| Author | Message | ||
     Dino |
There I sat on a late fall Saturday afternoon, bored...what to do? I checked BadWeb only to find that my ol' buddy Ferris is still stuck on day thirteen of his epic ride to BRP and back. Man, I was going thru withdrawal. How, I wondered, am I going to make it thru winter without riding when Ferris won't even distract me with tales of far off places and people who speak with funny accents? Suddenly, it came to me! "Wait", I thought, "this is California...I can ride all year long! I don't have to sit around and wait for Ferris to finally deliver another day of moto madness from back east!" Ok, I freely admit I don't live next to the lusciously beautiful Blue Ridge Parkway...but I can damn well get off my butt and go ride! We Californians make do with what we have on hand. My path decided, I went out to the garage and pulled the cover off a scoot, warmed it up and left for a hundred mile loop thru the surrounding countryside. Now, in the spirit of wordlessness, I present without further commentary a very brief photo record of the kind of thing we Californians are stuck with as scenic backdrop to our rides.   (Message edited by dino on November 07, 2004) | ||
| Dino |
   I hope you enjoyed the ride as much as I did! (Message edited by dino on November 07, 2004) | ||
| Gschuette |
Very nice pictures, I bet you have a ball riding in an area like that. | ||
| Dino |
Thanks. As I said, we make do. Don't tell anyone, but we're trying to lure Court back out to the left coast for some ridin' with some eye candy of sorts.  | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
Dino, what are you using for a camera? Maybe we can start getting some of you guys with really good talent to toss up photo info so those of us aspiring to be as good have an idea of what we need or what settings we should be playing with  | ||
| Dino |
Wycked: The camera is just a little 3.2MP Olympus D-540. I just bought it for use at work a month or so ago at Office Max for $149. The photos are downsized and compressed on the xat.com JPEG optimizer. However, I'm planning to pick up a new camera soon specifically for packing along on the bike. My primary requirements are compact size and high enough resolution to print at least 11x14 with good results and, of course, low cost. Leading the pack at the moment is the Sony DSC-W1 which can shoot at 5 megapixels. You can get higher MP compact cameras, but not at the $300 you can get a W1 for. A great resource for digital camera info is www.dcresource.com dino | ||
| Denisea |
Dino, Wow is an understatement. Thanks for reminding us what's at the end of our driveway.  Court, you taking notes here? D | ||
| Court |
>>>Court, you taking notes here? D, Indeed I am. Porterville is one of the most gorgeous places I have never been 4 times. The force is growing powerful. Note: I got an e-mail from Mac, who moved from Austria to Swaziland, and was watching our old "Where is Court?" video. Those were the days, eh?...you and I are REAL old timers. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
Dino, you make me proud. very nice, my friend. you DO know, don't you, that i still have yet to do Yosemite? something tells me, well, that the force IS growing stronger. Wycked, i'm using a 2.1MP Nikon (Coolpix 2100) that i paid a whopping $150 for. i'm afraid my matching black-body Olympus OM-101 35-mm film cameras are destined to become extinct. Dino, i'm wordless. Ferris | ||
| Court |
>>>film cameras are destined to become extinct I see film cameras as a problem akin to my slide rules from school. Ya can't throw them away, they still work precisely as intended and they are darn near worthless. I have a collection of nice black bodied cameras sitting here and some dandy lens (one very expensive macro bought for shooting Henrik's swingarm when Buell sent me to NYC to look at it) and have nothing to do with them. I, for one, refuse to sell them, continue to shoot with them and try to convince myself I can make them work right. To date I have yet to leave auto mode. | ||
| Firemanjim |
How long have you been in CA now and its just up the road(sorta) and you have not been to Yosemite???Jeez. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Don't put too much weight on pixel count without considering optics and the rest of the camera. 3.2mega pixels asks a lot of optics already. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
FMJ, i made myself a promise several years ago that i would do Yosemite on my own terms and "correctly", which to me means more than a brief afternoon visit, and during the "off" season so i don't have to share with anyone. i WILL get up there, and don't think for a minute that i don't fantasize about the ride. but, so far, i haven't been able to do so on my own terms. Court, slide rules? when i went to school we were still using an abacus! | ||
| Blake |
Dino, Your photos are wonderful. Actually got chills looking at the 2nd one. Really really outstanding. I wouldn't hesitate to print those up and hang 'em on the wall. Thanks for sharing! | ||
| Dino |
Blake, Denise, Ferris et al...thanks much for your kind words. Very glad you enjoyed them. Court...I cheated a little. This loop is from our 2nd home in Mariposa...though Yosemite is within pretty easy reach of P'ville also. Later today, when I'm back in P'ville, I'll post a photo I took last weekend while on a ride in the hills above P'ville. Reepicheep-I couldn't agree more. Optics are critical, as is the sensor. Frankly, I wonder if the latest high pixel count (8MP) compacts aren't packing more pixels into those little sensors than is optimal. The digital single lens reflexes (D-SLRs) use larger sensors, but they are not exactly compact. Back on optics...Sony uses Zeiss optics in at least some of its cameras, Panasonic uses Leica, Nikon uses, ummm, Nikon...etc. Here are a couple more views of yesterday's scenery.    | ||
| Dino |
"during the "off" season so i don't have to share with anyone. " FB - In Yosemite, there ain't no such season. While riding into the valley yesterday I was remembering how awesome the sequoias looked on our Oktoberfast ride. Well, riding beneath these granite monoliths is at least an order of magnitude more awesome. No photo I've every taken could come close to preparing you for the experience. If you come to photograph it, bring a wide angle lens. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
hey pal, i'm trying to work here, so knock it off! | ||
| Davegess |
Nice pix. The biggest thing in taking good pictures is the photographer. A top notch pro will shoot better pictures with a pinhole camera than most of us could get with a top of the line pro camera. One of the local newsa guy covered some of the campaign stops heres with a cheap chinese 2 1/4 camera that has two f stops and a handful of shutter speeds. They puplished some very nice pictures that he got. Pros often refer to "making" pictures not taking pictures because of the work involved. Film camera will not go completly extinct but the uses will be specialised. The high end 35mm digitals have finally gone to a chip that covers a full 35mm frame (so I have been told) so a wide angle lens will now work properly. For really exacting work involving much detail, very high resolution and reproduction to photographic paper film is still the way to go but every day digital gets better. Me I have a couple of OM4 Olympus bodies and a pile of fast lenses so I am stuck with film for a while. Olympus will not make a digital to take my lenses so baring a winning lottery ticket I am shooting film. Fortunatly I have a very nice film scanner so I can easily convert film to digital. And a very nice flat bed so prints are a snap also. Besides film is cheap, particularly if you on get is processed not printed. I can shoot a lot of film for the cost of even medium priced digital and when you start talking interchangable lenses... | ||
| Dino |
Wycked - Back to digital cameras/photography for the ride. I'm have absolutely no doubt that there are others on BadWeb that know a lot more about the subject than I...but that won't stop me from spouting off...so here goes. Resolution: I agree with reep's post above that pixel count can be overrated. And, again, unless you plan to do large prints for serious display, there's no reason to go there. Get a 2 or 3MP, put in a really large digital memory card (256 or 512mb, even larger in some formats!) and shoot all month. At 8.5x11 print size, the extent that you will even notice any difference in resolution depends on the amount of fine detail in the subject. Optics: Go to www.dcresource.com, pull up a review of a camera you're interested in, find the "gallery" link and check out the full size images produced by that model. The text in the reviews will tell you what the reviewer thought of the camera's image quality vs. other comparable models. Camera Size: I would prefer a larger size for a more comfortable hold, but a comfortable hold doesn't do much for me if I'm too lazy to dig a larger camera out of the luggage. For moto purposes I prefer a small and slim camera that can slip easily into my jacket pocket. Image Stabilization: Until recently image stabilization has only been found on a few super zoom (10-12x optical zoom) cameras. Now there is the Panasonic DMC-FX7. It's a very compact camera with a Leica lens w/ 3x optical zoom and image stabilization. I haven't looked into this camera in detail, but I think that this feature has great potential for riders who want to take high quality images, hand-held. Image stabilization is the next best thing to a tripod...and who wants to carry a tripod on their bike?! "My Favorite Mode" - Many of the new cameras have the annoying habit of resetting to the default settings when turned off and back on again. That mean that each time I turn on the camera I've got to set the resolution back to high, the flash off, the LCD screen off, etc...or whatever other settings I may happen to prefer for the type of shooting I'm doing. A "favorite settings" mode allows you to set the camera up to do what you want it to do. Zoom: Turn off the digital zoom, it "zooms" by cropping your image, and your resolution with it. If that's what you want to do, you can do it later with your digital image software. Get an optical zoom that goes down to a least 28mm (35mm camera equivalent) for scenic work. The super zooms are great if you want to shoot races, etc. Even then you may need a model that accepts tele-extenders. In that case image stabilization is a must. At Oktoberfast I looked at Ebear's Canon S1 IS with 10x optical (if I recall correctly), image stabilization and the ability to accept lens extensions. A great 3.2MP camera in a very compact package. Not a really slim compact, however. Tripods - Tripods are great for the ultimate in image quality, if you're willing to carry and use one. Probably only if photography is a/the major reason for the ride that day. Another thought is a monopod...also functions as a walking stick. Imaging Software: Depending on how serious you are about your photography, you may need something more than what comes with the camera. If dollars are unlimited there's Adobe Photoshop. For the rest of us there is Adobe Photoshop Elements, JASC Paintshop Pro, etc. You do need these if you want to do the kind of things you can do to an image in a traditional darkroom. And you'd be amazed at the extent that you can improve the crappy photo you took while snapping away out on the road. BTW, the latest versions of the Camedia software that comes with Olympus cameras is pretty good for a freebie. Coolness Factor: If coolness is your main criteria, forget all this garbage. Slap down your plastic and buy an Olympus Ferrari 2004 (not the 2003)digicam. It's Ferrari red, says Ferrari on the front, opens to an image of a Ferrari F1 car on the LCD screen and the sound on a revving Ferrari engine! Image quality? I dunno, who cares! Photo Hints: For exceptional photos you need a discerning eye, like that of my friend Mr. Ferris, and good light. Early morning and late afternoon are usually best for shooting. Midday light generally sucks. Take a look at this photo, it is of one of the ugliest lakes in the state of California. Shot at the right time of day (by my wife) stitched together from three images, cropped, chopped and photoshopped...it looks kinda nice!  Yep, just like me, this lake looks alot better when the lights are low. Okay, now I hope that those of you with more knowledge/experience in digital photography than I have will chime in and give us your thoughts. And, please, feel free to disagree with any/all of the info in this post if you're so inclined! Ebear, are you lurking? I know you are a font of knowledge on this subject! | ||
| Dino |
Thanks to davegess for the excellent post on film v. digital. Dave, if you haven't, you should see prints made on the Epson 9600 (33" wide carriage, pigment ink, archival) from drum scans of 4x5 transparencies. Yikes! Not a moto friendly format though.  | ||
| Davegess |
Dino check out http://www.davegess.com/buelhist/rw750/RW75CHS.htm Shot on 100 ASA 4x5 color neg. Can't remember what type. The lens was a Nikkor, perhaps not the finest view camera lens but not bad. The file size for the digital image is about 150 MB. The detail on the print is amazing but still not as good as what the one I did conventially when I shot this had. If you really want to see incrediable detail, tonal range and just overall sweet looking you need to see one of the 20x24 prints from the early geographic survey expeditions to the american west. They are CONTACT prints, the glass plate is 20x24 inches. What would beat that but I have never actually seen them would be the 20x24 polaroids used to shoot the Sistine Chapel. Yes a 20"x24" polaroid picture. The chapel was shoot actual size with this before they began the restoration, just in case something horrible happened. It requires a motorised processing machine and a polariod tech to actually operate it. The film can produce resolution better than most lenses can deliver. There is no grain. The tonal range (I think this is called color depth in the digital world) is supposed to be breathtaking. To bad polaroid is collapsing because the only way this thing could be used was as apromotion for the company. It will be a long time before you get to this level with digital, mostly because you have no need for it. | ||
| Bigdaddy |
I have not one artistic gene in my entire body. You guys make me so jealous. I have pictures like that, but they're only my mind. If I only had the talent, and yes it's talent or maybe a gift, to record my adventures. My pics suck, just totally suck. So, can one of you lay out some basics? | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
My "outfit" includes, Canon Digital Rebal with a 256mg card, with the stock 18-55mm lens, 75-300mm lens. Olympus OM-10 with a good selection of lenses and my newest "toy" a Kiev88 medium format camera. I do have a tripod but its bulky for taking with so I am in the market as they say. Adding to the resolution comments above with the digital, for detail work I set the camera at the highest or RAW depending on if tis manual settings or the "stock" settings. Otherwise I use the medium resolution and can pull down over 110 pics on the card. For editing I use and am extremely happy with Photoshop Elements. I bought it when I was just using my film camera and scanning the negatives in off my scanner Epson Photoscan 1660. I need to get the negative plate for my medium format negatives. I stumbled into my Canon, I was looking at a Powershot when I entered in the drawing and ended up winning. Its alot of fun for me, and its becoming a great excuse to just run off and ride. The Kiev has been the most fun as its the hardest to actually use well. For my question above though it wasn't just aimed at myself, but I know alot of people on the boards enjoy the phenominal pics and are curious about how you guys got the pics. I agree it is an eye, and mine is slowly coming along. | ||
| Davegess |
Bid Daddy, I have a theory that visual awareness is established early. Not talent or understanding composition but just SEEING. When I taugth my class we would go out for a walk in the run down industrial area the schools was next too and not more than 1 or 2 poeple would actually see any interesting pictures as we walked around. After pointing our things and ways to see things most "got it" Every semester there where one or two who never got it. They tried hard, tried all the techniques but never actually SAW the piture so they could not take it. If you can see it than it all techniques to get on film. First thing I do is tell students look at pictures and other art. Look all the time, everywhere. Think about how the artist used TEXTURE, DETAIL, PATTERNS, MOTION, FRAMES, NEAR THINGS AND FAR THINGS, LIGHT to make the picture. Ask yourself why is it interesting? Which way is the light coming from? What is the light angle? What is in focus, out of focus. Where is the center of interest? READ SOME BASIC STUFF ON COMPOSITION. Just know how a few simple composition techniques work will greatly improve your pictures. Stuff like framing, s-curves, the rule of thirds, diagonal lines. Go out in the hour after sunrise or before sunset and LOOK at how stuff looks, then shoot anything the sun touches. Photogs call this the GOLDEN HOUR, In the summer time it might last two hours. Around Jan uay 21st up here the light is interesting all day but the color is very cool, all blue and gray so color photos are often hard to take but is nice for balck and white. AND AGAIN LOOK AT VERY PICTURE YOU SEE. Remember the local news photographer got the job becasue they take good pictues. the same is true for all your magazines, advertisements etc. Some of the nicest photography you will ever see is the Marbore ads. Much as I don't like promoting smoking those things, particularly the older ones are great. The fellow who shoot them was famous. | ||
| Denisea |
FMJ, NEXT time through Yosemite will do it the justice it deserves... Court, Forgave you the first time, AND the second time "old" was as an adjective in the same sentence as "you and I", third time.... well Blake, there is just not a smiley -- or otherwise for it... rest assured my dear friend, OLD, we are NOT. !! | ||
| Dino |
Dave G. - Checked out the Buell photo...very cool! I bought a 4x5 Crown Graphic years ago when I was doing medium format with the thought of giving 4x5 a try, but never used it because I didn't have a 4x5 enlarger. I got it out a couple of weeks ago with the thought of using it and scanning the negatives. I found that one of the focusing panel release arms is cracked. Guess I'll be looking for parts! I have a vague recollection of the Sistine Chapel Project. I also remember Polaroid making such a camera (with attendant) available to a few artists back in the 80s. I was thinking that the camera used in those projects was 16x20. Awesome, beautiful photographs. I never saw an original...but the reproductions I saw were unbelievable. BTW, it's my understanding that the currently available large format digital backs require loooong exposures. Doesn't matter...I'd could never bring myself to spend that much anyway! | ||
| Dino |
Wycked - You won a Digital Rebel in a drawing?!? Man, I just don't live right! As I said above, I'm thinking buying a higher res compact camera for moto and all around use for the next year or two. Hopefully by that time I'll have time to play with photography a little more seriously and I take look at what's available at the higher end. I saw a review on the Kiev recently. The lens they tested was rated as excellent a mid to small apperatures...pretty much all I used in medium format anyway. That's the kind of camera to learn photography on! I've got a couple of Mamiya twin lens reflex bodies a few lenses in my safe that haven't seen action in years. Now with scanners and inkjet photo printers...maybe it's time! | ||
| Dino |
Court - Okay here's the photo from last weekend's ride up the mountain from Porterville...  | ||
| Dino |
Big Daddy - What Davegess said! I agree with him 100%. First you've got to pick out an image that works in 2D from your surroundings. They say that in real estate it is location, location, location. In photography it is light, light, light. You've got to experiment to see how light and shadow work to create a powerful image and then hope you have the eye to compose the shot. I haven't taught, but it seems to me that if you know good composition when you see it in the work of others, you'll know it when you see it in a viewfinder. After that it's technique to capture the shot, process and print the image. All challenging, but not worth much if you don't learn pick out the shot from your surroundings to begin with. I learned what little I know of technique with film cameras. Now I've got to start all over again with digital! I think I'm gonna love it! | ||
| Henrik |
Dino; thanks for the wonderful picture - I'm not jealous - really - I'm not. Another good place for digital camera info is http://www.dpreview.com Very detailed reviews. I too have a bag full of Olympus goodies, but no digital cam to fit them to. But I'm slowly learning, that a camera only takes pictures when I bring it along  and my illusions of myself as master photographer are fading (therapy, don't ya' know), so for me something small and portable, with really good lens, and a good range for manual features for those special situations are primary requirements. I've been looking for a new digital camera since I lost my old Nikon Coolpix 995. Currently, Nikon is not making anything that strikes a chord with me. The new Canons however .... I've been eyeing the PowerShot G6 or for less $$ and almost all the features and quality the PowerShot A95. Large LCD screen, great photo processing, optics that fit the CCD well etc. For me, both seem like a good combination of features, quality and size/portability. For even better portability the PowerShot S400/S500 are great cameras in a well developed line. Their replacements, the PowerShot SD200/SD300, are tiny (almost too small for my hands) and supposedly shoot decent photos, but unfortunately the tiny lens compromises quality a bit when pressed to the extreme. Tripods: I always carry a tiny ~5" long tripod on longer trips. It's the size and weight of say, 3 pencils, and makes it possible to set up the camera for longer exposures. And makes it possible for me to get in the picture occasionally as well I can't remember the name of my tripod, but it's the same general idea as the Ultrapod Henrik |
