|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/25/2008
|
It's only that I want to know why I should do something this or the other way, Saad. As I said to Valerij, for my pirposes film works better. This is the reason why I use it.
As about music and equipment, it many many things more than frequency responce. Its for example time responce, or type of distortion, or harmonics, etc, etc, that play a very big role. You know, when I jam with my friends, I don't want to wait 50 milliseconds until some chord riches its intensity. If I hit a "Scraaaaang", then the start of it (when the strings almost hit the body of the guitar) must be there immediately, or it sounds as if it was hit after the "boom" of the bass, and that's terrible. So, since the valve has such a quick responce, I just use valve amps.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 8/24/2008
|
Hi Nick,an other example of insistence and persistence on a solid basis, you give to me.
I know the facts that analogue sound producing instruments produce wider range of audible wavelengths,and know the facts about digital Vs analogue photography,my regards,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/24/2008
|
A logical conclusion! If I don't use a digital camera then I will post no such a image. makes sense! ;-) Except of course... hmmm, what is a JPEG other than... digital? ;-)
OK, seriously now, Saad, don't count me to the group of people that would do something that somebody else believes or doesn't believe. I simply don't care about that. I have my own ideas about equipement, these ideas brought already good results for images that were used for publications, books, etc, and so I don't see why I should just sit there and think about any kind of fashion, be it digital or anything else, that the vast majority would automatically take as "better" or "worse" without the necessary analysis of facts of physics.
To put it in other words too, I still play on Laney amps with valves and I like the sound much much better than any modern digital sound-shapers. The latter just don't get the roaring and there are real reasons for that.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 8/23/2008
|
then we will never see a digital photo shot by Nick,but I think this will not happens,appreciate your opinion,regards,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/23/2008
|
When there will be no possibility at all anywhere on this planet to process the films, Saad! ;-)
Thanks a lot for the nice comment!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 8/22/2008
|
just beautiful.
just asking as a friend to you,when does you will convert to digital? my regards,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/22/2008
|
Many thanks for the nice comment, Claudia!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Claudia Perilli
{K:31090} 8/21/2008
|
Nice colors and light in this picture. Very nice the composition.
Claudia
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/21/2008
|
Exactly, Aziz!
I wish I were more careful with the tower.:-(
About grain, actually everything is grainy on this one, but on the sky the grain is more visible just because it is much more uniform in coloring. But you can see that also on the tree at the left, etc.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
aZiZ aBc
{K:28345} 8/20/2008
|
The colors and light are very good. As you ve mentioned cutting the tower's tip is negative but not major.
Sky is grainy again which you ve told your idea !
Be healthy
Aziz
|
|
0 
