A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The last days of analog



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old April 23rd 18, 05:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,056
Default The last days of analog

On 4/19/2018 3:08 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2018-04-19 17:46, -hh wrote:
Worth the watch....


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/landscape-photographer-races-to-finish-decades-of-work


Wow.


Really sharp and beautiful images. AA had every area of his images
marked, complete with time, for dodging and burning. I suspect that
Burkett did too, but to do so for a news broadcast, might cause us to
lose the point. It is surprising that he doesn't keep his paper in cold
storage to prolong it's life.
--
PeterN
  #32  
Old April 24th 18, 12:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,467
Default The last days of analog

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 06:57:41 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

there are *other* options available to replace the outdated primitive
methods and equipment.

Do tell.

stitching is the main one. computational photography is another and
advancing rapidly.

And so much simpler than just adjusting the camera.

that's the whole point.


Computational photography is simpler than just adjusting the camera?


absolutely.

You are joking aren't you?


no.

yet another thing you don't understand.


there is *so* much detail in this photo that you can see into some
windows and read the ads on the sides of city busses. one of the
commenters found naked sunbathers.

http://360gigapixels.com/nyc-skyline-photo-panorama/
The largest photo ever made of NYC. 360ΒΊ New York City gigapixel. If
you printed this image at a standard photo resolution of 300DPI, it
would be 18 meters or 57 feet wide, and 9 meters / 28 feet tall.
That's a big photo! For more information about this panorama, please
contact us.

an 8x10 view camera is a toy in comparison.

But so it should be. An enormous number of images went into the
construction of the one you have just cited.

so what?

A vast amount of work to achieve a result which in most cases could be
achieved by simpler means.

what simpler means would that be?


Taking the photograph in just the one shot.


a 360 panorama with that level of detail taken in one shot????

one shot is also an artificial limitation.


We are after simplicity, remember?

an enormous number of hours went into adjusting his 8x10 camera along
with many more hours for *each* of his cibachrome prints, and if he
wants additional prints, he has to do the darkroom work all over again
and the results won't be identical either (plus there's the stench of
ciba chemistry).

"an enormous number of hours went into adjusting his 8x10 camera"!

Hours? Just adjusting the camera? I think you have the wrong camera
in mind. This one doesn't come as a kitset but is fully assembled.

it takes time to use the movements you claim can't be done with digital.


Seconds more likely. It depends on the camera.


it's much more than seconds to use an 8x10 view camera to photograph
anything and you know it.


We are talking about camera adjustments, remember?

But there are some shots you can't get without those adjustments. See
below.

There are some things which as far as I know can't be done with
digital. Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up while
keeping the whole image in focus.


that's very easily done with digital and without any movements
whatsoever. i do it fairly regularly, in fact.


That's interesting. Do tell us how you do it.

there are also tilt/shift lenses available for digital cameras, so one
could still use movements if desired.


Tilt lenses are common. Tilt/shift are less common. None of the
available digital camera tilt lenses work at a sufficiently large
angle to be useful for the task I described.



like i said before, just because you don't know how doesn't mean it's
impossible.

A technical camera copes with this
by raising and tilting the lens upwards while tilting the camera back
to the rear.


to photograph a tall wall (or more commonly, a tall building). the rear
must stay parallel to the subject to avoid perspective distortion while
the lens is raised to get the entire subject. tilting the lens will
affect depth of field, so it's not normally done.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #33  
Old April 24th 18, 12:24 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,467
Default The last days of analog

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 06:57:43 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


the corrections can be done *outside* of the camera, where you can
guess all you want and undo it whenever you make an incorrect guess,
or, let the computer do the calculations *for* you, eliminating the
need to guess.


Have another look at
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0

That's the result of technology applied to
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hgfbskbe4c...941-2.jpg?dl=0


that's the result of not doing it correctly.


There were constraints around me that limited what I could do. I hoped
that I would get enough image to be useful but I was wrong. If I had a
camera with all the necessary movements I would have known that it was
a lost cause before I took the picture.

as i said, just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean it's
impossible.

tl;dr user error.


^^^this^^^

Of course with a digital camera you can know in advance roughly how
much image is going to be lost in the perspective corrections but you
can never know exactly. You have to estimate the allowance to be made
and sometimes your estimate will be wrong.

that's the fault of the photographer, not the technology.

The need to guess and estimate is the result of a deficiency in the
technology.

nope. it's a deficiency in the operator.


Are you saying that with a different operator the technology would
have worked differently?


the technology isn't the problem.

a different operator, one who understands the technology and knows what
he's doing, wouldn't **** things up.


What would he have done?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #34  
Old April 24th 18, 12:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,085
Default The last days of analog

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But so it should be. An enormous number of images went into the
construction of the one you have just cited.

so what?

A vast amount of work to achieve a result which in most cases could be
achieved by simpler means.

what simpler means would that be?

