35mm film photography comeback?

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

  1. Cursitor Doom

    PeterN Guest

    If the film look is as bd as you say, why emulate it?
    PeterN, Apr 9, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Cursitor Doom

    Savageduck Guest

    Savageduck, Apr 9, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Cursitor Doom

    Guest Guest

    not all of them and not for long for those who still do. it's a useless

    they don't teach engineering students how to build amplifiers that use
    vacuum tubes nor do they teach them how to use slide rules either.
    we have digital now.
    be sure to bring *one* 64 meg (not gig) card so you can only shoot a
    few images. think of it as sheet film.
    Guest, Apr 9, 2014
  4. Cursitor Doom

    Guest Guest

    some people are used to how film looks or they just want a certain look
    for an effect. maybe they want it to look vintage.

    quality-wise, it's a step backwards.
    Guest, Apr 9, 2014
  5. Cursitor Doom

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, Apr 10, 2014
  6. Cursitor Doom

    PeterN Guest

    Not on point. Before you take a good image, you must see the image.
    they still teach log.
    PeterN, Apr 10, 2014
  7. Cursitor Doom

    PeterN Guest

    But that doesn't make them idiots, or Luddites.
    PeterN, Apr 10, 2014
  8. Cursitor Doom

    Savageduck Guest

    Nope, just folks who find something expressive and appealing in the
    photographic work from the era of the great 20th Century pioneers who
    laid the foundations of much of what we strive for today.
    Savageduck, Apr 10, 2014
  9. Cursitor Doom

    Noons Guest

    "quality" is NEVER a factor for the art of photography.

    Of your kind of "knowledge"? You got that right:
    I plead immediate and total ignorance!
    Noons, Apr 10, 2014
  10. Cursitor Doom

    Noons Guest

    There is no way in the world we can change the gain of an individual pixel.. The most a sensor can do is increase the gain of an amplifier of the WHOLE output of an entire row and column of pixels, and for that you need to go into the realm of pro-dslrs. None of the amateur ones or p&s do that. It can introduce horrendous processing problems down the line and is why cameras using these use a special "Hi" gain setting. Which is clearly reserved for "last resort" cases. In pro-class dslrs.

    The vast majority of p&s and other digital cameras simply do not do any of that.

    Raw data is nowadays almost all the time 14 bits, if not more. Which is plenty enough to "create" the astronomical ISOs that seem so important for some folks.

    For those of us not so concerned with pixels and bits and more concerned with basics of *real* photography such as lighting, contrast and colour saturation, the solution is simple: control the exposure with aperture and shutter speed so that the sensor can do its magic of setting ISO as needed/possible/reliable by using a sufficient and significant amount of A-to-D to avoid analog amplification noise concerns.

    Yes, very much so.
    Original and commented areas highlighted below:

    "The usual design is that the camera's parameters for interpreting the sensor data values into sRGB values are *FIXED*(as in: they are a property of the sensor and NOT a property of amplification), and *A NUMBER* (but not all!) of different EI choices are accommodated by varying the *SENSOR'S SIGNALGAIN* (the ENTIRE SENSOR's gain, NOT the gain of EACH pixel!) in the analog realm, prior to conversion to digital.
    *SOME* ("some" means some. It doesn't mean ALL!) camera designs provide at least some EI choices by adjusting the sensor's signal gain *IN THE DIGITALREALM* (in other words, they manipulate the RAW file data AFTER A-to-D conversion, not before - precisely what I said!). *A FEW*("a few" means some, NOT all!) camera designs also provide EI adjustment through a choice of lightness parameters for the interpretation of sensor data values into sRGB (again: digital number manipulation of data AFTER A-to-D); *THIS VARIATION*(aka, HDR and "D-lighting") allows different tradeoffs between the range of highlights that can be captured and the amount of noise introduced into the shadow areas of the photo."

    Like I said: the majority of digital ISO "gain" is done by manipulating howthe digital data - after A-to-D conversion - is calculated and stored. That has NOTHING to do with "amplifier gains" anywhere! Most analog amplifiers WILL introduce SERIOUS noise and distortion if their gain is pushed too far - hence why that technique is reserved only for advanced and pro-level cameras.

    Noons, Apr 10, 2014
  11. Cursitor Doom

    Noons Guest

    So now it's "what matters to the user"? As opposed to "the photographer"?
    Funny how the requirements keep changing depending on what bullshit needs to be pushed...

    I have been using digital cameras for 15 years, moron! That is very likely longer than you have.

    which has NOTHING to do with the ISO and all to do with aperture and shutter speed.

    No they wouldn't. For exactly the same reasons they never leave out the number of megapixels, even though that is mostly irrelevant nowadays:
    it is terribly important for morons like you who love the "bigger is better" nonsense.
    Noons, Apr 10, 2014
  12. Cursitor Doom, Apr 10, 2014
  13. Cursitor Doom

    Whiskers Guest

    I think they were designed and built to last forever <http://graflex.org/>
    Whiskers, Apr 10, 2014
  14. Cursitor Doom

    PeterN Guest

    He has several of them, for which he uses Polaroid film. But he enjoys
    using that oldie. I once asked him what he would do when he runs out of
    film. He said he had only two freezers full of Polaroid film.
    PeterN, Apr 11, 2014
  15. Amazing! Just wondering why the large format, though? I mean, these
    people were only shooting for newspapers in the main, so I don't see
    the need for such huge negs. :-/
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 11, 2014
  16. Cursitor Doom

    Savageduck Guest

    Rugged construction if the camera, and image quality was a fringe
    benefit of the large format.
    Not only were they used for newspapers, they also found their way into
    combat zones along with Leicas, C2's, & C3's, even into the mid-1950's.
    Here is a Speed Graphic shot from the South West Pacific in 1944.
    < https://db.tt/FnlPOj1D >
    Savageduck, Apr 11, 2014
  17. A variety of reasons, probably. Film emulsions weren't what they later
    became; 35mm cameras were widely regarded as toys. Inertia probably
    played a large part, and (I think) the quality of the image was more
    important then than now.

    Having shot with them, a big old press camera, lens stopped down and
    the subject blasted with a #22 flash bulb, couldn't help but capture
    every possible detail.
    Scott Schuckert, Apr 12, 2014
  18. Cursitor Doom

    Whiskers Guest

    I'm reminded of the old 'two rules of press photography': "F/8 and be

    Larger contact prints (or even negatives if you're in a real hurry) are
    much easier to assess than little ones. They also require little or no
    enlarging for the final print, and there's enough detail recorded for
    heavy cropping - so the photographer doesn't need to carry so many
    lenses. The bellows in the camera body also means that long lenses
    don't need long barrels, which makes them easier to carry about. Any
    dust or damage on the lens or film will be proportionally much smaller
    in relation to the final image than the same dirt or damage on a
    miniature camera, so handling at every stage is much easier.

    Shooting 'sheet film' in double-sided film holders means the
    photographer can annotate each frame - and bung it into a taxi to get
    the 'scoop' back to base without having to leave the scene or unload and
    reload roll-film to continue photographing. The dark-room can also rush
    the processing of that one frame, saving even more time. (But a press
    camera can of course be fitted with a roll-film back if that's more
    Whiskers, Apr 12, 2014
  19. Cursitor Doom

    Noons Guest

    Careful, his head might explode...
    Noons, Apr 13, 2014
  20. Cursitor Doom

    PeterN Guest

    No chance of that. It's too far over his head.
    PeterN, Apr 13, 2014
    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.