Storage of photos whilst travelling?

Miguel Cruz writes:

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

I don't see any point in trying to prove to others that film provides
higher image quality. They can do what they want. Indeed, if they
shoot very poor quality images, that makes mine more valuable.

I've have a lot of clients who come to Paris and shoot digitally lately.
I've seen the results. They aren't always happy with what they get. I
even took one client with a nice camera to the same spot, at the same
hour, where I shot a nighttime shot of Notre-Dame, and even with a
tripod she still got a picture that she found unsatisfactory compared to
mine. My own digital shots are always disappointing next to the film
shots, too.

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

Miguel Cruz writes:

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.

Right now, most digital cameras are being purchased by people exactly
like this. They take relatively few pictures, and they are buying
really expensive cameras.

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

Following up to Jeremy

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

No, thats why many are still with film, the large expense of a
full quality digital replacement body.

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?

Part of this argument comes from differing objectives. *My*
objective when travelling is only to take photos that I
immodestly think might be in some degree original, interesting or
unusually attractive or I need a copyright free shot for my
website.
My guidebooks have perfectly good pictures of the sights or I can
look on the web or buy a postcard.
--
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

Following up to Miguel Cruz

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.

Its one i'm in then! How do I justify an expensive body purchase
to get the same or possibly inferior results? (There are not
inexpensive full frame bodies yet).
--
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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Miguel Cruz writes:
This is pretty weak coming from someone who claims to value logic.

I don't see any point in trying to prove to others that film provides
higher image quality.

Then why, when Jeremy asked you to do so, did you say "Sure, see:" followed
by URLs of some photos presumably scanned from film?

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

Following up to Jeremy

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.

IMO one in a lifetime photos don't happen on once in a lifetime
trips. For what its worth.
--
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

Miguel Cruz writes:

Then why, when Jeremy asked you to do so, did you say
"Sure, see:" followed by URLs of some photos presumably
scanned from film?

So that others can judge for themselves.

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

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
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.

Indeed, but that particular observation doesn't prove your blanket
statement that "film is higher resolution than digital", does it? In
order to prove your case you would have to compare different films
with digital, which you haven't done.

On the other hand, I have provided a reference to a comparison that
suggests that in many plausible situations film has lower resolution
than digital.

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.

More arm-waving. When you have something to say other than "general
rules" and blanket statements unsupported by anything resembling
proof, then please post again.

J.

In rec.travel.europe Jeremy wrote:

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

More arm-waving. When you have something to say other than "general
rules" and blanket statements unsupported by anything resembling
proof, then please post again.

There is a great variety of possible resolutions with film. The difference
between 1600 print film and 25 Slide film is going to be enormous. The same
can be said for the digital cameras. I have both a film camera and a
5 megapixel digital. Both are capable of taking pictures that I can reliably
have blown up to poster size. Both are also capable of making grainy images
that can't be blown up to 8 by 10. It's more in the use of it, and the sit-
uation.

I still like having both options, though in casual situations (like family
parties and such), I prefer to use the digital camera. Travelling, which is
what this forum is about, I like the film camera, but that is my personal
preference; my husband likes the digital, which keeps great peace in our home)

;-D

Julie
--
Julie
**********
Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at
http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm

Jeremy writes:

Indeed, but that particular observation doesn't prove your blanket
statement that "film is higher resolution than digital", does it?

No. Some things are self-evident.

In order to prove your case you would have to compare different films
with digital, which you haven't done.

I'm not out to prove anything. Others can decide for themselves. They
can look at the photos I've posted if they want to see good examples of
film (albeit not at full resolution).

On the other hand, I have provided a reference to a comparison that
suggests that in many plausible situations film has lower resolution
than digital.

I expect people to decide for themselves, and not just on the basis of a
Web page. Then again, some people believe whatever a salesperson tells
them, so perhaps I'm giving the average person too much credit.

More arm-waving. When you have something to say other than "general
rules" and blanket statements unsupported by anything resembling
proof, then please post again.

What reasons do you think there are for shooting film, if not image
quality?

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