Re: 10th anniversary
tony cooper
<GEds...@PacBell.Net> wrote:
>Well, I am approaching the 10th anniversary of my first digital camera
>purchase in 1999. During that time, I have taken 40,314 digital images.
>For comparison, in the 25 years prior to that, I only took 3,497
>pictures with my 35mm Nikon F-2 that I purchased in 1974 while I was
>stationed on Midway Island.
>
>The end of my film days came in 2001 after a return visit to Midway
>Island. I took both my 35mm Nikon, and my 4MP Olympus E-10 along on the
>trip. Although the Olympus was only 4MP, I liked the results just as
>well as the results from the Nikon. It is RARE that I want enlargements
>bigger than 8x10 anyway. That was the last time I ever shot a frame of
>film.
The advantages of digital are many.
Today, Saturday, I went to an event where I thought I could get some
good shots. I shot 97 images. I downloaded* them tonight and
reviewed them. While I was able to get three decent shots out of the
group - which is about what my goal was - I could return to the same
event tomorrow and re-shoot based on what I saw tonight.
Back in the film days, I would have shot less and had to wait a few
days to see the results. The weekend event would be over.
In this case, it was an event with crowds of people and a great deal
of clutter in the scene. Most of the 97 shots were from moving around
a bit to minimize the background and clutter problems.
* Do we download or upload photos from a SD card?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mark Thomas
I would apply Einstein's theories - it's all relative. (O:
From the camera's point of view, you are uploading. From the PC's
point of view, you are downloading. But if the card is in a card
reader, it is probably just acting as a drive, so you are ... copying.
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
? "Gary Edstrom" <GEds...@PacBell.Net> ?????? ??? ??????
news:rmlto4t9j9qvv050p...@4ax.com...
> would probably never attempt with a film camera due to the cost of film
> and processing.
>
> One thing that I have always been disappointed about is how few pictures
> there are of the back woods cabin in the U.P. of Michigan that my father
> grew up in. We only have 2-3 pictures that show the cabin at all, and
> they were all taken from the same side of the place from the distance.
> There is only 1 interior shot which really doesn't show much of the
> cabin itself. It is of my father sitting at his short-wave radio back
> in 1922. The only memory I have of the interior of the place is from a
> 1956 trip when I was only 8 years old.
>
> I was determined that the same thing was not going to happen with my
> parent's house that my mother lived in for 42 years until she died 2
> years ago. I went WAY overboard in the opposite direction. I have over
> 1,500 pictures of the place taken inside and out. Few of these will
> ever be printed, but that was not the point. I have pictures taken from
> every corner of every room, plus close ups of every piece of furniture
> and every other significant object. The exterior of the house and yard
> has been shot from every conceivable angle. I doubt that there is much
> of anything of significance either inside or out that doesn't appear in
> at least one picture. It will be a good visual record of what we had in
> the place.
>
> When my mother died, I became the keeper of the old pictures, documents,
> letters, and other papers. I told my sister that she could have all of
> the furniture and nick-knacks she wanted. I just don't have room for
> them here in my condo. She moved a bunch of stuff to her place in
> Oklahoma and packed them into a couple of self-storage units where they
> will probably never see the light of day again.
>
Not to mention the wet darkroom, which I am very, very glad to leave behind.
While printing a (good) jpeg with a photo printer is absolutely foolproof
(My canon Pixma has exif print) in the film days you needed a whole
afternoon and evening preparing the hot baths to keep temperature constant,
remembering to take the photo paper out of the fridge, and then spend all
the evening doing proofs and try to find the colour cast and reading the
theory from the book how to correct it. All I've got from that era are a
couple RA-4 8 X1 0" s and a cibachrome print that shows me on a tree in
front of snow-capped mountains here, in Crete. Not to mention the
frustration of trying to print correctly form FP-4 or tmax 100, with so many
variables, exposure, filter (multigrade papers) developing time.... While I
have printed, literally, thousands of photos on my Canon, and the only thing
to worry is ink cost which is still negligible to the cost and effort of a
wet colour darkroom.
Just my 0.02 euros....
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
Alex Singleton
Gary Edstrom <GEds...@PacBell.Net> wrote:
>
>The end of my film days came in 2001
Perversely, I temporarily went back to film around then. I'd been using
a terrible compact digital camera - the Kodak DC215 Zoom - and wanted to
get a digital SLRs but they were too expensive at the time, so I got a
Canon EOS film camera.
--
Alex Singleton
http://www.alexsingleton.co.uk/
whisky-dave
"Mark Thomas" <mark.t...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gmmc96$p52$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:52:39 -0800, Gary Edstrom
>> <GEds...@PacBell.Net> wrote:
>> * Do we download or upload photos from a SD card?
>
> I would apply Einstein's theories - it's all relative. (O:
I'd apply that to incest too ;-)
>
> From the camera's point of view, you are uploading. From the PC's point
> of view, you are downloading.
I 've always thought of it as depending on the origin.
From Camera to PC downloading , from PC to camera uploading.
>