The disappearance of darkness

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan Browne wrote:
On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:

There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
misplaces
preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
mourn the
passing of wet film.

Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
to replicate the look of film.

The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
whereas transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the
"push" transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a
class B amplifier).

That's not an inherent charcteristic difference between transistor and
tube amps, it's simply a difference in the way te amplifier is
designed, e.g. class A, B, etc.. Neither device inherently can make
the +ve to -ve transistion. Tube amps managed it by simply biassing
themselves high so that the zero signal point was handled half way up
its voltage range. In the earky days of transistor amps the devices
didn't have the power to do that, so they chose to switch between
devices, one handling the +ve side, the other the -ve.

But teansistors are now powerful enough to run in the smae mode as
tube amps, i.e. with the zero signal point biassed half way up their
voltage range. And for those who care there are transistor amps made
to that design.

That discontinuity in transistor based circuits

or tube amps operating the same mode.

is audible to about
1/1000th of a percent of listeners. IOW, even "audiophiles" cough
with the best trained ears would fail to pick it out in an ABX test.

Anything related to the "tone" can be done in analog or digital circuits
- more so in processing.

There were more differences than that. When tube amps were pushed past
their limits the distortion started rising, but it did so gracefully
and slowly. Whereas transistor amps pushed past their limits move very
rapidly into higher levels of distortion, and also a kind of
distortion which has a harsher sound. Since the loudest music tends to
be when lots of instruments (or voices) are playing at once, this
difference was most obvious as a muddying of clarity in loud
orchestral or large choir passages. Those with keen ears could also
pick up it with instruments which had very large sharp transient peaks
in the attack of their notes, such as a piano.

--
Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan Browne wrote:
On 2013.05.08 16:05 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:

These are the same suckers who buy silver speaker leads and $100+ [even
digital] interconnects...

If you dig around you can find a story about some audiophiles having an
epic fail when coat hangers were used in lieu of some high end speaker
cable in an ABX test.

I once built a speaker comparison control box which let you switch
instantly between different speakers at the same sound level. You
could keep switching back and forth and replaying passages until you'd
clarified the differences.

I invited several interested friends around to try it out. Once I'd
got everyone seated nicely and introduced to each other I went off to
make coffee for us all. While I was off making the coffee they started
playing records and using the comparator box. When I came back with
the coffee most of them had made up their minds about the differences.
They mostly agreed with one another about the clear superiority of A
over B. One wasn't yet sure and wanted more testing. One couldn't hear
any difference.

He was right. I hadn't switched the box into the circuit yet. They'd
been flicking disconnected switches :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:24:37 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.05.08 18:52 , Me wrote:

No, the precise reason why valve amps are preferred over solid state for
electric guitar amplification is not linearity at X% THD level, but
the characteristic of distortion when the amplifier is (deliberately)
over-driven - past the point of signal clipping.

Got it. But I look at amps from the POV of music playback, not
point-of-performance. In that sense the sole advantage of a tube amp is
the continuous transition. (Class A transistor amps too, I suppose, but
they are rather out of vogue).

I don't know how well tube amps are wrt to noise these days. I'll have
to wander across the street to my richer neighbor and play with his
system one day using some good CD's. (And CD is good enough for me).

Every time I hear a tube amp I can hear a hum.

More likely an earth-loop. :-(

On Stevie Ray Vaughn's last album, on Little Wing, the hum from the amps
is audible. A credit to using the raw recordings, but irritating.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Other than it's not repeatable as easily as digital is, part of the charm is
having to get it right. I have say 12 shots on 120 film to get what you want
is rather more challenging than taking 5,000 inages on a 16GB card and
sifting through them for the 'best'.

you can limit yourself to just 12 shots on digital if you want.

Yes you can delete those you don;t want seen, which isn't the same thing.

no, you shoot *only* 12. you don't delete anything, just like you would
with a 12 exposure roll of film.

the easy way to do this is get a really tiny memory card, but with a
little discipline, you limit yourself to how many photos you take and
stop at 12 (or whatever number you decide).

the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
technology.

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2...or-me-in-stree
t-photography/

It's not a matter of it being technically better.

that article is utter rubbish and he contradicts himself a lot.

I got my film developed and scanned when visiting Korea the month
afterward- and fell in love with my film shots from Tokyo. The depth,
soul, and the dynamic range were to die for. Shots that were blurry
or out-of-focus (that would have looked horible in digital) looked
more like beautiful mistakes in film.

that's just bull****. 'depth and soul' is meaningless twaddle and the
dynamic range is *less* than digital. if he wants the same dynamic
range as film, he can shrink digital to match. shots that are out of
focus are just as out of focus on digital as they are on film, and they
can be blurred after the fact too, either selectively or all of it.

1. Film helps me focus more on my personal projects

no it doesn't. he says film prevents him from looking at images too
soon, either chimping or that night in lightroom, but nothing stops
anyone from waiting a few days or even months to look at the images.

2. Film helps me focus on my photography, not gear

no it doesn't. he goes on to talk about lusting after new digital
cameras. this happened with film cameras too.

3. I don¹t have to worry about post-processing

you don't have to worry about that with digital. shoot jpeg or give the
memory card to someone else to process, just as you did film, and some
camera stores will do that.

4. I take fewer photographs and am more selective

nothing stops anyone from shooting fewer photos with digital. this also
contradicts his #6 claim.

5. Film isn¹t going away anytime soon

not entirely, but it's becoming harder to find and harder to process.

6. I never run out of batteries/my camera is always on

not a problem with digital, especially if he wants to shoot fewer
photos, as in his #4 claim. or just carry a spare. big deal.

1000 photos per charge is not unusual. assuming 6 hours of non-stop
picture taking with no breaks for food, bathroom or anything else
(which is unlikely), that's 167 photos per hour, or about one photo
every 20 seconds. even if the camera only gets 500 photos per charge,
it's still more than one photo per minute.

he says film helps him be more selective and he wants to take fewer
photos, so the battery won't be a limiting factor. a digital camera
won't wince at 100 photos (~3 rolls of film).

he then contradicts himself again:
I am a huge fan of film point-and-shoots. Why? They are compact which
causes you to take them with you everywhere you go. In the end, you
end up taking more shots, especially in places where you want to be
more low-key (subway, bus, supermarket, etc).

wasn't the goal to take fewer photos? and cellphone cameras are *more*
compact and go more places than a regular camera would, plus they're
even lower key, as you can pretend you're making a call or checking the
weather or something.

he also makes this suggestion:
Also note when you are shooting street photograpy with film, my
suggestion is to*push your film to 1600. If you are not familiar with
pushing film, the idea is that you put in ISO 400 film into your
camera, and adjust your meter to ISO 1600. You then shoot your ISO
400 film underexposed by 2 stops, and process your film for longer to
get the correct exposure. This allows you to get a faster shutter
speed.

pushing two stops is a lot and not all places will push process it,
including the one he uses! he claims film has dynamic range to die for
but this reduces it. digital cameras don't even wince at iso 1600. they
can easily do 3200 or 6400 these days, even higher in some cameras,
giving him even faster shutter speeds.

he then goes on to say:
Also note that with film it is always better to overexpose than
underexpose. Film retains details in the highlights very well, but
don¹t hold much details in the shadows.

pushing two stops is underexposing, by definition, exactly the opposite
of what he is suggesting.

he contradicts himself yet again about processing:
1) If you decide to do it yourself, make sure to google online how to
deveop your own film. You will end up saving more money, but it takes
more time. I don¹t know how to do it myself yet- but I hope to learn
soon!

it might be cheaper for b/w, but not for colour processing.

2) If you decide to send it to a lab, there are a lot of choices.
Back in the states, I send my color film to Costco- they process any
color film for only $5 USD/roll, including a high-resolution scan
(roughly 3500px wide). Unfortunately they don¹t do black and white
and don¹t push-process.

so he doesn't know how to process himself and the place he uses for
processing won't push process, yet he recommends push processing by not
one stop, but two. um, ok.

about the only thing that he said that's valid is this:

4. Yes, I contradict myself * and pride myself in it

I miss the taste of hypo when I used to syphon it back from the tray to
the bottle, not forgetting the smell of processing cibrachrome in a drum and
the excitment of adding the neutralizing chemcal to make the it 'safe' to pour
down the sink.

cibachrome had a pretty nasty smell. i don't miss any of that.

I do I miss the experince of actually doing something other than pressing the
shutter release, and taking it to a processor. Now the processing is all done
by electronics.

you can spend the same time in photoshop (and likely more, because
there are so many more possibilities). if you make a mistake, you can
undo it rather than waste a sheet of paper and another 10 minutes or
whatever it takes to develop a photo. you can also experiment without
worrying about how long it will take or how much paper to use while
trying new things. it's also easier to learn with it.

with offsite backups, you won't lose any images if your house burns
down. there's an identical copy elsewhere. the more offsite backups,
the better.

Sometimes what makes a thing worth while is it uniqueness and
individuality.

not when it comes to backups, it isn't.

Even more so as a picture without a backup is worth more than one with.

Think of it this way which is worth more the original image or one of the
10,000 copies. Why are teh 'fakes' of painting worth less (generally
speaking) than the original ?

they're worth less because they're fake.

a backup is not a fake nor will it be sold for a fraction of the price
of the original.

On 5/9/2013 2:28 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
technology.

I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
the gross inaccuracy of your statement.

go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.

there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
proven. it is not a matter of opinion.

When will you be in New York. Or perhaps Downeast in Maine?

BTW Your statement was
"the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
technology."

When you let me know who you are and when you are available, I will make
a proper introduction.

digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
goes on, the difference will get bigger.

digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
results.

Not the issue - see above

it's *exactly* the issue.

the film luddites think there's something magical about film. there is
not. all of its characteristics can be modeled digitally, whatever film
it happens to be.

the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
software.

Stop shape shifting.
You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to
accept new technology." I called you on it.

you did not call me on anything nor am i shape shifting.

Now when do you want to meet
real people who do not fit your classification.

i have no immediate plans to go to new york. maybe photo plus next fall.

Naturally, your statement would be proven wrong.

that would be quite the feat, because for it to be wrong, everything we
know about sampling theory, semiconductor physics and electrical
engineering would be invalidated.

nevertheless, if your buddy really thinks he can prove it, then best he
take that proof to mit. it's an easy drive from new york.

What does that have to do with your statement regarding people who
prefer film?




that is the sole issue.

your inability to understand basic english is the issue, along with
being an argumentative twit.

That's typical of you. When proven wrong you shift to name calling.

you haven't proven me wrong and you are talking out your ass.

Can't justify your inane statement, so you resort to a personal attack.

--
PeterN

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Yes you can delete those you don;t want seen, which isn't the same thing.

no, you shoot *only* 12. you don't delete anything, just like you would
with a 12 exposure roll of film.

No yuo are giving this project to a group of studetn the aim is to contol
their shooiting and to plan ahead, you inspect each frame as an indication of
planing taken. Leting them submit what they see as the best 12 of whatever
number isn;t the idea.

inspect the card for sequential file names to see if they cheated.

the easy way to do this is get a really tiny memory card, but with a
little discipline, you limit yourself to how many photos you take and
stop at 12 (or whatever number you decide).

NO you need to limit others......
You need to train them to trip the shutter to get a good picture not because
they feel the urge to post to facearse for a like.

see above

1. Film helps me focus more on my personal projects

no it doesn't. he says film prevents him from looking at images too
soon, either chimping or that night in lightroom, but nothing stops
anyone from waiting a few days or even months to look at the images.

Irrelivant.

he makes the claim.

2. Film helps me focus on my photography, not gear

no it doesn't.

If he says it does it does.

except, it doesn't.

I certaqinly think less about photography since using a digital camera.

only because you want to. if you want to think about it, you can. if
not, you don't.

nothing about film makes one think about their photography more.

3. I don�t have to worry about post-processing

I'm not sure what he means by that.

with film, you dropped it off and someone else did the processing.

the same thing can be done with digital. take the card to a camera
store, pop it in a kiosk, and have it auto-print everything. some
camera stores will take the memory card and print all of the photos for
you.

4. I take fewer photographs and am more selective

nothing stops anyone from shooting fewer photos with digital.

It's a psychological thing.

which means the difference is the user, not film or digital.

6. I never run out of batteries/my camera is always on

I never ran out of them either with my practika L.

i have a spare but have needed it only once, and that was because i
shot a couple dozen panoramas with 20-30 photos per pano. that's a very
unusual circumstance, one which would not be possible with film.

most of the time, i don't even take the charger with me. battery life
is not an issue.

1000 photos per charge is not unusual. assuming 6 hours of non-stop
picture taking with no breaks for food, bathroom or anything else
(which is unlikely), that's 167 photos per hour, or about one photo
every 20 seconds. even if the camera only gets 500 photos per charge,
it's still more than one photo per minute.

That depends opnn what you're doing.

I was using a fujifil HS10 for 40mins of video and the battreis went flat
they were fully charged before the filming. Now I know I'll take 8 AAs rather
than just 4 .

this is about still photos, not movies, which would require a movie
camera and multiple super-8 cartridges in addition to the still camera.

more stuff to carry, and i doubt a movie camera would shoot 40 minutes
of movie film on one set of batteries.

he says film helps him be more selective and he wants to take fewer
photos, so the battery won't be a limiting factor. a digital camera
won't wince at 100 photos (~3 rolls of film).

I don;t think taking photos usimng much power it's focusing and everything
else even framing if you half press and if yuo use a EVF.

still, the battery lasts longer than a day of shooting except in very
unusual situations, especially when he wants to shoot fewer photos.

I wonder if spies use camera phones , I alsays wanted one of those 35mm
miniox's when I first got intrested in cameras rather than taking photos.

they probably use hidden digital cameras.

I ahve a poloriod 110B land camera that I think took 3200 asa

except the quality wasn't that good and you had no negative.

you can spend the same time in photoshop (and likely more, because
there are so many more possibilities). if you make a mistake, you can
undo it rather than waste a sheet of paper and another 10 minutes or
whatever it takes to develop a photo. you can also experiment without
worrying about how long it will take or how much paper to use while
trying new things. it's also easier to learn with it.

That was part of the pleasure and pain.
I'ts like telling soneone that climbed everest they should have takenn a
helicopter as it'd be easier.

same can be said for photoshop. many people enjoy tweaking their images
in photoshop.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Naturally, your statement would be proven wrong.

that would be quite the feat, because for it to be wrong, everything we
know about sampling theory, semiconductor physics and electrical
engineering would be invalidated.

nevertheless, if your buddy really thinks he can prove it, then best he
take that proof to mit. it's an easy drive from new york.

What does that have to do with your statement regarding people who
prefer film?

everything.

since digital surpasses film, anything they like about film can be done
digitally.

they don't like it because digital is new and they don't understand it.

that is the sole issue.

your inability to understand basic english is the issue, along with
being an argumentative twit.

That's typical of you. When proven wrong you shift to name calling.

you haven't proven me wrong and you are talking out your ass.

Can't justify your inane statement, so you resort to a personal attack.

you're not the one to criticize someone for resorting to personal
attacks, something you do at every opportunity.

On 5/9/2013 3:05 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Naturally, your statement would be proven wrong.

that would be quite the feat, because for it to be wrong, everything we
know about sampling theory, semiconductor physics and electrical
engineering would be invalidated.

nevertheless, if your buddy really thinks he can prove it, then best he
take that proof to mit. it's an easy drive from new york.

What does that have to do with your statement regarding people who
prefer film?

everything.

since digital surpasses film, anything they like about film can be done
digitally.

they don't like it because digital is new and they don't understand it.


You still don't get it. Tony Cooper's comment about you not
understanding the joy of the process, is spot on.


--
PeterN

On 2013.05.09 05:18 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:24:37 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.05.08 18:52 , Me wrote:

No, the precise reason why valve amps are preferred over solid state for
electric guitar amplification is not linearity at X% THD level, but
the characteristic of distortion when the amplifier is (deliberately)
over-driven - past the point of signal clipping.

Got it. But I look at amps from the POV of music playback, not
point-of-performance. In that sense the sole advantage of a tube amp is
the continuous transition. (Class A transistor amps too, I suppose, but
they are rather out of vogue).

I don't know how well tube amps are wrt to noise these days. I'll have
to wander across the street to my richer neighbor and play with his
system one day using some good CD's. (And CD is good enough for me).

Every time I hear a tube amp I can hear a hum.

More likely an earth-loop. :-(

Not on my end - but see "Me"'s reply wrt the cable likely used.


On Stevie Ray Vaughn's last album, on Little Wing, the hum from the amps
is audible. A credit to using the raw recordings, but irritating.


--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

On 2013.05.08 18:53 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message

digital x-ray is faster, uses lower power x-rays which is safer for the
patient and the technician, has lower storage costs and is easier to
manage. it can also be instantly sent to another doctor anywhere in the
world.

Indeed - making the point perfectly. The only issue I would anticipate is
the X-rays gradually ruining the sensor.

It had been 2 decades since my last x-ray for an injury so, when last
year, I needed my ankle looked at I was pleasantly surprised at the
sensor used: a slab of about 30 x 20 cm, maybe 1 cm thick, was placed
under my ankle. It turned out to be a passive sensor that recorded the
image. I asked the tech and she said it was cleared for the next use
immediately after image retrieval. I didn't think to ask about cycle
life but I would assume many thousands, probably 100,000 exposures.

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton