Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Real photographers
Page <<first <prev 15 of 16 next>
Dec 26, 2017 10:38:28   #
geodowns Loc: Yale, Michigan
 
I'm fascinated by Russian aircraft. I saw a gargo take off in Marseilles France, used every inch of runway. They have some fascinated design of aircraft. The first Mig fighter was actually a late WW2 German design.

Reply
Dec 26, 2017 13:18:35   #
jackinkc Loc: Kansas City
 
geodowns wrote:
I'm fascinated by Russian aircraft. I saw a gargo take off in Marseilles France, used every inch of runway. They have some fascinated design of aircraft. The first Mig fighter was actually a late WW2 German design.


I’ve always wondered how the Russians build great aircraft, considering how badly KIEV cameras operate.

Reply
Dec 26, 2017 13:30:27   #
mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)
 
geodowns wrote:
I'm fascinated by Russian aircraft. I saw a gargo take off in Marseilles France, used every inch of runway. They have some fascinated design of aircraft. The first Mig fighter was actually a late WW2 German design.


Actually the MiG is a Soviet design. The MiG 1/3 was introduced in 1939 and deployed in 1941. Most were destroyed during the German invasion of the USSR in 1941 (Barbarossa).

Reply
 
 
Dec 26, 2017 14:00:08   #
therwol Loc: USA
 
mcveed wrote:
Actually the MiG is a Soviet design. The MiG 1/3 was introduced in 1939 and deployed in 1941. Most were destroyed during the German invasion of the USSR in 1941 (Barbarossa).


I believe that the early post-war MIGs (jets) benefited from the assistance of captured German engineers. They were better than our early jets until the F-86 came along. We've been tit for tat with them ever since. And this brings up a point that could relate to the original discussion. With smart missiles and drones, manned combat planes could be on the verge of obsolescence, just like most film cameras now.

Reply
Dec 27, 2017 09:55:37   #
SpikeW Loc: Butler PA
 
OK. My first SLR was a Kodak Retina 111. I think the number is right if not skip it as it is not that important. Wonderful camera. Lens was great but selection was limited. Had to remember to check to see if film was advancing, [lost some wonderful shots because didn't always check]. Developed my own film except transparencies. Still love the lens. Still can't hold a candle to the new digital cameras. Well maybe the lens. What it all boils down to is my cars all come with automatic transmissions now. Enough said.

Reply
Dec 27, 2017 10:14:18   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
therwol wrote:
Shooting pictures on an old film camera involves too much time.
I don't understand this. I spend just as much time setting up a picture with my current digital camera as I ever did with my film camera shooting Kodachrome.

Reply
Dec 27, 2017 11:41:07   #
therwol Loc: USA
 
rehess wrote:
I don't understand this. I spend just as much time setting up a picture with my current digital camera as I ever did with my film camera shooting Kodachrome.


I'm not talking about the time involved in taking the pictures. I'm talking about the time spent waiting for film to be processed and scanned, and also the expense of buying film and paying for processing/scanning. It seems like a waste of a lot of "time" to me for results that can't match those of a modern digital camera. (IMHO. I don't want to get into that debate.)

Reply
 
 
Dec 27, 2017 11:49:13   #
James Slick Loc: Pittsburgh,PA
 
therwol wrote:
I'm not talking about the time involved in taking the pictures. I'm talking about the time spent waiting for film to be processed and scanned, and also the expense of buying film and paying for processing/scanning. It seems like a waste of a lot of "time" to me for results that can't match those of a modern digital camera. (IMHO. I don't want to get into that debate.)


To be fair, you DID say "SHOOTING pictures on an old film camera....." 😉

Reply
Dec 27, 2017 13:37:39   #
therwol Loc: USA
 
James Slick wrote:
To be fair, you DID say "SHOOTING pictures on an old film camera....." 😉


Okay. I see where you're coming from.

Reply
Dec 27, 2017 22:29:08   #
bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.
 
yep the can is open. regardless of the equipment there are photographers and picture takers. so what? we make do with the talent level we have and the equipment we have. are you going to praise those who drove a stick and put down those who opted for an auto tranny?

Reply
Dec 27, 2017 23:16:50   #
therwol Loc: USA
 
bull drink water wrote:
yep the can is open. regardless of the equipment there are photographers and picture takers. so what? we make do with the talent level we have and the equipment we have. are you going to praise those who drove a stick and put down those who opted for an auto tranny?


Both get you to the same place. If you want to do all of the work of shifting, it makes no difference, though after driving a standard for almost 20 years, I finally gave it up after being stuck in the middle of nowhere because of clutch failure more than once. Automatics have been better to me, and I'm not in a panic when I drive to San Francisco and have to deal with those hills. To each their own. I also gave up film a decade ago. Too much bother.

Reply
 
 
Dec 31, 2017 18:03:51   #
hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA
 
Just the convenience of having an infinity of film speeds in one camera, instantly available, is worth the change. I take many more shots with digital than film. This gives more practice and possibility for growth. My brother is my worst critic. The most I got from him in film was an "adequate". Now I'll get some "nice" comments.

Reply
Dec 31, 2017 18:49:20   #
aellman Loc: Boston MA
 
geodowns wrote:
Let's open another can of worms to rant on. Way back for 50+ years the only camera I had was a Nikon Ftn, all manual everything. You had to know your stuff, you had to be quick, focus, click... with no previews of your shot to look at. You had a box of filters for every occasions, than you were at the mercy of the lab to do a good job or do it yourself, print it yourself, fix it yourself. Times have change. I feel like an old fighter pilot with all the glory story's in the past. Young wepersnapers don't have a clue what its like to really be good with the old stuff. Really missing that old Ftn, but someone really wanted it, so I sold it all. Now armed with digital for 15 years, the old cockpits where all analog, mechanical. Now the new cockpits are glass, computers etc. Camera have gone the same route. They take.... I mean capture (sorry) scenes better then the eye can see. Point...&... Shoot. That was easy. Do some creative photoshop and voila, better than the real thing. OK I'll let someone pick this thing apart now. And I still like B17s better than Tanks.
Let's open another can of worms to rant on. Way ba... (show quote)


Your message is so tangled it's hard to tell what your point is. It's not a can of worms; it's a 50 gallon drum of worms. Film is good. Digital is bad; oh wait, it's really good. It was good in the old days, but I sold my "old days" equipment. "Now even a $5000 camera can point and shoot." And your point is? And why would contemporary digital photographers want or need to "be good with the old stuff?" They have absolutely no need for that knowledge. In a remarkable transition, we are suddenly transported to aircraft cockpits. Last but not least, comparing a B-17 to an Airbus a320 (for example) would be somewhat legitimate but largely pointless. Comparing a B-17 to a tank? WTF? Respectfully, Alan

Reply
Jan 4, 2018 12:32:09   #
wj cody Loc: springfield illinois
 
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
When you get right down to the basics of photography, nothing has changed all that much. Once you cut through all the high tech automation, unnecessary bells and whistles, advertising hype and techno-babble there are only three controls of any significance in every adjustable camera and lens; aperture, shutter speed and focus. If the “photographer” is really a photographer and fully understands and MASTERS the multiple and interrelated functions of theses three adjustments, he or she can produce, create and enable a myriad of effects, moods, and images only limited by one's imagination. Many great and even iconic images were made with simple decent gear. Many photography enthusiasts are just too preoccupied with gear and would do better (photographically) to concentrate on simplicity and really learning their craft.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with today's high tech automated equipment. It just makes things more convenient at times. The savvy photographer knows how to maximize the usage of this automation by manipulating it to their own requirements or totally bypassing theses programs and adjusting things manually.

There is no automation to replace artistry. Elements such as composition, aesthetics, “seeing” and applying the dynamic of light are all talents, perhaps inborn traits, however, even those who are fortunate enough to posses theses attributes still need to develop theses talents and learn the craftsmanship and technology.

I have spent many decades in the film era and admittedly, I do miss certain aspects of the craftsmanship. There is little use, however, in pining for the good old days, perhaps, in retrospect they were old but not all that “good”. Besides, how can one revert to the film era when most of the film, fine papers and chemistry are no longer in production. One would spend more time trying to acquire whatever is still around, mixing scratch chemistry and basically living in the past, than shooting and creating images.

All of the camera handling and image management of film cameras can be related to digital gear and all of the aesthetics of analog darkroom work can be translated to post processing and editing.

There is still no technology to replace patience and hard work.
When you get right down to the basics of photograp... (show quote)


agreed, which is why i continue to use film - i find digital of little use to me, especially in conflict situations.

Reply
Jan 4, 2018 18:58:15   #
Al Freeedman
 
Please note that the Kodak Retina 111 was not a SLR it was a rangefinder 25 MM camera.

Had a great lens, and small enough to fit in your pocket when folded

Captain Al

Reply
Page <<first <prev 15 of 16 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.