Difficult technical question on ISO & light

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> > Tom Phillips wrote:
> > >
> > > Chris Brown wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <4181C14A.D6ECD4FA@aol.com>,
> > > > Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >Film can be exposed for hours. Try that with a digital sensor.
> > > > >It simply one of the differences between these two imaging
> > > > >mediums.
> > > >
> > > > You really should avoid such pontifications unless you're absolutely certain
> > > > you're correct, as you aren't in this case. Canon's current DSLRs, to take
> > > > one example, manage perfectly hapilly with multi-hour exposures. The only
> > > > major problem is that holding the shutter open that long may drain the
> > > > battery.
> > >
> > > uh huh... multi-hour digital. And no noise due to heat. right.
> > > (and heat is *inherent* in digital sensor exposure...)
> > >
> > > Show me a "multi hour" digital exposure.
> >
> > And I don't mean astrophotography.
> >
> > The ability of the canon EOS to do astrophotography is
> > in part due to the employment of a larger pixel. Larger
> > pixels mean a better signal and less noise, *but* (also
> > less pixel resolution. So _pictorial_ resolution is
> > sacrificed for better signal and less noise. This is hardly
> > comparable with film, where resolution abilities is not
> > based on large grain size, but _small_ grain size and where
> > exposure and signal frequency is on a molecular level, not
> > a pixel level.
>
> What?? You've just blown what ever credibility you might have had. Of course
> larger sensors have larger pixels - but for two cameras with different-sized
> sensors, each with the same number of pixels, the pixel resolution is identical.
> You are overlooking the fact that the larger sensor will also have a larger image
> projected onto it,

Nyquist still applies.My "credibility" has nothing to do
with it. These are scientific facts...

> and (ignoring diffraction and noise effects) each will produce
> the same sharpness of image.

Sharpness is irrelevant. Resolution is not "sharpness."
Resolution is the ability to resolve detail. As imagers
silver halides do not suffer from Nyquist limitations and
thus can resolve detail better than most digital imagers,
especially larger format films.

> It is exactly analogous to using a fast film with
> coarse grain and countering the grain with a larger format.

No, it's not at all. The format does not alter a film's
resolving abilities. A larger format increase optical
detail. So, if I use Tri-X with 8x10, I'll capture better
optical detail than I would using 35mm with Tech Pan, but
not improve the resolution of Tri-X.

Also pixels are discontinuous, whereas silver halides
produce continuous image detail.

The larger the pixels the less image/pixel resolution and
the more the Nyquist limitation applies. It has to do with
signal frequency, and what Nyquist does is limit the optical
signal frequency. Even large silver halide crystals are smaller
than most pixels; films other than t-grain emulsions using a
mix of larger and smaller crystals, not all the same size. Now,
the larger the pixel/photodetectors is, the better the image
S/N ratio is, while the smaller the pixel is, the better the
resolution (optical signal frequency.) So these work at cross
purposes. With silver halides, nyquist doesn't apply so the
smaller the grain is, the better the S/N ratio also is.

>
> By the way, as far as film is concerned, exposure, i.e. photons hitting molecules,
> might be on a molecular level, but signal frequency is at grain level, since film
> cannot resolve detail finer than the grain clumps resulting from photons
> 'triggering' the entire grain to blacken. This is why fine-grain thin emulsion
> films yield more lp/mm than coarser-grained films. Photography 101.

The *point* is Nyquist doesn't pragmatically apply. Due to the
electronics involved, pixels can only get so small. You only
need a minimum of 3 photons to initiate exposure and photolysis
in silver halides.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
>
> "Christopher Woodhouse" <chris.woodhouse@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Have you actually measured both?
>
> You'll have to argue with R. Clark, who has. (It sounds as though you didn't
> read his page.)
>
> > I have, and your statement is not correct.
>
> You didn't measure the cameras discussed.
>
> > The measured central definition of each is below:
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> > Contax 139 Quartz, 100mm f3.5 lens. (£200) APX25mm - 92 line PAIRS per
> mm
> > Olympus 8080 (8 Mpixel) - referenced to 35mm frame - (£700) - 33 lp/mm
> > Fuji S2 - referenced to 35mm frame (depends on orientation) (£1200) -
> lower
> > limit - 35 lp/mm, upper limit 45lp/mm
> > Velvia in above 35mm camera - 60lp/mm
>
> You failed to do the obvious _reality check_. Since 92 is over 2.7 times 33,
> your numbers predict that a print 2.7 times larger from the APX25 ought to
> look about the same as a print from the 8080. Make an 8x10 from the 8080.
> You should find that it looks pretty decent. Now make a 21.6 x 27" print
> from the APX25. Crop out an 8x10 segment of the 21.6x27 print (a 23x
> enlargement) and tell me it looks as good as the 8x10 from the 8080. (It
> won't even be close, of course.)
>
> What that means is that what you measured has little bearing on real
> photography, and is the wrong thing.
>
> > Film doesn't have noise, it has grain.
>
> The image on the film has noise due to the grain. The image is the signal,
> not the film.

Wrong. (1) photographic noise is not equal to or the same as
electronic image noise. (2) You have to make _great_ enlargements
of even grainy film for the grain pattern (noise as you call it)
interferes wiht the image. Digital noise is simply ubiquitous in
all digital images, regardless of resolution size..

You're simply obfuscating the issues...

> > The grain is not dependant upon the
> > exposure time, whereas it is in a digital camera. So your ISO 800 might be
> > better or worse than velvia, depending upon prevailing conditions.
>
> That's not true within the range of exposure times used in normal pictorial
> photography. My experience scanning Velvia 50 is that it's pretty grainy
> stuff (which is why I use Velvia 100F), and dSLR ISO 400 is pretty clean, so
> Clark's numbers seem extreme, but aren't seriously out of line.
>
> > Compact
> > digital cameras (even the Olympus above) have significantly more 'noise'
> > than 100 ISO slide film has grain.
>
> Most dcams at their lowest ISO will produce much lower noise images than
> slide films scanned at 4000 dpi. (The current crop of dcams that have an ISO
> 50 setting do tend to lose it at ISO 100, though. I've seen some _gorgeous_
> 4MP images from the FZ20, a cheap plasticy camera with an insanely excessive
> (i.e. 10x zoom range) "Leica" lens.)
>
> > Digital has about 0.5 stops more dynamic range than slide films and has
> its
> > largest advantage in its potential to accommodate ambient light
> temperature.
>
> Shot in RAW mode, you'll find that dSLRs have a much wider range of zones
> that they can hold meaningful detail in than slide film. Much. I wish you
> were right: most of my work is in Velvia 100F, and shadow detail is pretty
> pitiful.

"Film" is not limited to "slide" film.

transparency films are _engineered_ to produce less latitude
and shorter dynamic range. They're intended for projection,
not printing.

Color and b&w negative film (which is what I've been discussing)
has greater DR and latitude than digital.

Stop obfuscating...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

John wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:11:57 -0400, "Marvin Margoshes"
> <physnospamchem@cloud9.net> wrote:
>
> > Right now, the pro-level digicams with 12 Mp or more
> >match the resolution of 35 mm film.

All these digicam users ever see is 4x6 prints or smeared
inkjets. Using that comparison, one only needs 6mp...

> Nope. They may match APS but not a good 35mm. So my $120
> Nikkormat FTN and 135/2.8 Nippon Kogagu is still better than a Canon
> EOS-1Ds !

especially in 16x20...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Gregory W Blank <gblank@despamit.net> wrote:

> Digital copying certainly presents a very viscous ball of wax in
> terms of art in general- that is regarding worth and copyright,
> if your vision is the selling point unlimited copies sort of
> cheapens your value doncha think.

It only cheapens it with respect to archaic, artifact-based
distribution systems. There are ways to profit in an economy where
the cost of making a copy is essentially zero. Of course, you aren't
hearing much about this because the Dominant Paradigm's cadre of
lawyers and myopic clientel are still being dragged, kicking and
screaming, from the 19th to the 21st century.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> writes:
>
> >Film has the ability to _accumulate_ light and endure long
> >exposures or multiple exposures that can capture detail
> >in the dimmest of situations. Reciprocity failure is the
> >only factor. Silicon simply can't do this and is limited by
> >both exposure latitude and length of exposure.
>
> Silicon sensors can also accumulate light for long periods if they are
> cooled to reduce dark currents. Astronomers routinely use long
> exposures.

Wrong. The ability to accumlate light is unmatched by silver
halides. Digital _can't_ perform multiple exposures, which
requires that ability.

Also the resolution isn't equal. Astronomers sacrifice resolution
and they know it. Astronomers use digital imaging for it's analytical
abilites (spectroscopy) AND also use very expensive equipment...

> In addition, silicon sensors are *far* more sensitive; they
> convert close to 100% of incoming photons to electrons, while with film
> only a few percent of photons actually cause any exposure.

non sequitur. It only _takes_ 3 photons to intitiate silver
halide exposure AND you don't then have to interpolate the
image data. You get a 100% accurate image. Photodectectors
in fact require a higher minimum exposure in order to even
generate a signal...

> So in
> *really* dim light work, like astrophotography, electronic sensors give
> much shorter exposures, and they have almost completely replaced film.

Again stronomers use digital for it's spectroscopic abilites
(spectroscopy.) They don't use little P&S digitals that
interpolate (i.e., artificially add) image data...


> >Digital sensors have a _nominal_ "speed" at which they
> >produce the best quality image. When you alter that speed
> >the image quality goes down. Film can be rated at a different
> >speeds and still produce quality results because as development
> >of film is altered, effective speed also alters. Also, a "slow"
> >film can be simply be exposed for a longer time than a faster
> >film, and achieve the same results. No loss in image quality.
>
> Both digital and film have a nominal speed. To get a higher effective
> speed from film, you push process it - but that changes contrast and
> colour accuracy, sometimes producing uncorrectable colour errors. It
> also increases grain. To get higher effective speed from an electronic
> sensor, you increase the amplification between the sensor and A/D
> converter. This increases image noise, but it does *not* necessarily
> have any effect on contrast or colour reproduction. So electronic
> sensors are better than film if you want to adjust sensitivity (without
> swapping sensors).
>
> >Film can be exposed for hours. Try that with a digital sensor.
> >It simply one of the differences between these two imaging
> >mediums.
>
> Works fine with a digital sensor that's cooled. Meanwhile, film exposed
> for hours has terrible reciprocity failure problems unless it's
> gas-sensitized or cooled. Just about the only remaining use for film in
> professional astronomy is applications where you need a really large
> sensor, like a Schmidt camera.
>
> Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> > pk wrote:
> > >
> > > Whats wrong with you? You are making this too complicated. And did you
> > > really need to cross post this to half a dozen newsgroups?
> >
> > I do agree this is should not have been crossposted.
> >
> > > Digital film (senor) sensitivity are equivalent to film.
> >
> > Incorrect. CCD or CMOS sensors are not equal to film; one is
> > not equivalent to then other. There are differenent physics
> > and imaging properties that apply to any giving situation.
> >
> > Film has the ability to _accumulate_ light and endure long
> > exposures or multiple exposures that can capture detail
> > in the dimmest of situations. Reciprocity failure is the
> > only factor. Silicon simply can't do this and is limited by
> > both exposure latitude and length of exposure.
> >
> > > The higher
> > > the ISO the more sensitive the film is to light. So the higher the ISO
> > > on a digital camera the more sentive to light the digital sensor is.
> >
> > Digital sensors have a _nominal_ "speed" at which they
> > produce the best quality image. When you alter that speed
> > the image quality goes down. Film can be rated at a different
> > speeds and still produce quality results because as development
> > of film is altered, effective speed also alters. Also, a "slow"
> > film can be simply be exposed for a longer time than a faster
> > film, and achieve the same results. No loss in image quality.
> >
> > Film can be exposed for hours. Try that with a digital sensor.
> > It simply one of the differences between these two imaging
> > mediums.
>
> *Some* films can be exposed for hours - those specially formulated to do so, for
> astronomical purposes. Ordinary films don't like it very much at all. Rather like
> ordinary digital sensors which don't like long exposures either. But, as with film,
> specially prepared sensors are made for the job. Cryogenically cooled CCD's have a
> practically zero noise component and can be exposed for long periods, with, I might
> add, *far* superior results to film. Practical telescopes these days almost
> exclusively use CCD sensors in place of eyepieces, and astronomers sit in comfort at
> computer screens, viewing images far superior to direct stargazing up the eyepiece.

We're discussing prosumer digital camera technology.

They are not superior to film Astronomers sacrifice image
resolution for the convenience of spectroscopic analysis.
In their line of work a fair trade off...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote:
>
> If a photographer is talented and well trained, and takes more or less
> exquisite care of how his or her images are made, I'm ready to see and
> appreciate what they've done. I don't care whether the images were done
> with bits or atoms, or indeed whether they themselves think its important
or
> not - I'm here to see the pictures.

