Happy to see you recovering from you recent morosity. :-)

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:14:14 +0000, The Devil wrote:

Well ... the little point-and-shooter finally got on my tits one time
too many. Screwed up what should have been some nice family photos.
Instead I got a washed-out sky and blue bars all around wooden beams
that had sky behind them. My boy is off to get a 300D for me tomorrow.
I've read Askey's review--and a bunch of others--and decided it's
definitely the one for me. Image quality is gorgeous, and I don't
think it's too big or too heavy for me to take it out and about. I
know it doesn't have the complex feature-set of some of the others,
but the image quality is top-notch and it seems to take great pictures
without all the faffing with settings and gizmos. Plenty enough
flexibility for where I'm at now. When I get the hang of it, I'll get
me some lenses.

Very cool.

I still think that you should go ahwad and pop for the new 20D, since
money isn't an issue for you. You'll be happier in the long run.
Apparently, they've speeded the darn thing up from the 10D/300D
generation *plus* there's a little niggling "problem" with low light
focusing that they seem to have addressed with the 20D. Is it a little
bigger and bulkier? Yes. But it's bulkier in a cool way.

Now, read this carefully.

THERE'S A BIG LEARNING CURVE WITH DSLRs. Call me and we'll discuss it.
I'm off all day today. It would be easier for me just to tell you
about the "pitfalls" than to write them up. The main thing is that
you'll need to get used to post-processing. But there's more, such as
the fact that they aren't always great as "point and shooters". Call
me.

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:43:04 +0000, Paul Dormer
wrote:

"dave weil" emitted :

Well ... the little point-and-shooter finally got on my tits one time
too many. Screwed up what should have been some nice family photos.
Instead I got a washed-out sky and blue bars all around wooden beams
that had sky behind them. My boy is off to get a 300D for me tomorrow.
I've read Askey's review--and a bunch of others--and decided it's
definitely the one for me. Image quality is gorgeous, and I don't
think it's too big or too heavy for me to take it out and about. I
know it doesn't have the complex feature-set of some of the others,
but the image quality is top-notch and it seems to take great pictures
without all the faffing with settings and gizmos. Plenty enough
flexibility for where I'm at now. When I get the hang of it, I'll get
me some lenses.

Very cool.

I still think that you should go ahwad and pop for the new 20D, since
money isn't an issue for you. You'll be happier in the long run.
Apparently, they've speeded the darn thing up from the 10D/300D
generation *plus* there's a little niggling "problem" with low light
focusing that they seem to have addressed with the 20D. Is it a little
bigger and bulkier? Yes. But it's bulkier in a cool way.

Thanks a bunch, guys. You're making my wallet itch!

Now, read this carefully.

THERE'S A BIG LEARNING CURVE WITH DSLRs. Call me and we'll discuss it.
I'm off all day today. It would be easier for me just to tell you
about the "pitfalls" than to write them up. The main thing is that
you'll need to get used to post-processing. But there's more, such as
the fact that they aren't always great as "point and shooters". Call
me.

Would you mind giving a brief summary...? Sounds like something I
would like to know about.

Sure. A lot of it is due to the sort of in-camera processing that P&Ss
do. They are tweaked (somewhat aggressively, many people think) to
create nice looking snapshots at around 4X6. Sure, they can also do
larger sizes now, and sure, the parameters can be adjusted, just like
with the SLRs. Still, I think that the consensus is that for doing
snaps, P&Ss seem to be *generally* more "snap friendly", even when
comparing SLRs that have been more aggressively set "in-camera". I
think it's something to do with the algorithms being precisely
adjusted to make a photo pop at snaps size with a specific sensor/lens
combo (more about this below). One of the big hits that newbies make
against Canon's SLRs (myself included) is that the shots "out of the
camera" are too soft. Well, yes. They are designed to be that way so
that the user can do his or her own sharpening to their own specs.
What seems a bit less clear is whether or not you can set the
parameters to mimic the sort of processing that P&Ss do and it doesn't
seem so. There doesn't seem to be an "ideal" "P&S" setting. There's
also the issue of DOF (where the advantage goes to SLRs), which is too
complex to go into here. Check out the forums at dpreview. There's a
lot of discussion about the differences between P&Ss and SLRs,
especially in the Canon forum.

There's also the additional problem with the extreme adjustability of
SLRS. The very thing that makes them so appealing is a little bit of a
drawback when it comes to whipping it out in auto mode to capture a
quick "snaps opportunity". Many owners have the "custom functions"
(read parameters) set for more demanding conditions. Also, they
recognize that some post-procession is desirable, in order to retain
as much control over the final product. This is sometimes in conflict
with the idea of taking a simple auto mode shot.

One advantage that the P&Ss have over the SLRs is the fact that you
can design the algorithms with a specific lens/sensor combo in mind.
Of course, this is also a disadvantage as it will always be a HUGE
compromise over the best combos that an SLR/great lens can offer, but
for snaps, it's probably an advantage, unless you're willing to do a
LOT of post-processing.

I'm not saying that you can't P&S with an SLR, but you will *still*
probably have to more post-processing to get the same result (in
general). Of course, one can argue how much difference it makes for
snaps size shots anyway...

Anyway, not sure if I'm being cogent here. If you have specific
questions, feel free to ask.

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 21:04:14 +0000, The Devil wrote:

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:43:04 +0000, Paul Dormer
wrote:

Thanks a bunch, guys. You're making my wallet itch!

My wallet has already itched and vomited over Argos' counter.
Unfortunately, the dizzy dickhead that is my son has taken the camera
home, not brought it here to my office, as instructed. Now I have to
go home and face The Dragon if I am to play with my new toy this
evening.

The 300D isn't expensive, BTW. About seven hundred smacks with the
lens. And there's currently a promotion on. Buy a cam and get a ton
back into your account or via cheque (I'll be giving this to charity,
before any ****-licker declares I am stingy or self-indulgent--after
all, a thousand bucks might as well be a trillion bucks to someone
like Arnii).

****. Had I known that, I'd have answered the phone, "Hello, We Are
The World Foundation. PayPal accepted. Leave a cheque at the beep".
Or, alternately, "Leave a Beeb at the queue".

Would you mind giving a brief summary...? Sounds like something I
would like to know about.

dave is hairy and brutal, I will note. My juices have been moved this
eve.

Yes, except I'd say "Brutus and Harry".

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:39:24 +0000, Paul Dormer
wrote:

That's sufficient grounding for me to appreciate some areas of
concern. Thanks for the heads-up Dave. Just one question: Do you use
scripts (for Photoshop, or software of your choice) for the post
processing stages, or is it more of a manual image-by-image tweaking
scenerio?

I've always done it shot-by-shot. You *can* use batch processing if
you have photos that all need to be processed the same way. You'd
simply create an action and then use the batch command. However, I
find that for most groups of unprocessed shots, there's some variation
in what works best for each shot. I'm sure that professionals use
batch processing all of the time. Fortunately, I usually don't have
tight time constraints for delivering large numbers of images.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 13:52:23 +0000, The Devil wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:19:25 +0000, Paul Dormer
wrote:

When I see noise on low light images, which is quite often, it's the
same constellation of pixels every time. They are indeed proving to be
an annoying bunch of spots.

I took some 30 second exposures of the valve amps at my office, lights
out and varying the aperture control for some snazzy depth-of-field
effects. Black came out black, with no noise *at all*. Cool pictures,
but I like to see the polished copper and chrome reflecting some
light. So I turned the lights on low and took some more long-exposure
shots. Very cool. I was able to close the lens down and put the camera
very close to the valves and get everything in focus. Even the
reflections in the getters came out perfectly. Supposedly the closest
you can put the lens to an object for macro shooting is 28cm, but I
read someone saying you can actually get a lot closer than this and
focus properly. Indeed you can!

I'd love to see some of these!

I feel a browse in Jessops comin' on.. maybe I should kick out another
leg on my tripod..

[PS send me pics! ;-)]

Will do. I need to find me one of those web-based photo album
thingies.

Anyone?

I recommend pbase. It isn't free, but it's reasonable. It only costs
$21 a year for 200megs of storage space, and you can order more if you
need it. You can display a lot of shots for 200megs, especially if you
post a lot of "normal web viewing" sized shots (900X600 and the like).

The things I like about it a

You can post full-sized images if you want, and give the viewer
options at which size they can view at. Of course, the more full-sized
shots you post (especially at the size your camera generates), the
fewer photos you can post, but it's still quite generous.

You can choose different formats for how they are presented.

You can use their compression scheme to gain even more space. And I
wasn't able to see any degredation at normal viewing sizes.

You can use TAR and Zip files to batch upload.

The thing about free photo services is that you generally are limited
to a certain viewing size, and sometimes the quality can suffer
because of the compression that they use. The upside to services like
Shutterfly and the like is that you can order prints directly from
them and the quality is pretty good. Pbase isn't a photolab, just a
photographer's specialty site, run by a couple of enthusiasts. They
spend a lot of time ensuring a high level of quality and service for
their product.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:37:16 +0000, The Devil wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 09:58:22 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

I took some 30 second exposures of the valve amps at my office, lights
out and varying the aperture control for some snazzy depth-of-field
effects. Black came out black, with no noise *at all*. Cool pictures,
but I like to see the polished copper and chrome reflecting some
light. So I turned the lights on low and took some more long-exposure
shots. Very cool. I was able to close the lens down and put the camera
very close to the valves and get everything in focus. Even the
reflections in the getters came out perfectly. Supposedly the closest
you can put the lens to an object for macro shooting is 28cm, but I
read someone saying you can actually get a lot closer than this and
focus properly. Indeed you can!

I'd love to see some of these!

I'm thinking about scrubbing them! None of them were exactly perfect.
Quality was great, but my composition skills leave a few things to be
desired. I've noticed that what you see in the viewfinder isn't quite
what you get in the photograph. The area actually photographed is
slightly larger than what you see through the viewfinder. Wouldn't be
a problem for most shots, but on macro stuff I found myself having to
mentally compensate.

That's what cropping is for!

I've got a good tripod now and a remote shutter release*. I'd like to
get some really great photos of my amps. When I have 'em, I will let
you know the URL of where I stick 'em.

I recommend pbase.

snip

Many thanks! I will be looking into this in a week or two. Very busy
at the moment, and all I want to do is play! Bleh.

Got the Barbara Cartland contract, did we?

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:33:52 +0000, The Devil wrote:

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:26:50 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

I'm thinking about scrubbing them! None of them were exactly perfect.
Quality was great, but my composition skills leave a few things to be
desired. I've noticed that what you see in the viewfinder isn't quite
what you get in the photograph. The area actually photographed is
slightly larger than what you see through the viewfinder. Wouldn't be
a problem for most shots, but on macro stuff I found myself having to
mentally compensate.

That's what cropping is for!

Seems like such an easy thing, don't it? Yet I never even think about
manipulating photos after they're taken. They're always so ...
perfect. Ahem. :-)

While you're sort of kidding, of course, the best thing is to have as
much right as possible out of the camera (so that much is true).
Obviously, you want to crop with the viewfinder as close as possible.
You don't want to discard pixels if possible. However, cropping can do
wonders, especially if you only have to trim a little. Also, one
advantage to having 8mp to work with is that for "normal sized" prints
and web viewing, you can actually crop quite a bit before it starts to
affect quality. Think of it this way - with 6mp, I can easily print up
to 11X14 most of the time. If I'm willing to accept a little
degredation, I can go quite a bit larger (and of course, the larger
you go, the further away you stand to view the image and so some of
the imperfections are mitigated anyway). I have heard reports that
even 20X30 produces "acceptable results" with the 10D, although they
wouldn't be something that you'd want to sell somebody as a wedding
picture or anything.

You can even sometimes use cropping to keep from having to zoom in
quite as far (which can help increase DOF if necessary). Try this.
Take a full-sized picture and crop out all but the middle. Change the
resolution to 300 pixels/ince (which is a good default for printing).
At the same time, change the print size to 11X14. See what you end up
with. I think you'll be surprised how much info you still have. Now
imagine if you were only printing 4X6s. Sure, the more info you retain
the better your prints will be, but there's a point of diminishing
returns at 8X10 or below for an 8MP camera. You'll have a lot of image
to work with, even after cropping. And it gets even better if you only
want to throw them up on the web, since you'll want to set your
resolution at 72 pixels/inch.

Got the Barbara Cartland contract, did we?

What do you mean? I *am* Barbara Cartland.

Risen like the Phoenix from the grave, are we? Got your pink wig and
pink poodle at hand, do we?