|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#11 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 56
|
![]()
Harryed: nothing to do with the topic, but you live in a beautiful place. I was stationed there in 65-66, and my 2 sons were camping at Deception Pass last week. One son lives in Olympia and the other in VA. As I work for the Navy, I get up to the Northwest quite a bit -- Silverdale, Bangor, Bremerton, Everett, etc.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 30
|
![]()
frontier02,
You sure are right about this corner of the world. We spent a few days camping at Deception Pass this summer too. I also work for the Navy and can't imagine a better place to live and work. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 544
|
![]()
Me too... retired in Coupeville seven years ago from San Diego. This is a very photogenic place. Folks who only visit during the summer miss out on the beautiful misty winter scenes on this beautiful place.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
|
![]()
johncudd wrote:
Quote:
Large: 1536x1024, approx 250-500KB; Medium: 768x512: approx 100-200KB; Small: 384x256 : approx 30-60KB. There's also "thumb" and "tiny", even worse. None of these formats will remotely approach the quality you'd get from a 3Mpixel digital camera, but of course you'll still have your SLR negatives. To get the best digital images out of your negatives, and to surpass even a very cheap digicam, you'll have to buy a filmscanner for several hundred dollars, and invest lots of effort in getting the scans right. Or you can pay for photographic enlargements from your negs. I started in digital 5 yrs ago as you're doing, with my old film SLR. I bought a filmscanner, and I saved jpeg images around 3600x2400; 1-2MB, i.e, about 4 timesas many pixels as the 'large' PhotoCD resolution. I got excellent results, but the work involved in scanning and twiddling was enormous. Dust is a big problem. It's like doing your own photographic processing, but less messy. Once I had a 3Mpixel Olympus and then a 5Mpixel Casio digicam, I soon got excellent results much more easily, and my SLR kit went into retirement. If I were you I'd a get a cheap but flexible digicam, and start experimenting with it straight away, with a view to comparing its results with your PhotoCDs from your film SLR. I only go back to film now with the surprisingly good throwaway 35mm cameras that I issue to my family for holidays when I don't trust them with a cheap digicam. I get a set of prints and a PhotoCD via my local camera shop. This summer I bought for 128 ukpounds an excellent 3Mpixel Jenoptik 3.1z3 digicam, and lent it to the same family members, and the results are far superior. It hasn't got the controls of a better digicam or an SLR, but I still carry it around myself quite often because it can go everywhere, which my big digicams and my SLR can't. Good luck |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|