photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
mike savad | profile | guestbook | all galleries | recent
Type your message and click Add Comment
It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest.
Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help private comment
Andrew 18-Nov-2006 13:39
Wonderful and informative web site.I used information from that site its great.
Anna 25-Aug-2006 13:00
Very nice site!
mlm 16-Jul-2006 00:53
Cool design. debt cosolidation
Jason 15-Jul-2006 17:57
Keep up the good work
Amanda 14-Jul-2006 02:27
What a great site
fwsfc0a@yahoo.com 13-Apr-2006 19:51
online directory main
mary 30-Sep-2005 14:13
i need valid cc with the billing address
mike 20-Aug-2003 19:20
you've posted a picture of agecroft hall on photosig. I'm not a member of photosig of any description.
Since I'm from manchester england the photo interested me; I know agecroft. Thought you might be interested in this link;

http://www.lancshalls.co.uk/Bury/agecrofthall.htm
Patrick Burrows 02-Oct-2002 22:18
Mike,

With your permission, I'd like to incorporate your photograph "Time Stands Still" http://www.pbase.com/image/5149394) into the design of my website. It is a personal website and completely uncommercial (well... other than to tell everyone how wonderful I am... perhaps someone will give me money for that... though, despite how much I may think that is a wonderful idea and a great use of excess cash, it does seems rather unlikely). ... where was I? ....

...

... oh yeah! With your permissions I would like to use that photograph on my home page. I will give you all sorts of wicked credit and post include links back to your site if that's the sort of thing you want.
ctfchallenge 21-Sep-2002 23:45
the hoya filter is the hoya filter. R72 i think. you should be able to get it at almost any photo store. you just need to make sure your camera is sensitive to IR. holding a TV remote in front of the lens and pushing the button, you should see a bluish light. if you do then you can see IR. if not, then you can't, and don't bother with the filter. then all you need is a steady hand, or surface. and shoot away.


---Mike Savad
Scott Runcorn 19-Sep-2002 18:37
Hello Mr. Savad,

I saw your submission to the Water Challenge #15 and your comments mentioned that you used a "Hoya IR filter". I liked the picture itself very much and I especially liked the IR effect. Could you please provide more information on the filter, because I would like to get one and experiment with IR photography and my G2.

Thank you for your time.

scottr
Michele 19-Sep-2002 18:31
Hi Mike, Great photo's. I am glad you sent me the link. I especially like your macro's of the critters.
Michele P

My albums are here too, www.pbase.com/michelep
mike savad 24-Jun-2002 23:55
oh lord dan. you have got to get off of whatever your on.

you won't ever win, don't be silly. this is also not a contest, and never was. a contest is where you win something, you don't win anything here. saying that iso is important to winning, is to say that because my car is RED it will go fast (as opposed to a yellow car). all quite silly. no one cares about the iso speed. no one cares what the setup was. the only people care about is a good picture. that's it. of course you have no chance of winning at all - so much so that you already admited defeat by pulling your pictures out.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 24-Jun-2002 22:12
So, NOW you want the names to be left with the picture in the challenge huh? It really only shows to me that you, as well as the rest of them that have posted so far, are chicken to have a legitimate contest. Mark my word--a consumer camera will do well in this contest for the very first time--probably even win. I won't enter the contest until or unless they make the changes I recommended--and I will guarantee a win by me in both galleries. I'll just enter 6 ISO 50 shots--piece of cake. I would even go so far as to say that at least 4 out of 6 of my pictures would place--maybe even 6 out of 6. Your fear of that happening couldn't be more obvious. Hahahaha you chickens have come up with more excuses than I could have ever imagined hehehe keep it up please. The pettiness continues unabated--and it is rather funny--a stupid kind of funny, but funny nonetheless. I have shined the light of truth--and all of you all scatter like cockroaches from it. How can you prove me wrong? You can't. The truth IS the truth hahaha.
mike savad 24-Jun-2002 20:05
The My Leonardo that I put on photosig was downsized and it suffered greatly on accont of it.

**don't give me that dan. look at the size of my pictures, they are all plenty big, because i pre-planned the size. in fact photosig will re-size it if it's too big, so go ahead and upload. the small pictures you see are scanned prints. the total pixel dimension is 640,000 if your picture was at 100% that's roughly 45% of it's size, but you'll have to calcuate if it was cropped.

I didn't realize until you mentioned it that I could have kept it at its original size, as I have it cropped and displayed in the Exhibition gallery. Even still, I have no respect whatsoever for most of the reviewing I have seen on photosig

**i don't see why. they all seemed to agree with the picture. you have to try uploading different things to them. abstract is defined as an object that you may see every day, broken down into shape, color and angle. they frown on anything that was chopped up in photoshop, because this board is only photos. they don't want to see heavy manipulation. just good photo's. some of the people have valid points other's may not, or they may see it from their own point of view.

--I think you know that well enough already. Although it may be hard for me to tell what the exact ISO of a photo is, I can tell if it was taken at a very low compared to a very high ISO most of the time--but not all of course.

**problem is dan, is that alot of the pictures on photosig were not digital cameras. alot of them are taken with film, and alot don't mention the iso. high iso is used only under certain circumstanses. you can't tell just by looking. just like you can't tell what kind a house a person is living in, just by the way he is dressed.

Take that picture of Trees in the Park--look at the trees--it was done in ISO 50 obviously. ISO 50 either dulls the colors, as it did in that picture--or makes them very bold--and even dark. There was no good play on light with the squirrel picture--but I gave it 3 thumbs up.

**not all pictures require a play on light. the fact that it was a living squirrel and it was that close, it doesn't matter what the light is. as long as you get the shot, that's what's important. more so, when on vacation, most people, such as myself, only have a time frame of about a minute, to take a picture. i don't have the luxary of moving people around, pulling weeds, or adjusting the sun.

I think the photographer got pretty much exactly what he/she wanted--that is very important in my view point--but it isn't everything of course.

Your shell picture has some weaknesses too--that I am sure you did not intend. The mother of pearl coating on a couple of the shells is barely visable

**that's how the shell looks. and to mention that mother of pearl is very difficult to capture on a still image. much like getting the radiance of a diamond. something need a certain type of light. but the smaller shells had a very smooth thin coating, and that's what the shell looked like, simple as that.

---the largest shell's interior is very hard to make out--I can't make it out--and the shells in the immediate foreground did not come in very well focused. The mother-of-pearl is a major weakness though. You could have selected it and got it to come out better w/o affecting the rest of your picture. But the picture overall doesn't have the weakness of the other pictures you entered--I won't go into all of that--just try leaving your blur tools behind for a change.

**mother of pearl doesn't have a sharpness. it's all subtle. everything behind the shell is sharp. the pearl doesn't have a sharpness ability. the inside of the main shell is exactly how you see it. a weird textured lumpy pearly look. the shell is about 6" across. selecting one thing and not another never works quite as well, as one would hope. because then it looks sharpened in one area only.

You comment about me not taking the track pictures from the infield I agree with. I am going to a meet to the same place this coming weekend (Wittenberg) and I hope to do a lot lot better. I had already decided that infield pictures were out. I may drop to ISO 200 or lower because of the grass--I'm very undecided about that though. I need to practice a lot before the meet on working with my manual focus. I will not be using my LCD screen this time--for the most part. Any other suggestions here? I know you have no experience with these type of shots, but maybe you can see something that I haven't. At the state meet at Welcome Stadium, it was a no brainer-set the ISO at 400 and ev at 0 and shot away. The Wittenberg stadium is much harder--too much grass bg--and Canon does not do well with grass like Olympus does.

**never had a problem with grass. as for tips, it's best to look it up online. follow what the pro's do and where they stand. if it's a bright sunny day, use spot focus, and perferable a lower iso. it's not just the dots but the amount of extra light coming in. watch the background and try to stay at an eye level with the people. if the crowd is in the picture, then the crowd should be looking in the direction your camera is pointing. place yourself, perfably on a monopod or a tripod, at the end of the track, provided your allowed. shoot down the length giving you enough time to focus, and compose. watch the background for wires, big fat running coaches, etc. keep the white balance on auto. clouds may be out, and keeping it set to sun or clouds may color the picture.

**not all the pictures need to be sharp as a tack in the back. try slowing down the shutter, and get motion blur. where the runner is clear and the background blurred (like a racecar). make sure the lens is clean, very important for focusing. extra batteries and storage and take lot's of pictures, perferably on continous shutter mode. this way you may get a picture you like better. keep it on the fullest finest detail. but mostly watch the pro's and talk to them, maybe they can give more info.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 24-Jun-2002 18:53
The My Leonardo that I put on photosig was downsized and it suffered greatly on accont of it. I didn't realize until you mentioned it that I could have kept it at its original size, as I have it cropped and displayed in the Exhibition gallery. Even still, I have no respect whatsoever for most of the reviewing I have seen on photosig--I think you know that well enough already. Although it may be hard for me to tell what the exact ISO of a photo is, I can tell if it was taken at a very low compared to a very high ISO most of the time--but not all of course. Take that picture of Trees in the Park--look at the trees--it was done in ISO 50 obviously. ISO 50 either dulls the colors, as it did in that picture--or makes them very bold--and even dark. There was no good play on light with the squirrel picture--but I gave it 3 thumbs up. I think the photographer got pretty much exactly what he/she wanted--that is very important in my view point--but it isn't everything of course.

Your shell picture has some weaknesses too--that I am sure you did not intend. The mother of pearl coating on a couple of the shells is barely visable---the largest shell's interior is very hard to make out--I can't make it out--and the shells in the immediate foreground did not come in very well focused. The mother-of-pearl is a major weakness though. You could have selected it and got it to come out better w/o affecting the rest of your picture. But the picture overall doesn't have the weakness of the other pictures you entered--I won't go into all of that--just try leaving your blur tools behind for a change.

You comment about me not taking the track pictures from the infield I agree with. I am going to a meet to the same place this coming weekend (Wittenberg) and I hope to do a lot lot better. I had already decided that infield pictures were out. I may drop to ISO 200 or lower because of the grass--I'm very undecided about that though. I need to practice a lot before the meet on working with my manual focus. I will not be using my LCD screen this time--for the most part. Any other suggestions here? I know you have no experience with these type of shots, but maybe you can see something that I haven't. At the state meet at Welcome Stadium, it was a no brainer-set the ISO at 400 and ev at 0 and shot away. The Wittenberg stadium is much harder--too much grass bg--and Canon does not do well with grass like Olympus does.
mike savad 24-Jun-2002 13:43
Mike, you didn't just validate what I said about not having the names posted with the pictures--but you validated everything else I said about the extreme level of petiness by calling all my pictures dull.

**dan they are dull. you are announcing your pettiness by mentioning that names are all that count. and even going as far as claiming that you would win every time if the names were not there. very petty.

I don't think you inteneded to do what you did

**no i did. as i said before, i speak the truth.

--but if you did it on purpose--then all I can say is THANKS. I still maintain that people voting in the challenges will have a very hard time voting for a picture taken at an ISO higher than 50 or 100.

**people looking at a picture have no idea what the iso was. and shouldn't done correctly it doesn't matter what the iso is. and you have no way at all of telling what iso it was. the squirrel on photosig? wrong iso? its a joke dan, you have no idea what iso it was.

**people vote on pictures they like, pure and simple. there is no real way to see the technical side of a picture, just that it was done. either they like it or they dont. the people on photosig told what was told. you were insulted, and never uploaded again, pretty sad. but i do notice you have no problems at all dishing it out to others.


Certainly my point about the names would have gotten me a number of votes the last time--

**really? why are you so certain of this? a horse is not old and new. the kid looking at the guy fit the theme but was a bad picture. you got no votes at all. none.

but because they are more used to ISO 50 and 100,

**people picked what they liked. it fit best of theme. iso - pointless argument with you - do you base your iso theory because the colors were rich and full. and not totally blown out?

the advantage would have went for your picture and you would have won. The pettiness in voting does extend to you and how your pictures are perceived. I am sure you lost a lot of votes on account of it.

**account of what?

Now were the names and the camera type elliminated as I suggest, it would mean more votes for me and you.

**me yes - you no. i'll tell you the truth dan. your pictures are improving timing wise. the colors are weak, people like colors. the backgrounds are terrible. never shoot from inside the track. the backgrounds are of the street, posts, wires etc. look where all the pro's were standing. they were on the outside of the track, using the inside as a background. they were also standing on the end of the track looking down it's length, this means that they can shoot multiple times as the racers ran by, giving them plenty of focus time. you can learn alot from them... you also don't understand - that this is a challenge. something to improve yourself on. it's not a checklist. this contest is a very easy theme - anything has color in it. so anything you enter can be valid. but you'll notice that people are trying to limit the colors they use, and are only focusing on the color. not just sticking color in the theme. this would be classified in a sports theme - not a color theme. it's not the first thing that i think of when i see the picture.

Again, you would have more to gain because my ISO preference is something that the voters can't relate to very well.

**dan again. iso is nothing. no one knows about or cares about the iso. most people don't care if you were balancing on a wire, over sharks, holding the camera with one hand just so you could get the shot. the important part is the shot, not how it was done. you can't open up a national geographic, or a smithsonian - and guess what iso they were using. iso is simply a speed thats it. not a technique and not a skill. you'll never understand that and i have no idea why.


I think you voted the last time for pictures you thought had little chance of doing well

**i voted on pictures that i liked the best. and other's chose the very same pictures. however using you as a barometer - we pretty much knew who was going to win. whatever you hate the most, will be the winner.

--so that back fired on you.

**nope, my second was the kittens, it fit the theme, it was a good picture and a good idea. simple as that. i have no idea who takes what, because i rarely remember the names of the people.

IMO the picture that won was maybe better than average among the pictures entered--but it was not an outstanding photo by any means.


**compared to what? things you've seen in magazines. else where? the only place it counts is this challenge. no other place.

You voted for the horse picture that you did on account that I had a horse picture--very, very petty on your part.

**nope - you see - in that horse picture, it was an adult horse and a kid. in your picture it was a horse - and that's it. in the picture i voted for, i didn't even have to know what the theme was to know what the picture was about. no explanation needed. your picture - even after some obtuse explanation, still didn't make any sense. it was a blurred shot of horses - simple as that. it doesn't fit the theme at all.

**the idea behind a good picture is, that it's self explanatory. you shouldn't have to go to great lengths to describe what's going on. it's not all techincal. go to photosig. look at the pictures, without looking at the description, if any, or the title, can you tell what is going on in that picture? if you can, then they did it well enough. if you can't then they didn't. critiquing the photo can work towards your advantage as well. pointing out the bad with the good, can improve you as a photographer provided that you reconize the elements when you take your photo.

That picture was among the most inferior ones entered.

**i don't think so. young kitten, old hands. totally understandable. it fit the theme and was original.

So, thanks for adding your petty comments--you couldn't have validated my position any better had you just agreed with every point I was trying to make.

**who really knows what point your trying to make. everyone see's you as a troll. simple as that. new people who joined after you were kicked, don't know you - but they know you now. so now they associated your name and your jealousy and pettiness with your pictures. you did it to yourself...again.

all things considered--had my idea been enforce for this challenge--I don't think I would have gotten a single vote for any of my eligible entries. I do however think that My Leonardo and Courage in Profile would have done really well and gotten some deserving high praise in the exhibition gallery.

**i doubt it. since even as a color theme the colors were dull. plus people have eyes. they can see the background. they can see that the people are not looking at the girls racing down the track, their ALL looking somewhere else. all the pictures are like that. it doesn't even count as an action shot, because they were no longer in the race. you sent it into photosig already, you saw how it would do. most of the people on DP is also on photosig, they know you they saw the picture. you got a total of what, 6 points for the track one? that's not a great score dan.

I do believe one of those pictures would have won in that contest.

**i can't imagine which one. and that fact that you now have 5 entries in the exibition - is againt the rules.

I think you would stand a very good chance to win with one of your pictures in the eligible category. At present, I intend to vote for one of them. I will be voting for the shell picture. as things stand, because I really do not like the bold colors and the dark shadows in your garden picture.

**that's fine. i plan to vote on my shell pictures too. i personally like the rich colors and shadows of the flowers. each person likes their own thing. some people get confused easily and like simple layouts, not alot of clutter. i personally like a busy picture, with lot's of color and things going on. everyone like's their own thing.

But the garden picture does make for an outstanding black and white.

**i would never want to make it black and white, they are flowers they need to be in color. of course it would make a good BW because the colors would provide so many shades. but there is no point as not every picture looks good in black and white.

If you do not know about "split to CMYK" then I will show you what I mean. I would find it hard to believe that you don't have that option in Photoshop--or maybe you just don't know about it--I guess.

**i have the option, i can split it into multiple channels if i wanted. but they are flowers, and they should stay in color. i see no reason why i would want to make it black and white. and if i really wanted to i'd use black and white pro, and adjust the color channels to my liking. but i like color pictures.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 23-Jun-2002 19:10
Mike, you didn't just validate what I said about not having the names posted with the pictures--but you validated everything else I said about the extreme level of petiness by calling all my pictures dull. I don't think you inteneded to do what you did--but if you did it on purpose--then all I can say is THANKS. I still maintain that people voting in the challenges will have a very hard time voting for a picture taken at an ISO higher than 50 or 100. Certainly my point about the names would have gotten me a number of votes the last time--but because they are more used to ISO 50 and 100, the advantage would have went for your picture and you would have won. The pettiness in voting does extend to you and how your pictures are perceived. I am sure you lost a lot of votes on account of it. Now were the names and the camera type elliminated as I suggest, it would mean more votes for me and you. Again, you would have more to gain because my ISO preference is something that the voters can't relate to very well. I think you voted the last time for pictures you thought had little chance of doing well--so that back fired on you. IMO the picture that won was maybe better than average among the pictures entered--but it was not an outstanding photo by any means. You voted for the horse picture that you did on account that I had a horse picture--very, very petty on your part. That picture was among the most inferior ones entered. So, thanks for adding your petty comments--you couldn't have validated my position any better had you just agreed with every point I was trying to make. all things considered--had my idea been enforce for this challenge--I don't think I would have gotten a single vote for any of my eligible entries. I do however think that My Leonardo and Courage in Profile would have done really well and gotten some deserving high praise in the exhibition gallery. I do believe one of those pictures would have won in that contest. I think you would stand a very good chance to win with one of your pictures in the eligible category. At present, I intend to vote for one of them. I will be voting for the shell picture. as things stand, because I really do not like the bold colors and the dark shadows in your garden picture. But the garden picture does make for an outstanding black and white. If you do not know about "split to CMYK" then I will show you what I mean. I would find it hard to believe that you don't have that option in Photoshop--or maybe you just don't know about it--I guess.
mike savad 20-Jun-2002 13:21
I started to complete the job--but thought--why should I do that? If he doesn't get the idea by what I am showing, then he will never get it. Your flowers and shadows could easily be selected and transported back to the improved brighter picture. You don't have to lose anything that you want to keep. The idea is to show you that the ISO 50 look for outdoors is something you need to get away from.

*ISO50 and 100 are meant for outside. anything higher and it's inside or speed. if you don't know that, then you are most certainly and idiot. simple as that. ask canon, ask kodak, ask fuji, ask any professional. oh what do they know about film speeds anyway???

To get the picture to look just right would have taken me a good half hour AT LEAST. What I did took me about one full minute, if that.

*lemme see, i spend 2 minutes, i rotated, cropped, shrink, and a light sharpen, that's it. theer is no need to enhance perfect beauty.

Think of an impressionist artist. Do they worry about each and every little detail? No--but they do want a certain look.

*when you paint, you don't need to fret about all the details. a photograph is not a painting, nor will it ever be. a photo should have all the details.

I can give you an idea of what that certain look might be with a few clicks of a mouse button--but you got to figure AT LEAST a half hour more of getting it to look right after that. Fact is, I did a split to CMYK and got an excellent bw from your picture.

*i'm sure you can get all sorts of nice stuff from a good picture. but the fact is, if you switch it to cymk, you lose colors. BW? it's flowers, it's meant to be seen in color. BW is for dogs, how they see it.

I also did a one-bit bw with no dot pattern and that turned out really well, too. But making something look outstanding in bw is much easier than working with color.

*well ya! of course it is... but not every photo looks good as a BW.

Still, to see what I mean you aught to split to CMYK all your photos to get a different impression of light.

*i don't need a different impression of light. because the photo came out fine the first time. you even said so yourself the first time around.

The K-edition will give you the lightest look--and from it you can figure where to go for the best color look (kind of). I won't spend the time on your picture like I did with The Clash, My Leonardo, and Courage in Profile. I knew I ruined some of your color and all of your shadows--but I'd much rather they were ruined than to be stuck with just one dark and bold look all the time.

*the bold look is what gets the attention. look at the main page of photosig, look at the photo's on the bottom section. the top photo's. notice the theme that all of them use either bold colors, distinct lines, or deep shadows. bold is what is best, colorful things people like. and as i said over and over, upload your stuff, you can do 1 a day, and see what the people say. i think that's pretty simple. and you will see if your theories of photography are right.

You need dark shadows--not me. Light shadows is much more common during the daytime and a light tinge of gray is good enough for me--usually.

*it depends on the photo. i really have no idea what a light shadow is. faint i can see, but light? every photo will vary on what it can and cannot have. and most of the time i will not have control of the sun, and the shadows are where they are.

Some of your colors got blasted by the light--nothing uncommon there--light can do that. Undoing some of the blasting is simple--to get it to look right after that is not so simple. I bet you are like John Madden and you have to eat almost everything with dousing it with ketchup. You want one taste--you want one look from your photos--and you get it every single time--DUH.

*have no idea what your talking about. i want a photo that is crisp, clear, clean, colorful, intresting, original, etc. that's what it's all about. i'm still not sure what the look your going for is.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 20-Jun-2002 02:36
I started to complete the job--but thought--why should I do that? If he doesn't get the idea by what I am showing, then he will never get it. Your flowers and shadows could easily be selected and transported back to the improved brighter picture. You don't have to lose anything that you want to keep. The idea is to show you that the ISO 50 look for outdoors is something you need to get away from. To get the picture to look just right would have taken me a good half hour AT LEAST. What I did took me about one full minute, if that.

Think of an impressionist artist. Do they worry about each and every little detail? No--but they do want a certain look. I can give you an idea of what that certain look might be with a few clicks of a mouse button--but you got to figure AT LEAST a half hour more of getting it to look right after that. Fact is, I did a split to CMYK and got an excellent bw from your picture. I also did a one-bit bw with no dot pattern and that turned out really well, too. But making something look outstanding in bw is much easier than working with color. Still, to see what I mean you aught to split to CMYK all your photos to get a different impression of light. The K-edition will give you the lightest look--and from it you can figure where to go for the best color look (kind of). I won't spend the time on your picture like I did with The Clash, My Leonardo, and Courage in Profile. I knew I ruined some of your color and all of your shadows--but I'd much rather they were ruined than to be stuck with just one dark and bold look all the time. You need dark shadows--not me. Light shadows is much more common during the daytime and a light tinge of gray is good enough for me--usually. Some of your colors got blasted by the light--nothing uncommon there--light can do that. Undoing some of the blasting is simple--to get it to look right after that is not so simple. I bet you are like John Madden and you have to eat almost everything with dousing it with ketchup. You want one taste--you want one look from your photos--and you get it every single time--DUH.
mike savad 20-Jun-2002 01:27
oh god... you completly destroyed it. every shadow gone. the whites look like their about to catch fire, no more detail in that. the yellows are blobs now. you totally destroyed the purples. the orange is now yellow. the sidewalk is white, the brick, you can barely see the brick.

no dan, this no longer looks professional. this looks more like the sun is about to land on the earth.

the picture was fine the way it was. shadow is alowed in a photo. it adds dimension. this is the why i don't use iso400 or 200. you have no control of this picture at all. 1000f8 is done on all the pictures, and you lose a ton of detail. with what you did below, it killed 70% of the detail, 80% of the color values, and totally destroyed the whole look of the picture. is this why all your photo's look overexposed?

you need to work on your post-processing skills along with your photographic abilities. you can talk it over with your female-type person, see what he/she says. then post it to photosig, very easy to do. see what the common people think, and see if your actually something or not. i've seen alot of people like you. doing it only for the money, never advancing to anything. i knew someone who wanted to do stained glass. he though it was easy money, took a class, made a few things. it all looked horrible, and he charged 3 times what a pro would charge - and guess what? he ain't doing it anymore because it stank, and it was harder then it looked.

no one will ever take you seriously when they look at the post process you did with more my poor flowers. nor will they, when they see the little camera you have in your pants. nor will they when you start spouting off iso400 this and iso200 that. they'll wonder what happened to the people's faces due to all the overexposure they got.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 19-Jun-2002 23:02
By the way, in addition to my comments below, I downloaded your garden picture and decided to play with it. I brightened it and increase the gamma. If you download my version and place it beside yours you will see what I am getting at. Even though you may have taken it at a higher ISO 100--which helped--you are still post processing it to look like ISO 50. See for yourself:
mike savad 19-Jun-2002 23:01
by female-type - do mean like a cross dresser? i'm a little confused here...

photography is my hobby not my business, though i'm sure they would sell.

iso200 is much too noisy and doesn't add any good qualities to the picture. the flowers are good, because it was a nice day, and a nice setup. iso 50 wouldn't have made a huge difference. the only reason why i switched was do to the iso50 trick, blending the colors. iso200 has too much noise.

photosig - that's and excuse dan. look at the sizes of my pictures. there pretty big. as long as the x dimension and the y dimension = 640,000 or under it will be ok. when i shrink it i have a calucator and go with the biggest dimension i can get. then i save it so it's under 360k, and done. all pictures are a decent size, and don't have to be shrinked that small. the small one's you probably saw were scanned prints, which will be small, because people don't know how to use the scanner DPI function.

as far as newspapers go, they'll buy anything. my guess is you were probably the only one that had the girl. since you were chasing all the girls in the first place. if they only knew the reason why you were mostly snapping the girls... man your face would be there instead of hers.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 19-Jun-2002 21:27
If you or anyone else want to infer racial undertones with the title of The Clash, then there really is nothing I can do to alter such radical thinking--now is there? Changing the title wouldn't make any difference. Obviously, I am referring to the clash of colors in their track uniforms. Even though that picture looks almost cartoonish, I don't think it is too bad. It is a unique style--and being unique is more of what I am trying to acheive. If a picture is considered unique and good both, then all the better. The orange flower thingy is what I don't think is very unique--different maybe but not so unique. This picture is interesting but lacks any uniqueness:
http://www.pbase.com/image/2620153

With photosig you have to downsize the picture too much in some cases--ruining the shot--as with My Leonardo.

So, you finally did bump the ISO up--that explains quite a bit. I think your garden shot is your first outdoor shot that actually looks outdoors--but I got to wonder how well it would have turned out using ISO 200. You other pictures look more outdoors, too (of the dragon fly and bee). But the garden shot has a brightness of light that sets it apart from the others IMO.

Well, I met a female-type person today who is into photography like I am. I'm hoping to collaborate with her and get into making some real money. The money part is her goal too and she has been in this for several years. Hopefully, she and I can come up with the right kind of formula to make a real go at this.
mike savad 19-Jun-2002 13:57
one other thing.... the challenge is to improve yourself as a photographer. all the pictures will get better. but you have to meet the theme and not just choose something at random. this contest is pretty loose in terms. anything in color is any picture.

but you'll notice, forgetting about the flowers. that alot of people will delibratly pose their own thing for their entry. they'll try to think out beyond what they normally do. just like the last contest, notice how no one, including yourself, voted for any of your pictures. because they really didn't fit. old frontier? send it to photosig - explain what the picture was for and see if other's get it. i can almost gaurantee that you get maybe a 5-8 all 1 thumb for a good effort - and maybe a few thumbs down for it not being old and new. the point of the contest was to push yourself in a new thinking direction. a picture should be self descriptive, so the first thought in that person's mind is whatever point you wanted to get across. to me that place says ranch, nothing more. a picture of someone placing flowers down on the vietam memorial wall, you can write your own story for that one. a child getting cotton candy for the first time, another one people can quickly understand.

but there's more to the contest. because once you figure out what to do with the theme, it needs to be taken well. because people in the end don't vote for best of theme (unless it's so out of theme it's funny), people vote for the best looking photo. and you can find out how good a photo is, more or less, by using photosig.


---Mike Savad
mike savad 19-Jun-2002 13:46
as with anything in life you can only get better. i'll keep what i have, and i will improve on it. i personally have never seen a perfect macro - and yet most of mine fetch pretty high scores on photosig. i've stopped uploading to this pbase site, they will soon charge, and i rarely get any comments on the photos. photosig isn't the most accurate of places, but it's pretty good.

my still lifes will naturally improve the shells, are only a 4th of all still lifes i ever made. and as i figure out lighting, backdrops ete, it's always going to improve. i always try to push myself to the next level. just as i do when i work with stained glass.

the last contest had nothing to do with iso. and in fact unless you download ever single picture, you'll never know what iso they took it in. iso is totally irrelevant, because it only matter's on what the subject is. you can't tell what iso it's on. in fact, all the entries that you call iso50 are actually iso100 - i switched because i discovered that iso 50 really blurs the noise into the picture. 100 is sharper because it doesn't, and i have much better software to remove the noise then the camera has.

your pictures. honestly, and amazingly are actually getting better, timing atleast. the titles need some work. the one's with the black runners, you might want to re-think the title, because to me, because they know you, it sounds almost racial. i'm glad you noticed the tension lines. they can easily be removed with a cloning tool, and it would help the picture alot. right now it's too confusing because of the many intecting lines. the flowers - at the very least you know it's not a great shot. i don't know why you would enter it. for a lily shot, it's very, very common. and then to mush it up like that. i'm sure it can be done better. the track shot, still shouldn't be in erotic btw, is still on the yellow side.

you should upload your pictures on photosig, and see what the people really think. send it between, lemme see, ohio is i think 2 hours behind us, around 3:30-7:30 or so, that's when the most people will see the pictures. and that's how you'll know if it's really liked or not. people don't like alot of graphic work done to it. and they also like very sharp pictures. if it's a flower it has to be very unusual to be noticed. from my last check you were at 0 - so i think you finally broke even. people hardly ever rate old photos, you should keep uploading.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 19-Jun-2002 05:37
No need to comment on your silliness below. But I will say that you are only now starting to take some good macro shots--I'.m speaking of the two you entered in the challenge only. You are definitely showing a marked improvement in all your picture taking as of late. But you really need to come out of your stage an act more adult-like. I sold my first picture yesterday--and in fact it is far from being one of my better track shots. Go figure. I even offered the lady buying it a much improved version--but she refused. When she published it, I'll take a picture of it so that you will see that I am not making this up. And to be honest, I think you photography as of late has really gotten to a much higher stage of professionalism. I would never say that unless I really thought that way. Why should I make it up considering all your pettiness? Your vanity tells you that I write to you because I am a fan. To be truthful--and this is particuarly true of you other macro shots--your photography has been so incredibly poor that I felt sorry for you. I think you have a lot of knowledge on what to do--or at least some good ideas--but your execution has been laughable. But that isn't to say that I consider my photography that much more superior to yours--mine has improved immensely as well. But when you talk like an expert on cropping and filters and what have you, then I look at most of your pictures and I see nothing but junk, then I'm going to call it junk whether that is pleasing or not. Indeed, I have over complimented you in the past regarding your deli shot and your aunt bertie shot. Your picture of your shells put both those pictures to shame. Your picture of the garden is even better still. You still have a lot of room for improvement--but so don't I. But only now do I even think some of your shots are competiive with my shots or up to my level. I think you could start thinking about selling some of your photos too. Me? I messed up on my 3 photographer entry and got some green in it due to some silliness--its not as good as a picture now--but not too bad. My orange flower thingy is just a joke--I came close to doing a good shot there and got frustrated with it and decided to mess with it--a lot! After doing so, I thought, this picture is still better than most flower shots I have seen--albeit is still pretty bad--I think I'll enter it into the challenge and I won't be surprised if it receives the most votes of my pictures--so we shall see. My picture of the sprinters in The Clash was one I was at first unhappy with--so with some filter I improved it greatly--but it is still not too good. Yet, I entered that one too just to see if it would fetch any votes. Again, my pole vaulter picture is particuarly good. But people have such a disdain for telephone wires that I rather doubt it receives any recognition at all. My other two pictures are so vastly superior to what people are used to seeing, that I doubt they will receive any votes either. Like I said the last time--people are stuck on their love of ISO 50 in that forum--it is all that THEY know. Do I think I should have done better than I did in the last challenge? No--for two reasons--the shots weren't all that good to be truthful, and again people in that forum can't comprehend anything that's not taken in ISO 50. They are stuck with the same type of look over and over again. It's like if all they ever saw were Rembrants--and one one day they were to see a Renoir--they aren't going to suddenly view the Renoir as being anything but silliness cause they are stuck on just one type of look. It's the same thing here. My ISO 400 shots are way above their heads--and yet, it is an ISO 400 shot that I just sold. Do I even now think that my pictures the last time were better than the one that won the last challenge? Absolutely I do. Everything about that picture was contrived as it could be--even the title "Old Hands, New Face" Good thing though that she gave it that title because most doing the voting aren't smart enough to figure that part out. Let alone being able to accept something not done in ISO 50. Again, you have some REALLY good entires this time. I'm not over complimenting you this time at all. Now if you were to get over your aversion to anything not done in ISO 50, you may even surpass my abilities even in my own thinking. And if you do so, I will say so. I have no desire to be petty about your pictures, mine, or anyone elses. If people can't handle the truth--and they usually can't--is that my problem? No. I will be as tactful as I can, of course. But, like you, people need to know when they could be doing a lot better and come to grips that just because they have a good camera it doesn't mean that they can automatically take a good picture except by chance. I said before you have a long ways to go--I'm saying now you have come a long ways as of late. You need to wipe out all you got in pbase right now and begin anew with the challenge entires you have now. The rest of that stuff is really sad, Mike. Those pictures are so bad it IS funny.
mike savad 13-Jun-2002 00:19
dan, you need to get yourself some help. what you have it pretty much borderline pedophilia. i really think that the highschool and local police should be notified about your were abouts. it's pretty sick to think of young girls in the way you do. i new you had these tendancy's, voting on pictures that all had young blond girls - but i never thought you would stoop so low as to not just take a picture like this, but to stick it in the catgories you did. it's sick dan, you need help. and to compare your self to DaVinci? are you insane? sorry dan, this is going way over the line, even for you. i'm sure you have the lockeroom pictures too right? - and i'll assume the crowd is really looking at the boys track team and the girls are jogging off to the side - correct? i can't wait to see you on TV - i can point and say - i know him!


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 13-Jun-2002 00:15
Mike, if you don't find young athletic girls as appealing and erotic that is your problem. Apparently you do not--and in your case there is apparently a serious psychological reason why--undoubtedly rejection being among the most foremost reasons. I do not think I have ever met a more petty acting person than yourself--except for maybe a few college professors that I have had. I do not feel a need to stoop to such a level except to tell you that somehow, some way, you need to grow up.
Daniel Craig 10-Jun-2002 01:12
Actually, only one ISO 200 shot got put in--and that was of a girl high jumper (see comments below).
Daniel Craig 10-Jun-2002 01:10
yeah the highway pics you gave a link to are quite tragic. Anyway, I went to another track meet and did a bunch more pictures--and learned a lesson in the process--it is better not to count on auto focus at a sporting event. Many of my pictures are blurred and I missed several good shots not realizing the lag the auto focus created until meet was said and done. Oh well. I did get a few good pictures--some even remarkable:
http://www.pbase.com/catman
Many of the blurred shots got put in for one reason or another. I will say that at least even some of my blurred shots are superior to 6 photos that had on the program. The pictures on the program--no dout taken with a 5,000 plus camera (not counting the lens)--were all over sharpened (except for one). The best picture of the lot was the most blurred shot. Lens distortion is too excessive in 3 of the 6 pictures. Only two pictures looked as if they were pictures taken outdoors--one is the blurred one which I consider an OK shot, and the other the lens distortion is to great to call it anything but a mess (one of the runners is angled in such a way as to look as if she is going to cut off the girl beside her). Most of the photographers out there had Nikon D1 cameras--undoubtedly some were D1x and D1h. I'd hate to see what a mess they were making if the program represented the best that they could do. The level adjustment on the one picture that I think is OK has part of the track (it had been raining) looking purple and a bright orange appearing in the faces of some of the runners and the souls of their shoes. The orange in the faces is bad enough--but yellow in the picture is too saturated--actually the entire picture is oversatuated but only in the case of yellow is the saturation too wild). By the way, only about 2 of my newest pictures was done in ISO 200--the rest were done in ISO 400. The best shots were all done in ISO 400:
http://www.pbase.com/catman
mike savad 07-Jun-2002 22:19
sorry dan, but the highway is very boring. http://www.njfreeways.com/NJGSPPictures.html - i actually found a page full of nj highways. it doesn't inspire anything, in fact it's really, really boring.

and how do you expect people to take pictures of this? and if you don't live near one - then what?

to me, it's as fun as taking a picture of paint drying. or grass growing. it doesn't allow the freedom of creativity - such as finding a tree shaped like something (which can all get tired pretty quickly).

and it's really funny to me, that you actually think that this is a good topic. considering how you say the other entries are so boring. i can not imagine how boring a contest like that is. not to mention the fact that i have yet to see any pictures that even resemble a highway in any of your pictures.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 07-Jun-2002 22:05
the highway does not inspire creativity. it's a picture of nothing, very much nothing. it doesn't inspire a creative use of landscape. and it's very dangerous. plus you have no way of submitting it, so it's kind of a moot point.

It's not a picture of nothing and it is very inspiring. Riding along on the highway gives people a sense of purpose and freedom. I am very much inspired by the construction of the highways and the way that the scenery in amy cases is kept up by the State Dept of Transportation. To me it is magnificient to behold--a lot like looking at the Pyramids. There is some gorgeous interstate landscape where I live. You think of it as dull because you think that a common road is dull. I don't. From a dirt path to a multi-lane highway--I love them all. People just don't get a chance to appriciate the beauty and the magnificnece of the highways.
mike savad 07-Jun-2002 13:23
Another reason why what you say has no effect on me Mike is that I welcome diversity of thought--good or bad. I invite it as much as possible. But if I think someone is a fool--then I am apt to tell them so--not that I want them to change or anything. See, you and I disagree on about everything--photography, the abstract, people, etctera. Most times, I think you say what you say without much depth of thought--and other times I think you say what you say just to be contradictory. My second photo entry of the kid IS not ideally focused in any way shape or form.

*i know that. it does show. it's a spontaneos shot that simply happened. mostly luck. getting into the middle of the road real fast and getting it like that would have been more ideal. when i give a comment, it's the truth, i don't do it just to contradict. i do it because it needs doing. when you post something and everyone says the same thing, you have to draw a conclusion.

*my dear bertie photo - photosig has it currently at 32. the shapes in an icon form attracted enough people to view it, and the design and coloring were good enough to get positive results. the chess one bombed, more then i'd like, but they all said the same thing about depth of focus on that shot, something i'll have to for in the future for a shot like that (and now that i know how to use manual and manual flash together, it should be easier). people clicked on color and shape - then voted what they felt was right, or could be changed. you can't call those people idiots - their only speaking the truth, and have nothing really to gain. i've helped dozens of people, and at least 2 that i know of, took my advice, changed the picture, and it looks alot better.


But like I was saying before, not do you not know a thing about the higher ISO settings, you also don't understand focus very well either.

*high iso - meant for high speed or indoor. iso100 works pretty well on a cloudy day. iso200 is fair inside - both need more experimenting, and dealings with the noise removal tools. it hasn't been sunny enough to test high iso's in bright daylight. once it is, i'll go over and experiment. on a cloudy day, iso200 is exceptable, and i think can be cleaned up enough to be presentable. however, in my tests, i didn't gain anything. in iso100 it was intresting to know that the picture was warmed up a little. my theory is, that the red noise in it warmed it up (since red noise is the most common in my camera).

*focus? like mine should be blurred, or out of focus? or are we talking depth of focus?

At least, you don't have very much profound knowledge in either. Is noise a real big issue?

*for you it isn't. you shrink the picture down to the size of a piece of bread. we both have 3mp cameras, the picture should be pretty big when it comes out of the camera. i like to crop, and sometimes i have to crop a full size picture. which means the full size should at least start out clean. if it's shrunk 50% - 25% etc, you won't see the noise. i personally don't like the noise, other's are ok by it.

No it isn't. Is focus extremely essential? Not at all.

*huh?

Then what thing really is important? (I'm pretending you or someone else is asking me this)

*ok, gotcha - (i'm pretending that i'm answering)

Well, there isn't any single one thing that is important. So, yeah my shot of the kid is good--but it photograpically doesn't have any redeeming features about it--except timing and the fact that my images are apparent. But photographically, the one thing that stands out to me in the horse picture is the focus.

*if that horse is in perfect focus, you need to get your eyes checked. either that, or your monitor needs fixing.

*THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS: the photographer - then comes - Color - Clarity - Sharpness - Shape - Texture - Composition. without at least one of those the photo is a failure. mostly it's composition with a mix of clarity and color. look at the reviews of people's stuff. clear photo's and colorful photo's get the highest remarks. you'll notice right away how people land on the obvious - crooked, blurred, etc. that's what people see. that chess shot took over 250 pictures. i'm still not satisfied with it. but people simply see the defects like the less then perfect depth of focus. if i saw that in the first session, i would have removed that piece and elemenated that problem.


Well, thanks for giving me some positive words regarding the kid picture. I wasn't going to enter it because I think it is too unfairly cute plus I don't think it fits the theme as well as the horse picture.

*go with whatever your opposite thought is. i think the horse does not belong, because it doesn't fit the theme at all. and even after an explanation, it still doesn't fit (upload to to photosig with that explanation, see what other's have to think, maybe i'm wrong, who knows).

*the child one fit's better, the outfit is cute, but you can't see her face, the guy on the roller skates is old looking, and that can be perceived as old and new. the cliche'd title doesn't fit though.

*and notice, i spoke the truth about it. you only heard what you wanted to hear. you took the good parts, and saw the bad parts as a statement like i didn't know what i was talking about.

But because so many people entered pictures that even more loosely fit the theme--including you

*how so?

--then I decided to enter the cute picture too. Yeah your ruler picture doesn't fit the part of the theme of something new and shouldn't have been allowed.

*the contest was: SOMETHING NEW AND SOMETHING OLD in the same picture. that was the point. it was NOT something old - or something new - it was both of them in the same picture. that's what made it a challenge. to think outside the proverbial box as it were, and find elements that had both things in it. it's easy to find and take old things or new things alone. but to group them together - that's the hard part. that's why there are only about 10 entries. no one could think of anything creative. bertie: how we used to write letters, and how we do it today. rulers: old rulers made of wood, and new out of stainless (not my best, but i like those rulers), and past times - people used to play chess to pass the time, now they play with a game boy.

I didn't say anything before because I was hoping you'd see fit to withdraw it--or I was going to sit back and see who would vote for such a picture.

*i'm curious myself. will someone vote on a creative picture - or will they stick with what they know. i'll assume the kitty will get high points because it is a cute picture, does fit the theme, and everyone likes cats. the kid on the trike is cute, very sharp, but the background stinks. the stamps are appropriate, and colorful. in some ways i don't want to win because i don't want to have to set up the next contest. but i am curious as to what people would vote for.

At this point--if I remember right--there is finally a thrid picture for me to vote on. So, I won't be voting for any of my entries--which means so far your Dear Aunt pic will be my first choice.

*happens to be my first choice too.

The picture is very good and utterly contrived (which is something that I am not very fond of). Wow, I wonder what the person was thinking that entered the thread picture--and the coin and stamp collection

*it does fit the theme. and that's all they can think of. i do have an old typewriter and sewing maching. but couldn't think of a good way to present it, as not to look like it was set up. the thread is cute but i don't like the layout. the stamps are good because it has a nice layout.

--man there are some really bad entries this time.

*not bad, just uninspired. it needs creativity. and in this case it needs to be setup. you'll notice that most of the pictures will be from outside or something quick. this one required alot of thought, and creativity. it was harder then it sounded. which is good, because it shows that a creative picture isn't just luck.

Can a picture be more contrived than the two singer sewing machines? Ouch!!! At least your contrived picture didn't form a V shape. The pictures are so bad--I can't even remember what was the 3rd one I thought is good enough for me to vote for. I certainly am not voting on a picture of some kid on an old tricycle or the two tricycle shots. Eeeek, I just looked at the entries just now to see what picture it was--I guess I was thinking of voting for the old Hands/little kitten shot. Wow, I don't want to vote on that picture. I hope someone comes up with something better. None of the 3 monks shots is going to get my vote. But to be fair--I really hate the uncreativity of this challenge. The challenges have been really awful. I was in one other challenge--apparently you didn't see it.

*the only one that i know that you were in was the blackwhite of yourself, with a thermostat over your shoulder. i believe someone called you quirky. and that you missed the town one because it's based on GMT time.

Anyway, if I win I will choose the Interstate Landscape idea and urging people to take their shots at the highest ISO settings. That should produce many interesting entries. This something old and something new moronic theme has mainly produced really, really bad shots.

*only bad because it takes creativity.

*iso has nothing to do with creativity, nor the quality of the picture.

*not everyone has an interstate near them. and the one's that i know of - you would be road kill trying to take pictures of it. i don't know what they use in ohio. but in new jersey they have 30 foot walls on the sides to quiet the noise. the challenge is NOT a scavenger hunt. it's a creative thing to focus attention to one thing. not to try and take as many pictures of random things as possible. the highway does not inspire creativity. it's a picture of nothing, very much nothing. it doesn't inspire a creative use of landscape. and it's very dangerous. plus you have no way of submitting it, so it's kind of a moot point.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 07-Jun-2002 11:53
Another reason why what you say has no effect on me Mike is that I welcome diversity of thought--good or bad. I invite it as much as possible. But if I think someone is a fool--then I am apt to tell them so--not that I want them to change or anything. See, you and I disagree on about everything--photography, the abstract, people, etctera. Most times, I think you say what you say without much depth of thought--and other times I think you say what you say just to be contradictory. My second photo entry of the kid IS not ideally focused in any way shape or form.

But like I was saying before, not do you not know a thing about the higher ISO settings, you also don't understand focus very well either. At least, you don't have very much profound knowledge in either. Is noise a real big issue? No it isn't. Is focus extremely essential? Not at all. Then what thing really is important? (I'm pretending you or someone else is asking me this) Well, there isn't any single one thing that is important. So, yeah my shot of the kid is good--but it photograpically doesn't have any redeeming features about it--except timing and the fact that my images are apparent. But photographically, the one thing that stands out to me in the horse picture is the focus.

Well, thanks for giving me some positive words regarding the kid picture. I wasn't going to enter it because I think it is too unfairly cute plus I don't think it fits the theme as well as the horse picture. But because so many people entered pictures that even more loosely fit the theme--including you--then I decided to enter the cute picture too. Yeah your ruler picture doesn't fit the part of the theme of something new and shouldn't have been allowed. I didn't say anything before because I was hoping you'd see fit to withdraw it--or I was going to sit back and see who would vote for such a picture. At this point--if I remember right--there is finally a thrid picture for me to vote on. So, I won't be voting for any of my entries--which means so far your Dear Aunt pic will be my first choice. The picture is very good and utterly contrived (which is something that I am not very fond of). Wow, I wonder what the person was thinking that entered the thread picture--and the coin and stamp collection--man there are some really bad entries this time. Can a picture be more contrived than the two singer sewing machines? Ouch!!! At least your contrived picture didn't form a V shape. The pictures are so bad--I can't even remember what was the 3rd one I thought is good enough for me to vote for. I certainly am not voting on a picture of some kid on an old tricycle or the two tricycle shots. Eeeek, I just looked at the entries just now to see what picture it was--I guess I was thinking of voting for the old Hands/little kitten shot. Wow, I don't want to vote on that picture. I hope someone comes up with something better. None of the 3 monks shots is going to get my vote. But to be fair--I really hate the uncreativity of this challenge. The challenges have been really awful. I was in one other challenge--apparently you didn't see it. Anyway, if I win I will choose the Interstate Landscape idea and urging people to take their shots at the highest ISO settings. That should produce many interesting entries. This something old and something new moronic theme has mainly produced really, really bad shots.
mike savad 06-Jun-2002 23:59

I think you know by now that I have already joined since you commented on one of my photos--and have so for a while.

*yeah i figured it out after i mentioned it. i thought lemme take a look, couldn't hurt, daniel craig -4.


I have only 3 pictures up--one was taken by my brother but I have the copyrights to it.

*it's not that bad a picture really. auto focus on a mirror is pretty tough, it's a flat plain, that's why he was clear and she was not. though an unsharp mask could help it a little. or a contrast layer. both of should go around town taking pictures, i'd be curious to see what two different views would be.

I haven't uploaded to photosig anything of a serious effort on my part yet.

*you really should. photosig is a place where you try to upload the best of your stuff. it works on a system of votes, and weeds the bad from the good. if you post something that will most likely bomb, people won't take you seriously if you mention something to them.


However, I do think the picture my brother did was priceless. Here is the address to it:
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=85945
I have two pictures in the abstract category--the one you commented on I just put up to aggravate others.

*well it worked.

People there have no idea what abstract is

*actually they do, and these weren't it. some things are good as an abstract, other's are not. i consider an abstract something different from the rest. a new view of the world, usually seen in bold color, or simple textures. plays of light, etc, are to me abstract. your photo's are a "digital art". but still very over done. there's a limit on everything. and over photoshopping it never looks that good.

--and the second picture I don't even regard as abstract. But my first picture--of my barbers--got bombed for actually being abstract.

*something that wasn't what it was when it was first photographed can be considered abstract. people on that group like photo's. if it's going to go through photoshop, it should be sharpened, contrast, color adjustments. but being that the photo was mostly blue, and negative, it looks any feel for anything. which is why it should be left as color - black and white - sepia would even work (since the look like their from a certain time). it would be a touch of the area, type of picture.

So, the judging on my first picture let me know clearly that most posting on there are idiots.

*idiot is a strong term. but you do have to judge for yourself when the comments came in. either they do know you and decided to rip into you for fun. or you said nasty things on other people's pictures. some were due, but other's not. you picked out the most popular, didn't understand it and gave 3 thumbs down. that's not really called for, since it's not a real disturbing picture.

*or did you post it, and then people said what they said right after you sent it? people only tell the truth their. there really isn't any reason to hide something. the vote system is there to tell people what they could do better in the future. and not to encourage bad photo's. some people might like the effect, other's do not, and they will tell you so. in all the reviews i've made, i've rarely given a thumbs down. it has to be really bad for me to do this.

Now--you go look at my barber picture and tell me WHY I consider it abstract and why the other really is NOT abstract. I will even give you a hint: in my barger photo think of manicans (sp?). Ok--that is enough of a hint. And that should easily explain to you why it belongs in the abstract and the other does not. Here is a link to the picture:

*as above, anything that wasn't was, isn't - i think that's abstract in itself. the picture doesn't trully lend itself to abstract (in the traditional sense). i'm sure if you posted in a forum NICELY, they would tell you why. that's the point of photosig. you post a picture that's supposed to be something - that was invisioned in your head. then someone comes along and stomps all over it. why? are they stupid? no - they simply didn't see your view. and if noone see's your view, then you did something wrong. as with the horse photo - fine if it was a horse theme. but not if you have to explain to people why it's old or new - and if you uploaded that one, and explained it as such, you'll probably get simaler comments that i made.

*oh to add, i di like the second entry you made for the challenge thing, more then the first one. it fit's the theme, but photographically speaking, it lacks almost everything. but people do like kid shots. and i'm curious how everyone will vote anyway.


---Mike Savad


http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=79341
Daniel Craig 06-Jun-2002 21:46
I think you know by now that I have already joined since you commented on one of my photos--and have so for a while. I have only 3 pictures up--one was taken by my brother but I have the copyrights to it. I haven't uploaded to photosig anything of a serious effort on my part yet. However, I do think the picture my brother did was priceless. Here is the address to it:
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=85945
I have two pictures in the abstract category--the one you commented on I just put up to aggravate others. People there have no idea what abstract is--and the second picture I don't even regard as abstract. But my first picture--of my barbers--got bombed for actually being abstract. So, the judging on my first picture let me know clearly that most posting on there are idiots. Now--you go look at my barber picture and tell me WHY I consider it abstract and why the other really is NOT abstract. I will even give you a hint: in my barger photo think of manicans (sp?). Ok--that is enough of a hint. And that should easily explain to you why it belongs in the abstract and the other does not. Here is a link to the picture:

http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=79341
mike savad 05-Jun-2002 23:43
so basically your telling me that we are alot alike? i use only iso50 you use only iso200?

i'd like you to do something for me. go to photosig, join up, and start posting your photo's. i'm curious as to what other people have to say about your photo's. people who really don't know who you are. see what they have to say about everything. it's free to join, easy to do, and pretty darn fair.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 05-Jun-2002 22:34
I guess all that you are admitting to is that Canon gave you a variety of ISO settings to shoot from--but you see no purpose for it. And you never will until you start using it. They didn't put those higher ISO settings in there to scare people away from buying their cameras. Maybe my horse picture lacks the out-of-focus FOV--but so what. Yep, we definitely need a challenge to get people using the highest ISO setting on their cameras. Otherwise they should just get an A20 or a 775 and save theirselves a few bucks in the process. You would have done just as well getting a C2100--and saved a lot of money in the process. The best thing about my camera is its ability to do well with the higher ISOs and its portability. Your camera should still be able to do ISO 100 and 200 very well--what a waste they are for you though.
mike savad 04-Jun-2002 19:20
The picture of the diver was outdoors. I thought I made that very plain previously.

-outside right - blue sky gave that detail away. a high iso is needed or she would have been very blurred.

As far as me taking up your challege, I just may do it. You are correct to think that I do not even attempt such shots because I never bought my camera for that purpose. I did not buy my camera to do macro shots either. Indeed, I would think that you didn't buy your 10x optical zoom camera to take that style of shot. I'm sure that you are glad that your camera can do such a shot though.

- any camera with the proper expertise can do that shot. the camera is a 10x, this is true, i can grab scenes far away. however it's not always fully zoomed, and in this shot it's about the same as a 3x. the camera is irrelvant. however the bounce flash is needed.


But I do think it strange that you bought the 90 and hate sports as much as you say you do--and here you seem to be truthful.

-i'm unclear as to what that has to do with anything? i hate playing sports - and it' shard to run with a ball and hold a camera still at the same time. and i don't care much for watching sports. this is the wrong camera for that, as i don't have a real view finder, and it's near impossible to follow a moving target with it. i got it so i can shoot a scene from across the street.

As far as your comments of my horse picture being so horrible and out-of-focus, it just demonstrates your inability to speak the truth and how childish you are.

-if you've seen my comments on other people's work, when they ask for a critique; you know i speak the truth. i never try to be too mean about it, but it is the truth. if you think that, this is the best you and your camera can do, you never get any higher then this point. all the pictures will look the same. the fact is, in my eyes (and mind you, i have a huge art background behind me), the picture is out of focus. it's not locked on to any one thing in the picture. in the case of that really, really, long thing about that doug rousso's camera being out of focus, something in that picture was always in focus. in your camera, wether it's you or something on the lens (like a coating of smoke tar), something is making the shot out of focus, or real soft, or whatever the proper term is.


Well, at least you stopped with writing the vulgar and childish stuff you used to on my galleries. I'm not sure that this was a major step for you.

- remember, it wasn't only me. and phil deleted most of the stuff you said to other people about their work. didn't sound to professional to me.

I speak the truth about your picture and how it is better than most entries I have seen in a long time--not that I consider it a difficult or a great shot, which would be lying--but I give it the credit that it is due--and no more. On the other hand, you speak utter nonsense about my picture.

- i can only speak what i see. it's not to insult or take the wrong way. i personally dont' see where you can say taking a picture of that horse was all that hard. where as that shot took alot longer then i'd liked it to be, to get it just right, using the only flash that i have.

Do you really think I should take such ranting seriously? I don't. I have met a large number of childish people like you. I do not take such childish thinking and behavior to heart as you apparently think I do. I found your vulgar comments on my galleries as just vulgar and stupid--nothing more. All of your statements without exception about my horse picture is without an ounce of truth. Maybe you intend to hurt my feelings there--but that is impossible.

-by childish - do you mean truthfull? all the people who says ok things about the pictures - are good people right? and all the people who spoke the truth as a child would, are bad in your book? is this correct?

I do not take dishonest and emotionally unstable people and what they have to say to heart whatsoever. But your ego tells you--wrongly--that I do take all your childish comments seriously.

-i don't think you take anything seriously.

I admit that I am rather stunned by them at first--trying to understand the mindset. I do not fully comprehend it and wish that I could understand it better. But I have one neighbor that I think is even worse than you are. Indeed, I saw a case on TV of a guy who was surrounded by such neighbors as the one that I am alluding to. On dpreview I saw plenty of examples of such childishness.

-remember dan, no one would have starting throwing rocks at you. if you never came in throwing rotting meat at them. you came in, and said very hatefull things to people for no reason. you were the one who didn't help or try to help, but rather you figure it out attitude. they ask for constructive comments, you throw hot water in their face. people don't like that dan. do you think they'll just smile when you do that? no, when your not paying attention, they'll knee you in the groin.

People wanting you to view their galleries and unable to take the slightest bit of a bad comment about them due to their monstrous egos.

- it is true that people ask for comments - and thing in their own minds that everyone will say how wonderful it is. and then get semi-negative comments and be unhappy about it. but alot simply ask what they should do differently the next time around. they want help, they don't need to hear the stuff that you usually gave out. and 90% of the time you rarely gave the reason why you didn't like something. just stating it's the worst thing that you ever saw. it's not childish to get the comments you got back after that. i know of one person, who actually wanted the whole truth of why that one person didn't like the work.

-if someone asks, i'll give it too them. i rarely give glowing reviews. it would have to be so good - it needs to blow my mind. and rarely is there a picture or a thing that can do that.

I speak the truth, Mike--something that I think you are incapable of doing.

- i don't see how you can say i don't speak the truth - i was very truthfull in my comments.

I do think that your Dear Aunt Bertie shot is showing improvement on your part. But your inability to experiment with your camera, especially with the higher ISO settings, means that you will never progress beyond point and shoot.

- i still don't see why using a higher iso results in a better picture. using my camera at 250th f4 - using -1 on the flash - the picture is still too bright. which means using a higher iso would simply make matters worse.

- noise is always a problem. in low lit areas noise is always there. using a higher iso, only highlights that noise in the low light, but in the highlight as well. i see no point in loosing that much information. i don't see the point. just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

It means you would have been better off with a point and shoot like the Nikon 775 which has a lot of preset modes and would force you to take a more variety of shots than you currently do. The best you and Klyphton will do are the shots you are doing now--which can easily be done with a Nikon 775.

- why suddenly a Nikon? weren't you against nikon? (nikon spy ring a bell)? nikon has a terrible interface, and i dont' care much for it.

-it's also irrelevant what camera you have. just because i have a 10x zoom means that i have to capture things far away? what's the point? if i wanted a high iso camera, i would get one. they do exist. i believe the highest one goes at around 10,000+ iso. it's meant for super highspeed, or very dim conditions. but i don't need it. i picked a camera that had the most flexibility to it.

Granted, such pictures can be interesting and good. Nikon 775 is a top seller for a good reason. People who sale cameras know that most folks aren't going to have the time or patients to learn how to use various ISO settings or much about exposure or shutter speed--so they push such a camera off on the consumer knowing full well that they will be back in the store praising the sales person for getting them to buy a camera that perfectly meets all of their needs. And these consumers WILL be taking a much wider variety of shots than what you currently do and wil end up saying stuff like, "It isn't the camera--it's the person behind the camera."

-correct. get a good photographer - give him/her a bad camera and you get nice pictures. iso is irelevant and only has it's place here and there. using it on a bright day is silly since it blows out the highlights. and yes you can speed up the picture and remove the noise, but then you lose even more of the dynamic range in the highlight areas. not for me.

-most new people are sold what is pushed to them. nikon i'm sure has a deal to the stores to push their brand and receive whatever. new people don't know what they want. nor do they know how to do the research. nor do they want to learn the camera commands - it's not needed since they want to switch to digital after using their cardboard disposables. they may not want anything better.

-as for me, i wanted a camera with a certain zoom level. it needed to have threads so i can add filters down the line. it needed to have hot shoe, because i knew in the future i'd want one, and i did. it needed to use CF. and it needed a very long battery run time. and i was willing to pay $1000 or so. and i found this camera. still #1 in the prosumer. and high iso is totally irrelvant to making a good picture.

And making such comments stick!!!!! You and Klyphton are stuck with ISO 50 and buying expensive tripods--I believe you said you bought one for $300--WOW--but you need it.

- as i understand - the cheapy tripod you got - broke and you needed to glue it back together?

-sounds a little silly if you as me. the s30 is at least $400? it's up there, do you want it fall when your not looking? do you want it to last?

-my tripod, i want to last for atleast 20years. replacing a $30 every year because of some kind of failure is dumb. get good equipment and it will last you a life time. simple as that. my pod - i wanted maximum flexibility. i can place this on stairs, rocks, you name it. works great and it's very strong - and it has nothing to do with the iso speed.

Too bad you can't take it to the park or zoo with you--guess you'll have to invest in a retractable monopod there to take your dark and bold pictures that you think are so superior lol.

-even if i had a small lightweight - they wouldn't allow me or anyone else to set one up. and i see your finally admitting that the higher iso is meant for dark places. it seemed to have taken you about a month to finally admit that. good for you. and yes a higher iso is best for indoors. a noisy picture that comes out clear is better then a dark picture. plus the flash goes further. but then again if i brought my external flash there it would have been fine in iso50. and yes technically i can use my monopod, but at the risk of tripping other people it's not worth it.


I'm about ready to move onto a D60.

-ok - have fun.

-though i really thought the s30 was boss.

You and Klyphton would advance in your abilities if you threw your cameras away and got a 775.

- so now your a nikon guy?

That would force you two to try something different for a change--and then you'd have a higher appriciation for a wider variety of pictures. From what I have seen, and despite his advance education on photography, Phil Askey doesn't seem to have much ability to take a wide variety of pictures either.

- don't blame phil - his wife takes all the pictures. and i'd like to know what your definition is to wide variety of pictures is.

My guess is that when he was first introduced to photography, his folks got him a very advance camera--he found a mode on it like you and Klyphton that he favored--and, hence, never really learned how to advance his picture taking abilities much beyond that.

-and you do what now? iso200 on all the pictures you take? silly. i use the mode that is most appropriate to the scene i'm photographing.

Had his folks gotten him a more simplier camera, he would have been forced to experiment to a much greater degree.

-tell me how you can experiment with a simple camera? - maybe an s30 - that's a pretty simple camera.

As it stands, his sample shots are nothing. Were you to show him my pony picture that I have entered, he might be as baffled by it as you are, Mike. You and he would certainly be baffled by the diver shot I saw in Sports Illustrated that had oodles of noise throughout (I admit, I was a bit baffled by it as well).

-the SI - technically the noise should have been removed or blurred. i can only guess their graphics department was asleep that day. i'm not crazy about the noise. but i find a blown out sky un-exceptable (unless it's was overcast anyway, and even then).

-you can ask klyphton what he thinks of your horse. in fact i'm really curious what everyone thinks of it. quality aside, i'd like to know if anyone there can figure out whats old and new in that photo. the kitten stands a better chance of winning.

By the way, I have come to appriciate the higher ISO abilities of my camera on account of my brother informing me on how to use it--and he owns a 775 (he also owns a Minolta SLR film camera which he finds more frustrating to use than his 775--but that has not stopped him from experimenting on the SLR).

-so let me get this straight. you want me to get a lesser camera (i was wondering where you pulled that camera from), because your brother has it. because your have a simple minded family, i must use it as well? i also thought you were shopping for a new camera for your brother. what happened to that? does this mean he want's to advance or not? maybe you can ask your brother for a few more tips.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 04-Jun-2002 14:09
The picture of the diver was outdoors. I thought I made that very plain previously. As far as me taking up your challege, I just may do it. You are correct to think that I do not even attempt such shots because I never bought my camera for that purpose. I did not buy my camera to do macro shots either. Indeed, I would think that you didn't buy your 10x optical zoom camera to take that style of shot. I'm sure that you are glad that your camera can do such a shot though.

But I do think it strange that you bought the 90 and hate sports as much as you say you do--and here you seem to be truthful. As far as your comments of my horse picture being so horrible and out-of-focus, it just demonstrates your inability to speak the truth and how childish you are. Well, at least you stopped with writing the vulgar and childish stuff you used to on my galleries. I'm not sure that this was a major step for you.

I speak the truth about your picture and how it is better than most entries I have seen in a long time--not that I consider it a difficult or a great shot, which would be lying--but I give it the credit that it is due--and no more. On the other hand, you speak utter nonsense about my picture.

Do you really think I should take such ranting seriously? I don't. I have met a large number of childish people like you. I do not take such childish thinking and behavior to heart as you apparently think I do. I found your vulgar comments on my galleries as just vulgar and stupid--nothing more. All of your statements without exception about my horse picture is without an ounce of truth. Maybe you intend to hurt my feelings there--but that is impossible.

I do not take dishonest and emotionally unstable people and what they have to say to heart whatsoever. But your ego tells you--wrongly--that I do take all your childish comments seriously. I admit that I am rather stunned by them at first--trying to understand the mindset. I do not fully comprehend it and wish that I could understand it better. But I have one neighbor that I think is even worse than you are. Indeed, I saw a case on TV of a guy who was surrounded by such neighbors as the one that I am alluding to. On dpreview I saw plenty of examples of such childishness. People wanting you to view their galleries and unable to take the slightest bit of a bad comment about them due to their monstrous egos.

I speak the truth, Mike--something that I think you are incapable of doing. I do think that your Dear Aunt Bertie shot is showing improvement on your part. But your inability to experiment with your camera, especially with the higher ISO settings, means that you will never progress beyond point and shoot. It means you would have been better off with a point and shoot like the Nikon 775 which has a lot of preset modes and would force you to take a more variety of shots than you currently do. The best you and Klyphton will do are the shots you are doing now--which can easily be done with a Nikon 775. Granted, such pictures can be interesting and good. Nikon 775 is a top seller for a good reason. People who sale cameras know that most folks aren't going to have the time or patients to learn how to use various ISO settings or much about exposure or shutter speed--so they push such a camera off on the consumer knowing full well that they will be back in the store praising the sales person for getting them to buy a camera that perfectly meets all of their needs. And these consumers WILL be taking a much wider variety of shots than what you currently do and wil end up saying stuff like, "It isn't the camera--it's the person behind the camera." And making such comments stick!!!!! You and Klyphton are stuck with ISO 50 and buying expensive tripods--I believe you said you bought one for $300--WOW--but you need it. Too bad you can't take it to the park or zoo with you--guess you'll have to invest in a retractable monopod there to take your dark and bold pictures that you think are so superior lol. I'm about ready to move onto a D60. You and Klyphton would advance in your abilities if you threw your cameras away and got a 775. That would force you two to try something different for a change--and then you'd have a higher appriciation for a wider variety of pictures. From what I have seen, and despite his advance education on photography, Phil Askey doesn't seem to have much ability to take a wide variety of pictures either. My guess is that when he was first introduced to photography, his folks got him a very advance camera--he found a mode on it like you and Klyphton that he favored--and, hence, never really learned how to advance his picture taking abilities much beyond that. Had his folks gotten him a more simplier camera, he would have been forced to experiment to a much greater degree. As it stands, his sample shots are nothing. Were you to show him my pony picture that I have entered, he might be as baffled by it as you are, Mike. You and he would certainly be baffled by the diver shot I saw in Sports Illustrated that had oodles of noise throughout (I admit, I was a bit baffled by it as well). By the way, I have come to appriciate the higher ISO abilities of my camera on account of my brother informing me on how to use it--and he owns a 775 (he also owns a Minolta SLR film camera which he finds more frustrating to use than his 775--but that has not stopped him from experimenting on the SLR).
mike savad 04-Jun-2002 00:29
3200 is used for high speed action such as a diver.

using a high iso in bright daylight serves no purpose at all, being that the horse is standing perfectly still.

you can easily comment on how good or bad a picture is, but i have yet seen 1 good, clear, well, composed photo.

if my shot was so easy then with your awesome abilties, reproduce my photo. i doubt very much you will be able to with your limited camera experience, and lack of a good camera.

your picture is a horse - a blurred picture of a horse - why they even let you in is beyond me (probably for a good laugh). it has nothing at all to do with the theme. simple as that. the difficulty of your shot - how hard is it to whip out a camera and take a blurred picture of a horse? was the hard part sneaking in?

so that is a a challenge to you. reproduce that picture or something as good as that, as you probably don't have the things available to you to do something like this. and remeber it's not just the elements in the picture, it's how the picture was done - lighting, composition, everything.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 03-Jun-2002 23:55
Your comments of my shot only displays your high level of ignorance. I was looking at a Sports Illustrated picture today of a diver. Her position was completely horizontal in the air. The background had a fairly deep blue to it--that you would have called slightly over exposed. Additionally, the photographer must have used ISO 3200 for the shot--there was very visable noise especially in the sky. You would say that there was too much noise and that it lacked focus--which it did. But the reason for SI to publish it goes well beyond your comprehension of what is and isn't a good shot. Not only that, but my picture is almost noiseless and very focused--not that that really makes that much of a big deal for that shot. The difficulty of my shot goes way beyond your comprehension. You set-up just this one picture of yours well--after that the shot was pretty mindless. Use tripod--use remote or delay timer--use ISO 50 mindlessly--set AWB--set shutter speed to a few seconds--stand back. Very simple since that is all that you and Klyphton use shot after shot. Both of you would have done just as well and saved yourselves a lot of money by getting a Nikon 775. A point and shot is all that you two would need.
mike savad 03-Jun-2002 13:52
re: guestbook
If the voting were today, Mike, and to be honest which I always try to be (and you seem to have little use for), I'd have to vote on your Dear Aunt Bertie picture. Indeed, because the entires are so bad thur far, I'd have to vote on my own picture. So far, there are IMO only 3 good pictures--the ones I have mentioned and the phones by Klyphton. Until another decent picture is entered this is the way I plan to vote:
1. The Old Frontier
2. Dear Aunt Bertie
3. You've Come a Long Way, Baby!
That means that if there is just one more decent picture entered, and if it isn't as good as yours, I won't be voting for myself--but will be placing your picture as number 1.
--

i do have to agree that the pictures are not as good - because they all require creativity. a chunk of the group may be struggling because of that. creativty is something your born with and might be learned over sometime.
--

The reason why I think my picture is better than yours is because it fits the theme w/o just having an old thingy setting next to a new thingy. My title is significantly better, too. Instead of saying the old cliche The New Frontier--I inverted it. What is good also about my picture is the showing of two kids preparing to ride horses with the new standard bicycle helmets. Indeed, everything in my picture is very young--from the girl workers to the ponies themselves. But the idea of riding horses or ponies is quite ancient. So there is your something old and something new w/o merely photographing a new thingy by an old thingy. Plus, my picture is spontaneous--whereas both yours and Klyphton's pictures have nothing spontaneous about them. Were someone to come along and enter and old thingy by a new thingy that was spontaneous--and if it were a fairly decent picture, I'd have to choose it over yours.
--

i have to disagree with your theory. your picture has absouluty nothing to do with the theme at all. it's neither the old west or the new west. it isn't thought out or setup. it's a quick blurred crooked shot of nothing. not to insult you or anything. but really, the horse, to me looks full size. i have no idea who the people working there are. the kids in the background, are blurred and tiny. maybe if there was an adult and a child, then maybe. but no one will see the light of that image, because it certainly isn't pointed out anywhere. people will not see high iso - and it isn't about bold colors, becasue quite frankly i don't think the group as figured out how to use bright colors yet.

the challenge was - something old, something new. not something new period! simply sticking in a title "old" and sticking in a new horse, i don't think counts at all. the challange was to try to find something using your creativity, where it's obvious that two things next to each other are new and old. you shouldn't have to convince people of it.

if it were and easy title, there would be alot more picutres.

--

The reason that your picture beats out Klyphton's is because yours took more time to set up and is more thought out--much more. Quality wise--your picture is equal to Klyphton's. I will not say that my picture is of higher or lower quality on account that the higher ISO puts my picture in a different league all its own. I will say, however, that my picture is more of a keepsakes than either yours or Klyphton's.

--

iso is irrelevant. composing is the #1 thing that's important here. i went out of my way to make a still life, because i never made one before. i'm using this challenge as an excuse to learn how to set one up. i'm in the process of making my own reflectors and diffusers. dear aunt bertie, is the second one i ever made. but iso plays no roll in this. a bounce flash certainly helped, and alot of patience.
--

I rather doubt that many will choose my picture since most people in the forum have little or no appriciation of pictures not taken at the lowest ISO possible. They are pretty much conditioned to favor the dark, bold and rich colors that are easy to obtain by using a tripod and setting the shutter speed for a few seconds or so. I do not even think that Phil Askey has any appriciation for the faster ISOs or else he would review the S30. At any rate, I think you have a very good shot at winning this contest. The only way I could see you losing it at this point is that people are so conditioned to voting for Klyphton's pictures that he could edge you out.
--

most people (if any) will choose your picture because it doesn't fit the theme at all. and even when explained it still doesn't make sense. and even if it made sense, the picture is both blurred and crooked, and a bit over exposed. so the person voting for you would have to be nearly as creativly challenged as you are.... this challenge requires creative thinking which is hard to do - and what is even harder is to find things and do it. i have about a dozen ideas to try - but i don't have the resources. as it was i really had to scrounge for the bertie one. as i didn't have an inkwell, ink, or a real quill.
--

Don't think I am giving you that high of a compliment either.
--
i would never think that.
--

Even though you have a high quality picture entered--the best you have done so far--I do NOT consider it a great shot by a long stretch. It is just way too easy to get such a shot.
--

if it's so easy, why aren't there other's like it? and why have you only entered once?

it's only easy because it's done, and it looks easy. - as with anything already made and created.

--

My picture is much harder to do and IMO a better picture on account of that.

--

how? you went to a local horse ranch. you pulled out your camera, you shot it. done. the horse isn't in a great position. the kids, are in the background, not even on a horse. there totally blurred, and you really don't notice a helmet. and the picture is crooked, all the buildings lean. how is this harder to do?
--


On a scale of 1-10 I would give my picture a solid 8. I would give your picture a 5 and I would give Klyphton's picture a sorry 3.
--
of course you would give yourself a higher score - i don't see why, except maybe that your arogance has blinded you.

there is still time. you can still try to get a better picture in. it's not too late.
--

I would give his building shot in the exhibition group a 2 and I would give the leaf shot in the exhibiton category maybe a 4. All the other pictures deserve a zero. Indeed, I think your picture is the best one to be entered in quite some time--so you should beat Klyphton with ease--but I doubt that will happen. Just incase you do win, I thought I'd give you some ideas for the next contest--even though I know you will be too vain to use any of them, at least I hope it will give you a better idea than the crap themes we have had so far:

1. Interstate Landscape--must include at least 2 lanes to qualify--must be taken at ISO 200 or higher.

- boring - not many people have one. it's dangerous to do if you don't have a bridge. and it doesn't spark creativity. and as i said iso is irrelevant to getting a good picture. a good picture needs a good photographer not just one technique.


2. Action toddler pictures.

-not everyone has a kid. and not every mother would allow some stranger to follow around there kid to take pictures. and i personally am sick of seeing the kid pictures. not to mention some babies are cuter then others, and it wouldn't be fair to the ugly babies. this is a contest of photo skill, not of babies.


3. Photos when it is raining.

-again - hard to do when it doesn't rain. some people live in the desert where it barely rains. other's like me are in a drought, and it rarely rains. not to mention the fact that when it rains the camera get's wet - and the droplets are suspended in the air when a flash is taken. there's not sun, and no light, and all pictures will come out drab. plus there isn't anything to take pictures of when it is raining.


4. Photos of rivers or creeks.

- one idea was to take water pictures - this could fit. however not all people live anywhere near these. the pictures would never push you to become a good photographer. there is rarely anything intresting about it, and hardly makes you think when taken.

5. Photos taken within an automobile while driving--it must have motion blur showing that the car is moving.

- but what possible picture would there be? and how many accidents would you like to see? would you like to be in an accident with a person taking a streak shot out a window? there isn't anything to do with composure at all. wouldn't it be easier to simply move the camera when taking the picture and pretend to be in the car?


6. Roadkill photos.


- oh yeah - everyone loves a good road kill photo.

7. Photos of flowering weeds--no dandelions please!

- aren't there enough of those? these only add color to an existing picture.

8. Any kind of landscape photo--ISO 50 not allowed. Must be either stitched or cropped as a panoromic--and must be under 500 KB. The idea here is to make the challenge more challenging and so that a non-ISO 50 will have a chance to win for a change.

-again no one cares how the photo was taken. if the effect was amazing then maybe. iso 50 iso 200 - makes no difference for a good photo. someone did have the idea for panorama - so i may use that if i win. since a good panorama can be tricky. i'm not setting an iso limit since not all camera's look good as that. and a high iso, no matter what you think, blows out every detail in the picture. the idea behind the challange is to create your own picture taking method. if someone want's try out your method they will. i know you've been bugging other's on pbase about this iso thing, since they all go to me afterwards.


9. Pictures of cobwebs.

-i'll assume spiderwebs as they are hard to find and look nicer. it isn't much of a challange and doesn't spark imagination.

10. Pictures of dogs.

-not every has a dog. and dogs are pretty boring. they all look the same. the owners would disagree but they all look the same. maybe pictures of your pet - but that would allow run of the mill, vacation type shots, of the beast. and again not everyone has a pet or a dog to take a picture of.

when someone puts up the contest, you'll see three types of photo's:

1. random shots to simply get and entry. to take the picture and check off on the list - got it, next.

2. a random shot that has a good pose. alot of people take random shots of their kids. none of them keepers. a good shot is a shot that looks good.

3. people who try to do it creativly. to go the extra step in making a nice looking picture.

the people who vote are another matter all together - and it all depends on what they see as a good photo. a contest like this is good - they'll see the pictures entered, and think, wow, i never thought of that and i really tried too. and maybe they will appreciate the fact that pictures, good pictures don't come out of thin air.

the idea for the challenge is that it needs to have a theme which is difficult to obtain. if it were easy it wouldn't be a challenge.

you should post your creative examples of the things you wrote to me, and stick it on your page along with my town pictures. --- remember a picture should be composed well - and should look nice. simply taking a picture that might fit the catagory isn't any good.

and btw - the reason why the paint brush won - was because it was simple. it had a vibrant color, it faded toward the end, the color led the eye back to the paint, to the brush. it fit the theme as the rest of them did, but most importantly it was a good picture. the idea is, that the theme is "blah" and everyone enters that theme. then everyone picks the best picture of the bunch, not always the best that fit's the theme. they pick a good looking picture. simple as that. the crayons didn't win because it wasn't that good of a picture. the crayons were old - it nothing to do with a bunch of random colors. if that were the case a rainbow would win.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 03-Jun-2002 05:43
If the voting were today, Mike, and to be honest which I always try to be (and you seem to have little use for), I'd have to vote on your Dear Aunt Bertie picture. Indeed, because the entires are so bad thur far, I'd have to vote on my own picture. So far, there are IMO only 3 good pictures--the ones I have mentioned and the phones by Klyphton. Until another decent picture is entered this is the way I plan to vote:
1. The Old Frontier
2. Dear Aunt Bertie
3. You've Come a Long Way, Baby!
That means that if there is just one more decent picture entered, and if it isn't as good as yours, I won't be voting for myself--but will be placing your picture as number 1.

The reason why I think my picture is better than yours is because it fits the theme w/o just having an old thingy setting next to a new thingy. My title is significantly better, too. Instead of saying the old cliche The New Frontier--I inverted it. What is good also about my picture is the showing of two kids preparing to ride horses with the new standard bicycle helmets. Indeed, everything in my picture is very young--from the girl workers to the ponies themselves. But the idea of riding horses or ponies is quite ancient. So there is your something old and something new w/o merely photographing a new thingy by an old thingy. Plus, my picture is spontaneous--whereas both yours and Klyphton's pictures have nothing spontaneous about them. Were someone to come along and enter and old thingy by a new thingy that was spontaneous--and if it were a fairly decent picture, I'd have to choose it over yours.

The reason that your picture beats out Klyphton's is because yours took more time to set up and is more thought out--much more. Quality wise--your picture is equal to Klyphton's. I will not say that my picture is of higher or lower quality on account that the higher ISO puts my picture in a different league all its own. I will say, however, that my picture is more of a keepsakes than either yours or Klyphton's.

I rather doubt that many will choose my picture since most people in the forum have little or no appriciation of pictures not taken at the lowest ISO possible. They are pretty much conditioned to favor the dark, bold and rich colors that are easy to obtain by using a tripod and setting the shutter speed for a few seconds or so. I do not even think that Phil Askey has any appriciation for the faster ISOs or else he would review the S30. At any rate, I think you have a very good shot at winning this contest. The only way I could see you losing it at this point is that people are so conditioned to voting for Klyphton's pictures that he could edge you out.

Don't think I am giving you that high of a compliment either. Even though you have a high quality picture entered--the best you have done so far--I do NOT consider it a great shot by a long stretch. It is just way too easy to get such a shot. My picture is much harder to do and IMO a better picture on account of that. On a scale of 1-10 I would give my picture a solid 8. I would give your picture a 5 and I would give Klyphton's picture a sorry 3. I would give his building shot in the exhibition group a 2 and I would give the leaf shot in the exhibiton category maybe a 4. All the other pictures deserve a zero. Indeed, I think your picture is the best one to be entered in quite some time--so you should beat Klyphton with ease--but I doubt that will happen. Just incase you do win, I thought I'd give you some ideas for the next contest--even though I know you will be too vain to use any of them, at least I hope it will give you a better idea than the crap themes we have had so far:

1. Interstate Landscape--must include at least 2 lanes to qualify--must be taken at ISO 200 or higher.

2. Action toddler pictures.

3. Photos when it is raining.

4. Photos of rivers or creeks.

5. Photos taken within an automobile while driving--it must have motion blur showing that the car is moving.

6. Roadkill photos.

7. Photos of flowering weeds--no dandelions please!

8. Any kind of landscape photo--ISO 50 not allowed. Must be either stitched or cropped as a panoromic--and must be under 500 KB. The idea here is to make the challenge more challenging and so that a non-ISO 50 will have a chance to win for a change.

9. Pictures of cobwebs.

10. Pictures of dogs.
mike savad 24-May-2002 20:03
for starters, it never hurts to vote for yourself. a president does it, why should'nt i? i'm proud of my own work to be able to vote on it myself. note that i didn't vote the other one of mine in, as i didn't like it as much as the other entries.

the picture was never supposed to have a person in it in the first place. i don't want to be seen, as you can see i waited until his back was turned, i'm not even sure why he was out there. in today's age people get funny looks when they see a funny person with a camera pointed at their place. you get what you get when you go. simple as that.

when focusing on a single subject i prefer to get less of it then more. the store is brick, next door is vacant, the other side is stucco, with a car in front with a garbage can. the theme was you town, this was in or near my town. it doesn't have to feature a skyline or row of town houses. the idea was to show something of intrest in your town, and i found it intresting. sure there are lot's of deli's, but not all as bright and bold, and if there were so many, certainly there would be more of them in the contest, or any contest.

the deli is privatley owned and unique to that area. mc donalds looks the same no matter where you go.

i noticed your ever so pleasing words in the comments, just one of the many reasons why no one would ever want you back on the list. the timing was proper and was actually 1 day late as the person who set's up the voting forgot about it due to his fish tank. and you should'nt blame the contest, since you had several weeks to enter. however it would be difficult if you managed to win since the winner picks the next theme, and your not on the list, and i'm not relaying any messages for you.

on the whole the challanged is intresting. from the results people like night shots. and i think it's because they have trouble doing those kinds of shots. people generally pick what they can't do, or can't do well. or they pick whatever is not in their region. i have no intresting points in my town. the central part is stuck up and snotty, and therefore people dont' shop, and the store closes. it's a ghost town.... nothing worth noting. i don't have any big plains near me, just big planes flying overhead. it's harder to do, because i don't have the scenery to do it in. so i get what i can, simple as that.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 24-May-2002 16:32
Your vanity is quite remarkable. Yes, I noted that you voted for your own picture in the challenge--which is something I would have never done. I would have voted for your entry--considering how bad the entries are00if you had more than one person in the photo--or if it had included more of the environment than just a single solitary storefront. But I agree--for color, contrast, focus etc your picture is the best for just those reasons. Actually I think it is a good enough picture to approach the owner about it and see if they would like to have it. If you give them a good picture, they might in turn want a more panaromic picture and be willing to pay you for it. All in all, it is a good picture--but for the community challenge it is weak at the knees (who hasn't seen such a Tony's Deli shot--there are Tony's Delis everywhere--it's like taking a picture of a MacDonald's facade). I also think that the picture may have came out better had you tried ISO 100 and ISO 200 (but maybe not in this case). I think you are justly proud of that picture--but the vanity you have displayed for it is just way too much. I consider myself vain, but I would have never voted for my own picture--no way, no how. If you will not in the comments--I did send an entry in but apparently too late--they really messed up on this challenge with regard to the dates--I won't wait until the last second the next time and I will be entering under an alias.
mike savad 23-May-2002 23:19
why the hell would anyone need you on that board?


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 23-May-2002 22:36
Have you asked Phil to have me back on his boards? You know the place is pretty boring without me. I just wrote to ask him to have me back on--but I very much doubt that he will.
mike savad 19-May-2002 02:32
ducks - blame nature.

never tried the higher isos - everything was way to bright as it was - extra noise would not be pretty. the deli - ever here of perspective distortion? that at no matter what angle you stand at something will look like it's at an angle. and it's close to impossible to keep everything 100% clear - you should know as 105% of your pictures are blurred - i guess your an expert.

but thanks anyway - at the very least (and i do mean least), your a pretty active fan of my site. and you seem to visit every day checking out new pictures. you should post some new stuff yourself.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 18-May-2002 22:59
Well, those park shots must have turned out pretty bad considering that you haven't posted any of them--I can't blame you there. Your deli shot turned out pretty good--but would have been better at ISO 100 or 200. The doorway sot is atrocious though. It couldn't have been helped no matter what. It's crooked and blurry. Not well framed even had it been straightened. Well, I'm still rooting for you Mike. I always root for the underdog. You got a little closer with that deli shot. I do wish you would get rid of those ducks though. They look so drab just standing there and all.
mike savad 17-May-2002 01:35
i went to the park, and funny, there wasn't one picture there that i wanted to see messed up. it was bright enough as it was.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 17-May-2002 01:29
Well, this is tommorow--where are your pics? I want to see if you messed up the ISO 100 & 200 shots.
mike savad 15-May-2002 19:19
i guess you found your style then. i personally like it darker, and if i need too, i can lighten it later. you can't go backward. every person has their own techniques, and uses it there way.

in the case of the gardener, for me, the most important subject is the gardner and the plants. the dirt is secondary because, well, it's dirt, it can really be any color. the horses, the building can easily be cropped, but fixing the horse is harder. the ccd is actually very sensitive and can pick up even the darkest of colors. bringing it into something like photoshop, can do wonders on a dark photo.

i very rarely overexpose. if i want something like a tunnel to show up i'll bring it up. or the inside of a room taken from the outside. or if i want to see detail in the woods from a distance i'll bring it up. but it's still at the expense of blowing something out... and as you can see on my camera, blow out's give a purple fringe, so i try to prevent that when i can. i'll be going to the park again tommorow. there's open areas there, i'll try it with the higher iso. but things like swans, seaguls etc, will look like white shapes. i'll be playing with my pol as well, as i really should have the last time i was there (baby duck season).


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 15-May-2002 16:21
The Easter Basket office building is in Newark, Ohio--one of my first pictures with my camera--it is for the Longaberger basket making company. I was taken just a week before Easter--so it was a seasonal shot that I was hoping--not that particular picture--would be desired by the local newspapers--not so as it turned out.

Perhaps the biggest problem with your pictures is that they are too dark and bold. You are far too much worried about over exposure. Was the 2 pole vault pictures done with ISO 400) that I like the most overexposed? No they were not. Howabout the girl landing in the long jump pit (ISO 200)? There are no overexposed parts of it either. One picture of the track that had some overexposure was the second picture of the girl in black and yellow doing the high jump. But it turned out being a pretty decent picture anyway. Overexposure--like with the barn in my horse pictures--can be a problem--and often is--but it is not to be feared as much as you fear it. You can either crop the overexposed part out--alter it in some way in photoshop--or leave it alone. If you are bracketting, then what little overexposure you may get left with will not even warrant recomposing the shot altogether--which is another option.

None of my neighbor planting flowers had any overexposed part (ISO 200). The images themselves came out well done and well focused. Granted, none of those pictures were of any artistic value--which seems to be what you desire to do and is really the only fault of those pictures. But over exposure isn't even a main concern of mine when using the higher ISOs. My main concerns there have to do with brightness of colors and texture. With the brightness of colors I can always tone it done lowering the saturation in post processing--so it is not that much a part of my consideration. With the texture part I can do nothing. ISO 800 takes away nearly all the texture--so I use it mainly when I want very vibrant colors, such as with taking pictures of flowers and such, and the textures of the plants, as most people like to see in macros, isn't at all important. But overexposure is not very high on my list of concerns for deciding what ISO to use. If I want as much detail as possible and brilliant colors are of no concern, then ISO 50 is the way to go. With regard to the girl in the long jump, however, I would have lost a lot of the detail of the sand/dirt of the pit had I used ISO 50. The dirt was a very important feature of the picture. Had I used ISO 50 I would have gotten underexposed dirt/sand and the picture would have been ruined. Sure I could have doctored it some in post processing, but it would have never turned out as good. On the other hand, had I used ISO 400 on that shot--too much of the texture of the dirt would have been lossed. Of the track pictures, that long jump shot was clearly my best--but I would not have wanted to switch to ISO 200 for the polevault pictures. I got plenty of fine detail in those shots and the rich colors I could not have gotten using ISO 200--much less ISO 50. Had I done them using ISO 50 the images and lines would have looked too bold and the picture would have looked as if they were done with a cheap--very unprofessional--camera. Had I done my neighbor shots using ISO 50, the soil would have looked like nothing but mud. As it was, I probably should have done those pictures using ISO 400. When you have something dark in the photo, such as dirt, ISO 50 in fact losses a lot of detail. MY ISO 100 is so much like ISO 50 that I rarely use it. In your case, ISO 100 is like my ISO 200, so you should be using it mostly with all of your outdoors shots. How you should set and bracket the exposure will become obvious when you try to take the shot. For ISO 200, which is your ISO 100, I usually start at +2/3 and brackett +/- 2/3. You can pretty much tell via the LCD screen where you should be. Point the camera to the ground when making this adjustment to get the most accurate reading on the light. Light metering should be left at default for too many reasons for me to go into here--unless there is a reason to spot meter--such as doing a specific picture of a flower or a single subject--even then its usually not that much important to bother with.
mike savad 15-May-2002 13:06
i'm not much for prizless contests. unless i already have something done, i have better things to do. this theme is boring... my town is boring, and lately it's either been storms, or very windy weather. which almost always equals bad pictures.

the soft shadows - wouldn't you get that on an overcast day anyway? the higher iso may work, but the extra light would overexpose certain areas of the picture. a dark picture can be lightened about 52 ways in photoshop. but overexposure, you lose detail. like the brown and white horse, the white one is too over exposed, along with the barn. i suppose, it can be a look, but i like to see less over exposure, which is why i delibretly make it darker then needed, just in case. and sometimes even that's not enough... it also can backfire, making things too dark, but that doesn't come around all that often.

oh one thing i wanted to ask. that giant basket building, what exactly is that. i've never seen a building like that.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 15-May-2002 03:13
It gives it a more outdoors type of look by not creating so many hard lines. Think of it as writing on the card more lighter. It gives pictures a light touch that many outdoors pictures need--but not all of course. I wondered how many people even looked at the post you started. Probably not man--I would imagine more would have it it had my name on it. And I do intend on getting into the present contest--if I am allowed. I really haven't came up with a good idea yet because I don't like the theme. Hmmm I just this very second thought of something I like that might work. If I enter--and the contest is on the up and up--which I strongly doubt--then I will win easily. I have seen the entries so far--I could take a picture just outside my door and win against what is posted right now. the exhibition gallery would be more daunting--since some idiot is hyping a rather boring shot of The Wall in China. There are also a few pretty good night shots---though they are pretty boring too since there is nothing significant about them--big bridge--whoopie. How in awe am I suppose to be seeing the umpteenth night shot of a suspension bridge? I should have gotten into the last one considering a paint of bucket won--unless the voting is fixed like I said. No one's name is revealed until after they cast their vote--but then I'll be in the lead right away and some jerk will undoubtedly post such to ensure that I don't win. You aught to get into the challenge, too. Consider me your only comp--and if you can beat me--then you will have the win wrapped up. I think no one should have won the last event--all the entries were that bad.
mike savad 14-May-2002 23:38
dan, you still havn't told me why it's advantagous, to use high iso in bright conditions. and i'm really asking here, what am i hoping to achieve?


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 14-May-2002 22:36
The truth is that I thought maybe you would like to be more realistic about you photos--you certainly started out sounding that way at the beginning of this dialogue--and I thought maybe I could give you a good tip that would set you apart from the others on the dpreview board--and that you would like to improve you pohtography. But when you keep saying you can't do something and I know that you haven't really tried--and then you somehow think that taking pictures with your exposure set at -2/3 is always right--then I realize that you have no desire to improve. That's your choice, Mike. If you think that your other ISO settings are worthless, then they are. If you think that using AEB is a waste of time, then it is a waste of time. You can think in whatever way you want--I can't force you to think in another way if I am ipso facto wrong all the time--can I? The reason I know that I couldn't learn anything from you is that you don't really explore photography on your own. You want to think that the higher ISOs are only for poorly lit indoor settings--so you think that way all you want. I KNOW that just about the opposite is much closer to the truth. I know that my digital camera--unlike very expensive SLR film cameras that Kodak was referring to in that article-- cannot take anything but really really bad pictures using the higher ISOs in such a setting. And I KNOW that your camera is no better in that regard. Too bad you are stuck with -2/3 exposure--too bad you can't explore the possibilities of your own camera to see what all it can and can't do. But that's your bad not mine. Please continue thinking that I am a fan of your pictures and the higher ISOs are for dimly lit rooms when one doesn't want to use flash. I encourage you to take lots of ISO 200 with -2/3 exposure pictures--and I hope you take a few million of them. Perhaps after a few million pictures you might get one or two that may become keepers. Good luck!!!!
mike savad 14-May-2002 20:03
i'm glad you agree with me dan. i know you agreed with everything i said - and it's totally true - because you always say lol - when the truth hits you.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 14-May-2002 19:26
lol
mike savad 14-May-2002 13:24
this discussion has proven very useful in figuring you out. from my analysis - you are very jealous of my work. you took one looks and said, wow, that is so nice, i wish that my stuff looked as good as his.

bullies on a playground have the same mentality, their jealous of someone's clothes, family life, more friends, etc. they call everyone stupid, trying to put everyone else down, while at the same time try to put themselves at the top. who are you trying to kid? you were the one who deleted the other entries at that other contest. all the one's better then yours.

using the experiment in the last few posts, ask a question why you do something, and you come back with an insult. ask you more, and i get more insults. when you give advice you give it in an arogant tone, as if you actually know something. there are multiple ways to take a picture, you know of 1.

so, the only way you know if your work is worth a lick, is when people give you comments? that's all? you have no ability of your own, to see what is the best of the one's you took? that's sad dan, real sad. i gave you i believe 2 comments that were semi positive, the dog with the smile was one, but the picture was fuzzy - and the comment really goes for the dog. and the handcuff picture - implying that i want to see you arrested more often. were those the good comments you were thinking of. were those comments the type you stick on that list of yours?

so in conclusion, you are a real fan of my work. no you say? let's see:

you come to my site to look at my work any time there's an announcement.
you pay close attention to al my posts on DP, just to see what comments are said.
you come to MY forum everyday, more then once a day to pay omage.
you constantly go over my images one by one, to see which ones you like best, and then put those down.
you even went out of your way to set up a Mike Savad directory on your own page - i'm honored.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 14-May-2002 04:34
Wow Mike you just proved how chicken you really are of seeing who is more full of shit--you or me. If I were to not get 4 times the comments that you got for your last gallery (which was only 7) I would agree that I have a long ways to go and that maybe you know more about this stuff than me. But were I to get the 28+ comments from others--then I think you should fess up then and let the others know for a fact whose photos they are complimenting. But your inflated ego will not stand up for such a test. You don't want to admit that I am right--but you already have. That's ok--when they have a challenge that I like, I'll enter with pictures that no one will know has came from me (unlike the last time when I entered with pictures that just about everyone saw beforehand)--and that will take care of that. Of the three pictures that we are allowed to enter, I'll be sure to enter a blurred one. That way you will know that I am in the contest and that I will undoubtedly win. I would have won the last time if I hadn't acted so arrogant. My one entry of my dog was clearly better than all the rest--by far. It will be nothing for me to win the next contest. It helps having the best camera to start out with in the first place.
mike savad 14-May-2002 01:56
perhaps you should go back on the medication.

let's state facts:

fact 1 - you are a moron. you think that any comment is a good. when someone points that all of you pictures were crap - and says one possible good thing about 1 single picture - that's not a good thing. they hated the rest of your work.

fact 2 - no one likes you. all the comments were of that. what terrible keyboard, what blurry pictures, etc.

fact 3 - you can't take picture worth a lick. every picture is overexposed. if not that then it's blurred. if not that then it has no contrast. if not that then there isn't anything that it's focusing on. if not that then it's not cropped. all of your pictures, are of nothing. it's like taking a roll call with a camera. learn something will ya!

fact 4 - perhaps you should experiment. all of your photo's show the same things an amateur would do. read some books.

fact 5 - you can never explain yourself, i ask a simple question, you dodge and make fun. why do you like to use the high iso in bright sun? and what the hell do you teach?

fact 6 - your constantly getting bad comments. any comment that can be remotely good, you consider it high praise. you've had your site up for a while - any good comments? should you need any help putting it on dp's site? i know your not wanted there, i wonder why?

fact 7 - i see why you use "special effects" you definitly need them. in fact cover the whole image and do the viewers a favor. can you do any effect that isn't a 2 year old type? please dogs can do better then you, even your goofy dog, he takes after you, you know.

fact 8 - you should have been arrested fully. going to a school for a so called certificate? you were there to take pictures of the girls in gym class weren't you, admit it. most of your pictures are of kids. and all the pictures you liked, all kids. is there a theme? do you have mirror's on your shoes so you can look up a girls dress too?

fact 9 - you should learn how to use a camera. learn how to compose. ask a pro, don't believe kodak - man are you dense.


---Mike Savad
mike savad 14-May-2002 01:38
yeah dan. that's it you guessed it.

unbelievable.

you never did tell me what you taught. just what do you teach?


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 14-May-2002 01:22
If not that, then do what I suggest and give them a link to the pictures I took in ISO 200 of my neighbor. You won't do it. And do you know why you wont do it--because you know you are full of shit and don't know a thing about photography or otherwise.
Daniel Craig 14-May-2002 01:19
No Mike you will not see much reason to use the higher ISOs if you don't learn to use them yourself. None of it will ever make any sense to you. And that's ok. For one your camera will never be able to handle the higher ISOs as well as mine does--so forget about it. You are happy with 7 compliments on your gallery--mostly superficial. When I posted my gallery, I said that I wanted people to say negative or positive stuff--and that all I ask was for them to be honest. My guess, is that I received at least 50 or more compliments and even one from yourself. You will have to put up at least 7 galleries to get the same number of compliments. Granted, I had my nay sayers, too. But I didn't go fishing for any superficial compliments--nor did I get any. You will have to put up at least 7 galleries to get about 50 superficial compliments. Why don't you post the first horse picture of mine that I like--claim it as your own--and ask people to say good or bad about the picture. That is a ISO 400 shot not done in the best of light--and not done with my fastest shutter speed. Or just provide a link to the horse page that I made and claim it as your challenge to user higher ISO and invite opinions good or bad. Prove me full of shit--if you think you can.
mike savad 13-May-2002 22:32
having options are nice. but just because you have it doesn't mean you should use it.

i use high iso only if that's the only way to get a picture. i still don't see what the point is in taking high iso - in bright light. it doesn't make sense. forget about options, were talking about the quality of the picture....

so thinking back, all the pictures that you like - from dp, and on - all of them basically had white backgrounds, low contrast, or/and no shadows. and here i thought you were only attracted to little girl shots.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 13-May-2002 20:56
I don't know, Mike. If you feel there is no need to use higher ISO then OK. Myself, I like all the options on my camera and I use them. I have given you as much information that I know about using the higher ISO. It's up to you if you want to learn more about via experience. I feel that it has helped me a great deal with my picture taking. If you don't see it that way that's fine with me.
mike savad 13-May-2002 16:47
there is no such thing as even light.

why would i want to to delibratly (sp), over expose the image? and why do i need to bracket? what's the point of that?

how many times in a vacation will those conditions be there? it must be bright, and cloudy, and shadowless, and then what?

bright areas regardless of cloud cover (which by the way i do not prefer because you lose the contrasting shadows), and at +1ev, will over expose the scene. and it will look horrible.

and then what? what do i do about the noise? if i shrink the entire picture, the noise will be squished enough so it's not scene, fine. but what happens when i want to crop a part of the scene out. then what? i have a noisy image, that i now have to blur in someway, and at the same time keep sharp.

why do i have to go through such lengths, to use higher iso outdoors? what is my advantage? why am i or even you doing this?


---Mike Savad
mike savad 13-May-2002 16:40
yeah this iso war has been going on for some time.

anyway. all the shots on this gallery are done with a pro90. it's related to the g2, but closer to the g-1 (same ccd). dan's site uses the s30.

s30 is smaller and has apparently a better iso in higher modes. but at full zoom it has an fstop at 4.9. that's pretty high. it means that full zoom would give you darker pictures then other cameras. my zoom is 10x, 370mm, at full zoom it's 3.5 - the the g2 has a faster lens than mine at 2.5 at full zoom.

the g2 has a bigger faster lens on then the s30. it has a flip out screen, very usefull, the ability to attach a polarizer or the like, a hot shoe (for the future), and a very good battery life. it's bulkier then the s30.

from what i've seen, if you know what your doing, and hold the camera steady, the s30 can take pretty good pictures. but it's no G2, the g2 takes much nicer pictures, and at 4mp, clear, sharp etc.

i don't need a g2 since the pro 90 does a fine job. though i'll be keeping my eyes open for the future. i don't plan on replacing this camera for atleast another year or two. and it has to have the same basic specs as this one, only be better. once you have 10x zoom, you don't want to go back.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 13-May-2002 16:34
You cantake pictures outside of just about anything--as long as the light is even. You could have even done it with the shot that you did do. At sunset the lighting was about as even on the scene as it could get--but it wasn't ideal. Try shooting the very same scene on a bright but overcast day with the exposure set at +1 and bracket by 2/3rds. If you can't see where higher ISO shots are more desirable outdoors, then stick to your 50--but make the shot brighter so that it looks outdoors.
Nicola 13-May-2002 16:22
Hi Mike

Just spent an entertaining half hour reading the seesaw battle between you and daniel re different digital cameras and I was just wondering which camera you actually used to take the photos that are on your pbase gallery? am looking at buying the s30 as a first time digital camera buyer and wondered if your photos on the website were with the pro 90 or the g2?
thanks and keep up the conversation, great entertainment and learning more about digicams than i thought was necessary!
Nicola
mike savad 13-May-2002 13:03
for starters, CA has no bearing at all with iso. CA is lens and microlens. the pictures i may retake, a polarizer should be used as the leaves are little white dots and shouldn't be. and next time i'll keep it at EV 0. but i never use that mode and shouldn't have too. as all my shots have this. and before you start judging color or contrast, check the settings on your monitor, find a gamma strip (phil has one), and make sure the whites and blacks are different shades. i've been thinking why you don't like neutral pictures and only the bright ones. either your monitor is too dark. or, and i am serious, your eyes could slowly be going blind in someway. and can only register the brighter colors.

the white balance is auto like it always is. for large scenes the focus is always at center weight, your grasping at straws now. as i stated on the page. all shots were in the exact same place. 4 shots on a tripod. focused on the house, different iso's, that's all.

since your so picky about the test. tell me what i should be pointing, as to make the test valid in you eyes.

i still don't see why i would ever want a high iso on a sunny day. a good picture has sharp contrast. not dull overtones. light streaming through a tree makes for an intresting picture. have you seen pictures elsewhere? it gives life to a picture.

tell me what i should be taking a picture of.... if i have to search hi and low for a subject, it ain't worth it. because i doubt very much that anything like that will ever come my way.

you have to learn how to take photo's in ALL condidtions. not just wide open shadowless areas.


---Mike Savad
mike savad 13-May-2002 12:53
so basically your saying to ignore a film company that has been around for a hundred years, that they don't know what they're talking about?

i've seen your pictures. on a bright sunny day, or even with some clouds you could have easily of stoped the action at the same time preserving your color and sharpness. by choosing a high iso, you turned the sky white, lost color control, lost depth control, lost detail. you can argue all you want. but even my worst iso looks as good as yours if i compress it down as small as you are. turning a poster size picture to the size of a cocktail napkin will do that.

you keep saying to use high iso, and showing me that lousy picture. but your not saying the advantage why i should be using that instead of my own method, which works plently fine.

the gardner or the track - have you tried a lower iso? why 100? why anything? what's the point? if in iso 50 in normal P mode, was the picture un-usable? was it blurred? was it too dark? was it then that you switched over?

iso can be used in certain situations. i'd still like to know from you why you think iso50 is bad? perhaps your camera can't handle the 50 and that's why they threw you the bone iso 800.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 13-May-2002 09:13
Hahaha I didn't even see all your test shots--I only saw the first. But I'm still right about all the contrast. Look at your ISO 50 shot of the tree--even it didn't turn out very good bacause of the contrast--and probably more because you set you exposure at your beloved -2/3 which was probably wrong for all the shots. In your last sample--clearly the ISO 100 would have turned out great had you upped the exposure--by 3/3rds or so. Why do you not understand that the shot you were trying was a very difficult one. Magnify the tree limbs up towards the top--especially in the second shot for the ISO 100 and you will see a lot of CA--I can see it without zooming but there is a lot more there. When you have situations where you are creating a lot of CA, then it will have a tendency to distort the picture as a whole. You did not AEB for these shots because the exposure is wrong in every one of them--they are too low. Your ISO 100 on the last sample would have turned out good anyway had you set the exposure right. And I have a feeling that you took someone's stupid advice and used tungsten WB--which is OK for night shots but no other type of shot outdoors.

You probably metered wrongly too. Naturally you should have used the default Center Weighted Averaging but I rather doubt that you did. You should have used it on account of the sky being in so much of the shot because you weren't really isolating one single subject. So, not only did you choose to do a test for higher ISO that would have even given ISO 50 fits (and did)--but your exposure was set wrong--you did not bracket--and my guess is that you used Evaluative metering, which is really only suited for complicated night pictures than anything else from what I can tell--where you may have a subject in the foreground and bright lights with darkness in the background.

A better attempt would have been for you to take a picture of something under the tree where light rays weren't seeping through. You still would have had plenty of light for your camera w/o the need for flash and the light would have been much more even--no major contrasts of any kind. Ideally you would only have the clouds as your shade--if you are going to even use shade. But keeping the contrast down by having even lighting is most important. Best is a sunny day with the light at your back somewhere. But sun straight overhead would work out fine too just as long as there is no major glare creating contrast everywhere.
Daniel Craig 13-May-2002 07:42
Has your folks ever said to you "everything we tell you goes through one ear and out the other?" I think they must have said that a lot to you--like everyday once or twice an hour. Yeah that Kodak said the same illogical stuff. Can you not tell that when you take higher ISO pics in low lighted indoor situations that the pictures always come out bad? I can tell that easily. Therefore the higher ISO in such a situation serves no purpose to us whatsoever and the advice given on the Kodak site is null and void. Now you have seen my outdoors higher ISO pictures. The ones I am most happiest with were the 2 pole vault pics and the one girl long jump picture. If those 3 pictures aren't enough to convince you that you need to grow and learn more about the higher ISOs, then so be it. Your sample picture of the higher ISOs being used showed me two things: one, your ISO 100 and 200 are usable; two, you can't comprehend why taking such a poorly saturated picture would create a lousy shot.

Think about the pictures of my neighbor planting flowers, for instance. It was a bright but cloudy day. This means no strong rays of sunshine and no discernable shadow to speak of. The good saturation of the light permitted me to take pictures at ISO 100 at ANY angle without any noise whatsoever--and yeah there was no visable noise at its original size either.

The day before I shot my neighbor, I did some shots at ISO 400 of the flower bed he had already planted--it was under a well shaded tree. I got no noise whatsoever--but because I felt that the color tones were a little too high--I dropped it to 200 the following day (I actually think my pics of my neighbor that you did see would have turned out better with ISO 400). Whereas my ISO 100 has next to no noise when doing low light indoor shots--your 100 looks like my 200. And your ISO 200 is much like my 400. And your ISO 400 is most definitely a little worse than my 800--but I said definitely a "little" worse (but still usable under many situations). Maybe your problem is that since the Canon designers threw in a piece of junk like digital zoom--that you think they threw in the higher ISOs for just a marketing ploy. Indeed their calling the ISO a 50 when it is really rated an 80 was a marketing ploy. But do you think they threw in ISO 800 in my camera only as a marketing ploy? I don't think that because I know that it is very usable and desirable. They gave the ISO 800 to the S30 because they knew the camera would handle it. If you want to think that your ISO 400 is uselss--very well. But I can assure you 100% that your ISO 100 and 200 are very usable and that you are missing some really great shots due only to your inability to think outside the box. Well, have fun with just ISO 50--geeesh.
mike savad 12-May-2002 18:33
go to ANY photographer, or ANY artist that takes pictures and ask them what film speed their using. if it's out doors the very best film to use is ISO 64, it provides rich colors but only on sunny bright days. bring it inside, and it will look terrible. the higher iso is meant for the things i mentioned. i want you to go here http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/education/programs/light/index.shtml

this site talks about when to use iso, and when and how to use light. it's a basic primer, but you should get the idea.

technically iso can be used anywhere. however you'll have noise in the darker channels. there shouldn't be much noise in the sky, since all the pixels are on. but blue skies become white. shadows become rainbow, and you lose alot of color, contrast, and detail. the other day i had perfect sun, but didn't notice my camera was set at 400. every shot even dim one's all 1000f8. not one of them is usable. all the color was knocked out. there was no chance of a DOF since f8 was used all the time. everything was blah. i ruined the whole batch, to me nothing was usable.

i for one, like contrast. i like shadow, it adds depth, it adds character. there isn't any one time that i ever want to remove shadow (unless it's on someone's face, and it outlines there skull, that's what fill flash is for). at night, a long exposure should be used. unless the image has to be frozen, and then the high iso is used. in a digicam, the noise will be there, but that's what that mode is for. i certainly don't recommend it though. another use for night, or low light and high iso, is to extend the flash. my 550ex has a rail guide of a 180ft at iso 100. of course this is more of a film term, and i havn't yet tried that distance out, to see if iso 50 would work or not.

have you even tried a lower iso? the pictures would benifit greatly by it. a picture needs shadow, and contrast. remove that, and you have a very flat picture, with no dimension.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 12-May-2002 18:07
I'm not saying you can't have shadows--just not as many as you did in so many different areas of the test picture you were taking. So many different contrasting spots--just like with a checker board--only serves to confuse the camera--or so it seems. Whatever the case--that outdoor shot you were doing didn't have consistant good lighting at all. I do not no where you get the notion that the higher IS0s are mostly for indoor shots. Just the opposite is the truth. Whoever uses or thinks that the higher ISO is mainly for low light indoor settings is full of shit and clueless. The higher ISOs are worthless in such a situation even with the very highest ranking SLR cameras and using the highest grade of film. ISO 25 to 100 should be used primarily indoors and for night shots outdoors. Just try taking a night shot using a slow shutter speed with ISO 400. All those white dots that you will see easily will only serve to greatly increase the noise level of the picture. I know, I know. I have read the same crap that the higher ISOs are to allow more light to avoid having to use flash--and that is utter nonsense. A slower shutter speed is for that purpose. Camera--even very expensive ones have their limits. Try taking an indoor picture with low light using ISO 400 at one second shutter speed exactly and see what I mean. All you will be doing is taking a picture the way that some people think that the higher ISOs are good for. All you will end up with is a good for nothing picture. If I really want THAT much noise in my picture I will add it using a photo editor and get a better balance of noise in the process. Try to think outside the box and you will be amazed by the wrong notions people have about things--maybe there aren't too many people who still think that the world is flat but it is amazing how much people will cling to an opinion that couldn't be more wrong. You are just as bad--clinging to this notion that higher ISO is only for getting a brighter shot when the light is low. You shouldn't even bother with the higher ISOs in such a condition. I think that you are just putting me on, Mike. Either that or you have not seriously tried to take any good pictures yet using the higher ISO settings. That sample shot that you did should have shown to you clearly a situation that the higher ISOs are pretty worthless at. But that is all that it would have shown you. Now go outside and take some night pictures with it or try using it indoors in low ligheted situations--you'll learn 2 more instances where the higher ISO is worthless.
mike savad 12-May-2002 15:13
the test would be the thing i would use it on. if i can use a low iso and have a good picture, i don't need the higher iso. the higher iso, is meant for the indoors. it allows for a faster shutter speed. unfortunally it has noise in dim conditions, but that's what it's for.

the photographer at the hockey rink, would need fast iso. a flash might reach them, and should with a higher iso. but more so, if he can't use the flash, it will allow him to stop the action, because he can use a faster shutter speed, indoors, and not have it turn black.

for me, i take out door shots. it's nearly impossible not to have a shadow... but in fact a shadow makes the picture better (depending where it is).


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 12-May-2002 05:40
Here is a link displaying what the G2 can do at different ISOs. Note that even though there is shade--the lighting is good and consitent--unlike the scene that you were testing on. Done at sunrise--the sun itself is probably behind the building and facing the photographers direction. There were problems uploading the ISO 400 example--and it turned out a mess (explained by Bob H. as an ISP dilemma). Just note that ISO 50 and 100 look like indoor shots. But the ISO 200 does a really good job at displaying color and making the scene appear outdoors--which it is. Also, not that the ISO 200 picture was done at a speed of 1/80th. Thi means I have got a lot more to learn about the higher ISO settings, too:
http://webpages.charter.net/omniverse/photos/tests/isosharp.htm
Daniel Craig 12-May-2002 03:40
Well, the emphasis of the neighbor picture isn't so much the plants as it is the planting and catching my neighbor doing some outside work. It's not the best I could do--I didn't even bother with RAW. Mainlly it iis to show my neighbor how good this camera is compared to my last one that I took pictures of him with--and to show you and others that my camera exhibits no grain at ISO 200 even when I am on the wrong side of the sun--I just need the right lighting--no sun rays in my face--and no shadows to speak of. As far as using the higher ISO indoors go--you still need excellent lighting and use the flash at the fastest shutter speed possible to elliminate noise. Since that is nigh impossible with our non SLR cameras--then the higher ISOs are pretty much worthless indoors--so far as I can tell. Yet all pro photographers taking sports pictures outdoors and indoors wouldn't think of using anything less than ISO 200. I just looked at a bunch of pics done with a 1D of hockey and the photographer said he uses nothing less than ISO 800. Well, a hocker rink is well lighted--and with flash and a $7000 camera he shouldn't get much, if any, noise. I rather doubt that my camera could do anything like that though. I think the more you practice with the higher ISOs, the more you will like it and get better results. Another reason why the particular shot you did do didn't work out is that you have so many spots where there is both shade and sunlight--tremendous contrast--that your camera was a bit unsettled by it. One of the hardest things I ever photographed was a chess board. Everything around the checkered board came out just fine--but my camera was obviously having fits over so many contrasting areas. You could not have hardly picked a more worse view to test out your other ISOs.
mike savad 12-May-2002 03:15
seems better then the others. the foreground jumps out a bit more then before. his face should have a light unsharp mask on it, to bring out the detail better. it's too bad there isn't a flower in the pot next to him, it would help bring a little color into the scene.


---Mike Savad
mike savad 12-May-2002 03:12
i personally don't understand the point in using high iso speeds in bright daylight. the point in taking a picture is to have shadow somewhere. that's where alot of the contrast falls into place. around my house, there isn't any one place flat enough to get no shadow at all. we have tree's everywhere. the houses are in shade most of the time.

iso 400 - is pretty useless. the other's can be used if needed, but only in a low light situation, and even then, i'd probably not use it. typically i use -2/3rd. i have to darken the image enough not to blow out flowers and the like. hydrangia look like snowballs on stems. the shutter has to be faster then the auto. or i'll over expose the whole scene. and higher iso will make it worse (by letting too much light in)...

the spelling - i'm not supprised. for whatever reason i'm having a bad typing day.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 12-May-2002 02:53
By the way, please go back to the one album of my neighbor and click at the bottom "here" link to see the very best version. I lowered the saturation of the grass and I think it is an improvement--let me know what you think--good or bad. Here is the link again:
http://www.iapdatacom.net/members/catman/Wayne/wayne.html
Remeber you have to click on the link at the bottom to see the "very best version" (if I can call it that).
Daniel Craig 12-May-2002 01:59
Back to the drawing board, Mike. In my pictures of track etc. do you see me taking pictures with any shadow in them? No. The shadows are either behind the subjects or down too low to appear in my pictures (and you wrote "try pod" instead of "tripod"). I can't take just any kind of picture using the higher ISOs. Try to get a feel for what will and will not work with regard to how your subject(s) have light on them. I'm not saying avoid shadows completely--but you had shadows on the house--in the yard--and essentially everywhere. In other words, your subject(s) were not well lighted at all. Even where there was light the amount of light was a stingy portion. Your ISO 400 essentially looks unusable--the other ISOs--judging from my own picture taking inaccuracies--look very usable to me. Also, don't set the Ev just by habit. If you do do it by habit--by all means set it at zero and bracket plus and minus 2/3rds or more. Your ISO 100 and 200 are useful--that much I can tell from your shots. But you couldn't have taken the hardest possible shot to see what they could do. Even my camera wouldn't have done very well at those shots--no wayyyyyy.
mike savad 12-May-2002 00:23
the focus thing, that's how it's done regardless.

speckles would partially disappear anyway if you shrink it down that small. a picture with speckles or blurry, will always look when there a 1/4 of the size or less. though the pictures are ok in this size at this iso. did you have any done at iso 50? although the greens are clear, the colors themself lack saturation. the leaves the grass, all have the same midtone of green.

http://www.pbase.com/savad/iso_experiment this shows what my camera can or cannot do. the first two are full sun, a little behind me, but nearly in the middle of the sky. it's a fairly shadowless sun and very clear and bright. the last one is the sun setting, it is behind me, it's a warm color with soft shadow. shrunk down iso 400 in a dark situation isn't so bad. i would have put the P mode up, but i lost the order when i assembles the collage.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 11-May-2002 22:11
Here is a little album that I did today of my neighbor. All were done using ISO 200 and I was able to get away with taking the pictures with the sun behind me and in front of me--no despeckleling was done. Surely you could do something like this at ISO 100--or maybe on auto for the ISO setting. All pictures were resized and compressed--since my neighbor has bad bandwidth as I do and has a much older computer. The smallest picture for file size was compressed to about 1/3 size of the original one was after it was resized.
http://www.iapdatacom.net/members/catman/Wayne/wayne.html
Note, there is zero visable noise. The reason I got away with doing it from both angles is because the sky was NOT included--again, I took pictures at the highest shutter speed--plus it was mostly cloudy anyway. Note, there were no focus problem. I used the MF locked on focus--by depressing shutter halfway and then depressing the MF button--which made focusing easy.
mike savad 11-May-2002 12:40
for starters, the d60 is way better. though i still don't like it.

the iso in film cameras - the lower the number the brighter the scene can be without it getting over exposed. iso100 is typically used on a bright sunny day. iso400 inside a room, or a cloudy day. to compensate for the darkness. iso800 and up, are for really dark scenes, like weddings, when the flash is inapropriate, and for speed actions when you really needs to stop things in time and still have enough light.

the bigger the camera the better higher iso's it can do.

other studies found that the iso setting is called different things in different cameras. so far the first test, was during a setting sun. i'll try to do the bright light this afternoon. using 1000th of a second generated a acceptable photo in iso400 - there was still alot of noise. there isn't much point in despeckling, because it removes too much detail. i want to keep the fine detail if i can. but there isn't much reason to use 1000th of a second, unless i want to freeze time.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 11-May-2002 03:47
Did you try to despeckle grain in photoshop? I didn't have to do this with my pole vault photos--but I did use it a couple of times with my horse photos. Despecle will take a tad off the focus on some pictures--but in most case--not all cases--this will not matter--especially if you got the picture in real good focus in the first place. A little bit of grain after using despeckle will not be a major factor. Maybe in photoshop it isn't called despeckle--all you are doing is reducing noise--so photoshop should have something for that. I would be very surprised that it doesn't work even as remotely well as the S30--but that is what you are saying. that would be too bad because the higher ISO settings would, therefore, be a complete waste on your camera and others. If this is also the case with the G2, and i have my doubts, then the S30 is clearly superior to it. I look at it this way--ISO 50 is one camera. I discount ISO 100 since it is so nearly like ISO 50 there is no reason to use it except to speed up continuous drive. ISO 200 gives me yet another camera. ISO 400 yet another camera. And ISO 800 yet another camera--though not as important as the other 3. It's definitely like having 3 or 4 cameras in one. But with film users it merely means buying a different speed of film. With outdoors pictures, film users rarely even think of using anything below 200--certainly even less so for sporting events. My purchase of the S30 wasn't all as lucky as you perceive it to be. Shopping around and reading boards etc I had decided firmly to get an A20. But the very day I made up my mind to get the A20, I went into Circuit City--they didn't have it. I asked them to show me what Canons they did have--and after being showed 3 of them--the S30 stood out like a sore thumb. I recalled raeding how the IXUS300 barely beat out the A20 in quality--yet this camera had more pixels, more control, etc. So, I figured why think on it any longer--so I bought it. A little impulse buying to be sure--but I have never looked back and regretted it or wish I bought something else. I had my galleries down earlier--you may have not gotten in. It's back up now. Yeah I wish I could find a camera that I would long to have in place of the S30--I really do--but so far that camera does not exist--except for maybe the D60--which I can't afoord anyway--and I'm not even 100% sure it would be a better choice than the S30. Had there been an S40 sitting right by side the S30 at circuit city--I still would have gotten the S30 because I set $499 as my limit. Yeah I am very glad not to have the S40.
mike savad 11-May-2002 01:05
i tried it earlier today. much grain. too much for my tastes. you chose the s30 because that's the first thing you saw when you went to best buy. it fit's in your pocket. you can take pictures of all the kids you want and quickly slip it back into your pocket. it works for you.

every camera has a different ability, the s30 is a lovely camera. but quite frankly there are far better camera's across the whole board of cameras, that can easily beat the s30. but still be on the same playing field as the g2.


---Mike Savad

Daniel Craig 11-May-2002 00:43
I've gotten rid of two galleries and added another that is much larger and you don't have to wait forever for the pictures to download. The new gallery is entitled special effects:
http://www.pbase.com/catman/dansplace
Everything you have said about focus regarding my camera is inaccurate--everything you have said aboout higher ISO--except on how it relates to your camera--is inaccurate. With the focusing issue, I think you are just being silly. With the higher ISO issue, I just think you don't know. I certainly didn't understand the higher ISOs like I do now just 2 weeks ago exactly. I was always saying bad stuff about ISO 200 and 400--I already had found 100 and 800 as being useful. Why do you think that Canon's ISO 50 is so desirable--it is really ISO 80? Do you think the G2 would be just as desirable had it just ISO 50? If you really think that you couldn't be more wrong. Before I used to say--give me ISO 50 and ISO 800, I can do without the rest. Now that I know much better, I say let me keep ISO 200 and 400 I can live without the other ones. For me understanding ISO 200 and 400 like I do now--is like me getting a brand new--and more useful camera. Because the S30 does the ISO settings--all of them--by creating less grain than the G2 or the S40 it makes it a much more valuable camera. I wouldn't trade my camera straight up for anything less than a D30--and then I'd hesitate--I wouldn't hesitate for the D60--although I would be giving up portability in the process (and that would hurt). Too bad there isn't someone on the message board right now showing all the other camera owners what they are missing in not using--or not being able to use--ISO 200 and 400. Again my polevault pics were all done using ISO 400--no grain--and they are as professional looking as a person could want. 2.1 mega pixels is just fine for 8X10. Your camera could handle 10X14 easily. My camera could handle 12X16 without flinching. Hopefully, when you do your higher ISO pictures you will use the fastest shutter speed you can--and do the pictures with the sun angled behind you as much as possible--and use AEB. That has been my tip at the very beginning of this "thread"--as I will call it--and hopefully you will come around to admitting that I am right.
mike savad 10-May-2002 20:53
i base my opinions on how i see them. if an "average joe" picks up a camera, for the first time and comes up with colorful clear images - then that's a good easy to use camera. but if the same guy picks up a camera and it comes out dull, lifeless and blurred, that camera is not as good.

pixel count is irrelevant, it's how dense the pixels are packed and how it's processed. the nikon 5000 is a 5mp camera, and yet the colors come out real dull and washed out compared to the g2. it doesn't mean the g2 is better, it simply does a better job in this respect. my camera has a 3.3 in it, the same as the g1, it uses 2.6 of it. and yet my pictures or the pictures taken with this camera, can beat alot of the other "larger cameras" out there.

phil won't ever do the study, it isn't worth it, both cameras are different. and old enough not to go back too. why would he bother comparing those camera's side by side? do you know how hard that would be? how many other cameras he would have to do that with?

trying to find a better camera? s30 - can never have an attachment that you can leave on, that acts as a filter. you need a pro camera for that.


everything in the 10x range filters can be added. just so you know. and i believe it's that new 330 - the colors are way better then the s30 - and i think it was smaller too. everything in the prosumer line, can only have filters and close up add ons. only pro cameras can have their lenses removed. and only then can you change the overall quality of the picture. adding on a small filter will not improve the quality of the pictures enough to be truley noticed. the camera has to be good, and well as the person behind it.


comparing to the olympus is silly. the lenses are the same. the oly uses a 2.1mp - though some say there isn't alot of difference, the pro90 pix are alot finer. so the pixel density must be alot tighter.

i believe that the problem in the s30's focus problem relies on a few factors:

1. the person behind the camera thinks it's film camera and is taking it to fast.
2. the poor tele light handling ability causes longer then usual shutter speeds.
3. the camera is lighter then other cameras. the metal makes it a little heavier, and that itself (the lightness) can induce shake.
4. the camera is small, and perhaps too small for people's large hands. the camera may simply be moving because there isn't anywhere good to hang onto.

there are plenty of complaints on the board that shows the s30 having problems. there may be more people complaining about the s40 - because more people have them. they decided on the larger size. but i can't really see how focusing would be different from each camera model. they bother have the same engine, they should have the same problems (though a 4mp may pronounce the iso more). i havn't ever had the need for a higher iso. it would have to be a really long shutter speed for me to even think about using it. i rather have a finer picture. as it is, at iso 50 the pictures are still too bright. and i still have to push the light down.

in the case of the s30 - canon felt bad that the tele is at a whopping 4.9 - and made up for it with a better higher iso.

but for me, it's useless feature. tommorow if i have the time, i'll show you what a useless feature it really is in my camera.


---Mike Savad


Daniel Craig 10-May-2002 18:07
Well, nothing said on the board backs up what you say. Sure the S30 and S40 look exactly alike--have precisely the same features etcetera. But quality performace the S30 is the winner--that's not according to me. That's according to everyone who has had the opportunity to test them thouroughly side by side.

I don't understand the tecno reasons for this--but i have read that 3.3 mega pixels is the max that digital cameras can handle for maximum quality--on account of the lens (strange as that sounds even to me). Hence, the popular Nikon D1 has even less pixs than my camera. Yours falls below 3 mega pixels. Mine goes over on account that it apparently has the right design to go over 3 mega pixels. The S40, G2 and so many other cameras go to the 4 plateau and beyond on account of consumer demand only--at a cost of not being able to reach the highest quality possible. Now, I don't know if this is true--it is just something I have read. If people who know and have compared the S30 to S40 always say that the S30 performs better, then am I to assume that they are all liars? Chances are that the S30 surpasses the G2 as well on highest possible quality. It cerainly isn't inferior to it. Indeed, were Phil to pit the G2 against the S30--as I have asked Phil to do many times--I would be shocked if the G2 produced higher quality pictures. You base your opinions on appearance only. Then come up with a 4 out of 5 number saying that is how often pictures YOu see that are blurred. Such observations aren't scientific--or hands on--on your part. It is all make believe thinking. In my efforts to find a better camera--I am being rational and not letting my emotions get into the way. How the S30 performs with add on lenses I don't know and can't say--I have not seen any examples of such. But I know there is a $40 addapter one can get for it that allows for extra lenses and filters. I'm not traitorizing Canon in saying that the 707 is desirable on account of its remapping abilities. I don't work for Canon and I couldn't care less which manufacturer makes the best camera. In the 3X class--for portability and image quality--the S30 is unbeatable (especially considering its price as well). For a 10x class camera--yours is probably tops--but that is discounting the fact that you can put add on lenses on the others. I would think that with enough cashola, one could get even better pics with a high quality add on lens for either the G2 or S30. But I don't KNOW that. I DO know that your camera is better than Olympus C700--C2100 cameras--but at $300+ more it should be a lot better. No that's thinking things out rationally irregardless of the brands. What you THINK you know about the S30's inability to focus is quite incorrect and not supported by people who know how to use the camera on the message boards. I for one have not updated my firmware because my feeling is that if it isn't broke, then why fix it. However S40 users who have often complained about focusing, have reported that the firmware updates has resulted in their camera being able to focus better. The S30 and sS40 are two completely different cameras despite appearances. Realize also that the S30 has the extra and very usable ISO 800. The Canon designers knew that they were creating a superior camera with the S30--and the ISO 800 puts an exclamation point on that fact! My brother just bought some ISO 400 film for his Minolta SLR. Having such greater ISO options is most desirable in professional photography--I do not know where you would even think that it isn't important--unless you are dreaming.
mike savad 10-May-2002 14:00
first off, dan, you can argue with phil about this and see what he says. he will undoubtly say (provided he isn't ignoring you in the first place), that the s30 and the s40 are the exact same camera, with different chips. same lens, same design, same programing. it will have the same focus problems. all the complaints are from s30 owners. problem with you, is that you either ignore those comments and see what you want to see. or you call them a spy of some sort and still ignore what they have to say. and using my eye as a judge, 4 out 5 pictures come out blurry.

the problem with using high iso is that too much light comes in. regardless of noise (the noise is simply being washed out in the first place and therefore doesn't count). the pictures lose detail, they lose color, they lose contrast, it's simply over exposed, if improperly used. using iso50 - have you tried that at you highest shutter speed yet? technically you shouldn't need 1000th of a second since 250th of a second will stop most moving things. it also makes for a boring picture. i rather have a darker more colorful picture, longer shutter speed, and pan with the runner. in this manner, you will not see a frozen statue floating in mid area making a stupid face. you will see a runner, running, showing actual movement. this is what you will see in a magazine. none of yours will ever look like that.

and the plastic thing was not refering to the s30 - it was against the g2.

research: let's see, for starters, the s30 was not out yet. next, i wanted zoom and power, the s30 though portable, is not any of those. i've hardly been impressed by it's abilities. if someone gave me an s30 and paid me to use it, it would still be on my shelf. becuase i would miss that many shots with the pro 90. i'm never said any one camera is better then another. it was you who was in mine and everyone elses face of how wonderful the s30 is compared to everyone elses... every camera is different. -- for a canon fan such as yourself, you would recommend a sony - why? because of spite? you should let your brother decide this for himself. the sony has a nice lens, one of the best. but it's only 5x it always has been. but it does have more MP. on the other hand, it uses the memory stick, at a fixed price and size. and the camera has now viewfinder from what i remember, so your forced to use the screen in the back for every shot. - the decision should be is. and it would be unfair of you to present a slanted view to him. you should report your finding, and let him decide - simple as that.

the g2 and pro 90 are both considered pro-sumer cameras. they can attach a flash directly to the camera, along with close up etc. they both have better light abilities. but it's a little more bulky. --- and technically speaking my old pentax 160 is better than the s30 - in zoom and abilities and it's an analog camera.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 10-May-2002 04:21
"phil didn't have to review the s30. what's the point, why do a lesser camera when you can basically both at the same time, with the s40."

This statement runs counter of those who know better--have had them both--and none choose the S40 over the S30 when given the choice. tasty donut being one of many that I have heard from that rates the S30 better--bu no one who has had both cameras has ever said that they are exactly alike.

"i also got it, because of battery life, being able to attach filters, and a flash. all of which you can not do with the s30."

Apparently slave flash works just as good as having a hot shoe. And there is an adapter that one can get to put on filters and extra lenses.

"alot of people are complaining of it's terrible focusing system. and alot of s30 pictures are blurred because of that."

I have heard that argument regarding the S40 a lot--the S30 rarely. None of the digital cameras focus quite as fast as film SLR. I have had no problem with focus--except when I don't really make an effort to focus well. The S30 is noted for focusing faster than the S40 and G2 and not as fast as some of the Sony digicams. Undoubtedly it focuses better than the 90.

"the g2, pro90 etc, doesn't need to go higher than 1000th. what's the point?"

The point is to elliminate noise at the higher ISO. The quicker you can have the shutter, the less noise--if any. Many shots have I taken at ISO 400 have been completely noise free. That's a fact--not pretend. Most of my track shots were done using ISO 400--all the pole vault ones were. I actually enjoy having a little noise at ISO 800.

"the s30 has lag if you let it focus on something."

For a fact, the S30 has no lag whatsoever. Not in normal drive mode. In continuous drive it has lag for lack of buffering memory. If I want to take a picture of a moving car that crosses in front of me--I have to wait until the car is dead center before pressing the shutter button. The reason I was able to get all the good action pics in the track wasn't do to continuous drive--I would have missed a lot had I relied on that. The camera didn't let me down even once in getting the action as it was occuring.

" it's quite unfortunate that canon used such cheap plastic for that camera. on other hands, my pro 90 is worn in a few spots, but still looks new (after 23,000+ pictures)."

That is utter nonsense. Most of the S30 is of polished alluminum ie metal. It does have a plastic back panel and bottom panel. But it is mostly made of metal--no question one of the best built digital cameras around.

Well, Mike when you have to make things up in your argument against my camera---who are you hoping to convince? If I could recommend a better digital camera under $1000 to my brother I would. Were he in the market for a 10X digital zoom, I'm not so sure that I'd recommend the Pro90. I would recommend it over the Oly C-2100. I think right now I'd steer him towards a Sony 707 instead on account that not only does it rate higher in image quality than your camera--but it has remapping capabilities in case a dead or really hot pixel develops. You have a great camera--but is it the very best one can get for under $1000 if someone wants something greater than tele 240 mm? In the 3x range, the S30 stands way above the rest--and you can get greater range leses for it if you got the mega bucks to put out for it. It is more versatile than your camera--and far more portable than your camera or the G2. Granted, its not as portable as the S110 and other really nice Canon digicam--but it has the kind of portability that most people want. You should get it so that you can make your mom weep for having gotten the G2. It's nice to know that when I can afford to get more lenes for the S30--I can. Perhaps you haven't that much versatility in your 90. You obviously didn't do enough research before you bought the 90.

mike savad 10-May-2002 01:07
i have a pro 90, my mother has a g2.

my camera can't handle the higher iso - technically it can, but it's junky. i never got it for that, and i never had a use for it. i got the camera for it's zoom - correct. i also got it, because of battery life, being able to attach filters, and a flash. all of which you can not do with the s30.

the s30 needs that iso ability, it's lens is not very fast. it needs the compensation to get semi decent pictures. alot of people are complaining of it's terrible focusing system. and alot of s30 pictures are blurred because of that.

the g2, pro90 etc, doesn't need to go higher than 1000th. what's the point?

the timer is meant to get into the picture. the remote which comes with both cameras, is much more versitale then the 2 second timer that the s30 has. true it would be nice to have the feature, but i barely use the timer as it is, and if i need to use it as a bulb, i'll use the timer.

the s30 has lag if you let it focus on something.

the compact part you have, but that does come with a price. a slower lens, no hot shoe, etc. it's quite unfortunate that canon used such cheap plastic for that camera. on other hands, my pro 90 is worn in a few spots, but still looks new (after 23,000+ pictures).

phil didn't have to review the s30. what's the point, why do a lesser camera when you can basically both at the same time, with the s40. except for the ccd, it's the same exact camera. the 2.0 at wide, isn't that much - but when you compare full tele at 2.5 at full zoom - compared to your 4.9 - it makes a huge difference. it means you can take brighter pictures at full zoom. mine is a 10x, it's 3.5 still better then yours. phil also does not care if any one camera beats another camera. and i'm sure there are many other review sites that did or did not review this camera.

when the pro 90 came out it's list was $1200 - it's a prosumer camera, leaning towards pro. you can get it for about $700-800 now.

the pro 70 was a good camera from what i understand. but it was only around 1.3mp - but takes and still takes good pictures.

be happy with your camera. i researched very carefully before buying this one. and in a few years i'll do the same, when something better comes out. but for me, it needs the zooming power, because i'll certainly miss it.... and maybe by that time they'll have a better engine to remove iso noise.


---Mike Savad

Daniel Craig 10-May-2002 01:05
Well, I see the Pro70 wasn't a better camera--less control and smaller sensor. The Sony 505V gives the Pro90 a run for its money--much higher rated image-wise. But it is only a 5X zoom. I still figure that you could be doing a lot with the ISO 100--and maybe 200 if you really tried. The Pro90 just isn't like the S30/40 or G2 at all--except much of the technology is comparable. You should really focus on taking really good zoom shots that show off your camera's abilities. Like birds in flight--planes in the air--animals hard to get near to like squirrels and rabbits. But what I would be doing with a 10x camera is to go to the beach. No one will know who you are taking a picture of since you could be so far away. Also, pictures of boats would be highly interesting. Zoo shots of animals from afar like Gorillas would be interesting too. A camera like that would be excellent to take to a race track or at some balooning event.
Daniel Craig 10-May-2002 00:28
I thought you had both cameras. That explains everything right there. Maybe your camera can't handle the higher ISO--that would be terrible. I'm really having a ball learning about the extra ISOs that I have. If you were honest you'd admit that some of my track pictures look very professional. I did read the review of your camera once. I think its only major strength is its zooming ability. I can tell you, too, that the S30 can handle the higher ISOs better than the S40 or the G2. Much better from what I have been reading. If you really want to beat out the S30 in that area--and stay with a Canon--you'll just have to buy a D30 or D60. Other factors in favor of the S30 over the G2 is that it is 1/1000 versus 1/1500 max speed favoring the S30. It has 2 and 10 second delay timer--the G2 only haas 10 second delay. It has no lag time of any kind--the G2 may have an ever so slight lag time. It has a more solid build and is pocketable. The only major advantage that the G2 has over the S30 is remote. I have heard that it's 2.0 versus the S30's 2.8 lens quickness really isn't a major advantage. Also, the S40/30 cameras have the more advance lens design. I believe strongly that Phil will not review the S30 for the simple reason that it will kick butt of all the cameras less than $1000--or even less than $1500. I'm not saying that just cause I happen to stumble across a superior camera. I have searched to no end to try to find a camera that I could reccomend to my brother that is better than the S30---there aren't any non SLR camera that I know of that is clearly better. However, I think that for zoom ability--the Pro90 is the most reasonable choice--yet it is quite a bit above $1000 if I remember me right. You have a great camera. I'll see what I can find out about its ISO abilities. For me the higher ISO capabilities of the S30 has become fundamentally important. I thought you owned a Pro90 and G2. I know that there are some that are sayng that the discontinued Pro70 was a better camera.
mike savad 09-May-2002 20:02
if i got a g2, the only way it would end up in the trash is because i accidently bumped it off the table. you can do a lot more with a g2 then you can with a s30. but i don't have a g2 i have a pro90.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 09-May-2002 19:32
ISO 100 doesn't really work indoors for me. Maybe that is what you should use instead of ISO 200 for outdoors. Still, your noise should be about nil with the sun directly behind you with ISO 200 trying to set the shutter speed as fast as you can--etc. It may help for you to go to Av mode first--set the ap at 2.0--then go to Av and set the speed to 1/1000--it then seems to choose the largest aperture that way. Otherwise the picture will be too dark and you'll have to choose a slower shutter speed. But setting the exposer up will help--some. I think my horse pics would have been better at ISO 200. Still, I'm very satisfied with the first picture. I rather like the old faded look in that picture. I think a polorize lens would have ruined it. I think if you were to go out and buy an S30, you would end up throwing your G2 in the trash.
mike savad 09-May-2002 13:05
i doubt the compliment part because it would be gritty and overexposed.

tommorow i want to try an experiment. today we have the rain that you had yesterday. i'll show you what the noise looks like, so you can have an idea of what i'd have to go through to remove it.

and again, i'm not doing it for compliments. i'm doing it the way i like. and i personally like full color (or as full as possible), with low or no noise, clear the first time, good contrast, and hopefully a good expression.

when ever possible i like to avoid bright skies... for me anyway, it causes or intensifies the CA around trees. and though i've found a way to remove it, it also strips away other shades of magenta.... oh well...


