Storage of photos whilst travelling?

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
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.

And to what lengths should we pursue that? Shall I mortgage my house
and buy a better camera next time I go on holiday just so as to be
sure of getting the best possible shot of Auntie Ethel eating an ice
cream in Benidorm?

Or does common sense intrude at some point?

J.

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
Jeremy Henderson writes:

Can you supply some evidence to support it?

Sure. See

http://www.mxsmanic.com/VelviaScan.jpg
http://www.mxsmanic.com/stairs.jpg
http://www.mxsmanic.com/salute.jpg
http://www.mxsmanic.com/artists.jpg

Just a few examples.

Just a few examples of images produced using unstated means - how does
that support your general statement?

Have you done detailed comparisons of the resolution of real
photos obtained via the two routes?

Yes.

Then feel free to share your results with us. You can compare your
methods and results with those found on
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/f...digital.1.html, which
suggest to me that whereas many types of film exceed the resolution of
most digital cameras, here are nevertheless a good many cameras, even
of the sort used by the non-specialist such as myself, that are
capable of higher resolution than that provided by many popular films.

Wouldn't we all, with teams of specialists to whip the film
from our cameras and deliver framed prints at poster size.

No, we wouldn't. Many of us care little about image quality.

However, on this planet of compromises many people find
digital an acceptable solution.

I don't. I may someday, if the technology continues to improve.

That's your decision, appropriate to your needs and circumstances, but
it may not be everybody else's

As
long as film gives better results, I'll stay with film--especially since
it is cheaper as well.

There ya go again - more generalisations. Film =may= give better
results given a certain combination of equipment and conditions. Then
again it may not. For some users film may be cheaper, for others
digital may be cheaper.

J.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jeremy Henderson writes:
Can you supply some evidence to support it?

Sure. See

http://www.mxsmanic.com/VelviaScan.jpg

It's not clear to me what this 2.1-megapixel image proves about the
resolution advantages of film vs digital. Except perhaps if you'd like to
reconvene this discussion in 1994.

I don't. I may someday, if the technology continues to improve. As
long as film gives better results, I'll stay with film--especially since
it is cheaper as well.

Numbers?

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

Jeremy writes:

And to what lengths should we pursue that? Shall I mortgage my house
and buy a better camera next time I go on holiday just so as to be
sure of getting the best possible shot of Auntie Ethel eating an ice
cream in Benidorm?

Film cameras cost _less_ than digital cameras, not more. In fact, even
a medium-format outfit costs less than a digital camera, and the quality
is many times higher.

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

Jeremy writes:

Just a few examples of images produced using unstated means - how does
that support your general statement?

They are all film, and they are all of very high quality.

Then feel free to share your results with us.

As a general rule, film wins. That's the main reason why so many
photographers still shoot it.

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

Miguel Cruz writes:

Numbers?

Quality equal to or better than film, at a price that is equal to or
less than film, with no loss of functionality or ergonomy, and no loss
of existing investments in lenses. There are a few other minor criteria
as well.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jeremy writes:
Just a few examples of images produced using unstated means - how does
that support your general statement?

They are all film, and they are all of very high quality.

This is pretty weak coming from someone who claims to value logic.

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

Mxsmanic wrote:
Miguel Cruz writes:
Numbers?

Quality equal to or better than film, at a price that is equal to or
less than film, with no loss of functionality or ergonomy, and no loss
of existing investments in lenses. There are a few other minor criteria
as well.

This only adds up if:

(A) We have your posited casual photographer who takes a couple rolls of
film a year, and

(B) He buys really expensive equipment.

I think this intersection is a pretty small segment of the problem space.

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
Jeremy writes:

And to what lengths should we pursue that? Shall I mortgage my house
and buy a better camera next time I go on holiday just so as to be
sure of getting the best possible shot of Auntie Ethel eating an ice
cream in Benidorm?

Film cameras cost _less_ than digital cameras, not more. In fact, even
a medium-format outfit costs less than a digital camera, and the quality
is many times higher.

You've snipped the context. You stated that "once-in-a-lifetime shoots
tend to justify the highest possible image quality". My point is that
there are generally other concerns than potential image quality,
otherwise we'd all be using enormously expensive equipment backed up
by teams of porters etc. to accompany us on our once-in-a-lifetime
trips. The balance of these factors leads many people to choose
digital.

J.

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
Jeremy writes:

And to what lengths should we pursue that? Shall I mortgage my house
and buy a better camera next time I go on holiday just so as to be
sure of getting the best possible shot of Auntie Ethel eating an ice
cream in Benidorm?

Film cameras cost _less_ than digital cameras, not more. In fact, even
a medium-format outfit costs less than a digital camera, and the quality
is many times higher.

You've snipped the context. You stated that "once-in-a-lifetime shoots
tend to justify the highest possible image quality". My point is that
there are generally other concerns than potential image quality,
otherwise we'd all be using enormously expensive equipment backed up
by teams of porters etc. to accompany us on our once-in-a-lifetime
trips. The balance of these factors leads many people to choose
digital.

J.