Fanboys are great

[Vihzel]

haha, I know, I'm checking out his posts there now. Well for the first 3 minutes until I got bored, lol.

I knew you were a creeper! I imagine your face, since I've never seen it, to be the face of a creeper. Perhaps...

How dare you become bored from my posts there! I am a fairly interesting poster. I even mentioned you in one of them. Happy hunting!

 

[ElasticNinja]

^^^
your posts were boring, TBH
i am usually the comedic guy on forums
not this one. lol

 

[Vihzel]

^^^
your posts were boring, TBH
i am usually the comedic guy on forums
not this one. lol

It was sarcastic. I didn't expect anyone to actually read them.

 

[zuben el genub]

What amazes me about the fanboys of every type is the money they spend! If they like Android, every time a new phone is available, they jump carriers and go through all the hassles of selling the current phone, setting up a new account, and do this all the time!
The minute a new Iphone is announced, they run for that, too. Whatever is the latest and greatest. Won't the carriers eventually get wise to this? Even though they collect on the phone and service?

 

[Bob Maxey]

<drool>

<double-drool>


I think today it's all about software. A few years ago Apple's 'Aperture' was revolutionary for its ease-of-workflow, plus Macs had Firewire when PCs made do with USB. Today, with USB2/3 connections for external storage and the likes of Adobe's 'Lightroom' available for PC the hardware platform advantage has disappeared.

I think it's fair to say, though, that Apple gave the digital imaging market a much-needed kick up the backside.

Absolutely...software rules. But we are talking about digital imaging and in my world, software be darned; Dektol or other developers rule. Film developers might be viewed as my generation's "software." Some developers create better negatives than others; Microdol-X can be diluted to increase sharpness in some situations.

Glad you know what a Leica and a Hasselblad is/are.

Too bad film no longer rules for there were old techniques that are vastly superior to anything we have today, in the digital world. Then again, taking a picture for a web site or ebay auction does not require a nice large format approach, so better is a tricky word.

Bob Maxey

 

[Slug]

Film developers might be viewed as my generation's "software." Some developers create better negatives than others; Microdol-X can be diluted to increase sharpness in some situations.

Very true. A RAW image run through Lightroom, Aperture, DxO Optics Pro etc with the same exposure adjustments will look different in each case simply due to the rendering engine. One is no "better" than another, though. The end result that satisfies you the photographer is all that matters.

Glad you know what a Leica and a Hasselblad is/are.

Haha! My first 'proper' camera was an Olympus rangefinder that tried to copy the Leica M-series, and I was lucky enough to use an M2 and M3 belonging to the father of a girlfriend. Hasselblads, unfortunately, I have only lusted over from afar.

Then again, taking a picture for a web site or ebay auction does not require a nice large format approach, so better is a tricky word.

Maybe not, but I'd give one of my kidneys for that 5DMkII that Outlaw71 so kindly name-dropped. As a landscaper I really appreciate the image quality that full-frame 25Mpx sensor produces.... I just wish I could afford it

 

[Outlaw71]

Maybe not, but I'd give one of my kidneys for that 5DMkII that Outlaw71 so kindly name-dropped. As a landscaper I really appreciate the image quality that full-frame 25Mpx sensor produces.... I just wish I could afford it

Have you tried the Chinese black market? You may be able to fetch $2500 for your kidney over there.....






.... ok Rose, you win. We ARE more A.D.D. than them Apple boys!

 

[Bob Maxey]

Very true. A RAW image run through Lightroom, Aperture, DxO Optics Pro etc with the same exposure adjustments will look different in each case simply due to the rendering engine. One is no "better" than another, though. The end result that satisfies you the photographer is all that matters.

Haha! My first 'proper' camera was an Olympus rangefinder that tried to copy the Leica M-series, and I was lucky enough to use an M2 and M3 belonging to the father of a girlfriend. Hasselblads, unfortunately, I have only lusted over from afar.

Maybe not, but I'd give one of my kidneys for that 5DMkII that Outlaw71 so kindly name-dropped. As a landscaper I really appreciate the image quality that full-frame 25Mpx sensor produces.... I just wish I could afford it

I think every photographer should spend a year in the darkroom. I see far too many of them not understanding that their high quality digital cameras do not represent what is possible with film and also Photoshop and other DI software programs are not the be all end all.

There is so much you can do with film that is demonstrably impossible to do with any form of digital photography. But, I will give you that some techniques I grew up with take time and experience so many lack. And admittedly, likely not really required these days, so it is a wash. Great images cheap and fast or truly stunning images, slow and a bit more complicated... digital wins the battle.

Besides, we cant get the films and papers and darkroom stuff we once could get. So very sad.

Bob Maxey

 

[Slug]

Have you tried the Chinese black market? You may be able to fetch $2500 for your kidney over there.....

I'm not speaking to you. You made me spend most of my Saturday afternoon looking at second-hand 5DMkII prices.

There is so much you can do with film that is demonstrably impossible to do with any form of digital photography.

The same is true the other way. At the end of the day, it's the result that counts not the medium.

I will give you that some techniques I grew up with take time and experience so many lack. And admittedly, likely not really required these days, so it is a wash. Great images cheap and fast or truly stunning images, slow and a bit more complicated... digital wins the battle.

The essential photographic skills of composition, exposure and lighting are still required no matter what. Digital imaging is certainly cheaper than running a full-blown colour darkroom, and it can be quicker.... but there again I've spent several hours working on single images. Dodging and burning is just as time-consuming digitally as it is in the darkroom. The only difference is that darkrooms don't have "undo" commands.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I'm not speaking to you. You made me spend most of my Saturday afternoon looking at second-hand 5DMkII prices.



The same is true the other way. At the end of the day, it's the result that counts not the medium.



The essential photographic skills of composition, exposure and lighting are still required no matter what. Digital imaging is certainly cheaper than running a full-blown colour darkroom, and it can be quicker.... but there again I've spent several hours working on single images. Dodging and burning is just as time-consuming digitally as it is in the darkroom. The only difference is that darkrooms don't have "undo" commands.

Digital is certainly cheaper and digital is most certainly faster to print. That said, and THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, but I think all too often, some photographers forget proper technique and decide to fix it in Photoshop or some other program.

In my day, we got the shot and in my specific case, we did not bracket all over the place. Some photographers take far more pictures than are required because they are never quite sure if they got it.

But I am a sheet film guy and trust me, shooting six film holders worth of 8 x 10 was out of the question and no pro worth his or her salt would require a dozen. We knew what we were doing. Retakes were always a matter of bad exposure or lab problems and quite rare.

Digital has, however, taken us back many decades to a time when it seemed that everyone was shooting pictures. Eastman started us off because he greatly simplified the act of photography.

Bob Maxey

 

[Bob Maxey]

Have you tried the Chinese black market? You may be able to fetch $2500 for your kidney over there.....

I say hold out until Oprah, Ballmer, Gates, Jobs, or Ellison needs a kidney. You will get a better price. Ellison might give you a ride in one of his planes or perhaps you will replace Gail. For sure, Apple and Microsoft software will be free for life.

Disclaimer: Bob does not advocate selling body parts in this country.

Bob Maxey

 

[Outlaw71]

I'm not speaking to you...

Soooooo... you sent me this via mental telepathy?




Cool!

 

[Outlaw71]

Digital is certainly cheaper and digital is most certainly faster to print. That said, and THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, but I think all too often, some photographers forget proper technique and decide to fix it in Photoshop or some other program.

Please take this knowing that I got into photography after the digital revolution, so I know not of what you speak. I do envy your knowledge of developing photographs in the darkroom, I think that's a cool tallent that will be lost shortly.

But there are a couple different ways of looking at faster/easier. Take my ex-fiancee for example, when she was shooting film she had a lot more time on her hands. This is because would shoot a session, and send off the rolls of film to her lab. I'd say the majority of professional photographers probably did it this way. While she knew how to devolop film, her tallent was behind the camera, that's where she spent her time, and made her money.

When everything went digital, she said she thought photography died. But since it was her passion and her way of making a living, she had no choice but to make the transition. And now there aren't enough hours in the day because, where she used to just send off her rolls of film to be developed, now she (we, while I helped her run the studio) are now responsible for doing all the editing. And while you get faster and better at editing the longer you do it, it is still a very lengthy process when you really care about the end result.

 

[Slug]

I'm not speaking to you.

Soooooo... you sent me this via mental telepathy?

Dammit! I knew there was a flaw in my argument somewhere....

while you get faster and better at editing the longer you do it, it is still a very lengthy process when you really care about the end result.

That's precisely why digital got me back into photography though - I now have complete control of the entire process from composing the image to hanging the print without the expense and space required of a darkroom. I'm pretty sure that, if I were a Mac user, I'd be saying exactly the same thing - the tools are only a means to an end. (see how I skillfully put this thread back on-topic? )

 

[Bob Maxey]

Please take this knowing that I got into photography after the digital revolution, so I know not of what you speak. I do envy your knowledge of developing photographs in the darkroom, I think that's a cool tallent that will be lost shortly.

But there are a couple different ways of looking at faster/easier. Take my ex-fiancee for example, when she was shooting film she had a lot more time on her hands. This is because would shoot a session, and send off the rolls of film to her lab. I'd say the majority of professional photographers probably did it this way. While she knew how to devolop film, her tallent was behind the camera, that's where she spent her time, and made her money.

When everything went digital, she said she thought photography died. But since it was her passion and her way of making a living, she had no choice but to make the transition. And now there aren't enough hours in the day because, where she used to just send off her rolls of film to be developed, now she (we, while I helped her run the studio) are now responsible for doing all the editing. And while you get faster and better at editing the longer you do it, it is still a very lengthy process when you really care about the end result.

There was a time when our company was the "staff" photographer for two daily papers and one of them also printed an afternoon or evening edition. The Salt Lake Tribune and the Salt Lake Telegram. We provided photographs almost as fast as digital through a combination of salt water developing, rapid processing, quick rinses, printing wet negatives, and delivering damp prints. Before my time.

In my day, the professionals would sometimes ask for 10% or 5% under development and "please use a softer developer or harder developer." I would often use something called Microdol-X and a different dilution because it provided sharper negatives or a special developer to provide soft negatives and a corresponding paper like Eastman Ektalure paper for portrait photographers.

So most pros understood the darkroom end quite well. Not today because they do not need to know. I am stuck between fond remembrance of the past and tinkling on the future.

We once shot a mall interior using a large format view camera. The client wanted no people in the shot so we picked a day which was convenient for us and the mall had people milling about. The trick was extremely long exposures so the people (always moving about) did not record on the image, just the fixtures and other things of importance. No people except in a few spots where they stood still. And inevitably "Ghosts" and other odd artifacts would appear.

I rid the image of most problems with abrasive retouching materials, bleach, and spotting colors for fixing the imperfections.

We would occasionally use large format for building exteriors and a special lens called a Goerx Hypergon, a very scarce lens with unimaginable covering power. Google it, you might find it interesting.

These techniques are lost because they are no longer required for digital. Most of the papers, films, and chemicals once offered are also gone because there is no demand and the New Eastman Kodak is definitely not a reflection of the old. Did you know that there was a time when you could buy 11 x 14 inch Kodachrome Film?

The newly minted digital photographers coming late to the business are stuck with just a few film or paper choices, and not aware that Kodak produced literally thousands of films and papers when you consider the range of sizes, surfaces, and emulsions. Perhaps 100 different Aerial stocks alone as well as a hundred or more technical plates.

And even if there was little to no demand, George Eastman had a thought that a few might want this or that so EK kept most films current even though the cameras that used the films were long go discontinued. Who does that today? I rejoiced when Kodak brought back films like 120 sized Kodachrome.

So arguing (I know you are not arguing) that we have lost something important is not a valid argument if the current techniques do not require what we lost. This I get and it has always been my argument. And I agree with statements about speed and quality. Well, quality is a big issue best saved for a later discussion.

Some remember the past and pine away for what might never return, like Technicolor IB and Dye Transfer. I'm likely selling a kidney to purchase a new Hasselblad Digital Camera. Only $49,900 at B&H. Perhaps I'll need two kidneys, one of mine has fermented.

Thinking about this makes me sad.

Bob Maxey

 

[Bob Maxey]

Maybe not, but I'd give one of my kidneys for that 5DMkII that Outlaw71 so kindly name-dropped. As a landscaper I really appreciate the image quality that full-frame 25Mpx sensor produces.... I just wish I could afford it

Name Drop Alert:

One Word, Linhof

OK, how about a Giga-Pixel Kodak Cirkit Camera that shoots 16 inch wide, 20 foot long negatives.

Just sayin . . .

Bob Maxey

 

[Outlaw71]

Thinking about this makes me sad.

Bob Maxey

Totally understandable. And you're right, I'm not arguing at all. I can completely understand the sorrow anyone who knew and enjoyed the art of photographing with film must have. It's one of those inevitable things that happens in life. As technology moves along and makes its advances, something else gets left behind and dies off. And those who were familiar with and fond of the dying technology inevitably feels a great sense of loss.

For me, it's motorcycles. Having grown up a HUGE MotoGP fan (as well as AMA and WSBK) in the late 80's, 90's, I have watched the digital revolution slowly (and sadly) transform the art motorcycle racing from the days of extremely talented men wrestling their bikes around the most difficult racing circuits in the world, to a paddock of virtual robots who are increasingly 'just along for the ride' in contrast to the old days.

It starts small with things like fuel injection. Don't get me wrong, I completely recognize and appreciate the advantages of fuel injection. And I love the hassle-free living my fuel injected ZX-10R gives me. Cleaning out gummed up carburetors was never a fun way to spend a gorgeous afternoon. I'd much rather spend that time riding my bike, much like I get to now that I have a fuel injected bike. Still, it takes away that element in racing, where the tuners who got the carburation spot on the morning of the race, had the upper hand during the race. That was a much appreciated talent back when tuners like Rob Muzzy ruled the pits. Now every bike on the grid gets a Power Commander V slapped on hooked up to a sniffer installed in the exhaust to continuously measure fuel mixture and adjust it automatically, and voila... perfect fuel to air blend all day, every day. There is no more advantage to be gained, everyone on the grid enjoys perfect fuel injection these days.

That is just one, tiny example. If you used to watch MotoGP back in the 80's then you remember watching those guys attempting to tame those brutal 500cc two stroke MONSTERS with a top end so menacing, even the best of the best rarely went a full week without the thing high-siding and spitting the racer off on his head! Just like the incredible Kevin Schwantz once described practice in saying, "some people think that the fact that I crash almost every time I'm running in practice means that I'm reckless. But that isn't the case at all. When I'm out there on the track I am constantly looking for that line... it the line between full traction, and no traction, and it's an incredibly thin line. When I'm out there pushing the limits of the bikes traction and I crash, then I know I have to pull back just a little bit. But I don't know where that line is, there's now way of being able to tell how far I can push the bike until I wash the front end out or highside the bike.... that's how I find that line. If I went out 3 or 4 practices in a row without crashing the bike, you might consider that a success, but I look at it as a failure. Because no matter how fast my lap times were, I'll just keep wondering how much faster I could have gotten around it before I reached the limits of the bike. Crashing shows me exactly where the limit is".

Man they don't make em like that anymore. That's not to say that just anyone could hop onto one of todays electronically controlled MotoGP bikes and whip it around the track as fast as anyone else, but so much of it has changed. You never see high-sides anymore. All of those spectacular crashes that used to make MotoGP so interesting are gone. Todays bikes are so electronically controlled the manufacturers are looking for racers that fit a certain 'mold'. Short, thin, light, that can pilot the bike around the track in as smooth a style as possible. Look at the MotoGP paddock these days and it's like someone made all the racers with the same cookie cutter.

There's no room for tall, lanky guys like Scott Russell or Anthony Gobert anymore. You won't find those wild riding styles like Kevin Schwantz, Mick Doohan or the mega-talented Garry McCoy! Good God, talk about someone exciting to watch, check out this short compilation one of MotoGP's most entertaining legends...

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

This is a style that you will never see again in MotoGP. The electronics prohibit spinning the rear tire like Garry used to do. He figured out that spinning up the rear tire through the corners super heated the exterior of the rubber, but actually kept the inner temperatures lower, which in turn made them last longer so that he had more traction at the end of the race than his competitors. Quite brilliant, but what's more... amazing to watch! He had just about mastered his signature style after many injury laden seasons trying to get it right, when traction control took over and brought an end to all his progress. This is the stuff that makes me sad.

A look back on the glory days of MotoGP racing at it's most exciting...

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?xl=xl_blazer&v=nGz2Ye6uwnk

Sorry, the link is fixed now.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Totally understandable. And you're right, I'm not arguing at all. I can completely understand the sorrow anyone who knew and enjoyed the art of photographing with film must have. It's one of those inevitable things that happens in life. As technology moves along and makes its advances, something else gets left behind and dies off. And those who were familiar with and fond of the dying technology inevitably feels a great sense of loss.

For me, it's motorcycles. Having grown up a HUGE MotoGP fan (as well as AMA and WSBK) in the late 80's, 90's, I have watched the digital revolution slowly (and sadly) transform the art motorcycle racing from the days of extremely talented men wrestling their bikes around the most difficult racing circuits in the world, to a paddock of virtual robots who are increasingly 'just along for the ride' in contrast to the old days.

Motorcycles for me as well. But, I was never into speed. My preferences are for old iron; heavy cast iron and bikes like Harley WL/WLA; Indian Chiefs, (NOT the silly mess that passes for today's "Indian Chief," Sport Solos, Vincents, Brough-Superior, Scott Flying Squirrels; and scooters like Cushman Super Silver Eagles and Vespa made before 1965.

You mentioned Garry McCoy, let me toss another name at you: Rollie Free. What he did was astounding and he is gone, never to be replaced. Rent "Worlds Fastest Indian" and have a look. The movie starred Anthony Hopkins and it will amaze you; what he did to set Bonneville records was beyond amazing.

Bob Maxey

 

[Outlaw71]

Seen it. Own it. Love it....



Think I'll watch it again tonight now that you mention it!

 

[Bob Maxey]

Seen it. Own it. Love it....

Think I'll watch it again tonight now that you mention it!

It is a great movie, even if you dislike bikes. The message I get from it is never give up and yes, you can do what experts say you can't do if you stop listening and just do it.

Bob Maxey

 

[Roze]

.... ok Rose, you win. We ARE more A.D.D. than them Apple boys!

haha, and we've moved to Bikes...I figured you'd take the convo back to your love haha