---Mike Savad
mike savad 09-May-2002 13:00
there's a batch of files i sent after the i uploaded the first. after i saw what i said about clear blue skies, and seeing that i had mostly indoor shots. it seemed silly not to have a few more from outside.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 09-May-2002 04:36
By the way, your giraffes were your best animal picture. I think it would have came out better at ISO 100 or 200---but I missed that shot first time viewing your gallery. I saw your tucon pictures--no comment.
Daniel Craig 09-May-2002 04:31
I could have fixed the sky--although it was as light as you see it. Still I could have done something to it. All pictures are as they came from the camera--except I despecled a couple of them--cropped and resized some of them. Not all my pics had sky. In the first, which I like the best--I took from my car and not from a dead stop. I think the sky in it sets a good tone for the scene. The over exposed white barn I think is by far the most distracting. You need to practice with your other ISOs. None of these pictures were taken at a speed of faster than 1/1000--to imitate the G2 speed--and all were done at ISO 400. So, top speed for your ISO 200 would be the equivalent. I didn't have the best of sun light in any of these pictures nor was the sun as directly behind me as I would have liked. Still if you were to post these pictures as is--claim them as your own--I could guarantee that you would get more than twice the compliments that you did with the last gallery you posted--guarantee.
mike savad 09-May-2002 02:48
your iso is simply better then mine, that's all, i'll have to assume it's the DSP in the camera. your white is set to outdoor. the high iso, blinds the sky, it won't matter what the setting is, it will always be a bright white color.

if you knew how to use photoshop you can very easily fix the color, since you seem to have to edit all of them anyway. this toucan http://www.pbase.com/image/1962445 is the photoshop version - this one was the original http://www.pbase.com/image/1978004

the color was barely lost using photoshop. and there is no grain, and i don't need to use contrast as a sharpener.

ISO is best used for fast moving opbjects that would otherwise have a slow shutter speed to keep them bright. photoshop can brighten an object if you know what your doing, but it can't adjust for making an object appear to stand still.

as for the horses - the over exposed sky is very distracting. if it were cloudy it is excusable. the barbed wire in the first one is distracting as well. and the last one? it looks like a photocopy. i see no reason to have it.

page 2 - would be good if you crop out the 2 horses together, and didn't over expose the white horse it was next too. the overall may be a farm setting, but would have been better to crop out most of the background.

page 3 - i would have left out, the horses butt is pretty distracting. of the ones this one is better then 2 since there's still some detail in the wood.

page 4 - would have been better if you were closer, and over the wire.

page 5 - isn't bad there's no sky, so the attention goes to the horses. still that butt is still pretty distracting. the noise in the horse doesn't help it's detail level any. from an iso standpoint, the noise is must finer then mine. mine litterly looks like rainbow sand.

i'll still use the iso50 - as i don't believe there is a DSP in my camera (otherwise my tulips wouldn't bleed as they do.


---Mike Savad

Daniel Craig 08-May-2002 23:57
Well, you are wrong about ISO and grain--you are wrong to think that you can mimick higher ISO with Photoshop. And you are especially wrong if you think you can top this:
http://www.iapdatacom.net/members/catman/mike/horses.html
As far as getting a blue sky--I could have done that if I could have remember the right setting for my WB when I took the pics above. It doesn't really matter that much to me--besides I had very little sun through the clouds to help me on the pics here. Nevertheless, one cannot say I was indoors with these shots--I like my first and last pics the best.
mike savad 08-May-2002 18:02
we should both have the same iso 50.

but the lens is different. in wide, we both have 2.8. but you full zoom it's almost 5 - where as mine at full 370mm is only 3.5, and at 3x is more like 2.8 or so.

if you need to brighten a picture don't both with the higher iso's. for me, there's nothing but grain. if i need it brighter, i'll bring it to photoshop. make 2 layers, one using screen on using darken, and adjust those levels. it will enhance, without it messing up the over all picture. by toucan picture was done that way. it was very dark (due to the limitations of the flash).

my pictures, there is no reason to delibratly bleach out the sky. the sky is a part of the picture as well. my camera can take very blue skies. a higher iso is better for fast action, dark rainy days like you have, or problems with camera shake. my camera doesn't have the shake problem.

ideally through all the tests i've done, i've found no valid reason to use anything higher then iso 50. unless i really needed to have a picture and the light was too low to hold the camera steady (like if it wanted a 1/4 to 1 second exposure.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 08-May-2002 17:02
If it wasn't raining right now I'd do that. Here is a link to a car I did in ISO 200 (not perfect):
http://pub118.ezboard.com/fpirc67276frm18.showMessage?topicID=826.topic
I have been working on one at ISO 800--that looks nearly as good and my photo editing is better (overall it does look better). I'm trying to do light metering better. For outdoor shots of animals I would just leave it at default in most cases. Defintely for when you want to include the sky leave it at the default setting. Other than that, I am pretty ignorant about the light metering aspect of taking pictures with the S30. I don't imagine that you have even bothered to try to learn that aspect of your camera, since you are happy with just ISO 50. Well, well--it looks as though it may have stopped raining--time to do some mushroom hunting. I may do a few animal shots along the way if I get a chance.
mike savad 08-May-2002 13:00
why get a cheap camera like that?

you don't have to go to the zoo. you live in a farm area, take some pictures of that. cows, chickens, pigs, whatever. do it on a clear to partly cloudy day. show me that the sky still looks blue and the animals have a strong contrast, becuase that's what's really important.

i'm really not sure what your seeing on my pictures, as they are contrasted and not terribly over exposed. there isn't much point in taking an over exposed noisy picture.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 08-May-2002 06:28
I see--you are not up to the challenge. I would go to a zoo to show you how it is done--but there's none within 50 miles where I live. I would do it if it served a purpose besides showing you up. You messed up getting a camera with all the settings that you have got. You should have bought a Nikon 775. Good luck!!!
mike savad 08-May-2002 00:40
yeah but they only like maybe one of the pictures not all..

our camera's are very different. all of my iso, looks like sand paper. since iso 50 works fine, why should i mess up all my vacation pictures? that doesn't make any sense.

i'm not in it for the comments. people can say good if they want, i don't really care. what is important, is that it has to pass my tests, and i'm fairly strict with my own work. after all i picked only these out of over 400. all of them had the subject in view, but none (except these) had any character.

the suns posistion is relative to what your taking a picture of. where it is, what statment your making, and of course the timing you have when you are there. cropping is the same thing, no rules.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 08-May-2002 00:27
Well, you don't have to have the sun light directly behind your back all the time. Indeed, amny noon shots will turn out good--especailly if you are in the shade and taking a pic of something not in the shade. Believe me, they didn't put higher ISO on your G2 so that you would only get grainy shots. Our cameras are much more alike than you you may think. Think about it--if you take a picture at ISO 200 at 15 seconds--you are only inviting grain. But with the shutter set at the highest speed (1/1000?) then it elliminates grain--or rather causes less to appear. Ok--you take the next zoo pictures as I have istructed the best that you can. Try to take as many as you did before. Filter out the best in the same number (ratio) as you did before using only ISO 50. Then if you get 28 responses besides your own--then you have to give me due credit. And click on the name of the responders to see that I am not getting people who have never posted on there before to make responses. 28 will be exactly 4 times the number of responses that you got before. The only replies you can't count are you own (so if anyone posts twice or more then they all count). Almost everyone who did cut me down on my pictures--including yourself--also so praised one or two that they liked). I probably only had 28 or less non-repeating responders--if that. So, 28 would be (even with repeaters) a very high rate. If you got 28 non-repeaters--well--I thin that would be nigh impossible--even for any of the pros. I got a lot of my responses by stirring up the pot.
mike savad 07-May-2002 22:20
The bronx zoo was posted yesterday. Your site, quite frankly, i've never seen any posts, and of the one's i've seen, they weren't very nice, mine included.

ISO 200 will over expose, and grain the pictures. Perhaps the s30 needs the extra speed or light, I don't know. Your lens is about the size of a nickel, maybe smaller, never measured it, mine is over 2 inches accross, it has enough light gathering ability.

Sun at my back is nice, provided that the sun is there, and the animal is there, and there's a spot to shoot from.

All my pictures have -2/3 - it does prevent blow out. If it's set at 0, there will be alot of blow outs, and at ISO 200 - woah.

People's comments are there own. If they felt they had too, they would do so. Over the course of about a day or so 500+ people visited this site. Some may feel they want to comment other's do not. I visit alot of places, I never really feel the urge nor guilt to give a nice comment. If people like it, they will, and have.

Also remember, bad comments are not a good thing. If you remember, maybe 2 out of 200 comments saying they sort of liked a picture doesn't count for anything. If I remember right, most of the comments were in the line of blurred, over or under exposed, yuck and are you crazy. I don't count those as good.

The likely hood, of me our ISO 200 outside in bright sun - getting compliments probably not. We have 2 different camera's dan. Your advice won't apply to my camera, since my camera already get's enough light into it. Setting it faster, will only let in too much light, and I will lose alot of detail.

I've tried ISO 100 - good for closeup because the grain disapears in the blur. Outside, stinks.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 07-May-2002 22:00
Listen, Mike. You put up your pictures of the Bronx zoo that ellicted just 7 or 8 replies not your own. I put up one gallery and it got over 80 responses not my own--OK I'll subtract your responses--it still had nearly 80 responses. I'm not a pro by any means. You plan to go to another zoo--correct. Just see if I am right then. Take all your photos at ISO 200 with the exposure set at zero and bracket by =/- 2/3rds. Try to do the best that you can at picking out the best picture and cropping to scenery. If you can't take a picture with the sun at your back--then don't take it. I guarantee you will get over 20 replies not your own the next time. And the people complimenting your shots will not being doing it out of a any obligatory feeling as they did the Bronx Zoo pictures. Expect Gordon, derek and some of the better photographers to compliment you on your pictures for a change. But then, when you reach that magic number of 20 replies (which is nearly 3 times what you got for your Bronx pictures)-- then you have to give me due credit--at that point you will probably get 40 more replies. Only display your best outdoor pictures--and use ISO 200 whehter it is sunny or not. Try to use MF when you can--I know that will make it harder to work with the camera--but try doing it on a lot of your pictures. And I will be looking forward to you getting your first major thread.
mike savad 07-May-2002 20:38
Problem with scenary, is that there is none. Or not enough. Or there's a flash glare in the glass, or some kid's head, etc. Of course, since I have the zoom, I tend to get in tight something I have to refrain from doing - this is of course where the larger pixels come in. But I rarely get to take pictures of animals.

ISO 50 is really best for all around. ISO 100 and up is meant for indoors, or the absence of light. Where there would be too much shutter lag, the ISO would make up for it. Used out doors, it would allow for faster brighter pictures, but also increase the over exposure and CA. Everything depends on the situation.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 07-May-2002 15:52
ISO 50 for indoors is fine. But for outdoors--especially on a sunny day, it sucks. Set your ISO to 200 and your exposure to zero--bracket by 2/3--do all this from AV so that you can make the shutter spped as fast as you can. Take pics with the sun behind you and--whah lah--you will discover that you have a completely different camera. Again crop to scenery--all your bird shots need more scenery. The 1/3 rule is a good rule if you take scenery into consideration. The elephant house--featuring the steeple--didn't need any scenery.
mike savad 07-May-2002 14:44
Well, I'm glad you mentioned the ISO - quite frankly I forget I even have the thing, since it's hidden away in the menu. I'll be experimenting with the inside shots, since there were alot of them... High iso outside, would give me blow outs, and most likely I'll forget and leave it on the high ISO, and mess up a bunch of pix. My ISO 400 is like a close up of sand, it's very gritty. ISO 50 is best, setting it at -2/3 to prevent over exposure, most of the time.

I could try the sharpening by contrast, but it tends to "over do it" and the results are less detail and strange sharpening. i try to over contrast anything.

cropping: I ignore the 1/3rd rule. That rule is for people that don't know how to frame a camera and need a guide of some sort. I take pictures that are intresting (hopefully anyway), and see what would make the best crop. The kissing peacocks for example, was a full zoom and a full crop, to the right was a pole, to the left a rock, right above a bunch of weeds. To my eye, that was all very distracting, and I removed it. The elephant, he kept moving around and I couldn't get anything better - the crop was to remove a large elephants behind.

In the case of hello turtle, the left side had a bad reflection, the rest of the glass had reflection of a door, so I cropped the part that was the most important. The snake is a full crop, slight adjustment, right from camera. The frog eye one, the background was mostly rock, too much background is distracting and not needed. The blue and black bird, I kept alot of the tree in, because in this case it adds to the picture, showing where it was. Alot of pictures have to be centered due to what I have. If there is a bird feeder near a bird in a shot, it loses context as to where the critter is.

The building shots, are full from camera, I kept it lined up on the ground. In the case of a certain flamingo, I removed a large rock which I found distracting. Or the popcorn cart, which I found just neat to look at, the little girl I did'nt even notice, had a garbage bag in a box to the left of it, that was removed.

Cropping - there is no exact thing behind it. There can be wrong ways, or not. It all depends on what you have when you go. The reptiles - a real pain, dirty glass, little kids, people in my way, they move around, it reflects, the whole scene is 18" wide, crop the best you can...


---Mike Savad
mike savad 07-May-2002 14:26
For starters my ISO is always set to 50.

Then of course, the animals stand where they are, I can only stand at a particular point, at any one time of day. If I'm taking pictures of the elephants at 3pm and the sun is in the middle of the sky or even in front of me, I have no choice but to take the picture.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 07-May-2002 04:46
To correct my 4th sentence: Always take your pictures with the SUN at your back. This ust be done to elliminate noise while using the higher ISO settings.
Daniel Craig 07-May-2002 04:38
Well, since you avoided for once of sayig something vulgar in my galleries I will let you in on a little secret. If you got good sunshine--take advantage of it by using a higher ISO. With respect to the G2, I'd say you can go none higher than ISO 200 but I may be wrong there. Always take the picture at your back. If you decide to fight with the sun, then you have to lower the ISO--as you seem to have had it in all your shots. Now you may think that you will still get a lot of noise. You may but you may not. To reduce noise (and this is my secret) set your shutter to go off as fast as you can. With the G2 I believe this would be 1/1000 of a second--with the S30 it is 1/1500 of a second--which makes it a superior camera right there. My two best pole vault pictures--the last two--were done at ISO 400 with the exposure set at zero. My best long jump picture--the last one--was done at ISO 200 with the exposure set at +2/3. In all cases I had my shutter speed set to 1/1500. In those pictures I had the sun almost directly in back of me--sort of. None of those pictures exhibit any noise whatsoever. My bqattery ran out on me at the track meet before I had used up my cards. Chances are you won't have that problem with your camera's superior battery--and you probably have a spare where I don't. In that case--of course you should set the camera's exposure as exact as you can and do some AEB maybe plus and minus a third or two thirds. Oftentimes you can end up taking the lightes exposure and do more with it by either increasing the contrast--or maybe even better--lowering the gamma. Your outdoors picture with the higher ISO will really look like you are outdoors. To tell you the truth--this idea of taking pics at higher ISO with the fastest shutter speed came from my brother and not by my own discovery. I tried it out several times before the track meet and was amazed by the results. It is like having yet another camera entirely. Before, I always thought that ISO 200 and 400 were just a waste of my time. I was glad to have ISO 800 but only for special effect shots. Now I would give up my ISO 50, 100, and 800 just to keep ISO 200 and 400. It's like a whole new world. Despite your comparably slow shutter speed--if I am correct on that--you should be able to get very noiseless shots with the G2 if you do all that I said. If it does become a problem--which I seriously doubt--you could despeckle (which creates a blur) and then sharpen by using the contrast adjustments or decreasing the gamma--or both. And let me say something about your cropping. I feel it is better to crop with regard to scenery in most instances versus cropping with regard to object. For instance you crop focusing on the eye of the animal--trying to get your 1/3 rule there. I consider the entire object when I crop--usually--and try to use the 1/3 rule with regard to my main object versus the scenery. Your cropping is too much like portrait cropping--ending up with a square that ignores scenery and background. Of course, getting ideal crops sometimes is neigh impossible--like my high jumper who got part of her pony tail cut off (it was never in the original). But it looks to me like you are intentionally going for portrait type crops with all of your cropping. Forget that your objects might have an eye or two--and try looking at the scenery as a whole. Here is where I say the 1/3 rule can't overrule. If it doesn't make sense to use the 1/3 rule--like with your elephant building--then don't use it.
mike savad 07-May-2002 02:09
Actually, most of it was taken inside. the birds all inside. mice, lizards, snakes, etc. inside. In fact in the mouse house (those possom things), it was so dark in there, i couldn't see anything at all. Blinded those critters but good.

Everything else was taken outside, all from 50ft to about 100ft away. The sunlight was clear and strong, as you noticed by the purple fringing. Purple fringing will only appear when it's the whitest of white - white trim or very strong reflections. In the case of the elephant, the combinded distance, strong light, and shape may have caused a happening of it (like it does around tree branches). Those things kept walking off, he finally turned around to get him.

I'm not sure if you ever tried, but taking pictures of zoo animals is quite hard. It's very tricky to get a nice shot. They all know what a camera looks like, and they all know to turn around just as you get the shot in.

Though since this is the only forum I'm letting you say anything in. I'd like to know how you would have taken pictures of the animals. And remember, these things are pretty far away, about a half or a little more of a city block.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 07-May-2002 01:26
lol me weeping? If I felt a need to weep don't you think I'd say vulgar stuff to you like you did on my gallery. I'll give you something to weep about--check out my latest track gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/catman/clark_county_meet
Mike, there is a reason why your building shots turned out better than your animal shots. You did not have your camera set up for any other type of shot. You had the advantage of a sunny day--but you did not take advantage of it. All your animal shots look like they were taken inside (so to speak). Thanks for the effort, I'm sure you really tried--but no cigar. If you actually do take some great shots--I will not hesitate to say so. Your elephant house and popcorn cart turned out very good--hows come there was no apparent CA on the stepple of the elephant house--you had to be very far away from it? Again, you blew it on the animals.
mike savad 07-May-2002 01:11
Dan, I know your weeping aren't you. I'm glad you still like my work, and took the time to visit my page. That elephant was over a 100 feet away, let's see your camera do better. Or perhaps I intended the elephant to have a soft magenta glow - To look more like most of your pictures.

Either way, Thanks for visiting, and it's great to have a fan... I know your weeping.


---Mike Savad
Daniel Craig 07-May-2002 00:59
You see, Mike, I know you try really really hard--but you are not quite there yet. Well, you are a long way off, really. How did you get so much CA around that old elephant? Well, better luck next time I guess.