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?)

Gregory W Blank wrote:

> In article <418425A2.7782E24A@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >
> > Where does he store his negatives, I wonder?
>
> Now you don't have to, archival pages or sleeves in a humidity
> control file room in archival acid free boxes.
>
> >What if the place burns down? Of
> > course digital backups cost - but dupe negs cost more, and they lose quality,
> > which digital doesn't.
>
> So what if your computer burns up? What if you drop your HD
> what if there's a power surge,...etc etc,, make a real point please!!!
> --

You'd do better not to reply if you're going to make such stupid and ignorant
statements as that above. If my computer burns up, then what is on it is lost.
BUT that is not where my image files are stored, nor is it where my databases and
spreadsheets are stored either. They are on several copies on a removable HD and
on CD's and will shortly be on DVD's. That's at least four copies additional to
what's on the HD - and they are all *identical*. Let's see you make four copies
of every negative you have, with NO loss of quality. Can't do it? thought not.

Colin

 

[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 Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:05:58 +1300, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>You'd do better not to reply if you're going to make such stupid and ignorant
>statements as that above. If my computer burns up, then what is on it is lost.
>BUT that is not where my image files are stored, nor is it where my databases and
>spreadsheets are stored either. They are on several copies on a removable HD and
>on CD's and will shortly be on DVD's. That's at least four copies additional to
>what's on the HD - and they are all *identical*. Let's see you make four copies
>of every negative you have, with NO loss of quality. Can't do it? thought not.

Can't imagine trying to keep 1,000,000 negatives straight.
That's 4X250,000 negatives that I actually have in storage. In fact I
can't really imagine keeping all of those backups straight either.

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?)

In article <41849CE6.3C4CB5F1@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

> You'd do better not to reply if you're going to make such stupid and ignorant
> statements as that above. If my computer burns up, then what is on it is lost.
> BUT that is not where my image files are stored, nor is it where my databases and
> spreadsheets are stored either. They are on several copies on a removable HD and
> on CD's and will shortly be on DVD's. That's at least four copies additional to
> what's on the HD - and they are all *identical*. Let's see you make four copies
> of every negative you have, with NO loss of quality. Can't do it? thought not.

You'll do better "Not to Advise Me" in an arrogant manner, especially regarding the
media and craft I've been doing for 22 years. The Craft I have numerous publications
in and the craft I have watched be transformed into something any idiot with a digicam
and internet connection can insert themself into and now claim to be an expert on.

LOL.

What you seem to be missing or just plain ignoring is that any set of outside criteria
or outside factors that obviates the camera negative (Like fire) will certainly be a consideration
in the obviation of the digitally stored file.
--
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?)

"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.

> 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.

> > So the 1D mk2 (or 20D) at ISO 400 at 30 seconds will capture the same
detail
> > with lower noise as ISO 50 Velvia will at (4 minutes times reciprocity
> > correction). But you can't really correct for reciprocity with time, you
> > have to correct with f stop.
> >
> > *: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise/

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?)

On 31/10/04 12:16 pm, in article cm2l52$124$1@nnrp.gol.com, "David J.
Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> 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 Koren's. Unlike Clark, Koren doesn't offer an opinion, just the
test method. The measurements are taken at 50% MTF contrast. That was the
statement you made, which is incorrect.
You talk about no particular hardware, so my results apply to 'any digital
camera'.

If you are going to make a statement about resolution, get it right, just
because you lose the argument, don't change the game. If you want to talk
about enlargement it is a different ballgame. A resolution test chart,
enlarged with a run of the mill Schneider Componon resolves more lines per
millimeter on print than an 8 Mpixel digicam (with enhance sharpening).
The nyquist criterion is a special case incidentally. To guarantee 50% MTF
contrast for any phase between projected image and sensor array you need
about 2.6 pixels per line pair.

Of course you don't understand resolution either. 'Looks as good' is a
rather wide barn door. But if we are talking resolution, then the two images
of the resolution chart will indeed, bear out the resolutions I mentioned,
if viewed at about 325mm.

As it comes out of the camera / or film, I have measured the dynamic range
of about 8 digital SLR's and compacts. They hover around the 6 stop range.
Yes, you can stretch the shadow detail if you import in RAW mode. That is
called manipulation. You can also achieve the same effect with Velvia at the
exposure point and during scanning, if you know what you are doing.

>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>>> So the 1D mk2 (or 20D) at ISO 400 at 30 seconds will capture the same
> detail
>>> with lower noise as ISO 50 Velvia will at (4 minutes times reciprocity
>>> correction). But you can't really correct for reciprocity with time, you
>>> have to correct with f stop.
>>>
>>> *: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise/
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>

 

[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 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

 

[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 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

See my previous message about backups. My machine is behind a firewall and a
router, with NAT and MAC protection, and with bot and virus-checking software
enabled. Overwriting cannot happen without the computer warning you first, and
displaying data about the file that would be overwritten. If you go ahead after
that, you are an idiot. I get the feeling, from your posts in general, that you
know little about either digital photography or computers, but simply are reacting
in Luddite fashion to threats to your life-long experience of chemical photography.
You have my sympathy.

> For grins I just typed "delete .jpg" into the search utility
> at http://search.symantec.com/custom/us/query.html . There are 13840
> returns.

I hope you're not implying that I, or other *experienced* computer users are stupid
enough to delete files accidentally. FYI, you can't just type 'delete' or press a
button and Voila! all your images have gone. You have to deliberately delete files
and even then Windows - and I presume Macs - will ask you if you are sure you want
to delete. If you delete files in spite of the protections, then you are a moron.

>
> Regarding # 3, most digicams don't provide for using different
> filenames. If you import a lot of images into your My Pictures
> directory you run the risk of over-writing files with the same name.

Why do you think we are talking about digicams? And why do you equate digital
cameras with a P&S, when your chemical photographic remarks refer to large format
high quality cameras? Wouldn't be a bit of unconscious bias, by any chance?

Colin

 

[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 Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:21:32 +1300, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>I get the feeling, from your posts in general, that you
>know little about either digital photography or computers, but simply are reacting
>in Luddite fashion to threats to your life-long experience of chemical photography.

Letsee, I've worked with computers off and on since 1980 and
I'm currently working for the #1 OEM on very technical subjects.

As to DI, I don't care for it at all and have spent just
enough time with Photoshop and my Fuji FinePix Something-or-other to
get a decent image for email. Even at the highest setting (6MP) it
simply doesn't compare with my Nikon FM2 much less my Linhoff 5X7.

And just 26 years experience in chemical photography. A couple
of years as a lab manager.

Don't be so negative on the Luddites. They had their effects
which is more than most can say.

>If you delete files in spite of the protections, then you are a moron.

You're preaching to the choir here.

>> Regarding # 3, most digicams don't provide for using different
>> filenames. If you import a lot of images into your My Pictures
>> directory you run the risk of over-writing files with the same name.
>
>Why do you think we are talking about digicams?

Well I thought we were talking about digital images and the
cameras used to create them. Digit-cams.

>And why do you equate digital
>cameras with a P&S, when your chemical photographic remarks refer to large format
>high quality cameras?

Ummm perhaps it's because the most digi-cams are comparable to
P&S cameras ?

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?)

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.

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?)

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)

 

[Guest]

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

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.

"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
news:ldabo0paktlc1ujs8kjh2s6q0tdblcioij@4ax.com...
> 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

 

[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 Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:26:42 -0500, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
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.

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?)

John wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:34:57 +1300, Colin D
> <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >However, your cost calculations should include the cost of
> >your film plus processing for those 10,000 images. It would indoubtedly cover
> >the cost of digital storage had the shots originally been taken digitally, with
> >scanning backs to equal your equivalent resolution.
>
> Nope. The cost of processing film is minimal but compare that
> to the cost of the equipment needed to manage the digital files and to
> make a comparable image in digital (if it were possible) plus add in
> the mandatory upgrading costs and (re)training costs and you will see
> how truly expensive digital is.
>

I did in fact include the cost of the film as well, but you haven't mentioned that
bit. From my darkroom days, my 5x4 Durst laborator enlarger with dichroic head,
plus four Rodagon lenses, and the Kreonite processor cost me a hell of a lot more
than my current high-end computer and a high-end digital printer combined. Of
course, the digital gear wasn't available back in 1980, so realistically it would be
in the nature of an upgrade rather than original cost. But the point is that
setting up for digital is no more expensive that it was setting up for opto-chemical
processing.

Colin

 

[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 Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:32:16 +1300, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>But the point is that
>setting up for digital is no more expensive that it was setting up for opto-chemical
>processing.

This is one thing I have to thank digital for. With the "Great
Migration" of many pro's to DI, there has been a plethora of good,
used equipment on Ebay. I purchased my Durst 138 with 2 lenses for
$600. I also purchased a 5X7 Linhof Technika with 180/5.6 Nikkor and
extras for $800. Gooooooo digital !

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?)

John wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:57:47 +1300, Colin D
> <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >John wrote:
> ><snip>
> > Both can reproduce on paper a representation of
> >what was in front of the camera. Both representations are images derived from the
> >action of light on a light-sensitive material. Both are photographs.
>
> Nope. One is digital and impermanent while the other is analog
> and can be made very permanent. Digital imaging is perfect for
> commercial imaging where the quality/quantity/convenience/cost
> equation helps in the production of catalog and newsprint images.

Print permanence or intended use has nothing to do with whether the print is a photograph.
Some chemical prints, e.g. proofs, are deliberately not permanent, but they are still
photographs. If you are talking about comparing silver halide prints vs inkjet prints, you
might once, not too long ago, have had a point. Today, Epson's large-format printers can
produce results that will last for a hundred years or more, and in color as well as b/w. To
the best of my knowledge, the best bet for chemical color prints is Fuji Crystal Archive
paper, projected life 65 years, followed by Kodak with about 50 years, IIRC. And, there
exist printers that will print digital images onto silver halide paper, with a life equal to
a print from a negative. As I said before, print life does not determine whether that print
is a photograph. Capturing an image formed by light through a lens, and using the resultant
image, regardless of the storage medium, to reproduce the original scene, constitutes a
photograph.

Colin

 

[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 Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:54:04 +1300, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>> Nope. One is digital and impermanent while the other is analog
>> and can be made very permanent. Digital imaging is perfect for
>> commercial imaging where the quality/quantity/convenience/cost
>> equation helps in the production of catalog and newsprint images.
>
>Print permanence or intended use has nothing to do with whether the print is a photograph.

Agreed but artistic media needs to be stable.

>Some chemical prints, e.g. proofs, are deliberately not permanent, but they are still
>photographs.

Like Polaroid ? ;>)) It kills me when I see someone from the
'roid transfer crowd usher out their latest masterpiece.

> If you are talking about comparing silver halide prints vs inkjet prints, you
>might once, not too long ago, have had a point.

Yeah, like about a year ago ?

> Today, Epson's large-format printers can
>produce results that will last for a hundred years or more, and in color as well as b/w.

Show me. And please don't quote Wilhelm. He's no longer an
independent source for image stability info.

>To the best of my knowledge, the best bet for chemical color prints is Fuji Crystal Archive
>paper, projected life 65 years, followed by Kodak with about 50 years, IIRC.

Yep. Still pathetically short for something one would hope to
hang in a gallery and still better than anything produced by an
inkjet.

>And there exist printers that will print digital images onto silver halide paper
>, with a life equal to a print from a negative.

Do note that it's still a digital image and not a photograph.
One of my favorite labs for DI is Chromatics in Nashville. They use a
Durst Lamda for quality prints.

> As I said before, print life does not determine whether that print
>is a photograph. Capturing an image formed by light through a lens, and using the resultant
>image, regardless of the storage medium, to reproduce the original scene, constitutes a
>photograph.

You and I will have to disagree on that. My take is

1) It must be analog
2) It must use a photographic medium for all imaging.

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?)

John wrote:

> You and I will have to disagree on that. My take is
>
> 1) It must be analog
> 2) It must use a photographic medium for all imaging.


That's an opinion. Not the truth.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

 

[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" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:bhbhd.2135$t45.351716@weber.videotron.net...
> John wrote:
>
>> You and I will have to disagree on that. My take is
>>
>> 1) It must be analog
>> 2) It must use a photographic medium for all imaging.

> That's an opinion. Not the truth.

And what you proposed above is what? How about some evidence of the Truth?

 

[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 Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:45:10 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>John wrote:
>
>> You and I will have to disagree on that. My take is
>>
>> 1) It must be analog
>> 2) It must use a photographic medium for all imaging.
>
>That's an opinion. Not the truth.

I think that's why I stated "My take is". But then my opinion
makes more since than believing that a digital file is a photograph.

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?)

jjs wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:bhbhd.2135$t45.351716@weber.videotron.net...
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You and I will have to disagree on that. My take is
>>>
>>>1) It must be analog
>>>2) It must use a photographic medium for all imaging.
>
>
>>That's an opinion. Not the truth.
>
>
> And what you proposed above is what? How about some evidence of the Truth?


I wouldn't attemt to state the truth in this matter. It is sufficient to say
that what he says is certainly not the truth.

John rants that anything other than a film image is not photgraphy and that is
plainly wrong. Digital photography is photography, whether that is convenient
to his way of thinking or not. Above he says, "My take is" and then states
narrow definitions which are his opinion. Somehow, to his way of thinking, the
same image made one way is a photograph, made another way it is merely an image,
and that is plain wrong.

Cheers,
Alan




--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

 

[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 Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:36:18 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Somehow, to his way of thinking, the
>same image made one way is a photograph, made another way it is merely an image,
>and that is plain wrong.

And it is your right to have that opinion. Do not deny mine.


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 12:32:45 -0500, "jjs" <jjs@x.x.com> wrote:

>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>news:bmOgd.52905$5t4.1147425@wagner.videotron.net...
>> 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.
>
>That is not an adequate rebuttal, but it does ring true.

True where bell = incredibly 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?)

"BillyJoeJimBob" <bjjb@nowhere.antispam.com> wrote:
>
> Now I'm a bit confused as to how the original text can be used to claim
> 24 million pixels in 135 format film. I had thought that the authors
> were stating "ISO 400 135 format color film has 24 million pixels
> because each pixel's effective area is 100 microns." In fact, they're
> stating "each pixel's effective area is 100 microns because ISO 400
> 135 format color film has 24 million pixels." The two statements are
> logical converses of each other and one does not imply the other.
> Basically, the text is being used to show that 135 format color film
> contains 24 million pixels because "these guys said so."
>
> I've seen more than my share of peer-reviewed journal publications that
> contain flat-out wrong information, so I can't use the quoted text as a
> basis for conclusion.
>
> I'm curious, since the effective pixels in the emulsion layers are not
> spatially coincident, does this mean that film is more Bayer-like, more
> Foveon-like, or more dithered-inkjet-like?

Hmm. My experience with the ISO 400 Fuji 120 "pro" color negative film
that's sold in Japan is that it is god-awful (compared to, say, Velvia
100F) when scanned at 4000 dpi. The idea that a 24x36 mm crop of that stuff
could produce images anywhere close to a 5MP consumer camera is,
essentially, ludicrous.

Somone failed to make the reality check of looking at the prints...

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?)

In article <FPWdnbByO7G-9RjcRVn-iw@golden.net>,
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

> I gave up chemical film year ago. There is no good chemical film for
> everyday usage. With digital pictures are everyday.

A completely ridiculous set of statements. You should add thats
your opinion.
--
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?)

When was the last time you went to a party and shot 200 frames just for fun
with your chemical film antique?

Why not?

Do you carry your 2.25^2 camera with you at work, to parties, to the
theatre?

Why not?

Can you go and play catch with the kids with your chemical film camera?

Why not?

"Gregory W Blank" <gblank@despamit.net> wrote in message
news:adfhd.523$7W.307@trnddc08...
> In article <FPWdnbByO7G-9RjcRVn-iw@golden.net>,
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
>
> > I gave up chemical film year ago. There is no good chemical film for
> > everyday usage. With digital pictures are everyday.
>
> A completely ridiculous set of statements. You should add thats
> your opinion.
> --
> 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