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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
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 |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones)what would you choose?
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 |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
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. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
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. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
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. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones)what would you choose?
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 |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
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. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
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. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What kind of camera? | Matt | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | August 21st 07 07:15 PM |
Looking for a monopod - what kind of head do I choose ? | Philippe Lauwers | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 8 | June 12th 04 08:52 AM |