YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Talk:Travel photography

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Funny translation[edit]

My words: "In the U.S. even taking photographs of sculptures in the vicinity of a federal building will afford you a hassle from a Barney Fife secuirty guard, trying over protect the homeland."

TVerBeek's translation: "this can get you unwelcome attention – or worse – from anxious security personnel."

I thought this was particularlly funny, because I'm still a little upset with the Federal Reserve Bank security guard in Cincinnati, so I refer to him as Barney Fife, since he tracked me down and actually tried to harass me about taking a photo of this rotating sculpture like thing in front of a building adjacent to the FOB and Reserve Bank. TVerBeek's translation is pretty accurate, and I found it quite funny. - Sapphire 17:35, 7 May 2006 (EDT)

Digital vs film[edit]

I'm a digital fundamentalist myself, but it'll be some time until digital catches up to large-format film. An 5x7" LF image translates to a sharp 12000x17000 pixel (204 megapixel) image [1], which is way beyond any digital camera out there today. Jpatokal 23:18, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

I like the idea of tourists toting an LF camera for a snap in front of Big Ben.  :-)
More seriously: at the very top end that may be true, but as of 2010 a DSLR probably has as much resolution and sensitivity as a film SLR. The article probably needs to be updated to reflect that today, the advantages of film are: no need to recharge batteries, good cheap 2nd hand equipment is available, hipster cred. Sourcefrog 02:03, 18 January 2010 (EST)


Film, even 35mm, has a quality level of roughly 20 to 25 megapixels. The variable quality of mass printing done by the photofinishing lab is the one bane of print film.

Where are you getting that figure from? Most estimates [2] seems to put the figure in the 4-8 MP range for consumer 35mm film and maybe 10-20 for pro slide film. I've made 18"x12" (S12R) enlargements from my 6MP Nikon D70 and I dare you to tell it apart from a film print. Jpatokal 22:26, 19 October 2006 (EDT)
This [3] shows data from magazine tests of lenses for 35 mm SLRs. They give resolution in lines per mm ranging from 30 to 90 or so, with higher numbers only in the center and with the lense stopped down. Film is 24 by 36 mm so 864 mm2. Take 100 lines/mm over the whole frame as an upper bound; that gives 8.64 megapixels. Medium format with its 60 by 60 mm negatives is another story, of course, with roughly four times the resolution of 35 mm. Pashley 09:25, 20 October 2006 (EDT)
You need two pixels per line to distiguish lines. Unless the 30-90 figure counts the spaces between the black as a line. -- Colin 20:41, 20 October 2006 (EDT)
Right. I should have thought of that. So 50 lines/mm (typical lens wide open) is 8.5 Megapixels and 70 (good lens at F 5.6) is about double that. Pashley 03:19, 21 October 2006 (EDT)

Digital has its place, certainly, but there is no film/digital quality debate (except for printing), especially if you consider as well the even higher quality of medium and large format film. Digital is convenient for the masses, and the ability to control printing is nice. Film has quality and saturation qualities that will keep it around for a long time to come.

Luckily, we can use either or both.

What, not how[edit]

This article has a lot about batteries and film, and not much about what photos to take, or how to take them... Sourcefrog 02:04, 18 January 2010 (EST)

Wiki articles contain what it's contributors have felt important, if you have some interresting advice on how to take good travel pictures, please plunge forward :) --Stefan (sertmann) talk 08:22, 18 January 2010 (EST)