That's it I'm done chasing technolgy...

sitemistic said:
So, Chris, just curious. Now that you have your slides on the light table, what are you going to do with them? Put them into a carousel tray and do a slide show? Make some big Cibacrome prints? Scan them and post them on the web? Or just admire that little 24x36 square of acetate?
Click to expand...
I can tell you that's pretty much what I do, except the Cibachrome.
It's so great to be able to view my slides as big as I like in my $200 Kodak projector instead of having to shell out $4000 for a near-photo quality digital one. I still haven't seen a digital projector be able give me as nice a projection as a well-exposed slide!
Then I can scan the same slides with my Minolta Scan Multi (does up to 6x9 format), post them here or make inkjet prints at home, or higher quality prints at the lab. Oh yeah, I can still get Cibachromes done if I want too, although that is becoming more rare.
Finally, all my slides are easy to find any time, stored as they are in their neat little binders.
Yep, shooting slides certainly gives you far more choices than digital capture!
 
sitemistic said:
So, Chris, just curious. Now that you have your slides on the light table, what are you going to do with them? Put them into a carousel tray and do a slide show? Make some big Cibacrome prints? Scan them and post them on the web? Or just admire that little 24x36 square of acetate?
Click to expand...


Damn! You caught me.

Okay, I scanned them late last night but ONLY so the wife could go through them and pick something to upload on my Imac via my DSL connection to Shutterfly to make Christmas cards with. And, of course, I did a little dirt/dust fixing in Photoshop.

But it was nice to go "old school" at the lab and reminisce of times past. If only for a few minutes.


a la' Homer: "mmmmmm......Cibachrome"
 
Last edited:
toyotadesigner said:
Scan them and have some prints made. Up to 5 feet wide and almost any length at highest resolution ..................... What a waste of time :eek:
Click to expand...


ermmm , hmmm... so what do you really think? ;- )

Jan
 
read Alain Briot's piece on the 1 Ds MarkII... quite impressive. Alain is a long time user of 4x5 and most of his images from the past 10 years were 4x5. His criteria are 'its good for fast workflow and web info' and the trade off is worth it to him.

However there is one constraint.. $$ now that is exceptionally impressive and it's also a cost benefit factor.
 
Last edited:
sitemistic said:
I've been at this game for a long time and every time there is an advance in photography and cameras, there are folks that trot out the same tired, old arguments.

Ever seen a 60 inch print from a 1Ds Mk III? Jaw dropping, even at ISO 400.
Click to expand...

Ever seen a 72 inch projection screen filled with a fujichrome image from a $20.00 piece of crap point and shoot?

Beats the snot out of your 1Ds Mk III!

In most quarters there will be no issue with digital cameras. Not really. However, technology can advance faster than the concept of a good image it seems. Technology won't make a crappy concept anything more than a more "jaw dropping" crappy concept.

In my many years on this planet almost everything, of a technological nature has been replaced with the newer version. Us humans can't seem to stay away from the sparkly stuff for long. In this consumer driven society. "New is better!" we seem to say. We have said this for thousands of years.

A truly new idea would be to express ourselves by using our natural human cleverness and creativity. Bugger the 1Ds Mk III, and the thousands of silly do dads that will come after it.
 
IMHO each government should impose an environmental tax on the digital waste.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with anything else from this post, but this makes sense.

I foolishly tried to sell a CRT computer monitor a couple of years back. It was a very good quality Sony monitor, so it must be worth something, right? I eventually took it to my town dump where it sat with many other computer monitors. Lord only knows where it eventually went....:(
 
TD, awesome, :D

I am in my own world, the lone ranger with my F3HP. I like shooting slides, black and white. I am not chasing technology. My quest is to make better and better photos, for myself, and the pure enjoyment, to be proud of what I have created.

Slides, Black & White, will prevail, and I do not need to compare pixels, sensors, nor the latest tech advances.

I load a roll of Neopan 400, and I just go out. My camera can still be serviced, which it was earlier this year.

Choice of film, lens, aperture, F stop, focus, advance the film, press the shutter!
I just care to be simple. I don't want to spend time operating the camera. I want the shot.

I do not want to investigate, compare, ask questions, about technology, and get in a wirl wind about things.

My technology is the film emlusion - and Fuji has that for me! :D

Cheers
Mark
Quito, EC
 
Here's the link to the piece by Briot I mentioned above. It will answer both sides of your arguments. Strangely you will both be able to see you're right according to his criteria and yours also.

'Image quality'.. vs 'through put' is what 'toyota' and 'mistic' are discussing respectively. There really isn't an argument here.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml
 
I sense more heat than light in the last several replies.

Technology marches on inexorably. You can fight it or not, but it marches on. I drive a 1971 Datsun 240z. By choice. I use Parker fountain pens from the 1930s. By choice. I shoot a Leica IIIf and a Nikon F3HP. I also own, and shoot a Nikon D70. As an IT consultant, I want pretty current computer technology.

Every choice has consequences, and those consequences are weighed and borne by the chooser. Why is there any need to browbeat anyone else over your personal choices?
 
sitemistic said:
Actually, I think toyotadesigner is becoming offensive and racist, so I'll step aside.
Click to expand...
Way to keep it cool! :cool:
Sounds like we've got someone who's all coked-up with no place to go! :eek:
 
hou baloo said:
I sense more heat than light in the last several replies.

Technology marches on inexorably. You can fight it or not, but it marches on. I drive a 1971 Datsun 240z. By choice. I use Parker fountain pens from the 1930s. By choice. I shoot a Leica IIIf and a Nikon F3HP. I also own, and shoot a Nikon D70. As an IT consultant, I want pretty current computer technology.

Every choice has consequences, and those consequences are weighed and borne by the chooser. Why is there any need to browbeat anyone else over your personal choices?
Click to expand...


i wonder if there were heated debates like we seem to be having when the f3 came out from the "rangefinder crowd"? rf'ers concerned with mobility and quiet, lack of battery needs and fewer choices to distract from actually taking pictures. f3'ers concerned with mass quantities of ultra sharp & fast multicoated lenses, ultra fast winders with built-in rewind capabilities, lots of fun finders to play with and a polaroid back for instant gratification.

finances aside, are the foundations of this discussion all that different?

- cs
 
toyota... I think you see my point. Briot clearly demonstrates the resolution of the images by an "a/b" comparison of film and digital images in favour of film. What he also discusses is the convenience and 'process orientation for his classes, web site etc'

What I suggested was you both read the piece. Briot has made a decision to trade lesser image quality for his commercial endeavours. It's an apples/oranges debate you and mistic are having.

Like Hou balou notes its trade offs and personal preferences. Obviously you both have different criteria. That's what makes the world an interesting place.
 
I'm glad someone else read the Briot piece and noticed how awful the Canon came across. I suppose, tough, if your primary use foryour photos is posting on a web page, it may be worth the loss in quality.

Sitemistic, if you're still reading (hope you are), I do like to use my slides on the light table and in the projector. I use slides for things that have to be recordd accurately.

Art students in this area are heavy slide users too-seems the professors require it, as the images and color are not so subject to manipulation.
 
Most of you are basically braying about your own neuroses and attempting to use impressive sounding scientific terms to bolster an insane argument.

But once you start declaring that chemical-based films have "soul" as opposed to "souless" electronic imaging devices, you've lost it.

You can all claim membership in the "born yesterday" club.

If you're a student of old photo magazines, every time there has been a shift in technology, say, from glass plates to "film", there has been this same raving and similar impassioned and angry arguments pointing out the superiority of one technology over the other.

Or in the audio magazines, people got hysterical about "Linn Sondeks" and belt drives as opposed to direct turntable drives.

The steady improvement of electronic sensors will soon render all this moot.

If you like film, fine. I like film, and I also like digital cameras. You're not running a evangelical camp meeting.

PS: Try using film to produce these images for transmittal to earth. I believe the Mars Rover Hi-Def camera is only something like 2.1 megapixels?

vl2_p21873.jpg
 
These are with a 5 year old Kodak Pro 14N full frame Nikon Mount DSLR with some crummy old 12 year old Tamron lens. Not too shabby for a terrible technology that's worthless:










.
 
Last edited:
Interesting thread. Well... not really... it was kind of disappointing really. Some of the posts took a while to read. They consisted of paragraph upon paragraph of elitist tripe that ultimately said no more than "I don't like technology". Why not just say "I don't like technology" and leave it at that?

I like all of my cameras. 4x5, 500CM, 500CX, EOS 1N, EOS 1DMkiii, and EOS 1DsMkii. Each one is better for some situations than the other. I can't imagine trying to shoot a night football game with my Linof Master Technika. Rise and fall wouldn't do me any good but low noise ISO 6400 shots taken at 1/500 sure are nice. On the other hand, a sunrise shot with the MkIII, while functional, won't touch the result of a properly exposed and scanned 4x5 neg. Some of the comments mentioned going through alot of digital images. I know there are people out there that spray and pray. Some professionals spray and pray and they seem to have good reason for doing so. If I had one complaint about the digital age it's that it promotes the spray and pray mentality. I've played with my MKIII at 10 fps just to hear what it sounds like. When I'm on the field I take one deliberate frame after another. At the most I may shoot 2 or 3 frames a second or less apart. Most shots are singles. Film will make you learn to savor every shot and too many people miss the opportunity to learn a valuable lesson when they bypass film for digital photography. That's too bad. I could go on and on with comparisons but why compare the incomparable? It makes no sense. If you don't like digital camera's don't use them. Is that so hard?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom