.
I'm a longtime Leica rangefinder shooter (king of available light, right?)
who just switched to the D70. I had the same concerns, because I never use
either flash or tripods, and I just wasn't convinced that digital could
challenge the king in his own country. Well, I'm no longer worried. I'm
getting as good, indeed in most cases better, available light images with
the D70.
The key to the available light prowess of the D70 is the quality of its
1600 ISO setting. Especially with a noise reduction program (I use Noise
Ninja) the image quality is well beyond any 1600 ISO film I've used, not to
mention 400 film pushed two stops. This lets you use 2.8 lenses in places
you'd have needed 1.4 if you were shooting film. Add in a good cheap lens
like the 50/1.8 or the 35/2.0 for even another stop and you're away to the
races.
This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at the
end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to
17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
anxious about moving away from Leica.
Paul Chefurka
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:47:09 GMT, william kossack
<wskossack@comcast.net> wrote:
>depends on the effect you want.
>
>Do you want it to be dark and subdued showing the color of the fire? Or
>do you want it to be bright and adjusted for the color from the fire?
>
>I've taken to having a hand held light meter with me especially when
>shooting snow.
>
>If in doubt I check the light with an incedent light meter reading and
>then adjust my manual settings based on how I want it to look.
>
>Phillip Mann wrote:
>> Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
>> SLR?
>>
It works just like any other camera that has the ASA, f-stop, and
shutter speed range.
This isn't quite what you were talking about and it's from an E-20,
but the D-70 will do the same. You can run the ASA up to any value
available. http://www.rogerhalstead.com/fire.htm
Noise isn't much of a problem except for long exposures with the D-70,
at least not on mine. On exposures longer than a couple of seconds
AND a high ASA I do use dark frame subtraction. I've used slower ASA
speeds and exposures of several seconds without dark frame
subtraction.
>> I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
>> and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
>> job.
It should if it has a manual capability.
Put it on a tripod and use a cable release, remote, or the built in
timer. Experiment with shutter speeds, but I would guess using an ASA
of 100 and 2 or 3 seconds exposure (lens wide open) should do it.
You really don't need a super fast lens although they are nice. F2 to
2.8 should be plenty fast enough. It helps if you can get an ASA of
400 to 800 too. <:-)), but still the tripod should let you get the
shots. OTOH the speeds are pretty slow for people to be in the
images. They would have to be very still.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> www.BluegrassBanjo.com
>> www.BluegrassBanjo.org
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:47:09 GMT, william kossack
<wskossack@comcast.net> wrote:
>depends on the effect you want.
>
>Do you want it to be dark and subdued showing the color of the fire? Or
>do you want it to be bright and adjusted for the color from the fire?
>
>I've taken to having a hand held light meter with me especially when
>shooting snow.
>
>If in doubt I check the light with an incedent light meter reading and
>then adjust my manual settings based on how I want it to look.
>
>Phillip Mann wrote:
>> Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
>> SLR?
>>
It works just like any other camera that has the ASA, f-stop, and
shutter speed range.
This isn't quite what you were talking about and it's from an E-20,
but the D-70 will do the same. You can run the ASA up to any value
available. http://www.rogerhalstead.com/fire.htm
Noise isn't much of a problem except for long exposures with the D-70,
at least not on mine. On exposures longer than a couple of seconds
AND a high ASA I do use dark frame subtraction. I've used slower ASA
speeds and exposures of several seconds without dark frame
subtraction.
>> I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
>> and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
>> job.
It should if it has a manual capability.
Put it on a tripod and use a cable release, remote, or the built in
timer. Experiment with shutter speeds, but I would guess using an ASA
of 100 and 2 or 3 seconds exposure (lens wide open) should do it.
You really don't need a super fast lens although they are nice. F2 to
2.8 should be plenty fast enough. It helps if you can get an ASA of
400 to 800 too. <:-)), but still the tripod should let you get the
shots. OTOH the speeds are pretty slow for people to be in the
images. They would have to be very still.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> www.BluegrassBanjo.com
>> www.BluegrassBanjo.org
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:03:50 GMT, Phillip Mann <phil@bluegrassbanjo.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
> >SLR?
> >
> >I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
> >and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
> >job.
>
> I'm a longtime Leica rangefinder shooter (king of available light, right?)
> who just switched to the D70. I had the same concerns, because I never
use
> either flash or tripods, and I just wasn't convinced that digital could
> challenge the king in his own country. Well, I'm no longer worried. I'm
> getting as good, indeed in most cases better, available light images with
> the D70.
>
> The key to the available light prowess of the D70 is the quality of its
> 1600 ISO setting. Especially with a noise reduction program (I use Noise
> Ninja) the image quality is well beyond any 1600 ISO film I've used, not
to
> mention 400 film pushed two stops. This lets you use 2.8 lenses in places
> you'd have needed 1.4 if you were shooting film. Add in a good cheap lens
> like the 50/1.8 or the 35/2.0 for even another stop and you're away to the
> races.
>
> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
the
> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to
> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
> anxious about moving away from Leica.
>
> Paul Chefurka
Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
--
Michael Brown
Melbourne Australia
www.photo.net/photos/mlbrown
"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:03:50 GMT, Phillip Mann <phil@bluegrassbanjo.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Can the D70 take excellent "available light" pictures like a regular
> >SLR?
> >
> >I tried to take pictures with the only light coming from the fireplace
> >and the christmas tree lights. Of course my Sony Mavica didn't do the
> >job.
>
> I'm a longtime Leica rangefinder shooter (king of available light, right?)
> who just switched to the D70. I had the same concerns, because I never
use
> either flash or tripods, and I just wasn't convinced that digital could
> challenge the king in his own country. Well, I'm no longer worried. I'm
> getting as good, indeed in most cases better, available light images with
> the D70.
>
> The key to the available light prowess of the D70 is the quality of its
> 1600 ISO setting. Especially with a noise reduction program (I use Noise
> Ninja) the image quality is well beyond any 1600 ISO film I've used, not
to
> mention 400 film pushed two stops. This lets you use 2.8 lenses in places
> you'd have needed 1.4 if you were shooting film. Add in a good cheap lens
> like the 50/1.8 or the 35/2.0 for even another stop and you're away to the
> races.
>
> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
the
> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to
> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
> anxious about moving away from Leica.
>
> Paul Chefurka
Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
--
Michael Brown
Melbourne Australia
www.photo.net/photos/mlbrown
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:59:56 GMT, "Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
>the
>> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
>> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to
>> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
>> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
>> anxious about moving away from Leica.
>>
>> Paul Chefurka
>
>Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
Try this:
http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the domain
name hasn't propagated yet.
Paul
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:59:56 GMT, "Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
>the
>> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
>> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to
>> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
>> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
>> anxious about moving away from Leica.
>>
>> Paul Chefurka
>
>Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
Try this:
http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the domain
name hasn't propagated yet.
Paul
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Paul Chefurka wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:59:56 GMT, "Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
>
>
>>>This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
>>
>>the
>>
>>>end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
>>>flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to
>>>17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
>>>wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
>>>anxious about moving away from Leica.
>>>
>>>Paul Chefurka
>>
>>Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
>
>
> Try this:
>
> http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>
> Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the domain
> name hasn't propagated yet.
That does have a lot of noise but hey, it is cool that such pics can
even be taken & I guess there are some pretty good programs out now to
clean up the noise. I'd be curious to see that run through one of those.
Hmm, I just tried it through http://www.neatimage.com/download.html with
auto settings & it made a big difference with just a little loss of
detail but it's possible to get the camera profile & do better.
Paul Chefurka wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:59:56 GMT, "Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
>
>
>>>This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
>>
>>the
>>
>>>end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
>>>flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to
>>>17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
>>>wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
>>>anxious about moving away from Leica.
>>>
>>>Paul Chefurka
>>
>>Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
>
>
> Try this:
>
> http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>
> Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the domain
> name hasn't propagated yet.
That does have a lot of noise but hey, it is cool that such pics can
even be taken & I guess there are some pretty good programs out now to
clean up the noise. I'd be curious to see that run through one of those.
Hmm, I just tried it through http://www.neatimage.com/download.html with
auto settings & it made a big difference with just a little loss of
detail but it's possible to get the camera profile & do better.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Roger <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> writes:
> Noise isn't much of a problem except for long exposures with the D-70,
> at least not on mine. On exposures longer than a couple of seconds
> AND a high ASA I do use dark frame subtraction. I've used slower ASA
> speeds and exposures of several seconds without dark frame
> subtraction.
Hey, Roger, can you give a quick overview of that?
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Roger <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> writes:
> Noise isn't much of a problem except for long exposures with the D-70,
> at least not on mine. On exposures longer than a couple of seconds
> AND a high ASA I do use dark frame subtraction. I've used slower ASA
> speeds and exposures of several seconds without dark frame
> subtraction.
Hey, Roger, can you give a quick overview of that?
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Paul Chefurka <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> writes:
> Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the domain
> name hasn't propagated yet.
_Very_ well-done lighting, Paul.
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Paul Chefurka <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> writes:
> Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the domain
> name hasn't propagated yet.
_Very_ well-done lighting, Paul.
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
nice shot
I would never get my family to sit still long enough for such a shot
Paul Chefurka wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:59:56 GMT, "Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
>
>
>>>This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
>>
>>the
>>
>>>end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
>>>flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to
>>>17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
>>>wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
>>>anxious about moving away from Leica.
>>>
>>>Paul Chefurka
>>
>>Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
>
>
> Try this:
>
> http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>
> Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the domain
> name hasn't propagated yet.
>
> Paul
nice shot
I would never get my family to sit still long enough for such a shot
Paul Chefurka wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:59:56 GMT, "Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
>
>
>>>This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
>>
>>the
>>
>>>end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
>>>flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to
>>>17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
>>>wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
>>>anxious about moving away from Leica.
>>>
>>>Paul Chefurka
>>
>>Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
>
>
> Try this:
>
> http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>
> Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the domain
> name hasn't propagated yet.
>
> Paul
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:k37ft01p75ipb226hr1s7o34c9lmdhjs5e@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:59:56 GMT, "Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
>
>>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
>>the
>>> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
>>> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set
>>> to
>>> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
>>> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
>>> anxious about moving away from Leica.
>>>
>>> Paul Chefurka
>>
>>Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
>
> Try this:
>
> http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>
> Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the
> domain
> name hasn't propagated yet.
>
> Paul
Who is the blonde on the right with the big shnozz?
S.
"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:k37ft01p75ipb226hr1s7o34c9lmdhjs5e@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:59:56 GMT, "Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
>
>>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
>>the
>>> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
>>> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set
>>> to
>>> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
>>> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
>>> anxious about moving away from Leica.
>>>
>>> Paul Chefurka
>>
>>Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
>
> Try this:
>
> http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>
> Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the
> domain
> name hasn't propagated yet.
>
> Paul
Who is the blonde on the right with the big shnozz?
S.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 04:25:17 GMT, "S." <noemail770@noemail.com> wrote:
>
>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:k37ft01p75ipb226hr1s7o34c9lmdhjs5e@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:59:56 GMT, "Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>>news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
>>>the
>>>> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
>>>> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set
>>>> to
>>>> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
>>>> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
>>>> anxious about moving away from Leica.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Chefurka
>>>
>>>Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
>>
>> Try this:
>>
>> http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>>
>> Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the
>> domain
>> name hasn't propagated yet.
>>
>> Paul
>
>
>Who is the blonde on the right with the big shnozz?
>
>S.
>
That would be my niece.
Paul
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 04:25:17 GMT, "S." <noemail770@noemail.com> wrote:
>
>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:k37ft01p75ipb226hr1s7o34c9lmdhjs5e@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:59:56 GMT, "Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>>news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
>>>the
>>>> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
>>>> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set
>>>> to
>>>> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
>>>> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
>>>> anxious about moving away from Leica.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Chefurka
>>>
>>>Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
>>
>> Try this:
>>
>> http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>>
>> Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the
>> domain
>> name hasn't propagated yet.
>>
>> Paul
>
>
>Who is the blonde on the right with the big shnozz?
>
>S.
>
That would be my niece.
Paul
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3asst0pthhio81rk02sdq56mmnad51teh6@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 04:25:17 GMT, "S." <noemail770@noemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>news:k37ft01p75ipb226hr1s7o34c9lmdhjs5e@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:59:56 GMT, "Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table
>>>>> at
>>>>the
>>>>> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
>>>>> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set
>>>>> to
>>>>> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
>>>>> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
>>>>> anxious about moving away from Leica.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Chefurka
>>>>
>>>>Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
>>>
>>> Try this:
>>>
>>> http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>>>
>>> Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the
>>> domain
>>> name hasn't propagated yet.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>>
>>Who is the blonde on the right with the big shnozz?
>>
>>S.
>>
>
> That would be my niece.
>
> Paul
Tell her to get the honker fixed. She would be a 10 for sure.
S.
"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3asst0pthhio81rk02sdq56mmnad51teh6@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 04:25:17 GMT, "S." <noemail770@noemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>news:k37ft01p75ipb226hr1s7o34c9lmdhjs5e@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:59:56 GMT, "Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table
>>>>> at
>>>>the
>>>>> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
>>>>> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set
>>>>> to
>>>>> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
>>>>> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
>>>>> anxious about moving away from Leica.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Chefurka
>>>>
>>>>Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
>>>
>>> Try this:
>>>
>>> http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>>>
>>> Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the
>>> domain
>>> name hasn't propagated yet.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>>
>>Who is the blonde on the right with the big shnozz?
>>
>>S.
>>
>
> That would be my niece.
>
> Paul
Tell her to get the honker fixed. She would be a 10 for sure.
S.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
| >>>>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
| >>>>news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
| >>>
| >>>>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table
| >>>>> at
| >>>>the
| >>>>> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
| >>>>> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set
| >>>>> to
| >>>>> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
| >>>>> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
| >>>>> anxious about moving away from Leica.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> Paul Chefurka
| >>>>
| >>>>Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
| >>>
| >>> Try this:
| >>>
| >>> http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
| >>>
| >>> Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the
| >>> domain
| >>> name hasn't propagated yet.
| >>>
| >>> Paul
| >>
| >>
| >>Who is the blonde on the right with the big shnozz?
| >>
| >>S.
| >>
| >
| > That would be my niece.
| >
| > Paul
|
|
| Tell her to get the honker fixed. She would be a 10 for sure.
|
| S.
|
Paul,
Ignore this bottom feeder who signs himself "S.", he's wandered into the wrong
group and is probably typing with one hand down his pants. It's a terrific
photo. I've recently purchased a D70 and I hope I can do as well in low
light.
Rick
| >>>>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
| >>>>news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
| >>>
| >>>>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table
| >>>>> at
| >>>>the
| >>>>> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
| >>>>> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set
| >>>>> to
| >>>>> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
| >>>>> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
| >>>>> anxious about moving away from Leica.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> Paul Chefurka
| >>>>
| >>>>Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
| >>>
| >>> Try this:
| >>>
| >>> http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
| >>>
| >>> Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the
| >>> domain
| >>> name hasn't propagated yet.
| >>>
| >>> Paul
| >>
| >>
| >>Who is the blonde on the right with the big shnozz?
| >>
| >>S.
| >>
| >
| > That would be my niece.
| >
| > Paul
|
|
| Tell her to get the honker fixed. She would be a 10 for sure.
|
| S.
|
Paul,
Ignore this bottom feeder who signs himself "S.", he's wandered into the wrong
group and is probably typing with one hand down his pants. It's a terrific
photo. I've recently purchased a D70 and I hope I can do as well in low
light.
Rick
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:05:26 GMT, "Rick" <rlago@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>| >>>>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>| >>>>news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
>| >>>
>| >>>>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table
>| >>>>> at
>| >>>>the
>| >>>>> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
>| >>>>> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set
>| >>>>> to
>| >>>>> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
>| >>>>> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
>| >>>>> anxious about moving away from Leica.
>| >>>>>
>| >>>>> Paul Chefurka
>| >>>>
>| >>>>Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
>| >>>
>| >>> Try this:
>| >>>
>| >>> http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>| >>>
>| >>> Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the
>| >>> domain
>| >>> name hasn't propagated yet.
>| >>>
>| >>> Paul
>| >>
>| >>
>| >>Who is the blonde on the right with the big shnozz?
>| >>
>| >>S.
>| >>
>| >
>| > That would be my niece.
>| >
>| > Paul
>|
>|
>| Tell her to get the honker fixed. She would be a 10 for sure.
>|
>| S.
>|
>
>
>Paul,
>
>Ignore this bottom feeder who signs himself "S.", he's wandered into the wrong
>group and is probably typing with one hand down his pants. It's a terrific
>photo. I've recently purchased a D70 and I hope I can do as well in low
>light.
>
>Rick
He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose.
More here:
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-02.htm
--
Owamanga!
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:05:26 GMT, "Rick" <rlago@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>| >>>>"Paul Chefurka" <paul_chefurka@rogers.com> wrote in message
>| >>>>news:chset0pb68854er008m6lu6qvp9f0040h0@4ax.com...
>| >>>
>| >>>>> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table
>| >>>>> at
>| >>>>the
>| >>>>> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
>| >>>>> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set
>| >>>>> to
>| >>>>> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
>| >>>>> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
>| >>>>> anxious about moving away from Leica.
>| >>>>>
>| >>>>> Paul Chefurka
>| >>>>
>| >>>>Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
>| >>>
>| >>> Try this:
>| >>>
>| >>> http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>| >>>
>| >>> Sorry for the IP address, I just set up the hosting account, and the
>| >>> domain
>| >>> name hasn't propagated yet.
>| >>>
>| >>> Paul
>| >>
>| >>
>| >>Who is the blonde on the right with the big shnozz?
>| >>
>| >>S.
>| >>
>| >
>| > That would be my niece.
>| >
>| > Paul
>|
>|
>| Tell her to get the honker fixed. She would be a 10 for sure.
>|
>| S.
>|
>
>
>Paul,
>
>Ignore this bottom feeder who signs himself "S.", he's wandered into the wrong
>group and is probably typing with one hand down his pants. It's a terrific
>photo. I've recently purchased a D70 and I hope I can do as well in low
>light.
>
>Rick
He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose.
More here:
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-02.htm
--
Owamanga!
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:04:10 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose.
>
>More here:
Crude is crude. Nice shot. Ken
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:04:10 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose.
>
>More here:
Crude is crude. Nice shot. Ken
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 13:30:27 GMT, "S." <noemail770@noemail.com> wrote:
>Tell her to get the honker fixed. She would be a 10 for sure.
>
>S.
Well, that would be her decision, wouldn't it? Not sure why we care so much
about a person's outsides, anyway. Fortunately she's not that shallow.
AFAIC she's an 11, inside and out.
Cheers,
Paul
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 13:30:27 GMT, "S." <noemail770@noemail.com> wrote:
>Tell her to get the honker fixed. She would be a 10 for sure.
>
>S.
Well, that would be her decision, wouldn't it? Not sure why we care so much
about a person's outsides, anyway. Fortunately she's not that shallow.
AFAIC she's an 11, inside and out.
Cheers,
Paul
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:05:26 GMT, "Rick" <rlago@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Ignore this bottom feeder who signs himself "S.", he's wandered into the wrong
>group and is probably typing with one hand down his pants. It's a terrific
>photo. I've recently purchased a D70 and I hope I can do as well in low
>light.
>
>Rick
Thanks for the kind words, Rick. I've been on Usenet long enough that those
master baiters don't get to me any more ;-)
Cheers,
Paul
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:05:26 GMT, "Rick" <rlago@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Ignore this bottom feeder who signs himself "S.", he's wandered into the wrong
>group and is probably typing with one hand down his pants. It's a terrific
>photo. I've recently purchased a D70 and I hope I can do as well in low
>light.
>
>Rick
Thanks for the kind words, Rick. I've been on Usenet long enough that those
master baiters don't get to me any more ;-)
Cheers,
Paul
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Nice shot, Paul.
I just picked up a D70 before Christmas and I'm really enjoying it. Very
capable machine. Add some good software and it's just fantastic!
Good shooting,
Bob Scott
Nice shot, Paul.
I just picked up a D70 before Christmas and I'm really enjoying it. Very
capable machine. Add some good software and it's just fantastic!
Good shooting,
Bob Scott
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Robert Scott" <desmobob@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eQDDd.265$C52.220@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Nice shot, Paul.
|
| I just picked up a D70 before Christmas and I'm really enjoying it. Very
| capable machine. Add some good software and it's just fantastic!
|
| Good shooting,
| Bob Scott
|
|
OK, I'll bite, what software is "good"?
Thanks,
Rick
"Robert Scott" <desmobob@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eQDDd.265$C52.220@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Nice shot, Paul.
|
| I just picked up a D70 before Christmas and I'm really enjoying it. Very
| capable machine. Add some good software and it's just fantastic!
|
| Good shooting,
| Bob Scott
|
|
OK, I'll bite, what software is "good"?
Thanks,
Rick
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Rick" <rlago@aol.com> wrote in message
news:MGGDd.5474$S75.3959@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Robert Scott" <desmobob@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:eQDDd.265$C52.220@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> | Nice shot, Paul.
> |
> | I just picked up a D70 before Christmas and I'm really enjoying it.
> Very
> | capable machine. Add some good software and it's just fantastic!
> |
> | Good shooting,
> | Bob Scott
> |
> |
>
> OK, I'll bite, what software is "good"?
I wasn't trolling, really.
I didn't mean any in particular. I use Nikon Capture, Photoshop Elements 3,
and Opanda IExif so far. I'll be adding a panorama-stitching program, and
who-knows what else in the future.
What I should have said was the camera is great but you need to buy software
to really get the most out of it (a program to load custom curves into the
camera, a program to edit RAW files, etc.).
Where my little Sony P&S digital is "just" a camera, my D70 + software (and
a printer) is a camera and darkroom, so to speak. The D70 is a great
photo-taking machine, but with a few software programs to go with it, it's
more capable and twice the fun.
I thought I'd never leave film, but playing with the D70, custom curves,
image editing programs and printer has me intrigued with digital.
Good shooting,
Bob Scott
"Rick" <rlago@aol.com> wrote in message
news:MGGDd.5474$S75.3959@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Robert Scott" <desmobob@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:eQDDd.265$C52.220@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> | Nice shot, Paul.
> |
> | I just picked up a D70 before Christmas and I'm really enjoying it.
> Very
> | capable machine. Add some good software and it's just fantastic!
> |
> | Good shooting,
> | Bob Scott
> |
> |
>
> OK, I'll bite, what software is "good"?
I wasn't trolling, really.
I didn't mean any in particular. I use Nikon Capture, Photoshop Elements 3,
and Opanda IExif so far. I'll be adding a panorama-stitching program, and
who-knows what else in the future.
What I should have said was the camera is great but you need to buy software
to really get the most out of it (a program to load custom curves into the
camera, a program to edit RAW files, etc.).
Where my little Sony P&S digital is "just" a camera, my D70 + software (and
a printer) is a camera and darkroom, so to speak. The D70 is a great
photo-taking machine, but with a few software programs to go with it, it's
more capable and twice the fun.
I thought I'd never leave film, but playing with the D70, custom curves,
image editing programs and printer has me intrigued with digital.
Good shooting,
Bob Scott
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Robert Scott" <desmobob@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vpHDd.387$C52.271@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
|
| "Rick" <rlago@aol.com> wrote in message
| news:MGGDd.5474$S75.3959@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
| >
| > "Robert Scott" <desmobob@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:eQDDd.265$C52.220@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| > | Nice shot, Paul.
| > |
| > | I just picked up a D70 before Christmas and I'm really enjoying it.
| > Very
| > | capable machine. Add some good software and it's just fantastic!
| > |
| > | Good shooting,
| > | Bob Scott
| > |
| > |
| >
| > OK, I'll bite, what software is "good"?
|
|
| I wasn't trolling, really.
|
| I didn't mean any in particular. I use Nikon Capture, Photoshop Elements 3,
| and Opanda IExif so far. I'll be adding a panorama-stitching program, and
| who-knows what else in the future.
|
| What I should have said was the camera is great but you need to buy software
| to really get the most out of it (a program to load custom curves into the
| camera, a program to edit RAW files, etc.).
|
| Where my little Sony P&S digital is "just" a camera, my D70 + software (and
| a printer) is a camera and darkroom, so to speak. The D70 is a great
| photo-taking machine, but with a few software programs to go with it, it's
| more capable and twice the fun.
|
| I thought I'd never leave film, but playing with the D70, custom curves,
| image editing programs and printer has me intrigued with digital.
|
| Good shooting,
| Bob Scott
|
|
Thanks Bob. Sorry, I didn't want to give you the impression that I thought
you were trolling. I, too, have recently purchased a D70 and an extra lens or
two and have put my venerable Pentax MX and its lenses in the attic for my kid
to find some day. I've been using Capture and a photo editing program that
came with my scanner--Photoimpact. It's not great, but I find it to be more
intuitive and less frustrating than PhotoShop, although I'll be adding
Elements 3 soon.
Regards,
Rick
"Robert Scott" <desmobob@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vpHDd.387$C52.271@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
|
| "Rick" <rlago@aol.com> wrote in message
| news:MGGDd.5474$S75.3959@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
| >
| > "Robert Scott" <desmobob@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:eQDDd.265$C52.220@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| > | Nice shot, Paul.
| > |
| > | I just picked up a D70 before Christmas and I'm really enjoying it.
| > Very
| > | capable machine. Add some good software and it's just fantastic!
| > |
| > | Good shooting,
| > | Bob Scott
| > |
| > |
| >
| > OK, I'll bite, what software is "good"?
|
|
| I wasn't trolling, really.
|
| I didn't mean any in particular. I use Nikon Capture, Photoshop Elements 3,
| and Opanda IExif so far. I'll be adding a panorama-stitching program, and
| who-knows what else in the future.
|
| What I should have said was the camera is great but you need to buy software
| to really get the most out of it (a program to load custom curves into the
| camera, a program to edit RAW files, etc.).
|
| Where my little Sony P&S digital is "just" a camera, my D70 + software (and
| a printer) is a camera and darkroom, so to speak. The D70 is a great
| photo-taking machine, but with a few software programs to go with it, it's
| more capable and twice the fun.
|
| I thought I'd never leave film, but playing with the D70, custom curves,
| image editing programs and printer has me intrigued with digital.
|
| Good shooting,
| Bob Scott
|
|
Thanks Bob. Sorry, I didn't want to give you the impression that I thought
you were trolling. I, too, have recently purchased a D70 and an extra lens or
two and have put my venerable Pentax MX and its lenses in the attic for my kid
to find some day. I've been using Capture and a photo editing program that
came with my scanner--Photoimpact. It's not great, but I find it to be more
intuitive and less frustrating than PhotoShop, although I'll be adding
Elements 3 soon.
Regards,
Rick
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Ken Palmateer" <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3sott09e1f7vcpgbg05qqvvefh4a9oitpi@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:04:10 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose.
>>
>>More here:
>
> Crude is crude. Nice shot. Ken
Sorry but I think comments about the subject matter is a legitimate
photographic concern. When a flash picture is taken of me, the aperature
needs to closed down a half stop because the flash will overexpose my bald
head. In the niece's case a wide angle lens is probably in order to capture
the essence of the proboscus. Again this is a legitimate point of discussion
in this forum,
S.
"Ken Palmateer" <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3sott09e1f7vcpgbg05qqvvefh4a9oitpi@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:04:10 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose.
>>
>>More here:
>
> Crude is crude. Nice shot. Ken
Sorry but I think comments about the subject matter is a legitimate
photographic concern. When a flash picture is taken of me, the aperature
needs to closed down a half stop because the flash will overexpose my bald
head. In the niece's case a wide angle lens is probably in order to capture
the essence of the proboscus. Again this is a legitimate point of discussion
in this forum,
S.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <k37ft01p75ipb226hr1s7o34c9lmdhjs5e@4ax.com>, Paul Chefurka
says...
> >> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
> >the
> >> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
> >> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to
> >> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
> >> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
> >> anxious about moving away from Leica.
> >>
> >> Paul Chefurka
> >
> >Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
>
> Try this:
>
> http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too
much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with
the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ?
But the biggest problem is that combination of blurriness and noise -
resized for the web the image should look sharp and clean. Makes me
wonder if all these claims about perfectly clean ISO 1600 DSLR images
are a bit unrealistic.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5060 resource - http://myolympus.org/5060/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
In article <k37ft01p75ipb226hr1s7o34c9lmdhjs5e@4ax.com>, Paul Chefurka
says...
> >> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
> >the
> >> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
> >> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to
> >> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
> >> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
> >> anxious about moving away from Leica.
> >>
> >> Paul Chefurka
> >
> >Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
>
> Try this:
>
> http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too
much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with
the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ?
But the biggest problem is that combination of blurriness and noise -
resized for the web the image should look sharp and clean. Makes me
wonder if all these claims about perfectly clean ISO 1600 DSLR images
are a bit unrealistic.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5060 resource - http://myolympus.org/5060/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:06:46 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too
>much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with
>the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ?
>
>But the biggest problem is that combination of blurriness and noise -
>resized for the web the image should look sharp and clean. Makes me
>wonder if all these claims about perfectly clean ISO 1600 DSLR images
>are a bit unrealistic.
As others have said, candle light has a very limited spectrum, all of it
yellow and red. As the scene was lit purely with those candles, I set the
white balance to reproduce the original tonality.
The same comment applies to the exposure. If you look at the flames and
the tops of the candles just under them you'll see that I kept the exposure
at the point where the light sources for the image had started to clip.
This indicates that the rest of the scene is at approximately the original
intensity. The shadow areas in the background were basically (0,0,0).
If anything, the meter should have overexposed the scene, completely
blowing out the candles. The fact that it didn't, and allowed me to
capture both some detail in the deepest shadows as well as detail in the
tops of the candles, indicates to me that Nikon's matrix metering is
everything they say plus a bag of chips. And the dynamic range of the
D70's sensor is awe-inspiring for this old slide-film shooter.
On the subject of blurriness, that is due to the wide aperture and lack of
depth of field. In the original RAW image you can read the lettering on
the wine bottle in the middle of the table. 2.8 doesn't give much DOF, even
at 17mm. BTW, the shot was hand-held.
On the noise issue, I don't think anyone is claiming noise-free images at
1600 ISO, even from the big Canon sensor. From my perspective, the noise
level in this image is incredible. But that's because I'm coming from the
film world. Have you ever seen the results from 35mm 400 ISO colour neg
film pushed two stops? It's egregious, and the tonality and dynamic range
go to hell in a hand basket as well. Frankly, one of the reasons I
switched to the D70 was its available light capability. I had a Leica with
a 35/1.4 ASPH and I couldn't make images like this with it.
Paul
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:06:46 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too
>much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with
>the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ?
>
>But the biggest problem is that combination of blurriness and noise -
>resized for the web the image should look sharp and clean. Makes me
>wonder if all these claims about perfectly clean ISO 1600 DSLR images
>are a bit unrealistic.
As others have said, candle light has a very limited spectrum, all of it
yellow and red. As the scene was lit purely with those candles, I set the
white balance to reproduce the original tonality.
The same comment applies to the exposure. If you look at the flames and
the tops of the candles just under them you'll see that I kept the exposure
at the point where the light sources for the image had started to clip.
This indicates that the rest of the scene is at approximately the original
intensity. The shadow areas in the background were basically (0,0,0).
If anything, the meter should have overexposed the scene, completely
blowing out the candles. The fact that it didn't, and allowed me to
capture both some detail in the deepest shadows as well as detail in the
tops of the candles, indicates to me that Nikon's matrix metering is
everything they say plus a bag of chips. And the dynamic range of the
D70's sensor is awe-inspiring for this old slide-film shooter.
On the subject of blurriness, that is due to the wide aperture and lack of
depth of field. In the original RAW image you can read the lettering on
the wine bottle in the middle of the table. 2.8 doesn't give much DOF, even
at 17mm. BTW, the shot was hand-held.
On the noise issue, I don't think anyone is claiming noise-free images at
1600 ISO, even from the big Canon sensor. From my perspective, the noise
level in this image is incredible. But that's because I'm coming from the
film world. Have you ever seen the results from 35mm 400 ISO colour neg
film pushed two stops? It's egregious, and the tonality and dynamic range
go to hell in a hand basket as well. Frankly, one of the reasons I
switched to the D70 was its available light capability. I had a Leica with
a 35/1.4 ASPH and I couldn't make images like this with it.
Paul
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Alfred Molon wrote:
>
> In article <k37ft01p75ipb226hr1s7o34c9lmdhjs5e@4ax.com>, Paul Chefurka
> says...
>
> > >> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
> > >the
> > >> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
> > >> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to
> > >> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
> > >> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
> > >> anxious about moving away from Leica.
> > >>
> > >> Paul Chefurka
> > >
> > >Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> > http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>
> Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too
> much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with
> the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ?
try a pictue by 4 candles and a rumcake.
looks good to me.
you captured the feel of the event!
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
> Olympus 5060 resource - http://myolympus.org/5060/
> Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Alfred Molon wrote:
>
> In article <k37ft01p75ipb226hr1s7o34c9lmdhjs5e@4ax.com>, Paul Chefurka
> says...
>
> > >> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
> > >the
> > >> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
> > >> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to
> > >> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
> > >> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
> > >> anxious about moving away from Leica.
> > >>
> > >> Paul Chefurka
> > >
> > >Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> > http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>
> Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too
> much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with
> the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ?
try a pictue by 4 candles and a rumcake.
looks good to me.
you captured the feel of the event!
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
> Olympus 5060 resource - http://myolympus.org/5060/
> Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Paul, I don't care what anybody says about color balance, exposure, or
DOF. It's a terrific picture. Thank you for letting us see it.
I think the color and exposure are perfect for a candle lit scene.
Best regards,
Orrin
Paul, I don't care what anybody says about color balance, exposure, or
DOF. It's a terrific picture. Thank you for letting us see it.
I think the color and exposure are perfect for a candle lit scene.
Best regards,
Orrin
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:06:46 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too
>much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with
>the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ?
>
>But the biggest problem is that combination of blurriness and noise -
>resized for the web the image should look sharp and clean. Makes me
>wonder if all these claims about perfectly clean ISO 1600 DSLR images
>are a bit unrealistic.
Noise aside, as far as the white balance goes, in a shot like
that it becomes a personal thing. I think the orange cast and the
somewhat darkened setting nicely expresses the candle-lit ambience of
the setting. Ken
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:06:46 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too
>much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with
>the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ?
>
>But the biggest problem is that combination of blurriness and noise -
>resized for the web the image should look sharp and clean. Makes me
>wonder if all these claims about perfectly clean ISO 1600 DSLR images
>are a bit unrealistic.
Noise aside, as far as the white balance goes, in a shot like
that it becomes a personal thing. I think the orange cast and the
somewhat darkened setting nicely expresses the candle-lit ambience of
the setting. Ken
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <dp60u0dplkhkk17einlfiejflbpnclpdqe@4ax.com>, Paul Chefurka
says...
> As others have said, candle light has a very limited spectrum, all of it
> yellow and red. As the scene was lit purely with those candles, I set the
> white balance to reproduce the original tonality.
I guess the white balance is a matter of personal taste. I would have
made the image less orange.
> The same comment applies to the exposure. If you look at the flames and
> the tops of the candles just under them you'll see that I kept the exposure
> at the point where the light sources for the image had started to clip.
> This indicates that the rest of the scene is at approximately the original
> intensity. The shadow areas in the background were basically (0,0,0).
>
> If anything, the meter should have overexposed the scene, completely
> blowing out the candles. The fact that it didn't, and allowed me to
> capture both some detail in the deepest shadows as well as detail in the
> tops of the candles, indicates to me that Nikon's matrix metering is
> everything they say plus a bag of chips. And the dynamic range of the
> D70's sensor is awe-inspiring for this old slide-film shooter.
You could have overexposed a bit the candles and compressed the dynamic
range. By the way, pushing the histogram a bit to the right would have
helped getting lower noise levels.
> On the subject of blurriness, that is due to the wide aperture and lack of
> depth of field. In the original RAW image you can read the lettering on
> the wine bottle in the middle of the table. 2.8 doesn't give much DOF, even
> at 17mm. BTW, the shot was hand-held.
DOF is limited indeed, with both the foreground and the background out
of focus (only the centre around the candles is properly focused).
> On the noise issue, I don't think anyone is claiming noise-free images at
> 1600 ISO, even from the big Canon sensor. From my perspective, the noise
> level in this image is incredible. But that's because I'm coming from the
> film world. Have you ever seen the results from 35mm 400 ISO colour neg
> film pushed two stops? It's egregious, and the tonality and dynamic range
> go to hell in a hand basket as well. Frankly, one of the reasons I
> switched to the D70 was its available light capability. I had a Leica with
> a 35/1.4 ASPH and I couldn't make images like this with it.
That sounds plausible. A photographer sent me images taken with a film
camera using high ISO film. The shots are very grainy and have a poor
dynamic range - the quality is so much inferior to what you would have
obtained from a digital camera.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5060 resource - http://myolympus.org/5060/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
In article <dp60u0dplkhkk17einlfiejflbpnclpdqe@4ax.com>, Paul Chefurka
says...
> As others have said, candle light has a very limited spectrum, all of it
> yellow and red. As the scene was lit purely with those candles, I set the
> white balance to reproduce the original tonality.
I guess the white balance is a matter of personal taste. I would have
made the image less orange.
> The same comment applies to the exposure. If you look at the flames and
> the tops of the candles just under them you'll see that I kept the exposure
> at the point where the light sources for the image had started to clip.
> This indicates that the rest of the scene is at approximately the original
> intensity. The shadow areas in the background were basically (0,0,0).
>
> If anything, the meter should have overexposed the scene, completely
> blowing out the candles. The fact that it didn't, and allowed me to
> capture both some detail in the deepest shadows as well as detail in the
> tops of the candles, indicates to me that Nikon's matrix metering is
> everything they say plus a bag of chips. And the dynamic range of the
> D70's sensor is awe-inspiring for this old slide-film shooter.
You could have overexposed a bit the candles and compressed the dynamic
range. By the way, pushing the histogram a bit to the right would have
helped getting lower noise levels.
> On the subject of blurriness, that is due to the wide aperture and lack of
> depth of field. In the original RAW image you can read the lettering on
> the wine bottle in the middle of the table. 2.8 doesn't give much DOF, even
> at 17mm. BTW, the shot was hand-held.
DOF is limited indeed, with both the foreground and the background out
of focus (only the centre around the candles is properly focused).
> On the noise issue, I don't think anyone is claiming noise-free images at
> 1600 ISO, even from the big Canon sensor. From my perspective, the noise
> level in this image is incredible. But that's because I'm coming from the
> film world. Have you ever seen the results from 35mm 400 ISO colour neg
> film pushed two stops? It's egregious, and the tonality and dynamic range
> go to hell in a hand basket as well. Frankly, one of the reasons I
> switched to the D70 was its available light capability. I had a Leica with
> a 35/1.4 ASPH and I couldn't make images like this with it.
That sounds plausible. A photographer sent me images taken with a film
camera using high ISO film. The shots are very grainy and have a poor
dynamic range - the quality is so much inferior to what you would have
obtained from a digital camera.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5060 resource - http://myolympus.org/5060/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"S." <noemail770@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:6pKDd.636$pZ4.203@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Ken Palmateer" <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3sott09e1f7vcpgbg05qqvvefh4a9oitpi@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:04:10 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose.
>>>
>>>More here:
>>
>> Crude is crude. Nice shot. Ken
>
>
> Sorry but I think comments about the subject matter is a legitimate
> photographic concern. When a flash picture is taken of me, the aperature
> needs to closed down a half stop because the flash will overexpose my bald
> head. In the niece's case a wide angle lens is probably in order to
> capture the essence of the proboscus. Again this is a legitimate point of
> discussion in this forum,
>
> S.
And an equally legitimate point of discussion is likely to be what a rude,
bald cunt you are.
"S." <noemail770@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:6pKDd.636$pZ4.203@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Ken Palmateer" <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3sott09e1f7vcpgbg05qqvvefh4a9oitpi@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:04:10 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose.
>>>
>>>More here:
>>
>> Crude is crude. Nice shot. Ken
>
>
> Sorry but I think comments about the subject matter is a legitimate
> photographic concern. When a flash picture is taken of me, the aperature
> needs to closed down a half stop because the flash will overexpose my bald
> head. In the niece's case a wide angle lens is probably in order to
> capture the essence of the proboscus. Again this is a legitimate point of
> discussion in this forum,
>
> S.
And an equally legitimate point of discussion is likely to be what a rude,
bald cunt you are.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Paul Chefurka says...
>
> > >> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table
at
> > >the
> > >> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
> > >> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55
set to
> > >> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
> > >> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even
mildly
> > >> anxious about moving away from Leica.
> > >>
> > >> Paul Chefurka
> > >
> > >Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> > http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>
> Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too
> much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with
> the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ?
That's _candle light_. It's orange. Nothing but orange. And not very much
of it, at that. It's a flipping amazing shot, one that would be impossible
with a P&S camera.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Paul Chefurka says...
>
> > >> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table
at
> > >the
> > >> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
> > >> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55
set to
> > >> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
> > >> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even
mildly
> > >> anxious about moving away from Leica.
> > >>
> > >> Paul Chefurka
> > >
> > >Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> > http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>
> Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too
> much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with
> the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ?
That's _candle light_. It's orange. Nothing but orange. And not very much
of it, at that. It's a flipping amazing shot, one that would be impossible
with a P&S camera.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> That's _candle light_. It's orange. Nothing but orange. And not very
> much of it, at that. It's a flipping amazing shot, one that would be
> impossible with a P&S camera.
I agree, absolutely great color that is highlighted by the pretty blue flame
from the burning alcohol in the center.
Rita
David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> That's _candle light_. It's orange. Nothing but orange. And not very
> much of it, at that. It's a flipping amazing shot, one that would be
> impossible with a P&S camera.
I agree, absolutely great color that is highlighted by the pretty blue flame
from the burning alcohol in the center.
Rita
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <pk11u0p81cc9htr3huam32m0t5hc0p41su@4ax.com>,
oiseming@moscow.com says...
> Paul, I don't care what anybody says about color balance, exposure, or
> DOF. It's a terrific picture. Thank you for letting us see it.
>
> I think the color and exposure are perfect for a candle lit scene.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Orrin
It was a good picture. As far as the color balance goes, I think it's a
bit naive to want perfect colors from a scene that was colored so lovely
by the candles in the first place.
There are times you want accurate color, and then there are times when
you want the ambience of the light from the scene. This was certainly
one of those times.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
In article <pk11u0p81cc9htr3huam32m0t5hc0p41su@4ax.com>,
oiseming@moscow.com says...
> Paul, I don't care what anybody says about color balance, exposure, or
> DOF. It's a terrific picture. Thank you for letting us see it.
>
> I think the color and exposure are perfect for a candle lit scene.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Orrin
It was a good picture. As far as the color balance goes, I think it's a
bit naive to want perfect colors from a scene that was colored so lovely
by the candles in the first place.
There are times you want accurate color, and then there are times when
you want the ambience of the light from the scene. This was certainly
one of those times.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Ken Palmateer" <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6fn0u0hukurtiptrv85t3d68s4p74598ru@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:06:46 +0100, Alfred Molon
> <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too
>>much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with
>>the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ?
>>
>>But the biggest problem is that combination of blurriness and noise -
>>resized for the web the image should look sharp and clean. Makes me
>>wonder if all these claims about perfectly clean ISO 1600 DSLR images
>>are a bit unrealistic.
>
> Noise aside, as far as the white balance goes, in a shot like
> that it becomes a personal thing. I think the orange cast and the
> somewhat darkened setting nicely expresses the candle-lit ambience of
> the setting. Ken
He meant nose aside...
S.
"Ken Palmateer" <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6fn0u0hukurtiptrv85t3d68s4p74598ru@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:06:46 +0100, Alfred Molon
> <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too
>>much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with
>>the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ?
>>
>>But the biggest problem is that combination of blurriness and noise -
>>resized for the web the image should look sharp and clean. Makes me
>>wonder if all these claims about perfectly clean ISO 1600 DSLR images
>>are a bit unrealistic.
>
> Noise aside, as far as the white balance goes, in a shot like
> that it becomes a personal thing. I think the orange cast and the
> somewhat darkened setting nicely expresses the candle-lit ambience of
> the setting. Ken
He meant nose aside...
S.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Quoit Appy" <QuoitAppy@TheResult.com> wrote in message
news:crpphe$90l$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "S." <noemail770@noemail.com> wrote in message
> news:6pKDd.636$pZ4.203@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Ken Palmateer" <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:3sott09e1f7vcpgbg05qqvvefh4a9oitpi@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:04:10 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose.
>>>>
>>>>More here:
>>>
>>> Crude is crude. Nice shot. Ken
>>
>>
>> Sorry but I think comments about the subject matter is a legitimate
>> photographic concern. When a flash picture is taken of me, the aperature
>> needs to closed down a half stop because the flash will overexpose my
>> bald head. In the niece's case a wide angle lens is probably in order to
>> capture the essence of the proboscus. Again this is a legitimate point of
>> discussion in this forum,
>>
>> S.
>
> And an equally legitimate point of discussion is likely to be what a rude,
> bald cunt you are.
Cunt? No one ever called me that before. I'm fascinated why you would use
such a word. Cunt is a word that would insult a woman not a man. I have
been called prick, and all those sort of male words but never cunt. Can you
tell me why you would think I would be insulted by that? Are you
insinuating that I am effeminate? If so, why not use the words fag, queer,
or something like that? Tell you what, rewrite this response with words
that would be appropriate and I can then evaluate your insult.
S.
>
>
"Quoit Appy" <QuoitAppy@TheResult.com> wrote in message
news:crpphe$90l$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "S." <noemail770@noemail.com> wrote in message
> news:6pKDd.636$pZ4.203@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Ken Palmateer" <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:3sott09e1f7vcpgbg05qqvvefh4a9oitpi@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:04:10 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose.
>>>>
>>>>More here:
>>>
>>> Crude is crude. Nice shot. Ken
>>
>>
>> Sorry but I think comments about the subject matter is a legitimate
>> photographic concern. When a flash picture is taken of me, the aperature
>> needs to closed down a half stop because the flash will overexpose my
>> bald head. In the niece's case a wide angle lens is probably in order to
>> capture the essence of the proboscus. Again this is a legitimate point of
>> discussion in this forum,
>>
>> S.
>
> And an equally legitimate point of discussion is likely to be what a rude,
> bald cunt you are.
Cunt? No one ever called me that before. I'm fascinated why you would use
such a word. Cunt is a word that would insult a woman not a man. I have
been called prick, and all those sort of male words but never cunt. Can you
tell me why you would think I would be insulted by that? Are you
insinuating that I am effeminate? If so, why not use the words fag, queer,
or something like that? Tell you what, rewrite this response with words
that would be appropriate and I can then evaluate your insult.
S.
>
>
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
S. wrote:
>
> Cunt? No one ever called me that before. I'm fascinated why you would use
> such a word. Cunt is a word that would insult a woman not a man. I have
> been called prick, and all those sort of male words but never cunt. Can you
> tell me why you would think I would be insulted by that? Are you
> insinuating that I am effeminate? If so, why not use the words fag, queer,
> or something like that? Tell you what, rewrite this response with words
> that would be appropriate and I can then evaluate your insult.
>
Without entering any opinion as to the merits of any name calling- which
I am generally against- I'd point out that in my experience, there are
both male cunts, and female pricks. Subtle variations, perhaps, but
worth noting.
--
John McWilliams
S. wrote:
>
> Cunt? No one ever called me that before. I'm fascinated why you would use
> such a word. Cunt is a word that would insult a woman not a man. I have
> been called prick, and all those sort of male words but never cunt. Can you
> tell me why you would think I would be insulted by that? Are you
> insinuating that I am effeminate? If so, why not use the words fag, queer,
> or something like that? Tell you what, rewrite this response with words
> that would be appropriate and I can then evaluate your insult.
>
Without entering any opinion as to the merits of any name calling- which
I am generally against- I'd point out that in my experience, there are
both male cunts, and female pricks. Subtle variations, perhaps, but
worth noting.
--
John McWilliams
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
S. wrote:
>
> "Quoit Appy" <QuoitAppy@TheResult.com> wrote in message
> news:crpphe$90l$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "S." <noemail770@noemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:6pKDd.636$pZ4.203@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >> "Ken Palmateer" <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:3sott09e1f7vcpgbg05qqvvefh4a9oitpi@4ax.com...
> >>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:04:10 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose.
> >>>>
> >>>>More here:
> >>>
> >>> Crude is crude. Nice shot. Ken
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry but I think comments about the subject matter is a legitimate
> >> photographic concern. When a flash picture is taken of me, the aperature
> >> needs to closed down a half stop because the flash will overexpose my
> >> bald head. In the niece's case a wide angle lens is probably in order to
> >> capture the essence of the proboscus. Again this is a legitimate point of
> >> discussion in this forum,
> >>
> >> S.
> >
> > And an equally legitimate point of discussion is likely to be what a rude,
> > bald cunt you are.
>
> Cunt? No one ever called me that before. I'm fascinated why you would use
> such a word. Cunt is a word that would insult a woman not a man. I have
> been called prick, and all those sort of male words but never cunt.
perhaps he feels that it fits you better.
gentleman does not fit the way you behaved.
>
> S.
> >
> >
S. wrote:
>
> "Quoit Appy" <QuoitAppy@TheResult.com> wrote in message
> news:crpphe$90l$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "S." <noemail770@noemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:6pKDd.636$pZ4.203@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >> "Ken Palmateer" <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:3sott09e1f7vcpgbg05qqvvefh4a9oitpi@4ax.com...
> >>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:04:10 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose.
> >>>>
> >>>>More here:
> >>>
> >>> Crude is crude. Nice shot. Ken
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry but I think comments about the subject matter is a legitimate
> >> photographic concern. When a flash picture is taken of me, the aperature
> >> needs to closed down a half stop because the flash will overexpose my
> >> bald head. In the niece's case a wide angle lens is probably in order to
> >> capture the essence of the proboscus. Again this is a legitimate point of
> >> discussion in this forum,
> >>
> >> S.
> >
> > And an equally legitimate point of discussion is likely to be what a rude,
> > bald cunt you are.
>
> Cunt? No one ever called me that before. I'm fascinated why you would use
> such a word. Cunt is a word that would insult a woman not a man. I have
> been called prick, and all those sort of male words but never cunt.
perhaps he feels that it fits you better.
gentleman does not fit the way you behaved.
>
> S.
> >
> >
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Brian C. Baird wrote:
>
> It was a good picture. As far as the color balance goes, I think it's a
> bit naive to want perfect colors from a scene that was colored so lovely
> by the candles in the first place.
>
> There are times you want accurate color, and then there are times when
> you want the ambience of the light from the scene. This was certainly
> one of those times.
I beg to differ. Let me explain.
It is a good picture, AND the colors are quite accurate.
They are the actual colors produced by the candles.
Also the dark portions of the picture are as they should.
Opening the shadows would a) kill the atmosphere and b)
increase the visibility of the noise enough to kill
the picture.
Let us not forget that
a good part of the White Balance or color balance exercises
consists in mofifying a picture to make it look like
it had been taken under day light rather
than, say, the actual incandescent lighting.
WB is most often used to produce pleasing colors
rather than accurate colors.
People are quite opinionated about how their face looks
in pictures and they will insist on artifical changes
to the color space until they think they look good enough.
Isn't it striking that common fluo tubes in the
West have a color temperature corresponding to 2800K?
They are designed to provide this warm incandescent feeling that
gives white Caucasians the slightly tanned look
they think they deserve, even if they don't have it.
The "cool day light" tubes climb at most to 4500K.
In Singapore, by contrast, the standard, kitchen table, fluo tube
boasts 6500K.
Great picture, Paul!
Phil Schmid
Brian C. Baird wrote:
>
> It was a good picture. As far as the color balance goes, I think it's a
> bit naive to want perfect colors from a scene that was colored so lovely
> by the candles in the first place.
>
> There are times you want accurate color, and then there are times when
> you want the ambience of the light from the scene. This was certainly
> one of those times.
I beg to differ. Let me explain.
It is a good picture, AND the colors are quite accurate.
They are the actual colors produced by the candles.
Also the dark portions of the picture are as they should.
Opening the shadows would a) kill the atmosphere and b)
increase the visibility of the noise enough to kill
the picture.
Let us not forget that
a good part of the White Balance or color balance exercises
consists in mofifying a picture to make it look like
it had been taken under day light rather
than, say, the actual incandescent lighting.
WB is most often used to produce pleasing colors
rather than accurate colors.
People are quite opinionated about how their face looks
in pictures and they will insist on artifical changes
to the color space until they think they look good enough.
Isn't it striking that common fluo tubes in the
West have a color temperature corresponding to 2800K?
They are designed to provide this warm incandescent feeling that
gives white Caucasians the slightly tanned look
they think they deserve, even if they don't have it.
The "cool day light" tubes climb at most to 4500K.
In Singapore, by contrast, the standard, kitchen table, fluo tube
boasts 6500K.
Great picture, Paul!
Phil Schmid
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <41e11276$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>, PE Schmid says...
> It is a good picture, AND the colors are quite accurate.
> They are the actual colors produced by the candles.
> Also the dark portions of the picture are as they should.
> Opening the shadows would a) kill the atmosphere and b)
> increase the visibility of the noise enough to kill
> the picture.
There is no right and wrong here. Any photographer can choose the white
balance and image processing he/she prefers for his/her images. It's
largely a matter of personal choice. Here is where the artistic
component of photography jumps in.
Personally, I would have choosen a slightly different white balance with
less orange and would have made the photo a bit brighter, to make the
details and the colours come out better.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
In article <41e11276$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>, PE Schmid says...
> It is a good picture, AND the colors are quite accurate.
> They are the actual colors produced by the candles.
> Also the dark portions of the picture are as they should.
> Opening the shadows would a) kill the atmosphere and b)
> increase the visibility of the noise enough to kill
> the picture.
There is no right and wrong here. Any photographer can choose the white
balance and image processing he/she prefers for his/her images. It's
largely a matter of personal choice. Here is where the artistic
component of photography jumps in.
Personally, I would have choosen a slightly different white balance with
less orange and would have made the photo a bit brighter, to make the
details and the colours come out better.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <41e11276$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>, PE Schmid says...
>
>
>>It is a good picture, AND the colors are quite accurate.
>>They are the actual colors produced by the candles.
>>Also the dark portions of the picture are as they should.
>>Opening the shadows would a) kill the atmosphere and b)
>>increase the visibility of the noise enough to kill
>>the picture.
>
>
> There is no right and wrong here. Any photographer can choose the white
> balance and image processing he/she prefers for his/her images. It's
> largely a matter of personal choice. Here is where the artistic
> component of photography jumps in.
> [....]
Am I so hard to read?
I said that Paul's good picture was not obtained at the expense
of color accuracy, contrary to Brian's statement:
>Brian C. Baird wrote:
>
> It was a good picture. As far as the color balance goes, I think
it's >a bit naive to want perfect colors from a scene that was colored
so >lovely by the candles in the first place.
>
> There are times you want accurate color, and then there are times
when >you want the ambience of the light from the scene. This was
certainly >one of those times.
Phil Schmid
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <41e11276$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>, PE Schmid says...
>
>
>>It is a good picture, AND the colors are quite accurate.
>>They are the actual colors produced by the candles.
>>Also the dark portions of the picture are as they should.
>>Opening the shadows would a) kill the atmosphere and b)
>>increase the visibility of the noise enough to kill
>>the picture.
>
>
> There is no right and wrong here. Any photographer can choose the white
> balance and image processing he/she prefers for his/her images. It's
> largely a matter of personal choice. Here is where the artistic
> component of photography jumps in.
> [....]
Am I so hard to read?
I said that Paul's good picture was not obtained at the expense
of color accuracy, contrary to Brian's statement:
>Brian C. Baird wrote:
>
> It was a good picture. As far as the color balance goes, I think
it's >a bit naive to want perfect colors from a scene that was colored
so >lovely by the candles in the first place.
>
> There are times you want accurate color, and then there are times
when >you want the ambience of the light from the scene. This was
certainly >one of those times.
Phil Schmid
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Quoit Appy wrote:
>
> "S." <noemail770@noemail.com> wrote in message
> news:6pKDd.636$pZ4.203@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Ken Palmateer" <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3sott09e1f7vcpgbg05qqvvefh4a9oitpi@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:04:10 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose.
> >>>
> >>>More here:
> >>
> >> Crude is crude. Nice shot. Ken
> >
> >
> > Sorry but I think comments about the subject matter is a legitimate
> > photographic concern. When a flash picture is taken of me, the aperature
> > needs to closed down a half stop because the flash will overexpose my bald
> > head. In the niece's case a wide angle lens is probably in order to
> > capture the essence of the proboscus. Again this is a legitimate point of
> > discussion in this forum,
> >
> > S.
>
> And an equally legitimate point of discussion is likely to be what a rude,
> bald cunt you are.
Right on
Colin
Quoit Appy wrote:
>
> "S." <noemail770@noemail.com> wrote in message
> news:6pKDd.636$pZ4.203@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Ken Palmateer" <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3sott09e1f7vcpgbg05qqvvefh4a9oitpi@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:04:10 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>He didn't say the photo was bad, just that the girl has a big nose.
> >>>
> >>>More here:
> >>
> >> Crude is crude. Nice shot. Ken
> >
> >
> > Sorry but I think comments about the subject matter is a legitimate
> > photographic concern. When a flash picture is taken of me, the aperature
> > needs to closed down a half stop because the flash will overexpose my bald
> > head. In the niece's case a wide angle lens is probably in order to
> > capture the essence of the proboscus. Again this is a legitimate point of
> > discussion in this forum,
> >
> > S.
>
> And an equally legitimate point of discussion is likely to be what a rude,
> bald cunt you are.
Right on
Colin
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Alfred Molon wrote:
>
> In article <k37ft01p75ipb226hr1s7o34c9lmdhjs5e@4ax.com>, Paul Chefurka
> says...
>
> > >> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
> > >the
> > >> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
> > >> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to
> > >> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
> > >> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
> > >> anxious about moving away from Leica.
> > >>
> > >> Paul Chefurka
> > >
> > >Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> > http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>
> Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too
> much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with
> the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ?
>
> But the biggest problem is that combination of blurriness and noise -
> resized for the web the image should look sharp and clean. Makes me
> wonder if all these claims about perfectly clean ISO 1600 DSLR images
> are a bit unrealistic.
Alfred, you remind me of a (true) story about a hi-fi enthusiast, who
complained to the supplier of his audio equipment about the performance
of the gear. The supplier said "Stop listening to the amplifier, and
listen instead to the music."
Forget the noise, the orange, the dof, all the technicals, and just
enjoy the picture for what it is - a lovely family shot with tons of
ambience and warmth. I am envious. Especially since my 300D could do
likewise, and I never thought of it. Full marks for seeing, and
bothering, to take the shot. It's beautiful.
Colin
Alfred Molon wrote:
>
> In article <k37ft01p75ipb226hr1s7o34c9lmdhjs5e@4ax.com>, Paul Chefurka
> says...
>
> > >> This Christmas I shot a picture of my family around the dining table at
> > >the
> > >> end of Christmas dinner. It was hand held, lit by four candles and a
> > >> flaming pudding. I shot it at 1600 ISO, at f/2.8, using the 17-55 set to
> > >> 17mm. I let the camera decide on the exposure using A mode. It was
> > >> wonderful - the shot of the season for me. I am no longer even mildly
> > >> anxious about moving away from Leica.
> > >>
> > >> Paul Chefurka
> > >
> > >Are you able to post a link for us to see the shot Paul??
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> > http://66.116.166.220/Xmas2004.html
>
> Good composition (actually very good), but the white balance is off (too
> much orange) and the shot is too dark. Is there is something wrong with
> the metering system of the D70 (it underexposes) ?
>
> But the biggest problem is that combination of blurriness and noise -
> resized for the web the image should look sharp and clean. Makes me
> wonder if all these claims about perfectly clean ISO 1600 DSLR images
> are a bit unrealistic.
Alfred, you remind me of a (true) story about a hi-fi enthusiast, who
complained to the supplier of his audio equipment about the performance
of the gear. The supplier said "Stop listening to the amplifier, and
listen instead to the music."
Forget the noise, the orange, the dof, all the technicals, and just
enjoy the picture for what it is - a lovely family shot with tons of
ambience and warmth. I am envious. Especially since my 300D could do
likewise, and I never thought of it. Full marks for seeing, and
bothering, to take the shot. It's beautiful.
Colin
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <41e11276$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>, Philippe.Schmid@epfl.ch
says...
> > There are times you want accurate color, and then there are times when
> > you want the ambience of the light from the scene. This was certainly
> > one of those times.
>
> I beg to differ. Let me explain.
>
> It is a good picture, AND the colors are quite accurate.
> They are the actual colors produced by the candles.
> Also the dark portions of the picture are as they should.
> Opening the shadows would a) kill the atmosphere and b)
> increase the visibility of the noise enough to kill
> the picture.
Sorry, by "accurate" I meant "under white light".
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
In article <41e11276$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>, Philippe.Schmid@epfl.ch
says...
> > There are times you want accurate color, and then there are times when
> > you want the ambience of the light from the scene. This was certainly
> > one of those times.
>
> I beg to differ. Let me explain.
>
> It is a good picture, AND the colors are quite accurate.
> They are the actual colors produced by the candles.
> Also the dark portions of the picture are as they should.
> Opening the shadows would a) kill the atmosphere and b)
> increase the visibility of the noise enough to kill
> the picture.
Sorry, by "accurate" I meant "under white light".
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <41e13695$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>, Philippe.Schmid@epfl.ch
says...
> Am I so hard to read?
>
> I said that Paul's good picture was not obtained at the expense
> of color accuracy, contrary to Brian's statement:
Am I that hard to read? I said the color was fine!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
In article <41e13695$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>, Philippe.Schmid@epfl.ch
says...
> Am I so hard to read?
>
> I said that Paul's good picture was not obtained at the expense
> of color accuracy, contrary to Brian's statement:
Am I that hard to read? I said the color was fine!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Related ressources:
- ForumNikon D70 rebate partially extended
- ForumNikon D70 dSLR or Nikon CP8800 Non dSLR (Non-CCD Cleaning!..
- ForumMinolta 7D vs. Nikon D70
- ForumCanon Rebel 350D/Rebel XT vs Nikon D70
- ForumNikon D70 v Pentax *ist DS
- ForumNikon D70 and guaranteed flash - possible ?
- ForumNikon Telephot for D70 ?
- ForumNikon D70 vs. 300D
- ForumSet slave with Nikon D70 ...?
- ForumNikon D70 underexposure: my 2 cents' worth
- Forumlightweight telephoto for Nikon D70
- ForumD70 infrared filters
- ForumWww kodak com/go/cameras
- ForumPentax K into Canon adapter not available?
- ForumControlling compression with (Nikon) digital cameras.
- More resources
Read discussions in other Digital Camera categories
!
