The disappearance of darkness

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

  1. Me

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:08:20 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >> >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?


    All these other people that you claim are doing market surveys by
    limited personal observation are the "ghosts" in your life.
    >
    >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.


    He was fairly proficient at it, too. He might even stick to doing it
    the way he found to work for him.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, May 12, 2013
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. Me

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:08:20 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >> 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*.


    Not for the person taking the photographs.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, May 12, 2013
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >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.

    >
    > He was fairly proficient at it, too. He might even stick to doing it
    > the way he found to work for him.


    he knew the future would be digital and said so.

    he would have loved photoshop.
    nospam, May 12, 2013
    #63
  4. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> 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*.

    >
    > Not for the person taking the photographs.


    for *everyone*.
    nospam, May 12, 2013
    #64
  5. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/11/2013 11:08 PM, nospam wrote:
    > 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.
    >

    IOW you have zero teaching experience. From you answers, I respectfully
    submit that you are also in desperate need of some genuine learning
    experience.


    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 13, 2013
    #65
  6. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <519037aa$0$10756$-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.
    > >

    > IOW you have zero teaching experience. From you answers, I respectfully
    > submit that you are also in desperate need of some genuine learning
    > experience.


    nothing but insults. i expect nothing less from you. where's your proof
    that teaching film is better? oh right, there isn't any.
    nospam, May 13, 2013
    #66
  7. Me

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Saturday, May 11, 2013 4:31:56 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > 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 helpedme

    >
    > > 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 lens has to be removable doesn;t it.


    > the same
    >
    > lenses work on both types of cameras. canon's lenses don't have levers
    >
    > and nikon's lenses do.


    You can't normnlly afford to hand out even 5 DLSRs where'as 5 old film cameras no problem.


    > > 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.


    No it's better for getting images NOT photography.
    You're forgetting photography is the art of manipulating light.
    Any fool can mess wityh a digital filter to get more or less light.
    A photography is create by light not paint or pigments or ink or toner.
    Using the above you can get a good picture J. constaable and Piscaso managed it without a camera.


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


    And I'm an excellent cook, I have a microwave oven.



    > > 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.


    They were without batteries too, and mostly without meters too.


    > 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.


    It's not about ignoring them it's about understanding them or do you think it's good that a photograher doesn't understand things like lighting levelsbecause his camera will cope and give him/her a good result.

    There's a lot more to 'proper' photgraphy than handing over a good camera.


    > > I think everyone thinks less about photography as in capturing a singleimage

    >
    > > than they used to.

    >
    >
    >
    > that's a good thing.


    Whem all they do is end up with loads of so.. so.. shots and never get to actually improve as they hardley ever review their shots because there's just to many to sift through.



    > > 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.

    >
    >
    >
    > you can, but you don't have to. you could take multiple shots with film
    >
    > too,


    Limited multiple shots I had a fast motere drive which could go at 5 FPS whcih meant a roll of film would last around 8 seconds. (36 on a roll)


    > it just cost money with every click, so people didn't usually do
    >
    > that.


    Yes they also took time to notice, only pros could really afford to do suchthings.


    > now they don't have to worry about cost, so they can be more
    >
    > creative.


    Or just make more mistakes and not realise it.



    > > 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.


    Yes it makes it easier less thinking needed.


    > > > 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.


    What photo ?
    With digital you don;t even need to be there, soem of the fist digital images I produced were using Bryce I never had to leave home.

    And now in 3D far beter than anything Ansel adams has done, so is the person that produces these images a better photographer ?



    > > 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.


    The tools used to be a camera and enlarger now it the camera and computer and I spend far longer on the computer but I don't call that photography.

    On one thread here there's a discussion on the picture on teh front of a new star trek book, I don;t consider that picture to be a photo as in someonetook that photo, it's just a collection of manupulated images unless of course you can tell me who the photographer is/was.



    > > > 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 ata

    >
    > > 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.


    But the photgrapher didn't do it, but was credited with it.
    Those were called re-touchers NOT photographers.
    When of the reasopn I got fed up of 'photography was that the club I went to started on insisting the work be mounted in a particualr way with say X inches on teh side Y inches op and bottom and the edged has to be beveled for compition entries, alnfg with that anf having to title them in letraset,I was spending more time on this than taking the photo.


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


    Why's that an advantage most 35mm of the time couldn't get beyond 20X16 andthe limit at my club was around 16X12 inches, partly due to cost. And why is bigger better anyway, does it make you a betere photogrpher to be able to print bigger, I always thought that was done to the quality of the equipment.

    I rememreb having to decide what enlarge lens to buy as well as what cameralens now all I need to do is work out processor speeds and storage none ofwhich change the quality of photography or of the resultant image.


    e 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.


    What is a photographer then as I can do that without using a camera.

    I can order photos via flickr..or any other site.
    Maybe doing that would make me a better photographer too.


    > > 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,


    What are photos then ?


    >you
    >
    > can shoot fewer photos. it doesn't matter if it's digital or film.


    it does, in most case you have limited time whether it be wedding or sports, you have to get it right, sure it's so much easier being able to take 1000s shots of the coulpe kissing and maybe that makes it better, but if someone came to me and said I'll get it right 1 time in 1000 I wouldn't employ them.
    Thre's plenty of example of digital photographers not having a clue but having the equipemtn that can take good photos.



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


    any fool, can do it with a ipad so that makes them a better phtographer does it ?


    > 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?


    See you understadn the differnce between a skill and something a computer can do.



    > 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.


    Why would you, anyway only 4 sides I've done one with 6, (up and down not just left and right) not a lot of use unless you want in on a cube. But I could certaly stick 6 pictres on a cube.


    > > > 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.


    It has the advantage of techin gyuo about light and the manupulation of it which is what photography is rather than altering shapes on a canvas.
    But being an artist is better than aphotogrpahy as you can lok at tower bridge and paint the grand canyon but would it be a photograph.
    For me unless light has been used to creat it then it;'s not a PHOTOGRAPH.



    > > > 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.


    Which isn;t teh questionn which wqas whether there's any reason to prefer film to digital and there are plenty of reason.


    > > 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.



    So are you saying it's better to set a realy high ISO when using a digital camera.



    > > > 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.


    How can it be no differnt if you say digital wins or makes it easier or more productive is another POV. One of the bog reasons digital is used is because it is easier, easier for everyone including pros which is why the majority prefer digital cameras.

    Of couse your original pooi ntwas that no one prefered film, so even if there's just one person that prefers iut that makes you wrong.

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

    This was never about which is best any more than vanilla ice cream being better than chocolate ice cream.
    Whisky-dave, May 13, 2013
    #67
  8. Me

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Monday, May 13, 2013 2:29:53 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > In article <519037aa$0$10756$-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.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > IOW you have zero teaching experience. From you answers, I respectfully

    >
    > > submit that you are also in desperate need of some genuine learning

    >
    > > experience.

    >
    >
    >
    > nothing but insults. i expect nothing less from you. where's your proof
    >
    > that teaching film is better? oh right, there isn't any.


    I can tell you strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate but can I prove it ?


    http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/Bill_Dill/MattMeyerScript.htm

    The Top 10 Reasons to Teach Film to the Video Generation:

    1.
    It’s an investment: When a student realizes that he or she is burning a buck every second of the shoot, that student approaches the production differently. Lines are rehearsed. Movements are set up more carefully. And lighting is set up more carefully, because audiences will be seeing the images on higher resolution screens. The result is better filmmaking, which carries over to video projects.


    for the others go to the link.

    Digital being cheap and costing nothing gives a studetn the idea that time isn't money either. When they see a physical product being used and not able to be reused that makes an impact .

