The disappearance of darkness

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Me, May 7, 2013.

  1. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > On 2013.05.08 16:05 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:


    >> These are the same suckers who buy silver speaker leads and $100+ [even
    >> digital] interconnects...


    > If you dig around you can find a story about some audiophiles having an
    > epic fail when coat hangers were used in lieu of some high end speaker
    > cable in an ABX test.


    I once built a speaker comparison control box which let you switch
    instantly between different speakers at the same sound level. You
    could keep switching back and forth and replaying passages until you'd
    clarified the differences.

    I invited several interested friends around to try it out. Once I'd
    got everyone seated nicely and introduced to each other I went off to
    make coffee for us all. While I was off making the coffee they started
    playing records and using the comparator box. When I came back with
    the coffee most of them had made up their minds about the differences.
    They mostly agreed with one another about the clear superiority of A
    over B. One wasn't yet sure and wanted more testing. One couldn't hear
    any difference.

    He was right. I hadn't switched the box into the circuit yet. They'd
    been flicking disconnected switches :)

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, May 9, 2013
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. Me

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 6:10:48 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > > > Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to

    >
    > > > > what

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > > can be printed from digital.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > for no good reason.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Other than it's not repeatable as easily as digital is, part of the charm is

    >
    > > having to get it right. I have say 12 shots on 120 film to get what you want

    >
    > > is rather more challenging than taking 5,000 inages on a 16GB card and

    >
    > > sifting through them for the 'best'.

    >
    >
    >
    > you can limit yourself to just 12 shots on digital if you want.


    Yes you can delete those you don;t want seen, which isn't the same thing.

    > buy a
    >
    > really small memory card if you can't just stop at 12.


    The compition is to take 12 shots to see whether or not luck plays a part in your photography, so you give your studetns a digital camera and tehre's no way they'll cheat or buy their own card or take 1,000 pictures rather than just 12.


    > > > the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new

    >
    > > > technology.


    http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2012/04/why-digital-is-dead-for-me-in-street-photography/

    It's not a matter of it being technically better.


    > > I miss the taste of hypo when I used to syphon it back from the tray to the

    >
    > > bottle, not forgetting the smell of processing cibrachrome in a drum and the

    >
    > > excitment of adding the neutralizing chemcal to make the it 'safe' to pour

    >
    > > down the sink.

    >
    >
    >
    > cibachrome had a pretty nasty smell. i don't miss any of that.


    I do I miss the experince of actually doing something other than pressing the shutter release, and taking it to a processor. Now the processing is all done by electronics.



    > > > with offsite backups, you won't lose any images if your house burns

    >
    > > > down. there's an identical copy elsewhere. the more offsite backups,

    >
    > > > the better.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Sometimes what makes a thing worth while is it uniqueness and individuality.

    >
    >
    >
    > not when it comes to backups, it isn't.


    Even more so as a picture without a backup is worth more than one with.

    Think of it this way which is worth more the original image or one of the 10,000 copies. Why are teh 'fakes' of painting worth less (generally speaking) than the original ?




    > > > > Even though there is *nothing* superior about vinyl, many still

    >
    > > > > prefer the ritual.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > digital could be configured to stop every 20 minutes to 'flip'

    >
    > >

    >
    > > it would have to be semi-random as not every album needed flipping after

    >
    > > 20mins.

    >
    >
    >
    > an lp record was about 20 minutes per side. some were a little more,
    >
    > some were a little less.
    >
    >
    >
    > the point is you can put a break at exactly the same place as it was on
    >
    > a record.


    Yep, but that doesn't turn it into a record. Sometimes the packaging is important too. I have shaped and coloured vinyl.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 9, 2013
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > > > Other than it's not repeatable as easily as digital is, part of the charm is
    > > > having to get it right. I have say 12 shots on 120 film to get what you want
    > > > is rather more challenging than taking 5,000 inages on a 16GB card and
    > > > sifting through them for the 'best'.

    > >
    > > you can limit yourself to just 12 shots on digital if you want.

    >
    > Yes you can delete those you don;t want seen, which isn't the same thing.


    no, you shoot *only* 12. you don't delete anything, just like you would
    with a 12 exposure roll of film.

    the easy way to do this is get a really tiny memory card, but with a
    little discipline, you limit yourself to how many photos you take and
    stop at 12 (or whatever number you decide).

    > > > > the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    > > > > technology.

    >
    > http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2012/04/why-digital-is-dead-for-me-in-stree
    > t-photography/
    >
    > It's not a matter of it being technically better.


    that article is utter rubbish and he contradicts himself a lot.

    I got my film developed and scanned when visiting Korea the month
    afterward- and fell in love with my film shots from Tokyo. The depth,
    soul, and the dynamic range were to die for. Shots that were blurry
    or out-of-focus (that would have looked horible in digital) looked
    more like beautiful mistakes in film.

    that's just bullshit. 'depth and soul' is meaningless twaddle and the
    dynamic range is *less* than digital. if he wants the same dynamic
    range as film, he can shrink digital to match. shots that are out of
    focus are just as out of focus on digital as they are on film, and they
    can be blurred after the fact too, either selectively or all of it.

    1. Film helps me focus more on my personal projects

    no it doesn't. he says film prevents him from looking at images too
    soon, either chimping or that night in lightroom, but nothing stops
    anyone from waiting a few days or even months to look at the images.

    2. Film helps me focus on my photography, not gear

    no it doesn't. he goes on to talk about lusting after new digital
    cameras. this happened with film cameras too.

    3. I don¹t have to worry about post-processing

    you don't have to worry about that with digital. shoot jpeg or give the
    memory card to someone else to process, just as you did film, and some
    camera stores will do that.

    4. I take fewer photographs and am more selective

    nothing stops anyone from shooting fewer photos with digital. this also
    contradicts his #6 claim.

    5. Film isn¹t going away anytime soon

    not entirely, but it's becoming harder to find and harder to process.

    6. I never run out of batteries/my camera is always on

    not a problem with digital, especially if he wants to shoot fewer
    photos, as in his #4 claim. or just carry a spare. big deal.

    1000 photos per charge is not unusual. assuming 6 hours of non-stop
    picture taking with no breaks for food, bathroom or anything else
    (which is unlikely), that's 167 photos per hour, or about one photo
    every 20 seconds. even if the camera only gets 500 photos per charge,
    it's still more than one photo per minute.

    he says film helps him be more selective and he wants to take fewer
    photos, so the battery won't be a limiting factor. a digital camera
    won't wince at 100 photos (~3 rolls of film).

    he then contradicts himself again:
    I am a huge fan of film point-and-shoots. Why? They are compact which
    causes you to take them with you everywhere you go. In the end, you
    end up taking more shots, especially in places where you want to be
    more low-key (subway, bus, supermarket, etc).

    wasn't the goal to take fewer photos? and cellphone cameras are *more*
    compact and go more places than a regular camera would, plus they're
    even lower key, as you can pretend you're making a call or checking the
    weather or something.

    he also makes this suggestion:
    Also note when you are shooting street photograpy with film, my
    suggestion is to push your film to 1600. If you are not familiar with
    pushing film, the idea is that you put in ISO 400 film into your
    camera, and adjust your meter to ISO 1600. You then shoot your ISO
    400 film underexposed by 2 stops, and process your film for longer to
    get the correct exposure. This allows you to get a faster shutter
    speed.

    pushing two stops is a lot and not all places will push process it,
    including the one he uses! he claims film has dynamic range to die for
    but this reduces it. digital cameras don't even wince at iso 1600. they
    can easily do 3200 or 6400 these days, even higher in some cameras,
    giving him even faster shutter speeds.

    he then goes on to say:
    Also note that with film it is always better to overexpose than
    underexpose. Film retains details in the highlights very well, but
    don¹t hold much details in the shadows.

    pushing two stops is underexposing, by definition, exactly the opposite
    of what he is suggesting.

    he contradicts himself yet again about processing:
    1) If you decide to do it yourself, make sure to google online how to
    deveop your own film. You will end up saving more money, but it takes
    more time. I don¹t know how to do it myself yet- but I hope to learn
    soon!

    it might be cheaper for b/w, but not for colour processing.

