Storage of photos whilst travelling?

Reid writes:

I don't see any reason digital is specially unsuitable
to landscape.

Low resolution.

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

On 18/11/03 8:28 pm, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Reid writes:

I don't see any reason digital is specially unsuitable
to landscape.

Low resolution.

Compared with what?

J.

Jeremy Henderson writes:

Compared with what?

Compared to film.

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

Tim Challenger wrote:
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.

When I switched from film to digital I went from one or two rolls per
monthlong trip, to 400-500 photos in the same period.

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

On 19/11/03 1:25 am, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Jeremy Henderson writes:

Compared with what?

Compared to film.

Obviously a gross over-simplification. For most uses there is no significant
loss of resolution in using a digital camera.

J.

Following up to Terryo

I think they'll have something
in the next couple of years, but they aren't quite there yet.....

I think that's it, not quite there 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

Reid wrote in message . ..
Following up to Tim Challenger

I agree with you there - that's my main worry: will I be able to read the
CDs/disks/DilithiumMemoryCrystals in x years time?
I only have a handful of digital original photos so far, so I have 35mm
originals somewhere.
Just be conservative and don't use any storage medium until it's been
around for 5 years and still looks viable. A worrying prospect.

I have been told home burn CDs need backing up every 2 years,
quite an undertaking if you dont want to loose anything! I think
digital is brilliant for certain things, for long term storage
its a dilemma.

A smaller undertaking is to keep your photos on a hard disk that you
back up to DVD every so often :-)

J.

On 18 Nov 2003 09:58:11 -0800, Terryo wrote:

... I still use an SLR, in fact I just bought a new one. I haven't gone
digital, first because of the storage problem, but also because I
haven't found one that meets my needs -- 28-300mm optical zoom, ...

Digital SLR any lense you like, what do you have already ? Get one fro mthe
same manufacturer and you don't have to get a whole new set of lenses.
Canon: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d
Pentax: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistd
Sigma: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sigmasd10/

Bloody expensive at first sight though, but then the cost of film
development can be subtracted for the cameras lifetime.
Say 1200 shots holiday @ ¤0.19 a print (high street cheapo prices here
yours'll probabaly be more)= ¤230 odd per holiday.

good definition (6 megapixels) for enlargements, convenient power source,
rapid firing.




(Also I'll have to get a new computer, since my Windows
95 doesn't work with digital cameras.) I think they'll have something
in the next couple of years, but they aren't quite there yet.....
That could be a problem.

--
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 16:53:10 +0000, Reid wrote:

Following up to Tim Challenger

I agree with you there - that's my main worry: will I be able to read the
CDs/disks/DilithiumMemoryCrystals in x years time?
I only have a handful of digital original photos so far, so I have 35mm
originals somewhere.
Just be conservative and don't use any storage medium until it's been
around for 5 years and still looks viable. A worrying prospect.

I have been told home burn CDs need backing up every 2 years,
quite an undertaking if you dont want to loose anything! I think
digital is brilliant for certain things, for long term storage
its a dilemma.

I haven't had any problems with old CDs (yet). I don't have that many to
get a decent sample from. It IS potentially a big problem, you're right.


--
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 17:48:05 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Tim Challenger writes:

you've sold twice as many.
2 disposables(or more, in reality, I'd expect). One SLR.

A lot more rolls of film are sold than digital cameras, if that's the
only number that interests you.

Exactly.
You didn't define "most popular " ;-) I chose to use potential number of
units sold in this case. What number interests you?
--
Tim.

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