I usually idle in the Chat Room, so drop by when possible.

Thanks for the invite. I'll take a look next time I'm at the computer for more than a moment.

Ordered me a 120GB for the HyperDrive.

Once that works, will order another for the other PSD.

Always, always shoot at the highest possible JPG setting. I don't know how many times I've heard people say, "Oh I'm shooting at this medium setting because I can get get x-hundred photos on my card! And I'll never print them..." But you know what's going to happen, you'll get some AMAZING photos and you'll want to print them, but now your picture quality is way too low. So I always shoot at the highest possible JPG setting just in case. Storage these days is cheap.

I save RAW for those special photos that I know I will need post-processing for, or for very special photos that I know I will never get those exact conditions again. Sometimes you just get those "WOW!" moments and you know the photos will be very special, that's usually when I'm shooting RAW. In addition to shooting those scenes in RAW, I also take a few shots in JPG for quick access. I haven't yet used the RAW+JPG mode, but it would accomplish the same thing as taking JPGs for access.

Someone said "Insane to think that 2250 pictures might not be enough!!"--Well I took over 8000 photos on my 30-day UK trip. Yes, eight thousand. Several of them are doubles, some of them are triples, some are panoramas, some are the same scene from different angles. I take a LOT of photos when on tour, I think it worked out to approximately 285 a day. I took two 2GB CF cards, four 1GB CF Cards, my laptop and my 80GB video iPod. I shot primarily (around 90%) in high quality JPG at around 3.5 MB per image on average and about 10% in RAW. Every evening I would quickly scroll through my photos and delete the ones that were obviously blurred and dump everything else onto my iPod. Then I would pick out 4 or 5 nices ones and drop them onto a little Photoshop action script I set up on my laptop to resize and mark my images and then I would upload them onto my Flickr website so people who were reading my blog could see them.

Unfortunately I don't yet have CS3 though, only CS2, so it takes me a bit longer to process my images... But then I'm not processing EVERY image, I imagine that only about 40% of what I shot will be good enough to use. But with digital, it's very easy to pop off 100 shots and not even think about it.

quote:

Originally posted by FoxDesigns:
"--Well I took over 8000 photos on my 30-day UK trip.

Some people must be dedicated to the viewfinder I doubt if I've taken that many pictured in my whole life but each to his/her own.

quote:

Originally posted by FoxDesigns:
...and then I would upload them onto my Flickr website so people who were reading my blog could see them.

Fox, I presume that you must be having net access whilst on tour. Do you get it from the hotel or use cyber-cafes? If latter, how easily available are they in Europe and what do they charge?

quote:

Originally posted by Meggs:
Some people must be dedicated to the viewfinder I doubt if I've taken that many pictured in my whole life but each to his/her own.

Actually it's very easy to take quick photos, I take several without even thinking about it usually. Of course there are some that I stop and take time to compose and make adjustments and so on, but for about 75% of what I shoot, it's just quickies. It's really annoying when people wander around through the whole trip glued to their viewfinder. This is especially true for people who shoot video, it's like they're cyborgs or something, recording every moment and talking to themselves while they do it so they'll have voice over on the tape!

quote:

Originally posted by Xponent:
Fox, I presume that you must be having net access whilst on tour. Do you get it from the hotel or use cyber-cafes? If latter, how easily available are they in Europe and what do they charge?

I generally get access wherever I can. The UK has many cyber-cafes, the cheapest is usually "easyInternet" which you will almost always find paired with a Starbucks or a Subway sandwich shop, or sometimes on it's own--look for the bright orange sign. EasyInternet charges about £1 for 15 minutes, sometimes £1 for 20 minutes. You just go up to a little vending machine there, plunk in your coins and it will spit out a little ticket with an access number on it, then you sit at one of the many machines they usually have, type in the access number and you're online. Many hotels will also have coin-operated kiosks in their lobby that will run you about 9p per minute, some go as low as 5p a minute. Also look for hostels because they'll often have these coin-operated kiosks at cheap rates, I know of one on Isle of Skye that runs at 5p a minute for example. Be aware that 99% of cyber-cafes will not allow you to plug in any peripheral devices such as USB keys or cameras, so you won't be able to upload photos this way. Also look around for signs that say "Internet Access here" as many more pubs are starting to install kiosk Internet access--I even got access at the Wedgewood factory.

As for hotels, I'm very disappointed that more hotels in the UK do not have decent Internet access. Several have the on-TV access which is pretty useless, and some have wireless networks that are just inadequate or Intranet cables that are set up to run on Windows (my laptop is a Mac) and most of the time the staff is clueless on how to set up the connection--I had to phone tech support at one hotel to fix the hotel's Internet for them, because I was told, "It hasn't been working for days." Anyway, hotel Internet rates generally run from about £5 an hour up to £8 an hour depending on where you are--I found Manchester to be most expensive at £8/hr. Some of the better hotels will also offer free wireless access in the lobby or lounge area, it's a good idea to ask at the desk. Sometimes the staff doesn't seem to know anything about their Internet access--I've found access a couple of times by "sniffing" for wireless networks in the hotel lobby. Most hotels are buying their Internet access from a third party like "BT Openzone" and you can often get 24 hour access for the price of just a couple hours, and if you travel between hotels that are using the same third party provider, your access transfers with you. Be sure to ask at the front desk what the rates are because often they'll just tell you it's say £6/hr but they won't tell you that you can get 24 hours for just £10, they're quite happy to sell you increments of 1 hr at the higher price. Better hotels will also have a "business centre" which will often have computers for you to use that allow peripheral connections, as well as printers that you can use to print out photos or documents (at a charge per page of course), so check around for those. Some hotels will even rent you a laptop if you ask. On average, I think I paid about £6-7 for 1 hour access and £10-15 for 24 hour access. You can use your access time more effectively if you do all your photo editing and blog writing, etc before you go online, and then just cut and paste. I usually wrote my blog out in Word and then went online and pasted it in, then I had the remainder of my time to read emails, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by FoxDesigns:
It's really annoying when people wander around through the whole trip glued to their viewfinder. This is especially true for people who shoot video, it's like they're cyborgs or something, recording every moment and talking to themselves while they do it so they'll have voice over on the tape!

I shoot both video and still and I edit the video and add stills. I never talk to myself as I do the voice over later.
I find that video has its place and still has its place. The still photo's from video cameras are limited as are video from still camera's.

I've yet to decide weather I take my video as well as my still camera however I can't see where I would use my video on the tour but we are staying in UK and France for an extra 4 weeks on our own so I believe the video could come in handy.
Anyone got any comments on video camera's?

Amongst my friends, I am known as the anti-video person. I am a person who prefers pictures over video.

A few drawbacks I see in video photography:
1) (As mentioned before) The operator is always glued to it.
2) You always take about 10 seconds worth of it in every go. "Here is the castle and this is its surroundings, next clip we are back in the bus and in the background you see a cow". Makes for very terrible, terrible viewing. I "had to" sit through a friend's trip video once and that experience is on my wall of "things that sucked".
3) Average camcorder is 2x bulkier than the average camera.
4) Average camera batteries lasts for about 4x the average camcorder batteries.
5) Camcorders take lousy pics. (Though a few recent ones have up'd their still pics to 3MP+).
6) You re-visit pictures more frequently and easily than videos.

Camcorders, IMHO, are more suited for a single-place occasion, something like a party or function where the entire casette/CD/DVD/whatever is a single event. The video may be fragmented by at least there is some continuity of context. Or when you intend to be there for a longer time span.

But each person has his/her own likes and dislikes and though I feel that video has its own place, its certainly not on a tour.
</rant>

Xponent...

"...Amongst my friends, I am known as the anti-video person. I am a person who prefers pictures over video...."

A person at work (when I worked) said something like the following: Who wants to shoot video? They like to show you their boring and dizzy movies of their kids and relatives eating and other things.

quote:

Originally posted by Xponent:
A few drawbacks I see in video photography:
1) (As mentioned before) The operator is always glued to it.
2) You always take about 10 seconds worth of it in every go. "Here is the castle and this is its surroundings, next clip we are back in the bus and in the background you see a cow". Makes for very terrible, terrible viewing. I "had to" sit through a friend's trip video once and that experience is on my wall of "things that sucked".
3) Average camcorder is 2x bulkier than the average camera.
4) Average camera batteries lasts for about 4x the average camcorder batteries.
5) Camcorders take lousy pics. (Though a few recent ones have up'd their still pics to 3MP+).
6) You re-visit pictures more frequently and easily than videos.

I won't disagree with you on any of the points but if you use a video you must have the facilities to edit. I would end up with about 25% of what I have taken burnt to DVD. I would never bore someone with my DVD's as I would give them a copy if they wished and if it is done properly it is self explanatory.

Photo's can be just as boring to others as video. As I said I can't see any reason to take mine on a tour it is the before and after I am considering.

quote:

Originally posted by Cat's Inheritance:
They like to show you their boring and dizzy movies of their kids and relatives eating and other things.

But my viewpoint is that, video is good for exactly the event you described. Photos may not be able to provide the same feel as video does in such occasions.

Yes, you can edit video make it relevant and provide others with a copy of it, but I have always felt that to be a PITA (pain in the @$$).

I feel that photos are more share-friendly and videos are more for personal/family moments.

Meggs, I agree with you but here is a question...lets say you are on a trip of (assume) 2 weeks. How much video (in minutes) would you end up shooting on an average?

As for me, on an average, I have trashed about 15-20% of my images due to blurring or other factors. I consider myself an average shooter and hence I assume my experience as an average one. My retention rate is about 80-85% whereas your crop rate is 75%.

The reason for my question above is...if you take out 75%, how much video are you effectively shooting on a trip?

quote:

Originally posted by Xponent:
Yes, you can edit video make it relevant and provide others with a copy of it, but I have always felt that to be a PITA (pain in the @$$).

Actually I don't mind it as with voice over music you can get pretty good results however it is time consuming but I believe it well worth it in the end

I am into both stills and videos, having once been into stills and movies! Videos mean that you can take as much footage as you like without worrying about the cost.

I use the same camera for stills and video and the quality of stills I get is fine with me -- some examples are posted on this BB, but "downsized".

I have two batteries, a nominal three hour and a nominal one hour; they have always been sufficient for a days photography.

My camera is smaller than most SLRs, some of the modern video cameras are too damned small if you hands the size of mine!

I was never satisfied with the quality of the final film until digital became available; combined with computer editing digital does retain the quality of the original shot throughout the editing process.

Wherever possible I take two shots, so by definition 50% of what I take is discarded at the first "cut". Then I probably cut another 10% off each shot as I deliberately start too early and stop too late. Some shots get dumped anyway, so the final usage is probably 30 to 35% of what I take. Of course, when editing I mix stills in with it.

Maximum final length is 20 minutes and I am ruthless about that. People seem generally happy to sit through 20 minutes, take a break and then sit through another 20 minutes. So my videos of Russia will be in three parts, St Petersburg, the cruise and Moscow. maximum time 60 minutes, so working backwards it looks as though I spent about 3 hours taking video on tour -- not a huge amount of time. Of course, ideally one should take each tour twice, once without a camera of any sort.

I probably spend an hour editing ten minutes of final video. Is the result worth it? Well I think so and friends keep coming back for more.

All that said; I do wonder what happens with the shots that people take when they walk along with a video camera held in the air! On our first ever tour we had one lady who kept her video running the whole time, even on the bus. She was travelling with her daughter and was determined that hubby wasn't going to miss out on anything! Poor chap!

quote:

Originally posted by Xponent:
Meggs, I agree with you but here is a question...lets say you are on a trip of (assume) 2 weeks. How much video (in minutes) would you end up shooting on an average?

Maybe none depends on what's going on. As I said I can't see a need for a video on a tour however I might be wrong. Unless someone can tell me otherwise it will stay in the suitcase until we have free time when we aren't on tour. Video is only good if there is some action which makes it interesting.

On a months trip around Aus by car and caravan I would only get through about 60 min the rest is still which if used properly will enhance the video and vice versa. When you go to edit you then see how much rubbish you have taken and edit it out. I once had to sit through a hour of video someone took straight off the camera and I vowed and declared I will edit mine and never subject others to the pain.

Some people are biased against video but I have never seen a TV program of still photo's.