And taking a snapshot used to be so easy....

haris · Jul 10, 2006

Didzis said:
...It's probably more like finding a 8mm film or Beta tape labelled "Home movies" -- both technologies were quite widespread, so it should be quite easy to find a conversion service. And probably even that would not be needed: many computers still have 3.5 inch floppy drives, even though a good share of those drives never see a floppy. It's there just for backwards compatibility with that old format that was so popular that people still might need to read the occasional floppy...QUOTE]

Beta videocameras are still almost standard in professional TV recording. OK, digital take it place, but Beta is still standard in TV recording. Beta never got popularity in home video, VHS take that, but in pro TV recording, Beta rules.

Floppy discs... Well, I bought new motherboard for my computer, and it is with controller for SATA hard discs. Drivers for SATA came on 3,5 inch floppy disc. And if you ever tried to install SATA hard disc drivers on windows XP during windows installation (you know message during windows installing: "if you have SCSI HDD drivers to install, press F6"), you will get note that windows require installation of SATA drivers only from floppy disc. No option for installing from anything else (CD or network or else...), only from floppy disc. So, floppy discs are still good and well, thank you very much...

Daniel_OB · Jul 10, 2006

Haris, what is SATA, BETA, SSCI, XP? sorry but I am a photographer. Might I bumped on the wrong spot?

eddym · Jul 10, 2006

haris said:
Floppy discs... Well, I bought new motherboard for my computer, and it is with controller for SATA hard discs. Drivers for SATA came on 3,5 inch floppy disc. And if you ever tried to install SATA hard disc drivers on windows XP during windows installation (you know message during windows installing: "if you have SCSI HDD drivers to install, press F6"), you will get note that windows require installation of SATA drivers only from floppy disc. No option for installing from anything else (CD or network or else...), only from floppy disc. So, floppy discs are still good and well, thank you very much...

I'm not following you, Haris. I installed a SATA controller on my old computer, and there was no floppy involved. And my new one came with the controller already in it, as yours. Again, no need for a floppy. I haven't had a floppy drive in several years. Seeing what was coming, I copied everything important that I had on floppies to cds back when I had my last computer with a floppy drive.

But along these same lines, I have a nice Epson 636 flatbed scanner that works just fine... but only on Windows 98! Sigh...

EdGreene · Jul 16, 2006

Why autofocus

Tom Kershaw said:
I honestly don't understand why anyone needs autofocus.

1.Failing eyesight
2. Dim lighting.
3. Fast moving subjects.
4. Squirmy, figety children.
5. Squirming-figety pets.
6. Photojournalism.
7. A moving Wedding couple.
Why do I say this?
Unlike digital, film is unforgiving and you need to capture the moment in the moment, in particular if you're getting paid.

One can be as "artsy" as they choose on their own time, but getting paid means using what works and autofocus works.

roteague · Jul 16, 2006

EdGreene said:
1.Failing eyesight
2. Dim lighting.
3. Fast moving subjects.
4. Squirmy, figety children.
5. Squirming-figety pets.
6. Photojournalism.
7. A moving Wedding couple.
Why do I say this?
Unlike digital, film is unforgiving and you need to capture the moment in the moment, in particular if you're getting paid.

One can be as "artsy" as they choose on their own time, but getting paid means using what works and autofocus works.

And sometimes it is simply a matter of preference. When I shoot 35mm, I shoot my Nikon F5 or N80, both with autofocus and with image stabilizing lenses. When shooting my LF camera, which is my primary camera, I don't mind using manual focus.

Roger Hicks · Jul 16, 2006

EdGreene said:
1.Failing eyesight
2. Dim lighting.
3. Fast moving subjects.
4. Squirmy, figety children.
5. Squirming-figety pets.
6. Photojournalism.
7. A moving Wedding couple.
Why do I say this?
Unlike digital, film is unforgiving and you need to capture the moment in the moment, in particular if you're getting paid.

One can be as "artsy" as they choose on their own time, but getting paid means using what works and autofocus works.

Um...

I have both autofocus and manual cameras and I'd say that my M-series Leicas can handle any of those 7 problems at least as well as, and usually better than, any autofocus I have ever used (and bear in mind I review cameras for the press). That is with 56-year-old eyes.

What is more, in poor light I can focus fast and accurately without projecting spots of red light onto the subject. According to a friend in the Press Corps, THAT caused some real fun with the Presidential bodyguard when it first appeared.

Consider how many great photos were made before the invention of auto-anything, and clearly autofocus isn't essential. More than once, in particular, I have been amazed by 4x5 inch boxing pictures from the 40s and 50s.

Sure, I lose some pictures if I use the Leicas or indeed my old Nikon Fs; but I lose others, for different reasons, if I use autofocus. A lot of it comes down to how you work; what you're comfortable with; and where the pictures are going. A big advantage of digital for press work is that the pic can be on the editor's desk in seconds, but press work isn't the whole of photojournalism.

Also -- please don't take this as a personal attack -- when you're being paid, one of the things you're being paid for is knowing how to use the camera. In case this sounds like an amateur fantasizing, I am not a stranger to being paid for pictures, having first worked professionally some 30 years ago. I've had a lot of books published and yes, I do have (and use) digital cameras; but neither digital nor automation are necessary for many kinds of photography, even professional.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

DBP · Jul 16, 2006

EdGreene said:
1.Failing eyesight
2. Dim lighting.
3. Fast moving subjects.
4. Squirmy, figety children.
5. Squirming-figety pets.
6. Photojournalism.
7. A moving Wedding couple.
Why do I say this?
Unlike digital, film is unforgiving and you need to capture the moment in the moment, in particular if you're getting paid.

One can be as "artsy" as they choose on their own time, but getting paid means using what works and autofocus works.

I'm with Roger on this one. My eyes are going fast, which is not surprising considering my dad has been wearing trifocals for a decade or more. And while a good autfocus camera can handle those problems, most rangefinders can do it at least well, and sometimes better. I have yet to find a place where I couldn't focus a reasonably good rangefinder, and that includes the Kalart on my Speed Graphic in dim restaurants. I use autofocus in only a few conditions; dim light when I want a zoom lens, places where I am likely to hand my camera to someone else, places where I can't use both hands (e.g. sailing), and when I am feeling lazy (which often coincides with one of the other conditions).

If I were shooting something fast moving in fairly low light and needed a long lens, autofocus would be the best answer. And I would want a better autofocus camera than my N50. But I have shot some pretty decent pics of the Blue Angels with a Nikkormat and 90-230 Vivitar, and many great sports pictures were taken with Speed Graphics and even Big Bertha. So autofocus is no more required than an automatic transmission on a car.

Ole · Jul 16, 2006

It's amazing how good you can get at guesstimating distances with a little guess-focus practice.

Most camera lenses have a distance scale. Sometimes it might be useful to remember what it's for. For that matter - many of them have DOF scales as well!

hammy · Jul 23, 2006

Steve Smith said:
The problem I see with most people who use digital compacts for family/holiday snapshots is that they don't tend to print them out any more so they only exist on a computer or a CD.

The advantage of proper pictures in an album is that you can look at it at any time. Another scenario would perhaps be clearing out the house of a deceased relative - not a nice thing to do in any circumstance but if you find an old album, you will usually have a look through it and recall some happy memories.

If you find a CD, you are unlikely to spend time putting it into a computer to have a look. These images will probably be lost forever.

Steve.

I agree with this.
I cringe when I see someone shooting with a digi cam and I know they have no intentions on getting physical prints. What happens when that hard drive crashes and all must be wiped off it? Or when that burned CD just won't read anymore? Those pictures are history.

anyte · Jul 23, 2006

hammy said:
I agree with this.
I cringe when I see someone shooting with a digi cam and I know they have no intentions on getting physical prints. What happens when that hard drive crashes and all must be wiped off it? Or when that burned CD just won't read anymore? Those pictures are history.

Personally I just can't see the family going into whatever room the computer is in and standing around it to view the family vacation and holiday photos. You can pass around albums or photos; everyone can remain comfortable seated and no one has to jockey for a good position in order to view the photos.

PatTrent · Jul 23, 2006

MurrayMinchin said:
I'm the same with modern 35mm film camera's...I usually have to ask the person how to turn on their camera. My 35mm for family colour snap-shots is a Pentax K1000 who's battery ran out 2 years ago, and I haven't bothered to put in a fresh one. I just take a wild guess on exposure based on the f16 rule or use a manual flash indoors.

Low tech rarely fails

Murray

I'm with you! I use my Nikon FM2 the same way. I don't even bother to focus--just set the lens for hyperfocal distance. There's nothing faster or easier than a manual SLR once you understand how to use it. (Just call me old fashioned, I guess.
Pat

Brac · Jul 24, 2006

hammy said:
I agree with this.
I cringe when I see someone shooting with a digi cam and I know they have no intentions on getting physical prints. What happens when that hard drive crashes and all must be wiped off it? Or when that burned CD just won't read anymore? Those pictures are history.

In the novelty of digital cameras and all those exciting buttons & menus to play with and the "instant" results, the aspect of archival stability is not even considered. So as you rightly say, these pictures will be history. But it will be a few more years before the penny begins to drop with increasing numbers of people. There are going to be lots of disappointed and angry people who sadly find that their treasured family photos have totally disappeared beyond recall. it's already happened to me (when I briefly dallied with digital 3 years ago and a hard disc fatally crashed - now I just use for ebay) and to the friend who figures at the start of this thread - some precious pictures of his daughter were on a memory card which became corrupt.

firecracker · Jul 24, 2006

I've just auctioned off Kodak Retinette 1a and am pretty happy. It's a lovely-looking, very simple and compact camera, which I want to use in streets sometimes. Hopefully that will help me take snap shots easier.

firecracker · Jul 24, 2006

anyte said:
Personally I just can't see the family going into whatever room the computer is in and standing around it to view the family vacation and holiday photos. You can pass around albums or photos; everyone can remain comfortable seated and no one has to jockey for a good position in order to view the photos.

I think that's where all the new TVs come in. Many manufacturers want you to use the TV screens for whatever you do.

anyte · Jul 25, 2006

firecracker said:
I think that's where all the new TVs come in. Many manufacturers want you to use the TV screens for whatever you do.

Parties for my grandparents birthdays and anniversaries were held at a local community center because of the large number of people that would attend. I can't imagine what kind of set up would have been required for everyone to view photos on TV's rather than picking through the albums, lined up on tables, to be viewed at your leisure.

Viewing photos on a screen just seems limiting, restricting, and not nearly as social as leafing through photo albums.

I guess I'm just too old-fashioned for all these technological advancements.

**edit**

or perhaps that's too sentimental.

catem · Jul 25, 2006

I think the nice things about albums, or passing around loose photos, is that (more or less, depending how bossy your rellies are!) you can go at your own pace, stop and spend more time over one, etc. I think the screen can be exciting though, especially for colour - no different, after all, from all those slide shows. But my memory of those as a child is that they soon got boring, because someone else (usually its dad) is in control of the content, and speed at which you look at them etc. You can't just pick one up again for another look. Or maybe you can? Maybe it's more of a group thing? We don't look at photos like that in our house - maybe we need some input from people who do! It is worrying, though, that they never do make it into "analogue" and get lost somewhere in the ether...(With the proviso that maybe some at least could probably afford to be lost )...
Cate

And taking a snapshot used to be so easy....

haris

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency