Using outdated film language on digital seems odd somehow.

[dee]

Shutter speeds , no shutter.
iSO no film
Even aperture electronically set .
Conversion from different sensor sizes to 35 MM. which many have never known .... Do you know of any other use age of old language used in the modern age ?
Obviously , we need a stabilising language , but will it persist in 20 years or so ?

Curious to ponder ....

dee

 

[Bill Clark]

Hi dee,

My digital cameras have a shutter with most a focal plane type.

The ISO is a method used to determine sensitivity to light. Film uses one way and digital with electronics, kind of, simply, like turning up the volume on your radio but more involved than that.

The aperture can be set by the camera or set by the photographer in manual mode, same as some film cameras.

Even in the modern age, many of the terms used in Photoshop originiated from analog photography such as dodge and vignette to mention two. I consider two of the most important features of Photoshop are layers and blending.

I believe we have a language many understand.

Forgive my response as, truth be known, I'm just a nerd.

 

[shawn]

Most digital cameras have shutters. Your Fuji certainly does. The difference is that on a mirrorless camera the shutter is open almost all of the time for liveview. When you take a picture the shutter quickly closes, opens for the amount of time set in the shutter speed (to take the exposure), closes (to end the exposure) and then reopens again for liveview.

ISO is the international organization for standard. They defined a method of measuring a films sensitivity to light and they did the same for digital. I'm sure there are ISO standards numbers for each, people just use ISO for short.

Aperture is no different between film or digital. Just an opening in a lens for light to pass through. Being electrically set makes no difference, still talking about a ratio between the size of the opening in the lens and the focal length of the lens. Plenty of film cameras had electrically set apertures too.

Shawn

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Where is Develop in the Lightroom... 🙂

 

[farlymac]

Where is Develop in the Lightroom... 🙂

I'm still looking for the Rodinal pre-set.

PF

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

Shutter speeds , no shutter.
iSO no film
Even aperture electronically set .
Conversion from different sensor sizes to 35 MM. which many have never known .... Do you know of any other use age of old language used in the modern age ?
Obviously , we need a stabilising language , but will it persist in 20 years or so ?

Curious to ponder ....

dee

I'm going to have to simply point out that the usage isn't wrong...but your understanding of the terms apparently is.

 

[Darthfeeble]

Have you some alternative suggestions? I am perfectly comfortable with all that you have brought up, while the mechanics are slightly different, the functions are all the same. Is it just digital that puts you off?

 

[Prest_400]

35mm focal equivalens do make sense IMO. Indeed APS is the new 135 in usage but Full frame is still there and has been a standard for 60? Years and counting.
Some do say that 35mm FF is like the new Medium Format in Digital.

I found what is the legacy of print sizes et al. 35mm is just about 2:3 but the classic print sizes based on 4:5 plate and sheet film, requires mostly cropping! I think the only most established/standard 2:3 print size was 4x6" and perhaps 8x12"...



<Beamed through Tapatalk relay>

 

[dee]

Not saying it,s wrong , just odd , especially with compacts .
I certainly need the crop factor spelled out in old money .
The Pan G1 does not seem to have a shutter as such , just duration ?
Is this right ?
Dee

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Dee,

Using separate words for "shutters" in different kinds of camera sounds like an unnecessary complication. What are you going to call it? "The thing that ignores the light until you want to take a picture"? Also, I have shutters on my windows. The concept is easy to understand.

ISO stands for International Standards Organization so there can be an ISO standard for almost anything (and often is -- think of ISO 9000 and 9001).

Relative aperture is relative aperture, no matter how you set it. After all, "stops" were originally pieces of metal with holes in.

I agree that "35mm equivalents" are a bit weird, but then, so are horsepower figures instead of kilowatts and calories (actually kilocalories) instead of kilojoules. The purpose of language is communication, and all these examples work, so why change them?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Godfrey]

Not saying it,s wrong , just odd , especially with compacts .
I certainly need the crop factor spelled out in old money .
The Pan G1 does not seem to have a shutter as such , just duration ?
Is this right ?
Dee

The Panasonic G1 has a mechanical, focal plane shutter–just like the Leica M and nearly all SLRs have had since the 1960s.

Don't worry about crop factor. Learn formats and lenses for a format. For example, the Panasonic G1 is a FourThirds format camera: that means it has a sensor that is 13x17.1 mm in size. The normal lens for this size format is 25mm, a wide is 17mm, a portrait tele is 45mm, etc.

This is exactly how one understood different formats in film cameras. A 35mm camera normal is 50mm, wide is 35mm, portrait tele is 90mm. A 6x6 camera normal is 80mm, wide is 50mm, portrait tele is 150mm. And so forth. Half-frame 35mm the same thing: normal 38mm, wide 24mm, portrait tele 60mm.

There's nothing wrong with the language; it's neither confusing nor ambiguous. Crop factors are confusing AND ambiguous, they require an assumption of what the reference format is as well as what different focal lengths mean to that format. I don't use crop factors.

G

 

[css9450]

I sometimes refer to the "motor drive" in my DSLRs. Brings back memories of attaching the MD12 to my old FM2 and shooting three frames per second....

 

[zuiko85]

I would prefer to have conventional film type controls on a digital camera. A shutter speed dial/aperture ring/focus ring (that is truly manual, not fly by wire)and a DOF scale. I would want these control dials and rings to do that one function only. The current state of digital camera design and function layout is probably the reason I hold onto and use my film cameras.

When people ask why I still use film I tell them it is because that is what the cameras I like use.

 

[unixrevolution]

Shutter Speed should have *always* been called "exposure time", but it's no less correct on a digital than a film camera.

ISO is a standard for light sensitivity that applies to both digital sensors and film. No issues there.

Aperture? Same bloody thing.

The only thing different is how we capture the image. Lenses haven't changed. Light hasn't changed.

 

[shawn]

I would prefer to have conventional film type controls on a digital camera. A shutter speed dial/aperture ring/focus ring (that is truly manual, not fly by wire)and a DOF scale. I would want these control dials and rings to do that one function only. The current state of digital camera design and function layout is probably the reason I hold onto and use my film cameras.

The above is one of the reasons I enjoy my Fuji so much.

Real ISO/shutter dial, aperture and focus dial* with focus scale.



It even gives you the focus distance and DOF scale in the optical viewfinder (and EVF too). You can even configure the DOF based on two different circles of confusion. This was a big improvement over the XP1 IMO as the clutch lenses disable the focus distance in the viewfinder on the XP1... dumb dumb dumb... Fuji fixed this in the XP2.



This is the OVF, I just covered the outside to make it easier to photograph the overlay.

*Note: These are of course still focus/aperture by wire but with the "clutch" lenses and their absolute position focusing they work the same as a full manual lens. The non-clutch lenses are different in MF. And of course I can use almost any true manual focus lens on the Fuji too.

Shawn

 

[kuzano]

Yeah, Im Game...

Yeah, Im Game...

Game for throwing away all that crap knowledge I learned in the last forty years of using film. It's just too confusing for all the noobs who never shot film.

Let them make up their own crappy digital language.

Then I will promise not to use their technology to create inferior images.

How about that?:bang::bang:

 

[Dwig]

Change for change's sake is always a bad idea.

Some "old" terms don't mean much to noobies and have to be learned by rote. Both "burn" and "dodge" in Ps are examples. They make perfect sense to an old wet darkroom user but not to most film users who never printed their own images or to the new "digital unwashed". A new term without the old wet darkroom history would be worse, though. It would require that all users, regardless of experience, learn the term by rote. I still use "leading" (as in metal strips of lead placed between rows of metal type) when discussing typesetting and rarely use "line spacing". I also know what "kerning" really means (reducing the space between glyphs by carving away part of the type body on one or both of the adjoining pieces of type) though I use the modern definition (both increased and decreased spacing between glyphs) and only occasionally use "letter spacing" when speaking to noobies.

Our language is full of old terms that have been "borrowed" for a new use. When done well, where the new use is somewhat analogous to the old, they communicate effectively, and communication is the whole point.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Change for change's sake is always a bad idea.

Some "old" terms don't mean much to noobies and have to be learned by rote. Both "burn" and "dodge" in Ps are examples. They make perfect sense to an old wet darkroom user but not to most film users who never printed their own images or to the new "digital unwashed". A new term without the old wet darkroom history would be worse, though. It would require that all users, regardless of experience, learn the term by rote.

Our language is full of old terms that have been "borrowed" for a new use. When done well, where the new use is somewhat analogous to the old, they communicate effectively, and communication is the whole point.

Indeed. As I said, what about "horsepower?"

Why do we call the big flat illuminated bit on a computer a "screen"? It doesn't (or shouldn't) block things out, like a rood screen or a fire screen.

Why is a small, portable time-telling machine called a "watch" and a "montre" (= that which shows) in French?

And so forth.

Cheers,

R.

 

[f16sunshine]

Shutter speeds , no shutter.
iSO no film
Even aperture electronically set .
Conversion from different sensor sizes to 35 MM. which many have never known .... Do you know of any other use age of old language used in the modern age ?
Obviously , we need a stabilising language , but will it persist in 20 years or so ?

Curious to ponder ....

dee

I disagree. There is no reason to completely re-invent the language as it stands.

 

[emayoh]

"Do you know of any other use age of old language used in the modern age ?"

Do you "dial" a phone number?
Does it "ring" on the other end?
Do you "hang up" after the call?

Do you ever "tune in" to watch or listen to an event? Or do you watch the "footage" later? If you missed something, do you "rewind"? If you can't hear it, do you "crank it up?"

Have you watched a "trailer" for a movie?

Ever "rolled down" the window in your car? Do you leave parking passes on the "dashboard"? In some places, you may have driven in on the "turnpike."

Ever clicked on "radio buttons" on a website?

You may have a quite a long struggle ahead of you...