Digital ruining the market???

If you want to include the cost of photoshop, you should consider
the cost of the darkroom.

First you need a room with plumbing or you need to convert a
bathroom and make it ugly. The room is taking up space. You need
water temp control devices. Various stuff like clips, sqeegees.
Chem bottles.

So if you don't use the darkroom, your house is bigger, less
clutter, no paper and film in the refrigerator. So photoshop does
not even approach the cost of a darkroom.
Now you're wanting me to include the $1500 for a good pc that must be changed out every one to two years because the latest release of PS CS II needs more processor and memory. And a new digi printer because we're down to 1 picoliter drops, and ... and...

I will concede that my wet lab is pretty useless as office space. A game room with a big TV and plenty of game equipment would be nice. Anyone want some great darkroom equipment!!! Kidding.
 
I am not sure about the culture in Rochester, but after meeting several of their marketing people in Vegas at the WPPI, I was truly impressed. ALMOST was pursuaded to buy the Kodak Dslr.

If the engineers can produce a quality chip and a camera that doesn't look like

it is suffering from some kind of mutation, then I think Kodak might have a chance to be at least a player in the field.

Kodak has lost the 'film' business. That model is dying and will not be the huge cash cow that made Kodak so profitable. Hopefully they can survive this transition and not go the way of the blacksmith.

Their marketing people are second to none and given good products they would run circles around the folks at Olympus, Canon and Nikon.
I actually, privately thought the beginning was with the autofocus,
motor driven film cameras. Rapid fire w/o the thinking involved
began before digital. Shoot enough pix and at least one is usable.

Digital just made it easier as you don't have any lab costs to
think about.

I still have my M3 for fun and my 4x5's when I'm serious. The wet
darkroom is still there but doesn't get much of a workout the past
year or so.

Now having said that, I really admire digital for its advantages. I
use cameras in software (entertainment) development. We shoot what
we need and fold the pixels into texture maps. My life became
unbelievably easier. And it saves ton of money.

My personal photography side is still based on seeing the shot,
visualizing the final print in my head before tripping the shutter.
To me the fun is seeing what ones saw in their head, come to life
in the print. Maybe a little exposure adjusting to make up for the
limited capabilities of the camera sensor and some sharpening. If I
have to spend hours manipulating the image, I failed in my own
mind. And I have some of the best CS guys in the country working
with me. They don't touch my personal images.

I agree a whole generation of photogrqphers is missing an enormous
amount of knowledge with the current state of the art.

The camera companies are making a killing. We'll except for Kodak
which not too many years ago was one of the greatest american
companies ever. I'm afraid no longer though. Their quality and
corporate culture was truely a cut above. I don't see much
happening there. Hopefully they can rise to the occasiobn again.

Rambling sorry
 
I am not sure about the culture in Rochester, but after meeting
several of their marketing people in Vegas at the WPPI, I was
truly impressed. ALMOST was pursuaded to buy the Kodak Dslr.

If the engineers can produce a quality chip and a camera that
doesn't look like
it is suffering from some kind of mutation, then I think Kodak
might have a chance to be at least a player in the field.

Kodak has lost the 'film' business. That model is dying and will
not be the huge cash cow that made Kodak so profitable. Hopefully
they can survive this transition and not go the way of the
blacksmith.

Their marketing people are second to none and given good products
they would run circles around the folks at Olympus, Canon and Nikon.
I would guess there's still plenty of cash spinning off from the residual film business. Maybe they should buy Nikon as a top notch glass company will always be a player in photography. I'm not kidding.

Fuji may be in the same place but executing better. Fuji cameras are OK but their lenses are pretty good. Hasselblad switched to Fuji. I damn near fell over when that deal was announced. Credible view camera lenses too.

The problem I see with Kodak is they are all over the map. They dropped their digital med format backs, bought Chinon (why), out of the film business, in the sensor business (against Sony!!). It makes me question their vision (i.e. do they have one). Companies like that have talented dedicated people , there leadership is questionable in my mind. I hope I'm very wrong.
 
"No photographer shoots... they create images" Someone named Ansel

"No photographer calls himself a fine art photographer" that is bestowed
on them by future generations."

"It is the duty of the professional to mentor others".....
(professional code)

Anyway, one thing digital has done is to coarsen the dialog for some.
For others it is a chance to share and make more friends.

Just a note..... HB
Fantastic post HB! Sweet and simple!!

THANKS!

--
Rod

My ministry website http://www.PtLPS.com
 
Kodak has lost the 'film' business. That model is dying and will
not be the huge cash cow that made Kodak so profitable. Hopefully
they can survive this transition and not go the way of the
blacksmith.
I would guess there's still plenty of cash spinning off from the
residual film business.
I'm sure there is, but Kodak is on record as saying that it will exit the film business at some point - it has simply refused to say when that point will be.

Ben

--
Photo section: http://www.benlovejoy.com/photography/
Photo gallery: http://www.benlovejoy.com/photography/photos/
 
Ben, I thought what they announced was that they were not going to invest in any new product development (research) on film, all R&D dollars were going to be invested in digital. They still sell a ton of disposible camera/film units. I suspect film at the bottom end will be around a while longer. Lots of people aren't computer comversant and probably never will be.

bob
I'm sure there is, but Kodak is on record as saying that it will
exit the film business at some point - it has simply refused to say
when that point will be.

Ben

--
Photo section: http://www.benlovejoy.com/photography/
Photo gallery: http://www.benlovejoy.com/photography/photos/
 
'Wrong! I am quite sure no-body will have a portfolio like mine even if they shoot every day for the next 10 years..;-)'

And why would they not if they have the necessary experience and motivation? and how do we know you portfolio is so fantastic?

I suggest , if you are actualy not scared, you get on with your job and make less noise about the people you are obviously a little concerned about.
I am sure there are some here that still shoot Jpeg..and Have no
clue about the quality difference of RAW.

God bless there little souls!
Snook
--
Canon 1Ds,Powerbook 17'---> Shooting RAW (Ofcourse)
--
Canon 1Ds,Powerbook 17'---> Shooting RAW (Ofcourse)
--
If only thire wos money to mayke owt of typo's
 
Think of all those horseman who used to laugh at folks driving cars
when they came out.

Those car drivers were not "real horseman".

Well, of course not -- they were car drivers. That they both could
be considered "transportation" does not make them the same thing.

You laugh at the thought of a digital shooter being on a "real
shoot" with "velvia" -- lol!

I laugh at all the film dinasaurs who don't know beans about
computers.

Digital shooters don't need film talent. All the time and pain you
went through to learn that stuff -- we don't need to.

Isn't that great?

Now, photography skills -- those we do need. But "film" was just a
photography medium -- one that is being rapidly replaced by digital
as the medium.

But the digital shooters are coming up the learning curve a whole
lot faster than it took you film guys. So laugh at the digital
newbie now -- who doesn't YET have your photography skills.

But beware the Detroit syndrome -- remember when they used to
laught at those ridiculous and tiny Japaneese cars?

I'm an old dog in the software development trade. I have 20 years
of experience. But you know what? It doesn't take 20 years to
learn what I know now that's applicable to what I do now.

All those dead languages that I learned that aren't used anymore.
Todays software developer doesn't need to learn them.

What I know now that took me twenty years to learn can be learned
by a college graduate in about 5 years -- maybe less for the really
talented.

I bought my first digital SLR last Oct. and my little photo hobby
has really taken off. I have 15,000 photos on the camera already.
In 9 months.

I shoot church events and soccer games and softball games and
vacations and family events. And I'm not just shooting -- I'm
learning. I'm playing with this technique and that.

I'm seeing my results and I'm saying "what could I have done to fix
this or that".

I could never learn this fast with film because I couldn't have
afforded the film and the processing.

Are there "hack digital photographers"? Surely -- just as there
are film photographers that aren't very good too.

But beware how fast these hack photographers can turn into credible
photographers when shooting in digital.
All these guys getting into photography b/c it is digital and easy
makes me sick...
LOL!
Have you all seen some of the pictures that people are producing
Yeah -- some very high quality stuff -- in addition to the dross.
Are you suggesting that all the film shooters are Ansel-ites?
When will it stop?
It won't. It's going to increase as the camera technologies go
throught the computer technology price/performance curve.
All these weekend photographers buying professional level cameras
and then asking stupid simple questions in here makes me ill also...
Well, why don't you start your only private forum where people have
to answer your 10 question quiz in order to get the pass code.

You CAN put up such a site right? I mean, I can. And not by using
the free websites on the web -- but I can actually build the sites
myself.

Hope I don't see you nosing around any technology forums asking
"stupid simple" questions of a tech god like myself.
Wake up... For a lot of people like me this is a way of living and
a way of life...Not a weekend hobby.
So what? Why should it concern me what YOU do for a living?
The digital era is just flooding the market with these kind of
photographers... really sad...
Welcome to the real world where progress marches on.

Lee
--
Rod

My ministry website http://www.PtLPS.com
 
I learned a lot from slowing down. I did shoot primarily landscapes
with a Fuji GSW690 and Technika 70. Film was more expensive, so I
took more time to move around and find the the best scene and
angle, using a handmeter and thinking more in terms of hyperfocal
distance helped me more to create a picture not just take one.
The great thing about digital is, that I can do the same thing - but analyse the results on the spot, and try further refinement from there. I use the spot meter in place of a hand meter, and do take a lot of care in choosing angles and locations to shoot from.

Sure 10k shots seems like a lot. I mgiht have not needed to take quite as many shots to learn what I have so far, but on the other hand I have got some great pictures that seemed at the time kind of silly - but that I really liked later. With film I was at the very least was mentally rationing my supply, and not shooting quite all of the subjects I found interesting.

There is defiantley a need to take care with a shot, to take the time to really learn what you are doing with light and exposure and focus. But Put digital on top of that and you can "create" many more pictures than you could with film, if nothing else because the storage limitation is essentially removed (especially with an external storage device). In the end every act of creation is also one of learning, which is why I think that you can learn much faster with a digital and there is nothing wrong with taking a lot of pictures.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
Summer Shoot:
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/sigmachangingseasonsiibyday
 
Funny how one man will come in and stir up a forum like these and then not have the conviction in his beliefs to stand behind what he stated by directly addressing those that refute his opinion of things.
 
Amazing how many people post stupid poetic sayings....

And half of you all that posted saying that you are amatuers should not even post in here...
Read the thread..It says Pro Digital Talk?

Thanks to all the people here who had constructive criticism or some well said...
The other 80% were just babbling jibber jabber...
I guess I will not see 3/4 of you in my other thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=9523409

another one obviuosly for Pro's Only

This by the way had nothing to do with not letting the newbie in or little guy in...

I have always helped my assistants to get jobs and tried to get them to go solo...
Even had them shoot stuff for my clients when I could not..

Many twisted the thread around talking about jealous ..worried...all kinds of things..

The thread was about over saturation of BAD photographers b/c of digital era..

And How "we" should not let it affect or jobs or "ruin" it for us who know how and like to shoot digital..
I have many clients as I stated wanting to go back to film b/c of them.

Those of you who really understand, Know what I mean and there were several who did and do..

80% of the ones that responded defensively are exactly those the thread was about.

Snook....;-}
Funny how one man will come in and stir up a forum like these and
then not have the conviction in his beliefs to stand behind what he
stated by directly addressing those that refute his opinion of
things.
--
Canon 1Ds,Powerbook 17'---> Shooting RAW (Ofcourse)
 
And half of you all that posted saying that you are amatuers
should not even post in here...
Read the forum page: "Welcome to the Pro Digital Talk Forum, the place where professionals can talk to other professionals and advanced amateurs can ask questions. This forum contains 164,843 messages in 19,690 threads, please search before asking a question."

This forum is also for we "advanced amateurs" to ask questions of you "pros". And of course we "semi pros" are a step above "advanced amateurs" are we not?

So get off yer high horse and just ignore the threads you don't wish to participate in. The "pro" who started this thread was asking to get the whuppin' he received.
Read the thread..It says Pro Digital Talk?
Yeah....and KEEP reading...or are you pros too busy to read the paragraph below the title.
Thanks to all the people here who had constructive criticism or
some well said...
The other 80% were just babbling jibber jabber...
I guess I will not see 3/4 of you in my other thread:
I guess we can add you post to the babbling jibber jabber.
Many twisted the thread around talking about jealous
..worried...all kinds of things..
As if none of those things are real issues.
The thread was about over saturation of BAD photographers b/c of
digital era..
And are you the forum cop designated to keep conversations to the track you have in mind?

Lee
 
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=9523409

another one obviuosly for Pro's Only

This by the way had nothing to do with not letting the newbie in or
little guy in...
I have always helped my assistants to get jobs and tried to get
them to go solo...
Even had them shoot stuff for my clients when I could not..

Many twisted the thread around talking about jealous
..worried...all kinds of things..

The thread was about over saturation of BAD photographers b/c of
digital era..
And How "we" should not let it affect or jobs or "ruin" it for us
who know how and like to shoot digital..
I have many clients as I stated wanting to go back to film b/c of
them.
Those of you who really understand, Know what I mean and there were
several who did and do..
80% of the ones that responded defensively are exactly those the
thread was about.

Snook....;-}
Funny how one man will come in and stir up a forum like these and
then not have the conviction in his beliefs to stand behind what he
stated by directly addressing those that refute his opinion of
things.
--
Canon 1Ds,Powerbook 17'---> Shooting RAW (Ofcourse)
So many others addressed what you said directly but I guess it took me pointing out the cowardice of what you have done to bring you back. I once again question your credentials as a pro and invite you to prove me wrong.

I don't assume that anyone that disagrees with me is not a pro nor do I assume that anyone that does agree with me is a pro. Nor do I assume that you are a pro although you obviously assume I am not.
 
As much as I agree with you Lee.....he was the original "pro." :)
-Chris
And? If he's the moderator and doesn't want anything BUT pros -- and full time pros at that -- then he should change the working on the forum definition paragraph.

Really -- no conversations happen here that folks don't want to participate in. If the "pros" didn't want to talk to the "bottom feeders" they just wouldn't. Obviously not all of them feel that way.

Lee
 
I still agree with you. I was just pointing out that he was involved in this particular conversation because he started it.

-Chris
As much as I agree with you Lee.....he was the original "pro." :)
-Chris
And? If he's the moderator and doesn't want anything BUT pros --
and full time pros at that -- then he should change the working on
the forum definition paragraph.

Really -- no conversations happen here that folks don't want to
participate in. If the "pros" didn't want to talk to the "bottom
feeders" they just wouldn't. Obviously not all of them feel that
way.

Lee
 
Amateurs do have opinions, of course.

It doesn't mean that I should care about it, also because it's more like a matter of being reasonable: what you amateurs possibly say to interest the pros? How the buisiness goes? what fo you possibly know about our business? Is that so difficoult to understand? It's not because we don't want to discuss with you guys, but when it comes to talk about business you should stay on the side, because that's none of your business.

simple, no need to feel offended, that's the way it is: and I can't change it... Do you feel like calling you amateurs is offensive? let's find another way to address you..but until then I can't possibly call you professionals.. can I?

See? I can't.. because you're not.

As for myself I couldn't care less about your opinions for obvious reasons.

But when somebody calls a colleague of mine "caward" then it bothers me a little: please stay, learn and listen, but don't talk about things you don't know.
Please, it's time consuming .. reading useless posts, have mercy!

Mark

http://www.imagingphotographics.com
 
DOH! Now I get what you meant. Man -- I was too nice to him.

Lee
-Chris
As much as I agree with you Lee.....he was the original "pro." :)
-Chris
And? If he's the moderator and doesn't want anything BUT pros --
and full time pros at that -- then he should change the working on
the forum definition paragraph.

Really -- no conversations happen here that folks don't want to
participate in. If the "pros" didn't want to talk to the "bottom
feeders" they just wouldn't. Obviously not all of them feel that
way.

Lee
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top