iPad use with Catalina

On 26/10/2019 15:37, The Older Gentleman wrote:
Savageduck wrote:

Not in 1952 it wasn't!

Nor 28 years later, when I bought my Zenit :-)

Who *is* this arsehole, anyway?

An even *OLDER* gentleman than you, Sir! ;-)

On Oct 26, 2019, Lewis wrote
(in article ):

In iganews.com Savageduck
wrote:
On Oct 26, 2019, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In article1og1k10.157rbux9bdgmbN%totallydeadmailbox@ yahoo.co.uk, The
Older Gentleman wrote:

The Zenit, like the Praktika, was the ideal tool to learn about the
relationship between shutter speed, aperture, ASA rating and depth of
field.

actually, a digital camera is a *much* better tool for learning that
and quite a bit more.

Not in 1952 it wasn’t!


Nobody seems to learn about it these days. I apply the lessons to
the Leica, as (of course) it's not AF.

plenty of people didn't learn about it with film.

Plenty of people learned the fundamentals of photography long before there
were digital cameras. I certainly did, and I believe give the fact that many
of us in this NG are in their late 60s to mid 80s that they learned their
photography using film.

But some of use, obviously, do lot live in the past.

I remember about 20 years ago I was talking to the photographer who was
taking family portraits asking him when he thought he'd make the move to
digital, and he said "Never".

I believe the last time I shot film was some 20 years ago.

Snip



Then we also have the millennials who have no understanding of film, or
photography, just smartphone selfies.

There are plenty of millenials who know plenty about photography.

Probably exactly the same percentage as did in 1940, 1960, and 1980.

That is probably true. I am also sure that there are quite a few smartphone
shooters who have decided to up their game and have moved to dedicated
cameras.

Photonerdery has always been a tiny tiny niche.

I guess so.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Andy Hewitt
wrote:

I got an Olympus OM-10 as my first SLR.

Having said that, some of my favourite photos over time (simply because
of the memories they have) were with cheap old 110 cartridge film
cameras.

I graduated to a Pentax ME Super, or rather, two. Entirely echo your
comments about 110 cameras. I had an Agfa one, and it was great - until
stolen.

They had the benefit of being pocket-able, so were more likely to be
carried about and handy to shoot with at any time.

And a 5 year old iPhone takes photos that are many orders of magnitude
better, and the device is just as pocketable and much more versatile.
And it shoots 1080p video too.

Define 'better'.

higher resolution, more accurate colours, wider dynamic range, able to
take photos in far more situations than a film camera ever could.

Video does not interest me.

it does for others.

in the film era, plenty of people shot super-8 movies, which looked
like utter **** even back then and certainly now, assuming they haven't
deteriorated.

On 27/10/2019 00:21, nospam wrote:
In article , Andy Hewitt
wrote:

They had the benefit of being pocket-able, so were more likely to be
carried about and handy to shoot with at any time.

And a 5 year old iPhone takes photos that are many orders of magnitude
better, and the device is just as pocketable and much more versatile.
And it shoots 1080p video too.

Define 'better'.

higher resolution, more accurate colours, wider dynamic range, able to
take photos in far more situations than a film camera ever could.

Excellent, that's exactly the answer I was expecting from you.

In which case you have no idea what makes a 'better' photo.

In a 'technical' sense, most of that is correct *now*, but it actually
took quite some time before digital could even match film in any of
those respects, let alone be better. As for the last comment, really?

Video does not interest me.

it does for others.

Whoopee!

in the film era, plenty of people shot super-8 movies, which looked
like utter **** even back then and certainly now, assuming they haven't
deteriorated.

We just had a film roll developed that we found in an old Kodak Brownie
(probably made in the late 1950's) that had been in storage since the
70's in a family home. They came out perfect (the limiting factor being
the quality of the camera).

But yes, of course old film, and many other types of media (VHS tapes
etc.), will deteriorate. Then of course so does digital media, many
people keep their photos on one location of storage, usually a spinning
hard drive, which is likely at some point to start losing data. Even
SSDs, or similar solid state forms, will eventually start to fail.

You have to continually renew the media that your photos are stored on,
if you want to preserve them. Many do not even have backups, and when
their media fails, it is more likely to be catastrophic, and lose an
entire lifetime of images in one moment. A deteriorating film can still
at least reveal some memories for many many times longer than digital
media can.

Of course there are archival forms of storage, but they are expensive,
and most will not even be aware they exist, or even bother about it.

Cloud storage is an option, but cannot be always considered 100%
reliable either, many of them for photo storage have proven to be less
than stable, and you can never rely on any cloud storage provider to be
around forever - one of the big companies (can't remember who it was
now) abandoned support for general public use not too long ago.

Go an bung a box of old negatives in a dark cupboard for 50 years, along
with some hard drives, and see what gives the most memories back.

Yeah, you can define 'better', but do you really know what that means?

--
Andy Hewitt

On 10/26/19 2:43 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip

As to his age reference, I suspect that at some point he crossed the 50
timeline, and that he deserves some sort of recognition for that. Tough to
get in this field of old farts where 60 is merely a fond memory.

BTW: Talking of old farts, has anybody had any news of PeterN. He has had
some health issues, and he is in his 80s, and hasn’t posted here in r.p.d.
lately. The last time he appeared here was in April.


I was wondering that myself. I seem to recall (memory cells fade also;
but I have no trouble remembering when the Social Security will be
deposited!) that he had expressed displeasure with the signal to noise
ratio, and cut back his participation here.

PeterN, if you are still on this mortal coil, feel free to contact me!

--
Ken Hart

In article , Andy Hewitt
wrote:

They had the benefit of being pocket-able, so were more likely to be
carried about and handy to shoot with at any time.

And a 5 year old iPhone takes photos that are many orders of magnitude
better, and the device is just as pocketable and much more versatile.
And it shoots 1080p video too.

Define 'better'.

higher resolution, more accurate colours, wider dynamic range, able to
take photos in far more situations than a film camera ever could.

Excellent, that's exactly the answer I was expecting from you.

because it's correct.

In which case you have no idea what makes a 'better' photo.

wrong.

In a 'technical' sense, most of that is correct *now*, but it actually
took quite some time before digital could even match film in any of
those respects, let alone be better. As for the last comment, really?

it didn't take very much time at all. digital quickly surpassed film
long ago.

Video does not interest me.

it does for others.

Whoopee!

tell that to those who shoot videos.

in the film era, plenty of people shot super-8 movies, which looked
like utter **** even back then and certainly now, assuming they haven't
deteriorated.

We just had a film roll developed that we found in an old Kodak Brownie
(probably made in the late 1950's) that had been in storage since the
70's in a family home. They came out perfect (the limiting factor being
the quality of the camera).

no, they didn't come out perfect. far from it, actually.

But yes, of course old film, and many other types of media (VHS tapes
etc.), will deteriorate. Then of course so does digital media, many
people keep their photos on one location of storage, usually a spinning
hard drive, which is likely at some point to start losing data. Even
SSDs, or similar solid state forms, will eventually start to fail.

the difference is that digital can be backed up an unlimited number of
times in an unlimited number of locations, with each copy being
*identical* to the original. it makes absolutely no difference if one
copy fails, because there are many others. it also makes no difference
if your house burns down or heavy rains flood it or some other
disaster, because there are multiple other copies elsewhere on the
planet.

with film, there is only *one* original. full stop. any copy will have
a generational loss, and worse, it's a time consuming process and costs
money, so very, very few people do it. almost none, in fact.

You have to continually renew the media that your photos are stored on,
if you want to preserve them. Many do not even have backups, and when
their media fails, it is more likely to be catastrophic, and lose an
entire lifetime of images in one moment. A deteriorating film can still
at least reveal some memories for many many times longer than digital
media can.

there are no backups with film. one disaster and it's gone forever.

with digital, it's easy to have *numerous* backups (all identical to
the original), something which can be entirely automated, particularly
with a cloud service where it happens without the user doing anything
other than initial setup.

Of course there are archival forms of storage, but they are expensive,
and most will not even be aware they exist, or even bother about it.

only for film is that needed, and almost nobody does it, certainly not
home users.

movie studios do, because of the value of the movies. some professional
photographers might, but not forever. clients from 30 years ago aren't
likely to suddenly ask for a reprint.

Cloud storage is an option, but cannot be always considered 100%
reliable either, many of them for photo storage have proven to be less
than stable, and you can never rely on any cloud storage provider to be
around forever - one of the big companies (can't remember who it was
now) abandoned support for general public use not too long ago.

nothing is 100%.

cloud services are far more reliable than anything a typical user could
ever possibly do without spending crazy amounts of money.

apple, google, amazon, etc., aren't going to go out of business any
time soon, certainly not in our lifetimes.

Go an bung a box of old negatives in a dark cupboard for 50 years, along
with some hard drives, and see what gives the most memories back.

digital.

Yeah, you can define 'better', but do you really know what that means?

yes.

On 27/10/2019 14:12, nospam wrote:
In article , Andy Hewitt
wrote:

They had the benefit of being pocket-able, so were more likely to be
carried about and handy to shoot with at any time.

And a 5 year old iPhone takes photos that are many orders of magnitude
better, and the device is just as pocketable and much more versatile.
And it shoots 1080p video too.

Define 'better'.

higher resolution, more accurate colours, wider dynamic range, able to
take photos in far more situations than a film camera ever could.

Excellent, that's exactly the answer I was expecting from you.

because it's correct.

It all depends on how you define 'better'.
In which case you have no idea what makes a 'better' photo.

wrong.

Really?

In a 'technical' sense, most of that is correct *now*, but it actually
took quite some time before digital could even match film in any of
those respects, let alone be better. As for the last comment, really?

it didn't take very much time at all. digital quickly surpassed film
long ago.

Oh, about 15 years.

Video does not interest me.

it does for others.

Whoopee!

tell that to those who shoot videos.

Why, it doesn't interest me.

in the film era, plenty of people shot super-8 movies, which looked
like utter **** even back then and certainly now, assuming they haven't
deteriorated.

We just had a film roll developed that we found in an old Kodak Brownie
(probably made in the late 1950's) that had been in storage since the
70's in a family home. They came out perfect (the limiting factor being
the quality of the camera).

no, they didn't come out perfect. far from it, actually.

Oh my, you've seen them then?

But yes, of course old film, and many other types of media (VHS tapes
etc.), will deteriorate. Then of course so does digital media, many
people keep their photos on one location of storage, usually a spinning
hard drive, which is likely at some point to start losing data. Even
SSDs, or similar solid state forms, will eventually start to fail.

the difference is that digital can be backed up an unlimited number of
times in an unlimited number of locations, with each copy being
*identical* to the original. it makes absolutely no difference if one
copy fails, because there are many others. it also makes no difference
if your house burns down or heavy rains flood it or some other
disaster, because there are multiple other copies elsewhere on the
planet.

with film, there is only *one* original. full stop. any copy will have
a generational loss, and worse, it's a time consuming process and costs
money, so very, very few people do it. almost none, in fact.

Erm, there's only *one* original in either format.

Of course you can digitise film and back them up.

You have to continually renew the media that your photos are stored on,
if you want to preserve them. Many do not even have backups, and when
their media fails, it is more likely to be catastrophic, and lose an
entire lifetime of images in one moment. A deteriorating film can still
at least reveal some memories for many many times longer than digital
media can.

there are no backups with film. one disaster and it's gone forever.

Unless you make copies.

with digital, it's easy to have *numerous* backups (all identical to
the original), something which can be entirely automated, particularly
with a cloud service where it happens without the user doing anything
other than initial setup.

Yes, in an ideal world. In reality though...

I've even known people only keep a collection of media cards with all
their photos on them, and keep buying new cards when they fill up.

Of course there are archival forms of storage, but they are expensive,
and most will not even be aware they exist, or even bother about it.

only for film is that needed, and almost nobody does it, certainly not
home users.

Blimey, so you'd not advise home users to keep backups then?

movie studios do, because of the value of the movies.

They might do now, but they didn't always, much was thrown away to make
storage space, and many TV companies wiped and reused magnetic tapes.

some professional
photographers might, but not forever. clients from 30 years ago aren't
likely to suddenly ask for a reprint.

Could be. I'm not a professional, I want to keep a lifetime's worth of
photos for personal reasons.

Cloud storage is an option, but cannot be always considered 100%
reliable either, many of them for photo storage have proven to be less
than stable, and you can never rely on any cloud storage provider to be
around forever - one of the big companies (can't remember who it was
now) abandoned support for general public use not too long ago.

nothing is 100%.

Indeed so.

cloud services are far more reliable than anything a typical user could
ever possibly do without spending crazy amounts of money.

That could be questionable. Just read the various forums to see how many
have had to dump and reload all their images.

apple, google, amazon, etc., aren't going to go out of business any
time soon, certainly not in our lifetimes.

Really, you know that do you. There are plenty of big companies that
have collapsed that I thought were around for eternity.

Go an bung a box of old negatives in a dark cupboard for 50 years, along
with some hard drives, and see what gives the most memories back.

digital.

Haha.

Yeah, you can define 'better', but do you really know what that means?

yes.

It would seem not.

But as usual, you'll go around in your circular arguments, so that's all
I have to say on that now.

--
Andy Hewitt

On 27/10/2019 14:12, nospam wrote:
In article , Andy Hewitt
wrote:

They had the benefit of being pocket-able, so were more likely to be
carried about and handy to shoot with at any time.

And a 5 year old iPhone takes photos that are many orders of magnitude
better, and the device is just as pocketable and much more versatile.
And it shoots 1080p video too.

Define 'better'.

higher resolution, more accurate colours, wider dynamic range, able to
take photos in far more situations than a film camera ever could.

Excellent, that's exactly the answer I was expecting from you.

because it's correct.

In which case you have no idea what makes a 'better' photo.

wrong.

In a 'technical' sense, most of that is correct *now*, but it actually
took quite some time before digital could even match film in any of
those respects, let alone be better. As for the last comment, really?

it didn't take very much time at all. digital quickly surpassed film
long ago.

Video does not interest me.

it does for others.

Whoopee!

tell that to those who shoot videos.

in the film era, plenty of people shot super-8 movies, which looked
like utter **** even back then and certainly now, assuming they haven't
deteriorated.

We just had a film roll developed that we found in an old Kodak Brownie
(probably made in the late 1950's) that had been in storage since the
70's in a family home. They came out perfect (the limiting factor being
the quality of the camera).

no, they didn't come out perfect. far from it, actually.

But yes, of course old film, and many other types of media (VHS tapes
etc.), will deteriorate. Then of course so does digital media, many
people keep their photos on one location of storage, usually a spinning
hard drive, which is likely at some point to start losing data. Even
SSDs, or similar solid state forms, will eventually start to fail.

the difference is that digital can be backed up an unlimited number of
times in an unlimited number of locations, with each copy being
*identical* to the original. it makes absolutely no difference if one
copy fails, because there are many others. it also makes no difference
if your house burns down or heavy rains flood it or some other
disaster, because there are multiple other copies elsewhere on the
planet.

with film, there is only *one* original. full stop. any copy will have
a generational loss, and worse, it's a time consuming process and costs
money, so very, very few people do it. almost none, in fact.

You have to continually renew the media that your photos are stored on,
if you want to preserve them. Many do not even have backups, and when
their media fails, it is more likely to be catastrophic, and lose an
entire lifetime of images in one moment. A deteriorating film can still
at least reveal some memories for many many times longer than digital
media can.

there are no backups with film. one disaster and it's gone forever.

with digital, it's easy to have *numerous* backups (all identical to
the original), something which can be entirely automated, particularly
with a cloud service where it happens without the user doing anything
other than initial setup.

Of course there are archival forms of storage, but they are expensive,
and most will not even be aware they exist, or even bother about it.

only for film is that needed, and almost nobody does it, certainly not
home users.

movie studios do, because of the value of the movies. some professional
photographers might, but not forever. clients from 30 years ago aren't
likely to suddenly ask for a reprint.

Tell that to Francis Frith.



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10/26/2019 8:50 AM, Andy Hewitt wrote:
On 26/10/2019 15:37, The Older Gentleman wrote:
Andy Hewitt wrote:

I got an Olympus OM-10 as my first SLR.

Having said that, some of my favourite photos over time (simply because
of the memories they have) were with cheap old 110 cartridge film
cameras.

I graduated to a Pentax ME Super, or rather, two. Entirely echo your
comments about 110 cameras. I had an Agfa one, and it was great - until
stolen.

They had the benefit of being pocket-able, so were more likely to be
carried about and handy to shoot with at any time.

Ugh, those tiny negatives. I remember shooting slide film on a 110 once.
Awful. I had a Keystone 110 with a funky wide angle/telephoto lens.

The big advantage of the 110 cameras was the built in flash. The 126
camera used flashcubes.

A much better choice for a small film camera was the 35mm Olympus XA
with the A16 or A11 flash.

On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:12:11 -0400, nospam
wrote:

apple, google, amazon, etc., aren't going to go out of business any
time soon, certainly not in our lifetimes.

There are enough politicians making a show of wanting to crush those
companies that one has to wonder. Even if they don't put them out of
business, they could cause serious damage. That wouldn't necessarily
mean any problems with their cloud systems, but that's still another
reason to - as you and others always recommend - use multiple backup
systems.