film vs digital
Larry Cooper
occasional slides to magazines with articles I write. A friend is
arguing I should get into the 21st century and go digital. Many markets
are accepting digital images and I have the equipment to do my personal
stuff digitally, but I am old and conservative. Film is what I know.
What is the future of film vs digital?
JCBuckster
I shoot a Kodak DCS520 (any others out there?) and I never thought that
digital would compare to film. I am wrong. Granted, a darkroom has magic that I
think will remain unique to it, but I really thing that digital will win this
race. The clarity and ease of digital just wins out over film in many areas. I
still love my film camera though and I will never get rid of it.
Jason Buck
JCBuc...@cs.com
Diana
I was a film only type a couple months ago. As far as I was concerned,
digital cameras "weren't there yet".
Then my mom loaned me a Nikon Coolpix 950 digital camera...
This camera is a LOT of fun to use and I get a lot of creative images with
it that I just wouldn't get with the 35mm.
For example, see
http://pages.prodigy.com/dianamorris/horsth2.jpg
(I'm so glad he didn't eat the camera!)
I photographed a concert festival last month using both a digital and 35mm
I keep wanting to call it my "analog camera" <G>) .
The digital images are on these pages:
http://pages.prodigy.com/powerlight/
http://pages.prodigy.com/powerlight/page2.htm
http://pages.prodigy.com/powerlight/page3.htm
The 35mm images are on these pages
http://pages.prodigy.com/powerlight/page5.htm
http://pages.prodigy.com/powerlight/page6.htm
http://pages.prodigy.com/powerlight/page7.htm
http://pages.prodigy.com/powerlight/page8.htm
Now these images were made for web use. Your milege may be different with
images intended for magazine use.
The digital camera I have is great at really close up photos, mug shots and
portraits, and scenes with good lighting. It is also far more portable.
I bring it to places that I wouldn't being the 35mm.
The analog...I mean 35mm camera does better than the digital if I need to
use the flash and longer zoom lens.
Hope this is helpful!
In Joy! Diana
Larry Cooper wrote in message <37DBFBDC...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
Carsten J. Arnholm(sr)
Larry Cooper wrote in message <37DBFBDC...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
>I need a new camera. I photograph mostly for personal use, but sell
>occasional slides to magazines with articles I write. A friend is
>arguing I should get into the 21st century and go digital. Many markets
>are accepting digital images and I have the equipment to do my personal
>stuff digitally, but I am old and conservative. Film is what I know.
>
>What is the future of film vs digital?
Good, as it is today, for point-and-shoot, and for the professional who can
afford wildly expensive equipment.
For the rest of us, film and a film scanner will be the best solution for the
foreseeable future.
Carsten J. Arnholm(sr)
Oslo, Norway. carn...@online.no
Greg Kamer
I think digital will soon lead in the personal world......
With the cost of digital cameras coming down, along with the prices of
printers capable of producing good quality images, more and more people are
going to opt for the digital approach. I mean consider......
Re-useable film in the form of the camera media card.... An 8 meg card can
hold the same as 8 rolls of film (give or take a few).
Ease of use.... Some of the lower end cameras take pretty darn good photos
without a lot of muss and fuss
Instant gratification..... Take the picture, plug your camera into the
computer, bang, there it is....... No drive to the local film developer. No
extra charge for 1 hour development.
Price..... As I said above, the cost of goods camera is coming down every
day..... The average person is not going to take the images and look at them
under the glass..... They are not going to be too concerned about minor
flaws in the image..... As long as it looks "good" And they know they are
not going to wind up paying for images that did'nt come out, or did'nt come
out as they expected..... If the image is no good, delete it or don't print
it......
Glossy photo quality paper is not all that expensive, when you compare it to
the cost of film developing and it's released expenses (driving to and back,
time spent, etc..........
The professional on the other hand is a whole other ball of wax.....
Professionals are professionals, because they expect and demand perfection.
And rightfully so......
If I'm laying out cash for a family photo taken by a pro, I don't want "good
enough" I want prefection...... There are still things a pro can do in the
dark room that us "average" folks can only marvel at.....
Larry Cooper <larry....@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:37DBFBDC...@sk.sympatico.ca...
Sam Wall
of bucks on a digital camera if one already has a good 35 with lenses. Just
soup only (for about $1.50 ) those negatives and scan them. Use your
editing software and enjoy. The printer argument is a meaningless issue
since a digital image from a scanner or from a camera both need to be
printed. Can a 8 meg card capture 8 rolls of 36 exposure high resolution
'35' ???
People can spend more on cards than their digital cameras cost. This is why
digital cameras worthless on vacations and expeditions. If you can not
immediately download those images, you a basically screwed.
Greg Kamer <gka...@agritel.net> wrote in message
news:7rhcik$mu4$1...@news.owt.com...
Alan Kerr
ahead of the DCS520 but too too expensive yet. As we know new technology
does come down in price eventually though. I also love the DCS520. You have
a great camera there.
Al Kerr
JCBuckster <jcbuc...@cs.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:19990912152652...@ng-fg1.news.cs.com...
Newron
The 620 and the 520 are great cameras and I agree with you both. But try
the 560 and 660 if you want to knock your socks off. They are so good I am
glad to have the chance to use them both. Wonderful products and the images
are fine.
Talk to you soon.
Ron Baird
Alan Kerr <AL....@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:7rhl3h$7rj9v$1...@titan.xtra.co.nz...
RJ
Larry Cooper <larry....@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> What is the future of film vs digital?
Larry,
I think for years to come there will be both digital and film at all levels,
from snapshots to technical.
In my opinion silver based has the following advantages 1. If you start with
silver (either negative or positive) you can go silver or digital, however if
you start with digital it is much harder to end up with a transparency or
negative. 2. Since the normal digicam in the prosumer field is some where in
the 2 mega pixel range and has an image size of aproximately 5/8 x 1/2" you
are starting with far less information available to make large images with
the same quality as 35mm film. You can get very good images but they will not
be of the same quality as silver based. 3. The storage and handling of
silver based images is easier than digital and the longevity of storage of to
days digital technology is not as great as silver. Also the cost of storage
of digital is no small item if you have a large image file. 4. Silver based
cameras have much more versatility, quality, and in my opinion ease of use.
In my opinion digital has the following advantages: 1. Immediacy of results.
View the image immediately so corrections can be made. 2. Low materials
cost over time even if you have to replace the digital film and you have the
advantage of no material lost if you only take one picture before you
"process" the film. 3. Easier to get good color balance under various
lighting conditions. 4. Easier to manipulate your images at a far lower cost
and much greater convenience than silver base.
Having said the above - I will continue to use both as the situation demands.
I have no doubt that some day digital will be dominate but I don't see it in
the near future.
Sincerely,
RJ
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Steve Willer
> People can spend more on cards than their digital cameras cost. This is why
> digital cameras worthless on vacations and expeditions. If you can not
> immediately download those images, you a basically screwed.
The high-end digitals are often Nikon and Canon 35mm bodies, so you can
reuse your lenses, perhaps your flash, your filters, etc.
As for the download requirement...yes, absolutely. If the camera
manufacturers were to make an affordable secondary-storage device,
that would be a *huge* step towards making digital cameras a
no-brainer. Microdrives and flash memory are great for plugging into the
camera, but they're very expensive. Take a laptop-type hard drive, add
a battery and a small LCD display to it, and you might get your laptop
storage (with 10GB, perhaps) without the high cost of a laptop. If it
were small enough, the thing could fit in your camera bag where the film
used to go.
Phil Askey
>You think the 520 is good, you should check out the DCS620. Its lightyears
>ahead of the DCS520 but too too expensive yet. As we know new technology
>does come down in price eventually though. I also love the DCS520. You have
Hardly light years, it's the same engine, same software same CCD..
I've reviewed and used both.
--
Phil Askey <ph...@askey.NoSPAM.net>
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://photo.askey.net/
Digital cameras, news, reviews, photography tips, forums,
70+ camera comparison database, latest camera reviews.
(remove NoSPAM to email)
Larry Cooper
Thank you, RJ, that is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping to
get.
Poster
> silver based images is easier than digital and the longevity of >storage of to
> days digital technology is not as great as silver. Also the cost of >storage
> of digital is no small item if you have a large image file.
??? You can store 100 5MB digital stills on a CD-RW for ~80 years for
a dollar, with no loss of quality.
Benjamin A Maclaren
>Professionals are professionals, because they expect and demand
>perfection. And rightfully so......
It is not just professionals. It is people who want QUALITY photos.
If you want quality I would suggest considering a negative scanner.
One simple measure is pixel count. I use a medium format camera and
routinely make enlargements to 11x14 or 16x20, so perhaps I am a bit
pickier than many digital enthusiasts who talk about digital replacing
film in five years (which without a LOT of qualifications is rubbish.
Maybe in ten most photographers will be using digital, but given how the
cost of digital cameras is dropping and quality rising, why not wait
another cycle or two, and get familiar with something like photoshop in
the meantime. A good negative scanner for 35mm can be had for a couple
hundred bucks, and it lets you scan all your existing negatives too.
Even with a reasonal flatbed scanner for medium format I can get
2.4 x 1200 = 2800 wide
1.8 x 1200 = 2100 high
gives about 5.8 million REAL pixels.
I believe 35mm negative scanners provide denser scanning, so the results
are comparable.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2 mega pixel cameras only
provide 600k REAL pixels, so for real enlargements, going with a
negative scanner will cost a lot less up front. Spend a bit more money
on film development (just get negatives developed for only a couple
bucks a roll), and get a 4 megapixel digital camera in a year or so for
half what 2 mp cameras go for now.
This is true about "2 megapixel cameras" only being 600k of real pixels,
right? The results on a good printer are impressive, but only at 8x10...
Carsten J. Arnholm(sr)
Benjamin A Maclaren wrote in message <4rrGiY200...@andrew.cmu.edu>...
>>The professional on the other hand is a whole other ball of wax.....
>>Professionals are professionals, because they expect and demand
>>perfection. And rightfully so......
>
>It is not just professionals. It is people who want QUALITY photos.
>If you want quality I would suggest considering a negative scanner.
>
>One simple measure is pixel count. I use a medium format camera and
>routinely make enlargements to 11x14 or 16x20, so perhaps I am a bit
>pickier than many digital enthusiasts who talk about digital replacing
>film in five years (which without a LOT of qualifications is rubbish.
>Maybe in ten most photographers will be using digital, but given how the
>cost of digital cameras is dropping and quality rising, why not wait
>another cycle or two, and get familiar with something like photoshop in
>the meantime. A good negative scanner for 35mm can be had for a couple
>hundred bucks, and it lets you scan all your existing negatives too.
>
>Even with a reasonal flatbed scanner for medium format I can get
>2.4 x 1200 = 2800 wide
>1.8 x 1200 = 2100 high
>gives about 5.8 million REAL pixels.
>I believe 35mm negative scanners provide denser scanning, so the results
>are comparable.
The 35mm film scanners I know about scan at 2400 ppi, 2700/2800 and, of
course, the Polaroid SS4000 (a heavy investment thoug). That is 2400 etc.
actual samplings per inch, what some manufacturers call "optical resolution"
(no software upsampling).
2400 ppi equals 2400 x 3600, or about 8.5 mill. pixels
2800 ppi equals 2800 x 3600, or about 11.5 mill. pixels
4000 ppi equals 4000 x 6000, or about 24 mill. pixels
Since the actual image is <1" x <1.5", actual pixel counts are
correspondingly lower.
It looks to me as about 5.8 pixels from a medium format is way too low to
justify the cost etc. of using such equipment.
Janusz
routinely make enlargements to 11x14 or 16x20, so perhaps I am a bit
pickier than many digital enthusiasts who talk about digital replacing
film in five years (which without a LOT of qualifications is rubbish.<<<<
I think 5 years to replace 35mm film is quite possible. It does not mean
that nobody will use 35mm film but that majority pictures taken will be
digital. Personally for me digital will replace film next year and I am not
talking about family snapshots but wedding work. For medium format users it
will take a little more than 5 years. Your simple measure of quality is just
too simple. Not everybody is using Velvia some use 800 speed film pushed to
1600 and achive quality results for the kind of photography they do.
Regards,
Janusz Blicharski
David Hulse
storing on CD's will be the way to go for a few more years. The digital
camera is still very primitive and overpriced. Hell, their storage cards
are extremely expensive and backwards from a technical sense. Who can
afford to take a trip and store 360 high res. images ? Just 10 rolls of
"35" will do it easily. Don't be a sucker, wait for the digital camera
technology to mature.
Theo Lumens (Holland) <lume...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:01befe1e$9e2a5140$LocalHost@default...
> Hi,
>
> Can愒 help reacting on this reply....
>
> > I think for years to come there will be both digital and film at all
> levels,
> > from snapshots to technical.
>
> Sorry but that is not very likely. As the number of digital cameras in use
> grows (and it does fast), most users will loose interest in the filmbased
> camera. Only a minority will use both techniques on an equal basis and
even
> fewer people will opt for filmscanning instead of using a digital camera.
>
> No one can predict the future (me neither), but I regard it to be very
> unlikely that digital won愒 succeed in the coming years (and not to many
at
> that) to overtake film in number of users. This will mean less use of
film,
> making costs of film, development and printing from film higher and higher
> over the years. That will make film even more unattractive at that point
> and the decay will go faster and faster.
>
> > In my opinion silver based has the following advantages
>
> 1. If you start with
> > silver (either negative or positive) you can go silver or digital,
> however if
> > you start with digital it is much harder to end up with a transparency
or
> > negative.
>
> Going from film to digital means scanning the film. Such a scanner is not
> cheap, not fast and not easy to use while the resulting digital file is
> often poluted by scanned dust. This means high resolution but not so great
> quality.
>
> As for digital to negative: I don愒 need it.
>
> 2. Since the normal digicam in the prosumer field is some where in
> > the 2 mega pixel range and has an image size of aproximately 5/8 x 1/2"
> you
> > are starting with far less information available to make large images
> with
> > the same quality as 35mm film. You can get very good images but they
will
> not
> > be of the same quality as silver based.
>
> True and false!
> True, if you are able to make the most of your negative, as many prof.
> photographers will be able to.
> False, if you are just a hobby photographer and want relatively small
> prints and digital pictures for your pc-screen and on the internet.
> The quality of 4x6 or even bigger prints (max A4) I get from photolabs
does
> not make it anymore compared to my home made prints.
>
> 3. The storage and handling of
> > silver based images is easier than digital and the longevity of storage
> of to
> > days digital technology is not as great as silver. Also the cost of
> storage
> > of digital is no small item if you have a large image file.
>
> Now you are pulling my leg, right?
> I have many negatives in their original envelopes and finding a specific
> negative is something I never hope to be doing. What a nightmare!
>
> Now, my 5000+ digital pictures, thats different, they only occupy a
> handfull of CD愀.
>
> 4. Silver based
> > cameras have much more versatility, quality, and in my opinion ease of
> use.
>
> My 35mm compact zoom camera is not more versitile than my Agfa 1680, not
> even close. Quality, see above. Ease of use? In what way. I make ten times
> or more pictures now then I did with film. Would I do so if it were more
> difficult?
>
>
> >
> > In my opinion digital has the following advantages:
>
> 1. Immediacy of results.
> > View the image immediately so corrections can be made.
>
> True, although I don愒 do many corrections in the pictures anymore. I get
> better at taking pictures properly right away, hardly need to crop
anymore.
> Technically, the pictures taken with my digital camera are of good colour
> etc. and make great prints without having to correct them all the time.
>
> 2. Low materials
> > cost over time even if you have to replace the digital film and you have
> the
> > advantage of no material lost if you only take one picture before you
> > "process" the film.
>
> This I know for a fact, although the entry costs are still higher then
with
> film.
>
> 3. Easier to get good color balance under various
> > lighting conditions.
>
> 4. Easier to manipulate your images at a far lower cost
> > and much greater convenience than silver base.
>
> Having said that (3&4), how come a film camera is more versatile to you?
>
> > Having said the above - I will continue to use both as the situation
> demands.
> > I have no doubt that some day digital will be dominate but I don't see
> it in
> > the near future.
>
> Again, as digital will grow in popularity, film will decrease in
popularity
> making it more and more expensive in use. Eventually (as far as I think,
> within ten years) film won愒 be worth the bother and will become obsolete.
> Do you really think people will be using film in lets say 25 years from
> now??? Sorry, I惴 convinced that is not going to happen.
>
> Regards,
> Theo Lumens
Joe Doupnik
> This is true about "2 megapixel cameras" only being 600k of real pixels,
> right? The results on a good printer are impressive, but only at 8x10...
Not really. We recall that the eye is very sensitive to intensity
and less so to color. The current digital cameras retain intensity info
for each CCD sensor and adjust the color by comparison with adjacent sensor
elements (thus reducing resolution for color but retaining resolution of
intensity variations). Thus we may generously state "it all depends."
Then we look at scanners and discover they are really digital
cameras, but only one slice wide. They have three colored sensors which
need combination to form a resultant pixel, and that means either picking
adjacent parts of a scene or moving the scene to be over the right sensor.
We can guess which technique is probably performed (the former, cheaper).
Joe D.
Andie
> >The storage and handling of
> > silver based images is easier than digital and the longevity of >storage of to
> > days digital technology is not as great as silver. Also the cost of >storage
> > of digital is no small item if you have a large image file.
>
> ??? You can store 100 5MB digital stills on a CD-RW for ~80 years for
> a dollar, with no loss of quality.
I'm afraid 5MB stills don't compare well to film. You'd need at least 70MB per still
to approach film quality at the periphery. Still there is loss of quality, though
not really that obvious.
CPU Doug
Corel PhotoPaint 8 as the source application for printing).
Doug Knoerr
PC/Windows Consulting
New London, WI. USA
To reply in newsgroups, remove ".riptide" from e-mail address.
Theo Lumens (Holland) wrote in message
<01befd64$60d9dc80$54e9f1c3@default>...
>Hi Larry,
>
>My opinion is this:
>
snip
>
>To give you an idea I just posted a picture of a Dutch windmill (I took it
>last January) onto my dutch website. I made it with my Agfa 1680 and it´s
>´only´ 1280x960 pixels, but still pushing 900K, so if you want to have a
>look at it, prepare for some downloadtime:
>
>callisto.worldonline.nl/~lumenstf/alkmaarmolen.jpg
>
snip
CPU Doug
As for the future of film and digital, both will be around for a long time.
As technical "junkies", we are a tip of the iceberg right now. Yet the world
is filled with far more people who don't want to bother with digitally
processing their photos on their computers and then printing them out to
share with friends and others. And that is still the joy of photography --
sharing our photos with people we know. Since the number of households
without computers still far out-numbers the households with computers,
printed photos are still how most people share photos. And there are
millions of people who just want to hand their film over to someone else,
and then pick up their finished prints when they've finished their shopping.
Digital, in my opinion, has a lot to offer anyone who wants to take complete
control of their photography. Shots that aren't quite perfect (for sale, or
for your own satisfaction) can be corrected more easily and with less
consumable expenses in the "computer darkroom", than in a chemical darkroom.
Similar reasoning made 35mm black and white photography very popular back in
the 1960's and 1970's. The home photographer had more control over what
his/her finished prints looked like. As the pace of the world increased in
the 1980's and 1990's home processing decreased due to a lack of time.
Still, the photo techies went out of their way to get as much control over
the finished prints as possible.
For your situation, as you have briefly described it, I would recommend a
film camera *and a film scanner*. Work on the photo on a computer and save
it to a lossless file format accepted by the magazines, or send the file to
a service bureau that can create a slide out of it for you. You are very
familiar with film. Unless you really want to steepen your immediate
learning curve, stick with taking the photos with film for now. Maybe you'll
make the change to digital cameras in a few years, and maybe you won't. But
I wouldn't change everything about the process all at once. For most people,
change isn't easy. Take it in steps.
Many people on this news group will say that the learning curve isn't steep
at all. The basics are easy. The fine details take more time to learn. And
we all learn at different speeds. Sort of like film, some of us are ISO(1)
400, or ISO 800, and others are ISO 100 and ISO 60.
(1. Immediately Successful / Obi-men) Yes, I had to search for a word
using the letter "O". I found it in Roget's Thesaurus - Copyright 1994.
Obi-man = sorcerer, magi, druid, charmer, ....etc. I think it fits this
newsgroup nicely!
Good luck Larry!
Doug Knoerr
PC/Windows Consulting
New London, WI. USA
To reply in newsgroups, remove ".riptide" from e-mail address.
Larry Cooper wrote in message <37DBFBDC...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
>I need a new camera. I photograph mostly for personal use, but sell
>occasional slides to magazines with articles I write. A friend is
>arguing I should get into the 21st century and go digital. Many markets
>are accepting digital images and I have the equipment to do my personal
>stuff digitally, but I am old and conservative. Film is what I know.
>
David Redwine
photography market. The current 2M CCD's have the ability to make
prints of the same quality as drugstore processing of photos from a
$200-300 35mm P&S. Once the economy of digital gets to be common
knowledge people will be willing to spend the extra few hundred
dollars for a digital.
The film "crash" will come quite suddely in todays mass market
society. Once retailers see the swing begin they will shift shelf
space to digital products and 35mm will lose first shelf space, then
market share. The 35mm P&S will be the first victim since it offers
no real advantage over a good digital. The SLR will hold on for a
long time but it will be relegated to speciality shops within 10
years. Look around you. Popular products dominate the modern market
(PC vs. Mac, VHS vs. Beta,...). Now that digital can deliver enough
quality it will become popular. You professionals will suffer
because the equipment and film you need will lose market share and
become even more expensive. You make up only a small fraction of the
market. Your film is only afordable today because it can also be
used in all those 35mm P&S cameras.
Oddly the film survivor 10 years out is most likely to be medium
format 120 and 220. The images these cameras can record are beyond
the needs of the average family photographer so there will not be
the economy of scale to allow digital to attack that portion of the
film market... until later.
David Redwine
Oly 620L, DC-50 and DC20 photos at:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=11576
Benjamin A Maclaren wrote in message
<4rrGiY200...@andrew.cmu.edu>...
>>The professional on the other hand is a whole other ball of
wax.....
>>Professionals are professionals, because they expect and demand
>>perfection. And rightfully so......
>
>It is not just professionals. It is people who want QUALITY
photos.
>If you want quality I would suggest considering a negative scanner.
>
>One simple measure is pixel count. I use a medium format camera
and
>routinely make enlargements to 11x14 or 16x20, so perhaps I am a
bit
>pickier than many digital enthusiasts who talk about digital
replacing
>film in five years (which without a LOT of qualifications is
rubbish.
>Maybe in ten most photographers will be using digital, but given
how the
>cost of digital cameras is dropping and quality rising, why not
wait
>another cycle or two, and get familiar with something like
photoshop in
>the meantime. A good negative scanner for 35mm can be had for a
couple
>hundred bucks, and it lets you scan all your existing negatives
too.
>
>Even with a reasonal flatbed scanner for medium format I can get
>2.4 x 1200 = 2800 wide
>1.8 x 1200 = 2100 high
>gives about 5.8 million REAL pixels.
>I believe 35mm negative scanners provide denser scanning, so the
results
>are comparable.
>
>Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2 mega pixel cameras only
>provide 600k REAL pixels, so for real enlargements, going with a
>negative scanner will cost a lot less up front. Spend a bit more
money
>on film development (just get negatives developed for only a couple
>bucks a roll), and get a 4 megapixel digital camera in a year or so
for
>half what 2 mp cameras go for now.
>
Roland Karlsson
I am 100% sure that film based still photography is doomed. The latest
2M pixel cameras shows that in practice it is possible to outperform
ordinary point and shot cameras. Personally I thought that 6M pixels
was needed - I was wrong! Sure - the price of the camera and the
smartcards and the computer and the printer etc is a very high initial
cost. But - the prices will probably drop dramatically in say the next
two years. And most people will then use the digital camera like they
do today with ordinary cameras. The don't need any computers or
printers. They just go to a photo dealer to get their pictures
printed. And maybe they even don't even own any smartcards - it might
be part of the photo dealers income to lend them to you - regardless
of if they are expensive or not.
For large format photography I also think that film is doomed. It was
earlier my opinion that a massive amount (like 1G) of pixels was
needed to replace a medium format or large format negative. But
... this is not necessarily so. There are two main reasons for
choosing a large format - the increase in sharpness and the decrease
in relative grain size. Now, digital media has no grain - I have seen
beautiful clouds taken with digital cameras with just 2M pixels - you
will need a very grainless film to take those photos with a 35 mm
camera. The same goes for large format cameras - maybe 10M or 20M
pixels can replace almost any professional photography. And 10M pixel,
thats just around the corner.
For portraits, I foresee that the film based media is doomed right
now. Being able to see the result immediately is very important when
photographing people. And I also foresee a new option - the special
portrait camera that takes a 10 second film and then chooses the best
frame out of say 100 frames. This will really make portrait
photography easier. This camera can also be used by press and sport
photographers. Many "picture of the year" photographs will be easy as
pie with such a camera.
So - might the sharpness of large format pictures stop the total
digital takeover. Hmmm ... maybe ... but not necessary. Due to the
fact that digital pictures are grainless, it is MUCH easier to
manipulate them. There are methods (eg fractal methods) for enlarging
a picture say 2-8 times without losing any sharpness. OK - you don't
add any more details to the pictures, but you can make huge prints
that looks sharp. And thats what professional photographers wants.
I don't think that scanning film based photos is a serious option in
the long run. To accurately scan the film, you need a very high
resolution. Otherwise you will lose the grains in the film. And it is
the structure of the grains that gives an impression of sharpness in
silver photography - I have spent lots of hours in the darkroom
focusing on grains (;-). The grains in the picture will also make most
digital image manipulations impossible. It looks awful when you
increase the contrast in a grainy sky. The blue sky is smooth and not
grainy.
And don't forget dust! That @@$#%$@#%%^ thing that can make silver
printing a hell. This is the single most important issue that made me
stop making photographs! And also the labour needed to make even small
manipulations. There are tons of books describing in principle
fascinating but in practice tedious methods for making pictures
better. With digital manipulation this changes dramatically - you can
do almost anything - easy! Only your imaginaton (and knowledge of what
can be done with your tools) is the limit!
Roland
JCD
I would like you to compare your albuns quality:
>http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=11576
(Digital)
with mine:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=62313&a=553486
(Sensia+ Minolta Scan Dual)
Even Web sized, differences in quality (colour saturation and sharpness) are
visible.
I believe Digital will make it, but not today.
JCD
Curt Bousquet
known in <o41zc1ri...@erix.ericsson.se>:
>
>I am 100% sure that film based still photography is doomed....
<Rest of article sniped>
Thanks Roland, nice article.
As little as a few months ago, I would have disagreed with you,
but now I think you are right on.
I thought that the 'pro' market would keep chemicals and film
going forever, but I am reading more and more articles that are
changing my mind. One trend I have been watching is in the
motion picture industry. Who would have thought, just a few
years ago, that 'digital' cameras would be accepted as a valid
tool for shooting a feature length movie? But now, more and more
of the independant film are shot directly to digital, then
edited electronically. And once digital gains acceptance in that
industry, it will help open the door even more in the still
photography field.
In a few years, they won't even have to transfer the final
product to a 'print' for the theatres. There are now a few
theatres that use a small IC that look like an array of mirrors
to 'project' the digital film with the clarity and brightness of
an 'old fashioned' projector. George Lucas has said that he
would like to release the next episode of the Star Wars trilogy2
in this format.
I did some work with Kodak several years ago that involved lots
of meetings with their techs (and some management). I was amazed
even then, around '92-'93, how much their general attitude was
"We know film is essentially on its last legs, how can we use
these last years of income from the film market to position
ourselves for the digital market to come"?
I think there are only 3 things to consider when asking how much
longer chemical process photography has left on this world.
1) The economics of the digital camera and printing. (can John
Doe afford it?)
2) Can the digital method offer ALL the resolution and
processing quality and options that are now covered by film
3) Acceptance by the professionals (Especially the ones who have
been playing in the soup all their lives and will never
surrender).
I have 4 film camera bodies, but have not touched any of them
since I got the CP950. As soon as I can afford a digital Nikon
that accepts my collection of Nikor lenses, I'll sell them all
and never look back.
(Are you reading this Nikon? Want to send me a next generation
camera for testing? Please???).
--
Curt Bousquet
NN...@scanline.spam
replace obvious with .com in above for email
Terry Dawson
news:o41zc1ri...@erix.ericsson.se...
>
> I am 100% sure that film based still photography is doomed. The latest
Good thoughts, Roland.
Before they flame you too much, film fans should keep in mind the fate of
mainframe die-hards who shunned the newer technology and lashed themselves
to the sinking ships (politely called legacy systems). Entirely new
paradigms in computing developed while the big boys were sleeping and
calling PCs toys. The Internet is the most notable of these shifts. Then
the day came when Bill Gates publicly broke off an alliance with IBM and
humiliated them.
I'll never forget the words of this management training film I was exposed
to, "When the paradigm shifts, everyone starts at zero." Does anyone give a
skwatt now if a watch has a "Swiss movement" in it? The younger crowd never
even heard the term. We're talking some really fine mechanics here. The
Swiss watchmakers didn't change -- but the world did.
Anyway, I put together this little chart of pros and cons of going digital a
couple of weeks ago. My attempt at objectivity might be of interest in this
thread:
http://www.infinet.com/~tdawson/words/digital_pro_con.htm
--
One Zen Zeros - A Digital Photography Resource
http://www.infinet.com/~tdawson/index.html
Ed Hamrick
> Roland Karlsson <rol...@cslab.ericsson.se> wrote:
> >
> >I am 100% sure that film based still photography is doomed....
>
..
> As little as a few months ago, I would have disagreed with you,
> but now I think you are right on.
I agree with both of you - the film based image _capture_
market is going to disappear in the next 15 years. It takes
a while for a transition like this to happen - take a look
at the old film formats you can still buy at a normal
store - but it will happen.
6 MPixel digital cameras for under $100 in the next 5 years
are inevitable, and this is more than good enough for 99%
of the market that uses film for image capture today.
The thing that won't disappear is the silver-based printing
of images. People like their pictures on paper, and this
will take longer than 50 years (or longer) to change. The
best photofinishers are already adding digital options to
their film labs to take digital images and print them, and
I suspect that within a year or two this will be widespread.
I doubt that home printers will ever be more economical
than a shared resource like a photo lab. The corner photo
shop will be around for a long time - the ones that
survive will be printing film from digital media that their
customers bring in.
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
FHart32003
>visible.
>
>I believe Digital will make it, but not today.
I have checked both albums and I do not see any important differences in
qualiy. It would appear you like high saturation but this can be a function of
the software settings--the other pictures could easily have the saturation
increased if that was felt to be necessary and as for sharpness, well as web
photos both albums appear reasonably sharp
Digital is here now--it's good enough for most cases right now and will only
get better.
Remember one thing--35mm photography has already reached it's limits--it has
nowhere to go except for gadgetry.
Rhett Livingston
> mainframe die-hards who shunned the newer technology and lashed themselves
> to the sinking ships (politely called legacy systems). Entirely new
> paradigms in computing developed while the big boys were sleeping and
> calling PCs toys. The Internet is the most notable of these shifts. Then
> the day came when Bill Gates publicly broke off an alliance with IBM and
> humiliated them.
Don't look now, but the latest announcements from Sun and IBM indicate that
the mainframe is back and in force. They've managed to disguise it as
Internet served applications with hooks like "no more installations". The
idea appears to be to offer the services for free until everyone switches to
dumb terminals and can no longer run their own programs.
VT
Thank you for that input.
Why does it have to be either or?
One can see that mainframes have their place - there are very many
good reasons when a business may need a central processing point or
repository. There are times when network of many smaller processors
will do, or are actually more appropriate.
Yes, digital photography is advancing in leaps and bounds - hooray for
us consumers. But as posts elsewhere indicate - there are areas where
we still have a long way to go.
I have yet to see any results from digital that can match photos such
as the ones from Ansel Adams, Minor White, David Muench and Eliot
Porter just as a few examples.
Using the computer analogy: Look at how computers have eventually
started to become affordable and therefore acceptable - it was an
increase in both performance/technology and decrease in price - ie:
the price/performance ratio has only just recently started to become
acceptable to the general public (not just to us relatively well
heeled elites)
But how many years has it been since people had been predicting a
computer in *every* home? -
- and digital cameras have only just become "adequate" and they are
still *way* too expensive for the average consumer........
Of course digital will start to replace the lower (less demanding) end
of the market - the point and shoots and disposables? - sure when is
digital going to cost like a disposable and get prints as good as some
disposables? (note sometimes the crappy prints are due to the
"photographer", and not the film or cheapo disposable camera) -
......but what an ambition - to be as good as a 35mm film disposable
camera
- and how much did your gee-wiz super mega pixel digitsal camera cost
you? :-)
--
Vincent
vtVi...@Prodigy.Net
Alan Shutko
> Before they flame you too much, film fans should keep in mind the fate of
> mainframe die-hards who shunned the newer technology and lashed themselves
> to the sinking ships (politely called legacy systems).
Also keep in mind the currently thriving mainframe business.
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - In a variety of flavors!
I will not forget you.
ski...@my-deja.com
> > >I am 100% sure that film based still photography is doomed....
> >
> ..
> > As little as a few months ago, I would have disagreed with you,
> > but now I think you are right on.
>
> I agree with both of you - the film based image _capture_
> market is going to disappear in the next 15 years.
As a newbie to digicams, my biggest dissappointment is with the lack of
dynamic range of the CCD when compared to the range available with 35mm
negatives.
Is this a fundamental limitation of CCD? Perhaps this will be solved by
some future technology, but I've not seen much discussion nor complaint
about this.
I wonder if the reviewers of digicams could quantify this
characteristic in order to make comparisons and to encourage
improvement on the part of digicam manufacturers.
--Skyler
greg szekeres
>
>Larry Cooper wrote in message <37DBFBDC...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
>>I need a new camera. I photograph mostly for personal use, but sell
>>occasional slides to magazines with articles I write. A friend is
>>arguing I should get into the 21st century and go digital. Many markets
>>are accepting digital images and I have the equipment to do my personal
>>stuff digitally, but I am old and conservative. Film is what I know.
>>
>>What is the future of film vs digital?
>
>afford wildly expensive equipment.
>
>For the rest of us, film and a film scanner will be the best solution for the
>foreseeable future.
Well, I guess everything will take off when the average person can
buy a camera for less than $100 that will offer everything a film camera will.
Maybe not zoom, and certainly no viewer.
By, the way, I need one.
greg
Alan Shutko
> 6 MPixel digital cameras for under $100 in the next 5 years
> are inevitable, and this is more than good enough for 99%
> of the market that uses film for image capture today.
I also think that reasonably priced digital SLR systems will
eventually come about. If that happens, I won't mind too much... I'll
(presumably) still be able to use all my lenses, etc.
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - In a variety of flavors!
I never met a piece of chocolate I didn't like.
Chuck Ross
fhart...@aol.com (FHart32003) wrote:
I'd think twice before I was that sure about it. There are always new
ways to shoot pictures, with digital or film.
For some truly amazing digital photography done with a Nikon 900,
look here: http://www.robertmcclintock.com/indexTOC.html
So help me, I have no idea how he does it... Robert also has some stunning
film photography on display.
--
http://www.enteract.com/~ckross/
Digital and Film-Based Photography
remove "MYPANTS" to reply
Lars Finnström
Interesting article Roland!
I'm working with large format photography on 4x5" transparency film. What
are my alternatives if I want the same resolution in digital? I use an Arca
Swiss 4x5" camera with swing, tilt and shift etc. and 4 Rodenstock lenses -
in other words I need to be able to make these large format adjustments to
get geometry, focus plane etc right. Are there digital alternatives for this
today Roland?
Lars
PS. 4x5" cameras are very HEAVY.
Roland Karlsson wrote ...
>
>I am 100% sure that film based still photography is doomed. The latest
Roland Karlsson
vtVi...@prodigy.net (VT) writes:
> I have yet to see any results from digital that can match photos such
> as the ones from Ansel Adams, Minor White, David Muench and Eliot
> Porter just as a few examples.
You have a point there.
Very high resolution artistic prints still need silver prints. There
is no way you can match that kind of resolution now.
Hmmm, you have to separate different aspects
(1) making a (techincally) good original (negative whatever)
(2) making a (technically) good print
(3) making a good picture
To make photos like e.g. Ansel Adams, you must master all 3 of them.
At least Adams and White used large format cameras and many of their
pictures were contact prints. Their work was just wonderful - I have a
reproduction of Adam's "Mount Clarence King, ... 1925" on the wall
right beside me. Of course, digital photography has a long way to go
before it can be used to make (1) and (2). Number (3) is (as always)
entirely up to the photgrapher.
There are two reasons why (1) is not here today - we need more pixels
and we need bigger CCDs. I do not think you can make lenses that have
enough resolution if you dont have large format CCDs. I dont know what
size is needed. Today we have 10-15mm CCDs. I am quite shure that 35mm
CCDs are not enough. Maybe it is enough with 50mm or 100mm
CCDs. Adams used large format negatives for his earlier work - I think
at least 400mm large - so he could make contact prints. I dont think
that is neccessary though. And how many pixels are needed? - oh I
don't know. My earlier estimates have been proven wrong. I thought
that 2M pixel photographs was a toy size only - only useful for snap
shots. But ... photos from the best 2M pixel cameras look really good.
I guessed 1G pixels earlier, but ...
Number (2) is one of my favourites. I mean ... look at old Woodbury
prints. WOW ... what quality. Also old carbon prints etc, often made
on artist's paper. Those processes were far superior than today's
silver prints. And have you seen good oil transfers - yummy yummy!
Even some of the old silver papers were superior. A smoothness of tone
scale you cannot get today. But of course - all those processes were
slow and tedious - so they have disapeared.
The color prints I get from my local photo dealer looks like crap. The
photos I have seen from the 2M pixel cameras out there are MUCH
better. Even the PhotoCD scans I have seen was not very
impressive. The only way I can get better pictures without a digital
camera is to process my pictures myself. This is tedious and expensive
and there is always that #$^%#^%$^% dust! I have a good color
enlarger, and it is NOT less expensive than a digital camera!
Roland
Benjamin A Maclaren
>> routinely make enlargements to 11x14 or 16x20, so perhaps I am a bit
>> pickier than many digital enthusiasts who talk about digital replacing
>> film in five years (which without a LOT of qualifications is rubbish.
>Hardly rubbish. Better save these NG messages (like I do) and have another
>look at them in 2 or 3 years from now. I4m convinced you will be the one
>blushing then, not me.
Digital will REPLACE film in 5 years? With no qualifications?
Give me a break. These discussions are held every month.
Try adding some qualifications:
What do you mean by replace? Dominate?
For you
For people who don't want large quality enlargements
For people who don't care about subtle tonal qualities in their pix.
...
I won't be blushing. Forgive me, but you're the one going out on a limb.
Digital will dominate the market, sure.
Predicting digital will REPLACE film in 10 years is less absurd.
It may actually come close to being true. It would be nice.
I am not afraid of this happening, but I won't declare it to
be true until it actually IS true.
Digital photography is wonderful. Computers are wonderful.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves...
Diego
un-cameralike. It seems that the best way to ease the transition from film
to digital would be to make digital cameras as similar to film cameras as
possible. I will be waiting for cheaper prices, better resolution and more
image control at the camera before taking the plunge.
I personally don't think that film for artistic or professional use is going
anywhere within the next 20-30 years, but as a consumer snap-shot medium, it
will disappear fairly quicky if digital camera manufacturers solve the
problems that you discuss.
A good example of the future of film is Polaroid, a company and photo
process that I am a fan of. Polaroid instant film was very popular in the
1960's and 1970's ( I believe that some models of Polaroid cameras sold in
the multi-millions), but its popularity has waned significantly as a
consumer item as P&S cameras became cheaper and better and 1-hour processing
became cheap and widely available. However, Polaroid film is still around
and will be for a long time, because in certain situations it is the best
thing for the job. Heck, a company in Ireland still makes flashbulbs
because there are certain tasks (such as high-speed photography) where flash
bulbs are the only thing that will do the job.
BTW, I believe that the ultimate point of photography is to capture light,
and the method used to do so matters less than the end product.
Terry Dawson <tda...@infinet.com> wrote in message
news:LdqD3.1883$34.2...@news.oh.voyager.net...
> Roland Karlsson <rol...@cslab.ericsson.se> wrote in message
> news:o41zc1ri...@erix.ericsson.se...
> >
> > I am 100% sure that film based still photography is doomed. The latest
>
> Good thoughts, Roland.
>
> Before they flame you too much, film fans should keep in mind the fate of
> mainframe die-hards who shunned the newer technology and lashed themselves
> to the sinking ships (politely called legacy systems). Entirely new
> paradigms in computing developed while the big boys were sleeping and
> calling PCs toys. The Internet is the most notable of these shifts. Then
> the day came when Bill Gates publicly broke off an alliance with IBM and
> humiliated them.
>
Jeff Isaacs
> dynamic range of the CCD when compared to the range available with 35mm
> negatives.
>
> Is this a fundamental limitation of CCD? Perhaps this will be solved by
> some future technology, but I've not seen much discussion nor complaint
> about this.
It's not really a fundamental limitation of CCD technology. Higher-end
digital backs commonly have a dynamic range of 10-12 f/stops, which
generally exceeds that of film.
- Jeff Isaacs
Sinar Bron Imaging
Dave Martindale
>Digital photography is wonderful. Computers are wonderful.
>But let's not get ahead of ourselves...
I do not understand why some people seem so determined to assert that
digital has "beaten" film in some form or another. Sure, if you happen
to sell digital photography equipment, you'd like to convince people
to buy your wares now, even though you know that they will be obsolete
in a year or so.
But as photographers, we should be happy about all these choices.
It's good that we can choose either digital or film cameras, with
different resolutions in both cases, to capture the image in the
first place. We can choose to convert from one medium to the
other part-way through the process if we like. We can use editors
like Photoshop regardless of how the image was captured. We can
project images electronically, or make slides or prints. All of
these choices are *good* for us right now.
We are *all* better off as digital cameras and printers become
better - because there are more choices, and some choices become
cheaper. But we are *worse* off if the existing film processes
vanish. Why would any photographer want less choice, unless they
are more concerned with "my camera is better than your camera"
arguments than they are with producing images?
Dave
krey1
The only digital back (that I've heard of ) which will give you *true* LF
quality is made by Phase One. I don't know if it will work on your camera,
however, and I suspect that it is very, very, expensive, not to mention that
it would require a titanic computer up-grade just to be able to open and
save the files, much less work on them. My guess is that you'd need at
least 1.5 gigs of RAM for starters.
It (a digital back) will not solve your weight issue, however!
Regards,
Kirk Reynolds
Benjamin A Maclaren
>> 6 MPixel digital cameras for under $100 in the next 5 years
>> are inevitable, and this is more than good enough for 99%
>> of the market that uses film for image capture today.
>I also think that reasonably priced digital SLR systems will
>eventually come about. If that happens, I won't mind too much... I'll
>(presumably) still be able to use all my lenses, etc.
I don't know, but I wouldn't hold my breath on this one. It is one
thing for the functionality to double every year (or whatever), but the
price is not going to halve every year. At some point (probably around
a couple hundred bucks) the price should level off.
Will PCs ever be $100 (well, in the next ten years)? How much cheaper
have computer monitors become in the last ten years? They are the main
cost of a PC today, not the CPU. I am not counting the give-away deals
because I don't see them applying to digital cameras.
Right now the design and the CCDs are the main cost (my guess) in
digital cameras. Soon this will go the way of PCs, where the
glass/distribution/etc will serve to limit further drops in prices just
like with PCs.
No?
John Coggins
right?
Alan Shutko
> >I also think that reasonably priced digital SLR systems will
> >eventually come about. If that happens, I won't mind too much... I'll
> >(presumably) still be able to use all my lenses, etc.
>
> I don't know, but I wouldn't hold my breath on this one. It is one
> thing for the functionality to double every year (or whatever), but the
> price is not going to halve every year. At some point (probably around
> a couple hundred bucks) the price should level off.
Sure. And a "reasonably priced" SLR body, to me, would be under a
thousand. I'm sure that'll come to pass before film goes away,
because if it doesn't, there will be lots of people with film SLRs
buying film.
Basically, I feel that if they'll have reasonably priced consumer
cameras (for the average consumer camera price point), it'll be easy
to do reasonably priced SLRs, because so much of the work on the body
is already done.
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - In a variety of flavors!
In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. -- Kathy Norris
Michael Greer
Sam Wall wrote:
> TPeople can spend more on cards than their digital cameras cost. This is why
> digital cameras worthless on vacations and expeditions. If you can not
> immediately download those images, you a basically screwed.
This is not an accurate assessment. Let's examine the costs. My 8MB card will
hold roughly 24 from my Canon Powershot Pro70 (average 330KB per 1024x1536 pixel
image). 48MB compact flash cards cost about $100. Therefore, they'll store about
144 images. That's 6 rolls of 24 exp film or 4 rolls of 36 exp. film. That's
between $20-$40 in film depending on the type. To process and print these rolls
will run between $36 and $66 depending on where yo get it done. Therefore, it'll
cost you $56 on the low end or about $106 on the high end. To be fair, it will
cost you to get the images you want printed from your digital camera. The going
rate seems to be about $0.40 per 4x6 inch print. The best part here is that you
only need to print the images you're interested in. To be fair again, you can
also do this with film. The problem is that if you're going to process tthe film
only with no prints, you're going to be hard pressed to see what these picture
look like just by examining the negatives. Therefore you will need some kind of
scanning device to see them. Or you can just get all of the frames printed at
process time which is what most people do.
Anyway, once you spend the money on the film, process, and print, that's it.
There is no reuse. Once you spend it on the memory card(s), it's a one time
expense. So the memory card cost issue is not as big an issue when you examine
it relative to what you'd have to pay for film, processing, and printing. I've
certainly taken my digital camera on vacation and it performed wonderfully. My
wife still hasn't gotten around to picking up her $65 print order (she used a
film camera) from the lab yet. Yet we've thoroughly enjoyed my shots from the
digicam.
--
Mike Greer
Explore potential income opportunities with Greer and Associates
at http://www.ibocity.com/greeraa. Also, Come visit my digital
photography web site along with a lot of other interesting stuff at
http://www.greer.simplenet.com.
Albert Nurick
> Roland Karlsson <rol...@cslab.ericsson.se> wrote in message
> news:o41zc1ri...@erix.ericsson.se...
> >
> > I am 100% sure that film based still photography is doomed. The latest
>
> Good thoughts, Roland.
<AOL>Me too!</AOL> Er, I completely agree. Well said, sir. ;-)
<< snip >>
> Anyway, I put together this little chart of pros and cons of going digital a
> couple of weeks ago. My attempt at objectivity might be of interest in this
> thread:
>
> http://www.infinet.com/~tdawson/words/digital_pro_con.htm
Nice analysis, Terry. I'd add one feature to the Digital side: *True*
permanence. When your print fades, create another. Make lots of backups of
your image in digital format with no degradation over time. The gradual loss
of old movies that we're witnessing doesn't have to happen once the content
is in the digital domain.
IMO, the end of film is not an "if", it's a "when". For my use, I've hung
up my trusty OM-1, and switched over to the Nikon 950. Others may draw the
line at a different point in time, but it's coming.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Ed Hamrick
> A 6 Mb digital camera for under $100. And they'll be giving away VCRs,
> right?
When extrapolating costs, you need to look carefully at the
build cost and the cost of the parts.
VCR's are hugely complex mechanical devices. The tape handling
is quite complex, and the device has a lot of metal and parts.
A better model for extrapolating prices is the cost of excellent
film cameras from Olympus. A digital camera has lower build
costs now and will have lower parts costs in 5 years.
The key is the parts costs. CCD costs are the key - and they're
dropping rapidly. Remember the last 5 years of memory price drops,
memory density increases, CPU price drops, and CPU speed increases?
That's the magic of silicon - consumer demand goes up exponentially
as the price drops, which further drives drops in price and
increases in capability.
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
Ed Hamrick
>
> Right now the design and the CCDs are the main cost (my guess) in
> digital cameras. Soon this will go the way of PCs, where the
> glass/distribution/etc will serve to limit further drops in prices
just
> like with PCs.
Judging from the retail costs of excellent film cameras from
Olympus, in 5 years I predict 6 MPixel digital cameras for
less than $100. A digital camera has less assembly cost and
fewer moving parts - it could even get down to $50 without any
problem (no need for a bulky film winding motor). The zoom
mechanism and the lens cover are the only moving parts.
Who would have predicted $500 PC's (unsubsidized) at more than
300 MHz 5 years ago? Who would have laughed at anyone making
such a prediction 5 years ago?
10 years ago I worked for a company that made air-cooled
supercomputers (Convex Computer Corporation). The first model
ran at 10 Mhz, the second ran at 25 MHz, and the third ran at
66 MHz. They sold for more than a million dollars. 1 GByte
disk drives sold for $25,000. CMOS and the economies of the
consumer market wiped out this market. Sure, Cray/SGI
computers are still sold in small numbers, but this market
has "disappeared" in 5 years.
5 years is a long time nowdays, and progress in making CCD's
is on the cusp of wiping out film in the consumer market.
You'll still be able to buy 35mm film in 5 years, just like
you can buy 110 film today, but it the U.S. sales of 35mm
film will probably be down to 10% of what it is today.
People with film minilabs that can print from digital media
will be making tons of money though. Even the photo shop
in the small town I live in will be getting a digital add-on
for their Greytag machine.
People will still be buying film scanners in 5 years -
probably more than today. There are a lot of old images
that a lot of people are going to want to archive in
digital form.
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
David Gay
Michael Greer <mgre...@prodigy.net> writes:
> This is not an accurate assessment. Let's examine the costs. My 8MB card
> will hold roughly 24 from my Canon Powershot Pro70 (average 330KB per
> 1024x1536 pixel image). 48MB compact flash cards cost about
> $100. Therefore, they'll store about 144 images. That's 6 rolls of 24 exp
> film or 4 rolls of 36 exp. film. That's between $20-$40 in film depending
> on the type. To process and print these rolls will run between $36 and
> $66 depending on where yo get it done. Therefore, it'll cost you $56 on
> the low end or about $106 on the high end.
Fuji Sensia II 100 (36 exp) = $3.09
Fuji slide mailer = $3.29
2 stamps = $0.66
Cost for 144 images = $28.16. Not free of course, but half the price
quoted above (and rather more detail per image).
--
David Gay - Yet Another Starving Grad Student
dg...@cs.berkeley.edu
Randy G.
>There are two reasons why (1) is not here today - we need more pixels
>and we need bigger CCDs. I do not think you can make lenses that have
>enough resolution if you dont have large format CCDs. I dont know what
>size is needed. Today we have 10-15mm CCDs. I am quite shure that 35mm
>CCDs are not enough. Maybe it is enough with 50mm or 100mm
>CCDs.
Or CMOS, or something we have not even heard of yet. The new image
capturing media will need to be larger, have more resolution, more
dynamic range, AND be less expensive. Along with that we will need
more advanced computers (faster and 64 bit or higher would be nice
with 200 mHz or faster bus speeds) and more powerful video cards with
more memory. We are well on our way- my present computer has as much
video memory as my last computer had on the mainboard!. In other
words- larger images will accompany the technology that it will take
to process them and vice versa.
>The color prints I get from my local photo dealer looks like crap.
AMEN! I have not gotten back a decent photo from the "main street"
processors in years. They are OK, but I can now do better (and have!)
with my Epson 1200.
From Randy.... AKA "-ED" at the....
Feather River Canyon News - "Fruit Of The Plume"
http://www.quiknet.com/~frcn/Camera.html
The opinions expressed Remove the ¿NOSPAM?
here aren't necessarily in the E-mail address
those of the FRCN to reply by E-Mail
Randy G.
>A 6 Mb digital camera for under $100. And they'll be giving away VCRs,
>right?
>
The question will be, "What's a VCR, Daddy?"
Roland Karlsson
da...@groucho.cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) writes:
> But as photographers, we should be happy about all these choices.
> It's good that we can choose either digital or film cameras, with
> different resolutions in both cases, to capture the image in the
> first place. We can choose to convert from one medium to the
> other part-way through the process if we like. We can use editors
> like Photoshop regardless of how the image was captured. We can
> project images electronically, or make slides or prints. All of
> these choices are *good* for us right now.
I have been working with older processes to make prints. The quality
of many of those old processes are clearly superior to todays silver
prints. Woodbury, Carbon printing, Fresson, platinotype, oil transfer
- beautiful processes. Even old silver papers are (in som respects)
better than today's. Much finer tonal scale and much richer in
silver. Of course - all those fine old processes are monochrome - and
they are all slow and tedious.
I don't think I will miss the silver process all that much. For me it
has some merits in monochrome - but in color? No - color prints are
not in general attractive I think. I can easily miss those horrible
things that my local photo dealer makes for me. Digital color photos
are much better I think. The silver grains are very nice in
monochrome, but color photos shall be smooth.
So ... you think choices are good. Then I chose old processes on high
quality artist paper for monochrome and digital pictures on my screen
for color photos.
The only real problem right now for me is that I want more pixels and
larger CCDs. It is probably not possible to make sharp lenses with a
15 mm CCD.
Roland
Roland Karlsson
He, he :) You are right of course. You cannot find a good replacement
for a versatile large format camera today. At least not a cheap one.
The main problem with CCD is thair size and the second problem is the
number of pixels. The number of pixels will increase fast now I think,
so thats not a problem (I think) in 5 years or so. But ... the CCD
size must increase - those 1/2 inch thingies does not allow for good
lenses. Your Rodenstock large format lenses are much, much better than
those small video camera lenses they put on digital cameras.
But, you shall not exagerate the problems. Digital photos plus digital
manipulation may surprise you. Would it not be nice with a much
smaller shift and tilt-camera with a CCD? OK - your Arca Swiss becomes
obsolete then - and your nice Rodenstock lenses. But wait - with a
smaller size you can tilt and shift your Rodenstock lenses even more.
Roland
"Lars Finnström" <finn...@swipnet.se> writes:
> Hi!
>
> Interesting article Roland!
>
> I'm working with large format photography on 4x5" transparency film. What
> are my alternatives if I want the same resolution in digital? I use an Arca
> Swiss 4x5" camera with swing, tilt and shift etc. and 4 Rodenstock lenses -
> in other words I need to be able to make these large format adjustments to
> get geometry, focus plane etc right. Are there digital alternatives for this
> today Roland?
>
> Lars
>
> PS. 4x5" cameras are very HEAVY.
>
>
>
>
> Roland Karlsson wrote ...
> >
C. J. Morgan
> I have yet to see any results from digital that can match photos such
> as the ones from Ansel Adams, Minor White, David Muench and Eliot
> Porter just as a few examples.
Don't confuse the artist with the medium. And I have a feeling that the
best artists of the "digital world," while not the same, well be equally
as skillful in expressing their own unique vision.
C.J.
--
C.J. Morgan
ch...@torfree.net
Lars Finnström
You wrote:
"I thought that 2M pixel photographs was a toy size only - only useful for
snap shots. But ... photos from the best 2M pixel cameras look really good."
Simce 2 M isn't so much to download, I would assume there are avilable
examples of something that you think is "really good" on the net? Or maybe
you have it so you could e-mail it to me? I would be very interested in
viewing this 2M images that looks "really good".
At what print size are judging this 2M images as really good? 10x15 cm?
Smaller? Larger?
Best regards
Lars
Lars Finnström
Yes it would be bice if I could have a smaller and more compact camera and
still have shift and tilt and swing etc.
"Digital photos plus digital manipulation may surprise you."
Of course, digital manipluation as in PhotShop is available today after I
have scanned my large format transparencies.
"Would it not be nice with a much smaller shift and tilt-camera with a CCD?"
Yes indeed!
"OK - your Arca Swiss becomes obsolete then - and your nice Rodenstock
lenses."
No problem
"But wait - with a smaller size you can tilt and shift your Rodenstock
lenses even more."
I don't need to shift, swing or tilt "more" than I can with the Arca Swiss.
Just a smaller size doesn't need I can shift "more". Sometimes it's the
opposite with a smaller camera. The lens gets closer to the film/ccd and
with a very small size CCD you would run in to other problems, like the edge
of the lenses hitting the CCD etc etc. Have a look at a 4x5 camera and see
what happens when you tilt or swing the lens around its axis.
I think in order to conclude really what would happen with shift, swing and
tilt with a really small CCD and comapct unit, one would have to speak with
Rodenstock or other optics manufacturers to asses the consequences of super
compactness and lens adjustments etc.
Lars
Anthony
news:937370006.15590.3...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Judging from the retail costs of excellent film cameras
> from Olympus, in 5 years I predict 6 MPixel digital cameras
> for less than $100.
Maybe for cheap consumer cameras, but you are overlooking one thing: the
lens. The cost of a good lens is not significantly dropping, because it is
still mechanical and destined to remain that way. Ultimately, the most
expensive part of a digital camera will be the lens (already the case for
professional video and still cameras).
> Who would have predicted $500 PC's (unsubsidized) at more than
> 300 MHz 5 years ago?
Me.
> 10 years ago I worked for a company that made air-cooled
> supercomputers (Convex Computer Corporation). The first model
> ran at 10 Mhz, the second ran at 25 MHz, and the third ran at
> 66 MHz. They sold for more than a million dollars.
I worked for a company like that, too. We had gross margins of over 95% on
many parts, which kind of explains the high prices for the systems.
> People will still be buying film scanners in 5 years -
> probably more than today. There are a lot of old images
> that a lot of people are going to want to archive in
> digital form.
Right now, I still shoot film when I need the best possible quality, but the
first thing I do with the developed film is scan it. Eventually digital
will be good enough to make this unnecessary.
My main worry is "upgrade fever." If CCDs are made an integral part of
bodies, instead of having interchangeable digital backs, photography is
going to become even more expensive than it is now with film--it'll be the
same vicious circle of constant, expensive upgrades that one sees with
computers.
-- Anthony
Lars Finnström
for a few days and it really very, very bad. Lens quality is so bad, with
distorsion, flare etc etc. The optical quality seems well below traditional
cameras 30 years ago! Adjustments are inconvenient, slow, plastic feeling,
it's precision is kind of like flippy, floppy milk carton made of plastic in
Japan in the 60's or something. It's so remote from a "real" camera that the
feeling of shooting is really lost.
I don't understand why people (today) by these silly toys when they can get
a "real" camera for much less? (unless they need the images on the net
immediately).
Or is it just a toy for a lot of people whos real interest isn't photography
but rather waste some money on something they can play with. Like a computer
game. The challenge of being able to take a picture and get through the
manuals and then reach the goal of viewing the image on screen? Having
viewed lots of variuos sample imnages on the net from enthusiastic digital
camera owners, I tend to come to this conclusion.
Seems like images made from digital 2M range cameras have generally much,
much, much, much lower artistic value/content than mages made by standard
35mm cameras. So, until further, it seems as an expensive computergame for
tech toy people with very low artistic ambitions, if any... Of course,
there may be the odd exception.
Lars
Lars
Gruhn
A qualified "yes".
> for a lot of people whos real interest isn't photography
But here, you got it exactly wrong.
Why do you even read this group?
> So, until further, it seems as an expensive computergame for
> tech toy people with very low artistic ambitions, if any...
Oh, sorry. Didn't realize you were one of those. Never mind.
Gruhn
You mean the thing the big boys on campus came up with on machines that were
very much not personal computers?
> >the mainframe is back and in force
Since you are talking about
> >dumb terminals and can no longer run their own programs.
I wouldn't use the word "back" just quite yet.
Gruhn
> un-cameralike
No need to constrain themselves to a mode that does not suit them. If Word
were like a piece of paper and a pencil it would be bad.
> BTW, I believe that the ultimate point of photography is to capture light,
> and the method used to do so matters less than the end product.
No, the ultimate method of photography is to capture light.
Gruhn
great a print technology, CCDs still don't have the look.
Carsten J. Arnholm(sr)
Lars Finnström wrote in message ...
Well spoken. These recurring discussions will never be realistic until it is
understood that photography is used for several totally different purposes.
One group is the majority of camera users (snap-shooters or family/vacation
etc. photographers), who may consider an 8x10" print as large. The majority
may not ever have seen an 8x10" (or larger) quality photograph. Such people
may be well served with the 2 Mp digital cameras of today.
Another group, much smaller, consists of professionals, dedicated/advanced
amateurs, nature photographers etc. They want quality prints 8x10" (or much
larger) or aim at quality reproduction in magazines etc. As an example, I do
not see any possible alternative for a nature photographer but to use a 35mm
or medium format camera with film in the traditional way. Bear in mind that a
reasonably good digital representation of a 35mm frame must be *at least*
40/50 Mb, from a medium format correspondingly larger. Just storing such
digital files, if they could at all be made in the field, requires a storage
medium that just cannot be carried around.
There are many sensible uses for digital cameras, even for the 2 Mp variety.
Producing quality images (outside of the studio) is not one of them so far.
Regards,
Carsten J. Arnholm(sr)
Oslo, Norway. carn...@online.no
Ed Hamrick
> Ed Hamrick <ham...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> > Judging from the retail costs of excellent film cameras
> > from Olympus, in 5 years I predict 6 MPixel digital cameras
> > for less than $100.
>
> Maybe for cheap consumer cameras, but you are overlooking one thing:
the
> lens. The cost of a good lens is not significantly dropping, because
it is
> still mechanical and destined to remain that way.
I'm talking about the type of camera used today to expose > 90% of
the 35mm film sold today. I'm not talking about large format film,
I'm not talking about SLR's. The 35mm film market is sustained
today by consumers who use what you call "cheap consumer cameras".
This is the market that will be wiped out by digital in 5 years.
This is the market that Kodak and Fuji make most of their revenues
from selling 35mm (and now APS) film.
People who insist that digital can't replace film always
point to niche markets like large format and SLR's with
expensive lenses. This isn't where the bulk of the market
is with film. The bulk of the market is point-and-shoot
cameras, some with zooms, some without. Heck, I'll bet
more film is shot with disposable cameras with plastic
lenses than with SLR's.
There's no doubt in my mind that 6 MPixel (3000x2000) digital cameras
will take this market in 5 years, with people taking their digital
media to the corner photo store to get printed. These cameras
will cost less than $100 - the lenses made today for this type
of camera just don't cost that much. Look at Olympus's film
camera line, and imagine their costs if the mechanical parts are
removed (the film winding motor is an amazingly complex device).
> I worked for a company like that, too. We had gross margins of over
95% on
> many parts, which kind of explains the high prices for the systems.
Gross profit margins were generally around 50% to 60%. The field
people (like me) needed a lot of care and feeding <smile>.
The actual cost from the manufacturer for a 1 GByte disk drive
was more than $10,000. I just bought a 20 GByte IDE drive
yesterday for under $300. Times change.
> My main worry is "upgrade fever." If CCDs are made an integral part
of
> bodies, instead of having interchangeable digital backs, photography
is
> going to become even more expensive than it is now with film--it'll be
the
> same vicious circle of constant, expensive upgrades that one sees with
> computers.
There's no doubt at all that the digital cameras market will
have exactly the same upgrade fever that the PC market has had for
the past 5 years. The price of a fab for each generation of CCD
will double, just like for CPU's, and somebody has to pay for
building them.
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
Ed Hamrick
And there are still people who prefer their music on plastic
discs (LP's) instead of CD's, and people who claim that tube
amplifiers have better "sound" than modern electronics.
How many people reading this message know what "LP"
stands for? My kids don't have the slightest idea, and
have never even put one on a turntable. Few people
under 25 years of age have ever even owned an LP.
There are still a few LP's sold, and you can still buy tube
amplifiers (if you look hard), but nobody would claim that
CD's haven't replaced LP's, and that miniaturized electronics
haven't replaced tube amplifiers.
CD players are now less than $100. They are more complex
than digital cameras, yet they cost less than $100 and run
on AA batteries. Look at what CD players were like 10
years ago and you'll be able to imagine what's coming with
digital cameras.
I distinctly recall the beginning of the CD era, and there's
a lot of similarity with the advent of digital cameras. It's
coming fast, and in 5 years people will look at 35mm film as
we look at LP's today.
The sea change in photography will come when more than 50%
of the photofinishers will print pictures from digital
media. When this happens, the digital camera market will
explode. It's an exponential growth thing - more digital
printing means more digital cameras purchased, which leads
to more photofinishers adding digital printing (and so on).
It's what will drive the market.
