- Original Message -
From: Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
Ok, I'll start talking about the death of the digital. Who wants to
join?
grin
I do.
Back in the late 1980s, compact video cameras started to become very
Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote:
Ok, I'll start talking about the death of the digital. Who wants to join?
grin
Alex Sarbu
- Original Message -
From: Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CRB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble
From: Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu
Ok, I'll start talking about the death of the digital. Who wants to
join?
LOL. Actually if someone will kill it would be the manufacturers
continuing the megapixel race instead of addressing the real issues.
Like making oooh aaah 7 MPixels digicams with f 1:6.3 at
]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
That hardly makes any difference, does it? I mean, you'll usually get a
new film with your bag of prints. Not really any extra work. You'll have
to buy one film to get you started
of FILM.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent:
Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:34 AM
To: Cotty
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
I've only got about 9 months one mine now, but with two bodies probably
in the neighborhood
And of course, offset presses are really easy to come by and are
inexpensive. Not.
A.
On 25/8/04 5:37 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I disagree. By the time you print an image on an offset press,
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Are you guys serious?, anyone can see, even by your own descriptions
of the process, that there are less
Perhaps for film it is but not for digital images. They can be copied to a
CD or DVD or any other removable media as easy as drag and drop.
A.
On 25/8/04 9:20 pm, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of
course backup, is a big point.
My local lab's digital kiosk has bloothooth for wireless transfer of images
from camera to printer.
A.
On 25/8/04 10:34 pm, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cotty mused:
What I would say is that the industry is pushing this PictBridge thing,
where cards can poop out of a camera and
On Aug 26, 2004, at 9:34 AM, graywolf wrote:
It is no trouble to speak of changing type wheels. I had about 20
different fonts. It had a neat sheet feeder that would feed a letter
head from one bin, 2nd sheets from another, and envelopes from the top
one. I wish I still had that printer. No, it
Billy Abbott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
35mm Film is EASIER than digital, that's why a lot of people still use
35mm. Take the pix with autoeverything camera, drop off the film, get a
bag full of prints.
Or take your digital PS, review the pictures on the screen on the
On 25/8/04, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
I
guess a question that still remains to be answered is what people will
think about digital cameras after they have been using them for a while.
In nearly two years and 10,000 shots all I've done is blown dust off the
sensor about half a
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Toralf Lund wrote:
Billy Abbott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
35mm Film is EASIER than digital, that's why a lot of people still use
35mm. Take the pix with autoeverything camera, drop off the film, get a
bag full of prints.
Or take your digital PS,
Billy Abbott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Toralf Lund wrote:
[ ... ]
Or take your digital PS, review the pictures on the screen on the
back, deleted the ones you don't like and then drop off the memory
card and get back a bag full of prints that you have chosen out of
the ones that you took.
On Aug 25, 2004, at 2:40 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
35mm Film is EASIER than digital, that's why a lot of people still use
35mm. Take the pix with autoeverything camera, drop off the film, get a
bag full of prints.
Or take the pix with autoeverything digital camera, drop off the flash
card, get a
Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Aug 25, 2004, at 2:40 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
35mm Film is EASIER than digital, that's why a lot of people still use
35mm. Take the pix with autoeverything camera, drop off the film, get a
bag full of prints.
Or take the pix with autoeverything digital camera, drop off
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Or take the pix with autoeverything digital camera, drop off the flash
card, get a bag full of prints.
They got smarter. They first download to the computer then drop off the
flash card or a CD-ROM at the lab. If the lab screws them, they have a
backup copy.
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Billy Abbott
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 2:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
35mm Film is EASIER than digital, that's why a lot of people still use
35mm
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 3:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
Billy Abbott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
35mm Film
On 25/8/04, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
But what I was driving at was more of the images-on-the-PC way of doing
things. I think the way most people with digicams operate today, is they
transfer the files to the PC, then clear the memory card and possibly
email the pictures to some
I'd agree with you on that. My parents just have their digital images printed
directly from the memory card. They don't make a copy on the PC (I'm trying to
encourage them to do that). I'm not sure if they use DPOF or the image choosing
machines in the photo processors shop.
On the digital vs
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
I'm sorry but your digital workflow listed below is not simpler
than
35mm film.
The 35mm camera is simpler, even a sosphisticated one, and it is
much
easier to unload
William Robb write:
...[it] seems to becoming an accepted medium in advertising and stock
photography, although I wonder how, when the quality doesn't come up
to medium format film.
I have recently become vary aware of a trend towards poor quality pictures
in magazines. Images of a quality that
I've only got about 9 months one mine now, but with two bodies
probably in the neighborhood of 13,000 frames and my face hurts from
grinning.
It is ironic how often those who actually start to use a DSRL,
thinking they will use film cameras along with it, find that they
rarely use the film
It started during the Gulf War. They were printing at that time some
kind of poorly enlarged 320x200 video frames. They noticed they could
get away with it, so why not continue it's much cheaper and enhances the
bottom line.
Mick Maguire wrote:
I have recently become vary aware of a trend
I disagree. By the time you print an image on an offset press, you can't distinguish
between a 10 megapixel digital shot and medium format. I wish I could show you the
images Clint Clemens shot for Jeep and Chrysler European advertising with his 10
megapixel Canons. They are magnificent and
In regard to stock, the stock houses with which I am familiar want 50 megabyte files
max. At that size I don't think there's enough difference between MF and even 6
megapixel digital to warrant the large neg.
William Robb write:
...[it] seems to becoming an accepted medium in advertising
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, William Robb wrote:
There are a couple of extra steps in digital that you have left out:
Prior to your step one:
Go into menuland and set up the following:
1) resolution.
2) file compression
3) colour space.
4) saturation.
5) contrast
6) sharpness
7) sensitivity (not as
On 25/8/04, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:
Very valid points.
What I would say is that the industry is pushing this PictBridge thing,
where cards can poop out of a camera
ROTFL
What a slip!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
. That is still the domain of FILM.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:34 AM
To: Cotty
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
I've only got about 9 months one mine now, but with two bodies probably
On 25/8/04, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
There are a couple of extra steps in digital that you have left out:
Prior to your step one:
Go into menuland and set up the following:
1) resolution.
2) file compression
3) colour space.
4) saturation.
5) contrast
6) sharpness
7) sensitivity
- Original Message -
From: Billy Abbott
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
They don't *have* to do that...they can just use the default
setting. Like
someone with a new do-everything-but-mow-the-lawn film PS they may
have a
quick read through
. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:54:06 -0400
Digital still cant match what you can do with a 4x5 FILM
camera and lens that costs less than a DSLR body alone
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
I love the purist in you, even though I do not have the time and
stamina to
shoot 4 x 5.
I say that, never having done it, but a camera bag with 4-5 lenses
and a 12
pound tripod
: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
JCOC Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:34 AM
JCOC To: Cotty
JCOC Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
JCOC I've only got about 9 months one mine now, but with two bodies probably
JCOC in the neighborhood of 13,000 frames
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
I fully agree with you in regards to quality. Even when I compared
my
67 stuff to 6mp digital, there is clearly more detail in the 67.
If I
was shooting scenics
From: Tom C
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:09:27 -0700
I love the purist in you, even though I do not have the time and stamina
to shoot 4 x 5.
I say that, never having done it, but a camera bag with 4-5 lenses and a
12
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Daisy wheel looks better than a good modern laser printer?
Isnt Daisy wheel limited to one size font per wheel?
Not only that, but the graphics on a daisy wheel really hoover compared
to a laser. LOL.
rg
: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
I fully agree with you in regards to quality. Even when I compared my
67 stuff to 6mp digital, there is clearly more detail in the 67. If I
was shooting scenics and landscapes mostly, I might still be shooting
film. But for closer, frame
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Are you guys serious?, anyone can see, even by your own descriptions
of the process, that there are less steps and skills required to
do 35mm film than digital. That is simplicity. Your wrong digital
is not simpler or AS SIMPLE as 35mm film from a user standpoint.
JCO
You
Bruce Dayton wrote:
It is ironic how often those who actually start to use a
DSRL, thinking they will use film cameras along with it, find
that they rarely use the film cameras anymore.
I find that my digital camera is used alongside my film cameras. Although I
am reducing the number of
-Original Message-
From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Are you guys serious?, anyone can see, even by your own descriptions
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:37:46 -0700
--
I disagree. By the time you print an image on an offset press,
you can't distinguish between a 10 megapixel digital shot and
medium format. I wish I could show you the images Clint Clemens
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
NOT TRUE, because you are forgetting something very
important, ARCHIVING.
With film, you get the negatives as well as the prints.
With digital you now have the extra
the automatic settings,
JCOC once again, not simpler than film.
JCOC JCO
JCOC -Original Message-
JCOC From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
JCOC Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:56 PM
JCOC To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JCOC Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
JCOC
, there
are ten like him. For those people, your extra steps are skipped.
rg
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Kristian Walsh
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
Digital *is* simpler. 35mm only seems simpler to us (meaning the
people
on this list
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
NOT TRUE, because you are forgetting something very
important, ARCHIVING.
With film, you get the negatives as well as the prints.
Only problem is when they lose your film or scratch it or put their paws
on it in order to archive their fingerprints.
With digital you now
William Robb wrote:
Be that as it may, they as often as not manage to bugger something
up, usually file size. I print a lot of 640x480 files up to 4x5 inch
prints.
Perhaps this is the default setting for the cameras, I don't know.
No it's not the default, it's the users that bugger it. Main two
--- Malcolm Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many folk state the instant capture and review of
the image is the all
important feature, and being able to e-mail a
picture immediately a 'must
have' today. Even I know if I have got the shot I
want with my LX, so the
immediate review of the
Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday,
August 25, 2004 11:34 AM
To: Cotty
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
I've only got about 9 months one mine now, but with two bodies probably
in the neighborhood of 13,000 frames
JCO posted:
NOT TRUE, because you are forgetting something very
important, ARCHIVING.
With film, you get the negatives as well as the prints.
With digital you now have the extra work of somehow
transferring the files to hard drive, Cd, or DVD
or some other digital media. ...
I hear
They would really be upset if after you wiped the card for them it wouldn't
work in their camera! Deleting just the images is usually ok, but of course
many digital cameras including mine will not work if you do not format the
card in the camera itself. For some reason I also wind up with
-
From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
That hardly makes any difference, does it? I mean, you'll usually get a
new film with your bag of prints. Not really any extra
On 25 Aug 2004 at 8:34, Bruce Dayton wrote:
One thing to remember, is that almost all those who like digital used
to shoot film. It's not as if they have no clue what shooting film is
like. They have tried both and found digital to be more preferable
(not without issues, but film has issues
On 25 Aug 2004 at 15:22, Caveman wrote:
Kept changing them. They were all full of surprises. Then I thought I'll
be much safer with slides. Until here comes this nightshots film, cut
with a huge offset to the frames. So I decided that those guys won't be
able to touch anything but some
On 25 Aug 2004 at 17:46, graywolf wrote:
I find it interesting that all the digiheads still have to justify their
expensive cameras. If you like it use it. If you don't stick to film. If you are
smart, you use both for their particular strengths. Anyone who thinks a 35mm SLR
is good for any
(was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
Now we are talking the opposite of convenience. How long does it take to
make
those 129 images and stitch them together. And then you show it on the
Internet?
On 25 Aug 2004 at 11:54, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Digital still cant match what you can do with a 4x5 FILM
camera and lens that costs less than a DSLR body alone.
Im am not trying to say that the average person should be
shooting 4x5 film, I'm just saying for those who know and want
really
My last days shooting film found me shooting 6x7 transparency film for
most of my important work. The lab that processed it was a very well
known pro lab and the film looked good. Except for the fact that they
kept ruining the first exposure by kinking the film when they attached
it to the
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
On 25 Aug 2004 at 11:54, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Digital still cant match what you can do with a 4x5 FILM camera and
lens that costs less than a DSLR
-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
My last days shooting film found me shooting 6x7 transparency film for
most of my important work. The lab
On 25 Aug 2004 at 20:44, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
No,
Cant Take away the cost issue, because it is possible to match
4x5 film quality with special digital backs that cost $10,000 and
up. Can you afford that? I doubt.
Herein lies your problem.
So IN THE AFFORDABLE domain,
4x5 film blows
the contrary. Sharpness can
never ruin a photo, softness can.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
On 25 Aug 2004 at 20
: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
On 25 Aug 2004 at 20:44, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
No,
Cant Take away the cost issue, because it is possible to match
4x5 film quality with special digital backs that cost $10,000 and
up. Can you afford that? I doubt.
Herein lies your problem.
So
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
On 25 Aug 2004 at 20:44, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
No,
Cant Take away the cost issue, because it is possible to match
4x5 film quality with special digital backs that cost $10,000 and
up. Can you afford that? I doubt.
Herein lies
: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:56 PM
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
On 25 Aug 2004 at 20:44, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
No,
Cant Take away the cost issue, because it is possible to match
4x5 film quality
, 2004 8:56 PM
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
On 25 Aug 2004 at 20:44, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
No,
Cant Take away the cost issue, because it is possible to match 4x5
film quality with special digital backs that cost $10,000 and up.
Can you afford
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
If you don't have Pentax lenses and you can afford the 10 megapixel
Canon you're probably smart to go that way. But it would be foolish to
invest
68 matches
Mail list logo
