I was shooting with "only slide films" and nothing else for over 15 years. And looked at those slides at least a few times every month. And so did many of my friends, working mates and relatives
Aug 13, 2011 at 08:04 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Bifurcator wrote:
Really? Wow, OK. I wouldn't know as back then I kept pretty much to myself and never paid much attention to what others were doing.
In those days I think HiFi stereo equipment dominated most people's living-rooms and game-rooms. I don't think I knew too many other people who even owned a camera - besides like a Kod ak Instamatic or something.
People had slide film equipment many years before they owned HiFi stereo equipment
Aug 13, 2011 at 08:08 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
denoir wrote:
You can't be serious. Everyone today (in industrialized first world countries) look at photos on either large computer monitors or on large flat screen TV:s. Showing slides was indeed very common, but not nearly as ubiquitous as large screen computer monitors and TV:s are today. And people take a lot more photos today since they've switched to digital.
Sure most of them end up thumbnail sized on facebook but few have given up the enjoyment of terrorizing friends, relatives and neighbors with boring slide shows containing an endless stream of vacation photos.
At larger viewing distances it's not much of a problem, as it wasn't with slides but today slide shows are often sent to individuals and shown close up on computer monitors (i.e Picasa, Flickr etc) and in addition to that people are fond of using their images as desktop wallpapers.
Even if we ignore the general population and just look at photography enthusiasts, you'll see that things have changed a lot. How many of your photos do you print large? How many of them do you look at on your computer monitor?
You can print good 12x16" photos, but saying "superb" is overstating things a bit. I find my 7D's 18 megapixels to be a bit lacking, especially for photo books (typically A3 sized which is close to 12x16") when printing at 300 dpi. You'd get 240 dpi (or ppi to be precise) from an E-P1 for that size, which is good when viewed at a bit of a distance but falls apart if you look close up.
Of course it will to a large extent depend on what type of photography you do. If you for instance primarily do street photography then high resolution and detail is of little importance.
Well, I care because I've been burnt - my older digital photos are simply not good enough in terms of image quality to be viewed on a reasonably large monitor. And the only reason why I'm not terribly upset about it is because back then I didn't particularly care about photography so the photos are mostly interesting from a personal/documentary perspective where the IQ isn't very important. There are exceptions though and I would have really liked to have some photos in a higher resolution and taken with a better camera and lens....Show more →
You can't be serious if you state that Everyone today (in industrialized first world countries) look at photos on either large computer monitors (image sideshows in full screen on a 24" or larger monitor) or on large flat screen TV:s.
I don't know anyone that actually use their TV for it. I have never done that. And I don't have a monitor that is 24" or larger either
And my post from the start was to tell you that not all people only looked at small 4x6 prints when shooting film before. They also looked at very large images from slide films.
And your question to me about how many I print large compared to how many I look at on a large monitor. Then the answer (if you by large monitor mean 24") is that I print a lot more. I have an Epson 3880 printer that I print all the time in A2 size with. And that's larger than my monitor. And my 42" TV I never use for looking at my images
Lars Johnsson wrote:
People had slide film equipment many years before they owned HiFi stereo equipment
Mmmm no, not really true. It's only a fun trivia point but relatively speaking the two technologies evolved very very close to each other on the time-line of history. The first projectors were candle powered and the first recording playback devices were spinning cylinders. Then onto spinning discs. I still have the cabinet Victrola my dad bought us in 1929 - the sound is very good too! Electronic (tube) stereo amplification equipment was happening at about the same time that slide projectors were getting automated - motorized. They really are pretty close to each other and probably a sign of how our daily lives changed as consumerism and capitalism was introduced as the prevailing economic models.
BTW, I was shooting slide only as well. And more specifically only Kodachrome. ASA 12, 16, and 25 were my favorites but sometimes I'd slum it and use 64.
Aug 13, 2011 at 08:39 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
But it was not hifi-stereo In my country most people bought their first stereo hifi equipment in the 70s. But they already owned the slide film equipment then.
I still have thousends of slides from Kodachrome 25 & 64. And a lot of Ektachrome also
Lars Johnsson wrote:
You can't be serious if you state that Everyone today (in industrialized first world countries) look at photos on either large computer monitors (image sideshows in full screen on a 24" or larger monitor) or on large flat screen TV:s.
I don't know anyone that actually use their TV for it. I have never done that. And I don't have a monitor that is 24" or larger either
Then we must know people from very different demographic groups. Perhaps a difference in generation?
Anyway, we could go on making claims, but without actually data they'll remain just claims. And I don't have any data on how people view their images. I can however show another piece of that that is bound to correlate - the monitors that are actually on sale now. This is from prisjakt.se:
As you can see the great bulk is in the 20-25" region which are large monitors. And the typical resolution is 1920x1080.
