Talk:Travel photography

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to 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. - (WT-en) 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. (WT-en) 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. (WT-en) Sourcefrog 02:03, 18 January 2010 (EST)
I have now moved most discussion of film to a subpage, Travel photography/Film. Comment or contributions there are solicited. Pashley (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Film[edit]

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. (WT-en) 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. (WT-en) 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. -- (WT-en) 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. (WT-en) 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... (WT-en) 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 :) --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 08:22, 18 January 2010 (EST)

Current state[edit]

This article has more than doubled in size in the last six months. Is it now too large or too detailed? Where should it go next?

I already asked one user this sort of question User_talk:Jpatokal#Travel_photography, but have not had a response. Pashley (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You've certainly done a terrific job of expanding it to the point where I sadly miss a functional table of contents that, with tertiary and quaternary headings, would make navigation easier for someone not wishing to read the whole lot. --W. Frankemailtalk 15:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The article is fantastic as far as content is concerned. As for being easily digestible, the article is really long. I don't have the time right now to give a lot of comments/suggestions, but a few suggestions I can give after looking at it for a few minutes:
  • Separate an article about camera systems that would cover most of the "lenses" and "building a system" info. This article could then provide an overview of the various types of cameras available, techniques, and travel tips related to cameras/photography.
  • Cluster the sections about techniques together & use sub-headers. Move photo tours & photo sharing to top where it talks about photography options. Merge accessories & pack.
  • More photos? Especially examples of techniques.
AHeneen (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I have started a simplifying process, creating two subpages so far, Travel photography/Full systems and Travel photography/Film. Pashley (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It is already rated Guide & I'd like to see it at Wikivoyage:Destination_of_the_month_candidates#Nominations_for_Featured_travel_topic.
However, I do not think it is quite ready for that and I've done all I can for now. Any volunteers to improve it from here? Pashley (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Banner?[edit]

old banner, flipped
new banner

User:Danapit recently changed the banner. Both are good, but I prefer the old one. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Right. I thought the new one was somewhat "cooler". I decided to change the banner because I disliked the collision of the photographer in old banner with the title, which could also be avoided by flipping the banner horizontally, so that we get the person to the right side. Would that be acceptable? I mean in an illustrative picture like this not related to any specific locality it should be ok. Danapit (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I like the concept behind the new one, but I think it misses the mark ever-so-slightly. It's very close. LtPowers (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
No objections? I did it. --Danapit (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I used the other one at Travel photography/Full systems. Pashley (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone find something suitable for Travel photography/Film? Pashley (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Here are some that might be adaptable to banner format: File:Film strip.jpg, File:Analog Photographic film - 1980's-1990's years.jpg, File:135 fuji film macro.jpg -- LtPowers (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The flipped one looks fine except the left-right reversal leaves the photographer with his hands in an odd position. He does not have a finger near the usual position of a shutter, top right of camera seen from the back. Does that matter? Pashley (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
May be he is left handed and had his camera custom made? :-) Would that hinder using a photo of him? --LPfi (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Options for electronics-hostile environments[edit]

I think it would be useful to have a guide on photography in environments that can damage ordinary cameras, such as by/in the sea, skiing, desert etc, and what options one has to remedy it, such as underwater housings and buying a disposable camera just for that purpose. Cmglee (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, either a short section in the main article or a whole separate article on that would be good. Pashley (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Move to photography?[edit]

As an artifact from The Other Site, the word "travel" is excessively used in titles. Would Photography be a better title than travel photography for this page? /Yvwv (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The same issue was discussed at Talk:Travel activities; the longer title is better for those seeing it in search results at Google & al, and it is not overly long. I see no need for a change and in fact prefer the present title. --LPfi (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

ACLU guide to legalities[edit]

Know Your Rights: Photographers - What To Do If You Are Stopped Or Detained For Taking Photographs. Only for US law, but maybe useful. Pashley (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Storage size[edit]

The article now says:

"Even with a 24 Mpixel camera and two bytes per pixel, you get about 20 shots per Gbyte so a 256 GB card handles over 5,000 photos".

20·2 B/px·24 Mpx = 960 MB ≈ 1 GB. So this is mathematically correct, but who uses 16 bit/px nowadays? And is assuming no compression really realistic? If the 50 MB/image with a 24 Mpx camera sounds normal, then we are perhaps talking about 1:2 compression with 32 b/px (4 B), although I'd suppose you can get much better even lossless compression, unless you have a very busy image.

Or is this sentence meant to mean 2 B/px after compression? The per px figure is hardly relevant and quite misleading when the compression is done on 16px·16px blocks (jpeg) or on some other units – and compression probably gets better with more pixels for the same information, which often is the case with some shaking and less than perfect optics.

--LPfi (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)