OT: WAY OT - I'm Grumpy, Therefore I Blog

Page 3 of 3  


No, the best way is to project it. That is how slides were meant to be seen, just like movies. After all, 35 mm photography originally used leftover 35mm movie film.
Another way is to dupe the slides by copying them onto print film. Vericolor was the standard for that, but I found that Ektar was better for landscapes.
.> Even then, it doesn't match the

That is one of the reasons (cost) why most amateurs I know shot slides before converting to digital. Much cheaper than prints.
For 4 x 6 I had good results duping kodachrome slides onto Ektar 25 using a slide copier. No more Ektar though.
For black and white, I doubt that digital can hold a candle to 2415 developed in Technidol.
But in terms of throughput, there is no doubt that you can crank out hardcopy fast with digital, and for a low unit cost too, after the equipment is paid for.
Those are factors I refer to as convenience, as opposed to quality.
Folks at my photo club typically project their images to show them to the club. Compared to Kodachorme slides, the digital slides are dull as dirt.

Yes. Once you've bought the equipment, you shoot a crapload of photos cheap with digital.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Most amateurs around here shot negative film, but, then, it sometimes seems as if shooting half a roll and leaving it in the camera a year or two was the norm. Most of my editors, those who wanted color in those days, wanted transparencies.

I'm trying to remember the ASA of 2415. I used to have charts on all of those, but they went along with the darkroom gear.

Shouldn't be. They won't be as good as Kodachrome, but...

In constant dollars, the $722 I paid for a Pentax K10D body last year is well under what I paid for a Canon F1 in '70 or '71. In fact, so is the price of today's K20D, currently at around $1,200 street. My *istD cost, IIRC, about $1,700 someting like four years ago, but with a 16-45 lens that was pretty decent. If you jump on the top of the line Canon offering today, the body costs about $8,000. That's probably double what the F1 cost (I seem to have $415 banging around in my memory, which may or may not be true) in constant bucks, but you also don't have to worry about a bulk back and a motor drive, so, again, digital is little more, if any, expensive even for the high end gear...until you get into Hasselblads and Phase 1 backs, where it gets rough enough to scare even GWB. I had both the bulk back and motor drive eventually, but hated to use the back because it was so bulky and added a loss of balance as well as weight. The motor drive was fast enough to create a problem with rolls of film. Something under 10 seconds and reload. So it wasn't worth much without the back.
Loved that camera, got some great shots with it, but I don't miss ANY of that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bullshit, Tim. You wrote you were using a "prosumer" grade DSLR of 10MP. State of the art DSLR today is 21 or 22MP in full 35mm frame.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Why always such a potty mouth? The term 'prosumer' was coined years ago to signify equipment that lives at the high end of consumer and/or at the low end of pro gear. It is the best of former and the entry level of the later.

And every pro uses only 22Mp? I don't think so. Nikon's highend full frame CCD camera (D3) is only 12Mp. Only Canon has a 22Mp camera in DSLR format ... well, that's not quite right if you consider the new Hasselblad.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I hope the term dies away quickly.
Equipment is neither amateur nor professional. Marketing terms (by intent) don't convey the information about features that a purchaser needs and merely cloud the issue.
E.g. what is an amateur table saw, a professional table saw, a semi-professional table saw or a 'prosumer' table saw?
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The General 550-T50 is perfect for that amateur who makes shelves for the church auction. And next time I am going to built 30 kitchen cabinets, a 8" table top will do just fine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lengthy.
Prosumer. The term was originally applied to what are now called bridge cameras. (I agree: it made my skin crawl the first time I heard it, and still does.) Oddly enough, no one makes them any more because standard point & shoot digitals have caught up on some of the features, and low end DSLRs have dropped in price to the point where the "prosumer" is outmoded. I paid just under $1,000 about six or seven years ago for a Minolta D7i 5 MP prosumer. I did two books with that, and a couple of articles, but I was never happy with it--try shooting a horse race with a camera that has the kind of shutter lag P&S digitals are famous for. Car races are nearly impossible. So I went to a Pentax *istD, not quite five years ago.It is a 6 MP, but can turn out super 20x30 prints every time I get it right. I'm using that and a K10D now, with a 10 MP sensor, which has been the main shooting camera for my new book. I hope by year's end to see what Pentax's K30D is like. Currently, they have a 14 MP K20D as top of the line. I don't expect the new CMOS sensor to be changed, but there are a couple of features I'd like to see improve before I drop another $1,500 or so on a camera body (the K20D has just now dropped to about $1,150 at top dealers; the K10D is under $600 in some places, which means I may buy a back-up K10D body and sell my *istD).
For my type of pro use, the advantages of digital are obvious. I shoot some vintage sports car races; I shoot many cars, vintage, hot rod and custom; I shoot woodworking in several forms. I also fool around and shoot pleasure shots around here, though not as often as I'd like. I doubt I'll ever be able to justify anything larger than a 14 MP camera. That's an APS-C sensor, not 35mm full frame. The 21 and 22 MP full frame sensors are far too costly for my work, as are most of the Nikon and Canon offerings, though some of their bodies would do better shooting races than either of my Pentaxes. Of course, I was shooting motocross back around '70 or '71 with a Canon F1 35mm, mostly using a Canon 135mm lens, and Tri-X pushed to 800 on dull days. I used a motor drive and bulk back with some frequency, and often shot more than 500 frames on a weekend. Now, I go to a race and shoot about 1,200 frames a day. I don't have to endure the red glow and hypo stink of a darkroom, making my already sore knees hurt worse. It takes me less time to process and examine 2,000 shots on-screen than it ever came close to doing developing 500 shots and printing out 14 or 15 contact sheets, which then had to be examined minutely to see what was and wasn't sharp--no AF in those days--and then have prints made, and on. Now, I sit here, pop the images up on a viewing program, delete those that didn't work, convert those that did to JPEGs (about a half second process), and type in a short caption. That goes on a DVD or CD and goes to the publisher. The mailing cost today for 50 photos to one publisher is just about the same as the mailing cost back then was for 50 5x7 and 8x10 photos, but the envelope's a lot smaller and lighter.
Oh, yeah. If I blow a shot, get it a couple, three stops off, I can work with it in Photoshop or Paintshop Pro. It can nearly always be saved. Same if the color is off.
Another point: my lead camera (a K10D) offers ISO speeds from 100 to 1600. I can change 'film' speed with just a quick twitch or two, and save some scenes that might otherwise not be possible at all in 35mm. My *istD offers ISO speeds from 200 to 3200. Some of the more costly new cameras are said to offer speeds upwards of ISO 25,000.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where did I state that every pro used a 21 or 22 MP camera? You made a statement about a 10 MP being state of the art. That's nonsense. At the moment, 21-22 MP is, in 35mm sized frame. APS-C champ is 14.2 MP in the Pentax K20D. Medium format is about 39 MP, IIRC. AFAIK, only Canon has bodies with sensors that exceed 20 MP. I'm not sure, why Nikon chose to stop at 12, but I do know it has a 64 frame buffer, so you can literally keep shooting until your card is full. Canon's big shooter lets you change back to about a 12 MP level to get the immese buffer. With a 16 GB card, that's a lot of shots. I get 976 raw+JPEG out of my 10 MP Pentax. I don't bother to learn much more about theCanons and Nikons, as they don't fit my plans, now or ever. They are far too costly, and the lenses are almost as murderously expensive as the bodies. Too, I'm still trying to figure out how they coordinate the 51 AF points in the Nikon D3. Sometimes I wonder if maybe just one easily movable point might not be better. Put it where you want the focus and shoot. Startling. A great similarity to the old split screen/microprism collar days, something I miss.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

I dunno about the D3, but the D80 has the ability for you to decide which of the focus points you want to emphasize (assuming you don't want the camera to choose). You can also decide whether that point is statically focused or whether the camera will follow movement to keep a subject in focus as it moves across the frame or you move the camera across the subject.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As I'm tone deaf, I won't comment on music, except to say most of what has come out since about '75 makes me cringe.
As far as photography goes, if the poster wanted to do a comparison, he might well have considered size to size, instead of the age old bullshit of taking a 4x5 view camera and expecting a much smaller sensor to match it, then bitching when it doesn't. Those sensors more than match 35mm, which is the intent. A scanning back comes close to the 4x5 quality, but is even less portable and ain't quite there yet, though probably 95% of studio photographers now use a Phase II back on Hassleblads for their work.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well I posted a long diatribe against his rant, and the webserver broke. :-) Here's the short version of it:
Comparing *ANY* SLR to a view camera is pointless and misleading. Neither a 35mm SLR or a medium format SLR (or TLR) can compare to a view camera, and it has nothing to do with digital vs. analog. In time it will be possible to buy an affordable digital back for a 4x5 view camera, and life will go on.
Something I found telling about the article was that he was frustrated and ready to give up on the computer as an editing tool, because after recently getting into digital photography for the first time, he wasn't as competent at it as he was after 30 years in the darkroom.
There's more crap out there in any field you could imagine, but there's also probably more great stuff as well. There are talented artists and musicians and writers and poets and craftsmen taking their fields in new and interesting directions ALL THE TIME out there!
One thing to keep in mind: Cultural progress is a measure of the positive, not the ratio between positive and negative. If the RIAA generates a thousand Britney Spears clones, it won't change the fact that Sarah Slean is out there, writing poetry and songs. Rocky LXVII, "Balboa Breaks Out" won't diminish the impact of movies like Amelie, Howl's Moving Castle, or (possibly) Pan's Labyrinth. Good is good, no matter how much bad there is surrounding it.
Colin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Colin B. wrote: <SNIP>

Then you read it wrong - I am quite comfortable with the tools. The limitation here is the camera itself.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Doh! If you use the same film in two different formats that yield two different sized negatives the larger negative will have more data.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.