File :-(, x, )
coldfire
Ok im planning on getting a canonpowershotS3IS and i was wonder since ive had a lot of mixed responces can it take a 4gb sd card or not, thanks for any help.
>> ac
Might want to consider the just-announced S5IS instead.

(In before get-an-SLR-n00b)
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>46221
no man tell him to get an slr and that he is a noob. it's hard to compose with the S3. damn thing feels like a toy.
>> ac
>>46240
Then you're doing it wrong. It's really no more difficult to compose on an LCD than it is to compose on glass. Probably easier, really, since the flip-out LCD means you don't have to kneel or find a stepladder to frame other than eye-level shots.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>46241
when i look through the viewfinder on my SLR i get a much better idea of what i'm going to be getting than on the little pixely LCD. also it's hard to see in sunlight. i'm just more comfortable taking shots with the real light i'm going to be capturing as opposed to a representation of it.
>> Anonymous
>>46221
No. Might want to get him to wait for the S10IS instead.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
Okay, since there's drama starting in this thread anyway..

..screw the digital cameras; buy a film one instead :D
>> Anonymous
>>46244
20x24 wet glass plate etc
>> ac
>>46244
Oh, it's ON now!

FILM IS TEH SUXX0RZ! DIGITAL IS TEH ROXX0RZ!

Seriously, though, I just dropped $50 on film yesterday, and that doesn't even count the eventual cost of getting it all developed and the personal cost of the time it'll take me to scan the 300 (give or take) frames I'll get out of it. How the hell do you afford it? If I add up all of the money I've spent on film and processing this year, I probably could have bought myself a backup digital body to go with my Rebel XTi easily...
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>46246

BRING IT, YOU'RE ON!

I know the processing costs are actually a turn off for a lot of people, and i'm cool with that, to each their own.

However, for me, the SLIDE film (notice that i'm referring to slides, not prints and negatives) still works better for the quality i'm looking for; not only does the slide film offer me better color and control of my photos, i like having them all be able to fit in a little box (labeled, of course) for me to physicially hold and make copies of whenver I see fit.

With the slides, unless you're looking to enter them into a competition or a festival, there is absolutely no reason to get them all printed, hence cluttering up your house and trying to keep track of all the prints and negatives, which is a total PITA.

I will also be the first to admit that, over the 12 years i've been photographing and over the 6-7 years i've been using Velvia & Provia along with it, i have thrown away hundreds, if not thousands of slides and shots I didn't like. Oh well, not a big deal to me.
>> ac
>>46249
One of these days, you're gonna get a digital SLR and take 300 pictures in one day and it's gonna blow your mind.

Then you're going to figure out how to bump the contrast, white balance, and saturation settings on your digital SLR so that the pictures come out looking like Velvia, and it's gonna blow your mind again. ;)

(Incidentally, the film I spent $50 on yesterday was five rolls of Velvia 100 in 135-36 size, one roll of Velvia 100 in 120 size, and three rolls of Delta 3200 in case I want to go take photos in a dimly lit bar or something)
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Coldfire, I have a 2 gig card in my D50, and for 99% of the time, it's more than I ever need. Shooting Large, Fine JPEGs (the highest quality, under RAW), I can fit around 850 on my 2 gig card. The counter on the camera is actually a conservative estimate. Often the jpeg is smaller than it theoretically could be, and so you end up fitting a ton on one card.

The only time I filled it all the way up and needed more space was during a fashion show I shot, when I was required by my magazine to get a (good) shot of every single model and outfit as they came down the runway. I ended up swapping over to my Worst Case Scenario 1 gig card, and shot another 300 frames on that card. All in all, the night resulted in about 1200 photos.

So, unless you plan on some HEAVY shooting (which I doubt, seeing as you're getting a prosumer point and shoot), don't worry about whether it can take a 4 gig card. It's overkill. 2 gigs will serve you fine, and be a lot cheaper.
>> elf_man
>>46253
Dude, you have no idea how much film she burns through...
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>46253
DUDE. When you shoot that Delta 3200, post all the keepers you get. Seriously. I've been wanting to get a few rolls myself. Are you going to develop it AT 3200, or pull it down to 1600, which I hear some people do.

And what he says about digital post-processing is true. When I first started taking pictures with my Nikon, they all seemed flat and boring, with very dull colors. With a few in-camera adjustments and some changes to how I post-process in Aperture, my pictures are getting more and more colorful, I believe emulating the feel of rich, saturated Velvia. We'll see. I can't wait to see how my actual rolls of Velvia turn out.
>> ac
>>46255
Doesn't matter. It works either way.

If she doesn't shoot very much, she'll discover the liberation of being able to shoot the bejeezus out of something without having to worry about cost or getting them developed or even changing film.

If, as I suspect is your meaning, she shoots a fuck-ton, she'll be able to shoot those three hundred shots and be blown away by the fact that she did it completely for free. Or she'll be able to shoot a few thousand, still free.

>>46256
23 skidoo. I've actually got a roll of it in my old Minolta SLR that I need to get through (unfortunately, it was halfway done when I got my Rebel IIS film SLR, and so the Minolta kinda got left in the past...).

Don't know how well that roll's gonna turn out, though, because it will be my very first time developing my own film. There's a very good chance I'll fuck up.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>46253

See, here's my thing. I don't like photoshopping my pictures; in fact, I don't believe in photoshopping at all except to crop and shrink my photographs. The way it's shot is the way it's shot. If it turns out, it does. If it doesn't, I throw it away. For jobs, portraits, RE photography, sure, a digital will get the job done just fine and i can photoshop it to fix anything i missed.

I can get 20 rolls of velvia (one box) for $47 bucks. Where in the heck are you buying your film from?

>>46258
*snicker* pay attention to what elfman says; he's come on a few photo expeditions with me. I shot a full roll of 36 and barely moved from the subject, with slight changes on composition. In one outting, depending on how I'm feeling, i use between 3 and 20 rolls per shoot.

Oh, by the way, I don't mind paying for my processing; it's pretty cheap where I go and well worth it. I normally save up 50-150 rolls, then go turn them in and get them developed all at once. I absolutely love it. Then I go home, put them in my slide projector, and spend all night looking through all of them with my family and critiquing.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>46259
You're my hero. :D
>> ac
>>46259
Adorama. Their 20 pack was over $100. Where are *you* getting your film from? And do they have a website?

Also, holy shit, I can't imagine burning through $50 worth of film in one outing. Just imagine, with a digital, you could shoot those same 720 shots for $0 rather than $50. And get them developed for $0 rather than $>0. And get the chance to look through them with your family as soon as you get home rather than after you get 'em developed.

So are you at least a professional enough photographer that you can write off all of your film costs?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>46259
Though I disagree with you on the photoshop stuff. If Ansel Adams wasn't happy with the image "the way it was shot", then who are we to judge? The man did more darkroom work than almost anyone. Those images of Yosemite are scarcely related to the real Yosemite; rather, they are HIS Yosemite, his perceptions. Likewise, Photoshop has become the new digital darkroom. Most professional photographers now attempt to get a "clean" "neutral" image straight out of the camera, and they shoot in RAW. It's only afterwards that they begin the true "developing" process, turning that neutral, kinda boring image into whatever it will finally become.

If you don't want to do that kind of post-processing, shoot JPEG and adjust the in-camera settings until it resembles your film of choice. This is actually what I do, but in my case, it's out of necessity. My computer sucks way too much to do any RAW processing. I tried. I cried. :(
>> elf_man
When it comes to image manipulation, I like to keep it minimal; I try to take the picture as I saw it at the time, so any changes will make it closer to that if it was off. Nice thing about digital for that is getting visual confirmation on the lcd before you shoot. On the otherhand, I do respect and appreciate what other photographers accomplish with their digital darkroom, it just doesn't fit my style very well. And having shot a bit of digital, I think I find film more satisfying. But as was noted, it really is just a matter of preference.
>>46260
She's way more awesome in person, oh my freaking god you have no idea.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
     File :-(, x)
arite guys it seems like this is necessary now. i have been noticing that my S3 IS seems to take pretty gray photos. i posted a series of photos from my florida trip the other day starting with that bug that heavyweather liked and ending with the cactus that liska liked, but no matter what i do and whether i shoot auto or manual or anything in between (program and custom modes still elude me) they just seem to ALWAYS look better when i shop them. i usually hit up the curves then the levels. posted here is the NEW bug shot - the old one has been lost to 'are you sure you want to replace bug.jpg with bug.jpg'

so. am i a fuckup or is it possible that my camera just doesnt shoot in appropriate contrast and vivid enough color?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot S3 ISCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:05:02 13:36:10Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:05:08 11:33:15Exposure Time1/1250 secF-Numberf/2.7Lens Aperturef/2.7Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye ReduceFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1600Image Height1200RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> elf_man
>>46272
On my a530, I usually turn on vivid colors in the my colors menu, seems to make a huge difference.
And honestly, this new version looks way too saturated to me. I thought the old one had nice bright colors already.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>46265

Nope, no write offs. All my photographs are specifically for me because I love it, though I did do the photographs for the Rancho Santa Fe Goldbook last year, cover and all interior photographs. It was quite satisfying to see the photos there, but now that I look back at them I don't like them as much as I did at the time; i've improved a lot. I also do some photography for a hot air ballooning company I work with; i get paid in rides and dinners; well worth it. I entered and won a couple festivals, too, even though they framed and mounted the damn picture upside down.

>>46267
Didn't mean to disrespect Ansel there; just pointing out a personal preference of my own and the mindset i'm in, when i'm looking at and evaulating my photography. I expect myself to get it right the first time and hold myself to high personal standards. If I don't, then that's it and i'll move on, because I like to frequent the same "shoot" sites. On the same note, I'll normally be happy with what I shoot for about a week and a half, then realize I could've done better and end up hating the photos. Guess i'm a perfectionist.

>>46265
Holy crap, that's a lot of money! sheesh! I can't remember the last time I paid that much for a box of Velvia film. I can't remember the name of my store, to be honest, I just drive there and go in, then go right back out. I'm stocked up enough to last me the next month, since i'm going on a (non africian) safari for my birthday later this month. I'll post the info in the thread with all my picts, if i decide to post them here.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>46272

I liked the old one, too... it seemed to work better. Just play and experiment with your different settings and see how it turns out, pick a flower or something (cliche i know) and keep track of which settings are which.

Btw; OP, i hijacked your thread. Sorry. Least you got your question answered in>>46254:)
>> ac
>>46270
Maaan. I wanna hang out with Liska like the cool kids.

Planning a trip to Buffalo any time soon? We've got lots of decaying infrastructure and a pretty big waterfall up here to take pictures of...
>> bridget !IRcQER6/v6
No offense to the OP, or other people, But these threads are over done. I swear, We need sticky on these cameras, so people won't have to make new ones.

sorry.
>> ac
>>46278
Yeah, that's kinda why we took it over to have a big discussion on film vs. digital. Seemed like the appropriate thing to do.
>> Anonymous
My S3 IS comes tomorrow!

\o/
>> Anonymous
>>46240
What are you smoking?

The only problems with electronic viewfinders is the lag and that, because they're less sharp, some people find them hard to manually focus with. (I don't.)

If you can make out the shapes, you can compose. And if you're using the back screen of the S3IS for anything but shooting from the hip or self-portraits, you're doing it wrong.
>> ac
>>46289
What's wrong with using the LCD? I did that all the time with my non-SLR cameras.
>> Anonymous
What the hell people? Stop the fucking drama, just STFU! Everyone!

How about you post more photos and comment more on photos. No one gives a damn about what you use and how you use it. Whatfuckingever!
>> Anonymous
Liska, please find out what this store is that sells film for %50 off.
>> ac
>>46297
Eh. I posted two new photos today and got absolutely no comments. And I commented on several other people's photos. I feel more like chatting about film in this thread. Feel free to ignore it.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>46297

Debates are fun! :D So are discussions. I'm rather enjoying the conversation in this thread.

>>46303
Once I get up the courage to drive an hour out of my way to go look at the name of the store, i'll let you know! There's a few places around here that have very decently priced film.
>> ac
>>46309
Only place I've found in Buffalo that sells film other than the normal 24 shot film targeted at non-photographers sells it for more than Adorama.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>46312

That really sucks :( i'm scope things out this weekend and see if I can get you guys anymore info on here.
>> Anonymous
I find that the best thing to do is have the best of both worlds. That is, both film and digital.

Which of course means that everyone in this thread wins.

Hurray!
>> ac
>>46317
Yeah, I've been dual-wielding of late with both my Digital Rebel XTi and my Rebel II S. And I've got a roll of 120 loaded in my old TLR, too.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>46317

and i'm now going crazy trying to remember what store I bought my not-so-expensive slide film at. Ugh.

But i agree with you; haven't gotten into the digital aspect of things yet, though, aside to go out with my moms point and shoot
>> elf_man
Yeah, this has been fun, nobody flaming, people reasonably arguing their points...is this still 4chan?
>>46320
Dual wielding... don't you mean "roll a 20"?
>> Anonymous
>>46320

I have been carrying film and digital too, but I only carry one SLR. My old, trusty Pentax ME. I use a small cheapo but not-too-terrible quality HP point and shoot for my digital needs.

I don't think I've come across any dSLRs as compact and portable as my ME. One of the reasons I haven't upgraded to digital yet. Photography is just a hobby, so digital is not a necessity for me, just a nicety.

Also, what kind of TLR do you have? I just got back a test roll for a Rolleicord II I bought a bit ago. Very impressed with the performance of the 70+ year old Tritotar it has. Better than any of the glass i have for my SLRs. Shocking, really.
>> Anonymous
I'm guessing you have the price wrong or something because $50 for a 20 pack of Velvia is insane. Maybe you're thinking of Superia which is $43 for 20 at B&H.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>46327

I'm fairly sure i'm not going insane; maybe I just caught a sale or something when I bought all my stuff; i'll look into it. The last couple times I went into the store (a few months ago) I remember being surprised that the price was so cheap; I had expected to be around 100, but it wasn't.
>> ac
>>46326
Might want to look into the Olympus and Leica digital SLRs. I believe the Four Thirds SLRs are smaller than most.

(Of course, the downside of that is that they're Four Thirds system. Tiny sensor is tiiiiny)

I've got a Yashica A.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I haven't heard anything good about the Four Thirds cameras. From what I understand, it's kind of a disaster. Olympus has fallen way behind Nikon and Canon in terms of SLRs, and Leica's R doesn't have much going for it either, especially considering high end Nikon and Canon offerings.

You're right, there's no small dSLR, they're all pretty hefty. The Nikon D40 is currently the smallest made. But take this into consideration: there's a whole darkroom/photolab inside every camera! When you think about it that way, dSLRs are -tiny-!

And I agree, I really like the general atmosphere of this board. Photo.net's boards are generally very amiable and friendly, too.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
*sigh* that explains it; my old place that I bought my film from got bought out. :( now i have to find a new lab to buy from.
>> ac
>>46331
Know what really sucks? There used to be a camera store literally a 3 minute drive from my apartment. They went out of business--with the accompanying huge discounts on their stuff--like right as I was getting into photography.

As in, before I was any good at it or knew what would be good to buy. I got a cheapish polarizing filter, but that's it.

I wish Allan ca. 2007 could go back in time and get some good deals that Allan ca. 2005 was too dumb to see.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>46359

Well I started getting that price after I had been in there for two years-- it never occured to me, until on my way home, that maybe it was a specific me discount :/ guess i'll never know... tis sad that that place is gone.. they replaced it with a bigger store. I'll have to go back and check out to see what they've got. Unless it's 10 bucks a roll not gonna stop buying, though
>> coldfire
>>46254
do u know i date for release, as i cant find it on the australian canon site on the s5Is that is.
>> Anonymous
>>46291
It's much harder to get a stable grip holding the camera that far out from your face.
>> ac
>>46388
Not really, no. Also, makes it easier to brace it against a surface since you don't have to drop to a knee to look through the viewfinder at that surface level.
>> ac
>>46375
Canon USA says June of '07. Dunno about Australia.
>> coldfire
>>46497
I looked in stored and they dont have the s3 no more so im guessing that it should be around the same time, im planning on getting this to take to japan for a holiday is there any accessaries i might want to get, other than a bag and memory card
>> ac
>>47261
Batteries. Non-SLRs eat batteries like crazy-mad because they run their sensor and LCD/EVF constantly, so I'd pick up two extra batteries so you can swap 'em during a long day of shooting.
>> coldfire
>>47293
my parents have a canon a few models down from this its like 10 optical and 5mp and they went to the states for just on 5 weeks and used those enegiser e squares and didnt have to replace the battry once and they took about 1000 shots and that was on high quality.but yer i still have some spares incase