Digital photography "revolutionary"

Following up to poldy

"SPECIAL REPORT on digital photography: You don't have to be a
revolutionary to see revolutionary results. In the past five years,
digital photography has gone from a niche market for early adopters to a
dominant platform that has changed not only the photo industry, but
society itself.

digital photography has changed society? I just got my first
digital body, where should I expect change outside of processing
images?
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to

some
decent shots with the 28-200mm (equivalent) lens.

there's the big problem of digital, Yosemite with 28mm as a
wideangle, 24 would be better, 20 best.

But there's a lot about the camera I don't understand. If I don't by
this time tomorrow, I'll be semi-suicidal.

Ignore all the "features", you're going to take landscape, it
doesn't run away or stop pouting, put it in manual, check the
result on the screen and if in doubt go a little on the
underexposed side.

The next challenge, that I've not even considered yet, is uploading the
images (if any) to this machine and . . . and . . . then what? I dunno.
I'll find out.

If you can afford Photoshop then you will have a vast improvement
over the chemical darkroom and all under your control.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

From: ""
Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
Subject: Digital photography "revolutionary"
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 04:54:04 -0700

[If this message appears more than once, it's because of the
following: We're sorry, but we are unable to display this page at
this time. Please try again in a few moments. If you continue to get
this error, please contact . . . ]

Tim Challenger wrote:
On 24 May 2005, wrote:

The next challenge, that I've not even considered yet, is
uploading the images (if any) to this machine and . . . and . .
. then what? I dunno. I'll find out.

That's where the fun starts.

Yup! Ansel Adams said "The negative is the score; the printing is the
performance" (or something like that).

Had a helluva time uploading the images. When they finally made the
trip, I had no idea how how it happened but was happy that it did.
Now I THINK I know how to do it.

I was thrilled with the results! Although most of the shots weren't
what I thought I was getting (yes, I looked at them on the screen),
I'm not complaining. Although I didn't know how to use the camera, it
knew how to use itself. "Point and shoot" has gained new meaning.

Some day I'll prepare a page of the better shots for the site at
Right in the sig.

Had a great surprise: Was about to delete what appeared to be a blank
image when I noticed a little something. Did a bit of fiddling that
revealed what might be the best shot of the lot.

What little I've been able to do with the software that came with the
camera is giving me great consternation about the photos of others.


The Reids wrote:
said:
some decent shots with the 28-200mm (equivalent) lens.

there's the big problem of digital, Yosemite with 28mm as a
wideangle, 24 would be better, 20 best.

But there's a lot about the camera I don't understand. If I
don't by this time tomorrow, I'll be semi-suicidal.

Ignore all the "features", you're going to take landscape, it
doesn't run away or stop pouting, put it in manual, check the
result on the screen and if in doubt go a little on the
underexposed side.

I was in Yosemite LAST Tuesday and Wednesday. Wish I'd seen your
message before.

The next challenge, that I've not even considered yet, is
uploading the images (if any) to this machine and . . . and . .
. then what? I dunno. I'll find out.

If you can afford Photoshop then you will have a vast improvement
over the chemical darkroom and all under your control.

Nitram said I live "in a darkroom, not a closet". How'd he know?
__________________________________________________ _________________
Un San Francisqueño en San Francisco.
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ - http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 --- IClast at SFbay Net

Following up to Icono Clast

Ignore all the "features", you're going to take landscape, it
doesn't run away or stop pouting, put it in manual, check the
result on the screen and if in doubt go a little on the
underexposed side.

I was in Yosemite LAST Tuesday and Wednesday. Wish I'd seen your
message before.

I was away myself using my digital for the first time, the
underexpose advice came from an experienced digital user. I've
been surprised how tolerant of exposure error the system is and
funnily enough my favourite from the digitalshots was also one I
overlooked at first.
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/orkney012.htm"
looking at thumbnails it looked nothing, then curiosity made me
load the full image and I found Phtoshop controls I could barely
touch with a slide scan could be adjusted wildly with a prime
digital to get an interesting image. (before Mixi comes in, this
is a comparison of my slide scanner v digital, not the same as
slide v digital or high end slide scan v digital). So it looks
for me digital is going to be good, although until I can get a
full frame camera film will have a place at the wide angle end.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Icono Clast wrote:


Had a helluva time uploading the images. When they finally made the
trip, I had no idea how how it happened but was happy that it did.
Now I THINK I know how to do it.

Save yourself a lot of trouble -- buy a card reader. They're cheap.
The reader appears as another drive on your system, and you then just
drag and drop or copy to a folder on your PC. Having an expensive
camera on your desktop, with cables snaking around to the computer, is a
recipe for disaster.
The other advice I'd give a newcomer is: never alter your digital
originals. Make copies and work on the copies. As you become more
experienced with a Photoshop-type program, you will find you can achieve
more sophisticated results, and you may eventually want to go back to
your originals for a new, improved processing cycle.
Above all, have fun.

-- Ron

Following up to nitram

"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/orkney012.htm"

10/10 !
Are all the photos taken with your new digital?

all the orkney and shetland, the western isles at the top are
film

Yosemite next whilst the dollar is weak?

wouldnt mind, show some Adams bloke how its done? :-)
--
Mike Reid
Hebridean photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/skyepics.htm"

Following up to Ronald Hands

Save yourself a lot of trouble -- buy a card reader. They're cheap.
The reader appears as another drive on your system, and you then just
drag and drop or copy to a folder on your PC. Having an expensive
camera on your desktop, with cables snaking around to the computer, is a
recipe for disaster.

I use a Gizmo that acts as a card reader and has a CD drive so
you can burn CD back up in the field (PC plug and play connection
is optional)

The other advice I'd give a newcomer is: never alter your digital
originals. Make copies and work on the copies. As you become more
experienced with a Photoshop-type program, you will find you can achieve
more sophisticated results, and you may eventually want to go back to
your originals for a new, improved processing cycle.

Have to agree with all that. And use the best quality setting.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids wrote:

Following up to


some
decent shots with the 28-200mm (equivalent) lens.


there's the big problem of digital, Yosemite with 28mm as a
wideangle, 24 would be better, 20 best.


But there's a lot about the camera I don't understand. If I don't by
this time tomorrow, I'll be semi-suicidal.


Ignore all the "features", you're going to take landscape, it
doesn't run away or stop pouting, put it in manual, check the
result on the screen and if in doubt go a little on the
underexposed side.


And take a far larger range of exposures than you would with film. It's
now much cheaper to dump the junk and hard to tell which that will be at
the time.



The next challenge, that I've not even considered yet, is uploading the
images (if any) to this machine and . . . and . . . then what? I dunno.
I'll find out.


If you can afford Photoshop then you will have a vast improvement
over the chemical darkroom and all under your control.

The Reids writes:

digital photography has changed society? I just got my first
digital body, where should I expect change outside of processing
images?

Even processing images hasn't changed much. You don't have to develop
film, but you still need a lab for prints. You have images in digital
form, but you could have those with film, too, by simply scanning.

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

The Reids wrote:
I've been surprised how tolerant of exposure error the system is
and funnily enough my favourite from the digitalshots was also one
I overlooked at first. "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/orkney012.htm"

Very pretty.

Ronald Hands wrote:
Icono Clast wrote:
Had a helluva time uploading the images.

Having an expensive camera on your desktop, with cables snaking
around to the computer, is a recipe for disaster.

Nah. I put the camera on the floor and there's just one cable. No
problem.

The other advice I'd give a newcomer is: never alter your digital
originals. Make copies and work on the copies.

Thank you. I already thought of that. The originals are in the
directory named by the camera. The ones I'm working on are in "May05"
and the finals are in "Yosemite". I'll *.ZIP the originals to a file
when the job is done.

As you become more experienced with a Photoshop-type program, you
will find you can achieve more sophisticated results, and you may
eventually want to go back to your originals for a new, improved
processing cycle.

I don't know whether it's the program that came with the camera or my
ignorance of how to use it, but there are things I know can be done
that I haven't been able to do. Nevertheless, I'm quite happy with
what I've been able to achieve.

Above all, have fun.

Oh, yeah. I've already made some very, uh, interesting shots. She's
thrilled by them as she told me of her fantasy when . . .
__________________________________________________ _________________
A San Franciscan in 47.452 mile² San Francisco.
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ - http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 --- IClast at SFbay Net