Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 18 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 13 of 19 < 1 2 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 18 19 >
Topic Options
#7308 - 01/06/04 03:36 PM Re: Gunks Photos [Re: rg@ofmc]
rg@ofmc Online   content
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2472
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
Seasonal Preserve Ranger Bob Elsinger on the Maria overhang, done as the last pitch of the excellent combo "Scunsularia" (First pitch of Scungilli, second pitch of Sultana, third pitch of Maria.)


Attachments
99777-ElsingerGDC.jpg (379 downloads)


Top
#7309 - 01/06/04 03:58 PM Re: Gunks Photos [Re: rg@ofmc]
rg@ofmc Online   content
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2472
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
Semi-delirious OFMC member escapes from rest home during the holidays; found wandering up City Lights.


Attachments
99778-rgclGDC.jpg (382 downloads)


Top
#7310 - 01/06/04 06:01 PM Re: Gunks Photos [Re: rg@ofmc]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Quote:

Wick and Chris on a winter ascent of Maria (Direct?).




Hey Phlan, lloks like you've been drinking WAY too many high-carb homebrews

Here's the ever-popular (but now tamed) Madame G rap after a great shirtsleeves December climb. This shot is a good example of what I like about digital cameras. Ther's no way I could shoot against that sky with a film camera and still get the shadowed forground details. Face it - chemicals (film) don't respond to light like electronic devices - or our eyes - do.

Ooops, getting a bit off topic there.


Attachments
99791-MadGrap.JPG (361 downloads)


Top
#7311 - 01/06/04 10:05 PM Re: Gunks Photos [Re: Mike Rawdon]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
I dunno, I bet you could do pretty well with some manual exposure settings and a neutral-density or tiffen ultra-contrast filter. A CCD may have more dynamic range, but you still lose some information when you translate to an 8bitx3 color format.

I'm not facing it... I'm still in denial

Top
#7312 - 01/06/04 11:41 PM Re: Gunks Photos [Re: pedestrian]
rg@ofmc Online   content
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2472
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
Higher Stannard, Gunksfest 2003, Session b. The photographer and the subject have more than eighty years of climbing experience between them...


Attachments
99811-rghsgf2GDC.jpg (363 downloads)


Top
#7313 - 01/07/04 08:44 AM Re: Gunks Photos [Re: Mike Rawdon]
LesterLeBlanc Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 1916
Loc: Los Angeles
It ain't got nuffin to do with digital vs. film. That's all about exposure. A fast lense, UV filter and manual exposure will do the trick just fine ... probably even get a better color balance.

Fun rap!




Top
#7314 - 01/07/04 07:34 PM Re: Gunks Photos [Re: LesterLeBlanc]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
The dynamic range of some digital sensors is at or slightly exceeds that of Slide film. The leader for dynamic range is still slow speed (ASA 100 or less) print film. What makes digital files look like they have more dynamic range is that you side step one major contributor to loss of dynamic range which is scanning film. So in the end you really can get better shots with digital. Also as Lester states perfect exposure is a must.

Nice photos btw, almost makes me want spring time rock climbing again... well almost.

Top
#7315 - 01/07/04 07:37 PM Re: Gunks Photos [Re: Smike]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5977
Loc: 212 land
What makes digital files look like they have more dynamic range is that you side step one major contributor to loss of dynamic range which is scanning film. So in the end you really can get better shots with digital.

I don't get it; could you explain this further?
_________________________

Top
#7316 - 01/07/04 07:53 PM Re: Gunks Photos [Re: oenophore]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard

Scanners (low to mid level) have a lower dynamic range (the # of shade differences from black to white they can record or discern) then do most good digital camera's. So when you scan in film you will loss some of these shades present in the film and the dark area's will look darker and the light area will look lighter giving you less to work with.

Top
#7317 - 01/07/04 08:59 PM Re: Gunks Photos [Re: Smike]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5977
Loc: 212 land
So it's the scanner, the most common means of digitizing film, that is the weakest link in the photographic (camera -> monitor) process. Since digital photography bypasses that, it is superior. Is this what you're saying?
_________________________

Top
Page 13 of 19 < 1 2 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 18 19 >


Moderator:  Mike Rawdon, Steven Cherry 
Sponsored