"Not only are large format films [sic] capable of resolving a a greater number of line pairs per mm than 35mm..."
Mmmmmm... yes, but as stated it's somewhat misleading. First, a film, Velvia for example, is Velvia, be it cut into large pieces or small. As such, it resolves what it can resolve subject to grain size, dye structure, etc..
Second, at the film plane, a large format camera actually resolves fewer line pairs than its 35mm counterpart, because LF lenses are simply not as sharp or as well corrected as those on the smaller camera.
However, both factors are more than compensated for on the print, since a LF pos/neg doesn't need as high a degree of enlargement to hit the same print size as it's 35mm cousin. In fact, in some circumstances, such as an 8x10 contact print, it may need no enlargement whatsoever.
As to the later statement, that depends on the output medium. That 8x10 contact "wet" print may have jewel-like tones, but a Lightjet print made from an 8x10 scan will look remarkably similar to one captured digitally, though again, with more detail.
Even Mangelsen has gone to offering "digital" prints.
If I'm wandering around with my camera in hand ready to take "fast" snapshots, it's already on. Even when not, my thumb can throw the switch as I grab for it, and it's ready to shoot by the time its reached eye level. Of course, I'm comparing 35mm film cameras to digital 35mm cameras, as I indicated in my original question.
No, it's not, because you're swinging that camera up and pointing it at the sky. Quick. What's the exposure? Will the AF hunt because the plane's just a spec in the sky. Is it even on? Will your camera prefocus on the building or lamp post in front of you? Is the sun in the frame? Will that change the exposure? What metering mode are you in anyway?
'Course, if you're practicing with the camera enough to make the changes on the fly as you suggest, then you're learning photography. That being the case, you're no longer in the I-don't-need-to-learn-nothing-I'll-just-dink-with- the-camera-until-I-get-it-right category you mentioned earlier.
"I wouldn't have got the desired results because I don't know enough about photography..."
Bingo. And given that you can screw around with the camera and eventually get adequate results, you probably never will. Of course, the next time you're standing there with a camera and an airplane starts heading towards another skyscraper, how much time will you have to get it right?
Probably an extreme example, but photography, even personal photography, is full of once-in-a-lifetime moments that will not wait while someone fumbles around with their camera...
And if you're in the cold of Antarctica, just to be fair, you should discuss the problems with film. Stock freezes, becomes brittle and cracks, strips from the sockets, is sensitive to static buildup, and itself suffers from condensation issues.
"Second, it's 6cm, or 60mm film, not 120mm film..."
I'd have been happier with your answers --and assumed a pro was answering-- had you caught this one. 6x6 is, as you say, 6 cm x 6 cm. And he did get it wrong by stating it as 120 milimeters. However, 6x6 is also known in professional circles as the 120 format, just as there's a 220 format (6x6 long roll), and a 135 format (also more generally known as 35mm, or 24x36).
"A 4x5 image will, certainly, make your 35mm look like crap, but mostly because of tonal range, not resolution..."
Nope, it's the resolution. Most commercial 4x5 was done E-6, and "chrome" tends to have limited exposure latitudes and high contrast. While, say, a Canon 1Ds MII can rival 645 for some subjects, and a 24MP MF back can rival 6x6 or 6x7 for others, a good wall-sized print from 4x5 simply captures more detail. This is especially noticeable in complex, high-detail, "high-frequency" landscape scenes with lots of grass and trees.
Use a vivid film like Velvia, and the contrast bumps even higher.
"...is in FPS.. I can crank 4.5 frames a second through either of those machines, while an 8MP camera is still downloading..."
Sigh. So you've never used a 1D MII either? 8.5 fps max 40 JPEG or 20 RAW.
And you can show us those secret API's the DOJ accused them of using? Oh, wait, of course not. They're secret. How convenient.
Then again, upon consideration, it could be a safe claim at that. I don't know of any major application or platform that doesn't have internal APIs and undocumented functions.
Of course, you still can't show us the RunMSApp10PercentFaster() function call, can you?
There's also a few minor things like aesthetics and build quality. Gateway is selling through retail stores now and I tried several a few days ago. On most I thought the lid would fall off when I moved it, and the keyboards creaked every time I rested my hands on them. Such inattention to detail and quality would drive me crazy in a product I'd have to use daily.
The aluminum Powerbook, on the other hand, is nearly a work of art.
The security cable "port" is still in the middle of the right hand side though, a bad design feature I've commented on before. As is, the cable runs backwards along the right side, blocking all the other ports there. Better placement would be back near the power port, as a notebook locked down at a desk would also tend to be plugged in...
"Lightroom - every image has a same-size JPG created along with decreasing half sizes images as well. That can take up a lot of space."
Then you should be even more concerned with Aperture, as there you have to import the entire image into its database.
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O
on
Adobe Lightroom Review
·
· Score: 1
Ditto. I've had too many people tell me that they'll "fix" it in PS. Some comments I've read question why they need to learn lighting, as they'll just do that in PS too. The same feeling seems to be pervasive among some film makers as well. Rather than spend 5 mintues to fix a shot, they'll just shoot it, and then throw $100,000 at the digital effects department to clean it up.
"I don't find Adobe Photoshop to the the least bit intuitive."
It's not meant to be, or rather it is, but mostly it's not because you don't understand the paradigms on which it's based. It's a professional-level tool, designed for graphic arts professionals who're going to be trained in it's use and using it day-in and day-out. If all you want to do is fix the red-eye from your 3MP P&S, then use Elements or some other hand-holding piece of software.
From a similar perspective, Linux command lines and configuration files are extremely powerful, and allow administrative types to do major tasks quickly and easily. Drop a newbie with no training in front of a blinking terminal prompt, however, and he's lost. Powerful, yes. Intuitive? Not a chance.
I use an Apple 23" WS TFT and found my vision improving and all in all I generally felt less tense. The problem with notebook monitiors these days (from the OP) is the the text is generally flyspeck condensed due to the high resolutions used. The 17" Powerbook, as an example, has the same number of pixels as the Mac 23" Cinema display, crammed into a much smaller space.
I've also found that CRTs tend to blur, while TFTs seem sharper and make my eyes work less. This is especially true if you make sure subpixel font enhancements are turned on.
One other thing, from a developer standpoint, is to increase the code window font size. Yeah, it's more convenient to have a lot of code on the screen, but it doesn't help if you can no longer read it.
"Just use the energy from the nuclear power plants to perform electrolysis on water."
One minor nit, in that "water" isn't just water. Break down water to get H and O, and you also get all of the minerals and chemicals disolved in it. Dealing with the byproducts is one of the reasons seawater desalination plants are major engineering projects.
Who's talking $100M+ big budget? Serenity was $40M. Constant Gardener cost $25M. Broken Flowers was a "low-budget" film, and still cost $10M. Those investments need to be recouped. Especially for these types of non-blockbuster, non-formulaic films.
And films aren't unique. Commercial games and software are also in the not easily made by individuals vein. Look at the credits for a Call of Duty sometime. Or Adobe Photoshop, for that matter.
Author readings? Now you're getting really out there. The internet makes it possible for a second-tier author to promote and sell his book to hundreds of thousands of people, and you want him to personally travel to Duluth MN to read his book to all twenty of his fans there. Can you please explain the profit and economics behind that?
And as to music, no it doesn't take a huge budget to record a song. Personally, however, I think there are a lot of musicians out there who deserve to be compensated for the years they spent learning their craft, and the years most spent struggling to be heard. There's more to a song than a hour of recording studio time...
"The debate should be on whether or not these artificial burdens on the consumer are worth the extra innovation of the producer."
I don't get it. We have something that can take months and thousands of dollars to produce, or in the case of movies, years and millions of dollars, and price it such that those people who actually want it pay a small piece of the price it took to create it. Those who don't want it pay nothing.
You need to make one of those free so we can get an idea of what it's like. I'm not sure a technical audio book works without seeing code samples and screen shots.
O'Grady is betting on a Powerbook nano (blog), thought I'm not. Personally, I'm getting kind of tired of the Apple everything-must-be-thin-to-be-sexy design philosophy.
Here's an idea: Apple, do everything you need to do to create the next "impossibly small" version of one of your products. Then don't do it. Keep it the same size, and fill the available space with a BATTERY so we actually use and enjoy all of those cool features.
A video iPod that can barely display two hours of video? Please.
The iTunes window doesn't represent the iTunes application? Huh. I guess it represents Microsoft Word then, but then how does Word know about my music collection? That's Microsoft for you, always sneaking around where they don't belong.
Or would you feel better if I said Dictionary or Backup or System Preferences or DVD Player? All of those applications in the Applications folder terminate the app when the window is closed. I guess those windows don't represent those applications either. Pity. My poor Mac is in the midde of an identity crisis and I never knew it.
Slashdot Mirror
Mmmmmm... yes, but as stated it's somewhat misleading. First, a film, Velvia for example, is Velvia, be it cut into large pieces or small. As such, it resolves what it can resolve subject to grain size, dye structure, etc..
Second, at the film plane, a large format camera actually resolves fewer line pairs than its 35mm counterpart, because LF lenses are simply not as sharp or as well corrected as those on the smaller camera.
However, both factors are more than compensated for on the print, since a LF pos/neg doesn't need as high a degree of enlargement to hit the same print size as it's 35mm cousin. In fact, in some circumstances, such as an 8x10 contact print, it may need no enlargement whatsoever.
As to the later statement, that depends on the output medium. That 8x10 contact "wet" print may have jewel-like tones, but a Lightjet print made from an 8x10 scan will look remarkably similar to one captured digitally, though again, with more detail.
Even Mangelsen has gone to offering "digital" prints.
If I'm wandering around with my camera in hand ready to take "fast" snapshots, it's already on. Even when not, my thumb can throw the switch as I grab for it, and it's ready to shoot by the time its reached eye level. Of course, I'm comparing 35mm film cameras to digital 35mm cameras, as I indicated in my original question.
'Course, if you're practicing with the camera enough to make the changes on the fly as you suggest, then you're learning photography. That being the case, you're no longer in the I-don't-need-to-learn-nothing-I'll-just-dink-with- the-camera-until-I-get-it-right category you mentioned earlier.
And if I keep typing on my computer's keyboard I'll eventually wear it out too. I suppose you think I should stop typ
You can't? Crap. Now you tell me. I guess I should throw away my Hassie H1 then... ;)
Bingo. And given that you can screw around with the camera and eventually get adequate results, you probably never will. Of course, the next time you're standing there with a camera and an airplane starts heading towards another skyscraper, how much time will you have to get it right?
Probably an extreme example, but photography, even personal photography, is full of once-in-a-lifetime moments that will not wait while someone fumbles around with their camera...
Just to be fair... ;)
Okay... I'll bite. Explain why a Canon 1D is slower at taking a fast snapshot than, say, a film-based EOS-1. (Warning: I've used both.)
I'd have been happier with your answers --and assumed a pro was answering-- had you caught this one. 6x6 is, as you say, 6 cm x 6 cm. And he did get it wrong by stating it as 120 milimeters. However, 6x6 is also known in professional circles as the 120 format, just as there's a 220 format (6x6 long roll), and a 135 format (also more generally known as 35mm, or 24x36).
"A 4x5 image will, certainly, make your 35mm look like crap, but mostly because of tonal range, not resolution..."
Nope, it's the resolution. Most commercial 4x5 was done E-6, and "chrome" tends to have limited exposure latitudes and high contrast. While, say, a Canon 1Ds MII can rival 645 for some subjects, and a 24MP MF back can rival 6x6 or 6x7 for others, a good wall-sized print from 4x5 simply captures more detail. This is especially noticeable in complex, high-detail, "high-frequency" landscape scenes with lots of grass and trees.
Use a vivid film like Velvia, and the contrast bumps even higher.
"...is in FPS.. I can crank 4.5 frames a second through either of those machines, while an 8MP camera is still downloading..."
Sigh. So you've never used a 1D MII either? 8.5 fps max 40 JPEG or 20 RAW.
(Ex-commercial pro, 20 years experience, Canon Digital, Nikon, Hassie, Mamiya 6x7, Sinar 4x5, Sinar 8x10)
Of course, you still can't show us the RunMSApp10PercentFaster() function call, can you?
The aluminum Powerbook, on the other hand, is nearly a work of art.
And no Bluetooth Mighty Mouse... sigh.
The security cable "port" is still in the middle of the right hand side though, a bad design feature I've commented on before. As is, the cable runs backwards along the right side, blocking all the other ports there. Better placement would be back near the power port, as a notebook locked down at a desk would also tend to be plugged in...
They're not in the current beta, but will be in a future one...
Then you should be even more concerned with Aperture, as there you have to import the entire image into its database.
Ditto. I've had too many people tell me that they'll "fix" it in PS. Some comments I've read question why they need to learn lighting, as they'll just do that in PS too. The same feeling seems to be pervasive among some film makers as well. Rather than spend 5 mintues to fix a shot, they'll just shoot it, and then throw $100,000 at the digital effects department to clean it up.
It's not meant to be, or rather it is, but mostly it's not because you don't understand the paradigms on which it's based. It's a professional-level tool, designed for graphic arts professionals who're going to be trained in it's use and using it day-in and day-out. If all you want to do is fix the red-eye from your 3MP P&S, then use Elements or some other hand-holding piece of software.
From a similar perspective, Linux command lines and configuration files are extremely powerful, and allow administrative types to do major tasks quickly and easily. Drop a newbie with no training in front of a blinking terminal prompt, however, and he's lost. Powerful, yes. Intuitive? Not a chance.
I've also found that CRTs tend to blur, while TFTs seem sharper and make my eyes work less. This is especially true if you make sure subpixel font enhancements are turned on.
One other thing, from a developer standpoint, is to increase the code window font size. Yeah, it's more convenient to have a lot of code on the screen, but it doesn't help if you can no longer read it.
One minor nit, in that "water" isn't just water. Break down water to get H and O, and you also get all of the minerals and chemicals disolved in it. Dealing with the byproducts is one of the reasons seawater desalination plants are major engineering projects.
According to the global warming theorists we're already adding energy to the sea. Removing some could be a wash...
And films aren't unique. Commercial games and software are also in the not easily made by individuals vein. Look at the credits for a Call of Duty sometime. Or Adobe Photoshop, for that matter.
Author readings? Now you're getting really out there. The internet makes it possible for a second-tier author to promote and sell his book to hundreds of thousands of people, and you want him to personally travel to Duluth MN to read his book to all twenty of his fans there. Can you please explain the profit and economics behind that?
And as to music, no it doesn't take a huge budget to record a song. Personally, however, I think there are a lot of musicians out there who deserve to be compensated for the years they spent learning their craft, and the years most spent struggling to be heard. There's more to a song than a hour of recording studio time...
I don't get it. We have something that can take months and thousands of dollars to produce, or in the case of movies, years and millions of dollars, and price it such that those people who actually want it pay a small piece of the price it took to create it. Those who don't want it pay nothing.
This is a burden?
You need to make one of those free so we can get an idea of what it's like. I'm not sure a technical audio book works without seeing code samples and screen shots.
Here's an idea: Apple, do everything you need to do to create the next "impossibly small" version of one of your products. Then don't do it. Keep it the same size, and fill the available space with a BATTERY so we actually use and enjoy all of those cool features.
A video iPod that can barely display two hours of video? Please.
Or would you feel better if I said Dictionary or Backup or System Preferences or DVD Player? All of those applications in the Applications folder terminate the app when the window is closed. I guess those windows don't represent those applications either. Pity. My poor Mac is in the midde of an identity crisis and I never knew it.