reads to me like you just need to turn up the brightness of your screen
Ditto on that. CRTs suck!
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Old Technology That is Still Better Than It's Modern Day Tech Replacement
- Thread starter FingerDub
- Start date
-
- Tags
- modern old replacement tech
reads to me like you just need to turn up the brightness of your screen
Ditto on that. CRTs suck!
My '40s Graflex camera takes better pictures than any DSLR made today.
Define "better".
My '40s Graflex camera takes better pictures than any DSLR made today.
Adding to that, it seems rare these days to see true black & white photography rather than what appears simply to be desaturated color. Maybe it exists and I'm just missing it, but I'm not seeing digital B&W that comes close to what can be achieved with film.
Mainly sharper resolution, and better focus control. The person still frames it, and selects exposure (usually by agreeing with the digital camera's recommendation on new cameras) and decides when to open the shutter, but the film captures way more information than any 35mm sensor.
That, to me, is not "better technology". That is (to you) a "better" picture. However, with a nice DSLR, you can take thousands of pics and experiment without having to develop film. Most of the amazing pics you see in nature mags today are taken with digitals. Print technology only goes so high in resolution. So what's the advantage of an image that is sharper than any technology that can reproduce it?
To me, the term "technology" covers every aspect of a product, not just one (i.e. resolution). And being able to take thousands of pics that are "plenty good", store them in tiny formats, easily delete and/or edit them, not waste time and resources developing, the ability for the masses....the common man if you will....to be able to use it effectively, etc. makes the overall "picture" (pun intended) of the technology of DSLR "better".
This doesn't apply to every technology, or course. We don't need surgical lasers or bazookas for the average Joe, for instance.
That, to me, is not "better technology". That is (to you) a "better" picture. However, with a nice DSLR, you can take thousands of pics and experiment without having to develop film. Most of the amazing pics you see in nature mags today are taken with digitals. Print technology only goes so high in resolution. So what's the advantage of an image that is sharper than any technology that can reproduce it?
To me, the term "technology" covers every aspect of a product, not just one (i.e. resolution). And being able to take thousands of pics that are "plenty good", store them in tiny formats, easily delete and/or edit them, not waste time and resources developing, the ability for the masses....the common man if you will....to be able to use it effectively, etc. makes the overall "picture" (pun intended) of the technology of DSLR "better".
This doesn't apply to every technology, or course. We don't need surgical lasers or bazookas for the average Joe, for instance.
I guess if your interest in photography stops at selfies, vacation snapshots, and poorly printed magazines, DSLR is way more camera that you could ever possibly need.
For many people, a flip phone is actually better than a smart phone because many people simply don't need a relatively huge screen or a ton of features. A lot of people neither need nor want to watch TV, surf the 'net or listen to music on their phones. For these folks, a flip phone is easy to fit in their pockets, and does what they need it to do. Simple. So to those people, a smart phone is not automatically better technology.
There are digital effects pedals out there that have a huge variety of tones, USB, MIDI, can be edited on computer...and STILL may not have the tones you're really looking for. Then you try a 30-year-old well-used beater of a pedal, and it's perfect! So the feature-laden digital pedal is not automatically better technology. For me, better means more usable, not just flashier. If the digital pedal has what you want and need, then it's better. If the old beater pedal has what you want and need, then it's better.
All in all, technology is better today. It's just not always better. And isn't that the point of this thread?
There are digital effects pedals out there that have a huge variety of tones, USB, MIDI, can be edited on computer...and STILL may not have the tones you're really looking for. Then you try a 30-year-old well-used beater of a pedal, and it's perfect! So the feature-laden digital pedal is not automatically better technology. For me, better means more usable, not just flashier. If the digital pedal has what you want and need, then it's better. If the old beater pedal has what you want and need, then it's better.
All in all, technology is better today. It's just not always better. And isn't that the point of this thread?
Last edited:
If anything, I'd need to turn the brightness down. The offset light is to lessen the glare of the screen, especially when using it in a dark room.
Of course, people's tolerances are different regarding a lot of things. For instance, some sounds can be music to one person's ears, and nails on a chalkboard to another's.
My '40s Graflex camera takes better pictures than any DSLR made today.
My Grandfather was a camera designer and worked for Graflex in the 40's.
My '40s Graflex camera takes better pictures than any DSLR made today.
I'll see your Crown Graphic and raise you one Busch Pressman D and Hasselblad SWC. I will even throw in a 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 R.B. Auto Graflex.
Photograph Copyright © Jeffrey P. Scott 2016 All rights reserved.
(I can't get to mine, at the moment, so this will have to do
)I have seen some excellent b&w digital work, but I agree that it is not anything like b&w film. The look is way different.
I'll see your Crown Graphic and raise you one Busch Pressman D and Hasselblad SWC. I will even throw in a 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 R.B. Auto Graflex.
View attachment 1177365
Photograph Copyright © Jeffrey P. Scott 2016 All rights reserved.
View attachment 1177364
(I can't get to mine, at the moment, so this will have to do
I have seen some excellent b&w digital work, but I agree that it is not anything like b&w film. The look is way different.
I've never had a medium format. There have been a number of Bronica's pop up recently. I just can't seem to pull the trigger on them. I do have a Calumet Monorail, though. Playing with the movements is so much fun. No space for a darkroom right now, so I've been thinking about trying some wet plate methods.
Last edited:
........We don't need surgical lasers or bazookas for the average Joe, for instance.
Hey, speak for yourself man!
