A Few Thoughts On The F717

Terry Callies · Nov 10, 2002

NRich said:
Terry Callies said:

Hello Norman, First I agree with most everything you say, second
this image of yours with it's 3-D look speaks volumes for the
capabilities of the 717 if no words were used.

Click to expand...

Terry
I enjoy your posts immensely. Your the first to include in your
comments the photo. I think this image, as a reference is useful
to those owning both the F707 and F717, and having trouble with
evaluating comparisons. This shot as F707 owners know would have
given the F707 fits. The F717 translates it in stride.This is
significant to me.

And to me also, Like I said my first side by side out door test shots were very disappointing when I got home a view them. I took a shot with the 717 then took the card out and repeated the same shot with the 707, almost one hundred images. At first I was sick I thought the camera had a problem, but they were consistent. So I went back to the location and that's when I discovered the 717 was more true to life!!! didn't know if I like it then but it didn't take long to adjust. Now I would not have it any other way!!, the 707 is now my wife's camera.

NRich said:
NRich said:

In my case the Histogram and front focus ring were the selling
points that attracted me and I have not been disappointed, every
time I use the camera I learn more and feel more in love. The
impression was not that way thought.

Click to expand...

Yes, the histogram, the front focus ring, and the color
improvements, are three big reasons that lead me to the
expression-"significant improvements."

NRich said:

I kept my 707 and proceeded to do side by side test when I first
got my 717 and was horrified at the washed colors but then I also
was able to see that these were natural colors!!! I was expecting a
improved 707 but this is a completely different camera, just looks
similar.

Click to expand...

Are you also finding, as I have that you prefer the F717 images to
fine tune in post processing? I would prefer that my camera allows
me to add my own contrasts, rather them pumpimg them up, as in the
F707. The way F717 originals appear from the camera, IMO have more
of the base look of pro models rather than the overripe
transalations of point and shoot models. While it may be a matter
of personal preference in prosumer models, Pros generally prefer to
make their own editing choices, rather than assume the camera has
done it for them.

Yes I very much prefer the 717's, I did become lazy with the 707, learned to like the rich colors and did very little if any post processing most of the time if possible . Now I like the control, it's also helped me grow.

NRich said:
NRich said:

Anyway these cameras fit my style. I like to shoot from
the hip and all kind of crazy angles, you could not give me a heavy
old D-60 or D1x, Put $5000.00 on the table or a fitted out D-60 and
I'd take the 5 big ones and buy 2 more 717's one for each Olympus
lens!!! and be very happy.

Click to expand...

Terry

NRich said:
If you've read my thread on Shot count- you know I'm a big
proponent of bringing more physical movement to our shots. I shot
with the camera lower than eye level and look down into the LCD, I
too look for many camera angle opportunites, from an inch of the
ground to over my head, and can cause quite a stir with the lenghts
I go for a shot.

Yes ---I did and that's also why it fits my way of shooting, (previous DC's were Nikons 950-995) love swivel bodies!! I really related to what I think you were saying about movement. What I discovered and learned not to long ago either, is different angles on close ups and macros give difference shadows and depth, so I usually shoot several shots at different angles if possible just so study and learn from. My sister in law, a wedding photographer thinks more then one shot is a waste, everybody's different.

NRich said:
I also agree with you regarding 7x7 series value, the F717 goes a
great ways toward DSLR pro cameras image capability at a fraction
of the price, and in the case of live histogram is exceeding the
bar set in DSLR's. To my mind Sony has achieved, with its F717, a
camera that nips on the heels of pro camera models.IMO Its up to us
to catch up in what we extract from its capabilities.

Absolutely, maybe it's love or excitement but I have learned so much from the 717 compared to what I now call a point and shoot camera (707), and I did feel I knew that pretty well.

For my style I just like the flexibility, compactness, as I grow I hope they continue to refine and keep it simple and small.

You and I

NRich said:
have both discovered, the extraodinary match of the 7x7 series with
the pro Olympus MCON- TCON, and others in the series, closing the
gap even further. I look forward to your posts.
--
NRich
http://www.pbase.com/norman

--
Terry

Isabel Cutler · Nov 10, 2002

I don't want to appear rude, but I think you meant these comments for NRich...right? Want to make sure credit goes where credit's due!
Isabel

rosie b said:
Isabel Cutler said:

Many remind me of the paintings of Monet...surely they are a
combination of the camera and photographer at their best!

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I felt. As a painter I find myself really
envying so many qulaities in your photos that I rarely see in
photography. Among other things, you really know how to make
colours sing! That is not the camera, it is you, but it is a great
encouragement to the rest of us to know what the 717 is capable of
in the right hands.

Rosie

--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/?yguid=11497599

NRich · Nov 10, 2002

Rick Ashford said:
NRich said:

6. The advancements in the F717 are unfortunately still being
obscured by, initially a small, blown out of proportion fixable
glitch, and along with others, no matter how well intentioned, who
are displaying comparibles, not able or willing to incorporate
default adjustments, and the historam into the intent of each and
every shot.

Click to expand...

Ouch! I guess I got slammed pretty good. Please understand.... I
am not giving up on the 717, I am just "not there" yet. I dare say
that no one on this forum has used a live histogram before getting
the 717.

Hello Rick

I enjoyed your thoughful approach here. Please know I'm not about slamming anyone. It important to me that you know that. I go out of the way to take great care in my responses, as there are all levels of interests, and enough good camera selections for everyone.

In general I am cautious about poster camera comparison using side by sides as they may appear scientific, yet lack the rigorous analysis that goes with controled independant samples such as Phil or iNova offers us.

Rick Ashford said:
There is a whole new learning curve here, and some of us
learn more quickly than others.

Were all learning from each other here.All have individual strengths, and I suspect, were all at the steep end of the learning curve,in atleast some areas -techical or visual.

Rick Ashford said:
I like my 707.... it takes great
pictures without the need, IMHO, for post-processing.

This may be an indication that the F707 is the right camera for you - irregardless of whats someone may think is best. If I did no post processing, I might also prefer the F707.

Thankfully, the first images from my first Sony s75 looked good to me straight out of the camera. It was several months, and the benefit of this forum, before I made the commitment to the added cost of editing software. Well, the fun really began, and has carried on ever since.

Rick Ashford said:
To be honest, I never found the reds and greens to be annoying.

Your honesty here is appreciated. That you do not find an overblown red annoying, and that it is more important to you what the imagine looks like straight out of the camera, is telling. Over time I have come to desire a more neutral image, for what it is capable of -for what I am capable of doing with it.rather than the choices imposed on me by the camera.I have not always understood this, and so I have compassion for anyone attempting to decide between these two fine cameras.

It boils down to what suits you, rather than whats absolute "best" The F717 is a better fit for me now, at his stage of my deveopment with digital. With your initial preference for the F707, I suggest you consider an F717 exposure default setting of minus 3, and +1 or even +2 in camera sharpening, and adjust each exposure according to the histogram.

Rick Ashford said:
I have never felt that the colors I obtained from my 707 were not
realistic.

I think most agree the F707 has more punch-straight out of the camera.This however tells only a portion of the story. I believe I can make a f717 perform in ways, that you would be harder pressed for which one you prefer.But it is you that must make the creative choices, feel wholley confident with your camera. If you go back in the forum search engine, you'll find evidence of last years protracted camera war around the G2 and the F707.well documented.

The achilles heel of the F707: the color palette- the reds and greens- considered by many and virtually all G2 users as"too vivid" something imposed on the camera. Well we defended the F707 collectively, as still the best package out there in the pro sumer line. Sony, I feel has inched us forward toward pro user preferences- and also provided us the more neutral palette we asked for. Refer to Phils color charts and see if at this stage this matters to you.

Rick Ashford said:
Having said that, it is easy to understand why I have
been disappointed with the results from my 717. Learning to
appreciate these new, less vibrant, more "washed out" colors will
take some time.But I am not giving up yet.

Look again at the image I've posted here- the color is not washed out. It is lush, subtle, refined in tonality and vibrant. "Washed out" is your current subjective perception. My concern is that you or others do not consider your subjectivity, as objective fact, no matter how well intentioned, and obvious camera image comparibles now appear to you. You will undoubtabley enjoy which ever camera you choose. Take care. Allow yourself enough wiggle room to grow.

Rick Ashford said:
Rick Ashford said:

--
NRich
new F717 gallery evolving at:
http://www.pbase.com/norman

Click to expand...

--
Rick A.
Johnson City, TN

halievski · Nov 10, 2002

Rick Ashford said:
I dare say
that no one on this forum has used a live histogram before getting
the 717.

I'm pretty sure that it's not only me, but some other people used histogram feature before( in my case - Toshiba PDR-M70), and it was really exiting at the beginning, true. Afterwhile, when you get used to your camera settings you'll start to use this tool time to time just for the control if you're not sure in some situations, and of course - that's a big advantage over 707, I'm agree. Now, Looks like I have very similar to your feeling about my 707. I even almost bought 717 once ago, and now still waiting and thinking what to do: maybe to go for some pro..?
chrs
halievski

rosie b · Nov 10, 2002

Isabel Cutler said:
rosie b said:

Isabel Cutler said:

Many remind me of the paintings of Monet...surely they are a
combination of the camera and photographer at their best!

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I felt. As a painter I find myself really
envying so many qulaities in your photos that I rarely see in
photography. Among other things, you really know how to make
colours sing! That is not the camera, it is you, but it is a great
encouragement to the rest of us to know what the 717 is capable of
in the right hands.

Rosie

Click to expand...

Yes, sorry, I did indeed mean them for NRich not you. I got confused between agreeing with you and addressing him.
thanks for the reminder!
--
Rosie

NRich · Nov 10, 2002

rosie b said:
PS
If I thought I could take photos as beautifully composed, glowing
and interesting as yours I would prbably give up painting and that
is really saying something, for I am passionate about it!

It takes me forever to download full size photos with my slow old
modem, but I shall certainly do so in the next few days as even
just the thumbnails are glorious.

I have bookmarked your site and look forward, hopefully, to many more.

--
Rosie

hi Rosie

I feel the warmth of your post.- I 'm especially honored when another painter appreciates what I am doing with photography.

I see digital photography as a cross road where art and technology meet and correspond in these great forums, and I feel as if those with an arts background have much to contribute, if we are willing to step forward, and articulate creative process that may have come to be second nature.

I see a lot of people wanting to get beyond point and shoot, and those that are ready, can reflect on the means we use from worlds of drawing and painting. So I would really like it if you'd add your voice to the visual issues of my threads.
--
NRich
http://www.pbase.com/norman

NRich · Nov 10, 2002

Naveed Afridi said:
I think the 717 addresses much of what made many turn to the
Nikons(cp5000) or Canons (G2) in those days.

I rather agree with you- we've still to let the dust settle over the fixed"glitch"

The color correction of the F717 is I feel an underated advancement, you'd have to see whether the subdued palette works for you- It does for me.

Naveed Afridi said:
Currently i am wondering if I should come back to Sony, the 717
seems to be what I had hoped the 707 would be. Again, I dont think
the 707 is inferior, but different.

I am sensing you may want to hold off a bit-so you can be creatively confident with whatever you settle on.

Naveed Afridi said:
In some ways, its somewhat like (but not really the same as) the
choice of film one may run through an SLR, fuji chrome velvia,
kodachrome etc

I think this is an interesting analogy- to any film analogy we ought to factor in the post processing possibilities.

Naveed Afridi said:
BTW I remember being flamed for moving to Nikon ..... I never
understand that sort of thing really.

Folks often have a lot emotionally invested in their camera- and these cross-overs nessitate taking care with respect, as for example i feel Mike Fitzgerald of Australia demonstrates. A bright and articulate voice on this forum-who has a Nikon not a Sony. His contributions don't appear to detract from his camera choice- so it can be done-care and maturity seem to be operative words.

Naveed Afridi said:
NRich said:

Many experienced photographers, having expereinced both models
applaude this area of advancement, and I think rightly so.
Ironically a truer comparison of the two models can be made by a
skilled photographer, making their own adjustment to default
settings according to there own intent. Press both cameras to the
wall, in what then they are capable of, and the edge, for me goes
to the F717.

Click to expand...

Naveed Afridi said:
Naveed Afridi said:

--
NRich
new F717 gallery evolving at:
http://www.pbase.com/norman

Click to expand...

SmokinMan · Nov 11, 2002

Well, I guess I would like to share the lobster that I talked about. I managed to download several of the aquarium shots today. Very painfull thing to do as I am still using the old 36K modem. Thinking to upgrade soon.

Aquarium shot is indeed challenging, I had more failure than success on my first try. The lobster pic I talk about has been post process pretty much and this is the best I got. Shooting at ISO 100 and 1/30s is the mistake. I should be able to shoot at 1/8s for better exposure and that will eliminate much of the noise. By the way are you able to use tripot in your aquarium shots? I find it impossible to do as it will set some distance away from the glass. Not to mention some aquariums are actually rounded. I just handheld my shot by pressing the 717 at the glass to prevent hand shake.

I have been looking at your gallery and been very impressed by the artistic look at your pics. The close up fish pic on your reply post for example, it is the fact that the round yellow creature at the bottom just below the fish is the one that make the composition better than just a closeup of a fish. The other one that I like is the relection off the water from your "holding paws" pic. That pic will be a lot different if there is no relection at all. This are the things that I enjoy very much from your gallery.

I will pay another visit to the aquarium later I guess and try some more while at the same time to give myself some time to get to know my 717 by shooting something easy maybe.

NRich said:
Aquarium shots have many challenges, especially low light, as my
intent is not to use a flash to express the natural look of
creatures emerging out of the watery depths. You may want to have
an aquarium membership, as I do so that I am comfortable in
returning as often as I like to develop a series of images over
time. I have an aquarium gallery at pbase called "salt water
treasures." This shot is from the F717- shot at 1/8 sec. I make use
of the histogram on each shot, even though the reading is heavily
balanced to the left side.

--
SmokinMan

Sony DSC F717 (On Hand...Yipeeeee!)
Canon S-40(SOLD)
Olympus IS-1 35mm Film

Camera http://www.pbase.com/smokinman/

NRich · Nov 11, 2002

SmokinMan said:
Aquarium shot is indeed challenging, I had more failure than
success on my first try. The lobster pic I talk about has been post
process pretty much and this is the best I got. Shooting at ISO 100
and 1/30s is the mistake. I should be able to shoot at 1/8s for
better exposure and that will eliminate much of the noise. By the
way are you able to use tripot in your aquarium shots? I find it
impossible to do as it will set some distance away from the glass.
Not to mention some aquariums are actually rounded. I just handheld
my shot by pressing the 717 at the glass to prevent hand shake.

SmokinMan

You are on the right take in own evaluations of the image. I would also recomend giving yourself a break and preset to 200iso, atleast for a while. A few things I might add are that your intent must be all the more clear in an aquarium, and a lobster shoot in particular. Why? If we were to try and create an imaginary creature to foil, and frustrate the limits of macro DOF the lobster would be it. Macros thrive in shallow depth of field. The lobsters claws break through this plane with in and out of focus results.

If our intent is to explore and express the "clawness" we will need to approach the shot differently,- more patience, observing the claws through small changes, looking for the optimum moment for the shot, perhaps even returning at another time when the claws appear such that they are on a flater plane, or even viwed from a different angle-more frontal and folded instance.Or perhaps with a wide angle that encompases the whole creature I also put the camera directly to the glass side to compose and press hard to the glass to take the picture...splash

If it were me, I would get my confidence up using the flat field aspect of the macro to advantage, for example with the intent to capture color and form with flat fish variations, from a side view and broaden your intent from there over time-weeks rather than days.

SmokinMan said:
I have been looking at your gallery and been very impressed by the
artistic look at your pics. The close up fish pic on your reply
post for example, it is the fact that the round yellow creature at
the bottom just below the fish is the one that make the composition
better than just a closeup of a fish.

You'll note the yellow visual element in my image is an ideal shape to include, as a side view flat field form. Were it more dimensional, or sculpurally rounded instead of flat to the lens it would have been inapropriate to use in this shot, the fault then would have been one of lack of conscious intent, and not the camera.

I am enjoying your posts for the fact that you are putting more of your attention on what you can do to make the shot better, rather than what the camera can't.This stands out to me. It is a good basis of growing rapidly, and building an eventual foundation for consistency. Your doing better than OK-persist and give things time the process time to unfold.

SmokinMan said:
The other one that I like is
the relection off the water from your "holding paws" pic. That pic
will be a lot different if there is no relection at all. This are
the things that I enjoy very much from your gallery.

Are you senseing- from our exchanges- the attention that is required of each of us in areas of visual intent, for artistic results to emerge?

SmokinMan said:
I will pay another visit to the aquarium later I guess and try some
more while at the same time to give myself some time to get to know
my 717 by shooting something easy maybe.

