Photography is a subject about which I know next to nothing although I have
been fascinated with it since I was a child.  I guess it's natural enough,
there seem to have been photographers in my family since the early
beginnings of photography.  I had a gr gr granduncle who went south during
the Civil War and photgraphed.  I think he went as a commercial venture,
all his photos seem to be of people in camp--no battles that I have found
at least.  Some of his pictures were used by Ken Burns in his documentary.
There have been succesive photographers in the family since until this
generation.  I don't know of any currently.  When I was about 12 I got
interested and got a starter kit for developing my own film.  I never did
get to an enlarger so all the pictures I did are the size of the film.  My
Mom was not crazy about this hobby as the only place I had to do it was the
kitchen which made it very inconvenient and could only be done at night
when it was dark.  I'm so glad I did it though as I have found pictures of
the barn that burned in the late '50s among my stuff.

Now we have a Minolta that my husband bought second hand from another guy
in Korea in the late '60s.  Over the years I have bought various lenses to
go with this camera.  Neither of us have the slightest idea what we are
doing with the thing but seem to be able to get passable pictures anyway.

When I bought this computer 3 years ago I bought a digital camera at the
same time.  I have NO idea how to use the thing.  Both of the boys can take
pictures with it but it totally escapes me.  They say it's easy, just do
this but I think I'm too hung up on doing something wrong.  I don't even
try.  It is an Olympus, I don't see it being especially lightweight.
Things sure are different than when I got my first Kodak Brownie.

I sure do blab a lot this morning don't I?  Ruth






At 7:17 AM -0500 3/19/03, Leland Torrence wrote:
>Donald,
>I did shut off the sounds, particularly happy not to have the "you have
>arrived" sound whenever it fired up.  I have been using the shudder mode
>and drop it to 1/60 or 90 to increase depth of focus on most work
>related to increase depth of focus, but frankly don't see much
>difference as the best focused items are not that great.  Have you tried
>projecting any super fine, large format images on a screen to see how
>they look?  Any tips?
>Best,
>Leland
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Let us not speak foul in folly!" - ][<en Phollit
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Donald
>B. White
>Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:37 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Photography
>
>
>Message text written by "\"Let us not speak foul in folly!\" - ][<en
>Phollit"
>>The thing I love about the digital is the forgiveness of the low
>light slow shudder speed.  Many of the shots that I once would not
>attempt, as the wonderful ability of film to capture the contrast in
>turn did not allow informal quick capture, I now take regularly.  But I
>miss crisp full depth of field sharpness.  I also miss kodachrome 25,
>the best film I think I ever used.  A film you could almost paint with
>at low speeds. Oh, I also like how my new digital camera has a default
>sound of an SLR when you take the shot!
>
>Best,
>Leland<
>
>Yes, Sony and some others have figured out that people like that loud
>sound (actually the moving mirror and the motor drive makes the noise in
>an SLR, the shutter is not very loud). It does take getting used to the
>near-silence of a digital. But a good rangefinder is about as quiet.
>Personally I would rather have a quiet camera. Mine flashes a couple of
>LCDs when it takes a picture and I can see the frame count change.
>That's enough to tell me it worked.
>
>I have always followed (and frquently advised) a rule of using the
>slowest film that you can for the conditions. I always preferred slower
>films if there were enough light to use them. Digital does not yet have
>the tonal range of film, but I have not yet found that to be a
>difficulty. In low light, the better sensitivity makes up for it. As for
>the sharpness, some of that may be camera movement rather than depth of
>field. The same optical rules apply to digicams as for any camera. If
>you want sharpness, use a tripod and a low shutter speed to allow the
>lens to stop down and reduce camera movement. A digicam can be hand held
>at lower speeds than an SLR (because there are fewer moving parts to
>cause camera movement) but it still moves.
>--
>To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
><http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>
>--
>To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
><http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>

--
Ruth Barton
[log in to unmask]
Westminster, VT

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>