Is there a camera which stands out over the other? ... a Perfect 10!

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by aniramca, Jul 31, 2007.

  1. Did you know our eyes work more like Bayer sensors than
    Foveon sensors? With our eyes, each pixel is a single
    color, or no color (like the new Kodak sensor).
    The film vs digital wars are long over, and guess which lost?
    And the reason is quality. (Hint: film use is dropping, even
    by professional photographers who need top quality).

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 5, 2007
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. aniramca

    Allen Guest

    What will you pay for my K+E duplex log log decitrig slide rule, which
    was state of the art in 1951? Case with belt loop included, of course.
    Unfortunately, I don't have a state of the art wet plate camera to sell.
    Allen
    Allen
     
    Allen, Aug 5, 2007
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. aniramca

    jdear64 Guest

    All those words and yet nothing about the actual merits of either
    format. You sound like a bitter old man that is afraid to learn
    something new. Do you still use a horse and buggy to get around? You
    have no facts to back you up so you just cry. Whaaa

    By the way, my DSLR is over three years old and should last me at
    least another seven.
     
    jdear64, Aug 6, 2007
    #43
  4. aniramca

    Ken Hart Guest

    How many new film cameras do you need? As far as the "image sensor" in a
    film camera is concerned, that's updated every time you load a
    "new&improved" roll of film. I suppose the manufacturers could come out with
    new auto-focus systems, but if you figure out how to load a roll of film,
    you should be able to figure out how to focus. Or maybe they could change
    the auto-exposure, but the same holds true. And there have been improvements
    in lens coatings, but then you could slap a new lens on a camera if it makes
    an improvement.

    I've had a Canon FX since 1969. The negs made then are still "readable"
    using the same equipment that I used then. I've had computers since the late
    1970's. Those computers, and the disks made with them, are now landfill
    somewhere.
     
    Ken Hart, Aug 6, 2007
    #44
  5. aniramca

    Ken Hart Guest

    snip
    What size?
    I'd like to find a case for my 12" slide rule. I keep it on my desk in the
    pencil holder, and it gets pencil marks on it.

    I should probably try wet-plate. My darkroom is close to the studio. Anyone
    know where I can get a large quantity of mercury for sensitizimg the plates?
     
    Ken Hart, Aug 6, 2007
    #45
  6. aniramca

    Tony Polson Guest

    What is the point of preaching to the converted? Most people
    subscribing to digital photo newsgroups have been completely
    brainwashed by digital.
    I bought my first DSLR more than five years ago. Currently I own two
    Canon EOS 5D DSLRs. I have owned a total of seven DSLRs. I also use
    film cameras, so I am well placed to make comparisons between film and
    digital media.
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 6, 2007
    #46
  7. aniramca

    Pat Guest

    You expect to get 10 years out of your camera? Really? You should go
    take more pictures. In the timeframe of 10 years, you should be able
    to find a seriously interesting way of destroying your camera or else
    you're not trying hard enough. Cameras break. Lenses break. Flashes
    break (boy do they break). Push anything to the limit and you break
    it. Go try harder.
     
    Pat, Aug 6, 2007
    #47
  8. aniramca

    AAvK Guest

    I totally agree with you Tony. Film is beautiful, much more artistic than digital. And fast
    film is much more natural in it's graininess than high dig-ISO is in it's digital noise production.
    This could be understood if people could see that they don't need to go snapping shots like
    green feinds to wind up with a page like this: http://photo.net/photos/Stovall what is the point
    when a 'snap' can be a real work of art that took time to conceive and compose? That concept
    can be accomplished with that camera! And I know I could have done far better with my old K2!

    People buy 5D's just for P/S pleasure and it's rediculous (a money privilege). There was (I
    forget the name) a Euro Photog artist that used nothing more than a Leica and 50mm lens on it,
    yet his work highly valueable. I think he was French.
     
    AAvK, Aug 6, 2007
    #48
  9. aniramca

    Tony Polson Guest

    There are some excellent images on that page.
    Hmmm. I bought *two* 5Ds!
    Henri Cartier-Bresson, perhaps?

    http://www.henricartierbresson.org/index_en.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson
    http://tinyurl.com/2qx4t9
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 6, 2007
    #49
  10. And what is "natural" about film grain. Do you
    see grain in real scenes with your eyes?

    Perhaps what you mean is you grew up with film grain,
    and you are used how it looks, so that seems "natural."

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 7, 2007
    #50
  11. I was last a member of a 'photographic society' at university over 40
    years ago. The little comments that I have seen since had always
    indicated that people were more interested in equipment than in pictures
    (let's not even call it 'art'!), so I never joined one.

    With retirement planned, I was thinking of joining a local society, but
    I need criticism and have *constructive* criticism to offer. We shall
    see!
    Yes, I agree.
    As long as they only sit there, does it matter?
    Probably. But digital is more difficult because there are more variables
    than there were in pre-digital days, but at the same time it's easier to
    correct, say, colour balance, in photoshop than it was in the darkroom.

    However, I went film-digital in the late 1990s, to gain the extra
    control. But I'm just an amateur!
    True - but only in part. The true artistic photographers are still
    around, but they are a small breed.

    The main difference between a good photographer and a bad photographer,
    is that the good photographer knows the difference between good and bad
    shots, and doesn't show people the bad ones!

    Mike

    [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
    --
    Michael J Davis
    <><
    Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
    the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
    <><
     
    Michael J Davis, Aug 7, 2007
    #51
  12. There's nothing new under the sun. George Bernard Shaw said, in 1901*,
    "The photographer is like the cod, which lays a million eggs in order
    that one may be hatched."

    The trouble today is that it's too cheap to show them on computer
    screens!

    * According to internet sources; I had thought that he said something
    very similar in the early days of the Leica camera.

    Mike

    --
    Michael J Davis

    Now with added pictures on http://www.flickr.com/photos/watchman

    <><
    They are called digital cameras because of the way
    you have to use fingers to get the memory card out!
    <><
     
    Michael J Davis, Aug 7, 2007
    #52
  13. aniramca

    AAvK Guest

    Not many! I think it takes a lot more composition work with the camera than "program"
    to make a shot into a work of art. For instance one should become an expert at metering
    and exposure. I know I am not quite there yet.
    I don't knock them, maybe I do a little in a way or two...

    My uncle has one, and I know superior work can be done with them such as Miles Hecker:
    http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=128000

    But out of 3276 users on pbase and their 555339 shots most of them are used as P/S work,
    hardly any genuine artists! http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/eos_5d No doubt because
    they were EOS film users, with that price for that size of a CCD, no wonder. Exactly the
    case with my Uncle. He uses it for snap shooting his family, other than being "tech-proud".
    Thank you very much for the links!
     
    AAvK, Aug 7, 2007
    #53
  14. aniramca

    jdear64 Guest

    So if you know the advantages of either platform, state them. I'm
    sure I'm not the only one that would be interested in hearing them.

    In a previous post you stated how I was an advertisers dream as so
    many others are by constantly upgrading cameras. Now in this post you
    boast of doing that. In five years you bought seven DSLR cameras?
    And you say you hate DSLR's compared to film. You must be a slow
    learner. You're your own worst enemy. :)
     
    jdear64, Aug 8, 2007
    #54
  15. aniramca

    Tony Polson Guest


    You should make your own comparison. That's the only one to rely on.
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 8, 2007
    #55
  16. aniramca

    jdear64 Guest

    What about this that you snipped out:

    "In a previous post you stated how I was an advertisers dream as so
    many others are by constantly upgrading cameras. Now in this post you
    boast of doing that. In five years you bought seven DSLR cameras? And
    you say you hate DSLR's compared to film. You must be a slow learner.
    You're your own worst enemy. :) "

    And from a previous post of yours:

    "Many camera buyers see a digital camera as an extension of their PC.
    It's just another peripheral, and just another opportunity to play
    with their computer. These buyers may never even have been interested
    in photography before, but a digital camera is a must-have accessory."

    Were you talking about yourself here?

    Or what about this:

    "So for the camera manufacturers, digital is hot. They are selling
    huge numbers of cameras, vastly more than in the days of film. That is
    because people are replacing film cameras that lasted forever, and
    which they kept for 10 years or more, with digital cameras that will
    be out of date and replaced within 18 months. As far as the camera
    manufacturers are concerned, this is the best time they have ever
    had."

    Again, you must be talking about yourself since you bought SEVEN
    DSLR's in FIVE years.

    And another one of your comments:

    "What is happening here is that the photographic industry is peddling
    the illusion that digital is better than film. It is certainly better
    for the manufacturers, because they are making and selling more
    cameras than ever in their history. But is it better for the
    photographer?"

    I guess you must consider yourself a sucker.

    Your arguments are so poor and your contradictions so great, it's
    doubtful anyone would ever learn anything from you.
     
    jdear64, Aug 8, 2007
    #56
  17. aniramca

    Tony Polson Guest


    I'm not here to teach. Thank you for your interest. Have a nice day.
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 8, 2007
    #57
  18. aniramca

    AAvK Guest


    Oh come on! "Natural" as in the "natural" chemical flow of the developement of
    a photograph_in_bath related to the speed of film as an artistic value. Larger film
    crystals accept light faster so the resulting image is grainy, what if this effect was
    applied digitally? In Photoshop? Would you consider it to be phony? Because I
    definitely would, even if I did it. You cannot override the human value of art by
    being a tech fanatic!
     
    AAvK, Aug 8, 2007
    #58
  19. aniramca

    AAvK Guest

    "jdear64" (whoever you are) Mr. Polson is a long time elder along these lines and equal
    with those of us in these NGs that are mutually interested in all aspects of photography
    at an equal social level of respect... you jump in at a social level of complete naivity
    and judge someone do not know nor the history of, by which you SHOW how much of
    a complete and total worthless A-HOLE you are!!! As well you show your own social
    validity as unacceptable by this of yourself to the rest of the group, and the whole
    internet! YOU have no basis whatsoever to because you do not know who people are
    nor do you know their history in their own personal lives NOR do you know of their
    experience, so you have no place to judge!

    "Set it on sRGB and shoot JPEG"

    GET LOST!
     
    AAvK, Aug 9, 2007
    #59
  20. aniramca

    acl Guest

    And what does "natural" mean? I assume you mean "non-high-tech enough
    to be threatening". If so, I suspect that the abstract to this
    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a757494062~db=all
    will change your opinion (the rest is even worse, but I don't think
    access to it is free). That's not about development, only the
    formation of the latent image.

    If natural means something else, please define it.
    Good thing for you that "tech fanatics" exist: without geeks, we'd
    still be living in caves, with a life expectancy of 30 or so, carrying
    enough water from the nearest stream to last us the day etc. But I
    guess we'd be drawing nice figures on the cave walls :)
     
    acl, Aug 9, 2007
    #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.