G'day KP,
On 5/31/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I did an entire museum a little while ago - the trick I used was
to do
two seperate sets of photos, the good camera taking high-res
shots of
every artifact and the small compact running off lots of context photos ("here is the entire cabinet") and pictures of labels,
etc. Put
the two sets together, sort by timestamp, and you're done.
[Or would be had I not forgotten to set one of them to daylight savings. Still, it was a nice first attempt...]
Yeah, I do this if I'm shooting in gardens, take two cameras, shoot the label and broad shot, then shoot the images I want with my good camera.Also for my art. For me the flowers don't always come with signs, except for the ones I'm growing. When I shoot in the field I take a cheap sketch book and a marker and write a sign and shoot it. But yes, with air shows the signs are often also crowded with the other folks at the air shows, and not usually are they the one shot of the plane you want (cutting off nose and tail)--still, it can be useful.
One of the features I really like about my (otherwise quite poor) digital camera is that it also allows for taking video and sound recordings. There's even a setting you can use where it will take the photo, then switch to audio mode, and you speak a short description of what you've just photographed.
Very handy.
<snip/>
On 6/1/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
One of the features I really like about my (otherwise quite poor) digital camera is that it also allows for taking video and sound recordings. There's even a setting you can use where it will take the photo, then switch to audio mode, and you speak a short description of what you've just photographed.
Very handy.
My main use for that feature was when taking photos while alcohol-impaired. Useful for recording lists of ingredients in cocktails, because otherwise you know you'll never remember...:)
On the ID thing, what I would really like one day would be a bluetooth-enabled GPS that could sit in my backpack not doing much, but everytime I took a photo, could sync its satellites and provide the GPS coordinates back to the camera. That would be really nifty for travel photography, and kill two birds with one stone for a lot of wikipedia articles: a photo and the exact GPS location of the subject (providing you're not too far from it when you shoot).
Steve
On 5/31/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On the ID thing, what I would really like one day would be a bluetooth-enabled GPS that could sit in my backpack not doing much, but everytime I took a photo, could sync its satellites and provide the GPS coordinates back to the camera. That would be really nifty for travel photography, and kill two birds with one stone for a lot of wikipedia articles: a photo and the exact GPS location of the subject (providing you're not too far from it when you shoot).
While that's not quite available yet, we're pretty close. There are carryable GPS thingies that log their location regularly to an internal buffer that you can download to your computer. Assuming your camera's set to the right time or near enough, there are applications that can take this log and apply the logged location at the appropriate time to each photograph you took. Google for 'Geotagging', I think.
Pretty soon, I suspect, cameras will begin to carry onboard GPS devices.
If you have serious money to spend, Canon's upcoming EOS-1D Mk III professional camera (about a US$3500 purchase) can be fitted with a device called the WFT-E2A which is primarily a wireless file transmitter (thus the title) using 802.11G wireless specifications but also permits the connection of an external GPS device via USB. I imagine that news organizations and other professional users might find that invaluable.
I suspect the next generation after that, in 2 years or so, will have an inbuilt wireless transceiver and possibly even built-in GPS.
-Matt
On 6/1/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On the ID thing, what I would really like one day would be a bluetooth-enabled GPS that could sit in my backpack not doing much, but everytime I took a photo, could sync its satellites and provide the GPS coordinates back to the camera. That would be really nifty for travel photography, and kill two birds with one stone for a lot of wikipedia articles: a photo and the exact GPS location of the subject (providing you're not too far from it when you shoot).
While that's not quite available yet, we're pretty close. There are carryable GPS thingies that log their location regularly to an internal buffer that you can download to your computer. Assuming your camera's set to the right time or near enough, there are applications that can take this log and apply the logged location at the appropriate time to each photograph you took. Google for 'Geotagging', I think.
Pretty soon, I suspect, cameras will begin to carry onboard GPS devices.
If you have serious money to spend, Canon's upcoming EOS-1D Mk III professional camera (about a US$3500 purchase) can be fitted with a device called the WFT-E2A which is primarily a wireless file transmitter (thus the title) using 802.11G wireless specifications but also permits the connection of an external GPS device via USB. I imagine that news organizations and other professional users might find that invaluable.
I suspect the next generation after that, in 2 years or so, will have an inbuilt wireless transceiver and possibly even built-in GPS.
Cameras have been carrying onboard GPS for years. My HP 65xx phone has
both features builtin, as well as being a pocket PC.
On 6/3/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
Cameras have been carrying onboard GPS for years. My HP 65xx phone has both features builtin, as well as being a pocket PC.
I haven't seen many cameras having this feature. Some cellphones that have a camera, yes, but the image quality of most of those leaves something to be desired.
Does that phone of yours embed location data in the photos taken?
At least in the US, cellphone carriers are notorious for disabling useful features - like the ability to use GPS.
-Matt
On 6/4/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
Cameras have been carrying onboard GPS for years. My HP 65xx phone has both features builtin, as well as being a pocket PC.
I haven't seen many cameras having this feature. Some cellphones that have a camera, yes, but the image quality of most of those leaves something to be desired.
Does that phone of yours embed location data in the photos taken?
At least in the US, cellphone carriers are notorious for disabling useful features - like the ability to use GPS.
On investigation, I can't see any way that GPS data can be embedded in the picture data. It looks pretty simple-minded, at least the photo application supplied with the phone. And yes, the picture quality is dreadful.
Still, the fact that I can have GPS, phone, computer, camera, MP3 player etc in one handy dandy little pocket sized packet is something that astounds me. The Cray1 supercomputer had less power. It's like living in a science fiction world.
On 6/3/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
Still, the fact that I can have GPS, phone, computer, camera, MP3 player etc in one handy dandy little pocket sized packet is something that astounds me. The Cray1 supercomputer had less power. It's like living in a science fiction world.
Indeed; current cellphones have amazing potential - even if they don't always quite live up to it yet!
-Matt
On 6/4/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
Still, the fact that I can have GPS, phone, computer, camera, MP3 player etc in one handy dandy little pocket sized packet is something that astounds me. The Cray1 supercomputer had less power. It's like living in a science fiction world.
Yeah, for years we all dreamed of "videophone". Now my phone does it, and I have no desire to even test it.
Vaguely heading back towards topic, I am actually in the market for a DSLR (to take photos for wikipedia, of course!), but $3500 USD would be a tad out of my price range :) I'm thinking the [[Pentax K10D]].
Steve [1] See how when you put something in double square brackets it looks like you're on topic??
On 6/5/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Vaguely heading back towards topic, I am actually in the market for a DSLR (to take photos for wikipedia, of course!), but $3500 USD would be a tad out of my price range :) I'm thinking the [[Pentax K10D]].
A DSLR is my next step, and I'm thinking Canon400D or similar. But a camera that size needs a bag for protection and carriage of accessories, as well as a reasonably stout tripod. It all gets a bit hard to carry, and you tend to use it on planned shoots, rather than spur of the moment shots.
I've got a little pocket Canon A710 IS, 7MP and 6x zoom, which is great for just about anything: http://www.flickr.com/photos/skyring/463879801/
My main camera is a Canon S2 IS, 6MP and 12x, but that needs a bag to carry it around. The flip out LCD screen makes shooting from odd angles easy. And the zoom lets me get in close when I need to: http://www.flickr.com/photos/skyring/177589472/in/set-1834594/
Both cameras (and a Canon A60) have contributed their fair share to WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IwoJimaMemArlington.JPG
The standard of photographs on WP has gotten higher over the years I've been here. The Featured Pictures page is always a source of wonder and delight.
On 6/4/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
A DSLR is my next step, and I'm thinking Canon400D or similar. But a camera that size needs a bag for protection and carriage of accessories, as well as a reasonably stout tripod. It all gets a bit hard to carry, and you tend to use it on planned shoots, rather than spur of the moment shots.
I find you don't need a tripod most of the time - though I always keep one in the car. A DLSR kit is not as carryable as other stuff, though, that's for sure.
-Matt
On 6/4/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Vaguely heading back towards topic, I am actually in the market for a DSLR (to take photos for wikipedia, of course!), but $3500 USD would be a tad out of my price range :) I'm thinking the [[Pentax K10D]].
The great thing now is that pretty much all DSLRs are good - the market has matured that much - and they're getting quite affordable. Wikipedia was actually what got me back into photography, a few years ago. At the time I had a 1.2 MP Toshiba camera that frankly sucked, but I bought a better P&S shortly after and recently my wife bought me a DSLR (Minolta 7D).
-Matt