Is photography going downhill with digital?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Lens question
Next: Photo in the night
From: van dark on 3 Nov 2009 07:36 Hi, I started to photograph in 1955 with BOX TENGOR (6x9cm) and later I bought super (or very super and acientific) camera EXAKTA WAREX with Pancolar, Tesar and Domiplan. I very agree with Chris and Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, we appreciate these old cameras and our main goal was a shot nice image. Today is pursuit or hunt for number of pixels, of course more pixels for 90% photographers is better (but I don�t agree). I am a standpatter one, I own NIKON F4S, MOSKVA 5 (6x9cm) and very good NIKON D50 (6Mpx). I don�t buy new camera with more and more pixels every year. It�s absolutely nonsense. rene Chris napsal(a): > On Nov 2, 1:05 pm, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <no...(a)nospam.com> wrote: >> ? "Allen" <all...(a)austin.rr.com> ?????? ??? ??????news:rLydnWbB2IJwYHPXnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >>> whisky-dave wrote: >>>> "nospam" <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:311020091944469876%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... >>>>> In article >>>>> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...(a)x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo >>>>> <grandepat...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >>>>>> photographs? >>>>> no. the quality is much better with digital. >>>> For me the photograph is something you can hold usually on paper >>>> sometimes >>>> framed, and for me some of the best pictures have been in monochrome then >>>> 'baked' >>>> on a rotary glazer to give it that extra glossy look. >>>>>> The argument one often hears goes something like this: >>>>>> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >>>>>> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >>>>>> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. >>>>> nothing stops someone from taking their time on digital. >>>> True, but one could have said that about 250 exposure backs I often >>>> though of getting. Pros and those that could afford it always take more >>>> than they need >>>> photograph wise anyway. >>>>>> In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of >>>>>> photographers; >>>>>> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >>>>>> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >>>>>> ones some still manage to take. >>>>> the barrier was actually *lower* with film, where you buy a disposable >>>>> camera, drop it off and get photos back. with digital you need to know >>>>> how to use a computer, edit images in photoshop, match screen to print >>>>> colour, etc. >>>> No you don;t you can take them to chemists to photostores to print out. >>>> I've even seem the machine in shops where you just take your memory to >>>> the machine >>>> and off it goes, even home printers have that facility. >>>>> digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps >>>>> them learn. >>> Yesterday I took the last of my old darkroom stuff the Goodwill. This was >>> stuff I had missed on previous passes, and included a blotter roll (anyone >>> remember those?) and an electric slide binder. I started doing darkroom >>> work in 1941 and I don't miss it. >> And neither do I. I printed in both colour and B&W (including Cibachrome), I >> don't miss the chemicals putrid smell, nor the effort for printing an 8 X 10 >> colour , warming up the chemicals, and trying to remove the colour cast. >> These days, I just print them on my Canon printer, which ewven works woth >> generic ink and generic paper! The bad photos just are deleted, the keepers >> remain both on the hard drive and sd card, when I reach about the size of a >> cd, I burn one and give it to my sister. And I can have as many 4X5" as I >> want! >> >> -- >> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios >> major in electrical engineering >> mechanized infantry reservist >> hordad AT otenet DOT gr > > And for $49 we got a truly portable photo printer (Yah 4x5 only, so > what, big deal) that connects directly to our camera and we print out > family pics before we leave the family gathering. > > Chris
From: No spam please on 3 Nov 2009 09:04 "van dark" <van.dark(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:hcp864$170k$1(a)ns.felk.cvut.cz... > Hi, > I started to photograph in 1955 with BOX TENGOR (6x9cm) and later I bought > super (or very super and acientific) camera EXAKTA WAREX with Pancolar, > Tesar and Domiplan. > I very agree with Chris and Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, we appreciate these > old cameras and our main goal was a shot nice image. > Today is pursuit or hunt for number of pixels, of course more pixels for > 90% photographers is better (but I don�t agree). > I am a standpatter one, I own NIKON F4S, MOSKVA 5 (6x9cm) and very good > NIKON D50 (6Mpx). > I don�t buy new camera with more and more pixels every year. It�s > absolutely nonsense. > rene > > Chris napsal(a): >> On Nov 2, 1:05 pm, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <no...(a)nospam.com> wrote: >>> ? "Allen" <all...(a)austin.rr.com> ?????? ??? >>> ??????news:rLydnWbB2IJwYHPXnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>>> whisky-dave wrote: >>>>> "nospam" <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>>>> news:311020091944469876%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... >>>>>> In article >>>>>> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...(a)x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> eNo >>>>>> <grandepat...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> photographs? >>>>>> no. the quality is much better with digital. >>>>> For me the photograph is something you can hold usually on paper >>>>> sometimes >>>>> framed, and for me some of the best pictures have been in monochrome >>>>> then >>>>> 'baked' >>>>> on a rotary glazer to give it that extra glossy look. >>>>>>> The argument one often hears goes something like this: >>>>>>> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >>>>>>> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >>>>>>> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. >>>>>> nothing stops someone from taking their time on digital. >>>>> True, but one could have said that about 250 exposure backs I often >>>>> though of getting. Pros and those that could afford it always take >>>>> more >>>>> than they need >>>>> photograph wise anyway. >>>>>>> In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of >>>>>>> photographers; >>>>>>> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >>>>>>> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >>>>>>> ones some still manage to take. >>>>>> the barrier was actually *lower* with film, where you buy a >>>>>> disposable >>>>>> camera, drop it off and get photos back. with digital you need to >>>>>> know >>>>>> how to use a computer, edit images in photoshop, match screen to >>>>>> colour, etc. >>>>> No you don;t you can take them to chemists to photostores to print >>>>> out. >>>>> I've even seem the machine in shops where you just take your memory to >>>>> the machine >>>>> and off it goes, even home printers have that facility. >>>>>> digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps >>>>>> them learn. >>>> Yesterday I took the last of my old darkroom stuff the Goodwill. This >>>> was >>>> stuff I had missed on previous passes, and included a blotter roll >>>> (anyone >>>> remember those?) and an electric slide binder. I started doing darkroom >>>> work in 1941 and I don't miss it. >>> And neither do I. I printed in both colour and B&W (including >>> Cibachrome), I >>> don't miss the chemicals putrid smell, nor the effort for printing an 8 >>> X 10 >>> colour , warming up the chemicals, and trying to remove the colour cast. >>> These days, I just print them on my Canon printer, which ewven works >>> woth >>> generic ink and generic paper! The bad photos just are deleted, the >>> keepers >>> remain both on the hard drive and sd card, when I reach about the size >>> of a >>> cd, I burn one and give it to my sister. And I can have as many 4X5" as >>> I >>> want! >>> >>> -- >>> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios >>> major in electrical engineering >>> mechanized infantry reservist >>> hordad AT otenet DOT gr >> >> And for $49 we got a truly portable photo printer (Yah 4x5 only, so >> what, big deal) that connects directly to our camera and we print out >> family pics before we leave the family gathering. >> >> Chris Hello everyone. I've been using 35mm since the 1960s. I tried to follow the good practise of noting down the exposure for every shot. It was time-consuming at best and impractical in rain. I bought an APS SLR. Nice and compact and the film noted the exposure info for me. This made it easier to experiment with shots (no writing down needed) and I could compare the resulting shots. I still had to wait for the film to be processed - a few days (at the lab's cheap rate). I then bought a second-hand DSLR. I saw the results of my experiments within seconds of taking them and I could apply the results to the next shot. My DSLR definitely was the best aid to my photography in terms of experimenting with exposure. I also don't have to wait for "the best shot" if I am shooting an event. I can give the organiser a CD of shots and let them choose "the best shot". I'd rather not think about the money I'd have spent on film and processing! I used to process B&W myself but had to set up the darkroom every time. Bit of a chore. Regards, Rog.
From: Data Point on 3 Nov 2009 15:43 On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:04:54 -0000, "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote: > >I'd rather not think about the money I'd have spent on film and processing! >I used to process B&W myself but had to set up the darkroom every time. Bit >of a chore. > >Regards, Rog. > The first time I bought an advanced super-zoom P&S digital camera was in order to accommodate my needs for a 9 month wilderness trek. I couldn't afford to miss shots from dust on the sensor, the weight, potential breakage of delicate mirror and shutter mechanisms, etc. After that trek, and some 70,000 shots later, I did the math of how much it would have cost in film, as well as the burden it would amount to just in hauling that much film there and back. The weight of that many (~1,944) little boxes and size, adds up fast. Even with the needed compact and folding solar-array for charging, the weight and size was minimal compared to what a film camera would have needed. Now add in the proof-prints too on return, where would anyone store that much? A digital camera, in the hands of a prolific photographer, will pay for itself within a few months if not sooner. Seven years later and that camera is still going strong never needing one repair, even the OEM Li-Ion battery is still fine, with some 400,000 excellent photos to its credit today.
From: Chris H on 4 Nov 2009 03:56 In message <bp41f5lt7mo3qo9dj5uae9me7pkhp657ct(a)4ax.com>, Data Point <datapoint(a)someisp.org> writes >On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:04:54 -0000, "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> >wrote: > >> >>I'd rather not think about the money I'd have spent on film and processing! >>I used to process B&W myself but had to set up the darkroom every time. Bit >>of a chore. >> >>Regards, Rog. >> > >The first time I bought an advanced super-zoom P&S digital camera was in >order to accommodate my needs for a 9 month wilderness trek. I couldn't >afford to miss shots from dust on the sensor, the weight, potential >breakage of delicate mirror and shutter mechanisms, etc. His is a bit of a red herring. News reports and the military use DSLR's in rain forests and deserts without any problems. The better DSLRs are more environmental proof and rugged than most P&S However you do have a point about weight and size. > After that trek, >and some 70,000 shots later, I did the math of how much it would have cost >in film, as well as the burden it would amount to just in hauling that much >film there and back. Now many would say that the quality of your shots was poorer because you were "machine gunning". However the professionals used to do something similar with film to get the one good shot. People forget professionals used motor drives and high capacity backs. > The weight of that many (~1,944) little boxes and >size, adds up fast. Also film is not happy in hot environments... it goes off. The storage and use temperature range for digital "film" is much higher if less waterproof :-) > Even with the needed compact and folding solar-array >for charging, the weight and size was minimal compared to what a film >camera would have needed. The power is the one place where film had the advantage. Though with solar power for recharging the digital disadvantage is minimal > Now add in the proof-prints too on return, where >would anyone store that much? True if you think you need a lot of storage for digital prints the physical side is nothing compared to the slides, negatives and prints from film. >A digital camera, in the hands of a prolific >photographer, will pay for itself within a few months if not sooner. Seven >years later and that camera is still going strong never needing one repair, >even the OEM Li-Ion battery is still fine, with some 400,000 excellent >photos to its credit today. I agree... however as most photographers are men they *NEED* a new camera with the latest gizmos every 2 years... it is a fact of nature :-))))) Even though digital cameras will last years and out perform film for quality. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 4 Nov 2009 09:24
In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp4ojpvh4g2sl5t8vc8(a)4ax.com>, Data Point <datapoint(a)someisp.org> writes >On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > >> >>His is a bit of a red herring. News reports and the military use DSLR's >>in rain forests and deserts without any problems. The better DSLRs are >>more environmental proof and rugged than most P&S > >No red-herring at all. I don't care where or what the military use, Your comments were on environments camera were used in. The military use them in harsh environments with often hard treatment and require them to work. > or what >you have learned from only reading reports about cameras. Who said it was in reports? I have used cameras in deserts, rather damp wooded environments, cold snowy places and urban areas. >Military >photographers are not lifetime pros, they only play at one during their >term of service because they happened to have an aptitude for photography >on an entry test. May be where you are but not where I am... where are you as an anonymous person with a fake email address you have no credibility until you identify yourself. > So that's what role they might assign to them, whether >they've ever held a camera before or not. And judging by some of the >military's choices they've made during my lifetime, most of them don't seem >too bright anyway. It depends whose' military.... Some are not as bright as others. >(My most favorite oxymoron, "Military intelligence".) Min too :-) >The P&S camera I selected for that particular trek has a titanium shell. >There was one report where even a jeep ran directly over the very same >model of camera. So it is not one of the normal high street ones then... but a specialist one. >military use. It was interesting to see the very same camera I was using >being shown in many combat personnel photos taken by PJs. I may have even >saved a few of those press-releases where this model of camera was being >carried by the men. Rugged P&S are always useful as they are small and light >DSLRs are NOT more environmental proof. Anybody who claims that has clearly >never used both styles of cameras outside of their living-rooms. I have with both types. >The main >DSLR problem, change a lens in any dusty or harsh environment and you have >to stop to clean the sensor. Yes and no. It is one of the main drawbacks with DSLR's or SLR's in any event. The answer is not to chance the lens any more than yo have to. It all depends on what you are doing, where and why. >are NOT more environmental proof. Contrary to your inexperienced opinion >and also contrary to anyone's opinion the same as yours. But then again I do read that datapoint(a)someisp.org has lots of experience. With a fake name and email you have ZERO experience untill you identify yourself. There are very many deluded kooks onthe internet making out they are experts. >I know what I'm doing when I select my equipment. I've been a pro nature >photographer all my life. It sounds like you haven't even been near >cameras. Only for the last 30 years... in hostile environments as much as comfy ones. > I also don't machine-gun shoot either. That's why I get so many >keepers. It depends on what you are shooting where and why. >An average of 255 shots a day (70,000 in 9 months) is nothing when >I'm concentrating on a unique species or documenting a new environment. True. >I know exactly what I'm doing and exactly which camera is perfectly right >for the job. So you say >Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced >opinion. But Datapoint(a)someisp.org has no experience so any experience I have is greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem identifying yourself. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |