Digital photography & boating
 

Who is using what these days if you are into digital photography while
on the boat?

Cameras, lenses, image "processing" software, printers, paper?

I've switched almost entirely from film to digital, and am still working
my way through the various software suites to find the one I like
(translation: does what I want-whatever that is at the moment-without
having to read 300 pages into the manual).

Anyone using lens filters out on the water to deepen, darken, lighten
skies and water?

If you're using a digital SLR, what's your favorite lens?

Just to get the ball rolling here.




--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Who is using what these days if you are into digital photography while
on the boat?

Cameras, lenses, image "processing" software, printers, paper?

I've switched almost entirely from film to digital, and am still working
my way through the various software suites to find the one I like
(translation: does what I want-whatever that is at the moment-without
having to read 300 pages into the manual).

Anyone using lens filters out on the water to deepen, darken, lighten
skies and water?

If you're using a digital SLR, what's your favorite lens?

Just to get the ball rolling here.


I've been holding back to see if these new fangled contraptions last. I
still use my Minolta SRT200 SLR 35mm camera but will probably change over
by Christmas. Just waiting for a 'super deal' to pop up. What I really want
is a combination good quality movie camera that takes stills comparable to a
4 or 5 megapixel digital. I'd probably go with the mini DV format.
I hear the mini DVD's aren't always compatable with your DVD player for TV
showings.

Don White wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Who is using what these days if you are into digital photography while
on the boat?

Cameras, lenses, image "processing" software, printers, paper?

I've switched almost entirely from film to digital, and am still working
my way through the various software suites to find the one I like
(translation: does what I want-whatever that is at the moment-without
having to read 300 pages into the manual).

Anyone using lens filters out on the water to deepen, darken, lighten
skies and water?

If you're using a digital SLR, what's your favorite lens?

Just to get the ball rolling here.


I've been holding back to see if these new fangled contraptions last. I
still use my Minolta SRT200 SLR 35mm camera but will probably change over
by Christmas. Just waiting for a 'super deal' to pop up. What I really want
is a combination good quality movie camera that takes stills comparable to a
4 or 5 megapixel digital. I'd probably go with the mini DV format.
I hear the mini DVD's aren't always compatable with your DVD player for TV
showings.



I switched to digital and in fact recently sold off my film SLR. My
wife, though, prefers a small film camera she can tuck in her purse when
she travels.

I've never gotten involved in home movies or videos. I figured it was
ocmplicated enought holding and focusing a camera for one steady shot!

I'm still experimenting to find the "right" digital software package.
I've been playing around a little with the trial version of Adobe's
Photoshop CS, but man, it is complicated, but it is one of the few that
reads the "raw" images my digital camera outputs.






--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody and Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either
of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Still shooting film here. I need five different lenses for my work, some as
short as 19mm for shooting interior photos. Most digital cameras stress *zoom*
imaging.
I don't ned a zoom, I can always put on a longer lens.

I did find one outfit that would offer the variety of lenses required. $3500.
If I didn't already have a nice camera, I'd spring for it- but that's a lot to
pay simply to avoid film development costs and duplicate what I've already got
with a newer technology.

Gould 0738 wrote:
Still shooting film here. I need five different lenses for my work, some as
short as 19mm for shooting interior photos. Most digital cameras stress *zoom*
imaging.
I don't ned a zoom, I can always put on a longer lens.

Well, you aren't really going to find a wide angle of that focal length
suitable with most digital SLRs, unless you find one where electronics
(the ccd) don't hang a magnification on the lens. I see your point.



I did find one outfit that would offer the variety of lenses required. $3500.
If I didn't already have a nice camera, I'd spring for it- but that's a lot to
pay simply to avoid film development costs and duplicate what I've already got
with a newer technology.

While digital SLR technology is moving along, and really good cameras
are getting much cheaper (and more expensive at the upper end of the SLR
scale), good quality lenses are not cheap and won't become so. The lens
is still physics and glass, not electronics.





--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody and Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either
of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Harry Krause wrote:
Gould 0738 wrote:
Still shooting film here. I need five different lenses for my work, some as
short as 19mm for shooting interior photos. Most digital cameras stress *zoom*
imaging.
I don't ned a zoom, I can always put on a longer lens.


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!





We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody and Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either
of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 08:40:08 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Who is using what these days if you are into digital photography while
on the boat?

Cameras, lenses, image "processing" software, printers, paper?

I've switched almost entirely from film to digital, and am still working
my way through the various software suites to find the one I like
(translation: does what I want-whatever that is at the moment-without
having to read 300 pages into the manual).

Anyone using lens filters out on the water to deepen, darken, lighten
skies and water?

If you're using a digital SLR, what's your favorite lens?

Just to get the ball rolling here.

Both actually. I have a restored F1 35 mm that a photographer at my
Dad's newspaper gave me when I was discharged from the service. It
has a full set of lenses including a massive 600mm Tele. I prefer the
35 mm format with Fuji film of differing speeds for most work - it's
fairly easy to have pictures put into hi-res digital format when they
are processed - I got out the personal processing deal a long time ago
- it's easier to have a lab do it then play with the digital images.

As to lenses, most of the work I do is with a standard 50 mm, but I am
partial to a 60/180 telephoto a lot.

As to digital, I'm not sold on the digital SLR format yet. I've seen
some good work done with digital SLRs by competant photographers, but
there is nothing like good paper and a real lens to capture a picture.
I have two Olympus digital cameras - a C-500 and a little point and
shoot 1.3 megapixel thingy that works really well.

As to software, I noticed a little on down that you used the trial
version of Adobe - it's a PITA and I don't like it. I have used,
since the begining lo those many years ago and it was version .8, is
Paint Shop Pro - now up to Version 8. It's not intuitive, I'll give
you that, but the results are amazing once you get used to it. And
it's much easier to learn than Adobe.

Later,

Tom
-----------
"Angling may be said to be so
like the mathematics that it
can never be fully learnt..."

Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

If you're using a digital SLR, what's your favorite lens?

Just to get the ball rolling here.

Both actually. I have a restored F1 35 mm that a photographer at my
Dad's newspaper gave me when I was discharged from the service. It
has a full set of lenses including a massive 600mm Tele. I prefer the
35 mm format with Fuji film of differing speeds for most work - it's
fairly easy to have pictures put into hi-res digital format when they
are processed - I got out the personal processing deal a long time ago
- it's easier to have a lab do it then play with the digital images.


Hot damn! I remember the F. It was a fine camera. Still is. I used one
in the early 1960s to defend myself from a couple of bozo klowns in
Bogalusa. Borrowed it from the school photo lab. Had a wide drab green
web strap. Used the strap to swing the camera and smack upside the head
a nice fellow who wanted to beat up the student driver of our car
because...because...because...because he was black. Put a small dent in
the chrome trim, but did not damage the camera.



As to lenses, most of the work I do is with a standard 50 mm, but I am
partial to a 60/180 telephoto a lot.


You ever encounter the 180 f2.5? What a chunka glass!


As to digital, I'm not sold on the digital SLR format yet. I've seen
some good work done with digital SLRs by competant photographers, but
there is nothing like good paper and a real lens to capture a picture.
I have two Olympus digital cameras - a C-500 and a little point and
shoot 1.3 megapixel thingy that works really well.

As to software, I noticed a little on down that you used the trial
version of Adobe - it's a PITA and I don't like it. I have used,
since the begining lo those many years ago and it was version .8, is
Paint Shop Pro - now up to Version 8. It's not intuitive, I'll give
you that, but the results are amazing once you get used to it. And
it's much easier to learn than Adobe.

Later,

Tom


I messed with PSP for a couple of weeks..the newer one that includes
ability to read Nikon digital NEFs. It's a good program. But so far, I
think I like Adobe better.


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody and Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either
of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:20:42 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

If you're using a digital SLR, what's your favorite lens?

Just to get the ball rolling here.

Both actually. I have a restored F1 35 mm that a photographer at my
Dad's newspaper gave me when I was discharged from the service. It
has a full set of lenses including a massive 600mm Tele. I prefer the
35 mm format with Fuji film of differing speeds for most work - it's
fairly easy to have pictures put into hi-res digital format when they
are processed - I got out the personal processing deal a long time ago
- it's easier to have a lab do it then play with the digital images.


Hot damn! I remember the F. It was a fine camera. Still is. I used one
in the early 1960s to defend myself from a couple of bozo klowns in
Bogalusa. Borrowed it from the school photo lab. Had a wide drab green
web strap. Used the strap to swing the camera and smack upside the head
a nice fellow who wanted to beat up the student driver of our car
because...because...because...because he was black. Put a small dent in
the chrome trim, but did not damage the camera.

I don't know if you remember back that far, but the Boston Hearld
American won a Pulitzer for new photo in the late '60s of a little
girl falling after being released by her mother on a burning fire
escape and the fire fighters waiting to catch her?

This camera took that picture.

As to lenses, most of the work I do is with a standard 50 mm, but I am
partial to a 60/180 telephoto a lot.


You ever encounter the 180 f2.5? What a chunka glass!


As to digital, I'm not sold on the digital SLR format yet. I've seen
some good work done with digital SLRs by competant photographers, but
there is nothing like good paper and a real lens to capture a picture.
I have two Olympus digital cameras - a C-500 and a little point and
shoot 1.3 megapixel thingy that works really well.

As to software, I noticed a little on down that you used the trial
version of Adobe - it's a PITA and I don't like it. I have used,
since the begining lo those many years ago and it was version .8, is
Paint Shop Pro - now up to Version 8. It's not intuitive, I'll give
you that, but the results are amazing once you get used to it. And
it's much easier to learn than Adobe.

I messed with PSP for a couple of weeks..the newer one that includes
ability to read Nikon digital NEFs. It's a good program. But so far, I
think I like Adobe better.

I have this argument all the time with friends and relatives.

To each their own. :)

Later,

Tom

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:20:42 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

You ever encounter the 180 f2.5? What a chunka glass!

Yes and even bigger. I can't remeber the size, but it was used to
take 35 mm pictures of stars - damn lens had two tri-pods to hold it
in place.


Later,

Tom

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:20:42 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

You ever encounter the 180 f2.5? What a chunka glass!

Yes and even bigger. I can't remeber the size, but it was used to
take 35 mm pictures of stars - damn lens had two tri-pods to hold it
in place.


Later,

Tom


There was a fellow named Rich Clarkson who some decades ago was the
absolutely best sports photog around...he worked the mid-west, mostly
Big 8 and pro, and he was the only one I ever met who could successfully
hand-hold the 180 INDOORS at b-ball and track and field events. Great
photographer.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody and Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either
of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Harry, I use a Nikon D-100 exclusively now. I have a Nikon N-90 35mm SLR
as backup, as they both use the same AF lenses. My favorite lens is my 17
to 35mm zoom. It's wide enough to give you a bit of wide angle with the
digital camera and still work as a "Normal" lens. I use an Omega circular
polarizer for shots around water and always keep sky/UV filters on all my
lenses. I carry a 17-35, 28-70 and a 70-200 which I seldom use with the
digital All the lenses are Sigma APO HSM f2.8's except for the 17-35 which
is an f2.8-f4. I chose Sigma lenses after reading several reviews,
and just couldn't afford real Nikon lenses. I've had the D-100 for over a
year and love it. My photo software is a full version of Photoshop 7.0,
although I'm about ready to upgrade to Photoshop CE.


Harry Krause wrote in news:2r5d4aF16jph0U1@uni-
berlin.de:

Who is using what these days if you are into digital photography while
on the boat?

Cameras, lenses, image "processing" software, printers, paper?

I've switched almost entirely from film to digital, and am still working
my way through the various software suites to find the one I like
(translation: does what I want-whatever that is at the moment-without
having to read 300 pages into the manual).

Anyone using lens filters out on the water to deepen, darken, lighten
skies and water?

If you're using a digital SLR, what's your favorite lens?

Just to get the ball rolling here.

W6JCW Bob wrote:
Harry, I use a Nikon D-100 exclusively now. I have a Nikon N-90 35mm SLR
as backup, as they both use the same AF lenses. My favorite lens is my 17
to 35mm zoom. It's wide enough to give you a bit of wide angle with the
digital camera and still work as a "Normal" lens. I use an Omega circular
polarizer for shots around water and always keep sky/UV filters on all my
lenses. I carry a 17-35, 28-70 and a 70-200 which I seldom use with the
digital All the lenses are Sigma APO HSM f2.8's except for the 17-35 which
is an f2.8-f4. I chose Sigma lenses after reading several reviews,
and just couldn't afford real Nikon lenses. I've had the D-100 for over a
year and love it. My photo software is a full version of Photoshop 7.0,
although I'm about ready to upgrade to Photoshop CE.


Harry Krause wrote in news:2r5d4aF16jph0U1@uni-
berlin.de:

Who is using what these days if you are into digital photography while
on the boat?



Yeah! I have a D100 and a D70 for backup...but...I like the D70 better.
In fact, I might trade the D100 in on some different gear. I'm looking
at the 60 mm macro lens; it'll be a 90 mm on the D70 and that's pretty
close to perfect for the "head shot" portraits I do for newsletters and
suchlike. I've also got the 70-200 zoom and the zoome that came with the
D70, plus a 105 2.5, which used to be one of my favorites, but with
digital is a little too long for portraits.

Sigman makes fine lenses.

I'm close to biting the bullet and buying PS CS. I've been messing with
the free trial for a while and though the software really is
complicated, it does lots of stuff more smoothly than some of the other
packages I've seen.

I'll look into that Omega polarizer...thanks for the tip.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

W6JCW Bob wrote:
Harry, I use a Nikon D-100 exclusively now. I have a Nikon N-90 35mm SLR
as backup, as they both use the same AF lenses. My favorite lens is my 17
to 35mm zoom. It's wide enough to give you a bit of wide angle with the
digital camera and still work as a "Normal" lens. I use an Omega circular
polarizer for shots around water and always keep sky/UV filters on all my
lenses. I carry a 17-35, 28-70 and a 70-200 which I seldom use with the
digital All the lenses are Sigma APO HSM f2.8's except for the 17-35 which
is an f2.8-f4. I chose Sigma lenses after reading several reviews,
and just couldn't afford real Nikon lenses. I've had the D-100 for over a
year and love it. My photo software is a full version of Photoshop 7.0,
although I'm about ready to upgrade to Photoshop CE.


Harry Krause wrote in news:2r5d4aF16jph0U1@uni-
berlin.de:


Who is using what these days if you are into digital photography while
on the boat?

Cameras, lenses, image "processing" software, printers, paper?

I've switched almost entirely from film to digital, and am still working
my way through the various software suites to find the one I like
(translation: does what I want-whatever that is at the moment-without
having to read 300 pages into the manual).

Anyone using lens filters out on the water to deepen, darken, lighten
skies and water?

If you're using a digital SLR, what's your favorite lens?

Just to get the ball rolling here.







If you like the Sigma lenses, you should check out the
Sigma digital SLR with the Foveon image sensor. don't
be fooled by it's "modest" pixel count.
it generates real RGB at *each* pixel - none of the
spatial artifacts you get with the usual filter group
structure. the effective resolution is at least 6x
the raw pixel count - comparing a Foveon with other
imaging arrays.

I believe Sigma is on their second generation (at least)
of the body - tweaks from field use, etc, etc.

no promises, but it's worth a looky

-mo

My wife uses a small camera for traveling and after her Olympus died in 14
months and the repair charge is $13 less than a new camera and only 1/2 the
warrantee. I got her a Nikon Coolpix 2500. 2M pixel camera that takes
great pictures for the scrapbook. 2MP is all you need for 4x6 prints.
Looking for a waterproof camera for a Galapago's and Amazon trip next year.
Sony DSC-60u is good to 5' but no zoom. Looking at the Pentax optio 43 now.
Bill

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Who is using what these days if you are into digital photography while
on the boat?

Cameras, lenses, image "processing" software, printers, paper?

I've switched almost entirely from film to digital, and am still
working
my way through the various software suites to find the one I like
(translation: does what I want-whatever that is at the moment-without
having to read 300 pages into the manual).

Anyone using lens filters out on the water to deepen, darken, lighten
skies and water?

If you're using a digital SLR, what's your favorite lens?

Just to get the ball rolling here.


I've been holding back to see if these new fangled contraptions last. I
still use my Minolta SRT200 SLR 35mm camera but will probably change
over
by Christmas. Just waiting for a 'super deal' to pop up. What I really
want
is a combination good quality movie camera that takes stills comparable
to a
4 or 5 megapixel digital. I'd probably go with the mini DV format.
I hear the mini DVD's aren't always compatable with your DVD player for
TV
showings.



I switched to digital and in fact recently sold off my film SLR. My
wife, though, prefers a small film camera she can tuck in her purse when
she travels.

I've never gotten involved in home movies or videos. I figured it was
ocmplicated enought holding and focusing a camera for one steady shot!

I'm still experimenting to find the "right" digital software package.
I've been playing around a little with the trial version of Adobe's
Photoshop CS, but man, it is complicated, but it is one of the few that
reads the "raw" images my digital camera outputs.






--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody and Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either
of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a
pariah.

What, me worry?

I do have a digital camera used strictly for
"snapshot" stuff.

I got it a few months back from gateway.com

Over 5 megapixels, and the cost was only about $225.

Won't replace a serious camera, however.

Friend only shoots in Digital now. Is a professional photographer in
Silicon Valley. Does lots of product brochure stuff. But his connect to a
computer and may store 19 mb for 1 pic. My Son in law is the computer guy
for the biggest baby picture chain. They shoot all digital now.
Bill

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I do have a digital camera used strictly for
"snapshot" stuff.

I got it a few months back from gateway.com

Over 5 megapixels, and the cost was only about $225.

Won't replace a serious camera, however.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 05:12:06 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Friend only shoots in Digital now. Is a professional photographer in
Silicon Valley. Does lots of product brochure stuff. But his connect to a
computer and may store 19 mb for 1 pic. My Son in law is the computer guy
for the biggest baby picture chain. They shoot all digital now.

For certain applications, such as computer set up and graphics, you
can't beat a digital SLR.

For print work, however, I still say that the film/negative/paper
chain is the best over all.

Just my opinion.

Later,

Tom
-----------
"Angling may be said to be so
like the mathematics that it
can never be fully learnt..."

Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
Who is using what these days if you are into digital photography while
on the boat?

Cameras, lenses, image "processing" software, printers, paper?

I've switched almost entirely from film to digital, and am still working
my way through the various software suites to find the one I like
(translation: does what I want-whatever that is at the moment-without
having to read 300 pages into the manual).

Anyone using lens filters out on the water to deepen, darken, lighten
skies and water?

If you're using a digital SLR, what's your favorite lens?

Just to get the ball rolling here.

I use my digital camera for point and shoot type of stuff, but for
creative photography, I still use a 35mm SLR. I like the versatility
of it. I can be more creative with my 35mm SLR at the time the picture
is taken. Most of the creativity in digital is done with the software,
the darkroom so to speak. With good software, though, you can make
quite dramatic affects, without using filters, etc. Adobe Photoshop is
very nice.

basskisser wrote:
Harry Krause wrote in message ...
Who is using what these days if you are into digital photography while
on the boat?

Cameras, lenses, image "processing" software, printers, paper?

I've switched almost entirely from film to digital, and am still working
my way through the various software suites to find the one I like
(translation: does what I want-whatever that is at the moment-without
having to read 300 pages into the manual).

Anyone using lens filters out on the water to deepen, darken, lighten
skies and water?

If you're using a digital SLR, what's your favorite lens?

Just to get the ball rolling here.

I use my digital camera for point and shoot type of stuff, but for
creative photography, I still use a 35mm SLR. I like the versatility
of it. I can be more creative with my 35mm SLR at the time the picture
is taken. Most of the creativity in digital is done with the software,
the darkroom so to speak. With good software, though, you can make
quite dramatic affects, without using filters, etc. Adobe Photoshop is
very nice.


I dunno. My digital SLRs are far more complex in their abilities to mess
around with picture taking than my Canon film SLR ever was...

I shot nothing but 'chromes for years for the great color of the film
and so they could be examined under first generation conditions to
determine what was good enough to publish. But the ability to mess with
a first-generation digital photo with a good software suite and not have
generational losses as you save and reload and peel away, et
cetera...this makes digital photographer a real boon.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

I use a Canon S45 digital. I just bought my girlfriend an Olympus Stylus
300 which is "water resistant". I like the camera a bit better because
of this and its smaller size but haven't used it much yet. I burn a CDROM
of the photos and take it to Costco for 14 cent/copy prints (cheaper
and faster than an inkjet printer).

On the plus slide of the S45, it takes 3 minute video and sound clips which
is nice sometimes (although not the quality that a camcorder would take).

b.

After 2 months of research I finally decided on a Kocak Easy Share DX6490
digital camera.

So far it has been great. It is 4.0 megapixels. It has a 10X optical zoom and a
3X digital zoom. It can also shoot video although I don't believe it to be
quite the quality of a video camera but I have only toyed with the video
portion of the camera.

The 4.0 megapixels is supposedly good for prints up to 20" by 30". I have made
several 4 X 6 prints and the quality, in my eyes is almost as good as a regular
old 35 mm print if not as good.

There are several modes of operation. Auto where the camera does all the work
and you just point and shoot.

Manual mode where you can be creative.

Sport mode for subjects that are in motion.

Portrait for full frame portraits of people. It allows the subject to be sharp
and the background indistinct.

Night mode for night scenes or low light conditions. For this mode a tripod is
recommended because of the slow shutter speeds. I am waiting for the next full
moon and plan to take several shots especially in full 10X optical zoom and the
additional 3X digital to check out the quality of the photographs.

Lastly there is video mode. You can take snippits of 5 sec, 15 sec, 30 sec or
unlimited limited only by the amount of memory available.

There is a burst option whereby you can take a series of 6 photos in rapid
succession 3 per second for sporting events or objects in motion.

You can even adjust the picture quality from the full 4.0 megapixels down to
3.5, 2.1 or 1.1 depending on the quality desired.

I have had the camera since late may and I currently have over 300 photos
downloaded onto my computers hard drive. I have shot everything from portraits
and still scened to athletic events to moving boats and even jets and I am very
happy with the quality of the shots.

I am not going to say that it is better than the good old 35 mm cameras of the
past but for now my Ricoh 35 mm camera is in mothballs until I see the need to
use it again. Digital works great for me. BTW I paid $399 plux tax for mine at
Circuit City. I don't know if the price has come down since then but either way
I am happy with my purchase and my decision to go with Kodak.

Harry, it's worth checking out at the very least. Good luck with your purchase.
It would allow you to take great pics of GWB's inauguration next January. Just
kidding, I know you would not be there unless Mr. Kerry wins. Anyway check it
out there are many, many different digital cameras to choose from. I am
surprised it only took me two months to decide on mine. When I bought the Ricoh
I spent a year researching cameras before I decided on that one.

RGrew176 wrote:

I am not going to say that it is better than the good old 35 mm cameras of the
past but for now my Ricoh 35 mm camera is in mothballs until I see the need to
use it again. Digital works great for me. BTW I paid $399 plux tax for mine at
Circuit City. I don't know if the price has come down since then but either way
I am happy with my purchase and my decision to go with Kodak.

Harry, it's worth checking out at the very least. Good luck with your purchase.
It would allow you to take great pics of GWB's inauguration next January. Just
kidding, I know you would not be there unless Mr. Kerry wins. Anyway check it
out there are many, many different digital cameras to choose from. I am
surprised it only took me two months to decide on mine. When I bought the Ricoh
I spent a year researching cameras before I decided on that one.

I have a couple of digital cameras and, in fact, recently sold off my
35mm film camera. My wife, though, prefers her little 35 mm film camera.

As for Bush, if he is elected, we're facing a future of terror on our
soil perpetrated by the growing number of radical Islamists who hate him
and his misbegotten war on the wrong people. Bet on it.


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 10:33:11 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


I switched to digital and in fact recently sold off my film SLR.

Welcome to the early ninties dimwit. Prices for digital cameras have
finally fell low enough for folks who say "Would ya like fries with
that?" for aliving, can afford them. But of course, you know that now.

My
wife, though, prefers a small film camera she can tuck in her purse when
she travels.

And where exactly does your cousin "travel" to?

I've never gotten involved in home movies or videos. I figured it was
ocmplicated enought holding and focusing a camera for one steady shot!

read: Ive never had the smarts or money to get into video.

I'm still experimenting to find the "right" digital software package.

Dont worry...theres a lot of freeware out there.

I've been playing around a little with the trial version of Adobe's
Photoshop CS, but man, it is complicated, but it is one of the few that
reads the "raw" images my digital camera outputs.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahh!

Here you go again...trying to impress the group, only for it to
backfire in your face...

Photoshop is one of the most user freindly software packages out
there...I have been using it for many years. Its obvious you have
never used it. And I like the your use of the buzzword "raw"...nice
try idiot. LOL!

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

JohnH wrote:

Harry has been on rec.photo.digital trying to pick up some words to use over
here. So far, he hasn't impressed anyone over there. I guess I'll have to filter
the --- out of that group also.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


I'd be delighted to match my photographic skills against yours any day
of the week, crap for brains.


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Cleesturtle1 wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

Where did Harry say that this was NEW technology, and/or wasn't being
done in the "mid 80s"?

You are such a moron.

Cleesturtle1 wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 10:33:11 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


I switched to digital and in fact recently sold off my film SLR.

Welcome to the early ninties dimwit. Prices for digital cameras have
finally fell low enough for folks who say "Would ya like fries with
that?" for aliving, can afford them. But of course, you know that now.

My
wife, though, prefers a small film camera she can tuck in her purse when
she travels.

And where exactly does your cousin "travel" to?

I've never gotten involved in home movies or videos. I figured it was
ocmplicated enought holding and focusing a camera for one steady shot!

read: Ive never had the smarts or money to get into video.

I'm still experimenting to find the "right" digital software package.

Dont worry...theres a lot of freeware out there.

I've been playing around a little with the trial version of Adobe's
Photoshop CS, but man, it is complicated, but it is one of the few that
reads the "raw" images my digital camera outputs.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahh!

Here you go again...trying to impress the group, only for it to
backfire in your face...

Photoshop is one of the most user freindly software packages out
there...I have been using it for many years. Its obvious you have
never used it. And I like the your use of the buzzword "raw"...nice
try idiot. LOL!

Oh, really? So, what red saturation index do you typically use for
portraits? How about unfiltered scenics? How do YOU decide a
particular picture's sharpness needs?

basskisser wrote:
Cleesturtle1 wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

Where did Harry say that this was NEW technology, and/or wasn't being
done in the "mid 80s"?

You are such a moron.

Cheesyturtle is in my bozo bin.

As for "digital" versus "film" photography, most pro photographers are
still using film for all sorts of reasons, although "the switch" is
underway. One of the reasons is this: even on the best glass-tube
computer monitors, because of the limitations of screen resolution, you
cannot see enough detail in most digital photos to determine how sharp
focus is, and therefore which are the best shots for publication. Until
very recently, most of the pro photogs I've worked with have worked
strictly in film, and in medium format at that - usually 2-1/4. Now,
many carry along a pro digital outfit, too.

The most strikingly beautiful television commercials are still shot on
35 or 70 mm film. The cheaper ones, or the commercials where great tonal
range and feel are not that important, are shot on tape...digital, as it
were. Most movies are still shot on film.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:12:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

And
it's much easier to learn than Adobe.

====================================

Almost anything is easier in my opinion but my brother-in-law is in
the ad business and says that Adobe has become the defacto standard
with the pros he works with.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:32:11 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:12:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

And
it's much easier to learn than Adobe.

====================================

Almost anything is easier in my opinion but my brother-in-law is in
the ad business and says that Adobe has become the defacto standard
with the pros he works with.

Does Adobe work on Macs?

Take care.

Tom

"The beatings will stop when morale improves."
E. Teach, 1717

Around 9/27/2004 1:04 PM, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:32:11 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

Almost anything is easier in my opinion but my brother-in-law is in
the ad business and says that Adobe has become the defacto standard
with the pros he works with.


Does Adobe work on Macs?

Yep.

--
~/Garth - 1966 Glastron V-142 Skiflite: "Blue-Boat"
"There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing about in boats."
-Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows

basskisser wrote:
(basskisser) wrote in message . com...
Cleesturtle1 wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

Where did Harry say that this was NEW technology, and/or wasn't being
done in the "mid 80s"?

You are such a moron.

Perhaps YOU are the moron. If I am wrong, please show where. I have
read Harry's post again, and STILL don't see where he said that this
was NEW technology, or whether or not it was being done in the "mid
80s". Please, show where he said such. If you can't, then yes, YOU are
the moron.

Until recently, a year or so ago, I had no great interest in digital
photography. When I work professionally on magazines or brochures or
annual reports, I always have the photography done by a top pro, and the
graphics done by a professional graphics artist. My role was always
directing the photogs and then looking through the 'chromes and picking
the photos I wanted to use. That's still mostly the case on my
professinoal work, though I am starting to see more use of digital
originals. Still, with a digital original, you can't really tell what
you have because of screen resolution limitations.

There are many other limitations inherent in "digital processing" of
photos, art and layout in putting together publications. My graphics
designer uses Photoshop for photos, but Quark Express for design and
layout of publications. When we have the budget, we send out to the
typehouse for type, instead of using "DTP" type.

But digital works...and is useful for some professional jobs.

My personal involvement in digital photography now is casual.




--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
basskisser wrote:
(basskisser) wrote in message . com...
Cleesturtle1 wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

Where did Harry say that this was NEW technology, and/or wasn't being
done in the "mid 80s"?

You are such a moron.

Perhaps YOU are the moron. If I am wrong, please show where. I have
read Harry's post again, and STILL don't see where he said that this
was NEW technology, or whether or not it was being done in the "mid
80s". Please, show where he said such. If you can't, then yes, YOU are
the moron.

Until recently, a year or so ago, I had no great interest in digital
photography. When I work professionally on magazines or brochures or
annual reports, I always have the photography done by a top pro, and the
graphics done by a professional graphics artist. My role was always
directing the photogs and then looking through the 'chromes and picking
the photos I wanted to use. That's still mostly the case on my
professinoal work, though I am starting to see more use of digital
originals. Still, with a digital original, you can't really tell what
you have because of screen resolution limitations.

There are many other limitations inherent in "digital processing" of
photos, art and layout in putting together publications. My graphics
designer uses Photoshop for photos, but Quark Express for design and
layout of publications. When we have the budget, we send out to the
typehouse for type, instead of using "DTP" type.

But digital works...and is useful for some professional jobs.

My personal involvement in digital photography now is casual.

I have always had a *hobby* interest in photography. It's the only
artistic type of thing I'm any good at. I've taken a few classes at
junior colleges, etc. I still like the artistic bent of 35mm
photography, that is, being able manipulate things at the point of
contact, rather than doing it at the computer, although there are a
lot of advantages to digital. I may at some time dabble more and more
with digital, I have a camera, and decent software.