Re: Interesting read for those who buy CD's and DVDs
My brother actually reads technical stuff.. William Robb - Original Message - From: Jim Robb Subject: Re: Interesting read for those who buy CD's and DVDs Scary. I just love Article 10 para 2 of the EULA, where you waive your right to trial by jury in any dispute arising out of the EULA.
Re: Interesting read
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I see quite a point in shooting on film and have it later scanned. Though recently Luminous Landscape keep praising latest Canon 11 MP camera up to the point of mentioning that it has virtually no noise at virtually all ISO settings. i don't think that it is as noise free as they say. the enlargements i saw had a fair amount of chroma noise, unless that was introduced after the fact. i was looking at larger than 16x20 prints though, but they were produced by Canon. Herb
Re: Interesting read
Boris, You worry too much about progress. Digital Cams have a LOT of problems. Tried them, don't like them. Most are still toys. Give it 5 years, ok? Grin. Lon Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! In my personal humble opinion the question of fate of film is more of philosophical than of practical nature. You see, I don't think that any of us, even if there are people here that work for photo companies, such as Pentax itself, can reasonably well predict what will happen in the technological future say in two years. Tell me, could you imagine a full frame 14 MP digital camera being sold for $5,000 two years ago? I doubt you could. Or, could you imagine the Foveon sensor technology two years ago? I doubt you could. No disrespect intended here. Well, we all know that all electronics suffer from battery power problem. One of the reasons people buy (FG) battery packs is to be able to use cheaper and more available AA batteries. Just few weeks ago I went to TeleCom exhibition here in Israel and saw a company that has a technology that would allow using some kind of fuel cell as a battery. They predict that in few years you would be able to run your laptop for 10 hours straight and all you'd need do to recharge it would be to replace a small container with some fluid that would be sold for few pennies everywhere... Back to photography. IMHO, photography is so much fine art that it suffers much less from technological progress. You see, you can still make amazing photos with your old (film) camera and old 50 mm lens. In few months when newest Canon and Kodak offerings hit the shelves big you would be able to do the same with your bleeding edge (digital) camera and still your old 50 mm lens. Again, no disrespect to Pentax fans here, I am talking in general :). I think that until modern bleeding edge equipment looses a zero or two of its price, such things would remain mostly for professionals and rich amateurs. I see no reason why film should not keep going for decade or two, or may be even more. Take DVD and VHS for example. If you were a video professional, you might want to put your latest and greatest on DVD. For home use (such as recording some repeating program that happens to be broadcast in rather unusual hour) VHS is just fine. Now, eventually perhaps some device that can write DVDs in real time from your TV would be invented. Add to this some amazing DVD-RW and here you go. But again, it keeps coming, but never really comes. Sorry, I am getting wordy again. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: Interesting read
Boris is cool. -Lon frank theriault wrote: Hi, Boris, You'll fit in nicely here! vbg cheers, frank Boris Liberman wrote: snip Sorry, I am getting wordy again. --- Boris Liberman -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Interesting read
Hi! In my personal humble opinion the question of fate of film is more of philosophical than of practical nature. You see, I don't think that any of us, even if there are people here that work for photo companies, such as Pentax itself, can reasonably well predict what will happen in the technological future say in two years. Tell me, could you imagine a full frame 14 MP digital camera being sold for $5,000 two years ago? I doubt you could. Or, could you imagine the Foveon sensor technology two years ago? I doubt you could. No disrespect intended here. Well, we all know that all electronics suffer from battery power problem. One of the reasons people buy (FG) battery packs is to be able to use cheaper and more available AA batteries. Just few weeks ago I went to TeleCom exhibition here in Israel and saw a company that has a technology that would allow using some kind of fuel cell as a battery. They predict that in few years you would be able to run your laptop for 10 hours straight and all you'd need do to recharge it would be to replace a small container with some fluid that would be sold for few pennies everywhere... Back to photography. IMHO, photography is so much fine art that it suffers much less from technological progress. You see, you can still make amazing photos with your old (film) camera and old 50 mm lens. In few months when newest Canon and Kodak offerings hit the shelves big you would be able to do the same with your bleeding edge (digital) camera and still your old 50 mm lens. Again, no disrespect to Pentax fans here, I am talking in general :). I think that until modern bleeding edge equipment looses a zero or two of its price, such things would remain mostly for professionals and rich amateurs. I see no reason why film should not keep going for decade or two, or may be even more. Take DVD and VHS for example. If you were a video professional, you might want to put your latest and greatest on DVD. For home use (such as recording some repeating program that happens to be broadcast in rather unusual hour) VHS is just fine. Now, eventually perhaps some device that can write DVDs in real time from your TV would be invented. Add to this some amazing DVD-RW and here you go. But again, it keeps coming, but never really comes. Sorry, I am getting wordy again. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: Interesting read
On 9 Dec 2002 at 15:17, Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! In my personal humble opinion the question of fate of film is more of philosophical than of practical nature. Hi Boris, Sorry to cut your well presented argument short but it could be as simple as the introduction of governmental EPA constraints that end the reign of film. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Interesting read
This is an interesting argument. In addition, you could easily conceive of airport security making film impractical for travel. Although they will have to make some accommodation for electronic storage devices these days, I could easily see them saying this will damage film - sorry for random checks, which would swing many folks over to digital. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/09/02 09:24AM On 9 Dec 2002 at 15:17, Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! In my personal humble opinion the question of fate of film is more of philosophical than of practical nature. Hi Boris, Sorry to cut your well presented argument short but it could be as simple as the introduction of governmental EPA constraints that end the reign of film. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Interesting read
- Original Message - From: Steve Desjardins Subject: Re: Interesting read This is an interesting argument. In addition, you could easily conceive of airport security making film impractical for travel. Although they will have to make some accommodation for electronic storage devices these days, I could easily see them saying this will damage film - sorry for random checks, which would swing many folks over to digital. Why would they have to make accommodation for anything? My understanding of the scanners already in use is that they will damage electronic devices, whether storage or otherwise. Under the present climate of fear and panic, I can only see this getting worse, not better. William Robb
Battery life (Was Re: Interesting read)
Hi, Boris wrote: They predict that in few years you would be able to run your laptop for 10 hours straight and all you'd need do to recharge it would be to replace a small container with some fluid that would be sold for few pennies everywhere... And 50 years ago, in the UK, they said that nuclear power would be so cheap it would not be worth charging for it. That was before an unknown number of people were engulfed in the radioactive plume from the Sellafield fire in the late 1950's. The idea of portable nuclear power supplies sank without trace. As I am one of the plumees, I trust you will forgive my scepticism. From what I can see, in my lifetime the power capacity of digital cameras will _maybe_ increase by about 100%. That is, they will use less power and batteries will increase in capacity somewhat to give you a _possible_ doubling of useability. Unless, of course, the number of bells and whistles is multiplied by the marketing departments to justify selling you this year's model, in which case all bets are off. This, combined with the high cost/short life ratio, lack of (or different manner of) definition and fragility of digital cameras, plus the long, complicated (and yet tedious) process before one has an analogue copy in one's hand, leads me to seriously doubt that many people who enjoy photgraphy as it is will be easily moved to the digital arena. Anna Loglee
Re: Interesting read
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This is an interesting argument. In addition, you could easily conceive of airport security making film impractical for travel. Although they will have to make some accommodation for electronic storage devices these days, I could easily see them saying this will damage film - sorry for random checks, which would swing many folks over to digital. Steven Desjardins this is a large driving factor for professionals who travel a lot by flying to switch to digital. plus, if you do the math for 300 dpi printing with the new Kodak Pro 14n, you will see that you can print a 10x15 image with essentially indistinguishable results from the finest grain film except for the lack of grain. if you don't mind a bit of softness, you can go up to 20x30. that is a large enough print even for exhibition. Herb...
Re: Battery life (Was Re: Interesting read)
On 12/9/02 8:07 AM, mike wilson wrote: Boris wrote: They predict that in few years you would be able to run your laptop for 10 hours straight and all you'd need do to recharge it would be to replace a small container with some fluid that would be sold for few pennies everywhere... And 50 years ago, in the UK, they said that nuclear power would be so cheap it would not be worth charging for it. That was before an unknown number of people were engulfed in the radioactive plume from the Sellafield fire in the late 1950's. The idea of portable nuclear power supplies sank without trace. As I am one of the plumees, I trust you will forgive my scepticism. I'm not sure of the exact demonstration Boris mentions, but he refers to either gas-powered microturbine or fuel cell technology. In either case, the fluid is simply methanol or a similar fuel. Fuel cells have been around for some time but have been slow to reach the marketplace, IMO because there's little incentive for industries to change to a technology that has a very low consumable cost. It's also an expensive technical feat to productize these concepts. Fuel cells are relatively uncomplicated and environmentally friendly; nuclear power and chemical batteries are, of course, not. For more info, see: http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=3730 http://www.fuelcells.org/ Or use google to search for fuel cells. t
Re: Interesting read
Comments below, where appropriate: Ryan K. Brooks wrote: Boris Liberman wrote: Take DVD and VHS for example. If you were a video professional, you might want to put your latest and greatest on DVD. For home use (such as recording some repeating program that happens to be broadcast in rather unusual hour) VHS is just fine. Now, eventually perhaps some device that can write DVDs in real time from your TV would be invented. Add to this some amazing DVD-RW and here you go. But again, it keeps coming, but never really comes. To continue your metaphor: In the States anyway, VCR sales are basically nil and DVD players are considered a consumer electronics commercial success. So even if the home VCR is alive and well, there's not any development going on and certainly no company could survive on just making VCRs here. Most large video rental chains here are quickly changing to DVD. That's why, when my present VHS player/recorder started going south, I looked into DVD recorder/players! Wow! Forget that! So, I ended up with a combo unit, VHS and DVD, progressive scan. I can throw my JVC VHS unit away, I can KEEP my present stock of tapes, and gradually replace them with DVD over the next couple of years. I was already lamenting getting rid of all those VHS tapes we have. Now I can keep them for a little while... As to the realtime DVD recorders, they are here now. Panasonic, Phillips, etc. all make versions of this theme. And they're hugely expensive, from an 'average' consumer standpoint. Just as originally CD recorders were. Now CD-RW is an every day thing. Most every budget can handle such a unit. I think one of the big issues for those of us who like to continue to use film will be that labs will have fewer and fewer all-optical options. So if your film is scanned anyway, what's the point? Me, I'll likely shoot black and white and self process but use digital for everything color. R keith whaley
Re: Interesting read
I don't know how true this is, but... I have heard that the new High power x-ray machines used for checked luggage can fry electronic devices. At 10:24 AM 12/9/2002 -0500, you wrote: This is an interesting argument. In addition, you could easily conceive of airport security making film impractical for travel. Although they will have to make some accommodation for electronic storage devices these days, I could easily see them saying this will damage film - sorry for random checks, which would swing many folks over to digital. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/09/02 09:24AM On 9 Dec 2002 at 15:17, Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! In my personal humble opinion the question of fate of film is more of philosophical than of practical nature. Hi Boris, Sorry to cut your well presented argument short but it could be as simple as the introduction of governmental EPA constraints that end the reign of film. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Interesting read
I always bracket if I'm using slide film. With print -- colour or b/w, I don't. Brad - Original Message - From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 1:09 AM Subject: Re: Interesting read Always? Wow. Any other nature folks out there always bracket? Herb, is this +- a half, a third, or a whole stop? Herb Chong wrote, in part: I always bracket my film at least 3 frames and so
Re: Interesting read
Lon Williamson wrote: Always? Wow. Any other nature folks out there always bracket? Herb, is this +- a half, a third, or a whole stop? Herb Chong wrote, in part: I always bracket my film at least 3 frames and so I only use slide film when shooting for my own purposes. I used to bracket a fair bit but now seldom bracket. Sometimes when the scene is greater then film latitude I bracket in one direction by up to one stop from what I think would produce the best image. -- David S. Nature and wildlife photography http://www.sheppardphotos.com
Re: Interesting read
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Always? Wow. Any other nature folks out there always bracket? Herb, is this +- a half, a third, or a whole stop? because of the subjects i shoot and the lighting i like to shoot in, the bracketing for me usually is metered, metered -1/2, and metered -1 stop. on tricky lighting, i will go at least half stop over to 1.5 stops under in half stop steps. this range comes about mostly because i shoot slide film. if i had to shoot print film for some reason, like weddings/portraits and i had a chance to bracket, i would shift all of the bracketing to the overexposure side instead of the under exposure side. casual shots don't get bracketed, but i shoot very few of them on film. they belong on the digital camera. having said all that, 60-70% of all of my selects come at half stop under and almost all the rest at metered exposure. what is more interesting is that i always shoot in evaluative mode on both film and digital. i have never yet exposed an image on my current film camera that uses spot or center-weighted averaging mode and i am almost certain that i haven't used fully manual mode either. based on my experiences shooting slides, i would say that i have not yet run into a natural light situation where half-stop bracketing has not found the exposure i like the best. my first camera with any control more than a shutter release was a Pentax S1a/H1a. no builtin meter. after a few months shooting with the accessory clip-on meter, i stopped using the meter and estimated exposure by eye. PlusX film gave me enough exposure latitude to cover the rest. i do not miss those days. i trust the evaluative metering on my camera and have not had any regrets or missed shots because the meter misread the situation by more than half a stop. most of the time shooting, i never need to think about exposure in the conventional way, just that i bracketed in my standard way around what the meter says. i spend my time on composition first, depth of field second, and freezing or blurring action third. Herb...
Re: Interesting read
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I only use slide film when shooting for my own purposes. I used to bracket a fair bit but now seldom bracket. Sometimes when the scene is greater then film latitude I bracket in one direction by up to one stop from what I think would produce the best image. there are two reasons for bracketing. one is to get slightly different exposures and see how the highlights, shadows, and saturation comes out, and the other is to have a near identical zero generation original for backup purposes. Herb
RE: Interesting read
I know the E-10 is an older camera, but it takes FOREVER to download images, never mind adjust them. Even though the film drop-off takes days, it's time I have to wait not waste. . . Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Interesting read
Hi, Feroze, If it's artificial, it ain't beer!! And, while I'm on the subject, 0% alcohol beer, decaffinated coffee, and caffine-free Coke are oxymorons. I mean, hell, why bother, if you take the good stuff out? vbg cheers, frank Feroze Kistan wrote: Hi Frank snip But I suppose some of those grandkids will also be drinking artificial beer as well, damm, what a shame :) -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Interesting read
Hi, Feroze, I think that film will end up being analogous (no pun intended) to vinyl records (anyone remember those?) Back when CD's came out in the early 80's, they gave vinyl about 10 years. And, for a while it was damn hard to find vinyl at the mainstream record stores, although small-label audiophile stuff was always available by mail or at high-end audio stores - at a price. But, you can now find vinyl (limited amounts, to be sure, but it's there) at mainstream record stores again. And, it costs about the same as list-price CD's (but who buys CD's at list? - they're always on sale!). Lots of people still have turntables, and there is quite a market for high-end vinyl playback systems. I think film will always be around. My guess is that our children and grandchildren will still be able to get a roll of Tri-X when they inherit our Spotmatics and Medium Format gear. (I know I've posted similar posts in the past - apologies to anyone who's read me spouting similarly in the past g). ciao, frank Feroze Kistan wrote: snip ...Hope film is around for a very long time Feroze -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Interesting read
with 64 billion ps cameras of various breeds floating around the cosmos, which company do you think is going to be the first to discontinue film? I can't see Eastman Kodak volunteering, and they are into digital as much as anyone. It's just another market sector to milk. Smart companies will make sure that both stay around as long as necessary, or until another technology supplants both. Perhaps we'll one day see holographic imaging? Only time can tell us what the future holds 0.02 Cheers Shaun frank theriault wrote: Hi, Feroze, I think that film will end up being analogous (no pun intended) to vinyl records (anyone remember those?) Back when CD's came out in the early 80's, they gave vinyl about 10 years. And, for a while it was damn hard to find vinyl at the mainstream record stores, although small-label audiophile stuff was always available by mail or at high-end audio stores - at a price. But, you can now find vinyl (limited amounts, to be sure, but it's there) at mainstream record stores again. And, it costs about the same as list-price CD's (but who buys CD's at list? - they're always on sale!). Lots of people still have turntables, and there is quite a market for high-end vinyl playback systems. I think film will always be around. My guess is that our children and grandchildren will still be able to get a roll of Tri-X when they inherit our Spotmatics and Medium Format gear. (I know I've posted similar posts in the past - apologies to anyone who's read me spouting similarly in the past g). ciao, frank Feroze Kistan wrote: snip ...Hope film is around for a very long time Feroze -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My images can be seen at www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=238096
Re: Interesting read
My belief is that digital is definitely the future but that the future isn't quite here yet (at least for me). Shaun Canning wrote: with 64 billion ps cameras of various breeds floating around the cosmos, which company do you think is going to be the first to discontinue film? I can't see Eastman Kodak volunteering, and they are into digital as much as anyone. It's just another market sector to milk.Smart companies will make sure that both stay around as long as necessary, or until another technology supplants both. Perhaps we'll one day see holographic imaging? Only time can tell us what the future holds 0.02 Cheers Shaun frank theriault wrote: Hi, Feroze, I think that film will end up being analogous (no pun intended) to vinyl records (anyone remember those?) Back when CD's came out in the early 80's, they gave vinyl about 10 years. And, for a while it was damn hard to find vinyl at the mainstream record stores, although small-label audiophile stuff was always available by mail or at high-end audio stores - at a price. But, you can now find vinyl (limited amounts, to be sure, but it's there) at mainstream record stores again. And, it costs about the same as list-price CD's (but who buys CD's at list? - they're always on sale!). Lots of people still have turntables, and there is quite a market for high-end vinyl playback systems. I think film will always be around. My guess is that our children and grandchildren will still be able to get a roll of Tri-X when they inherit our Spotmatics and Medium Format gear. (I know I've posted similar posts in the past - apologies to anyone who's read me spouting similarly in the past g). ciao, frank Feroze Kistan wrote: snip ...Hope film is around for a very long time Feroze -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer .
RE: Interesting read
Frank Theriault wrote: I think that film will end up being analogous (no pun intended) to vinyl records (anyone remember those?) Back when CD's came out in the early 80's, they gave vinyl about 10 years. And, for a while it was damn hard to find vinyl at the mainstream record stores, although small-label audiophile stuff was always available by mail or at high-end audio stores - at a price. Everyone goes for latest technology, *particularly* when you are buying for the first time - the younger generation. But, you can now find vinyl (limited amounts, to be sure, but it's there) at mainstream record stores again. And, it costs about the same as list-price CD's (but who buys CD's at list? - they're always on sale!). Lots of people still have turntables, and there is quite a market for high-end vinyl playback systems. A quality issue. I much prefer vinyl. I think digital will match 35mm quite soon, but for many shots a 67 will always outplace digital - film quality over digital technology. I think film will always be around. (Surely in little cylinders, Frank!) My guess is that our children and grandchildren will still be able to get a roll of Tri-X when they inherit our Spotmatics and Medium Format gear. I do hope so. Malcolm
Re: Interesting read
On 5 Dec 2002 at 13:58, Bruce Dayton wrote: I guess I should follow on with this, that it may be heavily affected by the type of photography you do. If you are shooting scenics and only have to prepare a few per session, it may well be worth it. If, like me, you shoot a wedding with 200 salable prints, then the task becomes daunting. It is far easier to take it to the lab and let them deal with it. So, what do you all think? It really depends on whether you can trust your lab to do what you expect (or to read your mind). I expect the argument will be moot as soon as clever labs start offering all the digital services that he is complaining about. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Interesting read
You are entirely right Bruce. A friend of mine shoots professional sports shots for Football, baseball hockey Opeegee (Sp?)card company and admits that it's the time after he has his shots that is killing him. he still loves digital, but did not realize the work involved after he has the photographs... Vic In a message dated 12/5/02 4:50:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Professionally speaking, at this point in time, digital's greatest weakness is the extra time most photographers are not being compensated for while trying to impress clients and compete with each other. It's also the added burden of having to babysit the whole process to make sure the client can get what he wants. And lastly, it's waiting for the rest of the non-photography world that process and use our images to catch up with us. I think I've got a few years left on my 503CW. END QUOTE Bruce
