I was helping a student build your house in autocad 3d the other week.
- posted
16 years ago
Re: Christmas Lights
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Oop, guess not. Hard to tell from the photos.
Hers was L.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
"Don" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news2.newsguy.com:
Nice pics. OK, how do you take the pics of the lights at night...? What f-stop, film speed, etc.?
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
"Don" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news4.newsguy.com:
I have to get a decent digital camera, one of these days. I'm still using film. Dunno why but I do like film.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Kris Krieger wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:
Just keep in mind, in film Fuji was more blue/green, kodak, more red/brown, etc, the same is kinda for digital, I see quite a difference between my Fuji,Canon and Konica dig cams. My Canon is better in low light and indoors while my Konica excells in outdoor....
The pics I posted of my house were by the Canon, the Konica didn't seem to have a fast enough 'shutter speed' as every pic was blurry...
See what others pics look like in family and friends then choose make accordingly...
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
"Don" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news1.newsguy.com:
I meant printed pics from film cameras , sorry trying to be less wordy to save typing. Our family always found the depending on the brand of film, you got discernable difference in colouration, and if you took them to be developed by someone who's equipment was set for the other brand then things only got worse ! once in a while hideous colouring...
Now adays I don't see a difference in print paper, maybe in printers a bit, but also the software makes a difference too, too many variables other than when viewing digital pics on the screen. I do see a difference between my cameras when viewing on same monitor.
Ron
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
"Don" wrote in
Came straight to mind !!!!
formatting link
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Ron wrote in news:Xns9A1B552CB5E13spamngca@199.175.106.247:
I use Fuji, 100ASA. I didn't notice color-shift, just that I preferred the look of the Fuji.
The only digital I have so far is some thing ahtat I got at Target a couple years back; it's suppsoed to be a combination camera and "net-cam", and has a limited "movie" capacity. IOW, it's crap, but I wanted to try digital before committing large amounts of cash to one.
It goes through batteries like water :p
THe one problem with film is that the speed can't be changed. I tend to take high-detail stills using a tripod, but that makes any sort of bird or insect photography quite a challenge, because the critters tend to dart around.
I don't photograph people.
With photos, same as with any other creative activity - I go with my own eyes, my own artistic vision; I do photos for myself, not to submit them to some sort of popularity poll. Heck, the vast majority of my stuff, nobody sees (or hears, or reads). I do it becasue I can't not do it; the opinions of others are irrelevant.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
"Don" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news1.newsguy.com:
THat's the good part about digital - you can perview before developing. I often end up taking two to four different photos of the same subject, using different settings, because I'm still not sure which will look best. The developing costs add up quickly...
I'd gotten a Canon camcorder about the same time, but the batteries werea PITA - beastly expensive, and never regarged right. The thing ended up sitting in a cabinet. THat's why I've been so hesitant about getting a digital camera.
Of course, teh camera I'd *want* would allow one to change lenses - I'd like to be able to get into doing Macro work (it appeals to my selectively anal-retentive/obsessive-compulsive detail-orientation), but I also want to keep open the option of doing regular telephoto and "regular" (noprmal/wide-angle) distance photography.
I'm far from being rugged/outdoorsey, like comfort, tend to be a buit lazy - but I've done everything from clamber up fallen trees, to lain down in cold mud, merely to get a photo I want. Go figure...
*Way* cool! ;)
The advantage IMO is that it'd be less likely I'd trip - hard to walk around when you're looking through a camera viewfinder ;)
To me, tho', the battery problem is the clincher. With film, I can carry my camera everywhere, and it's *always* ready for a picture. With a digital, I have the concern that I'd see this or that *fantastic* shot, and the bleeping battery would be dead...
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Ron wrote in news:Xns9A1D62265452Bspamngca@
199.175.106.247:
I have to admit, that was amusing ;)
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
"Don" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news5.newsguy.com:
Last time I looked at them for my video camera, they were $80 a pop :p THey might have come down in price by now, assuming they still make the things. Otherwise, I'm in the same situation re: extension cords.
I do take photos in the yard, but thre si only so myuch to botehr taping. Last time I used the camcorder was, geez, at least 10 years ago, on a trip to Florida. There is only so much to video in the house/yard (we don't have a wooded lot like you have in your new place). Still photos are different since I do like super-close-ups, abstract compositions of natural elements, but even there, digital means batteries.
Of course, with the newer things, some of them use memory cards that I assume don't lose the dat once removed from the camera, so if the batteries die, you don't lose all your photos... But that's one thing with film, you don't have to guess - once the film has been exposed, the image won't be lost.