Film camera or a digital...?

[timor]

No- It was available only in M42 mount, Around 1970 or so. It was more popular for technical photography, can be used for UV through to IR. It has better color correction than the new Leica APO Summicron.

OK. Ultra Achromatic Takumar. :thumbup:

 

[christop]

Film has soul, digital is like plastic

But, but... film is plastic! I'm totally confused now.

 

[timor]

If you want to go down that path, we could call everything digital because every particle of matter can be in one of a number of discrete energy states. Light is composed of "packets of energy",

Light could be also a wave. Which form prefers sensor in digital camera ? Never mind, doesn't matter, what counts is the output of registering device. Sensor gives voltage of many different values, film... you know.
Plastic is only "skeleton", the soul hides in organic emulsion.

 

[BrianV]

The "analog" refers to the recording medium itself not being digital (and the electronics are still analog).

On the funny side film is quite "digital". Particles of silver halides converts to silver or not, 0 or 1, there is nothing in between.

If you want to go down that path, we could call everything digital because every particle of matter can be in one of a number of discrete energy states. Light is composed of "packets of energy", each of which is in a single energy state. Now my old AM radio is digital, my incandescent light bulbs are digital, and even my coffee table is digital!

(And- Film is not analog. It is a chemical medium. The only reason the term "analog" was applied was to separate it from digital. Vinyl records are analog)

I still disagree. Film is "analog" because it records (using chemical processes) an analog signal, defined by Wikipedia as "a signal that contains information using non-quantized variances in frequency and amplitude". Of course this definition works only if we ignore the quantized nature of tiny particles, otherwise we could say that film and vinyl records (and everything else in the universe) are "digital".

Whatever. No one called it Analog photography until digital was mainstream. It's a stupid description just to differentiate from Digital. Put it under a microscope, it's simply not analog. It's called "grain". Maybe you have heard of it. You can, of course, use film to store digital data. Been there, done that.

But for "analog" photography, you should try APUG.ORG.

 

[BrianV]

No- It was available only in M42 mount, Around 1970 or so. It was more popular for technical photography, can be used for UV through to IR. It has better color correction than the new Leica APO Summicron.

OK. Ultra Achromatic Takumar. :thumbup:

That's the one. Pentax is one up on Leica.

I converted a Pentax 50/1.4 for my Leica, M-Mount adapter and made an RF cam for it. Summilux 50/1.4 quality for about 5% of the price.

for the OP: Pentax lenses are world-class, a reason why those family photos came out so well. The lenses and camera are well worth using.

This is with the Pentax 50/1.4 "Super-Takumar", which would have been current with your Spotmatic. See if your Father had a 50mm or 55mm lens with his camera as well, they were considered "Normal Lenses". They are great for low-light.

 

[christop]

Whatever. No one called it Analog photography until digital was mainstream.

Irrelevant. No one called electronics analog until digital electronics were invented. No one called vinyl records analog until digital audio came around.

Put it under a microscope, it's simply not analog. It's called "grain". Maybe you have heard of it.

Yes, I have, just as an analog (a "stupid description to differentiate it from digital") audio cassette tape has magnetic grain which can be heard as high-frequency noise, or "tape hiss". Film grain is seen as a high-frequency noise. It's the same thing.

You can, of course, use film to store digital data. Been there, done that.

Yup. Dolby Digital audio is stored on the sides of 35mm film. Practically any analog medium can be used to store or transmit digital data. On the flipside, all digital data must also exist in some analog form one way or another.

 

[Josh66]

I still disagree. Film is "analog" because it records (using chemical processes) an analog signal, defined by Wikipedia as "a signal that contains information using non-quantized variances in frequency and amplitude". Of course this definition works only if we ignore the quantized nature of tiny particles, otherwise we could say that film and vinyl records (and everything else in the universe) are "digital".

Does a digital camera not also record an analog signal? The 'signal' being the light falling on the sensor. If it's analog because 'the signal' is analog, then every camera ever made is analog.

It seems like you are just looking for excuses to call it analog.

I mostly shoot film, but I've never refereed to it as analog...

 

[timor]

Irrelevant. No one called electronics analog until digital electronics were invented. No one called vinyl records analog until digital audio came around.

Correct, but we new they were analog and we new that they might be digital, just nobody invented them yet. Never heard, that the output of film photography was ever analog. Or digital for that matter.

 

[christop]

Does a digital camera not also record an analog signal? The 'signal' being the light falling on the sensor.

Of course it does, but in a "digital camera" the analog light signal is converted to an analog voltage level by the sensor which is then converted to digital data by an ADC, whereas the analog light signal is recorded directly to analog film through a chemical reaction. It's the digital data that we work with with digital cameras. If you want to go further, a film scanner converts the analog light signal from film to a digital signal.

If it's analog because 'the signal' is analog, then every camera ever made is analog.

The last sentence in my last post actually agrees with this statement, in a way--that (in other words) all digital signals must be encoded inside an analog signal.

 

[Josh66]

Does a digital camera not also record an analog signal? The 'signal' being the light falling on the sensor.

Of course it does, but in a "digital camera" the analog light signal is converted to an analog voltage level by the sensor which is then converted to digital data by an ADC, whereas the analog light signal is recorded directly to analog film through a chemical reaction. It's the digital data that we work with with digital cameras. If you want to go further, a film scanner converts the analog light signal from film to a digital signal.

If it's analog because 'the signal' is analog, then every camera ever made is analog.

The last sentence in my last post actually agrees with this statement, in a way--that (in other words) all digital signals must be encoded inside an analog signal.

I think I can agree with all of that.




I can't remember where I read it, but I remember reading that since a lot of movies are filmed on digital gear these days, they're actually converting some of them to film for longevity.



Still, calling film 'analog' has always seemed kind of pretentious to me... (And that is coming from a 'film snob', lol)

 

[terri]

A friendly reminder: film vs. digital debates are frowned upon here, since it usually turns into some meaningless, cantankerous 12-page argument with the OP long gone.

As long as the OP is genuinely engaged in this discussion, with no actual debates on the merits of both mediums, the thread can stand. If not (and especially given that the OP is a newbie here, tossing this out) the thread will be closed.

Thanks!

 

[norway_dino]

Hello and thank you all for lots of reply, tips and information.

As sad, the camera has a sentimental value to me, that is why I like to use THESE one. But, I like to try and learn using a film camera.

Back to the camera, it also has a SUN AUTO TELE-UP 2X Model-P and a lens my father got some years later, SOLIGOR TELE-AUTO 1:6.3 f=400mm No.17110455.
These lens is to heavy I was told to hold, need a tripod, and I have the one he got with the camera, made in metal, wow, not plastic as today.

So, if I understand something, I can learn taking photos with a digital camera, but, I need to take more time, think before I take the photo.
I know I have been taking LOTS of photos, and all turn out bad......If I only did use a bit more time....Well, I will learn, I hope.

If I get it right, a film camera needs the user to be more relaxed, think and plan what-when-how and so before taking the photo. I like that, sounds fun.
Will take some photos of the Pentax and show here later today.
But, yes, I will go and get some film and a new battery tomorrow and try.

I guess it is easier to use the Pentax outside, no need to use the blitz/ekstra light, or am I wrong?

A good sunday to you all.

 

[molested_cow]

I started with a film SLR and shot with it for about 10 years before I finally moved on to digital. They are very much the same, yet very different. I am very glad that I started with film because that helped me with my foundations. When I look at a photo opportunity, I am thinking about aperture, shutter speed and what ISO I was shooting with, instead of "portrait", "landscape", "night" modes etc. I have done the dark room experience and it was fun, but I can't realistically spend enough time to develop all of my photos in the dark room to my liking. So I got a film scanner and did the post processing digitally. Did it defeat the purpose of shooting in film? Absolutely not.

When I started with my first DSLR, it was "pick up and go" for me. With DSLR I began to dial into more details, like how to get the most sharpness out of my lens, how to get the depth of field I want etc. It helped me get familiar with my equipment, lens etc better because the instant review made it easier for quick comparisons. It was a lot more convenient too. I used to have to carry 30 rolls of film canisters on my travels. Now it's just a few memory cards, and with a laptop, I can actually be processing them as I go.

I'd say start with a film, then move on to a DSLR when you become more confident. This is provided that you have the accessibility to develop your films and have them scanned digitally. If not, digital is just the easier way.

 

[ann]

THANK YOU TERRI !

 

[BrianV]

Hello and thank you all for lots of reply, tips and information.

As sad, the camera has a sentimental value to me, that is why I like to use THESE one. But, I like to try and learn using a film camera.

Back to the camera, it also has a SUN AUTO TELE-UP 2X Model-P and a lens my father got some years later, SOLIGOR TELE-AUTO 1:6.3 f=400mm No.17110455.
These lens is to heavy I was told to hold, need a tripod, and I have the one he got with the camera, made in metal, wow, not plastic as today.

So, if I understand something, I can learn taking photos with a digital camera, but, I need to take more time, think before I take the photo.
I know I have been taking LOTS of photos, and all turn out bad......If I only did use a bit more time....Well, I will learn, I hope.

If I get it right, a film camera needs the user to be more relaxed, think and plan what-when-how and so before taking the photo. I like that, sounds fun.
Will take some photos of the Pentax and show here later today.
But, yes, I will go and get some film and a new battery tomorrow and try.

I guess it is easier to use the Pentax outside, no need to use the blitz/ekstra light, or am I wrong?

A good sunday to you all.

You do not have to use the Flash outside.Sometimes there are advantages to it, such as shooting a portrait where you want to fill in the shadows. Later for that!

Some books on Photography would teach you much, and the older ones from the 70s and 80s will cover the use of film. There were series of books for the Pentax.

Look for "The Pentax Way", by Herb Keppler.

Just a random Ebay auction:

3 Books 35mm Photographer's Handbook The Pentax Way Elementary Photos 0517578255 | eBay

A Manual camera requires more setup, and you do put thought into lens opening and shutter speed combinations to best suit the scene. You can so this with Digital cameras that offer more control.