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
  #21  
Old April 22nd 18, 10:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,013
Default The last days of analog

In article , Eric Stevens
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.


what part of they're no longer needed is not clear??

there are *other* options available to replace the outdated primitive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


Do tell.


stitching is the main one. computational photography is another and
advancing rapidly.



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.


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


so what?

an enormous number of hours went into adjusting his 8x10 camera along
with many more hours for *each* of his cibachrome prints, and if he
wants additional prints, he has to do the darkroom work all over again
and the results won't be identical either (plus there's the stench of
ciba chemistry).

while the above is an extreme example, it clearly shows how much more
capable and advanced digital is compared to primitive film.

there is no possible way anyone could get that level of detail with an
8x10 film camera. if you were to zoom in on the 8x10 image (a crop),
you'd see film grains. with the above image, you see more detail.
  #22  
Old April 23rd 18, 01:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,429
Default The last days of analog

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 17:44:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
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.


what part of they're no longer needed is not clear??


The part you didn't write.

I did understand "they're rarely, if ever needed" but at that stage
you hadn't morphed the argument into "no longer".

there are *other* options available to replace the outdated primitive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


Do tell.


stitching is the main one. computational photography is another and
advancing rapidly.


And so much simpler than just adjusting the camera.



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.


so what?


A vast amount of work to achieve a result which in most cases could be
achieved by simpler means.

an enormous number of hours went into adjusting his 8x10 camera along
with many more hours for *each* of his cibachrome prints, and if he
wants additional prints, he has to do the darkroom work all over again
and the results won't be identical either (plus there's the stench of
ciba chemistry).


"an enormous number of hours went into adjusting his 8x10 camera"!

Hours? Just adjusting the camera? I think you have the wrong camera
in mind. This one doesn't come as a kitset but is fully assembled.

while the above is an extreme example, it clearly shows how much more
capable and advanced digital is compared to primitive film.

there is no possible way anyone could get that level of detail with an
8x10 film camera. if you were to zoom in on the 8x10 image (a crop),
you'd see film grains. with the above image, you see more detail.


If all you want is detail why not use a microscope and assemble the
images with the Vista technology?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #23  
Old April 23rd 18, 01:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,429
Default The last days of analog

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 17:44:52 -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.


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.


And for reasons known only to you, you are ignoring the technology
which does away with the need to guess and estimate.

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.


You have misjudged the situation. I know perfectly well how to do
something. The problem I had was the need to guess and estimate the
extent of the correction. I would much rather use a camera where
estimation and guesswork was not rerquired and the image could be
properly constructed before being recorded.


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.


The need to guess and estimate is the result of a deficiency in 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.


You have a short memory unless you have a hitherto undisclosed method
simulating all possible camera adjustments.

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.


True. But then the adjustments built into the camera still give you a
chance of getting the result you actually want.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #24  
Old April 23rd 18, 02:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,013
Default The last days of analog

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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

Do tell.


stitching is the main one. computational photography is another and
advancing rapidly.


And so much simpler than just adjusting the camera.


that's the whole point.

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.

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


so what?


A vast amount of work to achieve a result which in most cases could be
achieved by simpler means.


what simpler means would that be?

an enormous number of hours went into adjusting his 8x10 camera along
with many more hours for *each* of his cibachrome prints, and if he
wants additional prints, he has to do the darkroom work all over again
and the results won't be identical either (plus there's the stench of
ciba chemistry).


"an enormous number of hours went into adjusting his 8x10 camera"!

Hours? Just adjusting the camera? I think you have the wrong camera
in mind. This one doesn't come as a kitset but is fully assembled.


it takes time to use the movements you claim can't be done with digital.

while the above is an extreme example, it clearly shows how much more
capable and advanced digital is compared to primitive film.

there is no possible way anyone could get that level of detail with an
8x10 film camera. if you were to zoom in on the 8x10 image (a crop),
you'd see film grains. with the above image, you see more detail.


If all you want is detail why not use a microscope and assemble the
images with the Vista technology?


whoosh.
  #25  
Old April 23rd 18, 02:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,013
Default The last days of analog

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.


And for reasons known only to you, you are ignoring the technology
which does away with the need to guess and estimate.


not at all.

the whole point is that the technology reduces and often eliminates
that need, making it *much* harder to get into trouble.

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.


You have misjudged the situation. I know perfectly well how to do
something. The problem I had was the need to guess and estimate the
extent of the correction. I would much rather use a camera where
estimation and guesswork was not rerquired and the image could be
properly constructed before being recorded.


the corrections can be done *outside* of the camera, where you can
guess all you want and undo it whenever you make an incorrect guess,
or, let the computer do the calculations *for* you, eliminating the
need to guess.

tl;dr user error.

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.


The need to guess and estimate is the result of a deficiency in the
technology.


nope. it's a deficiency in the operator.
  #26  
Old April 23rd 18, 03:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,429
Default The last days of analog

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Thursday, 19 April 2018 22:40:09 UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 08:46:57 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

Worth the watch....


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/landscape-photographer-races-to-finish-decades-of-work


Extraordinary colours. I wish I could do half as well.


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.


https://www.megapixelsdigital.com/di...un-in-the-sun/
is worth reading.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #27  
Old April 23rd 18, 10:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,429
Default The last days of analog

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 21:13:38 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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

Do tell.

stitching is the main one. computational photography is another and
advancing rapidly.


And so much simpler than just adjusting the camera.


that's the whole point.


Computational photography is simpler than just adjusting the camera?

You are joking aren't you?

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.

so what?


A vast amount of work to achieve a result which in most cases could be
achieved by simpler means.


what simpler means would that be?


Taking the photograph in just the one shot.

an enormous number of hours went into adjusting his 8x10 camera along
with many more hours for *each* of his cibachrome prints, and if he
wants additional prints, he has to do the darkroom work all over again
and the results won't be identical either (plus there's the stench of
ciba chemistry).


"an enormous number of hours went into adjusting his 8x10 camera"!

Hours? Just adjusting the camera? I think you have the wrong camera
in mind. This one doesn't come as a kitset but is fully assembled.


it takes time to use the movements you claim can't be done with digital.


Seconds more likely. It depends on the camera.

There are some things which as far as I know can't be done with
digital. Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up while
keeping the whole image in focus. A technical camera copes with this
by raising and tilting the lens upwards while tilting the camera back
to the rear.

while the above is an extreme example, it clearly shows how much more
capable and advanced digital is compared to primitive film.

there is no possible way anyone could get that level of detail with an
8x10 film camera. if you were to zoom in on the 8x10 image (a crop),
you'd see film grains. with the above image, you see more detail.


If all you want is detail why not use a microscope and assemble the
images with the Vista technology?


whoosh.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #28  
Old April 23rd 18, 10:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,429
Default The last days of analog

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 21:13:39 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.


And for reasons known only to you, you are ignoring the technology
which does away with the need to guess and estimate.


not at all.

the whole point is that the technology reduces and often eliminates
that need, making it *much* harder to get into trouble.


Stop worshipping at the shrine of technology and tell me what
technology would have saved me from unwittingly requiring the
excessively tight crop.

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.


You have misjudged the situation. I know perfectly well how to do
something. The problem I had was the need to guess and estimate the
extent of the correction. I would much rather use a camera where
estimation and guesswork was not rerquired and the image could be
properly constructed before being recorded.


the corrections can be done *outside* of the camera, where you can
guess all you want and undo it whenever you make an incorrect guess,
or, let the computer do the calculations *for* you, eliminating the
need to guess.


Have another look at
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0

That's the result of technology applied to
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hgfbskbe4c...941-2.jpg?dl=0

tl;dr user error.

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.


The need to guess and estimate is the result of a deficiency in the
technology.


nope. it's a deficiency in the operator.


Are you saying that with a different operator the technology would
have worked differently?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #29  
Old April 23rd 18, 11:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,013
Default The last days of analog

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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

Do tell.

stitching is the main one. computational photography is another and
advancing rapidly.

And so much simpler than just adjusting the camera.


that's the whole point.


Computational photography is simpler than just adjusting the camera?


absolutely.

You are joking aren't you?


no.

yet another thing you don't understand.


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.

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

so what?

A vast amount of work to achieve a result which in most cases could be
achieved by simpler means.


what simpler means would that be?


Taking the photograph in just the one shot.


a 360 panorama with that level of detail taken in one shot????

one shot is also an artificial limitation.

an enormous number of hours went into adjusting his 8x10 camera along
with many more hours for *each* of his cibachrome prints, and if he
wants additional prints, he has to do the darkroom work all over again
and the results won't be identical either (plus there's the stench of
ciba chemistry).

"an enormous number of hours went into adjusting his 8x10 camera"!

Hours? Just adjusting the camera? I think you have the wrong camera
in mind. This one doesn't come as a kitset but is fully assembled.


it takes time to use the movements you claim can't be done with digital.


Seconds more likely. It depends on the camera.


it's much more than seconds to use an 8x10 view camera to photograph
anything and you know it.

There are some things which as far as I know can't be done with
digital. Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up while
keeping the whole image in focus.


that's very easily done with digital and without any movements
whatsoever. i do it fairly regularly, in fact.

there are also tilt/shift lenses available for digital cameras, so one
could still use movements if desired.

like i said before, just because you don't know how doesn't mean it's
impossible.

A technical camera copes with this
by raising and tilting the lens upwards while tilting the camera back
to the rear.


to photograph a tall wall (or more commonly, a tall building). the rear
must stay parallel to the subject to avoid perspective distortion while
the lens is raised to get the entire subject. tilting the lens will
affect depth of field, so it's not normally done.
  #30  
Old April 23rd 18, 11:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,013
Default The last days of analog

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


the corrections can be done *outside* of the camera, where you can
guess all you want and undo it whenever you make an incorrect guess,
or, let the computer do the calculations *for* you, eliminating the
need to guess.


Have another look at
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0

That's the result of technology applied to
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hgfbskbe4c...941-2.jpg?dl=0


that's the result of not doing it correctly.

as i said, just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean it's
impossible.

tl;dr user error.


^^^this^^^

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.

The need to guess and estimate is the result of a deficiency in the
technology.


nope. it's a deficiency in the operator.


Are you saying that with a different operator the technology would
have worked differently?


the technology isn't the problem.

a different operator, one who understands the technology and knows what
he's doing, wouldn't **** things up.
 




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 04:41 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.