National Geographic Threw Away All Credibility When They Released This Book!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Aug 13, 2007.

  1. I have noticed that in life:

    1) Anything you need is right there in front of you.

    2) If you can't find it, you don't need it.
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Aug 14, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Allen Guest

    S/he probably doesn't even realize that it's a phone.
    Allen, Aug 14, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. As near as I can tell, using a cell phone camera IS using a pin hole
    camera......I am still trying to find the hole on mine.....:^)
    William Graham, Aug 14, 2007
  4. It is just my personal experience that having a camera when a random event
    The same is true for me....I have found that when I do want/need it, the
    batteries are dead, or the film is so old that the pictures are
    foggy.....Perhaps a digital camera that will operate from my car's cigarette
    lighter outlet might work, but carrying film cameras in the car for
    emergencies has proven to be a loser with me........
    William Graham, Aug 14, 2007
  5. Well, there are (or were) cases where a Leica was very good....I used to
    smuggle my IIIf into the opera house to film ballet scenes. - It was quiet
    enough so nobody knew that I was taking the pictures......Probably today,
    one can do this with digital point & shoots.....Has anyone made a survey of
    which ones are quietest?
    William Graham, Aug 14, 2007
  6. Not true.....There is no Ferrari in my garage.
    I need a Ferrari........
    William Graham, Aug 14, 2007
  7. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Scott W Guest

    I started out in digital photography with a camera that had a resolution
    of 640x480. I am very glad I had that camera as I took a lot of photos
    that I would not have "wasted" film on but now almost 10 years later
    some of those photos are very dear to me.

    Having said that I really wish that the camera had been higher
    resolution, whereas the photos are nice to look at and bring back good
    memories they are not really suitable for making prints.

    I believe that photos gain value as they get older, but our standards as
    to what looks good are getting higher as the years go by. 20 years ago
    a photo from a cell phone camera would have seemed very good, now not so
    much. 20 years from now what seems like a nice artistic photo will
    likely not look so good to us. As monitors and TVs get to be higher and
    higher resolution the lack of resolution in the cell phone photos will
    become more and more glaring.

    Scott W, Aug 14, 2007
  8. I agree and feel the same way. I tried the 640x480 route and it didn't work
    for me so I bought the good old Kodak DC280 a 2.1 MP camera that took decent
    pics for the time. That camera was over $500 when it came out. It was my
    eBay workhorse.
    I have some great pics from the old Kodak that fall into this category.
    They are better than nothing, but I wish I could make some clear 8x10s.
    Great point.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Aug 14, 2007
  9. I agree! And that is a really awesome shot.
    I've played with my camera phone and had some great artsy shots from it.
    The problem is when you see all the noise, CA, distortions, and other crap
    associated with a cheap camera you simple erase that otherwise great shot.
    Doing that makes me more disgusted than not having a camera at all.
    Webcams aren't bad for the challenge and they blow away any camera phone.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Aug 14, 2007
  10. It was a once in a lifetime capture and it was great! Sadly NG is doing
    their audience a major disservice by not paying this guy a nominal fee for
    the rights to host it on their sight. Wildlife footage like this is well
    suited for NG's theme. Once all the excitement dies down this youtube entry
    will be forgotten, probably in three weeks.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Aug 14, 2007
  11. Let's not forget that each of these camera you speak of was cutting edge
    technology when they were introduced. That said, 18 months from now people
    will be saying "How could people have suffered so unmercifully with the
    mediocre image quality of the Canon Mk III when the MK IV blows it away?"
    Technology moves on.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Aug 14, 2007
  12. But if he wishes the camera had been, "of higher resolution", then he could
    have done a lot better by using a film camera, which has a much higher
    resolution than most of the digital cameras that are available today.....
    William Graham, Aug 15, 2007
  13. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    hickster11 Guest

    That's amazing! My hat's off to anyone who can shoot Brooklyn in 50 days.
    Bob Hickey
    hickster11, Aug 16, 2007
  14. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    hickster11 Guest

    ISO, hi/lo color, B/W, Sepia and some heiroglyphics I havn't deciphered yet.
    All built into the hinge. And some day I'm going to figure out how to send
    something with it. I have the book, the CD, and I still can't do a simple
    thing. Very humbling. Bob Hickey
    hickster11, Aug 17, 2007
  15. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, Ron:

    Relax, mon amigo! It's just another of Rita's silly, unimaginative

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Aug 18, 2007
  16. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    John Turco Guest

    C J Campbell wrote:

    Hello, Christopher:

    I'm sure you meant Robert Clark, rather than Roger N. Clark, who is a
    frequent contributor to <
    Of course, Roger is a fairly decent photographer, in his own right...for
    a scientist, at least. <g>

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Aug 18, 2007
  17. I've taken a photograph on a crappy little cameraphone at a lucky
    coincidence of weather and light which despite its web-page snapshot
    resolution is so evocative that I've been unable to better it despite
    visiting the location a few times with heavy-duty kit. It needs a
    heavy rainstorm at a certain time of day :)
    Chris Malcolm, Aug 23, 2007
  18. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Mr. G D Geen Guest

    NGeo has a special section in the September issue dedicated to strictly
    Cell phone pictures. Someone must have convinced them it was a
    worthwhile experiment. -G
    Mr. G D Geen, Aug 23, 2007
  19. The best thing (and perhaps the only thing) that is good about camera phones
    is that you have them with you all the time, so it is possible that you
    might get a picture with one that you wouldn't have been able to get under
    most any other circumstances. Poor as they are, they are much better than no
    camera at all.....:^)
    William Graham, Aug 23, 2007
  20. I think a better comparison is between a swiss army knife and a
    carpenter's tool set, because despite the great superiority of the
    tool set, we also understand that a craftsman with a swiss army knife
    will often be able to produce better results than a novice with a
    full tool kit.

    With respect to teaching students how to use technology, it often
    helps to start them with technology which is rather limited and has
    very obvious limitations, because that forces them to confront those
    obvious limitations, understand them, and work within their
    limits. That's also what you have to do with a DSLR, but for many
    novices a good modern digital camera is so good that they learn
    nothing about photography from using it.
    Chris Malcolm, Aug 24, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.