Digital in Latin America

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Asaf, Aug 16, 2003.

  1. Asaf

    Asaf Guest

    Hi,

    I plan on traveling to Galapagos, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia for 5
    weeks. The trip will get rough sometimes with 5 days in the jungle or
    10 days on a boat leaving so little time to refuel a digital camera. I
    am perplexed on whether should I bring my SLR (Cannon Rabel 2000,
    28-300mm Tamron lens) or should I take the plunge and buy a digital
    camera for that trip. A decent camera would cost about $700. this
    being said, theft in those countries is a factor as well, especially
    when the pictured are saved with the camera and cannot be easily
    separated as in films

    I doubt that short battery life and limited memory will be able to
    compete with the traditional camera, though I will feel bad developing
    the films after the trip and learn things that would be better learned
    after I take the picture, where I can still correct them.

    As you can understand I like both worlds but need your help in
    deciding on the best one. if you have any experience traveling with a
    digital in such trip, please tell me what you think. any other advices
    would be greatly appreciated (like, what should I look in a camera to
    be suited for such trip?)

    Thanks! ;)
    Asaf.
    Asaf, Aug 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    (Asaf) wrote:

    If you decide to go digital, be sure to get the camera well ahead of
    time so you can learn to operate it properly. Most of the digital
    cameras have a distinct delay between button pushing and the picture
    taking. For someone accustomed to a film camera the delay is the
    difference between a good photo and a bad photo.

    Dick


    >
    >
    > I plan on traveling to Galapagos, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia for 5
    > weeks. The trip will get rough sometimes with 5 days in the jungle or
    > 10 days on a boat leaving so little time to refuel a digital camera. I
    > am perplexed on whether should I bring my SLR (Cannon Rabel 2000,
    > 28-300mm Tamron lens) or should I take the plunge and buy a digital
    > camera for that trip. A decent camera would cost about $700. this
    > being said, theft in those countries is a factor as well, especially
    > when the pictured are saved with the camera and cannot be easily
    > separated as in films
    >
    > I doubt that short battery life and limited memory will be able to
    > compete with the traditional camera, though I will feel bad developing
    > the films after the trip and learn things that would be better learned
    > after I take the picture, where I can still correct them.
    >
    > As you can understand I like both worlds but need your help in
    > deciding on the best one. if you have any experience traveling with a
    > digital in such trip, please tell me what you think. any other advices
    > would be greatly appreciated (like, what should I look in a camera to
    > be suited for such trip?)
    >
    > Thanks! ;)
    > Asaf
    Richard Cline, Aug 16, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Asaf

    Miguel Cruz Guest

    Richard Cline <> wrote:
    > If you decide to go digital, be sure to get the camera well ahead of
    > time so you can learn to operate it properly. Most of the digital
    > cameras have a distinct delay between button pushing and the picture
    > taking. For someone accustomed to a film camera the delay is the
    > difference between a good photo and a bad photo.


    This is pretty similar to the delay imposed by any other autofocus cameras
    of similar form factor (i.e., the little tiny ones are slow and the larger
    SLR-sized ones are pretty quick).

    In almost all cases this is easily solved by learning to pre-focus - just
    hold the shutter release halfway down and it'll take focus and exposure
    measurements. Then when you actually push it the rest of the way it's very
    fast.

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
    Miguel Cruz, Aug 16, 2003
    #3
  4. Asaf

    eMeL Guest

    "Asaf" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > theft in those countries is a factor as well, especially
    > when the pictured are saved with the camera and cannot be easily
    > separated as in films


    Huh?
    Pictures in digital cameras worth taking for a trip are saved to removable storage
    (Compact Flash or such.) Buy several cards, they come in capacities from 32 MB to
    1-2 G and you are set. Moreover, if you buy an inexpensive memory card reader
    ($20.00-30.00 US), you will be able connect it to a computer in internet cafes and
    upload your pictures to some storage on the web if you have any at your disposal (if
    you don't - get some...Your ISP may provide some free of charge or for a few bucks.)
    Some cameras can be directly connected to a computer via USB and their card is seen
    as an external disk. If you have $700.00 to spend take a look at Canon G5.

    --
    ><emeL><

    ....nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free...
    eMeL, Aug 16, 2003
    #4
  5. Asaf

    Lumpy Guest

    If you are serious about taking pictures, a digital camera is the only way
    to go. Last year I spent two and a half months in China with a Canon G2, 2
    batteries, a 1 Gig IBM microdrive and a 20 Gig Nixvue Vista to store my
    images. It can hold about 10,000 images. I came home with about 6,000
    images. Try carrying that much film. Also no worries about x-ray.

    In China, most internet cafes weren't equipped for burning disks, they were
    mostly game rooms for Counter Strike.

    They have cheap batteries on EBay. You can carry a few so you don't have to
    worry about power.

    I got a little belt pouch for my camera and batteries and wore it constantly
    and then got a cheap but adequate tripod in Shanghai that I could fit in my
    back pocket if need be.

    Just by having that much capacity will encourage you to take more pictures
    and by seeing them as you take them you will end up taking better pictures.

    This was my first digital trip and now my wife wants to go back reshoot all
    our previous trips.

    I'm planning a trip similar to yours this fall.

    Buen Viaje





    "Asaf" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I plan on traveling to Galapagos, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia for 5
    > weeks. The trip will get rough sometimes with 5 days in the jungle or
    > 10 days on a boat leaving so little time to refuel a digital camera. I
    > am perplexed on whether should I bring my SLR (Cannon Rabel 2000,
    > 28-300mm Tamron lens) or should I take the plunge and buy a digital
    > camera for that trip. A decent camera would cost about $700. this
    > being said, theft in those countries is a factor as well, especially
    > when the pictured are saved with the camera and cannot be easily
    > separated as in films
    >
    > I doubt that short battery life and limited memory will be able to
    > compete with the traditional camera, though I will feel bad developing
    > the films after the trip and learn things that would be better learned
    > after I take the picture, where I can still correct them.
    >
    > As you can understand I like both worlds but need your help in
    > deciding on the best one. if you have any experience traveling with a
    > digital in such trip, please tell me what you think. any other advices
    > would be greatly appreciated (like, what should I look in a camera to
    > be suited for such trip?)
    >
    > Thanks! ;)
    > Asaf.
    Lumpy, Aug 17, 2003
    #5
  6. Asaf

    eMeL Guest

    "Lumpy" <> wrote in message
    news:dRI%a.3840$...
    > If you are serious about taking pictures, a digital camera is the only way
    > to go. Last year I spent two and a half months in China with a Canon G2,



    Nonsense. Try making an 8x10 or larger enlargement from your 4MP digital camera and
    you'll kiss and make up with traditional film pretty quickly... (or run out and shell
    out some serious $$$ for a 6-8 MP digital camera...) The truth is that in terms of
    output quality, a $100 point-and-shoot camera beats your digital gizmo hands down...

    --
    ><emeL><

    ....nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free...
    eMeL, Aug 17, 2003
    #6
  7. Asaf

    eMeL Guest

    "Mike Graham" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Actually, I've made half a dozen 8x10 enlargements of shots taken with my
    > 3.2MP camera, not even in full-resolution mode, and I'm *quite* happy with
    > them.


    That means nothing - from a 3.2 MPframe it is physically impossible to get a 300 DPI
    ("near photo quality") 8x10 inch print. Pure physics...Not enough "dots..." From a 3
    MP you can get approx. 6x7" 300 DPI prints... 200 DPI looks "good enough" (i.e. like
    crap...)at 8x10 from a 3 MP camera.

    Camera res. Picture size on paper (inch)
    (pixels) 200 dpi 300 dpi
    1600 x 1200 8.0 x 6.0 5.3 x 4.0 <==2 mega pixels
    1920 x 1600 9.6 x 8.0 6.4 x 5.3 <==3 mega pixels

    Enjoy!

    --
    ><emeL><

    ....nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free...
    eMeL, Aug 17, 2003
    #7
  8. Asaf

    Mike Graham Guest

    In article <>, eMeL wrote:

    > That means nothing


    Why should it mean nothing? If I'm delighted with the pictures then
    that's good enough for me. I don't care if it has flaws, as long as I don't
    see them. I'm not in the habit of taking a loupe to my shots to find things
    that I don't want to find. I've even had shots that I'd taken, cropped,
    even, printed out in 8x10" and had them sell. For money. At a charity
    auction, and lest you think the buyer was just being *overly* charitable, I
    had two other people (who lost the bid) offer me $45 each for copies of it.
    So it couldn't have sucked *that* badly.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    |
    <http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
    Mike Graham, Aug 17, 2003
    #8
  9. Asaf

    Miguel Cruz Guest

    eMeL <> wrote:
    > Nonsense. Try making an 8x10 or larger enlargement from your 4MP digital
    > camera and you'll kiss and make up with traditional film pretty quickly...


    I've made lots of 8x10s from my 3 megapixel camera and I'm quite happy with
    the results. As good as anything I've gotten out of various point-and-shoot
    35mms, including pretty decent ones.

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
    Miguel Cruz, Aug 17, 2003
    #9
  10. Asaf

    Lumpy Guest

    I make and sell my photographs for a living. The 4 MP file gives me
    excellent cropped 8X10 images.

    "eMeL" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Lumpy" <> wrote in message
    > news:dRI%a.3840$...
    > > If you are serious about taking pictures, a digital camera is the only

    way
    > > to go. Last year I spent two and a half months in China with a Canon

    G2,
    >
    >
    > Nonsense. Try making an 8x10 or larger enlargement from your 4MP digital

    camera and
    > you'll kiss and make up with traditional film pretty quickly... (or run

    out and shell
    > out some serious $$$ for a 6-8 MP digital camera...) The truth is that in

    terms of
    > output quality, a $100 point-and-shoot camera beats your digital gizmo

    hands down...
    >
    > --
    > ><emeL><

    > ...nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free...
    >
    >
    Lumpy, Aug 17, 2003
    #10
  11. Asaf

    eMeL Guest

    Re: Digital in Latin America OT

    "Miguel Cruz" <> wrote in message
    news:a8O%a.7052$...
    > eMeL <> wrote:
    > > Nonsense. Try making an 8x10 or larger enlargement from your 4MP digital
    > > camera and you'll kiss and make up with traditional film pretty quickly...

    >
    > I've made lots of 8x10s from my 3 megapixel camera and I'm quite happy with
    > the results. As good as anything I've gotten out of various point-and-shoot
    > 35mms, including pretty decent ones.


    Sorry, but your "I'm quite happy with the results" (which is great, nota bene!)
    doesn't cut it, and the physics and physiology of human sight are on my side. You
    need a 300 DPI print to approximate photographic quality and at 300 DPI the largest
    print you can get from a 3 megapixel camera is approx. 5.5x6.5". You can get a
    8x9.6" print at 200 DPI but is pure crap in comparison to a print from film.

    If you like your results - great!!!

    --
    ><emeL><

    ....nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free...
    eMeL, Aug 17, 2003
    #11
  12. Asaf

    eMeL Guest

    "Lumpy" <> wrote in message
    news:FVO%a.5236$...
    > I make and sell my photographs for a living. The 4 MP file gives me
    > excellent cropped 8X10 images.


    I feel sorry for your customers.
    For "near-photographic quality" you'll need a 212 DPI print and for "photographic
    quality" 300 DPI print.
    From a 4 Megapixel frame at 300 DPI you can print approx 6.5x7.5".

    You need a 7.2 megapixel frame to get a 8x10" print at 300 DPI.

    --
    ><emeL><

    ....nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free...
    eMeL, Aug 17, 2003
    #12
  13. Asaf

    Miguel Cruz Guest

    Re: Digital in Latin America OT

    eMeL <> wrote:
    > "Miguel Cruz" <> wrote:
    >> I've made lots of 8x10s from my 3 megapixel camera and I'm quite happy with
    >> the results. As good as anything I've gotten out of various point-and-shoot
    >> 35mms, including pretty decent ones.

    >
    > Sorry, but your "I'm quite happy with the results" (which is great, nota
    > bene!) doesn't cut it, and the physics and physiology of human sight are
    > on my side. You need a 300 DPI print to approximate photographic quality
    > and at 300 DPI the largest print you can get from a 3 megapixel camera is
    > approx. 5.5x6.5". You can get a 8x9.6" print at 200 DPI but is pure crap
    > in comparison to a print from film.


    Most people can't tell the difference between 200dpi and 300dpi without a
    loupe (and some serious prompting from the person who handed it to them).
    Sure, the eye is capable of it, but people don't care and don't know what to
    look for.

    For any casual user the digital is just fine.

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
    Miguel Cruz, Aug 17, 2003
    #13
  14. Asaf

    Lumpy Guest

    You don't need to be sorry for my customers. They have eyes.

    Apparently you are good at math but not at working with digital images.
    Have you heard of re-sampling?

    "eMeL" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Lumpy" <> wrote in message
    > news:FVO%a.5236$...
    > > I make and sell my photographs for a living. The 4 MP file gives me
    > > excellent cropped 8X10 images.

    >
    > I feel sorry for your customers.
    > For "near-photographic quality" you'll need a 212 DPI print and for

    "photographic
    > quality" 300 DPI print.
    > From a 4 Megapixel frame at 300 DPI you can print approx 6.5x7.5".
    >
    > You need a 7.2 megapixel frame to get a 8x10" print at 300 DPI.
    >
    > --
    > ><emeL><

    > ...nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free...
    >
    >
    Lumpy, Aug 17, 2003
    #14
  15. Asaf

    eMeL Guest

    Re: Digital in Latin America OT

    "Lumpy" <> wrote in message
    news:A%Q%a.5278$...
    > You don't need to be sorry for my customers. They have eyes.
    >
    > Apparently you are good at math but not at working with digital images.
    > Have you heard of re-sampling?


    To a higher resolution??? Hahaha... Interpolation ads noise, not pixels. An
    "upsampled" image is as crappy (or crappier, because it includes new noise and
    artifacts) as the lower-res original. True, pixels are not everything but in terms
    of image size the resolution is, and even King Solomon couldn't pour from an empty
    pitcher...

    Try a 7 megapixel camera and print 8x10" at 300 DPI THEN compare it to a 8x10" print
    from a 3 or 4 MP camera printed - by necessity - at 200 (or less...) DPI.

    Sorry, from my side it's EOT. The laws of physics are not on your side today
    :)

    --
    ><emeL><

    ....nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free...
    eMeL, Aug 17, 2003
    #15
  16. Asaf

    Arthur Small Guest

    We can be technical, but "if it looks good , it is good".
    Arthur Small, Aug 17, 2003
    #16
  17. Asaf

    Miguel Cruz Guest

    Re: Digital in Latin America OT

    eMeL <> wrote:
    > To a higher resolution??? Hahaha... Interpolation ads noise, not pixels.
    > An "upsampled" image is as crappy (or crappier, because it includes new
    > noise and artifacts) as the lower-res original. True, pixels are not
    > everything but in terms of image size the resolution is, and even King
    > Solomon couldn't pour from an empty pitcher...


    http://www.lizardtech.com/solutions/photo/

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
    Miguel Cruz, Aug 18, 2003
    #17
  18. Asaf

    Miguel Cruz Guest

    Re: Digital in Latin America OT

    eMeL <> wrote:
    > "Miguel Cruz" <> wrote:
    >> http://www.lizardtech.com/solutions/photo/

    >
    > Oh pleeeeeeeeeez... It's a nice plug in, but all you can do is upsample
    > ("encode") a 200 or so DPI scan to "look like" a 300 DPI scan which -
    > regardless of technology - will still look like an upsampled image with a
    > plethora of artifacts. And Genuine Fractals doesn't even support 16 bit
    > color...Gimme a break!


    You're talking about quality results and then you want to use 16-bit color?
    A 16-bit color sky is a lot more noticeably than Genuine Fractals artifacts.

    > You know, I've been doing this since before most people knew about
    > high-res digital photography and can assure you that there is no magic
    > wand - you either have the resolution to begin with or you are SOL.


    Yeah, and I was doing high-end magazine production since "digital workflow"
    meant accompanying a stack of 44-megabyte Syquests on a plane from Sydney to
    Singapore for prepress, because it was such nascent technology we had to get
    it done in a different continent. I was using Photoshop versions < 1.0 back
    when the Knoll Brothers left copies lying around on the lab downstairs in
    the Art & Architecture building on North Campus in Ann Arbor. Big whoop.
    What matters is what works for the job at hand (in this case, taking
    decent-quality shots on vacation), not the pedigree of the person spouting
    advice.

    > If "upsampling" really worked I wouldn't be using a $20 000 digital back
    > but shell out a few quids for a 2 MP "idioten kamera" instead and be
    > currently lazing in Guatemala using the price difference :)


    All I claim is that in many cases you can use it to eliminate the fuzz on a
    3MP image that for some reason doesn't otherwise scale nicely to 8x10.
    I make no claims as to suitability for penis enlargement.

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
    Miguel Cruz, Aug 18, 2003
    #18
  19. Asaf

    eMeL Guest

    Re: Digital in Latin America OT

    "Miguel Cruz" <> wrote in message
    news:at00b.10429$...
    >
    > You're talking about quality results and then you want to use 16-bit color?
    > A 16-bit color sky is a lot more noticeably than Genuine Fractals artifacts.


    It supports only 8 bit color...
    :)

    > All I claim is that in many cases you can use it to eliminate the fuzz on a
    > 3MP image that for some reason doesn't otherwise scale nicely to 8x10.
    > I make no claims as to suitability for penis enlargement.


    Let's end it - as entertaining as it is it is OT.
    Yes, all you need is a 3 MP digital camera (Canon A70 or such) for quality 4x5"
    prints (which most people want anyway) and such was my reply to the original poster.
    But the conversation (as per "newsgroups law of gradual irrelevancy") was disturbed
    by someone's claims that he/she makes 8x10" commercial prints (cropped...) from a 3
    or 4 MP camera hence my tirades. And no, as of today a 3 MP frame will not scale to
    8x10 without noticeable artifact regardless of the "magic" performed.

    Cheers!
    --
    ><emeL><

    ....nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free...
    eMeL, Aug 18, 2003
    #19
  20. Asaf

    Miguel Cruz Guest

    Re: Digital in Latin America OT

    eMeL <> wrote:
    > "Miguel Cruz" <> wrote:
    >> You're talking about quality results and then you want to use 16-bit
    >> color? A 16-bit color sky is a lot more noticeably than Genuine Fractals
    >> artifacts.

    >
    > It supports only 8 bit color...


    I assume you got that from the "Retired Products" section of their web site.
    The plugin shipped with version 2.5 apparently had that limitation. The
    current version, 3.0, doesn't.

    >> All I claim is that in many cases you can use it to eliminate the fuzz on a
    >> 3MP image that for some reason doesn't otherwise scale nicely to 8x10.
    >> I make no claims as to suitability for penis enlargement.

    >
    > Let's end it - as entertaining as it is it is OT. Yes, all you need is a 3
    > MP digital camera (Canon A70 or such) for quality 4x5" prints (which most
    > people want anyway) and such was my reply to the original poster. But the
    > conversation (as per "newsgroups law of gradual irrelevancy") was
    > disturbed by someone's claims that he/she makes 8x10" commercial prints
    > (cropped...) from a 3 or 4 MP camera hence my tirades. And no, as of
    > today a 3 MP frame will not scale to 8x10 without noticeable artifact
    > regardless of the "magic" performed.


    Noticeable? Yes. To everyone, or enough to matter to vacationers? Nope.

    Anyway, I'm repeating myself just to get the last word; you're right, we can
    put this away and live to nitpick each other another day!

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
    Miguel Cruz, Aug 18, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Zogby
    Replies:
    188
    Views:
    2,980
    Rowdy Yates
    Aug 15, 2004
  2. Dominic

    Short latin translation

    Dominic, Jun 7, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    4,911
    Plato
    Jun 8, 2004
  3. Lecher

    Latin Fast House

    Lecher, Nov 12, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    396
    Robert Sturgeon
    Nov 13, 2005
  4. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    458
    DVD Verdict
    Dec 23, 2005
  5. picture taker
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    535
    Hans Kruse
    Apr 7, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page