Storage of photos whilst travelling?
Nov 16th 2003, 10:36 pm
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
Reid writes:
> It is optional, you buy the E6 mailers if you want them. Agfa
> also ran a fast turn around "pro" service till recently.
I'm fortunate in that I can get E-6 135 or 120 developed in two hours
flat, seven days a week. I never use mailers for anything except
Kodachrome. Even Kodachrome used to have 24-hour turnaround, although
now it is 48-hour turnaround, and only for the "pro" versions of the
film (for everyone else, it's 7-10 days). I don't shoot much
Kodachrome, though.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> It is optional, you buy the E6 mailers if you want them. Agfa
> also ran a fast turn around "pro" service till recently.
I'm fortunate in that I can get E-6 135 or 120 developed in two hours
flat, seven days a week. I never use mailers for anything except
Kodachrome. Even Kodachrome used to have 24-hour turnaround, although
now it is 48-hour turnaround, and only for the "pro" versions of the
film (for everyone else, it's 7-10 days). I don't shoot much
Kodachrome, though.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Nov 17th 2003, 1:27 am
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
Following up to Mxsmanic
>> It is optional, you buy the E6 mailers if you want them. Agfa
>> also ran a fast turn around "pro" service till recently.
>I'm fortunate in that I can get E-6 135 or 120 developed in two hours
>flat, seven days a week.
Yes, I can too, but the people who do it tend to be in central
London, so I only do that if the shots may be valuable.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
UK walking & photos "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
>> It is optional, you buy the E6 mailers if you want them. Agfa
>> also ran a fast turn around "pro" service till recently.
>I'm fortunate in that I can get E-6 135 or 120 developed in two hours
>flat, seven days a week.
Yes, I can too, but the people who do it tend to be in central
London, so I only do that if the shots may be valuable.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
UK walking & photos "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
Nov 17th 2003, 11:14 am
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 01:44:07 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Jeremy Henderson writes:
>> The danger I'm talking about is that you didn't expose the scene correctly
>> at the time - something that is easily checked with a digital, and
>> impossible with film.
>If you have even a modicum of familiarity with the principles of
>photography and a decent camera, you'll get correct exposure.
>Additionally, some consumer films, such as Kodak Max, have such a wide
>latitude that you can expose almost randomly and still get usable
>images.
>Furthermore, for a typical traveler's budget, you can get a better film
>camera than digital camera.
The penultimate time I came back from a longish trip, the cost of
developing the films would have funded a damn fine digital camera. So
the last time, I went out an bought one. (And that's not allowing for
the the cost of processing pictures that turned out to be unusuable)
As far as cost is concerned its a total no brainer.
Brian
wrote:
>Jeremy Henderson writes:
>> The danger I'm talking about is that you didn't expose the scene correctly
>> at the time - something that is easily checked with a digital, and
>> impossible with film.
>If you have even a modicum of familiarity with the principles of
>photography and a decent camera, you'll get correct exposure.
>Additionally, some consumer films, such as Kodak Max, have such a wide
>latitude that you can expose almost randomly and still get usable
>images.
>Furthermore, for a typical traveler's budget, you can get a better film
>camera than digital camera.
The penultimate time I came back from a longish trip, the cost of
developing the films would have funded a damn fine digital camera. So
the last time, I went out an bought one. (And that's not allowing for
the the cost of processing pictures that turned out to be unusuable)
As far as cost is concerned its a total no brainer.
Brian
Nov 17th 2003, 11:38 am
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
bigbrian writes:
> The penultimate time I came back from a longish trip, the
> cost of developing the films would have funded a damn
> fine digital camera.
Typically you must shoot several thousand pictures to amortize the cost
of a digital camera. Most people shoot only about one or two dozen
photos _per year_. They shoot more on vacation, but often surprisingly
few even then. Most people on vacation, unless they are truly serious
photographers, take pictures only when they have nothing else to do.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> The penultimate time I came back from a longish trip, the
> cost of developing the films would have funded a damn
> fine digital camera.
Typically you must shoot several thousand pictures to amortize the cost
of a digital camera. Most people shoot only about one or two dozen
photos _per year_. They shoot more on vacation, but often surprisingly
few even then. Most people on vacation, unless they are truly serious
photographers, take pictures only when they have nothing else to do.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Nov 17th 2003, 7:50 pm
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
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
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
UK walking & photos "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
>As far as cost is concerned its a total no brainer.
only at the low quality end. Full frame SLRs are still
prohibitively expensive
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
UK walking & photos "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
Nov 17th 2003, 7:56 pm
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
Reid <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..
> Following up to Jeremy Henderson
>
> >
> >The danger I'm talking about is that you didn't expose the scene correctly
> >at the time - something that is easily checked with a digital, and
> >impossible with film.
>
> this is an advantage of digital, for me it doesn't outweigh the
> lack of quality and the storage problem. When full frame SLR type
> bodies are available at an affordable price I will consider
> digital. For now, scanned slides give me a non magnetic
> technology based back up and a quality image.
From my point of view the deciding factor was the difficulty of
storing and retrieving slides that I wanted to view, and sharing them
with family. Scanned slides did not prove satisfactory, even when
using a high quality ("pro") lab, instead of Boots.
I'm not convinced by the "lack of quality" argument when using a
camera with lots of megapixels, and I feel that as long as one
transcibes the files to a new medium from time to time (normal
practice) the longevity won't be a serious issue - they'll last long
enough for me to show my grandkids.
I accept that other people weigh the factors differently - I'm just
saying why I came to the conclusion I did :-)
J.
> Following up to Jeremy Henderson
>
> >
> >The danger I'm talking about is that you didn't expose the scene correctly
> >at the time - something that is easily checked with a digital, and
> >impossible with film.
>
> this is an advantage of digital, for me it doesn't outweigh the
> lack of quality and the storage problem. When full frame SLR type
> bodies are available at an affordable price I will consider
> digital. For now, scanned slides give me a non magnetic
> technology based back up and a quality image.
From my point of view the deciding factor was the difficulty of
storing and retrieving slides that I wanted to view, and sharing them
with family. Scanned slides did not prove satisfactory, even when
using a high quality ("pro") lab, instead of Boots.
I'm not convinced by the "lack of quality" argument when using a
camera with lots of megapixels, and I feel that as long as one
transcibes the files to a new medium from time to time (normal
practice) the longevity won't be a serious issue - they'll last long
enough for me to show my grandkids.
I accept that other people weigh the factors differently - I'm just
saying why I came to the conclusion I did :-)
J.
Nov 17th 2003, 8:40 pm
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
Following up to Jeremy
>From my point of view the deciding factor was the difficulty of
>storing and retrieving slides that I wanted to view, and sharing them
>with family. Scanned slides did not prove satisfactory, even when
>using a high quality ("pro") lab, instead of Boots.
I have only got good quality scans by doing them myself. A modest
scanner Minolta Dimage Dual Scan and good software (the bundled
stuff is rubbish) I use Vuescan. Photoshop or the cheaper but
usable Paintshop to crop and edit the photos. I now normally view
the scanned slides on the PC[1] as JPEGs but I have the original
TIFFS (30,000KB each) as backup or for prints as well as the
slides and when and if PC screen quality etc improves I can
rescan at higher resolution or just make new JPEGs.
This isnt the quickest or easiest approach but I find it gives me
electronic darkroom control over my pictures and a print quality
"master".
1] you can set up slide shows with apropriate software.
--
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
>From my point of view the deciding factor was the difficulty of
>storing and retrieving slides that I wanted to view, and sharing them
>with family. Scanned slides did not prove satisfactory, even when
>using a high quality ("pro") lab, instead of Boots.
I have only got good quality scans by doing them myself. A modest
scanner Minolta Dimage Dual Scan and good software (the bundled
stuff is rubbish) I use Vuescan. Photoshop or the cheaper but
usable Paintshop to crop and edit the photos. I now normally view
the scanned slides on the PC[1] as JPEGs but I have the original
TIFFS (30,000KB each) as backup or for prints as well as the
slides and when and if PC screen quality etc improves I can
rescan at higher resolution or just make new JPEGs.
This isnt the quickest or easiest approach but I find it gives me
electronic darkroom control over my pictures and a print quality
"master".
1] you can set up slide shows with apropriate software.
--
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
Nov 17th 2003, 11:55 pm
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:14:20 +0000, bigbrian<[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 01:44:07 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>Jeremy Henderson writes:
>>> The danger I'm talking about is that you didn't expose the scene correctly
>>> at the time - something that is easily checked with a digital, and
>>> impossible with film.
>>If you have even a modicum of familiarity with the principles of
>>photography and a decent camera, you'll get correct exposure.
>>Additionally, some consumer films, such as Kodak Max, have such a wide
>>latitude that you can expose almost randomly and still get usable
>>images.
>>Furthermore, for a typical traveler's budget, you can get a better film
>>camera than digital camera.
>The penultimate time I came back from a longish trip, the cost of
>developing the films would have funded a damn fine digital camera. So
>the last time, I went out an bought one. (And that's not allowing for
>the the cost of processing pictures that turned out to be unusuable)
>As far as cost is concerned its a total no brainer.
>Brian
My whole reason to switch to a digital for my travel photos was
several things,
1. the complete ruination of some 60 rolls of film from excessive xray
exposure during a multi country 3 month trip. Ruined. Not all...most.
2. the ability to take all images home in my shirt pocket on 256MB CF
cards, compressed or not. Total reuse-ability of the media.
3. The freedom to take as many images at one setting that I want, 100
and choose which ONE is right on the spot.
4. Night-time sensitivity is excellent with ccds, better than any film
I've ever used. Makes for stunning night shots.
5. I take between 5000-7000 images yearly for our eBay business
and to use a film camera would be absurd. eBay wouldn't exist w/o the
digital camera as it has evolved.
Howard
for kell
Retired Teacher, Terrible Mechanic, Worse Plumber!
LPFM Page: http://home.att.net/~optcamel/fmradio.htm
wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 01:44:07 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>Jeremy Henderson writes:
>>> The danger I'm talking about is that you didn't expose the scene correctly
>>> at the time - something that is easily checked with a digital, and
>>> impossible with film.
>>If you have even a modicum of familiarity with the principles of
>>photography and a decent camera, you'll get correct exposure.
>>Additionally, some consumer films, such as Kodak Max, have such a wide
>>latitude that you can expose almost randomly and still get usable
>>images.
>>Furthermore, for a typical traveler's budget, you can get a better film
>>camera than digital camera.
>The penultimate time I came back from a longish trip, the cost of
>developing the films would have funded a damn fine digital camera. So
>the last time, I went out an bought one. (And that's not allowing for
>the the cost of processing pictures that turned out to be unusuable)
>As far as cost is concerned its a total no brainer.
>Brian
My whole reason to switch to a digital for my travel photos was
several things,
1. the complete ruination of some 60 rolls of film from excessive xray
exposure during a multi country 3 month trip. Ruined. Not all...most.
2. the ability to take all images home in my shirt pocket on 256MB CF
cards, compressed or not. Total reuse-ability of the media.
3. The freedom to take as many images at one setting that I want, 100
and choose which ONE is right on the spot.
4. Night-time sensitivity is excellent with ccds, better than any film
I've ever used. Makes for stunning night shots.
5. I take between 5000-7000 images yearly for our eBay business
and to use a film camera would be absurd. eBay wouldn't exist w/o the
digital camera as it has evolved.
Howard
for kell
Retired Teacher, Terrible Mechanic, Worse Plumber!
LPFM Page: http://home.att.net/~optcamel/fmradio.htm
Nov 18th 2003, 12:19 am
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:49:28 +0000, Reid wrote:
> Following up to Jeremy Henderson
>>The danger I'm talking about is that you didn't expose the scene correctly
>>at the time - something that is easily checked with a digital, and
>>impossible with film.
> this is an advantage of digital, for me it doesn't outweigh the
> lack of quality and the storage problem. When full frame SLR type
> bodies are available at an affordable price I will consider
> digital. For now, scanned slides give me a non magnetic
> technology based back up and a quality image.
I had the same attitude, a 35mm die-hard.
I recently had some family photos taken professionally. The photographer
used a Canon SLR and IIRC a Polaroid 5 Megapixel back. The resulting print
(around 30cm x 20cm ish) was superb.
It was then that I realised that the quality of digital cameras has
improved a lot since I last looked. After borrowing a few digital cameras
from friends I was pleasantly surprised with the results - at least
on-screen.
--
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 Jeremy Henderson
>>The danger I'm talking about is that you didn't expose the scene correctly
>>at the time - something that is easily checked with a digital, and
>>impossible with film.
> this is an advantage of digital, for me it doesn't outweigh the
> lack of quality and the storage problem. When full frame SLR type
> bodies are available at an affordable price I will consider
> digital. For now, scanned slides give me a non magnetic
> technology based back up and a quality image.
I had the same attitude, a 35mm die-hard.
I recently had some family photos taken professionally. The photographer
used a Canon SLR and IIRC a Polaroid 5 Megapixel back. The resulting print
(around 30cm x 20cm ish) was superb.
It was then that I realised that the quality of digital cameras has
improved a lot since I last looked. After borrowing a few digital cameras
from friends I was pleasantly surprised with the results - at least
on-screen.
--
Tim.
If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
Nov 18th 2003, 12:21 am
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:38:13 +0100, 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.
--
Tim.
If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
> 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.
--
Tim.
If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
Nov 18th 2003, 12:26 am
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:55:49 +0000, Reid wrote:
> Following up to Mxsmanic
>>There are still a lot of problems with digital photography for travel.
>>That's why I still suggest shooting film.
> the problem is wider than travel, how do you secure your images
> without large backup procedures, home burned CDs have a limited
> life. Hard disks crash. Systems change.
Film gets over x-rayed or over heated/humidified on travels. Paper prints
fade. Negatives get scratched and can be attacked by moulds.
Both media have pros and cons.
--
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 Mxsmanic
>>There are still a lot of problems with digital photography for travel.
>>That's why I still suggest shooting film.
> the problem is wider than travel, how do you secure your images
> without large backup procedures, home burned CDs have a limited
> life. Hard disks crash. Systems change.
Film gets over x-rayed or over heated/humidified on travels. Paper prints
fade. Negatives get scratched and can be attacked by moulds.
Both media have pros and cons.
--
Tim.
If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
Nov 18th 2003, 12:28 am
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
> .... and the most popular type of camera is the disposable film camera.
One would have thought so.
Throw it away and get a new one. Do that twice and you've already out-sold
the SLR market.
--
Tim.
If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
One would have thought so.
Throw it away and get a new one. Do that twice and you've already out-sold
the SLR market.
--
Tim.
If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
Nov 18th 2003, 1:53 am
#73
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
Tim Challenger writes:
> maybe because it costs so much to get them printed,
> and because it takes so ling to see the results?
No. Mainly because they don't have that much worth photographing, and
they are not interested in photography for its own sake.
Digital cameras end up the same way, after a brief honeymoon period
during which new owners will take pictures of anything and everything.
This being so, most people cannot justify a digital camera on the basis
of savings in film and development.
> That's how I feel sometimes.
You may live in a small town. I can get film developed and printed here
in an hour, seven days a week, from 8 AM to midnight.
Besides, anyone who wants prints is going to wait just as long and pay
nearly as much with a digital camera as he would with film.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> maybe because it costs so much to get them printed,
> and because it takes so ling to see the results?
No. Mainly because they don't have that much worth photographing, and
they are not interested in photography for its own sake.
Digital cameras end up the same way, after a brief honeymoon period
during which new owners will take pictures of anything and everything.
This being so, most people cannot justify a digital camera on the basis
of savings in film and development.
> That's how I feel sometimes.
You may live in a small town. I can get film developed and printed here
in an hour, seven days a week, from 8 AM to midnight.
Besides, anyone who wants prints is going to wait just as long and pay
nearly as much with a digital camera as he would with film.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Nov 18th 2003, 1:54 am
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
Following up to Tim Challenger
>I had the same attitude, a 35mm die-hard.
>I recently had some family photos taken professionally. The photographer
>used a Canon SLR and IIRC a Polaroid 5 Megapixel back. The resulting print
>(around 30cm x 20cm ish) was superb.
>It was then that I realised that the quality of digital cameras has
>improved a lot since I last looked. After borrowing a few digital cameras
>from friends I was pleasantly surprised with the results - at least
>on-screen.
Yes, they can be good and they can be affordable. I take
landscapes and I like to take wide angle up to 17mm. If I buy a
half frame camera that turns my 17mm into a 34mm, which for me is
completely useless. so until I can get a full frame at a sensible
price I have no option but film.
--
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
>I had the same attitude, a 35mm die-hard.
>I recently had some family photos taken professionally. The photographer
>used a Canon SLR and IIRC a Polaroid 5 Megapixel back. The resulting print
>(around 30cm x 20cm ish) was superb.
>It was then that I realised that the quality of digital cameras has
>improved a lot since I last looked. After borrowing a few digital cameras
>from friends I was pleasantly surprised with the results - at least
>on-screen.
Yes, they can be good and they can be affordable. I take
landscapes and I like to take wide angle up to 17mm. If I buy a
half frame camera that turns my 17mm into a 34mm, which for me is
completely useless. so until I can get a full frame at a sensible
price I have no option but film.
--
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
Nov 18th 2003, 1:54 am
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?
Following up to Tim Challenger
>> the problem is wider than travel, how do you secure your images
>> without large backup procedures, home burned CDs have a limited
>> life. Hard disks crash. Systems change.
>Film gets over x-rayed or over heated/humidified on travels. Paper prints
>fade. Negatives get scratched and can be attacked by moulds.
>Both media have pros and cons.
true, its not black and white :-) I never have problems with x
ray or heat, touch wood anyway. My oldest slides are still fine
after 25+ years. I've had two hard disk total failures and I'm
beginning to worry about what to do about all my VHS video
footage now it seems that format is nearing its end. I also have
a few CDs (manufactured not home burn) that dont play, that was
not supposed to happen. Its not just digital photos, its also
the rate of change in formats too.
--
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
>> the problem is wider than travel, how do you secure your images
>> without large backup procedures, home burned CDs have a limited
>> life. Hard disks crash. Systems change.
>Film gets over x-rayed or over heated/humidified on travels. Paper prints
>fade. Negatives get scratched and can be attacked by moulds.
>Both media have pros and cons.
true, its not black and white :-) I never have problems with x
ray or heat, touch wood anyway. My oldest slides are still fine
after 25+ years. I've had two hard disk total failures and I'm
beginning to worry about what to do about all my VHS video
footage now it seems that format is nearing its end. I also have
a few CDs (manufactured not home burn) that dont play, that was
not supposed to happen. Its not just digital photos, its also
the rate of change in formats too.
--
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
