TR: North Cornwall Coast Path

Woollyzone said:

Actually, I did visit Paignton not too long ago, (pretty forgettable though,
apart from getting verbally abused by two tiresome 'dog on a string'
lifelong ne'er-do-well druggie tossers on the beach at 8am, and then seeing
a terminally hopeless bunch of teenage girls throwing stuff around and
swearing like troopers in front of some poor holidaying old folks). I'll
take your advice on the rest of Torbay, but there's not much wrong with
Paignton that a few megatons of nuclear fission wouldn't correct.

I rather like Paignton; I have many happy memories of family holidays there.
This is part of the coastal path. You should be happy to explore it and
treat it as a bit of psychological research!

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

To mail simply put back the dots ...

In article <BF6FCFD0.46315%andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk>, Andy
Howell <andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk.?.invalid> writes

Quoted message said:

On 10/10/05 00:59, in article [email hidden],

Ken said:

Was it because he was a bloke?? !!! { ; - )

More like because he was a bloke with a large collection of technical
manuals :-)

He IS thorough - very thorough.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

Woollyzone said:

Quoted message said:

Wow! What absolutely gorgeous photographs! Many thanks indeed for
posting them - I can see why it was a blissful walk!

Cheers PW! Still slowly aiming at producing some sort of account based upon
similar lines to your logs i.e. Pennine Way etc. Text AND pictures tell much
more of a story than either text OR pictures.

Maybe/not, but it seems to me that your photo's speak for themselves!

Wet fishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

"Is our children learning?"
g.w.AT [guessthisbit].com

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 06:59:14 GMT, Andy Howell

andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk said:

Quoted message said:

Was it because he was a bloke?? !!! { ; - )

More like because he was a bloke with a large collection of technical
manuals :-)

..... and no "are they bored yet?" detector!

Judith

Woollyzone said:

"Mike Hibbert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Woollyzone wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wow! I have been looking at the 300D, think I may have to make a bit of a
purchase now!

Its pretty good on the whole (with some reservations) but I'd have gone for
the 350D if it had been out when I bought mine last Christmas! Lens is a bit
[censored] if being overly critical, and I tend to find the exposure a bit
erratic, though this isn't a huge problem as you can just adjust and take
another, and the problem could be down to a glitch with my camera (not the
300D generally), as I find I have to underexpose every shot by at least one
f stop to get it right. Apologies to everyone who is bored stupid with
discussions on photography - in fact, thinking about it, no I'm not sorry at
all! - speaking as someone who greatly misses PS's knowledge and input on
these matters (and he was treated with ridicule for it by some on here which
may have hastened his departure).

I can recommend the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 zoom as a superb replacement for the
supplied Canon lens - I have it on my 20D and the picture quality is
significatly better especially in image corners.

Plus it's internal focus and a constant apature through the zoom range.

Woollyzone said:

300D generally), as I find I have to underexpose every shot by at least one
f stop to get it right. Apologies to everyone who is bored stupid with

I find the same with my Olympus c5000. I think they're optimised for
indoor shots rather than outdoor stuff where the contrasts are much
higher, particularly if there are clouds on an otherwise bright day.

Quoted message said:

discussions on photography - in fact, thinking about it, no I'm not sorry at
all! - speaking as someone who greatly misses PS's knowledge and input on
these matters (and he was treated with ridicule for it by some on here which
may have hastened his departure).

Yes, I found them useful too!
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales

In message <[email hidden]>, Woollyzone
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"Mike Hibbert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Woollyzone wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wow! I have been looking at the 300D, think I may have to make a bit of a
purchase now!

Its pretty good on the whole (with some reservations) but I'd have gone for
the 350D if it had been out when I bought mine last Christmas! Lens is a bit
[censored] if being overly critical, and I tend to find the exposure a bit
erratic, though this isn't a huge problem as you can just adjust and take
another, and the problem could be down to a glitch with my camera (not the
300D generally), as I find I have to underexpose every shot by at least one
f stop to get it right. Apologies to everyone who is bored stupid with
discussions on photography - in fact, thinking about it, no I'm not sorry at
all! - speaking as someone who greatly misses PS's knowledge and input on
these matters (and he was treated with ridicule for it by some on here which
may have hastened his departure).

I've had a 300D for 18 months now and overall am very pleased with it. I
generally use manual exposure and generally set it for mid tones. Over
exposure is a disaster as there is no detail in burnt-out areas that can
be recovered on the computer. Under exposure is better as the detail is
there, just dark. (That said, I try and get the best results in camera,
as every change on the computer reduces the quality). Checking the
"info" on the LCD is useful as over-exposure shows up as bright flashing
areas.

On 10/10/05 11:55, in article [email hidden], "W. D.

Grey said:

He IS thorough - very thorough.

He once emailed me some instructions for finding wild camp sites in the
Beacons. Amazingly comprehensive. A PS guidebook would have weighted a ton!

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

To mail simply put back the dots ...

On 10/10/05 19:16, in article [email hidden],

Judith said:

.... and no "are they bored yet?" detector!

Hmm, he was a very serious lad.

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

To mail simply put back the dots ...

On 11/10/05 13:41, in article [email hidden],

Chris Townsend said:

I've had a 300D for 18 months now and overall am very pleased with it. I
generally use manual exposure and generally set it for mid tones. Over
exposure is a disaster as there is no detail in burnt-out areas that can
be recovered on the computer. Under exposure is better as the detail is
there, just dark. (That said, I try and get the best results in camera,
as every change on the computer reduces the quality). Checking the
"info" on the LCD is useful as over-exposure shows up as bright flashing
areas.

I think this is generally an issue with digital SLRs - certainly is with my
Nikon D70. I reckon these high end cameras can cope with up to 2 stops under
exposure. They do have some tolerance at the top end but are easy to bleach
out.

(Sorry Judith).

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

To mail simply put back the dots ...

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:10:31 GMT, Andy Howell

andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk said:

I think this is generally an issue with digital SLRs - certainly is with my
Nikon D70. I reckon these high end cameras can cope with up to 2 stops under
exposure. They do have some tolerance at the top end but are easy to bleach
out.

(Sorry Judith).

Don't worry. I kill-filed you as soon as I saw the letters SLR !

Judith

In message <BF71BEA5.463B6%andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk>, Andy
Howell <andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk.?.invalid> writes

Quoted message said:

On 11/10/05 13:41, in article [email hidden],

Chris Townsend said:

I've had a 300D for 18 months now and overall am very pleased with it. I
generally use manual exposure and generally set it for mid tones. Over
exposure is a disaster as there is no detail in burnt-out areas that can
be recovered on the computer. Under exposure is better as the detail is
there, just dark. (That said, I try and get the best results in camera,
as every change on the computer reduces the quality). Checking the
"info" on the LCD is useful as over-exposure shows up as bright flashing
areas.

I think this is generally an issue with digital SLRs - certainly is with my
Nikon D70. I reckon these high end cameras can cope with up to 2 stops under
exposure. They do have some tolerance at the top end but are easy to bleach
out.

This still gives more latitude than transparency film, though not as
much as negative. I don't regard it as a big issue.

On 11/10/05 19:40, in article [email hidden],

Chris Townsend said:

This still gives more latitude than transparency film, though not as
much as negative. I don't regard it as a big issue.

Very true. But one of the things that worries me about the new, high SLRS is
that people coming new to this kind of photography do not learn the basics
of exposure. I know that this has been an issue for a while but the extra
'latitude' of digital probably leads more people to believe that they can
simply rely on point and shoot. "What's this M setting for anyway?"

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

To mail simply put back the dots ...

In message <BF71D097.463C4%andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk>, Andy
Howell <andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk.?.invalid> writes

Quoted message said:

On 11/10/05 19:40, in article [email hidden],

Chris Townsend said:

This still gives more latitude than transparency film, though not as
much as negative. I don't regard it as a big issue.

Very true. But one of the things that worries me about the new, high SLRS is
that people coming new to this kind of photography do not learn the basics
of exposure. I know that this has been an issue for a while but the extra
'latitude' of digital probably leads more people to believe that they can
simply rely on point and shoot. "What's this M setting for anyway?"

The same problem applies to auto controls on film SLRs too of course.
But yes, it does bother me that digital is marketed as making
photography easy. If you want good results you can't rely on salvaging
badly exposed images in Photoshop, even if you do want to spend hours on
the computer (which I don't).

I'm also very surprised at people I meet (including those who publish
their photos) who have expensive DSLRs yet shoot JPEGs rather than raw
files.

In Article <[email hidden]>,Chris Townsend

Quoted message said:

This still gives more latitude than transparency film, though not as
much as negative. I don't regard it as a big issue.

Really? My impression is that my DSLR (D70) has less Dynamic Range than I
was used to with trannies. Don't have any hard and fast evidence to back
this up, other than the cameras tendency to overexpose and for manual
underexposure for highights to cause very dark foregrounds. Annoyingly even
my 100mm Filters vingette at 18mm too, so using ND Grads is not simple.

Of course if PS were still here this thread would eventually turn into a
Photoshop discussion, so in his abscence.... anyone played with the High
Dynamic Range feature in CS2 yet?

Should be enough for Judith the kill this thread I think...

Regards,
Richard G.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:54:17 +0100, Richard G. <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This still gives more latitude than transparency film, though not as
much as negative. I don't regard it as a big issue.

Really? My impression is that my DSLR (D70) has less Dynamic Range than I
was used to with trannies. Don't have any hard and fast evidence to back
this up, other than the cameras tendency to overexpose and for manual
underexposure for highights to cause very dark foregrounds. Annoyingly even
my 100mm Filters vingette at 18mm too, so using ND Grads is not simple.

Of course if PS were still here this thread would eventually turn into a
Photoshop discussion, so in his abscence.... anyone played with the High
Dynamic Range feature in CS2 yet?

Should be enough for Judith the kill this thread I think...

My......... brain.......... is ........MELTING.

In message <[email hidden]>, Richard G.
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

In Article <[email hidden]>,Chris Townsend

Quoted message said:

This still gives more latitude than transparency film, though not as
much as negative. I don't regard it as a big issue.

Really? My impression is that my DSLR (D70) has less Dynamic Range than I
was used to with trannies. Don't have any hard and fast evidence to back
this up, other than the cameras tendency to overexpose and for manual
underexposure for highights to cause very dark foregrounds. Annoyingly even
my 100mm Filters vingette at 18mm too, so using ND Grads is not simple.

My Canon 300D images have more Dynamic Range than the images from the
transparency film I use (Fuji Sensia II 100, Fuji Velvia 50 & 100, Kodak
Elitechrome 100 EBX). I've taken the same shots on digital and film so I
can compare them directly (and also because I prefer film for
projection). I use ND Grads with film but haven't bothered with digital,
though I do use a polariser.

Quoted message said:

Of course if PS were still here this thread would eventually turn into a
Photoshop discussion, so in his abscence.... anyone played with the High
Dynamic Range feature in CS2 yet?

I don't even have Photoshop. I have Photoshop Elements III but I don't
use it much. I open my raw files in Capture One Pro, then convert them
to 18mb TIFFS and do any "tweaking" in Capture One. Generally I'm taking
images for publication and publishers want as little manipulation as
possible.

Quoted message said:

Should be enough for Judith the kill this thread I think...

And anyone else not interested in photography :-)

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

Should be enough for Judith the kill this thread I think...

And anyone else not interested in photography :-)

Surely she can't kill as many people as that??

<fx: packs bag and leaves quickly!>

Wet fishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

"Is our children learning?"
g.w.AT [guessthisbit].com

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:41:11 +0100, Peewiglet <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Should be enough for Judith the kill this thread I think...

And anyone else not interested in photography :-)

Surely she can't kill as many people as that??

Don't

tempt

me.

Wow! Fantastic photos! Thanks for posting them, I'll look forward to
walking that bit of the path!

I'd have to agree with everyone who recommends walking the Dorset
section. Make sure you don't miss the Isle of Portland, which is
probably my favourite bit to date (although that might have something
to do with walking it on a nice sunny day!).

Our Dorset photos & TR's are here if you fancy a look:

http://www.wheresthepath.com/SWCP/swcp_1_poole_weymouth_intro.htm

Cheers

Anth

Please link to: http://www.wheresthepath.com/index.htm