Leftover thriftiness from you film days?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John Navas, Jan 21, 2008.

  1. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:38:09 -0800, "Juan Moore Beer"
    <> wrote in <>:

    >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 shoot far more images with digital, particularly experimental ones,
    than I took with film.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jan 21, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
    Juan Moore Beer, Jan 21, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John Navas

    ray Guest

    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?
    >
    > --------
    > : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com


    It has taken a while, but I shoot more now. I still find that I will
    'work' a little to get a good composition - I tend to not 'waste' many
    shots though, certainly, some are better than others.
    ray, Jan 21, 2008
    #3
  4. John Navas

    Ali Guest

    Come on, everyone takes more photos with digital than they did with film.
    Ansel Adams would too.

    Of course, the time factor still exists for post processing and so it is
    just as important to get it right in camera.




    "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?
    Ali, Jan 21, 2008
    #4
  5. John Navas

    Robert Coe Guest

    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
    Robert Coe, Jan 21, 2008
    #5
  6. John Navas

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Juan Moore Beer
    <> wrote:

    > Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the
    > restraint more based on quality than cost?


    I may take a few more, but still use discretion based on the
    requirement for quality rather than quantity.
    Mr. Strat, Jan 21, 2008
    #6
  7. John Navas

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, 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.


    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.
    Mr. Strat, Jan 21, 2008
    #7
  8. John Navas

    Allen Guest

    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
    Allen, Jan 21, 2008
    #8
  9. John Navas

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:35:32 -0800, "Mr. Strat" <>
    wrote:
    : In article <>, 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.
    :
    : Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

    In fact I believe it means exactly that. I'm not surprised that you disagree,
    but that's what I think.

    : 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.

    The point is that there's apt to be something good in there often enough to
    make the exercise worthwhile. If, over time, there never is anything good in
    there, then maybe you're photographing the wrong subjects in the wrong light
    with the wrong equipment, or whatever, in which case you need to rethink your
    approach. But if you're getting good pictures but missing some that you really
    wanted, one of the ways to cope is to take more pictures.

    Note that I'm NOT saying that a lousy photographer can improve his results by
    taking more lousy pictures. I AM saying that few, if any, of us are good
    enough to recognize and capture the best shot every time while ignoring the
    rest.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jan 22, 2008
    #9
  10. John Navas

    Scott W Guest

    On Jan 21, 11:38 am, "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 take way more photos with digital, and now that I am I really wish I
    had taken a lot more photos with film, when I was shooting with film.

    For me photography is a way to capture what I see in my life and what
    my wife and I do over the years. What might seem like a simple
    photograph today can have great value in 20 years.

    As an example the only photos I have of co-working in the work place
    are from digital cameras, I just never though to do this when I was
    using film.

    When we have people over for dinner or we go to others for dinner I
    try and capture the event with my camera, I never did much of this
    with film.

    On vacations I try to not only get the scenery but also the places we
    stay at both in side and out and the restaurants that we ate at both
    inside and out. Sure these photos would be boring for others, but I
    take them for us.

    When shooting people, like friends and family, more shots definitely
    helps in getting good shots. I find the first few photos I take of
    people they tend to want stop look right at the camera and smile, you
    know bad photos, but if I keep taking photos they finally will ignore
    me and I get much nicer candid shots.

    Scott
    Scott W, Jan 22, 2008
    #10
  11. John Navas

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "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.
    Kinon O'Cann, Jan 22, 2008
    #11
  12. John Navas

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:58:25 -0600, Allen <> wrote:
    : 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.

    Your experience definitely strikes a chord with me. My daughter too is a
    skilled photographer of children. She has taken countless excellent pictures
    of her kids and attributes most of her success to banging away until she gets
    what she wants. She says it's not unusual for her to take 300 to 400 pictures
    in a half-hour photo shoot, and from the times I've watched her in action, I
    believe it. I also take pictures of her kids, obviously, but the best of her
    pictures are routinely better than the best of mine, even though I'm far
    better equipped. (She uses only a P&S in auto mode and insists that a mother
    of three kids under six can't take on the additional weight and complexity of
    a DSLR.) So if I weren't already a believer in taking lots of pictures, her
    experience would probably convince me.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jan 22, 2008
    #12
  13. John Navas

    jean Guest

    "Allen" <> a écrit dans le message de news:
    479531a1$0$22663$...
    > 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


    Me too, in film days I would very often hesitate when it was obvious the
    shot was going to be bad, nevertheless I still threw away many shots.
    Experimenting was the worse because the cost of each shot was being
    considered, this is why I liked B+W better, I could buy film in 100 foot
    rolls and load my own film canisters (I sold off everything a couple of
    years ago) and only print the ones I found good enough. Color printing was
    just too expensive and involved for me.

    I had a small ½ frame camera I liked a lot (still have it), small, fixed
    focus and loaded with ASA400 in 36 exposure I could take 72+ pictures before
    changing film. I had this camera almost constantly with me. Now with
    digital, I don't mind snapping away and don't really care if I throw away
    many shots, this is especially true in action sports photography where a
    keeper may be one in 4.

    Jean
    jean, Jan 22, 2008
    #13
  14. John Navas

    Gary Edstrom Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:38:09 -0800, "Juan Moore Beer"
    <> 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.

    Gary
    Gary Edstrom, Jan 22, 2008
    #14
  15. John Navas

    Scott W Guest

    On Jan 21, 4:11 pm, Gary Edstrom <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:38:09 -0800, "Juan Moore Beer"
    >
    > <> 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
    Scott W, Jan 22, 2008
    #15
  16. John Navas

    rwalker Guest

    "Juan Moore Beer" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    snip

    >
    > Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the
    > restraint more based on quality than cost?
    >
    >


    I absolutely take more photos when shooting digital instead of film.
    rwalker, Jan 22, 2008
    #16
  17. John Navas

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Robert Coe
    <> wrote:

    > The point is that there's apt to be something good in there often enough to
    > make the exercise worthwhile. If, over time, there never is anything good in
    > there, then maybe you're photographing the wrong subjects in the wrong light
    > with the wrong equipment, or whatever, in which case you need to rethink your
    > approach. But if you're getting good pictures but missing some that you really
    > wanted, one of the ways to cope is to take more pictures.


    Coming from the professional, medium format world, I have learned
    discretion.
    Mr. Strat, Jan 22, 2008
    #17
  18. John Navas

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Gary Edstrom
    <> wrote:

    > 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.


    i did the same thing, but with 360 degree panoramas. there's simply no
    way that would have happened with film.
    nospam, Jan 22, 2008
    #18
  19. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:19:47 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    in <210120082219470128%>:

    >In article <>, Gary Edstrom
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    >i did the same thing, but with 360 degree panoramas. there's simply no
    >way that would have happened with film.


    Fish eye lens.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jan 22, 2008
    #19
  20. John Navas

    jean Guest

    jean, Jan 22, 2008
    #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. Ike Milligan

    WIn XP leftover fax seems to try dialing out

    Ike Milligan, May 13, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    561
    Ike Milligan
    May 13, 2004
  2. Serge IZOARD
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    387
    Serge IZOARD
    Nov 1, 2004
  3. Serge IZOARD
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    304
    Serge IZOARD
    Dec 2, 2004
  4. Serge IZOARD
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    297
    Serge IZOARD
    Jan 1, 2005
  5. Rob
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    386
    Martin Gallagher
    Jun 21, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page