Once again, we bow to popular demand and offer this forum for discussing digital still cameras, the technology behind them and techniques for using them. Enjoy,

Thanks Chris. Been looking forward to this....

I'm still using film for my stills. Ouch! I've got 5 rolls to take in on monday.

Sorry, Frank... that is one of the best things about digital... every shot is free.

Every shot may be of minimal cost with digital, but it is not film :)

Long live my old crusty EOS-3

Zac

Yeah, Frank,

My $350 digital camera has paid for itself 15 times over in developing costs since I bought it a little over two years ago.

There are still many instances where film is appropriate, even preferable. But for point-and-shoot, nothing beats a little digital cam!

Please, any programmers out there take a look at my Canon SDK plea (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12604).

I know, I know. After buying a 6 meg cam, lenses, and all those other extras everything is free. Oops. Forgot the 'puter and printer. :)

I still prefer color and B&W film, but that color 25 ASA Kodachrome slide film I used to use---wow!

I'll never give up my Nikon FM2T. You gotta shoot me first.

Hey, what great timing! I just bought a Canon 10d.

For what its worth, one of the reasons I bought it is because I tend to do a lot of still photo montages in my videos, and it's just easier to stay with an all-digital format, than to have to have my negatives scanned.

The 10d is a terrific camera, by the way, and has temporarily replaced my VX2000 as the toy-du-jour.

Zac, there are those that will disagree now. The new high resolution cameras, like the 10D and the 1Ds, are producing images that some say are indistinguishable from film.

Hey Paul,
I, too, am a new 10D owner and am really enjoying doing some still photography after many years away from it. It is truly a remarkable camera, particularly for the price.

John, yes but there are 100's of types of films, 100's of processes and still a hell of a lot more resolution to play with. I dunno about free, because it is cheaper for me to get 36 prints processed, than it is to print them off, or approx the same. (achieving a similar quality of output)

I think digital has it's total and cemented place in society and is 1000 times for preferable and logical in many situations, but i do photography purely as an artform and expression orientated outlet, so i like to get my hands stinking like vinager and to touch the film and see the grain and be there at every step of the process.

That is why i got myself an old 16mm and super-8mm camera, i am moving away from DV as i start to get small amounts of funding for my work.

Zac

<< i am moving away from DV as i start to get small amounts of funding for my work>>

Shhhhhh. Better not say that outloud here at a DV forum. ;)

Hee hee! Yeah, John!

Zac, as an art form, you are absolutely right, film is unsurpassed--especially for B/W, and the mere mention of the chemistry brings back memories of when I was a darkroom tech and all the smells etc. (vinegar is the stop bath, as i recall, the real funky one was the fixer.) And there is nothing like a big print pulled off a crisp neg.

However, if the job is going to a magazine or other press publication media, it is only going to be converted to a digital file anyway...most books and magazines are now100% digital, and many mags shoot all digital as well.

I won't really get into the cost comparison factor here, it is too much of an apples-oranges thing except to say that what is "free" is those pictures which you DON'T print after looking at them. In my case that's relevant, cuz I may take 20 shots of the same item, and pick one to photoedit and use. I guarantee the computer wasn't free, and Photoshop is not cheap. The main cost savings is that of time.

Good move Chris! I didn't know about this forum and was just sent over here.

I just bought a D100 and have gotten back to "serious" photography - my original hobby - since I was 12. I got the D100 because I can use all my old Nikkor lenses.

Why digital stills for me? -- after stumbling over my old Bessler enlarger in storage for the last 20 years, I came to the conclusion I will never get back into the darkroom again. That, and the fact Kodak isn't working on new film stocks, and it costs more to have black and white prints made than color - all that, and the fact I've been fiddling with Photoshop for years - well, the switch wasn't hard to make.

I have found I have a lot to learn about "processing" digital pics. I'm shooting everything in RAW and mainly in manual - I really miss having full control over the results. In fact I seldom use the LCD to check how it came out. Hard to get used to the easy way. I've had a Coolpix 950 for years - long enough to hate fully automated pics I can't blow up more than 8x10.

So I look forward to seeing what others are talking about in this forum.

As I said Chris - good move on your part.

(BTW - your TV notes are safe and I'll be returning them soon.)

Happy New Year, Ozzie!
Like you, I've begun spending more time with still photography. In my case, with an EOS 10D.

If you've not already done so, run, don't walk, to get Photoshop CS. It makes working with RAW images, and 16 bit processing, a breeze!

And a happy new year to you, Ken!

I have Photoshop CS, although I'm not too familiar with what it can do with 16 bit processing - with v7 16 bit mode prevented many manipulations.

I placed an advanced order with Adobe. Got it the day it came out. A colleague once termed me a "software junkie" - she was right.

BTW - this forum needs a better name or, at least, better placement in the roster. The only way I could get back to it was to wait for someone to reply.

I've been experimenting with inserting digitally acquired images from my Canon 10D into DV slide shows composited in Vegas 4. The digital output from my 10d is 3000x2024. While DV standard is 720x480, Vegas 4 will allow HD input up to 2024x1080. If the hi res 10D images are composited in vegas 4 then rendered out to HD MPEG2 or HD WMP9, the resulting slide show is incredibly detailed and beautiful. Looking at conventional 720x480 video back to back with HD images from my 10D really makes the SD acquired DV video look fuzzy and soft.

An added benefit of using the hi-res images from my 10D is that the images can be zoomed into for quite a zoom ratio without losing any apparent fidelity. All in all, HD WMP9 videos, created in Vegas 4, are quite stunning.

Bill, what's the average time you keep each picture on-screen? and do you use transitions like dissolve etc.?

And since you mentioned zooms, do you do some zooming or other "Ken Burns"-type pan-n-scan effects in these slide shows?

cheers
mike

absolutely...in fact, it was Ken Burns' work that gave me the model for what I'm doing. Image dwell time varies according to desired effect, probably about 6 secs average not including transitions(wipes, dissolves, fades). Images zoom, pan, zoom and pan or, rarely rotate.

A lot of the rock formations in the Four Corners area of New Mexico/Arizona are much to large to appreciate in a single still image. A pan from the base of a rock or cliff up to the top, with a slow zoom in is very effective in giving the sense of massiveness of the object.

Well shootfire, that sounds awesome (esp. shots of AZ/NM scenery!) I'll have to try that next time I want to do a picture presentation. Usually I just make a PowerPoint of the JPEGs and play it off the ol' laptop, but it doesn't seem like it should take a lot longer to use an NLE (my particular flavor is Final Cut Pro) then just burn a DVD and plug the projector into a DVD player. It'll look a lot more like a documentary than just a bunch of "slides" popping up one after the other (and PowerPoint animation isn't much to brag about).

Thanks for the idea!

I've been using digital cameras since around 96' or so and how I've been counting the price per shot is taking the total number if images created by the camera and accessories and divide it by the cost of the equipment. For instance:

On my last camera ( I upgrade cameras every 18-24 months ) I spent about $740.

I have taken about 12,000 pictures with it in the last 11 months, which equals about 0.061 cents per picture.

While on the other hand a friend of mine bought a $350 camera and has probably only taken about 200 pictures which give him a cost of $1.75 per picture, which isn’t good at all. (So if you spend a lot on a camera, get a lot of use out of it)

While I actually only make prints for about 1 in 100 pictures (I distribute mostly online) I find it much more cost effective to have the prints made at wal-mart or a similar digital processor for 24 cents each, rather then keeping ink in a expensive ink-jet printer with photo paper, which don’t end up looking as nice anyway, and not printed with archival grade inks.

I much prefer the look and quality of real film, although with the mass of pictures I take I'd go broke (literally) buying all the film and processing it all.

If your intrested in seeing some of my work you can at: http://www.4volt.com/photo

i guess thats a scientific way of looking at it...if i buy a cam and it allows me to take one 'priceless' memory then it's worth it for me...

Here's another way, if the "priceless memory" doesn't materialize...if you get at least one paying job from the cam purchase, the camera has paid for itself.

I completely agree that once a picture is taken of someone it can never be exactly replicated, which in it's own way makes every picture priceless.

When I had my last camera stolen, my biggest loss was the actual pictures in the camera.

I usually just use the formula to see if I've gotten my money out of a camera, or just to see how much money I’m saving/losing over film.

Another option to buying a high res still camera, such as the Kodak DCS Pro, at 14 megapixels...(4536X3024 pixels) is to use a less expensive camera, and utilize stitching software.

Check out http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm
A 6 megapixel camera took a series of pictures of Bryce Canyon, then was stitched together into a seamless composite. The final image is 40,784 x 26,800 pixels in size, and contains about 1.09 billion pixels.

The nice thing about using stitching software is that it increases the resolution, giving a large format look to even point & shoot digital cameras, and without the prohibitive costs.
The 360 degree panos are awesome, too.

Charles,

A most curious technique and a very good one since the panoramas, as you say, would not look the same if shot with a wide element. I've used a similar stitching program that came with one of my cameras. That program is mostly used to create 360 pictures and similar special effects. I tried searching for the price of PTAassembler but couldn't find anything but a free download. Is that a stand alone program or does it exist as an add-on to Panorama Tools? It's not clear from their website.

Ozzie,

It's a stand alone program, for a while, then you have to update it for a price.
I never did, though, I bought a product called "Stitcher Express", instead.
I've just been using my little Kodak Easy Share under $200 digital camera for the stitching so far, but it works.

Photography is my main hobby. I purchased an HVR-Z1U to primarily document my first child's growth. I used to shoot primarily in medium format, but lately I'm finding it more and more difficult to obtain the films I like. Agfapan and Efke are two to mention. So, I went and traded my Mamiya RZ67 Pro IID and 2 lenses for my HDV Cam. So far so good. My only regret was having to give up the Mamiya.

I have been shooting more and more digital as of late. I currently use a Canon 20D and 300D for most of my work. You can view my photos on my website here: http://jamespaulsarte.com

Hey James, nice work. I like "Tired" and "PPK" next to it (If I remember the names correctly).