Is photography going downhill with digital?
eNo
photographs? 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. 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.
read the rest at http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=789
nospam
<73b33b91-0db3-47a7...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo
<grande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of
> photographs?
no. the quality is much better with digital.
> 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.
> 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.
digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps
them learn.
tony cooper
wrote:
>read the rest at http://esfotoclix.\
What I think you are overlooking is that the internet came along and
allowed people to share/show their images. We see more bad stuff now
because we see more stuff. There will be more new images uploaded to
Flickr in the next week than most of us have ever seen of other
people's photographs in their entire pre-internet lifetime.
Who knows how many bad prints and slides are tucked away in shoeboxes
that were never seen outside of the immediate circle of the
photographer.
I've scanned hundreds of old family photographs, and I can tell you
that no one in my family tree was an accomplished photographer. With
Photoshop cropping and cloning, I've improved quite a few of them.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
True Dat!
Spoken like a true inexperienced snapshooter.
Walter Banks
eNo wrote:
The instant feedback from digital has helped me a lot to take better
photo's.
There is a waterfalls near where I live that one afternoon I took a
tripod and drove over just to experiment with aperture and
shutter time. I got more useful experience in that afternoon than
I have in many years with film.
The new digital darkroom software available in the last decade
has changed the whole digital experience.
w..
tony cooper
<wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>
>
>eNo wrote:
>
>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of
>> photographs? 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. 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 instant feedback from digital has helped me a lot to take better
>photo's.
>
>There is a waterfalls near where I live that one afternoon I took a
>tripod and drove over just to experiment with aperture and
>shutter time. I got more useful experience in that afternoon than
>I have in many years with film.
I agree. I have a laptop, and have taken it with me on a few
occasions to preview - full-screen - the images. Then I go back to
the same scene and re-shoot.
Ray Fischer
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps
>>them learn.
>
>Spoken like a true inexperienced snapshooter.
Written like a know-nothing ass.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Chris H
<nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>In article
><73b33b91-0db3-47a7...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo
><grande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of
>> photographs?
>
>no. the quality is much better with digital.
That is true. However that is the technical quality... not sure about
the standard of composition etc.
>
>> 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 most tend not to. However many professionals used motor drives
on film. SO it does depend on what you are doing.
>> 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.
There is some truth in that... however with modern cameras it is much
easier to take a "passable" photo.
>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.
This is a red herring as large numbers of people with camera-phones etc
have a "one button to facebook/Flikr" set up built in so there is
virtually no technical knowledge required. I know many kids (and adults)
who publish to Facebook etc who would not even know how to start
photoshop.
>digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps
>them learn.
That is true.
BTW there was much the same argument when the cheap,easy to use and
inferior film stuff replaced glass plates... Photography is not and was
not "film".... film was just a phase photography went through. As were
the several formats of film... 35mm is not "full frame" it was just a
size that was popular for a while in one format. Digital is the current
progression of image making. IT looks likely to last a long time as I
can not see what the next step is. Though I expect some one said that
when they moved from derogotypes :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Walter Banks
Chris H wrote:
> BTW there was much the same argument when the cheap,easy to use and
> inferior film stuff replaced glass plates... Digital is the current
> progression of image making. IT looks likely to last a long time as I
> can not see what the next step is. Though I expect some one said that
> when they moved from derogotypes :-)
With a piano anyone could play music :)
w..
Allen
Has the invention of paper, ink, and pencil reduced or improved the
overall quality of writing over stone tablets and chisels? Let's
consider just the post office, and the resources it would need to
deliver billions of stone tablets. How many people would read your
drivel if you had to hire a crew to carry your inane messages
individually to the millions who might see it now that the internet exists?
Allen
Dudley Hanks
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:NmrlvXBV...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
Another thing about digital is that it has enabled photography to be used
for new purposes.
Several companies now encourage employees to take pictures of data such as
serial numbers instead of jotting them down in a notepad; or, to take a
picture of a site instead of trying to describe it in words.
Even in the blind community, small P&S cams are being used to take pictures
of printed material (such as signs, menus, handouts) which can then be run
through an optical character recognition application, enabling the
visually-impaired to function much more independantly than would otherwise
be possible.
Some of us even use the cams to take pictures of new areas we visit, or
fresh obstacles that appear, and then get sighted persons to describe the
pictures later, effectively enabling blind people to learn a lot more about
their community without actually having sighted guides with them every step
of the way.
And, of course, it won't be long till the camera sensor is hooked directly
to the brain, miraculously restoring sight to who knows how many victims..
of who knows how many afflictions.
An interesting question arises: If an individual has sensors instead of
retinas, and the individual has the technical resources / expertise to
"capture" and transfer to hard copy something he / she is "looking at," will
the process still be considered photography?
Take Care,
Dudley
Charles
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:311020091944469876%nos...@nospam.invalid...
> In article
> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo
> <grande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of
>> photographs?
Has done little for composition. It's too easy (cheap) to just keep
pressing the shutter button. Folks used to take more care with lighting,
framing, and so on. Also, now it's too easy to share bad shots.
Post-processing is another story. The digital darkroom is an awesome tool.
All in all, it's a wash for most shots churned out and shared by casual
shooters.
For serious amateurs and pros, the quality is way up. Just one opinion.
Bob Williams
I can only speak from my own personal experience.
I started shooting film in 1947 and it became a serious hobby for at
least 50 years. I had a B/W and Color Darkroom and developed and printed
many of my own pictures especially the winners.
I probably shot about 500 pics a year and got about 50 keepers, that I
enlarged to 5x7 (Paper and Chemicals were very expensive in those
days....especially color).
In 2000 I started taking digital photos. I also took a course in
Photoshop to be able to edit the images correctly and bought a photo
quality inkjet printer to produce 8x10s of my keepers.
The whole world changed almost overnight.
I took way more pictures, experimented more, tried out novel lighting
techniques, stitched panoramic images together and did a bunch of
things that I had wanted to do with film but resisted, because of the
cost of processing the images.
The quality of my images improved dramatically, especially when tweaked
in PS.
Now, I have so many 8x10 keepers that storing and presenting them
properly is a major challenge.
Hey! I shoot a lot of crap too because I experiment so much....but only
the keepers get shown to the rest of the world.
I think that because so many people are shooting digital pictures today
and displaying everything they produce, you invariably see a lot more
really boring and poorly executed pictures.
OTOH. I see a whole lot more, really excellent pictures that just were
never seen in the "film days".
Bob Williams
celcius
news:73b33b91-0db3-47a7...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Photography for most of us is a hobby. It's a fun thing. It's a way to can
our souvenirs. It's a way to try different things. The P&S has opened the
possibility for young and old to experiment, to have fun. No film to buy.
Replication of the same scene 10 times over. Who does it hurt (except
personal pride sometimes)? Of course, results are not necessarily very
artistic... but who cares? I remember the B&W shots with Aunt Elma's head
cut off at the forehead ;-) Who does this hurt (beside Elma)? We will still
have great photographers. We will still have the so-so photos. The
difference? We can ALL have a "shot" at it (cheap pun intended). My grand
child who is 4 has started with a very cheap camera... In a way, more
persons can turn to it and yes, more can learn and be on their way to
becoming good at it. We don't necessarily have to become experts. And those
who are really bad don't spoil anything for the rest of us. Let's cease to
be purists. There's room for the good, the great and the bad. What counts
is having fun doing it.
Cheers,
Marcel
whisky-dave
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:311020091944469876%nos...@nospam.invalid...
> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo
> <grande...@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.
Roy Smith
systems. Every time I get a paycheck, I'm grateful for things like Flickr
and which encourage people like me to take zillions of mediocre images and
upload them for free. More images taken means more disk drives sold. As
far as I'm concerned, we should be giving cameras away for free :-)
Allen
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.
Allen
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
? "Allen" <all...@austin.rr.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:rLydnWbB2IJwYHPX...@giganews.com...
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
Chris
I bet it is about the same.
The serious photographers took a gazillion shots, many of which were
dreck, some of which were decent, and a few of which were superb.
The snap shot shooter took a gazillion pictures, the vast majority of
which were dreck, and a tiny percentage were acceptable.
Nowadays, everyone shoots a pile of pics, and most of them get trashed
as soon as Adobe or Corel displays them (or they hide on lusers' hard
drives, never to be seen in public). Most of those pics really, really
need to be trashed.
The middle ground (where I fell when I was shooting film) took a long
time to compose a single shot, and never took enough pictures to alter
the overall percentages by very much (although thinking back over my
best shots, I guess I have about 2 that I really, really like as
photos, as opposed to the memories they record).
FWIW
Chris
Chris
> ? "Allen" <all...@austin.rr.com> ?????? ??? ??????news:rLydnWbB2IJwYHPX...@giganews.com...
>
> > whisky-dave wrote:
> >> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> >>news:311020091944469876%nos...@nospam.invalid...
> >>> In article
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
van dark
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):
No spam please
news:hcp864$170k$1...@ns.felk.cvut.cz...
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.
Data Point
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.
Chris H
<data...@someisp.org> writes
>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:04:54 -0000, "No spam please" <m...@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.
Data Point
>
>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, or what
you have learned from only reading reports about cameras. 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. 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. (My most favorite oxymoron, "Military intelligence".)
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. The only thing that happened to it was a small hairline
crack formed by one of the case's mounting screws. They were also using
them in Iraq by many of the combat personal because this particular model
was so rugged and dust-proof, since you seem to be concerned on what the
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.
DSLRs are NOT more environmental proof. Anybody who claims that has clearly
never used both styles of cameras outside of their living-rooms. The main
DSLR problem, change a lens in any dusty or harsh environment and you have
to stop to clean the sensor. Been there, did that, sold them all.
Condensation on mirrors, focusing-screens, and sensors in cold and damp
environments. Been there, did that, sold them all. A little condensation on
the mirror and shutter mechanism as the temperature of the camera drops
below freezing and the whole thing is useless until you can thaw it out and
dry it again. Been there, did that, sold them all. The lubricants used in
DSLR zoom lenses has to be viscous enough to hold their chosen setting in
position if you change the angle of the lens. Those lubricants turn into
cement in cold temperatures. Been there, did that, sold them all. No, DSLRs
are NOT more environmental proof. Contrary to your inexperienced opinion
and also contrary to anyone's opinion the same as yours.
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. I also don't machine-gun shoot either. That's why I get so many
keepers. 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. In
particularly interesting habitats up to 1,000 individual photos a day is
not uncommon. The month I spent documenting some of the rarest orchid
species in the world (including *the* rarest specimen in the world) where
few, if no, humans have ever traveled before netted even more shots than
that per day. When I'm working an interesting habitat I can shoot 24 hours
around the clock. Many species only appear at certain hours of the day. You
have to be up when they are. The chance of that location, that hour, that
day, that weather, that season, and that species may never coincide again
during your travels. Get 'em when you can, and get 'em good. Making sure
that you have a camera that can put up with anything in any situation,
including IR night photography and IR video modes in your P&S camera for
those nocturnal species.
I know exactly what I'm doing and exactly which camera is perfectly right
for the job. Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
opinion.
Chris H
<data...@someisp.org> writes
>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@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 data...@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 Data...@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.
van dark
please, say me which camera is exactly perfectly right
for your job. My job is similar one.
Thanks.
Data Point napsal(a):
Savageduck
> In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp...@4ax.com>, Data Point
> <data...@someisp.org> writes
>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>
>>> <-------------------------------------Le
>>> Snip------------------------------------------------>
> So you say
>
>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
>> opinion.
>
>
> But Data...@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.
He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of
many names.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Chris H
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would
be able to point us to a web site full of his work.
Data Point
>Hallo Data point,
>please, say me which camera is exactly perfectly right
>for your job. My job is similar one.
>Thanks.
For that particular extended wilderness trek back then (there's been many
more months-long treks since, and newer cameras bought since then), I used
a Sony F717 with the VCL-HQD1758 tel-extender. The best in any cameras and
optics that I could find that year. They had no equals for durability,
dependability, image quality, and the widest range of capabilities with its
included macro, IR imaging, and higher EVF resolution than many present-day
cameras. As well as the unique and extremely handy swiveling body that
allows you to also use the EVF, not just the LCD, in awkward framing
situations. I wish they'd make cameras like that again. Few cameras even
today can beat the images from that model. Newer is not always better.
5-megapixels is more than anyone needs for 11"x14" prints (and larger,
subject dependent) if the optics and sensor are good. 3 megapixels was
already shown to compete with the finest-grain 35mm films many years ago.
Outing Trolls is FUN!
And you're just a useless poorly snapshooting DSLR-Troll of one name(?)
this year.
LOL!
Data Point
>In message <2009110407011050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>>On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>>
>>> In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp...@4ax.com>, Data Point
>>> <data...@someisp.org> writes
>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <-------------------------------------Le Snip---------------------
>>>>>--------------------------->
>>
>>
>>
>>> So you say
>>>
>>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
>>>> opinion.
>>> But Data...@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.
>>
>>He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of
>>many names.
>
>I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would
>be able to point us to a web site full of his work.
Totally removed from the net about 4 years ago because useless trolls like
you were stealing them. One of the 8 or so websites had over 500 images
posted from only one of my yearly wilderness-treks. All gone, thanks to
useless DSLR trolls like you.
Boo hoo.
Too bad.
As if any self-respecting person on earth would ever want to enrich your
basement-living trolls' life for free. LOL!
John Navas
wrote in <uav3f5th4ak7mc6vh...@4ax.com>:
It actually takes more like 12 MP to best the best 35 mm film images.
What was famously shown is that 3 MP digital can edge out film in 8x10
prints, but not at larger sizes.
--
Best regards,
John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
Chris H
<data...@someisp.org> writes
>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:40:35 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>>In message <2009110407011050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
>><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>>>On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>>>
>>>> In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp...@4ax.com>, Data Point
>>>> <data...@someisp.org> writes
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <-------------------------------------Le Snip---------------------
>>>>>>--------------------------->
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So you say
>>>>
>>>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
>>>>> opinion.
>>>> But Data...@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.
>>>
>>>He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of
>>>many names.
>>
>>I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would
>>be able to point us to a web site full of his work.
>
>Totally removed from the net about 4 years ago because useless trolls like
>you were stealing them.
Never stolen a photo in my life. Why would I want to?
> One of the 8 or so websites had over 500 images
>posted from only one of my yearly wilderness-treks. All gone, thanks to
>useless DSLR trolls like you.
Then you will have no trouble giving your real name. Otherwise you are
just another wanna be troll
Bob Larter
> In message <2009110407011050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>> On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>>
>>> In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp...@4ax.com>, Data Point
>>> <data...@someisp.org> writes
>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <-------------------------------------Le Snip---------------------
>>>>> --------------------------->
>>
>>
>>> So you say
>>>
>>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
>>>> opinion.
>>> But Data...@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.
>> He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of
>> many names.
>
> I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would
> be able to point us to a web site full of his work.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the P&S troll to point out any of his
work.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:40:35 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>> In message <2009110407011050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>>> On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>>>
>>>> In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp...@4ax.com>, Data Point
>>>> <data...@someisp.org> writes
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <-------------------------------------Le Snip---------------------
>>>>>> --------------------------->
>>>
>>>
>>>> So you say
>>>>
>>>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
>>>>> opinion.
>>>> But Data...@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.
>>> He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of
>>> many names.
>> I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would
>> be able to point us to a web site full of his work.
>
> Totally removed from the net
Gee, what a surprise.
Bob Larter
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:24:03 +0100, van dark <van....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hallo Data point,
>> please, say me which camera is exactly perfectly right
>> for your job. My job is similar one.
>> Thanks.
>
> For that particular extended wilderness trek back then (there's been many
> more months-long treks since, and newer cameras bought since then), I used
> a Sony F717 with the VCL-HQD1758 tel-extender.
HAHAHahahahahahahahaha!
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Data Point wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:24:03 +0100, van dark <van....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Hallo Data point,
>>> please, say me which camera is exactly perfectly right
>>> for your job. My job is similar one.
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> For that particular extended wilderness trek back then (there's been many
>> more months-long treks since, and newer cameras bought since then), I used
>> a Sony F717 with the VCL-HQD1758 tel-extender.
>
>HAHAHahahahahahahahaha!
I have a large number of excellent photographs I took with mine. I
found it a very good camera.
Eric Stevens
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
>Data Point wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:24:03 +0100, van dark <van....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Hallo Data point,
>>> please, say me which camera is exactly perfectly right
>>> for your job. My job is similar one.
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> For that particular extended wilderness trek back then (there's been many
>> more months-long treks since, and newer cameras bought since then), I used
>> a Sony F717 with the VCL-HQD1758 tel-extender.
>
>HAHAHahahahahahahahaha!
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>
"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
>Data Point wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:40:35 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <2009110407011050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>>>> On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp...@4ax.com>, Data Point
>>>>> <data...@someisp.org> writes
>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <-------------------------------------Le Snip---------------------
>>>>>>> --------------------------->
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So you say
>>>>>
>>>>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
>>>>>> opinion.
>>>>> But Data...@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.
>>>> He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of
>>>> many names.
>>> I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would
>>> be able to point us to a web site full of his work.
>>
>> Totally removed from the net
>
>Gee, what a surprise.
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
>Chris H wrote:
>> In message <2009110407011050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>>> On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>>>
>>>> In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp...@4ax.com>, Data Point
>>>> <data...@someisp.org> writes
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <-------------------------------------Le Snip---------------------
>>>>>> --------------------------->
>>>
>>>
>>>> So you say
>>>>
>>>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
>>>>> opinion.
>>>> But Data...@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.
>>> He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of
>>> many names.
>>
>> I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would
>> be able to point us to a web site full of his work.
>
>Don't hold your breath waiting for the P&S troll to point out any of his
>work.
John Turco
>
> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of
> 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
> 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.
>
There's an important factor that you appear to be overlooking...which
is the sentimental value of snapshots.
Affordable digital photography enables countless people, many more
chances to capture various moments within their lifetimes; conversely,
the expenses and processing hassles of film tended to discourage such
frequent picture-taking.
--
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
John Turco
> > In article
> > <73b33b91-0db3-47a7...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo
> > <grande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of
> >> photographs?
<heavily edited for brevity>
> And here is another question just for you, Mr/Mrs Grandepatzer.gmail:
> Has the invention of paper, ink, and pencil reduced or improved the
> overall quality of writing over stone tablets and chisels? Let's
> consider just the post office, and the resources it would need to
> deliver billions of stone tablets. How many people would read your
> drivel if you had to hire a crew to carry your inane messages
> individually to the millions who might see it now that the internet
> exists?
> Allen
Allen, why are you blasting the original poster ("eNo")? Whether
you suspect he's spamming his Web site, eNo's messages are always
on-topic and a relief from the irrelevant garbage posts, often
littering this newsgroup.
John Turco
>
> I make a good living working for a company who manufactures disk storage
> systems. Every time I get a paycheck, I'm grateful for things like Flickr
> and which encourage people like me to take zillions of mediocre images and
> upload them for free. More images taken means more disk drives sold. As
> far as I'm concerned, we should be giving cameras away for free :-)
This was essentially Kodak's strategy, in the old days. The greater number
of cheap cameras the company released to the public, they more film it could
sell and process, also. Market penetration, baby!
Polaroid had a similar idea, and took legal action when Kodak encroached on
its exclusive domain, during the 1970's. It grew alarmed when Kodak began
manufacturing and distributing its own proprietary instant film and cameras;
Polaroid finally won its long court battle, in 1986. (Kodak was ruled to have
infringed upon Polaroid's patents and therefore, forced to close down that
segment of its business.)
Ironically, Polaroid later became a casualty of the digital revolution.
Unlike the industry giant (Kodak), it failed to adequately adapt to rapidly
changing conditions in modern photography...and as a result, Polaroid has
existed in name only, since 2001.
Tragic, but true.
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
? "John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> ?????? ??? ??????
news:4B0A2EF2...@concentric.net...
of digital. It's a lot easier to setup a digital darkroom, than a
traditional wet darkroom. And you only need a generic PC and a generic photo
printer! It's also a lot more efficient (including quantum efficiency of
sensors) and cost effective, because you delete yourself the bad photos. And
nobody else will see your personal phostos, I remember some of my friends in
Kozani who were working in a photo lab showed me a photo of a girl in
underwear, this photo was a part of a film they processed! I swore by then
to have as little to do with commercial labs as possible.