CopCarSS

CopCarSS

Lives in United States Pueblo, CO, United States
Works as a Steel Estimator
Joined on Mar 3, 2003

Comments

Total: 100, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I guess it's appropriate. Nikon and the president-elect both both cited huge percentages of Americans desiring what they had to offer. Those claims seem a bit dubious now but here we are stuck with both and not sure what to do with either...

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 00:47 UTC as 81st comment
In reply to:

villagranvicent: A great 100th-year celebration would be the release of some sort of digital F3HP. It is a shame the DF was their only attempt to explore that route.

@CosminMunteanu - It relates to a discussion on another post.

@villagranvicent - There's always a first step.... ;-)

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 18:06 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: A great 100th-year celebration would be the release of some sort of digital F3HP. It is a shame the DF was their only attempt to explore that route.

Careful. You're sounding like a hipster. Next thing you know, you're going to be buying Ektachrome and engaging in all manner of "trying to keep vintage thing BS alive."

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 16:07 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

entoman: I just can't see the point, when we have 4K or HD video as an alternative. If it was incredibly cheap, it might have value as a plaything, but I doubt if will be cheap.

@villagranvicent Any car made today can drive to and from the grocery store, too. How do you account for the enormously popular hobby of restoring classic/antique vehicles if everything has to be the quintessence of practicality?

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 21:38 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

villagranvicent: The ideal product for a bunch of hipsters trying to keep their vintage thing BS alive. They will buy it and use until they realized the cost of film+development is much more expensive than buying a VSCO app to achieve the same look with their iPhones.

I really don't understand why there's so much animosity about this and the Ektachrome announcement. What does it matter if it is indeed a "bunch of hipsters trying to keep their vintage thing BS alive?" Personally, I think it's really neat. I don't know how much Super-8 I'd shoot, but if other people enjoy it and it's not hurting anyone, why get wound up about it?

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 21:34 UTC
In reply to:

WGVanDyck: While I enjoy the primal satisfaction of film, there are economic aspects to be taken into account. Particularly, when discussing a slide film like Ektachrome. Fuji Provia (no price on Ektachrome yet) in a 5 roll pack (36 exp/roll) costs $49.95, with free shipping. Processing and scanning it at a pro lab, two rolls at a time (to save on shipping) costs $60.68. And, a used Nikon F100 would run $200.00. But, when looking at these costs a question arises: At what point does the cost of using film equal the purchase price of a good full frame DSLR like Nikon’s D750? Interestingly, it’s at 43 rolls of film (1548 photos).

Nikon D750 with pro level 64GB SD card: $1929.90
Nikon F100: $200.00
Film cost per roll: $9.99
Processing, scanning and shipping per roll: $30.34
Total cost per roll: $40.33

(1929.90 - 200.00) / 40.33 = 42.89

It is possible to be a little more economical with processing, but it is not going to be a significant change.

As I've mentioned in another comment, my keeper rate while shooting film is much, much higher than while shooting digital. I shoot much more slowly and thoughtfully when I'm using film. Much as I try to impart that kind of approach into my digital shooting, the results are not the same.

So while your cost analysis would please any accountant, it might be worth investigating film as a photographic investment. I can't promise that you'll do better, but my experience has definitely let me reap some artistic rewards from shooting film.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 17:53 UTC
In reply to:

acidic: I still have a couple dozen rolls of Ektachrome 100 sitting around, in the same bag as the 80-90 rolls of Velvia 50 (as well as a couple dozen other film stocks, all 35mm). Most of it was from early 2004 before making the switch, and was in a freezer until 2010 when I decided that it was taking up too much room. Since then it's been at room temp. Not sure what to do with it all at this point...

There are photographers that seek out expired film for the quirky, unpredictable results. If you're not interested in shooting it, you could probably still sell it for a reasonable amount on everybody's favorite auction site. If you can figure out how to target the Lomo crowd, you could probably get a bit more for it.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 17:47 UTC
In reply to:

Tim Gander: Of course all this film resurgence could grind to a halt if new, properly decent film cameras don't come back into production. I'd be interested to know if Nikon, Canon, or anyone is seriously considering re-tooling for that. I could buy a Leica M, but err...

Can you define "properly decent" less ambiguously? One of the beauties of film gear is that the well made stuff is still soldiering on quite well. While there aren't many new film bodies being manufactured, there's still plenty of older cameras that are still soldiering on quite well. My most used film body is a YashicaMat LM that dates to 1962 according to the serial number. It's running flawlessly. Even if it wasn't, there are still repair options for it that will give it many, many more years of service.

The only place that I could see a need for a new and improved film body is in the sports/photojournalist world. The EOS 1v and Nikon F5/F6 are definitely a little behind the very best autofocus systems of today's digitals. I have a feeling that there wouldn't be many sports/PJ photographers eager to go back to film, though. Film photography tends to be practiced by those who appreciate a slower, more methodical approach these days.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 17:43 UTC
In reply to:

Jacek Zagaja: Kodak please also supply cine 16mm and 35mm Ektachrome VS. This is the most beautifull stock - see Louvre drumscanned:

https://flic.kr/p/hU8YFg

Another vote for E100VS, though I'd rather have 120. Seeing an E100VS chrome on a light table is one of those experiences that just has no digital equivalent.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 21:34 UTC
In reply to:

A Girard: Makes me wanna go buy a Pinto.

Fortunately, use of Ektachrome should not result in explosion if someone runs into the back of you while you're out taking pictures.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 21:31 UTC
In reply to:

trulandphoto: Can't afford it.

The costs actually make me a better photographer. I shoot very thoughtfully when I'm shooting film. The result is that my keeper rate skyrockets. That's one of the big appeals of film photography for me.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 23:12 UTC
In reply to:

steelhead3: Surprising, I thought Kodak wasn't in existence anymore and were just a bunch of lawyers fighting patent claims.

It's not the Kodak of old that is producing this film. It's Kodak Alaris. Heaven only knows what's left of the "Great Yellow Father."

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 23:09 UTC
In reply to:

Aroart: Sorry to all the photographers that think making an image with that much bokah is pleasing to the viewer.. I've studies fine arts extensively before becoming a photography enthusiast and I have never seen a painter paint 10% of an image and blur out the rest... I did a little test with average people and children and most of them ask why is the rest so blurry ... Here's a quote from Pablo Picasso. .' it took me 4 yrs to paint like Raphael and a life time to paint like a child. And yes I do uderstand leading the viewers eye and emphasis on isolating a subject but anything below f2 is ridiculous... I find it rather amuzing that lense manufactures manipulated photographers into thinking it makes them artistic and have you pay such a high price for 1.4.

@Aroart - I kind of agree, but keep in mind that photography and painting are two different artistic media. Because of their inherent differences, there will be different interpretations of a given genre. It's not just isolated to extremely shallow DOF in portraits. Think about extreme wide angle use in landscape photography, for instance. Many landscape photographers will use extreme wide angles to deliberately put perspective emphasis on foreground elements in a way that no painter would ever consider. Does it make it wrong to do so? I guess that comes down to the feelings of the artist and the viewer, same as all art.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 15:22 UTC
In reply to:

faterikcartman: 4x5 -- wouldn't Adams have called this his small format system?

Not necessarily. Saint Ansel used quite a variety of gear. Some was indeed larger. But there's also a fair amount of work done with 35mm and medium format gear.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 19:10 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: I miss the old Nikon F3HP/Hasselblad 500CM/Leica M6 days. This is a disgrace.

I'll be honest and say I didn't even know that Hello Kitty was one of the scores of special edition M6 cameras. I'm not sure which is more garish, the Packers or Hello Kitty camera. Both make this ping pong thing seem almost restrained!

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 15:15 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: I miss the old Nikon F3HP/Hasselblad 500CM/Leica M6 days. This is a disgrace.

Do you remember how many special versions there were of the M6?

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2016 at 21:36 UTC

To all the posters remarking about how quickly table tennis rubber will wear: I'm pretty sure that none of these will ever be used as cameras. They'll most likely be a part of some fanatic's collection. A few may be displayed. I'd guess that most will be locked in a vault someplace. But the wear characteristics of table tennis rubber in everyday use will never be a concern.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2016 at 20:47 UTC as 151st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: 5 elements? Hmmm, doesn't sound like a modern lens design. Best for film, I expect.

@The Name is Bond - You've criticized everyone else that disagrees with your absurd notion that "5 elements at f3.5= 8MP at best." Perhaps you'd be so kind as to back up your assertion with some actual data in lieu of criticism of everyone else. I'd love to know where you pulled the 8Mp number from. Sources other than thin air are appreciated.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 16:03 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: 5 elements? Hmmm, doesn't sound like a modern lens design. Best for film, I expect.

My Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5 only has 5 elements and it's possibly the sharpest lens in my kit. Tessars only have 4 elements and some of them do quite well on high resolution bodies.

That being said, if they stick to a classic Heliar design, this will give a very unique and appealing look. Not every lens has to be clinically perfect.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 23:27 UTC
In reply to:

KW Phua: Waiting for glassless lens. THIS IS TOO HEAVY.

Your wait is over. Pinholes have been around for centuries.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 14:14 UTC
Total: 100, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »