|
Post by timothyu on Apr 12, 2018 11:41:52 GMT -5
Funnily enough the camera phone folks are now pushing smartphones to the professional set, not as a quality camera, but as a quick and easy replacement for the old using the hands trick for framing a shot. Holding up your hands has gone digital and for only $700 more than what nature has given to us standard issue factory installed.
|
|
dmr
Champion Member
Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 2,222
|
Post by dmr on Apr 12, 2018 11:47:19 GMT -5
Funnily enough the camera phone folks are now pushing smartphones to the professional set, not as a quality camera, but as a quick and easy replacement for the old using the hands trick for framing a shot. Holding up your hands has gone digital and for only $700 more than what nature has given to us standard issue factory installed. What I find funny is that there are now those adapters that allow you to mount a SLR lens to a phone. Talk about the tail wagging the dog! The adapter itself is larger than the phone. One of those is written up here: petapixel.com/2018/04/11/this-adapter-lets-you-mount-any-giant-lens-on-your-tiny-smartphone/
|
|
RNorm
Champion Member
Cry Aloud and Spare Not...
Posts: 6,939
|
Post by RNorm on Apr 12, 2018 13:34:54 GMT -5
Funnily enough the camera phone folks are now pushing smartphones to the professional set, not as a quality camera, but as a quick and easy replacement for the old using the hands trick for framing a shot. Holding up your hands has gone digital and for only $700 more than what nature has given to us standard issue factory installed. LOL, I have a excellent camera on my phone and when in a pinch (i.e., when I don't have my walk around camera with me), I use it to get snaps. It shoots in Raw and I can edit via lightroom mobile on the phone -- because I like good, quality pics, even if its just from the phone. However, I do not think of my phone as a replacement for my camera. Now I know some people do, but I'm not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by timothyu on Apr 12, 2018 14:07:58 GMT -5
Well true enough, it is a convenient way to scope out locations and preserve the concept for future reference.
|
|
goldie
All Star Member
Posts: 19,900
|
Post by goldie on Apr 12, 2018 17:04:25 GMT -5
Funnily enough the camera phone folks are now pushing smartphones to the professional set, not as a quality camera, but as a quick and easy replacement for the old using the hands trick for framing a shot. Holding up your hands has gone digital and for only $700 more than what nature has given to us standard issue factory installed. Too funny! Reminds me of using cropping "Ls" in the darkroom. Waaaay back when I was in college, and probably for a few years after, sometimes I'd go for walks on beautiful days and use a camera just to look at the world as a camera would see it (ie framed). dmr, thank you for your detailed responses. I'll go back and look at them again when I have more time. Most of my old film cameras are Nikon black bodies. I have an old Nikon F (before they started numbering them) that my dad's friend bought for him in Japan. I've thought it might be collectible. The whole back comes off to change film. And you have to set the meter to the f-stop or shutter speed or something. I don't remember off-hand. I also have an old Canon Ftb body, and I think those two are silver and black, as is the very old Clarus. It was a rangefinder made here in Minneapolis. Come to think of it, it must be about 60 or 70 years old. It was already old when given to me many years ago. I'd have to dig them out and look at them to see if they are all black. Back then there were only two colors: black and silver, and silver was still partly black. My "working cameras" were the Nikon Fm2 (all manual) and F3 ( I think that was the number at the time) black bodies. I have another Nikon that was my dad's. It was an A something, with more automatic features. Unfortunately he never learned how to use it, which is what I'm afraid will be the case with me and digital. I have the makings of a fairly decent camera collection, between my old cameras and those of my family. Even an old Kodak (?) with a dried out bellows. And a few others. But I don't need a camera collection, although it's fun. I need the money, as little or much as it might be. Does anybody have any advice on how to check values and the best ways to sell them? I should have been more specific. When I was talking about prints, I meant enlargements to at least 8" x 10" and up to 16" x 20". I would have gone larger if I could have afforded it. Or maybe I just framed them 16 x 20 so the prints were smaller. And by good quality I meant good enough to exhibit. I'd forgotten about R-prints and don't have a clear memory of them, but as I recall the one(s) I had made were not good enough for exhibition. They were direct positives, right? I might be getting them confused with something else. So much depended upon the lab used. We had a range of color labs here in town so I didn't send mine off. I did my own black and white, when I had access to darkrooms. Come to think of it, I still have the supplies I was buying in anticipation of setting up my own darkroom (which never happened), including a never used GrayLab timer. I've seen some beautiful photos on friends' iPhones, but only on the phone. I've never seen any of them enlarged. I just got my first smart phone, and haven't tried taking photos with it yet. But it's not a good, recent model phone, so I don't expect quality photos.
|
|
dmr
Champion Member
Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 2,222
|
Post by dmr on Apr 12, 2018 20:52:08 GMT -5
Just a few thoughts here before I crash for the evening. ... Most of my old film cameras are Nikon black bodies. I have an old Nikon F (before they started numbering them) that my dad's friend bought for him in Japan. I've thought it might be collectible. The whole back comes off to change film. And you have to set the meter to the f-stop or shutter speed or something. I don't remember off-hand. The earlier Nikon F series seems to be holding value more than most others of that vintage, but they too are depreciating. The black ones do tend to command premium prices. I know what that is, but I don't think I've ever seen one. There's always Ebay. You can get a good idea of how much an old model is worth by seeing what they are selling for there. Asking prices are often absurd, but the actual selling prices should indicate what people are willing to pay for them. The folks over at Rangefinder Forum (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/) will probably know much more about your Clarus than I do, and the people there shoot old SLRs as well. There's a trading forum there but I've never bought/sold on that site even though I'm an irregular-regular user there. The print sizes I've been doing most recently are 8.5 x 11 (I call them "8 x 10 on steroids") and 13 x 19, which is the largest my good printer will do. I do a lot of "analog in the camera, digital in the darkroom" work, meaning scan the negatives or slides and print digitally. For someone like me who does not have the skill, equipment or the space (or, LOL, patience) to do wet darkroom printing, it works out very well. Yes, the "R" prints were direct positive. I never saw the process, but I assume they were developed, bleached, re-exposed (optically or chemically) and re-developed in a manner similar to chromogenic reversal film. I know that the prints were "flashed" with a mask as part of the process to give the white border that was standard in those days. I had some 5 x 7 and 8 x 10 prints made from slides and they always had the quality I needed to show off, but I would question if they were true presentation quality. I know that the reversal process tends to limit dynamic range, and doing a reversal print of a slide means two generations of limitations. I know I'm cynical and sometimes totally catty about cell phone photography, but I have to admit that under some circumstances they can take a perfectly fine photo. However, there's no way a tiny lens and sensor in a phone can truly rival those of a mid to high end 35mm or MF camera. G'nite!
|
|
Zim
Senior Member
Posts: 882
|
Post by Zim on Apr 13, 2018 9:16:05 GMT -5
Our 200 MB storage allotment [for attachments] for this forum is officially used up. What to do? For $3, we can bump that up to 500 MB, but because we blew through that 200 pretty quick, the 500 won't take long, either. Some threads are asking users to post photos regularly. Obviously that's ghoing to be a no-no if they attach them instead of calling them from a photo hosting service elsewhere. So we will have to change our ways, won't we? Perhaps some kind of rule like: "Attach only intermittently, and rely on a hosting service for the majority of pix." Or maybe we will have to delete some thread's pix after a time period to view them. Opinions? Looks like posting attachments is not going to fly much longer. Just a friendly FYI and feel free to add your comments here.
|
|
dmr
Champion Member
Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 2,222
|
Post by dmr on Apr 14, 2018 4:33:53 GMT -5
I almost always post externally, I can post instructions if people want them.
|
|
|
Post by picturefreak on Apr 14, 2018 10:40:26 GMT -5
Trouble with external posting is that not everyone has (FREE) storage space available I do wonder what's eating up so much space currently...
|
|
dmr
Champion Member
Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 2,222
|
Post by dmr on Apr 16, 2018 10:17:44 GMT -5
I would suggest using this method for posting photos here. For those unfamiliar with it, it seems a bit confusing at first, but it's easy and works very well. Here's the technique I use to post images on boards such as this. First of all, to answer a PM that probably interests others, Flickr is indeed free, and they allow, even encourage, sharing your photos in other media. If you have a Yahoo account, setting up Flickr is trivial. If you don't, it's still easy. Very little formality. Boards such as this use what is known as "bbcode" for formatting messages, and "image tags" are part of that formatting. This same method will work on other boards that use Vbulletin, PhPBB, and some others. Many amateur and pro photographers are quite familiar with doing bbcode postings on various boards, as many photo boards use this method. The bbcode gives a pleasing display and works consistently across various board types. Many people prefer this method to using local attach methods. You can display images in your postings by inserting the exact URL of the image you want to post between the tags as shown in this example: (This example is indeed an image of the text, as this system will not allow me to display an example of image tags.) The "opening" image tag is a left square bracket, the letters "img" and a right square bracket. The "closing" image tag is the same with a forward slash immediately after the left square bracket. If you know how to get the exact URL of a Flickr image, you can do that, otherwise, Flickr has a little thingie that will generate a kinda clumsy but valid bbcode that you can paste right in here, not worrying about tags and such. To use Flickr's bbcode generator, view the photo you wish to post and click on the "Share" arrow. Select "bbcode" at the top and the code is automatically generated and selected for you. Use edit-copy, control-c, or whatever you use on your system to copy a selection, and then paste the bbcode into your message. The software on most boards is usually smart enough to recognize bbcode and handle it, even if you enter it on a "wysiwyg" or "preview" type of message entry screen. As for size, 640px on the longer side is usually a good compromise for those who use desktops, laptops, tablets and phones to view. Anything smaller than 500 or so is probably too small to be meaningful and anything larger than 1200 may be annoying and may or may not work as expected. I often include a "Closer view here" link to a larger size image. Below is an example of an image included with manual bbcode. This example is 500px on the longer side. I hope this helps the situation and makes it easier to post photos without running up against limits. If there are any questions, please ask here instead of PM as others may be interested.
|
|
dmr
Champion Member
Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 2,222
|
Post by dmr on Apr 18, 2018 6:37:26 GMT -5
This week it's some poor fella sleeping it off on the F train last fall. For those who care, Canon GIII loaded with plain old drug store Fuji 800.
|
|
dmr
Champion Member
Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 2,222
|
Post by dmr on Apr 18, 2018 7:28:57 GMT -5
Ok, here's an illustrated example of exactly how to post the above photo into this forum, using Flickr as external storage. Step 1: Select your photo from your Flickr gallery. Click on your phoito, of course, to select it. Step 2: Notice the arrows in the lower right corner of the screen showing your image. Click on the curvy arrow that points to the right. That is your "share button" on Flickr. Step 3: Select the size you want to use from the drop-down and click on (VERY important) the "BBCode" selection. Step 4: Notice the blue highlighted "gobbledygook" that appears. This is your generated BBCode. Right-click on the selection and choose "copy" to copy the BBCode to your computer's clipboard. (Or use any alternate method to copy.) Final step: Go to your new message on GBO and paste the BBCode into your message. TA-DA! Now, a take-away for you! Your homework for tonight. 1. Create a Flickr account, if you don't have one. 2. Upload a photo into your Flickr gallery. 3. Post that photo into this thread. I hope this helps.
|
|
dmr
Champion Member
Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 2,222
|
Post by dmr on Apr 25, 2018 6:07:04 GMT -5
|
|
dmr
Champion Member
Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 2,222
|
Post by dmr on Apr 29, 2018 7:01:23 GMT -5
Another recent source for no-strings-attached photo hosting has popped up here: postimages.org/
|
|
dmr
Champion Member
Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 2,222
|
Post by dmr on May 9, 2018 6:49:37 GMT -5
Bayliss Park fountain, Council Bluffs, Iowa. C'mon gang! I surely can't be the only one with photos to post!
|
|