Re: OT: WAY OT - I'm Grumpy, Therefore I Blog

On Apr 11, 1:50 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfigh...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Apr 11, 7:43 am, Charlie Self <charlie...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Apr 10, 10:35 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfigh...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

...

IMHO, that's not the seminal question. 'Most' films are pretty
crappy in terms of color, contrast, and resolution.

The seminal question is what quality CAN be obtained
via reasonable means.

When I was still shooting 35mm, my
editors were delighted to get transparencies with an ISO of 200.

You''re right about the DR. I figure another 2-3 years there.

Actually, the reasons fordigitalphotography DO include quality of
photos. I've got more 20x30 and 28x36 prints on my walls now than at
any other time in my life, many shot on a 6MP Pentax *istD, and the
rest on a 10MP Pentax K10D. The more than match the quality I used to
get out a couple of Minoltas--and the damned autofocus actually works,
which is more than I could ever say for one of my Minoltas.

What film were you using?

Various films, including K64. All this vewrbiage about transparency
color brilliance and small grain is true, but the only way to make it
visible at a reasonable size is to have the slide run through to
produce a dye transfer print, IIRC.

No, the best way is to project it. That is how slides were meant
to be seen, just like movies. After all, 35 mm photography originally
used leftover 35mm movie film.

Another way is to dupe the slides by copying them onto print film.
Vericolor was the standard for that, but I found that Ektar was
better
for landscapes.

.> Even then, it doesn't match the

look of the original, and an 11x14 dye transfer print costs well up in
the hundreds of bucks range, probably about half as much as I paid for
my Epson 1800 printer--that only gives a top of 13x19, but does some
wondrous things with 11x14. Affordability is another reason for the
success of digital: My photos have improved more in the past decade
than in something like 45 years of shooting before, for a simple
reason:

That is one of the reasons (cost) why most amateurs I know shot slides
before converting to digital. Much cheaper than prints.

Most amateurs around here shot negative film, but, then, it sometimes
seems as if shooting half a roll and leaving it in the camera a year
or two was the norm. Most of my editors, those who wanted color in
those days, wanted transparencies.


For 4 x 6 I had good results duping kodachrome slides onto Ektar
25 using a slide copier. No more Ektar though.

For black and white, I doubt that digital can hold a candle
to 2415 developed in Technidol.

I'm trying to remember the ASA of 2415. I used to have charts on all
of those, but they went along with the darkroom gear.


But in terms of throughput, there is no doubt that you can
crank out hardcopy fast with digital, and for a low unit
cost too, after the equipment is paid for.

Those are factors I refer to as convenience, as opposed
to quality.

Folks at my photo club typically project their images to show
them to the club. Compared to Kodachorme slides, the
digital slides are dull as dirt.

Shouldn't be. They won't be as good as Kodachrome, but...


Neither I nor my clients had to front the costs for testing
new films, different lighting set ups, different filter effects and so
on. Now, I can test a camera, and get used to it, by shooting 500
frames, if I feel it necessary. Before, that would have cost a
fortune, or at least the film and processing costs on 14 rolls. Today,
the cost is my time (which was a cost anyway), plus wear and tear on
the camera (which was there anyway).

Yes. Once you've bought the equipment, you shoot a crapload
of photos cheap with digital.


In constant dollars, the $722 I paid for a Pentax K10D body last year
is well under what I paid for a Canon F1 in '70 or '71. In fact, so is
the price of today's K20D, currently at around $1,200 street. My *istD
cost, IIRC, about $1,700 someting like four years ago, but with a
16-45 lens that was pretty decent. If you jump on the top of the line
Canon offering today, the body costs about $8,000. That's probably
double what the F1 cost (I seem to have $415 banging around in my
memory, which may or may not be true) in constant bucks, but you also
don't have to worry about a bulk back and a motor drive, so, again,
digital is little more, if any, expensive even for the high end
gear...until you get into Hasselblads and Phase 1 backs, where it gets
rough enough to scare even GWB. I had both the bulk back and motor
drive eventually, but hated to use the back because it was so bulky
and added a loss of balance as well as weight. The motor drive was
fast enough to create a problem with rolls of film. Something under 10
seconds and reload. So it wasn't worth much without the back.

Loved that camera, got some great shots with it, but I don't miss ANY
of that.
.

Relevant Pages
Loading