Michel Aristegui

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

Comments

Total: 34, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

GuitarCamera Man: This article is about analog photographic paper , not digital inkjet paper. There was life before digital. It reminds me of kids who were surprised when they found out Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings.

Is inkjet paper really more digital than analog photographic paper? Photo labs print pixels on analog photographic paper.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2016 at 11:35 UTC
In reply to:

Chris Noble: Do some of the posters below realize that this is about photographic emulsion paper (i.e. exposed and developed), not about the paper that you run through your inkjet printer?

Your formulation 'photographic emulsion paper' vs 'YOUR inkjet printer' is somewhat biased.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2016 at 11:29 UTC
In reply to:

FLruckas: What's paper?

Paper is only known to those who know things because they read books.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 19:52 UTC
In reply to:

Debankur Mukherjee: With Digital Photography the need for films were diminished and now more and more people dont print but use their computers and TVs to view photos and so no need for photo papers........

'... and so no need for photo papers'.
There must be a logical link in the above sentence, but I can't find it.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 19:48 UTC
In reply to:

Combatmedic870: This sucks. People need to start printing stuff and stop pixel peeping.

Revenant says 'we're all different'. Certainly, but this shouldn't imply that all those differences are equally valuable.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 19:42 UTC
In reply to:

Combatmedic870: This sucks. People need to start printing stuff and stop pixel peeping.

A picture doesn't exist until it's printed.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 19:38 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1621 comments in total)
In reply to:

john isaacs: APS-C was a technology limitation; FF sensors were not available or too costly. But FF was and still is the goal. And that is why there are so few (or no) f/2.8 zooms and f/1.8 or faster prime lenses for APS-C.

FF is the obvious upgrade path from APS-C. You buy an APS-C camera and cheap kit lens, maybe get a couple of APS-C lenses, but when you want faster/better lenses, your only option is FF lenses. Now you have spent the money and are carrying the weight, but not achieving the image quality those lenses can provide. And you have the focal length FOV mismatch; not so much an issue with telephoto but definitely an issue with normal and wide angle ranges.

The next step, of course, is a FF body. APS-C would be a system unto itself if the lenses were there, but they aren't.

I shoot FF and m4/3. I got APS-C for backup on FF, just because it was cheap.

APS-C was a technology limitation to full frame lenses, not a technology limitation per se. In fact, smaller sensors have only one disadvantage: more noise.
But do you know that the smaller a pixel , the sharper. This means that a smaller pixel has a higher modulation transfer function (MTF). This is mathematical and non-negotiable. So in good light you may end with a sharper picture by using a crop camera rather than a FF camera with the same pixel count.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 05:18 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

jorepuusa: Hard to believe those hatefull comments against analog method.
-
If analog is horrified? how come The Andalusian dog by Dali or Charlie Chaplin movies etc. are so important movies in the world. The technical quality in those masterpieces is not like digital nowadays .... but visual quality is not the same thing as technical quality.
-
Photographers are divided. Some take pictures and some have cameras as a hobby.

I was among the first to tackle digital photography fifteen years ago. But I never gave up film photography. On the contrary I bought reasonably priced medium format gear.
Today, those who gave up or never knew film photography, feel excluded in a sense. And that makes them angry and irrational.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 12:25 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

timo: I have plenty of old Super 8 movies.

Who on Earth would want this?

Gimmick for under-occupied hipsters.

English is not my mother tongue so I do not know what hipsters are. The Urban Dictionary says 'men and women typically in their 20's and 30's that value independent thinking'. I can't see how one wouldn't value independent thinking but I do see how it's possible to avoid the first part of the definition, which I do pretty well.
By the way, if I were not over-occupied, I would devote much more time to analog photography.
And if I were rich I would buy Kodak Super 8 camera. Or perhaps I should just save money.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2016 at 10:51 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

Howard: 2 1/2 minutes for $50-75 per cartridge with less than the picture quality of a modern toy, and audio on a separate card?? This is hilarious. At least the remaining people at Kodak have a good sense of humor!

This is for people who don't like toys, modern or not, while having a good sense of humor. Surely most of us here.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2016 at 19:08 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.

Haven't you ever bought a photographic item that was not absolutely necessary to your photography?

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2016 at 19:05 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

Matija Prajo: "At 24 fps users will get two and half minutes of movie, and the cartridges take just a couple of seconds to exchange."

"The film should cost between $50 to $75 per cartridge"

So...for 4 hours of wedding coverage, I would need...hm...96 catridges costing me 4800$ :)

Good suggestion. Next time I shoot a wedding I will shoot continuously for four hours. So I'll get all decisive moments.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2016 at 08:39 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

RJ46: Seems very expensive, probably a niche product intended for rich hipsters only. The fact that it's so expensive will make it a status symbol for them.

But for me, I'd rather just have a Super 8 creative art filter on a cheap P&S camera that can make everything look like it was recorded in the 1960s. If Kodak had any sense, it would copy how Fujifilm does the film simulation modes and put a Super 8 1960s simulation mode on all it's P&S cameras.

Expensive? Have you seen the prices of the latest lenses for digital photography?

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 19:28 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mister J: Yikes, I hope the picture quality is better than I got from my last Super-8 camera, a top of the line Canon 814XL

These days, my phone (iPhone always in my pocket) shoots top quality visuals and acceptable audio. And my Panasonic shoots 4k video if I need it.

That's without even thinking about the aggro and cost of processing, or the difficulty of editing effectively.

Still, maybe there's a retro niche with enough buyers with interest that's as deep as their pockets.

Your iPhone is always in your pocket. This is interesting. What are the other items in your pocket?

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 18:01 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

VENTURE-STAR: Apparently, this thread is filled with disinformation and it would seem that many of us don't understand what we are talking about.

I can actually trace my own interest back to Standard 8, which was exciting stuff to work with in the days of really awful B&W TV. Super 8, which I've also used by the thousands of feet is long past retirement. Some budding film makers may think they can mimic the intro to Californication or produce hot, disjointed footage for pop videos that will win awards, but compared to average cameraphone footage shot by someone who really knows what they doing, it generally looks poor. This kind of "we know best" attitude also surfaces with enthusiasts who have to hang on to vinyl discs with their endless assorted problems, drink real ale and drive classic cars. It's all very pretentious BS.

Film has little to offer these days and even parts of Mad Max Fury Road were recorded using humble Canon EOS 5Ds. Quality rules folks, not nonsense.

Am I pretentious if I like analog photography? In that case perhaps I should give up Latin, mathematics and physics to be a little less pretentious.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 17:57 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

Greynerd: This super 8 is like people buying vinyl records in this modern age. You just cannot imagine it happening.

Why would this age be more modern than any other age?

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 17:51 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

AlanG: I hope they also bring back dye transfer soon.

Why not?

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 17:49 UTC
In reply to:

mavic: Hi,

I'm quite a big fan of the Sony Alpha system (and own an Alpha 55) but this body makes no sense to me.
Which professional would be jumping on a Sony Alpha FF body just reviewing the line of FF compatible glasses (either from Sony or Tamron or Sigma). There is only a very few as most of those lenses has been designed for APS-C bodies. Why should I limit myself?
Are there any plans / rumors for more lenses in the A-mount domain?
regards

Please explain what you can't shoot with Sony compatible FF lenses. Thanks in advance.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2012 at 13:54 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: If film was so great then we'd all be shooting it today, and Kodak would be thriving. I find it ironic that the nostalgia buffs have to come onto a site named "Digital Photography Review" in order to whine about the fact that most people prefer to use digital cameras.

This makes about as much sense as going onto a sports car website and whining about "how horses were better than cars."

Neither format is better. Each has advantages and disadvantages. (In the case of film.... considerable disadvantages). I respect those who still like using the more costly and inconvenient format, but that will not change the fact that the market for film and paper has almost disappeared.

Enough with the nostalgia crap.

The market has spoken. Get over it.

It would be a good thing if those who are not interested in film could leave alone those who are. They use digital cameras only, they think it's much better than film, they will never use film again or they have never used film. Why do they bother themselves about film?

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2012 at 11:03 UTC
In reply to:

King Penguin: From an environmental 'green' point of view we should be happy with the demise of film. Sad for Kodak for sure but it had the chance to change but unlike Fuji which faced the same issue, Kodak muffed it.

Sorry guys.......but that's the truth, they had their chance and muffed it!

It's not sad for Kodak. It's sad for those who use film. And from an environmental green point of view we could also get rid of cars and of most other things.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2012 at 09:29 UTC
Total: 34, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »