Thread: Camera Talk Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027271

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
For all things photographic.

Ariel
Heaven Host

[ 01. January 2014, 19:36: Message edited by: Firenze ]
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Lifts tripod in, screws on camera, ***flash***

oooooo look a shiny new thread -- shall we take some photos?


 

---

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
I have been saying this for the past few years, but this coming year I really do want to do this short OU course. Now that I've had my DSLR for 3 years I really ought to learn more about what it can do!
 

---

Posted by Michael Snow (# 16363) on :
 
I am thinking of upgrading from my present model:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v620/mikesnow/P1040987_zps985475f0.jpg

Any suggestions?

[Actually, that was my first (my parent's) camera.]

Not sure, can actual images be posted?
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Why bother? I can give you a source for 620 film - in fact hopefully I've had four rolls dispatched today! Mind you, postage to the US/Romania might be a bit steep...

No, the software here is nearly as elderly as the Brownie, and doesn't allow photos. What you can do, though, is use the Instant UBB code buttons below the reply box to add a link - like this one - that will lead to the site when clicked, rather than breaking up the text. Just paste in your URL, then give it a name, and that's what displays in blue (I think) in the post.

AG

PS That's a very cute Brownie, not a model I've seen before.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The software here can support photos, but the PTB have chosen not to let it. If you look to the left of your reply box, you can see the switch settings.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Someone has taken photos of what he considers to be London's most beautiful Tube stations. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I thought his way of looking at things was interesting and the photos are well taken. There are a couple of pics that I do agree on, though, and as a genre this looks as if it would be interesting to try.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Snow:
[Actually, that was my first (my parent's) camera.]

---

What have you most recently been using?
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Some of those shots are a bit meh, but the Canary Wharf is brilliant and my favourite is East Finchley. It is more subtle, and the architecture not as grand, but it has a lot of interest. Your eye is grabbed, whipped round the top the office and thrown down the track. The return trip back up the platform is more leisurely. The figure against the wall adds to the interest. As does the seated man inside.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Tube stations are a good idea for indoor shots on rainy days.


 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Fujifilm have recently released the camera I really wanted but wasn't available here at the time but I think it will have to wait a while before I indulge myself as my credit card could really do without being bludgeoned again; the HS30 is basically the same as the HS25 I bought in October except it has a lithium battery, a better eye-level viewfinder and also does RAW [as well as jpg & RAW+jpg]. I figure that if I leave it to the end of this year then they may have brought out another model with more megapixels - the HS series has been running on 16 megapixels since its introduction a few years ago now.

A few evenings ago I went through my photos since I last updated my Flickr account and selected 40 or so to be added so I might try and do that over the next day or so.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Adobe are giving way Photoshop CS2. Actually, the entire Creative suite. A few years old, but still good software.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Thank you! Will check this out later.

[ 09. January 2013, 05:02: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
So what does everyone shoot with?

My "serious" camera is the Sony NEX-5n and also have a Sony DSC-RX100 point and shoot.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
The Fujifilm HS25 is my main camera currently and I have a Nikon P100 [another bridge camera] and a little Nikon L23 compact which is surprisingly versatile. Both the Nikons are, I think, 10 megapixels which is perfectly fine for most purposes. As mentioned above the HS25 is 16 megapixels.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Canon 1D Mark II, 5D Mark II, Canon G1X, Canon G12. Though, less so with the G12 since getting the G1X.
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
ToujoursDan, I fear you are about to regret asking that question!

I like to use my old beasties, and have put at least one roll of film through all but about six or seven of the list below (and paper negs in the No 3 Kodak, which takes a very long obsolete film size). Currently I have film in the Nikon F3, the Agfa Parat and the Oly XA2, though I have to confess that the Canon G10 is the workhorse. I'm awaiting an order of 620 film so I can try my Kodak Duo 620 without having to go to the trouble of rolling my own, and saving up to send one of the Retinas to Kiwistan to be fettled...

AG

Agfa Synchro-Box
Agfa Parat-I
Argus C3
Balda Baldessa 1b
Boots 226X
Canon Powershot G10
Coronet Popular Twelve
Coronet Dynamic 12
Coronet Every Distance Lens
Coronet Consul
Coronet (France) Le Polo
E. Elliott Ltd VP Twin
Ensign Ful-vue (blue)
Ensign Ful-vue (black)
Ensign All-Distance Pocket Ensign (red)
Ensign All-Distance
Hanimex Micro 110 clip-on
Houghton? Ensign? May Fair Camera
Kershaw Kershaw 450
KMZ Moskva-4
Kodak No3 Folding Pocket Kodak
Kodak No2 Folding Pocket Kodak Model B
Kodak No2 Cartridge Hawk-eye Model B
Kodak Hawkette
Kodak Instamatic 33
Kodak Baby Hawkeye
Kodak No 0 Brownie
Kodak "Lazy tongs" Vest Pocket Kodak
Kodak Retina 148
Kodak KB10
Kodak Retinette 1a
Kodak Six-20 B
Kodak Duo-620
Kodak Brownie Flash Camera (French version of US Hawkeye)
Kodak No2 Brownie Model E
Kodak No2 Brownie Model F (black)
Kodak No2 Brownie Model F (blue)
Kodak No2 Brownie Model F (red)
Kodak Baby Brownie Special
Kodak Retina II
Kodak Six-20 Brownie Model E
Leica MDa
Nikon F3
Nikon Nikkormat ELW
Olympus Trip 35
Olympus Trip 35
Olympus XA2 (red)
Olympus 35RC
Olympus OM10
Olympus OM10
Olympus OM10
Photax Blinde
Polaroid I-zone
Purma Speed
Purma Special
Purma Plus
Ricoh 500ME
Soho Cadet
Sunpet Micro 110
UltraFex Himalaya
Voigtlander Vito II
Voigtlander Vitomatic IIa
Welta Perle
Wirgin Edixa-Flex
Zeiss Ikon Box Tengor
Zeiss Ikon Contina
Zeiss Jena Werra 1
Zeiss Jena Werra 3
Zenit 12XP

(I'm not obsessed. It's worse than that!)
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I have Canon OES 60D DSLR and a Fuji FinePix T350 Point and Shoot. I have the P&S with me 24/7 and love them both.

I came second in our annual camera club competition and the shot was with my P&S.


 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Sandemaniac,

I was only mentioning the cameras I use frequently. If we are going into everything, then.... no, I've got nothing to compare to that list. You do not have a collection, you have a camera shop.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I have a Canon Powershot SX220 (compact camera) to carry around for general use and a Canon Eos 500D/Rebel T1i (DSLR) for when I'm specifically intending to take photos.

The first has manual control as well as automatic. It's a very nice little camera, though it has its limitations. I love the DSLR. It's an improvement on the Canon 300D which was my first and which I used until it almost fell to bits: lighter and more versatile and I really like the sharpness and clarity.

I used to have Nikon compact cameras which I was very happy with until I had a dud Coolpix which put me off. I went for a Canon DSLR simply because someone at work was selling his and it was the first affordable secondhand one I could get hold of. Now I wouldn't swop.

Sandemaniac - what do you find you tend to use most often, i.e. your favourites? and where on earth do you store all of these?
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Sandemaniac, I gave away my old cameras when I left UK in 1998 - I can't remember them all but there was a 1936 Zeiss Ikon, the half frame one, and a couple of Braun Paxettes - and several more, a couple of folding Kodak, including my mum's old 620 folding Kodak, a couple of box brownies and a rather nice folding 35 mm job with the hinge at the bottom - the Zeiss took great photos and the Braun's were in almost mint condition.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
p.s. - Yesterday I was doing some decluttering and came across an SD Card still in a wrapper in the bottom of a box - it said 16 on it so I checked and it was indeed 16, but that was Mb and not Gb! 2 or 3 photos, if I'm lucky.
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You do not have a collection, you have a camera shop.

---

OI! I resemble that remark!

It's probably a good job that we hadn't encountered each other when you left these shores, Wodders, or I might have offered them a home... While there is certainly some junk out there, there are also some really great old cameras out there that can produce some really good results. I've heard really good things about the Paxette, and almost everything made by Zeiss starts at "quite good", and much is considerably better. I'll get onto an exception in a mo.

Ariel, quite a few are box cameras, which have the handy property of stacking - thus! http://flic.kr/p/6DkxEF They take up less space than you think, thankfully!

Which ones I use tends to be cyclical - I like to take them to vintage events, but don't get to half as many as I'd like. The Nikon F3 gets a fair bit of use as I found a drawer full of Nikon lenses at work, though I tend to take the Nikkormat on holiday as it'll take anything - it's built like a tank to the point where it weighs more than the Zenit! The Trip 35s get a reasonable amount of use as handy pocket cameras, but are currently mounted base-to-base as a home-made stereo camera, and I haven't got round to printing the piccies to mount them yet as my printer went tits-up. The Knotweed uses one of the OM10s, and the other 35mm cameras that get much use are probably the two Werras.

Of the real wrinklies, I should use the
No 2 Folding Pocket Kodak (pics here) more, at 102 this year and still in working order. The Duo 620 is next on the list to try as I finally have a lens for the viewfinder, and some 620 film. In terms of box cameras, it's the No2 Brownies every time - they have a whole three apertures available, and if it's bright enough to use the narrowest (about f30) you don't need to worry about missing the focus. By far and away the best box camera results have been from these, despite them just being a tin box wrapped round a block of wood with a hole through it. They give much better results than the much fancier Ensign box camera I have, or the similarly snazzy Zeiss Ikon Box Tengor.

I'm a bit tragic, aren't I?

AG
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Here is my box Brownie
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Oooh, looks like an earlier No 2 Brownie - possibly a Model E? Certainly the latch matches my Model E - the model is probably stamped into the cone when you remove it. Should be nice when you've cleaned it up, though once you have a film in I'd put some black insulting tape round that back door as they do tend to warp and leak light (well, mine does...).

Here's a nifty guide to loading them - PM me, I can whang a roll of Fomapan your way if you'd like, 120 isn't too hard to get hold of.

Happy to answer any questions - here or privately - as I love Box Brownies.

AG
 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
Having finally recovered from my grief at the inexplicable demise of my Pentax ME Super (I consoled myself with a K-1000) I just read about the Panasonic DMC FZ200: an f2.8 25-600mm zoom.

Not your typical point and shoot camera.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
...and my Fuji HS25 has a 30x zoom! The 135 equivalent is 24mm to 720mm though at the longer zoom you either need a very fast shutter or a very stable base.


eta: and it is completely manual zoom, rather than machine controlled so not only is it very precise it also uses less battery.

[ 11. January 2013, 01:41: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
...and a distant memory of a kid bringing a Kodak 117 size camera for me to see - this is a long time ago and they had stopped making 117 film a few years before that - sometime in the 60s, I think. I saw the camera in the early 70s.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
Oooh, looks like an earlier No 2 Brownie - possibly a Model E? Certainly the latch matches my Model E - the model is probably stamped into the cone when you remove it. Should be nice when you've cleaned it up, though once you have a film in I'd put some black insulting tape round that back door as they do tend to warp and leak light (well, mine does...).

Here's a nifty guide to loading them - PM me, I can whang a roll of Fomapan your way if you'd like, 120 isn't too hard to get hold of.

Happy to answer any questions - here or privately - as I love Box Brownies.

AG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Silly Boogie, its where you put the ice cream.

---

It's the bit you remove to load the film - open the back, pull out the winder knob, and everything inside should just slide out into your hand. That's the cone.

The lens will be glass, so you'll have to try quite hard to scratch it, and it's set well back in the camera's workings, so is unlikely to have picked up much in the way of damage, but 80-plus years of dirt can be a surprising amount.

You should, I think, have two little pull-up levers on the top at the front (I can check this evening). The larger one is your apertures, the smaller one will keep the shutter open until you press the lever again. If you lift that one, you can get to the lens and just clean carefully with a very lightly damped cotton bud, or a piece of lens tissue round a cotton bud. If it's very dirty use several - don't just rub the dirt round. Don't forget to do the back as well.

The harder bit might be the viewfinder mirrors. To clean those you will need to take the front off, which may be nailed on (check whether it's nails or screws - screws are easy, nails need more care). I often find that the glue they were stuck in with has given up the ghost, and taken the silvering off the back of the mirror. If so, I can probably cut you some more as I have some mirror tiles I bought for just that purpose.

Somewhere the Box Camera Revolution group on flickr has some instructions for servicing box cameras, but you will probably have to search down the discussions quite a long way...

It looks as though the plate on your metalwork has probably long since gone, but a little metal polish will clean it up and help it keep from oxidising further, and the leatherette will be fine with some Kiwi carefully applied - amazing what you can do with boot polish.

Have a go - it's really satisfying cleaning one up and getting it working again. If you are not sure about the viewfinder, try it in bright light as you won't want to use it except in direct sun anyway - it may be easier to se ethrough than you think from trying it in a gloomy room. Oh, and don't forget that's a waist level viewfinder, don't put it to your eye... took me a while to twig that...

I think I've blathered long enough...

AG
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
As I type this I have on my desk what I think is a 1946 Ensign Ful-Vue in red and cream. It is pretty grubby and the shutter spring is gone so it is probably irreparable but it is cute even if it is devastatingly ugly!
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Now that does sound interesting, Wodders! I have never seen a red and cream one - any chance of a photo?

AG
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I'll ask the boy to bring it back and take a snap for you. Do you want me to e-mail it or Flickr it?
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Whichever is easier for you will do me!

AG
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
PM sent.
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
You should have something from me in your inbox
(oo-er)

AG
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Just dropping back to confirm that my instructions about the levers on my Brownie are right - yours should, I hope, be the same, Boogie. If I get a mo I'll look up when the model E was built - let me know if it turns out to be another version.

I'll let everyone else have a post before I blather some more now

AG
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I see Jessops have gone into administration and closed down as of today - all very quick. Even the online site has shut down.

So, no chance to pick up any last-minute bargains, then.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Frankly I am not surprised, I visited a couple of branches in November when I was in UK and they had narrowed their range and become just another chain camera store - sad when they used to be really quite good.

p.s. - Sandemaniac, I got it - hopefully the boy will come round after school with the camera - kids go to school 6 days a week here!

[ 12. January 2013, 02:49: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Yes, but round here, that now only leaves us with Currys or Argos for camera-related items, if you don't want to buy on the internet.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
There are lots of internet shopping places here but thankfully some of the traditional camera shops are still going - internet penetration is not so high here, of course. But even so it is pretty difficult to get specific products, like a genuine Fujifilm bayonet mount lens hood - I have screw in ones but they cause vignetting - today I have been driven to write direct to the manufacturer to see if I can get one through them.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
That is the problem then, yeah? Internet-based stores offer lower prices, but for customers service, nothing beats a dedicated camera shop. The future of retail is lower prices but fewer choices.
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Waxwing!

These little fellows are just so cute, and don't give a flying one about people - I was within about fifteen feet of this chap, and he just looked at me! This is still a heavy crop, but it's an improvement on earlier offerings.

AG
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Lovely shot, AG!
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
That's a great waxwing photo Sandemaniac

It was our camera club's annual portrait competition and I came second with this photo. It was nailbiting and exciting!

The winner got a score of 20/20 mine got 19 1/2 out of 20. He said if it'd been a border collie it would have won - poor Gavin!! (dog didn't suit rugged background, man etc)hehe!

[ 16. January 2013, 08:09: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 

---

Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
Boogie, I love that photo! Can't you almost feel how soft the dog's fur is?
 

---

Posted by geroff (# 3882) on :
 
Sandy - I looked further on in your photostream. I particularly like the pictures of old aircraft taken with your 1911 pocket brownie. I like the use of the right camera for the subject.
Do you scan your prints before uploading them to Flickr or is their some other method that I have missed?
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by geroff:
I like the use of the right camera for the subject.
Do you scan your prints before uploading them to Flickr or is their some other method that I have missed?

---

Funnily enough, that's one of the reasons I like the old cameras - they fit with the old stuff events I go to! What you are looking at will depend on when I did it - anything posted in the last three months or so taken with an old camera (Flickr handily flags everything I take with the G10, so if it says "Canon G10"...) will have been a scanned negative - I bought an Epson V500 last autumn which, with care, makes a pretty decent fist of scanning black and white negs, though I've yet to master it for colour.

Before that they'll be scans of commercial prints or of darkroom silver prints (funnily enough, I was showing someone how to print last night - I feel a bit like a crack dealer!).

Glad you like the pics!

AG
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Too good not to share: colour photos of Paris in the early 1900s. .

I think these are amazing. The subjects and compositions are typical of that era, and with a little imagination you can visualize how they'd look in sepia: but here they absolutely come to life. And some look like paintings.
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Those are wonderful, Ariel. Autochromes have a quality all of their own.

I wonder how many of those poilu* made it home?

AG

* literally "hairy" - the French equivalent of "tommy", or "squaddie" these days.
 

---

Posted by geroff (# 3882) on :
 
I have just posted a photography shipmeet thread in All Saints to coincide with
The Format International Photography Festival in Derby in March.
 

---

Posted by geroff (# 3882) on :
 
Here's a question.
A friend from Another Place beginning with F, is looking for a good reliable film processor having lost Jessops in Leicester. Any recommendations?
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Well, if it was me, my only option would be one of the bigger branches of Boots, which still has a film developing unit. They used to do all right, I never had any complaints about the quality, but you had to tell them specifically to print the date on the back of the photos, otherwise it got put on the front and spoiled your pictures.
 

---

Posted by Celtic Knotweed (# 13008) on :
 
Second try at replying...
We've had good results from the Oxford branch of Snappy Snaps for film developing and printing. Don't know if there's a Leicester one, but worth a try.

Mind you, some of the probable reason for good results in Oxford is that a few of the staff like old cameras like the ones Sandemaniac collects and uses...
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Agreed - Boots or Snappys are about all that's left. depending on what he's wanting quality-wise, if he can live with mail order there's Peak Imaging in Sheffield.

In other news, I think I need professional help with my collecting! I picked up an art deco Kodak Duo-620 over the weekend - a little beauty, I've wanted an art deco Kodak for a while, and I was really chuffed to spot it (photos later, WABOL). They're really quite uncommon - I've only ever seen one other. What made it really freaky, though, was that that one other was actually in my pocket at the time, loaded with film!

AG
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I have done it!

I have downloaded a trial version of photoshop and started shooting in RAW. Of course, I love it love it love it - as everyone said I would. No idea why I held off for so long.

I will be buying CS6 as soon as I get registration etc sorted out - it's only £181 for teachers and students.

Let the learning begin!


 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
I've been shooting in RAW exclusively and love using Lightroom 4 for post-processing.
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Where do I find the button to set this to record RAW?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Hey camera jockeys. I want to buy a pocket-sized point-and-shoot to replace my Fujifilm AX300 that just died after many years of faithful service. I'd like to get something in the 14mpx+ range with 8x+ zoom. When I look at the 1-star product reviews on Amazon, they all have horrific tales of miserable customer service for malfunctioning cameras, so now I'm nervous getting anything. At the moment I am leaning toward the Fujifilm F770EXR.

Would any of you care to make a recommendation?
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Not if less than 8x zoom is a deal breaker. I've not used any pocket cameras like that. If you are willing to accept 5x zoom, I can help.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Let 'er rip, lilBuddha.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I love the Canon Powershot series. I own the G1x and the G12. The G15 is the upgrade to the G12, but they removed the rotating rear screen which is brilliant. Teh screen, not the removal.
These are rugged, have loads of external controls to easily adjust settings. Everything manual or everything auto. Loads of creative settings. The G1x has a sensor almost as large as a budget DSLR for fantastic quality. They are massive, though. I can just fit the G12 into my trouser pocket, but the G1X will only fit a large coat pocket.
I've used various older versions of the more compact Powershots and they have all been terrific.
The bridge Powershots Canon offer look nice, but I've no experience with them.
 

---

Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on :
 
Im a long time Canon owner and used to have the G9 which was great until it died. Ive currently got the powersot SX220, but im not happy with how it copes with extremes of light and dark in landscape scenes. It also has more chromatic aberration than I'm happy with.

I was looking at the Canon G15 and the G1X but also I've been considering whether to upgrade to a DSLR and have been looking at the Canon T3i. What would you say would be the key attributes to consider when deciding between a high end point and shoot versus a starter DSLR?

I'm looking for something to take high quality photos of my travels and friends and family, rather than having it as a hobby in itself, but I could see myself getting hooked.

What's putting me off a DSLR is the portability, especially on vacations. Otherwise, I'm tempted.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
In general, DSLRs have a larger sensor. This means better quality, better low-light performance and less image noise. The lenses available for DSLRs are generally faster (They let more light in) and can be significantly better. DSLRs are more flexible in use, faster to use, more accurate in focus, faster in focus. However, that comes at the cost of, well, cost. And bulk.
Of the compacts in the Canon range, only the G1X has a large sensor. Beautiful images. Not pocketable.
The shot to shot time is significantly slower than a DSLR. The focus is not as fast or as accurate. Still a fantastic camera.

ETA: I purchased the G1x to have high quality images from a fairly portable package.

[ 06. February 2013, 04:10: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Don't DSLRs generally have better lenses too?
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
They can be. Some pocket cameras have excellent lenses and some DSLR lenses are atrocious. However, in general, yes.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilaryg:
Im a long time Canon owner and used to have the G9 which was great until it died. Ive currently got the powersot SX220, but im not happy with how it copes with extremes of light and dark in landscape scenes. It also has more chromatic aberration than I'm happy with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In general, DSLRs have a larger sensor. This means better quality, better low-light performance and less image noise. The lenses available for DSLRs are generally faster (They let more light in) and can be significantly better. DSLRs are more flexible in use, faster to use, more accurate in focus, faster in focus. However, that comes at the cost of, well, cost. And bulk.
Of the compacts in the Canon range, only the G1X has a large sensor. Beautiful images. Not pocketable.
The shot to shot time is significantly slower than a DSLR. The focus is not as fast or as accurate. Still a fantastic camera.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Just a note on pixels.

More is not always better. Here is an article discussing it in brief.

---

Interesting. The article is from 5-6 years ago; I wonder how much has improved since then in the way large-megapixel cameras handle low light?
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The principles are the same. They have indeed improved the sensitivity of sensors. Noise has been reduced and low-light performance enhanced. However, this should improve performance on any same-generation sensor, regardless of pixel density, still giving an edge to larger pixels.
This is especially true for the very small sensors in compact cameras. Here is a comparison of sensor sizes. The two smallest rectangles represent the vast majority of compact cameras.
A larger sensor is more important for image quality than more pixels. Both for light gathering and printing. You can see how much a compact camera image needs to be enlarged before it gets to the size of a full-frame camera(35mm equivalent).When enlarging images, those from my 10MP 1/1.7" Canon G12 break down sooner than those from my APS-H 8MP Canon 1D Mark II. This despite the G12 being six years newer.

But use is key.
Does tonal range* matter?
Does colour fidelity matter?
Will you be printing?
Will you be printing larger than 8x10?
Will you be processing the images after shooting?
The more nos, the less the choice between cameras or sensor sizes matter. Nearly all the models of all the major manufacturers produce quite nice images. More depends upon what you will do after the image leaves the camera.

*The number of shades between black and white produced by the sensor.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
From what I can tell, the point-and-shoots have sensors between 1/2.3" and 1/1.7". (I'm sure there must be some reason for the bizarre way of writing it.) I'd love to get a DSLR but at the moment that is completely out of the question. And at the moment what I really want is a small pocketable camera I can carry with me at all times.

What would be ideal, I guess, is to narrow it down to a few cameras and take each one home for a couple of days, snap some pictures, and throw them up on the screen and look at things like noise, color, and so on. I doubt many stores will let you do that, even if there were any real camera stores left. (I guess we have a small handful of Tall's Cameras locations and one or two Kits Cameras -- all 30 miles from here or more. All our local camera stores appear to have died.)

[ 10. February 2013, 05:01: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The Sony RX100 might be a nice compromise. Small enough to pocket comfortably, larger than most sensor.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
WAY outside my price range.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
mousetheif, I have one of these in my pocket at all times. I have come second twice in my camera club comps (adjudicated by professionals) and each time it was with this camera!

One photo which didn't win, but got 19/20, the bloke said 'some serious kit was used to take this one to get such depth of field' hehe!

I love love love my DSLR and all it can do - but I can honestly say this is a great little camera I'd recommend to anyone.



 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
If you do not mind used, MT, you might look at the Canon G10 or G11 on eBay.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Thanks, Boogie, I'll look into it! lilBuddha, I'm a lil shy of used right now. A little bit of warranty out of the box suits my nervousness.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
It is possible to rent cameras for a few days, but it isn't cheap. However, it's cheaper than actually shelling out the purchase price, and if you had your heart set on trying a particular camera out, that might be one way of doing it.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I'll look into that, Ariel.
 

---

Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
I agree with Boogie! My first digital camera was a Fuji DSLR. The next was a Fine Pix very similar to the one in Boogie's link. It was inexpensive, and took nice pictures. And the compactness was so much more sensible for what I needed.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Yeah that's basically the one I'm replacing. I had a Finepix with 10 MPX with a 5x zoom that I really liked. Sadly I think I caused the demise of the lens expanding motor by inadverdently pressing the "on" button too many times, causing it to try to extend the lens while it was in my jeans pocket. Clearly it didn't have a sensor that could tell it was meeting resistance, and go back to sleep. (If I were designing a camera with an expanding lens body....) So replacing it with a Fuji would make me very happy. This was my fourth Fuji (1 film and 3 digital) and I've loved them all.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Photoshop CS6 has arrived and I have embarked on the (very) steep learning curve. I intend to go on a course, but not until I know lots of basics - I think it would be a waste to go on a course just to learn what I can pick up by looking at You Tube a few times.

I can heal things already!

Reminder - teachers can get the full version for £181, it's a very quick and easy process to register.


I have booked on a one day beginners DSLR course at Manchester Photographic School on 9th March. Looking forward to that very much :spin:
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
On a rather different technological scale I've just bought - no, not another camera - three 1930s newspapers to use as backdrops for still lifes with the Brownies in them. Now I just need to rustle up some more props...

AG
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
I have the Sony DSC-RX100 and love it. As a pocket sized point and shoot, the picture quality is incredible. I use it much more than my Sony NEX as I can throw it in a pocket but not compromise on picture quality much. But the RX100 only has 3.6x+ zoom, (though with 20mp you can crop quite a bit of a picture and still end up with something nice.)

When I read reviews on it, it was often compared to the Canon S90 (US$499) Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 (US$349) or Canon S100 (US$249). Most of these cameras are in the 10-12mp range but may be worth looking at if any are in your price range.

When I went to Asia, the friend I went with bought a Canon PowerShot SX500 (?) bridge camera, but he struggled with it because the auto-focus was woefully bad. About a third of the pictures he took from the bus we were on were focused on the bus window rather than what was beyond it. It often seemed to find a raindrop or speck of dust and zero in on that, and there was no manual focus option to get around it. So beware.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
That's another reason I love my Fuji Bridge camera - the zoom is manual as on a DSLR and the focus can also be set to fully manual, using a focussing ring, not a motor.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I have a Nikon D40, with an addition telephoto lens, which I am currently using for a project of photographing sunrise and sunset as often as possible. I live in a town house with views to just south of east at the front, and just north of west at the back. I want to have a series showing the movement around the horizon. I'm taking pictures even when overcast, and as close to the local times as I can. (US Navy site allows me to put in lat and long and alt and produces a table). I've some good sequences of some days, and some boring overcast shots on others.

What is interesting is that sometimes the bog standard no flash setting works fine, and sometimes it doesn't, and I have to tweak aperture and exposure to get the shot to match colour or darkness of reality, but I can't tell when I'm going to need to.

I've been looking into getting a longer telephoto lens, because when I was using film I could get much better shots of the night sky, but all the reviews either of Nikon or Tamron suggest that at 300 mm the focus is not clear, so I am having to stick to 200 mm and enlarge.

I have an old box camera - species not to mind at the moment, and film not easily gettable as I recall - though posts above suggest I might be able to, which I have enjoyed doing odd things with.

I left it open on a bird table one snowy moonlit night while we went to the pub, and it took a very clear landscape, bright as day. I also used it in school to show how people might have taken ghost pictures, or fairies, which would not be possible with a modern film camera, or indeed digital. This so impressed one child that they decided to post about it on Friends Reunited. And disturbed the girl I put at the piano on a double exposure so she looked transparent, when she saw the print.
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I left it open on a bird table one snowy moonlit night while we went to the pub, and it took a very clear landscape, bright as day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
What is interesting is that sometimes the bog standard no flash setting works fine, and sometimes it doesn't, and I have to tweak aperture and exposure to get the shot to match colour or darkness of reality, but I can't tell when I'm going to need to.

I've been looking into getting a longer telephoto lens, because when I was using film I could get much better shots of the night sky, but all the reviews either of Nikon or Tamron suggest that at 300 mm the focus is not clear, so I am having to stick to 200 mm and enlarge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
At sunrise and sunset, the sun is often directly in the photo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
That's another reason I love my Fuji Bridge camera - the zoom is manual as on a DSLR and the focus can also be set to fully manual, using a focussing ring, not a motor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
RAW is awesome!

---

Agreed!

I use nothing else now
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
It's great. I shoot in Raw + jpg: sometimes the jpg is fine and I don't need the Raw file, but if there's editing to be done the Raw is so much more flexible and subtle. The only problem I have with Raw files is the file size! An average size of about 20MB pretty soon eats up a lot of disk space if you've taken a few pictures.

I'm half wondering about rejoining 365, except I don't want to commit to every-day-for-a-year again.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I don't save them as RAW - I do the editing, then save as JPeg, if it's a real winner I save the RAW, but I don't have many of those!

It does take a lot of SD card space, so I have four of them, just in case. But I'm very good at deleting.


 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Yes, I delete pretty quickly and rarely save the Raws, once I've got the jpg I want, but it's download space and working space in the interim that gets eaten.

Memory sticks are a wonderful invention...
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
I'm just the opposite. I keep the RAW and only use jpeg when posting to Facebook or Flickr and then delete it after.

You can get 128GB SD cards for under US$100 now, so a 20MB pic doesn't bother me much anymore. (Eeekkk... I'm feeling old, as I remember buying a laptop in the 1990s with a 700MB hard drive and thinking "I'll never fill that.")
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I considered the RX100, but the lack of a viewfinder has put me off so far.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Totally understand, sometimes I miss a viewfinder too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
I just read about the Panasonic DMC FZ200: an f2.8 25-600mm zoom.

Not your typical point and shoot camera.

---

I tried one of these out and it looked like a nice camera but my eyes (even though I can see just fine thank you through an old-fashioned viewfinder) found the electronic viewfinder essentially useless.

So I've coughed up for an Olympus TG-2 (not yet released although the TG-1 reviews are good) and the telephoto lens you can add as near as I can tell the combination will meet my wants best.

We'll see.
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Totally understand, sometimes I miss a viewfinder too.

---

Funnily enough, I've just bought one on Ebay for my microscope Leica - being able to see really helps!

I might post pics when it arrives as it's so weird - no view, just the frameline, but you put it to one eye, keep the other open, and as if by magic the frameline appears around the view. Most nifty!

AG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I am going on a 4 week vacation trip to eastern and southern Africa (Tanzania, Zanzibar, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe)

---

I couldn't help but note you're mostly focusing on countries with a "Z" in the name.
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
I had to come up with a new theme after my "axis of evil" tour (China, Cuba and North Korea).

Anyway, if anyone's interested in what the Sony DSC-RX 100 can pull off, I uploaded a few photos I've taken around New York City. For a point and shoot, the picture quality even in low light environments is pretty good. It's not enough for me to give up my Nex-5n which has a bigger sensor, interchangeable lenses and shoe for attachments, but I use the RX-100 far more.

Flickr.com: Sony DSC-RX100 pics
 

---

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
Those are great photos.

I am looking for a low budget see and shoot camera which can be used for church events, and does church dark interiors OK. I like a viewfinder, and find it almost essential when outside - but maybe there are better screens than I have been using...

Can anyone suggest a suitable camers from their own experience which might fit what I am after?

I'd be very grateful for suggestions, and pointers as to what to go for.


 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
This looks like a bargain, but more seriously it is a Fuji EXR camera and the EXR is a technology specifically designed for low lighting conditions. I am quite sure other brands have competitive systems now but when Fuji brought this out it was revolutionary.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Two days of sunshine with great fun taking photos - back to mizzly rain now.

Andy Latham, landscape photographer, came to give a talk at our camera club last night - stunning work! He uses film only, but has just bought a DSLR. Lots of his work is done in the rain (North West England has had nothing but rain this year).

I am buying a rain cover for my camera, then I'm off into the woods.

for inspiring people!
 

---

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
This looks like a bargain, but more seriously it is a Fuji EXR camera and the EXR is a technology specifically designed for low lighting conditions. I am quite sure other brands have competitive systems now but when Fuji brought this out it was revolutionary.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percy B:
I am looking for a low budget see and shoot camera which can be used for church events, and does church dark interiors OK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Speaking of EXR's, I have concluded my hand-wringing by purchasing the Fujifilm Finepix 750EXR. Thanks for everybody's help. The low-light capabilities were what sold me (that and the brand), and so far it's taken some marvelous low-light pics, although the tripod I bought at the same time has been at times necessary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percy B:
I am looking for a low budget see and shoot camera which can be used for church events, and does church dark interiors OK.

---

What is your budget Percy, and what model of camera are you currently using? There are some good ones on the market but they may be outside your price range.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

It's a pain because you can't actually buy a replacement 18-55 lens separately, it's only sold with a Canon Eos DSLR camera, so I'm not really sure what the answer is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Looking forward to seeing your photos!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
This might interest posters hereabouts: while in Paris last week finally got to the Musee d'Orsay, where one of the current exhibitions is of the work of Felix Thiollier .

it struck me that none of the technical advances in cameras could really have added much to the images he managed to produce at the end of the 19th C.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
PercyB,

Digital Photography review is a good site to compare cameras.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percy B:
Is there a simpler comparison guide site for the bear with little bran about cameras, which you could suggest, please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Looking forward to seeing your photos!

---

Well, so far I've got two up with the new camera. The second (the dog) was done with just the kitchen lights, no flash. It looks a little overexposed on the top of his head.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percy B:
Is there a simpler comparison guide site for the bear with little bran about cameras, which you could suggest, please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percy B:
Is there a simpler comparison guide site for the bear with little bran about cameras, which you could suggest, please.

---

Here you go Percy. Hope this helps.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percy B:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percy B:
Is there a simpler comparison guide site for the bear with little bran about cameras, which you could suggest, please.

---

Here you go Percy. Hope this helps.

---

Thanks Ariel, that looks easier. But it seems you have to pay for the answer. It's only a pound though for what I want, I guess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percy B:
Sorry for a double post, but I realise I need a bit of help. What do I look for in specification to tell me if the camera is good in dimmer light?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percy B:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percy B:
Is there a simpler comparison guide site for the bear with little bran about cameras, which you could suggest, please.

---

Here you go Percy. Hope this helps.

---

Thanks Ariel, that looks easier. But it seems you have to pay for the answer. It's only a pound though for what I want, I guess.

---

If you are proposing to spend a couple of hundred pounds on a camera, then it seems to be a false economy to baulk at one pound for an authoritative opinion.

---

Indeed, Firenze, thank you for your comment, as I said it is only a pound.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
The newest new version of my Fujifilm Bridge Camera is released today - still with 16MP but now with 42x zoom, which seems a bit unnecessary - I reckon that to use the full zoom you'd have to strap the thing down very tightly and use a remote shutter release. I would still go for it, though, as it has some pretty good additional features - I'll see what the prices are like if/when I go/come to UK at the back end of the year.

Trolling Amazon last night I was rather taken with this little strap thing - my right hand is still, and will continue to be, quite weak after the fall in 2011 so I rather think something similar might be a good investment. I don't really like neck straps and find that with my new big flash unit the camera overbalances on a neck strap and digs into my admittedly ample stomach.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I have an identical one (Save for the Brand name). I use it on a DSLR and it works very well. If you adjust the straps properly, you can open your hand and dangle your arm with the camera securely held by the strap.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Sadly I can't find a supplier of any straps like that over here but it will be on my must-have list for UK later in the year but, sadly, the camera will have to wait a bit.



What really impresses me about the specs of the HS50 is an auto-focus response time of 0.05 seconds! That is amazing. And it does Full HD video at 60 fps, which is impressive - it eats memory at that speed, of course.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The HS50 sounds brilliant. Slow autofocus and slow shot to shot times are the most frustrating things about non-SLRs to me.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Trust me to finish 365 without noticing!

Hehe - looks like I'm carrying on then.


 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Hah-ha! I have found an Indian supplier of pukka camera straps so I ordered one online yesterday and hope to have it by the end of the week - a bit more expensive than getting it in UK but probably cheaper and quicker than having it delivered there then forwarded on.

congratulations on the 365 Boogie - I carried on for a while and may yet go back to it again, perhaps with a new account.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Well, I'm back for the time being, so let us know if you do. No idea how long I'll keep it up for, but it's ok for now.
 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
So I've coughed up for an Olympus TG-2 (not yet released although the TG-1 reviews are good) and <with> the telephoto lens you can add as near as I can tell the combination will meet my wants best.

We'll see.

---

I haven't been into digital long enough to get a good read on photo quality detail yet but for a waterproof/tough point and shoot the TG-2 seems at least decent... following are a few shots taken recently on Caddo Lake (near Uncertain, Texas - I am not making that up).

Spanish moss - things were just starting to green up:

http://tinyurl.com/atzfl73

S/he was walking on giant salvinia, an invasive plant which has made significant portions of the lake unnavigable unless you have similar feet:

http://tinyurl.com/b6wqnmf

(I haven't figured out the focus...)


The next morning:

A grandmother cypress tree with lots of aspiring babies nearby:

http://tinyurl.com/b6naynt

Look how far the light came:

http://tinyurl.com/aafvmvg


As I was reviewing my photos I couldn't help noticing a consistent lean to port - either the kayak isn't quite balanced or the Ship has influenced me more than I thought.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Lovely images! I've noticed a lean with one of my cameras, the others not so much. Haven't figured out why.
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Those shots are quite lovely. Thanks for sharing.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Yes, lovely shots, thanks!

I use the grid guideline on my Fuji screen/EVF all the time and it really helps me keep things on the straight and level.

Still no sign of the new hand strap I ordered but then it is only 48 hours - it's not that I am impatient it is just that delayed gratification is for wimps!
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I got an e-mail this morning to say the strap is on its way

Last night we had this big thing at the temple here with 100,000 lamps - some great photo opportunities but once it got dark the autofocus wasn't particularly fond of all those little lights, it got quite confused at times - but the semi-pro flash unit was excellent, definitely worth the money.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Wonderful, wonderful postie turned up with my strap this morning - it is adipoli [local speak for brilliant] though I can see it might get a bit hot and sweaty with prolonged use.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Wonderful, wonderful postie turned up with my strap this morning - it is adipoli [local speak for brilliant] though I can see it might get a bit hot and sweaty with prolonged use.

---

enjoy!

We had a portrait night at camera club. Great fun, but the amount of lighting gear they had was way beyond my inclination. I enjoy doing portraits, but not THAT much!

I did make a final decision on my next lens . Much Saving Up will have to happen before I get it, but excitement is mounting!



 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
17-55mm [135 equiv] is a lovely range, I hope you have lots of fun with it when you get the pennies together and acquire it.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
17-55mm [135 equiv] is a lovely range, I hope you have lots of fun with it when you get the pennies together and acquire it.

---

I do have an 18-55mm but it is a kit lens - and when I had a go with the one I'm lusting after, the difference in photo quality was huge.


 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I know. I've got the kit lens from my previous one too, and it's a bit bog-standard with a tendency to chromatic aberration - but on the whole it's OK, and I really can't bring myself to pay the extortionate prices manuacturers are asking for lenses. Four-figure sums are outrageous and are asking way too much for a lens. The whole pricing structure really ought to be looked at.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
There are multiple factors in lens pricing.
One is cost of manufacture. Better and bigger glass costs more. Not only are the standards higher, there is more glass, more lenses inside, more coatings, more design time, etc. The rest of the lens; metal housings and fixtures, weather-sealing, more rugged construction, etc.
Another is units sold. The fewer units likely to be sold, the higher the price.
Quality control. A less than perfect £80 lens might be accepted; at £1000+? Not so much.
Yes, there are often price factors which have to with name and perception. But this is tricky with lenses.
I look at third-party lenses before I buy, and when it comes to the high quality glass, they are cheaper, but not cheap.
I too wish this were different. There is a lens I would dearly love to use, but it costs half a house.
 

---

Posted by Michael Snow (# 16363) on :
 
Here is my new photo blog. Just put it up as an easy way to let friends and family keep up with our pictures.

http://mikesnowblog.wordpress.com/

That Brownie does pretty good.

[ 21. March 2013, 21:11: Message edited by: Michael Snow ]
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Ariel, are you keeping an eye on the almond tree down by St Mary the Virgin on the High? It's slow this year, hardly breaking bud yet, but it's always spectacular when it does get properly flowering.

I had a rather frustrating evening last night. I was getting weird marks on my prints in the darkroom, and had to stop and go home and scan the negs to confirm that it was something funny in the darkroom and not light leaks on the negs. Oh, the joys of wet chemistry! Still not sure what it was, but someone has made a good suggestion so hopefully I'll get back in over the long weekend.

AG
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
Ariel, are you keeping an eye on the almond tree down by St Mary the Virgin on the High? It's slow this year, hardly breaking bud yet, but it's always spectacular when it does get properly flowering.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percy B:
Sorry for a double post, but I realise I need a bit of help. What do I look for in specification to tell me if the camera is good in dimmer light?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
Ariel, are you keeping an eye on the almond tree down by St Mary the Virgin on the High? It's slow this year, hardly breaking bud yet, but it's always spectacular when it does get properly flowering.


AG

---

LAST year at the end of March, the trees and shrubs were in full bloom and the leaves were coming out on others.
Monday, here in South Dakota, we had a blizzard.
The yellow light in this picture is on a big snowplow on the road going out of town.
It was minus 6 C. Tuesday morning.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v620/mikesnow/P1080337_zpsb62c0f10.jpg

But at least it was sunny yesterday
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v620/mikesnow/P1080338_zpsba6968ca.jpg
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
You ought to come to the UK, Michael, and see the sort of weather we moan about. You'd see why the Australians reckon we are whingers! That's nasty...

Sadly the almond tree has been a bit of a fizzle this year, but to make up for it the magnolias have all erupted into spectacular bloom and, if the next few days weather doesn't clobber them, no doubt I will be spending some time failing to take decent photos of the blooms.

In other news... we are off to Lacock Abbey today to see Fox Talbot's window (and, incidentally, ring a few bells whilst there). I'm sure Wodders will be delighted to see who Fox Talbot worked with translating cuneiform! In his honour, I have a sheet of paper in the 1908 Kodak, and hope that the sun will appear for long enough to make an exposure at ISO6!

AG
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
ISO6?? You have a tripod, I expect.

Have sent off for a replacement 18-55 lens. If anyone finds that one of their lenses starts refusing to take pictures in certain conditions, get it replaced. It'll be cheaper than trying to have it repaired and the condition is progressive - I'm currently having to use my lens as pretty much a "fixed focus" lens on f7.1 at present, it doesn't like it if you try to zoom in or change the aperture.
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
ISO6?? You have a tripod, I expect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
I assume the Smudgelet has been asked to get a DSLR, rather than a little compact camera.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smudgie:
The Smudgelet is hoping to do A Level Photography next year at college ...

---

Does this mean that all my random snapping in Glasgow a few years ago created a monster?

In general I'd agree that Canon and Nikon are regarded as the two best. Personally I'm a Canon girl, but only because the first (2nd hand) DSLR I got happens to be a Canon and I'm really happy with it - I'm sure if it had been a Nikon I'd have been a Nikon evangelist instead. I'd agree that checking if lenses are borrowable from the school is a good idea, so you can try before you buy - no point buying a bundle of lenses if there's only one or two he's going to use regularly/at all.
 

---

Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :
 
Jack...I actually think it should be you who pays for his camera because you're right, it was that day in Glasgow that started all this. Several other shipmates should chip in for fueling the flame, but you... yes you... you and that bloomin' bridge....
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Having said that I was struggling to get time to take photos, I spent Saturday morning at a workshop making and using a shoebox pinhole camera. The sun also shone (briefly!) on Friday evening, so I got that roll of 620 burnt. Now I just need to make time to develop it...

AG
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
After about a dozen tries (tweaking focusing and metering) I got a pretty good picture of the supermoon over New York City last night.

Flickr.com: dantoujours/Moon over Brooklyn

I used a Sony NEX-5r and Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens @ 300mm on a tripod. ISO 100. The pic cropped.

The best thing while I was getting it set up and taking the photos, people would come up and ask questions or just enjoy the scene together.

I've played with a bit of astrophotography before (Like this pic in Mongolia.) but would like to do more (not easy in New York City but worth a try anyway.) Does anyone have some tips on how to get started?

[ 23. June 2013, 22:56: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Done it: deleted my Flickr account. I feel a bit sad about this as I've had it for years, but the display is "endless scrolling" and the menu system is arcane, on a good day.

Still looking for a good alternative.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I got my first camera in 1960 at the age of 11 when I passed my 11+ exam to get into grammar school. ver the years I have had quite a number of cameras and have taken A LOT of pictures. Today I have enrolled on a photography course taking place in The Big City in 2 weeks time - this will be my first ever course of this sort after 52 years.

I wonder what I will learn.
 

---

Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
I hope you will share your new wisdom with us, Wodders!

I have a few cameras, but have been using my phone for the last few years for snaps. I just upgraded to an iPhone 5, and was thrilled to find out the camera has a focus and a zoom!!! What a treat!
 

---

Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :
 
Thank you all for your various advice - the boy now has a camera.
Three days and he's only taken just over 1000 photos, so he's obviously not that keen
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
WW,

There are always new things to discover, I hope the instructor is up to the task, though.

Smudgie, may I suggest the purchase of an additional battery or three?
 

---

Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :
 
lilBuddha, he's currently delighted with the life of the battery - this is day five and he's only had to charge it once. But it's good advice. Once I've recovered from the cost of all the extra bits, I think a spare battery will be a really good idea.

He's delighted with his new Nikon D3100.
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
I've had my Nikon D3100 for just on two years and am very happy with it. Bought a comfortable Sun sniper strap which goes bandolier style over shoulder and across body. Neck straps put pressure on arthritic neck. Bought another battery to always have spare. It came with 18-55 mm lens and I bought 18-270 mm.

I hope he gets as much pleasure as I do using it.

[ 08. July 2013, 00:16: Message edited by: Lothlorien ]
 

---

Posted by geroff (# 3882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
Done it: deleted my Flickr account. I feel a bit sad about this as I've had it for years, but the display is "endless scrolling" and the menu system is arcane, on a good day.

Still looking for a good alternative.

---

Wnat has happened to Flickr? - if you follow links to it it is horrible.
I have a Photobucket account because I need something to link to off another forum. It seems OK.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
The dilemma I am in is that I have nearly 1400 photos on Flickr and I am loathe to go through the process of finding them all and doing all the stuff to get them ready then loading them on another site.

But I also loathe the hideous new Flickr format.

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!


 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by geroff:
Wnat has happened to Flickr? - if you follow links to it it is horrible.

---

They redesigned it and it is horrible. A lot of people have left - you have no option to change the display to any other view or back to what it was.

I'm thinking about moving to Pbase, though it's a paid account. I deleted everything from my account on Flickr - all my stuff was backed up on USB sticks anyway. For the time being, I'm still on 365, though not daily, but photos never look as good uploaded there as they did on Flickr before the change.

[ 08. July 2013, 14:14: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 

---

Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
I opened a Flickr account only last week when I discovered they were giving you 1 TB of free storage space. I thought it was just me that couldn't understand it. It is awful.
 

---

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
<Disclaimer: not-a-proper-camera-question>

I wonder if any shipmates have personal experience of the various accessory lenses available for smartphones (NOT iPhones)? Like this for instance.

I've got other cameras, but the convenience aspect appeals.

What think ye?
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
I was on Flickr for ages and then family made a closed group to share photos privately. Looks like we need something else. I'm reluctant to use facebook which was out first though as I really don't like the idea of it. I opened an account before we moved to flickr, but don't touch it.

I used to use Picasa many years ago and then could not get into my account and they kept telling me there was nothing wrong with it. The photos I posted on a blog from it are still visible so it must still work, I just can't get into it. Haven't liked Photobucket from many years ago. Seemed clunky to me but it may have improved over years.

We may just need to get a family webpage and password protect it to family.

I agree with everyone else's comments about Flickr. Well and truly slidden downhill.
 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
FWIW smugmug is run (I'm pretty sure) by the same folk who do www.advrider.com

You could spend your money in worse places.
 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
More from the Olympus TG-2 waterproof/tough camera - I can now vouch for its waterproofness although increasingly I'm less than completely enthused with how it performs in comparatively low light conditions as the autofocus routinely struggles. However, given you'll likely have it when you're places few other cameras will continue to function it remains my preferred 'do all' camera. And I believe a sketchy photo* is better than no photo.

Don't forget to rinse off the salt water.

A rock spire off the east coast of Bell Island, Newfoundland, north of where the ferry to Portugal Cove docks. It's probably 7-8 meters high and is noteworthy as behind is one of the rare places you can actually land a boat on Newfoundland. Lord, what a forbidding coast.

The Folbot Yukon in action, a bit further north, on the northeast end of the island. This boat is so remarkably forgiving it may tempt you into trying things you ought not... in retrospect I can not recommend doing this kind (paddling from St. Philips on the Avalon peninsula to Bell Island and back) of thing alone, although I managed it somehow. I'm am now considerably more wary of how quickly conditions can change.

The general area, documented by one of my favorite toys.

I estimate these bluffs are every bit of 60 meters high. Note the sea cave shown in the following video.

*or video The ceiling is probably 10 meters above the water.

I haven't figured out how to post a url which shows it in full screen - open for suggestions - thx.

And I trust you'll forgive the crappy cinematography, given the conditions; the moment you put the paddle down you start drifting north about 5 km/h.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
The photography course was fun; I was the oldest at 64 and the youngest was Sixth Standard so 10/11 [with a Nikon D3200] with a good mix of enthusiastic participants BUT some of them had obviously decided to take up photography as a hobby and had bought themselves expensive bits of kit but really had no idea how to use them - okay, sensible then to take a course and kudos for them for that but we're not talking entry level stuff here, we're talking semi-professional level stuff. Ah well, they can afford it but...

When I can get my head round it all I'll report back in greater depth.
 

---

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :
 
Hi

I am wanting a camera that could do general snaps but especially indoor, like after church shots. Not that bright then.

I am after easy to use shoot and go type, and easy to get onto website / Facebook.

Budget 100-200 pounds.

I'd really welcome suggestions or a pointer to a choice for camera simpletons.

Thanks

 

---

Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
Hi Clotilde!
You may want to check out some posts from earlier in this thread, starting here.

I think you may find information that will answer some of your questions!

jedijudy
Helpful Heaven Host
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Hi Clotilde, I've been thinking about your question and I think there are many possibilities for you - I had a look on Amazon UK and Argos and their are loads in the price bracket.

The big question is whether to go for a real compact, slip in the pocket type or go for a Bridge type camera with a bigger lens which will be bulkier and heavier.

For inside shots a bigger lens [Bridge camera] may be helpful as it will gather more light but that may not be hugely significant. In your price range you are probably going to be dependent on built in flash, which is not as versatile as an attached flash gun, but a gun is additional bulk and weight. You probably won't need a massive zoom, and most cameras in the range will come with zoom - the pocket ones generally 3x or 5x.

Have a look around, if you have a specialist camera shop nearby go and ask their advice.

Otherwise have a look at the Amazon and Argos websites -and others if you can think of any]. Argos have a Nikon L27 at about 50 quid - I have used a Nikon L23 for a couple of years as my in pocket camera and have found it to be pretty good.

There tends to be a divide between Canon users and Nikon users, I have used and liked both but currently use a Fujifilm as my main camera. There are loads of good makes, it is quite a competitive market.

For a Bridge camera Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm and Panasonic all have some nice products on the market.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
(bump)
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I keep going to online shopping sites and looking at the camera I want but can't really afford at the moment - I am determined* to clear my credit card then pay cash for it when the time comes...



...I reckon with a bit of belt-tightening on the non-essentials like food and clothes I might be able to give it to myself for Christmas.

[* well, sort of keen, erm, possibly]

* * * *

And now a question or two [or more]:

- Do those of you who have RAW find that you use RAW more than JPG?

- To use RAW & JPG at the same time seems a bit OTT at the moment but then I have never had the chance - opinions, please.

- I have Photoshop [CS4 Portable] and Corel Photopaint 12 so I am equipped. Should I get myself on to a Photoshop course or can anyone recommend an online course or is suck-it-and-see the best way to learn?
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I rarely shoot other than RAW+jpg. The disadvantages are storage space and delay between shots. If forced one or the other, I would shoot RAW only. It depends upon the situation really. If the lighting is not too harsh, is fairly consistent over the areas you will be shooting and temperatures are not mixed*, jpgs often suffice. I will say this; of the photographers I have worked with/encountered, I know of none who have gone from shooting raw to only jpg, but many who have gone from jpg only to RAW or RAW+jpg.
*Colours of light, not Celsius.

As to online courses, I have heard good things about the books by Scott Kelby. He offers online training as well.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I use Raw and jpg. Nine times out of ten I don’t need to use the Raw files, which is nice, but sometimes they are really useful for the sort of tinkering you can’t do that easily in PS so I carry on taking them and mostly just delete them once I’ve generated a jpg from them as they take up huge amounts of space.

Be warned, Raw files can have a proprietary format specific to the camera manufacturer. I can’t work on mine in any other program than the software that came with my camera; in theory Photoshop should recognize my Canon Raw files but in practice it doesn’t.

With Photoshop, I never bothered with courses (and I particularly hate online video clips). It was a bit of a learning curve but you get there in the end. PS is essentially an industry-standard package which home users think they must have because everyone else has it, so it can be complex, but in practice it includes a lot of functions and filters you probably won’t ever use. A lot of people seem to like Lightroom which is more geared towards photos than producing print-quality stuff and is considerably less expensive. I think if it had been available back in the day when I first started all this, I'd probably have got that instead.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I use this to convert raw. I am Nikon not Canon, but I checked, and it does cover a lot of Canon. I tend to use it rather than Gimp for a lot of the editing not just the conversion.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I use this to convert raw. I am Nikon not Canon, but I checked, and it does cover a lot of Canon. I tend to use it rather than Gimp for a lot of the editing not just the conversion.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I use this to convert raw. I am Nikon not Canon, but I checked, and it does cover a lot of Canon. I tend to use it rather than Gimp for a lot of the editing not just the conversion.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I use this to convert raw. I am Nikon not Canon, but I checked, and it does cover a lot of Canon. I tend to use it rather than Gimp for a lot of the editing not just the conversion.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I just realised I have GIMP as well [2.0], and even have some practice using it, so no problems on the software front - the information on RAW is really useful, thanks.

For GBP 21 or 22, or thereabouts, I can get this little set of 28 filters which will fit both my current and my future camera.

Hmmm, tempting but I think I may concentrate on getting the new camera first.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:


Be warned, Raw files can have a proprietary format specific to the camera manufacturer. I can’t work on mine in any other program than the software that came with my camera; in theory Photoshop should recognize my Canon Raw files but in practice it doesn’t.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
I just realised I have GIMP as well [2.0], and even have some practice using it, so no problems on the software front - the information on RAW is really useful, thanks.

For GBP 21 or 22, or thereabouts, I can get this little set of 28 filters which will fit both my current and my future camera.

Hmmm, tempting but I think I may concentrate on getting the new camera first.

---

Those are brilliant, WW! I need to update my filter collection as well.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Comes to exude smugness.

Having fallen out of Flickr, coincidentally when it changed, but really because I was so busy, I went back in at the beginning of the month, and this one has over 6,500 views (and hit Explore).

I w*rk out near here some of the time, so I have had quite a few goes at getting a shot with this building. And it has been straightened and a bit of a car removed from the bottom left corner, so no, it's not a perfect shot, it's been GIMPed.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Nicely done - the colours on the people [yellow brolly, baby blue shoes and flash of red shirt] give a nice finish.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Brilliant, CK. Funny, though, my script blocker was on and I only saw above the bricks, so WW's comments left me a bit until I allowed flickr.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I've just had an invite to join Dropbox. Do any of you know enough about it to say whether or not it's a good replacement for Flickr?
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I use it to share work documents ~ you have to list the people yo are sharing with.
 

---

Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :
 
Our Camera Club uses Dropbox to store our competition entries, and I have also personally used Dropbox folders to send a large number of pictures to someone else.
You can control who can have access to which folder, so I have my own folders, to whcih i gave access to the person I wanted to see my pictures and has a certain size limit - and i have access to the Camera Club folder, but that doesn't come out of my personal allocation


(edited for clarity)

[ 27. September 2013, 14:25: Message edited by: Wet Kipper ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I use it to share work documents ~ you have to list the people yo are sharing with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
I've also just realised that I have an f1.2 lens which will be ideal for portraiture as it's so wide that close-up the background will just vanish.

---

Thank you for that useful tip.

I've got back into night photography - it seems to be turning into my own personal "Get Pushed" challenge, but finding time to do daylight photgraphy at this time of year (during the working week) is a challenge in itself. Enjoying it a lot, except when my fingers go numb.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Soory, should have chosen a UK or US link - one British Pound is roughly 100 rupees, which is very convenient for my little brain.

I will probably buy from a shop rather than online - one shop offered me a deal of Rs 29,000 so that this only four quid more and I get it THEN and not have to wait for it to be delivered. Sadly the good shop with the wonderful service doesn't have it in their line up at the moment so it looks like they have lost the sale.

Thanks for the SD Card advice, I think I'll order a 32GB online tonight even if I haven't got the camera yet. Should I buy it on credit card on Tuesday so I can take it wild elephant spotting on Wednesday/Thursday?

Decisions, decisions.
 

---

Posted by Michael Snow (# 16363) on :
 
Looks like a great camera.

Seems like pretty much 'pro's' here. If I can ad a 'tip of the day' for the average fellow with the average camera; Shooting from the train--use your Sport Setting.
I posted this link once-upon-a-time, but to illustrate: http://www.meetchristians.com/new/tr_fr_view_thread.php?TID=1110786&r=0&F=2
 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
I'm glad this thread resurfaced as I'm running out of 2013... this (how could you make it up) is the Equality House east just across the street as seen from the sidewalk on the northeast corner of the compound that is Westboro Baptist Church.

I thought the rainbow colors proved a bit of a challenge for the Olympus TG-2: nonetheless, it was with me during my brief visit to Topeka.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
WW,

The minimum card I will purchase for a camera is 32GB. And I have filled that in one outing.

moron,

I love that house for where it is and would like to book a flight just to give the owners a hug.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
32 GB cards [Class 10] in The Big City were uniformly half as much again as they are online so now I'm waiting for the courier to call. Whilst I am still on my current .jpg only camera that will give me a capacity of at least 5,000 shots per card which should be enough for an overnight trip to see wild elephants in the jungle even if I throw in a little bit of video.


 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
I treated myself yesterday, and went to the student photographic society studio class. I shot far fewer photos than I'd expected (I still have 9 1/2 rolls of HP5 to go before I finish the brick!), but still had great fun and, I hope, learnt a lot.

I'm beginning to despair of getting film scanning right, but I've blown a huge £2.50 on some non-reflective glass from Hobbycraft and, if I can cut it myself without severing anything too important, that should at least solve the film flatness problem.

AG
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There has been a protest on Flickr today against another change to the format that's about to be imposed. My stream is full of protest photos.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I left Flickr over the previous one. What's the latest?

I really dislike "endless scrolling". FB does it, Google does it, other sites probably do it too, it's not user-friendly or fun.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Explanation of the protest. I got lumbered with the beta for a bit - the last change didn't bother me too much, this one did.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I don'’t think that would bother me as much as the endless scrolling – which made loading very slow on my computer – and the fact that for whatever reason a lot of photos seem to display at thumbnail size when clicked on. But altogether not a huge success and I wish they’d left it as it was.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Oh, you still get the endless scrolling, you also lose a lot of other things too - like comments and knowing who has favourited a picture, and being able to comment easily on pictures ...

[ 09. December 2013, 20:28: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 

---

Posted by nomadicgrl (# 7623) on :
 
Flickr is driving me right batty! I'm trying to upload a large batch of pictures from each month, so that while at the in-laws over Christmas, if there's time, I can have fun working on my 2013 Yearbook. It's uploading some photos not at all, some photos 2 or 3 times and sometimes when it looks like a photo is duplicated, when I delete it, the photo disappears entirely off the site! I think I'm finally being driven to find other hosting venues....

On a less ranty note, Merry Christmas for all who celebrate, and happy holiday shooting.
http://flickr.com/gp/55586294@N07/68Hk3d
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
That's a great shot!

I still haven't found a real, workable alternative to Flickr - anyone any ideas?


eta: I still haven't got my new camera, every time I get near to having the money something else more urgent comes up so I am thinking that the time is getting close to making an online purchase by credit card and worry about paying it off later. I have a big milestone anniversary in January - a Silver Jubilee one! I'm sure you'll agree that this is an appropriate way to celebrate.

[ 25. December 2013, 02:51: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
I still haven't found a real, workable alternative to Flickr - anyone any ideas?

---

A friend of mine suggested Pbase where I currently have a free trial account. It lasts 30 days and I need to decide by tomorrow whether I want to pay for a year's subscription or not. It starts at US $23 for 1000 MB. The interface is a bit basic but the photos display well - no endless scrolling and the colour reproduction is true.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Several people have suggested Smugmug, or 500px, as alternatives, though I wasn't keen on 500px - for a start it seems to want you to sign up using social media before it tells you anything about itself! So far, I'm wondering about going for either Smugmug or Phanfare.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Got up this morning thinking that today might well be the day I order the new camera only to find that Amazon India have put the price up overnight!

I'll wait until it comes down again.

The happy news is that the filter set I talked about a while ago has come down in price to just UKP18 for 28 pieces!
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Price down today, even lower than it was the other day - order placed, credit card payment made - now I have to wait!

I've ordered the filter set as well.

Can I get excited now, please?


eta: I'm so glad I keep a [very cryptic] list of passwords in my address book - it will only make sense to me but at least it DOES make sense to me.

[ 28. December 2013, 02:53: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I am excited for you, WW!
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Has anyone played around with a full frame camera? Sony came out with the A7 and A7r but I've been looking at the Canikons too. Not sure whether it's worth the upgrade from my NEX-5T.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I've a Canon 5D Mark II, it is full frame.
Yes, Oh my, yes it is worth the upgrade. Extra size means more light gathered for a better tonal range and bigger pixels better low light performance and less noise. Massive difference. Allows for large reproductions as well, should you wish to print them.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I've just been looking through my Project 365 folder wondering whether to have another go and try to do a whole calender year and I noticed one where I had done the post-processing in IrfanView and how quite a few folks from here said they didn't know it. Did anyone download and try using it? I know it is not as versatile as PhotoPaint or Photoshop or LIghtroom but I still think it is a good deal at zero cost.

Comments, anyone?
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I was wondering about another 365, too. And I haven't tried Irfan - got fairly deep into GIMP.

But I need to organise a new camera because I lost my much loved camera in December (left on the tube, I did fill in the lost property paperwork) - but I'm going to be limited as to what camera I can buy to replace that one - temporary contracts are the pits. I was about to check Amazon sale (I have vouchers as presents).
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Sorry about the cmera loss, CK - that's horrible. I hope you manage to find something good in the sale.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I can't remember what you used to use but I think it was a compact - Canon do a little one called the A1400 which actually has a viewfinder as well as screen - 16 MP and a 5x zoom. Here it is on Amazon.co.uk

I quite fancy one myself when I need a new compact.

[ 29. December 2013, 10:33: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
An older version of this - I was dithering over some of the Canons before Christmas. There's this one
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I have the Canon Powershot SX220. This has the advantage of giving you the ability to set your own shutter speeds, aperture, etc. as you would on a DSLR - though a more limited range - as well as giving you the presets. I never use the presets so I can't say how good they are, but the rest of the camera is good and I like the manual control.

I'm still on 365 (just, I'll carry on for a bit longer but don't want to spend the rest of my life there) so if either of you do decide to start up again do come and say hello.
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
PaterMajor has been enjoying photography at high school, which has motivated me to dust off the camera. Developed my first film in thirty-something years. Happy joy

Christmas day brought forth a Mamiya C3. Even more giggling joy, but now the question: whether to trade in a dedicated 35mm scanner for something like an Epson V?00, which will take the 120 negatives, or fix up the enlarger.

Has anyone used both?
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
The Pentax and the Mamiya are both sweet - lovely bits of kit, particularly the Mamiya!
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
I've been using Irfanview for years. Once I got Adobe Lightroom, I started using Irfanview mostly as picture viewer, but sometimes in tandem with LR.

As you say, it has fewer features than LR, GIMP, etc., but what it does have is intuitive. It's a great tool for people new to post-processing.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I've just had a call from the courier! I don't know if it is the camera or the filters - I'm heading up there now!
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
It's the camera!

Of course it will be useless for some time as the battery has to be charged before it can be used - the old model used AA/LR6 which obviated that wait.

It looks VERY cool!
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I had a slow time for a few months on 365 - but I'm back now!

I have lost my phojo completely but am hoping that, sometime soon, quantity of photos will give way to some quality!


 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I've lost mine too. If I take anything at all, it's simple snapshots, and most of them are too awful to post. I did sign up for the Get Pushed challenge, but kept getting paired up with the same two people and others who didn't post, so it hasn't really worked for me this time.

My Ace membership lasts until Feb so I'll see how things go - if the approach of spring doesn't reinvigorate it may be time to call it a day.

Have fun with the new camera WW. We'll look forward to maybe seeing some of your new shots on 365.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I've bought one of the Canon Powershots - the X160. Not due here until into the New Year, so, now do I start 365 with the horrible Samsung I use with the kids, with hope of something nicer coming soon?

I need to sort pictures from Christmas too.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
That's a nice piece of kit, CK - its predecessor, the SX150, was an excellent camera and I hear this one is better - have fun with it.

No advice from me on the using the Samsung for a few days - will it make you feel better to do 1st January - 31st December?

Your choice.

* * * *

At the moment I have this page open - do I order it now or closer to pension day?

And which colour? I quite like the purple.

eta: Rs 799 is about eight pounds in UK so not bad value.

[ 31. December 2013, 14:13: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I've done 2 365s, one on 365 and one on Flickr, and neither has been January to December, which I would like to do.

Those little tripods are fun and easy to carry in a pocket.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
...and as the vendor took my UK credit card one is now on order and should be here by the weekend!

I quite fancy the January to December 365 as it seems to have shape to it, in some unfathomable way; Eccles folks would probably do Advent Sunday to Advent Sunday and most Muslims would only need to do a Project 354! I already have tentative plans for tomorrow's shot but something else may turn up after Midnight Mass or on the way home.
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
Out of curiosity, and in search of shared interest, who here shoots film? Ever? Occasionally? Always?
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Sandemaniac does (shoot film), and there are/were groups on 365/Flickr and a number of people I follow(ed) on both have tried both. I follow a few of the film only guys on Flickr.

I used to shoot film but like the way I can play on digital without it costing anything extra to try lots of different things.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Sandemaniac does (shoot film), and there are/were groups on 365/Flickr and a number of people I follow(ed) on both have tried both. I follow a few of the film only guys on Flickr.

I used to shoot film but like the way I can play on digital without it costing anything extra to try lots of different things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I've bought one of the Canon Powershots - the X160. Not due here until into the New Year, so, now do I start 365 with the horrible Samsung I use with the kids, with hope of something nicer coming soon?

I need to sort pictures from Christmas too.

---

• colours are pretty awful whatever setting - my phone camera is better for colours,
• macro is frustrating and even more hit and miss than anything else I've used,
• it has a red/green focus set up and it lies ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I've a Canon 5D Mark II, it is full frame.
Yes, Oh my, yes it is worth the upgrade. Extra size means more light gathered for a better tonal range and bigger pixels better low light performance and less noise. Massive difference. Allows for large reproductions as well, should you wish to print them.

---

I'll look into it. I love what I got with my NEX 5T; most of my frustrations revolve around it not focusing as well as I'd like in low light but the detail in some of the full frame pictures I see is stunning.

It's going to be hard to swing an FF camera this year as I am going to the Congo for 17 days in November and I need to save for that, but I'll see if I can swing it.

[ 02. January 2014, 18:26: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
It's interesting 365ing on both Flickr and 365. I don't always do this, but I put the same photo up on both Flickr and 365 yesterday. Flickr it's hit Explore, 365 it's been noted as being on New Faces, but not a lot else - and it was their challenge I was playing around with!

Really, really want the new toy to arrive.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Sorry, CK, but my tripod/gorillapod arrived this afternoon - a bit big for a pocket but lovely piece of kit. I ordered it New Year's Eve and it arrived 4th January and it has travelled all the way from Delhi which is a fair distance.

Only got the other two 32GB cards to arrive and I think I'll be done for a while.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Hmmph, ordered mine on New Year's Eve too - mind you, we haven't had any post today yet.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I shouldn't have been so rude - the new toy did arrive yesterday, without the SD card which was actually promised, by the time I found it (left outside the front door) and bought an SD card, there wasn't a lot of light left.

It's got so many different controls to play with! And the difference between 3x and 16x zoom is quite something. This is going to be a fun learning challenge.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
The SD card didn't appear with mine either but considering the amount of extras I got for free and that I wouldn't use it anyway I wasn't too worried.

Enjoy the extra zoom - have you got a tripod to keep things stable at long zoom?

My elderly Nikon compact [an L23] seems to have finally given up the ghost - it is eating batteries and every time it gets switched on I have to reset the date and time. I am going to the city on Tuesday so will see if it is worth repairing otherwise I will be on the hunt for a pocket model, possibly for my birthday in March.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I knew I needed an SD card, it's on order from Amazon and the order tracking predicted it would arrive yesterday, although the camera wasn't promised until next week. It was the least frustrating order, getting the camera without a card.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
WW, the L23 has a separate battery for the clock.
I am going to guess that changing it will cost more than replacing the camera, as they are generally not easily accessible.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Thanks for that, I shall ask The Man when I pop in later in the week.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 


Now I find my old tripod just isn't up to snuff for taking the weight of the new camera! A new one will have to wait SEVERAL months as there is no way I can possibly justify the expense at the moment when I only use one occasionally. I wonder if I can get a pan and tilt head for the gorillapod - probably.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Joby make them specifically for the Gorillapod, but IIRC, the gorillapods are threaded to receive any standard ballhead.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
lilBuddha - you are a GENIUS!!

I read your post and realised [I can be a bit slow sometimes] that the pan and tilt head on now redundant tripod probably unscrews [it does] and will then fit the gorillapod [it does]!

Problem solved!

Thank you!
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I did a bad thing. Not perhaps a morally bad thing but maybe a financially bad thing.

For the past few years - well, about thirteen or fourteen of them - I've been using a succession of steadily cheaper point-and-shoot digital cameras that fit into a pocket - they suit me perfectly well because they are cheap, I can take lots of pictures, and I never really bothered much about taking artistic pictures, I use cameras to document walks and field trips, mainly shooting buildings and plants and (rather ineffectually) animals (they tend to move and they are often far away)

But these days the cameras on smartphones have caught up with the cheap p&s boxes (in lenses I mean, megapixies or whatever aren't really that important). And the chances are that the next phone I get will be a better camera than my current camera (which cost me 30 quid some years ago!). So if I am going to keep a camera at all it makes sense to upgrade a bit. So I looked at digital SLRs and found the cheapest one available was the bottom-of-the-range Nikon (though still pretty expensive). So I thought of going to a shop to buy one. Because I could just about afford it (Partly funded by not having smoked for six weeks - due to health problems, not giving up - but the money I just spent means I probably can't afford to smoke for another few months!)

Now, once upon a time, long, long ago I had a Pentax SLR. And when I lost it or it broke (honestly can't remember) I bought another one second-hand. This would be the 1980s. And because I wanted to document the wildlife in my garden and immediate neighbourhood - what everyone else calls weeds and bugs - I bought a macro lens (which was rather good) and a second-hand telephoto (which wasn't, its scratched or dirty or something) So when I went to the camera shop I looked at the cameras and realised that if I bought a Pentax I could probably use my old lenses - which I honestly hadn't even taken out of their bag this century - and in the long run that would be cheaper because I really do want to take pictures of insects and spiders and plants so I really do want to have a macro lens and buying a new one for the Nikon would cost a lot.

But the cheapest Pentax was mumbly-mumbly-mumbly more expensive than the cheapest Nikon.

And then it turned out that the second cheapest Pentax was weather-proofed and some other minor advantages of use to few people but good for what I wanted to do.

And then it turned out that spending about 70 quid more gets you two kit lenses, not one, and the other one is a 55-200mm zoom which isn't exactly telephoto but is a good length for walking around with (back when I used film I never really got on with 100 ASA and 50mm, always preferred 400 and 80 or 100 for normal walking-about shots) and which would have cost a lot more to buy separately. I am obviously a sucker.

So end result was blowing about three months disposable income on twice the camera I intended to buy. Which I could only just afford in the first place. My name is Ken and I am a serial-compulsive impulse buyer of optical equipment (I have five pairs of binoculars, two useless because a cat peed on them, four cameras, only one I have used in the last X years, a telescope, and two microscopes - real ones like you might find in a lab - those I got with my redundancy money many years ago, I'd never have afforded them from wages)

On the other hand, when I finally got home (some days later, did I say this was all an impulse buy while visiting relatives hundreds of miles away?) and looked out my old camera and lenses I found as expected the old-style 50mm fixed-focus kit lens that was on most Pentax SLRs in the 70s and 80s, and also the rather crappy telephoto, but also that the macro lens I had to be honest almost forgotten seems to be clean and in working order and looks really, really useable. I hope so because I'd better take some decent pictures with it to justify all this. Spiders watch out! You will be on candid camera!
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Well done Ken - Pentax cameras are seriously nice bits of kit. Have fun with it.
 

---

Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :
 
Sounds wonderful Ken - enjoy it!

I like taking photographs. For me, one of the essential things a camera should be is small enough to fit into my handbag and therefore be with me at all times. Over the years, I have had an Olympus Mju (one of the very first - a fixed lens 35mm film camera). I still have this.
I had a Leica compact camera - good pictures, but not a very successful camera, this, as the film transport mechanism broke about a month after the warranty expired, and Leica said that it was unrepairable. I still have the camera...
My late dad gave me a Pentax Optio 35mm "compact" camera to replace the Leica, which takes really sharp pictures. I need to get a new battery for it.

I then had an Olympus compact which used a micro-SD card. That disappeared in a recent burglary.
Then a Panasonic DMC-FS10, bought half price in a sale. I have taken some very good pictures with this, but it has a speck of dust or something on the sensor which limits its usefulness a bit.

My current camera is a Panasonic DMC-TZ40, and I am still learning what it can do.

So, can a "point-and-shoot" person participate in this thread??!
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I've only ever been a point and shoot person and it doesn't stop me.
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Taken with a 1930s Box Brownie, hard to get more point and shoot than that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gray1720/11170106515/

It's not what you got, it's what you do with it (and, let's be honest, this is not a photography forum, whether you enjoy what you do with it).

AG
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Congrats ken. You've got a nice bit of kit there.

St. Everild, your camera has controls for a great deal of experimentation and learning, should you choose. Curiosity killed is a terrific person to follow. She lies to us or herself when she says she is a point and shoot person. She twists, clicks, pushes and adjusts every setting on her cameras.
Sandemaniac is correct, learn to use whatever you have and good things can result.

Side note regarding your camera with the obstruction. Take a printed photo, at least writing paper size. Sharpen a pencil to the finest point possible. Then, using the
minimum pressure possible, press lightly on the paper.
That is what a speck if dust on a sensor looks like.
Without seeing the result, I would guess your camera had been dropped and a broken bit is in there.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
If it is the Panasonic I think it is it does collect dust~ somewhere on 365 there are instructions on how to clean it yourself ~ it was something that made me go for a Canon this time.

OK ~ I'll come clean ~ shot on Flickr last week made 25,000 views and #17 on Explore. And another shot has made Explore since. Been back on 365 for 10 days and have won the abstract challenge, made the popular page once and new faces 5 times. I think it's funny ~ clothes pegs aren't that interesting. I'm on my phone so can't link.

New toy has lots to learn. But I can take long exposure shots! Light painting here I come some time soon.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Just to give the links - 365 Project and Flickr - and this one went mad on Flickr.
 

---

Posted by daisydaisy (# 12167) on :
 
Quietly coming out of Lurk mode.
I am a point'n'shoot snapper, or would be if I could find a compact that I'm happy with since I drowned my previous Canon Ixus. In days gone by I've used Brownies (list in a move) and disposables, and have been delighted with the outcome. I tend to be more interested in composition than the technical side, because my poor brain gets confused when there are too many choices.
So while I wait to decide which compact to go for, I have tohe opportunity to become friends with my Canon EOS 1000D - I will soon be going on a trip for photographers to Norway where we're being given guidance on capturing the Northern Lights and wildlife.
I enjoy looking at the work of others, whether online, in books or at exhibitions, and working out what makes that picture stand out for me and how I can replicate the effect. But right now I don't get much opportunity to take many shots - my life right now isn't really geared up to taking even one each day. But when I do get the chance I go for it, although I only share a tiny fraction of what I take.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Nice shot AG.

I was looking to do some dramatic B&W shots on my new toy and using one of my new filters but so far not a cloud in the sky! Ah well, I'm sure I can use another filter for another purpose it is just that I remember from the 60s how good a red filter is with a cloudscape.

The fast autofocus of the new machine is still amazing me and also the versatility of that focus in keeping a fairly wide DoF at close quarters that don't necessitate one of the macro settings.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
Taken with a 1930s Box Brownie, hard to get more point and shoot than that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gray1720/11170106515/

---

Brilliant! Alice Day really seems to have taken off in recent years - I haven't been since the first one but if that's the sort of thing that's happening I'll make a point of going next year.

[ 12. January 2014, 04:13: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Pete and I generally start our morning walk at or just after dawn. Yesterday morning there was an amazing dawn with high clouds and amazing colours and all sorts and, guess what? Yup, I had no camera with me.

This morning I get camera ready, I separate the red filter out from the rest and put it in a filter case [note to self: buy a 6 pocket filter holder] - all before dawn. Pete and I set out and not a cloud in sight - everything just a high, clear blue. Yes it was beautiful but I wanted the same dramatic high cloud as yesterday.

I'm not sure if I'm mad at me for not taking the camera yesterday or mad at God for playing games with me this morning - I'm just mad about it!


 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I have been meaning to write a primer here for photography, to help those who might need it. But as I mused, I came to the conclusion the hosts might not appreciate such a lengthy post. And this is not necessarily the place for such a thing. So I registered an account, created a blog and wrote the beginnings.
I am adding the permalink so that any content added to the blog in future will not be reflected directly in this link.

Some Camera Basics.

ETA: it is very basic. Many of you will not need this information.

[ 15. January 2014, 06:10: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :
 
Ken - as someone else who bought a Pentax SLR to save money by using older Pentax lenses I had already - I hope you've checked the old lenses and found that they are compatible.

the dSLR I have needs the old lenses to have an "A" aperture setting, otherwise it can't cope because it wants to be swapping lots of information with the lens which isn't happening.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I checked - after I bought the camera!

Two of them have an A setting on the aperture ring.

The telephoto lens does not. I can use it on more or less fully manual setting - I have to set the ASA/ISO number manually, and focus manually. And of course aperture.

For taking pictures of birds and other animals I'd normally set the shutter speed manually anyway as the auto settings are far too slow. The other day auto was giving me 1/80 to 1/120 in sunshine, but for birds sitting still or walking slowly you'd want 1/250 - birds in flight need that as a minimum even if they are gliding slowly, 1/500 is better and 1/1000 even better - one of the main reasons that they are hard to photograph!

You also need to tell the camera to ignore focus priority. The default setting seems to be to refuse to take a picture if the auto focus hasn't worked - that makes sense for film but is a bit pointless for digital where there is very little downside to taking bad pictures. You just delete them.

And you need to manually input the focal length to use shake reduction

Is explained here: Using old lenses with Pentax DLSRs. (Which to me seems to make a big deal of manually stopping down, which isn't that difficult or important - or maybe it is if you are taking high-quality arty photos but I'm not, so a stop or two either way doesn't make that much difference - and of course for what I want to do increased depth of field is a good thing)

[ 15. January 2014, 15:49: Message edited by: ken ]
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Pete's rather elderly digital Olympus is finally giving up the ghost so he has asked me to seek a replacement for him, or to help him to find one. It is basically for snaps, no fuss and no frills so it looks like being a Panasonic Lumix DMC-S5 which I have found on offer here - it has a good spec and is reputed to have about the best image stabilisation of the possibilities. Once he makes up his mind I can put the order in and it should be here in 2 or 3 days!

Here is a link.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I had in mind Panasonic Lumix or Canon as what I wanted this time - because those were P&S cameras people were using to take good pictures on 365. The Panasonic version I was looking at has a Leica lens, which is worth looking for.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Panasonic have Leica lenses. And Leicas have Panasonic internals and a red dot. The red dot explains the price difference.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Duh ~ yeah time to step away from the keyboard until I've caught up with some sleep.

How hard is it to write one sentence withomt mistakes.

[ 17. January 2014, 07:43: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Pete's Panasonic arrived this morning - it is very cute and should be just right for him. The battery is currently charging then he can have a proper play with it this afternoon. Hopefully I'll get to play with it as well. It is unbelievably light - I'll put in on my postal scale later and see what it really weighs fully loaded with electrons. Of course the FREE 4 Gb card is only a Class 4 but I reckon that will do him as he doesn't seem interested in doing video.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Get him started on a 365?
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Too demanding - not everyone wants to have to post something every day.

(I'm a bit disenchanted with 365, though.)
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Oh ~I'll go off it again

I follow quite a few of the same people on Flickr too and prefer Flickr ~ less pressure to post every day and something taken on the day, better quality images. However that relentless competitiveness on 365 and the continual challenges are a way of being stretched and learning. I'm running a 365 alongside on Flickr in case I get disenchanted before December 31
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
The challenges are useful, but what I don’t find helpful is the way everybody is unfailingly even about lousy shots. It’s kind of them, but I don’t want just to be told the colours are beautiful, I also want to be told if the contrast is off and the horizon wobbly, etc. 365 hasn’t really helped me get any further: I’ve been stuck on a plateau for months and the only thing that’s improved is my knowledge of Photoshop, not photography.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I saw someone on 365 who aim seems to be to get away from Photoshop, etc. and I thought to myself that this is A Good Idea and try to create good photographs that might need a bit of a crop but trying to minimise processing, even though it can be fun. I'm still glad I have RAW capability and so on but I have turned it off for now. For myself I am playing with GIMP but wouldn't post that sort of thing [a] because I'm nowhere near competent at it yet; and [b] without saying what I'd done.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I do usually say if I've done much processing - too idle and not enough time most of the time. Two of the pictures that went mad had very little done to them - straighten, crop square for the peg, straighten and crop then selective colour for the glasses. The third one was so obviously processed to oblivion and I did say what I'd done.

Those Thames shots were just long exposure - and I did need to do some more work on them or some HDR.

The first time I was on 365 I got bullied for being misidentified as someone who'd been posting negative comments. But the person I like following me best is Jani - because he'll always suggest things if he thinks they'd improve it.

[ 29. January 2014, 17:55: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
RE: Photoshop, GIMP, etc.
Getting the best possible result in camera should always be the goal. Digital manipulation should not be there to "fix" problems as a general rule.
That said, RAW is very much part of a minimal processing workflow. The camera captures an image on the sensor, the RAW data. To make a JPEG, the camera software must then make decisions on what to keep and what to discard, colour saturation, white balance, sharpening, etc. In a RAW processing software, you make the decision. RAW is no more inherently manipulating the image than is letting the camera do so.

I shoot JPEG and RAW simultaneously, most times. My Canon cameras do a JPEG that is usable in many instances. My Sony produces over saturated, contrasty jpegs. If my subject is already vibrant, this results in something horrid.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
rant/
Photoshop is merely a digital darkroom. Being proud of SOOC* is not any different to being happy with a one-hour mini lab.
One has given over one of the steps to crafting an image. This is not inherently good or bad, but it is certainly no more pure.
/rant

Note: this is not directed at anyone here.

*ignorantly pretentious twaddle meaning Straight Out Of the Camera
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Getting the best possible result in camera should always be the goal. Digital manipulation should not be there to "fix" problems as a general rule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

I shoot JPEG and RAW simultaneously, most times.

---

Me too. The JPEGs so that I can look at them quickly and RAW for the ones I want to keep.


 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Still playing with new camera trying to work out best ways to take different kind of pictures. My first (well, second really) umbling attempt with macro lens is here www.tegenaria.org

Not that bad considering how out of practice I am and I was struggling with a rather large heavy lens and manual settings on a camera that wants to be auto.

The photo in thet blog is a link to Flickr. Which as others have said has gone very far downhill recently. I managed to link to it properly but I still haven't worked out how to get photos on Flickr to show up in Facebook posts. When I tried pasting in the URLs they supply in their "share" menu I got the link in tthe FB post OK but not a picture of the image. Not good. Same goes for going through the blog post. Which is odd because when I put other URLs in FB I do see an image of the web page. Hmmmm.

There is a "share" menu iotem for FB but it just asks mne to log in. Which I am reluctant to do as I am alerady liogged in - after all I posted the links a few seconds earlier - and I don't like the idea of telling Facebook my Flickr password (or vice versa)
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The links do exist, but it's pretty well hidden - FAQ
There's a comment there explaining why you can't link some things any more.

[ 30. January 2014, 18:09: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
For those in the market for a new camera. Canon have significantly reduced the price of their EOS M mirroless camera. It has an APS-C sensor. The same that is in their 650D dslr. Amazon link
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Thanks for the suggestions of what to photograph on a business park. I'm not too keen on abstracts but it's a possibility I haven't explored.

Meanwhile, there's a guy in Norway who, having been laid up for a year with a foot injury, spent his time perfecting the art of water crowns...
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Talking 365project: am I the only one that finds it odd that some days I can put up a photo I really like and get almost no feedback and other days when I'm in a hurry I put almost any old thing and the next morning there are loads of positive comments.

Either I have no aesthetic sense or they have - but I can't decide which!
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
oh the temptations on how to answer.
Seriously though, I think it is random.
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Three rolls of film souped tonight... They look better when developed in developer, but taste better in soup!

All a bit experimental - two rolls shot at the wrong speed, so processed in a speed-reducing developer, and also made up with warmer water than usual so developed at 24C instead of 20C... God, I'm so rock'n'roll!

AG
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
My water is never to spec (20C?) but I've made good use of the Massive Dev Chart, incarnated as an Android App, to good effect.

First proper use of laundry as darkroom this evening. Unfortunately warm and moist in there with minimal ventilation (must address that) but deep joy at two prints. (Last were 30+ years ago.)

(yeah, yeah: dinosaurs'R'us.)
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
My Nikon L23 pocket camera is finally and irrevocably deceased - well, it could probably be revived for more than the cost of replacing it with something more up to date. It's been a good camera and has taken thousands of pics.

I've been looking through the online vendors here and a few little cameras have caught my eye BUT I am off to The Big City tomorrow and a couple of places have, in the past, been highly competitive price-wise so am leaving online ordering until I see what is on offer. A Panasonic like Pete's appeals but there is also another Nikon and a little Fujifilm that I really like - at that end of the market they are all much of a muchness but the Fujifilm has an 8x optical zoom which might be the tipping point.

p.s. I don't know about you but I never use digital zoom, it's easier to crop later if necessary.

[ 05. February 2014, 14:03: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Yay!/Feck!/Yay!

Two rolls look pretty good (though now I have a new computer I'm completely lost by being able to run a version of Photoshop Elements released this century...), the third looks to have a really irrritating light leak or processing mark right up one side of almost the whole roll. Not impressed, especially as it was the newest (and highest spec) camera of all my film ones. Harrumph.

AG
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Hope it was a processing mark.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Nothing much in town to impress me today BUT I got home to find that the online people selling the Fujifilm have a one day 13% price reduction on all cameras so my fingers are itching. A second company is doing a very good deal on spare batteries for that model and a third company is offering silly prices for Class 10 memory cards. I think I will be placing 3 separate orders tonight.

[The camera is already 20% off so that is a total of just over 30% off.]


 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Orders placed, goods already paid for now it is a waiting game - they say the camera could take up to 12 days!



I want it NOW!
 

---

Posted by daisydaisy (# 12167) on :
 
I just learned something else my camera can do... show what the eye can't see. I also discovered that it bounces... on day 3 the winds were so strong that my tripod went flying - the tripod broke on the road that it fell on, but thankfully (oh so thankfully) the camera was OK. I realise that the focus could have been better, and that perhaps the sea shouldn't slope quite as much as it appears to, but I was delighted to learn how to capture this wonder.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Fab pictures, well done!
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
I am very jealous, daisydaisy!

It's got to be a processing mark, having thought about it, as it's light on the negative whereas a light leak would be dark. This doesn't mean it's not a PITA, but at least I don't need to tape the camera up with insulting tape.

AG
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Jealous as well, daisydaisy.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Great shots, daisydaisy! Probably a bit cool up there for me but what an amazing sight that must have been!
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
daisydaisy - those are gorgeous
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
My new compact has arrived!

The class 10 card and the spare battery aren't here yet but will probably be here this week.

Very sensibly the USB cord socket does not have a little rubber cover but is just hidden away on the bottom panel - I always find those little covers break off eventually, some sooner than others.

When it first arrived I couldn't get it to work but I had managed to put the battery in the wrong way round DUH!

So now I am the complete Fujifilm man with an HS50EXR and a little JZ100.
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
What projects have people come up with to work on?

I have on the slow-burner one about my neighbourhood - I grew up here, moved away, eventually moved back closer to family - of the places where things used to be.

I think one needs a project. But what?
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I'm currently playing a February challenge of a black and white bookclub - it's a Michael Freeman book looking at digital photography in black and white and trying to learn when it is used, the different ways of processing. This week we're looking at line, shape, form, texture, tone.

365 - take a picture a day - on the 365 project site you can find all sorts of additional challenges or projects. One of the guys I follow is deliberately documenting the back streets of his local town. I didn't realise how much of that I'd done the first time around until so much of it has gone this time.

Flickr - 100 bicycles, 100 strangers projects, Jani is doing 100 forks! Street Photography Now group with weekly challenges, 52 week challenges with themes for the week - currently avoiding most of them because I get so fed up with this week being all about lurve or hearts or some such naff Valentine's Day theme.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I am ambivalent towards projects. On the positive side, a project can pull one, force action when apathy or frustration strikes. 365 took me in directions I had not contemplated. But projects can also apply a pressure that negatively affects my desire to remove camera from bag.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I'm doing 365 again this year and also a local friend and I are planning something about the history of our local temple and I hope we can get on with that soon. it is one of the ancient ones in the area and was destroyed when Tipu Sultan invaded the area in 1792 and then subsequently rebuilt a bit smaller - and hopefully will be rebuilt again in the next decade back to its former magnificence.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am ambivalent towards projects. On the positive side, a project can pull one, force action when apathy or frustration strikes. 365 took me in directions I had not contemplated. But projects can also apply a pressure that negatively affects my desire to remove camera from bag.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
My Ace membership (of 365) expires on Monday. I don't know whether I want to renew it, but will need to make a decision over the weekend because I'll lose access to anything in the extra albums if I don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:
What projects have people come up with to work on?

I have on the slow-burner one about my neighbourhood - I grew up here, moved away, eventually moved back closer to family - of the places where things used to be.

I think one needs a project. But what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Obsessive? Who me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
Photography-related: a friend has some very old family photographs, now quite faded.

Are there any UK-based concerns that you know of who undertake to restore/enhance old photographs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Thanks Sandemaniac, that does make me feel quite a bit better.

Tell me, do you have a BIG house?

---

No, we rent a 1-bedroom flat. On the other hand, his cameras mean he can't complain about my books.
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Bloomin' cheek, dear. to you too!

Wodders - have a look here.

One or two have gone out and likewise one or two have come in, but there aren't that many - maybe ten - that I haven't put at least one film through.

AG
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
OK, I have been trying to film stuff on my Kodak Easyshare and my IPad Mini, and the results have been-- lackluster. Any recommendations of a good, cheap digital film camera? Or a camera will really good film capabilities? Particularly low light?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Whimper, make it go away ... 365 has just been updated to introduce all the worst features of the last few Flickr updates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How is pBase better than the rest?
And, how "social" is it?
The trend towards social on these sites is pushing me anti-social.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Successfully cancelled my Flickr account and will lose most of the photos from it come 10th of next month. Looked at pBase and am thinking about at least doing a trial month.

---

I've just renewed my pBase account and uploaded a few things to keep going. There isn't much on there but I'm here if anyone's interested. Let me know if you join and I'll add you to my favourites group.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Just wasted 10 minutes of my life looking through someone's gallery of paranormal photos. If you take very low-res photos, probably with your phone, and shoot into the sun, it's no surprise to anyone but yourself that there are green flares, the background is patchy and the "proof" is way too blurred to show anything at all. All it proves is that you can't use a camera properly.

Odd things can and do happen but really, if you're going to go ghost-hunting with a camera don't skimp, learn how to get the best photo you can under different lighting conditions.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Pain about the lens, Sandemaniac.

Following Flickr conversations amongst the dissatisfied, ipernity is being suggested for photosharing.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I see from this month's photographic press over here that the new Hasselblad H5D-50c, with 50MP CMOS sensor is going on sale for an equivalent of just over 25,000 UK pounds, that is something over $40,000US - and then you have to employ the staff to carry it and the equipment - but a gem of a bit of kit, or so I'd hope for that price!

If we do a bulk order do you think we'll get a discount?
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
...and now Fujifilm, of which I am a fan [no surprises there], have introduced this little beauty!

I know I don't want an interchangeable lens camera but it is lovely - if only they'd put that sensor in something like my HS50!
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Vast expense later and the G10 is back... sans strap! Which I'm a bit miffed by. Ho hum!

Anyway, we are off to Kew Gardens tomorrow to meet up with a bunch of people from the Amateur Photographer webforum (there are other forums than the Ship - amazing, isn't it?) so it will get a good test, as will the mother-out-law's macro lens, and hopefully I'll get some opportunities to play with Evil Edna the FrankenLeica and a truly weird box camera.

I know, I'm just an attention whore...

AG
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I haven't been to Kew in decades, hardly surprising as I live quite a long way away, but the Botanical Gardens at Peradeniya, near Kandy in Sri Lanka are a superb photo opportunity if anyone is ever out this way.

I'm hoping to pop over to Sri Lanka some time this year to see friends [less than an hour's flying time from here] and the idea of a trip to Peradeniya is an excellent one - thanks Sandemaniac.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Me again, sorry.

Does anyone have experience with Ring Flashes for Macro work? I'm thinking that if they are good I might indulge myself, again!
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Dennis Hopper Gets first London Show, 4 Years after his death.
I've seen his work before, should be worth a look.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Damn - Royal Academy - that means an arm and a leg to get in.

[ 25. June 2014, 06:30: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Yesterday I was dispatched to get some photos of the so far hottest day for a friend whose camera is complaining about the amount of use it has had, so I hied off to Gravesend, usually reported as the hottest place (only yesterday it wasn't) and took about 250 photographs, totally abandoning all pretence to having trained myself on a Box Brownie with 8 exposures.

I discovered a part of the place I had never been aware of before, down by the river, where all sorts and conditions of men, women and children were taking advantage of the weather.

There were pictures I was particularly pleased with - until I got them up on the computer. A group of elderly Sikhs at a picnic table, with an African/something couple on the next one, and some white people in the background. And a massive litter bin in the foreground which I had simply not seen. And a tree and a parking notice growing out of two Sikh heads.

Another Sikh taking time off from the Port of London office* flying a kite, with an icecream van sitting on his head.

I have dealt with them, though the bin has left a gap in the composition. I have two pictures from the kite one - the flyer, and the group of people round the van. But these are no longer honest photos.

I'm going to have to train myself better. It's not as if I don't know, when posing people, not to have posts growing from their heads.

*I asked him if it was OK after I had taken the piccie, and told him why, and he told me he was involved with recording the weather station data. Lucky. It meant I also got a good one of the office building with the Sun above it (and I didn't look at the Sun through the lens!) Pity yesterday was hottest up at Writtle - presumably the Agricultural College.

[ 04. July 2014, 16:42: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I have now filled the bin gap with a cloned seat - a vast amount of work, some of which should have been easier. Having to extract the seat from its background twice was a bit of a fiddle.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Has anyone else heard of Crowd Media? I have been asked to submit photos (from my Flickr account) and I don't know anything about it.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Yes, they approached me a few years ago and I was initially quite chuffed but then they set all sorts of fairly weird conditions on how the photos were to be submitted so I told them that if they wanted the photos I would submit them as is and they could reformat them to their style requirements themselves. I never heard from them again.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Reading a bit further they are offering to sell pictures to publishers, and keep half the fee. So I can understand why the style guide requirements. A couple of years ago I was asked if a book publisher could put one of my photographs forward as part of the shortlist for a new front cover for a Ruth Rendell re-edition and that had all sorts of conditions.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
So, peaceful or dynamic?

Whilst viewing images on a photography site, I came across an image both stunning and peaceful. It held my attention with no movement, no drawing of the eye to a particular spot.
I tend towards the dynamic in my tastes, but this one really captured me.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I think I tend more towards the peaceful end of things.

I am thinking of a series on Dilapidation as here in the tropics things can happen pretty fast, particularly at this time of year when ample* rainfall promotes massive plant growth.

*slight understatement there
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I've started on a Numbers Project - photographing numbers from 0 to 100, where they crop up. Preferably they should feature as part of a composition.

I hadn't intended to start with 0 but it was there on an office block's windows, and so large and shiny compared to the rest of the picture that I had to get it. I started yesterday and have got as far as 4 so far which isn't bad for a day's work. There was a really good 5 on someone's T-shirt yesterday, but I didn't really feel I could take a picture of someone's chest as she walked towards me.

It does make you think about things that come in series, and you start noticing numbers everywhere once you start doing this. I'm photographing them mostly in order and making a mental note of where to find numbers I'll want to use later. Also open to replacing some with better ones if they come along.

Well, it keeps me entertained. If anyone else wants to play, let me know. The single numbers should be easy enough, it'll be the later ones that will be the real challenge.

[ 30. July 2014, 11:14: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Someone I followed on 365 is doing the numbers thing - see here

Flickr surprises me - I really liked something I put up recently and it's done nothing, whereas things I don't like so much do well.
 

---

Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :
 
so, thanks to knocking my pan out at work, putting in extra hours etc I've earned myself a few "well done" vouchers for a well know online retailer named after a river.

I have 2 old, manual focus prime lenses which I try and use for portrait work, especially pictures of the kids.
28mm which goes up (down ?)to F2.0
50mm which goes to F2.8

(i may have the apertures the wrong way round, but you get the idea

but have been having issues recently with getting sharp images manually, either because I can't judge properly or can't keep up when they move slightly.
So I'm thinking of getting a replacement with AF, and have a choice of these two:

35mm F2.4
50mm F1.8

any thoughts ?
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
What size sensor has the camera you use? Portrait portrait or portrait or portrait pics of the kids doing what kids do?
 

---

Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :
 
By portrait I mean pictures of the kids doing what kids do, but using the big apertures to be able to both use faster shutter speeds, and blur out the background.
It's a Pentax K10D and I'm guessing you're asking about if it's a full size sensor(don't think so) , rather than how many megapixels
 

---

Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :
 
Like this, when it works
cute kid
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Nice pic, WK - over and above the usual family portrait by some way!

I think the K10D sensor is 1.5X crop factor, so your 35mm lens will be closer in coverage to a 50mm lens on 35mm film*, and the 50mm will be closer to 75mm. I think 80mm was the classic portrait lens length, so the 50mm looks good, and is a bit faster so you'll get better separation of subject and background with the aperture wide open, as you've done above.

Any help?

AG

*yes, all those mms are a PITA! Sorry...
 

---

Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :
 
Yes, a big help.
I had heard that in 'old fashioned' cameras a 50mm lens best represented what the eye naturally sees, which is why a 28 or a 35 on the 1.5x crop sensors looked good.
I hadn't heard of the old 80mm being the classic portrait length
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
I think it's because at 80mm you can stand just that bit further back and not be right in the subject's face. Either that, or because of all the old pros using 6x6 medium format cameras, where the default focal length is 80mm or so.

AG
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
50 mm on a full frame (35 mm) is the minimum to eliminate distortion associated with wider lenses. (Really it's something like 46m) So it is more flattering, generally.
Lenses with more telephoto also give a softer background for the same aperture. They also compress the background; objects in the background appear closer.

ETA: 80 because longer lenses were not as plentiful and because in the studio one can only back up so far.
If one has the working room, a fast 200mm makes fantastic portraits.

[ 02. August 2014, 15:54: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Now that the gorgeous puppy has arrived I've picked up my camera again and ordered a new 50mm lens.

Woohoo!
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I really love my non-SLR but very versatile Fujifilm, it's a great camera but now the two major players in SLRs here [Canon & Nikon] seem to be having a bit of a price war...

I don't need an SLR
I don't need an SLR
I don't need an SLR
I don't need an SLR
I don't need an SLR
I don't need an SLR
...
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I'd like an affordable 50-300 mm lens with stabilizer for my Canon DSLR. They are still ridiculous prices, though.
 

---

Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :
 
well, I took the plunge and ordered the 50mm f1.8 lens

I'll let you know how I get on, and hopefully there will be some well lit *and* in focus shots of the kids and other things soon
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0