8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

"Mike Kohary" wrote in :

Jon Pike wrote:
"Mike Kohary" wrote in
:

There has already been shown a 10% reduction in -resolution- when
scanning film in.

Nonsense; that's a made-up number. A good scanner can capture every
bit of information off a 35mm strip of film (and yes, any kind of
35mm). You started this whole argument by accusing someone else of
being non-scientific, but ironically, you are ending up the most
unscientific of all.

Still not paying attention eh? I've already re-posted the page that
shows quantified evidence of a 10% loss of resolution when film gets
scanned.

Every scan of every negative on every scanner loses exactly 10% of its
original resolution, eh?

It's a made-up number, just like your integrity. Don't ever tell
anyone they're being unscientific again - you haven't earned that
privilege, you pretentious snob.

It's made up? No. It was quite clearly referenced.
The only number anyone has shown that compares pre-scanned film resolution
to post-scanned film resolution shows a 10% reduction of quality.
Claiming anything else without support is not only unscientific, it's
outright stupid.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

"Mike Kohary" wrote in :

Jon Pike wrote:
"Fitpix" wrote in news:QY0ud.33168
:

Why is film better?

Higher resolution and accutance. It's bigger. It encourages people to
learn how to do photography instead of just take pictures.

Mere opinion, all of it.

....
no, this thread has seen pages that prove it 100% true.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

"Mike Kohary" wrote in :

Jon Pike wrote:
"Fitpix" wrote in news:QY0ud.33168
:

Why is film better?

Higher resolution and accutance. It's bigger. It encourages people to
learn how to do photography instead of just take pictures.

Mere opinion, all of it.

....
no, this thread has seen pages that prove it 100% true.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

"Mike Kohary" wrote in :

Jon Pike wrote:
"Fitpix" wrote in news:QY0ud.33168
:

Why is film better?

Higher resolution and accutance. It's bigger. It encourages people to
learn how to do photography instead of just take pictures.

Mere opinion, all of it.

....
no, this thread has seen pages that prove it 100% true.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

"Fitpix" wrote in
:


"Jon Pike" wrote in message
. 159...
Carl wrote in
:

Jon Pike wrote:
"Fitpix" wrote in news:QY0ud.33168
:


Why is film better?

snip... It encourages people to learn
how to do photography instead of just take pictures.

Sorry, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. How does it
achieve this exactly?

Most people, when learning film, don't go out and spend 1000$ on a
body that has all the automatic bells & whistles. Especially since
you don't really need to spend the $ to be able to take good
pictures.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Jon, I think your answer would simply depend on the person. I worked
in and managed camera shops for about 5 years and before there was
even the idea of digital you still had people burning through dozens
of rolls of film with little thought. Now the same type of peole fill
their hard drive with crap. Regardless of it being film or digital
many people will pick up "photography" and never put a bit of thought
to an image, I think we could call them snapshooters.

I call them "picture takers" to completely differentiate them from anyone
actually -doing- photography.

One thing I have
noticed with both is there will ALWAYS be the group who think a better
camera = better photography and of course we know that really is not
true.

Yes, but I doubt this group is "most" people.

With digital I see more people taking crappy pix and then adding
a ton of stuff in Photoshop or other programs and trying to pass it
off as "art". I think it boils down to each person and their
individual desire to grow as a photographer that ends up being the
deciding factor, not the medium.

Well, only to a point. With film, if you want to be guarenteed to have
better pictures, you -have- to learn photoGRAPHY. With digital, all you
have to do is learn photoSHOP.

Now another thing I have noticed with the influx of dSLRs is the huge
amount of computer people who come from the "I have to have the very
very best I can imagine". They buy the fastest lenses and the highest
MP cameras and produce.....crap. It is kind of sad.

Digital is a wonderful tool and its instant feedback,when actually
used properly can advance people's shooting faster.

My final thoughts? Same as I have said many times, it is the final
image that one should work towards, not the tools involved. I can
produce great stuff with Canon rebel and the 35-80 it came with in
those kits Agassi pushed, just the same as I can with my Canon 20D.

.....
Final image is a good goal, but if you get that final image simply by
putting your camera on fully auto and burning film/flashcards like
they're air, then you're still not really doing photography, even if you
are getting good pictures in the end (imho at least).
You've got to understand the process at least a little. Know stuff like
why does the aperture number get smaller but you get more light. Know why
a larger aperture has a smaller depth of field. etc.

Thanks for your answer Jon, I see your points and understand where you
are coming from.

np


--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

"Fitpix" wrote in
:


"Jon Pike" wrote in message
. 159...
Carl wrote in
:

Jon Pike wrote:
"Fitpix" wrote in news:QY0ud.33168
:


Why is film better?

snip... It encourages people to learn
how to do photography instead of just take pictures.

Sorry, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. How does it
achieve this exactly?

Most people, when learning film, don't go out and spend 1000$ on a
body that has all the automatic bells & whistles. Especially since
you don't really need to spend the $ to be able to take good
pictures.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Jon, I think your answer would simply depend on the person. I worked
in and managed camera shops for about 5 years and before there was
even the idea of digital you still had people burning through dozens
of rolls of film with little thought. Now the same type of peole fill
their hard drive with crap. Regardless of it being film or digital
many people will pick up "photography" and never put a bit of thought
to an image, I think we could call them snapshooters.

I call them "picture takers" to completely differentiate them from anyone
actually -doing- photography.

One thing I have
noticed with both is there will ALWAYS be the group who think a better
camera = better photography and of course we know that really is not
true.

Yes, but I doubt this group is "most" people.

With digital I see more people taking crappy pix and then adding
a ton of stuff in Photoshop or other programs and trying to pass it
off as "art". I think it boils down to each person and their
individual desire to grow as a photographer that ends up being the
deciding factor, not the medium.

Well, only to a point. With film, if you want to be guarenteed to have
better pictures, you -have- to learn photoGRAPHY. With digital, all you
have to do is learn photoSHOP.

Now another thing I have noticed with the influx of dSLRs is the huge
amount of computer people who come from the "I have to have the very
very best I can imagine". They buy the fastest lenses and the highest
MP cameras and produce.....crap. It is kind of sad.

Digital is a wonderful tool and its instant feedback,when actually
used properly can advance people's shooting faster.

My final thoughts? Same as I have said many times, it is the final
image that one should work towards, not the tools involved. I can
produce great stuff with Canon rebel and the 35-80 it came with in
those kits Agassi pushed, just the same as I can with my Canon 20D.

.....
Final image is a good goal, but if you get that final image simply by
putting your camera on fully auto and burning film/flashcards like
they're air, then you're still not really doing photography, even if you
are getting good pictures in the end (imho at least).
You've got to understand the process at least a little. Know stuff like
why does the aperture number get smaller but you get more light. Know why
a larger aperture has a smaller depth of field. etc.

Thanks for your answer Jon, I see your points and understand where you
are coming from.

np


--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

"Fitpix" wrote in
:


"Jon Pike" wrote in message
. 159...
Carl wrote in
:

Jon Pike wrote:
"Fitpix" wrote in news:QY0ud.33168
:


Why is film better?

snip... It encourages people to learn
how to do photography instead of just take pictures.

Sorry, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. How does it
achieve this exactly?

Most people, when learning film, don't go out and spend 1000$ on a
body that has all the automatic bells & whistles. Especially since
you don't really need to spend the $ to be able to take good
pictures.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Jon, I think your answer would simply depend on the person. I worked
in and managed camera shops for about 5 years and before there was
even the idea of digital you still had people burning through dozens
of rolls of film with little thought. Now the same type of peole fill
their hard drive with crap. Regardless of it being film or digital
many people will pick up "photography" and never put a bit of thought
to an image, I think we could call them snapshooters.

I call them "picture takers" to completely differentiate them from anyone
actually -doing- photography.

One thing I have
noticed with both is there will ALWAYS be the group who think a better
camera = better photography and of course we know that really is not
true.

Yes, but I doubt this group is "most" people.

With digital I see more people taking crappy pix and then adding
a ton of stuff in Photoshop or other programs and trying to pass it
off as "art". I think it boils down to each person and their
individual desire to grow as a photographer that ends up being the
deciding factor, not the medium.

Well, only to a point. With film, if you want to be guarenteed to have
better pictures, you -have- to learn photoGRAPHY. With digital, all you
have to do is learn photoSHOP.

