Bought a Nikon 35mm film camera sight blind at auction today....

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Cursitor Doom, Apr 19, 2014.

  1. On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:33:03 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, cjt <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >> >> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.
    >> >
    >> > Please provide even one single quality that Kodachrome had that
    >> > is not available in every single top of the line DSLR being
    >> > produced today. For that matter, even 2nd and 3rd level DSLR's
    >> > today...

    >>
    >> lack of granularity

    >
    >digital has no grain.


    Nonsense. Even more ridiculous when you compare the sublime results
    one gets with 25 speed Ektachrome vs. the flat, contrastless rubbish
    of18Mp digital. Slow emulsion wins the quality battle hands down every
    time.
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 21, 2014
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:31:41 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, cjt <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.

    >
    >digital can emulate kodachrome, along with whatever other film you
    >want, and even do so from the same original image. choose the film
    >*after* you take the photo.
    >
    >or you can not emulate film and enjoy the higher quality of digital.


    Your digital cameras still lack any sense of quality in handling. They
    feel cheap and plasticy. They comprehensively lack any semblance of
    gravitas.
    There is simply no comparison in build quality between the best
    digitals of today and the best analogs of yesteryear. End of.
    (I wish, but I suspect not).
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 21, 2014
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Cursitor Doom
    <> wrote:

    > >> >> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.
    > >> >
    > >> > Please provide even one single quality that Kodachrome had that
    > >> > is not available in every single top of the line DSLR being
    > >> > produced today. For that matter, even 2nd and 3rd level DSLR's
    > >> > today...
    > >>
    > >> lack of granularity

    > >
    > >digital has no grain.

    >
    > Nonsense.


    it's not nonsense.

    digital does *not* have grain. period. anyone claiming that it does is
    mistaken.

    > Even more ridiculous when you compare the sublime results
    > one gets with 25 speed Ektachrome vs. the flat, contrastless rubbish
    > of18Mp digital.


    if you are getting 'flat contrastless rubbish' then you are doing
    something very, very wrong.

    furthermore, 18mp cameras are relatively old. entry level slrs are 24mp
    with top of the line slrs currently at 36mp. for medium format, 80mp
    backs are available.

    any of those will surpass iso 25 ektachrome in resolution, dynamic
    range, colour accuracy and overall image quality without even trying
    very hard.

    > Slow emulsion wins the quality battle hands down every
    > time.


    only when pitched against fast emulsions.

    when compared to digital, it will lose.

    that is, unless you have no idea what you're doing, which would be the
    only way you could get 'flat contrastless rubbish' from a digital
    camera.
     
    nospam, Apr 21, 2014
    #23
  4. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Cursitor Doom
    <> wrote:

    > >> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.

    > >
    > >digital can emulate kodachrome, along with whatever other film you
    > >want, and even do so from the same original image. choose the film
    > >*after* you take the photo.
    > >
    > >or you can not emulate film and enjoy the higher quality of digital.

    >
    > Your digital cameras still lack any sense of quality in handling. They
    > feel cheap and plasticy. They comprehensively lack any semblance of
    > gravitas.
    > There is simply no comparison in build quality between the best
    > digitals of today and the best analogs of yesteryear. End of.
    > (I wish, but I suspect not).


    complete nonsense.

    first of all, there were plenty of cheap plasticy film cameras,
    including ones made out of cardboard (disposables).

    second, many digital cameras are *very* well built, with the nikon d4
    and canon 1dx being among the best of the best.

    top of the line and many midrange slrs have extensive weather sealing,
    far more reliable shutter mechanisms and faster frame rates than older
    film cameras. the autofocus system is also much faster and more capable
    plus the cameras are much easier to use too.

    nikon f5 film slr users could only set custom settings by number.
    either you carried a cheat sheet or you didn't bother. that makes it
    much harder to use than any digital camera with its text based menu
    system, even the cheap ones.

