35mm film photography comeback?

On 4/7/2014 10:49 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <>, Andrea Rimicci
> <> wrote:
>
>>> some people like to collect old cameras and there are still some idiots
>>> who think it's better than digital, but that's about it.
>>
>> Compare film and digital is same as compare digital and analog audio.
>> There is no better or worse, they are two different things and each
>> one have its points for being used more than the other.
>
> digital audio is much better than analog audio. no question about that.
>
> the 'warm sound' of vinyl is distortion and can be added back (as can
> the clicks and pops), just as any particular film look can be emulated.
>

If the film look is as bd as you say, why emulate it?

--
PeterN

 

On 2014-04-09 00:00:16 +0000, PeterN <> said:

> On 4/7/2014 10:49 AM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <>, Andrea Rimicci
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>> some people like to collect old cameras and there are still some idiots
>>>> who think it's better than digital, but that's about it.
>>>
>>> Compare film and digital is same as compare digital and analog audio.
>>> There is no better or worse, they are two different things and each
>>> one have its points for being used more than the other.
>>
>> digital audio is much better than analog audio. no question about that.
>>
>> the 'warm sound' of vinyl is distortion and can be added back (as can
>> the clicks and pops), just as any particular film look can be emulated.
>>
>
> If the film look is as bd as you say, why emulate it?

Nostalgia.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

In article <>, PeterN
<> wrote:

> >>> and the cool thing about digital is iso is another parameter in
> >>> exposure, something you *can't* do with film. that opens up a world of
> >>> new opportunities.
> >>>
> >> This is not about film vs digital. It's about film as a tool for
> >> teaching art photography. Stop twisting.
> >
> > i'm not twisting anything. if you want to teach someone photography,
> > then do so with digital because it's not only more practical but it's
> > also much easier.
> >
> > teach the student what they need to know in the modern world, not what
> > their grandparents did.
>
> The influence of your opinion is why the good fine art instructors,
> teach using film cameras.

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

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.

> The object is to learn to use wht you have.

we have digital now.

> 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.

be sure to bring *one* 64 meg (not gig) card so you can only shoot a
few images. think of it as sheet film.

 

In article <>, PeterN
<> wrote:

> >>> some people like to collect old cameras and there are still some idiots
> >>> who think it's better than digital, but that's about it.
> >>
> >> Compare film and digital is same as compare digital and analog audio.
> >> There is no better or worse, they are two different things and each
> >> one have its points for being used more than the other.
> >
> > digital audio is much better than analog audio. no question about that.
> >
> > the 'warm sound' of vinyl is distortion and can be added back (as can
> > the clicks and pops), just as any particular film look can be emulated.
>
> If the film look is as bd as you say, why emulate it?

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.

 

On 4/8/2014 7:09 PM, John Turco wrote:
<snip>

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

Some still use them.

<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/CameraAwesomePhoto%20%281%29.jpg>



--
PeterN

 

On 4/9/2014 9:07 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <>, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>>>>> and the cool thing about digital is iso is another parameter in
>>>>> exposure, something you *can't* do with film. that opens up a world of
>>>>> new opportunities.
>>>>>
>>>> This is not about film vs digital. It's about film as a tool for
>>>> teaching art photography. Stop twisting.
>>>
>>> i'm not twisting anything. if you want to teach someone photography,
>>> then do so with digital because it's not only more practical but it's
>>> also much easier.
>>>
>>> teach the student what they need to know in the modern world, not what
>>> their grandparents did.
>>
>> The influence of your opinion is why the good fine art instructors,
>> teach using film cameras.
>
> not all of them and not for long for those who still do. it's a useless
> skill.
>
> 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.
>
>> The object is to learn to use wht you have.
>
> we have digital now.
>
>> 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.
>
> be sure to bring *one* 64 meg (not gig) card so you can only shoot a
> few images. think of it as sheet film.
>

Not on point. Before you take a good image, you must see the image.
they still teach log.

--
PeterN

 

On 4/8/2014 8:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2014-04-09 00:00:16 +0000, PeterN <> said:
>
>> On 4/7/2014 10:49 AM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <>, Andrea Rimicci
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> some people like to collect old cameras and there are still some
>>>>> idiots
>>>>> who think it's better than digital, but that's about it.
>>>>
>>>> Compare film and digital is same as compare digital and analog audio.
>>>> There is no better or worse, they are two different things and each
>>>> one have its points for being used more than the other.
>>>
>>> digital audio is much better than analog audio. no question about that.
>>>
>>> the 'warm sound' of vinyl is distortion and can be added back (as can
>>> the clicks and pops), just as any particular film look can be emulated.
>>>
>>
>> If the film look is as bd as you say, why emulate it?
>
> Nostalgia.
>
But that doesn't make them idiots, or Luddites.

