Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,110   Posts: 1,612,844   Online: 1197
      
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61
  1. #41
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,424
    Quote Originally Posted by dorff View Post
    Inaccessible in terms of cost of large sensors, and inaccessible in terms of getting the same format size for which the equipment (especially the lens) was designed. Apart from prohibitively expensive scanning backs, I am not aware of any fixed sensor that covers the full 6x7, 4x5, 8x10 etc size. There are many alternatives in various sizes. But my point is that for the vast majority of MF and LF cameras and lenses, no feasible digital extension exists which staves off their obsoletion. Even my Mamiya 645 AFD II, which is nominally digital-ready, is hampered by lack of an affordable sensor that covers the 42x56 frame size. That is what I meant by inaccessible. Not as in "NASA can't do it" but as in "Ordinary Joe can't do it".
    Huh?

    LF is inaccessible because there is no affordable digital sensor?

    Whiskey...tango...foxtrot?

    LF is more accessible than ever, especially in black and white (granted the price of color film is ridiculous bordering on prohibitive) with good used cameras and lenses and accessories available inexpensively and new cameras at least very accessible as well. Digital has made LF MORE accessible by freeing up tons of equipment onto the used market.

    I don't even understand what this post is getting at.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    460
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Huh?

    LF is inaccessible because there is no affordable digital sensor?

    Whiskey...tango...foxtrot?

    LF is more accessible than ever, especially in black and white (granted the price of color film is ridiculous bordering on prohibitive) with good used cameras and lenses and accessories available inexpensively and new cameras at least very accessible as well. Digital has made LF MORE accessible by freeing up tons of equipment onto the used market.

    I don't even understand what this post is getting at.
    You miss the point, because you read it out of context of the original post and the subsequent discussion. The point is that digital sensors offer no replacement or substitute for what can currently be done with LF and MF systems. Therefore, users of such systems are justified in their concern over the disappearance of specific films or film in general, whether the demise is imminent or not. I was never saying anywhere that MF or LF film photography is inaccessible. Rather, I was referring to the fact that if film runs out, digital in the same format is not likely going to plug the gap, and the equipment will be likely obsolete. We were talking about emotional issues, not the current state of affairs per se. This is BTW the reason it helps to stay more or less on topic, otherwise after a while nobody knows what we are talking about any longer.

  3. #43
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    Back to being defensive. Saying zero digital on apug is part of that defensiveness. If it were "any mix as long as it's captured analog" were the rule here, we'd be more "tolerant" / openminded / creative and there'd be less defensiveness here.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,146
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by jp498 View Post
    Back to being defensive. Saying zero digital on apug is part of that defensiveness. If it were "any mix as long as it's captured analog" were the rule here, we'd be more "tolerant" / openminded / creative and there'd be less defensiveness here.
    cut that out, your are supposed to be defensive ... not opening another can of worms, kettle of fish, can of beans bag of salad (triple washed )
    box of film, bag of paper, box of pizza, coffee-can of old nails+screws, can of paint, jar of spackle ... et. al.

    where's thread about the camera gone round the world, maybe we can sacrifice one of their chickens to keep sensors at bay ..
    Last edited by jnanian; 07-01-2014 at 07:45 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #45
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,424
    Quote Originally Posted by dorff View Post
    You miss the point, because you read it out of context of the original post and the subsequent discussion. The point is that digital sensors offer no replacement or substitute for what can currently be done with LF and MF systems. Therefore, users of such systems are justified in their concern over the disappearance of specific films or film in general, whether the demise is imminent or not. I was never saying anywhere that MF or LF film photography is inaccessible. Rather, I was referring to the fact that if film runs out, digital in the same format is not likely going to plug the gap, and the equipment will be likely obsolete. We were talking about emotional issues, not the current state of affairs per se. This is BTW the reason it helps to stay more or less on topic, otherwise after a while nobody knows what we are talking about any longer.
    So "if the film goes away the cameras are usless" then? Well, so? The same is true of 35mm, at least the cameras if not the lenses. I guess I still don't see the point behind the point, as it were. (Nor do I think there would be an gap to fill quality wise, just in making old equipment useful again and nothing lasts forever.)

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,842
    If you want to use Dig cam or cam phone please use it.

    If you want to scan negs ditto.

    If you want to use film, wet print or wet plates then all the volume cost reduction was from Mr and M's average happy snappering and cine theatre attendance, etc.

    You just cannot blame commerce for increasing prices when they have been artificially low cause of other peoples volume.

    If I see some on the street using a pinhole does not upset me, any more than a x100.

    I've seen a lady with some sort of tablet attached to two box brownies with lots if black PVC tape so I say 'stereo?'
    'No unreliable'.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,424
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Huh?

    LF is inaccessible because there is no affordable digital sensor?

    Whiskey...tango...foxtrot?

    LF is more accessible than ever, especially in black and white (granted the price of color film is ridiculous bordering on prohibitive) with good used cameras and lenses and accessories available inexpensively and new cameras at least very accessible as well. Digital has made LF MORE accessible by freeing up tons of equipment onto the used market.

    I don't even understand what this post is getting at.
    LF gear is more accessible than ever, perhaps. I haven't compared prices of 8x10 equipment now with 10-15 years ago so I can't say. I can say that 15 years ago I could afford even color 8x10 film, and now I can't afford any except for x-ray. So the equipment is accessible, maybe, I just can't use it.
    Nice work. You have a very talented computer.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    82
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    I sometimes see on APUG and other areas on the net related to film photography a defensive explanation for using film against digital and new technology. Should this be the case? Film photography has had a run of over 100 years, during which time the process has produced a multitude of iconic and classic images. Digital has yet to do this and prove it can do it, so why do some film users feel they have to justify their methods? It’s a bit like Claude Monet apologising for using oil paint instead of using a different medium.
    1)
    I hate digital since my first digital camera .. a soapbox with 3x zoom and max 100 pictures per battery charge ( sometimes )
    I hate when i use first " pro " 6M pixel Canon EOS
    I hate later cameras not having dials
    I hate empty proprietary shaped batteries
    I hate xD memories 2 GB limit.
    I hate my laptop not reading SD larger than 2GB
    I hate my crashed laptop's HDD and the replacelent and the replacement of replacement and endless windoze reinstalls.
    I hate my faulty SD used in a Nikon Df

    I love my Nikon Df wich i use to scan my slides and my Nikon F4 negatives
    When i want to look at my pictures, slides or negatives the only tool needed is my eye, not mains powered tablet or laptop with screen/ projector.

    Clear ?

    2) An oil paint Rembrandt is more expensive than any digital image or even film print, supposedly they exist over 10 years

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,044
    So much hate ... seems a terrible waste of energy

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    So much hate ... seems a terrible waste of energy
    Nah, a little targeted bile can change things, and make the person feel better. Easier still to never hang out with camera club types who care what other people are shooting with. I barely notice which cameras other photographers use, but I'm sure it'll have no correlation with the aesthetic quality of their work.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin