Picking Lice With The 70-200 VR2!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Review sites DESPERATE for SOMETHING to test
Next: Amazon and Apple, two vile companies probed for price fixing
From: Peter on 6 Aug 2010 11:54 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:oh7n56h8do074rvi1iumoed9s37j8m3is8(a)4ax.com... > > Here's another Park Avenue shot of two people all caught up in each > other. Not. > > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/2010-03-20-001/960179284_FrHte-XL.jpg > I can think of two titles: "Young love after the blush" "A text in time" -- Peter
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 6 Aug 2010 19:53 K W Hart <kwhart1(a)verizon.net> wrote: > Give > me a solid, heavy 35mm mechanical SLR from the 1960's to use as a doorstop, > weapon, or even to shoot photographs that will beat the pants off the output > of any DSLR, at a much lower price. Photographs? Well, buying and developing film isn't free, so if you don't shoot just keepers ... And we'll talk about grain at ISOwith with 1600, or 21MPix after enlarging a few of your films to poster size. Utilizing the same lenses and the same shooter most DSLRs beat film easily. -Wolfgang
From: K W Hart on 7 Aug 2010 11:51 "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:ftjui7-juh.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... >K W Hart <kwhart1(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >> Give >> me a solid, heavy 35mm mechanical SLR from the 1960's to use as a >> doorstop, >> weapon, or even to shoot photographs that will beat the pants off the >> output >> of any DSLR, at a much lower price. > > Photographs? > Well, buying and developing film isn't free, so if you don't > shoot just keepers ... It is always my intent to shoot "keepers". I do my editting before firing the shutter. Buying and developing film isn't free, but outputting photographs costs the same whether with film or digital, assuming RA-4 prints. If you're outputting to inkjet, the cost of prints is substantially higher when you add in the cartridges. Add in the cost of hardware, and consider that 'wet' photography is a mature technology so the gear more or less as good as it gets. Your digital camera and computer will be outdated by the time you get home from the store. I "upgrade" the image sensor in my old 35mm camera every time Kodak introduces a new film technology. > > And we'll talk about grain at ISOwith with 1600, or 21MPix after > enlarging a few of your films to poster size. Utilizing the same > lenses and the same shooter most DSLRs beat film easily. > I don't often shoot ASA1600, but I do shoot 800 speed. And I frequently enlarge to 20"x24", not exactly poster size, but close. Since I enlarge optically, I retain all the quality that is on the negative. Stop by the studio sometime, and I'll show you a photo of the moon, shot with a Canon FX and a Canon 1200mm lens, both about 45 years old. Ken Hart
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 8 Aug 2010 20:34 K W Hart <kwhart1(a)verizon.net> wrote: > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >>K W Hart <kwhart1(a)verizon.net> wrote: >>> Give >>> me a solid, heavy 35mm mechanical SLR from the 1960's to use as a >>> doorstop, >>> weapon, or even to shoot photographs that will beat the pants off the >>> output >>> of any DSLR, at a much lower price. Please teach your newsreader not to wrap quoted text. That's close to unreadable. >> Photographs? >> Well, buying and developing film isn't free, so if you don't >> shoot just keepers ... > It is always my intent to shoot "keepers". Isn't that everybodies? Do you succeed every time? How good are you at evaluating flash setups --- do you use polaroids or just hope for the best and declare the result a keeper? > I do my editting before firing the shutter. Ansel Adams did lots of darkroom work to get the best out of his exposures. > Buying and developing film isn't free, but outputting photographs costs the > same whether with film or digital, assuming RA-4 prints. If you're > outputting to inkjet, the cost of prints is substantially higher when you > add in the cartridges. Buy ink tank technology. But you forget you need to digitize the film for printing on these newfangled digital printing stuff that's appearing everywhere. Add cost and time ... for analog. > Add in the cost of hardware, and consider that 'wet' photography is a mature > technology so the gear more or less as good as it gets. Your digital camera > and computer will be outdated by the time you get home from the store. I > "upgrade" the image sensor in my old 35mm camera every time Kodak introduces > a new film technology. One of my DSLRs is from 2004, and not a bit worse than when I bought it. The only way it's outdated is when I demand more than it can deliver and where more modern technology offers a solution. Kodak won't introduce a new film technology: the technology isn't mature, it's outdated and won't ever get any better. Worse: digital beats film hands down in about everything. There are a few counter examples in specific circumstances, say big large format (say 20x20 cm --- no digital medium format) for moving objects (no scanning backends) for low price and only a few shots. Or no electrical power possible all ... >> And we'll talk about grain at ISOwith with 1600, or 21MPix after >> enlarging a few of your films to poster size. Utilizing the same >> lenses and the same shooter most DSLRs beat film easily. > I don't often shoot ASA1600, but I do shoot 800 speed. And I frequently > enlarge to 20"x24", not exactly poster size, but close. And do you see grain? Lots? Have you compared such a shot to what a DSLR can do in the same circumstances using best practices? > Since I enlarge > optically, I retain all the quality that is on the negative. Minus the effects of the optics you use for enlarging. Since I enlarge digitally, I retain all the quality that is in the data. Of course I can enlarge optically, by having a negative or slide film imprinted with laser light, developing that and going the optical route. > Stop by the > studio sometime, and I'll show you a photo of the moon, shot with a Canon FX > and a Canon 1200mm lens, both about 45 years old. So how do you do lucky imaging to combat seeing with film? -Wolfgang
From: Charles E Hardwidge on 9 Aug 2010 06:01
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:u1v3j7-eal.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... > K W Hart <kwhart1(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >>>K W Hart <kwhart1(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >>>> Give me a solid, heavy 35mm mechanical SLR from the 1960's to use as a >>>> doorstop, weapon, or even to shoot photographs that will beat the pants >>>> off the output of any DSLR, at a much lower price. > > Please teach your newsreader not to wrap quoted text. That's close > to unreadable. Brittle blowhards stamping their feet doesn't help either. -- Charles E Hardwidge |