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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
In article Pine.LNX.4.44.0409092050390.3726-100000@resonance,
Sourish Basu writes: As I see it, after using 35mm film equipment for 24 years, she switched to a 4MP digital camera.... am I missing something? I mean, I sometimes borrow my friend's 5.5MP Canon to take quick snaps, and they're still nowhere as sharp and clear as my Pentax ZX-L with SMC lenses! Why would anyone, that too with 24 years of experience, be blown away by 4 megapixels?? Maybe if she is using a mediocre p&s and using the cheapest develop and print service she can find then she can reasoably find the digital camera produces a better result. -- http://www.petezilla.co.uk |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
In article Pine.LNX.4.44.0409092050390.3726-100000@resonance,
Sourish Basu writes: As I see it, after using 35mm film equipment for 24 years, she switched to a 4MP digital camera.... am I missing something? I mean, I sometimes borrow my friend's 5.5MP Canon to take quick snaps, and they're still nowhere as sharp and clear as my Pentax ZX-L with SMC lenses! Why would anyone, that too with 24 years of experience, be blown away by 4 megapixels?? Maybe if she is using a mediocre p&s and using the cheapest develop and print service she can find then she can reasoably find the digital camera produces a better result. -- http://www.petezilla.co.uk |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Chant" wrote in message ... Maybe if she is using a mediocre p&s and using the cheapest develop and print service she can find then she can reasoably find the digital camera produces a better result. The consumer shift away from film indicates that digital DOES produce a result acceptable to them. After all, were consumer film cameras producing results that were all that good? Did the consumer notice a reduction in the quality of their (consumer) images when they migrated to digital? I doubt it. I have a digicam, and I find its results to be perfectly acceptable on a wide range of applications, like home inventory shots and snapshots of family outings. The advantages of film (in terms of image quality) are becoming more and more relevant to only advanced amateurs and professionals. Your average consumer does not expect to produce professional results or works of art with his/her inexpensive camera. Already we are seeing significant amounts of retail floor space being devoted to digital cameras and printing--space that formerly was dedicated to film camera sales, film sales and film processing sales. I have noticed that several one-hour processors have closed their doors in my area, and many others have added digital printing services to offset their film losses. There is going to come a time when classic film sales and photofinishing services will not be as readily available. Retailers will have other, more profitable uses, for that floor space. Sure, film will be sold, but not everywhere. The days of darting into the corner drugstore to pick up a quick couple of rolls of film are coming to an end. If you run low, you'll have to travel a bit farther. Even though we may look down on the consumer, we have benefited from their involvement, if only because they turned photography into a mass-market pastime. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin Francis" wrote in message ... "Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message ... Okay, I was, for some indeterminate reason, poking around in the photo department of Wal-Mart yesterday, and for those unfamiliar with this line of stores, they are a do-it-all-halfass chain of department stores specializing in snack foods... So I was chatting with the woman staffing the photo department about the wonderful range of digital cameras they offer there, most of which I would have trouble finding in the same pocket as my keys. What came next stunned me though, as I was informed that some digitals have now advanced beyond 35mm cameras - they go up to 38mm! Forgive my cynical laughter- but you ain't heard nothing yet. snip Or the woman whose face fell when told her newly acquired Nicomatic SL,NR (Sh***y lens, no refund) camera, was worth less than the roll of film she bought and would prbably have been overpriced in a Poundstretcher. She didn't disclose the sum paid, but she hardly moved for over a minute... Don't know what a Poundstretcher is, but I'm assuming something like our "Dollar Stores" over here, everything very low priced and worth even less... A friend of a friend bought into one of the magazine ads offering some kind of amazing snap-together point-n-shoot disguised (poorly) as an SLR, intending to surprise her husband. The camera arrived okay, as well as the credit card bill showing the card maxed out to the limit. Instead of protesting this through any of the normal channels, she paid the bill without her husband's knowledge and gave the camera away. There's nothing like piling stupidity on top of dumbness. The camera was amusing, too. A clear filter about 50mm across, but the lens itself was about the size of the ones in a disposable camera. Or the young couple who wanted a gift for a photography-enthusiast relative, asked for "the best, most professional film camera we stocked", were confronted with price lists and specifications, and eventually left with a Canon Ixus III APS p'n's (with a free roll of Konica-cast-off Jacobs film)? Way back when I worked for a lab, some enthusiastic student brought in a roll of film he'd taken of his girlfriend, in shall we say, "risque poses" (you're probably no stranger to this, but for the others out there, this happens a lot more than you'd imagine). He was really set on getting the best results, so he bought a roll of professional film - some kind of Agfa ISO 25. Naturally, taken indoors in poor light with a manual camera and no flash. We struggled very hard to get *anything* off of the roll, and regretted it, since she wasn't someone you'd want to take photos of in *normal* circumstances... Another time, I discovered a new challenge when a woman came to pick up her photos and I recognized her as the subject, in what can best be described as "gynecological exams". Try to keep a nice professional face for that one. Or the gentlemen who asked for his four 35mm films be developed, before allowing all beautifully fogged, unfurled rolls of emulsion out of the translucent plastic containers onto the counter? And the look of horror on his face when he realised his photos of the wedding were "probably not going to come out"? Managed to miss any of those, somehow, but another person I knew took her film to a quickie lab and the attendant (there's no other term) grabbed the leader and stripped the entire roll out to look at it, naturally seeing nothing but opaque brown. Long fight to get the lab to own up to that one. Hold on, i've got tons more... Ah, a "Can you top this?" competition! I'm game! ;-) Working at the lab, got ripped into fiercely when some guy didn't get his prints because the roll was effectively blank. Turns out he was an "artiste" who took pictures of dust in the air against a totally black background - couldn't even make out the frame borders. He railed up and down at us because he'd "told us time and time again" how he wanted his prints done, and didn't think he should have to tell us each time he dropped his film off. The fun was when he challenged me with, "Don't you recognize me by now?!" and I delightfully told him I was a new manager who had never seen him before, and asked why didn't he realize that? Then there was doing christmas cards one year, where we took a customer's negative and produced oversized prints with a holiday greeting alongside. After one run of about 200 cards, I looked at the negative strip (pics of the customer's kids doing something cute in the backyard) and noticed that the very next pic was of his wife in lingerie - sexy but still PG. I was sorely tempted to print two or three with the holiday border and stack them on top in the box, and let him think the wrong frame number had been given, 200 cards of burlesque, but it's hard to tell sometimes how little jokes like that would go over. Gorgeous woman came in one day with a print done by Glamour Shots, a portrait chain specializing in elaborate makeovers and classy pics. She plopped the print down on the counter, laid her finger in the truly excellent cleavage showing, and asked if I could remove that. I almost literally bit my tongue to prevent myself from blurting out "WHY?!", and eventually realized (after close study, mind you), that she was indicating the spot where her black bra was visible. For copyright reasons, I regrettably told her we could do nothing about it - the Glamour Shots branch where she'd just had the portrait done was in the same mall, and we would catch hell if we altered or copied their work. They had refused to reshoot it, and she was quite sore about it all. All I could do was shrug. A couple weeks later, I saw the shot again. It was a magazine ad for Thee Dollhouse, a high-end strip club, and it was announcing their headline act, a nationally known pornstar. Aw dammit... And the photo was cropped just above that offending bra ;-) - Al. -- To reply, insert a dash between "wading" and "in". Please excuse the changed format, I'm working remotely. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin Francis" wrote in message ... "Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message ... Okay, I was, for some indeterminate reason, poking around in the photo department of Wal-Mart yesterday, and for those unfamiliar with this line of stores, they are a do-it-all-halfass chain of department stores specializing in snack foods... So I was chatting with the woman staffing the photo department about the wonderful range of digital cameras they offer there, most of which I would have trouble finding in the same pocket as my keys. What came next stunned me though, as I was informed that some digitals have now advanced beyond 35mm cameras - they go up to 38mm! Forgive my cynical laughter- but you ain't heard nothing yet. snip Or the woman whose face fell when told her newly acquired Nicomatic SL,NR (Sh***y lens, no refund) camera, was worth less than the roll of film she bought and would prbably have been overpriced in a Poundstretcher. She didn't disclose the sum paid, but she hardly moved for over a minute... Don't know what a Poundstretcher is, but I'm assuming something like our "Dollar Stores" over here, everything very low priced and worth even less... A friend of a friend bought into one of the magazine ads offering some kind of amazing snap-together point-n-shoot disguised (poorly) as an SLR, intending to surprise her husband. The camera arrived okay, as well as the credit card bill showing the card maxed out to the limit. Instead of protesting this through any of the normal channels, she paid the bill without her husband's knowledge and gave the camera away. There's nothing like piling stupidity on top of dumbness. The camera was amusing, too. A clear filter about 50mm across, but the lens itself was about the size of the ones in a disposable camera. Or the young couple who wanted a gift for a photography-enthusiast relative, asked for "the best, most professional film camera we stocked", were confronted with price lists and specifications, and eventually left with a Canon Ixus III APS p'n's (with a free roll of Konica-cast-off Jacobs film)? Way back when I worked for a lab, some enthusiastic student brought in a roll of film he'd taken of his girlfriend, in shall we say, "risque poses" (you're probably no stranger to this, but for the others out there, this happens a lot more than you'd imagine). He was really set on getting the best results, so he bought a roll of professional film - some kind of Agfa ISO 25. Naturally, taken indoors in poor light with a manual camera and no flash. We struggled very hard to get *anything* off of the roll, and regretted it, since she wasn't someone you'd want to take photos of in *normal* circumstances... Another time, I discovered a new challenge when a woman came to pick up her photos and I recognized her as the subject, in what can best be described as "gynecological exams". Try to keep a nice professional face for that one. Or the gentlemen who asked for his four 35mm films be developed, before allowing all beautifully fogged, unfurled rolls of emulsion out of the translucent plastic containers onto the counter? And the look of horror on his face when he realised his photos of the wedding were "probably not going to come out"? Managed to miss any of those, somehow, but another person I knew took her film to a quickie lab and the attendant (there's no other term) grabbed the leader and stripped the entire roll out to look at it, naturally seeing nothing but opaque brown. Long fight to get the lab to own up to that one. Hold on, i've got tons more... Ah, a "Can you top this?" competition! I'm game! ;-) Working at the lab, got ripped into fiercely when some guy didn't get his prints because the roll was effectively blank. Turns out he was an "artiste" who took pictures of dust in the air against a totally black background - couldn't even make out the frame borders. He railed up and down at us because he'd "told us time and time again" how he wanted his prints done, and didn't think he should have to tell us each time he dropped his film off. The fun was when he challenged me with, "Don't you recognize me by now?!" and I delightfully told him I was a new manager who had never seen him before, and asked why didn't he realize that? Then there was doing christmas cards one year, where we took a customer's negative and produced oversized prints with a holiday greeting alongside. After one run of about 200 cards, I looked at the negative strip (pics of the customer's kids doing something cute in the backyard) and noticed that the very next pic was of his wife in lingerie - sexy but still PG. I was sorely tempted to print two or three with the holiday border and stack them on top in the box, and let him think the wrong frame number had been given, 200 cards of burlesque, but it's hard to tell sometimes how little jokes like that would go over. Gorgeous woman came in one day with a print done by Glamour Shots, a portrait chain specializing in elaborate makeovers and classy pics. She plopped the print down on the counter, laid her finger in the truly excellent cleavage showing, and asked if I could remove that. I almost literally bit my tongue to prevent myself from blurting out "WHY?!", and eventually realized (after close study, mind you), that she was indicating the spot where her black bra was visible. For copyright reasons, I regrettably told her we could do nothing about it - the Glamour Shots branch where she'd just had the portrait done was in the same mall, and we would catch hell if we altered or copied their work. They had refused to reshoot it, and she was quite sore about it all. All I could do was shrug. A couple weeks later, I saw the shot again. It was a magazine ad for Thee Dollhouse, a high-end strip club, and it was announcing their headline act, a nationally known pornstar. Aw dammit... And the photo was cropped just above that offending bra ;-) - Al. -- To reply, insert a dash between "wading" and "in". Please excuse the changed format, I'm working remotely. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin Francis" wrote in message ... "Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message ... Okay, I was, for some indeterminate reason, poking around in the photo department of Wal-Mart yesterday, and for those unfamiliar with this line of stores, they are a do-it-all-halfass chain of department stores specializing in snack foods... So I was chatting with the woman staffing the photo department about the wonderful range of digital cameras they offer there, most of which I would have trouble finding in the same pocket as my keys. What came next stunned me though, as I was informed that some digitals have now advanced beyond 35mm cameras - they go up to 38mm! Forgive my cynical laughter- but you ain't heard nothing yet. snip Or the woman whose face fell when told her newly acquired Nicomatic SL,NR (Sh***y lens, no refund) camera, was worth less than the roll of film she bought and would prbably have been overpriced in a Poundstretcher. She didn't disclose the sum paid, but she hardly moved for over a minute... Don't know what a Poundstretcher is, but I'm assuming something like our "Dollar Stores" over here, everything very low priced and worth even less... A friend of a friend bought into one of the magazine ads offering some kind of amazing snap-together point-n-shoot disguised (poorly) as an SLR, intending to surprise her husband. The camera arrived okay, as well as the credit card bill showing the card maxed out to the limit. Instead of protesting this through any of the normal channels, she paid the bill without her husband's knowledge and gave the camera away. There's nothing like piling stupidity on top of dumbness. The camera was amusing, too. A clear filter about 50mm across, but the lens itself was about the size of the ones in a disposable camera. Or the young couple who wanted a gift for a photography-enthusiast relative, asked for "the best, most professional film camera we stocked", were confronted with price lists and specifications, and eventually left with a Canon Ixus III APS p'n's (with a free roll of Konica-cast-off Jacobs film)? Way back when I worked for a lab, some enthusiastic student brought in a roll of film he'd taken of his girlfriend, in shall we say, "risque poses" (you're probably no stranger to this, but for the others out there, this happens a lot more than you'd imagine). He was really set on getting the best results, so he bought a roll of professional film - some kind of Agfa ISO 25. Naturally, taken indoors in poor light with a manual camera and no flash. We struggled very hard to get *anything* off of the roll, and regretted it, since she wasn't someone you'd want to take photos of in *normal* circumstances... Another time, I discovered a new challenge when a woman came to pick up her photos and I recognized her as the subject, in what can best be described as "gynecological exams". Try to keep a nice professional face for that one. Or the gentlemen who asked for his four 35mm films be developed, before allowing all beautifully fogged, unfurled rolls of emulsion out of the translucent plastic containers onto the counter? And the look of horror on his face when he realised his photos of the wedding were "probably not going to come out"? Managed to miss any of those, somehow, but another person I knew took her film to a quickie lab and the attendant (there's no other term) grabbed the leader and stripped the entire roll out to look at it, naturally seeing nothing but opaque brown. Long fight to get the lab to own up to that one. Hold on, i've got tons more... Ah, a "Can you top this?" competition! I'm game! ;-) Working at the lab, got ripped into fiercely when some guy didn't get his prints because the roll was effectively blank. Turns out he was an "artiste" who took pictures of dust in the air against a totally black background - couldn't even make out the frame borders. He railed up and down at us because he'd "told us time and time again" how he wanted his prints done, and didn't think he should have to tell us each time he dropped his film off. The fun was when he challenged me with, "Don't you recognize me by now?!" and I delightfully told him I was a new manager who had never seen him before, and asked why didn't he realize that? Then there was doing christmas cards one year, where we took a customer's negative and produced oversized prints with a holiday greeting alongside. After one run of about 200 cards, I looked at the negative strip (pics of the customer's kids doing something cute in the backyard) and noticed that the very next pic was of his wife in lingerie - sexy but still PG. I was sorely tempted to print two or three with the holiday border and stack them on top in the box, and let him think the wrong frame number had been given, 200 cards of burlesque, but it's hard to tell sometimes how little jokes like that would go over. Gorgeous woman came in one day with a print done by Glamour Shots, a portrait chain specializing in elaborate makeovers and classy pics. She plopped the print down on the counter, laid her finger in the truly excellent cleavage showing, and asked if I could remove that. I almost literally bit my tongue to prevent myself from blurting out "WHY?!", and eventually realized (after close study, mind you), that she was indicating the spot where her black bra was visible. For copyright reasons, I regrettably told her we could do nothing about it - the Glamour Shots branch where she'd just had the portrait done was in the same mall, and we would catch hell if we altered or copied their work. They had refused to reshoot it, and she was quite sore about it all. All I could do was shrug. A couple weeks later, I saw the shot again. It was a magazine ad for Thee Dollhouse, a high-end strip club, and it was announcing their headline act, a nationally known pornstar. Aw dammit... And the photo was cropped just above that offending bra ;-) - Al. -- To reply, insert a dash between "wading" and "in". Please excuse the changed format, I'm working remotely. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
... Or the woman whose face fell when told her newly acquired Nicomatic SL,NR (Sh***y lens, no refund) camera, was worth less than the roll of film she bought and would prbably have been overpriced in a Poundstretcher. She didn't disclose the sum paid, but she hardly moved for over a minute... Don't know what a Poundstretcher is, but I'm assuming something like our "Dollar Stores" over here, everything very low priced and worth even less... Yep. The kind smartarses go around asking "how much is that?" (yes, i've done it too). A friend of a friend bought into one of the magazine ads offering some kind of amazing snap-together point-n-shoot disguised (poorly) as an SLR, intending to surprise her husband. The camera arrived okay, as well as the credit card bill showing the card maxed out to the limit. Instead of protesting this through any of the normal channels, she paid the bill without her husband's knowledge and gave the camera away. There's nothing like piling stupidity on top of dumbness. The camera was amusing, too. A clear filter about 50mm across, but the lens itself was about the size of the ones in a disposable camera. When a former colleague of mine was collecting the shells of single use cameras, we used to ask customers if we could keep them. One customer, all too willing to oblige, cracked it open and yanked several feet of undeveloped film in front of our eyes... Oh, and there was the lady who always threw away her "disposable cameras" before getting them developed... And the guy who asked why his prints were so dark on the right side- I asked him to hold his camera for me, and commented that his finger was covering the right of the flash... Way back when I worked for a lab, some enthusiastic student brought in a roll of film he'd taken of his girlfriend, in shall we say, "risque poses" (you're probably no stranger to this, but for the others out there, this happens a lot more than you'd imagine). He was really set on getting the best results, so he bought a roll of professional film - some kind of Agfa ISO 25. Naturally, taken indoors in poor light with a manual camera and no flash. We struggled very hard to get *anything* off of the roll, and regretted it, since she wasn't someone you'd want to take photos of in *normal* circumstances... Today, an attractive woman came to collect her photos without her collection slip. After some searching, I found the name, and opened the envelope for her to check the contents. She snapped them off me as quickly as possible, but only fast enough to drop a series of nudes of herself on the floor- in front of a lady holding on to her young son. Hold on, i've got tons more... Ah, a "Can you top this?" competition! I'm game! ;-) Working at the lab, got ripped into fiercely when some guy didn't get his prints because the roll was effectively blank. Turns out he was an "artiste" who took pictures of dust in the air against a totally black background - couldn't even make out the frame borders. He railed up and down at us because he'd "told us time and time again" how he wanted his prints done, and didn't think he should have to tell us each time he dropped his film off. The fun was when he challenged me with, "Don't you recognize me by now?!" and I delightfully told him I was a new manager who had never seen him before, and asked why didn't he realize that? Less of a funny story, but more of a rant- one of our customers brought in fifty rolls of film- a reasonable profit for us, except he constantly complains about the quality- wither they are too dark, or too bright and need sending back to make them as dark as they were before. He is costing Kodak a small fortune, as he brings back about ten of the films per week. A couple weeks later, I saw the shot again. It was a magazine ad for Thee Dollhouse, a high-end strip club, and it was announcing their headline act, a nationally known pornstar. Aw dammit... And the photo was cropped just above that offending bra ;-) Guess that was about ankle height, then... :-) -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net,
"Jeremy" writes: The consumer shift away from film indicates that digital DOES produce a result acceptable to them. After all, were consumer film cameras producing results that were all that good? Did the consumer notice a reduction in the quality of their (consumer) images when they migrated to digital? I doubt it. It never ceases to amaze me how my brother, not a big film user could use such a crap place for developing and printing.* The film in question was shot by myself, the neg was uniformly very thin, suscicioly so given I'd used both the camera's meter and a separate one and some of the prints had odd patches on the edges. The odd thing was he was perfectly happy with this knowing the place was cheap and nasty! *Unusually bad. Even so, despite having very thin negs one of the pictures was one of the two I have had published in a newspaper. Even more oddly I never attempted to get either of the two photos in a newspaper. -- http://www.petezilla.co.uk |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Francis wrote:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . Less of a funny story, but more of a rant- one of our customers brought in fifty rolls of film- a reasonable profit for us, except he constantly complains about the quality- wither they are too dark, or too bright and need sending back to make them as dark as they were before. He is costing Kodak a small fortune, as he brings back about ten of the films per week. TP? ;-) Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Will digital photography ever stabilize? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 37 | June 30th 04 08:11 PM |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 19th 04 05:48 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |