Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Using outdated film language on digital seems odd somehow.
Old 08-17-2016   #1
dee
Registered User
 
dee's Avatar
 
dee is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: M25 south UK
Posts: 1,861
Using outdated film language on digital seems odd somehow.

Shutter speeds , no shutter.
iSO no film
Even aperture electronically set .
Conversion from different sensor sizes to 35 MM. which many have never known .... Do you know of any other use age of old language used in the modern age ?
Obviously , we need a stabilising language , but will it persist in 20 years or so ?

Curious to ponder ....

dee
__________________
Amedeo Contaxed Leica M8 + Brian Sweeney J3 + Helios .CV 35mm f2.5 Fed 50 collapsible
Classic Leica Dig3 / Panasonic L1 Olympus zooms
Quirky Pentax K-S1
Fuji X-Pro 1 and X-M1 joined by neat X-T1

Contax/Kiev hybrids - Contax II silver /tan , Contax III + Kiev IV meter etc , Contax II , Kiev shutter from parts camera .
Minolta SR1s/SR7v/SRTs various !

Puns,Cameras and snapshots keeping ASD and dees'ruptive Girl/Boy/Me?' dee'structive dee'sorientation contained.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2016   #2
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,521
Hi dee,

My digital cameras have a shutter with most a focal plane type.

The ISO is a method used to determine sensitivity to light. Film uses one way and digital with electronics, kind of, simply, like turning up the volume on your radio but more involved than that.

The aperture can be set by the camera or set by the photographer in manual mode, same as some film cameras.

Even in the modern age, many of the terms used in Photoshop originiated from analog photography such as dodge and vignette to mention two. I consider two of the most important features of Photoshop are layers and blending.

I believe we have a language many understand.

Forgive my response as, truth be known, I'm just a nerd.
__________________
I make photographs as a return ticket to a moment otherwise gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2016   #3
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,150
Most digital cameras have shutters. Your Fuji certainly does. The difference is that on a mirrorless camera the shutter is open almost all of the time for liveview. When you take a picture the shutter quickly closes, opens for the amount of time set in the shutter speed (to take the exposure), closes (to end the exposure) and then reopens again for liveview.

ISO is the international organization for standard. They defined a method of measuring a films sensitivity to light and they did the same for digital. I'm sure there are ISO standards numbers for each, people just use ISO for short.

Aperture is no different between film or digital. Just an opening in a lens for light to pass through. Being electrically set makes no difference, still talking about a ratio between the size of the opening in the lens and the focal length of the lens. Plenty of film cameras had electrically set apertures too.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2016   #4
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,195
Where is Develop in the Lightroom...
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2016   #5
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is online now
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
Where is Develop in the Lightroom...
I'm still looking for the Rodinal pre-set.

PF
__________________
Waiting for the light
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2016   #6
Faintandfuzzy
Registered User
 
Faintandfuzzy's Avatar
 
Faintandfuzzy is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by dee View Post
Shutter speeds , no shutter.
iSO no film
Even aperture electronically set .
Conversion from different sensor sizes to 35 MM. which many have never known .... Do you know of any other use age of old language used in the modern age ?
Obviously , we need a stabilising language , but will it persist in 20 years or so ?

Curious to ponder ....

dee
I'm going to have to simply point out that the usage isn't wrong...but your understanding of the terms apparently is.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2016   #7
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,474
Have you some alternative suggestions? I am perfectly comfortable with all that you have brought up, while the mechanics are slightly different, the functions are all the same. Is it just digital that puts you off?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2016   #8
Prest_400
Multiformat
 
Prest_400's Avatar
 
Prest_400 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden/Spain
Posts: 898
35mm focal equivalens do make sense IMO. Indeed APS is the new 135 in usage but Full frame is still there and has been a standard for 60? Years and counting.
Some do say that 35mm FF is like the new Medium Format in Digital.

I found what is the legacy of print sizes et al. 35mm is just about 2:3 but the classic print sizes based on 4:5 plate and sheet film, requires mostly cropping! I think the only most established/standard 2:3 print size was 4x6" and perhaps 8x12"...



<Beamed through Tapatalk relay>
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #9
dee
Registered User
 
dee's Avatar
 
dee is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: M25 south UK
Posts: 1,861
Not saying it,s wrong , just odd , especially with compacts .
I certainly need the crop factor spelled out in old money .
The Pan G1 does not seem to have a shutter as such , just duration ?
Is this right ?
Dee
__________________
Amedeo Contaxed Leica M8 + Brian Sweeney J3 + Helios .CV 35mm f2.5 Fed 50 collapsible
Classic Leica Dig3 / Panasonic L1 Olympus zooms
Quirky Pentax K-S1
Fuji X-Pro 1 and X-M1 joined by neat X-T1

Contax/Kiev hybrids - Contax II silver /tan , Contax III + Kiev IV meter etc , Contax II , Kiev shutter from parts camera .
Minolta SR1s/SR7v/SRTs various !

Puns,Cameras and snapshots keeping ASD and dees'ruptive Girl/Boy/Me?' dee'structive dee'sorientation contained.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #10
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Dear Dee,

Using separate words for "shutters" in different kinds of camera sounds like an unnecessary complication. What are you going to call it? "The thing that ignores the light until you want to take a picture"? Also, I have shutters on my windows. The concept is easy to understand.

ISO stands for International Standards Organization so there can be an ISO standard for almost anything (and often is -- think of ISO 9000 and 9001).

Relative aperture is relative aperture, no matter how you set it. After all, "stops" were originally pieces of metal with holes in.

I agree that "35mm equivalents" are a bit weird, but then, so are horsepower figures instead of kilowatts and calories (actually kilocalories) instead of kilojoules. The purpose of language is communication, and all these examples work, so why change them?

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #11
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by dee View Post
Not saying it,s wrong , just odd , especially with compacts .
I certainly need the crop factor spelled out in old money .
The Pan G1 does not seem to have a shutter as such , just duration ?
Is this right ?
Dee
The Panasonic G1 has a mechanical, focal plane shutter–just like the Leica M and nearly all SLRs have had since the 1960s.

Don't worry about crop factor. Learn formats and lenses for a format. For example, the Panasonic G1 is a FourThirds format camera: that means it has a sensor that is 13x17.1 mm in size. The normal lens for this size format is 25mm, a wide is 17mm, a portrait tele is 45mm, etc.

This is exactly how one understood different formats in film cameras. A 35mm camera normal is 50mm, wide is 35mm, portrait tele is 90mm. A 6x6 camera normal is 80mm, wide is 50mm, portrait tele is 150mm. And so forth. Half-frame 35mm the same thing: normal 38mm, wide 24mm, portrait tele 60mm.

There's nothing wrong with the language; it's neither confusing nor ambiguous. Crop factors are confusing AND ambiguous, they require an assumption of what the reference format is as well as what different focal lengths mean to that format. I don't use crop factors.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #12
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,875
I sometimes refer to the "motor drive" in my DSLRs. Brings back memories of attaching the MD12 to my old FM2 and shooting three frames per second....
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #13
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,893
I would prefer to have conventional film type controls on a digital camera. A shutter speed dial/aperture ring/focus ring (that is truly manual, not fly by wire)and a DOF scale. I would want these control dials and rings to do that one function only. The current state of digital camera design and function layout is probably the reason I hold onto and use my film cameras.

When people ask why I still use film I tell them it is because that is what the cameras I like use.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #14
unixrevolution
Registered User
 
unixrevolution's Avatar
 
unixrevolution is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 36
Posts: 874
Shutter Speed should have *always* been called "exposure time", but it's no less correct on a digital than a film camera.

ISO is a standard for light sensitivity that applies to both digital sensors and film. No issues there.

Aperture? Same bloody thing.

The only thing different is how we capture the image. Lenses haven't changed. Light hasn't changed.
__________________
Please, call me Erik.
Find me on: Flickr | PentaxForums | Large Format Photography Forum

"I decided to stop collecting cameras and become a photographer."
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #15
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuiko85 View Post
I would prefer to have conventional film type controls on a digital camera. A shutter speed dial/aperture ring/focus ring (that is truly manual, not fly by wire)and a DOF scale. I would want these control dials and rings to do that one function only. The current state of digital camera design and function layout is probably the reason I hold onto and use my film cameras.
The above is one of the reasons I enjoy my Fuji so much.

Real ISO/shutter dial, aperture and focus dial* with focus scale.



It even gives you the focus distance and DOF scale in the optical viewfinder (and EVF too). You can even configure the DOF based on two different circles of confusion. This was a big improvement over the XP1 IMO as the clutch lenses disable the focus distance in the viewfinder on the XP1... dumb dumb dumb... Fuji fixed this in the XP2.



This is the OVF, I just covered the outside to make it easier to photograph the overlay.

*Note: These are of course still focus/aperture by wire but with the "clutch" lenses and their absolute position focusing they work the same as a full manual lens. The non-clutch lenses are different in MF. And of course I can use almost any true manual focus lens on the Fuji too.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Yeah, Im Game...
Old 08-18-2016   #16
kuzano
Registered User
 
kuzano is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,953
Yeah, Im Game...

Game for throwing away all that crap knowledge I learned in the last forty years of using film. It's just too confusing for all the noobs who never shot film.

Let them make up their own crappy digital language.

Then I will promise not to use their technology to create inferior images.

How about that?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #17
Dwig
Registered User
 
Dwig's Avatar
 
Dwig is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Key West, FL, USA
Posts: 1,645
Change for change's sake is always a bad idea.

Some "old" terms don't mean much to noobies and have to be learned by rote. Both "burn" and "dodge" in Ps are examples. They make perfect sense to an old wet darkroom user but not to most film users who never printed their own images or to the new "digital unwashed". A new term without the old wet darkroom history would be worse, though. It would require that all users, regardless of experience, learn the term by rote. I still use "leading" (as in metal strips of lead placed between rows of metal type) when discussing typesetting and rarely use "line spacing". I also know what "kerning" really means (reducing the space between glyphs by carving away part of the type body on one or both of the adjoining pieces of type) though I use the modern definition (both increased and decreased spacing between glyphs) and only occasionally use "letter spacing" when speaking to noobies.

Our language is full of old terms that have been "borrowed" for a new use. When done well, where the new use is somewhat analogous to the old, they communicate effectively, and communication is the whole point.
__________________
----------
Dwig
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #18
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwig View Post
Change for change's sake is always a bad idea.

Some "old" terms don't mean much to noobies and have to be learned by rote. Both "burn" and "dodge" in Ps are examples. They make perfect sense to an old wet darkroom user but not to most film users who never printed their own images or to the new "digital unwashed". A new term without the old wet darkroom history would be worse, though. It would require that all users, regardless of experience, learn the term by rote.

Our language is full of old terms that have been "borrowed" for a new use. When done well, where the new use is somewhat analogous to the old, they communicate effectively, and communication is the whole point.
Indeed. As I said, what about "horsepower?"

Why do we call the big flat illuminated bit on a computer a "screen"? It doesn't (or shouldn't) block things out, like a rood screen or a fire screen.

Why is a small, portable time-telling machine called a "watch" and a "montre" (= that which shows) in French?

And so forth.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #19
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by dee View Post
Shutter speeds , no shutter.
iSO no film
Even aperture electronically set .
Conversion from different sensor sizes to 35 MM. which many have never known .... Do you know of any other use age of old language used in the modern age ?
Obviously , we need a stabilising language , but will it persist in 20 years or so ?

Curious to ponder ....

dee

I disagree. There is no reason to completely re-invent the language as it stands.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #20
emayoh
Registered User
 
emayoh is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 135
"Do you know of any other use age of old language used in the modern age ?"

Do you "dial" a phone number?
Does it "ring" on the other end?
Do you "hang up" after the call?

Do you ever "tune in" to watch or listen to an event? Or do you watch the "footage" later? If you missed something, do you "rewind"? If you can't hear it, do you "crank it up?"

Have you watched a "trailer" for a movie?

Ever "rolled down" the window in your car? Do you leave parking passes on the "dashboard"? In some places, you may have driven in on the "turnpike."

Ever clicked on "radio buttons" on a website?

You may have a quite a long struggle ahead of you...
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #21
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuiko85 View Post
I would prefer to have conventional film type controls on a digital camera. A shutter speed dial/aperture ring/focus ring (that is truly manual, not fly by wire)and a DOF scale. I would want these control dials and rings to do that one function only. The current state of digital camera design and function layout is probably the reason I hold onto and use my film cameras. ...
You want a Leica M-D typ 262. It's lovely this way. It works exactly the same way a Leica M7 works but without having to load and unload film every 36 frames... :-)

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #22
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,411
Hi,

And then there's knots and fathoms and I'm certain that the Air Navigation Order still says "flying machines" and I still hear people say it's five and twenty to ten for 9:35 am...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #23
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,553
I think the only one that amuses me, is now that more movies are being shot digitally, people still refer to them as "films". They should be "videos", no?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #24
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,277
Horsepower.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #25
emayoh
Registered User
 
emayoh is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 135
Horsepower for me isn't the same thing. It's not suggesting there are actual horses inside the engine or anything. It is a unit of measure. It has not really changed meaning.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #26
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,977
Until the USA converts to metric and says goodbye to inches, feet, miles, square feet, onces and gallons and Fahrenheit, I will stick with shutter speed and aperture on my FF Leicas.
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2016   #27
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
I think the only one that amuses me, is now that more movies are being shot digitally, people still refer to them as "films". They should be "videos", no?
I think movies is actually a better term than videos. Video acquired its current denotation in 1937 as "that which is displayed on a television screen", see http://etymonline.com/index.php?allo...0&search=Video , where movie is derived from "moving picture" a bit earlier than that, see http://etymonline.com/index.php?allo...0&search=Movie .

But all such debates are somewhat academic. Words fall in and out of usage freely by popular usage, not by someone issuing a rule (unless you're an editor adhering to the Chicago Manual of Style, that is...:-).
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2016   #28
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
VISET (a later version of the "torpedo finder" VISOR) was also coded VIDEO

Cheers,

R
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2016   #29
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
I think movies is actually a better term than videos. Video acquired its current denotation in 1937 as "that which is displayed on a television screen", see http://etymonline.com/index.php?allo...0&search=Video , where movie is derived from "moving picture" a bit earlier than that, see http://etymonline.com/index.php?allo...0&search=Movie .

But all such debates are somewhat academic. Words fall in and out of usage freely by popular usage, not by someone issuing a rule (unless you're an editor adhering to the Chicago Manual of Style, that is...:-).
Of course words are only symbols with agreed meanings, but I was talking about calling movies "films" which were not shot on, nor projected from film. The word video generally refers to electronic recording and reproduction of motion pictures - so technically a movie shot and projected digitally would be a video in the generally accepted sense of the term. But should it be a "film"?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2016   #30
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by emayoh View Post
?.. It is a unit of measure...
Just like ISO, shutter speed and f-number. ISO is a measure of sensitivity, shutter speed of duration and f-stop of light volume. All still necessary (if slightly differently) for photography.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2016   #31
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,098
Strictly speaking ISO as used in photography is not an acronym or a siglum. It's an abbreviation for isos, Greek for the same. ISO is the same in all languages. For instance AIDS is SIDA in French, and cerebrospinal fluid is abbreviated CSF in English but is LCR in French (liquide céphalorachidien).
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2016   #32
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,977
I think the crucial aspect that the OP got slightly off ...
The terms in question are not fixed on the use of film as a medium,
they are simply descriptors for optics / photographic priciples in general.

Therefore they are perfectly valid also for any other type of capturing medium, incl. digital.
Photography started out on glass plates and then came back to sensors
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2016   #33
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard G View Post
Strictly speaking ISO as used in photography is not an acronym or a siglum. It's an abbreviation for isos, Greek for the same. ISO is the same in all languages. For instance AIDS is SIDA in French, and cerebrospinal fluid is abbreviated CSF in English but is LCR in French (liquide céphalorachidien).
Dear Richard,

Um... It IS an acronym. ISO = International Standards Organization. You don't have to use the same acronym in every language, after all. See also http://www.iso.org/iso/fr/home/about.htm

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2016   #34
unixrevolution
Registered User
 
unixrevolution's Avatar
 
unixrevolution is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 36
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by icebear View Post
I think the crucial aspect that the OP got slightly off ...
The terms in question are not fixed on the use of film as a medium,
they are simply descriptors for optics / photographic priciples in general.

Therefore they are perfectly valid also for any other type of capturing medium, incl. digital.
Photography started out on glass plates and then came back to sensors
Exactly what I tried to say, but stated more eloquently. The crux of it is that Shutter Speed, ISO and Aperture are NOT endemic to film. They have the same exact meaning on film, paper, glass plates, tintypes or sensors.
__________________
Please, call me Erik.
Find me on: Flickr | PentaxForums | Large Format Photography Forum

"I decided to stop collecting cameras and become a photographer."
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2016   #35
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
Of course words are only symbols with agreed meanings, but I was talking about calling movies "films" which were not shot on, nor projected from film. The word video generally refers to electronic recording and reproduction of motion pictures - so technically a movie shot and projected digitally would be a video in the generally accepted sense of the term. But should it be a "film"?
All three terms have become mostly synonymous in popular usage, with "films" being the most diverged from its original meaning. But its often a little hard to tell which movie was captured on film and which was captured on a sensor, the pro-grade digital cameras and related film cameras being so well matched and so distinct from typical 'video' capture.

Typically these days, what I hear is film used when going to see a motion picture projected in a theater, and video used when a motion picture is presented in any other way. so the usage of the words seems to have shifted somewhat from indicating the type of capture medium to indicating the presentation mechanism.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2016   #36
unixrevolution
Registered User
 
unixrevolution's Avatar
 
unixrevolution is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 36
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
All three terms have become mostly synonymous in popular usage, with "films" being the most diverged from its original meaning. But its often a little hard to tell which movie was captured on film and which was captured on a sensor, the pro-grade digital cameras and related film cameras being so well matched and so distinct from typical 'video' capture.

Typically these days, what I hear is film used when going to see a motion picture projected in a theater, and video used when a motion picture is presented in any other way. so the usage of the words seems to have shifted somewhat from indicating the type of capture medium to indicating the presentation mechanism.

G
In my experience, people say something is "A Film" if it's an artistically shot and presented narrative. "A Video" seems indicative of a shift in intent or subjective quality and almost never has anything to do with capture or presentation.

Or it could just be people trying to be pretentious.
__________________
Please, call me Erik.
Find me on: Flickr | PentaxForums | Large Format Photography Forum

"I decided to stop collecting cameras and become a photographer."
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2016   #37
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by unixrevolution View Post
In my experience, people say something is "A Film" if it's an artistically shot and presented narrative. "A Video" seems indicative of a shift in intent or subjective quality and almost never has anything to do with capture or presentation.

Or it could just be people trying to be pretentious.
Brings to mind the old Saturday Night Live routine. "Some people call them movies..." How tacky!
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2016   #38
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by unixrevolution View Post
In my experience, people say something is "A Film" if it's an artistically shot and presented narrative. "A Video" seems indicative of a shift in intent or subjective quality and almost never has anything to do with capture or presentation.

Or it could just be people trying to be pretentious.
Hi,

I've a lot of those on DVD's...

Regards, David

PS Another for the list "sand paper" thanks Roger that's two of us...
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2016   #39
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
Where is Develop in the Lightroom...
Next to library.

LR is nothing but trouble. I hate it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #40
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,411
Do they still call cents pennies in the USA? Now that's an old word still being used...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:27.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.