film vs digital.

dribbles · Post by **dribbles** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:39 pm

film or digital for your photos/camera?

Post by **eddiecanuck** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:42 pm

For me, digital all the way. I can take more pictures, easier to save and store them, and I can get only the ones I want printed. Plus the camera I've got is great (for my use), and I love having the instant feedback on if the pic is going to turn out or not.

Post by **bio** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:57 pm

Other?

Like, colored pencils and a sketchbook?

I have a digital (Olympus Camedia 720UZ). While it's no where near the quality of a high end 35mm, it does pretty well, and you get instant gratification (via the LCD display on the back).

The shutter speed on it is also quite amazing. It catches raindrops with ease and stops the prop on an aircraft with no blur. It's also got 10x optical zoom (with 28x digital... but that's what photoshop is for) and excelent macro for the close-ups.

Of course, I paid a good price for it, so it better be nice

Moxie · Post by **Moxie** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 4:46 pm

Yeah, the instantly knowing if they're going to turn out well or not was the biggest selling point for me. There are lots of times when something important is happening and I want (NEED) to know when I've got a good shot (like having my picture taken with favourite celebrities!). Also, I'm horribly unphotogenic, so with a digital camera I can take loads and loads of pictures to get one good one and not have to waste money!

Pigman · Post by **Pigman** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:11 pm

Actually, I got several cammeras..

One is a vintage 35mm K1000 Pentax with about $1000 bux worth of screw on lenses. Everything is manual so you have to use the light meter to figure out F stop and shutter speed. Takes the best pictures.. but not in a digital world anymore.. I use it when I take wedding pics, family portraits, etc.

My best digital is my Kodak 2.2 MP... nothing fancy, but couldn't be easier to use.

Most of the shots on my web site were taken with that old Kodak...

bugfreezer · Post by **bugfreezer** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 9:06 pm

Moxie wrote:Also, I'm horribly unphotogenic, so with a digital camera I can take loads and loads of pictures to get one good one and not have to waste money!

...When you smile, you are quite photogenic!

bio wrote:I have a digital (Olympus Camedia 720UZ). While it's no where near the quality of a high end 35mm, it does pretty well, and you get instant gratification (via the LCD display on the back).

The shutter speed on it is also quite amazing. It catches raindrops with ease and stops the prop on an aircraft with no blur. It's also got 10x optical zoom (with 28x digital... but that's what photoshop is for) and excelent macro for the close-ups.

Of course, I paid a good price for it, so it better be nice

So, they can set 'em up for high speed pix - how long between the push and the pic?

Post by **bio** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:24 am

bugfreezer wrote:So, they can set 'em up for high speed pix - how long between the push and the pic?

That's actually a problem with my camera. There's a noticeable delay between pushing the button and taking the picture.

My friend has a Konica Minolta Dimage Z2. With 10x Optical zoom and 4mp quality, it's quite spiffy. It also has blindingly fast focus and takes the pic immediately when you press the button.

That is my next camera.

Rocketdork · Post by **Rocketdork** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:28 am

I prefer to use selenium to take my photo's.

I usually place the item to be photographed on a glass plate, expose the selenium to a very high static electric charge and then expose the item to be photographed to a very bright light. This causes the selenium to lose its static charge anyplace where there are lighter areas. I then dust a multicolored plastic over the selenium, it adhears to the area where static charge is. Then I place a piece of "photographic paper" over the selenium pass a high voltage wire over the paper, the charge is opposite the one I passed over the selenium. All the plastic moves from the selenium to the "photographic paper" and I use heat to set it.

I do it all the time and its the most common method of taking a photo that I do. I use this process at least 10x of a camera. So do you.

Post by **eddiecanuck** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:36 am

you couldn't just say, I take pictures could you?

Rocketdork · Post by **Rocketdork** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:10 am

eddiecanuck wrote:you couldn't just say, I take pictures could you?

Well its isn't taking a picture in the traditional sense, the photographic process in your film camera uses Silver to record the image. I use selenium, and can use the "film" media over and over. The selenium doesn't record a permanent image, only temporary.

AsaJay · Post by **AsaJay** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 12:26 pm

bio wrote:There's a noticeable delay between pushing the button and taking the picture.

I found this to be very annoying as well. . .

. . . until I discovered something.

If I hold the button on mine down half-way, it does the auto-focus-get-ready-to-snap-the-pic thing. If it's not right, back off. If it's right, just a little more push and "SNAP" pic is in the bag.

Post by **bio** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:28 pm

Heh.. I do the same thing (very handy durring action shots).

bugfreezer · Post by **bugfreezer** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:16 pm

Rocketdork wrote:I prefer to use selenium to take my photo's.

I usually place the item to be photographed on a glass plate, expose the selenium to a very high static electric charge and then expose the item to be photographed to a very bright light. This causes the selenium to lose its static charge anyplace where there are lighter areas. I then dust a multicolored plastic over the selenium, it adhears to the area where static charge is. Then I place a piece of "photographic paper" over the selenium pass a high voltage wire over the paper, the charge is opposite the one I passed over the selenium. All the plastic moves from the selenium to the "photographic paper" and I use heat to set it.

I do it all the time and its the most common method of taking a photo that I do. I use this process at least 10x of a camera. So do you.

I wouldn't want to photo a bug with it...somehow the result tends to be horribly distorted, it's not so bad with thrips, but I'd hate to pic a mantis or a camel spider.