Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Taking pictures without flash at Hearst Castle

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 7:21:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

My brother wants to take some pictures at Hearst Castle where they
do not allow flash photography. He has a 1.3 megapixel Panasonic
digital camera (PV-SD4090) and a 35 mm film camera.

He is thinking of using the film camera with 800 speed film. Is
that the best way for him to go? Would 1,600 speed film be a better
choice? Would the digital camera be a better choice? Thank you in
advance for all replies.

--
I have found several good doctors. I just have not been able
to figure out how to climb through my TV screen to go to them.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:13:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Daniel Prince wrote:
> My brother wants to take some pictures at Hearst Castle where they
> do not allow flash photography. He has a 1.3 megapixel Panasonic
> digital camera (PV-SD4090) and a 35 mm film camera.
>
> He is thinking of using the film camera with 800 speed film. Is
> that the best way for him to go? Would 1,600 speed film be a better
> choice? Would the digital camera be a better choice? Thank you in
> advance for all replies.
>
> --
> I have found several good doctors. I just have not been able
> to figure out how to climb through my TV screen to go to them.

Well the Panasonic is an old camera, it is big and does not take very
good photos at all. It is hard to find much data on it so how it would
do in low light is not clear, but I would think no good.

On the film side, I am one of those people who hate, just hate, going
to any film that is faster then ISO 100, so ISO 800 or ISO 1600 seem
really bad. There is a huge veriation

On the film side, I am one of those people who hate, just hate, going
to any film that is faster then ISO 100, so ISO 800 or ISO 1600 seem
really bad. There is a huge variation on the optics of film cameras, a
inexpensive one it very likely to have a pretty slow lens.

The digital does have one large advantage when shooting in low light,
you can tell if you are getting the shot. With the film camera you are
likely to get it home only to find all the inside shots to be off.

But film does not cost all that much so why not have a shoot out, shoot
a roll of 800, a roll of 1600 and the digital camera all at the same
time indoors and see which one does the best.

Scott
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:03:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Take the film camera, and load it with ISO 800 film for the interior shots.
But see if you can find short rolls, 24 exposures, or less, since you'll
want to ditch the high-speed stuff whenyou're outside. The interiors of the
castle are dark, and most of this is a result of Hearst's bad taste. Lots of
very dark wood, wall coverings, and furniture. Also, bring a wide lens, 28mm
at least, 20-24mm preferred. Some of the ceilings are amazing, and you'll
want to capture them.

Be sure to get some shots around the Neptune pool, which is (for me) one of
the best parts of the tour.

"Daniel Prince" <neutrino1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1120299687.8677a945525d64b60b027e44ace5cc98@teranews...
> My brother wants to take some pictures at Hearst Castle where they
> do not allow flash photography. He has a 1.3 megapixel Panasonic
> digital camera (PV-SD4090) and a 35 mm film camera.
>
> He is thinking of using the film camera with 800 speed film. Is
> that the best way for him to go? Would 1,600 speed film be a better
> choice? Would the digital camera be a better choice? Thank you in
> advance for all replies.
>
> --
> I have found several good doctors. I just have not been able
> to figure out how to climb through my TV screen to go to them.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:08:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Daniel Prince wrote:
> My brother wants to take some pictures at Hearst Castle where they
> do not allow flash photography. He has a 1.3 megapixel Panasonic
> digital camera (PV-SD4090) and a 35 mm film camera.
>
> He is thinking of using the film camera with 800 speed film. Is
> that the best way for him to go? Would 1,600 speed film be a better
> choice? Would the digital camera be a better choice? Thank you in
> advance for all replies.

It is kind of hard to say. I don't know the Panasonic so I could only
guess. Likewise I don't even know what 35 mm camera he has so I have even
less to go on about it.

The question is which has the best low light capabilities and digital is
neither better or worse than silver by nature. I will suggest that there is
another very important factor to consider. He will want a wide angle lens
for it.

I was there about a year ago and I brought both a Olympus digital and a
Canon silver based camera. I specifically brought the Canon SLR because I
had a good wide angle lens for it which meant almost all the interior images
I took were made on film. I have a few digital images as well and they are
no better or worse from the Canon results, but the digital could not match
the wide angle capability of the Canon. I would have been very disappointed
had I not had that wide angle lens capability (24mm) the Canon had.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 4:38:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Daniel Prince wrote:
> My brother wants to take some pictures at Hearst Castle where they
> do not allow flash photography. He has a 1.3 megapixel Panasonic
> digital camera (PV-SD4090) and a 35 mm film camera.
>
> He is thinking of using the film camera with 800 speed film. Is
> that the best way for him to go? Would 1,600 speed film be a better
> choice? Would the digital camera be a better choice? Thank you in
> advance for all replies.
>

Go with the Film Camera. There's NO way that a 1.3 MP image can compare
to a slide/negative.
If he does not mind carrying a tripod, for the inside shots, then he can
shoot ISO 200 or 100 film and have the best of both worlds.
Correct exposure inside with a tripod and bright, colorful, hand held
exposures outdoors.
Bob Williams
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 5:20:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On the film side, I am one of those people who hate, just hate, going
>to any film that is faster then ISO 100, so ISO 800 or ISO 1600 seem
>really bad. There is a huge variation on the optics of film cameras, a
>inexpensive one it very likely to have a pretty slow lens.

His film camera is a Yashica Zoom Image 70. On the lens cover it
says:

f=35mm-70mm
1:3.5-6.7

Is this a reasonably good film camera and lens?

Is there a modern digital camera under $300 that has 6x or better
optical zoom, uses AA batteries, Secure Digital or Compact Flash
that would do a better job of taking pictures without flash?
--
My cat really loves me. When it is cold at night he lies right
up against me in the bed to help keep me warm.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 12:36:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Daniel Prince wrote:
> "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On the film side, I am one of those people who hate, just hate, going
>>to any film that is faster then ISO 100, so ISO 800 or ISO 1600 seem
>>really bad. There is a huge variation on the optics of film cameras,
>>a inexpensive one it very likely to have a pretty slow lens.
>
> His film camera is a Yashica Zoom Image 70. On the lens cover it
> says:
>
> f=35mm-70mm
> 1:3.5-6.7
>
> Is this a reasonably good film camera and lens?

Define reasonably! :-) The 35 mm end of the zoom is OK but not great
for this use. 24mm or less would be very nice. The 1:3.5 (which is what
will be available inside at wide angle) is also OK but not great. 1:1.4
would be great.

I expect some here will tell you that it is really poor, and if you were
a professional, I would say you are really challenging yourself, but that is
not the case. If you are happy with the images, that's what counts.

>
> Is there a modern digital camera under $300 that has 6x or better
> optical zoom, uses AA batteries, Secure Digital or Compact Flash
> that would do a better job of taking pictures without flash?
-
My cat really loves me. When it is cold at night he lies right
up against me in the bed to help keep me warm.

You're lucky. I have two Siamese and they don't need a cold night, they
try to keep me worm on the warm nights. :-)

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 12:37:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:

>You're lucky. I have two Siamese and they don't need a cold night, they
>try to keep me worm on the warm nights. :-)

What I want to know is how did you become a WORM in the first place.
Did you go to Dune and let a sand trout crawl up your arm like
Paul's son did in one of the Dune novels?
--
My cat really loves me. When it is cold at night he lies right
up against me in the bed to help keep me warm.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 12:39:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Williams wrote:
> Daniel Prince wrote:
>> My brother wants to take some pictures at Hearst Castle where they
>> do not allow flash photography. He has a 1.3 megapixel Panasonic
>> digital camera (PV-SD4090) and a 35 mm film camera.
>>
>> He is thinking of using the film camera with 800 speed film. Is
>> that the best way for him to go? Would 1,600 speed film be a better
>> choice? Would the digital camera be a better choice? Thank you in
>> advance for all replies.
>>
>
> Go with the Film Camera. There's NO way that a 1.3 MP image can
> compare to a slide/negative.

Sure it can, if you are making 4x6 prints and are not expecting
professional quality.

Sometimes we all need to take a step back and consider what the question
means to the one asking it, not the one answering it.

> If he does not mind carrying a tripod, for the inside shots, then he
> can shoot ISO 200 or 100 film and have the best of both worlds.
> Correct exposure inside with a tripod and bright, colorful, hand held
> exposures outdoors.
> Bob Williams

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 2:25:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Daniel Prince wrote:
> "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You're lucky. I have two Siamese and they don't need a cold night,
>>they try to keep me worm on the warm nights. :-)
>
> What I want to know is how did you become a WORM in the first place.

It was not easy and I am not allowed to tell you. If I do I have to
kill you.


> Did you go to Dune and let a sand trout crawl up your arm like
> Paul's son did in one of the Dune novels?

No more like Tremors.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 11:40:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1120299687.8677a945525d64b60b027e44ace5cc98@teranews>,
neutrino1@comcast.net says...
> My brother wants to take some pictures at Hearst Castle where they
> do not allow flash photography. He has a 1.3 megapixel Panasonic
> digital camera (PV-SD4090) and a 35 mm film camera.
>
> He is thinking of using the film camera with 800 speed film. Is
> that the best way for him to go? Would 1,600 speed film be a better
> choice? Would the digital camera be a better choice? Thank you in
> advance for all replies.
>
I went there in 1969 and used a Konica rangefinder with a 42?mm f1.6 lens
and Kodachrome 25? - I took some nice shots by bracing against walls!
!