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

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
It depends on what is to be beaten. How do you fault
these?

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...-look-back-at-
1965
/38 7493/

Alfred Molon:
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.

nospam:
'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.

Andreas Skitsnack:
Once again, you demonstrate that you have no idea what
constitutes "compelling" in a photograph. It isn't pixels.

nospam:
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?

Ironic.

Yes, in essence, what you said was the difference is in pixels.
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.

And higher resolution removes this supposed "emotional impact"? You sure this is
the line of reasoning you're going with?

--
Sandman

In article , Tony Cooper
says...
It depends on what is to be beaten. How do you fault these?

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...t-1965/387493/

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.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
What camera/film do you use?

Ken Hart:
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.

Sandman:
Easily matched by digital.

actually, easily exceeded, and by a lot.

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

Ken Hart:
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.

Sandman:
Medium format analog is higher resolution that any digital camera
currently (even digital medium format) so if you were only
talking about enlargement from medium format shots, then I agree.


false.

Incorrect.

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

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.

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

This is of course false.

Bigger is better... And it's hip to be square! Unfortunately my Zeiss
Nettar was stolen from the basement. I did some cool double exporsures
with it in senior high. Unfortunately the negs got lost too...
--
teleportation kills

In article 2015080620283712289-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...

On 2015-08-07 08:22:20 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

In article , Tony Cooper
says...
It depends on what is to be beaten. How do you fault these?

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...t-1965/387493/

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.

Irrelevant.
Those photographs were moments of history captured on film in an era
when there was no digital option. In many cases the conditions were
difficult for any photographer, digital or film. It took skilled
photographers to recognise and capture the moment without any of the
advantages of digital photography. To compare these examples with
today's digital stock photos is assinine.

The photographic work of combat photographers such as Horst Faas and
Tim Page is rough, raw, technically imperfect, and compelling. Before
you criticise, think of how well you would do reloading 35mm cassettes
while lying in a muddy rice paddy while under fire. Think of how you
would do in the confusion of a protest march led by M. L King.

All of these images tell a story and document a particular era as only
these photographers could.

Sure, but Tony was writing: "How do you fault these?". That image is not
an example of the superiority of film over digital - rather the other
way round.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 8/6/2015 8:09 PM, nospam wrote:
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.


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.
--
PeterN

On 8/6/2015 8:36 PM, nospam wrote:
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.


Only after you changed it. The issue is in the subject line.


--
PeterN

On 8/6/2015 10:19 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
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.


Too bad a tot of the differences in color gradation will be lost when
you digitize them.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Too bad a tot of the differences in color gradation will be lost when
you digitize them.

not if you have a good scanner and scan it properly.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

the issue is film versus digital, not the subject or the photographer.

Only after you changed it. The issue is in the subject line.

i did not change a thing

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.

whether he is satisfied or not was never the issue.