Time to stop flying?

Following up to Roland Perry

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.

Most people probably view their images on a monitor. Many shots cant be got
well without one of:-
wide angle
telephoto
good light gathering
fast shutter speed, slow shutter speed
focusing
macro (close up)
etc etc

--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

Following up to Tim C.

But they are getting better, you can't deny that, which is what Roland
basically said.

no doubt they are. When i'm looking *through* a 12mm lense to capture a
landscape and a guy next to me is holding his phone up in the air, I know
who is likely to get a decent result.
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

In message , at 12:15:37 on
Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Mike..... remarked:
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.

Fair comment about the horizon (next time I'll straighten that), but
it's not a sunset (taken at lunchtime, and also looking north). The
"interest" (which I agree may not be immediately apparent) is the
emptiness of the beach normally pictured covered in holidaymakers, and
the ferocious dual carriageway between the residences and the sand.
--
Roland Perry

Following up to Roland Perry

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.

Fair comment about the horizon (next time I'll straighten that)

I seem to do it more since I could correct it in PS!

, but it's not a sunset (taken at lunchtime, and also looking north).

Ahhh, Barra, yes. I like it up there

The
"interest" (which I agree may not be immediately apparent) is the
emptiness of the beach normally pictured covered in holidaymakers, and
the ferocious dual carriageway between the residences and the sand.

not that Barra then. Yours seems to be in Brazil , ah I see we are talking
about different photos.
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

"Mike....." wrote in message
news
i'd like to be able to see the approach from an underplane camera!

Fly Emirates then.

They leave the nose and 'look down' cameras on throughout the whole flight.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

In message , at 13:20:26 on
Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Mike..... remarked:
not that Barra then. Yours seems to be in Brazil , ah I see we are talking
about different photos.

I only have photos of the Barra near Rio.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6560957

Were you looking at my photo of the sunset in the Fens?

(The thing that's interesting about the fen sunset is that it's normally
a field, but that year it flooded; as for foreground, there simply isn't
any if you are taking a picture from a train window like that. I agree
that the picture is unremarkable otherwise, I only posted it to refute
the suggestion that you can't take pictures through a window).
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:32:40 +0200, Martin wrote:

Of course you can take photos through a window this one was taken through a
window this morning.
http://www.myalbum.com/LargePhoto-GMGDHHWI.jpg

It looks pretty good to me.
--
Tim C.

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:57:45 +0100, "Mike....."
wrote:

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!

Cathay Pacific used to have those. I don't know if they still do or
not.

It looks pretty good to me.

You should see it when it comes off the BBQ with a beer can up it's bum.

lol :-)

--
Tim C.

Following up to Roland Perry

(The thing that's interesting about the fen sunset is that it's normally
a field, but that year it flooded;

indeed, a photo interesting for its content and as memorabilea and a
pleasant shot.

as for foreground, there simply isn't
any if you are taking a picture from a train window like that.

that was exactly my point, from the field you could do two things
a) get wet
b) find some blade of grass for a foreground
c) get the foreground in nice clear focus for a sense of depth
three things

I agree
that the picture is unremarkable otherwise, I only posted it to refute
the suggestion that you can't take pictures through a window).

You can, but they will have deficiencies. Camera phone/train window is OK
because those defieciencies are neither here nor there but I'n reliably
informed Ansel Adams didnt do his best work from moving vehicles.
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email