shots of a smoky sun

[smokysun]

hate to say it but still in the smoke (after four days off in town where it was much better). seems to be coming from the south end of our forest where a number of fires still uncontrolled. and things getting drier by the minute. here's some close-up shots from the local paper of the june fire:

http://www2.chicoer.com/olextras/slideshows/20080616HumboldtFire/

quite a summer.
wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

 

[smokysun]

:toocool:
wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

 

[smokysun]

yesterday's fire!
wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

 

[sizifo]

That second image is something special!

 

[smokysun]

thanks!
i've posted a few more at www.pbase.com/wwp/rich
click on slideshow in the upper right hand corner for the quickest view.
the fire still cooking today. a blank white wall at the moment.
wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

 

[Lili]

Wow, that second shot just leaps off the screen!

 

[sizifo]

I've really enjoyed this series. Maybe for the wrong reasons, but they give me a sense of the power of natural phenomena. And how helpless people are against nature. (Of course, I hope we're not so helpless against these particular fires...) Possibly worthy of more than just posting it on the web?

Which camera are you using?

By the way, I constantly got an association to the Bergman image:

 

[smokysun]

thanks again! using the fuji s6000. tho only 6.3 megs it has raw and a 28-300 tele. great camera. just bought a second one as a backup.

here's a moment by moment account of the fire: http://www.plumasnews.com/
this will give you a very good idea of the power of these things. and the fires in california last month mostly set off by one lightning storm! if they become a regular occasion, i don't know how we'll be able to handle them.

this fire still cooking.

wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

ps. is that pic from a bergman movie?

 

[sizifo]

thanks again! using the fuji s6000. tho only 6.3 megs it has raw and a 28-300 tele. great camera. just bought a second one as a backup.

here's a moment by moment account of the fire: http://www.plumasnews.com/
this will give you a very good idea of the power of these things. and the fires in california last month mostly set off by one lightning storm! if they become a regular occasion, i don't know how we'll be able to handle them.

this fire still cooking.

wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

ps. is that pic from a bergman movie?

Virgin Spring. One of the more disturbing Bergman films.

 

[Lili]

smoky,
the S6000 is really a very satisfying camera to use, isn't it?
Cannot think of a better or more versatile travel camera!
Are you shooting RAW or JPEG?
I have just started really playing with post processing using the Fuji and S7RAW.

 

[sizifo]

I've been thinking about getting one of these long zoom small sensor cameras, for the times the grd is not suited. The ones that seem a bit special are this one, s6000. And perhaps the olympus c-8080. Any other suggestions? Newer olympuses/fujis? Anything else, leicas??? I really know almost nothing about these types of cameras.

 

[Lili]

I've been thinking about getting one of these long zoom small sensor cameras, for the times the grd is not suited. The ones that seem a bit special are this one, s6000. And perhaps the olympus c-8080. Any other suggestions? Newer olympuses/fujis? Anything else, leicas??? I really know almost nothing about these types of cameras.

I only know directly the two Fuji's I have; the S5200 and S6000fd, love them both obviously.
The Oly C8080 is highly regarded, Marjoli the war correspondent carrys(ied) two in his work if that tells you anything.
The auctions sites have them still fetching $$$ so that in itself is a recommendation.
There is part of me that lusts for the Big 2/3" sensored Fuji S100fs.....

 

[smokysun]

lili, don't know if you know, but lightroom will work with the fuji raw (and lightroom 2 just released). recommended.

ah, as for the best intermediate camera, that opens up my desire to write a whole essay on the subject.

now, if you're going to turn photos into paintings, frankly it doesn't matter what you use. that process ends any worry about noise, resolution, etc. 4 meg jpegs transformed can be blown up into billboards.

however, straight digital photography presents difficulties (as we all know) with small cameras.

i have or have had in this middle range: canon g3 and g5, sony 717, leica digilux 2, and the fuji s6000.

operation-wise, they operate slowly and have lots of noise at iso 400. except for the fuji. it's fast generally and 800 iso perfectly usable with some noise-reduction. you can get results even at 1600.

that said, i love all these cameras. each gives a distinctive look and color. the g3 will give you sharp 3d type pics with a certain kind of intimacy. the leica makes elegant portraits (great lens), the sony very distinctive in its colors. all of these have a 2.0 lens. makes up for the lack of high iso in lots of cases.

alas, the fuji 2.8. but balanced by the high iso. also the only one with a ten time zoom. (all shoot raw and all read rather slowly.) it's a more painterly camera. read flat or graphic images. that's one reason i like it.

my advice is go to www.keh.com and look through the used digital cameras. all the older cameras like the g3 a great bargain. they give a two month warranty and 14 day return. you can try them out and send them back. there's no substitute for this, as your own predilection is the ultimate judge.

above 6 megs all cameras in this range deteriorate, in my view. go to www.pbase.com and do their camera search. you can see literally thousands of pics taken with these older cameras. i bought the leica because it was obviously (to my eye) distinctive.

new cameras are a lot faster in operation, so it depends how important that is to you. www.dpreview.com has reviews of every camera you can think of.

anyway, this has been my experience. i've been tempted by the olympus 5050 more that the 8080 for it's faster lens. but i can't make myself work with one more camera system!

best,
wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

 

[Lili]

Wayne,
I can see what your mean about how the fuji renders images, I find it extremely pleasant to work with.
Your advise about reviews and posted images is well taken.
For me however nothing quite beats actually using a camera to decide how I like the way it feels and the images it produces so your advise about keh is spot on.
As regards the high mp Fuji S100fs, I wish Fuji would make a camera that compliments it much as the S6000 did the S9000/9100 series; that big sensor with say 6-8mp would simply rock esp if they used a faster lens with a short zoom range.
Dream on....

 

[smokysun]

here's a new camera coming out that promises a lot!

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072104panasonicfz28.asp#images

my experience with panasonic has been good in good light and a disaster in lowlight.

i expect a quantum leap in sensor technology at some point. then size may not matter so much. here's hoping.

wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

 

[sizifo]

Thanks a lot for the advice. It was very helpful, and especially going through the pbase photos.

So, I've bought the s6000 on ebay, simply for the look of the photos - except that 90% of people on pbase seem to overexpose them.

I still have a nikon coolpix 5000 that I like a lot. And Wayne, I think I agree with what you're saying quite a bit. Looking at older small sensor digital photos, the low pixel count gives them a certain natural look (for lack of a better word) that turned to a kind of smearing for a long while as time as the pixel count got bumped up to rediculous densities. However, the technology seems to be catching up. The original GRD has a great look, as does the GRDII.

The other thing about those old digicam photos is that they - well - scream digital in some ways. Note that I'm not contradicting myself here w.r.t the previous paragraph . I think this mainly comes from the way the highlights are blown, and from the way high contrast areas are rendered. But, this can also look good, in moderation, and I think I see this sort of quality in the fuji s6000 - but not in the newer ones. My impression of the s6000 photos was that they possess a nice combination of the above qualities (digital artifacts, low pix. den), with colors rendered like on some seventies slide film (excuse the complete lack of knowledge about film).

The Leica and olympuses also looked very good, and the optics definitely seemed superior to the fuji. However, they are also bit uninteresting. What I was looking for was something specific to old small sensors, and a bit crazy in this respect. Not necessarily great optics. I also look forward to the huge zoom for the times when the exactly opposite camera to the grd is needed.

Now, the handling: I hope it is not as bad as I expect. The new fujis look plasticky and the handling doesn't seem that great. And compared to the GRD I think almost everything has to be a disappointment. One must enjoy the camera, and I guess I'll decide once it comes. Can always sell it on.

 

[Lili]

Thanks a lot for the advice. It was very helpful, and especially going through the pbase photos.

So, I've bought the s6000 on ebay, simply for the look of the photos - except that 90% of people on pbase seem to overexpose them.

Yes, for the S6000 I generally give a -2/3 stop exposure

I still have a nikon coolpix 5000 that I like a lot. And Wayne, I think I agree with what you're saying quite a bit. Looking at older small sensor digital photos, the low pixel count gives them a certain natural look (for lack of a better word) that turned to a kind of smearing for a long while as time as the pixel count got bumped up to rediculous densities. However, the technology seems to be catching up. The original GRD has a great look, as does the GRDII.

At least as far as jpegs go, the GRD II insist on noise reduction even when it is 'off'

The other thing about those old digicam photos is that they - well - scream digital in some ways. Note that I'm not contradicting myself here w.r.t the previous paragraph . I think this mainly comes from the way the highlights are blown, and from the way high contrast areas are rendered. But, this can also look good, in moderation, and I think I see this sort of quality in the fuji s6000 - but not in the newer ones. My impression of the s6000 photos was that they possess a nice combination of the above qualities (digital artifacts, low pix. den), with colors rendered like on some seventies slide film (excuse the complete lack of knowledge about film).

In jpegs at 100% you may well see the artifacts, esp at hi ISO. RAW done through anything other than Finepix Studio will not have this look, being quite sharp, to get the colors I think you are looking for, try the "Chrom" color setting; it supposed to be like Velvia

The Leica and olympuses also looked very good, and the optics definitely seemed superior to the fuji. However, they are also bit uninteresting. What I was looking for was something specific to old small sensors, and a bit crazy in this respect. Not necessarily great optics. I also look forward to the huge zoom for the times when the exactly opposite camera to the grd is needed.

Now, the handling: I hope it is not as bad as I expect. The new fujis look plasticky and the handling doesn't seem that great. And compared to the GRD I think almost everything has to be a disappointment. One must enjoy the camera, and I guess I'll decide once it comes. Can always sell it...

The S6000 is plastic, but a very high quality matt-finish plastic. IMHO, it makes it light and easy to carry as well as somewhat lower profile. The UI is NOT GRD level. That being said it's qute good by normal digicam standards.

 

[sizifo]

At least as far as jpegs go, the GRD II insist on noise reduction even when it is 'off'

I don't exactly remember, but as far as I recall, you are still considering the plunge into raw. So let me be another person to try and persuade you.

Since getting the GRD II, I've shot only raw, and using raw+aperture, I must say that I'd NEVER go back to jpg. RAw takes things to a whole different level, and the processing is fun, especially after you get the hang of it after a while.

However, one note. I've sent the GRDII for repairs, and went back to my old GRD I, and then used the GRD I in raw. These files can be pushed a lot less.

Ignoring for the moment the special look of the GRDI, which of course one shouldn't, the GRDII image quality is "objectively" superior. It's also something special, but in a different way. I suspect, just suspect, that Ricoh may have dropped the ball on jpg a little bit on purpose, to urge people to use raw. sort of like apple dropping the modem port .

To put it another way, even for raw the number of images that look crappy with whatever the standard raw settings are, but can be pushed to look really good after a bit of practice is seriously near 50% for me. For GRD I the raw pretty much has the special jpeg look, and can't be pushed much. So, it's like ricoh simply gave over the control to the user, and the default is no longer intended to be the end product (and the default jpeg is just crap).

In jpegs at 100% you may well see the artifacts, esp at hi ISO. RAW done through anything other than Finepix Studio will not have this look, being quite sharp, to get the colors I think you are looking for, try the "Chrom" color setting; it supposed to be like Velvia

The S6000 is plastic, but a very high quality matt-finish plastic. IMHO, it makes it light and easy to carry as well as somewhat lower profile. The UI is NOT GRD level. That being said it's qute good by normal digicam standards.

i really look forward to trying this out, the UI, and investigating the jpg vs. raw differences. However, the images I definitely do like a lot. And thanks for the tip.

 

[sizifo]

here's a new camera coming out that promises a lot!

www.pbase.com/wwp

Is this just a hope or do you have substantial information :thumbs:. I looked at one of these large panasonic cameras a few days ago in a shop, and at least the build is fantastic.

 

[Lili]

sizifo,
I recently did a comparison of RAW files from the Fuji and GRD, while long the write time is not really an issue for my style of shooting.
It was nice to have the RAW file as a "negative" or Master and not worrk about PP losing detail/resolution.
The GRD saves a high quality JPEG along with each RAW file; best of both worlds!
Now I've to find a decent, and inexpensive, RAW converter for DNG files...