OT Kodachrome film discontinued
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Kodachrome, is being discontinued. Very few are using it.
Admittedly, I haven't used it in a long time. I used to love it.
Some years ago I switched to print film, and very recently to
digital. But I'm tempted to get a roll and shoot it for old time's
sake, especially with bright summer light and colors.
(In the ABC News report on this, they played the Paul Simon song in
the background.)
Chris Burrows
news:0d2e8259-54e8-40f4...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Digital has claimed another victim--the gold standard of films,
> Kodachrome, is being discontinued. Very few are using it.
>
Maybe a good time to buy up some old stock. There have been 19 bids on eBay
for 7 out-dated rolls of Kodachrome 35mm. It is currently at $76 with 6
minutes to go ;-)
--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
Armaide v2.0: ARM Oberon-07 Development System
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/armaide
Patrick Scheible
No!
That's the only film I'd think about using.
Kodak hasn't exactly been going out of its way to promote it
recently. Their spiffy web application to help you pick the best film
for your application didn't even mention Kodachrome.
-- Patrick
grey...@mail.com
All these new devices are changing our outlook. I got a digital
camera last August for a wedding, last week I checked it and so far,
not a photo worth printing. It is _emphasising_ how good professional
photographers are, and the `automatic gun syndrome', when you have
loads of room for images, you just keep taking phots, rather than
taking time to get one right, (like the person (soldier, hunter)that has
an automatic gun, just popping off shots, rather than the man with a
single, manually loaded, gun, that has to take time to get it right.)
--
Greymaus
.
.
...
Peter Flass
The TV-droids said last night that Kodachrome is difficult to process
and there is only one lab in the US that still handles it -- not Kodak.
Too bad.
Peter Flass
If you get the picture you want in the frame, Photoshop et.al. can go a
long way towards producing an acceptable photo, depending on your
definition of acceptable.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> writes:
> That's the only film I'd think about using.
>
> Kodak hasn't exactly been going out of its way to promote it
> recently. Their spiffy web application to help you pick the best film
> for your application didn't even mention Kodachrome.
long ago, jul76 "tall ships" boston ... Kodachrome 64 had just been
introduced(?) ... and I bought several rolls (35mm, minolta slr) and
shot them all of the "tall ships". when they came back from processing
... they were all quite a bit off ... apparently the processing lab
hadn't setup correctly for Kodachrome 64.
although this says kodachrome 64 was introduced in 1974 ... so why
the processing lab didn't get it correct, I don't know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome
("K-14" process instead of "K-12"??)
I've got couple thousand or so slides in boxes someplace, mostly
kodachrome ... maybe qtr have been digitized.
--
40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> All these new devices are changing our outlook. I got a digital
> camera last August for a wedding, last week I checked it and so far,
> not a photo worth printing. It is _emphasising_ how good professional
> photographers are, and the `automatic gun syndrome', when you have
> loads of room for images, you just keep taking phots, rather than
> taking time to get one right, (like the person (soldier, hunter)that has
> an automatic gun, just popping off shots, rather than the man with a
> single, manually loaded, gun, that has to take time to get it right.)
When I was buying my digital camera, the camera store had an old Speed
Graphic camera on display for sale. That was the big newspapers'
camera of the 1940s and 1950s. It used 4"x5" negatives mounted in a
thin box; each shot required a box to be loaded. Obviously taking a
picture with this requiring planning, few candids, almost everything
was posed.
But the big negative provided extremely high quality pictures--deep
blue skies, and a very wide range of tonal values, a "rich" looking
photograph. A great many pictures from that era are classic gems,
very striking.
I was tempted to buy it for myself, but decided to go 21st C, not 19th
C.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> long ago, jul76 "tall ships" boston ... Kodachrome 64 had just been
> introduced(?) ... and I bought several rolls (35mm, minolta slr) and
> shot them all of the "tall ships". when they came back from processing
> ... they were all quite a bit off ... apparently the processing lab
> hadn't setup correctly for Kodachrome 64.
Was this a Kodak lab? Kodak labs had excellent quality control and
I'd be surprised if they were 'off'.
In the early 1970s Kodak introduced a second Kodachrome, one with ASA
64, and the classic with ASA 25. I believe it used to be ASA 12.
Don't know if they changed the processing or not.
Ektachrome many years ago had an E-4 process and a few speciality
films used it. Kodak supported it for many years before discontinuing
the process. It's now E-6.
> I've got couple thousand or so slides in boxes someplace, mostly
> kodachrome ... maybe qtr have been digitized.
How did you digitize them? Any recommendations for a digitizer?
(Some Epson V500 was recommended to me.)
Patrick Scheible
Yes, actually that one lab is the only one in the world, not just the
U.S. But that lab has plenty of business to keep the line open, and
they do a good job. Even in its hayday, Kodachrome generally had to
be mailed to be developed.
Kodachrome is the gold standard of color film. Small grain,
archivally sound. Slides my grandfather took before WW II are still
fresh and unfaded. No other color film is that stable.
-- Patrick
William Hamblen
<cfbso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Maybe a good time to buy up some old stock. There have been 19 bids on eBay
>for 7 out-dated rolls of Kodachrome 35mm. It is currently at $76 with 6
>minutes to go ;-)
The only lab that processes Kodachrome will process it only until the
end of 2010.
How much longer will Tri-X Pan, another iconic film, last?
Bud
Stan Barr
> news:0d2e8259-54e8-40f4...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> Digital has claimed another victim--the gold standard of films,
>> Kodachrome, is being discontinued. Very few are using it.
>>
>
> Maybe a good time to buy up some old stock. There have been 19 bids on eBay
> for 7 out-dated rolls of Kodachrome 35mm. It is currently at $76 with 6
> minutes to go ;-)
Are Kodak still processing it?
That's not _too_ bad a price for obsolete film, I'm trying to get some
Kodak 122 film for a 1908 camera. The only stuff I could find was $37.95
a roll - and they don't have any left :-(
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr plan.b .at. dsl .dot. pipex .dot. com
The future was never like this!
Patrick Scheible
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:33:03 +0930, "Chris Burrows"
> <cfbso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Maybe a good time to buy up some old stock. There have been 19 bids on eBay
> >for 7 out-dated rolls of Kodachrome 35mm. It is currently at $76 with 6
> >minutes to go ;-)
>
> The only lab that processes Kodachrome will process it only until the
> end of 2010.
A small correction: they are guaranteeing that they will process it
up to Dec. 2010. After that depends on how much demand there is. How
many rolls do people have still hidden away in freezers?
> How much longer will Tri-X Pan, another iconic film, last?
Possibly quite a while. That's much cheaper both to manufacture and develop.
-- Patrick
Patrick Scheible
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:33:03 +0930, Chris Burrows
> <cfbso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ><hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
> > news:0d2e8259-54e8-40f4...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> >> Digital has claimed another victim--the gold standard of films,
> >> Kodachrome, is being discontinued. Very few are using it.
> >>
> >
> > Maybe a good time to buy up some old stock. There have been 19 bids on eBay
> > for 7 out-dated rolls of Kodachrome 35mm. It is currently at $76 with 6
> > minutes to go ;-)
>
> Are Kodak still processing it?
Kodak, no. Dwayne's Photo http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/ is the only
remaining production developer. They have an excellent reputation, and
they have pretty quick turnaround. It's not because of the developing
that Kodak is discontinuing the film.
-- Patrick
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> How did you digitize them? Any recommendations for a digitizer?
> (Some Epson V500 was recommended to me.)
it was several yrs ago ... i asked one of the offspring to do it. sent
them 5-6 boxes (i think something like 600-700slides/box). they were
suppose to get something good and I would pay for it. one of the issues
was whether it was usb1 or usb2, the scanning and data transfer rate.
i got a cdrom of jpg files in return with 700+ images.
the jpg files don't contain any tag/info about device.
they are suppose to finish it someday if they get time ... or maybe one
of their offspring (grandkids) can be induced to finish it.
Stan Barr
No sign of that going yet, and with the rise in B&W photography lately
it'll continue for some time. At least there _are_ alternatives, there's
no real alternative to Kodachrome!
Stan Barr
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> When I was buying my digital camera, the camera store had an old Speed
> Graphic camera on display for sale. That was the big newspapers'
> camera of the 1940s and 1950s. It used 4"x5" negatives mounted in a
> thin box; each shot required a box to be loaded. Obviously taking a
> picture with this requiring planning, few candids, almost everything
> was posed.
5x4* cameras are enjoying a huge revival atm with a dozen or so makes on
the market and even a build-it-youself kit. The best makes are *hugely*
expensive! Kodak, Ilford, Foma and Adox et al still do the film.
Have a go, I'm about to...
* and 5x7 and 10x8 as well.
John Varela
wrote:
> Kodachrome is the gold standard of color film. Small grain,
> archivally sound. Slides my grandfather took before WW II are still
> fresh and unfaded. No other color film is that stable.
I'll say. A couple of years ago I started scanning old slides and
negatives, most of the slides dating to the fifties and early
sixties. The Kodachromes were fine. Ektachromes, Fuji, and off
brand slides were badly faded and some had green splotches of
I-don't-know-what that looked like a spidery mold.
If you have slides you want to digitize, do it now. And get those
old 8mm films digitized, too.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Michael Black
But, digital cameras are a "revolution".
I bought a 35mm viewfinder camera back in the summer of 1980, just
before going on a trip. I took pictures for a few years, nothing
special but a period that I'm glad I have the photos of. Then I stopped
using it, too expensive for the film, too expensive for the development.
And maybe most important, I didn't take that many photos. So if I
wanted something this week, I'd have to waste the film to get it
developed before the roll was finished. I also didn't see the results
until the roll was developed, which sometimes was well after the photo
taking. I never took enough photos to get good at it.
I got a hand me down 2mp camera 3 or 4 years ago. I'm back to taking
photos. Yes, most of them aren't worthy of keeping, but I'm seeing
that immediately rather than later I can take multiple shots and
then sort them out later. I've got zoom, which wasn't on that 35mm
viewfinder, and that helps. I'm only using it to put photos on
a webpage, so more people can see them than when I took film pictures
and left them in a photo album (or in envelopes, I still can't find
that photo I took in 1981 of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade). I can edit
the photos on the computer to get them "right".
Another interesting development is that I can take photos to document
things. Not just show progression of something, easy since the photos
are all date and time stamped, but if I take something apart, I
can take a picture to study it, or for future reference.
The thing is, most people take pictures like I do. They aren't
professional, they are casual, and want the results soon after.
They probably do benefit from taking a lot more photos than
they did before, and seeing the results right away.
Michael
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> writes:
> Another interesting development is that I can take photos to document
> things. Not just show progression of something, easy since the photos
> are all date and time stamped, but if I take something apart, I
> can take a picture to study it, or for future reference.
ever watch the spy shows where the "break" into home ... take Polaroids
of the rooms ... tear it apart looking for something ... and then use
the Polaroids to put it all back like it was to begin with (so nobody can
tell they had been there).
we've used phone cameras to take picture of things like kids clothing
(we've found on sale) ... send the picture to (appropriate party)
... and in real time, ask if it is acceptable to purchase (for
grandkids).
Patrick Scheible
Sure, digital is nice for lots of things. The ubiquitious phone
cameras are changing behaviour in other ways too -- people may conduct
themselves better if there are likely to be cameras around.
But great color, super fine grain, and archival stability are valuable
too. Hard to believe it's going away, especially while other color
films survive.
-- Patrick
Mike Roach
<ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
>we've used phone cameras to take picture of things like kids clothing
>(we've found on sale) ... send the picture to (appropriate party)
>... and in real time, ask if it is acceptable to purchase (for
>grandkids).
The last time I did that, my wife told me the tie I selected looked like
the pattern on the couch we had at the house in Denver.
--
It's not enough to be Hungarian; you must have talent too.
-- Alexander Korda
Michael Black
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> writes:
>> Another interesting development is that I can take photos to document
>> things. Not just show progression of something, easy since the photos
>> are all date and time stamped, but if I take something apart, I
>> can take a picture to study it, or for future reference.
>
> ever watch the spy shows where the "break" into home ... take Polaroids
> of the rooms ... tear it apart looking for something ... and then use
> the Polaroids to put it all back like it was to begin with (so nobody can
> tell they had been there).
>
I wasn't thinking of anything that sinister, though I have seen that
in fictional movies and tv.
I got a keyboard, nothing special but it was black, but it's putting out
the wrong codes for some reason. I had it apart, so I took photos. It's
a Dell keyboard so I figure when I find that other Dell keyboard that's
somewhere around here, I may be able to do a transplant. But taking the
photos means I can open the other Dell keyboard and compare it with
the black one, rather than leave the black one apart (I've got plenty
of things in that state, waiting for some key bit of information or
component) or having to open it again to compare.
It's a minor thing, and I wouldn't be bothering if it was a film camera,
even a Polaroid. Too expensive, and I'd have to find the developed
photos when the time came later. But it is something that does
happen due to digital cameras.
Michael
grey...@mail.com
Also for scenes of accidents, showing who was where, disputes, etc.
Peter Flass
I've been struggling to keep up with technology. A while ago I had all
my worthwhile slides printed. I'm not sure if I've scanned in the
prints yet.
Along the same lines I had a super-8 from my wedding converted to VHS,
now I guess I'll have to get it re-converted to DVD%:-(
Peter Flass
Even Arizona Highways is going partly digital.
I sometimes miss my 35mm Olympus, but not enough to dig it out of the
closet. It took the best pictures I ever made, but required a lot of
fiddling, and I'd sometimes forget to set some dohickey just right, with
strange results. At least now I know I've got *something*, and I can
ususlly photoshop a reasonable picture out of it. With 6MPixels I can
do lots of zoom and cropping after the fact.
Peter Flass
"Polaroids" are making a comeback too, I believe under that name.
They've coupled a digital camera and a compact photo printer so you get
instant prints, hopefully without the terrible fading the original
suffered from.
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> When I was buying my digital camera, the camera store had an old
> Speed Graphic camera on display for sale. That was the big
> newspapers' camera of the 1940s and 1950s. It used 4"x5"
> negatives mounted in a thin box; each shot required a box to be
> loaded. Obviously taking a picture with this requiring planning,
> few candids, almost everything was posed.
>
> But the big negative provided extremely high quality pictures--
> looking photograph. A great many pictures from that era are
> classic gems, very striking.
>
> I was tempted to buy it for myself, but decided to go 21st C, not
> 19th C.
I still have my fathers GP camera from the '20s. It was German,
took 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 10 negative film-packs, and had a Schneider f4.5
lens, along with 1 1/500 (I think) shutter. Folded up to something
about 1 to 2 inches thick.
You focused it on a ground-glass, then removed the glass and
inserted the film-pack, pulled the pack light sealer, and shot.
Then replace the sealer. As an alternative you could focus by
using a scale.
My father took impressive shots everywhere. I consider it a
valuable antique.
I can remember being able to buy the film-packs in Montreal about
1947. Don't know about later availability.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
CBFalconer
> <cfbso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe a good time to buy up some old stock. There have been 19
>> bids on eBay for 7 out-dated rolls of Kodachrome 35mm. It is
>> currently at $76 with 6 minutes to go ;-)
>
> The only lab that processes Kodachrome will process it only until
> the end of 2010.
>
> How much longer will Tri-X Pan, another iconic film, last?
Dunno. Is anybody still processing frozen Super-XX? I was using
that 20 years after discontinuance. Developing b/w is no great
problem.
CBFalconer
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
>
>> we've used phone cameras to take picture of things like kids
>> clothing (we've found on sale) ... send the picture to
>> (appropriate party) ... and in real time, ask if it is
>> acceptable to purchase (for grandkids).
>
> The last time I did that, my wife told me the tie I selected
> looked like the pattern on the couch we had at the house in
> Denver.
At which point you congratulated her on her taste in selecting that
couch in the first place, and bought the fershlugginer tie.
Michael Black
I thought you were going to tell the story the entrepreneur who has
bought a Polaroid film factory, and intends to put the film back into
production.
Michael
Larry Elmore
> Digital has claimed another victim--the gold standard of films,
> Kodachrome, is being discontinued. Very few are using it.
It's been a loong day -- I spent a couple of seconds wondering how in
the world Digital's corporate curse brought down a Kodak film. :-/
> Admittedly, I haven't used it in a long time. I used to love it.
> Some years ago I switched to print film, and very recently to
> digital. But I'm tempted to get a roll and shoot it for old time's
> sake, especially with bright summer light and colors.
My best pictures are all Kodachrome slides. Digital's getting close,
but being able to take lots of pictures quickly and cheaply just results
in lots of cheap, crappy photos with a few gems here and there.
Roger Ivie
> ever watch the spy shows where the "break" into home ... take Polaroids
> of the rooms ... tear it apart looking for something ... and then use
> the Polaroids to put it all back like it was to begin with (so nobody can
> tell they had been there).
For a brief time, you could get small Polaroid cameras for kids to use.
The film was about a couple of square inches and had sticky stuff on the
back so the kids could stick them to things.
I used it when I was working on my VW Beetle to keep track of how I had
taken things apart one summer. Very convenient; I'd take a snap and
stick it to the fender.
The next summer, I couldn't find the film anymore.
--
roger ivie
ri...@ridgenet.net
Dave Garland
> I still have my fathers GP camera from the '20s. It was German,
> took 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 10 negative film-packs, and had a Schneider f4.5
> lens, along with 1 1/500 (I think) shutter. Folded up to something
> about 1 to 2 inches thick.
>
> You focused it on a ground-glass, then removed the glass and
> inserted the film-pack, pulled the pack light sealer, and shot.
> Then replace the sealer. As an alternative you could focus by
> using a scale.
>
> My father took impressive shots everywhere. I consider it a
> valuable antique.
>
> I can remember being able to buy the film-packs in Montreal about
> 1947. Don't know about later availability.
In the '70s I had a Crown Graphic that used that size film.
Double-sided film holders took one piece of film each side, loaded in
the darkroom. You could get normal B&W film at that time (I preferred
Plus-X, developed with Edwal FG-7). IIRC it had an outboard
split-image viewfinder as well as the groundglass. Wish I still had
that camera, it was like a mini-Speed Graphic. Always wanted a
flashgun for it, not because I wanted to take flash pictures, but
because I thought it would look neat.
Dave
Bernd Felsche
>>> Digital has claimed another victim--the gold standard of films,
>>> Kodachrome, is being discontinued. Very few are using it.
>>>
>>> Admittedly, I haven't used it in a long time. I used to love it.
>>> Some years ago I switched to print film, and very recently to
>>> digital. But I'm tempted to get a roll and shoot it for old time's
>>> sake, especially with bright summer light and colors.
>>>
>>> (In the ABC News report on this, they played the Paul Simon song in
>>> the background.)
>> All these new devices are changing our outlook. I got a digital
>> camera last August for a wedding, last week I checked it and so far,
>> not a photo worth printing. It is _emphasising_ how good professional
>> photographers are, and the `automatic gun syndrome', when you have
>> loads of room for images, you just keep taking phots, rather than
>> taking time to get one right, (like the person (soldier, hunter)that has
>> an automatic gun, just popping off shots, rather than the man with a
>> single, manually loaded, gun, that has to take time to get it right.)
Who's carrying the ammo? :-)
>If you get the picture you want in the frame, Photoshop et.al. can go a
>long way towards producing an acceptable photo, depending on your
>definition of acceptable.
Fixing the composition and lighting with Photoshop is much more
time-consuming than taking the 10 seconds to get the photo right.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | The growth of knowledge depends
X against HTML mail | entirely on disagreement.
/ \ and postings | -- Karl Popper
Joe Morris
> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>
>>> Digital has claimed another victim--the gold standard of films,
>>> Kodachrome, is being discontinued. Very few are using it.
There's a nice writeup of the milestone in the (Monday?) Wall Street
Journal.
>>> Admittedly, I haven't used it in a long time. I used to love it.
>>> Some years ago I switched to print film, and very recently to
>>> digital. But I'm tempted to get a roll and shoot it for old time's
>>> sake, especially with bright summer light and colors.
A common nickname for Kodachrome was "the Walt Disney film" due to its
brilliant colors.
>> That's the only film I'd think about using.
>>
>> Kodak hasn't exactly been going out of its way to promote it
>> recently. Their spiffy web application to help you pick the best film
>> for your application didn't even mention Kodachrome.
If they were smart enough to see the final shutdown coming I'm not
particularly surprised that they would drop it out of their advertising.
> The TV-droids said last night that Kodachrome is difficult to process and
> there is only one lab in the US that still handles it -- not Kodak. Too
> bad.
One reason it's so difficult is that unlike Ektachrome and other color films
that don't use the Kodachrome process, one of the necessary steps in setting
up a Kodachrome processing facility is obtaining an EPA permit because of
the toxic chemistry used. I'm not saying that other chemistries such as E6
were fit for human consumption, but Kodachrome used some rather nasty stuff.
I'll admit that I didn't shoot much Kodachrome after the early '60s, in
large part because when I used reversal film I usually did my own
processing -- and later, did a lot of large-format work where Kodachrome
wasn't available.
Joe (doing Ektachrome processing at home since the late 1950s)
Patrick Scheible
> On 2009-06-24, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
> > Sure, digital is nice for lots of things. The ubiquitious phone
> > cameras are changing behaviour in other ways too -- people may conduct
>
> Phone cameras are idiotic. Phones are for talking on, not for taking
> pictures.
Why?
Lots of people like having a camera with them, especially when it's no
bigger than the phone would be anyway.
-- Patrick
Joe Morris
>Ektachrome many years ago had an E-4 process and a few speciality
>films used it. Kodak supported it for many years before discontinuing
>the process. It's now E-6.
I got on board the Ektachrome processing train in the late 1950s when E2 was
in use -- and I can still for some reason quote the price for the chemistry:
$3.60 for a can (!) with enough capacity for 12 36-exposure rolls of 35mm
film. I have no recollection whatever what I paid for the gallon E6 kits
I've bought over the years.
I never used E4 although I was tempted to try some of the IR Ektachrome
films that required it long after E6 came into common use. I have a vague
recollection that E4 had some tricky hardening issues.
Joe Morris
Joe Morris
>On Jun 24, 3:58 am, greyma...@mail.com wrote:
>> All these new devices are changing our outlook. I got a digital
>> camera last August for a wedding, last week I checked it and so far,
>> not a photo worth printing. It is _emphasising_ how good professional
>> photographers are, and the `automatic gun syndrome', when you have
>> loads of room for images, you just keep taking phots, rather than
>> taking time to get one right, (like the person (soldier, hunter)that has
>> an automatic gun, just popping off shots, rather than the man with a
>> single, manually loaded, gun, that has to take time to get it right.)
>When I was buying my digital camera, the camera store had an old Speed
>Graphic camera on display for sale. That was the big newspapers'
>camera of the 1940s and 1950s. It used 4"x5" negatives mounted in a
>thin box; each shot required a box to be loaded. Obviously taking a
>picture with this requiring planning, few candids, almost everything
>was posed.
I occasionally had an interesting time discovering how well camera store
staff understood the older equipment they had for sale. Back around 1980 or
so I was in a store and commented on an Argus C3 they had in the case and
while I didn't intentionally set him up, I did get a (quiet) chuckle when it
turned out that the salesman had no idea that the camera had interchangable
lenses.
At one point I would probably have bought a decently priced Speed Graphic
but today I don't think I could justify it when my Sinar F1 is far, far
underutilized. I'll admit that just as a bit of history I might be tempted
by a good Graflex, however...
>But the big negative provided extremely high quality pictures--deep
>blue skies, and a very wide range of tonal values, a "rich" looking
>photograph. A great many pictures from that era are classic gems,
>very striking.>
One thing that the use of (relatively expensive) film and processing did was
to encourage care in composing a picture and exposing the film. (I'm
obviously talking about pictures designed to be impressive; documentary
pictures are another issue entirely.)
It's true that you can do a lot in the darkroom (either wet or digital) to
improve a shot, but it's a lot easier if some care went into the original
exposure. I can easily recall several times when I had my Sinar 4x5 at the
Grand Canyon, and got some quizzical looks from other tourists when I was
moving the camera back and forth by a few feet until I found the exact spot
I wanted from which to expose the film: the canyon didn't change much as I
moved, but the framing of the picture by the nearby trees gave the picture a
balance only from that one spot.
Joe Morris
Charles Richmond
>> news:0d2e8259-54e8-40f4...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>> Digital has claimed another victim--the gold standard of films,
>>> Kodachrome, is being discontinued. Very few are using it.
>>>
>> for 7 out-dated rolls of Kodachrome 35mm. It is currently at $76 with 6
>> minutes to go ;-)
>
> That's not _too_ bad a price for obsolete film, I'm trying to get some
> Kodak 122 film for a 1908 camera. The only stuff I could find was $37.95
> a roll - and they don't have any left :-(
>
Hmmmm.... When I do *not* have any Kodak 122 film left, I sell it for
$29.95. ;-)
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Christian Brunschen
Roger Blake <rogbl...@iname10.com> wrote:
>
>Phone cameras are idiotic. Phones are for talking on, not for taking
>pictures.
You're missing the point.
A mobile phone these days is a multi-function device. Yes, it can make
calls, and that is one of its major uses. But it can also send and receive
text messages, handle your address book, and indeed take pictures.
But the reason there's a camera on the phone isn't particularly linked to
the fact that it's a phone - just to the fact that it's a conveniently
sized device that the owner is likely to have and keep on their person,
in order to be easily reachable or be able to easily reach others.
The utility of having your phone with you at all times is *huge*, so
people are willing to add this device ti their person, so to speak. The
utility of carrying a separate camera, even a small one, is comparatively
much smaller, because the siutuations where you want one are rarer; so
most people won't make the choice of carrying _that_ device with them.
By incorporating the camera into the phone, the phone's owner now has an
always-easily-available camera. Not a great camera, usually, but one that
is still a lot better than having _no_ camera, which is what most people
usually have with them. And that means that incorporating the camera into
the phone actually adds value to the phone, because it has now become a
more useful _device_, even though it is no longer focused entirely on a
single function.
Similarly, consider that most mobile phones can also be used as a simple
calculator. Again, not really a core funtion of the phone. But again, this
is an area where most people wouldn't carry a calculator with them, but it
can be very handy to have a calculator available when you need one. By
having access to a calculator in the one device that people *will* carry
with them, they gain something they might not need very often, but when
they do need it, is very useful.
> Roger Blake
Best wishes,
// Christian Brunschen
grey...@mail.com
That fading seemed to halt after an initial phase, there is a
polaroid opposite me now, must have been one of the first, but still
visible. Aamerican relative arrived, took family photo, and gave it
to us. Amazing technology. Now, count who is missing.
grey...@mail.com
> Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>grey...@mail.com wrote:
>>> On 2009-06-24, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Digital has claimed another victim--the gold standard of films,
>>>> Kodachrome, is being discontinued. Very few are using it.
>>>>
>>>> Admittedly, I haven't used it in a long time. I used to love it.
>>>> Some years ago I switched to print film, and very recently to
>>>> digital. But I'm tempted to get a roll and shoot it for old time's
>>>> sake, especially with bright summer light and colors.
>>>>
>>>> (In the ABC News report on this, they played the Paul Simon song in
>>>> the background.)
>
>>> All these new devices are changing our outlook. I got a digital
>>> camera last August for a wedding, last week I checked it and so far,
>>> not a photo worth printing. It is _emphasising_ how good professional
>>> photographers are, and the `automatic gun syndrome', when you have
>>> loads of room for images, you just keep taking phots, rather than
>>> taking time to get one right, (like the person (soldier, hunter)that has
>>> an automatic gun, just popping off shots, rather than the man with a
>>> single, manually loaded, gun, that has to take time to get it right.)
>
> Who's carrying the ammo? :-)
The man with the single shop gun will carry enough, whereas the
automatic gun guy will need re-supply every hour.
>
>>If you get the picture you want in the frame, Photoshop et.al. can go a
>>long way towards producing an acceptable photo, depending on your
>>definition of acceptable.
>
> Fixing the composition and lighting with Photoshop is much more
> time-consuming than taking the 10 seconds to get the photo right.
Unless you have a Photoshop like in 'Bladerunner' !
grey...@mail.com
> On 2009-06-24, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>> cameras are changing behaviour in other ways too -- people may conduct
>
> pictures.
>
Man I know was stopped at side of road, car pulls up, from which emerges
red-faced guy who starts screaming (some irrelevent matter), both
man have wives with phones recording what is happening. Row
finishes. No point in going further when there is a record of what
really is happening. (There was a film once, about the various
versions that witnesses had of what had happened at an occurence).
grey...@mail.com
Nephew, who work/ed in planning, borrowed my (previous) digital
because he was one his way to an assignment and had forgotten his
(usual occurence), when I got it back there were about 200 pictures
of places in carlow, which meant that he could go back to the office
and sort out about 10 that were `right`.
One of my problems with them is that they are less `holdable` than
the older quality cameras, too small. (Except for the more expensive
ones).(well, I suppose that figures).
Daughter paid about 250 euros for one last year, it developed a
problem, will cost 180 to fix.. :) (In other words, throw it away and
buy another, because if it developed one problem, will probably have
another).
Peter Flass
Hadn't heard that one, but I saw the little instant camera in operation
on a TV "tech" segment.
Peter Flass
You'd look like Jimmy Olson;-)
Walter Bushell
Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Fixing the composition and lighting with Photoshop is much more
> time-consuming than taking the 10 seconds to get the photo right.
In 10 seconds the shot is lost. Now if you are doing studio photography
of adults where you can pose them and get the light just so.
jmfbahciv
> On 2009-06-24, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>> Sure, digital is nice for lots of things. The ubiquitious phone
>> cameras are changing behaviour in other ways too -- people may conduct
>
> Phone cameras are idiotic. Phones are for talking on, not for taking
> pictures.
>
/BAH
Michael Black
But that's the thing. The camera was added to the cellphones as a
gimmick, to differentiate that phone from the rest (and I gather, to
charge a fee when a photo is sent somewhere via the cellphone network).
People didn't wish for cameras on their cellphones, there isn't some
great reason the camera and cellphone intersect, the camera was
simply added.
Once it's there, it becomes part of the background noise, something
people expect in their cellphones. That it might be useful does not
remove the fact that initially there wasn't any real connection between
the two functions.
Michael
Christian Brunschen
It's true that there wasn't a great wave of comments like "why don't
phones have cameras?". However, people frequently said "Oh, I wish I had a
camera right now". Putting the camera onto the phone sudenly meant that
anyone who had their phone with them, suddenly _also_ had a camera with
them, without increasing the number of devices to carry and potentially
lose, the number of devices to keep charged, without much affecting the
total size of the device since many of the parts - buttons, display, CPU,
primary & secondary storage - can all be shared between the Phone and
Camera functions, and so on.
So while it is true that there wasn't a specific demand for camera phones,
there was a demand for a ubiquitous personal camera - and attaching this
to the mobile phone turned out to be the most successful way of achieving
that.
Also remember the purported quote from Henry Ford: "If I listened to my
customers they would have asked me to make a faster horse". It's not
always about responding to the things that customers explicitly ask for.
> Michael
// Christian Brunschen
Joe Pfeiffer
> "Polaroids" are making a comeback too, I believe under that
> name. They've coupled a digital camera and a compact photo printer so
> you get instant prints, hopefully without the terrible fading the
> original suffered from.
Well. Polaroid has introduced a product that does that. But people
would have to actually buy them to make a "comeback" and I find it hard
to imagine that happening.
Joe Pfeiffer
> On 2009-06-24, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>> Sure, digital is nice for lots of things. The ubiquitious phone
>> cameras are changing behaviour in other ways too -- people may conduct
>
> Phone cameras are idiotic. Phones are for talking on, not for taking
> pictures.
No, phones are for communicating with. Having more ways to do that is a
good thing. I suppose you'd also regard ssh'ing into my home computer
from phone as idiotic -- and that's what I'm doing right now.
Joe Pfeiffer
>>
>> Lots of people like having a camera with them, especially when it's no
>> bigger than the phone would be anyway.
>>
> But that's the thing. The camera was added to the cellphones as a
> gimmick, to differentiate that phone from the rest (and I gather, to
> charge a fee when a photo is sent somewhere via the cellphone network).
>
> People didn't wish for cameras on their cellphones, there isn't some
> great reason the camera and cellphone intersect, the camera was
> simply added.
>
> Once it's there, it becomes part of the background noise, something
> people expect in their cellphones. That it might be useful does not
> remove the fact that initially there wasn't any real connection between
> the two functions.
You've got it backwards: the fact that initially there wasn't any real
connection between the two functions (if true) wouldn't remove the fact
that it's useful. But it was pretty well-integrated on the first camera
phones I saw anyway.
Mensanator
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Sure, digital is nice for lots of things. The ubiquitious phone
> cameras are changing behaviour in other ways too -- people may conduct
> themselves better if there are likely to be cameras around.
> But great color, super fine grain, and archival stability are valuable
> too. Hard to believe it's going away, especially while other color
> films survive.
The image quality from cell phones and surveillance cameras is
extremely poor. I'm waiting for a case where someone was wrongly
identified as a criminal as a result of those low-res cameras.
One day a friend called and told me he was on TV. I turned it on and
sure enough there he was, shown in a surveillance photo as a dangerous
wanted fugitive. Actually it was someone who looked like and dressed
like my friend, but the resemblance was scary.
(When they show criminals on TV from such cameras, I wonder how many
are identified and caught.)
I find it troubling that nobody seems to mind more and more
surveillance cameras everywhere.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> but being able to take lots of pictures quickly and cheaply just results
> in lots of cheap, crappy photos with a few gems here and there.
That's what they said when roll film (2 1/4") cameras replaced older
models (ie Speed Graphic), and then when 35 mm replaced 2 1/4".
They also said it when computers replaced pencil and paper, and when
network computers replaced batch processing.
And it's all true.
But good photographers, like good programmers, can exploit the new
technology to take better pictures.
To be sure, one needs a very expensive digital camera to get a good
enough sensor and lens to replace what a relatively cheap SLR (or
cheaper rangefinder) could do with Kodachrome.
Nothing matched the brilliance and sharpness of a good quality
Kodachrome slide projected onto a screen. These days, of course, we
have digital projection, but again, you'd need a very good camera and
very good projector to have the same projected quality as Kodachrome.
In other words, in the old days, a photographer with a modest budget
could afford a modest camera and projector but still have excellent
results with Kodachrome. Not so now.
Of course, the flip side is we don't do as much still picture
projection for an audience these days. Instead we distribute pictures
via the web where a potentially larger audience can see them.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I occasionally had an interesting time discovering how well camera store
> staff understood the older equipment they had for sale. Back around 1980 or
> so I was in a store and commented on an Argus C3 they had in the case and
> while I didn't intentionally set him up, I did get a (quiet) chuckle when it
> turned out that the salesman had no idea that the camera had interchangable
> lenses.
The staff at the camera store where I got my new digital camera was
quite familiar with the old stuff.
> At one point I would probably have bought a decently priced Speed Graphic
> but today I don't think I could justify it when my Sinar F1 is far, far
> underutilized. I'll admit that just as a bit of history I might be tempted
> by a good Graflex, however...
When I returned to the store a few days later the Speed Graphic was
gone, sold. They said that particular one had a newer high quality
lens on it.
I was gonna ask them if I could rent it for a day with a few film
packs just to try it out for the heck of it. (It'd be neat to send a
photo into a website I contribute to "taken with Speed Graphic".)
I looked at the instruction book and one could rotate the back and
sides. This was done by professionals to adjust perspective, that is,
to avoid the keystone affect in taking tall buildings and other
cases. It's tricky stuff. I'd be surprised photojournalists would
bother with that sort of thing.
> One thing that the use of (relatively expensive) film and processing did was
> to encourage care in composing a picture and exposing the film. (I'm
> obviously talking about pictures designed to be impressive; documentary
> pictures are another issue entirely.)
But even old news pictures are so much more vivid than modern ones.
In picture books that show stuff over time the 1940s-1950s pictures
are very rich, while the 1970s ones are coarse. I think in the 1970s
they switched to 35mm Tri-X which meant both a smaller negative and a
coaser grain.
>
> It's true that you can do a lot in the darkroom (either wet or digital) to
> improve a shot, but it's a lot easier if some care went into the original
> exposure. I can easily recall several times when I had my Sinar 4x5 at the
> Grand Canyon, and got some quizzical looks from other tourists when I was
> moving the camera back and forth by a few feet until I found the exact spot
> I wanted from which to expose the film: the canyon didn't change much as I
> moved, but the framing of the picture by the nearby trees gave the picture a
> balance only from that one spot.
Yep.
Charlton Wilbur
CB> A mobile phone these days is a multi-function device. Yes, it
CB> can make calls, and that is one of its major uses. But it can
CB> also send and receive text messages, handle your address book,
CB> and indeed take pictures.
Indeed. When my mobile phone was limited to making phone calls, I left
it home most of the time. It was useful when I was in a strange city or
travelling and had to connect with people, but I didn't use it nearly
enough to bother keeping it charged and carrying it around.
But now that my phone can make phone calls, read email, browse the web,
take pictures, and play music, I have it with me all the time.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Michael Black
> On Jun 24, 3:48 pm, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>
>> Sure, digital is nice for lots of things. The ubiquitious phone
>> cameras are changing behaviour in other ways too -- people may conduct
>> themselves better if there are likely to be cameras around.
>
>> But great color, super fine grain, and archival stability are valuable
>> too. Hard to believe it's going away, especially while other color
>> films survive.
>
> The image quality from cell phones and surveillance cameras is
> extremely poor. I'm waiting for a case where someone was wrongly
> identified as a criminal as a result of those low-res cameras.
>
Not to worry, they just use a computer to blow up the image, and then
they can see the color of the guy's eyes, and the licence plate number.
If they aren't visible in the photo, then they'll magnify it some more
and get a reflection on the guy's eyes.
Michael
Peter Flass
> On Jun 24, 9:52 pm, Larry Elmore <lelm...@verizon.spam_me_not.net>
> wrote:
>
>> but being able to take lots of pictures quickly and cheaply just results
>> in lots of cheap, crappy photos with a few gems here and there.
>
> That's what they said when roll film (2 1/4") cameras replaced older
> models (ie Speed Graphic), and then when 35 mm replaced 2 1/4".
>
> They also said it when computers replaced pencil and paper, and when
> network computers replaced batch processing.
>
> And it's all true.
>
> But good photographers, like good programmers, can exploit the new
> technology to take better pictures.
>
> To be sure, one needs a very expensive digital camera to get a good
> enough sensor and lens to replace what a relatively cheap SLR (or
> cheaper rangefinder) could do with Kodachrome.
My digital takes pictures with fairly good resolution (6Mpixel). What
I'm not happy with is the color/intensity. It has lots of settings,
about 20 "easy" settings and a color balance graph plus exposure and the
equivalent of aperture, but I'd need to really play with it to learn how
to get the results I want, and then it would probably require as much
set-up as my 35mm. As someone said, you usually only have a short time
to get a shot, either because it's a one-time event or because everyone
with you quickly gets bored while to play with the settings.
JimP
While my cell phone has a camera in it, I don't use the camera. I use
the phone to make phone calls. No problems doing it.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Drive-In movie theaters
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ April 25, 2009
grey...@mail.com
Forget, t'was back in the 50's. A Western film. It has been done
several times.
CBFalconer
> Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>
>> Sure, digital is nice for lots of things. The ubiquitious phone
>> cameras are changing behaviour in other ways too -- people may
>
> taking pictures.
Yup. Also, computers are idiotic. Keyboards are for tripewriters
and Linotypes. Mice are for cats. Displays are for tv.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
Mensanator
Hmm...don't know westerns that well. I thought possibly
"The Ox-Bow Incident" but there weren't any actual witnesses.
I heard a saying once:
The second greatest fallacy is the notion that evidence
constitutes proof.
The greatest being the notion that testimony constitutes
evidence.
Chris Barts
> On 2009-06-24, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> Digital has claimed another victim--the gold standard of films,
>> Kodachrome, is being discontinued. Very few are using it.
>>
>> Admittedly, I haven't used it in a long time. I used to love it.
>> Some years ago I switched to print film, and very recently to
>> digital. But I'm tempted to get a roll and shoot it for old time's
>> sake, especially with bright summer light and colors.
>>
>> (In the ABC News report on this, they played the Paul Simon song in
>> the background.)
>
> All these new devices are changing our outlook. I got a digital
> camera last August for a wedding, last week I checked it and so far,
> not a photo worth printing.
Well, if all the experience isn't improving your skills, what is it
doing? How many rolls of film do you think the average professional
burned through and then burned because none of those expensive shots
were worth printing?
Natural talent counts for something, but without the multiplier of
experience it is a poor and sterile thing.
> It is _emphasising_ how good professional photographers are, and the
> `automatic gun syndrome', when you have loads of room for images,
> you just keep taking phots, rather than taking time to get one
> right,
Then you *are* wasting your time, and would be with any other kind of
camera.
> (like the person (soldier, hunter)that has an automatic gun, just
> popping off shots, rather than the man with a single, manually
> loaded, gun, that has to take time to get it right.)
Where do you think the term 'snapshot' comes from?
Joe Morris
>> I occasionally had an interesting time discovering how well camera store
>> staff understood the older equipment they had for sale. Back around 1980
>> or
>> so I was in a store and commented on an Argus C3 they had in the case and
>> while I didn't intentionally set him up, I did get a (quiet) chuckle when
>> it
>> turned out that the salesman had no idea that the camera had
>> interchangable
>> lenses.
>The staff at the camera store where I got my new digital camera was
>quite familiar with the old stuff.
Most likely the problem was that the C3 doesn't *look* like the lens is
supposed to be removed by the user. Wonderful camera, btw, and quite solid;
I used it (along with some quite old bellows-based folding cameras) from ...
um, maybe when I was 11 or 12 for another five or six years. Being totally
manual, it forced me to learn how to judge light levels by observation
rather than by a non-exstent light meter. (Anyone remember when film speeds
were rated on the Weston scale?) Biggest hassle was that the flashgun used
Press 40 bulbs (about the size of a standard incandescent light bulb today).
>I looked at the instruction book and one could rotate the back and
>sides. This was done by professionals to adjust perspective, that is,
>to avoid the keystone affect in taking tall buildings and other
>cases. It's tricky stuff. I'd be surprised photojournalists would
>bother with that sort of thing.
I think you're referring not to "rotation" but "tilt and shift". The
ability to move both the front (lens) and rear (film) standards allows not
only perspective correction but also control over the plane of focus,
permitting you to take a picture of, for example, a long lawn where the
blades of grass from the most distant to the nearest produce sharp images.
With a non-view camera body, the only way you can get those effects in the
camera is to use a special tilt-and-shift (TS) lens, which today especially
are hideously expensive. I've got a TS lens that I used with my old 35mm
Canon bodies (FD mount) but I can't justify the cost of a TS lens for my
Canon 50D since perspective can be adjusted in Photoshop.
As for "rotation": Many of the 4x5 cameras have the ability to either rotate
the film holder, or to remove it and reinstall it so that the 4x5 image
field becomes a 5x4.
>> One thing that the use of (relatively expensive) film and processing did
>> was
>> to encourage care in composing a picture and exposing the film. (I'm
>> obviously talking about pictures designed to be impressive; documentary
>> pictures are another issue entirely.)
>But even old news pictures are so much more vivid than modern ones.
>In picture books that show stuff over time the 1940s-1950s pictures
>are very rich, while the 1970s ones are coarse. I think in the 1970s
>they switched to 35mm Tri-X which meant both a smaller negative and a
>coaser grain.
Some of the most vivid examples of this are the photos taken by Weegee, who
was a freelance news photographer in New York. His crime-scene photos have
been displayed in museum shows; I've run into some where I didn't know his
photos were present but had no problem immediately identifying him as the
photographer. (Wikipedia has nice writeup on him.)
Joe Morris
Bernd Felsche
>On 2009-06-25, Bernd Felsche wrote:
>> Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>grey...@mail.com wrote:
>>>> All these new devices are changing our outlook. I got a digital
>>>> camera last August for a wedding, last week I checked it and so far,
>>>> not a photo worth printing. It is _emphasising_ how good professional
>>>> photographers are, and the `automatic gun syndrome', when you have
>>>> loads of room for images, you just keep taking phots, rather than
>>>> taking time to get one right, (like the person (soldier, hunter)that has
>>>> an automatic gun, just popping off shots, rather than the man with a
>>>> single, manually loaded, gun, that has to take time to get it right.)
>> Who's carrying the ammo? :-)
>The man with the single shop gun will carry enough, whereas the
>automatic gun guy will need re-supply every hour.
A (machine) gunner and his off-side will carry enough for about 30
seconds at cyclic rate of fire. A few others in the (infantry)
section will carry similar amounts. You get no more than 2 minutes
of fire before the machine gun is ineffective. It's the job of the
gunner to make it last.
i.e. like the photographer with a capacity to shoot 2000+ pics onto
an SD card, the high rate of fire must be tempered by the need to
manage the capacity.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | The growth of knowledge depends
X against HTML mail | entirely on disagreement.
/ \ and postings | -- Karl Popper
Michael Black
> grey...@mail.com writes:
>
>> On 2009-06-24, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>> Digital has claimed another victim--the gold standard of films,
>>> Kodachrome, is being discontinued. Very few are using it.
>>>
>>> Admittedly, I haven't used it in a long time. I used to love it.
>>> Some years ago I switched to print film, and very recently to
>>> digital. But I'm tempted to get a roll and shoot it for old time's
>>> sake, especially with bright summer light and colors.
>>>
>>> (In the ABC News report on this, they played the Paul Simon song in
>>> the background.)
>>
>> All these new devices are changing our outlook. I got a digital
>> camera last August for a wedding, last week I checked it and so far,
>> not a photo worth printing.
>
> Well, if all the experience isn't improving your skills, what is it
> doing? How many rolls of film do you think the average professional
> burned through and then burned because none of those expensive shots
> were worth printing?
>
One thing I'm noticing is that the camera now takes so long to take a
picture, everyone is posing. So while you don't get candid photos,
you get home and look them over and find some that are pretty good.
Michael
Michael Black
> Roger Blake wrote:
>> Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, digital is nice for lots of things. The ubiquitious phone
>>> cameras are changing behaviour in other ways too -- people may
>>
>> Phone cameras are idiotic. Phones are for talking on, not for
>> taking pictures.
>
> Yup. Also, computers are idiotic. Keyboards are for tripewriters
> and Linotypes. Mice are for cats. Displays are for tv.
>
Someone mentioned having to "dial" letters when trying to enter
them into something, I guess it was a cellphone, and I was reminded
of the toy typewriters they had when I was a kid. A dial at the top
to select the letter (and I'm pretty sure it was All Caps), and then
you'd press the "keyboard" which had all the letters, numbers and
characters on it but which was one piece that all went down if
you pressed on it.
It is a very similar notion.
On the other hand, why burden kids with such things nowadays? Get
them a used typewriter when they are young, you can likely still
get them cheap on the used market. Let them play with them as toys,
but give them the real thing. Of course, one can also select from
a fine collection of used computers, even laptops, that will come cheaper
than a toy computer, and will give them the real thing. So they damage
it? Another one can be had for cheap, and it won't be burdened by
the limited hardware of the more expensive toy computer.
Michael
Bernd Felsche
>On 2009-06-24, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Michael Black wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, grey...@mail.com wrote:
>>> professional, they are casual, and want the results soon after.
>>> They probably do benefit from taking a lot more photos than
>>> they did before, and seeing the results right away.
>> Even Arizona Highways is going partly digital.
>>
>> I sometimes miss my 35mm Olympus, but not enough to dig it out of the
>> closet. It took the best pictures I ever made, but required a lot of
>> fiddling, and I'd sometimes forget to set some dohickey just right, with
>> strange results. At least now I know I've got *something*, and I can
>> ususlly photoshop a reasonable picture out of it. With 6MPixels I can
>> do lots of zoom and cropping after the fact.
>Nephew, who work/ed in planning, borrowed my (previous) digital
>because he was one his way to an assignment and had forgotten his
>(usual occurence), when I got it back there were about 200 pictures
>of places in carlow, which meant that he could go back to the office
>and sort out about 10 that were `right`.
>One of my problems with them is that they are less `holdable` than
>the older quality cameras, too small. (Except for the more expensive
>ones).(well, I suppose that figures).
That's the problem that I have. The lack of mass in the camera body
causes an imbalance with the lenses out front, so stability becomes
a problem due to imbalance and lack of inertia.
>Daughter paid about 250 euros for one last year, it developed a
>problem, will cost 180 to fix.. :) (In other words, throw it away and
>buy another, because if it developed one problem, will probably have
>another).
Quite expensive for a flingable device.
As I've mentioned earlier here; manufactured components for general
consumer markets are designed to be manufactured easily and cheaply.
Maintenance is seldom taken into account.
John Varela
wrote:
> Roger Blake wrote:
> > Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Sure, digital is nice for lots of things. The ubiquitious phone
> >> cameras are changing behaviour in other ways too -- people may
> >
> > Phone cameras are idiotic. Phones are for talking on, not for
> > taking pictures.
>
> Yup. Also, computers are idiotic. Keyboards are for tripewriters
> and Linotypes. Mice are for cats. Displays are for tv.
ObAFC: WIWAL computers didn't have keyboards, mice, or display
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Michael Black
> On 2009-06-25, CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yup. Also, computers are idiotic. Keyboards are for tripewriters
>> and Linotypes. Mice are for cats. Displays are for tv.
>
> Riiiggghhht. No doubt you also use your television as a floor polisher.
>
I use a Powermac 6100/66 to elevate my monitor.
I also have a 486 vintage DEC or Compaq computer, a relatively low
slung model, to elevate my laser printer.
Michael
Bernd Felsche
>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Patrick Scheible wrote:
>> Roger Blake <rogbl...@iname10.com> writes:
>>> On 2009-06-24, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>>>> Sure, digital is nice for lots of things. The ubiquitious phone
>>>> cameras are changing behaviour in other ways too -- people may conduct
>>> Phone cameras are idiotic. Phones are for talking on, not for taking
>>> pictures.
>> Lots of people like having a camera with them, especially when it's no
>> bigger than the phone would be anyway.
>But that's the thing. The camera was added to the cellphones as a
>gimmick, to differentiate that phone from the rest (and I gather, to
>charge a fee when a photo is sent somewhere via the cellphone network).
>People didn't wish for cameras on their cellphones, there isn't some
>great reason the camera and cellphone intersect, the camera was
>simply added.
>Once it's there, it becomes part of the background noise, something
>people expect in their cellphones. That it might be useful does not
>remove the fact that initially there wasn't any real connection between
>the two functions.
Which means that people will also have to leave their telephones at
access points to secure areas where cameras are prohibited.
I feel a comp.risks contribution coming on ...
Bernd Felsche
>On Jun 24, 3:48=A0pm, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>> Sure, digital is nice for lots of things. =A0The ubiquitious phone
>> cameras are changing behaviour in other ways too -- people may conduct
>> themselves better if there are likely to be cameras around.
>> But great color, super fine grain, and archival stability are valuable
>> too. =A0Hard to believe it's going away, especially while other color
>> films survive.
>The image quality from cell phones and surveillance cameras is
>extremely poor. I'm waiting for a case where someone was wrongly
>identified as a criminal as a result of those low-res cameras.
People have been detained and perhaps even charged on that basis,
notably in the UK.
>One day a friend called and told me he was on TV. I turned it on and
>sure enough there he was, shown in a surveillance photo as a dangerous
>wanted fugitive. Actually it was someone who looked like and dressed
>like my friend, but the resemblance was scary.
It's often sufficient for the accused to recognize themselves.
Dave Garland
> Not to me it isn't. Phones are for talking on, period. I don't use
> one for taking pictures any more than I use a vacuum cleaner to
> brush my teeth or a toaster to shine my shoes.
>
Scary thing is, I do know somebody who uses a vacuum cleaner to cut
their hair. I suppose the distinction between a vacuum cleaner and an
air compressor is a little fuzzy.
Dave
Ray Abbitt
Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>In the '70s I had a Crown Graphic that used that size film.
>Double-sided film holders took one piece of film each side, loaded in
>the darkroom. You could get normal B&W film at that time (I preferred
>Plus-X, developed with Edwal FG-7). IIRC it had an outboard
>split-image viewfinder as well as the groundglass. Wish I still had
>that camera, it was like a mini-Speed Graphic. Always wanted a
>flashgun for it, not because I wanted to take flash pictures, but
>because I thought it would look neat.
>
>Dave
A Crown Graphip wasn't LIKE a mini Speed Graphic, it WAS a mini
Speed Graphic. And yep, it did have a split-image rangefinder (very
accurate by the way--much longer baseline than in 35mm rangefinder
cameras). It was only a rangefinder and only used for focusing. You
had to compose the shot either using the ground glass or the "sports
finder" (a wire frame that pulled up) after focusing on the subject
area with the rangefinder. For sports and news most photographers
just used the sportsfinder and focused by estimated distance. With
a 4x5 and Plus-X or Tri-X gave you a lot of margin. I've still got
a Speed Graphic (inherited from my uncle) along with 3 or 4 mounted
lenses, lots of film holders (including the pack holder--which held
a no longer available pack which allowed multiple shots without having
to change film holders, you just pulled a paper blind out for each
shot), the original flashguns (unfortunately the bulbs aren't available-
I've got the ones that used the Edison base flashbulbs), the original
case and various other accessories. Some of the most fun I've had
with it was with Ektachrome or Fujichrome (4x5 transparencies are
neat) or for (very) still shots Cibachrome (non-reversal color print
paper normally used for making prints from slides).
-ray
Kim Enkovaara
> On 2009-06-24, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>> Sure, digital is nice for lots of things. The ubiquitious phone
>> cameras are changing behaviour in other ways too -- people may conduct
>
> pictures.
Phone cameras are sometimes very handy. As an example, I once debugged
piece of equipment in phone with the support guy. Then he started to
question if all the cables were correctly connected. It was easy to snap
a picture with mobile phone from the cables, and send it via email from
the phone.
When mobile phone with camera is always with you, it's an easy way to
document all the drawings on whiteboard that were made during some
meeting etc. Cameras in phones have changed the way people work.
--Kim
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
One sucks the other blows - yeah I know both do both but each is
specialised to make one action more useful than the other.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Chris Barts
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> writes:
>
>> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> writes:
>> > Another interesting development is that I can take photos to document
>> > things. Not just show progression of something, easy since the photos
>> > are all date and time stamped, but if I take something apart, I
>> > can take a picture to study it, or for future reference.
>>
>> ever watch the spy shows where the "break" into home ... take Polaroids
>> of the rooms ... tear it apart looking for something ... and then use
>> the Polaroids to put it all back like it was to begin with (so nobody can
>> tell they had been there).
>>
>> we've used phone cameras to take picture of things like kids clothing
>> (we've found on sale) ... send the picture to (appropriate party)
>> ... and in real time, ask if it is acceptable to purchase (for
>> grandkids).
>
> Sure, digital is nice for lots of things. The ubiquitious phone
> cameras are changing behaviour in other ways too -- people may conduct
> themselves better if there are likely to be cameras around.
>
> But great color, super fine grain, and archival stability are valuable
> too.
Archival stability means making backups and preserving knowledge about
the file format. There: Absolutely guaranteed to never change a bit!
As for grain, they add lens flare to pure CGI images these
days. Adding some grain can't be far off, and, of course, adding
'super fine grain' is just a matter of not adding grain at all.
Christian Brunschen
Roger Blake <rogbl...@iname10.com> wrote:
>On 2009-06-25, Christian Brunschen <c...@mer.df.lth.se> wrote:
>> A mobile phone these days is a multi-function device.
>
>Not to me it isn't.
I fail to see how the presence of other possible functions on a device
forcec you to use them. So if you want to use your phone only for making
phone calls, you can!
>Phones are for talking on, period. I don't use
>one for taking pictures any more than I use a vacuum cleaner to
>brush my teeth or a toaster to shine my shoes.
You seem to have the idea that something's name imposes a mandatory
limitation to its permitted function. That, however, is not the case.
The fact is, that the vast majority of devices sold as 'mobile phones'
these days are in fact multi-function devices that offer multiple modes of
communication as well as other functionality, frequently including cameras
for still pictures and/or video - up to and including video calls.
So you don't want to use those functions? Fine! Nobody is forcing you to!
However, to declare that a camera on a phone 'is idiotic' smacks of you
wishing to impose your personal preferences onto other people. The fact
that cameraphones are so wildly successful also suggests that not everyone
agrees with your claim.
Indeed, look at the iPhone: One of the things that people were complaining
about regarding the first- and second-generation devices was the quality
of the camera. Not its presence, no - they wanted it there, they just
wanted it to take better pictures. (And with the iPhone 3GS, Apple have
finally inclued a better camera.)
> Roger Blake
// Christian Brunschen
grey...@mail.com
> On Jun 25, 5:58 pm, greyma...@mail.com wrote:
>> On 2009-06-25, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>
> Hmm...don't know westerns that well. I thought possibly
> "The Ox-Bow Incident" but there weren't any actual witnesses.
Based on a real-life incident, I believe, but not what I remember, in
the one I remember, the evidence was given by a Hispanic, Native
American, Anglo, and some others, all of which saw it through their
cultural perspective, which was unusual for the 50's.
>
> I heard a saying once:
>
> The second greatest fallacy is the notion that evidence
> constitutes proof.
>
> The greatest being the notion that testimony constitutes
> evidence.
>
>>
Usually as told in a pub, `There I was, driving along the road at
30mph, stone cold sober, when this _bowsie_ drives in front of me'
(Yawn)
grey...@mail.com
> On 2009-06-25, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>> And you can't talk on those phones either. It's half duplex, randomly.
>
> I really don't care for them. At the moment I need one for business.
> When I finally retire it'll be one of the first things to go.
>
Keep it, in the case that you fall and need help.
grey...@mail.com
> grey...@mail.com wrote:
>>The man with the single shop gun will carry enough, whereas the
>>automatic gun guy will need re-supply every hour.
>
> A (machine) gunner and his off-side will carry enough for about 30
> seconds at cyclic rate of fire. A few others in the (infantry)
> section will carry similar amounts. You get no more than 2 minutes
> of fire before the machine gun is ineffective. It's the job of the
> gunner to make it last.
During the Biafra war (remember that?), Biafra had a problem getting
in ammo, and some film from their front line showed soldiers
pointing, not aiming, their guns towards the enemy, and letting off
shots.
T'is reported that arms-dealers will give AK47s and their associated
machie guns away to create a market for ammo.
>
> i.e. like the photographer with a capacity to shoot 2000+ pics onto
> an SD card, the high rate of fire must be tempered by the need to
> manage the capacity.
--
Greymaus
.
.
...
grey...@mail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> but being able to take lots of pictures quickly and cheaply just results
>>> in lots of cheap, crappy photos with a few gems here and there.
>>
>> That's what they said when roll film (2 1/4") cameras replaced older
>> models (ie Speed Graphic), and then when 35 mm replaced 2 1/4".
>>
>> They also said it when computers replaced pencil and paper, and when
>> network computers replaced batch processing.
>>
>> And it's all true.
>>
>> But good photographers, like good programmers, can exploit the new
>> technology to take better pictures.
>>
>> To be sure, one needs a very expensive digital camera to get a good
>> enough sensor and lens to replace what a relatively cheap SLR (or
>> cheaper rangefinder) could do with Kodachrome.
>
> My digital takes pictures with fairly good resolution (6Mpixel). What
> I'm not happy with is the color/intensity. It has lots of settings,
> about 20 "easy" settings and a color balance graph plus exposure and the
> equivalent of aperture, but I'd need to really play with it to learn how
> to get the results I want, and then it would probably require as much
> set-up as my 35mm. As someone said, you usually only have a short time
> to get a shot, either because it's a one-time event or because everyone
> with you quickly gets bored while to play with the settings.
Like a gun with a telescopic sight. Set it, then leave it alone. One
thing that really gets me is snipers on TV fiddling with their
sights. Set it to zero at 200 yards. Most digital cameras will adjust
for light and that sort of variable automatically, no?.
jmfbahciv
> On 2009-06-25, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>> And you can't talk on those phones either. It's half duplex, randomly.
>
> I really don't care for them. At the moment I need one for business.
> When I finally retire it'll be one of the first things to go.
>
/BAH
jmfbahciv
> On 2009-06-25, CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yup. Also, computers are idiotic. Keyboards are for tripewriters
>> and Linotypes. Mice are for cats. Displays are for tv.
>
> Riiiggghhht. No doubt you also use your television as a floor polisher.
>
since most of the analog channels went away, that's about the only
use I have for a TV.
/BAH
Christian Brunschen
Roger Blake <rogbl...@iname10.com> wrote:
>On 2009-06-26, Christian Brunschen <c...@mer.df.lth.se> wrote:
>> You seem to have the idea that something's name imposes a mandatory
>> limitation to its permitted function. That, however, is not the case.
>
If it were the case that a name also implies a mandatory limitation, then
a 'passenger car' would never be allowed to also be able to carry luggage,
a 'persona computer' could never be used for any business purposes, a
programmed data processor' could never become a general-purpose
interactive computer, etc.
Simply put, just because something carries a name or some other kind of
label, does not mean that that name or label completely describes the item
in question. That is _reality_. You may disagree with it all you like, but
that doesn't change anything.
>> The fact is, that the vast majority of devices sold as 'mobile phones'
>> these days are in fact multi-function devices that offer multiple modes of
>
>I do not use such devices. My cell phone is just that -- a phone only.
Unless you've managed to hold on to a very old phone, I'm guessing even
your phone is able to send and receive text messages.
>> However, to declare that a camera on a phone 'is idiotic' smacks of you
>> wishing to impose your personal preferences onto other people.
>
>No, I am not a liberal.
The desire to impose one's preferences onto other people is actually quite
the opposite of liberal principles. Indeed, keep in mind that 'imposing of
my preferences on other people' is also cheerfully practiced by so-called
'conservatives' when it comes to things such as what they call 'family
values', including whom you are and aren't permitted to marry, just as one
immediately obvious example.
>I am merely expressing an opinion, what anyone else does is their own
>business.
Excellent! Then I misinterpreted your statement (which to me, looked as if
you were attempting to state a fact rather than an opinion).
>> Indeed, look at the iPhone: One of the things that people were complaining
>
>I have no interest in the iPhone. You, however, are free to look at it
>as long as you wish.
I was simply using the iPhone as an example to show that your opinion
regarding the idiocy of putting cameras on phones is not universally
shared.
(I don't own an iPhone, actually, but I do have an HTC Dream running
Android.)
Nick Spalding
on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:30:43 -0400:
> >>>>> "CB" == Christian Brunschen <c...@mer.df.lth.se> writes:
>
> CB> A mobile phone these days is a multi-function device. Yes, it
> CB> can make calls, and that is one of its major uses. But it can
> CB> also send and receive text messages, handle your address book,
> CB> and indeed take pictures.
>
> Indeed. When my mobile phone was limited to making phone calls, I left
> it home most of the time. It was useful when I was in a strange city or
> travelling and had to connect with people, but I didn't use it nearly
> enough to bother keeping it charged and carrying it around.
>
> But now that my phone can make phone calls, read email, browse the web,
> take pictures, and play music, I have it with me all the time.
My six-year old Nokia 6301i is just a phone, plus it does texting. My
provider insisted on sending me a free, all-singing, all-dancing one not
long ago. I checked that it worked then put it back in its box in
reserve in case the old one ever packs up.
One of my sons lives in France and a few days ago a friend of ours was
going over to Paris and took a package to him for me. They were to meet
at 09:30 local time. I had an excellent quality photo of them together
in my email inbox less than half an hour later, with the annotation:
'Envoy� par mon terminal mobile.'
I think he has a Blackberry.
--
Nick Spalding
Peter Flass
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Chris Barts wrote:
>
>> grey...@mail.com writes:
>>
>>> On 2009-06-24, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>> Digital has claimed another victim--the gold standard of films,
>>>> Kodachrome, is being discontinued. Very few are using it.
>>>>
>>>> Admittedly, I haven't used it in a long time. I used to love it.
>>>> Some years ago I switched to print film, and very recently to
>>>> digital. But I'm tempted to get a roll and shoot it for old time's
>>>> sake, especially with bright summer light and colors.
>>>>
>>>> (In the ABC News report on this, they played the Paul Simon song in
>>>> the background.)
>>>
>>> All these new devices are changing our outlook. I got a digital
>>> camera last August for a wedding, last week I checked it and so far,
>>> not a photo worth printing.
>>
>> Well, if all the experience isn't improving your skills, what is it
>> doing? How many rolls of film do you think the average professional
>> burned through and then burned because none of those expensive shots
>> were worth printing?
>>
> One thing I'm noticing is that the camera now takes so long to take a
> picture, everyone is posing. So while you don't get candid photos,
> you get home and look them over and find some that are pretty good.
>
> Michael
Right, that's the other problem I forgot. Film cameras need less time
to actually take a picture.
Peter Flass
> On 2009-06-25, Christian Brunschen <c...@mer.df.lth.se> wrote:
>> A mobile phone these days is a multi-function device.
>
> one for taking pictures any more than I use a vacuum cleaner to
> brush my teeth or a toaster to shine my shoes.
>
Yes, but have you tried using a vacuum cleaner to brush your teeth? ;-)
Peter Flass
You sure it isn't a "flowbie"?