Leftover thriftiness from you film days?

Neil Ellwood wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:00:43 -0500, jean wrote:

I like to do wide angle shots like this one.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/91972678/original Sort of give a
feel for the whole area at once.

Nice images, what do you use to stitch?

Jean

Hugin

Earlier, the free Autostitch:

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html

which I liked enough to buy the paid-for Autopano Pro:

http://www.autopano.net/

Cheers,
David

Ali wrote:
Come on, everyone takes more photos with digital than they did with
film. Ansel Adams would too.

Of course, the time factor still exists for post processing and so it is
just as important to get it right in camera.

Sometimes I find digital is slower, although the fault
is mine...

I (fairly often) take a shot, check it, realise
I've made an "obvious" mistake, and take a second shot.

It would probably be quicker (overall) to proceed
a little slower, think a little more, and take
only "the second shot" (if you see what I mean)

My current bad habit is of course a direct
consequence of digital.

Fortunately, most of my subjects don't move much.

BugBear

On 1/22/08 12:25 AM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:19:47 -0800, nospam wrote
in :

In article , Gary Edstrom
wrote:

One thing that I was always disappointed about was that my father had so
few pictures of the back woods cabin that he grew up in in Michigan. He
only had 4 B&W pictures that showed the cabin around 1920, and all of
them were from the same side.

I was determined that that was not going to happen with my parent's
house that my mother lived in for over 40 years before she died. I have
over 1,500 pictures taken inside and out around the house. All rooms
from all corners, as well as close-ups of many objects in the house.

i did the same thing, but with 360 degree panoramas. there's simply no
way that would have happened with film.

Fish eye lens.
As ususal, you're "half-ass" there.

On Jan 21, 3:38 pm, "Juan Moore Beer" wrote:
In my film days, I would try not to waste too many shots, possibly because
of the extra time and expense for developing.

I find myself still not taking as many shots as I could, even though I can
take a quick look at them on the LCD and zap them in an instant. This
weekend, I was traveling a few hours north, and had an extra three or four
hours to kill. I found some nice scenery, but still only took about a
dozen pictures, most of which I will keep. There were only a few "shots"
I regret not taking, and that was only because it was too darn cold for me
to get out of the car again ;-)

Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the
restraint more based on quality than cost?

--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com

When I got really serious about film photography I would take a LOT of
shots, because the cameras had no AE or even lightmeters, so we
bracketed a lot. We home developed to reduce the cost of processing.
The film was cheap in those days.

When we got cameras with light meters, I did less bracketing. When we
got cameras that had really good AE that worked, I took even fewer.
And we gave up much of the home processing, moving to color film.

With digitals I DO find myself taking more shots, but for a different
reason. While I do still bracket a bit for exposures, I find more of
the repetition is different camera angles, different plane of best
focus (I still do not use AF much), and that sort of thing.

Also, I am more inclined to take a quick grab shot that I might have
foregone in the earlier era.

Juan Moore Beer wrote:
snip
Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the
restraint more based on quality than cost?

--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

I take MANY more photos with digital. The limits are time
and my interest, and in some situations not wanting to be a
pest to others.

In article , Toby
wrote:

The professional photojournalist world was never so discrete, and they are
much less so now in the digital age.

Who ever said that photojournalists created quality images? Most of
what I see these days is crap.

In article
,
wrote:

Who else but Randall Ainsworth...

Just a sec...I wanna let the applause die down.

Randy, just out of interest, what technological advances/techniques
*are* OK with you? Clearly motor-driven film cameras would be out..
Right? If not, why not?

I have a Hasselblad EL/M. Does that qualify as a motor-driven camera?

And might I make the observation - just because you can shoot medium
format, doesn't mean you should...

I wish I could go back, but the days of film are over.

Oh, but wait. You shot *medium format* because it was a
*technological advance* that allowed you to *print large(r)
pictures*. And that's acceptable behavior to Randy.

I needed to make large prints and have retouching done on people's
faces. Plus, 35mm just was too damned small.

But.. shooting *multiple exposures easily* because it is a
*technological advance* that allows you to *capture moments you might
otherwise miss* is NOT acceptable to "Mr Strat", because... umm...
because...

If one needs to shoot multiple exposures, be my guest. But I've
witnessed too many people just holding down the button in hopes of
getting something good instead of learning what makes a good image and
training their eye.

Needless to say, Robert, I agree with you. And those who don't.. I
suspect have never shot sports or children. Even someone who has shot
weddings (allegedly) should know better. But perhaps being perfect
means he never missed a shot... Every one of his group shots had all
the folks smilingly nicely... (O:

With wedding formals, I usually shot two of each setup just to make
sure there weren't any blinks (although I could usually tell if someone
blinked).

Last summer, I was at a drag strip to watch my 76-year old uncle race.
There were times when I took more than one image of a racer going down
the track, but I pressed the button each time (like a semi-automatic
rifle) rather than put the thing in burst mode.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:38:27 +0000, bugbear
wrote in
:

Ali wrote:
Come on, everyone takes more photos with digital than they did with
film. Ansel Adams would too.

Of course, the time factor still exists for post processing and so it is
just as important to get it right in camera.

Sometimes I find digital is slower, although the fault
is mine...

I (fairly often) take a shot, check it, realise
I've made an "obvious" mistake, and take a second shot.

It would probably be quicker (overall) to proceed
a little slower, think a little more, and take
only "the second shot" (if you see what I mean)

My current bad habit is of course a direct
consequence of digital.

Fortunately, most of my subjects don't move much.

I usually leave my digital in a burst mode so I can rip off a sequence
of shots. I often find the best shot to be one in the sequence that
I couldn't have captured with single shutter press. Kids are a classic
case in point, because they will often pose stiffly for a picture, and
then relax into a much better photograph once they hear the shutter has
been pressed, making my second shot the best image. That's also part of
why I usually keep shutter sound turned on.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:19:58 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote in :

Trying to photograph cats (or children) can be a really frustrating
experience, rather like trying to count chickens. I think chickens are
rather like a living manifestation of 'Brownian movement'.

Or like trying to herd cats.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:17:52 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote in :

I certainly don't sneer at taking a lot of shots, but I do feel that
anyone who discards 60% of his shots may be making a mistake. Sometimes
that shot I thought wasn't really what I wanted is the only one that
contained an image of 'Uncle John', who just up and died last week, and
now I cherish that shot. Keeping that 60% of pictures doesn't cost you
anything, so why throw them away? With Terabyte HDs going for under
$300, there is little excuse to discard any image that is clear, and has
an identifiable subject. I keep 99% of the images I take for the above
reason.

The issue for me is noise, making it hard to find good images in
archives. While I do keep more of my family shots, I'm ruthless when
culling my other photographs, sometimes discarding more than 90% of the
images. I'll often experiment with shooting a given subject a dozen
different ways, and all I want to keep is the one best image. I find
that those unwilling to cull their photographs are often either unsure
of image quality or too busy to bother.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)