the Moon! - Page 3

(RIP) PLANK · 20-01-2011, 19:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by lacroupade

how could we forget the goat! I mean what else do we pay our tenners for - bugger all to do with cars!!!

if everyone started sticking to talking about cars all the time, i think most of us would get bored and leave

zippy656 · 20-01-2011, 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by clivvy

back on thread,

yep THAT'S the moon. you dont need an eye test either

andrewk · 21-01-2011, 15:42

Yep, it's the moon alright. So is this .........

I took that with a Pentax K200D using a 45 year old Tamron 400mm lens.

Don't get too hung up on makes & models of camera. It really doesn't matter. Just about all DSLRs (and most point & shoots too) are capable of taking superb photos. It's usually the wobbly organic bit behind the viewfinder that lets the camera down rather than the other way round.

Andrew

lacroupade · 21-01-2011, 15:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewk

Yep, it's the moon alright. So is this .........

I took that with a Pentax K200D using a 45 year old Tamron 400mm lens.

Don't get too hung up on makes & models of camera. It really doesn't matter. Just about all DSLRs (and most point & shoots too) are capable of taking superb photos. It's usually the wobbly organic bit behind the viewfinder that lets the camera down rather than the other way round.

Andrew

Great pic Andrew.

My only argument on the DSLR front is one specific to digital that only really expensive ones fix....and thats contrast. Even with an expensive Nikon using RAW format and good processing software (and I know other people with much more expensive kit with the same issue) its a PITA getting the maximum from a shot these days....oh for the digital equivalent of Kodachrome 64

(RIP) PLANK · 21-01-2011, 16:15

I may be getting the wrong end of the stick, but that photo of the moon, looks like a fine example of contrast

I want to move up from our digital compacts as they are very limited, the auto settings menu's don't make allowance for things like 'low light' photos and just stick the flash on wether you want it or not. And if you turn it off the pictures aren't too clever. I am hoping moving up will give me more control, and of coure, the slr format a better 'framing' ability.

But to be honest i don't have a lot of money to spend on this hobby, without getting it in the neck fomr 'her indoors' so It will take a while before i buy anything at all.

kbekl · 21-01-2011, 16:16

any one who has an aquarium and is into photography will understand this

these were the best pics i managed out of my bridge camera with the colors as you see them with the naked eye

was made worse by night light blue lol

this is what was seen with the eye but the rocks weren't so red

this is where a dslr was really handy to have but with the cost of running a tank and only using the camera for the fishy photos i couldn't justify the expense

andrewk · 21-01-2011, 16:16

I'm not sure that's true.

Here's a few more photos .......... one was taken with a mobile phone; one with a 1.3Mpx Olympus point & shoot; one with a Ricoh KR10 35mm film camera and one with a Pentax K200D DSLR and 18-55mm kit lens.

I'm not sure it's at all obvious which is which. (Promise me you won't look at the EXIF data).

Deer ....

Amaryllis ....

Cuthbertson at Lix Toll garage near Killin .....

Horse & sheep .... Wales

Software for editing (improving?) photos is dead cheap these days - Photoshop Elements will do everything you need for less than 50 squids.

Andrew

lacroupade · 21-01-2011, 16:44

Yeah but I'm just fussy.....

I'm guessing the sheep is the 1.3 megapixies....and I haven't looked so probably wrong and its the Landy.

(RIP) PLANK · 21-01-2011, 16:51

that's somehting else i could do with, decent photo software!

lacroupade · 21-01-2011, 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by PLANK

that's somehting else i could do with, decent photo software!

seriously, Picasa has a lot of the enhancement tools the average snapper needs and their default auto levels are pretty good....oh and its free of course, always a bonus!

Its not something a concerned professional would use necessarily but its easy and very good.

(RIP) PLANK · 21-01-2011, 16:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by lacroupade

seriously, Picasa has a lot of the enhancement tools the average snapper needs and their default auto levels are pretty good....oh and its free of course, always a bonus!

Its not something a concerned professional would use necessarily but its easy and very good.

cheers for the tip

lacroupade · 21-01-2011, 17:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by PLANK

cheers for the tip

and its a Google tool so well produced and supported. just do a search and download, doesn't take long.

andrewk · 21-01-2011, 17:32

Picasa hangs on some XP boxes (it did on mine). If it does on yours, try Photoscape. It also is free, excellent & doesn't hang - it's possibly more complete than Picasa too.

So still no real idea which photos were taken by which cameras?? If you aren't sure (without cheating and looking at the EXIFs) then maybe it doesn't matter as much as some think. (Clue: the Cuthbertson shot is a scan from a 35mm Fuji Reala negative).

Andrew

21-01-2011, 15:42	#33
andrewk Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Oldham Vehicle: Nissan Patrol Posts: 777	Yep, it's the moon alright. So is this ......... I took that with a Pentax K200D using a 45 year old Tamron 400mm lens. Don't get too hung up on makes & models of camera. It really doesn't matter. Just about all DSLRs (and most point & shoots too) are capable of taking superb photos. It's usually the wobbly organic bit behind the viewfinder that lets the camera down rather than the other way round. Andrew

21-01-2011, 16:15	#35
(RIP) PLANK Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Central England, in the Heart of the Black Country Vehicle: T2 2004 TDI SE LWB Posts: 7,740	I may be getting the wrong end of the stick, but that photo of the moon, looks like a fine example of contrast I want to move up from our digital compacts as they are very limited, the auto settings menu's don't make allowance for things like 'low light' photos and just stick the flash on wether you want it or not. And if you turn it off the pictures aren't too clever. I am hoping moving up will give me more control, and of coure, the slr format a better 'framing' ability. But to be honest i don't have a lot of money to spend on this hobby, without getting it in the neck fomr 'her indoors' so It will take a while before i buy anything at all.

21-01-2011, 16:16	#36
kbekl Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Manchester Vehicle: Ford Maverick 2.7 LWB GLX Posts: 1,519	any one who has an aquarium and is into photography will understand this these were the best pics i managed out of my bridge camera with the colors as you see them with the naked eye was made worse by night light blue lol this is what was seen with the eye but the rocks weren't so red this is where a dslr was really handy to have but with the cost of running a tank and only using the camera for the fishy photos i couldn't justify the expense

21-01-2011, 16:44	#38
lacroupade Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: All hail to the Glove of Love... Posts: 9,212	Yeah but I'm just fussy..... I'm guessing the sheep is the 1.3 megapixies....and I haven't looked so probably wrong and its the Landy.

21-01-2011, 16:51	#39
(RIP) PLANK Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Central England, in the Heart of the Black Country Vehicle: T2 2004 TDI SE LWB Posts: 7,740	that's somehting else i could do with, decent photo software!

21-01-2011, 17:32	#43
andrewk Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Oldham Vehicle: Nissan Patrol Posts: 777	Picasa hangs on some XP boxes (it did on mine). If it does on yours, try Photoscape. It also is free, excellent & doesn't hang - it's possibly more complete than Picasa too. So still no real idea which photos were taken by which cameras?? If you aren't sure (without cheating and looking at the EXIFs) then maybe it doesn't matter as much as some think. (Clue: the Cuthbertson shot is a scan from a 35mm Fuji Reala negative). Andrew