The last Kodachrome lab in the world
David E. Powell
you have any film to get developed now is the time.
Brian Gaff
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6085900a-aa18-4008...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Jack Linthicum
> I find that hard to believe.
>
> Brian
>
> --
> Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
> in the display name may be lost.
> Blind user, so no pictures please!
>
> > There is one still running but it will close at the end of 2010. If
> > you have any film to get developed now is the time.
>
> >http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/34172096#34172096
>
>
Believe it, they don't make the product anymore.
June 22, 2009
Eastman Kodak Company announced today that it will retire its
Kodachrome colour film this year, concluding its 74-year run as a
photography icon. While Kodachrome, which was born in 1935, was not
the world’s first colour film using a subtractive method - brands like
Gasparcolor had been around for a couple of years by then -, it was
unquestionably the first commercially viable one, which put an end to
the rule of additive processes like Autochrome or Dufaycolor that had
dominated the colour film/plate market for the first couple of decades
of the twentieth century. Kodachrome went on to become an iconic film
used by many great photographers working for National Geographic and
other publications. However, sales have declined dramatically in
recent years, as people went digital or turned to newer films. Kodak
claims that today it represents “just a fraction of one percent” of
their total sales of still-picture films. Steve McCurry, the
photojournalist who captured the legendary portrait of the Afghan girl
on Kodachrome a quarter of a century ago, will have the privilege of
shooting one of the last rolls.
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/kodak_retires_kodachrome_film/
John Doe
> I find that hard to believe.
If they are talking about the one in Kansas, then it is true. For the
last couple of years, there has been only one lab left on the planet
with the rights to process Kodachrome.Kodak used to have labs in various
geographies around the world, but one by one closed until Kodak no
longer had any of its own and let the Kansas one be the last official
remaining Kodachrome processinfg centre.
Ektachrome and others continue but those use a much simpler development
process. Kodachrome used very different formulation.
Joe Osman
wrote:
I hope Paul Simon is invited to sing at the closing ceremony.
Baby don't take my Kodachrome away
Baby don't take my Kodachrome
Baby don't take my Kodachrome
Baby don't take my Kodachrome away
Joe
trijcomm
wrote:
> There is one still running but it will close at the end of 2010. If
> you have any film to get developed now is the time.
>
> http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/34172096#34172096
I don't use digital cameras. They, like the DVR for video recording,
are a setback for casual photography because you never really SEE
pictures from a digital camera unless you are a pro. The "paper" to
print out an actual picture from a digital camera is expensive and a
hassle, so all you get nowadays are people passing around their
cameras saying, "Look at this picture!" So there you are, looking at
some small little screen on the back of a small little camera. You see
no detail and it's really too small to even make the effort of giving
it a good look. You don't see REAL pictures any more. Whenever
somebody passes me their digital camera for me to look at "a picture,"
I take a quick glimpse at it then turn it back and simply nod, "Yeah,
yeah, yeah." This so-called "progress" may be progress in that you
don't have to fool with actual film, but it is actually regressive in
that nobody really looks at pictures anymore.
Brian Thorn
<trij...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I don't use digital cameras. They, like the DVR for video recording,
>are a setback for casual photography because you never really SEE
>pictures from a digital camera unless you are a pro.
I'm no pro. I "see" my photos every time. I load them on my computer
and sort them by date, subject, etc. I burn them all to a CD or DVD
for long-term storage and keep the good ones on my computer. Picasa
and Microsoft Photo Gallery are free and let you perform minor tweaks
easily. Canon and Nikon cameras come with a suite of surprisingly
powerful software to manage your photos (I prefer Adobe Photoshop
Elements, however.)
>The "paper" to
>print out an actual picture from a digital camera is expensive and a
>hassle,
It is neither. 4x6 photo paper comes in a pack of 100 for less than
$20, and most photo printers are equipped to load the paper properly
and easily. Most printers now let you connect your camera or memory
card directly to it for printing. Cameras are increasingly equipped
with wireless so you can move photos from camera to computer without
even needing cables.
>so all you get nowadays are people passing around their
>cameras saying, "Look at this picture!" So there you are, looking at
>some small little screen on the back of a small little camera.
There is this cool new invention called "Email", you might have heard
of it. :-) Free programs like Picasa make it easy to send photos to
your friends and family. Websites like Webshots and Flikr make it easy
to share your photos online with anyone or everyone. And very nice,
large, high resolution computer monitors to display them well are now
dirt cheap and growing in popularity. Further, there are now cool new
and surprisingly cheap devices that let you plug in your memory card
into High Def TVs, or electronic picture frames (granted, they're
still crappy 640x480, but they're improving.) Even better, consoles
such as Playstation 3 and TiVo let you view all the photos from your
computer on your TV. There are many, many ways to share your photos
other than "passing around the camera". Many of them are even better
than the old, yellowed envelope overflowing with prints (some of which
have now stuck together) from the Drug Store.
>This so-called "progress" may be progress in that you
>don't have to fool with actual film, but it is actually regressive in
>that nobody really looks at pictures anymore.
It actually is progress in that photographers can now take as many
photos as they need to get the photo they want, rather than taking one
or two (not wanting to use up your 36-exposure roll of film or two),
waiting hours or days to develop them, and finding out only then that
someone had their eyes closed, or the shot was too dark, or was
blurry, etc.
Brian
Keith Willshaw
"trijcomm" <trij...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:081fd411-f930-4a37...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> I don't use digital cameras. They, like the DVR for video recording,
> are a setback for casual photography because you never really SEE
> pictures from a digital camera unless you are a pro. The "paper" to
> print out an actual picture from a digital camera is expensive and a
> hassle, so all you get nowadays are people passing around their
> cameras saying, "Look at this picture!"
Prints have never been cheaper or quicker to produce.
My (under $200) inkjet printer produces excellent results on paper that
costs around $6 for 50 sheets and a print takes well under a minute
For those without a computer prints from digital cameras are readily
available from exactly the same outlets that used to process film.
In the UK the Boots chain have machines in most of their outlets
that allow you to print your pictures directly from the camera memory
card onto photo quality paper.
The machines are made by Kodak. There are also online printing services
that are even cheaper but online communities like Flickr and Facebook
allow essentially free sharing of photos. For around $25 per year
I can upload an unlimited number of photos to a site where other people
can see them online. A free account would allow a casual user to
save 100mb per month and share 200 photos
Keith
Peter Skelton
That's "Mama", not "Baby" fer chirssakes
Peter Skelton
Brian Gaff
Nobody ever got the joke about that album title either. I thought it was
funny,i if a little dry.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Joe Osman" <Joseph...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:732797c8-fca9-4f47...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
scott s.
news:herlnh$kdk$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
There is a new process for photo printing. All the ink is incorporated
in the paper, so the printer itself is much simpler. Right now it
is producing a 2x3 inch print, but 4x6 should be available next year.
I saw an add for one that is branded as "Polaroid" I think it was
around $80. The inventors (they call themselves Zink = Zero Ink)
actually worked at Polaroid and spun off on their own when Polaroid
went bankrupt.
The printer appears to be about the size of a medium size digi
camera.
Meanwhile, Kodak Park in Greece, NY has been leveled.
scott s.
.
David E. Powell
> I was just thinking the same thing.
> Nobody ever got the joke about that album title either. I thought it was
> funny,i if a little dry.
> Brian
>
> --
> Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
> graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> "Joe Osman" <Joseph.Os...@verizon.net> wrote in message
I agree. He should be invited to the final day. I have a feeling that
the lab will be pretty busy until then.
I wonder about all the negatives still out there, will they be
developed or fade away quietly in boxes or old cases or folders? Like
old glass plates that were made into green houses?
DEP
"All these moments, will be lost in time, like tears in rain...."
Iain Rae
> "trijcomm"<trij...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:081fd411-f930-4a37...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> I don't use digital cameras. They, like the DVR for video recording,
>> are a setback for casual photography because you never really SEE
>> pictures from a digital camera unless you are a pro. The "paper" to
>> print out an actual picture from a digital camera is expensive and a
>> hassle, so all you get nowadays are people passing around their
>> cameras saying, "Look at this picture!"
>
> Prints have never been cheaper or quicker to produce.
>
> My (under $200) inkjet printer produces excellent results on paper that
> costs around $6 for 50 sheets and a print takes well under a minute
I'm assuming you're not doing 8x10 glossies in black and white.
ilford classic gloss printer paper=�14 for 25
ilford RC A4 gloss photo paper =�28 for 100
an hp grey photo ink cartidge is �28 for 80 sheets
ilford developer �6.54
ilford stop bath �4.99
ilford fixer �6.99
which is enough chemistry to do 300+ sheets
>
> For those without a computer prints from digital cameras are readily
> available from exactly the same outlets that used to process film.
> In the UK the Boots chain have machines in most of their outlets
> that allow you to print your pictures directly from the camera memory
> card onto photo quality paper.
>
> The machines are made by Kodak. There are also online printing services
> that are even cheaper but online communities like Flickr and Facebook
> allow essentially free sharing of photos.
Bear in mind that by uploading your photos to these providers you're
licensing their use to the websites and various other companies for
prertty much whatever they want them for
I'm not saying digital isn't the way forward but it ought to be cheaper
than it is.
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, there will always be film labs. but after the people who
actually understand sceince, techology, and optics invented
holographics, self-replicating machines,
self-assembling robots, multiplexed fiber optics, dgital books.
desktop publishing, mp3, mpeg,
blue ray, hdtv, home broadband, data fusion, all-in-one printers,
post 1920 LEDs, USB, HDTV,
cyber batteries, XML, rapid prototyping, atomic clock watches. light
sticks, optical compuers,
distributed processing software, gps, digital-terrain-mapping, on-
line publishing, uavs,
drones, phalanx, and the 21st century, most of them decided to
market it to Chrysler,
rather than to people who understand science and post GE
engineering.
>
> Brian
>
> --
> Brian Gaff - bria...@blueyonder.co.uk
> Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
> in the display name may be lost.
> Blind user, so no pictures please!
> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:6085900a-aa18-4008...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > There is one still running but it will close at the end of 2010. If
> > you have any film to get developed now is the time.
>
> >http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/34172096#34172096- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alan Lothian
<keithnospam@.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "trijcomm" <trij...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:081fd411-f930-4a37...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > I don't use digital cameras. They, like the DVR for video recording,
> > are a setback for casual photography because you never really SEE
> > pictures from a digital camera unless you are a pro. The "paper" to
> > print out an actual picture from a digital camera is expensive and a
> > hassle, so all you get nowadays are people passing around their
> > cameras saying, "Look at this picture!"
>
> Prints have never been cheaper or quicker to produce.
Quite true, and what this "tirjcomm" fellow says is blatant nonsense,
but....
>
> My (under $200) inkjet printer produces excellent results on paper that
> costs around $6 for 50 sheets and a print takes well under a minute
That's not the problem. It's the bloody cameras. You may accuse me of
buggy-whip manufacturer bloody-mindedness, but give me my old and
entirely manual Pentax MX any day over these menu-ridden, button-cursed
buggers. Point-and-shoot digital cameras at around GBP 80 are
excellent, but the digital pseudo-SLR I have would be better redeployed
as a hammer.
>
> For those without a computer prints from digital cameras are readily
> available from exactly the same outlets that used to process film.
> In the UK the Boots chain have machines in most of their outlets
> that allow you to print your pictures directly from the camera memory
> card onto photo quality paper.
Again, quite true. But consider the image resolution in a 35mm
Kodachrome slide: *at least* two orders of magnitude better than any
digi-cam on the market. Have you ever seen a 10-by-8 Kodachrome slide?
Bloody breathtaking, albeit expensive, and not exactly available in
every corner shop. Of course, 10-by-8 view cameras aren't what you'd
call cheap, either. Still, one mustn't be a surly old fart. Technology
changes.
>
> The machines are made by Kodak. There are also online printing services
> that are even cheaper but online communities like Flickr and Facebook
> allow essentially free sharing of photos. For around $25 per year
> I can upload an unlimited number of photos to a site where other people
> can see them online. A free account would allow a casual user to
> save 100mb per month and share 200 photos
I have a subscription to something called "mobile me" which allows me
to put all manner of holiday snaps on a website. I can't be arsed even
finding out what the web address would be. Did I mention surly old
farts? Well, I did cut my teeth on Kodachrome 64 (and indeed 25) as
well as good old Tri-X, the fast b-w film most resistant to abusive
processing. And darkrooms are a lot more fun than Photoshop. You can
hide in them for hours from the wife and kiddies. Once upon a time.
I promise that my next post will be on-topic.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
Keith Willshaw
> I agree. He should be invited to the final day. I have a feeling that
> the lab will be pretty busy until then.
> I wonder about all the negatives still out there, will they be
> developed or fade away quietly in boxes or old cases or folders? Like
> old glass plates that were made into green houses?
> DEP
I scanned all mine, the Minolta scanner I bought for slides also
has a holder for negatives.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"scott s." <75270...@csi.xcom> wrote in message
news:Xns9CD196A03F15D...@216.168.3.70...
> "Keith Willshaw" <keithnospam@.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>> The machines are made by Kodak. There are also online printing
>> services that are even cheaper but online communities like Flickr
>> and Facebook allow essentially free sharing of photos. For around
>> $25 per year I can upload an unlimited number of photos to a site
>> where other people can see them online. A free account would allow a
>> casual user to save 100mb per month and share 200 photos
>
> There is a new process for photo printing. All the ink is incorporated
> in the paper, so the printer itself is much simpler. Right now it
> is producing a 2x3 inch print, but 4x6 should be available next year.
> I saw an add for one that is branded as "Polaroid" I think it was
> around $80. The inventors (they call themselves Zink = Zero Ink)
> actually worked at Polaroid and spun off on their own when Polaroid
> went bankrupt.
>
This is not a new idea, dye sublimation printers have been available
from Kodak, Fuji and Canon for several years, most are aimed at
the photo kiosk market but the Canon Selphy range are very much
aimed at the home market. The problem with them is that the cost
per print tends to be higher than an inkjet as the ink is contained
in the paper and there is a high wastage. The upside is that they
are fast, dry when printed and more water resistant.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Iain Rae" <ia...@laeg.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qjlQm.40513$F44....@newsfe21.ams2...
> On 28/11/09 17:13, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> "trijcomm"<trij...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:081fd411-f930-4a37...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>> I don't use digital cameras. They, like the DVR for video recording,
>>> are a setback for casual photography because you never really SEE
>>> pictures from a digital camera unless you are a pro. The "paper" to
>>> print out an actual picture from a digital camera is expensive and a
>>> hassle, so all you get nowadays are people passing around their
>>> cameras saying, "Look at this picture!"
>>
>> Prints have never been cheaper or quicker to produce.
>>
>> My (under $200) inkjet printer produces excellent results on paper that
>> costs around $6 for 50 sheets and a print takes well under a minute
>
> I'm assuming you're not doing 8x10 glossies in black and white.
>
I frequently print 8x10 colour glossies
> ilford classic gloss printer paper=�14 for 25
> ilford RC A4 gloss photo paper =�28 for 100
>
> an hp grey photo ink cartidge is �28 for 80 sheets
>
> ilford developer �6.54
> ilford stop bath �4.99
> ilford fixer �6.99
>
> which is enough chemistry to do 300+ sheets
>
Sure but how many people develop and print their own shots ?
I used to and building and equipping a dark room doesnt
come cheap. Working with colour was a nightmare.
>
>>
>> For those without a computer prints from digital cameras are readily
>> available from exactly the same outlets that used to process film.
>> In the UK the Boots chain have machines in most of their outlets
>> that allow you to print your pictures directly from the camera memory
>> card onto photo quality paper.
>>
>> The machines are made by Kodak. There are also online printing services
>> that are even cheaper but online communities like Flickr and Facebook
>> allow essentially free sharing of photos.
>
> Bear in mind that by uploading your photos to these providers you're
> licensing their use to the websites and various other companies for
> prertty much whatever they want them for
>
Only to those portions you choose to make public, with Flickr
you can mark repositories private and they are not licensed
in this manner.
> I'm not saying digital isn't the way forward but it ought to be cheaper
> than it is.
>
Maybe but its still cheaper than film.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Alan Lothian" <alanl...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:291120091130305286%alanl...@mac.com...
> In article <herlnh$kdk$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Keith Willshaw
> <keithnospam@.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "trijcomm" <trij...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:081fd411-f930-4a37...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> > I don't use digital cameras. They, like the DVR for video recording,
>> > are a setback for casual photography because you never really SEE
>> > pictures from a digital camera unless you are a pro. The "paper" to
>> > print out an actual picture from a digital camera is expensive and a
>> > hassle, so all you get nowadays are people passing around their
>> > cameras saying, "Look at this picture!"
>>
>> Prints have never been cheaper or quicker to produce.
>
> Quite true, and what this "tirjcomm" fellow says is blatant nonsense,
> but....
>>
>> My (under $200) inkjet printer produces excellent results on paper that
>> costs around $6 for 50 sheets and a print takes well under a minute
>
> That's not the problem. It's the bloody cameras. You may accuse me of
> buggy-whip manufacturer bloody-mindedness, but give me my old and
> entirely manual Pentax MX any day over these menu-ridden, button-cursed
> buggers. Point-and-shoot digital cameras at around GBP 80 are
> excellent, but the digital pseudo-SLR I have would be better redeployed
> as a hammer.
>
So buy a proper digital SLR, my Canon EOS-D has pretty much the
same interface as the EOS 1000 it replaced
>>
>> For those without a computer prints from digital cameras are readily
>> available from exactly the same outlets that used to process film.
>> In the UK the Boots chain have machines in most of their outlets
>> that allow you to print your pictures directly from the camera memory
>> card onto photo quality paper.
>
> Again, quite true. But consider the image resolution in a 35mm
> Kodachrome slide: *at least* two orders of magnitude better than any
> digi-cam on the market. Have you ever seen a 10-by-8 Kodachrome slide?
> Bloody breathtaking, albeit expensive, and not exactly available in
> every corner shop. Of course, 10-by-8 view cameras aren't what you'd
> call cheap, either. Still, one mustn't be a surly old fart. Technology
> changes.
>
I have a Canon didgital SLR, uses the same lenses my old Canon
35mm SLR used and produces excellent images. If money is no
object there is always the Hasselblad 503CWD digital camera.
Prices start at �9,000
Keith
Alan Dicey
>>> are a setback for casual photography because you never really SEE
>>> pictures from a digital camera unless you are a pro. The "paper" to
>>> print out an actual picture from a digital camera is expensive and a
>>> hassle, so all you get nowadays are people passing around their
>>> cameras saying, "Look at this picture!"
>> Prints have never been cheaper or quicker to produce.
>
> Quite true, and what this "tirjcomm" fellow says is blatant nonsense,
> but....
trijcomm only has half the story. Digital cameras are not display
devices, you are supposed to understand that the photos you take need
postprocessing. A photo shop will print them for you, for less than the
cost of a print from a film camera, if that's all you want...
>> My (under $200) inkjet printer produces excellent results on paper that
>> costs around $6 for 50 sheets and a print takes well under a minute
>
> That's not the problem. It's the bloody cameras. You may accuse me of
> buggy-whip manufacturer bloody-mindedness, but give me my old and
> entirely manual Pentax MX any day over these menu-ridden, button-cursed
> buggers. Point-and-shoot digital cameras at around GBP 80 are
> excellent, but the digital pseudo-SLR I have would be better redeployed
> as a hammer.
>
Well, my low-end Canon EOS 350 has more capabilities than I can easily
remember how to use, but also has several semi- and fully automatic
modes, broadly similar to those on my old A-1, that produce good results
quickly.
Digital photography has two benefits that change the way cameras are
being used. One is turnaround time - the image is instantly available
for review, allowing you to change camera settings, viewpoint or
whatever and take further images based on the results.
The second is the use of the home computer as an electronic darkroom.
Working off the raw sensor output (can be thought of as a digital
negative, and there is more information in there than can be shown on a
single print) you can process the image to get the result you wanted.
That's without considering the separate benefits of digital image
processing. HDR and image stitching for instance: I've even stitched
together images scanned from thirty-year-old slides (Agfachrome, though).
>> For those without a computer prints from digital cameras are readily
>> available from exactly the same outlets that used to process film.
>> In the UK the Boots chain have machines in most of their outlets
>> that allow you to print your pictures directly from the camera memory
>> card onto photo quality paper.
>
> Again, quite true. But consider the image resolution in a 35mm
> Kodachrome slide: *at least* two orders of magnitude better than any
> digi-cam on the market. Have you ever seen a 10-by-8 Kodachrome slide?
> Bloody breathtaking, albeit expensive, and not exactly available in
> every corner shop. Of course, 10-by-8 view cameras aren't what you'd
> call cheap, either. Still, one mustn't be a surly old fart. Technology
> changes.
>
Ahem. Shifting the goalposts a little bit - 10x8 negatives of any
description are for serious professionals only.
Top-of-the-range digital SLR's are getting close enough to film camera
resolution for all but the most specialised of professionals. As far as
amateurs like me are concerned, they've been good enough for some time.
William Black
Digital cameras are not display
> devices, you are supposed to understand that the photos you take need
> postprocessing. A photo shop will print them for you, for less than the
> cost of a print from a film camera, if that's all you want...
That'll be this year's standard Christmas present for elderly relatives
is a cheap digital display for photographs...
> Well, my low-end Canon EOS 350 has more capabilities than I can easily
> remember how to use, but also has several semi- and fully automatic
> modes, broadly similar to those on my old A-1, that produce good results
> quickly.
I'm still looking for a decent small digital compact with aperture
adjustment on the lens...
I don't want to push buttons, I want to mess with the thing directly...
>
> Ahem. Shifting the goalposts a little bit - 10x8 negatives of any
> description are for serious professionals only.
Which is why I know several amateur photographers who consider 10x8 to
be the absolute minimum size to blow their rather nice black and white
photos up to, and they all still use film...
They all keep looking at digital cameras, they sometimes even buy one
now and again, they all go back to using their old 35mm film cameras
loaded with something like FP4.
> Top-of-the-range digital SLR's are getting close enough to film camera
> resolution for all but the most specialised of professionals. As far as
> amateurs like me are concerned, they've been good enough for some time.
Try moving in the circles where photography is considered art rather
than a record of your holidays and days out...
You'll find everyone still uses film.
Mind you, I do know one who still uses a plate camera, but he's
considered a bit odd...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Keith Willshaw
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hett5e$m5b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Pretty much the only time I would use film is for black and
white work. I still have a Canon A-1 for that reason. Ilford
FP-4 is still the benchmark for BW film IMHO. That said
I haven run a roll of film through it for a few years now.
For color even professional and serious amateurs now use digital.
Keith
Jack Linthicum
We recently had a family group photo done by a professional
photographer, friend of my in-laws. Eleven people in an ordinary
living room. Photog used a digital to shoot off prospective scenes and
combinations and then used a Nikon with flash to do the work.
John Doe
What applications at NASA still need emulsion film because digital
cameras aren't good/precise enough ?
For instance, are NASA launches now recorded digitally, or still on
emulsion film ?
Jim Yanik
news:pP2dnZo1yP5S6I_W...@brightview.co.uk:
> Alan Lothian wrote:
>> Keith Willshaw wrote
>>> "trijcomm" <trij...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> I don't use digital cameras. They, like the DVR for video recording,
>>>> are a setback for casual photography because you never really SEE
>>>> pictures from a digital camera unless you are a pro. The "paper" to
>>>> print out an actual picture from a digital camera is expensive and a
>>>> hassle, so all you get nowadays are people passing around their
>>>> cameras saying, "Look at this picture!"
>>> Prints have never been cheaper or quicker to produce.
>>
>> Quite true, and what this "tirjcomm" fellow says is blatant nonsense,
>> but....
>
> trijcomm only has half the story. Digital cameras are not display
> devices, you are supposed to understand that the photos you take need
> postprocessing. A photo shop will print them for you, for less than the
> cost of a print from a film camera, if that's all you want...
heck,you can go into any Wal-Mart,or many "drugstores",and they have DIY
printer stations (usually Kodak....)for making your digital prints,pretty
low cost,too.
I'm bummed out there's no digital back for my old AE-1,considering the
investment I have in lenses(up to 600mm tele),that probably aren't usable
on a new camera body.
But using the digital cameras,you NEED a PC and Photoshop or equivalent
just to get the color rendition right.
(and don't get me started on the lack of spot metering in many new digital
cameras)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Mark Borgerson
@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, David_Po...@msn.com says...
> > > Gasparcolor had been around for a couple of years by then -, it was
> > > unquestionably the first commercially viable one, which put an end to
> > > the rule of additive processes like Autochrome or Dufaycolor that had
> > > dominated the colour film/plate market for the first couple of decades
> > > of the twentieth century. Kodachrome went on to become an iconic film
> > > used by many great photographers working for National Geographic and
> > > other publications. However, sales have declined dramatically in
> > > recent years, as people went digital or turned to newer films. Kodak
> > > their total sales of still-picture films. Steve McCurry, the
> > > photojournalist who captured the legendary portrait of the Afghan girl
> > > on Kodachrome a quarter of a century ago, will have the privilege of
> > > shooting one of the last rolls.
> >
> > >http://www.photographyblog.com/news/kodak_retires_kodachrome_film/
> >
> > I hope Paul Simon is invited to sing at the closing ceremony.
> >
> > Baby don't take my Kodachrome away
> > Baby don't take my Kodachrome
> > Baby don't take my Kodachrome
> > Baby don't take my Kodachrome away
> >
> > Joe
>
> I agree. He should be invited to the final day. I have a feeling that
> the lab will be pretty busy until then.
>
> I wonder about all the negatives still out there, will they be
> developed or fade away quietly in boxes or old cases or folders? Like
> old glass plates that were made into green houses?
>
I don't think there are KodaChrome negatives out there. KodaChrome was
a slide film. KodaColor was the print film and you got negatives
back from the processor.
Mark Borgerson
William Hamblen
wrote:
>(and don't get me started on the lack of spot metering in many new digital
>cameras)
So what? Lots of film cameras didn't have spot metering, either.
Bud
Keith Willshaw
"William Hamblen" <william...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f8f5h5lntcju2vm8n...@4ax.com...
And many digital cameras do have it, my digital SLR certainly does.
You wont find it on most compact cameras either digital or film.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9CD2814AF29F8...@216.168.3.44...
> Alan Dicey <al...@diceyhome.free-online.co.uk> wrote in
> news:pP2dnZo1yP5S6I_W...@brightview.co.uk:
>
>> Alan Lothian wrote:
>>> Keith Willshaw wrote
>>>> "trijcomm" <trij...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> I don't use digital cameras. They, like the DVR for video recording,
>>>>> are a setback for casual photography because you never really SEE
>>>>> pictures from a digital camera unless you are a pro. The "paper" to
>>>>> print out an actual picture from a digital camera is expensive and a
>>>>> hassle, so all you get nowadays are people passing around their
>>>>> cameras saying, "Look at this picture!"
>>>> Prints have never been cheaper or quicker to produce.
>>>
>>> Quite true, and what this "tirjcomm" fellow says is blatant nonsense,
>>> but....
>>
>> trijcomm only has half the story. Digital cameras are not display
>> devices, you are supposed to understand that the photos you take need
>> postprocessing. A photo shop will print them for you, for less than the
>> cost of a print from a film camera, if that's all you want...
>
> heck,you can go into any Wal-Mart,or many "drugstores",and they have DIY
> printer stations (usually Kodak....)for making your digital prints,pretty
> low cost,too.
>
> I'm bummed out there's no digital back for my old AE-1,considering the
> investment I have in lenses(up to 600mm tele),that probably aren't usable
> on a new camera body.
>
To be fair they stopped making the AE-1 25 years ago. That said
you can buy an FD to EF lens adapter that will let you use then on the
Canon EOS digital range of cameras.
You wont have the autofocus or auto iris control and should but remember
there's a magnification factor that means a 200 mm FD lens is the
equivalent
of 280 mm when mounted on the EOS D range. The consensus seems to
be that its not worth doing. YMMV
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&sku=522370&Q=&is=REG&A=details
> But using the digital cameras,you NEED a PC and Photoshop or equivalent
> just to get the color rendition right.
>
That rather depends on the camera. I have found that most digital camera
owners overuse the color correction trying to make all their photos
look like they were taken in bright sunlight whatever the actual light
conditions.
Keith
William Black
OK, now point me at a camera that takes decent pictures with an easy to
use aperture adjustment that you can use while looking at what you're
taking the picture of.
Arved Sandstrom
I consider that to be an advantage of digitals, that the images are
available so readily for post-processing. Having said that, I'm not
convinced that for the majority of SLR users (let's say the 95%+ that
were/are not pros) that they got/get the colour and lighting any better
either. And within certain limits, what _is_ the "correct" colour? It's
subjective, and different for everyone.
I used to have a trusty 35mm SLR myself, and I used to have a wide
variety of filters for it. Not uncommon. What is different between that
pre-processing and using Photoshop or Gimp to post-process a digital image?
In any case, for economy and medium price digitals I consider the cost
of post-processing software to be part of the price of the camera.
AHS
Alan Dicey
> Alan Dicey wrote:
>
> Digital cameras are not display
>> devices, you are supposed to understand that the photos you take need
>> postprocessing. A photo shop will print them for you, for less than
>> the cost of a print from a film camera, if that's all you want...
>
> That'll be this year's standard Christmas present for elderly relatives
> is a cheap digital display for photographs...
>
Digital photo frame. 7-inch ones go from �20 up.
>>
>> Ahem. Shifting the goalposts a little bit - 10x8 negatives of any
>> description are for serious professionals only.
>
> Which is why I know several amateur photographers who consider 10x8 to
> be the absolute minimum size to blow their rather nice black and white
> photos up to,
Which isn't the same as starting from a 10x8 negative.
> and they all still use film...
> They all keep looking at digital cameras, they sometimes even buy one
> now and again, they all go back to using their old 35mm film cameras
> loaded with something like FP4.
A very fine film indeed with far higher resolution than any colour film,
slide or negative. You're pushing at the corner of the envelope.
>> As far
>> as amateurs like me are concerned, they've been good enough for some
>> time.
>
> Try moving in the circles where photography is considered art rather
> than a record of your holidays and days out...
Well, they wouldn't be amateurs *like me* then, would they, as far as
you can tell.
> You'll find everyone still uses film.
On the other hand I know a couple of "arty" photographers who leapt at
digital photography for the scope of image manipulation it offered them.
They have stand-up arguments with the "film resolution is king" types.
j...@cix.compulink.co.uk
willia...@hotmail.co.uk (William Black) wrote:
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> > For color even professional and serious amateurs now use digital.
> OK, now point me at a camera that takes decent pictures with an easy
> to use aperture adjustment that you can use while looking at what
> you're taking the picture of.
Well, both my DSLRs - Pentax *istD and Pentax K20D - will do that
happily, with lenses from the mid-eighties onwards. The aperture
adjustment is on the body rather than the lens.
--
John Dallman, j...@cix.co.uk, HTML mail is treated as probable spam.
j...@cix.compulink.co.uk
jya...@abuse.gov (Jim Yanik) wrote:
> I'm bummed out there's no digital back for my old AE-1,considering
> the investment I have in lenses(up to 600mm tele),that probably
> aren't usable on a new camera body.
Sadly, there are essentially no digital backs for 35mm SLR cameras, of
any make. They do exist for some large-format SLRs. You have been
bitten, somewhat, by Canon's decision to change their lens mount to one
that had electronic, rather than mechanical, communication between lens
and body. However, that decision probably had a significant role in
Canon becoming the leading maker of autofocus SLRs and DSLRs: their
manufacturing costs were lower, and ergonomics better.
The Pentaxes I use have about the best compatibility with old lenses of
any modern DSLR. But I still don't find it worth trying to use, even
though I have loads of old Pentax lenses, some as old as 1970. The
ergonomics of the new bodies are built around today's lenses, with their
greater automation.
Some people glory in their ability to use all sorts of weird glass on
modern DSLRs - there's a mailing list where someone goes on about
Pentacon 6 lenses all the time. But I like my camera user interface to
be as transparent as possible.
William Black
> In article <heuhp4$mff$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> willia...@hotmail.co.uk (William Black) wrote:
>> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>> For color even professional and serious amateurs now use digital.
>> OK, now point me at a camera that takes decent pictures with an easy
>> to use aperture adjustment that you can use while looking at what
>> you're taking the picture of.
>
> Well, both my DSLRs - Pentax *istD and Pentax K20D - will do that
> happily, with lenses from the mid-eighties onwards. The aperture
> adjustment is on the body rather than the lens.
>
If I wanted to lug something that size and weight about the place I would.
I keep looking for a decent compact camera that's even as small as a
rangefinder.
And no, I can't afford one of those Leica M8 things, but I wish I
could because that does seem to do what I want, although it's still a
bit big...
Keith Willshaw
I dont recall volunteering to be your personal advisor but
the Canon EOS range have a wheel positioned nicely for the
index finger that lets you adjust the either the shutter speed or
aperture while looking through the viewfinder although sometimes
your thumb slips off the button that puts it in aperture mode. More
often in dodgy light conditions I use AE bracketing.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
<j...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jNadnX8GlbwNT4_W...@giganews.com...
> In article <Xns9CD2814AF29F8...@216.168.3.44>,
> jya...@abuse.gov (Jim Yanik) wrote:
>
>> I'm bummed out there's no digital back for my old AE-1,considering
>> the investment I have in lenses(up to 600mm tele),that probably
>> aren't usable on a new camera body.
>
> Sadly, there are essentially no digital backs for 35mm SLR cameras, of
> any make.
Incorrect , the Canon Eos Digital range use lenses with the same fit as the
earlier Eos film camears
Keith
William Black
I'm sorry, I should have explained more fully.
I don't like SLRs.
They're bulky, noisy and over complicated.
I keep looking at the Canon G-10/G-11, but it's a hell of a price...
For a little bit more I can buy a proper film 35mm rangefinder camera...
Alan Dicey
>
> Sadly, there are essentially no digital backs for 35mm SLR cameras, of
> any make.
Leica make one for the R. It is <ouch> expensive.
> They do exist for some large-format SLRs. You have been
> bitten, somewhat, by Canon's decision to change their lens mount to one
> that had electronic, rather than mechanical, communication between lens
> and body.
Which they did with the change to the EF mount for the EOS system,
incorporating autofocus, in 35mm film bodies.
> However, that decision probably had a significant role in
> Canon becoming the leading maker of autofocus SLRs and DSLRs: their
> manufacturing costs were lower, and ergonomics better.
Like many, I stuck with my FD and FL series lenses and bodies (FP, FTb,
A-1, T70). Though it is possible to adapt FD lenses to the EF mount you
lose two stops which makes it pointless.
Jim Yanik
spot metering allows for a better exposure of the actual subject under many
conditions.No guesswork involved.
Jim Yanik
news:MPG.257c5b1a6...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <b85cd62c-9d2d-4757-91c6-665b719bfba5
> @j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, David_Po...@msn.com says...
>> I wonder about all the negatives still out there, will they be
>> developed or fade away quietly in boxes or old cases or folders? Like
>> old glass plates that were made into green houses?
>>
>
> I don't think there are KodaChrome negatives out there. KodaChrome was
> a slide film. KodaColor was the print film and you got negatives
> back from the processor.
>
>
> Mark Borgerson
>
>
KodaColor is a C-41 developing process.
Very common,simple compared to the Kodachrome slide chemistry.
I used to work for a high volume developer,ran a Uniweld C-41 processing
machine;30 feet of film per minute.(things got exciting when a problem
occurred)
I developed over 10,000 rolls of film in one night.(that doesn't include
printing,a separate process.)
Back when drug stores and FotoMats sent their film to central processing
plants instead of onsite processing.
anyone remember those little standalone FotoMat kiosks??
Jim Yanik
dnSPTaczJTY_Wn...@brightview.co.uk:
somehow,I can't see Ansel Adams using a digital camera in his work. ;-)
Keith Willshaw
Noisy ?
> I keep looking at the Canon G-10/G-11, but it's a hell of a price...
>
Its also almost as large as most digital SLR's at 109 x 78 x 46 mm
weighs 330 grams and I wouldn't describe it as simple.
As a comparison the 450D SLR is 129 x 98 x 62 mm
My pocket camera is a Canon A570 IS which is 90 x 43 x 64mm
and weighs in at 175g. With a lens equivalent to 35mm to 140mm
image stabilisation and manual control option as well as shutter and
aperture priority modes it was rather good value at around �130
Most importantly for me it has an optical viewfinder and good
shutter lag.
> For a little bit more I can buy a proper film 35mm rangefinder camera...
>
If that is what you prefer then fine, personally I prefer an SLR for serious
work and a relatively small simple pocket camera for casual photography.
Keith
Iain Rae
<snip>
>>
>> On the other hand I know a couple of "arty" photographers who leapt at
>> digital photography for the scope of image manipulation it offered them.
>> They have stand-up arguments with the "film resolution is king" types.
>>
>
> somehow,I can't see Ansel Adams using a digital camera in his work. ;-)
>
6x4, 35mm, polariods. I'd just expect him to use something like a leica
M9 and or a high end SLR.
Andrew Robert Breen
Keith Willshaw <ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> I don't like SLRs.
>>
>> They're bulky, noisy and over complicated.
>>
>
>Noisy ?
Mirror flopping about, and all that. Yes, I know you can lock it up in
some, but then focussing and framing is a pest..
I can see where William is coming from here (it's why I prefer
rangefingers to SLRs, and why I spent £SILY on a Contax G1 a few years
back, well that and not being able to find a Minolta CLE..).
A digital rangefinger would be nice indeed (esp. if not at Leica size
and cost..), but until then it's probably going to be th pocket camera as
a travelling visual (digital) notebook, the Contax for stuff that matters
and the old Russian 6x6 for fun.
--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
(Peter D. Rieden)
Alan Dicey
>
> somehow,I can't see Ansel Adams using a digital camera in his work. ;-)
>
I don't know, perhaps he would use one as an exposure meter? :-)
"Clearing Winter Storm" is one of my favourite images.
William Black
> In article <psDQm.79767$rp6....@newsfe11.ams2>,
> Keith Willshaw <ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> I'm sorry, I should have explained more fully.
>>>
>>> I don't like SLRs.
>>>
>>> They're bulky, noisy and over complicated.
>>>
>> Noisy ?
>
> Mirror flopping about, and all that. Yes, I know you can lock it up in
> some, but then focussing and framing is a pest..
>
> I can see where William is coming from here (it's why I prefer
> rangefingers to SLRs, and why I spent £SILY on a Contax G1 a few years
> back, well that and not being able to find a Minolta CLE..).
>
> A digital rangefinger would be nice indeed (esp. if not at Leica size
> and cost..), but until then it's probably going to be th pocket camera as
> a travelling visual (digital) notebook, the Contax for stuff that matters
> and the old Russian 6x6 for fun.
>
My major problem is that I like to take pictures in India as well as the
UK and whatever other bit of the world I happen to be in.
In India if you produce a camera you get a crowd, even in the centre of
cosmopolitan Bombay. So that wonderful street scene is often reduced to
the face of some bloke...
Now if you bring a big flash SLR all you're going to get is pictures of
'some bloke'. A friend of mine visited while loaded down with expensive
camera equipment. Every shot, including panoramas shot high in the
Western Ghats, had someone in the foreground he hadn't seen while
setting up the shot...
A small compact camera is fine, you only get a picture of 'some bloke'
about 25% of the time, but it isn't versatile enough for what I want to do.
I assume that at some point someone's going to make the digital
equivalent of a Voigtlander Bessa...
Jack Linthicum
> > Keith Willshaw <ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
One answer, every tourist wears sunglasses
Alan Lothian
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote:
>
<snippaggio>
> :
> :That's not the problem. It's the bloody cameras. You may accuse me of
> :buggy-whip manufacturer bloody-mindedness, but give me my old and
> :entirely manual Pentax MX any day over these menu-ridden, button-cursed
> :buggers. Point-and-shoot digital cameras at around GBP 80 are
> :excellent, but the digital pseudo-SLR I have would be better redeployed
> :as a hammer.
> :
>
> It would be nice if they could make the DSLRs have the same controls
> as film SLRs. I don't know why they don't do that.
I pretend no great expertise, but as I understand it, DSLRs have
aperture control in the camera body, not the lens. But I couldn't agree
more, all the same. The other day, trying to take contre-jour pics
with my horrible Minolta, I just gave up. With the old MX (or the
battered old Nikon F that I had to sell to pay the rent) open up two
stops instanter on the lens. Then bracket, especially if you're using
slide film. But on the Minolta.... menus, menus, hold down this button
while turning this clickwheel. OK, my Minolta is no longer state of the
art, and despite its 2002 list price of GBP 999, I got mine at a more
reasonable cost. I, er, stole it from a magazine, still in its box.
Naughty Alan. It was almost a year before they missed it, useless idle
buggers. By which time, "Who? Me? Sir, you cannot be suggesting such a
thing, surely I am mistaken."
>
<snippaggio>
> :
> :Again, quite true. But consider the image resolution in a 35mm
> :Kodachrome slide: *at least* two orders of magnitude better than any
> :digi-cam on the market. Have you ever seen a 10-by-8 Kodachrome slide?
> :Bloody breathtaking, albeit expensive, and not exactly available in
> :every corner shop. Of course, 10-by-8 view cameras aren't what you'd
> :call cheap, either. Still, one mustn't be a surly old fart. Technology
> :changes.
> :
>
> If you want to start comparing that sort of thing on the film side,
I admit that 10x8 Kodachrome slides are pretty exotic. Special order,
IIRC, which I may not. In the bad old days, we used them for
double-page-spreads (jargon DPS) in the late and by me much lamented
Time-Life Books. Stories to be told, but not everyone's dead yet so I
will keep them to myself for the moment. Still..
> you really need to step up to the professional digital cameras, too.
> Something like these:
> http://reviews.cnet.com/best-professional-dslr-cameras/
My good Italian photog friend Gianni uses little now except the Nikon
at the top of that list. Eye-wateringly expensive. But for most
professional purposes, more than adequate. I'm talking print, not web.
There's a *huge* difference between 72dpi and 1600 dpi.
But: you are not going to do a magazine cover shoot with a 12 mpix
digital camera. You're not. As a general rule, you're not even going to
think about using 35mm. 6cmx6cm, or maybe 4.5x6, or if you have the
time, 4x5 (inches) view camera. English photog colleague used one of
these at Baikonur to shoot a Soyuz launch. Blew the minds of the
Russkis, when they saw him put his head under the hood. Blew mine, too.
I understand he got the best pictures (only two) of anyone, although I
never saw them. And getting two pictures out of that monster in the
time available almost brings us back on-topic: how fast can you load
and fire? Of course, he'd planned it all. There was a reason why he'd
spent about an hour tromping around with exposure meters.
>
> :
> :I promise that my next post will be on-topic.
> :
>
> Famous last words. :-)
Alas, I have already fallen by the wayside.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
Jim Yanik
news:5nfcu6x...@news.aber.ac.uk:
> In article <psDQm.79767$rp6....@newsfe11.ams2>,
> Keith Willshaw <ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, I should have explained more fully.
>>>
>>> I don't like SLRs.
>>>
>>> They're bulky, noisy and over complicated.
>>>
>>
>>Noisy ?
>
> Mirror flopping about, and all that. Yes, I know you can lock it up in
> some, but then focussing and framing is a pest..
some SLRs are pretty quiet.
>
> I can see where William is coming from here (it's why I prefer
> rangefingers to SLRs, and why I spent £SILY on a Contax G1 a few
> years back, well that and not being able to find a Minolta CLE..).
>
> A digital rangefinger would be nice indeed (esp. if not at Leica size
> and cost..), but until then it's probably going to be th pocket camera
> as a travelling visual (digital) notebook, the Contax for stuff that
> matters and the old Russian 6x6 for fun.
>
most digital cameras today ARE "rangefinder" cams,they just don't have
interchangeable lenses.
The whole point of a SLR is that you see the exact same image as what the
lens sees,no matter what lens you use,wide angle to telephoto,and macro.
Allows you to frame the subject as you wish,instead of cropping and
enlarging afterwards.
A Leica rangefinder is just a high quality,fancier Kodak Instamatic.
William Black
> most digital cameras today ARE "rangefinder" cams,they just don't have
> interchangeable lenses.
That shows an appalling lack of knowledge of photography and how to take
a photograph.
It's all about depth of field, which isn't adjustable on most digital
cameras.
> A Leica rangefinder is just a high quality,fancier Kodak Instamatic.
Well, no it isn't, and that you think it is says a lot more about you
than about photography.
wrha...@comcast.net
On 2009-11-30, William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> I assume that at some point someone's going to make the digital
> equivalent of a Voigtlander Bessa...
An Olympus EP-1 would be perfect if only it had an optical viewfinder.
Bud
Andrew Robert Breen
Coupled viewfinder, please. In other words, a digital XA. Yes please. I
was very fond of my XA (unfortunately, it wasn't very fond of salt water,
and so it expired..).
Not really yer (digital) CLE or Bessa equivalent, but a lovely complement
to them.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Jack Linthicum
> In article <u9-dnZqXcaehbI7WnZ2dnUVZ_redn...@earthlink.com>,
>
> >> I assume that at some point someone's going to make the digital
> >> equivalent of a Voigtlander Bessa...
>
> >An Olympus EP-1 would be perfect if only it had an optical viewfinder.
>
> Coupled viewfinder, please. In other words, a digital XA. Yes please. I
> was very fond of my XA (unfortunately, it wasn't very fond of salt water,
> and so it expired..).
>
> Not really yer (digital) CLE or Bessa equivalent, but a lovely complement
> to them.
>
> --
> Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
> Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
> money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
and I am sitting here with a bag of old cameras that one of those on-
line outfits rejected.
William Black
And was, let's be honest, about a third of the price...
But yes, that one had already attracted my attention...
I assume someone will be along with a copy in due course...
j...@cix.compulink.co.uk
willia...@hotmail.co.uk (William Black) wrote:
> A small compact camera is fine, you only get a picture of 'some
> bloke' about 25% of the time, but it isn't versatile enough for what
> I want to do.
>
> I assume that at some point someone's going to make the digital
> equivalent of a Voigtlander Bessa...
Have a look at a Fujica Finepix. They have a reasonable zoom range,
back-of-the camera and eye-level electronic viewfinders, and
aperture-priority, shutter-priority and manual exposure modes as well
as the normal programmed exposure mode. The lack of an optical
viewfinder is the main deficiency, but they are pretty cheap at around
UKP200. I bought one for theatre photography, because if you turn off
the beeps it makes less noise than breathing; a DSLR's mirror-crash
isn't acceptable during performances.
William Black
I had a Fuji, and a friend has a very nice one, but if you want to do
anything but take a very sharp colour picture with the maximum depth of
field it suddenly becomes a wrestling match with the bloody menu system...
Oh yes, and the one I had tended to add a greenish cast to the
pictures, which I'm told is almost normal for Fuji equipment back to
when they sold film...
Jim Yanik
news:i6adu6x...@news.aber.ac.uk:
> In article <u9-dnZqXcaehbI7W...@earthlink.com>,
> <wrha...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>["Followup-To:" header set to sci.military.naval.]
>>On 2009-11-30, William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I assume that at some point someone's going to make the digital
>>> equivalent of a Voigtlander Bessa...
>>
>>An Olympus EP-1 would be perfect if only it had an optical viewfinder.
>
> Coupled viewfinder, please. In other words, a digital XA. Yes please.
> I was very fond of my XA (unfortunately, it wasn't very fond of salt
> water, and so it expired..).
>
> Not really yer (digital) CLE or Bessa equivalent, but a lovely
> complement to them.
>
next time your camera goes into salt water,pull it out,and immediately put
it into a ziploc baggie of fresh water,until you can get it home and go
about the draining/drying process properly.
Alan Lothian
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
<snippaggio>
> it suddenly becomes a wrestling match with the bloody menu system...
Exactly. Makes the things useless as practical photographic tools.
Excellent quick snappers at the bottom end of the range, grant you
that. Splendid little pieces of kit. Cheap, too.
But I want to use shutter speed and aperture to control things, and I
bloody well can't. Nearly all those fancy multi-light-readings are
simply an excuse for another infuriating menu. I *know* how to use a
camera. I *know* how to take spot readings on a difficult subject. I
*know* how to bracket, a damned sight faster than an electronic system.
Years of pain and wasted film. 4,345 measuring points are completely
and utterly useless, however cool they look in a review by one of the
grotesquely dishonest (advertising) photography magazines.
And then, of course, you get a picture with the resolution of Tri-X
pushed two stops. Doesn't matter for holiday snaps, of course. And
don't mention Photoshop; I am in a foul enough temper as it is.
I don't need some teenage Japanese programmer making it "easy", for
which read impossible, for me.
>
> Oh yes, and the one I had tended to add a greenish cast to the
> pictures, which I'm told is almost normal for Fuji equipment back to
> when they sold film...
Oh, the greenish cast is easily sorted. It's the menus. I have at best
ten seconds to take a really good picture, and it's impossible. If I
have to do something semi-professionally (and it happens) it's my old
MX every time. Quite possibly shooting Fujichrome. I do miss the old
Nikon (you could hammer in tent pegs with the thing) but it was a brute
to lug around and I needed the dosh.
La N
>
> Oh, the greenish cast is easily sorted. It's the menus. I have at best
> ten seconds to take a really good picture, and it's impossible. If I
> have to do something semi-professionally (and it happens) it's my old
> MX every time. Quite possibly shooting Fujichrome. I do miss the old
> Nikon (you could hammer in tent pegs with the thing) but it was a
> brute to lug around and I needed the dosh.
I used to have one of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7k2uwJmwxo
btw, that's pre-fame Ali McGraw in the commercial.
- nilita
Jim Yanik
news:Xns9CD39D7528FDC...@216.168.3.44:
Oh,and isopropyl alcohol,90% or better,is a great way of removing
(fresh)water safely from electronics.
then a hairdryer on low heat.(not a heat gun,those can peel paint...)
Jeff Findley
"trijcomm" <trij...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:081fd411-f930-4a37...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I don't use digital cameras. They, like the DVR for video recording,
> are a setback for casual photography because you never really SEE
> pictures from a digital camera unless you are a pro. The "paper" to
> print out an actual picture from a digital camera is expensive and a
> hassle, so all you get nowadays are people passing around their
> cameras saying, "Look at this picture!" So there you are, looking at
> some small little screen on the back of a small little camera. You see
> no detail and it's really too small to even make the effort of giving
> it a good look. You don't see REAL pictures any more. Whenever
> somebody passes me their digital camera for me to look at "a picture,"
> I take a quick glimpse at it then turn it back and simply nod, "Yeah,
> yeah, yeah." This so-called "progress" may be progress in that you
> don't have to fool with actual film, but it is actually regressive in
> that nobody really looks at pictures anymore.
The upside to digital is that I can take hundreds of pictures on a weekend
trip and it costs me nothing (the camera, rechargeable batteries, and memory
card are all paid for). I can upload the pictures to one or more picture
sharing websites and my friends around the world can see them instantly.
Later, I can decide if I want to print any pictures. If I do, printing them
at a place like Costco is relatively cheap ($.13 per 4"x6" print). Is film
really cheaper than that?
If I want one or two a.s.a.p., I can print them out on my Epson printer in a
minute or two per print (which includes the time spent properly cropping the
photos). Developing and making prints from film isn't that fast, especially
if you want to crop/enlarge a portion of a negative.
Eventually, I'm going to buy a Pentax digital SLR so I can put all of my old
SLR lenses back to work, like that 600 mm monstrosity I used to take
pictures of a space shuttle launch. ;-)
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
Jeff Findley
"scott s." <75270...@csi.xcom> wrote in message
news:Xns9CD196A03F15D...@216.168.3.70...
> There is a new process for photo printing. All the ink is incorporated
> in the paper, so the printer itself is much simpler. Right now it
> is producing a 2x3 inch print, but 4x6 should be available next year.
> I saw an add for one that is branded as "Polaroid" I think it was
> around $80. The inventors (they call themselves Zink = Zero Ink)
> actually worked at Polaroid and spun off on their own when Polaroid
> went bankrupt.
>
> The printer appears to be about the size of a medium size digi
> camera.
Cheaper than that. They're only $40 at Sams Club
http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate.do?dest=5&item=414150
Other sites carry the "zink" paper for the above printer for $10 for 30 of
the tiny sheets.
It's no coincidence that this carries the Polaroid brand name. The results
are similar to old Polaroid film cameras, small and fuzzy. :-)
Jeff Findley
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:neh6h5h3uvkln1ct7...@4ax.com...
> It would be nice if they could make the DSLRs have the same controls
> as film SLRs. I don't know why they don't do that.
I don't know what you mean by this. Every DSLR I've looked at (I don't own
one yet) lets you manually control all the essential settings that you learn
in a traditional (i.e. film) class: "film" speed, focus, apeture, and
shutter speed.
With many SLR's you can even use "older" lenses with them, so focus and
apeture are controlled just as they would have been on an old film SLR.
Only the shutter speed and ISO tend to be controlled through the DSLR's user
interface, which varies by brand.
If you want something which feels like a "fully manual" film SLR then you
might be out of luck. All the DSLR's I've looked at are more like the "high
end" fancy electronic SLR film cameras that were coming out in the 80's and
90's.
Jeff0
Mark Borgerson
willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> > most digital cameras today ARE "rangefinder" cams,they just don't have
> > interchangeable lenses.
>
> That shows an appalling lack of knowledge of photography and how to take
> a photograph.
>
> It's all about depth of field, which isn't adjustable on most digital
> cameras.
>
priority.
>
> > A Leica rangefinder is just a high quality,fancier Kodak Instamatic.
>
> Well, no it isn't, and that you think it is says a lot more about you
> than about photography.
>
>
Mark Borgerson
jya...@abuse.gov says...
Mark Borgerson
Keith Willshaw
"Alan Lothian" <alanl...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:301120092258251790%alanl...@mac.com...
> In article <hf17h1$ngj$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, William Black
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snippaggio>
>
>> it suddenly becomes a wrestling match with the bloody menu system...
>
> Exactly. Makes the things useless as practical photographic tools.
> Excellent quick snappers at the bottom end of the range, grant you
> that. Splendid little pieces of kit. Cheap, too.
>
> But I want to use shutter speed and aperture to control things, and I
> bloody well can't.
I can on my my digital cameras, you just turn the mode dial to M
and hey presto you now have control.
Keith
William Black
> In article <hf0gj7$rob$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
>> It's all about depth of field, which isn't adjustable on most digital
>> cameras.
>>
> But is adjustable on most digital SLRs where you can specify aperture
> priority.
But you have to play with the menu and you can't 'play' wit it by
turning a ring on the lens.
It's fiddly to do.
William Black
And how do you use that control?
Jim Yanik
news:MPG.257e425ff...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <hf0gj7$rob$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>> > most digital cameras today ARE "rangefinder" cams,they just don't
>> > have interchangeable lenses.
>>
>> That shows an appalling lack of knowledge of photography and how to
>> take a photograph.
>>
>> It's all about depth of field, which isn't adjustable on most
>> digital cameras.
Ah,but they STILL are "rangefinder" cameras,because they use IR (or
contrast)to focus the lens based on -range-.
they have a separate viewfinder like "rangefinder" cameras,instead of
viewing TTL like SLRs.
"depth of field" has NOTHING to do with "rangefinder".
>>
> But is adjustable on most digital SLRs where you can specify aperture
> priority.
>>
>> > A Leica rangefinder is just a high quality,fancier Kodak
>> > Instamatic.
>>
>> Well, no it isn't,
Uh,yeah,it is.
they both have separate viewfinders.
the Kodak just has a fixed focus lens and aperture,non-interchangeable
lens,and is plastic bodied.
>> and that you think it is says a lot more about
>> you than about photography.
It appears I know more than Mr.Black.
He ought to research "rangefinder".
here's some help for Mr.Black;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangefinder_camera
>>
>>
> Mark Borgerson
Mark Borgerson
willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
> Mark Borgerson wrote:
> > In article <hf0gj7$rob$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
>
>
> >> It's all about depth of field, which isn't adjustable on most digital
> >> cameras.
> >>
> > But is adjustable on most digital SLRs where you can specify aperture
> > priority.
>
> But you have to play with the menu and you can't 'play' wit it by
> turning a ring on the lens.
No menu manipulation required on my Canon. Simply set the wheel to
Av, then use the smaller wheel under your index finger to adjust
the aperture. If you set the wheel to Tv, the same finger wheel
sets the shutter speed. (The settings wheel is in the same place and
is about the same size as the shutter speed wheel on my Canon film
cameras.)
There is also a preview button to close the aperture down so you can
preview the depth of field. Again, no menus required.
>
> It's fiddly to do.
>
No more so than keeping track of the aperture ring and zoom ring
on my older Canon zoom lenses for film cameras.
Mark Borgerson
Keith Willshaw
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> "Alan Lothian" <alanl...@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:301120092258251790%alanl...@mac.com...
>>> In article <hf17h1$ngj$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, William Black
>>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snippaggio>
>>>
>>>> it suddenly becomes a wrestling match with the bloody menu system...
>>> Exactly. Makes the things useless as practical photographic tools.
>>> Excellent quick snappers at the bottom end of the range, grant you
>>> that. Splendid little pieces of kit. Cheap, too.
>>>
>>> But I want to use shutter speed and aperture to control things, and I
>>> bloody well can't.
>>
>> I can on my my digital cameras, you just turn the mode dial to M
>> and hey presto you now have control.
>
> And how do you use that control?
>
One button toggles between aperture setting and shutter setting
in the selected mode you turn a thumbwheel to adjust up or down
On the SLR the settings are visible in the viewfinder
Simpicity itself
Keith
Dennis
> There is one still running but it will close at the end of 2010. If
> you have any film to get developed now is the time.
>
> http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/34172096#34172096
>
Well, they still teach you plenty of crap in high school!
(With apologies to Paul Simon,)
Dennis
trijcomm
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:17:47 -0800 (PST), trijcomm
>
> <trijc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I don't use digital cameras. They, like the DVR for video recording,
> >are a setback for casual photography because you never really SEE
> >pictures from a digital camera unless you are a pro.
>
> and sort them by date, subject, etc. I burn them all to a CD or DVD
> for long-term storage and keep the good ones on my computer. Picasa
> and Microsoft Photo Gallery are free and let you perform minor tweaks
> easily. Canon and Nikon cameras come with a suite of surprisingly
> powerful software to manage your photos (I prefer Adobe Photoshop
> Elements, however.)
>
> >The "paper" to
> >print out an actual picture from a digital camera is expensive and a
> >hassle,
>
> $20, and most photo printers are equipped to load the paper properly
> and easily. Most printers now let you connect your camera or memory
> card directly to it for printing. Cameras are increasingly equipped
> with wireless so you can move photos from camera to computer without
> even needing cables.
>
> >so all you get nowadays are people passing around their
> >cameras saying, "Look at this picture!" So there you are, looking at
> >some small little screen on the back of a small little camera.
>
> of it. :-) Free programs like Picasa make it easy to send photos to
> your friends and family. Websites like Webshots and Flikr make it easy
> to share your photos online with anyone or everyone. And very nice,
> large, high resolution computer monitors to display them well are now
> dirt cheap and growing in popularity. Further, there are now cool new
> and surprisingly cheap devices that let you plug in your memory card
> into High Def TVs, or electronic picture frames (granted, they're
> still crappy 640x480, but they're improving.) Even better, consoles
> such as Playstation 3 and TiVo let you view all the photos from your
> computer on your TV. There are many, many ways to share your photos
> other than "passing around the camera". Many of them are even better
> than the old, yellowed envelope overflowing with prints (some of which
> have now stuck together) from the Drug Store.
>
> >This so-called "progress" may be progress in that you
> >don't have to fool with actual film, but it is actually regressive in
> >that nobody really looks at pictures anymore.
>
> photos as they need to get the photo they want, rather than taking one
> or two (not wanting to use up your 36-exposure roll of film or two),
> waiting hours or days to develop them, and finding out only then that
> someone had their eyes closed, or the shot was too dark, or was
> blurry, etc.
>
> Brian
You proved my point here. Sounds to me like you print very few photos.
I haven't seen a real photgraph in the last several years, ever since
digital cameras came out. You can print them on CDs or keep them
stored in a computer, but it seems to me photographs are taken not for
the photograher but for other folks to look at. And, like I said, the
paper IS expensive -- much more expensive than normal paper. Thus,
people don't buy it and hence people don't print out there pictures.
As for sending them through e-mail -- who the heck cares? You still
don't have a photograph you can handle in your mitts. THAT'S what
photograpy is about -- making pictures! And digital cameras have
caused that to decline and, hence, it is MANY steps backward.
trijcomm
wrote:
> "trijcomm" <trijc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Websites certainly aren't hand-held photos that you can save and keep
and put in albums and show to friends and family. If you want your
photos done quickly, there is one-hour photo. Yes, it costs four or
five bucks, but at least you get a photo in your hands -- a lot more
than that. Fact is, it sounds like even you print out just a few
photos -- which proves my point. Digital cameras are regressive in
many, many ways.
Bob Myers
> You proved my point here. Sounds to me like you print very few photos.
> I haven't seen a real photgraph in the last several years, ever since
> digital cameras came out. You can print them on CDs or keep them
> stored in a computer, but it seems to me photographs are taken not for
> the photograher but for other folks to look at. And, like I said, the
> paper IS expensive -- much more expensive than normal paper.
Regular photographic color print paper is also "much more expensive
than normal paper," so what's your point? The fact remains that
anyone can still - IF they want to - obtain a hardcopy of a digital
photograph which is essentially indistinguishable from what you'd
get from a film camera, in all but a very few corner-case professional
situations. And those cost the same or less on a per-print basis than
what the typical person paid the drugstore to print from film.
The fact that few people choose to print out the vast majority of
their digital photos comes from the simple fact that they prefer
other means of viewing them (on a monitor, using a "digital photo
frame," etc.). In the days of film photography, what percentage
of prints do you think were viewed once and then put away into
a shoebox, never to be seen again? And what happened five
years down the road when you found one of those old prints and
wanted another copy? If you were extremely lucky (or at least
very unusual for a casual amateur photographer), you MIGHT be
able to find the negative, and it MIGHT be in something like the
same condition it was five years earlier. But I routinely print out
copies of 5-year-old digital shots that turn out exactly as the first
print - or even better, owing to the advancement in papers and
inks that's happened in the meantime.
Bob M.
Alan Dicey
>
> You proved my point here. Sounds to me like you print very few photos.
> I haven't seen a real photgraph in the last several years, ever since
> digital cameras came out. You can print them on CDs or keep them
> stored in a computer, but it seems to me photographs are taken not for
> the photograher but for other folks to look at. And, like I said, the
> paper IS expensive -- much more expensive than normal paper. Thus,
> people don't buy it and hence people don't print out there pictures.
> As for sending them through e-mail -- who the heck cares? You still
> don't have a photograph you can handle in your mitts. THAT'S what
> photograpy is about -- making pictures! And digital cameras have
> caused that to decline and, hence, it is MANY steps backward.
Photography is about capturing an image, a frozen moment of time. What
you then do with that image is entirely up to you.
Digital imaging in its many forms allows everybody and their dog to
capture images in more ways, with more flexibility and freedom, more
cheaply and more easily than any film camera.
The cost of the captured image is practically nothing. The initial
investment in memory cards is recouped quickly because they are
reusable. You can take as many shots as you want, trying different
exposures, points of view, aperture and speed combinations, and review
them - right on the spot if you want to. You can discard failed images
before processing, drastically reducing the overall cost of each
successful image - because you haven't had to pay for the failed images
to be printed.
Printing to snapshot standards is now trivially easy, with photo-paper
and inkjet printers being an affordable investment for even the mildly
prolific photographer, with the side benefit of being usable for
purposes outside of photography. For the occasional photographer, copy
shops will print to acceptable standards from the memory card. The cost
per print is substantially cheaper than photographic prints ever were.
Photography has never been easier, and diehard objectors to digital have
to fold themselves into increasingly uncomfortable shapes to fit into
the little corners of the envelope they have chosen to retreat into.
Yes, there are areas where film is still superior, where the resolution
matters, but they are increasingly specialised.
Your argument was that digital photography is regressive because it
discourages the production and viewing of a finished image. I think
you're wrong, because the medium for image viewing and exchange has
shifted from the printed image to the electronic, using the ubiquitous
television or computer monitor as a substitute for the print or the
slide projector/screen.
The reduction in the number of photos "you can handle in your mitts" is
because nobody prints out their failures any more.
Keith Willshaw
On Nov 28, 11:11 am, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> It actually is progress in that photographers can now take as many
>> photos as they need to get the photo they want, rather than taking one
>> or two (not wanting to use up your 36-exposure roll of film or two),
>> waiting hours or days to develop them, and finding out only then that
>> someone had their eyes closed, or the shot was too dark, or was
>> blurry, etc.
>>
>> Brian
> You proved my point here. Sounds to me like you print very few photos.
> I haven't seen a real photgraph in the last several years, ever since
> digital cameras came out.
If you walk into any branch of Boots (a chemist/drugstore) in the UK
you will be able to see people printing their photographs at the photo
kiosks installed there.
> You can print them on CDs or keep them stored in a computer, but
> it seems to me photographs are taken not for the photograher but
> for other folks to look at. And, like I said, the
> paper IS expensive -- much more expensive than normal paper.
What else would you expect when its heavy grade and coated ?
That said its a LOT cheaper than getting pictures printed from
film.
> Thus, people don't buy it and hence people don't print out there
> pictures.
Yet millions of packs of paper are sold every year
> As for sending them through e-mail -- who the heck cares? You still
> don't have a photograph you can handle in your mitts. THAT'S what
> photograpy is about -- making pictures! And digital cameras have
> caused that to decline and, hence, it is MANY steps backward.
This statement is at variance with your earlier claim that
"photographs are taken not for the photograher but for other folks to look
at"
The fact is that with email and photo sharing websites more people
can see my photos than ever before.
Keith
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>You proved my point here. Sounds to me like you print very few photos.
>I haven't seen a real photgraph in the last several years, ever since
>digital cameras came out.
I have many of my photos framed at home and in my office. The "pass
around" photo is dying, replaced by web and email distribution.
Sending a digital photo to 10 friends and family is a lot cheaper than
printing 10 copies and mailing them.
>You can print them on CDs or keep them
>stored in a computer, but it seems to me photographs are taken not for
>the photograher but for other folks to look at. And, like I said, the
>paper IS expensive -- much more expensive than normal paper.
Relevance? You don't print film photographs on regular paper, either.
The cost between film prints and digital print-outs is comparable. But
with film, prints are the *only* way you see the resulting photo.
Brian
(bthorn on Webshots)
Jeff Findley
"Bob Myers" <nospam...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:hf42n0$687$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> But I routinely print out
> copies of 5-year-old digital shots that turn out exactly as the first
> print - or even better, owing to the advancement in papers and
> inks that's happened in the meantime.
This is one of the best advantages that digital has over film. The archive
of a digital photograph will never degrade with time (unless you somehow
lose the entire file). Also, digital copies of the original files are the
same exact quality of the original. I can give out photo books to friends
and family with an archival quality CD-R in the album, which is essentially
like given them copies of film negatives. Some picture sharing websites let
you upload the original, large file size, image file from your camera thus
providing another archival opportunity that cannot be easily duplicated with
film negatives.
All this means that it's possible to quickly, easily, and inexpensively
archive your valuable pictures in many locations with many people, including
"the Internet", so that it's virtually impossible to completely lose all of
your pictures to a man made or natural disaster.
1 terabyte hard drives are now under $100. That's a heck of a lot of
digital picture storage for very little money compared to *properly*
preserving the same amount of film negatives.
When I was a teenager, I was storing data on low density 5.25" floppy disks.
My Commodore 1541 disk drive, which accepted those floppies, cost me $250
new in mid 1980's dollars. Adjusted for inflation, I could no doubt buy
several terabytes of storage for the same money today. Such cheaply
available storage would have literally boggled my 1980's mind. ;-)
Jack Linthicum
> "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote in message
In the 60s the CIA tried to catalog and store their collection of
captured German photographs. They used IBM and the predecessor to the
360 for the program and it was a flop. Picture quality was bad in the
originals and the digital scanning removed any details. That was
millions of pics, I would imagine today you could sit at your desk in
the new building and pull full quality replicas of the German stuff on
your screen and print them immediately.
Richard
> Jim Yanik wrote:
> > most digital cameras today ARE "rangefinder" cams,they just don't have
> > interchangeable lenses.
>
> That shows an appalling lack of knowledge of photography and how to take
> a photograph.
>
> cameras.
WHICH digital cameras?
My Nikon D-90 proves your experience with DSLRs to be woefully
inadequate to this discussion.
DoF is adjustable by a function of aperature and distance and focal
length...all of which are adjustable and without using "bloody menus".
My Canon AE-1, Minolta XG-11, Olympus OM-10 and the venerable
Yashicamat Twinlens reflex (which is what a 'rangefinder' should be
but aint) are all on a shelf and will happily stay there forever.
I shoot RAW files and have much more freedom of expression with
'development' than I ever did with a darkroom...and don't have to wait
for the results. (Which disappoints the anally retentives who seem to
relish maintain 1/4 degree temps in solutions). My biggest and
happiest concern now is connecting my new 24" monitor and additional
drive space...which beats the hell out of keeping 100's of rolls of
negatives and boxes of slides around forever (which, despite the
assurances of Kodak, et al, are NOT color stable in the long run).
Jim Yanik
news:qmbbh59ncif8n9prp...@4ax.com:
> Relevance? You don't print film photographs on regular paper, either.
> The cost between film prints and digital print-outs is comparable. But
> with film, prints are the *only* way you see the resulting photo.
>
> Brian
> (bthorn on Webshots)
there are now low cost film scanners that can scan photo negatives into
your PC.
I believe they'll do both slides and negatives.
Of course,you still have to get the film -developed- first.... ;-(
Keith Willshaw
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9CD55E79FEA6B...@216.168.3.44...
> Brian Thorn <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote in
> news:qmbbh59ncif8n9prp...@4ax.com:
>
>
>> Relevance? You don't print film photographs on regular paper, either.
>> The cost between film prints and digital print-outs is comparable. But
>> with film, prints are the *only* way you see the resulting photo.
>>
>> Brian
>> (bthorn on Webshots)
>
> there are now low cost film scanners that can scan photo negatives into
> your PC.
> I believe they'll do both slides and negatives.
>
Yep I have been working my way through my old photos. Not before time either
I found a lot of my older slides from the 70's were deteriorating badly due
to some form of mould growing on the emulsion.
Keith
TC Jordan
>> If you want to start comparing that sort of thing on the film side,
>
>
> I admit that 10x8 Kodachrome slides are pretty exotic. Special order,
> IIRC, which I may not. In the bad old days, we used them for
> double-page-spreads (jargon DPS) in the late and by me much lamented
> Time-Life Books. Stories to be told, but not everyone's dead yet so I
> will keep them to myself for the moment. Still..
>
>
Did Springdale, Connecticut ever figure in your past?
Tim
(Time Labs brat)
Alan Lothian
<timj...@cox.net> wrote:
No, this was all in London. I've heard of the place, though. Truly
fabled, if that isn't a contradiction in terms. TL Books was rather
disassociated from the rest of TL, although I certainly received
support in foreign parts from TL stringers etc.We staffers used to
bitch about TL all the time, until an outsider dared criticize the
outfit, in which case it was close ranks with 14-ft pikes. I'm still
proud that I got (extremely robust) editorial training from authentic
'40s Life Magazine people. I try to pass it on, extremely robustly. If
they can't learn, fire them. If they can learn, give them a hard time
until they learn properly. That's what the savage old buggers did to
me, God bless them.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
William Black
He doesn't have to.
He knows that there is a difference between a Leica rangefinder and a
Kodak box brownie, and it isn't just manufacturing quality.
Richard
> Richard <the.sar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :My Nikon D-90 proves your experience with DSLRs to be woefully
> :inadequate to this discussion.
> :
>
> How can a camera that is *NOT* a DSLR prove anything at all in this
> discussion?
>
> --
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
> man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
> all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> --George Bernard Shaw
A D-90 is a DSLR.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0808/08082702nikond90previewed.asp
What's your point *exactly*?
Jeff Findley
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:464hh5lrurooh9661...@4ax.com...
> "Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> :news:neh6h5h3uvkln1ct7...@4ax.com...
> :> It would be nice if they could make the DSLRs have the same controls
> :> as film SLRs. I don't know why they don't do that.
> :
> :I don't know what you mean by this. Every DSLR I've looked at (I don't
> own
> :one yet) lets you manually control all the essential settings that you
> learn
> :in a traditional (i.e. film) class: "film" speed, focus, apeture, and
> :shutter speed.
> :
>
> And are all those controls right up on the 'body', or do you have to
> dig down through digital menus to get to them?
So by "same controls" you mean manual knobs for things like shutter speed.
Unfortunately for you, DSLR's have controls which are much closer to modern
film cameras. You'll not find a lot of manual knobs on a most modern film
cameras either.
I'm personally planning on getting a Pentax DSLR so I can use my old Pentax
K mount lenses with it (lots of money invested in those). Buying an
aftermarket focusing screen for the DSLR will help with manual focusing.
For those older lenses, focus and aperture control are still on the lens, so
it will feel more like what you seem to want. But for "film speed" and
shutter speed, the controls are on the camera, so no, it's not going to
"look and feel" exactly like a fully manual Pentax K1000 camera.
Richard
wrote:
> "Fred J. McCall" <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:464hh5lrurooh9661...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
> > :"Fred J. McCall" <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I miss (well, sorta) my old K1000. I miss the needle in the
viewfinder. Wasn't good in low light though.
Mark Borgerson
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> "Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> :> It would be nice if they could make the DSLRs have the same controls
> :> as film SLRs. I don't know why they don't do that.
> :
> :I don't know what you mean by this. Every DSLR I've looked at (I don't own
> :one yet) lets you manually control all the essential settings that you learn
> :in a traditional (i.e. film) class: "film" speed, focus, apeture, and
> :shutter speed.
> :
>
> And are all those controls right up on the 'body', or do you have to
> dig down through digital menus to get to them?
>
>
menus. That menu is only one level deep, thanks to the 'ISO' button
on the keypad on the back of the body. That's less trouble than
changing both the ISO setting and the film on a traditional SLR.
Overcoming the autofocus mechanism is also different---I usually
do it by letting the autofocus lock on something at the distance
I want, then switching back to the subject while holding the
exposure button at 'half cock'. I've only done that a few
times---such as when I want blurred grass in the foreground
and sharp distant objects in a landscape. If that doesn't
work, you can always disable the autofocus and focus manually,
using the ring on the lens. Disabling autofocus is done
with a switch on the lens and doesn't require using menus.
Mark Borgerson
Jim Watt
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Oops. Got confused between a 'D' and a 'P'.
The D90 is a very nice DSLR, I has one.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com