Goldie's Toronto

[Goldie]

Yonge St., W. side between Front & Wellington - 2006

 

[EVCco]

TD Centre

Great composition!

 

[Goldie]

Thank you, EVCco.

 

[Goldie]

Toronto's fabulous and recently sold building.

North side:

 

[Mississauga Slim]

Yonge St., W. side between Front & Wellington - 2006

The reflections create a wierd, Salvador Dali-like effect. Especially in the second shot!

 

[Goldie]

green at Front & Church

Kingston Rd. mural (at St.Clair)

 

[Goldie]

Idea for a movie, "The Birds." Oh! It's been done?

 

[Mustapha]

Idea for a movie, "The Birds." Oh! It's been done?

Great movie,.. and darn Goldie, did you put your camera on the ground with all that pidgeon doo for that last shot?

 

[Goldie]

A great little device!

Great movie,.. and darn Goldie, did you put your camera on the ground with all that pidgeon doo for that last shot?

Nothing to it with the little Sony beauty that was my first digital camera.
It has a great swivel lens for easy shooting at all angles.
Although I've advance to a Nikon, I consider the Sony Cyber-Shot U50 to be a delight - and only 2.0 meg!
So small it fits any pocket - see attached photo:

 

[Mustapha]

Nothing to it with the little Sony beauty that was my first digital camera.
It has a great swivel lens for easy shooting at all angles.
Although I've advance to a Nikon, I consider the Sony Cyber-Shot U50 to be a delight - and only 2.0 meg!
So small it fits any pocket - see attached photo:

I have a Sony U30, 8 years old, still works, but I don't use it anymore. It looks like a Minox, as does your U50.

 

[Lone Primate]

I have a Sony U30, 8 years old, still works, but I don't use it anymore. It looks like a Minox, as does your U50.

Man, I've still got my DC40 and DC50 from 1997 and 1998 respectively. If I still had the serial port cable (uh, and a serial port), I could presumably still use the DC40. I have pulled out the DC50 now and again just for the grins (with an adapter, it takes low-capacity CF cards). Neither was even a single megapixel, and the image quality was so dodgy that the DC50 gives me images straight out of the camera that look arguably like a Photoshop "watercolor" filter's been run on them, which is sort of its charm these days. Neither of them will fit in your pocket, though.

This is the DC40 and a sample image...

Here's the DC50 and a sample image...

A few years back I took out the DC50, put some fresh AAs in it, put it on its lowest quality setting, and got this kind of painterly effect right out of the box... this is down near the forks of the Don.

I don't have the DC25 that was my first digital camera anymore; kind of wish I did. I sold it to help finance the DC40. But I still have a handful of shots I took with it. This is one from down on Spadina in March, 1997, when they were working to reopen the streetcar line that had been closed since the late 40s. I've always kind of prized this shot... it's probably what really got me started on digital lomography.

...And yes, that was the actual size of the image. (So are the other three sample shots.)

 

[Mustapha]

Lone Primate, that was a cool personalized 'history of digital photography', thank you. The early digital cameras did have 'instamatic' quality output didn't they?

Here are a trio of my early cameras:
Top - Minolta 16PS, purchased in 1969 from Japan Camera then located on Yonge a few feet south of Dundas on the west side. I can't find any sample pictures from it.
Middle - a Minox I purchased second hand in 1994 or so. The attachment on the end is a right angle viewfinder. The picture of Whitney Block below is a sample of its output.
Bottom - Sony U30, a 2MP camera - the pictures following Whitney Block were taken with it. All these cameras were considered miniature wonders in their day.

Minox picture.

Sony U30 pictures (2MP camera).
Breakfast at Karine's $5, includes coffee. Moose's ☆☆☆☆☆ recommendation, and, don't forget to tip, even though it's food court service.
http://karines.wordpress.com/

V This is NOT my bike. Yonge and Queen.

Those early digital cameras allowed people to 'journal' their daily lives photographically. I think that small pocket size point-and-shoot cameras are getting obsolete - cell phones will supercede them soon, in my opinion. I am impressed with the various very flat pocket cameras from Sony, but, the Apple phones have all that and even more functionality what with all the downloadable apps for photo manipulation. I don't own an Apple phone myself but I was impressed with a recent demonstration.

 

[Lone Primate]

Lone Primate, that was a cool personalized 'history of digital photography', thank you. The early digital cameras did have 'instamatic' quality output didn't they?

They sure did. I knew they didn't measure up to film, but the utility of them was just so fantastic. Go home, download, and you had a whole new "roll of film" for free. But the mind-blowing magic of the DC25 for me was that without developing, I could see if the shot I took was any good a second or two after I took it... and if I didn't like it, I could erase it and get that "frame" of "film" BACK again! Hear the herald angels sing... I knew the quality would improve, but just for the moment, being able to record anything, anytime, was enough magic for me.

Top - Minolta 16PS, purchased in 1969 from Japan Camera then located on Yonge a few feet south of Dundas on the west side.

Were YOU buying stuff in '69 (or was it someone in your family)? I had the impression you were younger than me. Of course, I tend to think that about just about everybody here. Must be your avatar... you take a great picture for an older fellah.

 

[Mustapha]

They sure did. I knew they didn't measure up to film, but the utility of them was just so fantastic. Go home, download, and you had a whole new "roll of film" for free. But the mind-blowing magic of the DC25 for me was that without developing, I could see if the shot I took was any good a second or two after I took it... and if I didn't like it, I could erase it and get that "frame" of "film" BACK again! Hear the herald angels sing... I knew the quality would improve, but just for the moment, being able to record anything, anytime, was enough magic for me.




Were YOU buying stuff in '69 (or was it someone in your family)? I had the impression you were younger than me. Of course, I tend to think that about just about everybody here. Must be your avatar... you take a great picture for an older fellah.

Freedom from the expense and wait time for film development is liberating isn't it? Digital imagery and the internet were made for each other, and to think they developed (pun) independently from each other.

I was age 13 in 1969, running around with paper route money burning a hole in my pocket.

And hey, whippersnapper,.. 55 ain't old, [but it's not young either.]

 

[Goldie]

FILM vs DIGITAL
Anyone who has ever developed a print in the darkroom will surely agree: the old "MAGIC" is gone forever!
____________________________________

Marilyn for sale on Yonge

Toronto's Reference Library