What's your digital camera history?

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:naJDc.776$876.381@fed1read07...
"Nick C" wrote in message
news:sJFDc.119418$HG.31491@attbi_s53...

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:dXEDc.732$876.390@fed1read07...
"Nick C" wrote in message
news:JuEDc.162318$3x.144691@attbi_s54...

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article D3uDc.160205$3x.16579@attbi_s54,
says...
There is a very handy feature in the MK II and that is using the
setting that will show blown-out whites in the picture on the
monitor,
along
with the histogram, so that an easy adjustment can be made to
eliminate
the
blown-out whites and correct the histogram.

The 10D has that too. A life saver if you're trying to get that
critical shot.


Thanks. Not having a 10D or ever used a 10D, I didn't know that.

Being a loooong time film user, I've the habit of having a back-up
camera
body, which at times, was a handy tool to have. I'm wondering if
there
is
a
advantage to having a digital back-up; possibly the 10D as a back-up
to
the
MK II. I can see where having 1.6x may be an asset to minimizing the
need
for long lenses that would cost about the same for a 10D body. Do
you
have
an opinion to offer?

nick


Actually, that's been a feature of digital SLRs for a long time, my
circa
2000 D30 does it too. It is handy...
As far as the backup body idea, things can go wrong, batteries fail a
critical times, cards get full, it's nice to have a camera you can
grab
to
get the shot, then go change batteries, cards, whatever. And if there
is,
god forbid, a catastrophic failure, it is good to have something there
to
use.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


Thanks skip. We think along the same lines. I'm asea with the thought of
getting the 10D or waiting to see if there is such a thing as a 10D MK
II.

Geeze Skip, I feel like a new kid on the block. I keep saying I'm a film
user and here I am getting deeper into digital. Sometimes I have to stop
and
wonder about me. g

nick



Nick, I'm exactly the same way. I bought a used D30 last Sept. to see if
digital was the way I want to go, and now I can't see myself going any
other
way. The only thing holding me back is that I still can't get black and
white results that make me completely happy. I'm thinking about selling
some stock and buying a 1D mkII, but, like you, I'm waiting to see what
the
successor to the 10D is like.
BTW, I notice by some of your posts that you are in SoCal?
If you want to continue that thought, my email is valid.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------

I'm not keen on color conversion to B&W either. I've uploaded two B&W
pictures that were converted. They are not what I like in B&W.

http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/Albu...618&a=31243042

Normally Skip, I don't do show & tell simply because I do weird things at
times just for my amusement. What amuses me doesn't always get accepted by
others.

The picture of the boy was taken using existing light, incident light
metered, camera manually set.

The picture of the girl was with double flash, metered through the camera,
full face cropped.

As to my being in Cal., you are correct. I'm in Lakewood. Thanks for the
e-mail invite, invitation extended to you too. Drop the "T" in cometcast to
read comcast.net.

nick

Error:

That should read, "Drop the "ET" in cometcast to read comcast.net.

n

In article kfNDc.165052$3x.82083@attbi_s54,
says...
I'm not keen on color conversion to B&W either. I've uploaded two B&W
pictures that were converted. They are not what I like in B&W.

http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/Albu...618&a=31243042

What method are you using to convert to black and white? There are a
lot of different ways to convert that will give you different results.
You can also tweak the curves after the conversion to give you more or
less contrast.

Nick C wrote:

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
news:trBDc.124323$Sw.25250@attbi_s51...

Nick C wrote:


From what others have said about the 10D, I can only surmize it must be

a

good dSLR. I haven't as yet seen a dSLR that will easily take double,
tripple, or more exposures on one frame.


And you never will. The flexibility one has in combining images in PS
far outweighs any advantage (are there really any in digital image
making?) of combining images in the camera (in this case via software).

--
John McWilliams


I went through a fun N' games period where I would place simulated costumed
ghost images in backgrounds of pictures I took of old abandoned mines, ghost
town saloons, ranchos, etc.. Developing the technique was/is easy by double
or sometimes triple exposing film. I had found that somewhat difficult but
more to the point, time consuming to do digitally in PS. If I should return
to creating such images (doubtful), I much rather use film than attempt to
create the images by digitally blending in PS. I'm just offering my thoughts
of what I think is best for me and my imaging techniques. Besides, I would
rather not become dependant upon PS to accomplish various imaging objectives
because I might decide to someday abandon PS for some other equally
functional imaging program. I'm of the opinion that the use of digicams
might well spur the creating of software that may be inexpensively
competitive to PS (which I think is grossly over priced at $600 + for a new
user).

I, too, had some fun with multiple exposures, and did some double
printing as well (two negs strapped together, or exposures on same sheet
with single negs.), but it's way easier in PS, way more latitude to make
adjustments.

PS is pricey, but at a student discount (take a course at a local U.!)
it's doable for most amateurs.

--
John McWilliams

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article kfNDc.165052$3x.82083@attbi_s54,
says...
I'm not keen on color conversion to B&W either. I've uploaded two B&W
pictures that were converted. They are not what I like in B&W.

http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/Albu...618&a=31243042

What method are you using to convert to black and white? There are a
lot of different ways to convert that will give you different results.
You can also tweak the curves after the conversion to give you more or
less contrast.

Hi Brian,

Tweaking the curves alone has been tried and will not correct the problem.
The problem with these conversions is there is a loss of flesh tone and
texture. When the conversion was made, the subtle texture and tone that was
there in flesh color was gone. See the boy's arms and the flatness of the
girls face. My description of what I see is "Blah --- Pitueee." My first
thought was to scrap them, but I thought I would keep them to illustrate to
tyro's who may gung-ho digital and raise questions about converting, that
conversions are not always the correct answer to B&W photo's; much less make
them of a quality deserving of B&W. BTW, I also bought filters that are used
to specifically convert a color photo to B&W. They do a little better job
but IMO, they're not worth the cost.

I still feel that B&W photo's using film are superior to the hit-or-miss of
color conversions through the use of a program. I can't get digital
conversion photo quality equal to using (my favorites) Tri-x, Illford XP2,
or in special photo's ... Neopan.

I agree with you, there are numerous ways to convert a color photo to B&W.
The way, which I think is a very good way, is to go to Image Mode Channel
Mixer (Click on Monochrome to convert) and adjust sliders to tone. Follow
up by adjusting curves and perhaps tweaking the contrast slider, then sizing
and ending in unsharpening adjustments. If I know from the start when taking
a photo that I may decide to convert later, I try to include a Gray Scale
card in the photo to use as a reference, which I crop when finished with the
conversion. But I don't always know if I'll want to do a conversion to a
photo.

There are times the procedure is successful and I have photo's that will be
close enough to indicate same, but most of the time, especially with people
shots, conversions lead to crap, or perhaps ... eh, will do.

nick

PS. I'll soon be deleting the photo's I uploaded to illustrate crappy
conversions. I'm uncomfortable with the thought of them being seen, or
thought of as being finished photo's. Most people show photo's they think
are good. I'm showing a couple of photo's to illustrate conversions that go
from good to bad. g

In article PBXDc.124614$HG.105802@attbi_s53,
says...
I still feel that B&W photo's using film are superior to the hit-or-miss of
color conversions through the use of a program. I can't get digital
conversion photo quality equal to using (my favorites) Tri-x, Illford XP2,
or in special photo's ... Neopan.

There are plug-ins and processes to simulate different color and slide
films with digital images. I wonder if someone has come up with a
similar deal for B&W films?

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article PBXDc.124614$HG.105802@attbi_s53,
says...
I still feel that B&W photo's using film are superior to the hit-or-miss
of
color conversions through the use of a program. I can't get digital
conversion photo quality equal to using (my favorites) Tri-x, Illford
XP2,
or in special photo's ... Neopan.

There are plug-ins and processes to simulate different color and slide
films with digital images. I wonder if someone has come up with a
similar deal for B&W films?

I have, what is considered one of the best filters to use for conversions,
NIK Color Efex Pro. The NIK B&W conversion works fairly well but comparing
the two, NIK and the method I use, my method (IMO) appears to do a better
job. The gist of the problem is I can't restore tone and texture where it's
an essential part of the image once I eliminate it using the conversion
process.

Color and B&W are not the same. That is they shouldn't be viewed in the same
photo taking technique manner. Color speaks for itself (so to speak). By
that I mean, there are times when a photo has multiple colors and was shot
with flat lighting and looks great. I can dig out inconsequential subject
photo's to illustrate that. The same photo converted to B&W will look like
crap because the technique (use of filters or lighting) would have been
different if the imaging were originally captured with intent to enhance B&W
imaging.

Since I favor using B&W film to capture images of old abandoned buildings,
historical places, sea shore and boat yards, street photo's, and faces (or
people) depicting character, I can't see myself becoming a total digital
fan. IMO, color conversion just doesn't cut it and in many cases it had
become a poor excuse for an image that should have been taken with B&W film.

On occasion, I've been experimenting using various shades of color filters,
such as red and green, over color imaging and then using the conversion
process. Results have not produced a means to reliably consider the
conversion would be successful. Its been 'sometimes' successful.

Alas, what to do but struggle along.

Gotta get going now. I'll be connecting again this evening and reading
posts. See Ya.

nick

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:18:05 -0400, Doug Warner
wrote:

I'll start:

Still
Polaroid SuperScan 35
(served a film camera collection once over 50 units)
Canon PowerShot 350
(now with my kids)
Canon ProShot 90IS

Video
Sony TRV-510
JVC DVM-70

Next up
Sony PDX-10

Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004!
"Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com