Nature's Architects

[Sitarro]

Strong enough to withstand wind and rain and lighter than paper. Shot with old technology Olympus E-10, 4 megapixel fixed lens with zoom and macro capability......same as toad.

[nevadamedic]

You take some really good pictures. I take it photography is a majoy hobby of yours?

[Abbey Marie]

You take some really good pictures. I take it photography is a majoy hobby of yours?

Actually, from what I understand, Sitarro gets paid for shooting golf courses. So, it's more than a hobby. Lucky devil!

[glockmail]

Strong enough to withstand wind and rain and lighter than paper. Shot with old technology Olympus E-10, 4 megapixel fixed lens with zoom and macro capability......same as toad. I thought old tech was film?

[Mr. P]

I thought old tech was film?

Brownie.

[Jon]

I thought old tech was film?


5-6 year old digital cameras are considered "old tech" within the digital camera context. ;) The tech behind these cameras has grown in leaps and bounds since then.

Sitarro, did you buy the E-10 back in 2001 when the street price was nearly $2K? If you have a newer dSLR (a Nikon perhaps), can you give me a rundown of how they compare?

Re: the bee hive. They really are amazing structures. You shoulda got in there close and used the macro capability. :D

[nevadamedic]

Actually, form what I understand, Sitarro gets paid for shooting golf courses. So, it's more than a hobby. Lucky devil!

After looking at some of his pics, I can definatly see where he could make money, he really is good.

[Sitarro]

5-6 year old digital cameras are considered "old tech" within the digital camera context. ;) The tech behind these cameras has grown in leaps and bounds since then.

Sitarro, did you buy the E-10 back in 2001 when the street price was nearly $2K? If you have a newer dSLR (a Nikon perhaps), can you give me a rundown of how they compare?

Re: the bee hive. They really are amazing structures. You shoulda got in there close and used the macro capability. :D

That is exactly right, it was 2 grand in 2001. I remember because I shot Manhattan and the Trade Center on my way to Ireland. They were gone 4 days later.

My brother has a D-70, huge difference of course and I rented a D-200 for a weekend and it was really nice. I'm waiting to see what they come up with next to decide what to get next. The E-10 and the 6x7 has worked fine for what I've needed so far but I am getting pixel envy.

[Sitarro]

After looking at some of his pics, I can definatly see where he could make money, he really is good.

That's nice of you......this is an example of what I have to do with golf course shots. I had to shoot this hole in the fall when the grass was going dormant. The sky sucked too so Photoshop was used to transform this shot. Unfortunately I didn't have a Wacom tablet to help with this job so it didn't come out that great but the customer was happy.

first is the original, second is photoshoped.

[glockmail]

5-6 year old digital cameras are considered "old tech" within the digital camera context. ;) The tech behind these cameras has grown in leaps and bounds since then.

....

What digital resolution is considered equivalent to a 35mm SLR with good quality film? :poke:

[Jon]

What digital resolution is considered equivalent to a 35mm SLR with good quality film? :poke:

I'm afraid it's not that simple. You'll need to tell me what you consider "good quality film", and your definition of "equivalent". :poke:

[Jon]

That's nice of you......this is an example of what I have to do with golf course shots. I had to shoot this hole in the fall when the grass was going dormant. The sky sucked too so Photoshop was used to transform this shot. Unfortunately I didn't have a Wacom tablet to help with this job so it didn't come out that great but the customer was happy.

first is the original, second is photoshoped.


Nice work. Was this shot on film, or on the dSLR?

[Mr. P]

I'm afraid it's not that simple. You'll need to tell me what you consider "good quality film", and your definition of "equivalent". :poke:

I'm Jon Q Public and it's simple for me, digital is far superior to any film. :poke:

[glockmail]

I'm afraid it's not that simple. You'll need to tell me what you consider "good quality film", and your definition of "equivalent". :poke: Good quality film would be readily availble Kodak ASA 100, fresh. Equivalent means image density, or how large a print you can make without getting "grainy".

[Mr. P]

Good quality film would be readily availble Kodak ASA 100, fresh. Equivalent means image density, or how large a print you can make without getting "grainy".

100 was always my choice. :2up:

[manu1959]

100 was always my choice. :2up:

i was a 64 guy....

[Sitarro]

Nice work. Was this shot on film, or on the dSLR?
Thanks.
I believe I used a D-70 that day. The sky and the course looked so bad that I knew it was going to need extensive photoshop work so I didn't want to waste the film. That shot ended up in a book of the most spectacular golf holes in Texas (any course that would pay the publisher enough to get in it) and I was really surprised that it came out as well as it did. I'll post some of the other shots that ended up in the same book, most were shot with a D-70.

[Sitarro]

i was a 64 guy....

Kodachrome 64 was a great film but a pain to get processed. Once I started using Fuji, I never shot Kodak again. Provia 100 is beautiful but Velvia 50 is like you are in the photograph, the color density is amazing.

[glockmail]

Kodachrome 64 was a great film but a pain to get processed. Once I started using Fuji, I never shot Kodak again. Provia 100 is beautiful but Velvia 50 is like you are in the photograph, the color density is amazing.
That sounds like a professional grade film. As an ametuer I've only used what I could buy at CVS. The regular Fuji 100 ended up with colors that looked fake, IMO.

[Sitarro]

That sounds like a professional grade film. As an ametuer I've only used what I could buy at CVS. The regular Fuji 100 ended up with colors that looked fake, IMO.

You're right, it is the film you find in refrigerators at camera stores or labs. Those are also transparency film for slides.

[glockmail]

Your right, it is the film you find in refrigerators at camera stores or labs. Those are also transparency film for slides. This just tickled the ol' memory. Kodak 64 was for slides, too.

[-Cp]

Uhh.. to me - it's an interesting picture... but not "Good photography" - any decent Digital Camera can take picks like that and make things look good..

If you want to see true photography.. well just look at our own Jon....
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=5331

Sweet Mother of Pearl.. now THAT - That is Photography!!

[Sitarro]

Uhh.. to me - it's an interesting picture... but not "Good photography" - any decent Digital Camera can take picks like that and make things look good..

If you want to see true photography.. well just look at our own Jon....
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=5331

Sweet Mother of Pearl.. now THAT - That is Photography!!

Great observation Cp,
Uhh.. Unfortunately you didn't observe the category. This shot is not in the "great photography" forum, it's in the animal section...........doh!!!! I was merely commenting on the architectural abilities of these wasps. I do get what you were trying to do and I think it's really cute, not very effective, but good try. I have no doubt that with a "do everything for you" camera and if you did actually have the balls to get that close to a buzzing bunch of wasps, you too could get that shot...... probably not the same composition but good enough for you....... the state of photography today in a nutshell.:cool: Thanks for demonstrating that perfectly.

[-Cp]

Great observation Cp,
Uhh.. Unfortunately you didn't observe the category. This shot is not in the "great photography" forum, it's in the animal section...........doh!!!! I was merely commenting on the architectural abilities of these wasps. I do get what you were trying to do and I think it's really cute, not very effective, but good try. I have no doubt that with a "do everything for you" camera and if you did actually have the balls to get that close to a buzzing bunch of wasps, you too could get that shot...... probably not the same composition but good enough for you....... the state of photography today in a nutshell.:cool: Thanks for demonstrating that perfectly.

Eh? What are you talking about? "I do get what you were trying to do"??

Your post made no sense at all...

And you do try and position yourself as some sort of "pro photographer" (other threads, and even these golf course pics) - I have yet to see anything you've done that would convince me you're anything but an amatuer with a decent camera..

I know you'll take that personally - but who cares?

I sorta feel like Simon Cowell telling some kid for the first time in their life that there are perhaps other things in life they're good at, but singing isn't one of them...

Nothing personal, but I wouldn't leave yer day job... :)

[Sitarro]

Eh? What are you talking about? "I do get what you were trying to do"??

Your post made no sense at all...

And you do try and position yourself as some sort of "pro photographer" (other threads, and even these golf course pics) - I have yet to see anything you've done that would convince me you're anything but an amatuer with a decent camera..

I know you'll take that personally - but who cares?

I sorta feel like Simon Cowell telling some kid for the first time in their life that there are perhaps other things in life they're good at, but singing isn't one of them...

Nothing personal, but I wouldn't leave yer day job... :)

Thanks for your critique, I'll be sure and place it where it obviously belongs.....file 13.

I won't bother to explain myself or what I do in the golf industry.....I doubt that you would understand. I will say that my work has been published and I make money doing it, by definition that takes me out of the amateur category. What is your background in photography..... looking at picture books? Why don't you dig up some golf course shots you feel are professional(that is the type of photography I make money with).... I'm sure it would be interesting to see what you feel meets your high standards.

By the way, Simon Cowell has been involved with running numerous recording studios including work with EMI and Sony as a talent scout and developer along with the development of numerous television shows involving musical talent and making himself millions...... what exactly are your credentials in the photography world?

Another "by the way"....amateur is spelled this way. I kind of expect this type of post from someone that would vote for Chuck Norris for anything but worst actor.