28 Oct
2012
28 Oct
'12
7:55 p.m.
I know Im in for it asking such a question, but are there any realistic benefits to film
these days considering the expense? Personally the best film camera Ive ever used was a
Polaroid.
28 Oct
28 Oct
8:03 p.m.
It depends on your goals. It's like the difference between painting and photography.
There are some really great films out there, and processes to try. I've seen some
amazingly beautiful wet-plate shots.
Sent from my iPhone
On 2012-10-28, at 7:55 PM, Chris Tofu <rampaginggreenhulk at yahoo.com> wrote:
I know Im in for it asking such a question, but are there any realistic benefits to film
these days considering the expense? Personally the best film camera Ive ever used was a
Polaroid.
8:12 p.m.
On 10/28/2012 5:55 PM, Chris Tofu wrote:
I know Im in for it asking such a question, but are there any
realistic benefits to film these days considering the expense?
Personally the best film camera Ive ever used was a Polaroid.
I read somewhere that digital cameras still have problems with bright light,
I still like film ... just wind ,point and click.
Ben.
8:26 p.m.
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, ben wrote:
I read somewhere that digital cameras still have
problems with bright
light, I still like film ... just wind ,point and click.
It's still not easy to get a digital with decent front and rear movements!
And the image isn't enough pixels.
But, the Gigapan seems to be my next attempt. Have to not mind
non-simultaneous exposure of different parts of the image, even
worse than the artifacts of a focal plane shutter.
Maybe, when digitals get cheap, I'll bolt a dozen 10MP cameras
together, and master some stitching software.
9:27 p.m.
And the image isn't enough pixels.
Indeed.
Somewhere, I have a goregous B&W print of a picture someone else took,
showing me getting onto a city bus in the middle of winter. (The
reason this is an interesting picture is irrelevant here.)
I don't recall the exact size; in my memory it's something close to
6"x8". Lovely fine detail, obviously done by someone who knows how to
take high-depth-of-field shots and process them right. But I have
trouble imagining getting a print that good out of digital with
anything less than at least 500dpi resolution, probably better.
Digital cameras with 3000x4000 pixel resolution might exist, but they
probably are even rarer than whatever the guy who took the shot used,
and surely far more expensive. And good luck finding a way to print
the result in that kind of detail; it's the rare printer that can print
greyscale without diterhing, and if that print is dithered it's got to
be in at least the low thousands of DPI for the print engine, and by
the time you're buying not only the camera but the printer to do that
you could blinkin' well _make_ a film camera good enough to take that
shot and maybe even one-off the film for it too.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
31 Oct
31 Oct
10:12 p.m.
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 09:27:58PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
You're kidding, right? The Nikon D300s I use does 4288x2848 and it is an
older model DSLR (released in 2009). Nikons D800 (released 2012) does
7630x4912 pixels and is reported to have extremely low noise even at
very high (3200+) ISO speeds.
And if you happen to have a a really big pile of money burning a hole in
your pocket, there is always medium format: Hasselblads H4D-60 does 60
MPixels (6708x8956 pixels) for around 30K USD. Just the body, of course,
lenses are extra. Although that is firmly in "if you have to ask about the
price, you can't afford it" territory.
These days, commonly available digital cameras have outpaced commonly
available film by quite a wide margin. I scanned some old 35 mm film
of mine (shot with an SLR 10+ years or so ago) a while ago and was
appalled at the grain and noise - I'd never buy a DSLR with such bad
image quality ;-)
Mind, commonly available: compacts and (D)SLRs. Medium format and up
plays in a completely different group anyway, both film and digital.
And the image
isn't enough pixels.
Indeed.
Somewhere, I have a goregous B&W print of a picture someone else took,
showing me getting onto a city bus in the middle of winter. (The
reason this is an interesting picture is irrelevant here.)
I don't recall the exact size; in my memory it's something close to
6"x8". Lovely fine detail, obviously done by someone who knows how to
take high-depth-of-field shots and process them right. But I have
trouble imagining getting a print that good out of digital with
anything less than at least 500dpi resolution, probably better.
Digital cameras with 3000x4000 pixel resolution might exist, but they
probably are even rarer than whatever the guy who took the shot used, and surely far more expensive.
Well, current model DSLRs tend not be that cheap, true - I dropped around
3.5k USD for my current kit (D300s, two lenses, extended warranty, camera
bag) more than two years ago. But is was money well spent for me.
On the low end of the price scale, the Canon PowerShot A810 does 4608x2592
for around a hundred bucks. Yes, cheap compact, tiny sensor and probably
noisy as heck outside of bright light. You can also find 20 MPixel compacts
in the 200..300 USD price range. But compacts tend to suffer from having
tiny sensors -> which means low sensitivity -> lots of noise if you crank
the ISO speed up a bit.
And good luck finding a way to print
the result in that kind of detail; it's the rare printer that can print
greyscale without diterhing, and if that print is dithered it's got to
be in at least the low thousands of DPI for the print engine, and by
IIRC there where printing systems doing 2540 dpi ten years ago. Yes, big
commercial jobs, not cheap throw-away inkjets, but they existed.
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
28 Oct
28 Oct
9:32 p.m.
While I still have film cameras around I find it hard to find any film
locally anymore. I even had trouble finding something as simple as a
Compact Flash card around here because everyone now has a camera phone, and
I still use a 2003 Canon EOS 300D.
One thing I like about film however is that it's great for learning, you
screw up you're out money. Digital you screw up you get to go take the
picture again and again, not be limited to however many pictures your film
can hold. Some of the film cameras here are a Canon AT-1, Minolta XG-7 and
the newest a Canon EOS 300 (Rebel 2000 to anyone here in the US). The
advantage to the newest one is it uses the EF lenses which are still
produced today.
--
C:\win
Bad Command Or File Name
C:\
29 Oct
29 Oct
4:22 p.m.
While I still have film cameras around I find it hard to find any film
locally anymore. I even had trouble finding something as simple as a
I don't know where you are, but 35mm film is still very easy t ofind. !20
is a bit harder, 5*4 sheet film is harder still (but by no means
impossible), antything esle is 'fun' (and may involve slicing down film
and repsooling it in a darkroom).
the newest a Canon EOS 300 (Rebel 2000 to anyone here
in the US). The
advantage to the newest one is it uses the EF lenses which are still
produced today.
One advantaeg of the Nikon system is that the Nikon F lens mount is
essntially unchanged since 1959. YEs, extra features were added. so if
you mount an old lens on a new body you are not going to et autofocus 9or
even automatic exposure ocntrol in some cases), but it wil lfit nad work.
Similarly I could (if I could afford it) by a new lens that work work on
my F or F2 bodies.
-tony
8:06 p.m.
I don't know where you are, but 35mm film is still
very easy t ofind. !20
is a bit harder, 5*4 sheet film is harder still (but by no means
impossible), antything esle is 'fun' (and may involve slicing down film
and repsooling it in a darkroom).
Try that in Brazil...Will I die without shooting and developing a 120
roll? :o(
One advantaeg of the Nikon system is that the Nikon F
lens mount is
essntially unchanged since 1959. YEs, extra features were added. so if
you mount an old lens on a new body you are not going to et autofocus 9or
even automatic exposure ocntrol in some cases), but it wil lfit nad work.
Similarly I could (if I could afford it) by a new lens that work work on
my F or F2 bodies.
So you say I can get a very old nikon, and a brand new one and exchange
lenses (obviously without autofocus, et al)??? :oO VERY nice to know that
:o)
I use a Lumix FZ35, a very capable superzoom camera. I even got first
place in a local photo concourse...
10:06 p.m.
On 10/29/2012 08:06 PM, Alexandre Souza - Listas wrote:
I regularly use lenses from my not-terribly-old N70 (film) on my
not-terribly-new D50 (digital) camera. I've used some of my mother's
old lenses on my D50. The key there is to make sure the Nikon body that
you choose has the in-body screw-drive focus motor, to handle autofocus
for early lenses that lack integral focus motors.
Of course the purists will poo-poo the use of autofocus, and I do
focus manually most of the time (I was raised by a photographer) but
for, say, taking pics for eBay auctions, I use autofocus. (sue me)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
One advantaeg
of the Nikon system is that the Nikon F lens mount is
essntially unchanged since 1959. YEs, extra features were added. so if
you mount an old lens on a new body you are not going to et autofocus 9or
even automatic exposure ocntrol in some cases), but it wil lfit nad work.
Similarly I could (if I could afford it) by a new lens that work work on
my F or F2 bodies.
So you say I can get a very old nikon, and a brand new one and
exchange lenses (obviously without autofocus, et al)??? :oO VERY nice to
know that :o)
10:11 p.m.
> I don't know where you are, but 35mm film is
still very easy t ofind. !20
> is a bit harder, 5*4 sheet film is harder still (but by no means
> impossible), antything esle is 'fun' (and may involve slicing down film
> and repsooling it in a darkroom).
Unfortunately, splicing together pieces of film to make a larger piece is
more difficult.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Alexandre Souza - Listas wrote:
Try that in Brazil...Will I die without shooting
and developing a 120
roll? :o(
Then just shorten a roll of 220 (slightly rarer)
So you say I can get a very old nikon, and a brand
new one and exchange
lenses (obviously without autofocus, et al)??? :oO VERY nice to know that
:o)
An OLD Nikon. But a VERY old Nikon, such as 'S' uses the came lenses as a
Contax rangefinder. Both extremely nice cameras! The Contax is one of
the easier cameras for a left-handed friend to use - Was Emmanuel Golberg
left handed??
But, in addition to fitting newer Nikons, the early Nikon F lenses can
also be relatively easy to adapt to OTHER cameras, since the Nikon body
was SO thick. The Mid 1960s 105mm, and the PC ("PERSPECTIVE CONTROL",
not "program Counter nor 5150, nor even Prontor) Nikor 28?mm are
especially fun and useful.
I use a Lumix FZ35, a very capable superzoom
camera. I even got first
place in a local photo concourse...
Congratulations, I think
30 Oct
30 Oct
midnight
At 7:11 PM -0700 10/29/12, Fred Cisin wrote:
An OLD Nikon. But a VERY old Nikon, such as
'S' uses the came lenses as a
Contax rangefinder. Both extremely nice cameras! The Contax is one of
the easier cameras for a left-handed friend to use - Was Emmanuel Golberg
left handed??
For fast 50mm lenses and >75mm lenses, the Nikon S and Contax
Rangefinder lenses are pretty much compatible, but for wide they
aren't
But, in addition to fitting newer Nikons, the early
Nikon F lenses can
also be relatively easy to adapt to OTHER cameras, since the Nikon body
was SO thick. The Mid 1960s 105mm, and the PC ("PERSPECTIVE CONTROL",
not "program Counter nor 5150, nor even Prontor) Nikor 28?mm are
especially fun and useful.
My favorite old Nikkor F lenses are the 135mm f/2.8 and the 55mm
f/3.5 Macro. OTOH, the 80-200mm f/4.5 is an absolute dog on my D300
(I haven't had the time to try it on a 35mm film body since I
inherited two of the lenses).
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Photographer |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| My flickr Photostream |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
| My Photography Website |
| http://www.zanesphotography.com |
29 Oct
29 Oct
10:46 p.m.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Alexandre Souza - Listas
<pu1bzz.listas at gmail.com> wrote:
Sometimes older Nikon compatible lenses with electronics get more
recent (ie N series on film and D series for digital) cameras
confused. You'll have to put tape over the contacts if that is the
case, and use in manual mode.
Fran?ois
--
solarisdesktop.blogspot.com - raspberry-python.blogspot.com
One advantaeg
of the Nikon system is that the Nikon F lens mount is
essntially unchanged since 1959. YEs, extra features were added. so if
you mount an old lens on a new body you are not going to et autofocus 9or
even automatic exposure ocntrol in some cases), but it wil lfit nad work.
Similarly I could (if I could afford it) by a new lens that work work on
my F or F2 bodies.
So you say I can get a very old nikon, and a brand new one and exchange
lenses (obviously without autofocus, et al)??? :oO VERY nice to know that
:o)
30 Oct
30 Oct
5:45 p.m.
I don't know where you are, but 35mm film is
still very easy t ofind. !20
is a bit harder, 5*4 sheet film is harder still (but by no means
impossible), antything esle is 'fun' (and may involve slicing down film
and repsooling it in a darkroom).
