Photography of ATS Members

Haven't looked in here in a while.

Very nice shots everyone..! Impressive!.
Too many to single out, But there is some good shutterbuggery going on here!

Ahem, well, I am glad I waited to upgrade..
check this out
Good one?

read the specs..I preordered it today. I expect a backlog though.
Under 1000, including a nice walkabout lens..

Here's me and some good old missionary buddies of mine....no scratch that brothers of mine






(Guess Who I am, I'm the Mexican/French Boy )

Originally posted by apocalypticon

Now that lip shot...that's a real beauty. I'd put it on my desktop if I thought my wife would let me get away with it. LOL Very nice lines...a sexy shot.

Seriously, that really is some good work, imho...

Thank you... glad you like it... as to your wife... a word of advice... DO NOT TEST the power od the frying pan ... lol .. you would regrte it ... hehehe...

That seagull was probably thinkng " if i lete her click me... maybe i'll get some food back ".

Originally posted by spacedoubt

Ahem, well, I am glad I waited to upgrade..
check this out
Good one?

read the specs..I preordered it today. I expect a backlog though.
Under 1000, including a nice walkabout lens..

Well... very ncie indeed Mr. Space ... thats the REALLY HOt sister of my camera Sony Cybershot 5.1 . :hial:

and here is a new work of mine ... it for digital art sort of like Concept kind of thing and its called...

Piercing Secrets should be locked

Beautiful Photographs people. I thought I'd show off a few of my own that were taken in the last couple of years.



These are boats tied up near where I live in Nova Scotia, Canada.


Snowstorm


A lighthouse at sunset.


A place we like to hike to called Cape Split.


A lake here in N.S.


Same Lake.


A beach in Cuba, can't wait to go back!


Clouds in Cuba


A dragonfly washed up on the beach.

Originally posted by apocalypticon
Hey ArMaP,

What is "worthless" about that? Some beautiful clouds, I'd say...

Thanks, I like clouds.
One big advantage of photographing clouds is that I only have to walk 3m to the window to take those photos.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Haven't looked in here in a while.

Very nice shots everyone..! Impressive!.
Too many to single out, But there is some good shutterbuggery going on here!

Ahem, well, I am glad I waited to upgrade..
check this out
Good one?

read the specs..I preordered it today. I expect a backlog though.
Under 1000, including a nice walkabout lens..

Awesome man....

I've been reading up on it - Seems like Sony and Konica Minolta have been busy listenting to what people want...

I always thought it was odd that Sony didn't enter the DSLR market

Looks like a great camera though man - You've got me jealous! The 15.8mm CCD is great - My CCD is 13mm - The size of a camera's CCD basically translates into the amount of image you are able to capture on each frame - In short, a lens on my camera would not capture as much of the scene as a camera with same lens and a larger CCD...

Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun
The size of a camera's CCD basically translates into the amount of image you are able to capture on each frame - In short, a lens on my camera would not capture as much of the scene as a camera with same lens and a larger CCD...

And a larger CCD means less noise, because the image is created in a bigger area, so the result is a better-looking image for an equal amount of pixels.

That is why a cell phone will never have an image quality as good as that of a real camera, because even when they put the lens farther away from the sensor they still cannot have a distance big enough to allow them to have a CCD with a good size, so the picture is made in a small area, and the smaller the area, for the same amount of pixels, the closer the light sensitive transistors are in the CCD and the interference between adjacent transistors is bigger and the resulting noise is bigger.

I love the pictures. I would comment on everyones work, but there isn't enough space. I had posted a thread with my work on it, but no one has checked it, as far as I know. So HERE IS THE LINK So you can see the thread. I'm the only one [as of 7Jun06 1848 CST.] that has been on this thread. Once you get to the thread I got a link to my archived photos. ENJOY!!!!


Happy Picture Taking!

Originally posted by ArMaP
That is why a cell phone will never have an image quality as good as that of a real camera, because even when they put the lens farther away from the sensor they still cannot have a distance big enough to allow them to have a CCD with a good size, so the picture is made in a small area, and the smaller the area, for the same amount of pixels, the closer the light sensitive transistors are in the CCD and the interference between adjacent transistors is bigger and the resulting noise is bigger.

I read this twice...I'm still not sure what it means, but I expect it explains why the pictures I took with my cellphone on a trip to New Hampshire didn't turn out all that great ...in fact, the resolution was very poor, which is what I reckon you're explaining.

Slowly...slowly...I am learning from you all...my first goal is to get through a photo class so I can understand what you all are talking about, camera-wise

Edit: I hit the "edit" button, then decided not to add anything, soooo...I guess I didn't actually "edit" anything; although I was going to comment that BaastetNoir and Enron and (probably) just about everyone else on this thread seems quite comfortable with the camera lingo , and I have a lot to learn...but then I decided not to add it. So...

[edit on 6/7/2006 by apocalypticon]

Originally posted by apocalypticon
I read this twice...I'm still not sure what it means, but I expect it explains why the pictures I took with my cellphone on a trip to New Hampshire didn't turn out all that great

...in fact, the resolution was very poor, which is what I reckon you're explaining.

OK, I will try to explain it better, at least I am not almost asleep as I was then.

First, the CCD is something like a grid made with photosensitive cells with the aspect ratio used on computers, like 1216x912 for a 1 Mega pixel sensor.

Below you can see a sensor from a very cheap Mustek webcam, scanned just some minutes ago.



The area with the light sensitive cells is clearly visible as a grey rectangle.

If you have a cell phone with a 1216x912 resolution then the size of the pictures it can take is the same as that of the pictures taken with a 1216x912 camera.

If the sensor is physically small then the light sensitive cells must be close to one another. In that case the image created by the lens must be smaller, then the lens can be small and put close to the sensor, because the longer the focal distance of a lens the bigger the picture is.

If the space is small, like in a cell phone, then things work in the same way but in the other direction: The lens must be small and close to the sensor because there is not enough space for a bigger one in a cell phone, then the sensor cannot be a large one, if it was then almost all of its surface would never get any light from the small lens with a small focal length. Also, the smaller the focal length the bigger the difficulty in getting a good focus, especially if an auto-focus system is used.


The problem is that if the light-sensitive cells are too close, even if the resolution is the same as that of a bigger sensor, the size of the cells must be smaller and that makes them worst than those of a bigger sensor.

Also, as in all electrical things, the fact that they are to close may make some interference, meaning that if you have a cell completely illuminated next to a cell completely in the dark neither one of them will have the extreme value they should have.

A smaller sensor may not mean worse photos, but it may mean a camera less versatile, for example, it may only take good pictures with a stronger light or have a larger motion blur effect with low light.

That is why the most important thing is not the size in Mega pixels of the sensor but its physical size.

Two examples:
1. the Sony Cyber-shot® DSC-R1 has a 21.5 x 14.4mm 10.3 Mega pixel sensor.
2. the Hasselblad H1D has a 36.7 x 49.0 mm 22 Mega pixel sensor.

The Sony has an average 33.268 pixels per square millimetre, the Hasselblad has 12.233.

As you can see the Hasselblad has almost a third of the light-sensitive cells density when compared with the Sony. In theory, the Hasselblad must have better image quality than the Sony, even if we do not know the difference in experience of those two brands.


I hope this was clearer than my first explanation, I have some difficulty to explain things even in Portuguese.

Also, for most people, resolutions above 5 or 6 Mega pixels is just a too much pixels, normal people do not need that much resolution for a photo.

If you want to choose a new camera, if you find models with the same resolution look for the sensor size also, the bigger the better.

Hello ArMaP,

Well...thanks for the explanation. That is one of the things which makes this site so great: people's willingness to take the time to share info with others

Actually, I owe you something of an apology. You took the time to write out that excellent explanation but I didn't mean to sound critical of your first explanation, or have you take the time and energy to explain something I could have looked up for myself...I was just poking fun at my own lack of understanding of the camera and the language associated with it.

Thanks again and next time I promise to do my own "footwork"...

I was refinishing the woodwork in the tasting room at Hall Winery in St. Helena yesterday. They have some interesting artwork out in the gardens around the place. I took some shots, but the lighting was too bright (wrong time of day). I'll try again today when I go back.

Anyway, here is something from their gardens:

Hall Flower:



I wish all of you a great weekend (we're goin' to the beach...)

Originally posted by apocalypticon
Actually, I owe you something of an apology. You took the time to write out that excellent explanation but I didn't mean to sound critical of your first explanation, or have you take the time and energy to explain something I could have looked up for myself...I was just poking fun at my own lack of understanding of the camera and the language associated with it.

No problem, I like to help and this subject, unlike all those things about composition, aperture, etc., is something I can explain to others.

Not only that but the subject of sensors in digital photography, the equivalent to film in the traditional photography, is much forgotten or ignored.

I also had to explain this to my sister, a professional photographer.

Like I say in my signature, I like to deny ignorance, not only my own but also that of the ones around me.

Oh, and I like your photos, you have an artistic way of seeing things.

Took this this afternoon. Still need to see if I can sharpen it up a bit - it's nice, but lacking a little bit, I think. Got a lot of horizontal ones I'll try and get looking good as well.

Man all the pictures are G.R.E.A.T!
Here are some of mine,

Originally posted by apocalypticon

Edit: I hit the "edit" button, then decided not to add anything, soooo...I guess I didn't actually "edit" anything; although I was going to comment that BaastetNoir and Enron and (probably) just about everyone else on this thread seems quite comfortable with the camera lingo

, and I have a lot to learn...but then I decided not to add it. So...

[edit on 6/7/2006 by apocalypticon]

Thank you very much for the complement, but i truly know nothing about photography...in fact i know how to find the flash, the clikc button and litle less ..lol.
Up untill a month ago all my photos were taken with those litle disposible Kodaks.

But im doing my best to get myslef reading the intruction book of the new camera... (that will be hard... me readin a book...yekies! )

Hey All,

Hope everone had a good Monday...if it was Monday in your part of the World today. If it wasn't, I hope you had a good Monday or will have a good Monday.

In any case...

My Monday sucked...if I may cut through the pleasantries and get directly to the point... stress overload at work. This will pass, of course, as all things do...

Had to finish it off with some flowers, though:




There have been so many fantastic pictures posted recently that I am going to have to stop complimenting them for fear of leaving some out!

I think the thing I like best about all of this is getting to see different parts of the world through other people's eyes...I really, really like this medium; an overwhelming amount of power in it...for good or ill, I suppose...



edited for incomprehensible wording...

[edit on 6/12/2006 by apocalypticon]

All your pictures were great. This one's extra It looks like home in Norway. Is this picture taken in Sweden?

Originally posted by LightsOfHeaven

Hellmutt: Thank you ^_^, that picture was taken in Sweden on some hills that I spend alot time on.

btw, Norway is a beautiful country!(I've been there 4 times if I remember right)

Hey All,


There is actually something of a story to this one but I have to get the rest of the shots together. In the meantime:


...Cow...

Hey All,


Foggy at Doran Beach this past weekend:





I see no so called "Great White" sharks...: