Skip Navigation


Travel Groups Photographers



  • hasbeen 3d

    Posted photos on TP can have the location but not other meta data. Google + gives stuff like this > P1010855.jpg
    0.3 MP 798 × 388 97.5 KB
    F / 5.6 1/640 49.2mm ISO80

    I have no particular interest in such detail but wonder if others would like it on TP & how they would use that info


    While interesting, I'm not sure I'd use that (I have the info of course for my own photos and it's not really relevant to their use here), but meta data incorporating the date and time could be useful, e.g. in matching a photo to a particular blog entry. I can always check my files of course, but if those are on an external hard drive, as many are, I might not have them handy when writing so to have the info embedded here would save time and hassle.


    Date, but not time of capture, is recorded in TP .. there is a column for it on 'my photos'


    You're right :-) But my point stands, as it's often knowing the time that is most helpful in untangling which photo is of what part of a complex site!


    Flickr has a lot of detailed info for their photos too. I guess it's the difference between just sharing nice images for a general audience, vs sharing images for fellow photographers to learn from.




  • greatgrandmaR 6d

    I posted the photo I posted - not because it was a spectacular photo (although I like it) but because it was the first one I found that would illustrate the question I was going to ask. It is the reciprocal of the question of what places stand out for photographic potential. What places are the hardest places to get interesting photos? For me, the main photo site difficulty is when I am on a yacht in the middle of a big expanse of water like the ocean. There are some times when you can photograph the clouds, or, if it very calm you can sometimes get reflections, or weather events (like that rainbow), or sunsets or sunrises. But there's only so many rainbows, and the sun rises and sets for a finite time in the day. Even flat land has more to take photos of than the sea with no land in sight.

    The other place I have a problem is when the object I am photographing is very big and I can't get very far away from it. So I am restricted to taking pictures of parts.


    The rainbow photo is lovely but I can see how that would be a problem and it's one reason perhaps that I'm not drawn to the idea of cruises with long days at sea - for me, taking photos is an integral part of any trip. I guess you soon run out of things to photograph on board too?

    But on your other point, I often like to take photos of details - so much so that I sometimes get home and realise I didn't take any pictures of a building in its entirety, even though I could have done!


    I like the details too, but sometimes I just want the whole thing. The Pontcysyllte Aqueduct in Wales is an example. If you take a photo from the ends, you just get a picture of the foreshortened arches which doesn't show the height. And if you take a photo from the ground looking up, you lose the detail, if you can even get far enough away to get the whole thing in. Ideally you should be in a drone or copter just beside it.

    As for a cruise ship - I take photos of the décor and the food and the people and the activities. And selfies. Cruise ships have lots of mirrors. Sometimes also you can get weather pictures - we cruised through the Gulf Stream off NC and the cold air meeting the warm water made a slightly above the water cloud amongst the waves..


    Great Grandma .. does your camera have a 'Panorama' setting or a 'Stitch' function?


    No it doesn't - at least the ones I have now don't. I did have a point and shoot film camera which had something that it called 'panorama' but really all they did was mask off the top and bottom third of the film.

    And really it wouldn't help for the photos of expanses of water. You'd just have more water. The only thing to do in that case would be to get closer to some kind of shore and have a big zoom capability. Or I guess have a big storm with big waves towering over you, which is not something that I'm anxious to see.

    For the Pontcysylite Aqueduct- I was taking photos at that point with my first digital camera (it was in 2002). If I could have gotten to a place where I could have seen the whole thing from close enough I guess a panorama setting might have helped, but really the problem was that I would have needed to be in a helicopter or a parallel aqueduct to get the awesomeness of the whole thing. I could do it for the bridge in Iron Bridge, but I didn't have a good vantage point for the Aqueduct.


  • hasbeen 1w

    I have to get a new camera. My last 3 have been the most recent version of the compact Panasonic Lumix .. with fabulous zoom but most important was the GPS.

    Does anyone have any suggestions for other makes of compact cameras with GPS?


    The Olympus Tough TG4 looks pretty appealing as does the Sony HX400V. Very impressive zoom on that Sony!


    Of those two, I prefer the Olympus for its size & the ability to do time-lapse but the zoom is very small. compared to the Panasonic Lumix DMC series. I do like cameras that slip into my shirt pocket.
    The GPS on my old Lumix was a bit erratic & I wonder if anyone has experienced the GPS on the latest version DMC-SZ40, or indeed on any camera.

  • Peter 1w

    What places have you travelled to that really stood out for their photographic potential?


    Interesting question! I am of the opinion that EVERY place has photographic potential, to be honest. But stand-outs? Here are a few:

    For wildlife - Galapagos Islands (because the animals haven't learned to fear people), birds in the Gambia
    For scenery/landscapes - Atacama Desert, the National Parks of the western US (Bryce, Arches, Canyonlands etc.), Namibia, the hill-top towns of Marche and Umbria
    For architecture - Art Deco in Riga, medieval in Tallinn, skyscrapers in NYC
    For street photography - London, NYC
    For local culture - Ecuador, Guatemala

    I could go on .... ;-)


    And amazingly (because I've just been there) I forgot India which should have been included under local culture and architecture, at least


    For landscape: Scotland
    For wildlife: Namibia / Botswana
    For street art: Lyon, London, Berlin
    For street life: Vietnam

    Curious to read what the others think!


    Landscape - Plitvice Lakes, Croatia, The Dolomites, Italy, Cappadocia, Turkey, Atacama Desert, Chile
    Village - Semur-en-Auxios, France and many more
    Wildlife - Kangaroo Island, South Australia
    Local street life/culture - La Paz, Bolivia


    Landscape - Rocky Mountains Canada, Smoky Mountains US in the fall, backwaters of Kerala India
    Underwater - Pulau Tioman Malaysia
    Wildflowers - Western Australia
    Night lights - Brugges Belgium
    Streets/Culture - Marrakesh, Penang, New Orleans
    Wildlife - Belize
    Architecture - Valencia and Barcelona Spain, Savannah Georgia

    But like Sarah said, there is a good photograph to be had wherever you go.

  • hasbeen joined the group
  • greatgrandmaR joined the group