Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,970   Posts: 1,523,472   Online: 950
      
Page 12 of 21 FirstFirst ... 26789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 205

Thread: 35mm SLR - why?

  1. #111

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    96
    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.

  2. #112

    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.

  3. #113

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    96
    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

  4. #114

    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.

  5. #115

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    96
    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.

  6. #116

    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.

  7. #117

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    14
    Too funny by some, to serious by others... A photograph is a print to be viewed, No?

  8. #118
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph Javins View Post
    Rippo, I can only echo the points others have made; 2F/2F, SiriusGlass, agw, kiethwms, and many others. What do you want to do, and how do you want to do it? Each of the two main ways under discussion -- film SLR and dSLR -- have characteristics and qualities that may make it the better choice for one application or another. At this time, I still feel a greater sense of satisfaction with film than I do with silicon, but part of that may be that I have much more experience with film, and I am still judging the results of a digital image in comparison with film. You have posed a very difficult question which is probably being answered in many cases with our own personal history, taste, and prejudice. I am sorry. I do not think that any of us can really do better than that.


    The amount of automation that I use is inversely as the square of the longest dimension of the film.
    • 35mm can be from total point and shoot to carefully planned and executed photographs with the Nikons and fully manual with the Voightlander Vito II. Thus [1/(1.5 inch)]^2 = 0.444
    • MF can be some what fast with the Hasselblad to carefully planned and executed photographs. However there is nothing automated with my c. 1935 folder. Thus [1/(2.25 inches)]^2 = 0.198
    • LF is fully manual. and thus [1/(4 inches)]^2 = 0.0625
    For the most part, the format size relates to the altimate goal and to a lessor extent to the time constraints.

    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.

  9. #119

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph Javins View Post
    Boy, Rippo really does know how to push buttons, and to "stir up the hornet's nest!"

    However, in deference to him, I also offer the following, even though they may seem to be contradictory:

    [...]

    Rippo, I can only echo the points others have made; 2F/2F, SiriusGlass, agw, kiethwms, and many others. What do you want to do, and how do you want to do it? Each of the two main ways under discussion -- film SLR and dSLR -- have characteristics and qualities that may make it the better choice for one application or another. At this time, I still feel a greater sense of satisfaction with film than I do with silicon, but part of that may be that I have much more experience with film, and I am still judging the results of a digital image in comparison with film. You have posed a very difficult question which is probably being answered in many cases with our own personal history, taste, and prejudice. I am sorry. I do not think that any of us can really do better than that.
    Yes I do feel an urge to somehow provide stewardship to a post that has obviously taken on a life of its own. The question was posed from a hypothetical newbie's perspective. Why a modern 35mm SLR specifically? That's the one type of camera/format that has always eluded me, in terms of understanding the benefits as compared with digital. I love playing with rangefinders, old folders, medium format, LF (and despise sub-mini, but understand why it might appeal to some). But somehow, an F5/F6/EOS-1 seemed like they needed a justification that I just couldn't come up with. Like the format was "almost digital" but annoyingly not so. But I've been put in my place, as it were, because of course I was neglecting the recording medium. Film, in any configuration, has a certain appeal and use for some people. The bells and whistles merely make the exposure of that film more convenient.

    So really the answer to my question is: because 35mm SLR is 'just like' digital, but with the added benefit of…film!

  10. #120

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    142
    And lest some say that film is just a frippery, a constructed process by which some can feel a sense of elitism, I must offer as evidence to the contrary my "lucky camera". I have a Zeiss Ikon Nettar 6x6 camera. Every roll yields improbable percentages of excellent images. The yield is staggeringly high as compared to my dSLRs. The reason is simply because, as far as I can tell, I cannot 'chimp' the results, and I only have 12 images to take on a particular roll. So I think about what I do, and let the results stew for awhile before I see them. The process of delayed gratification and enforced diligence seems to actually yield substantive results. I even brought the little Nettar on a fashion shoot a few weeks ago, and one of the images made the final spread. ( http://www.la2day.com/fashion/photo_...ival_instinct/ )



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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