"Digital?Maybe Later"-Editorial

[Lin Evans]

For the record I have shot with the n14, D1x, D100, 10D, D30, S1,
S2, Sigma SD9,and a Mamiya 645 w/DCS pro back....I hope at least a
couple of those qualify as pro cameras. None of these cameras is
within a 1/2 stop of my 20 year old 8008s as far a viewfinder
brightness, and most are a full stop dimmer....measurements taken
at viewfinder with same lens aperatures and focal lengths...(Mamiya
was not done with this test)..all focused on white sheet of paper
with same illumination with a 1 degree spot meter in ambient mode.
Included in this test were Canon Pellix, Nikon FE, Nikon F, Nikon
F2, Nikon n70, Nikon 8008, and 8008s film bodies. I haven't
handled the 1D, nor the 1Ds. I am currently trying to use the 10D
camera......

Hi Richard,

A camera with a reduced field of view vis a vis a reference platform such as 35mm will have less frame in the viewfinder, and often less brightness simply because one is not using the full extent of maximum rectangle within the circle of definition provided by the lens. But you mentioned a 645 with a pro back and a 14n. It's illogical to claim that there would be any difference in the brightness of the viewfinder since the identical lens is being used or can be used and we are simply talking "mirror" TTL image. Whether a film plane or digital sensor is behind the lens is totally irrelevant and has no bearing on the brightness. A Mamia 645 doesn't suddenly have less light through the mirror to the viewfinder because it's being used with a digital sensor instead of film. That makes absolutely no sense.

The viewfinder on a 10D is definitely dim by 35mm film or by full frame digital SLR standards, but the viewfinder on a 1DS or a 14N is no different than on any other 35mm platform camera and the fact that the sensor is digital has absolutely no bearing on brightness in the viewfinder.

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Obscura]

I'll say it again with bold confidence... there will never be a
digital rival to large format capture and printing using the old
processes.

There is. You just are not aware of it and haven't seen it for
yourself. Many of us have.

You have completely missed my point. I've worked with some of the very best digital capture systems there are. I worked for years using a Leaf Digital camera back every day and we had an Iris Jet printer in house.

We could produce some fantastic stuff even back then... What we couldn't do was leave the studio.

My buddy could take a picture from a mountain top using scheimpflug rule to bring everything in the frame from a few inches in front of the lens to infinity into crystal clear focus. He could then walk down to base camp and make a fine art print, in a TENT, using water from the creek, a few small bottles of chemicals, paper, and light from the sun.

My friend can load up his gear and head off into the wilderness and
then come walking out a few days later with an archival platinum
print worthy of hanging in a museum or art gallery.

Its a simple elegant process and the quality blows away even the
most expensive digital systems.

It doesn't - not for landscapes ...... Again, it's you
unfamiliarity with available systems and what's going on in top-end
digital photography.

You are wrong here. I keep a close eye on the industry. The studio where I worked is right down the road and I can walk in any day and ask to borrow the equipment. I'm still good friends with the owner and he is still using the very latest equipment. When I was working there Leaf would send us cameras to test before they were released.

Digital may rival the quality one day but it will never pose any
competition to the overall process.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion - many differer from this.....

Ahh yes the discussion here does become lively and opinionated here. I wouldn't have it any other way and I hope you agree.

So what do you do if you want to shoot digital today and insure
that you've got your digital "negatives" around so you can produce
even better prints as soon as monitors are invented capible of
showing all the colors and tones you've captured and printers that
use truly stable and rachival processes are available?

We must do the best we can.

Now my friend... the one with the 8x10 view camera? When I last
saw him over ten years ago he had already sold some images to art
galleries and a few of his prints were in the collection of the
museum of fine art in Houston. I have no doubt that he has made
many more fine prints in the decade that has elapsed.

I have not made one single digital image yet that could hang next
to his without showing its inferiority.

That's probably because you are not using the right equipment to
rival 8x10 film...... You won't do it with a dSLR, but you
absolutely "can" do it with a digital camera system.

I would absolutely love to see such a print. If you will agree to send me one of yours for examination I will handle it carefully with white cotton gloves and gladly return it to you in pristine condition. I have taken a print conservation class.

i never bought a print from my friend... couldn't afford it. I do have an albumen print I made from a 5x7 negative.

Then again... I wonder what Jason is doing these days. It wouldn't be too hard to look him up for a true side by side comparason.

Even my Iris jet prints fall apart when compared to the detail in
his prints. The iris is archival and museums will buy it but is it
as stable as platinum? I doubt it.

This is expected if you are using a 35mm platform -

I never said anything about the 35mm platform... We were talking about digital photography and printing.

The SLR based camera I'm using today is inferior to other digital cameras I have used in the past. (inferior in some ways... better in some ways... at least I'm out of the studio)

Follow the link
below and spend some time checking "all" the relevant links from
this site. If you are in the neighborhood stop by this
photographer's gallery or visit any of the fine art galleries
displaying his work (which is digital) and then come back and
debate the same issues with new information...... Don't just give
this site a cursory look - if you are truly interested in the
possible with digital, follow "ALL" the links and read all the
information - it will open your eyes and be an education.

Lin

http://www.sjphoto.com/

If Stephen Johnson is being heralded as the best there is then you have proven my point. He says so himself on his site...

-snip-

All pigment color printed on 100% rag paper offering a very long life (over 200 years, making them the longest lasting color photographic process in history).
-snip-

The longest lasting color photographic process in history gets you an estimated 200 years. Stephen himself will admit that its not nearly as stable as platinum. Don't take my word for it... email him and ask him.

Please do not accuse me of needing an education about digital photography. I had a solid foundation with years traditional photography experience before I went to college and got a degree in photography.

I have been producing digital images since the very early days of digital still photography and I have been shooting 100% digital for almost ten years.

Digital photography has come a long way in a very short time. If tied to moore's law we're in for a great ride in the coming years.

My friend... he isn't interested in going forward... he has gone back.
--
Obscura
Join the GRAY CARD ARMY!

 

[voices in afka_bob's head]

You have provided your own refutation, so I will defer to you:

Digital photography has come a long way in a very short time. If
tied to moore's law we're in for a great ride in the coming years.

 

[Lin Evans]

I'll say it again with bold confidence... there will never be a
digital rival to large format capture and printing using the old
processes.

There is. You just are not aware of it and haven't seen it for
yourself. Many of us have.

You have completely missed my point. .... >

Yes, and I think you've missed my point and Stephen's point as well. If you really "want" to make your print using "water from the creek" and do it in a tent, then that's fine. I know a Vietnamese photographer who makes prints on leaves using the sun and encapsulates them in resin as well - but that's not the way the vast majority of fine art photos are printed and my point was that digital print quality "exceeds" 8x10 film and if you would like to visit one of the galleries and have a personal look at Stephen's prints you too will be aware of that. He has them hanging side by side with 8x10 format and other film prints and you can judge for yourself.

It doesn't - not for landscapes ...... Again, it's you
unfamiliarity with available systems and what's going on in top-end
digital photography.

You are wrong here. I keep a close eye on the industry. The
studio where I worked is right down the road and I can walk in any
day and ask to borrow the equipment. I'm still good friends with
the owner and he is still using the very latest equipment. When I
was working there Leaf would send us cameras to test before they
were released.

Then you really need to do just that but forget Leaf and instead look at BetterLight which is the outgrowth of Dicomed and do read ALL the links at Stephen's site - don't assume that you indeed do know everything that's going on in terms of digital quality until you do - regardless of how many years you have been doing this. I too have been doing it both with film for well over 40 years and with digital since professional level digital has been available. It's also how I make my living.

Your profile doesn't indicate that you are a photographer by profession, so I'm guessing here that even though you may have had access to upper end equipment you do not own and use it on a regular basis. "Keeping a close eye on the industry" is not the same thing as doing it for a living. Stephen has done landscape photography for a living for many, many years and has done it with film and with digital. When he says he gets better results from his Dicomed and BetterLight than "any" film, I've got to take his word for it and the results speak for themselves.

Ahh yes the discussion here does become lively and opinionated
here. I wouldn't have it any other way and I hope you agree.

Yes, I agree completely

That's probably because you are not using the right equipment to
rival 8x10 film...... You won't do it with a dSLR, but you
absolutely "can" do it with a digital camera system.

I would absolutely love to see such a print. If you will agree to
send me one of yours for examination I will handle it carefully
with white cotton gloves and gladly return it to you in pristine
condition. I have taken a print conservation class.

You don't want to see my prints because I'm not a landscape photographer and I don't use the very best digital scanning equipment for that purpose. What you seriously need to do is to visit a gallery which has Stephen's prints and see them for yourself. All the words in the world can't express the quality and detail they contain - you simply have to see it for yourself.

I never said anything about the 35mm platform... We were talking
about digital photography and printing.

The SLR based camera I'm using today is inferior to other digital
cameras I have used in the past. (inferior in some ways... better
in some ways... at least I'm out of the studio)

http://www.sjphoto.com/

If Stephen Johnson is being heralded as the best there is then you
have proven my point. He says so himself on his site...

-snip-

Yes, your point about platinum longevity, decidedly "not" your point about detail and image quality.

The longest lasting color photographic process in history gets you
an estimated 200 years. Stephen himself will admit that its not
nearly as stable as platinum. Don't take my word for it... email
him and ask him.

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying you are only interested in B&W? If so, then there is no issue. On the other hand, if you are interested in Color, there is no theoretical limit to the preservation of a digital file from which a print can always be made. If by "photographic process" you simply mean how long a "print" will last, that's another issue. The point is that digital files may easily be migrated from one to another media as long as there are humans, computers and an electronic media to transfer to.

Please do not accuse me of needing an education about digital
photography. I had a solid foundation with years traditional
photography experience before I went to college and got a degree in
photography.

Somehow I suspected that might be the case :-(

I have been producing digital images since the very early days of
digital still photography and I have been shooting 100% digital for
almost ten years.

Then I'm truly surprised you haven't seen Stephen Johnson's work - because most of us in this business have - and have been aware of it for some time.

Digital photography has come a long way in a very short time. If
tied to moore's law we're in for a great ride in the coming years.

My friend... he isn't interested in going forward... he has gone back.
--

Which is fine - nothing wrong with doing whatever works for you.

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Obscura]

Digital photography has come a long way in a very short time. If
tied to moore's law we're in for a great ride in the coming years.

We're splitting hairs here but I said "if" tied to moore's law.

Ther is a great debate about moor's law itself and if it will ever collapse.

Another poster presented a Sinar 4x5 view camera and custom modified Dicomed scanning back as state of the art.

Scanning 4x5 backs have been around more than a decade and they are not advancing and improving at pace with moore's law.

Wile you can haul it up to the top of the mountain with a 4x5 and a powerbook you can't use it to photograph a person or a night scene with a star filled sky.

When I made my original statement that digital will "never do that" I meant it. I don't think digital is even advancing in that direction. (nor do I really care)

That said... I like where digital IS GOING and I'm pleased with the speed it is advancing.
--
Obscura
Join the GRAY CARD ARMY!

 

[nanook s]

All the digital bodies you have mentioned (excepting Mamiya with DCS pro back, which also crops FOV) are based on consumer (not even prosumer) bodies, namely N55 (S1), N80 (D100, S2 and 14n), Elan 7(10D), and Rebel something (D30). They have relatively small view finders to begin with; then add FOV cropping (for most of the cameras in your list), of course you would end up with small and dim view finder.

I store weddings on DVD+R. Each wedding fits in 1 DVD, about 1000-1500 frames. One single slim jewle case takes much less storage room than 30-50 rolls of film. What's more, I can have a backup set of drawers at my apartment in the city in addiiton to the set (or two or three) at home just in case of disaster.

The retrievel and display part is where digital wins hands-down: each DVD has a low-resolution set, not to mention at screen resolution, I can have dozens of weddings sitting in my laptop computer at all time. No lightbox required, and the display is positive (not negative) at much bigger size than contact sheets format for each picture.

IMHO, much of the problems cited are related to the fact that you have 27 years of experience with film, but only a couple with digital.

For the record I have shot with the n14, D1x, D100, 10D, D30, S1,
S2, Sigma SD9,and a Mamiya 645 w/DCS pro back....I hope at least a
couple of those qualify as pro cameras. None of these cameras is
within a 1/2 stop of my 20 year old 8008s as far a viewfinder
brightness, and most are a full stop dimmer....measurements taken
at viewfinder with same lens aperatures and focal lengths...(Mamiya
was not done with this test)..all focused on white sheet of paper
with same illumination with a 1 degree spot meter in ambient mode.
Included in this test were Canon Pellix, Nikon FE, Nikon F, Nikon
F2, Nikon n70, Nikon 8008, and 8008s film bodies. I haven't
handled the 1D, nor the 1Ds. I am currently trying to use the 10D
camera......

The verstility of a quick change while shooting to take advantage
of a momentary idea, and the possiblity of NOT changing it back is
what I meant by the ability to too easily change parameters .... I
also admitted it was an increase in the ability to have user
error...not that it was an inherent problem with the idea of
digital...

My storage with contact sheet books of 100 rolls each allows me to
have an image in front of me to discuss with a client in about 30
seconds to a minute without booting up the computer. My fireproof
( I know they probably aren't perfect) file cabinets full of
negs....all 8 drawers of them allow me to pull a roll of film also
in less than a minute.

I fully agree that time, and practice may change all this...just
for me two to three years in....it has yet to happen. It is
getting better. some is my learning, but I think as much is in
improvements in hardware, and software. Pity the person who bought
a DCS 720/620 a few years ago......but maybe they make enough money
to deal with that loss of value. I don't think I or the average
photographer does.....

For me the worst of it is the ability to translate mentally that
transmitted image on the monitor to a reliable paper
output...consistently. I find that my eyes tire, and my decisions
change as I am working at the monitor, and that soon I am making
bad choices....this is not a problem I had when making and
evaluating real test prints on real photo paper. Since I can't
afford my own Frontier printer.....I have to do the test prints out
of house, and the time and expense factors to do this eats into the
potential profit.

Again realize that in my business I have to print 300 of 300 shots,
not half a dozen or so.

For the editorial/advertising shooter, for the amateur, and for the
"fine art" photographer I think digital is the best thing since
sliced bread....for the production volume portrait shooter I am
just not sure if the economics makes sense.

A quick note on the scan vs. 1Ds files....I know the 1Ds is good,
but it is still a Bayer sensor, and as such is not true data at
every point...the scan is. Yes the drum scanner will enlarge
grain, but it puts to shame all the desk top scanners out there,
and if you are going to compare output, you cannot compare the 1Ds
output with anything done on an LS 4000, or even the new Minolta at
5200 dpi, as those can be easily surpassed with the output from a
top drum machine. So I really don't think the 1Ds has surpassed
the best that 35mm film can do yet.......getting close I admit for
most practical stuff. Not that I want to spend time or money
getting those high end scans done....and surely not with volume
work!

I am trying to use digital just not sure if it was a bright move...
at least I am spending less time in that chemistry..got to be
better for my health...unless the stress is worse than the chemical
exposure.......hummmmmm (-:

--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

 

[Obscura]

Obscura wrote:

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying you are only interested in B&W?

This branch of the thread got interesting when I posted that I had a friend who shoots with an 8x10 and makes platinum prints. I stated that digital would never do that.

Thinking back to the actual event when I was holding his print I think it was my friend or his guru who made the statement "Digital will never do that" One of those two said it... I've thoutght about it for for a long time now and I posted it here.

The thread took several twists and turns since.

If so, then there is no issue. On the other hand, if you are
interested in Color, there is no theoretical limit to the
preservation of a digital file from which a print can always be
made.

Yes and very nicely stated. This is also true for all digital images. Even the very first one. (if it has been preserved and I suspect it has)

I've been shooting color since going digital because I can always convert it to B&W in the computer.

If by "photographic process" you simply mean how long a
"print" will last, that's another issue. The point is that digital
files may easily be migrated from one to another media as long as
there are humans, computers and an electronic media to transfer to.

By photographic process I was taking the entire loop into consideration. From capture to processing to printing. My friend the 8x10 guy can pack all his equipment in a backpack.

You would need a forklift and a truck to move all of this:

http://www.sjphoto.com/project-tools.html

You would also need armed guards and a good therapist because that is expensive stuff and much of it was not designed for use in extreme conditions.

Now we are dealing with electronics and electronics do tend to miniaturize so there is hope. Digital without batteries? I am not holding my breath. (but it would be fantastic)

The film camera I sold when I "made the leap" to film would still operate without the battery. This is a freedom that I had to give up when I went digital and I hope its something that I get back some day.

With each new digital camera I've had to figure out ways to power the thing for the kinds of photography that I enjoy. Soon I hope to build a sealed, lead-acid battery, with a solar charger. That would be ideal. I've found some plans online for one that is powerful enough... only thing missing is the solar panels. (also noticed Stephen Johnson is into solar panels)

Please do not accuse me of needing an education about digital
photography. I had a solid foundation with years traditional
photography experience before I went to college and got a degree in
photography.

Somehow I suspected that might be the case :-(

Are you disrespecting my training and experience based on a few internet posts? You and I might have different opinions about some things but I respect you and your opinions.

Get to know me better and I suspect that you will find that you and I see eye to eye on many things. We will also learn from each others experiences... That is why I came here.

I have been producing digital images since the very early days of
digital still photography and I have been shooting 100% digital for
almost ten years.

Then I'm truly surprised you haven't seen Stephen Johnson's work -
because most of us in this business have - and have been aware of
it for some time.

He did manage to elude me. Must have flown under the radar or something. I might have seen his work without managing to find his home page.

Digital photography has come a long way in a very short time. If
tied to moore's law we're in for a great ride in the coming years.

My friend... he isn't interested in going forward... he has gone back.
--

Which is fine - nothing wrong with doing whatever works for you.

^^^ Quoted for greatness.

--
Obscura
Join the GRAY CARD ARMY!

 

[Lin Evans]

Obscura wrote:

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying you are only interested in B&W?

This branch of the thread got interesting when I posted that I had
a friend who shoots with an 8x10 and makes platinum prints. I
stated that digital would never do that.

Thinking back to the actual event when I was holding his print I
think it was my friend or his guru who made the statement "Digital
will never do that" One of those two said it... I've thoutght
about it for for a long time now and I posted it here.

The thread took several twists and turns since.

If so, then there is no issue. On the other hand, if you are
interested in Color, there is no theoretical limit to the
preservation of a digital file from which a print can always be
made.

Yes and very nicely stated. This is also true for all digital
images. Even the very first one. (if it has been preserved and I
suspect it has)

I've been shooting color since going digital because I can always
convert it to B&W in the computer.

If by "photographic process" you simply mean how long a
"print" will last, that's another issue. The point is that digital
files may easily be migrated from one to another media as long as
there are humans, computers and an electronic media to transfer to.

By photographic process I was taking the entire loop into
consideration. From capture to processing to printing. My friend
the 8x10 guy can pack all his equipment in a backpack.

You would need a forklift and a truck to move all of this:

http://www.sjphoto.com/project-tools.html

You would also need armed guards and a good therapist because that
is expensive stuff and much of it was not designed for use in
extreme conditions.

Now we are dealing with electronics and electronics do tend to
miniaturize so there is hope. Digital without batteries? I am
not holding my breath. (but it would be fantastic)

The film camera I sold when I "made the leap" to film would still
operate without the battery. This is a freedom that I had to give
up when I went digital and I hope its something that I get back
some day.

With each new digital camera I've had to figure out ways to power
the thing for the kinds of photography that I enjoy. Soon I hope
to build a sealed, lead-acid battery, with a solar charger. That
would be ideal. I've found some plans online for one that is
powerful enough... only thing missing is the solar panels. (also
noticed Stephen Johnson is into solar panels)

Please do not accuse me of needing an education about digital
photography. I had a solid foundation with years traditional
photography experience before I went to college and got a degree in
photography.

Somehow I suspected that might be the case :-(

Are you disrespecting my training and experience based on a few
internet posts? You and I might have different opinions about some
things but I respect you and your opinions.

No, no disrespect intended - the "frown" face { :-( }was actually intended to be the "smile" face { } but without "edit" capabilities, I couldn't change the typo.....

Get to know me better and I suspect that you will find that you and
I see eye to eye on many things. We will also learn from each
others experiences... That is why I came here.

I have been producing digital images since the very early days of
digital still photography and I have been shooting 100% digital for
almost ten years.

Then I'm truly surprised you haven't seen Stephen Johnson's work -
because most of us in this business have - and have been aware of
it for some time.

He did manage to elude me. Must have flown under the radar or
something. I might have seen his work without managing to find his
home page.

Digital photography has come a long way in a very short time. If
tied to moore's law we're in for a great ride in the coming years.

My friend... he isn't interested in going forward... he has gone back.
--

Which is fine - nothing wrong with doing whatever works for you.

^^^ Quoted for greatness.

--
Obscura
Join the GRAY CARD ARMY!

--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Roy Feldman]

O for the love of god stop. Digital is good for some things, bad for others.

It's that simple. I shoot for a living, mostly digital but I was recently photographing some VIP's during a meeting and used a Leica M. Could I have done it digital ?Yup, but because I didn't have the big gun with me it was a lot easier to blend into the background.

Was it a pain to scan and colour correct (no WB) yup, but I think I got some images I otherwise couldn't have.

As I said I do shoot dig 90% of the time, but sometimes those Leica M's are a great tool. As far as the 'just for fun' aspect I really like that I can throw a camera over my shoulder and lens in my pocket, not worry if it is charged (I change the battries on the Leica on my birthday every year if they need it or not).

For my PJ work I need a digital, I know right away if I got the shot I was sent to get and then can send it to the wire from any Starbucks.

I really hope they don't do away with film, it has become more expensive, it is harder to find film processing (like E6 in 2 hours) but for some applications it can't be beat. I also think the digitals a a bit more fragile than film cameras, lots more stuff to go wrong.
If you were going to a deserted island and had one camera???
Roy Feldman

 

[Ernie T.]

Excuse me if someone already said this, I haven't read all of the threads. But, why is the digital vs film thing always about money. Forget about the cost, which medium works best for you. If it's film, then shoot film, if digital shoot digital. The cost factor should not get in the way of Quality. Which medium is the best and highest quality. That's really the question. Not which one is more cost effective. Yes, I know that the cost is important to pro's with paying customers, but as a amateur who just loves to shoot I must choose which one gives me the very best quality that I can get. Not the best for the money but the "best" picture.

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html
Thoughts...comments?

--
This is to much fun!!

 

[nanook s]

FYI, electric car was invented in the 1830's, and the internal combustion engine was invented circa 1890. For about a century and half (second half of 18th century and the bulk of 19th century), automobiles were powered by

steam engines, with a few electric cars here and there. Then the invention of internal combustion engine took over. Yes, early internal combustion engines were very rough and unreliable compared to the smooth-running steam engine and electric motor cars. However, the instant gratification (not having to wait for steam build-up or recharging battery) won the following century for internal combustion engine. Does this all sound vaguely familiar?

The cost analysis you have there is way off. A chemical dark room is not free, not to mention zoning rules and EPA restrictions. Okay, we can chalk that up to negligence in your argument. Then you delved into $3 for a roll of film, and $100 for CF card; well, that is just plain intellectual dishonesty. $3 buys you a 36-frame roll of film that can not be re-used; $100 buys you a 512meg CF card that can keep around 2-400 frames in quality surpassiing 35mm film, and it is re-useable. If you want 2-400 frames in film, that will cost you $30-40 before any developing or printing cost. So the factor is about 3:1 for re-useability. Would you be willing to pay $9 per a roll for film that is re-useable, if such a product were available (with scanning tossed in for free)? That would an incredible deal unless you are a rank amature who never uses much film in a year.

 

[phil wigglesworth]

Thoughts...comments?

I thought that the prose style was very poor, but perhaps it's a cultural thing.

In the introduction the author appears to claim to choose cameras by "going through them at the store". Whatever you can tell by looking at a camera in a store isn't interesting to most of us.

The next point seems to suggest that the main advantages of digital (to the author) are related to darkrooms, print shops and the storage of negatives. For me the main advantages are nothing to do with these things, which were never really problems for me with film. I use digital because (for 35mm) the quality's better than film. Next question?

Whatever, it's interesting to hear other perspectives. Every so often I bump into some film photographers. Many of those people are openly dismissive of digital right up until they're blown away by the results.

-
Phil
http://www.wigglesworld.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Obscura]

If you were going to a deserted island and had one camera???

I would want a Diana and lots of rollfilm. I would take interesting pictures and save the exposed rolls to put into any bottles that washed ashore.

Then I would throw the bottles back into the sea.

If someone found a bottle and developed the film they would see magical images created by me and my friend Diana.
--
Obscura
Join the GRAY CARD ARMY!

 

[Iusefilm]

For the record I have shot with the n14, D1x, D100, 10D, D30, S1,
S2, Sigma SD9,and a Mamiya 645 w/DCS pro back....I hope at least a
couple of those qualify as pro cameras. None of these cameras is
within a 1/2 stop of my 20 year old 8008s as far a viewfinder
brightness, and most are a full stop dimmer....measurements taken
at viewfinder with same lens aperatures and focal lengths...(Mamiya
was not done with this test)..all focused on white sheet of paper
with same illumination with a 1 degree spot meter in ambient mode.
Included in this test were Canon Pellix, Nikon FE, Nikon F, Nikon
F2, Nikon n70, Nikon 8008, and 8008s film bodies. I haven't
handled the 1D, nor the 1Ds. I am currently trying to use the 10D
camera......

The verstility of a quick change while shooting to take advantage
of a momentary idea, and the possiblity of NOT changing it back is
what I meant by the ability to too easily change parameters .... I
also admitted it was an increase in the ability to have user
error...not that it was an inherent problem with the idea of
digital...

My storage with contact sheet books of 100 rolls each allows me to
have an image in front of me to discuss with a client in about 30
seconds to a minute without booting up the computer. My fireproof
( I know they probably aren't perfect) file cabinets full of
negs....all 8 drawers of them allow me to pull a roll of film also
in less than a minute.

I fully agree that time, and practice may change all this...just
for me two to three years in....it has yet to happen. It is
getting better. some is my learning, but I think as much is in
improvements in hardware, and software. Pity the person who bought
a DCS 720/620 a few years ago......but maybe they make enough money
to deal with that loss of value. I don't think I or the average
photographer does.....

For me the worst of it is the ability to translate mentally that
transmitted image on the monitor to a reliable paper
output...consistently. I find that my eyes tire, and my decisions
change as I am working at the monitor, and that soon I am making
bad choices....this is not a problem I had when making and
evaluating real test prints on real photo paper. Since I can't
afford my own Frontier printer.....I have to do the test prints out
of house, and the time and expense factors to do this eats into the
potential profit.

Again realize that in my business I have to print 300 of 300 shots,
not half a dozen or so.

For the editorial/advertising shooter, for the amateur, and for the
"fine art" photographer I think digital is the best thing since
sliced bread....for the production volume portrait shooter I am
just not sure if the economics makes sense.

A quick note on the scan vs. 1Ds files....I know the 1Ds is good,
but it is still a Bayer sensor, and as such is not true data at
every point...the scan is. Yes the drum scanner will enlarge
grain, but it puts to shame all the desk top scanners out there,
and if you are going to compare output, you cannot compare the 1Ds
output with anything done on an LS 4000, or even the new Minolta at
5200 dpi, as those can be easily surpassed with the output from a
top drum machine. So I really don't think the 1Ds has surpassed
the best that 35mm film can do yet.......getting close I admit for
most practical stuff. Not that I want to spend time or money
getting those high end scans done....and surely not with volume
work!

I am trying to use digital just not sure if it was a bright move...
at least I am spending less time in that chemistry..got to be
better for my health...unless the stress is worse than the chemical
exposure.......hummmmmm (-:

--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

--
Hi Richard,

Some of my experience mirrors yours. In my neck of the woods also, the delivered image that matters, not how it got there. I compleated a short glamour session resulting in about 60- images or so, viewing and prep artwork with the client was about one hour and maybe a bit more. In a similar situation with a film camera after 4 rolls of color and one B&W and several Polaroids that the client took home, the viewing was about 20 minutes and almost the double sales value. Not including all the artwork, a drum scan for a really large fine art paper print. Strange it was not when this had become a series of situations.
Does it mean anything??? Well, maybe...

It is also safe to say that Stephen Johnson images would be equally as stunning if he had used a pencil...
Tony K

 

[voices in afka_bob's head]

Yes, I know that the cost is important to pro's
with paying customers, but as a amateur who just loves to shoot I
must choose which one gives me the very best quality that I can
get. Not the best for the money but the "best" picture.

You "must"?

Most people "must" pay the bills, so the cost is very important, so that would be a resounding "best for the money" -- but I am happy for you that cost is no object!

 

[Richard Katris]

and of interest as we are trying to make money here....but it isn't just money it is more importantly time spent

Sure shooting costs less, but the time spent processing costs more, and for me the printing costs more.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

 

[athelon]

.. money is also the quality issue for 98% of us nature photographers. During the film time only sponsored or filthy rich persons could shoot enough to get the really good pictures of wildlife. You can forget to meditate by rubbing your chin and composing for ages when shooting birds or other small critters.

Even 'big names' are taking hundreds and hundreds of wildlife frames for a Good one, but only now it's moneywise possible for other shooters too.

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html
Thoughts...comments?

--
This is to much fun!!

 

[Ernie T.]

As long as cost doesn't over rule a better picture fine. But if you sacrifice quality for the sake of saving a few bucks then it's not ok. Remember, the customer is always first. At least that used to be the saying!

Yes, I know that the cost is important to pro's
with paying customers, but as a amateur who just loves to shoot I
must choose which one gives me the very best quality that I can
get. Not the best for the money but the "best" picture.

You "must"?

Most people "must" pay the bills, so the cost is very important, so
that would be a resounding "best for the money" -- but I am happy
for you that cost is no object!

--
This is to much fun!!

 

[DavidMillier]

"Moore's Law" (which isn't a law, just an industry observation) is about ncreasing density of components on chips. It has only has a passing relevance to digital photography.

To make dramatic improvements in sensor quality from where we are today requires the combination of higher pixel counts, greater dynamic range and lower noise.

Pixel counts can be increased by increasing pixel density but at a cost to the other two parameters. An obvious solution to this problem is to build larger chips - but this is the OPPOSITE of Moore's law which depends on shrinking the chips.

Don't rely on Moore's to improve the image quality of sensors...

Digital photography has come a long way in a very short time. If
tied to moore's law we're in for a great ride in the coming years.

We're splitting hairs here but I said "if" tied to moore's law.

Ther is a great debate about moor's law itself and if it will ever
collapse.

Another poster presented a Sinar 4x5 view camera and custom
modified Dicomed scanning back as state of the art.

Scanning 4x5 backs have been around more than a decade and they are
not advancing and improving at pace with moore's law.

Wile you can haul it up to the top of the mountain with a 4x5 and a
powerbook you can't use it to photograph a person or a night scene
with a star filled sky.

When I made my original statement that digital will "never do that"
I meant it. I don't think digital is even advancing in that
direction. (nor do I really care)

That said... I like where digital IS GOING and I'm pleased with the
speed it is advancing.
--
Obscura
Join the GRAY CARD ARMY!

 

[Charles L. Mims]

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html
Thoughts...comments?

-- I ran a large Film Plant (20,000 plus rolls a day) for 12 years. I still carry chemical contamination from this experience. I could only come back to photography when I was no longer exposed to the vey dmamging chemicals that almost killed me.

I still enjoy black and white photography with low impact chemicals that are slow to use but will not eat you up. My enlarger is 50 years old and I use the same chemicals that Mathiew Brady did 150 years ago.

I really enjoy the freedom to shoot thousands of images at events and deliver a superior product to the client. The Post Processing problem is not history as new software can correct digital "on the fly" with newer printers. These printers are all digital regardless of the source of the information.

I plan to still shoot some Black and White for relaxation. The images I made forty years ago are still printable and the prints look like I shot them last week. My Grandmother made images 100 years ago that still are treasured. The Kodachrome she shot has real problems.
My Digital images have been moved twice now, first tape, then CD's and now DVD.

Just look at Hollywood, film is almost gone as the source for theatrical movies. The EPA will end film labs long before the market does.
An Old Guy loving to learn new tricks. Charles L. Mims
charleslmims