Bacon and ham: what's the difference

[jim_simmons]

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?<div></div>

[rj]

Roger,

 

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.

[cheec]

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.

[ben z]

" 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.

[huw_finney]

Mainly to Trevor,

 

Does the Frontier scan the film before printing it, making it a digital original?

[el_fang]

<i>"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>

<p>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.

<p><i>"the same stuff gets said over and over."</i>

<p>Because the same ignorant anti-digital BS keeps popping up over and over.

<p><i>"why does the Leica forum attract the digital versus film threads?"</i>

<p>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.

<p>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.

[cheec]

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?

[dave_chadderton]

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?

 

--

Dave

[joel_matherson]

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.

[robert goldstein]

Vic, please tell us whether your photos are from film or digital, so we can decide whether

we like them.

 

Rob

[roger_hicks1]

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.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[dave_chadderton]

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.

 

Dave

__

[doris_chan]

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

concern.

 

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

 

Have we met?

[dave_chadderton]

"Have we met?"

 

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

[brunom]

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?

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[gerry b.]

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.

[claudia__]

<i>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>

<p>

i dunno, that sounds like missionary zeal to me. why does Leica have to be "saved?" praise the lord and pass the film (~_-)

[huw_finney]

Bruno,

 

Just did a Google and it does.

[roger_hicks1]

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.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[terry_rory]

Bacon and ham and quiche lorraine. I get it now! Good one.

[sprouty]

<I>"At this period in my life, SLRs are just too big to warrant carrying..."</I>

<P>

Olympus OM-1 etc. with 50mm/F1.4 lens: 136x83x89mm, 740g.

<P>

(A fine camera with a great set of available lenses for short money...)

[roger_hicks1]

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.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[doris_chan]

Don't tempt fate Roger, if I am the Pest Control Doris then I might just put Shutterbug out

of it's misery......

[paul t]

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

shots?

<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).

[john_morris4]

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.