Post by Arthur HassIt seems to me that this is all pretty trivial for anyone that is really
serious about location and camera position. A GPSR separate from the
camera will be far superior to having a chip in the camera.
The clock in the camera has to be accurate, but can be reset at any time
based on the GPSR time. If the GPS is set to record once every second,
you have a track log containing just about everything you could possibly
need. Granted, the course (direction) may not be entirely accurate if
the GPSR isn't moving, but even that can be remedied if you simply walk
toward the direction the lens is pointing prior to (or after) taking the
shot. In some situations, a little note taking might be required, but
this is common for anyone that is half way serious about photography.
Furthermore, anyone that is deadly serious about all of this is probably
only going to need the statistics for a few shots - certainly not every
photo. Pros never use 99 percent of their photos. It's very easy to
look up the correct time, and thus the required data, in a track log.
And, as someone else said, you can always simply take a photo of the
GPSR at the required time.
BTW, this is one of the longest threads I've seen in a while ;-)
Arthur Hass
Post by Paul SaundersPost by DaveJust curious about using a GPS receiver and taking pictures. Why might
someone want to coordinate the two?
In landscape photography the reasons are obvious, to mark good
viewpoints. In practice, most good viewpoints are pretty obvious and
it's easy to find them again, but not always. A few examples;
1. A good foreground or subject (e.g. an interesting rock) in an area
where it would be difficult to find it again (e.g. a bleak trackless
moorland).
2. An interesting subject surrounded by loads of other similar
subjects, e.g. an interesting tree in the middle of a forest.
3. Telephoto shots. Most landscapes tend to use a fairly wide angle
where you can see the foreground in the photo, making it easy to
identify the viewpoint, but a telephoto lens can photograph distant
subjects with no foreground, so the viewpoint could be very difficult
to ascertain. Yet at the same time, due to perspective compression
and the way distant objects line up, the viewpoint may be critical, so
this is a very good reason for knowing the viewpoint if you want to
repeat the shot.
4. Four seasons photos. One interesting exercise is to photograph
the same location at each of the four seasons of the year, to show how
different it looks in each season. But it can be quite difficult to
do if you want to get exactly the same composition each time,
particularly if you're only relying on memory. An accurate waypoint
would be very handy for this, but it would have to be extremely
accurate. I'd recommend setting up a tripod at an identifiable spot,
then taking a photo of the tripod itself, with the scene behind it,
then carrying a photo of it to ensure you put it in exactly the same
spot next time.
Recording a GPS position for a photo is all very well, but one thing
that doesn't tell you is the direction the photo was taken. The GPS
coordinates will tell you where the camera was, but not the
coordinates of the subject itself, which may be some distance away
from the camera (especially with a telephoto lens). Knowing the
direction that the camera was pointed may be very useful, so why not
include an electronic compass in the camera too, and record the
direction that the camera was facing?
I think that position information like this is probably of more use to
people other than the photographer, photo agencies for example. The
photographer will usually know where most photos were taken.
Paul
would make the process vastly more efficient, and convenient. Sure, I
won't. It just makes the whole process a job, rather than a pleasure.
us. Care to guess where the larger market lies??