Does 35mm have to be film?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Dudley Hanks, Oct 20, 2008.

  1. Dudley Hanks

    Peter Chant Guest

    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
     
    Peter Chant, Oct 21, 2008
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dudley Hanks

    Ken Hart1 Guest


    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.
     
    Ken Hart1, Oct 21, 2008
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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
     
    Harry Lockwood, Oct 22, 2008
    #43
  4. Dudley Hanks

    jimkramer Guest

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

    -Jim
     
    jimkramer, Oct 22, 2008
    #44
  5. 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
     
    Stefan Patric, Oct 22, 2008
    #45
  6. Dudley Hanks

    Paul Furman Guest

    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
     
    Paul Furman, Oct 22, 2008
    #46
  7. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    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
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 22, 2008
    #47
  8. Dudley Hanks

    Mark Thomas Guest

    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...
     
    Mark Thomas, Oct 22, 2008
    #48
  9. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest


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

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 22, 2008
    #49
  10. Dudley Hanks

    Noons Guest

    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.
     
    Noons, Oct 22, 2008
    #50
  11. Dudley Hanks

    Noons Guest

    John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 21/10/2008 3:56 AM:
    There is, when they are called black holes.
     
    Noons, Oct 22, 2008
    #51
  12. Dudley Hanks

    Noons Guest

    John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 21/10/2008 3:59 AM:
    Projecting your alcohol addiction again, pisshead?
     
    Noons, Oct 22, 2008
    #52
  13. Dudley Hanks

    Noons Guest

    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?
     
    Noons, Oct 22, 2008
    #53
  14. Dudley Hanks

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    And I get 10 shots...

    Maybe different brand 120 films have different lengths?

    :)
     
    Rol_Lei Nut, Oct 22, 2008
    #54
  15. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    And none from you?
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 22, 2008
    #55
  16. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

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

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 22, 2008
    #56
  17. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    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
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 22, 2008
    #57
  18. 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.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Oct 22, 2008
    #58
  19. 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.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Oct 22, 2008
    #59
  20. Dudley Hanks

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Apart from missing the smilies, your post is completely off-topic, David.
     
    Mark Thomas, Oct 23, 2008
    #60
    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.