| Author |
Topic: Where It All Began |
David Pennybaker
From:
Conroe, TX USA
|
Posted 16 Jun 2001 3:56 pm |
|
This is mainly to "show off" the results from a neat little program that came with my Canon D-30 digital SLR camera. The program is called "Photo Stitch" by Canon. Basically, it allows you to take several images (in this case  taken from left to right and to "stitch" them into a panorama.
I believe it comes with several of Canon's digital cameras, and perhaps some scanners, too. I also think there are similar programs out there.
Anyway, the picture is of The Broken Spoke in north Nashville, which is where The Wilkinson were "discovered". Played on a Friday night, and started getting calls on the next Monday.
Sorry to all you WebTV users -- you may not be able to view this picture, as it is extremely wide.
http://members.delphi.com/dpennybaker/broken_spoke_small.jpg
------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
|
|
|
 |
Jack Stoner
From:
Kansas City, MO
|
Posted 16 Jun 2001 4:29 pm
|
|
| I've got a couple of those types of programs. One came with my Fuji digital camera. I don't remember the program names as I've never used them. |
|
|
|
Jim Cohen
From:
Philadelphia, PA
|
Posted 16 Jun 2001 5:37 pm
|
|
| Wow. Very impressive. How much does a camera like that cost? |
|
|
|
David Pennybaker
From:
Conroe, TX USA
|
Posted 16 Jun 2001 5:53 pm
|
|
That particular camera isn't exactly cheap.
The body costs about $2500 if you shop around. To add the vertical grip (which also allows the use of 2 batteries), add about another $200. It comes with a 16 MB flash card, which hardly holds anything at all if you shoot in "RAW" mode. Add about another $400 to get a 1 GB IBM microdrive.
That doesn't even include lenses. Or a case. But, any Canon EF lenses will work on the camera. It's got essentially the same size sensor as the new APS cameras, so there's an effective 1.6x multiplier for the focal length. Not a problem unless you're a wide-angle fan.
It's got a MUCH bigger sensor than the so-called "consumer" digital cameras. Which is the primary reason it costs so much more. Because of this, at ISO=100 you get phenomenal results (with practically zero noise). Even at 400 ISO, the results are as good (or better) than the 100 ISO results of less expensive cameras. Plus, you can actually use ISO 800 or 1600 with it. I did, at Douglas Corner Cafe. ISO=1600, f/1.4, and 1/10 - 1/30 second exposures. Talk about LOW light.
If the darned site ever comes back up, you can see the concert pictures I've taken with it at:
http://members.nbci.com/dpennybaker/index.htm
Everything in the year 2001 was with this camera, and all of the stuff at the bottom of the page (under "Limited Engagement") was, too.
Digital has arrived. Within another 5 years, I predict that sales of digital cameras will far exceed sales of film cameras, and within 10 years film will be all but dead. All that's needed is for the price to come down, and technology to help out with the sensor noise, etc.
Note: one sight -- http://www.luminous-landscape.com -- has compared the D-30 to 100 Provia slide film (scanned on a high-end scanner) and concludes that the D-30 is better up to about 13x19 prints.
From my own experience, even ISO 800 and 1600 are at least equivalent to film when printing at 8x10.
------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
|
|
|
|
David Pennybaker
From:
Conroe, TX USA
|
Posted 16 Jun 2001 6:18 pm
|
|
PS -- here's the original-sized version of the picture. Detail is even more apparent in this version.
http://members.delphi.com/dpennybaker/broken_spoke.jpg
WARNING: this file is almost 1 MB in size.
The height of this image is "only" 1137 pixels, compared to the normal value of 1440 (when shot in landscape mode). It's smaller because I shot these handheld, and didn't always line up one image exactly in the same plane as the other images.
Results should have been better with a tripod and panning head. But, I didn't have that with me.
------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
|
|
|
|
Bill Moore
From:
Manchester, Michigan
|
Posted 17 Jun 2001 2:18 pm
|
|
I've heard great things about the D-30, David, it seems to be the camera of choice for professionals. However, I have my doubts about digital totally replacing film. The single-use film cameras are very big sellers, and, for the user, are totally simple to use. Believe it or not, there are many people who are not interested in sitting the computer doing all that is necessary to view/print their photos. I am an amateur photographer also, I prefer to use large format cameras, 4x5 and 8x10. And I prefer to do black and white prints. I own lots of photo equipment, 35mm, 120, 4x5 and 8x10 and a darkroom. I do own a single inexpensive digital camera and I use Photoshop quite a bit, but I probably will not buy another digital camera for some time.
Digital is not cheaper, the images will not last, and it is not simpler to use, those are my reasons for not using it. Perhaps I'll get a bit more in to it sometime, but for me, film will be the first choice.
[This message was edited by Bill Moore on 17 June 2001 at 04:19 PM.] |
|
|
|
David Pennybaker
From:
Conroe, TX USA
|
Posted 17 Jun 2001 5:26 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| I have my doubts about digital totally replacing film |
Given enough time, I think it has to.
| Quote: |
| The single-use film cameras are very big sellers, and, for the user, are totally simple to use. |
Agreed. And digital cameras will have to reach that point. And I think they will.
| Quote: |
| Believe it or not, there are many people who are not interested in sitting the computer doing all that is necessary to view/print their photos. |
Oh, I can believe THAT.  Fortunately, digital is far quicker for me to do than scanning all my negatives. If all a person wants (right now) is 4x6 prints of the entire roll, then digital isn't the way to go. It's not even cheaper to print the 4x6's compared to developing/printing.
| Quote: |
| I am an amateur photographer also, I prefer to use large format cameras, 4x5 and 8x10. And I prefer to do black and white prints. I own lots of photo equipment, 35mm, 120, 4x5 and 8x10 and a darkroom. |
You've got me beat there, for sure. I didn't get into photography early enough to really get into all that stuff. I thought about medium format -- but the lens selection (compared to 35mm) just isn't there. If you want telephoto, you're basically out of luck unless you have 35mm, it seems. I've thought about getting a Tilt/Shift lens at some point, to do some of the neat things you can do with a View Camera.
| Quote: |
| I do own a single inexpensive digital camera and I use Photoshop quite a bit |
I'm pretty sure I'd prefer the "digital darkroom" as compared to the "real thing". It's certainly a lot cleaner. 
| Quote: |
| but I probably will not buy another digital camera for some time |
The inexpensive ones aren't that bad as long as lighting is good, and you're not going to print much bigger than 5x7.
I will say that in cameras that are less than $500 or so, film will probably be better than digital for a while longer. Until the costs of larger sensors comes down, they just can't compare -- you can't get ISO 400 or higher out of those small sensors.
The other bad thing about digital (for the average person taking pictures) is that you really must "nail down" your exposure settings. It's a lot like shooting slides. You don't have the latitude that negative film provides for over/under exposure. That, more than anyhing, will be what keeps digital from becoming "mainstream", IMO.
| Quote: |
| Digital is not cheaper |
Not yet, depending on how you use it. If you aren't planning on printing lots of 4x6's, but would rather print your own 8x10s or 11x14's (on selected prints), then digital is far cheaper right now (ignoring the entry cost of the SLR body)
| Quote: |
| the images will not last |
I don't understand that comment at all. A couple of copies on CD-R should last LONGER than any negative would, IMO.
| Quote: |
| and it is not simpler to use |
Not yet. But it will get simpler than it is, IMO. For those who don't want to use Photoshop, etc, there are printers right now that accept the media and print directly from them. I'd never be happy with those images, but others probably would.
| Quote: |
| those are my reasons for not using it. Perhaps I'll get a bit more in to it sometime, but for me, film will be the first choice. |
I don't think everybody will switch. There will always be a few "die-hards" It'll be an interesting 10 years, that's for sure.
------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
[This message was edited by David Pennybaker on 17 June 2001 at 06:40 PM.] |
|
|
|
Ken Lang
From:
Simi Valley, Ca
|
Posted 17 Jun 2001 6:08 pm
|
|
An example of how digital cameras have changed the way we work:
We design and build special one of a kind production machinery, as well as a product line of machines for the printed circuit board industry.
In the past, for manuals we used drawings to give the customer to label part numbers for maintenance, reorder and to explain a mechanism. This was time consuming as generally those drawings had to be created from the working machine drawings we used to make the machine. In addition, it is hard to relate a drawing to a real part on the machine.
We use a Sony digital camera now to take actual pictures of the machine and areas for explaination, as well as some drawings. The great thing about digital pictures is the customer gets to see exactly what he sees on the machine and it saves time for us as we just add labels to the picture.
While I'm sure the standard camera will live on, the future of digital is just beginning. Think 3d pictures etc. I like it. |
|
|
|
Bill Llewellyn
From:
San Jose, CA
|
Posted 21 Jun 2001 6:46 am
|
|
Interesting panorama, David. One feels much more like on is "really there" with such a wide view.
I also agree with the up-and-coming of digital photography. As Ken mentioned, the images make great communication tools. Where I work, we have made hand-modifications to printed circuit boards which I photographed and then sent the images overseas moments later as email attachments. Saved tons of time communicating the needed changes.
Back to the panoramic shot.... David, which way is one looking at the convergence point of the shot, between the very front of the Ramada building and the McDonald's sign? Is that North? I don't know why, but knowing the compass orientation of a photograph is important to me. The "feel" of a scene can change entirely for me if at first I think I'm looking South, for example, and I later realize I'm actually looking West. I usually try to guess the camera's orientation to the compass in photos or outdoor TV scenes by using the lay of the shadows and a guess at the time of day.
------------------
Bill (steel player impersonator) | MSA Classic U12 | Email | My music | Steeler birthdays | Over 50?
|
|
|
|
Bill Moore
From:
Manchester, Michigan
|
Posted 21 Jun 2001 5:23 pm
|
|
David, here is an interesting link for you to check Out: Argus A:Can it rival todays $1500 cameras?
Here's a little more: click here
These old cameras are pretty cool, I've got a couple of these old Argus A's, You can find them on Ebay for 8-15 bucks.
Bill
[This message was edited by Bill Moore on 21 June 2001 at 06:29 PM.] [This message was edited by Bill Moore on 21 June 2001 at 06:30 PM.] |
|
|
|
David Pennybaker
From:
Conroe, TX USA
|
Posted 22 Jun 2001 6:44 pm
|
|
If that was a guess, Bill, it was a darned good one.
The light pole between the Ramda and McDonalds sign would probably be almost exactly due north.
------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
|
|
|
|
David Pennybaker
From:
Conroe, TX USA
|
|
|
|
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
Posted 22 Jun 2001 6:57 pm
|
|
Wow! That's some cool image processing software! Where were the seams between the individual shots? I can't see them at all, even in the high res version.
I've been working with digital images for 16 years now. Nobody's ever asked me to write a program that would do this. I can only wish...
------------------
 Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (E9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6) |
|
|
|
David Pennybaker
From:
Conroe, TX USA
|
Posted 22 Jun 2001 6:59 pm
|
|
PS -- I've re-uploaded the 2 pictures. The versions I had did have a few visible seams when you looked closely. This second version is MUCH better.
------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
|
|
|
|
David Pennybaker
From:
Conroe, TX USA
|
Posted 22 Jun 2001 7:09 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| Where were the seams between the individual shots? I can't see them at all, even in the high res version. |
Good thing I'd just uploaded the new pictures.
Starting from right to left:
One seam runs through the large McDonalds sign.
The next runs just to the left of the Taco Bell sign (look under the Ramada driveway).
The next runs right through the column in the Ramada driveway (at the rear end of the red car).
The next runs right through the "A" in the large "Broken Spoke Saloon" sign on top of the building.
The next runs right through the front door (on the left side of the front of the building).
The next is just a little left of where the green roof ends on the left side of the building. About 1/3 of the way to the light.
The last one is around the front of the van on the extreme left side of the picture.
------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
|
|
|
|
David Pennybaker
From:
Conroe, TX USA
|
|
|
|
