Quick photo question

Peewiglet said:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:20:29 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

A lot of people want digital cameras that take standard AAs, but the
li-ion batteries that come with cameras such as the G3 and 300D are way
better.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Although Canon charge £50 for these, you can get them from 7dayshop for
just £15 each.

Wow, that's quite a reduction. Thanks again 🙂

They aren't actual "Canon" batteries, rather generic replacements.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I took the film to Max Spielman who decided to chop off half of the
head of the statue. At first I assumed that I had not been as careful
as I thought, but the negative clearly showed the whole statue. When
I queried this I was told that ALL photographs were cropped. It was
impossible to print the entire photo. I told them not to be so bl**dy
stupid and print the whole photo properly .... so they did.

So, although your question is a lot more specific than mine, I would
recommend that you look at the negatives and don't take any nonsense
from the droids in the shop!

and don't use Max Spielman - they are the lowest of the low when it
comes to semi-decent output.

In my film days I always found the postal services the best - Bonusprint
for everyday snaps and ProLab for my decent work (not much of a premium
over the likes of Boots)

However PW it might not be printers fault. IIRC the pentax has a
'standard' viewfinder that is offset from the lens. This generally
means that as you focus on objects close-up pictures get cropped. This
is due to the increasing angle between the lines of sight of the lens
and viewfinder meaning that they 'see' different areas. You may find
that the viewfinder has some 'crop' lines in it that you can use to
frame things when close-up or in macro. If not, you really need to
experiment and work out what the practical limits are.

Or get yourself a digital or SLR (or DigiSLR!) where you can see the
true picture.

HTH

--
Darren

Quoted message said:

Jalbum is probably the best freebee out there for making
web page photo galleries, highly recommended
http://jalbum.net/

Thanks Mark, I'll give that a try.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Phil Cook said:

They aren't actual "Canon" batteries, rather generic replacements.

Of course, forgot to specify that. They are designed to replace a
specific make and model though - in this case they are labelled "Canon
Type BP511" - so they're not generic in the sense of being able to use
them in different cameras, they are specific Canon copies.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Paul Saunders said:

http://jalbum.net/

Thanks Mark, I'll give that a try.

I've just used jalbum, after seeing it here, to produce an online
photo album. I was impressed. It doesn't do everything I want to do
but it's a darn sight easier than doing everything myself (which is
what I had tried and failed to do before!)

Unfortunately, I only have AOL on which to host the site at the
moment, so I end up with adverts at the top.

Judith

Gordon said:

Quoted message said:

I am hoping that Paul Saunders does not notice your subject line.
Otherwise I am in for an ear-bashing for my luddite view of cameras.
(S'just a flamin' camera, Paul!)

Zackly right! Sound common sense, every word of that.
Take no notice of Paul

What have I done now? I gave Judith no ear bashing. It's all a
question of horses for courses. If she wanted to use her camera to
produce high quality A3 prints for sale and to sell her images to
publishers, then she'd get a ear-bashing, but her camera is perfectly
fine for her requirements.

Quoted message said:

- he's a gear freak in search of the Holy Grail,

Why thanks for the compliment Gordon!

Quoted message said:

and his photos proved that he did not need the last two
cameras he bought. :-)

Well I'm pleased that you think that, but I really did need those last
two cameras, they've revolutionised my photography. Not only do I take
more photos nowadays because they've released me from the financial
burden of film, not only has efficiency and convenience improved a
thousand fold because of the instant results and time saved not having
to scan them, not only has the technical quality improved because of the
complete lack of grain, but I honestly believe that my photography has
improved also as a result. I'm taking new types of photographs in new
way and getting end results than I just couldn't get in the past.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Amateurs are renowned for standing too far away
anyway, and frequently get too much boring space around the edges of the
shot.

Errr, are they? That's quite a statement. Every person that doesn't
earn their living from photography is an amateur when they pick up a
camera. Although I do make quite a bit from my photography I'm
definitely an amateur, with no plans to turn pro at all. I'm
certainly not renowned for the above though.

Anyway, re the original post, don't take any [censored] from high-street
labs. Full stop. Very few high-street stores are masters of their
trade, no matter what that trade is. Use postal film developing
services - they're much better. Peak Imaging for example.

Michael S

Michael S said:

Quoted message said:

Amateurs are renowned for standing too far away
anyway, and frequently get too much boring space around the edges of
the shot.

Errr, are they? That's quite a statement. Every person that doesn't
earn their living from photography is an amateur when they pick up a
camera.

Oh come on, you know what I was getting at. Haven't you ever looked at
anyone's holiday snaps? I wasn't making a definitive statement about
*all* amateur photographers, and certainly not serious amateurs. Maybe
I should have specified "snappers" but no doubt someone will take
offence at that too.

There are lots of people who own cameras who have no interest in
photography whatsoever (in the sense that a serious photographer
understands the word) and they make up the bulk of people who want
prints made, mostly from holidays and stuff. Or maybe I'm wrong there
too, but that's who I was referring to, people like my father who have
trouble figuring out which button to press even though there's only one
button on the camera! :-)

I've seen an awful lot of "holiday snaps" in my time, so maybe my
perception is skewed.

Quoted message said:

Although I do make quite a bit from my photography I'm
definitely an amateur, with no plans to turn pro at all.

You're making money from it and you're an amateur? That's not my
definition of amateur. I'd call that semi-pro.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person Michael S <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Amateurs are renowned for standing too far away
anyway, and frequently get too much boring space around the edges of the
shot.

Errr, are they? That's quite a statement. Every person that doesn't
earn their living from photography is an amateur when they pick up a
camera. Although I do make quite a bit from my photography

Errm, I think you meant to say 'I defray much of the cost of my
equipment' .. or are you not worried about a door knock from the tax
inspectors?
8>.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Oh come on, you know what I was getting at. Haven't you ever looked at
anyone's holiday snaps? I wasn't making a definitive statement about
*all* amateur photographers, and certainly not serious amateurs.

I know, I was kind of kidding - I couldn't resist.

Quoted message said:

Maybe
I should have specified "snappers" but no doubt someone will take
offence at that too.

Yep, probably. But who cares, cos snappers are [censored]. ;-)

Quoted message said:

There are lots of people who own cameras who have no interest in
photography whatsoever (in the sense that a serious photographer
understands the word) and they make up the bulk of people who want
prints made, mostly from holidays and stuff. Or maybe I'm wrong there
too, but that's who I was referring to, people like my father who have
trouble figuring out which button to press even though there's only one
button on the camera! :-)

I can believe that! I bought my mother her first digital compact in
June. She still tries to take photos by pointing the LCD screen at
her 'subject'. Sadly I'm not kidding in this instance.

Quoted message said:

You're making money from it and you're an amateur? That's not my
definition of amateur. I'd call that semi-pro.

Paul

Or semi-amateur! Its a glass half-full/half-empty thing.

And, as suggested, I don't make money, "I defray the cost of my
equipment...". Ahem.

As a complete aside, have you tried any of those tricks to make the
EOS300D do more than it can 'out of the box'? I haven't tried any (in
fact I haven't looked at the site for a while). I'm sure there was
one that allowed you to use mirror lock-up, but I could be wrong. If
you've used them, do they work? Any problems?

Michael S

Michael S said:

Or semi-amateur! Its a glass half-full/half-empty thing.

:-)

Quoted message said:

As a complete aside, have you tried any of those tricks to make the
EOS300D do more than it can 'out of the box'? I haven't tried any (in
fact I haven't looked at the site for a while).

Yes, I took the plunge and installed the latest beta.

Quoted message said:

I'm sure there was
one that allowed you to use mirror lock-up, but I could be wrong. If
you've used them, do they work? Any problems?

No problems with the installation, you simply copy the firmware upgrade
to an empty compact flash card, then put it in the camera and turn it
on, it then prompts you to install the upgrade.

No problems with the camera since the installation.

Mirror lock up works great, that's the only reason I wanted it. As
Michael Reichmann commented, it's a pain having to go into the menus to
switch it on and off, but it's not too bad if you're taking a series of
tripod shots or a series of handheld shots - it's when you switch back
and fore it becomes a pain.

Fortunately the mirror doesn't stay up when you enable it (that would be
a major hassle given the menu system), instead it stays down until you
take a shot and returns to the down position immediately after, so it's
very easy to work with. What happens is that when you press the shutter
(no need for a self timer or cable remote anymore), the mirror locks up,
then there's a delay, then it takes the shot, then the mirror returns.

The delay time is configurable, you can set it from 1.5 seconds to 10
seconds. I've set mine to 3 seconds to give my flimsy tripod plenty of
time to settle down. At 10 seconds you could use it like a self timer
if you want to be in the shot.

Most of the other new functions I have no real need for. There are a
few useful things, like setting auto-bracketing to just two shots
instead of three, but many of the new functions relate to flash which I
rarely ever use.

Some of the functions don't work. For example second curtain flash
sync, which I did want to use. Some functions seem to relate to
hardware features that are not on the camera, or which there are no
buttons for.

Still, well worth it for the mirror lock up alone.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Paul Saunders said:

Michael S said:

Or semi-amateur! Its a glass half-full/half-empty thing.

:-)

Quoted message said:

As a complete aside, have you tried any of those tricks to make the
EOS300D do more than it can 'out of the box'? I haven't tried any (in
fact I haven't looked at the site for a while).

Yes, I took the plunge and installed the latest beta.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Some of the functions don't work. For example second curtain flash
sync, which I did want to use. Some functions seem to relate to
hardware features that are not on the camera, or which there are no
buttons for.

AIUI it was a copy of the firmware for a 10D nobbled to run on a 300D
so there will be some buttons you haven't got etc.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

In article <[email hidden]>, pvs1
@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk says...

Quoted message said:

Michael S said:

Or semi-amateur! Its a glass half-full/half-empty thing.

:-)

Quoted message said:

As a complete aside, have you tried any of those tricks to make the
EOS300D do more than it can 'out of the box'? I haven't tried any (in
fact I haven't looked at the site for a while).

Yes, I took the plunge and installed the latest beta.

Quoted message said:

I'm sure there was
one that allowed you to use mirror lock-up, but I could be wrong. If
you've used them, do they work? Any problems?

No problems with the installation, you simply copy the firmware upgrade
to an empty compact flash card, then put it in the camera and turn it
on, it then prompts you to install the upgrade.

No problems with the camera since the installation.

Seconded. I 'upgraded' at the weekend (ta for the link Paul) and am
pleased with the result.

Quoted message said:

Mirror lock up works great, that's the only reason I wanted it. As

yep - works great. Having lost my remote and been working on IR remote
release (with its 2 secs delay) for the past few weeks, it's great and
has saved me forking out for a new one.

Also the ISO 3200 works and may be useful if into sport/wildlife
photography though it does seem to be far noisier than 1600 (based on a
quick test rather than a serious comparison)

A few of the other functions may come in handy - the FEC and
configurable set button have possibilities for less serious work - and
better control over the AF could be useful.

Quoted message said:

Some of the functions don't work. For example second curtain flash
sync, which I did want to use. Some functions seem to relate to
hardware features that are not on the camera, or which there are no
buttons for.

hadn't noticed any that there weren't buttons for, although some of the
standard buttons have been remapped.

--
Darren

In article <[email hidden]>, Peewiglet
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, although your question is a lot more specific than mine, I would
recommend that you look at the negatives and don't take any nonsense
from the droids in the shop!

Many thanks - I'll cross my fingers that it was their mistake, then!

The shop almost always tries to set the blame on the photographer or
his/her equipment.

My pal had a load of holiday photos taken on what was then a brand new
camera - an OM10 and the prints had a white line running along the top
edge. he complained and was told that there must have been dust in the
camera -( a scratch on a neg would produce a black line).. He explained
that he was particularly careful about his camera and that it was new
anyway.

Closer inspection of the neg strips showed that there was a line of
adhesive stretching all along the strip at the top. Adhesive from the
point where the shop or processing house joined up several films to be
processed.

He sent the negs back - they were cleaned and he got a perfect set of
prints for free.

The processors DO get it wrong on occasions.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk