Is there anything digital will never be able to do ?
Giorgis
would like to pose a question.
When film came out, I am sure portrait painters claimed that it will
never replace them because photography can never do what painters can. The
same goes for a whole bunch of industries that technology has sort of
trampled on.
In the same light, is there anything that digitals will never be able to
do that film can?
Provide a cheap SLR perhaps, a particular dynamic range, low temperature
or high temperature photography ?
In my mind, what drawbacks exist of digital are only a matter of time.
Less time rather than more.
And I am sure film photography took much longer to develop than todays
digital cameras. How long did it take from the first photo, to the 35mm
autofocus SLR ?
Giorgis
Joseph Meehan
news:3ee19d55$0$26639$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Considering all those posts about film being superior to digital, I
> would like to pose a question.
> When film came out, I am sure portrait painters claimed that it will
> never replace them because photography can never do what painters can.
And we still have portrait painters and they are still doing things
photography can't do as well.
As to your question, I can't answer it. We just don't know what the
future will hold. Can you imagine a man of 1903 trying to describe a city
of today?
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Paul Heslop
I guess modern advances are so fast... but film has pretty much stood
still for years. I see a day when digi will be as good as film (Though
at times I really can't tell the difference!)
but the cameras will come with filters etc which will leave film cameras
stood. Then you will still have purists who will only use film and the
two will exist nicely side by side except paranoid idiots who insist on
posting "My camera is better than yours" nonsense when really they are
simply afraid that theirs will become defunct and they'll have to spend
a lot of money to keep up with the times. Each to his own, don't worry
be happy.
--
Paul. (Don't believe in anything That you can't break)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Not what it seems...
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Wiccan Rat
"Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3EE1D241...@blueyonder.co.uk...
<snip>
> --
> Paul. (Don't believe in anything That you can't break)
Gotta say Paul - I always look out for your sig lines because it seems you
have good taste in music. I enjoy testing myself to see where the lyrics
come from !
Rachael
Paul Heslop
:O) That's the idea. I don't actually always like the songs, sometimes i
throw a curve ball just to trick people (Little Jimmy Osmond, the Spice
Girls)
Glad you enjoy it.
--
Paul. (It's not your fault that you're always wrong)
Dave Martindale
> In the same light, is there anything that digitals will never be able to
>do that film can?
I expect that digital cameras based on crystalline silicon sensors will
never be able to scale the way film does. Film is normally produced on
long wide rolls of base material that is then cut into the sizes needed
and sometimes peforated. Making a different size piece of film is a
pretty trivial thing to do.
So to scale up a 4x5 sheet film camera to 8x10 to get more resolution,
you need to make the camera parts larger, and use a longer focal length
lens, and a larger piece of film, and you're done. (And you have your
choice of whether to use slow, fine-grain film or fast, coarser-grain
film in it after it's made).
If you're building a telescope and need a special size of film in small
quantities, just cut down larger sheets. If you need a focal plane
that's spherical instead of flat (e.g. for a Schmidt camera), get the
size of film you need and put it in a holder that warps the surface
slightly. To scale a conventional movie camera up to an IMAX camera,
there are a number of mechanical challenges in making something that
large move fast, but the film is a standard size running horizontally.
Silicon sensor designs just don't scale the same way. A sensor that is
2X as large (4X the area) costs far more than 4X as much in volume
production, because the proportion of flawed sensors rises much more
rapidly as the size increases. Plus, you need to spend a large quantity
of money making the mask set for the very first chip of a given size.
And trading off resolution against sensitivity by changing the pixel
pitch requires *another* set of masks.
All this means that silicon sensors are great for cameras that will be
manufactured in the millions of units, but pretty much impractical for
cameras where only a dozen or 100 will ever be made - unless you can
borrow a chip design done for something else. And really large sensors
are likely not to be done with this technology.
Someday, there may be a different way of producing sensors that doesn't
have all these limitations.
Dave
David Eppstein
da...@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) wrote:
> > In the same light, is there anything that digitals will never be able to
> >do that film can?
>
> I expect that digital cameras based on crystalline silicon sensors will
> never be able to scale the way film does. Film is normally produced on
> long wide rolls of base material that is then cut into the sizes needed
> and sometimes peforated. Making a different size piece of film is a
> pretty trivial thing to do.
...
> If you're building a telescope and need a special size of film in small
> quantities, just cut down larger sheets.
Um, you do realize that the astronomers nowadays use imagers that are
scaled up from smaller ccds by packing lots of them next to each other,
right? E.g. see http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Instruments/Imaging/CFH12K/
for an example using a 12-ccd mosaic to get over 100-megapixel
resolution.
--
David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
Gully68
version" or "replacement" of photography. I think that the earlier comment
about portrait painters being enveloped by the new portrait photography is
relevant: The two compete, as they serve the same market - and what one offers
(ease, speed, reproduction, etc) may lead it to "beat out" the other medium.
But I don't think anyone would say that paintings and photographs are the same
- rather they're different methods of presenting the same subject matter. Why
are so many people bent on saying digital is photography? It's not. It's
digital imagery, or something to that effect. "Photography" is "writing" or
"recording" "with light" (from latin) - repeated chemical reactions (on film,
then on paper) creating an image from interaction with light. With digital, it
isn't chemical reactions but rather binary code that records the image.
To me, it's like saying that silkscreens and oil paintings are the same thing
because both can be put onto canvas. They're not. So, I'd say that it might
be helpful to look at digital v. film as two different methods competing within
the same market. And YES, inherently there will always be something one can do
that the other cannot. Because even if they look indistinguishable to the
naked eye - like a New Realism painting may look like a photograph from a
distance - the medium used to create it makes a world of difference in the
work's final significance. The two (digital and film) may produce very similar
results, but to view them from the perspective as "the same medium" creates
confusing ideas about the inherent advantages, disadvantages and unique
qualities of each that make them art.
MarkH
news:20030607163417...@mb-m03.aol.com:
> Honestly, I sometimes wonder why everyone is looking at digital as the
> "better version" or "replacement" of photography. I think that the
> earlier comment about portrait painters being enveloped by the new
> portrait photography is relevant: The two compete, as they serve the
> same market - and what one offers (ease, speed, reproduction, etc) may
> lead it to "beat out" the other medium. But I don't think anyone would
> say that paintings and photographs are the same - rather they're
> different methods of presenting the same subject matter. Why are so
> many people bent on saying digital is photography? It's not. It's
> digital imagery, or something to that effect. "Photography" is
> "writing" or "recording" "with light" (from latin) - repeated chemical
> reactions (on film, then on paper) creating an image from interaction
> with light. With digital, it isn't chemical reactions but rather
> binary code that records the image. To me, it's like saying that
> silkscreens and oil paintings are the same thing because both can be
> put onto canvas. They're not.
So digital photography is not actually photography?
I thought that my CMOS sensor was recording light so that the electronics
could save a digital representation of it on flash RAM. So if it doesn’t
record light, what does it record?
My view is that digital photography will replace 35mm and eventually as
resolution increases it will also replace MF and probably LF. But for the
film fans, don’t worry, film will still be going reasonably strong for over
10 years yet.
Already Canon must be capable of creating a 16MP FF sensor, same pitch as
the 10D sensor but FF size. Just a matter of when.
--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Paul H.
"Giorgis" <gior...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ee19d55$0$26639$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> do that film can?
Yes, with digital you will never again have a filmstrip to use as a bookmark
or as impromptu dental floss.
Once technology advances to the point at which multi-megapixel CCD imagers
have several electron wells per pixel to extend a captured image's dynamic
range to that approached by the human eye, film will become superfluous.
Not worse than digital, just unnecessary. No more "shoot for the shadows,
but develop for the highlights" nonsense. Remember, contrary to what many
film-only adherents like to believe, the history of film photography has not
been about smugly-satisfied artists employing a mature, god-like science;
rather, the history has been one of ever-frustrated practioners pushing the
limits of a messy and often dangerous nineteenth-century chemical
technology. Ansel Adams, after all, is revered as much for his technical
skills as he is for his compositions.
Film is not yet dead, but it's coughing up blood and calling for a priest.
A better question to ask is this: once digital this-and-that has made us
like the Borgs of Star Trek fame, will we want to take pictures anymore?
And if so, of what?
Roland Karlsson
CDA2B4.122...@news.service.uci.edu:
> Um, you do realize that the astronomers nowadays use imagers that are
> scaled up from smaller ccds by packing lots of them next to each other,
> right? E.g. see http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Instruments/Imaging/CFH12K/
> for an example using a 12-ccd mosaic to get over 100-megapixel
> resolution.
>
I think the scaling example is relevant. Have you seen the fantastic trick
filming in music videos where all are standing still as statues? The camera
is moving around and looking at freezed people and dogs and whatever from
different angles. The first time it looks impossible. But, it is not. The
setup consists of hundreds of small cameras all distributed along a 70
mm film strip. Then all those cameras are triggered simultaneously. Then
it is only to take a look at the film. To do the same with digital we
have to use hundreds of small digital cameras with high resolution and
also construct some method to download the hundreds of pictures fast.
It is not impossible to do it with digital cameras, just very expensive
and cumbersome.
BTW - can you tell me the price of that mosaic imager at Hawaii?
Roland
Steven Whatley
> "Giorgis" <gior...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ee19d55$0$26639$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> In the same light, is there anything that digitals will never be able to
>> do that film can?
>
> Yes, with digital you will never again have a filmstrip to use as a bookmark
> or as impromptu dental floss.
Sony Memory Sticks make great bookmarks. :)
Steven
David Eppstein
Roland Karlsson <roland_do...@bonetmail.com> wrote:
> I think the scaling example is relevant. Have you seen the fantastic trick
> filming in music videos where all are standing still as statues? The camera
> is moving around and looking at freezed people and dogs and whatever from
> different angles. The first time it looks impossible. But, it is not. The
> setup consists of hundreds of small cameras all distributed along a 70
> mm film strip. Then all those cameras are triggered simultaneously. Then
> it is only to take a look at the film. To do the same with digital we
> have to use hundreds of small digital cameras with high resolution and
> also construct some method to download the hundreds of pictures fast.
>
> It is not impossible to do it with digital cameras, just very expensive
> and cumbersome.
>
> BTW - can you tell me the price of that mosaic imager at Hawaii?
Much less than the budget for _The Matrix_, I'm guessing.
More seriously, with some Googling I was able to find
http://loen.ucolick.org/Deimos/PDR/PDR_ch3.html
(section 3.4, about acquiring similar CCDs for the Keck telescope) which
stated that one manufacturer's quote of $200k per CCD was too expensive,
and another's $800k development costs were too high.
So at a rough guess maybe the 12-ccd mosaic cost around $2M.
Jim Waggener
> A better question to ask is this: once digital this-and-that has made us
> like the Borgs of Star Trek fame, will we want to take pictures anymore?
> And if so, of what?
>
a 35mm film shot of you with dead batteries and a frustrated grimace will
suffice.
It will come full-circle.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Mxsmanic
> When film came out, I am sure portrait painters
> claimed that it will never replace them because
> photography can never do what painters can.
Some probably did. And some of them were right.
> In the same light, is there anything that digitals
> will never be able to do that film can?
It may be difficult to match film resolution per unit area. It's just a
lot simpler to create a smooth, even chemical coating on a piece of
plastic than it is to fabricate millions of microscopic, perfect, active
electronic components on a slab of silicon, so densities for film can be
very, very high.
For the same reason, it may always be easier to create a larger piece of
film to increase resolution, whereas electronic sensors may hit limits
sooner.
> Provide a cheap SLR perhaps ...
Film disposables will probably always be cheaper, since they are
simpler. Recycling digitals might compensate for that, but that isn't
at all certain right now.
> ... low temperature or high temperature photography ?
Film has little problem with thermal noise, but reciprocity failure is a
problem for extremely long exposures.
> In my mind, what drawbacks exist of digital are
> only a matter of time. Less time rather than more.
I think you are half right. Most of the drawbacks will be resolved. I
don't know how soon, however.
Remember, "digital" photography is an analog technology, and it does not
obey Moore's Law.
> And I am sure film photography took much longer
> to develop than todays digital cameras.
Not really. The move to film was pretty straightforward and took hold
very quickly. Film had virtually no disadvantages compared to plates,
although it had a few (flatness was a problem, for example, but not
enough of a problem to prevent replacement of plates).
> How long did it take from the first photo, to the 35mm
> autofocus SLR ?
There's a lot more than film in that chain of development. How long did
it take from the development of the transistor to the digital camera?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
M...@mj.com
wrote:
And with film you get the container that I always find useful for
keeping all sorts of things in.
MJ
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Mxsmanic
> Can you imagine a man of 1903 trying to describe a city
> of today?
All he would have to do is say "the city of 2003 will look at lot like
it does today," and he'd be 99% right.
Mxsmanic
> My view is that digital photography will replace 35mm
> and eventually as resolution increases it will also
> replace MF and probably LF.
I suspect that 35mm replacement is years away. MF replacement will be
probably take many times longer (unless some miracle is discovered to
facilitate chip manufacture). LF may never be replaced, as the demand
is low and the technical obstacles are formidable.
> But for the film fans, don’t worry, film will still
> be going reasonably strong for over 10 years yet.
Much longer than ten years. Don't forget the rest of the world, which
hasn't even discovered digital yet.
Paul Heslop
>
> Joseph Meehan writes:
>
> > Can you imagine a man of 1903 trying to describe a city
> > of today?
>
> All he would have to do is say "the city of 2003 will look at lot like
> it does today," and he'd be 99% right.
>
--
Paul. (Well, its a dirty job but someone's gotta do it)
Dave Martindale
>Um, you do realize that the astronomers nowadays use imagers that are
>scaled up from smaller ccds by packing lots of them next to each other,
>right? E.g. see http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Instruments/Imaging/CFH12K/
>for an example using a 12-ccd mosaic to get over 100-megapixel
>resolution.
And how much did that camera cost? How much to build a second one?
It uses a number of technologies that I don't expect to ever see in a
consumer camera because of cost, weigth, power, etc.
Butting multiple CCDs to give you an image area larger than you can
manufacture as a single CCD seems like it will always be an expensive
way to get area. It only seems to be used in "cost no object" cameras.
Now, this camera is probably cheap compared to the price of the
telescope as a whole. But the economics of still cameras are very
different.
Dave
Dave Martindale
>And with film you get the container that I always find useful for
>keeping all sorts of things in.
One Kodak plastic film can is just the right size to hold a pair of AA
cells as backup power for your camera. Don't try this with the older
metal Kodak cans.
Fuji and Agfa plastic cans don't work either, because the cap is
partially recessed inside the "can" leaving too little room for the
batteries.
Dave
Giorgis
> keeping all sorts of things in.
True ... picture the last day of a contiki tour. I had a bottle of Raki
left
(Greek alcohol that could double as paint stripper)
I lined them up on the window seal of the cabin. The brave proceded for a
shot.
Made for intresting goodbye photos.
G
Dave Martindale
>More seriously, with some Googling I was able to find
>http://loen.ucolick.org/Deimos/PDR/PDR_ch3.html
>(section 3.4, about acquiring similar CCDs for the Keck telescope) which
>stated that one manufacturer's quote of $200k per CCD was too expensive,
>and another's $800k development costs were too high.
>So at a rough guess maybe the 12-ccd mosaic cost around $2M.
Is that the cost for the 12 CCDs alone, or does it include mounting and
alignment and drive electronics? How about the cooling system (liquid
nitrogen)?
And then there are the operating costs. It seems to need to be fed
about 8 liters/day of liquid nitrogen.
Also, I see that the CCD don't butt perfectly - there are 28 to 43
pixels of gap between the CCDs. For astronomy that may not matter much,
but how would you deal with the multiple missing rows and columns in an
ordinary terrestrial photograph, without taking two offset images?
I really don't think the CCD mosaic is going to appear in consumer
cameras for a while.
Dave
Giorgis
"Dave Martindale" <da...@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:bbtd48$2r8$1...@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> "Giorgis" <gior...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > In the same light, is there anything that digitals will never be able
to
> >do that film can?
>
> I expect that digital cameras based on crystalline silicon sensors will
> never be able to scale the way film does. Film is normally produced on
> long wide rolls of base material that is then cut into the sizes needed
> and sometimes peforated. Making a different size piece of film is a
> pretty trivial thing to do.
>
> So to scale up a 4x5 sheet film camera to 8x10 to get more resolution,
> you need to make the camera parts larger, and use a longer focal length
> lens, and a larger piece of film, and you're done. (And you have your
> choice of whether to use slow, fine-grain film or fast, coarser-grain
> film in it after it's made).
>
>
> If you're building a telescope and need a special size of film in small
> quantities, just cut down larger sheets. If you need a focal plane
> that's spherical instead of flat (e.g. for a Schmidt camera), get the
> size of film you need and put it in a holder that warps the surface
> slightly. To scale a conventional movie camera up to an IMAX camera,
> there are a number of mechanical challenges in making something that
> large move fast, but the film is a standard size running horizontally.
>
From what I understand, and I could be wrong
Telescopes no longer use film.
From my guess you can expose digital for a long time and look at the
picture while you are still collectiong photons.
I believe the hubble was exposing for weeks, although some pusrists argue it
was multiple exposures put together.
> Silicon sensor designs just don't scale the same way. A sensor that is
> 2X as large (4X the area) costs far more than 4X as much in volume
> production, because the proportion of flawed sensors rises much more
> rapidly as the size increases. Plus, you need to spend a large quantity
> of money making the mask set for the very first chip of a given size.
> And trading off resolution against sensitivity by changing the pixel
> pitch requires *another* set of masks.
>
unless we can continue to get smaller and smaller. I am sure if we can come
up with a
method to pack sensors like we do transistors on a chip.
Or use something like the three chip system used by video cameras to combine
multiple sensors, or stitch CCDs together.
Once again, I question how much resolution is needed. But that is a thread
that has been beaten to death
and reserected ad infinitum.
> All this means that silicon sensors are great for cameras that will be
> manufactured in the millions of units, but pretty much impractical for
> cameras where only a dozen or 100 will ever be made - unless you can
> borrow a chip design done for something else. And really large sensors
> are likely not to be done with this technology.
>
I doubt we can predict technology. I often here about paper monitors are
just around the corner.
They are cheap as chips (pun intended) and can be unrolled like a poster
onto a wall.
> Someday, there may be a different way of producing sensors that doesn't
> have all these limitations.
>
See above ...
> Dave
Marshall Perrin
> Is that the cost for the 12 CCDs alone, or does it include mounting and
> alignment and drive electronics? How about the cooling system (liquid
> nitrogen)?
>
> And then there are the operating costs. It seems to need to be fed
> about 8 liters/day of liquid nitrogen.
That's just for the detectors. The full instrument adds several million more.
IR detectors are even more pricey - I'm working on an instrument which
incorporates a 4 megapixel 0.8-2.5 micron wavelength detector from Rockwell,
which costs $400K for just the one detector. The chip itself is 2 inches
on a side, and the camera it goes in is the size of a 27" TV and weighs
250 pounds. Not exactly a pocket-sized point and shoot. ;-) And that's a
relatively small instrument; spectrographs generally weigh a couple tons.
Liquid nitrogen is essentially free - it's easily distilled from the air for
pennies' worth of electricity. It's literally cheaper than water.
> Also, I see that the CCD don't butt perfectly - there are 28 to 43
> pixels of gap between the CCDs. For astronomy that may not matter much,
> but how would you deal with the multiple missing rows and columns in an
> ordinary terrestrial photograph, without taking two offset images?
There's no easy way to get rid of the gaps without taking multiple images,
not that I can think of. Perhaps you could rig up a system to automatically
take two exposures and combine them into one, using some slight motion of
the optics internal to the camera to produce the offset. It would be
very complicated to get this as user-friendly as single detector imaging,
though.
> I really don't think the CCD mosaic is going to appear in consumer
> cameras for a while.
Sounds about right to me.
- Marshall
Paul H.
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f25evccuehklssrh...@4ax.com...
> Joseph Meehan writes:
>
> > Can you imagine a man of 1903 trying to describe a city
> > of today?
>
> All he would have to do is say "the city of 2003 will look at lot like
> it does today," and he'd be 99% right.
Except for all the horse manure. Although there is this thread...
Paul H.
"Jim Waggener" <ji...@visi.net> wrote in message
news:3ee27...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
> > A better question to ask is this: once digital this-and-that has made us
> > like the Borgs of Star Trek fame, will we want to take pictures anymore?
> > And if so, of what?
> >
>
> a 35mm film shot of you with dead batteries and a frustrated grimace will
> suffice.
> It will come full-circle.
I can take hundreds of pictures with two extra sets of fully-charged
batteries, so if we went out on a shoot together, you'd run out of 35mm film
long before you saw my grimace. Well, that's not entirely true--I might
just grimace at you on general principles. :)
It will come full circle? Hmmm...I wonder. If you went to an Egyptian
union hall, would you find a bunch of musty, self-described "pyramid
builders" sitting around playing cards waiting for a call? Interesting
thought.
Roland Karlsson
>> Also, I see that the CCD don't butt perfectly - there are 28 to 43
>> pixels of gap between the CCDs. For astronomy that may not matter
>> much, but how would you deal with the multiple missing rows and columns
>> in an ordinary terrestrial photograph, without taking two offset
>> images?
>
> There's no easy way to get rid of the gaps without taking multiple
> images, not that I can think of. Perhaps you could rig up a system to
> automatically take two exposures and combine them into one, using some
> slight motion of the optics internal to the camera to produce the
> offset. It would be very complicated to get this as user-friendly as
> single detector imaging, though.
>
>> I really don't think the CCD mosaic is going to appear in consumer
>> cameras for a while.
>
> Sounds about right to me.
>
Yepp - there must be a gap and you must take multiple exposures to get
the entire picture. And the price is way up. It is possible though
to make a film of similar size and also a camera for an amaunt of
money that many people (not all mind you) can afford. So - film
scales better.
Roland
Mxsmanic
> Except for all the horse manure. Although there
> is this thread...
You repeat yourself.
Mxsmanic
> From my guess you can expose digital for a long time
> and look at the picture while you are still collectiong
> photons.
Not so. You must end the exposure first. And long exposures require
that the CCD be cooled by liquid nitrogen or helium in order to reduce
thermal noise, otherwise they'd be a mass of "grain."
> Or use something like the three chip system used by
> video cameras to combine multiple sensors ...
An excellent idea. I'm waiting to see it implemented for still cameras.
> Once again, I question how much resolution is needed.
You can never have too much resolution.
> I often here about paper monitors are just around the corner.
> They are cheap as chips (pun intended) and can be unrolled
> like a poster onto a wall.
Don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for flat panels to replace
CRTs.
Mxsmanic
> I can take hundreds of pictures with two extra
> sets of fully-charged batteries, so if we went out
> on a shoot together, you'd run out of 35mm film
> long before you saw my grimace.
You'd run out of storage space before he ran out of film. For
comparable quality to film, you'd need JPEGs of about 15 MB each. Three
hundred of those would be five gigabytes. Where would you put them?
Dave
wrote:
>Once again, I question how much resolution is needed. But that is a thread
>that has been beaten to death
>and reserected ad infinitum.
Surely within 10 years megapixels will become like megahertz in
computer terms and bhp in car terms, a way of showing off how "big"
you are.
--
Dave
Mxsmanic
> Surely within 10 years megapixels will become like
> megahertz in computer terms and bhp in car terms,
> a way of showing off how "big" you are.
That was already true about four years ago.
Eugene
>>be going reasonably strong for over 10 years yet.
>
>
> Much longer than ten years. Don't forget the rest of the world, which
> hasn't even discovered digital yet.
>
What part of the rest of the world are you refering to?
>+<
Emerging 2nd / 3rd world countries, most places with exception of Western
Europe, North America, Japan.
Even within these countries there will be some consumers that will
continue to purchase film.
Most average people (digital users) I talk to will admit consumer grade
digital is not on par with film (yet).
--
Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur. (Horace)
Paul H.
> Paul H. writes:
>
> > I can take hundreds of pictures with two extra
> > sets of fully-charged batteries, so if we went out
> > on a shoot together, you'd run out of 35mm film
> > long before you saw my grimace.
>
> You'd run out of storage space before he ran out of film. For
> comparable quality to film, you'd need JPEGs of about 15 MB each. Three
> hundred of those would be five gigabytes. Where would you put them?
Well, even if I eschewed the expensive 1 GB CF cards and carried the more
available and affordable 512 MB CF, 5GB is only ten 512MB CF cards (or even
just twenty 256MB CF's). Easily carried, don't you think? Besides, why
should I need "comparable quality to film"? For most exposures and for most
purposes, film has far too much excess capacity and the extra resolution is
wasted on the shot. Most of the time, for instance, you just want a clear
shot of a bee floating above a flower and you don't really care if you can
blow the shot up enough to count the hairs on the bee's bottom.
But I'll grant you this: If the discussion devolves from general
photography to the subject of photographers as pack animals, the 35mm guy
would easily win the contest, since my batteries weigh far more his 35mm
film cannisters and he can thus carry a lot more film. On the other hand,
if we leave the realm of practicality and common sense behind as your post
suggests we do, I demand he take his pictures using 8x10 silver-halide
coated glass plates using a pinhole camera. Let's see who runs out of
storage media now. Oops! Guess I'm back in the winner's circle. Pointless
victory, though.
I love film, OK? I still have and occasionally use my 35mm SLR, but mostly
for old times' sake. The handwriting is on the wall, however, and digital
is in ascendency while film is starting to flag as far as general
photography goes. We haven't quite reached the top of the trajectories yet,
but that time *will* come, and digital will overtake its celluloid
predecessor. So what? The image is the thing, not the technology, and I
don't understand what all the discord is about. A couple of years ago, I
went through a box of my Dad's old 110 negatives and mentioned to him how
small the frames seemed compared to 35mm format. Guess what? My Dad didn't
flail his arms, nor did he start screaming "ONE-TEN WILL NEVER DIE, YOU 35MM
HERETIC! I CAN CARRY MORE 110 FILM UP MY LEFT NOSTRIL THAN YOU CAN ON YOUR
ENTIRE BODY!" He said something like "Things are a lot better now", or some
such. No emotional outburst, just a casual acknowledgement that times had
changed and that he'd changed with them.
Well, times HAVE changed. You like 35mm film? Fine, shoot away and I wish
you all the happiness in the world; for your sake and the sake of others who
feel as you do, I hope 35mm film and processing are available forever. Your
preference, however, has nothing at all to do with tide of history, so don't
take it so personally. It's just a technology, it ain't a religion.
Now I realize that by saying "the image is the thing" above, I've opened the
discussion up to claims of the sort "Exactly! The image IS the thing! I can
take a 35mm family group photo, crop it and blow it up to a billboard-sized
pictures whichs shows only the tiny mole on Aunt Martha's chin! Try that
with digital!" Ok, I concede that point. But the truth is that most
people I know take the darn picture, smile at it for five seconds, then
slide it into the album or toss it into the drawer. A few might have the
picture made into an 8x10 and hang it on the wall. For such people, digital
photography is more than sufficient unto their needs and, like it or not,
these are the people who will determine the winner in the film-vs.-digital
race. Such are the vagaries of the marketplace.
Frankly, I think film's excess storage capacity is an often-overlooked point
in the unnecessarily heated film-vs.-digital debate and its implications are
not appreciated well enough by film's aficianados. There are times, for
example, when I have to move something across town which just will not fit
in my car and I must make other arrangements. But such unusual
circumstances don't convince me to trade my car in for a
semi-tractor/trailer so I can be prepared for every such eventuality. So it
is with digital photography: The vast majority of general photographers
will never require even a small fraction of the resolution film offers, so
why should they care if their digital camera doesn't offer "comparable
quality to film"? They just want a picture to commemorate an event and to
show to their friends, or they wish to indulge their own artistic leanings
and such things can be easily accomodated by digital cameras of moderate
resolution.
Dave Martindale
>Liquid nitrogen is essentially free - it's easily distilled from the air for
>pennies' worth of electricity. It's literally cheaper than water.
If you ignore the capital cost of the machinery to do the distillation.
I'd love to have a supply of LN2, but I've never seen the necessary
equipment at a price that would be practical for a home hobbyist.
If it was easier to obtain, I suspect you'd see more amateur astronomy
CCD cameras using LN2 cooling instead of Peltier cooling - but they're
all Peltier.
>There's no easy way to get rid of the gaps without taking multiple images,
>not that I can think of. Perhaps you could rig up a system to automatically
>take two exposures and combine them into one, using some slight motion of
>the optics internal to the camera to produce the offset. It would be
>very complicated to get this as user-friendly as single detector imaging,
>though.
The real problem is that subjects move. The night sky is, for the most
part, pretty stationary, but that's not true of most photographic
subjects. If you have a subject that doesn't move, either a still life
or a distant landscape, there are already cameras using a
mechanically-scanned linear sensor that will give images tens of
megapixels in size, in 3 colours (no Bayer filter). But if the subject
moves, you can't use this, nor can you take two successive exposures.
Fundamentally, digital still cameras use area-array sensors because they
need to capture the entire scene at the same time. Astronomers use
area-array sensors because they need long integration times per pixel; a
scanned linear CCD couldn't remain in one place long enough to collect
enough photons.
Dave
Mark VandeWettering
> I think the scaling example is relevant. Have you seen the fantastic trick
> filming in music videos where all are standing still as statues? The camera
> is moving around and looking at freezed people and dogs and whatever from
> different angles. The first time it looks impossible. But, it is not. The
> setup consists of hundreds of small cameras all distributed along a 70
> mm film strip. Then all those cameras are triggered simultaneously. Then
> it is only to take a look at the film. To do the same with digital we
> have to use hundreds of small digital cameras with high resolution and
> also construct some method to download the hundreds of pictures fast.
>
> It is not impossible to do it with digital cameras, just very expensive
> and cumbersome.
You don't need to download them fast. After all, you can't download them
fast from your film camera, can you?
Yes, digital cameras (at least those with reasonable resolution) are more
expensive, but if you look at how the cost of integrated CMOS sensors has
plummetted, it might not be that long before entirely digital effects of
the type you mention might be attempted.
Mark
> BTW - can you tell me the price of that mosaic imager at Hawaii?
>
>
> Roland
Dave Martindale
>Yes, digital cameras (at least those with reasonable resolution) are more
>expensive, but if you look at how the cost of integrated CMOS sensors has
>plummetted, it might not be that long before entirely digital effects of
>the type you mention might be attempted.
It's certainly possible in theory - just build a bunch of small camera
modules consisting of lens, shutter, CCD, and readout electronics, then
stack them into a strip or arc like LEGO.
The advantage of film is economic. It's simply cheaper to use one
continuous strip of film threaded through all the cameras on the track
to acquire 100 high-resolution images simultaneously, than it is to build
a camera with 100 CCDs in it, even if you can use a standard CCD (which
you probably can for this application).
Film is just easier and cheaper for "one off" camera designs, if it can
do what you need.
Dave
MarkH
news:m2v5evs8vhjs074i3...@4ax.com:
> Paul H. writes:
>
>> I can take hundreds of pictures with two extra
>> sets of fully-charged batteries, so if we went out
>> on a shoot together, you'd run out of 35mm film
>> long before you saw my grimace.
>
> You'd run out of storage space before he ran out of film. For
> comparable quality to film, you'd need JPEGs of about 15 MB each.
> Three hundred of those would be five gigabytes. Where would you put
> them?
If there was a camera that made 15MB JPGs then the X-Drive II with 60GB
HDD which is available today could easily hold 4000 of such images and
still be smaller and lighter than 111 rolls of film.
On my 10D the JPGs are usually around 2.5MB and the X-Drive could hold
24000 pics, so I’ll save money buy just getting a 40GB HDD when I get
mine. I’ll be able to take the equivalent of over 400 rolls of film
while away from home.
Just to stir up more of this film vs digital:
Yesterday I went to the zoo to take some pics. Here in NZ we often get
changeable weather and yesterday if was fluctuating between sunny and
cloudy and quite overcast. I found that in the open with sun shining I
could get excellent shutter speeds at ISO 100, but in the shade when
overcast even with an IS lens I needed ISO1600 (if shutter speed is too
low there is subject movement to worry about). Some animals are upset
by the flash so I never used that at all. Honestly I don’t think film
would have been up to the task at all. How can you change from ISO100
for one shot to ISO1600 for the next with film? How can you have a
picture with barely noticeable noise or grain at ISO1600 with film?
I may not be able to convince many of the hardened film junkies that
digital can replace their precious medium, but I have read nothing over
the past few years to convince me that film can match what digital is
capable of.
As to the notion of digital users being unable to take pictures because
they will run out of battery power? That is completely ridiculous! The
batteries for my camera are small and light (no more that 2 rolls of
film) and can power the camera for over 500 shots. There is nothing
stopping me from having as many batteries as I need, and they can be
recharged hundreds of times (film can only be used once).
--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Mxsmanic
> What part of the rest of the world are you refering to?
The parts outside the dozen or so most affluent countries, which are
also the parts in which most of the world's population lives.
Mxsmanic
> Easily carried, don't you think?
Yes, but expensive.
> Besides, why should I need "comparable quality to film"?
You may not. I always want the maximum quality I can afford.
> But I'll grant you this: If the discussion devolves
> from general photography to the subject of photographers
> as pack animals, the 35mm guy would easily win the contest,
> since my batteries weigh far more his 35mm film cannisters
> and he can thus carry a lot more film.
Batteries are currently a very serious problem. Or you could say that
power consumption is currently a very serious problem.
> The handwriting is on the wall, however, and digital
> is in ascendency while film is starting to flag as far
> as general photography goes.
That remains to be seen. While I do not doubt that digital will
continue to progress, it may not necessarily do so at the expense of
film. There is much room for improvement in film, too.
> The image is the thing, not the technology, and I
> don't understand what all the discord is about.
At least some photographers, including myself, are worried that the move
to digital is occurring before digital meets or exceeds film quality.
Quality is of the utmost importance to me, and I'm not willing to
sacrifice it for other technological advantages, as a general rule.
Film isn't significantly harder or more expensive to shoot than digital,
and it is many times higher in quality. When and if digital matches
this quality, I won't care much about film anymore, but that day is
still far in the future, if current trends are any indication.
> For such people, digital photography is more than
> sufficient unto their needs and, like it or not,
> these are the people who will determine the winner
> in the film-vs.-digital race.
And right now, they are buying disposable film cameras.
> Frankly, I think film's excess storage capacity is an
> often-overlooked point in the unnecessarily heated
> film-vs.-digital debate and its implications are
> not appreciated well enough by film's aficianados.
Then why do digital fanatics seem so concerned with the number of pixels
on the latest digicams? If three megapixels is enough, why would any
digital photographer want six or twelve?
> ... such things can be easily accomodated by digital
> cameras of moderate resolution.
And they can be accommodated even better by a disposable films camera,
which is why disposable film cameras outsell film and digital camera
bodies by ten to one, with an 8% annual increase in sales.
>+<
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> At least some photographers, including myself, are worried that the move
> to digital is occurring before digital meets or exceeds film quality.
> Quality is of the utmost importance to me, and I'm not willing to
> sacrifice it for other technological advantages, as a general rule.
> Film isn't significantly harder or more expensive to shoot than digital,
> and it is many times higher in quality. When and if digital matches
> this quality, I won't care much about film anymore, but that day is
> still far in the future, if current trends are any indication.
The day I can affordably buy a digital camera that can
make a 24x30" print from a 35mm size digital camera equal to on paper
resolution & tonal scale
to my 4x5 or eight x ten cameras is the day I hang up those cameras,...it
won't happen real soon.
Realistically what is the camera makers incentive......nil.
Mxsmanic
> How can you change from ISO100 for one shot to ISO1600
> for the next with film?
You do it in post-production, in Photoshop.
> How can you have a picture with barely noticeable
> noise or grain at ISO1600 with film?
See above.
> ... I have read nothing over the past few years to
> convince me that film can match what digital is
> capable of.
And vice versa.
S f S
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> writes:
>You'd run out of storage space before he ran out of film. For
>comparable quality to film, you'd need JPEGs of about 15 MB each. Three
>hundred of those would be five gigabytes. Where would you put them?
On CD or DVD.
Cheeers,
Sussan
You may Email me taking off my name from my Email address in the header of
this posted message.
jpc
wrote:
>Giorgis writes:
>
>> When film came out, I am sure portrait painters
>> claimed that it will never replace them because
>> photography can never do what painters can.
>
>Some probably did. And some of them were right.
>
>> In the same light, is there anything that digitals
>> will never be able to do that film can?
>
>It may be difficult to match film resolution per unit area. It's just a
>lot simpler to create a smooth, even chemical coating on a piece of
>plastic than it is to fabricate millions of microscopic, perfect, active
>electronic components on a slab of silicon, so densities for film can be
>very, very high.
>
>For the same reason, it may always be easier to create a larger piece of
>film to increase resolution, whereas electronic sensors may hit limits
>sooner.
>
>> Provide a cheap SLR perhaps ...
>
>Film disposables will probably always be cheaper, since they are
>simpler. Recycling digitals might compensate for that, but that isn't
>at all certain right now.
>
>> ... low temperature or high temperature photography ?
>
>Film has little problem with thermal noise, but reciprocity failure is a
>problem for extremely long exposures.
>
>> In my mind, what drawbacks exist of digital are
>> only a matter of time. Less time rather than more.
>
>I think you are half right. Most of the drawbacks will be resolved. I
>don't know how soon, however.
>
>Remember, "digital" photography is an analog technology, and it does not
>obey Moore's Law.
>
>> And I am sure film photography took much longer
>> to develop than todays digital cameras.
>
>Not really. The move to film was pretty straightforward and took hold
>very quickly. Film had virtually no disadvantages compared to plates,
>although it had a few (flatness was a problem, for example, but not
>enough of a problem to prevent replacement of plates).
>
>> How long did it take from the first photo, to the 35mm
>> autofocus SLR ?
>
>There's a lot more than film in that chain of development. How long did
>it take from the development of the transistor to the digital camera?
A few dates
1816 --Niepce brothers start their experiments on recording image
with light using a camera obscura which I believe was invented about
1500
1883-1890 --Kodak and others develop roll film and cheap (relatively)
cameras
1925 --Leica bring out the first 35 mm camera
1982 --Sony demonstates the first digital still camera
about 1996 --I buy my first digital camera which takes a whopping 300
somthing by 200 something pixel image. Cost- something over a $100.
2001--I buy my second digital camera--3 megapixel now with far better
optics etc.for abour $450.
2001-2003 Dispite being the techno-geek that I am, I discover an
interesting fact--it's the photographer not the equipment that makes
the image. How--by taking as many digital pictures in an aveage
weekend as I used to take with film in an average year .
Case in point--Saturday I took about 50 pictures of a kid on a swing.
Forty nine of them turned out to be the usual toss--in-a-box and
forget about snapshots I've taken for years. As for the 50th
picture--I lucked out and got it right-- the expression on the girl's
face, her streaming hair, just enough blur to give a sense of
motion--everything that showed the joy of flying high on the first day
of summer vacation
Would I have gotten that image with my trusty old Canon SLR with its
technically sharper optics and faster shutter speed
Never-
Forget the fact that I had a chance to review the images and reset my
aperture and shutter until I got ithat right The real reason I
wouldn't have gotten the picture was that I wouldn't have wasted 2+
rolls of film--a $20 bill when you add up all the costs- on pictures
of the visiting grand-daughter of a neighbor I barely know.
That the real advantage of digital vs film in my opinion. Digital
maybe techically inferior to film in many ways but if you approich it
right it sure lets you experiment. Why you should see beauty of a
picture I found in the 100 odd pictures I took the weekend before--
the ones of minnows swiimming among the weeds.
end of rant-
jpc
Joseph Meehan
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Joseph Meehan
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"Giorgis" <gior...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ee19d55$0$26639$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Considering all those posts about film being superior to digital, I
> would like to pose a question.
> When film came out, I am sure portrait painters claimed that it will
> never replace them because photography can never do what painters can. The
> same goes for a whole bunch of industries that technology has sort of
> trampled on.
> In the same light, is there anything that digitals will never be able
to
> do that film can?
> Provide a cheap SLR perhaps, a particular dynamic range, low
temperature
> or high temperature photography ?
> In my mind, what drawbacks exist of digital are only a matter of time.
> Less time rather than more.
>
> And I am sure film photography took much longer to develop than todays
> digital cameras. How long did it take from the first photo, to the 35mm
> autofocus SLR ?
>
>
> Giorgis
>
>
Roland Karlsson
> 2001-2003 Dispite being the techno-geek that I am, I discover an
> interesting fact--it's the photographer not the equipment that makes
> the image.
Sorry - but your store said the contrary. You said that
you would never have taken the picture using film :)
Roland
David Dyer-Bennet
> Paul H. writes:
>
> > Easily carried, don't you think?
>
> Yes, but expensive.
>
> > Besides, why should I need "comparable quality to film"?
>
> You may not. I always want the maximum quality I can afford.
I clearly don't; I sometimes take out my 35mm film camera and leave
the 4x5 at home.
> > But I'll grant you this: If the discussion devolves
> > from general photography to the subject of photographers
> > as pack animals, the 35mm guy would easily win the contest,
> > since my batteries weigh far more his 35mm film cannisters
> > and he can thus carry a lot more film.
>
> Batteries are currently a very serious problem. Or you could say that
> power consumption is currently a very serious problem.
No, it's a trivial problem. I can take hundreds of photos on a single
set of 4 NiMH AAs. I can easily carry two spare sets.
> > The handwriting is on the wall, however, and digital
> > is in ascendency while film is starting to flag as far
> > as general photography goes.
>
> That remains to be seen. While I do not doubt that digital will
> continue to progress, it may not necessarily do so at the expense of
> film. There is much room for improvement in film, too.
It's very clearly progressing *at the expense of film* even as we
speak. Many kinds of photography are moving from film to digital.
> > The image is the thing, not the technology, and I
> > don't understand what all the discord is about.
>
> At least some photographers, including myself, are worried that the move
> to digital is occurring before digital meets or exceeds film quality.
> Quality is of the utmost importance to me, and I'm not willing to
> sacrifice it for other technological advantages, as a general rule.
The choice of 35mm over 4x5 is sacrificing technical quality for
convenience and portability -- and that portability created a whole
new type of photography when it first became available.
I do not mean for a moment to denigrate quality. However, there's
more to a picture than technical quality. Especially with human
subjects, the ability to set up and shoot *quickly* is vital, and can
make the difference between a ho-hum picture and a tremendous
picture. A tremendous picture with a little grain at 8x10 is much
better, for most purposes, than a ho-hum picture with no grain at
16x20.
Similarly, sports photos got a lot *better* when people started doing
them in 35mm, because they could get longer lenses and track the
action better. Even if the technical quality was notably worse.
> Film isn't significantly harder or more expensive to shoot than digital,
> and it is many times higher in quality. When and if digital matches
> this quality, I won't care much about film anymore, but that day is
> still far in the future, if current trends are any indication.
Film is much harder to shoot than digital -- the ability to
immediately view your results is of tremendous value.
It's also more expensive to shoot than digital, if you do any
significant amount of photography (say if you're up to 10% of the rate
a professional creates pictures). $1500 for the Canon 10D divided by
$15/roll for film plus processing means you break even in 100 rolls,
which is to say about half a year. Anything after that is pure
profit. And note that you get the benefit of not spending time or
money scanning your negatives *for free* in this analysis; if you
include that, the breakeven is even soon.
Digital produces results of entirely satisfactory quality for nearly
all purposes that 35mm photograpy is used for. (Digital backs in
larger formats are also very good, but I haven't worked with them and
have no detailed opinion about how they compare to film). The one
16x24 print I've got from a Fuji S2 picture is better-looking than any
16x20 I've ever printed from 35mm film.
> > For such people, digital photography is more than
> > sufficient unto their needs and, like it or not,
> > these are the people who will determine the winner
> > in the film-vs.-digital race.
>
> And right now, they are buying disposable film cameras.
The amount of space devoted to those in the mass-market stores
(Target, Wal-Mart, like that) that I'm seeing is dropping. The amount
of space devoted to digital cameras and media for them is growing.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
Unknown
<roland_do...@bonetmail.com> wrote:
This is the usenet. The unwritten rules say that during a rant you can
take up to 5 contradictory positions in 4 consecutive sentences:)
jpc
MarkH
news:Xns9395E4B66C0F5ro...@130.133.1.4:
What? I presume that you mean story? There is nothing contrary in that
story.
It IS the photographer that counts, not the equipment.
With digital the photographer often gets pictures they wouldn’t get with
film.
These two statement are BOTH very true!
Digital encourages the photographer to take as many pics as they feel
like and therefore the photographer gets more pics.
If cameras could talk the digitals would say "You paid a fortune for this
gear, but it will cost you nothing to take another picture, go on."
The film camera, being less advanced, would just make the cha-ching cash
register sound on each press of the shutter.
When I owned a film SLR the most pics I took in a day was 72, 3 rolls of
24. With my new 10D I have taken over 1000 pics in the first 3 days and
my 2nd 512MB card should arrive today or tomorrow, so I can take more
photos easier. With film I was always conscious of the cost of taking
pics, this made me rather conservative with my photo taking.
Film inhibits the photographer, this is bad because it’s the photographer
not the equipment that makes the image.
Digital encourages the photographer, it makes the photographer feel free
to take as many pictures as possible, this is the absolutely best feature
the digital camera offer. What the camera does for the photographer is
more important than what it does for the picture, the photographer is the
most important component of photography by far!
Roland, it occurs to me that maybe your grasp of English is not perfect.
It may be that when jpc said that he wouldn’t have got that perfect
picture with film, maybe you misunderstood and thought he was saying that
he couldn’t have got that shot with film. If so, sorry about the rant.
Mxsmanic
> As for the 50th picture--I lucked out and got it
> right-- the expression on the girl's face, her streaming
> hair, just enough blur to give a sense of motion--everything
> that showed the joy of flying high on the first day
> of summer vacation
When you can get that same image without depending on luck, you'll be a
photographer.
> Would I have gotten that image with my trusty old Canon
> SLR with its technically sharper optics and faster
> shutter speed
If you are depending on luck, there's no way to know.
> That the real advantage of digital vs film in my opinion.
If your photographic technique is a simple shotgun approach, I suppose
that's true.
Unknown
wrote:
>jpc writes:
>
>> As for the 50th picture--I lucked out and got it
>> right-- the expression on the girl's face, her streaming
>> hair, just enough blur to give a sense of motion--everything
>> that showed the joy of flying high on the first day
>> of summer vacation
>
>When you can get that same image without depending on luck, you'll be a
>photographer.
Second rule of usenet--Thou shall not be meak and humble and use the
word luck or thou shall be expelled from Photoland and banished to
Snapshotland.
To be more exact about the image I was attempted to capture, I was
flat on my belly and as close as I could get to the girl when she was
at the bottom of her trajectory. I didn't want her kicking the camera
out of my hands or me knocking her off the swing. She,on the other
hand, thought it would be great fun to manage to kick something,
Photgraphic principle applied--if you want to jazz up a cliche picture
try an unusual angle.
Results-- a half dozen pictures I would have thought great a year ago.
Now I think I can do better. The lucky shot--they were actually three
good ones--were among the last few I took after I skooted out of her
way and stood up. By then her facial expression had changed from
lets-get--him-good to hey--that-was-fun. Not the image I was after,
but if you do a lot of action and candid photography you'll discover
the really good pictures are never the ones you expected.
>
>> Would I have gotten that image with my trusty old Canon
>> SLR with its technically sharper optics and faster
>> shutter speed
>
>If you are depending on luck, there's no way to know.
I know because I taped my trusty 1951 AF resolution chart up on the
wall and took test pictures--something I do with all my cameras and
lens. One a techno-geek always a techno-geek I guess.
>
>> That the real advantage of digital vs film in my opinion.
>
>If your photographic technique is a simple shotgun approach, I suppose
>that's true.
Like a good quarterback, sometimes I shotgun, sometimes I don't. One
of my on going projects. Got up one morning and start to cook bacon
and eggs. I was about to toss the egg shells when I fell into a
minimalist mood and wondered what sort of images I could create with
just three cracked eggs shells
An amazing variety as it turns out.
The egg shells are neatly stored away in my den/photo studio and
whenever I'm in the mood to challange myself I take them out and try
to devise yet another way to arrange and illuminate them.
If you take your photography seriously try something like that. It's
realy more fun than posting nas-----awh damn --meak and humble strikes
again-- guess I have to let others decide which of the two of us is
likely to be the better photographer.
jpc
Mxsmanic
> It's very clearly progressing *at the expense of film*
> even as we speak.
Not nearly to the extent that many claim. Film is still selling very
well.
> Many kinds of photography are moving from film to digital.
And many are not. Additionally, many photographers choosing digital
have not previously been taking photographs at all, so digital is
largely addressing a new market, not a replacement market.
> The choice of 35mm over 4x5 is sacrificing technical
> quality for convenience and portability ...
True, but nobody claims that 35mm is superior to 4x5, nor does anyone
claim that 35mm is eliminating 4x5.
> Similarly, sports photos got a lot *better* when people
> started doing them in 35mm ...
And have they gotten better now that they are shot digitally?
> Film is much harder to shoot than digital -- the ability
> to immediately view your results is of tremendous value.
Not if you already know what you are shooting. The shotgun method is
obviously easier to use with digital, but not everyone depends on a roll
of the dice to get good photos.
> Digital produces results of entirely satisfactory
> quality for nearly all purposes that 35mm photograpy
> is used for.
Agreed.
> The amount of space devoted to those in the mass-market
> stores (Target, Wal-Mart, like that) that I'm seeing
> is dropping.
The margins on disposable cameras are quite small. Additionally, they
sell best when they are sold right next to the places in which they are
most likely to be used, as they are usually impulse purchases.
> The amount of space devoted to digital cameras and media
> for them is growing.
Digital cameras and media have much more handsome margins.
Mxsmanic
> It IS the photographer that counts, not the equipment.
> With digital the photographer often gets pictures
> they wouldn’t get with film.
These two statements cannot be simultaneously true. If it's the
photographer, and not the equipment, than how can digital get pictures
that film cannot?
> These two statement are BOTH very true!
See above.
> Digital encourages the photographer to take as many
> pics as they feel like and therefore the photographer
> gets more pics.
So?
> If cameras could talk the digitals would say "You paid
> a fortune for this gear, but it will cost you nothing
> to take another picture, go on."
Cameras don't talk.
> When I owned a film SLR the most pics I took in a day was
> 72, 3 rolls of 24.
I've occasionally shot up to 8 rolls a day (288 photos), which isn't a
huge number compared to some photographers. Even so, sorting through
288 photos is very time-consuming (and digital doesn't help that).
> With my new 10D I have taken over 1000 pics in the
> first 3 days ...
And how much time have you spent editing them?
> Film inhibits the photographer, this is bad because
> it’s the photographer not the equipment that makes
> the image.
This statement is self-contradictory.
> Digital encourages the photographer, it makes the
> photographer feel free to take as many pictures as
> possible, this is the absolutely best feature
> the digital camera offer.
There's a lot more to photography than just clicking the shutter.
Mxsmanic
> To be more exact about the image I was attempted
> to capture, I was flat on my belly and as close as
> I could get to the girl when she was at the bottom
> of her trajectory. I didn't want her kicking the
> camera out of my hands or me knocking her off the
> swing. She,on the other hand, thought it would be
> great fun to manage to kick something,
So?
> The lucky shot--they were actually three good ones
> --were among the last few I took after I skooted out
> of her way and stood up.
So much for an unusual angle being the key to a good photo, eh?
> Not the image I was after, but if you do a lot of
> action and candid photography you'll discover
> the really good pictures are never the ones you
> expected.
Usually the ones I think will be pretty good do indeed turn out to be
pretty good, but it is difficult to determine which will be the best in
advance, since that requires a lot of looking at the images.
> If you take your photography seriously try
> something like that.
I'm not interested in abstract art photography. It doesn't appeal to me
personally, and it doesn't sell.
MarkH
news:u3uaevs2unlb0mahk...@4ax.com:
> MarkH writes:
>
>> It IS the photographer that counts, not the equipment.
>> With digital the photographer often gets pictures
>> they wouldn’t get with film.
>
> These two statements cannot be simultaneously true. If it's the
> photographer, and not the equipment, than how can digital get pictures
> that film cannot?
That is explained in the post you have replied to.
>> These two statement are BOTH very true!
>
> See above.
See above
>> Digital encourages the photographer to take as many
>> pics as they feel like and therefore the photographer
>> gets more pics.
>
> So?
You missed the answer to your question above.
>> If cameras could talk the digitals would say "You paid
>> a fortune for this gear, but it will cost you nothing
>> to take another picture, go on."
>
> Cameras don't talk.
I never said that they could.
>> When I owned a film SLR the most pics I took in a day was
>> 72, 3 rolls of 24.
>
> I've occasionally shot up to 8 rolls a day (288 photos), which isn't a
> huge number compared to some photographers. Even so, sorting through
> 288 photos is very time-consuming (and digital doesn't help that).
I’ve never had that kind of spare money for film and processing, maybe
you can afford to shoot 8 rolls in a day, but have you considered that
many can’t?
>> With my new 10D I have taken over 1000 pics in the
>> first 3 days ...
>
> And how much time have you spent editing them?
5 minutes to look through them to find the best ones, then a couple of
hours to crop and resize for the web. Is this relevant somehow?
>> Film inhibits the photographer, this is bad because
>> it’s the photographer not the equipment that makes
>> the image.
>
> This statement is self-contradictory.
I have reread the paragraph several times, if you lack the intelligence
to understand it then just take my word for it, it is NOT self-
contradictory!
>> Digital encourages the photographer, it makes the
>> photographer feel free to take as many pictures as
>> possible, this is the absolutely best feature
>> the digital camera offer.
>
> There's a lot more to photography than just clicking the shutter.
Yes, indeed there is.
Mxsmanic
The more I read your posts the more I understand that you find film suits
your needs well. But you seem to lack the gene that allows you to see
the point of view of others. Even if you can’t understand how, just
accept as a fact that digital suits some more than film, just as film
suits you more than digital.
Giorgis
Do you know any good photographers that setup a scene and take one shot
knowing they got what they wanted ?
I doubt that you do. Why do they take multiple ?
Why do you argue that film is not all that expensive, if it is not an
argument at all ?
Well it is, as pointed out in another post, and very much so. It is like
playing paintball. Every click of the trigger and you pay iretriavably.
Finaly, if you think digital is cheating I would endevor to say it is
film that is doing most of the cheating now days.
You see if you feel you are a purist, then why do film cameras have
so much electronics to aid the photographer. I mean autofocus might have
65536 different positions, and manual focus is analogue. Well, autofocus can
never be as good as manual then !!! (Even if some may argue that a couple of
hundred is all that is required)
Then if you are a purist you should develop your own film. Why have
sombody else colour balance your film ? (or a machine for that matter) The
digital can do all the legwork him self.
I remember when CDs came out, many argued that vinil sounded better.
I find it very similar to todays film Vs Digital.
You can still buy vinil today. But guess what, if you ask those few purist
left they will argue that vinil still sounds better. Yet the truth is that
the whole process to produce that LP is a digital one all upto the last
step, so that quality will be preserved. DAT tapes have even better digital
sound, but nobody is pursuing it. You can better quality sound like you can
probably get better pixel resolution but why ?
This thread should be dieing about now is my guess. I am convinced that
film will go the way of the LP. The irony is that portrait painting will
outlive film photography because it is different to photography. I cannot
see how film photography is any different or special to digital photography
at all. I am convinced that film is almost in every way a subset to digital
photography.
G
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ccuaevsc50a3o75eq...@4ax.com...
Mxsmanic
> That is explained in the post you have replied to.
I saw that. But it remains logically inconsistent, despite any attempt
at explanation.
> You missed the answer to your question above.
There wasn't any answer.
> I’ve never had that kind of spare money for film
> and processing ...
And yet you have money to buy digital cameras?
It's much cheaper to pay cash for a home than it is to take out a
mortgage. Given this, have you ever wondered why almost every homeowner
has a mortgage? They pay several times the value of the house that way,
after all.
> ... maybe you can afford to shoot 8 rolls in a day,
> but have you considered that many can’t?
Those who cannot are not in a position to drop $1500 on a digital
camera, either.
> 5 minutes to look through them to find the best ones ...
That's just over three seconds per shot. You're able to evaluate shots
in three seconds?
> ... then a couple of hours to crop and resize for
> the web. Is this relevant somehow?
I was pointing out that the time spenting editing and manipulating
images is not negligeable, and may be far greater than the time required
to take the photographs in the first place. So shooting thousands of
photographs is not necessarily a good thing.
> I have reread the paragraph several times, if you
> lack the intelligence to understand it then just
> take my word for it, it is NOT self-contradictory!
Film is equipment. Film inhibits the photographer. The image is made
by the photographer, not the equipment. If the photographer makes the
image, and not the equipment, how can the equipment (film) have an
influence on the making of the image?
> The more I read your posts the more I understand
> that you find film suits your needs well.
Yes.
> But you seem to lack the gene that allows you to see
> the point of view of others.
No, I lack the gene that would cause me to accept the opinions of others
as objectively valid without objective support therefor.
> Even if you can’t understand how, just accept as a fact
> that digital suits some more than film, just as film
> suits you more than digital.
I accept that; I am simply wary of the rather poor arguments that some
people who prefer digital try to advance in support of their preference.
They should just say that they prefer digital, without trying
(unsuccessfully) to rationalize it.
Mxsmanic
> Do you know any good photographers that setup
> a scene and take one shot knowing they got what
> they wanted ?
I'm sure it is fairly typical for many landscape and studio
photographers, and in general for any photographer with good control
over the photography of a relatively static subject.
> I doubt that you do.
Sometimes I do. I usually do MF and landscape photography that way.
> Why do they take multiple ?
Because they aren't sure whether or not they've done something right.
> Why do you argue that film is not all that expensive,
> if it is not an argument at all?
Some people claim that an important advantage of digital is the absence
of any need to pay for film and development. But film and development
are not always the most costly parts of photography, and sometimes they
disappear into the background compared to other costs.
For example, I may only take several pictures (on film) in several
hours. My time is worthy many, many times the cost of the film and
development I require.
The more you know in advance exactly what you intend to record, the more
trivial the cost of film and development becomes, since, in such cases,
you more closely approach the ideal of one exposure = one finished
image.
> Finaly, if you think digital is cheating I would endevor
> to say it is film that is doing most of the cheating now days.
I don't recall saying anything about cheating. Digital facilitates a
shotgun approach to photography, for those who simply shoot as many
photos as possible in the hope of getting one that is really good. But
some people with digital cameras don't shoot any more than they would
with film, and they get a very high yield of good photos, just the same.
> You see if you feel you are a purist, then why do
> film cameras have so much electronics to aid the
> photographer.
They don't. My MF camera, for example, doesn't even have a meter.
> I mean autofocus might have 65536 different positions, and manual
> focus is analogue.
Some autofocus systems are analog as well.
> Then if you are a purist you should develop your own
> film.
Why? Development is always the same. It is best done by machine.
> Why have sombody else colour balance your film?
I don't.
> I remember when CDs came out, many argued that vinil
> sounded better.
Some still do, although I've always preferred CDs.
> I find it very similar to todays film Vs Digital.
There are far fewer similarities than you might think, for reasons I
won't go into.
> DAT tapes have even better digital sound, but
> nobody is pursuing it.
DAT tapes have significant disadvantages, although their data
equivalents are useful for computer backups.
> I am convinced that film will go the way of the LP.
Not any time soon.
> I cannot see how film photography is any different or
> special to digital photography at all.
It's not, really. The only difference is in the image sensor. But
until film is clearly and undeniably inferior to digital, and as
expensive or more so, it will continue to find a market. Right now, it
provides superior images, in both an absolute sense and in a
cost/benefit sense.
> I am convinced that film is almost in every way
> a subset to digital photography.
Odd that it predates digital photography, then.
MarkH
news:43gbevshk1qm7c938...@4ax.com:
> MarkH writes:
>> I’ve never had that kind of spare money for film
>> and processing ...
>
> And yet you have money to buy digital cameras?
Yes, if I went through say 10 rolls per week for a year then it would cost
over 4 times what my 10D cost, if I were to keep my 10D for 4 or 5 years
then the savings are enormous!
If I bought a film camera and shot 2 rolls per week then within a year I
still would have spent more than to buy a 10D.
Do you understand simple economics?
I’ll repeat for the hard of thinking:
I can afford a 10D (just), but no way can I afford the several times higher
expense of film.
Of course the maths may work out slightly differently where you live, but
what would it cost you to shoot 10 rolls a week for a year? (film and
processing costs)
Mxsmanic
> Yes, if I went through say 10 rolls per week for
> a year then it would cost over 4 times what my
> 10D cost, if I were to keep my 10D for 4 or 5 years
> then the savings are enormous!
And if you went through, say, one roll a week, it would take you years
to recover the cost of your 10D.
> Do you understand simple economics?
I understand photography. I don't understand the obsession that some
people have with "proving" that digital photography is superior to film
photography, or vice versa. Why can't they be content to simply
acknowledge their own subjective preferences, admit that there is no
clear advantage of either system over the other overall, and be done
with it?
> I’ll repeat for the hard of thinking:
> I can afford a 10D (just), but no way can I afford
> the several times higher expense of film.
Sure you can. You can afford either of these. You just want to shoot
digital, and so you are trying to find specious arguments to create the
illusion that there is some objective advantage to shooting digital that
makes it undeniably and generally superior to film.
Why not just admit that you prefer digital photography? You can't prove
that it is objectively better, so why try? Indeed, why does the method
of image capture matter at all? Do you get your enjoyment out of taking
pictures, or out of fondling equipment?
> Of course the maths may work out slightly differently
> where you live, but what would it cost you to shoot 10
> rolls a week for a year? (film and processing costs)
It depends on film and development. For Fujichrome Provia 400F (an
expensive pro transparency film) and a pro lab, it would come out to
$10,400, which represents some 18,720 exposures. For really cheap film
and development, it would cost about $2080 a year.
However, 18,720 exposures is a lot for me. In fact, I shoot only about
1/6 that amount per year, and I spend about $1000 a year on film and
development (more on professional assignments, but that is billed to the
customer).
It would thus take me about eight years to amortize the cost of a
digital camera body in film savings, and the quality of the digital
images would be only about 1/10 of the quality of the film images I'm
obtaining now.
For me, film still clearly wins.
Don Stauffer
I have so far stayed out of this thread, but thought I'd throw this in.
One can take a piece of film, fully expose it by holding it in sunlight
for a few seconds, then develop it, and use it to make glasses to view a
solar eclipse. That is probably pretty hard to do with a digital image
:-)
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stau...@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
Giorgis
> Giorgis writes:
>
> > Do you know any good photographers that setup
> > a scene and take one shot knowing they got what
> > they wanted ?
>
> I'm sure it is fairly typical for many landscape and studio
> photographers, and in general for any photographer with good control
> over the photography of a relatively static subject.
>
> > I doubt that you do.
>
> Sometimes I do. I usually do MF and landscape photography that way.
>
> > Why do they take multiple ?
>
> Because they aren't sure whether or not they've done something right.
>
What I am getting at is that taking multiple photos is not a question of
talent.
The two are seperated, I shall explain
> > Why do you argue that film is not all that expensive,
> > if it is not an argument at all?
>
> Some people claim that an important advantage of digital is the absence
> of any need to pay for film and development. But film and development
> are not always the most costly parts of photography, and sometimes they
> disappear into the background compared to other costs.
>
Well then the whole aregument lies is quantitating "not always" and
"most costly" and
"sometimes" In fact from even from your words you tend away from your won
point.
You should rather say "More often than not the development costs of film
photography
are lesser part of the expense.
> For example, I may only take several pictures (on film) in several
> hours. My time is worthy many, many times the cost of the film and
> development I require.
>
So if your time is worth more that the cost of film, you should take
more photos,
to make more efficient use of it.
> The more you know in advance exactly what you intend to record, the more
> trivial the cost of film and development becomes, since, in such cases,
> you more closely approach the ideal of one exposure = one finished
> image.
>
But why make that a factor at all in your work. Can you imagine if a
painter new that the colour red is most expensive, so most of his work is
based on the colour blue. What digital does for you is remove that factor.
In fact it does alot more like reduce the time between photo taken and
displayed, the cost, the repetiveness of copies, the life expectancy of an
image. I cannot imagine that you might think that these restrictions force
the photographer to be more talented.
It might make a photographer to think more because he is investing more
in every shot. But the digital requires more of your thinking to go into the
photo and not getting around the problems of film.
> > Finaly, if you think digital is cheating I would endevor
> > to say it is film that is doing most of the cheating now days.
>
> I don't recall saying anything about cheating. Digital facilitates a
> shotgun approach to photography, for those who simply shoot as many
> photos as possible in the hope of getting one that is really good. But
> some people with digital cameras don't shoot any more than they would
> with film, and they get a very high yield of good photos, just the same.
>
I accept this point. That is an expression of a photographer in how he
takes photos. I have a friend that went to tech (colledge) to study
photography. Only a couple of years ago when he started, he did not think
that digital was a threat. Now he says not only he and all the students but
the lecturers as well have little doubt that the end is neigh. It's like he
got overtaken while he was studying the art it self !!!
<<snip>>
> > Then if you are a purist you should develop your own
> > film.
>
>
> > I remember when CDs came out, many argued that vinil
> > sounded better.
>
> Some still do, although I've always preferred CDs.
>
Vinil can never sound better ?!?! Unless you consider a softening of a
photo is better than the original ? We are not talking "matter of taste" we
are talking quantitative quality. The mastering equipment is digital, vinil
is the weekest link. I am sure you can digitaly degrade the sound if your
prefer it that way, like you can use photoshop to put grain or soften the
photo.
To add to that, under that argument digital photos are no different to
film, if the final medium is photo paper.
> > I find it very similar to todays film Vs Digital.
>
> There are far fewer similarities than you might think, for reasons I
> won't go into.
>
> > DAT tapes have even better digital sound, but
> > nobody is pursuing it.
>
> DAT tapes have significant disadvantages, although their data
> equivalents are useful for computer backups.
>
> > I am convinced that film will go the way of the LP.
>
> Not any time soon.
>
You have not presented any hurdle you do not believe digital will not be
able to surpass soon.
> > I cannot see how film photography is any different or
> > special to digital photography at all.
>
> It's not, really. The only difference is in the image sensor. But
> until film is clearly and undeniably inferior to digital, and as
> expensive or more so, it will continue to find a market. Right now, it
> provides superior images, in both an absolute sense and in a
> cost/benefit sense.
>
Well, we all have methods to quantify
> > I am convinced that film is almost in every way
> > a subset to digital photography.
>
> Odd that it predates digital photography, then.
Even so, most of the connection to film nowdays is emotional rather than
practical.
If we lay out all that film can do, and all that digital can do. The films
qualities are almost a complete subset of the digital. I accept it may not
be complete.
You can go and tell that to motion picture users of film. There is
practicaly no amature left. Practicaly all new video cameras have completely
moved to digital. And finaly digital has infiltrated in professional movie
indistry down to the projection in the theaters.
I guess the final argument you make is something close to what I agree
with. When digital superseeds film, you will make th eswitch. It has
happened to me. It has happened to many. The question is when wioll it
happen to you, and how many will be company at the time ?
Giorgis
Mxsmanic
> One can take a piece of film, fully expose it by
> holding it in sunlight for a few seconds, then develop
> it, and use it to make glasses to view a solar eclipse.
Not safely. It's not safe for viewing a less-than-total eclipse, and a
truly total eclipse requires no eye protection at all.
Charlie
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Don Stauffer writes:
> > One can take a piece of film, fully expose it by
> > holding it in sunlight for a few seconds, then develop
> > it, and use it to make glasses to view a solar eclipse.
> Not safely. It's not safe for viewing a less-than-total eclipse, and a
> truly total eclipse requires no eye protection at all.
The total eclipse is only total for a few seconds.
It's best to not use that technique at all.
--
Charlie Dilks
Newark, DE USA
Browntimdc
> It's very clearly progressing *at the expense of film* even as we
> speak. Many kinds of photography are moving from film to digital.
One look at Kodak's stock price suggests this. It has gone nowhere year-to-
date. I wouldn't be surprised if Kodak one day spins off the film division
to bolster the bottom line.
Tim
Browntimdc
@usfamily.net:
> One can take a piece of film, fully expose it by holding it in sunlight
> for a few seconds, then develop it, and use it to make glasses to view a
> solar eclipse. That is probably pretty hard to do with a digital image
>:-)
>
A sheet of transparency and an inkjet printer? :)
Browntimdc
> The more I read your posts the more I understand that you find film
> suits your needs well. But you seem to lack the gene that allows you
> to see the point of view of others. Even if you can’t understand how,
> just accept as a fact that digital suits some more than film, just as
> film suits you more than digital.
Killfile Mark, killfile. You'll never get the last word with this guy.
Tim
Allan Mayer
<stau...@usfamily.net> writes:
>One can take a piece of film, fully expose it by holding it in sunlight
>for a few seconds, then develop it, and use it to make glasses to view a
>solar eclipse. That is probably pretty hard to do with a digital image
And it's not exactly the safest method either.
But hey, whatever floats your boat. Your eyes, not mine.
Allan
http://members.aol.com/Thetabat/hello.html
"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
Browntimdc
news:3ee5ae16$0$26638$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
> Finaly, if you think digital is cheating I would endevor to say
> it is
> film that is doing most of the cheating now days.
If so, then one wonders why he's on rec.photo.digital...
Tim
Browntimdc
> Then if you are a purist you should develop your own film. Why
> have
> sombody else colour balance your film ? (or a machine for that matter)
For me now the only time I shoot film on my own (not someone else paying
for it) is B&W that I develop and print myself. With a totally manual
Mamiya TLR. It's a category unto itself. Purely recreation.
Tim
Unknown
wrote:
>jpc <> writes:
>
>> To be more exact about the image I was attempted
>> to capture, I was flat on my belly and as close as
>> I could get to the girl when she was at the bottom
>> of her trajectory. I didn't want her kicking the
>> camera out of my hands or me knocking her off the
>> swing. She,on the other hand, thought it would be
>> great fun to manage to kick something,
>
>So?
So?!!!
me say >>---I lucked out and got it
>> right-- the expression on the girl's face, her streaming
>> hair, just enough blur to give a sense of motion--everything
>> that showed the joy of flying high on the first day
>> of summer vacation
>
you come back with>>--When you can get that same image without
depending on luck, you'll be a photographer.
I take mild umbridge at the implication that I'm not a "photographer"
and discribe what I was trying to achieve.
There I was, risking fingers, camera, eyeglasses and a trip to the
emergency room to have nose yanked back out of my face is the pursuit
of the perfect photo. Don't you have any idea how DANGEROUS a
mischievious 10 year can be when she's armed with a PLAYGROUND SWING!
For such a hazardious undertaking don't I deserve something more than
just a "SO?" :)
>
>> The lucky shot--they were actually three good ones
>> --were among the last few I took after I skooted out
>> of her way and stood up.
>
>So much for an unusual angle being the key to a good photo, eh?
You editted out the part where I said I almost got the image I wanted.
It took a half dozen photo shoots--the ten minute kind where you try
to take as many photos as you can before your unpaid models get bored
and wander off--before I got the pogo-stick sequence I was after. I'm
sure I will try the kid-on-the-swing thing again
>
>> Not the image I was after, but if you do a lot of
>> action and candid photography you'll discover
>> the really good pictures are never the ones you
>> expected.
>
>Usually the ones I think will be pretty good do indeed turn out to be
>pretty good, but it is difficult to determine which will be the best in
>advance, since that requires a lot of looking at the images.
Here we agree. I will say I now find it far easier to sort images
using a 19 inch monitor that I did when I was using a light table and
high power loupe.
>
>> If you take your photography seriously try
>> something like that.
>
>I'm not interested in abstract art photography. It doesn't appeal to me
>personally, and it doesn't sell.
You're missing the point. I'm not trying to sell anything. Besides
challenging myself to think up something new everytime I return to the
project, I'm teaching myself a lot about the nuances of studio
lighting and still life photography.
jpc
Dr. R.U.Vedic
>
> #2 Develop your night vision.
But the Sony 717 CAN take night vision shots. :O]
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Joseph Miller
equipment (other than eyes) at any time for at least 100 years and
probably far longer than that. We have negatives in our plate vault
well over 100 years old that I can simply hold up and see the image.
They look much as they did when they were taken. I have data tapes only
15 years old that can't be read by any machines we now have. To be able
to see the original digital images you are taking now, you will probably
have to transfer them regularly to new formats, or there's no way you
will be able to see them in a hundred years. Even then, you will need
some kind of computer-like equipment to translate the numbers to a
visible image. Of course right now you could make a film image of your
digital image, but that's not the point. How important this long-tern,
instant visibility feature is is of course another question.
>+<
Interesting point, which has been discussed to some length
on other groups. Say that you have to change the format or
retransfer your many hundred/thousand images just once a year.
Think about how that would translate over just 30 years time.
In a proportionate manor to additional images added to a
digital database of sorts......hum?
Yes cataloging my boxes of 4x5 negatives is looking less threatening all
the time.
--
Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur. (Horace)
Mxsmanic
> The total eclipse is only total for a few seconds.
Totality can last up to several minutes. It's safe to watch with the
naked eye during that period (and in fact, that's the only way to see
it, since it gets so dark). On the other hand, many solar eclipses are
annular and thus never become total at all (the sun is never completely
covered); these cannot be watched with the naked eye at any time.
Mxsmanic
> So if your time is worth more that the cost of
> film, you should take more photos, to make more
> efficient use of it.
How would that make more efficient use of my time? Each additional
photo requires more editing, sorting, and archiving time, and more time
spent in Photoshop.
> But why make that a factor at all in your work.
I don't know. Why?
> I cannot imagine that you might think that these
> restrictions force the photographer to be more talented.
Talent is something you're born with, not something you acquire.
> It might make a photographer to think more because
> he is investing more in every shot. But the digital
> requires more of your thinking to go into the
> photo and not getting around the problems of film.
How?
> Now he says not only he and all the students but
> the lecturers as well have little doubt that the
> end is neigh.
Students and instructors are about the last people in the world I'd
consult to learn about trends in anything, except study and instruction.
> Vinil can never sound better ?!?!
It can, under ideal conditions, but ideal conditions are difficult and
expensive to arrange. The best analog systems are always superior to
the best digital systems, but their cost is usually prohibitive, which
is why digital is more often used in practice.
> You have not presented any hurdle you do not believe
> digital will not be able to surpass soon.
Image quality and cost/benefit ratio.
> Even so, most of the connection to film nowdays is
> emotional rather than practical.
The same is true of connection to digital.
> If we lay out all that film can do, and all that
> digital can do. The films qualities are almost a
> complete subset of the digital.
No. The two image capture methods are quite different, and while they
overlap to some extent, neither is a subset of the other.
> You can go and tell that to motion picture users of
> film. There is practicaly no amature left.
But almost all the professionals are still using film.
> And finaly digital has infiltrated in professional movie
> indistry down to the projection in the theaters.
Hardly. It remains a laboratory curiosity for the most part.
> When digital superseeds film, you will make the switch.
Correct. It's not even close to that point yet, and it isn't moving
nearly as fast as many people seem to think.
Mxsmanic
> I take mild umbridge at the implication that
> I'm not a "photographer" and discribe what I
> was trying to achieve.
You achieved it through luck, by your own admission. Therefore talent
and technique were not factors. That hardly sounds like a photographer
to me.
> Here we agree. I will say I now find it far
> easier to sort images using a 19 inch monitor
> that I did when I was using a light table and
> high power loupe.
I find the opposite to be true. I can sort far faster on my small light
table than I can on the monitor. Finding images after I archive the
scans, in fact, is very time-consuming.
MarkH
news:vpnbev4qkkiglmh4a...@4ax.com:
> MarkH writes:
>> Of course the maths may work out slightly differently
>> where you live, but what would it cost you to shoot 10
>> rolls a week for a year? (film and processing costs)
>
> It depends on film and development. For Fujichrome Provia 400F (an
> expensive pro transparency film) and a pro lab, it would come out to
> $10,400, which represents some 18,720 exposures. For really cheap
> film and development, it would cost about $2080 a year.
>
> However, 18,720 exposures is a lot for me. In fact, I shoot only
> about 1/6 that amount per year, and I spend about $1000 a year on film
> and development (more on professional assignments, but that is billed
> to the customer).
>
> It would thus take me about eight years to amortize the cost of a
> digital camera body in film savings, and the quality of the digital
> images would be only about 1/10 of the quality of the film images I'm
> obtaining now.
>
> For me, film still clearly wins.
Why can’t you see that for some people digital clearly wins?
Some people take several times as many photos, for them digital is
cheaper. Even your $1000 per year adds up to $3000 over 3 years, if
digital could allow you to spend no more than half that (for printing)
then you would save $1500 in 3 years, enough to buy a 10D. Of course
this only means a financial advantage to digital, clearly for other
reasons you prefer film - fair enough.
Many of us find the quality of digital to be everything we need.
The OP commented about taking 50 shots and the last one being a really
fantastic one, he wouldn’t have taken that many if he was using film (2
rolls on one photo is a lot for many people). This is an advantage of
digital, why do you knock someone pointing this out?
I like digital!
I also find digital superior in several ways, one is economic another is
low light performance. Yet another is ability to change ISO shot to
shot. Why do you have to get so upset when anyone mentions the
advantages of digital?
Max Burke
>> Giorgis writes:
>> So if your time is worth more that the cost of
>> film, you should take more photos, to make more
>> efficient use of it.
> How would that make more efficient use of my time? Each additional
> photo requires more editing, sorting, and archiving time, and more
> time spent in Photoshop.
And you dont have to develop the film, print the proof sheet, then spend
hours selecting the best shot to make a final print of that requires
many test prints, dodging and burning, washing, drying and finally
mounting? (or more likely paying an expert to do that)
Or do you 'contract out' that side of using film and just ooh and aah
over the packet of 24 5x7's that you get back from the one hour foto
shop.....
BTW as to the number of photographs you take, sometimes one is all you
need to take, other times taking several shots is warranted.
For example, if you're 'hired' by a relative or friend to take
photographs of a special family event, they wont be too impressed if you
only take one photograph and then tell them only one was needed, they'd
much sooner have a lot to choose from.....
>> But why make that a factor at all in your work.
> I don't know. Why?
>> I cannot imagine that you might think that these
>> restrictions force the photographer to be more talented.
> Talent is something you're born with, not something you acquire.
It's also something that doesn't rely on the tools (digital or film) to
bee seen as talent.....
>> It might make a photographer to think more because
>> he is investing more in every shot. But the digital
>> requires more of your thinking to go into the
>> photo and not getting around the problems of film.
> How?
Each 'format' has it's own problems that need solving; It's the nature
of the technology being used.
>> Now he says not only he and all the students but
>> the lecturers as well have little doubt that the
>> end is neigh.
> Students and instructors are about the last people in the world I'd
> consult to learn about trends in anything, except study and
> instruction.
How about asking the professional photographer that make their living
from photography? For example many professional sports and news
photographers now use digital SLR's and laptops because of the time
factor. Digital allows them to take many shot's and select the best
images need for the photo sub editor to include in the daily newspaper
or news website; They take the photographs, download them to a laptop,
select and edit, then transmit over the internet, or as many of the
photo journalists did in Iraq. by satellite phone within minutes of the
photograph being taken. Note that the still use film as well, but
digital enables them to bypass the need to develop and print before
selecting the most appropriate image to go with the story.....
And then there are the photographers the make their living from
advertising photography; Many now use digital precisely because digital
imaging technology allows image manipulations that cant be done easily
with film and cost a lot more with film than it does with digital.....
I'm pretty sure most 'photographers for hire' (weddings, christenings,
etc) still use film mostly because of 'tradition,' but many would offer
their clients the option to have a digital album on a CD Rom made up for
their relative and friends and themselves....
I'm not sure how such photographers protect their copyright, perhaps
they insert watermarks or their names on each image.....
>> You have not presented any hurdle you do not believe
>> digital will not be able to surpass soon.
> Image quality and cost/benefit ratio.
Image quality depends on the quality of image you're looking for; IOW
the end use of the image; Newspaper and web news sites dont need high
quality images. Sometimes advertising images dont have to be high
quality either; The weekly supermarket flyer you get stuffed in your
mailbox doesn't have or need high quality original photographs....
But then the glossy magazine you get in your mailbox will, but with a
professional digital camera that take 12 Mp photographs does match film
for quality, and most of the time the cost is considerably less.....
Professional photographers using digital cut out the expense of having
to develop and print their photographs, and most all cut down on the
time needed to produce the end product. They most often charge by the
hour you know.......
snip.
>> If we lay out all that film can do, and all that
>> digital can do. The films qualities are almost a
>> complete subset of the digital.
> No. The two image capture methods are quite different, and while they
> overlap to some extent, neither is a subset of the other.
Instead of seeing them as in opposition to each other, why not see them
as complementary.....
Sometimes film is appropriate, other times digital is....
snip.
# It is not altogether wrong to say that there is no such thing as a bad
photograph;
Only less interesting, less relevant, less mysterious ones.
Susan Sontag (b. 1933), U.S. essayist.
On Photography, The Heroism of Vision. (1977)
--
mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
Mxsmanic
> Why can’t you see that for some people digital
> clearly wins?
I can. I can also see that for them it is a matter of personal
preference, as is my preference for film. But when they try to claim
that digital is _objectively_ better, I question them, since I know that
isn't demonstrably true.
> I like digital!
Digital is fun. If I could get the same image quality as film at the
same price as film using digital, I'm sure I'd be shooting digitally.
> Yet another is ability to change ISO shot to
> shot.
You can't change ISO shot to shot. You're changing the gain on the
amplification of the CCD output, which is an analog process similar to
pushing conventional film during development. The actual sensitivity of
an electronic sensor cannot be changed without replacing the
sensor--just like film.
> Why do you have to get so upset when anyone mentions the
> advantages of digital?
I don't.
Max Burke
In a hundred years time will the film technology be available off the
shelf for your descendants to make prints from these negatives?
Or will they, like the first photographers have to mix and make up their
own chemicals, and coated printing paper to recreate your images.....
Or will they just put the negative in an image processing unit and
electronic copies?
Max Burke
This would be why the Smithsonian recently suggested that
people/families using digital cameras print off their favourite
photographs and put them in photo albums like they do with film.
Something to do with whole generations losing their family history
because they no longer 'archive' family photographs......
# It is not altogether wrong to say that there is no such thing as a bad
photograph;
Only less interesting, less relevant, less mysterious ones.
Susan Sontag (b. 1933), U.S. essayist.
On Photography, The Heroism of Vision. (1977)
--
Mxsmanic
> And you dont have to develop the film ...
Developing the film requires only a few minutes.
> ... print the proof sheet ...
I don't use proof sheets.
> ... then spend hours selecting the best shot to
> make a final print of that requires many test prints,
> dodging and burning, washing, drying and finally
> mounting?
I scan my film, so none of this is necessary.
> Or do you 'contract out' that side of using film ...
I don't do it at all. I have the film developed, then I scan it myself.
> ... they wont be too impressed if you only take one
> photograph and then tell them only one was needed, they'd
> much sooner have a lot to choose from.....
That depends on the photograph.
> It's also something that doesn't rely on the tools
> (digital or film) to bee seen as talent.....
Quite so.
> How about asking the professional photographer that
> make their living from photography?
Which one? There are many different ways to earn a living from
photography.
> I'm not sure how such photographers protect their
> copyright, perhaps they insert watermarks or their
> names on each image.....
For many such types of photography, I simply give my clients an
unlimited (almost) license to use the resulting images, so copyright is
not an issue.
> Image quality depends on the quality of image you're
> looking for ...
Yes. In my case, I want the best quality I can get.
> Instead of seeing them as in opposition to each
> other, why not see them as complementary.....
When did I say anything about opposition?
Giorgis
> MarkH writes:
>
> > Why can't you see that for some people digital
> > clearly wins?
>
> I can. I can also see that for them it is a matter of personal
> preference, as is my preference for film. But when they try to claim
> that digital is _objectively_ better, I question them, since I know that
> isn't demonstrably true.
>
I doubt that, because you cannot demonstrate it. You jump from arguments
to matter of taste mid sentence. You call the advantage of taking multiple
photos a shotgun approach that is a disadvantage.
> > I like digital!
>
> Digital is fun. If I could get the same image quality as film at the
> same price as film using digital, I'm sure I'd be shooting digitally.
>
> > Yet another is ability to change ISO shot to
> > shot.
>
> You can't change ISO shot to shot. You're changing the gain on the
> amplification of the CCD output, which is an analog process similar to
> pushing conventional film during development. The actual sensitivity of
> an electronic sensor cannot be changed without replacing the
> sensor--just like film.
>
Amm, not quite. The mechanism does not matter as long as it behaves like
film. In fact it is a legacy thing to call it ISO.
I the change in shutter speed the same as a change in ISO ?
> > Why do you have to get so upset when anyone mentions the
> > advantages of digital?
>
> I don't.
>
You may not realise it your self, but you are "demonstrably" falling in
the same trap many people have. Having invested a big part of their life in
something technology has steamroller over, they effectively go and pick
arguments to persuade them selves.
Of the top of my head I can think of many advantages of digital photography.
Some of which have spilled over to film photography.
Free to take multiple shots,
Practically unlimited number of photos (with image banks)
Easy transfer and copying of photos. (note: travel, snap and e-mail to a
hundred people)
Easy to archive (Think exif plus you can leave a 4sec voice with my OLY
5050)
Easy to manipulate after the effect, correct as well as create affects.
You can print home with small investment.
Make movies (pretty crappy, but it's a serious selling point)
You easily participate in competitions.
You can learn from your mistakes easier (more photos, more info per
photo)
You can pass on to others with exif information for their wisdom
They are smaller, lighter and so less formidable to your subject. (I
could go into detail how I can shoot from my hip with the Oly)
The professional can show the customer straight away the result. The
professional might think he can do one shot and pack up, but the customer is
always right.
There are technical arguments like dynamic rage, resolution, light
sensitivity which I believe digital has over at least 35mm. But then if not
today, very soon they will be clear.
There are other strange advantages like putting I have heard of putting
GPS coordinales in the header and others. It get's rediculous.
These I came up with on the fly, and I am not a professional. Some
advantages are for professionals, and some for amatures or less. But the sky
is the limit.
The problem of technology is that it attacks old tech at multiple points
until the walls collapse.
As a final argument, if your want numbers that you can quantify. There
was an international photojournalism expo in Sydney a month or so ago. This
year 60% of the photos submitted were digital. What better measure of the
quality of the digital medium in that it overtakes film while (digital is)
still in its infancy.
Giorgis
David Cohen
This problem has already been encountered by many (how do you read the
original 8" floppy). Those whose charter involves worrying about such
issues do so. I doubt the Library of Congress will find themselves
with files they can no longer access, but I have no idea what approach
they and similar institutions take. Private individuals will just have
to move data from soon to become obsolete media to current while they
can (do you have files on 5-1/4" media?).
Dave Cohen
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>
> > It's very clearly progressing *at the expense of film*
> > even as we speak.
>
> Not nearly to the extent that many claim. Film is still selling very
> well.
>
> > Many kinds of photography are moving from film to digital.
>
> And many are not. Additionally, many photographers choosing digital
> have not previously been taking photographs at all, so digital is
> largely addressing a new market, not a replacement market.
I don't know about *largely*, but I agree that digital has gotten a
lot of people not previously interested in photography, interested. I
think that's *really neat*, personally.
> > The choice of 35mm over 4x5 is sacrificing technical
> > quality for convenience and portability ...
>
> True, but nobody claims that 35mm is superior to 4x5, nor does anyone
> claim that 35mm is eliminating 4x5.
It did that a long time ago. The 4x5 speed graphic was replaced by
various roll film cameras, and that niche, journalism, was held for a
long time by 35mm.
> > Similarly, sports photos got a lot *better* when people
> > started doing them in 35mm ...
>
> And have they gotten better now that they are shot digitally?
I don't know, I don't follow sports photography particularly. I
suspect they have -- they'll know if they caught the key moment and if
it's in focus and such. Also that 1.5x focal length multiplier is a
great blessing for those of us in the long-focal-length-fast-lens
brigade.
> > Film is much harder to shoot than digital -- the ability
> > to immediately view your results is of tremendous value.
>
> Not if you already know what you are shooting. The shotgun method is
> obviously easier to use with digital, but not everyone depends on a roll
> of the dice to get good photos.
Even Ansel Adams records (in _Examples_) taking multiple negatives of
some scenes. That's because even with his skills he wasn't always
entirely sure of the results.
If you're in marginal conditions, which a huge percentage of my
photographs are, the immediate feedback is *wonderful*. I agree it
doesn't matter much if you're shooting static scenes in easy
conditions.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
David Dyer-Bennet
> I have so far stayed out of this thread, but thought I'd throw this in.
>
> One can take a piece of film, fully expose it by holding it in sunlight
> for a few seconds, then develop it, and use it to make glasses to view a
> solar eclipse. That is probably pretty hard to do with a digital image
> :-)
Excellent! Yes, I think this is precisely what this thread was
looking for, an unambiguous, clear-cut, example of something film can
do that digital never will.
David Dyer-Bennet
> jpc writes:
>
> > As for the 50th picture--I lucked out and got it
> > right-- the expression on the girl's face, her streaming
> > hair, just enough blur to give a sense of motion--everything
> > that showed the joy of flying high on the first day
> > of summer vacation
>
> When you can get that same image without depending on luck, you'll be a
> photographer.
This is why the Life photojournalists, the National Geographic people,
and such routinely sent in *hundreds of times* as many shots as were
going to be used, right? Because they weren't competent
photographers, and had to rely on the "simple shotgun approach" since
they had no idea what they were going to get on their film?
David Dyer-Bennet
> Giorgis writes:
>
> > Do you know any good photographers that setup
> > a scene and take one shot knowing they got what
> > they wanted ?
>
> I'm sure it is fairly typical for many landscape and studio
> photographers, and in general for any photographer with good control
> over the photography of a relatively static subject.
I've read books by studio photographers who described roughly the
following process:
1. Build the set, decorate it.
2. Set up rough lighting. Using repeated polaroids, fine-tune the
lighting and the decoration.
3. Shoot 8x10 chromes, send them to the lab, get them back.
(chromes, plural. Multiple 8x10 test sheets, I think they were
bracketing exposure if I remember this right.)
4. Ultra-fine-tune the lighting and decoration based on the test
chromes.
5. Shoot multiple final chromes.
So, based on seeing something like that in several books, I don't
believe that it's common for the top studio photographers to take just
one shot when working with static subjects in controlled conditions,
even.
Unknown
wrote:
>
>
>Of the top of my head I can think of many advantages of digital photography.
>Some of which have spilled over to film photography.
A good list
>
> Free to take multiple shots,
> Practically unlimited number of photos (with image banks)
> Easy transfer and copying of photos. (note: travel, snap and e-mail to a
>hundred people)
> Easy to archive (Think exif plus you can leave a 4sec voice with my OLY
>5050)
> Easy to manipulate after the effect, correct as well as create affects.
> You can print home with small investment.
> Make movies (pretty crappy, but it's a serious selling point)
> You easily participate in competitions.
> You can learn from your mistakes easier (more photos, more info per
>photo)
> You can pass on to others with exif information for their wisdom
> They are smaller, lighter and so less formidable to your subject. (I
>could go into detail how I can shoot from my hip with the Oly)
Could you start another thread and go into detail about all your
shot-from-the-hip tricks. I tried the technique for the first time two
weekends ago.. Once I learned how to hold the camera at the correct
angle and stopped taking photos of legs I ended up with several
promising shots. I plan to try it again at a party I'm going to this
coming Saturday.
> The professional can show the customer straight away the result. The
>professional might think he can do one shot and pack up, but the customer is
>always right.
> There are technical arguments like dynamic rage, resolution, light
>sensitivity which I believe digital has over at least 35mm. But then if not
>today, very soon they will be clear.
The film-is-always-better crowd will hit you here.
My oly 3020z has a noise floor--zero signal to noise-- of about nine
bits or nine f stops. This translates into a photographicly useful
dynamic range of 6 fstops. This is fine for the vast majority of
photos but if you want to do Ansel Adams type work you are better off
using film
If you believe the often quoted number that a 35 mm negative has 20
megapixel your 5050 is off in resolution by a factor of 4. If you
believe the more realistic number of 12 megapixals you are off by a
factor of 2.5
As far as light sensitivity or more correctly signal to noise goes
both of our cameras are worse than film. But with better electronics,
16 bit per channel software and hardware and most important larger
sensors, digital camera systems are closing the gap fast.
By the way if you or anyone else is interested in testing your
camera's dynamic range and signal to noise-- they are
interrelated--I've worked up a simple just--look--at--pictures-and
-see-what--goes--away procedure that I'd be willing to share,
> There are other strange advantages like putting I have heard of putting
>GPS coordinales in the header and others. It get's rediculous.
>
> These I came up with on the fly, and I am not a professional. Some
>advantages are for professionals, and some for amatures or less. But the sky
>is the limit.
>
> The problem of technology is that it attacks old tech at multiple points
>until the walls collapse.
>
> As a final argument, if your want numbers that you can quantify. There
>was an international photojournalism expo in Sydney a month or so ago. This
>year 60% of the photos submitted were digital. What better measure of the
>quality of the digital medium in that it overtakes film while (digital is)
>still in its infancy.
>
>
While someone is bound to point out that you can do everything on
your list with film and sometimes do it better, the point that I think
both of us are trying to make is that the economics and ease of use of
digital entices us into doing highly interesting things we normally
wouldn't have even tried with film
Case in point, the shoot from the hip stuff. With film I would have
gone home with a roll of terrible photos, mostly of legs ,and after I
got the prints back a week later probably given up on the idea.
With digital I could step off into a corner, see that I was either
holding the camera at the wrong angle or shooting too far away or too
close for the zoom setting, and perfect my technique while the idea
was fresh and exciting.
jpc
Dave Martindale
>> One can take a piece of film, fully expose it by holding it in sunlight
>> for a few seconds, then develop it, and use it to make glasses to view a
>> solar eclipse. That is probably pretty hard to do with a digital image
>>:-)
Remember to develop the film with B&W developer, so the silver remains
in the film. Metallic silver does attenuate IR as well as visible
light.
If you expose colour film and develop it with normal colour processes,
you get a black dye image which absorbs most visible light but DOES
NOT block much IR. Rapid eye damage can result.
Browntimdc <browntR*E*M*O*V*E...@flash.net> writes:
>A sheet of transparency and an inkjet printer? :)
This also probably gives a dye image, with little IR absorption. Again,
toasted eyes. Not good.
Dave
Giorgis
The problem is two fold.
One is storage and a shoe box seems safer than digital media although
cave painting might be a better idea :-)
The other is transfer, and today it has become quite easy to copy files.
You can have 200 gigabytes of fotos say over 100,000 fotos. You can transfer
that reasonably quickly. You can almost keep it in your pocket.
Now film will not survive a fire, but digital will if you store a copy
off site.
Note you can print film as well as digital.
So in the end, film probably is better from the perspective of archival.
If somebody intends on saving the images then digital becomes better.
Knowing that everybody has backup horror stories, I am sure that is a
difficult thing.
I have lost scanned photos, and inted to re-scan them one day ...
Giorgis
"Max Burke" <mlvburke@%$%#@.nz> wrote in message
news:o6tFa.4392$Jq3.7...@news02.tsnz.net...
Giorgis
all past papers and microfiche to digital.
The reason was they were too hard to maintain and they were
deteriorating. This to me would point to a flaw. Just like in a decade or
so, kids will hardly be able to hand write, people will not know how to use
film. It would be better stored in volts and accessed as a digital scan,
further preserving the original.
I work in a company that is slowly moving all it's technical darwings to
digital form. We originaly thaught that a printed drawing to be the original
source. We soon realised that it was too cumbersome to maintain an updated
printed version of our drawings.
What we do now is rotate through backups, and keep offsite backup tapes.
It is just next to impossible to do that with printed drawings. The printed
drawings would have gone down in a fire. You need to take out all of Sydney
with nukes to destroy the digital version. And we have moved through
different media as our needs grew very fast. It was seamless
G
"Giorgis" <gior...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ee6cdc8$0$26639$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Mxsmanic
> The 4x5 speed graphic was replaced by various roll
> film cameras, and that niche, journalism, was held for a
> long time by 35mm.
But there is more to photography than photojournalism, despite
widespread misconceptions. Just yesterday, I saw someone shooting
pictures with a 4x5 folding camera. The previous occasion was only a
few weeks earlier. Obviously, 4x5 has not been eliminated.
I remember when things like Polaroids, Disc cameras, and Instamatics
were all the rage. None of them truly replaced anything else; after a
period of widespread popularity, they receded from the limelight and
took their place among all other types of photography, although Disc
cameras didn't survive for long (most new formats invented by Kodak just
to make money don't survive for long), and Instamatics gradually mutated
into a more generalized type of P&S camera. I still see Polaroid
cameras used and sold (new), but they are mostly used by street vendors
who sell instant photos to tourists, as far as I can tell.
Mxsmanic
> You call the advantage of taking multiple
> photos a shotgun approach that is a disadvantage.
No, I don't. I simply point out that it is neither. Taking a zillion
photos is an advantage only for people who have a reason to take a
zillion photos; for other people, who prefer not to take a zillion
photos, it's either unimportant or a disadvantage.
> Amm, not quite. The mechanism does not matter as
> long as it behaves like film. In fact it is a legacy
> thing to call it ISO.
Not relevant. Neither film nor electronic sensors can have their basic
characteristics (such as sensitivity to light) changed on the fly. You
must replace them to change those characteristics.
> Is the change in shutter speed the same as a
> change in ISO ?
No, and that is true for both film and electronic photography.
> You may not realise it your self, but you are "demonstrably"
> falling in the same trap many people have. Having invested
> a big part of their life in something technology has steamroller
> over, they effectively go and pick arguments to persuade them selves.
Except that my investment in film photography is not that big. In fact,
when I got back into photography, I did so digitally. Digital
photography soon began to disappointment in a number of ways, though, so
I switched back to film. When and if digital becomes superior to film,
I'll switch back to digital. I just go with whatever gives the best
results.
About the best thing I can say about digital photography is that it
encouraged me to get back into photography, and from there I learned
that photography in general was easier than it used to be. When I ran
up agains the limitations of digital, I discovered that I could scan
film, eliminating the prints and delays that had always discouraged me
in the past, and so I switched back to film, and I've been there ever
since.
> Of the top of my head I can think of many advantages of
> digital photography. Some of which have spilled over
> to film photography.
No doubt. But currently film photography does a much better job for me.
It's more awkward than digital and somewhat more expensive on a
continuing basis, but the results are so nice that I put up with the
disadvantages.
> Free to take multiple shots, Practically unlimited number
> of photos (with image banks)
All well and good, until you have to edit and archive the photos.
That's what I discovered ... and that was years ago.
> Easy transfer and copying of photos. (note: travel, snap
> and e-mail to a hundred people)
Digital mainly makes it faster, but only slightly easier. I don't do
that often enough to justify digital.
For example, I've considered using digital to add photos to my Web site
more quickly. The problem is that, if I take a really good photo, I may
rue the fact that I shot it digitally, instead of on film. It has
happened before, and I'm still fuming over some really nice photos that
I've taken in the past that were of limited utility simply because they
had the lower quality of digital.
Heck, I'd shoot everything MF or LF if I could. There are some 35mm
shots that I would have loved to shoot on MF instead. But at least I'm
not stuck with those shots on digital, which would be even worse.
> Easy to archive (Think exif plus you can leave a 4sec
> voice with my OLY 5050)
Archiving photos is never easy. Digital doesn't help.
> Easy to manipulate after the effect, correct as well as
> create affects.
My scans don't seem to be any more difficult to manipulate than photos
from an electronic camera.
> You can print home with small investment.
No, you can't. Printing costs the same for both film and digital, and
home printing costs more than having prints made at a lab, assuming you
want the same quality (which is almost impossible to achieve at home, in
any case).
The notion that you can somehow make beautiful prints cheaply and
quickly at home from your digital images is one of the great myths of
digital photography. It is closely linked to the myth that only digital
photography permits printing at home, or that only film photography
permits printing through traditional chemical printing processes.
> Make movies (pretty crappy, but it's a serious selling point)
Ho hum.
> You easily participate in competitions.
Why would I want to facilitate giving away my image rights for free?
> You can learn from your mistakes easier (more photos,
> more info per photo)
I have not found that to be true. It's particularly untrue with
affordable digital cameras, since they are P&S cameras with almost no
manual control over anything.
> You can pass on to others with exif information for their wisdom
So if only Richard Avedon had been able to pass that on to me, I could
take pictures just like his!
> They are smaller, lighter and so less formidable to your
> subject.
Not so. Film and digital cameras are the same size, overall. It's the
style of camera that determines its size and weight, not the type of
image sensor. My heaviest and my lightest cameras are both film
cameras.
> (I could go into detail how I can shoot from my hip with the Oly)
I always look through the viewfinder; the results seem to come out
better that way.
> The professional can show the customer straight away the result.
The professional can waste a lot of time showing customers results that
they don't really need to see, as some studio photographers have
discovered after going digital (they spend more time showing models and
art directors intermediate results than they do shooting the pictures,
and it may take forever to get the job done, with no real overall
improvement).
> The professional might think he can do one shot and pack
> up, but the customer is always right.
No, the customer is not always right. If he were, then professionals
would have to work for nothing, because a customer demanding something
for nothing would be "always right."
> There are technical arguments like dynamic rage, resolution,
> light sensitivity which I believe digital has over at least
> 35mm.
Electronic sensors have many advantages, although they are handicapped
by poor resolution and (in current implementations) very poor color
resolution as well. In domains where resolution and other failings of
the sensors (e.g., thermal noise) are not important, such as video, they
already reign surpreme.
Conversely, in domains where sensors have serious shortcomings, film
reigns surpreme, e.g., most applications of LF.
> There are other strange advantages like putting
> I have heard of putting GPS coordinales in the
> header and others. It get's rediculous.
It got ridiculous long ago, at least from the standpoint of pure
photography. I don't think too many serious photographers feel greatly
deprived if they cannot record four seconds of audio with each shot.
> But the sky is the limit.
Rest assured, electronic photography has no fewer limits than film
photography.
> The problem of technology is that it attacks old tech at multiple points
> until the walls collapse.
Why is that a problem?
> There was an international photojournalism expo in
> Sydney a month or so ago.
PHOTOJOURNALISM IS ONLY ONE ASPECT OF PHOTOGRAPHY.
> This year 60% of the photos submitted were digital. What
> better measure of the quality of the digital medium in
> that it overtakes film while (digital is) still in its infancy.
See above. I've put it in uppercase in the hope that perhaps that will
help it to take hold.
Mxsmanic
> This is why the Life photojournalists, the National
> Geographic people, and such routinely sent in *hundreds
> of times* as many shots as were going to be used, right?
A lot of their rejects are better than what most amateurs achieve even
with concerted effort. You should not assume that a photo is bad just
because it isn't used; it simply isn't as good as the handful that are
ultimately published.
Compare a roll shot by a very good photographer and a very rank amateur,
and you'll see that the very good photographer still gets better shots
overall.
Also, photojournalism necessarily often depends partially on luck, even
for the best photographers. But photojournalism isn't all of
photography.
> Because they weren't competent photographers, and had
> to rely on the "simple shotgun approach" since
> they had no idea what they were going to get on
> their film?
They generally knew what they were getting, but they were not sure in
the heat of the moment how well it would look after careful reflection.
Sometimes it takes hours to decide which shots are really the best, and
you don't always have hours to think about it in the field. This is not
the same as just shooting in the hope that a photo will come out right,
however.
Allan Mayer
<mlvburke@%$%#@.nz> writes:
>In a hundred years time will the film technology be available off the
>shelf
Same holds true for digital storage technology. Maybe even more
so with the rapid growth in this field.
Do you think they will still be using CD ROM's in 100 years ??
My vote goes for Kodachrome for long term storage.
The stuff just lasts, and lasts.........
Allan
http://members.aol.com/Thetabat/hello.html
"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."