Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why do people take pictures? Was Battery life.

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
July 14, 2005 1:20:35 PM

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

Wasn't too long ago that taking a picture and having it developed
and printed cost over a buck in today's dollars. We'd take pictures
of our wedding, little Johnny's first steps, maybe a birthday party or two.

Today, we have the technology to put 4,700 1meg JPG pix on a DVD
for < 50 cents.
And we're bitchin' about only getting 200 shots from a charge.

What the heck are people taking pictures of?
And when are they ever gonna find time to look at them...even once?
I'm finding it hard to imagine finding 200 intersting things in a day.
Maybe a wet T-shirt contest, but even that's a stretch.

Are we just taking random shots and hoping something will turn out
interesting?
mike

--
Return address is VALID but some sites block emails
with links. Delete this sig when replying.
..
Wanted, PCMCIA SCSI Card for HP m820 CDRW.
FS 500MHz Tek DSOscilloscope TDS540 Make Offer
Wanted 12" LCD for Compaq Armada 7770MT.
Bunch of stuff For Sale and Wanted at the link below.
MAKE THE OBVIOUS CHANGES TO THE LINK
ht<removethis>tp://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/4710/
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 1:43:16 PM

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

Mike,
I agree...people are spoiled. Plain and simple. 'Gimme more!'
A whole generation does not know about 10Mbytes of HD storage
costing $500 in '85 or so. Now you get 100 times that storage on CF
for about 1/10th the price, and you can burn 400 times that storage on
a DVD burner for 1/1000th the price, and it now takes a miniscule
fraction of the space and weight of the old 10Mbyte HD.
And if you use a rechargeable battery that goes flat in 200 shots,
it can be recharged 300 times, so cost per charge is less than $0.17
per charge (for 200 shots!) even if you don't buy the proprietary
battery (e.g. Canon) 'on the cheap' thru eBay! If you use AA
batteries, you can get a whole charger with 4 NiMH batteries for about
$25 and it's even cheaper than the proprietary battery solutions. So
there's no reason at all not to own several batteries to have a charged
one ready to insert as one goes flat.

--Wilt
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 3:47:55 PM

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

On this date, wilt extended this wisdom for the consideration
of other readers...

> A whole generation does not know about 10Mbytes
> of HD storage costing $500 in '85 or so.

I paid $400 for 48 /KB/ of RAM for my original Apple ][ in 1978.
The first 5.25" floppy drivers were only 140KB and cost $500
each.

And, yes, the first IBM PC XT I used had all of 10MB HD (the
original PC had no HD at all, and no color display), and people
in 1982 thought that 10MB was a lot!

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Related resources
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 5:39:46 PM

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

"mike" <spamme0@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:42D690D3.2030809@netscape.net...
> Wasn't too long ago that taking a picture and having it developed
> and printed cost over a buck in today's dollars. We'd take pictures
> of our wedding, little Johnny's first steps, maybe a birthday party or
> two.
>
> Today, we have the technology to put 4,700 1meg JPG pix on a DVD
> for < 50 cents.
> And we're bitchin' about only getting 200 shots from a charge.
>
> What the heck are people taking pictures of?
> And when are they ever gonna find time to look at them...even once?
> I'm finding it hard to imagine finding 200 intersting things in a day.
> Maybe a wet T-shirt contest, but even that's a stretch.
>
> Are we just taking random shots and hoping something will turn out
> interesting?
> mike

Have you ever shot sports?
Wildlife?
Weddings?
PJ work?

-It all depends on what type of subjects you shoot, and what your needs are.

If you shoot sports, you'll take a ton of pictures over the course of a
couple hours.
If you shoot wildlife, you often take high fps sequences. Where particular
moments are especially hard to capture, you may have multiple attempts at
the same basic image.
Ever hear of bracketing? This is common with difficult exposures in
digital, too--not just film.
Astro photography--lots of exposures.
If you're shooting models in a studio, you shoot endlessly, often with
hundreds of rejects.
Weddings? Hundreds.
Macro? Ask Bret how many of his bug shots end up in the digital trash...

National Geographic photographers take in excess of 10,000 images for a
single article sometimes...
This is reality, and has been LONG before digital was used. Their film use
was/is huge--even for articles that only contain 10 or 20 images.

Battery power becomes critically important for DSLR users who have large
lenses with AF and IS whirring all the time. When shooting wildlife, I
often sit for hours at a time...with my finger pressing the shutter half-way
down nearly constantly--which means IS and AF is working **constantly**.
This means battery life is crucial.

-Mark
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 8:15:03 PM

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:47:55 -0500, All Things Mopar wrote:

>> A whole generation does not know about 10Mbytes
>> of HD storage costing $500 in '85 or so.
>
> I paid $400 for 48 /KB/ of RAM for my original Apple ][ in 1978.
> The first 5.25" floppy drivers were only 140KB and cost $500
> each.

Lucky you. Back then (a little earlier, actually) I couldn't
afford floppy drives and bought software first on paper tape (pulled
through a reader with no moving parts) and later on cassette.


> And, yes, the first IBM PC XT I used had all of 10MB HD (the
> original PC had no HD at all, and no color display), and people
> in 1982 thought that 10MB was a lot!

A friend of mine certainly thought so. His hard drive's capacity
was only 5MB. Probably a 10MB reject that had a bad surface. But
it brought the cost down from the stratosphere. Compared to the
Apple ]['s, those monochrome displays had high resolution and
exhibited virtually no noise. :) 
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 8:15:04 PM

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

On this date, ASAAR extended this wisdom for the
consideration of other readers...

>> I paid $400 for 48 /KB/ of RAM for my original Apple ][ in
>> 1978. The first 5.25" floppy drivers were only 140KB and
>> cost $500 each.
>
> Lucky you. Back then (a little earlier, actually) I
> couldn't afford floppy drives and bought software
> first on paper tape (pulled through a reader with
> no moving parts) and later on cassette.

Actually, my Apple was cassette tape in the beginning, including
the BASIC interpreter! The floppy drive didn't come for at least
a year. And, diskettes were $5 each - 140KB!

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 8:19:42 PM

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:20:35 -0700, mike wrote:

> What the heck are people taking pictures of?
> And when are they ever gonna find time to look at them...even once?
> I'm finding it hard to imagine finding 200 intersting things in a day.
> Maybe a wet T-shirt contest, but even that's a stretch.

Well I certainly hope so. Wet T-shirts are happiest when they
have a few stretch marks, no matter how slight.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 9:42:48 PM

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

Mark,
You point out very valid shooting volumes for applications that
professionals use. I'd like to point out that even in the film days,
500-shot film magazines and big battery packs powered things even then.
There is only so much electrical capacity that a given volume of
battery can contain, and it is simply chemistry in action. Motors can
only be made efficient to a point, or you begin to approach the laws of
physics. And there are only so many things that can be electrified (vs
the mechanical shutters (that at least would allow you to shoot even if
you had to manually wind the film and guess the exposure!!!). I think
that the National Geographic guys are carrying lots of batteries around
anyway, and a whole lot less volume of equipment than in their film
shooting days with the massive film magazines and many feet of bulk
film!

--Wilt
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 9:54:59 PM

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

"mike" <spamme0@netscape.net> wrote

: What the heck are people taking pictures of?

Everything

: Are we just taking random shots and hoping something will turn out
: interesting?


Yep! When I get restless, I grab my camera and go for a walk.
I can take 100 shots and maybe keep 3.

Kate
July 14, 2005 10:50:52 PM

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

"All Things Mopar" <useMAPSnet123@comMAPScast.net> a écrit dans le message
de news: Xns9693AD9D2E61ReplyToken@216.196.97.136...
> On this date, ASAAR extended this wisdom for the
> consideration of other readers...
>
>>> I paid $400 for 48 /KB/ of RAM for my original Apple ][ in
>>> 1978. The first 5.25" floppy drivers were only 140KB and
>>> cost $500 each.
>>
>> Lucky you. Back then (a little earlier, actually) I
>> couldn't afford floppy drives and bought software
>> first on paper tape (pulled through a reader with
>> no moving parts) and later on cassette.
>
> Actually, my Apple was cassette tape in the beginning, including
> the BASIC interpreter! The floppy drive didn't come for at least
> a year. And, diskettes were $5 each - 140KB!
>
> --
> ATM, aka Jerry

Remember how these were magical times. Even for Radio Shack/Tandy users
(cassettes, unafordable floppy drives... very much floppy indeed!)...

We lost most of the amazement. Everything is normal, now.....

Mike
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 11:21:11 PM

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:20:35 -0700, mike wrote:
> 8<
> What the heck are people taking pictures of?
> 8<

Figure it out for yourself:

http://www.google.com/advanced_image_search
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 12:09:22 AM

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

"mike" <spamme0@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:42D690D3.2030809@netscape.net...
> Wasn't too long ago that taking a picture and having it developed
> and printed cost over a buck in today's dollars. We'd take pictures
> of our wedding, little Johnny's first steps, maybe a birthday party or
> two.
>
> Today, we have the technology to put 4,700 1meg JPG pix on a DVD
> for < 50 cents.
> And we're bitchin' about only getting 200 shots from a charge.
>
> What the heck are people taking pictures of?
> And when are they ever gonna find time to look at them...even once?
> I'm finding it hard to imagine finding 200 intersting things in a day.
> Maybe a wet T-shirt contest, but even that's a stretch.
>
> Are we just taking random shots and hoping something will turn out
> interesting?

I find that shooting seemingly mundane events from real life are usually the
shots worth saving. And now that digital has loosened the financial
shackles, I shot lots more.

> mike
>
> --
> Return address is VALID but some sites block emails
> with links. Delete this sig when replying.
> .
> Wanted, PCMCIA SCSI Card for HP m820 CDRW.
> FS 500MHz Tek DSOscilloscope TDS540 Make Offer
> Wanted 12" LCD for Compaq Armada 7770MT.
> Bunch of stuff For Sale and Wanted at the link below.
> MAKE THE OBVIOUS CHANGES TO THE LINK
> ht<removethis>tp://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/4710/
>
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 12:33:40 AM

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

mike wrote:
> Wasn't too long ago that taking a picture and having it developed
> and printed cost over a buck in today's dollars. We'd take pictures
> of our wedding, little Johnny's first steps, maybe a birthday party or two.
>
> Today, we have the technology to put 4,700 1meg JPG pix on a DVD
> for < 50 cents.
> And we're bitchin' about only getting 200 shots from a charge.
>
> What the heck are people taking pictures of?
> And when are they ever gonna find time to look at them...even once?
> I'm finding it hard to imagine finding 200 intersting things in a day.
> Maybe a wet T-shirt contest, but even that's a stretch.
>
> Are we just taking random shots and hoping something will turn out
> interesting?
> mike
>
But surely one thing is that the digital cameras have changed
things.

25 years ago, right before going on a trip, I bought an $85
35mm viewfinder camera, the first "serious" camera I had. After a
couple
of years of taking some pictures during special events, I stopped.
When a friend went to Morroco about a decade ago, I lent her
the camera, and then never asked for it back afterwards.

Except for a handful of things, I wasn't taking enough pictures. Not
enough to get good, and not enough to fill up a roll in a decent
amount of time. There were likely plenty of things I wanted to take
pictures of, but not enough altogether that I could fill the roll
and get them back while the pictures I wanted were still topical.
Of course I could have just had a partial roll developed, but
that was wasteful. Indeed the cost of development was more than
I wanted to spend at the time. Maybe if I was using it differently,
the cost would have been a different thing. But it wasn't.

Now we have digital cameras, and they are easy to use. Take one
picture, and you can see the results immediately. You can see
it without having to spend money for development. Kind of like
Polaroid cameras, but without the cost of the film (and far
easier to make more than one copy of the photo). Take a bunch of
pictures, and it doesn't cost any more than taking one (batteries
aside). You can practice practice practice and it's no longer
costly. Good photographers got that way by taking pictures, and
by having cameras handy to get that great shot. Plus, one
actually has a place for the photos after they are taken. They can
pick the good ones, and put them on the web, self-publishing when
most would not have the chance otherwise. They may even be taking
pictures because they can publish them; rather than whatever
reasons they used to have for taking photos.

I suspect digital cameras are changing things quite a bit,
for the average person.

It has given them the ability to take lots of photos, which
in the past was too expensive a practice. They aren't keeping
them, they are sorting through them, picking out the good ones.
They are able to get good by wasting "film"; take the photos,
then get home and see the results, and thus have almost
immediate feedback on the results. When they might have
taken one photo, they can now fiddle with adjustments and
angles, and then later decide which is the best one.

I can put a digital camera in my pants pocket, thus increasing
the chances I'll have it when I want to take a photo. I can have
that photo nearly immediately. And whereas before I was
simply taking photos because that's a thing people do to remember
things, I can now use it to add something to things I'm writing about.

Michael
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 1:03:14 AM

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

mike <spamme0@netscape.net> writes:

> Wasn't too long ago that taking a picture and having it developed
> and printed cost over a buck in today's dollars. We'd take pictures
> of our wedding, little Johnny's first steps, maybe a birthday party or two.
>
> Today, we have the technology to put 4,700 1meg JPG pix on a DVD
> for < 50 cents.
> And we're bitchin' about only getting 200 shots from a charge.
>
> What the heck are people taking pictures of?
> And when are they ever gonna find time to look at them...even once?
> I'm finding it hard to imagine finding 200 intersting things in a day.
> Maybe a wet T-shirt contest, but even that's a stretch.
>
> Are we just taking random shots and hoping something will turn out
> interesting?

I'd take over 200 shots in a day on film -- if I was doing something
interesting, like traveling to several historical sites, or attending
a friend's wedding and reception, or something like that.
Photojournalists shot a lot more than that. I think what we're seeing
is the cost coming down to the point where more and more people are
shooting like photojournalists.

Now all we need to do is get them to *edit* like the magazine and
newspaper photo editors did :-).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 2:22:01 AM

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

mike wrote:
> Wasn't too long ago that taking a picture and having it developed
> and printed cost over a buck in today's dollars. We'd take pictures
> of our wedding, little Johnny's first steps, maybe a birthday party
> or two.
> Today, we have the technology to put 4,700 1meg JPG pix on a DVD
> for < 50 cents.
> And we're bitchin' about only getting 200 shots from a charge.
>
> What the heck are people taking pictures of?
> And when are they ever gonna find time to look at them...even once?
> I'm finding it hard to imagine finding 200 intersting things in a
> day.
> Maybe a wet T-shirt contest, but even that's a stretch.
>
> Are we just taking random shots and hoping something will turn out
> interesting?

Two projects blended this afternoon: trying out the Canon 2X extender
II on a 70-200 2.8L IS, and Mr. Black Phoebe finally accepted the
perch I arranged in the middle of the back yard.

UPS dropped the 2X on my porch at about 4:30 pm. By 4:47 I had made a
couple dozen un-Extender shots and stuck the new hardware between the
20D and the 70-200. In the next 45 minutes I made about 250 exposures,
raw + small JPEG, about 1.2 G on a 2.0 G card.

So far I've found about ten shots I like enough to work on. Here's the
first, cropped and processed:
http://www.fototime.com/E7FDFDAE78B1699/orig.jpg

The "perch" is a dead flower stem from an aloe plant with a spike
wired to the base and driven into the ground about halfway between the
birdbath and the Phoebe's favorite natural place, a pineapple guava
tree. I sat in a chair in the patio, about 30 feet from the aloe
branch, elbows on a table, 70-200's tripod mount cradled in my left
palm, left fingers operating the focus ring.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 2:48:45 AM

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:15:03 -0400, ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:47:55 -0500, All Things Mopar wrote:
>
>>> A whole generation does not know about 10Mbytes
>>> of HD storage costing $500 in '85 or so.
>>
>> I paid $400 for 48 /KB/ of RAM for my original Apple ][ in 1978.
>> The first 5.25" floppy drivers were only 140KB and cost $500 each.
>
> Lucky you. Back then (a little earlier, actually) I couldn't
> afford floppy drives and bought software first on paper tape (pulled
> through a reader with no moving parts) and later on cassette.

You had paper tape!!!

All I had was pieces of slate that I had to grind wee
little holes and slots in to use with a sort needle.
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 3:05:36 AM

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:mPCdnRabuNpm2krfRVn-pw@giganews.com...
> mike wrote:
>> Wasn't too long ago that taking a picture and having it developed
>> and printed cost over a buck in today's dollars. We'd take pictures
>> of our wedding, little Johnny's first steps, maybe a birthday party
>> or two.
>> Today, we have the technology to put 4,700 1meg JPG pix on a DVD
>> for < 50 cents.
>> And we're bitchin' about only getting 200 shots from a charge.
>>
>> What the heck are people taking pictures of?
>> And when are they ever gonna find time to look at them...even once?
>> I'm finding it hard to imagine finding 200 intersting things in a day.
>> Maybe a wet T-shirt contest, but even that's a stretch.
>>
>> Are we just taking random shots and hoping something will turn out
>> interesting?
>
> Two projects blended this afternoon: trying out the Canon 2X extender II
> on a 70-200 2.8L IS, and Mr. Black Phoebe finally accepted the perch I
> arranged in the middle of the back yard.

:) 
We have a black Pheobe that "lives" here this time of year too.
I call him Jake. Great little guy. He likes to follow me around while I'm
mowing, and seems quite curious to see what I'm doing. -Either that, or
he's waiting for me to flush out insects so he can perform amazing
acrobatics as he snags them out of mid air. -Truly an amazing little guy.

> UPS dropped the 2X on my porch at about 4:30 pm. By 4:47 I had made a
> couple dozen un-Extender shots and stuck the new hardware between the 20D
> and the 70-200. In the next 45 minutes I made about 250 exposures, raw +
> small JPEG, about 1.2 G on a 2.0 G card.
>
> So far I've found about ten shots I like enough to work on. Here's the
> first, cropped and processed:
> http://www.fototime.com/E7FDFDAE78B1699/orig.jpg

:) 
Here's one of "Jake" from my yard...slightly cropped (shot with my old D30 a
couple years ago):
http://www.pbase.com/image/46221484

> The "perch" is a dead flower stem from an aloe plant with a spike wired to
> the base and driven into the ground about halfway between the birdbath and
> the Phoebe's favorite natural place, a pineapple guava tree. I sat in a
> chair in the patio, about 30 feet from the aloe branch, elbows on a table,
> 70-200's tripod mount cradled in my left palm, left fingers operating the
> focus ring.

-Never thought of setting up a perch. He usually likes to sit on the hood
protector of my vehicle, where he poops.
:( 
:) 
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 3:07:14 AM

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:mPCdnRabuNpm2krfRVn-pw@giganews.com...

In case you missed this near the bottom of my other post to you, here's
"Jake."
http://www.pbase.com/image/46221484
:) 
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 4:25:28 AM

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

On 14 Jul 2005 22:48:45 GMT, Allodoxaphobia (aka Chad) wrote:

> You had paper tape!!!

Have, actually. Although it's been years since I last saw it and
it'll most likely be years before it surfaces again. Odd tape too.
Instead of the universal yellow paper, these tapes were black, and
had a slight odor and felt a bit different, as if they had been
coated with some kind of preservative or lubricant.


> All I had was pieces of slate that I had to grind wee
> little holes and slots in to use with a sort needle.

Maybe the residue of grinding those wee little holes was added to
the preparation used to coat my paper tapes? It must have been
difficult sending messages to friends. Locals would be a lesser
problem, but for the more distant ones you might have needed a
catapult. And losing friends would have been a frequent side
effect.
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 4:25:29 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:5sded1dn89dvatkpafh943fusj82hjl1t8@4ax.com...
> On 14 Jul 2005 22:48:45 GMT, Allodoxaphobia (aka Chad) wrote:
>
>> You had paper tape!!!
>
> Have, actually. Although it's been years since I last saw it and
> it'll most likely be years before it surfaces again. Odd tape too.
> Instead of the universal yellow paper, these tapes were black, and
> had a slight odor and felt a bit different, as if they had been
> coated with some kind of preservative or lubricant.
>
>
>> All I had was pieces of slate that I had to grind wee
>> little holes and slots in to use with a sort needle.
>
> Maybe the residue of grinding those wee little holes was added to
> the preparation used to coat my paper tapes? It must have been
> difficult sending messages to friends. Locals would be a lesser
> problem, but for the more distant ones you might have needed a
> catapult. And losing friends would have been a frequent side
> effect.

We used to have a "memory typewriter" that produced tape. You could then
feed the tape back through, and it would type your document out again for
you...complete with all your typos! :)  As I recall, that was one HECK of
an expensive unit.
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 4:37:52 AM

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

On 14 Jul 2005 20:33:40 -0700, blackm00@cam.org wrote:

> Now we have digital cameras, and they are easy to use. Take one
> picture, and you can see the results immediately. You can see
> it without having to spend money for development. Kind of like
> Polaroid cameras, but without the cost of the film (and far
> easier to make more than one copy of the photo). Take a bunch of
> pictures, and it doesn't cost any more than taking one (batteries
> aside). You can practice practice practice and it's no longer
> costly. Good photographers got that way by taking pictures, and
> by having cameras handy to get that great shot.

And there's no longer the high additional expense associated with
indoor pictures. One flashbulb per picture raised costs pretty
quickly, and having to carry a sufficient number of flashbulbs meant
that either your pockets were always full or you had to tote another
bag while taking pictures. Eventually the cost of electronic flash
units dropped enough to solve that problem, and also allowed for
quicker shutter speeds.
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 5:07:48 AM

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

"Allodoxaphobia" <bit-bucket@config.com> wrote

:
: You had paper tape!!!
:
: All I had was pieces of slate that I had to grind wee
: little holes and slots in to use with a sort needle.

That reminds me of when I was a little Kate.
My mom used to get one of her utility bills as a manilla colored punch card.
It was printed with "Do not fold, spindle or mutilate. Do not staple or
punch holes in this card."
Naturally, she was often tempted to take a hole punch to it.

Kate
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 7:36:49 AM

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

mike wrote:
> Wasn't too long ago that taking a picture and having it developed
> and printed cost over a buck in today's dollars. We'd take pictures
> of our wedding, little Johnny's first steps, maybe a birthday party or two.
>
> Today, we have the technology to put 4,700 1meg JPG pix on a DVD
> for < 50 cents.
> And we're bitchin' about only getting 200 shots from a charge.
>
> What the heck are people taking pictures of?
> And when are they ever gonna find time to look at them...even once?
> I'm finding it hard to imagine finding 200 intersting things in a day.
> Maybe a wet T-shirt contest, but even that's a stretch.
>
> Are we just taking random shots and hoping something will turn out
> interesting?
> mike
>
I don't take 200 pictures in a day, but seldom does a day go by that I
don't take at least one, and perhaps half a dozen pictures. Since the
cost of taking a picture with a digital camera is effectively nothing, I
often use the camera to document things. I take pictures of every bloom
on my two Hibiscus plants, for instance. I take pictures of the antics
of my cat, and his 'regal' poses. I take pictures of the things the
kids in the neighborhood do when they are playing. I document things
like the tree that fell in my neighbor's yard last week that landed on
the cars of another neighbor. The neighbor used prints of them to show
his insurance adjuster.

No 200 shots/day here, but I am able to use the camera for things I
would never use a film camera for, and that is the advantage a digital
camera has over film.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 9:15:07 AM

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:53:29 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> We used to have a "memory typewriter" that produced tape. You could then
> feed the tape back through, and it would type your document out again for
> you...complete with all your typos! :)  As I recall, that was one HECK of
> an expensive unit.

But well worth the expense, as it was such a sophisticated
device. :)  At about that same time (I imagine) one dep't. where I
worked had a sophisticated device of their own, a computer
controlled graphic printer. It was a standard daisywheel printer
(don't recall if it was a Diablo or an NEC Spinwriter) that got
fairly high resolution by printing only with the 'period' character
and using fine repositioning commands. As you can imagine, it was
quite slow. I *think* it was able to print multi-colored charts and
graphs by using a multi-colored ribbon, but I may be mistaken about
this. It was quite some time ago so my memory of it is a bit hazy,
and I only saw it in action a couple of times. I believe that
somewhere during this period HP and Apple introduced their compact
(for the time) laser printers.
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 9:15:08 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:gqued11tntd4oeaght910bl6cnu0soj8tt@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:53:29 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> We used to have a "memory typewriter" that produced tape. You could then
>> feed the tape back through, and it would type your document out again for
>> you...complete with all your typos! :)  As I recall, that was one HECK
>> of
>> an expensive unit.
>
> But well worth the expense, as it was such a sophisticated
> device. :)  At about that same time (I imagine) one dep't. where I
> worked had a sophisticated device of their own, a computer
> controlled graphic printer. It was a standard daisywheel printer
> (don't recall if it was a Diablo or an NEC Spinwriter) that got
> fairly high resolution by printing only with the 'period' character
> and using fine repositioning commands. As you can imagine, it was
> quite slow. I *think* it was able to print multi-colored charts and
> graphs by using a multi-colored ribbon, but I may be mistaken about
> this. It was quite some time ago so my memory of it is a bit hazy,
> and I only saw it in action a couple of times. I believe that
> somewhere during this period HP and Apple introduced their compact
> (for the time) laser printers.

I remember in the 80's there was a demo of a "color printer" going on at our
local Price Club (now called Costco...).
It was what looked like some sort of plotter... You actually attached what
were esentially felt tip pens to four different attachments. The computer
then instructed the pens where to go using something similar to an
Etch-a-Sketch toy. --If you ever took one of those things apart as a
kid...after you washed off all the silvery dust from the mess you made...you
found two rods connected to wires which dragged the pointer either
horizontally or vertically as you turned the two knobs.
This was essentially how hte printer worked.
It was able to draw tables, graphes, etc., but the markings it made looked
just like what you could make with a felt-tip pen and a straight-edge. :) 
In other words...it looked really really lame. :) 
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 10:08:57 AM

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

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 02:26:22 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> It was what looked like some sort of plotter... You actually attached what
> were esentially felt tip pens to four different attachments. The computer
> then instructed the pens where to go using something similar to an
> Etch-a-Sketch toy.

I used to help people print bank charts using HP plotters and
their tiny little felt tip pens. That was eventually phased out
when we started sending Postscript files to a local printer.


> It was able to draw tables, graphes, etc., but the markings it made
> looked just like what you could make with a felt-tip pen and a
> straight-edge. :)  In other words...it looked really really lame. :) 

Hen scratchings. :) 
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 2:54:56 PM

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:20:35 -0700, mike <spamme0@netscape.net> wrote:

>Wasn't too long ago that taking a picture and having it developed
>and printed cost over a buck in today's dollars. We'd take pictures
>of our wedding, little Johnny's first steps, maybe a birthday party or two.
>
>Today, we have the technology to put 4,700 1meg JPG pix on a DVD
>for < 50 cents.
>And we're bitchin' about only getting 200 shots from a charge.
>
>What the heck are people taking pictures of?
>And when are they ever gonna find time to look at them...even once?
>I'm finding it hard to imagine finding 200 intersting things in a day.
>Maybe a wet T-shirt contest, but even that's a stretch.
>
>Are we just taking random shots and hoping something will turn out
>interesting?
>mike

I've said it before, but I guess it bears repeating...
That *you* can't, or won't, do something doesn't mean others can't, or
won't.
I can go to an interesting museum or zoo and take many hundreds of
photos in one day.
The Air Force Museum near Dayton is a photographer's wet dream.
Maybe you need to get out more?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 7:05:24 PM

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

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:54:56 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

> The Air Force Museum near Dayton is a photographer's wet dream.
> Maybe you need to get out more?

Non photographers too, if it's the one in or near Wright-Patterson
field (IIRC). My uncle took me there many moons ago when I was
visiting his family in Ohio. If I had a camera then it would have
been a Brownie, but we were there just to look at and wander inside
some of the planes. The only one I specifically recall was named by
her crew the "Strawberry Bitch".
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 7:19:42 AM

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

Mark² wrote:
> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
> news:gqued11tntd4oeaght910bl6cnu0soj8tt@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:53:29 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>> We used to have a "memory typewriter" that produced tape. You could then
>>> feed the tape back through, and it would type your document out again for
>>> you...complete with all your typos! :)  As I recall, that was one HECK
>>> of
>>> an expensive unit.
>> But well worth the expense, as it was such a sophisticated
>> device. :)  At about that same time (I imagine) one dep't. where I
>> worked had a sophisticated device of their own, a computer
>> controlled graphic printer. It was a standard daisywheel printer
>> (don't recall if it was a Diablo or an NEC Spinwriter) that got
>> fairly high resolution by printing only with the 'period' character
>> and using fine repositioning commands. As you can imagine, it was
>> quite slow. I *think* it was able to print multi-colored charts and
>> graphs by using a multi-colored ribbon, but I may be mistaken about
>> this. It was quite some time ago so my memory of it is a bit hazy,
>> and I only saw it in action a couple of times. I believe that
>> somewhere during this period HP and Apple introduced their compact
>> (for the time) laser printers.
>
> I remember in the 80's there was a demo of a "color printer" going on at our
> local Price Club (now called Costco...).
> It was what looked like some sort of plotter... You actually attached what
> were esentially felt tip pens to four different attachments. The computer
> then instructed the pens where to go using something similar to an
> Etch-a-Sketch toy. --If you ever took one of those things apart as a
> kid...after you washed off all the silvery dust from the mess you made...you
> found two rods connected to wires which dragged the pointer either
> horizontally or vertically as you turned the two knobs.
> This was essentially how hte printer worked.
> It was able to draw tables, graphes, etc., but the markings it made looked
> just like what you could make with a felt-tip pen and a straight-edge. :) 
> In other words...it looked really really lame. :) 
>
>
Plotters still exist today, and they are used to make highly detailed
drawings for construction, and industrial applications. Watching a
plotter printing is a fascinating thing.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 7:19:43 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:yq3Ce.9387$1Y1.6644@fe02.lga...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
>> news:gqued11tntd4oeaght910bl6cnu0soj8tt@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:53:29 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We used to have a "memory typewriter" that produced tape. You could
>>>> then
>>>> feed the tape back through, and it would type your document out again
>>>> for
>>>> you...complete with all your typos! :)  As I recall, that was one HECK
>>>> of
>>>> an expensive unit.
>>> But well worth the expense, as it was such a sophisticated
>>> device. :)  At about that same time (I imagine) one dep't. where I
>>> worked had a sophisticated device of their own, a computer
>>> controlled graphic printer. It was a standard daisywheel printer
>>> (don't recall if it was a Diablo or an NEC Spinwriter) that got
>>> fairly high resolution by printing only with the 'period' character
>>> and using fine repositioning commands. As you can imagine, it was
>>> quite slow. I *think* it was able to print multi-colored charts and
>>> graphs by using a multi-colored ribbon, but I may be mistaken about
>>> this. It was quite some time ago so my memory of it is a bit hazy,
>>> and I only saw it in action a couple of times. I believe that
>>> somewhere during this period HP and Apple introduced their compact
>>> (for the time) laser printers.
>>
>> I remember in the 80's there was a demo of a "color printer" going on at
>> our local Price Club (now called Costco...).
>> It was what looked like some sort of plotter... You actually attached
>> what were esentially felt tip pens to four different attachments. The
>> computer then instructed the pens where to go using something similar to
>> an Etch-a-Sketch toy. --If you ever took one of those things apart as a
>> kid...after you washed off all the silvery dust from the mess you
>> made...you found two rods connected to wires which dragged the pointer
>> either horizontally or vertically as you turned the two knobs.
>> This was essentially how hte printer worked.
>> It was able to draw tables, graphes, etc., but the markings it made
>> looked just like what you could make with a felt-tip pen and a
>> straight-edge. :)  In other words...it looked really really lame. :) 
> Plotters still exist today, and they are used to make highly detailed
> drawings for construction, and industrial applications. Watching a
> plotter printing is a fascinating thing.

This was indeed fascinating to watch, but even at that time...nobody was
impressed.
These were THICK pens, too. :) 
They were about as "detailed" as you could draw with a thick Crayon on a
Denny's place-mat. :) 
July 16, 2005 1:21:56 PM

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

Good points. In the old days, before digital and the instant
gratification that we love about digital, getting a good shot was a
gamble. The pros were known to take hundreds of shots, trying in one
or two photos to get the right light, angle, focus, subject
composition, etc. I think people are still trying to do the same type
of thing, as you suggest. Capturing the one shot out of a thousand
that you know is special and worth sharing. Digital has changed
everything and changed nothing.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:20:35 -0700, mike <spamme0@netscape.net> wrote:

>Wasn't too long ago that taking a picture and having it developed
>and printed cost over a buck in today's dollars. We'd take pictures
>of our wedding, little Johnny's first steps, maybe a birthday party or two.

8< snip >8

>Are we just taking random shots and hoping something will turn out
>interesting?
>mike
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 1:22:21 PM

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

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:05:24 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:54:56 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> The Air Force Museum near Dayton is a photographer's wet dream.
>> Maybe you need to get out more?
>
> Non photographers too, if it's the one in or near Wright-Patterson
>field (IIRC). My uncle took me there many moons ago when I was
>visiting his family in Ohio. If I had a camera then it would have
>been a Brownie, but we were there just to look at and wander inside
>some of the planes. The only one I specifically recall was named by
>her crew the "Strawberry Bitch".

She's still there:
http://pippina.com/images/strawberry%20bitch-1.jpg

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 9:39:30 PM

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

"mike" <spamme0@netscape.net> wrote

> I find that shooting seemingly mundane events from real life are usually
the
> shots worth saving. And now that digital has loosened the financial
> shackles, I shot lots more.

The introduction of digital still photography - and of course affordable
high-quality digital camcorders - has revolutionised the archiving of
ordinary family life. 100 years from now there will be endless piles of
images and video of what it was like for the average person in the early
part of this new century. Compare that to what we have of life in 1900.
Generally speaking, only the wealthy upper classes could afford their own
cameras, so all we have of the 'working class life' is what was shot by
photojournalists and academics of the time.

And even in my own case (born 1952) there are only a handful of
black-and-white shots of me and my brother as 'littlies'. Today, the first
thing a baby sees as he comes out of Mum is Dad with a videocamera! This is
not necessarily a *good* thing, of course, but it does show how things have
changed!

Paul
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 9:39:31 PM

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

"Paul Bartram" <p.bartram AT OR NEAR optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:42d8b9b6$0$25184$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "mike" <spamme0@netscape.net> wrote
>
>> I find that shooting seemingly mundane events from real life are usually
> the
>> shots worth saving. And now that digital has loosened the financial
>> shackles, I shot lots more.
>
> The introduction of digital still photography - and of course affordable
> high-quality digital camcorders - has revolutionised the archiving of
> ordinary family life. 100 years from now there will be endless piles of
> images and video of what it was like for the average person in the early
> part of this new century. Compare that to what we have of life in 1900.
> Generally speaking, only the wealthy upper classes could afford their own
> cameras, so all we have of the 'working class life' is what was shot by
> photojournalists and academics of the time.
>
> And even in my own case (born 1952) there are only a handful of
> black-and-white shots of me and my brother as 'littlies'. Today, the first
> thing a baby sees as he comes out of Mum is Dad with a videocamera! This
> is
> not necessarily a *good* thing, of course, but it does show how things
> have
> changed!

Tell me about it...
My sister actually asked me to video-tape the birth of her son...
....Not how I want to see my sister...but she's not shy. :) 
What a gory tape that was--and needless to say...I've never watched it but
the one time I copied it for her.
:) 
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 12:37:09 AM

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

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:46:52 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> This was indeed fascinating to watch, but even at that time...nobody was
> impressed.
> These were THICK pens, too. :) 
> They were about as "detailed" as you could draw with a thick Crayon on a
> Denny's place-mat. :) 

No, not that bad, really. And you could also use 'fine point'
pens. The thicker ones were naturally better for filling in large
areas, such as bar and pie charts. Each tiny pen also came in a
fairly large metallized plastic bag. So even many years ago, HP
knew where the real profits were - selling small amounts of ink at
tremendously high prices. :) 
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 12:37:10 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:0q9jd1poe3ivn9lh7jjmlmn4sp8pastrpe@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:46:52 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> This was indeed fascinating to watch, but even at that time...nobody was
>> impressed.
>> These were THICK pens, too. :) 
>> They were about as "detailed" as you could draw with a thick Crayon on a
>> Denny's place-mat. :) 
>
> No, not that bad, really. And you could also use 'fine point'
> pens.

I wasn't referring to your example...I was describing the ones I saw.
I'm sure the architectural plan drawer was better.

>The thicker ones were naturally better for filling in large
> areas, such as bar and pie charts. Each tiny pen also came in a
> fairly large metallized plastic bag. So even many years ago, HP
> knew where the real profits were - selling small amounts of ink at
> tremendously high prices. :) 

Yep. Their latest consumer ink-jet line has teh smallest cartridges I've
ever seen...but a set of them is nearly as much as teh printer itself! What
a racket!!
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 12:41:01 AM

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

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:39:30 +1000, "Paul Bartram" <p.bartram AT OR
NEAR optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> Today, the first thing a baby sees as he comes out of Mum is Dad with a
> videocamera! This is not necessarily a *good* thing, of course, but it does
> show how things have changed!

Not only that, Mum and Dad may well have seen pictures of the baby
months before birth. For medical and health reasons, that can
occasionally be a very good thing.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 2:21:06 AM

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

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:25:09 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>> No, not that bad, really. And you could also use 'fine point'
>> pens.
>
> I wasn't referring to your example...I was describing the ones I saw.
> I'm sure the architectural plan drawer was better.

Right. I don't know whose plotter you saw, and probably had
broader tips than any I saw. But the ones I'm talking about were
HP's low end, small desktop plotters. There were two models,
essentially the same, but one (I think) had a carousel that could
hold a few more pens, allowing it to switch between pen sets.


> Yep. Their latest consumer ink-jet line has teh smallest cartridges I've
> ever seen...but a set of them is nearly as much as teh printer itself! What
> a racket!!


"One cart. makes you taller, and one cart. makes you small. But the
ones that mother gives you, don't do anything at all." -- Alice
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 9:48:24 AM

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

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:22:21 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

> The only one I specifically recall was named by
> >her crew the "Strawberry Bitch".
>
> She's still there:
> http://pippina.com/images/strawberry%20bitch-1.jpg

Thank you! One print coming up for my uncle. And the website is
well designed, with the graphics used adding a nice touch.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 11:13:59 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 05:48:24 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:22:21 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> The only one I specifically recall was named by
>> >her crew the "Strawberry Bitch".
>>
>> She's still there:
>> http://pippina.com/images/strawberry%20bitch-1.jpg
>
> Thank you! One print coming up for my uncle. And the website is
>well designed, with the graphics used adding a nice touch.

Thank you for the kind words!
I have a few others of the Bitch, if yu'd like to see samples.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 10:41:24 PM

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:13:59 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

> Thank you for the kind words!
> I have a few others of the Bitch, if yu'd like to see samples.

You're welcome. And yes, I really would like to see some of the
others. The one you put up was very nice, but it seems a bit
lonely. Uh, can you include some BBQ too? :) 
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 12:28:25 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 18:41:24 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:13:59 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the kind words!
>> I have a few others of the Bitch, if yu'd like to see samples.
>
> You're welcome. And yes, I really would like to see some of the
>others. The one you put up was very nice, but it seems a bit
>lonely. Uh, can you include some BBQ too? :) 

Ok, here's the six I have...

http://pippina.com/images/bitch/Bitch-01.jpg

The other five are numbered 02 through 06

As for the BBQ, here's a duck I smoked:
http://pippina.com/images/bitch/duck-01a.jpg

It lasted two days,and was great!

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 3:27:47 PM

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

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:47:25 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:28:25 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> Ok, here's the six I have...
>>
>> http://pippina.com/images/bitch/Bitch-01.jpg
>>
>> The other five are numbered 02 through 06
>
> Thanks again. I had forgotten the B24's classic outline.

Unfortunately, the planes are crammed in so tightly, it's next to
impossible to get a halfway clear shot of the larger ones.
And the Commandng General wants the lighting to be "dramatic", so the
planes are underlit in general, with spotlighting that's certainly
dramitic, but woefully inadequate for most photographers. On-board
flash just won't cut it for anything over 10-12 feet away, and even my
Sigma super-dooper is not able to handle the distances required for
most shots. Luckily, I can hand hold fairly well.
Bu tit's a wondeful place to visit! :-)
>
>
>> As for the BBQ, here's a duck I smoked:
>> http://pippina.com/images/bitch/duck-01a.jpg
>
> Looks better than the smoked ham I'm finishing off.
>
That was my first duck, and I'm looking for a goose next. The duck
took over 4 hours to smoke, and the fat was just gone, rendered out,
and the meat was fantastic; moist, break-apart tender, and a wonderful
smokey flavor.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 3:59:28 AM

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

mike wrote:

> Maybe a wet T-shirt contest, but even that's a stretch.

Never use "stretch" and "wet T-shirt" in the same sentence.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0529-1, 07/20/2005
Tested on: 7/20/2005 4:59:26 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 3:19:55 PM

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

On 14 Jul 2005 09:43:16 -0700, "wilt" <wiltw@aol.com> wrote:

>Mike,
> I agree...people are spoiled. Plain and simple. 'Gimme more!'
> A whole generation does not know about 10Mbytes of HD storage
>costing $500 in '85 or so.

Somewhere around the house, I have a page from a very old Byte
magazine advertising disk drives for more than that price. For your
money, you got TWO (2) eight inch floppy drives.

> Now you get 100 times that storage on CF
>for about 1/10th the price, and you can burn 400 times that storage on
>a DVD burner for 1/1000th the price, and it now takes a miniscule
>fraction of the space and weight of the old 10Mbyte HD.
> And if you use a rechargeable battery that goes flat in 200 shots,
>it can be recharged 300 times, so cost per charge is less than $0.17
>per charge (for 200 shots!) even if you don't buy the proprietary
>battery (e.g. Canon) 'on the cheap' thru eBay! If you use AA
>batteries, you can get a whole charger with 4 NiMH batteries for about
>$25 and it's even cheaper than the proprietary battery solutions. So
>there's no reason at all not to own several batteries to have a charged
>one ready to insert as one goes flat.
>
>--Wilt
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 3:22:35 PM

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

On 14 Jul 2005 22:48:45 GMT, Allodoxaphobia <bit-bucket@config.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:15:03 -0400, ASAAR wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:47:55 -0500, All Things Mopar wrote:
>>
>>>> A whole generation does not know about 10Mbytes
>>>> of HD storage costing $500 in '85 or so.
>>>
>>> I paid $400 for 48 /KB/ of RAM for my original Apple ][ in 1978.
>>> The first 5.25" floppy drivers were only 140KB and cost $500 each.
>>
>> Lucky you. Back then (a little earlier, actually) I couldn't
>> afford floppy drives and bought software first on paper tape (pulled
>> through a reader with no moving parts) and later on cassette.
>
>You had paper tape!!!
>
>All I had was pieces of slate that I had to grind wee
>little holes and slots in to use with a sort needle.

We sprayed 0s and 1s on carrier pigeons and prayed that they
all arrived in the correct order.
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 3:22:36 PM

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

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:22:35 GMT, kashe@sonic.net wrote:

>On 14 Jul 2005 22:48:45 GMT, Allodoxaphobia <bit-bucket@config.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:15:03 -0400, ASAAR wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:47:55 -0500, All Things Mopar wrote:
>>>
>>>>> A whole generation does not know about 10Mbytes
>>>>> of HD storage costing $500 in '85 or so.
>>>>
>>>> I paid $400 for 48 /KB/ of RAM for my original Apple ][ in 1978.
>>>> The first 5.25" floppy drivers were only 140KB and cost $500 each.
>>>
>>> Lucky you. Back then (a little earlier, actually) I couldn't
>>> afford floppy drives and bought software first on paper tape (pulled
>>> through a reader with no moving parts) and later on cassette.
>>
>>You had paper tape!!!
>>
>>All I had was pieces of slate that I had to grind wee
>>little holes and slots in to use with a sort needle.
>
> We sprayed 0s and 1s on carrier pigeons and prayed that they
>all arrived in the correct order.

You had pigeons?
We had to use homing mice with mud smeared on them.
it was a pain for larger messages - a LOT of mice were needed.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 3:27:50 PM

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

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 01:07:48 GMT, "SVTKate"
<whoever@whatever.complaint.dept> wrote:

>
>"Allodoxaphobia" <bit-bucket@config.com> wrote
>
>:
>: You had paper tape!!!
>:
>: All I had was pieces of slate that I had to grind wee
>: little holes and slots in to use with a sort needle.
>
>That reminds me of when I was a little Kate.
>My mom used to get one of her utility bills as a manilla colored punch card.
>It was printed with "Do not fold, spindle or mutilate. Do not staple or
>punch holes in this card."
>Naturally, she was often tempted to take a hole punch to it.

II occasionally used yo get annoyed at a certain government
agency which had such checks. I took them to work and added random
extra holes with a keypunch machine.

One of the funniest pranks I saw was when we had to run all
the cancelled retirees' checks through a card reader to reconcile them
with the checks which had been issued. We kept getting read checks on
one of them. It turned out the recipient had shaved about a
thirty-second of an inch off the bottom edge with a razor so it
wouldn't get pushed far enough to get caught in the feed rollers.
!