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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
From what they tell me, only film photos are acceptable in the law courts.
I s'pose digital images can be altered any way one wants. Yeah, and there is no way to take a photo, alter it, then re-image it onto film...right! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
"Reciprocity Failure" wrote in message
.com... APS exists in part because industry research showed that so many people had trouble getting a film leader onto a take up spool. .... and also couldn't distinguish a good print from the crap the mini-labs now spew out. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
In federal courts and in every state court I know of digital photographs are
admissable as evidence to the same extent as film and in the same way as film photographs. Conceivably there is some state in which they aren't admissable, I'm not familiar with the rules of evidence in every state in the country, but I know the rules in federal court and I haven't heard of any state that bars the introduction of digital images into evidence just because they are digital and not film. "Wilt W" wrote in message ... From what they tell me, only film photos are acceptable in the law courts. I s'pose digital images can be altered any way one wants. Yeah, and there is no way to take a photo, alter it, then re-image it onto film...right! |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
In article ,
"Reciprocity Failure" wrote: In federal courts and in every state court I know of digital photographs are admissable as evidence to the same extent as film and in the same way as film photographs. Conceivably there is some state in which they aren't admissable, I'm not familiar with the rules of evidence in every state in the country, but I know the rules in federal court and I haven't heard of any state that bars the introduction of digital images into evidence just because they are digital and not film. Then the courts are on a fast slide down. It's just fcuking pitifully ignorant. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
Reciprocity Failure wrote:
Seriously, I wonder how many -computer illiterate- digicam owners (which would describe 99% of digicam buyers) . . . . What a stupid statement. How many computer owners know how to format their computer drives or what that even means? What % even know what usenet and newsgroups are? Sure the digital camera users who read newsgroups are computer literate, go listen to the people looking at digicams (or selling them!) at compUSA etc and you'll quickly see they are clueless. Given most people never read the instructions on any product they buy, they aren't going to understand what's going on here either... It conveys much more information about you than it does about owners of digital cameras (and what it says about you isn't flattering). Yea and that wasn't meant as a personal attack? ;-) -- Stacey |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
Reciprocity Failure wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean it as a personal attack, Yes you did mean it as an insult, reread the second part of your post.. However, it's amusing to see the straws at which some are grasping in their efforts to convince themselves that everyone who uses a digital camera is an idiot. No, it's that the general public is computer illiterate. The general public is buying these in droves and most are clueless about using them. There are computer literate digicam users but they are the minority of digicam buyers. I had someone last week try to pay me for the "digital film" I used taking pictures of their car to send into the autotrader! :-) This person considers themselves "web savy" and works on computers daily. -- Stacey |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
Nick Zentena writes:
Odds are we end up with nothing at all. First we edit out all the ones that are boring when taken. Then later we edit out some more. We keep repeating the editing until nothing is left. Imagine giving a box of prints to a series of people. Telling each one to take out the worthless ones and to then pass it on. Bet by the end that box is pretty close to empty. From what I've seen, a lot of people aren't keeping any of their digital images at all. They take them, look at them, then delete them when they need more space. Some people do this without ever even downloading them from the camera. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
jjs writes:
Do you think you could do it well enough to fool an expert? Easily. It's not that hard. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
What was wrong with film?
Reciprocity Failure writes:
It was a stupid statement because neither the author nor anyone else here has any actual knowledge of the extent to which digital camera users know anything about computers. There are far more digital camera owners than computer-literate people (depending on one's definition of literacy). Therefore a large percentage of digital camera owners are unsophisticated with respect to computers. However, it's amusing to see the straws at which some are grasping in their efforts to convince themselves that everyone who uses a digital camera is an idiot. Not everyone who uses a digicam is an idiot. However, digital cameras have a far broader appeal than film cameras, and so the average digicam user is far less sophisticated about photography than the average film user. The "Pulitzer Prize Winning Photo Journalist Meets Technie Dweeb" was the best. A camera salesperson should have known better, though. Most, probably all, major metropolitan newspapers as well as many smaller ones no longer use film. There's more to photography than photojournalism. But they haven't switched to digital technology because it enables the photographer to see the photograph at the time it's being made. Probably, but I'm amazed at the number of press photographers I see who spend half their time squinting at the screens on the backs of their digital cameras. You'd think that with years of experience they wouldn't need to check every shot, but a lot of them do, anyway. I prefer to just continue shooting, so that I don't miss half the shots. I can always sort through them later. Indeed, the easiest way to spot digital photographers at press events is to look for people who are staring at the backs of their cameras instead of through the viewfinder at the event they are supposed to be shooting. Of course, most press photographers are shooting digital today, particularly those working as employees (as opposed to freelance). It's obviously painful for some to acknowledge but digital actually makes a lot of sense for many people and many industries, everyone who uses it isn't a computer illiterate or someone who can't read a manual. It does indeed. It's just tiring to see people claim that digital is the solution to all problems. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Insane new TSA rule for film inspection | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 94 | June 23rd 04 05:17 AM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |
Will we always be able to buy film? | Phil Glaser | In The Darkroom | 30 | January 28th 04 05:11 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner | bleanne | APS Photographic Equipment | 1 | November 27th 03 07:34 AM |