| Author |
Message |
    
Panhead_dan
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2012 - 09:54 pm: | 
|
That's a nice lookin springer shovel in the backround. I haven't seen handlebars set up like that in a long time. They come with a learning curve.
That camera is awesome! Sooner or later it will be more awesome and the most awesome thing is that a series of people kept it and took care of it so it could continue to be, well you know, awesome. The only way cool old stuff will be available in the future is for this type of awesomeness to occur. I commend you and thank you for your efforts.
By the way, just today I coaxed a 62 year old motorcycle back to life with a successful shakedown run after a major overhaul and 14 years of being relegated to the back burner with a faulty set of priorities on my part. I did keep it and take care of it, however. That ride today was amazing! Take care of that camera and all the cool old stuff. It will be important to someone someday. |
Davegess
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2012 - 10:38 pm: |
|
Pretty hard to beat the image quality of slow, large format film. Lots of information in one of those images. |
Danger_dave
| | Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2012 - 11:09 pm: |
|
>>Pretty hard to beat the image quality of slow, large format film.<<
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be hey. :-)
I know one photog who refuses to use digital because 'art needs film'. Last I saw her she was selling insurance.
I've got an original Apple Quickshot 150 that still works. It takes crap 'art' photos too. |
Cataract2
| | Posted on Monday, July 09, 2012 - 01:29 am: |
|
I know many hardcore photographers who swear by film to this date. |
Danger_dave
| | Posted on Monday, July 09, 2012 - 05:13 am: |
|
And my Dad still has a fax machine too. :-) |
Danger_dave
| | Posted on Monday, July 09, 2012 - 05:33 am: |
|
Interesting discussion though. Thing is in my industry - press, magazines, online and reprographics - there is no film left anywhere in the process.
There isn't even 'camera ready' art any more - the whole process goes direct to (printing) plate from digital file.
If you provide images on film or transparency it just adds an unwelcome step in the production process of digitizing it.
I agree film *might* still be better for one off or limited edition art reproductions, but with output device technology the way it is now - you virtually need a microscope to tell. Plus what you can do with the images post production is unlimited.
I had one customer who produced billboards - they had a camera where you opened the door and walked inside
to position the film. Even that process has gone digital now and the media is output in strips.
There used to be a number of film houses that did large format stuff for advertising. I looked after their macs. All the ones I used to deal with have closed.
On a purely personal level - anything I could do on film I can now do better on digital. But I consider myself a good machinery operator rather than a fine artist. |
Davegess
| | Posted on Monday, July 09, 2012 - 09:47 am: |
|
Ol' Danger has it pretty much nailed. If your output is going to be reproduced there is virtually no call for film anymore; it is dead. If you are hanging a print on the wall large format film will give you a bit of an edge but not one most of us could notice. BUT I'll wager a couple of cold ones that a contact print from one of the old very large format, 8x10 and up, glass plate negatives would look very impressive to even the most committed digital guy. |
Mr_grumpy
| | Posted on Monday, July 09, 2012 - 02:00 pm: |
|
It's like listening to music on your computer or through an old valve amp, I'm sure there's a program to simulate the valve amp sound, but it's nice just using old stuff. |
86129squids
| | Posted on Monday, July 09, 2012 - 03:14 pm: |
|
Fun stuff!
As an aside, does anyone here have a nice record player? I'd still like to acquire a nice turntable to play some vinyl every now and then...
 |
|
