|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: I think you're missing the point of digital photography... (Reply to this comment)
by isvikthere
Thanks for your input Kweckstrom but I think you mised the main point of my message. My only goal was to warn the newcomers to the world of digital photography which are currently tempted into buying one of those entry level digital cameras which are now flooding the market. Just making sure they understand that the bare camera will not allow them to benefit from the main advantage of digital photography which is taking lots of pictures and sorting them out next as you so well pointed out. All current entry or medium level camera offerings (e.g. HP, Minolta, Fuji, etc.) are hampered by short battery life and limited storage capacity if you just use the accessories that came with the camera. The remedies I prescribe - buying larger storage and longlasting rechargeable batteries - come at a price which compared to the initial outlay for the bare camera is quite considerable and could amount to up to 50% of the camera's purchase price depending on the model.
Not taking these upgrade steps leaves you with a device that is fairly useless.
My second point was to make clear to those that didn't know that printing your own pictures is very expensive. Cheers. ViK
|
Jan 10 '02
4:27 pm PST
|
|
I think you're missing the point of digital photography... (Reply to this comment)
by kweckstrom
Ok, I think you're missing the point of digital photography.
You touch on a few valid points for sure. Fact is, digital photography (all things being equal) is more expensive than film photography. The cost per print is definitely higher...
What I think you're missing is the *control* you have over your pictures both in "initial acceptance" and "final output".
What I mean by this is: Say you've got a digital camera with a nice, fat 128MB flash card (around $70 street price for the memory). You're trying to get a shot of your little kid running around playing.
In the film based world, you have 24 to 36 exposures with which to catch that magic moment. Since developing film is still time consuming and inconvenient, chances are you aren't going to blow all 24 shots trying to get that "perfect picture".
With digital photography? No problem. Shoot now, delete later. With digital photography you have a MUCH BETTER CHANCE of getting the shot you want, because you have a resource that isn't linear.
If you don't like the initial shot you took, trash it. With my Canon EOS-D30, I am always in burst mode, taking a minimum of 3 shots in hopes that one of them will be perfect. Anything else goes into the bitbucket. Sure, I *PAY* for this in the form of a $3000 camera body and a $400 1GB microdrive, but for me it's more about the pictures and memories than the money.
Spending the 50 cents for a 4x6 print at ofoto is the LEAST of my worries. If you spend $6 in processing a roll of film, how many of those pictures are actually useful? 4? Maybe 5 out of the roll?
I'd rather spend $3 for a group of 6 prints I know will be memorable than spend the same amount on film processing and ONLY have 6 out of the 24-36 exposures be meaningful. The latter just seems wasteful to me. Throw in the fact that I can "tweak" the image in photoshop before sending it off to ofoto puts the control of the image in ME and MY EYES rather than have no real control at all outside of my camera's settings.
|
Jan 10 '02
1:20 pm PST
|
|
Great IDea... (Reply to this comment)
by Caprig
...this review is really a good idea. So many people have no clue and thing that Digital cameras are simple like regular ones, but they aren't.
We have one that uses discs, and it is a pain to use them and then format them, but at least it keeps me weeding out the bad ones more often. If I had more memory (which we can get) I would just stockpile them as junk and not sort them through until there were too many anyway.
Nice editorial,
Capri
|
Jan 10 '02
9:30 am PST
|
|
Re: HTML tags (Reply to this comment)
by isvikthere
Thanks, it's been a while since I wrote my last review so I must have forgotten how it's done. Anything else I can do to change it from just plain 'helpful' to 'very helpful' without having to make it a magnum opus ?
|
Jan 10 '02
7:50 am PST
|
|
HTML (Reply to this comment)
by yippee1999
FYI, the markers for html are "(less than sign)" and "(greater than sign)", which are located over the "," and "." keys on your keyboard. ..... give it another try, and then your BOLD should work....
|
Jan 10 '02
7:30 am PST
|
|
|
|
