NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Why would photography students be required to learn using film?
Learning is about experimentation and seeing what happens if you get
it wrong, and digital has the big advantage over film that all your
photos are free, so there is encouragement to experiment. OK, so you
don't learn about film-specific things like increased grain with
increased film speed, reciprocity failure (*), push-processing to
increase contrast,
effect on contrast of a print of under- or over-exposing a negative -
but then you only *need* to know about those things if you are using
film.

If they are using film do they learn about sensor noise and why old
film lenses don't produce as good an image as a modern lens when used
on a digital camera?

No point in learning that when they wont be using film cameras.

But they should learn the link between sensor noise and the speed
selected as ISO which is similar to grain in film the higher the ISO the
higher the grain or noise.

Dont need to do that using a film camera. Makes a lot more
sense to explain it using a modern digital camera instead.

I had to explain this to an iphone user who wasn't happy with
blotchy images when zooming in in low light conditions.

I remember having a long and ultimately fruitless discussion in a
photographic newsgroup with someone who was adamant that you could only
learn about photography and how to take good photographs if you learned on
a film camera,

Yeah, there are always some who run that line with any technology.

****ed me off completely in school and uni.

but all his arguments were weak

Yeah, I've never see any good argument for that approach.

and assumed that the film camera was fully manual (or the photographer had
the discipline to ignore any auto or semi-auto settings) whereas the
digital camera was fully auto and was only used like that - in other words
he was not comparing like with like.

And even when you do things entirely manually, what you
do with a modern digital camera is quite different in detail
to what you do with film because the technology is quite
different with how to get the best results in unusual situations.

He just couldn't see that an SLR film camera with PASM (programme,
aperture-priority, shutter-priority, manual) modes and manual/auto focus
lens was the same from a learning point of view as an SLR digital camera
with PASM modes and manual/auto focus lens. Sure, there are
fully-automatic digital cameras with no manual overrides (the ultimate is
the camera in a smart phone) but then Instamatics and other similar film
cameras gave the photographer just as little control. Yes, you don't learn
about film-specific things like reciprocity failure and the
advantages/weaknesses of different types of film. But do you need to know
about those film-specific things in order to use digital camera.

Clearly you dont and digital systems have other quite different
considerations even when you do have full manual control.

And digital (even if it's a digitised scan from a slide or negative) gives
you so much more ability to be creative with post-processing in software
like Photoshop - such as to clone out imperfections and unavoidable
foreground objects, to correct perspective (even when you have to take a
flash photo deliberately off-axis to lessen the glare of the flash from a
window or glass over a painting) or to correct brightness, contrast or
colour cast. Imagine how laborious it would be to do those things in a
darkroom with dodging and burning, or tilting the negative carrier and
printing paper (for perspective correction).

And there is much more automatic correction possible with the best
of the digital systems too. And completely automatic multiple shot
systems where you can pick the best out of the set too. Ideal for
non static stuff but also for other stuff like binning blinks etc.

What are the advantages of new "designed for digital" lenses? I've never
tried using an old film SLR lens because by chance my film SLR was Canon
and my digital SLR is Nikon so neither lens could be used with the other
camera. I know that some DSLR lenses have a smaller field of view because
many DSLRs have a sensor that is smaller than a 35 mm frame and there's no
point designing the lens to have a full-frame coverage. Actually come to
think of it, I *have* used film lenses on a DSLR: my wife's first DSLR was
Canon so I tried my Canon-mount lenses in that and didn't find any worse
quality - apart from the appalling pincushion and barrel distortion of
those lenses (I paid peanuts for cheap Sigma 28-70 and 70-210 lenses and
definitely ended up buying monkeys) but that affected film and digital
equally - and there are programs like PTlens which can correct for it.

And teaching film doesnt help those who use decent modern digital
cameras in that regard.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:33:46 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then
processing it digitally?

Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer
experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff
I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/
reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film. Most people
won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really from
the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their
obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you
wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D

On Saturday, 26 November 2016 00:14:31 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:33:46 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then
processing it digitally?

Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer
experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff
I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/
reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film. Most people
won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really from
the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their
obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you
wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D

I used to use nothing but film SLR and I don't see any upside in going back to it. Digital has been an improvement all round.


NT

On 26/11/2016 04:27, wrote:


I used to use nothing but film SLR and I don't see any upside in going back to it. Digital has been an improvement all round.


I'm not so sure. I've got a high end full frame DSLR body with some
expensive lenses. My DSLR is fantastic in low light with very useable
shots at ISO 12800 and even ISO 25600 with some tweaking in Photoshop.

However, for B&W I shoot film. I've got five 35mm bodies and one medium
format body. I found that it was very difficult to get a digital B&W
print that didn't have some sort of colour cast. I personally think that
a wet print B&W photograph has a unique quality that a digital print
can't match. I've got my own darkroom and I do love the process of
developing the film and making prints from the negatives.

The one thing that film can teach to digital users is economy. A 36
exposure roll of B&W film costs about £6 so if you are using your
shutter like a machine gun it will soon get very expensive. You have to
choose your shot carefully rather than firing off 10 shots and hoping
that one of them is good. Does that really matter with digital..... well
some DSLR bodies cost £2000 and more. They do have a finite shutter life
and if you are firing off 10 shots to get one good photo then your
expensive camera might not last as long as you hope. There's also the
matter of viewing and storing all those shots.

--

Paul Giverin

Paul Giverin wrote
wrote

I used to use nothing but film SLR and I don't see any upside in going
back to it. Digital has been an improvement all round.

I'm not so sure. I've got a high end full frame DSLR body with some
expensive lenses. My DSLR is fantastic in low light with very useable
shots at ISO 12800 and even ISO 25600 with some tweaking in Photoshop.

However, for B&W I shoot film. I've got five 35mm bodies and one medium
format body. I found that it was very difficult to get a digital B&W print
that didn't have some sort of colour cast. I personally think that a wet
print B&W photograph has a unique quality that a digital print can't
match. I've got my own darkroom and I do love the process of developing
the film and making prints from the negatives.

The one thing that film can teach to digital users is economy.

Economy is irrelevant now.

Just like how to pander to a horse's whims have become too.

A 36 exposure roll of B&W film costs about £6 so if you are using your
shutter like a machine gun it will soon get very expensive.

But with a digital camera it makes no sense to be parsimonious with
the shots you take and in fact the best digital systems deliberately
take a lot of shots instead of just one so you can pick the best of
them and wont miss the best shot with action shots.

You have to choose your shot carefully rather than firing off 10 shots and
hoping that one of them is good.

See above.

Does that really matter with digital..... well some DSLR bodies cost £2000
and more.

Irrelevant to whether lots of shots makes sense now.

They do have a finite shutter life

Like hell they do.

and if you are firing off 10 shots to get one good photo then your
expensive camera might not last as long as you hope.

Fantasy.

There's also the matter of viewing and storing all those shots.

The best systems bin the worst shots auto.

On 26/11/16 04:27, wrote:
On Saturday, 26 November 2016 00:14:31 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:33:46 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then
processing it digitally?

Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer
experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff
I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/
reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film. Most people
won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really from
the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their
obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you
wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D

I used to use nothing but film SLR and I don't see any upside in going back to it. Digital has been an improvement all round.



Wot e said.

When I find I can get better grain, better speed, and better color
rendition off digital, I know where my money is.


And then get the pictures printed professionally onto gloss paper for
the keepers at less cost...

NT



--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 26/11/2016 10:08, Rod Speed wrote:
Paul Giverin wrote


They do have a finite shutter life

Like hell they do.

.....which demonstrates that you really don't know what you are talking
about..... which renders your other points invalid.

In article ,
Halmyre wrote:
APS always seemed like a solution to a non-existent problem; a bit like
the MiniDisk.

Eh? Minidisc was brilliant. For certain things. Mainly pro or semi pro
use, as well as replacing the cassette.

--
*Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
DerbyBorn wrote:
and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths

It's the same problem as TV in the early days. There were several
different types of electronic camera in use, and all had a different
'target' size. Target being the equivalent of film size. So a say 1" lens
on one would produce a different 'size' picture on another. Which made for
problems at planning stage since it wouldn't be known which type of camera
might be in use.

If you use angle of view in degrees, you get the same size picture
regardless. And the cameraman on the day can be expected to know which
focal length lens gives that particular angle on the actual camera.

--
*Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
:

In article ,
DerbyBorn wrote:
and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths

It's the same problem as TV in the early days. There were several
different types of electronic camera in use, and all had a different
'target' size. Target being the equivalent of film size. So a say 1"
lens on one would produce a different 'size' picture on another. Which
made for problems at planning stage since it wouldn't be known which
type of camera might be in use.

If you use angle of view in degrees, you get the same size picture
regardless. And the cameraman on the day can be expected to know which
focal length lens gives that particular angle on the actual camera.


Also "Angle of View" is easily visualised in ones mind.

With film you have to work with the ASA of the film throughout. A Digital
will change the ASA value.

Paul Giverin wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Paul Giverin wrote

They do have a finite shutter life

Like hell they do.

....which demonstrates that you really
don't know what you are talking about.....

Like hell it does.

which renders your other points invalid.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

On 26/11/2016 16:40, DerbyBorn wrote:


With film you have to work with the ASA of the film throughout. A Digital
will change the ASA value.

That's not entirely true. If you are doing your own processing then you
can push or pull the film at the development stage to change the
effective ISO (usually at the expense of changing contrast as well).


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 24/11/2016 16:52, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 24 November 2016 16:40:47 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/11/2016 16:21, whisky-dave wrote:

mine too but it's not silent as the sensor needs to flip up to take teh photo.
canon EOS M3

Hmm, the sensor doesn't move in the EOS m3.

So what does flip up then ?

I would have thought the mirror - same as any other SLR...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 26/11/2016 00:13, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:33:46 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then
processing it digitally?

Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer
experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff
I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/
reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film.

You can be just as artistic with a digital camera, no, you can be more
artistic with a digital camera as it will do all a film camera will do
and some more.
If you want a challenge take up painting or sketching you pictures 8-)

Most people
won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really from
the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their
obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you
wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D

Most people don't ride a motorbike, most people are more sensible.

On 26/11/16 19:01, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/11/2016 16:40, DerbyBorn wrote:


With film you have to work with the ASA of the film throughout. A Digital
will change the ASA value.

That's not entirely true. If you are doing your own processing then you
can push or pull the film at the development stage to change the
effective ISO (usually at the expense of changing contrast as well).


yes, but that's an operation you carry out on the whole film, not just
one shot.



--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 26/11/2016 19:01, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/11/2016 16:40, DerbyBorn wrote:


With film you have to work with the ASA of the film throughout. A Digital
will change the ASA value.

That's not entirely true. If you are doing your own processing then you
can push or pull the film at the development stage to change the
effective ISO (usually at the expense of changing contrast as well).



But you have to do it to the whole film or cut it up without knowing
exactly where you want to change the processing.

The point being that you can do it on individual pictures on digital.

On 26/11/2016 19:03, John Rumm wrote:
On 24/11/2016 16:52, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 24 November 2016 16:40:47 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/11/2016 16:21, whisky-dave wrote:

mine too but it's not silent as the sensor needs to flip up to take
teh photo.
canon EOS M3

Hmm, the sensor doesn't move in the EOS m3.

So what does flip up then ?

I would have thought the mirror - same as any other SLR...



Is it an SLR though?

John Rumm wrote in
o.uk:

On 26/11/2016 16:40, DerbyBorn wrote:


With film you have to work with the ASA of the film throughout. A
Digital will change the ASA value.

That's not entirely true. If you are doing your own processing then
you can push or pull the film at the development stage to change the
effective ISO (usually at the expense of changing contrast as well).



I realise that and have done it - but for the whole film in all
practicalities.

On 26/11/2016 20:50, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/11/2016 19:01, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/11/2016 16:40, DerbyBorn wrote:


With film you have to work with the ASA of the film throughout. A
Digital
will change the ASA value.

That's not entirely true. If you are doing your own processing then you
can push or pull the film at the development stage to change the
effective ISO (usually at the expense of changing contrast as well).



But you have to do it to the whole film or cut it up without knowing
exactly where you want to change the processing.

The point being that you can do it on individual pictures on digital.

Tis true. Although with only 24 or 36 frames per film, its not
unreasonable to rewind the current film and start another if you need to
change ISO midway (be it with a different ISO film, or just with an
intention of pushing the new film when you develop it)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 26/11/2016 20:54, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/11/2016 19:03, John Rumm wrote:
On 24/11/2016 16:52, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 24 November 2016 16:40:47 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/11/2016 16:21, whisky-dave wrote:

mine too but it's not silent as the sensor needs to flip up to take
teh photo.
canon EOS M3

Hmm, the sensor doesn't move in the EOS m3.

So what does flip up then ?

I would have thought the mirror - same as any other SLR...



Is it an SLR though?