--
PeterN

 

On 2014-04-09 23:44:19 +0000, PeterN <> said:

> On 4/8/2014 8:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2014-04-09 00:00:16 +0000, PeterN <> said:
>>
>>> On 4/7/2014 10:49 AM, nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <>, Andrea Rimicci
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> some people like to collect old cameras and there are still some
>>>>>> idiots
>>>>>> who think it's better than digital, but that's about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Compare film and digital is same as compare digital and analog audio.
>>>>> There is no better or worse, they are two different things and each
>>>>> one have its points for being used more than the other.
>>>>
>>>> digital audio is much better than analog audio. no question about that.
>>>>
>>>> the 'warm sound' of vinyl is distortion and can be added back (as can
>>>> the clicks and pops), just as any particular film look can be emulated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If the film look is as bd as you say, why emulate it?
>>
>> Nostalgia.
>>
> But that doesn't make them idiots, or Luddites.

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.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 5:04:49 AM UTC+10, nospam wrote:

>
> > > there's nothing bullshit about it. it's easier to teach photography
>
> > > with digital and more practical too.
>
> > Your kind of "photography", perhaps.
>
> > For true photography, the media used is immaterial.
>
>
>
> it's material when quality is a factor.

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



>
> there's much more to digital than just counting pixels. you keep
>
> demonstrating your ignorance.


Of your kind of "knowledge"? You got that right:
I plead immediate and total ignorance!

 

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 11:22:59 PM UTC+10, Mark Storkamp wrote:


> 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.

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.


>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Digital_camera_ISO_speed_and_exp
>
> osure_index>


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.


QED

 

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 5:04:50 AM UTC+10, nospam wrote:

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


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...


>
> try using a digital camera sometime before you say more stupid shit.

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


> > 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.
>
>
> not as effectively as getting it right the camera.


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


>
> otherwise the camera makers would just leave off the iso setting
> entirely.

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.

 

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 19:38:47 -0400, PeterN
<> wrote:

>On 4/8/2014 7:09 PM, John Turco wrote:
><snip>
>
>>
>> Press cameras (film) took many famous images of the 20th century. The
>> Graflex "Speed Graphic" was the most notable of those devices.
>>
>> John
>
>Some still use them.
>
><https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/CameraAwesomePhoto%20%281%29.jpg>

Woah! Fancy carting that thing around all day! Wonderful old piece of
kit, though! What was the build quality like?

 

On 2014-04-10, Cursitor Doom <> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 19:38:47 -0400, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>>On 4/8/2014 7:09 PM, John Turco wrote: <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> Press cameras (film) took many famous images of the 20th century.
>>> The Graflex "Speed Graphic" was the most notable of those devices.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>Some still use them.
>>
>><https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/CameraAwesomePhoto%20%281%29.jpg>
>
> Woah! Fancy carting that thing around all day! Wonderful old piece of
> kit, though! What was the build quality like?

I think they were designed and built to last forever <http://graflex.org/>

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

 

On 4/10/2014 12:20 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 19:38:47 -0400, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>> On 4/8/2014 7:09 PM, John Turco wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> Press cameras (film) took many famous images of the 20th century. The
>>> Graflex "Speed Graphic" was the most notable of those devices.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> Some still use them.
>>
>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/CameraAwesomePhoto%20%281%29.jpg>
>
> Woah! Fancy carting that thing around all day! Wonderful old piece of
> kit, though! What was the build quality like?
>

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

 

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 19:35:03 -0400, PeterN
<> wrote:


>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.

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. :-/

 

On 2014-04-11 19:37:29 +0000, Cursitor Doom <> said:

> On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 19:35:03 -0400, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
> 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. :-/

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 >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

In article <>, Cursitor Doom
<> wrote:

> 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. :-/

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.

 

On 2014-04-12, Scott Schuckert <> wrote:
> In article <>, Cursitor Doom
> <> wrote:
>
>> 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. :-/
>
> 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.

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

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
appropriate).

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

 

On 10/04/2014 9:42 AM, PeterN wrote:


> they still teach log.
>

Careful, his head might explode...

 

On 4/13/2014 6:12 AM, Noons wrote:
> On 10/04/2014 9:42 AM, PeterN wrote:
>
>
>> they still teach log.
>>
>
> Careful, his head might explode...

No chance of that. It's too far over his head.

--
PeterN