I will admit to having not tried the latest full frame SLRs, mainly because they just too big and too expensive. 35mm cameras were nice and small! Lightroom is great but easy to over egg things. I used to be a kodachrome fan when I could afford it. Photojojo’s Guide to Kodachrome | Photojojo for some examples of how good it could be even 60 years ago in the right hands.
A couple of years back there was an Ansell Adams exhibition on and I had to go see what all the fuss was about as prints in books had not inspired me. Seeing the originals you get it. Either printers are lazy or the processes they use cannot handle the DR of his prints.
A couple of years back there was an Ansell Adams exhibition on and I had to go see what all the fuss was about as prints in books had not inspired me. Seeing the originals you get it. Either printers are lazy or the processes they use cannot handle the DR of his prints.
Yes - I think perhaps down to semiotics; modern presentation of digital sound is almost 'a brand', and conformance to it is perceived as good ?
What is Semiotics?
Whatever reason, I think we'd need to look to anthropology for the answer. I suspect if exactly the same test were made 40 years ago, very different results would have presented - because digital presentation would have seemed alien.
With my current digital camera, capturing a RAW image and using my digital darkroom software I can recreate most of the old film stocks and create an image that looks like its been shot on film, without all the hassle and chemicals
The main thing though is capturing the light and mood when I press the shutter, and using either film or digital it is the emotion of the image that is critical, get that right and it looks good in either format, its just digital will allow me to do more.... Same with music in my view, its the capture that is ultimately important.
The same applies to video, I have both modern digital and old analogue Hi8 systems, and did 8mm years and years ago, the same applies with modern digital kit I can easily recreate the film look, point of capture, shutter speed to frame rate being the critical factor...
Whilst I am nostalgic for the old look I still think digital wins hands down for resolution and what you can then do with the data with digital darkroom processing.
Shoot in RAW and you still get to develop your image and have to get the desired result, in my case no chemicals and fumes so less asthma problems, also the range of results you can get from one image are the same you can get with different photographic papers filters etc.
Its lenses that take the money, I've spent quite a bit yet do the majority of my shooting with a 50mm f1.8 £150 lens, basic, sharp and a nice perspective to the shots. That covers probably 50-60% of shooting the rest is covered by specialist lenses, telephoto and wide angle zooms, cost about £2500... If I had to choose one lens it would be my 50mm.
Just a thought, but often you take a perfectly sharp spot on colour balance photo high res. picture and downgrade it to give the image a film stock look and create a subjectively better picture....
Also to me a picture isn't really finished till its printed (at least 8X10inch) and preferably put in a frame .
Its lenses that take the money, I've spent quite a bit yet do the majority of my shooting with a 50mm f1.8 £150 lens, basic, sharp and a nice perspective to the shots. That covers probably 50-60% of shooting the rest is covered by specialist lenses, telephoto and wide angle zooms, cost about £2500... If I had to choose one lens it would be my 50mm.
Just a thought, but often you take a perfectly sharp spot on colour balance photo high res. picture and downgrade it to give the image a film stock look and create a subjectively better picture....
Also to me a picture isn't really finished till its printed (at least 8X10inch) and preferably put in a frame .
Newbie alert :
Digital RIAA : As I have no aversion to digital, can phono cartridge output be directly given to quality digital RIAA preamp and to powerdac ? Would be interesting how it sounds.
Optical pickup : I wonder if we could have an optical pickup with a very light, isolated but attached to same cartridge a dummy cantilever which would track the groove and another optical fiber cantilever would track the modulations without touching. Kind of like hard drive where the head does not touch the media. Here is the link again Optical pickup
---
Photographs : I dont know how a photograph will relate to music but few years back I had scanned glass plates probably more than 100 years old of a doctor family (I feel guilty as I have not taken permission from the owner, hope they won't mind) and tonal range with the rudimentary equipment is amazing. What lacked for color and details is compensated in tonal range. Some detials in skin texture and book is visible too. May be its same reason why people like vinyls or may be not, as I am not sure.
Best Regards
Digital RIAA : As I have no aversion to digital, can phono cartridge output be directly given to quality digital RIAA preamp and to powerdac ? Would be interesting how it sounds.
Optical pickup : I wonder if we could have an optical pickup with a very light, isolated but attached to same cartridge a dummy cantilever which would track the groove and another optical fiber cantilever would track the modulations without touching. Kind of like hard drive where the head does not touch the media. Here is the link again Optical pickup
---
Photographs : I dont know how a photograph will relate to music but few years back I had scanned glass plates probably more than 100 years old of a doctor family (I feel guilty as I have not taken permission from the owner, hope they won't mind) and tonal range with the rudimentary equipment is amazing. What lacked for color and details is compensated in tonal range. Some detials in skin texture and book is visible too. May be its same reason why people like vinyls or may be not, as I am not sure.
Best Regards
Attachments
I was mightily impressed seeing the results from one of the nikon Fx series , as it had astounding low light capabilities and could catch grains of rice in mid air.
However I also noted it can lull the user into a false sense of security, esp with very fast lenses where you really do not want to trust the camera that it knows what to focus on.
I'll stick with my lumix G until I'm good enough to know why I need a better camera
However I also noted it can lull the user into a false sense of security, esp with very fast lenses where you really do not want to trust the camera that it knows what to focus on.
I'll stick with my lumix G until I'm good enough to know why I need a better camera
Last edited:
Scott is working on that as we speak (see a few pages back)
You mean to avoid needing the servo mechanism? I guess so, but why not embrace the linear tracking whilst you are doing it. I do wonder why this system has not had more written about it or been commercialised. I know that for 78s now you can just photograph the disk and let the computer work it out but this does actually look like a better way (tm). Although little information on how that does stereo (if in fact it can).
Last edited:
The Sony A7 is very light, looks and feel exactly like an old 35mm reflex camera and not expensive at all for what it can offer ...
I use-it with my collection of old manual Konica (Hexanon) lenses, and have the feeling to recover the feelings I had with my Nikon F around 1970.
With the pleasure to can take as much photos i want with no expenses, and to be able to develop them as soon I'm back home.
It is. With an OLED view finder so natural, luminous and definite that you does not even notice you are looking to reality across an electronic screen. Amazing. And you can zoom in the view finder to get a very precise focus.
The only con is when you have a lot of sun outside: you need some seconds to accommodate your eyes, because the OLEDS can't equal the extreme luminosity.
On opposite, when the light of the scene is so low that you cannot see anything in a traditional view finder (mirror+ground glass), or aperture closed, you can see your scene with all the luminosity that you need.
Not for me then unless you can lock it. My panasonic has that and its a right pita putting a graduated ND filter as you slide the filter down and the damned thing adjusts so you cannot see where the graduation is. Drives me mad and has completely put me off efinders.
Less of an issue if you are on tripod setting something up over a period of minutes, but that is 0.1% of my shooting.
To be fair it's been around for a while, I'm attempting to make all those mysterious numbers understandable to the lay person and expand it to as many historical equalizations as possible.
What you see is what you will got. If you use automatic exposure, it is not the view finder that adjust himself, but the DSLR: If you want to adjust some under or over exposure effect, just use 'manual' exposure setting.
Well, referring to my Olympus EP2 viewfinder, i had a bad opinion of those devices... I consider my E7 one very close to perfection, and, with my poor aged eyes, the only way for me to can focus fast and accurate like in my young years.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.