Good job Nikon (Page 5): What is the 'DNR?' Thanks...

twowindsbear

Bill MN wrote:

The photos in the book were taken with film as stated earlier. Mostly by the DNR not by a professional. Book is not on nature photography, only photos on leaves, bark etc. Some pictures were a little out of focus which were good enough. I'm sure he wasn't carrying a tripod through the thickets in the woods. Book is only used to help ID the species. I'd guess a reference book like that started before digital cameras came out. I would rather see a real picture than a drawing.

What is the 'DNR?'

Thanks

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

twowindsbear wrote:

What is the 'DNR?'

Thanks

Department of Natural Resources.

Slick Willie Loc: The U. S.

Three things - one question, one comment, and then the movie. The question is rhetorical.

A nitpicking question: You folks who go out and buy the best book available - if you don't buy them all and compare them, how do you know you got the best one and have you ever worked in a lithography shop preparing images for printing?

The comment: We have people from all walks of life and photography participating in this forum. For those of you who go out and stroll around and allow a lot of leeway in the outcome of your images, there are people here who earn big bucks on the international stage who don't share your "ho-hum" brand of photography and to assume that you should get in their face when they say something is not very well advised. We also have some folks here who think they are on the international stage who would speak with the same degree of authority. The problem is that we can't tell the difference unless we know. Before you decide to not respect what another member says, at least go to their profile here or website if one is offered and look at the work and see if there is an indication that they're all talk.

The movie, made for Adorama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBF1i8t8Skw

lightcatcher Loc: Farmington, NM (4 corners)

Bill MN wrote:

Recently I purchased a book over 700 pages on how to ID trees and shrubs. The pictures were taken with a Nikon camera, with no post-processing except crop. Using a reference book like that the pictures have their natural color. I don't use PP anymore except to crop and sharpen. Mother nature dose a better job with color. I only like pictures straight out of the camera. If they don't look good I didn't have the camera set right.

In the days of film, the magazines, advertising and brochure publishing companies accepted transparencies only, the reason is for true color control in the printing process. Since I no longer work with transparencies I do some PP but not too the extreme, the same that I would do in the darkroom with negative film to enhance the final print.
:thumbup: :thumbup:

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

Bill MN wrote:

Recently I purchased a book over 700 pages on how to ID trees and shrubs. The pictures were taken with a Nikon camera, with no post-processing except crop. Using a reference book like that the pictures have their natural color. I don't use PP anymore except to crop and sharpen. Mother nature dose a better job with color. I only like pictures straight out of the camera. If they don't look good I didn't have the camera set right.

All I have read is your first post, but I'm sure this has already been pointed this out.

"I only like pictures straight out of the camera." I could be wrong but that would a printout of ones and zeros. If you are looking at print on paper from the data a sensor captured then it has been processed whether you deem it post or not.

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

Slick Willie wrote:

Three things - one question, one comment, and then... (show quote)

That was an interesting video. Would that be true for film?