Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography • Hacker News Board

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#41

Post by icecreampain » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 4:41 PM UTC

bigdubs wrote: post #19

Not commenting on the article, just want to comment on the title for a sec. "The King is dead, long live the king!" is a special phrase used only when a ruler is dead and there is an immediate and available heir to assume the throne. It implies uninterrupted line of accession. "Analog photography is dead, long live analog photography" is not a correct usage of this phrase. A better way to phrase it would be : "Photog…

Came here just to say that I utterly hate such phrases, to the point of wishing the most terrible ills on the people who, thinking it's cute and quirky, willingly use the phrase.

I refuse to visit the link and will, if possible, downvote the whole article just because of the headline. Were it more truthful and descriptive, "guy does something with analog photography" I would have nothing to complain about, but now?

Time to call up some russians and arrange a DDOS.

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#42

Post by BashiBazouk » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 4:42 PM UTC

MarkNederhoed wrote: post #3

harrytuttle wrote: post #2

Pretty cool idea but unless you knock the focus off on the enlarger, it's going to look like shit. If you consider photo paper to be around 300dpi then your 400x480 cheap ass smartphone display is going to be pretty obvious. So blurry or pixelated. Your choice :) N.B this might be desirable from an artistic point of view though.

Is it really that bad? Web designers have been taking pictures of their screens for years. You still have the original 'negative' if you need the extra image quality. Edit: There should really be a couple sample images on the project page.

Yes it's really that bad. Us print people have been holding our noses with web screen shots for years. They really look bad when printed at 300dpi on paper. I would have to see the results with the even finer chemical grain of photo paper, but I would expect it to look even worse.

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#43

Post by Robin_Message » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 4:54 PM UTC

BashiBazouk wrote: post #39

Robin_Message wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thank goodness the bombing starts right after football kicks into high gear. Is this a film reference? It seemed like a total non-sequiter, except I think I watched the referenced film just yesterday.

The American football season starts on Thursday but most games will be played on Sunday. The next day Congress takes up the issue of bombing Syria...

Ah, okay, fair enough. It's not really a spoiler, since it is obviously going to happen from the moment the football ground appears, so I'll say the film is the Dark Knight Rises. Bloody good, if disturbing.

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#44

Post by BashiBazouk » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 4:56 PM UTC

Seems like the fun part of developing prints is taken out of the process. It would be at least educational to have a guide where you make the adjustments to the photo on screen then the app gives you the choice to make those adjustments before exposing the film or give instructions on how to dodge and burn during exposure to get the same results.

One big problem I see is photo chemical disposal. We have gotten to the point in understanding the chemistry of photo chemicals and it's effects down the line that you really shouldn't pour most of it down the drain any more. The stop bath is usually equivalent of vinegar but the developer and fix have some mildly toxic stuff in them as well as trace amounts of silver. I would think the hobbyist with a dedicated darkroom would have a better chance of knowing this as opposed to something like this meant for a more causal user.

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#45

Post by hnriot » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 5:00 PM UTC

luscious wrote: post #34

ctdonath wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Strange how much human progress & accomplishment comes from contemplation of the irrelevant." - Scott Kim

"Online quotes are vacant appeals to authority. I wish they would stop doing it to me." - Scott Kim Such a quote is not a talisman. Focusing on the good coming from irrelevant pursuits is confirmation bias and applying such a quote broadly is a slacker's crutch. Let's look at all the semi-self-serious stoners, punks, drunks, libertarians, etc. contemplating the irrelevant... accomplishments? Only if we want to say "d…

you mean like many writers and painters of the twentieth century? Hmmm, yeah, can't think of anything they've ever done. James Joyce, never accomplished anything, I guess Kerouac, Faulkner and Hemingway never did anything. And as for Dostoyevsky, Beethoven and van Gogh, total slackers, not a single accomplishment between them.

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#46

Post by hnriot » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 5:02 PM UTC

plg wrote: post #8

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen ... speaking as someone who used to spend hours and hours as a kid in the 1980s in our garage, making prints in our home-made darkroom. If one is already going to go to the trouble of printing on photographic paper in a darkroom, then why not just go out and get a real enlarger, a real film camera and use real negative film? The quality will be so much better. Also y…

I would think the "why" here is obvious. People have their photos on their phones these days. Whether that makes sense or not, it's just how it is. People said 110 and 126 were stupid ideas too, but they sold well for years.

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#47

Post by chongli » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 5:10 PM UTC

plg wrote: post #8

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen ... speaking as someone who used to spend hours and hours as a kid in the 1980s in our garage, making prints in our home-made darkroom. If one is already going to go to the trouble of printing on photographic paper in a darkroom, then why not just go out and get a real enlarger, a real film camera and use real negative film? The quality will be so much better. Also y…

Or go all out and get a view camera and one of those amazing Rodenstock lenses; learn the movements, compose the inverted image on ground glass while crouched beneath a dark cloth; make an exposure on sheet film!

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#48

Post by micampe » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 5:13 PM UTC

plg wrote: post #8

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen ... speaking as someone who used to spend hours and hours as a kid in the 1980s in our garage, making prints in our home-made darkroom. If one is already going to go to the trouble of printing on photographic paper in a darkroom, then why not just go out and get a real enlarger, a real film camera and use real negative film? The quality will be so much better. Also y…

Well, if you are going to do the printing developing the film would be the easy part by far. :)

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#49

Post by decasteve » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 5:15 PM UTC

Analog vs Digital:

A photo sensor in a digital camera is an analog device. The "digital" camera requires an ADC (Analog to digital Converter).

Camera film records information digitally, the light sensitive film (silver halide) either lets light through, or it doesn't. Basically the silver halide crystal is either "on" or "off".

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#50

Post by justincormack » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 5:20 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #11

plg wrote: post #8

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen ... speaking as someone who used to spend hours and hours as a kid in the 1980s in our garage, making prints in our home-made darkroom. If one is already going to go to the trouble of printing on photographic paper in a darkroom, then why not just go out and get a real enlarger, a real film camera and use real negative film? The quality will be so much better. Also y…

Why the hate? I too used to make my own prints, not at home since we didn't have the equipment or a spare room that could be darken, but at school. I still have lots of paper from that time -- certainly useless by now. I think this is kind of cool though; the big difference with a real film camera is that you get to do it picture by picture. On a film camera you have to expose a whole roll of film, then process it, t…

If you want to do one at a time shoot sheet film instead! Its even more fun and you can contact print...