Shannon Drawe
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wordpress is what I use for my site, and you really don’t have to go with generic templates – as you can see by mine. If it seems too complex, you’ll grow into it instead of growing out of it. shannon
Yup. Came to Denton to go to school, and except for a few lost years in Southern California, have been here ever since. Not a true local although I married into a local family. shannon
Is there a trend toward these “train wreck” endings? It seems these horrible endings have taken on some romanticism, like Timothy Treadwell who ended up recording himself being eaten by a brown bear. Unfortunately, his girlfriend was eaten too. I find it easy to look away from these train wrecks even if the train’s earlier journey was through beautiful mountains and valleys. shannon
Nice images. I was there a couple of weeks ago doing an entomology class. It appears the water levels remain extremely low. shannon
Promo codes and possible discounts exist and can be found in places like subscriptions to Photoshop User magazine. Rarely do they amount to much savings. shannon
One great thing about the DX magnification offered by so many Nikons is the scientific fact the sweet spot of glass lies in the middle of the elements and falls off to the edges. That went a long way in my rationalization of DX, but if I could afford full frame sensor cameras – I would be there in a heartbeat. Where can we find those resolution numbers for lenses? Shannon
Great information! My brain is swelling, but I am forming a whole new set of useless thoughts. If the lenses resolving power is surpassed by a sensor’s resolution power, that means we have moved dramatically beyond film’s resolving power? IF folks are moving “back” to prime lenses that would explain manufacturers like ZEISS making prime lenses with Canon and Nikon mounts wouldn’t it. And, if someone wanted primes, why not go for the best in the world?
When it comes to the zooms I use, they are all 2.8, but not the latest in coatings (Nikon promotes the new SIC coatings for increased light transmission) —- except for my favorite lens which is the newest 60 macro (no new coatings though) and the absolute sharpest lens in my arsenal – seemingly confirming your thoughts. It seems that we have always given a little (quality) to get a little (less back pain) from the beginning of when zoom lenses really became viable on the professional scene. As I age, I don’t look back so fondly to carrying: 20-2.8,35-2.0,85-1.4,105-2.5 and 180-2.8 all standard in my bag for every shoot way back when. Oh, and don’t forget the 300-2.8 on many shoots. My back aches just thinking about it. I have really given those ZEISS lenses a lot of thought though. Just the name gives me that warm tingly feeling.
My mind still wanders back to issues on the sensor with microlens angles, but I’m getting that sinking feeling that I am in over my head.
My only real opinion is that manufacturers are wasting time increasing resolution (at this point in history), and should focus on function and reliability. They need to feel free to move away from something that looks like a 20th. century 35mm camera, and rethink the whole thing. They also need to get in agreement, and get on board with some sort of universal RAW. Once the proprietary infighting ceases, quantum increases and quality (and as a byproduct – resolution) are possible. In my opinion, the only reason for proprietary RAW is to sell proprietary software – plain and simple waste of time.
shannonAbsolutely accurate point. I never trust my display, and it is one shortcoming most manufacturers suffer from – histograms are much more valid. It’s involved, but once I have everything freshly calibrated, I compare the camera to the monitor to the print – and throw in a grain of salt. shannon
More directly to the question – raw images “can be” flatter looking due to the fact they have a greater range. Jpegs throw away information that basically makes an image take on more contrast and have less range. If you want a [s:3vyo9ioq]more contrasty[/s:3vyo9ioq] less flat raw image, you can dig deep into the camera firmware and change your color settings. shannon
Another more slightly technical differentiation is that jpegs are lossy and raw is lossless. A processed jpeg throws away file information for that image. A raw image is as described a digital negative. Early in the digital revolution, storage was at such a premium that a lot of photographers shot jpegs due to storage space limitations. There was also another cadre that went from shooting chromes all day, day-in-day-out, that was so good at proper exposure (due to small latitude for chrome) they could shoot jpegs and didn’t really feel the need for raw’s latitude. The jury is pretty much in at this point, and RAW WINS in the pro realm because of its latitude, storage concerns are nil, and quality concerns (due to jpeg compression aka. loss) are out of the equation. And software has stepped in to make the workflow from raw to whatever you want a non-factor. The only problem I encounter with raw is that software such as Photoshop and Aperture are slow to update their raw translators for new cameras. That is extremely frustrating. shannon
I may be a little behind the curve, since I have been pretty content to keep cameras for two to three generations, but I can’t really work it out in my mind how lenses have anything to do with resolution increases. I am fuzzy on where I read this, but I am pretty sure the number of digital sensors (aka. pixels) that will fit on a fixed size surface are finite. I think Nikon, for one, has been shifting between CMOS and CCD to keep apace with ability to increase resolutions. AHHHH! – Perhaps you are referring to the angle at which image strikes microlenses – then sensor? I think
199 years so; it is great for museum archival prints. As David said, they have come way down in price and dependent upon the size of print, that a person wants, you can get an A3 (13” X 19”) pro printer, that supports ICC profiles, for just a few hundred dollars.
I am on board, finally, and now in the literature that goes with a final print puts the archival life at 200 years. There are so many caveats to that – frame, mats,glass, adhesives,temperature, light source, humidity and mounting. Conditions have to be perfect, and the ozone situation here in Dallas – Fort Worth is so bad, there’s the potential to take 100 off that number as soon as it is hanging. I haven’t looked at the site in awhile, but http://www.wilhelm-research.com is the only authority (in my opinion) when it comes to this research. What got so many folks into trouble in the early years, way back in the early 2000’s, was the claims made by and the bogus testing done by the printer / ink manufacturers on their own products.
If I was printing a bit more, I would certainly invest in RIP software.One question – do you use any kind of sealers like Lumijet Imageseal as a final step?
shannon
No, David, I don’t. And to be clear, there’s no way we’re going film or anything. I simply miss the tactility of processing and printing my own B+W film. 🙂
Yes, that tactility – my hands in selenium toner … my prostate probably misses it too. Darkroom humor.
ShannonI don’t know how many of you print at home, but a big part of the ‘revolution’ is in printing.
I have a Canon 5100 printer that does awesome A2 prints in color or B & W, it’s also very easy to use and fairly cheap to run when you consider what we used to pay for big chemical prints.
The range of papers you can get is staggering, with everything from watercolor papers to high gloss being available.
Compared to a darkroom it’s a very clean process as well and very easy to do yourself at home.
Price wise the cost of the printers has come way down in the last few years, not long ago to do an A2 Dye sub you needed to spend over 100K on a printer, now they’re about 3 grand (Australian prices).
For B & W the range of options on contrast, levels and tone are endless.
While I do miss a lot of the old processes for film and hanging out at the labs shooting the breeze with other photographers, I don’t miss the bills and expenses and always owing the shop heaps of money for film.
It’s pretty plain to see that printers are the needle and ink is the drug. The price of ink is oft ignored to a photographer’s peril. Replacing an entire ink set on, say an Epson 4800 (220ml. every color), would set you back something like … 1200.usd? No matter, it’s still cheaper than silver printing nowadays.
shannonPS – Are those Reds there through the winter, or how does their behavior change? Thanks again, shannon
Great images. That light looks so warm for morning – amazing.
I was there just one week before Ike (Christmas Bay), and a three weeks after – doing a shoot along the sea wall the first time and shooting the aftermath the second time. Pretty amazing. The main question I have; Is Earnie’s still there over on Christmas Bay? The road was out, so I couldn’t get there when I was headed that way.
How do you like your Tarpon 160? I have the 140, and it is slowly getting pimped out – installed Amas so it is stable for standing now. I still have to get over the camera drowning fear though!
I’ll take the salt any day.
shannonYeah, that up from the bottom thing sure does sting when I’m [s:1c95d5gy]47[/s:1c95d5gy] forty-something, have a photojournalism degree, have been a freelance photographer for 17 out of 21 years as a professional photographer (worked for daily rags during those other four), put my first photography web site online in 1994 (and it’s still going) and have this crazy site texasflycaster.com that is generating an unexpected audience. Yeah, unfortunately that fly bug stings too – stung me so bad it may be terminal. It looks like as good a bad time as any to start from the bottom – economically speaking. Great information for sure! Thanks, shannon
There’s plenty to wish for and rant about when it comes to big name camera manufacturers. For instance, why don’t they make cameras “theft proof” by integrating a lock code into the firmware? That’s a no brainer. And why are they still making high end DSLRs that look like last century’s 35mm cameras? Imagine a camera where all buttons are at your fingertips and grips are a gel that can fit any hand. It goes on and on.
My question is – how much resolution is enough? It’s obvious that Nikon now finds it less difficult to go to a full-frame sensor than to try to pack more pixels into its 1.5 sensor. Things have leveled off somewhat, but (respectfully) – who needs 40+ megs. and why? texasflycaster
