Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,264   Posts: 1,680,786   Online: 749
      
Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 567891011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 196

Thread: 35mm SLR - why?

  1. #101

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Da Gulf
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    85
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    On this subject of automation, sometimes auto is the sensible choice. I am not against automation when I want it.

    What annoys me is that there is no really simple, beater d$lr that compares to my fm2n or oly om1 or xa or such- simple, inexpensive little pieces that I can take with me into knee deep saltwater without a care... and still expect topnotch results.
    The Olympus E-1, if you can handle 5 megapixel wrt cropping.

    Not that I'd know.......

  2. #102

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by telyt View Post
    I'm using my digital camera without the @*!% automation. Exposure is manual, focus is manual, I can even cock the shutter manually, and I'm recording as raw files, not jpg.
    A raw file is still a computer file, not an image; software is required to "read" the code in the file to generate an image.

    See "Film: The Real Raw" - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm
    Last edited by Naples; 06-14-2010 at 07:12 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by Naples View Post
    A raw file is still a computer file, not an image; software is required to "read" the code in the file to generate an image.

    See "Film: The Real Raw" - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm
    Oh please, not that idiot Ken again.

  4. #104

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Naples View Post
    A raw file is still a computer file, not an image; software is required to "read" the code in the file to generate an image.
    And a film image is clumps of silver halides or dye clouds. With film our eyes and brain are the computer.

  5. #105

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by telyt View Post
    And a film image is clumps of silver halides or dye clouds. With film our eyes and brain are the computer.
    Sure, the images on my film are the same as the non-images on my jpgs, tiffs, and RAW files.

    Images = Non-images

    1+1 = 3

    Class dismissed, everyone.

  6. #106

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Naples View Post
    Sure, the images on my film are the same as the non-images on my jpgs, tiffs, and RAW files.

    Images = Non-images

    1+1 = 3

    Class dismissed, everyone.
    The funny thing is that at the molecular level film is digital and a CCD or CMOS sensor is analog. The film image is invisible until the developer converts the higher electron valence levels to silver halide grains. The valence levels are discrete steps, i.e., a digital representation of electron energy. The latent film image is analogous to the digital raw file, it must be developed before anyone can see it.

    A CMOS or CCD sensor records the image with electrons, and requires an analog-to-digital converter to create the image file. Either film or CCD/CMOS, the electrons must be processed before anyone can see the image.

  7. #107

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by telyt View Post
    The latent film image is analogous to the digital raw file, it must be developed before anyone can see it.
    Not analogous. Once developed the image on film is thereafter always an image. Conversely, a computer file, whether RAW or .jpg or .tif, always itself remains a computer file and is never itself an image.

    1 ≠ 2

    Image ≠ No image

  8. #108

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Naples View Post
    Not analogous. Once developed the image on film is thereafter always an image. Conversely, a computer file, whether RAW or .jpg or .tif, always itself remains a computer file and is never itself an image.

    1 ≠ 2

    Image ≠ No image
    Can you see a latent image? Either one requires processing before you can see it.

  9. #109

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by telyt View Post
    Can you see a latent image?
    No.

    But I can see the images on my film negatives and transparencies. They're there.

    And I can't see any images on or in my RAW, jpg, or tif computer files. They're not there.

    NM.

  10. #110

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Naples View Post
    No.

    But I can see the images on my film negatives and transparencies. They're there.

    And I can't see any images on or in my RAW, jpg, or tif computer files. They're not there.

    NM.
    So following your train of thought, your words on my computer screen are not real words.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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