35mm film photography comeback?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Cursitor Doom, Apr 5, 2014.

  1. Cursitor Doom

    Guest Guest

    it still takes skill, and judging by your attitude, you don't have any.
    they still do. that hasn't changed with digital.
    which camera does everything, including taking 'money shots' completely
    automatically without the need for a photographer?

    oh yea, there aren't any. digital cameras still need a human to compose
    the shot and take the photo, including with the impeccable timing you
    say is needed. digital doesn't change that.
     
    Guest, Apr 8, 2014
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Cursitor Doom

    Noons Guest

    Not really. But there is always hope that their brains will have more
    than two cells...

    Your kind of "photography", perhaps.
    For true photography, the media used is immaterial.
    But I don't expect you to grok even the basics of that.
    So, keep counting pixels: it's extremely gratifying.

    BWAHAHAHAHA!
     
    Noons, Apr 8, 2014
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Cursitor Doom

    Noons Guest

    Dunno, If you recall, the expression "ISO in digital" was not injected
    by me. Check again: it's right at the top here, first sentence. Not mine.
     
    Noons, Apr 8, 2014
    #63
  4. Cursitor Doom

    Noons Guest

    I'd have stopped now: you've embarrassed yourself enough already...

    I said: stop now. It's REALLY embarrassing...



    Yegawds! No wonder folks are moving away from Nikon in droves!
     
    Noons, Apr 8, 2014
    #64
  5. Cursitor Doom

    Noons Guest

    Listen, ingnoramus: NO DIGITAL CAMERA changes the ISO!
    It's a fixed feature of the sensor, at design/manufacturing time.
    What changes is how the RAW data is treated and converted.
    And THAT can be equated to the traditional ISO to make it easier to
    understand for imbeciles like you.
    But it has NOTHING to do with a dynamic parameter of the exposure.
    With a RAW file, you can "change the ISO" for ANY frame of a digital
    camera, AFTER the exposure has been taken.

    Crap, but you are an ignorant imbecile, aren't you?

    Actually, you can affect the entire roll with development that treats
    each frame differently. But don't stress too much to grok it, you might
    cause your head to explode...
    I never said that, arsehole.
     
    Noons, Apr 8, 2014
    #65
  6. Not entirely true. The gain of the amplifier reading the cell charges
    and feeding the ADC can be changed. The RAW data is the output of the
    ADC. But since RAW data is usually at least 12 bits deep, you may get a
    couple of stops of latitude out of it.

    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Digital_camera_ISO_speed_and_exp
    osure_index>
     
    Mark Storkamp, Apr 8, 2014
    #66
  7. Total rubbish. I've acknowledged the superiority of digital cameras
    elsewhere in this thread. To catch that vital split second that gives
    a shot impact is FAR, FAR easier with digital. Any fool can do it. You
    have burst-firing modes that knock the performance of the old film
    motor drives into a cocked hat.
    I'll bet you any money you like that in a public poll of say the 10
    most arresting, impactful shots of all time from anywhere in the
    world, NONE of them will have been taken with a digital camera. They
    will, in all probability, be B&W photographs taken with 35mm film
    cameras by REAL pro photographers who knew their field down to a fine
    art and excelled in it to the highest degree.
    You can denigrate the old analog cameras as much as you like for all I
    care but I don't much like your disparaging attitude towards the
    supremely skilled individuals who used them and changed the way people
    see the world with the stunning pictures they took. "Old farts"
    indeed. What a nerve.
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 8, 2014
    #67
  8. Cursitor Doom

    philo  Guest



    "nospam" is obviously a troll
    I would not bother arguing with the idjit.
     
    philo , Apr 8, 2014
    #68
  9. Cursitor Doom

    Guest Guest

    that's because there was no digital at the time they were taken. they
    had no choice.

    the main reason they shot b/w is because b/w was much faster to
    processes and newspapers were almost always b/w. that's yet another
    limitation that no longer exists.

    had there been digital, they would have taken it with digital, had much
    better results and in colour too.
     
    Guest, Apr 8, 2014
    #69
  10. Cursitor Doom

    Guest Guest


    "nospam" is obviously a troll
    I would not bother arguing with the idjit.[/QUOTE]

    translated: nothing to refute what i said.
     
    Guest, Apr 8, 2014
    #70
  11. Cursitor Doom

    Guest Guest

    Your kind of "photography", perhaps.
    For true photography, the media used is immaterial.[/QUOTE]

    it's material when quality is a factor.
    there's much more to digital than just counting pixels. you keep
    demonstrating your ignorance.
     
    Guest, Apr 8, 2014
    #71
  12. Cursitor Doom

    Guest Guest

    Listen, ingnoramus: NO DIGITAL CAMERA changes the ISO!
    It's a fixed feature of the sensor, at design/manufacturing time.
    What changes is how the RAW data is treated and converted.
    And THAT can be equated to the traditional ISO to make it easier to
    understand for imbeciles like you.[/QUOTE]

    none of that matters to the user. the fact is that digital cameras have
    an iso setting which affects the image.

    try using a digital camera sometime before you say more stupid shit.
    not as effectively as getting it right the camera.

    otherwise the camera makers would just leave off the iso setting
    entirely.
     
    Guest, Apr 8, 2014
    #72
  13. Indeed. Certainly seems like a wind-up artist of some sort. "nobrain"
    would be a better name.
    Probably a 13yr old who takes piccies of himself with his phone and
    uploads the shots to Farcebook a dozen times a day.
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 8, 2014
    #73
  14. Cursitor Doom

    philo  Guest



    I had him in my KF a while back but had forgotten.
    He's not a 13 year old kid, just someone who can do nothing but argue.

    Probably a Congressman .
     
    philo , Apr 8, 2014
    #74
  15. Cursitor Doom

    Guest Guest

    wrong on all counts and still no sign of anything to refute what i
    said. just insults.
     
    Guest, Apr 8, 2014
    #75
  16. Cursitor Doom

    John Turco Guest


    Press cameras (film) took many famous images of the 20th century. The
    Graflex "Speed Graphic" was the most notable of those devices.

    John
     
    John Turco, Apr 9, 2014
    #76
  17. Cursitor Doom

    John Turco Guest


    I disagree; he ("nospam") contributes to lots of the lively discussions,
    in these photography newsgroups. He's quite knowledgeable and also,
    a good writer -- despite the fact he totally ignores his "Shift" and
    "CapsLock" keys.

    Personally, I would hate to see him go.

    John
     
    John Turco, Apr 9, 2014
    #77
  18. Cursitor Doom

    philo  Guest

    Keep on reading his posts if you wish, that's fine with me...but I'm
    not going to waste my time with him, he has trolled way too often.
     
    philo , Apr 9, 2014
    #78
  19. Cursitor Doom

    PeterN Guest

    The influence of your opinion is why the good fine art instructors,
    teach using film cameras. The object is to learn to use wht you have.
    Lots of times I and some of my friends go out to shoot, using one lens
    and agree to use only one ISO setting. It is a great exercise in seeing.
     
    PeterN, Apr 9, 2014
    #79
  20. Cursitor Doom

    PeterN Guest

    too bad you cannot support your claim. to bad you pontificate how the
    rest of the world should behave.
     
    PeterN, Apr 9, 2014
    #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.