For those of you who take alot of photo's I was wondering which kind of camera would be best for both real railroading pictures and model pictures. I have never been real good at photography and usually use a throw away camera and the pictures look like it. I have a real nice 35mm camera that my father had and left me, can't recall the name right now but I know it's German. I also bought the wife a nice Fugi digital camera for Christmas. Just wanted to know which camera will be suited for what I want to do, I am kind of leaning toward the 35mm. Any help will be appreciated!
Well, digital may be the eventual way to go. But if you are happy with that old 35mm, there's no reason to not use it. You also have a digital. So why not experiment? You can do a "side by side" comparison. For my purposes, two things come into mind. First, my very favorite film, K64, is hard to find, hard to get processed, and not cheap. Sorry. There's no substitute for the warm, earthy colors K64 gives. And also that in order to share, the duplication process is just as big a pain. Or I must invest in a slide scanner. Which I'll need to get sooner than later..... So, my path leads to digital. But I've yet to get the hang of it when doing model. Outdoors and family stuff does fine. Small stuff, I'm still stumbling. Boxcab E50
I never regret changing to digital, so much more versatile. On of the BIG camera stores here has now stopped selling film cameras, as sales are virtually nil!
Hold onto that 35mm Andy. It's well on its way of the dinosaur. I'm keeping mine for postarity too. Boxcab is right when he sez it's getting hard to find film and someone to process it. Digital cameras have made great strides in the past 10 years. I have a very early Casio which took OK pics when I first got it, but compared to my Minolta DiMage, it looks like early 1900s photos. But I'm gonna save it for postarity too.
I have gone all digital, and have no regrets at all. I use the Canon A95 with a wide angle and telephoto lenses. If you can afford it get a DSLR and you can get the best of both worlds. I like the convenience of being able to instantly view what I have just shot and if needed delete it. Plus, if I need A 35mm, my wife has a Rebel, with different lenses
Here is a lot of information: http://www.larry-bolch.com/ http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/ His portfolio goes back to the 1950s. Some interesting current digital photos and tutorials. He says (paraphrasing) that the digital photo manipulation is half the picture.
I bought my first digital 2 months ago, and have consistenly taken "the best pics of my life!". Its really a great feeling! Canon Powershot Pro 1. 8 megapix. Just a fine camera!
I use both digitial and film. I shoot slides for pics I want to enlarge and sell and display. I shoot digitial for the various other stuff that I don't want to pay for processing.
That's a great camera. Don't be afraid to post some of those pics Harold </font>[/QUOTE]This is the ONE site I belong to that I cannot figure out how to post pics! I have some on rrpicturearchives, and railroadforums...of course, none are ever good enough for railpictures.com!LOL! Thats ok, as long as I have some out there!
My wife and I are slowing moving to 100% Digital... To post an image it first has to be somewhere on the internet where they can be cross posted to TrainBoard. If you don't have such a place you can get an account on RailImages (many here use it) and then you can post images here on TrainBoard. The above was done using the following </font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"></pre>[/QUOTE]Basically, place the URL of the image between the UUB hypertags for posting images. If you need more help the best way is to post your questions in the RailImages.com Administrative Contacts forum here on TrainBoard.
Thanks guy's, I think I will experiment with both and see which one will work best. The only reason I was going to try the 35mm is I am tired of the bad pictures the throw away camera gives me but at least they are pictures. The digital I bought at christmas is a very nice camera but it seems only the guy where I bought it from can take pictures on it. I have had it all these months and me or the wife have never been able to take one picture with it.The salesman say's it was the simplist one he had and he can take great pictures on it but not us.Seems I put out $200 to sit in a drawer.
I guess it depends on your "source" location and if they allow linking. (Our own RailImages does, hint hint.) It is simple to post a photo here... quick example: Let's say I have a photo somehwere on the Internet that I want to link to. I will use my RailImages album as an example; I found the photo, clicked on it to bring it up, then right clicked on the picture and found its actual address under properties: http://www.railimages.com/albums/haroldhodnett/acg.jpg To insert the photo here, I just add without any spaces or commas... and voila! Harold
I've gone completely digital, and it's revived a long-dormant photo career. The expense of getting started has been repaid many times over by the flexibility of digital processing.
I have always been one for instant gratification, which is possible with a digital. I am not happy with the depth of field of my Nikon 4300 and just started using wife's 35mm Nikon something or other and I just resurrected a 30+ year old 35mm I had in the closet. I will let you know result when pictures come back on a CD in a few days.
Pete, Pretty much the same here... I started with my first digital a little over 5 years ago. It rekindled my interest in train photography and I haven't even thought about going back to film at all! I like the instant gratification as well as the "no cost" way to take 100's of photos in an outing. (well, no film and processing costs ) Harold
I took the plunge at the beginning of 2003. Prior to then I wasn't very impressed with digitals, but my photographer friend convinced me I should try the D100. I still wasn't very impressed until I took the D100 to Alaska. In fact, I still wasn't impressed until I got home and brought the shots up on a 23-inch monitor, and printed some 13 x 19 inch prints. When I saw those shots on a big screen, it was like a thunderbolt. When I printed them, a second thunderbolt. I was totally hooked. The Alaskan sky, especially when it's cloudy, has a most subtle but wide range of color, and the digital had captured it perfectly. I printed 50 copies of a 48 page 11 x 17 picture book. The result was spectacular. The digital camera to digital press process, I believe, is fully equal to the film camera to scanner to analog/digital press process for everything but the most precise printing. It is NOT comparable for the best equipment in large photo enlargements in terms of details--but most of that, if it's important, would be shot in 120 format (2-1/4 x 2-1/4) or even 4 x 5 format.
