 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / February 2005Popular Photography Review of F6
In this month's issue of Popular Photography is a review of the Nikon F6. They have a pro/con list called the "What's Hot" and "What's Not". Here is one striking quote from the What's Not: "Recording medium requires chemical processing before it can be read." LOL!! I think they've lost their mind. > In this month's issue of Popular Photography is a review of the > Nikon F6. They have a pro/con list called the "What's Hot" and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > LOL!! I think they've lost their mind. Perhaps they should change the name of the magazine to Popular Digital Photography. ;-)  SignatureBill Well it is pretty hard to argue that needing chemical processing is not to some extent a down side, and one that will keep the sales level of this camera much lower then if it had been introduced say 5 years ago. In a way it is a recognition that cameras are cameras whether they are digital or film and it is fair to compare that good and the bad across the whole field of otherwise similar cameras. Scott >> Here is one striking quote from the What's Not: "Recording medium >> requires chemical processing before it can be read." >> >> LOL!! I think they've lost their mind. Could be a joke. Considering their audience, it's kind of a joke to even review the F6. > Perhaps they should change the name of the magazine to > Popular Digital Photography. ;-) Their full name is [Bait & Switch Monthly, AKA] Popular Photography and [Fad] Imaging (the magazine formerly known as Modern Photography) >>> Here is one striking quote from the What's Not: "Recording medium >>> requires chemical processing before it can be read." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > [Bait & Switch Monthly, AKA] Popular Photography and [Fad] Imaging > (the magazine formerly known as Modern Photography) I always thought Modern was better than Popular Photog and was sad when Pop Photog absorbed the better one. Well, no accounting for popular taste. SignatureMichael |Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! >> Their full name is >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > when Pop Photog absorbed the better one. Well, no accounting for > popular taste. Agreed. MP had articles on photographers, shooting, the art of image making, with just a few equipment and film articles. I loves their reader "shoot-in" column where four reader photos would be critiqued. SignatureDominic Richens | dominic@alumni.uottawa.ca "If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!" > > I always thought Modern was better than Popular Photog and was sad > > when Pop Photog absorbed the better one. Well, no accounting for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > making, with just a few equipment and film articles. I loves their reader > "shoot-in" column where four reader photos would be critiqued. Well, Pop Photo does have some articles on photographers, but they read more like promotional materials than actual interest pieces. They occasionally have decent "How-to" lighting articles or how to recreate a specific shot. The do critique a few photos an issue, but it's buried. Overall Pop Photo is a trashy magazine. But it's cheap enough to make decent bathroom reading. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ > In this month's issue of Popular Photography is a review of the Nikon > F6. They have a pro/con list called the "What's Hot" and "What's Not". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Now I remember why I stopped buying that rag years ago. Used to be a nice mag years ago. Bob Hickey >Well it is pretty hard to argue that needing chemical processing is not >to some extent a down side.. i really dont find it hard to argue at all... film looks better, plain and simple. > >Well it is pretty hard to argue that needing chemical processing is not > >to some extent a down side.. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Message posted via http://www.photokb.com Well now the question was not does film make a better photo, the question was is that fact that it needs chemical procession a downs side. I could say the same thing about say ISO 100 film and ISO 800 film, there is a down side to ISO 100 film, it is slower and therefore harder to use in low light conditions, but I think everyone would agree that the photos from ISO 100 film would look better. Point being that maybe the camera is good overall but it does have some downsides and one of those is that fact that it needs chemical processing. Scott > >Well it is pretty hard to argue that needing chemical processing is not > >to some extent a down side.. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Message posted via http://www.photokb.com Well now the question was not does film make a better photo, the question was is that fact that it needs chemical procession a downs side. I could say the same thing about say ISO 100 film and ISO 800 film, there is a down side to ISO 100 film, it is slower and therefore harder to use in low light conditions, but I think everyone would agree that the photos from ISO 100 film would look better. Point being that maybe the camera is good overall but it does have some downsides and one of those is that fact that it needs chemical processing. Scott >>Well it is pretty hard to argue that needing chemical >>processing is not to some extent a down side.. > > i really dont find it hard to argue at all... > film looks better, plain and simple. The reality is that everything involves trade-offs. Film has, to my eye, a great advantage in quality of the finished photo, compared to digital. The chemical processing, in our environmentally sensitive age, is a down side. By the way, photography is not the only art form that may face changes due to environmentalism. There is talk that the various cadmium pigments (cadmium red, cadmium yellow, cadmium orange, etc.) may be banned because of environmental and health risks. That is a shame because no other red or yellow pigments are quite as bright and still reasonably lightfast. Many of the synthetic organic pigments are just as nice when fresh, but are fugitive as hell when exposed to light. What a shame. Maybe it won't happen. >>>Well it is pretty hard to argue that needing chemical >>>processing is not to some extent a down side.. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > photography is not the only art form that may face changes due > to environmentalism. There is talk that the various cadmium Do have an inkling of what is involved in chip making? Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > >>>Well it is pretty hard to argue that needing chemical > >>>processing is not to some extent a down side.. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Do have an inkling of what is involved in chip making? I do, I do! :) Scott > -- > -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm > -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm > -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin > -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >>>>Well it is pretty hard to argue that needing chemical >>>>processing is not to some extent a down side.. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Do have an inkling of what is involved in chip making? I know, I know. But, when the tree huggers get started, they tend to do two things: First, they ignore the environmental damage that is involved with anything that THEY use. Second, they never allow facts to get in the way of "the cause." > >>>>Well it is pretty hard to argue that needing chemical > >>>>processing is not to some extent a down side.. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > damage that is involved with anything that THEY use. Second, > they never allow facts to get in the way of "the cause." Whereas it is true there are some really nasty chemicals use in the production of IC the amount of these use to produce a sensor is extremely small, the amount of photographic chemicals saved on the other hand is fairly large over the life of a camera. Also the real nasty stuff used in the IC plants does not tend to make it into the environment. Having said all that I would not worry all that much about using film, based on evniromental damage. Scott |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.