Idaho Trip

http://www.crystalglen.net/Fishing/Idaho04.htm

Willi

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:50:18 -0600, Willi & Sue wrote:

http://www.crystalglen.net/Fishing/Idaho04.htm

Nice pics, Willi. Looks like a beautiful place.
--
Charlie...

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:50:18 -0600, Willi & Sue wrote:

http://www.crystalglen.net/Fishing/Idaho04.htm

Nice pics, Willi. Looks like a beautiful place.
--
Charlie...

Great photos. Thanks for the report.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Great photos. Thanks for the report.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Willi & Sue wrote:
http://www.crystalglen.net/Fishing/Idaho04.htm

Very cool. Thanks, Willi.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Jim wrote:
Willi:

Your photos are consistently phenomenal.I just got a roll back from a MT
trip where the scenery was equally stunning but the images from my point and
shoot were all washed out, rendering beautiful scenes quite uninspiring. I
have enough photo experience to know how to capture the scene with a full
featured camera, but really don't want to lug my 2-1/4 or even 35mm SLR to
the river (although the big zoom lens might be nice on occasion), So here's
my question: what sort of camera are you using? Film, digital, point and
shoot or full featured?

TIA,


I don't think you need anything fancy, especially for posting on the
web. In fact, IMO, an inexpensive camera is a better fishing camera
because you won't be so worried about damaging it that you're reluctant
to use it. If you're worried about it or you have it stowed so it's
difficult to use, you're not going to use it as much and a fancy camera
without pictures is pretty useless.

I have an older point and shoot digital Canon A20, 2 meg camera. You
could probably find it used on EBay for about $50 but I don't think
you'll find any new. The newer models A40 and A60 (2 meg cameras with
more control features) can be picked up new for under $100. It has a 3x
optical zoom but I'd like more and its closeup mode isn't good enough
for quality fly pictures. However, it's a great fishing camera. It's
inexpensive enough that I don't worry about using it when fishing. It's
also small enough and light enough that it's easy to fit in a shirt
pocket or a small vest pocket. It generally stays in my vest. A digital
also makes it MUCH easy to post pix on the web.

Willi

"Willi & Sue" wrote in message
...
I don't think you need anything fancy, especially for posting on the
web. In fact, IMO, an inexpensive camera is a better fishing camera
because you won't be so worried about damaging it that you're reluctant
to use it. If you're worried about it or you have it stowed so it's
difficult to use, you're not going to use it as much and a fancy camera
without pictures is pretty useless.

I have an older point and shoot digital Canon A20, 2 meg camera. You
could probably find it used on EBay for about $50 but I don't think
you'll find any new. The newer models A40 and A60 (2 meg cameras with
more control features) can be picked up new for under $100. It has a 3x
optical zoom but I'd like more and its closeup mode isn't good enough
for quality fly pictures. However, it's a great fishing camera. It's
inexpensive enough that I don't worry about using it when fishing. It's
also small enough and light enough that it's easy to fit in a shirt
pocket or a small vest pocket. It generally stays in my vest. A digital
also makes it MUCH easy to post pix on the web.

Willi


Thanks Willi.

One more question: do you color correct the images (or use some sort of
color correction software built into the camera) before posting, or are
these the images right out off the memory card?

TL,

Jim Ray

Jim wrote:

"Willi & Sue" wrote in message
...

One more question: do you color correct the images (or use some sort of
color correction software built into the camera) before posting, or are
these the images right out off the memory card?


I have Photoshop and I usually do an automatic adjustment as a batch
command, so it runs on all the pix I've downloaded at once. This
usually works fine, but sometimes it screws up some pictures and I need
to fix them. Even at 2 megs, the pictures are two large in size and the
files too big for posting on the web. For the pictures I want to post,
I run a batch command on the pix that reduces them to 800x600 and saves
them with jpg compression so that most are just over 100kb in size.
Using a batch commands allows you to do a bunch of pictures at a time so
it's really quick and easy.

Sometimes I do play around with some individual pix. I'll crop them and
work on the contrast, color balance saturation etc. But usually I
download them, do an auto adjustment, reduce them and save them as
compressed jpgs. If you enjoy doing it, there's lots you can do in the
digital "darkroom" with software.

You DON'T need Photoshop to do any of the above. I got it to use for our
webpages covering our dogs. There are shareware and even freeware
programs out there that can do all the basic stuff. Most cameras ship
with some basic software. Paintshop Pro is another sophisticated program
and its MUCH cheaper than Photoshop.

There are other people on ROFF, Choc and Chas come to mind, that are much
more knowledgeable than me on digital photography. Maybe they'll comment.

Willi

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Willi:

Your photos are consistently phenomenal.I just got a roll back from a MT
trip where the scenery was equally stunning but the images from my point
and
shoot were all washed out, rendering beautiful scenes quite uninspiring.

First of all, beautiful shots...looks like you had a great trip.
Second...what Jim said. My "cheap camera" shots have been so bad that I
haven't even bothered to post a number of recent TRs. The recent purchase
of a digital will hopefully change this. Thanks for the post.

Cheers,
Bill