|
|
Post by lymaze on Jun 7, 2009 9:39:23 GMT
I always fought against having a digital camera but now I have one I do think they're brilliant. It's nice not to waste money printing off dodgy photos. But on the other hand I do mourn the passing of the good old fashioned 35mm film. There's nothing like a photograph taken with one of those cameras. As for parrots, we have a huge flock down here South East London which go over my house every day.  |
|
|
|
Post by TheDaisy on Jun 7, 2009 10:14:36 GMT
Conversely to what Jezza says, I DO go through all my digi pictures and remove the blurry ones My eyesight being what it is, I need to have decent pictures, or I won't see a thing ;D
The only times I won't do that is when I've taken picture of things that I wouldn't ever be able to go back and try to take again - like the plasticine workshop. But when I go to take pictures of it tomorrow at the South Bank, I know I'll be able to return again and get better ones if necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyvern on Jun 7, 2009 10:59:33 GMT
Exactly, Daisy - I tend to photograph those one-off moments that won't come again.
Actually, MF's been joking about lending me an old twin reflex that takes 120 film(!), but it will be a swine to use, though I think I will enjoy the challenge.
The thing that brings home how useless a digital camera is to me on a day-to-day basis is my phone. The other night I specifically needed to take a couple of photos of an old Renault 4, and as the only camera I own is the one on my camera (which given my general lack of enthusiasm for photography is sufficient for my needs most of the time), I had to delete a handful of photos of my cat that I'd already downloaded to my laptop anyway!
Yes, apart from when I have something that I want a record of (like the Plasticine workshop), my phone gets filled with pictures of the cat. Merlin has been snapped so many times he thinks I'm Cecil B. Demille and I swear that Summer and Lightning have learned to pose in the few short weeks since my exams...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2009 12:58:49 GMT
Funnily enough I've just come in from taking pictures of the garden and of the cats. I have my special digital camera and my proper film taking camera.
I use my camera when I feel inclined eg when there is a special event, there's something beautiful, the cats are being silly, something important/one off and whenever I remember. I do like going through my pictures and my parents have huge albums of every picture we've had and they span 30 odd years. They even had cinefilm transferred to video so we could see their wedding and when our house was being built.
I admit digital has created a laziness because I don't print them off as frequently as I should do but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ulstermayniac on Jun 7, 2009 13:29:24 GMT
Aww, that's a lovely story!!
But, correct me if I am wrong, but the prints you make from a digital camera, they are not as good a quality as the film pictures, and I remember hearing somewhere on the telly that they don't last as long either. Certainly the ones I printed off in the Kodak machine in the town centre weren't all that special quality wise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyvern on Jun 7, 2009 14:25:02 GMT
Now that depends entirely on the camera, and how well the photographer understands the settings, and how high the image resolution is.  This was taken by me on my phone. The resolution isn't very high and the file is small, which means the quality isn't great.  This was also taken on a digital camera, but it was a proper SLR fitted with the appropriate lens and set for a long exposure in very low light. The original file was enormous, and I have an A1 print of this at home because it can be blown up to that size with no loss of quality. It was taken by a very talented photography student, and apart from some very minor touching up, has not been Photoshopped. |
|
|
|
Post by ulstermayniac on Jun 7, 2009 14:38:13 GMT
Well the second example seems 'richer' if that makes sense, seems to have more depth to it.
My digital camera is only 4megapixels and I know that isn't a lot, but that little camera has served me well and it is still going strong. I know all its settings well and the only thing that gets to me is that the maximum size of memory card it can take is 256mb, apart from that I wouldn't swap it for anything, I am quite attached to it. I would get another one eventually, but I am happy with it at the moment. I have had it for about 5 years or so I think.
|
|
Mystik
Filthy Mayhemer
55 MPGiesel
Posts: 776
|
Post by Mystik on Jun 7, 2009 15:11:26 GMT
Aww, that's a lovely story!! But, correct me if I am wrong, but the prints you make from a digital camera, they are not as good a quality as the film pictures, and I remember hearing somewhere on the telly that they don't last as long either. Certainly the ones I printed off in the Kodak machine in the town centre weren't all that special quality wise. Basically... traditional film - 35mm, 120mm, medium format, whatever has a resolution equivalent of around 24-30MP depending on grain (ie film made for 'bright light situations' is incredibly hard to reproduce compared to a 'standard situation' speed film) and also some are produced to use different chemicals and processes for developent, thus affecting the quality overall. My digital SLR won't match film at all (it's only 10MP but it is about 2 years old now). However, give it ... another 2 years perhaps, and there will be so many more digital SLRs with a 24MP+ sensor. Currently there are digital SLRs around (see the Nikon D3X) which do 24.5MP resolution on a full frame sensor - this matches film. The downside to this is that the body costs more than $10000 (over 5000 pounds). Then you get to the rest of the equipent (lenses, addons etc) and I don't even want to think about the insurance pricing etc. Keeping prints! Unfortunately, they will normally fade if not kept in a darkened place ie an album or out of direct light. As far as I know, and with my limited print knowledge, not much can be done about that, but perhaps try a different printer - there's a lot of variations between machines and what chemicals they use. Oh crap. I went all technically.  Sorry guys. |
|
|
|
Post by ulstermayniac on Jun 7, 2009 15:23:24 GMT
Oh no, don't apologise, I enjoy reading things like that, I love taking photos and learning about them, I enjoy reading things like that. With mine only being 4megap's the large size images may not print all that well. Also, when I transfer them to the PC, they are only ever 72dpi, is that standard? I usually work with 300dpi when I am in photoshop and anything I save is in 300dpi, don't know if that makes any difference though. |
|
|
|
Post by Wyvern on Jun 7, 2009 16:17:44 GMT
72dpi is the ideal resolution for the internet, because that's the maximum a CRT monitor was able to display. I have no idea if this is the case with modern flatscreen monitors. For onscreen-only stuff, this is historically the standard setting.
|
|
|
|
Post by ulstermayniac on Jun 7, 2009 16:22:56 GMT
Thanks. When I am making wallpapers and things, I use 300dpi, to try and make it as good a quality as I can. |
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Jun 7, 2009 16:25:18 GMT
I was thinking the other day how weird i am because with all this new technology people have photos of themselves all over the place apart from me.
If i am lucky there might be one took of me 10 years ago when i was 16.
If i ever go missing the police will have to do a artist impression of me.
|
|
|
|
Post by ulstermayniac on Jun 7, 2009 16:40:15 GMT
I hate having my photo taken too, there aren't that many photos of me in the family. A few from various times in my life but not that many.
|
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Jun 7, 2009 16:49:03 GMT
I hate having my photo taken too, there aren't that many photos of me in the family. A few from various times in my life but not that many. Its not that i hate it its just we are not happy snappers in my family and there has been no need for me to have any pics taken lately. |
|
|
|
Post by ulstermayniac on Jun 7, 2009 16:53:21 GMT
Things like that happen a lot. |
|
Mystik
Filthy Mayhemer
55 MPGiesel
Posts: 776
|
Post by Mystik on Jun 7, 2009 23:35:18 GMT
There's a lot of technical stuff going on in a thread about Jeremy's column! *pets poor Overtaken Column* There there...  ;D Perhaps a Technical Corner thread is in order for the General section? Or is there one already, I don't know. Perhaps I should look... |
|
|
|
Post by ulstermayniac on Jun 7, 2009 23:44:41 GMT
I think there is a techie software type thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2009 10:51:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by vanderdb9 on Jun 13, 2009 22:24:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ulstermayniac on Jun 14, 2009 1:56:17 GMT
Best line from the comment column, "Oh no, I just shoved this anarchy flag through my water lilo." LOL!!  |
|
|
|
Post by lymaze on Jun 20, 2009 22:03:06 GMT
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article6543118.eceI'm turning into Jezza when it comes to jeans.  I wear them to work now, I wear them virtually everywhere. I even asked if I could wear them to a post-wedding do a few weeks ago but was made to feel it wouldn't be acceptable. It is nice to dress up mind once in a while and I'm worried it's down to laziness on my part now rather than anything else. I like the fact he would be happy to allow me to be a vegetabalist if he ever was foolish enough to invite me to his house. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by vanderdb9 on Jun 20, 2009 22:05:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ulstermayniac on Jun 20, 2009 22:07:41 GMT
Ly - I know what you mean. Jeremy said once before that it was OK to be a vegetablist if you don't like the thast of meat. Nice that he approves. |
|
|
|
Post by ulstermayniac on Jun 20, 2009 22:27:31 GMT
Great reads, as ever, thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Wyvern on Jun 20, 2009 22:58:06 GMT
I totally get where Jeremy is coming from on the issue of dress code, but part of me misses the days when people used to dress for different occasions. I often feel a bit overdressed these days, but I don't feel comfortable if I don't 'make an effort'. Then again, I'd hate to be forced to dress a certain way, and I love my jeans and shirts. I'm really glad he liked the Z4 though - I don't normally appreciate BMWs, but I've always had a soft spot for them |
|
|
|
Post by ulstermayniac on Jun 20, 2009 23:33:58 GMT
You dress/live in whatever makes you feel most comfortable. I am the total opposite, if someone told me I had to 'dress up' or 'get ready' to go out, I would feel like I was in hell!
|
|
24octane
Smutty Mayhemer
"It's all in the mind, y'know."
Posts: 147
|
Post by 24octane on Jun 21, 2009 4:38:14 GMT
I loved this line re: the fashion article.... "And that, no, despite the strong smell of chlorine and the fact it was only 6in long, it had most definitely not been in a swimming pool."That gave me happy little thoughts about a certain scene from a Top Gear episode (S6/E3) involving a tall bloke, a 70s era Rolls-Royce, a nice-looking suit, and a pool. It makes me smile just typing that. Now I need to find the clip of that on the TG website to watch over and over again, and I'll go to sleep tonight a very happy Octane. |
|
|
|
Post by ulstermayniac on Jun 21, 2009 13:22:16 GMT
That was a fab episode. I love the bit when he says "What's that bloke doing with a pair of scissors? We don't need those!"
|
|
|
|
Post by ulstermayniac on Jun 27, 2009 20:20:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lymaze on Jun 27, 2009 21:49:41 GMT
|
|
Sorry guys.
;D
I wear them to work now, I wear them virtually everywhere. I even asked if I could wear them to a post-wedding do a few weeks ago but was made to feel it wouldn't be acceptable. It is nice to dress up mind once in a while and I'm worried it's down to laziness on my part now rather than anything else. I like the fact he would be happy to allow me to be a vegetabalist if he ever was foolish enough to invite me to his house. ;D
