Olympus E-300 noise not that bad

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

Stacey wrote:

>
> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/200 [...] couple.jpg

Nice shot. Esp. the contrast of the couples/bench against the trees ..
I would have shot it less centered. I would also have shot it such that
the water was not visible. Hey, it's digital, shoot a bunch!

Care to post the full size?

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

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

> With respect, that shot owes about 98% to Photoshop, and only 2% to the
> Olympus E300.
>
And you know this HOW????? Were you there for the post processing that you
ASSUME took place??? (I rather doubt it because it would seem based on your
posts that no one in their RIGHT MIND would associate with you.)

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

Pentax Owner wrote:

>>
>> You're so right! I can't believe I even bother to take this thing out of
>> the
>> house anymore after reading about how bad it is on these newsgroups..
>>
>> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/200 [...] couple.jpg
>
>
>
>
> With respect, that shot owes about 98% to Photoshop, and only 2% to the
> Olympus E300.
>

Only post processing was some levels adjustment and sharpening.
--

Stacey

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

Marek M. "rogus" wrote:

> Stacey napisa?(a):
>> You're so right! I can't believe I even bother to take this thing out of
>> the house anymore after reading about how bad it is on these newsgroups..
>>
>> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/200 [...] couple.jpg
>
> picture isn't good...
> scene was well boring but...
> you messed the job they are sliding down and i think the exposure is
> not correct! Hmmm and what lens do you have? If I would put a similar
> lens to my xt i will win )
>


Like I said, I should throw this thing in the trash and go buy the camera
you chose and THEN I could take good shots!

BTW where are your examples so I can learn what "right" looks like?

--

Stacey, who bets if someone posted this as being from a canon you would
have posted differently.

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

Paul Furman wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
> > Stacey wrote:

> >> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/200 [...] couple.jpg

> > Nice shot. Esp. the contrast of the couples/bench against the
trees ..
> > I would have shot it less centered.

> I think he broke the rule of thirds skillfully. The bench & the
> foreground branches made me not even notice the dead center framing.

Right. The bench is as much as subject as the couple. And the framing
isn't all that dead center, even saying that the human ficures are the
only subject. The outer outline of the man is at about a third of the
width from the right, (See? rule of thirds even here...) whereas the
outer outline of the woman is more like two fifths from the left.

I agree with Alan about the water, though.

Jan Böhme

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>>
>> I think he broke the rule of thirds skillfully. The bench & the
>> foreground branches made me not even notice the dead center framing.
>
>
> Not a question of rule of thirds, just a question of decentering the
> composition.


Hmm, yes, the foreground actually could have gone away entirely perhaps,
because it's centered vertical as well & the background trees are so
lovely. Also agreed about the water.



> I agree that the branches are a nice touch, they often are.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

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

On Mon, 16 May 2005 11:23:23 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Jan Böhme wrote:
>
>> I agree with Alan about the water, though.
>
>I meant that as an alternate, not the 'only' way.

I suppose that's what I mean, too. I _think_ that it would have been
nicer without the water - at least without the bright part of it, but
I can't really tell without having seen it. I can't really figure out
how much more of a frog's perspective of the couple on the bench it
would have reqiuired to get rid of the water, for one thing.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.

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

> I 'know' this because I used an E300 for just over a week and took about
> 600 shots - I 'know' just how much PP the E300 images require - and if you
> think that the link was an 'out of the camera shot, then you really are
> too stupid to be allowed out without a keeper.

I really doubt this as I have have an E300 for a few months, have taken much
more
pictures than your supposed 600 and most need little if any PP processing.
Maybe you are the one who needs a handler to be let out in the public???

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

Stacey wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>Not a question of rule of thirds, just a question of decentering the
>>composition. I agree that the branches are a nice touch, they often are.
>>
>
> Yet someone else said I should crop/clone the branches out, guess you can't
> please everybody? :-)

Often branches are used as a frame around a subject or vista, as I'm
sure you know. The effect is usually, but not always pleasing.
Exagerated and it might ruin the image (unless, for example, a sense of
'spying' fits the theme of the shot).

If you try to please everybody, you will please no one. (not sure to
whom that should be attributed).

Again, if you care to post the full 100% image, I would like to see that.

Your link in prev e-mail this evening ( 11884694 ) requires a log in.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.