Here are my G3 photos

[BruceW]

I have posted about 20 photos taken with my G3, at the following location:

http://community.webshots.com/user/imbrucew

Most of them are scenery/nature shots, which did not take very frequently when I used an SLR. The G3 has awakened my interest in this area.

All photos except one are as they came out of the camera. The one I did modify was just a slight brightness/contrast change. I seem to have lost the original of this particular picture. It's the one with name:
111_1199b in the; "scenery and nature" album.

Some of the others need minor tweaks, but I am unsure of my monitor gamma setting at the moment. They tend to look better on the G3 LCD as far as brightness/contrast is concerned, and on my work monitor they have less contrast.

For the macro pictures I have not used any attachments at all. I sometimes used manual focus.

I don't yet have the Lensmate so I have not used a UV filter in any of the outdoor pictures. This appears to be the problem with photo 110_1048 in the Pets:Dog album. I would be interested in some advice on this point. With my earlier SLR cameras I used a UV filter, under advice, and basicaly forgot it was there. When I upgraded to a more recent SLR I used a "Skylight 1A". Does the 1A do much the same thing as the UV?

There are 2 pictures of a boat with fire wood stacked on the warf. The first was a sunny day and the second was overcast. I was expecting to get less shadow from the firewood in the second photo. Again it may be partly due to my computer monitor gamma setting.

The first seagul picture has x2.7 zoom. The other seagul picture is atken only with optical zoom.

I placed one picture in the "entertainment/people" album to ask anyone who is familiar with the RAW mode if this picture may have come out better using RAW. (currentlyI use the highest resolutionsaved as the second best JPG compression). In particular I refer to the clothing, which is very dark and, on the screen at least, both tops and bottoms tend to merge into each other. Maybe a print will give better seperation.

Bruce

[JenLJ]

Hi Bruce-
Nice shots. I have to ask you though. You said, "Most of them are scenery/nature shots, which did not take very frequently when I used an SLR. The G3 has awakened my interest in this area". Why did you not take a lot of shots when you had your SLR? It's funny. When I use to shoot with the one I have, I started losing interest as a result of paying so much money for rolls of film that were not coming back as i remembered taking. Once I got the digital, I can't put it down. Perhaps if I had had my own dark room, I would have continued with the SLR, but since I didn't away in the box it went. I'll bring it back out eventually, but not until I'm sure the shots will come back as i took them ;-) What was your reason?

[BobbyLee]

JenLJ,

I understand where you're coming from. I lost interest in nature/scenics but actually picked it back up with my film camera when I started scanning-in my own negatives and correcting them in PS. It seemed everytime I had prints made they came back really blah compared to the way I thought they should have looked (I guess it's because most of those didn't contain any skin tones for the developer to evaluate and adjust the colors). Now, with the G3 all the colors come out just the way I remember seeing it without any lab in the middle to muddy the colors. That's one of the many things I like about the G3 (in addition to no film and processing costs).

BobbyLee

[BruceW]

JenLJ wrote:
"Why did you not take a lot of shots when you had your SLR?" ...........Perhaps if I had had my own dark room, I would have continued with the SLR, ...... What was your reason?"

JenLJ ,

Thanks.
I got my first SLR soon after my first child was born, because I was very disappointed in the first photos of the baby, taken with my wife's old cheap camera.

It was a fully manual SLR (Canon AT1), and I took heaps of family photos and learnt a lot about photography. I use to write down the camera settings for nearly every shot, so when I got the prints back I could work out how to improve. Due to film and processing costs I did not take many pictures of scenery and nature.

I then got frustrated with the quality of the processing, so I did set up a darkroom, for color processing, having never even tried black and white processing. The only training I had was a one night free introduction that a camera store held. The very first print I processed was an 8x10 with four different test prints in each corner. After exposing the paper it was placed into a black, light tight cylinder, while in the dark, which is rolled along the bench to wash the chemical across the face of the paper. It probably took about 45 minutes total, and when I opened the cylinder to view my handywork, I discovered a wet soggy piece of cardboard. I did not know that the photo paper was packaged with a piece of cardboard on each side of the pack. I had thought it was a bit tight getting it into the cylinder.

Anyway I persisted doing my own processing for many years, but because I could not afford a color analyser, I did lots and lots of test prints. Very, very, very, time consuming and also a little expensive.

A few years ago I bought a slide and negative scanner, so the darkroom never gets used anymore.

Now with the digital camera, nearly all my problems are solved:
- instant feedback allowing retake if necessary
- camera settings automatically stored in EXIF
- negligible running costs.
- plenty of scope to experiment with lighting etc
- considerably lighter and more compact than SLR
- Easy to produce a slide presentation on the TV
- Choice to print just the good ones.

If I didn't have to keep filling the ink cartridges on the printer to avoid the exorbitant cartridge cost I would be very happy.


Bruce

[PacAce]

BruceW wrote:
"If I didn't have to keep filling the ink cartridges on the printer to avoid the exorbitant cartridge cost I would be very happy.

Bruce,

That's an interesting point you just made. When I was thinking of switching from film to digital, I was thinking "no more film and processing costs". But now you just made me realize that the trade off is the cost of the printer ink cartridges and the photo papers if I'm going to be making hard copies of the photos. I guess the difference with going digital is that we can control which photos we're going to print, eh?

[BruceW]

PacAce,

Yes. I'll probably only print A4s with the occassional smaller size, given the cost I see advertised to get them done at a photo lab. The costs tends to be about the same price as a reprint from a negative. I haven't tried this yet but will be interested to see how they look.

Bruce

[JenLJ]

Bruce-

LOL. You just made my night. I needed a good laugh to top off a great evening. You said, "I did not know that the photo paper was packaged with a piece of cardboard on each side of the pack". "I had thought it was a bit tight getting it into the cylinder". I'm sorry. That's too cute :D I would have probably done the same thing.......LOL

[JenLJ]

Pac-

"But now you just made me realize that the trade off is the cost of the printer ink cartridges and the photo papers if I'm going to be making hard copies of the photos. I guess the difference with going digital is that we can control which photos we're going to print, eh"?

I got rid of that one as well. Was tired of the 45$ for one cartiridge bit, just for the printer to put out something completely different from the screen. So now all I do is select what I like, and order up my prints online. With all the incentives out ther. You can get free prints for the rest of your life :D :D No more fussing with cartridges or stuborn printer. I need energy for the important things, too much time on the rest is draining my creativity :D

[PacAce]

Jen,

Firstly, let me just say "howdy" to a PA neighbor!

JenLJ wrote:
I got rid of that one as well. Was tired of the 45$ for one cartiridge bit, just for the printer to put out something completely different from the screen.


Have you tried using the Color Management tool of your photo editor software? I use Ulead's PhotoImpact and it allows you to "color match" your monitor and your printer using default profiles specific to your devices or you can tweak the profiles to suit your fancy. Before I did this, my prints were always coming out duller and the colors didn't look anything like what I saw on the monitor. Setting up Color Management fixed that and the prints come out a lot better.

BTW, how does one go about getting free prints from online services? Home made prints are fine for temporary stuff but I figure I'd probably want to use a photolab or online printer service if I want permanent prints made. Thanks.

[JenLJ]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean about the color management tool. The only photo editing software on my PC is that of which came with the canon. Arcsoft. I haven't seen regarding color managment on there, but maybe I missed it. My printer is suppose to be a good one and it did at one time print out nice photos, but can't get it to dot hat anymore. It's the compaq 1400P. Hmmm. ???

As far as free prints, there's many sites that if you join, send you free prints. Photoaccess is one and shutterfly is another. Shutterfly sent me great prints! Look extremely professional. Was surprised. I'll have to look for that color tool. Maybe I overlooked it.

-Jenn

[PacAce]

Jenn,

My Epson Stylus 600 also has color management capabilities accessed via an Epson interface program but I don't use it since I'm doing the color management from the photo editing software.

Thanks for the info on the online printer service. I'll have to check them out.

BTW, how do you get the pictures to them in the first place? Do you email them the huge file of your pic or do you send them the memory card (ouch!)?

[JenLJ]

I store all my photos in the "My pictures" in windows XP in several albums. Never use the zoombrowser for storing. I than create an album online which allows me to store all my photos in an album, edit, save and than place my order. Also good for sharing. I'll leave a link to my album so that you can get an idea of what I'm talking about. There are many, but I do really like shutterfly. It suits my needs just fine and like I said, sends me great prints! Hope this helps. Just read through the site. Once you join, it's simple set up as far as getting your pics there in an album. They do all the work for you. Very simple set up ;)

-Jenn


http://www.shutterfly.com/osi.jsp?i=67b0de21b337cb7b848d&notag=1

[PacAce]

Jenn,

Thanks for the shutterfly link. I hopped on it and it looked interesting. A friend of mine from Canada mentioned a similar site (can't recall the name of the site) where he uploads all his images to share with people. And, if they like, they can order prints for themselves from the site. I didn't really understand how it worked until I visited shutterfly's site since I never did get on the site he mentioned.

That's an interesting picture of the geese you had up. Are they domesticated or wild? Where was it taken? I couldn't help noticing the blue color cast on the picture which made the white snow look blue. Have you tried correcting that with your photo editing software so that the snow comes out looking white?

[JenLJ]

I'm not too sure exactly what kind they are, but I should. I only grew up with them all around me ;) That shot was taken on the lake across fromt he ocean. It was an "Amazing" sunset that was reflected in the snow. This may sound strange, but I do like to capture images exactly how I see them and not how they should be. Although snow is white, at that time, with the reflection of the setting sun and and all it's colors bouncing everywhere, this is what my eye showed me. Cast of color everywhere. The sky was "So" blue it was amazing. As was the water. I often don't like to change what I see simply because it's shown to me in a way that is out of the norm. I'll try changing it, just to see what happens. Colors appeal to me more so than the object. I'll often times take a bright subject and mute it all the way down, or wash it out. There were many shots I think in that link (my album) where the color was changed. From correct to incorrect. A bunch more geese as well ;)

-Jenn

"No great artist ever sees things as they really are. If he did he would cease to be an artist."
- Oscar Wilde


"It is the eye of ignorance that assigns a fixed and unchangeable color to every object; beware of this stumbling block."
-Paul Gauguin

[PacAce]

Jenn,

I hear you! So that explains the bluish cast.

You mentioned you have more pictures at the site. I missed them so I'll have to go back and take another look.

[JenLJ]

LOL. Gotta love those quotes. All ya have to do once you get to the site, is hit view pictures and it will start a slide show. I was just checking them out and noticed a lot of the pics looked very blurry as they didn't the other day and certainly don't in fron of me. I think there's something wrong with that site at times, but at least it gives an idea of what's going on. Do you have any pictures up? By the way. The pics were taken with the S200. So I'm pretty limited to a lot of things, when it comes to capturing what I'd like. Especially resolution wise. Only a 2.0, but not bad for low MP.