# Do you take pictures?

• Pengwuino
Gold Member
zoobyshoe said:
What brand you have? I got a Panasonic. 5 MP, 6x optical zoom. Through the lens viewing.
I deliberately picked a tiny camera, the http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/dimagex50.html" [Broken].

I knew that, unless it was small enough to carry with me everywhere, it would not get used enough, and I would rue my choice. As it is, I have it with me at all times. I carry it in my "murse" (MANpouch).

My criteria, in order, were:
- 5MP (high enough to crop freely, and also substitute for high zoom)
- FAST power-up (<2s) and shutter latency (The camera I was borrowing before I bought my own was a Coolpix with a 6 second startup. You might as well not have a camera at all.)
- tiny (shirt pocket-sized)
- Lithium batteries (the best choice)
- large viewer
I have little use for most of the fancy bells and whistles that they try to stick on cameras these days. Other than flash and macro, I use two features: light balance and bracketing exposure.

Last edited by a moderator:
zoobyshoe
DaveC426913 said:
I deliberately picked a tiny camera, the http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/dimagex50.html" [Broken].

I knew that, unless it was small enough to carry with me everywhere, it would not get used enough, and I would rue my choice. As it is, I have it with me at all times. I carry it in my "murse" (MANpouch).

My criteria, in order, were:
- 5MP (high enough to crop freely, and also substitute for high zoom)
- FAST power-up (<2s) and shutter latency (The camera I was borrowing before I bought my own was a Coolpix with a 6 second startup. You might as well not have a camera at all.)
- tiny (shirt pocket-sized)
- Lithium batteries (the best choice)
- large viewer
I have little use for most of the fancy bells and whistles that they try to stick on cameras these days. Other than flash and macro, I use two features: light balance and bracketing exposure.

Sounds good. I didn't pay attention to the startup feature cause I didn't realize there were bad ones. I lucked out anyway since mine is about the same as the one you bought.

Yeah, large viewer is important. Zoom is only reliable with a tripod, but it's still a nice thing to have. I use it when photographing my drawings for instance.

Size doesn't bother me because it already seems "micro" compared to my old 35mm. I keep it in a case on my belt.

One nice feature I didn't realize it was going to have is the black and white option. They take beautiful black and white photos, and that's a nice option to have in various circumstances.

I didn't bother with rechargable batteries. I'm just using regular ones, and as long as I keep a spare set with me am fine. It seems the camera can only use the top third of the power out put of the batteries, and then it tells you they're dead. They aren't though, and I save them for other things that work OK with less juice. I stick to the big package deals: 36 AA's all at once. They're quite a bit cheaper that way.

Last edited by a moderator:
Gold Member
zoobyshoe said:
I use it when photographing my drawings for instance.
Yeah? Do you have a set up for that? I've taken pics of http://www.davesbrain.ca/sketches03.html" [Broken] but I have a terrible time with hot spots and uneven liggting (grnated becasue I haven't bothered making a proper balanced setup). I'd like to hear what yours is like.

zoobyshoe said:
One nice feature I didn't realize it was going to have is the black and white option.
:shrug : While I'd like to be a purist and do the bulk of my work in-camera, frankly, I'm a PhotoShop junkie.

zoobyshoe said:
I didn't bother with rechargable batteries. I'm just using regular ones, and as long as I keep a spare set with me am fine.
You are luckier than most people I hear who burn through reg batteries at an unbelievable rate. (However, I will keep in mind your advice about not trusting the battery meter. I'll suggest that to the next person I hear with that trouble.)

Last edited by a moderator:
zoobyshoe
DaveC426913 said:
Yeah? Do you have a set up for that? I've taken pics of http://www.davesbrain.ca/sketches03.html" [Broken] but I have a terrible time with hot spots and uneven liggting (grnated becasue I haven't bothered making a proper balanced setup). I'd like to hear what yours is like.
Those are great, Dave. You are a good modeler of shape. There's something about them that reminds me strongly of some of Van Gogh's pencil and pen and ink works, something about what things attract you to emphasize, although I don't think he did any nudes.

I don't have a special set up. I tape them to one wall of a garage and play with various arrangements of uncovering the windows and different degrees of opening the main garage door. All has to be done during the day, of course. I tried photofloods but had no luck, and they are touchy to work with.
:shrug : While I'd like to be a purist and do the bulk of my work in-camera, frankly, I'm a PhotoShop junkie.
Yeah, one click and they're black and white. (I'm going to pretend there is some advantage to snapping the originals in the black and white mode, though, even though I'm not aware of any.)
You are luckier than most people I hear who burn through reg batteries at an unbelievable rate. (However, I will keep in mind your advice about not trusting the battery meter. I'll suggest that to the next person I hear with that trouble.)
Don't know about meters. My camera just stops working when the batteries are too low, and gives the message to change them. Even though they are no longer powerful enough to operate the camera, they will operate many other things for a while yet. Clocks, of course, but even flashlights and tape players work on the batteries that don't have enough juice for my camera.

Last edited by a moderator:
Gold Member
zoobyshoe said:
Those are great, Dave. You are a good modeler of shape. There's something about them that reminds me strongly of some of Van Gogh's pencil and pen and ink works, something about what things attract you to emphasize, although I don't think he did any nudes.

zoobyshoe said:
I don't have a special set up. I tape them to one wall of a garage and play with various arrangements of uncovering the windows and different degrees of opening the main garage door. All has to be done during the day, of course. I tried photofloods but had no luck, and they are touchy to work with.
Yup, that sounds familiar. When I was doing them proper-like, it was a pain.

zoobyshoe said:
Yeah, one click and they're black and white. (I'm going to pretend there is some advantage to snapping the originals in the black and white mode, though, even though I'm not aware of any.)
Well, I can think of one - I just don't like to admit it. In-the-field composition takes skill (mine's pretty rusty). But most anyone can improve a picture if they have PhotoShop and enough time.

zoobyshoe said:
Don't know about meters. My camera just stops working when the batteries are too low, and gives the message to change them. Even though they are no longer powerful enough to operate the camera, they will operate many other things for a while yet. Clocks, of course, but even flashlights and tape players work on the batteries that don't have enough juice for my camera.
Oh, my mistake. I thought you were saying that the batteries still worked in the camera even after the meter showed they were depleted. So yeah, it sounds like your camera eats batteries like I've heard.

zoobyshoe
DaveC426913 said:
Well, I can think of one - I just don't like to admit it. In-the-field composition takes skill (mine's pretty rusty). But most anyone can improve a picture if they have PhotoShop and enough time.
I can't compose a shot to save my life. I try hard, and always think they look as well arranged as possible, but something is wrong with my instincts in this regard. Some people have a natural eye for it.

I have Printshop Pro and have tried "improving" photos but have found that things like "sharpen" don't actually work, and manipulating histograms is, apparently, beyond me. I understand the principle, but can't get the effects I want. When ever I'm done working on a picture it always seems more degraded in general. I've had good results with a couple things like selecting an object and darkening the background behind it, and the blemish remover tool is pretty good: removed scratches and dust marks.

Are your drawings charcoal? Ever do pen and ink? Are those from life?

Gold Member
zoobyshoe said:
I can't compose a shot to save my life. I try hard, and always think they look as well arranged as possible, but something is wrong with my instincts in this regard. Some people have a natural eye for it.
Me neither. PhotoShopping gives me the time and tools to plan carefully.

zoobyshoe said:
I have Printshop Pro and have tried "improving" photos but have found that things like "sharpen" don't actually work, and manipulating histograms is, apparently, beyond me. I understand the principle, but can't get the effects I want. When ever I'm done working on a picture it always seems more degraded in general. I've had good results with a couple things like selecting an object and darkening the background behind it, and the blemish remover tool is pretty good: removed scratches and dust marks.
You just gotta get PhotoShop.

zoobyshoe said:
Are your drawings charcoal? Ever do pen and ink? Are those from life?
Few are charcoal. I'm a tight, controlled sketcher, so I don't tend to go for that kind of loosy-goosy medium. Pencil is my fave, followed by chalk pastel. I do pen & ink too, but have less luck. Most of my illo work is done in pen (felt tip) though.

Those pics are from life, yes.

There's some dregs of stuff on http://www.davesbrain.ca" [Broken].

What about you? You have any stuff beyond what you posted earlier?

Last edited by a moderator:
zoobyshoe
DaveC426913 said:
Those pics are from life, yes.
Drawing from life much more difficult to do than what I do (from photos) and you're really excellent at it. In the second bunch you linked to I especially like how you modeled the woman's back in the top left nude: a lot of depth, shape, structure.
What about you? You have any stuff beyond what you posted earlier?
Just more of the same kind of stuff. No excursions into different media.

Gold Member
Post some!

AngelShare
I did until my laptop went haywire...everything, including my pictures, was deleted and my camera's batteries died not long after that...need to get the good kind.

I'll probably start again once I get over having lost everything I've ever worked on, found, and loved more than life itself... :tongue:

Staff Emeritus
Software like FileScavenger can recover lost files. Windows 'lost' a folder with over 2 GB of images. I used Filescavenger to recover about 97-98%. Fortunately, those I didn't recover were backed up elsewhere. So I have filescavenger on the PC's. I also use a minimim of 2 HDs per PC and use an external HD backup as well as CD or DVD backup. Laptops have to be backed up to other PC's.

Staff Emeritus

http://flickr.com/photos/geoffhandley/

Check out his photos from rural county of Shropshire!

I never take casual images. Any image i take has to be significant in some way.

Gold Member
I never take casual images. Any image i take has to be significant in some way.
Significant to whom? I presume you.

Pardon my armchair psychology but, is it possible that you feel the need to justify your choice in case anybody asks you "what it means"?

Consider taking pics just because they are pleasing - give your audience more credit.

Staff Emeritus
Recommendations for a digital camera?

http://thegardenforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=1445 [Broken]

Some examples of backyard and nature photography.

Last edited by a moderator:
Staff Emeritus
Some really amazing and otherwise incredible photographs in National Wildlife's 35th photography contest!

http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?issueID=79&articleID=1158

Staff Emeritus
Some cool butterfly pictures.

Last edited by a moderator:
Staff Emeritus
All pics were shot with a Canon EOS 1D Mark II.

Check these pictures out!

Last edited by a moderator:
SimplySolitary_
Astronuc said:
All pics were shot with a Canon EOS 1D Mark II.

Check these pictures out!

How beautiful!

I have an old Nikon FG-20 (I do believe) that I just adore. It was given to me this past Christmas - I've always wanted a camera that took 'real pictures'. If given the chance (And money to buy film), I'd take at least three rolls a day. I usually only take about a quarter of that, when I have money. I've got negatives lying around everywhere! :)

Last edited by a moderator:
Staff Emeritus
SimplySolitary_ said:
How beautiful!

I have an old Nikon FG-20 (I do believe) that I just adore. It was given to me this past Christmas - I've always wanted a camera that took 'real pictures'. If given the chance (And money to buy film), I'd take at least three rolls a day. I usually only take about a quarter of that, when I have money. I've got negatives lying around everywhere! :)
I used to shoot 8-12 rolls/day, and most were 36 frames/roll. Of course, I too was constrained by money.

With a digital camera, I can easily shoot 200-300 or more frames in a day. I have two memory cards, or I take the laptop along to download one card.

Gold Member
I've gone digital (Olympus 3040 zoom) but still have one of my trusty old OM-1s. At one time, I had three of them and an OM-4 with a wide selection of single-focal-length lenses. I also used to have a Bronica ETR-S and ETR-C with some single-focal-length lenses. I processed my own film much of the time, to keep costs down. Film photography was expensive! I should buy a better digital camera - the lack of processing expenses makes digital photography a no-brainer!

SimplySolitary_
Astronuc said:
I used to shoot 8-12 rolls/day, and most were 36 frames/roll. Of course, I too was constrained by money.

With a digital camera, I can easily shoot 200-300 or more frames in a day. I have two memory cards, or I take the laptop along to download one card.

What kind of digital camera do you use?? I've been looking into digital cameras, and I do have one, but I don't want to get one that'll take extremely bad shots, or will die out quicky...
:)

Gold Member
Astronuc said:
All pics were shot with a Canon EOS 1D Mark II.

Check these pictures out!

Are YOU Dave in VA?

That GardenWeb is cool! I post lots of stuff there in the Name That Animal Forum.

Last edited by a moderator:
Staff Emeritus
DaveC426913 said:
Are YOU Dave in VA?
No, I'm in the NY area. My wife browses Garden Forum, and I seem to remember you mentioning that you post pictures there.

SimplySolitary_ said:
What kind of digital camera do you use??
I use a Kodak EasyShare DX6490 (4 MegaPixel), with 10X zoom and 3X digital zoom for combined 30X, and auto-focus. However, one problem I've noticed is that the combination of low light and full zoom leads to blurry pictures because of long exposure. Zooming in with the digital zoom (> 10X total) for closeups requires fixing the camera to a solid base, which is not always practical.

I payed about $500 for the camera (and 128 MB memory card) when I bought it two years ago. Now, I would want to invest in a camera with the ability to change lens, i.e. a digital SLR. The camera is now about$250. Also, one should expect the rechargable battery to last about 1 year, afterwhich it seems to drain fairly quickly and the voltage seems to change because the camera performance (auto-focus) gets sluggish.

I have an old (30+ years) Canon F-1 with a variey of zoom and telephoto lenses. I would like to have the digital equivalent of that camera.

Last edited:
Homework Helper
I hate taking pictures. I bought my first digital camera only after the birth of my kid, and that was after my wife and parents pestered me no end. And I've got nothing but baby pics.

I'm not the most sentimental person. The way I see it, I have a perfectly good set of eyes and visual cortex. Why would I need a camera?

Staff Emeritus
Curious3141 said:
I'm not the most sentimental person. The way I see it, I have a perfectly good set of eyes and visual cortex. Why would I need a camera?
So you can share them with your parents. Baby pictures of course.

I enjoy taking pictures of nature and sharing it with people. I find nature very interesting, and sometimes it's just simply beautiful.

I like taking pictures of colorful sunsets and scenery, or colorful flowers, birds and insects. I post some of these in order for people who might be interested.

I also appreciate the effort and skill of others who take pictures.

SimplySolitary_
Curious3141 said:
I'm not the most sentimental person. The way I see it, I have a perfectly good set of eyes and visual cortex. Why would I need a camera?

To capture a certain beauty in something that someone might not find beautiful. To realize that everything can be simply wonderful. To see a sunset over the ocean, blue waves upon the sand, is truly a beautiful thing, but to capture it in a frame in such a way that someone else might find it as stunning as you did... well, that's just an amazing thing.

Gold Member
SimplySolitary_ said:
What kind of digital camera do you use?? I've been looking into digital cameras, and I do have one, but I don't want to get one that'll take extremely bad shots, or will die out quicky...
:)
I have an Olympus Camedia C-3040. It does a real good job most of the time (I am more a manual 35mm guy) but the biggest gripe that I have is the time-lapse between when I press the shutter button and the time when the actual exposure is made. I love action photography and nature photography, and sometimes you just have to have an image of "NOW", not 1/2 second from now. That is a small thing if you are doing family portraits, landscapes, etc, but if you want to capture a hummingbird "dogfight", or a sport-biker doing a "stoppie", or a kayaker doing a perfect pirouette in an eddy, "NOW" is the standard that I want the camera to perform to. "Wait for it..." is not acceptible. In this one regard, the C-3040 comes up short. It is very conservative in power consumption, and I power it with Nickel-metal-hydride batteries that are available anywhere and recharge to much better strength than NiCads, without the memory problems (at least to date). The camera is small and unobtrusive. It takes a few seconds for the lens to extend to the using position on power-up, so it is not as handy as a film camera for spur of the moment shots. It is nice, though, to come back home, dump all the shots to the PC's hard drive, and later delete the clunkers and save the keepers. As with film cameras, the great shots often come unexpectedly, thus the admonition to just "keep shooting". The up-side of digital is that you don't have to keep buying film, processing the film (even if you do it yourself it gets expensive!) and printing the good prospects. Digital photography entails two real costs - the cost of the camera/lens(es)/batteries/memory cards, and the cost of the paper and ink to print out the images you want to keep. Photo-quality printers are a dead give-away compared to the cost of the paper and inks, believe me - that's where your hard-copy costs reside. I hope this helps.

Staff Emeritus
Slow response is the one complaint I have with a digital that uses autofocus, especially as the battery ages.

I much prefer SLR, with manual settings and a relatively large f-stop for depth of field.

Gold Member
Astronuc said:
Slow response is the one complaint I have with a digital that uses autofocus, especially as the battery ages.

I much prefer SLR, with manual settings and a relatively large f-stop for depth of field.
Yep. The digital cameras have taken away that "gut feel" certainty that I can get the shot I want, NOW. I used to set out with one or two of my OM-1s, fitted with great lenses and loaded with film that I could trust, and could shoot all day long and get lots of nice (not just usable) images. The sunny 16 rule and a feel for dispersion/attenuation by clouds/low sun angle could keep me pretty much in the zone most of the time.

I had a chance to buy a Leica M-6 with a Noctilux lens for \$2000 quite a few years ago, and just didn't have the ready cash to pull it off, and lost the deal. Why, why, why? I should have sold my truck and hitchhiked to work until I could get another vehicle!

Oh, well.

peejake
i bought my cam about 2 years ago but i think i have only taken about hardly ummmm...300Mb worth...that seems to little compared to the amount some of u people have taken... :lol:

-jake

Homework Helper
SimplySolitary_ said:
To capture a certain beauty in something that someone might not find beautiful. To realize that everything can be simply wonderful. To see a sunset over the ocean, blue waves upon the sand, is truly a beautiful thing, but to capture it in a frame in such a way that someone else might find it as stunning as you did... well, that's just an amazing thing.

To my mind, the beauty of a scene is mostly an internal construct based on external cues. In other words, it's my own mind that makes a scene beautiful. How can I convey that to anyone else? Not that I'd have the least interest in doing so, the only people I would be interested in sharing that sort of experience with are immediate family, and they'd probably be with me anyway. I'm exceedingly introverted, almost to the point of social apathy.

Also, I find that taking pictures seems to detract from my immediate enjoyment of a scene.

Staff Emeritus