Another advantage of chains is they are narrower, allowing the engine to be a little shorter. But I like them mainly because they are reliable and long-lasting.
Fewer leaks.
Belts need no oil bath lubrication. Fewer leaks.
I once heard they don't make cameras in England because they couldn't figure out how to make them leak oil.
But I prefer film, and the market prefers digital. People has wrong priorities it seems.
Maybe belt-based distributions are easier to put "in phase".
Depends. Usually chains fail from being worn out. The adjuster reaches the end of its travel and the chain starts to whip, making noise. The whip accelerates the wear, noise increases, etc. The only time I saw a silent chain failure, it was actually a plastic-center-with-metal-tooth-ring cam sprocket on a big old Buick V6 (the derived-from-a-V8 one). High mileage, the plastic got brittle, sprocket collapsed.Having had experience with both timing belts and timing chains, a few observations: chain failure, especially double row chains, is usually gradual and signaled by the clatter of disintegrating links. My guess that single row chains would furnish only seconds of warning.
Oh, it does. It weakens the rubber and the highest stress point at the tooth root shears. Very few belts break; they shear some teeth. If the belt breaks it's usually from the abrupt stop when the valves and pistons crash, or from riding off the sprocket after the teeth shear and tangling.I doubt that oil on a belt would cause more rapid failure; synthetic rubbers are pretty robust.
Digital collections facilitate access, but do not facilitate preservation. Being digital means being ephemeral. Digital places greater emphasis on the here-and-now rather than the long-term, just-in-time information rather than just-in-case.
Of course he wasn't! Everybody knows it's a Kohler.I once asked him whether the engine was sourced from Briggs or from Tecumseh; he was not amused.
In the meantime, I will go only into a fully digital means of color photography kicking and screaming if E6 (and later, C41, but I really would be hesitant to adapt it, due to the greater instability of the color) goes extinct, grudgingly shooting digital (with a lot of B&W film).
Of course he wasn't! Everybody knows it's a Kohler.
Hahahahaha!!!
If you want to annoy a Lotus fan you tell them it's an acronym....Lots Of Trouble Usually Serious....
Having said that I'd love to own an original Elite with the Coventry Climax motor....or even an early Elan.
I too went fully digital but then realised that if I wanted something important to stay I should go back to film.
So snapshots and web pics and the like are on a point and shoot (albeit a rather nice one in the shape of an X10...) and the real shots I want forever are on a solid medium.
Just as an exposed frame undeveloped is only a latent image, it does not exist in reality but only in potential, so is a digital image. And just like an undeveloped film it shares the inherent instability of a latent image.
So I shoot my good stuff on film then I scan it so I can email/cheap prints for family/etc.
But I've always got my originals...
It depends how you see it. You can't expect to shoot any paid gigs with film nowadays....unless your film photography (large film format I assume) is something unique.
Not true. I shoot commercial on film semi regular, particularly food.
Like I said, it depends on your market and niche. No, I don't see any wedding photographers or sport photographers shooting films.Sorry, it isn't happening.
Wrong. Wedding is one of the types left where film is still being used. Maybe not the cheapo weddings, but Jonathan Canlas and other well-known wedding photographers prefer film. Just the latitude of negative film makes it a valuable tool when trying to get detail in both white dresses and dark suits.Like I said, it depends on your market and niche. No, I don't see any wedding photographers or sport photographers shooting films.Sorry, it isn't happening.
Wrong. Wedding is one of the types left where film is still being used. Maybe not the cheapo weddings, but Jonathan Canlas and other well-known wedding photographers prefer film. Just the latitude of negative film makes it a valuable tool when trying to get detail in both white dresses and dark suits.
Your statement is way overly broad.
I did not say it is the rule. You said it "is not happening", but it is. I said that is an overly broad statement, and it is. Most are not using film, but that is not the same as no one, "period".Exception isn't the rule. I know the majority of wedding photographers do not shoot film, period. The market for wedding photographers isn't focusing on shooting film, period. No one who is trying to make a living or side money shooting weddings would be shooting film, period. If you are an established wedding photographer with several decades of experiences you may shoot film for the special purpose shots. Someone who has gotten into photography for the past 5 years or so and managed to make some good money on wedding photography won't be shooting film. This is not happening.
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?