That's what I've been doing. Please try and keep up. There are only so many ways of saying one prefers knobs and dials that are made of brass with milled ridges. The pictures won't be any different to a camera with an LCD readout and a plastic wheel with 12 different functions. The experience of using them will obviously be different, but the viewfinder in where the magic happens.Let's go back to the original purpose of this thread which was to criticize my hypothesis of reductionism and minimalism.
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.
I was responding to keenmaster486's posts.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.
...
Let's go back to the original purpose of this thread which was to criticize my hypothesis of reductionism and minimalism.
...
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.
My only training in programming involved punch cards.If this were 1982, we might be having this discussion via a dialup connection, preferably via a local phone #. No IP networking for regular folks back in those days! In the days of dialup BBSes, the expense of calling outside of one's area code meant that most discussions were with people within in your area code. In those days, you'd also have found software being distributed in print form, either as printed text or some sort of optical data format.
... In those days, you'd also have found software being distributed in print form, either as printed text or some sort of optical data format.
It isn’t. If it were, chemical development couldn’t take place. The beauty of some films lays exactly in the depth of the coating(s). Digital sensors are 2-dimensional, at least the data gathered from them can only be made to represent two dimensions.film is 2 dimensional.
Hmm. That would mean some wavelengths being out of focus. The depth would be perceptible. To all intents film, even slide film, is flat.The beauty of some films lays exactly in the depth of the coating(s).
Wrong again. Lens makers can leave a rest of longitudinal chromatic aberration up to the films, foremost colo(u)r films that have the different record and filter layers arranged in the order blue sensitive on top, green sensitive in the middle, and red sensitive deepest. It is not wrong to assume a thou package thickness, perhaps a tad less. Thing is, the package becomes thicker relative to the image area with decreasing formats, 8mm films being just the limit to it. Ektachrome actually had a too thick package, Kodachrome did better. KM had double layers for each colour. Thing is also how one works with lenses. Diaphragm wide open makes for better resolution but shallower depth of field, smaller stops yield stronger middle focus, green. Human eyes in general are most sensitive to greens. We can also see more different hues of green than different blues or reds. Evolution.That would mean some wavelengths being out of focus. The depth would be perceptible. To all intents film, even slide film, is flat.
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.
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.
and they were .... floppy ... as opposed to their offspring, the 3.5" which were unfloppy, or is it a-floppy5.25 inch floppy was very common in 1982
Not at all, especially when using subjective values like beauty. Photography is a two dimensional medium. Are you saying photography is not two-dimensional simulacrum of three dimension space? Colours can be saturated, de-saturated, nuanced, distorted, additive or subtractive, but three dimensional? Do you mean a hologram?I hope I don’t sound too much like a professor.
Hmm. That would mean some wavelengths being out of focus. The depth would be perceptible. To all intents film, even slide film, is flat.
We're talking at cross purposes or this is getting into woo. Colour film is an additive or subtractive process. Early film was additive, modern films are subtractive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtractive_colorNot true, the wavelengths are in focus. Film is flat but it has a finite thickness.
Not true, the wavelengths are in focus. Film is flat but it has a finite thickness.
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?