raspberry pi noir

On 12/8/2014 10:37 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article 2014120807273769610-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

snip

Not exactly an apples vs apples comparison. Two very different
cameras with very different sensors and glass.

Indeed - and below 5MP, which is what drunk Dave was talking about. I
posted the above to support your claim that a low-resolution camera can
take awesome shots.


I think his point was that a photographer using a camera with less than
5 mp can take awesome shots. The point being that it's the photographer
who takes the shots, not the camera. Yes a good photographer may take
better shots if he uses a camera with a higher quality lens and/or
sensor. But that is not the subject of this discussion.


--
PeterN

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:21:04 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

--- snip ---

Back then the E775 was for me a novelty, and I didn't have an
understanding of many of the issues relating to digital imaging. Most
of my photograph at the time was done with a Yashica Electro 35(I loved
that camera which I had since 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yashica_Electro_35), and a Pentax K1000.
My wife was using a single focus Pentax compact, which did surprisingly
well for what it was.

The convenience of having that pocketable E775 handy, and not having to
deal with film processing was for me revolutionary.
...and even then cars were a target. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0690.jpg

I see from the XMP that you touched up the image just before you
posted it. What did it look like in your original 2003 version?

Just curious.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , John McWilliams
wrote:

cameras don't take the shots. photographers do.

all the camera does is affect the technical quality, not whether a shot
is amazing or not.

While the photographer is far more important than the equipment, some
shots are simply not possible without good equipment.

edge cases.

it might be more difficult, such as a slower camera for sports, but
it's not impossible.

Technical quality comprises some to maybe most of a photo's appeal.

other than very ****ty cameras, it's not that important, and even then,
not always.

I think most of the problem with the Coolpix is the pretty poor dynamic
range and poor contrast. Shots needs some post loving

small sensors have lower dynamic range than larger sensors, all other
things being equal. it's basic physics. there's no getting around that.

Yeah, you can't beat Mother Nature in the physics class!

tell that to the sigma fanbois.

On 2014-12-08 20:00:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:21:04 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

--- snip ---

Back then the E775 was for me a novelty, and I didn't have an
understanding of many of the issues relating to digital imaging. Most
of my photograph at the time was done with a Yashica Electro 35(I loved
that camera which I had since 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yashica_Electro_35), and a Pentax K1000.
My wife was using a single focus Pentax compact, which did surprisingly
well for what it was.

The convenience of having that pocketable E775 handy, and not having to
deal with film processing was for me revolutionary.
...and even then cars were a target. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0690.jpg

I see from the XMP that you touched up the image just before you
posted it. What did it look like in your original 2003 version?

Just curious.

Just a little contrast bump, nothing exotic. Here is the unmolested
original version.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0690-1.JPG

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014120809210464727-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

Sandman:
Indeed.

Back then the E775 was for me a novelty, and I didn't have an
understanding of many of the issues relating to digital imaging.
Most of my photograph at the time was done with a Yashica Electro
35(I loved that camera which I had since 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yashica_Electro_35), and a Pentax
K1000. My wife was using a single focus Pentax compact, which did
surprisingly well for what it was.

The convenience of having that pocketable E775 handy, and not having
to deal with film processing was for me revolutionary. ...and even
then cars were a target. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0690.jpg

Indeed, I had a Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-P1 for the same reason. 3.3MP and a
really crappy sensor. I still have it, but I doubt I could get the battery
to charge.

I shot analog with a Nikon F3, and I still have a couple of glass for it
left.


--
Sandman[.net]

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 13:56:55 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-12-08 20:00:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:21:04 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

--- snip ---

Back then the E775 was for me a novelty, and I didn't have an
understanding of many of the issues relating to digital imaging. Most
of my photograph at the time was done with a Yashica Electro 35(I loved
that camera which I had since 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yashica_Electro_35), and a Pentax K1000.
My wife was using a single focus Pentax compact, which did surprisingly
well for what it was.

The convenience of having that pocketable E775 handy, and not having to
deal with film processing was for me revolutionary.
...and even then cars were a target. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0690.jpg

I see from the XMP that you touched up the image just before you
posted it. What did it look like in your original 2003 version?

Just curious.

Just a little contrast bump, nothing exotic. Here is the unmolested
original version.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0690-1.JPG

That's probably closer to the true appearance of the paintwork but
your 'bumped' is a considerable improvement as an illustration. Is
that you yesterday chose to bump the result of ten years of
experience?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-12-08 23:33:57 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 13:56:55 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-12-08 20:00:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:21:04 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

--- snip ---

Back then the E775 was for me a novelty, and I didn't have an
understanding of many of the issues relating to digital imaging. Most
of my photograph at the time was done with a Yashica Electro 35(I loved
that camera which I had since 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yashica_Electro_35), and a Pentax K1000.
My wife was using a single focus Pentax compact, which did surprisingly
well for what it was.

The convenience of having that pocketable E775 handy, and not having to
deal with film processing was for me revolutionary.
...and even then cars were a target. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0690.jpg

I see from the XMP that you touched up the image just before you
posted it. What did it look like in your original 2003 version?

Just curious.

Just a little contrast bump, nothing exotic. Here is the unmolested
original version.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0690-1.JPG

That's probably closer to the true appearance of the paintwork but
your 'bumped' is a considerable improvement as an illustration. Is
that you yesterday chose to bump the result of ten years of
experience?

I couldn't resist the temptation to tinker. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 03:27:05 -0800, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 4 December 2014 19:09:53 UTC, PeterN wrote:
On 12/4/2014 8:39 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

snip


But going by some on the NG you can;t be a p[hotographer unless you
spend a fortune on equipment.


Very few would say that. And IMHO, few who might, would rarely be a
good photographer.


--
PeterN

Well how can you get a 'good' photo with just a 5meg pixel camera and
think of the size of the actual sensor, you'd be laughed at if you
entered in to a competition up against even the average DLSR camera.

I really don;t see the quality of a pi camera at 17 quid which includes
the lens, sensor is fixed focus and fixed aperature being able to
comptete.

Still don't get the point, do you?

On 2014-12-09 03:44:04 +0000, ray carter said:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 03:27:05 -0800, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 4 December 2014 19:09:53 UTC, PeterN wrote:
On 12/4/2014 8:39 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

snip


But going by some on the NG you can;t be a p[hotographer unless you
spend a fortune on equipment.


Very few would say that. And IMHO, few who might, would rarely be a
good photographer.


--
PeterN

Well how can you get a 'good' photo with just a 5meg pixel camera and
think of the size of the actual sensor, you'd be laughed at if you
entered in to a competition up against even the average DLSR camera.

I really don;t see the quality of a pi camera at 17 quid which includes
the lens, sensor is fixed focus and fixed aperature being able to
comptete.

Still don't get the point, do you?

It's a geek tinker fest not a D4!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , ray carter wrote:

PeterN:
snip

Whisky-dave:
But going by some on the NG you can;t be a p[hotographer
unless you spend a fortune on equipment.

PeterN:
Very few would say that. And IMHO, few who might, would rarely
be a good photographer.

-- PeterN

Whisky-dave:
Well how can you get a 'good' photo with just a 5meg pixel camera
and think of the size of the actual sensor, you'd be laughed at if
you entered in to a competition up against even the average DLSR
camera.

I really don;t see the quality of a pi camera at 17 quid which
includes the lens, sensor is fixed focus and fixed aperature being
able to comptete.

Still don't get the point, do you?

This is Dave, he is point-repellant.

--
Sandman[.net]