Storage of photos whilst travelling?

Jeremy Henderson writes:

Before you leave the church/firework display/whatever?

Before you take a flight. The only real danger to film is from x-ray
scanners. You can safely assume that any film exposed will produce
pictures.

And suppose you use prepaid mailers?

In a foreign country?

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

On 14/11/03 9:04 pm, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Jeremy Henderson writes:

Before you leave the church/firework display/whatever?

Before you take a flight. The only real danger to film is from x-ray
scanners. You can safely assume that any film exposed will produce
pictures.

The danger I'm talking about is that you didn't expose the scene correctly
at the time - something that is easily checked with a digital, and
impossible with film.

And suppose you use prepaid mailers?

In a foreign country?

Exactly my point - if you buy prepaid film you don't have the option of
processing it abroad without paying extra.

J.

http://www.xs-drive.com/



"JB" a écrit dans le message de
8.49
"Runge" wrote in news:bp0inq$u17$1@news-
reader4.wanadoo.fr:

X's-Drive

They look cool. Is anyone selling them in the U.S.?

Terryo wrote:


I have withheld buying a digital camera for this very reason (and some
others). But now I see there are devices on the market that you can
use to download and store images; they are essentially portable,
hand-held hard drives, and I think they have up to 2 gigabyte
capacity. Of course, it's one more thing to pack and take with you,
but it seems a reasonable solution.

Certainly much more reasonable than lugging a laptop around with you,
which has been a common solution until now.

Now, if you have other reasons for taking your laptop along, fine, but
just to keep pictures on ...?

On 14 Nov 2003 00:27:05 -0800, (Jeremy) wrote:

Film has its own problems for travel photography - how can you be sure
that you got a shot of that once-in-a-lifetime visit? Did your
pictures inside the church come out, or was it too dark? Is there any
point taking pictures of that firework display? No way to know until
you get your film processed ...


Oh, but when you get all those envelopes full of prints back it's sort
of like Christmas, all anticipation to see what you really ended up
with!

Jeremy Henderson writes:

The danger I'm talking about is that you didn't expose the scene correctly
at the time - something that is easily checked with a digital, and
impossible with film.

If you have even a modicum of familiarity with the principles of
photography and a decent camera, you'll get correct exposure.
Additionally, some consumer films, such as Kodak Max, have such a wide
latitude that you can expose almost randomly and still get usable
images.

Furthermore, for a typical traveler's budget, you can get a better film
camera than digital camera. A better camera will have more accurate and
adjustable exposure controls. Digital (or film) is no good if the
camera refuses to expose correctly and you can't do anything about it,
which is the case for most point-and-shoot cameras. Sure, digital will
let you see the mistake, but you still won't be able to get correct
exposure. A more evolved SLR will allow you to get the right exposure,
but the price of such an SLR with digital capture will be easily five to
ten times higher than that of a film SLR.

Exactly my point - if you buy prepaid film you don't have the option of
processing it abroad without paying extra.

Apart from Kodachrome, who ever buys prepaid film these days?

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jeremy Henderson writes:
The danger I'm talking about is that you didn't expose the scene correctly
at the time - something that is easily checked with a digital, and
impossible with film.

If you have even a modicum of familiarity with the principles of
photography and a decent camera, you'll get correct exposure.

I had an SLR that developed a slightly sticky shutter midway into the first
roll of film on a long trip. When I got back and developed my film, the left
two-thirds of every photo was overexposed.

Furthermore, for a typical traveler's budget, you can get a better film
camera than digital camera. A better camera will have more accurate and
adjustable exposure controls. Digital (or film) is no good if the
camera refuses to expose correctly and you can't do anything about it,
which is the case for most point-and-shoot cameras. Sure, digital will
let you see the mistake, but you still won't be able to get correct
exposure. A more evolved SLR will allow you to get the right exposure,
but the price of such an SLR with digital capture will be easily five to
ten times higher than that of a film SLR.

It doesn't cost that much these days to get a digital with manual exposure
controls.

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

On 15/11/03 1:44 am, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Jeremy Henderson writes:

The danger I'm talking about is that you didn't expose the scene correctly
at the time - something that is easily checked with a digital, and
impossible with film.

If you have even a modicum of familiarity with the principles of
photography and a decent camera, you'll get correct exposure.
Additionally, some consumer films, such as Kodak Max, have such a wide
latitude that you can expose almost randomly and still get usable
images.

If you're in a dubious light situation such that you need to bracket your
film exposures, you will waste a lot of time and a lot of film relative to
digital. Also, if you're relatively inexperienced, the instant feedback you
get from digital will allow you to learn what works and what doesn't - what
to look out for in the next church you visit, what light situations look
spectacular and which ones come out disappointing.

Not to mention the eternal worry for the inexperienced photographer of not
being sure they loaded the film properly (or at all :-).

Furthermore, for a typical traveler's budget, you can get a better film
camera than digital camera. A better camera will have more accurate and
adjustable exposure controls. Digital (or film) is no good if the
camera refuses to expose correctly and you can't do anything about it,
which is the case for most point-and-shoot cameras. Sure, digital will
let you see the mistake, but you still won't be able to get correct
exposure. A more evolved SLR will allow you to get the right exposure,
but the price of such an SLR with digital capture will be easily five to
ten times higher than that of a film SLR.

You don't need a digital SLR to have exposure control. A much cheaper model
will provide all the control you need.

Exactly my point - if you buy prepaid film you don't have the option of
processing it abroad without paying extra.

Apart from Kodachrome, who ever buys prepaid film these days?

Err .. Fujichrome users?

J

Jeremy Henderson writes:

If you're in a dubious light situation such that you need to bracket your
film exposures, you will waste a lot of time and a lot of film relative to
digital.

You can waste a lot of time with digital in such situations, too, since
what you see on the LCD is not necessarily what you'll get in the final
image.

You don't need a digital SLR to have exposure control. A much cheaper model
will provide all the control you need.

If you wade through ten menus to obtain it, yes. That is difficult to
do quickly.

Err .. Fujichrome users?

I've never seen prepaid Fujichrome. Where have you encountered it?

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

Carole Allen writes:

Oh, but when you get all those envelopes full of prints back it's sort
of like Christmas, all anticipation to see what you really ended up
with!

You can have film developed abroad. It's easier to find photo labs than
it is to find Internet cafés, in most locations.

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