Is 6 megapixels enough for you?

[tim martin]

Any other architectural photographer will tell ya the same thing.

But don't you kind of feel that you just just kind totally side stepped
my comments ? You were saying all this stuff:

"Pro photogs know this and so should you. Im not talking about newspapers and other low res requirements. Im talking about advertising materials - magazines - promotional phamplets - the sort of thing that pay photographers to shoot at minimum quality level"

And then I pointed to the Web site of "Pro photog" that clearly
is working with "advertising materials - magazines - promotional
phamplets", and clearly has an interest in digital photography,
and even seems to want to buy a camera like the D60 ... and
then you just side stepped all that.

Maybe you should look at the two messages Ashely Karl posted
in the thread I cited, in order to see other points of view from a
"Pro photog", rather than just repeating what you have already
said.

 

[Graham3]

Firstly - you are wrong - again.
You are presumptuous and thats the best way to loose any argument.
Shows you dont use FACTS to support yourself.
You just make up what is convienient for yourself..

Sorry Graham - I haven't a clue what you are talking about -
apparently neither do you??

Well then - let me explain a little more simply then -.......
You imply I have no experience with digital. You don't know that .
You are just guessing. You try to support you side with
assumptions.
I do in fact have plenty of experince with digital and have run
into many limitations which I pass on to those who can understand.
I guess I used too many sylables for you in some words. Sorry.

I appreciate your straightening me out Graham. Thanks for keeping
it simple so I can understand

Lin

http://208.56.82.71

Anytime Lin. Anything you need to know about shooting wide on digital then just ask me cause I know.
And I say 6MP isnt even close for a pro arch photog.

You may wanna check my site to verify who I am... http://home.cogeco.ca/~gmarshall11/

I studied applied photography full time 2 years at college and have many years of pro experince in architectural shooting ( film and digital )

Constantly research the market for ways to go digital that makes sense. IT DOES NOT. Not even close.

 

[Bernie Ess]

a 'blind test' between a D100/D60 etc sourced A3 colour print and a
scanned film sourced A3 print.

This comparision would not be so interesting, because you would probably use a consumer scanner like the Nikon 4000 and thus digitize the negative and get the negative digital effects those mid range scanners bring along, like emphathized grain, a harsh look etc.

You´d have to make either a (very expensive) drum scan at 5000dpi or an analogue print. In the end, however, for most real world applications, a D60 quality will be a good digital equivalent to 35mm.

Probably the overall look will be cleaner with digital, some would say "unnatural clean". Like CDs and analogue recordings.

Bernhard

 

[Cipher]

a 'blind test' between a D100/D60 etc sourced A3 colour print and a
scanned film sourced A3 print.

This comparision would not be so interesting, because you would
probably use a consumer scanner like the Nikon 4000 and thus
digitize the negative and get the negative digital effects those
mid range scanners bring along, like emphathized grain, a harsh
look etc.
You´d have to make either a (very expensive) drum scan at 5000dpi
or an analogue print. In the end, however, for most real world
applications, a D60 quality will be a good digital equivalent to
35mm.

I'm just curious about scanning at 5000dpi with a drum scanner. Won't the grains of the film start showing up or do I not know what I talking about?

Probably the overall look will be cleaner with digital, some would
say "unnatural clean". Like CDs and analogue recordings.

Bernhard

 

[tim martin]

Yes - thats right - they never do complain. They just move on to a
diff photog if unhappy and are never heard from again . lol

This guy here, Peter Gregg, he has a 6mp DSLR and his clients
seem happy enough.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4505318

 

[Lin Evans]

Anytime Lin. Anything you need to know about shooting wide on
digital then just ask me cause I know.
And I say 6MP isnt even close for a pro arch photog.
You may wanna check my site to verify who I am...
http://home.cogeco.ca/~gmarshall11/
I studied applied photography full time 2 years at college and have
many years of pro experince in architectural shooting ( film and
digital )
Constantly research the market for ways to go digital that makes
sense. IT DOES NOT. Not even close.

I'll keep that in mind Graham - I should know better than to argue with a college educated photographer....

Lin

--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Graham3]

Anytime Lin. Anything you need to know about shooting wide on
digital then just ask me cause I know.
And I say 6MP isnt even close for a pro arch photog.
You may wanna check my site to verify who I am...
http://home.cogeco.ca/~gmarshall11/
I studied applied photography full time 2 years at college and have
many years of pro experince in architectural shooting ( film and
digital )
Constantly research the market for ways to go digital that makes
sense. IT DOES NOT. Not even close.

I'll keep that in mind Graham - I should know better than to argue
with a college educated photographer....

Lin

Good sarcasm!
Well - they told me at college about the attitude of experienced photogs
against formaly educated photogs. It was not good news.

May I remind you that I have many many years of experience to go with that very hard work.

Now - can you explain why the first sensors that came out waere so small?
wouldnt you think it would be easier to make them bigger?

After all the computer industry is constantly struggling to make their electronis smaller and smaller.
So why do sensor makers seem to be going the other way?
I will bet you can not explain this technically.

With your supposed Physics masters should be easy - right? I'm waiting for some verification about your physics education. Im not holding my breath.

 

[Lin Evans]

Good sarcasm!
Well - they told me at college about the attitude of experienced
photogs
against formaly educated photogs. It was not good news.
May I remind you that I have many many years of experience to go
with that very hard work.

Now - can you explain why the first sensors that came out waere so
small?
wouldnt you think it would be easier to make them bigger?
After all the computer industry is constantly struggling to make
their electronis smaller and smaller.
So why do sensor makers seem to be going the other way?
I will bet you can not explain this technically.
With your supposed Physics masters should be easy - right? I'm
waiting for some verification about your physics education. Im not
holding my breath.

Which particular sensor are you referring to?

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Graham3]

Any other architectural photographer will tell ya the same thing.

But don't you kind of feel that you just just kind totally side
stepped
my comments ? You were saying all this stuff:

"Pro photogs know this and so should you. Im not talking about
newspapers and other low res requirements. Im talking about
advertising materials - magazines - promotional phamplets - the
sort of thing that pay photographers to shoot at minimum quality
level"

And then I pointed to the Web site of "Pro photog" that clearly
is working with "advertising materials - magazines - promotional
phamplets", and clearly has an interest in digital photography,
and even seems to want to buy a camera like the D60 ... and
then you just side stepped all that.

Maybe you should look at the two messages Ashely Karl posted
in the thread I cited, in order to see other points of view from a
"Pro photog", rather than just repeating what you have already
said.

Your asking me to account for what some other photog is doing?
Sorry I can't.
People make mistakes every day.

I'm just saying that - in relation to the original thread - which was " is 6 MP enough for you?". No its not and also other issues are NFG as well.
I support that with technical reasons.
I can't explain why some people think differently about it.
You do know that 2 out of 3 pro photogs go kaput - right?

 

[Graham3]

Good sarcasm!
Well - they told me at college about the attitude of experienced
photogs
against formaly educated photogs. It was not good news.
May I remind you that I have many many years of experience to go
with that very hard work.

Now - can you explain why the first sensors that came out waere so
small?
wouldnt you think it would be easier to make them bigger?
After all the computer industry is constantly struggling to make
their electronis smaller and smaller.
So why do sensor makers seem to be going the other way?
I will bet you can not explain this technically.
With your supposed Physics masters should be easy - right? I'm
waiting for some verification about your physics education. Im not
holding my breath.

Which particular sensor are you referring to?

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

Im talking about them all - except the Kodak and Canon full size new ones.

 

[Graham3]

Good sarcasm!
Well - they told me at college about the attitude of experienced
photogs
against formaly educated photogs. It was not good news.
May I remind you that I have many many years of experience to go
with that very hard work.

Now - can you explain why the first sensors that came out waere so
small?
wouldnt you think it would be easier to make them bigger?
After all the computer industry is constantly struggling to make
their electronis smaller and smaller.
So why do sensor makers seem to be going the other way?
I will bet you can not explain this technically.
With your supposed Physics masters should be easy - right? I'm
waiting for some verification about your physics education. Im not
holding my breath.

Which particular sensor are you referring to?

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

OK now folks - for anybody following this thread - there is bound to be a fairly lengthy delay here while physics master does some homework and cut n paste n stuff. Be fun see what he comes up with. lol

 

[tim martin]

Your asking me to account for what some other photog is doing?
Sorry I can't.
People make mistakes every day.
I'm just saying that - in relation to the original thread - which
was " is 6 MP enough for you?". No its not and also other issues
are NFG as well.
I support that with technical reasons.
I can't explain why some people think differently about it.
You do know that 2 out of 3 pro photogs go kaput - right?

An hour ago it was:

"Pro photogs know this and so should you"

Now you have stepped back to "profitable pro photogs" know this.

Maybe for the work you do it isn't good enough, but your blanket
statements about "Pro photogs" are, in my opinion, wrong.

Plenty of "Pro photogs" are already making money with digital, and
have been for several years now... as near as I can see.

 

[Graham3]

Your asking me to account for what some other photog is doing?
Sorry I can't.
People make mistakes every day.
I'm just saying that - in relation to the original thread - which
was " is 6 MP enough for you?". No its not and also other issues
are NFG as well.
I support that with technical reasons.
I can't explain why some people think differently about it.
You do know that 2 out of 3 pro photogs go kaput - right?

An hour ago it was:

"Pro photogs know this and so should you"

Now you have stepped back to "profitable pro photogs" know this.

Maybe for the work you do it isn't good enough, but your blanket
statements about "Pro photogs" are, in my opinion, wrong.

Plenty of "Pro photogs" are already making money with digital, and
have been for several years now... as near as I can see.

There seems to be a comprehension problem here.

I am telling you, for the last time, that for shooting architecture ( thats 80 to 100 degrees angle of view) there is no digital solution that won't put you in the poorhouse quickly.
The original thread was --- IS 6 MP good enough for you?
I gave my answer - which was NO.
I backed my opinion up with technical rationale as well as financial reasoning.

I don't give a what other photogs are doing.

It's got nothing to do with it what some guy who shoots lips in a studio with a 135mm equiv. is doing.

You just dont seem to have the understanding that digital wont give you real wide without HUGE investment that is beyond most.

I want to go digital. Believe me - I love it. But its just not there for me yet. Prob 3 more years.

 

[Michael Long]

Well - here is my web site..... http://home.cogeco.ca/~gmarshall11/

Get a new web site. The photos are pretty good, but the site cries amateur. Not even your own domain? Built by Front Page? Please.

AS you can see I shoot architecture.
I reiterate that digital is 2 things for me........
1) Absolutely technically inadequate ( not even close in fact ).

You're welcome to your own opinions about what's acceptable to you. In all fairness, however, please don't presume to tell us what we and our clients find acceptable.

2) Just barely adequate but costs so incredibly much for a full new
system that will be worth almost nothing in a few years.

Shows a complete lack of understanding about why you would buy digital. It's NOT an investment. It's NOT about what its resale value is going to be in two years. It's ENTIRELY about the advantages it can convey now.

Both of the above are completely unacceptable when simple film
scanning on a high quality scanner meets my needs. Meantime I earn
big interest on the money I saved by not going digital.

4% on $2000. Wow. In two years you can treat your friends out to a meal at McDonalds...

Its the stupid tiny sensors. Who came up with this nonesense?
It's because the damn sensors wont accept light at an angle the way
film will no problem.

The cropping factor caused by smaller, affordable sensors, and as such the reduced usefullness of wide angle lenses, has absolutely nothing to do with light angle problems.

 

[Ben Jacobsen]

You obviously know whats cooking out there.
I agree with everything you said.
Digital is still for non pros , pros that sell 6 x 9 inch images ,
newspaper shooters and people with megabucks who like toys.
OH ya - also for pros that sell 16 x 20 max ( Kodak14MP or Canon
11MP) and don't mind their investment in equipment costing like 20
grand for full system ( lenses et al) being worth ZERO in 3 years.
Probably the lenses won't be compat with new bodies AGAIN. What a
racket.
All others use MF and scan at up to 4000 dpi. Period.

Graham3,

You make some good points and some bad points. Digital clearly isn't for you. You point about a camera costing so much and then being worth nothing isn't completely true. You have to factor in the cost we save on film. The camera will be worth less in 3 year, no arguement there, but we won't use film in the meantime, so I would say we (digital users) break even there. Also you say that the lenses won't work on my next camera?!? I use Canon cameras and my lenses always have and always will work on canon's cameras. There is no way they will lose such a huge selling point. You point on the image sensor size is very valid, and it sucks that they are so small. It doesn't work well for wide angle pictures, but it still works very well for anyone who are happy with 25mm lenses (16*1.6=25). Not you, but a lot of people fit into this category. As for your repeted mention of the 300dpi issue this is a valid point. Yes printers want 200dpi prints of FILM pictures. Any printer that knows his digital market will know that the cleaner images don't need to be so big. You are talking about 300dpi for film which is a standard, but if you scan film (even drum scan) and then print on a printer (non wet print) a 6mp camera is right there with it and superior in most peoples eyes. You also forget to mention that you can res up the images from digital cameras much better than film. This yield huge prints from 6mp cameras.

You have some good points and some bad points, but you need to look at both sides of any arguement you're in, not just your side. Your equipment works great for you, but the current state of digital is more than enough to make a lot of us switch. 3 years ago I swore I would NEVER shoot digital, and bought a MF camera. Well I'll sell it to you if you want it cause I can't afford the film/processing/prints from it. I have been shooting digital for about 2 years now and I have a 10d on order now. I have been rebting digital cameras and shooting film lately, but I just can't spend$60 plus everytime I go shoot on film and processing.

You also brought up education. You might not have wanted to bring that up, but 2 years is not that long of a time to be in school for photography, and don't kid yourself about it being hard. It's a lot of work, but it's time consuming and creative work. You're not exactally wracking your braincells that much in photography all that much. And if you curious about my education background I have 2 degrees. A BFA in Photography, and a BS in Computer Science, so I do know a bit about this subject.

This is my first post on these boards, and if people always attack each other here like this it might be my last. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but don't attack the other person's views, and try too look at it from their point of view. Everyone here has far different points of views, and we all do what works for us.

 

[tim martin]

There seems to be a comprehension problem here.

These sort of comments really add nothing to the discussion.
They just annoy everybody and make folks wonder why you
need to include such comments into the points you are
trying to make.

I am telling you, for the last time, that for shooting architecture
( thats 80 to 100 degrees angle of view) there is no digital
solution that won't put you in the poorhouse quickly.

That might be true, but not all professional photographers are
"shooting architecture", and there are plenty of professional
photographers that do use digital for at least some of their work.

I don't give a what other photogs are doing.

Then maybe you should refrain from making comments like
"Pro photogs know this and so should you".

You just dont seem to have the understanding that digital wont give
you real wide without HUGE investment that is beyond most.

I have the understanding that plenty of professional photographers
are making money by using digital for at least some of their work.
That seems to be a lot more than you understand.

 

[Lin Evans]

Hi Lin,

What camera was that shot with? One of the early Kodak DCS cameras?

Ron

Hi Ron,

It was a Sony DSC-D770 - which was their second pro-level camera which was preceded by the DCS-D700 and followed by the DKC-FP3 - all shared nearly identical specs except the FP3 had FireWire and a black camera body.

I had purchased a DKC-ID1 for web work (was using DCS-460 Kodak professionally for 35mm platform) and the D700 was a really nice little camera. It had some manual focus issues and Sony replaced it with the D770 for me. Sony Professional Products Division then lost the D770 to the Consumer Products Division, who didn't have a clue how to market it. The DKC-FP3 was the $2700 replacement, but it really never got off the ground and the Professional Products Division gave up on digital still cameras with the FP3 being their last product.

Lin

--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Graham3]

Well - here is my web site..... http://home.cogeco.ca/~gmarshall11/

Get a new web site. The photos are pretty good, but the site cries
amateur. Not even your own domain? Built by Front Page? Please.

Let's see your site!

AS you can see I shoot architecture.
I reiterate that digital is 2 things for me........
1) Absolutely technically inadequate ( not even close in fact ).

You're welcome to your own opinions about what's acceptable to you.
In all fairness, however, please don't presume to tell us what we
and our clients find acceptable.

I am doing nothing of the sort. I am simply saying that digital wont meet my needs and why.

2) Just barely adequate but costs so incredibly much for a full new
system that will be worth almost nothing in a few years.

Shows a complete lack of understanding about why you would buy
digital. It's NOT an investment. It's NOT about what its resale
value is going to be in two years. It's ENTIRELY about the
advantages it can convey now.

Any money spent to grow a business IS an investment.
Business 101. OMG are you kidding?

Both of the above are completely unacceptable when simple film
scanning on a high quality scanner meets my needs. Meantime I earn
big interest on the money I saved by not going digital.

4% on $2000. Wow. In two years you can treat your friends out to a
meal at McDonalds...

Its the stupid tiny sensors. Who came up with this nonesense?
It's because the damn sensors wont accept light at an angle the way
film will no problem.

The cropping factor caused by smaller, affordable sensors, and as
such the reduced usefullness of wide angle lenses, has absolutely
nothing to do with light angle problems.

$2000!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol . what kind of system are you thinking about here? too funny. I cant have a usefull discussion with a person who distorts the facts.

Also you say this "The cropping factor caused by smaller, affordable sensors, and as such the reduced usefullness of wide angle lenses, has absolutely nothing to do with light angle problems ".

I know exactly why sensors are as small as they are and thus make shooting wide unavailable. I dont think you know why this is the case technically. If you think you do - then lets hear it!

My inclination is that you just want to argue because you dont like my tone.

You just need to understand why digital is NFG for shooting wide professionally and thats the end of it OK.

 

[tim martin]

I am doing nothing of the sort. I am simply saying that digital
wont meet my needs and why.

This is different than what you were saying only a few hours ago.
One has to give you credit for having realized that it's best
to talk about only your needs, and not try to make blanket
statements about the needs of all professional photographers.

The old line of argument you were making before was doomed,
but I think you'll have much better luck with this limited
discussion about the needs of, "Graham3, architectural
photographer".

 

[Graham3]

I am doing nothing of the sort. I am simply saying that digital
wont meet my needs and why.

This is different than what you were saying only a few hours ago.
One has to give you credit for having realized that it's best
to talk about only your needs, and not try to make blanket
statements about the needs of all professional photographers.

The old line of argument you were making before was doomed,
but I think you'll have much better luck with this limited
discussion about the needs of, "Graham3, architectural
photographer".

As I have said all along - I am talking about anybody who needs to shoot wide and produce 8 x 10 at 300 dpi. That's not just me. Thats many many other people too. Don't you know that?

How about you give some constructive suggestions about how I can get what I need from digital without selling my car?
Now that would be helpfull.

I was hoping to hear from other wide shooters about how they use digital but I just get a lot of flack from people who distort and go off the track.

What about your web site - lets see it! No answer there i noticed.
And no comback on the $2000 system that supossedly exists.
Why you distort facts and belittle my web site?
Where is your reasoning for the tiny sensors?
Let's have some substance from ya.
You just need an argument for arguments sake.
I'm not playing.
C ya.