"Every moment and every event of every man's life on earth plants something in his soul." —Thomas Merton

― Scapes ShowcasePanorama de Tétons Grandes avec itty-bitty Nikon L12, 2007

Post Reply
User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Panorama de Tétons Grandes avec itty-bitty Nikon L12, 2007

Post by Charles Haacker » Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:38 pm

I've yattatayatatted many times about my vest-pocket Nikon L12, the camera that resurrected my passion for photography after a long hiatus. 1/2.5-inch CCD sensor with 7.19 mm diagonal and crop factor of 6.02. It delivered 7 megapixels (woohoo). My Pixel 2 phone has a 1/2.6-inch, Dual Pixel sensor delivering 12.2 megapixels (primary camera). The below picture was re-stitched last evening in LR CC. A couple of graduated filters were used, one in the foreground to cut some of the small-sensor DOF, and the other on the distance to decrease haze and pop out that Wyoming sky (which fortunately was not overexposed or it'd have been blown).
DSCN0001_2-Pano-2.EMlr.jpg

This was a hand-held series of shots using the camera's onboard "panorama assist" that ghosted an afterimage about 1/3 of the way in to help alignment. What continues to astound me after 10 years is that a point-and-shoot with 25 square millimeters of sensor area (equivalent to 0.0387501 inches squared) could deliver this kind of quality from an in-camera jpeg (this type camera even now won't output the raw data). When I was a lad learning photography we would not dare make a picture like this with smaller than a 4x5-INCH camera, 20 square INCHES, 12,903.2 mm2, or more than 33 times the area of the tiny sensors. An average fingernail is about 100 mm2. These camera sensors are only about one-quarter the size of your little fingernail. I was gobsmacked then and am still gobsmacked now. I think the overall quality of this picture is nothing short of amazing even 10 years later with better sensors, greater dynamic range... Well, gobsmacked pretty much. ;) Open this in a tab and get it as big as it will go.
Great Big Pitchers.png
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
Matt Quinn
Mentoris Maximus
Mentoris Maximus
Posts: 2508
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:12 pm
Location: MD in winter: Cape Cod in summer
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Matt Quinn » Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:27 pm

Charles Haacker wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:38 pm
I've yattatayatatted many times about my vest-pocket Nikon L12, the camera that resurrected my passion for photography after a long hiatus. 1/2.5-inch CCD sensor with 7.19 mm diagonal and crop factor of 6.02. It delivered 7 megapixels (woohoo). My Pixel 2 phone has a 1/2.6-inch, Dual Pixel sensor delivering 12.2 megapixels (primary camera). The below picture was re-stitched last evening in LR CC. A couple of graduated filters were used, one in the foreground to cut some of the small-sensor DOF, and the other on the distance to decrease haze and pop out that Wyoming sky (which fortunately was not overexposed or it'd have been blown).
DSCN0001_2-Pano-2.EMlr.jpg
This was a hand-held series of shots using the camera's onboard "panorama assist" that ghosted an afterimage about 1/3 of the way in to help alignment. What continues to astound me after 10 years is that a point-and-shoot with 25 square millimeters of sensor area (equivalent to 0.0387501 inches squared) could deliver this kind of quality from an in-camera jpeg (this type camera even now won't output the raw data). When I was a lad learning photography we would not dare make a picture like this with smaller than a 4x5-INCH camera, 20 square INCHES, 12,903.2 mm2, or more than 33 times the area of the tiny sensors. An average fingernail is about 100 mm2. These camera sensors are only about one-quarter the size of your little fingernail. I was gobsmacked then and am still gobsmacked now. I think the overall quality of this picture is nothing short of amazing even 10 years later with better sensors, greater dynamic range... Well, gobsmacked pretty much. ;) Open this in a tab and get it as big as it will go.Great Big Pitchers.png
This photo, Charles, provides evidence that it is not the camera but the photographer that takes the picture. The tech stuff is beyond me, the delight in the result is not. Thanks. Matt
Matt Quinn

"...approach the light as opposed to the subject." Stan Godwin

User avatar
LindaShorey
Mentoris Secundus
Mentoris Secundus
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:50 am
Location: Yakima, WA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by LindaShorey » Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:27 pm

Breathtaking vista, Chuck.
"What's important in a photograph and what isn't." http://photographylife.com/whats-import ... -what-isnt

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:46 am

Matt Quinn wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:27 pm
This photo, Charles, provides evidence that it is not the camera but the photographer that takes the picture. The tech stuff is beyond me, the delight in the result is not. Thanks. Matt
Thanks, Matt. That tech stuff is just because I still can't believe it. In considerably less than 30 years digital photography has caused a paradigm shift so profound that it has been nothing less than earth shaking, for the industry and photographers. I took my last pictures for money in 1994, using film. Utterly unbeknownst to me, that same year Nikon and Kodak together introduced the first professional digital camera marketed specifically to photojournalists. It was based on the Nikon N90 and N90s, their "prosumer" versions of the camera that dated back to 1990. It had a 1012 x 1268 usable pixel charge-couple device, 1.3 megapixels (the camera that made that panorama had 7 megapixels and cost $100 in 2007). ISO range 200 - 1600. Shutter 1/8000 to 30 seconds. The Vancouver Sun converted to all digital photography in May of 1995 (by then I was selling garden tractors at Sears, seriously :( ). The paper became the world's first to convert from a film-based photo-production system to an all-digital camera based photo-production system using AP's NC 2000 camera. The staff realized that it was a tool that would revolutionize the newspaper and wire service industry, and a tool photojournalists had to master. Its original MSRP was $17,950, about $30 grand in 2018 dollars, except today you can get a top-of-the-line press body only (full frame of course) for probably under $5 grand. Still $pendy, but consider the savings in film and processing! :lol: Meanwhile oblivious me was really only vaguely aware of the Digital Revolution, but in hindsight Daphne and I realized that there was no way we would have been able to survive it at the time. We were already under water and to have had to try to make the $hift to digital when we were already drowning? With a "prosumer" camera costing $12 to $18,000 body only (in 1994 dollars) the idea of making the shift was laughable. We had a studio full of dinosaurs: the cameras, the film in the freezer, the paper, the darkrooms (one for film, one for print), plus in 1994 we didn't even own a computer!

Well... I am happy enough now. If Daphne were here she'd shoulder punch me for always looking back darkly, and she'd be right. The thing is, I never forgot the acquaintance, a working press photographer who told me about 1995 or 96, "If you ever try digital you will never look back." His paper had already ditched all their analog, stripped out their darkrooms, sold it all for scrap and never looked back.

I am nowadays a little surprised at folks who will still insist Film Is Better. I know the arguments and I won't argue. I just literally cannot see it. To an extent I think it's more opinion than anything. I'm told film is more subtle, holds highlights better with more open shadows, so on and so forth. I still quite literally can not see it. I made a living (sort of) using film. If the revolution had happened sooner I might be doing what I am doing now and enjoying the work more than I ever did in film. Like my acquaintance said, I'll never look back. Digital rocks! :yay:
LindaShorey wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:27 pm
Breathtaking vista, Chuck.
First time I ever saw it and "breathtaking" is one word that works. :)
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
minniev
Mentoris Magister
Mentoris Magister
Posts: 3674
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:55 am
Location: Mississippi
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by minniev » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:41 pm

Nice pano retrieved from the past! I enjoy seeing what I can make of old photos, too. I’ve found that if I happened to expose them correctly and the light was decent, I have pretty good luck. Those little sensors did the job. But if I missed exposure or if the light was to dim or too harsh, I had areas that I can’t retrieve. One of my favorite family photo treasures was taken with a 2 megapixel nikon point and shoot, of my son on the exposed volcanic core of Tow Hill on Haida Gwaii, with Alaska visible across the water. I have a 16x20 print of it for both him and me.
"God gave me photography so that I could pray with my eyes" - Dewitt Jones

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:09 pm

minniev wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:41 pm
Nice pano retrieved from the past! I enjoy seeing what I can make of old photos, too. I’ve found that if I happened to expose them correctly and the light was decent, I have pretty good luck. Those little sensors did the job. But if I missed exposure or if the light was to dim or too harsh, I had areas that I can’t retrieve. One of my favorite family photo treasures was taken with a 2 megapixel nikon point and shoot, of my son on the exposed volcanic core of Tow Hill on Haida Gwaii, with Alaska visible across the water. I have a 16x20 print of it for both him and me.
Thank you, Minnie. Indeed, your 16x20's from a 2 MP camera are indicative. If you got everything right there was/is no reason not to print large because the medium can take it. You're not supposed to get your nose up to it with a magnifying glass looking for, say, noise. I tend to think that's not only silly but maybe even a little condescending. My SIL was in Turkey years ago with an early Kodak Easyshare bridge, made some truly lovely shots that she enlarged to large wall print size and hung. They are still up, still beautiful, and honestly I would never know how they were made if I didn't know. She has a good eye and just let the camera do its fully auto thang. Who cares? "Proof of the pudding..." :)
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
St3v3M
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 4295
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:02 am
Location: 35,000 feet
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by St3v3M » Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:19 am

Charles Haacker wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:38 pm
... My Pixel 2 phone ...
Mad respect for the phone and love the pano! Now I need to see the Tétons! S-
"Take photographs, leave footprints, steal hearts"

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:27 pm

St3v3M wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:19 am
Charles Haacker wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:38 pm
... My Pixel 2 phone ...
Mad respect for the phone and love the pano! Now I need to see the Tétons! S-
The Tétons are not only an amazing sight, they are geologically very interesting, beginning with the fact that they are remarkably young. Most other mountains in the region are at least 50 million years old but the Tetons are less than 10 million and are still rising. Jackson Hole is of the same age and is still sinking. They sit on the extreme eastern edge of the Rockies almost as an afterthought. I had never been when I made that pano but Daphne was Wyoming-born and had been there more than once. We kept meaning to go back but life... I want to go again. There are many wonderful things to see in the park besides the Tetons themselves.
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
St3v3M
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 4295
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:02 am
Location: 35,000 feet
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by St3v3M » Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:29 am

Charles Haacker wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:27 pm
The Tétons are not only an amazing sight, they are geologically very interesting, beginning with the fact that they are remarkably young. Most other mountains in the region are at least 50 million years old but the Tetons are less than 10 million and are still rising. Jackson Hole is of the same age and is still sinking. They sit on the extreme eastern edge of the Rockies almost as an afterthought. I had never been when I made that pano but Daphne was Wyoming-born and had been there more than once. We kept meaning to go back but life... I want to go again. There are many wonderful things to see in the park besides the Tetons themselves.
Now I have to go! S-
"Take photographs, leave footprints, steal hearts"

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests