PAST Vs FUTURE, Digital?

John McWilliams wrote:
> ebelaw.RemoveThis@sapo.pt wrote:
> > Something keeps wandering in my mind... some people say digital the
> > future, and the best we ever got... other will say digital still haves
> > no equivalent to film camera... and i still ask.. is there really a
> > necessity to have a top notch camera to take that perfect picture,
> Yes
>
> Yes, yes, this has been debated endlessly. You'll find lots of
> discussion in the archives. No one has anything original to add, but
> that won't stop them from proving it.
>
>
> --
> lsmft

John,
You've been hanging around Roy too much. You're getting grumpy just
like him. Or, of course, that may be a Scot's trait. But, then, what's
Helen's excuse? Maybe all of us photographers are grouchy.
--
Gator Bait
 >> Stay informed about: PAST Vs FUTURE, Digital? 

Bill K wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> ebelaw RemoveThis @sapo.pt wrote:
>>> Something keeps wandering in my mind... some people say digital the
>>> future, and the best we ever got... other will say digital still haves
>>> no equivalent to film camera... and i still ask.. is there really a
>>> necessity to have a top notch camera to take that perfect picture,
>> Yes
>>
>> Yes, yes, this has been debated endlessly. You'll find lots of
>> discussion in the archives. No one has anything original to add, but
>> that won't stop them from proving it.
>>
>
> John,
> You've been hanging around Roy too much. You're getting grumpy just
> like him. Or, of course, that may be a Scot's trait. But, then, what's
> Helen's excuse? Maybe all of us photographers are grouchy.

Yeah, I guess that's it. But at least we're not top posting non-trimming
shlubs.

Gotta be grateful for sumpin'.

--
john mcwilliams
 >> Stay informed about: PAST Vs FUTURE, Digital? 

John McWilliams wrote:
> Bill K wrote:
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>> ebelaw.TakeThisOut@sapo.pt wrote:
>>>> Something keeps wandering in my mind... some people say digital the
>>>> future, and the best we ever got... other will say digital still
>>>> haves no equivalent to film camera... and i still ask.. is there
>>>> really a necessity to have a top notch camera to take that perfect
>>>> picture, Yes
>>>
>>> Yes, yes, this has been debated endlessly. You'll find lots of
>>> discussion in the archives. No one has anything original to add, but
>>> that won't stop them from proving it.
>>>
>>
>> John,
>> You've been hanging around Roy too much. You're getting grumpy just
>> like him. Or, of course, that may be a Scot's trait. But, then,
>> what's Helen's excuse? Maybe all of us photographers are grouchy.
>
> Yeah, I guess that's it. But at least we're not top posting
> non-trimming shlubs.
>
> Gotta be grateful for sumpin'.

My grand-daughter is just starting her final year of a degree course in
Photography at a Scottish University.

So far (3 years) they haven't even mentioned digital. Does this tell you
something?


Dennis.
 >> Stay informed about: PAST Vs FUTURE, Digital? 

Dennis Pogson wrote:
[]
> My grand-daughter is just starting her final year of a degree course
> in Photography at a Scottish University.
>
> So far (3 years) they haven't even mentioned digital. Does this tell
> you something?
>
>
> Dennis.

Perhaps something quite positive, that the image matters far more than the
means of production? I did a course in Electronic Engineering at a
well-respected English university, and neither printed circuit boards nor
soldering were discussed.

You would expect that /some/ information on equipment and technique to be
available, though.

David
 >> Stay informed about: PAST Vs FUTURE, Digital? 

ebelaw.TakeThisOut@sapo.pt wrote:
> Something keeps wandering in my mind... some people say digital the
> future, and the best we ever got... other will say digital still haves
> no equivalent to film camera... and i still ask.. is there really a
> necessity to have a top notch camera to take that perfect picture,
> wouldnt that mmean that all the past 5 star photographers dont have
> anything to show off to a new kid with a camera?
>
> so where are we... ?
>
> I do think that the camera as little to do with a almost perfect
> picture. A hgood photographer will always take good pictures no matter
> the camera... but hey maybe its just me.

There are conservatives in every endeavor that will be suspicious of
change and pan new technologies. I have friends that will not use
transistor hifis and CDs- they insist on vinyl LPs and tube hifis.

Consider this. How many of the film diehards use 4 x 5 or 8 x 10
cameras? Lets face it, while 35 mm cameras do have their advantages,
there is no comparison on resolution between a 4 x 5 camera with fine
grain film and a 35 with similar film. So indeed most of us say, "hey,
convenience counts for something- maybe I do not need the ultimate in
resolution for most photography."
 >> Stay informed about: PAST Vs FUTURE, Digital? 

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:33:08 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

>> So far (3 years) they haven't even mentioned digital. Does this tell
>> you something?
> . . .
>
> Perhaps something quite positive, that the image matters far more than the
> means of production? I did a course in Electronic Engineering at a
> well-respected English university, and neither printed circuit boards nor
> soldering were discussed.

In my engineering courses, digital computers and calculators were
very useful as problem solving tools. But they were nowhere nearly
as interesting nor did they give the sense of how the real world
works and how so many fields or disciplines are interconnected by
the same mathematical laws as when we had to set up analog computers
to solve problems. Getting into PC boards and soldering to build a
simple transistor amp. might occasionally make for a useful break
from the theory crammed into several terms worth of EE courses. But
modeling an amplifier with an analog computer teaches more, I think,
as you can dial in different component values and see things such as
how the transition from mild negative to positive feedback can
introduce wild oscillations.

> You would expect that /some/ information on equipment and technique to be
> available, though.

I hope that by the third year the University's courses have
progressed beyond glass plates to roll film.
 >> Stay informed about: PAST Vs FUTURE, Digital? 

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:22:42 GMT, "Dennis Pogson"
<dennis_nospampogson DeleteThis @ntlworld.com> wrote:

>My grand-daughter is just starting her final year of a degree course in
>Photography at a Scottish University.
>
>So far (3 years) they haven't even mentioned digital. Does this tell you
>something?

The classes I took in the 70s have stood me well.
Maye there's hope for the fourth year.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: PAST Vs FUTURE, Digital? 

Dennis Pogson wrote:
>
> My grand-daughter is just starting her final year of a degree course in
> Photography at a Scottish University.
>
> So far (3 years) they haven't even mentioned digital. Does this tell you
> something?
>

Yeah - it tells me the course isn't wide enough in scope.

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: PAST Vs FUTURE, Digital? 

"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer.TakeThisOut@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:1158153416.139598.203070@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> ebelaw.TakeThisOut@sapo.pt wrote:
>> Something keeps wandering in my mind... some people say digital the
>> future, and the best we ever got... other will say digital still haves
>> no equivalent to film camera... and i still ask.. is there really a
>> necessity to have a top notch camera to take that perfect picture,
>> wouldnt that mmean that all the past 5 star photographers dont have
>> anything to show off to a new kid with a camera?
>>
>> so where are we... ?
>>
>> I do think that the camera as little to do with a almost perfect
>> picture. A hgood photographer will always take good pictures no matter
>> the camera... but hey maybe its just me.
>
> There are conservatives in every endeavor that will be suspicious of
> change and pan new technologies. I have friends that will not use
> transistor hifis and CDs- they insist on vinyl LPs and tube hifis.
>
> Consider this. How many of the film diehards use 4 x 5 or 8 x 10
> cameras? Lets face it, while 35 mm cameras do have their advantages,
> there is no comparison on resolution between a 4 x 5 camera with fine
> grain film and a 35 with similar film. So indeed most of us say, "hey,
> convenience counts for something- maybe I do not need the ultimate in
> resolution for most photography."
>

You have overlooked a large segment of photo hobbyists like myself, who have
been acquiring bodies, lenses and accessories for years, who are comfortable
using their legacy gear, and who don't shoot in large quantities. I do
about a roll a week. That is probably more than a lot of others do. It
makes little sense for me to dump my present setup and to replace it with
some plastic "wundercamera." Over the years I've somehow picked up close to
a dozen bodies. My film scanner makes all of my cameras "digital cameras,"
in a sense.

People that beat out photo after photo would benefit from going digital, and
people that are not very heavily invested in film would probably do better
with digital, but there are millions of excellent cameras out there that
have served their owners well, and they are not all going to reach the end
of their useable lives any time soon. Digital's many advantages are still
not for everyone.
 >> Stay informed about: PAST Vs FUTURE, Digital? 

jeremy wrote:
> "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer.DeleteThis@usfamily.net> wrote in message
> news:1158153416.139598.203070@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > ebelaw.DeleteThis@sapo.pt wrote:
> >> Something keeps wandering in my mind... some people say digital the
> >> future, and the best we ever got... other will say digital still haves
> >> no equivalent to film camera... and i still ask.. is there really a
> >> necessity to have a top notch camera to take that perfect picture,
> >> wouldnt that mmean that all the past 5 star photographers dont have
> >> anything to show off to a new kid with a camera?
> >>
> >> so where are we... ?
> >>
> >> I do think that the camera as little to do with a almost perfect
> >> picture. A hgood photographer will always take good pictures no matter
> >> the camera... but hey maybe its just me.
> >
> > There are conservatives in every endeavor that will be suspicious of
> > change and pan new technologies. I have friends that will not use
> > transistor hifis and CDs- they insist on vinyl LPs and tube hifis.
> >
> > Consider this. How many of the film diehards use 4 x 5 or 8 x 10
> > cameras? Lets face it, while 35 mm cameras do have their advantages,
> > there is no comparison on resolution between a 4 x 5 camera with fine
> > grain film and a 35 with similar film. So indeed most of us say, "hey,
> > convenience counts for something- maybe I do not need the ultimate in
> > resolution for most photography."
> >
>
> You have overlooked a large segment of photo hobbyists like myself, who have
> been acquiring bodies, lenses and accessories for years, who are comfortable
> using their legacy gear, and who don't shoot in large quantities. I do
> about a roll a week. That is probably more than a lot of others do. It
> makes little sense for me to dump my present setup and to replace it with
> some plastic "wundercamera." Over the years I've somehow picked up close to
> a dozen bodies. My film scanner makes all of my cameras "digital cameras,"
> in a sense.
>
> People that beat out photo after photo would benefit from going digital, and
> people that are not very heavily invested in film would probably do better
> with digital, but there are millions of excellent cameras out there that
> have served their owners well, and they are not all going to reach the end
> of their useable lives any time soon. Digital's many advantages are still
> not for everyone.

I agree, and if you are not looking for a new camera there is no reason
to rush out and buy a new one just to go digital. In fact, I do
recommend to people with film cameras to try their hand in digital
first by getting some pix scanned at one of those store services,
trying a cheap processing program, and see if they like digital.

However, if one is planning on buying a new camera anyway, I see little
reason not to go digital, with that little reason being if you shoot
primarily dim light. The one thing in the future that I would like to
see is higher speed, but as a physicist who specialized in
electro-optics, I know how hard it can be to do it. Silicon photocells
are already about 40% efficient in converting photons to electrons.
What is needed is noiseless amplification, which is possible but very
hard to come by.
 >> Stay informed about: PAST Vs FUTURE, Digital? 

Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
>
> I agree, and if you are not looking for a new camera there is no reason
> to rush out and buy a new one just to go digital. In fact, I do
> recommend to people with film cameras to try their hand in digital
> first by getting some pix scanned at one of those store services,
> trying a cheap processing program, and see if they like digital.
But doing this will not tell that if they like digital at all, it will
only tell them if they like film that has been digitized. If they scan
film they will still be dealing with grain, still be dealing with
mini-labs that can ruin their photo and still be using a camera that is
limited in how many photos it can take. They also would not be able to
review their photos as they took them to be sure they have the exposure
correct and in the case of a point and shoot they would not have a live
histogram that most point and shoot digital cameras have.


> However, if one is planning on buying a new camera anyway, I see little
> reason not to go digital, with that little reason being if you shoot
> primarily dim light.
Are you saying that a reason not to buy digital is that film does
better in dim light?
If so this is very odd since a good digital camera is far more
sensitive then film. One of the great joys with a DSLR is being able
to do a lot more available light photography then I could ever do with
film. With film I hated to load the camera with anything faster then
ISO 100, with digital I can shoot at ISO 800 and have far less noise
then ISO 100 film has.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: PAST Vs FUTURE, Digital? 

jeremy wrote:
> In all frankness, I cannot think of any situation where my
particular type
> of photography would benefit from being done on film. For me, the only
> advantage is cost. It would cost a fortune for me to replicate my current
> capabilities in digital, and I don't shoot enough for the film savings to
> offset the cost of the equipment. Film might have offered advantages when
> DSLRs were in the 6 MP range, but digital image quality has caught up, and
> it's now just a matter of time . . .
Maybe you would not save the cost in film and processing but what about
your time to scan the film?

This was the main reason I got my wife a DSLR to use, the photos she
was getting from film where ok but it took a long time to scan them and
we were getting further an further behind in our scanning.

But the DSLR has also opened up what she can photograph, like using
much longer lenses hand held. Being able to shoot at ISO 800 has make
a world of difference in using long lenses hand held.

So for us digital has been a win win situation, no more scanning and
much better photos.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: PAST Vs FUTURE, Digital? 

"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer.RemoveThis@usfamily.net> wrote in message
>
> However, if one is planning on buying a new camera anyway, I see little
> reason not to go digital, with that little reason being if you shoot
> primarily dim light.


Agreed. No point in investing in technology that will eventually be at the
sidelines, unless you want to do film because of some particular quality
that you cannot achieve in digital.

If I had it to do over again, I'd not even consider film for that very
reason.

Scanning film is a pain. My scanner takes about 6 minutes to do one frame,
although it does produce excellent results with ICE3, Digital ROC and
Digital GEM. But it takes me 2 hours to scan a single roll of film.

Shooting film and doing digital post-shoot comes at a price, and that price
it TIME, in addition to the cost of film. That is a compelling reason for
most photographers, especially amateurs, to go digital. The perceived
advantage in film's image quality is being overtaken by the latest digital
SLRs' sensors. I may hold out longer than most, if only because I have so
much film stuff, but I am under no illusion. Eventually I'm going to stop
using film cameras, or use them only a small percent of the time.

In all frankness, I cannot think of any situation where my particular type
of photography would benefit from being done on film. For me, the only
advantage is cost. It would cost a fortune for me to replicate my current
capabilities in digital, and I don't shoot enough for the film savings to
offset the cost of the equipment. Film might have offered advantages when
DSLRs were in the 6 MP range, but digital image quality has caught up, and
it's now just a matter of time . . .
 >> Stay informed about: PAST Vs FUTURE, Digital?