Another shot

[W J Pearce]

I've been meaning to post some more pics but between my real job and my family (I'm not sure which is more demanding), I have not had any time to go through the photos. In fact I still have not looked at all that I have taken from Reno. But here is one until I can get more done.

Bill Pearce

[W J Pearce]

See Three Sea Furies

[W J Pearce]

Here is the start of Sat Gold. In the original Dago is on the far left of the frame. It would not have looked good at 600x so I crop around the "pack". Sorry Dago.

[W J Pearce]

But on Sunday, I got him. Hello Dago. Image quality is not the best but hey.... You get what you pay for.

Bill Pearce

[rpzo]

Bill,

I've been really impressed with the photos you've been posting. I was on the fence before but they have help to convince me that digital is the way to go for the in the air shots. Just curious, but have you printed any of them and if so how do they look?

Rick

[Peashooter]

The Bear's tail rides low. Wonder if the wing incidence should be reset. Look at what it does to the thrust line compared to the other planes. Maybe the leading edge cuff will solve this as well. Can't argue with success. Peas

[W J Pearce]

Printing

Hey Rick,

First, you must consider the source; I am not a professional. I went digital about 5 months ago so I don't have a wealth of experience. This is how I believe things to be.

The computer screen resolution is 72 dpi (dots per inch). Most printers have a max output of 300 dpi. For the highest, crystal clear quality you would want to print out as close to 300 dpi that you can get. The bottom limit is around 150 dpi. If you have a really sharp image, you can go below that but understand the correlation between dpi and image quality. The lower the dpi, the lower the quality, the further back form the photo you need to be for it to look good.

The images above are a good set to speak of. The Bear photo is sharp and is a crop. I can print that one out much easier than the Sunday Gold Start. As you can see in the Sunday Gold Start, it is close to its limit of being an acceptable shot (but hey, I was over a mile away, handholding a 500mm lens, standing on the back of a tug). So in the Sunday pic, I can get away with printing it at half the posted size; not real big but okay for some things. The Bear photo has much more left in it so I can print that much larger than the Sunday start.

The neat thing is there are programs/Photoshop plug-ins (Genuine Fractals (sp?) is one) that will take an image like the Sunday Gold and add in more data so you can print it much larger with little quality loss from the original. I've used it a little bit and it works well.

I don't print too many of my pics; virtually none. Most are just sent to friends and family via email.

Bottom line is that there are many things that you can do. Virtually limitless if you have the cash flow (I don't). Thinking back, I think most of the ones I posted would come out quite nice at 8x10. That is as large as my printer prints. Some would come out fine even larger. Wayne would know much more that I do.

Hope this helps

Bill Pearce

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: Printing

Originally posted by W J Pearce
Wayne would know much more that I do

Heh Heh... LOL... a long time ago, in a place far far away... (Sparks, Nevada, actually) I was a budding "rock star" using another fellow's bass to learn on... I'd had it in my possession for several months and he showed up to retrieve it. He'd heard me when I first started and not since.. I was playing when he walked in.. He walked up, smiled, bent forward and whispered these words, which I'll never forget, into my ear....


"Get any better and I'm going to have to break your arm"...


True story and... let it ring well in your ears grasshopper!


Bill.. you're really good.. I mean, REALLY good... you've got the steady hand and your nailing the focus. I could just whimper and say, yea.. it's all them Megapixzels and all.... but I'll just leave you with my fellow bassist's words...

Watch it bud...

Wayner

[W J Pearce]

Wayne,

If you break my arm, make sure it is the right one. If you break the left, it will be in a splent and I will use it to steady the camera, becoming a human tripod.

Seriously... thank you. I consider that quite a compliment; especially coming from you; one who knows the digi-tricks.

But be careful not to inflate my ego too much or I'll be forced to post photos that "real" photographers wouldn't let see the light of day. No I'm not talking about those when I was young and needed the money; I'm talking about the screw-ups, poor timing, wrong settings, and plan "what the hell was I doin' here?" shots.

Once again,

Thanks

Bill Pearce

[AAFO_WSagar]

Bill... I'm sure you have some bad ones, everyone does but your good one's are too good to be luck.. ether that, or that's one hell of a camera and why in hell am I spending two and three times as much for what I'm shooting with!

Seriously.. Obviously, you're shooting really steady, I can see the shutter speed by looking.. I'm going to venture a guess, somewhere around 1/320 to 1/400?

Even if you were shooting at 1/500 (which I don't think you can get that much prop blur with) you're still shooting rock steady.. Are you using the auto focus or manual?

You're nailing it. Period..

Wayne
PS.. yes, I'm still jealous, and yes, I'm still gonna break your damn arm!

[rpzo]

I gave up playing the bass when I realized that I was never going to make enough money to live off of by playing Ramones cover tunes.

I know we all have a lot of pictures that could have been perfect if only...but what do you consider an acceptable success rate? Of the 13 rolls of film, 468 slides, that I exposed between Friday and Sunday I had about 250 that I felt were worth taking the time to run through the scanner. Of those 250 about 100 where taken of airplanes in the air. Of those 100 I would say maybe 10, probably less, are of a quality that could be printed out 8x10 and look decent. The rest are OK for a 600x400 jpg but would need some serious Photoshop work to make print quality. I'm extremely pleased with the majority of the other 150 ramp, pits, and static shots that I took but get frustrated in with the air shots. By looking at Bill's shots, and others using digital, I'm convinced that it would be a definite improvement (statement not meant to take anything away from Bill or anybody else). It is just apparent to me that digital has progressed way beyond the capabilities of film for that type of photography. I still prefer the color richness and warmth provided by film, and will probably stick with it for ramp and static photos, but am tired of wasting it on subject matter where my success rate is around 10% or less.

Rick

[T. Adams]

500mm

I never thought you could get nice shots handholding a 500mm lense. I know it is a zoom, but still.

While I was in Reno I saw this gentleman walking around with a EOS 1V, and a 500 f/4L. I was thinking this guy is nuts, even with the "IS" I can't see how you could get good shots. Then I realized who it was. It was Dominique from Europe. I can't remember how to spell his last name, so I won't try. I have seen his web site though. He has made a believer out of me. Some of the stuff he does is remarkable. I was whining about carrying my 70-200 f/2.8 with the 2X on it, around.

Lets see, new 500 f/4L is $5500, updated 1D (or 3D, or whatever Canon decides to call it, when they finally get around to updating it) about $3,000. Wow, I'll be sticking with film for awhile, I have a new house to pay for in Feb., so I'm jealous too!!


Rick, one thing that really is nice about digital, which I'm sure Wayne will agree with is the ability to change ISO settings.
I only use 100 speed film to cut down on grain, and with converters, and low light, sometimes your screwed.
I know the new Canon 10D can make remarkable images at very high ISO settings. The autofocus is just too slow for fast action though. The top of the line 1D is a much older camera, with lightning fast autofocus but does not give you very good image quality over ISO 400. That's why I, and every other Canon shooter are eagerly awaiting the update to this camera. I may just have to dig deep, and save so I can get one.

[W J Pearce]

Tim: There is a replacement for the Canon 1D. It is called the 1Ds and is 11 mp. It's MSRP is $8000. If you'd like I can post some ISO 1600 pics I took of a/c after sunset on Sunday. All that I have posted were at ISO 200.

Rick: Personally I think the best film exposure can beat the best digital exposure. But I think the best film exposure is 1 out of a 1000 and the best digital is slightly better than the average digital exposure that occurs about 990 out of 1000.

Anyone: Most of the photos I took, and those that I have posted were not taken at 500mm. The 500mm end of the Sigma is a bit soft and very hard to handhold. I'm away from my home PC tonight but when I get back I will post a photo that I took that is a good/bad one. It was taken at 317mm and 1/30 sec, HANDHELD. But, eventhough the aperature was a f32, it is over exposed. But others at 1/500 are fuzzy, such is life.

I went digital because I was tired or the bozos at the photo lab f***ing up my prints. It cost me a lot which I'm a bit embaressed about. Truth be know... I sold my 67 Camaro to cover this "hobby". My wife says that I "reallocated hobby funds."

Bill Pearce

[T. Adams]

1DS

The price on the 1DS is WAY, WAY out of line. That is why I did not mention it. It is not as good a camera for fast sports action either. At last years Superbowl, Sports Illustrated went completely digital, all 1D's though, no 1DS's. Also the 1DS is full frame so you lose the crop factor. For this reason it is aimed more at the nature photographer crowd. The 1D has a 1.3 crop factor. Hopefully this spring Canon will update the 1D, or bring out the digital version of the EOS 3 I use now.

Also, sell my race car to pay for this, I don't think so.

[rpzo]

Digital Rebel

Anybody had a chance to look at the specs on the Digital Rebel that Canon is coming out with soon? I've seen that some of the photo outlets have started to accept pre-orders. The price is low enough that you wouldn't need to sell the car or take out a loan on the house to purchase but is the performance there? I'm waiting to see some reviews on it before I ask Santa to put it in my stocking.

I agree that finding a good photo lab is absolutely critical. I'm fortunate that I have a professional lab 1/4 of a mile from where I work and I haven't had a problem with them yet. On the Monday after the races I dropped off my film and half was normally exposed ASA 100 and the other half was pushed by one stop to 200. They handled it all flawlessly. The post that I put up a couple of days ago of Voodoo passing the telephone pole was with film that was pushed. That extra stop makes a big difference and the increase in grain is minimal. I have been less than satisfied in the past with some of the better known photo chain stores and the way that they have handled my film.

Rick