Taking the photograph in just the one shot.


a 360 panorama with that level of detail taken in one shot????

one shot is also an artificial limitation.


We are after simplicity, remember?


how do you propose to shoot a 360 degree panorama in one shot?

regardless, stitching images is simple. in fact, it's almost entirely
automatic.

or were you planning on stitching them individually?

an enormous number of hours went into adjusting his 8x10 camera along
with many more hours for *each* of his cibachrome prints, and if he
wants additional prints, he has to do the darkroom work all over again
and the results won't be identical either (plus there's the stench of
ciba chemistry).

"an enormous number of hours went into adjusting his 8x10 camera"!

Hours? Just adjusting the camera? I think you have the wrong camera
in mind. This one doesn't come as a kitset but is fully assembled.

it takes time to use the movements you claim can't be done with digital.

Seconds more likely. It depends on the camera.


it's much more than seconds to use an 8x10 view camera to photograph
anything and you know it.


We are talking about camera adjustments, remember?


which takes more than a few seconds. movements are not automatic.

you're also conveniently ignoring the time it takes to set the camera
up in the first place and then pack it up when done. view cameras are
not exactly rapid fire.

But there are some shots you can't get without those adjustments. See
below.


very few, and those adjustments can be done with digital, so no issue.

there are *far* more shots you can't get with analog film cameras, the
obvious example being a 360 degree panorama.

everything has limitations. nothing is perfect.

There are some things which as far as I know can't be done with
digital. Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up while
keeping the whole image in focus.


that's very easily done with digital and without any movements
whatsoever. i do it fairly regularly, in fact.


That's interesting. Do tell us how you do it.


i did. do try to keep up.

there are also tilt/shift lenses available for digital cameras, so one
could still use movements if desired.


Tilt lenses are common. Tilt/shift are less common. None of the
available digital camera tilt lenses work at a sufficiently large
angle to be useful for the task I described.


some do.

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20157/big_6328_2_1.jpg
https://creativityinnovationsuccess....017/02/header_
fujifilm_gfx50s_1920px.jpeg

in any event, your mistake is assuming that tilt/shift is the *only*
solution. it isn't.
  #35  
Old April 24th 18, 12:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,085
Default The last days of analog

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the corrections can be done *outside* of the camera, where you can
guess all you want and undo it whenever you make an incorrect guess,
or, let the computer do the calculations *for* you, eliminating the
need to guess.

Have another look at
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0

That's the result of technology applied to
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hgfbskbe4c...941-2.jpg?dl=0


that's the result of not doing it correctly.


There were constraints around me that limited what I could do. I hoped
that I would get enough image to be useful but I was wrong. If I had a
camera with all the necessary movements I would have known that it was
a lost cause before I took the picture.


it wouldn't have been a lost cause had you known how to work within
those constraints.

user error.
  #36  
Old April 24th 18, 10:30 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
newshound
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 271
Default The last days of analog

On 23/04/2018 03:21, Eric Stevens wrote:


Seeing 8x10 images in the flesh is an experience. Will be a while before digital really matches it and yet it will never look the same.


https://www.megapixelsdigital.com/di...un-in-the-sun/
is worth reading.

Fascinating!

But oh dear, I would never have the patience!
  #37  
Old April 24th 18, 03:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,056
Default The last days of analog

On 4/23/2018 7:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 06:57:43 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


the corrections can be done *outside* of the camera, where you can
guess all you want and undo it whenever you make an incorrect guess,
or, let the computer do the calculations *for* you, eliminating the
need to guess.

Have another look at
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0

That's the result of technology applied to
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hgfbskbe4c...941-2.jpg?dl=0


that's the result of not doing it correctly.


There were constraints around me that limited what I could do. I hoped
that I would get enough image to be useful but I was wrong. If I had a
camera with all the necessary movements I would have known that it was
a lost cause before I took the picture.

as i said, just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean it's
impossible.

tl;dr user error.


^^^this^^^

Of course with a digital camera you can know in advance roughly how
much image is going to be lost in the perspective corrections but you
can never know exactly. You have to estimate the allowance to be made
and sometimes your estimate will be wrong.

that's the fault of the photographer, not the technology.

The need to guess and estimate is the result of a deficiency in the
technology.

nope. it's a deficiency in the operator.

Are you saying that with a different operator the technology would
have worked differently?


the technology isn't the problem.

a different operator, one who understands the technology and knows what
he's doing, wouldn't **** things up.


What would he have done?


I gave it a snack, but there is a time to stop feeding.

--
PeterN
  #38  
Old April 25th 18, 01:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,467
Default The last days of analog

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 19:51:33 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But so it should be. An enormous number of images went into the
construction of the one you have just cited.

so what?

A vast amount of work to achieve a result which in most cases could be
achieved by simpler means.

what simpler means would that be?

Taking the photograph in just the one shot.

a 360 panorama with that level of detail taken in one shot????

one shot is also an artificial limitation.


We are after simplicity, remember?


how do you propose to shoot a 360 degree panorama in one shot?


I wasn't.

regardless, stitching images is simple. in fact, it's almost entirely
automatic.

or were you planning on stitching them individually?


I have done that and it works quite well. However I am happy to use
software.

an enormous number of hours went into adjusting his 8x10 camera along
with many more hours for *each* of his cibachrome prints, and if he
wants additional prints, he has to do the darkroom work all over again
and the results won't be identical either (plus there's the stench of
ciba chemistry).

"an enormous number of hours went into adjusting his 8x10 camera"!

Hours? Just adjusting the camera? I think you have the wrong camera
in mind. This one doesn't come as a kitset but is fully assembled.

it takes time to use the movements you claim can't be done with digital.

Seconds more likely. It depends on the camera.

it's much more than seconds to use an 8x10 view camera to photograph
anything and you know it.


We are talking about camera adjustments, remember?


which takes more than a few seconds. movements are not automatic.


Either you have never used such a camera or you didn't know what you
were doing.

you're also conveniently ignoring the time it takes to set the camera
up in the first place and then pack it up when done. view cameras are
not exactly rapid fire.


That sentence is constructed around a non sequitur.

But there are some shots you can't get without those adjustments. See
below.


very few, and those adjustments can be done with digital, so no issue.


But you can't see what the adjusted image will be like before you take
the photograph.

there are *far* more shots you can't get with analog film cameras, the
obvious example being a 360 degree panorama.

everything has limitations. nothing is perfect.


Nevertheless there are still some shots for which a technical camera
will be preferred.

There are some things which as far as I know can't be done with
digital. Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up while
keeping the whole image in focus.

that's very easily done with digital and without any movements
whatsoever. i do it fairly regularly, in fact.


That's interesting. Do tell us how you do it.


i did. do try to keep up.

Yet another of your fictitious responses.
there are also tilt/shift lenses available for digital cameras, so one
could still use movements if desired.


Tilt lenses are common. Tilt/shift are less common. None of the
available digital camera tilt lenses work at a sufficiently large
angle to be useful for the task I described.


some do.

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20157/big_6328_2_1.jpg
https://creativityinnovationsuccess....017/02/header_
fujifilm_gfx50s_1920px.jpeg

in any event, your mistake is assuming that tilt/shift is the *only*
solution. it isn't.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #39  
Old April 25th 18, 01:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,467
Default The last days of analog

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:03:58 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 4/23/2018 7:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 06:57:43 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


the corrections can be done *outside* of the camera, where you can
guess all you want and undo it whenever you make an incorrect guess,
or, let the computer do the calculations *for* you, eliminating the
need to guess.

Have another look at
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0

That's the result of technology applied to
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hgfbskbe4c...941-2.jpg?dl=0

that's the result of not doing it correctly.


There were constraints around me that limited what I could do. I hoped
that I would get enough image to be useful but I was wrong. If I had a
camera with all the necessary movements I would have known that it was
a lost cause before I took the picture.

as i said, just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean it's
impossible.

tl;dr user error.

^^^this^^^

Of course with a digital camera you can know in advance roughly how
much image is going to be lost in the perspective corrections but you
can never know exactly. You have to estimate the allowance to be made
and sometimes your estimate will be wrong.

that's the fault of the photographer, not the technology.

The need to guess and estimate is the result of a deficiency in the
technology.

nope. it's a deficiency in the operator.

Are you saying that with a different operator the technology would
have worked differently?

the technology isn't the problem.

a different operator, one who understands the technology and knows what
he's doing, wouldn't **** things up.


What would he have done?


I gave it a snack, but there is a time to stop feeding.


I feel that way too.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #40  
Old April 25th 18, 01:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,467
Default The last days of analog

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 19:51:35 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the corrections can be done *outside* of the camera, where you can
guess all you want and undo it whenever you make an incorrect guess,
or, let the computer do the calculations *for* you, eliminating the
need to guess.

Have another look at
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0

That's the result of technology applied to
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hgfbskbe4c...941-2.jpg?dl=0

that's the result of not doing it correctly.


There were constraints around me that limited what I could do. I hoped
that I would get enough image to be useful but I was wrong. If I had a
camera with all the necessary movements I would have known that it was
a lost cause before I took the picture.


it wouldn't have been a lost cause had you known how to work within
those constraints.


What would you have done?

user error.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My first analog photos! Russell D. Digital Photography 0 May 29th 12 08:50 PM
My first analog photos! George Kerby Digital Photography 0 May 28th 12 07:47 PM
My first analog photos! Andrew Reilly[_2_] Digital Photography 1 May 28th 12 12:01 PM
Analog Black Dial [email protected] Digital SLR Cameras 0 May 21st 09 10:42 AM
Old Analog Meter: Any Value ?? Magnusfarce Digital Photography 14 July 3rd 07 06:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.