A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

below $1000 film vs digital



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old June 14th 04, 03:44 AM
Sabineellen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

I guess y'all have never shown someone a handful of prints? Requires no
electricity or batties, then again that's probably not -gadgety- enough is
it? :-)


or fast computers that don't crawl frustratingly, or hard drives that don't
churn annoyingly, or operating systems that don't freeze/crash and
gotta-restart repeatedly, or noisy fans or radiation or cables...etc


  #122  
Old June 14th 04, 03:45 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

William Graham wrote:



Also, you
can use it in the dark, without having to turn on the lights.....


Sounds like the ticket for slumber parties...

I guess y'all have never shown someone a handful of prints? Requires no
electricity or batties, then again that's probably not -gadgety- enough is
it? :-)

--

Stacey


  #123  
Old June 14th 04, 03:47 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Bob Monaghan wrote:


ROFL! Thanks, I needed this chuckle, quoting a most obscure advantage of
digital over film ;-) :

And my son's new laptop weighs less than a photo album........Also, you
can use it in the dark, without having to turn on the lights.....
endquote:

So the big disadvantage of photo albums is they weigh more than laptops
and can't be used in the dark? ;-) ;-) ;-)



Really, that's about the funniest "Pro digital" coment I've ever read! A
photo alblum costs what maybe $10 and how much is a laptop nowadays?

--

Stacey
  #124  
Old June 14th 04, 03:52 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Mark Weaver wrote:


Or maybe you just hang out in
the shallower end of the gene pool


I was wondering how long it would be before personal insults started..



This is in contrast to the photos from my childhood of which there is
still only one copy in boxes at my folks' house -- they won't be mine
until both
my parents are gone


Why because you can't scan them?


My 94-year-old grandfather
still has all his photos...including the photos of my mother's
childhood--most of which I've never seen.


Why because they can't be scanned?



The great thing about digital images is that they are so much more usable,
copyable, and shareable.


See above. You act like only one print can be made from a negative or prints
can't be scanned and copied. And yes I've scanned and reprinted old prints
and ussually they can be made to look better than the original.

--

Stacey
  #125  
Old June 14th 04, 04:14 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

reverse conversion from VHS to film (super-8)?

no, I had not planned on such a reverse conversion ;-), though I have some
8mm and 16mm (underwater housed) cameras and gear from my past teaching
advanced underwater photo/video courses...

When I selected a mini-DV camera, a key factor was its ability to input
video (from TV, laser disk, or VCR) and perform A/D to mini-DV tapes. I
have a lot of programs which were broadcast which would be impossible to
find on DVD and movies that would be very costly to rebuy on DVD, but with
mini-DV tapes at $2 in bulk/discount, why not?

One reason behind my delaying and staying with magnetic media is the
projected shift to HDTV (by 2006 per FCC mandates?), which our blockbuster
gurus suggest will force an entire new buying cycle (much to their
delight) for new HDTV format optical media (HD-DVD?). It is bad enough
buying a movie once, but three times in five years is ridiculous ;-)

My current mini-DV does have the panoramic 16:9 format option, so I am
shooting some lake shots and the like in both normal and wide panoramic
modes. Granted, it isn't at the 2 MP level of the highest HDTV format
images (see http://www.nbc.com/nbc/footer/HDTV.shtml) but it won't require
reshooting or format conversions with large blank side panels ;-)

Kind of makes you appreciate a film format like 120 which has been stable
for over a century, eh? ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
  #126  
Old June 14th 04, 04:18 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Vladamir30 wrote:

Stacey said:

Not in the least. You're the one trying to claim the people in the 20's

were
fools who thought they needed to be using LF cameras! :-)


O.K., I'll try to say this again in a manner such that you can comprehend
it.


Here we go, someone disagrees with a digicam user and then it never fails
the personal insults start rolling out. Learn this technique from Rafe or
Mark?


My assertion is that film of that era was perfectly fine for contact
printing. I know that because I've seen literally hundreds of contact
prints
from that period. I didn't say that people in the '20s were fools who
thought they needed to be using LF cameras.


What you said was:

She probably doesn't realize that when George Eastman
popularized roll film the "serious photographers" ridiculed it, saying that
it was something only for the unknowing masses, that its only advantage was
speed and ease of use, and that its quality was no good compared to sheet
film in large format cameras.

No one said anything about contact prints. For snap shots, contact printed
120 film would be OK but most "serious photographers" would want to make
prints larger than 2 1/4 inches I would think.

People who used large format
cameras were people who needed larger prints and of a better quality than
could be obtained from roll film enlargements of the same size. In other
words, back then people used large format cameras for exactly the same
reason people use them today. But that hardly means the film was a grainy
mess back then any more than it means film of today is a grainy mess.


Then why did it have to be contact printed to be any good? I've done
enlargements from 120 film back then and it IS a grainy mess compared to
modern film. Smaller format cameras like the rollei TLR didn't get popular
until film got better, same with 35mm over those TLR's.


They have shots taken by local pro's with the different cameras they

have
for sale. I live in Atlanta GA and this is a shop that caters to working
pro's trying to sell this stuff to working pro's.
Why wouldn't that show what they can do? You think someone is making
-much-
better images with these cameras and they are hiding them?


Well it wouldn't necessarily show "what they can do" because we don't know
if the photographer's objective was to make the best possible print do we?


Yea most photographers intent is to make a crappy print to showcase their
talent.. LOL! If this is the case, why would these same photographers want
to make such nice MF shots? That's almost as funny as the guy who said
digital is better because you can show your images to people without
haveing to turn the lights on! :-)


OTOH,
you've told us that you don't use a 35mm camera



I used one for 10 years until I tried a medformat camera.. Still use one if
I need the speed/ease of use over quality or need a super telephoto lens
etc.

and you don't use a
digital
camera


Not a high end one made in the last year. Mine is a fairly high end one from
2 years ago, now considered "junk" or "A dinosour" when it's my newest
piece of photo gear! :-) I do some scanning and printing of film, does that
count as far as digital experience? Sorry if not owning a DSLR doesn't
allow me to have an opinion. Several of my friends who have been shooting
for 20 years own them, does that count?

so you have no personal experience at all, and very very limited
second hand experience, on which to base these pronouncements you make
about digital photography do you?


Why take this so personally? All I've said is I'm looking at prints, taken
by some local pros, the local pro store is showing me trying to convince me
to buy a digital camera from them. I can't imagine they are saving the
better ones for themselves or they are trying to produce bad prints to sell
their high profit new cameras. The prints done digitally from scanned MF or
LF film they've shown me and that I have done look OK (I still like the
look of optically printed better..), I'm just not impressed with the
digitally captured stuff I've seen. Obviously you think it's fine, I'm
happy for ya.

--

Stacey
  #127  
Old June 14th 04, 05:04 AM
MikeWhy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
And yes I've scanned and reprinted old prints
and ussually they can be made to look better than the original.


And around we go again... I lose track from moment to moment of who is
pro-digital, and who is clinging by bleeding fingernails to fondly held
beliefs. Yes, Stacey, this of course is the major strength of digital. The
price of admission, and the cost and pain of archiving, are made more than
worthwhile by the ease of correcting and manipulating an imperfectly
captured image, whether it was partly photochemical or entirely digital.
There is no question that digital is the most direct path from what you saw
as you looked through the viewfinder to a finished print to hang on a wall.
Many times, it's the only way. The fling-and-pray that is darkroom work does
not compare to the precision and variety of edits that can be made by
digital.

  #128  
Old June 14th 04, 06:04 AM
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

In article , MikeWhy
wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
And yes I've scanned and reprinted old prints
and ussually they can be made to look better than the original.


And around we go again... I lose track from moment to moment of who is
pro-digital, and who is clinging by bleeding fingernails to fondly held
beliefs. Yes, Stacey, this of course is the major strength of digital. The
price of admission, and the cost and pain of archiving, are made more than
worthwhile by the ease of correcting and manipulating an imperfectly
captured image, whether it was partly photochemical or entirely digital.
There is no question that digital is the most direct path from what you saw
as you looked through the viewfinder to a finished print to hang on a wall.
Many times, it's the only way. The fling-and-pray that is darkroom work does
not compare to the precision and variety of edits that can be made by
digital.


and the fact you can have all your images categorized with keywords and
instantly bring up exactly the images you want with a couple of
keystrokes instead of looking thru zillions of contact sheets, proofs
or slides on a lightbox.
  #129  
Old June 14th 04, 07:02 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


Wow, this is sooo confusing ;-)

Mike says that digital is the shortest way to get from what you saw in the
viewfinder to a print, thanks to all the digital manipulations and
corrections you can do?

One of my problems with digital is that the images increasingly look fake
and manipulated to some perfection (the birds on the sunset..) that never
happened. Then again, there are all those photojournalists getting fired
for doing those same digital manipulations.

And in any case, it takes a heck of a lot of time and talent to do those
manipulations, versus dropping off your film and picking up your prints?
;-) ;-) And lots of people doing these manipulations do them badly (ahem)
or lack talent or haven't bothered to calibrate their monitor to print
chain etc. And how about those using cheapy inks that may or may not
reproduce what you seen on screen, let alone in the viewfinder? ;-)
========


Anonymous suggests that it is soooo much faster to catalog and do keyword
classifications and searches and view your images online than in those
old ratty slide pages. Huh? ;-)

How much time does it take to put all those images into a database, give
them names and IDs, then add in key words and so forth for each one?
Doesn't that take time too? ;-) How good is your amateur key word table?

And let us not forget how amazingly Slooooow many of those same programs
are in going from image to image, even on a fast Mac or PC. Maybe you just
use thumbnails to speed it up - kind of hard to evaluate images that way
though, isn't it? ;-)

Gordon calls this the problem of linear editing vs. random editing, IIRC.
Linear means you are forced to go thru image after image on screen to see
and evaluate them, rather than pulling a few slide sheets out on a light
table and finding what you want by a quick random look in a once-over look

If reviewing images on a CD with software was so great and fast and easy,
then why does Corbis and others publish very costly stock photo
publications with hundreds of images so you can flip thru the pages to
find what you want quickly? Isn't it because linear searches with current
software is so slow and annoying?

I have to say what you-all see as virtues I see as burdens of the
technology ;-)

grins bobm


--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
  #130  
Old June 14th 04, 08:56 AM
MikeWhy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...

Wow, this is sooo confusing ;-)

Mike says that digital is the shortest way to get from what you saw in the
viewfinder to a print, thanks to all the digital manipulations and
corrections you can do?

One of my problems with digital is that the images increasingly look fake
and manipulated to some perfection (the birds on the sunset..) that never
happened. Then again, there are all those photojournalists getting fired
for doing those same digital manipulations.


Cute. I'm thinking on one hand of some very smart organic chemists in
Rochester who coaxed organic chemicals into forming analog computers, and
then find I'm talking to mental midgits who think in cartoons.

Are you just playing dumb?


And in any case, it takes a heck of a lot of time and talent to do those
manipulations, versus dropping off your film and picking up your prints?


Pay attention, Bob. The course of the discussion has been on the difficulty
of correcting contrast and color in the darkroom, compared to the relative
ease with digital.

There are three scenarios: color negatives, color slides, and digital. Color
film is formulated to work well with one very specific set of lighting
conditions. The intermask on color negatives corrects for inaccuracies in
their dyes; the correction is suitable for one particular brightness range
and color temperature. (Hence, analog computing via organic chemistry.)
Color slides have no intermask, and thus cannot self-correct in the same
way. For both, excessive contrast and color cross overs cannot be easily
corrected after the fact. Contrast masks, sometimes on individual color
separations, are often the only way to make a usable print from troublesome
expsoures.

Conversely, correcting contrast in digital is literally child's play. It's
among the very basics taught to anyone working with digitial. Similarly for
simple white balance. Color cross overs are still problematic, but the cost
in effort, skill level, time, and materials is considerably less. So much so
that almost no one makes contrast masks any more.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Leica digital back info.... Barney 35mm Photo Equipment 19 June 30th 04 12:45 AM
below $1000 film vs digital Sabineellen 35mm Photo Equipment 8 June 15th 04 07:13 AM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 09:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.