Storage of photos whilst travelling?
Nov 20th 2003, 5:46 am
#181
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
On 20/11/03 11:20 am, in article [email protected],
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Go Fig writes:
>
>> 1000 sildes, an afternoon for some fashion photographers.
>
> I usually shoot around 300 shots in an afternoon for runway photography.
> Only a handful are keepers, of course. And it's mostly ISO 800 negative
> film, since slide films are too slow.
>
> Note that 1000 shots also represents around 10 GB of disk space, if it's
> 35mm, and around 100 GB if it is MF. Disk space is going to run out
> really fast if the photographer wants all of that in digital form.
So, since he said that he keeps a handful - let's say 10 (2 handfuls :-) -
per afternoon, that makes 100 afternoons for 10GB. A 40GB disk costs in the
order of E200, so that's about E100 per year in storage costs if he uses
disk, or say E20 on DVD.
Not a bank-breaker, IMO.
J
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Go Fig writes:
>
>> 1000 sildes, an afternoon for some fashion photographers.
>
> I usually shoot around 300 shots in an afternoon for runway photography.
> Only a handful are keepers, of course. And it's mostly ISO 800 negative
> film, since slide films are too slow.
>
> Note that 1000 shots also represents around 10 GB of disk space, if it's
> 35mm, and around 100 GB if it is MF. Disk space is going to run out
> really fast if the photographer wants all of that in digital form.
So, since he said that he keeps a handful - let's say 10 (2 handfuls :-) -
per afternoon, that makes 100 afternoons for 10GB. A 40GB disk costs in the
order of E200, so that's about E100 per year in storage costs if he uses
disk, or say E20 on DVD.
Not a bank-breaker, IMO.
J
Nov 20th 2003, 7:35 am
#182
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> Of course, many photographers shoot digitally now. They are easy to
> recognize because they spend a lot of time either looking at the screen
> on the back of the camera (instead of looking at what they are supposed
> to be photographing) or trying to offload photos to another device.
Why aren't they just changing media, and doing it much less frequently than
those of you using commercially-preloaded film canisters?
miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/
> Of course, many photographers shoot digitally now. They are easy to
> recognize because they spend a lot of time either looking at the screen
> on the back of the camera (instead of looking at what they are supposed
> to be photographing) or trying to offload photos to another device.
Why aren't they just changing media, and doing it much less frequently than
those of you using commercially-preloaded film canisters?
miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/
Nov 20th 2003, 7:37 am
#183
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> Miguel Cruz writes:
>> vs. basically free CD-R space?
> CD-R space is not free.
Good thing I didn't say it was.
miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/
> Miguel Cruz writes:
>> vs. basically free CD-R space?
> CD-R space is not free.
Good thing I didn't say it was.
miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/
Nov 20th 2003, 7:42 am
#184
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeremy Henderson writes:
>> Can you supply some evidence to support it?
> Sure. See
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/VelviaScan.jpg
It's not clear to me what this 2.1-megapixel image proves about the
resolution advantages of film vs digital. Except perhaps if you'd like to
reconvene this discussion in 1994.
> I don't. I may someday, if the technology continues to improve. As
> long as film gives better results, I'll stay with film--especially since
> it is cheaper as well.
Numbers?
miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/
> Jeremy Henderson writes:
>> Can you supply some evidence to support it?
> Sure. See
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/VelviaScan.jpg
It's not clear to me what this 2.1-megapixel image proves about the
resolution advantages of film vs digital. Except perhaps if you'd like to
reconvene this discussion in 1994.
> I don't. I may someday, if the technology continues to improve. As
> long as film gives better results, I'll stay with film--especially since
> it is cheaper as well.
Numbers?
miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/
Nov 24th 2003, 12:05 am
#185
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 11:23:02 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> You don't have to scan anything with digital.
> You don't have to use any disk space with film.
But the post I replied to didn't mention space - it talked about the act
of scanning itself.
--
Tim.
If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
>> You don't have to scan anything with digital.
> You don't have to use any disk space with film.
But the post I replied to didn't mention space - it talked about the act
of scanning itself.
--
Tim.
If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
Nov 24th 2003, 12:37 am
#186
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:50:30 +0000, Reid wrote:
> 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
Yes a decent digital SLR costs a bloody fortune. At least as an initial
outlay - which is enough to put a lot of people off.
As an aside, there was a snippet in a recent New Scientist that mentioned
the Mt. Palomar Observatory. It has a video done by Patrick Moore back in
the '80s saying that the telescope used a CCD device for capturing images -
0.5 Mega pixels. Amazing. I wonder what it used nowadays, and other
telescopes for hat matter, as none of them have used film for years.
Aha, I just visited their website. It's effectively a 161 megapix jobby.
<fx fast-show jazz club voice> Nice </fx>
That would get you some serious hard-disk space problems, I'd have thought.
--
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 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
Yes a decent digital SLR costs a bloody fortune. At least as an initial
outlay - which is enough to put a lot of people off.
As an aside, there was a snippet in a recent New Scientist that mentioned
the Mt. Palomar Observatory. It has a video done by Patrick Moore back in
the '80s saying that the telescope used a CCD device for capturing images -
0.5 Mega pixels. Amazing. I wonder what it used nowadays, and other
telescopes for hat matter, as none of them have used film for years.
Aha, I just visited their website. It's effectively a 161 megapix jobby.
<fx fast-show jazz club voice> Nice </fx>
That would get you some serious hard-disk space problems, I'd have thought.
--
Tim.
If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
Nov 24th 2003, 6:31 am
#187
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
Tim Challenger writes:
> Aha, I just visited their website. It's effectively a 161 megapix jobby.
> <fx fast-show jazz club voice> Nice </fx>
But it is made from 112 individual CCDs, making each CCD only about 1.5
megapixels.
> That would get you some serious hard-disk space problems, I'd have thought.
Apparently some images are 8000 megapixels in size, when certain
scanning modes of the imaging device are used.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Aha, I just visited their website. It's effectively a 161 megapix jobby.
> <fx fast-show jazz club voice> Nice </fx>
But it is made from 112 individual CCDs, making each CCD only about 1.5
megapixels.
> That would get you some serious hard-disk space problems, I'd have thought.
Apparently some images are 8000 megapixels in size, when certain
scanning modes of the imaging device are used.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