    I even see this here in electroniccs taking a writing down the digital value of a result without understanding it they want a resitor of 207 ohms, I even had a reasearch student spending a two days fussing over whether or not to use a 180 or a 220, it's what he's calculator showed him so he wanted the exact value.




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




    I noticed a few advantages when shooting with film- namely that when peopleasked me to delete the photo I told them I couldn’t- as it was film. Also while in Tokyo I was working on a small project titled: “Dark Skies Over Tokyo” – a project about the irony of Japanese society: they are one of the richest countries in the world, yet have one of the highest depression and suicide rates. Shooting film helped me stay focused on the project and the whole-picture, rather than individual images.
    Whisky-dave, May 13, 2013
    #68
  9. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2013-05-08 21:15:54 -0700, PeterN <> said:


    >> BTW by most standards, the word "most" has a very well understood and
    >> BASIC meaning.


    > Yup! More than "some" less than "all".


    Much more fun is "almost all" and mathematicians.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 13, 2013
    #69
  10. Me

    nospam Guest

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

    > You can't normnlly afford to hand out even 5 DLSRs where'as 5 old film
    > cameras no problem.


    sure you can. the least expensive dslr is around $400-500, which is
    about $150-180 in 1980 dollars, back when film was king.

    or just have the student get their own camera.

    > > > 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.

    >
    > No it's better for getting images NOT photography.


    getting images *is* photography.

    > You're forgetting photography is the art of manipulating light.


    you can do that (and more) with digital.

    > Any fool can mess wityh a digital filter to get more or less light.


    any fool can mess with a glass filter.

    > A photography is create by light not paint or pigments or ink or toner.


    so prints on photo paper made from negatives are not photography?

    > Using the above you can get a good picture J. constaable and Piscaso managed
    > it without a camera.


    let's all go back to using paint and canvas.

    > > > 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.

    >
    > They were without batteries too, and mostly without meters too.


    then turn the meter off.

    batteries are required now, and electronic cameras are more accurate
    than mechanical cameras anyway. plus they do more.

    > > 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.

    >
    > It's not about ignoring them it's about understanding them or do you think
    > it's good that a photograher doesn't understand things like lighting levels
    > because his camera will cope and give him/her a good result.


    nothing about digital prevents someone from understanding lighting.

    > There's a lot more to 'proper' photgraphy than handing over a good camera.


    there is, and it's easier to learn it on digital.

    you can change the lighting and see how it looks moments later. can't
    do that with film.

    in fact, film photographers used to use polaroid to check the lighting
    before taking the real shots. on occasion, those were the best shots,
    but they were stuck with a crappy polaroid.

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

    > >
    > > that's a good thing.

    >
    > Whem all they do is end up with loads of so.. so.. shots and never get to
    > actually improve as they hardley ever review their shots because there's just
    > to many to sift through.


    again, that's up to the person. they don't have to shoot zillions of
    photos. they *can* if they want to, and for no extra cost. or, they can
    shoot very few. up to the user to decide.

    > With digital you don;t even need to be there, soem of the fist digital images
    > I produced were using Bryce I never had to leave home.


    those aren't photos, those are 3d renderings.

    > And now in 3D far beter than anything Ansel adams has done, so is the person
    > that produces these images a better photographer ?


    not with a rendering, but there will come a time when you won't be able
    to tell the difference between a synthetically generated image and a
    real one, probably sooner than you might think too.

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

    >
    > The tools used to be a camera and enlarger now it the camera and computer and
    > I spend far longer on the computer but I don't call that photography.


    doesn't matter what you call it. it's photography.

    if an enlarger is photography, so is photoshop.

    > On one thread here there's a discussion on the picture on teh front of a new
    > star trek book, I don;t consider that picture to be a photo as in someone
    > took that photo, it's just a collection of manupulated images unless of
    > course you can tell me who the photographer is/was.


    you could do that in the darkroom too. it was a lot more work but it
    was still possible.

    with digital, you have so many more possibilities.

