New Project 52 for 2024

[1971_M5]

Sorry if my last 2 sentences came across "strange" -- the pics are great. The "perspective" (verticals) is understood... part of the deal. I was just trying to say that you did a nice job leveling things... and probably some cropping. Which is what I also do. When people don't do it... it can detract from the picture. It is a fairly simple "checklist item" for post-processing. Right?

 

[BratPix]

Where was the "greenhouse" photo taken? Your back yard? As I recall, previously, you posted a library picture - is this the same library? There's seemingly minimal distortion with both wide-angle lenses. That's nice. The lines at the top and bottom of the frames are very straight. There's usually some rotation required in post, but distortion is another matter. I try to level things up when editing. There's no need for any tilt... unless the tilt is actually there or you're trying to create an effect.

The greenhouse is in the Palais du Luxembourg garden, and the library at the École des Mines, both in Paris. I visited them during the Journées du patrimoine, two days during which famous places are open to the public. The library I posted a picture about previously was the headquarters of the Bibliothèque Nationale, much more prestigious than this one. I chose to tilt the camera upwards to avoid taking pictures of the public. When I asked wheter I could move up the stairs you can see on the left of the picture, I was told that I could not, but that this would become possible if I came back when the library was operating normally. A funny case of a place that is less open during the Journées du patrimoine than normally.

Sorry if my last 2 sentences came across "strange" -- the pics are great. The "perspective" (verticals) is understood... part of the deal. I was just trying to say that you did a nice job leveling things... and probably some cropping. Which is what I also do. When people don't do it... it can detract from the picture. It is a fairly simple "checklist item" for post-processing. Right?

Do not worry John. Your message was quite nice, as usual!

 

[1971_M5]

39/52: Short on material (again)... so... on the way back home from a meeting yesterday afternoon, I stopped to take a picture... which is a very positive aspect of Project 52... get out and take a picture at least once a week. Murray Morgan Bridge (Tacoma). Built in 1913. (20mm @ f/11)

m,urray-morgan-01-small by J.E. Frantzen, on Flickr

 

[BratPix]

39/52: Short on material (again)... so... on the way back home from a meeting yesterday afternoon, I stopped to take a picture... which is a very positive aspect of Project 52... get out and take a picture at least once a week. Murray Morgan Bridge (Tacoma). Built in 1913. (20mm @ f/11)

View attachment 23392m,urray-morgan-01-small by J.E. Frantzen, on Flickr

I see you took a very specific lens with you. Was it the only one you took? In any case, it served its purpose well.

 

[BratPix]

Week 40

The setting sun is reflected through the windows of the Printemps Haussman store onto the wet cobblestones of rue Tronchet.

• Google - Pixel 6a
• Pixel 6a back camera 4.38mm f/1.73
• 4.4 mm
• ƒ/1.7
• 1/23256 sec
• Center-Weighted Average
• Auto exposure
• ISO 121

 

[1971_M5]

Google Pixel. Very nice! The street beckons! Honestly, I do indeed like fiddling with (taking pictures with) my phone camera (Samsung Galaxy A52). Quite capable and the results are very impressive when you consider the tiny lens system. Close-in shots (people) in difficult lighting (i.e., restaurants) -- the phone camera is pretty-much unbeatable. You'd need a tripod and a lot of time to set things up, take some trial shots to check exposure, etc. (I never use live-view, for some reason.) And then, by that time, you have irritated your dinner partners and whatever picture you'd eventually take is not a spontaneous shot. Similarly, wide-angle is also a strong suit for the phone camera (I like using "0.5x"). The place where a "real" camera clearly has the advantage is telephoto. Yes, of course, when you peep pixels, you can see a difference. But the ease of capturing nice images in tough lighting conditions (with the phone camera's software doing all of the work for you) is pretty cool.

 

[1971_M5]

Plus, you always have it with you.

 

[BratPix]

Plus, you always have it with you.

The best camera is the one available, as they say.

 

[BratPix]

Google Pixel. Very nice! The street beckons! Honestly, I do indeed like fiddling with (taking pictures with) my phone camera (Samsung Galaxy A52). Quite capable and the results are very impressive when you consider the tiny lens system. Close-in shots (people) in difficult lighting (i.e., restaurants) -- the phone camera is pretty-much unbeatable. You'd need a tripod and a lot of time to set things up, take some trial shots to check exposure, etc. (I never use live-view, for some reason.) And then, by that time, you have irritated your dinner partners and whatever picture you'd eventually take is not a spontaneous shot. Similarly, wide-angle is also a strong suit for the phone camera (I like using "0.5x"). The place where a "real" camera clearly has the advantage is telephoto. Yes, of course, when you peep pixels, you can see a difference. But the ease of capturing nice images in tough lighting conditions (with the phone camera's software doing all of the work for you) is pretty cool.

Did you notice this phone chose an exposure time of 1/23256 sec ?

 

[1971_M5]

The "behind the scenes" processing going on with phone cameras is quite amazing, but I don't believe that number! It's probably some sort of weird derived value. The square root of the sensor size divided by the focal length divided by the aperture divided by the ISO.