On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 23:41:04 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

snip

Yeah, that seems simple enough ... however, not the same UI as turning
a rheostat knob and managing the inertia yourself (as you might if
stood on the footplate)?

In some ways it is more realistic. The speed control was a sliding
potentiometer rather than rotary rheostat, but unlike using a rheostat,
when inertia was enabled, the power to the motor didn't vary immediately
with position, so bringing a train into a station involved anticipating
where it would stop, just like hundreds of tons of real train.

Yes, exactly, something you had to manage *manually* on a basic
controller (using skill and feel etc). ;-)

The same inertia effect can be included in analogue controllers as well.

I know, I built one for my other BIL (from an ETI project I think)
that worked very well indeed (he said).

Some even have a brake control, so there is a combination of throttle
and interia for acceleration and brake and inertia for decelleration.

I think this one did, possibly on a centre zero pot?

That's from memory, so I may have got that wrong, but it really was as
simple as that. DCC controllers do have far more options and much more
to learn. No need to use most of it if not wanted though I suppose.

A family friend was keen to show me one of his 'fully loaded' DCC
locos with all the sounds and lights etc. It was pretty impressive I
must say.

Yes. Adding all the sounds and lights in n-gauge maybe going a bit too far!

It look compact enough on a OO. ;-)

It could be worse, the smallest commercially available gauage now is
T-gauge (1:450) - just right for using the chassis to model an 18"
narrow gauge line for a n-scale layout (or close enough to modelling a
5" gauge park railway on an O-scale layout).

sigh, back on the maths. ;-)

snip

Nice. I had a small 'O' gauge layout as a kid but was more 'into'
Meccano, Lego and ScaleXtric ... or making stuff myself from scratch.

Oh yes. I had set 10 meccano (the tower crane, etc.) and a fair bit of
lego.

Did you generally build the kits or go free-form Steve? I think I
might have done a bit of both ... built the 'classic' thing first /
once and then gone free-form from there.

Both. I certainly remember building freelance helicopters (the motorised
rotors were lethal) and cablecars running up to the curtain rail.

Neat.

I never had a Scalextric set, but had several friends who did.

I bought a couple of cheap sets with a neighbour a while back and in
his empty through-lounge we were able to build some pretty good
layouts (one massive 4 lane straight and wiggly bits for the way
back). However, once playing with it again it soon reminded me why I
went to RC cars, boats (and to a lesser degree), planes.

snip

snip

We seem to do the lions share of her hospital visits as we only live
round the corner ... but that's fair as Sister and family do more fun
stuff with her. ;-)

I'm lucky in that respect. My mother is 76 and my father is 80 and both
are still running themselves and each other wherever they need to go.

As was my Dad till about 4 years ago and 83 or so.

In
fact, my dad usually does the school run with our youngest son, although
today and for the next 3 Mondays, plus a Wednesday, he's switched to
taking the older two, as the bus drivers are on strike, the secondary
school is 7 miles away and my wife is nervous of driving there during
rush hour, but she can cope with the local run to the primary school
instead.

It's funny with some people eh (respectfully etc). They are considered
sufficiently ok to pass the statutory test but then not have the
confidence to drive on (basically) ordinary roads (eg, not covered in
ice or snow or on mud at 4000 feet) under normal / everyday
conditions, like at night or unfamiliar route or a long distance?

I can sort of get not being so confident driving abroad on the wrong
side of the road as you have do deal with several 'different' / new
things at once (the wrong side of the road, the different driving
culture and with the signs often in a foreign language).

It all gets a bit mixed up anyway because she is working nights
now.

Ok.

Both my F-I-L and M-I-L died years ago, so no help needed there.

We have lost all but my Mum ... and this morning our daughter lost one
of her (rescue) rabbits [1].

Not in the same league of course but still 'a loss' none the less. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[1] Talking to someone today who had previously kept rabbits he
suggested that they were 'known' to have heart attacks when they were
getting on a bit? This one was at least 10 years old. Daughter left
her with the other two for a while (until they lost interest) and then
buried her in the garden. If there is an afterlife she should be happy
there as she loved digging burrows in Mums garden. ;-)

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:41:45 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 29/10/2017 14:35, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 11:30:38 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 28/10/2017 21:10, T i m wrote:


Like my Dad, he was a very keen Amateur Photographer and for him the
'art' was all in the composition and getting the focus / depth of
field / lighting and many other properties right etc. So, when the
world went digital he basically dropped out of the whole scene because
he wasn't interested or ready for the whole camera / PC thing.

did no one tell him that taking a picture is exactly the same with a
digital camera as a film camera?

