What's all this digital crap doing here?

OK; I'm not a regular here, but something seems entirely out of whack to me.

The name of the group is r.p.e.35mm. Not
"r.p.e.cameras-that-look-like-35mm-cameras-but-are-digital".

35mm, last I heard, referred to a *film* format, having a nominal width
of 35mm, 24x36mm frames, sprocket holes, etc. Not some camera that
*looks* like a 35mm SLR but has a CCD instead of a film frame.

So I'm just askin', what's up with that?


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken

Scott W wrote:
On Jul 10, 8:32 am, David Nebenzahl wrote:
OK; I'm not a regular here, but something seems entirely out of whack to me.

The name of the group is r.p.e.35mm. Not
"r.p.e.cameras-that-look-like-35mm-cameras-but-are-digital".

35mm, last I heard, referred to a *film* format, having a nominal width
of 35mm, 24x36mm frames, sprocket holes, etc. Not some camera that
*looks* like a 35mm SLR but has a CCD instead of a film frame.

So I'm just askin', what's up with that?

There are those who believe that there is very little difference
between a DSLR body and a SLR film body, I am in this camp. Then
there are those who just don’t like digital for whatever reason, they
have pretty much all moved to apug.org, and seem to be doing very well
there.

If you really want to limit topic to be only about film cameras there
is a great place for you to hang out.

The other factor is that certain egos have deemed it their prerogative
to cross post any and everything here.

--
john mcwilliams

On 7/10/2008 11:49 AM Scott W spake thus:

On Jul 10, 8:32 am, David Nebenzahl wrote:

OK; I'm not a regular here, but something seems entirely out of whack to me.

The name of the group is r.p.e.35mm. Not
"r.p.e.cameras-that-look-like-35mm-cameras-but-are-digital".

35mm, last I heard, referred to a *film* format, having a nominal width
of 35mm, 24x36mm frames, sprocket holes, etc. Not some camera that
*looks* like a 35mm SLR but has a CCD instead of a film frame.

So I'm just askin', what's up with that?

There are those who believe that there is very little difference
between a DSLR body and a SLR film body, I am in this camp. Then
there are those who just don’t like digital for whatever reason, they
have pretty much all moved to apug.org, and seem to be doing very well
there.

If you really want to limit topic to be only about film cameras there
is a great place for you to hang out.

Not. No thank you; I prefer Usenet (here) to moderated fora like APUG,
where speech is only as free as the moderator deems it.

As someone else pointed out here, there are other newsgroups which are
more appropriate for discussing digital cameras.


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 7/10/2008 11:49 AM Scott W spake thus:

On Jul 10, 8:32 am, David Nebenzahl wrote:

OK; I'm not a regular here, but something seems entirely out of
whack to me. The name of the group is r.p.e.35mm. Not
"r.p.e.cameras-that-look-like-35mm-cameras-but-are-digital".

35mm, last I heard, referred to a *film* format, having a nominal
width of 35mm, 24x36mm frames, sprocket holes, etc. Not some
camera that
*looks* like a 35mm SLR but has a CCD instead of a film frame.

So I'm just askin', what's up with that?

There are those who believe that there is very little difference
between a DSLR body and a SLR film body, I am in this camp. Then
there are those who just don’t like digital for whatever reason,
they have pretty much all moved to apug.org, and seem to be doing
very well there.

If you really want to limit topic to be only about film cameras
there is a great place for you to hang out.

Not. No thank you; I prefer Usenet (here) to moderated fora like
APUG, where speech is only as free as the moderator deems it.

As someone else pointed out here, there are other newsgroups which
are more appropriate for discussing digital cameras.

I suspect you are being fooled into believing the name of a newsgroup
is related in a causal way to its appropriateness for discussion of
some subjects.

Thing of it is, a newsgroup may not always or only contain discussions
about material mentioned in its name. This newsgroup has transformed
itself into what you so astutely sensed:
"r.p.e.cameras-that-look-like-35mm-cameras-but-are-digital" with an
added fillip or two *. That may not be a comfortable switch, for you,
but it is what it is, just as are all Usenet groups. I think there's
not much chance it will migrate its content in the direction you
apparently hope it will, or would, sad to say. Content is pretty well
established, and I'm pretty sure there will be no influx of film folks
to reverse the trend (Please don't take that as a challenge!). Digital
is here to stay (or peter out in response to something more advanced,
or at least more convenient) (sound familiar?).

* At the moment it looks as if the based-in-reality group subtitle is
along the lines of "Expose your pus-y ego and defy credibility with
the lengths you will go to make yourself seem competent and useful or
even tolerable".

--
Frank ess

"That Rich" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:49:04 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
wrote:

If you really want to limit topic to be only about film cameras there
is a great place for you to hang out.

While we're on the subject, rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.dslr, etc...
etc... would be a fine place for you to hang out.

I suppose in rec.film.labs they should be discussing sd cards?

RP©

What's an "sd card"? I've never seen one in my darkroom.
BTW, I can't find the USB port on my Canon FX.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:32:13 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

OK; I'm not a regular here, but something seems entirely out of whack to me.

The name of the group is r.p.e.35mm. Not
"r.p.e.cameras-that-look-like-35mm-cameras-but-are-digital".

35mm, last I heard, referred to a *film* format, having a nominal width
of 35mm, 24x36mm frames, sprocket holes, etc. Not some camera that
*looks* like a 35mm SLR but has a CCD instead of a film frame.

So I'm just askin', what's up with that?


Film is dead, (thank goodness), get used to it... it's 2008 you know...

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:32:13 -0700, David Nebenzahl

wrote:

OK; I'm not a regular here, but something seems entirely out of whack to
me.

The name of the group is r.p.e.35mm. Not
"r.p.e.cameras-that-look-like-35mm-cameras-but-are-digital".

35mm, last I heard, referred to a *film* format, having a nominal width
of 35mm, 24x36mm frames, sprocket holes, etc. Not some camera that
*looks* like a 35mm SLR but has a CCD instead of a film frame.

So I'm just askin', what's up with that?


Film is dead, (thank goodness), get used to it... it's 2008 you know...


Apparently you've never properly used film. As a working professional, I
have more and more customers coming to me because I use film technology
instead of digital. The public is coming around to the idea that digital is
what you use when you want something quick and dirty; film is what you use
when you want lasting quality.

The resolution capability of film, both as a capture media and as a storage
media far outstrips current digital technology. For the working
professional, assuming you put a reasonable value on your time and amortize
your equipment, film is more economical than digital. Film is more fault
tolerent than digital. The longevity of film currently surpasses any digital
storage (except perhaps punched card decks). Film is a mature technology:
100 year old negatives can still be printed using modern equipment, the
equipment to read punch card decks, punched paper tape, and 8" floppies
exists mostly in museums.

"Ken Hart" writes:

Apparently you've never properly used film. As a working professional, I
have more and more customers coming to me because I use film technology
instead of digital. The public is coming around to the idea that digital is
what you use when you want something quick and dirty; film is what you use
when you want lasting quality.

I concur. One thing that helps our cause is that the motion picture
industry uses film plus quality TV is shot on film as are adverts
and music videos.
This is because the CCD look is too cheap looking, and digital
still images have the same CCD/glorified webcam look. That said,
I don't mind digital images on this newsgroup at all.
--
pix.ie/alan

Scott W writes:

I wrote:
I concur. One thing that helps our cause is that the motion picture
industry uses film plus quality TV is shot on film as are adverts
and music videos.
This is because the CCD look is too cheap looking, and digital
still images have the same CCD/glorified webcam look. That said,
I don't mind digital images on thi
Scott W writes:
You have a "cause", I just shoot what I want with the camera that I
choose to use, and I assume everyone else does the same. I really
don't care if you choose to stay with film.

Scott

I don't. It was just a figure of speech, I meant it helps keep film
alive, e.g., "One thing that helps keep film alive is that the motion
picture industry uses film."

"Scott W" wrote in message
...
On Jul 11, 7:37 am, "Ken Hart" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:32:13 -0700, David Nebenzahl

wrote:

OK; I'm not a regular here, but something seems entirely out of whack to
me.

The name of the group is r.p.e.35mm. Not
"r.p.e.cameras-that-look-like-35mm-cameras-but-are-digital".

35mm, last I heard, referred to a *film* format, having a nominal width
of 35mm, 24x36mm frames, sprocket holes, etc. Not some camera that
*looks* like a 35mm SLR but has a CCD instead of a film frame.

So I'm just askin', what's up with that?

Film is dead, (thank goodness), get used to it... it's 2008 you know...

Apparently you've never properly used film. As a working professional, I
have more and more customers coming to me because I use film technology
instead of digital. The public is coming around to the idea that digital
is
what you use when you want something quick and dirty; film is what you use
when you want lasting quality.

The resolution capability of film, both as a capture media and as a
storage
media far outstrips current digital technology. For the working
professional, assuming you put a reasonable value on your time and
amortize
your equipment, film is more economical than digital. Film is more fault
tolerent than digital. The longevity of film currently surpasses any
digital
storage (except perhaps punched card decks). Film is a mature technology:
100 year old negatives can still be printed using modern equipment, the
equipment to read punch card decks, punched paper tape, and 8" floppies
exists mostly in museums.- Hide quoted text -

Ah, a pro, great. I am guessing you shoot portraits, graduation
photos, that kind of thing?

But if you really are a pro then you clearly would not even think
about do those kind of shots with anything less then 6x6, in which
case what does this have to do with 35mm equipment?

Scott
================================================
Absolutely. All my studio work is on 6x6. The few times I go on location, I
shoot 6x7- simply because the KoniOmega Rapid M is a great portable camera.
(the word "portable" is a joke if you've ever carried a Koni around the neck
for several hours.) And if I am shooting a really big group in studio ( or a
commercial shoot), I have the 4x5 ready to go. I would not consider using
35mm for my customer work.

But one of the purposes of Usenet is the free exchange of ideas. It's not
out of line to think that ideas that apply to 35mm might have some validity
for medium format.