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?)

Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> writes:

>The result is unique and beautiful lighting *unattainable*
>in any single exposure or post exposure composite of
>separately exposed images.

>Digital simply _can't_ do this, since silicon sensors cannot
>hold an image on the image plane and accumulate additional
>exposure, divided exposures, or any other exposures.

You're wrong. There's nothing that prevents a CCD from being exposed
multiple times before the image is read out. It can be trivially done
just by keeping the shutter open using the Bulb setting in a dark room,
with any camera that has a Bulb setting. Digital cameras could be built
that open and close the shutter multiple times within a single exposure
too, though there's little reason to do so.

You're not talking about a limitation of digital photography, you're
talking about a limitation of the design of certain digital cameras (a
limitation that doesn't matter much in practice).

>Digital
>makes one separate image with each exposure and downloads it
>for processing. No more exposures possible. Different
>digital images can be manipulated and then merged as a
>composite, but it simply won't have the same brilliance and
>look of an actual multiple exposure. At minimum it will lack
>the continuity of subtle highlight and shadow gradations.

Why? It's the same light, added together in the same way.
I don't suppose you've ever actually tried doing this with a digital
camera.

>It's a fake, a composite, a manipulated image that doesn't
>reflect the skill and creative lighting techniques a
>professional photographer typically uses when working with
>film.

In both film and digital cases, the final image is produced by multiple
flash exposures that add together. Why is it fake if multiple
intermediate images are added, but real if all the addition is done on
the film or CCD?

Dave

 

[ME]

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:418868C4.9010709@but.us.chickens...
> On 11/2/2004 12:01 PM Gregory W Blank spake thus:
>
> > In article <4187B339.6080704@but.us.chickens>,
> > David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> >
> >> I have done no such thing.
> >>
> >> Like almost everyone else participating in this "discussion", you miss
the point.
> >>
> >> Let me say that I admire your tenacity in the face of evil, to use a
phrase I
> >> heard years ago and seldom get to use.
> >>
> >> I am *not* advocating digital over wet photography. Understand? (Quite
the
> >> opposite, actually.)
> >>
> >> I'm simply pointing out the reality: that digital is going to take
over.
> >> Doesn't matter that there are a very few (statistically speaking) folks
like
> >> you and me who prefer other means of making pictures. Doesn't matter
that you
> >> and others here don't like it.
> >>
> >> (And no, not a Republican. Far from it.)
> >
> > Probably better put it will take over photography
> > for some people, then will be guys like Tom, John Douglas
> > and myself who will formula our own emulsions if need be.
> >
> > We have the technology and we can do it.
>
> OK, fine; more power to ya.
>
> Then you'll be like my dear neighbor, who has an old Victrola that she
still
> listens to. She has the technology and can still do it, too. So just how
many
> folks do you think there are that play old 78s? Or even people who still
> prefer (and still buy) vinyl LPs (like me)? Sure, it can be done; but face
it,
> they're all practically obsolete technologies that have been utterly
swamped
> by the current prevailing one. Wet photography's headed that way. That's
all
> I'm saying.

Yea, we heard you. The first second and third times. With supporters like
you film doesn't need any enemies (couldn't think of a more appropriate word
than enemies but you get the idea)!
me

 

[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 <nospam777@aol.com> writes:

>Show me a consumer CCD camera on the market that
>does this. I've used Sinar. They can't do it...

You said "digital can't do this". I, and several other people, pointed
out that digital sensors can do this. So your original statement is
wrong, as you made it.

Now you're changing your statement, limiting it to "consumer digitals".
But someone else posted several consumer digitals that can do
multi-exposure images, so you're still wrong.

I'll believe you that the Sinar cannot. But the Sinar is only one
camera, and it's not a "consumer digital" either.

So perhaps you're saying "One particular digital camera, which I have
personally used, cannot do multiple exposures". Probably true, but
somewhat lacking the sweep of your original pronouncement that no
digital camera did, or could ever do, multiple exposures.

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?)

<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

 

[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 message <cm961m$k85$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>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.

Just have something true white in one of the images.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[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 <cm961m$k85$1@nnrp.gol.com>, davidjl@gol.com says...
> 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.

Not entirely. You can shoot a gray card in different lighting
conditions to serve as a baseline. You can also pick neutral areas in a
photo to serve as a reference point and then fine-tune from there. It
isn't rocketry.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

 

[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 <i77go0t5qt1arv9ljlbf4bnbo1g7h871kp@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
wrote:

> Just have something true white in one of the images.

No clue,.... you have no clue.
--
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?)

In message <BcXhd.1050$7W.515@trnddc08>,
Gregory W Blank <gblank@despamit.net> wrote:

>In article <i77go0t5qt1arv9ljlbf4bnbo1g7h871kp@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
>wrote:
>
>> Just have something true white in one of the images.
>
>No clue,.... you have no clue.

Are you going to elaborate, or is that too complicated for you? I can
guarantee that you are reading things into my statement, or
characterizing it by situations which should be excepted, or just
completely misunderstand the concept. Do you understand the concept of
dialogue? Of course not; you just want to be right, like a gorilla
beating its chest.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

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

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:korgo01ri3m0dddikjafg7locgorihr667@4ax.com...
> In message <KVWhd.289198$wV.54764@attbi_s54>,
> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Reloading operating systems is always a loser.....The last time I did it,
>>I
>>lost all of my "sent email files". this was over 8000 emails that
>>represented all of my thoughts and aspirations for the last ten
>>years.......Now I know where they are, and how to back them up, but I
>>didn't
>>know then, and now it's too late......
>
> Sounds like you not only loaded an operating system, but reformatted the
> hard drive, too. Those are two different things. I have *NEVER*
> reformatted to refresh or upgrade an operating system. I have a
> computer here that started out as Windows 3.1 and is running Win2k with
> folders that are from 1994.

Yes, I did format the drive. But, I had two identical hard drives, and I
backed up everything the one drive had onto the other first. - But that
wasn't good enough. It failed to backup my Outlook Express program properly.
It lost the "sent" files.........It's like Bill Gates doesn't even know that
your sent email files are all the things YOU wrote, and have some special
significance to you......He considers them to be just like your deleted
files.....The guy must be a real goon.....It's hard to believe he's worth
all that money..........

 

[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:

> "Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
> >
> > And film grain causes "inherently false data" that wasn't in the
> > original scene. The image you get is just an approximation of the
> > original scene. So, the question becomes, which approximation is a
> > more accurate representation of what was really there? In many
> > circumstances, current digital cameras deliver better images than film
> > cameras with the same sensor area.
>
> Other than the 6MP full-frame Contax, which I understand to be discontinued,
> I'd think all current digital sensors deliver better images than film.
>
> Here's a hand-held zoom lens shot on a Canon 300D at 35mm compared to a 35mm
> prime lens on a tripod. Tech Pan scanned at 4000 dpi.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/34473670/original
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

That comparison signs and seals the whole argument. Per unit area of camera
image, digital is far superior to film. My overall impression is that film
die-hards have to fall back on large-format to surpass digital at the print
stage. Digital also has better tone separation in the highlights, better
linearity over the tonal range, better white balance without filters, and
smoother images undisturbed by visible grain. A digital image printed onto
'wet' paper is just plain nicer to look at.

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?)

me wrote:

> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4186DC62.DEF969EA@aol.com...
>
> > Only a completely _uniformed_ idiot wouldn't know the highly
> > advanced technical state of silve halide engineering.
> >
> > Digital can't even come close...
>
> Tom,
> I have listed you in my NG names list as one of the *HEROES OF PHOTOGRAPHY*.
> The only problem I can see with your post is that the digital dullards
> reading it don't know what silver halide is! OOPS!
> Fighting against ignorance in support of film,
> me

I take considerable objection to your 'digital dullard' and 'ignorance'
comments. I, and others on this thread, have many years experience at
professional level with 'advanced silver halide enginering' products. Remember
this: Silver halide engineering has been going on now for nearly 200 years.
Digital has been viable for less than a tenth of that time. Already it can
perform better than film for the same unit area. Face it, silver halide
technology just happened to be the first on the scene. If digital techniques
had been available in Fox Talbot's day, silver halide would still be in bottles
in a chem lab.

There have always been reactionaries throughout history. From the church
threatening Galileo, innumerable mistakes in early medical days, the Tolpuddle
Martyrs, the Luddites, the clowns who marched in front of early motor vehicles
with a red flag, the pundits who, when George Stephenson built his first
locomotive declared that travelling at such speed would cause the blood to run
from the ears of the passengers (despite the fact that horses could gallop at
twice the speed with no ill effects), and many more examples, these types all
had two things in common. They were scared by, and resisted, any change to
their secure little world - and they were all wrong.. You film-embracing,
anti-digital heroes belong to the same class, and you also have two things in
common. One, you are all wrong, and two, you mostly prove it by resorting to ad
hominem attacks in lieu of reasoned argument.

I'm out of here (this thread). The thing about banging your head against a
brick wall - it makes no difference whatever to the bricks.

Colin.

 

[ME]

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" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:4187F08B.7E8E70B@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>
> me wrote:
>
> > "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:4186DC62.DEF969EA@aol.com...
> >
> > > Only a completely _uniformed_ idiot wouldn't know the highly
> > > advanced technical state of silve halide engineering.
> > >
> > > Digital can't even come close...
> >
> > Tom,
> > I have listed you in my NG names list as one of the *HEROES OF
PHOTOGRAPHY*.
> > The only problem I can see with your post is that the digital dullards
> > reading it don't know what silver halide is! OOPS!
> > Fighting against ignorance in support of film,
> > me
>
> I take considerable objection to your 'digital dullard' and 'ignorance'
> comments. I, and others on this thread, have many years experience at
> professional level with 'advanced silver halide enginering' products.
Remember
> this: Silver halide engineering has been going on now for nearly 200
years.
> Digital has been viable for less than a tenth of that time. Already it
can
> perform better than film for the same unit area. Face it, silver halide
> technology just happened to be the first on the scene. If digital
techniques
> had been available in Fox Talbot's day, silver halide would still be in
bottles
> in a chem lab.
>
> There have always been reactionaries throughout history. From the church
> threatening Galileo, innumerable mistakes in early medical days, the
Tolpuddle
> Martyrs, the Luddites, the clowns who marched in front of early motor
vehicles
> with a red flag, the pundits who, when George Stephenson built his first
> locomotive declared that travelling at such speed would cause the blood to
run
> from the ears of the passengers (despite the fact that horses could gallop
at
> twice the speed with no ill effects), and many more examples, these types
all
> had two things in common. They were scared by, and resisted, any change
to
> their secure little world - and they were all wrong.. You film-embracing,
> anti-digital heroes belong to the same class, and you also have two things
in
> common. One, you are all wrong, and two, you mostly prove it by resorting
to ad
> hominem attacks in lieu of reasoned argument.
>
> I'm out of here (this thread). The thing about banging your head against
a
> brick wall - it makes no difference whatever to the bricks.
>
> Colin.

My support of film can be summed up in one word. *VERACITY*. Film has it,
digital imaging doesn't, never did, never will. Look here for more on
veracity:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040214094635/http://christopherburkett.com/info/nodigital.html
Look here for what National Geographic has to say about digital imaging:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040226003720/christopherburkett.com/info/NGnodigital.html
Fighting ignorance in support of film!
me

 

[Larry]

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 <10ofuf1c3bltae3@corp.supernews.com>,
anonymous@_.com says...
> My support of film can be summed up in one word. *VERACITY*. Film has it,
> digital imaging doesn't, never did, never will. Look here for more on
> veracity:
>

Never will puts you in a class with the "Flat Earth
Society"

Maybe it never will for you, but you, just like me, dont
count very high on the list.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

 

[ME]

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

"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bf1c5f1562ee44d9897c5@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> In article <10ofuf1c3bltae3@corp.supernews.com>,
> anonymous@_.com says...
> > My support of film can be summed up in one word. *VERACITY*. Film has
it, digital imaging doesn't, never did, never will. Look > > here for more
on veracity:
> >
http://web.archive.org/web/20040214094635/http://christopherburkett.com/info/nodigital.html
> > Look here for what National Geographic has to say about digital imaging:
> >
http://web.archive.org/web/20040226003720/christopherburkett.com/info/NGnodigital.html
> > Fighting ignorance in support of film!
> > me
>
> Never will puts you in a class with the "Flat Earth
> Society"

I think you need to look up veracity and visit those links I gave. I can
produce negs and slides to prove my work is real. DI has no such veracity.

> Maybe it never will for you, but you, just like me, dont
> count very high on the list.
> Larry Lynch

Speak for yourself.
Fighting ignorance in support of film!
me

 

[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 <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:

>> You are trolling, troll. Electrons are just as real as reduced
metallic silver.
>
> I didn't crosspost this thread. Did you?

I don't change group distributions etc. Feel free to assert control,
if that's what makes you comfortable.

> Electrons are real. But electrons are converted to data.
> Data represents an image. it's not a real image. No
> optical image, no photograph.

The silver atoms are also "not a photograph" by the same argument,
since they just as equivalently "represent an image".

> It's not that abstract...

Unless you can present evidence to the contrary, the only conclusion
is that uou are an troll. An _idiot_ troll at that.

 

[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 <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:

> You argue as a troll argues, in oppsition to the facts
> (or in this case physics.)

It is possible to open a shutter in front of a digital sensor more
than once prior to dumping the image. It would even be possible, if
one was so inclined, to create a sensor that allows a re-charge the
wells after they have been dumped (essentially running the dump
process in reverse), and again open the shutter.

But no one does any of this because it's _easier_ and _vastly more
flexible_ to achieve exactly the same effect post-exposure.

That you are apparently unaware of these basic facts of physical
reality makes you _particularly_ stupid troll...

 

[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 <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:

> > Wrong. You don't seem to understand CCDs very well. The electrons are
> > converted to voltage during the readout process. There is absolutely
> > nothing preventing a CCD camera from taking one exposure, holding the
> > electrons in the wells, then being exposed a second time, and only then
> > being read out. The image will simply be the sum of the two exposures.
>
> Show me a consumer CCD camera on the market that
> does this. I've used Sinar. They can't do it...

How the troll equivocates! First it's "impossible", "can't be done",
etc, and now it's "show me a consumer CCD camera" ...

 

[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:418868C4.9010709@but.us.chickens...

> Then you'll be like my dear neighbor, who has an old Victrola that she
> still listens to. She has the technology and can still do it, too. So just
> how many folks do you think there are that play old 78s? Or even people
> who still prefer (and still buy) vinyl LPs (like me)? Sure, it can be
> done; but face it, they're all practically obsolete technologies that have
> been utterly swamped by the current prevailing one. Wet photography's
> headed that way. That's all I'm saying.

Yes, it is headed that way and no amount of magical thinking or whining on
this usenet group will change the reality.

 

[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 eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
: Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:

: > You argue as a troll argues, in oppsition to the facts
: > (or in this case physics.)

: It is possible to open a shutter in front of a digital sensor more
: than once prior to dumping the image. It would even be possible, if
: one was so inclined, to create a sensor that allows a re-charge the
: wells after they have been dumped (essentially running the dump
: process in reverse), and again open the shutter.

: But no one does any of this because it's _easier_ and _vastly more
: flexible_ to achieve exactly the same effect post-exposure.

: That you are apparently unaware of these basic facts of physical
: reality makes you _particularly_ stupid troll...

The question I have is with the ability to merge/combine (whatever the proper term
is) multiple digital images. Why would one want make multiple exposures on the same
"image" as you would with film??

As Tom has written many times digital image capture is a very different technology
then film image capture. There's no reason to limit the way digital image capture
to the restrictions of film image capture.

I personally am looking forward to the day that digital image capture is of high
enough quality to match the results that I'm getting from 4x5 negatives. Of course
I'm assuming that the progress in ink technology makes it possible to produce prints
that can match the quality of a wet darkroom print made on Seagull Oriental or Berger
fiber paper.
--




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?)

In rec.photo.darkroom jjs <killspam@no.no.com> wrote:
: "David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
: news:418868C4.9010709@but.us.chickens...

: > Then you'll be like my dear neighbor, who has an old Victrola that she
: > still listens to. She has the technology and can still do it, too. So just
: > how many folks do you think there are that play old 78s? Or even people
: > who still prefer (and still buy) vinyl LPs (like me)? Sure, it can be
: > done; but face it, they're all practically obsolete technologies that have
: > been utterly swamped by the current prevailing one. Wet photography's
: > headed that way. That's all I'm saying.

: Yes, it is headed that way and no amount of magical thinking or whining on
: this usenet group will change the reality.

In the end film will go the way of LPs and movie cameras. It's always sad being
at the end of an era. I personally think that 35 mm color film photography will be
replaced very quickly by digital photography. Most pros have already switched and
the rest are switching at an increasing rate. I also understand that most of the
consumer film Kodak makes is sold in desposable cameras. The writting is on the wall.

On the other I think that B&W film photography will survive. As those involved in B&W
photography and printing know fine B&W printing is an art form producing a level of
quality that digital can't match. I'm also convinced that LF photography (at least 4x5)
will survive for the forseeable<SP?> future.

Some of that may be wishfull thinking on my part since 95%+ of the images I photograph
are B&W and photographed with my 4x5 camera. The rest of why I think this comes from a
conversation with the midwest regional sales manager for Calumet. He told me that sales
of B&W film of all formats is increasing and sales of all types of 4x5 film is
increasing as well as the sales of cameras and accessories. While the pros are trading
their 4x5 and MF cameras in for digital systems amatures<SP?> like myself are buying
them as fast as Calumet is getting them in. Even Kodak under estimated the demand for
their Tmax-100 readyloads in particular and readyloads in general and found that their
capacity to manufacture them at the level demanded.


--




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?)

In article <418826ED.6782F47C@aol.com>,
Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>Chris Brown wrote:
>>
>> In article <4186CCDE.3E972798@aol.com>,
>> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Pragmatically silver halides don't suffer from nyquist.
>> >Digital is inherently limited by it.
>>
>> You do seem very fond of repeating this particular hobby horse, almost as
>> though saying "nyquist" at every opportunity will suddenly make the world
>> realise that digital imaging has some critical flaw.

[he then does it again]

>pragmatic example: a federal prosecutor asked my advice on
>using digital cameras for evidence photography. My advice
>was to use film,

How incredibly surprising.

 

[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 <4188283A.5E6E9D09@aol.com>,
Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>Chris Brown wrote:
>> In article <4187715E.F5FE5026@aol.com>,
>> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>> >Dave Martindale wrote:
>> >> Sure, but if the Nyquist limit is above what typical film can deliver,
>> >
>> >Can't happen...
>>
>> It can and does. A piece of decent slide film, such as Veliva or Provia100F,
>> cropped to the size of an EOS 20D sensor will produce an image which is
>> clearly visually inferior at anything other than trivial enlargements.
>
>You just don't seem to read these posts very well. I'm getting
>weary of having to repeat the same boring points over and over.

....and given the orifice you appear to be speaking from, it must be *really*
hard work for you, as well.

>I am a professional photograper. I've sold mural size prints.
>I've seen 30x40 enlargements from 35mm transparency film that
>reveal no "inferior" image quality at all. Sharp, grainless,
>detailed. They look like 4x5. It can be done.

I'm stupendously happy for you. It's unclear whether this says more about
your own standards, seeing only what you want to see, or your target market,
but since pretty much everyone without a huge chip on their shoulder seems
to be generally unable to reproduce your amazing performance from 35mm film,
I guess we'll have to carry on using medium format.

 

[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 in message
news:tc2n52-i0i.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> In article <418826ED.6782F47C@aol.com>,
> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:

>>pragmatic example: a federal prosecutor asked my advice on
>>using digital cameras for evidence photography. My advice
>>was to use film,
>
> How incredibly surprising.

I know you are being facetious. Traditional roll film can have, but not
neccessarily does have more 'legal' credibility than a digital picture.

 

[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:

> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > So why not enlighten us, instead of being pragmatic.
> >
> > Deliver $1000 to my bonded escrow agent (email me for his
> > particulars), and he is instructed to release the details to you or
> > anyone else who wants to know.
>
> Sure I will. Thanks for substaniating my previous statements.

I basically tell you the secret, and you _still_ don't get it.

Thanks for substantiating your basic cluelessness.

 

[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 <BcXhd.1050$7W.515@trnddc08>,
Gregory W Blank <gblank@despamit.net> wrote:
>In article <i77go0t5qt1arv9ljlbf4bnbo1g7h871kp@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
>wrote:
>
>> Just have something true white in one of the images.
>
>No clue,.... you have no clue.

Huh? What he says is perfectly valid - if you have a white/grey reference in
any of your images, just hit the white balance dropper over it in Adobe
Camera RAW and then use that as your reference white balance. Works
perfectly. What part of this suggests that JPS has "no clue"?