Origin of the keris
 

A picture speaks a 1000 words!

Interesting stuff Pusaka ; welcome back to the show ! ;) :D
You've been absent too long . :)

Any idea who the entity is wielding the K.L.O. ?

Sorry, i accidently posted under the wrong name as i don't intend to use two different monikers on this forum. :o
Anyway, hey Pusaka, welcome aboard. Any chance you can supply a close-up on the weapon in the first photo? If i try to blow it up it will just pixelize.
Rick...K.L.O.?

Keris Like Object . :D

I suspect Pusaka found that online; what say you Pusaka ?
Any chance for a better (sharper) picture ?

Yes, certainly what would help determine whether it is more than just a K.L.O. ;) or a E.K.L.O (extremely keris-like object :D ) would be what happens at the base of the blade, which appears to be somewhat covered by the hand of the figure in this relief. Doubled edged daggers are quite a common occurrence. Hopefully a close up would tell more. :)

Yes, this is a good graphic example of the line of descent of the keris.

A number of Indian swords as illustrated in Rawson (Library of Congress Cat Card:- 69-11144) display the symmetric blade base observed in the Karnataka relief shown by Pusaka.

A 5th. Century Gupta sword, 10-13th century Pala sword, various khandas including the Harasnath, the South Indian Madrasi swords---some even display a waved blade---the Orissan khanda; all these types shown by Rawson have some feature which can be seen as keris-like.

Older Indian swords tended to be shorter than the khandas I have mentioned, but the typology is still evident in these later, longer blades.

As I noted in my "Origin" article, the keris seems to be a descendant of the leaf shaped blades of India, which Rawson considers to be a "a common Aryan heritage of the Indo-Aryan peoples".

The Panataran relief showing a monkey warrior wielding a dagger with symmetric base is often distorted in published photographs by having the part of the blade where the gandik would be , shortened, or otherwise manipulated, to make it appear more keris-like.In fact, this Panataran representation shows a blade with a very symmetric base---which of course, makes it even more Indian.

There can be no doubt that the keris as we know it developed in Jawa, however, I think that there can be equally no doubt that it developed from Indian roots.

Hi guys, good to be back :)

Personally I find the depictions strikingly similar

Thanks for the better pictures Pusaka. Yes, i agree that they are strikingly similar and as Alan has stated, there is a strong line of development that seems to lead to a great influence from India. Generally, though, the keris as we know it is an asymmetric weapon while these are both fairly symmetric in form (the exception would be the keris sepang which is a relatively rare form and, i think, came a bit later in the evolution of the keris form). I think that most folks here probably buy into the concept of a strong Indian influence, though i would agree with Alan that the keris as we know it in it's asymmetric form probably developed in Jawa.

It has what looks to be a primitive Gajah too!

I see what you are looking at, but at this level of enlargement i would find it really hard to be definitive about that. I think we might all need to go on a field trip. :)

Sorry Rick, yes he is king vishnuvardhana.

Thanks for the ID !
Say; do you have a copy of Hindu Arms and Ritual by Robert Elgood ?
Think about buying a copy .

Added any new keris to your collection ? :)

First, is the monkey with the blade Hanuman?

Secondly, Rick, you should get the Elgood book, it is great.

I always thought he was Hanoman, but I`ve seen this same relief ---with the altered blade base, of course---in publications by people who know more about the literature than I do, describe him as just a "monkey warrior". I don`t think it makes much difference for our purposes whether it's Hanoman or or a warrior. Both monkeys. Both using weapons.

I've got it Jose . :)

No I don’t have that book but will probably get round to buying it at some point.
I do have a few keris and will post a few pic`s when I get a new camera. The Camera I have at the moment is useless and I can’t seem to get any decent close up photos with it.

I can understand Pusaka; I have a Fuji F700 digi and sometimes I just cannot get decently focused pictures out of it . :mad:

I have a collection of Nikon film cameras that give me no problems; but digi's drive me crazy!!
I use mine at 1 meg per picture because really a computer screen only renders at 72 DPI; so what's the use of shooting at a higher res.
Frustrating !! :mad:

Have you downloaded irfanview ?
www.irfanview.com free ! :)

Gee.. Rick, I'm using a Fujifilm Finepix F700, too. Most of my pics are, OK except for a few, under certain conditions. Normally, I'll take a 3.2 megapixels pic and edit to get a sharper res. As for simple picture editing, I use Google's Picasa2, it's free too. http://picasa.google.com/download/index.html :)

Hate digipics.

Hate digicams.

Hate the false focal length, which means that at 5'8'' I need to balance on an old paint tin to focus anything bigger than a Jawa keris.

Hate the indefinite focus.

Hate the time I have to spend with photoshop to produce anything like acceptable , fast download pics.

Hate the dust that can get attracted to guts of the thing if you change lens.

Hate the predicted short working life---still got and use my old Nikon F from 47 years ago---it still takes good pics and has been dropped, kicked, taken swimming lessons, and otherwise trashed. Two Nikon techos assure me that anything over five years out of my D70 is a gift from God.

Probably other things I hate about them too, just can`t think of anything else at the moment.

Nothing works like a macro lens for closeups.

The devil was at work when they invented digital cameras.

Wow, still using the Nikon F! ;) That even precedes my F2S of the 70s which got stolen...and now an F5 which is so bulky. I like my Nikon coolpix 5700... :), it's light and convenient.

I`ve got a few Nikon F's. The one I mentioned is the first one I got, and it really has had a hiding. Had it serviced fairly regularly, and at the last service everything was still within tolerance. When I used to do hardcopy cats, I used this camera probably more than 50% of the time to take the pics, along with the macro lens of the same age. The most recent F I have, I bought only ten years ago---its an F something or other, but is still essentially the same camera as the original. Any decent pics that I`ve taken in Indonesia have been taken with the old Nikon.Got a couple of little point and push Nikons too, and they also take a pretty decent shot.
The new D70 does not begin to match the the old F's on quality. I really, really dislike this camera.About all I can say in its favour is that it appears to be better than just about all the other digicams I`ve handled.I`ll be amazed if its still producing pics in even ten years time, though.

Here`s a couple pics that were done with Old Reliable, and then put on to CD.

The relief is another one from Panataran, and the keris budha is a very early bronze one.

The editing software I use came with the digital camera. The software itself is quite good with many features but sadly I can’t say the same for the camera.
I don’t think it’s a question of mega pixels because my digital camera is a 4 mega pixels camera with 6x digital zoom. That should be sufficient resolution to take a good photo however that is not the case.
I find that it is too sensitive to movement and if I want to take close up photos I have to rest my hand on something to make it really steady. Even if I manage to do this 8 out of 10 photos are not of a suitable quality.
Also I find it eats batteries like no tomorrow.
Taking a simple close-up photo has never been so difficult!
I think im better-off going back to “primitive” optics and to hell with this technological junk!

Jeepers !

I go off to bed here in New England and I wake up to a photo equipment discussion! :eek: :D

Might as well throw my two cents in here also; I like others here have a pair of early 1960's F's they; are unmetered old beasts and I have a hand held light meter . I've also got the large prism sports finder which some people I guess are willing to kill for . Also got that lovely micro-NIKKOR-P 3.5 lens that A.M. was raving about . Also got a N90s with a very large zoom for surf photography and an S just for sentimental reasons . ;)

I guess I'll just have to keep practicing on my digi; I've read better instruction books though; it's just that it gives such immediate gratification when you want to throw a picture up on the forum . It seems mostly to be the mid range pictures that give me trouble with sharpness. Maybe I'll try upping my file size and see if that helps .

I wonder when they'll be coming to take away our film; most stuff for publication is digi these days. :(

OK, i was thinking about starting a brand new thread on this subject, but since Pusaka has also joined in with the camera talk i guess i'll just post here. Photography has been my profession for more nearly 25 yrs. now, so hopefully i know a fair bit about the subject. I sympathize with all those frustrated with digital technlogy. I was personally brought kicking and screaming into the digital world,but if i hadn't made the switch about 4 yrs. ago i wouldn't be working today, plain and simple. Like any new technology, digital has had it's problems, but i will say that it has come a long way in the past couple of years. One of my major frustrations is just how fast the technology is improving. The camera i bought 4 yrs. ago is obsolete already! :eek: Like Alan i shot for years on the same old Nikons and Leicas. I went through college using two old Leicas that were as old as i am and still work to this day. I love old manual cameras and the days when i would just LOOK at the light through a meterless camera and say,"Oh, that's f8 @ 1/60 ". :)
Ah, but the times they are achangin'. Like any new technology you need to really learn it to make it work for you. I am still learning quite a lot about digi every day. I tend to figure things out on a need to know basis, so i don't know as much as i probably should, but do know enough to get by on a professional level. Part of my job as a staff shooter for a weekly paper is that i am the one who does all the "toning" for the images that go to print. Digital images are not the same as film in that ALL digi images need post shooting work. Well, film does too, but most people don't really take this into account. They drop the film for others to process where a lab tech develops your film and then prints it. These machine prints arec rarely acceptable by pro standards, so prints would then be hand done, with bthe tech adjusting color and contrast levels to produce the correct print for the job. With digi, you are the "processer". To do this well you need to have good programs and you need to learn how to use them. Once you do you can do the job faster and more efficiently than any lab tech could have with film, in the light of day and without dangerous chemicals.
Alan, to address a few of your concerns more directly:
1. Digital is here to stay, and unfortuately it does require some serious expenses. Bottom line to your lens issues is that you need to buy new lenses that will get you off the paint tins when you take your photos. You can only do so much trying to get by with your old lenses.
2. I am not sure what you mean by "indefinite" focus. :confused:
3. I work with photoshop everyday and find it fast and efficient. It has some amazing features that allow you to do things you never could do in the darkroom. I would recommend the lastest editions for the best and most complete features. Frankly, i don't even know what half the program will actually do, but if you learn what you need it shouldn't eat up too much of your time in the operation.
4.Dust IS a major factor with digitals. The best thing to do when changing lenes is to not only turn off the camera, but also remove the battery, as even when off there can still be a charge on the CCD that attracts dust. Most of the time though, i just turn the camera off and switch lenses as fast as i can. I probably do this a whole lot more than most of you and only rarely get dust on my CCD. When i do i blow it out.
5. Remember that even though it wasn't cheap, the D70 is NOT a professional camera. The F series Nikons were made for professionals which is why they are so tough. My D2X is similarly built to last, though with all the technology there is certtainly more that can go wrong. Did once drop my D1X two feet onto the concrete with no problem. Your D70 is more akin to something like the old Nikon FM. Those cameras didn't hold up anywhere near as well as the Fs did. The real problem though is that in 5 yrs. your D70 may well be working, but it will be far outdone by the newest and cheaper cameras.

Pusaka, even with film cameras it would be a good idea to put the camera on a tripod. Close-up work limits you depth of field (DOF is the zone of sharp focus in any given image). You would therefore want to use the smallest lens opening (which is the largest number) as that increases DOF. But that also means slower shutter speeds so you would want to steady the camera with a tripod. Yes, "older" digitals do tend to eat battery power, but this has been GREATLY improved in later models. As for going back to "primitive" optics, the optics haven't changed all that much, it's the rest of the camera. The technology isn't "junk", it just needs to be used properly. Never use a digital zoom BTW, unless you want crappy images. A DIGITAL zoom merely crops the image to make it larger. That means that it is just an enlargement and a great deal of quality is lost. 4 MP should indeed be enough to make quality images, especial for the internet, but if you then crop those images with digital zoom it is no longer a 4MP image. The more you zoom, the worse it gets. When buying point-and-shoot digicams, always look for the ones that offer an OPTICAL zoom.
As for sharpness issues, i have found my photos to be incredibly sharp, but NO IMAGE COMES DIRECTLY OUT OF A DIGITAL CAMERA SHARP. ALL digital images need to be sharpened ( and probably have their levels tweaked and color slightly adjusted) through a program similar to Photo Shop's Unsharp Mask. This is a program which also must me applied properly for optimum effect. Many people tend to vastly over-sharpen their images and the effect looks very unnatural. Experiment with your programs and you will find what looks best for you camera and different shooting situations.
Lastly Rick, i highly doubt they will be coming anytime soon to take your film away. :) Video did not eliminate motion picture film. Film itself did not eliminate oil paints and pastels. Films, as a medium for artistic expression is here to stay. Unfortunately, with less use of film we will see some of our favorite types fade away and i am afraid that the cost of them will probably rise. But for those who wish to keep shooting the stuff, i think it will be around. :)

Thanks for the info David, I had noticed that the digital zoom produced poor images in close up photos so I tend not to use that feature and instead try to get closer to the object. Well I’m going to start looking for a digital with optical zoom as you suggested. With my digital camera it’s obviously a focal problem i.e. the image has sufficient resolution (@ 4 mega pixels) but lacks focus so everything is blurred. Perhaps it a fault in the camera.

Not to change the subject; but to change the subject :D ; Alan , that is a nice keris budha; was it cast and then finished by hand?

Rick, that keris budha is archaic. It was found in fields south of Solo in Central Jawa about 20 years ago. I tried to buy it, along with half a dozen other people, but the seller refused to sell into the local community because he reckoned he`d be making too many enemies, so he sold it to a collector in the USA. I love that keris. If it was a woman, I`d leave my wife for it.

Yes, it was cast, and then sculpted and polished.

Getting back to black boxes.
Yeah, I know the D70 is not a top pro camera, and I discussed this with Nikon techos before I bought it. What I was told was that the actual guts of the thing were the same, and that the ---whatever it is that is at the heart of it---chip?----were the same as the pro model, but that the way in which it had been engineered was to a price, so it would not be as robust, or take as much punishment as a pro model.
Since I only bought this camera to do photos at home, off a tripod, and then pack it back into the camera bag, I figured that the extra couple of grand for a pro model would not be money well spent, particularly when, at the time I bought it, models were in the process of change.
I believe that I will continue to use the film cameras for photos taken when moving around, and the D70 for stuff done at home.

Yep, I know that digital is here forever, and, although I hate many things about it, I also realise that there is an up side. Its great for allowing quick sharing of images. There are a lot of good things about it, and I freely admit that a lot of my problems with digital are simply that anything that came along after the horse and cart, I find to be very challenging on a technological level. Bicycles are OK, but automobiles really should be outlawed.

What I mean by "indefinite focus" is that in the old F's you had a split image focus, that is great for precision, especially on closeups. With the D70 you have these gimpy focus zones, which means that effectively you are forced to use the ground glass all the time. Not fast. Not good.In fact, I find the designated focus zones a hinderance rather than a help. Now I mostly ignore them. If I do a cat I take something like 200+ photos, all in one session, all as fast as I can, so the light remains more or less constant. By the time I get to the end of it, my eyes are watering and tired. Never happened with the F's.

I agree:- I should buy new lenses.
However, since I only use the D70 for selling keris pics, and since there`s no real money in this, buying new lens just so I don`t have to stand on a paint tin once in while I see as a waste of money.

I don`t use the D70's metering function, as I prefer incident light readings taken with a Gosson.

With the photoshop work, yeah, I understand what I need to do with the pics I take now, and I can do it pretty quick, and reasonably well, but that time----and its a lot of time when you are processing +200 images---I used to pay a girl to do in the photolab. She earnt about $12 an hour. My time is worth a wee bit more than that.

I woke up to the "remove battery" trick pretty early in the piece. I returned the first D70 I bought, because the first time I changed lens, it got full of dust that showed up in the images.The replacement D70 I have removed the battery each time I change lens, and I no longer have this problem, but the very fact that you need to do this, I find plain ridiculous.

I do realise that some of the things I don`t like about the D70 could be fixed by the spending of money.However, if I subject this expenditure to a cost/benefit analysis, the benefit is not there, for the cost.

Agree that digital is here to stay. I agree there are many pluses to it.I understand that I must continue to use it.

But all this does not mean that I have to like it.

What's the model of your camera? Have you tried using the 'macro mode' of the camera to take close-up?
Below is the symbol of the 'macro mode' for close-up photography. Locate it and try taking close-up pictures with it. Hope it helps. ;)

Ah...the Gosson Luna Pro light meter...now that takes me back! :)
I think we are of the same mind Alan in our appreciation of the solid and practical workings of good mechanical camera equiptment. I must admit a fondness for the automobile, however (my Hot Wheels collection is probably up to about 600 cars :o :D ).
I understand what you mean about "indefinite" focus, but i am not sure why the lack of the split screen focus circle should cause you trouble. In a sense that is just like a focus zone, but you only have one in the center of the frame. I believe your D70 has 9 focus zones (the D2X has 11) which are easily switched from one to another with the multi-selector on the back of the camera. If you put the camera on manual focus a little light comes on when that focus zone is in focus. If the part of the keris your are trying to focus on does not fall into one of your focus zones you merely need to adjust framing until it does, focus till the light comes on, and re-frame. Theoretically there should be less re-framing than with your split screen focus system since there are more focus zones therefore requiring less re-framing. In a sense the focussing should be quicker. When that light comes on the zone IS in focus. With the split screen you have to make the call. Trust the machine Alan. :)
I certainly understand your reluctance to sit down to process 200 images, especially when it was work done for you by photolabs in the past. I can easliy tone a hundred pics or more in a week, but it is my job and i am getting a fair bit more than your $12 an hout lab girl for it. Certainly when we compare the amount of time film takes to fully process and print to digital, digital comes out as faster, cheaper and cleaner. But if the work is suddenly on you when it was once done by others i can see your complaint.
I also understand your reluctance to invest too much money in more equipment if the return is not there. Just be careful up there on those paint tins, eh? ;)
Alam makes a good point about making sure you use the proper settings on your camera to do close-up work. You will get the most out of your camera this way. However, even though these settings exist it is just a fact that these types of digital cameras are just not properly suited to do a good job with this type of photograph. They are made to take pics of the family outings and friends at parties, not record the fine detail of pamor on a nice old keris blade. As Alan pointed out early, nothing beats a fine macro lens for this work which means moving up into the realms of digital SLRs with inter-changable lenses if the quality of this type of work really matters to you. My wife, who loves to take close-ups of flowers, struggled for a good while with a Nikon 5700 and found the that close-up work with it was very frustrating. She is very happy, though, with her new D50. :)

Its actually a Gossen Lunasix 3. Had a couple of others before that, but this is the latest one.

I cannot use the autofocus, because I`m using my old macro lens for everything. The lens that came with the camera is a piece of garbage. I didn`t want it, but the way the price was structured it cost me something like $50, so I took it anyway, because I figured if I ever wanted to do some happysnaps, it would be perfect and I would have an upmarket point and push camera. For all the serious pics I do I use the macro and do it totally manual.
There`s another consideration with focus too:- I shoot from a tripod, so everything is a static setup. I also use remote release. If you change focus zones, you then need to reset your remote release---not a big deal, but just one more thing that can be overlooked when you`re working as fast as you can. Also, with keris, and especially with closeups taken at less than about 15 inches, I do not always want to get a precise focus on just one part of the subject, often I will move focus a little from the apparently obvious place, to another place in order to redistribute clarity over an entire subject.

With a complete keris, focus can present a different problem. Usually I focus onto the pattern on the pendok, or a particular single line in a bare blade, but when a pendok is smooth, or when a blade does not present a suitable feature, it can be very stressful on the eyes to get something just as you want it; in these circumstances I often do a set of bracketted focuses---like you do bracketted exposures.With the F's, you could put the split screen on any line, and just bring it together. Beautiful! Now I need to use ground glass the whole time. I use Murine like other people scratch.

If I were to buy a new macro lens, this would certainly overcome many of my problems---but I`ve already been down that road.

The adjustments that I do on an image are:- light balance (I shoot raw), crop, curves, resize, unsharp mask. More than 90% of what I shoot are done exactly the same way. The ten percent I might have to fiddle with a bit.I need to set aside the best part of a week to do this processing, including the sorting and sequencing and so on.Its no wonder I`m slowly going blind.

Careful on the paint tins?

Yep----they`re big tins.

Gossens ?
 

I'm still using my old Metrastar meter. :D

Alan, don't they have those plastic milk crates Down Under ?
More surface area and much more stable .
I always used one for nailing off strapping ... and photography . ;)

Yeah, they do, and if they catch you with one you get 25 to life if they don`t shoot you while trying to escape---no, I`m only joking.But they are the property of the milk wholesalers.

The paint tin was handy,first time I needed a bit more height, and its stayed there since.

I shoot on the front verandah. South light. Exposed to a lake. Often cannot shoot because of wind. A plastic milk crate would just blow away. Pick it up and store it nice a tidy somewhere---more effort, more time.Old paint tin, stick it under the cast iron bench and its there next time I need it.The tin ain`t flash, but it works.In addition,there`s probably not enough room between the tripod and the edge of the verandah for a crate.

6 years ago i bought in indonesia an old metal (bronze?) handle. The seller told me he found the hilt under ground (but I have just listen other times this story) near Cirebon. Really the handle shows the figure of a person (man, woman, queen, king ?? ) that seems to born from clouds (Cirebon pattern ?)over vegetation (Madura pattern?)
This is the picture:http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attach...id=13060&stc=1

Three years after in Bali i saw in a Legian 's shop a very old bronze keris with the same handle. I did not buy the keris because the prise was very very hight! So i took a photo:http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attach...id=13061&stc=1
What are your opinions?

My gut reaction is that the keris is not old but is the result of chemical treatment, I may be completely wrong but I would not have bought it either.

Yeah, hard to tell from the photo for sure. I messed around with it to bring out some detail, but a picture is still just a picture. Interesting dapur and ricikan though.

Regarding film vs digital
 

First let me say that I worked my way through college as a commercial photogapher, news, product, fashion and architectural. I used 35mm mostly, 2 1/4 square for weddings,4x5 and 8x10 for architectural and product.

I had a Nikon F. I got the Nikon F Photomic metering system when it first came out. I had stainless steel everything for processing.

All the top photographers had similar setups. This was in the 1960s.

One day I tried a Konica SLR autofocus. Cost maybe 25% of a simllar Nikon setup. I loved it. I sold all the Nikon stuff and replaced it with similar Konica. It was much easier and much faster than the Nikon. Just as durable. Lasted a long time.

I replaced the stainless steel developing equipment with plastic. Worked better and much smoother.

My customers never complained. They were very discerning and paid me a lot, so if they could have seen a difference, they would have let me know pronto!

I realized that the small 35mm negative could never give the resolution that a larger fromat would. Also no matter that super expensive lenses would work better as far as technical camera tests, it made almost no difference in outcome of pictures. The limitations of the 35mm film format resolution overweighed the super sharp lenses. Pictures made with the Konica were just fine.

What mattered was getting the right focus, angle, exposure, lighting, "instant of capture" --- NOT a super-expensive camera and lens.

Then I got involved in real estate for many years.

My recent return to the world of photography has been digital. I will never return to film. I could buy a whole Nikon setup, but I won't. My Panasonic DMC FZ-20 with a 12 to 1 optical zoom lens (36-432mm) does just fine.

One of my sons bought a Nikon DX2 12.4mb camera. A masterpiece of engineering. Big deal. I'd as soon take pictures of it than with it. Is it superior to my Panasonic? Sure! Is it ten times better? Hell no! Cost ten times as much. Are the pictures even twice as good? NO.

Shooting at the same 5mb with both cameras, I made pictures with my studio strobes and asked him to tell which were made with my Panasonic and which were made with his Nikon. He could not tell the difference, In fact he guessed wrong several times.

Let me be clear on something. Alan Maisey's pictures of his keris and other items are absolutely superb! Some of the finest work I have ever seen. But this has little to do with whether he is using digital or film. Alan is a perfectionist and his work is damn near perfect.

I don't use a tripod. I use White Lightning studio strobes that fire at something like 1/750th of a second, so I don't need one. I can move in close for a macro and out for a overall.

My lighting color temperature stays constant. Outside lighting changes.

My exposure is constant. Same aperture and same shutter speed. Never a difference in light quality or output.

My bottom line is that good photographers take good pictures. If you spend more time taking pictures and learning how light, focus, angle and timing impacts your media, you will become a better photographer than if you spend the rest of your life poring over technical reports.

It does take a good camera, but I think that you can do a great job with one and you don't need a great camera. Good is enough.

Thanks for the wrap, Bill.

I remember your pics, and you`re no slouch with the black box yourself.

I agree:- for the general run of photography that anybody is ever going to do, you do not need $2000 worth of camera. My wife takes really great pics of bonsais with a little old Nikon point and push. I`ve taken plenty of good scenery shots with a Pentax.I`ve even got some really great scenery shots that I took with a box brownie when I was 12 or 14 years old.

However---90% of what I take are pics of keris and similar things. Maybe 5% are pics of Javanese temple carvings and statuary. The other 5% is bits and pieces. I`ve tried a number of other cameras on the keris and the candis, and I can only get the results I want with a Nikon + macro. I have no doubt other cameras can also produce pics at least as good, maybe better, but I just haven`t tried them yet.

Here are two pics. They are not keris or weapons, but they are a subject that poses similar problems to photographing a keris. Both were taken hand held within 60 seconds of one another. One was taken with a Nikon D70 + 18-70 Nikkor; the other was taken with Sony cybershot.Both on automatic. Which is which?

Incidentally, I do not like the keris pics I can produce with this Nikon lens either. I personally think its a piece of garbage, but I reckon its still better than the lens in the Sony, which is some prestigious German brand.

I agree fully:- good photographers can take good pics with anything, but for some subjects you do need a bit of an edge with equipment, if you want decent results.

OK, it looks like this is becoming the Camera Corner. Definitely a good conversation to have. I do apologize to Pusaka for the theft of this thread, but no one seems to be adding anymore material to the original question.
I agree with PART of what both Alan and Bill are saying. NO, most of you don't need to spend $2000 (or $5000 :o) for a camera just to take good pictures of keris. But i wouldn't trade my D2X for your Panasonic, Bill, not on your life. First of all, it will take better pictures than the Panasonic because it IS 12.4 mb, so comparing it at a lesser resolution doesn't make much sense to me. But even shot somewhere near the resolution of the 5mb camera i would bet i could tell the difference. You would no doubt have to enlarge and print the image to see it though. There are aspects of depth, density and contrast differences between the two clips which must be taken into account. An even greater advange not only to the D2X, but to any of the SLRs is the whole range of lenses open to you. And nothing will give you better macro shots than a good macro lens, no matter how well built the fixed zoom of your Panasonic may be. I don't mean to dimiss your camera. I know you are able to take great pictures with it. But it all depends on what you are going to do with them. If you are going to print them or use them in publication i would pick the Nikon (or a Canon) SLR anytime.
Bill wrote:
My bottom line is that good photographers take good pictures. If you spend more time taking pictures and learning how light, focus, angle and timing impacts your media, you will become a better photographer than if you spend the rest of your life poring over technical reports.
Certainly no truer words were ever stated. And a good photographer can take good picture with just about anything. But a nice camera doesn't hurt. :)
Alan, as for which camera took which picture, this test, with pictures at this size, this is not really a fair or accurate one. If i saw both pictures at the same size they came out of the camera i might be able to tell you more. But i am not even sure if both these shots have been reduced to the same resolution. There are not the same dimensions either. And 75dpi (dots per inch) is not a very good screen resolution for making comparisions anyway (but that's pretty much all computer screens will show you). I would also say that both these shots look a bit over toned (sharpness, color). This doesn't need to be post work, it could just be the camera's default settings.
But if pressed i would say the shot on the right is the D70 pic. :)

Yep. The D70 is on the right.

They were both given pretty much the same photoshop treatment, and the crop depended on what I wanted in. I`m playing with the idea of getting a compact for when I need something just acceptable in a hurry, and for carrying around, because a bag full of Nikon stuff is just too inconvenient.I borrowed my son`s Sony and shot a few bits and pieces with it. Will do a serious test as soon as I get a chance.

But anyway David, you were pressed, and even at this size, and seeing them after they`d been massaged you could pick the difference. Straight out of the camera the difference is enormous.

If I look at these on my own screen, and full size, to me, the difference is chalk and cheese.

The Sony is just a snapshot camera , I reckon. Happy snaps, the occasional old building or dust laden sunset---it'll produce wonderful stuff.

Up close and personal---it sucks.

Cool....do i win a cigar? :D
Everyone should also keep in mind that different digital cameras are going to have different defaults and custom settings as they apply to sharpness, contrast, hue and tone. For instance, digital point & shoots tend to lean towards over sharpened images straight out of the camera as the makers assume that those using these cameras are less likely to do any post-production work. If you process both these images exactly the same you may find that less sharpening is needed on the P&S camera than the D70. The same will be true of other settings. The D70 should have custom settings that allow you greater in camera control than the P&S.