Getting that film look
Scott W
of digital photos, that they look flat or like plastic. There are
some people who will not care, they just don't like the idea of
digital. But for those people who might want to use a ditial camera
and get at least some of the look of film this might be valuable to
look at. Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I
would love to hear them.
Digital cameras try to get the most accurate capture of a scene that
they can. Whereas a digital capture might be very accurate it will not
be to everybody's taste. Film, particularly slide film, boosts the
contrast of a scene, this also makes the colors more vivid.
This is a scan of one of my Kodachrome slides that shows the kind of
look you get from Kodachrome.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746257
This is what is more typical out of a digital camera
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746256
So if I want to get a more film like look what can I do?
What I have done in this next image is to make a copy of background
layer and then boost the contrast of the copy way up, I then mix 50% of
each layer to get this photo
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746255
To my eye this now looks much closer to a kodachrome scan then the
original photo does.
It is important to note that a scan of a slide does not just have more
saturated colors, this is what I get if I just boost the saturation of
the digital photo.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746254
To my eye that is just ugly
So why start with a digital file that just needs to be adjusted when
you could shoot film? For some shooting film would be the right thing
to do. But for others the advantages of shooting digital would come
into play and doing some adjustments to the photo would not be a big
deal.
My point in all of this is that a digital photo starts out life as a
fairly neutral thing, we then can make of it what we wish. I should
also point out that most digital cameras allow a boost of contrast in
the camera setting, I don't like to shoot this way but if someone
really did not want to adjust photos afterwards this is an option.
The other options is to adjust the look of the photo when converting
from raw, this has limits but you can get a wide range of looks and
once you have the first file converted you can use the same setting for
the rest of the photos.
For me I like the digital look, perhaps because it is not what I am use
to, but I can see where other might like the film look more.
Scott
UC
Joseph Kewfi
hear them.
Use film ?
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135025207.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Scott W
UC wrote:
> This would be much more valuable if you showed the same scene.
True, but then I don't shoot Kodachrome anymore.
I am sure that I have not duplicated the exact look of Kodachrome, or
any other slide film, but I believe it is much closer to the look of a
slide then the photo right out of the camera. The grass in particular
look much more like a slide scan in the processed image, at least to
my eye.
Scott
Scott W
> >Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I would love to
> hear them.
>
> Use film ?
This is one options, but not for me. It takes me less time to adjust
the digital photo then it does to photoshop out the dust on a slide,
much less the scratches on a negative.
Scott
Rod Williams
videotape, 1" and Beta SP for those of you familiar with the formats.
All I heard was lets soften the camera, or do this or that to get "the
film look." It is f'ing video not film. I told them if they want the so
called "film look" then shoot the damn stuff on film. Now it is
happening all over again with digital. If you want it to look like film
then, you guessed it, shoot it on film.
Charles Schuler
I have heard these kinds of comments and often find that they are sort of an
urban legend similar to some who insist tube amplifiers sound better than
solid-state amplifiers. Double-blind tests always do them in (they can't
consistently identify the type of amplifier).
Some photography folks are truly informed and prefer film, but they are not
always the ones making these kinds of comments.
As you pointed out, digital manipulation can produce various effects.
Joseph Kewfi
One of these such effects is to make the corporations involved profits
fatter.
"Charles Schuler" <charle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ePqdnRi6Qrd...@comcast.com...
Chris Loffredo
O.K., avoiding the great debate (for the moment).
Just, all your pictures have an American flag in them: Is it an article
of the Patriot Act that all photos need to have a US flag in them?
I've lived in seven different countries and, AFAIK, I have no pictures
of flags.
Oh well, de gustibus...
T Rock
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746256
> So if I want to get a more film like look what can I do?
> What I have done in this next image is to make a copy of background
> layer and then boost the contrast of the copy way up, I then mix 50% of
> each layer to get this photo
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746255
> To my eye this now looks much closer to a kodachrome scan then the
> original photo does.
> It is important to note that a scan of a slide does not just have more
> saturated colors, this is what I get if I just boost the saturation of
> the digital photo.
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746254
> To my eye that is just ugly
>
256 doesn't look particularly like sharp digital to me but I note shadow
detail and reasonable skin tone...
255 has lost the shadow detail...
254 has shadow detail but more extreme skin tone...
Scott W
It's not me, it is where I live. I did not even notice the flags in
the photos, show how much the flag flies around here. When I was in
Canada taking photos I did notice I ended up with a fair number of
photos with the Canadian flay in them.
Scott
punishs...@nospam.com
charle...@comcast.net says...
>
> I have heard these kinds of comments and often find that they are sort of an
> urban legend similar to some who insist tube amplifiers sound better than
> solid-state amplifiers. Double-blind tests always do them in (they can't
> consistently identify the type of amplifier).
>
sound different and many people "can" tell the difference in double blind
studies. Helps if they have an ear. "The tests you are referring to may
have been skewed to make solid state win out." Easy to do. And, some
people prefer soild state but whenever someone comments on great tones I
have it is always when I have used a tube amp. Some folks even try to say
things like plastic sounds as good or the same as wood to make guitars
and violins. Really? It is not "urban legend" it is a lack of an "ear" or
having a good one in most cases. Do you really think transistors and
tubes react the same and make the same overtones and harmonics and that
people can't tell a difference? Really, talk to any audio professional,
not your local podunk sound guy, a real producer of music. Man, it is
really a sad state when folks can't tell the difference but it does show
why really bad music can sell really well. Sometimes I wonder why those
of us who can tell the diff even bother to do a decent job at all.
Eatmorepies
> an urban legend similar to some who insist tube amplifiers sound better
> than solid-state amplifiers. Double-blind tests always do them in (they
> can't consistently identify the type of amplifier).
>
I have recently joined a camera club - which means photographic
competitions. All very good natured and a nice way to get an experienced eye
to view your photographs. The judges in the three competitions I have so far
entered have had a go at guessing whether shots are film or digital. I am
pleased to report that they often get it wrong.
John
salgud
I'm just getting started in digital photography. I shot film for years
(60's into the 80's) and eventually lost interest. I considered myself
a serious amateur and sold some of my work. My eye isn't terribly
sharp, compared to my son's, who is a professional photojournalist. So
all I can say is, I'd love to have taken any of these pix!
I can also say that I disagree with the "if you want it to look like
film, shoot film" comments. There are so many advantages to digital,
I'm discovering, that it certainly makes sense to try to duplicate film
as closely as you can using a far more user-friendly medium. Keep up
the good work! And thanks for sharing with us.
punishs...@nospam.com
naj9d...@lineone.net says...
the medium.
UC
I can tell the difference bewteen transistor and tube power amps. I
prefer trannies...
punishs...@nospam.com
dav...@safebrowse.com says...
use digital. As for user friendly it depends on if you enjoy working with
computers or using a trusted lab and spending more time at the beach and
a good cafe.
I love computers and digital and having the control but it really is not
fare to say it is more user friendly for everyone as it truly is not for
everyone.
My wife shoots only slides and uses mostly one lab in Italy that does
great work. She really has no reason to go digital and there are no
advantages for the type of work she does. For photojournalists digital is
the way to go. For the average shooter like yourself it if most likely
digital is best as well but someday, who knows, maybe you will take
interest in a particular style and digital will not have any real
advantages.
Now if we just introduce enough distortion in these CDs they will sound
"almost" like vinyl. How much time will that take?
punishs...@nospam.com
uraniumc...@yahoo.com says...
See, it is nice when we have a choice.
eawck...@yahoo.com
> charle...@comcast.net says...
> >
> > I have heard these kinds of comments and often find that they are sort of an
> > urban legend similar to some who insist tube amplifiers sound better than
> > solid-state amplifiers. Double-blind tests always do them in (they can't
> > consistently identify the type of amplifier).
> >
> Which studies? I have been recording these amps for 30 years and they
> sound different and many people "can" tell the difference in double blind
> studies.
Filtering issues aside, you can only tell if you drive the amp into
non-linearity.
"Engineers and musicians have long debated the question of tube
sound versus transistor sound. Previous attempts to measure this
difference have always assumed linear operation of the test amplifier.
This conventional method of frequency response, distortion and noise
measurement has shown that no significant difference exists."
And how could it? But of course, if you are the sort who likes to
over-drive your amplifiers, then hey, the more power to ya. Or at
least to the inputs of your amplifiers.
Charles Schuler
> See, it is nice when we have a choice.
Of course. A choice is what it is all about. It does not have to be a
reasoned choice that is based on facts. In a capitalistic democracy, we
vote with our credit cards.
Tube amplifiers clip differently than sold state amplifiers and thus have a
different spectral dispersion of harmonic distortion amplitudes. It's
mostly a bunch of nit-picking and cannot be detected in double-blind
listening tests.
Monster cables are another example of urban legends. They are an example of
a success story based on BS! Gotta love them for what they have
accomplished with sheer psychology and almost zero engineering expertise.
Some just want to believe in the tooth fairy and some of us don't really
care, but have a hard time to always stay quiet.
Sorry to offend posters here ... I just simply disagree. Science is self
correcting and BS is self feeding.
punishs...@nospam.com
eawck...@yahoo.com says...
> punishs...@NOSPAM.com wrote:
>
> > charle...@comcast.net says...
> > >
> > > I have heard these kinds of comments and often find that they are sort of an
> > > urban legend similar to some who insist tube amplifiers sound better than
> > > solid-state amplifiers. Double-blind tests always do them in (they can't
> > > consistently identify the type of amplifier).
> > >
> > Which studies? I have been recording these amps for 30 years and they
> > sound different and many people "can" tell the difference in double blind
> > studies.
>
> Filtering issues aside, you can only tell if you drive the amp into
> non-linearity.
Depends on the study. Some mastering cats are really freaky when it comes
to these studies and have blown apart some of the tests.
>
> http://milbert.com/tstxt.htm
>
> "Engineers and musicians have long debated the question of tube
> sound versus transistor sound. Previous attempts to measure this
> difference have always assumed linear operation of the test amplifier.
> This conventional method of frequency response, distortion and noise
> measurement has shown that no significant difference exists."
>
> And how could it? But of course, if you are the sort who likes to
> over-drive your amplifiers, then hey, the more power to ya. Or at
> least to the inputs of your amplifiers.
>
>
Yep, and some like to overdrive their amps for playback while mixing and
mastering. Go figure. Playback of audio asside, most good musicians are
so dymanic in their playing that at some point they are going to over-
drive the input of the amp, even on a very soft piece of music, even for
only a few notes in the piece. This would make one amp or the other
produce a different sound and most of them will pick tubes for guitar or
B3 and solid state for bass. Of course Dimebag loved solid state for
guitar.
Chris Loffredo
One of those cultural differences.
I live in Germany, where public buildings fly the flag more often at
half mast (tsunamis, earthquakes & other disasters and loss of life)
than normally (national holidays).
The only place over here where I noticed a significant amount of
flag-waving was Denmark (I haven't actually lived in the US for a long
time).
Ö.K., back to the great film-digital debate...
: )
David J. Littleboy
Sheesh, get a new scanner. It's been an age since you could even buy a
scanner that didn't have ICE.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Scott W
> The advantages are debatable for various reasons. Not always easier to
> use digital. As for user friendly it depends on if you enjoy working with
> computers or using a trusted lab and spending more time at the beach and
> a good cafe.
work there is no question that digital is far less work. But then I
scan all my film, if I was happy to drop of the film and have the lab
print from the negatives then this would be different.
As it turns out I spend a lot of time at the beach, but then we have
great beaches here.
What I mainly wanted to address was the question of the difference in
the way film and digital looked. I am sure there are a few people who
say they don't like the digital look just because it is digital. But
I would think there are a lot of people who really are disappointed in
what they see. What I am trying to show is that there is no one look
to digital.
With film you choose a film and get the look of that film. With
digital it is more a matter of shooting you photos and then deciding on
a look latter, the neat thing is you can change you mind latter if you
wish.
Scott
punishs...@nospam.com
charle...@comcast.net says...
> > I prefer trannies for playback and for bass but not for guitar or keys.
> > See, it is nice when we have a choice.
>
> Of course. A choice is what it is all about. It does not have to be a
> reasoned choice that is based on facts.
However, it is often based on fact.
In a capitalistic democracy, we
> vote with our credit cards.
So, stop it.
>
> Tube amplifiers clip differently than sold state amplifiers and thus have a
> different spectral dispersion of harmonic distortion amplitudes. It's
> mostly a bunch of nit-picking and cannot be detected in double-blind
> listening tests.
It again depends on the test and the listeners. Try it with top mastering
pros.
>
> Monster cables are another example of urban legends. They are an example of
> a success story based on BS! Gotta love them for what they have
> accomplished with sheer psychology and almost zero engineering expertise.
True.
>
> Some just want to believe in the tooth fairy and some of us don't really
> care, but have a hard time to always stay quiet.
>
> Sorry to offend posters here ... I just simply disagree. Science is self
> correcting and BS is self feeding.
>
>
>
You sound like an engineering student. Not sure what your background is
but get back to me after 30 years of practical application woking with
some of the worlds top audio engineers in design, mixing, mastering and
replication. There are a few things you might change your mind on.
spo
> I live in Germany, where public buildings fly the flag more often at
> half mast (tsunamis, earthquakes & other disasters and loss of life)
> than normally (national holidays).
Here in politically-correct England, flying the national flag is
sometimes seen as racist and provocative.
Scott W
I have thought about it, but even with ICE it takes me a long time to
get the colors close to what I want when scanning film. With Vuescan
this has gotten easier but I still end up adjusting a lot of setting.
One problem is that if I were to get a new scanner I would really like
it to handle MF, not much to choose from there and the cost is way
high. I am waiting to see what else come out.
Scott
eawck...@yahoo.com
> > Filtering issues aside, you can only tell if you drive the amp into
> > non-linearity.
>
> Depends on the study. Some mastering cats are really freaky when it comes
> to these studies and have blown apart some of the tests.
This is beyond "study": if the systems have the same transfer
function, and are operating linearly, they will sound identical to the
same observer. No amount of post-modern psychobabble will change this
core fact of reality. Heckers, Bob Carver is famous for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver
> Yep, and some like to overdrive their amps for playback while mixing and
> mastering. Go figure. Playback of audio asside, most good musicians are
> so dymanic in their playing that at some point they are going to over-
> drive the input of the amp, even on a very soft piece of music, even for
> only a few notes in the piece. This would make one amp or the other
> produce a different sound and most of them will pick tubes for guitar or
> B3 and solid state for bass. Of course Dimebag loved solid state for
> guitar.
We need to make a careful distinction between the producers of a sound
("musicians") and the listener ("audience"). Musicians, by and large,
don't care where the sounds come from, as long as they are interesting.
If scraping a tuned string does the trick, horray! If over-driving a
tube amp does it, who cares? If Matthew Herbert can extract a dance
ditty from a can of Coke, who is anyone to argue with him about it?
Even if the engineers want to play musician and mangle the sounds prior
to the bits hitting the CD: that is their perogative.
But in terms of reproduction in some audience member's living room or
car, tubes are a complete non-starter. One does not need to placate
kooky audiophile delusions with hard earned money.
punishs...@nospam.com
eawck...@yahoo.com says...
> punishs...@NOSPAM.com wrote:
>
> > > Filtering issues aside, you can only tell if you drive the amp into
> > > non-linearity.
> >
> > Depends on the study. Some mastering cats are really freaky when it comes
> > to these studies and have blown apart some of the tests.
>
> This is beyond "study": if the systems have the same transfer
> function, and are operating linearly, they will sound identical to the
> same observer. No amount of post-modern psychobabble will change this
> core fact of reality. Heckers, Bob Carver is famous for this:
The point is the amps are "not" used in the same way. This is where the
differce in sound that can be heard is made and used. Sorry if that point
was not clear.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver
>
> > Yep, and some like to overdrive their amps for playback while mixing and
> > mastering. Go figure. Playback of audio asside, most good musicians are
> > so dymanic in their playing that at some point they are going to over-
> > drive the input of the amp, even on a very soft piece of music, even for
> > only a few notes in the piece. This would make one amp or the other
> > produce a different sound and most of them will pick tubes for guitar or
> > B3 and solid state for bass. Of course Dimebag loved solid state for
> > guitar.
>
> We need to make a careful distinction between the producers of a sound
> ("musicians") and the listener ("audience"). Musicians, by and large,
> don't care where the sounds come from, as long as they are interesting.
> If scraping a tuned string does the trick, horray! If over-driving a
> tube amp does it, who cares? If Matthew Herbert can extract a dance
> ditty from a can of Coke, who is anyone to argue with him about it?
> Even if the engineers want to play musician and mangle the sounds prior
> to the bits hitting the CD: that is their perogative.
>
> But in terms of reproduction in some audience member's living room or
> car, tubes are a complete non-starter. One does not need to placate
> kooky audiophile delusions with hard earned money.
>
> http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf
>
>
Hey, I agree with most of what you are saying. I did state that I like
solid state amps for playback but for good old guitar playing, no way. As
stated above the point "is" to use them differently. This is why one has
not replaced the other.
kctan
simulated to film look with manipulation. But the conservatives will prefer
the old while the contemporaries will pursue new tech. It is just a matter
of different taste and not better. Usually people accept their preference as
better. I used film for 25 years and I had made good prints from slides and
negatives but I still like digital after the switch in 1998. Just be happy
and have good knowledge in your preferred medium to avoid mistakes. I used
to prove to those film's buffs by comparison of both media but still can't
convince the hard nut to crack.
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135025207.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> There have been a lot of people who say they just don't like the look
> of digital photos, that they look flat or like plastic. There are
> some people who will not care, they just don't like the idea of
> digital. But for those people who might want to use a ditial camera
> and get at least some of the look of film this might be valuable to
> look at. Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I
> would love to hear them.
>
> Digital cameras try to get the most accurate capture of a scene that
> they can. Whereas a digital capture might be very accurate it will not
> be to everybody's taste. Film, particularly slide film, boosts the
> contrast of a scene, this also makes the colors more vivid.
>
> This is a scan of one of my Kodachrome slides that shows the kind of
> look you get from Kodachrome.
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746257
>
> This is what is more typical out of a digital camera
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746256
>
> So if I want to get a more film like look what can I do?
> What I have done in this next image is to make a copy of background
> layer and then boost the contrast of the copy way up, I then mix 50% of
> each layer to get this photo
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746255
> To my eye this now looks much closer to a kodachrome scan then the
> original photo does.
>
> It is important to note that a scan of a slide does not just have more
> saturated colors, this is what I get if I just boost the saturation of
> the digital photo.
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746254
> To my eye that is just ugly
>
> So why start with a digital file that just needs to be adjusted when
> you could shoot film? For some shooting film would be the right thing
> to do. But for others the advantages of shooting digital would come
> into play and doing some adjustments to the photo would not be a big
> deal.
>
> My point in all of this is that a digital photo starts out life as a
> fairly neutral thing, we then can make of it what we wish. I should
> also point out that most digital cameras allow a boost of contrast in
> the camera setting, I don't like to shoot this way but if someone
> really did not want to adjust photos afterwards this is an option.
>
> The other options is to adjust the look of the photo when converting
> from raw, this has limits but you can get a wide range of looks and
> once you have the first file converted you can use the same setting for
> the rest of the photos.
>
> For me I like the digital look, perhaps because it is not what I am use
> to, but I can see where other might like the film look more.
>
> Scott
>
William Graham
>> I prefer trannies for playback and for bass but not for guitar or keys.
>> See, it is nice when we have a choice.
>
> Of course. A choice is what it is all about. It does not have to be a
> reasoned choice that is based on facts. In a capitalistic democracy, we
> vote with our credit cards.
>
> Tube amplifiers clip differently than sold state amplifiers and thus have
> a different spectral dispersion of harmonic distortion amplitudes. It's
> mostly a bunch of nit-picking and cannot be detected in double-blind
> listening tests.
The chief difference between tube-type amps and solid state amps is the soft
glow of the tubes, and the slight whirring of the muffin fans as they sit in
the wooden cabinet next to your humongous speakers.....You just can't beat
that psychological effect, and the character it gives to the sound......
The Royal Spam
> I use to hear this years ago when I did professional video production on
> videotape, 1" and Beta SP for those of you familiar with the formats.
> All I heard was lets soften the camera, or do this or that to get "the
> film look." It is f'ing video not film. I told them if they want the so
> called "film look" then shoot the damn stuff on film. Now it is
> happening all over again with digital. If you want it to look like film
> then, you guessed it, shoot it on film.
I think the look a of a specific film stock (Portra 400 NC) is something I
would like to be able to attain using a digital camera, particularly in the
skin tone area, along with the contrast and saturation qualities of film.
This can be achieved by taking care and using a white card, and when I say
that I mean a neutral white card like the Gretag Macbeth card, as a custom
white balance. I used to use anything white (to my eye) tablecloths,
napkins, sheets of paper, it just doesn't work, the colours are off. Pay the
money for the professional scientifically accurate goods, it is worth it
(voice of experience echoing Godlike in the background).
--
The Royal Spam
There are definitively financial advantages if she is buying film and having
it processed in a lab. I find digital useful in a professionally because of
the instant feedback and reduced costs, but there is something about film
that is flawed and unique and not perfect, that is quite appealing, it's a
bit like people's enthusiasm for Lomo cameras http://www.lomography.com/
or lensbabies http://www.lensbabies.com/, It's an individual look.
--
punishs...@nospam.com
>
> I have heard these kinds of comments and often find that they are sort of an
> urban legend similar to some who insist tube amplifiers sound better than
> solid-state amplifiers. Double-blind tests always do them in (they can't
> consistently identify the type of amplifier).
>
> always the ones making these kinds of comments.
>
> As you pointed out, digital manipulation can produce various effects.
>
>
>
>
are the same ones who won't (or more likely can't) tell the diffenece or
don't opperate the amps in a way that will produce the usable diffence.
William Graham
<punishs...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e1107c45...@news.east.earthlink.net...
Well, as someone who believes wholeheartedly in the placebo effect, and
thinks that this world is 90% or better just BS, let me say this. Just
because a double blind test shows that there really is no discernable
difference in the sound, (or photo) that doesn't mean that the psychological
difference isn't worth exploiting. In my own case, I am just as susceptible
to the placebo effect as anyone else is. Even if I know that logically there
is probably no difference, I am still suckered in by the hype, just like
everyone else. I play a $1500 professional horn, even though I know that
there are plenty of $500 horns that sound just as good, and my car runs much
better after an oil change just as everyone else's car does. IOW, knowing
about a disease doesn't make one immune from it.....
Paul Rubin
> Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I
> would love to hear them.
It's been said that Fuji DSLR's (I mean like the S3 Professional, not
the consumer digicams) design their sensors and processing to get a
more film-like look than other DSLR's do. For example, the pixels are
on a hexagonal grid instead of the usual rectangular grid.
Paul Rubin
> I play a $1500 professional horn, even though I know that
> there are plenty of $500 horns that sound just as good,
I dunno about horns, but when I hear someone hitting a drum, it sounds
like someone hitting a drum, you know, ka-thwap, not much more to say
about it. When my dad (a former professional drummer) hears someone
hitting a drum, he can tell you what kind of drum it is, what exact
spot on the drum was hit, and what the angle of the stick was when it
hit the drum. So, some things that aren't noticable to most of us,
can be discerned by people with enough practice.
punishs...@nospam.com
spam...@dontspamme.com says...
> There are definitively financial advantages if she is buying film and having
> it processed in a lab. I find digital useful in a professionally because of
> the instant feedback and reduced costs, but there is something about film
> that is flawed and unique and not perfect, that is quite appealing, it's a
> bit like people's enthusiasm for Lomo cameras http://www.lomography.com/
> or lensbabies http://www.lensbabies.com/, It's an individual look.
> --
>
> <http://theweddingphotographers.com>
>
>
fence or the other is they either can't tell the diffence or they don't
want to. The diffences have great advantages to anyone willing and open
enough to use them both.
William Graham
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xu0d4k...@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
Yes, there may well be a difference, but it is a matter of opinion which is,
"better". The same thing is true about wine tasting....An expert can tell
where the wine came from, and what type of wine it is, and lots of other
things about it, but they don't all agree on which one is better. No wine
expert liked California wines until they started to conduct blind tests at
the wine tasting competitions...And then, all of a sudden, they found out
that some pretty good wines came from California.
punishs...@nospam.com
<http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> says...
ones who won't (or more likely can't) tell the difference. Some people
just don't want to know. They will often fight to the death on both sides
and show the results of test after test and meanwhile in everyday
practical applications the differences are used to great advantage of
those willing to use them. Maybe I should go out and take some pics. Been
in here way too long. :)
RobG
> Here in politically-correct England, flying the national flag is
> sometimes seen as racist and provocative.
Here in Aus, flying the national flag is ... we have a flag? Wow, since
when?
RobG
"Just take the damn photo"
Scott W
the amps in a way that will produce the usable diffence.
>
> Well, as someone who believes wholeheartedly in the placebo effect, and
> thinks that this world is 90% or better just BS, let me say this. Just
> because a double blind test shows that there really is no discernable
> difference in the sound, (or photo) that doesn't mean that the psychological
> difference isn't worth exploiting. In my own case, I am just as susceptible
> to the placebo effect as anyone else is. Even if I know that logically there
> is probably no difference, I am still suckered in by the hype, just like
> everyone else. I play a $1500 professional horn, even though I know that
> there are plenty of $500 horns that sound just as good, and my car runs much
> better after an oil change just as everyone else's car does. IOW, knowing
> about a disease doesn't make one immune from it.....
I am not so much worried about you having a $1500 horn, what would make
me worry is if you have had it cryogenically cooled.
Scott
Fred Williams
<snip>
> For me I like the digital look, perhaps because it is not what I
> am use to, but I can see where other might like the film look
> more.
>
Aren't you really saying you like the look of a scanned digital
image over the look of a photographed digital image?
--
Regards,
Fred.
(Please remove FFFf from my email address to reply, if by email)
Scott W
> On $DATE , Scott W wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > For me I like the digital look, perhaps because it is not what I
> > am use to, but I can see where other might like the film look
> > more.
> >
>
> Aren't you really saying you like the look of a scanned digital
> image over the look of a photographed digital image?
>
No I liked the look of the digital image from the camera over the
either the scanned film image or the processed digital photo. Just to
be clear this is the one I like.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746256
Scott
William Graham
school, I know better than that....As a matter of fact, I have spent way too
much time trying to convince other trumpet players of the stupidity of
that....But you know, the ones that have had it done, will still swear by
it....The placebo effect is very strong......
Scott W
William Graham wrote:
> >
> Ha! - Having taken a good course in metallurgy way back in engineering
> school, I know better than that....As a matter of fact, I have spent way too
> much time trying to convince other trumpet players of the stupidity of
> that....But you know, the ones that have had it done, will still swear by
> it....The placebo effect is very strong......
I know flute players who align their flute with the magnetic pole
swearing the flute sound better then they do. Of course the flutes are
silver and so there is no effect at all but they still claim to hear a
huge difference.
Scott
William Graham
to convince these people of the error of their ways, and, I guess there is
little reason to try anyway....If their playing sounds better to them, then
they might as well believe it.
But the stupidity of it all still annoys me. The other day, there was an
"expert" in astrology on the radio. He has a new book out. This is all well
and good, and I could care less about it. But he had the audacity to say
that the reason it's warmer in the Summertime is because the Earth is
closest to the Sun then. And, what makes it worse, is that the talk show
host wasn't bright enough to correct him....
JohnR66
> There have been a lot of people who say they just don't like the look
> of digital photos, that they look flat or like plastic. There are
> some people who will not care, they just don't like the idea of
> digital. But for those people who might want to use a ditial camera
> and get at least some of the look of film this might be valuable to
> would love to hear them.
>
> to, but I can see where other might like the film look more.
>
>
I don't care for the Kodachrome shot. It looks almost faded (poor greens).
It seems as if the white side of the house lit brightly by the sun caused
underexposure for the rest of the scene making the sky a nice deep blue, but
the foliage goes muddy. The digital shot is much more colorful and natural
to me. It would have helped to see a same subject comparison.
John
Rich
<charle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>I have heard these kinds of comments and often find that they are sort of an
>urban legend similar to some who insist tube amplifiers sound better than
>solid-state amplifiers. Double-blind tests always do them in (they can't
>consistently identify the type of amplifier).
>
>Some photography folks are truly informed and prefer film, but they are not
>always the ones making these kinds of comments.
>
>As you pointed out, digital manipulation can produce various effects.
>
>
You know that old rule that says a usenet post is dead once Hitler is
mentioned? They need the SAME rule for @#$$@# bringing up
high-end audio.
-Rich
Scott W
> Yes....And sadly, because I am not an expert trumpet player, I have no way
> to convince these people of the error of their ways, and, I guess there is
> little reason to try anyway....If their playing sounds better to them, then
> they might as well believe it.
> But the stupidity of it all still annoys me. The other day, there was an
> "expert" in astrology on the radio. He has a new book out. This is all well
> and good, and I could care less about it. But he had the audacity to say
> that the reason it's warmer in the Summertime is because the Earth is
> closest to the Sun then. And, what makes it worse, is that the talk show
> host wasn't bright enough to correct him....
If it gets warmer in the summertime were you are then you live way to
far from the equator.
Scott
William Graham
at the equator must be April and October......During these months the sun is
directly overhead during midday.....
Scott W
> I am exactly 45 degrees North of the equator.....I think the hottest months
> at the equator must be April and October......During these months the sun is
> directly overhead during midday.....
the tropics.
We do see a small change in the temperature here but it is very small.
We might only get to 82 or so in the winter, in the summer it will be
more like 87 or so.
Scott
DS
1)Prints are viewed with reflected light but these images come up on a
monitor which is direct light. In any case, monitors vary greatly.
2)Printers and even various ink cartridges have varying colour reproduction.
The bottom line is, do you like the final result? If you don't you can do
almost anything you want with it in Photoshop.
ds
"JohnR66" <nos...@att.net> wrote in message
news:r7Kpf.317111$zb5.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
no_name
> "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Joseph Kewfi wrote:
>>
>>>>Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I would love to
>>>
>>>hear them.
>>>
>>>Use film ?
>>
>>This is one options, but not for me. It takes me less time to adjust
>>the digital photo then it does to photoshop out the dust on a slide,
>>much less the scratches on a negative.
>
>
> Sheesh, get a new scanner. It's been an age since you could even buy a
> scanner that didn't have ICE.
Or be more careful with the slides and negatives.
no_name
> I have heard these kinds of comments and often find that they are sort of an
> urban legend similar to some who insist tube amplifiers sound better than
> solid-state amplifiers. Double-blind tests always do them in (they can't
> consistently identify the type of amplifier).
I'm guessing you're not a guitar player. It's when the amplifier is
driven beyond linearity. Over-driven tubes compress, over-driven
transistors clip. Both make distortion, the sound is different, like a
stradivarius vs. a chain saw.
David J. Littleboy
"no_name" <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
news:sSNpf.5242$Ml4...@southeast.rr.com...
To my ear, it's the tubes that sound like the chain saw. (The clean channel
on my Mesa Boogie Studio Caliber sounds great with my L5, though.)
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
no_name
>>Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I would love to
>
> hear them.
>
> Use film ?
Different strokes for different folks.
no_name
Earth's orbit is an ellipse. The earth IS closer to the sun when it's
summer IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE. Also helps to account for why
southern hemisphere winters are generally milder that norhtern
hemisphere winters.
And because the earth is farther from the sun while it's summer in the
southern hemisphere, summers are generally milder as well.
Hang around 10,000 years or so, and it'll be reversed.
OTOH, orbital distance has a lot less effect on summer/winter
temperatures than inclination of earth's axis.
punishs...@nospam.com
sometimes to find a good set and bias them properly to get what you want
but when you do it is like that nice old 12 cylinder cat when she is
really fine tuned. It took me years to realize I liked the sound of a 100
Marshall with soft tubes over a 50 with harder tubes. Now I just can't
get enough.
Hey, was this group about film or something?
punishs...@nospam.com
no_...@no.where.invalid says...
And then you will have to hold digital cameras upside down. :)
Nigel Cummings
don't like E6 slide films.
I have to disagree with you about digital imaging as opposed to traditional.
Some digital cameras do produce 'plastic' looking images, generally such
results are produced by 'point and shoot' and /or digital cameras equipped
with small sensors and overlong, badly corrected fixed zooms.
To compound this further, such cameras tend to over process and interpolate
pixels to yield a smooth looking, but regrettably 'flat' image.
I would suggest without passing further judgement, that you try a digital
SLR equipped with a 'good' lens.
Colour and image characteristics vary tremendously from brand to brand. I
currently use Fuji FinePix S2 and S3 bodies, with a Nikon D70 as my back up
digital camera. The Fuji cameras have a range of colour selections which
mimic the output provided by Fuji film accurately, some settings produce
images like Velvia, for example, though other settings can yield higher
contrast images reminiscent of Kodachrome 64.
The Nikon on the other hand, produces distinctly 'Kodak' type colouring at
all settings, I think the images are very much like Ektachrome 100.
Digital noise on both of these camera ranges is similar in appearance to
film grain.
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135025207.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> There have been a lot of people who say they just don't like the look
> of digital photos, that they look flat or like plastic. There are
> some people who will not care, they just don't like the idea of
> digital. But for those people who might want to use a ditial camera
> and get at least some of the look of film this might be valuable to
> look at. Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I
> would love to hear them.
>
no_name
>>This is what is more typical out of a digital camera
>>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746256
>>So if I want to get a more film like look what can I do?
>>What I have done in this next image is to make a copy of background
>>layer and then boost the contrast of the copy way up, I then mix 50% of
>>each layer to get this photo
>>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746255
>>To my eye this now looks much closer to a kodachrome scan then the
>>original photo does.
>>It is important to note that a scan of a slide does not just have more
>>saturated colors, this is what I get if I just boost the saturation of
>>the digital photo.
>>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746254
>>To my eye that is just ugly
>>
>
>
> 256 doesn't look particularly like sharp digital to me but I note shadow
> detail and reasonable skin tone...
>
> 255 has lost the shadow detail...
>
> 254 has shadow detail but more extreme skin tone...
>
>
Actually, the guy in the purple shirt has the skin tone of a Barbie doll
that's been left in the microwave too long in all three.
Charles
Years ago I shot the same scenes with Kodacolor and Vericolor.
The Kodacolor prints looked like I expected pictures to look, the
Vericolor looked like the real scene.
Which was better?
William Graham
"no_name" <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
Sorry noname, but you are wrong....The mean distance of the earth from the
sun is about 93 million miles. It is about 3 million miles closer to the sun
during the early part of January than it is during the early part of
July.....3 million is less than 4 % of 93 million miles, but it is way more
than the south pole is from the north pole of the earth.....The poles are
tilted about 23.4 degrees from perpendicular to the plane of the earth's
travel around the sun, and during the month of July the north pole is tilted
toward the sun, even though the earth is about 3 million miles further away
from the sun than it is during the winter months. During this same time, the
southern hemisphere is also 3 million miles further from the sun, because it
is attached to the northern hemisphere, by the rest of the earth, which is
only about 8,000 miles in diameter. The distance from the sun, IOW, has very
little to do with the seasons. It's that 23-1/2 degree tilt that does it
all. When the north pole is tilted toward the sun, the south pole is tilted
away from it, and this is why the seasons are reversed in the two
hemispheres....When it is cold and snowing in Moscow, and Copenhagen, it is
hot and sunny in Melbourne, Durban, and Buenos Aries.
T Rock
>> detail and reasonable skin tone...
>>
>> 255 has lost the shadow detail...
>>
>> 254 has shadow detail but more extreme skin tone...
>
> Actually, the guy in the purple shirt has the skin tone of a Barbie doll
> that's been left in the microwave too long in all three.
I'm only comparing 256, 255, and 254 to each other...
Stacey
> There have been a lot of people who say they just don't like the look
> of digital photos, that they look flat or like plastic.
It's not "digital photography" that makes them look that way. It's the
sensor and in camera processing some of the cameras have that does it. Hey
but the noise is washed away!
--
Stacey
Doug Robbins
Doug
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135025207.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> There have been a lot of people who say they just don't like the look
> of digital photos, that they look flat or like plastic. There are
> some people who will not care, they just don't like the idea of
> digital. But for those people who might want to use a ditial camera
> and get at least some of the look of film this might be valuable to
> look at. Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I
> would love to hear them.
>
> Digital cameras try to get the most accurate capture of a scene that
> they can. Whereas a digital capture might be very accurate it will not
> be to everybody's taste. Film, particularly slide film, boosts the
> contrast of a scene, this also makes the colors more vivid.
>
> This is a scan of one of my Kodachrome slides that shows the kind of
> look you get from Kodachrome.
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746257
>
> This is what is more typical out of a digital camera
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746256
>
> So if I want to get a more film like look what can I do?
> What I have done in this next image is to make a copy of background
> layer and then boost the contrast of the copy way up, I then mix 50% of
> each layer to get this photo
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746255
> To my eye this now looks much closer to a kodachrome scan then the
> original photo does.
>
> It is important to note that a scan of a slide does not just have more
> saturated colors, this is what I get if I just boost the saturation of
> the digital photo.
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746254
> To my eye that is just ugly
>
Doug Robbins
you want is a confession that you don't have the commitment to do good
photography. Get a point an shoot and take your photos or memory card to the
Wal-Mart. Easy. Just don't expect much and you be having lots of free time.
Doug
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135026072.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Joseph Kewfi wrote:
>> >Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I would love to
>> hear them.
>>
>> Use film ?
>
> This is one options, but not for me. It takes me less time to adjust
> the digital photo then it does to photoshop out the dust on a slide,
> much less the scratches on a negative.
>
> Scott
>
Itsme
film is you don't need to scan etc. Just get it processed at the lab.
Also in regards to your technique for getting a digital photo to look more
like film I have got to say that although you may be right I do not fancy
sitting in fornt of my computer for hours editing photo's after I have spent
all day working on one (I am a building designer).
It still seems far easier to just use film if you want the look of film.
David J. Littleboy
> Why do you need to scan the image into your computer? The idea of using
> film is you don't need to scan etc. Just get it processed at the lab.
For me, the fun of/interest in photography is making my own prints. I can do
a lot better than a lab can, either with a darkroom or with an inkjet
printer. But the inkjet requires scanning the film. And I don't have a
darkroom any more.
Of course, I think that film is hideously ugly, and only acceptable when
used at enlargements low enough that it doesn't "look like film". 35mm is
for 8x10s (on a good day, maybe; 35mm's largely not worth bothering with),
645 for 11x14s, and 6x7 for 13x19s. Larger than that is LF territory.
Scott W
> Photography is a craft. Whining that "it takes to much time" to get the look
> you want is a confession that you don't have the commitment to do good
> photography. Get a point an shoot and take your photos or memory card to the
> Wal-Mart. Easy. Just don't expect much and you be having lots of free time.
>
> Doug
don't want to spend time on each photo will likely not get as good
photos. But it is the some of the film people who are making this
complaint and using it in part as the reason they do not want to use
digital cameras. Digital or film I will adjust the photos that I am
getting printed larger then 4 x 6 and even a fair number of the 4 x 6
photos get adjusted.
>From what I read a large number of film users just want to drop their
film off at the lab and then pick up the prints. I can do better then
this by scanning the negatives and sending in a digital file, it takes
more time but I get a better print then if I just sent the film in.
Scott
Scott W
> Why do you need to scan the image into your computer? The idea of using
> film is you don't need to scan etc. Just get it processed at the lab.
I get much better prints if I first scan the film and then get it
printed. If I just get it processed at the lab the white balance will
normally be off. This is particularly true for photos of the ocean,
you get that amount of blue in a photo and the labs auto white balance
will be way off. In any number of photos I will also do a bit of
dodging and burning to bring out the shadow. Negative film has a
pretty good dynamic range, but you get very little value from this fact
if you just drop off your photos.
When I went from black and white photography to color I really missed
the control I had when doing my own prints. I would look at the color
enlargers from time to time but the cost and effort to set up a color
lab was too high. Getting the photograph into a digital format
allowed me to do what I wanted to do since the 70s, have some real
control over the color prints I was making.
I have a vast number of negatives and prints that both my wife and I
have taken over the years, one of the things that makes going back and
scanning the old negatives worthwhile is getting the prints to look
right.
Scott
Scott W
> Getting that film look is quite easy when you use film.
>
> Doug
if you just want to drop off you roll of film at the lab then it is not
much work. But if you want to be the one in control of the print then
using film is a lot of work. I still am making prints from my
negatives, it takes me much more time to get a print from a negative
then it does from a digital photo, even if I make a fair bit of
adjustments to the photo.
Getting a film print to look good is not all that easy. If you are
printing from slides then you are working with a tiny dynamic range, in
some photos the small range is not a problem in other it can take a lot
of work to get the photo to look as good as it can. With negatives
there is much more range it takes a lot of work to get the colors
right.
I am not arguing that everyone should give up on film, I am saying that
for many of us film is far more work and in the end I get a better
looking print from digital. Film does give more contrast, but if I
don't want as much contrast there is not much I can do about it.
Starting out with a digital photos I can adjust the contrast to where I
like it best.
Scott
Scott W
>
> Actually, the guy in the purple shirt has the skin tone of a Barbie doll
> that's been left in the microwave too long in all three.
You are close, the guy in the purple shirt has the skin tone of a man
who was way sun burned. It was a very sunny day without a whole lot of
shade, as the day went on the skin tones shift more and more to the
red.
Scott
Scott W
This is in fact a very good question and that has no one right answer.
When viewing photos on the computer screen I like a more natural look,
but most people prefer a high contrast high saturated look. On one of
the digital photo contest sites I belong to I can get higher scores by
simply turning up the contrast and saturation of my photos, I don't
like it as much but most people seem to. When doing prints it is a
whole other story, you have a very limited range in the print, trying
to fit the whole of the range of a digital photos in a print will make
for one washed out looking print.
Scott
Pinehollow
> There have been a lot of people who say they just don't like the look
> of digital photos, that they look flat or like plastic. There are
> some people who will not care, they just don't like the idea of
> digital. But for those people who might want to use a ditial camera
> and get at least some of the look of film this might be valuable to
> would love to hear them.
>
> they can. Whereas a digital capture might be very accurate it will not
> be to everybody's taste. Film, particularly slide film, boosts the
> contrast of a scene, this also makes the colors more vivid.
>
> This is a scan of one of my Kodachrome slides that shows the kind of
> look you get from Kodachrome.
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53746257
If you have 'scanned' the Kodachrome slide, you now have 'digital', yet you
are saying it looks better than 'digital'. I don't understand
> Snip a lot
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Scott W
>
> If you have 'scanned' the Kodachrome slide, you now have 'digital', yet you
> are saying it looks better than 'digital'. I don't understand
>
Not better so much as different. Some people prefer the look of
slides, for these people a bit of processing on a digital file can make
it look more like the slide then when it comes straight out of the
camera.
Scott
salgud
punishs...@NOSPAM.com wrote:
> In article <1135031372....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> dav...@safebrowse.com says...
> >
> > Scott W wrote:
> > > Chris Loffredo wrote:
> > > > Scott W wrote:
> > > >
> > > > O.K., avoiding the great debate (for the moment).
> > > >
> > > > Just, all your pictures have an American flag in them: Is it an article
> > > > of the Patriot Act that all photos need to have a US flag in them?
> > > >
> > > > I've lived in seven different countries and, AFAIK, I have no pictures
> > > > of flags.
> > > >
> > > > Oh well, de gustibus...
> > >
> > > It's not me, it is where I live. I did not even notice the flags in
> > > the photos, show how much the flag flies around here. When I was in
> > > Canada taking photos I did notice I ended up with a fair number of
> > > photos with the Canadian flay in them.
> > >
> > > Scott
> >
> > I'm just getting started in digital photography. I shot film for years
> > (60's into the 80's) and eventually lost interest. I considered myself
> > a serious amateur and sold some of my work. My eye isn't terribly
> > sharp, compared to my son's, who is a professional photojournalist. So
> > all I can say is, I'd love to have taken any of these pix!
> > I can also say that I disagree with the "if you want it to look like
> > film, shoot film" comments. There are so many advantages to digital,
> > I'm discovering, that it certainly makes sense to try to duplicate film
> > as closely as you can using a far more user-friendly medium. Keep up
> > the good work! And thanks for sharing with us.
> >
> >
> The advantages are debatable for various reasons. Not always easier to
> use digital. As for user friendly it depends on if you enjoy working with
> computers or using a trusted lab and spending more time at the beach and
> a good cafe.
>
> I love computers and digital and having the control but it really is not
> fare to say it is more user friendly for everyone as it truly is not for
> everyone.
I don't recall saying it was more user-friendly for everyone. Just a
general statement. Maybe for some experienced darkroom users, a
darkroom is easier. What percentage of the population is that? As far
as darkroom processing, in which I have limited experience, I can
safely say that for the majority (being conservative here, deleting
"vast"), mixing up a bunch of noxious chemicals and working in a
darkened room is considerably more difficult than dragging slide
switches on a computer. And I'm talking B&W darkroom here. If we start
comparing color, there's absolutely no comparison!
>
> My wife shoots only slides and uses mostly one lab in Italy that does
> great work. She really has no reason to go digital and there are no
> advantages for the type of work she does. For photojournalists digital is
> the way to go. For the average shooter like yourself it if most likely
> digital is best as well but someday, who knows, maybe you will take
> interest in a particular style and digital will not have any real
> advantages.
The main other advantage I've observed so far is the ability to see
your picture immediately, with the opportunity, in most cases, to
reshoot if you're not happy with the first one. And even get a
histogram for even more information. Not to mention all the choices I
have with a digital I never had with film, and certainly not in-camera.
Add to that the convenience of digital image handling. I can store it
for long periods without worrying about it degrading. I can email it to
all kinds of photo processing labs with widely varying prices and
quality, my choice. I can buy a photo printer and print them myself.
Even better, I can send them to my son and he can do a professional
photoshop job on them, print them on his high quality printer, and send
them back to me. It doesn't get any better than this in terms of
choice.
>
> Now if we just introduce enough distortion in these CDs they will sound
> "almost" like vinyl. How much time will that take?
punishs...@nospam.com
dav...@safebrowse.com says...
> dd to that the convenience of digital image handling. I can store it
> for long periods without worrying about it degrading. I can email it to
> all kinds of photo processing labs with widely varying prices and
> quality, my choice. I can buy a photo printer and print them myself.
> Even better, I can send them to my son and he can do a professional
> photoshop job on them, print them on his high quality printer, and send
> them back to me. It doesn't get any better than this in terms of
> choice.
>
>
>
your digital photos will not fade, so to speak. There is already serious
issues with this in audio which is why NASA and Smithsonian archive on
film and digital.
As I said, I love computers and the so called conveniences but I have
found after 20 plus years of working with them that I would rather spend
my time at a cafe. Simply a lifestyle choice.
Gregory L. Hansen
Doug Robbins <crob...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>Photography is a craft. Whining that "it takes to much time" to get the look
>you want is a confession that you don't have the commitment to do good
>photography. Get a point an shoot and take your photos or memory card to the
>Wal-Mart. Easy. Just don't expect much and you be having lots of free time.
>
>Doug
Or he could make the commitment he feels is worth to him, and use the
tools that help him to do photography as he likes it.
>
>"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1135026072.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Joseph Kewfi wrote:
>>> >Others my have better methods of getting that film look, I would love to
>>> hear them.
>>>
>>> Use film ?
>>
>> This is one options, but not for me. It takes me less time to adjust
>> the digital photo then it does to photoshop out the dust on a slide,
>> much less the scratches on a negative.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>
>
--
"One idea that is carried out, that is given body and form, one idea that
assumes definite, tangible form and bears concrete results is worth a
million ideas that are born but to die." -- Manual of the U.S. Army, 1911
Matt Clara
Scott W wrote:
> There have been a lot of people who say they just don't like the look
> of digital photos,
Hey jackass, when are you going to get it into your head that this is
primarily a 35mm group? Your bullshit advice is unwelcome here.
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
wrote:
[snip]
>And because the earth is farther from the sun while it's summer in the
>southern hemisphere, summers are generally milder as well.
It's the Earth's tilt and not distance from the sun that determines
summer and winter.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/seasons.html
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice", Straight to Hell - The Clash
Ray Fischer
>Scott W wrote:
>> If it gets warmer in the summertime were you are then you live way to
>> far from the equator.
>
>summer IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE.
Actually that's backwards. The Earth is closer to the sun in the
northern winter. In fact the Earth will be at its closest point to
the sun in just a couple of weeks on January 4th.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/EarthSeasons.html
> Also helps to account for why
>southern hemisphere winters are generally milder that norhtern
>hemisphere winters.
Are they? Geography makes a far, far bigger difference in local
climate. Most of the land mass is in the northern hemisphere and
that tends to make weather more extreme.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
William Graham
"Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <real-addr...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:pdpgq1ls44g1h9aq5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 07:03:41 GMT, no_name <no_...@no.where.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>And because the earth is farther from the sun while it's summer in the
>>southern hemisphere, summers are generally milder as well.
>
> It's the Earth's tilt and not distance from the sun that determines
> summer and winter.
>
> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/seasons.html
Yes. - I think the problem is understanding how the, "tilt" affects the mean
temperature....days are not only shorter in the winter, but the sun is
closer to the horizon during mid day, or, IOW, it stays closer to the
horizon throughout the entire day, so the earth in that hemisphere does not
get the full warming effect that is received in the other hemisphere where
the pole is tilted toward the sun, and the days are longer and more directly
exposed to the sun's warming effect. Apparently some people think that the
tilt puts the other pole further away, and this caused the difference. But
only a few thousand miles further away wouldn't do it. It would have to be
several million miles further away before it would make a noticeable
difference......
William Graham
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43a86ac5$0$58033$742e...@news.sonic.net...
northern hemisphere Summers would have a mitigating effect on the weather
extremes in that hemisphere, but the land mass difference has a much greater
effect.....
Colin D
Scott is the last person you should call a jackass. You, Clara, are the
archetypal jackass, with your smart mouth and put-down postings. *That*
is not welcome here. I have yet to read anything constructive from you.
FYI, this is a 35mm *equipment* group. I say it again to get it through
your jackass head: *THIS IS THE REC.PHOTO.EQUIPMENT.35MM* group. Note
the word *EQUIPMENT*. IT DOES NOT SAY, OR MEAN, *FILM*. This group has
long accepted that digital cameras derived from 35mm *equipment* have a
place here, as does discussion about digital vs. 35mm film.
After a gratuitous attack on me, I called you a sidewinding little
shit. I have seen nothing from you since that would cause me to change
my mind. Just the opposite, in fact.
Colin D.
Gregory L. Hansen
The days are shorter and the incident radiation per unit area of ground
goes as cos(angle)-- the ground gets warmer when the sun shines straight
down compared with coming at an angle.
--
"We don't grow up hearing stories around the camp fire anymore about
cultural figures. Instead we get them from books, TV or movies, so the
characters that today provide us a common language are corporate
creatures" -- Rebecca Tushnet
Colin D
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> I am exactly 45 degrees North of the equator.....I think the hottest months
> at the equator must be April and October......During these months the sun is
> directly overhead during midday.....
I'm surprised nobody caught this one yet. The Earth's tilt
is 23.4 degrees. So at latitudes within 23.4 degrees of the
equator, the sun can appear directly overhead. At latitudes
further than 23.4 degrees, the sun never gets directly overhead.
At latitude 45 degrees, the maximum altitude of the sun
is 90 - (45-23.4) = 68.4 degrees.
Roger
Scott W
WIlliam was talking about at the equator.
Personally I feel anybody living further north then 23.4 degrees is a
bit nuts.
no_name
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 07:03:41 GMT, no_name <no_...@no.where.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>And because the earth is farther from the sun while it's summer in the
>>southern hemisphere, summers are generally milder as well.
>
>
> It's the Earth's tilt and not distance from the sun that determines
> summer and winter.
>
> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/seasons.html
>
What part of "OTOH, orbital distance has a lot less effect on
summer/winter temperatures than inclination of earth's axis." didn't you
understand?
William Graham
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:43A8C9D...@qwest.net...
Yes. The sun never gets directly overhead here. I don't think I ever said it
did.....I simply reasoned that the tilt is neither toward or away from the
sun when we are half way between solstices, so the sun at the equator would
be directly overhead at noon during these two times......
Colin D
William Graham wrote:
>
> "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1135047699.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > William Graham wrote:
> >
> >> Yes....And sadly, because I am not an expert trumpet player, I have no
> >> way
> >> to convince these people of the error of their ways, and, I guess there
> >> is
> >> little reason to try anyway....If their playing sounds better to them,
> >> then
> >> they might as well believe it.
> >> But the stupidity of it all still annoys me. The other day, there was
> >> an
> >> "expert" in astrology on the radio. He has a new book out. This is all
> >> well
> >> and good, and I could care less about it. But he had the audacity to say
> >> that the reason it's warmer in the Summertime is because the Earth is
> >> closest to the Sun then. And, what makes it worse, is that the talk show
> >> host wasn't bright enough to correct him....
> >
> > If it gets warmer in the summertime were you are then you live way to
> > far from the equator.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> I am exactly 45 degrees North of the equator.....I think the hottest months
> at the equator must be April and October......During these months the sun is
> directly overhead during midday.....
I would expect the sun would be directly overhead the equator on or
about 21 March and 21 September, at the Equinoxes. By definition,
equinox means equal day and night, and to get that, the sun must be
overhead the equator.
My daughter lives in Hong Kong, at about latitude 15 North, and the
interesting thing is that as the northern summer develops, the sun
passes overhead on its way to the northern Tropic at 23.4 degrees, and
then passes overhead on its way back south, giving in effect a
'double-humped' summer (like the response curve of over-coupled tuned
circuits).
Colin D.
William Graham
very temperate all year round.....All the way from Mexico to Canada and
beyond......Unless you are into real heat, and like to lounge around on the
beaches in the sun and go surfing.....the water temperature is a bit cold
here for that.....I was raised in New York, and I got enough of 100 degree
heat and 90% plus humidity all summer to last me a lifetime......When I
first came out here to the West coast, it was like getting my first breath
of fresh air.....
William Graham
"Colin D" <Col...@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:43A8D9C8...@killspam.127.0.0.1...
Yup.....I'll buy that.......
rafe b
<dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>Of course, I think that film is hideously ugly, and only acceptable when
>used at enlargements low enough that it doesn't "look like film". 35mm is
>for 8x10s (on a good day, maybe; 35mm's largely not worth bothering with),
>645 for 11x14s, and 6x7 for 13x19s. Larger than that is LF territory.
Dave, what's the largest inkjet print you can make at
home? IIRC you have either the R800 or R1800.
Do you ever make LightJet prints or have your
images sent out for printing large? What's the
largest print you've made from a DSLR image?
Not all of us are in line with your max-enlargement
guidelines... but you knew that. I can count on you
to uphold the most conservative estimates.
I'll grant you a large print from LF beats all.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
no_name
And the thread is cross posted to rec.photo.digital as well as alt.photo.
no_name
Shows what happens when you try to repeat something you learned years
and years and years and ... ago without bothering to look it up again.
Land mass makes a lot more difference in moderating/aggrevating weather
than the elliptical orbit, but it's the axial tilt that makes the seasons.
no_name
A long time ago in a newsgroup far, far away (rec.fiction.scifi IIRC)
there was a long discussion about the best way to store a library so
that it would be available post-apocalypse; a primer for the many
generations removed survivors on how to resurrect technology.
CD-ROM did not appear to be a viable choice; having poor durability &
requiring them to recover the technology before being readable.
My suggestion was microfiche, since you can read them with a simple
magnifying lens, and the plastic is damn near indestructable.
Scott W
William Graham wrote:
> Don't knock it until you've tried it. The pacific coast of North
America is
> very temperate all year round.....All the way from Mexico to Canada and
> beyond......Unless you are into real heat, and like to lounge around on the
> beaches in the sun and go surfing.....the water temperature is a bit cold
> here for that.....I was raised in New York, and I got enough of 100 degree
> heat and 90% plus humidity all summer to last me a lifetime......When I
> first came out here to the West coast, it was like getting my first breath
> of fresh air.....
Tried it, did not like it, well not as much as here. We lived in
Portland (45.5 north) for 16 years. Still Portland was a lot better
then Michigan where I came from. It is 7:00 PM here right now and it is
about 78.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=96740
Life is good.
Scott