    > > darkroom work is post processing.

    >
    > But the photgrapher didn't do it, but was credited with it.
    > Those were called re-touchers NOT photographers.


    you can give your digital images to a professional retoucher if you
    want. or do it yourself. or just shoot jpeg and let the camera do it.

    > When of the reasopn I got fed up of 'photography was that the club I went to
    > started on insisting the work be mounted in a particualr way with say X
    > inches on teh side Y inches op and bottom and the edged has to be beveled for
    > compition entries, alnfg with that anf having to title them in letraset, I
    > was spending more time on this than taking the photo.


    they wanted it standardized.

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

    >
    > Why's that an advantage most 35mm of the time couldn't get beyond 20X16 and
    > the limit at my club was around 16X12 inches, partly due to cost. And why is
    > bigger better anyway, does it make you a betere photogrpher to be able to
    > print bigger, I always thought that was done to the quality of the equipment.


    i'd rather look at photos on a 27" lcd display than a stack of 8x10 or
    11x14 prints.

    or maybe you would rather go back to slide shows in darkened rooms with
    a noisy slide projector and a screen that has to be rolled up and maybe
    there's a tear in the side too. blech.

    > I rememreb having to decide what enlarge lens to buy as well as what camera
    > lens now all I need to do is work out processor speeds and storage none of
    > which change the quality of photography or of the resultant image.


    whatever you did in the darkroom can be done in photoshop.

    > >you
    > > can shoot fewer photos. it doesn't matter if it's digital or film.

    >
    > it does, in most case you have limited time whether it be wedding or sports,
    > you have to get it right, sure it's so much easier being able to take 1000s
    > shots of the coulpe kissing and maybe that makes it better, but if someone
    > came to me and said I'll get it right 1 time in 1000 I wouldn't employ them.
    > Thre's plenty of example of digital photographers not having a clue but
    > having the equipemtn that can take good photos.


    there are plenty of examples of film photographers not having a clue
    too. big deal.

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

    >
    > any fool, can do it with a ipad so that makes them a better phtographer does
    > it ?


    it means they can do things that were not possible with film.

    > > 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?

    >
    > See you understadn the differnce between a skill and something a computer can
    > do.


    it has nothing to do with skill.

    there is no advantage in trying to match up 2 negatives when a computer
    can do a better job in far less time, and do so on the first try too.

    > > 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.

    >
    > Why would you, anyway only 4 sides I've done one with 6, (up and down not
    > just left and right) not a lot of use unless you want in on a cube. But I
    > could certaly stick 6 pictres on a cube.


    i shot one 360, then another 360 aimed up and a third 360 aimed down.

    all of those were stitched together to form a 3d panorama that you
    could move left, right, up or down. i didn't bother with a photo taken
    straight up or straight down. it wasn't needed for what i wanted to do.

    that requires matching a *lot* of images, something that would not be
    possible at all 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.

    >
    > It has the advantage of techin gyuo about light and the manupulation of it
    > which is what photography is rather than altering shapes on a canvas.


    you were talking about battery life. as long as the battery lasts
    longer than a day, it doesn't matter. just plug it in at night.

    > But being an artist is better than aphotogrpahy as you can lok at tower
    > bridge and paint the grand canyon but would it be a photograph.
    > For me unless light has been used to creat it then it;'s not a PHOTOGRAPH.


    surprising as it may seem, digital cameras use light to expose the
    sensor, the very same light that film cameras use.

    > > > 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.

    >
    > So are you saying it's better to set a realy high ISO when using a digital
    > camera.


    no, i'm saying you can do the same thing with digital. pick the same
    iso and expose for however long you want, without worrying about
    reciprocity failure. or, set a higher iso (since digital is less noisy)
    and have a shorter exposure. entirely up to the user.

    > Of couse your original pooi ntwas that no one prefered film, so even if there's just one
    > person that prefers iut that makes you wrong.


    my original point was that those who cling to film don't understand
    that digital does everything their precious film does and does so
    better, but if they want the 'film look', they can do it in software.
    nospam, May 13, 2013
    #70
  11. Me

    nospam Guest

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

    > http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/Bill_Dill/MattMe
    > yerScript.htm
    >
    > The Top 10 Reasons to Teach Film to the Video Generation:


    that contradicts itself too.

    Twenty years ago, it was a rare opportunity for a filmmaker to get
    his or her story on the silver screen. The digital revolution has
    democratized filmmaking, making some of the filmmaking tools that
    were once only available to a privileged few more easily available to
    the masses.

    First and foremost, the equipment is far more affordable than even a
    few years ago. Editing software, which takes the place of the
    Moviola, film lab and optical house, is now frequently included as
    part of the bundle of software that comes with new computers. Another
    benefit of working with video is speed. Students today can edit their
    scenes immediately after they¹re shot, without having to wait days
    for dailies. As a result, 48-hour and 24-hour film festivals are
    commonplace, with filmmakers racing to complete an entire film in one
    or two days. There¹s even a four-hour film challenge in the U.K.

    in other words, digital wins.

    There are serious side effects to the digital revolution, which are
    especially problematic for the educators of this new wave of
    videomakers.

    translated "teachers are having a tough time adapting to new technology
    to be able to teach it to students."

    The very traits that have made the media available to the masses have
    seriously undermined its quality. Many videos produced by high school
    and college students will not be seen in a movie theater, but will be
    streamed on YouTube or other Web sites. The image is heavily
    compressed with severe artifacts, but that doesn¹t matter much
    because it¹s viewed in a window the size of a playing card. Although
    other capture devices are capable of delivering high resolution
    images, why bother if the final product is destined to be viewed on a
    cell phone? As a result, many student videos pay scant attention to
    lighting, composition or camera movement, and are shot quick and
    dirty without a tripod.

    who cares? the fact is they're making movies, capturing moments, and
    learning as they do it. that's a good thing.

    besides, not everyone wants to make a theatrical movie anyway, and many
    who actually do make theatrical movies should have sought an alternate
    career.

    > 1. It’s an investment:


    it's not an investment. it's a waste of money. invest in digital
    equipment, which will be useful going forward. film won't be.

    > When a student realizes that he or she is burning a
    > buck every second of the shoot, that student approaches the production
    > differently. Lines are rehearsed. Movements are set up more carefully. And
    > lighting is set up more carefully, because audiences will be seeing the
    > images on higher resolution screens. The result is better filmmaking, which
    > carries over to video projects.


    that's just bullshit.

    you can still rehearse each line, block the scenes, etc., just as much
    with digital.

    > for the others go to the link.


    that link is just more of the usual idiocy.

    It looks better: The fact is, there¹s more resolution in film than
    1080 HD. There¹s even more resolution in film than a 4K scan can
    produce. There¹s also a wider dynamic range than HD, and an organic
    Œfeeling¹ that film gives that you still can¹t obtain in video.

    that's flat out false. digital has higher resolution and whatever look
    'organic feeling' is supposed to be can be done digitally.

    movie theaters are all going digital these days anyway. film is on its
    way *out*.

    Film is more forgiving: Because film has a higher dynamic range than
    video, there¹s more latitude for correction in post if the exposure
    isn¹t quite perfect.

    that's also false. digital has higher dynamic range (and has for quite
    a number of years).

    The concepts of cinematography are better honed: It¹s a lot easier to
    understand what an aperture is when you can look inside the lens, or
    what the focal plane is when you can see the film gate. The same goes
    for shutter speed, depth of field, gamma, film speed, etc.

    more idiocy. you can look inside the lens with digital too. you can
    turn on live-view and see what is imaged on the focal plane. you can
    adjust the shutter speed, depth of field, etc. and see the effect
    *immediately*.

    this guy teaches?? scary.

    > Digital being cheap and costing nothing gives a studetn the idea that time
    > isn't money either. When they see a physical product being used and not able
    > to be reused that makes an impact .


    not really. tell them they have to do just one take, no editing.

    > I even see this here in electroniccs taking a writing down the digital value
    > of a result without understanding it they want a resitor of 207 ohms, I even
    > had a reasearch student spending a two days fussing over whether or not to
    > use a 180 or a 220, it's what he's calculator showed him so he wanted the
    > exact value.


    what does that have to do with digital photography? and depending on
    the circuit, 207 might have been what he needed, not 180 or 220.

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


    that's the same self-contradictory link you gave before.

    > I noticed a few advantages when shooting with film- namely that when people
    > asked me to delete the photo I told them I couldn’t- as it was film.


    stream the photos to the cloud and you won't be able to delete them
    either.

    or just say 'no.'

    > Also
    > while in Tokyo I was working on a small project titled: “Dark Skies Over
    > Tokyo” – a project about the irony of Japanese society: they are one of the
    > richest countries in the world, yet have one of the highest depression and suicide
    > rates. Shooting film helped me stay focused on the project and the whole-picture,
    > rather than individual images.


    nothing about film makes someone stay focused on a project any better.
    if a person can't stay focused, then the problem is the photographer,
    not the technology.
    nospam, May 13, 2013
    #71
  12. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > >> Indeed one of the more sensible Hi-Fi mags tested regular mains cable
    > >> against a group of expensive speaker cables. Virtually no difference. I
    > >> did use [cheap] chunky speaker cable for my mains, but at full pelt they
    > >> can
    > >> be carrying quite a lot of current (10A+).

    > >
    > > i got my speaker cable at a hardware store. 14 gauge wire is 14 gauge
    > > wire.
    > >
    > > there's nothing special about 'audiophile cable.' it's the same stuff,
    > > but with a nicer looking insulation and a significantly higher price.

    >
    > Not quite true.


    it's definitely true. it's all snake oil with a huge price tag for
    suckers who fall for the deceptive marketing.

    > For example the more recent fad is "oxygen free" copper cable which has
    > a _measurably_ lower resistance over a given length.


    oxygen free copper is not that recent, has no significant difference in
    resistance and most copper wire is oxygen free *anyway*, whether it's
    specifically listed that way or not.

    if less resistance is the real goal (which it isn't), the easy solution
    is get a larger gauge wire, or use silver instead of copper, which is a
    better conductor. the drawback of course, is the word 'silver' doesn't
    sound as impressive as 'oxygen free copper'. price isn't an issue
    because these idiots will spend thousands and thousands of dollars on
    all sorts of stuff thinking it will improve their sound.

    <http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#oxygenfree>
    However, as indicated above, most C11000 common copper sold today
    meets or exceeds the 101% IACS conductivity and overlaps C10200
    ³oxygen free² that has a minimum of 100% IACS conductivity. In
    practice, there is no significant difference in conductivity between
    all three of the grades as far as audio use is concerned.

    > "Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
    > RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.


    any difference they can measure is completely insignificant (fractions
    of an ohm) and won't have any audible effect. period.

    according to this calculator, 25' of 14 ga wire is 0.063 ohms, which is
    less than 1% of a typical 8 ohm speaker impedance. a slightly higher or
    slightly lower resistance won't make *any* difference whatsoever. drop
    down a gauge to 16 ga and it's 0.1 ohm, a whopping 0.04 ohms more, into
    an 8 ohm load. even that won't make a difference.

    <http://www.cirris.com/testing/resistance/wire.html>

    > (The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their heads).


    that's the entire point.
    nospam, May 14, 2013
    #72
  13. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/12/2013 9:29 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <519037aa$0$10756$-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.
    >>>

    >> IOW you have zero teaching experience. From you answers, I respectfully
    >> submit that you are also in desperate need of some genuine learning
    >> experience.

    >
    > nothing but insults. i expect nothing less from you. where's your proof
    > that teaching film is better? oh right, there isn't any.
    >


    I am continually learning. BTW You made the first statement about
    teaching tools. I have now been questioning you, but you fail to prove
    it, other than by repeatedly mouthing declarations, and attacking.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 14, 2013
    #73
  14. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/13/2013 1:56 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-05-13 08:54:32 -0700, Whisky-dave <> said:
    >
    >
    >> I can tell you strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate but can I
    >> prov
    >> e it ?

    >
    > No it isn't!! Chocolate is KING!!!! Strawberry is so avoidable.


    Haagen Daz rum raisen, runs neck and neck with Breyer's vanilla.
    Choclate is for wusses, and much too sweet.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 14, 2013
    #74
  15. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/13/2013 6:16 PM, nospam wrote:


    <snip>
    >
    > my original point was that those who cling to film don't understand
    > that digital does everything their precious film does and does so
    > better, but if they want the 'film look', they can do it in software.
    >


    Is that really what you said, in those exact words?
    The aboe question requires a yes or no answer. So, just answer it, Yes,
    or no.
    Capitalization and speling dunt count.
    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 14, 2013
    #75
  16. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <51918854$0$10823$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > > my original point was that those who cling to film don't understand
    > > that digital does everything their precious film does and does so
    > > better, but if they want the 'film look', they can do it in software.

    >
    > Is that really what you said,


    yes.

    > in those exact words?


    using the exact same words does not matter. what matters is the
    message. you are nitpicking on irrelevancies.

    it was my original point and still is.

    > The aboe question requires a yes or no answer. So, just answer it, Yes,
    > or no.
    > Capitalization and speling dunt count.


    see above.
    nospam, May 14, 2013
    #76
  17. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/13/2013 8:55 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51918854$0$10823$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> my original point was that those who cling to film don't understand
    >>> that digital does everything their precious film does and does so
    >>> better, but if they want the 'film look', they can do it in software.

    >>
    >> Is that really what you said,

    >
    > yes.
    >
    >> in those exact words?

    >
    > using the exact same words does not matter. what matters is the
    > message. you are nitpicking on irrelevancies.
    >
    > it was my original point and still is.
    >
    >> The aboe question requires a yes or no answer. So, just answer it, Yes,
    >> or no.
    >> Capitalization and speling dunt count.

    >
    > see above.
    >


    Use the exact words, so we can tell if you are: forgetful; a
    prevaricator; ignorant of the plain meaning of the English language, or
    some combination of the above.


    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 14, 2013
    #77
  18. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <51918d89$0$10828$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>> my original point was that those who cling to film don't understand
    > >>> that digital does everything their precious film does and does so
    > >>> better, but if they want the 'film look', they can do it in software.
    > >>
    > >> Is that really what you said,

    > >
    > > yes.
    > >
    > >> in those exact words?

    > >
    > > using the exact same words does not matter. what matters is the
    > > message. you are nitpicking on irrelevancies.
    > >
    > > it was my original point and still is.
    > >
    > >> The aboe question requires a yes or no answer. So, just answer it, Yes,
    > >> or no.
    > >> Capitalization and speling dunt count.

    > >
    > > see above.

    >
    > Use the exact words, so we can tell if you are: forgetful; a
    > prevaricator; ignorant of the plain meaning of the English language, or
    > some combination of the above.


    none of the above. maybe you're the one who is ignorant of the english
    language.

    you are desperately trying to find some trivial inconsequential and
    meaningless difference in two posts made several days apart, just
    because you like to argue.
    nospam, May 14, 2013
    #78
  19. Me

    Me Guest

    On 14/05/2013 12:29 p.m., nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> Indeed one of the more sensible Hi-Fi mags tested regular mains cable
    >>>> against a group of expensive speaker cables. Virtually no difference. I
    >>>> did use [cheap] chunky speaker cable for my mains, but at full pelt they
    >>>> can
    >>>> be carrying quite a lot of current (10A+).
    >>>
    >>> i got my speaker cable at a hardware store. 14 gauge wire is 14 gauge
    >>> wire.
    >>>
    >>> there's nothing special about 'audiophile cable.' it's the same stuff,
    >>> but with a nicer looking insulation and a significantly higher price.

    >>
    >> Not quite true.

    >
    > it's definitely true. it's all snake oil with a huge price tag for
    > suckers who fall for the deceptive marketing.
    >
    >> For example the more recent fad is "oxygen free" copper cable which has
    >> a _measurably_ lower resistance over a given length.

    >
    > oxygen free copper is not that recent, has no significant difference in
    > resistance and most copper wire is oxygen free *anyway*, whether it's
    > specifically listed that way or not.
    >
    > if less resistance is the real goal (which it isn't), the easy solution
    > is get a larger gauge wire, or use silver instead of copper, which is a
    > better conductor. the drawback of course, is the word 'silver' doesn't
    > sound as impressive as 'oxygen free copper'. price isn't an issue
    > because these idiots will spend thousands and thousands of dollars on
    > all sorts of stuff thinking it will improve their sound.
    >
    > <http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#oxygenfree>
    > However, as indicated above, most C11000 common copper sold today
    > meets or exceeds the 101% IACS conductivity and overlaps C10200
    > ³oxygen free² that has a minimum of 100% IACS conductivity. In
    > practice, there is no significant difference in conductivity between
    > all three of the grades as far as audio use is concerned.
    >
    >> "Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
    >> RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.

    >
    > any difference they can measure is completely insignificant (fractions
    > of an ohm) and won't have any audible effect. period.
    >
    > according to this calculator, 25' of 14 ga wire is 0.063 ohms, which is
    > less than 1% of a typical 8 ohm speaker impedance. a slightly higher or
    > slightly lower resistance won't make *any* difference whatsoever. drop
    > down a gauge to 16 ga and it's 0.1 ohm, a whopping 0.04 ohms more, into
    > an 8 ohm load. even that won't make a difference.
    >
    > <http://www.cirris.com/testing/resistance/wire.html>
    >
    >> (The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their heads).

    >
    > that's the entire point.
    >

    One of the most intriguing "differences" that can't be heard (except by
    a few special folks) is achieved by use of "Shakti Stones":
    http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm

    Homeopathy for home audio - and car ECUs apparently.
    Me, May 14, 2013
    #79
  20. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <kms79s$h0l$>, Me <>
    wrote:

    > One of the most intriguing "differences" that can't be heard (except by
    > a few special folks) is achieved by use of "Shakti Stones":
    > http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm
    >
    > Homeopathy for home audio - and car ECUs apparently.


    not only does that improve sound but it increases horsepower. amazing
    what technology can do.

    just be sure your vinyl records are fully demagnetized before
    listening. otherwise you won't obtain the full effect of shatki.

    <http://www.soundstage.com/vinyl/vinyl200702.htm>
    Well, according to Furutech, the material added to vinyl to color it
    black has magnetic properties, and demagnetizing LPs makes them
    sound better.
    nospam, May 14, 2013
    #80
    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:
    956
    Splibbilla
    Apr 9, 2005
  2. CarlO

    Disc Disappearance

    CarlO, May 13, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    410
    Ben Myers
    May 17, 2005
  3. Max Christoffersen

    Wilner's Bizarre Disappearance..

    Max Christoffersen, Feb 3, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    125
    Views:
    2,533
    vanpall
    Feb 9, 2004
  4. Gary

    Minimizing window causes disappearance

    Gary, Aug 12, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    394
  5. Evensong

    Partition Disappearance problem.

    Evensong, Feb 6, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    317
    Evensong
    Feb 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page