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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Dave dave@hennikerDOTorgDOTuk wrote: In future I'll take more care in responding to cross-posted messages. I still think the 'troll' had a valid point for the *average* photographer. We can't all afford large format cameras. Depends; The average digi cam user maybe, at a prosumer semi pro level a digi cam is going to cost more for the equipment over a twenty-forty year life span in camera upgrades than the film camera would have cost. -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Dave dave@hennikerDOTorgDOTuk wrote: In future I'll take more care in responding to cross-posted messages. I still think the 'troll' had a valid point for the *average* photographer. We can't all afford large format cameras. Depends; The average digi cam user maybe, at a prosumer semi pro level a digi cam is going to cost more for the equipment over a twenty-forty year life span in camera upgrades than the film camera would have cost. -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Dave wrote: On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 04:59:44 -0700, Tom Phillips somehow managed to impart: Try (1) reading the headers and (2) learn how to recognize a troll. The OP is trolling and crossposting. Your observations and knowledge of nsgs appears as limited as your knowledge of enlarging and optics... Clearly, you've never seen an Ansel Adams mural sized enlargement. [major snip] OK, I'm sorry I overlooked the rec.photo.darkroom cross-posting. Not your fault. troll's fault. But there's no need to get so defensive. And there's no need to get sarcastic, either. Looks like I touched a raw nerve there. Maybe you should watch your caffeine intake. I don't drink caffeine I happen think people should know what they're talking about before making broad generalized statements. I'm just not shy about bluntly setting the record straight. People states all sorts of fallacies on usenet such as "enlarging degrades images." Theoretically, images on film can be enlarged indefinitely. Only limitations are (1) granularity and (2) optics. Like I said, I've seen even 35mm enlarged to quality 30x40. So it depends. Fine grain and good optics can equal unbelievable resolution digital can't match. I've used high end digital and know other photographes who routinely use digital for commercial work. It simply never matches the quality of film. Difference is digital images and detail _can't_ be enlarged and pixels arrays suffer from Nyquist (sampling limitations), meaning good optics are wasted on typical digital cameras. The only way to "enlarge" a digital image is softeware interpolation (upsampling) which does degrade the image by adding image data the lens never saw. In future I'll take more care in responding to cross-posted messages. I still think the 'troll' had a valid point for the *average* photographer. We can't all afford large format cameras. trolls post specious fallacies to start arguments. Lots of decent, used relatively inexpensive medium/LF equipment out there. Cheaper than digital. Digital requires a computer, printer, software, storage (CD burner) and _constant_ upgrades. If you don't have those, talking $2000-$3000 minimum start up easy. Plus the minute you buy a digital camera, it's outdated, just as computers typically are. Digital is more expensive than film photography. Once you have a camera, a couple of decent lenses and a few other accessories you're set forever. No upgrades. Dave. 2180 hi-resolution photos especially Edinburgh & Scotland. Also 3D rendered art & altered images. * No advertisements * http://www.henniker.org.uk |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Dave wrote: On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 04:59:44 -0700, Tom Phillips somehow managed to impart: Try (1) reading the headers and (2) learn how to recognize a troll. The OP is trolling and crossposting. Your observations and knowledge of nsgs appears as limited as your knowledge of enlarging and optics... Clearly, you've never seen an Ansel Adams mural sized enlargement. [major snip] OK, I'm sorry I overlooked the rec.photo.darkroom cross-posting. Not your fault. troll's fault. But there's no need to get so defensive. And there's no need to get sarcastic, either. Looks like I touched a raw nerve there. Maybe you should watch your caffeine intake. I don't drink caffeine I happen think people should know what they're talking about before making broad generalized statements. I'm just not shy about bluntly setting the record straight. People states all sorts of fallacies on usenet such as "enlarging degrades images." Theoretically, images on film can be enlarged indefinitely. Only limitations are (1) granularity and (2) optics. Like I said, I've seen even 35mm enlarged to quality 30x40. So it depends. Fine grain and good optics can equal unbelievable resolution digital can't match. I've used high end digital and know other photographes who routinely use digital for commercial work. It simply never matches the quality of film. Difference is digital images and detail _can't_ be enlarged and pixels arrays suffer from Nyquist (sampling limitations), meaning good optics are wasted on typical digital cameras. The only way to "enlarge" a digital image is softeware interpolation (upsampling) which does degrade the image by adding image data the lens never saw. In future I'll take more care in responding to cross-posted messages. I still think the 'troll' had a valid point for the *average* photographer. We can't all afford large format cameras. trolls post specious fallacies to start arguments. Lots of decent, used relatively inexpensive medium/LF equipment out there. Cheaper than digital. Digital requires a computer, printer, software, storage (CD burner) and _constant_ upgrades. If you don't have those, talking $2000-$3000 minimum start up easy. Plus the minute you buy a digital camera, it's outdated, just as computers typically are. Digital is more expensive than film photography. Once you have a camera, a couple of decent lenses and a few other accessories you're set forever. No upgrades. Dave. 2180 hi-resolution photos especially Edinburgh & Scotland. Also 3D rendered art & altered images. * No advertisements * http://www.henniker.org.uk |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Dave dave@hennikerDOTorgDOTuk wrote in
: We can't all afford large format cameras. Anyone who can throw money at a 10+mp digicam can afford LF cameras. -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Dave dave@hennikerDOTorgDOTuk wrote in
: We can't all afford large format cameras. Anyone who can throw money at a 10+mp digicam can afford LF cameras. -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Jon Pike wrote: Dave dave@hennikerDOTorgDOTuk wrote in : We can't all afford large format cameras. Anyone who can throw money at a 10+mp digicam can afford LF cameras. Funny I was thinking that very thought on my way back to the computer. -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Jon Pike wrote: Dave dave@hennikerDOTorgDOTuk wrote in : We can't all afford large format cameras. Anyone who can throw money at a 10+mp digicam can afford LF cameras. Funny I was thinking that very thought on my way back to the computer. -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.photo.darkroom Jon Pike wrote:
: Dave dave@hennikerDOTorgDOTuk wrote in : : : We can't all afford large format cameras. : Anyone who can throw money at a 10+mp digicam can afford LF cameras. A person can buy a real nice LF camera and a nice selection of lenses for the price of one of those 10+mp cameras. -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.photo.darkroom Jon Pike wrote:
: Dave dave@hennikerDOTorgDOTuk wrote in : : : We can't all afford large format cameras. : Anyone who can throw money at a 10+mp digicam can afford LF cameras. A person can buy a real nice LF camera and a nice selection of lenses for the price of one of those 10+mp cameras. -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I started 35mm B&W darkroom forum | [email protected] | In The Darkroom | 0 | December 11th 04 01:41 AM |
Getting married in the UK or Ireland - WedUK have just started a new Wedding Forum | The Warrior | 35mm Photo Equipment | 4 | November 26th 04 01:20 AM |
35mm on grade 3 explained | Michael Scarpitti | In The Darkroom | 240 | September 26th 04 02:46 AM |
advantage of high $ 35mm optics vs. MF now lost? | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 30 | September 12th 04 04:46 AM |
Develper for Delta-100 | Frank Pittel | In The Darkroom | 8 | March 1st 04 05:36 PM |