What's all this digital crap doing here?

On 7/11/2008 5:39 PM Scott W spake thus:

I fully agree with the free exchange of ideas, which is why I am
surprised that David seems to have such a hard time with DSLR users
posting on this forum.

You misunderstand, my friend: what I have a problem with is the forum
being *taken over* by digital camera users.

But as a film user, I'm used to 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

wrote:

David 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".

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

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

Well, this idiot's post should answer your question.

(Idiots with egos - it only takes a few to ruin any enterprise. We have
several....)

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:37:48 GMT, "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.

That's what you people like to do, eh? Try to put me down in some cubby hole of
your choice, you think you're superior just because I don't agree with you...

Well I've been a film "professional" since 1970, not only working in photography
but in various optical industries. Do you think my stint in the Graphic Arts
Dept of the Royal Victoria Hospital - McGill University Post Graduate Board
would impress you? But gee I hate to drop names... they had a huge film lab -
it's GONE!

I no longer work in film or optics, but I still have my own dark room... it's
about 3 feet below me where I sit, but I confess I don't use it, and all my film
and paper has long gone bad...

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 "public" is a bunch of ignorant idiots that like to join "fads" and right
now there is quite a "nostalgia" fad going on, even including vinyl recordings!
Lets see, should I play my old noisy and deficient Beethoven recordings, totally
lacking in decent frequency response, or should I pop on a CD, with perfect
sound? Gee, these choices...

The resolution capability of film, both as a capture media and as a storage
media far outstrips current digital technology.

Sounds to me like you're talking medium format or something... I imagine it's
hard to beat a 2 1/4 with a Sony Alpha, but this IS a 35mm group... and digital
beats the **** out of 35mm film... it's been proven.

For the working
professional, assuming you put a reasonable value on your time and amortize
your equipment, film is more economical than digital.

Now that's the dumbest thing I've heard in a few weeks! I've taken about 10,000
digital pictures in the last 3 years, for the cost of the camera and if you want
to push - a $100 hard drive. Do you know how much my Nikkor enlarger cost? How
much did I pay just for chemicals? I still have an E6 kit here I paid $100 for
but it's gone bad and I only did 1 roll... too bad... $5 a slide... real
economical!

Film is more fault
tolerent than digital.

That's NOT true!!! ONE little processing mistake and the roll is ****ED!!! I
can show you a pile of trashed film here.... I shoot digital in RAW and I don't
even have to set the white balance! The only time I'd say you were right is if
you were using B/W Ilford F5 or whatever it was, but you STILL need to process
it correctly. Crease the film and OOPS I hope I didn't need that shot...

Also reminds me of the time I went to Ottawa Canada to see the parliament
buildings. Got back home, opened the suitcase, and there was the camera, there
was the back of the camera, there was the film...

The longevity of film currently surpasses any digital
storage (except perhaps punched card decks).

Tell that to Hollywood... who have LOST all of the old film movies. Oh, and I
bet you didn't know that Hollywood has been 'filming' with Sony HD digital
cameras for quite a while, ask Spielberg.

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.


And NONE of what you mentioned applies to digital imagery. I still have photo
files from my Amiga computer from 1990... and they will exist forever, unlike
film.

anyway... summery = 35mm film is dead. Don't believe me? Go buy some at the
drugstore...

alans-computer.local wrote:
"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.

You've not seen some of the History, Travel or Science channels'
broadcast in HiDef? Shot digitally, presented digitally*. Granted, not
as great as well processed 70mm in a real theatre, but verra, verra good.

* until it hits the monitor!
--
john mcwilliams

alans-computer.local wrote:
...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.

I believe the reason is the larger format of film versus tiny sensors on
camcorders. Larger format allows controlling DOF. This isn't an issue
for 35mm still photography.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On 7/12/2008 11:54 AM Paul Furman spake thus:

alans-computer.local wrote:

...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.

I believe the reason is the larger format of film versus tiny sensors
on camcorders. Larger format allows controlling DOF. This isn't an
issue for 35mm still photography.

Is that true? Presumably (I don't know for sure, but it seems reasonable
to assume so) the sensors on "pro" digital cameras, like the ones they
shoot digital "film" on, are much large than camcorder ones.

The last digital film I saw was Spike Lee's "Bamboozled". It was a great
film, but looked like ****. Just like that really obvious difference
between daytime TV "dramas" and nearly every other TV "film", which is
still actually shot on ... film.


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

Then stick to your one frickin protest post instead of polluting the
subject list 30 some odd times.

Fact is that there is high commonality 'tween the 35mm SLR's and most
DSLR's. That's why it fits here. It has for the last several years.

Let it go David. Esp. as you are an itinerant visitor.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
OK; I'm not a regular here, but something seems entirely out of whack
to me.

Then stick to your one frickin protest post instead of polluting the
subject list 30 some odd times.

Fact is that there is high commonality 'tween the 35mm SLR's and most
DSLR's. That's why it fits here. It has for the last several years.

Let it go David. Esp. as you are an itinerant visitor.


Good one. Give the "itinerant visitor" a warm welcome and then question
why the group is in disarray.

Have you got any more neat tricks up your sleeve?

I really think the group should be handed back to the 35mm film people
rather than basterdasised for years by the DSLR bunch



"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
David Nebenzahl wrote:
OK; I'm not a regular here, but something seems entirely out of whack to
me.

Then stick to your one frickin protest post instead of polluting the
subject list 30 some odd times.

Fact is that there is high commonality 'tween the 35mm SLR's and most
DSLR's. That's why it fits here. It has for the last several years.

Let it go David. Esp. as you are an itinerant visitor.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Bob wrote:
I really think the group should be handed back to the 35mm film people
rather than basterdasised for years by the DSLR bunch

The slr-systems group was created for the "DSLR bunch" and it has been
pretty successful.

OTOH as most DSLR's are 35mm system cameras that replace the film with a
sensor, it's not as if it is really off topic. The shutter, viewfinder,
metering, lenses, flashes, etc. are all still pretty much the same. In
fact with more and more full frame cameras out there, the difference is
negligible. (Certainly, nobody in the medium and large format groups
ever objected to discussions about digital backs).

As to "handing back" there is no one controlling it. If 35mm film is so
popular, where are 35mm film the posters? Not many of them. I still
shoot film (35mm and MF) but I also shoot digital quite a lot. And when
I get my FF camera (hopefully this year) I'll be posting as much in
rpe35mm as in slr-systems.

Please don't top post and please snip for brevity.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.