PDA

View Full Version : Tourists are so sad



Glom
2007-Nov-17, 12:05 PM
They go clicky clicky at the glorious sight of Hong Kong from the Peak at night with their disposable cameras. They're going to be so upset when their pictures fail to come out.

On the other hand, we got some brilliant pictures of the SAR with our more sophisticated photographic skills. For a good picture, we needed at least 1.5 to 2 seconds.

How long do you think a disposable camera or a cheapo digital job is going to go? Even if the exposures are long enough, they're going to be blurred to hell because the operators will click and put it down without realising that it's still exposing.

tdvance
2007-Nov-17, 04:07 PM
well, there is a saying, to the effect that the most important camera accessory is the person behind the camera. There is a sharp learning curve toward taking good pictures with any equipment! Heck--I'm on my second digital camera (first digital SLR) (after two film, one an SLR, + countless film disposables) and have years of practice, and still throw away several times more photos than I keep!

Kaptain K
2007-Nov-17, 04:25 PM
The one that always cracks me up is watching night time sports and seeing all the flashes in the cheap seats. You know that the only thing that will be properly exposed is the backs of the heads of the people in the row (or two) in front of them.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 04:32 PM
In Hawaii, I saw a tourist use a flash to take a picture of the sunrise. Through a window. :D

tdvance
2007-Nov-17, 06:15 PM
hmmm...I've never tried flash astrophotography...hmmm......

chrissy
2007-Nov-17, 06:52 PM
In Hawaii, I saw a tourist use a flash to take a picture of the sunrise. Through a window. :D

i think a lot of mistakes are made because they are to caught up in the excitement of being on holiday to think about what they are doing half the time some only use a camera for holidays, ive seen people put the cameras to their eyes the wrong way round you know how that will turn out either an blurred eye shot or a blurred eye because the flash has nearly blinded them!
not everyone is a master of a camera , what makes me laugh is when a tourist hands a camera to a complete stranger to take a picture of them posing not very bright if the stranger runs off with an expensive camera!

01101001
2007-Nov-17, 06:53 PM
hmmm...I've never tried flash astrophotography...hmmm......

Takes so long for the light to bounce...

HenrikOlsen
2007-Nov-17, 06:59 PM
You just have to remember to open the shudder when the reflected light returns.

mike alexander
2007-Nov-17, 08:30 PM
So maybe that explains gamma ray bursts; a supercivilization is going for a flash shot of the observable universe.

Smile, everyone!

Maksutov
2007-Nov-17, 08:33 PM
You just have to remember to open the shudder when the reflected light returns.I shutter to think how people actually believe that!

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 08:43 PM
So maybe that explains gamma ray bursts; a supercivilization is going for a flash shot of the observable universe.

Smile, everyone!

Well, some people believe having your picture taken takes away your soul; this method tidies up the body too. Funeral and cremation all in one.

aurora
2007-Nov-17, 09:10 PM
We had a person actually take a flash picture inside the planetarium, during a show. The person was immediately embarrassed, perhaps didn't know the flash was turned on. Everyone else was rather unhappy.

Taking a flash of a white dome.... That's right up there with taking a flash picture at a baseball game. A flash is only effective out to what, about 10 feet?

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 09:22 PM
Many cameras have light-sensors to turn on the flash automatically. If you're in the shade and what you're shooting is in sunlight, some of the cheaper versions (a simple photocell) might pop the flash anyway.

KaiYeves
2007-Nov-17, 10:07 PM
I use only disposables, as they are cheap, lightweight, and not likely to be stolen. They served me well on my recent trip to Australia.
(But, no, none of my night shots came out, especially one I tried to take of the Southern Cross)

peteshimmon
2007-Nov-17, 11:10 PM
I remember my first roll of film in my new
SLR Zenith some 32 years ago used on a visit
with a group to the X-ray astronomy dept of
a Universty. In the lecture theater the
professor showed some slides. I was a bit
disconcerted when some in the group took flash
pictures of the screen. But they must have been
snapping the prof I thought. Then he helpfully
changed the picture and they snapped that!

It was a training session for me in exposures
and using the thing. And mostly they came out.
I had a picture of some yellow box in the lab.
My two engineer flatmates asked what the PDP8
was for. The What? Apparently a well known
mini computer at the time.

Strange sense of deja vu here! Think I posted
about this in General Science last week.

Captain Kidd
2007-Nov-18, 04:56 AM
The last disposable camera I used didn't activate the flash until you pressed a button on it. But then you were stuck with flash for every picture from then on.

sarongsong
2007-Nov-18, 07:48 AM
Anyone tried/know anything about those disposable digital cameras?
August 18, 2004
...Pure Digital (http://www.puredigitalinc.com/) makes the world's first truly digital one-time-use camera...$19.99...with a color preview screen and the ability to delete pictures. After you bring it in for processing, you get a free picture CD along with your prints...Later this year, the company says it will introduce a video camera [One-Time-Use Digital Camcorder] with 20 minutes of TV-quality footage...Amazingly, in an industry known for instant knockoffs, no firm has yet tried to follow Pure Digital with a me-too one-time-use digital camera...
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-08-18-puredigital_x.htm)

torque of the town
2007-Nov-18, 11:08 AM
I shutter to think how people actually believe that!



:lol::lol:

Maksutov
2007-Nov-18, 11:15 AM
I shutter to think how people actually believe that!:lol::lol:Whoa, somebody got it!

Thank you, torque of the town!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

HenrikOlsen
2007-Nov-18, 07:15 PM
Whoa, somebody got it!

Thank you, torque of the town!

:clap: :clap: :clap:
The rest of us got it too, but didn't think it deserved comment.:whistle:

peteshimmon
2007-Nov-18, 07:23 PM
Think it was just a misspelling myself...

Delvo
2007-Nov-18, 10:48 PM
Anyone tried/know anything about those disposable digital cameras?I work part time at a drug store photo desk. We sell a few of those, but probably not even 1% as many as the disposable film ones. They need to be brought back to the store for anything to be done with the pictures, because they have a proprietary type of plug to connect to our computer, which normal computers don't have the jack for. With that plus the fact that it holds close to the same number of pictures as film (25 compared to usually either 24 or 27), you're getting mostly the same service as with a film disposable camera. The difference that you're paying the extra for is the little preview/review screen and the ability to see, delete, and replace pictures you don't like before bringing it back.

The shape, size, weight, and placement of the shutter button and viewfinder are about the same as with the disposable film cameras. So, for the customer, holding, carrying, and "shooting" with one (using the viewfinder) are mostly the same experience as using the most common type of disposable film camera. Flash control is automatic, it has no zoom, and it's not waterproof or water resistant, whereas there are disposable film camera models with waterproofing, some zoom, or a little switch for turning the flash on or off (if there is a flash). Also, I don't know how many pixels there are in the image, but I wouldn't trust them not to get pixellated at larger print sizes than 4x6, whereas film negatives can be turned into clear images significantly larger than that. Even the maker's website seems to be indirectly telling us not to try enlargement, by specifying that it's a "high resolution" at 4x6 size. But the shutter-delay timer could be a nifty touch, and being digital means being OK with airport security people who want to insist on shoving cameras through their X-ray machines.

When we take one of these in and make the customer's "prints" and CD, we put the camera in a bag to go back to Pure Digital, intact; presumably they just clear the memory, recharge or replace the batteries, and repackage it for reretail, making it possible for them to sell the same camera multiple times without the cost of making a new one. This is in contrast with the procedure for disposable film cameras. Opening those to get the film out usually means breaking them. They are collected instead of thrown away, and I believe that the ones that can be put back together (with new film and possibly new batteries) and recirculated are because I've seen some brought in that looked like they'd been repaired, but many are too broken for that. They must be either throwing those away or recycling their plastic for the raw material, perhaps to make more disposable cameras from the plastic again.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Nov-19, 12:20 AM
I shutter to think how people actually believe that!
just this person.
http://worsley.podomatic.com/2006-11-12T22_31_05-08_00.png

peteshimmon
2007-Nov-19, 12:35 AM
Flash astrophotography eh? Strangely I have
thought about it...a bright thermonuclear
device (bomb) in lunar orbit, let off when
behind the moon. Might illuminate some dark
NEO bodies during careful watches in the hours
afterwards. But I suppose the Sun is brighter
than anything we do. An offshoot of my GRB
ideas.

Captain Kidd
2007-Nov-19, 12:45 AM
The rest of us got it too, but didn't think it deserved comment.:whistle:Most of us were probably focused on the topic.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-19, 12:46 AM
Flash astrophotography eh? Strangely I have
thought about it...a bright thermonuclear
device (bomb) in lunar orbit, let off when
behind the moon. Might illuminate some dark
NEO bodies during careful watches in the hours
afterwards. But I suppose the Sun is brighter
than anything we do. An offshoot of my GRB
ideas.

Not to mention that no one's going to allow a nuclear bomb into orbit intentionally. There would be panic in the streets.

ToSeek
2007-Nov-19, 01:52 AM
The one that always cracks me up is watching night time sports and seeing all the flashes in the cheap seats. You know that the only thing that will be properly exposed is the backs of the heads of the people in the row (or two) in front of them.

I was at a concert once near a woman with a Polaroid camera who was having exactly that problem and couldn't understand it.

Doodler
2007-Nov-19, 05:52 AM
Meh, I got snagged by a flash problem myself, recently. I was doing shots of a church I'm doing project management for, and for some reason, I couldn't figure out why I was getting so much refraction from the dust in the air (drywall and carpet installation, heckuva mix).

I figured it was the flash, but because it was an inside shoot with only four temporary warehouse lights in the sanctuary, I wasn't sure how they'd come out without it. Turns out, they came out fine.

Live and learn, as long as you get it at some point.

Jens
2007-Nov-19, 06:38 AM
I'm sort of surprised by the title of the thread. It sounds like being a tourist is something that "other people" do. Do people here never do sightseeing themselves? I'm not very often a tourist myself, but I do occasionally fall into the apparently sinful category. :) Is being a tourist a bad thing?

mfumbesi
2007-Nov-19, 07:32 AM
Thanks Jens, I was afraid to comment as I also do occasionally (once a year) travel to some very scenic parts of our country and act all touristy, buying art/curios and taking photos.
I don't feel so dirty anymore.

Sticks
2007-Nov-19, 08:12 AM
Thanks Jens, I was afraid to comment as I also do occasionally (once a year) travel to some very scenic parts of our country and act all touristy, buying art/curios and taking photos.
I don't feel so dirty anymore.

What I did with one place I did, after learning the limitations of the camera, is I considered myself a documentary maker and made a seven part series that I placed on YouTube

Here was part 0ne (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqrEfmQeW7Y)

How sad is that!

I will let you find the other seven parts, unless you really want me to tell ou where they are ;)

This of course reminds me of the other stereotypes, that the Tourists, after coming home, descend on a hapless neighbour and insist on showing a slide show of all the out of focus and duff and boring shots. At least the neighbour, if given enough warning could switch the lights off and hide. Now they get emailed links to all sorts of image hosting sites, or in my case YouTube, which reminds me, do you want the links to the other six parts? :whistle:

GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter
2007-Nov-19, 08:13 AM
If it weren't so unwieldy, the title of this thread should probably be "People who don't the basics of photography and how to operate a camera are so sad," as those people aren't all tourists, nor do all tourists not know the fundamentals of photography. ;)

Jens
2007-Nov-19, 08:37 AM
If it weren't so unwieldy, the title of this thread should probably be "People who don't the basics of photography and how to operate a camera are so sad," as those people aren't all tourists, nor do all tourists not know the fundamentals of photography. ;)

Yes, it would probably be a better title, and would probably be even better if it had one more verb in it! :)

Maksutov
2007-Nov-19, 08:53 AM
Maksutov[/b]
Whoa, somebody got it!

Thank you, torque of the town!

:clap: :clap: :clap:
The rest of us got it too, but didn't think it deserved comment.:whistle:So you know somehow the way the rest of the BAUT understood that joke?

I guess omniscience is one of the bennies of being a moderator.

Plus, you can get away with cheap shots!

Nicely done.

mfumbesi
2007-Nov-19, 02:00 PM
Wait a minute... there are two fights going on this thread.
There is the offended tourist scuffle (I am here) and the shutter/shudder tiff.
This is not fun, Its confusing. I throw one for the tourist and the shutter/shutter people bite each other, I am lost.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-19, 06:28 PM
I have nothing to say here, apparently. :D

HenrikOlsen
2007-Nov-19, 06:45 PM
Thanks for not saying it.

As for Maksutov, I'm sorry I let my personal dislike for puns get the better of me, especially to the point on making me take a cheap shot in this of all threads.

peteshimmon
2007-Nov-19, 07:11 PM
Perhaps the flash in the crowd has become a
sort of visual clap. Or whistle. Or
distraction. Tennis has them banned as does
golf. But I am not sure about soccer or
athletics. Surely there are not that many
thickos who think it helps with the photo:)
And I mentioned a simulation of the Olympic
stadium for London which showed flashes from
the crowd like it is now normal. However...
the video of the crowds in Cornwall during
the encroaching eclipse back in 1999 was
weird. Flash Flash Flash...