PHOTOGRAPHIC THREADS: camera queries, any photo tech stuff!

[Michael J Campbell]

Question. Is it safe to put a digital camera through the x-ray machines at airports? Are all the machines up to standard now?. If I remember correctly I was told not to put my film camera through some of the machines,I think it was in Yugoslavia.

[David Nicholson]

Question. Is it safe to put a digital camera through the x-ray machines at airports? Are all the machines up to standard now?. If I remember correctly I was told not to put my film camera through some of the machines,I think it was in Yugoslavia.

Mine has been through a number of times Michael without any problem. I may be wrong but I think x-ray machines used to have an effect on the film rather than on the camera.

[TC]

It's O.K. to put digital cameras through x-ray machines.  With film cameras and high speed film ( 800 ISO and upwards ), there was a danger of fogging.
On my round-the-world trip 4 years ago my digital and film cameras went through the x-ray machines 10 times and the digital and slide pictures were fine

[mark smyth]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Macro-Photography-Gardeners-Nature-Lovers/dp/0881928909/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225824110&sr=1-10
Product Description
Gardeners and nature lovers delight in taking pictures - especially close-ups of flowers, butterflies, and insects. And though advances in digital camera technology have made taking, storing, and sharing photos easier than ever, taking top-quality pictures requires familiarity with both digital technology and the general principles of photography. "Macro Photography for Gardeners and Nature Lovers" provides exactly the information that aspiring photographers - no matter their level of skill - need to take their photos to the next level. Clear and concise chapters cover the basics of macro (close-up) photography, explain the features of current digital single-lens reflex cameras, show the many ways images can be composed, and share tips on digital effects, storage, and manipulation of imagery.Throughout the text, helpful tips, definitions, exercises, and case studies serve to demystify digital photography. Each lesson is supported by examples of the author's stunning photography. Whether taking photos of flowers and insects, compiling a photographic record of your garden, or simply sharing beautiful images with friends and family, everyone can become accomplished photographers of the world's small-scale wonders.

[David Shaw]

Timber Press is hoping to get some copies of this book to me in time for the AGM on Saturday. The blurb that Mark quotes indicates that it could be a good book for people like me who have a 'compact' background rather than previous lifetime experience of an SLR.

[mark smyth]

Amazon has a 2GB memory stick for just over £2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Integral-2GB-Courier-USB-Drive/dp/B000KDSRAW/ref=sr_1_46?ie=UTF8&m=A23WPSRKLP38FA&s=generic&qid=1226502360&sr=1-46

[Slug Killer]

Thanks Mark, I've just placed an order for the 4gb card.

Dave

[gote]

TC,
I am sorry but I have to disagree with you.
As soon as you have programs handling large chunks of data like pictures, they can easily run out of memory and will start swapping data back and forth onto your hard disk (-s). This slows down enormously. A faster processor does nothing to alleviate this problem. More memory does.
Göte 

[TC]

Gote

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes. Yes, more RAM will make the computer work more efficiently but surely it cannot make the system go faster than the speed of the processor, unless you overclock it.  I would have thought that the addition of more RAM would have allowed the processor to work at its design speed without slowing down. It will eventually run out of steam if you keep adding to memory requirements.  If you keep the RAM identical and increase the processor speed then it follows that this will make the process faster. If it does not, then it is pointless upgrading processors on new machines.  We may as well stick with old technology.

I have 8Gb RAM on my computer on the Vista 64 bit side and 4Gb on the XP pro side and it never slows down, but I cannot say there is any noticable speed difference between the 8Gb and 4Gb systems.

[gote]

Tom,
Of course you are right but also I am right. The practical speed of your system speed is a function of what you do, what Os you have and how much memory you have.
The CPU speed is the ceiling but usually computers do not work at this limit.

There is quite often a lot of suboptimizing at play. Some vendors tote Internet connections that are akin to have a fourlane motorway between your garage and the little village lane at the edge of your property. In my opinion the high CPU-speeds are a similar case.

If you want to see what the OS does to you, dig out a DOS program and run it in a DOS window. Then start the computer using a system diskette and run the same program. This means that you run under DOS; not under the installed OS. You are likely to find an increase in speed that is truly marvellous.

I have more than once found that programs like Photoshop are very sensitive to the amount of memory you have installed. If there is not enough memory, the program operates at snail's pace. If you are only handling pictures from a "normal" digital camera of say less than ten Megapixels you are fine in most modern computers but if you are running a scan of a large format negative (9x12cm or larger) you will need much more memory. I am unable to use the highest resolutions when scanning large format negatives because it nearly freezes that computer.

A hi resolution scan in a Canon 2710 of a 24x36mm will set you back of some 27MB. This is a magnitude of ten over normal digital cameras. Photoshop will need much more than that in available memory (on top of what the program uses itself) for many operations since it works in several layers. The result is that handling such files is very very slow if you do not have a lot of memory. It is of course worse if you have more than one program running at the same time.

I have two times increased memory in a computer. In both cases the computer speed increased. (By that I mean the the tasks were handled quicker) - It does work.
Göte

[Anthony Darby]

Anyone got the low-down on the new 24 mp (?) Nikons that are coming out soon?

[Carlo]

Which would those be? They've already JUST released the D3 and D700, both fantastic cameras.

[mark smyth]

I dont think there is any need to go that big when photographing plants and family. My 10MP is very good. A 24 million pixel photo works out to be roughly 5550 pixels wide. That results in a photo that is 2x1.5m, 77x56 inches, 6.5x4.5 feet. Proffessionals may need it for advertising.

[Anthony Darby]

You don't have to blow up a pic to the size of a poster to appreciate fine detail.

[gote]

If I understand correctly, the sensor in the new Nikon will be full frame 24x36mm or nearly so which means that you can use all the old lenses you have lying around. (Given adapters)

An oldfashioned fine grain film used to have over 100 lines per mm resolution. The camera lens could do about the same. The result is approximately equivalent to 5000 dots per square mm. A 35mm camera has a negative size of 864 square millimeters giving an equivalent of 4.2 megapixels. A 9*12 view camera would in the right hands give the equivalent of 52 megapixels.

5500 pixels spread over two meters would give about 2.75 pixels/mm or 70/inch. Normal printers have 300 dots per inch or much better so the width would be about 45 cm.

Usually we crop our pictures and suddenly the pixels disappear quickly.

If we percieve a picture as sharp is very subjective. If we can clearly see details we expect to see, it looks sharp even if an objective measure would disagree.

Göte