Storage of photos whilst travelling?

Following up to bigbrian

As far as cost is concerned its a total no brainer.

only at the low quality end. Full frame SLRs are still
prohibitively expensive
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
UK walking & photos "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

Reid wrote in message . ..
Following up to Jeremy Henderson


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.

this is an advantage of digital, for me it doesn't outweigh the
lack of quality and the storage problem. When full frame SLR type
bodies are available at an affordable price I will consider
digital. For now, scanned slides give me a non magnetic
technology based back up and a quality image.

From my point of view the deciding factor was the difficulty of
storing and retrieving slides that I wanted to view, and sharing them
with family. Scanned slides did not prove satisfactory, even when
using a high quality ("pro") lab, instead of Boots.

I'm not convinced by the "lack of quality" argument when using a
camera with lots of megapixels, and I feel that as long as one
transcibes the files to a new medium from time to time (normal
practice) the longevity won't be a serious issue - they'll last long
enough for me to show my grandkids.

I accept that other people weigh the factors differently - I'm just
saying why I came to the conclusion I did :-)

J.

Following up to Jeremy


From my point of view the deciding factor was the difficulty of
storing and retrieving slides that I wanted to view, and sharing them
with family. Scanned slides did not prove satisfactory, even when
using a high quality ("pro") lab, instead of Boots.

I have only got good quality scans by doing them myself. A modest
scanner Minolta Dimage Dual Scan and good software (the bundled
stuff is rubbish) I use Vuescan. Photoshop or the cheaper but
usable Paintshop to crop and edit the photos. I now normally view
the scanned slides on the PC[1] as JPEGs but I have the original
TIFFS (30,000KB each) as backup or for prints as well as the
slides and when and if PC screen quality etc improves I can
rescan at higher resolution or just make new JPEGs.
This isnt the quickest or easiest approach but I find it gives me
electronic darkroom control over my pictures and a print quality
"master".


1] you can set up slide shows with apropriate software.
--
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 Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:49:28 +0000, Reid wrote:

Following up to Jeremy Henderson


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.

this is an advantage of digital, for me it doesn't outweigh the
lack of quality and the storage problem. When full frame SLR type
bodies are available at an affordable price I will consider
digital. For now, scanned slides give me a non magnetic
technology based back up and a quality image.

I had the same attitude, a 35mm die-hard.
I recently had some family photos taken professionally. The photographer
used a Canon SLR and IIRC a Polaroid 5 Megapixel back. The resulting print
(around 30cm x 20cm ish) was superb.
It was then that I realised that the quality of digital cameras has
improved a lot since I last looked. After borrowing a few digital cameras
from friends I was pleasantly surprised with the results - at least
on-screen.

--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:38:13 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Most people shoot only about one or two dozen
photos _per year_.

maybe because it costs so much to get them printed, and because it takes so
ling to see the results? That's how I feel sometimes.
--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:55:49 +0000, Reid wrote:

Following up to Mxsmanic

There are still a lot of problems with digital photography for travel.
That's why I still suggest shooting film.

the problem is wider than travel, how do you secure your images
without large backup procedures, home burned CDs have a limited
life. Hard disks crash. Systems change.

Film gets over x-rayed or over heated/humidified on travels. Paper prints
fade. Negatives get scratched and can be attacked by moulds.
Both media have pros and cons.

--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

.... and the most popular type of camera is the disposable film camera.
One would have thought so.
Throw it away and get a new one. Do that twice and you've already out-sold
the SLR market.

--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:24:24 GMT, in
rec.travel.europe,rec.travel.budget.backpack you wrote:

JB wrote:
.....How long will it take to upload 128, 256 or 512 MB of data? Too long.

..... you're going to have enough bandwidth
to upload a 1-megabyte file in about 20 or 30 seconds. Granted, that still
adds up ...

You're not wrong there. 512MB at 1MB/20sec = 170 minutes.
The online time in a Malasian internet-cafe may be cheap, but think of the
beers you'll have to pay for while waiting for all that to upload.


--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

Tim Challenger writes:

maybe because it costs so much to get them printed,
and because it takes so ling to see the results?

No. Mainly because they don't have that much worth photographing, and
they are not interested in photography for its own sake.

Digital cameras end up the same way, after a brief honeymoon period
during which new owners will take pictures of anything and everything.

This being so, most people cannot justify a digital camera on the basis
of savings in film and development.

That's how I feel sometimes.

You may live in a small town. I can get film developed and printed here
in an hour, seven days a week, from 8 AM to midnight.

Besides, anyone who wants prints is going to wait just as long and pay
nearly as much with a digital camera as he would with film.

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

Following up to Tim Challenger

I had the same attitude, a 35mm die-hard.
I recently had some family photos taken professionally. The photographer
used a Canon SLR and IIRC a Polaroid 5 Megapixel back. The resulting print
(around 30cm x 20cm ish) was superb.
It was then that I realised that the quality of digital cameras has
improved a lot since I last looked. After borrowing a few digital cameras
from friends I was pleasantly surprised with the results - at least
on-screen.

Yes, they can be good and they can be affordable. I take
landscapes and I like to take wide angle up to 17mm. If I buy a
half frame camera that turns my 17mm into a 34mm, which for me is
completely useless. so until I can get a full frame at a sensible
price I have no option but film.
--
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