We obviously have different criteria for judging our images, and different ideas of what looks good....
... That Sunday afternoon he took those prints to the hospital where his father was dying. Later he told me that his father really did enjoy the photographs of the group of which his father had been a member, and he credits that whole process with helping his father make it through another day. His father died 48 hours almost exactly after those photographs were taken, and about 30 hours after he was shown the prints...
... I like my Minolta Maxxum 9. It is one of the finest Point and Shoot 35mm film cameras ever made...
... If I may offer an automotive analogy, the European automobiles of the 1950s and 1960s seemed to expect that the vehicle driver would be an engaged participant in the automotive driving process, while the American automobiles of that era seemed to be designed to isolate and insulate the driver as much as possible from that process, and to replace it with "a living room like experience." The "modern dSLR cameras" and many of the late film cameras seem to be of the philosophy that the tedium of being involved in the process is be eliminated, "for the benefit of the photographer."...
Where can one find a forum on composing? I realize one can find threads dedicated to certain genre's such as portraits, landscapes, street, the list goes on....but none of these really discuss composition directly...the elements of a picture, etc...even those specialized threads are still too hardware centric...
On this subject of automation, sometimes auto is the sensible choice. I am not against automation when I want it.
What annoys me is that there is no really simple, beater d$lr that compares to my fm2n or oly om1 or xa or such- simple, inexpensive little pieces that I can take with me into knee deep saltwater without a care... and still expect topnotch results.
A raw file is still a computer file, not an image; software is required to "read" the code in the file to generate an image.I'm using my digital camera without the @*!% automation. Exposure is manual, focus is manual, I can even cock the shutter manually, and I'm recording as raw files, not jpg.
A raw file is still a computer file, not an image; software is required to "read" the code in the file to generate an image.
See "Film: The Real Raw" - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm
A raw file is still a computer file, not an image; software is required to "read" the code in the file to generate an image.
Sure, the images on my film are the same as the non-images on my jpgs, tiffs, and RAW files.And a film image is clumps of silver halides or dye clouds. With film our eyes and brain are the computer.
Sure, the images on my film are the same as the non-images on my jpgs, tiffs, and RAW files.
Images = Non-images
1+1 = 3
Class dismissed, everyone.
Not analogous. Once developed the image on film is thereafter always an image. Conversely, a computer file, whether RAW or .jpg or .tif, always itself remains a computer file and is never itself an image.The latent film image is analogous to the digital raw file, it must be developed before anyone can see it.
Not analogous. Once developed the image on film is thereafter always an image. Conversely, a computer file, whether RAW or .jpg or .tif, always itself remains a computer file and is never itself an image.
1 ≠ 2
Image ≠ No image
No.Can you see a latent image?
No.
But I can see the images on my film negatives and transparencies. They're there.
And I can't see any images on or in my RAW, jpg, or tif computer files. They're not there.
NM.
Rippo, I can only echo the points others have made; 2F/2F, SiriusGlass, agw, kiethwms, and many others. What do you want to do, and how do you want to do it? Each of the two main ways under discussion -- film SLR and dSLR -- have characteristics and qualities that may make it the better choice for one application or another. At this time, I still feel a greater sense of satisfaction with film than I do with silicon, but part of that may be that I have much more experience with film, and I am still judging the results of a digital image in comparison with film. You have posed a very difficult question which is probably being answered in many cases with our own personal history, taste, and prejudice. I am sorry. I do not think that any of us can really do better than that.
Boy, Rippo really does know how to push buttons, and to "stir up the hornet's nest!"
However, in deference to him, I also offer the following, even though they may seem to be contradictory:
[...]
Rippo, I can only echo the points others have made; 2F/2F, SiriusGlass, agw, kiethwms, and many others. What do you want to do, and how do you want to do it? Each of the two main ways under discussion -- film SLR and dSLR -- have characteristics and qualities that may make it the better choice for one application or another. At this time, I still feel a greater sense of satisfaction with film than I do with silicon, but part of that may be that I have much more experience with film, and I am still judging the results of a digital image in comparison with film. You have posed a very difficult question which is probably being answered in many cases with our own personal history, taste, and prejudice. I am sorry. I do not think that any of us can really do better than that.
If you're asking specifically about late-model, auto-everything, bells-and-whistles SLRs, I agree that they're more similar to DSLRs than different---the main difference is in the recording medium rather than the user experience.
More generally, I think the answer is just that some outstanding cameras have been made in the 35mm SLR format; no wonder considering its popularity. I find myself shooting my AE-1 a lot simply because it's an elegant camera in use, not because it's an SLR per se.
-NT
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?