Talk:Travel photography Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

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)

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)Reply

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.

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)

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)Reply

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. Frank^email_talk 15:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

No objections? I did it. --Danapit (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I used the other one at Travel photography/Full systems. Pashley (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone find something suitable for Travel photography/Film? Pashley (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

User:The dog2 just added:

For photography enthusiasts, Canon and Nikon are generally regarded to be the leading manufacturers of high-end cameras, though if you're looking for something more casual, the market tends to be a lot more competitive.

I want to revert. Yes, those are leading brands, but I do not think we should advertise them. Sony have also been considered a major competitor for some years now, L-mount is becoming one, etc. Pashley (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was under the impression that Sony is mainly known for the small cameras you can fit in your pocket, which is convenient for travel if you just want casual photos, but if you are an enthusiast looking for a DSLR, Canon and Nikon are the brands you should stick do. The dog2 (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, Sony have full-frame cameras, technically not DSLRs but functionally equivalent. Market share statistics show Canon 45%, Sony 20%, Nikon 18%, others all below 5%. Of course most of that for all companies is low or mid-range cameras.

If you actually want a DSLR, arguably Pentax are the way to go. (I shoot Pentax.) All the others are concentrating on their new mirrorless lines, leaving their DSLRs as orphans. Also, P have in-body image stabilisation; N & C do that (I'd say they finally get it right!) in some of their new mirrorless cameras, but not in DSLRs.

In mirrorless, I'd say Sony & Panasonic are the established leaders, N & C latecomers who may or may not succeed. Pashley (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I see, in that case, feel free to re-write or remove as you see fit. The dog2 (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Reverted.

We might consider whether to expand Travel_photography/Full_systems#Brands_and_systems with more brand information. My first thought is "no", but it could stand more consideration. Pashley (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think it may be a good idea to mention some good camera brands for people who are looking to take up photography as a hobby. Of course, we need to cover them in a fair way and avoid touting. From my work, I know that Olympus, Nikon, Zeiss and Leica are the go-to brands if you want to take images through a microscope, but aside from Nikon, I'm not sure if these other brands still produce cameras for the consumer market. The dog2 (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Leica still sell rangefinder cameras & lenses at stratospheric prices. Olympus & Panasonic are the main players in micro 4/3, but there are Leica lenses. Zeiss have lenses for Sony. L-mount was developed by Leica but there's now an alliance, L, Panasonic & Sigma. Pashley (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I added text at Travel_photography/Full_systems#Brands_and_systems. Too long? Too much of my biases? Review certainly needed. Pashley (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

It looks good for me. Back when I was in high school, my friends who are photography enthusiasts said that Canon and Nikon are the only brands you should consider, so that's consistent with my experience. Let's see what other uses day, but it gives aspiring photography enthusiasts a good overview of the brands available without being overly tout-y. The dog2 (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Sbb1413:

I am curious about how widely the newly added advice on not carrying your camera into places of worship applies. Here, in Lutheran churches, I think one mostly shouldn't take photos during services or other events, not to disturb, and flashes and tripods may be disallowed as in art museums (though I haven't noticed that). Carrying a camera or mobile phone is no problem as long as they keep silent.

I think that for the advice to be useful, we should somehow pinpoint the "certain places of worship" where the advice applies. Thinking about the sentiment of the locals does not help if you don't know their sentiments. What does the "extra caution" involve? Does our article on Religion and spirituality say something useful? What about country articles?

–LPfi (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh, the advice is specifically applicable for mosques and Hindu temples, as I come across several of these with such restrictions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I qualified the sentence and expanded somewhat on the topic. Please check that I didn't remove anything essential, and whether something more should be said. –LPfi (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply