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

On 08/07/2015 01:40 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

I've done some explorative scans in preparation for digitizing old negs
and slides. It can be like timetravel. I don't think that you can truly
replicate the sense of film digitally.

of course it can. there are even presets for various films.

I have packs like that and have used them, but they ain't real film but
a corny effects. Corny can be cool...

That's not discarding digital,
but simply recognizing that film is more than "retro".

no it isn't.

sir, do you accept returns on dead parrots? ;-p

Only if you haven't nailed their feet to the perch.

--
Ken Hart

On 8/7/2015 3:07 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 08/07/2015 01:40 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

I've done some explorative scans in preparation for digitizing old negs
and slides. It can be like timetravel. I don't think that you can truly
replicate the sense of film digitally.

of course it can. there are even presets for various films.

I have packs like that and have used them, but they ain't real film but
a corny effects. Corny can be cool...

That's not discarding digital,
but simply recognizing that film is more than "retro".

no it isn't.

sir, do you accept returns on dead parrots? ;-p

Only if you haven't nailed their feet to the perch.


http://jokes.cc.com/funny-walks-into-a-bar/azktf7/walks-into-a-bar----got-grapes-

--
PeterN

On 08/06/2015 10:30 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

"It's not real photography unless it involves working with toxic
chemicals in total darkness" --Me

--
Ken Hart

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Sadly, you never let up. If Ken Hart is satisfied, that's the end of the
story. You must really have a need for attention.

more of your bull****.

he wrongly believes that film is better than digital. it is not.

your need for attention shows more than ever.

nope


whether he is satisfied or not was never the issue.


It is the issue

nope

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

I am very satisfied with the photo equipment that I use. However, I am
never satisfied with the quality of my work- I am constantly trying to
improve. And I can't see any way that digital gear would help me in this
endeavour.

have you tried it?

the quality of your work will greatly improve if you move to digital
for many reasons.


By the way, "Nospam", I own over 500 Canon FX camera bodies, and over
800 Canon FL-mount lenses. If I were going to move my collection, I
would have to make two trips, as a Ford F150 is only rated at 1/2 ton
cargo!

500 bodies and 800 lenses?

do you have a hoarding problem??

why in the world does anyone need 500 cameras and 800 lenses?

or are you lying?

And I use these 50 year old cameras- they still work. Let me know
how your latest digital is doing in 50 years.

says the person who claims to have 500 spare cameras.

maybe if one breaks, you grab another.

nobody said a 50 year old camera won't work. manual typewriters still
work too.

what i said was is that a 50 year old camera produces results that are
not as good as what a modern digital camera can do. this is a provable
fact, not an opinion.

you flat out refused an objective test, which shows just how much
denial you're in.

it's also the same for a manual typewriter versus a laser printer. what
comes out of a laser printer is both easier to generate and looks much
better, but if you want that 'manual typewriter look' you can emulate
it in software. you can even generate the sounds of the keys hitting
the platen.

and another thing digital does better is that the cameras are more
reliable. a nikon d4 is rated for 400,000 shutter actuations. that's
8000 photos per year, every year, over 50 years.

your 50 year old camera will fall apart before it even gets close to
that.

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.

"It's not real photography unless it involves working with toxic
chemicals in total darkness" --Me

nonsense.

it's real photography if it involves a camera.

there's also *much* more that can be done with software and digital
imaging than *ever* could in a darkroom.

you're stuck in the past and too closed-minded to realize just how
limiting it actually is and to learn anything new.

that doesn't mean you have to switch, but your outright dismissal shows
just how little you know.

On 08/06/2015 10:30 PM, nospam wrote:
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.


If the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel were covered with LCD screens, it
would be more compelling.
If the Venus de Milo had been done with a 3D printer, it would still
have both arms.
If the Sphinx of Giza had been given a couple coats of latex paint, it
would be in better shape.

It ain't the camera, dude... it's the image. And long after your digital
whizzbang is silicon dust, those images (and a few others) will be
remembered.

--
Ken Hart

On 08/07/2015 02:42 AM, nospam wrote:
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.

The photograph of the fireman carrying the child from the Federal
Building explosion in Oklahoma City was shot on a disposable.

It's a shame the photo wasn't shot with a digital- it might have gotten
printed half- or full-page on hundreds of newspapers around the country.
Oh, wait... it was printed, front page, on hundreds of newspapers around
the country.

It ain't the camera, dude... it's the image!
--
Ken Hart

On 8/7/2015 3:13 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 08/06/2015 10:30 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

"It's not real photography unless it involves working with toxic
chemicals in total darkness" --Me


Nospam has never admitted being wrong when he makes one of his asinine
statements. When you call him on it you are accused of:
being stupid;
playing with words;
twisting; or any of a host of other things, designed to make the
statement, not asinine.



--
PeterN

On 08/07/2015 03:13 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 8/7/2015 3:07 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 08/07/2015 01:40 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

I've done some explorative scans in preparation for digitizing old
negs
and slides. It can be like timetravel. I don't think that you can
truly
replicate the sense of film digitally.

of course it can. there are even presets for various films.

I have packs like that and have used them, but they ain't real film but
a corny effects. Corny can be cool...

That's not discarding digital,
but simply recognizing that film is more than "retro".

no it isn't.

sir, do you accept returns on dead parrots? ;-p

Only if you haven't nailed their feet to the perch.


http://jokes.cc.com/funny-walks-into-a-bar/azktf7/walks-into-a-bar----got-grapes-


Actually, I was going for a Monty Python reference, but your joke is
very good!

--
Ken Hart