«

On Jan 21, 9:00*pm, "jean" <try...@find.it> wrote:
> I like to do wide angle shots like this one.http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/91972678/original
> Sort of give a feel for the whole area at once.
>
> Nice images, what do you use to stitch?
>
> Jean

I am using PTGui, it takes just a bit of time to learn to use it but
it works very well and is fast.

Scott

In article <>, John Navas
<> wrote:

> >> I was determined that that was not going to happen with my parent's
> >> house that my mother lived in for over 40 years before she died. I have
> >> over 1,500 pictures taken inside and out around the house. All rooms
> >> from all corners, as well as close-ups of many objects in the house.
> >
> >i did the same thing, but with 360 degree panoramas. there's simply no
> >way that would have happened with film.
>
> Fish eye lens.

if you don't mind the distortion.

what i created was a full quicktime vr panorama for every room, and
when i have the time, i plan to link them all together so one can
virtually travel throughout the entire house, room to room, zooming in
on any part of the room, as desired.

that simply is impossible with film.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:00:43 -0500, jean wrote:

> I like to do wide angle shots like this one.
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/91972678/original Sort of give a
> feel for the whole area at once.
>
> Nice images, what do you use to stitch?
>
> Jean

Hugin

--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

On Jan 22, 9:35 am, "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I continue to shoot with
> discretion just because there's no point to holding down the button and
> hoping there's something good in there.

Who else but Randall Ainsworth...

Randy, just out of interest, what technological advances/techniques
*are* OK with you? Clearly motor-driven film cameras would be out..
Right? If not, why not?

And might I make the observation - just because you can shoot medium
format, doesn't mean you should...

Oh, but wait. You shot *medium format* because it was a
*technological advance* that allowed you to *print large(r)
pictures*. And that's acceptable behavior to Randy.

But.. shooting *multiple exposures easily* because it is a
*technological advance* that allows you to *capture moments you might
otherwise miss* is NOT acceptable to "Mr Strat", because... umm...
because...

Do end that sentence for us Randall. And feel free to insert many
alternatives in between those asterisks, and this time maybe have a
think about them first, ok.


Needless to say, Robert, I agree with you. And those who don't.. I
suspect have never shot sports or children. Even someone who has shot
weddings (allegedly) should know better. But perhaps being perfect
means he never missed a shot... Every one of his group shots had all
the folks smilingly nicely... (O:

Juan Moore Beer wrote:
> In my film days, I would try not to waste too many shots, possibly because
> of the extra time and expense for developing.
>
> I find myself still not taking as many shots as I could, even though I can
> take a quick look at them on the LCD and zap them in an instant. This
> weekend, I was traveling a few hours north, and had an extra three or four
> hours to kill. I found some nice scenery, but still only took about a
> dozen pictures, most of which I will keep. There were only a few "shots"
> I regret not taking, and that was only because it was too darn cold for me
> to get out of the car again
>
> Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the
> restraint more based on quality than cost?
>
> --------
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
>


I certainly take more pictures than ever before. Cost is a significant
aspect of taking pictures with film. I always had to budget some money
for development, and printing, of pictures I took on vacation. Now, I
snap as many as I like, and when I get home, I can save them all on the
computer, send selected ones to relatives, and post most of them on
Webshots. I rarely print any pictures, and then it is usually for
relatives/friends without a computer.

Robert Coe wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:38:09 -0800, "Juan Moore Beer"
> <> wrote:
> : In my film days, I would try not to waste too many shots, possibly because
> : of the extra time and expense for developing.
> :
> : I find myself still not taking as many shots as I could, even though I can
> : take a quick look at them on the LCD and zap them in an instant. This
> : weekend, I was traveling a few hours north, and had an extra three or four
> : hours to kill. I found some nice scenery, but still only took about a
> : dozen pictures, most of which I will keep. There were only a few "shots"
> : I regret not taking, and that was only because it was too darn cold for me
> : to get out of the car again
> :
> : Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the
> : restraint more based on quality than cost?
>
> I expect to be flamed for saying this, because some in this group are such
> purists that they think one should eschew any photo which has not been planned
> in advance and perfectly composed. To show my contempt for that attitude, I'll
> answer before I even read the three or four responses you've already received.
> ;^)
>
> If you're not already a world-class photographer with the best equipment money
> can buy (and maybe even if you are), and if if you throw away fewer than 60%
> of the pictures you take, either you're being insufficiently aggressive in
> culling your images or you're not clicking the shutter enough. As your
> instinct tells you, one of the three principal advantages of digital
> photography is that you don't have to worry about the cost of an individual
> shot. (The other two are that you can see what you're doing as you go and that
> images can be improved or corrected easily.) If you don't exploit that
> advantage, you're handicapping yourself for no good reason.
>
> Especially when photographing children or groups of people, I find that if I
> run off a dozen shots of one scene, at most one or two of them will stand out
> as representing what I was trying to accomplish. If I took fewer shots, it's
> inevitable that I'd miss those best shots a significant percentage of the
> time.
>
> Note that you don't, of course, have to admit that you took (and threw away)
> all those extra shots. You can perfectly well sneer at the idea of taking
> extra shots and assert with a straight face that you never take pictures that
> aren't carefully planned and therefore worth keeping. Unless those to whom you
> feed that crap were at a photo shoot with you, how are they going to know?
> (Don't forget to renumber the images so that none are obviously missing.)
>
> OK, I've had my say. Let the argument begin!
>
> Bob

I certainly don't sneer at taking a lot of shots, but I do feel that
anyone who discards 60% of his shots may be making a mistake. Sometimes
that shot I thought wasn't really what I wanted is the only one that
contained an image of 'Uncle John', who just up and died last week, and
now I cherish that shot. Keeping that 60% of pictures doesn't cost you
anything, so why throw them away? With Terabyte HDs going for under
$300, there is little excuse to discard any image that is clear, and has
an identifiable subject. I keep 99% of the images I take for the above
reason.

Allen wrote:
> Robert Coe wrote:
>
>> I expect to be flamed for saying this, because some in this group are
>> such
>> purists that they think one should eschew any photo which has not been
>> planned
>> in advance and perfectly composed. To show my contempt for that
>> attitude, I'll
>> answer before I even read the three or four responses you've already
>> received.
>> ;^)
>>
>> If you're not already a world-class photographer with the best
>> equipment money
>> can buy (and maybe even if you are), and if if you throw away fewer
>> than 60%
>> of the pictures you take, either you're being insufficiently
>> aggressive in
>> culling your images or you're not clicking the shutter enough. As your
>> instinct tells you, one of the three principal advantages of digital
>> photography is that you don't have to worry about the cost of an
>> individual
>> shot. (The other two are that you can see what you're doing as you go
>> and that
>> images can be improved or corrected easily.) If you don't exploit that
>> advantage, you're handicapping yourself for no good reason.
>>
>> Especially when photographing children or groups of people, I find
>> that if I
>> run off a dozen shots of one scene, at most one or two of them will
>> stand out
>> as representing what I was trying to accomplish. If I took fewer
>> shots, it's
>> inevitable that I'd miss those best shots a significant percentage of the
>> time.
>>
>> Note that you don't, of course, have to admit that you took (and threw
>> away)
>> all those extra shots. You can perfectly well sneer at the idea of taking
>> extra shots and assert with a straight face that you never take
>> pictures that
>> aren't carefully planned and therefore worth keeping. Unless those to
>> whom you
>> feed that crap were at a photo shoot with you, how are they going to
>> know?
>> (Don't forget to renumber the images so that none are obviously missing.)
>>
>> OK, I've had my say. Let the argument begin!
>>
>> Bob
> I'm on your side, Bob. I always took many exposures, especially of
> individuals or groups of people. I have always tried to disguise just
> when I was going to shoot to avoid the stupid grins of the "Say cheese"
> school. It is is especially important to shoot bunches of exposures of
> children. My daughter, who is an artist, inherited this from me and
> consequently I have some wonderful, natural looking pictures of my
> grandchildren. A couple of years ago I decided to scan all my old slides
> and I was surprised at the number of close-to-identical shots I had.
> It's also an absolute necessity if you're trying to get pictures of
> flowers when there is the slightest wind, and also with insects, birds,
> and cats. A case in point: my son, who lives 2000 miles away, is a cat
> person, as are we. At one time we had six of the dear cr eatures and we
> decided we would send our son a picture of us with all of our cats. My
> son-in-law came over and shot 25 exposures; one of the actually
> contained parts of all six cats; the other 24 had at best 5 cats or
> parts of cats.
> Allen

Trying to photograph cats (or children) can be a really frustrating
experience, rather like trying to count chickens. I think chickens are
rather like a living manifestation of 'Brownian movement'.

Kinon O'Cann wrote:
>
> "Juan Moore Beer" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> In my film days, I would try not to waste too many shots, possibly
>> because
>> of the extra time and expense for developing.
>>
>> I find myself still not taking as many shots as I could, even though I
>> can
>> take a quick look at them on the LCD and zap them in an instant. This
>> weekend, I was traveling a few hours north, and had an extra three or
>> four
>> hours to kill. I found some nice scenery, but still only took about a
>> dozen pictures, most of which I will keep. There were only a few "shots"
>> I regret not taking, and that was only because it was too darn cold
>> for me
>> to get out of the car again
>>
>> Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the
>> restraint more based on quality than cost?
>
> Absolutely. I follow the digital axiom: What I lack in talent, I make up
> for in volume.

Or, in pool, if you can't shoot good, shoot hard. Something might fall
in a hole. Grin.

I take as many pictures as I feel I want to take, given that the cost of
each one is effectively zero. I even keep some of the completely
useless ones, such as the pavement in a parking lot, that was supposed
to be a picture of a tumbleweed, which 'shutter lag' allowed to 'roll
on' before the image was captured. I keep that one to remind me of the
transient nature of all things, and the limitations of all manner of
equipment.

Scott W wrote:
> On Jan 21, 4:11 pm, Gary Edstrom <GEdst...@PacBell.Net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:38:09 -0800, "Juan Moore Beer"
>>
>> <juanmooreb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the
>>> restraint more based on quality than cost?
>> Before I got my first digital camera, my picture taking days were all
>> but over.
>>
>> Digital changed all of that.
>>
>> One thing that I was always disappointed about was that my father had so
>> few pictures of the back woods cabin that he grew up in in Michigan. He
>> only had 4 B&W pictures that showed the cabin around 1920, and all of
>> them were from the same side.
>>
>> I was determined that that was not going to happen with my parent's
>> house that my mother lived in for over 40 years before she died. I have
>> over 1,500 pictures taken inside and out around the house. All rooms
>> from all corners, as well as close-ups of many objects in the house.
>>
>> Sure, they are not all masterpieces! I wasn't trying to create
>> masterpieces! Neither was I trying to create anything to sell. I was
>> creating memories.
>>
>> Sure, I may have gone overboard with the number of pictures of the
>> house, but nobody in the future should ever be disappointed that I
>> didn't take more.
>>
>> And I intend to properly maintain my digital collection, moving them to
>> new higher density media as appropriate, so that they don't end up with
>> something obsolete that they can't read. I currently have about 35,000
>> digital and scanned images in my collection.
>
> I do the same thing. I have very few photos of the house I grew up in
> and very few of the inside of my grandparents houses. So I take a lot
> of photos of both our house and my parents, and friends for that
> matter. I also would have liked some photos of the old beater cars my
> parents use to own.
>
> I like to do wide angle shots like this one.
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/91972678/original
> Sort of give a feel for the whole area at once.
>
> Scott
>
A good pano stitching program is a great help for this type of shot.
With a bit or practice, one can get really amazing shots without extra
equipment to lug around.

"Juan Moore Beer" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:...
> In my film days, I would try not to waste too many shots, possibly because
> of the extra time and expense for developing.
>
> I find myself still not taking as many shots as I could, even though I can
> take a quick look at them on the LCD and zap them in an instant. This
> weekend, I was traveling a few hours north, and had an extra three or four
> hours to kill. I found some nice scenery, but still only took about a
> dozen pictures, most of which I will keep. There were only a few "shots"
> I regret not taking, and that was only because it was too darn cold for me
> to get out of the car again
>
> Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the
> restraint more based on quality than cost?

I take more pix by a factor of at least ten. It is a bit like spam; the cost
of getting rid of hundreds of duds is nowhere near the profit from one lucky
shot that sells.

I am often on news shoots with photojournalists and am amused that even when
they are taking stills they use the motor drive and fire off sequences of
four or five shots at a time...

Toby