    2) If you decide to send it to a lab, there are a lot of choices.
    Back in the states, I send my color film to Costco- they process any
    color film for only $5 USD/roll, including a high-resolution scan
    (roughly 3500px wide). Unfortunately they don¹t do black and white
    and don¹t push-process.

    so he doesn't know how to process himself and the place he uses for
    processing won't push process, yet he recommends push processing by not
    one stop, but two. um, ok.

    about the only thing that he said that's valid is this:

    4. Yes, I contradict myself ­ and pride myself in it

    > > > I miss the taste of hypo when I used to syphon it back from the tray to
    > > > the bottle, not forgetting the smell of processing cibrachrome in a drum and
    > > > the excitment of adding the neutralizing chemcal to make the it 'safe' to pour
    > > > down the sink.

    > >
    > > cibachrome had a pretty nasty smell. i don't miss any of that.

    >
    > I do I miss the experince of actually doing something other than pressing the
    > shutter release, and taking it to a processor. Now the processing is all done
    > by electronics.


    you can spend the same time in photoshop (and likely more, because
    there are so many more possibilities). if you make a mistake, you can
    undo it rather than waste a sheet of paper and another 10 minutes or
    whatever it takes to develop a photo. you can also experiment without
    worrying about how long it will take or how much paper to use while
    trying new things. it's also easier to learn with it.

    > > > > with offsite backups, you won't lose any images if your house burns
    > > > > down. there's an identical copy elsewhere. the more offsite backups,
    > > > > the better.

    > >
    > > > Sometimes what makes a thing worth while is it uniqueness and
    > > > individuality.

    > >
    > > not when it comes to backups, it isn't.

    >
    > Even more so as a picture without a backup is worth more than one with.
    >
    > Think of it this way which is worth more the original image or one of the
    > 10,000 copies. Why are teh 'fakes' of painting worth less (generally
    > speaking) than the original ?


    they're worth less because they're fake.

    a backup is not a fake nor will it be sold for a fraction of the price
    of the original.
     
    nospam, May 9, 2013
    #43
  4. Me

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, May 9, 2013 4:26:21 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > > > Other than it's not repeatable as easily as digital is, part of thecharm is

    >
    > > > > having to get it right. I have say 12 shots on 120 film to get whatyou want

    >
    > > > > is rather more challenging than taking 5,000 inages on a 16GB card and

    >
    > > > > sifting through them for the 'best'.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > you can limit yourself to just 12 shots on digital if you want.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Yes you can delete those you don;t want seen, which isn't the same thing.

    >
    >
    >
    > no, you shoot *only* 12. you don't delete anything, just like you would
    >
    > with a 12 exposure roll of film.


    No yuo are giving this project to a group of studetn the aim is to contol their shooiting and to plan ahead, you inspect each frame as an indication of planing taken. Leting them submit what they see as the best 12 of whatever number isn;t the idea.

    > the easy way to do this is get a really tiny memory card, but with a
    >
    > little discipline, you limit yourself to how many photos you take and
    >
    > stop at 12 (or whatever number you decide).


    NO you need to limit others......
    You need to train them to trip the shutter to get a good picture not because they feel the urge to post to facearse for a like.



    > > http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2012/04/why-digital-is-dead-for-me-in-stree

    >
    > > t-photography/

    >
    > >

    >
    > > It's not a matter of it being technically better.

    >
    >
    >
    > that article is utter rubbish and he contradicts himself a lot.
    >
    >
    >
    > I got my film developed and scanned when visiting Korea the month
    >
    > afterward- and fell in love with my film shots from Tokyo. The depth,
    >
    > soul, and the dynamic range were to die for. Shots that were blurry
    >
    > or out-of-focus (that would have looked horible in digital) looked
    >
    > more like beautiful mistakes in film.
    >
    >
    >
    > that's just bullshit. 'depth and soul' is meaningless twaddle and the
    >
    > dynamic range is *less* than digital. if he wants the same dynamic
    >
    > range as film, he can shrink digital to match. shots that are out of
    >
    > focus are just as out of focus on digital as they are on film, and they
    >
    > can be blurred after the fact too, either selectively or all of it.


    Which makes digital so much easier.


    > 1. Film helps me focus more on my personal projects
    >
    >
    >
    > no it doesn't. he says film prevents him from looking at images too
    >
    > soon, either chimping or that night in lightroom, but nothing stops
    >
    > anyone from waiting a few days or even months to look at the images.


    Irrelivant.

    >
    >
    >
    > 2. Film helps me focus on my photography, not gear
    >
    >
    >
    > no it doesn't.


    If he says it does it does.

    I certaqinly think less about photography since using a digital camera.


    > he goes on to talk about lusting after new digital
    >
    > cameras. this happened with film cameras too.


    yep I agree with that, it doesn;t stop there the same thing happened with fil;m for me, when HP5 then XP1 came out.
    I've yet to be as excited by a new memeory card.



    > 3. I don�t have to worry about post-processing


    I'm not sure what he means by that.

    >
    >
    >
    > you don't have to worry about that with digital. shoot jpeg or give the
    >
    > memory card to someone else to process, just as you did film, and some
    >
    > camera stores will do that.
    >
    >
    >
    > 4. I take fewer photographs and am more selective
    >
    >
    >
    > nothing stops anyone from shooting fewer photos with digital.


    It's a psychological thing.

    this also
    >
    > contradicts his #6 claim.
    >
    >
    >
    > 5. Film isn�t going away anytime soon
    >
    >
    >
    > not entirely, but it's becoming harder to find and harder to process.


    Yes and so are old style memmory sticks.


    > 6. I never run out of batteries/my camera is always on


    I never ran out of them either with my practika L.



    > not a problem with digital, especially if he wants to shoot fewer
    >
    > photos, as in his #4 claim. or just carry a spare. big deal.


    I agree with that.

    >
    >
    >
    > 1000 photos per charge is not unusual. assuming 6 hours of non-stop
    >
    > picture taking with no breaks for food, bathroom or anything else
    >
    > (which is unlikely), that's 167 photos per hour, or about one photo
    >
    > every 20 seconds. even if the camera only gets 500 photos per charge,
    >
    > it's still more than one photo per minute.


    That depends opnn what you're doing.

    I was using a fujifil HS10 for 40mins of video and the battreis went flat they were fully charged before the filming. Now I know I'll take 8 AAs rather than just 4 .


    >
    >
    >
    > he says film helps him be more selective and he wants to take fewer
    >
    > photos, so the battery won't be a limiting factor. a digital camera
    >
    > won't wince at 100 photos (~3 rolls of film).


    I don;t think taking photos usimng much power it's focusing and everything else even framing if you half press and if yuo use a EVF.

    >
    >
    >
    > he then contradicts himself again:
    >
    > I am a huge fan of film point-and-shoots. Why? They are compact which
    >
    > causes you to take them with you everywhere you go. In the end, you
    >
    > end up taking more shots, especially in places where you want to be
    >
    > more low-key (subway, bus, supermarket, etc).


    He's equating a camera typoe with a specific use.


    > wasn't the goal to take fewer photos? and cellphone cameras are *more*
    >
    > compact and go more places than a regular camera would, plus they're
    >
    > even lower key, as you can pretend you're making a call or checking the
    >
    > weather or something.


    I wonder if spies use camera phones , I alsays wanted one of those 35mm miniox's when I first got intrested in cameras rather than taking photos.

    >
    >
    >
    > he also makes this suggestion:
    >
    > Also note when you are shooting street photograpy with film, my
    >
    > suggestion is to�push your film to 1600. If you are not familiar with
    >
    > pushing film, the idea is that you put in ISO 400 film into your
    >
    > camera, and adjust your meter to ISO 1600. You then shoot your ISO
    >
    > 400 film underexposed by 2 stops, and process your film for longer to
    >
    > get the correct exposure. This allows you to get a faster shutter
    >
    > speed.
    >
    >
    >
    > pushing two stops is a lot and not all places will push process it,


    I pushed my own, use acuspeed I think.


    > including the one he uses! he claims film has dynamic range to die for
    >
    > but this reduces it. digital cameras don't even wince at iso 1600. they
    >
    > can easily do 3200 or 6400 these days, even higher in some cameras,
    >
    > giving him even faster shutter speeds.



    I ahve a poloriod 110B land camera that I think took 3200 asa

    >
    >
    > he then goes on to say:
    >
    > Also note that with film it is always better to overexpose than
    >
    > underexpose. Film retains details in the highlights very well, but
    >
    > don�t hold much details in the shadows.
    >
    >
    >
    > pushing two stops is underexposing, by definition, exactly the opposite
    >
    > of what he is suggesting.


    He's making a comment on film.


    > he contradicts himself yet again about processing:
    >
    > 1) If you decide to do it yourself, make sure to google online how to
    >
    > deveop your own film. You will end up saving more money, but it takes
    >
    > more time. I don�t know how to do it myself yet- but I hope to learn
    >
    > soon!


    Starnge he doens't know how to do it .

    >
    >
    >
    > it might be cheaper for b/w, but not for colour processing.


    Agreed.

    >
    >
    >
    > 2) If you decide to send it to a lab, there are a lot of choices.
    >
    > Back in the states, I send my color film to Costco- they process any
    >
    > color film for only $5 USD/roll, including a high-resolution scan
    >
    > (roughly 3500px wide). Unfortunately they don�t do black and white
    >
    > and don�t push-process.
    >
    >
    >
    > so he doesn't know how to process himself and the place he uses for
    >
    > processing won't push process, yet he recommends push processing by not
    >
    > one stop, but two. um, ok.


    he said cosco didn;t do it, are you saying no one does it commercially.

    >
    >
    >
    > about the only thing that he said that's valid is this:
    >
    >
    >
    > 4. Yes, I contradict myself � and pride myself in it
    >
    >
    >
    > > > > I miss the taste of hypo when I used to syphon it back from the tray to

    >
    > > > > the bottle, not forgetting the smell of processing cibrachrome in adrum and

    >
    > > > > the excitment of adding the neutralizing chemcal to make the it 'safe' to pour

    >
    > > > > down the sink.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > cibachrome had a pretty nasty smell. i don't miss any of that.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I do I miss the experince of actually doing something other than pressing the

    >
    > > shutter release, and taking it to a processor. Now the processing is all done

    >
    > > by electronics.

    >
    >
    >
    > you can spend the same time in photoshop (and likely more, because
    >
    > there are so many more possibilities). if you make a mistake, you can
    >
    > undo it rather than waste a sheet of paper and another 10 minutes or
    >
    > whatever it takes to develop a photo. you can also experiment without
    >
    > worrying about how long it will take or how much paper to use while
    >
    > trying new things. it's also easier to learn with it.


    That was part of the pleasure and pain.
    I'ts like telling soneone that climbed everest they should have takenn a helicopter as it'd be easier.


    >
    >
    >
    > > > > > with offsite backups, you won't lose any images if your house burns

    >
    > > > > > down. there's an identical copy elsewhere. the more offsite backups,

    >
    > > > > > the better.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > > Sometimes what makes a thing worth while is it uniqueness and

    >
    > > > > individuality.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > not when it comes to backups, it isn't.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Even more so as a picture without a backup is worth more than one with.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Think of it this way which is worth more the original image or one of the

    >
    > > 10,000 copies. Why are teh 'fakes' of painting worth less (generally

    >
    > > speaking) than the original ?

    >
    >
    >
    > they're worth less because they're fake.


    There isn;t a fake if the copy is exact if you can tell teh differnce it's not a true backup is it.

    >
    >
    >
    > a backup is not a fake nor will it be sold for a fraction of the price
    >
    > of the original.


    How will you tell the differnce if it's an exact copy ?

    Now whos contradicting themseleves ;-)
     
    Whisky-dave, May 9, 2013
    #44
  5. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/9/2013 2:28 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <518b22f2$0$10806$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>>>>> the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    >>>>>>>>> technology.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
    >>>>>>>> the gross inaccuracy of your statement.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
    >>>>>>> proven. it is not a matter of opinion.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> When will you be in New York. Or perhaps Downeast in Maine?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> BTW Your statement was
    >>>>>> "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
    >>>>>> technology."
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> When you let me know who you are and when you are available, I will make
    >>>>>> a proper introduction.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
    >>>>>>> goes on, the difference will get bigger.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
    >>>>>>> colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
    >>>>>>> batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
    >>>>>>> it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
    >>>>>>> results.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Not the issue - see above
    >>>>>
    >>>>> it's *exactly* the issue.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> the film luddites think there's something magical about film. there is
    >>>>> not. all of its characteristics can be modeled digitally, whatever film
    >>>>> it happens to be.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
    >>>>> films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
    >>>>> software.
    >>>>
    >>>> Stop shape shifting.
    >>>> You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to
    >>>> accept new technology." I called you on it.
    >>>
    >>> you did not call me on anything nor am i shape shifting.
    >>>
    >>>> Now when do you want to meet
    >>>> real people who do not fit your classification.
    >>>
    >>> i have no immediate plans to go to new york. maybe photo plus next fall.

    >>
    >> Naturally, your statement would be proven wrong.

    >
    > that would be quite the feat, because for it to be wrong, everything we
    > know about sampling theory, semiconductor physics and electrical
    > engineering would be invalidated.
    >
    > nevertheless, if your buddy really thinks he can prove it, then best he
    > take that proof to mit. it's an easy drive from new york.


    What does that have to do with your statement regarding people who
    prefer film?



    >
    >>>> that is the sole issue.
    >>>
    >>> your inability to understand basic english is the issue, along with
    >>> being an argumentative twit.

    >>
    >> That's typical of you. When proven wrong you shift to name calling.

    >
    > you haven't proven me wrong and you are talking out your ass.
    >

    Can't justify your inane statement, so you resort to a personal attack.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 9, 2013
    #45
  6. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > > > Yes you can delete those you don;t want seen, which isn't the same thing.

    > >
    > > no, you shoot *only* 12. you don't delete anything, just like you would
    > > with a 12 exposure roll of film.

    >
    > No yuo are giving this project to a group of studetn the aim is to contol
    > their shooiting and to plan ahead, you inspect each frame as an indication of
    > planing taken. Leting them submit what they see as the best 12 of whatever
    > number isn;t the idea.


    inspect the card for sequential file names to see if they cheated.

    > > the easy way to do this is get a really tiny memory card, but with a
    > > little discipline, you limit yourself to how many photos you take and
    > > stop at 12 (or whatever number you decide).

    >
    > NO you need to limit others......
    > You need to train them to trip the shutter to get a good picture not because
    > they feel the urge to post to facearse for a like.


    see above

    > > 1. Film helps me focus more on my personal projects
    > >
    > > no it doesn't. he says film prevents him from looking at images too
    > > soon, either chimping or that night in lightroom, but nothing stops
    > > anyone from waiting a few days or even months to look at the images.

    >
    > Irrelivant.


    he makes the claim.

    > > 2. Film helps me focus on my photography, not gear
    > >
    > > no it doesn't.

    >
    > If he says it does it does.


    except, it doesn't.

    > I certaqinly think less about photography since using a digital camera.


    only because you want to. if you want to think about it, you can. if
    not, you don't.

    nothing about film makes one think about their photography more.

    > > 3. I don�t have to worry about post-processing

    >
    > I'm not sure what he means by that.


    with film, you dropped it off and someone else did the processing.

    the same thing can be done with digital. take the card to a camera
    store, pop it in a kiosk, and have it auto-print everything. some
    camera stores will take the memory card and print all of the photos for
    you.

    > > 4. I take fewer photographs and am more selective
    > >
    > > nothing stops anyone from shooting fewer photos with digital.

    >
    > It's a psychological thing.


    which means the difference is the user, not film or digital.

    > > 6. I never run out of batteries/my camera is always on

    >
    > I never ran out of them either with my practika L.


    i have a spare but have needed it only once, and that was because i
    shot a couple dozen panoramas with 20-30 photos per pano. that's a very
    unusual circumstance, one which would not be possible with film.

    most of the time, i don't even take the charger with me. battery life
    is not an issue.

    > > 1000 photos per charge is not unusual. assuming 6 hours of non-stop
    > > picture taking with no breaks for food, bathroom or anything else
    > > (which is unlikely), that's 167 photos per hour, or about one photo
    > > every 20 seconds. even if the camera only gets 500 photos per charge,
    > > it's still more than one photo per minute.

    >
    > That depends opnn what you're doing.
    >
    > I was using a fujifil HS10 for 40mins of video and the battreis went flat
    > they were fully charged before the filming. Now I know I'll take 8 AAs rather
    > than just 4 .


    this is about still photos, not movies, which would require a movie
    camera and multiple super-8 cartridges in addition to the still camera.

    more stuff to carry, and i doubt a movie camera would shoot 40 minutes
    of movie film on one set of batteries.

    > > he says film helps him be more selective and he wants to take fewer
    > > photos, so the battery won't be a limiting factor. a digital camera
    > > won't wince at 100 photos (~3 rolls of film).

    >
    > I don;t think taking photos usimng much power it's focusing and everything
    > else even framing if you half press and if yuo use a EVF.


    still, the battery lasts longer than a day of shooting except in very
    unusual situations, especially when he wants to shoot fewer photos.

    > I wonder if spies use camera phones , I alsays wanted one of those 35mm
    > miniox's when I first got intrested in cameras rather than taking photos.


    they probably use hidden digital cameras.

    > I ahve a poloriod 110B land camera that I think took 3200 asa


    except the quality wasn't that good and you had no negative.

    > > you can spend the same time in photoshop (and likely more, because
    > > there are so many more possibilities). if you make a mistake, you can
    > > undo it rather than waste a sheet of paper and another 10 minutes or
    > > whatever it takes to develop a photo. you can also experiment without
    > > worrying about how long it will take or how much paper to use while
    > > trying new things. it's also easier to learn with it.

    >
    > That was part of the pleasure and pain.
    > I'ts like telling soneone that climbed everest they should have takenn a
    > helicopter as it'd be easier.


    same can be said for photoshop. many people enjoy tweaking their images
    in photoshop.
     
    nospam, May 9, 2013
    #46
  7. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <518be3b1$0$10819$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >> Naturally, your statement would be proven wrong.

    > >
    > > that would be quite the feat, because for it to be wrong, everything we
    > > know about sampling theory, semiconductor physics and electrical
    > > engineering would be invalidated.
    > >
    > > nevertheless, if your buddy really thinks he can prove it, then best he
    > > take that proof to mit. it's an easy drive from new york.

    >
    > What does that have to do with your statement regarding people who
    > prefer film?


    everything.

    since digital surpasses film, anything they like about film can be done
    digitally.

    they don't like it because digital is new and they don't understand it.

    > >>>> that is the sole issue.
    > >>>
    > >>> your inability to understand basic english is the issue, along with
    > >>> being an argumentative twit.
    > >>
    > >> That's typical of you. When proven wrong you shift to name calling.

    > >
    > > you haven't proven me wrong and you are talking out your ass.
    > >

    > Can't justify your inane statement, so you resort to a personal attack.


    you're not the one to criticize someone for resorting to personal
    attacks, something you do at every opportunity.
     
    nospam, May 9, 2013
    #47
  8. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/9/2013 3:05 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <518be3b1$0$10819$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> Naturally, your statement would be proven wrong.
    >>>
    >>> that would be quite the feat, because for it to be wrong, everything we
    >>> know about sampling theory, semiconductor physics and electrical
    >>> engineering would be invalidated.
    >>>
    >>> nevertheless, if your buddy really thinks he can prove it, then best he
    >>> take that proof to mit. it's an easy drive from new york.

    >>
    >> What does that have to do with your statement regarding people who
    >> prefer film?

    >
    > everything.
    >
    > since digital surpasses film, anything they like about film can be done
    > digitally.
    >
    > they don't like it because digital is new and they don't understand it.
    >


    You still don't get it. Tony Cooper's comment about you not
    understanding the joy of the process, is spot on.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 9, 2013
    #48
  9. Me

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, May 9, 2013 8:05:28 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > > > Yes you can delete those you don;t want seen, which isn't the same thing.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > no, you shoot *only* 12. you don't delete anything, just like you would

    >
    > > > with a 12 exposure roll of film.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > No yuo are giving this project to a group of studetn the aim is to contol

    >
    > > their shooiting and to plan ahead, you inspect each frame as an indication of

    >
    > > planing taken. Leting them submit what they see as the best 12 of whatever

    >
    > > number isn;t the idea.

    >
    >
    >
    > inspect the card for sequential file names to see if they cheated.


    It's handy to be able to reset such things from one student to the next.
    But if a student has deleted an image, you then have to trust them as to why they did it. I'd fail them if they did that after being told not to.
    Very much like some tests/exams show your working ... if you don't how can you prove it's your work. The mistakes you make are also useful in teaching..


    > > > the easy way to do this is get a really tiny memory card, but with a

    >
    > > > little discipline, you limit yourself to how many photos you take and

    >
    > > > stop at 12 (or whatever number you decide).

    >
    > >

    >
    > > NO you need to limit others......

    >
    > > You need to train them to trip the shutter to get a good picture not because

    >
    > > they feel the urge to post to facearse for a like.

    >
    >
    >
    > see above


    Spending more time messing with the tech then taking a photo is another area where digital isn't good when it comes to teaching it.

    When I first quiered the 'stopping down' I just didn;t understand.
    espeacilly the word 'down' meaning the f stop number increased !.
    And how doing such a thing as reducing the amount of light made things sharper, that made little sense as I fouind in dimmer light I couldn't focus aswell.
    After instecting exactly what happens in my lens such as the diaphram reducing the amount of light by observing it, pushing the pin in helped me understand what's going on, maybe you can do that with a DSLR I havent tried.

    Digital is better for taking pictures, but I think film is still bettere atteaching photography or at least makes it easier to get the concepts over to the person that wants to do more than socail media pictures.


    > > > 1. Film helps me focus more on my personal projects

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > no it doesn't. he says film prevents him from looking at images too

    >
    > > > soon, either chimping or that night in lightroom, but nothing stops

    >
    > > > anyone from waiting a few days or even months to look at the images.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Irrelivant.

    >
    >
    >
    > he makes the claim.


    His claim for his objectives, or rather personal projects.


    > > > 2. Film helps me focus on my photography, not gear


    > > > no it doesn't.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > If he says it does it does.

    >
    >
    >
    > except, it doesn't.


    You're a mind reader then.
    When I used film I decided what ASA/ISO and film stock I wanted to use in the camera and that's what I used. There was no messing with it for each shot.
    I never messed about setting it to potrait moce or landscape mode or night or sports mode, aquarium or snow modes or face/smile detection.



    > > I certaqinly think less about photography since using a digital camera.

    >
    >
    >
    > only because you want to. if you want to think about it, you can. if
    >
    > not, you don't.


    I think everyone thinks less about photography as in capturing a single image than they used to. You cam almost always take another shot with digital but with film is it worth it, will I have to change rolls or camera or filmstock for this one photo.
    I used to take 3 camera around with me, one with B&W film another with colour slide film and another with 2 1/4 just in case I wanted to do higher quality and then I'd have to decide whether to put monochrome or colour neg inmy 120 camera. I even had days when I took B&W (slide film using FP4).


    > nothing about film makes one think about their photography more.



    It did for me as I had to decide exactly what I wanted before I even fouindthe subject let alone press the shutter now I came press the shutter and make a picture from what I get far easier than before.
    When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like.


    > > > 3. I don�t have to worry about post-processing

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I'm not sure what he means by that.

    >
    >
    >
    > with film, you dropped it off and someone else did the processing.


    Now the camera and computer do that, anyway I'm not sure the term post-processing really existed then although someone I kew used to manually colour photographs and re-touch them in the olde days, but the person taking the photos didn't do that it was a specialized job, think she worked at a companycalled nivarna van dyke in london taking pictures or the rich and famous, ,in those days it was glass negs not the luxery of a 12 exposure roll film or thousands of images on a card.


    >
    > the same thing can be done with digital.


    But isn't normally as you look at the pictures before printing to decide what to print, couldn;t dom that with film yuo had to developed the roll so effecincy had to be higher.

    > take the card to a camera
    >
    > store, pop it in a kiosk, and have it auto-print everything. some
    >
    > camera stores will take the memory card and print all of the photos for
    >
    > you.


    Not exactly selctive is it. So here are yuo saying cards and film are the same ?



    > > > 4. I take fewer photographs and am more selective

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > nothing stops anyone from shooting fewer photos with digital.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > It's a psychological thing.

    >
    >
    >
    > which means the difference is the user, not film or digital.


    Yes and that was teh original point not which is best but are they any reasons for prefering film from the USERS POV rather than a technical standpoint.

    Although I don;t drive it must be like driving, learning how to drive in a manual car gives yuo a beter understand of driving than buyiong one of those automatics that can park for you. But maybe you'd still call them good drivers.
    By saying the term 'driving' means what's better at getting you from poin Ato point B



    > > > 6. I never run out of batteries/my camera is always on

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I never ran out of them either with my practika L.

    >
    >
    >
    > i have a spare but have needed it only once, and that was because i
    >
    > shot a couple dozen panoramas with 20-30 photos per pano. that's a very
    >
    > unusual circumstance, one which would not be possible with film.


    It can be done but it's much harder as you havent; go a computer to manuillate the image, there's nothijng stopping you sticking two photos toghether if you know how to take them.


    > most of the time, i don't even take the charger with me. battery life
    >
    > is not an issue.


    Hasn't really been for me either, not even with my canon A1.


    > > > 1000 photos per charge is not unusual. assuming 6 hours of non-stop

    >
    > > > picture taking with no breaks for food, bathroom or anything else

    >
    > > > (which is unlikely), that's 167 photos per hour, or about one photo

    >
    > > > every 20 seconds. even if the camera only gets 500 photos per charge,

    >
    > > > it's still more than one photo per minute.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > That depends opnn what you're doing.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I was using a fujifil HS10 for 40mins of video and the battreis went flat

    >
    > > they were fully charged before the filming. Now I know I'll take 8 AAs rather

    >
    > > than just 4 .

    >
    >
    >
    > this is about still photos, not movies, which would require a movie
    >
    > camera and multiple super-8 cartridges in addition to the still camera.


    Which I was never concerned about before digital it never even entered my mind.
    But those with digital cameras tend to shoot video too.

    In my first days of phoitography I rarely took exposures of less than 1 second most were in miniutes so had the camera set to B for most of my shots. Astronomy was my main hobby then photography was just a tool for it.


    > more stuff to carry, and i doubt a movie camera would shoot 40 minutes
    >
    > of movie film on one set of batteries.


    Not sure what batteries they used, it's all Bolex if you ask me.



    > > > he says film helps him be more selective and he wants to take fewer

    >
    > > > photos, so the battery won't be a limiting factor. a digital camera

    >
    > > > won't wince at 100 photos (~3 rolls of film).

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I don;t think taking photos usimng much power it's focusing and everything

    >
    > > else even framing if you half press and if yuo use a EVF.

    >
    >
    >
    > still, the battery lasts longer than a day of shooting except in very
    >
    > unusual situations, especially when he wants to shoot fewer photos.


    One way of shooting less photos is to have less media to take or store themon.


    > > I wonder if spies use camera phones , I alsays wanted one of those 35mm

    >
    > > miniox's when I first got intrested in cameras rather than taking photos.

    >
    >
    >
    > they probably use hidden digital cameras.


    In pens and all sortds of thing even pills you can swallow, an option not availble with film.


    > > I ahve a poloriod 110B land camera that I think took 3200 asa

    >
    >
    >
    > except the quality wasn't that good and you had no negative.


    Wasn;t an issue but an advantage as it was only used as an osilloscope at work.
    I've 'adopted' it as I thought it a shame to put it in a skip.


    > > > you can spend the same time in photoshop (and likely more, because

    >
    > > > there are so many more possibilities). if you make a mistake, you can

    >
    > > > undo it rather than waste a sheet of paper and another 10 minutes or

    >
    > > > whatever it takes to develop a photo. you can also experiment without

    >
    > > > worrying about how long it will take or how much paper to use while

    >
    > > > trying new things. it's also easier to learn with it.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > That was part of the pleasure and pain.

    >
    > > I'ts like telling soneone that climbed everest they should have takenn a

    >
    > > helicopter as it'd be easier.

    >
    >
    >
    > same can be said for photoshop. many people enjoy tweaking their images
    >
    > in photoshop.


    Yes, and of coursse other products are availble, but when talking photography all this tweeking isn;t really what photography was, it's a close to picassos art.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 10, 2013
    #49
  10. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > When I first quiered the 'stopping down' I just didn;t understand.
    > espeacilly the word 'down' meaning the f stop number increased !.
    > And how doing such a thing as reducing the amount of light made things
    > sharper, that made little sense as I fouind in dimmer light I couldn't focus
    > as well.
    > After instecting exactly what happens in my lens such as the diaphram
    > reducing the amount of light by observing it, pushing the pin in helped me
    > understand what's going on, maybe you can do that with a DSLR I havent tried.


    that depends on the lens, not whether it's film or digital. the same
    lenses work on both types of cameras. canon's lenses don't have levers
    and nikon's lenses do.

    > Digital is better for taking pictures, but I think film is still bettere at
    > teaching photography or at least makes it easier to get the concepts over to
    > the person that wants to do more than socail media pictures.


    digital is *much* better for teaching photography.

    you can immediately see what effect something will have. you don't have
    to wait to see the results.

    > When I used film I decided what ASA/ISO and film stock I wanted to use in the
    > camera and that's what I used. There was no messing with it for each shot.
    > I never messed about setting it to potrait moce or landscape mode or night or
    > sports mode, aquarium or snow modes or face/smile detection.


    you can do that with digital too. set the iso to whatever you want and
    set the camera to manual, exactly how cameras were in the 1970s.

    there's no point in doing that, but if you want to ignore all of the
    advancements in the last 40 years, you can ignore them.

    > I think everyone thinks less about photography as in capturing a single image
    > than they used to.


    that's a good thing.

    > You cam almost always take another shot with digital but
    > with film is it worth it, will I have to change rolls or camera or film stock
    > for this one photo.


    you can, but you don't have to. you could take multiple shots with film
    too, it just cost money with every click, so people didn't usually do
    that. now they don't have to worry about cost, so they can be more
    creative.

    > I used to take 3 camera around with me, one with B&W film another with colour
    > slide film and another with 2 1/4 just in case I wanted to do higher quality
    > and then I'd have to decide whether to put monochrome or colour neg in my 120
    > camera. I even had days when I took B&W (slide film using FP4).


    now you can do all three with one camera. digital wins.

    > > nothing about film makes one think about their photography more.

    >
    > It did for me as I had to decide exactly what I wanted before I even fouind
    > the subject let alone press the shutter now I came press the shutter and make
    > a picture from what I get far easier than before.


    same with digital. decide what you want, take the photo.

    > When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
    > timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option and
    > a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
    > hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
    > drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer clicking
    > buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's happening I
    > just have to wait until I see an effect I like.


    you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
    the tools that are different.

    > > with film, you dropped it off and someone else did the processing.

    >
    > Now the camera and computer do that, anyway I'm not sure the term
    > post-processing really existed then although someone I kew used to manually
    > colour photographs and re-touch them in the olde days, but the person taking
    > the photos didn't do that it was a specialized job, think she worked at a
    > company called nivarna van dyke in london taking pictures or the rich and
    > famous, ,in those days it was glass negs not the luxery of a 12 exposure roll
    > film or thousands of images on a card.


    darkroom work is post processing.

    > > the same thing can be done with digital.

    >
    > But isn't normally as you look at the pictures before printing to decide what
    > to print, couldn;t dom that with film yuo had to developed the roll so
    > effecincy had to be higher.


    it saves on paper costs.

    plus, you can look at the images on a big display, much bigger than any
    print would have been.

    > > take the card to a camera
    > > store, pop it in a kiosk, and have it auto-print everything. some
    > > camera stores will take the memory card and print all of the photos for
    > > you.

    >
    > Not exactly selctive is it. So here are yuo saying cards and film are the
    > same ?


    functionally, yes.

    shoot a roll of film, drop it off at the store, go back a second time
    and get the photos.

    fill a memory card, drop it off at the store, go back a second time and
    get the photos. alternately, put it in a kiosk and print them in one
    trip.

    in both cases, there is no processing done by the photographer. they
    get a stack of prints and look at the photos.

    > > > > 4. I take fewer photographs and am more selective

    > >
    > > > > nothing stops anyone from shooting fewer photos with digital.

    > >
    > > > It's a psychological thing.

    > >
    > > which means the difference is the user, not film or digital.

    >
    > Yes and that was teh original point not which is best but are they any
    > reasons for prefering film from the USERS POV rather than a technical
    > standpoint.


    but it's not film that matters. if you want to shoot fewer photos, you
    can shoot fewer photos. it doesn't matter if it's digital or film.

    go out with the mindset you will shoot only 24 photos today. that might
    take a little discipline because cards hold 10x that or more.

    > Although I don;t drive it must be like driving, learning how to drive in a
    > manual car gives yuo a beter understand of driving than buyiong one of those
    > automatics that can park for you. But maybe you'd still call them good
    > drivers.


    no it doesn't. what makes a driver good is not whether they can drive a
    stick, but how well they can handle unexpected situations, maintain
    control of the vehicle and not crash.

    > > > > 6. I never run out of batteries/my camera is always on

    > >
    > > > I never ran out of them either with my practika L.

    > >
    > > i have a spare but have needed it only once, and that was because i
    > > shot a couple dozen panoramas with 20-30 photos per pano. that's a very
    > > unusual circumstance, one which would not be possible with film.

    >
    > It can be done but it's much harder as you havent; go a computer to
    > manuillate the image, there's nothijng stopping you sticking two photos
    > toghether if you know how to take them.


    there's no way you can make a 360 degree panorama with film, outside of
    a dedicated panorama camera.

    you might be able to get 2 photos to match, but it takes a lot of work
    and only if the details line up perfectly. and that's just two photos.
    what about more?

    i was shooting 20-30 photos for a 3d pano. that is *not* going to
    happen with film, at least not with a normal camera. panorama software
    makes the necessary transforms to match detail on all four sides. you
    can't do that with film.

    > > most of the time, i don't even take the charger with me. battery life
    > > is not an issue.

    >
    > Hasn't really been for me either, not even with my canon A1.


    in other words, film has no advantage.

    > > this is about still photos, not movies, which would require a movie
    > > camera and multiple super-8 cartridges in addition to the still camera.

    >
    > Which I was never concerned about before digital it never even entered my
    > mind. But those with digital cameras tend to shoot video too.


    they do, which is yet another reason why digital is better.

    > In my first days of phoitography I rarely took exposures of less than 1
    > second most were in miniutes so had the camera set to B for most of my shots.
    > Astronomy was my main hobby then photography was just a tool for it.


    you can do that with digital too. no reciprocity failure either.

    > > > I wonder if spies use camera phones , I alsays wanted one of those 35mm
    > > > miniox's when I first got intrested in cameras rather than taking photos.

    > >
    > > they probably use hidden digital cameras.

    >
    > In pens and all sortds of thing even pills you can swallow, an option not
    > availble with film.


    true. yet another way digital wins.

    > > same can be said for photoshop. many people enjoy tweaking their images
    > > in photoshop.

    >
    > Yes, and of coursse other products are availble, but when talking photography all
    > this tweeking isn;t really what photography was, it's a close to picassos art.


    people did their tweaking in the darkroom. it's no different, other
    than the tools used.
     
    nospam, May 11, 2013
    #50
  11. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/11/2013 11:31 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >


    <snip>

    >
    > digital is *much* better for teaching photography.


    Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
    How much teaching experience do you have?

    >




    <snip>

    > you can do that with digital too. set the iso to whatever you want and
    > set the camera to manual, exactly how cameras were in the 1970s.
    >
    > there's no point in doing that, but if you want to ignore all of the
    > advancements in the last 40 years, you can ignore them.
    >
    >> I think everyone thinks less about photography as in capturing a single image
    >> than they used to.

    >
    > that's a good thing.
    >


    True, one can produce great art, using the infinite monkey theory.


    >
    >> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
    >> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option and
    >> a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
    >> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
    >> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer clicking
    >> buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's happening I
    >> just have to wait until I see an effect I like.

    >
    > you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
    > the tools that are different.


    Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.
    That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool.

    Similarly for fau infra-red.

    >



    <snip>




    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 11, 2013
    #51
  12. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <518e73cc$0$10805$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > > digital is *much* better for teaching photography.

    >
    > Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
    > How much teaching experience do you have?


    digital gives instant feedback, making it much easier to learn.

    > >> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
    > >> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option
    > >> and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
    > >> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
    > >> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer
    > >> clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's
    > >> happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like.

    > >
    > > you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
    > > the tools that are different.

    >
    > Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.
    > That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool.


    nothing faux about it.

    solarization can be done in software, identical to what was done in the
    darkroom. it can be modeled digitally.

    just because you personally can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible.

    > Similarly for fau infra-red.


    nothing faux about that either and digital is better suited to infrared.

    in fact, you *can't* do infrared with some film cameras because the
    camera body is not opaque to infrared, or it uses infrared light to
    track film advance.
     
    nospam, May 12, 2013
    #52
  13. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/11/2013 8:07 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <518e73cc$0$10805$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> digital is *much* better for teaching photography.

    >>
    >> Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
    >> How much teaching experience do you have?

    >
    > digital gives instant feedback, making it much easier to learn.
    >
    >>>> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
    >>>> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option
    >>>> and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
    >>>> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
    >>>> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer
    >>>> clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's
    >>>> happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like.
    >>>
    >>> you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
    >>> the tools that are different.

    >>
    >> Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.
    >> That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool.

    >
    > nothing faux about it.
    >
    > solarization can be done in software, identical to what was done in the
    > darkroom. it can be modeled digitally.
    >

    You can imitate it, but not produce it digitally. Do you expose your
    digitized image to the rays of the sun?
    Goi to any dictionary and look up the meaning of the word.


    > just because you personally can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible.
    >
    >> Similarly for fau infra-red.

    >
    > nothing faux about that either and digital is better suited to infrared.



    "better suited," iis not the issue. I have a digital camera converted
    for use in infra red photography. That is not the same as attempting to
    produce infra-red digitally.
    >


    > in fact, you *can't* do infrared with some film cameras because the
    > camera body is not opaque to infrared, or it uses infrared light to
    > track film advance.
    >

    And you can't do infra-red with the vast majority of digital cameras,
    unless you convert them for such use.
    the conversion process consists of removing the IR filter thaat is in
    just about all digital cameras, changing the focus mechanism, for use
    with infra red. My old film lenses have focus correction for use with IR.




    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 12, 2013
    #53
  14. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/11/2013 8:07 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <518e73cc$0$10805$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> digital is *much* better for teaching photography.

    >>
    >> Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
    >> How much teaching experience do you have?

    >
    > digital gives instant feedback, making it much easier to learn.


    You still did not tell us how much teaching experience you have.

    Nor, have you told use what you would teach in a photography course.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 12, 2013
    #54
  15. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <518ef77a$0$10847$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >> Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.
    > >> That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool.

    > >
    > > nothing faux about it.
    > >
    > > solarization can be done in software, identical to what was done in the
    > > darkroom. it can be modeled digitally.

    >
    > You can imitate it, but not produce it digitally.
    > Do you expose your
    > digitized image to the rays of the sun?
    > Goi to any dictionary and look up the meaning of the word.


    absolutely false. solarization as well as any other effect done in a
    traditional darkroom can be precisely modeled digitally.

    plus, many other things that could never be done with wet chemistry can
    be done digitally too.

    and that says nothing about digital being easier and with a lot less
    hassle.

    > > just because you personally can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible.
    > >
    > >> Similarly for fau infra-red.

    > >
    > > nothing faux about that either and digital is better suited to infrared.

    >
    > "better suited," iis not the issue. I have a digital camera converted
    > for use in infra red photography. That is not the same as attempting to
    > produce infra-red digitally.


    what's not the same?

    both digital sensors and infrared film are sensitive to infrared light.

    > > in fact, you *can't* do infrared with some film cameras because the
    > > camera body is not opaque to infrared, or it uses infrared light to
    > > track film advance.

    >
    > And you can't do infra-red with the vast majority of digital cameras,
    > unless you convert them for such use.


    actually you can, but the exposures are long.

    removing the infrared cut filter brings the exposures into a more
    normal range, which is usually desirable.

    > the conversion process consists of removing the IR filter thaat is in
    > just about all digital cameras, changing the focus mechanism, for use
    > with infra red. My old film lenses have focus correction for use with IR.


    lenses work the same no matter what the camera is. they have no idea
    what's behind it.

    changing focus depends on the camera. for contrast detect focus done on
    the sensor, no change is needed.
     
    nospam, May 12, 2013
    #55
  16. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <518efc7a$0$10758$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>> digital is *much* better for teaching photography.
    > >>
    > >> Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
    > >> How much teaching experience do you have?

    > >
    > > digital gives instant feedback, making it much easier to learn.

    >
    > You still did not tell us how much teaching experience you have.
    >
    > Nor, have you told use what you would teach in a photography course.


    my experience is not relevant to whether digital photography is more
    effective at teaching photography than film. your attempt at turning it
    personal means you are grasping at straws.

    imagine a classroom where any time a student asks a question of the
    teacher, the student has to wait a week for an answer.

    plus, teaching photography using film is also stupid. it teaches skills
    that are no longer of much use. students today need to learn digital
    workflows, not wet chemistry.
     
    nospam, May 12, 2013
    #56
  17. Me

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 11 May 2013 23:08:30 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >
    >plus, teaching photography using film is also stupid. it teaches skills
    >that are no longer of much use.


    Yes, like aperture choice, shutter speed choice, combinations of
    aperture and shutter choice, composition, and all of those other
    things that no longer apply to photography in the digital age of the
    "Auto" setting.

    >students today need to learn digital workflows, not wet chemistry.


    Workflow is not photography. Photography is taking the picture.
    Workflow is processing the results. Photography is taught using a
    camera, film or digital, and teaching workflow, wet or electronic, is
    a separate thing.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 12, 2013
    #57
  18. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >plus, teaching photography using film is also stupid. it teaches skills
    > >that are no longer of much use.

    >
    > Yes, like aperture choice, shutter speed choice, combinations of
    > aperture and shutter choice, composition, and all of those other
    > things that no longer apply to photography in the digital age of the
    > "Auto" setting.


    changing those gives instant results on digital. the student can see
    what a different aperture will do and learn from it, not wait a day or
    a week to find out. they can try different compositions and see the
    results immediately, then improve upon it, on the spot.

    darkroom work, on the other hand, is a waste of time for the teacher
    and the student. students today need to learn modern techniques, such
    as photoshop, lightroom, colour management, etc.

    > >students today need to learn digital workflows, not wet chemistry.

    >
    > Workflow is not photography.


    of course it is.

    > Photography is taking the picture.
    > Workflow is processing the results. Photography is taught using a
    > camera, film or digital, and teaching workflow, wet or electronic, is
    > a separate thing.


    it's not separate at all. taking the photo and turning it into a print
    or a web site or whatever is all part of photography.

    ansel adams was a master of all of it. in fact, most of it was darkroom
    work. if he were alive today, he'd be doing it in photoshop.
     
    nospam, May 12, 2013
    #58
  19. Me

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:37:54 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >plus, teaching photography using film is also stupid. it teaches skills
    >> >that are no longer of much use.

    >>
    >> Yes, like aperture choice, shutter speed choice, combinations of
    >> aperture and shutter choice, composition, and all of those other
    >> things that no longer apply to photography in the digital age of the
    >> "Auto" setting.

    >
    >changing those gives instant results on digital. the student can see
    >what a different aperture will do and learn from it, not wait a day or
    >a week to find out. they can try different compositions and see the
    >results immediately, then improve upon it, on the spot.


    Actually, I can understand your position since you obviously think
    only the most current technology is the only acceptable technology in
    which to get involved.

    There are a lot of people, however, who don't feel that learning film
    or darkroom techniques are "stupid" or a "waste of time".
    >
    >darkroom work, on the other hand, is a waste of time for the teacher
    >and the student. students today need to learn modern techniques, such
    >as photoshop, lightroom, colour management, etc.


    It's not what you *need* to learn, it's you *want* to learn.
    Understanding film and darkroom processing in no way limits your
    ability to also work with digital.
    >
    >> >students today need to learn digital workflows, not wet chemistry.


    Students sign up for whatever course appeals to them. Crealde School
    of Art, in this area, offers:

    PH144 B&W Film Darkroom
    with Peter Schreyer
    Monday. 7:00–9:00 p.m. Studio 5
    An introduction to the fundamentals of black and white photography,
    including film processing and printing. During weekly assignments and
    supervised darkroom time, students will familiarize themselves with
    black and white film, chemistry, enlarging paper, and contrast
    filters.

    Prerequisite: Photo II or similar experiences.
    Tuition: Members $200 • Non-Members $220

    Last time I stopped by Crealde, there were six students "wasting their
    time" in the darkroom. Peter, the teacher, was "wasting his time"
    collecting $1,200 for two hours work a week for a short course.

    Peter's quite a photographer, even though he works with film and you
    may think him "stupid".

    http://crealde.org/Faculty/Peter_Schreyer/


    >> Workflow is not photography.

    >
    >of course it is.
    >
    >> Photography is taking the picture.
    >> Workflow is processing the results. Photography is taught using a
    >> camera, film or digital, and teaching workflow, wet or electronic, is
    >> a separate thing.

    >
    >it's not separate at all. taking the photo and turning it into a print
    >or a web site or whatever is all part of photography.


    Of course it's separate. Some people photograph, but don't process.
    Film users drop off their film to be processed unless they have their
    own darkroom facilities. Some digital users take their SD card to a
    place like Costco and pick up prints and/or a disk without doing any
    processing on their own. Some digital users have no workflow beyond
    upload and print.

    Processing the output is an option, not a necessary part.
    >
    >ansel adams was a master of all of it. in fact, most of it was darkroom
    >work. if he were alive today, he'd be doing it in photoshop.


    Now you speak with the dead as well as see ghosts?

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 12, 2013
    #59
  20. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> >plus, teaching photography using film is also stupid. it teaches skills
    > >> >that are no longer of much use.
    > >>
    > >> Yes, like aperture choice, shutter speed choice, combinations of
    > >> aperture and shutter choice, composition, and all of those other
    > >> things that no longer apply to photography in the digital age of the
    > >> "Auto" setting.

    > >
    > >changing those gives instant results on digital. the student can see
    > >what a different aperture will do and learn from it, not wait a day or
    > >a week to find out. they can try different compositions and see the
    > >results immediately, then improve upon it, on the spot.

    >
    > Actually, I can understand your position since you obviously think
    > only the most current technology is the only acceptable technology in
    > which to get involved.


    darkroom work is a shrinking market. it's like learning how to fix
    typewriters. there may still be a tiny demand for typewriter repair,
    but it's certainly not something anyone is going to pursue for a
    career.

    printer repair, on the other hand, is a growing market.

    > There are a lot of people, however, who don't feel that learning film
    > or darkroom techniques are "stupid" or a "waste of time".


    not many and they are doing so more out of curiosity than anything else.

    it's not like they're likely to get a job as a darkroom technician or
    as a chemist designing new emulsions. the photoprocessing shops are
    closing, one by one, as film fades into history.

    > >darkroom work, on the other hand, is a waste of time for the teacher
    > >and the student. students today need to learn modern techniques, such
    > >as photoshop, lightroom, colour management, etc.

    >
    > It's not what you *need* to learn, it's you *want* to learn.
    > Understanding film and darkroom processing in no way limits your
    > ability to also work with digital.


    it does not enhance it at all. anything once taught with film can be
    taught with digital far more effectively.

    > >> >students today need to learn digital workflows, not wet chemistry.

    >
    > Students sign up for whatever course appeals to them. Crealde School
    > of Art, in this area, offers:
    >
    > PH144 B&W Film Darkroom
    > with Peter Schreyer
    > Monday. 7:00–9:00 p.m. Studio 5
    > An introduction to the fundamentals of black and white photography,
    > including film processing and printing. During weekly assignments and
    > supervised darkroom time, students will familiarize themselves with
    > black and white film, chemistry, enlarging paper, and contrast
    > filters.
    >
    > Prerequisite: Photo II or similar experiences.
    > Tuition: Members $200 • Non-Members $220
    >
    > Last time I stopped by Crealde, there were six students "wasting their
    > time" in the darkroom. Peter, the teacher, was "wasting his time"
    > collecting $1,200 for two hours work a week for a short course.
    >
    > Peter's quite a photographer, even though he works with film and you
    > may think him "stupid".
    >
    > http://crealde.org/Faculty/Peter_Schreyer/


    well there you go. six students, for one class at a small school in
    florida.

    and you claim my observations are bunk, yet when you do it, it's fine?
    what a hypocrite.

    now count how many students are enrolled here. hint, it's a lot more
    than just six.
    <http://www.cdiabu.com/photography/>
    <http://www.nyip.com/photography-courses/>

    > >> Workflow is not photography.

    > >
    > >of course it is.
    > >
    > >> Photography is taking the picture.
    > >> Workflow is processing the results. Photography is taught using a
    > >> camera, film or digital, and teaching workflow, wet or electronic, is
    > >> a separate thing.

    > >
    > >it's not separate at all. taking the photo and turning it into a print
    > >or a web site or whatever is all part of photography.

    >
    > Of course it's separate. Some people photograph, but don't process.
    > Film users drop off their film to be processed unless they have their
    > own darkroom facilities. Some digital users take their SD card to a
    > place like Costco and pick up prints and/or a disk without doing any
    > processing on their own. Some digital users have no workflow beyond
    > upload and print.


    those aren't the ones who are taking photography classes.

    > Processing the output is an option, not a necessary part.


    processing is a *requirement*.

    > >ansel adams was a master of all of it. in fact, most of it was darkroom
    > >work. if he were alive today, he'd be doing it in photoshop.

    >
    > Now you speak with the dead as well as see ghosts?


    huh?

    if you don't understand how ansel adams created his work, then there's
    no hope for you.

    hint: a *significant* amount was done in the darkroom.
     
    nospam, May 12, 2013
    #60
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ric

    Bookmark Icon Disappearance

    ric, Apr 9, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    985
    Splibbilla
    Apr 9, 2005
  2. CarlO

    Disc Disappearance

    CarlO, May 13, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    434
    Ben Myers
    May 17, 2005
  3. Max Christoffersen

    Wilner's Bizarre Disappearance..

    Max Christoffersen, Feb 3, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    125
    Views:
    2,608
    vanpall
    Feb 9, 2004
  4. Gary

    Minimizing window causes disappearance

    Gary, Aug 12, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    431
  5. Evensong

    Partition Disappearance problem.

    Evensong, Feb 6, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    341
    Evensong
    Feb 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page