Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,736   Posts: 1,515,507   Online: 1094
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 64
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Washington, the state
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,088
    Images
    16
    I don't think that histograms really have any mass so it might be an oxymoron.
    Dave

    "She's always out making pictures, She's always out making scenes.
    She's always out the window, When it comes to making Dreams.

    It's all mixed up, It's all mixed up, It's all mixed up."

    From It's All Mixed Up by The Cars

  2. #22
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,560
    Quote Originally Posted by mopar_guy View Post
    Err, Ummm, Well grams aren't a measure of weight (which in the english system is a measure of Force). Grams are a quantity of mass, not weight.
    Q.G., is that you?
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  3. #23
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by mopar_guy View Post
    If we're talking about a gram of Helium, It might be a little hard to weigh it.
    Easy, turn your scales upside down...

  4. #24
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,010
    Images
    60
    At the risk of encouraging this ....

    It is useful to think carefully about what the units we use actually mean.

    At least the metric units don't use the same label for weight and volume (ounces).
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  5. #25
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    I don't really enjoy the anticipation. I'd just as soon have my images processed and proofed ASAP. But that is almost never the reality. I just don't devote myself to processing with the same gusto with which I approach shooting. It feels more like a job...so I am loathe to do it on my day's off of work! I have just come to view the inherent lack of immediacy as part of the process when using film. I guess since that is what I am used to, I do enjoy that lack of immediacy. Though I wouldn't say that it is the "anticipation" I like. I guess you might just say that I enjoy not dealing with it till later. So, maybe procrastination is a better word?

    What I do really enjoy about shooting film is the thought process it takes to know what will be on the film even though I have not seen it. I like holding a freshly developed roll up to the light and saying, "Yep; that's exactly what I expected." Even years after the exposure in some cases, when I finally see the film, I can remember taking pretty much each shot, at least in a general sense. That is really fun. With film, this thought process of analyzing and predicting is always going on in my head before and shortly after each shot. With digital, the thought process goes on, but the questions raised by it can be answered right away...and there is no emotional equivalent for that moment of holding the film up to the light.

    With digital, I do enjoy the ability to view shots right after I take them, but I don't really see it as a huge advantage in most situations. I cannot think of a single shot that an LCD allowed me to get, that wouldn't have turned out at least printable on film. In other words, I think the LCD is a useful tool for fine tuning (and it can also be fun, of course), but it doesn't ever make or break a shot for me.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  6. #26
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by jp498 View Post
    I don't think it will kill that instinct for me, thought others may be different. It would definitely prevent it from being developed in a new photographer with no film experience.
    Exactly how I feel.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    601
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    The joys of "chimping" are denied to me I don't own a digital camera,and I don't feel that anything is missing in my life,and I often think to myself for what a decent DSLR costs I could buy a used Hasselblad, a real camera, and I wouldn't need to learn photography all over again.
    I found a comment about chimping that expresses my opinion better than I could have done:

    Polaroid and other types of instant film have been around for more than 4 decades. Apart from the instant gratification for point-and-shooters, the film system also found its way into the toolbox of the professional photographers as a quick way to determine lighting ratios, contrast, and composition. The great convenience afforded by these films were especially useful for medium and large format shooters, for whom the ability to change film backs/plates allowed flexibility of instant review, while simultaneously making available the whole pantheon of slide and print films that each has its devotees. Of course, it bears mentioning that it was obviously meaningless to have polaroids for smaller formats since there will be too little detail on the image anyway. The format was also used by such art dignitaries as David Hockney and Andy Warhol in various art pieces.

    In the digital age, this process of review has been called “chimping” in some quarters, presumably referring to the hunched posture and excited utterances that resembles primates. That such a pejorative should exist is shocking, since the very act pretty much originated from the top professionals in studios. All that has been done is that the convenience of the polaroid has been transferred to an LCD, and made available in a much smaller form factor. I suppose the excessive reviewing betrays a lack of consideration for one’s image making, and that is indeed what should be discouraged here.


    http://fotophilosophy.wordpress.com/...-analogue-age/

    In other words, if it's being used as a tool and not a crutch, what's the problem?

  8. #28
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,092
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by mopar_guy View Post
    If we're talking about a gram of Helium, It might be a little hard to weigh it.
    Well, since all "grams" have one gram of mass, and since the gravitational force in whatever place you're standing isn't likely to change from moment to moment, a gram of Helium would weight the same as a gram of Lead.

    And answering my own question, since I got curious and looked it up, weight (force) isn't measure in Pascals at all. DUH!

    I wanted Newtons, and one gram of mass weighs approximately 9.8x10-3 Newtons.

    MB
    Last edited by michaelbsc; 07-26-2011 at 07:26 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: wording
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  9. #29
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,936
    Quote Originally Posted by moose10101 View Post
    In other words, if it's being used as a tool and not a crutch, what's the problem?
    Because with the ease of chimpin' people do not ever get the sense of whether or not the got the photograph or not. They just spray away.

    For example, during an air show last month I would take one photograph while some fairly knowledgeable digital photographers next to me sprayed away. After a few times, they asked me why I was only taking one photograph. I told them I know when I got the photograph and when I did not get the photograph. If I felt that I did not get the photograph I would take a second one. They all said that they had been taking photographs for various numbers of years and every one of them said that they could never trust that the got the photograph. Therefore they shoot, they chimp, and then to be sure they shoot some more. Their words, not mine. I do not know if that is typical or not, but from what I see it seems to be typical.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  10. #30
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by moose10101 View Post
    I found a comment about chimping that expresses my opinion better than I could have done:

    Polaroid and other types of instant film have been around for more than 4 decades. Apart from the instant gratification for point-and-shooters, the film system also found its way into the toolbox of the professional photographers as a quick way to determine lighting ratios, contrast, and composition. The great convenience afforded by these films were especially useful for medium and large format shooters, for whom the ability to change film backs/plates allowed flexibility of instant review, while simultaneously making available the whole pantheon of slide and print films that each has its devotees. Of course, it bears mentioning that it was obviously meaningless to have polaroids for smaller formats since there will be too little detail on the image anyway. The format was also used by such art dignitaries as David Hockney and Andy Warhol in various art pieces.

    In the digital age, this process of review has been called “chimping” in some quarters, presumably referring to the hunched posture and excited utterances that resembles primates. That such a pejorative should exist is shocking, since the very act pretty much originated from the top professionals in studios. All that has been done is that the convenience of the polaroid has been transferred to an LCD, and made available in a much smaller form factor. I suppose the excessive reviewing betrays a lack of consideration for one’s image making, and that is indeed what should be discouraged here.

    http://fotophilosophy.wordpress.com/...-analogue-age/

    In other words, if it's being used as a tool and not a crutch, what's the problem?
    I am of the understanding it was mainly the clients, art directors... whoever that wanted the instant feedback... Sounds like chimping to me...

Page 3 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