Digital photography, changing the world
Nov 23rd 2004, 4:39 am
#121
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
randee writes:
> What else would one photograph?
The man-made world.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> What else would one photograph?
The man-made world.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Nov 23rd 2004, 4:40 am
#122
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
erilar writes:
> Printed from film, not scanned it.
Scanning is worth trying.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Printed from film, not scanned it.
Scanning is worth trying.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Nov 23rd 2004, 5:27 am
#123
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Calif Bill writes:
> > You are highly misinformed.
> No, I'm highly informed, particularly with respect to the information
> theory that underlies the concepts of analog and digital.
> > As one of the Patent
> > holders in the disk drive world, I do write with some knowledge.
> No doubt. One can have knowledge and write with it even without a
> patent. Conversely, one can have a patent but very little knowledge.
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
I see you are also highly conceited.
news:[email protected]...
> Calif Bill writes:
> > You are highly misinformed.
> No, I'm highly informed, particularly with respect to the information
> theory that underlies the concepts of analog and digital.
> > As one of the Patent
> > holders in the disk drive world, I do write with some knowledge.
> No doubt. One can have knowledge and write with it even without a
> patent. Conversely, one can have a patent but very little knowledge.
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
I see you are also highly conceited.
Nov 23rd 2004, 5:29 am
#124
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Calif Bill writes:
> > You are highly misinformed.
> No, I'm highly informed, particularly with respect to the information
> theory that underlies the concepts of analog and digital.
> > As one of the Patent
> > holders in the disk drive world, I do write with some knowledge.
> No doubt. One can have knowledge and write with it even without a
> patent. Conversely, one can have a patent but very little knowledge.
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
You could say it is the quantum charge on the capacitor in the flash memory
that makes the Zero in memory. But it is still a digital world in flash.
news:[email protected]...
> Calif Bill writes:
> > You are highly misinformed.
> No, I'm highly informed, particularly with respect to the information
> theory that underlies the concepts of analog and digital.
> > As one of the Patent
> > holders in the disk drive world, I do write with some knowledge.
> No doubt. One can have knowledge and write with it even without a
> patent. Conversely, one can have a patent but very little knowledge.
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
You could say it is the quantum charge on the capacitor in the flash memory
that makes the Zero in memory. But it is still a digital world in flash.
Nov 23rd 2004, 5:39 am
#125
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
"randee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A couple of people - the whole point of their travel is to take large
> format landscape pictures. You name it, and somebody has it as a
> hobby. My sister knows a lot more people as she is into landscape
> photography more than I am.
> --
> wf.
> PTRAVEL wrote:
> >
> > "randee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > All irrelevant if your primary darkroom focus is contact prints from
> > > large negatives.
> >
> > Of course, what's irrelevant is your comment, but never mind.
> >
> > How many people do you know who do large-format photography as a hobby
and,
> > since this is a travel group, take their large-format cameras with them
when
> > they travel?
> >
But of a million people traveling, how many are into large-format
photography? 10? 20? Negligible. I grew up with one of the most famous of
the outdoor photograpers. He is one of only 4 people I knew who were in to
large-format photography. And he made a good living with it. Most
travelers are like my wife. Loves her small Nikon Coolpix 2500. Takes
great 4x6 and they go in the travel album. The camera fits in her fanny
pack, and other than the fact you have to charge the battery every day or
so, she loves the digital world. Take a picture and look and see if you
like it, or got a good picture. Erase it and take another if not liked.
Before we brought back lots of rolls of 35mm film and had it developed. She
tossed maybe 40-50% of the shots. A lot of saving in film developing
costs with digital. In 2001 a month in France and Spain, and the developing
bill was about $100 and at least $40 for film. This year for a month in
Italy, it was $70. I did buy one more 256mb card at $70. But that card
will be good for years.
news:[email protected]...
> A couple of people - the whole point of their travel is to take large
> format landscape pictures. You name it, and somebody has it as a
> hobby. My sister knows a lot more people as she is into landscape
> photography more than I am.
> --
> wf.
> PTRAVEL wrote:
> >
> > "randee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > All irrelevant if your primary darkroom focus is contact prints from
> > > large negatives.
> >
> > Of course, what's irrelevant is your comment, but never mind.
> >
> > How many people do you know who do large-format photography as a hobby
and,
> > since this is a travel group, take their large-format cameras with them
when
> > they travel?
> >
But of a million people traveling, how many are into large-format
photography? 10? 20? Negligible. I grew up with one of the most famous of
the outdoor photograpers. He is one of only 4 people I knew who were in to
large-format photography. And he made a good living with it. Most
travelers are like my wife. Loves her small Nikon Coolpix 2500. Takes
great 4x6 and they go in the travel album. The camera fits in her fanny
pack, and other than the fact you have to charge the battery every day or
so, she loves the digital world. Take a picture and look and see if you
like it, or got a good picture. Erase it and take another if not liked.
Before we brought back lots of rolls of 35mm film and had it developed. She
tossed maybe 40-50% of the shots. A lot of saving in film developing
costs with digital. In 2001 a month in France and Spain, and the developing
bill was about $100 and at least $40 for film. This year for a month in
Italy, it was $70. I did buy one more 256mb card at $70. But that card
will be good for years.
Nov 23rd 2004, 6:05 am
#126
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Calif Bill writes:
> I see you are also highly conceited.
No, I'm highly direct. I don't claim to know more than I do, but I
don't affect false modesty, either.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> I see you are also highly conceited.
No, I'm highly direct. I don't claim to know more than I do, but I
don't affect false modesty, either.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Nov 23rd 2004, 6:06 am
#127
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Calif Bill writes:
> You could say it is the quantum charge on the capacitor in the flash memory
> that makes the Zero in memory.
Yes, that's the usual argument of people who don't want to acknowledge
that electronic imaging is an analog process. It doesn't distract me,
though.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> You could say it is the quantum charge on the capacitor in the flash memory
> that makes the Zero in memory.
Yes, that's the usual argument of people who don't want to acknowledge
that electronic imaging is an analog process. It doesn't distract me,
though.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Nov 23rd 2004, 4:18 pm
#128
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
In article <[email protected]>,
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> > As to DLP for movies, you better go to one of the theaters than use DLP.
>
> Done. They have a long way to go.
>
> > Reason all movie theaters do not use DLP is the question of who is
> > going to pay for the equipment.
>
> A lot of directors don't like digital displays, with good reason. It's
> best not to look at them too closely, or you'll see why.
Do they have DLP yet in Europe? Considering that HDTV has barely
started over there.
Yeah the studios want digital projection systems (not sure if they use
DLP necessarily) at the theaters because it would save a lot of their
film printing and distribution costs, perhaps enhance security.
But theater owners see no benefit in spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars to save money for studios.
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> > As to DLP for movies, you better go to one of the theaters than use DLP.
>
> Done. They have a long way to go.
>
> > Reason all movie theaters do not use DLP is the question of who is
> > going to pay for the equipment.
>
> A lot of directors don't like digital displays, with good reason. It's
> best not to look at them too closely, or you'll see why.
Do they have DLP yet in Europe? Considering that HDTV has barely
started over there.
Yeah the studios want digital projection systems (not sure if they use
DLP necessarily) at the theaters because it would save a lot of their
film printing and distribution costs, perhaps enhance security.
But theater owners see no benefit in spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars to save money for studios.
Nov 23rd 2004, 4:22 pm
#129
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
In article <[email protected]>,
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If nothing else, this transition to digital may ultimately prove to be
> > ecologically beneficial.
>
> Not when you look at the effect on the environment of chip fabrication
> labs, as compared to the relatively low impact of film labs. And film
> labs these days typically recycle their silver, whereas nothing is
> recycled when you throw out a digital camera or cell phone.
Oh and what about film production?
Yeah recycling of electronic gadgets is definitely a problem.
Especially when those gadget makers keep pushing new models, encouraging
people to discard what they have and get the latest.
All that stuff is shipped to China where people melt the PCBs with no
safety gear.
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If nothing else, this transition to digital may ultimately prove to be
> > ecologically beneficial.
>
> Not when you look at the effect on the environment of chip fabrication
> labs, as compared to the relatively low impact of film labs. And film
> labs these days typically recycle their silver, whereas nothing is
> recycled when you throw out a digital camera or cell phone.
Oh and what about film production?
Yeah recycling of electronic gadgets is definitely a problem.
Especially when those gadget makers keep pushing new models, encouraging
people to discard what they have and get the latest.
All that stuff is shipped to China where people melt the PCBs with no
safety gear.
Nov 23rd 2004, 4:26 pm
#130
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
In article <[email protected]>,
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> Miguel Cruz writes:
>
> > Nope, that was a guess, based on the really obvious (and distracting)
> > stochastic dithering in light-toned areas which seems to be the hallmark of
> > inkjet printing.
>
> That does sound like ink-jet. Dithering is not necessary for dye-sub or
> chemical prints. If it pop right out of a small kiosk, it wasn't a
> chemical print, but in theory it could still be a dye-sub prints.
> Dye-sub prints do indeed rival chemical prints in quality, since they
> work on similar principles. Ink-jet prints are inferior for reasons
> related inevitably to the way they print.
Plus I hear that the inks are aerosolized and not good to breathe in.
Similar problems with laser printer toner too.
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> Miguel Cruz writes:
>
> > Nope, that was a guess, based on the really obvious (and distracting)
> > stochastic dithering in light-toned areas which seems to be the hallmark of
> > inkjet printing.
>
> That does sound like ink-jet. Dithering is not necessary for dye-sub or
> chemical prints. If it pop right out of a small kiosk, it wasn't a
> chemical print, but in theory it could still be a dye-sub prints.
> Dye-sub prints do indeed rival chemical prints in quality, since they
> work on similar principles. Ink-jet prints are inferior for reasons
> related inevitably to the way they print.
Plus I hear that the inks are aerosolized and not good to breathe in.
Similar problems with laser printer toner too.
Nov 23rd 2004, 4:30 pm
#131
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
In article <[email protected]>,
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's not really true--unless squinting at a postage-stamp-sized image
> on a screen on the camera is your ultimate goal. Seeing the photos in
> any other form takes far longer: you must find a PC, or you must find a
> photo shop or store with a kiosk, and neither of these is well adapted
> to sharing photos with friends.
>
> So the instant gratification isn't really there, even though it is often
> touted as an advantage of digital photography.
Even on a 2-inch screen, and some digicams have 2.5-inch screen, you can
get a good idea of what you have.
Useful out in the field to check it out so that you can take more pics
if it turns out that the first one you took was unsatisfactory for some
reason -- maybe bad exposure, not focused, the subject was blinking, etc.
People preview snapshots on those small cell phone screens. So there's
some utility there.
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's not really true--unless squinting at a postage-stamp-sized image
> on a screen on the camera is your ultimate goal. Seeing the photos in
> any other form takes far longer: you must find a PC, or you must find a
> photo shop or store with a kiosk, and neither of these is well adapted
> to sharing photos with friends.
>
> So the instant gratification isn't really there, even though it is often
> touted as an advantage of digital photography.
Even on a 2-inch screen, and some digicams have 2.5-inch screen, you can
get a good idea of what you have.
Useful out in the field to check it out so that you can take more pics
if it turns out that the first one you took was unsatisfactory for some
reason -- maybe bad exposure, not focused, the subject was blinking, etc.
People preview snapshots on those small cell phone screens. So there's
some utility there.
Nov 23rd 2004, 4:31 pm
#132
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
In article <[email protected]>,
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> The problem is that a cheaper, easier, faster, better quality option
> exists: a neighborhood photo lab or kiosk.
What is you have some pics. you wouldn't want a photo lab employee to
see or some other customer waiting behind you to use the kiosk?
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> The problem is that a cheaper, easier, faster, better quality option
> exists: a neighborhood photo lab or kiosk.
What is you have some pics. you wouldn't want a photo lab employee to
see or some other customer waiting behind you to use the kiosk?
Nov 23rd 2004, 4:34 pm
#133
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
In article <[email protected]>,
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> In the past decade I've seen perhaps half a dozen large-format cameras
> in Paris. I'd love to see the results they were getting with them. 6x6
> is nice already, but an 8x10 of Provia or Velvia ... the mind boggles.
The thing is, if you want that kind of landscaping shot of a
well-traveled destination like Paris, you can buy professionally-taken
photos which are likely to be aesthetically better, if not technically
better.
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> In the past decade I've seen perhaps half a dozen large-format cameras
> in Paris. I'd love to see the results they were getting with them. 6x6
> is nice already, but an 8x10 of Provia or Velvia ... the mind boggles.
The thing is, if you want that kind of landscaping shot of a
well-traveled destination like Paris, you can buy professionally-taken
photos which are likely to be aesthetically better, if not technically
better.
Nov 23rd 2004, 5:03 pm
#134
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
In article <[email protected]>,
Jeremy Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I since discovered that ofoto do a similar product, but you upload the
> image files - not as many options maybe - but if the image quality is
> better I'd go with them. They are cheaper than Apple as well. Next time
> I will try them.
Could it be that iPhoto is configured to lower the resolution to
minimize the upload times?
They of course offer that for photos you want to email.
Maybe they're doing it for their photo book thing?
Jeremy Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I since discovered that ofoto do a similar product, but you upload the
> image files - not as many options maybe - but if the image quality is
> better I'd go with them. They are cheaper than Apple as well. Next time
> I will try them.
Could it be that iPhoto is configured to lower the resolution to
minimize the upload times?
They of course offer that for photos you want to email.
Maybe they're doing it for their photo book thing?
Nov 23rd 2004, 5:05 pm
#135
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Last time I looked into it, some years ago now, the scanners were so
expensive that you really had to have the scanning done by a major
publishing facility.
--
wf.
Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> randee writes:
>
> > Not glass negatives...................
>
> You can scan them with some scanners.
expensive that you really had to have the scanning done by a major
publishing facility.
--
wf.
Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> randee writes:
>
> > Not glass negatives...................
>
> You can scan them with some scanners.