[Bad boats]

I think the funniest one I saw was in Boat fishing Monthly and was done by a certain Mr Stone. (Remember this one Cliff? ) It was for a little polyethylene raft with a chair stuck on top. Looked very, very dodgy to me.

 

I certainly do! I did the commissioned 'appraisal' (thats the best description I can come up with) in the sheltered confines of my lock controlled marina, and that was about its limit, that chair arrangement was dodgy. My recommendation to BFM, it should not be printed! However the importers said publish and be damned!!! which I think they probably were A poor judgement on all parties concerned. Its best point was surviving being riped off the car roof rack type transport and bouncing down the A14 at 60mph unscathed!

[no Scroll]

"Ho hum sights gone screwy for me again, cant scroll to the bottom of the topic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SW"

 

Any one got any ideas, please? Seem to remember a similar issue a few weeks back?

 

SW

[Picture Of The Month.]

Ho hum sights gone screwy for me again, cant scroll to the bottom of the topic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SW

[Have A Look ...]

WOW!!!!! inspired (insiring) or what? I needed that to cheer me up Essential watching on a bad (hair) day

 

SW

[Inboard Engines]

I have been doing the same exercise Elton for the past few months and I have decided that with a wealth of fishing within easy reach of a berth in Milford Haven 10 to 12 mph would put on inshore marks well within the hour.

 

Having been out on several charters this year in fast boats I have experienced two trips which did not bode well for anyone other than the skipper sat in his comfortable pilots chair. On the last such event with the only seating backing onto the cabin, boat planing at an angle which left me with my feet constantly pushing back to keep my backside on the seat for over an hour, it took a full week for a full recovery Because of the distance involved it was not a cheap charter and I have no intentions of repeating it.

 

With modern semi-displacement hulls or even displacement hulls an inboard diesel would to me seem to be the most economical and comfortable way to go.

 

I will be looking to purchase Dec 07 to Feb 08 a used craft and will post info for appraisal before dipping into my pockets with extended arms.

 

Well Ken, speed is for the birds??? I have come to the same conclusions, my 60 years appreciates a steady 12 knots . . . gets me 30 miles off in a reasonable time, the inboard 6c shaft drive Ford is a doddle to work on, (engine in a box) I'm to old for under the floor or modern computer controlled installations, where the first tool to reach for is a diagnostic computer Size is the other aspect, slower and or semi displacement, to me, means a little larger 28-30ft? so that the comfort factor can be appreciated, have a brew on the way! Sound proof the engine box and listen to a little music, or put the world to rights with you crew?

 

My set up is all of the above and fits the bill, I can also spend a few days on board with my partner, fully self contained, not a palace but comfortable, she was once described as having a 'Gentlemans Fishing Cruiser' fit out.

 

Leave the speed and bruises to the youn'uns, they will learn

 

SW

[Inboard Engines]

Seen this one before. Legs are definitely faster HP for HP, economy can be better but the tendency to use the power pushes them over the top, IMHO.

 

I actually looked at a 27 footer last week with a leg and 230 Volvo, all 2 years old, 32 knots top speed and the price was right'ish, it was a craft Mark that I consider to be top of my wish list. . . then I did the sums Against 3 from 6 long distance trip/windows per summer season, the remainder of my fishing is within 10 miles? The numbers just dont stack up for me, speed is not a factor I worry about, 12/13 knots, 1900/2000 rpm cruise, I'm happy, that returns approximately 2 gallons per hour and still gets me to those long distance marks in 2-3 hours. River speeds 8/10 knots reduces my fuel to 6/7 liters per hour. Other benefit, my hull is a semi displacement, with the finest of bows, no slamming and banging of any kind, Ive seen my mate and crew after a 35 mile, 20 knot stem home in 'slight to moderate' seas? If I had not known better, I'd have said they had been on the beer! However they enjoyed themselves, with a few decent bass in double figures, they were returing 5 pounders!!. Eyes wide open, you pays your money . . . . . etc.

 

SW

[Inboard Engines]

Cheers for the input so far. It's the 'getting the boat out of the water' bit that's worrying me, so I'm glad that it was brought up.

 

To shed a bit of light, I'm trying to get together the finance for a bigger boat. Something around the 24ft(ish) mark, but really need to do my homework. The idea is to be able to fish further marks, but I won't be able to do this if the fuel bill is crippling.

 

My mate has a 24ft Hardy, 200hp Volvo + stern drive, he goes to the Gabard and further regularly. Uses 150 +!!! liters of diesel on these trips, diesel curently costs 56p per liter! Thats at the moment, its going to go up soon (EU directive) to pump prices???? @ £1 a liter cant see marinas having a discount war Makes an out board very attractive . . . if you like sitting on a potential bomb! Had a mates petrol Volvo powered boat blow up some years back! I know where they get the inspiration for 007 movies

 

Friends Hardy has to be lifted every 6 months for its, oil, anode change and leg check, as recommended by Volvo, then there is engine service, anti-foul, hull anodes and general below the waterline maintenance on every other one of those lift outs . A couple of weeks ago the electric hydraulic pump stopped working 35 miles off, with the leg up! turned out to be a bad electric connection, which was resolved after much pulling, prodding and praying, by the less than mechanically minded crew. I'll stick to good old fashioned low tech.

 

Buy the way, I did much the same trip a few weeks back, used 90 liters of diesel, my rudder cable failed, no problem, dropped the emergency tiller arm on the squared end of the rudder post and came home safely, which ever way you jump sh!t happens.

 

It has to be said that for 'long distance' work, the hand seems to be constantly deep in the pocket, the more bang! bang! on the hull, the harder the mechanics, and crew, take a beating. All the boat owners I know of that do these long demanding trips are regularly involved in just going too or just undergone essential maintenance/repair. Long hard trips = mechanical pressure in a very hostile environment = money, sometimes lots of it, in my case £400 for a new 'hydrobolik' steering system. A 24ft boat crane lift out at my marina will cost at least £130 if you time it right (seasonal discounts) emergency or badly timed lift out will cost twice that!

 

I'm not saying anymore than you do need to have your eyes wide open. Dont forget all this hi speed long distance capability is regulated by weather and your time to match with it? This year, for me, perhaps 6 windows presented, of which I took 3. Some of the more adventurous owners went out in marginal (in my opinion) conditions, F4-5 and coming back in 5+ and in a planing hull? Not my idea of fun good business for the local dentist

 

I know I will be jumped on, but think about it, cos it needs deep thought . . . Talk to Steve?

 

SW

[Inboard Engines]

Inboards are very simple, as already said. Oil and water check before every trip, quick visual on hoses, its worth keeping a clean engine so that oil/fuel leeks are easy to spoted. Yearly is; filers and oil change, belt check, and every couple or three years change the raw water impeller. Thats in general, however, there are exceptions, for instance, in some cases, Volvo have a 50, 100 hour regime if coupled to an out drive leg, I was looking at their maitinance site only the other day. Some of the 50 hours work on the leg requires the boat to be out of the water!!! thats at least twice a year, lift outs are pricy. Keep it simple, stick to shaft drive.

 

SW

[Photo Challenge #47 .. In The Corner.]

A very tight corner. by SW 16th September

 

 

File date: 2007:09:17 16:17:33

Camera make: Canon

Camera model: Canon PowerShot A640

Date/Time: 2007:09:16 13:14:13

Resolution: 797 x 800

Flash used: Yes (auto, red eye reduction mode)

Focal length: 7.3mm (35mm equivalent: 127mm)

CCD width: 2.07mm

Exposure time: 0.017 s (1/60)

Aperture: f/2.8

Whitebalance: Manual

Metering Mode: matrix

[A Nice Photograph]

Currently running an angling photo competition and have had quite a lot of pictures sent but one I found was quite different from the rest so I thought I would post a copy here for you to see it. Its of a north east angler fishing at Filey Brigg. I think you'll agree its a top shot.

 

 

In my humble opinion, it breaks the rules and gets away with it very nicely, rules are made to be broken sometimes. Just did a quick fiddle in PS, looses all its impact if 3rds are applied.

SW

[Critique & Comment topic up and running ..]

critic = i like them all

comment = why didnt you post them in the pinned C&C

Amen to that !!

 

Look at top of forum for "Critique & Comment " !!

 

O well, I thought it was the pinned thread Ho-Hum, want to move it Mr Wiggly?

 

Personaly, I like the way the light picks up on the trees in 1. Number 3, yep, switched the flash off, much better, to me it portrays the strong plant that the 'Sun Gold' is, considering its only a cherry type, it comes over butch?? Yep Im in the yard and those colours are spot on. The ripe tomato is only about the size of the top of my thumb, 'Sun Gold' are a yellow/gold colour as the name sugests?

 

No 4, just shows, you dont have to have boarders full of 'flower' flowers, thats a runner bean flower (stick beans)

 

SW

[Critique & Comment topic up and running ..]

So I move my post! let me be the first to take a official 'battering'

 

OK, I'm up for a bit of 'C&C'.

 

 

In London on Friday, compact 640 in the glove compartment, this was simply a picture I took where I dropped off, no time to search, traffic wardens hiding round every corner, simply look around, ' . . . is there anything within 50ft'. Don nothing to the pic accept a little crop to remove the roof of the car!

 

 

In the garden this morning, 640 in hand, took these, makes a change from flowers. lol Again nothing other than a little crop.

Sun Gold Toms ripening, the tom's colour is correct, perhaps a little washed out on the green stem? used fill flash, as the name implies they are a yellow/gold variety, I recommend them for their flavour, better even than Gardeners Delight!

 

 

And finaly this runner bean flower, could not resist some sort of flower, this is totaly untouched!

 

 

SW

[Looking for C&C]

SW moved it to the C&C pinned thread

[Now that the dust has settled ..]

And from me Mr W.

 

HB - a bad workman simply has to blame his tool. LOL. I can't help being the poor relation to all you Canonites out there.

 

Can we start up separate Canon users and Nikon users threads and photo comps? I'd like talking to myself and I could win every week.

 

Hi Westie, looks like I should get my D70s out a bit more often to keep you company mate??? Have a squint at the Sept Practical Photography mag., there is a head to head on the 400D v D40X the picture comparisons are very interesting, to me, typical Canon, Nikon colouring. The new D300 looks a bit special, released August, they will be throwing D80's at us very soon as 200's come down in price, I'm shaping up for an upgrade?

 

I only use the compact cos my life style dictates flexibility and so often the need to traveling light 'grab the camera and run'. All this 'ppi' stuff has re kindled the 'need for 300ppi'? And now I'm getting the itch for a Sigma 10-20 EX HSM. Wide angle is the big short coming of most compacts, including the 640!

 

SW

[300 or 180ppi?]

For those that are interested, I found the first clue to the limitations of 'ppi' as follows:

 

Right click on an original unworked picture in one of your store files, a window will appear, 'General, Summery'

 

Click on 'Summery' a list will appear, if not, a button will appear; 'advanced', click on this.

 

The list will give exif type details of the picture, including 'H' and 'V' resolution at ppi

 

Then the penny dropped!

 

 

SW

[Be warned!]

Our's is the opposite experience. Peggy was given a Nikon compact as a leaving present. It literally fell to pieces just after the guarantee expired! Nikon wanted so much to repair it we told them to bin it. Since then we've both had Canons and had no problems.

 

 

Just shows, dont it. Well, own up!!! egg on face Sitting in the bath contemplating as you do, I went through the Canon in my mind, eureka!! I came down stairs . . . put some clothes on first and re looked at the back of the camera, there is a sliding switch that turns all the camera functions off when it is set to view pictures mode My humble apologies to Canon, my clumsy digits

 

All is well . . . Just begs the question, what do I buy Hazel, its her birthday on the 12th Sept., she fancies a cheap and simple P&S, looking at the Canon 440???

 

Hay just been browsing the review pages, any one seen the new Nikon D300, phew what a spec., have a gander; http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond300/

 

SW

[Be warned!]

As you all know, I have recently purchased a new Canon compact 640, to replace my Canon S50. The S50 went seriously wrong 3 times in 3 years! However I thought I had been unlucky, the picture quality was very good. Well the 640 has stopped working this evening, take about 500 pics in 4 months! Its obviously going back under GT, but I draw a your attention to this as thats to much of a coincidence.

 

Back to Nikon, they are built like brick **** houses. The Mrs wants a camera, it wont be a Canon!

 

Forewarned is fore armed . . . SW

[300 or 180ppi?]

Does the info in BASICS OF DIGITAL CAMERA PIXELS from www.cambridgeincolour.com help out?

 

Note to sutton-warrior - my head is now about to explode with trying to absorb all this new knowledge and it is all your fault. I was happily wandering around in a fog of pixel ignorance & innocence but you have ruined all of that.

 

Sorry about that Newt, my head is still trying to get around it in relation to what we are told, 'the more pixels, the better the quality'. However, if a sensor is limited to 300ppi or 180ppi then the basic pixels per inch is 300 x 300 = 9000 pixels in one square inch of the picture, same maths applies to 180ppi.

 

Now, on either basis, it does not matter if the the total pixel count is 3m, 6m, 10m, quality relating to the sensors 'ppi' is fixed. If your sensor is 300ppi but the total pixel count is 6m the basic printable picture size out of the camera is about 10"x8", as per my Nikon D70s, equally if the sensor were a 180ppi unit, but the manufacturers claimed 6m pixels, the basic printable picture would be nearer A3.

 

So what I am wrestling with is, all these millions of pixels means nothing if you cant cram larger quantities into one square inch of the basic image, it seems, it is fixed by the sensor size.

 

So back to my original 'dropping penny'. my Canon 640 has a sensor that allows it to take a picture with 10m pixels, but the sensor only manages 180 x 180ppi, therefore it will and does produce an enormous image on my computer which in PS Elements is reduced to 20%! I could print that image out at A3. However the image quality if I zoomed in is only as good as 180 ppi, the more pixels per inch the better the eye perceives the picture, it will become grainy much sooner than the same picture from a 300ppi sensor.

 

I'm still trying to find out if my understanding is correct, its doing my head in as well.

 

Thats not to mention all the other things that affect picture quality

 

SW

 

PS just had a glance at the site you suggest Newt, he's got it about right, ppi is the basic governing factor for quality before any manipulation or adjustment. We are being lead up the garden path on some cameras that only have a small sensor, all its producing is an enormous file to store! Few of us really want or can produce A3 prints? My humble opinion of course.

[300 or 180ppi?]

The penny is still dropping, It seems that the sensors in the average camera is either 180 pix per inch (ppi) or 300ppi. This means that regardles of the claimed XXXX million pixcels that a camera may boast, they are limited by this 300ppi figure in terms of stark quality. The XXXX million pixel figure is only releven in terms of the size of print that is practical to produce??? Most off us will only have the capabuility to print up to A4, comercial houses will produce larger if required, but do we need or use the facility??

 

This means that what we are realy interested in is the quality of a 1" square on the print?

 

The above has been promoted by reading the recent review in Practical Photography on Canon 40D V Nikon D40X, no mention of the sensor size, although sample pictures were shown, all the comparison waffle with no 'why'. Reading the mag further, this seems to be the case in other reviews, compacts, bridge or DSLR. They seem to go very general, fair enough, as one apreciates there are other issues. This 300-180ppi issue seems to be lost here as well?

 

Is it me? SW

 

PS the Nikon took the honours, just. Interesting review, especially on colour rendition.

[The penny has dropped . . . ?]

Though I agree that compacts are getting better I dont agree they are on equal terms with a dslr yet.

 

If you compare a picture at full size of a 6mp compact and a 6mp dslr you will see the difference in quality for sure. Its only really when you squash them down when you find it hard to spot difference.

 

If anyone disagrees please take a 100% crop using there compact. I will then do the same using my dslr.

 

Joel

 

 

I dont think any one is saying compact are better, I certainly am not. What I do say is that for 'my needs', ie this medium and average album type prints they are more than adequate, in fact as you say "squash them down" to level the playing field. Technology has really come on since the days of film compacts v their SLR counterparts. One has also to take into account how a photographers wishes his/here work to be viewed, grainy, blurred, misty, colour cast or even stark and sharp. With such variation, modern compact have every chance of pleasing and competing on equal term. However in the extremes compacts more obviously loose out as one would expect. Begs the question, "how often do we use or need the extremes"?

 

SW

[The penny has dropped . . . ?]

No way did I pay that SW... £499 "buy now" from Ebay...INCLUDING...

 

a spare £100 quids worth of battery..........still a lot of money though..............

blame my wife and kids....booking me a trip to fish with Newt and sightseeing with Jan :)

 

 

Den

 

£500 . . . better, mmm Great pic quality though, as you say, good glass, and the technology is roaring on in leaps and bound.

 

SW

[The penny has dropped . . . ?]

Even setting up personal options is available on some compacts (mine for example ) I have two user settings, and I do use them

 

I was also going to throw a further option into the pot.....HD video cameras which also take stills :) I may stop using my Nikon soon, my new Sony AVCHD takes a superb still picture....got a Carl Zeiss lens you see...........

 

Simple, point the camera..get in close..press shutter

 

I can't check the dpi of the original, but when copied to another folder it shows a dpi of 72 dpi..................

Den

 

 

Just shows how technology has closed the gap for Mr Average, our 'one size fits all' sosciety can offer advantages?

 

Phew, just looked at the price, '800 and something squid', discounted from over a grand . . . . . . . . . at the curent rate of development, in a couple of years they will be giving them away with cornflakes, lol

 

SW

[The penny has dropped . . . ?]

We are discussing the merits of cameras ... and not involving ourselves in "point scoring".

 

This photo forum is not the place for petty squabbles.

 

Thank you ...

 

Wiggly.

 

OK Mr Wiggly, I accept that.

 

Back to my original point, re pose the question; my Canon A640 only has 180ppi despite its 10m pixels. However it serves me well, as a light weight grab and go picture taking medium.

 

The other point was that my DSLR has 300ppi despite only being 6m pixels, are we being duped by the advertisers, as the 10m pixels offers no advantage, in fact suffers at the editing stage when zoom and crop are required?

 

Any one ever actualy considerd this, do they own compacts or bridge cameras with the 180ppi sensor or is the Canon unique?

 

SW

[The penny has dropped . . . ?]

[The penny has dropped . . . ?]