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
Roland Karlsson
"Lars Finnström" <finn...@swipnet.se> writes:
> Of course, digital manipluation as in PhotShop is available today after I
> have scanned my large format transparencies.
Ah! But there is a difference. Scanned photos are more grainy than
photos taken directly with a digital camera. There are some
manipulatons that does not work so well with grainy originals,
e.g. contrast enhancments.
Roland
Roland Karlsson
Tjena Lars,
I have so far just tested an old Oly 1400 L. It does not qualify as a
35 mm camera replacement for me. It is 1.4 million pixels and the lens
is only good enough at tele setting and in very bright light,
i.e. stopped down. Otherwise, the lens sux.
But, I have seen photos on the web that are very good. One site where
you can compare pictures from cameras is www.shortcourses.com. It is
rather good pictures, but not all are top notch. As a matter of fact,
the Ricoh 5000 shows grainy pictures! Strange.
But you can look at these photos http://www.scanline.com/web/. Nice!
And these http://home.mediaplaza.nl/james/hires/dresden/index.html.
Or look at this picture http://www.cyberphoto.se/fuji/mx2700d.jpg Or
this http://www.cyberphoto.se/fuji/mx2900t.jpg
I have seen lots of pictures that are of this class and better. Of
course. You *can* do better with some 35 mm cameras, but thats not
really the CCDs fault, but the *not so good* lenses you put on CCD
cameras.
Roland
"Lars Finnström" <finn...@swipnet.se> writes:
> Dear Roland,
>
> You wrote:
>
> "I thought that 2M pixel photographs was a toy size only - only useful for
> snap shots. But ... photos from the best 2M pixel cameras look really good."
>
> Simce 2 M isn't so much to download, I would assume there are avilable
> examples of something that you think is "really good" on the net? Or maybe
> you have it so you could e-mail it to me? I would be very interested in
> viewing this 2M images that looks "really good".
>
> At what print size are judging this 2M images as really good? 10x15 cm?
> Smaller? Larger?
>
> Best regards
> Lars
Roland Karlsson
"Gruhn" <gr...@hwb.com> writes:
> And in the end, no matter how many pixels we have or how big a lens or how
> great a print technology, CCDs still don't have the look.
And som will always say that vinyl is better than CDs. It does not
have the warm and natural sound. It is so cold and analytical.
Roland
VT
wrote:
I am not confusing the artist with the media -
If you want me to be explicit:
Where are the PRINTS as of today from digi-cams that come anywhere
near matching the sheer PRINT QUALITY of those artists then?
I am *not* speaking of prints from scanned (analog) negatives then
printed "digitally", but prints from images from Digital Cameras.
--
Vincent
vtVi...@Prodigy.Net
Lars Ketil Heill
"Cold and analytical" in the "sharp and defined" sense?
Yes, the first synthesizers (the musical instrument) were also cold and
analytical. Later, noise and fuzziness/roundedness were added, and the
"warm and natural" sound was restored in our ears/minds. Our mind (and
sensory organs) is fuzzy and extremely apt at interpolating and interpreting
information.
It can be quite amazing to what degree "warm and natural" is merely a
manifestation or side effect of a noisy and fuzzily defined medium. The
intrinsic "sound" of the concert hall [have you noticed how loud a quiet
room can be?], the room itself and the audience, is to me a major quality
difference separating the experience of music perfomed lived and that
reproduced from CD in my home, say. Which I prefer will vary with the
content (type of music, e.g), and even with time.
With a digital medium you will of course never be able to fully reproduce
the infinite resolution of the corresponding ideal analog medium. Yet, the
perfect analog medium does not exist: film does have finite size grains with
finite ability to separate levels, and a finite range. Ideally (and
eventually?), the finiteness of even the analog medium can be very well
reproduced --- and why not even surpassed? --- by its digital
descendant/replacement.¨
---
Oh well. Anyway, I have bought my first film scanner, will keep my Canon
T-90 and manual focus lenses for quite a while, and eventually buy my first
digital SLR. That is: I believe digital photography will eventually pass
film based photography measured in volume (of course), but (analog) film
will be around for quite some time. And I don't mind at all; the joy of
manual fiddling, fondling and work can often be well worth the extra cost
and time spent, the inconvenience, dirty hands, smells and annoyances. It
is a love thing :-) The process is half the fun. And also the digital
process can be a love thing, clean hands notwithstanding.
--- Lars Ketil,
who waited almost a decade (until 1990) before investing in his first CD
player, and recently dug out his old Thorens record player to frenzy in his
vinyl treasures, with all their fizz-crackle-and-pop "warm" sound :-)
MBengtson
>lens. The cost of a good lens is not significantly dropping, because it is
>expensive part of a digital camera will be the lens (already the case for
>professional video and still cameras).
>
Let me try this (just ideas, not fact)::
Lens technology may see dramatic changes in the next few years. It is becoming
possible to correct lens defects and distortion on low cost lens by using
higher resolution CCD arrays and high preformance processors. It will be
possible to correct for barrel or pincushion distortion by 'warping' the image
back into place using digital image processing. Obviously this would require
CCDs with higher resolutions than the final digital image resolution; but
that's where CCD resolution is heading. Given this, the lens does not have to
be perfect. The final determination of digital camera quality will be the
measured by final digital image. It will be the integration of ALL the digital
camera components that add to the digital image quality.
I have a Nikon F5 and have been scanning film for two years. I am amazed at
the quality of the Nikon 950 digital camera images. In many respects the
quality is as good today as the scanned film from the F5. For quality work, I
still pick the F5. In just 2-3 years, I'll probably to all my work with a
digital camera.
Mike Bengtson
Roland Karlsson
Ooops, I forgot the smiley :)
Personally, I only listen to CD records (although I have several
hundred old vinyl records). And now I have just started using mp3.
I fully agree - tubes and vinyl sounding warm and natural is only a
side effect of the medias being not perfect - it is noise and
distorsion that adds the warmth. Just as grain adds a touch to film
based photography. But personally - I only care about grains in
monochrome photography.
Roland
Michael Greer
David Gay wrote:
I debated whether to include slide film or not. But I decided not to because
the overwhelming majority of people shoot print film. The whole drug store/mini
lab industry is based on delivery 1-hour prints from negatives. In addition,
most people don't have the expertise to shoot slide film consistantly well.
Print film allows for wide exposure latitudes. Slide film is unforgiving. But
what you write is accurate.
--
Mike Greer
Explore potential income opportunities with Greer and Associates
at http://www.ibocity.com/greeraa. Also, Come visit my digital
photography web site along with a lot of other interesting stuff at
http://www.greer.simplenet.com.
Lars Ketil Heill
<01befeea$f450f020$6be3f1c3@default>...
>
>On the wall I like nice wallpaper better than huge pictures. I think my
>wife would not be very pleased with those either. I have no use for prints
>I have to view from a yard or more distance. Most people don´t that´s why
>practically no one has huge prints.
Except that I prefer paint on (slightly) structured surfaces over wallpaper,
I must say I agree with you on this. That's why I'm still very happy with
my A4 size Epson 750 while "everybody else" must have the A3+ size Epson
1200. In fact, even A4 will often be too big, so I often end up cutting my
paper in half to produce A5, or even A6 prints. "Less is more," isn't that
the gospel :-) ? Well, that's a personal preference; large life-like prints
just isn't my goal in life.
I prefer the fun and rewards of spending time on producing the image I want,
or see in my head, not necessarily what "St. 4x5" preaches. In that sense,
the digital darkroom is the only realistic alternative with its wealth of
fine tuning options. Then, the original medium is not all that important,
assuming it meets some minimum quality requirements, - including a
satisfactory photo-taking process.
At the moment, not willing to invest in a Nikon D-1 or similar, my "old"
manual focus Canon T-90 and the set of excellent (in quality and handling)
FDn lenses are vastly superior to the ridiculous Olympus Camedia C-840L
(1280x960 max JPEGs) with its fixed 35mm (equivalent) lens that I've been
using in the lab and at social events at work ("documenting" a friendly
soccer match with only a 35 mm lens? well...). So, my minimum requirements
are not yet met.
That said, you'll understand why I'll stick with my 35 mm film SLR until
reasonably priced digital system SLRs have established themselves on the
market. I'd love the D-1 if you'd give it to me, though :-)
-- Lars Ketil
Benjamin A Maclaren
>> A 6 Mb digital camera for under $100. And they'll be giving away VCRs,
>> right?
>
>When extrapolating costs, you need to look carefully at the
>build cost and the cost of the parts.
>
>VCR's are hugely complex mechanical devices. The tape handling
>is quite complex, and the device has a lot of metal and parts.
>
>A better model for extrapolating prices is the cost of excellent
>film cameras from Olympus. A digital camera has lower build
>costs now and will have lower parts costs in 5 years.
The glass, Ed, what about the glass? Unless you're talking about a
single built-in 4 element plastic pieces of garbage...
Will there be 6 Mp camera for $100? Ok.
One worth having. No.
Sorry. I'm supposed to refrain from posting on this topic anymore...
Regardless,
Cheers,
Ben
Carsten J. Arnholm(sr)
Roland Karlsson wrote in message ...
>
This is has nothing at all to do with digital manipulation. Any contrast
enhancement when printing/enlarging with an enlarger, results in grain
becoming *more* visible. That does not mean that grain always become visually
disturbing when the image is subjected to contrast enhancement. This holds
true for either type of processing/manipulation.
Steve Willer
> The glass, Ed, what about the glass? Unless you're talking about a
> single built-in 4 element plastic pieces of garbage...
> Will there be 6 Mp camera for $100? Ok.
> One worth having. No.
If the manufacturers were able to make larger CCD areas (larger than
35mm), the lens wouldn't be such a limiting factor. If they were to
make it 35mm size, even, you could use existing ("reasonably priced",
one might say) lenses.
Of course, there are such cameras now, but they're darn expensive.
Chuck Ross
Hamrick" <ham...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> The sea change in photography will come when more than 50%
> of the photofinishers will print pictures from digital
> media. When this happens, the digital camera market will
> explode. It's an exponential growth thing - more digital
> printing means more digital cameras purchased, which leads
> to more photofinishers adding digital printing (and so on).
> It's what will drive the market.
>
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick
And then, of course, comes the low-priced equipment that can make
REAL silver-based photo prints from digital images so that you and I
can buy one and use it instead of an inkjet printer.
That's coming, too....
--
http://www.enteract.com/~ckross/
Digital and Film-Based Photography
remove "MYPANTS" to reply
Chuck Ross
mben...@aol.com (MBengtson) wrote:
I can do "quality" work with my 950 as well as my F100, but so far, I
still grab the F100 when I know I'm going to be shooting certain types
of material:
a. Rapid-moving events where the 950 can't keep up with the speed
b. events where extreme wide-angle or long telephoto lenses are required
c. events where lighting is fairly low-key, and fast lenses are required.
Other than that, the 950 images make really excellent 4x6 and 5x7 prints
which is all my publication requires. If I could do all digital with
interchangeable Nikon lenses at a more reasonable cost than $5000, and
a digital camera that would work like an F100 or F5, I'd do it tomorrow.
Chuck Ross
<rol...@cslab.ericsson.se> wrote:
> Ooops, I forgot the smiley :)
>
> Personally, I only listen to CD records (although I have several
> hundred old vinyl records). And now I have just started using mp3.
>
> I fully agree - tubes and vinyl sounding warm and natural is only a
> side effect of the medias being not perfect - it is noise and
> distorsion that adds the warmth. Just as grain adds a touch to film
> based photography. But personally - I only care about grains in
> monochrome photography.
>
>
> Roland
s, with all their fizz-crackle-and-pop "warm" sound :-)
There was a time when CDs really didn't seem to have the ambience
of LPs, but that time has passed, and recent CD issues have apparently
solved that problem pretty completely.
I'd say that's true for most good CD issues in the past 3 years.
Bob Lombardi
(after much talk about 6 MB cameras for under $100)...
This misses the point. While resolution is still a problem for some uses, 6
Meg cameras will happen, and they will get cheaper with time.
But they still won't kill film unless they address the big problem.
The problem digital has is consummables. With my SLR, I can go buy a box of
10 rolls of film and backpack deep into the woods knowing that I can shoot
all of it with no problems. If I run out of film, even small-town general
stores carry the little yellow boxes. With my digicam, I need to bring
either a truckload of batteries or a charger to cover battery usage. I need
to either bring a laptop (with its own battery problems) or buy a bunch of
smart media (which will cost as much as the laptop). And if I buy a box of
smartmedia cards, what do I do if I run out of storage? My corner 7-11 sells
film, but not smartmedia cards. Mavica owners may have it easier, but they
still need to bring a backpack full of floppies.
Personally, I'd like to see them address battery life and storage.
Just my .02.
Bob
Kenneth Childress
Michael Greer <mgre...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>I debated whether to include slide film or not. But I decided not to because
>the overwhelming majority of people shoot print film. The whole drug store/mini
>lab industry is based on delivery 1-hour prints from negatives. In addition,
>most people don't have the expertise to shoot slide film consistantly well.
>Print film allows for wide exposure latitudes. Slide film is unforgiving. But
>what you write is accurate.
I have to disagree here. It doesn't take any more expertise to shoot
slide film than it does negative file. Most cameras are very accurate
with the metering, so unless you are shooting in extreme conditions, you
will get the same results with slides as with film. But, it is correct
that if you are off, film will let you make larger mistakes.
A bigger problem might be that many of the cheaper cameras don't handle
the 25, 50, 64, etc. ASAs that many slide films have. And of course the
viewing, etc. ...
Ken...
--
Kenneth Childress
C. J. Morgan <ch...@torfree.net> wrote:
> vtVi...@prodigy.net (VT) writes:
> > I have yet to see any results from digital that can match photos such
> > as the ones from Ansel Adams, Minor White, David Muench and Eliot
> > Porter just as a few examples.
>
>Don't confuse the artist with the medium. And I have a feeling that the
>best artists of the "digital world," while not the same, well be equally
>as skillful in expressing their own unique vision.
Digital is simply another tool for the photographer to use. It's
popularity is increasing as is the technology. That is a great thing.
So is the technology for film.
There will be digital artists that will excel that never excelled in the
film realm and vice versa. Some will be great at both.
Film popularity will probably wane (a little or a lot, who knows?) as the
digital technology increases in capability and decreases in price.
However, film will never completely disappear. Photographers will just
have more tools to choose from.
Ken...
--
Ed Hamrick
>
> The glass, Ed, what about the glass? Unless you're talking about a
> single built-in 4 element plastic pieces of garbage...
The glass in the Olympus Mju-II (or Stylus Epic) is considered
to be excellent. It's a $150 camera, and in 5 years will be
$50.
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
Ed Hamrick
> The problem digital has is consummables. With my SLR, I can go buy a
box of
> 10 rolls of film and backpack deep into the woods knowing that I can
shoot
> all of it with no problems.
The reason there is so much 24-exposure film sold is that most
people take forever to take 24 pictures.
In addition, flash memory is subject to the same advances as other
digital technologies. In 5 years you'll take your digital media
down to the corner photofinisher for printing long before you fill
it.
> If I run out of film, even small-town general
> stores carry the little yellow boxes. With my digicam, I need to
bring
> either a truckload of batteries or a charger to cover battery usage.
We're talking about 5 years from now, not today.
10 years ago CD players were huge boxes using tons of power. Now
my kids only change the batteries in their CD players a few times
when we're on vacation, and they play them constantly. Power
consumption goes down as electronics are integrated more and
more.
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
Janusz
Bob Lombardi wrote:
> >>>>But they still won't kill film unless they address the big problem.
>
> The problem digital has is consummables. With my SLR, I can go buy a box of
> 10 rolls of film and backpack deep into the woods knowing that I can shoot
> all of it with no problems.<<<<<
10 rolls of film plus cost of processing is around $150 dolars. For 96 MB Flash
Card I paid $300 and can shot 250 fine jpg's in highest resolution (1500x1025)
on every trip to the woods. Battery for my Canon PS70 last for more than 200
shots and another battery pack cost around $40. For me using digital is a lot
more economical than film.
Just my 2 cents,
Janusz Blicharski
Diego
Ed Hamrick <ham...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:937423569.5962.2...@news.demon.co.uk...
> The reason there is so much 24-exposure film sold is that most
> people take forever to take 24 pictures.
Huh?
If most people took forever to take 24 pictures then I would think film
sales would be low, not high.
BTW, I use your program. It is very good.
Alan Shutko
> If most people took forever to take 24 pictures then I would think film
> sales would be low, not high.
Well, eventually they throw out the old roll undeveloped and buy a new
one.
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - In a variety of flavors!
A pencil with no point needs no eraser.
Michael Greer
Bob Lombardi wrote:
> (after much talk about 6 MB cameras for under $100)...
>
> This misses the point. While resolution is still a problem for some uses, 6
> Meg cameras will happen, and they will get cheaper with time.
>
> But they still won't kill film unless they address the big problem.
>
> The problem digital has is consummables. With my SLR, I can go buy a box of
> 10 rolls of film and backpack deep into the woods knowing that I can shoot
> all of it with no problems. If I run out of film, even small-town general
> stores carry the little yellow boxes. With my digicam, I need to bring
> either a truckload of batteries or a charger to cover battery usage. I need
> to either bring a laptop (with its own battery problems) or buy a bunch of
> smart media (which will cost as much as the laptop).
Why do people continue to misrepresent the digital camera storage issue? Ten
rolls of film plus processing (and prints if you shoot negative film) will run
you somewhere between $100-$200. A 48MB Compact Flash card costs about $100. I
can store roughly 144 high quality images on a 48MB card. That's about 288
pictures for two 48MB cards at roughly $200. Ten rolls for 24 exp film will yield
about 250 images. Roughly equivalent to 288 image from the two 48 MB cards. I
spend about $4 per 24 exp roll and about $8 for processing and prints. That's $12
per roll or $120 for ten. So to get the same coverage, I'm going to spend $80
more on CF cards than by using a film camera. BUT THE CF CARDS ARE REUSABLE. One
must pay again for film, processing, and printing.
> And if I buy a box of
> smartmedia cards, what do I do if I run out of storage? My corner 7-11 sells
> film, but not smartmedia cards. Mavica owners may have it easier, but they
> still need to bring a backpack full of floppies.
>
> Personally, I'd like to see them address battery life and storage.
>
> Just my .02.
>
> Bob
--
Michael Greer
Diego wrote:
> Ed Hamrick <ham...@primenet.com> wrote in message
> news:937423569.5962.2...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> > The reason there is so much 24-exposure film sold is that most
> > people take forever to take 24 pictures.
>
> Huh?
>
> If most people took forever to take 24 pictures then I would think film
> sales would be low, not high.
But that's not the way use film. MANY times, I've taken junk shots just to
complete the roll so I can get processing and prints done of the shots I'm
really interested in. Lately, I've begun to rewind the roll before all of
the film is used. Personally, I wish 12 exp. rolls were available in the
films I'm interested in. "Pro" slide film tends to only come in 36 exp.
rolls. That's really irritating.
>
>
> BTW, I use your program. It is very good.
--
Michael McGuire
: Hi!
: Interesting article Roland!
: I'm working with large format photography on 4x5" transparency film. What
: are my alternatives if I want the same resolution in digital? I use an Arca
: Swiss 4x5" camera with swing, tilt and shift etc. and 4 Rodenstock lenses -
: in other words I need to be able to make these large format adjustments to
: get geometry, focus plane etc right. Are there digital alternatives for this
: today Roland?
: Lars
: PS. 4x5" cameras are very HEAVY.
Take a look at the work of Stephen Johnson at http://www.sjphoto.com He has
been working with large format digital imaging for several years. He uses
scanning backs from Better Light, http://www.betterlight.com They offer backs
that go as high as 8000 pixels across the 4" dimension of a 4x5. His web site
has a number of links which will take you deeper into the subject.
Mike
--
Michael McGuire Hewlett Packard Laboratories
email:xmcg...@xhpl.xhp.com P.0. Box 10490 (1501 Page Mill Rd.)
(remove x's from email if not Palo Alto, CA 94303-0971
a spammer)
Phone: (650)-857-5491
************BE SURE TO DOUBLE CLUTCH WHEN YOU PARADIGM SHIFT.**********
Ed Hamrick
> Ed Hamrick <ham...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> > The reason there is so much 24-exposure film sold is that most
> > people take forever to take 24 pictures.
>
> Huh?
>
> If most people took forever to take 24 pictures then I would think
film
> sales would be low, not high.
There are a lot of people who take pictures.
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
Alan Shutko
> Why do people continue to misrepresent the digital camera storage
> issue? Ten rolls of film plus processing (and prints if you shoot
> negative film) will run you somewhere between $100-$200. A 48MB
> Compact Flash card costs about $100.
Clearly, there are lots of ways to come up with the numbers.
A roll of 36-exposure Fuji Superia 100 is $1.99 from B&H Photo.
Processing through York Camera (the place we normally use) is $6.30
for 4x6 prints, or $4.30 for 3x5s. Now, that's 8 rolls for 288
exposures, which is only $66.32 for film, processing and 4x6 prints.
I didn't count S&H for B&H (because I live close) but that's not going
to be much. So, you can clearly get large differences in the numbers,
depending on how you do things.
But the biggest point Bob was trying to make wasn't cost, it was
availability. With CF or SmartMedia, you have to overpurchase media
to be sure you'll have enough for all the shots you may possibly
take, because the media may not be available at your destination.
That isn't a problem with film. Yes, the media is reusable, and
that's great... but what if you don't have a chance to download them
before you run out of space?
For availability, film has a advantage. For backpackers, it has a
really huge advantage (the battery issue).
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - In a variety of flavors!
Lady Luck brings added income today. Lady friend takes it away tonight.