I think he knew that but that wasn't the point.

The only real difference is if you enable the automation and that you
can look at the result.

And how you 'load' the camera, make the choices of the film, the
resolution for the cost (especially at the beginning) and the way they
were processed etc.

All of those things can be changed in a digital camera, either before
you take the picture or after you take it.

Yeahbut are you saying that SD cards have an ISO rating? That you can
buy SD cards that only record B&W images, or produce slides as opposed
to prints?

SD cards contain images that can't easily be post processed, or you
can get rolls of 35mm film that let you take 1000 pictures, erase them
and take 1000 more?

How many pictures could you take with your digital compared with an
analogue before the battery ran out (even with a motor drive)?

How many digital cameras would survive an EMP?

Yes, the two concepts *can* be sometimes used similarly but they *are
not* the same, just in the same way IC and E cars can do very similar
things but are very different solutions ...

Cheers, T i m

On 31/10/17 01:06, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:41:45 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 29/10/2017 14:35, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 11:30:38 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 28/10/2017 21:10, T i m wrote:


Like my Dad, he was a very keen Amateur Photographer and for him the
'art' was all in the composition and getting the focus / depth of
field / lighting and many other properties right etc. So, when the
world went digital he basically dropped out of the whole scene because
he wasn't interested or ready for the whole camera / PC thing.

did no one tell him that taking a picture is exactly the same with a
digital camera as a film camera?

I think he knew that but that wasn't the point.

The only real difference is if you enable the automation and that you
can look at the result.

And how you 'load' the camera, make the choices of the film, the
resolution for the cost (especially at the beginning) and the way they
were processed etc.

All of those things can be changed in a digital camera, either before
you take the picture or after you take it.

Yeahbut are you saying that SD cards have an ISO rating? That you can
buy SD cards that only record B&W images, or produce slides as opposed
to prints?

CCD senors have an iso rating

SD cards contain images that can't easily be post processed,

wrong.

or you
can get rolls of 35mm film that let you take 1000 pictures, erase them
and take 1000 more?


well thats digital

How many pictures could you take with your digital compared with an
analogue before the battery ran out (even with a motor drive)?

In the hundreds. Batteries are somethoing pro phyotgrapers carry, just
as spare bodies with different film in rthem were in days of Ypore



How many digital cameras would survive an EMP?

Depends how strong. Not much film would survive an EMP.


Yes, the two concepts *can* be sometimes used similarly but they *are
not* the same, just in the same way IC and E cars can do very similar
things but are very different solutions ...

Cheers, T i m



I cannot think that teher is anything I couod do with film that I cant
do with digital, that I would *want* to do.




--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On 30/10/2017 23:41, Steve Walker wrote:

It could be worse, the smallest commercially available gauage now is
T-gauge (1:450) - just right for using the chassis to model an 18"
narrow gauge line for a n-scale layout (or close enough to modelling a
5" gauge park railway on an O-scale layout).

Daughter is building a model just like that.
N scale animals and dinosaurs in a theme park with a T gauge ride one train.

I have been printing various dinos and animaals for her.

The train has lights.

On 31/10/2017 01:06, T i m wrote:

Yeahbut are you saying that SD cards have an ISO rating? That you can
buy SD cards that only record B&W images, or produce slides as opposed
to prints?

Why would you want the SD card to determine what the camera can do?
You could certainly do it with some cameras as putting in an SD card
with certain software on it changes the way the camera works but just to
change stuff that you can do by using the menus?


SD cards contain images that can't easily be post processed, or you
can get rolls of 35mm film that let you take 1000 pictures, erase them
and take 1000 more?

?


How many pictures could you take with your digital compared with an
analogue before the battery ran out (even with a motor drive)?

My last 35mm motor drive camera would take about 200 pictures wit a set
of six AA batteries.
My omd-m10 about 25 from one much smaller battery.
Thats not an SLR either so its powering the viewfinder.


How many digital cameras would survive an EMP?

How many people will survive WW3?


Yes, the two concepts *can* be sometimes used similarly but they *are
not* the same, just in the same way IC and E cars can do very similar
things but are very different solutions ...

They are not very different either.
You can claim that changing the mode on the camera is not the same as
changing the film but a photographer is interested in the results not in
which button he needs to press as they are different from camera to
camera even on film ones.


Cheers, T i m

On 31/10/2017 13:27, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/10/2017 23:41, Steve Walker wrote:

It could be worse, the smallest commercially available gauage now is
T-gauge (1:450) - just right for using the chassis to model an 18"
narrow gauge line for a n-scale layout (or close enough to modelling a
5" gauge park railway on an O-scale layout).

Daughter is building a model just like that.
N scale animals and dinosaurs in a theme park with a T gauge ride one
train.

I have been printing various dinos and animaals for her.

The train has lights.

I like it.

Mine is N for standard gauge, but with a narrow-gauge line bringing coal
(and possibly goods and passengers).

The N track is laid and working, other than two locations where I need
to lift lengths of straight track and fit scissor crossings. The
straight track was cut to the correct length before it was laid.

The intention is to use Z-gauge track for the narrow-gauge line - I
already have a Marklin chassis and can buy a Peco body for it. Although
I have also considered using something T-gauge to make a much more
markedly obvious gauge difference.

SteveW

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:00:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 31/10/17 01:06, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:41:45 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 29/10/2017 14:35, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 11:30:38 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 28/10/2017 21:10, T i m wrote:


Like my Dad, he was a very keen Amateur Photographer and for him the
'art' was all in the composition and getting the focus / depth of
field / lighting and many other properties right etc. So, when the
world went digital he basically dropped out of the whole scene because
he wasn't interested or ready for the whole camera / PC thing.

did no one tell him that taking a picture is exactly the same with a
digital camera as a film camera?

I think he knew that but that wasn't the point.

The only real difference is if you enable the automation and that you
can look at the result.

And how you 'load' the camera, make the choices of the film, the
resolution for the cost (especially at the beginning) and the way they
were processed etc.

All of those things can be changed in a digital camera, either before
you take the picture or after you take it.

Yeahbut are you saying that SD cards have an ISO rating? That you can
buy SD cards that only record B&W images, or produce slides as opposed
to prints?

CCD senors have an iso rating

Of course, but not the 'film' though eh?

SD cards contain images that can't easily be post processed,

wrong.

Of course (so the only thing wrong there was how you read it).

or you
can get rolls of 35mm film that let you take 1000 pictures, erase them
and take 1000 more?


well thats digital

No!? ;-)

How many pictures could you take with your digital compared with an
analogue before the battery ran out (even with a motor drive)?

In the hundreds.

But not as many as with an analogue camera eh.

Batteries are somethoing pro phyotgrapers carry, just
as spare bodies with different film in rthem were in days of Ypore

But you are mixing the power source with the recording medium.



How many digital cameras would survive an EMP?

Depends how strong. Not much film would survive an EMP.

But I asked about the cameras. And why would a chemical film be
affected by a magnetic wave?


Yes, the two concepts *can* be sometimes used similarly but they *are
not* the same, just in the same way IC and E cars can do very similar
things but are very different solutions ...

Cheers, T i m



I cannot think that teher is anything I couod do with film that I cant
do with digital, that I would *want* to do.

No, quite, but you and you are missing the point.

My Dad (and so not you) considered there were sufficient differences
(especially at the time) between the 'art' of analogue photography
compared with digital ... that he didn't go digital.

Just in the same way and now 'digital photography' is a very useable
part of most mobile phones, some people are going-to / back-to
analogue photography for reasons you (or I) would probably never
understand. ;-)

I was one of the first people I knew that had a digital camera (Fuji
DX5) and whilst it was only 640 x 480 and had no LCD screen, it
produced very good pictures for it's price (£250 / 1997?) and when
compared with many more expensive digital cameras at the time.

That was 'upgraded' to a Fuji DX7 then DX10 then F420 and finally the
Z10fd.

Then I got a Samsung Galaxy S2 phone and Dropbox and don't think I've
touched a dedicated camera since.

Cheers, T i m

On 31/10/17 20:40, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:00:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 31/10/17 01:06, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:41:45 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 29/10/2017 14:35, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 11:30:38 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 28/10/2017 21:10, T i m wrote:


Like my Dad, he was a very keen Amateur Photographer and for him the
'art' was all in the composition and getting the focus / depth of
field / lighting and many other properties right etc. So, when the
world went digital he basically dropped out of the whole scene because
he wasn't interested or ready for the whole camera / PC thing.

did no one tell him that taking a picture is exactly the same with a
digital camera as a film camera?

I think he knew that but that wasn't the point.

The only real difference is if you enable the automation and that you
can look at the result.

And how you 'load' the camera, make the choices of the film, the
resolution for the cost (especially at the beginning) and the way they
were processed etc.

All of those things can be changed in a digital camera, either before
you take the picture or after you take it.

Yeahbut are you saying that SD cards have an ISO rating? That you can
buy SD cards that only record B&W images, or produce slides as opposed
to prints?

CCD senors have an iso rating

Of course, but not the 'film' though eh?

SD cards contain images that can't easily be post processed,

wrong.

Of course (so the only thing wrong there was how you read it).

or you
can get rolls of 35mm film that let you take 1000 pictures, erase them
and take 1000 more?


well thats digital

No!? ;-)

How many pictures could you take with your digital compared with an
analogue before the battery ran out (even with a motor drive)?

In the hundreds.

But not as many as with an analogue camera eh.
more, with a 'motor drive'

Batteries are somethoing pro phyotgrapers carry, just
as spare bodies with different film in rthem were in days of Ypore

But you are mixing the power source with the recording medium.

not really no.




How many digital cameras would survive an EMP?

Depends how strong. Not much film would survive an EMP.

But I asked about the cameras. And why would a chemical film be
affected by a magnetic wave?
DYOR



Yes, the two concepts *can* be sometimes used similarly but they *are
not* the same, just in the same way IC and E cars can do very similar
things but are very different solutions ...

Cheers, T i m



I cannot think that teher is anything I couod do with film that I cant
do with digital, that I would *want* to do.

No, quite, but you and you are missing the point.

My Dad (and so not you) considered there were sufficient differences
(especially at the time) between the 'art' of analogue photography
compared with digital ... that he didn't go digital.

some people still ride horses

Just in the same way and now 'digital photography' is a very useable
part of most mobile phones, some people are going-to / back-to
analogue photography for reasons you (or I) would probably never
understand. ;-)

I was one of the first people I knew that had a digital camera (Fuji
DX5) and whilst it was only 640 x 480 and had no LCD screen, it
produced very good pictures for it's price (£250 / 1997?) and when
compared with many more expensive digital cameras at the time.

That was 'upgraded' to a Fuji DX7 then DX10 then F420 and finally the
Z10fd.

Then I got a Samsung Galaxy S2 phone and Dropbox and don't think I've
touched a dedicated camera since.

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 13:57:39 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 31/10/2017 01:06, T i m wrote:

Yeahbut are you saying that SD cards have an ISO rating? That you can
buy SD cards that only record B&W images, or produce slides as opposed
to prints?

Why would you want the SD card to determine what the camera can do?

What, do you mean it can't ... that it's *different* to a film camera
in that regard?

You could certainly do it with some cameras as putting in an SD card
with certain software on it changes the way the camera works but just to
change stuff that you can do by using the menus?

Not the same thing though eh?


SD cards contain images that can't easily be post processed, or you
can get rolls of 35mm film that let you take 1000 pictures, erase them
and take 1000 more?

?

More differences mate.


How many pictures could you take with your digital compared with an
analogue before the battery ran out (even with a motor drive)?

My last 35mm motor drive camera would take about 200 pictures wit a set
of six AA batteries.

Ok.

My omd-m10 about 25 from one much smaller battery.
Thats not an SLR either so its powering the viewfinder.

So another classic difference then.


How many digital cameras would survive an EMP?

How many people will survive WW3?

Not sure that is an answer to my question re a cameras ability to
withstand an EMP.


Yes, the two concepts *can* be sometimes used similarly but they *are
not* the same, just in the same way IC and E cars can do very similar
things but are very different solutions ...

They are not very different either.

They can be considered sufficiently different (especially at the
beginning of digital photography) to be a dealbreaker for some
(apparently).

You can claim that changing the mode on the camera is not the same as
changing the film

I'm not claiming anything, I'm stating it as a fact!

but a photographer is interested in the results not in
which button he needs to press as they are different from camera to
camera even on film ones.

Quite, so I'm not saying that.

I am saying though that if you have one analogue camera and one
digital camera and you can change the effective ISO rating of the
digital camera on the fly, you *can* do that with a film camera
(without changing the film) and so they are still very different.

Now, 'of course' you can overcome that by carrying several film
cameras loaded with different film makes, types and specs (and we sold
4 Canon A1 bodies with motordrives, along with a variety of lenses for
what Dad paid for just one body, motordrive and lens when he died),
but that does mean you need to consider such things in advance with a
film camera that you simply don't with a digital (as you can change it
on the fly).

And I'm guessing there must still be differences around film and
digital as people wouldn't still be using both and / or preferring /
using one over the other.

What was strange for me was in my job (with Kodak) I could take a
picture and have the film developed and printed in just a few minutes.
At home I had to wait a week or more for my prints to come back from
the processors.

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 20:49:08 +0000, Tjoepstil
wrote:

snip


Batteries are somethoing pro phyotgrapers carry, just
as spare bodies with different film in rthem were in days of Ypore

But you are mixing the power source with the recording medium.

not really no.

Yes really yes.

Not all film cameras contain batteries and therefore will continue to
take pictures as long as you keep feeding film into it.

All digital cameras require some form of electrical power and
therefore will only be able to take pictures whilst they have said
power, even if the recording medium has space.


How many digital cameras would survive an EMP?

Depends how strong. Not much film would survive an EMP.

But I asked about the cameras. And why would a chemical film be
affected by a magnetic wave?
DYOR

I would have thought you would have known that one. ;-(


snip

My Dad (and so not you) considered there were sufficient differences
(especially at the time) between the 'art' of analogue photography
compared with digital ... that he didn't go digital.

some people still ride horses

Quite ... and in many cases that is the most suitable solution, or can
just be preferred for various / personal reasons.

Cheers, T i m

On 31/10/2017 21:18, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 13:57:39 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 31/10/2017 01:06, T i m wrote:

Yeahbut are you saying that SD cards have an ISO rating? That you can
buy SD cards that only record B&W images, or produce slides as opposed
to prints?

Why would you want the SD card to determine what the camera can do?

What, do you mean it can't ... that it's *different* to a film camera
in that regard?

You could certainly do it with some cameras as putting in an SD card
with certain software on it changes the way the camera works but just to
change stuff that you can do by using the menus?

Not the same thing though eh?

Isn't it?
It depends on what booting the software does.



SD cards contain images that can't easily be post processed, or you
can get rolls of 35mm film that let you take 1000 pictures, erase them
and take 1000 more?

?

More differences mate.

120 roll film and plates are different too, so what?



How many pictures could you take with your digital compared with an
analogue before the battery ran out (even with a motor drive)?

My last 35mm motor drive camera would take about 200 pictures wit a set
of six AA batteries.

Ok.

My omd-m10 about 25 from one much smaller battery.
Thats not an SLR either so its powering the viewfinder.

So another classic difference then.

So?
There are digital slrs with a mirror if you want one.



How many digital cameras would survive an EMP?

How many people will survive WW3?

Not sure that is an answer to my question re a cameras ability to
withstand an EMP.

Where do you think you are going to get an emp?



Yes, the two concepts *can* be sometimes used similarly but they *are
not* the same, just in the same way IC and E cars can do very similar
things but are very different solutions ...

They are not very different either.

They can be considered sufficiently different (especially at the
beginning of digital photography) to be a dealbreaker for some
(apparently).

You can claim that changing the mode on the camera is not the same as
changing the film

I'm not claiming anything, I'm stating it as a fact!

but a photographer is interested in the results not in
which button he needs to press as they are different from camera to
camera even on film ones.

Quite, so I'm not saying that.

I am saying though that if you have one analogue camera and one
digital camera and you can change the effective ISO rating of the
digital camera on the fly, you *can* do that with a film camera
(without changing the film) and so they are still very different.

You can change the iso of a film midway if you know how.


Now, 'of course' you can overcome that by carrying several film
cameras loaded with different film makes, types and specs (and we sold
4 Canon A1 bodies with motordrives, along with a variety of lenses for
what Dad paid for just one body, motordrive and lens when he died),
but that does mean you need to consider such things in advance with a
film camera that you simply don't with a digital (as you can change it
on the fly).

And I'm guessing there must still be differences around film and
digital as people wouldn't still be using both and / or preferring /
using one over the other.

What was strange for me was in my job (with Kodak) I could take a
picture and have the film developed and printed in just a few minutes.
At home I had to wait a week or more for my prints to come back from
the processors.

I could do that until I developed an alergy to the chemicals.
I still have a durst diachroic enlarger in the loft.

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 20:33:45 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 31/10/2017 21:18, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 13:57:39 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 31/10/2017 01:06, T i m wrote:

Yeahbut are you saying that SD cards have an ISO rating? That you can
buy SD cards that only record B&W images, or produce slides as opposed
to prints?

Why would you want the SD card to determine what the camera can do?

What, do you mean it can't ... that it's *different* to a film camera
in that regard?

You could certainly do it with some cameras as putting in an SD card
with certain software on it changes the way the camera works but just to
change stuff that you can do by using the menus?

Not the same thing though eh?

Isn't it?

Nope.

It depends on what booting the software does.

Quite ... so *nothing* like putting a 36 exposure roll film in a
camera then eh.



SD cards contain images that can't easily be post processed, or you
can get rolls of 35mm film that let you take 1000 pictures, erase them
and take 1000 more?

?

More differences mate.

120 roll film and plates are different too, so what?

Because if you were using a plate camera you would have to have
another set of skills that are different from using a digital.



How many pictures could you take with your digital compared with an
analogue before the battery ran out (even with a motor drive)?

My last 35mm motor drive camera would take about 200 pictures wit a set
of six AA batteries.

Ok.

My omd-m10 about 25 from one much smaller battery.
Thats not an SLR either so its powering the viewfinder.

So another classic difference then.

So?

Well 'duh', that's what we are discussing, the 'difference, not 'the
same'.

There are digital slrs with a mirror if you want one.

I don't (thanks). There are also digital backs for film cameras and I
don't want one of those either. I'll sick with my digital compact
camera now mostly the camera on the phone because of all the
differences between those and film cameras. Getting any closer to
understanding how this all works yet? ;-)





How many digital cameras would survive an EMP?

How many people will survive WW3?

Not sure that is an answer to my question re a cameras ability to
withstand an EMP.

Where do you think you are going to get an emp?

Whoosh ... sigh, I was making a comparison between digital and film
and highlighting some of the differences. Some (mainly left brainers
of course) don't seem to think there any?



Yes, the two concepts *can* be sometimes used similarly but they *are
not* the same, just in the same way IC and E cars can do very similar
things but are very different solutions ...

They are not very different either.

They can be considered sufficiently different (especially at the
beginning of digital photography) to be a dealbreaker for some
(apparently).

You can claim that changing the mode on the camera is not the same as
changing the film

I'm not claiming anything, I'm stating it as a fact!

but a photographer is interested in the results not in
which button he needs to press as they are different from camera to
camera even on film ones.

Quite, so I'm not saying that.

I am saying though that if you have one analogue camera and one
digital camera and you can change the effective ISO rating of the
digital camera on the fly, you *can* do that with a film camera
(without changing the film) and so they are still very different.

You can change the iso of a film midway if you know how.

LOL ... yeah, again, another 'everyday' thing ... 'not' (for the hard
of thinking)

Now, 'of course' you can overcome that by carrying several film
cameras loaded with different film makes, types and specs (and we sold
4 Canon A1 bodies with motordrives, along with a variety of lenses for
what Dad paid for just one body, motordrive and lens when he died),
but that does mean you need to consider such things in advance with a
film camera that you simply don't with a digital (as you can change it
on the fly).

And I'm guessing there must still be differences around film and
digital as people wouldn't still be using both and / or preferring /
using one over the other.

What was strange for me was in my job (with Kodak) I could take a
picture and have the film developed and printed in just a few minutes.
At home I had to wait a week or more for my prints to come back from
the processors.

I could do that until I developed an alergy to the chemicals.

Developed and printed in just a few minutes? You owned a photo lab?

I still have a durst diachroic enlarger in the loft.

Well good for you. ;-)

Cheers, T i m