Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Olympus

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 9, 2002, 1:54 PM   #71
Senior Member
 
fenlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 251
Default

For those with quite a lot of patience, I've just posted some panoramas of the Deserts and Canyons trip.

Before leaving, I pano-enabled all my Smartmedia cards. The camera's pano function is very helpful in aligning the frames when you shoot a pano, but I wasn't very impressed with the stitching abilities of Camedia Master 4, so I used Panorama Factory to join them together. The most ambitious of the three is the shot of Monument Valley at dawn: this comprises 8 frames. All the pictures were hand-held.

The shots range from 1 to 1.4Mb at "original" size. Before downsizing they were up to 20Mb. So, if you're on a dialup connection you might want to look at something else...

http://www.pbase.com/madagascar_azm/panoramas_1

fenlander

Thanks to everyone for the appreciative comments about the previous posting. You do see why I've been a little sceptical about the focusing problems described in some reports? The pics really were taken with a C4000.
fenlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2002, 6:50 PM   #72
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3
Default

david and marcoangels,maybe what is required is two cameras,a canon g2/g3 for scenics and a c4000 for the closer photos. the 4000 takes beautiful crisp images of the frame filling subjects,ie people,inside shots,cars etc.,while the canon takes beautiful outdoor scenes that have the farther away scenic images sharp and not blurry. I know that it is hard to look at the images that fenlander produces and come to the conclusion that I have, but not all of us are masters of the photo editing software as he is,nor do we have the stunning subject matter that he is using for his examples.
I like the way that the olympus produces the portraits of people much better that the canon,but I like the way that the canon produces the scenic pictures much better than the olympus,so that is why I say, get them both. It may be less money than a nikon or canon digital slr.
Bluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2002, 4:33 AM   #73
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 20
Default

Fenlander your images are truly outstanding. The West never looked better. I just put up some pics that were all shot in P mode - we had just bought the 4000 and were pushing the kids in strollers. Resampled at 800 x 600.
http://www.pbase.com/bribourbon/balloons
Brian_T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2002, 4:57 AM   #74
Senior Member
 
marcoangels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 243
Default

Brian, your posts show me again that I must have a defective C-4000...Johnny
marcoangels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2002, 10:21 AM   #75
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 107
Default

The quality of images posted are superb the amount of light you have is envied Iam posting some images from a rather wintry gloomy Glasgow.As a n elderly novice it is maybe to draw some comments on the camera as opposed to the subjects and build confidence in its ability http://uk.photos.yahoo.com/bc/jerry8...src=ph&.view=t
jasm
jasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2002, 12:35 PM   #76
Senior Member
 
fenlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 251
Default

Brian - I love the balloons - the tie-dyes, especially. I went up in one once, but the weather failed us - we did a five minute hop followed by a heavy landing on a cow and the traditional bottle of champagne. (The cow was unharmed.)

Jasm - I know what you mean about the light. I was lucky enough to go on holiday in Utah and points west, but I live in the same wet grey place you do (well, almost - Glasgow's probably a little wetter and a little darker even than Cambridge). Still, there are some great views on the Clyde when the sun comes out. The camera seems to be doing an excellent job, though the pics on Yahoo are a little small to do it justice. I can see a medium-sized view but not full size (whatever full-size it was you posted): am I missing something?

fenlander
fenlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2002, 12:37 PM   #77
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 20
Default

Jasm you asked for "comments on the camera”. IMHO, the 4000 reliably captures high quality reproducible imaging data. Environmental variables are the biggest factors that effect the look of images. I believe that most consumer digital cameras struggle to deal with the issue of noise, which ruins many pictures. Also, technique does play a role.

I think that the lens on the 4000 is good. It's produces lively vivid images that are difficult to create in lower MP cameras (two MP or less). I owned a 2mp Fuji and it could not capture images like this camera. I've been impressed with the camera's color reproduction, it is very accurate. To me the main issues to deal with when creating an image (besides composition) are contrast, color, noise, and sharpness. The 4000 let's you play around with this in-camera.

I do think that it is true that without post processing your failure rate (% of unsatisfactory images) will be large. This I believe is inherent in digital photography. I'm of the school of thought that digital photography and post processing go hand-in-hand. Without post processing you will take decent shots and a few jewels. However, with post processing so many of your pictures can be tweaked to reach their potential. I go through a huge litany of steps that would bore you to tears in PS when processing an image. I'm just a novice but I realized early on that for digital imaging, post processing is necessary. There is a lot of software out there cheaper then PS that can aid in this. Well, this has been a long post - my main point is that the 4000 does capture imaging data really well. It just might not be obvious until you extract it.
Brian_T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2002, 3:27 PM   #78
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 107
Default

Fenlander
I reduced images by software 800x600 I thought that was the sort of norm .I am trying to gain late control of camera and really crave learning input from those skilled in this art.
jasm
jasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2002, 3:28 PM   #79
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 107
Default

Fenlander
I reduced images by software 800x600 I thought that was the sort of norm .I am trying to gain late control of camera and really crave learning input from those skilled in this art.
jasm
jasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2002, 5:13 PM   #80
Senior Member
 
fenlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 251
Default

jasm,

800x600 is a good size for display on the web. However, according to the caption Yahoo is adding to your photos, they appear to be displayed at 400x300. It may be that Yahoo does this in order to limit the bandwidth used by visitors.

A lot of people find that pBase is a good site on which to display photos. While it offers the option of viewing pics at smaller sizes, the full-size posting is always available. There has been some talk of pBase making a charge, but my account there still seems to be free. You might like to check it out.

fenlander.
fenlander is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:46 AM.