Most sensible thing said in this whole thread so far.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

John wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:02:11 +0900, Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:
>
> >>Well, I shoot 4x5. Pixels will never be able to get that
> >>small or numerous to effectively compete there.
> >
> >Never. The man actually said "never" in a rather new technological
> >environment. I
>
> In comparison to film digital is certainly new however there
> are many challenges to making a sensor the size of a 4X5 sheet of
> film. Note that some of us still consider 4X5 small.

"Challenges" is an understatement.

Silicon wafers can only be manufactured so big, and pixels
only so small.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

> OK, I must admit, I'm having trouble with this. Anyone have any suggestions
> for a light source that will result in a decent exposure over a couple of
> hours, that I can easilly set up in an otherwise pitch-black room, and that
> won't result in either no image being recorded, or massive overexposure, at
> any sensible aperture?

An IR filter? Under full sunlight, IR images with a Canon 10D are
supposedly ~20second ordeals. Everything else being the same, then, a
1s exposure would become ~2000s, or about 30 minutes.

A current-controlled LED? I don't know the lower-limit for getting
light out of one, but wiring up an LM317 is fairly simple:
www.google.com "LM317".

Random diffusers, reflectors (made of black paper), etc. Light leaks
might be a problem.

But you should run a simple dark-frame test first: if it saturates,
then there isn't much point of trying to take a picture. And it it
doesn't saturate, at least you have something to subtract from your
image...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Kibo informs me that "jjs" <jjs@x.x.com> stated that:

>"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
>news:d7bao0hm3qomoil91i6apo3642jg3q51ns@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:17:31 GMT, "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The rods and cones of the retina constitute a digital sensing plane
>>
>> Unfortunately I don't really believe this is the case. Can you
>> show me something stating that the retina operates in a digital
>> fashion ? Particularly binary, trinary or whatever ?
>
>You have something there, John. W.G. posited an impossibly ambigous
>statement. The rods and cones are not the retina and neither are they on the
>same plane as the retina.

Um. The rods & cones are indeed on the same plane as the retina:
<http://science.howstuffworks.com/eye2.htm>
General anatomy of the human eye:
<http://science.howstuffworks.com/eye1.htm>

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

John wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:30:59 +0200, "imbsysop" <imbsysop@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There is no picture .. you have to go through a number of chemical processes
> >to come to a final chemical process which makes the chemitry turn into
> >something visible .. kindly point out the differences in concept with
> >digital ..?
>
> In photography, the latent image is created _in_the_medium_.
> In DI it's stored in as a file.

Ah...there is no latent image in digital.

What John means is what I've also said (over and over)
film creates a tangible image (i.e., a real image)
upon exposure. It's a chemical change. The photon
energy is absorbed causing chemical decomposition, or
the actual creation of silver exactly mirroring the
optical image formed on it.

Digital generates photoelectrons, a voltage. There
is no image, since photons are converted to electricity.
The stored data file is then used to represent an
image, but no actual image exists.

You can reproduce this data (output it), as a
reproduction of the image the data represents, but no
photograph actually is _ever_ created by the direct
action of light on a light sensitive surface.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
>
> John wrote:
>
> > Nope. The human eye is an analog mechanism. Photography is an
> > effort to capture what the eyes can see in a relatively permanent
> > medium. Digital is an effort to make money. Digital images are not
> > analog nor are they permanent. It follows that digital is NOT
> > photography.
>
> One of the stupidest statements lately seen.
>

Actually John is correct. The human eye perceives light
and objects that reflect light _non-linearly_, the same
as film and photochemical imaging. These compliment
each other.

Digital is inherently linear.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Kibo informs me that Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com>
stated that:

>In article <26k952-5k8.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>>In article <4182032A.D3B720F7@aol.com>,
>>Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Show me a "multi hour" digital exposure.
>>
>>OK, I'll take one tonight and upload it. Have to be of something indoors and
>>boring, I'm afraid, as there's too much light pollution where I live to do
>>such a long exposure outside, and the weather's pretty nasty atm as well.
>
>OK, I must admit, I'm having trouble with this. Anyone have any suggestions
>for a light source that will result in a decent exposure over a couple of
>hours, that I can easilly set up in an otherwise pitch-black room, and that
>won't result in either no image being recorded, or massive overexposure, at
>any sensible aperture?

Sure. A small halogen desklamp, aimed at a white ceiling or reflector
should work fine. Just keep the actual light source out of the frame.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

>[...]

http://www.willbell.com/cookbook/check245.htm

Search for "low level light source". The device as presented is
useless for your application, but the notion of using a pin-hole seems
worth a try.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Susan Perkins wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 10:01:43 -0500, in article
> <04b7o0phjr9f9i2b4cg608vhe4csa0nd06@4ax.com>, John <use_net@puresilver.org>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:02:11 +0900, Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:
> >
> >>>Well, I shoot 4x5. Pixels will never be able to get that
> >>>small or numerous to effectively compete there.
> >>
> >>Never. The man actually said "never" in a rather new technological
> >>environment. I
> >
> > In comparison to film digital is certainly new however there
> >are many challenges to making a sensor the size of a 4X5 sheet of
> >film. Note that some of us still consider 4X5 small.
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
>
> No question there are challenges. But until we are butting up against the laws
> of physics, they are almost certain to be solved.

Nyquist is a law of physics...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Kibo informs me that John <use_net@puresilver.org> stated that:

>On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:37:06 +1300, Colin D
><ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>Where does he store his negatives, I wonder? What if the place burns down? Of
>>course digital backups cost - but dupe negs cost more, and they lose quality,
>>which digital doesn't.
>
> Try a couple of these issues ;
>
> 1) HDD failure.
> 2) Virus targeting image files.
> 3) File over-writing
> 4) File deletion
> 5) File corruption from power failure

A regular backup procedure prevents all these problems. Backups are not
rocket science, they're just common sense.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:58:24 +1100, usenet@imagenoir.com wrote:

>A regular backup procedure prevents all these problems. Backups are not
>rocket science, they're just common sense.

Nor are they fool proof or complete unless you update your
backups as files are copied to your hard drive or you're using a
RAID5.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

David Nebenzahl wrote:

> On 10/31/2004 1:10 AM Colin D spake thus:
>
> > Tom Phillips wrote:
> >
> >> John wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:37:06 +1300, Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Where does he store his negatives, I wonder? What if the place burns down? Of
> >> > >course digital backups cost - but dupe negs cost more, and they lose quality,
> >> > >which digital doesn't.
> >>
> >> Frankly and even realistically, I could store my negatives
> >> in a cave (cold dark storage with stable relative humidity)
> >> and they would last a thousands years longer than any
> >> electronic storage medium.
> >
> > Jeez, you don't know when you are beaten, do you? You *might* store your negs as
> > above, but the question is do you? No, I thought not. So your statement is worth
> > nothing. Further, a cave might have a stable humidity, but is it optimum? Don't
> > know? Thought not. Your negs will last more than a thousand years (digital storage
> > lifetime plus 1,000 years)? On acetate? no chance. On glass, maybe. You'll at least
> > have the glass, even if the emulsion has long gone.
> >
> >> A bird in the hand is worth any bunch of 1's and 0's
> >> that don;t really exist...
> >
> > What? Because you can't see or feel them, they don't exist? A 1 or a 0, as you put
> > it, is really the state, or polarisation, of a tiny magnetic field in a magnetic
> > material that exhibits high coercivity and hence remanence, which to the uninitiated
> > means simply that the magnetic polarisation is very stable. New materials are being
> > developed that promise to have much geater life than current, and may well have a
> > stable life measured in hundreds if not thousands of years. Your statement is based
> > on ignorance and, I suspect, a degree of desperation that you might be forced to
> > reckon with digital imaging against your will.
>
> I've been watching this debate unfold for a while now, and I have to say that
> you (Colin) are right. Your opposition seems to come from folks who just don't
> *like* digital and don't like the idea that it is about to supplant
> traditional wet photography.
>
> I should state my own prejudices up front: I don't particularly care for
> digital myself, which should make my arguments (as a devil's advocate, as it
> were) more believable. However, I'm sane enough to read the handwriting on the
> wall. Don't know if it'll be a decade or sooner, but it's inevitable that
> digital is going to swamp everything else. Just like the fact that practically
> nobody prints from lead type anymore (outside of a few boutique printers).
>
> By the way, it's interesting to note how this discussion has become distorted,
> and people are no longer arguing the original premise. Pointing out the
> problems of digital image storage and retrieval in no way proves that digital
> photography is not "photography", nor does it prove either one superior to the
> other. And the anti-digital crowd never admits the point you made, that one
> can make infinite copies of a digital image with no degradation in quality,
> unlike optical images.
>
> I'm sure I'll regret posting this soon enough.
>
> --
> ... voting for John Kerry now is like voting for LBJ in 1964 with full
> precognition of what he was going to do in Vietnam for the next four years.
>
> - Alexander Cockburn in _Counterpunch_
> (http://counterpunch.org/cockburn10282004.html)

Thanks for the support, David. i was feeling a bit lonely here.

Colin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <4185BF8E.D59F8BF7@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

> Thanks for the support, David. i was feeling a bit lonely here.

If you don't mind the support of someone, some have labeled a
troll. Actually David is not a true troll. Nor do I for one moment
think he is totally supporting you.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On 10/31/2004 9:14 PM Gregory W Blank spake thus:

> In article <4185BF8E.D59F8BF7@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the support, David. i was feeling a bit lonely here.
>
> If you don't mind the support of someone, some have labeled a
> troll. Actually David is not a true troll. Nor do I for one moment
> think he is totally supporting you.

I'm supporting the argument, not the man.


--
.... voting for John Kerry now is like voting for LBJ in 1964 with full
precognition of what he was going to do in Vietnam for the next four years.

- Alexander Cockburn in _Counterpunch_
(http://counterpunch.org/cockburn10282004.html)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

John wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:27:58 -0500, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
> wrote:
>
> >Yeah, change and modernization is hard to swallow at that age....LOL
>
> Ad hominem. You loose !
>

I'm in the same boat, I won't see 60 again. But I look forward.

Colin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

We are really sorry.

"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
news:6unco01dp0ooq7inidlejln3vu2cd255uo@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:19:47 -0600, John <use_net@puresilver.org>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:32:53 -0500, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>What happens when you knock your camera onto the floor and the case pops
> >>open and the film falls into the community sewage disposal?
> >
> > What happens when your batteries go dead ? Nothing. Guess what
> >happens when mine go dead. Let me help. My camera doesn't have ANY
> >batteries !
> >
> >John - Owner of
> >
> > 5X7 Linhof Technica III
> > 5X7 Kodak Eastman View #1
> > Mamiya RB67 - Mamiya C220
> > Nikon FM2n - Nikkormat FTn
>
> Slipping. I'm slipping ! Completely forgot the 4X5 Speed
> Graphic and my 4X5 Zone VI. Both with roll film backs of course.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
> Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:34:58 -0600, in article <41847980.31118D2E@aol.com>, Tom
Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>Susan Perkins wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:33:08 -0600, in article <4182A902.A58F1699@aol.com>, Tom
>> Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Well, I shoot 4x5. Pixels will never be able to get that
>> >small or numerous to effectively compete there.
>>
>> Never. The man actually said "never" in a rather new technological
>> environment. I'm glad I don't own stock in a company that he manages. <g>
>
>Ah... let me know when the electronics that make silicon
>sensitive enough to produce a voltage from electromagnectic
>radiation can get as small as a silver haliode ***MOLECULE***.
>
>never going to happen. Never...
>
>You want to make a argument, better back it up with something
>from _our_ universe of physcal laws...

Probably not? Sure. Never? Human history is littered with the shells of
burned out arguments that had that word attached to them.

SP

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:


: Alan Browne wrote:
: >
: > John wrote:
: >
: > > Nope. The human eye is an analog mechanism. Photography is an
: > > effort to capture what the eyes can see in a relatively permanent
: > > medium. Digital is an effort to make money. Digital images are not
: > > analog nor are they permanent. It follows that digital is NOT
: > > photography.
: >
: > One of the stupidest statements lately seen.
: >

: Actually John is correct. The human eye perceives light
: and objects that reflect light _non-linearly_, the same
: as film and photochemical imaging. These compliment
: each other.

: Digital is inherently linear.

You may want to take a look at the response curve of the sensors.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Frank Pittel wrote:
>
> In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : Alan Browne wrote:
> : >
> : > John wrote:
> : >
> : > > Nope. The human eye is an analog mechanism. Photography is an
> : > > effort to capture what the eyes can see in a relatively permanent
> : > > medium. Digital is an effort to make money. Digital images are not
> : > > analog nor are they permanent. It follows that digital is NOT
> : > > photography.
> : >
> : > One of the stupidest statements lately seen.
> : >
>
> : Actually John is correct. The human eye perceives light
> : and objects that reflect light _non-linearly_, the same
> : as film and photochemical imaging. These compliment
> : each other.
>
> : Digital is inherently linear.
>
> You may want to take a look at the response curve of the sensors.

The whole point of gamma correction is to get things "linear."
OTOH, when an image gets to the typical uncorrected computer
monitor it's really screwed up...

_FILM_ records light very close to the way the human eye
actually sees it. No gamma corection required...