The disappearance of darkness

[Me]

An interesting interview on Radio New Zealand this morning, with Robert
Burley:
Toronto-based photographer whose book The Disappearance of Darkness:
Photography at the End of the Analogue Era chronicles the rapid speed at
which film and the huge factories that produced it have almost vanished.
Link to MP3 file:
http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20130507-1008-feature_guest_-_robert_burley-048.mp3

[RichA]

> Link to MP3 file:http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20130507-1008-feature_guest_-_ro...

Film is destined for a small but enthusiastic audience of geeky niche
players, just like vinyl. Now, vinyl though still a fraction of sales
of CD's and electronic downloads is growing, but represents only about
a $70M market in the U.S. Can the film producers (who would also have
to offer processing or production of chemicals to do it) make a
business of film, whats left of it and can they survive while film
continues to fall further?
Film is where vinyl was around 1985, still dying before its slow rise
again.

[Me]

I think that was discussed in the podcast. It's relatively inexpensive
to set up to press vinyl records.
Not so to set up to produce and process photographic film (except
monochrome). When the market was massive - there were only a few players
in that game.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ee1af9e-fc00-4621...@j4g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

Fair analogy, however at least with a vinyl record you have something that
is scarcely less convenient than a CD or download.

Film on the other hand : -

Is expensive to buy and process. The marginal cost of digital is nil.
The results can't be seen at the time of filming (other than in hyper
expensive 70mm movie cameras which video at the same time), but takes a
while to come back - digital can be viewed immediately and distributed for
free.
Is limited to tens of shots per reel. You can get thousands on a micro SD
card.
IIRC the resolution of 35mm film is about 12Mp (the same as my phone).
Current digital resolutions exceed this in a smaller form factor, so in
future film cameras will be seen a big and cumbersome.

There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some misplaces
preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will mourn the
passing of wet film.

[Me]

On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>
> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some misplaces
> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will mourn the
> passing of wet film.
>
>

Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
to replicate the look of film.

[nospam]

In article <kmbnve$40f$1...@news.albasani.net>, Me <anywh...@here.com>

add distortion for that 'warm tube sound'.

add grain/noise for that 'film look'. increase saturation for velvia.

those who want accuracy don't do either.

[Alan Browne]

The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
whereas transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the
"push" transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a
class B amplifier).

That discontinuity in transistor based circuits is audible to about
1/1000th of a percent of listeners. IOW, even "audiophiles" <cough>
with the best trained ears would fail to pick it out in an ABX test.

Anything related to the "tone" can be done in analog or digital circuits
- more so in processing.


--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

[nospam]

In article <PvednX8r77e--hTM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
> smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
> whereas transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the
> "push" transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a
> class B amplifier).

which can be done with a transistor amp but is almost never done.

another factor is the characteristics of the distortion. tube amps are
less harsh, but who runs their amps where they continually distort?

under normal conditions, there is no difference that anyone can hear.

> That discontinuity in transistor based circuits is audible to about
> 1/1000th of a percent of listeners. IOW, even "audiophiles" <cough>
> with the best trained ears would fail to pick it out in an ABX test.

probably less than that.

> Anything related to the "tone" can be done in analog or digital circuits
> - more so in processing.

yep.

[PeterN]

And those who want art, may do either, neither or both. they may also
use tons of filters in any of millions of combinations.

--
PeterN

[Doug McDonald]

On 5/7/2013 3:42 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>
> The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
> smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
> whereas transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the
> "push" transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a
> class B amplifier).
>
> That discontinuity in transistor based circuits is audible to about
> 1/1000th of a percent of listeners.

Uh ... class A versus class B has NOTHING to do with tube versus solid
state.

Nothing. Zero.

In either case NO modern circuit comes even close to class B.

Doug McDonald

[Me]

On 8/05/2013 8:51 a.m., nospam wrote:

>
> another factor is the characteristics of the distortion. tube amps are
> less harsh, but who runs their amps where they continually distort?
>

Many electric guitarists - it's probably the rule rather than the
exception for other than acoustic, some jazz/blues, and slide guitar.
There are a handful of guitarists who perform using solid state amps,
and even then they're very particular about which SS amp - I think BB
King is one, but there are a few others.

[Me]

On 8/05/2013 8:42 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
>> On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
>>> misplaces
>>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
>>> mourn the
>>> passing of wet film.
>>>
>>>
>> Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
>> the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
>> There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
>> sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
>> amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
>> valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
>> to replicate the look of film.
>
>

> The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is <snip>
No.

>
> Anything related to the "tone" can be done in analog or digital circuits
> - more so in processing.
>

DSP is used in "modelling amps" which attempt to replicate the waveform
of over-driven valve amps combined with particular guitar speaker
non-linearity and "break-up" characteristics.
They are getting pretty good - in blind tests, it's hard to tell, ie
between a Vox AC30, and a Vox modelling amp set to sound like a Vox AC 30.
But I think you'll find that professional performers almost unanimously
use valve amps that they favour - I doubt that Eric Clapton for example
would have much real interest in performing with a modelling (DSP) amp
on which he can flick a knob to change tone to sound like Joe Satriani's
setup one minute, Stevie Ray Vaughn the next, then flick back to the
Eric Clapton setup DSP preset.

[Trevor]

"R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:PrSdnV6yrrKzZhXM...@bt.com...

> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
> misplaces preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak
> will mourn the passing of wet film.

Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to what
can be printed from digital. And far more who think the archival qualities
are superior to digital at the moment. That may change, but the nostalgia
won't. Even though there is *nothing* superior about vinyl, many still
prefer the ritual. And many will still get a kick out of watching an image
appear under the safelight. (for as long as they can get paper and chemicals
anyway!)

Trevor.

[nospam]

In article <kmcgpk$oa7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:

> > There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
> > misplaces preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak
> > will mourn the passing of wet film.
>
> Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to what
> can be printed from digital.

for no good reason.

anything that can be done with film and paper can be done with digital
a whole lot better, and the old look can be emulated if that's really
what they want.

the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
technology.

> And far more who think the archival qualities
> are superior to digital at the moment.

those who do are very mistaken.

with digital, you can make unlimited perfect copies forever. with
analog you cannot. every 'backup' (which isn't a backup at all) is
lossy.

with offsite backups, you won't lose any images if your house burns
down. there's an identical copy elsewhere. the more offsite backups,
the better.

plus, as computers and software improves, so do the images. for
instance, noise reduction gets better, so those old images taken with
what are now considered noisy sensors look better than they did before.

> That may change,

the only thing that will change is that those who think film is more
archival realize they are mistaken.

digital is and will always be more archival.

> but the nostalgia
> won't.

it will when those who are nostalgic move on to the great darkroom in
the sky.

> Even though there is *nothing* superior about vinyl, many still
> prefer the ritual.

digital could be configured to stop every 20 minutes to 'flip' the
record, and maybe put a motion sensor in the floor so if you dance to
the music a bit too enthusiastically, the record skips.

the only good thing about vinyl is the cover art was 12" and not 5".

> And many will still get a kick out of watching an image
> appear under the safelight. (for as long as they can get paper and chemicals
> anyway!)

that can be emulated digitally.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"PeterN" <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:51899567$0$10844$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...

You would not drape a lace curtain in front of an old master.

>
> --
> PeterN

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Doug McDonald" <jdmc...@illinois.edu> wrote in message
news:kmc51a$i9i$1...@dont-email.me...

Well class B is a very old design, I remember reading about it as a kid in
th sixties, OTOH you can do class B using transistors.

>
> Doug McDonald
>

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:PvednX8r77e--hTM...@giganews.com...

> On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
>> On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
>>> misplaces
>>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
>>> mourn the
>>> passing of wet film.
>>>
>>>
>> Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
>> the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
>> There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
>> sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
>> amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
>> valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
>> to replicate the look of film.
>
>
> The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
> smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range whereas
> transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the "push"
> transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a class B
> amplifier).

Doh! you normally bias transistors, so it doesn't go -10V to +10V, but +5V
to +25V.

Valve amps do demonstate tonality and high [thermal] noise.

Transistors were adopted in amps (and much else) because they outperformed
valves on linearity / distortion, frequency response, reliability, noise,
size, energy consumption and last but by no means least cost.

Example - a basic EF81 (AF valve) was over �1 retail in 1973, when they were
still in mass production - that is about �11 ($16) today. Even now an
equivalent transistor would cost less than a dollar and out perform it in
every way.

>
> That discontinuity in transistor based circuits is audible to about
> 1/1000th of a percent of listeners. IOW, even "audiophiles" <cough> with
> the best trained ears would fail to pick it out in an ABX test.
>
> Anything related to the "tone" can be done in analog or digital circuits -
> more so in processing.
>
>
> --
> "A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."

but has never actually done it.
OTOH a Brit can do it standing up...
> -Pierre Berton

[Whisky-dave]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:27:02 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <kmcgpk$oa7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
>
> > > misplaces preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak
>
> > > will mourn the passing of wet film.
>
> >
>
> > Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to what
>
> > can be printed from digital.
>
>
>
> for no good reason.

Other than it's not repeatable as easily as digital is, part of the charm is having to get it right. I have say 12 shots on 120 film to get what you want is rather more challenging than taking 5,000 inages on a 16GB card and sifting through them for the 'best'.

> anything that can be done with film and paper can be done with digital
>
> a whole lot better, and the old look can be emulated if that's really
>
> what they want.

I remmber doing solarization in a darkroom, it felt liek I was actually achiving something special, I don't get that filing by going to a filter menu, it hardley seems like doing nowadays.

> the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
>
> technology.

I miss the taste of hypo when I used to syphon it back from the tray to the bottle, not forgetting the smell of processing cibrachrome in a drum and the excitment of adding the neutralizing chemcal to make the it 'safe' to pour down the sink.

>
> with digital, you can make unlimited perfect copies forever. with
>
> analog you cannot. every 'backup' (which isn't a backup at all) is
>
> lossy.

Which in some way is a shame, but at least with digital we can all have the mona lisa hanging in our toilet, whether thats a good thing on not I'm not sure.

> with offsite backups, you won't lose any images if your house burns
>
> down. there's an identical copy elsewhere. the more offsite backups,
>
> the better.

Sometimes what makes a thing worth while is it uniqueness and individuality.

> plus, as computers and software improves, so do the images.

Images maybe but does the actual content.

> > Even though there is *nothing* superior about vinyl, many still
>
> > prefer the ritual.
>
>
>
> digital could be configured to stop every 20 minutes to 'flip'

it would have to be semi-random as not every album needed flipping after 20mins.

> the
>
> record, and maybe put a motion sensor in the floor so if you dance to
>
> the music a bit too enthusiastically, the record skips.

Equally you can;t throw a MP3 away in distgust, but I've broken a few records before. Ypou couild simulate it but it's not quite the same.
You'll also miss the terms like a "broken record or skipping.

>
> the only good thing about vinyl is the cover art was 12" and not 5".

for me digital art is measure in teh number of bytes the end, youm also forgot about gatefold and shapped and coloured vinyl. I doubt MP3 will ever have any real value or raratuy maybe that's a good thing.

> > And many will still get a kick out of watching an image
>
> > appear under the safelight. (for as long as they can get paper and chemicals
>
> > anyway!)
>
>
>
> that can be emulated digitally.

I want to get rid of this old style digital technology and replace it with bio-feedback circutry, we won't need cameras then of cards just imagine the picture you want and you'll be able to see it, no need to print it out or even project it.

Personally I can't wait for holodeck technology, but I guess they be those still wanting 'real sex' ;-)

[Me]

Some still are in mass production - perhaps just not in the kind of
volume as 50 years ago, ie:
http://www.jj-electronic.com/
There are also makers in Russia and China.
>
>
It's moved on a bit recently too, with class D amps setting efficiency
standards, increased efficiency means less heat, smaller size. For large
concert PA systems - this type of audio amp may be used these days:
http://www.powersoft-audio.com/en/products/touring-amplifiers/k-series/k20.html
2 x 9000w in a small rack mount unit, 12kg weight.
(but you can almost guarantee that the guitarist will still be using his
valve amp, miked in to the PA)

[David J. Littleboy]

"Me" wrote:
>On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
>>
>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
>> misplaces
>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will mourn
>> the
>> passing of wet film.
>>
>>
>Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still the
>standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).

Count me as a guitarist who thinks said preference is misplaced. I've owned
a lot of amps, tube and solid state, and the tube amps have all been noisy,
ugly of sound, heavy, and a pain in the butt. Of course, I'm into a clean
sound and my "effects chain" consists of just a single cable between guitar
and amp. The folks who hate the sound of their guitar (i.e. use effects) and
love ugly sounds like tube amps.

The cabinets and speakers used are way more important than the amplifier.
But there aren't a lot of other guitarists with degrees in EE. (One place I
play has a solid state pedal steel guitar amp with a 15" speaker; my guitar
(a hand-made Gibson L-4 equivalent) sounds insanely wonderful through it,
despite the player.)

>There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
>sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling amps"
>(solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of valve amps.
>It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc, to replicate the
>look of film.

Yes. But as of this month, Fujifilm is still making film (including both
Velvia 50 and Velvia 100), and has even released a new ISO 400 color
negative film.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

[PeterN]

On 5/8/2013 12:27 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <kmcgpk$oa7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
>>> misplaces preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak
>>> will mourn the passing of wet film.
>>
>> Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to what
>> can be printed from digital.
>
> for no good reason.
>
> anything that can be done with film and paper can be done with digital
> a whole lot better, and the old look can be emulated if that's really
> what they want.
>
> the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
> technology.

I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
the gross inaccuracy of your statement.


--
PeterN

[PeterN]

No! But our Department of Justice did, to the tune of eight thousand
dollars.

<http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/29/statues.htm>

What is wrong with the use of filters to create art.

--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <518a6438$0$10808$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
> >>> misplaces preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak
> >>> will mourn the passing of wet film.
> >>
> >> Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to what
> >> can be printed from digital.
> >
> > for no good reason.
> >
> > anything that can be done with film and paper can be done with digital
> > a whole lot better, and the old look can be emulated if that's really
> > what they want.
> >
> > the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
> > technology.
>
> I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
> the gross inaccuracy of your statement.

go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.

there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
proven. it is not a matter of opinion.

digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
goes on, the difference will get bigger.

digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
results.

if someone wants a 'film look,' they can duplicate it digitally. they
can add back grain or match what kodachrome or velvia would have done
or whatever else is needed to match their favourite film. there are
plug-ins that do this automatically with a couple of clicks, or it can
be done manually. or do both, run the plug-in then tweak it some more.
the possibilities are endless.

or, they can decide to stay with the higher quality of digital and not
intentionally make the image worse.

[nospam]

In article <00981ef8-a3e2-4a66...@googlegroups.com>,

Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to
> > > what
> >
> > > can be printed from digital.
> >
> > for no good reason.
>
> Other than it's not repeatable as easily as digital is, part of the charm is
> having to get it right. I have say 12 shots on 120 film to get what you want
> is rather more challenging than taking 5,000 inages on a 16GB card and
> sifting through them for the 'best'.

you can limit yourself to just 12 shots on digital if you want. buy a
really small memory card if you can't just stop at 12.

> > the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
> > technology.
>
> I miss the taste of hypo when I used to syphon it back from the tray to the
> bottle, not forgetting the smell of processing cibrachrome in a drum and the
> excitment of adding the neutralizing chemcal to make the it 'safe' to pour
> down the sink.

cibachrome had a pretty nasty smell. i don't miss any of that.

> > with offsite backups, you won't lose any images if your house burns
> > down. there's an identical copy elsewhere. the more offsite backups,
> > the better.
>
> Sometimes what makes a thing worth while is it uniqueness and individuality.

not when it comes to backups, it isn't.

> > > Even though there is *nothing* superior about vinyl, many still
> > > prefer the ritual.
> >
> > digital could be configured to stop every 20 minutes to 'flip'
>
> it would have to be semi-random as not every album needed flipping after
> 20mins.

an lp record was about 20 minutes per side. some were a little more,
some were a little less.

the point is you can put a break at exactly the same place as it was on
a record.

[PeterN]

On 5/8/2013 1:10 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <518a6438$0$10808$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<snip>

>>> the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
>>> technology.
>>
>> I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
>> the gross inaccuracy of your statement.
>
> go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.
>
> there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
> proven. it is not a matter of opinion.

When will you be in New York. Or perhaps Downeast in Maine?

BTW Your statement was

"the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
technology."

When you let me know who you are and when you are available, I will make
a proper introduction.

>
> digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
> goes on, the difference will get bigger.
>
> digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
> colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
> batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
> it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
> results.

Not the issue - see above


--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <518a960c$0$10823$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>> the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
> >>> technology.
> >>
> >> I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
> >> the gross inaccuracy of your statement.
> >
> > go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.
> >
> > there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
> > proven. it is not a matter of opinion.
>
> When will you be in New York. Or perhaps Downeast in Maine?
>
> BTW Your statement was
> "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
> technology."
>
> When you let me know who you are and when you are available, I will make
> a proper introduction.
>
> > digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
> > goes on, the difference will get bigger.
> >
> > digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
> > colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
> > batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
> > it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
> > results.
>
> Not the issue - see above

it's *exactly* the issue.

the film luddites think there's something magical about film. there is
not. all of its characteristics can be modeled digitally, whatever film
it happens to be.

the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
software.

[PeterN]

Stop shape shifting.
You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to
accept new technology." I called you on it. Now when do you want to meet
real people who do not fit your classification.

that is the sole issue.
--
PeterN

[R. Mark Clayton]

"PeterN" <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:518a661f$0$10752$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...

> On 5/8/2013 5:36 AM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> "PeterN" <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote in message

SNIP

>>
>> You would not drape a lace curtain in front of an old master.
>>
>
> No! But our Department of Justice did, to the tune of eight thousand
> dollars.
>
> <http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/29/statues.htm>
>
> What is wrong with the use of filters to create art.

Nothing, but don't pretend that inferior technology is better.

>
> --
> PeterN

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Me" <anywh...@here.com> wrote in message
news:kmddkj$1bv$1...@news.albasani.net...

No doubt - quite a good design IIRC.

>>
>>
> It's moved on a bit recently too, with class D amps setting efficiency
> standards, increased efficiency means less heat, smaller size. For large
> concert PA systems - this type of audio amp may be used these days:
> http://www.powersoft-audio.com/en/products/touring-amplifiers/k-series/k20.html
> 2 x 9000w in a small rack mount unit, 12kg weight.
> (but you can almost guarantee that the guitarist will still be using his
> valve amp, miked in to the PA)

My partner worried when I bought a Sony AV amp (7x100W) - note sure what she
would make of 18kW!

>

[R. Mark Clayton]

"PeterN" <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:518aaa9f$0$10819$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...

> On 5/8/2013 2:33 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <518a960c$0$10823$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
>> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>

SNIP

>>
>> the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
>> films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
>> software.
>>
>
> Stop shape shifting.
> You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept
> new technology." I called you on it. Now when do you want to meet real
> people who do not fit your classification.

Peter is basically right. There may be a few niches left for film (X-rays
for instance, but even then...), but essentially almost all who still use
film do so because they are set in their ways or they have not got around to
buying new equipment yet.

Again, when I was a kid in the sixties I used to be able to tell which
pictures in National Geographic were Kodachrome and which Ektachrome just by
looking and this was after process colour printing. Even with the highest
standards of professional shooting and production there was a big colour
cast on both (slate grey / blue on the former; orangy red on the latter).
Sure film has improved since then, but has now been completely overhauled by
digital.

Similarly in the late 1980's I could tell when Signal Radio was playing CD's
by ear as I drove along the M6 because the sound quality was so much better.
This was despite the fact that Signal obviously had top quality vinyl decks,
it had a radio segment and was playing in my relatively noisy car.

On my home system it is easy to forget and leave the amp is on because the
noise level is so low with no signal you just can't hear it. There would be
[intrusive] audible hiss from a valve amp.

People who think vinyl is better than CD, valves amps are better than
transistor and since fairly recently film is better than digital are just
deluding themselves.

These are the same suckers who buy silver speaker leads and $100+ [even
digital] interconnects...

[George Kerby]

On 5/8/13 6:16 AM, in article
00981ef8-a3e2-4a66...@googlegroups.com, "Whisky-dave"

So, you are also a member of the Brown Fingernail Society, eh?!?

[Me]

On 9/05/2013 12:29 a.m., David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> "Me" wrote:
>> On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
>>> misplaces
>>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
>>> mourn the
>>> passing of wet film.
>>>
>>>
>> Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
>> the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
>
> Count me as a guitarist who thinks said preference is misplaced. I've
> owned a lot of amps, tube and solid state, and the tube amps have all
> been noisy, ugly of sound, heavy, and a pain in the butt. Of course, I'm
> into a clean sound and my "effects chain" consists of just a single
> cable between guitar and amp. The folks who hate the sound of their
> guitar (i.e. use effects) and love ugly sounds like tube amps.

Hold on a minute...
Whoops - you just accused (with very few exceptions) the (electric)
guitarists featuring in practically every top 100 list of rock / pop /
blues / jazz musicians, of "hating the ugly sound" of the equipment that
they use.
As I mentioned in another post, SS amps are used for clean sound,
sometimes jazz, blues, steel guitar etc. I've got an example here (my
son's) from the '80s, a SS stereo chorus 2 x 12" combo, ideal for that
kind of thing. But for tone, it sucks big time compared with a small
1x12 valve combo amp, at half the size and weight. He's performed at
gigs using the valve amp miked to large PAs (support band - I insist
that he gets a day job before ever committing to the idea of performing
music for money) . No - he doesn't play heavily distorted metal, but
blues and country influenced rock. (He plays the banjo as well).
The tube amp he normally uses has the same set of tubes as when he
bought it new about 3 years ago.

[nospam]

In article <518aaa9f$0$10819$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

you did not call me on anything nor am i shape shifting.

> Now when do you want to meet
> real people who do not fit your classification.

i have no immediate plans to go to new york. maybe photo plus next fall.

> that is the sole issue.

your inability to understand basic english is the issue, along with
being an argumentative twit.

[nospam]

In article <TJGdnTv0O8VmMhfM...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton

<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> >> the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
> >> films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
> >> software.
> >
> > Stop shape shifting.
> > You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept
> > new technology." I called you on it. Now when do you want to meet real
> > people who do not fit your classification.
>
> Peter is basically right. There may be a few niches left for film (X-rays
> for instance, but even then...),

x-ray is not what this is about, but even that has gone digital.

digital x-ray is faster, uses lower power x-rays which is safer for the
patient and the technician, has lower storage costs and is easier to
manage. it can also be instantly sent to another doctor anywhere in the
world.

> but essentially almost all who still use
> film do so because they are set in their ways or they have not got around to
> buying new equipment yet.

that's exactly what i said. they aren't embracing new technology.

some claim film looks better, but whatever film look they like can be
done in software, so that excuse won't fly.

> Again, when I was a kid in the sixties I used to be able to tell which
> pictures in National Geographic were Kodachrome and which Ektachrome just by
> looking and this was after process colour printing. Even with the highest
> standards of professional shooting and production there was a big colour
> cast on both (slate grey / blue on the former; orangy red on the latter).

how do you know if you were right? did it say in the magazine which
film they used?

> Sure film has improved since then, but has now been completely overhauled by
> digital.

exactly.

the film luddites refuse to acknowledge this.

> Similarly in the late 1980's I could tell when Signal Radio was playing CD's
> by ear as I drove along the M6 because the sound quality was so much better.
> This was despite the fact that Signal obviously had top quality vinyl decks,
> it had a radio segment and was playing in my relatively noisy car.
>
> On my home system it is easy to forget and leave the amp is on because the
> noise level is so low with no signal you just can't hear it. There would be
> [intrusive] audible hiss from a valve amp.
>
> People who think vinyl is better than CD, valves amps are better than
> transistor and since fairly recently film is better than digital are just
> deluding themselves.

yep, and sometimes it's funny how far they'll go to rationalize it.

> These are the same suckers who buy silver speaker leads and $100+ [even
> digital] interconnects...

that's nothing.

i've seen $300 usb cables and $500 ethernet cables, the latter which
has directional arrows on it so it's not plugged in backwards.
apparently, network packets only go in one direction. who knew. it's a
good thing usb cables have different plugs on either end so you can't
plug it in backwards.

but none of that matters until you replace the power cables.

<http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2011/nov/power-cable.cfm>
An audio power cable costing over �20,000 has been described as "the
most advanced cable technology ever developed"

that's over $31k as of right now. for a power cable.

for some reason, the regular wire inside the walls of the house, out to
the pole and the miles back to the power company don't need to be
replaced.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.07 20:11 , Doug McDonald wrote:
> On 5/7/2013 3:42 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> >
> > The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
> > smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
> > whereas transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the
> > "push" transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a
> > class B amplifier).
> >
> > That discontinuity in transistor based circuits is audible to about
> > 1/1000th of a percent of listeners.
> Uh ... class A versus class B has NOTHING to do with tube versus solid
> state.

I was comparing tube amps to class B. I never brought up class A.

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."

-Pierre Berton

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.08 06:04 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>> On 5/7/2013 3:42 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>> The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
>>> smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
>>> whereas transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the
>>> "push" transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a
>>> class B amplifier).
>>>
>>> That discontinuity in transistor based circuits is audible to about
>>> 1/1000th of a percent of listeners.

> Well class B is a very old design, I remember reading about it as a kid in
> th sixties, OTOH you can do class B using transistors.

It's a practical, long lived design. A compromise that works very well
and efficiently in all respects.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.07 22:53 , Me wrote:
> On 8/05/2013 8:42 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
>>> On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
>>>> misplaces
>>>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
>>>> mourn the
>>>> passing of wet film.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
>>> the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
>>> There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
>>> sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
>>> amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
>>> valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
>>> to replicate the look of film.
>>
>>
>> The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is <snip>
> No.

Yes. Precisely as described. Crossover distortion between the -ve and
+ve sides of the circuit has always been the chief criticism of class B
amps. Not that Joe Consumer or Audi O'Phile can hear it.

> But I think you'll find that professional performers almost unanimously
> use valve amps that they favour - I doubt that Eric Clapton for example
> would have much real interest in performing with a modelling (DSP) amp
> on which he can flick a knob to change tone to sound like Joe Satriani's
> setup one minute, Stevie Ray Vaughn the next, then flick back to the
> Eric Clapton setup DSP preset.

Many musicians experiment with new sounds over time and that includes
emulating or experimenting with the sounds of other musicians. Not
necessarily to copy in performance but as part of a voyage somewhere
else. It's part of the creative process and discovery.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.08 06:16 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:PvednX8r77e--hTM...@giganews.com...
>> On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
>>> On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
>>>> misplaces
>>>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
>>>> mourn the
>>>> passing of wet film.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
>>> the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
>>> There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
>>> sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
>>> amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
>>> valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
>>> to replicate the look of film.
>>
>>
>> The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
>> smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range whereas
>> transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the "push"
>> transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a class B
>> amplifier).
>
> Doh! you normally bias transistors, so it doesn't go -10V to +10V, but +5V
> to +25V.

That would be a class A amplifier. Very energy inefficient.


A class B amp has, essentially, 2 identical circuits, one "pulling" and
one "pushing". Here's a conceptual circuit for you with the current
flow marked and the crossover distortion illustrated.

http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/amplifier/amp_6.html

Pay attention to the "waveforms" at the output.

(And you don't need that transformer - indeed you don't want it).

>
> Valve amps do demonstate tonality and high [thermal] noise.
>
> Transistors were adopted in amps (and much else) because they outperformed
> valves on linearity / distortion, frequency response, reliability, noise,
> size, energy consumption and last but by no means least cost.

I'm not debating the advantages of transistors, only pointing out the
sole true weakness of a class B amplifier v. a tube amplifier, eg:
crossover distortion at 0 V between the -ve and -ve circuits.

Very old issue.

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."

-Pierre Berton

[Eric Stevens]

Many years ago Dr Leak used 12W to generate the same sound pressure
level in the Royal Festival Hall as the hall organ. Mind you, he had
some enormous speakers.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Tony Cooper]

Typical of nospam not to understand that the preference is based on
the process and not the result. He must think that a woodworker who
lovingly makes a table in his workshop is someone who refuses to
accept new technology because he won't buy a mass produced table from
Rooms To Go.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.08 16:05 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:

> These are the same suckers who buy silver speaker leads and $100+ [even
> digital] interconnects...

If you dig around you can find a story about some audiophiles having an
epic fail when coat hangers were used in lieu of some high end speaker
cable in an ABX test.

[nospam]

In article <WZ-dnZg4NPtVVhfM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> > These are the same suckers who buy silver speaker leads and $100+ [even
> > digital] interconnects...
>
> If you dig around you can find a story about some audiophiles having an
> epic fail when coat hangers were used in lieu of some high end speaker
> cable in an ABX test.

i bookmarked that long ago.

<http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-
between-monster-cable-and/>

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message

news:jcmdneFL25r4XxfM...@giganews.com...

> On 2013.05.08 06:16 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:PvednX8r77e--hTM...@giganews.com...

>>> The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
>>> smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
>>> whereas
>>> transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the "push"
>>> transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a class B
>>> amplifier).
>>
>> Doh! you normally bias transistors, so it doesn't go -10V to +10V, but
>> +5V
>> to +25V.
>
> That would be a class A amplifier. Very energy inefficient.
>

Well at low output anyway, probably not a big deal with a basic TV or radio
outputting a watt or two.

>
> A class B amp has, essentially, 2 identical circuits, one "pulling" and
> one "pushing". Here's a conceptual circuit for you with the current flow
> marked and the crossover distortion illustrated.
>
> http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/amplifier/amp_6.html
>
> Pay attention to the "waveforms" at the output.
>
> (And you don't need that transformer - indeed you don't want it).

Usually is a feature in class B though. The trouble with the
transformerless design in your article is getting NPN and PNP transistors
with matching parameters was near hopeless.

>
>
>>
>> Valve amps do demonstate tonality and high [thermal] noise.
>>
>> Transistors were adopted in amps (and much else) because they
>> outperformed
>> valves on linearity / distortion, frequency response, reliability, noise,
>> size, energy consumption and last but by no means least cost.
>
> I'm not debating the advantages of transistors, only pointing out the sole
> true weakness of a class B amplifier v. a tube amplifier, eg: crossover
> distortion at 0 V between the -ve and -ve circuits.

Very slight compared to the soft clipping in a valve amp (this is the
[distorted] sound valve amp lovers like). Of course over-drive a transistor
amp and the clipping is vile.

[Me]

On 9/05/2013 9:18 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2013.05.07 22:53 , Me wrote:
>> On 8/05/2013 8:42 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
>>>> On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
>>>>> misplaces
>>>>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
>>>>> mourn the
>>>>> passing of wet film.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
>>>> the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
>>>> There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
>>>> sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
>>>> amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
>>>> valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
>>>> to replicate the look of film.
>>>
>>>
>>> The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is <snip>
>> No.
>
> Yes. Precisely as described. Crossover distortion between the -ve and
> +ve sides of the circuit has always been the chief criticism of class B
> amps. Not that Joe Consumer or Audi O'Phile can hear it.
>

No, the precise reason why valve amps are preferred over solid state for
electric guitar amplification is not linearity at < X% THD level, but
the characteristic of distortion when the amplifier is (deliberately)
over-driven - past the point of signal clipping.
Your argument may have merit for discussion about "hifi" applications,
but until recently (using DSP - in "modelling amps" which I referred
to), clipping from over-driven class AB or B SS amps have completely
undesirable harmonics, as well as typically a bias / asymmetry in
waveform leading to equipment damaging effects (DC burn of speaker voice
coils).

>
>> But I think you'll find that professional performers almost unanimously
>> use valve amps that they favour - I doubt that Eric Clapton for example
>> would have much real interest in performing with a modelling (DSP) amp
>> on which he can flick a knob to change tone to sound like Joe Satriani's
>> setup one minute, Stevie Ray Vaughn the next, then flick back to the
>> Eric Clapton setup DSP preset.
>
> Many musicians experiment with new sounds over time and that includes
> emulating or experimenting with the sounds of other musicians. Not
> necessarily to copy in performance but as part of a voyage somewhere
> else. It's part of the creative process and discovery.
>

Sure. I expect that if you were to design an instrument based on the
needs behind the creation of original violins or pianos, but using 2013
materials and technology, then you'd come up with a result completely
different from what most people would consider to be a piano or violin.
It could be "better" technically - but it probably wouldn't be
considered to be be a violin as such, and a musician would still likely
covet a stradivarius - not just for "investment value".
The history may be shorter (but getting close to a century now) for
electric guitar rigs (which include amplification), but the same things
apply. There is evolution, but not revolution there. Solid state guitar
amps are an alternative (but not a replacement).
Revolution might be something like "autotune" as used by singers who
can't hold a note (ie they can't sing). That's allowed the truly
talentless to prosper - a tragic outcome IMO.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.08 18:44 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:jcmdneFL25r4XxfM...@giganews.com...
>> On 2013.05.08 06:16 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:PvednX8r77e--hTM...@giganews.com...
>
>>>> The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
>>>> smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
>>>> whereas
>>>> transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the "push"
>>>> transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a class B
>>>> amplifier).
>>>
>>> Doh! you normally bias transistors, so it doesn't go -10V to +10V, but
>>> +5V
>>> to +25V.
>>
>> That would be a class A amplifier. Very energy inefficient.
>>
>
> Well at low output anyway, probably not a big deal with a basic TV or radio
> outputting a watt or two.

At any output. It's always driving. I seem to recall somewhere
something saying it uses as a _minimum_ 2x as much power as a class B
arrangement - and probably a bit more (headroom?).

A class B "push" is 0 current during the "pull" and v-v. No energy
(almost) is being used on the 0 current side.

>>
>> A class B amp has, essentially, 2 identical circuits, one "pulling" and
>> one "pushing". Here's a conceptual circuit for you with the current flow
>> marked and the crossover distortion illustrated.
>>
>> http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/amplifier/amp_6.html
>>
>> Pay attention to the "waveforms" at the output.
>>
>> (And you don't need that transformer - indeed you don't want it).
>
> Usually is a feature in class B though. The trouble with the
> transformerless design in your article is getting NPN and PNP transistors
> with matching parameters was near hopeless.

That 'design' is a tutorial.

My class B amp has that design (in principle) and of course no
transformer at all. (Transformers bring all sorts of other issues from
20 to 20,000 Hz).

There is a BFR (R=resistor) which I assume soaks up the DC during the
transient. Can't be much current at that point in the cycle.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:080520131703026234%nos...@nospam.invalid...

> In article <TJGdnTv0O8VmMhfM...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
> <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> >> the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
>> >> films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
>> >> software.
>> >
>> > Stop shape shifting.
>> > You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to
>> > accept
>> > new technology." I called you on it. Now when do you want to meet real
>> > people who do not fit your classification.
>>
>> Peter is basically right. There may be a few niches left for film
>> (X-rays
>> for instance, but even then...),
>
> x-ray is not what this is about, but even that has gone digital.
>
> digital x-ray is faster, uses lower power x-rays which is safer for the
> patient and the technician, has lower storage costs and is easier to
> manage. it can also be instantly sent to another doctor anywhere in the
> world.

Indeed - making the point perfectly. The only issue I would anticipate is
the X-rays gradually ruining the sensor.

>
>> but essentially almost all who still use
>> film do so because they are set in their ways or they have not got around
>> to
>> buying new equipment yet.
>
> that's exactly what i said. they aren't embracing new technology.
>
> some claim film looks better, but whatever film look they like can be
> done in software, so that excuse won't fly.
>
>> Again, when I was a kid in the sixties I used to be able to tell which
>> pictures in National Geographic were Kodachrome and which Ektachrome just
>> by
>> looking and this was after process colour printing. Even with the
>> highest
>> standards of professional shooting and production there was a big colour
>> cast on both (slate grey / blue on the former; orangy red on the latter).
>
> how do you know if you were right? did it say in the magazine which
> film they used?

Indeed they did - that was how I noticed and was then able to check by
looking at the acknowledgement.

Oh yes and you need $$$$ digital interconnects too. Funnily enough my phone
company manages to deliver 8Mbps though miles of thin corroded and often
submerged aluminium phone cable, with half a dozen rubbish joints from their
50yo exchange with a BERR of about one a week, which of course gets
corrected. True if I want 80Mbps they will run fibre to within a few
hundred metres. For domestic hi-fi this means that HDMI cables from the
pound shop are just fine.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Tony Cooper" <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:liilo81ila3ei1hvh...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 08 May 2013 14:14:44 -0400, PeterN
> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On 5/8/2013 1:10 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <518a6438$0$10808$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
>

> Typical of nospam not to understand that the preference is based on
> the process and not the result. He must think that a woodworker who
> lovingly makes a table in his workshop is someone who refuses to
> accept new technology because he won't buy a mass produced table from
> Rooms To Go.

This might be true for something hand crafted with aesthetic qualities, like
a table.

It is not true for items with technical perfomance issues - like a car.

Time was hand crafted cars like Rolls Royce, Bentley and Aston Martin were
seen as the best. By the 1980's they had been overtaken (figuratively and
lterally) by mass produced top end cars like BMW, Audi and Mercedes. All
these grand marques are now owned by big makers and whilst the leather seats
and wooden dash boards might still be made by loving craftsmen, the engines
and running gear are made by engineers in factories.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:080520131810500289%nos...@nospam.invalid...

Indeed one of the more sensible Hi-Fi mags tested regular mains cable
against a group of expensive speaker cables. Virtually no difference. I
did use [cheap] chunky speaker cable for my mains, but at full pelt they can
be carrying quite a lot of current (10A+).

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.08 18:52 , Me wrote:
>>
> No, the precise reason why valve amps are preferred over solid state for
> electric guitar amplification is not linearity at < X% THD level, but
> the characteristic of distortion when the amplifier is (deliberately)
> over-driven - past the point of signal clipping.

Got it. But I look at amps from the POV of music playback, not
point-of-performance. In that sense the sole advantage of a tube amp is
the continuous transition. (Class A transistor amps too, I suppose, but
they are rather out of vogue).

I don't know how well tube amps are wrt to noise these days. I'll have
to wander across the street to my richer neighbor and play with his
system one day using some good CD's. (And CD is good enough for me).

Every time I hear a tube amp I can hear a hum.

On Stevie Ray Vaughn's last album, on Little Wing, the hum from the amps
is audible. A credit to using the raw recordings, but irritating.

[Doug McDonald]

>
> the film luddites think there's something magical about film. there is
> not. all of its characteristics can be modeled digitally, whatever film
> it happens to be.
>
> the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
> films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
> software.
>

You may be right about film. I won't argue.

But I will about B&W prints. There as aspects of silver ... not
to even include platinum or palladium or gold ... that cannot be
duplicated. Certain types of papers have reflection characteristics that
cannot be duplicated without metals in the emulsion. Of course,
digital images can be printed on those papers.

Doug McDonald

[Doug McDonald]

On 5/8/2013 5:44 PM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>>
>> I'm not debating the advantages of transistors, only pointing out the sole
>> true weakness of a class B amplifier v. a tube amplifier,

But that is like comparing a tube amplifier to a tube amplifier!

Or a solid state amplifier to a solid state amplifier!


"tube" versus "class B" is meaningless ... you are not specifyin the
class of the tube amp!

Is it class A, class AB1, class B or even class C?
(you really can't use class C for audio without modulation, in which
case its called "class D".
)


Tube does NOT imply that it isn't class B!!!
In fact amps exceedingly close if not actually class B were at one time
used to mudulate (a typo, but I think I'll leave it in!) AM radio
transmitters. The efficiency gain was important at megawatt power levels.

Doug McDonald

[Me]

Yup - hum is pretty normal and probably exacerbated by high gain setting
from the preamp section, as well as (probably) the amps SRV would have
used probably would have had "tank" reverbs (old-fashioned springs
between two audio transducers - a sender and receiver - still in common
use today), and also IIRC SRV played a standard fender strat with single
coil pickups (as opposed to dual "humbucker" pickups) and wait there's
more - the standard guitar cable and amp input sockets are old style 2
wire (shielded) phono connector with unbalanced signal, even though
balanced signal has been pretty much standard (using TRS phono sockets
or xlr) for other instrument and microphone signal cables for a long
time, with the result being able to do much longer runs of cable, with
much less noise.

I'm using a small "tri-amped" active speaker system as a home hifi
system ATM. In this case, class D for subs and main drivers, class AB
amps for the HF drivers, connected through a small mixer by balanced
XLR. It is phenomenally loud in a domestic setting, "only" about 2000
watts, but claimed maximum SPL is approaching 130dB at 1 metre. At full
volume (only ever used for demo purposes and to /really/ get the
neighbours upset <G>) There's no hum I can hear, but a very faint hiss
which isn't coming from the power amp circuits but the mixer (if I turn
the master gain down, then the hiss disappears). Unlike old-style small
PAs, it sounds excellent at lower volume and the close listening
distances in a typical house. I put most of this down to DSP, with
digital x-over at a very high 28dB/octave, built in digital delay
between drivers to avoid phase difference issues, and pre-set DSP
correction of spectral non-linearity of speaker response. This is not
high-end, but relatively middle of the road equipment (Mackie), in the
same sort of market as JBL etc.
It is however pretty ugly and industrial. It is also a "hifi purist's"
worst nightmare - especially those who believe that small low powered
amps can faithfully reproduce rock music - as it was meant to be heard.

[J. Clarke]

In article <E7mdnWkDndRLRRfM...@bt.com>,
nospam...@btinternet.com says...

It's rather sad that the job market has declined to the point where
engineers have to work on production lines, however you really need to
explain what underemployment has to do with product quality.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Me <anywh...@here.com> wrote:

> But I think you'll find that professional performers almost unanimously
> use valve amps that they favour - I doubt that Eric Clapton for example
> would have much real interest in performing with a modelling (DSP) amp
> on which he can flick a knob to change tone to sound like Joe Satriani's
> setup one minute, Stevie Ray Vaughn the next, then flick back to the
> Eric Clapton setup DSP preset.

Of course. Art is often made to be hard. "Hand painted",
for example. Costs more and usually is of lesser quality than
proper manufacturing techniques (or is way more expensive).

But is sells ...

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> add distortion for that 'warm tube sound'.

> add grain/noise for that 'film look'. increase saturation for velvia.

> those who want accuracy don't do either.

I wasn't aware there were so many who are police photographers
recording crime scenes, or producers of facsimiles of old
paintings.

-Wolfgang

[PeterN]

On 5/8/2013 3:51 PM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "Me" <anywh...@here.com> wrote in message
> news:kmddkj$1bv$1...@news.albasani.net...

>> On 8/05/2013 10:16 p.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:PvednX8r77e--hTM...@giganews.com...

>>>> On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
>>>>> On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
>>>>>> misplaces
>>>>>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
>>>>>> mourn the
>>>>>> passing of wet film.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
>>>>> the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
>>>>> There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
>>>>> sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
>>>>> amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
>>>>> valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
>>>>> to replicate the look of film.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
>>>> smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
>>>> whereas
>>>> transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the "push"
>>>> transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a class B
>>>> amplifier).
>>>
>>> Doh! you normally bias transistors, so it doesn't go -10V to +10V, but
>>> +5V
>>> to +25V.
>>>

>>> Valve amps do demonstate tonality and high [thermal] noise.
>>>
>>> Transistors were adopted in amps (and much else) because they
>>> outperformed
>>> valves on linearity / distortion, frequency response, reliability, noise,
>>> size, energy consumption and last but by no means least cost.
>>>

>>> Example - a basic EF81 (AF valve) was over �1 retail in 1973, when they
>>> were
>>> still in mass production - that is about �11 ($16) today. Even now an
>>> equivalent transistor would cost less than a dollar and out perform it in
>>> every way.
>>>
>> Some still are in mass production - perhaps just not in the kind of volume
>> as 50 years ago, ie:
>> http://www.jj-electronic.com/
>> There are also makers in Russia and China.
>
> No doubt - quite a good design IIRC.
>
>>>
>>>
>> It's moved on a bit recently too, with class D amps setting efficiency
>> standards, increased efficiency means less heat, smaller size. For large
>> concert PA systems - this type of audio amp may be used these days:
>> http://www.powersoft-audio.com/en/products/touring-amplifiers/k-series/k20.html
>> 2 x 9000w in a small rack mount unit, 12kg weight.
>> (but you can almost guarantee that the guitarist will still be using his
>> valve amp, miked in to the PA)
>
> My partner worried when I bought a Sony AV amp (7x100W) - note sure what she
> would make of 18kW!
>

I didn't know I had such pretensions. And I don't know what you mean by
inferior technology.


--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 5/8/2013 4:05 PM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "PeterN" <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:518aaa9f$0$10819$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
>> On 5/8/2013 2:33 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <518a960c$0$10823$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
>>> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
> SNIP

>>>
>>> the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
>>> films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
>>> software.
>>>
>>

>> Stop shape shifting.
>> You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept
>> new technology." I called you on it. Now when do you want to meet real
>> people who do not fit your classification.
>
> Peter is basically right. There may be a few niches left for film (X-rays

> for instance, but even then...), but essentially almost all who still use

> film do so because they are set in their ways or they have not got around to
> buying new equipment yet.
>

> Again, when I was a kid in the sixties I used to be able to tell which
> pictures in National Geographic were Kodachrome and which Ektachrome just by
> looking and this was after process colour printing. Even with the highest
> standards of professional shooting and production there was a big colour
> cast on both (slate grey / blue on the former; orangy red on the latter).

> Sure film has improved since then, but has now been completely overhauled by
> digital.
>

I seem to recall Ecktachrome as haveing the blueish cast, and Kodachrome
as being warmer. For that reason, and its higher ASA, I used Ektachrome
for my underwater photography.

> Similarly in the late 1980's I could tell when Signal Radio was playing CD's
> by ear as I drove along the M6 because the sound quality was so much better.
> This was despite the fact that Signal obviously had top quality vinyl decks,
> it had a radio segment and was playing in my relatively noisy car.
>
> On my home system it is easy to forget and leave the amp is on because the
> noise level is so low with no signal you just can't hear it. There would be
> [intrusive] audible hiss from a valve amp.
>
> People who think vinyl is better than CD, valves amps are better than
> transistor and since fairly recently film is better than digital are just
> deluding themselves.
>

> These are the same suckers who buy silver speaker leads and $100+ [even
> digital] interconnects...
>
>
>>

>> that is the sole issue.

>> --
>> PeterN
>
>


--
PeterN

[PeterN]

Naturally, your statement would be proven wrong.

>> that is the sole issue.
>
> your inability to understand basic english is the issue, along with
> being an argumentative twit.
>

That's typical of you. When proven wrong you shift to name calling.

BTW by most standards, the word "most" has a very well understood and
BASIC meaning.

--
PeterN

[PeterN]

Wow you just hit a chord. I once made a hand inlaid chess table, out of
birch and maple. It took months. When my daughter was in grade school,
she wanted to play the cello. After renting one for the first year, I
picked up an old beat up cello that had been carelessly covered with
shellac, for $5. We spent a summer stripping the instrument to bare
wood, staining it, and hand finishing it with violin varnish. Her music
teacher commented that it was rare to see a beginning student playing
such a fine instrument, and that it was worth over a thousand dollars.
My original reason was so that my daughter would help finish the
instrument, therby having an investment in it. She kept her interest for
about seven years. But, I guess nospam would prefer a machine made
Chinese instrument.

--
PeterN

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-08 21:15:54 -0700, PeterN <peter.n...@verizon.net> said:
>
> BTW by most standards, the word "most" has a very well understood and
> BASIC meaning.

Yup! More than "some" less than "all".

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <kmeqgp$2ni$1...@dont-email.me>, Doug McDonald

print the digital image on silver based paper, as you mentioned.

in fact, that's what photofinishing shops do. the negatives are scanned
and then digitally printed on photo paper.

don't tell the film luddites though. they'll probably have a fit.

[nospam]

In article <518b22f2$0$10806$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

that would be quite the feat, because for it to be wrong, everything we
know about sampling theory, semiconductor physics and electrical
engineering would be invalidated.

nevertheless, if your buddy really thinks he can prove it, then best he
take that proof to mit. it's an easy drive from new york.

> >> that is the sole issue.
> >
> > your inability to understand basic english is the issue, along with
> > being an argumentative twit.
>
> That's typical of you. When proven wrong you shift to name calling.

you haven't proven me wrong and you are talking out your ass.

[nospam]

In article <YMidnWf5MuCqRxfM...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton

<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Indeed one of the more sensible Hi-Fi mags tested regular mains cable
> against a group of expensive speaker cables. Virtually no difference. I
> did use [cheap] chunky speaker cable for my mains, but at full pelt they can
> be carrying quite a lot of current (10A+).

i got my speaker cable at a hardware store. 14 gauge wire is 14 gauge
wire.

there's nothing special about 'audiophile cable.' it's the same stuff,
but with a nicer looking insulation and a significantly higher price.

[Chris Malcolm]

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
>> On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>
>>> There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
>>> misplaces
>>> preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
>>> mourn the
>>> passing of wet film.
>>>
>> Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
>> the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
>> There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
>> sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
>> amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
>> valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
>> to replicate the look of film.

> The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
> smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
> whereas transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the
> "push" transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a
> class B amplifier).

That's not an inherent charcteristic difference between transistor and
tube amps, it's simply a difference in the way te amplifier is
designed, e.g. class A, B, etc.. Neither device inherently can make
the +ve to -ve transistion. Tube amps managed it by simply biassing
themselves high so that the zero signal point was handled half way up
its voltage range. In the earky days of transistor amps the devices
didn't have the power to do that, so they chose to switch between
devices, one handling the +ve side, the other the -ve.

But teansistors are now powerful enough to run in the smae mode as
tube amps, i.e. with the zero signal point biassed half way up their
voltage range. And for those who care there are transistor amps made
to that design.

> That discontinuity in transistor based circuits

or tube amps operating the same mode.

> is audible to about
> 1/1000th of a percent of listeners. IOW, even "audiophiles" <cough>
> with the best trained ears would fail to pick it out in an ABX test.

> Anything related to the "tone" can be done in analog or digital circuits
> - more so in processing.

There were more differences than that. When tube amps were pushed past
their limits the distortion started rising, but it did so gracefully
and slowly. Whereas transistor amps pushed past their limits move very
rapidly into higher levels of distortion, and also a kind of
distortion which has a harsher sound. Since the loudest music tends to
be when lots of instruments (or voices) are playing at once, this
difference was most obvious as a muddying of clarity in loud
orchestral or large choir passages. Those with keen ears could also
pick up it with instruments which had very large sharp transient peaks
in the attack of their notes, such as a piano.

--
Chris Malcolm

[Chris Malcolm]

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2013.05.08 16:05 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>> These are the same suckers who buy silver speaker leads and $100+ [even
>> digital] interconnects...

> If you dig around you can find a story about some audiophiles having an
> epic fail when coat hangers were used in lieu of some high end speaker
> cable in an ABX test.

I once built a speaker comparison control box which let you switch
instantly between different speakers at the same sound level. You
could keep switching back and forth and replaying passages until you'd
clarified the differences.

I invited several interested friends around to try it out. Once I'd
got everyone seated nicely and introduced to each other I went off to
make coffee for us all. While I was off making the coffee they started
playing records and using the comparator box. When I came back with
the coffee most of them had made up their minds about the differences.
They mostly agreed with one another about the clear superiority of A
over B. One wasn't yet sure and wanted more testing. One couldn't hear
any difference.

He was right. I hadn't switched the box into the circuit yet. They'd
been flicking disconnected switches :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:24:37 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>On 2013.05.08 18:52 , Me wrote:
>>>
>> No, the precise reason why valve amps are preferred over solid state for
>> electric guitar amplification is not linearity at < X% THD level, but
>> the characteristic of distortion when the amplifier is (deliberately)
>> over-driven - past the point of signal clipping.
>
>Got it. But I look at amps from the POV of music playback, not
>point-of-performance. In that sense the sole advantage of a tube amp is
>the continuous transition. (Class A transistor amps too, I suppose, but
>they are rather out of vogue).
>
>I don't know how well tube amps are wrt to noise these days. I'll have
>to wander across the street to my richer neighbor and play with his
>system one day using some good CD's. (And CD is good enough for me).
>
>Every time I hear a tube amp I can hear a hum.

More likely an earth-loop. :-(

>
>On Stevie Ray Vaughn's last album, on Little Wing, the hum from the amps
>is audible. A credit to using the raw recordings, but irritating.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Whisky-dave]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 6:10:48 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <00981ef8-a3e2-4a66...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to
>
> > > > what
>
> > >
>
> > > > can be printed from digital.
>
> > >
>
> > > for no good reason.
>
> >
>
> > Other than it's not repeatable as easily as digital is, part of the charm is
>
> > having to get it right. I have say 12 shots on 120 film to get what you want
>
> > is rather more challenging than taking 5,000 inages on a 16GB card and
>
> > sifting through them for the 'best'.
>
>
>
> you can limit yourself to just 12 shots on digital if you want.

Yes you can delete those you don;t want seen, which isn't the same thing.

> buy a
>
> really small memory card if you can't just stop at 12.

The compition is to take 12 shots to see whether or not luck plays a part in your photography, so you give your studetns a digital camera and tehre's no way they'll cheat or buy their own card or take 1,000 pictures rather than just 12.

> > > the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
>
> > > technology.

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2012/04/why-digital-is-dead-for-me-in-street-photography/

It's not a matter of it being technically better.


> > I miss the taste of hypo when I used to syphon it back from the tray to the
>
> > bottle, not forgetting the smell of processing cibrachrome in a drum and the
>
> > excitment of adding the neutralizing chemcal to make the it 'safe' to pour
>
> > down the sink.
>
>
>
> cibachrome had a pretty nasty smell. i don't miss any of that.

I do I miss the experince of actually doing something other than pressing the shutter release, and taking it to a processor. Now the processing is all done by electronics.



> > > with offsite backups, you won't lose any images if your house burns
>
> > > down. there's an identical copy elsewhere. the more offsite backups,
>
> > > the better.
>
> >
>
> > Sometimes what makes a thing worth while is it uniqueness and individuality.
>
>
>
> not when it comes to backups, it isn't.

Even more so as a picture without a backup is worth more than one with.

Think of it this way which is worth more the original image or one of the 10,000 copies. Why are teh 'fakes' of painting worth less (generally speaking) than the original ?




> > > > Even though there is *nothing* superior about vinyl, many still
>
> > > > prefer the ritual.
>
> > >
>
> > > digital could be configured to stop every 20 minutes to 'flip'
>
> >
>
> > it would have to be semi-random as not every album needed flipping after
>
> > 20mins.
>
>
>
> an lp record was about 20 minutes per side. some were a little more,
>
> some were a little less.
>
>
>
> the point is you can put a break at exactly the same place as it was on
>
> a record.

Yep, but that doesn't turn it into a record. Sometimes the packaging is important too. I have shaped and coloured vinyl.

[nospam]

In article <eacf1ff4-0beb-4891...@googlegroups.com>,

Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Other than it's not repeatable as easily as digital is, part of the charm is
> > > having to get it right. I have say 12 shots on 120 film to get what you want
> > > is rather more challenging than taking 5,000 inages on a 16GB card and
> > > sifting through them for the 'best'.
> >
> > you can limit yourself to just 12 shots on digital if you want.
>
> Yes you can delete those you don;t want seen, which isn't the same thing.

no, you shoot *only* 12. you don't delete anything, just like you would
with a 12 exposure roll of film.

the easy way to do this is get a really tiny memory card, but with a
little discipline, you limit yourself to how many photos you take and
stop at 12 (or whatever number you decide).

> > > > the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
> > > > technology.
>
> http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2012/04/why-digital-is-dead-for-me-in-stree
> t-photography/
>
> It's not a matter of it being technically better.

that article is utter rubbish and he contradicts himself a lot.

I got my film developed and scanned when visiting Korea the month
afterward- and fell in love with my film shots from Tokyo. The depth,
soul, and the dynamic range were to die for. Shots that were blurry
or out-of-focus (that would have looked horible in digital) looked
more like beautiful mistakes in film.

that's just bullshit. 'depth and soul' is meaningless twaddle and the
dynamic range is *less* than digital. if he wants the same dynamic
range as film, he can shrink digital to match. shots that are out of
focus are just as out of focus on digital as they are on film, and they
can be blurred after the fact too, either selectively or all of it.

1. Film helps me focus more on my personal projects

no it doesn't. he says film prevents him from looking at images too
soon, either chimping or that night in lightroom, but nothing stops
anyone from waiting a few days or even months to look at the images.

2. Film helps me focus on my photography, not gear

no it doesn't. he goes on to talk about lusting after new digital
cameras. this happened with film cameras too.

3. I don�t have to worry about post-processing

you don't have to worry about that with digital. shoot jpeg or give the
memory card to someone else to process, just as you did film, and some
camera stores will do that.

4. I take fewer photographs and am more selective

nothing stops anyone from shooting fewer photos with digital. this also
contradicts his #6 claim.

5. Film isn�t going away anytime soon

not entirely, but it's becoming harder to find and harder to process.

6. I never run out of batteries/my camera is always on

not a problem with digital, especially if he wants to shoot fewer
photos, as in his #4 claim. or just carry a spare. big deal.

1000 photos per charge is not unusual. assuming 6 hours of non-stop
picture taking with no breaks for food, bathroom or anything else
(which is unlikely), that's 167 photos per hour, or about one photo
every 20 seconds. even if the camera only gets 500 photos per charge,
it's still more than one photo per minute.

he says film helps him be more selective and he wants to take fewer
photos, so the battery won't be a limiting factor. a digital camera
won't wince at 100 photos (~3 rolls of film).

he then contradicts himself again:
I am a huge fan of film point-and-shoots. Why? They are compact which
causes you to take them with you everywhere you go. In the end, you
end up taking more shots, especially in places where you want to be
more low-key (subway, bus, supermarket, etc).

wasn't the goal to take fewer photos? and cellphone cameras are *more*
compact and go more places than a regular camera would, plus they're
even lower key, as you can pretend you're making a call or checking the
weather or something.

he also makes this suggestion:
Also note when you are shooting street photograpy with film, my
suggestion is to�push your film to 1600. If you are not familiar with
pushing film, the idea is that you put in ISO 400 film into your
camera, and adjust your meter to ISO 1600. You then shoot your ISO
400 film underexposed by 2 stops, and process your film for longer to
get the correct exposure. This allows you to get a faster shutter
speed.

pushing two stops is a lot and not all places will push process it,
including the one he uses! he claims film has dynamic range to die for
but this reduces it. digital cameras don't even wince at iso 1600. they
can easily do 3200 or 6400 these days, even higher in some cameras,
giving him even faster shutter speeds.

he then goes on to say:
Also note that with film it is always better to overexpose than
underexpose. Film retains details in the highlights very well, but
don�t hold much details in the shadows.

pushing two stops is underexposing, by definition, exactly the opposite
of what he is suggesting.

he contradicts himself yet again about processing:
1) If you decide to do it yourself, make sure to google online how to
deveop your own film. You will end up saving more money, but it takes
more time. I don�t know how to do it myself yet- but I hope to learn
soon!

it might be cheaper for b/w, but not for colour processing.

2) If you decide to send it to a lab, there are a lot of choices.
Back in the states, I send my color film to Costco- they process any
color film for only $5 USD/roll, including a high-resolution scan
(roughly 3500px wide). Unfortunately they don�t do black and white
and don�t push-process.

so he doesn't know how to process himself and the place he uses for
processing won't push process, yet he recommends push processing by not
one stop, but two. um, ok.

about the only thing that he said that's valid is this:

4. Yes, I contradict myself � and pride myself in it

> > > I miss the taste of hypo when I used to syphon it back from the tray to
> > > the bottle, not forgetting the smell of processing cibrachrome in a drum and
> > > the excitment of adding the neutralizing chemcal to make the it 'safe' to pour
> > > down the sink.
> >
> > cibachrome had a pretty nasty smell. i don't miss any of that.
>
> I do I miss the experince of actually doing something other than pressing the
> shutter release, and taking it to a processor. Now the processing is all done
> by electronics.

you can spend the same time in photoshop (and likely more, because
there are so many more possibilities). if you make a mistake, you can
undo it rather than waste a sheet of paper and another 10 minutes or
whatever it takes to develop a photo. you can also experiment without
worrying about how long it will take or how much paper to use while
trying new things. it's also easier to learn with it.

> > > > with offsite backups, you won't lose any images if your house burns
> > > > down. there's an identical copy elsewhere. the more offsite backups,
> > > > the better.
> >
> > > Sometimes what makes a thing worth while is it uniqueness and
> > > individuality.
> >
> > not when it comes to backups, it isn't.
>
> Even more so as a picture without a backup is worth more than one with.
>
> Think of it this way which is worth more the original image or one of the
> 10,000 copies. Why are teh 'fakes' of painting worth less (generally
> speaking) than the original ?

they're worth less because they're fake.

a backup is not a fake nor will it be sold for a fraction of the price
of the original.

[Whisky-dave]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 4:26:21 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <eacf1ff4-0beb-4891...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Other than it's not repeatable as easily as digital is, part of the charm is
>
> > > > having to get it right. I have say 12 shots on 120 film to get what you want
>
> > > > is rather more challenging than taking 5,000 inages on a 16GB card and
>
> > > > sifting through them for the 'best'.
>
> > >
>
> > > you can limit yourself to just 12 shots on digital if you want.
>
> >
>
> > Yes you can delete those you don;t want seen, which isn't the same thing.
>
>
>
> no, you shoot *only* 12. you don't delete anything, just like you would
>
> with a 12 exposure roll of film.

No yuo are giving this project to a group of studetn the aim is to contol their shooiting and to plan ahead, you inspect each frame as an indication of planing taken. Leting them submit what they see as the best 12 of whatever number isn;t the idea.

> the easy way to do this is get a really tiny memory card, but with a
>
> little discipline, you limit yourself to how many photos you take and
>
> stop at 12 (or whatever number you decide).

NO you need to limit others......
You need to train them to trip the shutter to get a good picture not because they feel the urge to post to facearse for a like.

> > http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2012/04/why-digital-is-dead-for-me-in-stree
>
> > t-photography/
>
> >
>
> > It's not a matter of it being technically better.
>
>
>
> that article is utter rubbish and he contradicts himself a lot.
>
>
>
> I got my film developed and scanned when visiting Korea the month
>
> afterward- and fell in love with my film shots from Tokyo. The depth,
>
> soul, and the dynamic range were to die for. Shots that were blurry
>
> or out-of-focus (that would have looked horible in digital) looked
>
> more like beautiful mistakes in film.
>
>
>
> that's just bullshit. 'depth and soul' is meaningless twaddle and the
>
> dynamic range is *less* than digital. if he wants the same dynamic
>
> range as film, he can shrink digital to match. shots that are out of
>
> focus are just as out of focus on digital as they are on film, and they
>
> can be blurred after the fact too, either selectively or all of it.

Which makes digital so much easier.

> 1. Film helps me focus more on my personal projects
>
>
>
> no it doesn't. he says film prevents him from looking at images too
>
> soon, either chimping or that night in lightroom, but nothing stops
>
> anyone from waiting a few days or even months to look at the images.

Irrelivant.

>
>
>
> 2. Film helps me focus on my photography, not gear
>
>
>
> no it doesn't.

If he says it does it does.

I certaqinly think less about photography since using a digital camera.

> he goes on to talk about lusting after new digital
>
> cameras. this happened with film cameras too.

yep I agree with that, it doesn;t stop there the same thing happened with fil;m for me, when HP5 then XP1 came out.
I've yet to be as excited by a new memeory card.



> 3. I don�t have to worry about post-processing

I'm not sure what he means by that.

>
>
>
> you don't have to worry about that with digital. shoot jpeg or give the
>
> memory card to someone else to process, just as you did film, and some
>
> camera stores will do that.
>
>
>
> 4. I take fewer photographs and am more selective
>
>
>
> nothing stops anyone from shooting fewer photos with digital.

It's a psychological thing.

this also
>
> contradicts his #6 claim.
>
>
>

> 5. Film isn�t going away anytime soon

>
>
>
> not entirely, but it's becoming harder to find and harder to process.

Yes and so are old style memmory sticks.

> 6. I never run out of batteries/my camera is always on

I never ran out of them either with my practika L.

> not a problem with digital, especially if he wants to shoot fewer
>
> photos, as in his #4 claim. or just carry a spare. big deal.

I agree with that.

>
>
>
> 1000 photos per charge is not unusual. assuming 6 hours of non-stop
>
> picture taking with no breaks for food, bathroom or anything else
>
> (which is unlikely), that's 167 photos per hour, or about one photo
>
> every 20 seconds. even if the camera only gets 500 photos per charge,
>
> it's still more than one photo per minute.

That depends opnn what you're doing.

I was using a fujifil HS10 for 40mins of video and the battreis went flat they were fully charged before the filming. Now I know I'll take 8 AAs rather than just 4 .

>
>
>
> he says film helps him be more selective and he wants to take fewer
>
> photos, so the battery won't be a limiting factor. a digital camera
>
> won't wince at 100 photos (~3 rolls of film).

I don;t think taking photos usimng much power it's focusing and everything else even framing if you half press and if yuo use a EVF.

>
>
>
> he then contradicts himself again:
>
> I am a huge fan of film point-and-shoots. Why? They are compact which
>
> causes you to take them with you everywhere you go. In the end, you
>
> end up taking more shots, especially in places where you want to be
>
> more low-key (subway, bus, supermarket, etc).

He's equating a camera typoe with a specific use.

> wasn't the goal to take fewer photos? and cellphone cameras are *more*
>
> compact and go more places than a regular camera would, plus they're
>
> even lower key, as you can pretend you're making a call or checking the
>
> weather or something.

I wonder if spies use camera phones , I alsays wanted one of those 35mm miniox's when I first got intrested in cameras rather than taking photos.

>
>
>
> he also makes this suggestion:
>
> Also note when you are shooting street photograpy with film, my
>

> suggestion is to�push your film to 1600. If you are not familiar with

>
> pushing film, the idea is that you put in ISO 400 film into your
>
> camera, and adjust your meter to ISO 1600. You then shoot your ISO
>
> 400 film underexposed by 2 stops, and process your film for longer to
>
> get the correct exposure. This allows you to get a faster shutter
>
> speed.
>
>
>
> pushing two stops is a lot and not all places will push process it,

I pushed my own, use acuspeed I think.

> including the one he uses! he claims film has dynamic range to die for
>
> but this reduces it. digital cameras don't even wince at iso 1600. they
>
> can easily do 3200 or 6400 these days, even higher in some cameras,
>
> giving him even faster shutter speeds.

I ahve a poloriod 110B land camera that I think took 3200 asa

>
>
> he then goes on to say:
>
> Also note that with film it is always better to overexpose than
>
> underexpose. Film retains details in the highlights very well, but
>

> don�t hold much details in the shadows.

>
>
>
> pushing two stops is underexposing, by definition, exactly the opposite
>
> of what he is suggesting.

He's making a comment on film.

> he contradicts himself yet again about processing:
>
> 1) If you decide to do it yourself, make sure to google online how to
>
> deveop your own film. You will end up saving more money, but it takes
>

> more time. I don�t know how to do it myself yet- but I hope to learn
>
> soon!

Starnge he doens't know how to do it .

>
>
>
> it might be cheaper for b/w, but not for colour processing.

Agreed.

>
>
>
> 2) If you decide to send it to a lab, there are a lot of choices.
>
> Back in the states, I send my color film to Costco- they process any
>
> color film for only $5 USD/roll, including a high-resolution scan
>

> (roughly 3500px wide). Unfortunately they don�t do black and white
>
> and don�t push-process.

>
>
>
> so he doesn't know how to process himself and the place he uses for
>
> processing won't push process, yet he recommends push processing by not
>
> one stop, but two. um, ok.

he said cosco didn;t do it, are you saying no one does it commercially.

>
>
>
> about the only thing that he said that's valid is this:
>
>
>

> 4. Yes, I contradict myself � and pride myself in it

>
>
>
> > > > I miss the taste of hypo when I used to syphon it back from the tray to
>
> > > > the bottle, not forgetting the smell of processing cibrachrome in a drum and
>
> > > > the excitment of adding the neutralizing chemcal to make the it 'safe' to pour
>
> > > > down the sink.
>
> > >
>
> > > cibachrome had a pretty nasty smell. i don't miss any of that.
>
> >
>
> > I do I miss the experince of actually doing something other than pressing the
>
> > shutter release, and taking it to a processor. Now the processing is all done
>
> > by electronics.
>
>
>
> you can spend the same time in photoshop (and likely more, because
>
> there are so many more possibilities). if you make a mistake, you can
>
> undo it rather than waste a sheet of paper and another 10 minutes or
>
> whatever it takes to develop a photo. you can also experiment without
>
> worrying about how long it will take or how much paper to use while
>
> trying new things. it's also easier to learn with it.

That was part of the pleasure and pain.
I'ts like telling soneone that climbed everest they should have takenn a helicopter as it'd be easier.

>
>
>
> > > > > with offsite backups, you won't lose any images if your house burns
>
> > > > > down. there's an identical copy elsewhere. the more offsite backups,
>
> > > > > the better.
>
> > >
>
> > > > Sometimes what makes a thing worth while is it uniqueness and
>
> > > > individuality.
>
> > >
>
> > > not when it comes to backups, it isn't.
>
> >
>
> > Even more so as a picture without a backup is worth more than one with.
>
> >
>
> > Think of it this way which is worth more the original image or one of the
>
> > 10,000 copies. Why are teh 'fakes' of painting worth less (generally
>
> > speaking) than the original ?
>
>
>
> they're worth less because they're fake.

There isn;t a fake if the copy is exact if you can tell teh differnce it's not a true backup is it.

>
>
>
> a backup is not a fake nor will it be sold for a fraction of the price
>
> of the original.

How will you tell the differnce if it's an exact copy ?

Now whos contradicting themseleves ;-)

[PeterN]

What does that have to do with your statement regarding people who
prefer film?

>
>>>> that is the sole issue.
>>>
>>> your inability to understand basic english is the issue, along with
>>> being an argumentative twit.
>>
>> That's typical of you. When proven wrong you shift to name calling.
>
> you haven't proven me wrong and you are talking out your ass.
>

Can't justify your inane statement, so you resort to a personal attack.

--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <0517a40f-4e71-4418...@googlegroups.com>,

Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Yes you can delete those you don;t want seen, which isn't the same thing.
> >
> > no, you shoot *only* 12. you don't delete anything, just like you would
> > with a 12 exposure roll of film.
>
> No yuo are giving this project to a group of studetn the aim is to contol
> their shooiting and to plan ahead, you inspect each frame as an indication of
> planing taken. Leting them submit what they see as the best 12 of whatever
> number isn;t the idea.

inspect the card for sequential file names to see if they cheated.

> > the easy way to do this is get a really tiny memory card, but with a
> > little discipline, you limit yourself to how many photos you take and
> > stop at 12 (or whatever number you decide).
>
> NO you need to limit others......
> You need to train them to trip the shutter to get a good picture not because
> they feel the urge to post to facearse for a like.

see above

> > 1. Film helps me focus more on my personal projects
> >
> > no it doesn't. he says film prevents him from looking at images too
> > soon, either chimping or that night in lightroom, but nothing stops
> > anyone from waiting a few days or even months to look at the images.
>
> Irrelivant.

he makes the claim.

> > 2. Film helps me focus on my photography, not gear
> >
> > no it doesn't.
>
> If he says it does it does.

except, it doesn't.

> I certaqinly think less about photography since using a digital camera.

only because you want to. if you want to think about it, you can. if
not, you don't.

nothing about film makes one think about their photography more.

> > 3. I don�t have to worry about post-processing

>
> I'm not sure what he means by that.

with film, you dropped it off and someone else did the processing.

the same thing can be done with digital. take the card to a camera
store, pop it in a kiosk, and have it auto-print everything. some
camera stores will take the memory card and print all of the photos for
you.

> > 4. I take fewer photographs and am more selective
> >
> > nothing stops anyone from shooting fewer photos with digital.
>
> It's a psychological thing.

which means the difference is the user, not film or digital.

> > 6. I never run out of batteries/my camera is always on
>
> I never ran out of them either with my practika L.

i have a spare but have needed it only once, and that was because i
shot a couple dozen panoramas with 20-30 photos per pano. that's a very
unusual circumstance, one which would not be possible with film.

most of the time, i don't even take the charger with me. battery life
is not an issue.

> > 1000 photos per charge is not unusual. assuming 6 hours of non-stop
> > picture taking with no breaks for food, bathroom or anything else
> > (which is unlikely), that's 167 photos per hour, or about one photo
> > every 20 seconds. even if the camera only gets 500 photos per charge,
> > it's still more than one photo per minute.
>
> That depends opnn what you're doing.
>
> I was using a fujifil HS10 for 40mins of video and the battreis went flat
> they were fully charged before the filming. Now I know I'll take 8 AAs rather
> than just 4 .

this is about still photos, not movies, which would require a movie
camera and multiple super-8 cartridges in addition to the still camera.

more stuff to carry, and i doubt a movie camera would shoot 40 minutes
of movie film on one set of batteries.

> > he says film helps him be more selective and he wants to take fewer
> > photos, so the battery won't be a limiting factor. a digital camera
> > won't wince at 100 photos (~3 rolls of film).
>
> I don;t think taking photos usimng much power it's focusing and everything
> else even framing if you half press and if yuo use a EVF.

still, the battery lasts longer than a day of shooting except in very
unusual situations, especially when he wants to shoot fewer photos.

> I wonder if spies use camera phones , I alsays wanted one of those 35mm
> miniox's when I first got intrested in cameras rather than taking photos.

they probably use hidden digital cameras.

> I ahve a poloriod 110B land camera that I think took 3200 asa

except the quality wasn't that good and you had no negative.

> > you can spend the same time in photoshop (and likely more, because
> > there are so many more possibilities). if you make a mistake, you can
> > undo it rather than waste a sheet of paper and another 10 minutes or
> > whatever it takes to develop a photo. you can also experiment without
> > worrying about how long it will take or how much paper to use while
> > trying new things. it's also easier to learn with it.
>
> That was part of the pleasure and pain.
> I'ts like telling soneone that climbed everest they should have takenn a
> helicopter as it'd be easier.

same can be said for photoshop. many people enjoy tweaking their images
in photoshop.

[nospam]

In article <518be3b1$0$10819$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> Naturally, your statement would be proven wrong.
> >
> > that would be quite the feat, because for it to be wrong, everything we
> > know about sampling theory, semiconductor physics and electrical
> > engineering would be invalidated.
> >
> > nevertheless, if your buddy really thinks he can prove it, then best he
> > take that proof to mit. it's an easy drive from new york.
>
> What does that have to do with your statement regarding people who
> prefer film?

everything.

since digital surpasses film, anything they like about film can be done
digitally.

they don't like it because digital is new and they don't understand it.

> >>>> that is the sole issue.
> >>>
> >>> your inability to understand basic english is the issue, along with
> >>> being an argumentative twit.
> >>
> >> That's typical of you. When proven wrong you shift to name calling.
> >
> > you haven't proven me wrong and you are talking out your ass.
> >
> Can't justify your inane statement, so you resort to a personal attack.

you're not the one to criticize someone for resorting to personal
attacks, something you do at every opportunity.

[PeterN]

On 5/9/2013 3:05 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <518be3b1$0$10819$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Naturally, your statement would be proven wrong.
>>>
>>> that would be quite the feat, because for it to be wrong, everything we
>>> know about sampling theory, semiconductor physics and electrical
>>> engineering would be invalidated.
>>>
>>> nevertheless, if your buddy really thinks he can prove it, then best he
>>> take that proof to mit. it's an easy drive from new york.
>>
>> What does that have to do with your statement regarding people who
>> prefer film?
>
> everything.
>
> since digital surpasses film, anything they like about film can be done
> digitally.
>
> they don't like it because digital is new and they don't understand it.
>

You still don't get it. Tony Cooper's comment about you not
understanding the joy of the process, is spot on.


--
PeterN

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.09 05:18 , Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:24:37 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2013.05.08 18:52 , Me wrote:
>>>>
>>> No, the precise reason why valve amps are preferred over solid state for
>>> electric guitar amplification is not linearity at < X% THD level, but
>>> the characteristic of distortion when the amplifier is (deliberately)
>>> over-driven - past the point of signal clipping.
>>
>> Got it. But I look at amps from the POV of music playback, not
>> point-of-performance. In that sense the sole advantage of a tube amp is
>> the continuous transition. (Class A transistor amps too, I suppose, but
>> they are rather out of vogue).
>>
>> I don't know how well tube amps are wrt to noise these days. I'll have
>> to wander across the street to my richer neighbor and play with his
>> system one day using some good CD's. (And CD is good enough for me).
>>
>> Every time I hear a tube amp I can hear a hum.
>
> More likely an earth-loop. :-(

Not on my end - but see "Me"'s reply wrt the cable likely used.

>>
>> On Stevie Ray Vaughn's last album, on Little Wing, the hum from the amps
>> is audible. A credit to using the raw recordings, but irritating.


--

[Whisky-dave]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 8:05:28 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <0517a40f-4e71-4418...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Yes you can delete those you don;t want seen, which isn't the same thing.
>
> > >
>
> > > no, you shoot *only* 12. you don't delete anything, just like you would
>
> > > with a 12 exposure roll of film.
>
> >
>
> > No yuo are giving this project to a group of studetn the aim is to contol
>
> > their shooiting and to plan ahead, you inspect each frame as an indication of
>
> > planing taken. Leting them submit what they see as the best 12 of whatever
>
> > number isn;t the idea.
>
>
>
> inspect the card for sequential file names to see if they cheated.

It's handy to be able to reset such things from one student to the next.
But if a student has deleted an image, you then have to trust them as to why they did it. I'd fail them if they did that after being told not to.
Very much like some tests/exams show your working ... if you don't how can you prove it's your work. The mistakes you make are also useful in teaching.

> > > the easy way to do this is get a really tiny memory card, but with a
>
> > > little discipline, you limit yourself to how many photos you take and
>
> > > stop at 12 (or whatever number you decide).
>
> >
>
> > NO you need to limit others......
>
> > You need to train them to trip the shutter to get a good picture not because
>
> > they feel the urge to post to facearse for a like.
>
>
>
> see above

Spending more time messing with the tech then taking a photo is another area where digital isn't good when it comes to teaching it.

When I first quiered the 'stopping down' I just didn;t understand.
espeacilly the word 'down' meaning the f stop number increased !.
And how doing such a thing as reducing the amount of light made things sharper, that made little sense as I fouind in dimmer light I couldn't focus as well.
After instecting exactly what happens in my lens such as the diaphram reducing the amount of light by observing it, pushing the pin in helped me understand what's going on, maybe you can do that with a DSLR I havent tried.

Digital is better for taking pictures, but I think film is still bettere at teaching photography or at least makes it easier to get the concepts over to the person that wants to do more than socail media pictures.

> > > 1. Film helps me focus more on my personal projects
>
> > >
>
> > > no it doesn't. he says film prevents him from looking at images too
>
> > > soon, either chimping or that night in lightroom, but nothing stops
>
> > > anyone from waiting a few days or even months to look at the images.
>
> >
>
> > Irrelivant.
>
>
>
> he makes the claim.

His claim for his objectives, or rather personal projects.

> > > 2. Film helps me focus on my photography, not gear

> > > no it doesn't.
>
> >
>
> > If he says it does it does.
>
>
>
> except, it doesn't.

You're a mind reader then.
When I used film I decided what ASA/ISO and film stock I wanted to use in the camera and that's what I used. There was no messing with it for each shot.
I never messed about setting it to potrait moce or landscape mode or night or sports mode, aquarium or snow modes or face/smile detection.

> > I certaqinly think less about photography since using a digital camera.
>
>
>
> only because you want to. if you want to think about it, you can. if
>
> not, you don't.

I think everyone thinks less about photography as in capturing a single image than they used to. You cam almost always take another shot with digital but with film is it worth it, will I have to change rolls or camera or film stock for this one photo.
I used to take 3 camera around with me, one with B&W film another with colour slide film and another with 2 1/4 just in case I wanted to do higher quality and then I'd have to decide whether to put monochrome or colour neg in my 120 camera. I even had days when I took B&W (slide film using FP4).

> nothing about film makes one think about their photography more.

It did for me as I had to decide exactly what I wanted before I even fouind the subject let alone press the shutter now I came press the shutter and make a picture from what I get far easier than before.
When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like.


> > > 3. I don�t have to worry about post-processing

>
> >
>
> > I'm not sure what he means by that.
>
>
>
> with film, you dropped it off and someone else did the processing.

Now the camera and computer do that, anyway I'm not sure the term post-processing really existed then although someone I kew used to manually colour photographs and re-touch them in the olde days, but the person taking the photos didn't do that it was a specialized job, think she worked at a company called nivarna van dyke in london taking pictures or the rich and famous, ,in those days it was glass negs not the luxery of a 12 exposure roll film or thousands of images on a card.

>
> the same thing can be done with digital.

But isn't normally as you look at the pictures before printing to decide what to print, couldn;t dom that with film yuo had to developed the roll so effecincy had to be higher.

> take the card to a camera
>
> store, pop it in a kiosk, and have it auto-print everything. some
>
> camera stores will take the memory card and print all of the photos for
>
> you.

Not exactly selctive is it. So here are yuo saying cards and film are the same ?

> > > 4. I take fewer photographs and am more selective
>
> > >
>
> > > nothing stops anyone from shooting fewer photos with digital.
>
> >
>
> > It's a psychological thing.
>
>
>
> which means the difference is the user, not film or digital.

Yes and that was teh original point not which is best but are they any reasons for prefering film from the USERS POV rather than a technical standpoint.

Although I don;t drive it must be like driving, learning how to drive in a manual car gives yuo a beter understand of driving than buyiong one of those automatics that can park for you. But maybe you'd still call them good drivers.
By saying the term 'driving' means what's better at getting you from poin A to point B

> > > 6. I never run out of batteries/my camera is always on
>
> >
>
> > I never ran out of them either with my practika L.
>
>
>
> i have a spare but have needed it only once, and that was because i
>
> shot a couple dozen panoramas with 20-30 photos per pano. that's a very
>
> unusual circumstance, one which would not be possible with film.

It can be done but it's much harder as you havent; go a computer to manuillate the image, there's nothijng stopping you sticking two photos toghether if you know how to take them.

> most of the time, i don't even take the charger with me. battery life
>
> is not an issue.

Hasn't really been for me either, not even with my canon A1.

> > > 1000 photos per charge is not unusual. assuming 6 hours of non-stop
>
> > > picture taking with no breaks for food, bathroom or anything else
>
> > > (which is unlikely), that's 167 photos per hour, or about one photo
>
> > > every 20 seconds. even if the camera only gets 500 photos per charge,
>
> > > it's still more than one photo per minute.
>
> >
>
> > That depends opnn what you're doing.
>
> >
>
> > I was using a fujifil HS10 for 40mins of video and the battreis went flat
>
> > they were fully charged before the filming. Now I know I'll take 8 AAs rather
>
> > than just 4 .
>
>
>
> this is about still photos, not movies, which would require a movie
>
> camera and multiple super-8 cartridges in addition to the still camera.

Which I was never concerned about before digital it never even entered my mind.
But those with digital cameras tend to shoot video too.

In my first days of phoitography I rarely took exposures of less than 1 second most were in miniutes so had the camera set to B for most of my shots. Astronomy was my main hobby then photography was just a tool for it.

> more stuff to carry, and i doubt a movie camera would shoot 40 minutes
>
> of movie film on one set of batteries.

Not sure what batteries they used, it's all Bolex if you ask me.

> > > he says film helps him be more selective and he wants to take fewer
>
> > > photos, so the battery won't be a limiting factor. a digital camera
>
> > > won't wince at 100 photos (~3 rolls of film).
>
> >
>
> > I don;t think taking photos usimng much power it's focusing and everything
>
> > else even framing if you half press and if yuo use a EVF.
>
>
>
> still, the battery lasts longer than a day of shooting except in very
>
> unusual situations, especially when he wants to shoot fewer photos.

One way of shooting less photos is to have less media to take or store them on.

> > I wonder if spies use camera phones , I alsays wanted one of those 35mm
>
> > miniox's when I first got intrested in cameras rather than taking photos.
>
>
>
> they probably use hidden digital cameras.

In pens and all sortds of thing even pills you can swallow, an option not availble with film.

> > I ahve a poloriod 110B land camera that I think took 3200 asa
>
>
>
> except the quality wasn't that good and you had no negative.

Wasn;t an issue but an advantage as it was only used as an osilloscope at work.
I've 'adopted' it as I thought it a shame to put it in a skip.

> > > you can spend the same time in photoshop (and likely more, because
>
> > > there are so many more possibilities). if you make a mistake, you can
>
> > > undo it rather than waste a sheet of paper and another 10 minutes or
>
> > > whatever it takes to develop a photo. you can also experiment without
>
> > > worrying about how long it will take or how much paper to use while
>
> > > trying new things. it's also easier to learn with it.
>
> >
>
> > That was part of the pleasure and pain.
>
> > I'ts like telling soneone that climbed everest they should have takenn a
>
> > helicopter as it'd be easier.
>
>
>
> same can be said for photoshop. many people enjoy tweaking their images
>
> in photoshop.

Yes, and of coursse other products are availble, but when talking photography all this tweeking isn;t really what photography was, it's a close to picassos art.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.08 18:53 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

>> digital x-ray is faster, uses lower power x-rays which is safer for the
>> patient and the technician, has lower storage costs and is easier to
>> manage. it can also be instantly sent to another doctor anywhere in the
>> world.
>
> Indeed - making the point perfectly. The only issue I would anticipate is
> the X-rays gradually ruining the sensor.

It had been 2 decades since my last x-ray for an injury so, when last
year, I needed my ankle looked at I was pleasantly surprised at the
sensor used: a slab of about 30 x 20 cm, maybe 1 cm thick, was placed
under my ankle. It turned out to be a passive sensor that recorded the
image. I asked the tech and she said it was cleared for the next use
immediately after image retrieval. I didn't think to ask about cycle
life but I would assume many thousands, probably >100,000 exposures.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.08 19:06 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

> news:080520131810500289%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>> In article <WZ-dnZg4NPtVVhfM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

>> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> These are the same suckers who buy silver speaker leads and $100+ [even
>>>> digital] interconnects...
>>>
>>> If you dig around you can find a story about some audiophiles having an
>>> epic fail when coat hangers were used in lieu of some high end speaker
>>> cable in an ABX test.
>>

>> i bookmarked that long ago.
>>
>> <http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-
>> between-monster-cable-and/>

>
> Indeed one of the more sensible Hi-Fi mags tested regular mains cable
> against a group of expensive speaker cables. Virtually no difference. I
> did use [cheap] chunky speaker cable for my mains, but at full pelt they can
> be carrying quite a lot of current (10A+).

A 5 metre run of 14 Ga. lamp cord can easily handle 15A.

If paranoid or a much longer run, just go to 12 or 10 Ga.

("Lamp cord" in N.A. is rated to 15A and is 14 Ga.).

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.08 20:45 , Doug McDonald wrote:
> On 5/8/2013 5:44 PM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I'm not debating the advantages of transistors, only pointing out the
>>> sole
>>> true weakness of a class B amplifier v. a tube amplifier,
> But that is like comparing a tube amplifier to a tube amplifier!
>
> Or a solid state amplifier to a solid state amplifier!
>
>
> "tube" versus "class B" is meaningless ... you are not specifyin the
> class of the tube amp!

The point of the matter sailed above your head and it's not worth my
time to explain where you failed to follow.

[Alan Browne]

Yes - I described all that a couple days ago.

[Alan Browne]

I thought you'd end up by saying that regardless of the switch positions
the wire in the speaker circuit was always the cheapest one.

"But we ALSO have to determine if the switch box itself made any
contribution to lower quality," sniffed Audi O'Phile.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-10 08:50:53 -0700, Alan Browne

Yup!
Last year when I had a dental implant, the dental surgeon had a
non-film digital set up. The x-ray was a digital scan and was instantly
displayed on two different displays in the surgery, and allowed him to
zoom in on specific areas where he was working.
No developing time or materials costs, just immediate imagery at the
various stages of the process, from extraction to placing the implant.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <d0bac257-8ca1-4456...@googlegroups.com>,

Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When I first quiered the 'stopping down' I just didn;t understand.
> espeacilly the word 'down' meaning the f stop number increased !.
> And how doing such a thing as reducing the amount of light made things
> sharper, that made little sense as I fouind in dimmer light I couldn't focus
> as well.
> After instecting exactly what happens in my lens such as the diaphram
> reducing the amount of light by observing it, pushing the pin in helped me
> understand what's going on, maybe you can do that with a DSLR I havent tried.

that depends on the lens, not whether it's film or digital. the same
lenses work on both types of cameras. canon's lenses don't have levers
and nikon's lenses do.

> Digital is better for taking pictures, but I think film is still bettere at
> teaching photography or at least makes it easier to get the concepts over to
> the person that wants to do more than socail media pictures.

digital is *much* better for teaching photography.

you can immediately see what effect something will have. you don't have
to wait to see the results.

> When I used film I decided what ASA/ISO and film stock I wanted to use in the
> camera and that's what I used. There was no messing with it for each shot.
> I never messed about setting it to potrait moce or landscape mode or night or
> sports mode, aquarium or snow modes or face/smile detection.

you can do that with digital too. set the iso to whatever you want and
set the camera to manual, exactly how cameras were in the 1970s.

there's no point in doing that, but if you want to ignore all of the
advancements in the last 40 years, you can ignore them.

> I think everyone thinks less about photography as in capturing a single image
> than they used to.

that's a good thing.

> You cam almost always take another shot with digital but
> with film is it worth it, will I have to change rolls or camera or film stock
> for this one photo.

you can, but you don't have to. you could take multiple shots with film
too, it just cost money with every click, so people didn't usually do
that. now they don't have to worry about cost, so they can be more
creative.

> I used to take 3 camera around with me, one with B&W film another with colour
> slide film and another with 2 1/4 just in case I wanted to do higher quality
> and then I'd have to decide whether to put monochrome or colour neg in my 120
> camera. I even had days when I took B&W (slide film using FP4).

now you can do all three with one camera. digital wins.

> > nothing about film makes one think about their photography more.
>
> It did for me as I had to decide exactly what I wanted before I even fouind
> the subject let alone press the shutter now I came press the shutter and make
> a picture from what I get far easier than before.

same with digital. decide what you want, take the photo.

> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option and
> a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer clicking
> buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's happening I
> just have to wait until I see an effect I like.

you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
the tools that are different.

> > with film, you dropped it off and someone else did the processing.
>
> Now the camera and computer do that, anyway I'm not sure the term
> post-processing really existed then although someone I kew used to manually
> colour photographs and re-touch them in the olde days, but the person taking
> the photos didn't do that it was a specialized job, think she worked at a
> company called nivarna van dyke in london taking pictures or the rich and
> famous, ,in those days it was glass negs not the luxery of a 12 exposure roll
> film or thousands of images on a card.

darkroom work is post processing.

> > the same thing can be done with digital.
>
> But isn't normally as you look at the pictures before printing to decide what
> to print, couldn;t dom that with film yuo had to developed the roll so
> effecincy had to be higher.

it saves on paper costs.

plus, you can look at the images on a big display, much bigger than any
print would have been.

> > take the card to a camera
> > store, pop it in a kiosk, and have it auto-print everything. some
> > camera stores will take the memory card and print all of the photos for
> > you.
>
> Not exactly selctive is it. So here are yuo saying cards and film are the
> same ?

functionally, yes.

shoot a roll of film, drop it off at the store, go back a second time
and get the photos.

fill a memory card, drop it off at the store, go back a second time and
get the photos. alternately, put it in a kiosk and print them in one
trip.

in both cases, there is no processing done by the photographer. they
get a stack of prints and look at the photos.

> > > > 4. I take fewer photographs and am more selective
> >
> > > > nothing stops anyone from shooting fewer photos with digital.
> >
> > > It's a psychological thing.
> >
> > which means the difference is the user, not film or digital.
>
> Yes and that was teh original point not which is best but are they any
> reasons for prefering film from the USERS POV rather than a technical
> standpoint.

but it's not film that matters. if you want to shoot fewer photos, you
can shoot fewer photos. it doesn't matter if it's digital or film.

go out with the mindset you will shoot only 24 photos today. that might
take a little discipline because cards hold 10x that or more.

> Although I don;t drive it must be like driving, learning how to drive in a
> manual car gives yuo a beter understand of driving than buyiong one of those
> automatics that can park for you. But maybe you'd still call them good
> drivers.

no it doesn't. what makes a driver good is not whether they can drive a
stick, but how well they can handle unexpected situations, maintain
control of the vehicle and not crash.

> > > > 6. I never run out of batteries/my camera is always on
> >
> > > I never ran out of them either with my practika L.
> >
> > i have a spare but have needed it only once, and that was because i
> > shot a couple dozen panoramas with 20-30 photos per pano. that's a very
> > unusual circumstance, one which would not be possible with film.
>
> It can be done but it's much harder as you havent; go a computer to
> manuillate the image, there's nothijng stopping you sticking two photos
> toghether if you know how to take them.

there's no way you can make a 360 degree panorama with film, outside of
a dedicated panorama camera.

you might be able to get 2 photos to match, but it takes a lot of work
and only if the details line up perfectly. and that's just two photos.
what about more?

i was shooting 20-30 photos for a 3d pano. that is *not* going to
happen with film, at least not with a normal camera. panorama software
makes the necessary transforms to match detail on all four sides. you
can't do that with film.

> > most of the time, i don't even take the charger with me. battery life
> > is not an issue.
>
> Hasn't really been for me either, not even with my canon A1.

in other words, film has no advantage.

> > this is about still photos, not movies, which would require a movie
> > camera and multiple super-8 cartridges in addition to the still camera.
>
> Which I was never concerned about before digital it never even entered my
> mind. But those with digital cameras tend to shoot video too.

they do, which is yet another reason why digital is better.

> In my first days of phoitography I rarely took exposures of less than 1
> second most were in miniutes so had the camera set to B for most of my shots.
> Astronomy was my main hobby then photography was just a tool for it.

you can do that with digital too. no reciprocity failure either.

> > > I wonder if spies use camera phones , I alsays wanted one of those 35mm
> > > miniox's when I first got intrested in cameras rather than taking photos.
> >
> > they probably use hidden digital cameras.
>
> In pens and all sortds of thing even pills you can swallow, an option not
> availble with film.

true. yet another way digital wins.

> > same can be said for photoshop. many people enjoy tweaking their images
> > in photoshop.
>
> Yes, and of coursse other products are availble, but when talking photography all
> this tweeking isn;t really what photography was, it's a close to picassos art.

people did their tweaking in the darkroom. it's no different, other
than the tools used.

[PeterN]

On 5/11/2013 11:31 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <d0bac257-8ca1-4456...@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> digital is *much* better for teaching photography.

Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
How much teaching experience do you have?

>



<snip>

> you can do that with digital too. set the iso to whatever you want and
> set the camera to manual, exactly how cameras were in the 1970s.
>
> there's no point in doing that, but if you want to ignore all of the
> advancements in the last 40 years, you can ignore them.
>
>> I think everyone thinks less about photography as in capturing a single image
>> than they used to.
>
> that's a good thing.
>

True, one can produce great art, using the infinite monkey theory.

>
>> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
>> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option and
>> a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
>> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
>> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer clicking
>> buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's happening I
>> just have to wait until I see an effect I like.
>
> you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
> the tools that are different.

Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.
That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool.

Similarly for fau infra-red.

>


<snip>




--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <518e73cc$0$10805$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > digital is *much* better for teaching photography.
>
> Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
> How much teaching experience do you have?

digital gives instant feedback, making it much easier to learn.

> >> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
> >> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option
> >> and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
> >> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
> >> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer
> >> clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's
> >> happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like.
> >
> > you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
> > the tools that are different.
>
> Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.
> That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool.

nothing faux about it.

solarization can be done in software, identical to what was done in the
darkroom. it can be modeled digitally.

just because you personally can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible.

> Similarly for fau infra-red.

nothing faux about that either and digital is better suited to infrared.

in fact, you *can't* do infrared with some film cameras because the
camera body is not opaque to infrared, or it uses infrared light to
track film advance.

[PeterN]

On 5/11/2013 8:07 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <518e73cc$0$10805$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> digital is *much* better for teaching photography.
>>
>> Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
>> How much teaching experience do you have?
>
> digital gives instant feedback, making it much easier to learn.
>
>>>> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
>>>> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option
>>>> and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
>>>> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
>>>> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer
>>>> clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's
>>>> happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like.
>>>
>>> you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
>>> the tools that are different.
>>
>> Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.
>> That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool.
>
> nothing faux about it.
>
> solarization can be done in software, identical to what was done in the
> darkroom. it can be modeled digitally.
>

You can imitate it, but not produce it digitally. Do you expose your
digitized image to the rays of the sun?
Goi to any dictionary and look up the meaning of the word.

> just because you personally can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible.
>
>> Similarly for fau infra-red.
>
> nothing faux about that either and digital is better suited to infrared.

"better suited," iis not the issue. I have a digital camera converted
for use in infra red photography. That is not the same as attempting to
produce infra-red digitally.

>

> in fact, you *can't* do infrared with some film cameras because the
> camera body is not opaque to infrared, or it uses infrared light to
> track film advance.
>

And you can't do infra-red with the vast majority of digital cameras,
unless you convert them for such use.
the conversion process consists of removing the IR filter thaat is in
just about all digital cameras, changing the focus mechanism, for use
with infra red. My old film lenses have focus correction for use with IR.




--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 5/11/2013 8:07 PM, nospam wrote:

> In article <518e73cc$0$10805$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> digital is *much* better for teaching photography.
>>
>> Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
>> How much teaching experience do you have?
>
> digital gives instant feedback, making it much easier to learn.

You still did not tell us how much teaching experience you have.

Nor, have you told use what you would teach in a photography course.


--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <518ef77a$0$10847$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.
> >> That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool.
> >
> > nothing faux about it.
> >
> > solarization can be done in software, identical to what was done in the
> > darkroom. it can be modeled digitally.
>
> You can imitate it, but not produce it digitally.
> Do you expose your
> digitized image to the rays of the sun?
> Goi to any dictionary and look up the meaning of the word.

absolutely false. solarization as well as any other effect done in a
traditional darkroom can be precisely modeled digitally.

plus, many other things that could never be done with wet chemistry can
be done digitally too.

and that says nothing about digital being easier and with a lot less
hassle.

> > just because you personally can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible.
> >
> >> Similarly for fau infra-red.
> >
> > nothing faux about that either and digital is better suited to infrared.
>
> "better suited," iis not the issue. I have a digital camera converted
> for use in infra red photography. That is not the same as attempting to
> produce infra-red digitally.

what's not the same?

both digital sensors and infrared film are sensitive to infrared light.

> > in fact, you *can't* do infrared with some film cameras because the
> > camera body is not opaque to infrared, or it uses infrared light to
> > track film advance.
>
> And you can't do infra-red with the vast majority of digital cameras,
> unless you convert them for such use.

actually you can, but the exposures are long.

removing the infrared cut filter brings the exposures into a more
normal range, which is usually desirable.

> the conversion process consists of removing the IR filter thaat is in
> just about all digital cameras, changing the focus mechanism, for use
> with infra red. My old film lenses have focus correction for use with IR.

lenses work the same no matter what the camera is. they have no idea
what's behind it.

changing focus depends on the camera. for contrast detect focus done on
the sensor, no change is needed.

[nospam]

In article <518efc7a$0$10758$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>> digital is *much* better for teaching photography.
> >>
> >> Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
> >> How much teaching experience do you have?
> >
> > digital gives instant feedback, making it much easier to learn.
>
> You still did not tell us how much teaching experience you have.
>
> Nor, have you told use what you would teach in a photography course.

my experience is not relevant to whether digital photography is more
effective at teaching photography than film. your attempt at turning it
personal means you are grasping at straws.

imagine a classroom where any time a student asks a question of the
teacher, the student has to wait a week for an answer.

plus, teaching photography using film is also stupid. it teaches skills
that are no longer of much use. students today need to learn digital
workflows, not wet chemistry.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 23:08:30 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>
>plus, teaching photography using film is also stupid. it teaches skills
>that are no longer of much use.

Yes, like aperture choice, shutter speed choice, combinations of
aperture and shutter choice, composition, and all of those other
things that no longer apply to photography in the digital age of the
"Auto" setting.

>students today need to learn digital workflows, not wet chemistry.

Workflow is not photography. Photography is taking the picture.
Workflow is processing the results. Photography is taught using a
camera, film or digital, and teaching workflow, wet or electronic, is
a separate thing.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[nospam]

In article <a74vo8pgginjevd3p...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >plus, teaching photography using film is also stupid. it teaches skills
> >that are no longer of much use.
>
> Yes, like aperture choice, shutter speed choice, combinations of
> aperture and shutter choice, composition, and all of those other
> things that no longer apply to photography in the digital age of the
> "Auto" setting.

changing those gives instant results on digital. the student can see
what a different aperture will do and learn from it, not wait a day or
a week to find out. they can try different compositions and see the
results immediately, then improve upon it, on the spot.

darkroom work, on the other hand, is a waste of time for the teacher
and the student. students today need to learn modern techniques, such
as photoshop, lightroom, colour management, etc.

> >students today need to learn digital workflows, not wet chemistry.
>
> Workflow is not photography.

of course it is.

> Photography is taking the picture.
> Workflow is processing the results. Photography is taught using a
> camera, film or digital, and teaching workflow, wet or electronic, is
> a separate thing.

it's not separate at all. taking the photo and turning it into a print
or a web site or whatever is all part of photography.

ansel adams was a master of all of it. in fact, most of it was darkroom
work. if he were alive today, he'd be doing it in photoshop.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:37:54 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <a74vo8pgginjevd3p...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >plus, teaching photography using film is also stupid. it teaches skills
>> >that are no longer of much use.
>>
>> Yes, like aperture choice, shutter speed choice, combinations of
>> aperture and shutter choice, composition, and all of those other
>> things that no longer apply to photography in the digital age of the
>> "Auto" setting.
>
>changing those gives instant results on digital. the student can see
>what a different aperture will do and learn from it, not wait a day or
>a week to find out. they can try different compositions and see the
>results immediately, then improve upon it, on the spot.

Actually, I can understand your position since you obviously think
only the most current technology is the only acceptable technology in
which to get involved.

There are a lot of people, however, who don't feel that learning film
or darkroom techniques are "stupid" or a "waste of time".

>
>darkroom work, on the other hand, is a waste of time for the teacher
>and the student. students today need to learn modern techniques, such
>as photoshop, lightroom, colour management, etc.

It's not what you *need* to learn, it's you *want* to learn.
Understanding film and darkroom processing in no way limits your
ability to also work with digital.

>
>> >students today need to learn digital workflows, not wet chemistry.

Students sign up for whatever course appeals to them. Crealde School
of Art, in this area, offers:

PH144 B&W Film Darkroom
with Peter Schreyer
Monday. 7:00�9:00 p.m. Studio 5
An introduction to the fundamentals of black and white photography,
including film processing and printing. During weekly assignments and
supervised darkroom time, students will familiarize themselves with
black and white film, chemistry, enlarging paper, and contrast
filters.

Prerequisite: Photo II or similar experiences.
Tuition: Members $200 � Non-Members $220

Last time I stopped by Crealde, there were six students "wasting their
time" in the darkroom. Peter, the teacher, was "wasting his time"
collecting $1,200 for two hours work a week for a short course.

Peter's quite a photographer, even though he works with film and you
may think him "stupid".

http://crealde.org/Faculty/Peter_Schreyer/

>> Workflow is not photography.
>
>of course it is.
>
>> Photography is taking the picture.
>> Workflow is processing the results. Photography is taught using a
>> camera, film or digital, and teaching workflow, wet or electronic, is
>> a separate thing.
>
>it's not separate at all. taking the photo and turning it into a print
>or a web site or whatever is all part of photography.

Of course it's separate. Some people photograph, but don't process.
Film users drop off their film to be processed unless they have their
own darkroom facilities. Some digital users take their SD card to a
place like Costco and pick up prints and/or a disk without doing any
processing on their own. Some digital users have no workflow beyond
upload and print.

Processing the output is an option, not a necessary part.

>
>ansel adams was a master of all of it. in fact, most of it was darkroom
>work. if he were alive today, he'd be doing it in photoshop.

Now you speak with the dead as well as see ghosts?

[nospam]

In article <d0dvo8db281mrdevm...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >plus, teaching photography using film is also stupid. it teaches skills
> >> >that are no longer of much use.
> >>
> >> Yes, like aperture choice, shutter speed choice, combinations of
> >> aperture and shutter choice, composition, and all of those other
> >> things that no longer apply to photography in the digital age of the
> >> "Auto" setting.
> >
> >changing those gives instant results on digital. the student can see
> >what a different aperture will do and learn from it, not wait a day or
> >a week to find out. they can try different compositions and see the
> >results immediately, then improve upon it, on the spot.
>
> Actually, I can understand your position since you obviously think
> only the most current technology is the only acceptable technology in
> which to get involved.

darkroom work is a shrinking market. it's like learning how to fix
typewriters. there may still be a tiny demand for typewriter repair,
but it's certainly not something anyone is going to pursue for a
career.

printer repair, on the other hand, is a growing market.

> There are a lot of people, however, who don't feel that learning film
> or darkroom techniques are "stupid" or a "waste of time".

not many and they are doing so more out of curiosity than anything else.

it's not like they're likely to get a job as a darkroom technician or
as a chemist designing new emulsions. the photoprocessing shops are
closing, one by one, as film fades into history.

> >darkroom work, on the other hand, is a waste of time for the teacher
> >and the student. students today need to learn modern techniques, such
> >as photoshop, lightroom, colour management, etc.
>
> It's not what you *need* to learn, it's you *want* to learn.
> Understanding film and darkroom processing in no way limits your
> ability to also work with digital.

it does not enhance it at all. anything once taught with film can be
taught with digital far more effectively.

> >> >students today need to learn digital workflows, not wet chemistry.
>
> Students sign up for whatever course appeals to them. Crealde School
> of Art, in this area, offers:
>
> PH144 B&W Film Darkroom
> with Peter Schreyer
> Monday. 7:00�9:00 p.m. Studio 5
> An introduction to the fundamentals of black and white photography,
> including film processing and printing. During weekly assignments and
> supervised darkroom time, students will familiarize themselves with
> black and white film, chemistry, enlarging paper, and contrast
> filters.
>
> Prerequisite: Photo II or similar experiences.
> Tuition: Members $200 � Non-Members $220
>
> Last time I stopped by Crealde, there were six students "wasting their
> time" in the darkroom. Peter, the teacher, was "wasting his time"
> collecting $1,200 for two hours work a week for a short course.
>
> Peter's quite a photographer, even though he works with film and you
> may think him "stupid".
>
> http://crealde.org/Faculty/Peter_Schreyer/

well there you go. six students, for one class at a small school in
florida.

and you claim my observations are bunk, yet when you do it, it's fine?
what a hypocrite.

now count how many students are enrolled here. hint, it's a lot more
than just six.
<http://www.cdiabu.com/photography/>
<http://www.nyip.com/photography-courses/>

> >> Workflow is not photography.
> >
> >of course it is.
> >
> >> Photography is taking the picture.
> >> Workflow is processing the results. Photography is taught using a
> >> camera, film or digital, and teaching workflow, wet or electronic, is
> >> a separate thing.
> >
> >it's not separate at all. taking the photo and turning it into a print
> >or a web site or whatever is all part of photography.
>
> Of course it's separate. Some people photograph, but don't process.
> Film users drop off their film to be processed unless they have their
> own darkroom facilities. Some digital users take their SD card to a
> place like Costco and pick up prints and/or a disk without doing any
> processing on their own. Some digital users have no workflow beyond
> upload and print.

those aren't the ones who are taking photography classes.

> Processing the output is an option, not a necessary part.

processing is a *requirement*.

> >ansel adams was a master of all of it. in fact, most of it was darkroom
> >work. if he were alive today, he'd be doing it in photoshop.
>
> Now you speak with the dead as well as see ghosts?

huh?

if you don't understand how ansel adams created his work, then there's
no hope for you.

hint: a *significant* amount was done in the darkroom.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:08:20 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>> >ansel adams was a master of all of it. in fact, most of it was darkroom
>> >work. if he were alive today, he'd be doing it in photoshop.
>>
>> Now you speak with the dead as well as see ghosts?
>
>huh?

All these other people that you claim are doing market surveys by
limited personal observation are the "ghosts" in your life.

>
>if you don't understand how ansel adams created his work, then there's
>no hope for you.
>
>hint: a *significant* amount was done in the darkroom.

He was fairly proficient at it, too. He might even stick to doing it
the way he found to work for him.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:08:20 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>> Of course it's separate. Some people photograph, but don't process.
>> Film users drop off their film to be processed unless they have their
>> own darkroom facilities. Some digital users take their SD card to a
>> place like Costco and pick up prints and/or a disk without doing any
>> processing on their own. Some digital users have no workflow beyond
>> upload and print.
>
>those aren't the ones who are taking photography classes.
>
>> Processing the output is an option, not a necessary part.
>
>processing is a *requirement*.

Not for the person taking the photographs.

[nospam]

In article <qrmvo8lk6vpfkgfmh...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >if you don't understand how ansel adams created his work, then there's
> >no hope for you.
> >
> >hint: a *significant* amount was done in the darkroom.
>
> He was fairly proficient at it, too. He might even stick to doing it
> the way he found to work for him.

he knew the future would be digital and said so.

he would have loved photoshop.

[nospam]

In article <84nvo854cmabmo9rj...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Of course it's separate. Some people photograph, but don't process.
> >> Film users drop off their film to be processed unless they have their
> >> own darkroom facilities. Some digital users take their SD card to a
> >> place like Costco and pick up prints and/or a disk without doing any
> >> processing on their own. Some digital users have no workflow beyond
> >> upload and print.
> >
> >those aren't the ones who are taking photography classes.
> >
> >> Processing the output is an option, not a necessary part.
> >
> >processing is a *requirement*.
>
> Not for the person taking the photographs.

for *everyone*.

[PeterN]

IOW you have zero teaching experience. From you answers, I respectfully
submit that you are also in desperate need of some genuine learning
experience.


--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <519037aa$0$10756$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

nothing but insults. i expect nothing less from you. where's your proof
that teaching film is better? oh right, there isn't any.

[Whisky-dave]

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 4:31:56 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <d0bac257-8ca1-4456...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > When I first quiered the 'stopping down' I just didn;t understand.
>
> > espeacilly the word 'down' meaning the f stop number increased !.
>
> > And how doing such a thing as reducing the amount of light made things
>
> > sharper, that made little sense as I fouind in dimmer light I couldn't focus
>
> > as well.
>
> > After instecting exactly what happens in my lens such as the diaphram
>
> > reducing the amount of light by observing it, pushing the pin in helped me
>
> > understand what's going on, maybe you can do that with a DSLR I havent tried.
>
>
>
> that depends on the lens, not whether it's film or digital.

The lens has to be removable doesn;t it.

> the same
>
> lenses work on both types of cameras. canon's lenses don't have levers
>
> and nikon's lenses do.

You can't normnlly afford to hand out even 5 DLSRs where'as 5 old film cameras no problem.

> > Digital is better for taking pictures, but I think film is still bettere at
>
> > teaching photography or at least makes it easier to get the concepts over to
>
> > the person that wants to do more than socail media pictures.
>
>
>
> digital is *much* better for teaching photography.

No it's better for getting images NOT photography.
You're forgetting photography is the art of manipulating light.
Any fool can mess wityh a digital filter to get more or less light.
A photography is create by light not paint or pigments or ink or toner.
Using the above you can get a good picture J. constaable and Piscaso managed it without a camera.

> you can immediately see what effect something will have. you don't have
>
> to wait to see the results.

And I'm an excellent cook, I have a microwave oven.

> > When I used film I decided what ASA/ISO and film stock I wanted to use in the
>
> > camera and that's what I used. There was no messing with it for each shot.
>
> > I never messed about setting it to potrait moce or landscape mode or night or
>
> > sports mode, aquarium or snow modes or face/smile detection.
>
>
>
> you can do that with digital too. set the iso to whatever you want and
>
> set the camera to manual, exactly how cameras were in the 1970s.

They were without batteries too, and mostly without meters too.

> there's no point in doing that, but if you want to ignore all of the
>
> advancements in the last 40 years, you can ignore them.

It's not about ignoring them it's about understanding them or do you think it's good that a photograher doesn't understand things like lighting levels because his camera will cope and give him/her a good result.

There's a lot more to 'proper' photgraphy than handing over a good camera.

> > I think everyone thinks less about photography as in capturing a single image
>
> > than they used to.
>
>
>
> that's a good thing.

Whem all they do is end up with loads of so.. so.. shots and never get to actually improve as they hardley ever review their shots because there's just to many to sift through.

> > You cam almost always take another shot with digital but
>
> > with film is it worth it, will I have to change rolls or camera or film stock
>
> > for this one photo.
>
>
>
> you can, but you don't have to. you could take multiple shots with film
>
> too,

Limited multiple shots I had a fast motere drive which could go at 5 FPS whcih meant a roll of film would last around 8 seconds. (36 on a roll)

> it just cost money with every click, so people didn't usually do
>
> that.

Yes they also took time to notice, only pros could really afford to do such things.

> now they don't have to worry about cost, so they can be more
>
> creative.

Or just make more mistakes and not realise it.

> > I used to take 3 camera around with me, one with B&W film another with colour
>
> > slide film and another with 2 1/4 just in case I wanted to do higher quality
>
> > and then I'd have to decide whether to put monochrome or colour neg in my 120
>
> > camera. I even had days when I took B&W (slide film using FP4).
>
>
>
> now you can do all three with one camera. digital wins.

Yes it makes it easier less thinking needed.

> > > nothing about film makes one think about their photography more.
>
> >
>
> > It did for me as I had to decide exactly what I wanted before I even fouind
>
> > the subject let alone press the shutter now I came press the shutter and make
>
> > a picture from what I get far easier than before.
>
>
>
> same with digital. decide what you want, take the photo.

What photo ?
With digital you don;t even need to be there, soem of the fist digital images I produced were using Bryce I never had to leave home.

And now in 3D far beter than anything Ansel adams has done, so is the person that produces these images a better photographer ?

> > When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
>
> > timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option and
>
> > a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
>
> > hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
>
> > drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer clicking
>
> > buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's happening I
>
> > just have to wait until I see an effect I like.
>
>
>
> you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
>
> the tools that are different.

The tools used to be a camera and enlarger now it the camera and computer and I spend far longer on the computer but I don't call that photography.

On one thread here there's a discussion on the picture on teh front of a new star trek book, I don;t consider that picture to be a photo as in someone took that photo, it's just a collection of manupulated images unless of course you can tell me who the photographer is/was.

> > > with film, you dropped it off and someone else did the processing.
>
> >
>
> > Now the camera and computer do that, anyway I'm not sure the term
>
> > post-processing really existed then although someone I kew used to manually
>
> > colour photographs and re-touch them in the olde days, but the person taking
>
> > the photos didn't do that it was a specialized job, think she worked at a
>
> > company called nivarna van dyke in london taking pictures or the rich and
>
> > famous, ,in those days it was glass negs not the luxery of a 12 exposure roll
>
> > film or thousands of images on a card.
>
>
>
> darkroom work is post processing.

But the photgrapher didn't do it, but was credited with it.
Those were called re-touchers NOT photographers.
When of the reasopn I got fed up of 'photography was that the club I went to started on insisting the work be mounted in a particualr way with say X inches on teh side Y inches op and bottom and the edged has to be beveled for compition entries, alnfg with that anf having to title them in letraset, I was spending more time on this than taking the photo.

> plus, you can look at the images on a big display, much bigger than any
>
> print would have been.

Why's that an advantage most 35mm of the time couldn't get beyond 20X16 and the limit at my club was around 16X12 inches, partly due to cost. And why is bigger better anyway, does it make you a betere photogrpher to be able to print bigger, I always thought that was done to the quality of the equipment.

I rememreb having to decide what enlarge lens to buy as well as what camera lens now all I need to do is work out processor speeds and storage none of which change the quality of photography or of the resultant image.

e are yuo saying cards and film are the
>
> > same ?

> functionally, yes.
>
>
>
> shoot a roll of film, drop it off at the store, go back a second time
>
> and get the photos.
>
>
>
> fill a memory card, drop it off at the store, go back a second time and
>
> get the photos. alternately, put it in a kiosk and print them in one
>
> trip.
>
>
>
> in both cases, there is no processing done by the photographer.

What is a photographer then as I can do that without using a camera.

I can order photos via flickr..or any other site.
Maybe doing that would make me a better photographer too.

> > Yes and that was teh original point not which is best but are they any
>
> > reasons for prefering film from the USERS POV rather than a technical
>
> > standpoint.
>
>
>
> but it's not film that matters. if you want to shoot fewer photos,

What are photos then ?

>you
>
> can shoot fewer photos. it doesn't matter if it's digital or film.

it does, in most case you have limited time whether it be wedding or sports, you have to get it right, sure it's so much easier being able to take 1000s shots of the coulpe kissing and maybe that makes it better, but if someone came to me and said I'll get it right 1 time in 1000 I wouldn't employ them.
Thre's plenty of example of digital photographers not having a clue but having the equipemtn that can take good photos.

>
> there's no way you can make a 360 degree panorama with film, outside of
>
> a dedicated panorama camera.

any fool, can do it with a ipad so that makes them a better phtographer does it ?

> you might be able to get 2 photos to match, but it takes a lot of work
>
> and only if the details line up perfectly. and that's just two photos.
>
> what about more?

See you understadn the differnce between a skill and something a computer can do.

> i was shooting 20-30 photos for a 3d pano. that is *not* going to
>
> happen with film, at least not with a normal camera. panorama software
>
> makes the necessary transforms to match detail on all four sides. you
>
> can't do that with film.

Why would you, anyway only 4 sides I've done one with 6, (up and down not just left and right) not a lot of use unless you want in on a cube. But I could certaly stick 6 pictres on a cube.

> > > most of the time, i don't even take the charger with me. battery life
>
> > > is not an issue.
>
> >
>
> > Hasn't really been for me either, not even with my canon A1.
>
>
>
> in other words, film has no advantage.

It has the advantage of techin gyuo about light and the manupulation of it which is what photography is rather than altering shapes on a canvas.
But being an artist is better than aphotogrpahy as you can lok at tower bridge and paint the grand canyon but would it be a photograph.
For me unless light has been used to creat it then it;'s not a PHOTOGRAPH.

> > > this is about still photos, not movies, which would require a movie
>
> > > camera and multiple super-8 cartridges in addition to the still camera.
>
> >
>
> > Which I was never concerned about before digital it never even entered my
>
> > mind. But those with digital cameras tend to shoot video too.
>
>
>
> they do, which is yet another reason why digital is better.

Which isn;t teh questionn which wqas whether there's any reason to prefer film to digital and there are plenty of reason.

> > In my first days of phoitography I rarely took exposures of less than 1
>
> > second most were in miniutes so had the camera set to B for most of my shots.
>
> > Astronomy was my main hobby then photography was just a tool for it.
>
>
>
> you can do that with digital too. no reciprocity failure either.

So are you saying it's better to set a realy high ISO when using a digital camera.

> > > same can be said for photoshop. many people enjoy tweaking their images
>
> > > in photoshop.
>
> >
>
> > Yes, and of coursse other products are availble, but when talking photography all
>
> > this tweeking isn;t really what photography was, it's a close to picassos art.
>
>
>
> people did their tweaking in the darkroom. it's no different, other
>
> than the tools used.

How can it be no differnt if you say digital wins or makes it easier or more productive is another POV. One of the bog reasons digital is used is because it is easier, easier for everyone including pros which is why the majority prefer digital cameras.

Of couse your original pooi ntwas that no one prefered film, so even if there's just one person that prefers iut that makes you wrong.

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2012/04/why-digital-is-dead-for-me-in-street-photography/

This was never about which is best any more than vanilla ice cream being better than chocolate ice cream.

[Whisky-dave]

I can tell you strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate but can I prove it ?


http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/Bill_Dill/MattMeyerScript.htm

The Top 10 Reasons to Teach Film to the Video Generation:

1.
It’s an investment: When a student realizes that he or she is burning a buck every second of the shoot, that student approaches the production differently. Lines are rehearsed. Movements are set up more carefully. And lighting is set up more carefully, because audiences will be seeing the images on higher resolution screens. The result is better filmmaking, which carries over to video projects.


for the others go to the link.

Digital being cheap and costing nothing gives a studetn the idea that time isn't money either. When they see a physical product being used and not able to be reused that makes an impact .

I even see this here in electroniccs taking a writing down the digital value of a result without understanding it they want a resitor of 207 ohms, I even had a reasearch student spending a two days fussing over whether or not to use a 180 or a 220, it's what he's calculator showed him so he wanted the exact value.




http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2012/04/why-digital-is-dead-for-me-in-street-photography/




I noticed a few advantages when shooting with film- namely that when people asked me to delete the photo I told them I couldn’t- as it was film. Also while in Tokyo I was working on a small project titled: “Dark Skies Over Tokyo” – a project about the irony of Japanese society: they are one of the richest countries in the world, yet have one of the highest depression and suicide rates. Shooting film helped me stay focused on the project and the whole-picture, rather than individual images.