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

On 08/07/2015 04:57 PM, PeterN wrote:
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.



Preachin' to the choir, brother!

--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

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.

what does any of that have to do with film versus digital? *nothing*.

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.

nonsense.

you have *no* clue about digital photography.

digital will outlast film.

film fades. film can also be damaged by mold, stains or tearing or
entirely lost to fire or flood or other disaster.

you can't make a backup copy of film because *any* copy of a film image
is a second generation image and has loss.

digital is *immune* to *all* of that.

with digital, there is *zero* loss. every copy is 100% identical to the
original. you can have as many backups as you want, wherever you want.
if your house burns down, you won't lose anything because there are
several copies somewhere else. digital images will last forever.

not only that, but as software and compute power improves, older images
can be reprocessed to look better than they originally did. with film,
you're stuck with whatever you have.

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

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.

so what?

are you going to sell your 500 canon cameras and replace them with 500
disposable cameras, just because that one photo was taken with 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.

so what?

if that were to happen today, photos would be online within *minutes*.

no need to wait for tomorrow's newspaper to hit the stands, another
thing that is going away too.

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

the point which you keep missing is digital is more capable, which
means the images can be that much better.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

if there's anyone who is asinine, it is you.

word games is your specialty. you even built a career around it.

On 8/7/2015 5:29 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

if there's anyone who is asinine, it is you.

Another well reasoned, logical statement, with factual support built
into the point.


word games is your specialty. you even built a career around it.


I built my career around my knowledge of using facts and the law to
support the position I was advocating. And a reputation for
intellectual honesty.
You really ought to try that sometime. You don't have to worry about
contradicting yourself. You might even find that folks would no longer
consider you a buffoon.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

if there's anyone who is asinine, it is you.

Another well reasoned, logical statement, with factual support built
into the point.

the facts speak for themselves.

word games is your specialty. you even built a career around it.


I built my career around my knowledge of using facts and the law to
support the position I was advocating. And a reputation for
intellectual honesty.

so why don't you learn the facts before spouting?

as for word games, that's what lawyers do. argue semantics.

You really ought to try that sometime. You don't have to worry about
contradicting yourself. You might even find that folks would no longer
consider you a buffoon.

i don't worry about contradicting myself because i don't contradict
myself.

the problem is that you twist things in order to argue against what was
never said and claim a contradiction when there isn't any.

you resort to word games, such as publisher versus developer, which
doesn't make any difference whatsoever. it's meaningless. it doesn't
change the fact that you were wrong.

On 8/7/2015 7:20 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

if there's anyone who is asinine, it is you.

Another well reasoned, logical statement, with factual support built
into the point.

the facts speak for themselves.

word games is your specialty. you even built a career around it.


I built my career around my knowledge of using facts and the law to
support the position I was advocating. And a reputation for
intellectual honesty.

so why don't you learn the facts before spouting?

as for word games, that's what lawyers do. argue semantics.

You really ought to try that sometime. You don't have to worry about
contradicting yourself. You might even find that folks would no longer
consider you a buffoon.

i don't worry about contradicting myself because i don't contradict
myself.

the problem is that you twist things in order to argue against what was
never said and claim a contradiction when there isn't any.

you resort to word games, such as publisher versus developer, which
doesn't make any difference whatsoever. it's meaningless. it doesn't
change the fact that you were wrong.

I never used the word developer, you did and I called you on it. One
cannot make apple cider from pears. They are not the same. I talk
business planning with publishers, not developers. I understand the
business of publishing. I would not make such a statement about
developers. Do stop twisting. I made a damn good living catching twisters.
EOD.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

You really ought to try that sometime. You don't have to worry about
contradicting yourself. You might even find that folks would no longer
consider you a buffoon.

i don't worry about contradicting myself because i don't contradict
myself.

the problem is that you twist things in order to argue against what was
never said and claim a contradiction when there isn't any.

you resort to word games, such as publisher versus developer, which
doesn't make any difference whatsoever. it's meaningless. it doesn't
change the fact that you were wrong.

I never used the word developer, you did and I called you on it.

so what? it makes *no* difference whatsoever. it doesn't change a
thing.

One
cannot make apple cider from pears. They are not the same.

usually one company does both.

not that it matters since neither one wants to prohibit users from
installing apps.

the difference is irrelevant.

I talk
business planning with publishers, not developers. I understand the
business of publishing.

i understand the software business *way* better than you ever will,
including ideation, development, testing, publishing, support and
everything in between.

I would not make such a statement about
developers. Do stop twisting.

i'm not twisting a damned thing.

it doesn't matter whether i said developers or publishers. neither one
wants to prohibit users installing apps.

you're fixated on something that makes no difference.

what you said was *wrong*.

I made a damn good living catching twisters.

you made a good living twisting.

In article , nospam wrote:

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

Sandman:
Easily matched by digital.

nospam:
actually, easily exceeded, and by a lot.

Sandman:
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

nonsense.

Of course not.

this is somewhat old, as it only goes up to 20mp, but clearly shows
just how ****ty film really was:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/f...y1/film.vs.dig
ital.35mm-d.gif

Indeed, and really good analog film were about 100-150 lpmm, which is
equivalent to about 30+ MP. Most film was 50-75 lpmm so generally 20MP covers
most, yes. My comment only concerned especially good film.

entry level cameras are 24 mp with high end slrs at 36mp and digital
backs at 80mp, not to mention much better sensor technology than
when that chart was made.

Surely you're not comparing digital medium format backs to 135-film? Surely you
would compare to those to, you know, medium format film.

digital leaves film for dead.

Unless, of course, the film used is top quality and the conditions are super
ideal, like tripod, still subject, mirror lock up, perfect focus etc etc. But
other than that (which is what, product photos in a studio?) I agree.

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

Sandman:
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.

also wrong.

Incorrect.

a nikon d810 can easily match or exceed medium format film.

Incorrect. Even the lowest quality medium format film is more than twice the
resolution of a D810.

another one of roger clark's charts clearly shows that a 12mp canon
5d is comparable to fine grained mf film while a 21mp canon 5dii
outperforms it.

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...ance.summary/a
iq.clark.a.gif

I'm not even sure what your charts is supposed to show, What is "apparent image
quality" and how is it measured?

Film resolution is measured in lpmm, digital resolution is measured in pixels,

For every line in analog film, you need two rows of pixels to represent the
cycle.

So a 75 lpmm 135-film has a digital resolution equation that looks like this:

(36 * 75 * 2) * (24 * 75 * 2) = 19,4 MP

For medium format film, the equation is:

(60 * 75 * 2) * (45 * 75 * 2) = 60.8 MP

But bear in mind that 75 lpmm was the nrom, or the usual resolution. Really
really good analog film could be upwards of 200 lpmm, and then the equation
looks quite different:

135: (36 * 200 * 2) * (24 * 200 * 2) = 138 MP
120: (60 * 200 * 2) * (45 * 200 * 2) = 432 MP

Now, bear in mind that being able to use all those 200 lpmm is highly
theoretical, but even if you only go from 75 to 100:

135: (36 * 100 * 2) * (24 * 100 * 2) = 34.6 MP
120: (60 * 100 * 2) * (45 * 100 * 2) = 108 MP

Which is, of course, why I mentioned the 36MP D810 above when I said good
analog film.

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

Sandman:
This is of course false.

it's without question, true.

It is proven false.

there's also more to image quality than just pixels. there's dynamic
range and colour accuracy, areas in which film did rather poorly.

Film, no - development and paper, sometimes.

--
Sandman

On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 22:53:11 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

You really ought to try that sometime. You don't have to worry about
contradicting yourself. You might even find that folks would no longer
consider you a buffoon.

i don't worry about contradicting myself because i don't contradict
myself.

the problem is that you twist things in order to argue against what was
never said and claim a contradiction when there isn't any.

you resort to word games, such as publisher versus developer, which
doesn't make any difference whatsoever. it's meaningless. it doesn't
change the fact that you were wrong.

I never used the word developer, you did and I called you on it.

so what? it makes *no* difference whatsoever. it doesn't change a
thing.

One
cannot make apple cider from pears. They are not the same.

usually one company does both.

not that it matters since neither one wants to prohibit users from
installing apps.

Then where do all these copyright cases come from?

the difference is irrelevant.

I talk
business planning with publishers, not developers. I understand the
business of publishing.

i understand the software business *way* better than you ever will,
including ideation, development, testing, publishing, support and
everything in between.

I would not make such a statement about
developers. Do stop twisting.

i'm not twisting a damned thing.

it doesn't matter whether i said developers or publishers. neither one
wants to prohibit users installing apps.

you're fixated on something that makes no difference.

what you said was *wrong*.

I made a damn good living catching twisters.

you made a good living twisting.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens