Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,200   Posts: 1,531,500   Online: 970
      
Page 19 of 21 FirstFirst ... 9131415161718192021 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 205

Thread: 35mm SLR - why?

  1. #181
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    B&W photography was done long before anyone understood the latent image. The entire method grew out of someone throwing away chemicals and noticing that the sun turned their colour. And there were years, decades... actually more than a century of attempts to stabilize images and make the process more convenient. So it's not like God handed down film photography and said, This is It, use This or ye shall be condemned!

    ~~~

    Use what makes you productive and be happy. Digital imaging is in its infancy; the story of b&w photography is 200+ years old. That's 200+ years of believing that we might be able to record a scene, and the experience of seeing that scene, in its totality. How audacious! But here we are with many truly wonderful methods that come very close to making that possible. It's spectacular. And yet somehow there is always somebody bitching ineloquently about the spiritual purity of one method or the other, at the level of photons and electrons. <sigh> It just totally disrespects how much incredibly hard work and genius and fortuitous discovery got us where we are with photography.

    We have more methods than ever before to make photographs. Repeat... We have more methods than ever before to make photographs!

    ~~~

    We cannot ever record a scene it its totality, and we never will. The scene passes by in time and that's it, it's gone forever. All of photography seems to boil down to that impossible goal of immortalizing a scene and an experience. But in the end we never can do it, in the literal sense. The scene happens and that's it.

    So what are you going to do about it? Make photographs to console yourself as time passes by, unarrested and unarrestable. Use whatever methods you can to say what you need to say about what you saw.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  2. #182
    e-k
    e-k is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by totalmotard View Post
    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.
    The sensor does make a physical recording of light however. The results of this recording are subsequently digitized and the recording is erased. So it can be argued then that you do indeed take a photograph with either a film or digital camera .

    e-k

  3. #183
    5stringdeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    603
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    13
    *yawn*

    Can we get back to analog and the topic at hand?


  4. #184
    e-k
    e-k is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    10
    As to the original post, in my opinion it boils down to the fact that they want those features the higher end camera has to offer and they want to shoot film. You can't leave the desire to shoot film out of the equation. Personally I shoot with an EOS-620 and would love to have an EOS-1v, but I personally can't justify the cost.

    e-k

  5. #185

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    123
    Images
    22
    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”.
    I'm not convinced you know what an "image" is.

    I'm quite convinced you don't actually know anything about ontology, philosophy, or what normal human beings think about "images".
    -brian hayden
    http://fed-2.org

  6. #186

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by e-k View Post
    As to the original post, in my opinion it boils down to the fact that they want those features the higher end camera has to offer and they want to shoot film. You can't leave the desire to shoot film out of the equation. Personally I shoot with an EOS-620 and would love to have an EOS-1v, but I personally can't justify the cost.

    e-k
    If you want a 1V but don't have the cash, get a EOS 3. It is pretty much the same thing for a lot less. In the UK, a 1V will set you back £300-500 depending on condition and where you bought it. On other hand, eBay is full of like new 3 bodies for nothing. I got mine for £67. You can get one from a shop with a 6 monrh warranty for £100-150.
    Hasselblad, Mamiya RB, Nikonos, Canon EOS

  7. #187

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by e-k View Post
    The sensor does make a physical recording of light however. The results of this recording are subsequently digitized and the recording is erased. So it can be argued then that you do indeed take a photograph with either a film or digital camera .

    e-k
    If we are splitting hairs and I guess that's what we're doing, logos is held in the mind of the viewer, in memory, same as a computer. Until I draw or print the image it remains logos, an idea or concept. The brain is physical but it is not the image. If we're not careful this discussion could devolve into a debate over dualism. A digital image is by nature dualist and a photograph by nature monist.

    On topic, I didn't get an F100 because of the weight, or an F6 because of the weight and the expense, they wouldn't have been very different in size from my D700. The N80 is a very digital-like shooting experience, it was even the chassis for the Fuji S3 Pro, but without the weight.

    I took the N80 and shot some pics at a party. It was funny, everybody kept taking my camera and looking for the lcd so they could see the pics. The look on their face was priceless when they couldn't find it.

  8. #188

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by e-k View Post
    The sensor does make a physical recording of light however. The results of this recording are subsequently digitized and the recording is erased. So it can be argued then that you do indeed take a photograph with either a film or digital camera.
    A digicamera sensor does not make a physical recording of light. If you are insinuating that a physical "image" appears on the sensor for even a fleeting moment, you are full of it. There is never a physical image on the sensor. The sensor does nothing but convert light into a digital computer file comprised of 1s and 0s. Get over it, computer files of 1s and 0s aren't images.

    Film, on the other hand, does make a physical recording of light. The light physically alters the film and thereby creates an embedded image that is physically present (I have read that the image on exposed but undeveloped film, though very faint, can be actually seen).

  9. #189

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by e-k View Post
    Sorry but that is inaccurate. Light does in fact change things in the sensor.
    It sure does. Electronically. Digitally. So that the computer software in the camera creates a computer file of 1s and 0s. But no image is ever formed on the sensor, much less preserved there. That's why it's not photography; it's photocomputerfilecreation.

  10. #190

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by zumbido View Post
    I'm not convinced you know what an "image" is.

    I'm quite convinced you don't actually know anything about ontology, philosophy, or what normal human beings think about "images".
    As they say, when you aren't equipped to engage in discourse, engage in ad hominem attacks.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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