Joined on Mar 29, 2013


Total: 9, showing: 1 – 9
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

Reactive: This is definitely a joke. Who the hell wants to mail a one-use-film to a processing company? Doesn't a Super 8 reel last only a few minutes? I'll tell my 79 year old Dad - he'll be thrilled :-)

Thats right Sonny!.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 07:25 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

leojar: When the world goes digital, all the images/videos are stored and forgotten. And by some means the images will be lost or cannot be read/view due to the changes of format. Or you may have too many digital photos/video since you can take as many photos/videos as you can since they are virtually cost-less. Nowadays,it is really hard for someone to view the old video cassettes since you may not have a workable VCR. Films are still the best way to preserve memories and you can view them directly . Yes, they may fade and they need space for storage. But every time I moved or renovated my house, I got chances to take them out and view them behind the light and refresh my joyful memories and they still can be viewed after next 50 years without any aid of machine. I can say that I view my old paper photos much more than the digital photos that I have taken last 10 years. Good to hear this news and hope Kodak can bring the film back!

Yes film is permanent, yes film shot well is excellent, but we are all so used to seeing almost no noise and almost hyperventilate when at the yhought of it.How will people cope with the film grain from super 8. I see the population throwing themselves over cliffs like Lemmings.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 07:23 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

tbcass: Who will buy this? I grew up when 8mm and super 8 were what families used to capture memories. The video quality was horrid, worse even than VHS. This nostalgia craze is going way too far.

If they brought back Deloreans, it doesn't mean I would rush out and buy one.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 07:18 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)

Being somone who owned a Super 8 "once". I have to ask the burning question.

Or is the Insurance industry, driving it?

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 07:16 UTC as 3rd comment

The Sony/ Minolta STF with an adapter may well be worthy of consideration over this lens.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2015 at 23:42 UTC as 6th comment

This lens places itself where? Big,bulky, I worry about the balance point and worst of all "The Bokeh", no buterey smooth dropoff. Sorry its awfull.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2015 at 23:25 UTC as 7th comment
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

JakeB: I find those Sony mirrorless cameras look incredibly boxy and ugly, even worse than traditional dslrs, and for that reason alone would never carry one.

Spec sheet is impressive, though, which makes them attractive to gearheads.

Is it not the point of photography, the best you can achieve technically from your own knowledge and ability?. One needs to borrow someone else's pride and joy and from a neutral position challenge yourself to get the best you can squeeze out of you.
Only then do you learn how good or bad you interact with any camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2015 at 11:53 UTC
In reply to:

40daystogo: That's an outrageously high proportion of "keepers" from one 36-roll of Kodachrome. Shows the quality of Steve McCurry's ability to see -- although, I guess, using the last roll of Kodachrome might have heightened the sense of gravity before clicking the button.

Using a digital camera as a light meter/chimp device, wow! who wouldn't!, the ultimate light/ hindsight meter, sorry! supposedly only 30 shots left in the known universe, tick,tick,tick

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2013 at 04:58 UTC
In reply to:

tarnumf: So much about lenses sharpness, high ISO and bokeh - no, they don't really matter.

We are not happy unless we can see the micro detail, with virtually no noise, at an Iso of 64million(or soon will be). It disappoints that technology can be stealing the power to make us all better photographers.
The film images, didn't have image stabilisation, didn't have variable iso, and didn't have the luxury of bracketing. They weren't taken into Lightroom, or Photoshop, or had there contrast, colour or range played with, to the point where they look nothing like what was shot on the day. The "chromes" were filled with additional light to help exposure, framed well, developed and stuck on a digital scanner and converted.
To sum it up, the camera was put on a tripod, metered, previewed (albeit) digitally and processed. We have come so far with digital photography, but the urgency to get it right up front, has been diluted to the point where it is, I feel, making us less capable to get the best out of photographic skills and slaves to fixing everything in post.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2013 at 04:03 UTC
Total: 9, showing: 1 – 9