What makes good coaster pictures?
In fact I think this digital shot of mine has a certain softness and character to it all it's own.
The fact that I use my 2800 Z, which by the way is the best Digi Cam I have ever used and I got a great deal for it at 280 dollars, at parks is the fact that I really do not feel like lugging a heavy camera body be it my AE-1 (best camera ever made) or my T90 plus my telephoto lens and my wide angle lens around the park.
I would never think of using my digi for my rail photography or my portrait shots but for amusement parks I stick exclusively to digital. For the time being that is. A 10DS may be calling me.
------------------
UnfrigginbelievablyIncredible
*** This post was edited by MagnumForce 6/12/2003 5:12:37 PM ***
I hope I'm not sounding like I'm trying to argue. Just a point I enjoy discussing. I like hearing opinions of others because it is honestly something I've wrestled with for a while (digital or film vs the costs vs the quality vs worrying about it too much)
I also suffer "old man syndrome" in a way in that while I'm a technology geek and welcome any tool to make things better, it somehow bugs me that any bozo can pick up a relatively cheap digital camera and get great looking shots with little to no knowledge as to why or how. Give most of these people a film camera and watch them flounder.
I guess it's the same thing older musicians thought (think?) about loops and sampling. Any bozo can create great sounding music anymore for minimal cost and with no knowledge of how or why it works. That's one area that I can appreciate though - even as someone who could play music long before the technology made it possible for anyone.
Who knew turning 30 would be so rough? :)
------------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park Visits in 2003: 5
Gemini said:Shutter lag doesn't exist on the D10. In fact, it's a heck of a lot faster than my Canon EOS Rebel. I couldn't tell you how many times this season that I've missed a coaster train because of the shutter being faster than I thought ... so I end up with just the front half. (Good thing I can instantly check :) ) I think it does something like 9 shots in 3 seconds, if you use continuous mode. You should really get to a camera store and try out the D10. It does everything that a comparable film SLR does and more. It's nothing like the point and shoot models you've probably tried. For the most part, you can't even tell it's digital - though, there are exceptions.
I have been looking into getting myself a better digital camera (right now I have a Nikon 885, which I love) Is the D10 a Nikon as well?
------------------
"If you make it too smooth, it'll be like sitting in your living room."
-Bill Cobb - Designer, Texas Cyclone
My photos always turned out better. It definitely wasn't my skill with the camera, or my husband's lack of skill on the manual setting. It was more the composition of the picture. The automatic setting did all that other stuff for me.
Agreed some of the great shots taken by people who have little knowledge of how or why it works is probably a matter of luck at times. But I think one still has to have an idea of how to compose a shot.
Even someone who has the knowledge of how and why, and fiddles around to get it just right can still take a so so picture if they forget about the soul of the subject matter.
My FIRST camera was one that you looked through the top to focus and is only took black and white photos. Then I got a new fangled disc camera before moving up to the Minolta.
------------------
I'd rather die living than live like I'm dead
http://www.webtechnik.com/ebony/CPLady.htm
*** This post was edited by CPLady 6/12/2003 7:03:27 PM ***
So last year my Canon film body went on the shelf and was replaced by the D60. Canon got the auto-focus all wrong, but followed it up with the 10D. I quickly sold my D60 and upgraded, losing only about $100 in the deal since the 10D was much cheaper.
I think the "look" is that film, even at its best, is slightly more grainy. Also, digital white balance isn't quite where it needs to be yet, as it's not as "warm" as film unless you tweak it manually.
------------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com - Sillynonsense.com
"Pray that your country undergoes recovery!" - KMFDM
------------------
Walt Schmidt - Virtual Midway
"Okay, here we are, alt dot nerd dot obsessive." - Comic Book Guy
I have found the best thing for both use and looks to be 200 speed film. Extremely versatile and If you know what your doing great even in dark situations.
One thing that has always bugged me was the purple or blue bias of Fuji when compared to the warm hues of Kodak. I find it odd that this even caries over to my Fuji 2800.
------------------
UnfrigginbelievablyIncredible
Gemini said:
Black 7: The 10D is from Canon.
Thanks. It looks like a great piece of equipment. Guess I should start saving my pennies :)
------------------
"If you make it too smooth, it'll be like sitting in your living room."
-Bill Cobb - Designer, Texas Cyclone
Also, digital white balance isn't quite where it needs to be yet, as it's not as "warm" as film unless you tweak it manually.
If anything that should be a draw for me. I set everything (my PC monitor, my TV's) to the cooler end of things. I lean more towards the blue than the red. Just a weird personal prefrence I have. When I optimize strictly to the numbers things are just too warm for me. I also tend to go a little darker than optimal too. Dark and cool - that's me baby!
One thing that has always bugged me was the purple or blue bias of Fuji when compared to the warm hues of Kodak.
See the previous comment. I think this is exactly why I go for Fuji film over Kodak if given the choice. The only time it really bugs me is with skin tones. If I'm taking pictures of people, I'll find some kodak - it handles skin tones much better. I'm a 100/400 guy as far as speed goes. One or the other. On bright, sunny park days, the 400 is just too fast and I can't open up my lens. Other than that I tend to stick with 400. I don't know why, I just do. But now that you mention it 200 might be just fine in many situations and would reduce graininess a bit.
Eh, who knows. It's inevitable that I'll go digital with the "big camera" in a year or two. Talk to me again in 2005 :)
------------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park Visits in 2003: 6
MagnumForce said:
I have found the best thing for both use and looks to be 200 speed film. Extremely versatile and If you know what your doing great even in dark situations.
One thing that has always bugged me was the purple or blue bias of Fuji when compared to the warm hues of Kodak. I find it odd that this even caries over to my Fuji 2800.
It's widely known that Fujifilm gives you better blues than Kodak, that's why I like it so much. I don't know if Kodak produces better warm tones (I haven't noticed), so I guess it's personal preference.
I use 400 speed film or 800 for fast action. I think I might heed your advice and try some 200 speed film one of these days, but in good light 800 never gives me grain problems.
BTW - has anyone tried using "professional" films? I can't think of any besides "Velvia" by Fuji (I think). Anyway, it's usually refrigerated when you buy it because it doesn't haver a long shelf life. I was wondering if using such a product produces better pictures, or if you really need ot be a pro to take advantage of it.
And lastly, does anyone do B&W photography of rides? I have done several, including the inside of the turnaround of GASM at SFOG. It turned out nicely, with me facing the sun and the structure being totally black against a gray sky. One tip to B&W I find helpful is to use a red, orange, or yellow filter to improve contrast. I also bracket exposures, usually slightly to moderately underexposing them in bright conditions. What else do you folks do?
------------------
Is that a Q-bot in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
Sure, you can shoot slide film or whatever, but at this point digital can deliver all that film can. I've got a 16x20 print next to me from Ofoto, and I've managed to shock two amateur photographers here by telling them it was shot digitally.
Newspaper photographers have been shooting digital for some time now, and they could even get away with it back when pro cameras were "only" 3 megapixels, as that's adequate for newspapers. Now Canon's 1-Ds, Kodak's 14n and Nikon's D1x are pretty much standards in the field.
If I was buying all new gear today and money was no object, there's no way I'd bother with film.
------------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com - Sillynonsense.com
"Pray that your country undergoes recovery!" - KMFDM
Jeff said:If I was buying all new gear today and money was no object, there's no way I'd bother with film.
That's a statement I can totally agree with.
------------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park Visits in 2003: 6
Lord Gonchar said:
I'm not saying I don't use photoshop - I rely on it heavily. I created my own action that runs my little series of steps that give my photos the look they have. I describe it as soft, yet sharp. I like it and that's what matters I guess. Of course you get photos that just don't cooperate with said action and punching them up by hand becomes necessary. I do crop when it's needed, but I always take a minute to line up the shot when I'm taking it and usually get what I need off the negative.
OK, I know this may be like turning into a school leason here, but I have been playing with Photoshop and still have not figured out how to creat a custom action. I think it would save me all kinds of work if I could set one up right. Thanks.
------------------
"If you make it too smooth, it'll be like sitting in your living room."
-Bill Cobb - Designer, Texas Cyclone
There is a definite advantage to using black and white film if you do the developing yourself. If you send your film off to someone to develop it for you then don't bother using black and white, use the color film and photoshop it. The clarity and contrast of the B&W that I sent off was horrible! I will NEVER send my film away again!
By developing my own I can control everything about the film. I try not to photoshop my black and white photos at all. I like to do everything in the darkroom.
Just out of curiosity, how many other people here develop their own film and pictures?
------------------
My knex coasters
GOCC member # 671
------------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com - Sillynonsense.com
"Pray that your country undergoes recovery!" - KMFDM
Bsides, I have no place to set up a dark room now :(
*EDIT* Not to mention my camera can do B&W too, and has some great results, like this.
------------------
"If you make it too smooth, it'll be like sitting in your living room."
-Bill Cobb - Designer, Texas Cyclone
*** This post was edited by Black 7 6/14/2003 4:46:42 PM ***
Some of the new black and white film that can be C41 processed gets better results then I ever did with Tri Pan.
------------------
UnfrigginbelievablyIncredible
So I noticed today that Target does prints from digital. Any idea what machine they're using and if they're any good? .29 for a 4x6 ain't bad.
------------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com - Sillynonsense.com
"Pray that your country undergoes recovery!" - KMFDM
Also, some of their stores can actually take the digital image, turn it into a slide, and then make a print from it on regular photographic paper. The results are extrodinary. They make 8x10's for about 8 bucks in an hour.
------------------
"If you make it too smooth, it'll be like sitting in your living room."
-Bill Cobb - Designer, Texas Cyclone
You must be logged in to post
