Magic camera... SLR, but what type?

Going through my pics in readiness for a 2007 Calendar and discovered I
don't have many suitable pics... Any excuse for a week at Tangalooma!
but this one caught my eye:
http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/tanga-calendar/old_whaling_pier?full=1
Can you guess which camera took the shot?
--
From Douglas...
My photographic site: http://www.douglasjames.com.au
Canvas Archival and Metallic Prints: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au

Dmac

Re: Magic camera... SLR, but what type?

Yes, you're right. You've already made this group a better place. Thank
you.
The digital.slr group needs cleaning up, too--it's like the wild west, over
there.
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Matt Clara

Re: Magic camera... SLR, but what type?

I don't like the framing of that except for the detail of having the
pilings stick slightly above the horizon. The colors are very nice as
is the exposure of the sand.
As to what camera, who cares.
Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne

Re: Magic camera... SLR, but what type?

Cool. It was just a few minutes.
And if I run into the thread again, I'll tweak it. Actually, I recall
now, I just wanted you to confirm that there wasn't any definitive word
on what giclee was./is.
--
john mcwilliams

John McWilliams

Re: Magic camera... SLR, but what type?

Can you be more specific John?
I don't always follow all threads to their ultimate end. Life is short,
time is free today but not on other days (or nights). My clock is
correct for GMT+ 10 hours - my present timezone. If you've checked my
clock when I'm posting from Samoa or Perth, my notebook may indeed still
be on GMT+10 and therefore wrong but for the last 4 days at least, it's
within a minute or two of local Brisbane time. But to satisfy you, I'll
sync it, my notebook and palm now, with Atomic clock time.
--
From Douglas...
My photographic site: http://www.douglasjames.com.au
Canvas Archival and Metallic Prints: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au

Dmac

Re: Magic camera... SLR, but what type?

Mac: Are you still averting your eyes to the simple post I made in
another thread? It would appear so.
And your clock is off.
--
john mcwilliams
At precisely 6:51:53 PM on Friday, June 16, 2006

John McWilliams

Re: Magic camera... SLR, but what type?

All digital photos have sharp edge definition which separates them from
the "look" of film. This one is no different. Film has a blending of
edges which while it is slight, does produce a picture in which all the
elements "blend" into the background producing a pleasant to look at
image rather than one with an amazingly sharp impression. I suppose this
all gets back to the "what's all the fuss over sharpness" thing.
--
From Douglas...
My photographic site: http://www.douglasjames.com.au
Canvas Archival and Metallic Prints: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au

Dmac

Re: Magic camera... SLR, but what type?

Ok, he asked the question, and, after doing some homework on his Web
site, I answered it. He didn't imply the connection about the camera
and the image except to ask if we could guess what camera the
photographer used to capture it. This is the old argument which is
irrelevant to the group. It wasn't about equipment, it was about an
image. Is that missplaced? How many posts have there been about the
quality of an image is due to the equipment?

Wsrphoto

Re: Magic camera... SLR, but what type?

snipped
Thanks for you compliment, Scott. I'll let you in on something Scott.
I've been shooting in RAW mode since the day I got my 10D, about a week
after they were released!
The idea I shoot in JPEG mode exclusively has been propagated by a
fellow who seized a line of text in a posting to a Photoshop group. He
then made it into folklore and an absolute statement he's used ever
since whenever I get up his nose... You get that sort of thing on Usenet.
The discussion then was about correct exposure to avoid the need for RAW
manipulation when you have a few hundred photos to print at an event.
The event in question was a 600 shot a day Santa shoot.
When we do events (baby shows, Santa shoots and the like) where photos
are being sold 'out of the camera', I tether the cameras to computers
and only shoot JPEG. The premise of course, is that the lighting is
stable and correct for the situation.
The first year with digitals I fried a 20D using the inbuilt flash when
580 flash guns were in non supply. Some other fellow now responds to any
message I post relating to 20D reliability with the remark that I use my
cameras outside their specified operation environment and should expect
this sort of thing. How it relates to 8 out of 10 Canon cameras I've
bought having a back focus errors out of the box is anyone's guess.
Bret also fell for the bait I layed for my number 2 troll and thinks all
my pictures are as crappy as his and offers up the reason as being that
I shoot in JPEG mode. Curious stuff.
Anyone ask me?
Nah... This is Usenet.
Why ask someone a question and let the truth and facts get in the way of
a decent rocket?
Look in the mirror Scott for another guy who jumps to conclusions and
reads what is not written. Anyway, thanks again for the kind words about
the pic.
--
From Douglas...
My photographic site: http://www.douglasjames.com.au
Canvas Archival and Metallic Prints: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au

Dmac

Re: Magic camera... SLR, but what type?

I have heard good things about the 5D, it sounds like it is working out
for you.
With regards to the 20D I have found that for a given exposure I get
better shadow detail when using raw compared to the out of camera jpeg.
More then that I can expose about one stop more when shooting raw and
not blow the highlights and this helps the shadows even more.
We really need to get you using raw, once you get really using it you
will never go back to jpeg.
Once agian though I think the photo is great.
Scott

Scott W

Re: Magic camera... SLR, but what type?

Oh for gods sake, that's an old argument, and while true, this _is_ an
equipment group, so the point is misplaced here. We're not at a restaurant,
we're on usenet, and if you went to a cooking equipment group and someone
talked about their meal, questions about the equipment would be pertinent,
no? That's a better argument, don't you think?
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com