Bacon and ham: what's the difference

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by roger_hicks|1, Mar 11, 2005.

  1. What's the difference between bacon and ham?

    This is a culturally specific question. Both 'bacon' and 'ham' can
    mean different things in English English and American English. I
    don't know about Indian English, South African English and
    Australian English, let alone Canadian English. I do know what
    happens in (usually mis-) translation into French.

    The answer to this question isn't important. But how far do similar
    misunderstandings make it hard for long-time Leica M users to
    understand reflex and digicam users; reflex users to understand
    rangefinder users; film users to understand digi-photographers; etc?

    This is a genuine question. I'm looking for examples of 'I don't
    understand it when...'

    I'll kick off with 'I don't understand it when digi users say they
    can get film quality'. Actually I do, if they restrict themselves to
    ink-jet prints of certain subjects; what I don't understand is how
    they can say that for full-page 300 dpi photomechanical repro of
    sharp pictures containing sharp detail. Then it's a Leica (or
    possibly Voigtlander) all the way -- or easier still, a larger


  2. The reason that they say they can get film quality is related to what you're saying about printing at home, but in a different manner. A casual person shooting film generally won't use Velvia or such, he or she will be using a 400 or 800-speed print film. The issue is not resolution, for which film beats digital without sweating, but perceptual noise. Digital sensors nowadays have really low noise, esp. when compared to a consumer-grade film. Consumers generally print at a magnification consistent with not seeing film grain. Even though the image size is less, a digitally captured image can generally be magnified much more than consumer-grade film, so, the user can get prints of the same size that he or she used to get with film, without noticeable degradation in quality.
  3. Actually I do, if they restrict themselves to ink-jet prints of certain subjects; what I don't understand is how they can say that for full-page 300 dpi photomechanical repro of sharp pictures containing sharp detail. Then it's a Leica (or possibly Voigtlander) all the way -- or easier still, a larger format...
    Actually you don't understand at all. There are diferences in different digital cameras, different resolution sensors and even different size sensors. In addition --as with film --the skills & process of the person developing and printing the iamge differ wildly as well. your lumping all digital cameras as if they have a single standard is like saying all 35mm film behaves only like Kodachrome 64 or only like Tmax 3200.
  4. In the states, ham is from the leg, bacon is cured, smoked side of pig. I shoot film, digital, rangefinder, 35mm, 120mm and 4x5....Warren
  5. Roger, I have 12x8 & 15x10 prints from a pro lab's Frontier derived from 35mm film shot with Contax SLR and 50mm Zeiss planar f1.4 on ISO 100 Reala and from my D70 at ISO 200 with 50mm f/1.4D AF (examples from both where tripod and remote release were used). I have no side by side comparisons because the Contax stuff got sold a while back now, but there is no qualitative difference even with close viewing. (~12")

    I have yet to get any 15x10s done with my new(ish) R3A/Summicron (and a tripod) so that comparison remains to be seen.

    I do not bother with an inkjet printer as I prefer a good frontier print whatever the original media.
  6. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I'll kick off with 'I don't understand it when digi users say they can get film quality'.
    Here's what they mean.
    Brad Evans, who has posted his photographs here, was in a juried competition last year and won. The judge, a very successful master darkroom printer, was talking to a group of people at the opening, walked over to Brad's print and said (I paraphrase here), "This is an example of a print that couldn't be done with digital."
    Brad's print was taken with a Sony digicam and printed with a Canon printer.
    So now you know what it means, particularly when people look at things objectively instead of just dissing things because of how they were made.
  7. I don't understand it when... some of us say e.g. that the current 2/50 is a great improvement over the penultimate 2/50 (one just before it) without saying "why". Sure, if you have big hands and fingers, the somewhat longer barrel features may be better for you, but if you have rather "normal" hands, and love tabs, the penultimate 2/50 may be the only way to go. Ditto "their" and "other" hoods...
  8. Roger the resolution is not too bad. ISO 400, handheld, D70.... small jpg of orginal... [​IMG] Actual pixel crop... [​IMG] And of course the screen you view with is not 300 pixels per inch so that 'actual pixel' crop would be much smaller on a print.
  9. I not going to get into any D70 vs Bessa or Leica + Summicron comparison because I enjoy having both on me. Comparing Large format to 35mm or DSLR is just nonsense.

    I love Bacon & Ham.
  10. one of the best things about the Classic Camera forum is the lack of these kinds of threads
  11. When you're talking dpi, the picture has been rasterized somewhere.

    Up to the late sixties, when photosetting was Science Fiction, my father and grandfather shot watches, shoes and jewlery with a Linhof Master Technika. They where shot in B&W and handcolored to get a "natural" color in print.
    In the seventies 4c photosetting improved as well as slide film and 6x6 slides where usable for these shots.
    In the early 90's they started scanning the slides and pagesetting with a DTP application.
    Today these shots are still taken with MF cameras.
  12. Well done Classic Camera forum.

    Claudia, do you go into bookshops and write in books you dont like... "book X is way better than this one. Don't bother with it" ?
  13. Bacon's the philosopher, ham's the sandwich.

    Film's made of chemicals, digital's made of electrical charges. Photos
    are the results of both.
  14. Jeff, I missed your post. Very well said.
  15. I don't understand it when people appear to think that you need to use a Leica (or possibly Voigtlander) to get the best (35mm) image quality.
  16. Claudia, do you go into bookshops and write in books you dont like... "book X is way better than this one. Don't bother with it" ?
    Trevor, i do not. and it serves no purpose to imply that i am a vandal who would consider defacing books that belong to someone else! my comment suggests only that this is a definite TTT (truly tired topic.)
  17. I don't eat, bacon, I don't eat ham, I don't use a digital, I likes my veggies and I likes my film. what was the question?
  18. You go, Beau*
  19. "Mary had a little lamb,/ Then she had some mutton,/ Then she had a little ham./Mary was a little glutton." (Churchy LaFemme)
  20. "if they restrict themselves to ink-jet prints of certain subjects; what I don't understand is how they can say that for full-page 300 dpi photomechanical repro of sharp pictures containing sharp detail. Then it's a Leica (or possibly Voigtlander) all the way -- or easier still, a larger format..."
    Of course, all things being equal there's no substitute for a larger format (contrary to the belief of the Leica fundamentalists). However, some might be surprised at how well modern digital does if they actually tried it sometime rather than waste their time number crunching to derive figures and theories that make them look only a bit smarter than a rust stain. You know, the ones who claim their Leica M6 and 50mm Summicron can "do the equivalent of 80 megapixels," therefore making it "far superior" to a Phase One back.
    Anyway, 300 dpi full-page isn't exactly demanding these days. Last year I did a 300 dpi 11x17" doubletruck in a glossy that the prepress guys couldn't stop asking me about. D70, 28/1.4, tripod - that's it. In my experience, 6MP dSLRs outperform 35mm film, the new 8MP standard is beginning to approach medium format, while 16.7 in the EOS-1Ds MKII just about blows medium format out of the water. I don't number-crunch - I shoot with this stuff.
  21. i think we need to get a therapist in here to discuss the deep seated fears that we are refusing to face.

  22. I am a pro-film but don't want to get involved about the reasons, again.

    I just want to say that all die hard pro-film persons I know and still maintaining to use film today are all very aware and interested to keep updating what digital cameras/prints can do. Excellant digital prints are everywhere now and they are improving quite amazingly - you cannot fail to become aware of them if you keep going to camera shops and the salesman cannot wait to show you the latest best of the best digital prints here. Almost all of such diehards have tried several digital camera models already. Thus, please don't just show them your digital files on screen as if you are teaching them something or proving something. I would rather you simply deem all of them are wrong and send your own digital files only for the sake of sharing photos .

    Another fact is (I don't know whether it is also true in US), almost all film die hard in this part of the world are not new to photography and money is normaly not an (important) issue to them with respect to cameras and lenses, or other supporting equipment. For this they really continue to buy the latest digital equipment but just decide not to use them. They just want the best they can get, according to their standards. What digital people don't agree is their standards and how to achieve such standards, which I believe can be discussed meaningfully in this forum. But just show them your digital file to prove something is ..... I don't how to describe it....
  23. I shoot with this stuff.
    I think you will find that Roger does too, as do many others here.
  24. Must say, Beau, that your ascetic approach has enabled you to make some great photos. Must be the veggies.

    Jeff - Good story. (Perhaps one you've told before, but it fits well here.) I find myself wondering whether you or Brad ever told the judge the truth ? And if so, how did he react ?
  25. "I think you will find that Roger does too, as do many others here."
    Somehow, for the most part, I doubt it - at least to the point of being able to say they have extensive experience with both media, including the currently available digital stuff (Nikon D1 doesn't count). That's why their arguments don't hold water. In fact, once they get worked up, the sad truth of their ignorance comes out, such as in this classic thread where "Maestro Logos" says:
    "I still wouldn't care less for 35mm digital even if it was given to me. Not when the quality is that poor and appalling to look at."
    "That poor and appalling to look at"? Obviously this person has never used even a basic 6MP dSLR. So after all this back-and-forth, it turns out that this person really knows zilch about what he's talking about.
  26. Fang, I've seen output from large format digital backs that matches film,
    whatever. But explain to me how you can transcend the laws of phyics and
    get a 6MP DLSR give equivalent quality to a 300dpi scan, over a spread. I'm
    open minded, just tell me. I can understand how, if the image is great, it will
    work well enough. I've blown imagea up 50 per cent beyond what you'd
    ideally need to print at 300dpi, and got away with it. But I'd like you to explain
    how you can double the info you ideally need, and transcend the sampling
    theory that underlies the design of the machines you're using.
  27. "Porkchops and bacon, my two favorite animals." Homer Simpson
  28. Paul, forgive my limited knowledge of these things. Before I got the D70 I simply assumed the max print size of a 3000 x 2000 pixel file at 300 dpi was 10" x 7" or thereabouts (300 dpi x 10" = 3000 pixels was how I reasoned it) so I stuck to 9"x6" prints just to give (what I thought would be) a small quality 'margin.'

    When I first had a 12"x8" D70 image pro lab printed, I was very suprised at the quality. This encouraged me to be rash and try a 15"x10" of the same photo. It contained even more detail than the 12"x8". I do not know enough about any sizing/print density algorithms going on in the Fuji Frontier (or Noritsu) to explain it.
  29. Paul, here's what I do: I prep from the RAW file (which I have the camera to save in conjunction with JPEG-fine). I use local contrast enhancement in Photoshop, adjust color balance and levels, burn and dodge, then unsharp mask. Then I resample (bicubic) to whatever output size and resolution I need. For pre-press, the only additional step I need to do is CMYK conversion. That's it. Admittedly I don't have any experience with Genuine Fractals, QImage or other upsampling programs, but PS has worked very well for me.
    <p>As I understand it, Photoshop doesn't "transcend the laws of physics." There are just some very good algorithms out there, as Trevor discovered, for plugging additional information into a picture file. Although these algorithms also work for film scans, they work far better on a clean digitally-captured file.
    <p>Look, I know photographers who are anti-digital because they like to have a piece of tangible film in their hands, they don't like computers, they like the wide contrast range of Tri-X, etc all of which I can't argue against and have to respect. But to diss digital because "the quality is that poor and appalling to look at" is, well, just ignorant.
  30. Maybe digital capture will become the great 'technical leveller' and photographers will be forced to judge images on their content and aesthetics, rather than technical perceptions.Apart from the quality of manufacture, longevity and reliability of very expensive cameras, it could be threatening to know that a much cheaper camera can equal the technical quality of a much dearer one, and therefore raises the question 'why did I buy it[the dearer camera]'? much too often for comfort.

    I'm just glad that we still[and will] have a choice of capture medium.

  31. El Fang, that was a great post of yours. Good Job. You've been pretty good lately but this one was really constructive.

    FWIW I got skunked last week with Canon 1V. I got so used to my D30's Automatic White Balance balanced with 81B filter that I neglected to take the filter off when shooting under hockey rink lights. The result was a strong green cast on all my images. Gotta love the digital's adjustment for indoor lighting.
  32. To my ancient and red-green color blind eyes, there is not enough difference in intrinsic photo quality between quality digital output(D70, for instance), and quality 35 mm photos to overcome the substantial advantages of digital, namely rapid gratification, ready for computer manipulation without scanning, computer archiving, and transmission. I keep on using the old mechanical cameras because they are of my vintage, are fun to use, are objects of beauty in themselves, and occasionally surprise me by producing outstanding images, despite me being the limiting factor.
  33. Time for a picture.... [​IMG]
  34. Hey, folks, we aren't helping Roger with his article. He asked the question about film quality vs. digital only as one example of "I don't understand it when...." He needs more:

    - I don't understand it when people say "the camera doesn't matter." Oh, yeah? Can you imagine HCB using a Linhof? Or Ansel Adams shooting Half Dome with a Minox? Those are extreme examples, but even on a lower plane, the feel of a 35mm rangefinder camera is different than the feel of a 35mm SLR, and the difference can certainly influence the pictures you take. Although it's true that a good photographer can take good photographs with virtually any working camera, it's important to match the type of camera to your photographic style, and to use a camera you're comfortable with. Visit a music shop someday and watch how guitarists pick out a new guitar. That's how choosy we should be about our cameras.

    - I don't understand it when people say you need an inkjet printer with pigmented inks to get long-lasting ("archival") prints. Independent testing shows that some dye-based inks and papers deliver as much or more longevity that some pigmented inks and papers.

    - I don't understand it when people say digital photography can't be truthful because it's so easily manipulated. Photographers have been manipulating photographs almost since photography was invented. In the 1850s, photographers like Oscar Rejlander and Henry Robinson carefully masked and combined a dozen or more negatives to make a single print depicting a fictional scene -- a feat that few of today's digital photographers could duplicate, even with Adobe Photoshop. More recently, Newsweek composited the head of Martha Stewart on a model's body for a cover illustration. Photographs have always lied. Truth is a virtue of the photographer, not of the photograph.

    - I don't understand it when people criticize the onrush of digital. We are living in the most exciting transition in photography since the late 1800s, when the inventions of flexible film and fast emulsions liberated cameras from tripods and made hand-held, life-on-the-fly photography possible. Go for it!
  35. Fang, I understand why Trevor's output looks fine - it's not screened, so he
    can print greyscale at 150dpi and it will look fine. I'm intrigued by the notion
    that output from a digital camera is better suited to interpolation than output
    from a scanner. But I concede that MP3 files can sound just as good as CD,
    even though they contain a fraction of the information.<p>
    Did you ever hear about an early demonstration technique for vinyl (or
    shellac) records? THey conducted tests with a 78 record played on a
    phonograph behind one curtain, and a string quartet behind the other.
    Listeners couldn't tell the difference. Really. They hadn't learned to recognise
    the limitations of recorded sound, as it was then.
  36. Wow, some can get film quality so they say. But does anybody do better than film which whould make me change?

    a relative just showed me a digi print of her child at school by the school photographers. YUCK YUCK It looked worse than the drugstore prints. I carefully explained again it was processing just like film, but the person just didn`t know what he was doing. Digi is not the answer.
  37. Ronald, that might be true - in one of London's biggest department stores the
    other day, they were selling an expensive package of a small printer and a
    Nikon digital P&S where the quality was truly laughable. But that doesn't
    mean anything. People here have proved you can shoot lousy images with
    expensive film cameras. And over at other forums, there are lousy images
    shot with $8k digital cameras. Personally, I;ve seen several people here
    maintain you can rez up or resample digital pix to sizes I wouldn't have
    thought possible, and I'm intrigued, and would like to see more information
    about it.
  38. I can't believe it's not butter...
  39. Hi Roger! One of my favorite examples of your "bacon/ham" situation is that every time an
    American talks about a "fanny pack" the Englishmen around him get the giggles. To us
    "fanny" means the same thing as "bum". I believe that in English English it refers to a
    woman's genitalia?
  40. El Fang, you do realize Roger has posed a question for discussion rather than a dogmatic position, yes? He has stated in print (Amateur Photographer) that he owns & uses a Nikon D70. He's even had nice things to say about it.

    My response would be that 35mm format photographers tend to overrate resolution and underrate grain/noise. All you need is enough resolution to yield a snappy-looking print at your intended size(s). Beyond that with apps like Photoshop you can control contrast at the micro and macro levels to provide the precise amount of snap you want. And with digital your enlargement potential isn't noise-limited, at least not at lower ISOs. With greater enlargements your photos will eventually fall apart detail-wise rather than be overwhelmed by noise. But with 35mm film, Tech Pan perhaps excluded (but now out of production anyway), you have the opposite situation: grain takes over the image before you run out of detail. Of course if you like to exploit grain for mood and effect, as I sometimes do, you can ignore the whole discussion.

    Subjectively speaking I'd say my low-ISO 8x12" prints from my Canon 20D & Epson R-D1 have a higher quality look to them than my low-ISO 35mm film 8x12s due to lack of grain/noise. The digi prints look smoother tonally and I know how to make good use of the resolution on tap.

  41. this may not be kosher....and certainly the title analogy isn't...but i am curious about the ratio of film users getting on the Digital Forum and the digitital users who get on the Leica Forum to do missionary work. personally, i don't care what people use to take pix. but it is really boring to see these tirades against film mavens on this forum. the same stuff gets said over and over. why not take it to forums that already exist about digital cameras and digital processing? why does the Leica forum attract the digital versus film threads? as i stated above, the Classic Camera forum is immune to this plague because it deals with cameras made before 1971. personal attacks.
  42. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Claudia, it wouldn't happen if the original post didn't contain such a ridiculous statement.
  43. well, actually the question is sort of about digital emulating film. do people who shoot film get on the digital forums and argue that film can look as digital as digital?
  44. It can be difficult to tell the difference between bacon and ham. Having said that, I can
    state with a degree of certainty that Roger is pure ham, with a big side serving of cheese.
    I'd also like to point out that Roger has published over 2000 books, over 3 million
    magazine articles, and is president of MENSA. I only do so because Roger is far too self
    effacing to bring attention to these matters himself.
  45. y'know...these sort of personal assessments aren't very useful. how about if we all refrain from personal attacks and assessments of personalities when people make comments. wasn't there a statement from the moderators about this recently? personal attacks.
  46. I hear you Claudia, but aren't you the one always wrestling in the mud with Z? It's also not
    very useful when people like Roger (knowingly?) put out misinformation regarding digital,
    or anything else.
  47. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Claudia -

    Are you coming to the show with Brad and my pix in it tomorrow?

    Just wondering.
  48. Unlit
  49. Somehow the above pictures are not so dark when I am in Photoshop. Does anyone know why?
  50. Dali lives!
  51. sorry, am totally obsessed with "Blackie" righ now....i don't have time for anything else
  52. I wonder if he was using a digi.
  53. Bacon or ham. Puff Daddy or P. Diddy. He's still the King of New York.
  54. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Well Claudia, you'll be stuck with what you see here instead of my great prints. Sorry, we'd have loved to see you.

    PS: I even went back into the darkroom to print on fibre for this show.
  55. sorry about the is "Blackie"
  56. Part of my flag series. This one is from Newberry Street. Looking at the John Hancock building.
  57. Where's the pancake bunny?
  58. The digital camera forum is a cold and lonely place to die.
  59. where's your pix for the shootout, Vic?
  60. Trash
  61. badly exposed flag
  62. Trav, it's too cold here. The camera will hold up, but I won't.
  63. Yeah, the flag was badly exposed, I was shooting into the sun. But it appears ok in Photoshop.
  64. This one looks ok.
  65. This one!
  66. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    badly exposed flag
    Boring too...
  67. Vic, so which one you sending me?
  68. Boring too...
    You're right, I agree with you. So why are you looking at it and commenting upon it? Your life at the moment must be more boring than the boring picture.
  69. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I'm a professional commenter. It's my job.
  70. Spirer, I actually like some your pictures, the ones on your website. Best wishes in the show!
  71. A smile for you, Jeff.
  72. "Philly's more fun when you sleep over with Dali" at the top of the frame...

    and then a Levitra ad at the bottom.

    Reminds me of the time 35 years ago, when editing my high school newspaper, that I inadvertently ran the obituary of a retired teacher, who had died six months earlier, next to a poem titled, "They Buried Her Last Week."
  73. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Hmmm, this is more interesting, at least to me...

    Cell Phone, Copyright 2005 Jeff Spirer
  74. Looks like an Erwin Puts test shot.
  75. Well, my digicam is a Leica Digilux zoom, all 1.3 mp of joy. I'm absolutely crazy about it, use it way more often than my CL or SL, but not quite as much as my Arca-Swiss. All this love/hate stuff just makes me smile. Like ballpoint! pencil! rollerball! They're ALL good. Just gotta use your brains about when to use what. My dad can beat YOUR dad. Nyaaaah. :p Say, is that shot digital or 35 or what?
  76. rj



    I don't understand when people can't talk sensibly with someone who uses a different photographic medium to shoot, edit, or print with. I don't quite understand why someone shooting digital capture has to say they can mimick film. Why would they want to mimic film. Digital has so many more possibilities for different looks, why try to emulate something that already exists.

    I think the difference is that people will work in whatever medium they feel comfortable with getting the results they wish and just think it is the best way for them, so it must be for everybody else. It really is a pointless argument since the working methods of a film/darkroom user are so much more different than a digital capture/lightroom user, different people will be attracted to each one. Anyway, its late, I'm tired, I'm not making much sense.
  77. Bacon taste better. You have it with eggs and toast plus tomato if you like to have a
    healthy balanced diet.

    Ham, you put in a sandwich with salads and a bit of mayo.

    Both came from pigs, so it's off limits to moslems.
  78. " Subject: Bacon and ham: what's the difference

    What's the difference between bacon and ham? <bunch of stuff omitted>
    The answer to this question isn't important.<bunch more stuff omitted>
    This is a genuine question. I'm looking for examples of 'I don't understand it when...'

    I'll kick off with 'I don't understand it when digi users say they can get film quality'."

    This has got to be the most contrived segue into a simple digital-bashing troll that I've seen so far on the internet. I'm genuinely perturbed, that new high-end digital cameras are extremely expensive by comparison to their film counterparts while at the same time my film equipment has nosedived in trade value. Much more importantly, after 35 years reaching the crest of the learning curve using film, I'm less than thrilled at the prospect of starting over at the base of another one, because I don't have another 35 years to spend. For those reasons I'll be shooting film as long as I can get it. So Roger, "I don't understand it when..." people feel they have to denigrate digital on technological grounds to justify their choice not to use it.
  79. Mainly to Trevor,

    Does the Frontier scan the film before printing it, making it a digital original?
  80. "but i am curious about the ratio of film users getting on the Digital Forum and the digitital users who get on the Leica Forum to do missionary work."
    I don't do "missionary work" because that sort of thing requires somebody who proselytizes without provocation. I have never started any pro-digital/anti-film threads. Rather, I respond to people who make erroneous statements.
    "the same stuff gets said over and over."
    Because the same ignorant anti-digital BS keeps popping up over and over.
    "why does the Leica forum attract the digital versus film threads?"
    Because the dismissal by Leica and its loyal customers of digital is one of the reasons (arguably) that Leica is in trouble today, and ignorance of the technology is at least partly to blame. I don't need VR/IS or 8fps to do my work. If Leica came out with a 1.3x or full frame, RELIABLE digital M of at least 6MP, I'd drop all my dSLR stuff in a heartbeat, and I know plenty of working photographers who would do the same.
    We need people to snap out of their "film will be around forever" fantasy and start SCREAMING at Leica to drop the "First Royal Bowel Movement of Timbuktu Baby Prince" nonsense and divert what little R&D money they have into a digital-M right now, before the rest of their credit lines are cancelled.
  81. Film will be around until the day I die, if I stuff enough bacon (without the tomatoes) in
    me. That's good enough for me.

    Now will someone pass the salt?
  82. Roger,

    I hope this article does appear soon! I'm not sure what use this thread has become though!

    I don't understand it when so-called wine experts talk about a wine having a certain taste, say that of "strawberries", or maybe a "hint of citrus" - "rubbish", I say! Actually I say more than that, but I really can't taste it. I would go so far as to suggest that many of these comments are just fabrications, but I really don't know.

    What relevance is this, you may ask?

    Well, in the same way that I like a particular wine purely because it tastes nice 'TO ME', I may state my preference for one print over another because 'I' like the look of it. It pleases me, not necessarily anyone else. This is the beauty of life and art. We're all different, and some people appreciate the beauty of one piece of Classical music over another, whilst some prefer Punk or Ballads.

    This aspect of life is what separates us from any other species - we are truly different in the most basic of our needs. Digital or Film? Who cares, if the human eye cannot detect the grain (whatever the size of print) without a magnifying aid. What has become more important to me in recent years is, sadly, size. If my camera bag is the size of a small suitcase, I am unlikely to always have it with me. Call me lazy if you want, I'm realistic. At this period in my life, SLRs are just too big to warrant carrying - a relatively small Leica with a couple of small lenses will cover most of my photography. For the school sports days etc, I have a Nikon 8800 8MP with built in Vibration Reduction. I believe I have a good compromise (FOR ME).

    One thing I do know is that I stupidly sold (and regret to this day) a Canon T90 to fund an early 2MP digital camera, and I also know that my recently purchased M7 will keep at least 50% of it's value for many, many years to come. Meanwhile, the EOS300D (who on earth would deign themselves to shoot at 6MP next year when 8-10 will be the norm??) is now half price after only 12-18 mths, and with the M7 I don't feel that the 'must have' replacement is just around the corner.

    Now, where's that Chateau Neuf du Pape?

  83. Here are a couple I have often noticed here. (Im from Australia)

    Ass to me is a type of Donkey the word is arse. Butt is the thing at the end of a cigarette.

    A rubber is a pencil eraser.

    Our soft drinks are called sodas in the USA

    Our Lollies are candy in the USA

    4wd or 4 wheel drive (Australia) SUV (USA)

    The Woods (American), The Forest (Europe) The Bush (Australia). Bush bashing means to drive through the the rough tracks in forests in 4 wheel drives. Its a political term in the USA.

    A root in Australia means more than base parts of a tree, (equivalent to a screw in the usa) most amusing when the American Olympic team at the Sydney Olympics all came with Roots embroided on their uniforms! Someone should have done their homework I think.

    We would say we "Could not care less", Americans say "Could care less" (Weird!)

    World in American means USA (eg World Series) Here the world means
    the entire globe

    Football is Soccer in UK here its Rugby. I think that more has to do with the most popular sport in that particular region gets the football title. In America it means something again, some kind of training sport where they all wear helmets and padding, I havent actually seen them play without them so I assume its just a training expercise! (wink)

    Americans are Yanks, English are Poms, New Zealanders are Kiwis and Australians are Skips (none of these are derogatory so dont panic PC police, its only when other words are added do they become offensive)

    In a photgraphic sense Vignetting here always referred to an obstruction in the corners of a photo like an ill fitting hood while light fall off is caused by the actual lens design namely in wide angles. But I have seen most Americans refer to light fall off as vignetting.

    But this is how the english language evolves all the reverse flow from other countries. During WW2 it was noted and a huge jump in the expansion of the english language due to the large amount of America troops stationed there. When they left many words stayed and remain there to this day.
  84. Vic, please tell us whether your photos are from film or digital, so we can decide whether
    we like them.

  85. Well, thanks to everone. I think we got a pretty good selection of cultural differences, some revealed deliberately, others (equally telling) from those who didn't understand the question.

    Anti-digital troll? That wasn't what I intended. Perhaps the most interesting point was from RJ Hicks: why compare the two? You don't paint watercolours with oil paints and you don't do oil paintings with watercolours. Anyone who has seen the April Shutterbug (at least, I think it's April -- my copy hasn't arrived in France yet and I forgot to pick one up in Florida) should have seen one of my digi shots used whole page plus several others at smaller sizes, so yes, I do use both.

    Tom Halfhill's post was very helpful too: thanks Tom for some more good ideas and for understanding the question. One of the pleasures of the forum is receiving new ideas, a pleasure some seem determined to deny themselves. Likewise David Kieltyka: again, thanks. And Dave Chadderton. Oh, and Steve; yes, you're right.

    For sheer pointless offensiveness, Doris Chan probably won. I am also puzzled at the charge that I am spreading misinformation or disinformation but I can live with the charge, considering its source.

    There's no particular article planned, though probably some of these ideas will re-surface in my Matter of Opinion column in Amateur Photographer. I just like to find out what some people are thinking; if others are thinking; and whether some can think at all.


  86. Sadly Roger, I think you did get an answer to your very last point! But then, this is how the world is, and probably we're all the better for it. Maybe.

  87. Roger: "For sheer pointless offensiveness, Doris Chan probably won."

    Well it's always pleasing to come first at something. Actually, leaving aside whether it was
    offensive, I'd argue that it wasn't pointless. The point was that you appeared to be being
    disingenuous in your original post.

    "I am also puzzled at the charge that I am spreading misinformation or disinformation...."

    OK, how about this recent classic? "Few editors are happy to run a 6 megapixel image any
    bigger than about half page......" You then qualified this patently untrue statement by
    reminding us of your "50+ books" and "thousands of magazine articles". If this isn't
    misinformation then I don't know what is. Perhaps you can explain why editors are
    cheerfully running covers and double-page spreads from digital cameras at Time, US
    News, Newsweek (actually a number of their contract photographers are working with 5MP
    Olympus cameras) Sports Illustrated, L'Express, Stern and countless other magazines
    around the world? They aren't just resorting to digital when immediacy is the primary

    "....but I can live with the charge, considering its source"

    Have we met?
  88. "Have we met?"

    I'll take two tickets, front row, please.
  89. Huw

    I've often wondered that myself, lets hope an answer comes,but

    wouldn't the resulting image be a copy/dupe rather than another[?] original?


  90. I love high quality film and digital images, and I use both technologies. What I don't like is the anticipated hassle of preserving computer files over time. Or the idea that if the print is the preservation medium, every important image should be printed at a large size. The digital photography industry should do more to address questions of permanence.
  91. We need people to snap out of their "film will be around forever" fantasy and start SCREAMING at Leica to drop the "First Royal Bowel Movement of Timbuktu Baby Prince" nonsense and divert what little R&D money they have into a digital-M right now, before the rest of their credit lines are cancelled.
    i dunno, that sounds like missionary zeal to me. why does Leica have to be "saved?" praise the lord and pass the film (~_-)
  92. Bruno,

    Just did a Google and it does.
  93. Dear Doris,

    News magazines are a tiny percentage of all the magazines on earth. They are not my market -- perhaps they are yours, though I don't recognize your by-line -- but I stand by my original 'patently untrue' statement about the unhappiness of editors in magazines and (still more) books when it comes to printing low-res images.

    I don't think we've met, but then again, I don't know if that's your real name. Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us all.


  94. Bacon and ham and quiche lorraine. I get it now! Good one.
  95. "At this period in my life, SLRs are just too big to warrant carrying..."
    Olympus OM-1 etc. with 50mm/F1.4 lens: 136x83x89mm, 740g.
    (A fine camera with a great set of available lenses for short money...)
  96. Incidentally I just did a Google search on Doris Chan and was amazed at how many people share that name. I hope 'our' Doris is the one from The Hong Kong Pest Management Association. But no doubt she/he will enlighten us.


  97. Don't tempt fate Roger, if I am the Pest Control Doris then I might just put Shutterbug out
    of it's misery......
  98. actually Roger, I think Doris does know whereof she speaks, even if she;s
    occasionally a little cheeky. She has some relatives who seem to know,
    generally, what they're talking about. I'd like to know more about those 5MP
    Olympus cameras - who's using them, which Olympus, and for what kind of
    <p>BTW, Doris, do tell your brother that, in response to one of his recent
    comments, I asked an art director and photographer friend, who was recently
    head of design at TOny Stone/Getty, shoots a lot of digital - and has the most
    pre-press experience of any photog I know - about Boris's comments re drum
    scanners. He told me they were 'complete crap'. A friend of his at one of
    London's leading pre-press houses just bought three. What, in Boris's
    opinion, would give better results, and why? (Do ask him what disco records
    he's checking out at the moment, too).
  99. Joel Matherson wrote that, "... I have seen most Americans refer to light fall off as vignetting."

    I don't think this is a regional problem. Vignetting normally means a darkening of the corners because of something that blocks all or some of the light reaching those corners (or edges). So it certainly can be caused by a hood that's too small, or that's rectangular and not on straight. Here, "vignetting" is the cause, and "light falloff" is a symptom.

    If I want to talk about a lens that shows light falloff (a symptom), there can be more than one cause. As you mention, wide angle lenses (especially for cameras that don't require the lens to be more than a certain distance from the film) can have light falloff that has nothing to do with vignetting.

    But there are other aspects of lens design that can cause light falloff. One of them is vignetting. For example, take a non-wide lens (like 50mm or 90mm on a 35mm camera), and close the aperture a couple of stops from wide open. When you look through the lens from the back, the shape of the iris will be round (or whatever regular polygon it is) in the center of the frame, and also probably in the corners. If this lens is long enough that it sits a good distance away from the film, then the whole frame is likely to be evenly illumninated. No light falloff.

    Open this same lens up all the way. Now, you should see that the iris is round when you look from the center of the frame (on axis with the lens). As you look from farther off axis, toward the corners of the frame, you may see (depending on the lens) that the aperture no longer looks round, and it's smaller than when you look on axis. You may even notice that it looks a lot like you have a too-small hood on the lens -- maybe even at both ends. This is the lens barrel itself restricting the light, and it's fairly called "vignetting." Maybe we should call it internal vignetting, but it's certainly vignetting, and the result is light falloff.

    So, as another example, if I claim that the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 lens has very little light falloff at f/2.8, but that the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 shows lots of light falloff at f/2.8 and some at f/4, due to internal vignetting, that's all consistent.
  100. Paul, they're Olympus E1s, and I should point out that they're supplied by Olympus. Having
    said that, they like the results that they're getting and they wouldn't use them simply
    because they're free. The problem for a lot of serious reportage photographers is that
    Canon 1 series digitals are just too big and heavy (unlike on a 1v you can't just throw away
    the big battery pack)- they're fine if you're a sport or local press photographer but can be
    overwhelming if you putting in really long hours in a hostile climate. The attraction of the
    Olympus is that it's compact but also well sealed. Personally, I don't thing they deliver as
    much as an EOS20D.

    Regarding your friend at Getty, if he really likes drum scanners then I'm guessing in his
    film days he was working with transparency rather than neg. Drum scanners will give
    startlingly good results with transparency, but can struggle appallingly with neg -
    particularly with the more interesting emulsions like NPS and NPZ. A lot of pre-press guys
    will be really dismissive of Imacon scanners, but, if you're working on color neg then they
    really are the way to go. They're cheap (compared to a drum scanner), compact, fast, low-
    maintenance, and really preserve the character of film emulsions - Kodachrome still looks
    Kodachrome after scanning and NPZ still looks like NPZ. Too many scanners strip away all
    character and make all emulsions look alike.

    Regarding your musical query, apparently Boris is going through a bit of an old school
    Chicago house phase. Anyway, I'm in Manila right now and it's very late, so goodnight.
  101. Thanks John, those are very specific examples, but I was more referring to general off the cuff usage of the terms. Although never 100%, I just notice that there is a regional deviation on the genral use of the term.
  102. Sorry, Joel. I'll try to not fall into that trap.
  103. I might just put Shutterbug out of it's misery......​

    Then where else will we be able to read marginally-rewritten press releases called 'Previews'?
  104. It's all about the eye of the beholder. Anyway better post a relaxing photo before we all get a bit heated..........
  105. I'll kick off with 'I don't understand it when digi users say they can get film quality'. Actually I do, if they restrict themselves to ink-jet prints of certain subjects; Hmm whole plate users used to say the same thing about 35mm. 35mm was convenient and was about getting the photo....cutting edge really. Digital is about the same thing, don't you think? Time moves on. It's always been about getting the photo, the rest just follows along. Nothing has changed Regard Allen.
  106. despite all the crepe hanging and the donning of widow's weeds by the drama queens of the digi/film debate, it you look at the Unified Forum you will notice that at least for users of this site film is still up there. just an observation. personal attacks. i no longer reply to them.
  107. Dear Allen,

    And they were right. Which is why I like 5x7 inch contact prints so much. It's also why I've lately been making just 3x enlargements off 56x72mm '6x7cm' to get, yes, whole plate.

    Yes, the picture is the thing. And using the appropriate camera to get the effect you want is part of that. If you are prepared to put up with a loss of technical quality in return for greater convenience, fine. Just don't pretend that you can match the bigger or better camera.

    As for the argument advanced elsewhere in the thread that digital is a great leveller and will force us to look at aesthetics rather than technique, this is a non-starter. If even the most diehard digital user really couldn't see quality differences, or didn't care about them, there would not have been the pixel escalation there has been from less than 1 to 6 as the amateur and news standard or 22 as the 'high quality' standard.

    As I've said before, and as my published articles demonstrate, I use digi as well as film. It's just that I care enough about image quality to use the right camera for a particular job whenever possible.


  108. zzzz...

    Anyone else see the correlation between the die-hard propping up of film's "superiority,"
    and the general quality level of images posted on this forum? Telling, isn't it?
  109. Sorry, Paul, didn't mean for my post to whoosh over your head - it wasn't about exclusivity
    of poor images. Whenever photography is reduced to being about gear and film/digi
    issues, inevitably, poor images result. Take a look at what's posted on the Street forum,
    where nobody gives a rats a## about film/digi silliness.
  110. a good digi picture taken by you or a poor film pic taken by you? Which would you choose?
  111. Oh Brad, thank you so much for explaining. I too am bored of endless film v
    digital trolling. I am merely pointing out that dull images are the preserve of
    diehards on both sides. I note also that while you agree no one side has the
    monopoly of dull images, you chose specifically to condemn those on this
    forum. <p>
    Personally I don't give a rat's arse, I'm interested in good photographs
    whatever the medium.
  112. Roger [Hicks]

    I did not say that digital is the great leveller, but suggested that "maybe digital capture will become the great leveller. . ." inferring that in the future when digital has mature that possiblity may occur.

    Roger, if you are going to quote someone, to make a point ,it does help to get the quote right!


  113. Dear Bruno,

    Sorry. I stand corrected. I am quite happy to admit this -- when it happens.


  114. Roger

    No Probs!


  115. Bacon and eggs (in the UK)-the bacon is to die for, folks. My favorite USA diner eggs and bacon is now a distant runner up in the bacon department. And note, American diner bacon has been slipping seriously in the last decade. A large population of discriminating palates (OK, just me) has been monitoring the situation closely!

    Roger, I think the film and digital 'bacon' and 'ham' divide is very real. Surely one has to have very selective memory to forget that fabulous chrome look of just a few short years ago, when quality fresh processing of chromes were not hard to find. But its very hard to explain to people who have not actually seen it.

    The same is true of niche enthusiasms. Agfa Portriga, now vanished, is simply untouched as an expressive portrait BW medium, for those who have seen it. For those who haven't an HP 8250 monochrome print will wow them.

    On the flip side, its hard to explain the enlargeability and clean look of digital to film fans, who have no practical experience of it.

    The biggest 'bacon' and 'ham' dichotomy in world views, of course, from the point of view of this forum, is that between longtime rangefinder shooters, and those who have never invested the time to understand the subtle change in shooting and visualization style it can induce. Its just so much hokum, if you're an SLR user, and have never had the opportunity to get beyond the 1000=2000 shot learning curve that rangefinders entail.

    Just my two bits.
  116. Dear Mani,

    Your response is the closest to what I was thinking: people who have only one 'experience track' cannot appreciate another. You have to try things, experience them, care about them. I was surprised at how many people thought I was just trying to plug a particular view (one accused me of 'anti-digital trolling' or some such) when what I was really trying to do was see where these cultural divides fall and how people feel about them.


  117. On the whole I prefer green eggs and bacon.

    Nevermind. Roger, what I don't understand is why it seems to have to be one or the other?
    Film and digital are both wonderful. Whether it's an M6, 35 Lux and Tri-X, or a 20D with a
    24 f1.4--they're both great as ofcourse are the results. As a great American once said,
    "Why can't we all just get along?"
  118. Dear John,

    That wasn't my point. I DO use both film (in all formats up to 8x10 inch) and digital (D70, Epson coming soon I hope). I'd buy a 4x5 scanning back if I could afford one. But they don't do the same things and the prints don't look the same.

    At happy-snap size the difference between 35mm and digital and indeed 6x7cm may be negligible or non-existent; at A3 (297x420mm) the difference will be very clear in some pictures (where texture and detail are important) and irrelevant in others.

    This is what I was getting at. There is a culture that says digital is good for nothing, and another culture that can't see why anyone shoots film. We had a fair number of both in earlier responses. You are one of the few to make the wise response that there is room for both -- but I am in total agreement with you, and have said nothing to the contrary.

    What I can't understand is first, people who make wildly optimistic claims for digital sharpness, and second, people who can't imagine any style of photography other than their own.


  119. Roger, I don't understand, "Then it's a Leica (or possibly Voigtlander) all the way"?

    Are these really better than any of the other 35mm marks in real-life use?
  120. Yes, it's time...
  121. The pancake bunny was mildly amusing the first time it was posted but now that it has been posted dozens of times it is just plain stupid. Come to think of it, it was stupid the first time it was used. Enough is enough. Have you heard the saying "equus moribundum flagellatum et interum"? It means to beat a dead into the ground and bury it".
  122. Dear Andy,

    Well, an RF prime is a LOT easier to design and build than a reflex lens under 50mm or a zoom, so yes.


  123. Dear Eliot,

    Hear! Hear!

    But it's so much quicker than devising an intelligent answer...

    (though a typing gremlin killed the horse)


  124. Thanks for your answer, Roger.
  125. Sorry about that, here's something different...
  126. Roger Hicks commented wryly " What I can't understand is first, people who make wildly optimistic claims for digital sharpness, and second, people who can't imagine any style of photography other than their own."

    Roger, in some cases it comes down to a simple lack of experience or, perhaps, knowledge of technique. Some years ago, when digital gear wasn't as capable as today's latest most best, I sat in on a presentation on aquarium photography on compuserve's fishnet. The presenter claimed that it was impossible to take good pictures of fish in aquaria with film based imaging devices but not too hard with digital. When asked about his experience with film and why he thought it was a poor choice, he replied to the effect that he'd shot two rolls, got consistently poor results, and then gave up on the technology. There's a lot of this kind of ignorance and intellectual laziness around. People who don't want to learn how to use a technology to best advantage tend to think its useless.

    The same is true for claims of the benefits of a virtually costless recording medium. These make me think of the days when amateurs hosed camcorders around recording everything and getting no usable, um, footage. Video is a fine medium for making films if one is poor and not too exacting about image quality, but that doesn't save it from being used badly.


  127. Dear Dan,

    A fine point at which to let this thread fall off the end of the list!


  128. loss of technical quality in return for greater convenience, fine. Just don't pretend that you can match the bigger or better camera.

    Why would i pretend that a smaller neg is as good as a much larger neg?
    As i said before it's about getting the photo, that's what it's all about.

    Anyone can buy a whole plate camera and take a technically wonderful photo of boredom. Hey, give me a interesting photo taken on a cell phone.

    Having said all that quality can add to a photo but never make a photo in my opinion.

    Love the Churchill quote in your column.

    May the force be with you;).... Regards Allen

    All gets a bit serious and heavy around here.

Share This Page