Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John Francis On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 09:02:56PM -0600, William Robb wrote: Have you heard any more about the direct film to digital things where the film doesn't make it out alive? I haven't heard hide nor hair of it since Applied Science Fiction was bought by Kodak a couple of years ago. Nowadays they seem to be concentrating on producing Photoshop plugins, so I suspect that we'll never see this as a product. I find that to be a relief on several levels. Kodak bought the dry-process-film-to-digital technology from ASF a couple of years ago. They announced a couple of months ago that they are no longer pursuing it and will not be bringing the intended product (a DIY film developing kiosk) to market. The reason given was that current and projected (declining) levels of film use made it economically non-viable. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Well said FNG g Dave S On 5/18/05, UncaMikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since I am still a FNG here, I get to throw in things out of left field and can use newness as a defense. I am not very interested in gear, I have all the gear I want and need and can use right now. I shoot film, and when I get it processed I get a CD so I can pass shots around. That's just me. What I most enjoy on PDML is looking at other's photos. Whether I comment or not, I learn something from almost every one. And to be brutally honest, in the time I've been here, I have yet to be able to tell from the photo whether the photographer shot the original with film or digital. In other words, film or digital seems to have little to do with the intrinsic quality of the photograph. And by quality I don't mean by some technical standard, but rather aesthetic appeal. Personally, if someone shares a good shot, I'd rather give at least 99% of the credit to the shooter rather than the equipment. *UncaMikey Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Well said, UncaMikey. And 100% correct, aside from Shel's amazing eyes that can tell film from digital capture on any low rez web image. I do enjoy the equipment discussion, but it seems very rare that a useful discussion of aesthetics and photography continues for very long on any marque or equipment centric forum. I'd love to invite you to my mailing list, which is nowhere near as chatty as this one and where most of the traffic is people posting pictures and comments on them. Sign up if you desire at http://www.micapeak.com/lists/seephoto There's also an excellent forum for people who are pursuing Picture A Week projects ... again, most of the discussion is about photographs, not equipment: http://www.micapeak.com/lists/paw hope to see you there. :-) Godfrey On May 17, 2005, at 4:56 PM, UncaMikey wrote: Since I am still a FNG here, I get to throw in things out of left field and can use newness as a defense. I am not very interested in gear, I have all the gear I want and need and can use right now. I shoot film, and when I get it processed I get a CD so I can pass shots around. That's just me. What I most enjoy on PDML is looking at other's photos. Whether I comment or not, I learn something from almost every one. And to be brutally honest, in the time I've been here, I have yet to be able to tell from the photo whether the photographer shot the original with film or digital. In other words, film or digital seems to have little to do with the intrinsic quality of the photograph. And by quality I don't mean by some technical standard, but rather aesthetic appeal. Personally, if someone shares a good shot, I'd rather give at least 99% of the credit to the shooter rather than the equipment. *UncaMikey
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
If you can't tell Tri-X or HP5 from digi when looking at a web image, or Neopan 1600 from digital, or Fuji Press 400 or 800 from digi, then I'd suggest getting your eyes checked. It's really a pisser how so many digital photogs, including many on this list, complain about the obvious grain that shows in film-based images, even on the web, and now we have you saying that the difference can't be discerned. Gimme a break! Further, I did not say ANY low rez web image. I said In many cases it's quite obvious. That's a far cry from ANY ... if you're gonna use my words to make a point, use them accurately and don't manipulate them. I'll put some of my film scans next to some of Rob's digital output, and the difference in the look between the two is substantial and obvious as to which is digi and which is film. When using scanned film images that have been run through Noise Ninja or Neat Image, it may be more difficult to tell the difference, but it's not too hard when making straight scans without heavy manipulation. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Well said, UncaMikey. And 100% correct, aside from Shel's amazing eyes that can tell film from digital capture on any low rez web image.
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Me thinks thou dost protest too much. And take too seriously that which is spoken tongue in cheek. You never manipulate your words to try to incite humor? obligatory smiley :-) /obligatory smiley Godfrey On May 18, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: If you can't tell Tri-X or HP5 from digi when looking at a web image, or Neopan 1600 from digital, or Fuji Press 400 or 800 from digi, then I'd suggest getting your eyes checked. It's really a pisser how so many digital photogs, including many on this list, complain about the obvious grain that shows in film-based images, even on the web, and now we have you saying that the difference can't be discerned. Gimme a break! Further, I did not say ANY low rez web image. I said In many cases it's quite obvious. That's a far cry from ANY ... if you're gonna use my words to make a point, use them accurately and don't manipulate them. I'll put some of my film scans next to some of Rob's digital output, and the difference in the look between the two is substantial and obvious as to which is digi and which is film. When using scanned film images that have been run through Noise Ninja or Neat Image, it may be more difficult to tell the difference, but it's not too hard when making straight scans without heavy manipulation. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Well said, UncaMikey. And 100% correct, aside from Shel's amazing eyes that can tell film from digital capture on any low rez web image.
Re: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/05/16 Mon PM 06:24:49 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware I think the term Luddite is quite applicable: Luddite n 1: any opponent of technological progress 2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment Better check the definition. 'Not using' is not the same as 'opposing'. Unless you subscribe to the notion that 'you are either with us, or against us'. I think the film users on this list are the technology advancers. All the ones who are posting are pressing for _improvement_ in the technology so that it will do what they want. Does that not make the digitista the Luddites? This technology is perfectly good enough for me sounds less progressive than I wish this would do X. m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked by McAfee visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/05/16 Mon PM 11:01:22 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware On 16 May 2005 at 22:58, Jens Bladt wrote: Most people buy digiatal cameras without realizing why they want it. If you want 4x6 print for your family album (that's what most people want), thers no reason to go digital. I believe history will remember our generation as the generation that didn't leave any photographs for the next generatoin. They will die as fast as the harddrives, CD's and servers within which they only exist for a few years, perhaps as much as a decade. Then they'll be lost forever. I'm with you regarding the environmental impact aspect of changing phones yearly (or more) I personally have a hand-me-down and have only owned 4 mobile phones since 1992. I think it's a very sad state of affairs that you can often buy a new phone and service cheaper than it costs to just maintain a service on an existing phone. The biggest problem with all this disposable personal technlogy is the power sources. It only takes one or two NiCad batteries to kill a landfill cell and prevent it doing its proper composting job. Most people don't realise that there is a jolly good reason for making it illegal to dispose of them in the normal refuse. Their small size makes it almost impossible to find them. m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using mcAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On Mon, 16 May 2005, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or dismisses older technology as useless or worthless? Shortsighted. What a disappointing answer. You know you can do better than that! Kostas
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
- Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Shortsighted. What a disappointing answer. You know you can do better than that! Sorry. It was what came to mind. I didn't put much thought into it. William Robb
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Thanks all ... still, since John was good enough to loan me the camera, I should put some bats in it and at least exercise it for him. Anyway, I've never used a Super Program, so it'll be a treat to see how it performs with an A lenses. Shel [Original Message] From: E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 5/16/2005 8:28:45 PM Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote: with the subtleties of exposure. The little buttons make adjustments a real PITA. John Francis loaned me a Super Program which I've yet to try. From the kudos it's received here, it may be a nice alternative to the ME-S. Not for you, I don't think, it still has the buttons. And it is *definitely* louder. ERNR
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
NOD! Something we should all consider more. In my experience every PDML'er I have personally met has been a nice person, however they seem on the list. Thanks for posting this observation, John. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- John Francis wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 09:30:36AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: You present yourself as a true believer, the keeper of the flame. Your way is the right way, others are idiots. Shel How delightfully ironic. Shel criticising somebody else for being (or, at least, appearing to be) overly-prescriptive. Actually, there's a lot of truth in what Shel said. If you go by the on-line appearances, you'd have thought that Shel and I, for example, would be at daggers drawn. But we're quite capable of sitting down in a group, amongst other photographers, and amiably sharing a beer or two; usenet dicussion groups are by no means a substitute for real life encounters. It's the nature of the medium, of course - a reply or followup to a posting will single out those areas of disagreement, and amplify them disproportionately. It's rare to see more than a simple I agree in response to other parts of a post, and even that small concession rarely shows up. In a face-to-face discussion there would have been non-verbal feedback to make that clear; nodding, a quiet uh-huh, or just body english. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.11 - Release Date: 5/16/2005
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
I think True Believers (My way is the only way) is more accurate. Early Adopters like new stuff, they don't necessarily think the old ways are bad. They just like to be the first with the new toys. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Jostein wrote: - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or dismisses older technology as useless or worthless? I think Gartner Group has labelled them early adopters...:-) Jostein -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.12 - Release Date: 5/17/2005
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Then why can you not says, Digital works best for me, rather than Digital Ober Al? You, Rob Studdert, and that guy in California can not seem to say anything but Film is Dead! While I think any professional photographer with deadlines is a fool not to use digital, that does not apply to many of us who just make photos for our enjoyment. Then you guys accuse us of being the ones in the wrong. I never saw a thread titled digital is crap, but there is a film is dead thread every couple of weeks, with you three telling the rest of us that we are reactionary luddites. Why is that? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I now shoot digital almost exclusively. It has nothing to do with new vs. old or high tech vs. low tech. It has to do with what works best for me. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.12 - Release Date: 5/17/2005
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
--- Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is that? a.) Why not? b.) Because. c.) a. and b. d.) c. *UncaMikey Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
I think someone missed his nap :-) First, you quote me where I said I'm a Luddite and shoot digital only because it works best for me. Then, you go on to ask why I don't say Digital works best for me. I'm sorry you're having such a problem over this thread. Hope you feel better soon. Paul Then why can you not says, Digital works best for me, rather than Digital Ober Al? You, Rob Studdert, and that guy in California can not seem to say anything but Film is Dead! While I think any professional photographer with deadlines is a fool not to use digital, that does not apply to many of us who just make photos for our enjoyment. Then you guys accuse us of being the ones in the wrong. I never saw a thread titled digital is crap, but there is a film is dead thread every couple of weeks, with you three telling the rest of us that we are reactionary luddites. Why is that? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I now shoot digital almost exclusively. It has nothing to do with new vs. old or high tech vs. low tech. It has to do with what works best for me. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.12 - Release Date: 5/17/2005
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On May 17, 2005, at 9:17 AM, Graywolf wrote: ... You, Rob Studdert, and that guy in California ... You mean Shel, John Francis, Marco or ... ? Godfrey
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On 17 May 2005 at 12:17, Graywolf wrote: Then why can you not says, Digital works best for me, rather than Digital Ober Al? You, Rob Studdert, and that guy in California can not seem to say anything but Film is Dead! While I think any professional photographer with deadlines is a fool not to use digital, that does not apply to many of us who just make photos for our enjoyment. Then you guys accuse us of being the ones in the wrong. I never saw a thread titled digital is crap, but there is a film is dead thread every couple of weeks, with you three telling the rest of us that we are reactionary luddites. Why is that? I think I my rants though often tortuous can generally be construed as being in agreement that film has its place for the moment. I've never called or inferred that anyone is a Luddite, hell I'm the dude who wants my damn lens bound aperture ring back and who lugs about 67 film kit most of the time I'm out and in serious photography mode :-) You don't hear anyone sprouting the digital is crap line because it's not true, it may be different to film but it's not crap, whereas film is dead whilst it's not accurate will likely become a reality in the not too distant future (but for pockets of specialist supply). Currently I'm getting far more enjoyment from my picture making using digital processes because I've got far more control of the process, it's little to do with deadlines if at all in fact. Give me a 22MP full frame 35mm body with extreme latitude sensor and I will pretty much write off film though, I'm a realist. ;-) Some of us own, use and love darkrooms and the analogue print process others have been there and have found the digital processes more suitable and flexible image making options and in our new found enthusiasm are simply letting everyone else know. If this type of discussion is all too offensive maybe some name/subject filters are in order? 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: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
that's because film research has essentially stopped while digital camera research is happening even without people asking for it. we don't have to ask for it, they're giving it to us anyway. Herb - Original Message - From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:10 AM Subject: Re: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware I think the film users on this list are the technology advancers. All the ones who are posting are pressing for _improvement_ in the technology so that it will do what they want. Does that not make the digitista the Luddites? This technology is perfectly good enough for me sounds less progressive than I wish this would do X.
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
we don't think it *should* go away. it's going away no matter what anyone here thinks. what are film lovers going to do when a roll costs $15 mail order only, hardly any choice, chemicals hard to obtain and expensive, and quality control is iffy? just how much are you willing to pay for it, and what makes you think any of your favorite films will actually still be made? Kodak and Fuji will abandon it as soon as it's not profitable anymore, and that is only a matter of a few years. Agfa and Ilford don't look too healthy, and that's being charitable. Herb - Original Message - From: Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:44 AM Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware However, film has not disappeared. Most of us non-digital users just prefer film. Very few of us think digital should disappear. It is you pro-digital idjeets who think film should go away.
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Since I am still a FNG here, I get to throw in things out of left field and can use newness as a defense. I am not very interested in gear, I have all the gear I want and need and can use right now. I shoot film, and when I get it processed I get a CD so I can pass shots around. That's just me. What I most enjoy on PDML is looking at other's photos. Whether I comment or not, I learn something from almost every one. And to be brutally honest, in the time I've been here, I have yet to be able to tell from the photo whether the photographer shot the original with film or digital. In other words, film or digital seems to have little to do with the intrinsic quality of the photograph. And by quality I don't mean by some technical standard, but rather aesthetic appeal. Personally, if someone shares a good shot, I'd rather give at least 99% of the credit to the shooter rather than the equipment. *UncaMikey Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
Re: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
- Original Message - From: Herb Chong Subject: Re: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware that's because film research has essentially stopped while digital camera research is happening even without people asking for it. we don't have to ask for it, they're giving it to us anyway. I recall a trade circulation I read a while back indicating that Kodak has essentially stopped doing any sort of film RD. They may be making minor tweaks here and there, but I anticipate than any new films from Kodak will be rebadged models from last year, so to speak. I can't speak for what Fuji is doing, but it would surprise me very much if they were doing much film RD, considering what their marketing philosophy has been in the past. William Robb
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
In many cases it's quite obvious. Shel [Original Message] From: UncaMikey [...] in the time I've been here, I have yet to be able to tell from the photo whether the photographer shot the original with film or digital.
Re: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
the research needed to make any reasonable improvement in today's films is very expensive. with the film market contracting at around 18%/yr, it makes no sense to do any more. process and quality control improvements are about all i can imagine them doing. when the boutique film market emerges, then we'll see some action again, but i think that there is going to be huge potential for snake oil claims. Herb... - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 7:56 PM Subject: Re: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware I recall a trade circulation I read a while back indicating that Kodak has essentially stopped doing any sort of film RD. They may be making minor tweaks here and there, but I anticipate than any new films from Kodak will be rebadged models from last year, so to speak. I can't speak for what Fuji is doing, but it would surprise me very much if they were doing much film RD, considering what their marketing philosophy has been in the past.
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On Tue, 17 May 2005 16:56:44 -0700 (PDT), UncaMikey wrote: I am not very interested in gear, I have all the gear I want and need and can use right now. Wow! You sure are in the wrong place. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On 5/17/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: we don't think it *should* go away. it's going away no matter what anyone here thinks. what are film lovers going to do when a roll costs $15 mail order only, hardly any choice, chemicals hard to obtain and expensive, and quality control is iffy? just how much are you willing to pay for it, and what makes you think any of your favorite films will actually still be made? Kodak and Fuji will abandon it as soon as it's not profitable anymore, and that is only a matter of a few years. Agfa and Ilford don't look too healthy, and that's being charitable. Tri-X will be the last film made (by Kodak, anyway). When they stop making that, I'll go digital. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On 5/17/05, UncaMikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since I am still a FNG here, I get to throw in things out of left field and can use newness as a defense. I am not very interested in gear, I have all the gear I want and need and can use right now. I shoot film, and when I get it processed I get a CD so I can pass shots around. That's just me. What I most enjoy on PDML is looking at other's photos. Whether I comment or not, I learn something from almost every one. And to be brutally honest, in the time I've been here, I have yet to be able to tell from the photo whether the photographer shot the original with film or digital. In other words, film or digital seems to have little to do with the intrinsic quality of the photograph. And by quality I don't mean by some technical standard, but rather aesthetic appeal. Personally, if someone shares a good shot, I'd rather give at least 99% of the credit to the shooter rather than the equipment. Dude. I like the way you think. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On 5/17/05, Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005 16:56:44 -0700 (PDT), UncaMikey wrote: I am not very interested in gear, I have all the gear I want and need and can use right now. Wow! You sure are in the wrong place. :-) There are a few of us in the same boat. A very few... vbg cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
- Original Message - From: Herb Chong Subject: Re: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware the research needed to make any reasonable improvement in today's films is very expensive. with the film market contracting at around 18%/yr, it makes no sense to do any more. process and quality control improvements are about all i can imagine them doing. when the boutique film market emerges, then we'll see some action again, but i think that there is going to be huge potential for snake oil claims. Not that I am implying anything but Have you heard any more about the direct film to digital things where the film doesn't make it out alive? William Robb
Re: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 09:02:56PM -0600, William Robb wrote: Have you heard any more about the direct film to digital things where the film doesn't make it out alive? I haven't heard hide nor hair of it since Applied Science Fiction was bought by Kodak a couple of years ago. Nowadays they seem to be concentrating on producing Photoshop plugins, so I suspect that we'll never see this as a product.
Re: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
- Original Message - From: John Francis Subject: Re: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 09:02:56PM -0600, William Robb wrote: Have you heard any more about the direct film to digital things where the film doesn't make it out alive? I haven't heard hide nor hair of it since Applied Science Fiction was bought by Kodak a couple of years ago. Nowadays they seem to be concentrating on producing Photoshop plugins, so I suspect that we'll never see this as a product. I find that to be a relief on several levels. William Robb
Re: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
the only things i have heard of were a plain single use PS film camera where the film was processed, scanned, and destroyed. i'm not sure if that is what you mean. Herb... - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:02 PM Subject: Re: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Not that I am implying anything but Have you heard any more about the direct film to digital things where the film doesn't make it out alive?
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
My friends are amazed that I do not own a cell phone. The only time I have one is when I am working a triathlon or festival. My friends tell me that they cannot reach me without a cell phone. I tell them that I have an answering machine. If I do not answer, then I am busy doing something else :-) Still use my autofocus cameras in manual focus mode, César Panama City, Florida P. J. Alling wrote: It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers trust of being a Luddite for not having a cell phone. I on the other hand value privacy, which is the best reason not to have such a device, if I had one I'd never be alone, (which for some people must be the next thing to being dead). frank theriault wrote: On 5/15/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whole lotta drivel in this thread by the film luddites. Right. Name calling will certainly quiet things down... -frank
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On Tue, 17 May 2005 21:35:14 -0400, frank theriault wrote: I am not very interested in gear, I have all the gear I want and need and can use right now. Wow! You sure are in the wrong place. :-) There are a few of us in the same boat. A very few... OK, Frank, the enablement squad is on its way to Toronto. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Hey Frank, I might know where you can get this neat Series One 35-85 f2.8 varifocus... Doug Franklin wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005 21:35:14 -0400, frank theriault wrote: I am not very interested in gear, I have all the gear I want and need and can use right now. Wow! You sure are in the wrong place. :-) There are a few of us in the same boat. A very few... OK, Frank, the enablement squad is on its way to Toronto. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
I still have to flaunt my photo lab. I have had at least developers comment about the fact that I am the most consistent they have found with a roll of film. They may have to adjust their machine to the flim being used, but once they get the correct exposure for the first print they know that they can continue for the rest of the roll... I have always taken that as a complement - don´t burst my bubble :-) César Panama City, Florida Graywolf wrote: In the far distant past (sixties) you could get connected to the tech who actually printed your photos. After a while he knew what your style was and could produce pretty much what you would have produced. This was how pro-labs operated back then. Then they put a pretty airhead at the front desk, so not to waste the tech's time talking to customers. Then they discovered that since the tech didn't have to follow instructions they could replace him with another airhead. That is when it all went to hell. Now here is the $64 question. Why go digital if you are not going to do it yourself? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Markus Maurer Subject: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Even when I explicitly state that I do not want any corrections or crops on my photos and even when the online service seems to guaranty that, I still **never** receive what I ordered nowadays :-( They can not even tell me the *exact dimensions* (only only estimates on the website) of the enlargement, so 30 centimeters length could be as well 27 centimeters on the print! If you are shooting digital, make sure you have a calibration on your system that matches the calibration on the lab. Make sure your files are tagged for the same DPI as the lab, and then size the file to what you want. Make sure the colour space you send to the lab is one they recognize. If you are shooting film, remember that you are working with a human being, not a faceless automaton. Don't be condescending to the lab tech, they deal with fools all day long. A bombastic fool is worse than the regular sort. I spend so much of my time fixing peoples screw ups that I tend to do it automatically. This means that I am second guessing the photographer out of habit. If I guess wrong, I appreciate being thanked for trying but., rather than being told off by some jerk that figures his picture is something special (most of em are just another bride with a scared chicken expression or a baby with Chef Boy R Dee on his face, and your pretty sunset is something I have seen a dozen times before, probably done better 11 of those times. In all cases, deal with real people at the lab. The online web service that they foisted on me gives me the willies. And not the regular kind, either. William Robb
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Well said, Rob. I process 600 megabyte scans of 4x5 film on my current computer system without a problem, and my system is already three years beyond state of the art for a Mac platform. I figure to get at least another four years out of it. I find the film math quite amusing, although I once was convinced that it was true. All it took was some real world experience to show how poorly that math translates to the real world of making photographs. Paul On May 16, 2005, at 12:23 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 15 May 2005 at 20:00, Bob Blakely wrote: My conclusions: For most use 40 lppmm is entirely suitable. If you want the very best (equal to using say, Provia 100F or Tech Pan film or better, the very best lenses, solid tripod, controlled lighting and critical focusing) you still need film and you will need it for a long time. Average consumers don't care because they don't blow their photos up to 3x5 feet, don't ever crop and are used to accepting the quality of a $4 throw away one shot ps camera. Digital processing is within the consumers' capabilities and gives them a feeling of control. Many pro's, especially PJs and wedding photogs will drop film also and go to digital to save money and time. The money is in the volume and therefore in the average consumer. Film outlets and film choices will dwindle. We'll all be forced to digital for most work because of this. Our shiny new digital cameras will have a tech life of about three years just like computers. Eventually, after 10 years, what was the very best digital camera when it was purchased will command a price of $25 on ebay, about the price of a Russian Leica copy. Bonus: for some years to come, your digital cameras will not require the very best lenses to work to the best of their capabilities. Drawback: You will need a newer, more capable computer and larger communications bandwidth every three to six years. Just my opinion... I guess I'll have to keep my Mamiya 7 kit and LS-8000 MF scanner for a few more years yet. :-) I constructed my computer system to cope with my scanner needs before I bought my DSLR camera, historically my work-station computers have 5-7 year life-span and servers more. Digital camera files are minuscule in size compared to the files generated by MF film scans so even 22MP DSLR files would remain manageable using my current system for its life. Post processing time whilst not instant definitely isn't reducing my productivity using my current system, any additional processing time due to larger RAW files sizes would be tolerable. I don't subscribe to this theory of ever increasingly capable cameras and the need to upgrade. Like computers DSLR technology will likely plateau within the next five years. There is little point even considering more than about 16MP in a 35mm frame camera, there would be little need or benefit for 99.99% of photographers but for pose factor. At the 16MP point prints up to 16x20 will be about as good as they get and wall sized prints would be better than using 35mm film for the same job (and that's just a demonstrable fact, the film res numbers look great in text but don't work in practice, been there), I know they'll have no soul but I'm learning to deal with that. I feel for the photographers that have a real attachment for film but really I only care about the best most cost effective methods of getting my images into print and digital processes have solved a lot of my problems and made me a lot less angry :-) Just my current perspective of the situation. 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: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On 5/15/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whole lotta drivel in this thread by the film luddites. Right. Name calling will certainly quiet things down... -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Well said, Rob. I process 600 megabyte scans of 4x5 film on my current computer system without a problem, and my system is already three years beyond state of the art for a Mac platform. I figure to get at least another four years out of it. I find the film math quite amusing, although I once was convinced that it was true. All it took was some real world experience to show how poorly that math translates to the real world of making photographs. You caught on to the cheap plastic toy in a hurry, for sure. William Robb
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers trust of being a Luddite for not having a cell phone. I on the other hand value privacy, which is the best reason not to have such a device, if I had one I'd never be alone, (which for some people must be the next thing to being dead). frank theriault wrote: On 5/15/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whole lotta drivel in this thread by the film luddites. Right. Name calling will certainly quiet things down... -frank -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On 5/16/05, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers trust of being a Luddite for not having a cell phone. I on the other hand value privacy, which is the best reason not to have such a device, if I had one I'd never be alone, (which for some people must be the next thing to being dead). The term Luddite has been misused quite a bit. I don't think that it should apply to someone who simply chooses not to use a newer technology. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On May 16, 2005, at 6:19 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers trust of being a Luddite for not having a cell phone. I on the other hand value privacy, which is the best reason not to have such a device, if I had one I'd never be alone, (which for some people must be the next thing to being dead). There is an On/Off switch provided on communications devices. This permits privacy and silence when desired, as well as communications when desired. I only turn mine on when I want to be available for contact. I think the term Luddite is quite applicable: Luddite n 1: any opponent of technological progress 2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment Godfrey
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Exactly! You know, I couldn't remember exactly how i worded my initial critique of the *istD. Thanks for the refresher g. - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Well said, Rob. I process 600 megabyte scans of 4x5 film on my current computer system without a problem, and my system is already three years beyond state of the art for a Mac platform. I figure to get at least another four years out of it. I find the film math quite amusing, although I once was convinced that it was true. All it took was some real world experience to show how poorly that math translates to the real world of making photographs. You caught on to the cheap plastic toy in a hurry, for sure. William Robb
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
In the far distant past (sixties) you could get connected to the tech who actually printed your photos. After a while he knew what your style was and could produce pretty much what you would have produced. This was how pro-labs operated back then. Then they put a pretty airhead at the front desk, so not to waste the tech's time talking to customers. Then they discovered that since the tech didn't have to follow instructions they could replace him with another airhead. That is when it all went to hell. Now here is the $64 question. Why go digital if you are not going to do it yourself? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Markus Maurer Subject: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Even when I explicitly state that I do not want any corrections or crops on my photos and even when the online service seems to guaranty that, I still **never** receive what I ordered nowadays :-( They can not even tell me the *exact dimensions* (only only estimates on the website) of the enlargement, so 30 centimeters length could be as well 27 centimeters on the print! If you are shooting digital, make sure you have a calibration on your system that matches the calibration on the lab. Make sure your files are tagged for the same DPI as the lab, and then size the file to what you want. Make sure the colour space you send to the lab is one they recognize. If you are shooting film, remember that you are working with a human being, not a faceless automaton. Don't be condescending to the lab tech, they deal with fools all day long. A bombastic fool is worse than the regular sort. I spend so much of my time fixing peoples screw ups that I tend to do it automatically. This means that I am second guessing the photographer out of habit. If I guess wrong, I appreciate being thanked for trying but., rather than being told off by some jerk that figures his picture is something special (most of em are just another bride with a scared chicken expression or a baby with Chef Boy R Dee on his face, and your pretty sunset is something I have seen a dozen times before, probably done better 11 of those times. In all cases, deal with real people at the lab. The online web service that they foisted on me gives me the willies. And not the regular kind, either. William Robb -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.11 - Release Date: 5/16/2005
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Paul, To not use a technology does not necessarily mean one is opposed to it. To question it's value, or aspects of its use, or how it's used, or comparing some or all of it unfavorably to another - perhaps older - technology, does not mean that there's an opposition to it. I enjoy using and driving my cars, yet there are times when it's not the best way to get around, and the older technology, such as street cars or cable cars in San Francisco is a better - or at least more realistic - choice. Were I to live in SF, it's possible that I'd not even own a car, but that doesn't mean I'd be opposed to them. Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or dismisses older technology as useless or worthless? Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The term Luddite has been misused quite a bit. I don't think that it should apply to someone who simply chooses not to use a newer technology. However, aside from the historical context, that's pretty much what luddite means -- someone who oppposes technical change. And from the laments I've seen over the passing of film, the feelings of many go well beyond choice. Many film shooters obviously wish that digital had never happened. By definititon, they're luddites. Not bad people, just luddites. vbg
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
So, if one *questions the value of certain techniques or choices, does it them a Luddite? Y'know Godfrey, your on line personality is quite different from that of the man I met at the PDML get together. You come across here as very abrasive and dogmatic, leaving little room for the opinions of others. It's really a shame because you probably have a lot to contribute. However, your demeanor is a real turn off. You present yourself as a digital evangelist, a true believer, the keeper of the flame. Your way is the right way, others are idiots or drivel drooling Luddites. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi I think the term Luddite is quite applicable: Luddite n 1: any opponent of technological progress 2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment
RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Hi, While the ME-S is something of a ubiquitous workhorse, of all the Pentax cameras I've used, it's probably the least favored, yet there's a time when it seems just right. Those are the times when I want a small automatic camera, where one might reach for a PS like one of the IQ Zooms. It's a poor choice for BW where I want to choose my exposures carefully, likewise for slide film, but it's quite nice for color neg when making snapshots and I can let the film latitude and the lab figure out what to do with the subtleties of exposure. The little buttons make adjustments a real PITA. John Francis loaned me a Super Program which I've yet to try. From the kudos it's received here, it may be a nice alternative to the ME-S. I definitely prefer the K bodies to the ME-S, and from the way they feel, sometimes prefering them to the MX. Their heft and solid metal construction are great, and lend, and they are so perfectly matched to the size and weight of the K lenses. True, they are a bit heavier and bulkier than the newer cameras, but generally that's not an issue. Shel [Original Message] From: Eric Featherstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 5/15/2005 3:15:21 PM Subject: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware To pick up on one point of Shel's and Markus's comments... [Original Message] From: Shel Belinkoff From: Markus Maurer And frankly, I enjoy taking photos with my old equipment and could do well without all that computer work afterwards... Yes, old gear is nice to use, but then, so is new gear. For me, the simplicity of old cameras allows an easier, less distracting way to shoot. In some ways using older cameras can be more like using a PS camera than some PS cameras are LOL That struck a chord with me. I _like_ the simplicity of the K1000 and MX (well particularly the K1000 out of those two) compared to the ME-Super (or my digital PS). I find the exposure compensation, manual push buttons and the rotary switch around the shutter a little too fussy. Mind you I've been using the K1000 so long now most anything will seem a bit cluttered with buttons I guess ;-) Eric.
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Graywolf asked: Now here is the $64 question. Why go digital if you are not going to do it yourself? For me, doing it myself was one of the most important considerations in my decision to go digital. However, that being said, if you dial into a digital lab with matched profiles and color space, you should be able to generate good prints. There's much more of a direct photographer/lab link than is possible with optical printing. Paul
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 09:30:36AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: You present yourself as a true believer, the keeper of the flame. Your way is the right way, others are idiots. Shel How delightfully ironic. Shel criticising somebody else for being (or, at least, appearing to be) overly-prescriptive. Actually, there's a lot of truth in what Shel said. If you go by the on-line appearances, you'd have thought that Shel and I, for example, would be at daggers drawn. But we're quite capable of sitting down in a group, amongst other photographers, and amiably sharing a beer or two; usenet dicussion groups are by no means a substitute for real life encounters. It's the nature of the medium, of course - a reply or followup to a posting will single out those areas of disagreement, and amplify them disproportionately. It's rare to see more than a simple I agree in response to other parts of a post, and even that small concession rarely shows up. In a face-to-face discussion there would have been non-verbal feedback to make that clear; nodding, a quiet uh-huh, or just body english.
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Heretic. Regards, Bob... A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory. From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul, To not use a technology does not necessarily mean one is opposed to it. To question it's value, or aspects of its use, or how it's used, or comparing some or all of it unfavorably to another - perhaps older - technology, does not mean that there's an opposition to it. I enjoy using and driving my cars, yet there are times when it's not the best way to get around, and the older technology, such as street cars or cable cars in San Francisco is a better - or at least more realistic - choice. Were I to live in SF, it's possible that I'd not even own a car, but that doesn't mean I'd be opposed to them. Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or dismisses older technology as useless or worthless? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The term Luddite has been misused quite a bit. I don't think that it should apply to someone who simply chooses not to use a newer technology. However, aside from the historical context, that's pretty much what luddite means -- someone who oppposes technical change. And from the laments I've seen over the passing of film, the feelings of many go well beyond choice. Many film shooters obviously wish that digital had never happened. By definititon, they're luddites. Not bad people, just luddites. vbg
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
From Webster's Dictionary... Lud·dite 1.. Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment. 2.. One who opposes technical or technological change. I am neither of these and don't appreciate being called such and only by a leap of prejudice by someone so narcissistic that he can't stand to have some personal choice criticized, can I be called such. If you really want to continue with insults and name calling, just let me know. The rest of the members of this list can attest to the fact that I'm up for (and enjoy) the flame. In deference to the other good members of the list I'll refrain from returning the insult in kind. but keep in mind that you may be only building a few long term enemies who will not look upon you or your posts the same way again if you continue. Regards, Bob... Owner of nine patents (read new technology), one pending. A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 8:49 PM Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Whole lotta drivel in this thread by the film luddites.
RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
I think the term Luddite is quite applicable: Luddite n 1: any opponent of technological progress 2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment Better check the definition. 'Not using' is not the same as 'opposing'. Unless you subscribe to the notion that 'you are either with us, or against us'. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Anti-Aircraft. Replaces errant jets and jet trails with realistic sky color based on the current background. Rob Studdert wrote: On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote: AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like Ansel Adams? If not, what actually is an AA filter? Anti-Aliasing http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm 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: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Yes - it means someone who opposes technical change. Opposes. That's different from doesn't use. Someone who doesn't use a particular form of technology is not necessarily a Luddite. -- Cheers, Bob However, aside from the historical context, that's pretty much what luddite means -- someone who oppposes technical change. And from the laments I've seen over the passing of film, the feelings of many go well beyond choice. Many film shooters obviously wish that digital had never happened. By definititon, they're luddites. Not bad people, just luddites. vbg Paul
RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or dismisses older technology as useless or worthless? Nerd. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
A pot calls a kettle black. I neither evangelize digital or keep any flames. I like photography, and I don't care whether it's done with film or digital equipment. I don't even care whether it's Pentax equipment at all. I dislike the inanely stupid well you can only do this with film, digital isn't good enough and can't ever make a BW print I like bullshit just as much as the digital is the only way this could ever be done dogma, which are both just as insipid as I don't know how I could live without hyper program and you have to have ttl flash metering to take these pictures. Questioning the value of certain techniques and choices is fine, I do it all the time. But to do it with prejudice and with attitude, with the sneering assurance that some new technique cannot be as good as the one you espouse ... well, idiocy and drivel drooling Ludditism comes to mind. ;-) This afternoon if I get time, I'll be working on some Minox 8x11 techniques I've had in my head for a while. If you're interested, I'll show some results. It ain't a Pentax and it will be a digital workflow, but it will also be film... Godfrey On May 16, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: So, if one *questions the value of certain techniques or choices, does it them a Luddite? Y'know Godfrey, your on line personality is quite different from that of the man I met at the PDML get together. You come across here as very abrasive and dogmatic, leaving little room for the opinions of others. It's really a shame because you probably have a lot to contribute. However, your demeanor is a real turn off. You present yourself as a digital evangelist, a true believer, the keeper of the flame. Your way is the right way, others are idiots or drivel drooling Luddites. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi I think the term Luddite is quite applicable: Luddite n 1: any opponent of technological progress 2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment
RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote: with the subtleties of exposure. The little buttons make adjustments a real PITA. John Francis loaned me a Super Program which I've yet to try. From the kudos it's received here, it may be a nice alternative to the ME-S. Not for you, I don't think, it still has the buttons. Kostas
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On May 16, 2005, at 11:24 AM, Bob W wrote: I think the term Luddite is quite applicable: Luddite n 1: any opponent of technological progress 2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment Better check the definition. 'Not using' is not the same as 'opposing'. Unless you subscribe to the notion that 'you are either with us, or against us'. I didn't use write the definition, it does say opponent however. From various people's writing in this thread, it does seem pretty clear that they oppose using new technology, not just don't use new technology. I didn't nominate you personally, so don't take it personally. If they just didn't use it, they'd be happy presenting their pictures and enjoying a discussion of the photography rather than taking every opportunity they get to say that what they are doing with their film was impossible or of much higher quality than possible with a newer technology. None of it leads to useful discussion .. rather it leads to the kind of animosity and personal attacks that various people have made upon me for saying that I don't use film because I find it not as useful to me in the pursuit of photography at this time. In not so many words, I've been told that I don't know what I'm talking about, obviously can't see what's good or bad, am some kind of hysterical evangelistic zealot, etc. Frankly, making friends with people who express these kinds of sentiments and prejudice in the casual and supposedly fun discussion of a pastime they love is probably worse than making enemies of them. When I post a film image or two, will I be everybody's friend? Feh. Godfrey
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Then I can't be a Luddite, I see cell phones as labor causing devices... Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On May 16, 2005, at 6:19 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers trust of being a Luddite for not having a cell phone. I on the other hand value privacy, which is the best reason not to have such a device, if I had one I'd never be alone, (which for some people must be the next thing to being dead). There is an On/Off switch provided on communications devices. This permits privacy and silence when desired, as well as communications when desired. I only turn mine on when I want to be available for contact. I think the term Luddite is quite applicable: Luddite n 1: any opponent of technological progress 2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment Godfrey -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or dismisses older technology as useless or worthless? I think Gartner Group has labelled them early adopters...:-) Jostein
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
The Gartner Group isn't worth the powder to blow them the heck in my opinion, they're not even worth a real curse word... Jostein wrote: - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or dismisses older technology as useless or worthless? I think Gartner Group has labelled them early adopters...:-) Jostein -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 16, 2005, at 6:19 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers trust of being a Luddite for not having a cell phone. I on the other hand value privacy, which is the best reason not to have such a device, if I had one I'd never be alone, (which for some people must be the next thing to being dead). There is an On/Off switch provided on communications devices. This permits privacy and silence when desired, as well as communications when desired. I only turn mine on when I want to be available for contact. I have a cell phone only because my SO occasionally needs one when she's on call and she refuses to get one herself. We use it only for outgoing calls for the most part and don't give out the number except in rare cases. I think we average perhaps one incoming call per year. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
I guess the word luddite comes from the time, when workers attacked the factories because new mashinery was about to take away their jobs. Hesitating to convert to new technologies (like CCD's or CMOS insted of film) is something different. The digital images won't take away the jobs of the photographers. It will/already have made some lab workers redundant. One of todays problems with technology is that it eveloves too fast. Cellular phones is a good example. Who realy neds all this MMS, colour screens, vidocamera, still camera, PDA facilities etc. ? Most people just need a phone and perhaps SMS'es. The environmental cost of everybody getting a new phone every year is enormous. Most people buy digiatal cameras without realizing why they want it. If you want 4x6 print for your family album (that's what most people want), thers no reason to go digital. I believe history will remember our generation as the generation that didn't leave any photographs for the next generatoin. They will die as fast as the harddrives, CD's and servers within which they only exist for a few years, perhaps as much as a decade. Then they'll be lost forever. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 16. maj 2005 15:32 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware On 5/16/05, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers trust of being a Luddite for not having a cell phone. I on the other hand value privacy, which is the best reason not to have such a device, if I had one I'd never be alone, (which for some people must be the next thing to being dead). The term Luddite has been misused quite a bit. I don't think that it should apply to someone who simply chooses not to use a newer technology. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Who exactly are the following quote attributed to? well you can only do this with film, digital isn't good enough and can't ever make a BW print I like digital is the only way this could ever be done I don't know how I could live without hyper program you have to have ttl flash metering to take these pictures Regards, Bob... A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] A pot calls a kettle black. I neither evangelize digital or keep any flames. I like photography, and I don't care whether it's done with film or digital equipment. I don't even care whether it's Pentax equipment at all. I dislike the inanely stupid well you can only do this with film, digital isn't good enough and can't ever make a BW print I like bullshit just as much as the digital is the only way this could ever be done dogma, which are both just as insipid as I don't know how I could live without hyper program and you have to have ttl flash metering to take these pictures. Questioning the value of certain techniques and choices is fine, I do it all the time. But to do it with prejudice and with attitude, with the sneering assurance that some new technique cannot be as good as the one you espouse ... well, idiocy and drivel drooling Ludditism comes to mind. ;-) This afternoon if I get time, I'll be working on some Minox 8x11 techniques I've had in my head for a while. If you're interested, I'll show some results. It ain't a Pentax and it will be a digital workflow, but it will also be film... Godfrey On May 16, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: So, if one *questions the value of certain techniques or choices, does it them a Luddite? Y'know Godfrey, your on line personality is quite different from that of the man I met at the PDML get together. You come across here as very abrasive and dogmatic, leaving little room for the opinions of others. It's really a shame because you probably have a lot to contribute. However, your demeanor is a real turn off. You present yourself as a digital evangelist, a true believer, the keeper of the flame. Your way is the right way, others are idiots or drivel drooling Luddites. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi I think the term Luddite is quite applicable: Luddite n 1: any opponent of technological progress 2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
I'm a luddite and proud of it. I never owned an autofocus lens until last year. My Leica has a proper screw mount. Until last year my LX was my most modern camera. I still own a Speed Graphic. I own a 1955 Chevrolet, and its my favorite vehicle. I have several computers because I need them for work, but I frequently write with a pen and paper. I now shoot digital almost exclusively. It has nothing to do with new vs. old or high tech vs. low tech. It has to do with what works best for me. Then I can't be a Luddite, I see cell phones as labor causing devices... Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On May 16, 2005, at 6:19 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers trust of being a Luddite for not having a cell phone. I on the other hand value privacy, which is the best reason not to have such a device, if I had one I'd never be alone, (which for some people must be the next thing to being dead). There is an On/Off switch provided on communications devices. This permits privacy and silence when desired, as well as communications when desired. I only turn mine on when I want to be available for contact. I think the term Luddite is quite applicable: Luddite n 1: any opponent of technological progress 2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment Godfrey -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 02:00:11PM -0700, Bob Blakely wrote: Who exactly are the following quote attributed to? Well, allowing for a certain amount of journalistic exaggeration, I'd guess: well you can only do this with film, digital isn't good enough and can't ever make a BW print I like Shel digital is the only way this could ever be done Herb I don't know how I could live without hyper program Me you have to have ttl flash metering to take these pictures ??
RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Hi Graywolf I take photos on color negative film only and will order enlargments right of the negative if it is good enough and does not need any cropping. I use the computer for adjustments of imperfect shots and for PDML/Email/Website only. Printing at home on the Epson 2100 for color prints is more expensive than ordering an enlarged A4 print here. I only use the Epson for B/W print to not get those ugly magenta and other tints from the labs. thanks for your comment. greetings Markus Now here is the $64 question. Why go digital if you are not going to do it yourself? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof ---
RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Hi Markus, I should make things a bit clearer. I like the _simplicity_ of the K1000 over the MX. There are plenty of things about the MX I prefer over the K1000 too (lighter weight, DOF preview, larger viewfinder, smaller size)! But to answer your original question, The K1000 has a completely un-cluttered (i.e. non-distracting) viewfinder. I'm not at all confident about composition anyway so the less distraction here the better I guess. Also I have a preference for the swing needle over the traffic light LEDs, not quite sure why (they're ever-so digital aren't they vbg). I'm sure some else mentioned that point too a day or so ago. I've often had trouble seeing the MX's LEDs in bright daylight, similarly if the sun is glancing off the aperture ring numbers they can wash out in the little display above the frame. Yes, I know it is equally difficult to see the K1000 needle in the dark, but I'm expecting other problems (difficulty in focusing, framing) at that point, so it seems like less of an issue perhaps. Have I just confused you more now? Bottom line is I'll happily use either. After all they're both light-tight boxes with some sort of shutter and film transport that can be stuck on the back of a lens :-) Cheers, Eric. From: Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Eric I'm tempted by an auction for a MX ending in a few days. I would use it as second body instead of the P30 with the 24mm wide angle lens. I never had a MX but started with the ME Super as my first SLR back in 1981. I heard a lot of good things about the MX and have read about the limitations on BOZ too. But, can you tell me in a few words why you prefer the K1000 over the MX? Thanks in advance Markus
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On 16/5/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: I'm a luddite and proud of it. With a fast G5 PowerMac?? Yeah, right!!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
G5? Not me. I'm making do with a dual 1.25 G4. That's just a small step up from a typewriter. Paul On May 16, 2005, at 6:28 PM, Cotty wrote: On 16/5/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: I'm a luddite and proud of it. With a fast G5 PowerMac?? Yeah, right!!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On 16/5/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: G5? Not me. I'm making do with a dual 1.25 G4. That's just a small step up from a typewriter. Only a G4?? You *are* a Luddite!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On 16 May 2005 at 22:58, Jens Bladt wrote: Most people buy digiatal cameras without realizing why they want it. If you want 4x6 print for your family album (that's what most people want), thers no reason to go digital. I believe history will remember our generation as the generation that didn't leave any photographs for the next generatoin. They will die as fast as the harddrives, CD's and servers within which they only exist for a few years, perhaps as much as a decade. Then they'll be lost forever. I'm with you regarding the environmental impact aspect of changing phones yearly (or more) I personally have a hand-me-down and have only owned 4 mobile phones since 1992. I think it's a very sad state of affairs that you can often buy a new phone and service cheaper than it costs to just maintain a service on an existing phone. Now back to your point regarding the loss of a generation of images. I think that you are partially correct in that a lot of people will lose information left on HDDs which isn't backed-up. However I'd venture to say that most of these same people would most likely have either lost, damaged or discarded their negatives too if they had still been using 35mm print film. Ask a lab these days how many people bring in the negs for enlargement, generally they only have a 4x6 print to hand over. The vast majority of the lay-people who I know that now are using digital cameras for all their happy snaps most are getting prints made regularly. All that seems to have changed is that they don't print everything. 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: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
We'll be expecting the inside story on those large bras. Paul On 16/5/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: G5? Not me. I'm making do with a dual 1.25 G4. That's just a small step up from a typewriter. Only a G4?? You *are* a Luddite!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On 16 May 2005 at 11:58, Graywolf wrote: Now here is the $64 question. Why go digital if you are not going to do it yourself? It's a US$25 (Fuji Provia 400F 135-36 RHP AU$24.24 + DnD processing AU$8.80) question vs US$3.78 (AU$5.00) for a 16X20 straight digital print via email. Print film is cheaper but processing is the same and prints are more costly than prints from digital files. It's not economies of scale that make film use costly here, we've just been ripped off for years by all the major vendors and they are suffering for it now. 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: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
I love it John balanced exaggeration. In my own defense, I'd like to point out that I've been using digital cameras longer than many people (most people?) on the list, and certainly a lot longer than those who started with the istD, I have seen digi BW that I LOVE, but not like I prefer (which has a very specific look to it), although I continue to seek it out, and it's quite possible that I've made, or caused to be made through my lab, more very large digi prints (larger than 36-inches in the small dimension) than most people on this list. I neither eschew nor negate digital, but I do question a lot of the techniques used and the need for certain aspects of it and its processes often and loudly. What I find most interesting is that when I (and others) ask a question or pose a hypothetical, a certain number of people jump up and try to shout down the questions claiming that I/we are Luddites or anit-digital. OTOH, a few people (you and Rob Studdert come quickly to mind) actually take time to answer the question or offer an explanation, although sometimes I think you're pretty close to your tolorence level LOL OTOH, I can't ever recall Herb being taken to task for his vociferous pro-digital stance, not even by the so-called Luddites (although I may have been annoyed at him a few times). Shel John wrote: Well, allowing for a certain amount of journalistic exaggeration, I'd guess: well you can only do this with film, digital isn't good enough and can't ever make a BW print I like Shel digital is the only way this could ever be done Herb
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or dismisses older technology as useless or worthless? Shortsighted. William Robb
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Exactly! You know, I couldn't remember exactly how i worded my initial critique of the *istD. Thanks for the refresher g. Yer welcome. Count on a refresher at some point in the future William Robb
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:30:39 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or dismisses older technology as useless or worthless? Early adopter. ;-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
At 9:01 AM +1000 5/17/05, Rob Studdert wrote: On 16 May 2005 at 22:58, Jens Bladt wrote: Most people buy digiatal cameras without realizing why they want it. If you want 4x6 print for your family album (that's what most people want), thers no reason to go digital. I believe history will remember our generation as the generation that didn't leave any photographs for the next generatoin. They will die as fast as the harddrives, CD's and servers within which they only exist for a few years, perhaps as much as a decade. Then they'll be lost forever. I'm with you regarding the environmental impact aspect of changing phones yearly (or more) I personally have a hand-me-down and have only owned 4 mobile phones since 1992. I think it's a very sad state of affairs that you can often buy a new phone and service cheaper than it costs to just maintain a service on an existing phone. regarding the environmental impact of cell phones: http://www.chrisjordanphoto.com/image_detail.php?id=10 http://www.chrisjordanphoto.com/image_detail.php?id=9 He shoots 8x10 scans and then photoshops the hell out of 'em. -- Alan P. Hayes Meaning and Form: Writing, Editing and Document Design Pittsfield, Massachusetts Photographs at http://www.ahayesphoto.com/americandead/index.htm
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Those were essentially your words tossed back at you Shel From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Questioning the value of certain techniques and choices is fine, I do it all the time. But to do it with prejudice and with attitude, with the sneering assurance that some new technique cannot be as good as the one you espouse ... well, idiocy and drivel drooling Ludditism comes to mind.
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote: with the subtleties of exposure. The little buttons make adjustments a real PITA. John Francis loaned me a Super Program which I've yet to try. From the kudos it's received here, it may be a nice alternative to the ME-S. Not for you, I don't think, it still has the buttons. And it is *definitely* louder. ERNR
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:30:39 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or dismisses older technology as useless or worthless? Several! Yuppie. Trendy. Snob. and some more that involve language I don't use...
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing filter required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV filter. By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to perform their function. Regards, Bob... A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory. From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote: AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like Ansel Adams? If not, what actually is an AA filter? Anti-Aliasing http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
They were fugly too. Now, if the camera looked like Milla Jovovich, I'd probably be handling the camera more... Regards, Bob... A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory. From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] Still think its a fugly camera, though :) I think I'm the ONLY person who thinks the R8/9 is NOT ugly. As a matter of fact, I'll go so far as to say I think it is a really neat looking camera. Reminds me of the funky metallic big shouldered creatures in the movie The Fifth Element
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather convoluted workflow some of us go through at times. We buy good quality cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution and detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners (sometimes at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software to correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of the original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer (sometimes purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a lab somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or email - where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph. What's wrong with this picture? LOL Shel [Original Message] From: Bob Blakely Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing filter required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV filter. By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to perform their function. Regards, Bob... A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory. From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote: AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like Ansel Adams? If not, what actually is an AA filter? Anti-Aliasing http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another idiotic film versus digital debate? Godfrey On May 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather convoluted workflow some of us go through at times. We buy good quality cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution and detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners (sometimes at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software to correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of the original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer (sometimes purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a lab somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or email - where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph. What's wrong with this picture? LOL Shel [Original Message] From: Bob Blakely Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing filter required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV filter. By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to perform their function. Regards, Bob... A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory. From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote: AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like Ansel Adams? If not, what actually is an AA filter? Anti-Aliasing http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On 14/5/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like Ansel Adams? If not, what actually is an AA filter? Alcoholics Anonymous. A drunk designed that camera Actually, it is a filter that prevents a person from taking a photo of an AA member at an AA meeting. They have a tradition asking members to maintain anonymity at the level of press, radio, TV, and film. I don't know if they have a tradition yet concerning digital capture. VBG Butch
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
This has nothing to do with a film v digital debate. My comment was in response to Bob's and pointed out something I find rather odd which deals, not with digital, but with film. Lighten up, Godfrey ... ;-)) Doesn't it seem odd to you that someone would take a perfectly good negative and reduce its quality by running it through a scanner and photo editing software when a perfectly fine print could be made directly from the original negative? Or are you so enmeshed in the digital workflow that the concept of working directly with a negative is little more than a vague memory? Sure, there are any number of reasons why someone may want to convert a neg to a digital file in order to make a print (damaged neg, need for digital file for professional reasons, making major adjustments that can't or which would be very difficult to do otherwise), but there are those that just do such a conversion of perfectly good negs as a matter of course, and for the life of me I cannot figure out why that may be in some circumstances. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 5/15/2005 9:15:42 AM Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another idiotic film versus digital debate? Godfrey On May 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather convoluted workflow some of us go through at times. We buy good quality cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution and detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners (sometimes at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software to correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of the original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer (sometimes purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a lab somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or email - where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph. What's wrong with this picture? LOL Shel [Original Message] From: Bob Blakely Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing filter required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV filter. By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to perform their function. Regards, Bob... A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory. From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote: AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like Ansel Adams? If not, what actually is an AA filter? Anti-Aliasing http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
I listen to conversation amongst Leica M owners with $20-40K worth of the best glass in the world arguing over whether Wal Mart or Costco is worth going to for their photofinishing because one is a dollar cheaper than the other ... And I can produce even a 4x6 print with a crappy, consumer film scanner and a cheap inkjet printer that will outshine either. A perfectly good negative is just the 'biomass' from which a fine print can be produced. How you choose to produce that print is up to you. There's no such thing as producing a print directly from the negative. Whether you prefer to live in a world of noxious, smelly, chemistry and use a second camera to turn it into a print vs working in a hard edged world of silicon dioxide based machines and render it in numbers and ink, you are duplicating the data encapsulated on that bit of plastic/gelatin/silver halide onto paper and putting it through a variety of transformations. How well you achieve that is a measure of your skill. I chose to invest in learning digital scanning and processing when I still operated a traditional BW darkroom process. I found I obtained better results, even with the new process in its infancy, and it was much more practical for me than the darkroom, so I stopped doing darkroom work. I have no animosity towards darkroom work. Godfrey On May 15, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: This has nothing to do with a film v digital debate. My comment was in response to Bob's and pointed out something I find rather odd which deals, not with digital, but with film. Lighten up, Godfrey ... ;-)) Doesn't it seem odd to you that someone would take a perfectly good negative and reduce its quality by running it through a scanner and photo editing software when a perfectly fine print could be made directly from the original negative? Or are you so enmeshed in the digital workflow that the concept of working directly with a negative is little more than a vague memory? Sure, there are any number of reasons why someone may want to convert a neg to a digital file in order to make a print (damaged neg, need for digital file for professional reasons, making major adjustments that can't or which would be very difficult to do otherwise), but there are those that just do such a conversion of perfectly good negs as a matter of course, and for the life of me I cannot figure out why that may be in some circumstances. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 5/15/2005 9:15:42 AM Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another idiotic film versus digital debate? Godfrey On May 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather convoluted workflow some of us go through at times. We buy good quality cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution and detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners (sometimes at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software to correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of the original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer (sometimes purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a lab somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or email - where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph. What's wrong with this picture? LOL Shel [Original Message] From: Bob Blakely Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing filter required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV filter. By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to perform their function. Regards, Bob... A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory. From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote: AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like Ansel Adams? If not, what actually is an AA filter? Anti-Aliasing http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti- aliasing.htm
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather convoluted workflow some of us go through at times. We buy good quality cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution and detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners (sometimes at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software to correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of the original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer (sometimes purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a lab somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or email - where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph. What's wrong with this picture? LOL At least one person other than me gets it. William Robb
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware I chose to invest in learning digital scanning and processing when I still operated a traditional BW darkroom process. I found I obtained better results, even with the new process in its infancy, . You weren't much good in the darkroom from the sounds of it. William Robb
RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Hi Shel I would never scan *a perfectly negative* to the computer to edit or print it, why should I do that? A classic enlarged print from a negative is better and a lot cheaper IMHO than a print on a good inkjet. I scan negatives only to send photos via email or for PDML or to correct errors and crop on the computer before sending them to the lab for printing. The computer is a nice tool for improving old or damaged negatives. I will only print b/w at home now since I got so bad results from the labs. And frankly, I enjoy taking photos with my old equipment and could do well without all that computer work afterwards... greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:36 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware This has nothing to do with a film v digital debate. My comment was in response to Bob's and pointed out something I find rather odd which deals, not with digital, but with film. Lighten up, Godfrey ... ;-)) Doesn't it seem odd to you that someone would take a perfectly good negative and reduce its quality by running it through a scanner and photo editing software when a perfectly fine print could be made directly from the original negative? Or are you so enmeshed in the digital workflow that the concept of working directly with a negative is little more than a vague memory? Sure, there are any number of reasons why someone may want to convert a neg to a digital file in order to make a print (damaged neg, need for digital file for professional reasons, making major adjustments that can't or which would be very difficult to do otherwise), but there are those that just do such a conversion of perfectly good negs as a matter of course, and for the life of me I cannot figure out why that may be in some circumstances. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 5/15/2005 9:15:42 AM Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another idiotic film versus digital debate? Godfrey On May 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather convoluted workflow some of us go through at times. We buy good quality cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution and detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners (sometimes at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software to correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of the original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer (sometimes purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a lab somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or email - where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph. What's wrong with this picture? LOL Shel [Original Message] From: Bob Blakely Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing filter required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV filter. By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to perform their function. Regards, Bob... A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory. From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote: AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like Ansel Adams? If not, what actually is an AA filter? Anti-Aliasing http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm
RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Interspersed [Original Message] From: Markus Maurer I would never scan *a perfectly negative* to the computer to edit or print it, why should I do that? Exactly - yet it'd done with greater and greater frequency. A classic enlarged print from a negative is better and a lot cheaper IMHO than a print on a good inkjet. I won't argue that point. I scan negatives only to send photos via email or for PDML or to correct errors and crop on the computer before sending them to the lab for printing. The computer is a nice tool for improving old or damaged negatives. I enjoy scanning negs as it allows me a simple way to make proof prints and play with cropping and such before deciding what to do in the way of a final print and without having to set up the darkroom just to quickly check an idea or concept And it's a good way to get some feedback from other photogs. I will only print b/w at home now since I got so bad results from the labs. And frankly, I enjoy taking photos with my old equipment and could do well without all that computer work afterwards... Yes, old gear is nice to use, but then, so is new gear. For me, the simplicity of old cameras allows an easier, less distracting way to shoot. In some ways using older cameras can be more like using a PS camera than some PS cameras are LOL -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:36 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware This has nothing to do with a film v digital debate. My comment was in response to Bob's and pointed out something I find rather odd which deals, not with digital, but with film. Lighten up, Godfrey ... ;-)) Doesn't it seem odd to you that someone would take a perfectly good negative and reduce its quality by running it through a scanner and photo editing software when a perfectly fine print could be made directly from the original negative? Or are you so enmeshed in the digital workflow that the concept of working directly with a negative is little more than a vague memory? Sure, there are any number of reasons why someone may want to convert a neg to a digital file in order to make a print (damaged neg, need for digital file for professional reasons, making major adjustments that can't or which would be very difficult to do otherwise), but there are those that just do such a conversion of perfectly good negs as a matter of course, and for the life of me I cannot figure out why that may be in some circumstances. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 5/15/2005 9:15:42 AM Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another idiotic film versus digital debate? Godfrey On May 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather convoluted workflow some of us go through at times. We buy good quality cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution and detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners (sometimes at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software to correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of the original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer (sometimes purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a lab somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or email - where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph. What's wrong with this picture? LOL Shel [Original Message] From: Bob Blakely Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing filter required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV filter. By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to perform their function. Regards, Bob... A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory. From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote: AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like Ansel Adams? If not, what actually is an AA filter? Anti-Aliasing http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
God I hope so! It's so much fun! Regards, Bob... A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another idiotic film versus digital debate?
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Thank you, Mr. Robb. I only won several awards and sold BW photos for a living for a decade or two. I guess I don't know anywhere near as much as you do about it. Godfrey On May 15, 2005, at 10:57 AM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware I chose to invest in learning digital scanning and processing when I still operated a traditional BW darkroom process. I found I obtained better results, even with the new process in its infancy, . You weren't much good in the darkroom from the sounds of it. William Robb
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
as far as i am concerned, both Shel and Bill like aspects of film image capture that i consider to be all the drawbacks and flaws of film with no advantages that i care about. Herb... - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 4:03 PM Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Thank you, Mr. Robb. I only won several awards and sold BW photos for a living for a decade or two. I guess I don't know anywhere near as much as you do about it.
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Thank you, Mr. Robb. I only won several awards and sold BW photos for a living for a decade or two. I guess I don't know anywhere near as much as you do about it. That could be a correct assessment. William Robb
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Shel wrote: Sure, there are any number of reasons why someone may want to convert a neg to a digital file in order to make a print (damaged neg, need for digital file for professional reasons, making major adjustments that can't or which would be very difficult to do otherwise), but there are those that just do such a conversion of perfectly good negs as a matter of course, and for the life of me I cannot figure out why that may be in some circumstances. The answer is simple: Most lab techs can't hit their ass with both hands. Halfway decent optical color prints are almost impossible to find. And even if you find a good tech, color, contrast, saturation, and all the other variables are then his decision, not yours. I suffered along with labs for a quarter of a century. Never again. Paul This has nothing to do with a film v digital debate. My comment was in response to Bob's and pointed out something I find rather odd which deals, not with digital, but with film. Lighten up, Godfrey ... ;-)) Doesn't it seem odd to you that someone would take a perfectly good negative and reduce its quality by running it through a scanner and photo editing software when a perfectly fine print could be made directly from the original negative? Or are you so enmeshed in the digital workflow that the concept of working directly with a negative is little more than a vague memory? Sure, there are any number of reasons why someone may want to convert a neg to a digital file in order to make a print (damaged neg, need for digital file for professional reasons, making major adjustments that can't or which would be very difficult to do otherwise), but there are those that just do such a conversion of perfectly good negs as a matter of course, and for the life of me I cannot figure out why that may be in some circumstances. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 5/15/2005 9:15:42 AM Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another idiotic film versus digital debate? Godfrey On May 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather convoluted workflow some of us go through at times. We buy good quality cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution and detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners (sometimes at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software to correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of the original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer (sometimes purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a lab somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or email - where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph. What's wrong with this picture? LOL Shel [Original Message] From: Bob Blakely Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing filter required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV filter. By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to perform their function. Regards, Bob... A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory. From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote: AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like Ansel Adams? If not, what actually is an AA filter? Anti-Aliasing http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm
RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
To pick up on one point of Shel's and Markus's comments... [Original Message] From: Shel Belinkoff From: Markus Maurer And frankly, I enjoy taking photos with my old equipment and could do well without all that computer work afterwards... Yes, old gear is nice to use, but then, so is new gear. For me, the simplicity of old cameras allows an easier, less distracting way to shoot. In some ways using older cameras can be more like using a PS camera than some PS cameras are LOL That struck a chord with me. I _like_ the simplicity of the K1000 and MX (well particularly the K1000 out of those two) compared to the ME-Super (or my digital PS). I find the exposure compensation, manual push buttons and the rotary switch around the shutter a little too fussy. Mind you I've been using the K1000 so long now most anything will seem a bit cluttered with buttons I guess ;-) Eric.
Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On 15 May 2005 at 8:38, Bob Blakely wrote: Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing filter required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV filter. By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to perform their function. Film grain is just like natural dither, it affects the captured image to more or less degree depending upon the film type and format or film area. AA filters in digital systems should be matched precisely to the sensor in order to eliminate aliasing distortions and to provide a natural fall off of resolution. AA filters don't introduce distortion they should eliminate it by band limiting resolution, they don't introduce artifacts like the essentially random nature of grain in film. From the perspective of distortion and accuracy in image recording if resolution was equal I'm sure I'd prefer a digital system over analogue film in 9 out of 10 scenarios. 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: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
On 15 May 2005 at 8:59, Shel Belinkoff wrote: A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather convoluted workflow some of us go through at times. We buy good quality cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution and detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners (sometimes at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software to correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of the original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer (sometimes purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a lab somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or email - where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph. What's wrong with this picture? LOL I guess you should try sending a colour calibrated high res image on a CD/DVD to a lab who has staff that don't adjust files prior to printing and have calibrated profiled printers. I don't care what they think my image should look like so long as I get it back like it looked on my screen. This I could never assure in any analogue process, hell I couldn't even trust pro-labs to crop my images according to instructions, they thought they knew best. A correctly profiled scanner will deliver all the contrast and colour that the film provides within the bounds of the system. What's wrong with the picture you pose is that your digital equipment and work- flow seems to be a weak-point in the chain and you are apparently sending work to labs that still do what they want. 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
