Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
Odd. I don't get anything. It may be because I'm on a Mac, but I don't know. I dislike ActiveX myself.
Nikon going out of the film camera business
- Thread starter Byuphoto
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 256
- Views 12K
C
ch1
Guest
But what I really want to know is where are you getting all of these new "smilies" RJ?
Got a "secret sauce"* you're not telling us about?
*RFF DISCLAIMER: This is a visual "pun" created by taking advantage of the confusing American English language (i.e. I know that "source" would be the correct usage - by using "sauce" I am trying to make a joke!!)
Note: I am no longer using RED for these "warnings" because they may be misunderstood as serious!
Got a "secret sauce"* you're not telling us about?
*RFF DISCLAIMER: This is a visual "pun" created by taking advantage of the confusing American English language (i.e. I know that "source" would be the correct usage - by using "sauce" I am trying to make a joke!!)
Note: I am no longer using RED for these "warnings" because they may be misunderstood as serious!
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
I wonder how Bill's opening went. I hope he didn't pick up a pack of cigs on the way home.
R.J.
R.J.
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
I see. From code red to code yellow.
That's a good thing.
R.J.
That's a good thing.
R.J.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
RJBender said:
My opening went great, thanks! No smokes. I sold one of the two pieces I had on display within the first hour - and I have a month to sell the other (that's how long it will hang there). It was an enormous boost to the ol' ego.
Stopped for Chinese on the way home, got in late, drank too many beers to celebrate, went to bed.
I am now sitting here in the dark, waiting for my coffee to be ready. I have to drive to Raleigh to attend a "Right to Life" rally (street photography, not making a statement), go to work to do some nasty server business with Informix, and attend a Hispanic outreach meeting this evening. It is going to be a full day. The dogs are barking in the back yard, I gotta let 'em in - it's 6:30 in the blessed a.m.
You guys will have to soldier on without me here to make 'film is dead' comments and get ever buddy riled up.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
S
Socke
Guest
copake_ham said:
That's very good feedback for me!
The company doing the website is a 100% Microsoft shop. I read the site with Firefox and had some fights until it worked.
The picture upload and the content editor are Active-X controlls and I configured all the office PCs not to accept Active-X and ActiveScripting and such things, all to Microsofts specs for Internet connected PCs.
But when it turned out that nobody could edit one page or upload a picture, and the webdesign company couldn't redesing there system we turned Acrive-X and Scripting on again.
We'll hopefully have something better next year!
Bryan Lee
Expat Street Photographer
Socke said:
It looked to be a very nice website, How many sports do you have there?
S
Socke
Guest
copake_ham said:
A six days indoor bicycle race. One of the biggest left in Europe. They were sporting events comparable to formula one once. Today it's still a big event with 20,000 to 30,000 visitors a day but it's not on TV anymore.
The indoor races are very important for the young professional racers to make themselfs known to the teams which take part in races like the Tour de France and we have one who was the best sprinter on last years Tour.
I'll see if I get some snaps, I'm not that good at shooting sports and for obvious reasons I carry a rangefinder with a 45mm lens only at the moment 🙂
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
The end of Nikonography
The end of Nikonography
source:http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1686581,00.html
R.J.
The end of Nikonography
source:http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1686581,00.html
R.J.
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
S
Socke
Guest
RJBender said:
From the same article:
If he'd written that two years ago, I might have believed that. My three year old D60 produces files with good colour rendition and detail one can expect at that resolution and, depending on the lens, very sharp but not huge.
The pictures I get at the moment from Canon 1DMkIIs and Nikon D2Xs are better than everything I've seen from scanned slide film, the PJs shoot at ISO400 and 800 with results no slide film can match under this circumstances.
And I get the pictures right after the last race.
That is why PJs jumped on the digital bandwagon!
bmattock
Veteran
Socke said:
I disagree - with my *ist DS, I cannot tell much about the quality of one M42 lens versus another - mount the same lenses on my Bessaflex and scan the negs, and I can see 'good' versus 'bad' in terms of lens quality. I love my DSLR, but it simply cannot resolve to a level where I can see the difference, and film (for the moment) can.
I agree with the article that this will change - digital will continue to improve until there is no difference, or digital is even higher quality than film. I doubt it will take ten years.
Depends on what 'results' are important to you. Good color rendition, good contrast, high enough quality to print your typical 4x6 and a few 8x10's, no problem agreeing with what you said. But I can crop the heck out of a 35mm frame and still enlarge it a bunch and get good quality - I simply cannot do that with a 6.2 mp DSLR. "Better" is subjective - my results with my DSLR do not come close to matching slide film, but they are more than acceptable for most of the uses I put them to. That's different - but I would not call it 'better'.
They jumped on for the speed, as you mentioned above, yes. Also because when a news organization changes, it tends to change more-or-less uniformly. They all began to move towards digital a couple of digital generations ago - the transformation is more or less complete, almost down to the offset printing (news stories on that, Agfa is leading the way - not Agfa Photo, of course). Point is, a PJ joining the ranks now doesn't shoot digital because it is fast or because it is better quality. He or she shoots digital because that's the requirement. There is no discussion there - at the national level, of course. Naturally, exceptions exist, but that's pretty much it.
PJ's went to digital so early that their first bunch of DSLR's are now hitting eBoy sales, the Kodak / Nikon early DCS models. They bought 'em by the thousands. I can't remember the last time I saw a PJ working for news media who was not carrying a Canon DSLR and a big white zoom. I did meet one who had an M6 also - but that was for his own shots, he explained. His paper (small town Missouri newspaper) didn't even have the means to process film anymore.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
S
Socke
Guest
bmattock said:
I see the differences between a Sigma 28-70/2.8-4 and a Canon 24-70L, maybe your lenses are just to good 🙂
In an 8x12 Frontier print from scanned slides out of my Contax G and 45/2 or files from my Canon D60 with 35/2 I see no big difference and 90% of my prints are 5x7!
I have only one problem with the Canon, it is not a rangefinder!
bmattock
Veteran
Socke said:
Or too bad, more likely. Recently, I went out with a half-dozen M42 50mm's from various manufacturers, from Germany and Japan. I have no "L" level glass.
Mounted on my DSLR, the only differences I could note were minimum focus distance and color cast. Enlarged to 100% view in The Gimp, they all looked the same. With film on my Bessaflex, I can see that the Pentax SMC 50mm 1.4 is an awesome lens by scanning Kodak Gold 100 with my KM SD IV - compared to my Isco 50mm, it looks like the Isco was made with sandpaper and rocks. It is that dramatic.
I agree, and I don't believe you would see a difference at that level. However, try a 20x30, or just try to crop 2/3 of the frame and print THAT at 8x12 - the film clearly wins in terms of 'still got some resolution left to it'.
Don't get me wrong - you know my position on digital and how much I love my DSLR - I'll never again shoot a wedding or event with film. But the requirements for quality truly differ in these circumstances, and 'good enough' combined with 'fast workflow' make my DSLR the winner - not 'absolute quality' with no other concerns. For flat-out, quality over everything else, I still feel that film, even 35mm film, beats most consumer-level and enthusiast-level digital cameras. Now past 6 mp, I don't know, because I have no experience with it. But just based on what I see with mine, I'd guess something like 25 mp would be required to match absolute quality of a typical 35mm color print frame scanned at 4000 dpi and taken with a good lens.
Am I making better sense now? Sorry if I was confusing.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
S
Socke
Guest
No Bill, I'm with you.
Your scanner is better than mine, I get 2700dpi from my old Canon FS2710 and go to a very good lab with a realy big Fuji Frontier if I need more than this can deliver.
It the Canon scanner fails I might buy the KM as I won't get anything like my Contax Gs in a digital version, so I'll shoot film as long as they work and then look for a holographic camera like the Holodoc on the Voyager has 🙂
Your scanner is better than mine, I get 2700dpi from my old Canon FS2710 and go to a very good lab with a realy big Fuji Frontier if I need more than this can deliver.
It the Canon scanner fails I might buy the KM as I won't get anything like my Contax Gs in a digital version, so I'll shoot film as long as they work and then look for a holographic camera like the Holodoc on the Voyager has 🙂
DougK
This space left blank
I'm slowly coming to agree with Bill. Going a bit OT here, but hey, we've alrady been all over the map with this thread, so why not?
I went to an orchid show yesterday and took my digital camera (Olympus C-707WZ, 7MP) instead of the film camera I wanted to. Mostly I just thought of playing with framing options and trying shots I might want to go back and replicate later with film. The light was dodgy both indoors and out, tough shooting conditions.
The results? Good enough for 8x10s, including significant cropping on several shots, and that's my normal quality measure. I could even get 11x14 out of most of the uncropped shots with no sweat if I had a printer that big. I'm most impressed with the way the camera sticks to the lowest ISO possible before it bumps up (I left it in auto ISO and JPEG mode just to test it). In fact, it hung on to ISO 80 when I normally would have bit the bullet and shifted up. Colors were vibrant without being unnatural and the default sharpness is even a touch on the soft side, very easy to adjust. I can't wait to try RAW mode and see what I can produce.
Am I done with film? Not yet, especially not for black-and-white, but I think I may be done with color film once I burn up my existing stock.
I went to an orchid show yesterday and took my digital camera (Olympus C-707WZ, 7MP) instead of the film camera I wanted to. Mostly I just thought of playing with framing options and trying shots I might want to go back and replicate later with film. The light was dodgy both indoors and out, tough shooting conditions.
The results? Good enough for 8x10s, including significant cropping on several shots, and that's my normal quality measure. I could even get 11x14 out of most of the uncropped shots with no sweat if I had a printer that big. I'm most impressed with the way the camera sticks to the lowest ISO possible before it bumps up (I left it in auto ISO and JPEG mode just to test it). In fact, it hung on to ISO 80 when I normally would have bit the bullet and shifted up. Colors were vibrant without being unnatural and the default sharpness is even a touch on the soft side, very easy to adjust. I can't wait to try RAW mode and see what I can produce.
Am I done with film? Not yet, especially not for black-and-white, but I think I may be done with color film once I burn up my existing stock.
C
ch1
Guest
dkirchge said:
Couldn't help but to check where this thread has gone.
Seems to me that for PJ and other "competitive" uses - one would be so far behind with film as to forget about it.
During the dark days post-9/11 here in NYC the NY Times had a brief aritcle about how the immediacy need for images by the media that horrible day "proved" the triumph of digital imaging over film photography.
Since then, it has only gotten more and more certain that any kind of event-reporting requires digital - espescially now that high end DSLRs can be directly linked to the web for immediate image transmission.
In addition, it is clear that the P&S and Prosumer markets are now "dominantly" digital.
So the question really becomes whether or not there is a "niche" for film photography?
I beleive that there is, but that it will increasingly be a narrow "fine arts" plus "hobbyist" endeavor.
And, more sadly, I think that the ultimate "death of film" will mark a sad milestone. I have not seen the article itself - only a reference to it in another publication (which I read on the Web!) but there is a telling article in The New Statesman wherein the author (quire properly in my opinion) excoriates the current digital industry as producing mediocre replacements for once fine goods!
Doesn't mean a damn to say so - it will keep happening. But I do think we've become so "throw away" that we've tossed out the baby!
Sorry for the rant - back to Brett's "useless" thread!
Similar threads
