I think it looks like a pointillist picture, while also being a good photo.
Update: Personally I am moving away from the thinking that technical perfection always is an important factor in the enjoyment of a picture.
But if we look at the characteristic of this picture (grain/mush) technically, why did that happen? I just thought of something: probably the camera is set to automatic ISO setting? And it was a dull day, and a very long zoom setting (over 500mm-e!), so probably the camera dialed the ISO setting way up beyond what the sensor can really deliver, and so the pic got noise and mushy (the latter due to the noise suppression).
(You can't actually change the sensitivity of a sensor, you can only amplify the signal from it, and that's what the ISO setting does. And so it also amplifies the noise, of course.)
Or it could just be that it's taken with a really, really crappy camera.
ReplyDeleteI suspect Ray takes almost all his pictures out of the window of his home haha. That ole chap has some very beautiful photos in stock, I can tell ya....
ReplyDeleteHe's said that he lives in an apartment. I doubt even in British Columbia they are doing logging right next door. Either that or he's got a 12-foot telephoto.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your support, Monsieur Beep. Home again from G.C., are you?
ReplyDeleteAnd to Anonymous, you sweet thing you: Actually, you're right about that camera - it is a disappointment
in that its zoomed shots are noisy,
and hard to clean up - much like you!
I do live in an apartment, and they are logging right next door. The trees in that photo are right beside a large block of condos, and were damaged in a wind-storm in 2006, and needed to come down. The owners didn't do it then, because they had expensive roof repairs to do first. And it's not a 12-foot telephoto, but it is a 24X optical zoom on a Pentax X70.
I hope this explains everything for you.
Ray, did you not also use the digital zoom on this picture? Normally an optical zoom, while it may be less sharp if it's extreme, would not affect the picture in this way.
ReplyDeleteHaha wait wait wait: modern throw-away digicams not only have ten times optical but five times software zoom as well...
ReplyDelete(;-))
When I took that, the zoom indicator was on the optical side of the line between optical and digital, so it should have been at maximum optical zoom, unless there's something not right in the camera. Maybe that line is not in the right place. Next time, I'll try it with a bit less zoom, and see if it's still so noisy.
ReplyDeleteBut I've noticed before that using the zoom on this camera usually results in a lot of noise. Maybe that goes with the territory for these 'superzoom' cameras? Anyway,
I'm not terribly happy with it.
It's indeed amazin what these pocket cams can do: I own a finepix, and on top of a huge optical zoom range it has additional software tele plus anti shake: shot a few photos applying all these combinations and shook my had upon the result. It would have required kilooooos of steel in former times....
ReplyDelete(yes, back from the island in the sun hehe).
Ah sorry for the typos (had head hat). I'm fumbling this on a tiny touch screen all with my milker's paws.
ReplyDeleteA *really* good and very long tele (or zoom) lens is still very expensive.
ReplyDeleteI think the most reasonable at good quality is probably the Panasonic G1 with the 45-200mm zoom (400mm equivalent, about the longest you really can hand-hold).
But like I said, an *optical* zoom setting should not result in digital noise.
The specs for this lens says:-
ReplyDeleteFocal length - 4.6 mm to 110.4mm
(approx. 26 mm - 624 mm in 35 mm equivalent focal length)
Optical zoom = 24X
Digital zoom = Max. approx. 6.25X
(combines with 24X optical zoom to give zoom magnification equivalent to 150X)
Holy crap, it really is 24x.
ReplyDelete*No* lens at more than 10x is all that sharp, though.
624mm!! Holy cow! Point it to the sky at night and you'll discover inhabited planets!
ReplyDeleteI hope this explains everything for you.
ReplyDeleteAll except why the picture quality sucks. Your explanation makes it seem likely the fault is with the photographer, not the equipment. Not too hard to figure, considering your age.
Oooh, I just thought of something: probably the camera is set to automatic ISO setting, yes? And it was a dull day, and a very long zoom setting, so probably the camera dialed the ISO setting way up beyond what the sensor can really deliver, and so the pic got really noise and mushy (the latter due to the noise suppression).
ReplyDelete(You can't actually change the sensitivity of a sensor, you can only amplify the signal from it, and that's what the ISO setting does. And so it also amplifies the noise, of course.)