Yes there is its called a film. You capture as much information as you can on the film.
You then post process it (print) and throw some of it away.
It says that JPEG is good enough to reproduce what people used to get with film and prints.
Explain to them why they want prints rather than a negative and a magnifying glass.
Its the same as a film camera, where do you think it differs? Why do you even think it might differ?
You can on some, why do you restrict yourself to such limited steps? what advantage does 1/250 give you over 1/180 that is the flash sync speed on my film SLR?
Because you have a cr@p camera and can't set the image to look correct at a guess. On mine if you stop down, the image darkens when you do DoF preview just like an old fashioned camera.
You saw just as many flashes at the olympics when they were all film cameras. They probably did the same the following day and the day after as all the photolabs were days behind so they wouldn't know it didn't work until a week or so after the event. At least with a digital on auto the stadium was bright enough to actually get a picture as long as there wasn't anything close to influence the flash meter. With film it wouldn't have the exposure latitude to cope.
I bet it did. As a matter of interest, what scanner and software do you use? I have a Minolta Scan Elite II and I use VueScan. I ought to try again to install Minolta's own software on Windows 7, because I seem to remember I got better results with it than VueScan, but that was back in the days of XP where it installed properly.
I can get good results from slides - even from very overexposed ones from Mum and Dad's honeymoon (they probably had other things on their mind!) and likewise some very overexposed ones I took at night time of illuminated buildings, when I guessed the exposure wrongly.
However I have great difficulty getting realistic ones from colour negs: they tend to look low-contrast and rather artificial. The best way of describing them is like colour photos in a book from the 1940s or 50s. I've tried different settings for film manufacturer and type, as well as tweaking other variables. Also there is a coarse net curtain effect overlaying the results, as if the film grain is exceptionally coarse. I seem to need wildly different exposure and colour balance settings for every frame from the same strip of negatives.
Sometimes I get very good results and can bring out highlight and shadow detail that is missing from the prints that the photo shop made, but it's very hit or miss.
My first camera was a Polaroid B&W camera. That was crap (which is being kind to it) but the pictures *were* near-instantaneous.
My first proper camera (which got me interested in B&W developing and printing) was my grandpa's Voigtlander 35 mm - manual focus with rangefinder, manual exposure (move aperture and/or shutter speed until ring matches a needle moved by a light meter). Fixed 50 mm lens (ie not interchangeable). But it could sync with flash up to 1/500 because it had an iris shutter, which was useful for doing fill in flash on a bright day out doors. Towards the end the rangefinder developed a fault and indicated correct focus when image on film was not quite sharp; might have been a lens error because the infinity end of its focus actually began to focus "beyond infinity". Luckily it was a constant error throughout the range of distances so I worked out where to draw a new reference mark: focus according to rangefinder and then move indicated distance number to a new mark on the ring.
When dad got an Olympus OM2 he gave me his old Yashika which I used extensively along with its 35, 50 and 200 mm lenses which were bloody good, even with the 50 at its widest f1.7 aperture. I even managed to glue the mirror back on when it fell off the metal tray that it was mounted on; I was terrified that if I didn't get it in exactly the right place or get the right thickness of glue, the light path may be too long/short, meaning that the focus indicator on the viewfinder would have a bias, but it seemed to be fine.
I treated myself to a Canon film SLR with motor advance and 18-70 and a
70-210 zoom lenses which were OK but I regretted buying third party ones (Sigma, I think) rather than better quality Canon lenses because they suffered from quite bad barrel distortion: somewhere I have some test photos of the horizontal slats on the garage door to show the amount of bowing at different zoom settings of each lens. Nowadays for critical photos where the bowing shows, I can scan the print or slide and correct it with PTLens.
I then had a nice Minolta A2 digital "SLR-like" camera (non-interchangeable
18-200 equivalent lens but SLR shape body, eyepiece LED viewfinder as well as conventional LED screen (you could switch from one to the other). Nice features like timelapse. Eventually that suffered a failure of the sensor or electronics, producing pink pictures with an overlaid venetian blind, by which time it was out of warranty and Minolta had gone out of business anyway.
When my wife got a swanky Nikon DSLR I got her old Canon DSLR which was OK but her short zoom lens suffered element slip (blurred photos on one side of frame) which couldn't be seen in the viewfinder, only on the photos. I got into the habit of checking most photos I took with that lens, just in case I needed to re-take (zooming out and back in, and defocussing and refocussing would fix it for a while. Something else stopped working (I forget what) so rather than just buying a new lens I treated myself to a Nikon DSLR (so we can share lenses!) and also a Canon compact for record shots and less critical artistic ones. Sadly neither of these had the useful feature that the Minolta had: a tiltable screen so you could put the camera low down or hold it above your head and still see the screen for framing shots.
Lucky b'stard :-) I seem to have been born without the estimating gene (for anything in life) and have to measure everything otherwise my "estimates" are hopelessly wrong and more like wild guesses.
Thats a good question, its been in the atic for about three years now, IIRC it s a HP scanjet 4800 flatbed with a full sized coldcathode lamp in the lid. It will do five strips of 35 mm at a tie or a 10x8 plate if I had one.
Its not very quick but it does good scans at 16 bits per channel and
2400 dpi.
I didn't have much in the way of problems like that but I suspect it was the 16 bit depth that helped.
f number is a measure of aperture *diameter* relative to lens focal length. As diameter is doubled (eg f8 -> f4) area of aperture (and hence amount of light let in) increases by factor of four. So you multiply or divide an f number by square root of two = 1.4 to go from a given aperture to one that lets in half/double the amount of light. That's why one stop (a doubling or halving of aperture) is a strange number:
- start at f1
- multiply by 1.4 to get f1.4
- multiply by 1.4 to get f2
- multiply by 1.4 to get f 3.5
- multiply by 1.4 to get f4
- multiply by 1.4 to get f5.6
- multiply by 1.4 to get f8
- multiply by 1.4 to get f11
- multiply by 1.4 to get f16
- multiply by 1.4 to get f22
My thoughts exactly. I can't work out whether he really doesn't know or is winding us all up. Film and digital cameras have more in common that maybe he realises. Matters of basic optics are common to both. Even a pinhole camera has a sort of f number: diameter of pinhole divided by length from pinhole to plane where film is placed. I proved this by making two pinhole cameras from different sized cocoa tins. Same pinhole (ie same piece of tinfoil with pinhole made in it, transplanted from one camera to the other) gave same darkness of negative on photographic paper if I adjusted exposure time in proportion to ratio of lengths of camera to compensate for change in f number.
Yes if you set the camera on aperture priority and look at EXIF data of the resulting photos taken in various lighting conditions, you'll see a variety of unusual shutter speeds - whatever the meter judges is correct; likewise for aperture when in shutter priority. I *think* most film cameras with aperture priority also do this - it's just a matter of varying the spacing between the two curtains of the focal plane shutter which needn't move in discrete jumps corresponding to 1/125, 1/250, 1/500 etc, although usually in shutter priority this is all you can set and then lens then stops down to some obscure aperture like f4.75 or f7.9 according to exactly what the meter says.
OK. So what do you think these important differences are? Do you use the aperture and shutter speed controls differently for digital compared with for film? Do the optics of lenses behave differently? Does the reciprocity law (halve shutter speed so double aperture etc) behave differently? Actually that last one is a trick question because it is one case where film
*does* behave differently because the reciprocity law stops working for very short (eg < 1/5000 second) or very long (eg > 60 seconds) shutter speeds and you need to correct the exposure using characteristics that change from one make of film to another; you also need coloured filters to correct colour cast because the three different emulsions have different non-linear characteristics at extreme exposures; thankfully digital sensors don't suffer from this.
Right, so you'd prefer people to use manual metering (or even an external meter) while learning about exposure. Fair enough. You can insist that the pupil uses manual mode on the digital camera *in exactly the same way as you would insist that they did for a film camera*. You might be making life more difficult for him if you make him avoid using P or Av/Tv mode, but it will make it easier to learn initially.
Now let's have an example of something where a digital camera with the same auto and manual settings as a film camera, and the same rules about which settings are forbidden whilst learning, makes it more difficult to learn than on the equivalent film camera.
So what's your answer? Is it that the image on an LCD screen (either when used as a viewfinder or when examining the pictures after taking) is too small to be able to distinguish clearly between in-focus and out-of focus parts of the scene?
If so, you may have a valid point, although I can usually tell reasonably well.
So maybe for learning you need an SLR which has features such as:
- ability to turn off automatic-only settings (although most compact digital cameras allow this as well; may well be true for compact film cameras)
- optical through the lens viewfinder (as opposed to rangefinder viewfinder for film or LCD viewfinder for digital)
- ability to preview the image with the lens stopped down to judge DoF
Now assuming that we exclude cameras in mobile phones because they are auto-everything and usually have poor sensors, lenses and too much post-processing, and that we exclude compact cameras because they don't have optical TTL viewfinder and ability to preview DoF...
If we insist on an SLR for learning on, is there anything that makes it harder to learn on a digital than a film camera?
I presume to begin with we are just teaching about using a camera, and that we leave manipulation of the pictures in the darkroom or using Photoshop as a separate exercise, so we just get the slides developed or the negs printed at default settings, and that we examine the un-modified digital photos on a PC screen. Then for the next lesson we go on to how we can modify what the camera has taken to improve it:
- cropping the picture to exclude unwanted sections that don't fit a standard film/digital frame
- correcting colour cast
- altering brightness and contrast to correct for minor exposure errors or to emphasise certain parts of the subject
- retouching blemishes, unwanted parts of the subject etc
- correcting parallelogram errors due to not being able to take picture square-on
- arty things like cutting out parts of the subject and placing it on a different background
- merging photos to create a panorama or to simulate a wide angle lens when you only have a telephoto with you (*)
(*) Yes, this can be done with film: I remember seeing a book about press photographs and how they could be manipulated, either to tell lies or to correct for not having the right equipment. And there was an example of the interior of a church where the photographer only had an 80 mm lens instead of the 28 mm that he would have liked, so he took a series of photos all at the same exposure and from the same viewpoint; he then printed them all using identical settings and cut them along various boundaries in the subject to disguise the cutting lines, and stuck them all together and re-photographed the result. If you looked closely you could see discontinuities here and there but he'd done a fantastic job and the fact that it was a paste-up probably wouldn't have been noticeable with normal coarse-screen newspaper printing. The same process can be carried out digitally far more easily and sometimes so well that you'd have trouble seeing the joins, but it's not impossible with film, given a bit of patience.
To some extent yes. You need to understand them more than you do with digital.
No that I know of.
Yes significantly.
reciprocity depends on the film speed too and it can have an effect even at 10 seconds or less. The last tiume I encounted this was when a friend asked me what the R failure would be at 8 seconds I said about a gnats bollock worth. She was using 120 roll film in a mamyai I think with long exposures. I was right as she phoned here boyfriend who looked at the data sheet and it was about .2 secopnd on 8 seconds or so.
yuo don;t get that with digital, you don't even have to think about it.
So when studying photogrphy like my friend was who won a pjhopt comp in spain. She works at a uni teaching photography and is an adobe registered certified to teach.
external meeting is better but not always practical, but when teaching photography you should also teach reflective and incident meter reading. Not sure how you'd do this with a digital camera.
Cabn insist all you like, yuo can insist they don't chew gum, but part of teaching is outsmarting the students.
They have to know what those terms mean and why you use them.
difficult to imagine, but carry on.
You give a kid a digital camera that is shit compared to their mobile phone they get board unintrested and disruptive. Now you have 20 kids around you not concentrating they'd rather use their phone to get a far better picture than they could ever get with the digital camera you've supplied.
No because when you lok at the screen you see what you might end up with.
you are going to take a p[icture of usain bolt in teh 100 meters on the left is the start on the right is the finish. Are yuo saying they'll be no differnce whether the exposure is
1/1000 or 1 second. the aperature will take care of itself, but will what you see on the screen be the same as the images yuo take. NO.
You still haven't said what they are, I don't think you know.
So you propose not using a light meter while teaching photography.
It was the polite one.
Why should it, the diaphragm in the lens doesn't close unless you do a DoF check, the same as on a film camera or are you proposing that only manual lenses are allowed.
They behave differently as film has a different response to off axis images than a digital sensor does.
they are the same.
It only matters in extreme cases.
You can change how the sensor responds and what is recorded so you do need to think about it.
???
The same way as a film camera.
That is what you are teaching isn't it?
So what are you trying to teach them if its not how to get a better picture, it sounds like you have given them cr@p and expect them to use it. I take it your film camera of choice is a box brownie.
That is what you use a viewfinder for to see what you may get.
That is true of the viewfinder on your camera and is no different to a digital camera., especially an SLR.
So far you haven't pointed out any difference between learning on a digital and a film camera other than the ability to view the results.
if you don't know I'm not listing them for you. We are also talking about qwhich is best for teaching photography. Teaching photography adn gettiogn a good picture aren't the same.
No I've vere said that. are you sugeswstin we don;t need a light meter because we have a digital camera ?.
but still wrong.
cause the f..king sun goes in or it gets dark or night approaches. you know brightness changes throught they day. Your LCD and eyes react to changing light levels differntly and to colur differntly.
or when taking a photo.
if you want to learn about lenses use a manual lens, just like you would a car.
There are no differences, if you can't list them i will continue to state there are no differences. Its up to you to state what you think they are or stop saying there are differences.
Well its obvious that you can get the exposure by trial and error and that you can do that trial and error there and then with a decent digital camera. you will claim that that's too easy which i will ignore.
Your eyes do, the camera doesn't. You can see what the changes mean on a digital camera after you take a picture you can only guess with film until you have it processed. Having such a long delay doesn't aid teaching so digital is best there too.
Well there's the obvious.
A manual lens and an auto iris lens produce the same images. Only preview and metering differ and they differ the same for film and digital.
As far as I know the light traveling through lenes behaves the same irrespective of whether the camera has a film or sensor in it.
wrong.
so they aren't the same then are they.
yuo can't change how a sensor responds. It is an electronic device which has charastretics which the user can NOT change.
teaching photography is differnt to getting someone to take the same snapshot as you can.
Yes, and you DON'T even need a camera to teach that.
No, but you wouldn't give them a smart phone, even though most people could get better pictures with it.
exactly what you may get.
No it's not. A LCD well most DLSR or digital camera LCDs change brightness depending on your setting or AP and Tv so you can still see teh display and the brightness of teh dispalay will change depending on you;'r settings. This is NOT true of a film SLR.
So far you have proved you know noting about teaching.
with a DIGITAL cameras can be acheived by just loking at the LCD. Now tell me how you can do this with a film camera looking through the view finder.
THIS IS A DIFFERENCE
Of course you'll ignore it, because it proves you're wrong. Try adjusing the aperature and the exposure time on a SLR film camera and s ee if teh viwfinder image changes in any way. THIS IS A DIFFERENCE
You can select the 'speed' aka ISO of the 'sensor' either increase it or de crease it for any frame or picture.
Now coem on tell me how you do this with film in the camera what button do you use to increase/decrease the films speed. THIS IS A DIFFERENCE .
With a DIGITAL camera you can increase/decrease Ap Tv and ISO. With a film camera you CAN NOT change the ISO unless you change film or change the way you process it AFTER taking the picture. THIS IS A DIFFERENCE
which means with film you have to THINK before you even put the film in the camera, you don;t have the same thoughts choosing a memory card do you. THIS IS A DIFFERENCE
With film you have to decide whether or not you're taking colour or monochr ome, or transparancies, although colour film can be converted to monochrome it's a bit wasteful. No sucvh thing with digital cameras is theres. THIS IS A DIFFERENCE
yes it does compared to your eyes. have you never heard of tungsten film ? THIS IS A DIFFERENCE
can yuo tell me what AWB is and what other options there are on a typical digital camera can you show me these option for film ? THIS IS A DIFFERENCE
THIS IS A DIFFERENCE
No it doesn't as few even notice. A friend of mine spent quite a time in a musuem takign videos all with a yellow orange cast he thought there's was s omething wrong with his camera, of course he didn;t realise this until he g ot home. Me I knew immediatly what the problem was because I know about film and dig ital and the differencies between them. I'd have set the white balance befo re I started recording. He thought the scene looked OK no colour cast and d igital cameras arn;t effected by such things as colour temerature of teh li ght source. THIS IS A DIFFERENCE.
my lenes from my film cameras have aprature rings I can turn to stop down t he lens. They also have a DOF scale and an IR mark, even a distance scale o n some.
I've never seen image stablisation on a lens designed for film cameras.
Sorry. Anyone who says "you are wrong but I can't be bothered to explain why" has just proved that they are not worth listening to.
You may have a very good point to make - there may be differences in the way that you use aperture and shutter speed between film and digital, but I can't think of any and neither can dennis@home. Sadly you're not prepared to share your wisdom with us, so there's only one conclusion that we can draw: that you've lost the argument and aren't man enough to admit it.
You've implied that a camera with manual settings (and maybe even with no automatic settings) is needed to teach photography. To some extent I agree with you - about the former, if not the latter. Where you would find such a camera out of current models of film and digital camera is the problem.
But you've not made a convincing case for saying that a film camera is better than a digital camera for learning the principles of photography, because every time you've been challenged to elaborate your sweeping statements, you've ducked the issue.
Is whisky dave for real? He makes sweeping statements but adopts the coward's way out "if you don't know I can't be bothered to tell you". It doesn't really matter whether he's right in his assertions or is just evading the issue - he's evidently nothing further to contribute to the argument. Case dismissed because of lack of evidence!
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.