[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Tank Photography
>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 23:01:27 -0600
>From: Michael Moncur <mgm at starlingtech_com>
>Subject: Re: Photography
>
>on 01:48 PM 9/17/99 , Dwight wrote:
>
> >Don't use a digital camera. The quality just "isn't ready yet." Besides,
> >with photos by e-mail services so widespread, straight to digital
> >development of your analog shots has never been easier.
I can only disagree. A digital camera is excellent for taking tank pictures.
Simply because you can see the result at once, you don't have to pay money
to get it developed, and wait for it.
You just shoot, and evaluate the pictures, if you don't like them, erase
them and make some new once. Without using money.
>
>While I agree that nobody with a digital camera will be becoming the next
>Amano anytime soon, I think most people (who aren't pro photographers)
>would be impressed at the latest digicams. The resolution has gotten high
>enough (1600x1200 or so) that you can print an 8x10 that surpasses anything
>Walmart's film lab can develop, and magazine and newspaper photographers
>are already using them for 4x6 shots. You can also get "real" processed
>photos printed from digital quite economically.
I can only agree.
A normal camera is off course better if you want to publish your pictures,
or make gigantic posters of them.
But still if you wan't to make amano quality pictures, you need more than
just a normal SLR camera with a ASA 100 film.
And i sure can't afford a high end photo equipment, and even if i could, i
would rather buy a. 250 gal tank to keep discus in. And still use my digital
camera.
>
>More importantly, digitals have some advantages for the amateur. While you
>may need only one exposure to take a perfect tank photo, try taking a
>picture of a fish swimming in your tank. With my digital, I can fire off a
>couple of hundred photos, then sort through them and pick out the gems, all
>with no film or developing cost. And straight-to-digital developing is one
>thing, but I can see how a photo turned out 30 seconds after I take it.
Just my oppinion.
>
>Of course, all this comes at a price; you'll spend $1000 on a decent
>prosumer digicam and all of the accessories, and still won't get the equal
>of 35mm in resolution. But I've taken 1600 pictures in 3 months with mine,
>and that would have cost a fortune in film and processing.
Excatly
>
>Please, please, PLEASE don't take this as a flame, or a controversial
>position, or anything. It's just my opinion. Yours is valid too. We're
>already debating two of the ten commandments on this list... let's not make
>it worse. :)
I sure won't flame you, because you are not alone in the Digital camera
world :-)
>
>See my tank photos (from a rank beginner and not to be taken as the best a
>digicam can do) at my unfinished page...
>http://www.starlingtech.com/aquaria/
You are also welcome to visit my homepage to see what my 'low cost' Sony
Mavica digital camera can do. And it's even only 640*480 in resolution.
But I am planning to buy the Big Nikon digital with a 1600*1200 resolution,
my only problem is finding the money :-)))
With many Thanks
Soren ' Disky ' Petersen ICQ #1413069
My webpage has been redesigned!!!
http://www.disky-design.dk/fish
There you can find:
Many New Pictures
Tank of the month section
And many new things