Difficult technical question on ISO & light

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You should upgrade your OE. You are about 4 revisions behind and the
security holes are wide open.

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:10oqc0tu8hhced@corp.supernews.com...
> Yes Gymmy and you can't spell either. Does your mother know you're using
the
> computer by yourself?
>
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:WPidnZHtr5gyvhDcRVn-qg@golden.net...
> > I guess I only take each post at it's own face value. I can't keep track
> of
> > each personality becuae I can't be bothered to most of the times. Only
> > people that make a mark in my mind get semi-"kept track of"...LOL
> >
> > How is the west coast treating you?
> >
> > "Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
> > news:cmj2j2$sr2$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> > > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> writes:
> > > >Well said but there, on the other hand, people that build wooden
> > furniture
> > > >and other crafts with nothing but hand tools forged in the 1800s
also.
> > Why..
> > > >behooves me but good for them. It is not practical, not efficient and
> > > >doesn't do that good of a job IMHO but I give them credit like a
> hacker,
> > the
> > > >challenge is there, and they have to beat it.
> > >
> > > Sure. I'd have no comment if he said he used purely chemical
> > > photography because he enjoyed the challenge, or because he
particularly
> > > liked the results of a certain film and paper, or any personal
> > > preference. I collect slide rules, and I enjoy using them from time
to
> > > time, and for certain problems they're actually faster than a
> calculator,
> > > but I don't claim that they are better for everything, or that they
> > > produce more accurate answers than a calculator.
> > >
> > > But his argument was self-contradictory. He doesn't do straight
prints;
> > > he spends hours manipulating them to improve the images. Yet he
> > > implicitly criticizes anyone who would do the *same* manipulations
> > > digitally to the same images, because it's too easy to do so. He
might
> > > as well say "you should treasure my prints because they took a long
time
> > > to make". That's legitimate too, if the buyer understands it and
cares,
> > > but his argument is that his prints are somehow objectively better
> > > because he uses a method that always takes a long time.
> > >
> > > He may be justifiably proud of his chemical prints, but "veracity" is
> > > not what they show. A well-done digital print could have more
veracity
> > > (truth compared to the original scene) than his carefully-manipulated
> > > prints. He needs a different word to describe whey they are good.
> > >
> > > Dave
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

me wrote:
[snip]
> Your arguments are not representative of how people typically use the
> technology. I have never manipulated a slide or negative and in this
> respect I believe I am typical of 99.99% of most film users.
> On the other hand I believe that 99.99% of DI users do modify images.
> It is this compulsion to modify that destroys the veracity of DI.
> I'll sight just one example. A DI user trades a gray sky for a blue
> sky in Photoshop. This is just one example out of thousands (tens of
> thousands, millions) of possible fake photos that DI users feel
> compelled to make. Maybe there are a few DI users who don't modify
> their images. But even those few have absolutely no way of proving
> that they don't. And there will never be a way to prove it that can
> not be hacked or cracked even if DI users felt any need to prove that
> their images are real which they do not.

I shoot (digital) raw. This captures the information straight from the
sensors. I don't have access to any software that can alter the raw files. I
simply use them as input to the editing process. Would it stand up in court?

Some of my 35mm slides were copies of other sources, not taken from original
scenes. Would those slides stand up in court?

Every photograph ever taken was subject to manipulation. The most obvious
examples being the decision about whether to take the picture or not, the
potential re-arrangement of the subject matter before taking the shot, and the
selection of what to leave out.

I find that I have to do less manipulation in Photoshop to get a print from my
digital camera that resembles the original scene than I have to do from 35mm.

I distance myself from both sides of the "film versus digital" holy war. I'm a
photographer, not a film-photographer or a digital-photographer.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ahhhh... A real photographer that recognizes things as tools to an end.

Nice

"Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:R6ajd.2769$zf.336@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> me wrote:
> [snip]
> > Your arguments are not representative of how people typically use the
> > technology. I have never manipulated a slide or negative and in this
> > respect I believe I am typical of 99.99% of most film users.
> > On the other hand I believe that 99.99% of DI users do modify images.
> > It is this compulsion to modify that destroys the veracity of DI.
> > I'll sight just one example. A DI user trades a gray sky for a blue
> > sky in Photoshop. This is just one example out of thousands (tens of
> > thousands, millions) of possible fake photos that DI users feel
> > compelled to make. Maybe there are a few DI users who don't modify
> > their images. But even those few have absolutely no way of proving
> > that they don't. And there will never be a way to prove it that can
> > not be hacked or cracked even if DI users felt any need to prove that
> > their images are real which they do not.
>
> I shoot (digital) raw. This captures the information straight from the
> sensors. I don't have access to any software that can alter the raw files.
I
> simply use them as input to the editing process. Would it stand up in
court?
>
> Some of my 35mm slides were copies of other sources, not taken from
original
> scenes. Would those slides stand up in court?
>
> Every photograph ever taken was subject to manipulation. The most obvious
> examples being the decision about whether to take the picture or not, the
> potential re-arrangement of the subject matter before taking the shot, and
the
> selection of what to leave out.
>
> I find that I have to do less manipulation in Photoshop to get a print
from my
> digital camera that resembles the original scene than I have to do from
35mm.
>
> I distance myself from both sides of the "film versus digital" holy war.
I'm a
> photographer, not a film-photographer or a digital-photographer.
>
> --
> Barry Pearson
> http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
> http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
>
>

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Your hole is wide open and flies are going to get in there, digital dullard!
🙂))

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:U4idnbLIWLd3-BDcRVn-3A@golden.net...
> You should upgrade your OE. You are about 4 revisions behind and the
> security holes are wide open.
>
> "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
> news:10oqc0tu8hhced@corp.supernews.com...
> > Yes Gymmy and you can't spell either. Does your mother know you're using
> the
> > computer by yourself?
> >
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> > news:WPidnZHtr5gyvhDcRVn-qg@golden.net...
> > > I guess I only take each post at it's own face value. I can't keep
track
> > of
> > > each personality becuae I can't be bothered to most of the times. Only
> > > people that make a mark in my mind get semi-"kept track of"...LOL
> > >
> > > How is the west coast treating you?
> > >
> > > "Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:cmj2j2$sr2$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> > > > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> writes:
> > > > >Well said but there, on the other hand, people that build wooden
> > > furniture
> > > > >and other crafts with nothing but hand tools forged in the 1800s
> also.
> > > Why..
> > > > >behooves me but good for them. It is not practical, not efficient
and
> > > > >doesn't do that good of a job IMHO but I give them credit like a
> > hacker,
> > > the
> > > > >challenge is there, and they have to beat it.
> > > >
> > > > Sure. I'd have no comment if he said he used purely chemical
> > > > photography because he enjoyed the challenge, or because he
> particularly
> > > > liked the results of a certain film and paper, or any personal
> > > > preference. I collect slide rules, and I enjoy using them from time
> to
> > > > time, and for certain problems they're actually faster than a
> > calculator,
> > > > but I don't claim that they are better for everything, or that they
> > > > produce more accurate answers than a calculator.
> > > >
> > > > But his argument was self-contradictory. He doesn't do straight
> prints;
> > > > he spends hours manipulating them to improve the images. Yet he
> > > > implicitly criticizes anyone who would do the *same* manipulations
> > > > digitally to the same images, because it's too easy to do so. He
> might
> > > > as well say "you should treasure my prints because they took a long
> time
> > > > to make". That's legitimate too, if the buyer understands it and
> cares,
> > > > but his argument is that his prints are somehow objectively better
> > > > because he uses a method that always takes a long time.
> > > >
> > > > He may be justifiably proud of his chemical prints, but "veracity"
is
> > > > not what they show. A well-done digital print could have more
> veracity
> > > > (truth compared to the original scene) than his
carefully-manipulated
> > > > prints. He needs a different word to describe whey they are good.
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Not really, just another digital dullard like you Gymmy offering opinions
with no facts. Gymmy, why hasn't your mother made you go to bed yet?

