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 » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The last days of analog



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 21st 18, 06:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,020
Default The last days of analog

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Seeing 8x10 images in the flesh is an experience. Will be a while before
digital really matches it and yet it will never look the same.


it's already surpassed it.


Expected response.


because it's true.
  #12  
Old April 21st 18, 06:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,020
Default The last days of analog

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

Seeing 8x10 images in the flesh is an experience. Will be a while before
digital really matches it and yet it will never look the same.


it's already surpassed it.


Care to point a link to a digital camera with a sensor that big, and
that can be "twisted" as his?


it doesn't need to be anywhere near that big and tilt/shift lenses,
what you call 'twisted' are both available and also not needed.

he is stuck in the past and more than likely doesn't realize that what
he's doing in the *eight* *hours* per photo can be done digitally in a
tiny fraction of that time, with much better and more consistent
results.

the fact that he claims a 2d print has depth tells all.
  #13  
Old April 22nd 18, 04:47 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,020
Default The last days of analog

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Seeing 8x10 images in the flesh is an experience. Will be a while
before
digital really matches it and yet it will never look the same.

it's already surpassed it.

Care to point a link to a digital camera with a sensor that big, and
that can be "twisted" as his?


it doesn't need to be anywhere near that big and tilt/shift lenses,
what you call 'twisted' are both available and also not needed.


That's where you are extremely wrong.


nope. it's exactly correct.

Simply because they lack a full range of adjustments, no tilt/shift
lens will enable you to make all the corrections which can be made in
a technical camera. See


there's no need for all of the movements since the corrections can be
done digitally in a lot less time and a lot more accurately.

*some* camera movements *may* be required in certain situations, but
not as many as you might think.

Your claim "that what he's doing .... can be done digitally" is not
correct.


not only is it correct, but what he's doing can be done *better* with
digital.

or, if someone prefers 'the film look' (a vague completely meaningless
term), the quality can be downgraded to match.

the same holds true for digital audio, which is better than vinyl and
cassette, yet there are those who like the 'warmth' (aka distortion),
which can be added back (i.e., downgrade the quality).

Any attempt to correct perspective digitally will result in
the image being cropped. This may result in important pats of the
image being cropped. The image will be cropped also if you make
corrections with a technical camera but an important difference is
that you can see what is being lost at the time you take the
photograph and make the necessary adjustments before you trigger the
shutter. Who knows, you might even change the lens. Only a few very
rare digital cameras will enable you to do the same thing.

Here is an example where I got into trouble
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0


don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble.

learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques.

Not everybody wants to do this kind of thing but you cannot do it with
any ordinary digital camera. Nor can you do it with software.


nobody said 'any ordinary digital camera' and an 8x10 view camera isn't
'an ordinary film camera' either, nor is cibachrome processing.

he claims to spend *eight* *hours *per* *photo*. and if you want a
second copy, that's *another* *eight* *hours*.

the fact remains that anything that can be done with film, including
from an 8x10 film camera, can be done digitally and with a lot less
fuss and far more consistently.

the best part is not having to deal with the stench of cibachrome
chemistry. it's *awful*.


the fact that he claims a 2d print has depth tells all.


There is something to that.


not in the way you think.

Otherwise one-eyed people would lack any
form of depth perception. In particular see 'occultation', 'Texture
gradient', 'lighting and shading' and 'defocus blur' in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception


that is not specific to film or any other medium.

it's an effect which can be done with digital, film or even canvas
paintings.

anyone who thinks it's unique to cibachrome (his claim) is horribly
misinformed. he probably thinks vinyl records sound better than cds.
  #14  
Old April 22nd 18, 10:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,429
Default The last days of analog

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 23:47:35 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Seeing 8x10 images in the flesh is an experience. Will be a while
before
digital really matches it and yet it will never look the same.

it's already surpassed it.

Care to point a link to a digital camera with a sensor that big, and
that can be "twisted" as his?

it doesn't need to be anywhere near that big and tilt/shift lenses,
what you call 'twisted' are both available and also not needed.


That's where you are extremely wrong.


nope. it's exactly correct.

Simply because they lack a full range of adjustments, no tilt/shift
lens will enable you to make all the corrections which can be made in
a technical camera. See


there's no need for all of the movements since the corrections can be
done digitally in a lot less time and a lot more accurately.

*some* camera movements *may* be required in certain situations, but
not as many as you might think.

Your claim "that what he's doing .... can be done digitally" is not
correct.


not only is it correct, but what he's doing can be done *better* with
digital.

or, if someone prefers 'the film look' (a vague completely meaningless
term), the quality can be downgraded to match.

the same holds true for digital audio, which is better than vinyl and
cassette, yet there are those who like the 'warmth' (aka distortion),
which can be added back (i.e., downgrade the quality).

Any attempt to correct perspective digitally will result in
the image being cropped. This may result in important pats of the
image being cropped. The image will be cropped also if you make
corrections with a technical camera but an important difference is
that you can see what is being lost at the time you take the
photograph and make the necessary adjustments before you trigger the
shutter. Who knows, you might even change the lens. Only a few very
rare digital cameras will enable you to do the same thing.

Here is an example where I got into trouble
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0


don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble.

learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques.

Not everybody wants to do this kind of thing but you cannot do it with
any ordinary digital camera. Nor can you do it with software.


nobody said 'any ordinary digital camera' and an 8x10 view camera isn't
'an ordinary film camera' either, nor is cibachrome processing.

he claims to spend *eight* *hours *per* *photo*. and if you want a
second copy, that's *another* *eight* *hours*.

the fact remains that anything that can be done with film, including
from an 8x10 film camera, can be done digitally and with a lot less
fuss and far more consistently.

the best part is not having to deal with the stench of cibachrome
chemistry. it's *awful*.


the fact that he claims a 2d print has depth tells all.


There is something to that.


not in the way you think.

Otherwise one-eyed people would lack any
form of depth perception. In particular see 'occultation', 'Texture
gradient', 'lighting and shading' and 'defocus blur' in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception


that is not specific to film or any other medium.

it's an effect which can be done with digital, film or even canvas
paintings.

anyone who thinks it's unique to cibachrome (his claim) is horribly
misinformed. he probably thinks vinyl records sound better than cds.


Youi are truly disgusting. You have distorted what I said by selective
snipping and ignored an important point for which I submitted a
personal example.

Commencing at this point in the thread you are a liar. Are you so
stupid as to think that no one will have noticed?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #15  
Old April 22nd 18, 12:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 152
Default The last days of analog

On 2018-04-22 11:49, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 23:47:35 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Seeing 8x10 images in the flesh is an experience. Will be a while
before
digital really matches it and yet it will never look the same.

it's already surpassed it.

Care to point a link to a digital camera with a sensor that big, and
that can be "twisted" as his?

it doesn't need to be anywhere near that big and tilt/shift lenses,
what you call 'twisted' are both available and also not needed.

That's where you are extremely wrong.


nope. it's exactly correct.

Simply because they lack a full range of adjustments, no tilt/shift
lens will enable you to make all the corrections which can be made in
a technical camera. See


there's no need for all of the movements since the corrections can be
done digitally in a lot less time and a lot more accurately.

*some* camera movements *may* be required in certain situations, but
not as many as you might think.

Your claim "that what he's doing .... can be done digitally" is not
correct.


not only is it correct, but what he's doing can be done *better* with
digital.

or, if someone prefers 'the film look' (a vague completely meaningless
term), the quality can be downgraded to match.

the same holds true for digital audio, which is better than vinyl and
cassette, yet there are those who like the 'warmth' (aka distortion),
which can be added back (i.e., downgrade the quality).

Any attempt to correct perspective digitally will result in
the image being cropped. This may result in important pats of the
image being cropped. The image will be cropped also if you make
corrections with a technical camera but an important difference is
that you can see what is being lost at the time you take the
photograph and make the necessary adjustments before you trigger the
shutter. Who knows, you might even change the lens. Only a few very
rare digital cameras will enable you to do the same thing.

Here is an example where I got into trouble
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0


don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble.

learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques.

Not everybody wants to do this kind of thing but you cannot do it with
any ordinary digital camera. Nor can you do it with software.


nobody said 'any ordinary digital camera' and an 8x10 view camera isn't
'an ordinary film camera' either, nor is cibachrome processing.

he claims to spend *eight* *hours *per* *photo*. and if you want a
second copy, that's *another* *eight* *hours*.

the fact remains that anything that can be done with film, including
from an 8x10 film camera, can be done digitally and with a lot less
fuss and far more consistently.

the best part is not having to deal with the stench of cibachrome
chemistry. it's *awful*.


the fact that he claims a 2d print has depth tells all.

There is something to that.


not in the way you think.

Otherwise one-eyed people would lack any
form of depth perception. In particular see 'occultation', 'Texture
gradient', 'lighting and shading' and 'defocus blur' in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception


that is not specific to film or any other medium.

it's an effect which can be done with digital, film or even canvas
paintings.

anyone who thinks it's unique to cibachrome (his claim) is horribly
misinformed. he probably thinks vinyl records sound better than cds.


Youi are truly disgusting. You have distorted what I said by selective
snipping and ignored an important point for which I submitted a
personal example.

Commencing at this point in the thread you are a liar. Are you so
stupid as to think that no one will have noticed?


Yes, we have. He is known for assuming he knows everything in every
subject and everybody else is wrong. When proven beyond doubt wrong, he
still claims to be right, or disappears. Specially when asked to provide
supportive links of his claims such as "every body knows that...".

So anything he vehemently says is suspect of being false. Which is a
pity, because sometimes he is right.


No software can emulate a lens and body that can tilt in any direction
and distance. Not in all the aspects, because the focus changes. And
then that chap is using a huge negative; there are no sensors that big
at same pixels per centimetre, the digital resolution would be
humongous. Technical cameras, I didn't remember the name, English is not
my first language.

Then assuming we could have the equipment, the knowhow of that chap
takes years to achieve.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #16  
Old April 22nd 18, 03:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,020
Default The last days of analog

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Youi are truly disgusting. You have distorted what I said by selective
snipping and ignored an important point for which I submitted a
personal example.


false. in fact, i specifically referenced your personal example.

here it is again:
Here is an example where I got into trouble
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0


don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble.

learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques.


see my other post for more.
  #17  
Old April 22nd 18, 03:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,020
Default The last days of analog

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:



No software can emulate a lens and body that can tilt in any direction
and distance. Not in all the aspects, because the focus changes.


almost all, but for the ones that it can't, there are tilt/shift lenses
and/or bellows. however, they're rarely, if ever needed.

there are *other* options available to replace the outdated primitive
methods and equipment.

And
then that chap is using a huge negative; there are no sensors that big
at same pixels per centimetre, the digital resolution would be
humongous. Technical cameras, I didn't remember the name, English is
not my first language.


there doesn't need to be a single sensor that big.

your mistake is assuming it has to be an exact duplicate. it doesn't.

here's a 20 *gigapixel* panorama, with a resolution of 203200 x 101600
pixels, roughly one *thousand* times as many pixels as a typical camera
today.

there is *so* much detail in this photo that you can see into some
windows and read the ads on the sides of city busses. one of the
commenters found naked sunbathers.

http://360gigapixels.com/nyc-skyline-photo-panorama/
The largest photo ever made of NYC. 360 New York City gigapixel. If
you printed this image at a standard photo resolution of 300DPI, it
would be 18 meters or 57 feet wide, and 9 meters / 28 feet tall.
That's a big photo! For more information about this panorama, please
contact us.

an 8x10 view camera is a toy in comparison.

the reality is that what he's doing with his primitive 8x10 camera and
cibachrome can be done much, much better with digital.

or, it can be downgraded to match the 'look' of cibachrome, which is
not very accurate. cibachrome is very saturated, which can easily be
done in software.
  #18  
Old April 22nd 18, 10:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,429
Default The last days of analog

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:20:13 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:



No software can emulate a lens and body that can tilt in any direction
and distance. Not in all the aspects, because the focus changes.


almost all, but for the ones that it can't, there are tilt/shift lenses
and/or bellows. however, they're rarely, if ever needed.


Nor do they have the full range of adjustments available in a
technical camera.

there are *other* options available to replace the outdated primitive
methods and equipment.


Do tell.

And
then that chap is using a huge negative; there are no sensors that big
at same pixels per centimetre, the digital resolution would be
humongous. Technical cameras, I didn't remember the name, English is
not my first language.


there doesn't need to be a single sensor that big.

your mistake is assuming it has to be an exact duplicate. it doesn't.

here's a 20 *gigapixel* panorama, with a resolution of 203200 x 101600
pixels, roughly one *thousand* times as many pixels as a typical camera
today.

there is *so* much detail in this photo that you can see into some
windows and read the ads on the sides of city busses. one of the
commenters found naked sunbathers.

http://360gigapixels.com/nyc-skyline-photo-panorama/
The largest photo ever made of NYC. 360º New York City gigapixel. If
you printed this image at a standard photo resolution of 300DPI, it
would be 18 meters or 57 feet wide, and 9 meters / 28 feet tall.
That's a big photo! For more information about this panorama, please
contact us.

an 8x10 view camera is a toy in comparison.


But so it should be. An enormous number of images went into the
construction of the one you have just cited.

the reality is that what he's doing with his primitive 8x10 camera and
cibachrome can be done much, much better with digital.


And who is actually doing it?

or, it can be downgraded to match the 'look' of cibachrome, which is
not very accurate. cibachrome is very saturated, which can easily be
done in software.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #19  
Old April 22nd 18, 10:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,429
Default The last days of analog

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:20:12 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Youi are truly disgusting. You have distorted what I said by selective
snipping and ignored an important point for which I submitted a
personal example.


false. in fact, i specifically referenced your personal example.

here it is again:
Here is an example where I got into trouble
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0

don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble.

learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques.


see my other post for more.


I originally wrote: "Any attempt to correct perspective digitally will
result in the image being cropped. This may result in important pats
of the image being cropped. The image will be cropped also if you make
corrections with a technical camera but an important difference is
that you can see what is being lost at the time you take the
photograph and make the necessary adjustments before you trigger the
shutter. Who knows, you might even change the lens. Only a few very
rare digital cameras will enable you to do the same thing."

You have completely ignored the point I made in that paragraph.

Of course with a digital camera you can know in advance roughly how
much image is going to be lost in the perspective corrections but you
can never know exactly. You have to estimate the allowance to be made
and sometimes your estimate will be wrong. But if you can make the
adjustments in the camera you can see the result before you take the
photograph and this is an advantage that a suitable film camera has
over almost any digital on the market.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #20  
Old April 22nd 18, 10:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,020
Default The last days of analog

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Youi are truly disgusting. You have distorted what I said by selective
snipping and ignored an important point for which I submitted a
personal example.


false. in fact, i specifically referenced your personal example.

here it is again:
Here is an example where I got into trouble
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0

don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble.

learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques.


see my other post for more.


I originally wrote: "Any attempt to correct perspective digitally will
result in the image being cropped. This may result in important pats
of the image being cropped. The image will be cropped also if you make
corrections with a technical camera but an important difference is
that you can see what is being lost at the time you take the
photograph and make the necessary adjustments before you trigger the
shutter. Who knows, you might even change the lens. Only a few very
rare digital cameras will enable you to do the same thing."

You have completely ignored the point I made in that paragraph.


nope. i haven't ignored anything.

as i said:
don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble.
learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques.


in other words, *you* screwed up and are blaming everything *other*
than yourself.

just because you don't know how to do something doesn't mean it can't
be done.

it simply means *you* personally can't do it and for some reason, you
don't want to learn.

Of course with a digital camera you can know in advance roughly how
much image is going to be lost in the perspective corrections but you
can never know exactly. You have to estimate the allowance to be made
and sometimes your estimate will be wrong.


that's the fault of the photographer, not the technology.

But if you can make the
adjustments in the camera you can see the result before you take the
photograph and this is an advantage that a suitable film camera has
over almost any digital on the market.


except that with digital, the adjustments can be done afterwards (and
in many cases automatically), rather than spend time on site fiddling
with the camera, hoping to get it right.

if you get it wrong with a film camera (which *will* happen, nothing is
immune to mistakes), you have to *go* *back* to the site to *retake*
the photo, which may not be possible, or at best, a pain in the ass to
lug the 8x10 camera, set it up again and redo all of the adjustments.
 




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
My first analog photos! Russell D. Digital Photography 0 May 29th 12 08:50 PM
My first analog photos! George Kerby Digital Photography 0 May 28th 12 07:47 PM
My first analog photos! Andrew Reilly[_2_] Digital Photography 1 May 28th 12 12:01 PM
Analog Black Dial [email protected] Digital SLR Cameras 0 May 21st 09 10:42 AM
Old Analog Meter: Any Value ?? Magnusfarce Digital Photography 14 July 3rd 07 06:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.