35mm SLR - why?

[Naples]

I don't care that 0's and 1's are not an image.

I commend you for accepting that fact; something the digitalistas here are wont to do.

 

[e-k]

But you can project the positive versions onto a wall (or screen).


Steve.

Hi Steve,

That was what the "without aid" part was for You need a projector to do that and then the image being viewed is the one formed on the projection screen. One could hook up a digital camera to an LCD projector and you again have an image being viewed on the projection screen.

e-k

 

[Steve Smith]

That was what the "without aid" part was for

I conveniently overlooked that part!


Steve.

 

[e-k]

But negatives (and transparencies) could be hung on the wall of the family home as both are real, physical, perceptible images; conversely, your computer files can never be hung on the wall of the family home as they are not images.

PS. By your logic, my children’s art works are not images because they are stored in boxes and not hung on a wall? Huh? Alas, more absurdity that springs from the acceptance of 1s and 0s as “images”.

You may want to re-read what I said and hopefully you will comprehend what I was saying.

1. Yes you could hang developed negatives on the wall. Do many people actually do this - no. I hang prints on the wall.

2. The definition of whether your child's art work is an image or not depends on what they have created. If it is abstract lines on a piece of paper, then no it isn't an image, whether in a box or on the wall. This isn't what I said.

3. If you read what I said, you will see that I have conceded that by the strictest definition the 1s and 0s are not an "image" but a "latent image". However, this makes for little practical difference.

e-k

 

[e-k]

No image, latent or otherwise, is ever formed in or by a digicamera sensor. Light does not change the surface of the sensor (that’s why you can use the sensor over and over). ...
Once again, there is no “latent image” produced by a digicamera. A computer file of 1s and 0s is not an “image”, and it does not become one by adding “latent” to it.

Sorry but that is inaccurate. Light does in fact change things in the sensor. If it didn't how would you expect anything at all to be captured? You can use the sensor over and over because it can be reset to it's original state. I guess if your child draws an image of you in pencil it's not an image because it can be erased .

Also, please look up the definition of latent.

As fun as this has been, at this point I've made my points and I'll leave it to the reader to make their decision.

e-k

 

[keithwms]

B&W photography was done long before anyone understood the latent image. The entire method grew out of someone throwing away chemicals and noticing that the sun turned their colour. And there were years, decades... actually more than a century of attempts to stabilize images and make the process more convenient. So it's not like God handed down film photography and said, This is It, use This or ye shall be condemned!

~~~

Use what makes you productive and be happy. Digital imaging is in its infancy; the story of b&w photography is 200+ years old. That's 200+ years of believing that we might be able to record a scene, and the experience of seeing that scene, in its totality. How audacious! But here we are with many truly wonderful methods that come very close to making that possible. It's spectacular. And yet somehow there is always somebody bitching ineloquently about the spiritual purity of one method or the other, at the level of photons and electrons. <sigh> It just totally disrespects how much incredibly hard work and genius and fortuitous discovery got us where we are with photography.

We have more methods than ever before to make photographs. Repeat... We have more methods than ever before to make photographs!

~~~

We cannot ever record a scene it its totality, and we never will. The scene passes by in time and that's it, it's gone forever. All of photography seems to boil down to that impossible goal of immortalizing a scene and an experience. But in the end we never can do it, in the literal sense. The scene happens and that's it.

So what are you going to do about it? Make photographs to console yourself as time passes by, unarrested and unarrestable. Use whatever methods you can to say what you need to say about what you saw.

 

[e-k]

Let me just give a little greek insight. I spent 20 years studying greek. Graphein does indeed mean to record or write, but that record is a physical object, a grapheis. So a photograph is a physical recording of light. Icon is the word for image however. So an iconograph is a physical recording of an image. A digital camera makes a record of light, but it does not make a physical object until printing. At that point it is a photograph, until then it is a photologos. If you've read Plato, then it is the photologos which is the real and the photograph which is the shadow on the cave wall.

The sensor does make a physical recording of light however. The results of this recording are subsequently digitized and the recording is erased. So it can be argued then that you do indeed take a photograph with either a film or digital camera .

e-k

 

[5stringdeath]

*yawn*

Can we get back to analog and the topic at hand?

 

[e-k]

As to the original post, in my opinion it boils down to the fact that they want those features the higher end camera has to offer and they want to shoot film. You can't leave the desire to shoot film out of the equation. Personally I shoot with an EOS-620 and would love to have an EOS-1v, but I personally can't justify the cost.

e-k

 

[zumbido]

But negatives (and transparencies) could be hung on the wall of the family home as both are real, physical, perceptible images; conversely, your computer files can never be hung on the wall of the family home as they are not images.

PS. By your logic, my children’s art works are not images because they are stored in boxes and not hung on a wall? Huh? Alas, more absurdity that springs from the acceptance of 1s and 0s as “images”.

I'm not convinced you know what an "image" is.

I'm quite convinced you don't actually know anything about ontology, philosophy, or what normal human beings think about "images".

 

[film_man]

As to the original post, in my opinion it boils down to the fact that they want those features the higher end camera has to offer and they want to shoot film. You can't leave the desire to shoot film out of the equation. Personally I shoot with an EOS-620 and would love to have an EOS-1v, but I personally can't justify the cost.

e-k

If you want a 1V but don't have the cash, get a EOS 3. It is pretty much the same thing for a lot less. In the UK, a 1V will set you back £300-500 depending on condition and where you bought it. On other hand, eBay is full of like new 3 bodies for nothing. I got mine for £67. You can get one from a shop with a 6 monrh warranty for £100-150.

 

[totalmotard]

The sensor does make a physical recording of light however. The results of this recording are subsequently digitized and the recording is erased. So it can be argued then that you do indeed take a photograph with either a film or digital camera .

e-k

If we are splitting hairs and I guess that's what we're doing, logos is held in the mind of the viewer, in memory, same as a computer. Until I draw or print the image it remains logos, an idea or concept. The brain is physical but it is not the image. If we're not careful this discussion could devolve into a debate over dualism. A digital image is by nature dualist and a photograph by nature monist.

On topic, I didn't get an F100 because of the weight, or an F6 because of the weight and the expense, they wouldn't have been very different in size from my D700. The N80 is a very digital-like shooting experience, it was even the chassis for the Fuji S3 Pro, but without the weight.

I took the N80 and shot some pics at a party. It was funny, everybody kept taking my camera and looking for the lcd so they could see the pics. The look on their face was priceless when they couldn't find it.

 

[Naples]

The sensor does make a physical recording of light however. The results of this recording are subsequently digitized and the recording is erased. So it can be argued then that you do indeed take a photograph with either a film or digital camera.

A digicamera sensor does not make a physical recording of light. If you are insinuating that a physical "image" appears on the sensor for even a fleeting moment, you are full of it. There is never a physical image on the sensor. The sensor does nothing but convert light into a digital computer file comprised of 1s and 0s. Get over it, computer files of 1s and 0s aren't images.

Film, on the other hand, does make a physical recording of light. The light physically alters the film and thereby creates an embedded image that is physically present (I have read that the image on exposed but undeveloped film, though very faint, can be actually seen).

 

[Naples]

Sorry but that is inaccurate. Light does in fact change things in the sensor.

It sure does. Electronically. Digitally. So that the computer software in the camera creates a computer file of 1s and 0s. But no image is ever formed on the sensor, much less preserved there. That's why it's not photography; it's photocomputerfilecreation.

 

[Naples]

I'm not convinced you know what an "image" is.

I'm quite convinced you don't actually know anything about ontology, philosophy, or what normal human beings think about "images".

As they say, when you aren't equipped to engage in discourse, engage in ad hominem attacks.

 

[zumbido]

As they say, when you aren't equipped to engage in discourse, engage in ad hominem attacks.

Unfortunately, you also don't know what an ad hominem is. Here's what an ad hominem is *not*: stating the fact that someone evidently does not know that definitions of the words they are using.

I didn't say you're dumb, ugly, or a communist. I said you aren't clear on what an image is in any meaningful sense, because you are not. If you disagree, feel free to explain why without resorting to the circular nonsense of "because it's 1s and 0s, and I said so."

 

[zumbido]

A digicamera sensor does not make a physical recording of light. If you are insinuating that a physical "image" appears on the sensor for even a fleeting moment, you are full of it. There is never a physical image on the sensor. The sensor does nothing but convert light into a digital computer file comprised of 1s and 0s. Get over it, computer files of 1s and 0s aren't images.

Film, on the other hand, does make a physical recording of light. The light physically alters the film and thereby creates an embedded image that is physically present (I have read that the image on exposed but undeveloped film, though very faint, can be actually seen).

You also do not know how modern CCD and CMOS sensors work.

The sensor array is, in fact, altered by the light. The charge of individual sensor sites is changed by the light, at which point the sensor is very much analogous to exposed film. The SECOND step is an analog-to-digital converter reading out the states of each sensor, and converting them to 1s and 0s. Then the sensor is reset to a blank state.

You are simply ranting on nonsense and ignorance.

 

[film_man]

It sure does. Electronically. Digitally. So that the computer software in the camera creates a computer file of 1s and 0s. But no image is ever formed on the sensor, much less preserved there. That's why it's not photography; it's photocomputerfilecreation.

Well I'd better ring all the people I sold digital photocomputerfilecreations and send them a refund. I'll ask for the files and prints back just so that they stop deluding themselves.

Actually no, I'll continue photography with my film cameras. I will also continue photography with digital cameras, even my little iPhone and the silly applications on it. I will even continue photography with the one and only type of camera that produces an image by your ridiculous standards: a Polaroid. I will continue enjoying all the images I capture with digital and analog equipment, while you can spend eternity argueing about trivial technicalities and insignificant terminology like others do in the digital domain.

But one thing is for certain, the people who do get caught up in such trivialities and argue whether true photography is done with film only, digital only, plates, daguerotypes, mind control or divine intervention are the ones who neither can do nor can they ever enjoy photography as they are held forever in their cycle of contempt and snobbism. People like that couldn't tell photography if it punched them right in the middle of their face.

So, thank you and thank the computerfilecreators for the Ignore User buttons. Cheerio.

 

[e-k]

If you want a 1V but don't have the cash, get a EOS 3. It is pretty much the same thing for a lot less. In the UK, a 1V will set you back £300-500 depending on condition and where you bought it. On other hand, eBay is full of like new 3 bodies for nothing. I got mine for £67. You can get one from a shop with a 6 monrh warranty for £100-150.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind an EOS 3 either, but the EOS 620 was about $20 US and I'm happy with it for what I use it for . I'll probably pick up a 4x5 field camera before another 35mm.

e-k

 

[e-k]

If we are splitting hairs and I guess that's what we're doing, logos is held in the mind of the viewer, in memory, same as a computer. Until I draw or print the image it remains logos, an idea or concept. The brain is physical but it is not the image. If we're not careful this discussion could devolve into a debate over dualism. A digital image is by nature dualist and a photograph by nature monist.

Yes, I was splitting hairs but only with the first sentence . I mean that for a definate period of time there is a physical recording on the sensor. It's fleeting, but it's there. I'll leave the philoshopical discussions to my wife though .

e-k

 

[Naples]

Unfortunately, you also don't know what an ad hominem is. Here's what an ad hominem is *not*: stating the fact that someone evidently does not know that [sic] definitions of the words they are using.

I didn't say you're dumb, ugly, or a communist. I said you aren't clear on what an image is in any meaningful sense, because you are not. If you disagree, feel free to explain why without resorting to the circular nonsense of "because it's 1s and 0s, and I said so."

If I have to explain to you why a computer file comprised entirely of 1s and 0s is not an image, well, I can't help you ... :rolleyes:

 

[zumbido]

If I have to explain to you why a computer file comprised entirely of 1s and 0s is not an image, well, I can't help you ... :rolleyes:

Wait, what? You reply with a combination of red herring and evasion? Shocking, just shocking.

Explain to me what definition of "image" does not apply 1s and 0s because they require some device for meaningful display... and yet the same definition does include under its umbrella a negative, which requires some device for meaningful display.

Can you do this, or can you not?

 

[Naples]

You also do not know how modern CCD and CMOS sensors work.

The sensor array is, in fact, altered by the light. The charge of individual sensor sites is changed by the light, at which point the sensor is very much analogous to exposed film. The SECOND step is an analog-to-digital converter reading out the states of each sensor, and converting them to 1s and 0s. Then the sensor is reset to a blank state.

You are simply ranting on nonsense and ignorance.

For your edification, here is how digital sensors actually work, and they're not "analogous" to film:

"Each photosite on a CCD or CMOS chip is composed of a light-sensitive area made of crystal silicon in a photodiode which absorbs photons and releases electrons through the photoelectric effect. The electrons are stored in a well as an electrical charge that is accumulated over the length of the exposure. The electrical charge that is generated is proportional to the number of photons that hit the sensor.

This electric charge is then transferred and converted to an analog voltage that is amplified and then sent to an Analog to Digital Converter where it is digitized (turned into a number)."​

There you have it.

Just "electrons", "electric charges", "analog voltages", "amplified" analog voltages, and, finally, "digitized" numbers (1s and 0s).

Nowhere in that electronic process is an extant image ever present.

No matter what the Ritz salesman told you ...

 

[zumbido]

For your edification, here is how digital sensors actually work, and they're not "analogous" to film:

"Each photosite on a CCD or CMOS chip is composed of a light-sensitive area made of crystal silicon in a photodiode which absorbs photons and releases electrons through the photoelectric effect. The electrons are stored in a well as an electrical charge that is accumulated over the length of the exposure. The electrical charge that is generated is proportional to the number of photons that hit the sensor.

This electric charge is then transferred and converted to an analog voltage that is amplified and then sent to an Analog to Digital Converter where it is digitized (turned into a number)."​

There you have it.

Just "electrons", "electric charges", "analog voltages", "amplified" analog voltages, and, finally, "digitized" numbers (1s and 0s).

Nowhere in that electronic process is an extant image ever present.

No matter what the Ritz salesman told you ...

Friend, let me give you an honestly well-meant tip for life:

The ignorant should not condescend to people who know something about the subject at hand.

I'm pretty sure I've never been in a Ritz, but I do have advanced degrees in the software arena and write digital camera firmware for fun in my spare time (when I'm not printing images from my Diacord in the bathroom with homebrew developers).

Please explain to me what the meaningful difference is between storing a latent image by accumulating electrons in silicon as opposed to silver?

I'll refrain from adding an ad-hominem here, as appealing as it is given your obdurate obscurantism... whoops, there I went.

 

[wblynch]

You also do not know how modern CCD and CMOS sensors work.

The sensor array is, in fact, altered by the light.

The sensor array is not altered. It captures a charge that remains only for the length of time that the photons are in those little 'buckets'. Once the light leaves, the charge also dissipates. There is no latent 'image' on the sensor.

At some point in time the sensor will lose its ability to recognize the charge or capture it but that point of alteration does not represent a single image.