Bitcoin donations to: 1CE9UfWJcHBYkWPns7iqBqZgKhd5xfqEaM thanks!
Buy Bitcoins easily by clicking HERE!


Use coupon radiopreppers for 20% off on the above site.Become a Patron!

Author Topic: Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???  (Read 8507 times)

RadioRay

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
  • SMeter: +45/-2
    • View Profile
Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???
« on: October 06, 2013, 02:09:07 AM »
Somehow when I saw this clip on YouTube I just immediately pictured Gil.

http://youtu.be/l9Mp3MemzeU


He's already been /java   , that is, portable from his coffee shop. So why not THIS?



de RadioRay ..._ ._
"When we cannot do the good we would, we must be ready to do the good we can."  ~ Matthew Henry

gil

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2944
  • SMeter: +78/-3
    • View Profile
    • Radio Preppers
Re: Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2013, 03:44:31 AM »
Great video  ;D Thanks Ray. Yeah, well...  I certainly could do it! Smaller to boot. However, there is a limit to the amount of geekyness I am willing to display in public ::) Java portable was bad enough.. I do clip my red UV-5R handheld to my backpack sometimes when bicycling to the coffee shop, so I guess it isn't too far removed, but adding a Miracle Whip antenna to my bike just crosses the line :o I do wonder how well the Miracle Whip works though.. I've seen other videos where users seem to have no trouble making contact. It must be in the same ballpark as the Buddistick, which I know does work. It does make a QRP rig QRPP, but I've talked to Ray 830 miles away on 100mW, so... My hat is off to that guy for trying a new efficient birth control method ;)

The weather here is getting a tad cooler, so I am thinking of camping again.. After the government stupidity stops and state parks reopen ::)

Darn, 3:45! I need to get some sleep!

Gil.

KC9TNH

  • Guest
Re: Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2013, 11:03:50 AM »
The weather here is getting a tad cooler, so I am thinking of camping again.. After the government stupidity stops and state parks reopen ::)
How does the infantile temper tantrum in DC affect your state parks?

Feds up here tried to chain several places, including boat landings providing access to a national waterway (the Miss. R) that are largely funded by state & we told 'em to pound sand and opened 'em up.  No true state parks are closed; we're open for business.

Joe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • SMeter: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2013, 01:31:44 PM »
Love the black tape mounting system!!! Need to add a alternator, so as he peddles he can charge the battery.

Archangel320420

  • Guest
Re: Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2013, 03:13:14 PM »
CW on a beach will scare people and there should be a law against it.

gil

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2944
  • SMeter: +78/-3
    • View Profile
    • Radio Preppers
Re: Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2013, 03:30:43 PM »
I wonder if anyone operating CW in public has ever been reported and investigated..? Better wear thick glasses and a pocket protector if you want to be a wandering Ham these days.. Same goes for photography, you need an old Leica or Rolleiflex; those black digital cameras look pretty tactical!

By the way I used to be a photographer for a daily newspaper in the late 80s. Recently decided to get back into B&W photography. While I'll be sending my 1946 Leica IIIc for a checkup, I ordered a Russian Zorki 4K as a backup, for $50 shipped! No lens, but I have a Leica Summitar 50mm/f2, so.. I'll have more photos of my next Ham camping trip. Anyone here into film photography?

Gil.

KK0G

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • SMeter: +23/-0
    • View Profile
    • Efficient Combat Training Inc.
Re: Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2013, 05:59:23 PM »
Anyone here into film photography?


What's that? 8)


I'm not "into" photography of any type - as in a hobby or photography simply for the sake of photography. I do take way more photos than I ever used to for the same reason probably millions of other people world wide do.............. digital photography. I can essentially take as many extremely high resolution, excellent quality photos as I want at zero cost. Personally I don't understand why anyone would endure the disadvantages of film compared to digital, of course my non-ham friends don't understand why I endure the disadvantages of amateur radio compared to cell phones and the internet. To each his own.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

KK0G

mdmc

  • Guest
Re: Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2013, 07:09:04 PM »
B&W photography was much more than a hobby in the past. If you think about it, it has played an important role in history.
It can be a challenging endeavor  or just an enjoyable hobby. There is a special pleasure in seeing your prints slowly develop. You have certain expectations that aren't always met the first time, but there are so many variables that you can tinker with to change the results.

The new digital photography is easier in that you can take as many photos as you want with out reloading. However, with film photography there is the desire to develop your skills as quickly as you can. Color home development is possible too, but the last time I looked it was a bit more expensive but for some reason it just wasn't as much fun for me.

I got into it while in the USAF in the early 70's. I enjoyed many years with the hobby until I moved on to new and different hobbies.  Only so much money available for hobbies.  :(


gil

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2944
  • SMeter: +78/-3
    • View Profile
    • Radio Preppers
Re: Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2013, 07:30:25 PM »
Quote
Personally I don't understand why anyone would endure the disadvantages of film compared to digital,

Well, in case you're wondering..  ;D

Digital photography quality is coming close to film. Close, but not there yet. Even a 35mm film contains more information than any big megapixel file can.. To take photos with a film camera you need no batteries and no computer. Your camera still works after an EMP  ::) The only reason digital is used is cost and speed, not quality. Of course that only shows when you blow up shots to poster size, but still..  For me is is about the simplicity of it all, the chemical processing instead of the electronic one. Sure, if I was rich, I'd buy a Leica M9, or a "Monochrom," but that's $10K, without a lens! Negatives and prints last forever when stored properly, again, without computers. It's a bit archaic of course, but as oyu say, so is Morse code  ;)

Quote
with film photography there is the desire to develop your skills as quickly as you can

Not just that, but there is the fact that it requires skills at all. With a manual camera, you must know the ins and outs of photography, exposure, light, depth of field, etc. Having to deal with these variables makes a better photographer, film or digital. I mentioned the M9 above, nobody is going to make a good photo with that camera without being a photographer.. It's digital but entirely manual. Having to be careful about wasting film is a good way to get better and make better photographs.

Don't misunderstand me, digital photography is great. I like it too. However to get a digital camera that still gives you total control of your photo does cost a pretty penny.. There is a trend right now to get back to manual settings for people who don't like machines to think for them.. Hopefully we'll see more of that in the future. Technology is great, but not when it replaces one's brain.

Take for instance people who let their computer do the contesting for them, decoding and sending Morse, evaluating responses and sending the correct information then save the QSO to the log.. What kind of stupidity is that?

It's not that I like old things in particular.. I like simple things that work well.. But I digress  ::)

Gil.

Quietguy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
  • SMeter: +10/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2013, 07:56:50 PM »
there is the fact that it requires skills at all. With a manual camera, you must know the ins and outs of photography, exposure, light, depth of field, etc. Having to deal with these variables makes a better photographer, film or digital.

It requires all of that plus it requires artistic talent.  We've all seen (and probably taken) photos that meet technical standards but aren't particularly good art.  Good digital photography still requires artistic talent but the need for technical ability is eliminated.  Quality film photography requires both.

Wally

KK0G

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • SMeter: +23/-0
    • View Profile
    • Efficient Combat Training Inc.
Re: Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2013, 08:14:58 PM »
Not just that, but there is the fact that it requires skills at all. With a manual camera, you must know the ins and outs of photography, exposure, light, depth of field, etc. Having to deal with these variables makes a better photographer, film or digital. I mentioned the M9 above, nobody is going to make a good photo with that camera without being a photographer.. It's digital but entirely manual. Having to be careful about wasting film is a good way to get better and make better photographs.

Don't misunderstand me, digital photography is great. I like it too. However to get a digital camera that still gives you total control of your photo does cost a pretty penny.. There is a trend right now to get back to manual settings for people who don't like machines to think for them.. Hopefully we'll see more of that in the future. Technology is great, but not when it replaces one's brain.

Take for instance people who let their computer do the contesting for them, decoding and sending Morse, evaluating responses and sending the correct information then save the QSO to the log.. What kind of stupidity is that?


Where as I'm just the opposite, I don't know the first thing about focus, f-stop, shutter speed etc. and have no desire to learn it. Point and shoot cameras with auto mode were made for people like me. 8)




"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

KK0G

raybiker73

  • Guest
Re: Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???
« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2013, 08:22:37 PM »
Anyone here into film photography?

Not as much anymore, but that's actually what I went to school for. My B.S. is in Communication, and I did a photography/journalism track. I graduated from college in the mid-90's, just in time for my newly-honed film photography and darkroom skills to become hopelessly obsolete.  :(

I used to really like shooting the classics. My favorites were a 4x5 Speed Graphic and a well-worn Rolleiflex TLR. I also liked cruising the flea markets and finding old Kodaks, the ones with a fold-out bellows that took 620 film. They took wonderful pictures. I would buy 120 film and use a darkbox to rewind it on to 620 spools.

Nowadays, I've joined the herd and use a digital SLR most of the time, but I still have two of my film cameras. I kept my Nikon F3HP, which served me well at countless newspaper jobs. The F3 is a tank - you could drive nails with it. The last camera I used on the job was an F4S, but I was never an autofocus fan when manual-focus was still widely available. I also kept a Nikon FE-2 as a backup body. Admittedly, I don't use them much anymore. Last time they were out of the bag was a couple years ago, when Kodak ran their last-ever batch of Kodachrome 64. I shot a few rolls for old times' sake, and haven't used them since. And as far as darkroom work, no more for me, thanks. I enjoyed it, but I got sick of it, and it took about three years for my fingernails and cuticles to get normal again after years of being dunked in trays of developer and fixer.  :o

Here's my two leftovers:


gil

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2944
  • SMeter: +78/-3
    • View Profile
    • Radio Preppers
Re: Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???
« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2013, 08:54:19 PM »
Nice Ray, never sell those. I sold my F3 and have regretted it ever since. I'll have to get myself another one some time..

Gil.

KC3AOL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
  • SMeter: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???
« Reply #13 on: October 10, 2013, 06:31:25 PM »
Digital photography quality is coming close to film. Close, but not there yet. Even a 35mm film contains more information than any big megapixel file can..
Sorry, but this is false:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/index.html

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 4

gil

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2944
  • SMeter: +78/-3
    • View Profile
    • Radio Preppers
Re: Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???
« Reply #14 on: October 10, 2013, 08:24:18 PM »
Quote
Sorry, but this is false:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/index.html

Thanks for the link! I guess they have finally caught up.. That is a recent development.. I remain a little skeptical.. Of course megapixels isn't the whole story. In these last few days though I admit, I have seen black and white shots for which you couldn't tell the difference.. Taken with a Leica Monochrom ($8K).. It looks like you can find a decent digital camera for about $1200.. In the long run, it might get more economical than film for someone who shoots a lot, as a profession. It used to be that buying a digital camera was a losing proposition, as it would become obsolete within six months.. Now, it seems that technology has reached a plateau, and what is produced now is good enough for most purposes. Of course manufacturers will continue the race, just to sell new cameras.

I will keep shooting film cameras because they require no batteries. I know, no big deal, but it matters to me. I can focus manually as fast as an autofocus during the day, and faster in low light. That said, I probably will get a digital model when finances allow, if my renewed interest in the craft stays strong.

Digital is different from film the same way vinyls are different from CDs. It's analog VS. digital. Somehow analog looks or sounds more pleasing. The more technology advances though, the harder it is to tell the difference.

Relating that to radio, I still think digital VHF is useless, but who knows ten years from now...

In both cases, lenses are more important than the camera used (above a certain level for digital). To anyone buying a camera, film or digital, my advise is to buy a lense that costs more than the camera body..

Anyway, sometimes it's not about the destination, it's about the journey...

Gil.

Radio Preppers

Re: Why Did I Immediately Think of Gil ???
« Reply #14 on: October 10, 2013, 08:24:18 PM »