[Jocko]

The wind is trying to straighten them back up today!

[EdMak]

At the moment, it's trying to open our front door. Ed.

[Jocko]

We are on a top floor flat and the living room windows face west. The curtains are flapping like flags.

[EdMak]

an SOS? Ed.

[MrB]

Straighten the Lamppost, LH side? Cheers. Ed.

It is the lamppost that is squint, not the image...

Ed's experienced powers of perception should not be under-estimated here! It is probably correct to imply that the image is not quite right, rather than the lamppost is actually leaning, and that view would be supported by the optics (and probably by the Local Authority!).

Ed is right in principle because (unless a large amount of this image has been cropped away from the bottom) the centre of the image is somewhere near the chimney of the middle building. So the camera must have been tilted upwards slightly when the image was captured, which would distort the perspective, causing the verticals to converge.

The telephoto lens being used would put the camera at some distance from the scene, so this effect is quite small, though more noticeable for the tallest verticals near the side of the frame. Even so, the tilt of the lamppost is minimal in this image, and so it really matters little whether it is corrected.

Cheers.
Philip

[Jocko]

This is the original JPEG straight from the camera. As you can see I try not to tilt the camera, preferring instead to trim off the foreground. I do this as a matter of course. I framed the image in the viewfinder with the lamppost square, but once seeing the image, in the comfort of my big chair, I realised this had tilted everything else.
As I said, I thought long and hard regarding squaring the lamppost but decided against it.

   

[EdMak]

Sometimes a wee white lie is OK? Ed.

[Jocko]

It certainly makes the lamppost look better, but to me the tall house in the middle, now leans out at the top. But as I said at the beginning, "nothing much worthy of note". These were just throwaway images, to stick in the collection and probably never look at again. At least this way they have led to a bit of interesting discussion

[Phil J]

John, Ed & Philip,

Is it me? Only I cannot fault any of the images which have prompted such 'vigorous' discussion. As Ed says, "each to their own". Of course discussion and debate is good, especially when embarked on in such a good natured way as the three of you have, but, is there really anything to be gained by doing so?

Just a thought, as things seem to be going around in circles.

Best regards.

Phil.

[MrB]

Yes it is, Phil, and by expressing your views you show that you have the right to follow Ed's wise maxim of "To each his own"!

In my view, a forum is a place for learning. Thoughtful analysis, reasoned discussion, and sharing of knowledge, are three of the strategies for learning. There is little to be gained from a series of comments such as "Nice image" - the place for that is the Photo Showcase Forum. But this one is labelled the Main Photography Discussion Forum.

In Post #80, I shared some factual information relating to perspective distortion. I also gave my opinion that I didn't think it a significant feature in John's image. Was anything to be gained from that part of the discussion? I think possibly yes - someone else might consider whether that was a factor affecting their own photos.

It seems to me that there is probably always something to be gained from a discussion. So my "To each his own" point would be, "Keep the discussions vigorous (but good-natured)"!

Cheers.
Philip

[Jocko]

I have learned a lot since starting to post here. I now look at my own images far more critically because I know someone else will. The reason I post here is because of the constructive criticism. Maybe I should post a bit less, as I seem to be hogging the forum.

[MrB]

.....Maybe I should post a bit less, as I seem to be hogging the forum.

Definitely not, John. Keep 'em coming!

Cheers.
Philip

[EdMak]

Hi Phil, when working, my Boss would have spotted these "Faults" on a 5x4 inch print at 50 yards . A lot rubbed off onto me.
Biggest difference, we are not looking at print/s, but a monitor, not a level, (pun), playing field. Camera Club criticism, we all looked at the same print.
Detail, (sharpness}, was mandatory, as was print quality.

I see a difference on posters prints, John has mentioned his improvements, City Street, http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/Thread-City-Street which I see clearly, Eddy, his last Landscape, http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/Thread...to-the-Sea is a very visual proof of learning/help.

I post no pics, as I have none, not as mobile as I used to be, and only digital oriented for a few years.

John, and others, keep posting, that's the life of any forum. My thoughts.

To each his own!! Ed.

[Browser Mike]

Very interesting discussion Gentlemen.
From my point of view as a youngster ( in photography terms ), the opportunity to digest comments made and study shots posted by far more experienced forum members, is a critical part of the learning curve.
True, I may not be fully aware of the implications of some of the comments made but that is of no great concern.
Reference books may be utilised, but I find posted shots followed by constructive discussion invaluable.
So please guys keep those shots rolling in and remember that folks like me benefit from your knowledge.
Regards to all,
Mike.

[Jocko]

Thanks guys. You've twisted my arm!
This week I took some pictures of one of my guitars, for a guitar forum I frequent. It was dark, and the flash I have for my Nikon is not the greatest, so I was a bit disappointed with the results. This is the one I posted for their "On the couch" thread. Not my best shot, but it is a guitar forum, not a photography forum.

   
Nikon D80, external flash, 1/100 sec, f4.5, ISO 100, 57mm lens equivalent.

[EdMak]

And no engraving to worry about! Ed.

[Jocko]

Yesterday I purchased a book for my Kindle. Robin Whalley's "Beginning Photography the Right Way: Taking control of the camera". I am a firm believer that, no matter what you do, it is always a good idea to go back to basics every now and again. Just to check what you have let lapse, forgotten, never learned in the first instance. I am sure I will learn something of value. and furthermore, it may just give me a bit of inspiration to try something different. Who know.

[Jocko]

Today I tried a little exercise from Robin Whalley's book. He is talking about getting to know your camera and the exercise was to try out all the available ISO settings and to see what are acceptable to you, the photographer. I did just that, with my Nikon D80, and was much surprised by the results. The ISO settings on my camera range from 100 to 1600, in one stop increments, then up to 3200 in third of a stop increments. I took the same picture (indoors, as stated in the exercise), then compared them to each other. I have sharpness turned off on my camera (I use Sharpener Pro 3: Raw Pre-sharpener) and for noise reduction I used Dfine 2. This is my usual procedure. I treated each of the raw images, as I normally would, using Lightroom 6.3, then noise reduction in Dfine 2.
The definition and detail dropped off very quickly, with, in my opinion, only ISO 100 and ISO 200 producing quality results. Prior to noise reduction, all settings showed quite a bit of noise in black areas, rising quickly as the ISO went up. The shot was very contrasty, with black to white included, however, the contrast deteriorated very quickly with rising ISO.
The outcome of this is, for quality photographs, I am going to have to limit myself to ISO 100 and 200. If I am desperate I will go up to 400, but anything more than this is really just a waste of time. Maybe I need to do a bit of penny pinching to gather together enough for a more modern camera (with a better sensor system). I would like a Full Frame body, but that, and glass to suit, is way outside an OAP's budget.

[EdMak]

John, your last paragraph, is what I found out when I bought the Sony a290, although ISO 400, is acceptable if it must be used.
Unlikely I will change camera now, for all the use it gets. Ed.

[Jocko]

I am seriously considering a Nikon D7200 (body only). This will accept my existing lenses and the price is not too terrible. God knows what the other half will say though. Have to give this some thought!

[EdMak]

Seems a good £600. Ed.

[Jocko]

Spoke to Mrs T about getting a new camera, and she suggested I sell one or two of the ones I have at the moment. Not what I had in mind.

[EdMak]

A compromise? Ed.

[Jocko]

My current stable consists of a Konica Minolta Dimage Z3. This camera has image stabilization and is great for Mrs T taking photographs from the moving car as it doesn't auto focus on the windscreen.

   
Dimage Z3, 1/640 sec, f4, ISO 50, 35mm lens equivalent.

There is one, currently on eBay (boxed), "Buy It Now - £25". Hardly a great incentive to sell, especially as I bought a case for it, last month, for £10.

The Fuji FinePix S9500 is a great pick up and shoot camera. I spent £20 on a brilliant flashgun for it, back in November, and for indoor flash photography it is second to none. It also has macro function. Several, currently on eBay for around £80.

I have two Nikon D80 bodies along with a standard (18 - 135mm) and a telephoto (70 - 300mm) lens. I would need to keep one body to continue my policy of never swapping over lenses. There is one for sale on eBay, "Buy It Now - £46.99". I would be better keeping my second body for a spare.
If the other half pushes the clear out plan then I will just stick with what I have at present. After all, I was happy with what I had before I did the ISO test!

[EdMak]

Good thinking. Ed.