Water Water Everywhere!



P

Paul Saunders

Guest
A few pics from my recent visit to the Afon Mellte with my new 300D.

Sgwd Isaf Clun Gwyn. A handheld shot at 1/250 at ISO 400,
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/sicg.jpg

Water and rocks. A smooth rendition of the water flowing across the flat bedrock at the top of the
fall, backed by moss covered rocks, foliage and cliffs. This image is two horizontal shots stitched
together to form a square image. http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/water_rocks.jpg

Moss covered tree. The sun came out so I shot this against the light, for that sunlight fringing
effect. http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/moss_tree.jpg

Sgwd Clun Gwyn. Rarely seen like this, with the water filling the full width of the river. Again I
used a fast shutter speed to capture the drama of the water thundering over the fall. This is the
scene that my camera wouldn't focus on with the polariser attached (but this is not the polarised
photo). http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/scg.jpg

Bracket fungus. I spotted this meaty bit of fungi on a nearby tree. This shows the poor "bokeh" of
the lens. Any idea what caused the scratch marks on the fungus?
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/bracket.jpg

Moon. An odd one out, not taken at the Mellte. This was taken last night with a 300mm lens (480mm
equivalent) to show what is possible with such a lens. This is a crop from the full size frame (3072
x 2048), no resizing. http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/moon.jpg

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
B

Bernard Hill

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders <[email protected]> writes
>A few pics from my recent visit to the Afon Mellte with my new 300D.
>
>Sgwd Isaf Clun Gwyn. A handheld shot at 1/250 at ISO 400,
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/sicg.jpg
>
>Water and rocks. A smooth rendition of the water flowing across the flat bedrock at the top of the
>fall, backed by moss covered rocks, foliage and cliffs. This image is two horizontal shots stitched
>together to form a square image. http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/water_rocks.jpg
>
>Moss covered tree. The sun came out so I shot this against the light, for that sunlight fringing
>effect. http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/moss_tree.jpg
>
>Sgwd Clun Gwyn. Rarely seen like this, with the water filling the full width of the river. Again I
>used a fast shutter speed to capture the drama of the water thundering over the fall. This is the
>scene that my camera wouldn't focus on with the polariser attached (but this is not the polarised
>photo). http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/scg.jpg
>
>Bracket fungus. I spotted this meaty bit of fungi on a nearby tree. This shows the poor "bokeh" of
>the lens. Any idea what caused the scratch marks on the fungus?
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/bracket.jpg
>
>Moon. An odd one out, not taken at the Mellte. This was taken last night with a 300mm lens (480mm
>equivalent) to show what is possible with such a lens. This is a crop from the full size frame
>(3072 x 2048), no resizing. http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/moon.jpg

What's the exposure & ISO for the moon?

Have you tried the moons of Jupiter yet?

http://www.braeburn.co.uk/pix/ganymedeeuropa.jpg

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland
 
M

Michael S

Guest
Paul,

Nice set of images, and I hope you're having fun with the 300D!

> This was taken last night with a 300mm lens (480mm equivalent)

You have to remember that the smaller sensor of digital (compared to regular 35mm) only gives the
same *capture area/angle of view* as 480mm when using a 300mm - it doesn't actually turn your 300mm
into a 480mm. Nothing can improve the magnification of the lens except for further lenses (in the
form of an extender) - optical physics!!!

That aside, nice images, and it looks like the 300D is performing well!

Regards,

Michael S

http://www.lakelandscape.co.uk http://www.starstonephoto.com
 
S

Ste Mc ©

Guest
Ahh, some more photos, now this is more like it... ;-)

"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| A few pics from my recent visit to the Afon Mellte with my new 300D.
|
| Sgwd Isaf Clun Gwyn. A handheld shot at 1/250 at ISO 400,
| http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/sicg.jpg

Lovely and sharp. I could almost cut myself just looking at those rocks!

| Water and rocks. A smooth rendition of the water flowing across the flat bedrock at the top of the
| fall, backed by moss covered rocks, foliage and cliffs. This image is two horizontal shots
| stitched together to form a square image.
| http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/water_rocks.jpg

Very interesting shot from a different perspective, I like it. And a good job of stitching too
(because I can't tell it's stitched!)

| Moss covered tree. The sun came out so I shot this against the light, for that sunlight fringing
| effect. http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/moss_tree.jpg

Yes, very sparkley! Is that snow on the ground to the right, and in the rear left background?

| Sgwd Clun Gwyn. Rarely seen like this, with the water filling the full width of the river. Again I
| used a fast shutter speed to capture the drama of the water thundering over the fall. This is the
| scene that my camera wouldn't focus on with the polariser attached (but this is not the polarised
| photo). http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/scg.jpg

And it's a change to see a 'frozen-in-time' waterfall shot from you too! :)

| Bracket fungus. I spotted this meaty bit of fungi on a nearby tree. This shows the poor "bokeh" of
| the lens. Any idea what caused the scratch marks on the fungus?
| http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/bracket.jpg

Nice fungus, and good to see that you haven't taken a bite out of it either this time! :) After
reading your links to 'bokeh' in another thread, I can say that I've also experienced this in some
of my shots. Not that I'd ever guess it was called 'bokeh' though! You must be really pleased with
yourself by finding this out! :)

| Moon. An odd one out, not taken at the Mellte. This was taken last night with a 300mm lens (480mm
| equivalent) to show what is possible with such a lens. This is a crop from the full size frame
| (3072 x 2048), no resizing. http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/moon.jpg

Now this is good, and it certainly puts my moon shots to shame! If I wanted a moon shot as close
up as this, I'd have to bend over with my pants down in front of a mirror!!! :-D Even with my 2x
teleconverter (280mm equivilent), I don't get anything like this, not even a quarter of the
size, nice one!

| Paul

Ste
 
P

Paul Saunders

Guest
Michael S wrote:

> Nice set of images, and I hope you're having fun with the 300D!

Yep!

>> This was taken last night with a 300mm lens (480mm equivalent)
>
> You have to remember that the smaller sensor of digital (compared to regular 35mm) only gives the
> same *capture area/angle of view* as 480mm when using a 300mm - it doesn't actually turn your
> 300mm into a 480mm.

I know, but the angle of view is the most important feature of a lens, so it *is* equivalent for
*most* intents and purposes. With medium format a 50mm lens is a wide-angle but MF photographers
don't talk in terms of 35mm equivalents - it's mainly a convenience for people familiar with 35mm to
get an idea of the angle of view.

> Nothing can improve the magnification of the lens except for further lenses (in the form of an
> extender) - optical physics!!!

Of course not, but whether you call it a magnification or a crop the end result is the same. Even
though the lens field of view is cropped, the resultant image isn't, it's a full size image. If I
make an A4 print from the 300D I don't print it at 2/3rds the size of the paper leaving a huge white
border around it. If I compare a film scan to a digital image I'll compare the whole frame of each,
irrespective of the different source sizes.

The one intent and purpose in which it's not equivalent is depth of field. Even though the angle of
view is equivalent to 480mm, it has the same depth of field as a 300mm, because that's what it is.
On the whole this is a good thing, for landscape photography anyway, because it means that even
though my 18mm widest angle only has a 29mm field of view, it still has the greater depth of field
of the 18mm, which is much better for getting everything in focus.

> That aside, nice images, and it looks like the 300D is performing well!

Thanks.

I had focusing problems yesterday, the auto-focus refused to work in the low light. To make matters
worse I couldn't see well enough to focus properly either. I couldn't even rely on infinity focusing
because the depth of field was too narrow, even with a 30 second exposure at ISO
800. Mind you it was nearly an hour after sunset in a deep forested valley.

The good news is that the info display has a backlight, the bad news is that there is no distance
scale on the lens, so I can't even estimate the distance when taking night shots.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
B

Bernard Hill

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders <[email protected]> writes
>Bernard Hill wrote:
>
>> Have you tried the moons of Jupiter yet?
>>
>> http://www.braeburn.co.uk/pix/ganymedeeuropa.jpg
>
>I have actually, I got similar results to you. The chromabs are a problem though, aren't they?

Yes. But I was thrilled to get a picture at all when I could hardly hold my binoculars still enough
to see them.

The picture is from an Olympus UZ2100 at full zoom, approx 350mm equiv with image stabilisation.
2Mpx but a great lens (for the price).

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland
 
B

Bernard Hill

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders <[email protected]> writes
>
>I had focusing problems yesterday, the auto-focus refused to work in the low light. To make matters
>worse I couldn't see well enough to focus properly either. I couldn't even rely on infinity
>focusing because the depth of field was too narrow, even with a 30 second exposure at ISO
>800. Mind you it was nearly an hour after sunset in a deep forested valley.

Have you tried a torch? I've heard it helps the AF with some cameras.

>
>The good news is that the info display has a backlight, the bad news is that there is no distance
>scale on the lens, so I can't even estimate the distance when taking night shots.

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland
 
P

Paul Saunders

Guest
Bernard Hill wrote:

> Have you tried a torch? I've heard it helps the AF with some cameras.

Nice idea, but the main subject was too far away. Perhaps I should stick with wide angles for
night shots.

I've just been outside and confirmed my suspicions, the 18-55 lens supplied with the 300D focuses
*beyond* infinity. While some may think this a little strange there are good reasons for it,
basically to do with focusing distances changing with temperature - a lens that only focuses to
infinity may not be able to focus at all in certain conditions.

Anyway, the bottom line is that in the dark, I can't simply focus on infinity by turning the lens
all the way, as is usual with most lenses. This makes the lack of a distance scale an even more
stupid omission. As I said before, it clearly wasn't designed to be used manually, but even Canon
admit in the manual that auto-focusing isn't always possible, that's why they included a manual
option. Surely a simple distance scale wouldn't have been that hard to include? I can't even mark
infinity on the lens myself since the lens barrel rotates.

One good thing I just discovered though, the auto-focus is capable of locking on to distance
streetlights at night, I wonder if it will work with stars?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
P

Paul Saunders

Guest
Bernard Hill wrote:

>> I have actually, I got similar results to you. The chromabs are a problem though, aren't they?
>
> Yes. But I was thrilled to get a picture at all when I could hardly hold my binoculars still
> enough to see them.

Very true.

> The picture is from an Olympus UZ2100 at full zoom, approx 350mm equiv with image stabilisation.
> 2Mpx but a great lens (for the price).

Nice.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
P

Paul Saunders

Guest
ste mc © wrote:

> Lovely and sharp. I could almost cut myself just looking at those rocks!

They're actually quite smooth, not as sharp as they look.

>> Water and rocks. http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/water_rocks.jpg
>
> Very interesting shot from a different perspective, I like it.

Oh good. Any other comments? Any complaints from the rule of thirds brigade? Square compositions are
a bit strange, aren't they? An aquired taste I think.

> Yes, very sparkley! Is that snow on the ground to the right, and in the rear left background?

Nope, no snow, just sunlight reflecting off wet leaves. The essence of a backlit shot like this is
that you are looking at the shadow side of everything, so you expose for the shadows. This causes
the sunlit edges to overexpose, creating that fringing effect (often used in portrait photography).
In this case it's actually good to overexpose the highlights, but not so much that they go shooting
off the right hand side of the histogram.

> And it's a change to see a 'frozen-in-time' waterfall shot from you too! :)

I rather like fast shutter speeds when there's a lot of water coming over the falls, and for the
first time I can now capture them without excesssive noise or grain.

> Nice fungus, and good to see that you haven't taken a bite out of it either this time! :)

There is a bite actually, but it's on the other side. I found an even better one yesterday, whoops,
make that two days ago. Same type of fungi but even bigger. No scratch marks on the top and no
bites, but it was much higher on the tree and so it would have been very difficult to photograph (a
camera with one of those twisting LCD screens would have been ideal) so I didn't bother.

> After reading your links to 'bokeh' in another thread, I can say that I've also experienced this
> in some of my shots. Not that I'd ever guess it was called 'bokeh' though! You must be really
> pleased with yourself by finding this out! :)

Just pure chance that I happened to read about it recently.

> Now this is good, and it certainly puts my moon shots to shame! If I wanted a moon shot as close
> up as this, I'd have to bend over with my pants down in front of a mirror!!! :-D Even with my 2x
> teleconverter (280mm equivilent), I don't get anything like this, not even a quarter of the size,
> nice one!

Thanks, I'm quite pleased with it, but it's not a full size image remember, only a crop. I wouldn't
be able to print that at A4, so it's not much good for prints, but it's fine for web use. Also good
for pasting into other shots for that unfeasibly large "Stephen Spielberg Moon" effect. ;-)

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
Y

Yup

Guest
Paul,

the pics are fantastic, especially the moon. I have taken moon shots before now by holding my
digicam in front of the lens on my telescope! It's amazing how well they come out

Ade

"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A few pics from my recent visit to the Afon Mellte with my new 300D.
>
> Sgwd Isaf Clun Gwyn. A handheld shot at 1/250 at ISO 400,
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/sicg.jpg
>
> Water and rocks. A smooth rendition of the water flowing across the flat bedrock at the top of the
> fall, backed by moss covered rocks, foliage and cliffs. This image is two horizontal shots
> stitched together to form a square image.
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/water_rocks.jpg
>
> Moss covered tree. The sun came out so I shot this against the light, for that sunlight fringing
> effect. http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/moss_tree.jpg
>
> Sgwd Clun Gwyn. Rarely seen like this, with the water filling the full width of the river. Again I
> used a fast shutter speed to capture the drama of the water thundering over the fall. This is the
> scene that my camera wouldn't focus on with the polariser attached (but this is not the polarised
> photo). http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/scg.jpg
>
> Bracket fungus. I spotted this meaty bit of fungi on a nearby tree. This shows the poor "bokeh" of
> the lens. Any idea what caused the scratch marks on the fungus?
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/bracket.jpg
>
> Moon. An odd one out, not taken at the Mellte. This was taken last night with a 300mm lens (480mm
> equivalent) to show what is possible with such a lens. This is a crop from the full size frame
> (3072 x 2048), no resizing. http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/moon.jpg
>
> Paul
> --
> http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
> http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
S

Ste Mc ©

Guest
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ste mc © wrote:
>
> > Lovely and sharp. I could almost cut myself just looking at those rocks!
>
> They're actually quite smooth, not as sharp as they look.

Aside from this photo, most of the shots you publish to the web are pin sharp. I find that some of
the photos I've posted on useful have not came out as well at 640x640 as they have looked in the
original size. You've obviously got a better saving for web workflow than me! I've tried the unsharp
mask both before and after resizing the image, and that seems to help a bit. I've not used Focus
Magic much since downloading it, but perhaps this is the reason?

A good example is this shot, taken from the window of Chatsworth House:
http://www.usefilm.com/image/229752.html The original was lovely and sharp, but this version looked
almost blurred after I'd resized it. Any ideas on why this happened? Do you see what I mean?

> >> Water and rocks. http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/water_rocks.jpg
> >
> > Very interesting shot from a different perspective, I like it.
>
> Oh good. Any other comments? Any complaints from the rule of thirds brigade? Square compositions
> are a bit strange, aren't they? An aquired taste I think.

I didn't give the square composition much notice to be honest, but the nice thing that struck me was
that you don't normally see photos of water from this lowdown and perspective (from the side),
watching the water literally run past. It's an original composition for sure, and I'll have to look
out for some fast flowing water to try something similar because I think it's a nice effect.

> > Yes, very sparkley! Is that snow on the ground to the right, and in the rear left background?
>
> Nope, no snow, just sunlight reflecting off wet leaves. The essence of a backlit shot like this is
> that you are looking at the shadow side of everything, so you expose for the shadows. This causes
> the sunlit edges to overexpose, creating that fringing effect (often used in portrait
> photography). In this case it's actually good to overexpose the highlights, but not so much that
> they go shooting off the right hand side of the histogram.

Yes, I read in a book or magazine that it's always allowable to have overexposed parts when it's
showing something that is bright or sparkling like this. Obviously, if I thought the photo was
'sparkley,' then this effect has obviously worked on me! ;-)

> > And it's a change to see a 'frozen-in-time' waterfall shot from you too! :)
>
> I rather like fast shutter speeds when there's a lot of water coming over the falls, and for the
> first time I can now capture them without excesssive noise or grain.

Excellent stuff. Have you done any A3 prints from the 300D yet? If so, how much difference is there
from the G3?

> > Nice fungus, and good to see that you haven't taken a bite out of it either this time! :)
>
> There is a bite actually, but it's on the other side. I found an even better one yesterday,
> whoops, make that two days ago. Same type of fungi but even bigger. No scratch marks on the
> top and no bites, but it was much higher on the tree and so it would have been very difficult
> to photograph (a camera with one of those twisting LCD screens would have been ideal) so I
> didn't bother.

Yes, if I could ever buy a house and have change left to buy a D-SLR (my girlfriend would laugh at
the thought!!), I'm sure I'd miss the tilting LCD display of my G5.

> > After reading your links to 'bokeh' in another thread, I can say that I've also experienced this
> > in some of my shots. Not that I'd ever guess it was called 'bokeh' though! You must be really
> > pleased with yourself by finding this out! :)
>
> Just pure chance that I happened to read about it recently.

Well, if you ever have a dinner party with a bunch of photographers, I'm sure you'll not be short of
conversation with this one! :)

> > Now this is good, and it certainly puts my moon shots to shame! If I wanted a moon shot as close
> > up as this, I'd have to bend over with my pants down in front of a mirror!!! :-D Even with my 2x
> > teleconverter (280mm equivilent), I don't get anything like this, not even a quarter of the
> > size, nice one!
>
> Thanks, I'm quite pleased with it, but it's not a full size image remember, only a crop. I
> wouldn't be able to print that at A4, so it's not much good for prints, but it's fine for web
> use. Also good for pasting into other shots for that unfeasibly large "Stephen Spielberg Moon"
> effect. ;-)

Yes, I understand it's only a crop from the full size image, but when I upload my efforts, you'll
see why it puts my one to shame! I'll make sure I upload mine as a crop from the original image so
you can see a good comparison. Now where did you get that really good 'pasting the moon into photos'
idea from? ;-) ...have you had any more luck in achieving this yet? I've yet to try, but have been
building up my stock moon archive in anticipation of trying.

> Paul

Ste
 
S

Ste Mc ©

Guest
"ste mc ©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
| > ste mc © wrote:

<snip>

| http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/moon.jpg
|
| > > Now this is good, and it certainly puts my moon shots to shame! If I wanted a moon shot as
| > > close up as this, I'd have to bend over with my pants down in front of a mirror!!! :-D Even
| > > with my 2x teleconverter (280mm equivilent), I don't get anything like this, not even a
| > > quarter of the size, nice one!
| >
| > Thanks, I'm quite pleased with it, but it's not a full size image remember, only a crop. I
| > wouldn't be able to print that at A4, so it's not much good for prints, but it's fine for web
| > use. Also good for pasting into other shots for that unfeasibly large "Stephen Spielberg Moon"
| > effect. ;-)
|
| Yes, I understand it's only a crop from the full size image, but when I upload my efforts, you'll
| see why it puts my one to shame! I'll make sure
I
| upload mine as a crop from the original image so you can see a good comparison. Now where did you
| get that really good 'pasting the moon into photos' idea from? ;-) ...have you had any more luck
| in achieving this
yet?
| I've yet to try, but have been building up my stock moon archive in anticipation of trying.

Oh well, here's the crop from my full size image: http://www.sm9.co.uk/test/moon.jpg

See ya,

Ste
 
F

Fran

Guest
[email protected] said...
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mellte/water_rocks.jpg
>
Paul, can I ask you a favour please? Would you mind emailing the photo to me? I'm trying to see it
but my blasted computer is determined not to let me get to the WalesWideWeb, let alone the
WorldWideOne, and this despite a complete reinstall of O/S, browser, conveyor belt and cuddly toy. I
shall probably be back over in Pontardawe before three long, having the damn' thing Seen To at the
shop. </mini-rant aimed at 'puter>

--
Fran If you need my email address please ask.
 
S

Steve

Guest
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:27:36 -0000, Fran <[email protected]> wrote:

>Pontardawe before three long, having the damn' thing Seen To at the shop. </mini-rant aimed
>at 'puter>

Fran that sounds like a firewall/browser/ISP problem.

Are you running a firewall? If so it may be blocking your browser (if you're not running a firewall,
why not ;-) If you are running a firewall try switching it off and then trying to to go online. (if
you don't have one a good free version is Zone Alarm
http://www.zonelabs.com/store/content/catalog/products/sku_list_za.jsp?lid=nav_za

Or, your browser might also be trying to look for a proxy or somesuch;

In IE go to Tools > Internet Options > Connections > Settings > Proxy Server and if the proxy box is
ticked untick it.

You could also try clearing your cache (it might be broken) in IE go to Tools > Internet Options and
click each of the three buttons <delete cookies> <delete files> <clear history>

If your problem's resolved it might have been a (transient) problem with something to do
with your ISP

Caveat: your problem might, of course be nothing at all to do with any of the above, if so, soz, but
at least you eliminated those possibilities ;-)

Hope the above is of some small help

Cheors

SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum; http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk
 
P

Paul Saunders

Guest
ste mc © wrote:

>> They're actually quite smooth, not as sharp as they look.
>
> Aside from this photo, most of the shots you publish to the web are pin sharp.

No, I mean that the rocks are smooth, not the photo!

> I find that some of the photos I've posted on useful have not came out as well at 640x640 as they
> have looked in the original size. You've obviously got a better saving for web workflow than me!

Have you tried Easy Thumbnails? http://www.fookes.com/ezthumbs/index.php?2.53

It's freeware and it's a very good program, I'm using it more and more these days. It doesn't just
make thumbnails, it can resize images to any size, and can do them in batches, thus saving a lot of
time. It can also sharpen whilst resizing, and has a range of different resampling algorithms
(including Lanczos, reputedly better than resizing in Photoshop) and can handle many different file
formats. Well worth a try.

> I've tried the unsharp mask both before and after resizing the image, and that seems to help a
> bit. I've not used Focus Magic much since downloading it, but perhaps this is the reason?

Focus Magic is utterly brilliant and I won't sharpen with anything else nowadays, not for serious
work. Ordinary sharpening is okay for web stuff.

> A good example is this shot, taken from the window of Chatsworth House:
> http://www.usefilm.com/image/229752.html The original was lovely and sharp, but this
> version looked almost blurred after I'd resized it. Any ideas on why this happened? Do you
> see what I mean?

Doesn't look too bad to me. Images usually look softer after resizing, it's due to pixels being
blended together. It's almost always necessary to sharpen after resizing.

> Excellent stuff. Have you done any A3 prints from the 300D yet? If so, how much difference is
> there from the G3?

I haven't yet, I've been a bit busy with other things this week. Don't worry, I'll be doing that
shortly. I've already taken one pair of test shots for my 300D vs. Nikon 4000 ED film scan
comparison. I'll be taking a few more too, to cover a few different subjects in different lighting.
Once the film is processed I'll get to work on them. If the 300D shots fare sufficiently well, this
may be the last roll of 35mm film that I shoot in a standard SLR!

One other thing that's bugging me slightly is the much smaller viewfinder image in the 300D compared
to a film SLR. It's really suprising how much larger the image is, and makes a big difference to
composition. Fortunately there is an L shaped viewfinder adapter available for the 300D, and there's
a magnifier in it too, so I'll be buying that. It will make it easier to take very low shots (can't
use the LCD for composition).

> Yes, if I could ever buy a house and have change left to buy a D-SLR (my girlfriend would laugh at
> the thought!!), I'm sure I'd miss the tilting LCD display of my G5.

Yeah, that's a handy little gimmick. Never used it much but it's really useful when you do need it.
The Pro1 has one too, doesn't it? Yet another little advantage over the competition.

> Now where did you get that really good 'pasting the moon into photos' idea from? ;-) ...have you
> had any more luck in achieving this yet?

I have actually, in a night shot with a black sky (that's what made it easy). The photo was taken by
a friend so I'll have to ask his permission before posting it on the web.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
S

Steve

Guest
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:26:23 +0000, Steve Orrell wrote:

>Caveat: your problem might, of course be nothing at all to do with any of the above, if so, soz,
>but at least you eliminated those possibilities ;-)

ps forgot to add; apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs, not that I'm saying you're a granny,
at all, even if you are, but especially if you're not, iykwim, I'll get me coat ;-)

SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum; http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk