If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
George writes:
And a lack of surprises is nice, too. My daughter went to Arizona last summer and took a new (35mm film) camera with her...turns out it had a "feature" that neither of us was aware of and she wound up taking two rolls of film in "panoramic mode" (where "panoramic" doesn't mean a wider than normal negative, it only means the top and bottom are masked out)... Many digital cameras are much worse. You think you have the photos, then you don't, or you erase them by accident, etc. You can't erase exposures on film (unless you fail to rewind it), but it's easy on a digicam. Overall, these are problems with the design of the camera, however, and have nothing to do with the type of capture used. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
Reciprocity Failure writes:
What a stupid statement. An increasing number of digicam owners are computer-illiterate, as the use of digicams expands beyond the geek community. It conveys much more information about you than it does about owners of digital cameras (and what it says about you isn't flattering). At least it contains no personal attack. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
jjs writes:
Well, the poor young dweeb started her pitch with "After each shot you can look at the back of the camera to see if it came out!" His response? Well, I swear that churchbells were going to rock a thousand miles away. From his laughter. Gales of laughter! I don't blame him. I've always wondered about that. I already _know_ if my (film) pictures are going to come out, since I looked through the viewfinder when I took them. I don't need a screen to verify it. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
In article ,
"jjs" wrote: One of my former colleagues has been a professional photojournalist for over forty years. He even has a Pulitzer, or three if you count shared prizes. His paper went all digital not long ago. Now imagine being the poor young technophile who tried to convince this hugely talented, experience curmudgeon that film is a Bad Thing. Well, the poor young dweeb started her pitch with "After each shot you can look at the back of the camera to see if it came out!" His response? Well, I swear that churchbells were going to rock a thousand miles away. From his laughter. Gales of laughter! There was a piece done by ABC news on this very subject, one of the editors of TIME/Life I beleive was going into great details regarding the "delete the bad ones" mentality. Her point was that had that been a factor in The Monica Lewinski hugging Bill scenario the image would have been lost forever. It was not a Pulitizer at the time it was taken, luckly it was on film and Darrel Halstead's contact sheet (I think that was the photographers name). So what exactly do we end up with, basically a sterile "perfected" world or images, or a perfectly sterile world. -- LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
Gregory W Blank wrote:
So what exactly do we end up with, basically a sterile "perfected" world or images, or a perfectly sterile world. Odds are we end up with nothing at all. First we edit out all the ones that are boring when taken. Then later we edit out some more. We keep repeating the editing until nothing is left. Imagine giving a box of prints to a series of people. Telling each one to take out the worthless ones and to then pass it on. Bet by the end that box is pretty close to empty. Nick |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Many digital cameras are much worse. You think you have the photos, then you don't, or you erase them by accident, etc. You can't erase exposures on film (unless you fail to rewind it), but it's easy on a digicam. I'm sure some people would be happy if they _could_ erase their digital media, but sometimes the data is kept and the directory pointers are zeroed. OT, for sure, but I know a fellow who delighted in loaning out floppies for his classmates to use in the class Mavica. It's astounding how people behave alone with a Digicam. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
"Gregory W Blank" wrote in message ... There was a piece done by ABC news on this very subject, one of the editors of TIME/Life I beleive was going into great details regarding the "delete the bad ones" mentality. Her point was that had that been a factor in The Monica Lewinski hugging Bill scenario the image would have been lost forever. It was not a Pulitizer at the time it was taken, luckly it was on film and Darrel Halstead's contact sheet (I think that was the photographers name). And how ironic it is that Americans love to sift through the trash called Star Search (or whatever the fcuk it's called). Reminds me of the photoeditor's hell - relegated to reviewing streetside surveliance camera output - in real time. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
"jjs" wrote in message ... "Gregory W Blank" wrote in message ... There was a piece done by ABC news on this very subject, one of the editors of TIME/Life I beleive was going into great details regarding the "delete the bad ones" mentality. Her point was that had that been a factor in The Monica Lewinski hugging Bill scenario the image would have been lost forever. It was not a Pulitizer at the time it was taken, luckly it was on film and Darrel Halstead's contact sheet (I think that was the photographers name). Yep. I just saw the last part of AMERICAN PHOTOGRAPHY [if my memory of the series is right]. It wrestled with digital vs film in light of the Monica Lewinski discovery. And how ironic it is that Americans love to sift through the trash called Star Search (or whatever the fcuk it's called). Reminds me of the photoeditor's hell - relegated to reviewing streetside surveliance camera output - in real time. Reality CCTV, no less. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
"Roy Mock" wrote in message u... Yep. I just saw the last part of AMERICAN PHOTOGRAPHY [if my memory of the series is right]. It wrestled with digital vs film in light of the Monica Lewinski discovery. And what of the Kerry - Fonda picture? It was a total fake, but the desperado news people sucked on it. If they don't take a moment to check facts now, what of the future when they go back to an obscure event, unknown photographer's images? If it ain't on film, it ain't .... what? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
Sorry, I didn't mean it as a personal attack, I meant the statement was
stupid not the person. It was a stupid statement because neither the author nor anyone else here has any actual knowledge of the extent to which digital camera users know anything about computers. Certainly 99% of the digital camera users aren't "computer illiterate" and digital camera use hasn't been confined to "the geek community" for many years if it ever was. However, it's amusing to see the straws at which some are grasping in their efforts to convince themselves that everyone who uses a digital camera is an idiot. The "Pulitzer Prize Winning Photo Journalist Meets Technie Dweeb" was the best. Most, probably all, major metropolitan newspapers as well as many smaller ones no longer use film. But they haven't switched to digital technology because it enables the photographer to see the photograph at the time it's being made. Indeed it's difficult to imagine a "techie dweeb" seriously trying to convince a Pulitzer prize-winning photo journalist of digital's merits on that basis. Newspapers have switched to digital because it makes a lot of sense for them. It eliminates the need to physically transport film or a print back to the photo editor and then to the plant, it eliminates the need to maintain a darkroom and a darkroom staff to process film, it allows the photographs to arrive at the photo editor's desk much faster, sometimes allowing the photo editor to let the photographer know on the spot whether he or she has what the editor wants, and the cost savings involved in not having to buy and process thousands of rolls of film per year are enormous. It's obviously painful for some to acknowledge but digital actually makes a lot of sense for many people and many industries, everyone who uses it isn't a computer illiterate or someone who can't read a manual. Not everyone who used film was exactly a genius either. APS exists in part because industry research showed that so many people had trouble getting a film leader onto a take up spool. "Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Reciprocity Failure writes: What a stupid statement. An increasing number of digicam owners are computer-illiterate, as the use of digicams expands beyond the geek community. It conveys much more information about you than it does about owners of digital cameras (and what it says about you isn't flattering). At least it contains no personal attack. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Insane new TSA rule for film inspection | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 94 | June 23rd 04 05:17 AM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |
Will we always be able to buy film? | Phil Glaser | In The Darkroom | 30 | January 28th 04 05:11 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner | bleanne | APS Photographic Equipment | 1 | November 27th 03 07:34 AM |