A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Europe
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Film really is dead, especially for travel



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 25th, 2009, 10:33 AM posted to rec.travel.europe
William Black
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,125
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel


"poldy" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"William Black" wrote:

One limitation is dynamic range, which you can see if you try to
photograph the interior of a cathedral or church where the interiors
are
mostly lit by daylight coming in through the windows.


That's a function of 'film speed'.

Modern digital cameras can adjust to provide the illusion of different
film
speeds.


Right, but the higher ISO settings yield more noisy images.


They do with film as well...

Well, not 'noise' but you know what I mean...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

  #22  
Old February 25th, 2009, 11:08 AM posted to rec.travel.europe
William Black
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,125
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel


"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:03:45 +0530, "William Black"
wrote:


"poldy" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"William Black" wrote:

One limitation is dynamic range, which you can see if you try to
photograph the interior of a cathedral or church where the interiors
are
mostly lit by daylight coming in through the windows.

That's a function of 'film speed'.

Modern digital cameras can adjust to provide the illusion of different
film
speeds.

Right, but the higher ISO settings yield more noisy images.


They do with film as well...

Well, not 'noise' but you know what I mean...


Grainy?


Yep.

People crank up their digital SLR to 600 ASA and complain about noise.

Have they ever looked at a 600 ASA photograph taken on film?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

  #23  
Old February 25th, 2009, 11:17 AM posted to rec.travel.europe
Mike Lane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 256
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:17:24 +0000, poldy wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

poldy writes:

I don't recall film being that bad but then again, a couple of decades
ago, you used to be able to set up tripods and take long exposures
almost everywhere. These days, tripods are not only frowned upon in
interiors but in exterior public spaces as well in many European cities.


Digital does not eliminate the need for tripods.


Never implied that it did.

But I see people taking pictures in the dark or trying to use flash in a
big space like Notre Dame. Their results won't be any good but they
think they got something they'll be able to keep.


Last year I spend a few days in some rooms overlooking the main harbour on
Mykonos. Every evening for several hours after dark the entire water-front
was lit up by the continuous flickering of photographic flash lights. I can't
imagine what pictures they were all taking - mainly each other I suppose.
(Here's another one of me looking stupid somewhere or other with a drink in
my hand!)

--
Mike Lane
UK North Yorkshire

  #24  
Old February 25th, 2009, 12:16 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
William Black
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,125
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel


"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:38:34 +0530, "William Black"
wrote:


"Martin" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:03:45 +0530, "William Black"
wrote:


"poldy" wrote in message
news In article ,
"William Black" wrote:

One limitation is dynamic range, which you can see if you try to
photograph the interior of a cathedral or church where the
interiors
are
mostly lit by daylight coming in through the windows.

That's a function of 'film speed'.

Modern digital cameras can adjust to provide the illusion of
different
film
speeds.

Right, but the higher ISO settings yield more noisy images.

They do with film as well...

Well, not 'noise' but you know what I mean...

Grainy?


Yep.

People crank up their digital SLR to 600 ASA and complain about noise.

Have they ever looked at a 600 ASA photograph taken on film?


No doubt the grain is seen by some as artistic on film, but as noise on a
digital image.


Well I'm sure we all took 2000 ASA black and white pictures of footballers
and other sports people when we were younger, it was always fashionable to
explore the odder end of the spectrum and see what a camera would do if
pushed to the edge.

But, let's be honest, it's all a touch pretentious...

Because I've now got time and the subjects available I keep thinking about
buying a new rangefinder 35mm camera (not a Leica) and doing some serious
B&W photography.

But I keep thinking "Well the digital stuff is so good now, can I justify
it" and keep looking at the Canon G10...

On the other hand my fake Russian Leica takes reasonably good snaps and it
cost less than a hundred quid...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

  #25  
Old February 25th, 2009, 03:20 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
James Silverton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel

"poldy" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"William Black" wrote:

Even if I gathered all these materials, it's not likely the places I
would like to photograph would permit tripods or long setups.


Why not?

Have you considered asking them.

The reality is that many major European places of interest that
restrict photography will sell you a license to take pictures, but
they'd much rather sell you their own professionally produced
photographs.


That is becoming more common. If they don't restrict cameras
altogether, they won't tolerate someone slowing down the flow of
traffic with a tripod which takes up a big footprint.

And in churches, they consider themselves places of worship and don't
charge for entry so they're doing you a favor and setting up anything
other than a quick snap with tripod and so on is probably abusing that
favor.

Or I can at least understand that POV.


Using a tripod will probably have an eagle-eyed verger come to you and
ask, often very politely, for a small fee.

--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

  #26  
Old February 25th, 2009, 03:24 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
James Silverton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel

"poldy" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

poldy writes:

I don't recall film being that bad but then again, a couple of
decades ago, you used to be able to set up tripods and take long
exposures almost everywhere. These days, tripods are not only
frowned upon in interiors but in exterior public spaces as well in
many European cities.


Digital does not eliminate the need for tripods.


Never implied that it did.

But I see people taking pictures in the dark or trying to use flash
in a big space like Notre Dame. Their results won't be any good but
they think they got something they'll be able to keep.


Mind you, for a long time people have been using cameras with flash they
cannot or will not switch off. I've seen that at the Grand Canyon.

--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

  #27  
Old February 25th, 2009, 05:09 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
William Black
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,125
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel


"James Silverton" wrote in message
...
"poldy" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"William Black" wrote:

Even if I gathered all these materials, it's not likely the places I
would like to photograph would permit tripods or long setups.

Why not?

Have you considered asking them.

The reality is that many major European places of interest that
restrict photography will sell you a license to take pictures, but
they'd much rather sell you their own professionally produced
photographs.


That is becoming more common. If they don't restrict cameras
altogether, they won't tolerate someone slowing down the flow of
traffic with a tripod which takes up a big footprint.

And in churches, they consider themselves places of worship and don't
charge for entry so they're doing you a favor and setting up anything
other than a quick snap with tripod and so on is probably abusing that
favor.

Or I can at least understand that POV.


Using a tripod will probably have an eagle-eyed verger come to you and
ask, often very politely, for a small fee.


Of course if you're at a UK National Trust property they'll bounce up and
demand a huge fee for a license to take photographs...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

  #28  
Old February 26th, 2009, 06:35 AM posted to rec.travel.europe
poldy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 788
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel



My Panasonic digital camera has a Leica lens - one reason why I bought it.


LX-3?
  #29  
Old February 26th, 2009, 06:41 AM posted to rec.travel.europe
poldy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 788
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel

In article ,
Mike wrote:

poldy wrote:

Modern digital cameras can adjust to provide the illusion of different
film
speeds.


Right, but the higher ISO settings yield more noisy images.

Yeah maybe if I spent 2 grand on a DSLR, the results would be cleaner.


if you get a FF DSLR with the same number of megapixels, so they are
better separated, the noise reduces. Everybody is obsessed with more
megapixels, but beyond a certain point, for average sized images, it
makes the result worse, not better.


FF DSLR?

Panasonic LX-3 made a modest increase in pixel count over its
predecessor and concentrated on image quality and put in a wide angle
lens with 2.0 aperture at the low end (24 mm)

It's gotten good reviews.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The ultimate travel adventure film David Smith Travel - anything else not covered 0 November 22nd, 2008 04:25 AM
film through x-ray Sylvia M. Cruises 35 August 28th, 2004 08:02 PM
Price and time for film and film processing in Japan Cyril & Sandy Alberga Asia 7 April 5th, 2004 10:18 PM
Film Carole Allen Europe 5 January 13th, 2004 07:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.