-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), October 21, 1998

Answers

I'm really curious as to whether anyone can find any flaws or criticisms of this shot. To me, it looks pretty close to perfect, other than the fact that a couple of the rocks that remotely resemble eyes are lacking catchlights ;). The colors are very pleasing, focus and depth of field are great, and the composition emphasizes the most interesting of the rocks. You should submit your work more often, Bob. What's the film?

-- Peter May (peter.may@stetson.edu), October 21, 1998.

Well, I'll take a shot at criticism. It's nitt-picky, but...

I can see your reflection in two of the wet stones on the right-hand side of the frame! The reflections aren't mirror images, but I can make out the shape of someone hunched over a tripod.

I don't think there's much you can do about something like that, though.

--JT

-- James Tarquin (tarquin@erols.com), October 21, 1998.

This is excellent. Was it taken during your recent trip to Maine, Bob? (Or where was this image taken?)

-- Shun Cheung (shun@worldnet.att.net), October 21, 1998.

The exposure looks a bit over to my eye, maybe as much as 1/2 stop. The combination of too much reflection and light colors has washed out some of the rocks. This is a situation I'd consider using a polarizer for, not to knock out all reflections, but to reduce them a bit and bring out more of the rock color and texture.

Is this cropped from 35mm or are you into 6x6 now, Bob? And thanks for sizing the image so I don't have to scroll to see it all.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), October 21, 1998.

The right side of your picture seems to have all the eye draw. Its a nice colorful set of rocks but since its so much more reflective on the right side than the left it makes it look a bit off.

My 2 cents

-- al (nissar@idt.net), October 21, 1998.

Ok I'll take a shot. Uhhhhhhh..h.h.h.h....................... ..................OK I give up, Very nice!!!!!!

-- Bill (Bill.Wyman@utas.edu.au), October 21, 1998.

My friends and colleagues always accuse me of being difficult and contrary. Personally, I don't find the composition itself to hold much interest for me (there's no reason that draws me back to this picture). Maybe I'm boring or don't share much vision with the rest of thi crowd. Personal taste, I guess. Now, for exposure, clarity, sharpness, depth of colours..... perfect. Add me to the list of people who anxiously await technical data.....

-- Daryl Hiebert (dhiebe@po-box.mcgill.ca), October 21, 1998.

this image would be breathtaking at 11x14 and above. technically, perfect.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), October 22, 1998.

Hi Bob,

Lovely image, my only quible is that it sort of falls between two categories, the pattern in the rocks is not rgeular enough to make this a pattern shot, nor is there a point in the rocks that draws my attention. Hmm on rereading these remarks I wonder wether they are a criticism or a compliment, whatever. Lovely shot.

Elbert

-- Elbert-Jan Achterberg (achterberg@northernlight.nl), October 22, 1998.

OK guys here's the technical data. This was sort of a test as you will see!

Location: Acadia National Park, Maine
Tripod: None - hand held
Camera: P&S - Olympus Stylus Epic
Conditions: Raining
Exposure: Who knows? I'm guessing at around 1/60 at f2.8
Film: ISO 400 "Pathmark" brand generic (probably Konica?)
Lab: Pathmark generic "next day" processing
Scan: By me, from a 3x5 print, HP Photosmart

Pretty much everything from film to camera to scanning was against all "photo.net" advice. Sometimes you get lucky I guess.

I should add that I also took similar shots with my EOS system on Velvia, using a tripod! I haven't seen the results of those yet.

-- Bob Atkins (bob_atkins@hotmail.com), October 22, 1998.

Bob, Interesting shot. When you get your other image, would you put both up side to side??? - - Thanks

-- Mike (michael.kear@ey.com), October 22, 1998.

Bob has tricked us again! Earlier it was with a rather plane-jane photo taken by St. Ansel. Now, to further prove what an old curmudgeon he is, he dares to take a photo with a cheap point-n-shoot camera. How could he! Next time he will probably trick us by using an APS camera.

Seriously, I do get Bob's point. But I must also add that by using a SLR he could have attached a polarizer and eliminated the reflections from the wet surface. I realize that there are those who will like the reflections as a matter of personel taste. Or he could just hold the polarizer in front of the P&S camera in the correct position.

I do think that his picture also shows up the limits of this electronic medium. We accept some loss of image quality as normal when we view pictures in this forum, since we know that our computer equipment (at least mine) cannot faithfully reproduce the detail, tones and sharpness that can be captured by today's quality films.

-- Stanley McManus (Stanshooter@mailexcite.com), October 22, 1998.

I'm not sure what this image shows. Actually, I posted it because I like it! My prints came back overnight from my trip, while I'll have to wait a week or so for my slides. It wasn't really intended as a "trick" question. I did hold off on the technical data though, so as not to bias opinions.

I guess maybe it shows that there really isn't any point in asking "what lens" or "what film" was used for any image posted here, since so much is lost in the translation. On the other hand, maybe it shows that you can get good results with inexpensive equipment if you chose the right subject. At least it shows that the excuse for poor quality if you only have a print to scan doesn't hold, assuming the print is half-way decent to start with. This one was since it's a good candidate for "neutral tone" printing.

BTW a polarizer did not remove the reflections, but did saturated the colors a bit (at least as seen through the viewfinder of an SLR). I used one for some of the shots on slide film.

-- Bob Atkins (bob_atkins@hotmail.com), October 22, 1998.

Well, there is some point to asking what lens. Insofar as we can all be curious at times what is the best focal length to be used on a particular subject, etc etc.

But as far as this picture goes, I'm not crazy am I...That is your reflection on the rocks, is it not?

-- James Tarquin (tarquin@erols.com), October 22, 1998.

My reflection? Does it look like me?

It was a 35mm focal length lens by the way....

-- Bob Atkins (bob_atkins@hotmail.com), October 22, 1998.

Olympus put good lenses in their P&S cameras.

I like the photo. The wetness of the pebbles is part of the composition and would a polariser not have taken away from that?

-- Chris Barker (cmib@megabit.net), October 25, 1998.

The problem with "technically perfect" images is that they are sometimes a bit on the boring site. I do like this image and the different colors of the pebbles. but I wish there were at least one stone among the group that would look entirely different and add some pep to the image. Your point is well taken: Whatever equipment gives you the image is the "right" equipment.

-- (andreas@physio.unr.edu), October 25, 1998.

The rocks look "oiled" not wet. They shine too much.

-- Dean Wolverton (dnwolverton@pepco.com), October 26, 1998.

Unless it was raining oil that day, I can assure you that it's water!

The Olympus lens is quite decent, but I doubt it has much effect on the image you see here. I doubt there's a modern $100+ P&S on the planet with a lens bad enough that you could tell much about its quality from a small web image.

-- Bob Atkins (bob_atkins@hotmail.com), October 26, 1998.

Bob, this was a great idea. Thanks.

-- Glen (gjohnson@engr.udayton.edu), December 17, 1998.