The comeback?

[msage]

Digital is a passing fad.

I guess this comment is meant to be funny or a joke.

 

[wyofilm]

There was a point when reading had not been widespread that people used mnemonic devices to memorize things. They did not "need" reading to learn but, boy-howdy, reading sure improved the learning experience.

Back in my undergrad days we spent countless hours in the stacks doing book-related research for papers. Card catalogues, micro-fiche, scouring aisles and floors for books and references. We didn't need no stinkin' computers. However, their use makes this much less time-consuming. This shortens the feedback loop, and therefore, the learning loop. Why would one not use it? View attachment 212876

Back in my academic years (chemistry) the transition from paper searching to computer searching happened. To be sure searching key words first in specific databases then more general internet searches made narrowly focussed searches lightening fast. Everything comes at a price though. Before easy computer searching one would keep up with scientific literature by reading the table of contents many, many journals. Absolutely time consuming. But there was a huge benefit to this. Very often one would stumble upon an article that would never be captured in a keyword search because it was too unrelated, but would nonetheless illustrate a new technique or concept that could be applied to one's research.

In a sense the same thing happened with data acquisition and analysis. Data points would come from single, hands on experiments in the lab and processed by hand. Hand plots on graph paper, for example. A researcher was intimate with each and every data point collected. Artifacts, or unexpected trends popped up easily. Slow work. Presently, orders of magnitude times more data are collected, collated, and processed automatically. At best, statistical analysis (algorithms usually defined ahead of time) is used to identify anomalies. This is of course done at a cost though. Rapid progress at the cost of missing important nuggets. More or less a whole new field, meta-analysis, showed up to identify variations in large data sets.

I would say in my examples above the progress was worth it, but a cost (often hidden) was always paid.

 

[msage]

[QUOTE
I guess photographers will buy a Nikon z7 when their D800 dies in the next year or two (or a bit longer). When I was in high school photography wasn't too expensive for me because I used an at that time 20 year old camera and lens (the sensor was replaced frequently!). I don't think that there are too many 20 year Nikon D1 cameras handed down today to novice photographers.
.[/QUOTE]
My Nikon D200 (bought in 2005) is working just fine as is my Nikon D800. Both cameras have had tens of thousands exposures each.

 

[msage]

How ridiculous. I shoot film up to 4x5 and digital. There are plenty of others that shoot both. Denigrating digital is childish. Photography should be a big tent.

Yes!

 

[wyofilm]

[QUOTE
I guess photographers will buy a Nikon z7 when their D800 dies in the next year or two (or a bit longer). When I was in high school photography wasn't too expensive for me because I used an at that time 20 year old camera and lens (the sensor was replaced frequently!). I don't think that there are too many 20 year Nikon D1 cameras handed down today to novice photographers.
.

My Nikon D200 (bought in 2005) is working just fine as is my Nikon D800. Both cameras have had tens of thousands exposures each.[/QUOTE]

My success with digital cameras hasn't been as good as yours. Maybe I've been rougher on them. However, I can't imagine too many people excited about using a Nikon D1 except for nostalgic reasons. Here is a blast from the past review of the Nikon D1. A great read to see just how far and how fast digital cameras have improved since this ground breaker. Kinda like me firing up my first PC, a Mac SE - with its HUGE 20MB internal hard drive!

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1/20
(The article asks the reader not to download the TIFF files unless absolutely necessary to save on band width!)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Perhaps because in many cases the computer search tools rely more on tags and summations and interpretations as much then they do on the actual content of the items searched.
It takes a really informed appreciation of how computer searches work to understand their strengths and limitations.
The same concerns apply to non-computer based tools. But somehow the computer based tools are more enticing.
To pick a good but extremely arcane example, I'd suggest trying to deduce the impact of Bell v. Lever Brothers from the headnote.
Spoiler alert - you can deduce almost anything from Bell v. Lever Brothers.

Crap! Damn! Damn! Damn! Now I have to learn English law and English Common Law too! What will be next? Having to learn French law, where one is guilty until proven innocent? I hope I never get arrested in Louisiana!

 

[msage]

You're kidding? It is a favorite sport around APUG, now Photrio.

My Nikon D200 (bought in 2005) is working just fine as is my Nikon D800. Both cameras have had tens of thousands exposures each.

My success with digital cameras hasn't been as good as yours. Maybe I've been rougher on them. However, I can't imagine too many people excited about using a Nikon D1 except for nostalgic reasons. Here is a blast from the past review of the Nikon D1. A great read to see just how far and how fast digital cameras have improved since this ground breaker. Kinda like me firing up my first PC, a Mac SE - with its HUGE 20MB internal hard drive!

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1/20
(The article asks the reader not to download the TIFF files unless absolutely necessary to save on band width!)[/QUOTE]

I am not easy on equipment and we have found that digital cameras last as long as most film cameras. That being said, I understand the part nostagia plays in this discussion no matter what people may say. I have little nostalgia for 35mm photography, the quality was never there for me but I do enjoy photographing with my 4x5 though. Unfortunately I have precious little time to time to shoot, process and print negatives. Also when we shoot with film we stand out and look "different" from all the other photographers. And maybe feel superior?

 

[MattKing]

I read the Bell v. Lever Bros and do not know how it relates to our discussion. Sometimes I am dense. Can anyone help me see its applicability?

I really didn't mean anyone to read Bell v. Lever Bros! You have my utmost apologies.
I referred to it as essentially an inside joke - over the years innumerable law students have suffered through trying to make sense of that decision, because it seems to provide authority for a huge number of inconsistent principles.
The "headnotes" appended to printed case reports are/were a summary explanation of the meaning of a case - sort of a printed Wikipedia supplied in the paper volume where one would go to actually read the case.
Coles Notes or Cliff Notes for the legal profession.

 

[MattKing]

Crap! Damn! Damn! Damn! Now I have to learn English law and English Common Law too! What will be next? Having to learn French law, where one is guilty until proven innocent? I hope I never get arrested in Louisiana!

No, but we will make you learn Law French.
At least if you ever want to be a cestui que trust .
Anyone want to guess how to pronounce cestui que trust ?

 

[faberryman]

Also when we shoot with film we stand out and look "different" from all the other photographers. And maybe feel superior?

Some do, some don't.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No, but we will make you learn Law French.
At least if you ever want to be a cestui que trust .
Anyone want to guess how to pronounce cestui que trust ?

Off to buy Depends! I nearly crapped my pants until it got to the point that I understood cestui que trust and why it came to be.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't think most people left film photography because ""they believed in the "film is dead" propaganda"", they moved on to new and better technology!

No they didn't. They moved on because it was CHEAPER. EASIER. MORE CONVENIENT. Better in some regards, but not all.

 

[BrianShaw]

No they didn't. They moved on because it was CHEAPER. EASIER. MORE CONVENIENT. Better in some regards, but not all.

... and more commercially viable.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Which means cheaper.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

 

[BrianShaw]

Which means cheaper.

Or quicker. . .

 

[warden]

That tears it, I'm selling my film gear!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

 

[Berkeley Mike]

That tears it, I'm selling my film gear!

Hang on to it: it may become collectable.

 

[msage]

No they didn't. They moved on because it was CHEAPER. EASIER. MORE CONVENIENT. Better in some regards, but not all.

Hmmm, cheaper, easier, more convenient. Sounds better to me. Plus, better quality (especially in high ISOs),

 

[msage]

The reason to shoot film is because you want to. The constant "digital is crap and film superior" on this forum gets old.

 

[RPC]

Hmmm, cheaper, easier, more convenient. Sounds better to me. Plus, better quality (especially in high ISOs),

Digital images are synthesized by algorithms from the wonky output of a sensor. Then converted to formats like jpeg resulting in reduced dynamic range and tonality. Does not sound or look better to me at all. More convenient, yes. But not at all better quality.

 

[markjwyatt]

Digital images are synthesized by algorithms from the wonky output of a sensor. Then converted to formats like jpeg resulting in reduced dynamic range and tonality. Does not sound or look better to me at all. More convenient, yes. But not at all better quality.

Film images are produced from the wonky interaction of light and chemistry. jpegs are limited, but when we scan film we often end up with jpegs. RAW and Tiffs are better (though the longevity of especially RAW is an open question). Digital is convenient and has some advantages in sharpness for size (mainly due to lack of grain) , dynamic range in shadows, and color management. For film, I like the "look", sometimes the grain structure, and the presence of a shoulder. Neither is better or worse. It all depends on what you want to do.

 

[RPC]

I never scan, only print optically to get the best from negative film. Sharpness in digital is synthesized, not real. Maybe that doesn't matter to some, but in truth it is not sharper.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The reason to shoot film is because you want to. The constant "digital is crap and film superior" on this forum gets old.

But it sound much better every time it is repeated.

Digital images are synthesized by algorithms from the wonky output of a sensor. Then converted to formats like jpeg resulting in reduced dynamic range and tonality. Does not sound or look better to me at all. More convenient, yes. But not at all better quality.

+ 10*10+23