Some Texas racing...

[Pylon1_Mark]

Re: Some Texas racing...

Awesome stuff Neal

I once had a friend show me a copy of a European R/C Jet mag... inside was a add that had a couple of photo that looked VERY familiar. Yep, they lifted a few (6 to be exact) pictures from mine from my PBase site, croped/edited out my photo tag and used them in the add without contacting me. Irritating

And that's the rub... no matter how anyone put's a copyright tag on their image - anyone with adobe photoshop can eliminate any watermark you can think of... and do so rather quickly. Don't fool yourself - the only way to keep the images out of the pirates hands is to not post it. Give me 10 minutes (or less) with any of the photos posted here thus far, and you wouldn't be able to tell where the watermark/copyright used to be. (hint: use a bold font Neal - using a narrow width font makes it far too easy to remove).

Be that as it may - I just simply accept the fact that my images will be pirated by someone at some point and post them knowing that. There really isn't too much that can be done - copyright tags only keep honest people honest.

[wingman]

Re: Some Texas racing...

I totally agree, Mark. I certainly was not trying to say it would not be possible to remove any tag -- I just don't want it to be too easy. I'm just glad I don't have to depend on this stuff for income or for my future -- that would make the whole subject just too painful. For me it's mostly just (expensive) play. I basically take pictures to please myself, and to learn. If others like them it's just icing on the cake.

Neal

[BJH]

Re: Some Texas racing...

I for one am glad that all of the folks who post pictures here continue to do so despite the pirating that goes on. Thanks to all of you and keep up the excellent work.

[Stevo]

Re: Some Texas racing...

I know how easy it is to remove unwanted items from pictures with any of the photo editing programs out there. Though I've never used it (and never will) to remove copyright tags I have removed telephone poles, birds, construction cones and the like from some of my own photos in the past. Anyone with half the desire can take one of my photos and easily remove my name and claim the picture as their own. I won't let it stop me from posting my photos online but I do try to deter it. One thing I do do is to never put a full res picture on line. At least this way if someone does swipe one of my photos and tries to print it it won't look all that great.

[Pylon1_Mark]

Re: Some Texas racing...

I totally agree, Mark. I certainly was not trying to say it would not be possible to remove any tag -- I just don't want it to be too easy. I'm just glad I don't have to depend on this stuff for income or for my future -- that would make the whole subject just too painful. For me it's mostly just (expensive) play. I basically take pictures to please myself, and to learn. If others like them it's just icing on the cake.

Neal

And I totally agree Neal - it is icing on the cake (and comming from your dinner table, definitely a very nice cake indeed ).

[BuckyD]

Re: Some Texas racing...

... One thing I do do is to never put a full res picture on line. At least this way if someone does swipe one of my photos and tries to print it it won't look all that great.

AMEN, brother Stevo!!! That's the right ticket, I think too.

BuckyD

[Bill@Interstell]

Re: Some Texas racing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDnWiVWLCdk

[Krazman]

Re: Some Texas racing...

First off--- Neil, phenomenal photos! I am interested a bit more in what setup your were shooting at (lens especially) and how much the photos have been cropped to fill the frame. The reason I ask is I am trying to get feel for image resolution and image enlargement. I know this is treading on ‘sacred’ ground and the magician doesn’t like to give away his secrets—but an inquiring mind and lack of tact….

I have just upgraded to a Canon 40D (10mpx) and have been reading about digital verses film resolution. It seams the digital has a ways to go before it match the true color depth, resolution and contract capability of “quality” fine-grain film. But then again, the presentation medium also factors in. My old 3.1mpx D30 did an ‘good’ job for web published images and “acceptable” for 5x7 or 8x10 prints. The stuff I did for the Museum of Flight was 17x24 and actually I was not at all happy with the quality of the enlarged prints. The new 40D will be better (the big difference is the 14bit resolution), but alas I cannot afford the high-end armory. Though—again, web presentation will be 90% of the use for me (at least until I get famous and rich, but then I’ll be dead ‘cause that when artistic types seem to be come famous).

It seems that it would take about 50mb image to reach the quality of professional grade film and match a 300dpi (per-color) for an A3 size enlargement. Conversely, 20mpx camera @12bit would equate to “quality” film for most enlargements.

So why the rambling? Well- back to my initial inquiry. Neil’s photos are again phenomenal—and while the 72dpi web resolution makes it tough to compare what a print would look like—the crispness of the photos (especially the T6) is truly a quality shot and from at least the “web” presentation, matches the quality of film.

Of course, a great hammer doesn’t make a person a great carpenter…

What are other people shooting?


Kraz

[wingman]

Re: Some Texas racing...

Well, my equipment is good, but not spectacular. The T-6 shot was with a 12 megapixel D300 (DX format -- not full frame) with a 300 mm F4 prime lens and a Nikon 1.4x teleconverter. What is on screen is most of the frame -- very little cropping.

There is obviously still debate on the film vs digital issue, but I think it is mostly on a rarified theoretical level at this point. I don't know of ANY working pros at this point who are arguing for film being superior to digital on a day to day working level. A quality 4x5 sheet camera will still produce a better and more detailed 6 foot by 10 foot print than a Nikon D3x, but that would be an unfair comparison because of the size of the image being enlarged. But compare a 35 mm image on film with the image produced by any good current digital SLR and in my opinion the digital blows film away in every way. I honestly feel that a D3 image with a top lens and proper technique is in most ways demonstrably superior even to medium format on film. Film is still limited by granularity -- no matter how good the lens, at some degree of enlargement film grain comes into play and becomes the limiting factor.

It kind of reminds me of the vinyl vs digital debate in audio. There certainly are many who will argue that in intangible ways vinyl (and vacuum tubes etc.) can make better sound. Maybe so, with a perfect new unplayed vinyl record on the very best equipment. But in my living room, with dust, used needles, scratches, etc etc the CD ALWAYS sounds cleaner and better, and 10 years from now after a thousand playings will still sound the same.

Digital images are amazing, even at considerable enlargement -- smooth and grainless, with amazing sublety and tonality. With the software availble to even average users today, one can even duplicate the tone and mood of any film -- even add grain to make it look and feel like film.

I honestly feel that at this point in time the only real limiting factor for digital images from SLRs printing up to at least 30 by 40 inches or bigger (which when you think about it is pretty remarkable considering that the original is only 1 1/2 square inches or less) is the resolving power of the lenses.

The big issue at this point in time -- really the only issue -- is technique. I feel that my equipment is far better than I am at this point. I hate tripods, for instance, and tend too much to try to make up for my age and shakiness with image stablization, boosted ISOs, etc. When I'm not cheating myself, I'm always blown away by the results I'm getting. Shortcuts in technique hurt image quality far more than equipment issues, and this was just as true for film as for digital. The equipment is incredible, and the weak point is behind the camera, not in the camera.

Certainly after shooting digital pretty seriously for a couple of years now I'm a total convert...

Neal

[Ken from PG]

Re: Some Texas racing...

Well said Neal