Old Mister Crow

[Smoke]

Hi Rick, my intent was never about mud slinging. My intent was to let you know that the information you seek about photography and taking better pictures in Carl's article were written by Carl and his Nikon D-70 camera. many of the hints he gives are from adjustments that are only available on DSLR cameras.

What I suggest doing is forget all the talk here and set up a photo area and start shooting pictures trying every feature on your camera and shareing your achievments here. I expect you will learn much more than any written words here will achieve.

Your also right I never answered your question. In the two comparisons about distortion useing table edges and Tokonoma's. Those four pictures were all shot with AUTO modes on both camera's. The barrel distorted photos with the Fuji were taken much closer to the subject while the nikon images were taken from about 12 to 15 feet back from the subject at 55mm.

I own the Nikon for one reason only. To shoot pictures of my trees and track them for future reference.

FWIW. my camera of choice for all around shooting and at the beach where the fine Pismo sand would ruin my Nikon is the Canon Power Shot A540. It has a stitch mode that is pretty cool. It allows you to stitch together up to 5 seperate shots and render them as a panorama. The view of Pismo Beach represents 270 degrees of panorama. 5 shots stitched together.

 

[Smoke]

No argument there!

Having said that not everyone has the luxury of owning a DSLR nor have reason to own one. At times the way you come across in your posts is that: "unless you have spent enormous sums of money, all you have is junk" I will concede that perhaps you do not intend to come across that way, but unfortunately you do, and the latter is not just related to camera issues.

Maybe a little clarification is needed here. I have been doing bonsai for some time. When I started I was a family man with three children at home and all the said expenses that go along with affording a home and family. I went along with my hobby and was satisfied with my 5 dollar junipers from home depot and an occasional raffle tree at the club raffle table. I took pictures of my trees through the years with film cameras and have many albums of paper photographs of exhibits as well as my own trees. I was always satisfied with my achievements.

As the years went by and each child flew the nest fun money became much more prevelent. Credit cards were paid off and jobs improved substanially. I now can enjoy many of the things in life that I was for years having to settle for. I have found that trees look better when you can start with 500 dollar material over 5 dollar material. Trees look better when planted in 300 dollar pots over 3 dollar pots. tables, soil, fertilizer and yes even cameras to record their beauty. I have more than I did then. I love it. I wish everyone could buy and have anything they wanted. Don't hate me because I'm beautiful! I am exuberant and I wish to help those to save up and buy the better of anything. I have been down that other path and have walked in those shoes. I love where I am today.

Trust me if you are happy with your camera then pay no attention to my posts. I don't mean to rain on your parade. There are others here that I feel will get more from the discussion than some others will and may be in the market for a camera. They may just decide to wait an extra two months and save up the extra 200 bucks and get a DSLR and save the time and frustration I felt for those 4 years.


After rereading Carls article about camera's ( haven't looked at it for years) I can see the information there is very basic at best. In fact most of the shots he uses as examples are floating in a black background or have no horizens anyway so my points are moot. My frustration comes at preferring to shoot pictures with table edges as frames for pictures and shooting in the confines of verticle and horizontal walls of a Tokonoma. I feel if we had all been talking apples and apples this dialog may have been vastly different. I may be a paradox out there when it comes to pictures so my take is vastly skewed.

Carry on...Al

 

[Anonymous User]

I have found that trees look better when you can start with 500 dollar material over 5 dollar material.

This well depends on the talent of the person working with the material. There are artists who could do far more with a 5 dollar tree than some could do with a 500 dollar tree. Generalizations like these do not promote the art well.

I have seen people who would have been far better off sticking to good but inexpensive stock and leaving the fun money for other pursuits.

Money can not buy talent, however, if one has talent then using good stock and materials (notice I said good, not expensive, one does not necessarily mandate the other) is a given.


Will

 

[Smoke]

This well depends on the talent of the person working with the material. There are artists who could do far more with a 5 dollar tree than some could do with a 500 dollar tree. Generalizations like these do not promote the art well.

I have seen people who would have been far better off sticking to good but inexpensive stock and leaving the fun money for other pursuits.

Money can not buy talent, however, if one has talent then using good stock and materials (notice I said good, not expensive, one does not necessarily mandate the other) is a given.


Will

By all means continue with 5 dollar material....once again an argument for mediocrity..

 

[Anonymous User]

By all means continue with 5 dollar material....once again an argument for mediocrity..

You seem to have a real hard time comprehending the simple fact that price does not assure quality, Al. Instead, you like to try and turn things into jabs at anyone who may have a different viewpoint, in example, putting forth the false assumption of what my material costs and that I argue for mediocrity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of simply stating your beliefs and/or backing them up with intelligent debate, you attack the other person. I have a first grader who can debate an issue better.

The simple fact is that price does not dictate quality. Certainly some excellent material comes with high price tags, but it is also true that some excellent material does not. As I stated above, your generalizations do not help the art at all, they are false.


Will

 

[Rick Moquin]

Hi Rick, my intent was never about mud slinging. My intent was to let you know that the information you seek about photography and taking better pictures in Carl's article were written by Carl and his Nikon D-70 camera. many of the hints he gives are from adjustments that are only available on DSLR cameras.

Hi Al I appreciate your candour. I have taken the time to re-read Carl's article and yes he mentions some of those pics were indeed taken with his D70, but also explains that a "reasonably good" quality can be achieved with point and shoot. Having said that, above you mention adjustments, what adjustments are we talking about in particular? My camera although NSLR has a broader spectrum of features not found on "point and shoot" full auto cameras.

What I suggest doing is forget all the talk here and set up a photo area and start shooting pictures trying every feature on your camera and shareing your achievments here. I expect you will learn much more than any written words here will achieve.

... good recommendations and I fully intend to do so in the future. Any guidance on baselines to use?

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful! I am exuberant and I wish to help those to save up and buy the better of anything. I have been down that other path and have walked in those shoes. I love where I am today.

... and I don't as envy is a capitol sin I understand better where you are coming from and a certain degree of compassion is extended your way. I have struggled since as young as I can remeber and content with my life's situation. Sure we would all want more, but is it a need or a want?

I found myself disappointed again with your response to Will's post. I support Will's argument that "quality stock" does not have a price tag on it so to speak, and in the hands of an untalented individual would result in rubbish (for the lack of a better word), regardless of the value. On the other hand, a talented individual with average stock can turn it into a beautiful swan, the latter has all to do with talent and technique vice the "price tag".

By all means continue with 5 dollar material....once again an argument for mediocrity..

Since I have no intention on being insulting, I will reserve comment on this statement, with the exception as to render credence to some of my previous observations. It is all about attitude... quality does not necessarily equate to expensive nor exuberance.

 

[Bill S]

Son of a 12345678910 - gun.
Hey Al, I'd be willing to bet that a $500.00 tree, in a $ 300 pot with all work done by you is FAR superior to the same deal spending $30.00, most oafs as well. Ive been on both sides of Al's money predicament, and hold a large disdain for those with bucks, that think they are better than me/others, and not once have I felt that Al holds a superiority complex because he has more money than someone else, better trees maybe, but thats a horse of a different color.

Will, it was a generalized statement with no argument, stating where he is in this time, the argument if you call it that was about something else, you deserved Als rebuttal(I'd have given a FAQ). Sorry but(your version of) Al's side has been rammed down hundreds of throats of people showing the proverbial stick in the pot and why they should have saved a bit more and bought the good stock, where is that attitude now(any idea where you can get good cheap stock - start a new thread), this argument isn't about $$$$ or big $$$$$$$$ being better than little $$, it's a discussion about camera's, we will all be better if it stays there, don't join a discussion for an agenda hijak (argue if you wish, but there is no arguement).

I do have to add that I can't recall any of Al's posts saying, well if you guy's get over the fact that I took it with a Sh-t-y camera you might be able to imagine ............, no I think that what I picture is that when Al adds photo's they are pretty damned good, the trees too.

The camera discussions have been good by all means lets continue - ( I'm in the learning stage here, no comment from me, except I have owner slr's, and point and shoots, and a couple of DPS's)

"Your Cash Aint Nutin But Trash" sorry for the musical interruption of this program.

 

[Attila Soos]

To be fair to Al here..,

Al did not say that the $500 stock should be in the hands of an untalented individual.
And Al did not say that every piece of quality stock needs to be expensive.

Al just said that, in general, trees started from $500 material look better than trees started from $5 material (and he has worked with enough $5 material, to know the difference). We are not talking about the occasional lucky find, but the general fact of life that you get what you pay for. In my backyard, I have both kinds, the $5 one and the $500 one. Guess which one is better? So, if you can afford the $500 one, then by all means.. (some people pay $20,000 just to have someone decorate the front-yard with Christmas lights, so what is the meager $500?)

I find that "You get what you pay for" is generally true. It is also true that if you look hard enough, you can find the occasional bargain.

Sorry for joining the thread-highjackers..

 

[Chris Johnston]

This well depends on the talent of the person working with the material. There are artists who could do far more with a 5 dollar tree than some could do with a 500 dollar tree. Generalizations like these do not promote the art well.

I have seen people who would have been far better off sticking to good but inexpensive stock and leaving the fun money for other pursuits.

Money can not buy talent, however, if one has talent then using good stock and materials (notice I said good, not expensive, one does not necessarily mandate the other) is a given.


Will

Show us. Show us 5 dollar material that might be a show-stopper.

 

[Rick Moquin]

Chris,

Care to discuss focal length?

 

[Attila Soos]

Chris,

Care to discuss focal length?

Rick,

Are you trying to hijack this thread?

 

[Rick Moquin]

Rick,

Are you trying to hijack this thread?

funny Long time no see, how does one hijack his own thread?

 

[Graydon]

Graydon,

Thanks for the tidbit on Raw format, it is much clearer than my previous understanding of taking RAW pics, downloading to a CD and taken to a professional photographer for further rendition. If one has the ability to use packaged software, then yes it is the way to go when dealing with few pictures, but time consuming when dealing with large amounts. I also presume that taking these photos to a photographer for rendition would be an expensive proposition.

If you purchased a DSLR the software needed to simply edit them in RAW format came with the camera. I think. I don't know that for sure as I never even load that stuff on my Mac.

Yes, I am sure a photographer would charge a bit much to go over your images. In that case (you have no DSLR or ability to shoot AND process RAW) I would learn what all those buttons do. It's really not all that complex. I can do it and I'm no rocket surgeon or brain scientist.

 

[Rick Moquin]

I hear you my friend wrt the many buttons. The good side of practice with digitals, regardless of the flavour, is that you do not need to process the film. Outside of time consuming, it's relatively cheap.

... I'm off to bite the bullet!

 

[Anonymous User]

Show us. Show us 5 dollar material that might be a show-stopper.

Surprise, you are no longer on my ignore list for the moment.

I could show you literally hundreds of trees that are now world class and that orginally cost next to nothing to acquire, this is easy.

However, I don't really want to fall into Al's or your ad hominem, which solves nothing, teaches less, and is designed to avoid actual debate on the subject.

The circumstances of my own collection have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the thoughts I have put forth.


Will

 

[Rick Moquin]

OK,

Now that everyone has had a chance to say their piece. The conversation is about camera articles and cameras. A great deal of information was learned and shared here, let's continue in the same vain.

 

[Thomas J.]

As for shooting in RAW and the software that comes with the camera, according to a lot of photographers on the forums, that software usually isn't the greatest. Not that it's that bad, but there are a few better ones out there that you can download for free. Also I've been reading that shooting in RAW is mostly a choice that each one sees differently. Some really like it and some think it's really not that great a thing. I would buy a camera that has that option though, along with one that also has a hot shoe (an add on flash) which I believe all DSLRs have but not all point and shoots.

Also don't think of the term point and shoot as a small camera that you stick in your pocket with no real photo shooting ability. There are many point shoots today that are almost as close as a DSLR except for lens changing and speed.

 

[Chris Johnston]

Surprise, you are no longer on my ignore list for the moment.

I could show you literally hundreds of trees that are now world class and that orginally cost next to nothing to acquire, this is easy.

However, I don't really want to fall into Al's or your ad hominem, which solves nothing, teaches less, and is designed to avoid actual debate on the subject.

The circumstances of my own collection have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the thoughts I have put forth.


Will

Will,
I said nothing about your personal trees, but if that's where they are, so be it. But I propose you start another thread with that in mind. I challenged your post because it was the same old, same old, and did not belong in this thread. Your love of claiming ad hominem attacks notwithstanding, someone challenging a statement is not always that fallacy.

 

[Chris Johnston]

Chris,

Care to discuss focal length?

Only if it's with regard to watering in the afternoon!

 

[Rick Moquin]

Thomas thank you for your tidbits of information, although they do not apply to my particular situation, they are valuable nonetheless, in making an informed decision if and when I eventually switch to DSLR.

I have learned a great deal in the last couple of days. I never actually used like most, any of the bundled software that came with my cameras, as one becomes comfortable with the graphic rendition software they are accustomed to using. Because I am running a Linux box, the software that came with my camera is for windows, and hence still on CD. Having said that I have full control and downloading capabilities onto my system without it, not to mention photo editing software (PSP).

I had an opportunity last night to play with my camera using various settings and was capable of seeing the varying results. I will need more time to fully come to grips with using the camera in manual, but so far the learning curve has not been as steep as I originally thought. Mind you this was all carried out in my den using natural light with a suppressed flash. I will need to experiment with different environments in order to really master its use and full range of capabilities.

Although we can see a certain amount of distortion at the wide end in full auto, this fault disappears with barrel length, and is not seen when the camera is in manual, whether aperture opening, shutter speed or a combination of both are altered and used. ISO adjustments didn't seem to affect the quality of the picture with the exception of the higher end (above 400) where noise is apparent and more so as the setting is increased.

Today I will be playing with DOF and bracketing, although an NSLR I must say that I am pleased with it and can't wait to see the results when used for it's intended purpose, photographing bonsai.