Re: Film vs. Digital (WAS: Re: RE: HypotheticalQuestion)
In a message dated 12/23/02 2:22:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Pål: I can relate with you buddy. The beauty of slides or negs is people like you and I can get around to filing whenever we want. I am a firm believer that there is a place for digital but it is not the answer for most of us at this time or in the forseeable future. It is the solution for people who need their images very fast. Otherwise, I'll stick with film and leave the filing, scanning, tweaking and printing for another day. Vic << The reason I won't go digital anytime soon is that I cannot manage thousands, if not ten thousands, of multi megabyte data files. As I am a total wandering chaos the limit of what I can trusted with is to archieve slides. Nor can I be trusted with taking back-up of my files. I never do. Never have. Never will. I'll always postponed until tomorrow. One day it will be too late. Although I've been on the net since '93, I didn't install a virus program until this spring where my first virus hit. Pål >>
Re: Film vs. Digital (WAS: Re: RE: HypotheticalQuestion)
Paul, You brought out a very good example of a common real life use of a camera. Unlike some people who would erect a shrine for their camera bodies and their many countless lenses, or discuss about the color coating of their lenses, the majority of people who use a camera only use it when they need it. That usually means only on special occassions. People mostly treat their cameras like any other commodity, and really it's a commodity. It's something that allows them to take pictures. On one of my project shoots in a convention hall, I met a couple of tourists, which one of them stepped forward and made a comment that since I am a professional photographer, I shouldn't be using a Pentax! Huh!?! He proudly showed his camera out to me that I should be using his instead. It was a Canon EOS-1n with a Sigma 28-80 AF lens. Little did he know that I was using a Pentax Z-1 with a Pentax FA 85 1.4. He said only a camera body like this will take good pictures and that was why he got it. This is unfortunately what the camera industry has promoted. And that is, camera bodies and brand name recognition are important. Most common people haven't a clue why they bought a Nikon or a Canon, but only because they are "brand name" and that they are expensive. Most people don't realize that a camera body itself can not guarantee a good shot -- you need a very good lens also, but you keep hearing people say that when they had a Pentax, they take lousy pictures. But when they have a Nikon or a Canon with special features, they start taking good pictures. I think, it has got to do more with personal redemption (trying to justify an expensive purchase for no immediate and noticeable gain) or it is just a placebo effect. But it happens all the time. Digital is no different and I am actually quite amused with people here discussing a technology that has yet to be standardized. And yet, people said they! 'll jump ship to something else if their demands are not met. Very interesting, but that usually means, I get to buy very inexpensive and very good used Pentax gear. The 85 1.4 was bought used from a guy who said he never got any good shots out of it. That's funny because the lens works for me and puts food on the table for my family. Coming back to the guy with the EOS-1n and his Sigma, I can say with confidence that my FA 85 1.4 will run rings around his slow Sigma zoom lens set at 80mm. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
RE: Film vs. Digital (WAS: Re: RE: HypotheticalQuestion)
I don't have a firewall nor a virus checker on my c7fd8p7uteer and nothing has qpf9fanjf9eraj*547 5423 fdaj gone ur49qq09fedd 8347843889%%^$3a refd9904ql \ rea90ffa' vcmzvd900 kgfdai90f-- 890t4q8-gfjkgvf90453215p r0340aaa as far as I know.. Glen -Original Message- From: Chris Brogden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 8:27 PM To: Pentax List Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital (WAS: Re: RE: HypotheticalQuestion) On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Cotty wrote: > >Although I've been on the net since '93, I didn't > >install a virus program until this spring where my first virus hit. > > > >PÂl > > I still don't have a virus checker on my computer. I use a good firewall, don't open anything I shouldn't, and so far I've been all right. Or at least I *think* I've been all right. :) chris
Re: Film vs. Digital (WAS: Re: RE: HypotheticalQuestion)
Don't get me wrong: While I use film only (color print film, to be specfic), I consider the scanned JPEG the "main" product. It's the JPEG that will receive the widest audience. It's the JPEG that I get to crop after the fact. But I'm puzzled: If digital cameras solve so many problems, why don't I see people carrying using them? I don't see them used in ordinary life; I don't see many used even at special occasions (except for amusement parks). Isn't anyone reading the manual? In the glory days of the SLR, millions of users took their camera everywhere, despite the inconvenient size and weight. Now we have Canon Elphs and such that fit on keyrings. But I don't think the average buyer is exposing any more frames with digital than he was exposing with film. The darn thing is hauled out for birthdays and holidays, then stuffed in a drawer. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Film vs. Digital (WAS: Re: RE: HypotheticalQuestion)
The reason I won't go digital anytime soon is that I cannot manage thousands, if not ten thousands, of multi megabyte data files. As I am a total wandering chaos the limit of what I can trusted with is to archieve slides. Nor can I be trusted with taking back-up of my files. I never do. Never have. Never will. I'll always postponed until tomorrow. One day it will be too late. Although I've been on the net since '93, I didn't install a virus program until this spring where my first virus hit. Pål
Re: Film vs. Digital (WAS: Re: RE: HypotheticalQuestion)
My current box is a Pentium 4, 1.5GHz. In less than a year the top speed has gone to 3.0GHz. No need for me to upgrade for another year or two, unless some new "must have" technology appears that I cannot add to my current computer. Len --- _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf
Re: Film vs. Digital (WAS: Re: RE: HypotheticalQuestion)
- Original Message - From: Johan Schoone Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital (WAS: Re: RE: HypotheticalQuestion) > > This must be Moore's Law. A brief explanation is on Moores law applies to computers. Digital cameras don't follow Moores law. William Robb
Re: Film vs. Digital (WAS: Re: RE: HypotheticalQuestion)
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 05:29:22PM -0600, William Robb wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: Ronald Arvidsson > Subject: Film vs. Digital (WAS: Re: RE: HypotheticalQuestion) > > > > > > Improvement of the medium follows roughly computers, i.e., a > doubling > > of capacity roughly every 18 months or so (take with a grain > of > > salt). > > HUH??? Prove it This must be Moore's Law. A brief explanation is on http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm . -- http://members.chello.nl/~j.schoone\\|// Registered Linux user #78364 - The Linux Counter - http://counter.li.org Assume nothing, expect anything.
Re: Film vs. Digital (WAS: Re: RE: HypotheticalQuestion)
- Original Message - From: Ronald Arvidsson Subject: Film vs. Digital (WAS: Re: RE: HypotheticalQuestion) > > Improvement of the medium follows roughly computers, i.e., a doubling > of capacity roughly every 18 months or so (take with a grain of > salt). HUH??? Prove it William Robb
