Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,772   Posts: 1,516,536   Online: 830
      
Page 15 of 21 FirstFirst ... 59101112131415161718192021 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 205

Thread: 35mm SLR - why?

  1. #141

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Well, I was referring specifically to examining the images in the forms in which they first appear. As you say, the digital images don't exist until they're on the screen.
    This brings to mind a misconception held by many digitalistas. The vast majority of the digitalistas I know (and love) think (or at least thought at one time) that the "thing" created by their digicamera and residing on their corruptible hard drive is an actual image, a "digital negative" if you will. Almost invariably they are surprised to learn that there is no image there, no "negative", but rather only a computer file comprised of 1s and 0s that software must decode to produce an image for display on a screen or to send to a printer.

    To me, this has been the true marketing genius of the digital camera manufacturers and their cronies at Ritz et al. - get people to think their digicameras are creating and storing "images".
    Last edited by Naples; 06-16-2010 at 09:12 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #142

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Naples View Post
    This brings to mind a misconception held by many digitalistas. The vast majority of the digitalistas I know (and love) think (or at least thought at one time) that the "thing" created by their digicamera and residing on their corruptible hard drive is an actual image, a "digital negative" if you will. Almost invariably they are surprised to learn that there is no image there, no "negative", but rather only a computer file comprised of 1s and 0s that software must decode to produce an image for display on a screen or to send to a printer.

    To me, this has been the true marketing genius of the digital camera manufacturers and their cronies at Ritz et al. - get people to think their digicameras are creating and storing "images".
    And what are real photographers - the ones who use glass plates - saying about floppy negatives?

  3. #143

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by telyt View Post
    And what are real photographers - the ones who use glass plates - saying about floppy negatives?
    They can't deny the extant image on the film negative; nor can they claim a computer file is an image.

    So you're out of luck.


  4. #144

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    28
    but the image isn't available to be seen until it is developed (decoded) by chemicals (software)...

    d.

  5. #145

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,419
    This is APUG, a supposed respite from the "digitalistas"

    Please go away.

  6. #146

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by danegermouse View Post
    but the image isn't available to be seen until it is developed (decoded) by chemicals (software).
    Chemical development of an image already physically embedded in film from the interaction of light upon the film ≠ Computer software decoding a computer file comprised of millions of 1s and 0s to create a digital image for a computer screen or digital printer.

    More, once film is developed, it always has an extant, visible, physical image; computer files never do ... notwithstanding what that salesman at Ritz told you about "digital negatives".

  7. #147

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    This is APUG, a supposed respite from the "digitalistas"

    Please go away.
    Here's my favorite camera:



    Quote Originally Posted by Naples View Post
    They can't deny the extant image on the film negative; nor can they claim a computer file is an image.

    So you're out of luck.

    Glass plate photographers used to say: "film cannot be optically flat and for the miniature formats (smaller than 4x5) you need a machine to make a print. If you have to use an enlarger or projector to see it, it's not a real photograph." Do you notice any parallels? Or is there too much sand in your eyes?

  8. #148

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    142
    I'd just like to remind everyone that:

    a) this is my thread. Mine! I'm in charge!!! (well ok not really)

    b) the thread is not about digital vs film. Really, it's not. Check the original post. It very specifically is NOT about digital vs film. The question is: what benefit does high-end 35mm SLR cameras provide a newbie coming from digital? I know what's special about other film camera types and formats, but wanted to know why one would bother with 35mm SLR (since it seems "almost digital" in use). I've been enlightened thoroughly. Thank you. But please, no more digital vs film arguments here. Surely there must be another thread for that?

  9. #149

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by rippo View Post
    I'd just like to remind everyone that... The question is: what benefit does high-end 35mm SLR cameras provide a newbie coming from digital?
    The high-end 35mm film camera I'm using can use either a film back or a digital back. Aside from the controls specific to either recording medium, all the other controls and functions are identical making it very easy to switch from one to the other.

  10. #150
    SilverGlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Orange County, Calif
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    739
    Images
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    This is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what I stated.
    So then when you admire a fantastic picture shown at a show or exhibit or museum, your opinion of this picture does not change when you find out later that it was made with a digital camera? As to what I'd think, I would not care how it was photographed.
    Coming back home to my film roots. Canon EOS-3 SLR, Canon EOS 1V SLR, 580ex flash, and 5D DSLR shooter. Prime lens only shooter.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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