Photoclubalpha

It's all good. I just wish mother nature would have cooperated.

Lonnie Utah wrote:Resolution will only continue increase. As a result, we will see new lens, image processing technology IN THE BODY and printing technologies, that will allow these resolutions to become not only practical, but affordable for the AVERAGE consumer. We are all basing the need for camera resolution based on 150-300 DPI printing. Well, what happens when I make a 600 DPI printer? All of these technologies are interrelated.

The in-body technology will get better and I would rather have better noise performance than more resolution. I was under the impression that the only way to make progress (highter resolution on 35mm DSLRs) was to have better lenses (that resolve more at larger apertures).

Harvey

Lonnie Utah wrote:again...

16 MM 1/60 F13 ISO 200 exp bias -2

Hi Lonnie - congratulations on the girlfriend, photography kit, and the landscape Utah obvioulsy has some lovely views. Other than perhaps a but of lightening (as Sonolta has suggested) that is a lovely shot. Looking forward to more shots from Utah. Some post processing will really make you shots sing out so that is definitely an area to investigate further.

stevecim wrote: This is my main complaint with the A350 , sometimes I need a shutter speed just a little higher , so up the iso, but with the a350 you can't select iso between 200 and 400 or 400 to 800 like you can on the a700

This comes from being spoiled by digital photography. I used to shoot events with multiple cameras so that I had multiple ISO films. I could get, 25, 64, 100, 160, 200, 400, 800, 1600 ISO (also others if I wanted B&W) films and had to pre-determine wich I should load. I normally carried 3 or 4 bodies to a shoot. I couldn't just switch from 100 to 200 on the camera at the drop of a hat, much less choose steps in between. So, if I needed a higher shutter speed I just opened up the lens, of in low light conditions switched to a camera with higher speed film loaded.

Sometimes I think DSLR owners are nit-pickers.

Dusty

Dusty wrote:This comes from being spoiled by digital photography. I used to shoot events with multiple cameras so that I had multiple ISO films. I could get, 25, 64, 100, 160, 200, 400, 800, 1600 ISO (also others if I wanted B&W) films and had to pre-determine wich I should load. I normally carried 3 or 4 bodies to a shoot. I couldn't just switch from 100 to 200 on the camera at the drop of a hat, much less choose steps in between.

I remember those days.

Sonolta wrote:Lonnie...I did a 15 second edit of your landscape pix...it may not realistic but I sorta like the frame brightened up a bit. If you want me to take it down I will...

-Sonolta

I like the lighter, but the original gives a moody feel. From the cloud cover it's hard to tell exactly what the original seen would have been.

Dusty

Dusty wrote:From the cloud cover it's hard to tell exactly what the original seen would have been.

I'll give you a hint dusty, I was racing the sun on this shoot. The light was almost totally gray (flat) all afternoon. The sun kinda just popped out for like 2 mins right as I snapped this. Literally, I was running up the ridge to this spot (which is a bit disconcerting in a high alpine environment (10,500' above MSL) with almost $5k of camera and glass in your hand....) When I made it back to my car, it was almost totally dark.


FYI, from about an hour or so earlier in the day...




(Let me know if you guys can't see it.)