Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > About 20 years ago, I was at a presentation by an Aussie working here. It > was about his collection of old vehicles. One or two of the slides showed, > from the air, the rural part of Australia he came from. I always remember > the quote: "'36 Chevvie is car of the year down there." > > He was serious. > While people rural areas tend to be less affluent and less likely to spend up big on the latest cars, I think he might have been exaggerating just a little bit. An FJ40 Toyota Landcruiser or similar would be a more likely car of the year. This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
RE: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
Go-ggonot the Dart > > Chevvie is car of the year down there." > > > > He was serious. > > > > mike > > > > >
RE: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
Good bullsh*t is when the listener buys it. regards, Anthony Farr > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > About 20 years ago, I was at a presentation by an Aussie working here. It was > about his collection of old vehicles. One or two of the slides showed, from the air, > the rural part of Australia he came from. I always remember the quote: "'36 > Chevvie is car of the year down there." > > He was serious. > > mike >
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: 2005/04/19 Tue PM 11:17:02 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor > > Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > So which Australian engineered cars are superior? and in what way? ;-) > > > > The Giacottolo was a slight improvement on the original Alfa it was based on. > The Repco/Brabham F1 cars of the sixties were quite successful. > The current Ford Territory seems to be successfully beating its competitors in > reviews and sales. > I think our Ford and Holden bread and butter sedans are better value for money > than the Ford and General Motors offerings overseas. About 20 years ago, I was at a presentation by an Aussie working here. It was about his collection of old vehicles. One or two of the slides showed, from the air, the rural part of Australia he came from. I always remember the quote: "'36 Chevvie is car of the year down there." He was serious. mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using mcAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
The shine has kinda worn of the old istD William Robb Yeah... I'm thinking of trying a 20D out of idle curiousity.
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor In mind, maybe. But when it gets to going to the shop with the card (do you have more than one?) and talking to the man about all that technical crap and then the prints come back and they don't look like you remember and Auntie's head is cut off. Happens all the time. The morons need to read their manuals, do a little simple math, and fifure out that their nice new 3:4 aspect camera won't make a 4x6. I'm not going to go through every job and recrop their pictures for them, I'd never get anything else done. William Robb
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
- Original Message - From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or possibly Cole's Law (thinly sliced cabbage). LOL. Damn. My turn to spill coffee around the 'puter. :-) Jostein
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
From: "John Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Haven't exactly dumped digital for film yet Rob, but this week I have been picking up the MZ-S loaded with B&W to go take some 'real' photos. Of course, Murphy's Law says I find myself totally uninspired so I haven't even finished one film yet! That's not Murphy's Law (If anything can go wrong it will). It's Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap), or possibly Cole's Law (thinly sliced cabbage). Regards, Bob... "A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory."
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 1:28 AM Subject: Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor Digital imaging obviously isn't mature but it isn't utter crap either, who here has dumped their DSLR to go back to shooting 35mm film? Rob Studdert Haven't exactly dumped digital for film yet Rob, but this week I have been picking up the MZ-S loaded with B&W to go take some 'real' photos. Of course, Murphy's Law says I find myself totally uninspired so I haven't even finished one film yet! TDH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
camera phones have killed single use film cameras. lots of people expect Kodak and Fuji's film business to shrink another 14% this year. OTOH, Kodak has pulled into third place in worldwide digital camera sales. most of that volume is in the US, but you can see where that is headed. they pulled ahead of Olympus and are only behind Canon and Sony. FWIW, there are just under 2.5M DSLRs sold worldwide last year with Canon accounting for 58%, or 1.45M. Kodak accounted for 3.8%, or 95,000 units. Nikon has sold over a million D70's since its introduction. apparently the detailed numbers are in an IDC report that you have to pay for to get. Herb - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 11:28 AM Subject: Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor The reality here is that for the mainstream it's getting difficult to find film let alone a film camera. Even the camera store brochures only have a half page or a page dedicated to film cameras these days. I know we aren't quite third world here but film has pretty much had it, there are sufficient digital print facilities around the place that people don't need computers to make prints.
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
same with my non-photographer friends. the most important reason is to be able to look at the LCD and make sure that they got the shot they wanted. if they didn't they would take the picture over again. with film, they had to process and hope. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 10:52 AM Subject: Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor Strange. All my non-photographer friends who shoot occasional snaps are more than happy with digital. My kids, who never could be bothered with film, are happily snapping away with digital. They e-mail a lot of pics and print a few. It works for them. Seems to work for almost everyone I know. Mini labs that are counting on a resurgence of film are doomed.
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Strange. All my non-photographer friends who shoot occasional snaps are > more than happy with digital. My kids, who never could be bothered with > film, are happily snapping away with digital. They e-mail a lot of pics and > print a few. ... What Steady said about his kids applies perfectly to my mother, too. ERNR
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
Shel opined: > More and more I'm seeing flower pictures Shel! It's Spring! Get out there and smell the roses . Seriously, for those of us in northern climes that may well be a seasonal phenomenon. Would > some photogs be choosing their subjects and framing with a better eye > towards composition if they's be shooting film where they'd be paying per > exposure, and perhaps limited in the number of exposures they could make on > a walk about? Yes. Although I think the "shoot everything in sight" digital mindset is a temporary thing. I now shoot about the same as I do with film. I've gone out for walkarounds with the *istD and returned without exposing a single frame -- or I should say -- without recording a single image. However, since I don't pay for film, I will tend to experiment more with digital. That's a good thing. And I confess to having posted a few things that were more on the order of experiments than work of which I was proud. But sometimes input on those experiments is a good thing, and it sometimes leads to interesting conversations here and on other venues. > > Again, I don't know the answers to all these questions, but I did want to > share what may be some valid observations. > Duly noted and appreciated. Paul > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Shel Belinkoff > > > I'm not sure about "here," but I do recall a few people mentioning that > they've either returned to film or are using more film rather than shooting > all digital. Of course, that changes nothing: crap is crap, good work is > still good work, and digital is going to be around a long time. I'd just > like to see a higher level of quality produced, regardless of the format. > > > > Shel > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From Rob Studdert > > > > > Digital imaging obviously isn't mature but it isn't utter crap > > > either, who here has dumped their DSLR to go back to > > > shooting 35mm film? > >
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
One thing that I've noticed that surprised me is that the LEG (one of the Leica lists) has a substantial number of photographers shooting more digital than I'd have expected, and from what I can see, the cameras of choice are Canon and ... Pentax! Canon has been chosen because a lot of Leica lenses can be used with the bodies, plus a lot of the Leica photogs are pros of one sort or another and use the Canons in their "day jobs" quite a bit. Pentax has been chosen because either the user has a lot of old pentax glass or, upon trying one, loved the ergonomics and small size. While I've not really kept a tally, it seems that more people on the Leica list are shooting other branded digital than Leica cameras film cameras these days. Some people have given up their Leica M bodies the very same people who just a year or so back argued so strongly for the strengths of the camera. However, there's another interesting trend, and that is subject matter. More and more I'm seeing flower pictures and snaps of the back yard and the neighborhood instead of what used to be the more prevalent people pics, architectural and "found object" studies. Well, maybe it's not a trend in the true sense of the word, but still, flowers are appearing with greater regularity by more and more people posting PAWs and pics to the list. Finally, as here, some photogs using digital are posting greater numbers of pics, which is, of course, understandable. However, just like here and in other venues, more pics does not equate with greater quality. Is it just me, or do others see the quality of the photos posted here diminishing. I don't necessarily mean technical quality, but subject matter and choice of images posted seem to be of less impact and deliver less meaning. Would some photogs be choosing their subjects and framing with a better eye towards composition if they's be shooting film where they'd be paying per exposure, and perhaps limited in the number of exposures they could make on a walk about? Again, I don't know the answers to all these questions, but I did want to share what may be some valid observations. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Shel Belinkoff > I'm not sure about "here," but I do recall a few people mentioning that they've either returned to film or are using more film rather than shooting all digital. Of course, that changes nothing: crap is crap, good work is still good work, and digital is going to be around a long time. I'd just like to see a higher level of quality produced, regardless of the format. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From Rob Studdert > > > Digital imaging obviously isn't mature but it isn't utter crap > > either, who here has dumped their DSLR to go back to > > shooting 35mm film?
RE: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
William Robb wrote: > Minilabs are doomed anyway. > Print counts from digital won't keep them open, and while I > am seeing a blip > at the moment, I am sure that is all it is. > As much as i would like it to be otherwise The bulk of the people I mix with are camera owners and make no pretence of having any real interest in photography as an interest in its own right. I don't know anyone who has had any digital images from the lab. The whole reason to get a digital camera for most was the instant access to their own images, e-mail and their own printer. In well over a year with the istD I have never had any lab prints, but that was never the intention. > I'm close. > I expect to be building my new darkroom this winter, and by a > year from now, > I will be back to shooting film for good. > I'll keep shooting digital for colour prints and the net, but > I expect to go > back to film for a lot of what I do, though it won't be 35mm. > > The shine has kinda worn of the old istD I feel increasingly isolated as a hobby photographer as I am no ones target for marketing. I bought into Pentax digital to use my old lenses and replace colour print film. This it has done. The istD is brilliant for all the things for which an instant picture is useful and can be printed off at home; but by far the biggest use is for e-mail attachments to letters for family and friends. If I want a shot to keep, it is out with the slide film and the LX and pictures you hand about at gatherings I find B & W ideal for. I can't image going fully digital, but I wouldn't like to go back to colour print film. Malcolm
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
I'm not sure about "here," but I do recall a few people mentioning that they've either returned to film or are using more film rather than shooting all digital. Of course, that changes nothing: crap is crap, good work is still good work, and digital is going to be around a long time. I'd just like to see a higher level of quality produced, regardless of the format. Shel > [Original Message] > From Rob Studdert > Digital imaging obviously isn't mature but it isn't utter crap > either, who here has dumped their DSLR to go back to > shooting 35mm film?
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor On 15 Apr 2005 at 14:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Strange. All my non-photographer friends who shoot occasional snaps are more than happy with digital. My kids, who never could be bothered with film, are happily snapping away with digital. They e-mail a lot of pics and print a few. It works for them. Seems to work for almost everyone I know. Mini labs that are counting on a resurgence of film are doomed. Paul Minilabs are doomed anyway. Print counts from digital won't keep them open, and while I am seeing a blip at the moment, I am sure that is all it is. As much as i would like it to be otherwise The reality here is that for the mainstream it's getting difficult to find film let alone a film camera. Even the camera store brochures only have a half page or a page dedicated to film cameras these days. I know we aren't quite third world here but film has pretty much had it, there are sufficient digital print facilities around the place that people don't need computers to make prints. We aren't quite that bad off yet, film is still available, it just isn't being stocked in the quantities it used to be maintained at. Even the little cheapo ink-jets have card readers with direct printing these days and they are becoming more idiot resistant with each incarnation. Also I hardly see a tourist with a film camera these days either, lots of them even seem quite content to use phone cams for their holiday snaps. Digital imaging obviously isn't mature but it isn't utter crap either, who here has dumped their DSLR to go back to shooting 35mm film? I'm close. I expect to be building my new darkroom this winter, and by a year from now, I will be back to shooting film for good. I'll keep shooting digital for colour prints and the net, but I expect to go back to film for a lot of what I do, though it won't be 35mm. The shine has kinda worn of the old istD William Robb
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
On 15 Apr 2005 at 14:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Strange. All my non-photographer friends who shoot occasional snaps are more > than happy with digital. My kids, who never could be bothered with film, are > happily snapping away with digital. They e-mail a lot of pics and print a few. > It works for them. Seems to work for almost everyone I know. Mini labs that > are > counting on a resurgence of film are doomed. Paul The reality here is that for the mainstream it's getting difficult to find film let alone a film camera. Even the camera store brochures only have a half page or a page dedicated to film cameras these days. I know we aren't quite third world here but film has pretty much had it, there are sufficient digital print facilities around the place that people don't need computers to make prints. Even the little cheapo ink-jets have card readers with direct printing these days and they are becoming more idiot resistant with each incarnation. Also I hardly see a tourist with a film camera these days either, lots of them even seem quite content to use phone cams for their holiday snaps. Digital imaging obviously isn't mature but it isn't utter crap either, who here has dumped their DSLR to go back to shooting 35mm film? 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: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
Strange. All my non-photographer friends who shoot occasional snaps are more than happy with digital. My kids, who never could be bothered with film, are happily snapping away with digital. They e-mail a lot of pics and print a few. It works for them. Seems to work for almost everyone I know. Mini labs that are counting on a resurgence of film are doomed. Paul > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor > > > > The question that we want the answer to is "What do most of the persons > > in the street want out of photography?" because they way forward for many > > of us will be based on the companies' answer to it. There are quite a few > > answers. Some of those answers lead to dead ends. It will be interesting > > to see what, er, transpires in the next few years. > > It doesn't matter what the person on the street wants. > They will be told what they want by the marketing divisions of the > corporations that make photo equipment. > Consequently, what they want is what is good for big business. > > We are seeing a bit of a bump right now, our film processing is actually up > a little bit. This bodes well. > I am seeing people again who assured me they were done with film and film > processing, bringing film to the lab again. > They have tried digital, and found it to be wanting. > > The camera industry (Canon in this case is the lead spokesman) still wants > to get away from film. They can release product after product based on > exactly the same components, with minor tweaks to the software or cosmetics > to give them a new model. > This, they feel, will keep customers buying. > The problem with this theory is that they have already trained the consumer > to only look at one criteria, and they have already hit somewhat of a brick > wall with improving that criteria at a price point that allows them to keep > pricing where the consumer is comfortable. > > One thing is certain, digital is a big PITA for most consumers. They can't > just point and shoot anymore. They have to think, and they aren't very good > at doing that. > People aren't archiving files, they make a set of prints of the files they > want, and either dump the memory card or forget the files on their hard > drive. > The % of copy prints I make from lab prints that have a file extension on > the back printing is astounding, considering how young this segment of the > industry is. You wouldn't think people would have a chance to lose that many > files. > > Batteries are still an issue with most people, as they can no longer just > buy a battery off the shelf, drop it into their camera and go play for a > year or two. Now, batteries are relatively expensive proprietary items that > require a lot of maintenace. > To a certain extent, cellular phones have gotten them used to having to do > battery maintenace, but it is still one more thing that non technical > consumers can, and will, screw up. > > One downside of digital is that we are losing the ability to make optical > prints. Scanning film to print is the great quality equalizer, as it makes > film look just as bad as consumer digital, sometimes much worse, depending > on how the film scans. Some films scan better than others. > > William Robb > >
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor The question that we want the answer to is "What do most of the persons in the street want out of photography?" because they way forward for many of us will be based on the companies' answer to it. There are quite a few answers. Some of those answers lead to dead ends. It will be interesting to see what, er, transpires in the next few years. It doesn't matter what the person on the street wants. They will be told what they want by the marketing divisions of the corporations that make photo equipment. Consequently, what they want is what is good for big business. We are seeing a bit of a bump right now, our film processing is actually up a little bit. This bodes well. I am seeing people again who assured me they were done with film and film processing, bringing film to the lab again. They have tried digital, and found it to be wanting. The camera industry (Canon in this case is the lead spokesman) still wants to get away from film. They can release product after product based on exactly the same components, with minor tweaks to the software or cosmetics to give them a new model. This, they feel, will keep customers buying. The problem with this theory is that they have already trained the consumer to only look at one criteria, and they have already hit somewhat of a brick wall with improving that criteria at a price point that allows them to keep pricing where the consumer is comfortable. One thing is certain, digital is a big PITA for most consumers. They can't just point and shoot anymore. They have to think, and they aren't very good at doing that. People aren't archiving files, they make a set of prints of the files they want, and either dump the memory card or forget the files on their hard drive. The % of copy prints I make from lab prints that have a file extension on the back printing is astounding, considering how young this segment of the industry is. You wouldn't think people would have a chance to lose that many files. Batteries are still an issue with most people, as they can no longer just buy a battery off the shelf, drop it into their camera and go play for a year or two. Now, batteries are relatively expensive proprietary items that require a lot of maintenace. To a certain extent, cellular phones have gotten them used to having to do battery maintenace, but it is still one more thing that non technical consumers can, and will, screw up. One downside of digital is that we are losing the ability to make optical prints. Scanning film to print is the great quality equalizer, as it makes film look just as bad as consumer digital, sometimes much worse, depending on how the film scans. Some films scan better than others. William Robb
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
> > From: Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/04/15 Fri PM 01:10:24 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor > > Yep, it is easier to send prints to grandma. It is easier to pass prints > around for your friends to look at. Prints are really the only reason slides > and video never became the mainstream snapshot media. Also, folks on this > list, seem to forget that 1/2 the people in this country do not own > computers, and 75+% of the people in the world do not have them. Come to > think of it since most of us here own maybe 5 computers what does that do for > that 1 computer per 2 people statistic? > > I took some film into Wal-Marts the other day (the local one has downsized > the minilab to about 1/3 its area BTW), the nice girl there said she had a > hard time getting the yellow out of my prints. She did a good job though as > the tan hat in the photos came out neutral gray... 8-) The question that we want the answer to is "What do most of the persons in the street want out of photography?" because they way forward for many of us will be based on the companies' answer to it. There are quite a few answers. Some of those answers lead to dead ends. It will be interesting to see what, er, transpires in the next few years. mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
> > From: Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/04/15 Fri AM 07:40:13 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor > > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Paul, it's about economics, not quality. > > > > Even more so in the consumer market, because you don't ever need to > > have a picture printed again. Many, many people are happy with > > viewing their pictures on the camera LCD. Add the ones who look at > > them on a computer monitor and you have the great majority of the > > modern camera buying public. The economic repercussions of this in > > the photographic marketplace have only just begun. > > > > Dunno Mike, > I think if you drop the print from the consumer equation, you're > basically into the realm of home video where stills will loose against > moving pictures any day. I think that most of the consumers still > shoot stills with a print in mind. In mind, maybe. But when it gets to going to the shop with the card (do you have more than one?) and talking to the man about all that technical crap and then the prints come back and they don't look like you remember and Auntie's head is cut off. Unlike chemical photography, there is an alternative. You can show people your pictures on a screen. Doesn't have to be a computer - for £30 you can buy a device that shows them on your TV. My father in law is one of the few people I know (locally...) with a digital camera who prints. He takes 1~2Mb files, prints them at A4 with a 7 or 8 year old HP, using the normal colour cart and shows them to me to demonstrate how good they are. Sometimes he has to tell me what the subject is. An extreme example but I suspect that most people just would not bother. Instant gratification is, in part, what digital is about and the most instant way to see you prints is on screen. Printing them is just too much effort for most (or, at least, many) people. mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Paul, it's about economics, not quality. Even more so in the consumer market, because you don't ever need to have a picture printed again. Many, many people are happy with viewing their pictures on the camera LCD. Add the ones who look at them on a computer monitor and you have the great majority of the modern camera buying public. The economic repercussions of this in the photographic marketplace have only just begun. Dunno Mike, I think if you drop the print from the consumer equation, you're basically into the realm of home video where stills will loose against moving pictures any day. I think that most of the consumers still shoot stills with a print in mind. Jostein
Re: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
> > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/04/14 Thu PM 11:10:40 GMT > To: > Subject: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor > > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:02 PM > Subject: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor > > > > That only proves that you haven't met the emperor. > > You have this idea that digital printing is somehow superior to tradition > custom printing. > At some point, it may end up that way, because the people doing custom work > are being forced to adapt to digital. > The pro boys like digital because because they can sit in front of a > computer and pretend to be talented, and because it is cheaper for them to > churn out inkjet prints, rather than pay for quality printing. > > Paul, it's about economics, not quality. Even more so in the consumer market, because you don't ever need to have a picture printed again. Many, many people are happy with viewing their pictures on the camera LCD. Add the ones who look at them on a computer monitor and you have the great majority of the modern camera buying public. The economic repercussions of this in the photographic marketplace have only just begun. mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
