Photography (split from Caribbean cruise)

Quote: Nareed

Hm. I'm used to thinking in terms of megapixels. According to my calculator, your phone has a 3 MP resolution, but the photos look a lot better than that.

3mp is way more than enough for display on a computer screen. The biggest issue with phone shots is that generally they are horrible at higher ISOs (IMO, of course). This is about 77kb, the original image is .66mp:



Steelers guard Trai Essex. (EDIT: Not a phone shot. The raw image is about 2mp, converted to medium resolution jpg, then further reduced for web use.)

Quote: Nareed

I understand photography rather well. In many ways I still prefer film cameras for some kinds of shots. I miss what you could do with an ISO 25 color film, for example. Anyway, I also understand digital photography rather well. For all that, I chose my latest camera on the basis that the casing was red and the preview screen was big :)

The big advantage of digital, BTW, is that if you have a laptop handy, or for some models a WiFi connection, you don't ever run out of room to store your pictures. With film, you had to be parsimonuous with your shots, lest you run out of film.

Y'know, I sometimes think that spray and pray is one of the shortcomings of digital! When I'm shooting for photography's sake, it makes more sense to go into "composition" mode, lest I'm sitting in front of Lightroom with 25 different angles on the same thing, and none of them are what they would have been had I actually taken time to think the shot through. THAT has happened too often. When I'm shooting well, I get better shots with fewer exposures.

There are two tremendous advantages of digital over film, for most amateurs.

The first is the ability to check exposures on scene, with a histogram. The preview screen is pretty useless for checking focus, but it will show you blown highlights and lost shadows instantly.

The second is the ability to have complete control over the image, especially color images, without having a darkroom and chemicals. A photographer can shoot "raw" and have complete access to the sensor data, and can do everything digitally that a film shooter would do in a darkroom.

Having shot both, I have to say that I haven't picked up a film camera in probably two years. And those are really the main reasons why. I like having control over the final output, and I like being able to get the shot as close to right as I can, right from the start.

Quote: Mosca

3mp is way more than enough for display on a computer screen.

Oh, sure. even less that that is fine, too. I actually owned, briefly, an early Epson camera in the 90s. I don't think it did even 1mp. It looked fine on screen, sure, but we couldn't make prints worth a damn.

Quote:

The biggest issue with phone shots is that generally they are horrible at higher ISOs (IMO, of course).

For a while I had a 2mp Canon and a Nokia phone with a 2mp camera. For my money, the Canon was ten times better in all categories, from focus to resolution to color saturation.

Even so, as I recall film didn't do well with higher ISOs. I once tried a 1200 ISO roll so i could shoot fireworks. That went rather well, including multiple exposures (another thing digital doesn't know how to do). I did some regular night shots, too, for comparison, and they were grainier than Kansas.

Quote:

When I'm shooting for photography's sake, it makes more sense to go into "composition" mode, lest I'm sitting in front of Lightroom with 25 different angles on the same thing, and none of them are what they would have been had I actually taken time to think the shot through. THAT has happened too often. When I'm shooting well, I get better shots with fewer exposures.

Digital is the new, and better, Polaroid. I had to take shots of packaged foods (don't ask), and they wanted the label to be legible in a 3.5 by 4 cm print! Of course that wasn't quite possible. But I tried some shots and blew them up on the PC. I found that sacrificing focus a little increased legibility (I don't know how, but it happens). The labels weren't legible at that size, but they were in teh raw files on the CD we included in the proposal.

I got the lightning and background right, too.

There are two tremendous advantages of digital over film, for most amateurs.

Quote:

The second is the ability to have complete control over the image, especially color images, without having a darkroom and chemicals. A photographer can shoot "raw" and have complete access to the sensor data, and can do everything digitally that a film shooter would do in a darkroom.

You can do more, really, but that's for the pro photographer and the serious hobbyist. I'm neither. So I don't dabble in the endlessly fascinating and time-consuming mysteries of Adobe Photoshop.

Quote:

Having shot both, I have to say that I haven't picked up a film camera in probably two years.

I haven't used my trusty old Fuji since 2006. I would. Even now you can find film and a few places that will process it. But the blasted things' too heavy to lug around!

Still, if I ever get the urge to photograph fireworks again, or the opportunity to take pics of a total Solar eclipse, I will dust it off and shoot away.

Quote: Nareed

You can do more, really, but that's for the pro photographer and the serious hobbyist. I'm neither. So I don't dabble in the endlessly fascinating and time-consuming mysteries of Adobe Photoshop.

It's still not necessarily a good idea for many users, but Adobe Lightroom and Apple Aperture are far easier to use. They're still more for the serious users, though, because of cost. Lots of serious amateurs do 99% of their editing in Lightroom (for example, not slagging Aperture) and only open Photoshop if they have to. The best thing about Lightroom is batch processing; if you have a lot of photos with similar characteristics, you can sort them, choose the keepers, and then apply global corrections, say, white balance and contrast, and then do detailed corrections on individual shots as needed.

Agreed, though, it's not for everyone. Most folks will just shoot the jpegs with in-camera correction. But you wrote something almost offhand that is actually fascinating: that digital is the new Polaroid, only better. And that's true. Both in the way people use cameras now, and in the "better" part. And particularly in that almost any cheap digital camera is capable of producing astonishingly good photos. A photographer doesn't need to carry a big photo rig to Disney, nor does she need to limit herself with a prime lens rangefinder. She can pick up a decent pocket-sized camera with a reasonable zoom for under $200 and take fantastic shots. And that is a third tremendous advantage of digital.

Quote: Mosca

But you wrote something almost offhand that is actually fascinating: that digital is the new Polaroid, only better.

It wasn't offhand. In photography classes at school, for studio shoots we'd take Polaroids first to see how the lighting angles and other things affected the shoot. Then we snapped with the real film. With digital you can do much better if you have a PC nearby.

Also you can look at your photos, sort of, right away int eh preview screen, and shortly after in almost any PC. What's better is that digital is much cheaper.

BTW do you remember Polaroid instant movie film? I recall ads for it, but I never actually saw it. Had it come out in the early 70s, it would have been a major hit. As it was, it got killed swiftly by video cameras.

I have tremendous respect for the technology that is film, just like I do for a really nice car from the '60s. (They're fantastic, but I don't want one for a daily driver.) Most cameras now have a real time histogram available, or have a setting where the preview screen can show blown highlights and shadows as flashing red and blue. Incredible, isn't it? And for digital processing... check out Photoshop's content aware fill feature. It's been part of CS5 for about a year now.

No, I don't remember Polaroid movie film, but I looked it up; wow. Bad timing, for sure.

Quote: Mosca

I have tremendous respect for the technology that is film, just like I do for a really nice car from the '60s.

I know how to take a photo of, say, the Lira Nebula so that it will come out in color. With film. I've no idea how to do it with a digital camera, or whether it's even possible with a reasonably priced consumer model.

Quote:

Most cameras now have a real time histogram available, or have a setting where the preview screen can show blown highlights and shadows as flashing red and blue. Incredible, isn't it? And for digital processing... check out Photoshop's content aware fill feature. It's been part of CS5 for about a year now.

That's the sound of my eyes glazing over... As I said, I'm neither pro nor a hobbyis. I just like to take decent shots, especiallyw hen I come accross something unusual. I'll hunt for my vegas 08 pics. I took a shot of contrails I simply loved... Anwyay, I don't post-produce my shots. Even the times I've tried trick shots, they were all "live." That is, all the effects where accomplished at the time of shooting.

Quote:

No, I don't remember Polaroid movie film, but I looked it up; wow. Bad timing, for sure.

Reading bout it now it seems they rushed it nto production to compete with video cameras. at the time VCRs were hideously expensive and video cameras even more so. I do recall the first "portable" ("Schlepable" is mroe like it) Betamax VCRs to which you could hook up a camera. They were expensive, yes, but the tapes were cheap, and they recorded better color with sound for up to 3 hours or so. It beat the poor Polavision hollow.

Hehe, I just thought you might enjoy the short video, not that you'd start lusting after Photoshop! I appreciate where you're coming from. And I'd love to see your photos.

One of my cameras, the Olympus EP-1, takes the most amazing jpegs, with beautiful vivid colors and great contrast; that's the one I take when I'm on vacation.



Inside the Mexico pavilion at Epcot:





But sometimes I shoot for hobbyist reasons, where the creation of the image is the whole point. When I do that, developing is part of my fun. Vive la difference, and all that!

