 |
 | 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 / General Photo Topics / General Topics / October 2008"Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away"
Taking away Kodachrome? Given the dominance of digital photography, the iconic film might be on its way out Monday, September 29, 2008 2:57 AM By Ben Dobbin ROCHESTER, N.Y. -- It is an elaborately crafted photographic film, extolled for its sharpness, vivid colors and archival durability. Yet die-hard fan Alex Webb is convinced that the digital age soon will take his Kodachrome away. Continued: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2008/09/29/kodachromes_dem ise.ART_ART_09-29-08_C12_UTBE9N9.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101 If the above link wraps-around, try the following: http://gbe.dynip.com/Link30.htm >Taking away Kodachrome? >Given the dominance of digital photography, the iconic film might be on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >die-hard fan Alex Webb is convinced that the digital age soon will take >his Kodachrome away. The article notes that many other types of Kodak film are no longer produced and that Kodak is out of the film processing business. The days of film are truly numbered. It is a shame that whilst the cameras them selves can last many decades unexposed film has a finite shelf life and requires a a particular environment for "long" term storage. So those of us who do have a spare or back up 35mm camera may not be able to get film for it. Perhaps Kodak can be persuaded to do a run every 5 years as a special... mind you they will charge the earth for it. It is to be expected. My local pro camera shop used to have three fridges (like the upright beer/coke coolers in shops) full of film. Now it has 3 shelves in one fridge and those shelves aren't full of stock. So their stock of film is down by about 90% >Continued: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >If the above link wraps-around, try the following: >http://gbe.dynip.com/Link30.htm  Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Chris H wrote,on my timestamp of 10/10/2008 12:48 AM: >> Taking away Kodachrome? >> Given the dominance of digital photography, the iconic film might be on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> die-hard fan Alex Webb is convinced that the digital age soon will take >> his Kodachrome away. old news, by a second rate reporter looking to prop up audience. Never fails. > The article notes that many other types of Kodak film are no longer > produced and that Kodak is out of the film processing business. The > days of film are truly numbered. Total nonsense, of course. First of all, Kodak released a new film at Photokina. Yes, that's right. But you never heard of it from the usual "digital only" so-called reporters. They also announced that film sales have actually increased, something unheard of for years. And Ilford and Fuji are selling theirs without the slightest problem. Fuji released a new film late last year as well. > It is a shame that whilst the cameras them selves can last many decades > unexposed film has a finite shelf life and requires a a particular > environment for "long" term storage. That's right. Did you notice as well the general idea with film is to actually USE it, not store it? > So those of us who do have a spare or back up 35mm camera may not be > able to get film for it. Why? Because it runs out of validity if you don't get it? > Perhaps Kodak can be persuaded to do a run > every 5 years as a special... mind you they will charge the earth for it. You don't have a clue what you talking about, do you? > It is to be expected. My local pro camera shop used to have three > fridges (like the upright beer/coke coolers in shops) full of film. > Now it has 3 shelves in one fridge and those shelves aren't full of > stock. So their stock of film is down by about 90% Your "local pro camera shop" is run by idiots. Mine, which has converted to digital ages ago and calls itself "Ted's Digital Cameras", is now stocking film again as well as darkroom and development chemicals. Just got a bottle of the new Ilfosol 3 developer last week. Not bad for a "dead" product... >Chris H wrote,on my timestamp of 10/10/2008 12:48 AM: >>> Taking away Kodachrome? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>days of film are truly numbered. >Total nonsense, of course. No, reality. >First of all, Kodak released a new film at Photokina. >Yes, that's right. But you never heard of it from >the usual "digital only" so-called reporters. I did but they have dropped many more than they have introduced. >They also announced that film sales have actually >increased, something unheard of for years. Do you have a reference for that? >> It is a shame that whilst the cameras them selves can last many >>decades unexposed film has a finite shelf life and requires a a >>particular environment for "long" term storage. > >That's right. Did you notice as well the general >idea with film is to actually USE it, not store it? Yes. The point is that when (not "if") in the medium term film is no longer made for general use storing the last bulk purchase is not the same as storing other non-perishables. >> So those of us who do have a spare or back up 35mm camera may not be >>able to get film for it. > >Why? Because it runs out of validity if you don't >get it? Not able to get film f rot eh camera and long term storage is not always possible. >> It is to be expected. My local pro camera shop used to have three >>fridges (like the upright beer/coke coolers in shops) full of film. >>Now it has 3 shelves in one fridge and those shelves aren't full of >>stock. So their stock of film is down by about 90% > >Your "local pro camera shop" is run by idiots. Calumet? >Mine, which has converted to digital ages ago >and calls itself "Ted's Digital Cameras", >is now stocking film again as well as darkroom >and development chemicals. Good luck to them. However they are in a minority. I am sure you can still get glass plates somewhere too. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > >> The article notes that many other types of Kodak film are no longer > >>produced and that Kodak is out of the film processing business. The > >>days of film are truly numbered. > >Total nonsense, of course. > > No, reality. Oh really? So I suppose Tri-x, all the Tmax films, all the Ektas, Provias, bwc400N and even Kodachrome 64 available and for sale anywhere that stocks film is what? A figment? Your reality seems a bit vaporous.... > I did but they have dropped many more than they have introduced. Read this: they inroduced a NEW FILM at Photokina. Got it, diddums? > >They also announced that film sales have actually > >increased, something unheard of for years. > > Do you have a reference for that? Yes, I do. Search Apug. > >That's right. Did you notice as well the general > >idea with film is to actually USE it, not store it? > > Yes. The point is that when (not "if") in the medium term film is no > longer made for general use storing the last bulk purchase is not the > same as storing other non-perishables. Film is still made even for 8mm movies! Get real, the "pending doom" of no film only exists in your wishfull dreams of digital shill! > >Why? Because it runs out of validity if you don't > >get it? > > Not able to get film f rot eh camera and long term storage is not > always possible. Really? Which film can you "not get for the camera"? > >Your "local pro camera shop" is run by idiots. > > Calumet? Yes. > >Mine, which has converted to digital ages ago > >and calls itself "Ted's Digital Cameras", [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Good luck to them. However they are in a minority. I am sure you can > still get glass plates somewhere too. Yes. Get informed, before spouting off with the "film is dead" bull. >old news, by a second rate reporter looking >to prop up audience. Never fails. [snip] >Total nonsense, of course. [snip] >That's right. Did you notice as well the general >idea with film is to actually USE it, not store it? [snip] >Why? Because it runs out of validity if you don't >get it? [snip] >You don't have a clue what you talking >about, do you? [snip] >Your "local pro camera shop" is run by idiots. [snip] My, some people get pretty defensive when you walk about their pet product! Neither of us suggested that the film is going away anytime soon...just that it is becoming a 'niche market' product. Just like vinyl LPs, it will be available, but for a price. There is money to be made in niche market products for smaller companies! Gary > My, some people get pretty defensive when you walk about their pet > product! Neither of us suggested that the film is going away anytime > soon... Really? > just that it is becoming a 'niche market' product. Really? Strange "niche", where folks can find it just about anywhere. Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but that defines YOU as the niche. >Just like > vinyl LPs, it will be available, but for a price. If it was free, that would be news... > There is money to be > made in niche market products for smaller companies! Of course. Even the croatians are cashing in on film. >>Just like >> vinyl LPs, it will be available, but for a price. > >If it was free, that would be news... Why does this need to degenerate into the endless film vs. digital debate? I never took a side in my original posting; I just re-posted an article that I found. If you want to use film, fine. I'm not stopping you. Just be prepared to pay a premium for it in the future. Gary > Why does this need to degenerate into the endless film vs. digital > debate? It isn't. If you don't want it to go into that, then STOP posting incorrect statements. > I never took a side in my original posting; I just re-posted an > article that I found. Which was pointed out as false and correct information provided. Why is it that when TRUTH is put forward about film, you digital-breaths get all defensive on the "let's not discuss film versus digital"? What is the problem you have with someone CLEARLY pointing out errors and "deliberate" mistakes? > If you want to use film, fine. I'm not stopping > you. You got it. What's that got to do with the article in question and its incorrect and outright wrong statements? > Just be prepared to pay a premium for it in the future. Another typical false blurt of the digital brigade. For your information, even at the peak of film I never paid less than I pay now for film! And the one I send away for development gets back in my hands FASTER than it ever did back in the 80s. So much for the "pending doom" argument... It's only been going on for 8 years, I wonder when that famous "film is dead" bull is gonna happen! >So those of us who do have a spare or back up 35mm camera may not be >able to get film for it. Perhaps Kodak can be persuaded to do a run >every 5 years as a special... mind you they will charge the earth for >it. If Kodak decides to drop the line, maybe some 3rd party can obtain a license from Kodak to manufacture and process Kodachrome. Of course, the price, like any other specialty product such as vinyl LP's, would be high. But maybe there is a niche market for it out there. Gary >>So those of us who do have a spare or back up 35mm camera may not be >>able to get film for it. Perhaps Kodak can be persuaded to do a run [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the price, like any other specialty product such as vinyl LP's, would be >high. But maybe there is a niche market for it out there. I am sure there will be a niche market for film just as there is a niche market for glass plate for cameras. What amuses me is the die hards who argue black is white that film is on the way back. I am sure that all the film companies have had a recent increase in sales. The probably do every summer. Yes Kodak introduced a new film but has also cut a dozen. The overall trend (plumet? ) is for film to disappear. It will get worse due to the current economic situation. For 90% of the world do you use a digital camera and take picture and get a few printed. That is the part that costs money , getting the specific prints you want printed OR Do you BUY film, then pay to get it developed and printed including the pictures you don't want. The majority of the enthusiast have also moved to digital as have nearly all the pro's so where is the economic argument for producing film. As noted in the article the do production runs of Kodachrome months apart when the stock runs out. Not continuous production as they used to. I do not think they will stop doing Kodachrome for some time. Not until the value of the land or office space the production plant is on become more cost effective for something else. If the runs are once a year that time can not be far off. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Kodak has already announced that they will cease production of Kodachome. There currently only one lab in Kansas that processes it. Long live Velvia. Old Bob > What amuses me is the die hards who argue black is white that film is on > the way back. Don't be stupid! NO ONE argued it was on the way back. YOU argued it was GONE. It isn't, and what you said is a blank, clear LIE. And it got exposed. Got it? > increase in sales. The probably do every summer. Yes Kodak introduced a > new film but has also cut a dozen. That is, once again, a lie. > The overall trend (plumet? ) is for film to disappear. No it isn't. Sales of film have stabilised and have actually increased. What you are blindly repeating is 5 years old bull and not reflecting reality at all. > It will get worse due to the current economic situation. For digital as well. Watch the bottom fall out of the p&s digital compacts. > For 90% of the world do you use a digital camera and take picture and > get a few printed. 90% of the world does NOT have a computer to work with digital, you nong! Don't confuse your narrow-minded "world series" with the REAL world! > Do you BUY film, then pay to get it developed and printed including the > pictures you don't want. If you do that, you are an absolute idiot and you do DESERVE to pay through your nose. > The majority of the enthusiast have also moved to digital as have nearly > all the pro's so where is the economic argument for producing film. The sales that keep happening, despite your theories. > As noted in the article the do production runs of Kodachrome months > apart when the stock runs out. The article is completely incorrect. Kodak does productions runs for Kodachrome once a year. > Not continuous production as they used to. Another blatant lie: Kodak NEVER ran continuous production runs of Kodachrome. NEVER. The most they did was twice a year. Even at the peak of the product. > I do not think they will stop doing Kodachrome for some time. Not > until the value of the land or office space the production plant is on > become more cost effective for something else. Judging by the values of real estate of late, that will never happen. >>Taking away Kodachrome? >>Given the dominance of digital photography, the iconic film might be on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > produced and that Kodak is out of the film processing business. The > days of film are truly numbered. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ In this day and age, what are the merits of shooting film over digital? -- Does.film.produce.better.results.to.digital? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ > In this day and age, what are the merits of shooting film over digital? See below > -- > Does.film.produce.better.results.to.digital? No. And digital doesn't produce better results than film. Color isn't better than black & white; black & white isn't better than color. Transparencies aren't better than negatives; negatives aren't better than transparencies. Large format isn't better than medium format which isn't better than 35mm; nor the reverse. Canon isn't better than Nikon; Nikon isn't better than Canon. ALL of these are tools. ALL tools have their purpose. Not everyone uses the same tools for the same reasons. Whatever tools let you accomplish what you want are the right tools _for you_. Imagine if the amount energy wasted on stupid petty battles between "film" and "digital", or "Canon" and "Nikon", could be harnessed and used to make good photos. Silver salts and image sensors respond to light. Everything else is commentary. SignatureOm Namah Sivaya >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> In this day and age, what are the merits of shooting film over digital? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No. And digital doesn't produce better results than film. 8< ambiguous response snipped >8 If I may rephrase my question: when would you choose film over digital with respect to photography? -- A.straight.answer.would.be.nice. > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> In this day and age, what are the merits of shooting film over digital? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > A.straight.answer.would.be.nice. With respect to what kind of photography? There's more than one kind. More than two kinds, in fact. Film OR Digital? Where does that leave, for example, scanned film? That is also a choice. Digital output to film? Which digital -- APS, Full Frame, 2-1/4, scanning back? All tools. End use: on computer screen? projected transparencies? projected digital? Standard Web Offset Press? $0.35 prints from the drug store? Inkjet prints? Digital C-prints? Black & White silver prints? Fine art prints? Silk screen? Subject: Weddings? Landscape? Portraits? Industrial? Underwater? Photojournalism? Sports? Documentary? Film OR Digital? Where does that leave, for example, scanned film? That is also a choice. Digital output to film? Which digital -- APS, Full Frame, 2-1/4, scanning back? And although a "straight answer" might be nice, it would undoubtedly be wrong or at least immaterial. When _I_ would choose what format is extremely unlikely to match when _you_ would choose the same format. The closest I can answer is "it depends". Anything more than that is just my opinion, which is right for me. I don't think my opinion is any better than anyone else's when it comes to their choices. Why do you devalue your own opinion so much as to depend on the rantings of anonymous usenet users? Reference: False Dichotomy logical fallacy Also known as False Dilemma, Bogus Dilemma, Bifurcation, Black-and-White Fallacy, Either-Or Fallacy A dichotomy is evaluated on a premise that only two alternatives are possible. This is false when other alternatives are in fact possible, which usually is the case. The notion that a binary choice exists usually is implied rather than being stated explicitly. Predicate 1: Propositions A and B are mutually exclusive Predicate 2: A is {true / false} Therefore: B is inverse of A Examples: "You are either with us or against us." -- George W. Bush, November 6, 2001 If taken literally, this neglects neutrality and mixed allegiance for different elements of a set. When taken as a rhetorical device, this quote has also been attributed by another source to a fallacy which it identifies as Appeal to Gallery, which corresponds to the fallacies listed here as Appeal to Emotion and Appeal to Fear. SignatureOm Namah Sivaya > The closest I can answer is "it depends". Anything more than that is > just my opinion, which is right for me. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And that's what I'm after: YOUR (and everyone else's) OPINION. If I were after cold, hard facts I can search the internet for that. > I don't think my opinion is any > better than anyone else's when it comes to their choices. Why do you > devalue your own opinion so much as to depend on the rantings of > anonymous usenet users? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Usenet is about sharing opinions and ideas, as far as I'm concerned. So back to my question: in which situations would YOU choose film over digital photography? -- Your.opinion.is.fine. > > The closest I can answer is "it depends". Anything more than that is > > just my opinion, which is right for me. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > Your.opinion.is.fine. It depends. SignatureOm Namah Sivaya > > > The closest I can answer is "it depends". Anything more than that is > > > just my opinion, which is right for me. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > It depends. OK, so I'm a bit grumpy. Sorry. For me the question is easier to answer if it is reversed -- in which situations would I choose digital over film: Almost never. I would say never, but I do have a little digital p/s and a "camera" phone. I shoot film 99.44% of the time. Maybe more. Everything from Minox 8mm to Deardorff 8x10, and most formats in between. Black & White (Ilford HP-5 or Kodak Tri-X) or color transparency (Fuji Provia 100). It works for me and what I take pictures of. And I'm almost certain you would not do the same. SignatureOm Namah Sivaya >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> In this day and age, what are the merits of shooting film over digital? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 8< ambiguous response snipped >8 Not ambiguous. Quite appropriate. > If I may rephrase my question: when would you choose film over digital > with respect to photography? When it is better for the intended purpose, of course. > A.straight.answer.would.be.nice. Sigh. A.straight.answer.is.not.easy.nor.short.and.like.Shiva.I.wouldn't. bother.providing.one.to.someone.who.can't.be.bothered.to.do.a.bit.of. work.themselves.or.outline.what.their.needs.are. When.would.you.choose.petrol.over.lpg.or.diesel? Give full reasons. > When.would.you.choose.petrol.over.lpg.or.diesel? > > Give full reasons. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My quick answers to the above question for motor vehicles. - I'll use petrol if I want the best performance and the best driving experience; - I'd choose lp-gas or diesel if I wish to save money and where LPG and diesel is more cost effective than petrol. -- Simple.answer.to.a.simple.question. >> When.would.you.choose.petrol.over.lpg.or.diesel? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > - I'll use petrol if I want the best performance and the best driving > experience; I'll use Large Format film if I want the best resolution. (A small Digital SLR would probably give me the best 'racy' experience, though..) > - I'd choose lp-gas or diesel if I wish to save money and where LPG and > diesel is more cost effective than petrol. ??? I'd choose digital if I wish to save (a little) money, and (repeating myself) where digital is more cost effective than petrol. Hope that was as useful as your answers were. (O: More seriously, in simple terms good digitals meet or exceed film *for most low-medium quality use*, ie the market that used to be occupied by 35mm cameras, for good prints up to about 11"x8". However, digital cameras fall behind a bit in b&w, in terms of resolution and tonality. And if you like slides, good digital projection is *very* expensive and slide film/projectors runs rings around anything affordable in digital. And if you are wedding/portrait photographer, the soft, high-dynamic-range abilities of films like the Fuji NPx's are hard to match. And those films are getting harder to find.. And there are lots of other related issues. For high-end use, ie upmarket weddings, large prints, etc film still occupies numerous niches, but it is even more complex and if you are in those markets you wouldn't be asking the question.. > Simple.answer.to.a.simple.question. It's.not.even.close.to.a.simple.question. Mark Thomas wrote,on my timestamp of 10/10/2008 2:45 PM: >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> My quick answers to the above question for motor vehicles. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > It's.not.even.close.to.a.simple.question. Very good points, Mark. Couldn't agree more. > More seriously, in simple terms good digitals meet or exceed film *for > most low-medium quality use*, ie the market that used to be occupied by > 35mm cameras, for good prints up to about 11"x8". Digital totally eclipses film up until the superior "equivalent pixels" of large format, that is, film 5 inches in larger dimension, kicks in. This is true is every respect, including for B&W. True, a real non-filtered B&W sensor camera would be nice. > However, digital cameras fall behind a bit in b&w, in terms of > resolution and tonality. Well, yes, at large format resolution. They do NOT fall behind in tonality. > For high-end use, ie upmarket weddings, large prints, etc film still > occupies numerous niches, but it is even more complex and if you are in > those markets you wouldn't be asking the question.. I would be surprised at the weddings part, except for large format formal shots. Not anything medium format. Doug McDonald user@domain.invalid wrote,on my timestamp of 12/10/2008 7:32 AM: > Digital totally eclipses film up until the superior "equivalent pixels" > of large format, that is, film 5 inches in larger dimension, kicks in. Total rubbish. And why are you pushing this thread down that path? > user@domain.invalid wrote,on my timestamp of 12/10/2008 7:32 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Total rubbish. And why are you pushing this > thread down that path? It's not rubbish. It's true. I'm not pushing the thread ... you were. Digital really IS objectively better than film. True, it is unfortunate that B&W digital is not readily available. Doug McDonald On Oct 13, 1:52 am, u...@domain.invalid wrote: > >> Digital totally eclipses film up until the superior "equivalent pixels" > >> of large format, that is, film 5 inches in larger dimension, kicks in. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's not rubbish. It's true. I'm not pushing the thread ... you were. No I was not. The thread is about availability of film. It's only you the digital scams and shills who are trying to push it down to film versus digital. I made NO such claim anywhere, YOU did! > Digital really IS objectively better than film. True, it is unfortunate that > B&W digital is not readily available. Total rubbish, of course. >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> In this day and age, what are the merits of shooting film over digital? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > A.straight.answer.would.be.nice. I was tempted to say if I had a film camera and no digital camera. Seriously, I think despite vast improvements in printer technology, to my eye silver BW produces richer tones. YMMV SignaturePeter > If I may rephrase my question: when would you choose film over digital with > respect to photography? everytime I wanted a 20MP sensor for the price of a roll of film. > It is to be expected. My local pro camera shop used to have three > fridges (like the upright beer/coke coolers in shops) full of film. > Now it has 3 shelves in one fridge and those shelves aren't full of > stock. Now the question is what else they keep in the fridge on the remaining shelves.... fresh Flash anynone? SignatureBertrand >> It is to be expected. My local pro camera shop used to have three >> fridges (like the upright beer/coke coolers in shops) full of film. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Now the question is what else they keep in the fridge on the remaining > shelves.... fresh Flash anynone? I would hope beer for the customers. SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html Blinky the Shark wrote,on my timestamp of 11/10/2008 7:10 AM: >>> It is to be expected. My local pro camera shop used to have three >>> fridges (like the upright beer/coke coolers in shops) full of film. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I would hope beer for the customers. NOW, we're tawkin'! Paul Simon wasn't it? > Paul Simon wasn't it? Yes it was. And like Paul Simon I too have a Nikon camera. And I just sent off a 36 exposure roll of Kodachrome (64) to Dwayne's for processing. Oh yes, the Nikon is a Nikon F. Accept no substitutes. Kodachrome. When to use it? When you want long-lasting images. My father's slides from the 50's and his Kodachrome 16mm movies from the 40's still have brilliant color. Store it in the dark. We don't know of any digital format that will last as long. All the people who transfered their movies to VHS tape have learned that truth (though not digital) and we don't know how long DVDs last. Magnetic storage will have to be periodically updated as the technology changes. How easy is it for you to access your 5 1/4 inch floppies? Or even your 1.44 Meg floppies? When to use it? When you want more megapixels that any DSLR will give you. When you want SLIDES. When you want subtle gradations of tone and color that the current pixel count cannot achieve. Slides. When you want the color you see to be what you took (within the coloration of the film) because you are not beholden to a commercial printer or your own inkjet for translation. Kodachrome when you want natural color and not the extra pop of Velvia or the high saturation Ektachromes (Elite Chrome). It is arguable that in this day of digital printing, even film in a great SLR ends up digitized and your picture reflects not the film or your camera, but the resolution of the scanner used to scan your negative. Slides overcome that limitation. Don't use it if you want to take a bazillion images and hope one comes out. Don't use it if you are disorganized and have no good way to store your pictures and find them again. Don't use it in anything LESS THAN a fine quality 35mm SLR. SignatureMichael >Kodachrome. When to use it? When you want long-lasting images. My >father's slides from the 50's and his Kodachrome 16mm movies from the >40's still have brilliant color. Store it in the dark. Ah, so you haven't even looked at them in the last 20 years or so, eh? Faded. "Brilliant color", yes... just not the same color it was for the first 10 or 20 years! :-) Regardless, if you look at them often, they are going to be useless in something between 50 and 100 years (and probably much sooner). >We don't know of >any digital format that will last as long. The fact is that 500 years from now there are going to be digital images taken today that will look *exactly* the same then as they do now. >All the people who >transfered their movies to VHS tape have learned that truth (though not >digital) and we don't know how long DVDs last. Analog, just like film... and your example is a good one for why information data has been slowly moving to digital every since Claude E. Shannon demonstrated the mathematical significance of comparing analog versus digital, back in 1949. >Magnetic storage will >have to be periodically updated as the technology changes. How easy is >it for you to access your 5 1/4 inch floppies? Or even your 1.44 Meg >floppies? Every PC produced today has the ability to read 5-1/4 floppies! It isn't that hard to find the physical device either, and all you need to do is plug it in. 3-1/2" are so common that every single computer I have actually *has* one! (Granted that one is the same one, and it has a USB 1.0 interface...) >When to use it? When you want more megapixels that any DSLR will give >you. When you want SLIDES. When you want subtle gradations of tone and >color that the current pixel count cannot achieve. If you want more resolution, go with a digital system. However, your example of slides is valid. If for some reason you need slides, it's probably easiest by far to shoot with slide film to start with. Have fun finding a handy slide projector, but... If you want subtle gradations, go digital. You simply cannot adjust the gradations when shooting film, ever. >Slides. When you want the color you see to be what you took (within the >coloration of the film) because you are not beholden to a commercial >printer or your own inkjet for translation. Kodachrome when you want >natural color and not the extra pop of Velvia or the high saturation >Ektachromes (Elite Chrome). More myth... Take you image using an electronic sensor, convert the data to digital, and then you can literally make it look just like any of those! And next week if you want it to be different, you can change it. >It is arguable that in this day of digital printing, even film in a >great SLR ends up digitized and your picture reflects not the film or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Don't use it if you are disorganized and have no good way to store your >pictures and find them again. Or if you actually want to look at them, or hope that 100 or 200 years from now somebody else might be able to see what you saw. >Don't use it in anything LESS THAN a fine quality 35mm SLR. If, and only if, that is the entire point. Which is to say that it is very reasonable to simply enjoy taking pictures with a view camera and sheet film (or glass plates, for that matter), or with any of the many wonderful MF and 35mm film cameras that have been made and for which film is still available. It's fun, if that's what you like. But please don't post bullshit here claiming it has attributes that do not exist, or that it beats out electronic sensors in ways where they've been better for several years now. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Kodachrome when you want >> natural color and not the extra pop of Velvia or the high saturation [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the data to digital, and then you can literally make it look > just like any of those! Not exactly. You can get "extra pop" or "high saturation" out of digital, but not the exact same image, because the offball positive films like Velvia have very very odd spectrometric sensitivity curves that digital does not try to match. That can't be achieved in Photoshop. Doug McDonald >> Kodachrome when you want >>> natural color and not the extra pop of Velvia or the high saturation [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Doug McDonald DxO Optics, a program for 'developing' raw images has a plug-in that allows emulation of almost any color film you like, as well as automatic lens aberration corrections and other delicious bits. http://www.dxo.com/en/photo I recommend watching the 6-minute video to get some idea of its capabilities. I just would not work without a copy of DxO - and I state here that I have no connection with them, I'm just an extremely satisfied user. Colin D. >> Not exactly. You can get "extra pop" or "high saturation" out of >> digital, but not the exact same image, because the offball [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > DxO Optics, a program for 'developing' raw images has a plug-in that > allows emulation of almost any color film you like, No. It cannot change, for example, the relative amounts of yellow and red light seen by the red-sensitive layer of film or channel of digital. Much of the differences between color film were in the differing shapes of the spectral response curves of the three layers. Of course, a program can change the contrast and color saturation. No program can do what changing the color channel spectral curves does. Color filters in front of the lens can, in some but not all cases. Doug McDonald >>> Not exactly. You can get "extra pop" or "high saturation" out of >>> digital, but not the exact same image, because the offball [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Doug McDonald That's a bit bold, Doug, seeing as you haven't seen any results from the program, presumably. Also, the red-sensitive layer of color films does not see yellow, and a yellow object is rendered by registering in both red and green layers. The resultant color as seen by the eye depends on the relative response of those two layers, in turn depending on the spectral characteristics of the dye filters. You can be assured that DxO will have done extensive research into their film emulation, and the results are pretty close. I have and use DxO, and have played some with the film emulation, but of course there are limits, and in any case I prefer to stay with the digital characteristics of my Canon dslr, mostly because digital color accuracy is better than any film, due to the limitations imposed on the film dye filters by having to be soluble during processing, and by the restricted range of dyes that can be produced by the development process. As a result, film dye filters and dyes cannot be perfect - evidenced by the dye masking in negative films for correcting imperfect dye filters and dyes. A major problem with transparency films is that color correction by masking cannot be used, so there are unavoidable color inaccuracies with substantive materials, which by long usage have come to be accepted by photographers. Non-substantive film like Kodachrome, where the dye is added during processing vs being a development product do offer better color accuracy, providing the processing is up to the mark. Somebody once remarked that the aim of color photography is to "present a pleasing image, not necessarily an accurate one". Digital photography, can offer both. Now watch the flak arrive. Colin D. >> Kodachrome when you want >>> natural color and not the extra pop of Velvia or the high saturation [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Doug McDonald And film is not restricted to the moronic RGB gamut. >>> Kodachrome when you want >>>> natural color and not the extra pop of Velvia or the high saturation [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >And film is not restricted to the moronic RGB gamut. 1) Neither is an electronic sensor restricted to "the moronic RGB gamut". (I assume you mean sRGB, because there is no such thing as "RGB gamut".) 2) Digital *can* emulate very closely the "very odd spectrometric sensitivity curves" of any given film. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>And film is not restricted to the moronic RGB gamut. > > 1) Neither is an electronic sensor restricted to "the > moronic RGB gamut". (I assume you mean sRGB, because > there is no such thing as "RGB gamut".) Either, doesn't matter. And yeah, there is such a thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut > 2) Digital *can* emulate very closely the "very odd > spectrometric sensitivity curves" of any given film. Except when one of the colors blows out on digital, it takes all of them with it. >>>And film is not restricted to the moronic RGB gamut. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut Which incorrectly uses "RGB gamut" exactly one time. But it does correctly use "RGB color model" and "RGB color space". And clicking on the "RGB" term takes you to another wiki page that correctly describes the "RGB color model". Regardless, the RGB color model has nothing to do with electronic *sensors* or digital cameras. >> 2) Digital *can* emulate very closely the "very odd >> spectrometric sensitivity curves" of any given film. > >Except when one of the colors blows out on digital, it takes all of them >with it. So what? Can it do pure red? The point is that it can indeed be very closely emulated. It makes very little difference if it isn't precisely the same, because the color space for various display devices (prints, CRT monitors, LCD monitors, etc) are also different, and equally unable to precisely cover the entire gamut that might be in either the film image or any given digital image. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>>And film is not restricted to the moronic RGB gamut. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to another wiki page that correctly describes the "RGB > color model". Why do you believe this is not a gamut? Is it not a subset of visible light anchored on the primary colors of red, green and blue? Somebody, not me, wrote: >> And film is not restricted to the moronic RGB gamut. > > 1) Neither is an electronic sensor restricted to "the > moronic RGB gamut". (I assume you mean sRGB, because > there is no such thing as "RGB gamut".) true > 2) Digital *can* emulate very closely the "very odd > spectrometric sensitivity curves" of any given film. Indeed it can .... If some manufacturer decided to make a Bayer filter or other color separation mechanism to match a certain film. But in general they don't try. Once the filter is in the camera, there is very little that can be done to match a particular film, in general. Velvia has very sharp peaks in teh spectral sensitivity curve so in that case a very special multilayer filter in front of a telephoto lens could do the job, at least somewhat. But once the image is digitized, there is nothing that can be done to match spectral sensitivity curves of film. Doug McDonald >Somebody, not me, wrote: >>> And film is not restricted to the moronic RGB gamut. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >a Bayer filter or other color separation mechanism to match a certain >film. But in general they don't try. ...DxO offers "Film Pack"...Kodachrome,Tri-X and Velvia in different grades are simulated...I haven't used it extensively but did a comparison on one photograph and the program functioned well...20 film types in the menu. Also "tonings" but I haven't checked that out yet... cg > Once the filter is in the camera, >there is very little that can be done to match a particular film, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Doug McDonald >>Somebody, not me, wrote: >>>> And film is not restricted to the moronic RGB gamut. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > types in the menu. Also "tonings" but I haven't checked that out > yet... They have a trial version which I will probably try. For toning are you talking about monochrome toning? SignaturePeter >>>Somebody, not me, wrote: >>>>> And film is not restricted to the moronic RGB gamut. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >They have a trial version which I will probably try. >For toning are you talking about monochrome toning? Peter...just looked into it and it appears that, yes, it's monochrome along the lines of "Gold" or "Sepia" or"Ferric Sulfate"...there are a few more selections...alot like the Lightroom presets... cg >>>>Somebody, not me, wrote: >>>>>> And film is not restricted to the moronic RGB gamut. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > along the lines of "Gold" or "Sepia" or"Ferric Sulfate"...there are a > few more selections...alot like the Lightroom presets... So far I've been toning directly in PS. What advantage would DO give me? I am thinking is it worth the learning curve. SignaturePeter >>>>>Somebody, not me, wrote: >>>>>>> And film is not restricted to the moronic RGB gamut. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >So far I've been toning directly in PS. What advantage would DO give me? I >am thinking is it worth the learning curve. Peter...not much of a learning curve in Film Pack...pretty straight-up. You'll see if you try it out... cg >> 2) Digital *can* emulate very closely the "very odd >> spectrometric sensitivity curves" of any given film. > >Indeed it can . If you had stopped there, you would have nailed it. The rest of your discussion is in error. >... If some manufacturer decided to make >a Bayer filter or other color separation mechanism to match a certain >film. But in general they don't try. Once the filter is in the camera, >there is very little that can be done to match a particular film, >in general. That simply is not true. It's is *far* easier to do it with data manipulation behind the sensor than it is with optical filters in front of the sensor. >Velvia has very sharp peaks in teh spectral sensitivity >curve so in that case a very special multilayer filter in front >of a telephoto lens could do the job, at least somewhat. That would be absurd. >But once the image is digitized, there is nothing that can be >done to match spectral sensitivity curves of film. It's done all the time, and that has been pointed out by others. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>> 2) Digital *can* emulate very closely the "very odd >>> spectrometric sensitivity curves" of any given film. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > It's done all the time, and that has been pointed out by > others. You are wrong. It is hard to explain wihout graphics, so I'll try ascii one here Consider two wildly different spectral sensitivity curves for two different film: typical of older very high speed (ISO 1600) color films: wavelength is vertical, violet at top R G B | | | | | | [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | And this, more usual in very slow speed film: R G B | | | | | | [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The second one has less spectral overlap. It would tend to make more saturated colors. This CAN as you say be simulated in software, and this is what the software you describe does. BUT ... consider what happens when the spectral bands in the object are very narrow, which occurs with both synthetic and natural (flowers) organic dyes. If you've got a dye that has a sharp reflectance peak in the yellow or in the blue-green both the saturation and the actual luminosity will differ between the two films. And since the same color (hue) can be obtained in those regions with bot narrow and broad dyes in the subject, software CANNOT DISTINGUISH! Also not the extended red response in the upp curves. This was typical of high speed color film: it resulted in very exaggerated purplish colors for flowers that were clar blue to the naked eye in sublight. It also results in uncorrectable color differences between the films in sunlight versus tungsten. The ultimate in differences arises in astrophotography, since there are very important nebular lines (O-III) at the gap between blue and green: Velvia renders these nebulae as bright red, while Ektar 1000 rendered them the correct (spectrophotometrically) blue-green. This could not be corrected in software since there are adjacent areas that are near-pure H-alpha light which is pure red. The effect is also obvious with a MacBeth color-checker: no re-balance of R, G, and B nor increased saturation, nor both, can make images made with Velvia and Ektar 1000 ( or 1600 speed color negative) match, IN GENERAL, and with the color-checker in particular. Doug McDonald Floyd L. Davidson wrote,on my timestamp of 12/10/2008 2:38 AM: >> Kodachrome. When to use it? When you want long-lasting images. My >> father's slides from the 50's and his Kodachrome 16mm movies from the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so, eh? Faded. "Brilliant color", yes... just not the same > color it was for the first 10 or 20 years! :-) You really haven't got a clue about Kodachrome, do you? "store it in the dark" does NOT mean "not looked at them in 20 years", only a moron like you could have derived that one... > The fact is that 500 years from now there are going to be > digital images taken today that will look *exactly* the same > then as they do now. Jury still out on that one. Been reading any stored in a removable disk from the 90s? > Analog, just like film... and your example is a good one for > why information data has been slowly moving to digital every > since Claude E. Shannon demonstrated the mathematical > significance of comparing analog versus digital, back in 1949. Here we go with the totally irrelevant crap about "information theory".... > Every PC produced today has the ability to read 5-1/4 floppies! Really? Where? And what about Syquest removable drives? >> When to use it? When you want more megapixels that any DSLR will give >> you. When you want SLIDES. When you want subtle gradations of tone and >> color that the current pixel count cannot achieve. > > If you want more resolution, go with a digital system. Total bull. > However, > your example of slides is valid. If for some reason you need > slides, it's probably easiest by far to shoot with slide film to > start with. Have fun finding a handy slide projector, but... Real easy: dime a dozen in epay. And there is one in the next room, here. > If you want subtle gradations, go digital. You simply cannot > adjust the gradations when shooting film, ever. Total bull. >> Slides. When you want the color you see to be what you took (within the >> coloration of the film) because you are not beholden to a commercial [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > just like any of those! And next week if you want it to be > different, you can change it. Can you also change the resolution the original image was takne with? As in: upgrade your obsolete digital crap and end up with the old images at higher megapixels and higher resolution? Thought not, but I'm sure you'll jump in with all sorts of crap... > But please don't post bullshit here claiming it has attributes > that do not exist, or that it beats out electronic sensors in > ways where they've been better for several years now. He didn't say that. It's actually YOU who is making all sorts of bull claims about digital sensors. >> More myth... Take you image using an electronic sensor, convert >> the data to digital, and then you can literally make it look [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Thought not, but I'm sure you'll jump in with all > sorts of crap... Typical out of order retort!!! Of course you can't do that BUT YOU CAN'T DO IT WITH FILM EITHER! You can't upgrade your obsolete film E-4 Ektachrome, can you! Except in cases where sensors of adequate resolution are not yet available, digital completely eclipses film. It's true that digital has not QUITE the resolution yet to absolutely beat 35mm Kodachrome using a 35mm or APS size sensor ... you need a Hasselblad or Leaf camera. But the very next generation of Canons ... the 5D Mk III ... will do so ... it will have the pixel density of the 50D in full frame. The 5D Mk II is there in "information content", but the current K64 has the "appearance" of more fine detail than it actually has, do it a carefully calculated (by the designers) grain structure and the edge effects in development. Of course, large format Velvia will eclipse even the best Leaf. So would large format K64. Doug McDonald >>> More myth... Take you image using an electronic sensor, convert >>> the data to digital, and then you can literally make it look [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Doug McDonald I have a fair library of 6x7 Kodachrome transparencies taken on my Pentax 6x7 and a handful of 6x6 on a Rolleicord. Unfortunately we only have E6 films now for 120/220 but even those, especially Velvia, eclipse anything digital, even the Hassie or Leaf. SignatureMichael > I have a fair library of 6x7 Kodachrome transparencies taken on my > Pentax 6x7 and a handful of 6x6 on a Rolleicord. Unfortunately we only > have E6 films now for 120/220 but even those, especially Velvia, eclipse > anything digital, even the Hassie or Leaf. I have not looked carefully at the pixel pitch of the Hassies or new Leafs but I would assume that Velvia has the appearance of more resolution. BUT resolution is not all ... Velvia is the absolute pits for tonal gradation and dynamic range. Worse than Kodachrome. Far worse color rendition than digital. Doug McDonald On Oct 13, 6:32 am, u...@domain.invalid wrote: > BUT resolution is not all ... Velvia is the absolute pits for > tonal gradation and dynamic range. Worse than Kodachrome. Far worse > color rendition than digital. Once again, repeating false, old "truths". When did you last use film? On Oct 13, 2:04 am, u...@domain.invalid wrote: > Typical out of order retort!!! Of course you can't do that > BUT YOU CAN'T DO IT WITH FILM EITHER! Typical uniformed nonsense. Oh yes I most definitely can do that with film! I can rescan it at higher rez anytime. > You can't upgrade your > obsolete film E-4 Ektachrome, can you! I don't have to. All I have to do is print it or scan it. It's there to be used at ANY rez, anytime. > Except in cases where sensors of adequate resolution are > not yet available, digital completely eclipses film. Total uninformed, unsubstantiated bull. > It's true that digital has not QUITE the resolution yet > to absolutely beat 35mm Kodachrome using a 35mm or APS size sensor ... It doesn't have to. > you need a Hasselblad or Leaf camera. But the very next generation > of Canons ... the 5D Mk III ... will do so ... it will have the > pixel density of the 50D in full frame. I've been hearing about this "next generation" rubbish for YEARS. Anytime soon it'll arrive. As if it was here now. Yeah. sure. > The 5D Mk II is there > in "information content", no it isn't. Haven't seen ONE example of the 5D yet that has the claimed resolution across the ENTIRE image. > Of course, large format Velvia will eclipse even the best Leaf. So > would large format K64. And medium format as well. You really should try it out instead of hot air. >On Oct 13, 2:04 am, u...@domain.invalid wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Oh yes I most definitely can do that with film! >I can rescan it at higher rez anytime. The way you get more resolution from film is to convert it to digital? And that makes film better than digital, eh? Hilarious. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com Floyd L. Davidson wrote,on my timestamp of 13/10/2008 8:32 AM: >>> Typical out of order retort!!! Of course you can't do that >>> BUT YOU CAN'T DO IT WITH FILM EITHER! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The way you get more resolution from film is to convert it to > digital? And that makes film better than digital, eh? No, dickhead. The resolution is there to start with. You just extract as much as you need. Twist it all you want, fact is you don't have a clue about film. Period. > Hilarious. While you laugh, film users have enjoyed 20MP out of film for DECADES. That's right: all you can do is a joke. >Floyd L. Davidson wrote,on my timestamp of 12/10/2008 2:38 AM: >>> Kodachrome. When to use it? When you want long-lasting images. My [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >them in 20 years", only a moron like you could have >derived that one... Lacking any validity, you are reduced to gratuitous personal insults. The fact is that if you had looked, you would have noticed that they had faded 20 years ago. >> The fact is that 500 years from now there are going to be >> digital images taken today that will look *exactly* the same >> then as they do now. > >Jury still out on that one. Been reading any stored >in a removable disk from the 90s? In fact I do that almost every day. >> Analog, just like film... and your example is a good one for >> why information data has been slowly moving to digital every [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Here we go with the totally irrelevant crap >about "information theory".... Something you should have learned a long time ago... >> Every PC produced today has the ability to read 5-1/4 floppies! > >Really? Where? >And what about Syquest removable drives? Who cares if a Syquest drive can be read? (For that matter, it makes no difference if a 5-1/4" floppy can either. Everything of significance was backed up on Winchester technology drives, has been appropriately maintained, and is quite available today. And it will be exactly the same in 500 years if anyone decides to keep it that long.) >>> When to use it? When you want more megapixels that any DSLR will give >>> you. When you want SLIDES. When you want subtle gradations of tone and >>> color that the current pixel count cannot achieve. >> If you want more resolution, go with a digital system. > >Total bull. And that's why Canon and Nikon are currently making digital cameras that are limited by the resolving power of the lens rather than the film... Eat crow. It's a fact, not a bull. You need to get your eyes checked? >> However, >> your example of slides is valid. If for some reason you need [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Real easy: dime a dozen in epay. >And there is one in the next room, here. But go to a school or to a company and tell them your presentation requires a slide projector. See if *they* have one... >> If you want subtle gradations, go digital. You simply cannot >> adjust the gradations when shooting film, ever. > >Total bull. And again, you can't support your claims with any valid argument at all. You want subtle gradiations with film... you get one shot, and thats it. The gradiation on the film isn't easy to change. (Yes, it can be, but look at the process required to do it!) On the other hand, a $300 el cheapo computer can make even finer and more subtle adjustments to the gradiation of almost any digital image. A 10 year old can learn how to do it too! >>> Slides. When you want the color you see to be what you took (within the >>> coloration of the film) because you are not beholden to a commercial [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Can you also change the resolution the original >image was takne with? Yes, to a much greater degree than can be done with film. With film, you can't. Period. Once it has been developed, that's it, no "redevelopment" is possible. Digital cameras can save the sensor data, and it can be converted to an image multiple times, at any time. >As in: upgrade your >obsolete digital crap and end up with the old >images at higher megapixels and higher resolution? >Thought not, but I'm sure you'll jump in with all >sorts of crap... You aren't making sense. Do you think buying a new film camera, or a new type of film, will make your old pictures have a higher resolution???? >> But please don't post bullshit here claiming it has attributes >> that do not exist, or that it beats out electronic sensors in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >making all sorts of bull claims about digital >sensors. Giggle snort. You have a well developed ego filled with bias, but no facts and no logic. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >it that long.) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cameras that are limited by the resolving power of the lens > rather than the film... Well, I would not know for Nikon, but Canon has the 50D. BUT, unfortunately for digital advocates like you and me .... it's a crop frame camera. The 5dMk III, a 40 megapixel digital full frame camera, will end this argument for Kodachrome or Velvia once and for all. > But go to a school or to a company and tell them your > presentation requires a slide projector. See if *they* have > one... Of course we do. Several. And they, rarely, actually get used. Doug McDonald > Well, I would not know for Nikon, but Canon has the 50D. BUT, > unfortunately for digital advocates like you and me .... it's > a crop frame camera. The 5dMk III, a 40 megapixel digital full > frame camera, will end this argument for Kodachrome or Velvia once and > for all. This one is available now: http://www.adorama.com/HSCF39MSH2K.html Plus some additional lenses. SignaturePeter "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in news:48f52b27$0$31753 $8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com: >> Well, I would not know for Nikon, but Canon has the 50D. BUT, >> unfortunately for digital advocates like you and me .... it's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Plus some additional lenses. That's a medium format camera. > "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in news:48f52b27$0$31753 > $8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > That's a medium format camera. Yup! SignaturePeter > >You really haven't got a clue about Kodachrome, do you? > >"store it in the dark" does NOT mean "not looked at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > insults. The fact is that if you had looked, you would have > noticed that they had faded 20 years ago. Like I said: only a moron like you could claim "store it in the dark" is the same as "not looked at them in 20 years". It's there for anyone to see, your imbecile claim. > >> The fact is that 500 years from now there are going to be > >> digital images taken today that will look *exactly* the same [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > In fact I do that almost every day. Sure.... And I'm the Dalai Lama. > Something you should have learned a long time ago... What, that you post irrelevant crap? I did. > >> Every PC produced today has the ability to read 5-1/4 floppies! > > >Really? Where? > >And what about Syquest removable drives? > > Who cares if a Syquest drive can be read? Of course. And all Syquest users were "idiots" because they could not predict the future. And you just proved the point that you have NO CLUE what you are talking about: when faced with evidence you LIED, you claim "who cares": the refuge of the imbecile. > >Total bull. > > And that's why Canon and Nikon are currently making digital > cameras that are limited by the resolving power of the lens > rather than the film... They are making film cameras? You really don't know what you talking about, do you? > Eat crow. It's a fact, not a bull. You need to get your eyes > checked? Anytime you care to show me CONCRETE and REAL examples of ANY of your imbecile claims, I'm all ears. Until then, you're nothing but another hot air Usenet shill, pushing his digital p&s little "online business". > But go to a school or to a company and tell them your > presentation requires a slide projector. See if *they* have > one... I'll take mine. Unlike the idiotic digital projectors, a slide projector takes seconds to setup. And I can guarantee you NO public school I know of has a quality hirez digital projector. > And again, you can't support your claims with any valid argument > at all. You want subtle gradiations with film... you get one > shot, and thats it. The gradiation on the film isn't easy to > change. (Yes, it can be, but look at the process required to do > it!) You claimed it couldn't be. And now you claim: yes it can be. I wish you'd stop embarassing yourself in public... It's there, to be seen by all! > On the other hand, a $300 el cheapo computer can make even finer > and more subtle adjustments to the gradiation of almost any > digital image. A 10 year old can learn how to do it too! Really? you keep posting that nonsense that 8-bit jpg images can be extensively edited, someone will call you up on that, eventually. How about showing PROOF of your idiotic claims? For once? > >Can you also change the resolution the original > >image was takne with? > > Yes, to a much greater degree than can be done with film. Oh really? How exactly do you do that? > With > film, you can't. Period. Once it has been developed, that's > it, no "redevelopment" is possible. It doesn't NEED any redevelopment, moron: it's already got MUCH HIGHER resolution than any digital sensor will EVER achieve. > Digital cameras can save the sensor data, and it can be > converted to an image multiple times, at any time. What's that got to do with increased resolution, moron? > You aren't making sense. Do you think buying a new film camera, > or a new type of film, will make your old pictures have a higher > resolution???? They ALREADY have higher resolution, moron. All that is needed is to extract it. Something that can be done at ANY time, now or later. > >He didn't say that. It's actually YOU who is > >making all sorts of bull claims about digital > >sensors. > > Giggle snort. You have a well developed ego filled with bias, & |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message