«

> I have a sample of the full image and enlarged crop at:
>
> http://www.netspeed.com.au/mark/s50.html
>
> By comparion the third image on that page is simply inspiring for an
> amateur photographer like myself...digital allowed me to bracket
> exposure and shoot away just to get a handful of fantastic prints that
> justified the $3-odd to print at A4.


The image has a strong blue cast dominated by the sky. When the contrast of
the tree was set against the sky the image sensor could not handle the
difference in exposure. What I would be doing is trying out a colour
correction filter and/or a polarising filter. B+W, as much as I think it is
not useful, a UV-B filter might help, as it has a pink cast.

The problem in the image is a limitation of the sensor. If you can reduce
the blue cast you can probably get the tree back into black colours. No
digital camera is perfect out of the box, just as no film is perfect either.
You should seriously consider a correction method in front of the lens.

" Miro" <> wrote in message
news:3f305229$0$28122$ u...
>
> > I have a sample of the full image and enlarged crop at:
> >
> > http://www.netspeed.com.au/mark/s50.html
> >
> > By comparion the third image on that page is simply inspiring for an
> > amateur photographer like myself...digital allowed me to bracket
> > exposure and shoot away just to get a handful of fantastic prints that
> > justified the $3-odd to print at A4.
>
>
> The image has a strong blue cast dominated by the sky. When the contrast
of
> the tree was set against the sky the image sensor could not handle the
> difference in exposure. What I would be doing is trying out a colour
> correction filter and/or a polarising filter. B+W, as much as I think it
is
> not useful, a UV-B filter might help, as it has a pink cast.
>
> The problem in the image is a limitation of the sensor. If you can reduce
> the blue cast you can probably get the tree back into black colours. No
> digital camera is perfect out of the box, just as no film is perfect
either.
> You should seriously consider a correction method in front of the lens.
>
>

I also have an S50 and so far I've been bery happy with it BUT I really
would like a greater level of optical zoom. However this, and the above
suggetion to use filters, would require some type adaptor to allow lense
attachments. Has anybody had any experience with such adaptors?

Scooter,

You can't put filters on the S40, S45, S50... maybe you could hold them in
front of the lens but that would be simply ridiculous. Nor can you stick a
telephoto or wide adapter on one.

I have an S45 as a 'snap' camera and I fine the image quality excellent.
Maybe the guys are getting a bit carried away with image quality from a
$1200 compact?

Cameron

"Scooter" <> wrote in message
news:3f306afb$...
>
> " Miro" <> wrote in message
> news:3f305229$0$28122$ u...
> >
> > > I have a sample of the full image and enlarged crop at:
> > >
> > > http://www.netspeed.com.au/mark/s50.html
> > >
> > > By comparion the third image on that page is simply inspiring for an
> > > amateur photographer like myself...digital allowed me to bracket
> > > exposure and shoot away just to get a handful of fantastic prints that
> > > justified the $3-odd to print at A4.
> >
> >
> > The image has a strong blue cast dominated by the sky. When the contrast
> of
> > the tree was set against the sky the image sensor could not handle the
> > difference in exposure. What I would be doing is trying out a colour
> > correction filter and/or a polarising filter. B+W, as much as I think it
> is
> > not useful, a UV-B filter might help, as it has a pink cast.
> >
> > The problem in the image is a limitation of the sensor. If you can
reduce
> > the blue cast you can probably get the tree back into black colours. No
> > digital camera is perfect out of the box, just as no film is perfect
> either.
> > You should seriously consider a correction method in front of the lens.
> >
> >
>
> I also have an S50 and so far I've been bery happy with it BUT I really
> would like a greater level of optical zoom. However this, and the above
> suggetion to use filters, would require some type adaptor to allow lense
> attachments. Has anybody had any experience with such adaptors?
>
>

There is a filter adapter from Cokin to allow filters on digitals with
a tripod mount... not ideal but it CAN be done...

Cheers,
Stuart


On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:10:12 GMT, "Cameron"
<camlaird@"NOSPAM"hotmail.com> wrote:

>Scooter,
>
>You can't put filters on the S40, S45, S50... maybe you could hold them in
>front of the lens but that would be simply ridiculous. Nor can you stick a
>telephoto or wide adapter on one.
>
>I have an S45 as a 'snap' camera and I fine the image quality excellent.
>Maybe the guys are getting a bit carried away with image quality from a
>$1200 compact?
>
>Cameron
>
>"Scooter" <> wrote in message
>news:3f306afb$...
>>
>> " Miro" <> wrote in message
>> news:3f305229$0$28122$ u...
>> >
>> > > I have a sample of the full image and enlarged crop at:
>> > >
>> > > http://www.netspeed.com.au/mark/s50.html
>> > >
>> > > By comparion the third image on that page is simply inspiring for an
>> > > amateur photographer like myself...digital allowed me to bracket
>> > > exposure and shoot away just to get a handful of fantastic prints that
>> > > justified the $3-odd to print at A4.
>> >
>> >
>> > The image has a strong blue cast dominated by the sky. When the contrast
>> of
>> > the tree was set against the sky the image sensor could not handle the
>> > difference in exposure. What I would be doing is trying out a colour
>> > correction filter and/or a polarising filter. B+W, as much as I think it
>> is
>> > not useful, a UV-B filter might help, as it has a pink cast.
>> >
>> > The problem in the image is a limitation of the sensor. If you can
>reduce
>> > the blue cast you can probably get the tree back into black colours. No
>> > digital camera is perfect out of the box, just as no film is perfect
>> either.
>> > You should seriously consider a correction method in front of the lens.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I also have an S50 and so far I've been bery happy with it BUT I really
>> would like a greater level of optical zoom. However this, and the above
>> suggetion to use filters, would require some type adaptor to allow lense
>> attachments. Has anybody had any experience with such adaptors?
>>
>>
>

"Stuart Elflett" <stuart@(Don'tspamme)dataman.com.au> wrote in message
news:...
> There is a filter adapter from Cokin to allow filters on digitals with
> a tripod mount... not ideal but it CAN be done...
>
> Cheers,
> Stuart

It begs the question .... why not the hotshoe as a mounting plate.

" Miro" <> wrote:
> "Stuart Elflett" <stuart@(Don'tspamme)dataman.com.au> wrote:

> > There is a filter adapter from Cokin to allow filters on digitals with
> > a tripod mount... not ideal but it CAN be done...

> It begs the question .... why not the hotshoe as a mounting plate.

The S50 doesn't have a hot-shoe.

"Ken" <n e w s (at) k e n c h a n d l e r . c o m> wrote in message
news:3f3208b9$0$10354$ u...
> " Miro" <> wrote:
> > "Stuart Elflett" <stuart@(Don'tspamme)dataman.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > There is a filter adapter from Cokin to allow filters on digitals with
> > > a tripod mount... not ideal but it CAN be done...
>
> > It begs the question .... why not the hotshoe as a mounting plate.
>
> The S50 doesn't have a hot-shoe.

Its really pushing the limits ..... of what I dont know.