A good illustration of a danger of digital

While a classic F-4 Phantom jet fighter makes a surprise, low fly-by, the
digital photographers are too busy admiring their previous shots to see it:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1243247/L/

Mxsmanic wrote:
While a classic F-4 Phantom jet fighter makes a surprise, low fly-by, the
digital photographers are too busy admiring their previous shots to see it:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1243247/L/

In the photo you link to, the engine is hot (afterburners not quite at
full power) and the flaps are down, suggesting he just took off.
Possibly the three photogs couldn't care less or had enough shots of
aircraft taking off. Could even be they had other aspect shots of the
same aircraft (from a more head on view) and considered those more
interesting.

The proportions of the helmets in the cockpit to the heads of the
photogs suggest that the airplane was about 3x further away than the
three photogs. Two of these guys are in camo, and the middle guy is
possibly in a dress blouse so they probably get a lot of chances to
photograph all kinds of airshows.

At an airshow quite few years ago (long before DLR's) I was caught by
the Blue Angels... One (or three? DR) of the aircraft broke away from
the action and circled out of sight and sound behind the crowd. As two
aircraft did a head on pass (illusory, the runways at YMX are 200' wide
and they each fly on opposite sides...) the other aircraft came roaring
over the back... I almost anticipated it and I was turning to look, but
it was way too late. Airshows are not an easy place to get sharp, full
frame shots of aircraft in flight. Digital cameras certainly make it
easier.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Mxsmanic wrote:
While a classic F-4 Phantom jet fighter makes a surprise, low fly-by, the
digital photographers are too busy admiring their previous shots to see it:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1243247/L/


Woah! That's a nice example of tele-compression there. A damn fine shot.

I think I'll set that one as the wall paper for a while ... if you don't
mind.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
While a classic F-4 Phantom jet fighter makes a surprise, low fly-by, the
digital photographers are too busy admiring their previous shots to see
it:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1243247/L/

Yeah, but I have to say that I've missed a few good ones while changing
film, and adjusting other things on my F5, too......
How have you been, Mxmanic? - I haven't heard from you in a
while......Are you still wandering around Paris taking those great photos?
Bill Graham

William Graham writes:

Yeah, but I have to say that I've missed a few good ones while changing
film, and adjusting other things on my F5, too......

True, but you _have_ to do that. When you shoot digital, you do not _have_ to
look at every photo after you take it ... but many photographers are compelled
by ego to do exactly that, anyway. And sometimes they miss shots. I've seen
it many, many times.

How have you been, Mxmanic? - I haven't heard from you in a
while......Are you still wandering around Paris taking those great photos?

I don't have any money for film or development these days, and very little
time to actually take pictures or sort through the results (or scan). It has
been quite a while since I've had the pleasure of taking photos. The chain
photo store that used to develop my film (relatively) cheaply has now
converted to selling cell phones instead. There are fewer and fewer places to
get film and development.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
William Graham writes:

Yeah, but I have to say that I've missed a few good ones while changing
film, and adjusting other things on my F5, too......

True, but you _have_ to do that. When you shoot digital, you do not
_have_ to
look at every photo after you take it ... but many photographers are
compelled
by ego to do exactly that, anyway. And sometimes they miss shots. I've
seen
it many, many times.

How have you been, Mxmanic? - I haven't heard from you in a
while......Are you still wandering around Paris taking those great
photos?

I don't have any money for film or development these days, and very little
time to actually take pictures or sort through the results (or scan). It
has
been quite a while since I've had the pleasure of taking photos. The
chain
photo store that used to develop my film (relatively) cheaply has now
converted to selling cell phones instead. There are fewer and fewer
places to
get film and development.


"I don't have any money for film or development these days"

A good illustration of the danger of Film! ;-)

Mick Harris writes:

"I don't have any money for film or development these days"

A good illustration of the danger of Film! ;-)

Just about everyone I know who has gone digital has spent several times more
on equipment since doing so then they would have spent on film in a decade.
And, unlike film equipment, it seems that digital equipment must be "upgraded"
in the same way that PCs must be "upgraded," every year or so. Some of them
have admitted to me that they are spending ridiculous sums today on
equipment--and very little of it goes to lenses, which are traditionally the
most important pieces of equipment.

So the reality is that those who go digital aren't really saving money at all.
No surprise to me.

Mxsmanic wrote:

So the reality is that those who go digital aren't really saving money at all.
No surprise to me.

I used to spend $2000 or so per year in film/dev.

Now I spend less than $300/year in film/dev.

So, I buy more lenses. I bought a D-SLR in early 2005. I'll buy
another sometime in 2008.

So what?

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Aug 5, 10:38 am, Mxsmanic wrote:

Just about everyone I know who has gone digital has spent several times more
on equipment since doing so then they would have spent on film in a decade.

They must not take many pics then.
I still occasionally take a roll of slide film and I don't like the
fact that it costs me about $13-$15 per roll for the film +
processing. Not to mention the cost of the gas driving back and forth
to the place.

While it is true that I might want to upgrade my digital body every
3-4 years that cost is nothing compared to what I would've spent in
film and processing costs. Even if I just shot a roll a week I'd save
enough in 2-3 years to be able to afford the next body, and that
doesn't even include what I might get if I sold the old body. Plus,
I'd be getting better photos.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Mick Harris writes:

"I don't have any money for film or development these days"

A good illustration of the danger of Film! ;-)

Just about everyone I know who has gone digital has spent several
times more on equipment since doing so then they would have spent on
film in a decade. And, unlike film equipment, it seems that digital
equipment must be "upgraded" in the same way that PCs must be
"upgraded," every year or so. Some of them have admitted to me that
they are spending ridiculous sums today on equipment--and very
little
of it goes to lenses, which are traditionally the most important
pieces of equipment.

So the reality is that those who go digital aren't really saving
money at all. No surprise to me.

A surprise to me:

It's been three years since I bought a new computer or serious
software or peripheral; my "upgrades" (more and bigger external hard
drives) are less and less expensive as time passes.

It's been a year since I bought a new digital camera , nearly that
since I believed I needed a new lens or CF card; my experience in the
intervening time convinced me my careful selection back then means I
may /never/ need more upgrades in equipment.

I can't imagine a circumstance in which /need/ will drive any changes;
"want" is another matter entirely.

--
Frank S
Recommending:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117702894815776259.html
For your enjoyment and edification