Try that in Brazil...Will I die without shooting and developing a 120
roll? :o( One advantaeg of the Nikon system is that the
Nikon F lens mount is
essntially unchanged since 1959. YEs, extra features were added. so if
you mount an old lens on a new body you are not going to et autofocus 9or
even automatic exposure ocntrol in some cases), but it wil lfit nad work.
Similarly I could (if I could afford it) by a new lens that work work on
my F or F2 bodies.
So you say I can get a very old nikon, and a brand new one and exchange
lenses (obviously without autofocus, et al)??? :oO VERY nice to know that
:o)
I use a Lumix FZ35, a very capable superzoom camera. I even got first
place in a local photo concourse...
THe eye of the photographer is much more important than the cmaera....
-tony
6:50 p.m.
Are there import restrictions or somehting? I would
have thoguth a couple
of rolls of 120 could be sent by post without any problems.
No restrictions, but EXPENSIVE AS HELL. I've been planning in getting a
ZX-80, a ZX-81 (preferably in kit form) and a Spectrum (any model, but I'd
prefer the +2 or +3)...But mail prices from UK to Brazil are outrageous...
There is a gotcha relating to the mechanism that
ocuples the aperture
ring to the meter.There heen 2 major designs known as 'non AI' and 'AI'.
If the lens wil lmount and you have the wrong sort of coupling, then the
thing can still be used in stop-down metering mode. But AIcoupling
depends on a cutout in the back of the aperture ring, which old lenses
don't haev On somes cameras you can fold away the AI coulping link, so
such a lens will mount. On others you cna't and the lens doesn't fit
unless you modify/replace the aperture ring. The modified rings are no
longer available, so you have to attack the one you have (after removign
it from the rest of the lens, of course) with an end mill.
Interesting to know, thanks!
THe eye of the photographer is much more important
than the cmaera....
Sure it is! But I love the resources I have with this superzoom (and
CHEAP!) camera :)
1 Nov
1 Nov
2:35 p.m.
On 30 October 2012 22:50, Alexandre Souza - Listas
<pu1bzz.listas at gmail.com> wrote:
Happy to help. They sold in the millions here and are cheap to free.
If you can find a decent one on eBay or Gumtree, buy it & have it
shipped to me & I'll be happy to send it on - repacked if necessary -
at surface-post rates.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
Are there
import restrictions or somehting? I would have thoguth a couple
of rolls of 120 could be sent by post without any problems.
No restrictions, but EXPENSIVE AS HELL. I've been planning in getting a
ZX-80, a ZX-81 (preferably in kit form) and a Spectrum (any model, but I'd
prefer the +2 or +3)...But mail prices from UK to Brazil are outrageous...
8:14 p.m.
Thanks a lot, Liam! Someone here on the list promised a zx80 and 81 for
free, but I'm waiting for him to find it on his attic :o)
BTW, I'm repairing a NE-Z80 right now, the brazilian clone of the ZX-80.
I'm stripping the board (very badly solded) to bare, and repopulating it
fixing the board.
---
Enviado do meu Motorola PT550
Meu site: http://www.tabalabs.com.br
----- Original Message -----
From: "Liam Proven" <lproven at gmail.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: film cameras was Re: Blue screen of Basic
On 30 October 2012 22:50, Alexandre Souza - Listas
<pu1bzz.listas at gmail.com> wrote:
Happy to help. They sold in the millions here and are cheap to free.
If you can find a decent one on eBay or Gumtree, buy it & have it
shipped to me & I'll be happy to send it on - repacked if necessary -
at surface-post rates.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
Are there
import restrictions or somehting? I would have thoguth a
couple
of rolls of 120 could be sent by post without any problems.
No restrictions, but EXPENSIVE AS HELL. I've been planning in getting
a
ZX-80, a ZX-81 (preferably in kit form) and a Spectrum (any model, but
I'd
prefer the +2 or +3)...But mail prices from UK to Brazil are
outrageous...
8:41 p.m.
At 10:14 PM -0200 11/1/12, Alexandre Souza - Listas wrote:
Thanks a lot, Liam! Someone here on the list
promised a zx80 and
81 for free, but I'm waiting for him to find it on his attic :o)
If it's like my garage you may be waiting a while...
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Photographer |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| My flickr Photostream |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
| My Photography Website |
| http://www.zanesphotography.com |
3 Nov
3 Nov
6:31 p.m.
On 02/11/2012 00:14, Alexandre Souza - Listas wrote:
Thanks a lot, Liam! Someone here on the list promised a zx80 and 81
for free, but I'm waiting for him to find it on his attic :o)
Alexandre, i havnt forgot that i said i can send you a spectrum... Now I
have finally got to my old spectrums at the back of the garage , i have
found a suitable 48K+ , just have to make sure it is in working
condition as dont want to waste our time on a non worker..
Roger
4 Nov
4 Nov
1:24 a.m.
Thanks a lot! I'm restoring a ZX-80 brazilian clone (NE-Z80) today,
photos later :o)
---
Enviado do meu Motorola PT550
Meu site: http://www.tabalabs.com.br
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Pugh" <rogpugh at mac.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: film cameras was Re: Blue screen of Basic
On 02/11/2012 00:14, Alexandre Souza - Listas wrote:
Thanks a lot, Liam! Someone here on the list promised a zx80 and 81
for free, but I'm waiting for him to find it on his attic :o)
Alexandre, i havnt forgot that i said i can send you a spectrum... Now I
have finally got to my old spectrums at the back of the garage , i have
found a suitable 48K+ , just have to make sure it is in working condition
as dont want to waste our time on a non worker..
Roger 
30 Oct
30 Oct
7:06 p.m.
New subject: film cameras (was: Blue screen of Basic)
On 30 Oct 2012, at 22:45 , ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
THe eye of the photographer is much more important
than the cmaera.
Hear, hear.
.tsooJ
--
This sentance contains three erors.
--
Joost van de Griek
<http://www.jvdg.net/>
31 Oct
31 Oct
10:21 p.m.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:45:27PM +0000, Tony Duell wrote:
THe eye of the photographer is much more important than the cmaera....
True words.
A good photographer can shoot good pictures with a crappy camera. Everybody
can shoot crappy pictures with a good camera.
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
29 Oct
29 Oct
11:31 p.m.
At 8:22 PM +0000 10/29/12, Tony Duell wrote:
I don't know where you are, but 35mm film is still
very easy t ofind. !20
is a bit harder, 5*4 sheet film is harder still (but by no means
impossible), antything esle is 'fun' (and may involve slicing down film
and repsooling it in a darkroom).
The one British B&W magazine I like seems to have plenty of oddball
film advertised in it. It's also to blame for my move to Large
Format in 2009. 620 is easy enough, it's either respooled 120, or
spools that have had the ends 'shaved'. It's currently possible to
get 127, but I'm not sure how much longer, as Efke's machines have
broken down and they're getting out of the film business. Some of
the truly odd-ball roll film formats can be purchased, but it's not
easy. Same with the unusual sheet film sizes, once a year Ilford
opens up ordering of special sizes.
One advantaeg of the Nikon system is that the Nikon F
lens mount is
essntially unchanged since 1959. YEs, extra features were added. so if
you mount an old lens on a new body you are not going to et autofocus 9or
even automatic exposure ocntrol in some cases), but it wil lfit nad work.
Similarly I could (if I could afford it) by a new lens that work work on
my F or F2 bodies.
The Leica M's are even better. There are only a small handful of
Leica Thread Mount and M mount lenses I can't use on my M6 TTL and
M9. The new "Leica M" digital (yes, no number) will have an adapter
that will let it use R lenses as well. I also have an adapter that
allows me to use my Grandfathers Nikon S lenses on my M's, and you
can get an adapter to use Contax lenses on them as well. All this is
without having to modify the lenses.
Of course I also use my Grandparents Nikon SLR lenses on my more
modern Nikon's, including my Nikon D300.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Photographer |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| My flickr Photostream |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
| My Photography Website |
| http://www.zanesphotography.com |
5:22 p.m.
At 1:38 PM -0700 10/29/12, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Christopher Satterfield wrote:
I find that manual film cameras and a decent digital DSLR (or
rangefinder) can do an excellent job of complementing each other to
improve your photographic skills.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Photographer |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| My flickr Photostream |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
| My Photography Website |
| http://www.zanesphotography.com |
One thing I like about film however is that
it's great for learning, you
screw up you're out money.
You're MEAN! You must be a professor! 
5:34 p.m.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 01:38:21PM -0700, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Christopher Satterfield wrote:
There is too much of the spray and shoot going around with digital.
On the other hand, I no longer get upset when someone walks into a shot.
I started on film years ago. I wish I could find my old Brownie
so I could shoot a roll for nostalgia.
Diane
--
- db at FreeBSD.org db at db.net http://www.db.net/~db
Nowadays tar can compress using yesterdays latest technologies!
One thing I like about film however is that
it's great for learning, you
screw up you're out money.
You're MEAN! You must be a professor!
31 Oct
31 Oct
10:17 p.m.
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 06:32:02PM -0700, Christopher Satterfield wrote:
While I still have film cameras around I find it hard
to find any film
locally anymore.
Some types of film are no longer manufactured. Kodak stopped making
Kodachrome, Ektachrome and Elite Chrome Extra Color sometime this year.
I even had trouble finding something as simple as a
Compact Flash card around here because everyone now has a camera phone, and
I've had a camera phone for years and while they are _great_ for taking simple
snapshots as a memory aid (e.g. take a foto of that poster advertising that
event instead of writing it all down), those cameras still suck. Tiny sensors.
If I actually want to do some photographing, I grab my Nikon D300s ;-)
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
28 Oct
28 Oct
8:16 p.m.
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Chris Tofu wrote:
I know Im in for it asking such a question, but are
there any realistic
benefits to film these days considering the expense? Personally the best
film camera Ive ever used was a Polaroid.
A digital camera is better suited for YOU.
When I run out of 55P/N, it may be a while before I use my Linhof again.
I haven't been using much film lately.
But, 5MP, 10MP, 15MP is NOT as much image entropy as even 35mm.
I can't afford a 4X5 or 8X10 digital back.
When I can find a TINY 12MP digital camera cheap, then I'll find new homes
for my Tessina, Minox, Minolta 16.
Price (not necessarily "value") is growing so fast that they might be
worth keeping as "investment", along with my Leicas, Nikonos, etc.
I might just only use digital , and change from being a film camera USER
to a film camera COLLECTOR. Maybe I already have.
Micro 4/3s, Sony Nex (APS-c) already let me use my film camera lenses,
bellows, etc. on small digitals.
29 Oct
29 Oct
4:10 p.m.
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Chris Tofu wrote:
But as you said, polaroid backs were avaialbe for most large-format and
medium format cameras...
I know Im in for it asking such a question, but
are there any realistic
benefits to film these days considering the expense? Personally the best
film camera Ive ever used was a Polaroid.
A digital camera is better suited for YOU.
When I run out of 55P/N, it may be a while before I use my Linhof again.
Pity it's no lonfer made. I rememebr putting the negative in sodium
sulphite to neutalise the alkaline developer jelly and then drying it.
When I can find a TINY 12MP digital camera cheap, then
I'll find new homes
for my Tessina, Minox, Minolta 16.
I won't. The older Minoxes are works of art themselves. Like mechanical
watches. I'll keep mine for that alone. and my colelction of 16mm
Minoltas. And my Yashica 16. And my Narciss
-tony
7:38 p.m.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Tony Duell wrote:
For a wedding several days away from supplies, I used apple cider vinegar
(from an unsuccessful attempt to make hard cider) as a stop bath, and
then commerical Kodak fixer (Sodium Thiosulphate?) when I got back to
town.
Giving the mother of the bride prints AT the reception takes a lot of the
pressure off!
When I run out
of 55P/N, it may be a while before I use my Linhof again.
Pity it's no lonfer
made. I rememebr putting the negative in sodium
sulphite to neutalise the alkaline developer jelly and then drying it. I won't. The older Minoxes are works of art
themselves. Like mechanical
watches. I'll keep mine for that alone. and my colelction of 16mm
Minoltas. And my Yashica 16. And my Narciss
no Tessina? You would love it!
30 Oct
30 Oct
5:35 p.m.
I won't.
The older Minoxes are works of art themselves. Like mechanical
watches. I'll keep mine for that alone. and my colelction of 16mm
Minoltas. And my Yashica 16. And my Narciss
no Tessina? You would love it! 
28 Oct
28 Oct
8:29 p.m.
On 28/10/2012 23:55, Chris Tofu wrote:
I know Im in for it asking such a question, but are there any
realistic benefits to film these days considering the expense?
Possibly two or three.
First, longevity. A properly processed and stored negative has a life
provably measured in at least tens of decades and probably several times
that, whereas you'll almost certainly have to re-write and transfer
digital images to other media and formats several times over such a
period.
Secondly, resolution. At least, medium format gives high resolution
more affordably than digital, even if you merely count pixels (which
actually is a poor measure of quality sometimes).
A third might be authenticity. It's relatively easy to see if a
negative has been altered or retouched. The flipside is of course ease
of "improvement" to digital images.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
9:05 p.m.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:29:13AM +0000, Pete Turnbull wrote:
On 28/10/2012 23:55, Chris Tofu wrote:
As long as you are talking b&w film and not colour films with dyes.
There are sadly many faded films now not to mention fungus that love
to eat organic dyes.
I know Im in for it asking such a question, but are there any
realistic benefits to film these days considering the expense?
Possibly two or three.
First, longevity. A properly processed and stored negative has a life
provably measured in at least tens of decades and probably several times
that, whereas you'll almost certainly have to re-write and transfer
digital images to other media and formats several times over such a
period.
Secondly, resolution. At least, medium format gives high resolution
more affordably than digital, even if you merely count pixels (which
actually is a poor measure of quality sometimes).
It will take a while before digital is affordable for comparable
digital backs on MF and LF yes.
A third might be authenticity. It's relatively easy to see if a
negative has been altered or retouched. The flipside is of course ease
of "improvement" to digital images.
I have one word. "Karsh". People have been manipulating film images
since the beginning, digital just made it easier.
I agree about the longevity of media. We all know what happened with the
domesday project in the UK, lunar landing video and 9t tape
turning into glue.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
- Diane
--
- db at FreeBSD.org db at db.net http://www.db.net/~db
Nowadays tar can compress using yesterdays latest technologies!
9:18 p.m.
proud owner of a pentax 6x7
rolleicord
and a zorki
and a box of fujichrome ms100/1000 in the freezer :D
http://www.flickr.com/photos/1ajs/sets/72157619167778298/
29 Oct
29 Oct
8:22 p.m.
On 29/10/2012 01:18, Adrian Stoness wrote:
proud owner of a pentax 6x7
rolleicord
and a zorki
Several Pentax 35mm SLRs, a Zenit (my first SLR, clunky but a nice
lens), a Minolta, two Mamiya 645s, assorted lenses, various film backs
including a Polaroid back for the Mamiyas. Now all I need is a source
of Polaroid film for that.
I'd like to own a 5"x4" monorail again, but they always seem to be too
expensive for the amount of use I'd give it.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
28 Oct
28 Oct
10:17 p.m.
At 4:55 PM -0700 10/28/12, Chris Tofu wrote:
I know Im in for it asking such a question, but are
there any
realistic benefits to film these days considering the expense?
Personally the best film camera Ive ever used was a Polaroid.
I use a mixture of digital, and film (35mm, 120, 4x5, and I'm finally
ready to start 8x10) to capture my photo's. To print them I use both
traditional processes (a local pro lab if colour), and an Epson R3000
printer. Additionally for my commercial fine art site, all prints
are made by a Professional Lab in the Bay Area.
When it comes to the lenses, I use anything from 100+ year old
beaters, to state of the art Leica glass. One of my favorite lenses
on my Leica is a 80 year old 50mm Summar f/2, while it lacks the
perfection of the ~3 year old 50mm Summicron f/2 I have, it has more
character than just about any lens I have (the Summar was also one of
the cheapest lenses I own, in spite of being a Leica lens).
As has been pointed out, MegaPixels is a poor judge, BUT, consider
this, how many MP is in a sheet of 4"x5" or 8"x10" film, even when
only scanned at 2400dpi? The best prints I've ever seen have been
8x10 contact prints made by Edward Weston. The sharpness of these
prints, especially given the lenses he was using, is enough to blow
ones mind! Digital *CAN NOT* touch a large format contact print done
by a master of the craft!
Then there is the question of Wet Plate. Wet Plate photographs done
with Petzval Lenses from about 150 years ago are as a whole, the most
beautiful photographs I've ever seen. This is my long term goal.
My short term goal is to start producing 8x10 contact prints using a
mixture of printing processes, including salt prints (basically the
original process).
Oh, and consider this, with a dirt cheap 35mm camera you can get a
durable camera of top notch quality, that won't break your bank
account if something happens to it. So they're good for when going
out in unsafe areas.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Photographer |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| My flickr Photostream |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
| My Photography Website |
| http://www.zanesphotography.com |
10:37 p.m.
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Zane H. Healy wrote:
When it comes to the lenses, I use anything from 100+
year old
beaters, to state of the art Leica glass. One of my favorite lenses
on my Leica is a 80 year old 50mm Summar f/2, while it lacks the
perfection of the ~3 year old 50mm Summicron f/2 I have, it has more
character than just about any lens I have (the Summar was also one of
the cheapest lenses I own, in spite of being a Leica lens).
I've used a Summar for almost half a century. But, I would gladly trade
it for a Summicron of any age or focal length!
only scanned at 2400dpi? The best prints I've
ever seen have been
8x10 contact prints made by Edward Weston. The sharpness of these
prints, especially given the lenses he was using, is enough to blow
ones mind!
They are incredible!
Weston and Adams are why I got my larger gear.
My 8X10 is a century old POS in very poor condition ($5 in 1970)
Someday I'll get a good one.
I recently got a PAIR of C-mount Goerz Hypars that I'm going to try on
Micro 4/3's
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
29 Oct
29 Oct
4:02 p.m.
I know Im in for it asking such a question, but are there any
realistic benefits to film these days considering the expense?
Personally the best film camera Ive ever used was a Polaroid. >
Is there any realisit benefit to using a classic computer? Is there any
realsitic benefit to driving a vintage car. Is there any realistic
benefit to painint a picture (rather than taking a photograph).
The answer in all cases is IMHO the same. YES. People enjoy doing those
thigns. Ans that is sufficient reason for doign them (prvided they don't
seriously affect others, which none of those do).
There are actualyl some benefits to film, Medium format, and especially
large format is a higher resolution than any digital camera that I've
seen. I've nto seen a digital camera wit hthe wort of movements you get
on a large format camera -- yes, you can fudge the image on a computer,
but I prefer to get it right at the start. Monochrome film, in
particular, has a much longer life than any digital media, and it's
certainly a lot easier to virew or print a film negative than a digitial
file stored in a long-forgotten format on a long-forgotten type of medium
(as an aside, I am gettign fed up by the number of people who tell me
that nobody cna read 5.25" disks any more...)
The other advnatage _is_ the expense of film. You are careful with it.
You spend time setting up the photogrpah (if it's a static subject, which
jhust aobtu everything I take is). YUou look at diferernt viewpoints.
With digital a lot of people jsut shoot a lot of picutres in the hope
that one will be good. Often they do get a good picture liek that, but
they don;t know why. Of course you can be careful with digital
photography too, but most aren't.
-tony
30 Oct
30 Oct
7:08 p.m.
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
Chris Tofu <rampaginggreenhulk at yahoo.com> wrote:
are there any realistic benefits to film these days
considering the expense?
The joy of producing a siver gelatine fine art print of
highest quality
with comparatively primitive and cheap technology, but a lot of good,
old fashioned handcraft, without any computers. I have enough computers
around me all day. Doing somthing manual without computers can be very
refreshing.
Getting the same quality the digital way will cost an order of
magnitude more. I saw very good digital prints. Shoot with nothing less
then a Leica M9, postprocessed with an expensive MacPro, printed with
an expensive Canon printer. I can get the same with less then 1/10 of
the investment. Hell, I can get more, as I shoot 8"x10" too.
And I don't need any f***ing computers to do all this. ;-)
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}
4259
days inactive
4266
days old
39 comments
19 participants
participants (19)
-
als＠thangorodrim.de -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
christopher1400＠gmail.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
db＠db.net -
francois.dion＠gmail.com -
gyorpb＠gmail.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
lproven＠gmail.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG -
pete＠dunnington.plus.com -
pu1bzz.listas＠gmail.com -
rampaginggreenhulk＠yahoo.com -
rogpugh＠mac.com -
tdk.knight＠gmail.com -
wackyvorlon＠me.com