PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard P.
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 5:56 PM
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] over shooting
The digital shutter lag is something I was never able to overcome. By
the time the camera had figured out that it was taking a picture, the
moment was over
Dunno, but some may find it interesting that my D200's
shutters lag behind my F5's. The specs say the lag is
tiny, but occasionally not swift enough to beat an
eyeblink. YRMV
*
** List info, subscription
I was referring to point-and-shoot digital cameras that have the lag.
It's good to know that DSLR's don't have this issue, but until their
price gets down to a more reasonable level, I'll have to wait. Thanks
for the clarification.
Richard P.
Are we talking DSLR's or point and shoot
Oh yeah I have taken great shots I used to take photos of all my
weddings and occasionally I had better pictures than the wedding
photographer (Only occasionally)
However I would not want to put up all my work against the pros.
Oh and Pros usually take quite a few photos before they choose
Hmm, why am I made nervous in Rev Marshall's response?
Great photographers in history have often been
well-heeled amateurs (as was Cartier-Bresson himself,
initially). When asked to judge camera club images,
I'm constantly impressed with some results I see.
Likewise, lots of pros make utterly
On May 27, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote:
Oh and Pros usually take quite a few photos before they choose the
right one.
The ability to take many shots virtually without or at very little
financial cost is probably the greatest advantage that digital has
over film, yet
Anyway, I have no need to defend myself, so I'm out.
Steve, do let us know how you ultimately solve the problem. It would be a
good thing to know.
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
What respects are those? Are you saying, that given equal
lenses, a charge coupled detector of fixed bandwidth is an
equal recording instrument compared to film?
More pics at essentially zero cost.
A good digital camera will have better resolution than 35mm film.
Film has grain, digital
On May 26, 2008, at 7:03 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
Film has grain, digital doesn't.
Digital does have noise, which in many ways is the digital version
of grain.
Digital camera noise is highly consistent from pic to pic. Software
can
profile it and remove it. Not so for film grain.
On May 26, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
At any rate, the CD can be viewed on virtually any computer
without problems, and if a recipient has a DVD player that they want
to view the images on, I can only hope it works 100% for them.
You should include a ReadMe file about what you have
On May 25, 2008, at 11:08 PM, Tony B wrote:
Point taken. But really, when one has to prepare an answer based on
virtually NO information, it's tough to be real 'polite'. The
re-phrasing you wrote is only with benefit of the list having dragged
_some few_ details out of the OP.
Others here
On May 26, 2008, at 4:16 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
What respects are those? Are you saying, that given equal
lenses, a charge coupled detector of fixed bandwidth is an
equal recording instrument compared to film?
More pics at essentially zero cost.
I can agree with this for the most part.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Av6gCq_awQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKK9-HEDa8INR=1
Using the same lens will you be able to produce a recorded image of equal or
better quality using a digital camera instead of film? With equal a full
frame digital (36mm) and 35 mm film frame, I'd say
On May 26, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
Steve, do let us know how you ultimately solve the problem. It
would be a
good thing to know.
Apparently the only 'problem' I had was with one person who
replied to my initial query, and my DVD player. My DVD player seems
to only want
Tony, if you admittedly don't know anything about the subject, why
bother to reply, especially in a condescending and somewhat hostile
manner. You may have only 25 out of 375 photos that are worth looking
at, but others may have 400+ photos that are 80-100% of interest to
target viewers.
I
Sorry, but I'm seeing this all the time these days. People are no
longer constrained by expensive film, so they're shooting 10X the
pictures they need. Nothing wrong with that.
But modern audiences bore quickly. If you can't tell your story with a
5 minute presentation, you're going to lose them.
On May 25, 2008, at 3:55 PM, Tony B wrote:
Sorry, but I'm seeing this all the time these days. People are no
longer constrained by expensive film, so they're shooting 10X the
pictures they need. Nothing wrong with that.
But modern audiences bore quickly. If you can't tell your story with a
5
Sorry, but I'm seeing this all the time these days. People are no
longer constrained by expensive film, so they're shooting 10X the
pictures they need. Nothing wrong with that.
And they should be overshooting. Overshooting is the best way to get
around the problem of someone closing their eyes
Or the thousands surprises that can really make a great photo. Shoot.
Shoot. Shoot. Just make sure you toss the bad ones.
Mike
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
or the 1000s of other
surprises that can ruin a great photo.
Or the thousands surprises that can really make a great photo. Shoot.
Shoot. Shoot. Just make sure you toss the bad ones.
Back in the day we had contact sheets. This was a method, sure.
Digital photography is finally getting up to 35mm qualty. That's good.
I agree, shoot lots and toss the
Digital photography is finally getting up to 35mm qualty. That's good.
Actually exceeds 35mm in some respects.
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map,
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Tony B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but I'm seeing this all the time these days.
Tony,
Your normal answer to people is to tell them that they are doing something
wrong, they should do something different.
I agree that there are times where people think
Point taken. But really, when one has to prepare an answer based on
virtually NO information, it's tough to be real 'polite'. The
re-phrasing you wrote is only with benefit of the list having dragged
_some few_ details out of the OP.
In fact, at this point we all know he's probably going about it
23 matches
Mail list logo