    <http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/NikonF5/images/
    custom_setting_F5.jpg>

    now remind me again which film camera has a 51 point autofocus system
    that can track subject motion based on its colour and can shoot 11 fps
    while doing so, as well as having live view which means no need to
    contort to look into the viewfinder and 100% focus accuracy too.

    oh yea, no such film camera exists. so much for being better.

    and then there's flash. nikon i-ttl is far more capable than the older
    ttl on film cameras.

    but there are still those who refuse any type of change. they are stuck
    in the past.
     
    nospam, Apr 21, 2014
    #24
  5. Cursitor Doom

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.04.20, 20:05 , cjt wrote:
    > On 04/20/2014 06:45 PM, nospam wrote:
    >> In article <>, Cursitor Doom
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Some F's had a rough life.
    >>>> < https://db.tt/ZnGtspdz >
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> And I'll bet it STILL takes great pictures - unlike a modern digital.
    >>> ;-)

    >>
    >> then you'd lose. a not so modern digital slr takes better pictures than
    >> any film nikon slr ever could, nevermind the modern ones, which compare
    >> with medium format film.
    >>

    > "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.


    K-chrome looking images can be derived from any raw image on a decent
    DSLR using a variety of post processing plugins or procedures. There is
    no magic there. And no, it does not need to be "exact" it just needs to
    evoke an impression.

    Anyone who believes film is superior to high quality digital cameras is
    deluded by nostalgia or some effete belief that the hard way is the
    better way. The best photographers today have skills both technical and
    artistic. Being a visual media, the later is much more important.

    If you want a film look, nothing beats shooting in film.

    But for 99 other reasons, it's far better to shoot digital than film,
    not the least of them being feedback and a lot more margin to experiment
    (in material, time and money terms), low noise at high ISO, low cost,
    much easier "development", ad infinitum. People can go from image to
    print - and only those images they want to print - in very little time.
    (Or image to web, or e-mail or whatever...).

    That does not mean that film does not have a place - I still shoot it
    when moved to do so - but getting E-6 processed now is a longer and
    longer cycle, has expense and I still need to scan it to print it. (I
    don't have a MF projector alas...)

    As the 'duck points out it's mighty hard to even get K anymore - never
    mind processing it.

    --
    "Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
    but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
    -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 21, 2014
    #25
  6. Cursitor Doom

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.04.21, 11:16 , Cursitor Doom wrote:

    > Your digital cameras still lack any sense of quality in handling. They
    > feel cheap and plasticy. They comprehensively lack any semblance of
    > gravitas.


    Not that it matters all that much, but high end DSLRs (like mine) are
    metal framed and somewhat heavy. They are not as massive as, eg, an F4,
    but that's because metal camera frames are now cast rather than machined
    in order to be less bulky and lighter - and just as strong if not stronger.

    --
    "Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
    but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
    -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 21, 2014
    #26
  7. Cursitor Doom

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.04.20, 20:31 , nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> There is a very good reason that Kodachrome is no longer even
    >> produced, and that it can no longer be processed.

    >
    > the reason is mostly the complexity of kodachrome processing.


    It was simply a business decision. Not enough people were using it once
    digital got to a certain quality level.

    --
    "Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
    but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
    -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 21, 2014
    #27
  8. Cursitor Doom

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.04.21, 09:10 , nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, cjt <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>>>>> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Please provide even one single quality that Kodachrome had that
    >>>>> is not available in every single top of the line DSLR being
    >>>>> produced today. For that matter, even 2nd and 3rd level DSLR's
    >>>>> today...
    >>>>
    >>>> lack of granularity
    >>>
    >>> digital has no grain.
    >>>

    >> I would have said it has regular rectangular/square grain known as pixels.

    >
    > pixels are not the same as grain.


    Of course they are. That is the granularity of digital in x/y. The
    more "variable" part of it is content and noise (z).

    Digital has the advantage that no matter what the iso, the x/y
    dimensions of grain are contained, but the z axis gets noisier
    (grainier) with higher ISO.

    Film, of course, gets noisier (grainier) in x,y and z with higher ISO.

    --
    "Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
    but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
    -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 21, 2014
    #28
  9. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > >> There is a very good reason that Kodachrome is no longer even
    > >> produced, and that it can no longer be processed.

    > >
    > > the reason is mostly the complexity of kodachrome processing.

    >
    > It was simply a business decision. Not enough people were using it once
    > digital got to a certain quality level.


    kodachrome's use was dropping before digital, as was the number of
    places that processed it. it was far too complex for smaller labs and
    just about every shop sent it out somewhere, which eventually became
    just one lab, dwayne's.

    also, consumers wanted prints more than they did slides and videotape
    all but killed kodachrome movie film, and this was before digital.

    digital just accelerated what was already happening, and not just
    kodachrome. a *lot* of film processing places are gone as are many
    camera stores, namely the ones where film processing was a large part
    of their revenue.
     
    nospam, Apr 21, 2014
    #29
  10. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > >>>>>> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Please provide even one single quality that Kodachrome had that
    > >>>>> is not available in every single top of the line DSLR being
    > >>>>> produced today. For that matter, even 2nd and 3rd level DSLR's
    > >>>>> today...
    > >>>>
    > >>>> lack of granularity
    > >>>
    > >>> digital has no grain.
    > >>>
    > >> I would have said it has regular rectangular/square grain known as pixels.

    > >
    > > pixels are not the same as grain.

    >
    > Of course they are. That is the granularity of digital in x/y. The
    > more "variable" part of it is content and noise (z).


    they are not.

    grain is random clumps and varying size in an irregular pattern and
    varies with iso and even processing.

    digital is always going to have the same number and size pixels for a
    given camera. the only thing that varies is noise based on iso.

    > Digital has the advantage that no matter what the iso, the x/y
    > dimensions of grain are contained, but the z axis gets noisier
    > (grainier) with higher ISO.


    pixels, not grain.

    > Film, of course, gets noisier (grainier) in x,y and z with higher ISO.


    which is why it's different.
     
    nospam, Apr 21, 2014
    #30
  11. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > >>> And I'll bet it STILL takes great pictures - unlike a modern digital.
    > >>> ;-)
    > >>
    > >> then you'd lose. a not so modern digital slr takes better pictures than
    > >> any film nikon slr ever could, nevermind the modern ones, which compare
    > >> with medium format film.
    > >>

    > > "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.

    >
    > K-chrome looking images can be derived from any raw image on a decent
    > DSLR using a variety of post processing plugins or procedures. There is
    > no magic there. And no, it does not need to be "exact" it just needs to
    > evoke an impression.
    >
    > Anyone who believes film is superior to high quality digital cameras is
    > deluded by nostalgia or some effete belief that the hard way is the
    > better way. The best photographers today have skills both technical and
    > artistic. Being a visual media, the later is much more important.
    >
    > If you want a film look, nothing beats shooting in film.


    shooting digital and emulating film does. you can still get the 'film
    look' with all of the advantages of digital and best of all, you can
    choose which film you would have wanted to use at any time, long after
    the photo was taken.

    > But for 99 other reasons, it's far better to shoot digital than film,
    > not the least of them being feedback and a lot more margin to experiment
    > (in material, time and money terms), low noise at high ISO, low cost,
    > much easier "development", ad infinitum. People can go from image to
    > print - and only those images they want to print - in very little time.
    > (Or image to web, or e-mail or whatever...).


    all true.

    > That does not mean that film does not have a place - I still shoot it
    > when moved to do so - but getting E-6 processed now is a longer and
    > longer cycle, has expense and I still need to scan it to print it. (I
    > don't have a MF projector alas...)
    >
    > As the 'duck points out it's mighty hard to even get K anymore - never
    > mind processing it.


    it can only be processed as b/w now.
     
    nospam, Apr 21, 2014
    #31
  12. Cursitor Doom

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.04.21, 13:36 , nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>>>> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Please provide even one single quality that Kodachrome had that
    >>>>>>> is not available in every single top of the line DSLR being
    >>>>>>> produced today. For that matter, even 2nd and 3rd level DSLR's
    >>>>>>> today...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> lack of granularity
    >>>>>
    >>>>> digital has no grain.
    >>>>>
    >>>> I would have said it has regular rectangular/square grain known as pixels.
    >>>
    >>> pixels are not the same as grain.

    >>
    >> Of course they are. That is the granularity of digital in x/y. The
    >> more "variable" part of it is content and noise (z).

    >
    > they are not.
    >
    > grain is random clumps and varying size in an irregular pattern and
    > varies with iso and even processing.
    >
    > digital is always going to have the same number and size pixels for a
    > given camera. the only thing that varies is noise based on iso.


    That is the nature of its grain. Regular in 2 dimensions and noise in
    the other.

    >
    >> Digital has the advantage that no matter what the iso, the x/y
    >> dimensions of grain are contained, but the z axis gets noisier
    >> (grainier) with higher ISO.

    >
    > pixels, not grain.


    Same thing - you're just hung up on words. Again.

    >
    >> Film, of course, gets noisier (grainier) in x,y and z with higher ISO.

    >
    > which is why it's different.


    Only in the respect of fixed x,y dimension.

    --
    "Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
    but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
    -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 21, 2014
    #32
  13. Cursitor Doom

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.04.21, 13:36 , nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> And I'll bet it STILL takes great pictures - unlike a modern digital.
    >>>>> ;-)
    >>>>
    >>>> then you'd lose. a not so modern digital slr takes better pictures than
    >>>> any film nikon slr ever could, nevermind the modern ones, which compare
    >>>> with medium format film.
    >>>>
    >>> "Modern digital" still doesn't have anything like Kodachrome.

    >>
    >> K-chrome looking images can be derived from any raw image on a decent
    >> DSLR using a variety of post processing plugins or procedures. There is
    >> no magic there. And no, it does not need to be "exact" it just needs to
    >> evoke an impression.
    >>
    >> Anyone who believes film is superior to high quality digital cameras is
    >> deluded by nostalgia or some effete belief that the hard way is the
    >> better way. The best photographers today have skills both technical and
    >> artistic. Being a visual media, the later is much more important.
    >>
    >> If you want a film look, nothing beats shooting in film.

    >
    > shooting digital and emulating film does. you can still get the 'film
    > look' with all of the advantages of digital and best of all, you can
    > choose which film you would have wanted to use at any time, long after
    > the photo was taken.


    While digital effects can evoke that look, even extremely well in many
    cases, the most accurate representation of it will be film.

    Is it worth the effort to use film for the film look if the objective of
    the shoot has many other required factors? Not in the vast majority of
    cases.

    >> But for 99 other reasons, it's far better to shoot digital than film,
    >> not the least of them being feedback and a lot more margin to experiment
    >> (in material, time and money terms), low noise at high ISO, low cost,
    >> much easier "development", ad infinitum. People can go from image to
    >> print - and only those images they want to print - in very little time.
    >> (Or image to web, or e-mail or whatever...).

    >
    > all true.
    >
    >> That does not mean that film does not have a place - I still shoot it
    >> when moved to do so - but getting E-6 processed now is a longer and
    >> longer cycle, has expense and I still need to scan it to print it. (I
    >> don't have a MF projector alas...)
    >>
    >> As the 'duck points out it's mighty hard to even get K anymore - never
    >> mind processing it.

    >
    > it can only be processed as b/w now.


    Is anyone doing that actively? I'm just curious - I suppose unused
    stock of film could go that way.

    And by the way, in the issue of RGB v. Lab, pls. reply to my post asking
    which file you saw the stitch pattern in.


    --
    "Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
    but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
    -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 21, 2014
    #33
  14. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > >>>> I would have said it has regular rectangular/square grain known as
    > >>>> pixels.
    > >>>
    > >>> pixels are not the same as grain.
    > >>
    > >> Of course they are. That is the granularity of digital in x/y. The
    > >> more "variable" part of it is content and noise (z).

    > >
    > > they are not.
    > >
    > > grain is random clumps and varying size in an irregular pattern and
    > > varies with iso and even processing.
    > >
    > > digital is always going to have the same number and size pixels for a
    > > given camera. the only thing that varies is noise based on iso.

    >
    > That is the nature of its grain. Regular in 2 dimensions and noise in
    > the other.


    which makes it different.

    > >> Digital has the advantage that no matter what the iso, the x/y
    > >> dimensions of grain are contained, but the z axis gets noisier
    > >> (grainier) with higher ISO.

    > >
    > > pixels, not grain.

    >
    > Same thing - you're just hung up on words. Again.


    not at all. they're different, both in looks and characteristics.

    > >> Film, of course, gets noisier (grainier) in x,y and z with higher ISO.

    > >
    > > which is why it's different.

    >
    > Only in the respect of fixed x,y dimension.


    i.e., different.
     
    nospam, Apr 21, 2014
    #34
  15. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > >> If you want a film look, nothing beats shooting in film.

    > >
    > > shooting digital and emulating film does. you can still get the 'film
    > > look' with all of the advantages of digital and best of all, you can
    > > choose which film you would have wanted to use at any time, long after
    > > the photo was taken.

    >
    > While digital effects can evoke that look, even extremely well in many
    > cases, the most accurate representation of it will be film.


    not anymore.

    digital can model any film, so why bother with the hassle of film?

    > Is it worth the effort to use film for the film look if the objective of
    > the shoot has many other required factors? Not in the vast majority of
    > cases.


    that part is true.

    > >> But for 99 other reasons, it's far better to shoot digital than film,
    > >> not the least of them being feedback and a lot more margin to experiment
    > >> (in material, time and money terms), low noise at high ISO, low cost,
    > >> much easier "development", ad infinitum. People can go from image to
    > >> print - and only those images they want to print - in very little time.
    > >> (Or image to web, or e-mail or whatever...).

    > >
    > > all true.
    > >
    > >> That does not mean that film does not have a place - I still shoot it
    > >> when moved to do so - but getting E-6 processed now is a longer and
    > >> longer cycle, has expense and I still need to scan it to print it. (I
    > >> don't have a MF projector alas...)
    > >>
    > >> As the 'duck points out it's mighty hard to even get K anymore - never
    > >> mind processing it.

    > >
    > > it can only be processed as b/w now.

    >
    > Is anyone doing that actively? I'm just curious - I suppose unused
    > stock of film could go that way.


    not many but some places do.

    here's how to do it yourself (plus one place that does it)
    <http://michaelraso.blogspot.com/2011/01/kodachrome-in-2011-process-as-b
    lack-and.html>

    > And by the way, in the issue of RGB v. Lab, pls. reply to my post asking
    > which file you saw the stitch pattern in.


    it's in the queue.
     
    nospam, Apr 21, 2014
    #35
  16. Cursitor Doom

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.04.21, 14:54 , nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>> I would have said it has regular rectangular/square grain known as
    >>>>>> pixels.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> pixels are not the same as grain.
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course they are. That is the granularity of digital in x/y. The
    >>>> more "variable" part of it is content and noise (z).
    >>>
    >>> they are not.
    >>>
    >>> grain is random clumps and varying size in an irregular pattern and
    >>> varies with iso and even processing.
    >>>
    >>> digital is always going to have the same number and size pixels for a
    >>> given camera. the only thing that varies is noise based on iso.

    >>
    >> That is the nature of its grain. Regular in 2 dimensions and noise in
    >> the other.

    >
    > which makes it different.


    Thanks for the confirmation: If sensor makers happened to make the
    dimensions random across the sensor, then it would meet your definition.
    Of course doing so would be more difficult and expensive than the
    simpler grid.

    (Indeed, due to manufacturing process variance they all are of different
    dimension. Just much more tightly controlled and arrayed than is
    possible in the chemical layers.)

    The digital pixel grain is just much more organized than the chemical one.

    --
    "Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
    but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
    -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 21, 2014
    #36
  17. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > >>>>>> I would have said it has regular rectangular/square grain known as
    > >>>>>> pixels.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> pixels are not the same as grain.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Of course they are. That is the granularity of digital in x/y. The
    > >>>> more "variable" part of it is content and noise (z).
    > >>>
    > >>> they are not.
    > >>>
    > >>> grain is random clumps and varying size in an irregular pattern and
    > >>> varies with iso and even processing.
    > >>>
    > >>> digital is always going to have the same number and size pixels for a
    > >>> given camera. the only thing that varies is noise based on iso.
    > >>
    > >> That is the nature of its grain. Regular in 2 dimensions and noise in
    > >> the other.

    > >
    > > which makes it different.

    >
    > Thanks for the confirmation: If sensor makers happened to make the
    > dimensions random across the sensor, then it would meet your definition.
    > Of course doing so would be more difficult and expensive than the
    > simpler grid.


    the fixed grid is one of several differences, not the sole difference.

    > (Indeed, due to manufacturing process variance they all are of different
    > dimension. Just much more tightly controlled and arrayed than is
    > possible in the chemical layers.)
    >
    > The digital pixel grain is just much more organized than the chemical one.


    and different in other ways.

    the randomness of grain is not always objectionable and is often used
    for artsy looks (which can be added back to digital if the user wants
    that look).

    noise in digital images never looks good. it's harsh and ugly and
    having too few pixels also looks bad.
     
    nospam, Apr 21, 2014
    #37
  18. Cursitor Doom

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.04.21, 17:25 , nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>>>> I would have said it has regular rectangular/square grain known as
    >>>>>>>> pixels.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> pixels are not the same as grain.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Of course they are. That is the granularity of digital in x/y. The
    >>>>>> more "variable" part of it is content and noise (z).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> they are not.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> grain is random clumps and varying size in an irregular pattern and
    >>>>> varies with iso and even processing.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> digital is always going to have the same number and size pixels fora
    >>>>> given camera. the only thing that varies is noise based on iso.
    >>>>
    >>>> That is the nature of its grain. Regular in 2 dimensions and noise in
    >>>> the other.
    >>>
    >>> which makes it different.

    >>
    >> Thanks for the confirmation: If sensor makers happened to make the
    >> dimensions random across the sensor, then it would meet your definition.
    >> Of course doing so would be more difficult and expensive than the
    >> simpler grid.

    >
    > the fixed grid is one of several differences, not the sole difference.


    It doesn't matter. That fixed grid defines the grain of digital - for
    better or worse - for this good quality or that bad quality. Just as it
    is with film.

    >> (Indeed, due to manufacturing process variance they all are of different
    >> dimension. Just much more tightly controlled and arrayed than is
    >> possible in the chemical layers.)
    >>
    >> The digital pixel grain is just much more organized than the chemical one.

    >
    > and different in other ways.
    >
    > the randomness of grain is not always objectionable and is often used
    > for artsy looks (which can be added back to digital if the user wants
    > that look).
    >
    > noise in digital images never looks good. it's harsh and ugly and
    > having too few pixels also looks bad.


    It remains that the pixel is the grain of digital sensors - the
    aesthetics of it - for better or worse - are another matter.

    --
    "Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
    but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
    -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 21, 2014
    #38
  19. Cursitor Doom

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2014-04-21, nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Alan
    > Browne <> wrote:
    >
    >> >> There is a very good reason that Kodachrome is no longer even
    >> >> produced, and that it can no longer be processed.
    >> >
    >> > the reason is mostly the complexity of kodachrome processing.

    >>
    >> It was simply a business decision. Not enough people were using it
    >> once digital got to a certain quality level.

    >
    > kodachrome's use was dropping before digital, as was the number of
    > places that processed it. it was far too complex for smaller labs and
    > just about every shop sent it out somewhere, which eventually became
    > just one lab, dwayne's.
    >
    > also, consumers wanted prints more than they did slides and videotape
    > all but killed kodachrome movie film, and this was before digital.
    >
    > digital just accelerated what was already happening, and not just
    > kodachrome. a *lot* of film processing places are gone as are many
    > camera stores, namely the ones where film processing was a large part
    > of their revenue.


    The greatest number of photographs being taken in the '80s were by
    press photographers of various sorts. Digital photography offered them
    huge benefits in terms of running costs and in speed of getting the
    image from camera to press, so they switched. Not because the images
    were any 'better', but because they could get adequate images to their
    customers in less time and at less expense to themselves. Press
    photographs have never needed to be of technically or artistically 'high
    quality'.

    Thus, the industry around making and processing film lost nearly all
    their best customers in the space of a decade or less, so of course they
    had to cut back or diversify or go under.

