Header banner

MF3D-group Conversations Photos Files All groups About
<< Previous Thread Off Topic: Film Cameras Next Thread >>

Subject: Off Topic: Film Cameras
Date: 2016-04-30 06:55:32
From: Alvah Whealton
Please forgive this  off-topic post, though perhaps it's more like 80% off-topic than 100%.

The following article gives support to the use of film by amateur photographers.  Some of the things that it says are true about people using film, are  things I find far more true of people doing stereo photography.  

 

​The reason the article jumped out at me is because I have found myself having to explain to others my use of film cameras and my attraction to stereo photography. I'm not sure that my usual reasoning explains anything at all.  The article pointed to above, offers some ideas that I will be able to use in future defenses.  

I am wondering if anyone here knows of any articles relating to the values supporting film cameras, not only in stereo photography, but in photography in general.  If you do, and you could pass them my way, I would be greatly appreciative. Or if you can articulate your own thoughts and feelings without it demanding a large part of your time, I would be just as appreciative, if not more so.  


I can pledge that off topic submissions have not, and will not, become an habitual thing for me. I am grateful for your time and patience. 

Thanks,
Al Whealton    ​


Subject: Re: Off Topic: Film Cameras
Date: 2016-04-30 11:07:20
From: Brian Reynolds
Alvah Whealton wrote:
>
> I am wondering if anyone here knows of any articles relating to the
> values supporting film cameras, not only in stereo photography, but
> in photography in general. If you do, and you could pass them my
> way, I would be greatly appreciative. Or if you can articulate your
> own thoughts and feelings without it demanding a large part of your
> time, I would be just as appreciative, if not more so.

My answer when asked why I shoot film is because it is fun. I do
photography to relax, and I enjoy using film cameras. I also shoot
digital, and I have made some good photos with digital cameras, but
more often than not I enjoy film cameras more, and I get better
results from them. If I wasn't enjoying myself I'd stop shooting
film.

"The Film Photography Project" <http://filmphotographyproject.com/>
has a long running podcast, store, and website devoted to getting
people into film photography. They talk about all forms of film
photography (including stereo), provide support (free cameras and
film) to schools and education projects, and have even brought back
old formats through their store (which supports the podcast and
education projects). The FPP also has an active group on Flickr.

Derrick Story of "The Digital Story" <http://thedigitalstory.com/> has
always been supportive of film photography, even though his website
and podcast are obviously about digital photography. He has recently
picked up his film cameras and is writting about that, and how
shooting film helps his digital photography, at the new web site "The
Analog Story" <http://theanalogstory.com/>.

--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
reynolds@panix.com | You push some buttons and see
https://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |
Subject: Re: Off Topic: Film Cameras
Date: 2016-05-01 08:19:50
From: jinglis26
Thanks much!
The points about projection clarity for slides over digital point out another plus, yet I have not attempted to project MF3D!
Non German readers can see the slide film names and resolution numbers on this page,
http://www.aphog.de/?p=364
Subject: Re: Off Topic: Film Cameras
Date: 2016-05-01 08:42:34
From: Bob Venezia
If you have a nice MF3D slide and a decent viewer, carry them around with you when you're out shooting. If you shoot during daylight hours a STL viewer will serve you better than a lit one. There's no better argument than that. Seeing is believing.

If they don't get it, there's probably no hope for them. :^)

Bob Venezia
Seattle, Washington

On Apr 30, 2016, at 5:55 AM, Alvah Whealton awhealton@gmail.com [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Please forgive this  off-topic post, though perhaps it's more like 80% off-topic than 100%.

The following article gives support to the use of film by amateur photographers.  Some of the things that it says are true about people using film, are  things I find far more true of people doing stereo photography.  

 

​The reason the article jumped out at me is because I have found myself having to explain to others my use of film cameras and my attraction to stereo photography. I'm not sure that my usual reasoning explains anything at all.  The article pointed to above, offers some ideas that I will be able to use in future defenses.  

I am wondering if anyone here knows of any articles relating to the values supporting film cameras, not only in stereo photography, but in photography in general.  If you do, and you could pass them my way, I would be greatly appreciative. Or if you can articulate your own thoughts and feelings without it demanding a large part of your time, I would be just as appreciative, if not more so.  


I can pledge that off topic submissions have not, and will not, become an habitual thing for me. I am grateful for your time and patience. 

Thanks,
Al Whealton    ​


Subject: Re: Off Topic: Film Cameras
Date: 2016-05-01 08:53:38
From: JR
Actually, this may be more "on-topic" than many may think.  First, there are far more different brands and models of "manufactured" stereo cameras that are film cameras than digital.  Second, for this specific group, how many manufactured stereo cameras is anyone aware of that are digital AND medium format?   Third, there are some very different characteristics between digital and film, that specifically affect stereoscopic 3D image presentations.  The image structure, or texture, is very different.  

Digital is a regular rectangular pattern, which, when magnified sufficiently, presents some visual conflicts between the left and right eye views in stereo.  This is due to the displacement of homologous points, which may or may not fall on the same pixel points, depending upon subject distance, and relative lateral displacement. Film grain patterns, and grain clump patterns, are random.  Therefore, homologous points rarely are identical in terms of position in each eye view.  This results in a "smoother", more natural visual impression.  A homologous point does not "jump" to the next adjacent pixel of the corresponding point in the other eye view, since there are none.  This presents more normal appearing images on film, especially when finely detailed textures are involved.

When analog film stereoscopic images are digitized, they sometimes take on a "different" appearance, or visual impression, for the reasons stated above.

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

Picture

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Alvah Whealton awhealton@gmail.com [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Please forgive this  off-topic post, though perhaps it's more like 80% off-topic than 100%.

The following article gives support to the use of film by amateur photographers.  Some of the things that it says are true about people using film, are  things I find far more true of people doing stereo photography.  

 

​The reason the article jumped out at me is because I have found myself having to explain to others my use of film cameras and my attraction to stereo photography. I'm not sure that my usual reasoning explains anything at all.  The article pointed to above, offers some ideas that I will be able to use in future defenses.  

I am wondering if anyone here knows of any articles relating to the values supporting film cameras, not only in stereo photography, but in photography in general.  If you do, and you could pass them my way, I would be greatly appreciative. Or if you can articulate your own thoughts and feelings without it demanding a large part of your time, I would be just as appreciative, if not more so.  


I can pledge that off topic submissions have not, and will not, become an habitual thing for me. I am grateful for your time and patience. 

Thanks,
Al Whealton    ​