Technology Climax.

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Yes, and honestly I found it inferior to digital editing on one very crucial way. You can't see what your change looks like, decide you don't like it and go backwards. Everything you can do in a darkroom, you can do and undo in photoshop.



What functions specifically are you talking about in a DSLR that you think cheapen it that aren't in film cameras? Optical Image Stabilization has been around quite a bit longer than DSLR's have. Most of the other "functions" are straight analogs of almost any other camera, aperture, ISO sensitivity, shutter speed, etc.

I don't feel Photoshop offers the reliability of a darkroom. That is the crucial element of most new technologies is that they are less reliable than the simple mechanics of the older technology. A digital telephone is functionless if power goes out. A computer crashes and what do you have?

I can't speak about specifics on DSLRs but I'm quite sure they offer a lot more functions than say, a Nikon F or a Leica M, both of which are regarded as classics in their respective categories--and not without reason--simple, efficient and high quality.

 

[caelte]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

I don't think they were as tolerant of men wearing pink glasses and plaid shoes back then.

It was in vogue then.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

I don't feel Photoshop offers the reliability of a darkroom. That is the crucial element of most new technologies is that they are less reliable than the simple mechanics of the older technology. A digital telephone is functionless if power goes out. A computer crashes and what do you have? I can't speak about specifics on DSLRs but I'm quite sure they offer a lot more functions than say, a Nikon F or a Leica M, both of which are regarded as classics in their respective categories--and not without reason--simple, efficient and high quality.
To be honest, this is just about the most absurd argument I've ever heard on this subject. Here's a hint man, if you actually want to discuss something like this, and put forth your ideas on the subject as rational and reasoned, It's essential that you know something about what you are discussing. Its obvious that you prefer to use the antiques, thats fine. Everyone needs a hobby. But to try and reason that they are BETTER than modern cameras, FIRST you must know something about modern cameras. To argue darkroom vs. digital development, you need to know something about both. Otherwise, you sound UNREASONABLE and ignorant. Yes, a spear is more elegantly designed than a gun, and has less moving parts, but it's not BETTER in hardly any way. This is the conversation I'm having with you right now, and its a dumb one. So I'm going to stop.

 

[caelte]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

I don't feel Photoshop offers the reliability of a darkroom. That is the crucial element of most new technologies is that they are less reliable than the simple mechanics of the older technology. A digital telephone is functionless if power goes out. A computer crashes and what do you have? I can't speak about specifics on DSLRs but I'm quite sure they offer a lot more functions than say, a Nikon F or a Leica M, both of which are regarded as classics in their respective categories--and not without reason--simple, efficient and high quality.
Iammatt posted a thread about modernity that made me wonder when the modern age began -seriously, it's about 1850. But now the divide is between the analog and the digital periods. The analog period demanded a high level of intellectual response from almost every individual but in an efficient manner. From having to use simple addition to rooms full of women doing the calculations necessary to determine the curvature for a camera lens, everyone seemed to be having to use their brain. You could actually fix your own car in the analog period. Today, the high demands are there, but only for the specialist, most of us are dependent on a software program to get results.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by caelte

Iammatt posted a thread about modernity that made me wonder when the modern age began -seriously, it's about 1850. But now the divide is between the analog and the digital periods. The analog period demanded a high level of intellectual response from almost every individual but in an efficient manner. From having to use simple addition to rooms full of women doing the calculations necessary to determine the curvature for a camera lens, everyone seemed to be having to use their brain. You could actually fix your own car in the analog period. Today, the high demands are there, but only for the specialist, most of us are dependent on a software program to get results.

I read that a Leica lens took about 20,000(?) pages of mathematical calculations to design. Old Porsche manuals carried instructions on how to adjust your carburetors and other somewhat complex things like that. Now, it costs $619 to have your oil changed on a Porsche--and a computer to diagnose the engine.

 

[caelte]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

I read that a Leica lens took about 20,000(?) pages of mathematical calculations to design. Old Porsche manuals carried instructions on how to adjust your carburetors and other somewhat complex things like that. Now, it costs $619 to have your oil changed on a Porsche--and a computer to diagnose the engine.
I've noticed a trend in the hot rod magazines away from the "bar of soap" type rods to a more of a back yard built style. I welcome the change, I'm tired of the sleek renditions of early Fords. There is a trend for things that work more simply, I don't think it will get to be more than just a large sub-culture. I like it that way. As soon as something like this gets popular, it starts to get more complex and improved.

 

[chobochobo]

Originally Posted by Augusto86

Quick question - is balloon angioplasty the same thing as a stent?

Quick answer: no.

 

[Brian SD]

Well I was going to come in and type responses but it looks like TS beat me to the punch.

I've used both analog and digital. The only people I know that use analog are those that never tried digital. I think people tend to think for some reason that true photographers aren't using digital - which is false, and that it's unlikely the great photographers of the past wouldn't be using digital were they around today (an impossible argument).

TS perfectly summed up my feelings in that you can be a hobbyist and appreciate the beauty of vintage cameras and lenses, but to argue that analog is better than digital is simply absurd. I understand the attachment to analog (I still listen to vinyl myself - I like the sound of it), but I would never say that vinyl is superior to CD.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

To be honest, this is just about the most absurd argument I've ever heard on this subject. Here's a hint man, if you actually want to discuss something like this, and put forth your ideas on the subject as rational and reasoned, It's essential that you know something about what you are discussing. Its obvious that you prefer to use the antiques, thats fine. Everyone needs a hobby. But to try and reason that they are BETTER than modern cameras, FIRST you must know something about modern cameras. To argue darkroom vs. digital development, you need to know something about both. Otherwise, you sound UNREASONABLE and ignorant. Yes, a spear is more elegantly designed than a gun, and has less moving parts, but it's not BETTER in hardly any way. This is the conversation I'm having with you right now, and its a dumb one. So I'm going to stop.
I've used high-end DSLRs and did not like them one bit. This is a visceral reaction as I'm sure anyone is aware, however feelings are summed up as visceral. So if you propose to argue about this, what would it be? That a bunch of features on an electronic device hastens the process? It makes making an image easier to achieve for the strict amateur? That it increases efficiency? Granted, the digital medium is convenient in the fact that it can store images on a disk or card, but the apparent convenience is also its drawback--less reliability and also cheaper quality. Also, can a good digital color photograph exceed the quality of a good dye transfer print? For me, a high-end German camera from the '50s satisfies my needs adequately and substantially; I do not want to spend $500 on computer software that will become outdated in 5 years time nor spend $2000--or even $20,000 for digital Medium Format cameras--on a DSLR which will again become outdated in a few years. That's the inherent inferiority about digital, I feel, which is its constant circle of improvement. Film is film, that's it. I've known some people who claimed any car without a stick shift is not a car; perhaps this is the argument here?

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

I could impove on it. It could be cordless and dimmable.
It's one thing to produce homage type things like Maarten Baas, but it's another to just add pointless "refinements" onto an already classic item--I'd call that a bastard. Sort of like those telephones that are only "rotary-style".

 

[Faded501s]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

This is a visceral reaction as I'm sure anyone is aware, however feelings are summed up as visceral.

So if you propose to argue about this, what would it be?

Since arguments are intellectual, how about we stick to that?

 

[johnapril]

I use an old 35 mm Nikon to document some of my artwork, especially pieces that need to be photographed at night.

I know a guy (not the record player collector) who uses very old cameras, the sort with the photographic plate you lock in and a powder flash. For him, using old things and restoring old things is a passion. Recently he bought a Model A. Most people are surprised to find the original engine is what is moving it.

 

[ATM]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Film is film, that's it.
Until they stop producing it. Then it's goodbye to reliability.

 

[Thomas]

IMHO, recent technology isn't about producing the best of anything, it's about flattening the curve from proficiency to mastery. Take cameras - professional photos today don't look better to me today than they did in the '70's, but it seems that more people get better results today than they did back then. You don't have to be a maestro anymore to see your results improve. But, if you were a maestro back then, well, you might feel that the world has indeed stood still for you.

I use a straight razor, and I have not yet mastered it. I get better shaves from the straight (most of the time) than I ever got from a sensor or mach 3, or a norelco. But it took time to get there. Here you have a similar flattening of proficiency distributions. Anyone can take a Mach3 and get a presentable shave. A well-honed and handled straight will shave closer but in unskilled hands you would probably get a scene reminiscent of the ending of Reservoir Dogs.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

So if you propose to argue about this, what would it be? That a bunch of features on an electronic device hastens the process? It makes making an image easier to achieve for the strict amateur? That it increases efficiency?
A: Over the lifespan of the product it allows you to take more pictures of better quality than with film for less money. Film is marsupialedly expensive, darkroom chemicals or the photomat are marsupialedly expensive. You say $500 for Photoshop? Thats the price of buying and developing 40 rolls of film. ($2. a roll for 35mm film and 10 bucks a roll for developing at the photomat) Most of which will probably go unused. Which basically means you have just wasted both time and money. And its extremely easy to get PS for less than $100 through student or business discount or for free like everyone else does it.

Photoshop doesn't become "obsolete". They add filters to it, change the menus around, but its not like you can't still use Photoshop 6 when everyone else is using Photoshop 9. I do.

Granted, the digital medium is convenient in the fact that it can store images on a disk or card, but the apparent convenience is also its drawback--less reliability and also cheaper quality. Also, can a good digital color photograph exceed the quality of a good dye transfer print?[

No, but it can equal it. Literally about the only time you will be able to tell a good digital photo from a good film photo is when you try and blow it up larger than its resolution. (which to be honest, rarely happens) If you are taking photos to be enlarged to wall size, you are using a pretty specialized camera in either format.

For me, a high-end German camera from the '50s satisfies my needs adequately and substantially; I do not want to spend $500 on computer software that will become outdated in 5 years time nor spend $2000--or even $20,000 for digital Medium Format cameras--on a DSLR which will again become outdated in a few years. That's the inherent inferiority about digital, I feel, which is its constant circle of improvement. Film is film, that's it.

So you object to improvement? You'd rather have a camera that's outdated now, than one that is outdated in five years, thats fine. But both the five year old camera and the 50 year old camera still take pictures, and the five year old camera is still more versatile and cheaper to use. Unfortunately, film is NOT just film either. Up until it became futile for the major manufacturers to do so (around the year 2003 or so), they were constantly improving film stock and film cameras. I fail to see the difference between that and the improvement in digital technology. You've convinced yourself that film technology reached its peak in the 50's and 60's? I beg to differ.

I've known some people who claimed any car without a stick shift is not a car; perhaps this is the argument here?

Perhaps, but those people are also sentimental fools IMO. I can see someone PREFERRING a stickshift, there are many reasons why they are superior. There are equally as many reasons to drive an automatic. Having a preference and making ignorant blanket statements are two different things.