File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
hey /p/,
how do i get my photos to look like this?
obviously with the aid of photoshop.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:02:26 00:36:59Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width299Image Height415
>> Even_Steven !!rUmVORA7JiP
Image > Adjustments > Color Balance

Move around the sliders until you get the look you want.
>> Anonymous
Those are two pictures.

Adjust curves on both images to simulate film look.

Set each image in a different layer, with the one on top on Screen mode. Partially erase the upper image to only reveal it partially.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
also, this? i assume the vignetting isn't natural...

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:02 16:04:14Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width332Image Height497
>> Anonymous
>>173366
thank you
>> Anonymous
>>173367
burn tool motherfucker, do you use it?
>> Anonymous
GET A FUCKING FILM CAMERA YOU FAGGOT
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>173366
Rather than erase the one layer, I would just use a layer mask so that what you do is non-destructive and you can bring things back just as easily as you fade them out.
>> Anonymous
>>173405
Indeed a better alternative from my suggestion
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Simple way to do in in Photoshop.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:09:25 14:49:14Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width615Image Height1500
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>173434
thank you.
>> Anonymous
>>173404
What the fuck does this have to do with a film camera? :/
>> Anonymous
Because mimicking the look of old film is insta-art.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>173511
If done well, you cant tell the difference.
>> Anonymous
>>173662

You do understand that the very process of sitting down and editing a digital image to some film ideal is ridiculous? If all you strive for is giving your pictures the look of time-worn film, you are a complete fool for not using 35 mm film.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>173883
take a thousand shots a day.
>> Anonymous
>>173884
Take a thousand shots a day and all you will accomplish is to take up a lot of memory.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>174186
Take a thousand shots a day on 35mm film. You will soon find yourself bankrupt.
>> Anonymous
>>174188

that's like, $200, you have to be poor
>> Anonymous
>>174210
Spend $200 a day, every day for a month, fucktard. See how long your mommy's checkbook lasts.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>174210
"I can't spend $200/day on film and developing" is not the same as "Poor"
>> Anonymous
see how long your shutter lasts at 1,000 shots a day lulz
>> Anonymous
>>174227

not expecting a direct answer from this poster but does anyone know of a site where i can get the manufacturers claimed number of shutter releases before failure?????
>> Anonymous
>>174250

it's me again

canon rebels = 50,000, original rebel 30,000
20d = 50,000
30/40d/ 50,000
5d/1d/1ds range from 100,000 to 300,00

don't care about nikon
>> Anonymous
>>174251

30/40d should read 100,000
>> Anonymous
triple posting

and for a website with user data

http://www.olegkikin.com/shutterlife/
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>174254
If anyone cares about my data point, my Rebel XTi is significantly over 50,000 actuations. Still seems to be working fine.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>174356
>> Anonymous
>>174362


saw this coming

oh OVER 9000
>> Anonymous
>>173377
lens distortion>vingetting motherfucker, have you even used cs3???
>> Anonymous
>>173883
seeing as how you would have to go through MAJOR bullshit to digitize the image without the quality turning to absolute shit in order to transmit it online or edit it with the awesome power of phoboshorp - You are wrong.

Unless your renting a medium format camera and shooting in giant size film. then it's cost effective - but not better.
>> Anonymous
>>174214
200x30=6,000$ a month on film. NOT on processing.

you must be very fucking rich if you think balking at 6k a month on film makes you poor.
>> Anonymous
>>174405
its actually distortion>lens corrections>adjust vignetting
>> Anonymous
>>173884
If you're shooting a thousand shots a day you're either amazingly prolific or amazingly inept. How about thinking thorough your photos before pressing the button. I bet you could get that thousand a day down to ten, and still have the same number of keepers.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>174430
Don't be dumb. You can't compress a 500 shot assignment down to a single roll of film. As a photojournalist, you really do need that volume, when you're on the line to produce a really killer photo page.

Film is exorbitantly expensive, you can only afford to shoot working pro quantities of frames if you have the pro's ability to write off this expense, or have an employer front all those costs.

Digital has made photography so. Much. Cheaper.
>> Anonymous
>>174481
likewise if your shooting models who are in action, or any situation where you need to be able to capture several minutes of action time, your going to have big gaps of time where your not taking shots because your changing film.

with a 16GB cf card and a good dslr, you are more then likely going to be able to be watching and shooting for the duration of the action from start to finish.
>> Anonymous
>>174481
Photojournalism is entirely different than the (crappy) "fine art" photos that were being discussed in reference to the OP.

We were never discussing photojournalism, we were discussing how to get a certain "film" look. You just jumped in with your thousand shot bullshit.

Digital has made photojournalism much cheaper and more convenient, but there are a different set of concerns in photojournalism than in fine art photography. A photojournalist isn't going for any special look or effect, he's trying to record a scene accurately and in a way that is interesting to look at as quickly and cheaply as possible. Image quality is not very important, being there at the right moment and turning your photos around quickly are. That's why photojournalists were switching to digital when DSLRs were still 2 megapixels and paled in comparison to cheap 35mm film in terms of raw image quality.

The bottom line is that if you're going for a certain look, and that look is readily produced by film, then shoot film.

As for shooting "working pro quantities" of film, how about not being a retard. Some pros shoot thousands of frames in a setting. Some shoot two. You think that the commercial photographer shooting billboard ad photos on a 4x5 camera is taking 3500 shots of each subject? The point of my original statement is that most people would do better to plan, compose, and execute a small number of good photos than to hold their shutter button down and wave the camera around hoping to catch something good. No matter which way you slice it, pro or not, a thousand photos a day is a lot. That's a lot of images to sort, store, and back up too. In addition to time spent shooting, you'd be spending hours a day editing, and buying hard drives by the case. There are probably some pros, most likely photojournalists, out there who do shoot that much, but the average photographer never will. Your argument is inappropriate in context and idiotic in concept.
>> Anonymous
>>174501
Tell your model to hang on for the twenty seconds while you're changing film. Seriously, this isn't rocket science.
>> Anonymous
>>174510
>A photojournalist isn't going for any special look or effect, he's trying to record a scene accurately and in a way that is interesting to look at as quickly and cheaply as possible

This is just plain ignorant.

>you'd be spending hours a day editing, and buying hard drives by the case.

Batch processing and nothing wrong with buying hard drives by the case.

Different people, no matter what their line of work, have different working methods and shoot different amounts. PJs are only different in that an editor might want a certain number of good shots to choose from.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>174510
I like how you had to append "(crappy)" in there before fine art. Real class.
>> Anonymous
>>174517
Wild animals don't obey human commands, neither do wild sports teams.
>> Anonymous
>>174518This is just plain ignorant.
No, it's true. Try shooting your next political ralley with cross processed slide film and see what your editor has to say about it.

This is, of course, talking about your common newspaper photojournalist. People like James Natchwey who basically go where they want and shoot what they want don't fall under the same category. Natchwey could shoot whatever he wanted however he wanted and he would find people to pay him for it. If your average local newspaper shooter did that, he'd be out on his ass in an instant.

>Batch processing
Produces mediocre results

>nothing wrong with buying hard drives by the case.
Nothing wrong with buying rolls of film either.

>>174520
They are crappy photos. And I generally find the term "fine art photography" repugnant, but it works well in this situation as a term for photos other than photojournalism. A photojournalist records events, a fine art photographer creates them.

>>174521
Those wouldn't be models, would they. Besides, people managed to shoot animals and sports just fine before DSLRs and 16GB CF cards came along.
>> Anonymous
>>174525
>>174525
So, are you an employed photojournalist with fine arts majors? Why do people like you pretend to know everything about anything, anyway?
>> Anonymous
>>174525
>No, it's true. Try shooting your next political ralley with cross processed slide film and see what your editor has to say about it.

Obviously far-out looks aren't within the pale, but if you want an example, listen to Heavyweather talk about how much the noise from his Ricoh looks like Neopan grain. PJs care about the look of their photos as much as the next photographer; whether they're allowed to experiment around or not is immaterial.

>Produces mediocre results

Which is why you go back and manually do the few photos that were worth a damn. BP is when you need to show them all to someone quickly.

>Nothing wrong with buying rolls of film either.

No, there isn't. But, especially at volume, buying bunches of hard drives is much more cost effective.
>> Anonymous
>>174525
he meant moving or active subjects, not literal models dipshit. Of course people did it fine before, but if you actually think they got it right on the first shot every time you're a moron, people hid their bad stuff with film as much as they do with digital. Digital just makes it cheaper to afford those mistakes.

You sound like a butthurt filmfag to me, and I'm an x-box hueg filmfag.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>>174530
True story... all the photojournalists I know are immensely concerned with the look of their photos. The Daily Texan has been a very fine-art, gallery style ever since a few key people worked as editor, like Shaun Stewart, Joe Buglewicz, Courtney Dudley, and Jordan Gomez.

String of very fine-artsy photos published in our newspaper related.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DCamera SoftwarePicasa 3.0PhotographerJeffrey McWhorterImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationUnknownHorizontal Resolution200 dpiVertical Resolution200 dpiImage Created2008:04:28 20:36:54Exposure Time1/6400 secF-Numberf/7.1Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating320Lens Aperturef/7.1Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length300.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1038Image Height1600RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution80 dpiVertical Resolution80 dpiImage Created2008:04:25 01:45:18Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/1.4Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width820Image Height553RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>174528
Employed photojournalist? Not any more, was for ten years. Fine arts majors? No, but currently a professional commercial photographer.

I don't know everything about everything, just more than everybody in this thread about what is being discussed in this thread.

>>174532
Actually I shoot digital the vast majority of the time. And I know that people didn't get it right on the first shot every time, I was one of those people. I started as a professional photojournalist in 1995 and shot plenty of film before digital came along. That is why I know all of you whining about how impossible it is to work with film don't know what you're talking about.
>> Anonymous
>>174536
Of course it's not impossible to work with film. Plenty of people still do it. But it's expensive. That's all anybody is saying.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
like omg wtf, Peter Franklin. Jesus christ.

Do you see how these arguments fall apart when people are producing work this beautiful, while still within the context of photojournalism? Now that's what I'm talkin about.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D200Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0PhotographerPeter FranklinMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern1102Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:12:01 20:01:40White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/400 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating125Exposure Bias-1/3 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceFine WeatherFlashNo FlashFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width700Image Height469RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>174536
Professional, or self-proclaimed professional? Portfolio or gtfo.
Also pretentious, lolol.

Second, no one is saying that film is impossible to work with. A lot of /p/ does still use film, in fact, hurrdurr. Digital is, however, far more forgiving and flexible as well as cheaper, so of-fucking-course we're going to say it's more convenient.

Go back to being a professional in 1995. You're washed out in 2008.
>> Anonymous
>>174539
While I agree with you, a college paper in Austin is probably going to have more latitude for its shooters than any other daily newspaper.
>> Anonymous
>>174536
So you were an employed photog in 1995, huh? How well does that work, being more than likely in the 15-25 age bracket? Child photog prodigy, amirite?
>> Anonymous
>>174543
Lurk more. There's people of pretty much all ages on /p/.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>174542
Why? It's not like other papers can't do it. The NY times and Post have really good stuff, and there are a bunch of great Reuters and AP photographers that bring back wonderful images in this same vein.

If news photographers aren't getting these great, artistic, well designed shots, it's not because of their oppressive organization (though perhaps they've got a straight laced editor, that's a big part of it...) but because they're not pushing themselves to get those results.

Granted, this material I'm showing off is the best of the best, but it shows what is possible by EVEN a college paper. Photojournalists at the professional level SHOULD be producing images this rich and satisfying. Hell, look at the PoY awards. Look at VII. Look at Polaris. Look at Magnum.
>> Anonymous
>>174548
I know there are, AC is an oldfag too, but the pretentiousness and way that guy writes makes it very obvious that he is probably a younger man trying to seem more wisened by acting more experienced than he truly is.

I second the portfolio or gtfo.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>>174552
Again, more crazy photos we've run. Joe Bug is out of control though.

www.joebuglewicz.com
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>174543
lol.

Now carry on.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
this thread is the biggest derailment i've seen in some time
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
     File :-(, x)
maybe i'll contribute something, i dont know what but its similar alone the lines of OP, and photojournalism maybe?? i dunno, here have a pic...

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNikonCamera ModelNikon SUPER COOLSCAN 5000 EDCamera SoftwareNikon Scan 4.0.2 WImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2008.03.10 19.40.25Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width678Image Height1024
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>174553
>I know there are, AC is an oldfag too, but the pretentiousness and way that guy writes makes it very obvious that he is probably a younger man trying to seem more wisened by acting more experienced than he truly is.
Before I read through the recent stuff on this thread, I just saw this post and assumed that "that guy" referred to me rather than>>174536. And I thought to myself "Yeah, that's a fair criticism of me."
>> Anonymous
>>173884

If you have to take one thousand shots to get it right, you chose the wrong hobby. Because that is all this is for you, Butterfly, seeing as you lurk on a site such as 4chan's /p/.
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>174681
If you think you don't have to go through thousands of shots to get it right, you chose the wrong hobby.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Ok since i havent actually posted anything after causing such a shitstorm.

No i dont take a thousand shots to get something right, but doing sports I can easily take that many.

One thousand was a random number, stop taking everything so fuckign seriously, i was just indicating that you can do a lot more shooting with digital over film.

Arguing on 4chan is pointless, if you want to take 1 shot a year go ahead, if you want to take 100,000 a second get a gass camera.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>174536
>I don't know everything about everything, just more than everybody in this thread about what is being discussed in this thread.

I call bullshit.
>> Anonymous
If youre going to shoot digital, keep that shit digital. Dont try and make it look like film, its embarrassing to saythe least.

And when people say that digital is cheaper than Film, youre so wrong. I bought my slr for 35 dollars, a digital camera cots somewhere near 600-1,000 dollars. Fuck that. Film is only about 4 dollars a roll, and you can buy the min bulk. Thats not much.

As for developing, you can devlope the negatives in your room with adark bag, and scan them in with a scanner.
Just because you take 1000 pics a day doesnt mean shit, it just means you suck so much ass that you need to take that many photos.
>> Anonymous
>>174688
youre a fucking moron, one shot a year? Get that shit out of here. Youve probably never even seen a film camera let alone use one. Fucking faggot.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>174804
Or maybe you could just make your work what you want it to be, regardless of what equipment you use. If you only have digital at your disposal, but objectively the look you want is closer to "film" then why the hell not do it? Fuck the naysayers - the final test is in the final product. If the completed work is good, I don't give a fuck how it was done. If it sucks it sucks, and I still don't give a shit how it was done.

Everybody needs to stop bitching about film vs digital vs whatever and start thinking about PHOTOGRAPHY. EQUIPMENT/TECHNIQUE DOES NOT EQUAL PHOTOGRAPHY. If you think you'll get the results you want by worrying about your camera, lens, or a particular little thing in Photoshop or in a traditional darkroom, you're barking up the wrong fucking tree.
>> Anonymous
>>174809
I think youre missing the point.
let me try and put it in words to best fit your kind of thinking.

its like Driving an ACURA, with Honda badges.
its like being a woman, and wanting to be a man.
its like driving an electric car, and listening to V8 sounds on the stereo. Amirite, you fuckign faggot.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>174807
Oh hai oh look its ansel adams.
>> Anonymous
>>174818
The only way you could write or think like this is if you bought into that bullshit about film being better or more "authentic" or whatnot.
>> Anonymous
>>174824
Yeah except for the fact that many digi-fags try to immittate film says something about its authenticity, moron.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>174818
>Amirite, you fuckign faggot.

No, you're not right. Not even fucking close. And you, sir, are the fucking faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>174829
cut the shit Warren, is that all yougot?
>> Anonymous
vinyl is better than...oh wait
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>174832
It isnt anyway.

This whole argument is fucking pointless, is the process more important than the result?
>> Anonymous
>>174832
some might argue that it is. But its not the same thing, one sound the toher is visual.

All im saying is, why immitate if you can get the real thing for fucking cheap. stop being faggots. pick up a traditional camera, learn to develope, keep that shit alive.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>174834
>All im saying is, why immitate if you can get the real thing for fucking cheap
If you already have a digital setup and no film setup, imitating it is free.

And hell, even if you do have a good film camera, it still makes a lot of sense. You could spend one minute emulating the look in photoshop, or spend five bucks for a roll of good film, seven bucks on developing (or an hour developing it yourself, if it's black and white. And I don't know about you, but when I run the numbers on my salary, an hour of my time comes out to something a little bit north of $25/hour), and some amount of time scanning (which could be a lot if you have a cheap scanner. If you have a *good* scanner, your 'film is cheaper' argument loses a significant bit of thrust) to get the same look.

And in any case, the point of this particular thread is to make the picture look like *old* film. So doing it the "natural" way would involve taking the shot on film and then storing it in a hot attic for about 20 years.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>174829
For you, yes,that's all I've got.
>> Anonymous
>>174834
>keep that shit alive.

we finally get to the species of the bug up your ass.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>174834
relax. Film isn't going to die, especially 35mm. It may quit showing up at the front of every grocery store, but as long as it's the standard for movie film then it's here to stay.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>174869
O hai.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:12:27 15:58:29Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width910Image Height450
>> Anonymous
>>174869
>as it's the standard for movie film then it's here to stay

ITT: STANDARDS NEVER CHANGE, NEVER.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>174875
If you're going to quote me, do it right.
>>but as long as it's the standard for movie film then it's here to stay.

>>but as long as

hurrdurr, I noted that standards change. "As long as" is made null and void when it no longer is.

>>174873
well of course there are deviations, but its still the standard.
>> Anonymous
>>174900
"well of course there are deviations, but its still the standard."-

Some random photographer, speaking of still 135 and 120 film being used by professional photographers, c. 2002.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>174900
True. I'm just thinking that, given that the cost of a Red is less than the cost of film stock for an average movie, and given that it saves a hell of a lot of time in postproduction to be digital all the way, I think that movie film is likely not far behind still film in terms of going the way of the proverbial dodo.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>174906
>>174907

The point being, regardless of the fact that digital cameras are now basically standard, film still has its uses and still has its die-hard fans. It's not going to go away during our lifetimes, the cheap pharmacy stuff may, but good film will be here for a while.
>> Anonymous
>>174869
everyones switching over to 4k digital actually. theaters, film makers. during editing its converted to digital anyway, they just print it to film because most theaters cannot afford to put digital on all their screens. but no one it buying new film projectors anymore.
>> Anonymous
This thread is fucking retarded.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>174873

Win.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution150 dpiVertical Resolution150 dpiImage Created2008:04:22 11:00:12Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width850Image Height719
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>174918
>It's not going to go away during our lifetimes
I certainly hope you're right. I really like shooting film
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>174934
I've got great rates on hitmen.
>> Anonymous
I don't think film will ever go away entirely, but it will become very expensive. Limited market, etc. Large format film, on the other hand, will likely stay pretty stable: it still offers better quality than smaller format digital, and the fundamental costs of producing silicon chips mean we will never see a mass-produced (even on the scale of medium-format digital) 4x5, let alone 8x10 or larger, back.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>174952
Assumes
1. The "fundamental cost of producing silicon chips" will remain fundamental
2. Silicon chips are the only way we'll be able to make digital sensors in the future

Pro tip: Don't bet against technological progress. Its rate of increase, historically, has increased exponentially.
>> Anonymous
>>174957
Why would the cost of silicon chips change much? We're at a technology level where they're easy to make, one just has to throw out huge parts of the wafers because they're defective.

Point two is better, but I don't know of any other ways people are doing or researching doing IC chips besides silicon. Then again, I'm not an electrical engineer.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>174963
>>one just has to throw out huge parts of thewafers because they're defective.

Prime example of what can change
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>174963
>Why would the cost of silicon chips change much?
Because, traditionally, it always has? Double the transistors for the same cost or the same transistors for half the cost, every 18 months.

Granted, the focus has been designing smaller and smaller chips with more transistors on 'em, but you can bet your ass that people are working on getting higher chip yields from a given slice of silicon. Getting an average 101 working Core 2 Duos out of a wafer instead of 100 means serious profit gains.

>I don't know of any other ways people are doing or researching doing IC chips besides silicon.
Neither do I, but I'm sure people are working on it. And I'm sure that they're not going to tell us until they've got it patented, either.
>> Anonymous
Actually, engineers trying it out with glass and some other crystal like thing. They're also moving from 2D copper track on a wafer to 3D integrated circuits with some kind of fibre optics on some kind of transparent material. The advantages include lower latency between components, lower temperature, and they would look fucking awesome. We're just "stuck" with silicon because it's the most cost effective right now.
>> Anonymous
you digital bastards.

You basterdized the whole photography scene. I hope your giant windows xp powered SD card takes a giant shit on you.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>174984
you 35mm bastards.

You basterdized the whole photography scene. I hope your tiny battery powered rangerfinder takes a giant shit on you.
>> Diamond IC's Anonymous
>>174976

Actually it was talked about a couple of years ago when a guy in New Zealand started his industrial diamond business.

It's a simple process that doesn't take a huge amount of power to create pure diamond, in any quantity - uses plasma in a gas inside a pressurised chamber.

The biggest market he's apparently selling to is Integrated Circuits.
>> Anonymous
>>174987

not really on topic but i thought the whole diamond industry was based on a false economy?
>> Anonymous
>>174976


There's a limit to that, though. Eventually, basic physical laws are going to bitch-slap some Icarian R&D department. Moore's law is good for short-term prediction, but it's literally impossible for it to go on forever.

I'm all for and genuinely love technology marching on, but it's important at the same time to be aware that we, albeit the most successful tool-using species, are limited by the same laws of nature that have enabled those tools, from the stoneaxe to the semiconductor.

>>174982
Got a link? (I mean this out of interest, I believe you.)
>> Anonymous
>>174991
Natural diamonds are. The above poster is talking about artificially produced diamonds, it sounds like, which would probably be better for this anyway.

It's a shame, all those gorgeous jewels locked up in vaults and/or being used to fund wars.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>173363

Is this anything close to what OP is looking for?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>175000
>There's a limit to that, though. Eventually, basic physical laws are going to bitch-slap some Icarian R&D department. Moore's law is good for short-term prediction, but it's literally impossible for it to go on forever.
Hrm. I addressed that in an earlier draft of the post, but apparently didn't make it into the final.

While, yes, it's impossible for Moore's Law per se (i.e., "The number of transistors we can fit on a given size chunk of silicon for a given price doubles every 18 months") to continue forever, the way Moore's Law is generally understood (i.e., "Computing power doubles for the same price every 18 months") shows no signs of stopping. We'll figure out a way to do it without transistors on silicon. Or we'll figure out how to cheaply and easily make qbits or something. I dunno. All I know is that the "Technology doubles every 18 months" has held true for the majority of recorded history and is likely to continue to do so for the forseeable future. Until we get to a future that's impossible for us to forsee. Look up "Technological singularity" on Wikipedia.