Samuel Dilworth

Samuel Dilworth

Lives in France Paris, France
Joined on Feb 20, 2011

Comments

Total: 771, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On photo Only the Lonely in the Song Titles- Only The Lonely challenge (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

Becksvart: Very nice image, though he didn't look up for the tripod exposure? I don't mean for the shot, but rather for someone observing him for that long.

Not a question as much as a possible reason the subject didn’t look up for 15 seconds. Only a guess.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 20:09 UTC
On photo Only the Lonely in the Song Titles- Only The Lonely challenge (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

Becksvart: Very nice image, though he didn't look up for the tripod exposure? I don't mean for the shot, but rather for someone observing him for that long.

Self portrait?

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 12:33 UTC
In reply to:

sunnycal: 1.6 billion units? Are these cameras we are talking about?

Millicameras.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 22:57 UTC
In reply to:

electrophoto: lovely tactics... get people hooked, then mild 'em dry.

So glad, I don't work with Adobe stuff anylonger.

Got mild?

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 10:11 UTC

I like the box design.

Nice work, FILM Ferrania!

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 23:57 UTC as 19th comment
In reply to:

TonyPM: Is it 35mm?

Rodinal never dies.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 23:55 UTC
On article Adobe Creative Suite 6 has been officially retired (351 comments in total)
In reply to:

Albert Valentino: Still using CS6 on my 6+ year old macbook pro. This makes me wonder if when i finally upgrade my computer will I no longer be able to download CS6, which i piad for, to my next computer. If that option is caput then i guess i will officially be finished with adobe 😱

Many CS6 users upgraded with varying regularity until CS6, but then held that software until today. For an obvious reason.

Of course I understand why Adobe would prefer to charge more for the same thing (or a worse thing, since Adobe no longer has to innovate to get people to upgrade), if customers are dumb enough to allow them to get away with it. But count me out.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2017 at 23:44 UTC
On article Adobe Creative Suite 6 has been officially retired (351 comments in total)
In reply to:

D200_4me: Sorry if this is obvious from reading the story but I just wanted to make sure. I currently have the latest standalone version of lightroom 6 but does this announcement mean I will not be able to buy a standalone version of Lightroom 7 whenever that comes out?

Hogarty’s statement was (a) a long time ago, (b) at the height of Adobe’s PR crisis, and (c) vague, “indefinitely” being essentially meaningless here.

Many Lightroom users have switched to other software or stayed on an older version (5 in my case) explicitly because they were fearful of being forced to rent future versions of Lightroom.

Knowing this, Adobe has said nothing to placate these fears and gain immediate sales. I think that is a powerful indicator of their intentions for the future.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2017 at 23:11 UTC
On article Hopes of Kodachrome relaunch put on ice (171 comments in total)
In reply to:

maximme: which are the companies still running film production ??

No it hasn’t Greg. The wildly successful ‘La La Land’ currently doing the rounds was shot on film. And many more besides: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Customers/Productions/index.htm

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2017 at 18:22 UTC
On article Hopes of Kodachrome relaunch put on ice (171 comments in total)
In reply to:

maximme: which are the companies still running film production ??

The big ones are Foma, Fujifilm, Ilford, and Kodak, but several smaller companies are doing interesting things too, e.g. Adox, Film Washi, Maco…

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2017 at 10:38 UTC
On article Hopes of Kodachrome relaunch put on ice (171 comments in total)
In reply to:

AndersSJ: Why haven't anybody seen the prosperous market in film manufacturing and processing and started a crowd finding project?

Or is it just whining?

Film processing and especially manufacture have enormous economies of scale. The barriers to entry are also formidable. So they’re not ideal get-rich-quick schemes.

Besides, what could you realistically offer that the market lacks?

The fact is, there is still a large choice of films to buy. We have arguably the most beautiful colour negative film ever made in the Portra range; classic black-and-white films like Pan F Plus, FP4 Plus, HP5 Plus, and Tri-X; the modern and technically impressive Delta range, T-Max 400, and Acros 100; the cheap but wonderful Foma and Kentmere ranges among other low-cost options; and even several colour reversal films (though here the choice has become limited, e.g. no high-speed options since the demise of Provia 400X, though Provia 100F can be pushed two stops).

Most of these are available in rolls and sheets as well as 35 mm cassettes.

I think you’d struggle to find a yawning gap in the market.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2017 at 10:28 UTC
On article Hopes of Kodachrome relaunch put on ice (171 comments in total)
In reply to:

stevevelvia50: Im sure you meant Ernst Hass's, certainly "not" Eggleston!

I think stevevelvia50 is just objecting to being called a would-be Eggleston when he’d rather be Haas. They certainly both used Kodachrome for years.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 22:34 UTC
In reply to:

Albert Valentino: "...ordered to perform community service for Yellowstone Forever." That seems strange as this punisment seems overly harsh, but on the other hand it gives them park access forever as well.

Albert figured that out just fine. He was just making a little joke. It's SRHEdD who has a bit of figuring out to do here.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 11:27 UTC
On article Leica announces M10 with new sensor, slimmer design (113 comments in total)
In reply to:

Light Pilgrim: Leica is an interesting products. If you read specifications, it is at least 5 years behind the top quality cameras. There is no innovation in any shape or form that I can notice. It costs a lot, twice as much as my a lot more capable Canon camera. And yet, there is a real market for it and I have to admit that I would totally love to get the Monochrom version myself. I guess it is not something that you need, because it is by far not the most capable camera...it is something people want. Marketing:-)

Not so much marketing as thoughtful design.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 21:27 UTC
In reply to:

Old Cameras: Digital M's just don't look as elegant and classic as the film bodies: too thick. An M-A is a great looking camera. Eye of the beholder I suppose.

Makes the lens look even smaller though. Perhaps that’s why a digital camera was chosen.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 07:28 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Come on Fuji: Neopan 400 please.

Yes please. And Provia 400X. Two Fujifilm films you would have expected to last until the end. Instead we have two versions of Velvia, neither of which I want. (I guess many people want them, but still.)

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 12:28 UTC
In reply to:

Brotherbill: Unless one plans to print optical rather than digital, I don't see the point.

Please elaborate.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 19:34 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (426 comments in total)

If Kodak is capable of making this, they’re capable of making a film scanner, and that would be far more useful.

The maths suggests it should be profitable, too:

• every year, slightly more people shoot film
• every year, slightly fewer Coolscans remain functional.

When you consider that, today, antique Coolscans sell for more than their new price, you have to wonder how long it will be before someone – and Kodak would be ideally placed for this – makes a competent film scanner.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 14:30 UTC as 68th comment | 1 reply
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (426 comments in total)
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: Can anyone input into this, how does mechanical camcorders actually work??? I mean how does the shutter freeze frames when the film roll is constantly rolling? Had been wondering for years! And Google aint helping!

The film is not constantly rolling. Small rodents pull a frame into the gate, hold it there for a fraction of a second, open and close the shutter, and then drag another frame of film into the gate. The process continues until the user stops filming or the cheese runs out.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 08:08 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: Fine, IF you develop and print in a proper darkroom. For those who scan, a warning. I used to scan. I stopped. Why? I stopped because scanning records the emulsion in 3D: it records and registers as image the chemical lumps. The higher the scan resolution, the more clearly they are revealed, such that you get almost a contour map of the image, and, le pire!, is that as the scan moves across the image the light creates a record of the shadows cast by the chemicals in the emulsion. You might like this, but I much prefer to do it as the process intends: in a darkroom with chemical baths etc.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 19:28 UTC
Total: 771, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »