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!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Reviews Forum / Re: Canon AL-1
Post #122,491
by deSitter
Picture of deSitter
10/23/03 8:28:33 AM
Reply
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
Post #122,496
by drewk
Picture of drewk
10/23/03 9:05:45 AM
Reply
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.
Post #122,506
by admin
Picture of admin
10/23/03 9:39:25 AM
Reply
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..."
Post #122,783
by Ashton
10/25/03 4:10:57 AM
Reply
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
Post #122,795
by admin
Picture of admin
10/25/03 10:16:22 AM
Reply
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..."
Post #122,814
by deSitter
Picture of deSitter
10/25/03 3:52:41 PM
Reply
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
Post #122,821
by admin
Picture of admin
10/25/03 4:14:24 PM
Reply
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..."
Post #122,509
by static
Picture of static
10/23/03 9:44:05 AM
Reply
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.
     Pentax Optio 550 - (admin) - (29) - Oct. 19, 2003, 06:37:44 PM EDT
         Does AF work in low light? - (Arkadiy) - (4) - Oct. 21, 2003, 10:25:31 AM EDT
             Seems to work fine. - (admin) - (3) - Oct. 21, 2003, 10:35:11 AM EDT
                 Re: Seems to work fine. - (deSitter) - (2) - Oct. 21, 2003, 10:38:30 AM EDT
                     Not in this case. - (admin) - Oct. 21, 2003, 11:13:02 AM EDT
                     In my case, I think, it's a different issue - (Arkadiy) - Oct. 21, 2003, 01:08:39 PM EDT
         Bought my wife a Sony 5 Meg. - (mmoffitt) - (23) - Oct. 21, 2003, 01:07:12 PM EDT
             I take much better pictures with this - (admin) - Oct. 21, 2003, 01:31:32 PM EDT
             Prima donna :-P - (drewk) - (21) - Oct. 21, 2003, 04:19:00 PM EDT
                 Ha! - (mmoffitt) - (20) - Oct. 22, 2003, 06:28:10 PM EDT
                     Famous last words. - (CRConrad) - (1) - Oct. 23, 2003, 02:04:01 AM EDT
                         Re: never be able to fly. - (mmoffitt) - Oct. 24, 2003, 09:23:15 AM EDT
                     Canon AL-1 - (Ashton) - (12) - Oct. 23, 2003, 05:14:12 AM EDT
                         Damn straight. - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 23, 2003, 07:19:45 AM EDT
                             There need be no actual argument about 'better'. - (Ashton) - (1) - Oct. 25, 2003, 03:43:58 AM EDT
                                 Wasted shots aren't all about bracketing. - (admin) - Oct. 25, 2003, 10:15:00 AM EDT
                         Re: Canon AL-1 - (deSitter) - (7) - Oct. 23, 2003, 08:28:33 AM EDT
                             Today's $10k digital rig will be $400 on eBay in 10 years - (drewk) - (5) - Oct. 23, 2003, 09:05:45 AM EDT
                                 Right. - (admin) - Oct. 23, 2003, 09:39:25 AM EDT
                                 Subtle, important differences.. - (Ashton) - (3) - Oct. 25, 2003, 04:10:57 AM EDT
                                     Re: Subtle, important differences.. - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 25, 2003, 10:16:22 AM EDT
                                         Not really - (deSitter) - (1) - Oct. 25, 2003, 03:52:41 PM EDT
                                             Again, that's the photographer, not the tools. - (admin) - Oct. 25, 2003, 04:14:24 PM EDT
                             Kodak DCS Pro 14n - (static) - Oct. 23, 2003, 09:44:05 AM EDT
                         The world is analog. - (Arkadiy) - Oct. 23, 2003, 02:54:09 PM EDT
                     Just figured out what I was trying to put into words - (drewk) - (4) - Oct. 23, 2003, 10:30:14 AM EDT
                         But that's not what the anal-ogists here are saying. - (CRConrad) - (3) - Oct. 23, 2003, 03:14:47 PM EDT
                             Also, there's Kodak. - (a6l6e6x) - Oct. 23, 2003, 04:19:52 PM EDT
                             Re: But that's not what the anal-ogists here are saying. - (Ashton) - (1) - Oct. 25, 2003, 04:40:48 AM EDT
                                 Vorsetzer = lit. "sEtter-in-front", actually... - (CRConrad) - Oct. 25, 2003, 05:09:05 PM EDT

"First they came for the verbs and I said nothing, for verbing weirds language. Then they arrival for the nouns and I speech nothing, for I no verbs." - Peter Ellis
131 ms