Michel Aristegui

Michel Aristegui

Lives in France Tours, France
Works as a Mathematics Teacher
Joined on Oct 4, 2004

Comments

Total: 63, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

TillmanB: Something I think is cool about my film gear is that over the years while digital cameras have come and gone with new sensors introduced and eventually becoming obsolete, film has only gotten better. Sure in recent years the innovations have become few and far between, but in terms of "Sensor technology" my Kodak Retina has enjoyed numerous upgrades over the years from the time my grandfather purchased it in 1956 to present day. I know, I know, OFF TOPIC!

Put your pitchforks and torches away, I use my digital stuff to get the images from film into my computer, so it's a hybrid digital system, surely that has a place here... ;)

@Pete Brody
Oh my God!
I've just read a few of your latest posts in other forums, particularly about foreigners.
Appalling.
So, the end.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 12:01 UTC
In reply to:

TillmanB: Something I think is cool about my film gear is that over the years while digital cameras have come and gone with new sensors introduced and eventually becoming obsolete, film has only gotten better. Sure in recent years the innovations have become few and far between, but in terms of "Sensor technology" my Kodak Retina has enjoyed numerous upgrades over the years from the time my grandfather purchased it in 1956 to present day. I know, I know, OFF TOPIC!

Put your pitchforks and torches away, I use my digital stuff to get the images from film into my computer, so it's a hybrid digital system, surely that has a place here... ;)

@Pete Brody
The quality of a print depends on the MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) of the entire system: lens + sensor + processing + printer. When you print at sizes less than 12x16, the parts of the MTF curves that you need to consider are quite similar for the A7 and the 20D. So the prints are quite similar.

You can contest my argument or just say you don't understand it.

Please say something constructive (or destructive) about it.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 11:09 UTC
In reply to:

TillmanB: Something I think is cool about my film gear is that over the years while digital cameras have come and gone with new sensors introduced and eventually becoming obsolete, film has only gotten better. Sure in recent years the innovations have become few and far between, but in terms of "Sensor technology" my Kodak Retina has enjoyed numerous upgrades over the years from the time my grandfather purchased it in 1956 to present day. I know, I know, OFF TOPIC!

Put your pitchforks and torches away, I use my digital stuff to get the images from film into my computer, so it's a hybrid digital system, surely that has a place here... ;)

@Pete Brody
>> You simply do not have high standards for high res images.
Always the same kind of aggressive argument.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 10:52 UTC
In reply to:

TillmanB: Something I think is cool about my film gear is that over the years while digital cameras have come and gone with new sensors introduced and eventually becoming obsolete, film has only gotten better. Sure in recent years the innovations have become few and far between, but in terms of "Sensor technology" my Kodak Retina has enjoyed numerous upgrades over the years from the time my grandfather purchased it in 1956 to present day. I know, I know, OFF TOPIC!

Put your pitchforks and torches away, I use my digital stuff to get the images from film into my computer, so it's a hybrid digital system, surely that has a place here... ;)

@Pete Brody
The quality of a print depends on the MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) of the entire system: lens + sensor + processing + printer. When you print at sizes less than 12x16, the parts of the MTF curves that you need to consider are quite similar for the A7 and the 20D. So the prints are quite similar.

You can contest my argument or just say you don't understand it.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 10:51 UTC
In reply to:

TillmanB: Something I think is cool about my film gear is that over the years while digital cameras have come and gone with new sensors introduced and eventually becoming obsolete, film has only gotten better. Sure in recent years the innovations have become few and far between, but in terms of "Sensor technology" my Kodak Retina has enjoyed numerous upgrades over the years from the time my grandfather purchased it in 1956 to present day. I know, I know, OFF TOPIC!

Put your pitchforks and torches away, I use my digital stuff to get the images from film into my computer, so it's a hybrid digital system, surely that has a place here... ;)

@Pete Brody
As I said before:
The quality of a print depends on the MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) of the entire system: lens + sensor + processing + printer. When you print at sizes less than 12x16, the parts of the MTF curves that you need to consider are quite similar for the A7 and the 20D. So the prints are quite similar.

Please be free to prove that this argument is false.
It might be easier than to prove that my "vision is poor".

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 10:36 UTC
In reply to:

TillmanB: Something I think is cool about my film gear is that over the years while digital cameras have come and gone with new sensors introduced and eventually becoming obsolete, film has only gotten better. Sure in recent years the innovations have become few and far between, but in terms of "Sensor technology" my Kodak Retina has enjoyed numerous upgrades over the years from the time my grandfather purchased it in 1956 to present day. I know, I know, OFF TOPIC!

Put your pitchforks and torches away, I use my digital stuff to get the images from film into my computer, so it's a hybrid digital system, surely that has a place here... ;)

@Pete Brody
As much as I'm happy to discuss the interesting subject of print quality with you or anybody else, I would appreciate it if you could avoid arguments such as:

>> I'm starting to think you haven't viewed images
>> on a high ppi display.

>> Sounds like you've never experienced a projected
>> slideshow of positive film.

>> You don't seem to understand photography
>> and digital photography as well as you think you do.

