Leaf in Flight

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:01:51 GMT, Ron Hardin
wrote:

Lorem Ipsum wrote:

"Ron Hardin" wrote in message
..

The five I saved are
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin2/fall01.jpg
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin2/fall02.jpg
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin2/fall03.jpg
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin2/fall04.jpg
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin2/fall05.jpg

there are increasingly more out of 200 as you get less sharp.

Had I spend 10 minutes snapping instead of 5, it's 50/50 I would have
gotten an even sharper picture; and 20 minutes (800 shots) would give
another 50/50 chance of improvement over that.

I don't know how ``experience'' would help the odds, unless you're setting
the shot up with an artificial leaf fall.

Experienced photographer do not simply rely upon "odds"; they have learned
how to make a picture, how to focus, how to pan, how to anticipate. That's
the difference experience makes. And if the objective were to make a sharp
picture, they would make one, and in far less time than shooting the "odds."

Interesting! Focus on what? Pan on what?

Anticipating is best of all. Sort of a leaf-about-to-fall feeling I guess you
can cultivate.

Tell me more.

A pro would make sure the leaf was where he wanted it to be.
If that means cloning out a piece of monofilament, so be it.
If the means is more important than the end result, do it the hard
way.
If the end result is more important than the means, do it the other
way.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

Donald Gray wrote:
[]
Humm Hooo... I have ( a few minutes ago) just sold (for a pittance) my
5 Mp Nikon 5700 that cost £900 two years ago and about to invest in
abou t£1500 in a Canon 20D kit, + lenses which, undoubatidly will be
worth £300in two years time...Thats the way the cookie does its biz!

Ain't photography fun!

I bet you had lots of fun with the 5700, though?

I sold mine after I got my Panasonic FZ5 - the extra zoom and in
particular the image stabilisation make all the difference to usability.

David

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:19:41 GMT, "David J Taylor"

wrote:

[]
Ain't photography fun!

I bet you had lots of fun with the 5700, though?


You're not kidding! Enormous fun - Total liberation from the cost
constraints of a film camera. see
www.websilk.co.uk/digital

Geeeee - I'm looking forward to the 5 fps burst mode of the 20D and
the 0.2 second start up time....

"Ron Hardin" wrote in message
...
Lorem Ipsum wrote:

Experienced photographer do not simply rely upon "odds"; they have
learned
how to make a picture, how to focus, how to pan, how to anticipate.
That's
the difference experience makes. And if the objective were to make a
sharp
picture, they would make one, and in far less time than shooting the
"odds."

Interesting! Focus on what? Pan on what?

After using a camera with manual focus for a long time, the photographer
aquires a tightly-coupled coordination between the object being focused upon
and the lens in his hand, and timing of the shutter to anticipate. I cannot
tell you how that relates to purely auto-focus cameras/lenses. One doesn't
have to shoot with one eye open, either: the view, the focus, the object are
coordinated in a mental-physical space. If it sounds silly at first, then
consider how athletes and dancers coordinate - some of it becomes 'body
knowledge'. If you had to write out how you did it, it would be almost
impossible because the knowledge is not available to the language center.

Lorem Ipsum wrote:

"Ron Hardin" wrote in message
..
Lorem Ipsum wrote:

Experienced photographer do not simply rely upon "odds"; they have
learned
how to make a picture, how to focus, how to pan, how to anticipate.
That's
the difference experience makes. And if the objective were to make a
sharp
picture, they would make one, and in far less time than shooting the
"odds."

Interesting! Focus on what? Pan on what?

After using a camera with manual focus for a long time, the photographer
aquires a tightly-coupled coordination between the object being focused upon
and the lens in his hand, and timing of the shutter to anticipate. I cannot
tell you how that relates to purely auto-focus cameras/lenses. One doesn't
have to shoot with one eye open, either: the view, the focus, the object are
coordinated in a mental-physical space. If it sounds silly at first, then
consider how athletes and dancers coordinate - some of it becomes 'body
knowledge'. If you had to write out how you did it, it would be almost
impossible because the knowledge is not available to the language center.

I think you're overestimating the time available to catch a leaf. Try it and see.

--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

Eatmorepies wrote:

Digital photography liberates us in that way. But - I don't have to think so
much about the shot I'm making, a possible retrograde step.

The newbie buys a digital camera and takes hundreds of pictures.
"Free!", he thinks. Then he gets home with his haul and has to spend a
non-trivial amount of time pruning his catch. Reality sinks in ...
unless he likes pixel-policing his images, he has to make a choice:
buy a huge repository and edit minimally (if at all). Expensive, but
simple. Or try and take good pictures from the outset.

"Ron Hardin" wrote in message
...

I think you're overestimating the time available to catch a leaf. Try it
and see.

With respect, you are underestimating to whom you are talking. Like I said,
"experience" does the trick.

Ron Hardin wrote:

Lorem Ipsum wrote:

"Ron Hardin" wrote in message
..

Lorem Ipsum wrote:

Experienced photographer do not simply rely upon "odds"; they have
learned
how to make a picture, how to focus, how to pan, how to anticipate.
That's
the difference experience makes. And if the objective were to make a
sharp
picture, they would make one, and in far less time than shooting the
"odds."

Interesting! Focus on what? Pan on what?

After using a camera with manual focus for a long time, the photographer
aquires a tightly-coupled coordination between the object being focused upon
and the lens in his hand, and timing of the shutter to anticipate. I cannot
tell you how that relates to purely auto-focus cameras/lenses. One doesn't
have to shoot with one eye open, either: the view, the focus, the object are
coordinated in a mental-physical space. If it sounds silly at first, then
consider how athletes and dancers coordinate - some of it becomes 'body
knowledge'. If you had to write out how you did it, it would be almost
impossible because the knowledge is not available to the language center.


I think you're overestimating the time available to catch a leaf. Try it and see.

A leaf falling is slower than many birds in flight or take-off
and landing. A leaf is more predictable too.
Try full frame imaging of birds in flight. Here are some examples:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...ird/index.html

Roger

Lorem Ipsum wrote:

"Ron Hardin" wrote in message
..

I think you're overestimating the time available to catch a leaf. Try it
and see.

With respect, you are underestimating to whom you are talking. Like I said,
"experience" does the trick.

Well, I've done it and you haven't. Try it.
--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

Ron Hardin wrote:

Lorem Ipsum wrote:

"Ron Hardin" wrote in message
.

Lorem Ipsum wrote:

Experienced photographer do not simply rely upon "odds"; they have
learned
how to make a picture, how to focus, how to pan, how to anticipate.
That's
the difference experience makes. And if the objective were to make a
sharp
picture, they would make one, and in far less time than shooting the
"odds."

Interesting! Focus on what? Pan on what?

After using a camera with manual focus for a long time, the photographer
aquires a tightly-coupled coordination between the object being focused upon
and the lens in his hand, and timing of the shutter to anticipate. I cannot
tell you how that relates to purely auto-focus cameras/lenses. One doesn't
have to shoot with one eye open, either: the view, the focus, the object are
coordinated in a mental-physical space. If it sounds silly at first, then
consider how athletes and dancers coordinate - some of it becomes 'body
knowledge'. If you had to write out how you did it, it would be almost
impossible because the knowledge is not available to the language center.


I think you're overestimating the time available to catch a leaf. Try it and see.

A leaf falling is slower than many birds in flight or take-off
and landing. A leaf is more predictable too.
Try full frame imaging of birds in flight. Here are some examples:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...ird/index.html

Roger

Birds are easy

http://home.att.net/~rhhardin1/turkeyvulture01.jpg
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin1/turkeyvulture02.jpg
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin1/turkeyvulture03.jpg
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin1/turkeyvulture04.jpg
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin1/blackvulture.jpg
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin1/turkeyvulture05.jpg
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin1/turkeyvulture06.jpg
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin1/turkeyvulture07.jpg
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin1/turkeyvulture08.jpg

that's just the casual return from a bike ride, nothing any effort went into beyond
snapping lots while they were there and saving the best of the lot.

I don't have a long lens so make do.

If I wanted nice pics of regular birds, it is a simple matter to put the camera
out by the feeders. Birds have to be airborne to arrive and depart there. Once
again lots of pics does the trick.

--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.