|
|
|
Peter Daniel
{K:33866} 8/4/2005
|
Wonderful Hibiscus Photograph Roger, Great colors, clarity and Composition.
Thanks for sharing?
GOD Bless?
Your friend, Peter
|
|
|
|
|
Ellen Smith
{K:14418} 8/4/2005
|
完全 no more no less just perfect.
Best wishes,
Ellen
|
|
|
|
Mary Brown
{K:69853} 8/4/2005
|
Beautifully taken, Roger.
Mary
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:84106} 8/4/2005
|
Thanks Ellen. I think I'm getting the hang of it! This one's nice and sharp, anyway... Thanks for your help and encouragement along the way. My enjoyment has expanded considerably thanks to you and a few others! PS I get some mysterious numbers and symbols as the first two characters of your comment. What do they mean?
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Spracklen
{K:32552} 8/4/2005
|
Your best yet in my opinion, Roger!
Beautifully sharp and very 'natural looking'.
Best regards, Chris
|
|
|
|
|
Margaret Sturgess
{K:49403} 8/4/2005
|
Roger It is lovely the colour is lovely and so is the texture on the petals, a nice composition - and macro ....
Margaret
|
|
|
|
|
Len Webster
{K:24697} 8/4/2005
|
Excellent shot. The detail is there, including the water droplets on the petals and leaves.
|
|
|
|
|
Ellen Smith
{K:14418} 8/4/2005
|
Dang it I was trying to be clever. It was supposed to be the Japanese symbols for perfect.
I don't remember if you said you had tried a D70 or not, well any digital SLR really? I don't know cameras from your perspective with all the numbers and fine adjustments, and frankly that's one of the reasons I shied away from SLRs. The other reason is the wait and then the disappointment factor, it was just time and cost prohibitive. Now having one I'm still frustrated with the numbers BUT I am determined to learn it and prove to myself I can.
The point being I think these cameras are right up your alley, you just don't have to wait for the payoff.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:84106} 8/4/2005
|
Thanks, Ellen. It's odd how different things look approached from opposite directions. I think of manual cameras as essentially very simple, and DSLRs as immensely complicated, overpriced, and with a host of automatic features that get in the way of the creative process. I took this flower on the way to work and had it scanned over lunch time. Not really such a wait. But I'm sure you'll enjoy (D)SLRs and take to them like a duck to water...
|
|
|
|
|
Ellen Smith
{K:14418} 8/4/2005
|
You've made me curios, what do you mean scanned obviously it doesn't mean what I think it does. Don't you have to shoot a whole roll and then turn it in to be developed?
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:84106} 8/4/2005
|
Ellen, that flower happened to be the last shot on the cassette. I dropped it off at the DPE place on the way into the office and picked it up at lunchtime. They'll do it all in 45 minutes if I'm in a hurry, but yes, I do have to wait until there's a whole roll to develop. I get the development and scanning to CD-ROM done at the same time. Costs about US$8. I can buy an AWFUL LOT of film, and pay for its development and scanning, for the difference between the price of a film camera and an otherwise similar digital camera, not to mention the cost of the ScanDisk memory (which certainly isn't free!). With digital, you pay all the costs up front. I can spread mine out over time... eventually, of course, digital comes out ahead--provided the camera is still working in however many years it takes to break even. (I'm not trying to convert anyone to my views, Ellen, just making the point that the decision is not quite as one-sided as some people would have you think.)
|
|
|
|
|
Ellen Smith
{K:14418} 8/4/2005
|
Ah it becomes clear now...lol I also was not trying to convert. What I know about cameras of any kind is negligible compared to you. My knowledge of standard cameras is from the dark ages so I didn't know if they had done something new. I would love to have the knowledge of both genres but I can only ask for so much. lol
Thanks for the chat Roger.
|
|
