Evolution of Photography
Apr 26, 2018 16:36:04 #
Definitely worth rerunning (I think I found this here some months ago).
Apr 26, 2018 17:00:11 #
ricardo7
Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile
Actually, that's the evolution of camera derived capture devices.
The evolution of photography might start something like this:
Niepce, Daguerre, Fox Talbot ....................
The evolution of photography might start something like this:
Niepce, Daguerre, Fox Talbot ....................
Apr 26, 2018 17:14:54 #
drmike99 wrote:
Definitely worth rerunning (I think I found this here some months ago).
Two exposures on this one . . .
.
Apr 26, 2018 17:15:13 #
ricardo7 wrote:
Actually, that's the evolution of camera derived capture devices.
The evolution of photography might start something like this:
Niepce, Daguerre, Fox Talbot ....................
The evolution of photography might start something like this:
Niepce, Daguerre, Fox Talbot ....................
Apr 26, 2018 17:35:29 #
The evolution was 'not sharing your bedroom with a load of chemicals' !!!!!!
Apr 27, 2018 05:56:01 #
Apr 27, 2018 06:13:53 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
drmike99 wrote:
Definitely worth rerunning (I think I found this here some months ago).
The REAL advantage of digital is that you can see your result right away. It is nice when your experimenting with a new flash or exposure compensation or a variety of other tests. And with some mirrorless camera's you can see the result BEFORE you shoot, how cool is that.
Apr 27, 2018 06:28:09 #
Pablo8
Loc: Nottingham UK.
Gene51 wrote:
Two exposures on this one . . .
.
.
And most likely is that they are BOTH keepers.
Apr 27, 2018 10:05:40 #
Don't forget Adams, Weston, Capa, . . . . . The subtle differences among several shots of the same object may result in even more "Awesome" pics.
Apr 27, 2018 10:43:32 #
Ron Dial
Loc: Cuenca, Ecuador
It is still challenging to produce a digital print that cannot be discerned from a darkroom print by an expert. Spent much of my graduate time attempting this.
Apr 27, 2018 11:28:37 #
Wow, Gene. I have a bunch of those. Two exposures per is correct. Usually, two keepers per.
--Bob
--Bob
Gene51 wrote:
Two exposures on this one . . .
.
.
Apr 27, 2018 11:28:52 #
drmike99 wrote:
Definitely worth rerunning (I think I found this here some months ago).
This has been here before. Those numbers are quite odd as well, for example, why are there just 12 exposures on the first? It should say at least 33, but I can shoot 90 images at a time with my MF. Second one should be at least 120!
Apr 27, 2018 11:33:28 #
Oddly, I can 'see' my results prior to pressing the shutter with all of my cameras. As such, I rarely chimp. Even then, due to my camera settings, what I'd see looks like crap. I've posted examples of that for the very reason of showing why I don't chimp. It also pays to know your equipment intimately and what to expect from it.
--Bob
--Bob
billnikon wrote:
The REAL advantage of digital is that you can see your result right away. It is nice when your experimenting with a new flash or exposure compensation or a variety of other tests. And with some mirrorless camera's you can see the result BEFORE you shoot, how cool is that.
Apr 27, 2018 20:59:36 #
drmike99 wrote:
Definitely worth rerunning (I think I found this here some months ago).
I don't agree with implications of this. I find myself taking fewer pictures with digital. With film I always took an extra in case something unforeseen went wrong, but with digital a quick glance at the screen is sufficient to assure me that I have enough.
Apr 27, 2018 21:03:39 #
G Brown wrote:
The evolution was 'not sharing your bedroom with a load of chemicals' !!!!!!
Plenty of people did that in the sixties, and still do, except that the pills are now either blue or yellow!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.