The disappearance of darkness

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

  1. Me

    Tony Cooper Guest

    All these other people that you claim are doing market surveys by
    limited personal observation are the "ghosts" in your life.
    He was fairly proficient at it, too. He might even stick to doing it
    the way he found to work for him.
     
    Tony Cooper, May 12, 2013
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Me

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Not for the person taking the photographs.
     
    Tony Cooper, May 12, 2013
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Me

    nospam Guest

    he knew the future would be digital and said so.

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

    nospam Guest

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

    PeterN Guest

    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, May 13, 2013
    #65
  6. Me

    nospam Guest

    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

    The lens has to be removable doesn;t it.

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

    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.

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


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

    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.

    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.


    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)

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

    Or just make more mistakes and not realise it.


    Yes it makes it easier less thinking needed.

    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 ?


    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.


    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.

    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
    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.

    What are photos then ?

    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.


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

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


    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.

    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.


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


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


    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

    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. Much more fun is "almost all" and mathematicians.

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

    nospam Guest

    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.
    getting images *is* photography.
    you can do that (and more) with digital.
    any fool can mess with a glass filter.
    so prints on photo paper made from negatives are not photography?
    let's all go back to using paint and canvas.
    then turn the meter off.

    batteries are required now, and electronic cameras are more accurate
    than mechanical cameras anyway. plus they do more.
    nothing about digital prevents someone from understanding lighting.
    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.
    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.
    those aren't photos, those are 3d renderings.
    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.
    doesn't matter what you call it. it's photography.

    if an enlarger is photography, so is photoshop.
    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.
    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.
    they wanted it standardized.
    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.
    whatever you did in the darkroom can be done in photoshop.
    there are plenty of examples of film photographers not having a clue
    too. big deal.
    it means they can do things that were not possible with film.
    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 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.
    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.
    surprising as it may seem, digital cameras use light to expose the
    sensor, the very same light that film cameras use.
    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.
    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

    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.
    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.
    that's just bullshit.

    you can still rehearse each line, block the scenes, etc., just as much
    with digital.
    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.
    not really. tell them they have to do just one take, no editing.
    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.
    that's the same self-contradictory link you gave before.
    stream the photos to the cloud and you won't be able to delete them
    either.

    or just say 'no.'
    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

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

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

    PeterN Guest

    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, May 14, 2013
    #73
  14. Me

    PeterN Guest

    Haagen Daz rum raisen, runs neck and neck with Breyer's vanilla.
    Choclate is for wusses, and much too sweet.
     
    PeterN, May 14, 2013
    #74
  15. Me

    PeterN Guest

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


    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, May 14, 2013
    #75
  16. Me

    nospam Guest

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

    PeterN Guest

    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, May 14, 2013
    #77
  18. Me

    nospam Guest

    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

    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

    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. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.