Are Digital Cameras going to make film obsolite
Bryan Cady
you why I ask it.
I am considering gettting a Nikon N90s..maybe even an F100. I pretty
much plan to use it for family and some..not alot hobby shooting. I
shot alot when I was younger and now I want to get a camera that is
good that has good lenses. Quality of the picture is very important
to me.
I asked a friend now if the N90s and F100 might be overkill for what I
want to do and too much money to spend? He didn't think so but he said
he wouldn't get that now because Digital cameras are just around the
corner to being as good or even better and that most photography then
could be done on the computer which will make film obsolite. He
thought that in a few years I could get a digital camera for the same
money that would be much better than what film could ever do.
Do you agree?
Bryan Cady
bobc...@mindspring.com
thunder
>He
>thought that in a few years I could get a digital camera for the same
>money that would be much better than what film could ever do.
if you're good, and armed with an F100, there's not very many digicams that will
even come close to what you'll be able to produce...and they'll all cost at
least 2-3x what that F100 body will cost.
Ken M.
--
(ken)
http://www.MillenniumAdventures.com
Because e-mail can be altered electronically,
the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed.
Robert Maclellan
still a low resolution compared to what film can do. Even a small $200 35mm
Point and Shoot can produce a better blow-up than a $5000 digital and, if
digital resolution increases..then we are only talking about 35mm film and
the film world goes much larger than that...digital has not even thought
about approaching Medium format and yet it is the same film technology
simply in a larger size. You can't just use a larger CCD to increase a
digital's resolution.
While I still have digital cameras, I have almost completely returned to
35mm film/scanning and I can get double the resolution that any digital can
hope to produce AND I have the advantage of all of the image editing
technology that the digital world uses.
If you want to see what the cost differences are...add up the cost of a full
digital package that includes memorycards, the card readers...and then see
what kind of film camera setup you could get for the same money. You will be
amazed!!!
"Bryan Cady" <bobc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:geoknssl01lbh9be4...@4ax.com...
> I'm sure this question will bring alot of responses but let me tell
> you why I ask it.
>
> I am considering gettting a Nikon N90s..maybe even an F100. I pretty
> much plan to use it for family and some..not alot hobby shooting. I
> shot alot when I was younger and now I want to get a camera that is
> good that has good lenses. Quality of the picture is very important
> to me.
>
> I asked a friend now if the N90s and F100 might be overkill for what I
> want to do and too much money to spend? He didn't think so but he said
> he wouldn't get that now because Digital cameras are just around the
> corner to being as good or even better and that most photography then
> could be done on the computer which will make film obsolite. He
> thought that in a few years I could get a digital camera for the same
> money that would be much better than what film could ever do.
>
Roland Karlsson
> ...
> If you want to see what the cost differences are...add up the cost of a full
> digital package that includes memorycards, the card readers...and then see
> what kind of film camera setup you could get for the same money. You will be
> amazed!!!
It is correct that a digital camera is much more expensive
than a "film" based. But ... you have to take the film cost
into consideration. If you take lots of photos, then it
might not be so expensive going digital.
Roland
Roland Karlsson
right now. Shall I uppgrade my 35 mm cameras or not.
Difficult to know.
But ... you are planning to buy a very good film SLR.
Such a camera cannot be compared to the < $1000 cameras,
like Nikon CP990, Oly C3030 or Sony s70.
The SLR have a very good view finder. You can buy lots of
very nice lenses for that $1000. The SLR is ergonimocally
(and also functionally) superior to the digicam. You
have a hotshoe for your flash.
You shall really compare your F100 to a Nikon D1 or
something similar. And then the digicam costs MUCH more.
For the cost of a D1 you will get a absolutely outstanding
medium format camera - surpassing everything digital can
do (except maybe scanning backs for large format cameras).
The film cameras may die some day, but it is not tomorrow.
Roland
Roderick Stewart
wrote:
> I am considering gettting a Nikon N90s..maybe even an F100. I pretty
> much plan to use it for family and some..not alot hobby shooting. I
> shot alot when I was younger and now I want to get a camera that is
> good that has good lenses. Quality of the picture is very important
> to me.
Is speed of processing important to you? Is the ability to control the
entire process yourself important to you? Is the ability to deal with
one picture at a time without mixing up enough chemicals for a few dozen
important to you? The "best" type of camera for you depends on what you
want to do with it.
> I asked a friend now if the N90s and F100 might be overkill for what I
> want to do and too much money to spend? He didn't think so but he said
> he wouldn't get that now because Digital cameras are just around the
> corner to being as good or even better and that most photography then
> could be done on the computer which will make film obsolite. He
> thought that in a few years I could get a digital camera for the same
> money that would be much better than what film could ever do.
I'm looking forward to this too. I don't know exactly how many years it
will take, but looking back at the progress of electronics so far, and
its influence on nearly everything that people do, it seems a near
certainty that it will eventually come to pass. I don't anticipate
buying film again. Ever.
Rod.
Roderick Stewart
> Future senarios include, visiting Ayers Rock in Australia and filling
> your memory card with spectacular images and popping the card into a
> local phone booth and have delicious prints waiting on your doorstep
> in Arkansas after your holiday -(available today but you must supply
> the computer and modem and pay the heavy toll charges and suffer low
> bandwidths, etc.).
Another future scenario would include a camera that simply had built-in
storage capacity for more pictures - thousands perhaps - so you don't
even need to look for a phone both at Ayer's Rock. (Is there one?).
Rod.
Colin Monteith
question about quality and more one of convenience. I for one do not necessarily like that but none of us can hold
back the tide.
Digital at the consumer level is already winning and the evidence in stores is there to see. I saw a quote in a
newspaper the other day from an industry spokesperson saying that digital camera sales has now overtaken 35mm at the
consumer level. I thought that was baloney and asked a couple of store owners. They said they are selling at least
one digital to each 35mm.
As for SLR, its only a matter of a couple of years at the most when you will see the most incredible bargains in
quality used film based cameras as people move over to either consumer level digital or D1 type cameras that will be
released into the market place.
So as photographers some may not like the trend but its gathering momentum in a major way. Watch the support for film
based photography from manufacturers and retailers virtually disappear in the next few years. The advertising
dollars in the general consumer market are already mostly digital now.
Don't despair though, like 4x5 etc. you will be able to get supplies at the back of the store for a few years yet.
Roderick Stewart
> As for SLR, its only a matter of a couple of years at the most when you
> will see the most incredible bargains in quality used film based cameras
> as people move over to either consumer level digital or D1 type cameras that
> will be released into the market place.
> So as photographers some may not like the trend but its gathering momentum
> in a major way. Watch the support for film based photography from manufacturers
> and retailers virtually disappear in the next few years.
Anybody want to buy an old 8mm movie projector? :-)
Rod.
Roderick Stewart
> Good point about the phone at the rock but there is never a limitless
> storage capacity.
>
> Today we carry laptops and download in the field upto 10GB of info can
> be stored this way but even this needs to be cleared onto other media
> as it reaches its limit.
That's today - but what about tomorrow? The first computer I ever built
was a Sinclair kit that had just 1KB - yes, 1KB! of on-board memory,
which could be upgraded to 16KB. The first PC I ever built had 1MB
memory and a 40MB disk. The flashcard in my camera has 192MB - nearly
five times the disk capacity of that PC, and without any moving parts.
Where will it all end?
Rod.
Stanton
Right now, photography is in a "transitional" time. This can be most
confusing, and probably more confusing for the amateur than the
professional. If we can examine the time lines a bit...
Film cameras have traditionally been purchased as long term investments. I
still have my first Nikkormat FTN purchased in 1973 (which still functions
perfectly, thank you). My last Hasselblad purchase was made in the early
90's. As I said, we purchased cameras as long term items because we could
not conceive of film ever going away. I believe this is about to change.
I purchased an Olympus 2500 in December with few expectations. As a pro,
the camera paid for itself almost immediately, but within 3 months I sold it
to buy a D1. Though the D1 is currently state of the art, I don't expect it
to be king of the hill for more than 18 months. Regardless of what Fuji and
Canon do with the S1 and D30 respectively, forward thinking individuals know
this is only the first salvo. Part of the limitations on digital is not the
ability to capture images that contain more detail than film, but in the
ability to efficiently process those images. Our current standard of
computers doesn't quite have the horsepower and storage to handle them. In
5 years when we're all on computers with dual multi-gig processors and
drives that hold terrabtyes, it becomes a whole 'nother story.
And then there are the cameras available today. They have their strengths
and weaknesses. There are some subjects that I wouldn't even dream of using
film on. Yet, there are shots (and workflow strategies) that demand the use
of film. Over time this WILL change... Its not a matter of if, but when.
And your dilema is based around how much you want to invest today... or save
for tomorrow...
...and only you know the answer.
Regards,
Stanton
http://stantondesign.com
>I am considering gettting a Nikon N90s..maybe even an F100. I pretty
>much plan to use it for family and some..not alot hobby shooting. I
>shot alot when I was younger and now I want to get a camera that is
>good that has good lenses. Quality of the picture is very important
>to me.
>
>I asked a friend now if the N90s and F100 might be overkill for what I
>want to do and too much money to spend? He didn't think so but he said
>he wouldn't get that now because Digital cameras are just around the
>corner to being as good or even better and that most photography then
>could be done on the computer which will make film obsolite. He
>thought that in a few years I could get a digital camera for the same
>money that would be much better than what film could ever do.
>
Adeglen
several digital cameras. I do my processing digitally, and up to 13x19 which is
the largest size i can get on my Epson 1270, the results appear as good as
chemical enlargements; I took some of my better prints into a custom color lab
and the proprietor was blown away.
In terms of digital cameras equalling 35mm consider this: when I scan a 35mm
negative at maximum resolution with my Nikon LS-2000 I get a 56 Megabyte TIFF
file. How long do you suppose it will take to develop a digital camera that
produces a file with that much information?
If you will never want to exceed 5x7 prints then digital has already
"arrived", although you won't get the color depth that comes with 35mm in most
cases prints will look as good to the naked eye. If you want to do a lot of
cropping and big enlargements, you'll soon see the difference. Steve
ade...@aol.com
Robert Maclellan
of frequent upgrades to digital cameras. Digicams become technically
obsolete long before they are physically worn out. On the other hand, the
35mm SLR that I am using is over 15 years old and still giving perfect
service. I doubt that any current digitals will still be in use in 5 years
let alone 15 years.
Also, the cost of film and processing is a one time cost that doesn't have
to be paid again once you have the negative or slide. You can have as many
reprints made as you like and the cost of those reprints are a fraction of
the cost of digital prints.
If you want to make 10 copies of a particular print, it is much cheaper to
do in conventional film printing than digital. Essentially, the cost of each
digital print remains the same everytime a print is made while the majority
of the cost of a film print is in the initial processing which, as I said,
is a one time charge.
Let's look at a hypothetical situation. Using US prices, assume a person had
to decide on whether to get the Nikon D1 or go with the Nikon F5 (which are
comparable camera bodies)
D1 (body only) @$5,000; F5 (body only) @$1,729 (since they will both take
the same lenses we can eliminate those figures from the equation since they
will cancel each other out but the lenses will run from $200-$2,000 EACH)
Now the D1 will need a memory card and a nice 128 Lexar USB enabled memory
card will eliminate the need to buy a separate Card reader. That card will
cost about $450. The user also wants to get film images into his computer
and so he puts a film scanner on the list..a simple HP S20 would cost about
$470.
Both will use the same printer (say an Epson 1200 at @$470) so that is the
same for both setups.
The cost for this D1 setup would be (5000+450) $5,450.
The initial cost for the F5 setup (less the cost of any lenses and the
printer etc) is (1729+470) = $2,199
The difference is $3,251 before the first picture is taken..but WAIT... the
film camera doesn't have the film and processing costs factored in!!
For simplicity, lets assume that this photographer is only going to use one
brand and speed of film (Kodak Royal Gold 400 for example) the cost per 36
exposure roll is about $4.79 and processing only (no prints since that will
be done on the inkjet printer) would be an additional $1.90/roll or $6.69
each.
Taking that $3,251 difference, the film user could buy 486 rolls of film or
enough for 17,496 shots before the cost difference is used up. Of course the
film photographer could also use that extra money to buy better lenses and
thus have a quality advantage over the D1 in optics and variety of lenses.
Also, the HP S20 scanner isn't the best film scanner available and still it
will produce a digital image of 3120x2080 while the D1 will only give
2012x1324. A better film scanner (which the film user will have the option
to buy with the price difference) can do even better.
Couldn't we all use $3,251 especially if you end up with higher resolution
images in the end as well.
"Roland Karlsson" <roland....@chello.se> wrote in message
news:2mze5.2501$u21.6...@nntp1.chello.se...
Agelmar
with a few friends, and it would be a cool touch... would make a great old,
creepy spook item :-)
"Roderick Stewart" <rj...@crosby.u-net.com> wrote in message
news:VA.000017f...@crosby.u-net.com...
_AM
says...
> ... Part of the limitations on digital is not the
> ability to capture images that contain more detail than film, but in the
> ability to efficiently process those images. Our current standard of
> computers doesn't quite have the horsepower and storage to handle them.
Well, I use a subnotebook with 64 MB RAM and a Pentium I 133 MHz
processor. It's about 20 times slower than current state of the art
computers (with a 1 GHz processor).
This subnotebook has absolutely no problems processing and storing the 2
MPixel image files generated by my digital camera. What are you talking
about ?
--
Alfred Molon
Email address is alfred_molon at csi.com
_AM
> The cost for this D1 setup would be (5000+450) $5,450.
> The initial cost for the F5 setup (less the cost of any lenses and the
> printer etc) is (1729+470) = $2,199
> Taking that $3,251 difference, the film user could buy 486 rolls of film or
> enough for 17,496 shots before the cost difference is used up.
Let's make a different calculation, one relevant for "prosumers".
Assume a 3 MPixel camera for $1000, memory cards for $200, other
equipment for $100, for a total of $1300. Assume also an inkjet printer
for $400 with printing costs of $1 per 10x15 cm print.
