Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,678   Posts: 1,482,065   Online: 734
      
Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 101415161718192021 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 205

Thread: 35mm SLR - why?

  1. #191

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    123
    Images
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Naples View Post
    As they say, when you aren't equipped to engage in discourse, engage in ad hominem attacks.
    Unfortunately, you also don't know what an ad hominem is. Here's what an ad hominem is *not*: stating the fact that someone evidently does not know that definitions of the words they are using.

    I didn't say you're dumb, ugly, or a communist. I said you aren't clear on what an image is in any meaningful sense, because you are not. If you disagree, feel free to explain why without resorting to the circular nonsense of "because it's 1s and 0s, and I said so."
    -brian hayden
    http://fed-2.org

  2. #192

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    123
    Images
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Naples View Post
    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).
    You also do not know how modern CCD and CMOS sensors work.

    The sensor array is, in fact, altered by the light. The charge of individual sensor sites is changed by the light, at which point the sensor is very much analogous to exposed film. The SECOND step is an analog-to-digital converter reading out the states of each sensor, and converting them to 1s and 0s. Then the sensor is reset to a blank state.

    You are simply ranting on nonsense and ignorance.
    -brian hayden
    http://fed-2.org

  3. #193

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Naples View Post
    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.

    Well I'd better ring all the people I sold digital photocomputerfilecreations and send them a refund. I'll ask for the files and prints back just so that they stop deluding themselves.

    Actually no, I'll continue photography with my film cameras. I will also continue photography with digital cameras, even my little iPhone and the silly applications on it. I will even continue photography with the one and only type of camera that produces an image by your ridiculous standards: a Polaroid. I will continue enjoying all the images I capture with digital and analog equipment, while you can spend eternity argueing about trivial technicalities and insignificant terminology like others do in the digital domain.

    But one thing is for certain, the people who do get caught up in such trivialities and argue whether true photography is done with film only, digital only, plates, daguerotypes, mind control or divine intervention are the ones who neither can do nor can they ever enjoy photography as they are held forever in their cycle of contempt and snobbism. People like that couldn't tell photography if it punched them right in the middle of their face.

    So, thank you and thank the computerfilecreators for the Ignore User buttons. Cheerio.
    500ELX, 80CB
    RB67 SD, 65KL, 90KL, 127KL, 250KL
    Nikonos V, 35/2.5

  4. #194
    e-k
    e-k is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by film_man View Post
    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.
    Yeah, I wouldn't mind an EOS 3 either, but the EOS 620 was about $20 US and I'm happy with it for what I use it for . I'll probably pick up a 4x5 field camera before another 35mm.

    e-k

  5. #195
    e-k
    e-k is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by totalmotard View Post
    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.
    Yes, I was splitting hairs but only with the first sentence . I mean that for a definate period of time there is a physical recording on the sensor. It's fleeting, but it's there. I'll leave the philoshopical discussions to my wife though .

    e-k

  6. #196

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by zumbido View Post
    Unfortunately, you also don't know what an ad hominem is. Here's what an ad hominem is *not*: stating the fact that someone evidently does not know that [sic] definitions of the words they are using.

    I didn't say you're dumb, ugly, or a communist. I said you aren't clear on what an image is in any meaningful sense, because you are not. If you disagree, feel free to explain why without resorting to the circular nonsense of "because it's 1s and 0s, and I said so."
    If I have to explain to you why a computer file comprised entirely of 1s and 0s is not an image, well, I can't help you ... :rolleyes:

  7. #197

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    123
    Images
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Naples View Post
    If I have to explain to you why a computer file comprised entirely of 1s and 0s is not an image, well, I can't help you ... :rolleyes:
    Wait, what? You reply with a combination of red herring and evasion? Shocking, just shocking.

    Explain to me what definition of "image" does not apply 1s and 0s because they require some device for meaningful display... and yet the same definition does include under its umbrella a negative, which requires some device for meaningful display.

    Can you do this, or can you not?
    -brian hayden
    http://fed-2.org

  8. #198

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Naples, Florida USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by zumbido View Post
    You also do not know how modern CCD and CMOS sensors work.

    The sensor array is, in fact, altered by the light. The charge of individual sensor sites is changed by the light, at which point the sensor is very much analogous to exposed film. The SECOND step is an analog-to-digital converter reading out the states of each sensor, and converting them to 1s and 0s. Then the sensor is reset to a blank state.

    You are simply ranting on nonsense and ignorance.
    For your edification, here is how digital sensors actually work, and they're not "analogous" to film:
    "Each photosite on a CCD or CMOS chip is composed of a light-sensitive area made of crystal silicon in a photodiode which absorbs photons and releases electrons through the photoelectric effect. The electrons are stored in a well as an electrical charge that is accumulated over the length of the exposure. The electrical charge that is generated is proportional to the number of photons that hit the sensor.

    This electric charge is then transferred and converted to an analog voltage that is amplified and then sent to an Analog to Digital Converter where it is digitized (turned into a number)."
    There you have it.

    Just "electrons", "electric charges", "analog voltages", "amplified" analog voltages, and, finally, "digitized" numbers (1s and 0s).

    Nowhere in that electronic process is an extant image ever present.

    No matter what the Ritz salesman told you ...

  9. #199

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    123
    Images
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Naples View Post
    For your edification, here is how digital sensors actually work, and they're not "analogous" to film:
    "Each photosite on a CCD or CMOS chip is composed of a light-sensitive area made of crystal silicon in a photodiode which absorbs photons and releases electrons through the photoelectric effect. The electrons are stored in a well as an electrical charge that is accumulated over the length of the exposure. The electrical charge that is generated is proportional to the number of photons that hit the sensor.

    This electric charge is then transferred and converted to an analog voltage that is amplified and then sent to an Analog to Digital Converter where it is digitized (turned into a number)."
    There you have it.

    Just "electrons", "electric charges", "analog voltages", "amplified" analog voltages, and, finally, "digitized" numbers (1s and 0s).

    Nowhere in that electronic process is an extant image ever present.

    No matter what the Ritz salesman told you ...
    Friend, let me give you an honestly well-meant tip for life:

    The ignorant should not condescend to people who know something about the subject at hand.

    I'm pretty sure I've never been in a Ritz, but I do have advanced degrees in the software arena and write digital camera firmware for fun in my spare time (when I'm not printing images from my Diacord in the bathroom with homebrew developers).

    Please explain to me what the meaningful difference is between storing a latent image by accumulating electrons in silicon as opposed to silver?

    I'll refrain from adding an ad-hominem here, as appealing as it is given your obdurate obscurantism... whoops, there I went.
    -brian hayden
    http://fed-2.org

  10. #200

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,337
    Quote Originally Posted by zumbido View Post
    You also do not know how modern CCD and CMOS sensors work.

    The sensor array is, in fact, altered by the light.
    The sensor array is not altered. It captures a charge that remains only for the length of time that the photons are in those little 'buckets'. Once the light leaves, the charge also dissipates. There is no latent 'image' on the sensor.

    At some point in time the sensor will lose its ability to recognize the charge or capture it but that point of alteration does not represent a single image.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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