Photography 101

[chrisinhouston]

My DSLR will be a thing of the past when they pry it out of my dead cold hands!

Actually the new compacts are nice and I wouldn't mind one for those times when I want to take pictures without the weight and hassle of the big cameras and lenses. But they are amateur level cameras and not professional so it's like comparing apples to oranges. The LCD only viewfinder and the short batter life are 2 factors that separate them from good DSLRs as well as most have limitations when shooting in Raw. And it's not quite the same as the demise of film use in both the industry and for consumers. For professionals film usage has dwindled because digital quality has gotten progressively better and film is getting to be harder to have processed; not only Kodachrome but even E6 or B&W since supply and demand dictates how often a lab runs it's film processing line.

All my film cameras, from 8x10 to 35mm are gone and I don't miss them. I got plenty out of them and they served me well.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by chrisinhouston

......But they are amateur level cameras and not professional so it's like comparing apples to oranges.

Comparing the photographs you take with the pictures 99.999% of the public takes, is like comparing apples and oranges.
I've met an awful lot of people carrying thousands of dollars worth of DLSR equipment, who are producing pictures on par with my Ansco Lancer.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by BigV

an update: I have reduced the number of unidentified faces to 11,495.

an update. I'm down to 8,259 unnamed faces.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Cleaning out the fridge, I found three rolls of Kodak MAX 800 film... develop by 05/2003, using Kodak process C-41. Want 'em?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by BigV

an update. I'm down to 8,259 unnamed faces.

an update. I'm back up to 12,992 unnamed faces.

two factors contributed to the increase. one--I have switched computers and the transition to the new machine was excruciating. the databases that contain this info were damaged. fuck. two--I have been taking more pictures, and lots of those new pictures contained shots, crowd shots, and that means a LOT of faces. I'm culling the obviously irrelevant faces as efficiently as I can. but 13k faces is still a lot of faces.

[footfootfoot]

It's not the wand, but the magician

[BigV]

You're saying xoB is an incompetent putz?

[xoxoxoBruce]

If he is, then he is correct.

[BigV]

*snort*

Hey. Nice picture of the natal homestead --> over thar. Very cool (no pun intended).

[Clodfobble]

I am a dedicated viewfinder loyalist. I chose my last two cameras based solely on which models included viewfinders. Here are my reasons:

1.) You look like a complete tool holding that little thing at arm's length, and jutting your chin under to help you focus on the jittery picture. Yes, you do.
2.) Said picture is jittery, because it is harder to hold something steady at arm's length than it is to hold it against your head.
3.) Again, the arm's-length thing negates the picture-size argument as well. A 3/8" viewfinder held up to your eye fills your vision and seems very large indeed. A 3" screen held away from your body appears much smaller than 3 inches.
4.) Constantly-active LCD screens suck up battery life like nobody's business.

[BigV]

I *do* look like a tool, an even a viewfinder camera big enough to hide my head won't change that.

However.

I don't take jittery pictures most of the time, there are ways to steady the camera besides using my forehead.

Presbyopia.

Constantly active screens do represent a drain on the battery, but all my cameras have a simple button labeled "display" that lets me toggle it off. for that matter, I don't have the camera on all the time like, say, a video camera.

One of the most important deciding factors for my camera choice was speed from power up to picture taken. It mostly spends its time OFF tucked in my pocket.

Not meaning to quarrel. Hey... show us some pictures, why doncha?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by BigV

Presbyopia.

This reason is not valid in my experience. Every viewfinder camera I have ever used has the focus of the viewfinder located at or near infinity so your eye can focus on it with ease. A few have a little dial that lets you even adjust where that focus is to fit your eye. Presumably so you can adjust the viewfinder to accommodate the wearing of reading glasses.

It is a valid reason for a non-viewfinder camera being held at arm's length instead of closer to your face. But that's a strike against the non-viewfinder camera.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by glatt

This reason is not valid in my experience. Every viewfinder camera I have ever used has the focus of the viewfinder located at or near infinity so your eye can focus on it with ease. A few have a little dial that lets you even adjust where that focus is to fit your eye. Presumably so you can adjust the viewfinder to accommodate the wearing of reading glasses.

It is a valid reason for a non-viewfinder camera being held at arm's length instead of closer to your face. But that's a strike against the non-viewfinder camera.

In my experience, where the optical and lcd viewfinder both show the same thing, the lcd shows it bigger, but it is also important that the lcd shows it with more light in some conditions. That extra light helps.

I purchased both of the last two digital cameras (Canon A710IS and Canon G10) with the specific requirement that the have an optical viewfinder. Having taken thousands of pictures with them, I find a vanishingly (hahaha) small percentage of them were framed using the optical viewfinder.

[footfootfoot]

Cameras suck. all of them.

[infinite monkey]

I think you're just unable to focus right now.