A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Traditional B&W Interest Group



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 28th 10, 12:00 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group

Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 28/02/2010 7:10 AM:

It's because you are applying the wrong definition that most people
won't agree with this.


At some point somebody used the term analog for film and it caught on
like wildfire. That doesn't make it "right".


You watch: next he's gonna tell us that film grain is the same as pixels...

  #12  
Old February 28th 10, 04:06 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group

On 10-02-28 2:10 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-02-27 16:54 ,
wrote:


Far from misguided. Quite grounded in engineering definitions.



Ah an engineer, that explains the "I am right" attitude :-) Interesting
how engineers always throw out their background when their logic is
failing..


Only a poor engineer would resort to such as his peers would quickly
right him and his customers (often engineers themselves) would no longer
trust him. That is not to say that engineers don't compete in the arena
of ideas - but they each defend their ideas on fundamentals.

I'm not an engineer, but have worked in engineering environments since
my student days.

Engineers don't say they're right out of attitude. They depend on clear
definition and application. In most countries, the 'act' of signing an
engineering document carries enormous legal consequences. So engineers
do not "throw out their background" to win arguments. Engineers
practice a discipline.

This is traditionally for safety reasons (you may imagine that some
Toyota engineers are on the hot spot right now.)

In my prior post I showed you how proper definitions apply. (You now
grasp perhaps that a thermometer is dynamic, if not terribly quick about
it - it is not, as you said, static).

Have the last word stephe. You seem to like words over reason.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #13  
Old February 28th 10, 07:05 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Lawrence Akutagawa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group


"Noons" wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 28/02/2010 7:10 AM:

It's because you are applying the wrong definition that most people
won't agree with this.


At some point somebody used the term analog for film and it caught on
like wildfire. That doesn't make it "right".


You watch: next he's gonna tell us that film grain is the same as
pixels...
.

Well, yes. Of course. Those little itsy bitsy bits of silver halide are
either fully developed or totally undeveloped. Not a single, solitary one
in any kind of between or betwixt state. A binary based imagery system film
is, it clearly not being an analog imagery system according to him.

hmmm...film is not digital? Well, what is the antonym - the opposite - of
digital? You know - if something is not digital, then it is..... Well,
son of a gun!!!

Antonyms of "digital":

from The Free Dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/digital
analog, analogue, linear - of a circuit or device having an output that is
proportional to the input; "analogue device"; "linear amplifier"

from Synonym.com http://www.synonym.com/antonym/digital/
analogue (vs. digital), analog, linear

from Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/digital
Computing Dictionary entry -
digital data...A description of data which is stored or transmitted as a
sequence of discrete symbols from a finite set, most commonly this means
binary data represented using electronic or electromagnetic signals.
The opposite is analogue.
Science Dictionary entry -
digital...2. Computer Science Representing or operating on data or
information in numerical form. A digital clock uses a series of changing
digits to represent time at discrete intervals, for example, every second.
Modern computers rely on digital processing techniques, in which both data
and the instructions for manipulating data are represented as binary
numbers. Compare analog.

from WordWeb Online Lookup http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=digital
analogue

from Big Huge Theraurus http://words.bighugelabs.com/digital
analogue

from hyperdictionary http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/digital
Wordnet entry -
Antonyms: analog, analogue, linear


  #14  
Old February 28th 10, 07:30 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 262
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group

Stephanie,

Thanks for waking up this group!

I concur with much of what you've said about the differences between digital
and film photography. To me, they're just different media, and arguing about
which is "best" makes as little sense as arguing about whether oils are
"better" than watercolors. Both have their place in creating images.

wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-02-16 7:18 ,
wrote:
Here in Silicon Valley we are a small group of traditional (analog)
B&W hobbyist. We welcome others of like mind to joint our
discussion group. Meeting once a month we share prints, ideas,
problems, questions, what if's, etc. This is not a typical camera
club, no ribbons, no cookies, no competition, no judges. If in the
greater San Jose area and interested contact me off list at


B&W is not "analog", it is film. A direct image recorded without
analogy. Once developed the film is an image.

Digital cameras are actually "analog" as that is the nature of the
capture device.


That's like trying to say a digital recording is really analog since
the microphone is.. And on digital capture, I don't think any part of
the capture is "analog". It's converted to ones and zeros before it
leaves the sensor.. At least with a microphone it is analog going
through the wires to then be digitized...

I agree with your analogy, Stephanie, but there isn't much difference
between the two media... it's just that the wires are a lot shorter between
the digital sensor and the A/D converter. ;-)

The digital part is storage. No different than a good
film scan.


Alan, there is little similarity between an image on film a film scan. Scan
it, and the image becomes a 2D array, while a piece of film is a 3D pile of
crystals (or other material). Some of us appreciate the subtle differences
between these representations.

--
Best,

Neil




---
news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #15  
Old February 28th 10, 08:15 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group

Lawrence Akutagawa wrote,on my timestamp of 1/03/2010 5:05 AM:

At some point somebody used the term analog for film and it caught on
like wildfire. That doesn't make it "right".

You watch: next he's gonna tell us that film grain is the same as
pixels...
.

Well, yes. Of course. Those little itsy bitsy bits of silver halide are
either fully developed or totally undeveloped. Not a single, solitary one
in any kind of between or betwixt state. A binary based imagery system film
is, it clearly not being an analog imagery system according to him.


I said Alan. Not you, twerp. You just showed everyone how totally out of it you
are. Get back in the troll hole you came from.

hmmm...film is not digital? Well, what is the antonym - the opposite - of
digital? You know - if something is not digital, then it is..... Well,
son of a gun!!!



That would be a perfect definition of yours.
  #16  
Old February 28th 10, 08:19 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group

Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 1/03/2010 2:06 AM:


I'm not an engineer, but have worked in engineering environments since
my student days.



I am an engineer and most of what you claimed about this subject and about
engineering is completely wrong. As usual.


Have the last word stephe. You seem to like words over reason.


Must be the weekend influence: you finally made a joke about your attitude!
  #17  
Old February 28th 10, 08:30 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group

On 10-02-28 13:30 , Neil Gould wrote:

I agree with your analogy, Stephanie, but there isn't much difference
between the two media... it's just that the wires are a lot shorter between
the digital sensor and the A/D converter. ;-)


You're re-hashing the dead.


The digital part is storage. No different than a good
film scan.


Alan, there is little similarity between an image on film a film scan. Scan
it, and the image becomes a 2D array, while a piece of film is a 3D pile of
crystals (or other material). Some of us appreciate the subtle differences
between these representations.


I wasn't comparing qualities just the nature of what is an image (film)
and what is storage (a digital scan or camera image). I often prefer
the texture of a film image to a digital image or even a scan of a film
image. However, my workflow is definitely digital - even when I shoot film.

I personally print from scans of MF (and 35mm) and get wonderful results
all the way through. I prefer colour (E-6) to B&W, and there is no way
I am going to go through a colour DR process when I hardly do any B&W DR
processes. Esp. processed like Cibachrome (whatever it's now called).
A friend went through that and suffered batch variance that had him
spending a lot of time and money just to get a first print right. Not
for me. At all.

Sometime, once I develop a better eye for judging tone when shooting, I
may indeed begin printing B&W - but using an Epson 3800 and its black inks.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #18  
Old February 28th 10, 08:35 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group

Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:
"Noons" wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 28/02/2010 7:10 AM:

It's because you are applying the wrong definition that most people
won't agree with this.
At some point somebody used the term analog for film and it caught on
like wildfire. That doesn't make it "right".

You watch: next he's gonna tell us that film grain is the same as
pixels...
.

Well, yes. Of course. Those little itsy bitsy bits of silver halide are
either fully developed or totally undeveloped. Not a single, solitary one
in any kind of between or betwixt state. A binary based imagery system film
is, it clearly not being an analog imagery system according to him.

hmmm...film is not digital? Well, what is the antonym - the opposite - of
digital? You know - if something is not digital, then it is..... Well,
son of a gun!!!

Antonyms of "digital":



But he explained he is an engineer. So that being said, everyone else is
wrong :-)

Stephanie
  #19  
Old February 28th 10, 08:46 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group

Neil Gould wrote:
Stephanie,

Thanks for waking up this group!

I concur with much of what you've said about the differences between digital
and film photography. To me, they're just different media, and arguing about
which is "best" makes as little sense as arguing about whether oils are
"better" than watercolors. Both have their place in creating images.



I'm glad I woke myself up! :-)

I really was crazy into photography when I was shooting medium format
and then "stepped up" to digital when it came of age and been fighting
with trying to get back the excitement I used to have. All the reasons
people use for shooting digital are the exact reasons I lost interest.
Having nothing invested in the images, "so convenient", no trips to the
store to get film processed (and share results with the friends I made
there). Plus looking at images on a computer screen doesn't even come
close to looking at them on a light box to me. Watching the image appear
in the tray in the darkroom is stiff such a cool thing too. Maybe part
of it is you actually are handling something and using a mechanical
camera with no battery that is part of the enjoyment. Or using a camera
that is 50+ years old? That you really have to think *a lot* before you
push the shutter because each frame costs money, you have to manually
set everything and you have a limited number of shots per roll.

And then the whole -argument- over analog or not is typical of trying to
discuss film nuances with the geek/engineers who tightly embrace
digital because they can define their photography based on results
derived from math calculations or from the results shooting resolution
charts...

Stephanie
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Paid for your interest Dr Mu Digital Photography 0 November 3rd 07 10:58 PM
What an interest in holidays. Arthur Small Digital Photography 1 April 19th 06 03:08 AM
NYC: Photoshop Interest Group Meeting - Tuesday 2/7 1PM - 5PM$CHEAP Atilla the Hungery Digital SLR Cameras 0 February 6th 06 09:54 PM
Off Topic, but of interest to this group - I hope Frank Calidonna In The Darkroom 15 November 23rd 05 02:21 AM
Anyone Have Interest in Me? Negative Black and White Film Film & Labs 6 April 29th 04 08:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.