Storage of photos whilst travelling?

Following up to Mxsmanic

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

Low resolution.

You started there. You have snipped my reasons why that is not a
landscape related issue.

Digital has low resolution compared to film. This is not a
landscape specific issue.
--
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 Magda

... "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict067.htm"
... "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict106.htm"
... "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/waspic200.htm"
...
... It also has tremendous depth of field:-
... "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict163.htm"

Great pics, really - but I can't believe you took them with a 17mm !

I don't keep records, so there is always the possibility of
faulty memory, but the majority would certainly be with my trusty
17mm, maybe one with a lens I no longer have.

(You may already know this)
Because "background" features will appear very far away and a lot
of scenery will be included there are a few considerations with
ultra wide.
There must be wide open space to photograph, You need a good sky
unless you are going to crop the final image or you are going to
point the camera down to emphasise foreground. You must be very
close to the background object.
A potentially good ultra wide angle subject is not apparent to
the naked eye (as with long telephoto), you have to develop a way
of seeing. Look for interesting patterns in your immediate
vicinity.

This is a poor dark scan (must redo it) but
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict157.htm"

the mountain at the back was towering in the real landscape and
the frozen tufts of grass insignificant, wide angle reversed the
reality.

Looking through "the art and techniques of eight modern
(landscape) masters" I note the lenses used for my favourites are
15-24 or 200-300. Steven C Wilson's work has a majority at 15mm.
Franco Fontana seems to work mostly at around 20mm or 300mm!!
--
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 Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:37:40 +0000, Reid wrote:

This is a poor dark scan (must redo it) but
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict157.htm"

the mountain at the back was towering in the real landscape and
the frozen tufts of grass insignificant, wide angle reversed the
reality.

Nice.
Made me shivver just looking at it! Brrr!

--
Tim.

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

Following up to Tim Challenger

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.

But remember a half frame camera doubles your focal length.
--
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 Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:17:08 +0000, Reid wrote:

Following up to Tim Challenger

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.

But remember a half frame camera doubles your focal length.

True. A minus if you're into wide angle landscapes (which you are) but a
bonus if you're a birdwathcher or a peeping-tom. ;-)
--
Tim.

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

Miguel Cruz writes:

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.

How many do you keep, where do you put them, and what do you do with
them?

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

Jeremy Henderson writes:

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

I have discovered the hard way that it's best to get the highest
possible resolution when you initially press the shutter, because you
can't go back and increase it later on. I've had too many shots that
were unusable later on simply because I didn't have enough resolution to
allow for the intended use. That's one reason why I shoot film, and
that's also why I shoot an increasing amount of medium-format film.

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

Jeremy writes:

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

When you get into the hundreds of gigabytes, this becomes impractical as
well.

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

Tim Challenger writes:

True. A minus if you're into wide angle landscapes (which you are) but a
bonus if you're a birdwathcher or a peeping-tom. ;-)

In the context of travel, wide angles are far more commonly used than
narrow angles.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Miguel Cruz writes:
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.

How many do you keep, where do you put them, and what do you do with
them?

I keep all but the ones that are seriously mechanically flawed (out of
focus, way over- or under-exposed). I burn them onto CD-R and if I am
feeling ambitious, print out contact sheets. If the photos were from a trip,
then whoever accompanied me (and sometimes their parents, if I know them)
gets a copy of the CD. A small number of the photos go on my web site and
the rest sit in a drawer until I'm feeling nostalgic.

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