If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?

On 08/06/2015 02:52 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Let me know when you are ready to compare enlargements (Let's say
16"x20" or more) of your photos against mine.

Are you still using film cameras?

With the exception of eBay listings, I've always used film cameras.

why?

digital is much better than film ever was.

Again, let me know when you're ready to compare enlargements of your
photos against mine.

again, this has nothing to do with my photos or your photos or anyone
else's photos.

comparing photos of different subjects taken in different conditions by
different photographers is completely meaningless. there are *far* too
many variables.

the proper test is take two similar cameras, one film and one digital,
put them side by side and take photos at the same time of the same
subject using the same lenses and same settings and then compare.
anything else is a bogus comparison.

similar cameras would be something like a nikon f5 versus a nikon d810
because they are both full frame slrs. the lenses should also be the
same to eliminate yet another variable.

dissimilar cameras and therefore not a valid comparison would be
something like a 4x5 large format camera versus a cellphone camera.
any difference in results would be due to the huge difference in format
size, not film versus digital. it's the same as if you compared a 4x5
film camera with a kodak 110 instamatic film camera or a medium format
dslr with a cellphone camera.

compared to film, digital has higher resolution, less noise, wider
dynamic range, more accurate colour and is capable of significantly
higher iso. digital will win every single time, no matter what the
subject is or who the photographer is. this is something that can be
measured and has been measured.

to put it simply: anything you can do with film can be done better with
digital. end of story.

if someone likes the 'film look' (which is a vague and meaningless
term), they can add back whatever it is they like about film, whether
it's grain or velvia-like colours or whatever else.


First, check this website:
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comp...-film-digital/
It meets many of your criteria.

Second, the end goal in photography is to create a meaningful permanent
visual record of the subject, not a series of charts and graphs.

The finished result should be something that you will want to display on
your wall: Ansel Adams "Moon and Half Dome", or an image that will
'speak' to you: the flag-rising on Iwo Jimo, the crash of the
Hindenburg, or the fireman carrying the child from the Oklahoma bombing.

I don't really care about your double-blind, A/B comparison tests- I
want to see photographs!

--
Ken Hart

In article ,
Ken Hart wrote:

On 08/06/2015 02:52 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Let me know when you are ready to compare enlargements (Let's say
16"x20" or more) of your photos against mine.

Are you still using film cameras?

With the exception of eBay listings, I've always used film cameras.

why?

digital is much better than film ever was.

Again, let me know when you're ready to compare enlargements of your
photos against mine.

again, this has nothing to do with my photos or your photos or anyone
else's photos.

comparing photos of different subjects taken in different conditions by
different photographers is completely meaningless. there are *far* too
many variables.

the proper test is take two similar cameras, one film and one digital,
put them side by side and take photos at the same time of the same
subject using the same lenses and same settings and then compare.
anything else is a bogus comparison.

similar cameras would be something like a nikon f5 versus a nikon d810
because they are both full frame slrs. the lenses should also be the
same to eliminate yet another variable.

dissimilar cameras and therefore not a valid comparison would be
something like a 4x5 large format camera versus a cellphone camera.
any difference in results would be due to the huge difference in format
size, not film versus digital. it's the same as if you compared a 4x5
film camera with a kodak 110 instamatic film camera or a medium format
dslr with a cellphone camera.

compared to film, digital has higher resolution, less noise, wider
dynamic range, more accurate colour and is capable of significantly
higher iso. digital will win every single time, no matter what the
subject is or who the photographer is. this is something that can be
measured and has been measured.

to put it simply: anything you can do with film can be done better with
digital. end of story.

if someone likes the 'film look' (which is a vague and meaningless
term), they can add back whatever it is they like about film, whether
it's grain or velvia-like colours or whatever else.


First, check this website:
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comp...-film-digital/
It meets many of your criteria.

I find this comparison more clarifying:
http://petapixel.com/2014/11/03/a-fi...y-john-kossik/

Second, the end goal in photography is to create a meaningful permanent
visual record of the subject, not a series of charts and graphs.

The finished result should be something that you will want to display on
your wall: Ansel Adams "Moon and Half Dome", or an image that will
'speak' to you: the flag-rising on Iwo Jimo, the crash of the
Hindenburg, or the fireman carrying the child from the Oklahoma bombing.

I don't really care about your double-blind, A/B comparison tests- I
want to see photographs!

I won a EOS 1000fn filmcamera on an auction. $5. It seems to work. I
hope to get use it some day. That would be for scans however. Even
though I loved the look of Cibachrome prints.
--
teleportation kills

On 8/6/2015 5:09 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
Ken Hart wrote:

On 08/06/2015 02:52 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Let me know when you are ready to compare enlargements (Let's say
16"x20" or more) of your photos against mine.

Are you still using film cameras?

With the exception of eBay listings, I've always used film cameras.

why?

digital is much better than film ever was.

Again, let me know when you're ready to compare enlargements of your
photos against mine.

again, this has nothing to do with my photos or your photos or anyone
else's photos.

comparing photos of different subjects taken in different conditions by
different photographers is completely meaningless. there are *far* too
many variables.

the proper test is take two similar cameras, one film and one digital,
put them side by side and take photos at the same time of the same
subject using the same lenses and same settings and then compare.
anything else is a bogus comparison.

similar cameras would be something like a nikon f5 versus a nikon d810
because they are both full frame slrs. the lenses should also be the
same to eliminate yet another variable.

dissimilar cameras and therefore not a valid comparison would be
something like a 4x5 large format camera versus a cellphone camera.
any difference in results would be due to the huge difference in format
size, not film versus digital. it's the same as if you compared a 4x5
film camera with a kodak 110 instamatic film camera or a medium format
dslr with a cellphone camera.

compared to film, digital has higher resolution, less noise, wider
dynamic range, more accurate colour and is capable of significantly
higher iso. digital will win every single time, no matter what the
subject is or who the photographer is. this is something that can be
measured and has been measured.

to put it simply: anything you can do with film can be done better with
digital. end of story.

if someone likes the 'film look' (which is a vague and meaningless
term), they can add back whatever it is they like about film, whether
it's grain or velvia-like colours or whatever else.


First, check this website:
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comp...-film-digital/
It meets many of your criteria.

I find this comparison more clarifying:
http://petapixel.com/2014/11/03/a-fi...y-john-kossik/

Second, the end goal in photography is to create a meaningful permanent
visual record of the subject, not a series of charts and graphs.

The finished result should be something that you will want to display on
your wall: Ansel Adams "Moon and Half Dome", or an image that will
'speak' to you: the flag-rising on Iwo Jimo, the crash of the
Hindenburg, or the fireman carrying the child from the Oklahoma bombing.

I don't really care about your double-blind, A/B comparison tests- I
want to see photographs!

I won a EOS 1000fn filmcamera on an auction. $5. It seems to work. I
hope to get use it some day. That would be for scans however. Even
though I loved the look of Cibachrome prints.

I still do. Plus Cibachrome prints have a very high resistance to fading.


--
PeterN

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

digital is much better than film ever was.

Again, let me know when you're ready to compare enlargements of your
photos against mine.

What camera/film do you use?

Film is usually color negative from a major manufacturer.

which one?

If I am shooting 35mm, the camera is a Canon FX with one of the Canon
FL-mount lenses.

you must be kidding. a 50 year old camera?????

and you think that is going to beat a digital camera of today??

If I am shooting medium format, the camera is either a Mamiya M645 or
Koni Omega Rapid M. The Koni is a rangefinder, so it's easier to use in
dim light and it has a larger neg: 6x7cm; but it is heavy and bulky. The
Mamiya is an SLR, considerably smaller and easier to handle, but the
viewfinder is not as bright and blacks out at exposure.

wow. only 40 years old.

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

compared to film, digital has higher resolution, less noise, wider
dynamic range, more accurate colour and is capable of significantly
higher iso. digital will win every single time, no matter what the
subject is or who the photographer is. this is something that can be
measured and has been measured.

to put it simply: anything you can do with film can be done better with
digital. end of story.

if someone likes the 'film look' (which is a vague and meaningless
term), they can add back whatever it is they like about film, whether
it's grain or velvia-like colours or whatever else.

First, check this website:
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comp...-film-digital/
It meets many of your criteria.

that confirms what i've been saying.

Second, the end goal in photography is to create a meaningful permanent
visual record of the subject, not a series of charts and graphs.

who said anything about charts and graphs?

take the same photo with two similar cameras, one digital and the other
film, and the digital camera will produce a higher quality result.

The finished result should be something that you will want to display on
your wall: Ansel Adams "Moon and Half Dome", or an image that will
'speak' to you: the flag-rising on Iwo Jimo, the crash of the
Hindenburg, or the fireman carrying the child from the Oklahoma bombing.

that has absolutely nothing to do with film or digital and everything
to do with the skills of the photographer.

in other words, you're moving the goalposts.

had ansel adams had a digital camera, his photos would be even *better*.

I don't really care about your double-blind, A/B comparison tests- I
want to see photographs!

of course not, because you know you'll lose. that's why you' moved the
goalposts.

audiophiles hate a/b tests too, and for the same reason. they know
they'll lose.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

If I am shooting 35mm, the camera is a Canon FX with one of the Canon
FL-mount lenses.

you must be kidding. a 50 year old camera?????

and you think that is going to beat a digital camera of today??

It depends on what is to be beaten. How do you fault these?

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...k-at-1965/3874
93/

A person who thinks as you do would rate a dull and uninteresting
photo higher than any of these if the subject is presented in
magnicient detail.

the issue is film versus digital, not the subject or the photographer.

had the above photos been taken with a digital camera, they'd be much
higher quality than with film.

the same look could still be done (e.g., grainy), if that's what the
photographer wanted, or it could benefit from the much higher quality
that digital is capable of.

let's see some of those iso 3200 colour photos from 50 years ago and
compare them to iso 3200 images from today's digital cameras.

On 08/06/2015 03:31 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
Ken Hart wrote:

On 08/06/2015 08:50 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , Ken Hart wrote:

Ken Hart:
Let me know when you are ready to compare enlargements
(Let's say 16"x20" or more) of your photos against mine.

Alfred Molon:
Are you still using film cameras?

Ken Hart:
With the exception of eBay listings, I've always used film
cameras.

nospam:
why?

digital is much better than film ever was.

Again, let me know when you're ready to compare enlargements of your
photos against mine.

What camera/film do you use?

Film is usually color negative from a major manufacturer.

If I am shooting 35mm, the camera is a Canon FX with one of the Canon
FL-mount lenses.

If I am shooting medium format, the camera is either a Mamiya M645 or
Koni Omega Rapid M. The Koni is a rangefinder, so it's easier to use in
dim light and it has a larger neg: 6x7cm; but it is heavy and bulky. The
Mamiya is an SLR, considerably smaller and easier to handle, but the
viewfinder is not as bright and blacks out at exposure.

Do you scan that, or do you work in a darkroom?

Normally in the darkroom, but if I'm just going to post the photos
online, I'll scan them.
The darkroom can do a lot better than the scanner, particularly in
showing subtle differences in density.

--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

The darkroom can do a lot better than the scanner, particularly in
showing subtle differences in density.

nonsense.

you either have a crappy scanner or you don't know how to work with
digital images or both.

the only thing a darkroom can do better than a scanner and image
processing software is subject you to toxic fumes.

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

It depends on what is to be beaten. How do you fault these?

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...ack-at-1965/38
7493/

The image doesn't look that sharp (probably some focus issue) and there
is some camera shake as well. If you submitted this to a stock photo
agency, it would fail QC.

'the' image?? there are 50 images on that page.

however, your point is valid, in that they all show the limitations of
film. had they been shot on digital, they'd be more compelling.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

It depends on what is to be beaten. How do you fault these?

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...k-back-at-1965
/38
7493/

The image doesn't look that sharp (probably some focus issue) and there
is some camera shake as well. If you submitted this to a stock photo
agency, it would fail QC.

'the' image?? there are 50 images on that page.

however, your point is valid, in that they all show the limitations of
film. had they been shot on digital, they'd be more compelling.

Once again, you demonstrate that you have no idea what constitutes
"compelling" in a photograph. It isn't pixels.

once again, you demonstrate that you lie and twist what i say.

i didn't say it was pixels.