mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
emraphoto
Veteran
"the only valid print is a contact print"
what did i miss?
what did i miss?
AgentX
Well-known
The sarcasm.
bmattock
Veteran
I paid $349 USD for my most recent dSLR, a Pentax K200D body. I already had a selection of lenses for it, but even if I did not, good primes cost less than $75 USD and used zooms go for about the same price.
So...
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
It's kinda funny, but the OP was not about film vs digital, but very few people really understood the question. A lot of folks went down the film/digital rat hole, which was amusing.
I'm glad John said what he did about the "real" pros being equipped with a little toy or beat up Leica. Guess I'll fit in next weekend with my OM and 35SP, nary a long lens on me.
I'm glad John said what he did about the "real" pros being equipped with a little toy or beat up Leica. Guess I'll fit in next weekend with my OM and 35SP, nary a long lens on me.
emraphoto
Veteran
i often do that.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I'm uncomfortable with the paradigm of selecting a frame from a video stream. Opens the door wide(r) for photography with no involvement.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Fred -- it is because it makes it so much easier for one to be less present in the moment, less involved and observant, less engaged. I can see situations where it is an advantage, but for the decisive moment genre as we know it, it's not the same, IMO.
I'm not saying it's wrong or bad in absolute terms, just that it feels uncomfortable to me. I don't mean to hijack the thread, but since video seems to be the next area of growth in digital imaging, the thoughts came bubbling up.
I'm not saying it's wrong or bad in absolute terms, just that it feels uncomfortable to me. I don't mean to hijack the thread, but since video seems to be the next area of growth in digital imaging, the thoughts came bubbling up.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Is selecting a photo from a video stream really that different than selecting an image from life? Can't we treat the video stream as a delayed broadcast? And how is it all that different from zipping through a dozen frames with a motorized Nikon F back in 1963, and the editor circling a frame on the contact sheet with red grease pencil?
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Or Walter Iooss' 14fps Canon F-1's from back in the day. Look at the sports photos that camera yielded. Video is the obvious next step.
amateriat
We're all light!
Point taken, but that editor was checking out a page of 20 or 36 frames back then; with video capture, one is likely to be scanning dozens of not hundreds of frames for "the one", assuming it's in there (and there's no guarantee that it is, even at 60fps or more). There is such a thing as scanning the scene but missing the moment. Technology can do but so much to mitigate that.
- Barrett
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I don't use motor drives and I don't do sports photos. . Well, ocassionally an ad hoc sports shot, but my frame of reference here is more "street" and documentary pj. But like I said, it's just my own preference not a judgement on the technology or those who use it.
. Well, ocassionally an ad hoc sports shot, but my frame of reference here is more "street" and documentary pj. But like I said, it's just my own preference not a judgement on the technology or those who use it.
amateriat
We're all light!
Yes, though what was novel then has now become a tad banal.
The photo agency I worked for got first dibs on Canon's then-new EOS-1 RS. There was even a Canon two-page ad of an Olympic diver shot by one of us with the RS. That kind of firepower, regardless of medium, can be useful in certain instances, but it also requires perhaps even more concentration, not less, to get the most of it. And it's amazing how much stuff you end up blowing at such velocity. Oddly enough, I started to regard this as more of a fuss than it was worth. I take my cuts a frame at a time, now, even with my (slower) motors.
- Barrett
BOSS65
Member
Digital is here to stay. It will take many form forms in vehicles that haven’t been invented yet. I have wondered if the difference between the digital era and the film era is how images are lost. Those of us old enough can remember the shoe boxes or scrapbooks of cherished or forgotten images. The photographs existed until someone destroyed them. Often those forgotten or discarded photographs find their way to a resale shop to be appreciated by a collector. But, when I talk to the casual photographer today, photos are shown to friends and family via the camera screen and………deleted. Photos are posted on websites, emailed and shared electronically. I hear people say they have photographs on their computer and never seem to get around printing or organizing them. What images survive 20 or fifty years from now?
Tuolumne
Veteran
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I know you are trying to be funny here, but if an EMP bomb disaster strikes, taking pictures will be the last thing on my mind.
Digital is here to stay, film isn't coming back. By 2012, Kodak may even have stopped making film.
Pappy
-
What is it with some of you guys? Coming back from where?
Film is here and will still be here for awhile. Enjoy!
"Canon QL17 GIII
Leica CL 40mm Summicron-C 50mm Hexanon
Yashica Electro 35 GSN"
Them's all film cameras, no?
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Sure, film is still around, and I'm still using my film rangefinders.
The trend going forward is headed in a downward direction. Hence, the "film isn't coming back" meme. It's trending towards non-existence faster than the career of a politician caught in a juicy scandal...
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Juicy scandals haunt politicians who are unwilling to make a disclosure quickly enough and on their own. The preemptive disclosure is impossible to counter.