# Ducks at Sunset



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)




----------



## Ccoralli (Feb 4, 2005)

in the second pic there is something on top of the big rock under the duck. it has a yellow band on it, think it's a fish??


----------



## DC_Cichlid (Jun 24, 2004)

Awsome pics, what camera where you using?


----------



## DC_Cichlid (Jun 24, 2004)

Some of mine i took the other day, plan on buying a better camera soon.


----------



## DC_Cichlid (Jun 24, 2004)

...


----------



## DC_Cichlid (Jun 24, 2004)

my dog...


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

DC_Piranha said:


> Awsome pics, what camera where you using?
> [snapback]902006[/snapback]​


I'm using a Canon EOS 20D.


----------



## William's (Aug 23, 2004)

beautifull pics ,like the other ones I saw of yours (snow landscape)

I am considering to print one of them and hang it on a wall of my app.
seriously ...great job .

greetz


----------



## DC_Cichlid (Jun 24, 2004)

dracofish said:


> DC_Piranha said:
> 
> 
> > Awsome pics, what camera where you using?
> ...


Nice!!!, any recommendations for me?, im looking at Nikons, maybe Canons.
Something like the Nikon D70.


----------



## Atlanta Braves Baby! (Mar 12, 2003)

Beautiful pics as always!


----------



## pamonster (Jun 26, 2003)

great pics as always, 
do you take photpgraphs as just a hoby?


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

pamonster said:


> great pics as always,
> do you take photpgraphs as just a hoby?
> [snapback]902242[/snapback]​


It's a hobby for now but I would love to be able to break into it professionally. When we move I hope to be able to have a studio set up so I can take pictures of people's animals...you know, the animals that people can't bring into Petco to get pics done of.


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

DC_Cichlid said:


> dracofish said:
> 
> 
> > DC_Piranha said:
> ...


I really depends on what you want to spend and what you're looking to do with the camera. I was previously using a Sony DSC-F707 which is great for displaying pics on the internet and even printing decent 8" prints. In fact, you won't even notice the difference between the Sony and new Canon online (except for the fact that I can get closer shots with the lenses and whatnot). The difference comes with prints. I chose the Canon because I'm looking to make prints larger than 8" and wanted to work in the RAW format. I print using TIFs and they're pushing 50mb each! The D70 is a great camera and I would definately choose that over the Canon Digital Rebel/300D. Canon has recently come out with an updated version of their $1,000 level DSLR, the 350D which looks to be a direct competitor with the Nikon D70. I'd check that camera out. But, if you want to spend the extra buckaroos, then definately look at the 20D. 9 AF points, 8mp, GREAT abilities at higher ISO's (those duck pictures were taken at ISO 800...NO GRAIN), I can go on and on. I love this camera! I stopped using the Sony because I felt that I had grown beyond what it could do for me but this camera will keep me busy for years, at least till I can chunk down the change for the 1Ds Mark II (drools). Even then I still think I'd use this one. As far as what major brand to go with...well, it just depends on who you ask. I know some people that talk down about Canon like crazy becuase they're Nikon users and vice versa. In the end, the hardware doesn't really matter because you can have the best camera in the world and still take crappy pictures with it. You need to have the ability to compose a shot in your mind before clicking. I know I've come a long way in the few years I've been actively taking pictures. I used to take everything at center but now I've learned to try and compose creatively. Give a story to my pictures just like a painting. The viewer's eyes need to be brought around the picture so they don't get bored. It's tough at first but then it starts to come naturally. I've always been into art (lol) so it's kinda neat to be driving around and see something and be like "Wow, that would make a great picture." You can make any subject interesting with proper composition.


----------



## DC_Cichlid (Jun 24, 2004)

dracofish said:


> DC_Cichlid said:
> 
> 
> > dracofish said:
> ...


Yeh, i was checking out the 20D, read up on it for a hour or two last night, seems to be a great camera. Im into talking pictures of animals, landscapes, people, different countrys and such. etc.... living in BC Canada gives some great shots of mountains just outa your door, or a couple hours drive away, along with many animals, bears, deer, moose, cougars, lynx, etc. I love to go out and take pics, i was always into art when young, still kinda am, somewhat like you i guess.

One question tho, im going to be printing off, and getting pictures put onto photo paper... i hear and have seen that getting pics from a digital camera onto photo paper makes the pics grainy. Maybe im wrong with a good camera like a Canon EOS 20D, whats your take on this Dracofish, am i wrong?

For getting prints, and huge pictures, i guess i am better with a 35mm...

Do you have msn, or some way i can contact you if you dont mind chatting about some of this stuff.

Thanks, Dave.


----------



## yorkshire (Jul 27, 2004)

Very cool looking pics,


----------



## dayday (Feb 22, 2005)

man those are some nice pics guys, im a dog lover mainly pits but got a little nervous didnt want your little guy to go to far out on that thin ice. seen some episodes on animal planet when get cought up in that mess.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Absolutely stunning. You captured the colours so well- especially in the first picture. And the clarity of the water....Wow, just amazing.


----------



## rchan11 (May 6, 2004)

WOW


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

DC_Cichlid said:


> dracofish said:
> 
> 
> > DC_Cichlid said:
> ...


It's kinda hard to explain but digital images are defined by the amount of pixels per inch, ppi for short. The more ppi the better the quality of the picture. Also it depends on what type of file the picture is saved as. JPG's are compressed images, even at the highest quality, so lose some of the very fine detail that is only noticeable in prints. JPG's are fine to use on the internet but aren't so hot with making quality large prints. With my camera I shoot in RAW format, a type of uncompressed file used by DSLR cameras and other high-end ZLR's like the Sony DSC-F828. Out of the camera my files are 3504 x 2332 pixels in size and about 6.5mb as RAW images. Then they have to go to a RAW workflow program that converts them to usable TIF images at 16bit resolution. Those files are the same size in pixels but are about 50mb in file size! Then they get opened in Adobe Photoshop (I use CS) and worked with. In order to use most of the filters the images have to be converted to 8bit color. If minimal work is needed I'll leave the image as 16bit as it's a higher quality for printing. Now back to ppi because that is what you'll be looking at to print. At full size, my TIF images can be printed at a size of 8 x 12 at about 300ppi, which is excellent. On a good printer and paper I challenge a person to tell the difference between digital and film. I can do a 13 x 19 print at about 180ppi which is still decent.

The reason why you have noticed grain problems with printing digital images can be from a number of causes. One could be the camera and the lack of a large enough file size or overly compressed image. The larger the file the better. I can't count how many times a customer has asked my why their digital prints look like crap off a Kodak Picture Maker kiosk and the only thing I can tell them is that their file sizes aren't big enough. As a general rule of thumb, you want a file size of at least 3mb for a decent 4 x 6 and AT LEAST 5mb for a passable 8 x 10 (and that's on dye sublimation paper, a larger file size is probably needed for an inkjet). Okay, another common factor is printers. Printers come in a wide variety of qualities and types. The most common type is the inkjet. For printing quality photos you want one that has at least 6 separate ink tanks, preferably 8. That way you can be assured that you'll get good color reproduction because you'll have the standard colors, cyan, magenta, yellow, and black (CMYK color format), as well as photo cyan, photo magenta, green and red. Then there's the dpi (dots per inch) to consider. Most "freebies," ya know, the ones that come with computers, only have two ink tanks (color and black) and can only do about 1200dpi...which is fine for every day printing (and my crappy HP does some semi-decent 8 x 10's). But, good photo printers will print at levels of at least 2000dpi. The printer I plan on getting, the Canon i990 has 8 ink tanks and can print at a dpi of up to 4800 x 2400 dpi. It can also print up to 13 x 19" borderless prints! Paper is also a consideration. I prefer Canon paper but it really depends on what printer you are using and how it reacts to it. The general rule of thumb is that you get what you pay for! I personally prefer the look of matte paper, but some applications look best on glossy, like shiny cars and motorcyles. I've also experimented with canvas paper which gives landscapes and floral arrangements the look of an actual painting. It's really neat to experiment.

But, with a good picture to start with, a good printer, and quality paper digital really does rival film. The only thing that film still has over digital is it's sensitivity to light. That is why Photoshop is an absolute necessity for all photographers. There is no camera in existence, not even film, that is as sensitive as the human eye. According to Rick Sammon in his book "Rick Sammon's Complete Guide to Digital Photography," a digital sensor can record about 3 stops, negative film about 5, and the human eye about 11! That's why if you've ever taken a picture of something that has a lot of shadows or dark colors the dark points often look lost, or the dark points are fine but the light spots are overblown. The camera cannot see as many f-stops as the human eye can see. Oftentimes we have to blend several shots together to compose one accurate shot that is exposed properly for highlights, mid-tones, and shadows. This is called exposure bracketing. Or, we can properly expose for highlights (like the sky) and then bring out the shadows later using layers in Photoshop. It's an absolutely indespensable tool. Lots of people think the use of Photoshop makes pictures fake but in reality it's necessary to get realistic shots. Until the day comes when a camera can record EXACTLY what the human eye sees it will remain necessary. Even film photographers need to use "darkroom tricks" to properly expose their pictures for highlights and shadows. Film is a little more sensitive than digital but it's still nowhere near as sensitive as the human eye. Even Ansel Adams, probably THE greatest landscape photographer of our time or any time used the darkroom to modify his pictures to get accurate portrayals of a scene.

I hope this long diatribe has helped somewhat. The world of digital photography is ever expanding and has lots of room to grow. Just remember, it must be capable of capturing quality images if most professionals have totally made the swtich to digital or at least shoot with both! If you have any other questions I'll do my best to answer them. My board is currently down but when it gets back up (hopefully tomorrow as we had some problems with the switchover to Invision 2.0) you should check out a forum I have specifically devoted to digital photography and imaging discussion.


----------



## DC_Cichlid (Jun 24, 2004)

Thanks Dracofish, that cleared some things up. I agree with you that there is a reason to why cameras have been changed from film to digital, maybe theres not a big difference now, but there will be within a couple years. Just to think how technology will turn in another 10 years is scary... but will be awsome. I think if i was to buy a camera it would be a Digital SLR, although if i could afford both digital and film i would go that way to. It will be good to talk to you and other on your forum as soon as that is working, right now im trying to decide on a camera... hopefully i will be able to get one soon. Im looking to spend up to $1500.00 CDN on the camera, any suggestions.. ill take a look at whatever you think would be a good camera... thanks again, Dave.


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

Well, the main thing to remember is that not all megapixels are created equal. Some cameras claim to boast more pixels than another but may use a smaller image sensor which would make those pixels smaller. Smaller pixels can degrade image quality. That's why a 5mp point and shoot consumer camera may not capture as good an image as a 5mp DSLR. Lots of people get swayed with the megapixel sell point...more isn't always better. For example, I'd rather have a 6mp DSLR like the Nikon D70 or even Canon Digital Rebel/300D than the 8mp ZLR (zoom lens reflex) Sony DSC-F828. Don't get me wrong, I've used the predecessor to the 828 and it's a great camera, just not for what I need it for.

If you are looking to get a DSLR I would definately take a look at the new Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT/350D or even the 20D. The main difference is that the 20D can shoot up to 5 frames per second while the XT can do 3 frames per second. The 20D has 9 AF points and the XT has 7. The 20D also has a slightly larger image sensor which will make it better at catching better quality, though a very small difference. The XT was designed to be a direct competitor with the Nikon D70. The XT's MSRP is $900 US but it can probably be found for cheaper on Ebay. The 20D's MSRP is $1,500 US but can be found for cheaper on Ebay. I got mine for $1,700 with a kit of two lenses and a bunch of other stuff.


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

Here are some links to comprehensive reviews of both cameras:
Digital Rebel XT/350D

20D


----------



## DC_Cichlid (Jun 24, 2004)

I will probably go with the 20D, seems like the better choice for money. We will see, wont be getting it for a while anyways.


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

:laugh: man u always make my pics look like crap
i think i need more practice

but great pics


----------



## DC_Cichlid (Jun 24, 2004)

Seems like a good deal here... Canon 20D

As the camera body itself retails around here for around $2000.00 CDN.


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

I'd be leary of the microdrive. I've heard people say that they're quite fragile and can't survive much more than a short drop to the floor. I got a 1gb compact flash card with mine...will probably be picking up another soon as they're so cheap now. I remember when memory cards were SO expensive.


----------



## DC_Cichlid (Jun 24, 2004)

dracofish said:


> I'd be leary of the microdrive. I've heard people say that they're quite fragile and can't survive much more than a short drop to the floor. I got a 1gb compact flash card with mine...will probably be picking up another soon as they're so cheap now. I remember when memory cards were SO expensive.
> [snapback]904745[/snapback]​


Yeh, i know... they would cost a good couple hundred bucks... thank god thats over, and still declining. I was looking at the microdrive memory cards before you posted this, and have changed my mind anyways, i will probably end up with a 512mb, or 1gb, Ill buy a couple cards.


----------

