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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:11:18 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: In this neck of the woods there are more than 15 major art shows per year that have many photographers in both mediums presenting their work, and there are easily perceived differences in their prints. completely meaningless and an intentionally deceptive comparison. Isn't that a bit presumptive? nope. Or have you been to the shows in Mr Neil's "neck of the woods"? he is attempting to compare two different photos taken by two different photographers of two different subjects under different lighting with different exposures on two different mediums, and then claiming that the only reason the results are different is because one is film and the other is digital. that's completely absurd. there are *far* too many variables to make the comparison even the slightest bit useful. it's also not needed since whatever 'film look' someone might want can be done with digital. simple fact. You are changing the subject. Typical. nothing was changed. not a single thing. Bull****. bull**** right back. The original discussion was about film photography vs digital photography in general. Now here you are writing as though the discussion was about "two different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc". Up till now no one was discussing "two different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc" until you introduced the topic. nope. read it again. someone *else* brought the comparison. Nope. Prove me wrong by giving a quote. scroll up. Typical cop out. Give me a quote. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:27:14 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: apparently you don't know how to use digital to its maximum performance. Probably nobody does. plenty of people do. Do you mean there is nothing new to be still discovered or invented? no. how the hell did you get that crazy idea from what i wrote????? Come now ... indeed. You wrote that you think that "plenty of people do" when it comes to using "digital to its maximum performance". correct. That means that the limit of digital performance is known. Therefore there is nothing new to be discovered or invented. no it doesn't mean that at all. not even remotely close. Conversely, if there are new things to be discovered or invented then the limits are not known and it is not possible to claim that anyone is using "digital to its maximum performance". it's not only possible, but that's exactly what i claimed. So you are claiming that there are people doing things which have not yet been discovered? nope. So things which have not been discovered are not yet being done? what does that have to do with anything??? Ah ha! By your equivocation I can tell that you now see the trap before you. what i see is yet another one of your ridiculous arguments. I will answer for you: "Of course things which have not been discovered are not being done". To which I answer "Then if there are things which have not been discovered and are not being done then there is more to digital photography than anyone knows how to do so nobody can possibly be using 'digital to its maximum performance'". entirely missing the point. I think this will do for the end of the argument. Typical. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
Savageduck wrote:
Not one cent of what I have spent on photography, film & digital, over 50+ years as a hobbyist photographer can be explained away rationally. Since when do we need a "reason" to pursue a hobby from which we derive pleasure? Since when is someone else's way of pursuing a hobby not legitimate? I have known folks who did some of the most obscure and pointless (and sometimes expensive) things as hobbies. See the Vivian Maier photography work, a hole life dedicated to photography by a nanny and not a cent made out of it, a work that was never shown to anyone before she died... B. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
|
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: Since when do we need a "reason" to pursue a hobby from which we derive pleasure? Since when is someone else's way of pursuing a hobby not legitimate? Not one person is arguing that film is not a legitimate pursuit. It's the claims of the superiority of film output that we are arguing about. Who made that claim? I've followed this thread, and nospam has denied that claim, but he's denying something that hasn't been claimed. it was claimed. This is what nospam does to a thread to create an argument where there should not be an argument. The thread started on the subject of scanners. Then, Russell D. posted: "Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started shooting film again. Glad I didn't sell it." No claim that film is superior. No claim that he can do something with film that can't be done with digital. Just a simple statement that he started shooting film again. in another post, he claimed film can do things digital cannot. that is a completely bogus claim. once again, you are twisting things. nospam had to jump in and say: "bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film." and Russell replied "Why do I need it to do more?". nospam, delighted to be able to start yet another argument while putting-down someone else's preference and insult their ability wrote: "why limit yourself? if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it." In other words, nospam feels that anyone shooting film is only capable of mediocre output. *film* is only capable of mediocre output. it has nothing to do with the person using it. anyone choosing film, for whatever reason, has limited themselves. simple fact. It's typical of nospam to do this. He creates dissension where there is no dissension. it's actually *you* who does that, going so far to fabricate things so you can argue. It's not a film shooter that has claimed superiority. It's the person who says that film shooters can only produce mediocre results that is claiming superiority. wrong. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: In this neck of the woods there are more than 15 major art shows per year that have many photographers in both mediums presenting their work, and there are easily perceived differences in their prints. completely meaningless and an intentionally deceptive comparison. Isn't that a bit presumptive? nope. Or have you been to the shows in Mr Neil's "neck of the woods"? he is attempting to compare two different photos taken by two different photographers of two different subjects under different lighting with different exposures on two different mediums, and then claiming that the only reason the results are different is because one is film and the other is digital. that's completely absurd. there are *far* too many variables to make the comparison even the slightest bit useful. it's also not needed since whatever 'film look' someone might want can be done with digital. simple fact. You are changing the subject. Typical. nothing was changed. not a single thing. Bull****. bull**** right back. The original discussion was about film photography vs digital photography in general. Now here you are writing as though the discussion was about "two different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc". Up till now no one was discussing "two different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc" until you introduced the topic. nope. read it again. someone *else* brought the comparison. Nope. Prove me wrong by giving a quote. scroll up. Typical cop out. it ain't me who is copping out. Give me a quote. scroll up. it's still there. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: That means that the limit of digital performance is known. Therefore there is nothing new to be discovered or invented. no it doesn't mean that at all. not even remotely close. Conversely, if there are new things to be discovered or invented then the limits are not known and it is not possible to claim that anyone is using "digital to its maximum performance". it's not only possible, but that's exactly what i claimed. So you are claiming that there are people doing things which have not yet been discovered? nope. So things which have not been discovered are not yet being done? what does that have to do with anything??? Ah ha! By your equivocation I can tell that you now see the trap before you. what i see is yet another one of your ridiculous arguments. I will answer for you: "Of course things which have not been discovered are not being done". To which I answer "Then if there are things which have not been discovered and are not being done then there is more to digital photography than anyone knows how to do so nobody can possibly be using 'digital to its maximum performance'". entirely missing the point. I think this will do for the end of the argument. good Typical. for you, yes. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
Savageduck wrote:
Unfortunately cataloging didn't seem to be part of her methodology. Yes and that proves how much she was far from bringing them to public view... That was left to the discoverers of her work after her death, particularly John Maloof, without whom we might never have known of her existence, or the existence of her work. Her "discovery" was total luck... -- Barnabé |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-04-21 14:13:49 +0000, nospam said:
In article , Tony Cooper wrote: Since when do we need a "reason" to pursue a hobby from which we derive pleasure? Since when is someone else's way of pursuing a hobby not legitimate? Not one person is arguing that film is not a legitimate pursuit. It's the claims of the superiority of film output that we are arguing about. Who made that claim? I've followed this thread, and nospam has denied that claim, but he's denying something that hasn't been claimed. it was claimed. This is what nospam does to a thread to create an argument where there should not be an argument. The thread started on the subject of scanners. Then, Russell D. posted: "Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started shooting film again. Glad I didn't sell it." No claim that film is superior. No claim that he can do something with film that can't be done with digital. Just a simple statement that he started shooting film again. in another post, he claimed film can do things digital cannot. that is a completely bogus claim. once again, you are twisting things. nospam had to jump in and say: "bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film." and Russell replied "Why do I need it to do more?". nospam, delighted to be able to start yet another argument while putting-down someone else's preference and insult their ability wrote: "why limit yourself? if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it." In other words, nospam feels that anyone shooting film is only capable of mediocre output. *film* is only capable of mediocre output. Define mediocre in terms of photographic output. I have seen some pretty mediocre output from digital and film cameras alike. I have also seen great great images captured on film and digital cameras. The medium used to capture photographic images is not what determines the excellence of any photographic image, it is the intangibles of scene/subject selection, composition and most importantly, the intent and capability of the photographer. There are thousands, ...er, millions of digital photographers who have captured 100's of millions of images of nothing but mediocre output. However, digital has provided a platform for many photographers with the experience, talent and ability to learn for the production of great images, and the same can be said for many of those with the same dedication to film. it has nothing to do with the person using it. anyone choosing film, for whatever reason, has limited themselves. simple fact. It's typical of nospam to do this. He creates dissension where there is no dissension. it's actually *you* who does that, going so far to fabricate things so you can argue. It's not a film shooter that has claimed superiority. It's the person who says that film shooters can only produce mediocre results that is claiming superiority. wrong. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , -hh
wrote: Another aspect of this is the limits of human perception. This has already become a point of conversation in tech circles, as the resolution technology has outstripped what the viewer is capable of perceiving, because the human eye has a finite number of cones/rods with which to perceive the image. Apple's iPhone4's "retina" display was when this first generally came to public awareness, as it has also with 4K+ HDTV displays: at their respective typical viewing differences, higher resolutions can no longer be perceived. for resolution, sure. except that resolution isn't the only metric. modern displays now have wider colour gamuts, higher dynamic range and more accurate colour. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
film scanners | James[_3_] | In The Darkroom | 0 | October 8th 09 08:37 AM |
Film Scanners | Stephen[_2_] | Digital Photography | 1 | July 10th 09 07:56 PM |
Film scanners anyone? | Ted Gibson | Digital Photography | 15 | January 8th 08 03:31 AM |
Film Scanners | Gel | Digital Photography | 20 | February 21st 05 12:25 AM |
M/F film scanners - again? | Rod | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 17 | May 31st 04 04:14 PM |