|
Post by herron on Jan 10, 2007 11:01:14 GMT -5
Peter: LOL!!! ;D You spilled the beans before I had a chance to answer! Given the look of the ship, I was sure it was not of new construction, and my guess would have been similar to Jack's...either a box camera, or one of the simple folders so widely available in the 30s! I'm certain some of the "cognoscenti" of today would be quick to point out any image softness or other "flaw" in the lens, as evidenced by the image, to which I would ask them politely to *****(deleted by censor)***** It's a remarkable image of a remarkable time...what else do we need? Thanks for a nice proof of the point in question (you too, Paul!).
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Jan 10, 2007 16:12:54 GMT -5
Ah - White Star Line. A useless fact - None of the staff of the Titanic (who survived the disaster), ever (ever) got fired by the White Star Line - no matter what they did in future years. None of the staff of the Titanic ever (ever) got promotion in future years. It wasn't a happy company!
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by paulatukcamera on Jan 10, 2007 17:00:08 GMT -5
Replying to Sid's comments. I hand held the camera, BUT rested the lens on the stone wall, as I had to tilt and hold the back up to get the view I wanted! So I tried a cunning ruse - used the self timer and tried to hold it very very steady. Almost, but not quite as good as a tripod! No, not very scientific! Yes, I did blow it up the original image to see if I could read the number plate, though I didn't do any fancy sharpening as my camera is set on jpeg (fine). There is no RAW on this model, so some processing and "in camera" sharpening has been done. This is the complete photo from the "zoomed position" (430mm 35mm equivalent) My first and obvious conclusion is that the image stablisation really works well (see below for more proof) This is another series - I was abandoned in front of the 16th Century Hardwick Hall, while my son went to fetch the car. It was, admittedly a sunny day, but the camera was genuinely handheld. Not a wall in sight! View at wide angled end (35mm equivalent) Zoomed in to max (does show the remarkable range of this constant aperture f2.8 zoom (the current FZ50 closes down to f3.5 I think at the telephoto end) Detail? Well will this rivet on Elizabeth's (Bess of Hardwick) initials do? For those of you who think that you can't get at the truth on the web - here is the section as an untouched jpeg. www.ukcamera.com/images/web/hardwickhall3nc.jpgThree conclusions. In practical terms a fast, long, good quality stabilised lens makes up for a lot of chip and processing shortcomings A small portable camera with a long zoom is handier than a DSLR with two zoom lenses The price of DSLRs is still way above the equivalent SLR. I saw a comment somewhere that for EOS1 money you now got a Canon camera that had a low end body (can't remember exactly which model) As photo enthusiasts who can't afford an expensive stabilised zoom lens why don't you try a cheap one? Certainly opened my eyes, I can tell you. Paul
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Jan 10, 2007 17:28:54 GMT -5
Bess of Hardwick ?? I can see how Bess would come from Elizabeth for the 'E', but from the close up, that's a pretty solid 'S'
(OK - I know it was Elizabeth of Shrewsbury) Just thought for a minute, with the centre stanchion it was maybe "End In Sight".... !!
As far as digitals go. I was happy with my 2Mp mobile phone until it got allergic to its memory card. My wife got a free offer camera which was unspeakable - 300 kp, but to people who know nothing about these things a "Free Digital Camera" offer sounds like a good deal.
She's been saving up Tesco points for a real digital, although that's going to be a point & shoot as well. I'll post some results as soon as it lands. I have absolutely no problem with digital cameras, but as long as I can buy an SLR film camera for less than £50 compared to its digital equivalent at £500, that's where my money's going!
Regards - John
|
|
k38
Lifetime Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by k38 on Jan 10, 2007 17:39:15 GMT -5
My latest user is a Canon 30D. I'm sure that you could find tons of people who would Pooh-Pooh that choice as being a "Pro-Sumer" camera etc. etc. Would I like a top of the line full frame Canon body? Sure.........It would be worth more than my whole collection. If all I could have was my IIf and 3.5 Elmar or even a Pinhole camera I would be just fine. I do like to fool around with stuff and I have a list of cameras I would like to own some day. The worst drivel I have ever read was on some of the Canon lens forums. You can find someone to say that almost any lens is junk!
Happy Days,
Dwight
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jan 10, 2007 18:18:29 GMT -5
So long as Paul keeps replying I do not have to say a word. His thoughts and opinions seem to mirror mine for some reason.
Bob
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Jan 10, 2007 21:01:14 GMT -5
Thanks for the details Paul. To take up NikonBob's challenge, how about starting with a Meyer Domiplan 50mm/3.5. This must be the most slighted lens of all time, usually called a fancy body cap. On Exakta VXIIa, hand held, probably f:5.6 (it's usually said to be best at 8), Ektachrome 200, scanned (Canoscan 2700F) to 9MP 24bit RGB: 1. Geraniums: full frame reduced for posting here and compressed to grade 9 JPG 2. Then the original scan cropped to roughly 1/15 (area) around the few blooms slightly below left from the centre, again compressed to grade 9 JPG, i.e. a straight crop on the original pixels (zooming), like snipping an 8x8mm piece out of a 35mm negative and examining it with a magnifying glass, no jiggery pokery yet: 3. Then this crop enlarged 15X (area, bicubic resampling back to 9MP), and once again cropped to the central 1/15, and compressed to grade 9 JPG: No sharpening - I suspect that this image is so soft that sharpening wouldn't make much difference (contrary to popular belief, sharpening only works on sharp images, and is intended to compensate for loss of contrast during reproduction or printing). I'll try and see.
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Jan 11, 2007 5:54:02 GMT -5
Surprise surprise. Sharpening did have a small effect on this image. A further crop on the second image above (just to keep the final size down). Left: no sharpening (same as above). Middle 50% sharpening. Right 100% sharpening. Details: unsharp mask, radius 1.5, threshold 2 for both sharpened versions. If anyone is uncertain what unsharp masking is, I believe it was originally devised for the repro industry to compensate for losses in contrast during printing. PeterW can probably explain. Sharpening at 50% is typical for jpg compression intended for viewing on screen like now. Sharpening at 100% is typical for an inkjet printout. No sharpening (left) has lost some contrast through jpg compression and redistribution of image pixels onto screen pixels, and monitor quality, and whatever else.
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jan 11, 2007 6:55:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Jan 11, 2007 7:40:30 GMT -5
I took a picture of a railroad coaling tower in Indiana with my Minolta XG-1n years ago using the standard 50mm lens and I had the picture blown up to poster size (20in x 30in). The detail is very sharp.
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Jan 11, 2007 11:13:37 GMT -5
Another "humble" lens, triplet Isco Westar 100mm/4.5 Hand held ExaktaVXIIa, probably f:5.6, Kodachrome 200, scanned as above etc. Wood Anemones. 1. The full frame reduced and JPG grade 9 2. Cropped to the central 1/15 area, 100% as is, just below centre: 3. Same but Unsharp mask 50% to compensate for losses
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Jan 11, 2007 11:32:25 GMT -5
Peter, thanks for the info on sharpening. I use the unsharp mask on the lab mode monchrome channel for best inkjet copies, but I was lazy here and did it straight on the RGB image.
Didn't I read in one of your postings that you had experience from publishing? I thought perhaps you might have been acquainted with the original (analogue) unsharp mask, exposing through a sandwich of negative and positive images to increase edge contrast on the printing plates.
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Jan 11, 2007 11:38:24 GMT -5
Something is escaping me here. I followed exactly the same steps, and sized the crop in the same way, but the cropped aneme images are smaller on screen here than the cropped geraniums!
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Jan 11, 2007 12:16:52 GMT -5
Less humble maybe, still a triplet, Zeiss Triotar 135mm/4 Hand held and steadied on the ground, ExaktaVXIIa, Kodachrome 200, probably f:5.6; Meadow pasque flower Same procedure as before. 1. Not full frame, cropped to about 3/4 area and resampled up to original pixel size again, so enlarged somewhat to start with, i.e. pushed more than the others Crop from (1), above right from centre, not sharpened 3. Unsharp mask 50%, left on RGB, right on Lab mono channel
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jan 11, 2007 13:33:39 GMT -5
PeterW
Thank you very much for the links you posted. I have bookmarked them.
Bob
|
|