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

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

  1. Cursitor Doom

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.04.21, 13:36 , 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.


    Regardless - it was a business decision. For each lab that stopped
    processing it. For Kodak. For Dwayne's. It was not "complexity" that
    drove the decision or they would not have been in that business in the
    first place.

    For that matter there are a lot of companies who do well with
    complexity. Such barriers to entry help promise higher margin and
    profit for the company that pursues it. In the end of course, with
    declining use, you make a business decision at some point.

    For that, both Kodak and Dwayne's did so in a fashion that respected
    photographers and anyone connected to the visual arts - IMO.

    --
    "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
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Cursitor Doom

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.04.21, 18:45 , PeterN wrote:
    > 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?


    I'm not distracted nor am I concerned about the RGB / Lab issue. To the
    degree that it may be lossy at 16b/channel it is not significant or
    visible at all in typical use.

    Of course he's welcome to show otherwise but I have other things much
    more worth holding my breath for. Herself has just added kitchen tasks
    for me to do so ... I'm off.

    --
    "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
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Whiskers <> wrote:

    > 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'.


    digital didn't exist in the 80s in any practical form and this isn't
    about press photos anyway, who were using film.

    digital appeared in the 90s with the kodak hybrid slrs which were
    priced out of reach for anyone but pros and paid for themselves fairly
    soon, along with the quicktake for consumers.

    > 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.


    that's what happens when something better comes along.

    some companies managed the transition (nikon, canon) and others didn't
    (kodak).

    > '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.


    and they'll quickly find that they can do much more with digital. that
    is, if they aren't closed minded.

    they can always make digital images look like film, without the
    hassles, time and expense needed for darkroom work.

    > 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.


    nonsense. not only is it a replacement, but it surpasses film. there
    also isn't a significant difference in approach.

    anything that can be done with film can be done with a digital camera,
    but that means reducing its quality. sometimes that evokes a mood but
    it's definitely a step down quality-wise.

    or you can enjoy the higher dynamic range, better resolution and more
    accurate colour that digital provides.

    > 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.


    many of those photos are much better than anything the official
    photographers could have taken because the people are actually on site
    at the time the incident occurred.

    > 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.


    there always will be those who refuse any form of progress.
     
    nospam, Apr 22, 2014
    #43
  4. 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.

    >
    > Regardless - it was a business decision. For each lab that stopped
    > processing it. For Kodak. For Dwayne's. It was not "complexity" that
    > drove the decision or they would not have been in that business in the
    > first place.


    complexity is what made the smaller stores not bother in the first
    place.

    kodachrome usage peaked and began its decline *before* digital.

    > For that matter there are a lot of companies who do well with
    > complexity. Such barriers to entry help promise higher margin and
    > profit for the company that pursues it. In the end of course, with
    > declining use, you make a business decision at some point.
    >
    > For that, both Kodak and Dwayne's did so in a fashion that respected
    > photographers and anyone connected to the visual arts - IMO.
     
    nospam, Apr 22, 2014
    #44
  5. On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 19:06:38 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >
    >there always will be those who refuse any form of progress.


    It's pointless arguing with you as you clearly don't understand the
    concept of QUALITY.
    From around the mid seventies til the end of the eighties, cheap
    digital watches did terrible damage to the Swiss watch making
    industry. Digital watches were far more accurate than even the best
    Swiss watches. They didn't need winding. They didn't require periodic
    servicing. When the battery eventually ran out, it was often as cheap
    to buy a new watch as it was to replace it.

    However, QUALITY always prevails in the end. Now 24 years on and
    Swiss watches are once again in the ascendecy. People pay tens of
    thousands of pounds for the top marques which are still being
    manufactured today for customers with a discerning eye for quality,
    just as they were 100 years ago. The digital revoulion with
    wristwatches came and passed. Now the two technologies live happily
    side by side. People like you can get a cheap but accurate Casio watch
    from a petrol station, but I'll stick with my Breitling thank you very
    much. Some of us just like to own beautifully made items, even if
    they're inferior in certain other ways. Get over it.
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 22, 2014
    #45
  6. Cursitor Doom

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2014-04-22, nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Whiskers <> wrote:
    >
    >> 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'.

    >
    > digital didn't exist in the 80s in any practical form and this isn't
    > about press photos anyway, who were using film.


    I chose the '80s as they were the last decade in which digital
    photography had a negligible presence.

    > digital appeared in the 90s with the kodak hybrid slrs which were
    > priced out of reach for anyone but pros and paid for themselves fairly
    > soon, along with the quicktake for consumers.
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > that's what happens when something better comes along.
    >
    > some companies managed the transition (nikon, canon) and others didn't
    > (kodak).
    >
    >> '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.

    >
    > and they'll quickly find that they can do much more with digital. that
    > is, if they aren't closed minded.
    >
    > they can always make digital images look like film, without the
    > hassles, time and expense needed for darkroom work.


    Some people don't like manipulating digital images. Presumably, you do.

    >> 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.

    >
    > nonsense. not only is it a replacement, but it surpasses film. there
    > also isn't a significant difference in approach.


    Digital is displacing film. It is not replacing it, any more than
    airliners replace passenger ships or railway trains.

    > anything that can be done with film can be done with a digital camera,
    > but that means reducing its quality. sometimes that evokes a mood but
    > it's definitely a step down quality-wise.
    >
    > or you can enjoy the higher dynamic range, better resolution and more
    > accurate colour that digital provides.


    You may be content, or even enthralled, by digital equipment. Perhaps
    your approach to photography was always such as suited digital more than
    film, in which case you won't miss what you never had.

    >> 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.

    >
    > many of those photos are much better than anything the official
    > photographers could have taken because the people are actually on site
    > at the time the incident occurred.


    'Better than nothing', then.

    >> 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.

    >
    > there always will be those who refuse any form of progress.


    But recipes for making your own paint can now be found and discussed 'on
    line' :))

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Apr 22, 2014
    #46
  7. Cursitor Doom

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2014-04-21, Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > On 2014.04.21, 13:36 , 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.


    The decline in use of Kodachrome was doubtless influenced by the advent
    of competing film technology - not least, Kodak's own Ektachrome - which
    offered far greater convenience and speed in processing quite apart from
    increasing the range of results possible. Colour negative films and
    printing methods were also becoming both much better and more popular,
    as well as more convenient for many people.

    > Regardless - it was a business decision. For each lab that stopped
    > processing it. For Kodak. For Dwayne's. It was not "complexity" that
    > drove the decision or they would not have been in that business in the
    > first place.
    >
    > For that matter there are a lot of companies who do well with
    > complexity. Such barriers to entry help promise higher margin and
    > profit for the company that pursues it. In the end of course, with
    > declining use, you make a business decision at some point.
    >
    > For that, both Kodak and Dwayne's did so in a fashion that respected
    > photographers and anyone connected to the visual arts - IMO.


    But not to the extent of continuing the service ;))

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Apr 22, 2014
    #47
  8. Cursitor Doom

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.04.21, 19:06 , 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.

    >>
    >> Regardless - it was a business decision. For each lab that stopped
    >> processing it. For Kodak. For Dwayne's. It was not "complexity" that
    >> drove the decision or they would not have been in that business in the
    >> first place.

    >
    > complexity is what made the smaller stores not bother in the first
    > place.


    No. Lack of profit would do that, however. See my prior comment wrt
    complexity being a barrier to entry to others (below).

    > kodachrome usage peaked and began its decline *before* digital.


    Yes, you keep saying that and I don't refute it.

    But again - the reas

    >> For that matter there are a lot of companies who do well with
    >> complexity. Such barriers to entry help promise higher margin and
    >> profit for the company that pursues it. In the end of course, with
    >> declining use, you make a business decision at some point.


    --
    "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 22, 2014
    #48
  9. Cursitor Doom

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.04.22, 16:30 , Whiskers wrote:
    > On 2014-04-21, Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >> On 2014.04.21, 13:36 , 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.

    >
    > The decline in use of Kodachrome was doubtless influenced by the advent
    > of competing film technology - not least, Kodak's own Ektachrome - which
    > offered far greater convenience and speed in processing quite apart from
    > increasing the range of results possible. Colour negative films and
    > printing methods were also becoming both much better and more popular,
    > as well as more convenient for many people.


    For many professionals and amateurs, slide film was still king. It's
    true that a broad switch to E-6 cannibalized Kodachrome sales for the
    reasons you state. But it may have also increased overall volume of
    film, chemical and machinery sales for Kodak as well with the more
    convenient process. I used to buy '5 roll with processing' E-6 from one
    photo lab at a very low price in the late 90's / early 00's.

    >> Regardless - it was a business decision. For each lab that stopped
    >> processing it. For Kodak. For Dwayne's. It was not "complexity" that
    >> drove the decision or they would not have been in that business in the
    >> first place.
    >>
    >> For that matter there are a lot of companies who do well with
    >> complexity. Such barriers to entry help promise higher margin and
    >> profit for the company that pursues it. In the end of course, with
    >> declining use, you make a business decision at some point.
    >>
    >> For that, both Kodak and Dwayne's did so in a fashion that respected
    >> photographers and anyone connected to the visual arts - IMO.

    >
    > But not to the extent of continuing the service ;))


    In product lifecycle management, part of best business practices is
    orderly withdrawal of a products and related services from the market.

    --
    "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 22, 2014
    #49
  10. Cursitor Doom

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.04.22, 17:04 , Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2014.04.21, 19:06 , 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.
    >>>
    >>> Regardless - it was a business decision. For each lab that stopped
    >>> processing it. For Kodak. For Dwayne's. It was not "complexity" that
    >>> drove the decision or they would not have been in that business in the
    >>> first place.

    >>
    >> complexity is what made the smaller stores not bother in the first
    >> place.

    >
    > No. Lack of profit would do that, however. See my prior comment wrt
    > complexity being a barrier to entry to others (below).
    >
    >> kodachrome usage peaked and began its decline *before* digital.

    >
    > Yes, you keep saying that and I don't refute it.
    >
    > But again - the reas

    on was a business decision.

    >
    > >> For that matter there are a lot of companies who do well with
    > >> complexity. Such barriers to entry help promise higher margin and
    > >> profit for the company that pursues it. In the end of course, with
    > >> declining use, you make a business decision at some point.

    >
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 22, 2014
    #50
  11. Cursitor Doom

    Michael Guest

    On 2014-04-21 15:16:05 +0000, Cursitor Doom said:

    > 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).


    Agreed. After all, when it was the FILM that evolved, the cameras were
    built to last. When the camera is evolving every few years that won't
    happen. You didn't have to replace a Nikon F every three years. My
    Nikon D5000 is 4 years old and hopelessly outdistanced by about every
    APS-C format DSLR that is out there now. The Nikon F, however, is still
    the best made SLR. And even the paltry selection of film left today is
    better (with the exception of the never-yet-equaled Kodachrome II (aka
    Kodachrome 25)) than what we had in the early days of the F, because
    the film evolved. There is damned-little incentive for that to happen
    anymore, except perhaps in B&W if Ilford stays in the game.
    --
    Michael
     
    Michael, Apr 27, 2014
    #51
  12. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <2014042620204521278-adunc79617@mypacksnet>, Michael
    <> wrote:

    >
    > Agreed. After all, when it was the FILM that evolved, the cameras were
    > built to last. When the camera is evolving every few years that won't
    > happen. You didn't have to replace a Nikon F every three years. My
    > Nikon D5000 is 4 years old and hopelessly outdistanced by about every
    > APS-C format DSLR that is out there now.


    your nikon d5000 didn't stop working the moment the d5100 came out.

    it still takes photos now that are just as good as it did when new. the
    fact that there are newer and more capable cameras does not change
    that.

    it's called progress. that's a good thing.

    a lot of people want technology to stand still so they can get more
    useful life out of a product. that's a bad thing.
     
    nospam, Apr 27, 2014
    #52
  13. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Cursitor Doom
    <> wrote:

    > >there always will be those who refuse any form of progress.

    >
    > It's pointless arguing with you as you clearly don't understand the
    > concept of QUALITY.


    of course i understand quality, which is why i am a proponent of
    digital. it's higher quality than film and can emulate any film you
    want if you want to downgrade its quality. this is a fact, no matter
    how hard you and your ilk refuse to acknowledge it.

    > From around the mid seventies til the end of the eighties, cheap
    > digital watches did terrible damage to the Swiss watch making
    > industry. Digital watches were far more accurate than even the best
    > Swiss watches. They didn't need winding. They didn't require periodic
    > servicing. When the battery eventually ran out, it was often as cheap
    > to buy a new watch as it was to replace it.
    > However, QUALITY always prevails in the end. Now 24 years on and
    > Swiss watches are once again in the ascendecy. People pay tens of
    > thousands of pounds for the top marques which are still being
    > manufactured today for customers with a discerning eye for quality,
    > just as they were 100 years ago. The digital revoulion with
    > wristwatches came and passed. Now the two technologies live happily
    > side by side. People like you can get a cheap but accurate Casio watch
    > from a petrol station, but I'll stick with my Breitling thank you very
    > much. Some of us just like to own beautifully made items, even if
    > they're inferior in certain other ways. Get over it.


    more nonsense. people who spend that much on watches are buying them
    because they're jewelry, not because they want to know what time it is.


    also, inexpensive digital watches did not damage a thing. they created
    a whole new market segment. not everyone wants to spend lots of money
    on a watch. most don't.

    not only that, but the digital watch revolution is about to be turned
    on its head. wearable computing, including watches, is the next big
    thing. i'm sure you'll say that's stupid too.

    in any event, what does that have to do with cameras anyway? absolutely
    nothing. you're grasping at straws.

    if you want to collect old film cameras because you like how they were
    made, go for it. people like to collect lots of old things. you could
    even open up a museum of old cameras.

    just don't claim that the images one can get from those cameras are
    better than what can be done with modern and even not so modern digital
    cameras, because that is factually false and easily proven.
     
    nospam, Apr 27, 2014
    #53
  14. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Whiskers <> wrote:

    > >> 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'.

    > >
    > > digital didn't exist in the 80s in any practical form and this isn't
    > > about press photos anyway, who were using film.

    >
    > I chose the '80s as they were the last decade in which digital
    > photography had a negligible presence.


    of course you did, because anything beyond that is when digital was a
    factor.

    > > digital appeared in the 90s with the kodak hybrid slrs which were
    > > priced out of reach for anyone but pros and paid for themselves fairly
    > > soon, along with the quicktake for consumers.
    > >
    > >> 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.

    > >
    > > that's what happens when something better comes along.
    > >
    > > some companies managed the transition (nikon, canon) and others didn't
    > > (kodak).
    > >
    > >> '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.

    > >
    > > and they'll quickly find that they can do much more with digital. that
    > > is, if they aren't closed minded.
    > >
    > > they can always make digital images look like film, without the
    > > hassles, time and expense needed for darkroom work.

    >
    > Some people don't like manipulating digital images. Presumably, you do.


    some people don't like manipulating film images.

    there's no requirement that digital images must be manipulated. if you
    think that's the case then you know little about digital photography,
    which would explain your comments.

    you can even take a flash card to a camera store and get photos
    printed, just as if it was film in really tiny cartridges. you don't
    even have to own a computer.

    > >> 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.

    > >
    > > nonsense. not only is it a replacement, but it surpasses film. there
    > > also isn't a significant difference in approach.

    >
    > Digital is displacing film. It is not replacing it, any more than
    > airliners replace passenger ships or railway trains.


    oh yes it is, and has.

    digital has displaced film. kodak is bankrupt. film sales are tiny
    fraction of what they once were.

    passenger ships are almost always cruises where the vacation is the
    cruise ship itself, not to get from new york to london. trains are
    generally used for short trips where the hassles of the airport is too
    much to bother with, especially when the train station is more
    convenient, such as in new york city.

    > > anything that can be done with film can be done with a digital camera,
    > > but that means reducing its quality. sometimes that evokes a mood but
    > > it's definitely a step down quality-wise.
    > >
    > > or you can enjoy the higher dynamic range, better resolution and more
    > > accurate colour that digital provides.

    >
    > You may be content, or even enthralled, by digital equipment. Perhaps
    > your approach to photography was always such as suited digital more than
    > film, in which case you won't miss what you never had.


    anyone who shoots digital has much more than they ever had with film.

    anything that can be done with film can be done with digital with less
    hassle and with much better results, and you can emulate whatever film
    look you want.

    anyone who says otherwise is simply blind to what digital can do and is
    stuck in the past.

    > >> 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.

    > >
    > > many of those photos are much better than anything the official
    > > photographers could have taken because the people are actually on site
    > > at the time the incident occurred.

    >
    > 'Better than nothing', then.


    that's what counts, and plenty of the 'amateurs' are just as skilled if
    not more so, than newspaper photographers.

    > >> 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.

    > >
    > > there always will be those who refuse any form of progress.

    >
    > But recipes for making your own paint can now be found and discussed 'on
    > line' :))


    so what? how many people do you think mix their own paint from scratch?

    and i don't mean blending existing paints to get a particular colour. i
    mean from raw chemicals to make the paint itself.

    that number is for all intents, zero.
     
    nospam, Apr 27, 2014
    #54
  15. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Whiskers <> 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.

    >
    > The decline in use of Kodachrome was doubtless influenced by the advent
    > of competing film technology - not least, Kodak's own Ektachrome - which
    > offered far greater convenience and speed in processing quite apart from
    > increasing the range of results possible. Colour negative films and
    > printing methods were also becoming both much better and more popular,
    > as well as more convenient for many people.


    exactly.

    kodachrome's decline began long before digital. it peaked in the 80s.

    digital killed all films, not just kodachrome.
     
    nospam, Apr 27, 2014
    #55
  16. Cursitor Doom

    android Guest

    In article <260420142047474777%>,
    nospam <> wrote:

    > kodachrome's decline began long before digital. it peaked in the 80s.
    >

    i think that fujichrome, later velvia, was the main perpetrator...

    > digital killed all films, not just kodachrome.

    --
    teleportation kills
    http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography
     
    android, Apr 27, 2014
    #56
  17. On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:47:41 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Cursitor Doom
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >there always will be those who refuse any form of progress.

    >>
    >> It's pointless arguing with you as you clearly don't understand the
    >> concept of QUALITY.

    >
    >of course i understand quality,


    No you don't. Image quality, possibly, but not *build* quality of the
    camera, which is what I was referring to.
    Second hand Leica rangefinders routinely sell on ebay for a thousand
    dollars and more because SOME people (the cultured and sophisticated)
    appreciate and value a thing that's beautifully made. Yet such
    qualities are completely lost on people like you. I can just see you
    being handed a magnificent vintage M4-P to evaluate and instantly
    moaning about how heavy it would be to carry about! In short, sir,
    you're a philistine.
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 27, 2014
    #57
  18. On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:20:45 -0400, Michael <>
    wrote:


    >Agreed. After all, when it was the FILM that evolved, the cameras were
    >built to last. When the camera is evolving every few years that won't
    >happen. You didn't have to replace a Nikon F every three years. My
    >Nikon D5000 is 4 years old and hopelessly outdistanced by about every
    >APS-C format DSLR that is out there now. The Nikon F, however, is still
    >the best made SLR. And even the paltry selection of film left today is
    >better (with the exception of the never-yet-equaled Kodachrome II (aka
    >Kodachrome 25)) than what we had in the early days of the F, because
    >the film evolved. There is damned-little incentive for that to happen
    >anymore, except perhaps in B&W if Ilford stays in the game.


    Oh, man! Kodachrome 25! Take me back there! Now there was an emulsion
    superior to any digital analog available today. Wonderful, wonderful
    product.
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 27, 2014
    #58
  19. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Cursitor Doom
    <> wrote:

    > >> >there always will be those who refuse any form of progress.
    > >>
    > >> It's pointless arguing with you as you clearly don't understand the
    > >> concept of QUALITY.

    > >
    > >of course i understand quality,

    >
    > No you don't. Image quality, possibly, but not *build* quality of the
    > camera, which is what I was referring to.


    modern cameras are very well built, and in many ways are better built
    than the older cameras.

    for example, modern shutter mechanisms have higher shutter speeds, are
    much more accurate, more reliable and rated for *far* more actuations
    than the older mechanisms. modern cameras are better sealed against the
    elements and they use newer materials that are stronger than what
    existed 50 years ago or even 30 years ago.

    not that it matters since the build quality of a camera does not affect
    the quality of the results.

    nobody is going to look at a photo and say 'a well built camera took
    that photo' or 'this photo could only have been from a flimsy camera'.

    > Second hand Leica rangefinders routinely sell on ebay for a thousand
    > dollars and more because SOME people (the cultured and sophisticated)
    > appreciate and value a thing that's beautifully made. Yet such
    > qualities are completely lost on people like you. I can just see you
    > being handed a magnificent vintage M4-P to evaluate and instantly
    > moaning about how heavy it would be to carry about! In short, sir,
    > you're a philistine.


    they sell for that much because they're rare and people collect them,
    not because they take better pictures.

    people who buy and sell collectible cameras do not use them for taking
    photos. they put the cameras on a shelf and brag to their friends that
    they own it, or they luck out and get one at an estate sale and then
    sell it for what it's really worth.
     
    nospam, Apr 27, 2014
    #59
  20. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Cursitor Doom
    <> wrote:

    > Oh, man! Kodachrome 25! Take me back there! Now there was an emulsion
    > superior to any digital analog available today. Wonderful, wonderful
    > product.


    it was in its day, but those days are *long* gone.

    digital surpassed it long ago.

    you're stuck in the past.
     
    nospam, Apr 27, 2014
    #60
    1. Advertisements

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.
Similar Threads
  1. daren pelletier
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    512
    Skip Middleton
    Jul 23, 2003
  2. Bought a pedometer today!

    , Jun 20, 2005, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    327
    ian lincoln
    Jun 22, 2005
  3. ellx-lux

    Unusual sight at Luxembourg Airport

    ellx-lux, Feb 5, 2005, in forum: Photography
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    1,011
  4. +/-

    BREAKING NEWS: The end of JPEG is in sight

    +/-, Sep 30, 2005, in forum: Photoshop Tutorials
    Replies:
    118
    Views:
    2,470
    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:
    372
    Anonyma
    Mar 18, 2007
  6. Rita Ä Berkowitz
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    488
  7. +/-
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    1,058
    Andrew Haley
    Oct 7, 2005
  8. Scotius
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    553
    Scotius
    Jul 1, 2010
Loading...