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:y4qdnecNhray-xDcRVn-rg@golden.net...
> Ahhhh... A real photographer that recognizes things as tools to an end.
>
> Nice
>
> "Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:R6ajd.2769$zf.336@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> > me wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Your arguments are not representative of how people typically use the
> > > technology. I have never manipulated a slide or negative and in this
> > > respect I believe I am typical of 99.99% of most film users.
> > > On the other hand I believe that 99.99% of DI users do modify images.
> > > It is this compulsion to modify that destroys the veracity of DI.
> > > I'll sight just one example. A DI user trades a gray sky for a blue
> > > sky in Photoshop. This is just one example out of thousands (tens of
> > > thousands, millions) of possible fake photos that DI users feel
> > > compelled to make. Maybe there are a few DI users who don't modify
> > > their images. But even those few have absolutely no way of proving
> > > that they don't. And there will never be a way to prove it that can
> > > not be hacked or cracked even if DI users felt any need to prove that
> > > their images are real which they do not.
> >
> > I shoot (digital) raw. This captures the information straight from the
> > sensors. I don't have access to any software that can alter the raw
files.
> I
> > simply use them as input to the editing process. Would it stand up in
> court?
> >
> > Some of my 35mm slides were copies of other sources, not taken from
> original
> > scenes. Would those slides stand up in court?
> >
> > Every photograph ever taken was subject to manipulation. The most
obvious
> > examples being the decision about whether to take the picture or not,
the
> > potential re-arrangement of the subject matter before taking the shot,
and
> the
> > selection of what to leave out.
> >
> > I find that I have to do less manipulation in Photoshop to get a print
> from my
> > digital camera that resembles the original scene than I have to do from
> 35mm.
> >
> > I distance myself from both sides of the "film versus digital" holy war.
> I'm a
> > photographer, not a film-photographer or a digital-photographer.
> >
> > --
> > Barry Pearson
> > http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
> > http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I just put you to bed.

Damn kids

<PLONK>

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:10or2ktjahnne42@corp.supernews.com...
> Not really, just another digital dullard like you Gymmy offering opinions
> with no facts. Gymmy, why hasn't your mother made you go to bed yet?
>
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:y4qdnecNhray-xDcRVn-rg@golden.net...
> > Ahhhh... A real photographer that recognizes things as tools to an end.
> >
> > Nice
> >
> > "Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:R6ajd.2769$zf.336@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> > > me wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > Your arguments are not representative of how people typically use
the
> > > > technology. I have never manipulated a slide or negative and in this
> > > > respect I believe I am typical of 99.99% of most film users.
> > > > On the other hand I believe that 99.99% of DI users do modify
images.
> > > > It is this compulsion to modify that destroys the veracity of DI.
> > > > I'll sight just one example. A DI user trades a gray sky for a blue
> > > > sky in Photoshop. This is just one example out of thousands (tens of
> > > > thousands, millions) of possible fake photos that DI users feel
> > > > compelled to make. Maybe there are a few DI users who don't modify
> > > > their images. But even those few have absolutely no way of proving
> > > > that they don't. And there will never be a way to prove it that can
> > > > not be hacked or cracked even if DI users felt any need to prove
that
> > > > their images are real which they do not.
> > >
> > > I shoot (digital) raw. This captures the information straight from the
> > > sensors. I don't have access to any software that can alter the raw
> files.
> > I
> > > simply use them as input to the editing process. Would it stand up in
> > court?
> > >
> > > Some of my 35mm slides were copies of other sources, not taken from
> > original
> > > scenes. Would those slides stand up in court?
> > >
> > > Every photograph ever taken was subject to manipulation. The most
> obvious
> > > examples being the decision about whether to take the picture or not,
> the
> > > potential re-arrangement of the subject matter before taking the shot,
> and
> > the
> > > selection of what to leave out.
> > >
> > > I find that I have to do less manipulation in Photoshop to get a print
> > from my
> > > digital camera that resembles the original scene than I have to do
from
> > 35mm.
> > >
> > > I distance myself from both sides of the "film versus digital" holy
war.
> > I'm a
> > > photographer, not a film-photographer or a digital-photographer.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Barry Pearson
> > > http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
> > > http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[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 2004-11-04, Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

> As a result digital B&W printing is lagging behind.

I think we are in violent agreement here; I'm only suggesting an
extension of this to include cameras as well.

> Since only a few companies are specializing in B&W inks and RIPs
> it's not hard to see the best.

It takes a while to master printing using any technique. Silver-based
printing has had many years and many books to refine and spread good
technique. Digital is still changing rapidly enough that by the time
you become an expert, your equipment may be obsolete and no longer
available.

> I do think that they're more then a couple years out from getting
> the quality of traditional darkroom prints.

There may be specific qualities of silver based prints that digital
will never match. Just as silver prints cannot capture all of the
nuances of cyanotype/platinum/gum bichromate/whatever. But that does
not mean that digital will not have it's own qualities that silver
cannot match and may eventually superceed silver processes for most
work just as silver now dominates over those other archiac processes.

--
Erik

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"me" <anonymous@_.com> writes:

>Quote from article: "This kind of visual trickery aided by the mushrooming
>use of digital cameras is becomming increasingly commonplace" My point is
>who would take the effort to do this with film when it can be done in
>Photoshop with just a few mouse clicks? Now tell me again that it wasn't
>done digitally.

Fakes have been done with film for decades; digital just makes it
easier. Are you suggesting that all fakes are now digital, and thus
chemical photographs must be real? A composite is a composite however
it's done; why does the technique used matter?

>Why not? I've read countless posts from digital dullards touting
>(incorrectly) the superiority of DI and advising film users to throw away
>their cameras. Your motives are less honorable than mine. You imply respect
>for my views only as a vehicle to spread disinformation about film.

I have never suggested throwing away anyone's film cameras, and I still
have all mine. What disinformation am I spreading?

>Your arguments are not representative of how people typically use the
>technology. I have never manipulated a slide or negative and in this respect
>I believe I am typical of 99.99% of most film users.

But surely you adjust exposure and colour balance! Are you saying that
you *never* print an image so it looks other than exactly as it looked
to your eye? You never over- or under-expose your transparencies for
visual effect? You never use a polarizer? If you do any of these
things, you're creatively adjusting an image, and not aiming for
"veracity".

>On the other hand I believe that 99.99% of DI users do modify images.

But mostly they adjust colour balance and overall exposure, change
contrast, selectively darken or lighten areas, fix dust spots and smooth
out noise - all operations that have chemical photography counterparts.
Digital methods make these easier, but they're not new at all.

Only a small minority of digital photographs are outright composites,
showing something that never existed at all. Why vilify all digital
photography, when only a small portion of digital photos are modified in
this way?

>It is
>this compulsion to modify that destroys the veracity of DI.

Most digital *and* chemical photographs have only minor modifications.
Outright fakes can be, and have been, done in both digital and chemical
phtography. I see little difference in the inherent "veracity" of the
two methods.

>A DI user trades a gray sky for a blue sky in Photoshop. This
>is just one example out of thousands (tens of thousands, millions) of
>possible fake photos that DI users feel compelled to make.

>Maybe there are a
>few DI users who don't modify their images.

How many digital photographers have you actually talked to? I don't
think this is anywhere near as common as you suggest.

>But even those few have
>absolutely no way of proving that they don't. And there will never be a way
>to prove it that can not be hacked or cracked even if DI users felt any need
>to prove that their images are real which they do not.

There's no way of proving that a chemical photograph is real either, in
most circumstances. You can create a composite using prints as large as
necessary for precision in trimming, then rephotograph it to give a new
negative. Or you can retouch large-format negatives. Or you can
digitize a film image, modify it, and record it back onto a new negative
that is indistinguishable from an original. In short, you can't prove
that *any* prints or negatives are genuine originals.

Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gymmy Bob wrote:
> Ahhhh... A real photographer that recognizes things as tools to an
> end.

Although I have only shot digital in the last 2 or 3 months, I have 3 main
problems with digital at the moment:

1. On my last major trip I took more than 40 36-exp slide films. Since I shoot
raw, I get about 72 shots on a 1GB card. That is about 20GB for that trip.
Obviously I could edit the cards in the camera (but just a little), or use
JPEG instead, or take extra storage. But I might be tempted to take 35mm and
leave the digital at home!

2. I feel I need 8 megapixels (before cropping) for my largest size of prints,
but I got locked into Pentax years ago and so I bought a 6 megapixel camera. I
don't think it quite matches slides scanned with the Minolta Elite 5400. (But
for most purposes I like it).

3. Even the best 1024 x 768 digital projectors don't appear to be as good as
the best slide projectors, and are very expensive.

These are temporary problems. In a few years I won't even raise the issues,
and my 35mm cameras will never even be considered. But even then it will be a
personal matter (if film can still be bought). I know photographers who
produce far better photographs than me without a digit in sight. Too many of
these discussions appear to be attempts by people to confirm to themselves
that they have made the right decision. My local photographic society doesn't
have separate categories for film and digital. You get points (or not!) for
results, not technology.

> "Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:R6ajd.2769$zf.336@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
[snip]
>> I distance myself from both sides of the "film versus digital" holy
>> war. I'm a photographer, not a film-photographer or a
>> digital-photographer.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
> "me" <anonymous@_.com> writes:
[snip]
>>Your arguments are not representative of how people typically use the
>>technology. I have never manipulated a slide or negative and in this
>>respect I believe I am typical of 99.99% of most film users.
>
> But surely you adjust exposure and colour balance! Are you saying
> that you *never* print an image so it looks other than exactly as it
> looked to your eye? You never over- or under-expose your
> transparencies for visual effect? You never use a polarizer? If you
> do any of these things, you're creatively adjusting an image, and not
> aiming for "veracity".
[snip]

I've seen an IMAX 3D movie using polarising spectacles. I saw fish apparently
swimming just in front of my face, and looking round the rest of the audience
people were making grabbing motions with their hands in front of their faces!
This demonstrated just how little resemblance ("veracity") there is between
*silent* *still* *2D* photography and the real world.

I think we believe 2D still photographs resemble the real world because we
have grown up with them, and acquired the habits. We accept the illusion. Good
photographers can manipulate the images (perspective control, use of focus,
use of subject movement, scenes disappearing into mist, etc) to overcome some
of the inherent deficiences of still 2D photographs to help our illusions.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/

 

[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 11/5/2004 9:23 AM Dave Martindale spake thus:

> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> writes:
>
>>Fuuny thing about al of these technologies was Sony invented them all, sold
>>the VHS rights and then competed against it. I believe they did the same
>>thing with all the CD fornats also.
>
> No, Philips of Holland developed the CD first, then joined with Sony.

Right. And credit (or blame) for the size of the original CD (74 minutes) goes
to Herbert von Karajan (conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic), who demanded
that the new disc format be long enough to hold the longest symphony he
intended to record (Beethoven's 9th, I believe).


--
Don't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"me" <anonymous@_.com> writes:
>And your film camera will accrue in value while digital capture devices will
>hold value like a mobile home (actually mobile homes hold their value
>better).

Who cares? My film camera equipment dropped in value when manual-focus
SLRs were replaced by autofocus SLRs and lenses. That was actually
good; it allowed me to buy high-quality used lenses at low cost. I
still have all that equipment, and it still works. I've had it for 20
years, and I'd say I got value from it.

My first digital camera (Canon G2) is now worth probably one quarter of
what I paid for it. But the money wasn't wasted; it allowed me to shoot
pictures at a certain quality level for the last 3 years.

People don't buy computers or digital cameras as investments; they buy
them in order to do things.

Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Some buy antiques so they can argue about them too...LOL

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:cmlp0q$ha8$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> "me" <anonymous@_.com> writes:
> >And your film camera will accrue in value while digital capture devices
will
> >hold value like a mobile home (actually mobile homes hold their value
> >better).
>
> Who cares? My film camera equipment dropped in value when manual-focus
> SLRs were replaced by autofocus SLRs and lenses. That was actually
> good; it allowed me to buy high-quality used lenses at low cost. I
> still have all that equipment, and it still works. I've had it for 20
> years, and I'd say I got value from it.
>
> My first digital camera (Canon G2) is now worth probably one quarter of
> what I paid for it. But the money wasn't wasted; it allowed me to shoot
> pictures at a certain quality level for the last 3 years.
>
> People don't buy computers or digital cameras as investments; they buy
> them in order to do things.
>
> 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?)

"David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:418E8DF5.3060505@but.us.chickens...
> On 11/5/2004 9:23 AM Dave Martindale spake thus:
>
>> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> writes:
> >
>>>Fuuny thing about al of these technologies was Sony invented them all,
>>>sold
>>>the VHS rights and then competed against it. I believe they did the same
>>>thing with all the CD fornats also.
>>
>> No, Philips of Holland developed the CD first, then joined with Sony.
>
> Right. And credit (or blame) for the size of the original CD (74 minutes)
> goes to Herbert von Karajan ..

as pointed out here before .. the original Philips "CD" was digital TV not
music .. 🙂

 

[Guest]

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

"imbsysop" <imbsysop@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:418e9309$0$26203$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
>
> "David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> news:418E8DF5.3060505@but.us.chickens...
>> On 11/5/2004 9:23 AM Dave Martindale spake thus:
>>
>>> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> writes:
>> >
>>>>Fuuny thing about al of these technologies was Sony invented them all,
>>>>sold
>>>>the VHS rights and then competed against it. I believe they did the same
>>>>thing with all the CD fornats also.
>>>
>>> No, Philips of Holland developed the CD first, then joined with Sony.
>>
>> Right. And credit (or blame) for the size of the original CD (74 minutes)
>> goes to Herbert von Karajan ..
>
> as pointed out here before .. the original Philips "CD" was digital TV not
> music .. 🙂
>

Laserdisc's are actually analogue.

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:lkvid.4665$zx1.265@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> In another thread, far far away, John wrote:
> > On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:26:42 -0500, "Gymmy Bob" wrote:
> >
> >> Ok so you have to wind it between shots. I thought we were talking
> >> about good features. Mine has never run out of batteries. I carry an
> >> extra and hardly ever use it.
> >
> > Yeah, you and Machine Gun Annie are always prepared. Funny but
> > all Cartier-Bresson needed was a Leica and his results are certainly
> > better than anything being produced by digi-cams.
>
> Somehow, probably because of CB's recent death, John's comment came to
mind
> as I was browsing through a large book containing glossy repros of some of
> his well-known images, and I was struck by the consistent low technical
> quality of Bresson's images. Most, if not all, of his images are very
> grainy. About one in four have obvious camera movement. Many were printed
> as tiny wallet-sized images, lonesome in the center of the A2-glossy pages
> of the book I was browsing.
>
> To be sure, the timing and composition in each case are striking, due in
> large measure to his great talent for "capturing the moment". The images
> have life, and I look to his work as an inspration, but not one in ten is
> optically sharp, or one in a hundred sharp enough to be enlarged to A3
size
> without simply falling apart due to grain.
>
> In his habits, CB was a news photogrpaher who roamed the field and did no
> darkroom work whatsoever. He was sparing, as John suggests, in his use of
> his film "ammunition". It was all in the moment of the hunt for him, and
in
> fact he was a professional game hunter in his very early years. He would
> send his undeveloped film back to the lab for printing, and seldom looked
at
> his images after they had been printed.
>
> I light of all this, my guess is that CB, in his prime, would have greatly
> preferred digital photography. In light of the lack of technical quality
of
> his work, as well as his methods, holding him up as an icon for
ultra-sharp
> film photography is certainly questionable.
> --
>
> Mike Russell

As is evident by the lack of comment on this thread you can see that none of
these digital dullards even know who CB was.
Film, the only relevant medium!
For me *and* CB

 

[OGMarcel]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm new to this group and hadn't seen this. However, it made me think of the
advent of digital music (synthesizer) back many years ago. At that time,
many were musing whether Bach would have chosen a synthesizer (remember
"switched on Bach") had it been invented ;-)
Whaat strikes me in Cartier Bresson's photography is his "personal touch".
The way he seems to catch a moment in time.
Marcel



"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:10p4npilmg4pkd4@corp.supernews.com...
> "Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
> news:lkvid.4665$zx1.265@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > In another thread, far far away, John wrote:
> > > On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:26:42 -0500, "Gymmy Bob" wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ok so you have to wind it between shots. I thought we were talking
> > >> about good features. Mine has never run out of batteries. I carry an
> > >> extra and hardly ever use it.
> > >
> > > Yeah, you and Machine Gun Annie are always prepared. Funny but
> > > all Cartier-Bresson needed was a Leica and his results are certainly
> > > better than anything being produced by digi-cams.
> >
> > Somehow, probably because of CB's recent death, John's comment came to
> mind
> > as I was browsing through a large book containing glossy repros of some
of
> > his well-known images, and I was struck by the consistent low technical
> > quality of Bresson's images. Most, if not all, of his images are very
> > grainy. About one in four have obvious camera movement. Many were
printed
> > as tiny wallet-sized images, lonesome in the center of the A2-glossy
pages
> > of the book I was browsing.
> >
> > To be sure, the timing and composition in each case are striking, due in
> > large measure to his great talent for "capturing the moment". The
images
> > have life, and I look to his work as an inspration, but not one in ten
is
> > optically sharp, or one in a hundred sharp enough to be enlarged to A3
> size
> > without simply falling apart due to grain.
> >
> > In his habits, CB was a news photogrpaher who roamed the field and did
no
> > darkroom work whatsoever. He was sparing, as John suggests, in his use
of
> > his film "ammunition". It was all in the moment of the hunt for him,
and
> in
> > fact he was a professional game hunter in his very early years. He
would
> > send his undeveloped film back to the lab for printing, and seldom
looked
> at
> > his images after they had been printed.
> >
> > I light of all this, my guess is that CB, in his prime, would have
greatly
> > preferred digital photography. In light of the lack of technical
quality
> of
> > his work, as well as his methods, holding him up as an icon for
> ultra-sharp
> > film photography is certainly questionable.
> > --
> >
> > Mike Russell
>
> As is evident by the lack of comment on this thread you can see that none
of
> these digital dullards even know who CB was.
> Film, the only relevant medium!
> For me *and* CB
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:30:21 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
>As is evident by the lack of comment on this thread you can see that none of
>these digital dullards even know who CB was.
>Film, the only relevant medium!
>For me *and* CB

Yes, yes, yes, now you can only find *dead* people who share your
antiquated views!

Wake up, and smell the pixels!

--
Owamanga!

 

[JPC]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:30:21 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:


>
>As is evident by the lack of comment on this thread you can see that none of
>these digital dullards even know who CB was.
>Film, the only relevant medium!
>For me *and* CB
>

Some of digital dullards do know something about the history of
photography.

Here's a test.

Correctly identify and discribe the works of:

Sally Eauclaire

Mark Schwartz

Dan Rodan

Sandy Skoglund

Lucas Samaras.

Hint--They used film to make their reputation but would have prefered
digital.

jpc

 

[Rainman]

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:
> <JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
> news:4j5go0132ndqi56ms78pqpgq96qrg6g443@4ax.com...
>
>>In message <cm91ef$j2a$2@nnrp.gol.com>,
>>"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was about to say that<g>. White balancing works well within a much
>>>narrower range than most people think. It is handy though.
>>>
>>>Also, the Canon manual white balance procedure is so painful, that
>
> switching
>
>>>backs on my Mamiya 645 Pro is faster.
>>
>>This is all for the JPEGGER. If you shoot RAW, there is no need to do
>>white balance until after the pictures are taken. If a bunch are taken
>>in the same light, you can WB them in batch.
>
>
> If you want to get the WB right, you need to take a color temperature
> measurement. Without it, you're left guessing. So you're stuck doing it even
> for RAW.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>