Time to stop flying?

Following up to Jack Campin - bogus address

taking photos through glass or plastic windows (especially distorted,
milky, scratched glass or plastic) degrades quality and blocks off the
ability to get an interesting foreground (especially when the window
is in motion).
that camera phones are poor quality isnt worth arguning about.

It would be nice if planes had a few decent-quality cameras mounted
under the fuselage which the passengers could monitor in flight and
selectively download pictures from. I wonder what they'd have to
charge to make it pay?

i'd like to be able to see the approach from an underplane camera!
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:38:07 +0100, Mike..... wrote:

I'm getting sick of those high dynamic range photos - noticed a few on that
panoramio site.

I'm a little in two minds, do they look odd because we are not used to
them?

They appear to cover up a lot of flaws.

what sort of thing?

mediocre composition.

--
Tim C.

In message , at 11:24:29 on
Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Mike..... remarked:
if you are happy with a low quality interesting photo thats fine, just
dont be fooled its high quality.

Of course you need "high quality" if you are taking a picture that will
be printed on a three feet square travel poster. But 2MP and a
camera-phone are quite adequate if the result is the size of a postcard,
which let's face it is as big as most people print out their photos.
--
Roland Perry

Following up to Roland Perry

I was talking of defects like poor focus & resolution, which are
usually regarded as quality issues

And I disagree that cameraphone pictures will always suffer from defects
of that kind.

OK, you think cameraphones are good quality, fine...
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

Following up to Roland Perry

lower quality and low quality and acceptable for some purposes

I don't accept the label of "low quality", and such pictures are
suitable for a great many purposes. For example, there aren't a lot of
pictures illustrating stories on the web that are bigger than a couple
of hundred pixels square, and at that size you can't see the difference.

sometimes low quality is acceptable yes, but its still low quality.
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

Following up to Tim C.

I'm a little in two minds, do they look odd because we are not used to
them?

They appear to cover up a lot of flaws.

what sort of thing?

mediocre composition.

the need to use a tripod and multiple exposures probably diverts people
from composition and spontaneity, but I don't think there's anything
intrinsic to HDR that stop you doing other things well, its just at the
moment HDR gets soe images noticed when they are weak in other areas, it
will pass. Its perfectly possible HDR will become possible from new sensors
and become the norm.
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

In message , at 12:00:41 on
Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Mike..... remarked:

I was talking of defects like poor focus & resolution, which are
usually regarded as quality issues

And I disagree that cameraphone pictures will always suffer from defects
of that kind.

OK, you think cameraphones are good quality, fine...

Good enough quality for many purposes, yes.
--
Roland Perry

Following up to Roland Perry

n you are just plain wrong

In your opinion, which seems to disregard the nature of many pictures.
If I saw the engine on fire out of the window, I'm pretty sure it would
be regarded as a "great shot", irrespective of the type of camera used.

an interesting shot of low technical quality. You seem to think I dont take
account of subject matter and composition, I do. I'm not a gear freak at
all with cameras. But quality *is* a factor and it has to be acknowledged
that camera phones are of low quality.

As for poor quality pics, I know I'm setting myself up for a fall, but
what's so awful about my picture of Barra Beach?

its not awful, but the suns a bit burnt out, the horizon isnt level and
theres no foreground interest. If you posted it to a review site it would
be ignored as just another sunset. If you like it thats fine.
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:00:41 +0100, Mike..... wrote:

Following up to Roland Perry

I was talking of defects like poor focus & resolution, which are
usually regarded as quality issues

And I disagree that cameraphone pictures will always suffer from defects
of that kind.

OK, you think cameraphones are good quality, fine...

But they are getting better, you can't deny that, which is what Roland
basically said. What did they say about digital photography in general only
a few years ago? With the introduction of ultrasonic, liquid/gel optics
thing are likely to get a lot better.

--
Tim C.

Jack Campin - bogus address wrote in
:

[taking mobile phone pictures through plane windows]
saying the pic through a window wont be a
great shot and phones take poor quality pics.
And I disagree on both counts.
taking photos through glass or plastic windows (especially distorted,
milky, scratched glass or plastic) degrades quality and blocks off
the ability to get an interesting foreground (especially when the
window is in motion).
that camera phones are poor quality isnt worth arguning about.

It would be nice if planes had a few decent-quality cameras mounted
under the fuselage which the passengers could monitor in flight and
selectively download pictures from. I wonder what they'd have to
charge to make it pay?

==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k ===
http://www.campin.me.uk ==== Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange
EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557 CD-ROMs and free stuff:
Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts

They used to. American had one on their D10 looking over the pilot's
right shoulder. After the crash in Chicago, they removed them as the law
suits demanded extra compensation due to the pain and suffering of the
passengers seeing their impending death.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)