Recently at Old Warden.

It will be a great day when we will be able to see to Gladiators in the air together. The sound of these planes flying by must be TOP! Thanks for all those nice pics Andy!

TFC Gladiator..

Robbo
one for the future…
I can’t wait.
Andy 🙂

Another Luddite here. I’ve got a 3 megapixel point, zoom and shoot but I’ve also still got a stack of Olympus OM bodies and lenses.
To replace them with anything approaching their capabilities would cost far more loot than I’ve got, or would be prepared to part with if I had got it.

Two More….

Here are a couple more from the steam powered Ricoh.
I find getting a regular supply of best Welsh Steam coal is the biggest problem these days.
All the best
Andy

Avro 504K.

Hi All
just scanning a few more this morning.
Avro 504K landing–I think from training week.
Andy

There is still a quality issue. Digital is getting there but has a way to go yet. I am certainly not about to trade in my Mamiya 645 for one!

The pace of development is also a worry. Like I alluded to earlier on, you can pay a lot of money for a whiz bang camera only to find it out of date in a year, and out of date often means unsupported in terms of parts and software. I would love to have that F5 but I am too busy buying bits of aeroplane at the moment.

I have joked that I will not go digital yet but will stick with my ratty old 27.5 million pixel Nikon. That is a figure I heard of for the resolution on Fuji Velvia at 35mm.

I get problems when trying to lay out books with digitial images. A lot of people do not undersand that the image can not go as large as they like. I have been told several times that ‘their’ 3.2 megapixel camera can ‘print 300dpi to 10×8’ when that is simply not true as the maths does not add up. 300 dpi is 300×300 or 90,000 pixels per square inch. A 10 x 8 is 80 square inches so 80 x 90K equals 7.2 million. Printers, ezpecially the “photo” printers are interpolating to get an imaginary 300dpi. Incidentally, saving the photos as “high res” might make for large files but you get no more information in them, the basic image is the same it is just the amount of compression used in saving them that changes.

Sony have gone public and admitted that the increases in quality and decreases in cost of digital video, still and in scanning are all being financed by internet porn and this may well be true, at least in part (What am I doing?…er….making my next camera cheaper?!). It also means that digital images are optimised for viewing on the computer. This is great if that is all you want to do with them but does lead to problems when you try to use them for another use, for example in books and magazines.

People also argue that the software exists to get over this but if you are using software to do this you are changing information that went through the lens and so you usually get a drop in quality.

There is also a “Emporers New Clothes” element to this. My local processing place went out of business recently. Part of this as due to attitude but also that people who, in the past, had wanted pin sharp prints from low-speed film were now happy to have pixellated images of far lesser quality because “digital must be best”. It doesn’t help that when a film image gets grainy it is a more pleasant effect than the sharp edges of pixels (I know this is changing too)

Give it about two to three years and I might get a high-end SLR but there has to be a quality increase and decrease in price (getting looking at that porn boys). Until then I am still getting excellent and useable results on film and I still have a local lab that understand it.

Melv

I’m with Steve here. I’ve a 250 quid Fuji A303 point and shoot, and with a mini tripod (15 quid) it’s unbeatable in museums (excepting the Bomber Command Hall Wellington, Lanc and Battle!) My wife thought we were going to share it! :rolleyes:

However, I’d rather persist with my old fully depreciated film eating 35mm for the flying stuff, rather than joining the arms and dust race. (Later maybe!)

No, gingham Robbo; better effects in red light conditions, mate.

Long term storage, we KNOW that 35mm slide is the most stable media for pics. Digital looks fine so far, but CD storage is clearly variable at best.

Cheers

Digital is indeed very accessible, but it depends how serious someone is about photography. I’ve got a couple of digitals, one HP one Sony, both little point and shoot jobs, which have been responsible for pretty much all the shots I’ve posted on here for the last year or so. Both cameras were, ahem, acquired via my job, but would have cost me about 100 quid each if I’d bought them.

They are absolutely fine for static, but utter cack when it comes to flyers.

For flying shots, I stick to my old faithful; my almost 20 year old (blimey! Was my sixteenth birthday really that long ago! 😮 ) Miranda 35mm camera, with a 210mm zoom lens.

The plain and simple truth is that I really can’t be ar$ed to spend hundreds of pounds on camera equipment – I’d much rather stick the money in a PA28 fuel tanks and go for a chug around the houses. 😀 It’s really all just down to personal preference, but in some respects, I really do love it when someone scans and posts some grainy old 35mm shots from twenty or thirty years ago. Got a real nostalgia feel to it. And besides, I’ll leave the REALLY good stuff to you boys in The Arms Race. 😉

Yesterday I saw a Nikon F5, body only, for £700, A1+ condition.:( (Thats a film camera, a very good film camera.)
Digital is too accessible now; wave goodbye to film…

Flood.™

Pah, that’s nothing.

I’ve still got my b&w darkroom equipment – it’s got to be 10 years since I used it, and at least three house moves back!

I still have a film body. I need something to use as a door stop.

Well done AiB’s, good to see someone else still having to remember order film in time for shows, paying a fortune each year, worrying that you might run out on a display day,or run out during a display sequence and try to change films in 5 secs, convincing the wife that the 20 rolls of Provia should have priority over the milk in the fridge,labelling them when you have shot them, finding the mailers to send them off, waiting the week or so to get them back,arguing with the dev house when they have not returned, viewing them all initially with the naked eye, then the loupe, then the light box and finally the projector…..before sellecting which ones to scan and print and which ones to bin,burn to disc, send off for prints / enlargements, and finding somewhere to store box upon box of slides (because of course you are going to scan all of them when you get time!!!!)
Yep its just great this film photography isn’t it 🙁
Lets face it mate we’ve been beaten, I’m afaid I’m joining them later this year (but I will keep one film body)

Great photos, particularly liked the one of the Sea Hurricane !

Got any more ?

Coal!!

Hi MOF
I’m not sure about coal but if I ever stop using it Duracell will go into instant receivership. There’s four AA’s in the winder alone.
Thanks for the encouragement.
Andy
PS Here’s one of my favourites from training week. 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

Cracking shots Andy. It must be hard work dragging the coal around to keep it powered up 😀

Thanks.

Robbo
Thanks for the kind words.
One advantage the old Ricoh has over modern cameras is that if you’re ever being robbed/attacked and you hit them with it they wouldn’t want it a second time!
It’d take a picture afterwards of the stunned robber!
Apart from that it’s showing it’s age.
Andy 😀 😀 😀