goodgotd
offlineMember
just thought I'd start a thread for pictures now we can post clickable thumbnails for preview.
Another unidentified flower, from down by the wife's nephrologist's office.
And a mixed-color mum, at wal-mart.
also at wal-mart, another candidate for a AA powered all-in-one long-and-short range cam at a reasonable price- Canon Powershot SX120is. Not yet supported by CHDK like the SX110is, but probably will be soon.
Whiterabbit-uk
offlineGames Guru
Hi copmom, just insert the http:// .........html link within two image brackets:
[ IMG ] [/ IMG ]
Of course there should be no spaces.
When you copy and paste your link click at the front and then click the IMG button above, then go to the end of the link and click then click the IMG button again. (the second click will look like this......[/IMG]
Ideally image sizes should be between 200 x 150 (which will give an image similar to GoofGotd above) to 400 x 300, (which will give an image similar to the one i've been posting) I did start a thread with a tutoral on posting image, but i've not got around to finishing it off yet.
Anything larger than the dimensions above (pixels) will start to swamp the page and may even cause slow page loading if the recipient has a slow computer with minimal graphics.
I hope the above helps.
Regards
WR
Nice Pics
I just got a camera myself last week, it was only a Kodak C190 for $129 though. I took a few pics with it. One of the main reasons I got it was it had 12mp and 5x zoom. It has close up picture taking besides the normal movie stuff, black and white , so on.
You can take a close up at 28 inches away. Which leads me to my point.
When I learned of this I went to a neighbors house growing sunflowers. I found a good one and was just about to pull the trigger (you have to wait for the wind to stop) and right then
a bee landed right in the middle of it.click,
Getting into cameras is new to me. I had been wanting to get a new one for a while now.
Thanks rabbit,
We especially need a pinned topic on the subject of pictures now that we can use them.
The trees were from my porch to diagonally across the street. 50f to mailbox 3 times that to there.+mailbox distance basically 150-200f
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for posting this goodgotd, Shame there arent any flowers around here like that right now.
Know I get a chance tolearn about camera on site that I actually visit.
Oh I learned something, I used the site you did to upload pics. If you don't want to link their site to and just the pics. do this- copy the second http - all the way up to the jpg leaving out the quotes". I'll underline the part down there
(*http*//www@divshare\com\download\8775810-b3a"=+img src=(*http*//www@divshare\com\img*midsize\8775810-b3a.jpg* border;*0*)
copmom
offlineMember
Thanks for the explanation, but I didn't want to have to upload to the image sites we've always used.. I was hoping I could just use an image that's already on my computer.. can we do that? Except it just gives an html option! grrrrrrr
And nice shots for just beginning Txnnok! That was a stroke of luck when that bee landed there!!!
Oh I see what your saying copmom, I remember a giveaway here awhile back that did something like that. The main problem I see with it, is your computer would have to act like a server for the pictures to be viewed. That is what takes so long to load when click to come to this post.
Though there might be a trick to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I guess it better to have the full link, goodgotd , I just noticed that without being able to click on my other pics to see them full size, thumbnails just don't do justice.
try this one more time
Standard features
Sensor type
1 / 2.3 in. CCD
CCD total pixels
12.7 MP (4164 × 3050)
Effective pixels
12.3 MP (4096 × 3016)
Zoom
5X optical zoom, 5X continuous digital zoom, 0.2X increments
Lens
35–175 mm (35 mm equiv.), f/3.0–4.8
Shutter speed
8–1/1400 sec.
LCD
2.7 in. (6.9 cm) indoor/outdoor color display, 960 × 240 (230K pixels)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I noticed on the camera it said 1600iso, mine has that feature. When I have read in the forums they always talk about the iso feature.
Does any know why that is important? Heck windows can take a pic and put on dvd to watch on your dvd what the difference in 1600iso? I'll google when I get a chance, but I was just checking.
rofl, Sorry about that NolafromNZ I wish, they are a picture perfect looking family.
Mine is far more American and dysfunctional looking.
For example, x wife-remarried, our child(daughter) lives with me), not to many dads get custody.Daughter is about turn 16 now is nonperfect hormonal pain in my rear daily.
I got that off the kodak site and was testing to see if the GOATD site would sort of play gifs (pics).If scroll about 3/4 down the overview page of the(link) kodak site, you'll see this camera.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
goodgotd
offlineMember
I noticed on the camera it said 1600iso, mine has that feature.
generally the higher the ISO, the faster the shutter speed and the poorer the picture ends up because of noise added. I try to run as low an ISO as I can- and that camera appears to have an ISO boost ('digital image stabilization') instead of lens shift or sensor shift stabilization. Expect more noise if this kicks in. usually with small-sensor cameras ISO 400 is where the noise starts getting noticable or annoying.
I run a Canon PowerShot A720IS (cost $200 about a year ago, 8 mp 6x optical zoom) and currently suggest the canon SX110is (9.1mp) or SX120is (10mp) ($250, but lens-stabilized, full-auto to full-manual modes, AA powered, 10x optical zoom, and 1 cm macro focus) for do-all cameras if you can stand a bit clunky and slow flash recycle time.
I actively (and a bit imprudently, lethally allergic to honeybees) hunt bees and other insects- they add spice to the pics. divshare is having a bit of a problem serving up the pics, so from photobucket here's:
a crab spider on a snapdragon
and a honeybee on sumac blossoms
both taken back on 6-26.
goodgotd
offlineMember
here's a link to the sticky topic that keeps coming unstuck addressing this: Guide To Forum Image Posting.
I can jabber for pages on stuff I've learned taking digital images over the last year and a half (40,000 images plus), so feel free to ask. Ah, the images came back-cool.
and if you look, there are flowers even now that most people overlook- but then, few take pictures of flowers under a quarter inch across, so they don't 'see' them.
These are forget-me-nots,
but there are a lot of little wildflowers too.
That's a pretty good sunflower from that far away. I wasn't satisfied with the HP PhotoSmart M517's 3.5" minimum, that's one factor in my getting the A720.
midori
offlineMember
Love it, goodgotd! Great idea to have a "picture place." Admire ya'll with such abundant camera knowledge... I'm the "point and click" type set on Auto. Don't have any pretty flower pictures, but I do have a beautiful flower...
...my daughter! At the beach w/ a friend. A good friend, lol. :)
goodgotd
offlineMember
No kids here, all 3 my wife's and a mixed bag indeed.
nothing wrong with that- I've just barely shifted off auto to '[P]rogram mode to set a smaller focus frame and other small touches. generally I don't take people photos, so I haven't even tried the face focus mode on this thing. with my disability budget and the economy, I sure haven't done much socializing for the last, oh, 10 years....
Occasionally I'll use aperture priority to get a deeper depth of field in strong light, but that's about it.
Aside from using the CHDK software for time-lapse or exposure bracketing (the first is to watch flower buds open to make slide shows, the latter is to get a range of exposures to get a high dynamic range overlaid picture to do a decent photographic slide conversion.) just scratched the surface of the features it adds without actually changing the camera.
most of my knowledge is semi-theoretical, semi-school-of-hard-knocks, and a lotta research. having been disabled since 1994, and on memory damaging drugs, I use the camera far more to remind myself what I was doing and where I was on a given day, plus prices, what was on the shelf, etc.
this is a much-less-worn example of my first gift digital camera (all 4 have been gifts, all 4 still work- the 1998 HP PhotoSmart C200 1 megapixel, a 1999 Ricoh RDC-4200 1.2 megapixel, a 1995 HP Photosmart M517, [that I got a year and a half ago- it lasted 4 months and 14,000 photos before the tripod socket broke] and this Canon PowerShot A720IS 8.1 mp [just screamed past 26,000 photos and cruising]- the last 3 from my high school data processing teacher from 32 years ago) that I found in a goodwill store, much to my amusement.
They wanted $10.00 for it, in 1998 they sold for $499.95.... with a 4 megabyte/8 shot compactflash card. :)
BTW, would you believe this is the same cat?
Whiterabbit-uk
offlineGames Guru
iso used to be important when we had the old style negative/positive film. The lower the iso number the more light you would need to get a good picture, , the higher the iso number the easier it would be to take pictures in dark conditions. for example I used to use an iso 400 film to take pictures at parties or if I was going out at night and lower iso numbers for very bright conditions. The disadvantages of a high iso number with the old films was that you would get very grainy results. I used an iso 25 for positive slide film to get brilliant colors, plus it was possible to get much larger projections of the image because the gran size was much smaller.
Lower iso negative films would enable bigger enlargements. .
With digital cameras the iso number is another way of being able to adjust the exposure of a camera; for example if you have a very limited point and click camera that has a dial to adjust the iso number, you can use it to control the light entering the camera to a certain extent, thus enabling a little control over the exposure of your picture.
I hope the above wasn't too confusing.
WR
p.s.
Just to clarify things I did a little research on the net to confirm what i said:
What is ISO?
In traditional (film) photography ISO (or ASA) was the indication of how sensitive a film was to light. It was measured in numbers (you’ve probably seen them on films - 100, 200, 400, 800 etc). The lower the number the lower the sensitivity of the film and the finer the grain in the shots you’re taking.
In Digital Photography ISO measures the sensitivity of the image sensor. The same principles apply as in film photography - the lower the number the less sensitive your camera is to light and the finer the grain. Higher ISO settings are generally used in darker situations to get faster shutter speeds (for example an indoor sports event when you want to freeze the action in lower light) - however the cost is noisier shots. I’ll illustrate this below with two elargements of shots that I just took - the one on the left is taken at 100 ISO and the one of the right at 3200 ISO (click to enlarge to see the full effect).
Read more: http://digital-photography-school.com/iso-settings#ixzz0TEVL8UIj
reference: http://digital-photography-school.com/iso-settings accessed 7th Oct 09
notblocklox
offlineModerator
Thanks, WR, now even I'll be able to remember how to set up the ISO: small ISO = small grains - LOL :)
Whiterabbit-uk
offlineGames Guru
Where iso becomes important is in action photography, or in low light conditions. To capture a moving object you require faster shutter speeds, which means the interface where the image is being recorded, whether it be traditional emulsion films or electronic sensors gets less light. so you need a more sensitive interface to be able to record the object more accurately, otherwise the image will be blurred.
Okay, less of the theory and more images, lol.
copmom
offlineMember
I use the iso setting when taking my kitty pictures that are outdoors, and I'm in the house. Since I don't want a flashback from the flash reflecting back from the glass door I use the low light no flash setting on my camera. Especially helps on a gloomy, rainy day, like today.
goodgotd
offlineMember
yeah, ISO is a bit of a rubber ruler, but still- ISO 1600 film would be real fast, and real grainy- in digicams ISO 1600/3200 is noisy as all get out- the smaller the sensor the worse the noise, generally. The more pixels in the same size sensor, the worse the effect, plus purple fringing due to microlensing. ('pinhole effect')
the few photons that hit each sensor pixel are getting 'swamped' by the random electron noise generated by the sensor light or no light. Best to use the lowest ISO you can get away with. If you're finicky about the 'best picture' thing.
To a degree the camera image processor tries to remove that by various routines before it hits the memory card, a program like Neat Image allows you to make a 'noise map' of your camera's sensor and remove the noise that is unique to each sensor array.
In long-exposure work, like starfield photos, it's SOP to take a 'dark frame' with the lens covered and the camera at the same temperature and exposure settings, so you can 'subtract' that dark-frame's noise in post processing to get better results.
I got a flash unit at the goodwill for $5 that has both hot-shoe and corded triggers, and I'm going to make up a 'slave peanut' to go on the cord to fire it by sensing the camera's flash- for times like firing through a window I'll block the canon's flash by taping the 'peanut' over the built-in flash with dark tape, then hold the external flash flat against the window some distance away.
I mostly will be using it for 'fill flash' when doing macro shots close enough the built-in flash is blocked by the extended lens. Some things (like mushrooms- it really makes a difference!) simply do not look right unless that brightly lit.
I've also had good luck eliminating the camera seeing it's own flash by using a chunk of toilet paper tube around the lens and up against the window. cheap but effective.
digital cameras at the goodwill are the exception, not the rule.
what you find the most of are 35mm cheapos and the more expensive 35mm's that were built to take the self-loading kodak Advantix film you can't get any more. somebody bought that HP C200, I'll have to take some shots of mine to show how well it held up.
here's a bug I caught on some goat's-beard:
and a couple of rose campion above a red rose...
Very nice pictures,
I'm starting to get jealous of your camera, goodgotd.
Unfortunately here south OK close Lawton. It has been cloudy and rainy for a week now.
Were at the season change time of year. Warm air mixing with cold, thunderstorms, sleet hail, tornado's, the usual.
Don't worry tornado's are rare this time of year, but they can happen. It the following season that you go stand on the porch every time there's a storm, so you can get your shelter if one drop's.
I would love to get a pic of a funnel, that would sweet.With some lightning arcing down the side.
goodgotd
offlineMember
not nearly all in the camera, just taking *lots* of photos and learning what works. and always looking.
the super macro- yeah, that's tough to get around, but things like that virginia creeper- that was at a range you could duplicate with no trouble. That's cropped down to 4.5 megapixels from this 8.1 mp shot using xnview:
the camera before this was a 1995 era HP PhotoSmart M517 full-auto only (a few scene and flash modes, but no control over focus, no stabilization, iso 400 max, 3x optical zoom, etc) point & shoot, and I got a fair passel of neat shots out of it before the tripod mount (and the case) cracked apart. it still works, but holding it really still is difficult.
it had a bit closer macro, but you have enough extra pixels- it was only 5.1 mp- you can crop and beat it.
Not to mention if you don't hit the 'view full size' link at divshare, unless you have a really hi-rez screen you see those pictures at no more than a megapixel at best, to fit them into the browser frame.
Half the cool factor is cropping for impact, as I found when I stepped from a 1 mp C200 to the M517- 1 mp you *can't* crop for beans, so you have to get the stuff framed in the shot. the cat pix above of bandit were 1 mp source.
here's some from the M517:
nigella nativa, just starting to open buds:
cropped from this shot:
the charles and anna drain house, near sunset for the gloomy, brooding lighting effect:
some african daisies fighting for room
some flowers are too big to get close to- and still you find the dangdest things when you look later:
like a crab spider. btw, over a day or so those can shift from white to yellow to match the flowers they perch on.
I'd like to catch a funnel, but out here they're scarcer than hen's teeth. rain, oh my yes.
goodgotd
offlineMember
Txnnok, I looked up the specs on that Kodak EasyShare C190, and it's got the same macro range as the HP PhotoSmart M517, (10 cm, though to get it to reliably lock there takes a simple widget to trick it) with better optical zoom (5x), 2.3x the pixel count (3968 x 2976- 12 Megapixel), a bigger, higher resolution LCD (2.7", 230,000 pixels) and over triple the ISO range- 64 to 1600.
trust me, that camera can blow the M517 out of the water easily. And it can take bigger memory cards, too. OTOH, the M517 was only $60 a year ago, and had been outdated for years- like since the 2006 models hit the shelves. pretty much the same size.
2576 x 1944- 5.2 megapixels
3x optical zoom
F2.8 - 4.9 (W) F4.8 to 8.0 (T)
Auto focus
Focus distance
Normal: 0.5 m to infinity
Macro: 10 cm to 80 cm
ISO sensitivity ISO 100-200-400
2" TFT LCD 130,000 pixels
However, this post was to point to a rough panorama I stitched together (still learning how to correct the software's goofs- there are a couple real bad spots I missed) of the post-repair winchester, oregon dam on the 2nd of this month, with a thumbnail here, a 16.6 mb half-size-each-way reduction (12300x3937)on divshare under 'view full size', and a 51.2 mb 24621x7861 jpeg image at this link on SendSpace for download.
Enjoy, and forgive the mistakes. 92 images, 405 megabytes of images, several hours of fiddling and number-crunching went into it. Only 13 minutes to shoot it, though....
notblocklox
offlineModerator
Thanks goody for your technical reviews and advice for shooting and preparing photos.
Oh, and of course thanks for your pics. :)
Would be great if we had a photo-community as active as the gamers are.
Not only to show the latest pictures but to discuss techniques and to exchange experiences. That would give our pictures the "right of existence" under our forum rules. That said the moderatorlox. ;)
Well, to be honest, it's very selfish of me, as I hope I will get the needed push that brings me back to my hobby.
goodgotd
offlineMember
Whiterabbit-uk started the (unofficial? surely not) blessing of a photo-thread, with the Guide To Forum Image Posting, and even joined in here. umm, so did you.
I'll start working in some references to giveaway software like Better JPEG and how & why to use it.
that ought to calm the Moderatorlox, just a bit? right?
see, there is a relationship. any panorama software coming up? (hint, hint)
notblocklox
offlineModerator
Yeah, I thought when you and perhaps some others could contribute some know-how on the basis of your photos, it would be better to set up a new forum for photography. This thread is under "General Discussion" and that is - well - too general.
There should be the possibility to bundle the different threads for Photo/Graphics.
However, that is beyond the competence of a modlox. Perhaps it would help to bribe the AdminBuBBy...? ;)
midori
offlineMember
Gosh, I, too, admire the wealth of knowledge shared here, but it kinda goes out the other ear (or eye, lol). Not really interested in learning the mechanics, just know I appreciate the outcome! So thanks for the shares. My daughter has taken some beautiful nature shots on her geology field trips, but like me, she sees something pretty and shoots. Hey, we don't have to know what we're doin', do we? But I'm sure it helps, with all your exposure know-how goodgotd. Unlike something like painting, which you don't really break down into mechanics, photography does benefit from experience. But doesn't everything! Anyway, I enjoy the efforts here. :)
goodgotd
offlineMember
midori, painting too benefits from practice, and even given the talent still uses the tools of 'breaking it down into mechanics', as several of my more artistic friends assure me.
They've certainly had much good advice on the composition of pictures for better impact. I always keep those words of wisdom in mind when cropping!
as I've said before, most of my absurd number of photos are to jog my drug-tattered memory, but if something pretty or interesting crosses my path, it would be folly indeed not to record it. and churlish not to share what I've learned in the process.
putting together panoramas to ease boredom (well, of a sort or three) rather lacks something if the only person who sees the result is, well, me.
modlox, I shall ponder your wise words- and then consider as well.
It seemeth to me that a category might be wanting added, but not just for pictures- the word association games, etc., are surely as far off 'the "right of existence" under our forum rules' as one that giveaway software can certainly be relevant to from time to time.
perhaps I can come up with something more inclusive for BuBBy's attention..
BuBBy
offlineAdministrator
"Talks" was intended for stuff that doesn't quite fit - but obviously out of courtesy to people who actually want computer/software/giveaway related topics we keep them to an absolute minimum.
Perhaps another forum entirely ?
You must log in to post.
