I agree that you have evaluated that correctly as an error causing a report of a nonexistent error. Good call.
I to am getting the error message:-
The following error occurred
The server responded with an error. The error message is in the JavaScript console.
It looks as if the error message is itself an error because the post of uploaded anyway.
The point of what I was saying was not that film is simpler than digital in general. Obviously, a great deal of complicated and intricate design goes into film and film cameras. My point was that, from an engineering and efficiency standpoint, using a digital computer to solve the problem of image creation is very convoluted compared to direct image capture with light-sensitive chemicals. It feels so much more right to take pictures with film... I stand by my assertion earlier that using a computer for every task seems like way overkill.
Here's another analogy: when I take a picture digitally, I feel like I'm going to a futuristic holodeck from Star Trek, firing up the system, and commmanding it to bring forth for me an incredible forest, filled with grandeur, so that I may take pictures of it - instead of just walking a few blocks west and taking pictures of the real forest.
...
A person can pull a small device from their pocket, take a photo, and share it in a matter of seconds, with a few taps on a screen. And they'd be carrying that device even if it didn't include a camera. That's minimalist. And efficient.
Here's another analogy: when I take a picture digitally, I feel like I'm going to a futuristic holodeck from Star Trek, firing up the system, and commmanding it to bring forth for me an incredible forest, filled with grandeur, so that I may take pictures of it - instead of just walking a few blocks west and taking pictures of the real forest.
Were you to be transported to Gilligan's Island, you wouldn't be able to recreate that device out of coconuts.
Well, I can't figure out how to get the top off my camera, which is probably a good thing, since I doubt I could diagnose and fix any problems once I got inside. I know I couldn't fabricate any parts that might need to be replaced. I do know a bit about electronics, but I don't think I have any electronic devices in my home which are not fabricated with SMDs, and I don't have the necessary specialized tools or soldering station for replacing SMD parts. I know I do not have the physical dexterity to work on the small circuits in a digital camera. So film or digital, it doesn't matter. If it breaks, I will need to rely on professional repairs. I expect the same applies to most of us out here.The appeal of mechanical film cameras is the same as that of any other type of machinery because I know that with enough study I could come to know how and why the entire mechanism works, and with some effort repair it or even fabricate new parts. Of course, this isn't necessarily a practical consideration, only philosophical.
Likewise with electronics, older devices with discrete components and wiring are entirely understandable if you know the nature of electrons and spend enough time tracing circuits. With microelectronics the direct connection between understanding and operation is effectively broken because the encapsulated circuitry is too small to see and too abstract and complex for any one person to easily comprehend.
What you describe is minimalist in the sense of minimal equipment (there's no dedicated camera body plus lens plus film), it's minimalist in terms of operation, and it's minimalist in producing an image. However it is not minimalist in technological concept. Were you to be transported to Gilligan's Island, you wouldn't be able to recreate that device out of coconuts.
Yes real photography!
There is photography and then there is Digital Imaging. Semantics yes, but if the opinions of some ruffle feathers of others so be it. Every one is entitled to his/her opinion.
Yes I have used the digital thing and I can say that I get very little satisfaction from it. More like frustration! I also know I would be a damn sight better off financially, if I had not tried it.
... With microelectronics the direct connection between understanding and operation is effectively broken because the encapsulated circuitry is too small to see and too abstract and complex for any one person to easily comprehend.
In the field, a service technician or hobbyist operates at the user interface or sub-assembly level. There is no possibility of home-brew, handcrafted microchips, image sensors or disk drives because these are necessarily the products of a complex industrial supply chain and clean-room fabrication process. How it's made or how it works is considered to be none of your business. If it breaks, replace it with a new one.
...
The irony is people bemoaning the intrusive digital future while sitting at a computer screen. ...
It isn't. Just the opposite. I don't understand people who say they need to be on top of technology, to be in control of every aspect of the process, then put their photography through microchips. You can place a digital camera in manual exposure mode, focus by hand and shoot jpegs, and your control of the process is no different to someone shooting a Barnack and scanning the negatives. The result is a digital file.blockend: I dont fully understand you... why the use of old and new technology together is problem?
What the heck! What is going on here? ... Doesn't the XT MB only have 8-bit slots? And how is the 486 upgrade not being severely bottlenecked? Wow.
you'd start with a boxn WW2 some British prisoners of war under the Japanese made cameras and film from scratch, because they thought the world would never believe they were being starved to death. I wouldn't know where to begin.
People should shoot what they like, how they like. I don't identify a pecking order of authenticity, because the winner would be someone who made their own camera, coated their own plates and paper, made their own chemistry and never exhibited on the web. The rest of us just make it up as we go along. Where's the "real" in that?
In a concentration camp? When you're starving? There's no shop selling bits and pieces.you'd start with a box
then a junk store magnifying glass can b your lens
psper might be the hard part but you can put fruit juice on
cheap construction paper, stick it in your box and focus an image on that you will have something that
makes phtoographic images. it really isn't as hard as it seems, no chems needed but
the images tend to fade ...
and it is kind of fun...
Hats off to you.... that's really incredible.Freaky, 'eh?.......
That sounds like something I would do if given enough time and money. But yeah, there shouldn't be a pecking order... this is just my personal philosophy.People should shoot what they like, how they like. I don't identify a pecking order of authenticity, because the winner would be someone who made their own camera, coated their own plates and paper, made their own chemistry and never exhibited on the web. The rest of us just make it up as we go along. Where's the "real" in that?
Yes! I like things that are stable and lasting... all of my old mechanical cameras can outlast me and continue to be used and loved for generations after I am gone.The continuous use of an old hand tool... well worn, much loved, and handed down from generation to generation... has a very basic emotional appeal
I don't know why any of it is a problem. Some people are not happy unless there is a problem. Film and digital are just different tools for arriving at a final image. I use both and try to avoid all the dogma and rationalization of the film vs. digital debate, and just focus on making photographs.blockend: I dont fully understand you... why the use of old and new technology together is problem?
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?