MoRA Box Set + Analogs

[a_grumble_cake]

Originally Posted by zarya

She looks like a lightning rod <3

good call! she has this metal thing on her head and she's aiming all her limbs and the stun gun at the floor. I think a lightning rod is what they were going for...

[kuro_neko]

Originally Posted by a_grumble_cake

lol
smile with your eyes, Ringo. Smile with your eyes.

Anyway, I STILL can't decide whether to buy this or not. Any idea what the "100 page recompilation booklet" is about? Stickers and art cards I can do without.

edit: Do we really need to save film? I thought the film vs. digital debate is mostly pointless romanticism but then again I'm not a photographer.

random off topic tangent:

yes we need to save film. Digital is no where near being able to reproduce film in SO many ways. To the average consumer it might be, but to any trained artist and scientist it is not. Sure, digital can take your shitty family portrait, but what about scientists who want to photograph stars billions of millions away that are only a flicker of light, that don't register on the most sensitive of digital cameras? Using some film stock, mainly Kodak's tech pan, which has been discontinued due to the lack of demand commerically and has no immediate replacement or way to replicate, you can capture the most minute details and really pull out their intricacies for further study. There there is infrared. We will always need infrared scientifically to help with aerial surveys, to map out terrain and study nature. Both films I used extensively in personal applications. Those are just two on a really long list. And don't even get me started on the differences between a digital darkroom and the real thing because as great as photoshop is, there are any number of experimental processes you just simply CAN'T replicate digitally. I had to create my own personal one for an experimental color class and there is just no way I can see replicating it digital (my minor was in digital imaging). Because there is scientific purposes for some films, we will never be truly digital, but to the average consumer the difference doesn't really matter. Scientific aside, as an artist, I can say its a big upset. I'm only 23 and I feel like what I learned in school and utilize personally is obsolete. I go to the store and just stand there and balk about my options. And yes, I can tell the difference between digital prints and film/paper prints almost immediately, doesn't matter what equipment your using. Talk to someone like Glanth about the intricacies of analogue versus digital musical equipment and I'm sure he will come up with pros and cons for both, we need both, etc etc. Its the same with film. There are pros and cons to both, but IMO the world would be a better place without the digital revolution influencing all aspects of our lives, mainly to photographers who rely on the trade for a living. No, I won't give you the files, aka negatives, for free with your fee for sitting. No you can't just copy and print them out yourself on your printer and do what you want with them. There is copyright laws. I'm going to stop ranting now haha.

[Tokyo Jihad]

Neko is right in certain respects, I'll concede. Its the very same analog v. digital music media debate.

I'm simply speaking as a low-budget video maker =p

[ShinjiPG]

Well, for films/movie, I'm all for digital. I think current digital technology is quite enough for cinematographic purposes, and it's evolution can guarantee even better results. Also, it's WAY less expensive and the process associated gives a different freedom not usually saw with film films (er...).
Now, talking about taking pictures, photography, I am all for film.

Anyway, that's how far my opinion will go here.

[TeslaGuy]

I'm not going to get all technical and long-winded about digital vs. film but will mention a couple of things. In astronomy, digital charge coupled devices are used almost exclusively. Better sensitivity and resolution and wider frequency spectrum (including infrared). In cinema, due to the multiple generation losses in the chain between the camera negative and the projection print, a 4096x2160 pixel 4K SXRD digital projector delivers a far sharper image.

[ShadyNook]

The album cover shows what happens when you aim your camera directly at the sun. Anyone want to find a meaning?

[Tokyo Jihad]

listening to these records is as awesome as doing whats depicted on the cover.

It will also forever after change your perspective.

[Yahiko]

im almost sure ringo was the one who took the cover pic

[Tokyo Jihad]

so, lets assume it is an actual photo. And lets assume its un-doctored.
What is the second light source?

Just something that bothered me

[bromithia]

Originally Posted by kuro_neko

Looks like a photo from America's Next Top Model or some shiat. Haha. She looks sexy though, so I don't mind.

The pseudo Lens Flare cover is disappointing, really.