S
Socke
Guest
Bertram2 said:
No, only better ones than Canon offers
Film users unite
- Thread starter karmakamera
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 78
- Views: Views 4K
No, only better ones than Canon offers
Andy K
Well-known
MCTuomey said:
I can't imagine shooting that many images at an event with any camera, it just isn't the way I use a camera. If that many images are required then it makes more sense to use a high resolution video camera instead, and then edit on a computer for the best freeze frames.
That is the way digital is evolving. Eventually it will just be a high res video system built into a cellphone which you wave around you for a few hours. Once you are done you press a button and the phone sends all the captured footage direct to your home computer, which will use Photoshop 78.0 to sort through them using it's 'Cartier Bresson' filter to edit and print out the best images ready for you to view when you get home.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
MCTuomey said:
You are right.I myself sit on the fence and use both about equally (well.. more digital, really, at least in numbers) **start of rant**I always am amazed at the vehement controversies in "film vs digital" threads. These are two different media with their own strenghts and weaknesses and I would hesitate to call either one "better". How some people can get so worked up about these differences is quite beyond me, especially as they often have huge misconceptions about the system they are condemning. No: film is not ancient and passé,no: digital shooters are not photographic ignoramuses, no: the resolution and dynamic range of film and sensors is about equal: no, grain is not desirable in a large number of shots, no: grain is not a fault in a large number of other shots,no: megapixles are as (ir)relevant as lines/mm, no: sensor-size is as much of a non-issue as film format, no: the difference in end result is not an artistic issue but a matter of taste for that particular photograph, and I could fill the rest of the page with similar no's.... ***end of rant***
I do think in ten years time all these issues will be seen for the irrelevancies they are. And we will probably have something else to fight over
Last edited:
R
RML
Guest
Andy K said:
Brrr, the horror!
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
jaapv said:
jaapv,
I would not hesitate to say it is better. But I would add "for me" ! And I expect this to be respected. And I don't need lessons from anybody who wants to convince me that this is wrong !
And so all the fights have more to do with the human nature than with the issues itself:
-with a sloppy style of discussion,
-with the know-all better attitude
-with not respecting other people's decisions and opinions
- With taking critizism as offensive
Add showing off and the status issue and the brown brew is done.
This is valid for both sides of course. If people would not permanently feel the urge to justify their decisions and opinions the photo world would be much more peaceful.
It's mainly the industry which heats up this issue again and again trying to convince people to switch over to the new technology and what we do is to step into this trap and help them tp do their biz.
Everybody who can decide not care any longer about beeing on the "right side" is automatically outta this sand box for 5yo. That's easy, isn't it ?
Tolerance is made from the selfconsciousness of mature personalities btw, intolerance is a bed wetter's desease.
bertram
Socke Wrote:
> The range is certainly better than with JPEGs, no wonder since JPEGs are 8 bit and RAW contains the full 12 bit of information per pixel.
The JPEG standard includes lossless/lossy compression for 12 bit pixels as well. No one uses it as it is not part of the "baseline" (Royalty free) compression scheme. The JPEG standard also includes lossless compression for 16-bit pixels. Again, no one really implements it as an option.
JPEG has been a standard for a long time and readers that implement all of its features are not readily available. Just think of how hard it will be to read RAW files from cameras defunct 10 years or more. Myself, I've already had to write a raw convertor for my oldest Kodak digital camera. Used FORTRAN and Assembly language.
> The range is certainly better than with JPEGs, no wonder since JPEGs are 8 bit and RAW contains the full 12 bit of information per pixel.
The JPEG standard includes lossless/lossy compression for 12 bit pixels as well. No one uses it as it is not part of the "baseline" (Royalty free) compression scheme. The JPEG standard also includes lossless compression for 16-bit pixels. Again, no one really implements it as an option.
JPEG has been a standard for a long time and readers that implement all of its features are not readily available. Just think of how hard it will be to read RAW files from cameras defunct 10 years or more. Myself, I've already had to write a raw convertor for my oldest Kodak digital camera. Used FORTRAN and Assembly language.
Last edited:
S
Socke
Guest
Brian Sweeney said:
IMHO that is the biggest risk for digital archives, with cheap media a close second. I store everything as TIFF.
Nikon encrypts whitebalance data so 3rd party software can't use it to decode the pictures. The encryption is not very effective and has been broken the next day but you are in violation of the DMCA.
I'm pretty upset about this, I need a license by the camera manufacturer to see my pictures? What BS is this?
Andy K
Well-known
karmakamera said:
I can only speak for British online ordering, the fastest I have used here in Britain is Jessops who I know will ship internationally (I'm not sure if they ship as far as Singapore, but see no reason why they wouldn't). There is also Silverprint.
You could always nip over to APUG (The Analog Photography Users Group) and ask the same questions there, it has over 9,500 film using members from all over the world, I'm sure you would get the answers you require.
Last edited:
karmakamera
Member
Socke said:
The BS part is about intellectual property protection and someone potentially billing you for right to use later.
If you have taken a photo with their copyrighted software which is patented, they let you use the software for a fee. The work is yours but the software to manipulate and access the digitalised data file belongs to them.
Whereas for old film tech once Kodak or Fuji sells you their film, their liability in rare times of defect is limited to the replacement of the roll of film you have purchased. So no IP issue here. You protect you own work of art - the negative.
As usual, know your rights and consumer will have to weigh the pro and cons here.
karmakamera
Member
Andy K said:
Many thanks for your reply, Andy.
This thread on our Sister site is about Nikon encrypting their white balance information.
http://dslrexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174
http://dslrexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174
karmakamera
Member
Brian Sweeney said:
Another reason to continue to use film for creative photography.
Andy K
Well-known
I think Sony recently fell foul of the law with their 'copyright protection' code which limited the amount of times you could copy from their music CDs. I see no reason Nikon should not equally be challenged on this.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I see we agree once again, Bertram, and this is a very valid point. But I confess I do get irritated (although I try not to show it too unsubtly) by people who do fall into the megapixel or "full-frame" trap for instance. Mea culpa-everybody has a right to his/her own decisions
karmakamera
Member
Andy K said:
Hi Andy
Legal fights cost monies and big boys who hire big lawyers fight to win.
Let's just play safe and stay clear, it's a differentiate market and there
are manufacturers who plays fair, it make good sense to deal with
a fair business.
More effective to let the market forces play against people who try to "capture" the market.
Andy K
Well-known
karmakamera said:
True. Personally I don't care because there is nothing digital in my photographic workflow, so my photography cannot be controlled or interfered with by manufacturers using proprietory batteries/software etc.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Andy, re: your Orwellian view of high-volume digital sports shooting - which is both amusing and chilling, but realistically off-point.
The quality expected by the people who buy prints of their children playing futbol precludes your concept, at least for me needing to produce attractive work in the here and now. It actually makes a great deal of sense to take an enormous number of exposures using high-end telephoto lenses and high-speed AF cameras. I delete a large number of them for poor composition, OOF, and other reasons, keeping maybe 40-50% or less. I process as efficiently as my PS skills permit, upload to a site, and I'm done. For some time I did this same routine using film-based bodies. It was less productive, with poorer overall quality, much more time-consuming, and, yes, more expensive. So I switched to digital for this application. My decision only, and I leave it at that. I choose to shoot these subjects at these venues. You're right. If you decide not to undertake such an enterprise, you'll never have to shoot 1,000 exposures in 36 hours.
When I shoot for myself away from soccer pitches, I might shoot well less than a roll in a day, or more, as opportunities present themsleves. I slow down, of course. And I enjoy the pace, because it is more aligned with my own rhythms.
I would hope that this orientation to photography doesn't upset or offend your sensibility. If it does, or at least should become an object of satire in your view, I apologize. But I can't be persuaded that changing my approach to picture-taking makes sense on the basis of your erudite response. It's horses for courses, at least when time is so precious.
The quality expected by the people who buy prints of their children playing futbol precludes your concept, at least for me needing to produce attractive work in the here and now. It actually makes a great deal of sense to take an enormous number of exposures using high-end telephoto lenses and high-speed AF cameras. I delete a large number of them for poor composition, OOF, and other reasons, keeping maybe 40-50% or less. I process as efficiently as my PS skills permit, upload to a site, and I'm done. For some time I did this same routine using film-based bodies. It was less productive, with poorer overall quality, much more time-consuming, and, yes, more expensive. So I switched to digital for this application. My decision only, and I leave it at that. I choose to shoot these subjects at these venues. You're right. If you decide not to undertake such an enterprise, you'll never have to shoot 1,000 exposures in 36 hours.
When I shoot for myself away from soccer pitches, I might shoot well less than a roll in a day, or more, as opportunities present themsleves. I slow down, of course. And I enjoy the pace, because it is more aligned with my own rhythms.
I would hope that this orientation to photography doesn't upset or offend your sensibility. If it does, or at least should become an object of satire in your view, I apologize. But I can't be persuaded that changing my approach to picture-taking makes sense on the basis of your erudite response. It's horses for courses, at least when time is so precious.
Andy K
Well-known
MCTuomey said:
As I said, that is not how I use a camera. If I needed more than a thousand images then I would use a hi-res video camera and not miss a thing. Already manufacturers are combining still with video imaging in digital cameras, it is only a matter of time until the scenario I portrayed comes to pass.
I was stating my own personal preferences but that is no reason for anyone to take offense.
Btw, what is 'futbol'?
Last edited:
S
Socke
Guest
"futbol" is south american for european football or US soccer.
I heard this term both in spanish speaking cuba and from portuguese speaking brazileras.
The 1000 pictures a weekend are no problem if you have the means and the oportunity and you're willing to do it.
When I go shooting on a party I usualy come home with 200 - 300 pictures and select the 30 which will be published on a website and maybe two to five for the magazin.
It's easyer to fire away with people who are there to party and not to pose for a camera. They want their picture but you have maybe two minutes to get it and at least one person will run between the subjects and the camera when you shoot
Usualy pictures like this
The people like that and visit the sponsors website to look at their pictures and buy the magazin which makes everybody happy
I heard this term both in spanish speaking cuba and from portuguese speaking brazileras.
The 1000 pictures a weekend are no problem if you have the means and the oportunity and you're willing to do it.
When I go shooting on a party I usualy come home with 200 - 300 pictures and select the 30 which will be published on a website and maybe two to five for the magazin.
It's easyer to fire away with people who are there to party and not to pose for a camera. They want their picture but you have maybe two minutes to get it and at least one person will run between the subjects and the camera when you shoot
Usualy pictures like this
The people like that and visit the sponsors website to look at their pictures and buy the magazin which makes everybody happy