Heya Kreggan!
Feb. 20th, 2006 09:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ceagle(and any other photographic enthusiasts) ...
*wooot and warble!*
I picked up a Mamiya 645/1000s for a song! *skreeeeeee!* :D
*tucks it in the kit along with the Rollei and the Hasselblad..*
and speaking of song... I also joined the iPod generation ^v^ *wags feathers* (used yeah, but still snazzy...) :>
take care all!
*wooot and warble!*
I picked up a Mamiya 645/1000s for a song! *skreeeeeee!* :D
*tucks it in the kit along with the Rollei and the Hasselblad..*
and speaking of song... I also joined the iPod generation ^v^ *wags feathers* (used yeah, but still snazzy...) :>
take care all!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 11:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 02:43 pm (UTC)I just can't give up my 20-gig hard drive with it. I neeeeeeeeed lots of music!
no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 03:44 pm (UTC)Nowadays, if it's not digital, nobody wants to bother with it. Sad.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 06:29 pm (UTC)Actually, I've met a few photographers who prefer film because of its 'feel' (different look in the images it generates) and because they prefer to be more hands-on than digital allows (with darkroom processing and physical equipment). So though a lot of people use digital now, not everyone does.
Film also has some detail/quality advantages that digital doesn't -- although the resolution gap is rapidly closing.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 06:51 pm (UTC)Still, the two main film producers (Kodak and Fuji) are struggling to "downsize" their film production and support, and convert their business operations to digital. Many newspapers no longer have ANY film-handling capabilities, and even most of the local commercial photo businesses have "gone digital" (A friend of mine owns a major school/institutional photo business headquartered here, and it's converted to 100% digital).
Like buggy whip makers of old when the automobile became popular, film handling is fast becoming a "lost art". I celebrate the "birth" of the new technology while mourning the passing of an old friend...
no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 07:20 pm (UTC)A recent issue of Model Railroader magazine included an article about how to build convincingly weathered buildings. Their sample building was a factory. On this factory was the slogan "Buggy whips: A Product With A Future".
I had to wonder if somebody was cracking a wise-assed joke at us readers! Probably they were -- magazine writers can be weird sometimes.
I actually work in a research lab that uses both film and digital to take advantage of both. You may not be able to read this full article, but probably you can at least get the abstract:
Heuser, J. 2000. How to convert a traditional electron microscopy laboratory to digital imaging: follow the 'middle road'. Traffic. 1: 614-621. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=11208149 )
no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 08:21 pm (UTC)Thanks!
Had a chest X-ray done last year (before being put on HBP meds) and the tech used a full-digital system---no film whatsoever. LARGE sensor plate, and as soon as it was shot he popped it into a reader and displayed it on a hi-res screen. When I showed interest in the system he seemed *delighted* to show off some of the digital-only features. Been X-rayed all my long life, and was quite impressed at this latest version, both by the speed and VERY low radiation exposure needed, and by the much sharper images than such things usually generate.
MANY years ago my then-business partner in commercial photography had a small son who, like kids everywhere, was "sword fighting" with a neighborhood kid---using sticks made from tree branches. His kid got whapped *in the eye* by his opponent's stick, and the kid immediately started complaining about a pain *behind* his eye. Father took the kid to the emergency room, and they quickly called in a specialist. X-rayed the kid's head/eyes, looking for a foreign object. Nothing could be seen, but the kid kept complaining, so his dad (a master photographer and darkroom whiz) took the X-ray films home and made contact prints in the darkroom. By playing with exposure and various "hardness" grades of paper, he finally got something to show up **BEHIND** the kid's eyeball. Took the kid back to the specialist, who, with the clear *positive* image of the object, was able to sedate the kid and reach BEHIND the eyeball to retrieve a fair-size piece of wood---and thereby save the kid's eye. The "kid" is now in his 30s, married and with a couple of rugrats of his own...and BOTH of his eyes. *grin*
no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 08:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 10:18 pm (UTC)As for your dentist--- Some dentists still use film, although I believe mine has now switched to digital. Like the first digital still cameras, the technology can only improve and become more affordable. I paid $1,600 for my first semi-pro digital camera almost 7 years ago (a 1.6megapixel Canon that was clunky and slow), yet several months ago I paid only $350 for a 5 megapixel Panasonic Lumix "super zoom" that has features and capabilities that amaze me every time I use it.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 10:34 pm (UTC)We have a Kodak DCS410 around here somewhere that cost $20,000 or so when it came out. We also have a DCS520 and DCS560 that I want to say were $10-$15,000 new. Our Canon EOS-1Ds cost around $9k or so. Now, we have a Canon EOS-1Ds MkII that I think was around $8k.
The prices are falling and the capabilities are going up. I have a Nikon D70 that cost around $1300 as a full kit. Someone I know has a D100 that does less overall (though it has some advantages) that was $1600 for just the body. Now, you can get the D200 for around $1600, just the body, but it's more capable than both the D70 and the D100. But you can also get for $600 or so the D50 body, so ... I expect that by the time I buy a new camera I'll pay around $1000 body only (now that I have lenses I don't need to buy kits) and get a much better camera than the one I have now.
As for your story: indeed, I have noticed that some images do show details better if they're inverted, especially some anaglyph 3D images (that paper you got has some samples of the sort we make). So it never hurts to try that.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 10:51 pm (UTC)Still, for the price differential and the uses I have for a digicam nowadays, I won't be buying one like his unless I win LOTTO. ;)
When you update your camera body, check out the reviews on www.dpreview.com *first*. They convinced me to buy the Lumix instead of several other similar-featured cameras, and they did the same for my friend for the one he bought.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 11:07 pm (UTC)I know about dpreview; I read that and steves-digicams if I need to look up information about a camera.
The D200 gets good reviews pretty much everywhere although it's relatively pricey because it's more of a pro-level camera. It has several features that I'd like to have but I don't yet have the money set aside for it. (Well, technically, I do; but at this point I'm not going to jump in yet; I'd rather hold that cash for now, and the D70 hasn't died on me yet. If it does, though, I'm in the middle of a photography class and would pick up a D200 so I wouldn't be camera-less; don't yet have a backup. The D70 would go to Dad).
no subject
Date: 2006-02-21 01:58 am (UTC)The D70 is a FINE camera (still better than the little Lumix I have) and will do you well until you decide to spring for the "delux" version. ;)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 04:16 pm (UTC)::bounces::
no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 08:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 02:16 am (UTC)