The Reason for Film and Vintage Cameras

[E. von Hoegh]

-.-- . ... / .. - / .. ... / .- .-.. .-.. / -.. .. --. .. - .- .-.. / ..- -. - .. .-.. / -.-- --- ..- / --. . - / - --- / -- --- .-. . ... . / -.-. --- -.. .

No one uses that anymore .
But you're correct, code is binary and can be considered digital.
The sort of radio the public listens to is still an analog technology

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I keep getting an error message.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

How does using your grandfather's camera make your images any better?

Likely it doesn't. But, for me at least, it's not entirely about making a "better" image - it's about enjoying the process and having fun. It's a hobby, and the manner in which it's pursued doesn't need to be justified to shareholders or anyone, it just needs to please me.

 

[faberryman]

for some people i guess it does, because it makes THEM feel better but to others
they are the same pix taken with a iPhone

I have an old hammer and a new hammer. They both pound nails. Using your grandfather's camera or an equivalent model off eBay makes no difference. If you have both, make sure you label them so you don't get confused. You'd hate to have a false warm and fuzzy moment.

 

[jtk]

I asked for clarification. I didn't shout at you. You seem to have several thoughts trying to get out at the same time. Perhaps I can parse this out.

You write that thinking and perception is obviously 'closer to digital' than is film. Perception (I am assuming physical perception, since you are invoking dimensionality) by humans (and all life) is analogue. Here I am talking about our five senses and there is nothing digital about it. Even the synaptic transmission of these sensations are analogue. .

You're repetitively stating personal absolute beliefs. This isn't a religious chat room.

"Things" are neither digital NOR analog. Those words are adjectives, not things (not nouns).

I didn't say "brains function like microprocessors" but microprocessors are increasingly functioning like brains.

We benefit by entertaining new ideas. Surely our idea of "good" is not "analogue".

Bold can be more courteous than redundant statements of absolute belief.

 

[wyofilm]

To jtk's comments above: What are you saying, then? I've tried my level best to figure it out. Your arguments lack any and all cohesion.

I didn't say "brains function like microprocessors" but we all know microprocessors are increasingly functioning like brains.

Ahh ... I disagree completely. Don't confuse outcome with process. But this would be another thread.

 

[wyofilm]

To jtk's comments above: What are you saying, then? I've tried my level best to figure it out. Your arguments lack any and all cohesion.

I didn't say "brains function like microprocessors" but we all know microprocessors are increasingly functioning like brains.

Ahh ... I disagree completely. Don't confuse outcome with process. But this would be another thread.

 

[wyofilm]

To jtk's comments above: What are you saying, then? I've tried my level best to figure it out. Your arguments lack any and all cohesion.

I didn't say "brains function like microprocessors" but we all know microprocessors are increasingly functioning like brains.

Ahh ... I disagree completely. Don't confuse outcome with process. But this would be another thread.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

-.-- . ... / .. - / .. ... / .- .-.. .-.. / -.. .. --. .. - .- .-.. / ..- -. - .. .-.. / -.-- --- ..- / --. . - / - --- / -- --- .-. . ... . / -.-. --- -.. .

...
But you're correct, code is binary and can be considered digital....

The dits and dahs are merely an encoded intelligence (the definition of a signal) imposed on top of an analog carrier. All radio transmission is electromagnetic wave propagation. But I know you know all this.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The dits and dahs are merely an encoded intelligence (the definition of a signal) imposed on top of an analog carrier. All radio transmission is electromagnetic wave propagation. But I know you know all this.

The mode of code transmission is continuous wave, that means the transmitter is turned on and off to make dots and dashes. There is no carrier, it's truly binary.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The mode of code transmission is continuous wave, that means the transmitter is turned on and off to make dots and dashes. There is no carrier, it's truly binary.

Oops. You're right. I'm getting old...

 

[Sirius Glass]

-.-- . ... / .. - / .. ... / .- .-.. .-.. / -.. .. --. .. - .- .-.. / ..- -. - .. .-.. / -.-- --- ..- / --. . - / - --- / -- --- .-. . ... . / -.-. --- -.. .

No International Morse Code is not binary, it is tri-state dit '.' dah '-'and space ' '.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No one uses that anymore .

It is still in use. I can and do use it.

 

[jtk]

I actually enjoy scanning. Got a couple of nice Pentaxes, got nice Nikor tanks and reels, got Rodinal. Got a Nikon scanner and an Epson scanner (with focusing film holder). Got a Canon Pro-10. Got Nik Silver Efex. Know how to use em'. And I got a couple of somewhat outdated digital cameras with some incredibly fine lenses.

 

[blockend]

Yes, this is true. Many of us here, though, also get wrapped up in the process and the enjoyment of that process and that's where issues such as the subject of this thread arise.

The issue for me is photography is overwhelmingly dominated by camera talk. Whether that be the latest Nikon D850 vs Sony a7III, or Nikon F2 vs Canon F-1, or Rolleiflex vs Hasselblad, it's the same conversation. While the subject is interesting, and some cameras are nicer to use than others, one camera, type for type, format for format, is almost indiscernible from another in their output. As an Ethics and Philosophy board you might imagine it to be relatively free of camera churn, but it's another place to sound off about preferences.

I've just spent the evening in the darkroom with some 35mm negatives from 2011, and without looking at the sheets I have no idea what camera they were taken on. A fancy SLR, a rangefinder or a point and shoot, it's almost impossible to tell. These conversations do not reflect that reality.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No one uses that anymore .
But you're correct, code is binary and can be considered digital.
The sort of radio the public listens to is still an analog technology

I keep getting an error message.

Because you are wrong. Code is tri-state. ROTFLMAO

 

[E. von Hoegh]

No International Morse Code is not binary, it is tri-state dit '.' dah '-'and space ' '.

One form of fsk used international code, no spaces.
The information content is binary, the spaces serve to make it intelligible in the case of cw transmissions.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The issue for me is photography is overwhelmingly dominated by camera talk. ... As an Ethics and Philosophy board you might imagine it to be relatively free of camera churn...

You're right - it should be. Perhaps threads that go awry here should be moved to another forum.

I've just spent the evening in the darkroom with some 35mm negatives from 2011, and without looking at the sheets I have no idea what camera they were taken on.
...

Same for me. When I'm looking at those negatives to decide which to print, I don't care about the camera or lens used, but more likely why I composed the scene so poorly.

 

[Sirius Glass]

One form of fsk used international code, no spaces.
The information content is binary, the spaces serve to make it intelligible in the case of cw transmissions.

You are quibbling about details and pontificating to avoid the the fact that you were wrong generally and specifically. And yes there are always variations and in this case I know more about them then you. Jus' sayin'

 

[E. von Hoegh]

You are quibbling about details and pontificating to avoid the the fact that you were wrong generally and specifically. And yes there are always variations and in this case I know more about them then you. Jus' sayin'

Well okey-dokey then!

 

[keenmaster486]

No "old school", eh? Young grasshopper, let me tell you about USENET, uucp protocols, and newsgroups like rec.photo.misc ...

I am aware of these. They are only different protocols used for the same purpose, on fundamentally the same digital technology. My point was that there has been no fundamental change in how one computer connects to another halfway around the world, in the same way there has been a fundamental shift in how we create images.

 

[faberryman]

...in the same way there has been a fundamental shift in how we create images.

And?

 

[keenmaster486]

And?

The only point being that there is no irony in preferring film over digital, yet still using a computer to browse the internet and post on this forum, as some have attempted to smugly point out.

Let's go back to the original purpose of this thread which was to criticize my hypothesis of reductionism and minimalism.

Question: Does my hypothesis really hold water when taken to the extreme (i.e., basically using a box camera and making your own film) ? Or was it never meant to be taken to the extreme? I don't know the answer to this, I'm still thinking about it myself. The whole thing was just a shower thought I had.

 

[faberryman]

The only point being that there is no irony in preferring film over digital, yet still using a computer to browse the internet and post on this forum, as some have attempted to smugly point out.

There may be irony depending on your stated reasons for choosing film over digital. There also may be irony if your preferred film camera is a Nikon F6 rather than a Kodak Bantam.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There may be irony depending on your reasons for choosing film over digital. There also may be irony if your preferred film camera is a Nikon F6 rather than a Kodak Bantam.

I did not choose film over digital. I used digital cameras when I programmed the science platform for Voyager I & II, well before any of you. I continued to use film for myself. I never choose to shoot digital for myself. Therefore I have always used film for myself. For work I used the tools that I was directed to use.