Does 35mm have to be film?

Harry Lockwood wrote:

12 shots on 120, and get 8x8 prints. Click, that was a pound. Click,
another pound. Actually a bit more than a pound.

(I usually scan only)

Pete

 

My first darkroom equipment came from Montgomery Ward: a really bad
diffusion enlarger with a really bad lens, a red light bulb, three trays,
and some TriChem packages. Later when I acquired an Omega B22, I realized
how bad that enlarger was. My first darkroom was a dirt floor root cellar
with running water in the laundry room next to it. Currently, that B22 sets
next to the D2V in the manual darkroom, next door to the RA4 machine
darkroom. The floor is concrete and there's plenty of running water
available.

I came to the digital revolution late, and I realize that good results
sometimes take time. McDonald's gives you your food now, the Schnitzelbank
(local German restaurant) takes time to give you good food.

 

None of those apply, Jim. You need to find the definition that extends
to *self* mortification, which refers to voluntary self-punishment and
denial, usually to achieve a higher state of spiritual purity.

Isn't that what shooting film is about? It's not? Oh, damn!

HFL

 

I must be doing something wrong I only get 8 shots on a roll of 120?


-Jim

 

Poor analogy. You missed the whole point of my analogy: A 4x4 is not a
pickup even though a pickup's frame and axles where used as a starting
point in its construction; a digital SLR is not a 35mm camera just
because the frame and some other parts of a 35mm film SLR was used as a
starting point in its construction.

Why? A digital post in r.p.e.35mm is off topic. To repeatedly do so
after being informed of that fact is what's inane.

I never said they were 5 years old. It's a simile.

Which other 4? My Usenet server only carries r.p.e.35mm, rec.photo.35,
and rec.photo.marketplace.35mm. The latter two I don't monitor.

It has nothing to do with what's "deserving." It has to do with what's
qualified. The $10 disposable 35mm film camera, since it uses 35mm film,
meets the necessary qualification to post queries in r.p.e.35mm. The
Nikon D3 or any digital camera for that matter do not, since they don't
use 35mm film.

When this group was created there was no digital photography. If you
wanted to take pictures, film was the ONLY media. When it's the ONLY,
there's no need to specifically name it. Everybody knew what was meant,
then.

It's no more desirable than undesirable, the two are just inseparably
linked and always will be.

I don't need to by a cheap digital. I've got plenty of expensive ones
around to use. I've been shooting professionally for over 30 years. To
me, a camera is just a tool whether it uses film or has a sensor. I use
the tool appropriate to the requirements of the job. FWIW, except for my
personal work--film has a "look" that digital doesn't, no matter how hard
you try--I haven't shot any film in about 2 years.

I always do. That's why I'm still here.

Stef

 

The best group I could find to ask questions about my van was a truck
group. The better analogy would be electric versus gas trucks... at
first there's just going to be an electric car group but once gas
powered cars are rare, the electric truck people will just ask questions
in the truck group.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

 

Are you sure? Maybe you might want to think about that a bit...

A 4x4 is not a

But, Steff, you start by saying that:

">>> There are some digital users who post here that claim that since
Then, you use an analogy that starts by using a truck that already has a
different body? How is that analogy accurate?

You are probably a great photographer, Steff, but your logic needs a bit of
work...

If you want to start with a different truck body then something inside must
be different, in your analogy the frame and axels.

But, in your analogy, the frame and axels are the same.

In reality, 4 x 4 vehicles rarely share the same axels as a 2 x 4 pickup
truck. So, once again, Steff, your analogy breaks down. So, if we are to
keep things believable, then there should be a difference in the heart, or
frame, of the camera as well as the truck. The bodies are the same.

Well, If we have a heavy duty 4 x 4 truck being compared to a lighter duty 2
x 4 truck, then we need a heavy duty camera to compare to the lighter duty
35mm. Hence, your truck analogy actually is more appropriate to comparing,
let's say, a medium format camera and a 35mm unit. The big difference then
becomes the size of the light capturing surface, not the recording medium
which occupies that space.

Now, if you think about it, this is a more sensible comparison since cameras
tend to fall into size differentials rather nicely, and it doesn't matter
whether you are talking about film or digital.

There are 35mm film cameras, medium format, large format, even larger format
copy cameras. On the other hand, digital cameras are itsy bitsy sensored,
small sensored, full frame etc. So, isn't it natural that a group devoted
to 35mm would simply be that, a group devoted to cameras that have a 35mm
based slot for a light capturing medium?

It makes sense to me.

Take Care,
Dudley

 

Followed later by:

?? Is it just me who doesn't quite get it??

Further, Stefan argues that a $10 supermarket film disposable is ontopic
here, and yet:
- it cannot use the vast majority of 35mm accessories and lenses
- it has little or no manual controls (let alone any controls)
- it has little in common (design wise) with any serious 35mm camera
(film or digital).

He then states a full-frame digital SLR is not, yet:
- it can use the vast majority of 35mm accessories and lenses
- has controls and adjustments identical in many ways to a 35mm film slr
- has everything (except the sensor and allied electronics - again, read
his second quote above!) in common with a 35mm film slr.

Okey dokey.

Just wanted to clarify it...

 

Yep, Paul, your analogy works for me...

Take Care,
Dudley

 

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/10/2008 2:42 AM:

I couldn't possibly do a better
job than your twit posts could.
And of course, your lies.

 

John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 21/10/2008 3:56 AM:

There is, when they are called black holes.

 

John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 21/10/2008 3:59 AM:

Projecting your alcohol addiction again, pisshead?

 

Dudley Hanks wrote,on my timestamp of 21/10/2008 12:14 AM:

That's probably why you got heaps of
attention from the other morons?

 

And I get 10 shots...

Maybe different brand 120 films have different lengths?

 

And none from you?

 

A case of oppositional defiance if ever there was one...

Take Care,
Dudley

 

I really have to stop writing before midnight...

In the above post, I switch Steff's 4 x 4 pickup frame and axles for a 2 x 4
pickup's. When I was writing the post, I was focusing on the fact that in
Steff's truck analogy, he uses two trucks that were specifically designed
for two different purposes: the 4 x 4 SUV for carrying people, the 4 x 4
pickup for carrying payloads. On the other hand, the two cameras, the film
and digital, are both designed for the same purpose.

Hence, Steff's analogy can never work. My point was that the analogy can
only work if we look at two trucks designed for the same purpose, i.e. two
pickups or two SUVs. If we do that, then size will become the way we
differentiate the models, not body design.

Accordingly, in both cameras and trucks, we tend to group products designed
for the same purpose into size based catagories.

Perhaps Steff's analogy would be more appropriate if he were to cite gas
verses diesel trucks as the different types. In that case, both picups
would be designed for the same purpose, but would be driven by different
engines. But, once again, it would fail to prove his point and would still
illustrate that the group is suitable for digitals.

Take Care,
Dudley

 

Depends on the size of the shots, of course: you should be able to get
12 6x6 exposures or 8 6x9s. What size do you shoot: 6x7? 6x8?

Don't think so.

 

It can also depend on the camera. A Pentax 645 yields 15 shots per
roll, but a Pentax 645n yields 16 of identical size.

I think you may have missed a couple of smiley's.

 

Apart from missing the smilies, your post is completely off-topic, David.