Uzi's weak (photographic) link...

Frankallan · Aug 3, 2002

Hey Curt, this is an Outstanding Pic!! You should be very proud!! The Clarity and Sharpness are superb! Did you use any type filter??
--
Frank

http://www.pbase.com/frankallen/galleries

http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=5736

C-2100UZ A-200

Curt A · Aug 3, 2002

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the response, and info. Some of my post was obviously tongue in cheek, but just stands to reason that more pixels in any given area produces higher detail in small or distant objects in a photo. Curt

Peter Bradley said:
If you are just going to look at images on the screen there are not
many screens that will even run to 1600 x 1200 so, quite frankly,
unless you are doing large prints or a lot of image croping 1600 x
1200 is all you need.

I only think I would like a bit more for maintaining a good
resolution image after croping.

Peter B
Olympus C-2100uz, B300, FL40

Curt A. said:

Hi all,
The weak link..... I suppose would be its' resolution. This can
certaily be argued as unimportant on many photo situations,
especially close-up portraits. However I do get that "nudge"
towards saving my pennies for a new digital SLR when I compare the
sharpness/resolution of the new higher mp cameras with my 2100uz on
LANDSCAPE PHOTOS. Still capable of capturing beauty, the resolution
is probably reducing the impact of those type of photos.

Click to expand...

--

Now where did I put those SLRs?

Curt A · Aug 3, 2002

Hi UZ,

Thanks for the response. Obviously you realized that part of my post was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but just stands to reason that more pixels in any given area will give small or distant objects in a photo a higher level of perceivable detail. LOL at you response, but I do notice difficulty in seeing individual terrs on the photo etc. I've been told thopugh that this has more to do with my monitor or monitors period than would a print. Will try to print this one at 8x10 and see if there are differences. Thanks also for the compliment. Curt

'UZ'pShoot'ERS' said:
I'm so confused when talk of lost detail in wide landscapes is
reffered to....
Are the names on the transomes of the boats in that pic supposed to
be readable? LOL
That's a beauty of a pic none-the-less, inspite of it's pitiful
lost detail, yea, right! LOL

Ian Yates · Aug 3, 2002

If you zoom & stitch using a tripod and some very good software, then theoretically, with time and patience, you can produce the equivalent of a 210 MP camera. It's an extreme case, but worth the effort if you want to print and display your final creation.

--
C2100UZ, D600L and that 1.45x teleconverter lens(fits both cameras)

Curt A · Aug 3, 2002

Hi Debbie,

Thanks for the kind and very appreciated comment. Did you notice how the horizon is a bit off angle however? Ruins the whole photo!

Curt

Debbie L said:
Can't get much better than that.

Debbie

Curt A · Aug 3, 2002

Hi Ian,

Sounds a bit "involved" to me, but next time I'm offered space at our local art gallery for a few 16x20's I'll remember your ideas. Of course there has really never been a first time yet either.

Seriously though, I've really never tried the stitching tecnique. Sounds interesting if only to just learn how. Take care, Curt

Ian Yates said:
If you zoom & stitch using a tripod and some very good software,
then theoretically, with time and patience, you can produce the
equivalent of a 210 MP camera. It's an extreme case, but worth
the effort if you want to print and display your final creation.

--
C2100UZ, D600L and that 1.45x teleconverter lens(fits both cameras)

Curt A · Aug 3, 2002

Hi Frank,

Thanks so much for the kind comments, they are VERY much appreciated. Actually, except for sharpening, didn't change any of the photo. Have found from this trip that most outdoor photos with my 2100uz seem not to need much post processing. I worry sometimes though, that I wouldn't know it if they did, as I am red-green colorblind! LOL Perhaps all of my photos look hideous to normally sighted folks.

Curt

Frankallan said:
Hey Curt, this is an Outstanding Pic!! You should be very proud!!
The Clarity and Sharpness are superb! Did you use any type filter??
--
Frank

http://www.pbase.com/frankallen/galleries

http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=5736

C-2100UZ A-200

Curt A · Aug 3, 2002

Hi John,

A lot of people on the Sony Talk Forum seem to love their 707s. I did my 505v except for its almost total inability to focus on my intended subject, always thingking that the background was much more interesting. On the Sony Talk forum, which I was a regular member of for a little over 2 years, we used to talk ourselves into thinking that since X-camera also had autofocus issues, all digicams also had these problems and that our cameras were therefore normal. The 2100uz came out at about the same time as the 505v, and it has amazing autofocus behavior. The point being here, I'm still a bit shy about Sony. Besides which, the issue of batteries and memory sticks that used to be seen as flaming there actually is an issue. $pk of 1600 NiMh recargeables usually for around $11 as compared to the $80 I paid for the Sony battery. $23 for a 64mb smartmedia card vs the initial $90 I paid for an extra 64 mb Sony Memory Stick. Was actually sad how we convinced each other that we were right and everyone else with a critical opinion were soooo wrong. All that said, wouldn't mind if a 707 landed at my doorstep. The inclusion of the viewfinder, much higher resolution, and retaining that wonderful body/lens swivel made the camera a winner to many. Curt

johnd1 said:
Curt,
You don't need a DSLR for landscape shooting. The 707 can capture
the details nicely for a lot less money.
John

Curt A · Aug 3, 2002

Hi Inigo,

Thanks for the response and info. Haven't ever tried this technique, but sounds interesting to try. A lot of my post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, obvoiusly, but it just stands to reason that more pixels in any given area, will give a greater level of perceived detail in small or distant objects. Thanks for the photo compliment. Curt

Inigo Montoya said:
Try taking two images side by side with the camera oriented
vertically for a "panorama" of sorts. The result is a bit smaller
than 2400x1600 (since you need some overlap) but in the 3 to almost
4 MP range. Have you seen Daniella's work done with this
technique? Spot meter for your main subject area, or use the
multi-metering mode to average several key locations then lock your
exposure and you're all set. A little more work, but definitely
doable -- especially for landscapes where little moves.

Nice "single" shot you got there too!

Curt A · Aug 3, 2002

Hi Tom,

Thanks for taking the time to respond and for the info. I'll probably experiment with this. Actually all things considered, I am VERY happy with my Oly. Had a great time using it on vacation. Of course if Oly ever produced a 2100uz with 6 megapixels, I think all of would have felt like we found photographic nirvanah. Curt

Tom K. said:
Using a simplified example, if you could butt together four
1200x1600 pictures edge to edge (you can't, you need 30-50%
overlap) you would get a file that was double the resolution or
2400x3200 - that's the equivalent of a 7.68MP camera! Pretty
powerful stuff.

Take advantage of the possibilities of the digital darkroom.

Inigo Montoya said:

Nice "single" shot you got there too!

Curt A. said:

Hi all,
Just recently completed a weeks camping trip to California/Nevada's
Lake Tahoe, and this year left my Sony 505v tucked away at home
where it has pretty much remained since I got my Uzi.
I am incredibly pleased with the vast majority of photos I took
with my favorite photographic partner, my Uzi. I have found that in
dayligh, subdued, bright light or otherwise, I almost feel that
something "must be wrong" as when I open the photos in PSElements,
the vast majority need nothing but sharpening to make me happy.
This NEVER was the case with the Sony. Autofocus was never fooled
or failed during any of the 4- 64mb cards of photos. Each time I
use this camera, I am more pleased
The weak link..... I suppose would be its' resolution. This can
certaily be argued as unimportant on many photo situations,
especially close-up portraits. However I do get that "nudge"
towards saving my pennies for a new digital SLR when I compare the
sharpness/resolution of the new higher mp cameras with my 2100uz on
LANDSCAPE PHOTOS. Still capable of capturing beauty, the resolution
is probably reducing the impact of those type of photos. I'll just
have to "suffer along" with my Uzi until maybe next year. But
I'll bet I won't leave it at home with the Sony for next year's
vacation, new camera or not. Curt
Emerald Bay/Lake Tahoe:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Phil Carney · Aug 3, 2002

Never been to Tahoe, but have a friend who visits there every year and raves about how beautiful the area is. Thanks to your photo, I understand what he's been talking about all these years.

I'm also red green color blind. Still new to digital and still trying to figure out the basics, but will need to be careful about limiting my post processing to things like cropping and contrast and stay away from fiddling with colors.

On the other hand, who knows. One of my theories is that many of the Impressianist painters painted what they did, not just out of creativity, but rather because they were half blind. So who knows, we could start a whole new art form based on our "genius" and no one will ever know that it's really because we're color blind.

Phil
c2100

Twiddle D Dum · Aug 3, 2002

Firsr Tom K. said:
Peter Ferguson said:

Using a simplified example, if you could butt together four
1200x1600 pictures edge to edge (you can't, you need 30-50%
overlap) you would get a file that was double the resolution or
2400x3200 - that's the equivalent of a 7.68MP camera! Pretty
powerful stuff.

Click to expand...

Then Peter Ferguson said:
Excuse me folks for butting into this thread but isn't the above a
bit misleading? All you seem to be creating is a larger 2meg image.
A 4 or 5 mp camera using lets say a 28mm lens will capture 4 or 5
mp of data within that anlge range. Lets say you line up the space
between two telephone poles with the uzi and a 5mp camera and take
the shot. How does stitching another scene to the left or right of
the uxi shot increase the detail between the telephone poles?

By stitching shots together, you are indeed increasing the
dimensions of the image but not increasing the resolution as it
applies to details captured.

Peter . . .

The point was that if you double the focal length of the UZi so that two shots are required to get the image between the poles (stitched), you have nearly doubled the resolution of the resulting image had the focal lengths been the same as in your example. (actually, since some overlap is needed, the effect is not quite x2)

Paul

Curt A · Aug 3, 2002

Hi Phil,

I once a couple of years ago started a thread on one of these forums where we "discussed" the red-green color-blind issue as it relates to digital photography and digital darkroom work. Was a pretty interesting disussion, as is the whole subject of color perception and how it relates here. As for me, I have always just limited myself to adjusting red/greem/blue channel levels using the levels option on Photoshop Elements and Photo Brush. Doing it this way doesn't really require me to judge colors, just adjust based on the supplies histogram. Or... just use auto levels and see whether or not it introduces any strange color casts. Always makes me wonder though what others are seeing in my photos in terms of color. Take care, Curt

Phil Carney said:
Never been to Tahoe, but have a friend who visits there every year
and raves about how beautiful the area is. Thanks to your photo, I
understand what he's been talking about all these years.

I'm also red green color blind. Still new to digital and still
trying to figure out the basics, but will need to be careful about
limiting my post processing to things like cropping and contrast
and stay away from fiddling with colors.

On the other hand, who knows. One of my theories is that many of
the Impressianist painters painted what they did, not just out of
creativity, but rather because they were half blind. So who knows,
we could start a whole new art form based on our "genius" and no
one will ever know that it's really because we're color blind.

Phil
c2100

Search

Uzi's weak (photographic) link...

Frankallan

Forum Enthusiast

Curt A

Veteran Member

Curt A

Veteran Member

Ian Yates

Senior Member

Curt A

Veteran Member

Curt A

Veteran Member

Curt A

Veteran Member

Curt A

Veteran Member

Curt A

Veteran Member

Curt A

Veteran Member

Phil Carney

Member

Twiddle D Dum

Veteran Member

Curt A

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts