PDA

View Full Version : Film



Stephen Coates
12th July 2007, 14:53
Does anyone here still use film in cameras?

I have noticed that alot of people have been switching to digital cameras recently, even my Grandad anounced yesterday that he has bought a digital camera. I think the only person who I know who hasn't would be my Dad who rarely takes photos anyway.

I think the quality of film now is about the same as that of digital cameras (and has been for quite a while even), so for most uses, either will do fine.

Having had a digital camera for quite a long time now and not using film since about 2002, I do actually miss film a little bit. There is just that excitement of having to wait a few days for them to be developed.

I am going a way a couple of times during the holidays, and I thought that I might take a film camera rather than the digital one. My Dad has a nice Samsung compact camera which I might borrow (I can't see him wanting to take it due to the batteries being dead). This would of course mean that I will have to buy some new batteries for it, but at least I can be sure that they will last the next few years, rather than me having to worry about the batteries running down every time I take a photograph like I do with the digital camera.

Harrison
12th July 2007, 15:51
My parents still use film based 35mm cameras, but my mum is on holiday next month and asked me for advice on the best digital camera to get so she is finally making the switch. I told her to get the Canon Digital Ixus 900 Ti which is a very nice camera.

You mentioned digital camera images being as good as film based shots. That is quite a complex issue as it does depend on a lot more than just resolution. The optics in the lens can create images that vary a lot. A camera with a good lens can create a better results on some camera with much lower resolution ccds, than other cameras wit much higher reolution ccds, but a low quality lens.

Also with film you would need to use at least a 8MP camera to get close to the resolution of film, but cheaper film cameras have very cheap optics so the actual quality of the images are never that great when examined. They look fine on 4x6 prints but not larger. The big advantage of digital is that you can easily edit the images, crop them and print them at larger sizes. About the only way to get the full resolution from a film camera would be to drum scan the negatives into the computer. Other than that film isn't as good as current digital cameras and scanning prints into a computer means you are actually getting third generation images (negative to print to computer) so the quality will be degraded and slightly blurred.

AlexJ
12th July 2007, 18:28
I find digital has many advantages over film. The screen on the back might not be good enough to check your photo is perfectly in focus, but is good enough to ensure the image is not totally blurred.

The 'pick the best ones' is often quoted as an advantage and it's true, I find myself taking many photos at an event now instead of just a few because there's space for hundreds not just 26, there's no development cost until I decide which ones to get printed and whereas before I'd save one or two spaces in case a great scene for photo came later in the day, now I can just delete one of the images I've taken that I don't care so much for.

Finally with digital I can back them up easily into several places including off-site.

J T
12th July 2007, 19:23
We just bought a Canon Eos 400D (digital SLR). Digital is much more convenient than film, however we do end up taking a lot of silly pictures and sh!t - easily deleted but the massive storage offered by today's memory cards means there is no dis-incentive to getting snap happy.

I do like film-pictures though, they seem to have a certain charm and depth to them, but digital ones sometimes look a bit more vibrant, and of course there is the massive convenience, editing aspect etc. That being said, I think with a very good camera I would be hard pushed to tell whether pics are from a digital or a film camera with my untrained eye (my judgement would be 'I like that more/less than the other'). I think both are very good and there is space for both, horses for courses and all that.

Our wedding photos were done with a 35mm SLR.

Stephen Coates
12th July 2007, 21:23
I agree with the advantages of digital, but I suppose with film, you do have to put more effort into making sure that the picture is good so as not to waste film.

I do find the digital camera essential for taking pictures for wesbites like ebay etc, and for taking pointless and crappy photos. And the fact that I don;t have to worry about anyone else seeing them while they are being developed, but for most normal photographs, like holidays photos etc, then other people seeing hem isn't a problem.

Something I don't quite get with cameras is autofocus, and how the camera actually knows that it is in focus. Obviosuly this isn't a problem with SLRs/Digital cameras with LCDs, or for most normal photographs, but I have noticed with my digital camera that when I try to take a very close up photograph, (with autofocus and macro), it will say it is focussed, but it is in fact very blurred, and I can just not get it to focus right, so I end up having to focus it using a different close up object and using the focus lock. This would be a problem with a normal film camera because you won;t actually be able to see if it focussed or not. I managed to do a few good examples of this using my Dad's film camera a couple of years ago, although some of them did turn out very sharp.

Harrison
12th July 2007, 23:30
We just bought a Canon Eos 400D (digital SLR).

Good choice. The 400D is definitely one of the best entry level Digital SLRs. It can use all of the same lenses as the moe expensive camera in the range, plus it has exactly the same focusing and technology as the more expensive cameras in the cannon range. Just trimmed down slightly.

Only thing I would say is that had you asked I would have said go for the Nikon D40 instead. You would be hard pushed to notice much different between the end results of both cameras, but in all of the reviews I've read where both cameras have been tested the Canon 400D and the Nikon D40 have both come out as the best in range with the Nikon always having a slight edge due to slightly better handling of colour and a few other things. But all the reviews also said the Canon is near identical so you definitely picked a good one. :)



I do like film-pictures though, they seem to have a certain charm and depth to them, but digital ones sometimes look a bit more vibrant, and of course there is the massive convenience, editing aspect etc. That being said, I think with a very good camera I would be hard pushed to tell whether pics are from a digital or a film camera with my untrained eye (my judgement would be 'I like that more/less than the other'). I think both are very good and there is space for both, horses for courses and all that.

It's much like when you watch something that has been filmed using real film instead of video. It is always hard to actual say why it looks better or what is actually different but it is. I think in that example it is mainly due to film being able to capture more depth of contrast than video can.

In terms of digital photography I would agree that it can be very hard to spot the differences between the two. Although if you know what to look for you can easily work out when a photograph has been taken with a digital camera. When zoomed into the photograph you can always find artefacts, especially in consumer cameras that use jpeg as their native format. With Digital SLR that use RAW files to save the native file it is much harder to see any difference as the RAW file is an actual exact copy of the data captured from the camera's ccd.

I do think that Digital SLRs are now better than film based cameras and can produce better results.

There are still some limitations of digital, but equally there were also limitations of film based cameras. One big limitation that digital eliminates is film sensitivity. You had to use a film of specific ISO rating for the situation. With digital you can just change the setting on the camera.

One limitation of digital is fringing. When you get two areas of extreme contrast the camera can find it hard to work out what the colours between the two contrasting areas of colour should be. A good example of this would be to take a picture of something against a bright blue sky. On most digital cameras this will create a purple halo effect because the sudden difference between the bright blue of the sky and the colour of the object in the picture is a big contrast in colour change. But the big advantage of it being digital is that you can remove this problem after.


I agree with the advantages of digital, but I suppose with film, you do have to put more effort into making sure that the picture is good so as not to waste film.

That is definitely the huge plus point of digital. The ability to instantly see how images came out, and knowing you are not wasting any consumables taking pictures.


Something I don't quite get with cameras is autofocus, and how the camera actually knows that it is in focus. Obviously this isn't a problem with SLRs/Digital cameras with LCDs, or for most normal photographs, but I have noticed with my digital camera that when I try to take a very close up photograph, (with autofocus and macro), it will say it is focussed, but it is in fact very blurred, and I can just not get it to focus right, so I end up having to focus it using a different close up object and using the focus lock. This would be a problem with a normal film camera because you won;t actually be able to see if it focussed or not. I managed to do a few good examples of this using my Dad's film camera a couple of years ago, although some of them did turn out very sharp.

The reason professional have always used SLR based cameras is because they get to see exactly what the image will be like before it is taken. With an SLR you are actually looking through the same optics as the camera uses to take the picture. This works by using mirrors to reflect the cameras view through the eyepiece. And then the picture is taken the mirror flicks out of the way at the right moment.

With the advent of digital cameras, the view screen finally gave a version of this to everyone making it much easier to frame shots correctly and focus. But cameras where you have to use a rear screen are still not going to be as good as a real SLR because being able to view through the actual lens without anything processing the data to a screen is much better.

As to your close up issue Steve. It is very simple. All camera lenses have a focal range usually measured in mm. All lenses have a minimal focal distance, with anything closer never being in focus because it is out of range. Most compact digital cameras have a macro setting that will allow you to get within anything from 5mm to 30mm from an object and still be able to focus on it. And SLR lenses will have a focal range which is one reason many SLR users have different lenses.

Now how auto focus works. Did you ever wonder why photographers used to get out a measuring tape and measure the distance between the camera and the subject? They did this and then set the focal length on the camera to match this distance. Auto focus just does this measuring for you. All auto focus systems have a central area of the camera's view that that take this measurement from. On many cameras you might see a marker in the centre of the viewfinder. This is the focusing point that the camera uses. One the better digital and SLR cameras these days they can have a more advanced focusing system. Canon for example use a 9 point focusing system where is can use up to 9 different points within the view to measure the focal distance from the subject and set the correct focus.

Also you might notice that when in darker shots the camera might either quickly flash the flash or a red light source when you try to focus. This is because there is not enough light for the camera to measure the distance to the objects in the shot and so it generates its own light source to measure the distance.

What you describe when you try to focus when close up Steve is that your camera cannot focus correctly because either it's optics have reached their limit, or the electronics that control the auto focus cannot work out the distance at such a close distance.

Hope you now understand this a bit better. I've been into photography for years and enjoy all aspects of it. I'm currently saving up for a new Digital SLR but am currently a bit stuck on which model to buy. I've always been a big fan of Canon cameras and have wanted the 30D for a while, but now the Nikon D80 is available and winning awards so I don't know which to get, or if I should wait a bit longer for the next wave of cameras. Have decision when the cost over 1000.

Submeg
13th July 2007, 00:39
And the fact that I don;t have to worry about anyone else seeing them while they are being developed, but for most normal photographs, like holidays photos etc, then other people seeing hem isn't a problem.



Lol, I was about to say that.....I would hate to be a developer....imagine the weird stuff they would have seen :blink:

Harrison
13th July 2007, 01:33
That is true. :lol:

I definitely don't miss getting prints coming back with Quality control stickers on them! This normally happened when I managed to get a few of extra shots out of a roll of film past the stated number and the last one or two hadn't developed correctly on the end of the roll. Or if I had experimented with strange exposures or timings and knew it might come out looking strange.

Stephen Coates
13th July 2007, 09:47
It's much like when you watch something that has been filmed using real film instead of video. It is always hard to actual say why it looks better or what is actually different but it is. I think in that example it is mainly due to film being able to capture more depth of contrast than video can.

When watching them on the television, I would think video would be better. At least then you don't get little bits of dirt appear on the screen (do they not clean film well before they put it onto video?). Although it will look better in the cinema. I don;t think it would look very good if they were using a CRT/LCD projector on such a massive screen.


What you describe when you try to focus when close up Steve is that your camera cannot focus correctly because either it's optics have reached their limit, or the electronics that control the auto focus cannot work out the distance at such a close distance.

It is just strange though how it can do it with one object, but not with another at the same distance.

Stephen Coates
5th August 2007, 10:07
I went away for a weekend and decided to take my Dad's film camera and used Ektachrome slide film, as I have never used slide film before.

I decided to only get the film developed as I do not have a slide projector, so there wasn't much point in mounting them at the moment. I do very much like the look of the photographs on the slide film. I got ASDA to put them all onto a CD for me so I can look at them on the computer.

I did have a problem with the camera though. For some reason it will not take a photograph if I zoom the lens to more than 50mm. The LCD just flashes with 'LP'. Not sure why this is. It worked fine two years ago and hadn't been used since. I have a feeling that it is trying to take a photo but can't, because sometimes it made a noise, but didn't actually open the shutter or wind the film on.

Anyway, I have ordered some Kodak Ultra films for when I go on holiday. I don't think I will be using the digital camera much because it doesn't seem to be measuring the batteries properly. Sometimes it thinks that my almost new batteries are dead.

J T
6th August 2007, 09:16
We took the Eos 400D to a wedding and it reveals the true beauty of digital - we took loads and loads of shots, and many were utter shit*. It would have been annoying to have paid for those to be developed, but it didn't matter as the card can hold around 300-400 pictures so it is perfectley feasible to just point and shoot like crazy and sort the wheat from the chaff back at home. And I just burnt off a DVD and gave it to the happy couple, so they can use some of the nice ones should they wish.

*Due to slight intoxication, mixed with high spirits, a somewhat lack of talent/knowledge and a rather complicated camera that we haven't yet worked out how to use to to it's full capability. Mostly the booze though.

Harrison
6th August 2007, 23:59
I did have a problem with the camera though. For some reason it will not take a photograph if I zoom the lens to more than 50mm. The LCD just flashes with 'LP'. Not sure why this is. It worked fine two years ago and hadn't been used since. I have a feeling that it is trying to take a photo but can't, because sometimes it made a noise, but didn't actually open the shutter or wind the film on.

Do you always use it with auto focus on? If so it won't let you take a shot if the current settings are out of the automatic focus range. Try switching to manual focus and see if that works.


I don't think I will be using the digital camera much because it doesn't seem to be measuring the batteries properly. Sometimes it thinks that my almost new batteries are dead.

Are you using normal batteries or rechargeable? You cannot using normal alkaline batteries in digital cameras because they are not compatible. You must use rechargeables.

Stephen Coates
7th August 2007, 08:38
Alkaline batteries work better in my digital camera than rechargables do! :lol:

It uses standard AA batteries. The manual even says that alkaline ones can be used, which is good, since all my rechargable battereis have completely died.

I don't think the film camera problem was due to auto focus. I was only trying to take a normal photograph. It wasn't close up or anything. It just says LP all the time when I use zoom. It doesn't have a manual mode as far as I'm aware.

Stephen Coates
30th October 2007, 13:10
My new SLR arrived today :)

I bought a Canon EOS 3000v. I was quite surprised when I first saw the box as it is smaller than the box my digital camera came in. It comes with the standard 28mm-90mm lens which should be fine for now. I just need to wait for the films which I ordered to arrive.

Looksing throught the view finder is a bit tricky. Everything in it is too blurred if I don't have my glasses on but it is hard to use it with my glasses on.

At least I have a fully working camera now.

Harrison
30th October 2007, 14:33
Sounds good. Canon is one of the best makes of SLR so you made a good choice. I didn't know that model, but just looked it up on the Canon site and it looks good.

An SLR is so much nicer to use than a compact camera. It isn't until you actually start using one that you realise how much nicer it is being about to compose shots looking through the actual lens. Some people argue that normal digital cameras now offer this, but personally I don't think it is anywhere near the same. Zooming and focusing looking through that actual lens of an SLR is completely different and much nicer.

And I know what you mean about looking though the viewfinder. I also need to wear my glassed when manually focusing with an SLR, but most good SLRs can auto focus quite well for more situations, and your new camera has a 7 point auto focus so should be really good at auto focusing on most subjects. Just depress the shutter release half way to focus on what you want and hold it there, compose the shot, then press the release fully to take the image. It is a method you will get very used to.

Stephen Coates
30th October 2007, 15:01
I've been playing with the autofocus and setting it to use the different points and it is really good.

It's manual modes are simialr to that on my digital compact, so I will just have to get used to using the menu system on it, although it seems easy enough.

It is certainly good to be able to see whether the image is focussed or not. I find the LCDs on digital cameras OK to see whether it is focuseed or not. I don't know if I will find the viewfinder any better, but as long as I can see if it is focussed, that is fine.

I am going to have to get used to the flash popping up. I knew it would pop up in order to work, but it scared me the first time it did.

I managed to get it at a good price as well. They tend to cost around 100 so I was going to wait till next year but a shop called Clearance Bargains on ebay has been listing them along with tons of other stuff really cheap, so I got it for 59.99 + P&P.

Harrison
30th October 2007, 15:31
That sounds like a bargain, although now digital SLRs are getting cheaper the older film SLRs have dropped right down in price. I've got an old Minolta SLR I used to use a lot that was expensive when new many years ago, but when I looked on ebay those are selling for 20!!! Mad, but that is progress. As new technology is developed the older is left behind and not worth much. Look at the Amiga. A500 for 2-10 these days. Great for enthusiasts but sad to think out beloved Amiga's are not worth much any more.

Stephen Coates
30th October 2007, 15:36
Money isn't always everything though. Just because an Amiga 500 might only be worth 10 doesn't mean it isn't any good. It's stil the same nice A500 which can be used to play games and be expanded with HDs and stuff.

I suppose the low price just becomes a problem if you wanted to sell it and make some money from it.

Back to the subject of cameras, do you know why it pulls all the film out of the container and then winds it back in after each photo? I would guess it is so it can work out how many photos you can take on it, but it still seems a bit odd.

Harrison
30th October 2007, 15:58
That seems a bit odd. My film SLR only winds out enough film ready for the first shot when you insert a new film, and only winds the whole thing back into the canister once it reaches the end. And that has been the same with all cameras I've used. I would have thought unwinding the whole film after each shot would really slow the camera don between shots.

Unless it is having trouble reading the digital ID on the film canister to set the correct ISO speed. Make sure the little metal contacts on the film and the camera are meeting up properly and that the camera is setting the correct ISO rating when a new film is inserted.

Stephen Coates
30th October 2007, 16:06
I havn't actually used it properly yet (I've just been using it with no film). Here's what the manual says:

'Loading Film
After you load the film, the camera first winds the entire roll onto the camera's take-up spool. With DX-Coded film, the camera automatically sets the film's ISO speed. Then each time a picture is taken, one frame of film is rewound back into the film cartridge. The frame counter shows always number of shots remaining.'

The only thing I can think of is that the camera will be able to count the amount of frames on the film and tell you how many are left.

I think Canon could do with checking the manual before they print it. "The frame counter shows always number of shots remaining." ought to read "The frame counter always shows the number of shots remaining."

Harrison
30th October 2007, 16:08
Translated from another language obviously.

So that sounds like it does the opposite of cameras I've used in the past. With my SLR it unwinds the film as it takes the shots, then when it reaches the end it rewinds the whole lot back into the canister.

Stephen Coates
30th October 2007, 16:15
That's what all the cameras I have used do.

I'm just looking forward to getting some film to try with the camera now.

Stephen Coates
31st October 2007, 13:48
I got some Fujicolor C200 films to start off with. I read somewhere that it can be quite grainy, but should be fine just for me to mess about with.

Has anyone here ever taken photos of Fireworks? I read that it is quite difficut, but as it is the 5th November soon I thought I'd give it a go. Last time I took pictures of fireworks was a few years ago and they ended up looking a bit strange.

AlexJ
31st October 2007, 14:32
Has anyone here ever taken photos of Fireworks? I read that it is quite difficut, but as it is the 5th November soon I thought I'd give it a go. Last time I took pictures of fireworks was a few years ago and they ended up looking a bit strange.

Yeah, they're really fast paced and it's near impossible to convey the sense of actually seeing them. However, I've always found them quite good for getting to know a new camera beyond the simple point-and-shoot in daylight standard shot. Here's a few examples from several years ago that I've no idea why I've kept.

You'll need to use a fairly long exposure time else you'll get something like this:

http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/6392/p1010029oj5.jpg

Smoke is a problem, especially with the air being fairly damp so it's all too easy to end up with something like this:

http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/6643/p1010027ki0.jpg

Oh and of course, make sure the flash doesn't fire otherwise you'll get something like this:

http://img471.imageshack.us/img471/1276/p124124pw7.jpg

Then really it's luck as to if what you take looks good.

http://img471.imageshack.us/img471/8539/p1010028gh0.jpg

Harrison
31st October 2007, 15:11
Some good tips there.

Definitely make sure the flash is completely off or, as that picture shows, it will shorten the depth of field and you won't get the fireworks as the main focus of the image.

And a long exposure time is definitely needed, which works best with a tripod so you don't end up with some camera shake spoiling the image. A free alternative is to find a fence or wall then you can rest your elbows on when you take the shots to steady yourself.

And use a manual focus as any autofocus won't work at night while pointing at the sky. Just set the focus to infinity or the furthest it will go.

Stephen Coates
1st November 2007, 11:21
Those ones that you took Alex are better than the ones I did a few years ago.

I'll have ago at taking some photos over the next few years and will post the results.

Harrison
1st November 2007, 11:24
Next few years? We will be waiting a long time then. :p

Did you mean next few days?

Stephen Coates
1st November 2007, 11:30
Yes, next few days. There are a couple of big firework displays here. My Dad's away until tuesday though so it's unlikely we'll have any fireworks in the garden.

AlexJ
1st November 2007, 11:40
Those ones that you took Alex are better than the ones I did a few years ago.

And they were mostly example of how not to do it!

Stephen Coates
1st November 2007, 11:43
Yes, I have seen better ones on various sites on the internet.

Something that is quite odd, is that I took a photo of a big bonfire and coming out of the left hand side were some little things which looked like the letter 'a'.

Stephen Coates
6th November 2007, 10:33
I will take the films to be developed today.

Does anyone have any recomendations on lenses which I could look into getting which might be better than the one which was included? (I don't yet know how good the included lens is as I havn't had any pictures developed from it)

Harrison
6th November 2007, 12:35
The types of lens you buy will all depend on what you wish to take pictures of. Also these days many film SLR lenses are compatible with Digital SLR cameras, so when buying a lens try to get one that is. This way if you eventually upgrade to a digital SLR you will already have lenses you can use. You can also save a lot of money buying second hand lenses, but make sure you can test the lens first before purchase to make sure it works and there are no scratches, distortion or other problems.

As for the actual types of lens. A good all round lens is a must, which has a wide range, so that you don't need to be constantly swapping over lenses when you are out. The lens that came with your camera, with a range of 28-90mm is pretty good for this, so for most general shooting you already have a good lens.

The lens you may wish to buy is a macro lens if you are likely to be taking close up shots. But you will need to study the lenses on offer to see how much distortion they produce. With a macro it can introduce fish eye distortion into the lens, and the final images it produces. Most Macro lenses have the field of view in degrees on them, so you can work this out easily. Obviously a lens with a 180 degree FOV is the extreme and will give distortion that will look like those traffic mirrors you often see on difficult corners on the road, but they do allow you to take some great wide angle shots of small enclosed areas such as rooms.

The other type of lens to consider is a zoom lens that is quite powerful for long distance shots. Something with a maximum of 300mm will offer great zooming abilities, but will be bigger and heavier than a standard lens.

The other thing you may want to consider is a lens with stabilisation built in, especially one with a long range as the further you are zooming the more small camera movements will effect the final image. These however can get expensive, especially when optical stabilisation is used.

But saying that, all lenses are expensive, but as I already mentioned second hand lenses are worth looking at as you can save a lot of money. And if you find a good small camera shop (not a chain like Jessops, but a self run shop) the owners are normally very helpful and knowledgeable and can quickly recommend a compatible lens for your camera for the type of photographs you wish to take.

Personally I would say your current lens is good enough for most shootings, and recommend at most you first buy a macro lens, and also if you don't have one, get a tripod as they are very useful. Even a mono-pod is better than nothing.

For the next camera I get, I'm seriously considering a Nikon Digital SLR, such as the D80, as one of the lenses available is a Nikon 18-200 AS-R VR lens and that focal length range is equivalent to a 27-300mm lens in 35mm film format, which is an amazing range for all but macro photography. It also has some amazing VR stabilisation technology built in that allows you to take perfectly still shots even when taken from a travelling vehicle. It does however come at a price. 489. :o But they don't drop in price second hand so you do get your money back if you later wish to sell it on.

Stephen Coates
10th November 2007, 20:19
Thanks for the information about lenses. I'll stick with the one I have for now, but I will probably get a macro one sometime in the future.

I got my first photos back which I took with the camera. You can see a selection of them here: http://emaculation.com/steve/photos/
Opinions on the website design are also welcome.

Harrison
12th November 2007, 12:40
Interesting website idea, to use written text. Definitely gives it a personal feel.

I like the red sky image. Very nice. Quite cool fireworks pictures too. You wouldn't instantly realise they were either and work quite well as abstract art. It is just a shame you didn't get the whole of the firework in the top image as they was definitely the best one.

Tiago
12th November 2007, 13:02
Cool that written text,
it is a cool idea for people like me that dont know html....just write and scan...

Stephen Coates
12th November 2007, 14:52
I like the red sky image. Very nice. Quite cool fireworks pictures too. You wouldn't instantly realise they were either and work quite well as abstract art. It is just a shame you didn't get the whole of the firework in the top image as they was definitely the best one.

I did get quite a few more photos but I thought hat they were the best ones. They are definately better than the ones I took a few years ago, but this time I had the luxury of a 'bulb' setting on the camera. I agree that they look good as abstract.

The sky often looks quite nice out of my bedroom window so I have taken quite a few photos of it (both on film and digital).


Cool that written text,
it is a cool idea for people like me that dont know html....just write and scan...

I was getting bored of all this Web 2 stuff, and I don't have a clue when it comes to CSS, and everyone else seems to be getting bored of plain HTML stuff, so I thought I'd go for an idea which I hadn't seen before. I made the site using a few simple tables in Netscape Composer and most of the pictures where set as backgrounds in the cells, but they could have just been set as pictures.

Harrison
12th November 2007, 15:15
It is actually a very well explored idea in design circles. Traditionally typography has been quite formal and restricted to rules that date back to print based type setting. This still generally applies today even online. But an area of design that explores experimenting more with text has been around since the 1960's and is called Text Deconstruction.

And you have basically started to explore this by the way you've created your website. :thumbs: