Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
Mrs Redboots wrote: Boltar wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 29 Mar 2005: Mrs Redboots wrote: Film? Goodness, how quaint! Anybody else still use it???? Yup. Why should I pay 200 quid for a half decent digital camera and then have to fork out for a photo printer or just take the memory card down a developers anyway when I can keep using my perfectly good 35mm camera and get a free film whenever I get my shots developed. And waste 90% of the shots.... at least with a digital, you only need to You speak for yourself there I think :) And I don't use a dedicated photo printer - my ordinary computer printer I think my ordinary computer printer (a dot matrix) might not *quite* be up to the job. So I'd still have to shell out on a photo printer. Besides , compared to "proper" film , something done on a laser or inkjet looks rubbish anyway. works fine. Plus, if I want to send a photo to someone else, I don't have to haul out my scanner and waste time scanning - the photos are already on my computer, just waiting for me to use them! Couldn't care less about that , never send pictures in emails. B2003 |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com... Yup. Why should I pay 200 quid for a half decent digital camera and then have to fork out for a photo printer or just take the memory card down a developers anyway when I can keep using my perfectly good 35mm camera and get a free film whenever I get my shots developed. For my purposes, being constrained to 24, 36 (or whatever) pictures in a day would be the limiting factor. I am quite often known to take 150-200+ photos in one day with my digital camera! D. |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
"David Splett" wrote in message ... "Boltar" wrote in message oups.com... Yup. Why should I pay 200 quid for a half decent digital camera and then have to fork out for a photo printer or just take the memory card down a developers anyway when I can keep using my perfectly good 35mm camera and get a free film whenever I get my shots developed. For my purposes, being constrained to 24, 36 (or whatever) pictures in a day would be the limiting factor. I am quite often known to take 150-200+ photos in one day with my digital camera! There is a way to overcome that film constraint. Buy some more and change them when used up. There is no law (statutory, physical, economic or other) that says "Thou shalt use only one film per day". |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
Boltar wrote:
Mrs Redboots wrote: Film? Goodness, how quaint! Anybody else still use it???? Yup. Why should I pay 200 quid for a half decent digital camera and then have to fork out for a photo printer or just take the memory card down a developers anyway when I can keep using my perfectly good 35mm camera and get a free film whenever I get my shots developed. But then you end up with hundreds of paper photographs. A lot easier to keep them all online for easy browsing/viewing/slideshow-ing |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
"Brimstone" wrote in message
... There is a way to overcome that film constraint. Buy some more and change them when used up. There is no law (statutory, physical, economic or other) that says "Thou shalt use only one film per day". Indeed. But the cost of developing 200 photos every week would be prohibitive. The point I was making that you can take *many* more photos with a DC. I don't think twice about photographing something, whereas with 35mm there would be things I simply wouldn't bother to photograph. (Also, storing photos electronically uses up a lot less space than as prints!). |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
Stimpy wrote: Boltar wrote: Mrs Redboots wrote: Film? Goodness, how quaint! Anybody else still use it???? Yup. Why should I pay 200 quid for a half decent digital camera and then have to fork out for a photo printer or just take the memory card down a developers anyway when I can keep using my perfectly good 35mm camera and get a free film whenever I get my shots developed. But then you end up with hundreds of paper photographs. A lot easier to keep them all online for easy browsing/viewing/slideshow-ing I think perhaps we have a generational gap here. :) I *want* paper photographs. The *last* think I want to do when browsing photos is to have to wheel out a computer and view them on a screen especially if I want to take them to friends or family! :) B2003 |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
Boltar wrote:
Stimpy wrote: Boltar wrote: Mrs Redboots wrote: Film? Goodness, how quaint! Anybody else still use it???? Yup. Why should I pay 200 quid for a half decent digital camera and then have to fork out for a photo printer or just take the memory card down a developers anyway when I can keep using my perfectly good 35mm camera and get a free film whenever I get my shots developed. But then you end up with hundreds of paper photographs. A lot easier to keep them all online for easy browsing/viewing/slideshow-ing I think perhaps we have a generational gap here. :) I *want* paper photographs. The *last* think I want to do when browsing photos is to have to wheel out a computer and view them on a screen especially if I want to take them to friends or family! :) We're going to visit some friends tomorrow whom we haven't seen for about 9 months, so I shall put together a "slide show" on the laptop with a selection of our recent photos. That's a lot more manageable than picking individual photos out of whatever paper storage you have and putting them all back in place afterwards. But then, I don't have to "wheel out" a computer because it's there already as part of the environment I live in, just like the fridge or the TV. It's not necessarily a generational thing. I'm old enough to remember going to school on ST buses and ex-LSWR 1916-vintage EMUs. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
Richard J. wrote: We're going to visit some friends tomorrow whom we haven't seen for about 9 months, so I shall put together a "slide show" on the laptop with a selection of our recent photos. That's a lot more manageable than picking individual photos out of whatever paper storage you have and putting them all back in place afterwards. But then, I don't have Preparing a slide show takes , I dunno , 15 mins? Dumping a load of photo albums in a bag probably takes 30 secs. to "wheel out" a computer because it's there already as part of the environment I live in, just like the fridge or the TV. Well not everyone has one funnily enough and not everyone wants to invest a large sum of money in a laptop (especially since desktops are cheaper and have better perfomance) just to cart some photos around. Plus you can just hand a photo album to someone and go do something else , you don't have to operate it or teach them how to operate it themselves just so they can view some photos. Seems like technology for its own sake to me but everyone has their point of view. *shrug* B2003 |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
On 24 Mar 2005 07:06:37 -0800, "EorJames"
wrote: So please if you live up north or cant get near london please use my service my website which is now up and running. www.londonundergroundphotostop.bravehost.com Now up and running? "This URL is Not Currently in Use" Perhaps now you might realise why people make an issue of spelling! -- Cheers, Jason. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail? |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
Boltar wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 30 Mar 2005:
I think perhaps we have a generational gap here. :) I *want* paper photographs. The *last* think I want to do when browsing photos is to have to wheel out a computer and view them on a screen especially if I want to take them to friends or family! :) My mother is nearer 80 than 70 and adores her digital camera! Okay, she did invest in a dedicated printer, but she loves being in control of which shots she prints, etc. Plus not having to buy expensive films, and then spend more money having them developed..... -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 20 March 2005 |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
Boltar wrote:
But then you end up with hundreds of paper photographs. A lot easier to keep them all online for easy browsing/viewing/slideshow-ing I think perhaps we have a generational gap here. :) I *want* paper photographs. The *last* think I want to do when browsing photos is to have to wheel out a computer and view them on a screen especially if I want to take them to friends or family! :) Generational gap? Maybe... I'm 52. If I have a selection of photos to circulate I just burn them to a photo-dvd and mail them or sit round the TV and watch the DVD |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
Boltar wrote:
Richard J. wrote: We're going to visit some friends tomorrow whom we haven't seen for about 9 months, so I shall put together a "slide show" on the laptop with a selection of our recent photos. That's a lot more manageable than picking individual photos out of whatever paper storage you have and putting them all back in place afterwards. But then, I don't have Preparing a slide show takes , I dunno , 15 mins? Dumping a load of photo albums in a bag probably takes 30 secs. ACD-See will make any folder into a slide show instantly. I think Windows XP has a similar feature |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
Hey guys,
They have contacted me. And they are now deciding what they should do. But guys i love Film, You see film still has the advantage on blow ups. And for an extra 3 quid i can have a cd made, so i can put them on the computer. Digital is great but, for 2000 grand for a digital SLR where a 35mm SLR with the same features is 400. Have a great week James. |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
"EorJames" wrote in message oups.com... Digital is great but, for 2000 grand for a digital SLR where a 35mm SLR with the same features is 400. Ho-Hum... http://www.askdirect.co.uk/uview?cal...Search&id=6254 http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/phot...quicklinx=31K8 Both slightly less than £2,000,000 I think you'll find... -- Cheers, Steve. Change from jealous to sad to reply. |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
Mrs Redboots typed
And waste 90% of the shots.... at least with a digital, you only need to print out those shots that you actually want, and you can erase the one where your thumb went over the viewfinder, and the one where someone made a silly face at the camera, and the one where your hand shook, and the one where you didn't use flash when you should have, or did use it when you shouldn't have, or.... And I don't use a dedicated photo printer - my ordinary computer printer works fine. Plus, if I want to send a photo to someone else, I don't have to haul out my scanner and waste time scanning - the photos are already on my computer, just waiting for me to use them! 90% of the shots I take on film are good enough to share. Getting Boots to make a CD when I have my films processed means I can send pictures electronically or print them from my computer. I'm happy with 35mm... -- Helen D. Vecht: Edgware. |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
"Helen Deborah Vecht" wrote in message
... I'm happy with 35mm... That's my kind of woman. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
EorJames wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 30 Mar 2005:
Digital is great but, for 2000 grand for a digital SLR where a 35mm SLR with the same features is 400. Have a great week James. Well, my digital camera cost me well under £100 - as, actually, did my 35 mm machine, but it's a lot more expensive to run! -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 20 March 2005 |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
"Steve Dulieu" wrote in message ... Ho-Hum... http://www.askdirect.co.uk/uview?cal...Search&id=6254 http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/phot...quicklinx=31K8 Both slightly less than £2,000,000 I think you'll find... But these are basic cameras kits; by the time you've added in the price of the "extras" any serious photographer is going to need (extra memory, decent flash gun, additional lenses, carrying case, etc) you will have incurred several hundred pounds worth of additional costs. "Mrs Redboots" wrote in message ... Well, my digital camera cost me well under £100 - as, actually, did my 35 mm machine, but it's a lot more expensive to run! -- Different league. |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
Axlegrease wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 31 Mar 2005:
But these are basic cameras kits; by the time you've added in the price of the "extras" any serious photographer is going to need (extra memory, decent flash gun, additional lenses, carrying case, etc) you will have incurred several hundred pounds worth of additional costs. Yes, but not two million, which is what the OP said! -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 20 March 2005 |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
"Axlegrease" wrote in message ... "Steve Dulieu" wrote in message ... Ho-Hum... http://www.askdirect.co.uk/uview?cal...Search&id=6254 http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/phot...quicklinx=31K8 Both slightly less than £2,000,000 I think you'll find... But these are basic cameras kits; by the time you've added in the price of the "extras" any serious photographer is going to need (extra memory, decent flash gun, additional lenses, carrying case, etc) you will have incurred several hundred pounds worth of additional costs. As you would with 35mm kit, and even several hundred pound is still a touch less than the 2 million quid that young mister James seems to think a digital SLR costs... -- Cheers, Steve. Change from jealous to sad to reply. |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
"Steve Dulieu" wrote in message .. . As you would with 35mm kit, and even several hundred pound is still a touch less than the 2 million quid that young mister James seems to think a digital SLR costs... OOps! My mistake - in a hurry and read the original figure as two thousand! Sorry. |
Pictures of stations for a small fee im willing to go anywhere for you for pictures on the LU
"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message ... Yes, but not two million, which is what the OP said! -- Sorry! my mistake! |
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk