THE HEART OF THE MEDIEVAL CITY.

Fabulous shot Anton. Best in the folder, IMHO.

Very interesting subject. Glad you captured it.

Great harmony ! Very well done, Anton !

The textures and tonality are a real feast for the eye. You certainly have a good eye and a steady hand to capture such nice detail in what looks like rather dim light. I'm encouraged that you are able to accomplish all this with a digital camera.

Thanks Mike, for your comment. You sound as if you were apologizing for using a digital camera.

 

I do not intend to post an ad for digital cameras, but to clarify a few things about digital photography as a technology.

 

It escapes me why some Photo.net members are so hostile to anything starting with "DIGITAL". If one doesn't like "DIGITAL" one shouldn't post "DIGITIZED" photos on Photo.net and then praise the virtues of film.

 

A good analogy of a digital camera would be a film camera with a built in scanner.

 

A digital camera is nothing else but an image-capturing machine, which is beginning to compete (successfully) with the classic film camera.

 

A chip of photosensitive silicon has replaced the photosensitive emulsion on a film and this chip of photosensitive silicon is not even digital. The CCD (charge coupled device) - this is the name of the silicon chip - is basically an analog device, not a digital one. In the block diagram of a digital camera, this analog chip is followed by an ANALOG TO DIGITAL CONVERTER (A/D for short), which translates the analog gray levels of the CCD into digital information. The fans of the black and white photography should be happy to hear that a digital camera is basically a black and white camera. The color is not added with mirrors but with colored filters.

 

Once the image has been translated into a huge amount of digital information, this information can be stored in an on board memory.

 

The optics of a digital camera hasn't changed at all from the optics of a classical film camera, and people forget that the optics make the real distinction between a cheep camera and a quality one.

 

The only thing that is different in the optics of a digital camera is the focal length, which is smaller for a digital camera, because the surface of the CCD is much smaller than the surface of a frame of film.

 

The fact that a high quality digital camera is still prohibitively expensive for the fans of photography partially explains the ignorance of film fans regarding the DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY.

 

All the other features of a digital camera (light meters, electronic shutter control, several built in programs) have been present in the film camera as well.

 

A reasonable quality digital camera allows the photographer to switch to full manual control of the camera, just like a good film camera.

 

The digital camera, which is basically a collection of highly integrated electronic devices is usually more sophisticated than a film camera and much more versatile.

 

For instance a good digital camera can switch from ISO 50 to ISO 800 with the push of a button, without changing the film or even switching the cameras.

 

The newest CCDs are by far more sensitive than film and a low light shot that required a long exposure (and a tripod) with a film camera can be shot hand held and still record faithfully the desired image.

 

If digital photography is not your cup of tea, you are free to skip

this shot. If not, I'd like to hear your opinion.

I couldn't do your monitor calibration recommendations, but I still liked the photo. No need to appologise for the digital photography, although it is not my cup of tea, but I think it works quite well for subjects like this one, there only problem seems to be skin tones. I wish you had a human figue in the composition, this would have further enhanced the viewer's sense of scale, I generally prefer to see people in architectural shots.. an excellent photo nevertheless

nice command of the exposure here.

Very, very nice shot.