• The torch is passed to a new generation (railfans)

    From Hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com@1:2320/100 to All on Mon Dec 1 07:20:56 2014

    Yesterday there were railfans out watching the holiday rush, as usual. I was pleased to see many young people with modern equipment taking photos and videos. (Instead of using a paper timetable like us oldsters, they keep the schedules in their phones).

    Glad young people are taking up the hobby.

    I think on a relative cost, photo and video equipment are cheaper than it was in our day. Back then, a good SLR camera system, including lens, filters, and accessories, was quite expensive, not to mention film and processing. Quality moving picture
    images were basically unaffordable (8 mm was very low quality, and early video cameras weren't much better).

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Robert Heller@1:2320/100 to Hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com on Mon Dec 1 10:00:44 2014

    From: heller@deepsoft.com

    At Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:20:55 -0800 (PST) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:


    Yesterday there were railfans out watching the holiday rush, as usual. I w= as pleased to see many young people with modern equipment taking photos and=
    videos. (Instead of using a paper timetable like us oldsters, they keep t= he schedules in their phones).

    Glad young people are taking up the hobby.

    I think on a relative cost, photo and video equipment are cheaper than it w= as in our day. Back then, a good SLR camera system, including lens, filter= s, and accessories, was quite expensive, not to mention film and processing= . Quality moving picture images were basically unaffordable (8 mm was very=
    low quality, and early video cameras weren't much better).

    A very basic 35mm SLR was like $350 (camera body + 'standard' 50mm lens). Add some additional lenses filters, etc. and yes, you could easily spend over
    $500.

    A good 8mm (or Hi8) camcorder cost about $1,000. (Hi8 was not bad quality,
    just shy of broadcast quality, and was sometimes used for low-end TV
    production purposes.)

    I guess modern camera phones probably exceed the quality of either 35mm SLRs
    or Hi8 camcorders. I am not sure where MiniDV camcorders fit in terms of quality or really what they cost. Little digital PAS cameras are very cheap
    and probably do at least as good a job as a good quality 'consumer-grade' 35mm SLR -- certainly *better* than something like an old box camera (eg a Brownie or something like that) and without the wait for film development and with models with removable (eg field replacable) SD cards & batteries, it is possible to take an enormous number of pictures, so long as you have a supply of charged batteries and a supply of 'empty' SD cards...



    --
    Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
    Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
    http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
    heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com@1:2320/100 to Robert Heller on Mon Dec 1 10:04:48 2014

    On Monday, December 1, 2014 11:00:43 AM UTC-5, Robert Heller wrote:

    A very basic 35mm SLR was like $350 (camera body + 'standard' 50mm lens).
    Add
    some additional lenses filters, etc. and yes, you could easily spend over $500.

    And this is in 1974 prices. Having only a 50 mm normal lens soon proves to be inadequate for railfan purposes. One also needs a wide angle and telephoto lens.

    Sometimes one could save money by buying generic lens (eg Vivitar). For a while, Nikon had a lower-priced line of lens, its E series, that saved money but worked fine for light duty amateur use.

    Back in the 1970s, a blue 80A filter was helpful due to frequent incandescent lighting. However, that also required a tripod. A Polarizer filter was helpful. Tripods could be pretty expensive. I have a cheap one, and you get what you pay for,
    although I use it so rarely it serves my needs. If I used it often, I'd want a

    studier ($$$) model. I also used an FLD filter, but that too required a tripod

    due to light loss.



    A good 8mm (or Hi8) camcorder cost about $1,000. (Hi8 was not bad quality, just shy of broadcast quality, and was sometimes used for low-end TV production purposes.)

    These didn't exist when I started. One could get 8 mm cameras, but their quality was poor and they weren't even that cheap. 16 mm offered better quality, but cameras and projectors were expensive. (However, to this day, various types of Super 8 mmm
    movie film is still listed for sale on the Kodak motion picture website. Maybe

    they just slit it out of other films they're making for larger formats. While Kodak still makes a number of motion picture products, an awful lot of stuff has been
    discontinued.)

    http://motion.kodak.com/motion/index.htm




    I guess modern camera phones probably exceed the quality of either 35mm SLRs or Hi8 camcorders. I am not sure where MiniDV camcorders fit in terms of quality or really what they cost. Little digital PAS cameras are very cheap and probably do at least as good a job as a good quality 'consumer-grade'
    35mm
    SLR -- certainly *better* than something like an old box camera (eg a Brownie or something like that) and without the wait for film development and with models with removable (eg field replacable) SD cards & batteries, it is possible to take an enormous number of pictures, so long as you have a supply


    of charged batteries and a supply of 'empty' SD cards...

    I believe a good quality DSLR is superior to most camera phones in terms of image quality and, perhaps more importantly, options for taking the picture.

    A 35mm film SLR could take excellent quality pictures, and with the right film,

    superior to those of digital--a Kodachrome slide had more pixels than a digital

    image. SLR's were definitely superior to than the pocket digital cameras.

    Digital does have the advantage of being very convenient--obviously a pocket digital camera is far easier to carry around than an SLR, especially with film and lens. Also, digital has the advantage to electronically be adaptable to different light
    situations (although not 100%--the yellow sodium vapor street lights do not come out well on digital, even with correction). Also, Kodachrome was slow by today's standards--only ASA 64--while good quality can be obtained by much higher ISO settings on a
    DSLR.

    DSLR cameras do not seem to handle to very high contrasty scenes as well as film did, with shadows going black or highlights washed out. One must do special compensation to get good pictures from such scenes. Digital also seems

    to have less exposure
    lattitude than film, although the meters of modern digital cameras seem to be pretty accurate, including being 'smart' enough to realize a train's headlight is not part of a scene for exposure determination.

    The digital storage cards can store a great many pictures, so that eliminates running out of film or needing to reload film at a critical time. However, heavy camera use can drain a camera battery.


    I don't know how the various video cameras available today compare in ease of use or quality. When the displayed movie will be only 4"x6" on a computer screen, quality isn't that important, but if it will be projected to a group of

    people, then quality
    is more important.

    As mentioned, I've rented equipment to get some videos and the quality was poor. However, for me, just getting the sound and images was enough, I wasn't planning to showcase my footage.

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Jishnu Mukerji@1:2320/100 to Hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com on Wed Dec 3 13:55:56 2014

    From: jishnu@nospam.verizon.net

    On 12/1/2014 1:04 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

    I believe a good quality DSLR is superior to most camera phones in terms of
    image quality and, perhaps more importantly, options for taking the picture.

    That is true. I can vouch for it having used both. The rea trick
    actually is in the glass, as they say. The capability of lenses in SLRs together with the much larger CCD makes a huge difference.

    A 35mm film SLR could take excellent quality pictures, and with the right
    film, superior to those of digital--a Kodachrome slide had more pixels than a digital image. SLR's were definitely superior to than the pocket digital cameras.

    Depends. There are DSLR cameras now that have way more pixels than on Kodachrome slide.

    DSLR cameras do not seem to handle to very high contrasty scenes as well as
    film did, with shadows going black or highlights washed out. One must do special compensation to get good pictures from such scenes. Digital also seems

    to have less exposure
    lattitude than film, although the meters of modern digital cameras seem to be pretty accurate, including being 'smart' enough to realize a train's headlight is not part of a scene for exposure determination.

    There are many DSLR cameras that will take DSLR quality video, though
    they are really pricey, much more so than a cheaper video camcorder.

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Michael Finfer@1:2320/100 to All on Wed Dec 3 21:49:58 2014

    From: finfer@optonline.net

    On 12/1/2014 1:04 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

    DSLR cameras do not seem to handle to very high contrasty scenes as well as film did, with shadows going black or highlights washed out. One must do special compensation to get good pictures from such scenes. Digital also seems

    to have less exposure
    lattitude than film, although the meters of modern digital cameras seem to be pretty accurate, including being 'smart' enough to realize a train's headlight is not part of a scene for exposure determination.

    There are many pros who will disagree with this. Digital actually has a
    much greater ability to handle contrasty scenes, but one needs to handle
    the shot properly. It has to be exposed properly. Graduated neutral
    density filters, when used properly, are a great tool. Many digital
    images need some tweaking on the computer to fulfill their potential.
    Almost all of the shots that I take get some adjustments, mostly minor,
    before I show them to anyone. With about 30 seconds of work on each
    photo, I can have images that I am pleased with.

    Newer camera have HDR capability. They take multiple exposures of a
    scene and combine them into a photo that could never have been made with
    film. I even have an app on my phone that does that. That is probably
    not the best solution for a moving train, though.

    Michael Finfer
    Bridgewater, NJ

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Conklin@1:2320/100 to Michael Finfer on Thu Dec 4 09:24:38 2014

    From: nilknocgeo@earthlink.net

    "Michael Finfer" <finfer@optonline.net> wrote in message news:mZPfw.109818$_R5.56900@fx28.iad...

    On 12/1/2014 1:04 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

    DSLR cameras do not seem to handle to very high contrasty scenes as well >>> as film did, with shadows going black or highlights washed out. One
    must do special compensation to get good pictures from such scenes.
    Digital also seems to have less exposure lattitude than film, although
    the meters of modern digital cameras seem to be pretty accurate,
    including being 'smart' enough to realize a train's headlight is not
    part of a scene for exposure determination.

    There are many pros who will disagree with this. Digital actually has a
    much greater ability to handle contrasty scenes, but one needs to handle
    the shot properly. It has to be exposed properly. Graduated neutral
    density filters, when used properly, are a great tool. Many digital
    images need some tweaking on the computer to fulfill their potential.
    Almost all of the shots that I take get some adjustments, mostly minor, before I show them to anyone. With about 30 seconds of work on each
    photo, I can have images that I am pleased with.

    Newer camera have HDR capability. They take multiple exposures of a scene and combine them into a photo that could never have been made with film.
    I even have an app on my phone that does that. That is probably not the
    best solution for a moving train, though.

    Michael Finfer
    Bridgewater, NJ


    Unless you print out your pictures from digital media, every few years will make your storage medium obsolete. Kodachrome slides are good for 60-100 years. Some my father took in 1946 are still perfect. His 8 mm film of
    steam engines at Catskill, NY, on passenger trains are still as good as the
    day they were taken. But my cell phone videos of Engine 12 on the Tweetsie will not outlast the cell phone. As for the VHS mini tapes I had for
    several years, they are already showing problems. But no sense in
    complaining. All we have now is digital.

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Robert Heller@1:2320/100 to Finfer@optonline.net on Thu Dec 4 21:05:20 2014

    From: heller@deepsoft.com

    At Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:27:09 -0500 Michael Finfer <finfer@optonline.net> wrote:


    On 12/4/2014 9:24 AM, conklin wrote:

    Unless you print out your pictures from digital media, every few years will make your storage medium obsolete.

    Has not happened yet, and there is always a transition period when you
    can transfer images from one medium to another. The old days of floppy
    disc drives are gone, but those discs could not even hold one of the
    images that I take today. Those things are not relevant to this discussion.

    I have all of my images in several places, my hard drive, at least two external hard drives, and good quality CD's or DVD's. One of those
    external hard drives is kept at work in case my house burns down. I
    just bought a 2 TB drive that will last me for some time. So far, the industry has made all of its optical drives backwards compatible with
    the older formats, which is really just a software issue, and I see no
    sign that that is going to change. I am not worried.

    Right. It is more an issue with video tape.


    Michael Finfer
    Bridgewater, NJ

    Kodachrome slides are good for 60-100
    years. Some my father took in 1946 are still perfect. His 8 mm film of steam engines at Catskill, NY, on passenger trains are still as good as the day they were taken. But my cell phone videos of Engine 12 on the Tweetsie will not outlast the cell phone. As for the VHS mini tapes I had for several years, they are already showing problems. But no sense in complaining. All we have now is digital.





    --
    Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
    Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
    http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
    heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Michael Finfer@1:2320/100 to Conklin on Thu Dec 4 21:27:10 2014

    From: finfer@optonline.net

    On 12/4/2014 9:24 AM, conklin wrote:

    Unless you print out your pictures from digital media, every few years will make your storage medium obsolete.

    Has not happened yet, and there is always a transition period when you
    can transfer images from one medium to another. The old days of floppy
    disc drives are gone, but those discs could not even hold one of the
    images that I take today. Those things are not relevant to this discussion.

    I have all of my images in several places, my hard drive, at least two
    external hard drives, and good quality CD's or DVD's. One of those
    external hard drives is kept at work in case my house burns down. I
    just bought a 2 TB drive that will last me for some time. So far, the
    industry has made all of its optical drives backwards compatible with
    the older formats, which is really just a software issue, and I see no
    sign that that is going to change. I am not worried.

    Michael Finfer
    Bridgewater, NJ

    Kodachrome slides are good for 60-100
    years. Some my father took in 1946 are still perfect. His 8 mm film of steam engines at Catskill, NY, on passenger trains are still as good as the day they were taken. But my cell phone videos of Engine 12 on the Tweetsie will not outlast the cell phone. As for the VHS mini tapes I had for
    several years, they are already showing problems. But no sense in complaining. All we have now is digital.



    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Peter Schleifer@1:2320/100 to Heller@deepsoft.com on Fri Dec 5 08:43:50 2014

    From: pschleif@speakeasy.org

    On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:05:19 -0600, Robert Heller
    <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:

    At Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:27:09 -0500 Michael Finfer <finfer@optonline.net> wrote:


    On 12/4/2014 9:24 AM, conklin wrote:

    Unless you print out your pictures from digital media, every few years will
    make your storage medium obsolete.

    Has not happened yet, and there is always a transition period when you
    can transfer images from one medium to another. The old days of floppy
    disc drives are gone, but those discs could not even hold one of the
    images that I take today. Those things are not relevant to this discussion. >>
    I have all of my images in several places, my hard drive, at least two
    external hard drives, and good quality CD's or DVD's. One of those
    external hard drives is kept at work in case my house burns down. I
    just bought a 2 TB drive that will last me for some time. So far, the
    industry has made all of its optical drives backwards compatible with
    the older formats, which is really just a software issue, and I see no
    sign that that is going to change. I am not worried.

    Right. It is more an issue with video tape.

    Yes, I copied all the video tape I want to save onto my hard drives (I
    have 10 TB so the space is not a problem) and DVD, but that involves 2
    or 3 pieces of aging equipment (depending on the tape format), none of
    which will be replaced.
    --
    Peter Schleifer
    "Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Conklin@1:2320/100 to Peter Schleifer on Fri Dec 5 09:14:50 2014

    From: nilknocgeo@earthlink.net

    "Peter Schleifer" <pschleif@speakeasy.org> wrote in message news:vtc38a5e4rv3v1au7qnghapa84khhma1u7@4ax.com...
    On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:05:19 -0600, Robert Heller
    <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:

    At Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:27:09 -0500 Michael Finfer <finfer@optonline.net> >>wrote:


    On 12/4/2014 9:24 AM, conklin wrote:

    Unless you print out your pictures from digital media, every few years >>> > will
    make your storage medium obsolete.

    Has not happened yet, and there is always a transition period when you
    can transfer images from one medium to another. The old days of floppy
    disc drives are gone, but those discs could not even hold one of the
    images that I take today. Those things are not relevant to this
    discussion.

    I have all of my images in several places, my hard drive, at least two
    external hard drives, and good quality CD's or DVD's. One of those
    external hard drives is kept at work in case my house burns down. I
    just bought a 2 TB drive that will last me for some time. So far, the
    industry has made all of its optical drives backwards compatible with
    the older formats, which is really just a software issue, and I see no
    sign that that is going to change. I am not worried.

    Right. It is more an issue with video tape.

    Yes, I copied all the video tape I want to save onto my hard drives (I
    have 10 TB so the space is not a problem) and DVD, but that involves 2
    or 3 pieces of aging equipment (depending on the tape format), none of
    which will be replaced.
    --
    Peter Schleifer
    "Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"

    All this is fine if you spend a lot of time keeping up with the changes.
    I've had a number of computer crashes over the years, including one
    lightning strike which smoked the computer, the phone lines, the router and everything else. Gone were the files. As VHS, move that to DVD and then
    from DVD to memory sticks, and hope they last? I've had them crash too.
    And the posted life expectancy of the computer-generated cd is 4 years.

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Robert Heller@1:2320/100 to Pschleif@speakeasy.org on Sat Dec 6 08:22:02 2014

    From: heller@deepsoft.com

    At Sat, 06 Dec 2014 09:10:30 -0500 Peter Schleifer <pschleif@speakeasy.org> wrote:


    On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:14:49 -0500, "conklin"
    <nilknocgeo@earthlink.net> wrote:

    "Peter Schleifer" <pschleif@speakeasy.org> wrote in message >news:vtc38a5e4rv3v1au7qnghapa84khhma1u7@4ax.com...

    Yes, I copied all the video tape I want to save onto my hard drives (I
    have 10 TB so the space is not a problem) and DVD, but that involves 2
    or 3 pieces of aging equipment (depending on the tape format), none of
    which will be replaced.

    All this is fine if you spend a lot of time keeping up with the changes. >I've had a number of computer crashes over the years, including one >lightning strike which smoked the computer, the phone lines, the router and >everything else. Gone were the files. As VHS, move that to DVD and then >from DVD to memory sticks, and hope they last? I've had them crash too. >And the posted life expectancy of the computer-generated cd is 4 years.

    I keep multiple backups, on site, off site and cloud. If a single
    event were catastrophic enough to cause the loss of all copies, I
    probably would have much bigger concerns to deal with.

    Eg. grabbing your towel and babble fish and putting out your galactic thumb... :-)

    --
    Peter Schleifer
    "Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"


    --
    Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
    Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
    http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
    heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Peter Schleifer@1:2320/100 to Nilknocgeo@earthlink.net on Sat Dec 6 09:10:32 2014

    From: pschleif@speakeasy.org

    On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:14:49 -0500, "conklin"
    <nilknocgeo@earthlink.net> wrote:

    "Peter Schleifer" <pschleif@speakeasy.org> wrote in message >news:vtc38a5e4rv3v1au7qnghapa84khhma1u7@4ax.com...

    Yes, I copied all the video tape I want to save onto my hard drives (I
    have 10 TB so the space is not a problem) and DVD, but that involves 2
    or 3 pieces of aging equipment (depending on the tape format), none of
    which will be replaced.

    All this is fine if you spend a lot of time keeping up with the changes.
    I've had a number of computer crashes over the years, including one
    lightning strike which smoked the computer, the phone lines, the router and >everything else. Gone were the files. As VHS, move that to DVD and then >from DVD to memory sticks, and hope they last? I've had them crash too.
    And the posted life expectancy of the computer-generated cd is 4 years.

    I keep multiple backups, on site, off site and cloud. If a single
    event were catastrophic enough to cause the loss of all copies, I
    probably would have much bigger concerns to deal with.
    --
    Peter Schleifer
    "Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Conklin@1:2320/100 to Peter Schleifer on Sat Dec 6 13:26:30 2014

    From: nilknocgeo@earthlink.net

    "Peter Schleifer" <pschleif@speakeasy.org> wrote in message news:e6368al8k3mq33i3dadtjq7n359ci16par@4ax.com...
    On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:14:49 -0500, "conklin"
    <nilknocgeo@earthlink.net> wrote:

    "Peter Schleifer" <pschleif@speakeasy.org> wrote in message >>news:vtc38a5e4rv3v1au7qnghapa84khhma1u7@4ax.com...

    Yes, I copied all the video tape I want to save onto my hard drives (I
    have 10 TB so the space is not a problem) and DVD, but that involves 2
    or 3 pieces of aging equipment (depending on the tape format), none of
    which will be replaced.

    All this is fine if you spend a lot of time keeping up with the changes. >>I've had a number of computer crashes over the years, including one >>lightning strike which smoked the computer, the phone lines, the router >>and
    everything else. Gone were the files. As VHS, move that to DVD and then >>from DVD to memory sticks, and hope they last? I've had them crash too. >>And the posted life expectancy of the computer-generated cd is 4 years.

    I keep multiple backups, on site, off site and cloud. If a single
    event were catastrophic enough to cause the loss of all copies, I
    probably would have much bigger concerns to deal with.
    --
    Peter Schleifer
    "Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"

    Ok, but few people do that. Thus what used to be a long-lasting photo is
    now fragile and since few are printed out, short-lived.

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From John Levine@1:2320/100 to All on Sat Dec 6 19:55:56 2014

    From: johnl@iecc.com

    Ok, but few people do that. Thus what used to be a long-lasting photo is
    now fragile and since few are printed out, short-lived.

    Considering how the dyes in some old color prints (and for that
    matter, early Eastmancolor movies) have faded and shifted, maybe
    digital archiving isn't such a bad idea.

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Charles Ellson@1:2320/100 to All on Sat Dec 6 20:26:52 2014

    From: ce11son@yahoo.ca

    On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 19:55:54 +0000 (UTC), John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
    wrote:

    Ok, but few people do that. Thus what used to be a long-lasting photo is >>now fragile and since few are printed out, short-lived.

    Considering how the dyes in some old color prints (and for that
    matter, early Eastmancolor movies) have faded and shifted, maybe
    digital archiving isn't such a bad idea.

    The trick played by some museums with colour prints was to make three
    B+W copies, each with a different colour filter.

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Benjamin.kubelsky@1:2320/100 to John Levine on Sat Dec 6 22:58:30 2014

    From: Benjamin.Kubelsky@verizon.net

    On 12/6/2014 4:28 PM, John Levine wrote:
    Considering how the dyes in some old color prints (and for that
    matter, early Eastmancolor movies) have faded and shifted, maybe
    digital archiving isn't such a bad idea.

    The trick played by some museums with colour prints was to make three
    B+W copies, each with a different colour filter.

    The original Technicolor process used for the Wizard of Oz and Gone
    with the Wind used a camera that split the image and ran it through
    three filters to three B/W films. That's why those movies still look
    great, while more recent ones shot in Eastmancolor don't.



    Um, all early Technicolor was like that. The reason the Wizard of Oz and
    Gone With the Wind look great is that, due to the popularity of the
    films, they have been well preserved and painstakingly restored.

    I don't know what you mean by Eastmancolor. Kodachrome as it was shot in
    the camera, was black and white film, with three layers of emulsion,
    each sensitive to a different color of light. The actual color dyes were
    added in processing. Properly cared for, Kodachrome from the 1940s still
    can be quite good. It does degrade with exposure to light.


    Ektachrome, which came later, had the dyes in the actual film. It tends
    to degrade even without exposure to light. But later formulas improved
    on this.

    Prints, as in 8x10s hanging on the wall are another story. Interesting
    thing is the 4 high school portraits of me and my siblings. All have
    hung in the same hallway for 30 plus years. My older sister, who went to
    a different high school who used a different photographer and obviously, different paper, is very faded. My brother, younger sister and me, all
    from a different school district, but only a couple of years newer, are
    just fine.

    Cheers,

    David

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From John Levine@1:2320/100 to All on Sun Dec 7 00:28:30 2014

    From: johnl@iecc.com

    Considering how the dyes in some old color prints (and for that
    matter, early Eastmancolor movies) have faded and shifted, maybe
    digital archiving isn't such a bad idea.

    The trick played by some museums with colour prints was to make three
    B+W copies, each with a different colour filter.

    The original Technicolor process used for the Wizard of Oz and Gone
    with the Wind used a camera that split the image and ran it through
    three filters to three B/W films. That's why those movies still look
    great, while more recent ones shot in Eastmancolor don't.

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Clark F Morris@1:2320/100 to Nilknocgeo@earthlink.net on Fri Jan 9 23:20:00 2015

    From: cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca

    On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 09:24:36 -0500, "conklin"
    <nilknocgeo@earthlink.net> wrote:


    "Michael Finfer" <finfer@optonline.net> wrote in message >news:mZPfw.109818$_R5.56900@fx28.iad...

    On 12/1/2014 1:04 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

    DSLR cameras do not seem to handle to very high contrasty scenes as well >>>> as film did, with shadows going black or highlights washed out. One
    must do special compensation to get good pictures from such scenes.
    Digital also seems to have less exposure lattitude than film, although >>>> the meters of modern digital cameras seem to be pretty accurate,
    including being 'smart' enough to realize a train's headlight is not
    part of a scene for exposure determination.

    There are many pros who will disagree with this. Digital actually has a
    much greater ability to handle contrasty scenes, but one needs to handle
    the shot properly. It has to be exposed properly. Graduated neutral
    density filters, when used properly, are a great tool. Many digital
    images need some tweaking on the computer to fulfill their potential.
    Almost all of the shots that I take get some adjustments, mostly minor,
    before I show them to anyone. With about 30 seconds of work on each
    photo, I can have images that I am pleased with.

    Newer camera have HDR capability. They take multiple exposures of a scene >> and combine them into a photo that could never have been made with film.
    I even have an app on my phone that does that. That is probably not the
    best solution for a moving train, though.

    Michael Finfer
    Bridgewater, NJ


    Unless you print out your pictures from digital media, every few years will >make your storage medium obsolete. Kodachrome slides are good for 60-100 >years. Some my father took in 1946 are still perfect. His 8 mm film of >steam engines at Catskill, NY, on passenger trains are still as good as the >day they were taken. But my cell phone videos of Engine 12 on the Tweetsie >will not outlast the cell phone. As for the VHS mini tapes I had for
    several years, they are already showing problems. But no sense in >complaining. All we have now is digital.

    While digital media may change, the advantage of the digital format is
    that a straight copy causes no loss of information unlike copying
    negatives or slides. Note this is true only for straight file
    copying. If a JPEG is opened and then stored there will be a loss of information because JPEG is a compression which loses information.
    Thus having several copies of a picture poses no problem. Just copy
    your files every few years.

    Clark Morris

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Jishnu Mukerji@1:2320/100 to Clark F Morris on Sat Jan 10 13:30:16 2015

    From: jishnu@nospam.verizon.net

    On 1/9/2015 10:19 PM, Clark F Morris wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 09:24:36 -0500, "conklin"
    <nilknocgeo@earthlink.net> wrote:


    "Michael Finfer" <finfer@optonline.net> wrote in message
    news:mZPfw.109818$_R5.56900@fx28.iad...

    On 12/1/2014 1:04 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

    DSLR cameras do not seem to handle to very high contrasty scenes as well >>>>> as film did, with shadows going black or highlights washed out. One >>>>> must do special compensation to get good pictures from such scenes.
    Digital also seems to have less exposure lattitude than film, although >>>>> the meters of modern digital cameras seem to be pretty accurate,
    including being 'smart' enough to realize a train's headlight is not >>>>> part of a scene for exposure determination.

    There are many pros who will disagree with this. Digital actually has a >>> much greater ability to handle contrasty scenes, but one needs to handle >>> the shot properly. It has to be exposed properly. Graduated neutral
    density filters, when used properly, are a great tool. Many digital
    images need some tweaking on the computer to fulfill their potential.
    Almost all of the shots that I take get some adjustments, mostly minor,
    before I show them to anyone. With about 30 seconds of work on each
    photo, I can have images that I am pleased with.

    Newer camera have HDR capability. They take multiple exposures of a scene >>> and combine them into a photo that could never have been made with film. >>> I even have an app on my phone that does that. That is probably not the >>> best solution for a moving train, though.

    Michael Finfer
    Bridgewater, NJ


    Unless you print out your pictures from digital media, every few years will >> make your storage medium obsolete. Kodachrome slides are good for 60-100
    years. Some my father took in 1946 are still perfect. His 8 mm film of
    steam engines at Catskill, NY, on passenger trains are still as good as the >> day they were taken. But my cell phone videos of Engine 12 on the Tweetsie >> will not outlast the cell phone. As for the VHS mini tapes I had for
    several years, they are already showing problems. But no sense in
    complaining. All we have now is digital.

    While digital media may change, the advantage of the digital format is
    that a straight copy causes no loss of information unlike copying
    negatives or slides. Note this is true only for straight file
    copying. If a JPEG is opened and then stored there will be a loss of information because JPEG is a compression which loses information.
    Thus having several copies of a picture poses no problem. Just copy
    your files every few years.

    Clark Morris


    I do so by keeping a private copy and also keeping copies at more than
    one cloud storage provider including providers such as iCloud and Dropbox.

    Meanwhile my slides which I am sure will last for 100 years also has
    fungus attacking them. It is a royal pain. So I am converting all of
    them to digital as fast as I can.

    The fact that someone's cell phone video won't outlast the cellphone is
    mainly due to pilot error on part of the owner of said cellphone and
    video, and not an inherent property of the technology in question.

    /J

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Adam H. Kerman@1:2320/100 to Jishnu Mukerji on Sun Jan 11 03:40:20 2015

    From: ahk@chinet.com

    Jishnu Mukerji <jishnu@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

    Meanwhile my slides which I am sure will last for 100 years also has
    fungus attacking them. It is a royal pain. So I am converting all of
    them to digital as fast as I can.

    As I recall, there was a fungus in the emulsion, and there's a chemical
    that "disinfects" the slides and would restore them. Don't toss 'em.

    It was a problem unique to particular emulsions of Cruddychrome and
    wouldn't affect film generally.

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Charles Ellson@1:2320/100 to Ahk@chinet.com on Sun Jan 11 04:47:48 2015

    From: ce11son@yahoo.ca

    On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 03:40:18 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
    <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

    Jishnu Mukerji <jishnu@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

    Meanwhile my slides which I am sure will last for 100 years also has
    fungus attacking them. It is a royal pain. So I am converting all of
    them to digital as fast as I can.

    As I recall, there was a fungus in the emulsion, and there's a chemical
    that "disinfects" the slides and would restore them. Don't toss 'em.

    This stuff is specifically sold as a cleaner for film (with fungus
    mentioned on the page) :-
    http://photosol.com/pec-12/

    That and similar cleaners will kill the fungus but they won't restore
    any damage where the emulsion has been eroded. Now might be the time
    to scan some and get in some practice with Gimp, PaintShopPro or
    similar software.

    Other film-specific cleaners are probably available. Most of the
    generic "usual suspects" in the solvent world seem to get a mention
    WRT fungus on film in discussion groups etc. but I wouldn't touch them
    unless a professional (museum, film or similar) web site has
    information concerning suitability. Film that only needs a gentle
    clean often requires nothing more than distilled water.

    It was a problem unique to particular emulsions of Cruddychrome and
    wouldn't affect film generally.

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Jishnu Mukerji@1:2320/100 to Adam H. Kerman on Sun Jan 11 19:57:56 2015

    From: jishnu@nospam.verizon.net

    On 1/11/2015 3:14 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
    Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
    Jishnu Mukerji <jishnu@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

    Meanwhile my slides which I am sure will last for 100 years also has
    fungus attacking them. It is a royal pain. So I am converting all of
    them to digital as fast as I can.

    As I recall, there was a fungus in the emulsion, and there's a chemical
    that "disinfects" the slides and would restore them. Don't toss 'em.

    This stuff is specifically sold as a cleaner for film (with fungus
    mentioned on the page) :-
    http://photosol.com/pec-12/

    That and similar cleaners will kill the fungus but they won't restore
    any damage where the emulsion has been eroded. Now might be the time
    to scan some and get in some practice with Gimp, PaintShopPro or
    similar software. . . .

    I exaggerated, then. Thanks for looking it up as I was too lazy.

    But don't toss your Cruddychrome.


    No. not tossing. Just preserving as digital too, in addition to keeping
    the original.

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Adam H. Kerman@1:2320/100 to Charles Ellson on Sun Jan 11 20:14:06 2015

    From: ahk@chinet.com

    Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
    Jishnu Mukerji <jishnu@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

    Meanwhile my slides which I am sure will last for 100 years also has >>>fungus attacking them. It is a royal pain. So I am converting all of
    them to digital as fast as I can.

    As I recall, there was a fungus in the emulsion, and there's a chemical >>that "disinfects" the slides and would restore them. Don't toss 'em.

    This stuff is specifically sold as a cleaner for film (with fungus
    mentioned on the page) :-
    http://photosol.com/pec-12/

    That and similar cleaners will kill the fungus but they won't restore
    any damage where the emulsion has been eroded. Now might be the time
    to scan some and get in some practice with Gimp, PaintShopPro or
    similar software. . . .

    I exaggerated, then. Thanks for looking it up as I was too lazy.

    But don't toss your Cruddychrome.

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com@1:2320/100 to Spsffan on Mon Jan 12 13:19:24 2015

    On Sunday, December 7, 2014 at 1:59:10 AM UTC-5, spsffan wrote:

    I don't know what you mean by Eastmancolor. Kodachrome as it was shot in
    the camera, was black and white film, with three layers of emulsion,
    each sensitive to a different color of light. The actual color dyes were added in processing. Properly cared for, Kodachrome from the 1940s still
    can be quite good. It does degrade with exposure to light.

    While Kodachrome was originally developed as a movie film, I don't think it was

    intended for commercial use because it creates a single transparency. That is hard to accurately duplicate. (Special films are required for duplicaton or inter-negatives).
    Movies were usually shot on negative film, which (until recently) were printed which showed up as a positive image. That was distributed.


    Ektachrome, which came later, had the dyes in the actual film. It tends
    to degrade even without exposure to light. But later formulas improved
    on this.

    I believe the chemistry and characteristics of motion picture film differ from that of slide film.

    Prints, as in 8x10s hanging on the wall are another story. Interesting
    thing is the 4 high school portraits of me and my siblings. All have
    hung in the same hallway for 30 plus years. My older sister, who went to
    a different high school who used a different photographer and obviously, different paper, is very faded. My brother, younger sister and me, all
    from a different school district, but only a couple of years newer, are
    just fine.

    The paper may have had nothing to do with the fading. Certain labs, for whatever reason, didn't produce long lasting prints.

    Long ago I learned to use Kodak processing despite the extra cost. Slides and prints by other labs are often faded, even if stored away.

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)
  • From Adam H. Kerman@1:2320/100 to Jishnu@nospam.verizon.net on Mon Jan 12 17:27:36 2015

    From: ahk@chinet.com

    Jishnu Mukerji <jishnu@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
    On 1/11/2015 3:14 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
    Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
    Jishnu Mukerji <jishnu@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

    Meanwhile my slides which I am sure will last for 100 years also has >>>>> fungus attacking them. It is a royal pain. So I am converting all of >>>>> them to digital as fast as I can.

    As I recall, there was a fungus in the emulsion, and there's a chemical >>>> that "disinfects" the slides and would restore them. Don't toss 'em.

    This stuff is specifically sold as a cleaner for film (with fungus
    mentioned on the page) :-
    http://photosol.com/pec-12/

    That and similar cleaners will kill the fungus but they won't restore
    any damage where the emulsion has been eroded. Now might be the time
    to scan some and get in some practice with Gimp, PaintShopPro or
    similar software. . . .

    I exaggerated, then. Thanks for looking it up as I was too lazy.

    But don't toss your Cruddychrome.


    No. not tossing. Just preserving as digital too, in addition to keeping
    the original.

    Well, you've got to disinfect it first. Someone else looked it up.

    --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
    # Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)