Is my camera dead?

[editor]

Quality. Crafted quality as opposed to mass produced placcy crap.

More AE1's were made (over 5 million sales worldwide) than most modern digital camera models, so that argument's a non starter. Oh, and they cost comparably loads more too.

Mind you, I'll say that a lot of modern dSLRs feel well flimsy compared to their SLR predecessors. But then they cost a lot more and weren't as complex.

 

[editor]

Digital/film - who gives a shit as long as you like the photos you are producing?

Amen!

 

[nick]

I feel like I've been a bit hijacked . Are there any demands like a fast jet or the release of prisoners?

Anyway - thanks for the advice. It seems in summary that I should reformat my cards and maybe buy another. Only then should I investigate getting a replacement camera - having girded my loins in preparation for a big digital / film bun fight when I come to ask you good people for advice on make and model (it makes MAc v PC on the techie forums look pretty easy going )

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Hmmmm, I'm sure that's what I was told. That he made up the whole thing or that part of the point of it was that we don't know whether he did or not. Something to do with it being a parallel to how little we know in the west of the situation in Lebanon, that we don't know what is fact and what is fiction, all we know is what we are told by the media. Or something like that anyway. The Atlas Group consists of Raad only.

I may have misremembered some of this

You could well be right, although the photographs dated as being 1958 are very convincing in every way. I would bet all on them being original images created in 1958. It would be easy enough to verify.

I like The Atlas Project. It is a great use of photography, but I'd like to be reassured that the Raad is the creator in all cases, not as he presents the project - a collection of found, commissioned photographs represented as original files. It only matters to me because they were awarded a prize fund specifically created to encourage new photography by photographers.

On the AE1 front; yes, they were mass produced over a long period of time. They stood the test of time and held their value very well. I still like them and prefer to use old classic film cameras to digital whenever it's a viable option. I'm not making an anti digital argument as much as an anti disposable consumerism argument. The AE1 in today's context offers great value.


Alas, I've just been banned from the BJP forum for being offensive. Using the term 'image whore'. Ironically being accused of being sexist on a forum where I often stood my ground against the many backward bigots who often expressed sexist and racist views. Why artists exhibit provocative work expecting controversy and extreme reactions and then go and get me banned from saying my piece with a little venom is beyond me. I'll never get it. Personally, I love it whenever any of my work gets a reaction. Good, bad or, downright ugly, it's far better than being ignored with the millions.

I hope Urban never gives in to such pressured censorship. The web is becoming incredibly sterile elsewhere. Strange thing; it seems you have to be incredibly unexpressive to get on in the art world in the UK these days. Makes me all the more glad I moved to Spain. I sold Two paintings to very real people yesterday. Far more rewarding than playing the pretense in London. A guy from Belgium is collecting another today, and a couple of weeks ago I met someone from California who was familiar and very appreciating of my photography work. I'm happily mixing in circles here that I would never have been welcome in back in the UK.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

... in preparation for a big digital / film bun fight when I come to ask you good people for advice on make and model (it makes MAc v PC on the techie forums look pretty easy going )

Sorry

I didn't start it mind and I'm not arguing film v digi. I have Two cameras right in front of me now that kept coming up with error messages due to new cards! Both have firmware updates available for download.

This evening I shall be going out with a Three year old Casio Exilim (came my way for free) and a 1957 Yashica J Star (£1.05p from ebay)

 

[Pie 1]

Alas, I've just been banned from the BJP forum for being offensive. Using the term 'image whore'. I

Good god, I'd forgotten how twaty that place can be.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Good god, I'd forgotten how twaty that place can be.

Bunch of backward bigots there mostly. I now have people claiming I called someone a 'whore' rather than 'image whore'. Very different connotations to my way of reading. Along with people calling me a charlatan and other potentially damaging remarks that I never complained about once. I think they're all just jealous

 

[editor]

Anyway - thanks for the advice. It seems in summary that I should reformat my cards and maybe buy another.

