Professional Web Applications Themes

Could this be our maniac?? (Long) - Photography

Rafe B. writes:   Yes. I fell for the hype, and I learned the hard way. I don't plan to make the same mistake twice. I note that the arguments I advanced then remain valid today. The main reason I went back to film was that digital could not provide the level of quality I wanted (although there were other reasons as well). It still can't.   Six megapixels is about all you need for a full frame at a standard viewing distance. That has always been true. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me ...

  1. #1

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    Rafe B. writes:
     

    Yes. I fell for the hype, and I learned the hard way. I don't plan to
    make the same mistake twice.

    I note that the arguments I advanced then remain valid today. The main
    reason I went back to film was that digital could not provide the level
    of quality I wanted (although there were other reasons as well). It
    still can't.
     

    Six megapixels is about all you need for a full frame at a standard
    viewing distance. That has always been true.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  2. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    Removed by Administrator
    Rafe Guest
    Moderated Post

  3. #3

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    Rafe B. <net> wrote:
     

    this would certainly seem to be the case. i first came across him in
    another newsgroup, where his tactic was to whinge and moan about how
    difficult his situation was and to insist that he was forced by his
    cirstances to suffer. alas, there was simply no way he could
    overcome his troubles - regardless of the helpful suggestions other
    people gave him.

    kook or troll? only his hairdresser knows for sure. either way, he's
    got very little credibility in my eyes.



    The Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    Rafe B. <net> wrote in
    news:com:
     

    This is what killfiles are for, my man...

    Tim
    Browntimdc Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    On 7/17/03 8:26 AM, in article
    1fy89ig.1ebrcca1k8qykgN%bet, "The Queen of Cans and Jars"
    <bet> wrote:
     
    >
    > this would certainly seem to be the case. i first came across him in
    > another newsgroup, where his tactic was to whinge and moan about how
    > difficult his situation was and to insist that he was forced by his
    > cirstances to suffer. alas, there was simply no way he could
    > overcome his troubles - regardless of the helpful suggestions other
    > people gave him.
    >
    > kook or troll? only his hairdresser knows for sure. either way, he's
    > got very little credibility in my eyes.
    >
    >
    >[/ref]
    Maybe he should be nominated for "kook of the month" over on
    "alt.usenet.kooks"?


    __________________________________________________ ____________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

    George Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:47:49 GMT, Rafe B. <net> wrote:

     
    <snip> 

    Big LOL!

    --
    Pete
    Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
    CCD/digicam astronomy
    Pete Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    Rafe B. writes:
     

    But you said that my opinion changed 180 degrees between the two--so how
    can I be wrong BOTH TIMES?
     

    That's about all there was.
     

    I didn't have a printer then.
     

    Over four million people disagree with you.
     

    But you didn't send me a dollar, I suppose.
     

    That's a browser defect. The CSS specifies justification, but not all
    browsers do it correctly. Even MSIE has a problem with it, although at
    least it does not run the text out of the window.
     

    I can debate topics without personal attacks.
     

    I don't remember.
     

    Give me some specific examples, and we'll see.
     

    If I wait patiently long enough, will you debate a topic without
    attacking your interlocutors in debate?

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <com> on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:41:28
    +0200, Mxsmanic <com> wrote:
     
    >
    >But you said that my opinion changed 180 degrees between the two--so how
    >can I be wrong BOTH TIMES?[/ref]

    Because you move at right angles to the rest of us. ;-)

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    Mxsmanic <com> wrote in
    news:com:
     
    >
    > But you said that my opinion changed 180 degrees between the two--so how
    > can I be wrong BOTH TIMES?[/ref]

    Isnít it obvious?

    I used to own a DC-50, but I never tried to tell anyone that its quality
    could come anywhere near film, if I had I would have been WRONG.

    I now have a Canon 10D, for anyone to suggest that the quality is
    insufficient to equal film (35mm) they would be WRONG. Unless of course
    they were only referring to limited cases, such as big enlargements where
    people would be likely to look much closer than the normal viewing distance
    for that size.


    Do you understand?

    You said that the quality of digital could rival film, back when it clearly
    couldnít!

    You now say that the quality of digital canít match film, when it obviously
    can.

    Sure, Iíll happily accept that MF and LF can produce more resolution. But
    you lack the ability to accept that the Canon 10D can produce low noise 6MP
    images that can easily print 8x12 images that easily match the quality (if
    not beat) of 35mm film.

    Hell, Iíd happily print 11x17 images from uncropped 10D images and put them
    beside 35mm film images in a competition with expert judges examining each
    critically. Sure 20x30 and larger are going to be beaten by MF or LF if
    you examine each closely, and if thatís what you do with your pics then
    digital may not be the best, YET.




    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"

    MarkH Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    George Kerby <com> wrote:
     
    > >
    > > this would certainly seem to be the case. i first came across him in
    > > another newsgroup, where his tactic was to whinge and moan about how
    > > difficult his situation was and to insist that he was forced by his
    > > cirstances to suffer. alas, there was simply no way he could
    > > overcome his troubles - regardless of the helpful suggestions other
    > > people gave him.
    > >
    > > kook or troll? only his hairdresser knows for sure. either way, he's
    > > got very little credibility in my eyes.
    > >
    > >
    > >[/ref]
    > Maybe he should be nominated for "kook of the month" over on
    > "alt.usenet.kooks"?[/ref]

    maybe so. although i've spent years in groups tangentially related to
    auk, i've never bothered to follow the process of nominating a kook or
    the awards or any of it. the whole thing strikes me as sort of sad.

    The Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    MarkH writes:
     

    I don't recall ever believing that it matched film, but like all digital
    cameras, it had other advantages. Eventually I went back to film for
    the quality, though.
     

    That's the same claim I heard for the DC-50. I won't make the same
    mistake twice.
     

    Digital quality has always been able to rival film in certain respects
    and for certain applications. The main problem with digital is
    resolution. Even the DC-50 had great color, it's just that the images
    were not very sharp and the colors were blurred (and the CCD was very
    noisy). I underestimated the importance of resolution for the types of
    photos I wanted to produce, though, and that's one reason why I went
    back to film.
     

    It still has the resolution problem. I went to MF because 35mm lacked
    resolution; obviously digital would not do for the types of photos I
    want to produce. Someday it probably will, but I'm not going to jump on
    that bandwagon until it does.
     

    Oh, I'll grant that with no problem. Eight-by-twelve prints are not
    that demanding. There might be some differences under a loupe with
    certain prints (such as perfect optical enlargements), but if I'm
    getting prints in the first place it implies that I'm willing to take a
    hit on quality (prints never look like the original images). And since
    I print from scans at 300 ppi on Frontiers, any higher resolution from
    film is wasted, anyway.

    But sometimes I want a wall-sized backlit transparency, and for that I
    must shoot film. And since I don't know in advance when I might want
    that, I usually shoot film all the time. I got burned too many times by
    digital images that looked great, but could not be significantly
    enlarged because the quality was just too low. I'm not going to make
    that mistake again, either.

    Heck, I'd should everything in LF if I could. You never know when
    you'll need the resolution.

    I have started shooting digital for my Web journal, though, since I only
    use the images in 200x180-pixel sizes, mainly, and I throw them away
    afterwards. I take care to always have a film camera with me, though,
    in case I see something that needs to be preserved with better quality.
     

    I wouldn't, but most of my photo subjects benefit from high resolution;
    perhaps yours do not.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003 05:24:40
    +0200, Mxsmanic <com> wrote:
     

    So you did make a mistake??? Enquiring minds want to know!
     

    And yet you just said: "I haven't tossed any slides. I keep them all." So
    it's just the digitals you toss? Right. :)

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    Mxsmanic <com> wrote in
    news:com:
     
    >
    > I wouldn't, but most of my photo subjects benefit from high resolution;
    > perhaps yours do not.[/ref]

    Well, my understanding of what you say is that you wouldnít print that size
    for critical evaluation from either 35mm or digital, preferring MF or even
    LF. This I can understand and agree with, I wouldnít really want someone
    to look too closely at a 11x17 image from my camera and compare it to a
    good MF image.

    Iíve never claimed that the 10D images can match the resolution of MF
    images, but the low noise images even up to ISO 1600 can certainly match
    35mm (at higher ISO the 10D pulls ahead of 35mm).



    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"

    MarkH Guest

  14. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    Removed by Administrator
    Rafe Guest
    Moderated Post

  15. #15

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    John Navas writes:
     

    Yes.
     

    Yes.
     

    Yes.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 02:16:42 GMT, in
    <1fy99gh.xedu621mzt08sN%bet>, bet
    (The Queen of Cans and Jars) said:
     
    >
    >maybe so. although i've spent years in groups tangentially related to
    >auk, i've never bothered to follow the process of nominating a kook or
    >the awards or any of it. the whole thing strikes me as sort of sad.[/ref]

    Ah, it's just good clean fun. ;)

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:40:52
    +0200, Mxsmanic <com> wrote:
     
    >
    >Yes.

    >
    >Yes.

    >
    >Yes.[/ref]

    I see -- situational ethics.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:40:52 +0200, Mxsmanic <com>
    wrote:
     
    >
    >Yes.[/ref]

    So if you were able to believe that you were totally right when you
    were on the side of early digital (something that few would have
    joined you in at that time I'm sure) but admit that you made a
    mistake...

    ....now that you believe that you are totally right when you are
    championing film over digital, from past experience do you see that
    this too could, and probably is, a mistake.

    --
    Pete
    Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
    CCD/digicam astronomy
    Pete Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    Pete Lawrence writes:
     

    Most people believe that they are right in their opinions; that's why
    they hold those opinions. It would be illogical for me or anyone else
    to hold an opinion that he believed to be incorrect, although some
    people do that for emotional reasons.

    I don't normally consider myself "totally" right, however, since there
    is always room for error.
     

    No, I simply believe that my opinion is largely congruent with objective
    reality.
     

    I don't champion film over digital. I provide a counterpoint to the
    rather unlimited hype that I see for digital photography. Like most new
    technologies, it is touted as a magic panacea that solves all problems
    of its predecessor, and unfortunately that isn't true in this case.
     

    It could be, but I consider it improbable, especially since I learn from
    previous mistakes.

    What sort of digital camera were you using in 1997?

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Could this be our maniac?? (Long)

    MarkH writes:
     

    Ideally, I'd print everything from LF. The reasons I don't shoot
    everything in large format are logistic and economic, but have nothing
    to do with a lack of quality--large-format film beats everything.
    Unfortunately, it's not practical for things like ordinary press
    photography or street scenes or even most scenics, so I have to settle
    for lesser formats, such as MF or 35mm film. LF is also very expensive
    in terms of continuing costs, although that doesn't mean that it isn't
    worth the cost (it just means that I can't afford it).

    If someone tells me that his LF 8x10 transparency is sharper and clearer
    than anything I have in MF, 35mm, or digital, I won't argue with him in
    the least.
     

    Grain is the bÍte noire of film (and in fact, it is the only serious
    drawback to it, in terms of quality). However, grain is unobtrusive at
    low ISOs, and it doesn't necessarily impair resolution or other
    qualities. Most people, in fact, won't notice grain unless it is really
    obtrusive (T-Max P3200 or something). I shoot ISO 800 negative film
    routinely at indoor events, and nobody looking at the prints has ever
    said anything about grain at all, even though it is there if you look at
    prints of 8x12 or beyond.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Question about a long session timeout (somewhat long)
    By Stupid48 in forum ASP.NET Security
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 1st, 10:04 PM
  2. How long
    By koeniga in forum Coldfusion Server Administration
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 2nd, 01:42 PM
  3. preloader maniac
    By Terje Nilssen in forum Macromedia Flash
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 3rd, 10:52 PM
  4. IDS 7.3* - Long long long checkpoint !
    By Laurent in forum Informix
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 28th, 09:18 PM
  5. 6 Mpix Does it For Maniac
    By Rafe in forum Photography
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: July 24th, 05:52 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139