Re: Do go digital!
Go digital then you will be encouraged to experiment. A small sample of the experiments will be stunning.
Go digital then you will be encouraged to experiment. A small sample of the experiments will be stunning.
Photography tips for boaty pics
- Thread starter kingfisher
- Start date
bedouin
Well-known member
Re: Do go digital!
I do own a digital camera - so I have some experience. However at present I have never seen a digital image that can come anywhere close to what I can achieve on Kodachrome 64 in my Contax, with the Zeiss lenses. In resolution, contrast, tonal range and level of detail the slide film wins over digital - and not by a little either.
My second camera is a waterproof IXUS (APS) - I did look at getting a new digital instead but couldn't find an equivalent model - so I'm still stuck with emulsion.
I do own a digital camera - so I have some experience. However at present I have never seen a digital image that can come anywhere close to what I can achieve on Kodachrome 64 in my Contax, with the Zeiss lenses. In resolution, contrast, tonal range and level of detail the slide film wins over digital - and not by a little either.
My second camera is a waterproof IXUS (APS) - I did look at getting a new digital instead but couldn't find an equivalent model - so I'm still stuck with emulsion.
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Half way digital
In reality, if you ask your processor to put your film shots on CD at the processing stage you get some of the benefits of digital without stumping up for a hi-end digital camera. I think Boots, for example, charge a little over a fiver a film for doing this.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Twister_Ken on 21/01/2003 11:09 (server time).</FONT></P>
In reality, if you ask your processor to put your film shots on CD at the processing stage you get some of the benefits of digital without stumping up for a hi-end digital camera. I think Boots, for example, charge a little over a fiver a film for doing this.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Twister_Ken on 21/01/2003 11:09 (server time).</FONT></P>
tr7v8
Active member
Re: Half way digital
I had 4 films done at time of proceesing put ono CD for £ 2. What's more of each neg. there was 2 images one high res and one low! Good for playing with in Photoshop etc.
Jim
-------
I had 4 films done at time of proceesing put ono CD for £ 2. What's more of each neg. there was 2 images one high res and one low! Good for playing with in Photoshop etc.
Jim
-------
rex_seadog
New member
Re: Do go digital!
Recently bought a Nikon Coolpix 885 and still experimenting - generally very pleased with it especially its versatility. Colour rendition for purists probably not as good as with 35mm print film and composing certainly not as good as with my Canon SLR. However its amazing what one can do on the computer.
Last year my friend on his own boat, playing with his new Fuji 2800, took some nice pictures of us underway on a lively passage to Guensey. (For obvious reasons very few sailing pictures of one's own boat show it underway). If someone can tell me how to attach pictures to a message I will post them here. I've printed a cropped version of one blown up to 50 x 40 cm on a fancy printer we have at work and the results are excellent.
Recently bought a Nikon Coolpix 885 and still experimenting - generally very pleased with it especially its versatility. Colour rendition for purists probably not as good as with 35mm print film and composing certainly not as good as with my Canon SLR. However its amazing what one can do on the computer.
Last year my friend on his own boat, playing with his new Fuji 2800, took some nice pictures of us underway on a lively passage to Guensey. (For obvious reasons very few sailing pictures of one's own boat show it underway). If someone can tell me how to attach pictures to a message I will post them here. I've printed a cropped version of one blown up to 50 x 40 cm on a fancy printer we have at work and the results are excellent.
Robin2
New member
Re: Half way digital
This is an interesting thread.
I notice no one has mentioned the comparative resolution of digital cameras compared with film cameras. As far as I know even the most expensive digital cameras have only a trivial number of pixels compared with a "chemical" photograph.
I have been dabbling with taking photograghs and having them printed as normal and then scanning them into my PC so I can pick out the bits I want - i.e. discarding unwanted background. This requires the resolution of the print to be high, to start with.
I got a few negatives enlarged photograhically to 12x8 so that I could scan in a small part at high resolution. Unfortunately something went wrong with the photographic printing that day and the result was very poor. I have not had time to try again, so far.
I got two films copied to CD when I got them developed (don't know if the scanning was done from the negatives, but I suspect it was). The resolution was very disappointing - even when I asked for higher resolution - I was expecting computer files with sizes of 50MB per image or more - but they were nothing like that.
I have a non-digital video camera and a tv tuner in my PC so I can take "snaps" from the video. This is useful when there is no altenative but the picture resolution is obviously very limited. Video works well in low light, however.
Another point to bear in mind is that, unless you have time and equipment, to go to sea in a dinghy or rib specially to take photos, most of us need to compose and shoot quickly before the opportunity is gone. This often means too much background - hence the need to enlarge the subject and eliminate the background after the event.
This is an interesting thread.
I notice no one has mentioned the comparative resolution of digital cameras compared with film cameras. As far as I know even the most expensive digital cameras have only a trivial number of pixels compared with a "chemical" photograph.
I have been dabbling with taking photograghs and having them printed as normal and then scanning them into my PC so I can pick out the bits I want - i.e. discarding unwanted background. This requires the resolution of the print to be high, to start with.
I got a few negatives enlarged photograhically to 12x8 so that I could scan in a small part at high resolution. Unfortunately something went wrong with the photographic printing that day and the result was very poor. I have not had time to try again, so far.
I got two films copied to CD when I got them developed (don't know if the scanning was done from the negatives, but I suspect it was). The resolution was very disappointing - even when I asked for higher resolution - I was expecting computer files with sizes of 50MB per image or more - but they were nothing like that.
I have a non-digital video camera and a tv tuner in my PC so I can take "snaps" from the video. This is useful when there is no altenative but the picture resolution is obviously very limited. Video works well in low light, however.
Another point to bear in mind is that, unless you have time and equipment, to go to sea in a dinghy or rib specially to take photos, most of us need to compose and shoot quickly before the opportunity is gone. This often means too much background - hence the need to enlarge the subject and eliminate the background after the event.
yachtcharisma
New member
There seem to be a lot of answers suggesting different films, different ways of slightly under or over exposing, different filters etc. It's true that slides do look more vibrant than prints, but if you then have them made into prints you lose most of the advantages - the greater tonal range comes from viewing them by transmitted rather than reflected light.
I think this really needs to be kept simple - the key to colourful photos is colourful days. No good at all if its overcast. Not even a bit hazy - you need that post cold front crisp blueness. Sun not too high, but let it go too low and your white boat will turn orange - nice, sunsetty, but maybe not quite what you wanted. Beware of shooting too much into the sun - once the sun's shining on the lens everything will begin to lose saturation. But don't have it right behind you either, or everything will look flat and there'll be no interesting shadows. Fill the frame with the boat for maximum impact. Diagonals give a sense of movement, so have the line of the mast following a diagonal of the photo.
Have fun!
Cheers
Patrick
Sailing a Corribee in Plymouth
vzone.virgin.net/patrick.fox
I think this really needs to be kept simple - the key to colourful photos is colourful days. No good at all if its overcast. Not even a bit hazy - you need that post cold front crisp blueness. Sun not too high, but let it go too low and your white boat will turn orange - nice, sunsetty, but maybe not quite what you wanted. Beware of shooting too much into the sun - once the sun's shining on the lens everything will begin to lose saturation. But don't have it right behind you either, or everything will look flat and there'll be no interesting shadows. Fill the frame with the boat for maximum impact. Diagonals give a sense of movement, so have the line of the mast following a diagonal of the photo.
Have fun!
Cheers
Patrick
Sailing a Corribee in Plymouth
vzone.virgin.net/patrick.fox
RayB
New member
If you want to get the saturated colours and those really deep blue skies like you get in holiday brochures you need to use a polarising filter. Simple!
"Hopefully that won't be too expensive to fix?"
"Hopefully that won't be too expensive to fix?"
Buck
New member
Polarizing filter
Buck
Relax, life is just a game.
Buck
Relax, life is just a game.
kingfisher
Well-known member
Digital
The best results I've had so far ar with a digital camera. Simply because of the law of statistics. With regular film I take maybe 24 snaps in a weekend.
Digital: 100+ in a day, just snapping away. out of those hundred, 1 or two look splended, 10 ok-ish.
Digital is a Kodak
Non-digital is a Canon EOS, with UV-filter. Maybe I should go for a polarised filter, but I know what they cost
Group of people on the pontoon: skipper is the one with the toolbox.
http://sirocco31.tripod.com
The best results I've had so far ar with a digital camera. Simply because of the law of statistics. With regular film I take maybe 24 snaps in a weekend.
Digital: 100+ in a day, just snapping away. out of those hundred, 1 or two look splended, 10 ok-ish.
Digital is a Kodak
Non-digital is a Canon EOS, with UV-filter. Maybe I should go for a polarised filter, but I know what they cost
Group of people on the pontoon: skipper is the one with the toolbox.
http://sirocco31.tripod.com