Eric Hensel

Eric Hensel

Lives in Southern Oregon
Works as a Finish Carpentry
Joined on Dec 25, 2011

Comments

Total: 1271, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

sneakyracer: People are gonna realize how crummy 35mm film is compared to digital. I liked film in the larger formats and it was ok in 35mm for small prints. My preferred film frame size was the 6x7. The shallow DOF, the texture of film was there along with pretty high quality.

I did --Your entire first post is riddled with fallacies and rhetorical devices (including an Ad Hominem!) -how much time do you want to waste on this? Someone dismisses your talking points and rather than defend them (which you know is ultimately futile) you trot out an over-used "logical fallacy" accusation to demonstrate your intellectual superiority. Whoop de do. I'm done, btw, have a nice day :)

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 19:23 UTC
In reply to:

sneakyracer: People are gonna realize how crummy 35mm film is compared to digital. I liked film in the larger formats and it was ok in 35mm for small prints. My preferred film frame size was the 6x7. The shallow DOF, the texture of film was there along with pretty high quality.

Mars, your first post is an example of the same tactic you decry, btw.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

sneakyracer: People are gonna realize how crummy 35mm film is compared to digital. I liked film in the larger formats and it was ok in 35mm for small prints. My preferred film frame size was the 6x7. The shallow DOF, the texture of film was there along with pretty high quality.

I didn't make the post you refer to, BTW.
The concept still eludes you. That's not a mis-characterization, it's an opinion. Making valid points in an aesthetic discussion, hyperbolic or not, isn't remotely a straw man argument. By your definition -any argument I make, that disagrees with yours would be a straw man. Read the definition again.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 17:06 UTC
In reply to:

sneakyracer: People are gonna realize how crummy 35mm film is compared to digital. I liked film in the larger formats and it was ok in 35mm for small prints. My preferred film frame size was the 6x7. The shallow DOF, the texture of film was there along with pretty high quality.

"No straw man arguments, please." I don't think you understand the term.
No one that understands photography. is "threatened" by either media.
Yes, arguing subjectivity is ultimately pointless. Particularly in the middle of a tech discussion...;^)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 22:53 UTC
In reply to:

cloneimaging: Shooting medium format I frequently scan the negative, make an adjustment or two and say " that's it! "

I can't remember the last time I did this with a digital shot.

I find it ironic that most of the push in digital is film emulating filters etc.

I think people who only shoot digital haven't been to the national gallery and seen what film can do.

I love digital but people who argue digitals supremacy need to go out and pay $200 for a Mamiya RB and a solid scanner and experience the two to three hours it can take to shoot one roll. You learn A TON about light and composition and making the image.

I love digital but you guys who dump on film just feel like you are reading what someone else told you.

There is a reason why some directors are moving back to film. Digital has a tendency to suck the art right out of the frame.

"I think people who only shoot digital haven't been to the national gallery and seen what film can do"
Condescend much?

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 21:21 UTC
In reply to:

Old Cameras: They'll need to provide the lab, just one good one in the US will do. It would be interesting for something so iconic to ride again. All your digital files will be lost in the zombie apocalypse when the internet crashes and society breaks down but your Kodachrome slides will still look good.

"Digital cameras take the thinking out if making an image. There's no skill required. " Stop. Just stop with this nonsense.
I was shooting regularly in 1959, and the ratio of bad to good wasn't any better then it is now. Stupid family shots and mis-focused cats...Good photography takes skill, practice, vision, and sometimes a lot of luck...now --and back then.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 04:48 UTC
In reply to:

Old Cameras: They'll need to provide the lab, just one good one in the US will do. It would be interesting for something so iconic to ride again. All your digital files will be lost in the zombie apocalypse when the internet crashes and society breaks down but your Kodachrome slides will still look good.

"All your digital files will be lost in the zombie apocalypse when the internet crashes and society breaks down but your Kodachrome slides will still look good."
Lol -just before they break your door down...

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 22:48 UTC
In reply to:

Old Cameras: I'll buy some Ektachrome. Hell I've still got some unshot lying around here somewhere. What I really want is Kodachrome. Just because. Either way I'm glad that film is generating new interest, perhaps in people who never knew it.
...rediscovering the artistic control offered by manual processes and the creative satisfaction of a physical end product...

No one makes the chemicals to develop Kodachrome anymore.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 21:10 UTC
In reply to:

James Pilcher: Kodachrome would have been a better choice.

Exactly. But who would process it? That's the reason for the Ektachrome...

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 21:06 UTC
In reply to:

Eric Hensel: Ektachrome was terrible, for both the colors, and the lack of slide-longevity. The only reason we used it was it was cheap.

Haha -I was thinking about the pre-Fuji days. Agfa was the real competitor then, and Kodachrome ruled...if you could afford it, and the pricy processing.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 21:04 UTC

Ektachrome was terrible, for both the colors, and the lack of slide-longevity. The only reason we used it was it was cheap.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 20:31 UTC as 139th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Osa25: Weather sealed and functional down to -10 is actually not good enough to take skiing in many places

In order for them to guarantee -10, it's very likely the camera will function well below that.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 20:21 UTC
On article Around the world in 10 videos: 2016 Field Tests (13 comments in total)

Good stuff! Looking forward to more in 2017...

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 01:33 UTC as 10th comment
On article 2016 DPReview Readers' Best Shots: Things (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

Starkiller: I can't imagine a single country where number 2 is street legal.

I see these regularly in Oregon (USA).

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2017 at 19:56 UTC
In reply to:

Nate in Maine: I've been shooting sports - mainly high school and college - for newspapers and yearbooks for more than 40 years. The camera doesn't matter. Mirror/ mirror less, Canon/ Nikon/ Sony - I'm the one taking the picture, not the camera. Hats off to this amazing photographer!

Nonsense -pros use pro cameras -the differences between them are miniscule, compared to the differences in skill-level and vision between photographers.

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2016 at 19:22 UTC
In reply to:

Nate in Maine: I've been shooting sports - mainly high school and college - for newspapers and yearbooks for more than 40 years. The camera doesn't matter. Mirror/ mirror less, Canon/ Nikon/ Sony - I'm the one taking the picture, not the camera. Hats off to this amazing photographer!

Of course -and that doesn't negate his point.

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2016 at 18:50 UTC
In reply to:

Nate in Maine: I've been shooting sports - mainly high school and college - for newspapers and yearbooks for more than 40 years. The camera doesn't matter. Mirror/ mirror less, Canon/ Nikon/ Sony - I'm the one taking the picture, not the camera. Hats off to this amazing photographer!

No -he's right. I learned to shoot High-school sports with a 4x5 Crown Graphic.

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2016 at 04:37 UTC
On article Our favorite gear, rewarded: DPReview Awards 2016 (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

whensly: I've owned and used a lot of these cameras but I still have NO idea wha an ILC is?

It is rsser -"ilc" is not a word.

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2016 at 00:29 UTC
On article Happy Holidays from DPReview (149 comments in total)

Here's to another year at DPR...my favorite site.

Link | Posted on Dec 25, 2016 at 20:09 UTC as 78th comment
On article New 20mm F2 4.5x macro lens released by Mitakon (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rey66: I have the canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x macro. The issue with this is that you are limited to 4-4.5x macro and if tou need to get a mcro shot with 1:1 youre out of luck and tou have to put on another macro lens.. Seems like it is just a specialty lens to me.. I can achieve 10x with canon TC 2x III ..

Then I guess it's not for you :)

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2016 at 03:19 UTC
Total: 1271, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »