Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod! (Score 4, Interesting) 197

The reason for this is to find "terrorists", but how many terrorists are dumb enough to give over their accounts that they use to actively proclaim jihad on the world with?

        A lot of them, actually. ISIS is very active about it, in fact. I think both the French and Monaco truck-ramming idiots had posts on some social media about jihad. Same with the idiots who shot up the theater.

        These guys are not criminal masterminds, nor are they particularly crafty or intelligent. Something this simple wouldn't stop all of them, but it would at least flag some of them.

Comment Re:Artistic control? (Score 1) 213

Actually, you are generally correct (disregarding some minor technical misstatements). With any color process, the control was very strictly limited. Even Ansel Adams never resolved this issue and never did very much with color, because you really can't control it, and for certain, most of what you can do if you try is screw it up. For color print film, you can do some *very limited* control, but mostly all you can do it make the color be off. In the specific case of slide film there is virtually no control whatsoever possible. You can underexpose or overexpose it, but aside from that, forget it. Unless you get it scanned and use Photoshop.

Digital, as you note, more or less resolves that limitation for color, you actually can manipulated it to come out the way you envision with great ease. If you only ever use 35mm, digital has exceeded it in quality as well. For the vast majority of people, digital in the usual 2/3 frame or full-frame 35mm format is FAR, FAR better quality than an amateur could get with common processes and actual 35mm film. Crappy cell phone cameras with sensors the size of a few grains of rice usually do better, too. There's still nothing digital available to amateurs for sane money that can match larger-format film. and I expect that the 120 and 4x5 formats will outlast 35mm.

      The wrong part is what happens when you take film to a lab - there were and are essentially *no* computer-based evaluation steps in slide processing. They run it through a fixed process (E-6 in this case, as noted elsewhere, or K-12 for Kodachrome) and it comes out however it comes out. There were some weird second exposures and some hand manipulation required for Kodachrome which is why there were only two processing facilities in the entire world for many years, and for the last 10 years, only one place to process it You live in Botswana and want your roll of Kodachrome 64 processed? It went to Dwayne's photo in Kansas.

Comment Re:Hell yeah, if you still shoot film. (Score 2) 213

E-4? What are you talking about? E-4 was an earlier process to develop Ektachrome, replacing E-3 sometime in the late 60's-early 70's. Hence the "E". Modern Ektachrome is E-6. When it was around, if you had no access to an E-4 processor, and weren't willing to do it yourself. you couldn't use Ektachrome.

        I think you probab;y meant K-11 or K-12 which were the last two Kodachrome processes. At the time, unless you had to have it overnight, you wanted Kodachrome.

Slashdot Top Deals

Chemist who falls in acid will be tripping for weeks.