I got a Nikon Camera...........

[The Natural Philosopher]

It is. At least till I managed to get it to 'spot on the centre please' and then I just hold focus with shutter half down and then compose the shot.

That the point - digital technology has gone in leaps and bounds but usability is only just catching up.

I.e. the histograms are there, but are a pain - a little bit of 'I just reduced exposure to avoid white out' would help.

The digital technology is great - lenses are better and the CCDS are better than they ever were and film ever was, but the deskilling of it all is taking time.

And Nikon are not the leaders in that - I think Canon do better.

[The Natural Philosopher]

dont be silly, they will be in a bin buy then along with te mouldy primes I've still got somewhere.

However you are wrong when you say the film was better than te lenses. It wasn't. My best and extremely good primne 50mm was (just) better than even kodachrome 25.

Todays CCDS are now better than that film ever was.

[whisky-dave]

Why would I want it to still be working after all that time. I have my canon A1 which I brought around 1979, but don't use. It'd be about as much use as a 1970s TV of course you might still have your

1970s TV and car and fridge/freezer and underwear ;-)

[Cursitor Doom]

I have digital cameras too. I use them for snapping stuff I'm going to put on Ebay. They're great for that, but that's about all. In most other applications, digital cameras have devalued the overall experience of photography. To borrow from Harley-Davidson's motto: If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand. Hang on to that A1. You might see it in a different light some day.

[Cursitor Doom]

Thank you. I rest my case.

[dennis]

It doesn't matter, you throw them away.

BTW those old prime lenses probably aren't as good as a zoom designed for digital if they are wide angle. Digital cameras need an angle of incidence to the sensor as near to perpendicular as you can get, hence the retrofocus designs that are common now.

[Chris French]

CD does seem to be one of local curmudgeons when it comes to new fangled things.

I don't think he means monetary value. I think Cursitor means that the ease of taking digital photos has devalued the process and product of taking photos.

There is a sense in which photos can be less valued by their ubiquity. Some photos are almost ephemeral things now, snapped to record and share a moment with friends. Not really with any thought that it might be a record to keep (though in reality, uploaded to Facebook/flickr where ever they will probably persist indefinitely). The ease of digital means that I view many more photos, both good and bad than I ever did film. It means the grandparents can see photos of the grand kids most days if they want, rather than every few months

But I don't see these things as mutually exclusive - some photos might be meant for quick sharing,, others can show the benefits of time spent taking them. Some are viewed and almost forgotten about. some end up in pride of place on our wall.

I was taking some photos of the kids and friends in the pool today - some on the phone, some on the SLR. DD1 (14) is just getting into more considered photography and has been using the SLR a lot. She was dissing me because I was using autofocus :-) I think I will have to fish out the old manual film SLR (and find some film) for her

[tony sayer]

In article , Hank scribeth thus

If you like the "coloration" that Vinyl brings then you'll like the sound of it;!.

If you don't then you won't......

[dennis]

So what can your film camera do that a modern digital camera can't do?

[ARW]

There is not a lot I can add to that.

[Tim Streater]

We've got some old developer tanks if that would help :-)

[Tim Streater]

A properly done CD will avoid the distortion of the pick up arm and cartridge, and the fact that the arm is not parallel to the groove, and any distortion caused by the RIAA compression/decompression.

[The Natural Philosopher]

yes, like hell I do.

Better dynamic range, lower distortion, lower noise, no bass resonance from the turntable, not arm resonance from the arm, no needle resonance from the needle. No acoustic feedback at high volume, no hiost and scratch from the vinyl.

Of course if you LIKED all that shit, you will want to stay with vinyl.

Bit as a professional designer of hifi audio equipment back in the day, I know what back to back tests and my ears and my instruments told me.

With CDs you hear the recording, not the turntable.

Exactly. less of the vinyl than the arm, pickup and deck, actually. Not to mention the appalling equalisation you had to apply to bass to avoid flicking the pickup out of the groove..

[The Natural Philosopher]

fog the emulsion when you open the back. Cost a packet and take weeks to get developed

[The Natural Philosopher]

my deck is parallel tracking.

RIAA is not compression. Its equalisation.

And is not a problem. what is a problem is the acoustic feedback that is unavoidable unless you mount the deck on a concrete lump in a soundproof booth.

And the mechanical resonances wow and flutter inherent in the designs

And the limited dynamic range compared to a CD.

[ARW]

Not for Joe Public.

Digital means that you can annoy everyone you know ASAP by posting the pictures on social media.

[Tim Streater]

I still have my Thorens TD125 deck and SME arm with Shure V15 cartridge. Must get round to selling that one day.

OK. I never paid much attention to it but assumed that as it involved extra electronics it might be a source of more distortion.

[Cursitor Doom]

Sigh. At the risk of repeating myself: "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand..."

[dennis]

What you mean is that you just don't have a clue. I can list what my Pentax MX can't do that my DSLR can if you need help.

[Chris French]

In message , Tim Streater writes

I don't want to give her ideas. Last thing I want to do is have to rig up a darkroom :-)

She has been looking into doing a BTEC in photography at a local college if she gets enough GCSEs out of the way this year (we home educate, so have flexibility in these things).

Interestingly, In the blurb I was reading they say they start them on film cameras and developing etc. before moving onto digital. I wonder what it's like to shoot film for a generation raised on digital.