Film in a digital age: A discouraging word and the skies are cloudy all day

[DB_Gallery]

Thanks for the Google advance search advice...believe me, I like to make damn good and sure I covered my bases

before I post a question like I did about lenses for ULF.

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Um, er, ah, yes. Seeming lazy, whether that's the case or not, isn't a good idea. You won't believe how many hopeful dreamers have decided to shoot 1:1 full-length portraits and come to the various LF forums -- even the French one -- with the idea that the lens needed to do that (6'+ image circle @ 1:1, 7' + for portaits of basketball stars) is on many shelves. They rarely have the concept "image circle" and don't understand the relationship between focal length, magnification and film-to-subject distance.</p>

<p>Against this, there are a few hard-working and thoughtful people who've built portable room cams, also tent cams, and shoot remarkable landscapes. I keep hoping that one of them will explain how they set the things up with the lens' axis normal to the film plane. I'm not smart enough to see how to do it reliably.</p>

[User_2000406]

<blockquote>

<p>When the expression appeared, it was 'could care less', it was meant to be ironic with an implied 'but it's on the threshold'. The more logical 'couldn't' was adopted by those who didn't know the irony of the original. But the original still stands.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh really? I'm old enough to remember when "could care less" didn't exist yet. I also remember <em>how</em> it was used by its early adopters (generally immature and superficial teens) - emphatically in a non-ironic fashion with absolutely no awareness of the logical contradiction.</p>

<p>Or maybe you were just being facetious.</p>