Definitely start with replacing the card and formatting it in-camera. If that doesn't work, check Canon's website to see if there's any firmware updates to he bad (unlikely, but you never know).

 

[disco_dave_2000]

Only then should I investigate getting a replacement camera - having girded my loins in preparation for a big digital / film bun fight when I come to ask you good people for advice on make and model (it makes MAc v PC on the techie forums look pretty easy going )

Not sure there will be much of a 'bun-fight' as quite a few of the regular posters on this forum use both and recognise the difference, in terms of speed, quality, cost etc between them.

 

[Pie 1]

I think they're all just jealous

The BJP has always had a slight wiff of failed photographer about it tbh.
It was never bought by any of the guys I assisted & I only ever thumb through the counter copy at the lab.

 

[Paul Russell]

Alas, I've just been banned from the BJP forum for being offensive. Using the term 'image whore'. Ironically being accused of being sexist on a forum where I often stood my ground against the many backward bigots who often expressed sexist and racist views.

That's Amateur Photographer and BJP now?!

Yeah, the Interweb would be a really boring place if you could only post nice comments, like Flickr, or couldn't say "shit" (like the dpreview forums?),

On the other hand, I can understand the BJP's nervousness about publishing a remark calling a well known (i.e. someone I'd never heard of) curator and artist, who had started the thread, an "image whore". Defamation or whatever it is.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

This is yet another reason that people who buy digital cameras are chumps. Like all modern techno-crap, they are designed to only last a short time to make sure you have to buy another one in a few years time. I have a canon AE1 which is older than me and will, I have little doubt, be taking better pictures than the best digital camera money can buy long after I'm dead

well you're totally without question wrong.

most people other than the obessives such as stanley firky the editor me self squelch etc aren't buying the camera because they are going to use it to take classic photogrpahs of artistic merit (and many might say that to their personal taste neither do we...) they are buying them to take snaps fun pics friend pics, this was how fucked we got at this party/pub/event pics this is me at that gig pics, this is the hotel we stayed in on holiday pics and a range of other types of snaps. They are the memory bookmarks of peoples lives type pics.

They aren't expecting professional studio end quality they are happy if they can print them off on their colour bubbe jet on flat a4 and then stick them to a wall.

They couldn't give a flyign fuck about DPI, mega pixel size CCD range Film iso, shutter speed appature or anything technical anymore than 90% of people who druive don't really know what their tire pressures should be or where to stick oil into the engine as far as they are concerned it's not important. It's what they are doing and what allows them to snap that that's important.

they love digital and are preparred to accept that now and again their cheap as chips camera will die as it's a cheap as chips camera.

And it's not as though high end cameras of all types don't have shutter cycles or need repairs or are unbreakable either, at least if light get's into a digital it doesn't take out the entire set of shots in one bitterly terrible foul swoop....

So no for your avagerage punter film is distinctly old hat and indeed dead in the water.

Fro your professional then i'm afraid from a pap POV (or 35 mm) then everyone has gone to a 5d, mark 1d mark111 indeed the mark111 is the defacto sports camera of the moment. no film there...

Fro high end fashion shots medium format etc then yes film is better, but this as always been a niche market ever since the popular rise of 35 mm .

as for modern techno crap really ihave pc's from the ealier 90's which are going strong indeed i hae just dicted one from 1989 which stil ran but was frankly in terms of useage a tad underpowered to do anything at all these days... (shame it cost me well over £2000 at the time...though the laser jet from that period is still going strong)

the old adge you get's what you pay for has never really gone out of fashion however i'd say on balance for the average user bar any acts of real negliect then a modern digital camera will for average occasional use of say 600 to 1000 shots a year (up from say 300 shots a year on film) will last the same level of time as the equiverlent in terms of cheap tech film camera...

we are taking point and shoot here, not some high spec 35 mm tool of the trade after all...

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'll consider every shot with a completely different mindset. I'll value every clunk of the shutter press and that lovely 'whizz' that the AE1 purrs. Every shot will be a pound. Every shot will be an expectation. Every shot will be at least an hour absorbing my surroundings and several minutes composing. The metal body and appreciation of the mechanical wonder. The durability. The love and knowledge of film.

It's so much more than a click and rush home to the PC.

It's a very different medium.

Stan, you forgot the single most important sound that an AE1 makes; that awful "squeak" as you use the wind-on lever.

 

[Pie 1]

For high end fashion shots, medium format etc - then yes film is better

Actually, you need to replace the word 'better' with 'different' these days.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Actually, you need to replace the word 'better' with 'different' these days.

no better it really is there just isn't the res yet indigital and a don't tink you'd get any serious lensman worht their salt disputing it... some of the Blad H2 stuff and H3 is good but the results are patchy compared to the consitancy of Medium format film. It doesn't scale well and the pixelation is still bad enough for it to cause problems... (there's also the practical issues of enlargement etc which still cannot be done in digital unlike a negative which can with minimal detail loss be pushed to just about any size...

 

[Pie 1]

no better it really is there just isn't the res yet indigital and a don't tink you'd get any serious lensman worht their salt disputing it... some of the Blad H2 stuff and H3 is good but the results are patchy compared to the consitancy of Medium format film. It doesn't scale well and the pixelation is still bad enough for it to cause problems... (there's also the practical issues of enlargement etc which still cannot be done in digital unlike a negative which can with minimal detail loss be pushed to just about any size...

Really?
Have you had much hands on experience of all this then?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Really?
Have you had much hands on experience of all this then?

enough and also looking at the results of friends equipment and working with some high end fashion guys who will not use digital for studio shots or clothes lines ... billboard campagins and that sorta thing...(them not me) why ?

 

[Firky]

I have been playing about with film this evening. I have forgot how to use my 35mm so fuck knows how they're going to turn out. There's no LEDs or anything and its marked cyrillic engravings

no better it really is there just isn't the res yet indigital and a don't tink you'd get any serious lensman worht their salt disputing it... some of the Blad H2 stuff and H3 is good but the results are patchy compared to the consitancy of Medium format film. It doesn't scale well and the pixelation is still bad enough for it to cause problems... (there's also the practical issues of enlargement etc which still cannot be done in digital unlike a negative which can with minimal detail loss be pushed to just about any size...

You don't half talk some utter shit.

 

[Pie 1]

enough and also looking at the results of friends equipment and working with some high end fashion guys who will not use digital for studio shots or clothes lines ... billboard campagins and that sorta thing...(them not me) why ?

Funny, because the billboard campaign that I shot recently looks pretty good on one the 10x20 odd metre mega poster sites that it's currently ocupying.

Now. what did I shoot that on? Was it 5x4 provia? - No.
Velvia? - No.
Maybe VC160 neg? - Nah.

Ah! Got it! - silly me.
It was my Leaf aptus 65 on an RZ67 that I've been using day in, day out for the past 10 months.

Whaddya know.

 

[Firky]

Funny, because the billboard campaign that I shot recently looks pretty good on one the 10x20 odd metre mega poster sites that it's currently ocupying.

Now. what did I shoot that on? Was it 5x4 provia? - No.
Velvia? - No.
Maybe VC160 neg? - Nah.

Ah! Got it! - silly me.
It was my Leaf aptus 65 on an RZ67 that I've been using day in, day out for the past 10 months.

Whaddya know.

I asked Mike Garrard what's he use about three or four years ago and even back then he said never go back to film other than out of reminiscence. But what's he know? It's not as though most big ads for Nike, Costa Rica, Samsung, Quicksilver, M&S, Sainsburys etc. etc.

Pretty sure he's god quite a big say on the BIPP, they too must all me wrong too.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I'm not sure when this became a pissing contest with two boys however i have little intrest in it...

You feel that digital has reached the stage where it's comparible to medium format i don't that's not an issue is it? no ones going to die are they? what makes your personal experince and opinion more vaild than anyone elses?

really mature, tbh i'd expect nothing less from firky, as there's no love lost there, but why are you acting like someone trod on your dick and being all defensive... you mgiht wanna try growing up a touch...

 

[Pie 1]

I'm not sure when this became a pissing contest

It didn't.

(Nice climb down, btw )

 

[Stanley Edwards]

...

On the other hand, I can understand the BJP's nervousness about publishing a remark calling a well known (i.e. someone I'd never heard of) curator and artist, who had started the thread, an "image whore". Defamation or whatever it is.

Yet, they took little action to prevent racist bigots airing their views there. Have you also noticed that the BJP editor can't even spell?

On the defamation front; I've been called everything under the sun there in the past. I may well make my point known to the people I know at Incisive media.

This thread has gone all over the place. I do apologise.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I didn't.

(Nice climb down, btw )

point in case ... clearly you think there was something to climb down on...

 

[Paul Russell]

Yet, they took little action to prevent racist bigots airing their views there. Have you also noticed that the BJP editor can't even spell?

I'm registered on the BJP forums but only occasionally read it.

I did see that bit where you said [very approximately] "Hey, you should look at Paul Russell's web site, not my cup of tea, but good", and the only reply was "No that's pretty amateur, you should look at in-Public".

I enjoyed that

 

[b4rt0]

This is yet another reason that people who buy digital cameras are chumps. Like all modern techno-crap, they are designed to only last a short time to make sure you have to buy another one in a few years time. I have a canon AE1 which is older than me and will, I have little doubt, be taking better pictures than the best digital camera money can buy long after I'm dead

keep dreaming......

 

[b4rt0]

no better it really is there just isn't the res yet indigital and a don't tink you'd get any serious lensman worht their salt disputing it... some of the Blad H2 stuff and H3 is good but the results are patchy compared to the consitancy of Medium format film. It doesn't scale well and the pixelation is still bad enough for it to cause problems... (there's also the practical issues of enlargement etc which still cannot be done in digital unlike a negative which can with minimal detail loss be pushed to just about any size...

yeah right.....where did you learn how to master digital files?t

The only thing digital has to fight against for now (!) is 10x8, anything else fugginfoggeddaboutit...
There is an exception and that is clothing/objects that contain lines, the moire effect is hard to deal with and it prolly is best to go to film for that one....

The fact that the range in a digital file is 10 stops compared to film's 6 stops ought to be enough food for thought...

damn I need to come here more often

 

[Firky]

There are no really good photography forums, photo.net is quite good but there's too many elitist tossers and Americans on dedicated photography forums, IME, b4rt0. Dyslexic1 found a good one but it is dead

I'm not sure when this became a pissing contest with two boys however i have little intrest in it...

You feel that digital has reached the stage where it's comparible to medium format i don't that's not an issue is it? no ones going to die are they? what makes your personal experince and opinion more vaild than anyone elses?

really mature, tbh i'd expect nothing less from firky, as there's no love lost there, but why are you acting like someone trod on your dick and being all defensive... you mgiht wanna try growing up a touch...

You should ride a unicycle. It wasn't just "your opinon" thought was it? "any serious lens man" infers you have spoken to some others about but alas these people are fictional inventions to add some gravity to your opinion but it didn't work. again.

 

[Pie 1]

There are no really good photography forums, photo.net is quite good but there's too many elitist tossers and Americans on dedicated photography forums

Luminous Landscape's Medium Format Digi Back forum is pretty good ( Let us know if you want a link, Garf) for knocking around problems & solutions between folk who are actually using these bits of kit every day & the Leaf, Sinar & Hassy reps are regular contributers.

The rest of the site seems to be populated by twitchers & the owner can a bit of a pompous twit tbh.

 

[Firky]

I have never been to the forums but I did find his guide on circular vs. linear polarizers handy. Handy enough to buy one of each. Not sure why there is a difference between the two types but I know what the diffrence is if that makes sense.