Now another thing I have noticed with the influx of dSLRs is the huge
amount of computer people who come from the "I have to have the very
very best I can imagine". They buy the fastest lenses and the highest
MP cameras and produce.....crap. It is kind of sad.

Digital is a wonderful tool and its instant feedback,when actually
used properly can advance people's shooting faster.

My final thoughts? Same as I have said many times, it is the final
image that one should work towards, not the tools involved. I can
produce great stuff with Canon rebel and the 35-80 it came with in
those kits Agassi pushed, just the same as I can with my Canon 20D.

.....
Final image is a good goal, but if you get that final image simply by
putting your camera on fully auto and burning film/flashcards like
they're air, then you're still not really doing photography, even if you
are getting good pictures in the end (imho at least).
You've got to understand the process at least a little. Know stuff like
why does the aperture number get smaller but you get more light. Know why
a larger aperture has a smaller depth of field. etc.

Thanks for your answer Jon, I see your points and understand where you
are coming from.

np


--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Big Bill wrote in
news
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:40:07 GMT, Jon Pike
wrote:

Big Bill wrote in
m:

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:13:10 GMT, Jon Pike
wrote:

Which part didn't you understand?
If the -only- evidence you have of a phenomenon suggests one thing,
then there is -no- reason to think that something else is going on.
For example:
The only 110 million year old flower that clearly shows reproductive
organs shows only one gender of reproductive organs. Previously it
was thought that flowering plants first evolved to contain both sets
of reproductive organs. Now we have the only solid evidence that
says either way, so there is no reason, because of this single
sample, to continue thinking that maybe they did evolve with both
sets first. If the only evidence you have points at one thing, it's
downright stupid to assume something else.

Excuse me, but that type of reasoning in that example is just plain
wrong.
*One* example (of fossil evidence yet!) can not make such a theory
even plausable, much less probable.
Fossils are so rare in the first place that it's kind of amazing
that we have *any*, but the idea that *one* fossil of a flower can
mean such a thing is absurd.

No, actually, that's exactly how scientists think.
If the only solid evidence you have of a phenomenon says "blah" then
you make your theories based on "blah" and not based on anything else.
It would be absurd, if the only evidence you have says "blah" to
ASSUME that "blah" is inaccurate and also to assume the exact opposite
is in fact true.

I don't think so.
While I'm sure *some* scientists think that way, that's not the way
most of them think.

Actually, yes, it is.

They will look at the evidence, and ask
themselves, "What does this evidence tell us not only about the
problem, but about itself?"
In this case, *one* fossil will not tell them about any differences
between sexes, or if any differences exist, or even if, indeed, there
*are* any different sexes.

One fossil, all on it's lonesome, won't tell you all that, no.
However, combined with stuff we already know about sexual dimorphism in
plants, what the parts generally tend to look like, what they do, etc,
one fossil can then tell you quite a bit.

One sample will not allow a scientist to make the conclusions you
claim. There's jus tno way. Any such conclusions are based on
*assumptions* that the sample does not support.

Like I said, the one sample, all on its lonesome, no, it won't tell you
much.
But general plant structure hasn't really changed in the last 110 million
years. I know. I've seen it -in my hand-.
When there are such large similarities across the board, then you can
make such conclusions.

In this case, this *one* fossil is the ONLY fossil that has solid
evidence one way or the other. That means it's the -only- data to build
theories on, and it's a really stupid theory that completely contradicts
the only data available.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Big Bill wrote in
news
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:40:07 GMT, Jon Pike
wrote:

Big Bill wrote in
m:

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:13:10 GMT, Jon Pike
wrote:

Which part didn't you understand?
If the -only- evidence you have of a phenomenon suggests one thing,
then there is -no- reason to think that something else is going on.
For example:
The only 110 million year old flower that clearly shows reproductive
organs shows only one gender of reproductive organs. Previously it
was thought that flowering plants first evolved to contain both sets
of reproductive organs. Now we have the only solid evidence that
says either way, so there is no reason, because of this single
sample, to continue thinking that maybe they did evolve with both
sets first. If the only evidence you have points at one thing, it's
downright stupid to assume something else.

Excuse me, but that type of reasoning in that example is just plain
wrong.
*One* example (of fossil evidence yet!) can not make such a theory
even plausable, much less probable.
Fossils are so rare in the first place that it's kind of amazing
that we have *any*, but the idea that *one* fossil of a flower can
mean such a thing is absurd.

No, actually, that's exactly how scientists think.
If the only solid evidence you have of a phenomenon says "blah" then
you make your theories based on "blah" and not based on anything else.
It would be absurd, if the only evidence you have says "blah" to
ASSUME that "blah" is inaccurate and also to assume the exact opposite
is in fact true.

I don't think so.
While I'm sure *some* scientists think that way, that's not the way
most of them think.

Actually, yes, it is.

They will look at the evidence, and ask
themselves, "What does this evidence tell us not only about the
problem, but about itself?"
In this case, *one* fossil will not tell them about any differences
between sexes, or if any differences exist, or even if, indeed, there
*are* any different sexes.

One fossil, all on it's lonesome, won't tell you all that, no.
However, combined with stuff we already know about sexual dimorphism in
plants, what the parts generally tend to look like, what they do, etc,
one fossil can then tell you quite a bit.

One sample will not allow a scientist to make the conclusions you
claim. There's jus tno way. Any such conclusions are based on
*assumptions* that the sample does not support.

Like I said, the one sample, all on its lonesome, no, it won't tell you
much.
But general plant structure hasn't really changed in the last 110 million
years. I know. I've seen it -in my hand-.
When there are such large similarities across the board, then you can
make such conclusions.

In this case, this *one* fossil is the ONLY fossil that has solid
evidence one way or the other. That means it's the -only- data to build
theories on, and it's a really stupid theory that completely contradicts
the only data available.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Big Bill wrote in
news
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:40:07 GMT, Jon Pike
wrote:

Big Bill wrote in
m:

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:13:10 GMT, Jon Pike
wrote:

Which part didn't you understand?
If the -only- evidence you have of a phenomenon suggests one thing,
then there is -no- reason to think that something else is going on.
For example:
The only 110 million year old flower that clearly shows reproductive
organs shows only one gender of reproductive organs. Previously it
was thought that flowering plants first evolved to contain both sets
of reproductive organs. Now we have the only solid evidence that
says either way, so there is no reason, because of this single
sample, to continue thinking that maybe they did evolve with both
sets first. If the only evidence you have points at one thing, it's
downright stupid to assume something else.

Excuse me, but that type of reasoning in that example is just plain
wrong.
*One* example (of fossil evidence yet!) can not make such a theory
even plausable, much less probable.
Fossils are so rare in the first place that it's kind of amazing
that we have *any*, but the idea that *one* fossil of a flower can
mean such a thing is absurd.

No, actually, that's exactly how scientists think.
If the only solid evidence you have of a phenomenon says "blah" then
you make your theories based on "blah" and not based on anything else.
It would be absurd, if the only evidence you have says "blah" to
ASSUME that "blah" is inaccurate and also to assume the exact opposite
is in fact true.

I don't think so.
While I'm sure *some* scientists think that way, that's not the way
most of them think.

Actually, yes, it is.

They will look at the evidence, and ask
themselves, "What does this evidence tell us not only about the
problem, but about itself?"
In this case, *one* fossil will not tell them about any differences
between sexes, or if any differences exist, or even if, indeed, there
*are* any different sexes.

One fossil, all on it's lonesome, won't tell you all that, no.
However, combined with stuff we already know about sexual dimorphism in
plants, what the parts generally tend to look like, what they do, etc,
one fossil can then tell you quite a bit.

One sample will not allow a scientist to make the conclusions you
claim. There's jus tno way. Any such conclusions are based on
*assumptions* that the sample does not support.

Like I said, the one sample, all on its lonesome, no, it won't tell you
much.
But general plant structure hasn't really changed in the last 110 million
years. I know. I've seen it -in my hand-.
When there are such large similarities across the board, then you can
make such conclusions.

In this case, this *one* fossil is the ONLY fossil that has solid
evidence one way or the other. That means it's the -only- data to build
theories on, and it's a really stupid theory that completely contradicts
the only data available.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet