This is actually extremely similar to the plot of an 80s movie called "Class of Nuke 'Em High" - it features two students buying irradiated cannabis (sourced from the nuclear plant next to their high school) from a group of thugs.
I stumbled upon it randomly on Netflix, thought it was terrible yet ended up watching the entire thing anyway. Turns out it was an intentionally bad movie - a parody of a 50s horror film - but I had difficulty separating the intentional 50s cheese from the unintentionally-cheesy 80s context. A very strange experience.
It's funny how you watched a Troma film without actually knowing what it was. Trust me, they were very aware of their "cheesy 80s context". Nuke 'Em High is one of their classics along with Toxic Avenger, which even spawned toys and a children television show. But I understand you reaction. Even I, as a cult-film guy, find their stuff hard to watch at times.
Their output is astounding though, and once in a while they launch great careers (South Park, J.J. Abrams).
Just like and even moreso than vinyl, there are sound, non-"hipster" reasons one might choose to shoot film.
The major one that keeps many artists coming back is medium/large format. It's much much cheaper to get an extremely high resolution photograph on film. Medium format is something like 100 megapixels, and it costs about a dollar per shot after initial expenses. The higher resolution might not matter on monitors, but it makes a huge difference in size limitations and sharpness when printed, and prints are generally the goal for artists.
True large format like 4x5 costs something like $10 a shot depending what film you use (I've heard it can cost a lot less if you shoot cheapo medical b&w), but has insane resolution, measured in gigapixels. You can print it wall-sized, no problem. On top of that, you can only perform the full range of movements such as tilt shift and correcting for some types of perspective distortion on a large format field camera.
This stuff does not matter for photojournalist or weddings or sports, but many professional artists still choose film. They never really stopped. This is in contrast to DJs, the largest supporters of vinyl through the 90s and 00s, who seem to have mostly stopped spinning vinyl unless they're scratching.
As a hobbyist, I appreciate that film makes me think more about each shot. I hate the immediate feedback of digital. I love film's tactile nature. I love turning off the screen and hitting the darkroom. But for me, I agree it's definitely a lifestyle choice.
You are comparing vinyl to film but in the way you are doing it you are implicitly comparing the experience of the consumer of the audio with the producer of the image.
It is interesting though, that the "analog vs. digital" takes place both in photography and music in both the production and consumption stages. You can record analog or digital and listen to analog or digital sources of the recording. Likewise with photography, you can use a digital or film camera and then you can view the image on a print from a darkroom or on your computer monitor.
It seemed as though you were using the term "hipster" to imply vinyl was more about style and trend. If that is the case, I wouldn't characterize the sonic differences between analog and digital recordings as simply "hipster" differences. There is a quantifiable difference between an analog and digital wave. Not saying one is better than the other but they are different.
Your argument that the differences with film vs. digital seemed to boil down to the economics of the two mediums not any aesthetic difference. That is interesting because off the top of my head I don't think there is any scenario in music recording where it becomes cheaper to go analog. I believe, in general, analog recording is more expensive.
> You are comparing vinyl to film but in the way you are doing it you are implicitly comparing the experience of the consumer of the audio with the producer of the image.
> Your argument that the differences with film vs. digital seemed to boil down to the economics of the two mediums not any aesthetic difference. That is interesting because off the top of my head I don't think there is any scenario in music recording where it becomes cheaper to go analog. I believe, in general, analog recording is more expensive.
You are correct, my apologies. From the producer standpoint, analog recording techniques offer few benefits compared to digital.
I didn't argue from an aesthetic viewpoint because I don't think the aesthetic viewpoint is worth arguing about, in that it's generally a non-productive conversation that ends up in "well I prefer x because it feels better than y". Although, I will argue one particular point: I find that vinyl creates an "equalizing" factor when listening to older music alongside newer music, whereas the increased clarity and lower noise floor of digital makes 50s/60s/earlier recordings sound considerably worse than contemporary recordings. A result of this is that when listening on vinyl, I am better able to look past poor recording quality and make decisions based on artistic quality. This, however, is merely a personal preference.
> It seemed as though you were using the term "hipster" to imply vinyl was more about style and trend. If that is the case, I wouldn't characterize the sonic differences between analog and digital recordings as simply "hipster" differences. There is a quantifiable difference between an analog and digital wave. Not saying one is better than the other but they are different.
I will direct you to this very enlightening page: http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29 -- in my view, the only quantifiable differences in audio between vinyl and digital is that vinyl has a worse noise floor, a generally smaller "usable" frequency spectrum (the highs deteriorate pretty quickly), and includes surface noise, hum, rumble, etc.
I think the revival is hipster. I collect vinyl because it's often the only place to find certain genres of music (such as western swing and classic honky-tonk country), but I am generally hesitant to buy a pressing of a contemporary recording. I will do it, though, because I like having the physical product, but that is a stylistic decision more than one based on necessity/actual audio differences.
There is little I miss about shooting large format. The huge print thing really doesn't work; an enormous high-quality inkjet print from a sufficiently large sensor (60-80MP medium formatback, or a 200MP multi-shot back if the subject is stationary) will usually look better subjectively. (Sensors are flat. So are glass plates. Film seldom is.)
There are two ways in which shooting film can give objectively better results than shooting digitally. The first is that a Zone System practitioner can wring an exacting exposure from deepest shadows to highest highlights in a single shot. That's especially true when using sheet film (with roll film, you're pretty much stuck with one development for the roll unless you're quick with scissors and can do development by inspection). There are no alignment problems, no interpolation, and no de-ghosting to perform, just a hell of a lot of dodging and burning, note-taking and test prints. Combining Zone System shooting on film with good scans and digital manipulation and printing is, in a sense, getting the best of all worlds for enlargements. And if you shoot colour, it's really the only practical way to use the Zone System, since reciprocity failure between channels meant that wild dodging and burning was always a bit of a science experiment with filters, etc.
The second is contact printing. We are a long, long way from being able to produce digital prints that are even in the same ballpark. Yes, they're tiny and jewel-like (unless you're shooting really large formats like 1114 or 16x20), but they repay a close look with an astonishing detail and depth. Not quite as much as a high quality direct positive (a good Daguerreotype is almost unbelievable, even if you forget that it's probably on the order of 150 years old and was made with a lens that is absolute garbage by modern standards), but more than a little impressive nonetheless. A contact print (assuming the picture has artistic merit at all) can still suck me in for an extended stay in a way that no enlargement, dye sub or giclée can. Who knows? We might even have been there* digitally, except that our printers became literally good enough for most purposes a few years back; only a fanatical devotion to ecstatic experiences with small prints by someone in a position to produce a printer is ever going to change that.
I guess I'm a little spoiled by being at a university with a very expensive Hasselblad scanner that can actually pull that DPI without issues. I imagine it's much more challenging to achieve that resolution on a flatbed. However, if you have access to a facility that has a nice scanner, then it's probably much cheaper to simply scan your large format film than to purchase a digital back.
I would love to see some large format contact prints someday. It sounds incredible. An artist in the area was doing tintype portraits and I got to observe. I wish I remembered more of how it looked, but after a 6 second ("manually timed") exposure, the result was beautiful. I've always loved making small enlargement prints of my 35mm negatives, but being able to contact print sounds so valuable.
I agree with your points, but it might be worth noting that the resolutions you're talking about are not so easy to achieve in practice. To get 100MP out of a medium format frame you need to scan it at around 4000dpi, which isn't really achievable unless you send it to a professional lab (which can be quite expensive). Of course, there are cheap flatbeds now which claim to have an optical resolution of 4000dpi or higher, but you never get that resolution out of them in practice.
But the government does. Often mergers between large companies will be prevented if they'd create monopolies. Is there something in particular you're thinking of? One exception in particular is patents.
Indeed, I ran into this today. Took the following photograph with a 28mm (wide angle) lens on a Pentax K-x DSLR (crop sensor, so 42mm equivalent) + a polarizing filter, stopped down to f/22: http://i.imgur.com/Wu7HTpo.jpg
If you look at the bottom right, you'll notice a lot of crap. It's all just dust from the filter. It's fixable in Lightroom but it's a huge pain, as I need to manually remove each speck. These dust specks did not appear when the lens was stopped to f/8-ish.
Regardless, in response to OP, I've seen some really nice photos taken with really beat-up lenses. But if you push the bounds at all and start to photograph more challenging material exposure-wise, I imagine it'll get bad real fast.
The reason why this is happening is because your entrance pupil is small (1.3mm) and close to the dust.
The crop factor is what makes things bad here: higher crop factors means that for a given field of view, the dust is closer (because the lens is thinner) and the aperture is smaller relative to the dust.
Paradoxically, the dust is actually less problematic for more challenging exposures.
You may wish to use a wider aperture, on a 28mm lens and with modern sensors, f/22 is likely to show blurring from diffraction through the small aperture. The Airy disk will have a diameter of 30 µm, but the pixel pitch on a K-x is around 5.5 µm... which means that you have a ~6 pixel wide blur applied to your image before you even press the shutter!
But the good news is that the depth of field on a camera with a crop factor is deeper for the same field of view and aperture.
>But the good news is that the depth of field on a camera with a crop factor is deeper for the same field of view and aperture.
To be completely honest, that's the bad news and the reason why I miss my film SLR so much after I switched over to digital. I absolutely adored my 50mm normal lens's nice thin depth of field, and I miss having that on the smaller format sensor.
>f/22 is likely to show blurring from diffraction through the small aperture
I'm gonna have to learn about these concepts -- I'd heard that diffraction causes decreased sharpness when stopped down but I didn't know it was a significant issue in modern lenses. I do know that I get significant chromatic aberration on my 28mm, but I always figured it was due to its retrofocal design. Do you have any reading recommendations?
Not really. I remember using a table which gave you the optimum aperture for maximum sharpness, based on the distance that the lens moved when focusing between the front and back of the subject. That kind of thing is only really useful for MF and larger, and I only used it for things like landscapes where sharper was always better. The problem with small formats is that it's hard to know how far the lens is moving, so you can't really use this technique.
In the most general terms, opening your lens all the way gives you aberrations, closing it all the way gives you diffraction, so you'll typically shoot in the middle unless you have a reason to do otherwise. For a rule of thumb, take the apertures you use for 35mm and adjust them by the crop factor. So if you liked to shoot everything at f/8 with 35mm (a common choice), then lean towards f/5.6 with your 1.5x crop digital. Conversely, if you start lugging around a 6x7cm camera, you'll use f/16 as your default.
Yes, for really small cameras, this means really big apertures. The iPhone 4S always shoots at f/2.4, for example.
Comparing these to the Paradise series, all exhibit the a similar sense of visual complexity, as discussed by VieElm. However, these photographs are not necessarily of "mundane objects" -- city skylines are commonly photographed. This leads me to believe that Struth's interest is in the visual appeal rather than an interest in "the obvious."
Despite this, I liked the article. Well written and thought-provoking.
I agree. I can recall a few relevant instances when I was working on my OS (for a class). I would get stuck on a problem (sometimes design related but also sometimes debugging), give up for the evening and head home. By the time I'd walked halfway across the football field, the answer would come to me. Not sure if it was the walking or the fresh air, but this happened at least twice throughout the 7-week project.
> Cheeseburgers are amazing but they are a hell of a lot less appealing with no bun, onions, tomato, or ketchup
This is true, but honestly the only one of those you really need to cut out is the bun. The onions and tomato add up to 2-3g of carbs, and the ketchup is another 4g, so the whole burger in a lettuce wrap would be 6-7g of carbs, not at all bad for a meal! For reference, I use myfitnesspal to keep track of my food consumption and to research carb/calorie counts.
> Eating no more than like 20 carbs a day is really hard and for me it affects the quality of my life too much
Would 50g be more sustainable? Or 100g? From what I've seen, the 20g limit is mostly an introductory phase. 50g is still a huge reduction from what most people consume on a daily basis.
Agreed. The 20g limit is not sustainable long-term. Even 50g can be hard or impossible (from a health perspective) for some people to sustain. Diets are not really all-or-nothing -- check out marksdailyapple.com for a more flexible approach to low-ish carb eating.
Playing with carb intake can be very educational: while low-carb diets benefit a lot of people, different folks have different needs. Your athletic pursuits, sex, pregnancy status, thyroid health, etc, are all really important to consider.
I've did low carb a few years ago to lose some weight and I'm on it again now to burn off the effects of free startup food over the summer. Here's what I've found as far as snacking is concerned:
Jerky: a standby but actually it often has more carbs than you'd think -- one 3oz package usually has 12-15g of carbs, which is around 3/4ths of my ideal consumption for a day.
Nuts: almonds are the best, but others work too.
Cheese: cheese sticks make a great on-the-go snack, you can find them in a lot of gas stations. I also will do cured meats + cheese when I want an easy dinner, though it's a tad expensive.
Pork Rinds: good for when you're craving something like chips. I sometimes dip them in salsa.
Veggies: some low-carb folks have success snacking on celery and carrots, but I have difficulty at times.
But, to be honest, a lot of my problems with eating in the past involved snacking. I eat when I feel like eating, rather than when I'm actually hungry, and so my eating habits become tied to emotions rather than biological needs. And once I start eating sweets, I don't stop until I feel sick. Having fewer options makes it easier to abstain, as you said. However, did you actually feel hungry/need to snack often when you were eating low carb? I rarely feel hunger between meals like I did when I was eating carbs regularly.
My goal with low carb is to get my habits back to the point where I no longer eat because I'm bored or because it's in front of me. I'm also cutting out artificial sweeteners this time around to try and reduce my sweet tooth (last time I drank tons and tons of diet soda, but I'm finding that seltzer/club soda is an acceptable substitute) (I also heard that sweet tastes produce an insulin response regardless of actual sugar content).
To add on to tel's response, another method of supporting exceptions is to rewrite progress as "if x : t then either x |-> x', x is a value, or x is an error".
To do this, you need to define another decently large set of judgments for error propagation (such as "if x is an error and y : t then (x,y) is an error" and vice versa), but ultimately you can maintain type safety via progress and preservation while still accounting for exceptions as we know them.
On the topic of whether it would make ASM well-typed, I figure that the lack of array bounds checking would be one reason why ASM would have problems, but I haven't thought it through fully. However, I found a neat paper that tries to create a type-safe assembly language pretty similar to x86: http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~stevez/papers/MCGG99.pdf