Yet another digital story...
bowser
using a Fuji S2 with a 24-120 Nikkor attached. I was curious about his
selection, but didn't want to bother him. Later, he was having a drink
beside me, so I told him I was a pain in the ass amateur who had a quick
question. He laughed, and decided to talk a little. Short form, he just
likes the look of the results when compared to the other digicams. He shoots
digital not for quality, but for speed. Once he was able to post pictures
within 48 hours, his business boomed. He freely admitted that he would very
much prefer using his F100 and Portra 160, but it seems that people who take
two years to plan a wedding so they can marry in the style of medieval
royalty simply can't wait a week or two to see prints. So they pay a premium
for lower quality. But hey, it's fast!
I blame McDonalds.
Bill Crocker
Bill Crocker
"bowser" <fu...@bout.it> wrote in message
news:8d4Ma.106$3h3.147@rwcrnsc53...
Gregory W. Blank
but, I am astounded when I have clients-friends, tell me at weddings that another photographer after
6 months has yet to give them proofs, digital or otherwise.Those and the
cheap pricers are the -ssholes who screw the marketplace up for those of us who actually like what we
do. People like quality, and can if placed side by side see the difference between digi and conventional pics.
--
Check out My Homepage at
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
Bob Hatch
People like quality, and can if placed side by side see the difference
between digi and conventional pics.
>
Horse pucky.
--
http://www.bobhatch.com
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress
David J. Littleboy
"Bob Hatch" <bobh...@go.com> wrote in message
news:bdqm28$1035jt$1...@ID-85448.news.dfncis.de...
> "Gregory W. Blank" <Who...@hear-a-who.net> wrote in message news:WhoWill-
>
> People like quality, and can if placed side by side see the difference
> between digi and conventional pics.
> >
> Horse pucky.
While I disagree with you on the MF vs. 6MP digital comparison<g>, you are
exactly right in this case. Anyone who claims that any ISO 100 or faster
negative material in 35mm is better than 6MP digital is a world class liar.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Gregory W. Blank
he wants to cough up 14K to prove his point on medium format I'll go with a cheaper 3k Bronica and the
$1,200 4x5
In article <bdqngs$vfk$1...@nnrp.gol.com>, "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> While I disagree with you on the MF vs. 6MP digital comparison<g>, you are
> exactly right in this case. Anyone who claims that any ISO 100 or faster
> negative material in 35mm is better than 6MP digital is a world class liar.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
--
Bob Hatch
> I shoot medium format and large format, your correct and Bob is being an
idiot unless
> he wants to cough up 14K to prove his point on medium format I'll go with
a cheaper 3k Bronica and the
> $1,200 4x5
>
I'm not unfamiliar with MF. About 18 mos ago I did a study on which images
customers would prefer. The goal was to see if the customer would prefer a
film 8x10 over a digital 8x10.
MF was Portra 400 and cropped only to the extent needed to make an 8x10
(makes it about a 645).
Digital was a Canon D30 and the images were upsampled to 8x10 @ 250 dpi.
Both were printed by a Pro Lab and the only control I had was to request
best color and contrast from each format.
The MF camera and the Digital were set up side by side and the model was
instructed to move only 1 hand or not move at all. Lighting conditions were
identical.
6 images were taken with the MF camera and 6 with the Digital using High
jpg.
When the images came back from the lab they were numbered 1 thru 12 so that
the numbers would not advance through the numbering set. In other words the
first image in the presentation book might be 12 and the matching print 6.
The next image might be 7 and the matching print 4. This was done so there
was no sequence to the numbers.
Customers were asked to go through the book and select the image they
preferred and circle that on a sheet that matched the page layouts. A score
sheet was kept in the back of the book turned upside down and the sheets
were "scored" when the person was done with selections. The base included
persons of all ages from about 17 years to over 65. About 40 people took the
"test".
More people selected more of the digital than film but not one of the folks
selected all of the digital images.
While some people selected more film images than digital not one selected
all film.
