Konica-Minolta

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by no_name, Jan 20, 2006.

  1. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    ^^^^^
    there are
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 22, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    I see, it's okay for you to be nasty: "Depends on how wide Canon
    That wasn't being nasty Alan, digital cameras are grossly overpriced for
    what they are, just look at the top two companies profit margins (not
    Minolta's of course)
    Illustrate to me which statement I made that you feel is a "blatently naïve
    statement", I am unsure what you're specifically referencing.
    Regarding: "equipment is meaningless to a skilled individual." Meaning: Some
    can produce better images with a $150 investment than others could produce
    with a $1500 investment. Only gear junkies and anal specification addicts
    salivate over equipment, which to be fair certain posters on this group fall
    into those categories.
    irrational.

    You keep repeating this word digital, I have a digital video camera, I have
    CD's & DVD's, I have PC's, digital TV, digital radio, digital phone, MP3
    player, GPS etc... I have no aversion to digital technology, I'm just not up
    for it where my photography is concerned, like I said - I have enough
    electronics, I draw the line.
    Of course I do, but you were suggesting I spend my life trawling photo.net
    as a viable way to 'educate' myself about the benefits of digital
    photography.
    "skilled individual"?

    I'm not in favour of the whole approach that digital capture offers, the
    disposability of cameras, the software incompatibilities (RAW), the archival
    issues, the deliberate parts obsolescence by manufacturers, the upgrade
    game, the limitless potential for image manipulation, software dependency
    etc..
    I don't have a choice, the market is being driven by mindless consumers
    whose primary concern is the latest whizzbang gadgetry.
    All I have is my opinion, which I believe every individual is entitled to.

     
    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 22, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. no_name

    Peter Irwin Guest

    He's worth knowing about.
    <http://www.google.com/search?q=Frederick+Evans+platinum>
    for lots of info.

    It isn't a reach. It is a clear instance where someone who
    was quite definitely a photographer gave up photography
    because his favourite material was unavailable.

    Peter.
     
    Peter Irwin, Jan 22, 2006
    #23
  4. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    It isn't a reach. It is a clear instance where someone who
    The point you're making is as clear as day Peter.
     
    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 22, 2006
    #24
  5. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    In 1994 when I first bought a Minolta SLR nobody could forsee where the
    market would go and who would do well and who wouldn't. No more than
    anyone could forsee in the 80's that Canon would overtake Nikon and
    leave them choking in Canon fumes.
    I have little doubt that my Minolta gear will still be working in 2015.
    I'm not so sure about my Hasselblad.
    Especially since you keep snipping them away. But here ya go:

    "When film goes, so does my interest in photography, then I find a new
    interest. I personally don't see myself ever buying a digital SLR, it's
    just not the way I want photography to be, too disposable, ..." -J.K.

    So:
    1) You want to do "photography"
    2) You state that equipment does not a photographer make.
    3) That if there is only digital, you're not interested.

    Coupled together that means you're not a photographer. A photographer
    will use what's available to make images using light. Hopefully his
    favoured medium (B&W, color negative, positive, digital... etc.), but he
    will use what is available as it is the _photography_ that is his first
    passion, not the medium itself.

    If you were a B&W photographer, then you wouldn't care a whit, as a B&W
    photographer almost always does his own developing and printing and
    should be able to do so for a long time. I'm less sure about E-6
    commercial processing and it is a truly ugly thing to do on one's own, IMO.

    I know what it means, thank you, and I agree with it.
    I fall into it a bit myself. And so what? This *is* an equipment group
    after all.

    But I'm also an amateur photographer. When I make phototgraphs I am (or
    at least try to be) subject oriented, not camera oriented. It's nice to
    drool over the specs but if the specs can't be made to deliver a result,
    then they're for naught.
    In the context of this ng and thread, digital, as you well know pertains
    to photography. None of those (except the video camera and possibly the
    PC) are creative tools. A digital camera is a creative tool.

    If you stick to this I hope for you (and me) that film will remain
    conveniently available and processable.

    I also hope that you spend a few projects with a digital so that you can
    learn its possibilites and not stick so
    Twist and turn Kewfi. I never said spend your life. I suggested that
    once you get passed "what" the images were taken on you would see that
    it does not matter.
    In reverse order:
    Nobody forces you to manipulate your images.
    Obselescence is as real in any domain as it is in photography.
    Digital is still in its infancy, relatively speaking
    Software incompatibilities is a non-issue as I and others have often
    replied to you.
    Certainly. But it doesn't mean that you should paint yourself into a
    "no digital photography" corner either. It's (almost) akin to not
    believing in the automobile and insisting on riding a horse and buggy to
    work. (Which may be the case at the rate we're burning oil, but I digress).

    The market is also driven by professional photographers who make
    photography that has very short shelf life. Digital takes a lot of the
    hassled out of getting images to print.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 22, 2006
    #25
  6. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    Thanks for the link. I didn't find anything when I replied the first
    time (didn't spend much effort either).

    Two thoughts:

    1) by 1915 the fellow was 62 years old and had been doing his "brand" of
    photography for about 35 years. I can understand if he hung it up, as
    62 year-olds of those days were _old_ compared to today's spry 62 year
    old.

    Kewfi has a few years ahead of him yet. He better enjoy them instead of
    being bitter about digital.

    2) Were Evans a younger man and still a prominent innovator and printer,
    he might have contributed even more to the art in the evolved media of
    the day.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 22, 2006
    #26
  7. no_name

    Matt Clara Guest

    Yes, that describes Canon's position for most of its existence. It's not a
    bad place to be.
     
    Matt Clara, Jan 23, 2006
    #27
  8. no_name

    Douglas Guest

    Comparing Canon cameras to Nikon cameras is very much like comparing a Volvo
    to a Mercedes. One is for the masses and the other for those seeking the
    best.

    If Canon ever attempted to produce a DSLR with the build quality and
    reliability of Nikon, the price would go through the roof. I don't see Canon
    on the name of critical medical optical devices.
     
    Douglas, Jan 23, 2006
    #28
  9. no_name

    Sander Vesik Guest

    But nobody is forcing you to use digital or buy newer equipment. Why do
    you feel this way? A regular film body (with AF being optional extra)
    and a 50mm lens will let you domost things. Sure, there are cases where
    the focal length of "do almost everything" is different to 50mm but the
    point stands - you don't need to give in to gear aquisition to do what you
    want.
     
    Sander Vesik, Jan 23, 2006
    #29
  10. no_name

    Michael Guest

    You can go to http://opd.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_medeq/drs.html to
    read a little about Canon Digital Radiography Systems.

    At http://opd.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_medeq/ophthalmic_index.html
    are links to various sorts of Canon Ophthalmic Equipment. Things like
    digital retinal imaging systems, a digital fundus camera, a
    non-mydriatic retinal camera, keratometers, and tonometers.

    Although if a company simply chooses not to concentrate on medical
    optical devices, I don't assume that it's because the company's unable
    to meet the medical field's high standards. Nor do I assume that if a
    company manufacturers critical medical optical devices, its consumer
    products division must necessarily produce outstanding SLR bodies or
    lenses.
     
    Michael, Jan 23, 2006
    #30
  11. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    1) You want to do "photography"

    As long as it continues to exist, which I don't expect now will be any
    longer than 10 years.
    If using a digital camera, then that is the whole show, from the moment the
    shutter button is pressed on a DSLR you are reliant on image manipulation
    software, there is no DSLR in the world at any price that can produce a
    usable RAW image straight from the camera, they all require work up after
    the image is captured. That isn't photography, the viewfinder is all the
    manipulation a photographer needs.
    Electronics and software are not photography.
    Does every man have to wait till middle age to be as conceited and arrogant
    as you?
    So anyone using a disposable camera is now a 'photographer' because they're
    making images using light, is it?
    The rest of your claptrap isn't worth responding to.

     
    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 23, 2006
    #31
  12. So you're saying Ansel Adams wasn't a photographer? Galen Rowell
    wasn't a photographer? Because both of them considered the steps
    after releasing the shutter to be key parts of the process of
    producing their photographs.

    You're welcome to have whatever personal tastes in photography you
    want; but I do think that trying such a massive stealth redefinition
    of the term is going beyond the bounds of sane discourse.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 23, 2006
    #32
  13. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    You're welcome to have whatever personal tastes in photography you
    As I've said, everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
     
    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 23, 2006
    #33
  14. no_name

    Scott W Guest

    I have watched this thread with some amusement, Joe says that if he
    can't shoot film he won't shoot at all. Al says that means he never
    was a real photographer. (you guys don't mind if I call you Joe and
    Al do you, it saves a lot of typing).

    Now Al is clearly being a bit off base here since the definition of
    what a real photograph is should not be based on whether they are
    rational or not. If Joe decided one day that he did not like the look
    of his horoscope and never took another photo in his life would that
    really mean he was not a real photographer before?

    But of course it is more complicated then that, when Joe said that he
    would find other interest it kind of read like just a bit of an insult
    to those people who would be willing to switch to digital.

    My take on the whole thing is that whether Joe is a real photographer
    or not is in no way conditional on whether he would be willing to shoot
    digital rather then give up photographer. But I think it shows his
    hate of digital photography is greater then his love of photograph in
    general. But also consider that to some people the process is more
    important then the resulting image.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 23, 2006
    #34
  15. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    Nonesense. Since Canon decided to be number one and took the business
    direction and risks entailed, they have risen to the top of the 35mm
    world. Pros have swithced on mass, and the older pros are retiring.
    The old dog has no new tricks.
    Oh please. Canon's are fine and, like Nikon, they build
    plastic-fantastic to very good mid-range models and top quality rugged
    models for pros.

    Optically, Canon have surpassed Nikon in all the lens types that matter
    to pros and dedicated amateurs.

    Nikon still have great equipment, there is no doubt, but they are over
    the hump and coasting while Canon is still climbing to heights that
    Nikon will likely never reach.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 24, 2006
    #35
  16. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    Photography will be around as long as man has the ability and means to
    do so. Digital still photography shall be around for much longer than
    film has been to date. Which does not mean that film does not have a
    long future ahead of it either.
    Film photography is little different. Slides come out as slides come
    out, but color negative printing is highly variable and B&W excells
    becasue of the variability of the printing. The darkroom moves digital
    is all. It's your choice as to how far you take it or not.