Wet plate is a PITA. I have not done it, myself, but did watch someone at a photography GTG a few years ago, and I have read plenty on it and other "alternative" processes; I have made quite a few prints from various sizes of glass plates, some wet plate, dry at the time , but most were dry plate. I am perfectly happy with plain old film (TMX, in my case). I have never owned a monorail for long (I prefer field/technical cameras - I had a Wista 45VX, three different Linhofs [late version III, a V, and a Master 2000 that I returned due to issues with it], and a wonderful Ebony 45SU), but I did have two Linhof Kardan 45 cameras at one time), but have used my share of SINAR, Cambo/Kodak, Arca-Swiss, Fatif, Linhof, Graflex, and Toyo monorails. At the moment, I only have the R.B.Auto Graflex, and both a Busch Pressman D and Pressman C cameras as far as large format goes. I have had several medium format cameras over the years, besides the SWC I have these days; a Pentax 645 (original version) with a few lenses, Hasselblad 500C with a few lenses, and a Horseman 985 with a few lenses. When I bought my first 4x5 camera, the Wista 45VX, I got a Horseman 6x9 roll film back and used it that way for a while before buying 20 Toyo film holders for it. I still have a few Graflex roll film backs for 4x5 stashed away somewhere. I had a linhof Super Rollex back, briefly. It did not hold the film flat so back it went.
I don't need to own a view camera as a good friend of mine has more than a camera store's worth all by himself that I can use whenever I want, ranging from 4x5 up through 16x20 Tow of them!), including 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, so we are all stocked up.
, but most were dry plate. I am perfectly happy with plain old film (TMX, in my case). I have never owned a monorail for long (I prefer field/technical cameras - I had a Wista 45VX, three different Linhofs [late version III, a V, and a Master 2000 that I returned due to issues with it], and a wonderful Ebony 45SU), but I did have two Linhof Kardan 45 cameras at one time), but have used my share of SINAR, Cambo/Kodak, Arca-Swiss, Fatif, Linhof, Graflex, and Toyo monorails. At the moment, I only have the R.B.Auto Graflex, and both a Busch Pressman D and Pressman C cameras as far as large format goes. I have had several medium format cameras over the years, besides the SWC I have these days; a Pentax 645 (original version) with a few lenses, Hasselblad 500C with a few lenses, and a Horseman 985 with a few lenses. When I bought my first 4x5 camera, the Wista 45VX, I got a Horseman 6x9 roll film back and used it that way for a while before buying 20 Toyo film holders for it. I still have a few Graflex roll film backs for 4x5 stashed away somewhere. I had a linhof Super Rollex back, briefly. It did not hold the film flat so back it went.I don't need to own a view camera as a good friend of mine has more than a camera store's worth all by himself that I can use whenever I want, ranging from 4x5 up through 16x20 Tow of them!), including 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, so we are all stocked up.
This talk about old-timey cameras reminds me of my first big job in Thailand. They needed some photos on the first day of the job, for my work permit. So they took me over to a local photo shop & the guy had one of those old cameras on a tripod. This thing was definitely antique & he had the black drape behind it that he got under when he took the photo. B&W photo BTW
Classic portrait camera (front rise and read tilt, only). Rear focus, and folding bed. I had a custom focusing cloth made that eliminated all the excess fabric hanging down from the back of the camera. And, I still have my Ries wood tripod (J100/J250) that I got in May 1988 after being with someone, in Yosemite, who bought one from Cole Weston. I also have an older Ries from the late 1930s that belonged to the founder of the photography business/b&w lab that I was at.This talk about old-timey cameras reminds me of my first big job in Thailand. They needed some photos on the first day of the job, for my work permit. So they took me over to a local photo shop & the guy had one of those old cameras on a tripod. This thing was definitely antique & he had the black drape behind it that he got under when he took the photo. B&W photo BTW
That, to me, is not "better technology". That is (to you) a "better" picture. However, with a nice DSLR, you can take thousands of pics and experiment without having to develop film. Most of the amazing pics you see in nature mags today are taken with digitals. Print technology only goes so high in resolution. So what's the advantage of an image that is sharper than any technology that can reproduce it?
To me, the term "technology" covers every aspect of a product, not just one (i.e. resolution). And being able to take thousands of pics that are "plenty good", store them in tiny formats, easily delete and/or edit them, not waste time and resources developing, the ability for the masses....the common man if you will....to be able to use it effectively, etc. makes the overall "picture" (pun intended) of the technology of DSLR "better".
This doesn't apply to every technology, or course. We don't need surgical lasers or bazookas for the average Joe, for instance.
You'd think that was the case, until you see some seriously good true B&W pictures shot by someone who truly understands shadow and light and the development process.
I realize it's a very subjective thing, but I've seen modern B&W that will just reach out and grab you when you lay eyes on it.
It's not unlike music. I can have the latest and greatest of everything bass and I'm still a ham and egger because of my limited knowledge of how to fully exploit the gear, but there are bass players out there who can make you cry with a $20 bass and a 10W combo amp. It's the same with photography, there are ham and eggers and their are true artists.
Granted, the people I know who make their living with a camera these days fully embrace digital technology and are masters of manipulating that technology for no other reason than it's like having a facebook account if you want to be a full time working musician, it's part and parcel of the current economic reality of photography and you must know it to be competitive and produce in demand product; but those same people also produce stunning works of art the old fashioned way because it's what they love.
For smaller purchases, I say cash is still king. I'm sick of ending up in line behind people who have trouble paying with their credit/debit cards.
I don't know when waving your card or phone like a magic wand to buy whatever you want anywhere you want will become universal and virtually glitch-free, but it sure ain't here yet!
When buying a few items, I wish more people would just use cash and be done with it.
I don't know when waving your card or phone like a magic wand to buy whatever you want anywhere you want will become universal and virtually glitch-free, but it sure ain't here yet!
When buying a few items, I wish more people would just use cash and be done with it.