The next test was to take 40 random 4x5 preview images from the last year we
used film in the studio and put them in a basket in the sales area. We then
selected 40 digital images and had them printed by the lab in the LED
printer and put them in the basket with the film images. When someone comes
in and seems concerned about that fact we use digital we ask them to set
down and see if they can select 10 digital images from the basket. The only
way to tell the difference is to look at the back of the print, the film
images have lab data printed on them. We don't tell the customer that.
No one, ever, has been able to select 10 film images accurately. Never.
About the best we get is a 50 50 mix.
So unless your willing to put your money where your mouth is as I have I'll
stand by my position. The average customer, and most pros can't tell the
difference between a film image and a wet processed digital. I speak from
experience and it sounds like you speak from bias.
daytripper
<splork!>
Too funny!
Andrew McDonald
> Digital was a Canon D30 and the images were upsampled to 8x10 @ 250 dpi.
I wonder how a 6MP D60 or 10D would change the test results over the D30?
Very interesting test results though.
David J. Littleboy
"Bob Hatch" <bobh...@go.com> wrote:
>
> MF was Portra 400 and cropped only to the extent needed to make an 8x10
> (makes it about a 645).
Ha! What a joke. Exactly as I expected: you chose a horribly grainy film
that would decide the outcome in favor of digital. If you had used Provia
100F or Konica Impressa 50 or some other fine grained film, the difference
in detail rendered at 13x19 or over would have been easily noticed by
everyone.
"When someone comes
in and seems concerned about that fact we use digital we ask them to set
down and see if they can select 10 digital images from the basket."
You've obviously set up the test to justify your decision to your customers.
Since you are saving $30,000 a year in film and processing by going to
digital, you have a lot of money at stake in persuading your customers to
accept digital.
Of course, what you are doing isn't quite as sleazy as I'm making it out to
be. Presumably, using Portra 400 in MF is standard operating procedure in
your market, and your point that the 10D does cough up similar quality to
that is well taken. But my original guess that your MF workflow was
problematic was spot on.
Another point is that prior to the release this summer of Astia 100F,
portrait photographers didn't have films as good as Provia/Velvia that
landscape types have. But now there's no excuse for any MF user not to get
images with well over twice the detail that the 10D records.
Of course if Canon uses the 1Ds sensor in the 3D, the difference is going to
be a lot smaller...
Bob Hatch
news:bdqvhq$1r4$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Bob Hatch" <bobh...@go.com> wrote:
> >
> > MF was Portra 400 and cropped only to the extent needed to make an 8x10
> > (makes it about a 645).
>
> Ha! What a joke. Exactly as I expected: you chose a horribly grainy film
> that would decide the outcome in favor of digital. If you had used Provia
> 100F or Konica Impressa 50 or some other fine grained film, the difference
> in detail rendered at 13x19 or over would have been easily noticed by
> everyone.
First, Portra 400 at 8x10 *is not* horribly grainy.
And second, if I now more than double the size of the prints and cut the ASA
of the film by a factor of 4 or 8 times, I'll get the results you want.
Sorry, doesn't work that way.
>
> "When someone comes
> in and seems concerned about that fact we use digital we ask them to set
> down and see if they can select 10 digital images from the basket."
>
> You've obviously set up the test to justify your decision to your
customers.
> Since you are saving $30,000 a year in film and processing by going to
> digital, you have a lot of money at stake in persuading your customers to
> accept digital.
Tell me, just how did I do that using random images? At 4x5 in both formats.
>
> Of course, what you are doing isn't quite as sleazy as I'm making it out
to
> be. Presumably, using Portra 400 in MF is standard operating procedure in
> your market, and your point that the 10D does cough up similar quality to
> that is well taken. But my original guess that your MF workflow was
> problematic was spot on.
Bull shit. The work flow with the film was standard in the portrait
industry. The images were exposed using measured light and f stop and
shutter speed set according to readings from a light meter. The film was
sent to the lab via lab courier in the same city. The film was processed by
a pro lab and the images were printed and color corrected. The film was sent
back to us, cut, in film sleeves and then placed in glassine bags. Once the
customer selected the image they wanted printed the negative was taped to a
crop card and sent back to the pro lab, printed and color corrected by the
lab.
So stop giving me this film workflow being problematic crap. You don't know
what the hell you're talking about on this item.
>
> Another point is that prior to the release this summer of Astia 100F,
> portrait photographers didn't have films as good as Provia/Velvia that
> landscape types have. But now there's no excuse for any MF user not to get
> images with well over twice the detail that the 10D records.
I'm really, really glad you're happy with film. Does that mean I should be?
Have you taken the time to do any tests similar to mine? Would you be
willing to do so and have the image printing out of your control and make
sure that the persons selecting the image preferences did not know which
ones were which? And I don't mean 40 x 40 images. Use the same test sizes I
did. Unless the answer is yes I will know that you as well speak only from
Bob Hatch
news:rc7Ma.72796$Io.68...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
don't have to resample. In addition we are now far more experienced in the
area of image capture and post processing. Our policy of manual white
balance has given us much more consistent images, and the lab has now had a
lot more experience in printing of digital.
It's really interesting in my area of the country that more and more
portrait studios are making the leap from film to digital.
Todd Walker
says...
> Unless the answer is yes I will know that you as well speak only from
> bias.
>
You know, it's amazing how many people insist on beating the drum of
film and telling those of us who use digital professionally that we are
wrong and our customers are idiots.
David and others, let me tell you something -- when I get hired for a
job, there is ONE thing that matters. You know what it is? How happy is
my customer with the product that I hand them. That's it. PERIOD. And to
that end, my customers are consistently thrilled by the prints that they
receive. So unless that changes, I'll keep shooting with my lowly E20
and keeping my customers happy. I'll leave the theoretical debates to
you guys in here...
--
________________________________
Todd Walker
http://twalker.d2g.com
Olympus E20
Canon G2
My Digital Photography Weblog:
http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
_________________________________
David J. Littleboy
"Bob Hatch" <bobh...@go.com> wrote:
>
> Tell me, just how did I do that using random images? At 4x5 in both
formats.
If you are using 4x5 images, you could toss in 2MP consumer digital, and no
one could tell the difference. (That's a full 300 dpi from 2MP, and 2MP
really will look as good as MF.)
But I was being _really_ dizzy and responding to your 16x20 and 24x28 D60
claims. Oops. Wrong thread. Sorry. I'll try to make more sense here.
> So stop giving me this film workflow being problematic crap. You don't
know
> what the hell you're talking about on this item.
The workflow starts with the film, and color negative materials are a mess.
I've scanned a lot of negatives, and it's always ugly (except maybe Konica
Impressa 50) at the size I'm aiming for (13x19).
> > Another point is that prior to the release this summer of Astia 100F,
> > portrait photographers didn't have films as good as Provia/Velvia that
> > landscape types have. But now there's no excuse for any MF user not to
get
> > images with well over twice the detail that the 10D records.
>
> I'm really, really glad you're happy with film. Does that mean I should
be?
Not at all. Film is clearly too much of a pain to be worth the bother. When
11MP full-frame digital shows up at a reasonable price, and my MF work will
be limited to occasionally reshooting landscapes in 6x9.
I'm not arguing that you made the wrong decision, only that you are, in all
these tests, setting them up to be wrong or meaningless. 400 ISO negative
film is a mess at 13x19 and larger, and 4x5 is too small for there to be any
difference.
<irrelevant aside>
There was a guy on the scanner list talking about using ISO 400 35mm film to
shoot weddings (criminal negligence, IMHO). When I asked him didn't the
customers complain, he said "those that can tell the difference go to the MF
guy down the street". It's clear that my standards are irrelevant to
commercial reality.
<irrelevant aside>
> Have you taken the time to do any tests similar to mine?
Only informally. The people I show prints to are in general fussier than I,
and prefer MF prints, even at A4 to downloaded 6MP sample shots and my F707
shots.
> Would you be
> willing to do so and have the image printing out of your control and make
> sure that the persons selecting the image preferences did not know which
> ones were which? And I don't mean 40 x 40 images. Use the same test sizes
I
> did.
Again, the test sizes you used were meaningless. 2MP digital is
indistiguishable from MF at that size. There really isn't any point to MF
under 11x14, and even 11x14 is arguable. MF only makes sense if you are
planning on making 13x19 and larger prints, and you are willing to use fine
grained film.
> Unless the answer is yes I will know that you as well speak only from
> bias.
Make it 13x19, and you've got a deal. Especially if you're shooting with a
D30<g>.
Bob Hatch
>
> You know, it's amazing how many people insist on beating the drum of
> film and telling those of us who use digital professionally that we are
> wrong and our customers are idiots.
Following must me said in a whining voice:
Wellll yaa, but you really don't know how to handle film and you really
don't know how to light and you really don't have a good lab and you really
were using the wrong kind of film and you really didn't print the prints big
enough and you really didn't have the right kind of scanner and you really
should have used a 16x20 view camera and you must have the really worst
customers in your whole area of the world and it's really easy to sell
digital prints to blind people and they probably look ok if you view them
from the end of a football field and those digital prints will fade in 42
minutes and if you try to interpolate them it will cause a distortion in the
center of the universe and gravity will stop working and your computer will
blow up and the pixels will all be an inch long....
Well, you get the idea.
bowser
some speed over superior quality. I find this totally believable.
"Gregory W. Blank" <Who...@hear-a-who.net> wrote in message
news:WhoWill-3006...@pool-151-196-174-114.balt.east.verizon.net...
Marli
suppose.
"bowser" <fu...@bout.it> wrote in message
news:8d4Ma.106$3h3.147@rwcrnsc53...
George Kerby
Hatch" <bobh...@go.com> wrote:
> "Gregory W. Blank" <Who...@hear-a-who.net> wrote in message news:WhoWill-
>
> People like quality, and can if placed side by side see the difference
> between digi and conventional pics.
>>
> Horse pucky.
"Horse pucky"? What the hell is a "pucky"? Is that what is preventing you
from seeing the diiference? Get that pucky off your eyes!
LOL!!
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
George Kerby
rc7Ma.72796$Io.68...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net, "Andrew McDonald"
<and...@tes.spam> wrote:
I missed the part about the D30. That makes it even MORE incredible. When
Bob's around we all need to tuck our pants into our boots to avoid the horse
"pucky"!!!
George Kerby
Hatch" <bobh...@go.com> wrote:
Bob have you checked the enlarger(s) that ran the 6 x 6 negs? There has to
be a reason that the Hassy images were so bad. My suspicion is that is the
source.
Bob Hatch
news:BB270BB1.DF31%
> Bob have you checked the enlarger(s) that ran the 6 x 6 negs? There has to
> be a reason that the Hassy images were so bad. My suspicion is that is the
> source.
>
Ya George that has to be it all right, had to be a bad enlarger at the pro
lab and none of the other 100s of pros using that lab noticed it. Ya that
had to be the problem all right, bad enlarger, incompetent staff at the lab,
100s of folks in other studios with bad eyes. Why didn't I think of that.
Bob Hatch
> >
> I missed the part about the D30. That makes it even MORE incredible. When
> Bob's around we all need to tuck our pants into our boots to avoid the
horse
> "pucky"!!!
>
>
your mouth is my feeling is you should avoid the implication that I'm lying.
David J. Littleboy
"Todd Walker" <twalk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> David and others, let me tell you something -- when I get hired for a
> job, there is ONE thing that matters. You know what it is? How happy is
> my customer with the product that I hand them. That's it. PERIOD.
I have no argument with that in the slightest. I've said "film simply isn't
worth the bother" dozens of times.
My _only_ point is that that doesn't work if your customers understand what
MF qualitry means, and 100% of my customers know the difference. (Of course,
I'm my only customer.)
And I reserve the right to complain about bogus comparisons: showing people
stacks of 4x5s and asking them to pick out the digital ones (ROFL), or
putting up grainy ISO 400 film enlargements and comparing them to grain free
(but soft) digital enlargements.
Annika1980
>Wellll yaa, but you really don't know how to handle film and you really
>don't know how to light and you really don't have a good lab and you really
>were using the wrong kind of film and you really didn't print the prints big
>enough and you really didn't have the right kind of scanner and you really
>should have used a 16x20 view camera and you must have the really worst
>customers in your whole area of the world and it's really easy to sell
>digital prints to blind people and they probably look ok if you view them
>from the end of a football field and those digital prints will fade in 42
>minutes and if you try to interpolate them it will cause a distortion in the
>center of the universe and gravity will stop working and your computer will
>blow up and the pixels will all be an inch long....
You forgot the part about how the digital files will be unreadable in 100
years.
Annika1980
>Ha! What a joke. Exactly as I expected: you chose a horribly grainy film
>that would decide the outcome in favor of digital. If you had used Provia
>100F or Konica Impressa 50 or some other fine grained film, the difference
>in detail rendered at 13x19 or over would have been easily noticed by
>everyone.
>
If this difference exists and is as great as you say, then how about showing us
some comparative scans of MF vs. Digital?
Yeah, I know ... digital has a slight advantage when compared against scanned
film, but surely MF's superiority would still win the day in such a case,
right?
If the detail is really there, then a good scanner can capture it. So show me.
Bob Hatch
news:20030701224925...@mb-m28.aol.com...
shape, not.
David J. Littleboy
showing us
> some comparative scans of MF vs. Digital?
> Yeah, I know ... digital has a slight advantage when compared against
scanned
> film, but surely MF's superiority would still win the day in such a case,
> right?
>
> If the detail is really there, then a good scanner can capture it. So
show me.
You've already seen it. Or didn't you bother to look that closely at the
"original" file of the "my flower eats your flow for breakfast" shot?
Bob Hatch
said:
"People like quality, and can if placed side by side see the difference
between digi and conventional pics."
and also said:
"I shoot medium format and large format, your correct and Bob is being an
idiot unless he wants to cough up 14K to prove his point on medium format"
And I proved him wrong and could do it time and time again. I've gone
through 1000's of rolls of MF film over the years and know what I'm doing
with it. I will say again, at 8x10 a 6x6 neg using Portra 400 is not grainy.
But in order to make your point and thump your own chest you want to drag in
your opinion that the image size is wrong, the film is wrong, and accuse me
of being dishonest in some way because I show the customers that which the
purchase the most of.
From the sounds of your posts you really know nothing about portrait
photography, and more specially High School Senior portrait photography and
what the customer purchases. I do. You also admit you only have one customer
and from what I know of him he's a jackass.
David J. Littleboy
"Bob Hatch" <bobh...@go.com> wrote:
>
> And I proved him wrong and could do it time and time again. I've gone
> through 1000's of rolls of MF film over the years and know what I'm doing
> with it. I will say again, at 8x10 a 6x6 neg using Portra 400 is not
grainy.
Agreed. But 13x19 is.
> But in order to make your point and thump your own chest you want to drag
in
> your opinion that the image size is wrong, the film is wrong, and accuse
me
> of being dishonest in some way because I show the customers that which the
> purchase the most of.
Look. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to piss you off. I agree with almost
everything you are saying. How many times do I have to say it "film isn't
worth the bother" (for most people, given a 10D or F717). You called that
exactly right.
> From the sounds of your posts you really know nothing about portrait
> photography, and more specially High School Senior portrait photography
and
> what the customer purchases. I do.
Which is why I have no doubt that you've got exactly the right idea for your
purposes.
But if you are going to compare 13x19 and larger prints between MF and
10D/D60 digital (which is how you started here), then you are talking about
something I do know about, and MF is better. If you can't persuade MF to be
better at those sizes you're not trying. (And whether that difference is
worth it is more than questionable: for most, it simply won't be. Scanning's
a major pain.)
Since "trying" involves time and effort and expense, it's clearly not worth
it for you, and I've got no argument with that. But I do have an argument
with not trying and also saying MF is worse. That's all.
bowser
original. Doesn't work. Ever.
Even the best scanners can't capture all the information on a piece of film.
Don't believe me? Scan your Velvia chrome, examine the resulting image. Then
take a powerful loupe and look at the same area on the chrome. Surprise! The
chrome has more detail, and is much sharper than the scan. Every time.
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030701230148...@mb-m28.aol.com...
George Kerby
Hatch" <bobh...@go.com> wrote:
>
> From the sounds of your posts you really know nothing about portrait
> photography, and more specially High School Senior portrait photography and
> what the customer purchases. I do. You also admit you only have one customer
> and from what I know of him he's a jackass.
>
Ah, this explains a lot! Forgive me because I did not know what your
customer base was.
Portrait photography, esp. pimply-faced kids, favors softened images. Very
similar to the latest generation video cameras that feature "skin tone
detail" circuitry.
Bob, it is apparent why your customers prefer the fuzzy digital images of
your d-30 to the Hassy. However you could have achieved the same effect with
a Softar +1 or +2.
In the Commercial and Architectural areas, where sharpness and detail are a
"must", you would need to buy back you Hassy gear, as well as obtain LF
equipment.
I didn't get the "whole picture" of your situation. My bad! Sorry for
that...
Bob Hatch
> Ah, this explains a lot! Forgive me because I did not know what your
> customer base was.
So?
>
> Portrait photography, esp. pimply-faced kids, favors softened images. Very
> similar to the latest generation video cameras that feature "skin tone
> detail" circuitry.
Sounds like a bit of a put down to me.
>
> Bob, it is apparent why your customers prefer the fuzzy digital images of
> your d-30 to the Hassy. However you could have achieved the same effect
with
> a Softar +1 or +2.
Really, wow, gee whiz, when did they come up with these things? So you're
saying I could use a filter and still be spending the $30,000 with my lab.
Gee where were you when I needed your business input?
>
> In the Commercial and Architectural areas, where sharpness and detail are
a
> "must", you would need to buy back you Hassy gear, as well as obtain LF
> equipment.
This assumes that I would ever want to do these things.
>
> I didn't get the "whole picture" of your situation. My bad! Sorry for
> that...
>
>
Tell me George, why is it you couldn't even clarify without being insulting
and condescending. So it that's the way you want it to be I guess 2 can play
the game.
If would figure that someone who lacks the ability to photograph anything
but inanimate objects would have the above opinions. I now understand where
you're coming from.
Marvin Margoshes
"Bob Hatch" <bobh...@go.com> wrote in message
news:bdv1l7$110gag$1...@ID-85448.news.dfncis.de...
Bob Hatch
news:vg63ik6...@corp.supernews.com...
> While you guys argue, the market is deciding.
>
George Kerby
Hatch" <bobh...@go.com> wrote:
>
> If would figure that someone who lacks the ability to photograph anything
> but inanimate objects would have the above opinions. I now understand where
> you're coming from.
Yep! That's why I make the big bucks and a $30K lab bill is not a big deal.
I can keep working and make more $$$, or sit here and trade insults with
you. I was just stating that I can understand your position better now that
you have shed more light on your type of workflow and subject matter.
BTW: Sitting seniors are pretty close to "inanimate objects" in their own
right. LOL!!!
I'm ouuta here. This thread has pretty much unraveled...
George Kerby
Hatch" <bobh...@go.com> wrote:
> "Marvin Margoshes" <physnos...@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:vg63ik6...@corp.supernews.com...
>> While you guys argue, the market is deciding.
>>
> True, and the direction the decision is moving is *not* toward film.
Depends on the market being discussed...
Todd Walker
ghost_...@hotmail.com says...
> Yep! That's why I make the big bucks and a $30K lab bill is not a big deal.
>
>
George,
What kind of photography do you do that pays you the big bucks? Who do
you work for, what kind of photography, etc?
I am not trying to be a smartass either -- I am genuinely interested :-)