|
KillHour posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2849356
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
Khablam posted:Nah, that whole CD is mastered to poo poo. The volume is way off and the bass is weirdly missing. Anything by Tool later than that though, is a great way of hearing if the setup gives you detail in the lowend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Just like camera enthusiasts who spend hours shooting test charts instead of actually taking pictures of things. These people actually exist?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
KillHour posted:These people actually exist? Oh god yes they do. I used to work in a high-end camera dealer and we had a few (amateur) guys come in who'd insist on taking half a dozen shots of the building opposite (which had loads of parallels) with each lens we had in stock of whatever lens they were interested in, then they'd come in a week later with 30 identical pictures and show us that one of them was clearly superior because it had some invisibly small amount less aberration and would buy that one (they'd shoot the box with the serial number before each run). Also they'd only buy batteries we kept in the fridge (with the pro-grade ultra-ISO film, which did actually need refrigeration) because They'd Read A Thing. Audiophile-type thinking exists everywhere people have way too much money to spend on a hobby.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Oh god yes they do. I used to work in a high-end camera dealer and we had a few (amateur) guys come in who'd insist on taking half a dozen shots of the building opposite (which had loads of parallels) with each lens we had in stock of whatever lens they were interested in, then they'd come in a week later with 30 identical pictures and show us that one of them was clearly superior because it had some invisibly small amount less aberration and would buy that one (they'd shoot the box with the serial number before each run). Does he takes his pictures ~~in analogue~~ though?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:Does he takes his pictures ~~in analogue~~ though? He did say film, so... yes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
KillHour posted:He did say film, so... yes? He said there was batteries next to film though, not actual film being used.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:He said there was batteries next to film though, not actual film being used. I read gud. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:He said there was batteries next to film though, not actual film being used. Electronic flashes take batteries though. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
DarkSol posted:Electronic flashes take batteries though. As do film cameras, and have done since like the 1950s. This was early 90s though, which was when autofocus SLRs first started coming onto the market - they're the reason why CR223s and similar are still the standard for DSLR batteries - they were in the first-gen and still work fine now (in fact a DSLR is way less power-hungry than, say, an EOS 1 despite having active displays and shitloads of processing power - no film advance and the motors (for AF) have become shitloads better. This was also the time lithium batteries started coming onto the market (in fact without them the AF SLR boom could never have happened, because alkaline batteries were absolutely crushed by the power demands) and people treated them like witchcraft. Again there's a similarity to audiophile magical thinking there - because these cameras (unlike previous-gen SLRs) died if the battery went flat and because the venerable OM101 had a glitch where the AE mechanism went screwy as the battery lost charge, the good idea of putting in a fresh battery before starting work became "The quality of the battery determines the quality of your pictures", and the manufacturer hype about how stable lithium was at low temps compared to other chemistries became "FREEZE YOUR BATTERIES TO MAKE YOUR PICTURES SO REAL THAT IT WILL DESTROY YOUR BRAIN" Wasabi the J posted:Does he takes his pictures ~~in analogue~~ though? There are still absolutely shitloads of people shooting in film - not just hipsters with their broken-rear end old ex-Soviet Jenas, there's a lot of people out there who talk about film - especially transparency - in the exact same way audiophiles talk about vinyl, insisting easily-measurable things like resolution, contrast and dynamic range are massively superior to digital, and that the measurements must be wrong when they disagree. (To head off the derail - yes I'm aware that there are circumstances where film is still preferable)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:(To head off the derail - yes I'm aware that there are circumstances where film is still preferable) Especially for students, there's something to be learned by developing and printing your own negatives, or splicing film/tape/you name it, that digital just can never offer. And it might have nothing at all to do with composition, but it's valuable. Same line of thinking where driving a piece of poo poo car teaches you how to keep a car running.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:Especially for students, there's something to be learned by developing and printing your own negatives, or splicing film/tape/you name it, that digital just can never offer. And it might have nothing at all to do with composition, but it's valuable. Same line of thinking where driving a piece of poo poo car teaches you how to keep a car running. Just with significantly lower chance of death then with the lovely car.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Just with significantly lower chance of death then with the lovely car. We all gotta die sometime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:Especially for students, there's something to be learned by developing and printing your own negatives, or splicing film/tape/you name it, that digital just can never offer. And it might have nothing at all to do with composition, but it's valuable. Same line of thinking where driving a piece of poo poo car teaches you how to keep a car running. Surely learning how to develop your own negatives or splice film is like flint knapping? A skill that may be interesting if you are into history, but of no use whatsoever? You might as well read about it and leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Gromit posted:Surely learning how to develop your own negatives or splice film is like flint knapping? A skill that may be interesting if you are into history, but of no use whatsoever? You might as well read about it and leave it at that. I don't think that's true at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
As someone who's done both film and digital shooting professionally, yeah, learning to develop/splice/print stuff was no advantage for properly shooting digital. Except for trying to figure out photoshop or similar program settings to replicate a way you could gently caress up developing. But that's just a plain gimmick, and when you do it you know very few people are going to understand it as anything but a "really neat instagram effect".
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:I don't think that's true at all. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm honestly unfamiliar with how those skills could be useful these days. I'm not in the film industry, so I'd like to hear more about it if there's actually a use for it. I just can't imagine that any reasonable percentage of the film-making population would need to know how that sort of thing is done. I used to splice video tape about 20 years ago when I had a video store, but have never done it since and don't see using that skill ever again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:As someone who's done both film and digital shooting professionally, yeah, learning to develop/splice/print stuff was no advantage for properly shooting digital. Except for trying to figure out photoshop or similar program settings to replicate a way you could gently caress up developing. But that's just a plain gimmick, and when you do it you know very few people are going to understand it as anything but a "really neat instagram effect". Film offers some very real advantages when it comes to large and medium formats with super high quality film and prints, but with sufficiently decent CCD's, digital is almost always better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
Gromit posted:I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm honestly unfamiliar with how those skills could be useful these days. I'm not in the film industry, so I'd like to hear more about it if there's actually a use for it. I just can't imagine that any reasonable percentage of the film-making population would need to know how that sort of thing is done. Discipline and patience. Nobody or at least very few people need the actual skills any more but the discipline of working your craft without an undo button has value. Feel free to disagree.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:Discipline and patience. Nobody or at least very few people need the actual skills any more but the discipline of working your craft without an undo button has value. Feel free to disagree. This smells like pure sentimentality. Patience is required for literally any nontrivial skill, and can be learned by practicing any nontrivial skill. I'm not saying you have to relabel your experience as worthless, but I feel like the implication that working with film instills a kind of patience particularly useful to digital photography warrants if not evidence then at least genuine discussion, especially considering what thread this is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:This smells like pure sentimentality. Patience is required for literally any nontrivial skill, and can be learned by practicing any nontrivial skill. I'm not saying you have to relabel your experience as worthless, but I feel like the implication that working with film instills a kind of patience particularly useful to digital photography warrants if not evidence then at least genuine discussion, especially considering what thread this is. Did I trigger your ptsd or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
I'm a photographer and I shoot digital. I haven't touched film in a serious way in forever and even my own personal stuff I don't feel the need to use film at all. However, when doing photography it can be helpful to slow down. I mean really really slow down and think, contemplate what you are doing. It's hard to learn that with a digital camera because the tool it's self is very fast. All the processes are fast. You can take as many pictures as you like and pick the best one. You can learn a lot of bad habits from a digital camera. If you use something like a film camera. Especially a manual one or better yet a large format camera then just using the camera takes time. Time enough that you think automatically. The process teaches you to slow down, otherwise you waste a bunch of film. That's the point of learning to shoot on film. If you can learn to take it slow and think about what you are doing then using a digital camera is great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
Yeah, that's bollocks. You learn 10x more by taking 10x the amount of pictures and seeing what worked and why (as well as immediate results) than you do wanking around 'taking it slow' and then trying to remember what you 'took it slow' about 3-5 days later when you see the images. You take 10 pictures of the bug on a branch and then you can see "hey, you know, f2.8@3ft is a really nice sweet point for the bokey on this lens" vs "oh this bug picture isn't quite right I can't actually remember what I did though or how I would improve".* Also why would it be important to learn to not waste film when I can hold the shutter down on my DSLR and shoot constantly for a couple of hours without worrying about storage space? There are actual benefits to film (dynamic range, 'resolution' on larger formats) which you will know about and seek out if you need them, but 'no u see you need to learn it this way because thats what I did and would you please validate me' is the same silliness as audiophiles who won't accept 99% of the pleasure of vinyl is routines and sentimentality. * - no doubt the inclined would solve this with a Moleskine notebook and knife-sharpened pencil.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
I think you misunderstand friend. When I say "it can be helpful" you seem to have understood that to mean "the only way". What I was pointing out was the benefits of learning to use film. I'm not trying to say it's better than digital. I use digital myself 100% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:Film offers some very real advantages when it comes to large and medium formats with super high quality film and prints, but with sufficiently decent CCD's, digital is almost always better. Oh I'm well aware the kind of stuff you can do with a proper large format film set up, but it's also stuff that has next to no relevance to shooting digital. You will learn how to properly focus and frame shots equally well starting with either one, and once you get past the basics the actual things you learn in one don't carry onto the other at all. BigFactory posted:Discipline and patience. Nobody or at least very few people need the actual skills any more but the discipline of working your craft without an undo button has value. Feel free to disagree. You need those already if you never touch film, and you don't need film experience to learn them. Plus the no undo button is bullshit, unless you're super stingy on film and don't take multiples of the same general shot. 35mm film is still cheap as hell and it's not wise to get your experience developing with more expensive film in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Oh I'm well aware the kind of stuff you can do with a proper large format film set up, but it's also stuff that has next to no relevance to shooting digital. You will learn how to properly focus and frame shots equally well starting with either one, and once you get past the basics the actual things you learn in one don't carry onto the other at all. Was someone mean to you in a darkroom? You seem awful defensive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:Was someone mean to you in a darkroom? You seem awful defensive. You seem awful ignorant, frankly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You seem awful ignorant, frankly. Did you walk out of the karate kid thinking mr miagi totally wasted Daniel-san's time teaching him how to prune a banzai tree and wax a truck? Were you just really confused at the end of the movie?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Hanging out in a darkroom is fun. Efficiency isn't everything. There's something really cool about watching the image appear on the paper when it sits in the developer. I don't like it because it's better and I certainly wouldn't spend audiophile money on it, but it's fun to do. Also when taking pictures of planets and stars with my telescope on film I can use the enlarger to blow up the picture of Jupiter without the pixelation that would result if I had blown up a digital photo to the same size.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
I mean the idea that a student especially can't gain insight into their field by studying a complementary skill or technique is really strange to me. If nothing else, doesn't having some deeper understanding of what the great photographers of the past had to do for their craft have some value?. Is it as valuable as learning photoshop in 2015, I'm not sure. Probably not, but education is a hard thing to define in absolute terms like that. I think they both have value, but as I've said before, feel free to disagree, and if you have to be angry in your disagreement I guess I can't stop you guys!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:Did you walk out of the karate kid thinking mr miagi totally wasted Daniel-san's time teaching him how to prune a banzai tree and wax a truck? Were you just really confused at the end of the movie? If you think movie karate is accurate to real karate I don't even know what to say to you. BigFactory posted:I mean the idea that a student especially can't gain insight into their field by studying a complementary skill or technique is really strange to me. If nothing else, doesn't having some deeper understanding of what the great photographers of the past had to do for their craft have some value?. Is it as valuable as learning photoshop in 2015, I'm not sure. Probably not, but education is a hard thing to define in absolute terms like that. I think they both have value, but as I've said before, feel free to disagree, and if you have to be angry in your disagreement I guess I can't stop you guys! There is no complementary skill or technique to be gained by developing film that actually applies in digital production. They're simply entirely different skills. I'm not saying knowing how to do them is bad, just that they don't do anything to help each other. It's like saying that knowing how to properly move your sailboat's sails to tack against the wind helps you learn how to navigate a motor yacht.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:I mean the idea that a student especially can't gain insight into their field by studying a complementary skill or technique is really strange to me. If nothing else, doesn't having some deeper understanding of what the great photographers of the past had to do for their craft have some value?. Is it as valuable as learning photoshop in 2015, I'm not sure. Probably not, but education is a hard thing to define in absolute terms like that. I think they both have value, but as I've said before, feel free to disagree, and if you have to be angry in your disagreement I guess I can't stop you guys! You're a bloody loving moron crapping all over the thread with a pointless sidetrack. Please stop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:If you think movie karate is accurate to real karate I don't even know what to say to you. I think a photographer can enhance her craft through the study of many related disciplines and fine arts, but that's just my opinion and feel free to disagree. Edit: why is everyone so angry in this thread? BigFactory fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Apr 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:I think a photographer can enhance her craft through the study of many related disciplines and fine arts, but that's just my opinion and feel free to disagree. You can't enhance your digital photography skills through learning darkroom stuff. Similarly becoming the best digital photographer in the world ain't going to teach you jack about how to properly develop film pictures. The skillsets simply diverge once the image has reached the capture medium.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
I wanted to agree with BigFactory's perspective at first but then his "arguments" have done a spectacular job convincing me otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You can't enhance your digital photography skills through learning darkroom stuff. Similarly becoming the best digital photographer in the world ain't going to teach you jack about how to properly develop film pictures. The skillsets simply diverge once the image has reached the capture medium. I agree you can't enhance your "digital photography skills" in a darkroom. I never said you could. I think learning to print your own negatives could make you a better photographer though. Not to the exclusion of learning digital, but as an exercise. You see the distinction, right? I get that you disagree.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Please stop with this bullshit that is not even remotely related to ridiculing audiophiles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:I agree you can't enhance your "digital photography skills" in a darkroom. I never said you could. I think learning to print your own negatives could make you a better photographer though. Not to the exclusion of learning digital, but as an exercise. You see the distinction, right? I get that you disagree. It's an exercise that has no meaning in the digital world, because the things you have to account for can become extremely different. Learning to print your own negatives makes you better at post production, not initial photography, and it makes you better at a form of it that doesn't translate to digital. It's kinda like claiming that learning how to mix down a recording on analog tape makes you a better musician. Or for that matter, that learning how to set up a playback system makes you a better musician.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's an exercise that has no meaning in the digital world, because the things you have to account for can become extremely different. Learning to print your own negatives makes you better at post production, not initial photography, and it makes you better at a form of it that doesn't translate to digital. If anything the need to keep a lot of digital photo manipulation comprehensible to the film generation held it back quite a bit - even now an awful lot of it is just replicating stuff you can do with film, often inefficiently. In the Renaissance, painters had to know how to mix their own pigments, but the availability of modern dyes never held back Picasso. Having said that every once in a while I dig out my old ME and shoot a couple of rolls of HP5 because there is something inherently pleasurable in the process - I wish I had the space for an enlarger because developing prints is even more fun (i just scan the negs in). I think it's been mentioned here before but a lot of people who are into vinyl have the same attitude - they don't pretend it's superior, just that it's more satisfying, which is a very different matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
BigFactory posted:Edit: why is everyone so angry in this thread? Posting "u mad" over and over isn't going to make it magically come true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 22:31
|
|