As it was, it got killed swiftly by video cameras.

Gee I missed them, what exactly were they?

Years ago pawn shops instituted the rule, " Does it take film ? " If it does we are not interested. LOL

Very nice photos, Mosca!

Decades ago, I did a fair amount of B&W darkroom work, but I haven't had my own darkroom since 1973. Since I have turned to digital photography (and since I also turned so lazy), I have pretty much adopted the practice that whatever image the camera captures -- usually when set on "automatic" -- is the one I use, with a bit of cropping allowed. I have never used Photoshop.

There have been a few occasions in which I did have to do some creative alterations for specific purposes, but I don't think I have really done them very well. Guess I'm too lazy to learn how. One example of such efforts: Last December I sought advice here and eventually posted a panoramic photo that I had taken from the top of the Rio. That image was a paste-up of multiple images and really should have used Photoshop or some other technique to stitch the individual images better.

Here is another example of an image that I altered well after the shutter clicked, specifically because I felt the modified image told a better story. The full-size image is available at this link, where you can see more clearly just how clumsy my edits were. (If you click that link and load the image onto a new browser page, click on the image to see/scroll it full-size and full-ragged.)

NICE !!

Quote: Doc

Here is another example of an image that I altered well after the shutter clicked, specifically because I felt the modified image told a better story. The full-size image is available at this link, where you can see more clearly just how clumsy my edits were. (If you click that link and load the image onto a new browser page, click on the image to see/scroll it full-size and full-ragged.)

I do see. Did you paste shots of the diver on to the photo? I'd have tried a film camera and done a multiple exposure. My Fuji couldn't do it, but a friend owned a Hasselblad that could

BTW the images are of "La Quebrada." That's a place in Acapulco where crazy people, mostly men, dive off the face of the cliff into a shallow part of the ocean.

I never had a darkroom. But at school we did shoot in B&W and developed the film and prints ourselves. Too bad nothing's left of those early attempts.

Yes, the scene is from Acapulco, though I would never have remembered the name of the specific cliff site. I visited there in 2007 on a Holland America cruise ship headed for the canal -- note how I cleverly tie this thread back into the original Royal Caribbean cruise thread. :-)

Multiple exposures get very tricky for doing something like this. First, there is the problem of figuring out the proper exposure for the overall image, what with it being exposed multiple times. Second, each place where the diver appears, there would also be multiple exposures just showing the background water, so there would be image conflicts or ghosting.

In my case, I used rapid sequence photography, capturing separate complete images as the diver was in each position. The interval was determined by the capabilities of my camera. Then I started with the final shot as my base -- the one with the water splash. Next I copied sections from each of the earlier shots (just the diver and the immediate surroundings) and pasted them onto the base image in the appropriate places. That eliminated problems with exposure issues and image conflicts. Unfortunately, the dang ocean waves wouldn't hold still for me as the diver fell. Since I didn't go to the trouble (or even know how) to copy/paste just the diver without the water around him, there is a distinct mismatch of the water/waves each place I pasted.

Doc, I love that shot! I took the liberty of cleaning that up for you. I'm not a PS pro, but it was pretty easy. If you look for the edits you can see them, but if you're not looking it's pretty good. I could probably blend them better, but this was only a minute or two.



Here's the full sized image. Click on it to expand. If you want, send me an email address and I'll email you the uncompressed file.


(edit) Just saw that inner tube. I whacked that out, too.

Quote: Doc

Yes, the scene is from Acapulco, though I would never have remembered the name of the specific cliff site.

I haven't been there in, oh, going on thirty years or so, but the name La Quebrada is famous.

Quote:

I visited there in 2007 on a Holland America cruise ship headed for the canal -- note how I cleverly tie this thread back into the original Royal Caribbean cruise thread. :-)

Very clever. Do you want my opinion on cruises? I've never been in one, so I've refrained from opining thus far.

Quote:

Multiple exposures get very tricky for doing something like this. First, there is the problem of figuring out the proper exposure for the overall image, what with it being exposed multiple times. Second, each place where the diver appears, there would also be multiple exposures just showing the background water, so there would be image conflicts or ghosting.

Sure. And on a clear day it gets more complicated. You'd need a low ISO film, a steady tripod, among other things. But it's doable. I'm not saying I could do it and get as good results as you did, though.

And I'd never shoot divers. they creep me out. I keep expecting they'll hit something they shouldn't, in this case the cliff's face. Not that I want them to, but it does happen.

If you're ever back, though, and can stomach such things, they dive at night carrying lit torches. Don't forget to tip.

Quote: Mosca

Doc, I love that shot! I took the liberty of cleaning that up for you. I'm not a PS pro, but it was pretty easy. ...

Just saw that inner tube. I whacked that out, too.

Thank you very much, Mosca. Much better than what I turned out. I really should learn to do that stuff, but I think there has been maybe a total of five photos that I have modified at all post-shutter-click since I went all-digital in 2000. Another one I modified from that cruise was my photo of the arch at Cabo San Lucas -- just when our little tour boat was in the perfect position for the shot, another tour boat appeared on the other side of the arch. I didn't want it in my picture, so I cut it out. A rare edit for me, though. Even back when using film I did very little adjustment other than a little burning and dodging of prints. I had a number of friends who liked to add pretty clouds or occasional birds to plain blue skies in their photos. Not really my kind of thing, but I did think the multiple images of the Acapulco diver was a justifiable modification.

I was never sure what that float/tube was. At one time I wondered whether they had a shark barrier shielding this cove and had it supported by floats. Doubt it now.

I'll PM you an email address.

Quote: Nareed

Very clever. Do you want my opinion on cruises? I've never been in one, so I've refrained from opining thus far.
...
If you're ever back, though, and can stomach such things, they dive at night carrying lit torches.

Go ahead -- tell us what you think of cruises. (Should I mock the voice of inexperience? Nah, I'm just interesting in what you think.)

My wife and I went on six cruises from 1976 through 1997 and six more (one per year) from 2004 through 2009 post retirement. My chip collection includes seven "wet chips" as they call the ones from cruise ship casinos. Hadn't really started collecting at the time of those earlier cruises, but I did happen to keep a chip from the very first cruise and still have it. I haven't found a cruise that really caught my interest and fit my budget the past two years.

In general, I like cruises for the sample/taste that they provide for a wide variety of locations, but you don't get to experience any depth to any of the ports. As for the on-board experience, there are good points and bad points, and different cruise lines are appropriate for people of different interests/expectations. In order to avoid what I view as the bad points, I suspect I would have to go to a line with a price structure that I wouldn't be willing to pay.

As for seeing the Acapulco divers at night, that is an unlikely experience for a cruise ship passenger. Ships typically depart port around 5 to 7 P.M. -- have to get to open water so they can run their casinos! It's a fairly rare experience for a cruise ship to spend a night in port, although DJTeddyBear did spend the night in Bermuda; he was on a cruise that didn't have a bunch of ports to visit.

Quote: Mosca

Hehe, I just thought you might enjoy the short video,

I don't often play video on the PC. I often watch TV whiel surfing the web, you see, so having two video sources at once in the smae room gets distracting.

Quote:

And I'd love to see your photos.

I found the contrail shots but they're not as I remmebered them (nithing ever quite is). I may post a link later. I think I uploaded all of them to flickr.

BTW I used to favor SLR cameras when film ruled, even though they suffered from additional vibration from lifting the mirror used to reflect the picture to the eye piece. For digital you don't need SLR anymore, as the precise shot appears on the preview screen. I'g go so far as to say digital cameras don't really need an eye piece anymore.

I do wish they had a full manual mode with exposure settings. Maybe they do, but I don't think I've read the manuals yet :)

Quote: Doc

Go ahead -- tell us what you think of cruises. (Should I mock the voice of inexperience? Nah, I'm just interesting in what you think.)

I've yet to hear a single good reason to take a cruise.

I've heard plenty about cruises. My older brother took several before he had children. My parents took one every year for the last seven years or so. So I've heard plenty of stories. But aside from the ability to visit several different places over a short period of time, I've yet to hear a reason to do one. Adn even that one isn't compelling.

Oh, there are lots of things to do, it seems. But I've access to all such things right here at home, except for casinos. If I want to go ice-skatring, swimming, sun bathing, see a movie, etc, I can do so at any time without paying for arifare to the nearest or most convenient port.

Just saying.

Quote:

As for seeing the Acapulco divers at night, that is an unlikely experience for a cruise ship passenger. Ships typically depart port around 5 to 7 P.M. -- have to get to open water so they can run their casinos! It's a fairly rare experience for a cruise ship to spend a night in port, although DJTeddyBear did spend the night in Bermuda; he was on a cruise that didn't have a bunch of ports to visit.

Can you spend the night and catch a different ship of the same line the next day, or a few days later, or catch the same ship on the way back? I'm 99.9% you can't, or not without cutting through a forest of red tape, or doing a quadruple backwards summersault forwards, and paying exhorbitant fees.

Quote: Nareed

BTW I used to favor SLR cameras when film ruled, even though they suffered from additional vibration from lifting the mirror used to reflect the picture to the eye piece. For digital you don't need SLR anymore, as the precise shot appears on the preview screen. I'd go so far as to say digital cameras don't really need an eye piece anymore.

I do wish they had a full manual mode with exposure settings. Maybe they do, but I don't think I've read the manuals yet :)

Many point and shoot digital cameras have full manual mode, but not all of them. My opinion is that its usefulness is limited, because the sensors are so small. f/2.8 is like f/8 for depth of field on many of them. I get better shots from A or P (P is the same as A but with flash decided by the user).

Regarding digital SLRs, the photo quality is superior, but I wouldn't say they are cost effective for the vast majority of users. The Olympus I referred to is what's called "Micro 4/3"; the sensor is larger than the point and shoots, but the camera is small and mirrorless, and it has interchangeable lenses. It hits a sweet spot for many users in size, price, versatility, and image quality. (But not for everyone.) My greatest dislike of m4/3 is perspective distortion, which is a function of the optics of the system. The Panasonics use software correction, the Olys don't.

I like cameras, but it's the photography itself that fascinates me. DJTB's images reporting his cruise filled the purpose of augmenting his words and putting the audience there; the iPhone was the perfect tool for that casual use. Stuff like that is amazing, that people carry the tool with them and use it so casually.

Quote: Nareed

Can you spend the night and catch a different ship of the same line the next day, or a few days later, or catch the same ship on the way back? I'm 99.9% you can't, or not without cutting through a forest of red tape, or doing a quadruple backwards summersault forwards, and paying exhorbitant fees.

Back in the old days, when cruise ships were the way to get from point A to point B, yes. But nowadays, it's easier to fly. Therefore, if you're gonna cruise, then the intention is to make the best use of the ship. So it's a round trip, with all kinds of organized activities that weren't available in the "golden age of cruising."

There usually are multiple stops. The advantage is to visit a lot of places without having to pack and unpack at each stop.

For the record, if a single cruise has multiple stops, you are free to get off, and catch up with the cruise at a later stop. Hell, many people do that unintentionally. I.E. If you're not back at the specified sailing time, it doesn't wait. You have to find your own way to the next stop, and hope you don't have passport problems if you left it in the cabin. The exception is excursions arranged by the ship. Those the ship will wait for.

I assume that there are cruises that offer the option to be one-way, but that's not as popular. On the other hand, there are cruises specifically designed to be one-way. One example is cruises thru the Panama canal. You have the option of making it a round trip, but there are enough people that are relatively indifferent to the direction, and actually prefer to fly the other way to save time, that it works for the cruise line. But again, the point of that cruise is the cruise itself, not the final desitnation port.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

For the record, if a single cruise has multiple stops, you are free to get off, and catch up with the cruise at a later stop. Hell, many people do that unintentionally. I.E. If you're not back at the specified sailing time, it doesn't wait. You have to find your own way to the next stop, and hope you don't have passport problems if you left it in the cabin.

Oh, you could have worse problems than that. In some places getting to the next stop can be expensive and/or time-consuming. I don't know the itineraries, but I imagine in the Caribbean getting to the next island on the cruise could require a flight or another boat.

As for best use of the ship, thats' where I draw a blank. I've heard of cruises to nowhere, too, where the ship merely sails along for a few days and then gets back to port. I suppose these are great for people who never get off the ship. But, again, I fail to see any attraction.

I've been told to take one and see. Maybe so. But there's no way I'll spend a couple of thousand dollars in an uncertain vacation.

Quote: Mosca

Many point and shoot digital cameras have full manual mode, but not all of them. My opinion is that its usefulness is limited, because the sensors are so small. f/2.8 is like f/8 for depth of field on many of them. I get better shots from A or P (P is the same as A but with flash decided by the user).

I even rely on auto-focus now. Good thing I don't want to unfocus something these days for dramatic purposes.

Quote:

I like cameras, but it's the photography itself that fascinates me. DJTB's images reporting his cruise filled the purpose of augmenting his words and putting the audience there; the iPhone was the perfect tool for that casual use. Stuff like that is amazing, that people carry the tool with them and use it so casually.

Well, for something that prosaic, sure. But for something more momentous you need better quality. I've a couple of shots of a rainbow taken witha cell camera because that was all I had at the time. They're nice, but not good. Likewise a photo of the volcano outside Toluca, with a fresh peak full of snow. I could have used a real camera than.

I'll look through all my Vegas shots, which are the only ones I've readily available, and see which ones I can post here. I'm afraid I didn't get anything special or even really nice. The other day I found some old prints from an early 90s trip to Florida. I ahve a few of KSC that I might want to get scanned someday soon.

My wife has been yearning for a cruise for at least 15 years. I want to go on a cruise about like I want chemo. I hear you, Nareed, I hear you. But folks that like 'em, love 'em. So there's that.

Quote: Nareed

But for something more momentous you need better quality.

If it's that momentous then maybe it's worth the effort to learn the available tools in order to get the best quality possible.

Quote: Mosca

My wife has been yearning for a cruise for at least 15 years.

And why aren't you following orders, then? :)

Quote:

I want to go on a cruise about like I want chemo. I hear you, Nareed, I hear you. But folks that like 'em, love 'em. So there's that.

You should talk her into taking a girls-only cruise with her friends, if you sensibly insist in not taking one with her. but think about it long and hard before you do. I don't know your wife, after all, so the suggestion may simply make things worse.

Quote: Nareed

I even rely on auto-focus now. Good thing I don't want to unfocus something these days for dramatic purposes.



Well, for something that prosaic, sure. But for something more momentous you need better quality. I've a couple of shots of a rainbow taken witha cell camera because that was all I had at the time. They're nice, but not good. Likewise a photo of the volcano outside Toluca, with a fresh peak full of snow. I could have used a real camera than.

I'll look through all my Vegas shots, which are the only ones I've readily available, and see which ones I can post here. I'm afraid I didn't get anything special or even really nice. The other day I found some old prints from an early 90s trip to Florida. I ahve a few of KSC that I might want to get scanned someday soon.

Autofocus is so good now that the only reason to choose manual focus is because you WANT something out of focus.

I was using that as an example. I'm fascinated by the entire concept of photography, even more than I am by taking photographs. I'm fascinated by every aspect of it, even minutiae like the social meaning of carrying a DSLR into a Disney theme park. (You know me, I'm not interested in judging it, I'm only interested in understanding it, for the pure wonder of knowing things.) I've made some attempts to get decent "street photography" shots with my phone, here's one of the better attempts:



I have a saying: "You can go to the air show to see the air show, or you can go to the air show to get great photographs. Pick the one you want." If you want to see the show, you can still get good photos, but they won't be awesome. Similarly, you can go to the air show and get incredible photos... but you'll pretty much miss the show. I'm not saying there aren't people that can do both, but generally speaking, I think I'm on to something. Maximizing either requires some concentration and single-mindedness.

I'm constantly amazed by what people do with cameras.

Quote: Mosca

Autofocus is so good now that the only reason to choose manual focus is because you WANT something out of focus.

Sometimes you do. I realize now my contrail photos could ehv used less focus on the foreground subjects....

Quote:

I've made some attempts to get decent "street photography" shots with my phone, here's one of the better attempts:

That's pretty good. Just try not to get in trouble with unwilling subjects. The boy with the book on the right of the shot dosn't seem to want his picture taken.

Quote:

I have a saying: "You can go to the air show to see the air show, or you can go to the air show to get great photographs. Pick the one you want."

Absolutely. That's why I didn't even attempt to take pictures of the Great 1991 Total Solar Eclipse. If I had a chance at another eclipse, though, I would try to get a shot fo the corona. But of course that's very difficult even for the pros.