Cameras

There are no real advantages to either style..it is a matter of personal taste. Some people have a preference to more formal portraits when the need is for business use. Candid photography is more suited to events with families and friends.

imagine you're in a room with all the windows blacked out, you cut a small hole in the black out material allowing a small amount of light in, looking at the wall the light is projected on, you will see an upside down image of what is happening outside, this is how the pringle camera works, i did this on my taster day at college, hope it helps :) if you have the patience there is a video on bbc about it, but i'm not sure what it is called.

Photography was first done by a Frenchman by name Joseph Nicephore Niepce in the year 1827 with the help of the device known as obscura or pinhole. Niepce was not responsible for the invention of the camera obscura. In fact Obscura was used by others as a viewfinder or tool for drawing. But he used it first for the purpose of creating a photographic image. At that time people called his productions as "heliographs" because sunlight was used to draw them.

The "Fisheye" lens will give the photograph a convex look. I it is very difficult to create a photograph that will work well with the lens without leaving the subject too distorted.

To my knowledge, yes, they do. All cameras that I've seen have the hole at the bottom that you screw onto the tripod, so I think all cameras can be used on a tripod (well, definitely all modern cameras).

It's arguable that there is no single "best" ISO (film speed). Everything is relative, and depends on what the user expects, whether using a film or digital camera.

Most digital cameras do have an optimum ISO for the best combination of speed and resolution, but again, it's relative. If you are shooting in excellent light and your subject is not moving - better yet, your camera is mounted on a tripod - then you might choose an ISO of 64. But what if you are trying to shoot a rodeo under stadium lights? Then an ISO of 1600 or even 3200 might be better, provided you accept the fact that there will be a great deal of visible "noise" or grain (noise is just the digital equivalent of film grain).

If you take all of your pictures in bright sun with, say, a 5 megapixel camera or 35 mm film camera you will probably be delighted with an ISO of 100 for all purposes. This speed can be hand held under most conditions and yields a very high quality 8x10 or even larger print with no visible noise or grain.

If, on the other hand, you are an "available light (or dark) freak," you want to be able to hand hold your camera in low light without flash, and that mandates higher ISO (speed) and more noise (grain). Thus, if you know you're going to the rodeo tonight, you may want to load your camera with Fujicolor 1600, or boost your digital's ISO to 1600 or so. But don't forget that you must be reconciled to seeing that noise or grain in your prints, even 4x6's. (This retired old pro loves the fact that even many entry level digital cameras can be instantly switched from ISO 64 to as high as 3200 and back on demand!)

Adventure tourism is a type of tourism that has gained popularity over the past few decades. It is categorised by the large amount of activities tourists undertake during their trip, and the large amount of interaction with the natural environment of their destination. Typically adventure tourism will involve something that the tourist would normally not have chance to partake in any other day - activities like white-water rafting, bungee jumping, mountain climbing etc.

Yes. Photos and videotapes for personal use may be taken inside the Museum, except in the Omnimax Theater and in certain special exhibits or presentations. Due to safety concerns, tripods are not allowed. Photos, videotapes or audiotapes for any other use require advance notice and the express prior written permission of the Museum's Public Relations Department.

no

Higher mega pixel cameras offer the ability to print larger images. For example a 6mp camera offers a resolution of 3000 x 2000 pixels. If you allow 300dpi (dots per inch) for print quality, this would give you a print of approx 10 in x 7 in. 3000 divided by 300 = 10, 2000 divided by 300 = approx 7 A 3.1mp camera offers a resolution of 2048 x 1536 pixels which gives a print size of 7in x 5in You can make bigger images, but you would need to accept that you would lower the quality of the image.

When taking pictures, it can be used to help calculate exposure when relating f-stops, the aperture and shutter speed. When making prints, it can be used to fine-tune the exposure of the prints with the f-stop and time the paper is exposed to the image.

because

It is more than just because. The one taking the photo need make sure they have just the shot the want. It bring it in to focus. Pulling it closer, a wider angle. Hope that helps you a little.

The eye in the sky

... so you better don't count cards @ blackjack or they will take you into the backroom and god knows what happens then! :O

First of all, electromagnetic radiation consists of electromagnetic waves, so the two terms are almost synonymous.

The very definition of "photography" is: the creation of images by capturing radiation on a "radiation-sensitive medium". Almost always the type of "radiation" captured in photography is electromagnetic radiation, and almost always the type of electromagnetic radiation captured in photography is light, therefore almost always the type of "radiation-sensitive medium" used in photography is light-sensitive film used in cameras.

In short, photography is the art and/or science of capturing electromagnetic waves for the purpose of making pictures, except for a few rare types of photography.

Some exceptions to the standard light-with-film type of photography are: (1) infrared photography, such as used in aerial photography, since infrared electromagnetic radiation cannot be seen, unlike light, and (2) x-ray photography, since x-ray electromagnetic radiation also cannot be seen. It is conceivable that other, extremely rare types of photography such as the capturing of alpha particles or beta particles, which are other types of radiation different than electromagnetic radiation, could also be considered "photography," but those would likely be used only for limited scientific purposes rather than for recreational purposes.

Yes they did. The camera was invented in 1830. The first war that was done in photos was the civil war and the pictures taken changed people's views of war ( just like it did when it was on TV in the Viet Nam war). The first cameras were very simple. A glass plate was coated with chemicals placed in the camera and then exposed to light. Pictures were made from the glass plate. You can still find some of these in antique stores, but they are rare. After the civil war many of the glass plates were recycled and the glass was used for windows and things like greenhouses. People were posed, at first, in photos like what was seen in paintings. That is why they look so stiff and don't smile. In fact, they had a metal frame they used that held the head straight and the back in place. I think it probably hurt. The ability to see the world in photos changed our views of the world and photos were done in every subject. One popular photo that was in people's houses was of the people in their family that had died. Yes, they were death bed photos and they sat out on tables. This was not seen as something bad. To us this is strange, but for the people of the time it was very common. Just like wearing a bit of a person's hair in a locket or a ring was done as well.

Fractions of a second. 1/8 1/16 1/36 1/400 1/4000

Apple Macintosh computers have a reputation for being the best computers for photography.

However, whether you choose Mac or PC, equip your machine with as much memory (RAM) and hard disk space as you can afford. Programs like Photoshop use significant memory, and the RAW file format requires a lot of hard disk space.

Also, whether Mac or PC, consider a laptop for tethering.

It is depth of field (the part of the overall image that appears acceptably sharp) that doesn't extend very far throughout any portion of the distance from the near and far points in the image. By this definition, the limited depth of field can be in the foreground, middle ground or background, but it is a small portion of the image overall. The average person would find their depth of field to be in the near 1/3 of the distance from the near and far points.

Distance to the subject, lens focal length an aperture are the main controlling factors, but the size of the reproduced image and the distance between the viewer and the image contribute also. Your perception of the depth of field can change as you approach a large image such as a poster in a mall.

Is it legal to go straight through a red light in Missouri? Probably uses the same logic. I don't know about Missouri, but in most states you may make a left hand turn on red IF you are turning from a one-way street onto another one-way street.

Yes. If you use your eye to see the picture, you will see color. If you use photogrphic paper to record the image, whether or not you see color is determined by the nature of the film -black/white or color. There is nothing in the physics of the camera that prevents you from seeing color.

they made cameras because so people could take photos of them self and put a picture in the news paper and so they have something to look at when they want to show there kids or just have a look

in action movies usually 3-4 sometimes 5 cameras, in the case of a tv show or a small movie directors use 2-3 cameras

No she has not

Love,

Haven230