    Most good DLRS' produce very useable JPG's from the camera. Usually the
    color is very well done and you can go straight to print with
    confidence. No common printing method has the range of the JPG's produced.

    As to RAW, it's very much like color printing (or scanning and printing)
    from a color negative. In color printing you have a wide range of
    control over color values and exposure in printing ... so much so that
    it is much more variable than you seem to realize.

    B&W photographers have only done 1/3 of the work when they depress the
    shutter... they have long sessions ahead of them to get that perfect
    print. That's the main reason why I don't shoot very much B&W.
    Then what specifically *is* photography?

    When I shoot slides, that's it, it's done except for the developing.

    When I shoot negatives, there's still printing to be done. I have to
    rely on the lab and happilly mine is very cooperative.

    'Course, then there's scanning, and so on...

    Also, Kewfi, remember _you_ can't even tell the difference between
    digital and film images in any case. So what's the difference to you?
    No it means that you've painted yourself into some idealogical corner
    and you don't realize that you're just being childish. The day will
    come when you can see many sides to an issue and appreciate them for
    what they are.

    If you believe that your beliefs will stand the test of your own
    lifetime, you are in for a bumpy road.
    Stop flip flopping Kewfi. You said it yourself, a good photographer can
    produce competent, if not great images, regardless of the equipment.
    There is also nothing that prevents "non-photographers" from getting
    cameras (film or otherwise) to record whatever the hell it is they want.
    It's a non-issue.

    A photographer should want to record the image. He has a variety of
    ways to do it. There are certainly older and more difficult ways to do
    it; and there may be yet easier ways to do it. But one interested in
    making photographs should not worry about the equipment or medium. He
    should evaluate all of them. I personally would love to shoot square
    kilometers of LF E-6... but that is unlikley for me, I don't have the
    patience for that kind of endeavour.

    A good photographer should at least ___try___ new approaches before
    discarding them out of hand becasue of some ill founded beliefs about
    what it is and what it entails.
    The only claptrap is your closed mind.
    Tough having clap trapped in there.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 24, 2006
    #36
  17. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    What I said was, more or less: a real photographer will work in whatever
    medium is available to him ... his goal is the image, not the medium.
    I'm sure you can come up with even more farfetched scenarios, don't let
    me stop you.
    Kewfi's insinuation that "digital" is not photogrphy is every bit as
    silly as the notion that fine art excludes photogrpahy.
    That's the only thing you've said that I agree *wholeheartedly* with.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 24, 2006
    #37
  18. [snip]

    Without contradicting your point, let's e,phasise the photographers who
    use film, but scan it then use a "digital darkroom". (Some do this from
    slides, some from negatives, some both).

    I did this for years, after giving away my wet darkroom, before buying
    a digital camera. The digital camera itself made a relatively small
    difference. I still use an SLR, even the same lenses, in much the same
    way, but now the time-to-digital-darkroom have been dramatically
    reduced. I still have a similar range of options, from fairly straight
    prints with little manipulation, to prints that only appear after huge
    amounts of (what I wish I could call) creative work.
     
    Barry Pearson, Jan 24, 2006
    #38
  19. That must be why my scanner software saves the corrections into a file for
    re-use.....So far, I have just scanned some slides, and haven't had to do
    very much to them. ( a little brightness and contrast adjustment) (I have
    only had my scanner a couple of weeks) I guess I will have to do more
    tweaking when I start scanning negatives, and then the saved correction
    files will probably come in handy.....I guess they assume that whatever you
    have to do to one frame on a roll, you will probably have to do to all of
    them.
     
    William Graham, Jan 24, 2006
    #39
  20. The curious thing about a dedicated film photographer's first impression of
    a digital image is always the vivid and artificial looking colour, compared
    to their film prints. For some this is a plus. For others it simply
    represents the crassness of digitizing photography.

    The first digital camera I bought was a P&S, 1 Megapixel Canon. It cost as
    much a 350D does today. The vividness of colour is what my first impression
    was. Now, some 6 years on, I am sure this is what makes many people
    (falsely) believe that Digital photographs are some how "better" than film
    prints.

    They are not, they just create an allusion they are but they lack much of
    the finer points of "fine Art" photographs. They have no toe and shoulder. A
    Digital image abruptly starts or stops as it's curve attempts to imitate
    that of film, producing a point at which white becomes absolute instead of a
    tonal graduation. The opposite is true of black.

    For these reasons, at some point in the decay and demise of film makers, one
    or two will almost certainly decide to still be making film in 100 years
    time. What type of film will be dictated by people like Joseph who have made
    a stand (right or wrong) based on their beliefs. This, we need to respect
    because when all is said and done, it is 100% manual cameras and film that
    save the day when the batteries in your DSLR go flat or the electronics call
    it quits!
     
    no one noteworthy, Jan 24, 2006
    #40
    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.