Erm, good question :-)

More an interchangeable lens compact by the looks of it:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/canon-eos-m3-review

(teaches me to make assumptions about the contents of a SLR thread!)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Saturday, 26 November 2016 11:17:35 UTC, Paul Giverin wrote:
On 26/11/2016 10:08, Rod Speed wrote:
Paul Giverin wrote


They do have a finite shutter life

Like hell they do.

....which demonstrates that you really don't know what you are talking
about..... which renders your other points invalid.

that's true of all Rodney's posts.


NT

On Saturday, 26 November 2016 16:40:08 UTC, DerbyBorn wrote:


With film you have to work with the ASA of the film throughout. A Digital
will change the ASA value.

I used to like push processing, it gives great effects.


NT

On 26/11/2016 23:15, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/11/2016 20:54, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/11/2016 19:03, John Rumm wrote:
On 24/11/2016 16:52, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 24 November 2016 16:40:47 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/11/2016 16:21, whisky-dave wrote:

mine too but it's not silent as the sensor needs to flip up to take
teh photo.
canon EOS M3

Hmm, the sensor doesn't move in the EOS m3.

So what does flip up then ?

I would have thought the mirror - same as any other SLR...



Is it an SLR though?

Erm, good question :-)

More an interchangeable lens compact by the looks of it:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/canon-eos-m3-review

(teaches me to make assumptions about the contents of a SLR thread!)



Never take what whiskey says as being correct.

If its like mine it will still have a focal plane shutter.
Its normally open and closes as you press the release and then exposes
the sensor, then closes again and opens once the sensor data has been
read. All in a few milliseconds.
You get the same distortions you get with SLRs on moving subjects.
There is a silent mode which leaves the shutter open and uses an
electronic shutter too.

On 26/11/2016 23:09, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/11/2016 20:50, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/11/2016 19:01, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/11/2016 16:40, DerbyBorn wrote:


With film you have to work with the ASA of the film throughout. A
Digital
will change the ASA value.

That's not entirely true. If you are doing your own processing then you
can push or pull the film at the development stage to change the
effective ISO (usually at the expense of changing contrast as well).



But you have to do it to the whole film or cut it up without knowing
exactly where you want to change the processing.

The point being that you can do it on individual pictures on digital.

Tis true. Although with only 24 or 36 frames per film, its not
unreasonable to rewind the current film and start another if you need to
change ISO midway (be it with a different ISO film, or just with an
intention of pushing the new film when you develop it)


I have done that but I find it increases the chances of getting the
emulsion scratched as it winds in to the canister more than once. Some
of the last generation SLRs with high speed rewind are the worst.

On 26/11/2016 20:31, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/11/2016 00:13, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:33:46 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then
processing it digitally?

Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer
experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff
I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/
reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film.

You can be just as artistic with a digital camera, no, you can be more
artistic with a digital camera as it will do all a film camera will do
and some more.
If you want a challenge take up painting or sketching you pictures 8-)

Most people
won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really from
the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their
obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you
wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D

Most people don't ride a motorbike, most people are more sensible.

Most people cannot:-

1. Drive an F1 car
2. Become PM (or President)
3. Win any lottery
4. Take really good photos, no matter how expensive the camera.

It amazes me how many times I see a photographer with a flash gun that is
pointing almost vertically and using it outside! What is he bouncing off?
How will having "Flash" selected affect the exposure?

On 27/11/16 11:24, Andrew wrote:
On 26/11/2016 20:31, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/11/2016 00:13, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:33:46 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and
then
processing it digitally?

Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer
experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff
I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/
reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film.

You can be just as artistic with a digital camera, no, you can be more
artistic with a digital camera as it will do all a film camera will do
and some more.
If you want a challenge take up painting or sketching you pictures 8-)

Most people
won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really
from
the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their
obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you
wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D

Most people don't ride a motorbike, most people are more sensible.

Most people cannot:-

1. Drive an F1 car
2. Become PM (or President)
3. Win any lottery
4. Take really good photos, no matter how expensive the camera.


I can see the point of teaching people to use a manual camera first, in
order to understand the principles, but my relatively modern DSLR can be
operated in fully manual mode, if that's what I want, although the lack
of a split image rangefinder makes accurate focussing quite hard -
especially with ageing eyes.


But all this faff about using film - its a very very flawed medium,
hasn't got the dynamic range, its grainy, and you always have the wrong
film in the camera.

Even the bollox about 'I cant print a black and white picture without it
having a color cast' is utter ********. Use a black and white printer!


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

Most people don't ride a motorbike, most people are more sensible.


been riding since I was 16 no accidents but I must say they are handy for
spare parts like my new liver ...tee hee

On 27/11/2016 10:04, Paul Giverin wrote:
On 26/11/2016 23:09, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/11/2016 20:50, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/11/2016 19:01, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/11/2016 16:40, DerbyBorn wrote:


With film you have to work with the ASA of the film throughout. A
Digital
will change the ASA value.

That's not entirely true. If you are doing your own processing then you
can push or pull the film at the development stage to change the
effective ISO (usually at the expense of changing contrast as well).



But you have to do it to the whole film or cut it up without knowing
exactly where you want to change the processing.

The point being that you can do it on individual pictures on digital.

Tis true. Although with only 24 or 36 frames per film, its not
unreasonable to rewind the current film and start another if you need to
change ISO midway (be it with a different ISO film, or just with an
intention of pushing the new film when you develop it)


I have done that but I find it increases the chances of getting the
emulsion scratched as it winds in to the canister more than once. Some
of the last generation SLRs with high speed rewind are the worst.

I was not necessarily even suggesting that one re-mounts the rewound
film... Many auto rewind cameras have a habit of rewinding the film
right back into the can which makes it harder to reload anyway.

(Although I do have a changing bag, and so could pop the end of the can
if needs be to retrieve the leader)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 12:23:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But all this faff about using film - its a very very flawed medium,
hasn't got the dynamic range, its grainy, and you always have the wrong
film in the camera.

Ektachrome 25, mate. Not only does it not suffer from most of the above
problems, it ****ing smells *awesome*!! :-D

On 27/11/16 16:06, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 12:23:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But all this faff about using film - its a very very flawed medium,
hasn't got the dynamic range, its grainy, and you always have the wrong
film in the camera.

Ektachrome 25, mate. Not only does it not suffer from most of the above
problems, it ****ing smells *awesome*!! :-D

Not Kodachrome 25? I used that a bit for some architectural shots on a
tripod


--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 16:59:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Not Kodachrome 25? I used that a bit for some architectural shots on a
tripod

Ah! You're obviously not a pro! ;-

On 27/11/2016 12:22, DerbyBorn wrote:


It amazes me how many times I see a photographer with a flash gun that is
pointing almost vertically and using it outside! What is he bouncing off?
How will having "Flash" selected affect the exposure?


Look up spill flash, he may actually know what he is doing, but without
seeing it I can't tell.

On 27/11/16 17:12, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 16:59:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Not Kodachrome 25? I used that a bit for some architectural shots on a
tripod

Ah! You're obviously not a pro! ;-

Certainly not.

I just liked taking pictures.


--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

dennis@home wrote in
web.com:

On 27/11/2016 12:22, DerbyBorn wrote:


It amazes me how many times I see a photographer with a flash gun
that is pointing almost vertically and using it outside! What is he
bouncing off? How will having "Flash" selected affect the exposure?


Look up spill flash, he may actually know what he is doing, but
without seeing it I can't tell.


Is that what I would call Bounce Flash? No ceiling outside!

On 27/11/2016 12:22, DerbyBorn wrote:


It amazes me how many times I see a photographer with a flash gun that is
pointing almost vertically and using it outside! What is he bouncing off?
How will having "Flash" selected affect the exposure?


Many years ago (about 28) while I was working in Fiji, I was driving
around the Port area in Suva, the capital, when I noticed a tourist
from the Canberra, which was moored in Port for the day.

He was wandering around the port area with his Leica binoculars
around his neck.

I felt like yelling to him that the only birds he would see in
that part of town were the ones with a big smile, who would spread
their legs for a few dollars.

*Equivelant* !!
The sensor captures the same view as a a 35 mm film camera with the given focal length.

"Graham." wrote in message
...

*Equivelant* !!
The sensor captures the same view as a a 35 mm film camera with the given
focal length.

!!!!!!!! *EQUIVALENT* !!!!!!!!

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:52:54 +0000, Andrew wrote:

Many years ago (about 28) while I was working in Fiji, I was driving
around the Port area in Suva, the capital, when I noticed a tourist from
the Canberra, which was moored in Port for the day.

He was wandering around the port area with his Leica binoculars around
his neck.

I felt like yelling to him that the only birds he would see in that part
of town were the ones with a big smile, who would spread their legs for
a few dollars.

Yes. And a tourist with Leica binos is obviously going to be a generous
tipper. I had a couple of Leicas many years ago. I remember the build
quality of the M4-P in particular was out of this world.