Hello Cruel Apug

[Valthonis]

Oh woe is me. For he who praises digital (In some environments) has been forced (Asked) to reduce himself to lowly analog Photographers users group.

J/k

Hi Im Valthonis. Some of you may remember me by being the 1000th member to register for Apug. Im Aggies Son by the way. She constantly prattles on about,

"Apug This..."
"Apug That..."
"This guy on Apug is a shithead...."

Honestly its driveing me Freaking Nuts. Shes had alot of friends on here that she likes to talk to and have fun with. So im happy for her.

My interests are multimedia, Digital video work as well as some web design. But im hopeing to get into 3d animation because that stuff is cool. Me and mom usualy spar about digital photography being better or worse than analog photgraphy so ill may my views clear.

1. Digital is superior for the strictly snapshot photo. IF you want something quick and dirty its the way to go.
2. Color Digital photography is on the level of color Analog photography. Its just alot of expense up front.
3. Black and white Analog is superior to Digital at this time. However This does not mean that digital wont improve. Look at how fast Analog is inovateing with new technology, now look how fast digital is advanceing.


There are two areas where digital fails that would vastly improve its market worthiness.

1.The ability to capture multiple layers of light on a 3d CCD imager. Current techniques all capture light on a FLAT CCD imager. If the CCD were designed almost like a forrest of angled CCD cells it could capture a more 3d image and mimic traditional Chemical processes that occur within film.

2. The export medium, Paper essentialy, is also simply flat paper that the image is layed down upon. In Analog the image is transfered in a 3d chemical medium (Film) to a 3d Export Medium (Photo paper.) It retains its depth and vibrancy the whole way through. Digital is a flat image put on a flat piece of paper. Give the Piece of paper a chemical surface, much like analog photo paper, and then combine that with the 3d CCD imager and you will have a more level playing field.

Digitals strengths lie in:
Convience, Its alot less time and work to make a didital photograph. Just point, shoot, and then upload to your printer and Viola! Instant print.

Analog strengths lie in:
Image qulity.
Adaptability.
Interchangeability.
Worth over lifetime.

 

[lee]

what happens to the image if the hard drive bips when you are saving the image? Are you willing to continually re-archive all your saved images on each new different medium that the market place comes out with. The phrase "8 track" comes to mind. These are just a few of the concerns I have with digital. Plus I don't shoot 35 and the back for a 4x5 or 8x10 costs the equivalent of the gross national debt of several small countries. Just don't get me started.

lee\c

 

[lee]

Oh I forgot welcome aboard.

lee\c

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There are many people who use digital techniques here. They just discuss them elsewhere.

Welcome.

 

[Valthonis]

what happens to the image if the hard drive bips when you are saving the image? Are you willing to continually re-archive all your saved images on each new different medium that the market place comes out with. The phrase "8 track" comes to mind. These are just a few of the concerns I have with digital. Plus I don't shoot 35 and the back for a 4x5 or 8x10 costs the equivalent of the gross national debt of several small countries. Just don't get me started.

lee\c

IMHO, Its IDEOTIC to have a 4x5 DIGITAL or 8x10 DIGITAL back. That removes all the convience and portability that are the halmarks of digital photography.

Ive personaly never seen a hardrive 'Bip' as you describe. Computer technology is a bit diffrent from the 8 track. If you want Maximum image safety for any kind of data, you initilize a Raid Level 1. This requires two hard drives of the same type, size, and bus interface. What the Raid does is Mirror the data onto the second drive. That way if one drive fails, you still have a copy of the data on the other so you can replace the broke drive.

There are all sorts of storage mediums for digital information. CD's and DVD's degrade over time as do Magnetic media. The only costant upgradeing idd do to maintain my data over time would be new hard drives to keep up with bus interface changes. Hard drives are cheap. $.80 per Gigabyte for a 200gb drive. Thats a steal compared to what it used to be.

 

[Valthonis]

There are many people who use digital techniques here. They just discuss them elsewhere.

Welcome.

Im affiliated with Aggie, so i just use her equipment. I dont really take any digital pictures and have little intrest in photography as a static medium. Im interesting in Moveing pictures..... :bag:

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Thomassauerwein]

I for one am glad Tim that your a digihead, without your help in learning to work my website I would have thrown my computer out the window by now. Welcome aboard and when your mother tells you to take out hte trash just hit delete!

 

[Jorge]

"Im affiliated with Aggie"...lol....

I have never heard a son refer to his mother as an "affiliate"...lol...

 

[Sean]

Welcome Tim

I've wondered if lenses can resolve enough to give either an advantage. Suppose you have a 200 megapixel camera and the best lens can only resolve 60 megapixels. When will digital reach the limits of lens resolution, and will it be that much higher than film (which I believe may have already reached this point). I recall someone saying an 8x10 negative has well over 2 billion "pixels", I think that will keep me going for a while, and no need to worry about data integrity of 5gig image files.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Valthonis]

well a lense for digital is basicly the same as a lense for analog. the key diffrence between them is the medium where the image is captured. For analog this is Film. For digital it is a CCD (Charged Cuppled Device.)

Edit: Ah... Mom just informed me of an article that tells how digital lenses are not as good as analog lenses because the CCD cant capture that dense an image. This makes sense to me. It lowers the total cost for the camera by useing a lower quality lens.

Current CCD chips are tiny compared to a negative which i find odd. Wouldnt it be more advantageous to focus the image on a much larger area but keep the pixel density? One would think so.

One interesting tidbit ive found working with digital video, Pixel Shapes.

One would assume that a pixel is square in all forms. However on NTSC televisions they are ever so slightly rectangular. And in other contries... well thy run the gammot from square to a really exagerated rectangle. Computer screens are square across the board.

 

[Jorge Oliveira]

Current CCD chips are tiny compared to a negative which i find odd. Wouldnt it be more advantageous to focus the image on a much larger area but keep the pixel density? One would think so.

Tim

First, wellcome onboard.

It's a matter of price.
Silicon prices skyrocket with size (since you're kind of a computer geek, for sure you know CPU manufacturers try their hardest to keep chip area as small as possible).

So, there's a very real price barrier in digital - small CCD's won't have the same quality of large CCD's; large CCD's are VERY expensive.

See:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/

 

[blansky]

Welcome,

I have a few friends at Industrial Light and Magic. If you are interested in digital moviemaking etc, and need any sort of "in" I might be able to help you.


Michael McBlane

 

[Ed Sukach]

Hi Im Valthonis. Some of you may remember me by being the 1000th member to register for Apug. Im Aggies Son by the way. She constantly prattles on about,

"This guy on Apug is a shithead...."

1. Digital is superior for the strictly snapshot photo. IF you want something quick and dirty its the way to go.
2. Color Digital photography is on the level of color Analog photography. Its just alot of expense up front.
3. Black and white Analog is superior to Digital at this time. However This does not mean that digital wont improve. Look at how fast Analog is inovateing with new technology, now look how fast digital is advanceing.

One by one:

"This guy ... "

This is singular. Does she mean to imply that there is only one?

1. No argument. Perhaps a little more accurate to reverse descriptions: First "Dirty" and then (secondarily), "quick".

2. Nah. I don't think, attribute compared to attribute, that "digital" is anywhere near, at least not yet. There is a *vast* difference when compared, highest level of chemical color print, to highest level of "digital" print. Don't be fooled by "One-Hour-Lab" analog color prints. The *best* "Custom Printed" color analog prints are seldom seen outside of galleries - and to tell the truth, they are not all that common *IN* the galleries.

3. I don't really see that much "improvement" in analog black and white prints. IMHO, they were awfully damned good to start with, and an exceedingly "high standard" for "digital" to reach.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Sean]

It's time he learns the true meaning of the dark slide. Together as Mother and Son, you can bring order to the photographic world!

 

[Valthonis]

One by one:

"This guy ... "

This is singular. Does she mean to imply that there is only one?

1. No argument. Perhaps a little more accurate to reverse descriptions: First "Dirty" and then (secondarily), "quick".

2. Nah. I don't think, attribute compared to attribute, that "digital" is anywhere near, at least not yet. There is a *vast* difference when compared, highest level of chemical color print, to highest level of "digital" print. Don't be fooled by "One-Hour-Lab" analog color prints. The *best* "Custom Printed" color analog prints are seldom seen outside of galleries - and to tell the truth, they are not all that common *IN* the galleries.

3. I don't really see that much "improvement" in analog black and white prints. IMHO, they were awfully damned good to start with, and an exceedingly "high standard" for "digital" to reach.

*Shudders* Grammar Nazi..... Ugg....

I was probably overzealus on comparison between Collor Digi and Color Wet. I just saw tonight a Color Print by one of moms friends that i really liked. This wasant something you could get out of 1hourphoto booths.

When i talk about Improvement i didnt refrence the existing level of quality against each other. Analog done right is superior to Digital, no questions asked. I merely apply Moores law to digi cameras and watch as they get better and better. They are STILL handicapped by phisical limitations but like all pieces of technology, they will improve.

It's time he learns the true meaning of the dark slide. Together and Mother and Son, you can bring order to the photographic world!

I sense a disturbance in the Fix. As if a thousand prints suddenly cried out in pain and then were washed.

I have a few friends at Industrial Light and Magic. If you are interested in digital moviemaking etc, and need any sort of "in" I might be able to help you.

:!: :!: Thats Techie for "Holy !@#$ dude! COOL!"

SNIP

True. and since the Core area of this has to scale up as negatives scale up it becomes quite expensive for the total area so i agree with your point.


*New Stuff*

Mom shows me prints that she gets from people and im amazed at how clear they are. I can tell a 35mm negative apart from a larger negative based upon just looking at the size of grain. She got one this summer and DAM that looks good. The guys name i cant spell or pronounce right but it sounds spanish? Les sent her a BEAUTIFUL print....

[Shameless Plug]
I do Flash Webdesign for people, So if you would like me to make a gallery like thing to display on a website that includes buttons and sounds and all sorts of niceities that just add to the experience, im willing to do it for you. I can make em better than the photoshop autopilot thing. Just Send me a PM or Email.
[Shameless Plug]

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Lex Jenkins]

Douglas Adams wrote that the English pay penance for their sins through their sandwiches.

I suppose we photographers pay penance through our children.

 

[lee]

The phrase "8 track" comes to mind.
lee\c

I knew I had read something somewhere that discussed this issue.

This is what I was talking about, "http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_534847.html?menu=news.latestheadlines"

This discusses the fact that the material was archived on an older system and the archive is not readable anymore.

I would think that being able to locate a particular image would be pretty hard also.

lee\c

 

[Ole]

Hello, "Valthonis", and welcome to APUG.

As one of the very early users on the internet (since 1984(!)) and image processing (started 1992), I think I might be entitled to an opinion here

Somewhere in my stack of defunct computer gear is a floppy disc with scanned images from 1986. I used these for scientific purposes, using image processing (AIM, if you've ever heard about it) to produce a distribution profile across an igneous dyke...

Now, these floppies are still readable. But to get the images off htem, I need to reassemble my old Atari ST (remembering to keep presure on the blitter chip), read the floppy, copy the file to a PC formatted DS/DD floppy, which I might be lucky enough to be able to read on my new(ish) PC... I can then process the images after converting them from the native format to something a PC can understand, which will take at least another hour, ant try to extract the same information from them. But I don't think I can, since the software I used for processing no longer exists - except on my old Atari.

On the other hand, I printed a negative from 1898 yesterday. It was still in one piece, still readable, and could be processed on "state of the art" analog equipment (OK, so my analogue gear is older than my PC. So what?). The picture was (unfortunately) dead boring, but just as Knut Knutsen made it more than a century ago.

I don't expect my old Atari to work in 90 years - do you?

On the other hand, I'm thinking of putting up a web site. Want a short, underpaid job?

BTW, does someone have a list of "smiley codes" for this site?

Edited becasue I cna't spell at 2 am...

 

[bmac]

Dinosaurs!

 

[Aggie]

..