Coney Island Mermaid Parade Pictures

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Don Wiss, Jul 1, 2008.

  1. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    It was easy and fun to take 412 pictures. But then daunting to process
    them. I finally buckled down and selected and cropped all of them. 270 of
    them made it to the web. They are at:

    http://donwiss.com/pictures/Mermaid-2008/

    While this is a family oriented parade, it gets a little fleshier each
    year.

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    Don Wiss, Jul 1, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > It was easy and fun to take 412 pictures. But then daunting to process
    > them. I finally buckled down and selected and cropped all of them. 270 of
    > them made it to the web. They are at:
    >
    > http://donwiss.com/pictures/Mermaid-2008/
    >
    > While this is a family oriented parade, it gets a little fleshier each
    > year.
    >
    > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).


    OMG A Purvis Eureka http://donwiss.com/pictures/Mermaid-2008/h0026.htm
    I thought that Australia was the only country to be infested with these
    heaps of shite :)

    --
    "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
    Don Hirschberg
    Atheist Chaplain, Jul 1, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:06:08 +1000, Atheist Chaplain <> wrote:

    >Don Wiss wrote:
    >> It was easy and fun to take 412 pictures. But then daunting to process
    >> them. I finally buckled down and selected and cropped all of them. 270 of
    >> them made it to the web. They are at:
    >>
    >> http://donwiss.com/pictures/Mermaid-2008/
    >>
    >> While this is a family oriented parade, it gets a little fleshier each
    >> year.


    >OMG A Purvis Eureka http://donwiss.com/pictures/Mermaid-2008/h0026.htm
    >I thought that Australia was the only country to be infested with these
    >heaps of shite :)


    Oh. We were wondering today just what that little thing was.

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    Don Wiss, Jul 1, 2008
    #3
  4. "Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:06:08 +1000, Atheist Chaplain <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Don Wiss wrote:
    >>> It was easy and fun to take 412 pictures. But then daunting to process
    >>> them. I finally buckled down and selected and cropped all of them. 270
    >>> of
    >>> them made it to the web. They are at:
    >>>
    >>> http://donwiss.com/pictures/Mermaid-2008/
    >>>
    >>> While this is a family oriented parade, it gets a little fleshier each
    >>> year.

    >
    >>OMG A Purvis Eureka http://donwiss.com/pictures/Mermaid-2008/h0026.htm
    >>I thought that Australia was the only country to be infested with these
    >>heaps of shite :)

    >
    > Oh. We were wondering today just what that little thing was.
    >
    > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).


    Yep, all fibreglass body on a VW chassis, in the rain when you open the lid
    you get a lap full of cold water :-{
    I never owned one but a friend did, I always thought they looked ugly but he
    loved it :)
    http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/car_info_purvis_eureka.htm

    --
    "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
    Don Hirschberg
    Atheist Chaplain, Jul 1, 2008
    #4
  5. Don Wiss

    Cynicor Guest

    Don Wiss wrote:
    > It was easy and fun to take 412 pictures. But then daunting to process
    > them. I finally buckled down and selected and cropped all of them. 270 of
    > them made it to the web. They are at:
    >
    > http://donwiss.com/pictures/Mermaid-2008/
    >
    > While this is a family oriented parade, it gets a little fleshier each
    > year.


    So just to be clear, when you say "I started off in the setup area,"
    that's not you in the first picture, right?
    Cynicor, Jul 1, 2008
    #5
  6. Don Wiss

    Cynicor Guest

    Cynicor, Jul 1, 2008
    #6
  7. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 22:54:33 -0400, Neil Harrington <> wrote:

    >Don Wiss wrote:
    >> It was easy and fun to take 412 pictures. But then daunting to process
    >> them. I finally buckled down and selected and cropped all of them. 270 of
    >> them made it to the web. They are at:
    >>
    >> http://donwiss.com/pictures/Mermaid-2008/
    >>
    >> While this is a family oriented parade, it gets a little fleshier each
    >> year.


    >Really nice collection of shots, Don. What camera?


    Hi Neil,

    I used my D300 with the 18-200 lens. You will note that the pictures are
    soft. That's the lens. Both the camera and lens were recently sent back to
    Nikon, so I'm sure they are working to spec. Just spec is low for that
    lens.

    In a situation like this having the long zoom is real handy, though I still
    crop all to maximize the people or float in the picture.

    The boardwalk picture and the ones at the end were taken with the 12-24
    lens. All pictures included the SB-800 flash set to back light.

    I had been planning to upgrade to the D300's successor, figuring it would
    be FX. But to me the D300 weight is at the max. So for the weight reason
    alone I won't be upgrading to the D700.

    Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).
    Don Wiss, Jul 4, 2008
    #7
  8. Don Wiss

    John Turco Guest

    Atheist Chaplain wrote:
    >
    > "Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message


    <edited for brevity>

    > >>OMG A Purvis Eureka http://donwiss.com/pictures/Mermaid-2008/h0026.htm
    > >>I thought that Australia was the only country to be infested with these
    > >>heaps of shite :)

    > >
    > > Oh. We were wondering today just what that little thing was.
    > >
    > > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

    >
    > Yep, all fibreglass body on a VW chassis, in the rain when you open the lid
    > you get a lap full of cold water :-{
    > I never owned one but a friend did, I always thought they looked ugly but he
    > loved it :)
    > http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/car_info_purvis_eureka.htm



    Hello, Atheist Chaplain:

    Hmmm. That Aussie jalopy bears a strong resemblance to the USA's own,
    fabled Chevrolet Corvette, no? <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Jul 4, 2008
    #8
  9. "John Turco" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Atheist Chaplain wrote:
    >>
    >> "Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message

    >
    > <edited for brevity>
    >
    >> >>OMG A Purvis Eureka http://donwiss.com/pictures/Mermaid-2008/h0026.htm
    >> >>I thought that Australia was the only country to be infested with these
    >> >>heaps of shite :)
    >> >
    >> > Oh. We were wondering today just what that little thing was.
    >> >
    >> > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

    >>
    >> Yep, all fibreglass body on a VW chassis, in the rain when you open the
    >> lid
    >> you get a lap full of cold water :-{
    >> I never owned one but a friend did, I always thought they looked ugly but
    >> he
    >> loved it :)
    >> http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/car_info_purvis_eureka.htm

    >
    >
    > Hello, Atheist Chaplain:
    >
    > Hmmm. That Aussie jalopy bears a strong resemblance to the USA's own,
    > fabled Chevrolet Corvette, no? <g>
    >
    >
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    in passing, yes.
    I know what one I would prefer to own though ;-)

    --
    "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
    Don Hirschberg
    Atheist Chaplain, Jul 4, 2008
    #9
  10. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2008, glenzabr@nospam,xmission.com (GMAN) wrote:

    >>>>>Don Wiss wrote:
    >>>>>> http://donwiss.com/pictures/Mermaid-2008/
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> While this is a family oriented parade, it gets a little fleshier each
    >>>>>> year.


    >All i can say is you guys in New York do some weird shit in front of your
    >kids. Arent there laws about nudity around children there?


    Laws? This is Coney Island. They are very proud of their raunchy heritage.
    Right now the city wants to develop Coney Island with hotels and condos,
    and people are all afraid that the place will be cleaned up. There were
    signs in the parade about a meeting in a few days later discussing the
    rezoning and development plans.

    Besides in many parts of the world topless beaches are common, and kids
    aren't restricted.

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    Don Wiss, Jul 4, 2008
    #10
  11. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 16:11:12 -0400, Neil Harrington <> wrote:

    >D300! You've moved up quite a bit from your old 8400!


    There was a D200 in between. I got my D300 the day after it came out. The
    problem I had with the 8400 is the abysmal performance in low light. I lost
    pictures over it. And I could use more telephoto.

    >I still have my 8400 by the way, and am still very fond of it though I
    >rarely use it nowadays.


    I was also keeping my 8400 around, until I discovered how much they sell
    for on eBay. I got $585 for mine. This camera is the hot camera for
    appraisers and others in the real estate industry. Sell it! Now!

    My second camera is my Nikon 950. I need to keep it so I can take pictures
    of my other camera, so I can sell it on eBay. No way am I going to sell a
    camera there and use stock photos. I want the buyer to know exactly what I
    have for sell. And the 950 is suburb at the macro shots needed for eBay. I
    would even recommend to an eBay seller to get one just for eBay. A while
    back I checked and you could get one new in box (that's all I would
    recommend buying) for around $75-100.

    > Generally speaking I don't think your pictures look
    >soft, at least not in the sizes given,


    The full original size can be seen by clicking on the web-sized ones. They
    were taken at the 2.5 MP setting. Anything bigger is just more cumbersome
    for pictures that are intended for the web. All were rotated and cropped
    losslessly.

    Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).
    Don Wiss, Jul 5, 2008
    #11
  12. Don Wiss

    Paul Furman Guest

    Don Wiss wrote:
    > Neil Harrington wrote:
    >
    >> Generally speaking I don't think your pictures look
    >> soft, at least not in the sizes given,

    >
    > The full original size can be seen by clicking on the web-sized ones. They
    > were taken at the 2.5 MP setting. Anything bigger is just more cumbersome
    > for pictures that are intended for the web. All were rotated and cropped
    > losslessly.


    I checked a couple & the exif says it's at f/25 & ISO 800 which might
    explain some softness (diffraction). Or maybe not at the 2.5 MP setting.
    http://donwiss.com/pictures/Mermaid-2008/0039.jpg

    Fun set to look through as always Don.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Jul 5, 2008
    #12
  13. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2008, Paul Furman <> wrote:

    >Don Wiss wrote:
    >> Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>
    >>> Generally speaking I don't think your pictures look
    >>> soft, at least not in the sizes given,

    >>
    >> The full original size can be seen by clicking on the web-sized ones. They
    >> were taken at the 2.5 MP setting. Anything bigger is just more cumbersome
    >> for pictures that are intended for the web. All were rotated and cropped
    >> losslessly.

    >
    >I checked a couple & the exif says it's at f/25 & ISO 800 which might
    >explain some softness (diffraction). Or maybe not at the 2.5 MP setting.
    >http://donwiss.com/pictures/Mermaid-2008/0039.jpg


    Oh shit. I wasn't paying attention to the ISO. I would not have used 800.
    The problem is these cameras have too many settings for me. I did get the
    ones on the back of the camera correct, and the ones visible on the LCD
    top, but not that non-visible one. (Yea, it is visible in the view finder,
    but not with my glasses on.)

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    Don Wiss, Jul 5, 2008
    #13
  14. Don Wiss

    Paul Furman Guest

    Don Wiss wrote:
    > On Fri, 04 Jul 2008, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    >
    >> Don Wiss wrote:
    >>> Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Generally speaking I don't think your pictures look
    >>>> soft, at least not in the sizes given,
    >>> The full original size can be seen by clicking on the web-sized ones. They
    >>> were taken at the 2.5 MP setting. Anything bigger is just more cumbersome
    >>> for pictures that are intended for the web. All were rotated and cropped
    >>> losslessly.

    >> I checked a couple & the exif says it's at f/25 & ISO 800 which might
    >> explain some softness (diffraction). Or maybe not at the 2.5 MP setting.
    >> http://donwiss.com/pictures/Mermaid-2008/0039.jpg

    >
    > Oh shit. I wasn't paying attention to the ISO. I would not have used 800.


    Yeah, it happens to me too. Actually those shots can use some
    sharpening; a tiny 0.3 radius at 200% improves them a lot. Or turn up
    the sharpening in-camera for this kind of thing. Reduced that much, I
    don't think the lens is a problem.

    > The problem is these cameras have too many settings for me. I did get the
    > ones on the back of the camera correct, and the ones visible on the LCD
    > top, but not that non-visible one. (Yea, it is visible in the view finder,
    > but not with my glasses on.)
    >
    > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).



    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Jul 5, 2008
    #14
  15. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 23:59:33 -0400, Neil Harrington <> wrote:

    >Don Wiss wrote:
    >> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 16:11:12 -0400, Neil Harrington <> wrote:


    >>> Generally speaking I don't think your pictures look
    >>>soft, at least not in the sizes given,

    >>
    >> The full original size can be seen by clicking on the web-sized ones. They
    >> were taken at the 2.5 MP setting. Anything bigger is just more cumbersome
    >> for pictures that are intended for the web. All were rotated and cropped
    >> losslessly.

    >
    >I see what you mean, they do look a bit soft when full size.
    >
    >I have the 18-200 VR also, haven't found mine at all soft but then I haven't
    >shot the same kind of subject matter so maybe that's the difference.


    I didn't think them to be soft when I had the D200.

    >Also I
    >haven't used that low a resolution. Of course 2.5 MP is more resolution than
    >most monitors so it might not matter, but I'm wondering if some resolution
    >isn't lost by what I'd call pixel splitting when you use something less than
    >max resolution in the camera. Have you tried comparing with a known sharp
    >lens also at 2.5 MP with all else being the same -- subject matter, cropping
    >etc.?


    No I have not. I could test on the screen. I do not have a color printer. I
    take for the web. Taking full size, besides the more cumbersome processing,
    means the original size behind the web size will be huge.

    >I've been meaning to do some experimenting with this, comparing different
    >resolutions for use on a monitor and also on prints. Generally I use 5 or 6
    >MP for casual stuff but haven't really done any serious comparison testing
    >yet.


    I leave for a Netherlands holiday in a few days. But it really needs to me
    that does the comparison. I am first upgrading the firmware, though it is
    only updating B and not A, so I gotta make a call...

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    Don Wiss, Jul 5, 2008
    #15
  16. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 23:59:33 -0400, Neil Harrington <> wrote:

    >I see what you mean, they do look a bit soft when full size.
    >
    >I have the 18-200 VR also, haven't found mine at all soft but then I haven't
    >shot the same kind of subject matter so maybe that's the difference. Also I
    >haven't used that low a resolution. Of course 2.5 MP is more resolution than
    >most monitors so it might not matter, but I'm wondering if some resolution
    >isn't lost by what I'd call pixel splitting when you use something less than
    >max resolution in the camera. Have you tried comparing with a known sharp
    >lens also at 2.5 MP with all else being the same -- subject matter, cropping
    >etc.?


    Hi Neil,

    I test some test pictures in the back yard. I used a cheap tripod, but left
    the VR on. The lower resolution ones were sharper! Focal length 60 mm. I
    took two sets: (1) ISO 800 F4.76 1/100 and (2) ISO 400 F4.76 1/60. The
    first was better. Maybe slight movement in the second?

    What is annoying is I sent both the camera and this lens to Nikon. The did
    not say what they did, if anything. And I leave for The Netherlands in a
    few days.

    I do have Active D-Lighting turned on. JPEG compression = quality priority.
    People have mentioned sharpening. If there is a setting for this in the
    D300 I have not been able to find it. And no such listing is in the index.

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    Don Wiss, Jul 7, 2008
    #16
  17. Don Wiss

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:56:26 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:

    > I do have Active D-Lighting turned on. JPEG compression = quality priority.
    > People have mentioned sharpening. If there is a setting for this in the
    > D300 I have not been able to find it. And no such listing is in the index.


    It's easier to find by searching the PDF version of the manual for
    "sharpen". The Image Enhancement chapter (page 147) of the D300's
    manual says :

    > This chapter describes how to optimize sharpening, contrast,
    > brightness, saturation and hue using Picture Controls, how to
    > preserve detail in highlights and shadows using active D-Lighting,
    > and how to choose a color space.


    with further information about sharpening on page 152. To adjust,
    in the camera's Shooting Menu, select "Set Picture Control", then
    select (highlight) one of the options, and finally press the right
    arrow (Adjust). This will bring you to the screen that allows you
    to modify Sharpening, Saturation and Hue. Contrast and Brightness
    may also be adjusted if D-Lighting has been disabled.
    ASAAR, Jul 7, 2008
    #17
  18. Don Wiss

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Neil
    Harrington <> wrote:
    >
    > Isn't VR always supposed to be turned off when using a tripod?


    recent vr/is lenses can detect when they are on a tripod. older ones
    can't and it should be turned off.

    > I'm not sure
    > why that is, but my guess is it's not just to save battery power. It sort of
    > suggests that VR may be "inventing" motion to correct when there really
    > isn't any, and thus giving less sharp results.


    that's exactly what happens. the vr/is system compensates for motion,
    and when there isn't any, it can make things worse. but even on a
    tripod, stabilization can sometimes be useful, particularly on a tripod
    that isn't very sturdy.
    nospam, Jul 7, 2008
    #18
  19. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:12 -0700, nospam <> wrote:

    >Neil Harrington <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Isn't VR always supposed to be turned off when using a tripod?

    >
    >recent vr/is lenses can detect when they are on a tripod. older ones
    >can't and it should be turned off.
    >
    >> I'm not sure
    >> why that is, but my guess is it's not just to save battery power. It sort of
    >> suggests that VR may be "inventing" motion to correct when there really
    >> isn't any, and thus giving less sharp results.

    >
    >that's exactly what happens. the vr/is system compensates for motion,
    >and when there isn't any, it can make things worse. but even on a
    >tripod, stabilization can sometimes be useful, particularly on a tripod
    >that isn't very sturdy.


    This was a cheap tripod, plus my pressing the shutter undoubtedly caused
    some motion.

    I've never gone for anything fancy, as I primarily bicycle to my picture
    taking, or I'm taking parades, and I either am not going to spend the time,
    or a tripod is unworkable.

    And remember, everything I take is for the web.

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    Don Wiss, Jul 8, 2008
    #19
  20. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:59:20 -0400, Neil Harrington <> wrote:

    >"Don Wiss" wrote:
    >> I test some test pictures in the back yard. I used a cheap tripod, but
    >> left
    >> the VR on.

    >
    >Isn't VR always supposed to be turned off when using a tripod? I'm not sure
    >why that is, but my guess is it's not just to save battery power. It sort of
    >suggests that VR may be "inventing" motion to correct when there really
    >isn't any, and thus giving less sharp results.


    I've also heard this. That is why I noted that I left it on. To do it
    really right I should figure out the remote shutter release.

    >> The lower resolution ones were sharper! Focal length 60 mm. I
    >> took two sets: (1) ISO 800 F4.76 1/100 and (2) ISO 400 F4.76 1/60. The
    >> first was better. Maybe slight movement in the second?

    >
    >Were either of those at maximum resolution? . . .


    I took six pictures. The three resolutions and the two ISO settings. The
    maximum resolution ones where the worst.

    > I'm still thinking about
    >what I call pixel splitting (maybe there's a better term for it). What I
    >mean is, at maximum resolution you get one pixel for each photosite on the
    >sensor. At any other resolution each pixel has to be divided somehow between
    >more photosites, and since the pixels are square it seems to me every pixel
    >would have to be divided between at least four photosites. Of course if the
    >resolution were *exactly* one-quarter of the maximum, then each pixel should
    >just fill four photosites and there wouldn't be any further splitting.


    But it would be combining. At 1/4 (low) resolution wouldn't it be four
    pixels combined into one pixel in the saved image?

    >Nikon doesn't make this stuff very easy to find. There is an *indirect*
    >sharpness control in the D80, which I believe is the same in the D200 and
    >probably the D300 too.


    Meaning the word sharpen isn't relevant enough to index.

    >In the Shooting menu under Optimize Image there are settings for Softer (but
    >there's no "sharper"), Vivid and More Vivid.


    Not there on the D300. Nikon wants a high learning curve each time you
    upgrade your camera. ASAAR has the location.

    I'll switch to there...

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    Don Wiss, Jul 8, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Don Wiss

    Coney Island Mermaid Parade Pictures Now On Web

    Don Wiss, Jul 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    357
  2. Al Dykes

    Mermaid Parade - Coney Island June 25 2005

    Al Dykes, Jul 3, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    351
    Al Dykes
    Jul 3, 2005
  3. Don Wiss

    Pictures of Coney Island Mermaid Parade 2009

    Don Wiss, Jun 23, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    315
  4. Don Wiss

    Coney Island Mermaid Parade Pictures 2010

    Don Wiss, Jun 29, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    970
    John Turco
    Jul 20, 2010
  5. Don Wiss

    Coney Island Mermaid Parade Pictures 2011

    Don Wiss, Jun 20, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    676
    Don Wiss
    Jun 21, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page