Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

BIG BIRDS "FLOCK" TO THE 20D !!!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 12:55:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

How many can you count in this pic?
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original

More about : big birds flock 20d

January 8, 2005 4:30:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Excellent, worth the delay since you last post!

Rick


"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1105163713.022661.99990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> How many can you count in this pic?
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original
>
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 10:38:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:
> How many can you count in this pic?
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original

Depends on what you define as a "big" bird. I don't see any
seven-foot-tall, yellow, talking, upright-walking avians in there...

I did spot a snuffalufagus behind one of the trees though!
Related resources
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 11:10:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1105163713.022661.99990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
annika1980@aol.com (Annika1980) wrote:

> How many can you count in this pic?

I can't pinpoint exactly why, but I love that picture... despite all
those annoying birds getting in the way of the great landscape ;-)

I particularly like the multiple "layers" of receding trees in the top
left corner. Great material to work with.

Andrew McP
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 4:20:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in news:1105163713.022661.99990
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> How many can you count in this pic?
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original

Nice!

It has an extremely nice hazy feeling. I think that even the most
fanatic film fan will find this picture to have some qualities :) 

The question i snow. I plan to buy a Pentax *istDS. Should I
skip that and get a D20 instead? Life is full of har decisions.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 4:20:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:
> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in
> news:1105163713.022661.99990 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> How many can you count in this pic?
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original
>
> Nice!
>
> It has an extremely nice hazy feeling. I think that even the most
> fanatic film fan will find this picture to have some qualities :) 

I agree, it's almost like looking at a painting. I really like it.

Rita
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 4:50:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns95D891DAD71D7klotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com says...
> The question i snow. I plan to buy a Pentax *istDS. Should I
> skip that and get a D20 instead? Life is full of har decisions.

Well, if you've got a lot of Pentax glass you're happy with, the *istDs
is just as good as any of the other 6 MP dSLRs. However, the 20D is
really in a class by itself right now with the low noise performance,
excellent autofocus and build quality. If you don't mind making a
format switch and have the money to burn, I'd say go for it.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 5:02:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eleventy-four.

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1105163713.022661.99990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> How many can you count in this pic?
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original
>
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 5:26:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'd ask for my money back. The photo is just not that sharp. It would be
hard to identify the birds if you hadn't titled the photo.

"Hugh Jorgan" <staring@the.moon> wrote in message
news:HJRDd.110506$K7.30194@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Eleventy-four.
>
> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1105163713.022661.99990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> How many can you count in this pic?
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original
>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 5:26:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hugh Jorgan" <staring@the.moon> wrote in message
news:HJRDd.110506$K7.30194@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Eleventy-four.
>
> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1105163713.022661.99990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> How many can you count in this pic?
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original

Pretty clear your eponym doesn't refer to your (probably single, in the
middle of what should be your forehead) eye: there's *exactly* the same
number of birds as daily wasted KBs in the "HORRIFIC" thread.


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:04:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <MPG.1c49af28beda61e798a49d@news.verizon.net>,
Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no> wrote:

>Well, if you've got a lot of Pentax glass you're happy with, the *istDs
>is just as good as any of the other 6 MP dSLRs. However, the 20D is
>really in a class by itself right now with the low noise performance,
>excellent autofocus and build quality.

It also makes a break from its predecessors in that it has a less
aggressive anti-aliasing filter, which has its good points and its bad
points. With a sharp lens, it will resolve a black/white edge in two
pixels (three inclusive): black - grey - white, as opposed to the 10D
which neads 3 pixels (4 inclusive): black - dark grey - light grey -
white. This can cause stronger color aliasing that is visible in some
rare conditions, but also gives more pixel-to-pixel contrast that cuts
through the noise better, and sharpens more easily without haloing.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:06:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian C. Baird wrote:
> In article <1105163713.022661.99990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> annika1980@aol.com says...
>
>>How many can you count in this pic?
>>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original
>
>
> 7.

I got to 11 before my eyes went buggy...
January 8, 2005 7:25:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 14:26:33 GMT, "Toomanyputters"
<rainydays@theswamp.com> wrote:

>I'd ask for my money back. The photo is just not that sharp. It would be
>hard to identify the birds if you hadn't titled the photo.
>
>> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1105163713.022661.99990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> How many can you count in this pic?
>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original
>>>
>>
A perfect example of the dichotomy that exists in this group. On one
hand we have the guys that USE their equipment to get great images of
things that exist in their world. Bret is one of this group.

On the other hand, we have the guys who dream in terms of megapixels
and have fantasies of Foveon and Bayer and probably never made a
picture in their lives unless of a test pattern. Confront one of these
guys with a fantabulous image like the flock of cranes and the only
comment he can come up with is "The photo is just not that sharp." In
poor, failing light with rapidly flying birds, of course it ain't
sharp. But it sure does convey the scene to the eye and mind of a
viewer who can see more than megapixels!
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 8:12:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Toomanyputters" <rainydays@theswamp.com> wrote in message
news:t4SDd.13255$dt3.404859@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> I'd ask for my money back. The photo is just not that sharp. It would be
> hard to identify the birds if you hadn't titled the photo.
>
> "Hugh Jorgan" <staring@the.moon> wrote in message
> news:HJRDd.110506$K7.30194@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Eleventy-four.
>>
>> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1105163713.022661.99990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> How many can you count in this pic?
>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

I think it's a marvellous photo -- lots of atmosphere and a great sense of
distance in the background. However, I wouldn't even attempt to count the
birds -- it would soon be my eyes that would be "not that sharp."

MaryL
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 10:16:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:JP6dnalADN9upX3cRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> "Hugh Jorgan" <staring@the.moon> wrote in message
> news:HJRDd.110506$K7.30194@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Eleventy-four.
> >
> > "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1105163713.022661.99990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> How many can you count in this pic?
> >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original
>
> Pretty clear your eponym doesn't refer to your (probably single, in the
> middle of what should be your forehead) eye: there's *exactly* the same
> number of birds as daily wasted KBs in the "HORRIFIC" thread.
>
>
> --
> Frank ess
>


Love the picture although it does remind me of an M.C.Escher picture ...
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 11:57:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

EXCELLENT!! Love the pic of the birds. I just hope your car wasn't
near by (:
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 1:00:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"test@yahoo.com" <traderfjp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105246662.057403.103840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> EXCELLENT!! Love the pic of the birds. I just hope your car wasn't
> near by (:
>

Some years ago we were in Glasgow, Scotland just about sunset
when this HUGE flock of starlings started circling the area we
were. Everybody headed for cover and it sounded like rain !!
The sky literally turned dark with the many thousands of them.
Yeech !!
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 2:43:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <stm0u0pgjl55ss180iob3rpp6j9a2gp1hi@4ax.com>,
Frank <somebody@someplace.net> wrote:

>A perfect example of the dichotomy that exists in this group.

The dichotomy is in your head. There are all kinds of people here.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 4:55:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>From: Frank somebody@someplace.net

>>I'd ask for my money back. The photo is just not that sharp. It would be
>>hard to identify the birds if you hadn't titled the photo.

>Confront one of these
>guys with a fantabulous image like the flock of cranes and the only
>comment he can come up with is "The photo is just not that sharp." In
>poor, failing light with rapidly flying birds, of course it ain't
>sharp.

Not to mention the fact that it was taken from over 500 yards away through haze
with the 400mm + the 2X.

The original shot looked like this:
http://members.aol.com/annika1980/haze.jpg
January 9, 2005 4:55:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:
>
> Not to mention the fact that it was taken from over 500 yards away through haze
> with the 400mm + the 2X.
>
> The original shot looked like this:
> http://members.aol.com/annika1980/haze.jpg
>

Impressive! What post-processing did you apply?

Bill
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 9:44:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <stm0u0pgjl55ss180iob3rpp6j9a2gp1hi@4ax.com>,
> Frank <somebody@someplace.net> wrote:
>
>
>>A perfect example of the dichotomy that exists in this group.
>
>
> The dichotomy is in your head. There are all kinds of people here.

There are only 10 kinds of people: those who can count in binary, and
those who can't.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 10:05:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
>
>"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1105163713.022661.99990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> How many can you count in this pic?
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original
>>
>
This is one that I would decorate my loungeroom wall with.
eric phillips
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 1:34:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:
>
> How many can you count in this pic?
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original

I said it in r.p.e.35mm, and I'll say it again. I love that shot, and I
would put it on my wall in a heartbeat. Can I get the original RAW file
please? (Hint: you could make some cash outta this shot)

Colin.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 1:34:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>From: Colin D ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1

>I said it in r.p.e.35mm, and I'll say it again. I love that shot, and I
>would put it on my wall in a heartbeat. Can I get the original RAW file
>please?

e-mail me.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 1:34:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
>
> Annika1980 wrote:
>
>>How many can you count in this pic?
>>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original
>
>
> I said it in r.p.e.35mm, and I'll say it again. I love that shot, and I
> would put it on my wall in a heartbeat. Can I get the original RAW file
> please? (Hint: you could make some cash outta this shot)
>
> Colin.

I'll second that!
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 6:38:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> In message <stm0u0pgjl55ss180iob3rpp6j9a2gp1hi@4ax.com>,
> Frank <somebody@someplace.net> wrote:
>
> >A perfect example of the dichotomy that exists in this group.
>
> The dichotomy is in your head. There are all kinds of people here.

Of course any group can be arbitrarily divided into two parts. The
arbiter in this case divides the pictorialists from the tech-heads, and
is a perfectly valid concept.

Colin
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 5:01:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:34:50 +1300, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>
>
>Annika1980 wrote:
>>
>> How many can you count in this pic?
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original
>
>I said it in r.p.e.35mm, and I'll say it again. I love that shot, and I
>would put it on my wall in a heartbeat. Can I get the original RAW file
>please? (Hint: you could make some cash outta this shot)
>
>Colin.

You are kidding right?

The colors are murky (someone need a UV/haze filter?) and the horizon
isn't even close to being straight. Both can be improved in photoshop
but it would have been better to get them right at the outset.

Timing and composition, are spot on.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 2:36:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
>
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:34:50 +1300, Colin D
> <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

> >Annika1980 wrote:
> >>
> >> How many can you count in this pic?
> >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38397174/original
> >
> >I said it in r.p.e.35mm, and I'll say it again. I love that shot, and I
> >would put it on my wall in a heartbeat. Can I get the original RAW file
> >please? (Hint: you could make some cash outta this shot)
> >
> >Colin.
>
> You are kidding right?
No, I wasn't kidding.
>
> The colors are murky (someone need a UV/haze filter?) and the horizon
> isn't even close to being straight. Both can be improved in photoshop
> but it would have been better to get them right at the outset.
The colors are 'murky' - I prefer 'muted' - because the shot was through
a 500mm lens, according to Annika, and atmospheric haze is apparent.
The horizon may or may not be straight - hard to tell from the water's
edge. I picked a reflection from a tree and checked for vertical in
PS. It's less than 0.5 degrees out.

This picture is a classic example of a technically imperfect shot that
nevertheless has an undeniable pictorial beauty about it. It will
separate the techies with no artistic appreciation from those who can
look past the print and see the picture.

> Timing and composition, are spot on.
yep.
>
Colin
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 2:36:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in news:41E3036F.B2DA6E72
@killspam.127.0.0.1:

>> Timing and composition, are spot on.
> yep.
>

It is a fantastic picture. But there is one composition flaw.
The beach is nearly level. I would like to have it totally
level or more not level. Not easy to choose - you got what
you got - but it is a flaw IMHO.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 2:36:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns95DB211BB221klotjohan@130.133.1.4:

> It is a fantastic picture. But there is one composition flaw.
> The beach is nearly level. I would like to have it totally
> level or more not level. Not easy to choose - you got what
> you got - but it is a flaw IMHO.

Hmm - after some meassuring I come to the conclusion that
the entire picture leans 1 degree to the left. Turning it
1 degree to the right improves the picture IMHO.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 2:36:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns95DB34DC9DAklotjohan@130.133.1.4:

> Hmm - after some meassuring I come to the conclusion that
> the entire picture leans 1 degree to the left. Turning it
> 1 degree to the right improves the picture IMHO.

BTW - if you wonder how I meassured?

I use the reflection stripes in the water. Those shall be
totally vertical.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 6:50:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:
>
> Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns95DB34DC9DAklotjohan@130.133.1.4:
>
> > Hmm - after some meassuring I come to the conclusion that
> > the entire picture leans 1 degree to the left. Turning it
> > 1 degree to the right improves the picture IMHO.
>
> BTW - if you wonder how I meassured?
>
> I use the reflection stripes in the water. Those shall be
> totally vertical.
>
> /Roland

I did that, too, and found the error to be <0.5%

Colin
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 7:06:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 10 Jan 2005 23:21:18 GMT, Roland Karlsson
<roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:

>Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in
>news:Xns95DB34DC9DAklotjohan@130.133.1.4:
>
>> Hmm - after some meassuring I come to the conclusion that
>> the entire picture leans 1 degree to the left. Turning it
>> 1 degree to the right improves the picture IMHO.
>
>BTW - if you wonder how I meassured?
>
>I use the reflection stripes in the water. Those shall be
>totally vertical.
>
>
>/Roland
Are you for real? Just enjoy.
eric phillips
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 1:09:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eric phillips <ericp@kooee.com.au> wrote in
news:a4r6u05k7a9vhoge5sk71n60crvb6tr5qv@4ax.com:

>>/Roland
> Are you for real? Just enjoy.
>

Yes - I am for real.
But I like to tease Annika :) 
An yes - I do enjoy - both the picture and making fun of Annika.


/Roland
!