anonymous
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Greetings Jackie:
You might take a look at my annotated fly-fishing bibliography.
http://www.flyflinger.com/bibliography.htmlMay you have good reading,
Scott
Buzz- you bring up an interesting point/points:) – for most!!! a drag/ and its Ad pimped advantages , is a selling feature not a real world neccesity( my point not yours:))). The% of anglers that NEED
Reels-
Redington AS/AL series from 5/6 to 13/14 (for the Spey stuff). Disc. Simple straight ahead well built machined from stockreels
4 reel bodies
A little info from my site/curiosity of a good friend and hard core pike fly fisher:))-
http://www.watersidemb.ca/julynewsletter1.pdf
some patterns-
http://www.watersidemb.ca/stupikebox1.html from Stu T
hope that helps
Will
1) I have and use all three types. Use gear driven the most. Prefer the sealed bearing clutch type for smoothness. Is the last what you mean by draw-bar?
2) Most about $200 retail. $100 reels have not proved to be reliable enough for my guide use.
3) I usually set the drag for my customers unless they are fairly experienced. Less than a pound. Clients have broken off large fish on too tight a drag.
4) Appearance is not a critical as drag design and machined tolerances. Use more traditional reel designs but try something new every now and then. SA large arbor, Orvis large arbor, Galvan OBs.
5) Rarely but still hurts when it happens. I prefer the darker satin finishes. I expect durable finishes according to the price.
6) cork or synthetic? I would not hesitate to use Able or Bauer except for the cost factor. Older, cheaper cork or rulon disc drags I steer clear of. Would have a couple of 8-10 weight Van Staals if they ever get into serious production, Zebco didn’t downgrade the product, and I could afford them.
My .02
ScottSorry for the thinking out loud and bandwidth but I may have answered my own question. I just redid the experiment using Canon zoom browser to view the raw and jpg file and then importing them into Adobe Photoshop Elements for resizing and saving. The color on the shots that came out is exactly the same–not like when I used ACDSee Pro. That tells perhaps me something is off in ACDSee’s raw converter. Hmmmmm. Anybody have any similar experience or thoughts?
Is it best to use the camera manufacturer’s software to view the raw files?
Scott
Just an experiment. Here is one shot on the 30D, saved as RAW and JPG FINE. Shot saturated (+2).
Beta.jpg is the original jpg file only resized in ACDSee Pro.
Beta2.jpg is the raw image saved as a jpg and then resized in ACDSee Pro.What am I seeing in the color difference between the two shots?
The RAW vs JPEG issue comes up quite a bit in Outdoor Photographer Magazine–a publication I’ve found very useful.
An interesting article was in the July 2006 issue of Outdoor Photographer on “double processing” Raw files to keep max detail in the shadows and highlights.
Congratulations Zach (and Lauren). I know you work hard to maintain a good site. One of the things that got me reading was your fresh perspective. I appreciate your board and the people I get to interact with. All the best in the new year,
ScottA few more things to ponder.
Some pros will advise you to archive everything regardless of how it was shot as TIF since it’s “lossless” or uncompressed data and not a proprietary format. Outdoor photographer George Lepp is a big advocate of this. Remember, like Zach says every time you save a jpeg over itself, you are compressing the file and loosing data. That’s not true of TIF or RAW, although you will lose data through edits in TIF. One sports photographer I know says he only shoots JPG.
One plus to the Canon 30D I use is I can shoot both RAW and JPG at the same time. I leave it on that setting. But when I upload files to the laptop, I delete the raw images except for the really important ones. A few times I have been able to salvage an image I had to shoot on the fly, and it turned out over or under exposed. I then later save those RAW files and unedited JPG’s I keep on CD when I have enough to fill it.
Archiving in TIF is not as critical as it once was, since there are a lot of programs (such as ACDSee Pro) out there now that can read every proprietary RAW format–a nice plus if you use more than one model of camera.
I am with Carter on leaving it alone.
I don’t know. Looks like a good candidate for a beadhead at the eye and a chunk of foam in the tail for some jiggy action. ;D
