Slashdot Mirror

Here ya go.

I don't like this kind of thinking since it invalidates much of what makes a good picture. As a teacher of mine said, cropping should be done IN camera.

When you shoot a scene with a wider focal length, objects look different in relation to each other because of the distortion of the lens whereas zooming in can pull distant objects in tighter and provide a less distorted look. The hardest thing is to go from that digital snapshot mentality of "let me just take a few wide angle shots and worry about it later" to a more thoughtful approach where you consider each and every part of a scene and decide if it's valuable to include. Like another teacher of mine said, "You're responsible for everything in the frame."

For me, good photography is about light and emotion, get those two things right, and a lot of the other stuff falls into place.

A couple (admittedly biased) links: Some articles I wrote about digital photography, and a course I teach.

For (photojournalistic) inspiration, I look here and here (warning, popup).

During the project I was active in the video forum of http://www.diyaudio.com/ , where alot of good thoughts were emerging on the subject of custom projectors - not purely OHP+LCD panel type setups. The five vital factors required to build a decent projector were found to be:

- Good heat dissipation

- A long life, decent color temperature lighting setup

- A well designed reflector

- Decent optics, aligned according to the basic rules of projection (using such items as fresnel lenses, PCX lenses, doublets etc.)

- The highest res. transparent LCD you can afford.

My setup was a custom built upstanding unit, using an OHP Data panel (see-through LCD) and a rather large PCX lense which I am very proud of - it came out of an American tank targeting system and weighs a couple of kilos - it can throw the light from one blue LED about 20 meters!!. I used a 400W Metal Halide bulb with suitable ballast - very bright white light! and fashioned an ellipsoid reflector out of mirrored alu sheeting.

The results? See them at the following link which includes pictures from the very beginning of my tinkering:

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4291451499

The projected image was huge and bright, but the optics system required alot of tweaking. Heat was also a major problem and I melted a few fresnel lenses in the testing stages. Due to university starting up again, I copped out and bought an OHP for some instant gratification. Results of that system can also be seen at the above link.

There's lots of theory behind building a projector, but at the end of the day, you can build one easily if you do your research and can handle very basic geometry. There are many other types of custom build units, including ones using stripped down LCD monitors, fluorescent lighting, very small LCDs etc etc. DIYAudio is a great resource with lots of enthusiastic people posting their thoughts and results.

Sony DSC-F717. More info Here

I will be going on a 2 week trip to Europe next month, living out of a backpack. We have 2x128 MB CF cards for the camera, but those wouldn't hold all of the photos we plan on taking during the trip.

My solution? I happen to have a Jornada 720 PDA and a 2 GB PCMCIA drive for the machine. The plan is when a 128 MB card if filled up, to move the contents onto the 2 GB drive. The PCMCIA harddrives are the same as in the iPod. You can get them in sizes ranging from 2 GB (a measly $70) all the way up to 30 GB (around $450). The PDA itself can be had for $300-450, depending on some factors. However, this was a good solution because I already had the hardware- it doesn't seem like a good idea for someone starting from scratch.

But then again, spending $350 on the J720 and then $70 on the 2 GB PCMCIA drive makes a lot more sense than buying $650 (!!) worth of SD/CF cards as someone else recommended as being a reasonable solution. At a decent quality, this 2 GB PCMCIA drive holds at least 10k images. I plan on recharging while at hostels and the occasional hotel. I am considering getting a solar panel as well, but I've not yet decided.

Would be great for journaling on the trip as well- I know I'd like to document all of my adventures and thoughts if I were taking a trip around the whole world!

This is *much* cheaper than the same space in a IBM CF MicroDrive, CF or SD cards.

---

The other option that may make sense is buying a camera that uses media like mini-CD-R discs. My uncle has a fancy Sony digital camera that burns the photos he takes on to the 3" CD-R disks. It was an expensive camera, but it takes awesome photos and wouldn't require a computer or a slew of expensive media like SD or CF cards.

I just looked it up, and you can get them cheaper than before. I remember my uncle paying $1000 for his fancy-pants CD-R burning Mavica, but it looks like you can get a camera which does that now for quite a bit cheaper.

The $500 MVC-CD350 and the $700 MVC-CD500 look like decent models. Definately seems to make more sense to pick up one of these rather than buying $700 worth in SD/CF media!

I will be going on a 2 week trip to Europe next month, living out of a backpack. We have 2x128 MB CF cards for the camera, but those wouldn't hold all of the photos we plan on taking during the trip.

My solution? I happen to have a Jornada 720 PDA and a 2 GB PCMCIA drive for the machine. The plan is when a 128 MB card if filled up, to move the contents onto the 2 GB drive. The PCMCIA harddrives are the same as in the iPod. You can get them in sizes ranging from 2 GB (a measly $70) all the way up to 30 GB (around $450). The PDA itself can be had for $300-450, depending on some factors. However, this was a good solution because I already had the hardware- it doesn't seem like a good idea for someone starting from scratch.

But then again, spending $350 on the J720 and then $70 on the 2 GB PCMCIA drive makes a lot more sense than buying $650 (!!) worth of SD/CF cards as someone else recommended as being a reasonable solution. At a decent quality, this 2 GB PCMCIA drive holds at least 10k images. I plan on recharging while at hostels and the occasional hotel. I am considering getting a solar panel as well, but I've not yet decided.

Would be great for journaling on the trip as well- I know I'd like to document all of my adventures and thoughts if I were taking a trip around the whole world!

This is *much* cheaper than the same space in a IBM CF MicroDrive, CF or SD cards.

---

The other option that may make sense is buying a camera that uses media like mini-CD-R discs. My uncle has a fancy Sony digital camera that burns the photos he takes on to the 3" CD-R disks. It was an expensive camera, but it takes awesome photos and wouldn't require a computer or a slew of expensive media like SD or CF cards.

I just looked it up, and you can get them cheaper than before. I remember my uncle paying $1000 for his fancy-pants CD-R burning Mavica, but it looks like you can get a camera which does that now for quite a bit cheaper.

The $500 MVC-CD350 and the $700 MVC-CD500 look like decent models. Definately seems to make more sense to pick up one of these rather than buying $700 worth in SD/CF media!

I used Yahoo's photo sharing features until I got fed up with constantly using up my disk space quota. I did some google searching and found an article (can't remember where) comparing the features of various photo sharing sites which recommended Image Station. At the time (and still, as far as I can tell) they had no quota. That feature alone was enough to sell me on using it. However, it is also quite fast in my experience, as well as user friendly. There is one minor pain that I've run across though. Other people have to register and accept a cookie before they can view any of your shared albums beyond the first shot in the album.

I have not ordered any prints from ImageStation. For that, I use Snapfish. I've been very pleased with their service, though I'm not particularly picky about my prints.

Yes, they can eat and snip cords, that's why you protect them with "wraps". That protects the cord, the rabbit and looks cool when you have a bunch of black tubes all over the place! Think "Golden Age Of Wireless" by T.Dolby

As for the noxious feces, actualy they are rather good about that, and what misses the litter box is easy to pickup with a dustbuster or hand. They make little poops, like CoCo Puffs, just don't get the two mixed up. As for urine, with any animal that uses a litter box, you must change the box often. I change my two boxes every two to three days.

The worse thing is when your rabbit gets sick, which they can do quite quickly. But for someone that cares for their furry critter, it's easy to spot early on.

I love all 4 of my bunnies, they are sweet, loving, and great to watch when I am programming.

IMHO they are the greatest critters I've had the honor to live with me. { And I've had some unique ones... Ferrets, Skunk, Raccoons, Crow, Frogs, Lizards, Cats, Dogs }

George next to the AS400
My George Bunny
My Brown Bunnies, Lego & Collette

Yes, they can eat and snip cords, that's why you protect them with "wraps". That protects the cord, the rabbit and looks cool when you have a bunch of black tubes all over the place! Think "Golden Age Of Wireless" by T.Dolby

As for the noxious feces, actualy they are rather good about that, and what misses the litter box is easy to pickup with a dustbuster or hand. They make little poops, like CoCo Puffs, just don't get the two mixed up. As for urine, with any animal that uses a litter box, you must change the box often. I change my two boxes every two to three days.

The worse thing is when your rabbit gets sick, which they can do quite quickly. But for someone that cares for their furry critter, it's easy to spot early on.

I love all 4 of my bunnies, they are sweet, loving, and great to watch when I am programming.

IMHO they are the greatest critters I've had the honor to live with me. { And I've had some unique ones... Ferrets, Skunk, Raccoons, Crow, Frogs, Lizards, Cats, Dogs }

George next to the AS400
My George Bunny
My Brown Bunnies, Lego & Collette

I waited years to buy a digital camera. I wanted a digital camera that took pictures as good quality (or better) as 35mm. The Canon D30 is the first digital camera that has received critical acclaim for its ability to take photos which surpass the quality of 35mm cameras. So I bought one of these cameras and a nice 28-135mm lens and entered the digital realm. I also bought a 1GB IBM microdrive for the camera which holds about 800 photos. This camera takes absolutely fantastic photos. I use a very inexpensive inkjet printer, the Canon BJC-8200 to print photos on glossy photo paper and visitors to my home are astounded when I tell them that all the photos hung around my home were taken with a digital camera and printed on an inkjet printer. They look at least as good as traditional photos.

There are several advantages to digital photos over 35mm:

1. Since my microdrive holds 800 photos and each digital photo has no real cost to me (besides a small amount of battery power), I will often take several photos of the same subject / scene whereas with a 35mm I might only take one photo because of the cost of film.

2. Before printing a digital photo, you have the opportunity to crop, enhance and edit it. While you can certainly crop, enhance and even edit 35mm photos, it takes far less time and money to do so with digital. I use Adobe Photoshop for this purpose. Besides providing tools to do simple enhancements, Photoshop also has many built-in filters (and more available third-party) which are a lot of fun to play with.

3. Digitial albums are extremely easy to organize. I use directories to create albums. I create a new folder under the "My Photos" folder for each new event. I use the naming convention "YYYY-MM-DD Event Name" for each subfolder, so it's easy to browse the albums in chronological order.

4. Digital photos are far more permanent than prints. Formats may change over time, but you'll always be able to convert to the new formats. The key is to keep copies of both the original photos AND the ones you've spent the time editing. I backup all my photos onto CD. While you only have one copy of a 35mm negative, you can easily create as many copis of your photos CDs as you like and share these with friends and family members or just store them for safekeeping.

5. Digital photos are much easier to share. I live a great distance from the rest of my family and use my photos to help stay in touch. When I first got my digital camera, I kept my online photos at zing.com. Unfortunately, they went the way of the dodo about a year ago. They made a deal with ophoto.com before unplugging and all my albums were transferred, but I didn't like ophoto's interface all that much and eventually found a new home for my photos at ImageStation. It's a free service and it's owned by Sony, so hopefully it will prove to have some staying power. If you're interested, please visit my photos. I have over a hundred albums online - I think this one is the best.

I also started digitizing my older 35mm and APS photos using a film scanner. A film scanner produces far better quality digital photos than a flatbed scanner does, so consider investing in one if you want to digitize / preserve your old photos. I can recommend the Canon CanoScan FS 2710 that I bought. It was inexpensive and besides producing much higher quality photos than a flatbed scanner, it's also a lot faster!

I waited years to buy a digital camera. I wanted a digital camera that took pictures as good quality (or better) as 35mm. The Canon D30 is the first digital camera that has received critical acclaim for its ability to take photos which surpass the quality of 35mm cameras. So I bought one of these cameras and a nice 28-135mm lens and entered the digital realm. I also bought a 1GB IBM microdrive for the camera which holds about 800 photos. This camera takes absolutely fantastic photos. I use a very inexpensive inkjet printer, the Canon BJC-8200 to print photos on glossy photo paper and visitors to my home are astounded when I tell them that all the photos hung around my home were taken with a digital camera and printed on an inkjet printer. They look at least as good as traditional photos.

There are several advantages to digital photos over 35mm:

1. Since my microdrive holds 800 photos and each digital photo has no real cost to me (besides a small amount of battery power), I will often take several photos of the same subject / scene whereas with a 35mm I might only take one photo because of the cost of film.

2. Before printing a digital photo, you have the opportunity to crop, enhance and edit it. While you can certainly crop, enhance and even edit 35mm photos, it takes far less time and money to do so with digital. I use Adobe Photoshop for this purpose. Besides providing tools to do simple enhancements, Photoshop also has many built-in filters (and more available third-party) which are a lot of fun to play with.

3. Digitial albums are extremely easy to organize. I use directories to create albums. I create a new folder under the "My Photos" folder for each new event. I use the naming convention "YYYY-MM-DD Event Name" for each subfolder, so it's easy to browse the albums in chronological order.

4. Digital photos are far more permanent than prints. Formats may change over time, but you'll always be able to convert to the new formats. The key is to keep copies of both the original photos AND the ones you've spent the time editing. I backup all my photos onto CD. While you only have one copy of a 35mm negative, you can easily create as many copis of your photos CDs as you like and share these with friends and family members or just store them for safekeeping.

5. Digital photos are much easier to share. I live a great distance from the rest of my family and use my photos to help stay in touch. When I first got my digital camera, I kept my online photos at zing.com. Unfortunately, they went the way of the dodo about a year ago. They made a deal with ophoto.com before unplugging and all my albums were transferred, but I didn't like ophoto's interface all that much and eventually found a new home for my photos at ImageStation. It's a free service and it's owned by Sony, so hopefully it will prove to have some staying power. If you're interested, please visit my photos. I have over a hundred albums online - I think this one is the best.

I also started digitizing my older 35mm and APS photos using a film scanner. A film scanner produces far better quality digital photos than a flatbed scanner does, so consider investing in one if you want to digitize / preserve your old photos. I can recommend the Canon CanoScan FS 2710 that I bought. It was inexpensive and besides producing much higher quality photos than a flatbed scanner, it's also a lot faster!

I waited years to buy a digital camera. I wanted a digital camera that took pictures as good quality (or better) as 35mm. The Canon D30 is the first digital camera that has received critical acclaim for its ability to take photos which surpass the quality of 35mm cameras. So I bought one of these cameras and a nice 28-135mm lens and entered the digital realm. I also bought a 1GB IBM microdrive for the camera which holds about 800 photos. This camera takes absolutely fantastic photos. I use a very inexpensive inkjet printer, the Canon BJC-8200 to print photos on glossy photo paper and visitors to my home are astounded when I tell them that all the photos hung around my home were taken with a digital camera and printed on an inkjet printer. They look at least as good as traditional photos.

There are several advantages to digital photos over 35mm:

1. Since my microdrive holds 800 photos and each digital photo has no real cost to me (besides a small amount of battery power), I will often take several photos of the same subject / scene whereas with a 35mm I might only take one photo because of the cost of film.

2. Before printing a digital photo, you have the opportunity to crop, enhance and edit it. While you can certainly crop, enhance and even edit 35mm photos, it takes far less time and money to do so with digital. I use Adobe Photoshop for this purpose. Besides providing tools to do simple enhancements, Photoshop also has many built-in filters (and more available third-party) which are a lot of fun to play with.

3. Digitial albums are extremely easy to organize. I use directories to create albums. I create a new folder under the "My Photos" folder for each new event. I use the naming convention "YYYY-MM-DD Event Name" for each subfolder, so it's easy to browse the albums in chronological order.

4. Digital photos are far more permanent than prints. Formats may change over time, but you'll always be able to convert to the new formats. The key is to keep copies of both the original photos AND the ones you've spent the time editing. I backup all my photos onto CD. While you only have one copy of a 35mm negative, you can easily create as many copis of your photos CDs as you like and share these with friends and family members or just store them for safekeeping.

5. Digital photos are much easier to share. I live a great distance from the rest of my family and use my photos to help stay in touch. When I first got my digital camera, I kept my online photos at zing.com. Unfortunately, they went the way of the dodo about a year ago. They made a deal with ophoto.com before unplugging and all my albums were transferred, but I didn't like ophoto's interface all that much and eventually found a new home for my photos at ImageStation. It's a free service and it's owned by Sony, so hopefully it will prove to have some staying power. If you're interested, please visit my photos. I have over a hundred albums online - I think this one is the best.

I also started digitizing my older 35mm and APS photos using a film scanner. A film scanner produces far better quality digital photos than a flatbed scanner does, so consider investing in one if you want to digitize / preserve your old photos. I can recommend the Canon CanoScan FS 2710 that I bought. It was inexpensive and besides producing much higher quality photos than a flatbed scanner, it's also a lot faster!

You might browse lists of photo sharing sites, such as this one at AmateurPhoto.About.Com. I looked at two, and see that PhotoLoft.Com allows browser or email upload, and there's a "Store" for creating gifts which involve your photos.

I then looked for a similar page on Yahoo!: Yahoo! ... Photography and found that ImageStation.Com allows several upload methods and has a "Store" which can apparently make prints (based on the price list in the upper left corner). Plenty of unexplored sites there, although many are professionally oriented. And "Yahoo! Photos" requires IE so is useless.

Note that now that you have the name of several services which meet your needs, you could now search for pages which list all those sites and you might find indexes which list more. Yup, a MetaCrawler search of "Imagestation PhotoLoft" (omit the quotation marks) found several photo service index pages.