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

On 2015-08-07 08:22:20 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

In article , Tony Cooper
says...
It depends on what is to be beaten. How do you fault these?

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...t-1965/387493/

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.

Irrelevant.
Those photographs were moments of history captured on film in an era
when there was no digital option. In many cases the conditions were
difficult for any photographer, digital or film. It took skilled
photographers to recognise and capture the moment without any of the
advantages of digital photography. To compare these examples with
today's digital stock photos is assinine.

The photographic work of combat photographers such as Horst Faas and
Tim Page is rough, raw, technically imperfect, and compelling. Before
you criticise, think of how well you would do reloading 35mm cassettes
while lying in a muddy rice paddy while under fire. Think of how you
would do in the confusion of a protest march led by M. L King.

All of these images tell a story and document a particular era as only
these photographers could.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2015080620283712289-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

The photographic work of combat photographers such as Horst Faas and
Tim Page is rough, raw, technically imperfect, and compelling. Before
you criticise, think of how well you would do reloading 35mm cassettes
while lying in a muddy rice paddy while under fire. Think of how you
would do in the confusion of a protest march led by M. L King.

that's another huge advantage of digital.

think of all the shots they *missed* because they were fussing with the
camera, having to reload film and also limited to however may rolls
they could carry in their pockets.

those limitations are now gone.

All of these images tell a story and document a particular era as only
these photographers could.

yep. they did the best they could at the time.

today, they can do much better.

in the future, it will be even better than it is now.

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.

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

Sandman:
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.

Easily matched by digital.

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.

Medium format analog is higher resolution that any digital camera currently (even
digital medium format) so if you were only talking about enlargement from medium
format shots, then I agree.

--
Sandman

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

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

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...look-back-at-1
965/387493/

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.

I know you feel compelled to reply to every post, but can't you at
least try to provide an intelligent response?

what for? your post was not intelligent.

Yes, in essence, what you said was the difference is in pixels.

nope.

Those
same images, rendered by a modern digital camera, would not be more or
less compelling. If anything, they'd be less compelling because it is
not the clarity of the image that compels; it is the emotional impact
however rendered that compels.

nonsense. the emotional impact would be the same or actually stronger
due to the advantages of digital. they'd also be able to take photos
they otherwise could not have taken with film.

imagine if the photographer had a cheap 110 instamatic for all those
photos. would the images be as compelling? no, because the quality
would be worse. not only that but they probably would not have been
able to even get many of the shots.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The photographic work of combat photographers such as Horst Faas and
Tim Page is rough, raw, technically imperfect, and compelling. Before
you criticise, think of how well you would do reloading 35mm cassettes
while lying in a muddy rice paddy while under fire. Think of how you
would do in the confusion of a protest march led by M. L King.

that's another huge advantage of digital.

think of all the shots they *missed* because they were fussing with the
camera, having to reload film and also limited to however may rolls
they could carry in their pockets.

those limitations are now gone.

All of these images tell a story and document a particular era as only
these photographers could.

yep. they did the best they could at the time.

today, they can do much better.

in the future, it will be even better than it is now.

Your drooling worship of all things new is almost painful to read.

then don't read it.

It is not quantity that makes things valuable to us. It is that there
are just a few representations of the past that makes those few
valuable. We look past the technical flaws because these are the few
that made it to us.

Matthew Brady's photographs of the Civil War camps are valuable to us
because they are among the few representations of that period. If all
of the soldiers had been taking selfies with modern digital cameras,
the results would have no importance to us today.

An abundance of photos would not be an improvement.

whoosh.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

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.

Easily matched by digital.

actually, easily exceeded, and by a lot.

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.

Medium format analog is higher resolution that any digital camera currently
(even
digital medium format) so if you were only talking about enlargement from medium
format shots, then I agree.

false.

a medium format digital camera greatly outperforms a medium format film
camera, just as a full frame dslr greatly outperforms a 35mm slr.

not only that, but a nikon d810 can easily match and even outperform
medium format film cameras.

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
What camera/film do you use?

Ken Hart:
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.

Sandman:
Easily matched by digital.

actually, easily exceeded, and by a lot.

As I've mentioned before, a good current film and ideal conditions would match
roughly a 30+ megapixel camera, so matched and slightly exceeded by a D800

Ken Hart:
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.

Sandman:
Medium format analog is higher resolution that any digital camera
currently (even digital medium format) so if you were only
talking about enlargement from medium format shots, then I agree.


false.

Incorrect.

a medium format digital camera greatly outperforms a medium format
film camera, just as a full frame dslr greatly outperforms a 35mm
slr.

Not when it comes to resolution. Not even close. A medium format analog camera,
using normal quality would be comparable to about 60 megapixel, which is matched
by some very high end digital medium format cameras, but using really good film,
which you are more likely to do with medium format, that number easily becomes
over 200 megapixel, and that's not even using the most high end professional film
back in the hey day.

not only that, but a nikon d810 can easily match and even outperform
medium format film cameras.

This is of course false.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

nospam:
In article 2015080620283712289-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,

Savageduck:
The photographic work of combat photographers such as Horst Faas
and Tim Page is rough, raw, technically imperfect, and
compelling. Before you criticise, think of how well you would
do reloading 35mm cassettes while lying in a muddy rice paddy
while under fire. Think of how you would do in the confusion of
a protest march led by M. L King.

nospam:
that's another huge advantage of digital.

think of all the shots they *missed* because they were fussing
with the camera, having to reload film and also limited to however
may rolls they could carry in their pockets.

those limitations are now gone.

Savageduck:
All of these images tell a story and document a particular era
as only these photographers could.

nospam:
yep. they did the best they could at the time.

today, they can do much better.

in the future, it will be even better than it is now.

Your drooling worship of all things new is almost painful to read.
It is not quantity that makes things valuable to us. It is that
there are just a few representations of the past that makes those
few valuable. We look past the technical flaws because these are
the few that made it to us.

Matthew Brady's photographs of the Civil War camps are valuable to
us because they are among the few representations of that period.
If all of the soldiers had been taking selfies with modern digital
cameras, the results would have no importance to us today.

I'm sure there are many "selfies" or amateur photos taken by soliders from the
analog era that is of no importance to us because they haven't been seen. Brady's
photos are "important" to us because we know about them, not because they are
analog.

There are many contemporary digital war photos by war photographers that will be
remembered as much as old analog war photos.

Just because there are more photos taken doesn't mean that there is a lower
quality war photographers out there.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

digital is much better than film ever was.

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

Sandman:
What camera/film do you use?

Ken Hart:
Film is usually color negative from a major manufacturer.

nospam:
which one?

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

nospam:
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...-look-back-at-
1965/387493/

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.

You're mixing up things. The topic was resolution (enlargements) between analog
and digital, and none of the photos you linked to would fare better in terms of
resolution than a contemporary digital camera.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

nospam:
In article , Ken Hart

digital is much better than film ever was.

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

Sandman:
What camera/film do you use?

Ken Hart:
Film is usually color negative from a major manufacturer.

nospam:
which one?

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

nospam:
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...-look-back-at-
1965/387493/

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.

Case in point:

Analog: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/me.../50-years-ago-
a-look-back-at-1965/f25_AP650714036_15/main_900.jpg?GE2DENRRG4YDSMRZFYYA====

Digital: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/gallery/press/images/ESP_012435_2015.jpg

--
Sandman