IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Canon AL-1
Fie on the digital toys.

A friend grabbed it, all dusty.. at a garage sale. For $10!!
Cleaned up near mint. I sent it to Canon when I couldn't get a certain small 'latch' at any parts supplier. {long story - ending at Pres. Office and a complete cleaning, etc. and my personal ***** rating for Canon customer service and especially, attitude.}

Did some sleuthing and found that this has one of the most accurate autofocus circuits ever (per several Pros, complete with optics essay on how they did it). Workd at light levels where I can't possibly focus as well by ground glass.

As to the pixillated ones.. It's simple: the world is analog.
Only febrile homo-sap mind-fetishes for oversimplified math.. imagines digital can substitute. (And I've seen Ansel Adams up-close working, over several hours - using using his Omega 8 x 10 to do what no point n'clicky dabbler can even envision, when selecting Menu #3 + Special Effects #2)

As a Tek (scopes) wag mentioned recently - he can out-type Orifice-Word on his 1.3 GHz machine, whereas I defy anyone to out-type WordStar, Otrona 4 MHz Z-80 - and in 56K of RAM. But yeah.. by another decade they'll throw more and more pixels at it - and still never manage the dye-transfer characteristics of Kodachrome nor the gamma variations achievable with art, from exposure on through the processing of a final print. CRT view? [Hah]

Of course, you and I are confusing here, snapshots VS the art of photography. Seems quite likely that there will be fewer and fewer artisans capable of assembling a Nikon F or F-2 within a few more years -- given the mass market and the Corporate drift. Already.. fewer 'consumers' have the foggiest what an f-stop means or why depth of-field might matter; gamma?! What That?

Our cameras will be in museums in maybe less than a generation, but I believe that there will always be Sons/Daughters of William Frieze-Green who will preserve these marvels and somehow manage to keep photographic emulsions available, even after Kodak Inc. starts making special sauce for the WalBurger UniCorp.


Mother forgive them for they know not what they do do!
New Damn straight.
If a digital camera can compensate for my ignorance in a field about which I have absolutely no desire to learn more than necessary, then amen, brutha. I'm there to take pictures of things I'd like to remember and share with others, not spend 5 minutes per shot fiddling endlessly to get the Perfect Settings.

Case in point: my grandfather was an amateur photographer par excellence. We have very, very few photographs of him as a result as he was always fiddling with his damn camera during get togethers. I actually have a chance of being in a number of pictures now since this camera is usable by even my wife -- smart as she is in her own way, mechanical and visual things are as beyond her as gymnastics is beyond me.

Another case in point: my father has an old Canon nearly-professional quality camera (can't remember the model). He knows all about f-stops, and exposures, and ye verily even unto the manual focusing and many many different lenses. He's preparing to let the old dinosaur rest forever in favor of a digital after seeing mine. Same with my mother, and she's the type that used to develop her own film...
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New There need be no actual argument about 'better'.
Both have their uses; they just aren't the same uses.

As you say, for 'documentation' - where's the need for "art"? Was grandpa here? Yep - here's what he looks like.. And a photographer can very well augment his real camera with digital, to see about a proper perspective, or to document the means of some complex project. (Still. and always - the eye + brain do not 'see' as does a camera.. a topic on which volumes have been written.)

Photographs we see on walls - always tell some story. So does the occasional fortuitous snapshot; but that's usually a happy accident.. no?

As to the inefficiency you describe.. that's the photographer, not the availability of options. Yes, lore helps you to exploit those options / or not, just as most Pros keep a camera set at reasonable exposure, depth-of-field, etc. for an instant shot, today made even simpler by the automated exposures which you may switch on/off. ie a few seconds of setup is most often enough - if you know what you are trying to do; if you aren't sure: you 'bracket' the shots. Ditto with transistors, if there's time for more than one shot. Seems many digitals now facilitate multiple exposures. Much cheaper too than motorized film, where cheap matters.

Still, ignorance of the effects upon any picture of a knowledge of depth-of-field (and its psychological effects in the viewing) or of film-gamma - a more subtle factor determining available tonal gradations via special development actions - that ignorance will always limit results. Older digitals provided choice in neither speed nor f-stop; no doubt expensive ones will now approximate everything but.. the film characteristics.

Finally, the gross difference between snapshots and say, a final print of A Adams - is that many of his nature pictures required days to weeks for "that object and its lighting" to become realizable on that piece of film. It would be foolish to imagine homogenizing All That into anybody's one-size fits all. I think.

Just as, there will be no transistorized Bach Stradivarius trumpet as will enable me to play like Sergei Nakariakov (or amplified guitar that will sound like Segovia).


Vive la diff\ufffdrence !
New Wasted shots aren't all about bracketing.
I took 10 shots of my wife holding my son the other day. Every single damn one of them, other than the last one, had her doing something funky with her eyes or her expression.

With respect to depth-of-field: granted. With respect to film gamma: that's what the Gimp is for. ;-)

As you said, they both have their place. For snapshots, IMO, digital rules.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New Re: Canon AL-1
"Real" photography will need film for several reasons:

1) Dynamic range and color

2) Actual resolution

3) Archival purposes

4) Cost - a $400 dollar film camera outperforms a $10,000 digital rig


Neener. Nikon analog ru7eZ.

-drl
New Today's $10k digital rig will be $400 on eBay in 10 years
Just ask Ashton what he's paying for scopes. That'll be today's pro digital rigs in a while.

Ah, and one thing that nobody seems to talk about that makes a huge difference in quality between the typical 35mm and the typical digital: the diameter of the lens. For the same focal length, a larger glass gathers more light. Most digital cameras should be compared to 35mm instamatics, not a Nikon Fx.
===

Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
New Right.
We moved from an instamatic 35mm to a digital. Compared to the 35mm, the lens is pretty much the same size, or perhaps even a bit bigger. Compared to my dad's 35mm, there is no comparison.

Another aspect: film and processing costs. With a digital, I don't pay for either. I also don't pay for wasted pictures because I can immediately tell if the picture is bad or not.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New Subtle, important differences..
IMhO the fact that I can 'steal' a working instrument (incidental that it is also so well made as to qualify as 'art' too) Too-cheaply -- indicates something important about the present society and its near-future, especially as regards "technical education" and 'our' expectations for the future of that.

Such an instrument could not be produced today except at exorbitant cost - the CRT fabs themselves have been scrapped.
(It would be like Shrub's decision to recreate Plutonium fabs - but only sorta like that: we already have 1000 tons and access to Russia's. Another thread on Sanity, that one.)

The digital replacements, while generating all sorts of automatic data for repetitive waveforms - still cannot 'see' certain random events, nor ever - in real-time. That's what I mean by Too- (== 'artificially') cheap. This is a loss in *capability*, in the physics sense. And no - there are no foreign equivalents either, though there are some also-ran analogue scopes maybe still in production. You'd have to be an EE to fully appreciate what a "scope" means as ... "your eyes".

The price of digital toys OTOH simply reflects the easy mass production of SiO2 derivatives and the cheapness, after early profits amortize development costs. No personal Artisan skill is required in assembly (which is fortunate, one might suppose - as we lose those).

(But the loss of widespread 'film' cameras will be a loss of an Art; that of communicating something about an instant in time, using many human sensibilities. Digital will always be capable of 'documenting an object's appearance' for one's files. Different.)



Ashton
New Re: Subtle, important differences..
But the loss of widespread 'film' cameras will be a loss of an Art; that of communicating something about an instant in time, using many human sensibilities.
I don't think that has anything to do with digital vs. film. Communication with a photograph is about the photographer, not the tools.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New Not really
All of Ansel Adams' work happened in the darkroom, and was made with his hands - I don't mean dragging the film and paper through the chemicals - I mean an elaborate shadowing with the hands of the print as it is being exposed in the enlarger. It can take many seconds to expose a print - during this time a skilled photographer will often use his hands, or some other object, to lessen the exposure on particular parts of the print. It may take hundreds of attempts to get it just right - so the final print is a unique work of art and not a copy of the negative.

A good example is the famous photo of birch trees - another is the Moon over - is it Santa Fe? The copyright Nazis removed the good Ansel Adams net exhibits.
-drl
New Again, that's the photographer, not the tools.
It's possible to do such things (more easily after the fact, of course) with digital as well.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New Kodak DCS Pro 14n
This is a 13.7 million pixel full-frame 35mm format digital camera in a Nikon F80 body. It saves in RAW mode by preference rather than a processed format like JPEG or TIFF as all processing - white balance, gamma correction, exposure adjustment, colour saturation, noise filter - is designed to be done on the PC with the RAW file, not in camera. This is to my reading a much closer approximation of the "analogue" process by digital tech than I've yet seen.

Still, the thing works best in well-lit conditions at ISO 200, so there are limits. And it does cost well over 4000 pounds.

Wade.

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
 
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

New The world is analog.
Your eyes are not. You have tiny little pixels in there, don't you know? And the communications between neurons are discrete, the last time I checked. May be not digital, but discrete impulses.

As my co-worker said once, anything made of silicon will eventually cost 10 cents. That includes digital gear approximating your eyes. Eventually.
--

OK, George W. is deceptive to be sure. Dissembling, too. And let's not forget deceitful. He is lacking veracity and frankness, and void of sooth, though seemingly sincere in his proclivity for pretense. But he did not lie.
[link|http://www.jointhebushwhackers.com/not_a_liar.cfm|Brian Wimer]
     Pentax Optio 550 - (admin) - (29)
         Does AF work in low light? - (Arkadiy) - (4)
             Seems to work fine. - (admin) - (3)
                 Re: Seems to work fine. - (deSitter) - (2)
                     Not in this case. - (admin)
                     In my case, I think, it's a different issue - (Arkadiy)
         Bought my wife a Sony 5 Meg. - (mmoffitt) - (23)
             I take much better pictures with this - (admin)
             Prima donna :-P - (drewk) - (21)
                 Ha! - (mmoffitt) - (20)
                     Famous last words. - (CRConrad) - (1)
                         Re: never be able to fly. - (mmoffitt)
                     Canon AL-1 - (Ashton) - (12)
                         Damn straight. - (admin) - (2)
                             There need be no actual argument about 'better'. - (Ashton) - (1)
                                 Wasted shots aren't all about bracketing. - (admin)
                         Re: Canon AL-1 - (deSitter) - (7)
                             Today's $10k digital rig will be $400 on eBay in 10 years - (drewk) - (5)
                                 Right. - (admin)
                                 Subtle, important differences.. - (Ashton) - (3)
                                     Re: Subtle, important differences.. - (admin) - (2)
                                         Not really - (deSitter) - (1)
                                             Again, that's the photographer, not the tools. - (admin)
                             Kodak DCS Pro 14n - (static)
                         The world is analog. - (Arkadiy)
                     Just figured out what I was trying to put into words - (drewk) - (4)
                         But that's not what the anal-ogists here are saying. - (CRConrad) - (3)
                             Also, there's Kodak. - (a6l6e6x)
                             Re: But that's not what the anal-ogists here are saying. - (Ashton) - (1)
                                 Vorsetzer = lit. "sEtter-in-front", actually... - (CRConrad)

It'll be gradual, but faster than you expect. One day it won't be there, and the next day you'll be surprised at just how fast it still isn't.
485 ms