[séamuis]

is a recording more REAL if it sat on a LP or a tape or even a CD, than if it sits in a hard drive or memory card?

on an LP or a tape yes. the only real difference between a CD and digital on a hard drive is the storage medium. but im biased so take that as you will.

[rhodopsin]

Now then there is Dr. Andrija Puharich's notion that the light from the subject rotated the quarks in the emulsion to a certain vibration characteristic of the objects in the photograph and that those vibrations were transferred to the print when light passed through the emulsion. Giving a psychic resonance with the person or place strong enough to be used in psychic weaponry or to be read by a psychic healer or other sensitive.

No way the same thing happens in digital. Although some might argue it never happened in film either. Maybe you're a sensitive clinging to the extra information, missing the voyeuristic information fix you got from film images.

Or then again, maybe not.

Thanks for the Puharich reference!

In the book (not the movie! google, wikipedia) "The Secret Life of Plants" by Thompkins and Bird, is described an experiment in Texas using photos of portions of farm fields, after treating a photo with insecticide, bugs evacuated that portion of field, applying nutrient to areas of photo improved results those areas compared to untreated.

It happens in digital too, the information is there in the sensor, but there is no science (economic way?) to make the interface to extract it...yet. (We're probably looking here at 'color-depth' in the petagogolplexbyte range! )

What is Real? Philosophers throughout history asked the same question. My approach is, there is only the knowable, the unknown, and the unknowable. If it can be thought it is real someplace!

[séamuis]

Unexposed! Wow that would cost a lot to develop at once!

How long for you to use that many rolls?

you mean undeveloped I assume? about a year and a half I would guess? Ive shot more than that in total (probably about a thousand rolls), thats just what sits undeveloped.

[asaru]

In the book (not the movie! google, wikipedia) "The Secret Life of Plants" by Thompkins and Bird, is described an experiment in Texas using photos of portions of farm fields, after treating a photo with insecticide, bugs evacuated that portion of field, applying nutrient to areas of photo improved results those areas compared to untreated.

The basic question is, does Kirlian photography work with digital??

[Ratmagiclady]

Sounds like Seamuis needs to join the 'Processing Procrastinators Anonymous' thread, badly.

The basic question is, does Kirlian photography work with digital??

Strictly speaking, this would present problems because of the electricity involved and need for a really big 'sensor' for at least the classic method, if I'm not mistaken.

I rather like digital, too, but it's like working in a different medium in painting, quite often, and film really does just feel more 'real' and positive at any given point.

I've often sort of leaned toward the print darkroom being kind of a chore, but 'if you want something done right,' often really useful. Though perhaps a bit of a drag doing anything in quantity. (Partly cause I used to do it for a job and wasn't printing my *own* images pretty much since then, but hey. )

[séamuis]

Sounds like Seamuis needs to join the 'Processing Procrastinators Anonymous' thread, badly.

christ almighty, do we have one of those? because knowing this forum, we do! processing is indeed a chore to me. taking photos is not. I love film, but I love using a certain kind of camera with a certain look, feel and type of and level of control. thats why I use film cameras and film more than digital. its heartwarming to know that a number of manufacturers are pushing back to that simplicity with recent designs (ive been drooling over the Fuji X100) so in all retrospect, its more about the camera than it is the capture medium. but I do like film more than digital. if only those blasted film cartridges developed themselves! oh wait, wheres my polaroid?

[Nesster]

Nesster, I agree with everything you say. But the uncertainty of waiting for development, by which time you are off the scene, imposes a totally different head.

Sex or no sex, I'd argue there's a moment of greater reality in seeing how it turned out, after the wait.

I agree; digital makes the problems of film less crucial and lets us appreciate it for its benefits -- it was a different story when film was all we had.

In the book (not the movie! google, wikipedia) "The Secret Life of Plants" by Thompkins and Bird, is described an experiment in Texas using photos of portions of farm fields, after treating a photo with insecticide, bugs evacuated that portion of field, applying nutrient to areas of photo improved results those areas compared to untreated.

It happens in digital too, the information is there in the sensor, but there is no science (economic way?) to make the interface to extract it...yet. (We're probably looking here at 'color-depth' in the petagogolplexbyte range

I'm glad you bring this up --that's a great book and people should read it, even my ultra scientist dad thinks it's a good book -- however I'm uncertain whether this sort of thing truly depends on the physical characteristic of the container medium.

If you recall, there were some experiments where a machine was replaced by a schematic of the machine and the results were the same.

The type of information passed and the way it passes is non-compliant with our ordinary sense of these things - i.e. it isn't governed by the speed of light, for one.

Amulets can be used - or rather just about anything can be used as amulet - to store a thought form or information flow; and these same things can also exist entirely free of any storage device.

On the other hand, it's fascinating to think of electrons penetrating film substrate, striking colloidial silver and leaving a message... which developed emerges as a representation of 'out there'... the same electron hitting a sensor and being sampled and ampled and low-passed and anti-aliased on its way to a switch... just doesnt carry the romance

[Gooshin]

see signature

[Ratmagiclady]

christ almighty, do we have one of those? because knowing this forum, we do! processing is indeed a chore to me. taking photos is not. I love film, but I love using a certain kind of camera with a certain look, feel and type of and level of control. thats why I use film cameras and film more than digital. its heartwarming to know that a number of manufacturers are pushing back to that simplicity with recent designs (ive been drooling over the Fuji X100) so in all retrospect, its more about the camera than it is the capture medium. but I do like film more than digital. if only those blasted film cartridges developed themselves! oh wait, wheres my polaroid?

Heehee. Yep, the first step is admitting you have like two hundred rolls of latent images.

Would a big five-reel Paterson tank help you catch up? I've got one that is cracked and repaired (Though not sufficiently, I think: came like this. Normally I don't favor doing tons at a shot, but you're behind, there. )

[séamuis]

Heehee. Yep, the first step is admitting you have like two hundred rolls of latent images.

Would a big five-reel Paterson tank help you catch up? I've got one that is cracked and repaired (Though not sufficiently, I think: came like this. Normally I don't favor doing tons at a shot, but you're behind, there. )

nice offer, but im not sure id actually be up for the daunting task to be honest. I think one day I will get some developed. I have a few important rolls marked. my fiancée says she wants me to give her some of the rolls so she can see whats on them. kind of like some sort of surprise in the egg type of thing.

[magkelly]

I don't know how old you are but for your sake I sure hope you have a lot of years left on this planet to shoot all that film. LOL

I have about 350-400 rolls of undeveloped film in my refrigerator.

[stevebrot]

Arista is Kodak plu-x and tri-x

In part. Arista.EDU Ultra (100 and 400) is Fomapan.

[Votesh]

Up until last year when one of my dogs got ill and i had to sell my D300 to pay for the vet bills i never thought about having a SLR, i just thought i would always use digital.
I tried to get money together for the K7 and granted i have enough now but for the next couple of years i want to get back to real photography the excitement of not knowing what is in the can until it is developed.
Tonight i go and pick up a Pentax K1000 with a 28mm and a 50mm lens and loads of extras and all in excellent condition. I cant wait to get my hands on the camera again and re-learning how to use film again.
I will probably be back on asking silly questions that i should most likely know the answers to but have forgotten due to using digital.

Starting back on film after a break is a ton of fun. I did it about a year ago and have only really used my K-7 as a means of digitizing negatives and slides since then(I'm even considering selling it to buy some gear for my film bodies). So who knows, you may not even want another DSLR

As for the film vs. digital discussion that arose, I personally prefer using film cameras more than digital for several reasons. I can choose a particular film to suit a particular situation rather than being stuck with the same sensor for every situation. I like the "look" of most film photos more than I like the "look" of most digital photos, even if the film image has be digitized. Generally that look could largely be reproduced digitally, but that takes time and effort and the knowledge that you want the look of a particular film for a particular image. Also, for me the disconnect in film between taking a picture and seeing the picture is not only suspenseful in a good way, it also means that when I go out to take pictures that's all I'm doing. With digital I generally take a picture, then review it, critique it, and retake it if necessary, all within the process of taking said pictures. I'm sure most people like the ability do that extra stuff, and it is undoubtedly beneficial for many, but for me it can sour the experience. Sure, I could just turn off the LCD, but I think the LCD screen is the main advantage of digital next to cost per picture, so as long as I have film available I will almost always choose it.

[séamuis]

I don't know how old you are but for your sake I sure hope you have a lot of years left on this planet to shoot all that film. LOL

I’m 26.

[Ratmagiclady]

nice offer, but im not sure id actually be up for the daunting task to be honest. I think one day I will get some developed. I have a few important rolls marked. my fiancée says she wants me to give her some of the rolls so she can see whats on them. kind of like some sort of surprise in the egg type of thing.

Hrm, I wonder how much negs-only development costs these days: at least that'd help stabilize the situation, but it's kind of an investment backed up there. Could be that some lab'd give you a quantity discount if there's really that much backed up and you're not in a hurry.

(Makes me wonder if there'd be a way for me to do better for you than lab prices if you wanted to hire some out: I run on a pretty cash-poor but time-OK basis: I do have a ton of tanks and reels, including a couple of big ones. (A friend of mine and I were going to split this lot off Ebay, but the most of the tanks needed repair, so I just hung onto them. The biggies I haven't bothered fixing cause I don't use such things for myself, generally, but they're there. ) Offhand, it seems I could do about nine rolls at a shot in a couple hours, not counting setup and temperature control, and tank-loading, of course, (I hope to be making these things easier on myself wherever we move to next) and I really don't know if there isn't a lab that could do better, but maybe.

I'd have to add up the costs and all, but if it's doable, it could be pretty worthwhile for me to have some steady piecework a while, could be some good barter involved, too.