Excellant.

SmokinMan said:
NRich said:

Aquarium shots have many challenges, especially low light, as my
intent is not to use a flash to express the natural look of
creatures emerging out of the watery depths. You may want to have
an aquarium membership, as I do so that I am comfortable in
returning as often as I like to develop a series of images over
time. I have an aquarium gallery at pbase called "salt water
treasures." This shot is from the F717- shot at 1/8 sec. I make use
of the histogram on each shot, even though the reading is heavily
balanced to the left side.

Click to expand...

--
SmokinMan

--
NRich
http://www.pbase.com/norman

rosie b · Nov 11, 2002

NRich wrote:
painter appreciates what I am doing with photography.

NRich said:
I see digital photography as a cross road where art and technology
meet and correspond in these great forums, and I feel as if those
with an arts background have much to contribute, if we are willing
to step forward, and articulate creative process that may have come
to be second nature.

I see a lot of people wanting to get beyond point and shoot, and
those that are ready, can reflect on the means we use from worlds
of drawing and painting. So I would really like it if you'd add
your voice to the visual issues of my threads.
--

thanks Norman, and when I have finally bought my camera and am starting on the process of learning how best to use it, I look forward to contributing what I can.

At the moment I am a bit too fixated on what choice to make in buying my camera, since it is fairly unlikely that I will be able to upgrade again for some years. I would dearly love a 717 but it might be wasted on me and maybe I ought to be thinking in terms of the less expensive and less bulky S45 that has just had a good review from Phil.

Rosie

NRich · Nov 11, 2002

Bill Borne said:
Norman...I enjoy reading all your posts to each person. You are
very deliberate in you choice of words. I had some time this
morning so went down to the pond. It was overcast and the lighting
was terrible, but I managed to snap a couple of shots. Nothing
much, but maybe you like to take a look. The woodpecker holes were
a test of the b-300 I just got. One thing on the 717, I wish it
would give a shallower DOF at lower F -stops. Have you noticed the
difference of DOF between 717 and slr's you have used?
http://www.pbase.com/bill_b/wood
Bill B

Bill, well you know I like your images overall. I tend toward emphasizing the importance of challenging ourselves to critique our own work. I don't ever recall using the expression I like this photo "best". I'm more inclined to say what I respond to and why example, I respond to this image- your (stump 2), the visuals of the stong red orchre tones within the trunk. Your crop and camera set-up make your intention clear, and dramatic.

I am given the opportunity to visually dwell on/in the deep- dark interior tones, nested in the lighter outer layers of bark-- The visual device you've used here directs the eye in such a way as to explore further, as much an experience of looking inside as looking at.

It is clear the intent is linked to the tonal variations, in contrast say- with a specific tree species, or a figure gound relationship of stump and surrounding leaves, which are of course other equally valid intentions. It appears to me that stump 2 is well realized through the course of your creative intent.

Where the camera DOF limitations fall off, I use photoshop to fade or recess the backround in situations, perhaps other stumps in the series. I would do this when I wanted to adjust the figure and ground relationship-dialing in the relative visual importance I wanted to give to the surrounding leaves and the stump, the intent sharpened (as it were), in post processing- if that is your choice.

The woods and forest hold many fine image possibilities this time of year.
--
NRich
http://www.pbase.com/norman

halievski · Nov 11, 2002

Why don't you go for 4 mp Olympus for the same money?(4040, 730 or maybe C-50 or...). Pure colours, better lenses, much better feel of the camera, more flexibility.( just my thought, maybe I like Oly?)
chrs
halievski

rosie b said:
rosie b said:

I see digital photography as a cross road where art and technology
meet and correspond in these great forums, and I feel as if those
with an arts background have much to contribute, if we are willing
to step forward, and articulate creative process that may have come
to be second nature.

I see a lot of people wanting to get beyond point and shoot, and
those that are ready, can reflect on the means we use from worlds
of drawing and painting. So I would really like it if you'd add
your voice to the visual issues of my threads.
--

Click to expand...

thanks Norman, and when I have finally bought my camera and am
starting on the process of learning how best to use it, I look
forward to contributing what I can.
At the moment I am a bit too fixated on what choice to make in
buying my camera, since it is fairly unlikely that I will be able
to upgrade again for some years. I would dearly love a 717 but it
might be wasted on me and maybe I ought to be thinking in terms of
the less expensive and less bulky S45 that has just had a good
review from Phil.

Rosie

Bill Borne · Nov 12, 2002

Norman

Thannks for the kind words. Yes I was trying to capture the different tones and textures in the stump. Unfortunately there wasn't much room to set up the camera. I backed up at one point and ended up in the water. Then I could see a storm cloud coming overhead and knew it would rain shortly, which it did. I don't like being ruxhed when I'm taking photos. I like to mentally visualize the shot and then try to accomplish what I visualize, and for me when I accomplish that I'm pleased. To be truthful I didn't like the way the stump photos came out at all, so have to try some other time when I can give it my all.
BillB

NRich said:
Bill, well you know I like your images overall. I tend toward
emphasizing the importance of challenging ourselves to critique our
own work. I don't ever recall using the expression I like this
photo "best". I'm more inclined to say what I respond to and why
example, I respond to this image- your (stump 2), the visuals of
the stong red orchre tones within the trunk. Your crop and camera
set-up make your intention clear, and dramatic.

I am given the opportunity to visually dwell on/in the deep- dark
interior tones, nested in the lighter outer layers of bark-- The
visual device you've used here directs the eye in such a way as to
explore further, as much an experience of looking inside as looking
at.

It is clear the intent is linked to the tonal variations, in
contrast say- with a specific tree species, or a figure gound
relationship of stump and surrounding leaves, which are of course
other equally valid intentions. It appears to me that stump 2 is
well realized through the course of your creative intent.

Where the camera DOF limitations fall off, I use photoshop to fade
or recess the backround in situations, perhaps other stumps in the
series. I would do this when I wanted to adjust the figure and
ground relationship-dialing in the relative visual importance I
wanted to give to the surrounding leaves and the stump, the intent
sharpened (as it were), in post processing- if that is your choice.

The woods and forest hold many fine image possibilities this time
of year.
--
NRich
http://www.pbase.com/norman

SmokinMan · Nov 12, 2002

Hi Norman,

NRich said:
SmokinMan

You are on the right take in own evaluations of the image. I would
also recomend giving yourself a break and preset to 200iso, atleast
for a while. A few things I might add are that your intent must be
all the more clear in an aquarium, and a lobster shoot in
particular. Why? If we were to try and create an imaginary
creature to foil, and frustrate the limits of macro DOF the lobster
would be it. Macros thrive in shallow depth of field. The lobsters
claws break through this plane with in and out of focus results.

If our intent is to explore and express the "clawness" we will need
to approach the shot differently,- more patience, observing the
claws through small changes, looking for the optimum moment for the
shot, perhaps even returning at another time when the claws appear
such that they are on a flater plane, or even viwed from a
different angle-more frontal and folded instance.Or perhaps with a
wide angle that encompases the whole creature I also put the camera
directly to the glass side to compose and press hard to the glass
to take the picture...splash

Ha..ha.. I was worried more not to accidently press the right side of the 717 body.

NRich said:
If it were me, I would get my confidence up using the flat field
aspect of the macro to advantage, for example with the intent to
capture color and form with flat fish variations, from a side view
and broaden your intent from there over time-weeks rather than days.

I was pretty much aware of the limited DOF of the 717 in macro. In the lobster shot, my intention was to get the lower left part of the powerfull claw. Position of the c;aws extending to the top corner was pretty much what I want. The left claw also devided the dark and lighter area of the background. I think I got the lower part of the claw in focus but the aquarium is round and because of the heavy median I have to do to eliminate noise it appeared soft. I did experimenting some flat field coral. Not very interesting as the fish kept running away as soon as I brought the 717 closer. Only the Piranha and Lobster were willing to coorporate. Next time...next time...I am thinking about the lobster mouth chewing a small fish or something....ahhh.

NRich said:
I am enjoying your posts for the fact that you are putting more of
your attention on what you can do to make the shot better, rather
than what the camera can't.This stands out to me. It is a good
basis of growing rapidly, and building an eventual foundation for
consistency. Your doing better than OK-persist and give things time
the process time to unfold.

Thank you. For me the camera is just a tool. Certain cameras allow us to do something that other cameras don't. That will be it. The rest is up to us how to use the camera to the maximum to obtain the best result. I am working toward that direction as the 717 is still overkill for me now.

NRich said:
Are you senseing- from our exchanges- the attention that is
required of each of us in areas of visual intent, for artistic
results to emerge?

It is indeed the upmost important.

--
SmokinMan

Sony DSC F717 (On Hand...Yipeeeee!)
Canon S-40(SOLD)
Olympus IS-1 35mm Film

Camera http://www.pbase.com/smokinman/

NRich · Nov 12, 2002

Bill Borne said:
Norman
Thannks for the kind words. Yes I was trying to capture the
different tones and textures in the stump. Unfortunately there
wasn't much room to set up the camera. I backed up at one point and
ended up in the water.

Life displays novel ways of letting us know things. Back up further and were in the water- moving ahead were a little more into our shots. I have seldom see a shot that can't be bettered by moving a step forward, toward the subject.

Bill Borne said:
Then I could see a storm cloud coming
overhead and knew it would rain shortly, which it did. I don't like
being rushed when I'm taking photos. I like to mentally visualize
the shot and then try to accomplish what I visualize, and for me
when I accomplish that I'm pleased.

Bill Borne said:
To be truthful I didn't like
the way the stump photos came out at all, so have to try some other
time when I can give it my all.

Bill, I would examine the notion "I didn't like the way the stump photos came out at all". You may be too hard on yourself here, and would i expect more results you prefer by setting about probing deeper into your intent for taking a series. Looking deeper-more specific at the impulse driving the shot. For example one might start with the notion of taking photographs in the woods. Most stop at this point. You have taken intent further by isolating an interest in a group of stumps. How a stump series of photos comes out has a direct bearing on further narrowing what it is about the stumps that you want to express.

For example : Is it the cylindrical-sculptural tubular nature of the stump shapes,the relation of light that might heighten these three dimensional shape? Or you might decide a flatter treatment is better suited to express the fall season palette of tonalites and color. Maybe it is the cycles of change in nature, the relation of decay to new growth. Or there may be the intent to show the stump as a home of living creatures, a rich and complex hibitat, that you have experienced.

A logger might see the forrest in one way, as photographers we can see it from a vast set of perspectives. As photographers, we find photos come out better, the more, like an onion, we peal away and proceed deeper into the layers of our intent. This sounds easy, its not. Visual artists pursue this quest of creative intent over decades. It is a near impossiblibilty to force our images to look better, for appearance sake. In my experience, images giveing me more satisfaction, emerge from considerable soul searching as to what it is that I want from the image, which encourages me to proceed.
--
NRich
http://www.pbase.com/norman

Bill Borne said:
Bill Borne said:

Bill, well you know I like your images overall. I tend toward
emphasizing the importance of challenging ourselves to critique our
own work. I don't ever recall using the expression I like this
photo "best". I'm more inclined to say what I respond to and why
example, I respond to this image- your (stump 2), the visuals of
the stong red orchre tones within the trunk. Your crop and camera
set-up make your intention clear, and dramatic.

I am given the opportunity to visually dwell on/in the deep- dark
interior tones, nested in the lighter outer layers of bark-- The
visual device you've used here directs the eye in such a way as to
explore further, as much an experience of looking inside as looking
at.

It is clear the intent is linked to the tonal variations, in
contrast say- with a specific tree species, or a figure gound
relationship of stump and surrounding leaves, which are of course
other equally valid intentions. It appears to me that stump 2 is
well realized through the course of your creative intent.

Where the camera DOF limitations fall off, I use photoshop to fade
or recess the backround in situations, perhaps other stumps in the
series. I would do this when I wanted to adjust the figure and
ground relationship-dialing in the relative visual importance I
wanted to give to the surrounding leaves and the stump, the intent
sharpened (as it were), in post processing- if that is your choice.

The woods and forest hold many fine image possibilities this time
of year.
--
NRich
http://www.pbase.com/norman

Click to expand...

Search

A Few Thoughts On The F717

Terry Callies

Active member

Isabel Cutler

Forum Pro

NRich

Senior Member

halievski

Leading Member

rosie b

Forum Enthusiast

NRich

Senior Member

NRich

Senior Member

SmokinMan

Leading Member

NRich

Senior Member

rosie b

Forum Enthusiast

NRich

Senior Member

halievski

Leading Member

Bill Borne

Forum Pro

SmokinMan

Leading Member

NRich

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts