Daddy-O à Go-Go (rpkrajewski) wrote,
Daddy-O à Go-Go

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Going Digital

Well, maybe CVS has lost my roll of Christmas pictures. And I think it was a 36-exposure roll, too, plus there are actually some pictures of us all together, which is rarity since I'm usually the one taking the photos. However, they might have found them -- I'll have to call again tomorrow. But they weren't registered in the system -- you'd think they'd scan each envelope at the store, but I think they just take 'em all and dump 'em in a big bag. If a roll falls out of the envelope (they are self-adhesive, but sometimes it feels kind of dodgy), it will be loose in the big bag and your name and phone number won't help a bit.

So, we've been thinking about getting a digital camera, but I've got a stockpile of film, so before getting a new toy we'll have to use up most of it first. I still like film, and I have a roll of slide film I want to experiment with -- but that can be done with my trusty Canon AE-1, vintage 1986. I've built up a nice collection of lenses and filters - it's like using Photoshop, but with real stuff ! I've been told that pros use slide film to get a certain kind of grain in their prints. Of course, if you're really hardcore about resolution, you'd get a medium-format camera like a Hasselblad or Mamiya, since nothing helps detail like putting the light on more and more atoms. But digital is catching up -- you can even get digital backs for both 35mm and 120 cameras. (But I think we'll have to wait a while for a digital back for this one.)

Anyway, digital is actually cheaper in the long run if you want to put quality images on the web anyway. My scanner is OK but I usually spring for Kodak Picture CD, which used to be $6 a pop but is now usually 8 or $10 (youch, they hooked me !). So do that about twenty times (easy if you've got kids) and you could have bought yourself a decent digital camera, and then you also save money because you can delete bad takes in your camera and not make prints of pictures unless you really want to. Meanwhile, those cheap digital cameras no longer produce pictures that look like video frame grabs like I saw two years ago -- they are really quite good, with eye-popping color when given enough natural light. So far I think the Nikon Coolpix 775 is the one to get -- it's small, produces high-quality images, and comes with some accessories that you have to pay extra for with comparable models from other companies (like Canon). We shall see.

I also am starting to play around with converting my too-large collection of analog recordings that I've got into bits. I have some cool old stuff which is either still not on CD, or is not worth the effort of buying in another format. Next to my computer is a nice old NAD receiver and purist AR turntable (no speed control: you've got a flip a belt instead); now I've got a little USB thingy (Griffin iMic) that digitizes this stuff decently, without any hum (the bane of hooking up lots of electric stuff together). Making the unedited recording from records, tape, or the radio is simple with an application like Audiocorder and enough disk space. Refining and editing the results can be a labor-intensive process but I don't think I'll ever really want to do my whole collection, just the interesting stuff. Hundreds are records aren't any fun to move or think about anymore; let the vinyl fanatics enjoy them instead !
Tags: audio, camera, gadgets
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 1 comment