<WR> What would you like?
Faith L. McCammon
writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
No cheating now. It's got to be something writing related that you'd love to
have or have been pining for a very long time.
Me? I want a _nice_ lap top computer in the worst way.
--
Faith (a good digital camera would be great, too, for those of you who are
artists like I am. Oops, I just cheated, didn't I? <bg>)
Looking for a unique Christmas gift for someone??
http://www.wildchildpublishing.com/curioshoppe/faithsfantasy.html
Try www.shyflowersgarden.com & click on Shyflower's Market then Center
Attractions!
w.d.greene
"Faith L. McCammon" wrote:
> We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have
whatever
> writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
>
> No cheating now. It's got to be something writing related that you'd love
to
> have or have been pining for a very long time.
>
> Me? I want a _nice_ lap top computer in the worst way.
A publishing contract for the manuscript I just mailed off to my agent last
week.
(Was that too obvious?)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Bryna
>
Bryna
----------
In article <91avl4$3kusk$1...@ID-50387.news.dfncis.de>, "Faith L. McCammon"
Faith L. McCammon
"w.d.greene" <t...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:3a3902c9$1...@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>
> "Faith L. McCammon" wrote:
> > We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have
> whatever
> > writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
> >
> > No cheating now. It's got to be something writing related that you'd
love
> to
> > have or have been pining for a very long time.
> >
> > Me? I want a _nice_ lap top computer in the worst way.
>
>
> A publishing contract for the manuscript I just mailed off to my agent
last
> week.
>
> (Was that too obvious?)
>
>
Nah, that's something every novelist wants under their Christmas tree. Even
a fat check for a short story would be great, especially this time of year.
Faith
Peter Hickman
Faith L. McCammon
printing time fighting w/ my infernal printer!
Faith
"Peter Hickman" <Peter....@rtp.ppdi.com> wrote in message
news:3A390B84...@rtp.ppdi.com...
Michael Cargal
<mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote:
>
>"w.d.greene" <t...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
>news:3a3902c9$1...@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>>
>> "Faith L. McCammon" wrote:
>> > We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have
>> whatever
>> > writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
>> >
>> > No cheating now. It's got to be something writing related that you'd
>love
>> to
>> > have or have been pining for a very long time.
>> >
>> > Me? I want a _nice_ lap top computer in the worst way.
>>
>>
>> A publishing contract for the manuscript I just mailed off to my agent
>last
>> week.
>>
>> (Was that too obvious?)
>>
>>
>
>Nah, that's something every novelist wants under their Christmas tree. Even
>a fat check for a short story would be great, especially this time of year.
The OED on CD.
--
Michael Cargal mhca...@home.com
ing
>
> We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have whatever
> writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
>
I'd like something indirectly writerly.
I'd really like to find a handyman who's adept at changing
the positions of electrical plugs, installing new lighting
fixtures, rescuing screwed-up attempts at sanding and floor
carpentry, tiling, installing one medium sized built-in
cabinet and laying in baseboards. All materials supplied by
me and I'd like to use those services of his (or hers) for
about 5 days.
Then, when it's done, I'd have a clear mind that I could use
to finish off two essays and a short story that are half-way
done and don't actually read half-assed bad.
ing
Alma Hromic
<mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote:
>We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have whatever
>writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
>
>No cheating now. It's got to be something writing related that you'd love to
>have or have been pining for a very long time.
>
someone wrapped up in nice red ribbon who will be on call any and
every time i hit a computer snafu. i want someone knowledgeable at my
elbow every time i throw up my hands in horror and ask my computer
"what do you think you're doing NOW???"
that would be invaluable...
A.
***************************
"If you want a happy ending that depends, of course, on where you stop your story."
Orson Welles
w.d.greene
"Michael Cargal" wrote:
>
> The OED on CD.
A couple of years ago I got the two volume hardcopy abbreviated OED for
Xmas. It's one of the best gifts I've gotten recently. On CD would be
pretty darn cool too.
Kaichi Satake
><mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote:
>
>>We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have whatever
>>writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
>>
>>No cheating now. It's got to be something writing related that you'd love
>to
>>have or have been pining for a very long time.
>>
Money. *Lots* of it. About 10 million (U.S.) would
be a good start. Then I could buy all the writerly
toys I wanted, without having to ask old Santa
for a thing. I hate asking for stuff. (~-^)
Failing that, I'd settle for a new, totally tricked
out Apple G4, the kind with the dual processors,
so my PhotoShop work will go faster. (That's
writing-related, by the way; a lot of my writing
is for comics, which must be processed in PS for
online display.)
Since even the G4 is in the not-gonna-happen
category, I'll settle for some chocolate--which
will get me high enough to actually write some
non-depressing stories.
Sigh...I hate Christmas.
(^-^)
Kaichi (Grinch) Satake
====================
Kyoki Press Comics
http://www.kyokipress.com/
====================
Faith L. McCammon
"Kaichi Satake" <autmd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001214150240...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
> >On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:22:19 -0500, "Faith L. McCammon"
> ><mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote:
> >
> >>We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have
whatever
> >>writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
> >>
> >>No cheating now. It's got to be something writing related that you'd
love
> >to
> >>have or have been pining for a very long time.
> >>
>
>
> Money. *Lots* of it. About 10 million (U.S.) would
> be a good start. Then I could buy all the writerly
> toys I wanted, without having to ask old Santa
> for a thing. I hate asking for stuff. (~-^)
>
> Failing that, I'd settle for a new, totally tricked
> out Apple G4, the kind with the dual processors,
> so my PhotoShop work will go faster. (That's
> writing-related, by the way; a lot of my writing
> is for comics, which must be processed in PS for
> online display.)
>
> Since even the G4 is in the not-gonna-happen
> category, I'll settle for some chocolate--which
> will get me high enough to actually write some
> non-depressing stories.
>
> Sigh...I hate Christmas.
You & me both! Just call me Scrooge!
Faith
Goddess
"Faith L. McCammon" <mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote in message
news:91avl4$3kusk$1...@ID-50387.news.dfncis.de...
> We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have
whatever
> writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
>
> No cheating now. It's got to be something writing related that you'd love
to
> have or have been pining for a very long time.
An agent for my 2 completed novels as well as for the other 7 I'm working
on, partially done.
Marg
Eliska
wrote:
>
>"Michael Cargal" wrote:
>>
>> The OED on CD.
>
>A couple of years ago I got the two volume hardcopy abbreviated OED for
>Xmas. It's one of the best gifts I've gotten recently. On CD would be
>pretty darn cool too.
>
>
I have it. On CD. Yeeeesssss!!!
Liska (and thank you 'you know who' for getting it to me.)
Eliska
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:22:19 -0500, "Faith L. McCammon"
><mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote:
>
>>We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have whatever
>>writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
>>
>>No cheating now. It's got to be something writing related that you'd love to
>>have or have been pining for a very long time.
>>
For several years at a company where I worked, we did the secret santa
thing for a whole week. Ahead of time we made a list of 5 things we
wanted, then drew names. The creativity of the gifts was astounding.
People would ask for a window in their office, snow in Florida, etc.
and their wished were met in astounding ways.
The last Friday was out Christmas party and the opportunity to give a
'real' gift
I always wished for notebooks to write my famous murder mystery and
always got lots of notebooks.
This Christmas, I want art things under the tree, so I can't play this
game.
BTW - I *love* Christmas.
Liska
AFell99197
earn. Is that too much to ask? A nice six-figure salary and lots of perks.
w.d. greene
"Faith L. McCammon" wrote:
> We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have
whatever
> writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
Not writerly related but I did think of something else ... three electors
with a conscience come next Monday.
(Yes, I took the <WR> thing off the subject line <g>.)
Goddess
> ><mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote:
> >
> >>We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have
whatever
> >>writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
> >>
> >>No cheating now. It's got to be something writing related that you'd
love
> >to
> >>have or have been pining for a very long time.
> >>
>
>
> Money. *Lots* of it. About 10 million (U.S.) would
> be a good start. Then I could buy all the writerly
> toys I wanted, without having to ask old Santa
> for a thing. I hate asking for stuff. (~-^)
I never get what I ask for, so I don't ask.
> Failing that, I'd settle for a new, totally tricked
> out Apple G4, the kind with the dual processors,
> so my PhotoShop work will go faster. (That's
> writing-related, by the way; a lot of my writing
> is for comics, which must be processed in PS for
> online display.)
Sounds like a very reasonable request.
> Since even the G4 is in the not-gonna-happen
> category, I'll settle for some chocolate--which
> will get me high enough to actually write some
> non-depressing stories.
I have LOTS of chocolate. :-)
> Sigh...I hate Christmas.
So do I. That's why I celebrate Solstice. :-)
Marg
Goddess
"w.d. greene" <t...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:t3it2f7...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Faith L. McCammon" wrote:
> > We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have
> whatever
> > writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
>
> Not writerly related but I did think of something else ... three electors
> with a conscience come next Monday.
Now THAT would be some Christmas gift, eh? :-)
Marg
Frank Raymond Michaels
<mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote:
>We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have whatever
>writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
>
>No cheating now. It's got to be something writing related that you'd love to
>have or have been pining for a very long time.
>
>Me? I want a _nice_ lap top computer in the worst way.
A good laser printer. Something that'll handle novel-length work. Been
using Canon BubbleJets since 1990 -- good printers, OK for
short-stories, but I would hate to have to print a novel-length work
on one of those (the one I got only handles 20pp in the tray).
---
Frank Raymond Michaels
The Horror Fiction Page: http://i2.i-2000.com/~frankmi
Mr Helsing
writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
Writing talent.
Fiona Webster
in a magazine, from the guy who's had it for years and
is growing weary. Ideally, this would come in the form
of a letter from the editor of the magazine, telling me
that the guy who writes the column now is quitting, that
he recommended me as his successor, and would I like
the job.
--smiling at the thought,
Fiona
Faith L. McCammon
"Eliska" <igl...@att.net> wrote in message
news:elU5Oga7kcmZDUOIwJeb1=UIT...@4ax.com...
Speaking of artist stuff, I found a website to order mi-tients paper from
because I can't find it in my area w/out braving the Wheeling WV traffic
just to get a few sheets of the stuff. So, I ordered several sheets from
this website & even found some colors that I didn't know they made. Also
found a pencil holder that the hubby hasn't been able to find a replacement
for. Their prices are very reasonable, too.
Anyway, Mister Art sent me a Christmas gift for ordering w/ them. It was a
colorless blending pencil for the Prismacolor Pencils that I use so often. I
love Prismacolor & the variety of colors is amazing. I didn't know that
Prismacolor pencils made a colorless blending pencil.
I'm so easily amused.
Faith
Kaichi Satake
>"Kaichi Satake" <autmd...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20001214150240...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
>> Sigh...I hate Christmas.
>
>You & me both! Just call me Scrooge!
>
>Faith
>
>>
>> (^-^)
>>
>> Kaichi (Grinch) Satake
Heh...
"Scrooge" McCammon and "Grinch" Satake...we
sound like a couple of bad-assed gangsters
from an old noir picture. How utterly cool...
(^-^)
Kaichi Satake
==============
Kyoki Press Comics
http://www.kyokipress.com
==============
"You probably wouldn't worry about what
people think of you if you could know how
seldom they do." - Olin Miller
Kaichi Satake
>"Kaichi Satake" <autmd...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20001214150240...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
>> >On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:22:19 -0500, "Faith L. McCammon"
>> ><mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have
>whatever
>> >>writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
>>
>>
>> Money. *Lots* of it. About 10 million (U.S.) would
>> be a good start. Then I could buy all the writerly
>> toys I wanted, without having to ask old Santa
>> for a thing. I hate asking for stuff. (~-^)
>
>I never get what I ask for, so I don't ask.
Well, with me, it's a matter of pride. Or at
least, that's what people tell me. (~-^)
>> Failing that, I'd settle for a new, totally tricked
>> out Apple G4, the kind with the dual processors,
>> so my PhotoShop work will go faster. (That's
>> writing-related, by the way; a lot of my writing
>> is for comics, which must be processed in PS for
>> online display.)
>
>Sounds like a very reasonable request.
I guess I could buy one for myself, if I sold
my car. No, wait. My car isn't worth that much. <g>
>> Since even the G4 is in the not-gonna-happen
>> category, I'll settle for some chocolate--which
>> will get me high enough to actually write some
>> non-depressing stories.
>
>I have LOTS of chocolate. :-)
Mind if I come to visit you????? (~-^) hehe
>> Sigh...I hate Christmas.
>
>So do I. That's why I celebrate Solstice. :-)
>
>Marg
What do you do to celebrate Solstice? I don't
really celebrate *anything* any more. It's going
to be rather difficult to spend Christmas with
my parents, this year. I haven't seen them in a
couple of years, now, though, so I really have to.
Sigh...I'd rather just stay at home and sleep.
Goddess
> On Thu 14 Dec 2000 "Goddess" hl-go...@home.com writes:
>
> >"Kaichi Satake" <autmd...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20001214150240...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
> >> >On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:22:19 -0500, "Faith L. McCammon"
> >> ><mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have
> >whatever
> >> >>writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
> >>
> >>
> >> Money. *Lots* of it. About 10 million (U.S.) would
> >> be a good start. Then I could buy all the writerly
> >> toys I wanted, without having to ask old Santa
> >> for a thing. I hate asking for stuff. (~-^)
> >
> >I never get what I ask for, so I don't ask.
>
> Well, with me, it's a matter of pride. Or at
> least, that's what people tell me. (~-^)
>
something this year; our retirement home on the coast of Oregon. It won't
happen, yet, but I asked anyway.
> >> Failing that, I'd settle for a new, totally tricked
> >> out Apple G4, the kind with the dual processors,
> >> so my PhotoShop work will go faster. (That's
> >> writing-related, by the way; a lot of my writing
> >> is for comics, which must be processed in PS for
> >> online display.)
> >
> >Sounds like a very reasonable request.
>
>
> I guess I could buy one for myself, if I sold
> my car. No, wait. My car isn't worth that much. <g>
>
I know what you mean. :-(
> >> Since even the G4 is in the not-gonna-happen
> >> category, I'll settle for some chocolate--which
> >> will get me high enough to actually write some
> >> non-depressing stories.
> >
> >I have LOTS of chocolate. :-)
>
> Mind if I come to visit you????? (~-^) hehe
Anytime.
>
> >> Sigh...I hate Christmas.
> >
> >So do I. That's why I celebrate Solstice. :-)
> >
> >Marg
>
>
> What do you do to celebrate Solstice? I don't
> really celebrate *anything* any more. It's going
> to be rather difficult to spend Christmas with
> my parents, this year. I haven't seen them in a
> couple of years, now, though, so I really have to.
> Sigh...I'd rather just stay at home and sleep.
Yeah, I have next week off and part of the following week. My hubby and I
celebrate Solstice by a) putting up a tree (a very pagan symbol), b) putting
up lots of lights (safer than candles), and c) drinking/eating more than we
should. It's a very nice way of celebrating that in the middle of the cold
part of the year, we are a) still here and b) able to have a feast.
Marg
Eliska
<mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote:
>> This Christmas, I want art things under the tree, so I can't play this
>> game.
>>
>> BTW - I *love* Christmas.
>>
>> Liska
>
>Speaking of artist stuff, I found a website to order mi-tients paper from
>because I can't find it in my area w/out braving the Wheeling WV traffic
>just to get a few sheets of the stuff. So, I ordered several sheets from
>this website & even found some colors that I didn't know they made. Also
>found a pencil holder that the hubby hasn't been able to find a replacement
>for. Their prices are very reasonable, too.
>
I went on the Dick Blick and Pearl websites because I thought I was
going to have to get a new set of Caran Darche watercolor crayons by
mail, but this art store carries them.
>Anyway, Mister Art sent me a Christmas gift for ordering w/ them. It was a
>colorless blending pencil for the Prismacolor Pencils that I use so often. I
>love Prismacolor & the variety of colors is amazing. I didn't know that
>Prismacolor pencils made a colorless blending pencil.
>
I remember reading about it, but I use the Prismacolors as accents to
my watercolors, so I want to keep the texture.
Although now that I think about, I used them for some corrections in
the last portrait I did, and a blending pencil would have come in
handy.
>I'm so easily amused.
>
Me, too. The smell of kneaded erasers releases endorphins like mad.
Truckerman is getting into all this with me, dragging me through the
store, pointing out nifty gadgets. Now he wants to start painting. Not
in *my* studio.
That's the wonderful thing about owning this home. Right now my
sunroom is the studio. If I want to expand, I can set up the dining
room to do oil painting. I never use it anyway.
Liska
Faith L. McCammon
Sigh, I envy you. It would be so nice to have room in this house for such
things. We have a 4 bedroom house, one of which is my study, but the rooms
are _small_ rooms & w/ four kids every li'l bit of space is taken by
something.
I recently discovered that Prismacolor makes the same medium but w/out the
pencil casing, just the leads but thicker. I occasionally find some cool art
stuff on ebay, too, but I never buy because they're usually higher there
than if I go to a store or an art website.
Faith
Eliska
<mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote:
>
>"Eliska" <igl...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:bs86Ot7=3dnOmCWPGT...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> >I'm so easily amused.
>> >
>> Me, too. The smell of kneaded erasers releases endorphins like mad.
>> Truckerman is getting into all this with me, dragging me through the
>> store, pointing out nifty gadgets. Now he wants to start painting. Not
>> in *my* studio.
>>
>> That's the wonderful thing about owning this home. Right now my
>> sunroom is the studio. If I want to expand, I can set up the dining
>> room to do oil painting. I never use it anyway.
>>
>> Liska
>
>Sigh, I envy you. It would be so nice to have room in this house for such
>things. We have a 4 bedroom house, one of which is my study, but the rooms
>are _small_ rooms & w/ four kids every li'l bit of space is taken by
>something.
>
I know the feeling. This is the first time in my 50 years that I've
had the liberty. Once when I lived in a two room apartment on the
beach, I used the stove top as an art table. Can you tell I don't make
much use of kitchen/dining room stuff? : )
>I recently discovered that Prismacolor makes the same medium but w/out the
>pencil casing, just the leads but thicker.
I saw those on a web site, too.
> I occasionally find some cool art
>stuff on ebay, too, but I never buy because they're usually higher there
>than if I go to a store or an art website.
People can really get duped there if they don't do research prior to
shopping. I'm so excited now about the 30% discount I'll be getting
every time I shop now. And the art store is right next to a coffee
house called Java, where artistic types hang out. Not ultra snob,
affected folk - just down to earth, enthusiastic visual artists.
Yippeeee!
Liska
Dick Harper
> someone wrapped up in nice red ribbon who will be on call any and
> every time i hit a computer snafu. i want someone knowledgeable at my
> elbow every time i throw up my hands in horror and ask my computer
> "what do you think you're doing NOW???"
Deck the halls with ...
--Dick
-----------------------
The news fuse is a trifle longer now
in North Puffin but I still recommend
non...@dickharper.com
Dick Harper
> We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have whatever
> writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
> Faith (a good digital camera would be great, too, for those of you who are
> artists like I am. Oops, I just cheated, didn't I? <bg>)
I had finally convinced myself to buy a 3+ megapixel digital
camera when not only did the 4s come out I also discovered the
possibility of an 8! Cars are easier to cope with, because the
basic technology doesn't change quite so quickly.
I'm now vacillating between buying a 640x480 point-and-shoot
right now (and wait for an "affordable" 8 megapixel) or buy a 3
now and be mad at myself in a year. Meanwhile, it occurs to me
that I can always take a good phot on film and scan it, thus
creating a digital photo without the worry about pixels.
Dick Harper
> We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have whatever
> writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
A contract with a deadline.
Dick Harper
> A good laser printer. Something that'll handle novel-length work. Been
> using Canon BubbleJets since 1990 -- good printers, OK for
> short-stories, but I would hate to have to print a novel-length work
> on one of those (the one I got only handles 20pp in the tray).
HP4, HP4P, or HP4MP.
Alan Hope
didn't just come right out and say:
>someone wrapped up in nice red ribbon who will be on call any and
>every time i hit a computer snafu. i want someone knowledgeable at my
>elbow every time i throw up my hands in horror and ask my computer
>"what do you think you're doing NOW???"
>that would be invaluable...
Shoulda married one. All the guys in here, you can't say you didn't
have a choice.
--
AH
Don May
Harper) wrote:
>Faith L. McCammon eloquently commented in misc.writing
>
>> We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have whatever
>> writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
>
>> Faith (a good digital camera would be great, too, for those of you who are
>> artists like I am. Oops, I just cheated, didn't I? <bg>)
>
> I had finally convinced myself to buy a 3+ megapixel digital
>camera when not only did the 4s come out I also discovered the
>possibility of an 8! Cars are easier to cope with, because the
>basic technology doesn't change quite so quickly.
> I'm now vacillating between buying a 640x480 point-and-shoot
>right now (and wait for an "affordable" 8 megapixel) or buy a 3
>now and be mad at myself in a year. Meanwhile, it occurs to me
>that I can always take a good phot on film and scan it, thus
>creating a digital photo without the worry about pixels.
>
>--Dick
>
Dick, Unless you are a professional photographer, or you
wish to print 8x10 prints at a professional level you would
not need, nor really want much over 1.2 to 2 megapixel
camera.
Reason . . . the file sizes would be HUGE and only result
with better quality photos when printing in very large
format. A 1.2 megapixel photo printed with the latest model
ink jet printers such as the HP P1000 will give you 5X6
print results that you would not be able to tell the
difference from a film photo except with a magnifier.
High Pixel cameras would be a total waste of money if you
only need a photos for the web and quality 5x6 prints.
The Olympus 1.2 megapixal cameras will give you startling,
beautiful, results for all but the most demanding pro photo
needs. Do go for optical zoom rather than just digital zoom.
Don
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From quiet homes and first beginning,
Out to the undiscovered ends,
There's nothing worth the wear of winning,
But laughter and the love of friends.
Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953), British author.
Alma Hromic
>May God punish me with an eternity in misc.writing if Alma Hromic
>didn't just come right out and say:
>
>>someone wrapped up in nice red ribbon who will be on call any and
>>every time i hit a computer snafu.
>Shoulda married one.
i have different criteria for a husband.
A.
***************************
"If you want a happy ending that depends, of course, on where you stop your story."
Orson Welles
Eliska
wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 22:05:13 +0100, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
>>May God punish me with an eternity in misc.writing if Alma Hromic
>>didn't just come right out and say:
>>
>>>someone wrapped up in nice red ribbon who will be on call any and
>>>every time i hit a computer snafu.
>
>>Shoulda married one.
>
>i have different criteria for a husband.
>
Right - plaid shirts, not red ribbons.
Liska
KMadeleine
<3a3bce00...@news.sover.net>:
>Faith L. McCammon eloquently commented in misc.writing
>
>> We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have
>> whatever writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would
>> it be?
>
>> Faith (a good digital camera would be great, too, for those of you
>> who are artists like I am. Oops, I just cheated, didn't I? <bg>)
>
> I had finally convinced myself to buy a 3+ megapixel digital
>camera when not only did the 4s come out I also discovered the
>possibility of an 8! Cars are easier to cope with, because the
>basic technology doesn't change quite so quickly.
> I'm now vacillating between buying a 640x480 point-and-shoot
>right now (and wait for an "affordable" 8 megapixel) or buy a 3
>now and be mad at myself in a year. Meanwhile, it occurs to me
>that I can always take a good phot on film and scan it, thus
>creating a digital photo without the worry about pixels.
>
>--Dick
i don't know how analogous our situations are--i don't need a
digital camera for work or anything serious, just to play around
with, and because i still have film from when i was in junior high
oh-so-many years ago that i never got developed. i don't know how
much i'll use it, so i couldn't see sinking gobs of money into one
yet. for christmas i'm getting a $250 model, one that's easy to use
for the cheaper models. having it around to use will help me
decide in the future whether it'd be worthwhile to save up for
a really nice [and expensive] one.
of course, it was easy for me to decide to do it this way, knowing
that it would be considered a fun gift for the folks i'm asking
for it from, and knowing their budget, and knowing that i wouldn't
be paying for it. YMMV.
--
KMadeleine
Alan Hope
didn't just come right out and say:
>On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 22:05:13 +0100, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>May God punish me with an eternity in misc.writing if Alma Hromic
>>didn't just come right out and say:
>>>someone wrapped up in nice red ribbon who will be on call any and
>>>every time i hit a computer snafu.
>>Shoulda married one.
>i have different criteria for a husband.
I dare say. You can't be expected to think of everything first time
out. Next time, expand your criteria. Time after that, aim higher
still. Ask my Redneck friend.
--
AH
Jerry Kindall
The advantage of having lots of pixels as that it gives you extensive
leeway in what to crop. You can throw away half the picture and still
have enough pixels left for a clear image at a decent size. That means
you don't have to be so careful in framing your images when you take
them. Also, since two-thirds of the data in a digital camera image is
made up, having a lot more of it helps.
--
Jerry Kindall <mailto:je...@manual.com>
Mac OS X: Why 2001 won't be like "2001"
Frank Raymond Michaels
wrote:
>Frank Raymond Michaels eloquently commented in misc.writing
>
>> A good laser printer. Something that'll handle novel-length work. Been
>> using Canon BubbleJets since 1990 -- good printers, OK for
>> short-stories, but I would hate to have to print a novel-length work
>> on one of those (the one I got only handles 20pp in the tray).
>
> HP4, HP4P, or HP4MP.
Ohmigod he's choking!
<Heimlich maneuver>
<Corbomite manuever>
<Immelmann turn>
<Fahrvergnugen>
<forget the mouth-to-mouth, y'gotta buy me dinner first>
Oh, wait... you mean, "aitch-pee-four", "aitch-pee-four-pee", or
"aitch-pee-four-pee-em" ... ahhh...
Thanks, dude, I was leaning toward a Lexmark (the floor was crooked at
COMPUSA) but I will check them out...
---
Frank Raymond Michaels ("Sorry about that, Dick...")
Don May
<je...@munged.invalid> wrote:
>In article <3a3cec1b.38558836@news>, donb...@home.com (Don May) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 20:20:33 GMT, Di...@NorthPuffin.com (Dick Harper)
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I had finally convinced myself to buy a 3+ megapixel digital camera
>> >when not only did the 4s come out I also discovered the possibility
>> >of an 8! Cars are easier to cope with, because the basic technology
>> >doesn't change quite so quickly. I'm now vacillating between buying
>> >a 640x480 point-and-shoot right now (and wait for an "affordable" 8
>> >megapixel) or buy a 3 now and be mad at myself in a year.
>> >Meanwhile, it occurs to me that I can always take a good phot on
>> >film and scan it, thus creating a digital photo without the worry
>> >about pixels.
>> >
>> >--Dick
>> >
>>
>> Dick, Unless you are a professional photographer, or you wish to
>> print 8x10 prints at a professional level you would not need, nor
>> really want much over 1.2 to 2 megapixel camera.
>>
>>Don
<snip>
>
>The advantage of having lots of pixels as that it gives you extensive
>leeway in what to crop. You can throw away half the picture and still
>have enough pixels left for a clear image at a decent size. That means
>you don't have to be so careful in framing your images when you take
>them. Also, since two-thirds of the data in a digital camera image is
>made up, having a lot more of it helps.
>Jerry
A good point Jerry. However, as someone who likes to compose
my shots on the spot working with a zoom I do not do much
cropping. Given the file size of high megapixel cameras my
suggestion was based on the average user not doing that much
cropping and where giant file sizes would severely limit the
storage capacity of the camera and the computer HD.
I do think that there is a megapixel war going on and it
misleads many into thinking all around bigger is better for
everyone when it is over kill for anyone who is not into
serious professional photography.
I am very picky about the quality of my images and use Nikon
film cameras and quality lenses. I can tell you I was amazed
at the quality of the photos my 1.3 megapixel Olympus D-450
zoom takes. I'm not ready to shell out the big dollars for
4megs until the prices come down some.
Just my opinion at this time. Give me a 4meg camera and I
may change my tune. :-) I have been know to match my
opinions to what I can afford at the moment.
Tom S. Bair Jr.
"Frank Raymond Michaels" <fra...@i-2000.com> wrote in message
news:3a3c0c79...@news.i-2000.com...
Lasted one year! So I switched to an HP DeskJet 832C. Handles my document
printing like a dream!
Tom
Faith L. McCammon
"Dick Harper" <Di...@NorthPuffin.com> wrote in message
news:3a3bce00...@news.sover.net...
> Faith L. McCammon eloquently commented in misc.writing
>
> > We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have
whatever
> > writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
>
> > Faith (a good digital camera would be great, too, for those of you who
are
> > artists like I am. Oops, I just cheated, didn't I? <bg>)
>
> I had finally convinced myself to buy a 3+ megapixel digital
> camera when not only did the 4s come out I also discovered the
> possibility of an 8! Cars are easier to cope with, because the
> basic technology doesn't change quite so quickly.
> I'm now vacillating between buying a 640x480 point-and-shoot
> right now (and wait for an "affordable" 8 megapixel) or buy a 3
> now and be mad at myself in a year. Meanwhile, it occurs to me
> that I can always take a good phot on film and scan it, thus
> creating a digital photo without the worry about pixels.
>
> --Dick
>
Uhm, okay, now I'll be terrified to buy the _right_ digitial camera!
Faith
Dick Harper
> Speaking of artist stuff, I found a website to order mi-tients paper from
> because I can't find it in my area w/out braving the Wheeling WV traffic
> just to get a few sheets of the stuff. So, I ordered several sheets from
> this website & even found some colors that I didn't know they made. Also
> found a pencil holder that the hubby hasn't been able to find a replacement
> for. Their prices are very reasonable, too.
>
> Anyway, Mister Art sent me a Christmas gift for ordering w/ them. It was a
> colorless blending pencil for the Prismacolor Pencils that I use so often. I
> love Prismacolor & the variety of colors is amazing. I didn't know that
> Prismacolor pencils made a colorless blending pencil.
My mom deals with Cheap Joe's where a pack of 10 Mi-Teintes
pastel paper costs $10.95. I didn't check Mister Art's price,
but comparing D'Arches 140# cold press watercolor paper (her
standard) 25 sheet pkg: MrA was $101.35 ; C-J's was $58.95
C-J is at
www.cheapjoes.com
or 374 Industrial Park Dr., Boone, NC 28607. My mother writes,
"We've been there and spent plastic money in his drug store...Yup,
he's a pharmacist and an artist and a neat person whose local
reputation is top notch. His catalog (138 pages) is fun to read,
too."
--Dick
-----------------------
If you want me to see your response,
please copy me by email:
non...@dickharper.com
Eliska
wrote:
>Faith L. McCammon eloquently commented in misc.writing
>
>> Anyway, Mister Art sent me a Christmas gift for ordering w/ them. It was a
>> colorless blending pencil for the Prismacolor Pencils that I use so often. I
>> love Prismacolor & the variety of colors is amazing. I didn't know that
>> Prismacolor pencils made a colorless blending pencil.
>
> My mom deals with Cheap Joe's where a pack of 10 Mi-Teintes
>pastel paper costs $10.95. I didn't check Mister Art's price,
>but comparing D'Arches 140# cold press watercolor paper (her
>standard) 25 sheet pkg: MrA was $101.35 ; C-J's was $58.95
> C-J is at
> www.cheapjoes.com
I am there!!! That's my brand of watercolor paper.
Thanks for the tip. I hadn't made it to his web site yet.
Liska
Faith L. McCammon
"Dick Harper" <Di...@NorthPuffin.com> wrote in message
Mister Art has that paper for 'bout 95 cents a sheet.
Faith
Dick Harper
> Uhm, okay, now I'll be terrified to buy the _right_ digitial camera!
Rats.
That wasn't my intent. I've been obsessing over digital
cameras lately, not only for myself but also with some of the
artists and photographers in the arts council.
Don and I talked this over a bit in email. He made the point
that, unless you want to print "professional" 8 x 10 prints, you
don't need more than a 2 megapixel camera. He's right, of course,
but I am beginning to exhibit and sell photos, so I do want to
print at 8 x 10 or 11 x 14. I'm also experimenting with
overpainting, a euphemistic way of saying I am retouching the
(scanned) original photo with a very heavy handed application of
digital "artistic" effects. I want to print that result as well.
The other method--use a film-based camera and scan the
result--is fine and what I do now. You do need a scanner that
scans optically at the same resolution your printer prints. Thus
if you use a 2400 dpi HP990 or a 1440 dpi Epson 2000P, I think you
also need at least a 2400 dpi (optical, not "enhanced"), 36-bit
scanner to get film quality output. FWIW, I also believe you
should scan at full size, although slide scanners belie that.
Faith, remember that Anne took the Dick-and-Deck shot with an
Olympus D-400. The Olympus 1 and 2 megapixal cameras give
beautiful snapshot-level results. In fact, the kids took the
family christmas pix last year with a 640x480 cheap digital,
enlarged it to 8x10, and printed it on a $70 inkjet. It wasn't
film quality, but it was a really good snapshot. That may be as
much as anyone needs.
I've simply been managing a moderate case of the "gimmes."
It's getting harder to do.
--Dick
-----------------------
The newsic died (again). If you want me to
Dick Harper
> The other method--use a film-based camera and scan the
> result--is fine and what I do now. You do need a scanner that
> scans optically at the same resolution your printer prints. Thus
> if you use a 2400 dpi HP or Epson, you also need at least a
> 2400 dpi (optical, not "enhanced"), 36-bit scanner to get film
> quality output.
Has anyone tried printing photos with a mid-range color laser
such as the HP4550? Are the results film quality if you use photo
paper?
Jerry Kindall
wrote:
> The other method--use a film-based camera and scan the result--is
> fine and what I do now. You do need a scanner that scans optically
> at the same resolution your printer prints. Thus if you use a 2400
> dpi HP990 or a 1440 dpi Epson 2000P, I think you also need at least a
> 2400 dpi (optical, not "enhanced"), 36-bit scanner to get film
> quality output. FWIW, I also believe you should scan at full size,
> although slide scanners belie that.
The printer DPI tells you the accuracy with which the printer can
position dots. However, unlike a screen dot, a printer dot is either on
or off for a given primary color. Thus a single dot on the screen is
rendered as _several_ printer dots. Thus there is not a one-to-one
correspondence between the two, and if you make your files 1440 or 2400
DPI, you're just wasting disk space (and time moving all those bits
around).
In halftone printing you generally make sure the image is at least twice
the DPI of the halftone screen you're using. Now, on an inkjet printer
you don't usually use screens; the printer does stochastic dithering
rather than halftoning because it looks better for continuous-tone
images. However, if you know that a fine magazine uses a screen of
185-200 DPI, then you know to achieve similar quality you never need
more than 400 DPI (twice that halftone screen). In practice 250-300 DPI
is usually enough and you can get away with DPI as low as 150 in many
cases.
Hound of Cullen
says...
: I wrote:
:
: > The other method--use a film-based camera and scan the
: > result--is fine and what I do now. You do need a scanner that
: > scans optically at the same resolution your printer prints. Thus
: > if you use a 2400 dpi HP or Epson, you also need at least a
: > 2400 dpi (optical, not "enhanced"), 36-bit scanner to get film
: > quality output.
:
: Has anyone tried printing photos with a mid-range color laser
: such as the HP4550? Are the results film quality if you use photo
: paper?
:
: --Dick
I've only printed on inkjet (I prefer Epson to HP, despite the Epson
color loss problems) and on a Tektronix Phaser 840. *That* is a tasty
printer. Photo quality on plain paper. Of course, it is $4,000, so it is
a bit out of my price range...
Macworld did a printer-to-printer comparsion of color laser printers in
the past year. I can't remember which issue, but the article is sure to
be online at www.macworld.com. Even though it is a Mac rag, the article
should be useful, since they compare things like printing time and color
fidelity.
Hound
--
In childhood
I thought that pain meant
I was not loved;
It meant I loved.
--Louise Gluck
Faith L. McCammon
"Dick Harper" <Di...@NorthPuffin.com> wrote in message
I need a digital camera in the worst way for my artwork & to help my mother
out w/ selling her silk flower arrangements online. The many, many brands &
qualities of digital cameras is so overwhelming that I shudder at shopping
for one.
I've seen them range from $99 to over $500. Alas, there is always something
else that comes up that needs purchased over the camera, tho, so I guess I
have plenty of time to decide what I _reallly_ want in a digital camera.
Faith (dreaming...)
Hound of Cullen
says...
: I need a digital camera in the worst way for my artwork & to help my mother
: out w/ selling her silk flower arrangements online. The many, many brands &
: qualities of digital cameras is so overwhelming that I shudder at shopping
: for one.
:
: I've seen them range from $99 to over $500. Alas, there is always something
: else that comes up that needs purchased over the camera, tho, so I guess I
: have plenty of time to decide what I _reallly_ want in a digital camera.
:
: Faith (dreaming...)
It isn't all that bad. If you are going to print the photographs, you'll
want the following:
- at least 800x600 image size
- the ability to set the level of JPEG compression applied to the image
- optionally, the ability to save the images as uncompressed TIFF files
- You'll probably want either USB or FireWire to get the images from the
camera to your PC. Serial is s-l-o-w.
With that in mind, look at the other *important* features of the camera:
- Does it take rechargeable batteries?
- Does it *come* with rechargeable batteries and a charger?
- How fast does it take a picture? Will there be a long pause as the
camera writes the image to the storage medium?
- How good is the color fidelity?
- How good is the image quality?
- How good are color/image under less-than-ideal conditions (too dark/too
light)?
- How easy is it to program the damn thing? If the controls are
confusing, you'll never use half the features the camera has.
When I bought one for work last year, I spent about a week researching. I
opted for the Olympus C2020, with the Nikon 900 coming in a close second.
The Olympus came with a printed manual, rechargeable batteries, and a
charger. The Nikon didn't. Picture quality from both cameras was very
good.
The only thing that bugs me about the Olympus is that the lens cap pops
off easily (in fact, someone lost it a while ago, which ticks me off).
My target price range was $700-$800. Both cameras cost around $700 when I
was looking. Now, comparable cameras should cost around $400.
Faith L. McCammon
"Hound of Cullen" <pzisel...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14a9666c8...@news.supernews.com...
Thanks for the tips, Hound! I saved this post so I'll have the info when I
go do _serious_ digital camera shopping.
Faith
Wolf Lahti
>
>I've seen them range from $99 to over $500.
>
Then you haven't been paying attention :) I've seen them
from $0 to $30,000.
Unfortunately, the one I want (and more or less successfully
convince myself I need), while not the most expensive, ranges
around $5000. The same goes for digital video cameras - and
I know that no one is going to give me a Canon XL-1 for
Christmas, darn it.
=======================================================
"I hate quotations!" Wolf Lahti
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson Allen, Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
wd...@paccar.com
=======================================================
Faith L. McCammon
"Wolf Lahti" <wd...@techcenter.paccar.com> wrote in message
news:91oel7$5h9$1...@ender.paccar.com...
> Faith said
> >
> >I've seen them range from $99 to over $500.
> >
>
>
> Then you haven't been paying attention :) I've seen them
> from $0 to $30,000.
>
> Unfortunately, the one I want (and more or less successfully
> convince myself I need), while not the most expensive, ranges
> around $5000. The same goes for digital video cameras - and
> I know that no one is going to give me a Canon XL-1 for
> Christmas, darn it.
>
>
Holy shit!!! I take it that price includes the director & film crew, too!
Faith
Dick Harper
> i don't know how analogous our situations are--i don't need a
> digital camera for work or anything serious, just to play around
> with, and because i still have film from when i was in junior high
> oh-so-many years ago that i never got developed. i don't know how
> much i'll use it, so i couldn't see sinking gobs of money into one
> yet. for christmas i'm getting a $250 model, one that's easy to use
> for the cheaper models. having it around to use will help me
> decide in the future whether it'd be worthwhile to save up for
> a really nice [and expensive] one.
Good plan.
PCPhoto's list of 50 editor's choice picks included the HP
Photosmart 315 at about $299 U.S. It has a 2.1 megapixel CCD, so
the image quality should be pretty good up to 5 x 7
Prices will, of course, drop immediately after you (and I) buy
one.
Some local photographers and I have discussed another
advantage to any digital that has more than point and click
controls. If you have aperature priority, you can teach (or
learn) most of the great tricks and have instant feedback on the
results. One can also experiment with lighting, and again see
instant results.
Dick Harper
> A couple of years ago I got the two volume hardcopy abbreviated OED for
> Xmas. It's one of the best gifts I've gotten recently. On CD would be
> pretty darn cool too.
Yeah, I agree. In fact, I'd up the ante to include the
National Geographic on DVD, Roget's Complete Thesaurus,
Machinery's Handbook, and Marks' Handbook.
Maybe the ideal would be a little DDE link between whatever
program I have open and a really really good thesaurus. Then I
might find a replacement for really really good.
Wolf Lahti
>
> I've seen them [digital cameras]
> from $0 to $30,000.
>
and Faith said
>
>Holy shit!!! I take it that price includes the director
>& film crew, too!
>
Yep, all three of 'em - me, myself, and eye.
In the interest of actually providing some useful information
in one of my posts, I quote the following from the Small Dog
Electronics e-newsletter:
DIGITAL CAMERA BUYER'S GUIDE
You've probably spent more than your fair share of time waiting for your
photographs to return in the mail, and had more than your share of
disappointments when the image you took didn't come out exactly the way you
wanted. So, what should you do? Purchase a digital camera, a device that
promises to eliminate much of the guesswork applied to conventional
photography. When you make this purchase, you'll join the swelling ranks of
people for whom digital photography has become the standard choice, even for
the highest quality work. If you've been to a photography studio lately,
you've seen digicams at work, and the remarkably professional results that
digital imaging can provide.
Not all of these cameras work the same though--when you spend $100 on a
camera, you must know that a $1000 digicam will do a much better job of
visual imaging. If you need the best, though, be prepared to shell out
upwards of $10,000. Quality doesn't come cheap. The questions for the buyer
then become rather simple: what do you want you camera to do for you, and
how well?
This buyer's guide is designed to help you make an informed decision about
digital cameras based on your needs. The guide doesn't point you toward any
specific camera, but with the decisions you make while reading this guide,
you will be able to shop for a camera from an informed point of a view.
Let's get started.
+--------------------------------+
The Vocabulary
There are more than a few terms we should get out of the way. Acronyms may
never affect you, but it's always good to know what they mean. So, here are
a few of the essentials when talking about digital photography.
"CCD" This signifies a Charge Coupled Device, an image sensor that dates
back a few decades to when they were initially used as replacements for
bulkier vacuum tubes. This is the standard imaging system for digital
cameras and a host of other image producers.
"CMOS" This one is a little tougher: Complementary Metal-Oxide
Semiconductor. CMOS sensors are still relatively new and represent
technology that isn't quite developed to its highest point. Chances are that
this technology will develop, but currently CMOS sensors are in their
infancy.
"LCD" If you've used a laptop computer, you've been using a Liquid Crystal
Diode screen to display your computer's output. LCD screens aren't reserved
for computers, though. Digital cameras are often equipped with LCD screens,
as are small television devices. In essence, the LCD screen is the output
from your camera. Instead of looking through a viewfinder, you can compose
your photo on the LCD screen and then capture the image.
"SLR" Single Lens Reflex cameras create an image on film by rapidly flipping
a mirror upward and opening the shutter in order to expose the film. The
mirror then returns to its initial position. The mirror works in conjunction
with another mirror, and lenses, in order to present the photographer with
an image of exactly what the camera sees. Naturally, when taking a
photograph, it's always nice to see what you are actually shooting. SLR
cameras make that possible.
"Resolution" All images collected by a camera are subject to the effect of
the image collector. In traditional cameras, film is coated with thin layer
of silver that then reacts to the light when the shutter opens. Typically,
different film is used for different purposes. High-speed films, those that
react quickly to light exposure, are typically more grainy when viewed. With
a digital camera, the quality of the image is in direct proportion to the
quality if the image collector (CCD, CMOS.) Higher quality digicams are able
to create images that can be printed at larger sizes owing to the multitude
of pixels they gather. Lower quality digicams often collect an image size of
640 by 480 pixels. These images are useful only for low-resolution needs,
such as publication to a web page. Today's breed of digicam includes devices
that collect millions of pixels in the wink of an eye. The more pixels, the
better the resolution. The better the resolution, the more vibrant the
color, sharper the edges, and, well, photographic the image will appear. If
a digicam can collect millions of pixels (mega-pixel cameras) you will be
able to print out images much larger than a snapshot that do not appear to
be affected by the digital nature of the picture.
"DV Camcorders and Digital Cameras" Some people are confused about whether
or not they can use a digital camcorder to take photographic images. The
answer is yes, but there is a profound difference between the two systems.
While both use CCDs to create images, the user must go through a conversion
process to use images from a DV camcorder as still pictures. A digital
camera is just that--a camera that collects static images in digital form.
For photography, the digital camera is the tool created for the job. Using a
DV camcorder works, but doesn't represent the wisest choice. Better to have
both than rely on the DV camcorder for your photographic needs.
"SmartMedia" This is an area that can trip you up in terms of wording.
Today's technology includes both Smart Cards and SmartMedia. They sound
similar, yet are actually quite different. SmartMedia is the item that slips
into a digicam and records the images, and then gets read into your computer
through a reader that plugs into either your USB or serial port. Smart
Cards? They are rapidly becoming the way to carry data for e-commerce (phone
cards are one example.) So don't walk into a camera store and start talking
Smart Cards.
+--------------------------------+
The Basics
There are two basic types of digital cameras. At the entry-level are a large
number of CMOS-based digicams, priced lower than $150 in most cases, that
are the Kodak Instamatics of the digital age. They utilize a simple
viewfinder, and are true point-and-shoot solutions. They might be best
compared to a disposable camera. Typically, they do not offer any of the
features found on higher end cameras. Buy an inexpensive digicam, and you'll
be able to take snapshots of good quality and print them to a 4-by-six-inch
size. Important to note is the fact that these CMOS-based digicams are not
greatly different from the inexpensive web cam that you can place on top of
your computer. That should give you some idea of the kind of resolution and
quality you can expect from the entry-level digicam.
Why is resolution so important to the digicam buyer? The high-end digicams
allow you to collect images at a resolution that can be printed at a larger
size with more precise detail. The reason? The CCD sensors utilized in
higher end cameras can now offer remarkably high resolution. If you're
comfortable with snapshots though, you can stop here while the rest of us
talk about more sophisticated cameras. My recommendation to you? Read on.
The amount you save in buying an entry-level digicam will come back to haunt
you when your digital images have poor resolution and cannot be printed
larger than standard photograph size.
The high-end cameras' CCD sensors are able to offer you images with much
higher resolution than the entry-level digicams. In fact, the current crop
of cameras in the $300 to $800 range are now routinely advertised as
"mega-pixel" cameras, meaning that the digicam collects anywhere from one to
three million pixels. With these deluxe point-and-shoot cameras, you can
print larger images without the digital nature of the medium rearing its
ugly head. As you move through the spectrum of these digicams, each one
offers different advantages.
If you are looking for professional quality, you'll step up to "professional
lite." These digicams offer much higher resolution and a variety of features
not found in less expensive digicams.
When buying, first decide which advantages are important to you, and then
make an informed purchase.
On to the options that come with the cameras. . .
+--------------------------------+
The Optics
Conventional cameras have evolved to the point where they take care of
almost everything for you. They advance the film, focus the lens, and
determine the proper exposure speed. Most digicams do the same. However,
while a conventional camera will allow you to zoom in and out, digicams
above entry level offer a variety of zoom options not available on a film
camera. The digital processing allows the digicam to zoom in a great deal.
But don't confuse optical zoom with digital zoom. The latter simply takes
the same pixels and magnifies them. The quality of manual optics won't come
into play the instant you hit the digital zoom.
Why? Digital zoom is just that--digital. Instead of the optics of the
digicam increasing the size of the image, the camera itself processes the
image and magnifies it for collection. Along with the digital processing
comes a loss in resolution quality. While a digital zoom is useful, it
becomes a liability if you try to use it for finely detailed photography.
Just as digital zoom on camcorders can cause blurry images, so the digital
zoom on digicams can create images that are difficult to manipulate.
Make no mistake, the optics of the digicam have a great deal to do with the
final quality of the image. Frankly, lenses are often the weak link in a
digicam. When purchasing, look hard at the lenses, and ask your salesperson
straight out about their quality. If the salesperson doesn't really know,
remove the lens cap and look right down into the lens system. Do you see a
single lens? If so, check whether it's plastic. In all likelihood, it will
be. Plastics lenses are simply unacceptable. Think of it this way--when you
buy sunglasses, what makes the difference between a pair of Ray-Bans and a
Ray-Ban knock-off? The answer lies in the optical quality. You see a better
view of the world with Ray-Bans because you are looking through ground and
polished glass that is designed to give the wearer a complete view of the
world. Plastic? Pick up a $5 pair of sunglasses and compare them to the
Ray-Bans. You will see the difference.
In a digicam, the same difference exists. You might go out and purchase an
expensive camera only to find that the lens system is plastic and subject to
a multitude of difficulties ranging from inaccurate imaging to scratches
that will render the camera only marginally useful.
Today's digicam optics are often designed in a manner that allows you to
"macro" focus on small areas. With the proper zoom, you can photograph a
stunning landscape, and then zoom in on a butterfly sitting on a flower.
Entry-level film digicams do not offer this ability. Their optics are
usually comprised of less expensive plastic lenses that will simply never
give you the visual quality of a glass lens system. They will, however, more
than do the job in snapshot situations. More expensive digicams have better
optics, some even including actual shutters like a regular camera. The
deluxe point-and-shoot cameras offer better optical characteristics, and the
professional lite digicams have superior lens systems installed. If you can
afford such a device, and will use it with real purpose, then ask your sales
representative about the optics before you go any further. A system with
excellent optical characteristics and high-end CCD processing will offer the
best image in any situation.
+--------------------------------+
The Viewfinder
Three methods exist to allow you to see the image as you take the picture.
Some digicams (entry-level) use a simple viewfinder--in essence, a hole in
the camera that you look through to frame the image. There is a major
disadvantage to this approach: No matter what, you will see a different
image than that of the lens system, unless the viewfinder is place in close
proximity to the imaging system. The result? Off-center pictures.
Next is the LCD-screen viewfinder. Attached to the back of the digicam, the
LCD screen allows you to see the actual scene as you make the image. When
purchasing a digicam, look for this feature, and pay great attention to the
size of the LCD screen itself. A small LCD screen will hurt your eyes as you
squint to determine exactly what you've got on the screen. Naturally, the
larger LCDs will show you more and give you more creative control over the
image. LCD screens have a tendency to wash out in sunny conditions, making
the camera almost worthless in certain lighting situations. They are at
their best indoors with controlled light sources.
You should also check exactly how the LCD screen functions. Some are built
directly into the camera, while others swivel and flip to offer you the best
possible viewing angle. The size of the LCD screen also looms great as you
try to do basic housecleaning on your digicam. Since digicams are small
computers, they now sport a wide variety of menu choices displayed on the
LCD screen. If your screen is miniature or of low quality, those menus might
be a bit tough to navigate.
The third option is much more expensive. If you have money to burn, or
professional needs, the SLR-back digicam is the superior product. This
viewfinder technology is virtually the same as the technology that exists on
the best conventional cameras, and certain manufacturers have built high-end
digicams that support a variety of existing lenses. If you want a camera
that will produce images of extremely high quality, the SLR back is the
digicam of choice. If you purchase from the right manufacturer, you will be
able to use your old lenses, and still use the digicam as if it were a
conventional camera. Indeed, the digicam itself is likely to use an actual
shutter--something that doesn't exist on lower end cameras. For news
reporters, this has become the imaging system of choice. They can take
highly detail images and transfer them immediately to the newsroom, instead
of heading back to the darkroom to see if they got the shot or not.
At this point, you've probably made your decision about which viewfinder you
want.
+--------------------------------+
Storage
Each digicam has its own solution for storing images for transfer to your
computer. Many manufacturers have chosen to use "flash" memory to store
images. In the simplest terms, flash memory is a card you place in the
camera that includes rewritable memory chips that store information while
the camera is powered down. With flash memory, you can preview images on the
LCD screen on your digicam and dump those photographs that fail to meet your
standards. Remember, though--when it's gone, it's gone. There's no negative
to fall back on. Electronic pulses clear flash memory. Therefore, you must
be careful in navigating the menus as you work with flash memory. More than
one user has accidentally deleted beautiful images from his or her digicam.
These smart media types vary, with each manufacturer deciding how they are
going to store images and transfer them to your computer. Some flash cards
are placed into a card reader attached to a port on your computer, while
others stay in your digicam and connect to the computer via a USB cable. Yet
another solution is the use of a 31/2-inch floppy disk to store images. This
is perhaps the simplest and most logical way to store information with easy
transfer (pop out the disk) to your existing computer. However, this system
does have a substantial drawback. While flash-memory cameras store images in
small packages, floppy-disk-memory cameras demand not only the camera, but
also the smallest form factor disk drive the manufacturer can create.
Translate that into "bigger camera." For Macintosh users, this is a huge
disadvantage. Fewer and fewer Macs use floppy drives, and purchasing a USB
floppy for the camera alone is a waste of money.
In addition to straight connections through the USB port, there are also
other means of transferring the images. One example is the use of a PCMCIA
card that plugs into a slot on your laptop. For a laptop warrior, a digicam
that uses a PC card reader might be a terrific option. Still, with USB
everywhere these days, carrying a simple cable to connect to the USB port is
a far simpler, and not noticeably slower, manner to transfer images. If you
are using an older computer without USB capability, you can purchase
smart-media readers that will plug into the serial port on your computer.
These devices are relatively small, and a useful solution. Still, you
sacrifice speed when you go use a serial connection.
Finally, you can use on-line photography resources to have your digital
images placed on a CD for distribution to friends and family. In fact, if
you've got a CD burner of your own, the task of sending photographs to the
family just got easier. Transfer images to the computer and then burn them
to disk. If you think this is the right way to go, then definitely grab a
burner when you buy a digicam. CDs are far less expensive than film or
reprints from traditional photographs, so you really can't go wrong.
Overall, I heartily recommend that you choose a camera with a flash memory
system. Floppy drives are becoming less and less prevalent in the market,
and USB is a standard that has reached virtually every computer sold today.
For maximum flexibility, choose a camera with USB transfer capability and
smart media. By doing so, you have ensured the future viability of this
expensive piece of equipment.
+--------------------------------+
Power Supply
The more the world turns to electronic products, the more important the
power sources for those products become. Digicams are no exception. Any
digicam worth buying will come with a high-quality battery that will give
you a substantial amount of shooting time. Battery life is important because
the digicam will not operate without that power. Check the camera to see
what type of batteries it requires. If the camera takes standard AA
batteries, think twice before purchasing. Your camera will run those
batteries down, and you'll be forced to carry a number of AAs with you
wherever you go. Still, rechargeable NiMH (Nickel-Metal-Hydride) batteries
can keep your digicam up and running for a solid number of pictures. In
addition, today's NiMH batteries are not nearly as vulnerable to long-term
power capacity loss as NiCad batteries.
On the other hand, cameras with internal charging systems can jump up and
bite you as well. Typically, replacement batteries for charging systems are
more expensive, so it will cost more than a little cash to ensure that your
digicam will keep running when others have shut down. Still, the internal
rechargeable battery system is unquestionably the best way to go. Of course,
I'm not talking about an extra power "brick" (that heavy transformer that
charges the batteries), which is always problematic. Check the digicam to
see whether the charger is reasonably sized. Canon has a small-profile
brick, while Sony separates the brick from the plug. To Sony's credit, they
have also made sure that one power supply can charge a variety of Sony
devices. I've got both a Sony DV Camcorder and a Cybershot digicam, and the
power supplies work with both devices.
+--------------------------------+
The Questions to Ask
Before you buy, make sure that you've addressed all of the pertinent
questions. What are they? Here's a list of considerations from Deke
McClelland and Katrin Eismann's book Real World Digital Photography that
should guide your final decision on the right digicam for you.
Does it have on on-camera flash? While most digicams have an on-board flash,
you can purchase digicams with more flash options, including red-eye
reduction, controllable flash power, and support for studio flash
equipment.
Can you adjust the color balance? Remember that digicams are, at their
heart, video cameras, and as such may need color adjustment. Auto white
balancing is great, but you may find circumstances in which the ability to
adjust the white balance yourself makes a big difference in the end
product.
How does the camera meter light? The entry-level digicam typically uses
center-weighted metering, but a more expensive digicam could give you the
ability to meter differently, radically effecting the final product.
Can you control shutter speed and aperture? If you are a sports photographer
or an astronomer, you'll want the ability to control these items in order to
ensure quality. If you are comfortable with the camera making the choice,
the deluxe point-and-shoot is probably in order.
Can you focus the digicam manually? Autofocus mechanisms choose whatever
happens to be in the center of the picture as their focus point. If you
anticipate taking pictures with a more artistic bent, you'll want the
ability to focus the image on your own.
How do you want the file compressed? Entry-level digicams don't give you
much control over image compression (compression saves a great deal of space
on flash memory cards) but deluxe point-and-shoots will give you more
control. It's up to you to decide which fits your needs.
Do you need a burst-mode feature? Certain cameras allow you to take images
at an increased rate of speed, allowing you to hold down the shutter button
and follow the action. It's expensive, but well worth it if you are trying
to capture a great shot of your daughter smacking a home run or the perfect
picture of your husband at a surprise party.
Finally, does the question of style matter to you? Just like any other
product, digicams come in a wide variety of designs, with small digicams,
swiveling digicams, bulky digicams, and a host of others.
There you have it. You'll want to look at accessories as well, but your
camera will come with a catalog containing a host of items that go right
along with your camera and needs. Now, all you need to do is get the digicam
you really want, and head out for a day of shooting. The instant results of
digicams are a joy; welcome to the fun!
Me again:
Someone's already mentioned this, but I want to emphasize
that all those articles and ads that say this resolution
camera is good or printing up to 3x5-inch prints and that
resolution is good to 5x8... Well, forget it. In the digital-
camera world, resolution is god.
If you're just going to post pics to the Web, you can get by
with low resolution, but I consider a 2-megapixel camera pretty
much the minimum for anyone wanting to do anything real, and
3 megs is obviously a better choice. (Prices on those should
drop some now that the 4-meg cameras are on the market.)
The reason you need more pixels than those short-focus articles
tell you is... Well, let me give you an example: Remember
taking a picture of an eagle overhead, and you thought it
was just gonna be so cool with the sunlight making the wings
translucent and all-- And then you got the print back from the
film processor, and that majestic bird is nothing but a little
speck? (Well, you could tell it was a bird but not much else.)
Well, if you have enough pixels to play with (that is, a high-
enough resolution), you can enlarge that section of the picture
in Photoshop or whatever and crop it to make a nice eagle
portrait, complete with transulcent wings and all. If, on the
other hand, you used a cheapie low-resolution camera, all you'll
get by enlarging it is a larger bird-like speck with the jaggies.
I'll shut up now.
Scott Elyard
It would help me write. It's writing related. It's valid.
--
.oO=-"The picture of a faithful alligator boundin' into-=Oo.
| daddy's lap ain't one the public is ready for." |
| --Walt Kelly (Beauregard) |
| Comic: www.oscarquillandcoyle.org |
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
nancy
-- written the perfect poem, for example, or read the one
illuminating book. Instead, mc...@belmontcty.net (Faith L.
McCammon) chose to post to misc.writing:
>We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could
>have whatever writerly related thing under the Christmas tree
>what would it be?
>
>No cheating now. It's got to be something writing related that
>you'd love to have or have been pining for a very long time.
>
time.
--
n (and impetus)
Beauty is a short-lived tyranny. -- Socrates
Glynne Gilmore
> We all have materialistic items that we want.
Not anymore! :-)
> So, if you could have whatever
> writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
Hmmm. This one is a toughie.
Would a ghostwriter count?
> No cheating now. It's got to be something writing related that you'd love to
> have or have been pining for a very long time.
I can't think of anything materialistic. Really. It's very odd ...
> Me? I want a _nice_ lap top computer in the worst way.
Funny. I sort of have a nice laptop, and I thought I'd write day and
night when I got it. Instead, I wrote more <and sold more!) on the
desktop while competing with three other family members!
> Faith (a good digital camera would be great, too, for those of you who are
> artists like I am. Oops, I just cheated, didn't I? <bg>)
I sort of have a good digital camera, too. An Olympus D-340R. Not too
expensive either -- $299 a year ago August.
Glynne
Dick Harper
> A good point Jerry. However, as someone who likes to compose
> my shots on the spot working with a zoom I do not do much
> cropping. Given the file size of high megapixel cameras my
> suggestion was based on the average user not doing that much
> cropping and where giant file sizes would severely limit the
> storage capacity of the camera and the computer HD.
I frame reasonably tightly, but I still plan to crop so the
photo can be the image equivalent of "full bleed."
> Just my opinion at this time. Give me a 4meg camera and I
> may change my tune. :-) I have been know to match my
> opinions to what I can afford at the moment.
<g>
Dick Harper
> I was an Epson fan for several years till I bought an Epson 600 brand new.
> Lasted one year! So I switched to an HP DeskJet 832C. Handles my document
> printing like a dream!
I have an Epson LQ850 that is a wonderful dot matrix, but I
fought with Epson inkjets for a year or so one month in a computer
lab until I finally gave up. The paper handling was so lousy that
it didn't matter how good the output was. When we could get
output.
Unfortunately Frank won't find an HP4-anything at Circuit
Shitty unless they are having a rather unusual promotion of used
equipment.
The -4 series may be HP's best monochrome laser printers.
They're built like outhouses, have good toner economy, have a good
paper path, and rarely break.
Tom S. Bair Jr.
"Dick Harper" <Di...@NorthPuffin.com> wrote in message
My very first printer was a Gorrilla Banana in 1984. It was black colored,
and 9-pin black cartridge. I loved it! Used it for 8 or 9 years till it
finally fried on a 200 page printout.
Tom
Faith L. McCammon
Is that sorta like me writing so much more & better on rainy days?
Faith
"Scott Elyard" <stonebu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:stonebugdotnet-...@204.182.133.13...
Alma Hromic
<pcwr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>
>My very first printer was a Gorrilla Banana in 1984. It was black colored,
>and 9-pin black cartridge. I loved it! Used it for 8 or 9 years till it
>finally fried on a 200 page printout.
a fried Banana, eh...
A.
***************************
"If you want a happy ending that depends, of course, on where you stop your story."
Orson Welles
Frank Raymond Michaels
wrote:
>Tom S. Bair Jr. eloquently commented in misc.writing
>
>> I was an Epson fan for several years till I bought an Epson 600 brand new.
>> Lasted one year! So I switched to an HP DeskJet 832C. Handles my document
>> printing like a dream!
>
> I have an Epson LQ850 that is a wonderful dot matrix, but I
>fought with Epson inkjets for a year or so one month in a computer
>lab until I finally gave up. The paper handling was so lousy that
>it didn't matter how good the output was. When we could get
>output.
> Unfortunately Frank won't find an HP4-anything at Circuit
>Shitty unless they are having a rather unusual promotion of used
>equipment.
> The -4 series may be HP's best monochrome laser printers.
>They're built like outhouses, have good toner economy, have a good
>paper path, and rarely break.
I'd need something compact, I have limited desk-space.
I'm seriously considering the OkiPage series of LED printers.
PC Connection has the OkiPage 12i for less than US$700.
If I want to go super-cheap, the OkiPage 10e holds 250pp and sells for
about US$300. Maybe January, after Christmas is usually a good time to
buy. I'll have to snort ZDnet for reviews first.
cc:email
---
Frank Raymond Michaels
The Horror Fiction Page: http://i2.i-2000.com/~frankmi
Dick Harper
> The printer DPI tells you the accuracy with which the printer can
> position dots. However, unlike a screen dot, a printer dot is either on
> or off for a given primary color. Thus a single dot on the screen is
> rendered as _several_ printer dots. Thus there is not a one-to-one
> correspondence between the two, and if you make your files 1440 or 2400
> DPI, you're just wasting disk space (and time moving all those bits
> around).
> In halftone printing you generally make sure the image is at least twice
> the DPI of the halftone screen you're using. Now, on an inkjet printer
> you don't usually use screens; the printer does stochastic dithering
> rather than halftoning because it looks better for continuous-tone
> images. However, if you know that a fine magazine uses a screen of
> 185-200 DPI, then you know to achieve similar quality you never need
> more than 400 DPI (twice that halftone screen). In practice 250-300 DPI
> is usually enough and you can get away with DPI as low as 150 in many
> cases.
I need to learn more about this.
Jerry says, "a single dot on the screen is rendered as
_several_ printer dots." But I've been thinking of digital prints
as being similar to contact prints. Isn't a single scanner dot
also simply on or off for each primary color, just as the printer
dot is? If that is so, when one wants to reproduce the original
image at the same size with full fidelity, it follows that one
needs the same resolution. Likewise, I would think more dot
density would aid in printing enlargements. Comments?
OTOH, Epson recommends dividing the resolution into thirds, so
you would scan at 480 for one of their 1440 dpi printers.
B+W photographer George deWolfe also belies my thinking to a
degree. He scans a 4 x 5 negative at 480 dpi for a contact print
but scans at only 720 dpi for a 16 x 20" print. He also says to
scan 35 mm negatives at 1600 dpi or higher to get decent image
quality
--Dick
-----------------------
I'm getting to hate these time delayed posts.
Carol Schmidt
Christmas! Norma was feeling guilty about her new computerized embroidery
sewing machine programs and attachments.
I had an old Kodak DC40 digital which was more than adequate for my meager
camera needs, but now I have to learn all sorts of new stuff and
capabilities. Guess I'd better go back and read all of this thread. Not to
mention the manual, as last resort.
Carol Schmidt
Jerry Kindall
wrote:
> Isn't a single scanner dot also simply on or off for each primary
> color, just as the printer dot is?
No.
KMadeleine
<920vo9$sqd$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>:
>I just found out I'm getting a Kodak DC215 Zoom digital camera for
>Christmas! Norma was feeling guilty about her new computerized
>embroidery sewing machine programs and attachments.
my sister-in-law has a similar sewing machine, one that cost more
than a nice used car! she loves hers.
>I had an old Kodak DC40 digital which was more than adequate for my
>meager camera needs, but now I have to learn all sorts of new stuff and
>capabilities. Guess I'd better go back and read all of this thread.
>Not to mention the manual, as last resort.
sometimes i get the feeling that i'm the only one that reads manuals.
a whole industry set up just for me and a few other folks!
>Carol Schmidt
i hope you and norma have a happy and _healthy_ holiday season.
from what i've read, you two have had a heck of a year!
--
KMadeleine
Dick Harper
> I need a digital camera in the worst way for my artwork & to help my mother
> out w/ selling her silk flower arrangements online. The many, many brands &
> qualities of digital cameras is so overwhelming that I shudder at shopping
> for one.
Be more specific. The $79 special is more than adequate for
taking shots for a web page. Instant gratification is the nicest
part of a cheap digital--if you don't like the first image of the
silk flowers, change the lights and take another right away.
What artwork do you want to do with the camera?
--Dick
-----------------------
I'm getting to hate these time delayed posts.
Dick Harper
> My very first printer was a Gorrilla Banana in 1984. It was black colored,
> and 9-pin black cartridge. I loved it! Used it for 8 or 9 years till it
> finally fried on a 200 page printout.
Damn! I thought I was the only one. The only downside to the
Gorilla Banana is the lack of true descenders. Make of that
sentence what you will.
IIRC, I went from the Gorilla to a Centronics adapter for my
Brother daisy wheel typewriter. That gave me real "letter
quality" manuscripts, but the graphics output was sadly lacking.
If anyone would like to bid, my Gorilla is sitting beside the
Commodore 64 in the loft right now.
--Dick
-----------------------
I'm getting to hate these time delayed posts.
Faith L. McCammon
"Dick Harper" <Di...@NorthPuffin.com> wrote in message
I want to take pics of large pieces of artwork such as 24"x24" pieces of
colored pencils & acrylic paintings. A few will be quite large but not
many. Also some sculptures later on down the road & I need one in the worst
way for my mother's silk flower arrangements.
With four children & my hubby the only one able to work, I have to be very
careful about money. I'm not able to buy an expensive brand. If I could find
one that is great for $150 or less I'd be tickled pink.
Faith
Tom S. Bair, Jr.
Dick Harper <Di...@NorthPuffin.com> wrote in message
> Tom S. Bair Jr. eloquently commented in misc.writing
>
> > My very first printer was a Gorrilla Banana in 1984. It was black
colored,
> Damn! I thought I was the only one. The only downside to the
> Gorilla Banana is the lack of true descenders. Make of that
> sentence what you will.
[snip]
>
> --Dick
>
Wow! I'd forgotten about the lack of descenders. Soon as I read your message
though, a mental image of a page printout came popping into my head. Thanks,
Dick!
Tom
Dick Harper
> I want to take pics of large pieces of artwork such as 24"x24" pieces of
> colored pencils & acrylic paintings. A few will be quite large but not
> many. Also some sculptures later on down the road & I need one in the worst
> way for my mother's silk flower arrangements.
>
> With four children & my hubby the only one able to work, I have to be very
> careful about money. I'm not able to buy an expensive brand. If I could find
> one that is great for $150 or less I'd be tickled pink.
Once you have the images, do you want to display them on your
computer, post them on a website, print them out at 4 x 6", print
them out at full original size, or something else entirely?
Faith L. McCammon
"Dick Harper" <Di...@NorthPuffin.com> wrote in message
> Faith L. McCammon eloquently commented in misc.writing
>
> > I want to take pics of large pieces of artwork such as 24"x24" pieces
of
> > colored pencils & acrylic paintings. A few will be quite large but
not
> > many. Also some sculptures later on down the road & I need one in the
worst
> > way for my mother's silk flower arrangements.
> >
> > With four children & my hubby the only one able to work, I have to be
very
> > careful about money. I'm not able to buy an expensive brand. If I
could find
> > one that is great for $150 or less I'd be tickled pink.
>
> Once you have the images, do you want to display them on your
> computer, post them on a website, print them out at 4 x 6", print
> them out at full original size, or something else entirely?
>
> --Dick
>
What you state above pretty much sums up what I need one for.
Faith
Dick Harper
wrote:
> > Once you have the images, do you want to display them on your
> > computer, post them on a website, print them out at 4 x 6", print
> > them out at full original size, or something else entirely?
Faith:
> What you state above pretty much sums up what I need one for.
Now you see why _I'm_ obsessing over these things.
More than any other factor, the biggest, clearest print we
need will drive the purchase. If you truly need to create tabloid
size prints with a digital camera, you'll need to buy something
with many mega$$pixel resolution.
Faith L. McCammon
"Dick Harper" <Di...@NorthPuffin.com> wrote in message
> Faith L. McCammon eloquently commented in misc.writing when I
> wrote:
>
> > > Once you have the images, do you want to display them on your
> > > computer, post them on a website, print them out at 4 x 6", print
> > > them out at full original size, or something else entirely?
>
> Faith:
> > What you state above pretty much sums up what I need one for.
>
> Now you see why _I'm_ obsessing over these things.
> More than any other factor, the biggest, clearest print we
> need will drive the purchase. If you truly need to create tabloid
> size prints with a digital camera, you'll need to buy something
> with many mega$$pixel resolution.
>
> --Dick
Ugh! That's what I was afraid of.
Dick Harper
wrote:
> > More than any other factor, the biggest, clearest print we
> > need will drive the purchase. If you truly need to create tabloid
> > size prints with a digital camera, you'll need to buy something
> > with many mega$$pixel resolution.
Faith:
> Ugh! That's what I was afraid of.
Change your requirements. Perhaps you don't need the
"ultimate" output and can be happy with, for example, good 5 x 7"
prints.
--Dick
Faith L. McCammon
"Dick Harper" <Di...@NorthPuffin.com> wrote in message
From what I've read about proper artwork submission procedures is that 99%
of publishers require glossy 8x10 pics.
Wonder if I could get away w/ the 5x7's?
Faith
KMadeleine
<3a4cfcc2...@news2.sover.net>:
>Faith L. McCammon eloquently commented in misc.writing when I
>wrote:
>
>> > More than any other factor, the biggest, clearest print we
>> > need will drive the purchase. If you truly need to create tabloid
>> > size prints with a digital camera, you'll need to buy something
>> > with many mega$$pixel resolution.
>
>Faith:
>> Ugh! That's what I was afraid of.
>
> Change your requirements. Perhaps you don't need the
>"ultimate" output and can be happy with, for example, good 5 x 7"
>prints.
>
>--Dick
i love playing with the one i got! of course, i'm not an artist
in the way that faith is, but i've been surprisingly pleased with
how good even the low-res shots look on my computer. i thought
they'd be crappier.
faith, is there anyway you can borrow a friend's, or go to a store
that will actually hook them up to 'puters to see the results?
i am just tickled with mine, even though some of the hype i'd read
made me think i was 'settling' for my mere 1.3 mega-pixel camera.
--
KMadeleine
Faith L. McCammon
"KMadeleine" <KMade...@home.com> wrote in message
news:901A74AF4kmade...@24.7.143.118...
The only computer shop around here is a local shop. The fella that runs it
is so damn dumb his ears rub. Most of the time when I ask him a question he
stands looking at me for a full minute before his audio kicks in.
My hubby is pretty adept at choosing good electronic products & such, so
I'll probably take him w/ me when I finally have the funds to buy one.
Faith
Dick Harper
> From what I've read about proper artwork submission procedures is that 99%
> of publishers require glossy 8x10 pics.
>
> Wonder if I could get away w/ the 5x7's?
About as well as sending a manuscript on a ruled steno pad.
Many shows require slides. Most magazine photographers still
use slides. I don't know what art publishers use.
--Dick
Faith L. McCammon
"Dick Harper" <Di...@NorthPuffin.com> wrote in message
Okay, so refresh my memory.
If I need to send glossy 8x10's , then what quality digital camera do I
need?
Faith (my memory reeks on such things, sorry)
Traci Cameron
Dick Harper <Di...@NorthPuffin.com> wrote in message
news:3a4e428b...@news2.sover.net...
Traci Cameron
real thing instead of a spotted digital picture...I'd go for 1024X768
resolution if you can afford it.
Faith L. McCammon <mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote in message
news:92sp4j$82u1h$1...@ID-50387.news.dfncis.de...
Dee
"Faith L. McCammon" <mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote:
> We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have whatever
> writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
>
> No cheating now. It's got to be something writing related that you'd love to
> have or have been pining for a very long time.
>
> Me? I want a _nice_ lap top computer in the worst way.
>
> --
> Faith (a good digital camera would be great, too, for those of you who are
> artists like I am. Oops, I just cheated, didn't I? <bg>)
>
> Looking for a unique Christmas gift for someone??
> http://www.wildchildpublishing.com/curioshoppe/faithsfantasy.html
> Try www.shyflowersgarden.com & click on Shyflower's Market then Center
> Attractions!
>
>I lust for a brand-new, leather-bound, unabridged dictionary set....complete with fascinating plates, finger indents labeled along the edge, and that wonderful musty--leather smell my Dad's dictionaries had...yes, I know it's contradictory, but you asked, and I have wanted it since I could read!
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Zero
"baby, this town
rips the bones off your back...
you gotta get out while you're young...
baby, we were born to run..."
-- Bruce Springsteen
Re: <WR> What would you like?
>In article <91avl4$3kusk$1...@ID-50387.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Faith L. McCammon" <mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote:
>> We all have materialistic items that we want.
>> So, if you could have whatever writerly related
>> thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
>>
>> No cheating now. It's got to be something writing
>> related that you'd love to have or have been pining
>> for a very long time.
10,000 more square feet.
(preferably half-filled with
empty filing cabinets and
several large desks)
-$Zero... YoSanta... RememberMe?...
"not so?
straighten me out here.
educate my silly ass."
-- $Zero... <Zero...@aol.com> 849h
Re: [0] Re: Say It Ain't So, Al!
<20001124203123...@ng-fd1.aol.com>
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=697481023
WARNING: censor this article from other adults at your own peril.
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 14413 (seized again)
Copyright © 2001 Global Suggestion Box
All Rights Reserved and Writes Reversed
The absolute horror of it all:
http://users.aol.com/zerofund/0/9998/ow.html
Pat Marcello
"Faith L. McCammon" <mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote:
> > We all have materialistic items that we want. So, if you could have
whatever
> > writerly related thing under the Christmas tree what would it be?
> >
> > No cheating now. It's got to be something writing related that you'd
love to
> > have or have been pining for a very long time.
A MAJOR advance.
--
Pat M. Even five figures would do, but six is better.
Write On!
www.patmarcello.com
Insight Without Pain: Tools for Writers
http://www.themestream.com/articles/263807.html
Faith L. McCammon
Faith
"Traci Cameron" <TCAM...@neb.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zCy46.24615$aI6.3...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
Faith L. McCammon
"Dee" <bunk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:92ujld$feg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
I think that's a wonderful thing to want. I wouldn't mind having a set
myself!
Faith
Dick Harper
> If I need to send glossy 8x10's , then what quality digital camera do I
> need?
Everything I've read says 3 megapixel or more.
Don't forget to check the _publisher's_ requirements.
--Dick
Faith L. McCammon
"Dick Harper" <Di...@NorthPuffin.com> wrote in message
Thanks, Dick. This time I wrote that down so I won't forget. <bg>
Faith