On 26/07/2015 19:56, wrote:
On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 7:29:49 PM UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Johnny B Good
wrote:

TBH, I'm disappointed that no enterprising company has come up with a
digital 'film back' adapter kit to revitalise pretty well just about
every film SLR camera that's ever existed.

Why would anyone bother?

--
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards.
In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
- Paul Tomblin, ASR

Like he said. I do recall a startup company about a decade ago proposing to do this, but unsurprisingly the idea went nowhere - indeed there's an article on it over on dpreview:-

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/480...n-film-project

Quote

The lack of battery space, the need to open the camera to change ISO,
White Balance or any other image setting,

etouQ.

Have these people never heard of bluetooth and phone apps to control the
insert?

In message , Huge
writes
On 2015-07-26, David Lang wrote:

[21 lines snipped]

The Coolpix comes with a small internal memory so I decided to buy and
SD card. Me, being me, I went for the biggest one the shop had. It
holds around 8,000 photo's!

Big mistake when it goes wrong and loses all the photos from that "holiday
of a lifetime".


Well, you don't have to use all of the space.

For things like holidays where we don't want to lose all the photos and
might not be able to copy them we take multiple memory cards, rotate
them when we remember, and keep the others away from the camera in a
different bag.

Keep meaning to get a doubri so they can be copied to a phones SD card
--
Chris French

In message , Cursitor Doom
writes
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 23:43:19 +0100, Davey wrote:

My first reaction would be to disable anything that took control away
from me.

Agreed. I've got a 1977 Nikon F2 and I've no plans to change it. At least
half the enjoyment is fumbling around with things like shutter speed,
aperture, depth of field and focus AFAIC.

Yes and no.

Sure it's fun, and can get you better photos.

But sometimes it's nice just to pick up the camera and take a photo
knowing that the camera will probably do a decent job of it
--
Chris French

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 15:23:26 +0100, Davey wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:38:31 +0000 (UTC)
Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 23:43:19 +0100, Davey wrote:

My first reaction would be to disable anything that took control away
from me.

Agreed. I've got a 1977 Nikon F2 and I've no plans to change it. At
least half the enjoyment is fumbling around with things like shutter
speed, aperture, depth of field and focus AFAIC.

To me, the perfect gift would be a digital pack to fit onto my Olympus
OM-2 to replace the 35mm film.

You might be onto something with that idea...

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:15:43 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 26/07/2015 19:56, wrote:
On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 7:29:49 PM UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Johnny B Good
wrote:

TBH, I'm disappointed that no enterprising company has come up with a
digital 'film back' adapter kit to revitalise pretty well just about
every film SLR camera that's ever existed.

Why would anyone bother?

--
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards.
In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
- Paul Tomblin, ASR

Like he said. I do recall a startup company about a decade ago
proposing to do this, but unsurprisingly the idea went nowhere - indeed
there's an article on it over on dpreview:-

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/480...blogger-looks-
back-at-the-failure-of-the-silicon-film-project

Quote

The lack of battery space, the need to open the camera to change ISO,
White Balance or any other image setting,

etouQ.

Have these people never heard of bluetooth and phone apps to control the
insert?

And, that's just the start of a long list of developments which make
techniques considered too complex (DSP of the camera's shutter/wind on
mechanism noises, including ultrasonics to control a basic frame capture
task, possibly including detecting iso metering settings for some models)
just a decade ago a much more viable proposition today.

The die shrinks mean that most of the 'Film Canister' body can house a
decent watt hour LiPO battery to allow thousands of 50Mpxel RAW image
stills to be recorded on a tiny fingernail sized 32/64GB flash ram card,
notwhithstanding that the camera's own frame counter 'end stops' at 42 or
so frames.

As for bluetooth/WiFi, there may be a problem in regard of the screening
of these signals in spite of mounting a 'module' on the back or side of
the camera body itself to keep the range to an absolute minimum. However,
I deliberately used the word "kit" in this context to get around the
'obvious issues' with the 'drop-in-digital-cartridge' concept that
everyone seems so fixated upon.

I'm sure a lot of such objections will, if not entirely disappear, be
relegated to 'minor downsides' if such digitisation kits are presented in
the same form as the classic 'Polaroid Backs' of yore. The kits can be
sold in two forms whereby a complete 'digital back' replaces the existing
film back as a straight swap out option and a more customisable form
whereby the buyer can do a DIY conversion of his existing film back using
a kit of parts designed to create such a conversion (along with a modicum
of drilling and filing of metalwork required to execute the adaptation).

Anybody wishing to create an SLR digital conversion kit would be wise
not to bother with anything less than a full frame sensor, even if it
means using much larger pixels to keep the count down to a more
manageable 8 to 12 Mpxels whereby the gain becomes one of low noise at
high ISO ratings (imagine an 8Mpxel sensor set to 12800 ISO no more noisy
than a 12Mpx P&S at 80 ISO!).

Even the concept of a drop-in 'digital film canister' has its merit but
only when full frame sensors become more commoditised. The whole concept
rests on the full frame sensor being used. Anything smaller is guaranteed
to be a non-starter in this market, such as it is.

We may have to wait a few more years yet before this can become a
reality. I suspect the market for such kits or devices is probably a lot
larger than one might suppose by the lack of use of old fashioned film
SLR cameras.

Just because keen amateur and semi professional and professional
photographers have been forced to 'move over to the digital side',
doesn't mean they've thrown all those expensive and lovingly crafted SLR
camera bodies away. It's very easy to consider that more such kit is
simply gathering dust in an attic storage box (or wherever such heirlooms
are kept) than have gone to land-fill.

Admittedly, the nay-sayers do have a very good point when they suggest
that rather than spend a lot of good money trying to revive an excellent
film SLR and lens kit when you can achieve "So Much More" with a modern
mass produced commoditised DSLR.

However, only by virtue of the fact that digitisation of photography has
merely widened the market to include a class of non-photographer consumer
which swamps the relatively smaller number of photographers with a clue
who would really appreciate the real benefit of digital improvement to
the quality of their work rather than the digital benefit to the 'bottom
line of the manufacturers concerned, many of whom have no right to be in
the business of photography at all (cough-Sony!).

It would be nice to see the power of digital being used for Good rather
than, as seems the case today, for Evil. Such digital camera backs would
a nice example of such a 'turn around', imho. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:07:35 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

The biggest problem is that old style lenses aren't very good compared
to modern digital ones. Even something like a four thirds digital will
exceed what an old film SLR and lens can achieve.

??
I'm guessing you're one of those people that believes CDs give a superior
sound compared to vinyl.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:07:35 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 26/07/2015 19:21, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 15:23:26 +0100, Davey wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:38:31 +0000 (UTC)
Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 23:43:19 +0100, Davey wrote:

My first reaction would be to disable anything that took control
away from me.

Agreed. I've got a 1977 Nikon F2 and I've no plans to change it. At
least half the enjoyment is fumbling around with things like shutter
speed, aperture, depth of field and focus AFAIC.

To me, the perfect gift would be a digital pack to fit onto my Olympus
OM-2 to replace the 35mm film.

I have a hankering for a similar 'upgrade' for my venerable Chinon CX
SLR. The only downside being its use of the Pentax M42 lens adapter
mount rather than the later, more popular, bayonet style mount.

TBH, I'm disappointed that no enterprising company has come up with a
digital 'film back' adapter kit to revitalise pretty well just about
every film SLR camera that's ever existed.

There was one a long time ago, it didn't sell very well.
The electronics were in the "cassette" and the sensor in the film
"tongue".


Triggering an 'exposure event' could easily be achieved by using an
integrated microphone to detect the 'sonic signature' of whatever film
SLR you cared to name (perhaps even implemented by using a 'training
algorithm' - even very very quiet models such as that Olympus OM-2 will
still produce enough sound level to act as a trigger - the mic *will*
be internal so should get a clear enough sonic signature even with the
quietest of cameras).

Why?, you get light on the sensor when the shutter opens and you use
that as the trigger.

There may well be usage cases where using such a technique may not be
appropriate or quite possibly fail to capture what the photographer
intended.



I guess we'll have to wait for full frame sensors to become
sufficiently
commonplace with the most expensive of DSLRs before they're likely to
be commoditised sufficiently to make it an economically viable
proposition.

The biggest problem is that old style lenses aren't very good compared
to modern digital ones. Even something like a four thirds digital will
exceed what an old film SLR and lens can achieve.

Even back in the seventies, 35mm SLR lenses could outperform the linear
resolution of even low speed high contrast monochrome film by about an
order of magnitude (50 line pairs per mm versus 500 line pairs of a good
quality standard lens at F1.4 or F2).

To put this in context, it would be fair to say that a full frame
200Mpxel sensor wouldn't be wasted on such a fixed focal length lens
(zoom lenses of the day, otoh, might well disappoint, but that's zoom
lenses of the day, taking advantage of the limits of film).

--
Johnny B Good

On 26/07/2015 22:32, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:07:35 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

The biggest problem is that old style lenses aren't very good compared
to modern digital ones. Even something like a four thirds digital will
exceed what an old film SLR and lens can achieve.

??
I'm guessing you're one of those people that believes CDs give a superior
sound compared to vinyl.


No but you can get 196k audio disks that are better.

I'm guessing you don't have a decent digital camera to compare your
crappy old film photos to.

Huge wrote

Dennis wrote:

The lack of battery space,

The batteries can go in the space previously occupied by the film canister.

Even if you half-fill that volume with Li-ion and cram the electronics
and memory card into the rest, you're asking a lot.

the need to open the camera to change ISO,
White Balance or any other image setting,

Written by a moron who's never seen a removable back on a 35mm SLR.

But then you're making a range of model specific data backs, rather than
a generic "35mm canister plus sensor tongue" that fits any 35mm camera,
sure you can use magnets or bluetooth or whatever to add external
controls, but such a device is never going to have the economies of
scale of a dSLR or MILC camera. Who's going to buy an overpriced device
with shortcomings?

On 26/07/15 21:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 15:23:26 +0100, Davey wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:38:31 +0000 (UTC)
Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 23:43:19 +0100, Davey wrote:

My first reaction would be to disable anything that took control away
from me.

Agreed. I've got a 1977 Nikon F2 and I've no plans to change it. At
least half the enjoyment is fumbling around with things like shutter
speed, aperture, depth of field and focus AFAIC.

To me, the perfect gift would be a digital pack to fit onto my Olympus
OM-2 to replace the 35mm film.

You might be onto something with that idea...

The problem is that the advantages of 'digitala' are not just replacing
the film. And indeed a 35mm sized CCD has been a huge challenge as well.

The advantages are all to do with metering and focussing by analysing
the digital signal.

Although its taken a long time to get that simpler - my D200X has no
less than 27 possible ways to autofocus... and a lot of ways to merter
as well.

Finally the digits are starting to be a help, not a hindrance.




--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 26/07/15 22:32, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:07:35 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

The biggest problem is that old style lenses aren't very good compared
to modern digital ones. Even something like a four thirds digital will
exceed what an old film SLR and lens can achieve.

??
I'm guessing you're one of those people that believes CDs give a superior
sound compared to vinyl.

I don't believe it, I have tested it and I know it for a fact.

And indeed yes, modern lenses are better than older ones. I've got two
top of the range zooms from 15 years ago, total cost then well over a
thousand. Outperformed by a pair of 150 quid plastic jobbies of today.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I much prefer a system that can learn what I normally do and
do that for me so that I don't have to tell it what to do all the
time, particularly with stuff like room lights and stuff like that.

There's no doubt that auto white-balance, auto-focus,
auto-exposure, and red-eye detection can be a real boon .

Yes.

However presumably having too many options can create problems of its own.

Apple does that pretty well with their iDevice cameras.

So that if you're trying to take a wedding photo say, and you've
selected the "dogs and cats" option by mistake, then how long are you
going to be standing there before you realise your mistake ?

Pretty quick I bet with all but the worst of the technoklutzes.

Same if you've chosen the "smiling person" option by mistake when you're
trying to take a photo of Rover.

Dogs do actually smile but I bet the camera doesn’t allow for that.

More especially if Rover happens to be a boxer. Although with some breeds
samoyeds maybe, you'd possibly be o.k

Not a great idea to use it for the cat.

"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 26/07/2015 13:30, michael adams wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


I much prefer a system that can learn what I normally do and
do that for me so that I don't have to tell it what to do all the
time, particularly with stuff like room lights and stuff like that.

There's no doubt that auto white-balance, auto-focus,
auto-exposure, and red-eye detection can be a real boon .
However presumably having too many options can create problems
of its own.

So that if you're trying to take a wedding photo say, and you've
selected the "dogs and cats" option by mistake, then how long
are you going to be standing there before you realise your
mistake ?

Same if you've chosen the "smiling person" option by mistake
when you're trying to take a photo of Rover. More especially if
Rover happens to be a boxer. Although with some breeds samoyeds
maybe, you'd possibly be o.k


Always a possibility I suppose, but unlikely since it tells you what mode you are in.

That's if you can remember what any of the symbols are supposed
to mean in the first place without looking them up in the manaual.
I've never bothered with any of these "special modes" maybe
for that very reason. Especialy if there were loads of them
to recognise and remember.

Plus I always choose the option to keep the screen/viewfinder
as uncluttered as possible apart from the crosshairs. As OTTOMH
I wouldn't have a clue about what many of the other symbols mean
apart from the shutter speed and f stop. Most of which are completely
unnecessary IMO, same as the histogram display, unless things have
gone badly wrong.


michael adams

....

On 27/07/2015 09:38, michael adams wrote:


Plus I always choose the option to keep the screen/viewfinder
as uncluttered as possible apart from the crosshairs. As OTTOMH
I wouldn't have a clue about what many of the other symbols mean
apart from the shutter speed and f stop. Most of which are completely
unnecessary IMO, same as the histogram display, unless things have
gone badly wrong.

The histogram and burnt out high/low lights are two of the most useful
things on a digital camera. Without them you a reliant on the metering
system and they vary a lot. Once you understand them you use them rather
than the metering for almost any shot other than idiot mode.

wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 26 July 2015 13:30:15 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
So that if you're trying to take a wedding photo say, and you've
selected the "dogs and cats" option by mistake, then how long
are you going to be standing there before you realise your
mistake ?

I suppose it depends on whose wedding you're at.

https://weddingpros.files.wordpress....pg?w=326&h=485

Owain


I think you need pointy ears on top of the head.

Just a guess, mind.


michael adams

....

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 27/07/2015 09:38, michael adams wrote:


Plus I always choose the option to keep the screen/viewfinder
as uncluttered as possible apart from the crosshairs. As OTTOMH
I wouldn't have a clue about what many of the other symbols mean
apart from the shutter speed and f stop. Most of which are completely
unnecessary IMO, same as the histogram display, unless things have
gone badly wrong.

The histogram and burnt out high/low lights are two of the most useful things on a
digital camera. Without them you a reliant on the metering system and they vary a lot.
Once you understand them you use them rather than the metering for almost any shot
other than idiot mode.

Which probably accounts for the fact that all photographs taken by
cameras without histogram displays - any taken more than say 20
years ago say at a guess - are all rubbish.

Do you know what, I've always wondered about that. When the answer
was staring me in the face.


michael adams

....

On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:37:03 PM UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
On 26/07/2015 15:23, Davey wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:38:31 +0000 (UTC)
Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 23:43:19 +0100, Davey wrote:

My first reaction would be to disable anything that took control
away from me.

Agreed. I've got a 1977 Nikon F2 and I've no plans to change it. At
least half the enjoyment is fumbling around with things like shutter
speed, aperture, depth of field and focus AFAIC.

To me, the perfect gift would be a digital pack to fit onto my Olympus
OM-2 to replace the 35mm film.

Film! As yes, I remember that. Fumble about loading, winding on, send to
chemist, wait a week, get 4 out of 36 useless, stick them in albums.

I'm ging to miss that. Not.


The Coolpix comes with a small internal memory so I decided to buy and
SD card. Me, being me, I went for the biggest one the shop had. It
holds around 8,000 photo's!

Or wait a year to use up the 36 exposures

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 26/07/15 22:32, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:07:35 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

The biggest problem is that old style lenses aren't very good compared
to modern digital ones. Even something like a four thirds digital will
exceed what an old film SLR and lens can achieve.

??
I'm guessing you're one of those people that believes CDs give a superior
sound compared to vinyl.

I don't believe it, I have tested it and I know it for a fact.

Like hell you do.

And indeed yes, modern lenses are better than older ones. I've got two top
of the range zooms from 15 years ago, total cost then well over a
thousand. Outperformed by a pair of 150 quid plastic jobbies of today.

On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 8:42:23 AM UTC+1, stuart noble wrote:
On 26/07/2015 08:26, Brian-Gaff wrote:
I wonder what it would make of a Halloween mask?

Sounds too clever by half. Brian


You can get your life back if you just leave the dial set to standard! I
use the close up and action settings regularly and have recently enabled
the wifi and gps

Lots of newer cameras have an 'idiot' button which resets everything to its normal mode. Can be useful if in a hurry to grab a shot and don't have time to check the settings.

On 27/07/15 10:07, michael adams wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 27/07/2015 09:38, michael adams wrote:


Plus I always choose the option to keep the screen/viewfinder
as uncluttered as possible apart from the crosshairs. As OTTOMH
I wouldn't have a clue about what many of the other symbols mean
apart from the shutter speed and f stop. Most of which are completely
unnecessary IMO, same as the histogram display, unless things have
gone badly wrong.

The histogram and burnt out high/low lights are two of the most useful things on a
digital camera. Without them you a reliant on the metering system and they vary a lot.
Once you understand them you use them rather than the metering for almost any shot
other than idiot mode.

Which probably accounts for the fact that all photographs taken by
cameras without histogram displays - any taken more than say 20
years ago say at a guess - are all rubbish.

No, what you did then was use a spot meter on all parts of the subject,
and bracket the exposure with 4-6 shots to be safe.

Do you know what, I've always wondered about that. When the answer
was staring me in the face.

apparently it wasn't.


michael adams

...






--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Sunday, 26 July 2015 09:03:38 UTC+1, Richard wrote:
"Davey" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 23:14:35 +0100
David Lang wrote:

I got a Nikon Coolpix L830 for my birthday.

Started to read the 204 page instruction manual online. It has a
function called 'pet portrait' where you point & frame the shot and
as soon as it detects a cat or dog it shoots 3 frames without you
pressing the button!

Ever spookier it has 'smart portrait' where you frame a persons face
& nothing happens until they smile. Then and only then it takes a
photo!

Tried (the latter) function on my beautiful No 2 daughter. It works
when she smiled showing teeth or not, but no other facial expression
would trigger it.

I'm slightly scared of it!

My first reaction would be to disable anything that took control away
from me.

Conjures up an image of family members with a variety of broken limbs
Only room for one control freak per household!

but at least they're smiling in the pictures.

On 27/07/2015 10:07, michael adams wrote:

The histogram and burnt out high/low lights are two of the most useful things on a
digital camera. Without them you a reliant on the metering system and they vary a lot.
Once you understand them you use them rather than the metering for almost any shot
other than idiot mode.

Which probably accounts for the fact that all photographs taken by
cameras without histogram displays - any taken more than say 20
years ago say at a guess - are all rubbish.

Even with film the metering will get it right some of the time and you
can do a lot of corrections post processing even with film (dodging,
burning in, etc.). Of course exposure bracketing was quite common on
upmarket film cameras in an attempt to make better photos. these days
you can still bracket but as the sensors have a wider dynamic range you
can quite often shoot in RAW and recover as much info as film gives even
with a two or three stop exposure error.

On 27/07/2015 10:23, fred wrote:
On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 8:42:23 AM UTC+1, stuart noble wrote:
On 26/07/2015 08:26, Brian-Gaff wrote:
I wonder what it would make of a Halloween mask?

Sounds too clever by half. Brian


You can get your life back if you just leave the dial set to
standard! I use the close up and action settings regularly and have
recently enabled the wifi and gps

Lots of newer cameras have an 'idiot' button which resets everything
to its normal mode. Can be useful if in a hurry to grab a shot and
don't have time to check the settings.


All my cameras live on idiot mode.
Any family member can pick one up and take a shoot that will work 99% of
the time. Its pretty silly leaving a camera on manual, its like leaving
one without film. The extra seconds can cost you an unrepeatable
picture. You can always switch to a more creative mode if the subject is
still there and needs something else.

On Sunday, 26 July 2015 13:30:15 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


I much prefer a system that can learn what I normally do and
do that for me so that I don't have to tell it what to do all the
time, particularly with stuff like room lights and stuff like that.

There's no doubt that auto white-balance, auto-focus,
auto-exposure, and red-eye detection can be a real boon .
However presumably having too many options can create problems
of its own.

So that if you're trying to take a wedding photo say, and you've
selected the "dogs and cats" option by mistake, then how long
are you going to be standing there before you realise your
mistake ?

Could be even worse if you get a 'good' picture of the misses
and she finds out you set the camera for photographing dogs ;-)


Same if you've chosen the "smiling person" option by mistake
when you're trying to take a photo of Rover. More especially if
Rover happens to be a boxer. Although with some breeds samoyeds
maybe, you'd possibly be o.k

One day they'll be auto everything and the camera will decide what photos it takes rathe rthan the human behind it.

On Sunday, 26 July 2015 18:30:30 UTC+1, dennis @ home wrote:
On 25/07/2015 23:43, Davey wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 23:14:35 +0100
David Lang wrote:

I got a Nikon Coolpix L830 for my birthday.

Started to read the 204 page instruction manual online. It has a
function called 'pet portrait' where you point & frame the shot and
as soon as it detects a cat or dog it shoots 3 frames without you
pressing the button!

Ever spookier it has 'smart portrait' where you frame a persons face
& nothing happens until they smile. Then and only then it takes a
photo!

Tried (the latter) function on my beautiful No 2 daughter. It works
when she smiled showing teeth or not, but no other facial expression
would trigger it.

I'm slightly scared of it!

My first reaction would be to disable anything that took control away
from me.


My wife's will tell you if the subject blinked while taking the photo.
Just imagine what a camera with loads of processing power could do. ;-)

Replace the wife :-)

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 27/07/2015 10:07, michael adams wrote:

The histogram and burnt out high/low lights are two of the most useful things on a
digital camera. Without them you a reliant on the metering system and they vary a
lot.
Once you understand them you use them rather than the metering for almost any shot
other than idiot mode.

Which probably accounts for the fact that all photographs taken by
cameras without histogram displays - any taken more than say 20
years ago say at a guess - are all rubbish.

Even with film the metering will get it right some of the time and you can do a lot of
corrections post processing even with film (dodging, burning in, etc.). Of course
exposure bracketing was quite common on upmarket film cameras in an attempt to make
better photos. these days you can still bracket but as the sensors have a wider dynamic
range you can quite often shoot in RAW and recover as much info as film gives even with
a two or three stop exposure error.

Er sorry, but haven't you just contradicted yourself there?

If, as "the sensors have a wider dynamic range you can quite often shoot
in RAW and recover as much info as film gives even with a two or three
stop exposure error." - where does the need for a histogram come in ?

And if as you claim, digital has wider dynamic range than film,
then it seems that rather than them all producing rubbish, they
really were masters after all. Unlike todays gadget junkies.



michael adams

....

On 27/07/15 13:20, michael adams wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 27/07/2015 10:07, michael adams wrote:

The histogram and burnt out high/low lights are two of the most useful things on a
digital camera. Without them you a reliant on the metering system and they vary a
lot.
Once you understand them you use them rather than the metering for almost any shot
other than idiot mode.

Which probably accounts for the fact that all photographs taken by
cameras without histogram displays - any taken more than say 20
years ago say at a guess - are all rubbish.

Even with film the metering will get it right some of the time and you can do a lot of
corrections post processing even with film (dodging, burning in, etc.). Of course
exposure bracketing was quite common on upmarket film cameras in an attempt to make
better photos. these days you can still bracket but as the sensors have a wider dynamic
range you can quite often shoot in RAW and recover as much info as film gives even with
a two or three stop exposure error.

Er sorry, but haven't you just contradicted yourself there?

If, as "the sensors have a wider dynamic range you can quite often shoot
in RAW and recover as much info as film gives even with a two or three
stop exposure error." - where does the need for a histogram come in ?

it depends on whether you want to shoot in raw mode. Its humongously
expensive in terms or storage space.

And if as you claim, digital has wider dynamic range than film,
then it seems that rather than them all producing rubbish, they
really were masters after all. Unlike todays gadget junkies.

in many cases that was the case.

I did many a good shot on slow film with a hand held exposure meter.




michael adams

...










--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

Always bemused by people I see on a summer holiday with a big SLR and a
flashgun attached - with the head in a bounce position - taking landscape
and beach photos. I guess they just bought an expensive setup without
knowing what to do with it.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 07:06:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 26/07/15 22:32, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:07:35 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

The biggest problem is that old style lenses aren't very good compared
to modern digital ones. Even something like a four thirds digital will
exceed what an old film SLR and lens can achieve.

??
I'm guessing you're one of those people that believes CDs give a
superior sound compared to vinyl.

I don't believe it, I have tested it and I know it for a fact.

And indeed yes, modern lenses are better than older ones. I've got two
top of the range zooms from 15 years ago, total cost then well over a
thousand. Outperformed by a pair of 150 quid plastic jobbies of today.

I was of course referring to the *prime* lenses of the time.
Anyway, we'll see how well your cheap "plastic jobbies" are working in 30
or 40 years from now...

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 07:03:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Although its taken a long time to get that simpler - my D200X has no
less than 27 possible ways to autofocus... and a lot of ways to merter
as well.

Sounds like a truly KING-SIZED PITA to me!

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 27/07/15 13:20, michael adams wrote:

And if as you claim, digital has wider dynamic range than film,*
then it seems that rather than them all producing rubbish, they
really were masters after all. Unlike todays gadget junkies.

in many cases that was the case.

I did many a good shot on slow film with a hand held exposure meter.

Right. So that's you along with the likes of George Rogers, Bert Hardy, Henry Cartier-
Bresson,
Bill Brandt, Lee Miller, Dorothea Lange, Eugene Atget, Lewis Hine, to name but a few
then.

I'm glad that's all cleared up.


michael adams

....

*btw IMO the claim that digital, even now has a wider dynamic range than film remains
sufficiently controversial to bore everyone to tears.

On 27/07/15 13:44, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 07:03:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Although its taken a long time to get that simpler - my D200X has no
less than 27 possible ways to autofocus... and a lot of ways to merter
as well.

Sounds like a truly KING-SIZED PITA to me!

It is. At least till I managed to get it to 'spot on the centre please'
and then I just hold focus with shutter half down and then compose the shot.

That the point - digital technology has gone in leaps and bounds but
usability is only just catching up.

I.e. the histograms are there, but are a pain - a little bit of 'I just
reduced exposure to avoid white out' would help.

The digital technology is great - lenses are better and the CCDS are
better than they ever were and film ever was, but the deskilling of it
all is taking time.

And Nikon are not the leaders in that - I think Canon do better.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 27/07/15 13:31, DerbyBorn wrote:
Always bemused by people I see on a summer holiday with a big SLR and a
flashgun attached - with the head in a bounce position - taking landscape
and beach photos. I guess they just bought an expensive setup without
knowing what to do with it.

Mate, I've had my 200X for 4 years and still dont know how to use all
its features.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 27/07/15 13:54, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 27/07/15 13:20, michael adams wrote:

And if as you claim, digital has wider dynamic range than film,*
then it seems that rather than them all producing rubbish, they
really were masters after all. Unlike todays gadget junkies.

in many cases that was the case.

I did many a good shot on slow film with a hand held exposure meter.

Right. So that's you along with the likes of George Rogers, Bert Hardy, Henry Cartier-
Bresson,
Bill Brandt, Lee Miller, Dorothea Lange, Eugene Atget, Lewis Hine, to name but a few
then.


Its one thing to take a correctly exposed and in focus picture, its
quite another to get the composition of an award winning picture.

I am not artistic, but I could handle the technology.


I'm glad that's all cleared up.

Except it isn't.


michael adams

...

*btw IMO the claim that digital, even now has a wider dynamic range than film remains
sufficiently controversial to bore everyone to tears.




--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 27/07/15 13:42, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 07:06:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 26/07/15 22:32, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:07:35 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

The biggest problem is that old style lenses aren't very good compared
to modern digital ones. Even something like a four thirds digital will
exceed what an old film SLR and lens can achieve.

??
I'm guessing you're one of those people that believes CDs give a
superior sound compared to vinyl.

I don't believe it, I have tested it and I know it for a fact.

And indeed yes, modern lenses are better than older ones. I've got two
top of the range zooms from 15 years ago, total cost then well over a
thousand. Outperformed by a pair of 150 quid plastic jobbies of today.

I was of course referring to the *prime* lenses of the time.
Anyway, we'll see how well your cheap "plastic jobbies" are working in 30
or 40 years from now...

dont be silly, they will be in a bin buy then along with te mouldy
primes I've still got somewhere.

However you are wrong when you say the film was better than te lenses.
It wasn't. My best and extremely good primne 50mm was (just) better than
even kodachrome 25.

Todays CCDS are now better than that film ever was.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 27/07/15 13:54, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 27/07/15 13:20, michael adams wrote:

And if as you claim, digital has wider dynamic range than film,*
then it seems that rather than them all producing rubbish, they
really were masters after all. Unlike todays gadget junkies.

in many cases that was the case.

I did many a good shot on slow film with a hand held exposure meter.

Right. So that's you along with the likes of George Rogers, Bert Hardy, Henry Cartier-
Bresson,
Bill Brandt, Lee Miller, Dorothea Lange, Eugene Atget, Lewis Hine, to name but a few
then.


Its one thing to take a correctly exposed and in focus picture, its quite another to
get the composition of an award winning picture.

Photo journalists in wartime like George Roger (Life), Bert Hardy (Picture Post), Lee
Miller (Life),
and even Cecil Beaton with his Rollieflex weren't after awards. They were working on
commission
to deadllines, often under less than ideal conditions. Can you imagine what it must have
been like as a member of the Tank Corps in the Western Desert, to have Cecil Beaton
armed with his rollieflex, inside your tank, taking your picture ?


michael adams

.....

On 27/07/2015 13:20, michael adams wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 27/07/2015 10:07, michael adams wrote:

The histogram and burnt out high/low lights are two of the most useful things on a
digital camera. Without them you a reliant on the metering system and they vary a
lot.
Once you understand them you use them rather than the metering for almost any shot
other than idiot mode.

Which probably accounts for the fact that all photographs taken by
cameras without histogram displays - any taken more than say 20
years ago say at a guess - are all rubbish.

Even with film the metering will get it right some of the time and you can do a lot of
corrections post processing even with film (dodging, burning in, etc.). Of course
exposure bracketing was quite common on upmarket film cameras in an attempt to make
better photos. these days you can still bracket but as the sensors have a wider dynamic
range you can quite often shoot in RAW and recover as much info as film gives even with
a two or three stop exposure error.

Er sorry, but haven't you just contradicted yourself there?

er no!


If, as "the sensors have a wider dynamic range you can quite often shoot
in RAW and recover as much info as film gives even with a two or three
stop exposure error." - where does the need for a histogram come in ?

And if as you claim, digital has wider dynamic range than film,
then it seems that rather than them all producing rubbish, they
really were masters after all. Unlike todays gadget junkies.

What if its four stops?

On Monday, 27 July 2015 13:31:54 UTC+1, DerbyBorn wrote:
Always bemused by people I see on a summer holiday with a big SLR and a
flashgun attached - with the head in a bounce position - taking landscape
and beach photos. I guess they just bought an expensive setup without
knowing what to do with it.

Sometimes in bright conditions you need fill-in-flash.

I was in Jessops a couple of weeks ago and a women ~30 eastern europain by the accent asked the shop assistant for a small camera that took good pictures and wasn't expensive, she was looking at a pansonic lumix compact at the time.
The assistant said this (another model lumix)has a larger zoom range, she asked him "why would I want to zoom." :-0

On Monday, 27 July 2015 13:44:09 UTC+1, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 07:06:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 26/07/15 22:32, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:07:35 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

The biggest problem is that old style lenses aren't very good compared
to modern digital ones. Even something like a four thirds digital will
exceed what an old film SLR and lens can achieve.

??
I'm guessing you're one of those people that believes CDs give a
superior sound compared to vinyl.

I don't believe it, I have tested it and I know it for a fact.

And indeed yes, modern lenses are better than older ones. I've got two
top of the range zooms from 15 years ago, total cost then well over a
thousand. Outperformed by a pair of 150 quid plastic jobbies of today.

I was of course referring to the *prime* lenses of the time.
Anyway, we'll see how well your cheap "plastic jobbies" are working in 30
or 40 years from now...

Why would I want it to still be working after all that time.
I have my canon A1 which I brought around 1979, but don't use.
It'd be about as much use as a 1970s TV of course you might still have your
1970s TV and car and fridge/freezer and underwear ;-)

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:40:41 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

Why would I want it to still be working after all that time.
I have my canon A1 which I brought around 1979, but don't use.
It'd be about as much use as a 1970s TV of course you might still have
your 1970s TV and car and fridge/freezer and underwear ;-)

I have digital cameras too. I use them for snapping stuff I'm going to
put on Ebay. They're great for that, but that's about all.
In most other applications, digital cameras have devalued the overall
experience of photography. To borrow from Harley-Davidson's motto: If I
have to explain, you wouldn't understand.
Hang on to that A1. You might see it in a different light some day.