Thanks, I went and checked a camera magazine and shop. The Canon Powershot G9 has 12 megapixels but staff don't know anything beyond that. This camera costs £290. I asked a guy who works for a multimedia firm. He simply said 10 megas, any camera with that is OK. So thanks Alibaba, there's more to it than most people realize. At least I know roughly what they cost.I shall also take pictures with my old Rollei Trip 35 using 200ASA and scan them to compare quality. It would be cheaper to stay at home and use software to superimpose self and bike onto exotic spots. Hm, wonder how often that's already been done... And here's one of me checking my last water in northern Chad, on a weekend break. Linzi.

Just thought of another market for sale of pictures/stories. Always carry a camera and newspaper editorial office details. Especially if away from home you could get a scoop, and if first in with the pics/story get a payment. But of course it even works in your own country. (This time next year we'll be millionaires", Linzi.

I have a two year degree in photography and use a cheapie Canon PowerShot SD 1000 which I believe is now discontinued, but costs about $150. It's 7.1 megapixels and I haven't had any complaints from the mags I'm writing/shooting for. They rarely do double-page spreads, but when they do, there are programs which merge the pixels together so what would normally only fill one page, can be expanded to quite a large size.

Do NOT get caught up in the technical side of the camera or what laptop to buy. What editors really, really want is a well-written and interesting story they can't find elsewhere with decent photos, which gets delivered on time. Spend your time practicing the craft, as opposed to figuring out what equipment to buy. Pen and paper works well for first drafts.... Writer's Marketplace or numerous websites are a good place to go to find out how to query an editor by email.

Lorraine

__________________
Rallying for A Wild Life — THE FILM!
http://igg.me/at/AWildLife

www.LorraineChittock.com
www.facebook.com/lorraine.chittock

Before I converted to digital a company scanned some of my pictures on a drum-scanner , with good results. But it’s expensive so I bought a dedicated slide-scanner which is pretty good.

As long as you use quality lenses (as you should do anyway) there is nothing wrong using film. The pictures I posted earlier is taken with Velvia 50.
But scanning is hassle and it takes time.

I had a suspicion that my lovely, reliable, little Rollei would do the job but if the pictures from my trip in next two weeks aren't accepted I'll be heavily out of pocket and unable to go to Morocco where people are waiting for me. My problem is the old cash flow one. I am overstretched and my Scottish genes say, watch your pennies! So do I "Take a Chance", as Abba said or "Just Do it", as Nike say? So who do you trust? Linzi.

Wotcha! I’m a photographer, and although I use mostly digital nowadays , I still use film from time to time. And yes, film still compares favourably to pixels – its just slower to convert it into a useable state and to the final destination. But that doesn’t matter unless you have an urgent deadline. A camera is just a tool, and how you use it is what counts – and that goes for old or new, cheap or expensive.

You can increase your picture usability by planning your shots in advance. Make each shot count by thinking about how you might use them and work to that. Get in close, fill the frame, get the exposure right, think about the angle of shot, subject position, isolating the subject in relation to the main scene. Don’t go for general shots or copy what you’ve seen before because if you have, the mags will have. Think about what would grab your attention and draw your eye, and then set about telling the story in pictures. If it’s a people story, concentrate on people – personalities, appearance, occupation, rituals etc. Don’t clutter it with irrelevant background. If its about a place, or a bike or whatever, make it your main theme, but include enough background to set the scene and not make it look like it could have been shot anywhere. Use angles – get up high, down low, get your subjects off centre, isolate them against backgrounds, and use it all to tell your story.

Linzi, your Rollei is well up to the job – small, unobtrusive, easy to use. Just get in there, plan in advance and look for opportunities – don’t wait for them to appear. If you want any help, bell me on 079411 34296 and I’ll talk you through more or help you with an action plan.
Cheers,
Belle

I don’t know the Rollei but it uses 35mm film and has probably Zeiss optics so it should not be the limiting factor (it seldom are), it will probably work great!
Remember that some films are harder to scan then other.

The Rollei Trip has a Zeiss lens and can give superb quality if camera shake and focus are sorted carefully. The limit is the 28mm lens' views. It is excellent for shots of people or bikes and buildings but it flattens mountains and gives a bit of a boring set of landscapes. I have two Trips and they cost so little that's yet another attraction.
Just checked my cashflow carefully and it's got to be the two Rolleis. I can afford the scanning when I get back. But I can hardly wait to use my new Go Pro Hero 3.1 megapixel toy. It can mount on my helmet or the bike and shoots video, single or 3 in a burst or 1 shot every 5 seconds for 2 hours. Now THAT is going to give some interesting shots. The little wonder is waterproof too. I got 30 2GB SD cards for it from Hong Kong and that is more than enough with the advantage of a new card each day in case of loss of camera.
Thanks Belle for the advice, I saw you at the Hanover meeting but got caught up in chatter with others. I am a great believer in the idea that the camera cannot take photos on its. Creativity is the word. The Rolleis will excel in bike shots with background, but the alpine shots will look pitiful and I can't get a ride-by shot without getting a helper. What if they leg it! Linzi.

A cheap, lightweight digital SLR kit gives faster handling and better control than any compact.

And 35mm is dead. I have a freezer full of the stuff.

__________________
I've a feeling I'm not in Kansas anymore.

While we're discussing photos and cameras, am I right in thinking that you should still avoid digital zoom like the plague, as all it's really doing is digitally cropping and enlarging, and if you want to do that it's better to do it in a PC?

And also is there a particular file format that's better to shoot in? It looks like most pocket cameras give you a .jpeg, but I've heard talk of .raw files.

EDIT: Just had a thought, Grant's posted about the new ride reports section. Perhaps as well as entertaining stories about trips we might also use this to invite critique? Only if we wanted it though, might be a bit mean to start with the literary criticism univited. But it'd be a great way for those who know to share experience of what makes a good article and good photos. Bit like an online writers' group.

__________________

Wish I had done that when I was in Italy a couple of years ago. Saw a Ferrari engineer moving an early Alfa 8C Competizione between 2 of the workshops, months before it hit the front covers of the car mags. Doh!!!

Most dslr have raw format as an option instead of shooting in Jpeg, If I remember rightly u can do a bit more editing with them and they are slightly better quality[larger ] than jpegs. I shoot in raw and then use lightroom or raw shooter to edit them.

Most stock agencies require at least 3000 pixels on the longest side for selling photos which I think translates to around 6-7 megapixels. My canon 5d mk1 offers just over 4000 which is suitable for almost pro level sales. The new canon 5d mk2 and top of the range canons are sitting at around 21 megapixels now. But being full frame sensor you do not get as much range out of your lenses. Sony have just released a dslr with over 20 megapixels too. Nikon are still I think offering around the 12-13 megapixels and are not full frame and plenty of pros still use them.

Most people don't have the time, software and expertise to process raw files - and for the purposes required here (editorial) it's overkill.

Also, jpegs won't slow (or sometimes stop) a camera working at a critical time.

__________________
I've a feeling I'm not in Kansas anymore.

If used right RAW boosts the quality a lot.
Some magazines will accept some types of RAW-files (directly from cameras). If you want the magazine to print big pictures I would not say using RAW is overkill.

Raw is expensive in equipment, software, learning curve and time. My thoughts are to keep it simple (and cheap) for those who want to add pictures to their words. Personally, I would never send a raw file to anyone - but that's me.

We might be getting , but I'm willing to chat somewhere else if needed.

Cheers.

__________________
I've a feeling I'm not in Kansas anymore.