Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Toralf Lund]

graywolf wrote:
Now we are talking the opposite of convenience. How long does it take 
to make those 129 images and stitch them together. And then you show 
it on the Internet?

Makes a 20x24 inch camera seem rather convenient to me.
I find it interesting that all the digiheads still have to justify 
their expensive cameras. If you like it use it. If you don't stick to 
film. If you are smart, you use both for their particular strengths. 
Anyone who thinks a 35mm SLR is good for any kind of photography, will 
think the same about digital, and unless I am reading this list wrong 
that is 90% of you.

No one in their right mind thinks Joe Sixpack cares anything about 
quality, and he never bought a film camera that cost over $29.95 in 
his life. He loves digital. Nuff said?
Nah.
My concern is that he loves digital more than he loves the camera, if 
you know what I mean. He bought a digital camera just because he was 
enchanted by this magical word "digital" or because someone told him 
that everything must be digital these days. Maybe he struggles getting 
the pictures right, and would have found it easier to use film, but he 
know he can't, as, well I said it already - it must be digital.

This is what I think is a bit sad, but it's not an observation specific 
to cameras, of course...

And of course, I think we should voice our opinion when we see dubious 
claims e.g. by marketing, like the one about simplicity discussed here. 
That's not with the digital camera lover in mind, but rather thinking 
about those who want to know what camera they should buy.

--
Gonz wrote:
Yea, but if you want the ultimate, see this:
http://tinyurl.com/6zmnj
4x5 doesnt even come close.  And it doesnt have to stop there, you 
can keep going and going

rg
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Digital still cant match what you can do with a 4x5 FILM
camera and lens that costs less than a DSLR body alone.
For people who's reference of quality is 35mm or Medium
format film, sure DSLR can replace that, but it isnt
even close to 4x5 quality and wont be for quite some
time to come unless very large sensors suddenly become
cheap and all the indications are they wont.
Im am not trying to say that the average person should be
shooting 4x5 film, I'm just saying for those who know and want
really good quality, there is no affordable digital at this
time or in the near future. That is still the domain of FILM.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 
Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:34 AM
To: Cotty
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

I've only got about 9 months one mine now, but with two bodies probably
in the neighborhood of 13,000 frames and my face hurts from grinning.
It is ironic how often those who actually start to use a DSRL, thinking
they will use film cameras along with it, find that they rarely use the
film cameras anymore.
One thing to remember, is that almost all those who like digital 
used to
shoot film.  It's not as if they have no clue what shooting film is
like.  They have tried both and found digital to be more preferable 
(not
without issues, but film has issues too).  Remember I am talking about
comparably handling cameras - film SLR vs. DSLR.  When I had a Coolpix
990 P&S digital and my film cameras, I still shot film for anything
beyond quick snaps.  With a DSLR, well I sold all my film equipment.

RE: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.

[J. C. O'Connell]

Not to stay off topic so long, but

The number of truly high end digitally mastered recordings
is DWARFED by the number of analog ones. That is why audiophile
LP format fans shun digitally mastered recordings in general. 
The vast majority of them are inferior to well mastered analog.
That is why my original statement on the matter is true.
Nearly ALL of the high end vinyl issues being made today
are from analog masters, not digital. For SONIC reasons.
MOST existing digital recordings ARE inferior to good analog ones
because they are in the older unrefined early digital, 24/196K
is too new to matter.

JCO


-Original Message-
From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 12:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.


Yes, of course I'm referring to the high bit rate of current digital 
sampling systems.  Read again.  And of course you don't want to sample 
the analog stuff with digital if your final medium is going to be analog

(LP).  You want to go straight through an analog system without any 
digitization noise.  But if TODAY I want to make a recording, the best 
way is to take the data straight out of the pre-amps, digitize it at the

highest sampling rate and highest bit conversion I can get and save that

in digital form.  Then it should be reproduced digitally, i.e. high 
stream rate audio reproduction gear.  It would be a foolish "audiophile"

indeed that would attempt to take mag tape at any speed and beat that, 
loud or quiet.  nuf said.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> you obviously are not an audiophile and no nothing about
> high end or professional audio and especially nothing
> about state of the art LP reproduction. Professional analog recordings

> can and often do sound incredibly good especially those made on the on

> high speed (30 IPS) wide ANALOG tape. Early 16/20 bit 44.1/48K digital

> was the crap! Yes now that 24 bit 196KHZ sampling exists digital
> has mostly caught up to ANALOG but prior to about 1990 that didn’t
> even exist even in professional studios. Lp fans do not
> want the original analog master recordings of the 50's, 60's, and 70's
> digitized and then converted back to analog. With LPs that
> is not necessary or desireable. It DEGRADES the sound quality.
> And the concensus is that the latest digital sounds AS GOOD
> as top line analog recording , NOT "light years ahead" it. Your post
> is simply absurd. It is not analog or digital that makes for 
> a great recording, it is how far each technology is pushed.
> And one last thing, Music lovers don’t care how much better
> one format sounds WHEN THERE IS NO MUSIC, they care about
> which sounds better WHEN THE MUSIC IS PLAYING.
> JCO
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.
> 
> 
> Huh?  Analog mag tape original recordings are crap.  Especially the
> older ones before metal came along.  Horrible S/N ratio.  Thats why 
> Dolby went through such elaborate schemes to try to cut down on high 
> frequency noise, which sounds like hiss to us.  High end digital is
the 
> way to go, conventional CD's at lower bit stream rates cannot
duplicate 
> this, but higher end audio DVD's and some CD formats are now beginning

> to come out with the high bit stream rate reproduction, which is light

> years ahead of any analog recording ever made.  Digital straight from 
> the pre-amps.   Quiet periods are where you can tell the difference 
> immediately.
> 
> rg
> 
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
>>WRONG WRONG WRONG.
>>
>>The vinyl being produced today is mostly reissues of the finest
>>recordings, both musically and sonically, on very high quality thick 
>>virgin vinyl for the best possible sound quality.
>>
>>About 99 percent of these masters are ANALOG not digital because those
> 
> 
>>are the best and these recordings are GREAT MUSIC not just boring
>>demos no one wants to hear. The main reason they are economically 
>>viable is that the original LPS are rare and valuable in excellent or 
>>better condition so the $20-$30 for a good reissue seems like a 
>>bargain the discriminating music lover.
>>
>>JCO
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:06 PM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.
>>
>>
>>On 25 Aug 2004 at 21:23, Pål Jensen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Gonz wrote:
>>>
>>>Is any record company making LPs anymore?
>>>
>>>
>>>REPLY:
>>>
>>>Yes. It is a thriving business. But of course it is mostly high-end 
>>>users who are interested. Not mass market. Audiophile issues are 
>>>popular.
>>
>>
>>And few recordings (mostly digital in origin) are available in vinyl,
>>a lot of the Audiophile label recordings are esoteric and are designed
> 
> 
>>primarily to
>>display the capabilities of ones system when having your au

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Toralf Lund]

Herb Chong wrote:
all this beating about the bush. none of my P&S digital camera friends
bought one because they thought it was easier. the most important reason by
far was being able to look on the LCD after taking the picture and being
sure they got the picture they wanted.
 

I think I know a few that believed the marketing (about simplicity 
etc.)... And also, it seems like many people bought their digital camera 
for no other reason than that it was digital, if you know what I'm saying...

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Toralf Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

 

That hardly makes any difference, does it? I mean, you'll usually get a
new film with your bag of prints. Not really any extra work. You'll have
to buy one film to get you started, but then, you have to buy the flash
card to (or you might get either when buying the camera.)
Also, I think the statement that digital is easier is usually based on
the notion that involving the PC simplifies things - which is not
necessarily true.
   


 

Re: Camera to printer

[Billy Abbott]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd bet that most users printing from cards or camera direct won't be using
DSLRs.
Do the point and shoot cameras not have a problem with dust? or are they a
totally sealed unit?
They seem to be mainly sealed units - but i don;t know how sealed that 
actually makes them (gaps in plastic bodies etc). They definately don't 
expose the sensor to the air in quite the same extreme way that a DSLR 
does.

billy
--
"If you work in the Leicester Square MacDonalds, you can look out of the 
window and watch the parking meters earn more money per hour than you"
 Billy Abbott billy at cowfish dot org dot uk

Re: More 15/3.5 samples - seeking opinions

[Alan Chan]

I have finally managed to clean the inner elements of the lens to see if it 
makes any difference (the 6th element was quite dirty). They are sparkling 
clean now. However, I have noticed there are 3 bright rings (belong to 
element 3, 4 & 5/6) when looking from the front of the lens. I didn't pay 
much attention before so I do not know if they were there. Could all you 
15mm owners see if yours are the same? Hope it was not an oversight when I 
was assembling the lens. I shall conduct the final test tomorrow.  :-)

http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/15mm.jpg
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
_
Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has 
to offer. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

Re: I enjoy film

[Pat White]

Many folks seem to have had bad luck with their film processing.  In over 25
years of shooting with an SLR (Pentax since 1980), I don't think I've had
more than 1% of my pictures messed up by a lab.  I've found labs that gave
consistently bad results (greenish color cast at one, dust spots at
another), so I stopped using those ones.  For many years, I used Qalex for
my everyday 4x6s, then last year I kept getting unuseably contrasty prints.

Now I use London Drugs (only found in western Canada) for my everyday pix,
and I'm fairly pleased nearly all the time.  They print on Fuji Crystal
Archive, and the prints are ready within hours.  For enlargements, the local
pro labs give good results, and aren't that expensive.

Some of my photographically casual friends ask why I don't use Wal-Mart or
Costco for processing, since it's cheaper.  They seem to find the quality
acceptable.  Perhaps they actually are the voice of the masses.  Sometimes
they can see the difference when I point it out, but often they don't care.
So many people just want to see a tiny image on the LCD screen of their
digicam, or just email their happy snaps to their friends.  They don't seem
to care about prints anymore.  That may be the real cause for the decline in
film use.

All the same, there's usually a line-up at London Drugs, and I sometimes see
folks bringing in half-a-dozen or more 35mm films at a time.  At least here
in Victoria, film is still alive and well.

My 2001 MZ-S, my constant companion, is loaded with 2004 film, and in 2010,
when today's digital wonders are considered laughably obsolete, I'll be
using it with the amazing new 2010 films.  Am I in denial, living in a dream
world?  I sure hope not!

Pat White

Re: Camera to printer

[Rob Studdert]

On 26 Aug 2004 at 10:42, Kevin Waterson wrote:

> With the almost crisis like rush to get a camera to print without
> a PC could really create a problem with dust etc. Anybody with 
> DSLR will have had problems with dust and the CCD. If these images
> are printed without correction, then problems arise. Or do we simply
> see a booming industry in CCD cleaning kits?

I'd bet that most users printing from cards or camera direct won't be using 
DSLRs.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Herb Chong]

i have 14 lenses for my 5 Pentax bodies, but 2 of them don't count as they
are cheap kit lenses. another one is the M50/1.7 that i got with my MX in
1977 and it doesn't really count either. the 1Ds isn't fast enough to shoot
small birds even on a 400/2.8 or a 600/4 and low light AF performance is
so-so. i still intend to complete the collection of Limited and FA macros in
Pentax, but i will probably sell the long lenses. for the foreseeable
future, i will be shooting both Pentax and Canon, but each in its
specialized domain.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


> If you don't have Pentax lenses and you can afford the 10 megapixel
> Canon you're probably smart to go that way. But  it would be foolish to
> invest that much in a 6 megapixel Canon if you had to spend more to
> replace your Pentax lenses with Canon lenses. I've thought about it
> myself. But I know I can't duplicate my kit in Canon. On the other
> hand, I will soon have two 6 megapixel  Pentax bodies and 13 lenses
> that will meet all of my needs for stock, advertising, and magazine
> photography. And of course I'll have a lot of fun just shooting things
> that i want to shoot.

Re: Any Epson 2200 users out there?

[Paul Stenquist]

My Epson 2200 has produced about 400 Super B prints in less than a 
year. If it fails before its three years old, it's warranteed by Comp 
USA, and I'll be entitled to a free replacement. Prior to this, I owned 
an Epson 1200. It produced around 1500 prints in about 4 years. It's 
still producing nice prints. I have no argument with Epson. They've 
been very, very good.
Paul
This one time, at band camp, Juey Chong Ong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Congratulations on getting your 2200! If you have a well calibrated
display, assuming the 2200 meets factory specs, and you have good
display and printer profiles, and your ICC workflow is proper, I think
you'll find the prints from the 2200 to be very close to what you see
on your display even if you use the Epson-supplied printer profiles.
For semi-gloss prints, I've also tried the Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl
paper with the Ilford-supplied profile. They work well, and it's a 
less
costly option for printing in larger quantities compared to the Epson
Premium Luster paper (I still prefer the Premium Luster, though).
I had great expectations of my Epson 1290 printer, it did good A3 
prints.
I mostly did A4 size prints and few rolls of 6x4.
I had done less than 500 prints in 18 months and it has recently died.
I am replacing it with a Canon printer, hopefully I will have better
luck with that. I also hope my Epson color laser printer goes the
distance better than its inkjet companion.

Totally dissapointed with Epson
Kevin
-
 __
(_ \
 _) )           
|  /  / _  ) / _  | / ___) / _  )
| |  ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ /
|_|   \) \_||_| \) \)
Kevin Waterson
Port Macquarie, Australia

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[J. C. O'Connell]

I guess it is all a matter of what you want to do. If you want to do
very
quality landscapes your $10k Canon DSLR system is not going to be able
to
do it however. Now if you want to do what cant be done on 4x5 than that
is another matter and the $10K canon system might be just the ticket. 
But why have the "one or the other" mentality? If you budget permits,
why
not use the best tool for each job and have BOTH formats at your
disposal?
JCO

-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 9:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


i've pretty much made up my mind that i'm about to spend more than JCO's
$10K on a Canon system to overcome the limitations of *istD. i don't see
Pentax making a DSLR body that will suit the my needs for high
responsiveness with acceptable image resolution within the next 4 or 5
years. i would prefer to go Nikon for a variety of reasons, but they
are, if anything, more uncertain about their future than Pentax despite
having a relatively safe and significant portion of the DSLR market.
however, 8 megapixels speaks loudly too. a 1D Mk 2 with a set of fast
long lenses will easily cost more than the digital 4x5 system that JCO
talks about, but like you, i am not in the slightest bit interested in
the larger format.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:56 PM
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


> On 25 Aug 2004 at 20:44, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>
> > No,
> >
> > Cant Take away the cost issue, because it is possible to match 4x5 
> > film quality with special digital backs that cost $10,000 and up. 
> > Can you afford that? I doubt.
>
> Herein lies your problem.
>
> > So IN THE AFFORDABLE domain,
> > 4x5 film blows away digital.
>
> Maybe for yourself and you still don't seem to be taking into account 
> the relatively limited scope of 4x5 equipment. Sharpness and absolute 
> print
size
> isn't all that makes a photograph.

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Paul Stenquist]

Do you have an *ist D that you would like to sell? I would be 
interested.
Paul

On Aug 25, 2004, at 9:33 PM, Herb Chong wrote:
i've pretty much made up my mind that i'm about to spend more than 
JCO's
$10K on a Canon system to overcome the limitations of *istD. i don't 
see
Pentax making a DSLR body that will suit the my needs for high
responsiveness with acceptable image resolution within the next 4 or 5
years. i would prefer to go Nikon for a variety of reasons, but they 
are, if
anything, more uncertain about their future than Pentax despite having 
a
relatively safe and significant portion of the DSLR market. however, 8
megapixels speaks loudly too. a 1D Mk 2 with a set of fast long lenses 
will
easily cost more than the digital 4x5 system that JCO talks about, but 
like
you, i am not in the slightest bit interested in the larger format.

Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:56 PM
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

On 25 Aug 2004 at 20:44, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
No,
Cant Take away the cost issue, because it is possible to match
4x5 film quality with special digital backs that cost $10,000 and
up. Can you afford that? I doubt.
Herein lies your problem.
So IN THE AFFORDABLE domain,
4x5 film blows away digital.
Maybe for yourself and you still don't seem to be taking into account 
the
relatively limited scope of 4x5 equipment. Sharpness and absolute 
print
size
isn't all that makes a photograph.

Re: Any Epson 2200 users out there?

[Kevin Waterson]

This one time, at band camp, Juey Chong Ong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
> Congratulations on getting your 2200! If you have a well calibrated 
> display, assuming the 2200 meets factory specs, and you have good 
> display and printer profiles, and your ICC workflow is proper, I think 
> you'll find the prints from the 2200 to be very close to what you see 
> on your display even if you use the Epson-supplied printer profiles.
> 
> For semi-gloss prints, I've also tried the Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl 
> paper with the Ilford-supplied profile. They work well, and it's a less 
> costly option for printing in larger quantities compared to the Epson 
> Premium Luster paper (I still prefer the Premium Luster, though).

I had great expectations of my Epson 1290 printer, it did good A3 prints.
I mostly did A4 size prints and few rolls of 6x4.
I had done less than 500 prints in 18 months and it has recently died.
I am replacing it with a Canon printer, hopefully I will have better 
luck with that. I also hope my Epson color laser printer goes the 
distance better than its inkjet companion.

Totally dissapointed with Epson
Kevin

-
 __  
(_ \ 
 _) )            
|  /  / _  ) / _  | / ___) / _  )
| |  ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / 
|_|   \) \_||_| \) \)
Kevin Waterson
Port Macquarie, Australia

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Paul Stenquist]

If you don't have Pentax lenses and you can afford the 10 megapixel 
Canon you're probably smart to go that way. But  it would be foolish to 
invest that much in a 6 megapixel Canon if you had to spend more to 
replace your Pentax lenses with Canon lenses. I've thought about it 
myself. But I know I can't duplicate my kit in Canon. On the other 
hand, I will soon have two 6 megapixel  Pentax bodies and 13 lenses 
that will meet all of my needs for stock, advertising, and magazine 
photography. And of course I'll have a lot of fun just shooting things 
that i want to shoot.
Paul
On Aug 25, 2004, at 9:33 PM, Herb Chong wrote:

i've pretty much made up my mind that i'm about to spend more than 
JCO's
$10K on a Canon system to overcome the limitations of *istD. i don't 
see
Pentax making a DSLR body that will suit the my needs for high
responsiveness with acceptable image resolution within the next 4 or 5
years. i would prefer to go Nikon for a variety of reasons, but they 
are, if
anything, more uncertain about their future than Pentax despite having 
a
relatively safe and significant portion of the DSLR market. however, 8
megapixels speaks loudly too. a 1D Mk 2 with a set of fast long lenses 
will
easily cost more than the digital 4x5 system that JCO talks about, but 
like
you, i am not in the slightest bit interested in the larger format.

Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:56 PM
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

On 25 Aug 2004 at 20:44, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
No,
Cant Take away the cost issue, because it is possible to match
4x5 film quality with special digital backs that cost $10,000 and
up. Can you afford that? I doubt.
Herein lies your problem.
So IN THE AFFORDABLE domain,
4x5 film blows away digital.
Maybe for yourself and you still don't seem to be taking into account 
the
relatively limited scope of 4x5 equipment. Sharpness and absolute 
print
size
isn't all that makes a photograph.

Camera to printer

[Kevin Waterson]

With the almost crisis like rush to get a camera to print without
a PC could really create a problem with dust etc. Anybody with 
DSLR will have had problems with dust and the CCD. If these images
are printed without correction, then problems arise. Or do we simply
see a booming industry in CCD cleaning kits?

Kevin

-
 __  
(_ \ 
 _) )            
|  /  / _  ) / _  | / ___) / _  )
| |  ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / 
|_|   \) \_||_| \) \)
Kevin Waterson
Port Macquarie, Australia

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Herb Chong]

i've pretty much made up my mind that i'm about to spend more than JCO's
$10K on a Canon system to overcome the limitations of *istD. i don't see
Pentax making a DSLR body that will suit the my needs for high
responsiveness with acceptable image resolution within the next 4 or 5
years. i would prefer to go Nikon for a variety of reasons, but they are, if
anything, more uncertain about their future than Pentax despite having a
relatively safe and significant portion of the DSLR market. however, 8
megapixels speaks loudly too. a 1D Mk 2 with a set of fast long lenses will
easily cost more than the digital 4x5 system that JCO talks about, but like
you, i am not in the slightest bit interested in the larger format.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:56 PM
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


> On 25 Aug 2004 at 20:44, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>
> > No,
> >
> > Cant Take away the cost issue, because it is possible to match
> > 4x5 film quality with special digital backs that cost $10,000 and
> > up. Can you afford that? I doubt.
>
> Herein lies your problem.
>
> > So IN THE AFFORDABLE domain,
> > 4x5 film blows away digital.
>
> Maybe for yourself and you still don't seem to be taking into account the
> relatively limited scope of 4x5 equipment. Sharpness and absolute print
size
> isn't all that makes a photograph.

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[J. C. O'Connell]

I never said that 4x5 film cameras and the current DSLRs
are both best suited the exact same applications, they are not.
i.e 4x5 is much much better for landscape and DSLR is much much better
for sports/action.

How many photographers here even DO sports/action? I bet it isnt as
high as landscape. Secondly, the much higher image sharpness
in the capture allows the photographer MUCH more artisitic
latitude in cropping after the fact while still maintaining acceptable
final print sharpness. Thirdly the 4x5 cameras are much more 
adjustable geometrically which allows for complete control
of geometric distortion and focus plane control that you don't
generally get with 35mm/DSLRs. 

And finally, The image sharpness and absolute print size
DOES MATTER. When you have a really good shot, the bigger
you can print it while still maintaining "you are there" clarity
is NOT something trivial. Quite the contrary. Sharpness can
never ruin a photo, softness can.

JCO




-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


On 25 Aug 2004 at 20:44, J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> No,
> 
> Cant Take away the cost issue, because it is possible to match 4x5 
> film quality with special digital backs that cost $10,000 and up. Can 
> you afford that? I doubt.

Herein lies your problem. 

> So IN THE AFFORDABLE domain,
> 4x5 film blows away digital.

Maybe for yourself and you still don't seem to be taking into account
the 
relatively limited scope of 4x5 equipment. Sharpness and absolute print
size 
isn't all that makes a photograph.

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Any Epson 2200 users out there?

[Juey Chong Ong]

On Aug 24, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Now I'm trying to get it set up so I can make good prints. I've
installed the latest drivers and paper profiles but I'm still closing 
in
on the ideal setup. I'll probably go through a lot of ink and paper
before I get there. I know I did with the 1270 (Stan Halpin, are you
there?)
Mark,
Congratulations on getting your 2200! If you have a well calibrated 
display, assuming the 2200 meets factory specs, and you have good 
display and printer profiles, and your ICC workflow is proper, I think 
you'll find the prints from the 2200 to be very close to what you see 
on your display even if you use the Epson-supplied printer profiles.

For semi-gloss prints, I've also tried the Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl 
paper with the Ilford-supplied profile. They work well, and it's a less 
costly option for printing in larger quantities compared to the Epson 
Premium Luster paper (I still prefer the Premium Luster, though).

--jc

RE: I enjoy film

[Joseph Tainter]

I too enjoy film. I just haven't shot any in nearly a year. More than 
film, I enjoy being able to take a single shot or a few shots, go right 
to the computer with the files, and print a nice enlargement 
immediately, with no film or processing costs and no delays.

The irony and sad part (to me) is that we are in such a floresence of 
wonderful films. I love Provia 100F and 400F, and rather like E100G. 
Velvia 100F and Agfa Ultra 100 have given me some nice results, as have 
Reala, NPZ 800, and Portra 400 UC (now Ultra Color 400). I would love to 
try the new Kodak Ultra 100. I haven't yet tried Astia 100F. I may never 
try either of these, and certainly will never use them much.

I give presentations at conferences several times a year. I usually 
illustrate them with great slides taken with Pentax gear. Suddenly I am 
finding that old-fashioned slide projectors are disappearing from 
conferences. One has to fight to get one. Everyone uses PowerPoint. I 
thought I would continue using slide film at least for presentation 
material, but it now appears that I have little reason to.

It is, for me, bittersweet to own the *ist D. I love film. I love 
digital differently, but also more than I love film. In about a month I 
will reach my first anniversary of my last roll of film. I honestly 
don't know if I'll ever shoot another.

Joe

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Rob Studdert]

On 25 Aug 2004 at 20:44, J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> No,
> 
> Cant Take away the cost issue, because it is possible to match
> 4x5 film quality with special digital backs that cost $10,000 and
> up. Can you afford that? I doubt.

Herein lies your problem. 

> So IN THE AFFORDABLE domain,
> 4x5 film blows away digital.

Maybe for yourself and you still don't seem to be taking into account the 
relatively limited scope of 4x5 equipment. Sharpness and absolute print size 
isn't all that makes a photograph.

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[J. C. O'Connell]

I have complete control over my 4x5 film. NO LABS.
I develop the negs myself, both BW and color.
I then print my own BW as needed wet, mostly 
contacts.
I scan and digitally print my own color via inkjet.
You don't have to shoot digitally to have complete
control.
JCO

-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


My last days shooting film found me shooting 6x7 transparency film for 
most of my important work. The lab that processed it was a very well 
known pro lab and the film looked good. Except for the fact that they 
kept ruining the first exposure by kinking the film when they attached 
it to the clip on their machine. So I was down to nine exposures per 
roll, and they were expensive exposures at that. I think that was the 
straw that broke the camel's back. As someone else said, I have 
complete control when I shoot digital. That works for me.
Paul
On Aug 25, 2004, at 8:07 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:

> On 25 Aug 2004 at 15:22, Caveman wrote:
>
>> Kept changing them. They were all full of surprises. Then I thought
>> I'll
>> be much safer with slides. Until here comes this nightshots film, cut
>> with a huge offset to the frames. So I decided that those guys won't 
>> be
>> able to touch anything but some copies of my CDs. Let them lose them,
>> scratch them, eat them, insert them wherever they want, I don't care
>> anymore.
>
> I've finally found a place where it's not too bad but only because I
> can get my
> films DnD processed and they simply sleeve them in the continuous 
> sleeve and
> roll them up.
>
>
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
>

Re: Monterey Historic Automobile Races

[cbwaters]

Oh!
No clearance, those stacks peaking out from that plexi hood scoop, the
perfect lines of the rear of that car
GAWD that TR is wonderful.
CW

- Original Message - 
From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: Monterey Historic Automobile Races


>
>
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> > Great shots, John. Love the F1 Ferarri and the 1930 Alpha.
>
> Me too, Paul, but what pleased me most is the sideways shot of that 12
> cylinder, nail-chewing V-12 '59 Testa Rossa. Seeing that minimum clearance
> of the exhaust pipes (¾"? maybe an 1"?) meant I'd never be able to get it
up
> my driveway, so there was no point in buying one.   Sig.
>
> Brings back memories of Phil Hill and Olivier Gendebien, von Trips...and
> those magical nights at Le Mans... Heady times for a grand prix race fan!

>
> keith whaley
>
> > On Aug 25, 2004, at 1:02 AM, John Francis wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Spurred on by Mark's images from Mid-Ohio,
> >> here's a dozen of my shots from a week ago:
> >>
> >>   
> >>
> >> All shots were taken with the *ist-D, generally with
> >> the FA* 80-200/2.8 (or, occasionally, the FA 28-105)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/20/2004

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[J. C. O'Connell]

No,

Cant Take away the cost issue, because it is possible to match
4x5 film quality with special digital backs that cost $10,000 and
up. Can you afford that? I doubt. So IN THE AFFORDABLE domain,
4x5 film blows away digital.


JCO
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


On 25 Aug 2004 at 11:54, J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> Digital still cant match what you can do with a 4x5 FILM camera and 
> lens that costs less than a DSLR body alone.

> Im am not trying to say that the average person should be shooting 4x5

> film, I'm just saying for those who know and want really good quality,

> there is no affordable digital at this time or in the near future. 
> That is still the domain of FILM.

Do you appreciate that for some of us who have made the decision that
4x5 isn't 
not for us the problem isn't affordability? You seem to keep hinging
your 
argument on $$$ vs quality. For me it's convenience vs benefit vs need &
the 
clincher: reality. Value for money is secondary in my case.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Paul Stenquist]

My last days shooting film found me shooting 6x7 transparency film for 
most of my important work. The lab that processed it was a very well 
known pro lab and the film looked good. Except for the fact that they 
kept ruining the first exposure by kinking the film when they attached 
it to the clip on their machine. So I was down to nine exposures per 
roll, and they were expensive exposures at that. I think that was the 
straw that broke the camel's back. As someone else said, I have 
complete control when I shoot digital. That works for me.
Paul
On Aug 25, 2004, at 8:07 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:

On 25 Aug 2004 at 15:22, Caveman wrote:
Kept changing them. They were all full of surprises. Then I thought 
I'll
be much safer with slides. Until here comes this nightshots film, cut
with a huge offset to the frames. So I decided that those guys won't 
be
able to touch anything but some copies of my CDs. Let them lose them,
scratch them, eat them, insert them wherever they want, I don't care
anymore.
I've finally found a place where it's not too bad but only because I 
can get my
films DnD processed and they simply sleeve them in the continuous 
sleeve and
roll them up.

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Rob Studdert]

On 25 Aug 2004 at 11:54, J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> Digital still cant match what you can do with a 4x5 FILM
> camera and lens that costs less than a DSLR body alone.

> Im am not trying to say that the average person should be
> shooting 4x5 film, I'm just saying for those who know and want
> really good quality, there is no affordable digital at this
> time or in the near future. That is still the domain of FILM.

Do you appreciate that for some of us who have made the decision that 4x5 isn't 
not for us the problem isn't affordability? You seem to keep hinging your 
argument on $$$ vs quality. For me it's convenience vs benefit vs need & the 
clincher: reality. Value for money is secondary in my case.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.

[J. C. O'Connell]

Not if there are LOTs of different titles

JCO

-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.


limited edition and lots are mutually exclusive.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.


> There are a LOT of new vinyl LPs being made today, both
> new music and reissues. Reason? Still the best sounding format given 
> the best playback equipment. Only catch is the LPs now cost $15-$30 a 
> piece because most are now on thick virgin vinyl and limited editions.

RE: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.

[J. C. O'Connell]

WRONG WRONG WRONG.

The vinyl being produced today is mostly reissues of the finest
recordings, both musically and sonically, on very high quality
thick virgin vinyl for the best possible sound quality.

About 99 percent of these masters are ANALOG not digital because
those are the best and these recordings are GREAT MUSIC not just
boring demos no one wants to hear. The main reason they are
economically viable is that the original LPS are rare and valuable
in excellent or better condition so the $20-$30 for a good
reissue seems like a bargain the discriminating music lover.

JCO

-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.


On 25 Aug 2004 at 21:23, Pål Jensen wrote:

> Gonz wrote:
> 
> Is any record company making LPs anymore?
> 
> 
> REPLY:
> 
> Yes. It is a thriving business. But of course it is mostly high-end 
> users who are interested. Not mass market. Audiophile issues are 
> popular.

And few recordings (mostly digital in origin) are available in vinyl, a
lot of 
the Audiophile label recordings are esoteric and are designed primarily
to 
display the capabilities of ones system when having your audiophile
friends 
over for a listening session. :-)

It's akin to handing out your visiting photo pals loupes and lens test
chart 
images shot on 4x5 sheet film. Very impressive but boring as bat sh*t.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Herb Chong]

there are special gadgets for taking them and, with the right software,
about 20 minutes to stitch once the images are in your computer.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


> Now we are talking the opposite of convenience. How long does it take to
make
> those 129 images and stitch them together. And then you show it on the
Internet?

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Rob Studdert]

On 25 Aug 2004 at 17:46, graywolf wrote:


> I find it interesting that all the digiheads still have to justify their 
> expensive cameras. If you like it use it. If you don't stick to film. If you are
> smart, you use both for their particular strengths. Anyone who thinks a 35mm SLR
> is good for any kind of photography, will think the same about digital, and
> unless I am reading this list wrong that is 90% of you.

When is the last time you tried to shoot a concert on a stage illuminated by a 
single 150W Paraflood with your 4x5? LOL


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Rob Studdert]

On 25 Aug 2004 at 15:22, Caveman wrote:

> Kept changing them. They were all full of surprises. Then I thought I'll 
> be much safer with slides. Until here comes this nightshots film, cut 
> with a huge offset to the frames. So I decided that those guys won't be 
> able to touch anything but some copies of my CDs. Let them lose them, 
> scratch them, eat them, insert them wherever they want, I don't care 
> anymore.

I've finally found a place where it's not too bad but only because I can get my 
films DnD processed and they simply sleeve them in the continuous sleeve and 
roll them up.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.

[Herb Chong]

limited edition and lots are mutually exclusive.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.


> There are a LOT of new vinyl LPs being made today, both
> new music and reissues. Reason? Still the best sounding
> format given the best playback equipment. Only catch is
> the LPs now cost $15-$30 a piece because most are now
> on thick virgin vinyl and limited editions.

Re: I enjoy film

[Herb Chong]

even then, they can screw up. going digital has put me in charge of all
phases of the workflow and i know exactly where something went wrong if
things don't turn out the way i want.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Billy Abbott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: I enjoy film


> Better labs will treat your film with more care and respect.  If you
> just have develop only and no prints made, you may find the cost
> difference per roll quite small between a good lab and a poor lab.
> The best way to pick is to watch their film handling for awhile to see
> how well the film gets treated.

Re: test

[Peter J. Alling]

Congratulations you passed.
Illinois Bill wrote:
new email address just for this list.  testing.


--
Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested 
in dogs.
   P. J. O'Rourke

test

[Illinois Bill]

new email address just for this list.  testing.

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Rob Studdert]

On 25 Aug 2004 at 8:34, Bruce Dayton wrote:

> One thing to remember, is that almost all those who like digital used
> to shoot film.  It's not as if they have no clue what shooting film is
> like.  They have tried both and found digital to be more preferable
> (not without issues, but film has issues too). 

I've refrained from responding to this thread until now but I think you've hit 
the nail on the head. It seems most of the digital is crap and is killing film 
rhetoric is coming from people who haven't yet benefited from owning a DSLR.

I still like film, I like the quality it can provide and I like the concept, I 
still shoot it in my MF bodies when I think the subject won't be captured as 
well using my DSLR. What I hate about film (colour specifically) is all that 
comes processing and handling wise after the shutter has opened and closed.

It's near impossible here to find a lab (top end pro or otherwise) that won't 
stuff up some aspect of the post image capture processing. They cut film when 
they've been asked not to, they crop 35mm prints to fit 5x7 paper, then there 
are the accidents which I won't mention because I'll get too depressed.

All this has finished for me since I've been predominantly shooting digital, I 
really don't care if they lose or damage my CD, I'll just burn another and 
won't pay them for crap jobs unlike the old days where they could hold film 
hostage until payment.

Its also prompted me to finally upgrade my computers, network and server (which 
was about seven years old). So now I've got a system which I (and others) can 
use for far more than simply photographic editing. I'm quite happy, now if only 
Pentax could deliver a really nice DSLR which will make me feel far less likely 
to feel the need to shoot film I'll be really happy.

Bottom line, it ain't the process for me it's the final image that counts and 
the digital process gives me more ease, control and security along the way.

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Herb Chong]

all this beating about the bush. none of my P&S digital camera friends
bought one because they thought it was easier. the most important reason by
far was being able to look on the LCD after taking the picture and being
sure they got the picture they wanted.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Toralf Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


> That hardly makes any difference, does it? I mean, you'll usually get a
> new film with your bag of prints. Not really any extra work. You'll have
> to buy one film to get you started, but then, you have to buy the flash
> card to (or you might get either when buying the camera.)
>
> Also, I think the statement that digital is easier is usually based on
> the notion that involving the PC simplifies things - which is not
> necessarily true.

Re: I enjoy film

[Paul Stenquist]

Huh?
On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Robert Woerner wrote:
What it boils down to is that the masses of men not only lead lives of 
quiet
desperation but they settle for mediocrity en masse.

Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.

[Rob Studdert]

On 25 Aug 2004 at 21:23, Pål Jensen wrote:

> Gonz wrote:
> 
> Is any record company making LPs anymore? 
> 
> 
> REPLY:
> 
> Yes. It is a thriving business. But of course it is mostly high-end users who
> are interested. Not mass market. Audiophile issues are popular.

And few recordings (mostly digital in origin) are available in vinyl, a lot of 
the Audiophile label recordings are esoteric and are designed primarily to 
display the capabilities of ones system when having your audiophile friends 
over for a listening session. :-)

It's akin to handing out your visiting photo pals loupes and lens test chart 
images shot on 4x5 sheet film. Very impressive but boring as bat sh*t.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[David Miers]

They would really be upset if after you wiped the card for them it wouldn't
work in their camera!  Deleting just the images is usually ok, but of course
many digital cameras including mine will not work if you do not format the
card in the camera itself.  For some reason I also wind up with garbage
files left on the CF card sometimes doing this as well.  Possibly because
they are hidden, or because I did it in ACDSEE and they were files this
program didn't recognise.

> I have a few customers who are so technically inclined (NOT!!), that
> they hand their card to me, and have me make them a print of each
> file then wipe the card for them.
> This keeps it as easy as film for them, but puts a load on the lab.
> This is the customer type who should have stayed with film, but got
> pressured into digital by the continual marketing onslaught that says
> everything digital is better.
> Or by a family member. It doesn't matter.
>
> William Robb
>
>
>

Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.

[Peter J. Alling]

These guy seem to be doing it so I expect there are others...
http://www.europadisk.com/index1.htm#Anchor-7649
Gonz wrote:
Is any record company making LPs anymore?  You can buy new turntables, 
but it appears that all LPs are legacy copies.

rg
CRB wrote:
Comparative thoughts:
You may, if you wish, go out and buy a turntable.  But expect to have 
to get a really good one.  Can't find a cheap BSR new?  How about a 
BIC 960?  Denon doesn't make any more, afaik.  But I think you can 
still get a Thorens or a Linn.  Be willing to shell out.

Turntables and records aren't gone.  But they've dwindled 
drastically.  It's impractical (because of cost, unless one is fairly 
well-to-do), doesn't sound as good (to many, though I differ and do 
like analog better), and takes up more space.  Plus it requres more 
handling time and collects dust.  Hassles to be avoided by many.

Look at the film camera lineup in that regard.  Try to find a 
consumer camera of solid construction.  There aren't any.  My old KX 
will likely outlast most of the ZX/MZ bodies out there.  So should my 
Super Program.

In 5 years you'll have to spend $1000+ to get a film body.  And it 
will be a good one, but it will cost you.  Or you'll get a plastic 
body from Cosina for $200.  Getting film will be about as much fun as 
trying to by a new LP.

Sincerely,
C. Brendemuehl
-
'Every one of us is, even from his mother's womb, a master craftsman 
of idols.'
-- John Calvin (1509-64)

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!



--
Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested 
in dogs.
   P. J. O'Rourke

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[ernreed2]

JCO posted:
> NOT TRUE, because you are forgetting something very
> important, ARCHIVING.
> 
> With film, you get the negatives as well as the prints.
> 
> With digital you now have the extra work of somehow
> transferring the files to hard drive, Cd, or DVD
> or some other digital media. ...

I hear there are people who would pick up their processed film, keep the prints 
(for albums) and throw away the negatives.
Certainly I know that a lot of casual snappers never file(d) their negatives. 
Now, plenty of folks don't archive their digital pictures.
Same people, for the most part.
We may think this is stupid behaviour (I think so, anyway) but my point is, 
it's no more complicated for them to not-archive digital files than to not-file 
their negatives!

ERN

PAW - Wall

[Billy Abbott]

http://www.cowfish.org.uk/paw/grafwall.html
A wall down the road from my house. This is pretty much as scanned - just 
tweaked to make it more like the print in sharpness and contrast. Comments 
always welcome.

It's a bit minimal, but i like it :)
billy
--
"The secret of my infestation of intelligent venereal worms
   remains safe for another horrible day"
 Billy Abbott billy at cowfish dot org dot uk

Re: Focusing screens MX <-> LX

[ernreed2]

> In the MX focusing screens manual, it says that MX focusing screens can 
> be used in the LX.
> 
> In the LX focusing screens manual, it says that LX focusing screens are 
> exclusively for the LX.
> 
> Does that mean that LX focusing screens cannot be used on the MX, but 
> the converse can?
> 
> Has anyone ever tried to put an LX screen into an MX?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> rg
> 

Yes. I have an LX screen in my MX now. Works fine.

ERN

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Bruce Dayton]

It is equally interesting how all the film users have an equal number
of justifications.  Seems to be a rather natural thing about humans.
We all want everyone else to think our choices make sense.  I don't
get the feeling from most on this list that anyone has made a bad
decision given their needs, wants and circumstances regarding film and
digital.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Wednesday, August 25, 2004, 2:46:54 PM, you wrote:

g> Now we are talking the opposite of convenience. How long does it take to make
g> those 129 images and stitch them together. And then you show it on the Internet?

g> Makes a 20x24 inch camera seem rather convenient to me.

g> I find it interesting that all the digiheads still have to justify their
g> expensive cameras. If you like it use it. If you don't stick to film. If you are
g> smart, you use both for their particular strengths. Anyone who thinks a 35mm SLR
g> is good for any kind of photography, will think the same about digital, and
g> unless I am reading this list wrong that is 90% of you.

g> No one in their right mind thinks Joe Sixpack cares anything about quality, and
g> he never bought a film camera that cost over $29.95 in his life. He loves
g> digital. Nuff said?

g> --

g> Gonz wrote:

>> Yea, but if you want the ultimate, see this:
>> 
>> http://tinyurl.com/6zmnj
>> 
>> 4x5 doesnt even come close.  And it doesnt have to stop there, you can
>> keep going and going
>> 
>> rg
>> 
>> 
>> J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>> 
>>> Digital still cant match what you can do with a 4x5 FILM
>>> camera and lens that costs less than a DSLR body alone.
>>>
>>> For people who's reference of quality is 35mm or Medium
>>> format film, sure DSLR can replace that, but it isnt
>>> even close to 4x5 quality and wont be for quite some
>>> time to come unless very large sensors suddenly become
>>> cheap and all the indications are they wont.
>>>
>>> Im am not trying to say that the average person should be
>>> shooting 4x5 film, I'm just saying for those who know and want
>>> really good quality, there is no affordable digital at this
>>> time or in the near future. That is still the domain of FILM.
>>>
>>> JCO
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday,
>>> August 25, 2004 11:34 AM
>>> To: Cotty
>>> Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
>>>
>>>
>>> I've only got about 9 months one mine now, but with two bodies probably
>>> in the neighborhood of 13,000 frames and my face hurts from grinning.
>>>
>>> It is ironic how often those who actually start to use a DSRL, thinking
>>> they will use film cameras along with it, find that they rarely use the
>>> film cameras anymore.
>>>
>>> One thing to remember, is that almost all those who like digital used to
>>> shoot film.  It's not as if they have no clue what shooting film is
>>> like.  They have tried both and found digital to be more preferable (not
>>> without issues, but film has issues too).  Remember I am talking about
>>> comparably handling cameras - film SLR vs. DSLR.  When I had a Coolpix
>>> 990 P&S digital and my film cameras, I still shot film for anything
>>> beyond quick snaps.  With a DSLR, well I sold all my film equipment.
>>>
>> 
>> 

Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.

[Daniel J. Matyola]

I'm sure that there are plenty of Polka records still available in 
vinyl.  You can have my share!

frank theriault wrote:
I don't know what may be out there in,
say, country or polka or
small-french-songstresses-who-always-dressed-in-black
or anthing like that.
 

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[frank theriault]

 --- Malcolm Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
 
> Many folk state the instant capture and review of
> the image is the all
> important feature, and being able to e-mail a
> picture immediately a 'must
> have' today. Even I know if I have got the shot I
> want with my LX, so the
> immediate review of the shot isn't a major
> importance to me and pictures I
> have taken and e-mailed straight away I have done so
> more or less because I
> can. I will continue to use digital as another
> format.
> 

Well, Malcolm,

That's a very interesting observation.  Immediate
feedback is a huge drawing card for many digitalians. 
Paul Stenquist mentioned that in another thread this
morning, and even posted a lovely example of a series
of photos that he produced with the assistance of such
feedback.

For me and the type of photography I often do, that
feature is less important than others.  I shoot in
public quite often.  I'm lucky if I can fire off 4 or
5 (usually less) before a fluid situation changes into
something that no longer interests me.  I never ask my
subjects to pose or go back to a previous position, or
come walking up the street again, as spontaneity is
normally required for what I do.  Once the moment
passes, it ain't coming back.

So, that instant feedback wouldn't do much for me.

I would be loathe to delete any images in the field,
for instance, to make more room in the memory.  I
often have to look at contacts over and over to decide
what I do and don't want to print, and often it's only
after revisiting old contacts months or years old that
I think I see something of value in a frame.

I wonder if, due to the foregoing, digital and it's
"instant disposablity" might be a bad thing for me.

I must admit that the ability to send e-mail images
within minutes of pressing the shutter release would
be great for family snaps or vacation pix.  I wouldn't
mind getting a little digi-p&s like those
Optios-in-a-mint-can things.  I had fun playing with
everyone else's at GFM, that's for sure.

cheers,
frank



=
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst"

"Of course it's all luck"
  --  Henri Cartier-Bresson

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Caveman]

William Robb wrote:
Be that as it may, they as often as not manage to bugger something
up, usually file size. I print a lot of 640x480 files up to 4x5 inch
prints.
Perhaps this is the default setting for the cameras, I don't know.
No it's not the default, it's the users that bugger it. Main two reasons 
are:

- they still use the 32 MB card that came with the camera and they try 
to cram a decent number of pics in it;

- they bought a large memory card but want to use their camera as a 
portable family album that holds all their pics (with a 512 MB card and 
640x480 at high compression settings you're there, it can hold over 5000 
pics).

Re: Focusing screens MX <-> LX

[Henri Toivonen]

Gonz wrote:
Ah.  I completely forgot about the metering aspects.  I thought it was 
something mechanical, like an extra flange or something.

Thanks,
rg
Someone had changed his screen on the MX and didn't notice any 
difference in exposure. The difference between an old and a newer one is 
evidently not any big one.

/Henri

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Caveman]

J. C. O'Connell wrote:
NOT TRUE, because you are forgetting something very
important, ARCHIVING.
With film, you get the negatives as well as the prints.
Only problem is when they lose your film or scratch it or put their paws 
on it in order to archive their fingerprints.

With digital you now have the extra work of somehow
transferring the files to hard drive, Cd, or DVD
or some other digital media. That is NOT simple
Dunno with other brands but the Canon digi P&S are coming with this 
piece of software called ZoomBrowser. It offers to download for you the 
pics in the camera, present them to you as a slideshow, print them, 
e-mail them to aunt Edna and my gosh it even has a "Backup to CD" 
button. You click it, it says insert blank CD then voila, it's done.

On the whole, it's much easier, logical and intuitive than editing a 
number in your mobile phone's memory.

Re: Focusing screens MX <-> LX

[Gonz]

Ah.  I completely forgot about the metering aspects.  I thought it was 
something mechanical, like an extra flange or something.

Thanks,
rg
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "Gonz"
Subject: Focusing screens MX <-> LX


In the MX focusing screens manual, it says that MX focusing screens
can
be used in the LX.
In the LX focusing screens manual, it says that LX focusing screens
are
exclusively for the LX.
Does that mean that LX focusing screens cannot be used on the MX,
but
the converse can?
Has anyone ever tried to put an LX screen into an MX?

The LX meters off the film plane rather than the screen, so screen
density isn't so much of an issue.
The MX meters off the screen, so it needs a screen calibrated to it's
meter.
Having said that, an LX screen can go into an MX, but you will have
to bias your ISO setting to get correct metering.
This is not a difficult thing, I believe the amount is about 1/2
stop.
William Robb

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Gonz]

My brother liked the pics I got from my *istD.  But he bought a 
Digi-rebel.  :(
He is not into the hobby at all.  Brought the camera home, took it out 
of the box, didn't bother to read the manual.  Shot with factory 
defaults!  Got great pics.  For every advanced consumer/hobbyist, there 
are ten like him.  For those people, your extra steps are skipped.

rg
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "Kristian Walsh"
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


Digital *is* simpler. 35mm only seems simpler to us (meaning the
people
on this list) because handling film has become a trained reflex.
As Cotty just said: We are the exception.
Imagine the most unsophisticated picture-taker using an
auto-everything
35mm P&S. Here's their typical process:
  1. Buy Film. If you don't know what type, bring your camera and
ask
the assistant.
  2. Insert film.  Best to do this in the dark. Pop the film
cartridge
in, and carefully extend the film leader to whatever mark the
manufacturer has put on the back of the camera. Be careful not to
tear
or crease the film leader. Close the camera back. Wait for the
camera
to load the film. Does the display say "1" or is it flashing "E".
If
it's "E", carefully open the back of the camera, make sure the film
cartridge is sitting properly and try again.
  3. Take your pictures.
  4. When the camera is full, wait for it to rewind the film, pop
out
the cartridge and drop it to the developer.
  5. Repeat
Okay, now the same user, but with a digital P&S:
  1. Buy your CF/SD/whatever card. If you don't know what type,
bring
your camera and ask the assistant.
  2. Open camera slot, insert card. It only goes in one way. Close
the
slot.
  3. Take your pictures.
  4. When the camera is "full", turn off the camera, open the slot
and
pull out the card. Take the card to the photo shop.
  5. Repeat.

There are a couple of extra steps in digital that you have left out:
Prior to your step one:
Go into menuland and set up the following:
1) resolution.
2) file compression
3) colour space.
4) saturation.
5) contrast
6) sharpness
7) sensitivity (not as necessary, as the default will work).
Doing this requires something that most consumers don't want to do,
which is reading the owners manual, and retaining the knowledge.
If you really think that digital is easier than film, I have this
house for sale on Jefferson Avenue. It's white, and it hase a
teriffic rose garden in the back yard.
William Robb

Re: Pentax announcements trend

[Steve Desjardins]

We'll have to pay attention on the Aug 32.  ;-)

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/25/2004 2:14:37 AM >>>
G'day Peedeeemmellers,
Anyone else noticed the trend in Pentax's recent announcements? Just 
pulling the days/dates off DPReview gives the last three (macro lenses,

two compacts, another two compacts) as being announced on:
Sunday 8th
Monday 16th and
Tuesday 24th of August. An announcement every eight days. Could be 
coincidence, but I can't help wondering.
So I'm obviously wondering whether we'll see this trend continue right

up to photokina? They've obviously got the DSLR to announce at some 
stage, they must be pretty much out of compacts to announce, so maybe a

lens or a flash or somesuch?
I wonder whether they'll release a new lens with the budget DSLR? I 
don't think the 18-35mm would be a great one to bundle with it, and the

16-45's a little pricey. Personally I'd be barracking for a DA or a
D-FA 
35mm f2. But I'm dreaming as usual. Maybe we can expect a budget 18-70

or similar?
P.S. - Speculation at its utmost point, but who else reckons that the 
silver and black colour scheme will be implemented on the new DSLR? At

least the new compacts with this look pretty cool. I still reckon that

an interchangable shell, mobile-phone-style, would be a clever thing to
do.

David

Re: The end of film and a dry plate renaissance

[Gonz]

Stateside you might get a visit from the FBI, wondering why you needed 
these chemicals, post 9-11.

rg
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "Kevin Waterson"
Subject: The end of film and a dry plate renaissance



Seriously though, why not a return to plates? All those years ago,
the
chemicals were available and it would certainly bring back a little
romance and art to photography. Something I feel is missing from a
lot
of todays instant snapshot generation.

It's a different world now. You wouldn't be allowed to buy most of
the raw chemicals required, or if you were, you would have to ensure
that you weren't polluting, and be inspected periodically to ensure
you were in compliance.
William Robb

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Bruce Dayton]

The difficulty with this discussion is that us serious, knowledgeable
photographers are trying to compare what the "other side" would do
digitally or with film.

For those that actually save their negatives, film is simpler.
However, you would be appalled at how many times I have encountered
people who just throw the negatives away.  Those who do save them,
mostly throw them in a box somewhere and forget about it.

If you check with most minilabs (the majority of snap shooter labs),
you will find that the percent of reprint/enlargements is miniscule.
I mostly see people bring in their prints and throw them on the Kodak
Kiosk to get inferior prints so they don't have to find the negative.

For those digital users that want to act just like the film users who
don't save the negatives, they can get the prints and then wipe the
card and start over.  For those who want to act like those that just
throw the negs into a box and forget about it, then can order the cd
of their images right when they get the prints - Walmart and the likes
offer this for very cheap - so now they take the cd and throw it into
a box.

For those who actually value the negatives or digital images, more
work is involved.  Putting the negs in pages or some such and
organizing so that they are useful takes time and thought.  Storing
them on your computer and organizing and backup takes time and
thought.

I see the process as too similar between the mediums to plainly state
one is easier than the other.

One funny issue that hasn't been discussed much is the one concerning
help from knowledgeable users.  Much like the computer industry where
some machines may be inherently easier to get running for a neophyte
(Mac) and some others may require a bit more knowledge (PC), I see
film and digital (for the P&S crowd) as being somewhat the same.  The
thing is, for most people, that don't have the knowledge, they know
someone who helps them over the hard part (knowledge) and gets them on
their way.  I see this happen time and again with digital P&S, someone
points them in the right direction and off they go.

The other factor that we don't take into account is that the buyer is
changing.  Those who are older and grew up in the earlier days of
camera and computer technology have different needs, wants and
interests.  The young people today (I have 4) view the world quite
differently.  They are not phased by the digital arena.  It is almost
second nature to them.  This is a growing portion of the camera sales
and usage - especially on the digital front.

Sorry for my thoughts starting to rattle around.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Wednesday, August 25, 2004, 10:08:24 AM, you wrote:

JCOC> NOT TRUE, because you are forgetting something very
JCOC> important, ARCHIVING.

JCOC> With film, you get the negatives as well as the prints.

JCOC> With digital you now have the extra work of somehow
JCOC> transferring the files to hard drive, Cd, or DVD
JCOC> or some other digital media. That is NOT simple
JCOC> to someone with little computer literacy and even
JCOC> to someone who knows what they are doing it is extra
JCOC> work. So film is the simplest and easiest from a user
JCOC> standpoint. Not only that, when you delve into the "AUO EVERYTH
JCOC> ING" mode on cameras, film has the advantage because color
JCOC> print film, the overwhelming choice of the non-technical
JCOC> photographers, has much more exposure latitude and hence
JCOC> room for error than digital. Sure you can see a bad digital
JCOC> shot on the LCD and shoot again to fix it, but it is going
JCOC> to take knowledge and time to override the automatic settings,
JCOC> once again, not simpler than film.

JCOC> JCO

JCOC> -Original Message-
JCOC> From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
JCOC> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:56 PM
JCOC> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JCOC> Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)




JCOC> J. C. O'Connell wrote:

>> 
>> 
>> Are you guys serious?, anyone can see, even by your own descriptions
>> of the process, that there are less steps and skills required to do
>> 35mm film than digital. That is simplicity. Your wrong digital is not
>> simpler or AS SIMPLE as 35mm film from a user standpoint. JCO
>> 
>> 

JCOC> You could treat your digital cam just like a film cam and the process
JCOC> would be identical.  Take pics, drop off cf card, pick up pics.

JCOC> rg

Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.

[Gonz]

The operative word is "HIGH QUALITY".  They were rare back then, and 
they are rare today.  I'm sure the selection is for the birds. Try to 
find a modern label, normal LP and you're SOL.

rg
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
LPs are still being made. In fact there are more
HIGH QUALITY turntables and LPs being made today
than there was 20 years ago.
-Original Message-
From: Steve Jolly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.

Gonz wrote:
Is any record company making LPs anymore?  You can buy new turntables,
but it appears that all LPs are legacy copies.

Maybe not LPs, but vinyl singles are still insanely popular amongst DJs.
S

Re: Ilford in trouble?

[Nick Clark]

I've done just that by getting a Pentax 645. I always fancied one and they're now at 
an affordable price on eBay.

I'll probably use the *istD a lot too. Along with the MZ-S for projectable trannies.
Anyone got any suggestions on how to carry it all in a small bag?

Nick

-Original Message-
From: "Chris Stoddart"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Hey, instead of following the herd, how about breaking the mould? Go do
something different from everyone else today? 

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


> NOT TRUE, because you are forgetting something very
> important, ARCHIVING.
>
> With film, you get the negatives as well as the prints.
>
> With digital you now have the extra work of somehow
> transferring the files to hard drive, Cd, or DVD
> or some other digital media. That is NOT simple
> to someone with little computer literacy and even
> to someone who knows what they are doing it is extra
> work. So film is the simplest and easiest from a user
> standpoint. Not only that, when you delve into the "AUO EVERYTH
> ING" mode on cameras, film has the advantage because color
> print film, the overwhelming choice of the non-technical
> photographers, has much more exposure latitude and hence
> room for error than digital. Sure you can see a bad digital
> shot on the LCD and shoot again to fix it, but it is going
> to take knowledge and time to override the automatic settings,
> once again, not simpler than film.

I recall a few years back, Mafud saying that a 10 dollar disposable
camera was as good as a digital point and shoot WRT image quality.
That was true then, and to a great extent, is still true today.
I have found that a lot of my digital customers are not interested in
archiving their files. Long experience shooting film has taught them
that they never use the negatives anyway. For an occasional reprint,
the copyprint machines do an OK job, and work from the print rather
than the negative. The cost is greater, but the convenience of not
having to dig through a box of negatives makes up for it.
I have a few customers who are so technically inclined (NOT!!), that
they hand their card to me, and have me make them a print of each
file then wipe the card for them.
This keeps it as easy as film for them, but puts a load on the lab.
This is the customer type who should have stayed with film, but got
pressured into digital by the continual marketing onslaught that says
everything digital is better.
Or by a family member. It doesn't matter.

William Robb

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[CRB]

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:37:46 -0700 
>--
>I disagree. By the time you print an image on an offset press, 
>you can't distinguish between a 10 megapixel digital shot and 
>medium format. I wish I could show you the images Clint Clemens 
>shot for Jeep and Chrysler European advertising with his 10 
>megapixel Canons. They are magnificent and easily the equal 
>of anything I've ever seen from an MF ad shooter.
>
>Paul

Absolutely right.

Locally, Cord Camera has a set of prints from digital cameras to show the quality.  
They've some very nice prints from 6mp and 11mp.

The 16x20 is a color portrait.  The brilliance is better than film though the color 
depth just isn't there.  But it's close enough for the customers.

The 11x14 from 11mp is a picture of a home.  The wood texture isn't the same as film, 
but there's pleanty of detail to please the customer.  It's noticably better than the 
6mp and perfectly suited to serious print work.

Those of us who appreciate the character of prints from larger negatives also know 
that our days are numbered.  (Soon we'll be forced to decide between Bergger and 
Forte.  Like there's a difference.)  It's only $6K to get into a new, very useful 
scanning back for 4x5.  It's perfect for commercial work and provides that separation 
from the hand-held pro.  Just like in the past.  And even though it's not "film", it 
does the job for people, and that very nicely.  And that's what counts.

That 10-15 seconds to scan makes it impractical for any place outside where there is 
wind.  Bummer.  Or there'd be more out there.  When it gets down to 2-3 seconds for a 
quick scan then they'll be used for even people.

Yes, film is superior in some respects.  But not in the ones that count -- the largest 
quantity of buying consumers.  It was Kodak's agressive marketing 100 years ago that 
gave us the film we so enjoy, and it's Canon taking their place in the world today.

Our children will look at a Pentax digital like we look at an Argus C3.

Sincerely,

C. Brendemuehl

-
'Every one of us is, even from his mother's womb, a master craftsman of idols.'
-- John Calvin (1509-64)

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[J. C. O'Connell]

NOT TRUE, because you are forgetting something very
important, ARCHIVING.

With film, you get the negatives as well as the prints.

With digital you now have the extra work of somehow
transferring the files to hard drive, Cd, or DVD
or some other digital media. That is NOT simple
to someone with little computer literacy and even
to someone who knows what they are doing it is extra
work. So film is the simplest and easiest from a user
standpoint. Not only that, when you delve into the "AUO EVERYTH
ING" mode on cameras, film has the advantage because color
print film, the overwhelming choice of the non-technical
photographers, has much more exposure latitude and hence
room for error than digital. Sure you can see a bad digital
shot on the LCD and shoot again to fix it, but it is going
to take knowledge and time to override the automatic settings,
once again, not simpler than film.

JCO

-Original Message-
From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)




J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> 
> 
> Are you guys serious?, anyone can see, even by your own descriptions 
> of the process, that there are less steps and skills required to do 
> 35mm film than digital. That is simplicity. Your wrong digital is not 
> simpler or AS SIMPLE as 35mm film from a user standpoint. JCO
> 
> 

You could treat your digital cam just like a film cam and the process 
would be identical.  Take pics, drop off cf card, pick up pics.

rg

Re: black and white

[Lon Williamson]

I usually like Robb, but this one I don't agree with.
A bad shot can't be saved.  A good one can poke through
mediocre processing, though.
Put a great orchestra on "Louie Louie" and a fair-to-middling
quartet on Pachabel's "Canon in D".  See which one you'd want
to listen to every day of your life.
I agree with Frank.  The primal act results in an in-camera
image.  Screw that, and nothing can save you.
William Robb wrote:
Every day, I see the results of "hunters" who can't cook.
The shoot a lot of things that taste bad, no matter how long you
marinade them for.

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Malcolm Smith]

Bruce Dayton wrote:

> It is ironic how often those who actually start to use a 
> DSRL, thinking they will use film cameras along with it, find 
> that they rarely use the film cameras anymore.

I find that my digital camera is used alongside my film cameras. Although I
am reducing the number of film cameras I had, this reduction would have
occurred regardless of Pentax DSLR availability.
 
> One thing to remember, is that almost all those who like 
> digital used to shoot film.  It's not as if they have no clue 
> what shooting film is like.  They have tried both and found 
> digital to be more preferable (not without issues, but film 
> has issues too).  Remember I am talking about comparably 
> handling cameras - film SLR vs. DSLR.  When I had a Coolpix 
> 990 P&S digital and my film cameras, I still shot film for 
> anything beyond quick snaps.  With a DSLR, well I sold all my 
> film equipment.

I prefer operating the LX to the *ist D. I worry far more about loss of
digital images, than I do negatives or slides. Some of my friends and family
still do not have computers, so e-mailing them pictures or sending them a CD
is not an option. Ordering a second (or third) set of prints with
development of the film is still cheap. I like slides. I like B&W film. I
like loading film into my cameras.

Many folk state the instant capture and review of the image is the all
important feature, and being able to e-mail a picture immediately a 'must
have' today. Even I know if I have got the shot I want with my LX, so the
immediate review of the shot isn't a major importance to me and pictures I
have taken and e-mailed straight away I have done so more or less because I
can. I will continue to use digital as another format.

Malcolm 

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Gonz]

J. C. O'Connell wrote:

Are you guys serious?, anyone can see, even by your own descriptions
of the process, that there are less steps and skills required to
do 35mm film than digital. That is simplicity. Your wrong digital
is not simpler or AS SIMPLE as 35mm film from a user standpoint.
JCO

You could treat your digital cam just like a film cam and the process 
would be identical.  Take pics, drop off cf card, pick up pics.

rg

Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.

[Don Sanderson]

Hi All!

I guess the point I was making was we don't have to worry about film vanishing in the 
next year or two.
For those of us who still use film it will become more of a hassle and we will have to 
decide when enough is enough.
I agree that my older bodies will probably outlast my zx/mz's. That's why I hang on to 
them.
I WILL buy a dgi SLR, but not until I find one with more "bang for the buck" than the 
D.
I simply won't spend that much to make my M lenses HARDER to use, why go thru a 
learning curve to go backwards?

I apologise if I'm not keeping up well with this thread but I'm only recieving every 
other post or so.
Haven't even seen a copy of my own, been pretty bad lately.
Hard to follow when the list gods only let you see responses and not original posts.


Don


-Original message-
From: Henri Toivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:35:51 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.

> Gonz wrote:
> 
> > Is any record company making LPs anymore?  You can buy new turntables, 
> > but it appears that all LPs are legacy copies.
> >
> > rg
> 
> There are lots of new LP's made. They are a bit more difficult to find 
> and get hold of though. Electronic music and Hardrock especially.
> 
> /Henri
> 

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[J. C. O'Connell]

Maybe you ought to try a few color 4x5"s of the bride and groom
and enlarge to about 11x14. Maybe digital is good enough.
until you see that!

JCO

-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:20 PM
To: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


I fully agree with you in regards to quality.  Even when I compared my
67 stuff to 6mp digital, there is clearly more detail in the 67.  If I
was shooting scenics and landscapes mostly, I might still be shooting
film.  But for closer, frame filling subjects, like weddings and
portraits, the digital is plenty good enough.  I wouldn't want to be
carting around a 4X5 for that kind of work.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Wednesday, August 25, 2004, 8:54:06 AM, you wrote:

JCOC> Digital still cant match what you can do with a 4x5 FILM camera 
JCOC> and lens that costs less than a DSLR body alone.

JCOC> For people who's reference of quality is 35mm or Medium format 
JCOC> film, sure DSLR can replace that, but it isnt even close to 4x5 
JCOC> quality and wont be for quite some time to come unless very large 
JCOC> sensors suddenly become cheap and all the indications are they 
JCOC> wont.

JCOC> Im am not trying to say that the average person should be shooting

JCOC> 4x5 film, I'm just saying for those who know and want really good 
JCOC> quality, there is no affordable digital at this time or in the 
JCOC> near future. That is still the domain of FILM.

JCOC> JCO

JCOC> -Original Message-
JCOC> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
JCOC> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:34 AM
JCOC> To: Cotty
JCOC> Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi
snappers)


JCOC> I've only got about 9 months one mine now, but with two bodies
probably
JCOC> in the neighborhood of 13,000 frames and my face hurts from
grinning.

JCOC> It is ironic how often those who actually start to use a DSRL,
thinking
JCOC> they will use film cameras along with it, find that they rarely
use the
JCOC> film cameras anymore.

JCOC> One thing to remember, is that almost all those who like digital
used to
JCOC> shoot film.  It's not as if they have no clue what shooting film
is
JCOC> like.  They have tried both and found digital to be more
preferable (not
JCOC> without issues, but film has issues too).  Remember I am talking
about
JCOC> comparably handling cameras - film SLR vs. DSLR.  When I had a
Coolpix
JCOC> 990 P&S digital and my film cameras, I still shot film for
anything
JCOC> beyond quick snaps.  With a DSLR, well I sold all my film
equipment.

RE: Sandisc CF cards are pretty tough.

[Tom C]

That wouldn't have happend if he'd been using an *ist D with it's 
nuclear-blast hardened body.


Tom C.


From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Pentax Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Sandisc CF cards are pretty tough.
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:36:34 -0600
http://news.designtechnica.com/article5140.html
William Robb

RE: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.

[J. C. O'Connell]

There are a LOT of new vinyl LPs being made today, both
new music and reissues. Reason? Still the best sounding
format given the best playback equipment. Only catch is
the LPs now cost $15-$30 a piece because most are now
on thick virgin vinyl and limited editions.
JCO

-Original Message-
From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.


Is any record company making LPs anymore?  You can buy new turntables, 
but it appears that all LPs are legacy copies.

rg


CRB wrote:

> Comparative thoughts:
> 
> You may, if you wish, go out and buy a turntable.  But expect to have 
> to get a really good one.  Can't find a cheap BSR new?  How about a 
> BIC 960?  Denon doesn't make any more, afaik.  But I think you can 
> still get a Thorens or a Linn.  Be willing to shell out.

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Gonz]

J. C. O'Connell wrote:


Daisy wheel looks better than a good modern laser printer?
Isnt Daisy wheel limited to one size font per wheel?
 

Not only that, but the graphics on a daisy wheel really hoover compared 
to a laser.  LOL.

rg

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[CRB]

From: Tom C 
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:09:27 -0700 

>
>I love the purist in you, even though I do not have the time and stamina 
>to shoot 4 x 5.
>
>I say that, never having done it, but a camera bag with 4-5 lenses and a 
>12 pound tripod/head get pretty heavy, even on a several mile hike. I 
>guess that why some peope have llamas.
>
>Tom C.

Tom,

A 4x5 wood field (Nakagoa, Tachihara, Shen Hao), 2 lenses, 6 film holders, & 2 boxes 
of film may likely weigh less.

Cost is a bit higher.

Not of much use for birding, though.

Sincerely,

C. Brendemuehl

-
'Every one of us is, even from his mother's womb, a master craftsman of idols.'
-- John Calvin (1509-64)

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.

[Henri Toivonen]

Gonz wrote:
Is any record company making LPs anymore?  You can buy new turntables, 
but it appears that all LPs are legacy copies.

rg
There are lots of new LP's made. They are a bit more difficult to find 
and get hold of though. Electronic music and Hardrock especially.

/Henri

Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.

[Steve Jolly]

Gonz wrote:
Is any record company making LPs anymore?  You can buy new turntables, 
but it appears that all LPs are legacy copies.
Maybe not LPs, but vinyl singles are still insanely popular amongst DJs.
S

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Bruce Dayton"
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


> I fully agree with you in regards to quality.  Even when I compared
my
> 67 stuff to 6mp digital, there is clearly more detail in the 67.
If I
> was shooting scenics and landscapes mostly, I might still be
shooting
> film.  But for closer, frame filling subjects, like weddings and
> portraits, the digital is plenty good enough.  I wouldn't want to
be
> carting around a 4X5 for that kind of work.

For weddings and portraits, digital is close to ideal. You get the
appearance of sharpness, but the really fine detail that annoys the
subjects so much just isn't there.

William Robb

Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.

[Gonz]

Is any record company making LPs anymore?  You can buy new turntables, 
but it appears that all LPs are legacy copies.

rg
CRB wrote:
Comparative thoughts:
You may, if you wish, go out and buy a turntable.  But expect to have to get a really 
good one.  Can't find a cheap BSR new?  How about a BIC 960?  Denon doesn't make any 
more, afaik.  But I think you can still get a Thorens or a Linn.  Be willing to shell 
out.
Turntables and records aren't gone.  But they've dwindled drastically.  It's 
impractical (because of cost, unless one is fairly well-to-do), doesn't sound as good 
(to many, though I differ and do like analog better), and takes up more space.  Plus 
it requres more handling time and collects dust.  Hassles to be avoided by many.
Look at the film camera lineup in that regard.  Try to find a consumer camera of solid 
construction.  There aren't any.  My old KX will likely outlast most of the ZX/MZ 
bodies out there.  So should my Super Program.
In 5 years you'll have to spend $1000+ to get a film body.  And it will be a good one, 
but it will cost you.  Or you'll get a plastic body from Cosina for $200.  Getting 
film will be about as much fun as trying to by a new LP.
Sincerely,
C. Brendemuehl
-
'Every one of us is, even from his mother's womb, a master craftsman of idols.'
-- John Calvin (1509-64)
___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Bruce Dayton]

I fully agree with you in regards to quality.  Even when I compared my
67 stuff to 6mp digital, there is clearly more detail in the 67.  If I
was shooting scenics and landscapes mostly, I might still be shooting
film.  But for closer, frame filling subjects, like weddings and
portraits, the digital is plenty good enough.  I wouldn't want to be
carting around a 4X5 for that kind of work.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Wednesday, August 25, 2004, 8:54:06 AM, you wrote:

JCOC> Digital still cant match what you can do with a 4x5 FILM
JCOC> camera and lens that costs less than a DSLR body alone.

JCOC> For people who's reference of quality is 35mm or Medium
JCOC> format film, sure DSLR can replace that, but it isnt
JCOC> even close to 4x5 quality and wont be for quite some
JCOC> time to come unless very large sensors suddenly become
JCOC> cheap and all the indications are they wont.

JCOC> Im am not trying to say that the average person should be
JCOC> shooting 4x5 film, I'm just saying for those who know and want
JCOC> really good quality, there is no affordable digital at this
JCOC> time or in the near future. That is still the domain of FILM.

JCOC> JCO

JCOC> -Original Message-
JCOC> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
JCOC> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:34 AM
JCOC> To: Cotty
JCOC> Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


JCOC> I've only got about 9 months one mine now, but with two bodies probably
JCOC> in the neighborhood of 13,000 frames and my face hurts from grinning.

JCOC> It is ironic how often those who actually start to use a DSRL, thinking
JCOC> they will use film cameras along with it, find that they rarely use the
JCOC> film cameras anymore.

JCOC> One thing to remember, is that almost all those who like digital used to
JCOC> shoot film.  It's not as if they have no clue what shooting film is
JCOC> like.  They have tried both and found digital to be more preferable (not
JCOC> without issues, but film has issues too).  Remember I am talking about
JCOC> comparably handling cameras - film SLR vs. DSLR.  When I had a Coolpix
JCOC> 990 P&S digital and my film cameras, I still shot film for anything
JCOC> beyond quick snaps.  With a DSLR, well I sold all my film equipment.

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C"
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


> I love the purist in you, even though I do not have the time and
stamina to
> shoot 4 x 5.
>
> I say that, never having done it, but a camera bag with 4-5 lenses
and a 12
> pound tripod/head get pretty heavy, even on a several mile hike.  I
guess
> that why some peope have llamas.

Heck, next month at the New Denver Photographic Retreat weekend
(September 11 & 12th), I am planning on having a Tom to carry my
large format stuff.

William Robb

Re: Focusing screens MX <-> LX

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gonz"
Subject: Focusing screens MX <-> LX


> In the MX focusing screens manual, it says that MX focusing screens
can
> be used in the LX.
>
> In the LX focusing screens manual, it says that LX focusing screens
are
> exclusively for the LX.
>
> Does that mean that LX focusing screens cannot be used on the MX,
but
> the converse can?
>
> Has anyone ever tried to put an LX screen into an MX?

The LX meters off the film plane rather than the screen, so screen
density isn't so much of an issue.
The MX meters off the screen, so it needs a screen calibrated to it's
meter.
Having said that, an LX screen can go into an MX, but you will have
to bias your ISO setting to get correct metering.
This is not a difficult thing, I believe the amount is about 1/2
stop.

William Robb

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Tom C]

I love the purist in you, even though I do not have the time and stamina to 
shoot 4 x 5.

I say that, never having done it, but a camera bag with 4-5 lenses and a 12 
pound tripod/head get pretty heavy, even on a several mile hike.  I guess 
that why some peope have llamas.


Tom C.


From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: It's over  (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:54:06 -0400
Digital still cant match what you can do with a 4x5 FILM
camera and lens that costs less than a DSLR body alone.
For people who's reference of quality is 35mm or Medium
format film, sure DSLR can replace that, but it isnt
even close to 4x5 quality and wont be for quite some
time to come unless very large sensors suddenly become
cheap and all the indications are they wont.
Im am not trying to say that the average person should be
shooting 4x5 film, I'm just saying for those who know and want
really good quality, there is no affordable digital at this
time or in the near future. That is still the domain of FILM.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:34 AM
To: Cotty
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
I've only got about 9 months one mine now, but with two bodies probably
in the neighborhood of 13,000 frames and my face hurts from grinning.
It is ironic how often those who actually start to use a DSRL, thinking
they will use film cameras along with it, find that they rarely use the
film cameras anymore.
One thing to remember, is that almost all those who like digital used to
shoot film.  It's not as if they have no clue what shooting film is
like.  They have tried both and found digital to be more preferable (not
without issues, but film has issues too).  Remember I am talking about
comparably handling cameras - film SLR vs. DSLR.  When I had a Coolpix
990 P&S digital and my film cameras, I still shot film for anything
beyond quick snaps.  With a DSLR, well I sold all my film equipment.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Wednesday, August 25, 2004, 12:35:29 AM, you wrote:
C> On 25/8/04, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>I
>>guess a question that still remains to be answered is what people will
>>think about digital cameras after they have been using them for a
while.
C> In nearly two years and 10,000 shots all I've done is blown dust off
C> the sensor about half a dozen times. The camera continues to perform
C> faultlessly. The grin is still there.

C> Cheers,
C>   Cotty
C> ___/\__
C> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
C> ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
C> _

Focusing screens MX <-> LX

[Gonz]

In the MX focusing screens manual, it says that MX focusing screens can 
be used in the LX.

In the LX focusing screens manual, it says that LX focusing screens are 
exclusively for the LX.

Does that mean that LX focusing screens cannot be used on the MX, but 
the converse can?

Has anyone ever tried to put an LX screen into an MX?
Thanks,
rg

Re: I enjoy film

[Bruce Dayton]

Hello Billy,

My experience over the years has not been that great.  Fast,
inexpensive labs have problems with squeegee scratching, chemical
deposits, bad chemistry and cutting negs poorly.  I have tons of
examples of all the above.

Just hang around and watch the staff handling of film for awhile and
get sick to your stomach as they handle the film with bare hands
putting finger marks on the emulsion side or dropping the film onto
the floor to get scratched or watch them slice through portions of
your negatives when rushing to get the orders done.

Better labs will treat your film with more care and respect.  If you
just have develop only and no prints made, you may find the cost
difference per roll quite small between a good lab and a poor lab.
The best way to pick is to watch their film handling for awhile to see
how well the film gets treated.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Wednesday, August 25, 2004, 5:50:55 AM, you wrote:

BA> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>> If I get a nice snapshot that is printed poorly (often the case) I scan
>> it myself...

BA> This leads nicely into a question i;ve been meaning to ask for a while -
BA> does the development of the negatives by minilabs vary as much as the
BA> printing?

BA> ie. does it matter a huge amount where i get my film developed (as long as
BA> i choose somewhere that isn;t going to destroy my film) if i;m going to
BA> scan the negatives and just use the prints as big contact print 
BA> equivalents?

BA> billy

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Billy Abbott"
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)



>
> They don't *have* to do that...they can just use the default
setting. Like
> someone with a new do-everything-but-mow-the-lawn film P&S they may
have a
> quick read through the manual and see what fancy things the camera
does,
> but they'll probably just leave it as the manufacturer gave it to
them.
>
> For the simple snapshotter, there isn't that much difference
between the
> difficulty of using film and digital. I do not claim that digital
is
> easier, but for the average user who doesn't want to faff with the
options
> it is as easy as film.

Be that as it may, they as often as not manage to bugger something
up, usually file size. I print a lot of 640x480 files up to 4x5 inch
prints.
Perhaps this is the default setting for the cameras, I don't know.
When I mention that they need to give me bigger files, they gat this
blank look like as if I am no longer speaking English.
Digital really does require a knowledge base that film doesn't
require, and the custmers really do resist being anything other than
stupid for the most part.
And we haven't even begun to delve into batteries and chargers and
all the little things that make those electronic marvels work.
What seems to happen is that the more possibilities you give a
consumer to foul up, the more they will take advantage of those
options.

William Robb

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Cotty]

On 25/8/04, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:

>There are a couple of extra steps in digital that you have left out:
>Prior to your step one:
>Go into menuland and set up the following:
>1) resolution.
>2) file compression
>3) colour space.
>4) saturation.
>5) contrast
>6) sharpness
>7) sensitivity (not as necessary, as the default will work).

Ah but Bill, there's this green knob on top that says 'Auto' - 99.99%
will use that, surely.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_

Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.

[Bruce Dayton]

Hello Don,

1 - What we can't tell with Adorama and B&H is what is in stock vs how
fast stock is turning.  My local camera store sells everything Nikon
and pentax 35mm and Medium Format.  When I bought my *istD last
November from them, they told me that film camera sales had polarized.
Basically Nikon N80 and below were selling fairly normally.  Anything
above that virtually dried up 6 months before I bought my *istD.  They
were selling D1 and D100's as fast as they got them in, but N90,
F100, F5 sales were dismal.  So what I am saying is that Adorama and
B&H may have a good stock of pro level film bodies, but they may be
selling very slowly.  Something we can't tell except for the general
trends.

2 - My local lab has offered 2000X3000 forever.  It is the size that
the Agfa D-labs normally scan at to print your film.  Merely a matter
of burning the images to CD.

3 - Again, hard to tell why - demand or marketing by the film
companies.  My local shop doesn't stock anything by Kodak because of
the hassle of dealing with them.  They found no real loss of sales by
just using Fuji.  Perhaps a more hungry film manufacture is now
catering to your shop - or perhaps demand for those types of film is
up.  Again need to see how fast the inventory is turning.

4 - One angle that hasn't been dwelt upon much is the fact that a
large percentage of working pros are switching from medium format to
digital.  They are selling their old equipment for a song.  Someone is
buying the equipment.  My hunch is that serious hobbyists are getting
a great deal and moving up in image quality.  This could temporarily
cause a resurgence in sales of "pro" film and processing.
Realistically, all MF film is pro grade.

Cost/availability/inconvenience will be the long term death of the
film/processing arena.  Can't say how long it will take, but at some
point, it will become a niche product.  Look for the time when the big
retailers get rid of their film processors to be the signal of the
turning point.  They will find that dealing with the film processor
isn't cost effective anymore - due to staff and space vs volume that
they do with it.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Wednesday, August 25, 2004, 5:24:10 AM, you wrote:

DS> 1.) Adorama still stocks several very high dollar pro 35 slrs.
DS> 2.) My local camera shop added 2000x3000 35mm scanning to their lower
DS> quality scanning, they have also just added another fridge for pro films.
DS> 3.) The local shop is also now stocking 6 more types of 35 and 120 film.
DS> 4.) I have recieved 4 e-mails in the last month offering "pro" 35mm
DS> processing and printing.

DS> I have to agree that digital will win in the end, but the above indicate
DS> that it won't be real soon.
DS> At least not where I live.
DS> No one would be interested in a several thousand dollar 35 slr, or adding
DS> $20.00/roll scanning if film is going to die next year.


DS> Don

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[J. C. O'Connell]

Digital still cant match what you can do with a 4x5 FILM
camera and lens that costs less than a DSLR body alone.

For people who's reference of quality is 35mm or Medium
format film, sure DSLR can replace that, but it isnt
even close to 4x5 quality and wont be for quite some
time to come unless very large sensors suddenly become
cheap and all the indications are they wont.

Im am not trying to say that the average person should be
shooting 4x5 film, I'm just saying for those who know and want
really good quality, there is no affordable digital at this
time or in the near future. That is still the domain of FILM.

JCO

-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:34 AM
To: Cotty
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


I've only got about 9 months one mine now, but with two bodies probably
in the neighborhood of 13,000 frames and my face hurts from grinning.

It is ironic how often those who actually start to use a DSRL, thinking
they will use film cameras along with it, find that they rarely use the
film cameras anymore.

One thing to remember, is that almost all those who like digital used to
shoot film.  It's not as if they have no clue what shooting film is
like.  They have tried both and found digital to be more preferable (not
without issues, but film has issues too).  Remember I am talking about
comparably handling cameras - film SLR vs. DSLR.  When I had a Coolpix
990 P&S digital and my film cameras, I still shot film for anything
beyond quick snaps.  With a DSLR, well I sold all my film equipment.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Wednesday, August 25, 2004, 12:35:29 AM, you wrote:

C> On 25/8/04, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:

>>I
>>guess a question that still remains to be answered is what people will
>>think about digital cameras after they have been using them for a
while.

C> In nearly two years and 10,000 shots all I've done is blown dust off 
C> the sensor about half a dozen times. The camera continues to perform 
C> faultlessly. The grin is still there.




C> Cheers,
C>   Cotty


C> ___/\__
C> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
C> ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
C> _

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Cotty]

On 25/8/04, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Very valid points.
>
>What I would say is that the industry is pushing this PictBridge thing,
>where cards can poop out of a camera 

ROTFL

What a slip!




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Billy Abbott]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, William Robb wrote:
There are a couple of extra steps in digital that you have left out:
Prior to your step one:
Go into menuland and set up the following:
1) resolution.
2) file compression
3) colour space.
4) saturation.
5) contrast
6) sharpness
7) sensitivity (not as necessary, as the default will work).
Doing this requires something that most consumers don't want to do,
which is reading the owners manual, and retaining the knowledge.
They don't *have* to do that...they can just use the default setting. Like 
someone with a new do-everything-but-mow-the-lawn film P&S they may have a 
quick read through the manual and see what fancy things the camera does, 
but they'll probably just leave it as the manufacturer gave it to them.

For the simple snapshotter, there isn't that much difference between the 
difficulty of using film and digital. I do not claim that digital is 
easier, but for the average user who doesn't want to faff with the options 
it is as easy as film.

billy
--
I haven't has so much fun since the pigs ate my little sister
 Billy Abbott billy at cowfish dot org dot uk

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[pnstenquist]

In regard to stock, the stock houses with which I am familiar want 50 megabyte files — 
max. At that size I don't think there's enough difference between MF and even 6 
megapixel digital to warrant the large neg. 


> William Robb write:
> "...[it] seems to becoming an accepted medium in advertising and stock
> photography, although I wonder how, when the quality doesn't come up
> to medium format film."
> 
> I have recently become vary aware of a trend towards poor quality pictures
> in magazines. Images of a quality that until a few years ago would never
> have made it in. this is both in the magazine content and adverts. there is
> often noise, artifacts and saw-toothed lines, often very pronounced from an
> over-enlarged digital file. It just seems like they don't care so much any
> more.
> 
> Mick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[pnstenquist]

I disagree. By the time you print an image on an offset press, you can't distinguish 
between a 10 megapixel digital shot and medium format. I wish I could show you the 
images Clint Clemens shot for Jeep and Chrysler European advertising with his 10 
megapixel Canons. They are magnificent and easily the equal of anything I've ever seen 
from an MF ad shooter.
Paul


> William Robb write:
> "...[it] seems to becoming an accepted medium in advertising and stock
> photography, although I wonder how, when the quality doesn't come up
> to medium format film."
> 
> I have recently become vary aware of a trend towards poor quality pictures
> in magazines. Images of a quality that until a few years ago would never
> have made it in. this is both in the magazine content and adverts. there is
> often noise, artifacts and saw-toothed lines, often very pronounced from an
> over-enlarged digital file. It just seems like they don't care so much any
> more.
> 
> Mick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Caveman]

It started during the Gulf War. They were printing at that time some 
kind of poorly enlarged 320x200 video frames. They noticed they could 
get away with it, so why not continue it's much cheaper and enhances the 
bottom line.

Mick Maguire wrote:
I have recently become vary aware of a trend towards poor quality pictures
in magazines. Images of a quality that until a few years ago would never
have made it in. this is both in the magazine content and adverts. there is
often noise, artifacts and saw-toothed lines, often very pronounced from an
over-enlarged digital file. It just seems like they don't care so much any
more.

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Bruce Dayton]

I've only got about 9 months one mine now, but with two bodies
probably in the neighborhood of 13,000 frames and my face hurts from
grinning.

It is ironic how often those who actually start to use a DSRL,
thinking they will use film cameras along with it, find that they
rarely use the film cameras anymore.

One thing to remember, is that almost all those who like digital used
to shoot film.  It's not as if they have no clue what shooting film is
like.  They have tried both and found digital to be more preferable
(not without issues, but film has issues too).  Remember I am talking
about comparably handling cameras - film SLR vs. DSLR.  When I had a
Coolpix 990 P&S digital and my film cameras, I still shot film for
anything beyond quick snaps.  With a DSLR, well I sold all my film
equipment.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Wednesday, August 25, 2004, 12:35:29 AM, you wrote:

C> On 25/8/04, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:

>>I 
>>guess a question that still remains to be answered is what people will
>>think about digital cameras after they have been using them for a while.

C> In nearly two years and 10,000 shots all I've done is blown dust off the
C> sensor about half a dozen times. The camera continues to perform
C> faultlessly. The grin is still there.




C> Cheers,
C>   Cotty


C> ___/\__
C> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
C> ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
C> _

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Mick Maguire]

William Robb write:
"...[it] seems to becoming an accepted medium in advertising and stock
photography, although I wonder how, when the quality doesn't come up
to medium format film."

I have recently become vary aware of a trend towards poor quality pictures
in magazines. Images of a quality that until a few years ago would never
have made it in. this is both in the magazine content and adverts. there is
often noise, artifacts and saw-toothed lines, often very pronounced from an
over-enlarged digital file. It just seems like they don't care so much any
more.

Mick

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


> I'm sorry but your digital workflow listed below is not simpler
than
> 35mm film.
> The 35mm camera is simpler, even a sosphisticated one, and it is
much
> easier to unload a film cassette and drop off then to have to
> download and review and edit photos  on a PC before dropping off.
>
> There are still plenty of people who don't want to and maybe don't
> even know how to use the more complicated digicams and PCs. So I do
> not agree with your original statement that digital is simpler
> than 35mm film from a user standpoint, quite the contrary.

>From my end of the business, I agree with you. The problem with
digital is that there are more ways for the consumer to screw things
up than there are with film.
The main reason for digital's market penetration is that
manufacturers have found a wonderful way to sell lots of new product
to a gullible consumer who has spent the past 2 decades being primed
for it.
The word "digital" is a very powerful word to the consumer. It means
quality and accuracy to them.
Digital watches are more acurate than mechanical ones (lets stay
mainstream here, Rolex doesn't sell a lot of watches from J.C.
Penny).
Weve been sold digital clocks, digital telephones, digital
televisions, digitally remastered LP records, and digital music, and
they have all provided some quality advantages to the consumer.
That they are also cheaper to manufacture, since there are fewer
moving parts is a huge advantage to the manufacturers as well. They
don't have to be as well made to do the job.
Everyone knows that computers are digital, and look at how wonderful
they are. People buy a new one every couple of years, they like em so
much.

No surprise then that when the marketers discover a new goose that
lays golden eggs they get behind it and start gathering eggs as fast
as they can.
The customer has already been brainwashed into thinking it will be
better, there is a couple of decades of marketing behind digital
cameras already.
As a photofinisher, I like digital. When the results are crap, I can
honestly tell the customer that digital is a "garbage in, garbage
out" medium, and if they want good results, it's on them to provide
me with good files.
I don't have to put up with being accused of wrecking their film when
they underexpose it 3 stops, and I don't have the risk of damaging
their film. I don't have to worry about dust on negatives, or being
clumsy and fingerprinting or scratching it.
I don't get shit on because the foam off their DX window has fallen
out and their film is fogged (my fault obviously, they didn't fog
their film), nor is heat and age a factor in the quality of the file.

As a photographer, I like digital within it's limitations. It is a
pretty good replacement for colour negative film for snapshot use,
and seems to becoming an accepted medium in advertising and stock
photography, although I wonder how, when the quality doesn't come up
to medium format film.
I suspect that the same market forces that have shaped Joe Sixpack's
views on digital have also shaped the views of art directors and
owners of stock houses.

William Robb

Re: The end of film and a dry plate renaissance

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Kevin Waterson"
Subject: The end of film and a dry plate renaissance



>
> Seriously though, why not a return to plates? All those years ago,
the
> chemicals were available and it would certainly bring back a little
> romance and art to photography. Something I feel is missing from a
lot
> of todays instant snapshot generation.

It's a different world now. You wouldn't be allowed to buy most of
the raw chemicals required, or if you were, you would have to ensure
that you weren't polluting, and be inspected periodically to ensure
you were in compliance.

William Robb

Re: Beeb 4 Oz snapper doco

[Anthony Farr]

Shel,

If Shackleton's 1914 expedition was the one where the ship was crushed in
pack-ice, forcing the leader and a small party to sail to South Georgia
Island in the ship's boat, to summon relief, while the rest of the crew had
to winter-over in Antarctica (no small business in those times), then the
answer is yes.

Hurley shot both the movie footage and the famous stills of the ship's last
moments as it was crushed by the ice.  He also was responsible for great
anthropological photography and filming in New Guinea and central Australia.

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> Wasn't (Frank Hurley) the photog on Shackleton's 1914 polar expedition?
>
> Shel
>
>

RE: Aussie *ist D Prices

[Paul McEvoy]

when I was researching such things, it seemed like the Nikon D 70 was 
superior to the Canon in every way, for not too much more money.  If I was 
going to buy one I would go with the Nikon.  It seems like the Canon gets 
talked about a lot more, maybe because it's the cheapest of the options at 
the moment.


Original Message Follows
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Aussie *ist D Prices
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:35:57 +0100 (BST)
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Trevor Bailey wrote:
> If I wanted to lay down the cash, I want a Pentax, But price is telling
> me 300D Canon. As to the 10D, have never seen one in the flesh.
Trevor,
Price once told you to buy the MZ-60; was that a good decision? How
much money did you lose on it so as to upgrade to a more functional
camera? Add the fact that you already have a few Pentax lenses and see
the big equation, not just the initial outlay.
My feeling is that the 300D is a money-pinching instrument on behalf
of Canon, a brutally downsized . I hope
that Graywolf was right in his comments the other day that the Baby-D
will not be the same thing, though my motive for that is all to do
with brand allegiance rather than any impending personal choice.
Kostas (I think the main question is "do I want to go digital" and
thus still think that my next camera will be an -S, not a -D).

RE: Aussie *ist D Prices

[Chris Stoddart]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:

> My feeling is that the 300D is a money-pinching instrument on behalf
> of Canon, a brutally downsized . I hope
> that Graywolf was right in his comments the other day that the Baby-D
> will not be the same thing, though my motive for that is all to do
> with brand allegiance rather than any impending personal choice.

I hope this is right too and for the exactly the same reasons. I want
the Baby-D to be more of a Nikon D70 to the D100 than a Canon 300D to the
10D. Mind you, the chances of me buying one instead of a nice BMW 2002 or
Alfa GTV are close to zero. Don't worry, there's plenty of people on the
car lists telling me I won't be able to drive them soon and better get a
nice Eurobox instead! :-)

Chris

Re: The end of film and a dry plate renaissance

[Antonio]

Uh, portability?


A.
On 25/8/04 3:23 pm, "Kevin Waterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If Black and White film were to be dropped by manufacturers tomorrow,
> I could almost foresee a return to dry plates. If film and the chemicals
> were no longer readily available, a new renaissance in plate photography
> could well be a subsititute. Remember, _REAL_ photographers coat their
> own plates.
> 
> Seriously though, why not a return to plates? All those years ago, the
> chemicals were available and it would certainly bring back a little
> romance and art to photography. Something I feel is missing from a lot
> of todays instant snapshot generation.
> 
> The demise of film and the return of glass plates could be a good thing.
> 
> Just a thought,
> Kevin
> 
> -
> __   
> (_ \ 
> _) )           
> |  /  / _  ) / _  | / ___) / _  )
> | |  ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ /
> |_|   \) \_||_| \) \)
> Kevin Waterson
> Port Macquarie, Australia
> 

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Dan]

I'd agree with you on that.  My parents just have their digital images printed
directly from the memory card.  They don't make a copy on the PC (I'm trying to
encourage them to do that).  I'm not sure if they use DPOF or the image choosing
machines in the photo processors shop.

On the digital vs film is simplet I don't think there's much in it.  People
enjoy doing the review process as they get to look at their pics, so even if it
seems like an additional step it is actually a welcome additional step.  It
saves fiddling with loading film, and actually having a film loaded (happened a
few times to one of my in-laws).

Quoting Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> What I would say is that the industry is pushing this PictBridge thing,
> where cards can poop out of a camera and pop straight into a printer, as
> well as these automated printing machines, not to mention that labs are
> now geared up to printing straight from digital. I would hazzard a guess
> that about 95% of all digital images shot won't go through a computer
> unless to email friends and family. We are the exception.

Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[Cotty]

On 25/8/04, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:

>But what I was driving at was more of the images-on-the-PC way of doing 
>things. I think the way most people with digicams operate today, is they 
>transfer the files to the PC, then clear the memory card and possibly 
>email the pictures to some of their friends, and then, well. That's it 
>really. Possibly, they intended to send the data somewhere across the 
>Net in order to get them printed, but they just never get around to 
>doing it. And they never take backups or anything. So what I'm wondering 
>is what these people will do:
>
>   1. If they realise (I think many will) that they don't ever look at
>  their pictures anymore, because they're buried down somewhere on
>  the PC's harddrive, and not sitting in an album or hanging on the
>  wall.
>   2. After they've lost *all* their pictures because the disk crashed,
>  or they messed up somehow, i.e. deleted the wrong folder, forgot
>  all about the pictures when reformatting before reinstalling
>  Windows or whatever.
>   3. They find that the pictures are even less accessible than assumed
>  in 1) because they're on the old PC's harddrive, or the one of 3
>  PCs before the current (the brand-new 1Thz Pentium 17 thingy.)
>
>
>And of course, two years possibly isn't long enough to tire of a new toy 
>even if you liked it just because it was a new toy, if you know what I'm 
>saying.

Very valid points.

What I would say is that the industry is pushing this PictBridge thing,
where cards can poop out of a camera and pop straight into a printer, as
well as these automated printing machines, not to mention that labs are
now geared up to printing straight from digital. I would hazzard a guess
that about 95% of all digital images shot won't go through a computer
unless to email friends and family. We are the exception.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_

RE: Aussie *ist D Prices

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Trevor Bailey wrote:

> If I wanted to lay down the cash, I want a Pentax, But price is telling
> me 300D Canon. As to the 10D, have never seen one in the flesh.

Trevor,

Price once told you to buy the MZ-60; was that a good decision? How
much money did you lose on it so as to upgrade to a more functional
camera? Add the fact that you already have a few Pentax lenses and see
the big equation, not just the initial outlay.

My feeling is that the 300D is a money-pinching instrument on behalf
of Canon, a brutally downsized . I hope
that Graywolf was right in his comments the other day that the Baby-D
will not be the same thing, though my motive for that is all to do
with brand allegiance rather than any impending personal choice.

Kostas (I think the main question is "do I want to go digital" and
thus still think that my next camera will be an -S, not a -D).

RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)

[J. C. O'Connell]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 3:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)


Billy Abbott wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>
>> 35mm Film is EASIER than digital, that's why a lot of people still 
>> use 35mm. Take the pix with autoeverything camera, drop off the film,

>> get a bag full of prints.
>
>
> Or take your digital P&S, review the pictures on the screen on the
> back, deleted the ones you don't like and then drop off the memory 
> card and get back a bag full of prints that you have chosen out of the

> ones that you took.

Yep. That means that digital can be just as simple as film, but the 
standard argument that says it's simpler still doesn't hold.

==

Are you guys serious?, anyone can see, even by your own descriptions
of the process, that there are less steps and skills required to
do 35mm film than digital. That is simplicity. Your wrong digital
is not simpler or AS SIMPLE as 35mm film from a user standpoint.
JCO

RE: Aussie *ist D Prices

[Trevor Bailey]

Chris Stoddart replied... 

Well the 'poxy Sigma lens' performance is probably no worse than the
'poxy
Canon lens' at that price point. Also the *ist D competes with the Canon
10D not the 300D, so you need to price it against that. IF (<- big if)
we
get a Baby *istD at Photokina then that should be a similar sort of
price
to the 300D.

Chris

G'day Chris.
The point I was trying to make is that the 300 D is the most common
digital Canon where the *ist D is the most common (ONLY) digital
available from Pentax at this point in time.
If I wanted to lay down the cash, I want a Pentax, But price is telling
me 300D Canon. As to the 10D, have never seen one in the flesh.

Hooroo.
Regards, Trevor

> I did some pricing today with my local Photographic outlet.
> A Canon 300D is about $1700 AU with a Canon EF 24-85 zoom.
> A *ist D is about $2500 AU with a poxy Sigma 28-70 f2.8.
> I can see why the punters are flocking to the 300D. It only takes a
> single tax return and one is playing with a digi SLR.
> Pentax on the other hand is a save for a rainy day or mortgage the
> missus type price range and still end up with a poxy sigma lens.

Well the 'poxy Sigma lens' performance is probably no worse than the
'poxy
Canon lens' at that price point. Also the *istD competes with the Canon
10D not the 300D, so you need to price it against that. IF (<- big if)
we
get a Baby *istD at Photokina then that should be a similar sort of
price
to the 300D.

Chris

Re: black and white

[frank theriault]

 --- John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> Frank,
> 
> After reading the first few lines of your post, I
> knew almost EXACTLY what  
> the last line would be! :-)
> The "almost" means I reckoned without Delgado.
> 


I'm nothing if not predictable .

Besides, as a few have pointed out, undoubtedly, HCB,
Selgado, [pick your b&w reportage hero] ~know~ the
developing/printing process, and have done it in the
past.

Whether that makes them better photographers, well, I
remain unconvinced, but I've stated my position
several times, so I'm not going to continue that
argument. 

cheers,
frank

=
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst"

"Of course it's all luck"
  --  Henri Cartier-Bresson

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca