Aflower pic... Or two...

[geminiguy]

Beautiful images John.
Nice link too Risto

[raynerj1]

thanks John.

Risto,

It is much easier to get a flower to behave in the studio. His shots didn't have any Exif data. So unless he used xpro, they are probably scans from a negative. My camera does not have the resolution of a fine grain negative. (You could always buy me a digital that does... I am not proud... I would accept it)

What you are belittleing are shots from the garden. In the garden one can only capture what is there. I can not control the wind, the clouds, the intensity of the light, the color of the light. I have the work with what I have.

Throw you camera on a tripod and snap a shot or two. It is far harder than it looks.

For example. Here is a bracket shot of the same 2 tulips taken 2 seconds apart. Save em and look at in sequence, you can see the movement. I have had flowers move totally out of the frame from one shot to the next with a fast exposure. It is like trying to take a photograph of a 3 year old indoors. They move too fast for the camera... I usually take my shots on a tripod with a cable release even at 4000... I have enough moving and don't need any camera shake.

[RTK]

Not belittling... Where was I belittling?

My original question had to do with your choice of tool/export... the curious "why"... Xara unnecessarily antialiases bitmaps (introduces some (extra) blur), so I thought it to be an odd choice in this case, as I would have assumed that photographers strive to have has sharp and crisp of a photo as possible (especially when shooting close-ups) of flowers.

For the soft framing feathering, you explained that one -- you think it looks "prettier". That's as good of an answer as any. I thought there might perhaps have been some other reason, which wasn't obvious.

Not sure what you were meant to "show" with the "crop". Still not sure?

No idea what equipment and techniques the other photographer uses (but on the site he says, "My prints are traditional chromogenic photographic prints made from digital photographs." As for his Exif data, it's more likely he chose not to include it (easy to remove in Photoshop). As you enjoy photography, I though you would also enjoy the link.

Of course it's difficult to take technically great photographs! If everyone could do it -- there would be fewer photographers creating imagery for a living.

Risto

[handrawn]

nice to see you posting John

I like photos of flowers [the real thing frequently makes me sneeze ]

[raynerj1]

Thanks Steve...

Risto,

I really do not see any difference between a xara jpg and a PS jpg. Maybe I should try and create the same picture in PS for a test and do a comparrison. PS is just such a pain to use for most thing tho...

I just had a thought. Maybe the "fuzziness" is due to the 70% .jpg setting and not the antialiasing. My eyes are not as good as they once where and I only have a 17" monitor here is another reason I might not be able to see the fuzziness.

[RTK]

Ahhh... I'm being Adobe-sized... In Xara you have a the option to turn off bitmap smoothing (I assume it's left no smooth on export also). Maybe you have it set to always smooth (adding to the "softness" that's already there? However, it wouldn't make that significant of a difference on your "crop" example. It's probably a lens / camera sensor thing? And you are right -- buying the "higher end stuff" costs an arm and a leg.

Rich is using a designated macro lens and a Canon D20. I suppose it would help explain the sharpness and detail he achieves with his macros?

Risto

[raynerj1]

A zoom lense with a macro function can not get as clear a shot as crawling on the ground with a macro. I gave up playing in the dirt many years ago. A D20 also has a much higher pixel count, which would make for much more detail. I was thinking about a newer body, but the wife would skin me alive if I spent the kind of money I want to spend. Maybe next season when the prices drop a bit more.

[RTK]

A D20 also has a much higher pixel count, which would make for much more detail.

Well, more MPs doesn't automatically add more "detail" -- it only automatically adds more "marketing value" (and files size). If you shoot through a crappy piece of glass, it doesn't matter how many pixels your camera produces. Also, if the sensor in the camera is small and the manufacturer tries to squeeze silly amounts of pixels out of it -- more noise, and more different kinds of artifacts, depending on the lens configuration.

Here's a nice short recap: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...ensor-size.htm

Dpreview.com people often post nice links to cool and fun-to-read resources. Luminous-landscape.com also has some great articles (but the site is a pain to navigate -- you have to dig deep!).

But yes, the D20 is a great camera.

Risto

[AndFarr]

One from the garden.
- Andy

[raynerj1]

Risto,

Both the D20 and the IST*DS are both off the market being replaced by the latest and greatest. As far as I can remember the D20 was 2 to 3 times the cost of the IST*DS. If I was Rich and the D20 didn't take 2 to 3 times better shots I would be rather upset. I am happy with my Pentax. It has served me well. The layout of the controls is better for me than the canon models. The picture quaility is far superior to the comparable canon model of it's day.

I like what my Pentax can do. It produces awesome 8X10s and very good 11X17s. I have some better quality lenses and some lesser quality lenses. You just happen to compare my budget quality 70-300 quantary lens with whatever Rich has hung on his D20. (I doubt it is an aftermarket bargain basement lens)

Pentax makes some of the very best optics but even the used ones can be beyond my budget at times. Some day I hope I can afford 15K or more for a used high end lens. It just happens that it isn't today.

Very nice shot Andrew. Thanks for posting!