I'm pretty sure most people that buy these products don't do so to enhance their word processing experience but get them to watch movies and pictures.
And my post from the start was to tell you that not all people only looked at small 4x6 prints when shooting film before. They also looked at very large images from slide films.
Of course, and people use (digital) projectors today as well. But the images from those are viewed at a larger distance so you don't have the same need for resolution.
By the way, how do you suppose that people look at very large images today? Surely you're not suggesting that they've given it up or that they still shoot film and show use slide projectors? Why do you think all those media centers have so prominent photo gallery functions?
And your question to me about how many I print large compared to how many I look at on a large monitor. Then the answer (if you by large monitor mean 24") is that I print a lot more. I have an Epson 3880 printer that I print all the time in A2 size with. And that's larger than my monitor. And my 42" TV I never use for looking at my images
By a large monitor I mean 20"+ with resolutions of 1600px width+. And I'm pretty sure you look at your images on a monitor before you print them.
Aug 13, 2011 at 10:05 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Maybe you mean 20"+ monitors. But you wrote 24"+ in your post. And that was the post that I replied to in the first place. With 20" my reply would have been different.
And your own graph also show that not everyone look at their images at 24"+
That's just nitpicking and you know it. If it is 20" or 24" makes absolutely no difference to the argument I was making. Besides I did not write 24" in my post where I asked you if you were serious about your claim. You took that from a different post where I stated that it was quite common to view images on 24" monitors - something that is definitely supported by the data, assuming that people look at photos on the monitors they buy.
Aug 13, 2011 at 10:28 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
So why did you change it from 24 in your first post to 20 later
And the point from my first post as I have told you before was. Not all people looked at small 4x6 prints decades ago. Many also looked at very large images from slide films. That's why I think you exaggerate when talking about equipment needs from before and today (even if I agree with most in your post)
I didn't change it. In the first post I just said that it was common to have 24"+ monitors. In my second post I said that most people looked at their photos on large monitors or on HD TVs. I never said that I considered 24"+ some kind of magic limit of what constitutes "large". When you explicitly asked about it, I said that I consider "large" to be 20"+.
denoir wrote:
I didn't change it. In the first post I just said that it was common to have 24"+ monitors. In my second post I said that most people looked at their photos on large monitors or on HD TVs. I never said that I considered 24"+ some kind of magic limit of what constitutes "large". When you explicitly asked about it, I said that I consider "large" to be 20"+.
I don't view my images on a TV unless it's for sharing with family and I would never use an HDTV for editing. I run three 24 inchers and the best of them for editing is EIZO imho. I'm trashing my HP SIPS to get another EIZO bcoz' the color accuracy isn't all that good.
Antje wrote:
Don't we all. My dad took a gazillion photos of me and my siblings, and some are B&W when I wish they were in colour. Some are faded, some are discoloured because the film he used doesn't keep well. He took some with MF, some with a 35mm Leica, some with ancient folders, lots with a relatively modern Minolta SLR. Your kids will say that their dad took lots of photos, but some of them were taken with that crappy Canon 1Ds VII he loved so much with only 25 MP resolution, and they weren't even 3D. What was he thinking!!
I see your point, but I don't think there's anything you can do about it. Apart from seeing things in context - I own a few cyanotypes I really love, a few ferrotypes, daguerreotypes, and they're all interesting for what they are. So I think this is merely a philosophical point, not something that should affect anyone's decision to buy a camera. YMMV. ...Show more →
It's very true that one can't do anything about radical changes in technology. When color film appeared nothing that you did before could have future proofed your B&W photos. There's no avoiding that. However that doesn't mean that the current type will become worthless and that there is no point in maximizing the image quality.
I mean most photographers make a decision based on what they think is acceptable IQ from a camera system. People make an active choice to buy a m4/3 system rather than a small sensor P&S camera or an 8x10 large format camera. When it comes to print the decision you make now will be as valid later. If you can do a good 13x16 print now and are happy with the size and image quality then you can get the same type of print 10 or 100 years from now. Printing technology is much better when it comes to reproducing high resolution photos. I suppose it accounts for it still being so popular.
With computer monitors that is not the case. The resolution is much lower than in print (for comparable sizes). Only some mobile devices now have the pixel density that can match printed output. So the decision you make now in regards to a digital camera most likely won't be valid in a couple of years. What looks good on a 20" monitor today may not look good in 10 years.
Furthermore we're at decisive point where the high end FF cameras actually provide enough resolution to look good even when the monitors reach such pixel densities that our eyes can't distinguish the individual pixels. In short once monitors reach the level of print there will be a difference when you are looking at the photos you take today depending on if you opted for a 'compromise' system or not. In a few years time when the overall resolution of digital cameras has been increased this will no longer be an issue, but right now it can be.
The reason for it being a decisive point is simply because we as humans have certain limitations. We can't resolve more than 300 ppi at 0.5 meters and we have a limited field of view so computer monitors larger than 30" are unlikely to ever become very popular (as we have a limited field of view). The current technology is edging closer to those limits but we are not there quite yet.
denoir wrote:
It's very true that one can't do anything about radical changes in technology. When color film appeared nothing that you did before could have future proofed your B&W photos. There's no avoiding that. However that doesn't mean that the current type will become worthless and that there is no point in maximizing the image quality.
Hey, I'm not *that* old - my dad took pictures in B&W by choice, and still does. Why? Because it fits his needs, because he thinks it's beautiful (it is), because he loves to develop them, because he loves the tones, the camera, the characteristics of film... and I guess that's the point I'm trying to make - IQ is not the deciding factor for most people I know. There's budget, portability, all the reasons my dad has for shooting film, someone's love for a special brand, the beauty of the camera itself, convenience, laziness, you name it. Those are the reasons why someone doesn't put IQ first.
With computer monitors that is not the case. The resolution is much lower than in print (for comparable sizes). Only some mobile devices now have the pixel density that can match printed output. So the decision you make now in regards to a digital camera most likely won't be valid in a couple of years. What looks good on a 20" monitor today may not look good in 10 years.
I still don't see why I should care - the photos I took with my first 2 MP Fuji are just as beautiful to me than the ones I take today, just in a different way. I'll look back on my dSLR photos with the same attitude... Besides, taking into account what the human eye can resolve, I just don't see we'll get screens that are a magnitude better than the ones we have. My guess is it'll saturate around 5-6MP - I'm pretty sure any recent camera can work with that, especially given the distance you'll need to actually be able to take it all in...
Ok, it's subjective. Yes, 300 dpi could be slightly better, but in my informal testing *I* can see very little difference between a 240 dpi digital capture print and a 300 dpi print (film scans seem to need above 280 ppi, especially b&w). That is of course my eyes (without a loupe), my images and my printing.
I'm going to stand by "superb" though, in an overall sense, as in "the photos look superb" to myself and most viewers. Not saying that they couldn't be technically any better, of course they can, but this can be said about anything... technical perfection is never achieved by anyone.
>>mh2000 wrote:From my m43 (E-P1) I can easily print superb 12x16" prints, I will always be able to show/proof these images to that size.
You can print good 12x16" photos, but saying "superb" is overstating things a bit. I find my 7D's 18 megapixels to be a bit lacking, especially for photo books (typically A3 sized which is close to 12x16") when printing at 300 dpi. You'd get 240 dpi (or ppi to be precise) from an E-P1 for that size, which is good when viewed at a bit of a distance but falls apart if you look close up.
Of course it will to a large extent depend on what type of photography you do. If you for instance primarily do street photography then high resolution and detail is of little importance.
carstenw wrote:
I think this was a big difference between the States and Germany. Denmark was like Germany, I always had some uncle who wanted to show slideshows of his vacations and his wife topless
The slideshows were common here, but not so much the topless wives.
FlyPenFly wrote:
The 45-200 is well known to be mediocre for people who have used a lot of telephoto lenses.
The same could be said for a lot of lenses (from all brands) that get rave reviews on some internet sites... and then there are plenty of "mediocre" lenses that are capable of producing great results when used properly.
mh2000 wrote:
Not to drift into the film thing... but, why the heck would you ever scan 18.000 slides and negatives?
The reason shooting film worked so well for me is that I only scanned and processed the really important images (and come on, all 18,000 of the images you scanned are not gallery quality important images are they? No single recognized museum photo/artist has ever produced 18,000 important images!)
Slides can be viewed directly and 4x6" proof prints are great from negatives.
The primary reason I did it was because I wanted to sell my scanners while they were still worth considerably more than I paid for them, and since I was only working part-time, I had lots of time on my hands. This way I now have a high-quality digital copy of each image, plus the film original, and I can now print anything I want without having to spend a small fortune getting a decent-quality scan done by a third-party lab (not that there are any of those left around here...).
I don't have a light table, projector, or darkroom any more, so making prints and viewing slides is a bit of a chore if I don't have a digital copy.
As for no one ever producing 18,000 important images, don't mention that on any of the wedding photography forums... some people there seem to think they need to shoot that many images for a single wedding.
ASA 12, 16, and 25 were my favorites but sometimes I'd slum it and use 64. 
