Storage of photos whilst travelling?

On 19/11/03 12:37 pm, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Jeremy Henderson writes:

Obviously a gross over-simplification. For most uses there
is no significant loss of resolution in using a digital camera.

I have discovered the hard way that it's best to get the highest
possible resolution when you initially press the shutter, because you
can't go back and increase it later on. I've had too many shots that
were unusable later on simply because I didn't have enough resolution to
allow for the intended use. That's one reason why I shoot film, and
that's also why I shoot an increasing amount of medium-format film.

That's a long way from your blanket statement that film has higher
resolution than digital. A film camera does not inherently have higher
resolution than digital (though many may), and nor does an image made via
film necessarily have a higher resolution than one made via digital.

What is also self evident is that there is not a minimum resolution that is
required for landscape photography.

And finally, if I accept the hypothesis that I should record images with the
maximum possible resolution, the subject matter will ultimately suffer since
it's hard to struggle far from your car with view camera and tripod.

J.

On 19/11/03 12:39 pm, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Jeremy writes:

A smaller undertaking is to keep your photos on a hard disk that you
back up to DVD every so often :-)

When you get into the hundreds of gigabytes, this becomes impractical as
well.

True, but I'm not into the hundreds of gigabytes, so it serves my purpose
fine.

And it's still a lot easier than copying slides for fear of fire, theft,
accident etc.

J.

Following up to Jeremy Henderson

And finally, if I accept the hypothesis that I should record images with the
maximum possible resolution, the subject matter will ultimately suffer since
it's hard to struggle far from your car with view camera and tripod.

That is true, but I cannot resist mentioning Shiro Shirahata who
carried his Linhof Super Technica 4 x 5 across the Himalaya, with
er, 50 to 60 porters :-)
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale, Thames path, London, landscapes "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On 19/11/03 7:47 pm, in article ,
"Reid" wrote:

Following up to Jeremy Henderson

And finally, if I accept the hypothesis that I should record images with the
maximum possible resolution, the subject matter will ultimately suffer since
it's hard to struggle far from your car with view camera and tripod.

That is true, but I cannot resist mentioning Shiro Shirahata who
carried his Linhof Super Technica 4 x 5 across the Himalaya, with
er, 50 to 60 porters :-)

Yes - his book of the Alps graces my coffee table and serves as a constant
reminder of what is possible :-)

J.

Jeremy Henderson writes:

That's a long way from your blanket statement that film has higher
resolution than digital.

The blanket statement remains essentially correct.

And finally, if I accept the hypothesis that I should record images with the
maximum possible resolution, the subject matter will ultimately suffer since
it's hard to struggle far from your car with view camera and tripod.

There are practical limitations ... if there were not, I'd be shooting
everything in large format.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Jeremy Henderson writes:

Yes - his book of the Alps graces my coffee table and serves as a constant
reminder of what is possible :-)

Think how much would have been lost if he had used a digital camera.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On 20/11/03 12:33 am, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Jeremy Henderson writes:

Yes - his book of the Alps graces my coffee table and serves as a constant
reminder of what is possible :-)

Think how much would have been lost if he had used a digital camera.

Or if he hadn't had his porters to carry his kit.

Or are you now telling us that a team of servants is essential for landscape
photography?

J.

On 20/11/03 12:33 am, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Jeremy Henderson writes:

That's a long way from your blanket statement that film has higher
resolution than digital.

The blanket statement remains essentially correct.

Can you supply some evidence to support it? Have you done detailed
comparisons of the resolution of real photos obtained via the two routes?

And finally, if I accept the hypothesis that I should record images with the
maximum possible resolution, the subject matter will ultimately suffer since
it's hard to struggle far from your car with view camera and tripod.

There are practical limitations ... if there were not, I'd be shooting
everything in large format.

Wouldn't we all, with teams of specialists to whip the film from our cameras
and deliver framed prints at poster size. However, on this planet of
compromises many people find digital an acceptable solution.

J.

Following up to Tim Challenger

True. A minus if you're into wide angle landscapes (which you are) but a
bonus if you're a birdwathcher or a peeping-tom. ;-)

In the context of travel, wide angles are far more commonly used than
narrow angles.

Maybe, maybe not.
I tend to use the tele end of the zoom I take on holiday with me. It
depends on your interests and style.

Yes, but I think we should assess the pros and cons objectively,
until reasonable priced digitals give the results the lenses were
designed for, that's a minus.
For me, as I often take my photos in "bad" weather in fairly
remote locations, the lens problem + need for lots of batteries +
vulnerability to water(?) make digital a non starter for the
moment.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale, Thames path, London, landscapes "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Jeremy Henderson writes:

Or are you now telling us that a team of servants is essential for landscape
photography?

I'm saying that once-in-a-lifetime shoots tend to justify the highest
possible image quality, since you can't go back and reshoot if the
result isn't of sufficient quality.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.