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