Value of money and cost of technology

Just having a sort out and decided to get rid of an old digital camera.
I found the receipt inside. I paid $350 for it - it only has 3.2 megapixels. It was bought in April 2004
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I vowed never to be an early adopter...saved a fortune on tec over the years.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


you don't need to be an early adopter to lose money on digital cameras
every new version is twice as powerful at half the price
If you are waiting for the point where prices can't go any lower, you haven't reached there yet and digital photography in the consumer space is now 20 years old (and analogue photography, outside of very few niche areas, has completely disappeared)
tim

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, 14 September 2018 14:37:35 UTC+1, tim... wrote:

FWIW digital photography began in the 1970s. Anyone that hasn't seen the first digital camera should. It's come a loooong way.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/09/18 14:35, tim... wrote:

I'm reasonably confident my Lumix GX8 is currently held back by the lens (I have a medium grade tele and a F1.7 prime - can't afford anything else in the m4/3 format.
The sensor captures a very wide dynamic range by my previous standards (you can pull a sky down several EV to bring clouds and blue out of virtually nothing whilst the original exposure was generally good - Lightroom makes isolating sky for selective exposure compensation pretty easy - that's before you get to real HDR with multiple shots).
Tele lens can pull reasonable focus with reasonable depth of field (though I think it could do a bit better on the focus).
Prime is a so-so lens, good for being a compact and reasonable in caves where it can just about pull off a non flash photo with acceptable noise.
I'm sure, side by side, a really expensive DSR body with a bigger sensor of course would beat it into the ground - but for hobby work, as I said, I think money on lenses is better spent. Of course, at that point you really are selling yourself into a lens mount format.
They'll keep getting better of course, but at some point, one has to say: "this is good enough - I'll use it till it blows up..."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So why are we hearing adverts for black and white Ilford film and indeed colour film. is it like vinyl and cassette versions of Paul McCartneys new album, ie another marketing ploy in this case knowing loads of 35mm cameras are in drawers only needing batteries and I know some shops are doing processing, probably not on site though. Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No one is processing Kodachrome slide film any longer, and I wouldn't consider using anything else.
--
27/6/1975 - Herbert Kiebler shot and killed trying to cross Berlin Wall.

"A reminder that the defining characteristic of a socialist regime is coercion,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/09/18 17:13, Tim Streater wrote:

Kodachrome was always back to Kodak wasnt it?
--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

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

Yup
Ektachrome was the reversal film process that local labs could develop for you (or DIY if you were really really keen)
tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Never understood why people processed their own. I used to do B & W printing as I could manipulate the image, but slides were just a Time and Temp process.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 16:22:32 UTC+1, DerbyBorn wrote:

something to do with DIY, when I was a a member of the camera club we did allow professional D&P but the judge or whoever gave out points had to be told so they could judge accordingly if need be.
With Ektachrome you could push process it, so that was an advantage to some, it could also be quicker if you were in a hurry.

I did too and did cibachrome and B&W slides making up my own developer and fixer and reversal stage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/10/2018 16:22, DerbyBorn wrote:

I used to do my own film developing for a while... (not printing - I would scan the film and carry on digital from there)
The original motivation was I got fed up with the quality of the work the labs were doing - too many negs / slides with scratches / splashes on them etc, and it was reasonably cost effective (at first anyway) if you wanted just developing. I did both C41 negative, and E6 slide processing.
--
Cheers,

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:22:29 +0000, DerbyBorn wrote:

At one point, when I was at school, I did a lot of B&W reversal for slides.
--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 23:50:22 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:

That's where I learnt how to do it it, as I was working in the science lab to develop it but it was for the art depatrment that had the darkroom. So it was infact an art project carried out in the physics/chemistry labs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 03:46:37 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

I learned at home, as I was just curious about the process and got a load of developing kit for my 14th birthday.
I did use it at school; we did a very interesting set of fill-in classes on town planning, and it was the cheapest way of doing a load of slides.
--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, 12 October 2018 12:23:31 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:

e
B&W slide was as expensive as colour the only film I remmeber was agfa dia- direct and was 32 ASA or something similar and wasn't easy to get, well not from locak shops. I still have the jar of potassium permanganate I used, and I rember sodium metabisulphate or was that just 'fixer' . Who would believe one could have so much fun with chemicals :-D
The reversal process was risky the physica teacher told me that when he fir st did it, a drop of water splashed onto the photoflood he was using as the reversal lamp and it exploded and he was lucky to not be blinded by it, wh ich is why he made sure we had a safety screen in place, which I might not have though of doing if at home.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 04:43:07 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

I used ordinary B&W film. Develop once (with a small dose of sodium thiosulphate to limit the contrast). Then bleach with potassium dichromate. Sodium sulphite wash to remove dichromate staining. Wash and expose to bright light to convert the rest of the halide. Develop again. Stop and fix as normal.
Some films were better than others, and I mostly used Ilford FP3 (100ASA AFAIR).
So it was only the extra cost of the permanganate, as I remember. Much cheaper than colour slides.
--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:58:05 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:

I meant dichromate, of course.
--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, 12 October 2018 12:58:07 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:

a
y
I did too, ours was Pan F IIRC .

yes sounds familar, my memory was more of trying to expose the film to ligh t without damaging the soft emulsion, getting it almost of the spool then g etting it back on again. I still dont understadn why we were doing it, per haps it was the in thing at the time.

I was told to use pan F for the fine grain, still wasn't sure why.
My favourite film of that time was HP3 I bought it in 50ft spools.

For me it was free, just get the chemicals from the lab. But I'm not sure whether pre-paid B&W reversal agfa film was cheaper than colour slide film of the time. Not many people seemed intersted in B&W sli des even though plenty did B&W prints and more people in my camera club did colour prints than B&W slides.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, 12 October 2018 13:19:09 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:

n colour slide film of the time. Not many people seemed intersted in B&W s lides even though plenty did B&W prints and more people in my camera club d id colour prints than B&W slides.
there was really no upside to B&W slides. With colour there was.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.