"I want a simple SLR" says my 15y/o son. Err, no you don't!

[removed account4]

Chuckwade87
not really sure about that
a photograph is a tangible thing, a negative is a tangible thing glass plate &c tangible thing
computer image file, isn't really tangible, photo illustration in a computer really isnt' tangible
unless it is PRINTED... but this thread isn't about what is and isn't tangible...

YMMV

 

[Chuckwade87]

It is not a photograph unless you can hold a print.

By this logic, then what is the purpose of having/posting to this websites members gallery, if it is not a photograph?

 

[removed account4]

chuckwade87
you gotta read the cave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
the scanned image is a likeness of the print, it isn't the print.
and a file, well, a file is a file ... it is made with a photographic process .. but the file
is more of a screen dump than a photograph.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

That is a matter of opinion.

Nope. It's a matter of definition.
"Photograph", an image made by DIRECT ACTION OF LIGHT. Not a digital file, not an inkjet print.
The map is not the territory.

 

[Chuckwade87]

Chuckwade87
not really sure about that
a photograph is a tangible thing, a negative is a tangible thing glass plate &c tangible thing
computer image file, isn't really tangible, photo illustration in a computer really isnt' tangible
unless it is PRINTED... but this thread isn't about what is and isn't tangible...

YMMV

Nope. It's a matter of definition.
"Photograph", an image made by DIRECT ACTION OF LIGHT. Not a digital file, not an inkjet print.
The map is not the territory.

Two contradictory statements to me.

 

[removed account4]

Nope. It's a matter of definition.
"Photograph", an image made by DIRECT ACTION OF LIGHT. Not a digital file, not an inkjet print.
The map is not the territory.

hey evh

at risk of philosophizing like bill or was it ted in their excellent adventure
the digital file is made by the action of invisible chemical rays of light on a sensor
so i guess in one way the file IS a photograph but a print is a photographic print. a file
image file one looks at on a screen is an interpretation of machine language .. its hard to hold a file..
if you have a conversation with someone who is involved with radiology they will tell you the sensor
( not the direct digital but i think it is barium fluoride ? ) that replaced xray film .. well, post exposure
it still contains a latent image which is read by a laser in the "processing" phase of the operation.
my uneducated guess is that a camera sensor is similar there is a latent image for a split second
before it is converted into machine language. i could be way off base though.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Two contradictory statements to me.

Perhaps try again with a good dictionary handy.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

hey evh

at risk of philosophizing like bill or was it ted in their excellent adventure
the digital file is made by the action of invisible chemical rays of light on a sensor
so i guess in one way the file IS a photograph but a print is a photographic print. a file
image file one looks at on a screen is an interpretation of machine language .. its hard to hold a file..
if you have a conversation with someone who is involved with radiology they will tell you the sensor
( not the direct digital but i think it is barium fluoride ? ) that replaced xray film .. well, post exposure
it still contains a latent image which is read by a laser in the "processing" phase of the operation.
my uneducated guess is that a camera sensor is similar there is a latent image for a split second
before it is converted into machine language. i could be way off base though.

To iterate: an image (tangible object) made by direct action (actinic rays effecting light sensitive chemicals) of light. A sensor has an image projected upon it by a lens which is converted at light speed to electrical "signals", which are processed into a digital file, no image virtual or tangible is involved. No light involved in making an inkjet print, either, however a wet print is truly a photograph of the negative.

 

[Chuckwade87]

To iterate: an image (tangible object) made by direct action (actinic rays effecting light sensitive chemicals) of light. A sensor has an image projected upon it by a lens which is converted at light speed to electrical "signals", which are processed into a digital file, no image virtual or tangible is involved. No light involved in making an inkjet print, either, however a wet print is truly a photograph of the negative.

I thoroughly enjoy your use of the word "tangible".

So the people who have YouTube channels, and a million subscribers, are paid money, by advertisements/YouTube. Is that Money tangible? Lol

 

[Chuckwade87]

There is no sense arguing logically with you, when you use your feelings of nostalgia as a basis for your conclusions

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I thoroughly enjoy your use of the word "tangible".

So the people who have YouTube channels, and a million subscribers, are paid money, by advertisements/YouTube. Is that Money tangible? Lol

There is no sense arguing logically with you, when you use your feelings of nostalgia as a basis for your conclusions

Nice straw man.

 

[Minoltafan2904]

That is a matter of opinion.

Oh so we're going to get into a silly semantics argument now....

 

[Chuckwade87]

I wouldn't characterize it as a "silly semantics", not when you are unable to come to an agreement on the simple definition of 'photography'.

EvH:
Which according to Merriam-Webster is:


Definition of photography

: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)

Without an agreement on this, there is no point in discussing the incredibly narrow definition, or rather dogmatic view of photography that others hold.

 

[removed account4]

To iterate: an image (tangible object) made by direct action (actinic rays effecting light sensitive chemicals) of light. A sensor has an image projected upon it by a lens which is converted at light speed to electrical "signals", which are processed into a digital file, no image virtual or tangible is involved. No light involved in making an inkjet print, either, however a wet print is truly a photograph of the negative.

evh

IDK i think the same light that creates a latent image on film or paper does the same thing to a sensor but like an xray sensor it is short-lived
and in the case of the xray it is read and deleted / cleared off the sensor as with the camera sensor it is dumped and cleared for the next image.

chuckwade87 what you provided is the definition of photography, not a photograph
a digital file is not a photograph it is a digital file ..
not a tangible object. a photograph is a tangible object that
has been created through photography ..
a unprocessed negative that has been exposed to light with a camera is not a photograph either, is it ?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The discussion began regarding a print. A print is not a photograph unless it meets this criterion: "the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)"
Q.E.D.. A digital print is not a photograph.

I'm done with this childishness.

 

[Chuckwade87]

Again, we cannot come to a consensus on the definition.

Merriam-Webster defines it as-

Definition of photograph:
a picture or likeness obtained by photography

Definition of picture
: a design or representation made by various means (such as painting, drawing, or photography)
2a : a description so vivid or graphic as to suggest a mental image or give an accurate idea of something

• the book gives a detailed picture of what is happening

: a mental image
3: image, copy

• he was the pictureof his father

• she was the verypicture of health

: a transitory visible image or reproduction
b : motion picture
c pictures plural : movies
: tableau 2
6: situation

• took a hard look at his financial picture

EvH-
This thread was started concerning a man's son delving into film photography, and the conversation, came to how much to invest. Not what your personal definition of a what a photograph is or isnt.

 

[pbromaghin]

Did you forgot you have to buy a bulk loader?
(Arista bulk loader new $79.99)

My last bulk loader cost me $5.

Did you forget the bulk film cassettes?
(Bulk cassettes new 25 pack $27.99)

That's about right. Use them 5 times and it comes to $.23 per roll.

Did you forget the developing tank?
(New Patterson tank $30.99)

I have accumulated more Patterson and SS tanks than I can count for nearly nothing.

Did you forget the film ?
(Arista EDU 100ft $37.99) (one of my favorites)

Cost of film was in my post.

Did you forget the chemicals?
Arista 76 developer, 1 gallon $5.99
Arifix 1 gallon $5.99
Stop bath makes aprxs 3 gallons 5.29
Hypo clearing $4.99
Photo Flo $7.39
Total= $29.65

Cost of chemicals was in my post.

Where do you put all these chemicals?
(1 gallon jugs for chemicals $7.99 x 5= 39.95)

Empty water or other jugs - free. But I do have several brown plastic and glass photo jugs that I got for free.

How do you share or view your photos?
(Epson v500 flat bed scanner 129.99)

Epson V550 $150 as a gift from my wife last Christmas. I bought the same one as a gift for my son-in-law.

Want to really go retro?
(Beseler Printmaker 67 enlarger $389. 99)
(No lens or bulb included)

Durst f60 (and complete bathroom darkroom kit) - $80
Beseler 23C (and another complete real darkroom kit) - $10
Super Chomega D5XL (and a complete near-professional level darkroom kit) - $00

Should I keep going???????? Don't Forget paper, and paper developing chemicals.....

How about a printer, ink, and paper? Pretty much a wash.

Don't Forget you have to pay the Post Man...
Shipping & Handling minimum of $60

For what?

Tell me how cheap shooting film is again?

I believe I have.

 

[Chuckwade87]

However, film is not cheaper than digital, add in the amount of film and chemicals purchased throughhout the year (and years to come). And your still going to expend more money than you would with a digital camera.

If digital wasn't cheaper, then why don't more people shoot Film?

Because digital is cheaper and more convenient than film photography.

Kodak would be churning out film like it was still 1950. Polaroid would have never went bankrupt.

Film Photography is a niche and it's not cheap when compared to digital.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Chuckwade87
not really sure about that
a photograph is a tangible thing, a negative is a tangible thing glass plate &c tangible thing
computer image file, isn't really tangible, photo illustration in a computer really isnt' tangible
unless it is PRINTED... but this thread isn't about what is and isn't tangible...

YMMV

chuckwade87
you gotta read the cave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
the scanned image is a likeness of the print, it isn't the print.
and a file, well, a file is a file ... it is made with a photographic process .. but the file
is more of a screen dump than a photograph.

hey evh

at risk of philosophizing like bill or was it ted in their excellent adventure
the digital file is made by the action of invisible chemical rays of light on a sensor
so i guess in one way the file IS a photograph but a print is a photographic print. a file
image file one looks at on a screen is an interpretation of machine language .. its hard to hold a file..
if you have a conversation with someone who is involved with radiology they will tell you the sensor
( not the direct digital but i think it is barium fluoride ? ) that replaced xray film .. well, post exposure
it still contains a latent image which is read by a laser in the "processing" phase of the operation.
my uneducated guess is that a camera sensor is similar there is a latent image for a split second
before it is converted into machine language. i could be way off base though.

To iterate: an image (tangible object) made by direct action (actinic rays effecting light sensitive chemicals) of light. A sensor has an image projected upon it by a lens which is converted at light speed to electrical "signals", which are processed into a digital file, no image virtual or tangible is involved. No light involved in making an inkjet print, either, however a wet print is truly a photograph of the negative.

evh

IDK i think the same light that creates a latent image on film or paper does the same thing to a sensor but like an xray sensor it is short-lived
and in the case of the xray it is read and deleted / cleared off the sensor as with the camera sensor it is dumped and cleared for the next image.

chuckwade87 what you provided is the definition of photography, not a photograph
a digital file is not a photograph it is a digital file ..
not a tangible object. a photograph is a tangible object that
has been created through photography ..
a unprocessed negative that has been exposed to light with a camera is not a photograph either, is it ?

The discussion began regarding a print. A print is not a photograph unless it meets this criterion: "the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)"
Q.E.D.. A digital print is not a photograph.

I'm done with this childishness.

Every post spot on!

 

[Chuckwade87]

A nikon d3400 is $359, with a kit lens, with a warranty as well.....

Let's not compare a brand new digital camera, to a camera, the alpha 9 that came out nearly 18 years ago. Of course a body will be cheaper and a 50mm 1.7 can be had for peanuts sure.

But it was a pro camera, in its day, and how long and who will repair it once it breaks?

What can the Minolta a-9 do that the Nikon d3400 cant?

 

[removed account4]

CW87 you're kind of funny...
i guess d is expensive for some but cheap for others
and i guess film is cheap for some and expensive for others

in the end its what you use and hopefully make prints from
seeing it won't be too long for a solar flare or something
to knock out everything electronic and it will be like 1880 all over again.
no digital camera or hardware or hard drive will be useful, no photos
maybe we'll find the 13th crystal skull from the lost city of atlantis
and the mother ship will arrive just in time

 

[Chuckwade87]

CW87 you're kind of funny...
i guess d is expensive for some but cheap for others
and i guess film is cheap for some and expensive for others

in the end its what you use and hopefully make prints from
seeing it won't be too long for a solar flare or something
to knock out everything electronic and it will be like 1880 all over again.
no digital camera or hardware or hard drive will be useful, no photos
maybe we'll find the 13th crystal skull from the lost city of atlantis
and the mother ship will arrive just in time

I've got my tinfoil hat ready!!!

 

[Alan Gales]

However, film is not cheaper than digital, add in the amount of film and chemicals purchased throughhout the year (and years to come). And your still going to expend more money than you would with a digital camera.

If digital wasn't cheaper, then why don't more people shoot Film?

Because digital is cheaper and more convenient than film photography.

Kodak would be churning out film like it was still 1950. Polaroid would have never went bankrupt.

Film Photography is a niche and it's not cheap when compared to digital.

On the other hand a new film holder will cost me a little over $200 for my 8x10 camera. Of course 8x10 film isn't cheap, especially color film but a Phase 1 100 megapixel back for a new digital Cambo monorail would cost me $30,000. Thirty thousand dollars sure pays for a lot of 8x10 film and developing chemicals!

 

[Sirius Glass]

$60,00US for a Hasselblad digital back. This is a lot of film and custom processing. It will not work with the SWC.

 

[pathdoc]

Not everyone can pick up a complete darkroom setup here and there for peanuts from people shedding unwanted gear, and some people are in places to which chemistry is very expensive to ship. I live in one of the not so easy places. I can afford it, but digital (with a secondhand body found cheap) would still be my better option.

I shoot as much film as I do because I love it, and I find the development a challenge.

As far as this thread is concerned, its purpose is done; the lad has his film camera.