freewolf

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Check out the Devil's Triangle/Tail of the Dragon area (easily found online). It's outside the park but well worth a day puttering around for scenery.<br>

From last year, late November, check out<br>

<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=893032">Mingus Mill, GSMNP</a><br>

<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=892828">Great Smokies landscape shots</a><br>

<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=892743">Great Smokies ice structures</a></p>

<p>When I took these last November, it was quite cold, mostly overcast and somewhat rainy a great deal of the time. Some of the better roads in the Park were closed. No matter when, the whole area is a trove of potential photos! Enjoy!</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Polished photos (I used the term "neat" above) aren't the only great photos. There are lots of much more "raw" looking photos that I find more compelling than most of what's included in the POW week after week.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with Fred that the potential for meaningful and educational discussion is significantly underexercised in the POW forum, and that this is at least in part due to a general bias toward neat, tidy images that primarily adhere to what we are all taught to see as "good rules of composition", etc. Not that there is anything whatsoever wrong with such images -- but I think Fred's point is that there is nothing whatsoever inherently wrong with images that don't exactly fit this bias, and potentially much to be discussed about them.</p>

<p>In 1913, Igor Stravinsky and Vaslav Nijinsky premiered <em>Le sacre du printemps </em>in Paris, and riots ensued, largely because they had broken, bent, and stretched the accepted rules of musical composition and ballet. Would anybody here, including the Elves, argue that the piece isn't worthy of very rewarding discussion? </p>

<p>...Or perhaps forum mods and/or "the Elves" would rather not have to police riots caused by stepping outside their photographic comfort zone... ;^)</p>

<p>Hi, Michaela... Higher ISO basically equals higher levels of noise... how much higher depends on the camera make and model -- this is primarily a sensor issue involving photo cell size and density, among other things. Does your model have in-camera high-ISO or long-exposure noise reduction? If so, at what ISO setting does it kick in?</p>

<p>I'm painfully aware of this issue, as my starter camera has been a Sony A350. As my preferences for subjects and shooting styles have evolved, I've discovered it to be woefully inadequate at ISO 800 and above. With this in mind, other than replacing your camera with one offering better high-ISO performance, your options include keeping ISO as low as possible while still getting proper exposure, using in-camera noise reduction when applicable (and hoping for the best!), and (considering the nature of event photography) buying one or two fast lenses so you can keep your shutter speed fast enough to stop motion in low-light conditions.</p>

<p>Others with much more experience will likely chime in with more helpful advice than this neophyte can offer, but these are the few things I've been recently learning the hard way. Hope some of it helps, and good luck!</p>

<p>Anthony, given the original options you posed, I think you made the right choice. The only significant gripe I have with Sony in general is the high-ISO issue, and that may apply less to your particular photographic interests/style than it does mine. I think you'll appreciate the A700's larger OVF and its performance across the board as opposed to the A350. Best of luck with your new camera!</p>

<p>Whether or not specific Nikon models use Sony sensors, almost every objective comparison I've seen rates Nikon near or at the top and equivalent Sony models consistently much lower in terms of high-ISO performance. I can only assume that IF the same sensors are being used in both, then something else about Sony's body design or circuitry is causing the problem. In any event, I have to disagree with Anthony... if I were to purchase a Nikon, it would be strictly for its performance, and I'd consider it worth the extra expense. I pay for performance, no matter whose logo is on the thing.</p>

<p>Jaina, another good freebie EXIF viewer/editor at <a href="http://www.photome.de/">PhotoME</a>. Hope some of this helps!</p>

<p>Andrew, I have to agree partially with both Matt and Mark on this. My biggest frustration with the ratings system, however, has to do with what I believe Matt (surprisingly) missed when he said...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The other photographer has submitted the image for ratings, not for praise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In an ideal PNet world, this would be true. But I've found that there are those whose feelings DO get hurt simply because they HAVE indeed submitted their photos for praise through the ratings system. I'd have to say that if their feelings are hurt by low ratings or "negative" critique, they've asked for it by not working within the spirit of the site, but by attempting to turn their little corner of it into a gushing mutual admiration society. Is this what you're proposing, Andrew?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why should I go and make <strong>negative</strong> comments or give poor ratings for pictures I don't like? [Emphasis added]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you thought about the alternative of making <strong>constructive</strong> comments to those who would really appreciate them? My real frustration stems from the fact that there seem to be precious few who actually will take the time to constructively comment on beginner-level work or explain either their high or low ratings of a given image. As a photography noob, I post my shots here knowing that they'll be viewed beside some of the finest photography on the planet. How on earth could I realistically be searching for praise or high ratings? I'm searching for one of those fine photographers (or at least a few who've been doing this longer than me) to point out shortcomings in my shots and solutions for them that I haven't the experience yet to see for myself.</p>

<p>I rate photos as honestly as I can given my limited level of experience with photography, and as often as time allows, I include comments or critiques on the specific strengths or weaknesses that I find in them. If I don't feel "qualified" by experience to offer meaningful comment, I don't rate the photo. On the rare occasion that I see a shot that just blows me away, I say so as I add it to my favorites. But in no way do I find myself interested in joining the "another great masterpiece, beautiful my very good friend" backslapping crowd that you seem to be advocating, as I find there is really little specific photography info to be gained there.</p>

<p>Steve, you're absolutely right, but why go A700 (or even A900?) when Nikon's D700 is so far ahead in terms of high-ISO performance? It just doesn't make sense that the mighty electronics giant that is Sony can't put out a camera with a better sensor, CCD <em><strong>or</strong></em> CMOS. I for one have a problem with a camera such as the A350 that has available ISO settings up to 3200, but with everything over 400 (and sometimes even <em>as LOW as</em> 400) virtually useless in terms of image quality.</p>

<p>I suppose proper perspective would require that I understand that Sony is in the <strong>consumer </strong>electronics biz, but then I go back to the Minolta heritage they took on and still scratch my head...</p>

<p>CameraRAW won't work for CS2? (I don't know, just askin'... I'm using CS4 with no probs)...</p>

<p>A relatively inexpensive solution would be to use Lightroom 2 to import photos and then edit them in CS2. The ARWs from my A350 have no problem being read.</p>

<p>Jaina, for those photos which have not been stripped of their EXIF data, you can use <a href="http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/">EXIFTool</a> or a number of other applications specifically designed for retrieving it. Just download/install it, right click on the image in question, view with EXIFTool, and if the data is there, you'll see it. I've found it very useful.</p>

<p>... as well as the Pentaxians, as Peter points out.</p>

<p>Sony inherited the Minolta technology and developed the first commercially available digital camera... Seems a real shame that they can't do any better than this "plus 30" downgrade and new cheesy screen protectors in the 21th [sic] century.</p>

<p>I bought one of Sony's $12.00 protectors for my a350, and it lasted A WHOLE 16 HOURS before it broke, with no provocation! WOW! I'm gonna rush right out and buy me another one!</p>

<p>At least I won't have to go through all the envy stuff knowing that my a350 is probably better than its new "replacement" model. With regard to all of the latest exciting developments at Sony, I'm beginning to think the Canikonistas have a point or two...</p>

<p>Anthony, I chose the a350 for my introduction to DSLR photography, and in many ways I'm happy with it. At ISO <400, it does admirably well and produces some really nice detail. I've found it to be a great learning tool for a beginner. Unfortunately, the more I've learned, the more acutely aware of its drawbacks I've become. Particularly, in low/available light shooting with ISO as low as 400, it is a noise and fringe monster, and gets considerably worse above 400 -- I'd rather trade off a few Mpixels for better high-ISO performance. To me, this really limits the versatility of the camera.</p>

<p>Additionally, while the articulating LCD is neat, I"ve rarely found it really useful, and it's a schnozz-bumper when your trying to use the ridiculously small OVF, which itself requires too much guesswork in framing a shot. I've found a few of the controls oddly situated on the body, and some available only through the menu system, making for somewhat clunky ergonomics at times.</p>

<p>Having no experience with the a700, I can only guess that it can create better pictures simply by being less prone to noise. Unless somebody is able to convince me otherwise, I'm (sadly) beginning to think that neither camera is a good choice if you want superior performance at higher ISO settings. Sony really needs to get a handle on this if they ever want to be considered seriously as more than an entry level to prosumer product. I find it very surprising that as the inheritors of Minolta technology and the developers of the (groundbreaking?) Mavica, Sony can't do a better job with their sensors (even in their higher end models).</p>

<p>In short, I suspect the differences between the two models go well beyond pixel count and density. There is a good reason the a350 is considered an entry-level camera, albeit a pretty good one: it's made of "entry-level" components. It has some nice bells and whistles for the buck, but if you're already an experienced photographer, I can't see it being a serious option.</p>

<p>Martin... I wouldn't really equate the aspect of time as an element of the act of photography with music being "in time" (as I think that phrase is being used here). It's more like the rehearsal of the musical piece, the instruments being set up and tuned, everything involved with the piece until the moment the conductor marks the first beat with his baton (however figuratively, depending on the type of musical performance). The product of the act of photography and the product of the musical performance are radically dissimilar, though. What stands as the photographer's output (the final image) is far less dependent on time, and much more loosely so, than most musical pieces can be said to be. While one can gaze at a photograph for as long or as short as one likes, and may appreciate it the longer one spends with it, no particular length of time is really required in order to have observed the image. Not so with music... to "observe" the piece as a whole, one MUST commit the necessary length of time. We can't listen to any piece of music "all at once".</p>

<p>Consider the concept of rhythm in each. In music, rhythm is entirely time-dependant, unless we include in this definition the visual rhythm of the stage set of the performance. The concept is no less important to photography (in terms, again, of the product), but is almost entirely visual in nature ("almost" in that, as Fred and others mention, the image and its visual rhythm, composition, etc., may <strong>evoke</strong> a sense of action/time).</p>

<p>I find that more than a few of the images that really impress me are ones that do suggest or encourage a sense of time, that compel my eye around the frame <em>over time</em>, finding details and relating them to each other, exploring fore-/background relationships, etc. These do indeed suggest a sense of depth or volume very similar to sculpture and ceramic work, although I'm not sure this "z-axis" is necessarily time-oriented. It's often tricky to make such metaphorical leaps, and I'm not sure how far they can be carried in discussion before they lose coherence, but it's rewarding when it happens and clicks with me intellectually and aesthetically.</p>

<p>JDM's suggestion re: Langer is an excellent one. No other book of an academically philosophical nature has had more of an influence on me as a musician. I'd be very surprised if I reread it (it's been over 20 years!) with photography in mind and was not similarly rewarded. With Fred, I second the motion...</p>

<p>I had a Sony DSC-P92 that worked like a champ. It took all of the pics of the floodwaters in my house during Hurricane Katrina, and saved my butt with the insurance company afterward (I had several dozen storm damage photos date/time-stamped that the "Good Hands" couldn't argue with). The trusty little camera took a partial dive into cesspool-quality waters shortly after taking the photo below a month after the storm. (The pic is of workers moving a barge that had come aground 2 blocks north of the beach - one block south of my house - from the Mississippi state port at Gulfport nearly 2 miles away). It worked sporadically until September of last year, when it finally gave up the ghost and ended up in the landfill. As a result, I upgraded to my first DSLR (a Sony) and have been loving it!</p><div></div>

<p>Coming soon... forced euthanasia for the inconvenient elderly...</p>

<p>Michael, bear in mind that Lightroom is designed for you to do all of your file moving, organizing, storing <strong>using Lightroom</strong>. In this sense, it acts as a shell for Windows to create folders, sub-folders, etc. Lightroom keeps track of everything in its own database, which means if you move, delete, or add files using Windows Explorer or another cataloging application, Lightroom will not be able to find them without some help. Lightroom can only keep track of what you do in Lightroom, as far as file organization goes. Once you get used to it, you should like it a lot.</p>

<p>The main benefit you'll probably get out of Lightroom is due to it's ease of use with metadata. You can easily tag, caption, and comment large groups of photos, sort by tags and other text (say you want to see all the pictures of Timmy sliding into third or catching a pass, or all the shots taken with your 50mm <em>f</em>/2.8 lens, or what have you), flag, compare, rate, etc. This frees you to organize and store them with Lightroom any way you want: by date, by subject, by event, or whatever -- if you take the time to properly tag your photos, you'll never have to hunt for "that one, YOU remember, of Susie sinking that winning three pointer five years ago" again!<br />Three books I'd recommend:</p>

<p>Scott Kelby's <em>The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2 Book for Photographers</em><br />Martin Evening's <em>The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2 Book: The Complete Guide for Photographers</em><br />Peter Krogh's <em>The DAM Book: Digital Asset Management for Photographers</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Hope some of this is helpful!</p>

<p>Before I gritted my teeth and shelled out $$$ for PhotoShop/Lightroom, I was very happy using PaintShop Pro ("the poor man's PhotoShop"). It's good editing software with a ton of adjustments and features, and a fraction of the cost. The transition from it to PhotoShop was smooth for me, but it may be that you'd benefit by starting with an Adobe product (PS Elements, as Brett says) if you plan to move to PhotoShop in the future.</p>

<p>Lightroom alone would be good for basic image correction and enhancement, and is great as an archiving/organizing tool, but doesn't have nearly as many features as PS Elements or PaintShop for doing major alterations or minuscule pixel-peeping detail work, if that's what you're into.</p>

<p>Josh, could IE8 also be affecting the "Reorder..." features on this site as well? Several of us have also had problems with that... Just curious.</p>

<p>I'm in <em>partial</em> agreement with Cathy and David on this... Lightroom contains enough basic adjustments to polish just about any photo, and is great for performing batch adjustments. However, Photoshop seems to me to offer much more precise control of very fine adjustments when you're trying to get really particular. While using PS <strong>can</strong> be "like using a blowtorch to light a cigarette", it is very useful for subtle adjustments and editing of fine details for single images.</p>

<p>Performing batch adjustments is very handy when you're working with a group of shots taken under controlled light situations, but is definitely less useful in many respects when processing a group of shots taken under variable and changing light conditions. Also bear in mind that RAW files lend themselves better to fine adjustments than do JPEGs, due simply to the nature of the file format (number of available bits, etc.).</p>

<p>Another important consideration is what file format you're working on. In both LR and PS, you have much finer control over adjustments to images captured RAW as opposed to JPEG. </p>

<div></div>