Anyone still shoot film?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Patrick L, Jan 25, 2010.

  1. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Peter Chant wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 1:28 AM:

    Because I'm fed up with folks who can't read and distort what is said.
    No. You asked a question making a statement attributed to me. It's very clear,
    quoted right at the top of this post. I never stated that.
    And also because Provia is far from being as saturated in colour as Astia is.
    Use Velvia. Contrast is *not* the same as saturation. If you can't understand
    that, I suggest you try to learn the basics of film imaging before jumping in
    with statemwents like that.



    Velvia does not give you more colour satutarion than Astia, it gives you more
    contrast. The two are not synonyms. Like I said: ignore the old chestnuts,
    Astia and Velvia are *not* what they were 10 years ago.
    There is no need for a middle option.

    You got it.
     
    Noons, Jan 31, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Michael Benveniste wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 1:29 AM:

    Yes, indeed. I think Fuji came out with a "reformulated" 800Z recently that
    avoids that problem somewhat. But I agree entirely. Will get a chance of
    trying out the new stuff soon.



    Thanks. 1/30 is a bit of a stretch handheld. But with a rangefinder, it's
    somewhat easier than with a slr.
     
    Noons, Jan 31, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 12:18 PM:
    See if you can understand basic language, dipshit. Scott claims he's seen *film
    images* sharper than mine. And never produced such evidence. Understand now,
    idiot? I don't give a fig about his digital images.

    That was not my response, moron.
    Exactly. And guess what: I still couldn't be bothered looking at it.

    I'm not even interested in "impressing" the likes of you, moron.
    Wanna lose another online storage site? It has happened before: where is your
    aol account now?
     
    Noons, Jan 31, 2010
  4. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/01/2010 1:43 PM:
    That one is not one of your images, just to clarify Brett's usual stupid comments.

    And it is far from sharp. That photo has been sharpened to enhance the grain
    and noise. Those were sharpened. Not the image under it, which is as fuzzy as
    can get.
    One day you will learn that the crap done 15 years ago does not stand as
    justification for what is being done now.
     
    Noons, Jan 31, 2010
  5. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 12:52 PM:

    Indeed. And I am glad you point out the 50D. One would think one of your
    "perfect" 15Mp cameras would do a better job of showing roof tiles than this:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4318740768/in/set-72157623175252697/
    or this:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4318007575/in/set-72157623175252697/

    What the heck happened to the tiles on the left slopes? Oh let me guess: they
    look like that, it's me who is imagining things?

    Of course: we are supposed to imagine that tiles get fuzzy if facing left, is it?

    Hey, blow it up to full size and look. But *look*, don't just imagine.


    Like I said so many times before: when you can show me whatever megapixels is
    the Canon marketing blast of the day that actually look like that across the
    entire frame, not just where it is convenient, you will convince me that I am
    looking at a consistent image.

    Until then, it's just the usual Canon fabricated mush.
    Well this is not 15Mp, in fact it's a jpg of a jpg with all that implies in
    losses, but it remains consistent:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4318727886/in/set-72157623175252697/

    Oh, before you start with the usual "it's soft and noisy" nonsense: the roof
    line in the distant left is corrugated iron. That's 2" corrugations at 100
    yeards and they still show detail. When your 15Mp can show 2" of detail at that
    distance, we'll talk.
    I wouldn't hold my breath, given it cannot show 5" inch wide tiles at half that,
    but hey: knock your socks off imagining you are seeing 15Mp.
     
    Noons, Jan 31, 2010
  6. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Paul Furman wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 1:30 PM:

    Nonono, that's not how it works, Paul!
    The normal sequence is for Scott to dump on film as being unable to go past
    6Mpixels.
    Then he's shown an image that clearly has much more than 6Mp across the entire
    frame, not just in choice spots. Which he promptly disses as "soft" and
    "dirty" (note the "detergent ad" similarity, oldest trick in the book) and
    downresses-upresses the jpg to "prove it has no detail".
    Never mind it's a jpg, and that's what jpg compression does, it destroys detail:
    already gone before he down-upresses!
    Of course: that is one detail about the entire "process" Scott is happy to lose...

    Then when he's shown he doesn't have a clue what film does nowadays, he jumps in
    with a "perfect" digital image to "prove" that digital is "better than film".
    Invariably, that "perfect" digital image is a stitched one.

    This is the pattern. It's happened before, many times.
    That's why I don't bother looking at the crap "evidence" he produces. Boring....

    Must be time to drum up some more Canon business, eh Scott? Sales numbers last
    year must have hurt... Just exactly how many new Canon dslr sales you think
    you're gonna get from drumming up the old "film is dirty" chestnut?
    May I suggest Canon boys concentrate on producing technology to counter
    micro4/3: it's the real "enemy", you know? Not film.

    Hey, you want to believe the nonsense Brett y sus muchachos put out about anyone
    who uncovers their lies, it's your choice. Meanwhile real photographers go on
    about their business, quietly ignoring these Usenet newsgroups.
     
    Noons, Jan 31, 2010
  7. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    K W Hart wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 3:39 AM:
    Wow! Good tip, thanks! It tends to "plate" out the bottom of the bottles where
    I keep it, but this one is even better!
     
    Noons, Jan 31, 2010
  8. Patrick L

    Bruce Guest


    No, not at all. My own preference is even shorter, at 85mm, but I see
    from the EXIF that it was 105mm, so I retract the comment.

    So rather than being the result of using a shorter lens, that must be
    what Obama really looks like. Eek!
     
    Bruce, Jan 31, 2010
  9. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 2:26 PM:
    Exactly. And I know you do post stitched images as if they were originals, many
    times.
    Good for you.
    So, let me see: if it had been stitched - which I wouldn't bother looking at -
    you wouldn't mind the questioning. But because it was not as you "proved" by
    posting the raw file, I am not entitled to then look at it and clearly point out
    where and why I don't think it is 15Mp? Which I did.

    You really have a weird way of arguing, Scott. Ever tried rational
    argumentation? You know, some folks swear by it.

    I'm not surprised you consider half-fuzzy roofs as true 15Mp digital imaging...
    Not even going into real detail anymore, those two were enough.

    Thank the gods you actually posted the stitched image so we could all see what
    the roof tiles look like. Otherwise I'm sure Brett would jump in swearing they
    look just like that...

    Indeed. Starting with you, Scott.
     
    Noons, Jan 31, 2010
  10. Patrick L

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    I'm not arguing about market shares, consumer choices (and gullibility).
    The masses make their choices, whether they're informed, rational or not.

    But you didn't answer my question: Do you sell digital cameras, own
    stock in digital camera companies or otherwise have a personal interest
    in promoting digital and putting film down every chance you get?
     
    Rol_Lei Nut, Jan 31, 2010
  11. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 1/02/2010 3:50 AM:
    Yeah, I'm sure the large numbers of pros who shoot sports are part of the memo
    from Canon on increasing market share: it's such a large market segment, after
    all...
    Oh, and do they shoot presidents now as well?
     
    Noons, Jan 31, 2010
  12. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 1/02/2010 3:46 AM:
    <yaaaaawnnn>
     
    Noons, Jan 31, 2010
  13. Patrick L

    Paul Furman Guest

    Oh, I just remembered, this photog did a set of portraits of all of
    Obama's staff, and they were all very stark/candid. White background and
    two reflector umbrellas, many had a prop of their choosing and were not
    posed by the photog, just left to stand as they chose. Mostly they were
    not flattering, more like candids.
     
    Paul Furman, Jan 31, 2010
  14. Patrick L

    Bruce Guest


    I remember those. The portrait of Hillary Clinton was particularly
    unflattering.

    Perhaps this particular photographer specialises in unflattering
    portraits?
     
    Bruce, Jan 31, 2010
  15. Patrick L

    Bruce Guest


    If it really is the same photographer, then yes, he probably forgot.

    If he was also responsible for the disappointing "candid" portraits of
    other members of the Obama team, as has been suggested here, then yes,
    he *definitely* forgot. ;-)

    Given the number of years that have elapsed since Reagan;s
    presidential term, the photographer must be getting quite old - unless
    of course he was very young for the role in Reagan's time.
     
    Bruce, Jan 31, 2010
  16. Patrick L

    Peter Chant Guest

    I did not distort. So why act like I did?
    OK, here was what I wrote:

    "If Astia's not got enough colour for you why not go for Provia?"

    OK, it can be read to appear to be a question to yourself. However, your
    offence of the miss-placed word "you" is grossly disproportionate. What in
    the sentence suggesting use of Provia is so offensive that you need to
    respond so strongly? Also note, that it can also be read, as it was
    intended, that "you" refers to the reader.

    Simple typo. Your last sentence is unnecessarily and condescending.
    Fair comment that technologies have changed. Certainly I never got along
    the old Velvia 50 (before Velvia was temporarily discontinued), Highlights
    would blowout with very little provocation. I got on much better with the
    newer stuff.

    However, on the subject of colour saturation, Astia versus Velvia, how do
    you draw that conclusion:

    http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/color_reversalfilms/astia_100f/
    "Superb Color Fidelity"

    http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/color_reversalfilms/velvia_100f/
    "Color Reproduction with Ultra-high Color Saturation"

    http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/color_reversalfilms/velvia_100/
    "Ultrahigh-saturation Color Reproduction"

    Reading the write-ups by Fuji it would seem that, as I said, Velvia has more
    saturation than Astia.
    Why not? A middle option is perfectly valid. Someone may prefer BW, vivid
    colour or more neutral colours.
     
    Peter Chant, Feb 1, 2010
  17. Patrick L

    Paul Furman Guest

    He didn't do Reagan's official portrait, just some other more
    journalistic assistant type work for Reagan. I get the sense that he has
    a reporter style to his work. More modern and stark than a traditional
    portrait photog. Maybe that's fine, Obama wants to project a transparent
    image, not warm fuzzies & BS.. or not... <g>. Perhaps he should have
    farmed out the official portrait part to someone with more Hollywood
    flare & style, or not... I think the staff candids were effective in
    regards to the idea of transparency and lack of BS. They say: 'these are
    real people.' I like that honesty and frankness, and I suppose the same
    applies to the official portrait although it *is* posed so comes off as
    a sort of lame compromise. He submitted to the same harsh flat lighting
    but got time to pose and was allowed a swarm of makeup artists adjusting
    his collar just so...


    Um, OK I was mistaken, the candid portraits were by Nadav Kander, not
    Pete Souza, the offical White House photographer.

    http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/magazine/2009-inauguration-gallery/index.html
    http://www.nadavkander.com/
    Kander = candor ??? :)
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 1, 2010
  18. Patrick L

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Oh, okay. I spent 3 minutes at Google, didn't find a photo credit for
    Reagan's, and gave up, assuming it was him. :)
    These are what the staff pictures *should* be:

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/03/obama-portfolio200903
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 1, 2010
  19. Literary/TV reference: Harry Turner's "Hell's Bells," and the 1971 Night
    Gallery adaptation. Super brief summary/spoiler: There's an infinite
    slide show chamber in both Hell _and_ Heaven.

    Long timer, yes, this note is a rerun:
    http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/874ef8dc2e8554e4?hl=en
     
    Michael Benveniste, Feb 1, 2010
  20. Update: Available on Hulu:
    http://snipurl.com/u8qme
     
    Michael Benveniste, Feb 1, 2010
    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.