The Hidden Dangers of “Going Digital” In Photography!

hawkeye60 wrote in post #9861470
I wonder if he still shoots Super 8 film instead of video...

He's a pro. He uses 16mm film.

And on a related note, ask the news people if they want to go back to film cameras, with a multi-hour lag between shooting and printing/broadcasting.

And forget instant reports from the field! You had to shoot the film, ship the film, and develop and print the film before anyone even saw what was captured. Nature photographers, combat reporters, and the like often had to wait weeks or even months to find out exactly what they got.

And sometimes had to go out and do it all over again, which was always expensive and often impossible.

What's next? Do away with digital cameras? This whole article sounds like the ravings of a classic Luddite.

Lets all go back to the '50s: no digital cameras; no personal computers; no pocket calculators; no portable telephones; no satellite communications; a truly simpler life with nothing to worry about [except nuclear bombs].

He can take all the film pictures he wishes. What he can't seem to do is do so without bothering the rest of us.

You only have to go back to the late 60s for that. I recall the TI-100 circa 1973...portable telephones were still fiction and personal computers weren't even imagined (an odd quirk--science fiction writers were predicting larger and larger computers, not smaller ones).

RDKirk wrote in post #9861786
You only have to go back to the late 60s for that. I recall the TI-100 circa 1973...portable telephones were still fiction and personal computers weren't even imagined (an odd quirk--science fiction writers were predicting larger and larger computers, not smaller ones).

And most of them were one-to-a-planet and had names that ended in "-vac" or "-iac."

I remember predictions of "analytical rules" that were super-sliderules. Well, even Isaac Asimov wasn't right all the time.

20droger wrote in post #9861746
Lets all go back to the '50s: no digital cameras; no personal computers; no pocket calculators; no portable telephones; no satellite communications; a truly simpler life with nothing to worry about [except nuclear bombs].

When you put it like that it almost sounds like a good idea.

20droger wrote in post #9861867
And most of them were one-to-a-planet and had names that ended in "-vac" or "-iac."

That's because they were supposed to be "serving" their human masters.

Somehow by making them smaller we ended up with a role reversal too.

spkerer wrote in post #9853521
You need to re-post this into one of the many threads about how GWC's are killing photography for the pros! You're describing one of the ways to distinguish yourself from the GWCs and such.

Just for my info... what is GWC suppose to be?

primoz wrote in post #9866731
Just for my info... what is GWC suppose to be?

"Guy With Camera"

digirebelva wrote in post #9866971
"Guy With Camera"

Sometimes also referred to as DWC (Dad with camera) or for those across the pond "Uncle Bob" (gotta love the English:lol.

20droger wrote in post #9861867
And most of them were one-to-a-planet and had names that ended in "-vac" or "-iac."

mbellot wrote in post #9863166
That's because they were supposed to be "serving" their human masters.

Somehow by making them smaller we ended up with a role reversal too.

Actually, it was SF-writer short-sidedness, basing their names upon the original Univac and not realizing that the "-vac" stood for "vacuum tube."

The "-iac" endings derived from the British Brainiac show/character.

As for them ruling us, no way! We can always use the internet to form them into a committee, thereby rendering them completely incapable of getting anything done.

20droger wrote in post #9867676
As for them ruling us, no way! We can always use the internet to form them into a committee, thereby rendering them completely incapable of getting anything done.

Computers are far too logical to get sucked into a committee.

As for getting anything done, I think pr0n has taking care of that quite well.

20droger wrote in post #9867676
As for them ruling us, no way!

You are obviously unaware of SkyNet!

(Jokes aside, if you google skynet one of the top-ranked pages says "Google is Skynet." That's probably not too far from the truth!)

But Google lacks the anthropomorphic cyborgs of T2 and T3 (especially T3).

20droger wrote in post #9873002
But Google lacks the anthropomorphic cyborgs of T2 and T3 (especially T3).

Are your sure, or are you just assuming because none have come looking for you (yet)?

I'm sure. I could conceivably be wrong, but I'm sure.

Just like I'm sure the sun will rise tomorrow. It could go nova during the night, but I'm willing to stake my life that it won't.

20droger wrote in post #9874797
I'm sure. I could conceivably be wrong, but I'm sure.

Just like I'm sure the sun will rise tomorrow. It could go nova during the night, but I'm willing to stake my life that it won't.

Well, we know it didn't go nova 9 minutes ago, but we can't be sure about the last eight.