    'Fine art' and other photographers who still appreciate and want to use
    film are finding it harder to get, and harder to find the darkroom
    services and equipment that go with it. So they are increasingly
    obliged to use digital cameras simply in order to take photographs. As
    digital photography evolves, it is offering more creative possibilities
    - but it is not and can never be a replacement for film; the two
    technologies are very different, and engender different approaches to
    image creation.

    Digital cameras have certainly made photography much more accessible to
    many more people, and encouraged the taking of a vastly greater number
    of photographs. Ironically, so much so that the press photographers who
    first led the stampede are now being trampled on by amateur
    snap-shooters who aren't even interested in making a living from
    photography but who are present in such large numbers at almost anything
    that happens anywhere, with smartphones and on line, that it's virtually
    inevitable that some of them will get tolerable images to the news media
    before the dust settles.

    I'm sure there will still be some people who are sufficiently committed
    to using film, to pay whatever it costs to get supplies - or even make
    their own. Just as there are still painters who make their own paint by
    grinding rocks and mixing potions, and authors who write their books in
    long-hand: because that is how 'it' works for them.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Apr 21, 2014
    #39
  20. Cursitor Doom

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/21/2014 6:06 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2014.04.21, 17:25 , nospam wrote:
    >> In article <>, Alan Browne
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>>>>> I would have said it has regular rectangular/square grain known as
    >>>>>>>>> pixels.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> pixels are not the same as grain.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Of course they are. That is the granularity of digital in x/y. The
    >>>>>>> more "variable" part of it is content and noise (z).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> they are not.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> grain is random clumps and varying size in an irregular pattern and
    >>>>>> varies with iso and even processing.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> digital is always going to have the same number and size pixels for a
    >>>>>> given camera. the only thing that varies is noise based on iso.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That is the nature of its grain. Regular in 2 dimensions and noise in
    >>>>> the other.
    >>>>
    >>>> which makes it different.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for the confirmation: If sensor makers happened to make the
    >>> dimensions random across the sensor, then it would meet your definition.
    >>> Of course doing so would be more difficult and expensive than the
    >>> simpler grid.

    >>
    >> the fixed grid is one of several differences, not the sole difference.

    >
    > It doesn't matter. That fixed grid defines the grain of digital - for
    > better or worse - for this good quality or that bad quality. Just as it
    > is with film.
    >
    >>> (Indeed, due to manufacturing process variance they all are of different
    >>> dimension. Just much more tightly controlled and arrayed than is
    >>> possible in the chemical layers.)
    >>>
    >>> The digital pixel grain is just much more organized than the chemical
    >>> one.

    >>
    >> and different in other ways.
    >>
    >> the randomness of grain is not always objectionable and is often used
    >> for artsy looks (which can be added back to digital if the user wants
    >> that look).
    >>
    >> noise in digital images never looks good. it's harsh and ugly and
    >> having too few pixels also looks bad.

    >
    > It remains that the pixel is the grain of digital sensors - the
    > aesthetics of it - for better or worse - are another matter.
    >


    Alan, are you letting him distract you from his forthcoming examples of
    loss in a switch from LAB to RGB, and back?


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Apr 21, 2014
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. daren pelletier
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    491
    Skip Middleton
    Jul 23, 2003
  2. Bought a pedometer today!

    , Jun 20, 2005, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    309
    ian lincoln
    Jun 22, 2005
  3. ellx-lux

    Unusual sight at Luxembourg Airport

    ellx-lux, Feb 5, 2005, in forum: Photography
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    971
  4. +/-

    BREAKING NEWS: The end of JPEG is in sight

    +/-, Sep 30, 2005, in forum: Photoshop Tutorials
    Replies:
    118
    Views:
    2,357
    Bill Tuthill
    Oct 14, 2005
  5. Anonyma

    I bought my wife some clothes at Target today

    Anonyma, Mar 18, 2007, in forum: Australia Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    356
    Anonyma
    Mar 18, 2007
  6. Rita Ä Berkowitz
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    463
  7. +/-
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    1,003
    Andrew Haley
    Oct 7, 2005
  8. Scotius
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    536
    Scotius
    Jul 1, 2010
Loading...