>> That you are Ok with the differences
>> or that you for some reason do not notice it,
>> that would mean that there is something
>> terribly wrong with your process
>> and/or your vision is poor.

Thanks in advance.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 08:17 UTC
In reply to:

TillmanB: Something I think is cool about my film gear is that over the years while digital cameras have come and gone with new sensors introduced and eventually becoming obsolete, film has only gotten better. Sure in recent years the innovations have become few and far between, but in terms of "Sensor technology" my Kodak Retina has enjoyed numerous upgrades over the years from the time my grandfather purchased it in 1956 to present day. I know, I know, OFF TOPIC!

Put your pitchforks and torches away, I use my digital stuff to get the images from film into my computer, so it's a hybrid digital system, surely that has a place here... ;)

@Pete Brody

>> At the print size you've been talking about,
>> the Sony A7 visibly trounces the 20D.

>> An image in a print typically looks dead in comparison
>> to one that is made of light.

I'm willing to reply to arguments, not to incantations.

>> a photo printed at 200ppi is obviously inferior
>> to one printed at 350ppi.

This is not necessarily true. There's much more to the quality of a print than ppi.
And I'm sorry, it can't be explained in simple terms.
The quality of a print depends on the MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) of the entire system: lens + sensor + processing + printer. When you print at sizes less than 12x16, the parts of the MTF curves that you need to consider are quite similar for the A7 and the 20D. So the prints are quite similar.

>> Actually, you never mentioned viewing distance.
I'm sorry. I wrongly assumed it was obvious.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 06:41 UTC
In reply to:

MikeF4Black: OK; so I ended up with a 400Tx recommendation. I'm using that already, depending on subject and circumstances next to Retro 400S, Double-X 5222 and ORWO N74. All usually at 400 ISO, although the first two don't mind 800 ISO (if sensibly processed with a grain of pyro, my man tells me) at all.

I'm probably not in the target demographic.

I got Kodak Portra 400 and Ilford HP5+, which I'm using almost exclusively!

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 19:48 UTC
In reply to:

TillmanB: Cool to see some film coming back, but honestly they could have come up with a better choice for the very first photo on their slideshow. That sailor and that nurse didn't know each other, it was an uninvited kiss imposed upon her from a stranger, and now days would have probably resulted in legal action for sexual assault.

@stevo33 Thank you very much!
And it also happened in France!

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 19:03 UTC
In reply to:

TillmanB: Cool to see some film coming back, but honestly they could have come up with a better choice for the very first photo on their slideshow. That sailor and that nurse didn't know each other, it was an uninvited kiss imposed upon her from a stranger, and now days would have probably resulted in legal action for sexual assault.

Sorry to be a little late, but I don't know what terrible events took place when this photo was taken. Please tell me.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 17:45 UTC
In reply to:

TillmanB: Something I think is cool about my film gear is that over the years while digital cameras have come and gone with new sensors introduced and eventually becoming obsolete, film has only gotten better. Sure in recent years the innovations have become few and far between, but in terms of "Sensor technology" my Kodak Retina has enjoyed numerous upgrades over the years from the time my grandfather purchased it in 1956 to present day. I know, I know, OFF TOPIC!

Put your pitchforks and torches away, I use my digital stuff to get the images from film into my computer, so it's a hybrid digital system, surely that has a place here... ;)

Your replies are not very constructive. Instead of presenting arguments, you are just saying I don't understand photography.
As I have been teaching mathematics for more than 30 years, I'm not surprised when someone doesn't understand what I'm explaining. Please note that this is not the same as saying that you don't understand the whole subject of photography.

So I can start again: I'm saying that 12x16 prints from Sony A7 images and Canon 20D images are indistinguishable when viewed at arm's length.

This is all that I'm saying. Of course the Sony A7 images have more potential and bigger prints would show the superiority of the A7 over the 20D.

I do appreciate a projected slideshow, so I "should understand why an image giving off its own light is far more impressive than a print".
Nevertheless, just to be sure, could you tell me why?

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 15:20 UTC
In reply to:

TillmanB: Something I think is cool about my film gear is that over the years while digital cameras have come and gone with new sensors introduced and eventually becoming obsolete, film has only gotten better. Sure in recent years the innovations have become few and far between, but in terms of "Sensor technology" my Kodak Retina has enjoyed numerous upgrades over the years from the time my grandfather purchased it in 1956 to present day. I know, I know, OFF TOPIC!

Put your pitchforks and torches away, I use my digital stuff to get the images from film into my computer, so it's a hybrid digital system, surely that has a place here... ;)

I said my Sony A7 was no better than my Canon 20D for 12x16 prints. This fact can even be proved by computation.
I'm just comparing prints, real prints, not simulated prints. This doesn't require a "high ppi display".
Of course, if you zoom images on any screen, the A7 pictures look better.

By the way I appreciate projected slideshows. That's why I own a Rolleivision 66 AF slide projector.

I suspect that it's not only because of superior initial resolution that a downsampled 4K video is better. But I won't discuss that point further since I'm not interested in video.

Nevertheless I agree on one point. Due to the Bayer matrix, a downsampled A7 image will yield a better image on a 4K display than a 20D image (24MP = 12MP green + 6 MP red + 6MP blue).

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 11:44 UTC
In reply to:

TillmanB: Something I think is cool about my film gear is that over the years while digital cameras have come and gone with new sensors introduced and eventually becoming obsolete, film has only gotten better. Sure in recent years the innovations have become few and far between, but in terms of "Sensor technology" my Kodak Retina has enjoyed numerous upgrades over the years from the time my grandfather purchased it in 1956 to present day. I know, I know, OFF TOPIC!

Put your pitchforks and torches away, I use my digital stuff to get the images from film into my computer, so it's a hybrid digital system, surely that has a place here... ;)

>> Guys, this argument is devolving into "I've seen pictures better than you've seen pictures".

I can't see the relationship with what has just been said.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 07:31 UTC
In reply to:

TillmanB: Something I think is cool about my film gear is that over the years while digital cameras have come and gone with new sensors introduced and eventually becoming obsolete, film has only gotten better. Sure in recent years the innovations have become few and far between, but in terms of "Sensor technology" my Kodak Retina has enjoyed numerous upgrades over the years from the time my grandfather purchased it in 1956 to present day. I know, I know, OFF TOPIC!

Put your pitchforks and torches away, I use my digital stuff to get the images from film into my computer, so it's a hybrid digital system, surely that has a place here... ;)

"I like prints too, but there is no comparison to an image that puts out its own light."
You should view prints under strong lighting conditions. Then you'll see there is no comparison to an image that puts out its own light.
And 4K is only 8 megapixels, like the 20D.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 12:54 UTC
In reply to:

TillmanB: Something I think is cool about my film gear is that over the years while digital cameras have come and gone with new sensors introduced and eventually becoming obsolete, film has only gotten better. Sure in recent years the innovations have become few and far between, but in terms of "Sensor technology" my Kodak Retina has enjoyed numerous upgrades over the years from the time my grandfather purchased it in 1956 to present day. I know, I know, OFF TOPIC!

Put your pitchforks and torches away, I use my digital stuff to get the images from film into my computer, so it's a hybrid digital system, surely that has a place here... ;)

I never mentioned zoomed in images, just prints. The A7 prints don't look better than the 20D prints. In fact this can be measured by computing, for instance, the SQF of the prints (Subjective Quality Factor). A more recent measure is the CPIQ (Camera Phone Image Quality), which is used for any camera.
Many years ago, Norman Koren, the creator of Imatest, said that his Canon 20D gave him all the quality a 12x16 print could display.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 12:46 UTC
In reply to:

TillmanB: Something I think is cool about my film gear is that over the years while digital cameras have come and gone with new sensors introduced and eventually becoming obsolete, film has only gotten better. Sure in recent years the innovations have become few and far between, but in terms of "Sensor technology" my Kodak Retina has enjoyed numerous upgrades over the years from the time my grandfather purchased it in 1956 to present day. I know, I know, OFF TOPIC!

Put your pitchforks and torches away, I use my digital stuff to get the images from film into my computer, so it's a hybrid digital system, surely that has a place here... ;)

It depends on what you do with your pictures. In my opinion, a picture comes into existence when it is printed. And 12x16 prints from my 8 megapixel Canon 20D, with adequate sharpening, are indistinguishable from 12x16 prints from my 24 megapixel Sony A7.
Of course the A7 is better for low light shooting, but not impressively better according to DxO: ln(2248/721)/ln(2) = 1.64 stop. Not even a two stop improvement in more than ten years.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 09:23 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: Fellini... Pasolini... Rossolini... Hipsterini... Wannabeni...

Maybe in Japan youngsters use film, but here in France, I have never seen such a phenomenon.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 15:54 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: Fellini... Pasolini... Rossolini... Hipsterini... Wannabeni...

I don't google words. I look them up in dictionaries.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 14:16 UTC
In reply to:

TillmanB: Something I think is cool about my film gear is that over the years while digital cameras have come and gone with new sensors introduced and eventually becoming obsolete, film has only gotten better. Sure in recent years the innovations have become few and far between, but in terms of "Sensor technology" my Kodak Retina has enjoyed numerous upgrades over the years from the time my grandfather purchased it in 1956 to present day. I know, I know, OFF TOPIC!

Put your pitchforks and torches away, I use my digital stuff to get the images from film into my computer, so it's a hybrid digital system, surely that has a place here... ;)

Photographers don't use film because it's technically superior to digital. Nevertheless even a 6x4.5 T-Max 100 negative trounces the best full-frame sensor. Of course you can buy a camera with a bigger sensor, from Hasselblad, Fuji or Pentax. It's just a little more expensive.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 10:38 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: Fellini... Pasolini... Rossolini... Hipsterini... Wannabeni...

Hispter: someone who is very influenced by the most recent ideas and fashions.
This is the definition of the online Cambridge Dictionary.
So, when I'm using film, I'm influenced by a most recent fashion.
When I was using film 40 years ago, was I influenced by a most recent fashion?

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 07:02 UTC
Total: 63, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »