Why not have your camera at ready when you have that feeling of being watched. Use a camera with black&white film. Immediately shoot a series of pictures of the area around you such as in the area where a Bf might be standing,observing you etc. You would be amazed at what you can see if you have them enlarged to 8x10 and the use a Jewler's Loupe to look at detail.

Good Idea. I always carry a still and a video camera in my rig and always have one of them with me when in the woods. Hopefully this will increase my chances of getting the Big guy on film.

I take it that no pictures from NM


glad you made it back ok!

Texan, I guess it was a poor way on my behalf to say.......


No BlobSquatchin please!!

Why black & white?

I was wondering the same thing Huntster.....

Its much easier to see blobsquatches in black and white.
You don't get distracted by the realization that your squatch is exactly the same color as the clump of dead grass next to it......

Isn't this where most of the BlobSquatches come from?
Kinda validates the Redneck Research Rules # 1 & # 2. rednecks looking for a bigfoot-> you were born a bush, raised as a bush, now you're a bigfoot.
Not calling Versatile a redneck by no means!



edit....oops sorry nw, didn't read all the post. :doh:

Hey didn't see your post until now. I have been told in the past that black and white can be enlarged to show more detail. Once i had taken photos of a WWII aircraft wing (BT-13). The photos were from about 50 ft. away and i had them enlarged to 8x10 inch and with what i thought was a jewlers loupe i then could read the serial number on the data plate. That is some detail!

Get a 3+ Megapixel Digital Camera and please - I can't emphasize that enough - learn to use it before taking it out in the woods....Blubsquactchs come a dime a dozen... :doh:

I'm new to this digital camera game, but I can agree with your recommendation.

I just got a Sony Cybershot (the waterproof kind) for outdoors carry. It's only 2 megapixel. Picture quality is low. I don't regret buying the thing, because it's very small and light, and still ideal for hunting and fishing snapshots. But for anything which might require high quality resolution, it will disappoint.

I think I may actually been better off with the old waterproof 35 mm Minolta. Picture quality is supurb, there is a crude zoom capability that the Sony doesn't have, and I can always simply scan the photo into digital form.

I'll carry the Sony around for a few years and see what happens.

Ragarding digital cameras, regardless of resolution, size or degree of water resistance, make sure it is fast.

With the 4MP FujiFilm I have now, I can't even photograph children when they make a cute face. The time from shutter press to image capture is just long enough from a cute smile to turn into a distracted frown and more than enough time for a sasquatch to go from looking at you from behind a tree to... just gone.

Unless you have the Luck of Patterson, which is as common these days as having The Force.

Enough said here. Try it in black&white and see for your self.

actually you're better off using film at this point if you want detail. You'd need something like a 15mp camera to equal the detail found in common film negatives.

Thank you Sir.

Uh... am I missing something here?

Can anyone back up their film to digital comparisons by stating WHAT ISO/ASA film you'd be using?

Obviously the highest grain available... but what would that compare to digital?

There seem to be lots of differing opinions on the subject. Here are two:

http://www.ltlimagery.com/film_v_digital.html

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html

Thanks for the links. I partialy read both links and what i think i gleaned is YES digital can be as good as film except you need a very high megapixel camera to achieve this. I don't know of anyone personally that uses one.

Black and White: I didn't see much about it in the links but the second one did say a bit with a chart or diagram.

Try this : Take a picture of something with your digital camera(use a stuffed chimp stuck in the brush. so you can get a face, in other words you want the digital one to turn out as a blobsquatch like everyone else posts) and then take an exact same picture with a 35mm and black and white. Have the 35mm enlarged to 8x10 and use a magnifying glass to look at it. I was amazed at the clarity from a photo taken about 50ft away. I doubt you will use the word blobsquatch on it. I think this will prove my point and you will learn a CORRECT way to get a good photo.

being a "ghost hunter" also, I can offer this advice.
If you use a digital, then expect the world to say you "photo shopped"(digitally altered) the picture.
If you use 35 mm camera, you have a negative to back you up.
There is also infrared film out there, but expensive stuff.
I haven't seen a "blobsquatch " picture that i can say I've been impressed with yet, and there are many in my area claiming they are the real deal.
These are also the people who won't take you out to the areas where they are taking these pictures, so you can see for yourself.

Jeff
NEOBFR

I understand the "photoshopped" issue, but wouldn't it be obvious that the photo was altered based on the file modified date stamp version creation date?

I've wondered about that also Bowling. But, my question is (and has been for a while now), if the photo is resized to fit the forum, does a modified date show?

Despite the 'of late' status & character of the originator of this thread, I think his idea has clear merit. Maybe more than the discussion so far has realized.

I surely don't think his intent was for the mass production of 'blobsquatch' pics by every 'camper' with an 'eery feeling'. But, given the serious lack (everywhere) of any kind of worthy, clear pictures of ANYTHING truly Bigfoot-ish, it seems that pre-emptively 'shooting' pictures could be one of those worthwhile 'new styles' of pursuit and research that have been discussed as being needed to get some better evidence.

Given what we know about how most 'encounters' (random and intentional) transpire...and the nature of the 'beast' itself, it makes very logical sense if one's goal is being there to somehow/someway get a picture of 'Hairy' (no relation). For one, the 'circumstances' would be in a more (a lot more?) 'static' state-of-being. The corresponding diminished 'stress' would probably do wonders to 'picture quality' even if it were just 'bushes'. Initially you could even do a 'control set' of pics to use as a baseline. Secondly, it's no mystery that 'Bigfoot' is very good at staying mostly in the 'shadows', especially when being 'curious' or nosey about humans. Obviously 'not-being-seen' is his best ally, so you deal with it on his terms and accept the 'shadows' as your 'canvas'.

Although digital photography is the desired norm nowadays, I think he's also right in saying a 'film camera'. The seeming 'old news' attitude towards 'film' is a bit premature I think. As to the exact type/kind of film needed, I bet that could be determined fairly easily and is more a secondary concern.

IMHO, the 'technique' has definite potential.

"Harry"