Why I love digital

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:57:38 GMT, "Mark Lauter"
wrote:

My favorite is this one, because of the interesting lighting:

http://www.pbase.com/owamanga/image/40644654

You must have been on the board walk to take these photos?

Yes, it certainly beats wading with the alligators.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

In article ,
says...
Care to show us some of your other work?
The UPS truck and the 4x4 just don't do anything for me, if you know what I
mean.


I would call it an "interesting" perspective study. Nothing more, and
certainly not superb.

But then, thats just me.

I have taken tens of thousands of photographs since I started in 1959 or so,
some good, some not so good, Some that sold for a good chunk of money, but I
have never been so full of myself that I proclaimed one "Superb".






--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

In article Sx82e.837366$6l.770533@pd7tw2no,
Matt Ion wrote:
mike regish wrote:

EXIF is a feature of the JPEG file format that contains all kinds of
data about the shot and camera conditions.

Minor quibble 1: EXIF is nothing to do with JPEG. TIFF files,
RAW files, ... can have EXIF information embedded.
EXIF merely prescribes the way the additional data
is formatted. (it's pretty much just a TIFF IFD)


As you can see, it even knows the type of lens used, the focal length
used (for zoom lenses), whether or not the flash was used, which camera
functions were selected, as well as basic exposure info.

Minor quibble 2: While most of that information (exposure settings,
focal length, etc.) are standard EXIF data, the
first example you chose - lens type - is not (yet)
a defined EXIF field. There is a catchall EXIF
item called MakerNote which lets camera vendors
bundle up a load of private manufacturer-specific
items and stick them in a single EXIF tag. That's
where the lens type information is being stored.


Any decent image viewer or editor will include the ability to view EXIF
data; I highly recommend IrfanView (www.irfanview.com) as a small,
powerful, very fast, and absolutely free image viewer - load a picture
in IrfanView, hit "I" to view "Image properties", and click the "EXIF
info" button to see all the good stuff.

Minor quibble 3: You won't see *all* the good stuff. In general the
only software that knows how to look inside that
MakerNote tag is the image browser, etc., that came
with the camera.


Most image viewers & editors will indeed be able to show you the basic
EXIF fields. Not only that: they will generally preserve these fields
when you edit an image and save it in a new file unless you explicitly
tell them not to (in Photoshop you do that by selecting "Save For Web").
One caveat: the MakerNote tag may well not be preserved. Technically,
an editor is not supposed to write out EXIF fields it doesn't understand.
Some editors honour this restriction, and simply drop the MakerNote tag.
Others will copy the original tag bit-for-bit into the output file. But
if you try and look at data in that copied MakerNote tag (by using the
browser that came with your camera) you'll often end up with junk: quite
often there are file offsets, etc., in that MakerNote tag. But these
are still file offsets in the original image file, not in the new copy.

On 29 Mar 2005 07:44:30 -0800, UC wrote:

I find the sort of photos that the vast majority of amateurs and
even pros who fancy themselves 'fine art' photographers to be
utterly vacuuous and boring. Pretentious tripe.

Judging by the content of your messages, you have a great deal in
common with what you see in those photographers. Even as a troll
you never present even the occasional pearl. Whether considered as
a photographer, pundit or troll, you're nothing but a tedious hack.

On 29 Mar 2005 07:44:30 -0800, UC wrote:

I find the sort of photos that the vast majority of amateurs and
even pros who fancy themselves 'fine art' photographers to be
utterly vacuuous and boring. Pretentious tripe.

Judging by the content of your messages, you have a great deal in
common with what you see in those photographers. Even as a troll
you never present even the occasional pearl. Whether considered as
a photographer, pundit or troll, you're nothing but a tedious hack.

(John Francis) writes:

Minor quibble 3: You won't see *all* the good stuff. In general the
only software that knows how to look inside that
MakerNote tag is the image browser, etc., that came
with the camera.

I dunno, exiftool (http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/) seems to be on a
mission to decode all of the fields with reverse engineering. Just recently,
Phil (author of exiftool) discovered how to decode the various lens, flash, and
extender serial numbers that Olympus puts in the E-1/E-300 .ORF files.

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

Alan Browne wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

Ron Hunter wrote:


I don't even WATCH sports, why would I want to try to photograph
them?




Then you have no basis to state what is appropriate as a shutter
lag.


Hardly. Knowledge isn't limited to a single application.


Whatever that might mean. Unless you attempt to shoot decisive moments
in sports from the vantage afforded a photographer at a sports venue,
you have no idea how hard it is to get the critical moment.

Think ball-on-bat in baseball and try to get the shot. It ain't easy.


I never said it was easy, just that the ONLY way to do this is to
anticipate the action, and including whatever delay your specific camera
has is just part of the job.


--
Ron Hunter

Mark Lauter wrote:
Whatever that might mean. Unless you attempt to shoot decisive moments
in sports from the vantage afforded a photographer at a sports venue,



Not taking sides here, but FWIW, I have just as much trouble shooting
decisive moments in nature as well as sports.

My problem is catching children at family gettogethers. They seem to
move faster than Olympic sprinters!


--
Ron Hunter

Mark Lauter wrote:
Whatever that might mean. Unless you attempt to shoot decisive moments
in sports from the vantage afforded a photographer at a sports venue,



Not taking sides here, but FWIW, I have just as much trouble shooting
decisive moments in nature as well as sports.

My problem is catching children at family gettogethers. They seem to
move faster than Olympic sprinters!


--
Ron Hunter

Mark Lauter wrote:
Some people will still use film, even when digital reaches a resolution,
and sensitivity that leaves film way behind, just as some people still
think tube amplifiers are 'better', and riding horses is better than a
car. I find them no threat, and a bit 'quaint'. In spite of being a
'senior citizen', I try to keep moving ahead, even though it is nice to
look back now and then. I still take out my old Post Versalog
slide-rule and stroke it back and forth a bit now and then, but I
wouldn't consider actually using it to solve a math problem. I even
write a check now and then....


I think, other than the Amish or maybe cow-persons, most folks would ride
horses for fun. So their use as transportation may be deprecated, but their
existence isn't. There is a certain intangible coolness to riding a big
scary animal.

IMO film will always be "fun" to shoot and develop and print. Also, there is
a certain intangible coolness in handling the negatives, the paper, seeing
the texture of the grain in the final print, etc.

Digital will one day surpass film as far as information storage capability
(resolution) is concerned and many people will, indeed many are already,
create wonderful works of art with digital. But it will always lack the
same quality that makes riding a horse and shooting film interesting
experiences. Instead it has it's own unique qualities.

One thing I think that's important to remember is that limitations in a
particular technology aren't bad - they're just the context within which the
creative process takes place.


Yes. I know an artist who paints only with India ink and a single
bristle brush, using ONLY horizontal, or vertical strokes in each
picture. HE thinks that is the only way to do REAL painting..



--
Ron Hunter