Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,445   Posts: 1,570,013   Online: 874
      
Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 812131415161718192021 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 205

Thread: 35mm SLR - why?

  1. #171
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,650
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by e-k View Post
    For developed film, yes you can see/read clots of chemicals. However, how often is this done without aid--especially for small formats. You don't see many negatives hanging on the wall of the family home
    But you can project the positive versions onto a wall (or screen).


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  2. #172

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    95
    Let me just give a little greek insight. I spent 20 years studying greek. Graphein does indeed mean to record or write, but that record is a physical object, a grapheis. So a photograph is a physical recording of light. Icon is the word for image however. So an iconograph is a physical recording of an image. A digital camera makes a record of light, but it does not make a physical object until printing. At that point it is a photograph, until then it is a photologos. If you've read Plato, then it is the photologos which is the real and the photograph which is the shadow on the cave wall.

  3. #173

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by e-k View Post
    The real image is formed behind the lens. The light from this real image strikes a surface sensitive to light: film, CCD or CMOS sensor. A latent image is formed.
    No image, latent or otherwise, is ever formed in or by a digicamera sensor. Light does not change the surface of the sensor (that’s why you can use the sensor over and over). The sensor simply transforms the light that enters the lens into a computer file comprised of 1s and 0s. A computer file of 1s and 0s is not an image; it is simply code that certain computer software can read to separately create an approximation of the original image.

    Quote Originally Posted by e-k View Post
    With film you develop it and yes at that point you have a physical image again (although for a negative it could be argued that this isn't a true image as it isn't an accurate representation of the object that was imaged).
    LOL. So the physical, clearly perceptible image on a negative is not an image, but a computer file of 1s and 0s is an image? You're being absurd. But I guess that’s what happens when one realises his digicamera does not produce images and is forced to argue that his computer files of 1s and 0s are “images”.

    In any event, a negative is a perfectly accurate negative representation of the object imaged. It’s an image. I just picked up my TMAX 100 negatives of my children playing on the beach in the summer of 1998, looked at them, and saw perfectly well the images captured at that moment. Real, physical images, captured on the surface of the film. Try that with your strings of millions of 1s and 0s.

    Quote Originally Posted by e-k View Post
    With a sensor, the information is stored physically in some form of memory but remains a latent image until it is subsequently displayed.
    Information – 1s and 0s – is not an image, latent or otherwise. It’s computer code.

    Conversely, when light falls upon exposed film, the light actually, physically, and permanently alters the chemical makeup of the film and leaves a physical, embedded image there. That’s why you can’t use that section of film ever again, but you can always use a digicamera’s computer sensor over and over again – no image, latent or otherwise, is left there.

    Quote Originally Posted by e-k View Post
    I'm not sure I get what you are trying to say here. To the average person, there is no practical difference between the image on a piece of developed film and the latent image produced by a digital camera.
    Once again, there is no “latent image” produced by a digicamera. A computer file of 1s and 0s is not an “image”, and it does not become one by adding “latent” to it.
    Last edited by Naples; 06-17-2010 at 08:59 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #174

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by e-k View Post
    You don't see many negatives hanging on the wall of the family home.
    But negatives (and transparencies) could be hung on the wall of the family home as both are real, physical, perceptible images; conversely, your computer files can never be hung on the wall of the family home as they are not images.

    PS. By your logic, my children’s art works are not images because they are stored in boxes and not hung on a wall? Huh? Alas, more absurdity that springs from the acceptance of 1s and 0s as “images”.
    Last edited by Naples; 06-17-2010 at 09:00 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #175

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Maastricht
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    453
    Images
    5
    So what is the problem? The end result on paper is an image right? Does it really matter which way it travelled to end up on paper? Does that make the final image less if it has travelled the digital path? Doesn't the photographer put in the same amount of visualisation before he pressed the shutter?
    To me the sensor is a light sensitive object. Because it reacts to light. Same is my skin is also a light sensitive surface becuase it reacts to light as well.
    I don't care that o's and 1's are not an image. When printed the end result is an image. That is what counts.
    Reality is whatever stays when you stop believing in it.
    allthingsanalogue.weebly.com
    darkroomninja.blogspot.com

  6. #176

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter de Groot View Post
    I don't care that 0's and 1's are not an image.
    I commend you for accepting that fact; something the digitalistas here are wont to do.

  7. #177
    e-k
    e-k is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    But you can project the positive versions onto a wall (or screen).


    Steve.
    Hi Steve,

    That was what the "without aid" part was for You need a projector to do that and then the image being viewed is the one formed on the projection screen. One could hook up a digital camera to an LCD projector and you again have an image being viewed on the projection screen.

    e-k

  8. #178
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,650
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by e-k View Post
    That was what the "without aid" part was for
    I conveniently overlooked that part!


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  9. #179
    e-k
    e-k is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Naples View Post
    But negatives (and transparencies) could be hung on the wall of the family home as both are real, physical, perceptible images; conversely, your computer files can never be hung on the wall of the family home as they are not images.

    PS. By your logic, my children’s art works are not images because they are stored in boxes and not hung on a wall? Huh? Alas, more absurdity that springs from the acceptance of 1s and 0s as “images”.
    You may want to re-read what I said and hopefully you will comprehend what I was saying.

    1. Yes you could hang developed negatives on the wall. Do many people actually do this - no. I hang prints on the wall.

    2. The definition of whether your child's art work is an image or not depends on what they have created. If it is abstract lines on a piece of paper, then no it isn't an image, whether in a box or on the wall. This isn't what I said.

    3. If you read what I said, you will see that I have conceded that by the strictest definition the 1s and 0s are not an "image" but a "latent image". However, this makes for little practical difference.

    e-k

  10. #180
    e-k
    e-k is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Naples View Post
    No image, latent or otherwise, is ever formed in or by a digicamera sensor. Light does not change the surface of the sensor (that’s why you can use the sensor over and over). ...
    Once again, there is no “latent image” produced by a digicamera. A computer file of 1s and 0s is not an “image”, and it does not become one by adding “latent” to it.
    Sorry but that is inaccurate. Light does in fact change things in the sensor. If it didn't how would you expect anything at all to be captured? You can use the sensor over and over because it can be reset to it's original state. I guess if your child draws an image of you in pencil it's not an image because it can be erased .

    Also, please look up the definition of latent.

    As fun as this has been, at this point I've made my points and I'll leave it to the reader to make their decision.

    e-k



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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