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

Anti-digital backlash continues ...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #281  
Old July 4th 04, 01:23 PM
Nick Zentena
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default high end DSLR buyers shafted? Anti-digital backlash

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

I seriously doubt that slides were invented to compensate for the
limitations of print material.


Why do you think they were invented, then?


Good question.

In the 1910s, in a review of Capstaff's Kodachrome (not to be confused with
the much later Mannes and Godowski thing that was given the same name), the
British Journal of Photography commented that Kodachrome slides "have
nothing of the pallid unsaturated appearance which has been characteristic
of most color transparancy processes. [...] In the past it has undoubtedly
been difficult to make business in colour transparencies, however good".

Apparently, slides were not (!!!) invented because 'they look a thousand
times better than paper prints."



I wouldn't be suprised if they were invented because somebody could. Sort
of "Look what I've done!" The person that intially created the process
having no real idea how they'd be used.

Nick
  #282  
Old July 5th 04, 05:12 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default high end DSLR buyers shafted? Anti-digital backlash

Gregory W Blank wrote:

In article , Stacey
wrote:

???? I thought a hobby was a way of spending your free time in a way you
enjoy. How and why would you put a cost on that? Like I should add up how
much it costs me to go ride my bike? LOL!!


I gues my mistake was believing I could have a meaningful conversation,
After all I charge for my "hobby".


Then it's not a hobby. If you enjoy your work that's great as I enjoy mine
(it's not photography). A hobby isn't something you calculate what your
time is worth while doing, it's a way to spend your -free- time in a way
you enjoy.
--

Stacey
  #283  
Old July 5th 04, 05:15 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default high end DSLR buyers shafted? Anti-digital backlash

Mxsmanic wrote:

Stacey writes:

And must stay in focus across the whole area of the film, meaning the
film must be perfectly flat and the same distance from the scanning lens
during the whole scan unless you refocus for each pixel? Same with the
paper while printing.


You can hold film quite flat, as drum scanners do.


Very few of the digital ranters here use drum scans...


You can also refocus
for each pixel.


Which no one does.


The problem with this is you are assuming the only criteria for judging
the output is lpmm of resolution.


What other criteria are there that would be different between digital
and optical prints?


Tonality for one.
--

Stacey
  #284  
Old July 5th 04, 05:19 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default high end DSLR buyers shafted? Anti-digital backlash

Mxsmanic wrote:



I seriously doubt that slides were invented to compensate for the
limitations of print material.


Why do you think they were invented, then?

Even today, the only real advantage of projected slides is that they
look a thousand times better than paper prints.


Slides were used for decades as the standard multimedia presentation for
speakers. It's more you can show them to a crowd of people that made them
popular. IMHO trying to print from a slide is a PITA compared to using
negative film.




--

Stacey
  #285  
Old July 5th 04, 05:40 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default high end DSLR buyers shafted? Anti-digital backlash

Stacey writes:

Tonality for one.


As I've already pointed out, the tonality of prints is so limited to
begin with that everying upstream in the processing chain (scans,
optical projection, or whatever) completely overshadows it. In other
words, with prints being the weakest link, any limitations in scans
would be invisible (although I'm not aware of any such limitations).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 




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
Will digital photography ever stabilize? Alfred Molon Digital Photography 37 June 30th 04 08:11 PM
New Leica digital back info.... Barney 35mm Photo Equipment 19 June 30th 04 12:45 AM
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography Bob Monaghan Medium Format Photography Equipment 9 June 19th 04 05:48 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:04 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.