photo of the day

I not take the FOV I take the measure direct on crystals, and in the text its write the measure. Photos not work why the idiots of imageupper have cancel

Mindat Page

[www.mindat.org]


Attrezzatura e tecnica sono solo l'inizio. È il fotografo che conta più di tutto. (John Hedgecoe)

try with your website. I have my own herbergment.

Now now, children; let's not get a case of photograpic envy here, but rather stick to the original question of how some of these wonderful POTD are taken and what settings/techniques are being used....

Guys, this discussion is pointless. These are just opinions and it reminds me of the brand wars in the various photo forums.

As we can see from the many excellent photographs here, the camera (as long as it meets the minimum technical requirements) really is secondary. The pixel level quality only comes into account when you want to print very large or crop excessively. However, there is one thing where I would always prefer a good DSLR (full frame) to an APSC sensor or even smaller (e.g. m4/3) and that is dynamic range. I can retrieve so much highlight detail from my D3 files, something that was not possible when I still had my D200 - and with smaller sensors it is even worse.

One thing I wonder, though, is that nobody mentioned the importance of good lighting. The best camera is uncapable of producing a decent photo if the subject is badly lit. IMHO, the lighting and the optics, and a stable setup are way more important than the camera. And, of course, to know your equipment.

Matteo Chinellato Wrote:

> well, my all lenses its zeiss luminar, nikkor,
> photar-leitz the best in the market

Sorry, if I disagree here. Luminars and Photars are 30 year old technology. I have been working with both brands myself for more than 20 years. I mean, they are still outstanding optics but modern microscope objectives (e.g. Mitutoyo or Nikon, also other lesser known brands) beat them by a fair margin as far as detail rendition is concerned.

Cheers

Harry

Back to topic:

Some posters already mention the equipment used in the descriptions of the images. The question is how detailed should this information be?

Is camera and lens/microscope sufficient? Or should it also describe the lighting method, the stacking software, incl. algorithm used, the stack size? An exaggerated version would even mention the camera settings in detail or point out the applied postprocessing techniques and the software used.

I am not sure if I would take the time to list all this.

@Jolyon: Is it possible to add a feature to the galleries to enable a user to read out the exif data?

Harry



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2011 04:29PM by Harald Schillhammer.

@Jolyon: Is it possible to add a feature to the galleries to enable a user to read out the exif data?

exif data not appear if the lens its not directly connected to the camera, or appear incorrect

Mindat Page

[www.mindat.org]


Attrezzatura e tecnica sono solo l'inizio. È il fotografo che conta più di tutto. (John Hedgecoe)

Harald Schillhammer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> Sorry, if I disagree here. Luminars and Photars
> are 30 year old technology. I have been working
> with both brands myself for more than 20 years. I
> mean, they are still outstanding optics but modern
> microscope objectives (e.g. Mitutoyo or Nikon,
> also other lesser known brands) beat them by a
> fair margin as far as detail rendition is
> concerned.

30 years good technology, not for nothing many photographers use old lens on digital cameras seen their high quality. For me the many good lens its the Olympus Zuiko.

Mindat Page

[www.mindat.org]


Attrezzatura e tecnica sono solo l'inizio. È il fotografo che conta più di tutto. (John Hedgecoe)

Matteo Chinellato Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Jolyon: Is it possible to add a feature to the
> galleries to enable a user to read out the exif
> data?
>
> exif data not appear if the lens its not directly
> connected to the camera, or appear incorrect

I stand corrected. In case of the images presented here it would not make much sense.

Harry

Matteo Chinellato Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> 30 years good technology, not for nothing many
> photographers use old lens on digital cameras seen
> their high quality. For me the many good lens its
> the Olympus Zuiko.

Of course they are superb (as I wrote) - I just disagreed with your statement "best in the market".

Zuiko lenses are indeed excellent. The trick is to find out which lens is best for which purpose ...

Cheers

Harry

For POTD zuiko is the best.... It's statistic... After luminar..... And sorry i can't said more, POTD is to high for me.

For me i take less expensive.... but for 1000 euros or less some are able to make POTD.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2011 07:49PM by Frédéric Hède.

Harald Schillhammer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Back to topic:
>
> Some posters already mention the equipment used in
> the descriptions of the images. The question is
> how detailed should this information be?
>
> Is camera and lens/microscope sufficient? Or
> should it also describe the lighting method, the
> stacking software, incl. algorithm used, the stack
> size? An exaggerated version would even mention
> the camera settings in detail or point out the
> applied postprocessing techniques and the software
> used.
>
> I am not sure if I would take the time to list all
> this.
>

I certainly wouldn't take the time to list all that in the photo caption either. To me, it would just detract from the beauty of the photo which I'm sure nobody wants. Rather, I would suggest that if folks want more technical details about the photo and how it was taken, just PM or email the poster.

Hi everybody,
Quite a discussion.
In general the presented photo's are of a very good quality.
I am just an amateur and a lot of you are profs. That is ok with me.
I was just interested to know whether a pic was stacked, to compare them
with an unstacked picture.
Keep the good work up.
Regards Rolf

Ok Rolf but what size ? Choos of field of view and i give you an example....

"And today the POTD have been selected by friends for friends."

Frédéric: when any Mindat manager chooses a certain photo for POTD, he doesn't look at who the photographer is. The photo is the important thing, not the person.

It's not the reality... But it's not important... Things are clear for me. It's easy to compare photo choosen and others.... In fact POTD don't mean the best just a selection of photo and sometimes photos of friends.... The resut is a selection of lower quality sometimes.

Uwe it's your case but all the case....

On 100 % of POTD :

- 50% are bad : dark, vague, bad light, no field of view, pixellisation.....
- 25 % are good but better exist
- 25 % are very good but choice are the same photographers, often.

For resolve the problem, make a votation system but limited. When a personn see a photo she can vote one time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2011 06:55AM by Frédéric Hède.

Gents,

I think there is some misunderstanding of what the POTD represents, I do not ever remember where the POTD was the best photo of any mineral. POTD is simply what one of the MINDAT managers thinks should be highlighted for that day. I have no idea why someone has picked any of my photos, I actually think some others are much better - however whoever picked them must have liked them - why....not my problem.

I agree that some of the photography provided by a small few is of the highest standard but please tell me why POTD should be limited to only those who can produce this level of photograph. This is just another case of elitism - something that most of us think is distasteful.

I am just as happy to see a photo provided by someone who has a camera that likely cost little more than the camera strap used by a few of the most elite contributors; by doing this we encourage people to keep improving their interest in mineral photography.

Frédéric - I think you see a problem when none exists, I certainly have no issues if 50% are too dark, (most of mine suffer from this) and 25% are not as good as others on the list.

So lets just leave things as they are, this way we will always have little surprises..

Andrew Tuma

Andrew,

what you think is exactly what i think.... There is no problem. Just things must be clear. POTD are not the best of photo just a selection of photo to show a kind of diversity. And same the word diversity is not exact. It's just a selection of managers....

POTD is not a representation of the best photo, just a representation of selection what managers think.

The discussion was about the POTD and materials. Problem is than POTD isn't a standard of quality....

Problem is than some use POTD like an award and it's a chocolate award....

Fred



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2011 08:24AM by Frédéric Hède.

Well done Frédéric you have made me smile tonight;

I guess we cant help what people want to do - so if some wish to use the POTD as a competition - not my problem - as long as they are happy.

The best part - Your comment has reminded me that I have some very nice Chocolate in the fridge - now that's an excellent outcome.

Cheers - Andrew.

For rolf

not good

Mindat Page

[www.mindat.org]


Attrezzatura e tecnica sono solo l'inizio. È il fotografo che conta più di tutto. (John Hedgecoe)