If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Film really is dead, especially for travel
"poldy" wrote in message news In article , "William Black" wrote: One limitation is dynamic range, which you can see if you try to photograph the interior of a cathedral or church where the interiors are mostly lit by daylight coming in through the windows. That's a function of 'film speed'. Modern digital cameras can adjust to provide the illusion of different film speeds. Right, but the higher ISO settings yield more noisy images. They do with film as well... Well, not 'noise' but you know what I mean... -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Film really is dead, especially for travel
"Martin" wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:03:45 +0530, "William Black" wrote: "poldy" wrote in message news In article , "William Black" wrote: One limitation is dynamic range, which you can see if you try to photograph the interior of a cathedral or church where the interiors are mostly lit by daylight coming in through the windows. That's a function of 'film speed'. Modern digital cameras can adjust to provide the illusion of different film speeds. Right, but the higher ISO settings yield more noisy images. They do with film as well... Well, not 'noise' but you know what I mean... Grainy? Yep. People crank up their digital SLR to 600 ASA and complain about noise. Have they ever looked at a 600 ASA photograph taken on film? -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Film really is dead, especially for travel
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:17:24 +0000, poldy wrote
(in article ): In article , Mxsmanic wrote: poldy writes: I don't recall film being that bad but then again, a couple of decades ago, you used to be able to set up tripods and take long exposures almost everywhere. These days, tripods are not only frowned upon in interiors but in exterior public spaces as well in many European cities. Digital does not eliminate the need for tripods. Never implied that it did. But I see people taking pictures in the dark or trying to use flash in a big space like Notre Dame. Their results won't be any good but they think they got something they'll be able to keep. Last year I spend a few days in some rooms overlooking the main harbour on Mykonos. Every evening for several hours after dark the entire water-front was lit up by the continuous flickering of photographic flash lights. I can't imagine what pictures they were all taking - mainly each other I suppose. (Here's another one of me looking stupid somewhere or other with a drink in my hand!) -- Mike Lane UK North Yorkshire |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Film really is dead, especially for travel
"Martin" wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:38:34 +0530, "William Black" wrote: "Martin" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:03:45 +0530, "William Black" wrote: "poldy" wrote in message news In article , "William Black" wrote: One limitation is dynamic range, which you can see if you try to photograph the interior of a cathedral or church where the interiors are mostly lit by daylight coming in through the windows. That's a function of 'film speed'. Modern digital cameras can adjust to provide the illusion of different film speeds. Right, but the higher ISO settings yield more noisy images. They do with film as well... Well, not 'noise' but you know what I mean... Grainy? Yep. People crank up their digital SLR to 600 ASA and complain about noise. Have they ever looked at a 600 ASA photograph taken on film? No doubt the grain is seen by some as artistic on film, but as noise on a digital image. Well I'm sure we all took 2000 ASA black and white pictures of footballers and other sports people when we were younger, it was always fashionable to explore the odder end of the spectrum and see what a camera would do if pushed to the edge. But, let's be honest, it's all a touch pretentious... Because I've now got time and the subjects available I keep thinking about buying a new rangefinder 35mm camera (not a Leica) and doing some serious B&W photography. But I keep thinking "Well the digital stuff is so good now, can I justify it" and keep looking at the Canon G10... On the other hand my fake Russian Leica takes reasonably good snaps and it cost less than a hundred quid... -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Film really is dead, especially for travel
"poldy" wrote in message
news In article , "William Black" wrote: Even if I gathered all these materials, it's not likely the places I would like to photograph would permit tripods or long setups. Why not? Have you considered asking them. The reality is that many major European places of interest that restrict photography will sell you a license to take pictures, but they'd much rather sell you their own professionally produced photographs. That is becoming more common. If they don't restrict cameras altogether, they won't tolerate someone slowing down the flow of traffic with a tripod which takes up a big footprint. And in churches, they consider themselves places of worship and don't charge for entry so they're doing you a favor and setting up anything other than a quick snap with tripod and so on is probably abusing that favor. Or I can at least understand that POV. Using a tripod will probably have an eagle-eyed verger come to you and ask, often very politely, for a small fee. -- James Silverton Potomac, Maryland |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Film really is dead, especially for travel
"poldy" wrote in message
news In article , Mxsmanic wrote: poldy writes: I don't recall film being that bad but then again, a couple of decades ago, you used to be able to set up tripods and take long exposures almost everywhere. These days, tripods are not only frowned upon in interiors but in exterior public spaces as well in many European cities. Digital does not eliminate the need for tripods. Never implied that it did. But I see people taking pictures in the dark or trying to use flash in a big space like Notre Dame. Their results won't be any good but they think they got something they'll be able to keep. Mind you, for a long time people have been using cameras with flash they cannot or will not switch off. I've seen that at the Grand Canyon. -- James Silverton Potomac, Maryland |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Film really is dead, especially for travel
"James Silverton" wrote in message ... "poldy" wrote in message news In article , "William Black" wrote: Even if I gathered all these materials, it's not likely the places I would like to photograph would permit tripods or long setups. Why not? Have you considered asking them. The reality is that many major European places of interest that restrict photography will sell you a license to take pictures, but they'd much rather sell you their own professionally produced photographs. That is becoming more common. If they don't restrict cameras altogether, they won't tolerate someone slowing down the flow of traffic with a tripod which takes up a big footprint. And in churches, they consider themselves places of worship and don't charge for entry so they're doing you a favor and setting up anything other than a quick snap with tripod and so on is probably abusing that favor. Or I can at least understand that POV. Using a tripod will probably have an eagle-eyed verger come to you and ask, often very politely, for a small fee. Of course if you're at a UK National Trust property they'll bounce up and demand a huge fee for a license to take photographs... -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Film really is dead, especially for travel
My Panasonic digital camera has a Leica lens - one reason why I bought it. LX-3? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Film really is dead, especially for travel
In article ,
Mike wrote: poldy wrote: Modern digital cameras can adjust to provide the illusion of different film speeds. Right, but the higher ISO settings yield more noisy images. Yeah maybe if I spent 2 grand on a DSLR, the results would be cleaner. if you get a FF DSLR with the same number of megapixels, so they are better separated, the noise reduces. Everybody is obsessed with more megapixels, but beyond a certain point, for average sized images, it makes the result worse, not better. FF DSLR? Panasonic LX-3 made a modest increase in pixel count over its predecessor and concentrated on image quality and put in a wide angle lens with 2.0 aperture at the low end (24 mm) It's gotten good reviews. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The ultimate travel adventure film | David Smith | Travel - anything else not covered | 0 | November 22nd, 2008 03:25 AM |
film through x-ray | Sylvia M. | Cruises | 35 | August 28th, 2004 08:02 PM |
Price and time for film and film processing in Japan | Cyril & Sandy Alberga | Asia | 7 | April 5th, 2004 10:18 PM |
Film | Carole Allen | Europe | 5 | January 13th, 2004 06:41 AM |