A comparable film camera will cost - let's say - $400.
Let's assume $6.69 for a 36-exposures film including processing (as you
quote it). Assume that 10x15 cm prints cost 25 cents each. Total cost per
film roll: $15,69, or 44 cents per picture.
Equipment cost for the digital solution: $1700
Equipment cost for film camera: $400
Assume users of digital cameras only print out 5% - 10% of the pictures
they take. That's a perfectly legitimate assumption, since you don't have
to make a print to see the picture. Instead users of film cameras HAVE to
print ALL pictures, otherwise they can't see them.
Cost per picture film solution: 44 cents / picture
Cost per picture digital solution: 7.5% * $1 = 7.5 cents / picture
After 3562 pictures the digital solution is cheaper: (1700-400) / (0.44 -
0.075).
If you want you can factor in the cost of the CDR for storing the
pictures: $0.50 for 1000 pictures = $0.0005 / picture...
Charles C. Drew
both formats:
Film...
1) Much better resolution. Film has grain (very similar to pixels) and the
average 35mm film can produce anywhere from 2M pixel to 24M pixel pictures.
This depends a lot on the exposure (enough light) to development techniques
of the film AND print.
2) Much longer established techniques and consistency in the use of the
cameras. The features and techniques to create great pictures are a bit
more consistent than digital.
3) Much closer to true color (since it is an analog medium there is no
practical limit on the number of shades of color you can produce).
4) The camera equipment is much cheaper than digital for the same quality
pictures.
5) There are many more lenses, filters, and accessories that are compatible
with the average film camera than there are for digital (until you get into
the professional level, anyway).
Digital...
1) Much more consistent color, white balance, etc. when producing prints.
With the digital format, you just have to calibrate your equipment once.
Every picture will come out the same everytime. With film you have to run
test rolls to know how to calibrate your equipment, and test print runs each
time you process film and prints. On a professional level, this burns
through hundreds and even thousands of dollars worth of supplies; and this
doesn't even take into account the time you will spend doing this. On an
amateur level, your are at the whim of the developer of your film and prints
unless you do it yourself.
2) "Developing" your "film" and prints on digital format is almost a
no-brainer. It is an art with film and can be quite difficult to do well.
The complexities of calibrating your equipment is MUCH easier in the digital
world than the film world.4
3) Degradation of your master image sources is much less of a worry in the
digital world that the film world. You can store digital pictures on CDR for
about 70 years before it degrades. This makes it easy to burn a new, fresh
copy just as good as the original every 50 years or so at a cost of about
$0.50 per CDR or per 13 pictures (2M pixel uncompressed 24 bit color TIFF
format) or 650 pictures (2M pixel 24 bit compressed JPG format averaging 1Mb
each) or 1300 pictures (2M pixel 24 bit compressed JPG format averaging
512Kb each).
4) You can go from picture taking to viewing the image in all its detail
in minutes.
5) With large enough storage media, you can take hundreds or even thousands
of pictures before you have to "change the roll" for more picture taking.
6) You can reuse your digital "film" again and again to take more and more
pictures. This makes it much cheaper in the long run than film.
7) You can review your pictures in the field and discard bad shots. This
allows you to reuse the "film" for better shots.
8) You can distribute your pictures digitally across the planet in a matter
of seconds or minutes on slow lines, and the recipient can print the output
with the exact same color and white balance that you did (assuming that
their equipment is properly calibrated). This makes distribution MUCH
cheaper than film.
I'm sure there are more advantages and disadvantages that I haven't though
of, but I only have so much time.
"Adeglen" <ade...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000723103002...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
Brian Barnson
"Bryan Cady" <bobc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:geoknssl01lbh9be4...@4ax.com...
> I'm sure this question will bring alot of responses but let me tell
> you why I ask it.
>
> much plan to use it for family and some..not alot hobby shooting. I
> shot alot when I was younger and now I want to get a camera that is
> good that has good lenses. Quality of the picture is very important
> to me.
>
then so is lens quality and it's hard to beat Nikon. Most consumer digital
cameras with 3x optical xoom lenses are of "point & shoot" quality compared
to a good SLR lens. If you get the Nikon now you can bet that there will be
a
digital body available for your lenses when the megapixel race levels out,
whenever that may be. This is going to be a very interesting market to
watch for the next few years.
Brian, in Calgary
Larry Richards
Then you'd have to factor in the cost of an album for all those
pictures via film. :-)
Larry
"POP"! Oops! There goes another synapse!
http://www.uncle-larry.com
http://personal.bellsouth.net/~larryric/
Capturing the world with my Minolta RD 3000
Do not e-mail me with spoofed return addresses.
------------------------------------------------//
Robert Maclellan
Zoom which is about $140.00 since most consumer digitals are little better
than point and shoot cameras to begin with. A camera like the Yashica T4
Super (also around $145.00) with its Zeiss Tessar lens produces shots as
nice as any full SLR. For that, you still get higher resolution and the
point and shoot will outlive the digital and still be shooting long after
the digital is considered obsolete and been abandoned for the next "great
leap forward". You can then add in the cost of replacing the digital camera
several times during the functional life of the film camera.
I tried to make my example as comparable as possible and assumed that both
options allowed for making prints at home on the inkjet as well as storing
the image on whatever electronic storage was appropriate. If the user was
going to use a CDRW then I assumed that it would be equal for both options.
Using your 3Mp option the there is still a ($1,300-$145) $1,155 difference.
Take away the $500 for a scanner and you can see startup costs are still
cheaper by $655.
(Quotes for film and processing came from the July 2000 issue of Popular
Photography but I think any of the standard photomagazines would carry the
same ads.) Don't forget that I am assuming that the film user will be doing
the identical inkjet prints as the digital user, since he bought the film
scanner to do just that, so the cost would be identical and can be cancelled
out. He doesn't have to print them since he "sees" them on his monitor just
like the digital user and may choose to print or not.
Even so, since printing costs can be eliminated from the mix...the film user
still has almost $700 extra money to play with before the first picture is
even taken and THAT is a lot of film as well.
"_AM" <z@z.z> wrote in message
news:MPG.13e54c1ac...@news.supernews.com...
> If you want you can factor in the cost of the CDR for storing the
> pictures: $0.50 for 1000 pictures = $0.0005 / picture...
>
> --
> Alfred Molon
>
>
Robert Maclellan
scan them later.
"Larry Richards" <larr...@uncle-larry.com> wrote in message
news:tphmnsojpgtpeocml...@4ax.com...
>
> Then you'd have to factor in the cost of an album for all those
> pictures via film. :-)
>
> Larry
>
> "POP"! Oops! There goes another synapse!
>
> http://www.uncle-larry.com
> http://personal.bellsouth.net/~larryric/
>
> Capturing the world with my Minolta RD 3000
>
> Do not e-mail me with spoofed return addresses.
>
> ------------------------------------------------//
>
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 19:41:10 +0200, _AM <z@z.z> wrote:
>
D Buroker
and versatility the N90S wins hands down. The 2020 I use when I need a
picture right now, but don't need the quality.
Don
Brad Templeton
Bryan Cady <bobc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>want to do and too much money to spend? He didn't think so but he said
>he wouldn't get that now because Digital cameras are just around the
>corner to being as good or even better and that most photography then
>could be done on the computer which will make film obsolite. He
>thought that in a few years I could get a digital camera for the same
>money that would be much better than what film could ever do.
>
>Do you agree?
>
>Bryan Cady
>bobc...@mindspring.com
Short answer, yes, digital will obsolete film in the 35mm format in a
few years. It hasn't nearly done so today, of course, but as long as
Moore keeps things up it will. In fact it will surpass it in dynamic range
and quality images.
It already has for certain types of studio photography.
Medium format film photography will continue for much longer since the
economics of making digital match that are less compelling.
However, for now, you are wise to shoot on film and scan, until the
digital camera comes out that satisfies you and your budget. Who knows,
that might even be the D30 coming out in September.
For more detailed comparison, see:
www.templetons.com/brad/photo/dig35mm.html
--
Brad Templeton http://www.templetons.com/brad/
Roderick Stewart
wrote:
> Also, the cost of film and processing is a one time cost that doesn't have
> to be paid again once you have the negative or slide. You can have as many
> reprints made as you like and the cost of those reprints are a fraction of
> the cost of digital prints.
This is strange logic. I would say the memory card in a digital camera is a
real "one time cost", whereas film and chemicals have to be bought every time
you want to take a bunch of pictures. And where can you get photographic
prints that are cheaper than digital prints?
You should also take into account that you may not even want to print
everything. I've found that I can use my laptop as a kind of "photo album"
with a capacity far exceeding a book-based one.
Rod.
thunder
> Wow, you had 40 MB? I had two
> 160 Kb floppy drives.
wow, you had TWO floppy drives?!? quit showing off!
Roderick Stewart
wrote:
> A camera like the Yashica T4
> Super (also around $145.00) with its Zeiss Tessar lens produces shots as
> nice as any full SLR. For that, you still get higher resolution and the
> point and shoot will outlive the digital and still be shooting long after
> the digital is considered obsolete and been abandoned for the next "great
> leap forward". You can then add in the cost of replacing the digital camera
> several times during the functional life of the film camera.
Potentially this is true, but I suspect it won't work out that way. For
example, I have a 9.5mm film camera that is nearly half a century old, and
although its lifetime has seen the invention of videotape, vidicon cameras,
CCD cameras, printed circuits, integrated circuits, video cassettes, colour
television, digital recording, computers, and many more things, each of which
has gone through several generations of technical change, and been replaced
just as you predict (probably correctly) for future generations of digital
still cameras, it still appears to be in working order. So why can't I buy
film for it? Why is nobody using film for their home movie pictures if it's
so much better?
The same thing has happened to the broadcast television industry, where the
number of productions made on film has steadily declined, and most are now
made on video. (Ironically they are sometimes electronically degraded in an
attempt to make them look like film). Like gramophone records and
typewriters, these examples of yesterday's technology will still work - but
fewer people are using them. Can you honestly be certain that the same won't
happen to still photography?
Rod.
James Himmelman
<MPG.13e5407a1...@news.supernews.com>:
>processor. It's about 20 times slower than current state of the
>art computers (with a 1 GHz processor).
>This subnotebook has absolutely no problems processing and storing
>the 2 MPixel image files generated by my digital camera. What are
>you talking about ?
He is talking about a limitation that makes it difficult to advance
-beyond- the point where we are now. I don't think you will want to
work woth images from a 6MP camera on that notebook.
James Himmelman
<LuFe5.22446$1h3.3...@news20.bellglobal.com>:
>Many people think that but what is never calculated is the
>additional cost of frequent upgrades to digital cameras. Digicams
>become technically obsolete long before they are physically worn
>out. On the other hand, the 35mm SLR that I am using is over 15
>years old and still giving perfect service. I doubt that any
>current digitals will still be in use in 5 years let alone 15
>years.
Digital photography is in its infancy. The manufacturers are
improving their digital line at a frantic pace in order to bring
digital camera's more in line with the quality and performance we
have come to expect from our conventional film camera's - at a price
that is more comparable. They are doing this because they know that
this is where the industry is moving.
Digicams had a lot of catching up to do (and have closed the gap
considerably in the last two years), eventually it will stabilize.
Digicams will most likely make film -virtually- obsolete eventually,
just not as soon as some people think. I think the manufacturers
already figured that out. That's why they are racing so fast and hard
to establish themselves in that market. They see the transition
coming (happening), and they don't want to be left behind.
Erica
Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <39872ce0....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, No One wrote:
>
> > >The first PC I ever built had 1MB
> > >memory and a 40MB disk.
> >
> > Wow, you had 40 MB? I had two
> > 160 Kb floppy drives
>
> I had 16K ram, and a cassette deck for storage.
>
> the salesperson had to sell me on 16K; I thought that 4K would be enough.
>
> --Michelle
I'm the one who had the 4K version. Loved that cassette deck, though...
-- Erica
p.s. Of course this doesn't count the papertape and punchcard machines
I used outside the house...
p.p.s. "Get Axe". "Throw Axe".
_AM
> A comparable film camera would be something like the Olympus Stylus Epic
> Zoom which is about $140.00 since most consumer digitals are little better
> Super (also around $145.00) with its Zeiss Tessar lens produces shots as
> nice as any full SLR.
Does this $145 camera have manual controls? A zoom lens ? Can you set the
white balance ? Can you... ?
> For that, you still get higher resolution and the
> point and shoot will outlive the digital and still be shooting long after
> the digital is considered obsolete and been abandoned for the next "great
> leap forward".
Actually with such a cheap film camera the effective available resolution
might be only 2 million pixel (unless the lens is very good).
The German c't magazine (granted it's a computer magazine) made
the following calculation in their 14/2000 edition:
APS camera: frame size 17 x 30 mm. Zoom lens capable of only 30 line
pairs/mm (typical for consumer compact cameras).
Result: 1020 x 1800 pixels (17x60 x 30x60)
That's even less than 2 million pixel.
> You can then add in the cost of replacing the digital camera
> several times during the functional life of the film camera.
Why do you have to replace a 3 MPixel digital camera which works
perfectly and allows you to make quality prints up to A4 size (21 x 30
cm) ?
Market research firms expect the bulk of the digital camera market over
the next years to be affordable 1 or 2 Megapixel cameras - the emphasis
is on the term "affordable".
John Stewart
plates replaced wet glass plates and sheet film replaced glass and roll film
replaced most sheet film, etc.
If image quality is important to you, and cost is not an object, you can do
pretty well with digital, even with a 2 megapixel camera. But printing is
another story. It's expensive to make good prints.
One idea: Do some digital, amd use the money you normally spend on 35mm
snapshots (and we all seem to waste about half the film we shoot, right?)
and get a medium format camera. Then you can shoot some superb quality and
use the digital for more casual use.
John
John Stewart
> Hmmmm ... a lot of people ar asking the same question
> right now. Shall I uppgrade my 35 mm cameras or not.
> Difficult to know.
FYI, this observation. I wa sin retail camera store sales just when VCRs
and those luggable portable with the separate cameras hit the market. They
were not as full-featured as the Super 8 movie cameras of the time.
Super 8 had gone into sound, low-light, fades, wipes, time-lapse,
slow-motion and every conceivable variation you can imagine.
Still, the camcorder wiped them out virtually 100%. That's because film was
getting expensive, processing was expensive and there was a time lag from
when the shot was taken to when it could be seen.
Polaroid tried to solve this with a self developing film....uh huh.
Today, you can get more 35mm SLR for the money than EVER before.
Eye-control focus and depth of field settings, matrix metering, high speed
drives, you name it.
Sound familiar? What more can they add? And they still are faced with a
similar problem: film is getting expensive, processing is expensive and
there is a time lag from when the shot is taken to when it can be seen.
I still like film for certain archival images, usually black and white.
"
> The film cameras may die some day, but it is not tomorrow.
You're right. But watch out! The Tsunami is coming! :)
John
John Stewart
> Future senarios include, visiting Ayers Rock in Australia and filling
> your memory card with spectacular images and popping the card into a
> local phone booth and have delicious prints waiting on your doorstep
> in Arkansas after your holiday -(available today but you must supply
> the computer and modem and pay the heavy toll charges and suffer low
> bandwidths, etc.).
You are a true visionary. I'm serious!
John
Brad Templeton
Hardly. He's behind the times. Phillipe Kahn's company has now released
their first camera that transmits the pictures there as you take them,
or at least as soon as you get to the cell network. He's done a deal
to buy spare upload bandwidth from the cell companies cheap, and making
a camera that takes the pictures, and before you get home they are on
your web site (or you could order prints)
Robert Maclellan
made obsolete and orphaned by technical advances. That is happening to
digital cameras all the time as the technology advances.
Robert Maclellan
processing. Reprints of existing negs can be done for pennys while the cost
of each individual digital print remains the same for each print.
The actual difference is that the start-up cost of digital are significantly
higher than film and you can get a hell of a film set-up for the same money!
Robert Maclellan
have a zoom lens which is certainly better than anything (outside of Zeiss)
that the common digital camera offers.
And the "resolution" of the Yashica is much higher than 2 megapixel and is
closer to 6 megapixel. It is as good as most SLRs.Don't forget that these
cameras are full 35mm and not APS.
As far as "white balance" goes... certainly...film cameras simply buy
daylight or tungsten balanced film..also these small cameras easily handle
ISOs ratings between ISO50 and ISO3200.
Essentially, there is no real reason to replace a 3.3Mp camera if it works
fine but I will guarantee that many people will upgrade just to have the
latest and greatest.
"_AM" <z@z.z> wrote in message
Roland Karlsson
> FYI, this observation. I wa sin retail camera store sales just when VCRs
> and those luggable portable with the separate cameras hit the market. They
> were not as full-featured as the Super 8 movie cameras of the time.
>
> Super 8 had gone into sound, low-light, fades, wipes, time-lapse,
> slow-motion and every conceivable variation you can imagine.
>
> Still, the camcorder wiped them out virtually 100%. That's because film was
> getting expensive, processing was expensive and there was a time lag from
> when the shot was taken to when it could be seen.
Yepp, but there is one very important difference.
Film for 35 mm still cameras is only expensive.
Film for Super was very, very, very expensive.
Lots of dollars for only som tiny minutes of film.
And to get good films you must do lots of retakes.
This means lots, lots, lots of dollars to get good film.
> Polaroid tried to solve this with a self developing film....uh huh.
>
> Today, you can get more 35mm SLR for the money than EVER before.
> Eye-control focus and depth of field settings, matrix metering, high speed
> drives, you name it.
Nah .. I think that the only important improvement over the
SLR cameras from the 70ies and 80ies is auto focus. And maybe
better lenses. Film transport I rather do manually - it takes less
power from the batteries and is totally noiseless. Exposure?
Matrix metering is nice, but not essential. I think I can do
just as good (and nearly as fast) using some small trix.
> Sound familiar? What more can they add? And they still are faced with a
> similar problem: film is getting expensive, processing is expensive and
> there is a time lag from when the shot is taken to when it can be seen.
>
> I still like film for certain archival images, usually black and white.
>
> "
> > The film cameras may die some day, but it is not tomorrow.
>
> You're right. But watch out! The Tsunami is coming! :)
Just bought me a digital camera. It was the most expensive
camera I ever have bought. It is fun to use, but it is
by far not as good as my old SLR in most respects.
But I agree - it is very possible that in just some few years
the digital cameras have catched up.
A 35 mm sized CCD with 2000x3000 pixels and 12 bit per color,
with functions that is as flexible as my old SLR and also
new inovative digital functions would be just right! And
all this for $500. It is coming - is it 2002 or 2003?
Roland
Robert Maclellan
the last price difference that you would ever see and I am surprised that
you would draw than erroneous conclusion let alone post a response based on
it. Oh well!
The point, expressd another way, is that for the cost of a consumer digital
camera package, you can get a professional 35mm (or larger format) package
and that you will get a system that will have many time the image quality of
any digital.
For the cost of a D1, you can get fantastic 35mm film camera with absolutely
tack-sharp lenses. If you have to spend $5,000 on the camera body then you
end up with a cheap Tamron or Sigma zoom lens which doesn't do much for the
resultant images of the D1 since it is very sensitive to lens quality...but
that is all people will be able to afford since they will have spend
everything on the body and have nothing left for the glass!!
We certainly haven't even talked about travelling with your camera. For
those digital users without a portable storage alternative, travelling any
distance from a computer to dump their cards wasn't much of an option. Even
a Microdrive, eventually fills up especialy over a couple of weeks. This
means either buying a laptop (or the new Digital Wallet) which adds another
couple of hundred dollars to the set-up costs. Film photographers can opt to
take as much film with them (which they can buy in bulk) or, if they are in
North America, can elect to buy film on the road and they also can buy
different speeds for different situations.
"RunningBare" <Runni...@cold.com> wrote in message
news:39862c20....@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:58:19 GMT, in rec.photo.digital
> "Robert Maclellan" <rmacl...@bufallo.com> wrote:
>
> >Couldn't we all use $3,251 especially if you end up with higher
resolution
> >images in the end as well.
>
> Of course you assume that the cost of digital is fixed
> and that's ridiculous. And therefore, by extension, so is your
> entire argument.
Ross Clement
to be able to take a large number of shots, with no need to pay for
processing, or having the bother of sending the film off and collecting
it. I'm not trying to take art prints, or professional work. I just want
to take standard family/holiday snapshots. Another major motivation for
me is that I don't want to have the prints. Prints take up space, you
need an album, more stuff to cart around. I want to keep my pictures
in the digital domain. If I take too many shots, I'll burn a CD ROM
and continue on.
While my camera cost (to me) a fair bit, I've probably already saved
10% of the purchase price not having to have film developed.
Cheers,
Ross-c
Roderick Stewart
wrote:
> The reason that your 9.5mm camera is no longer supported is because it was
> made obsolete and orphaned by technical advances. That is happening to
> digital cameras all the time as the technology advances.
Of course it is. It's happening to everything, but you seemed to imply in
your previous posting that it won't happen to 35mm still cameras. Why not?
Rod.
Roderick Stewart
wrote:
> Once you have the negative in your hand there is no more cost for film or
> processing. Reprints of existing negs can be done for pennys while the cost
> of each individual digital print remains the same for each print.
Just to pick a typical price, the Jessops catalogue gives 4.49ukp (about
$2.80) for a single 6"x4" hand print. I can make an A4 or 8"x10" inkjet print
for les than 1ukp. And if it's something special, they can also do a, 8"10"
print from a digital source on photographic paper for 3.29ukp - less than the
cost of the 6"x4" photographic one.
> The actual difference is that the start-up cost of digital are significantly
> higher than film and you can get a hell of a film set-up for the same money!
True, but then it costs money every time you take a picture, and you can only
take them in multiples of 24 or 36, and you have to wait a few days to see
them. In fact, you *have* to have prints of some sort made just to see them,
unlike electronic images which you can examine on the screen to pick the good
ones. I you actually prefer all this this rigmarole, and think the results
make it all worthwhile, then good luck to you, but I don't think I'll be
buying film again.
Rod.
Roderick Stewart
wrote:
> We certainly haven't even talked about travelling with your camera. For
> those digital users without a portable storage alternative, travelling any
> distance from a computer to dump their cards wasn't much of an option. Even
> a Microdrive, eventually fills up especialy over a couple of weeks. This
> means either buying a laptop (or the new Digital Wallet) which adds another
> couple of hundred dollars to the set-up costs.
Within a year, I guess, portable disk drives that take high capacity removable
disks, e.g. Zip or LS120, will start to appear, designed specifically to plug
into digital cameras or to accept their memory cards.
> Film photographers can opt to
> take as much film with them (which they can buy in bulk) or, if they are in
> North America, can elect to buy film on the road and they also can buy
> different speeds for different situations.
I wonder if you will still be able to do this in ten year's time?
Rod.
Mr. Wratten
US Pathe Club: http://www.libertyship.com/Pathe/95USAhome.htm
UK Pathe Club: http://www.pathescope.freeserve.co.uk/Pathe95.htm
The Pathe Baby film format (9.5mm, perforation between each frame) was a
very good format, but King Kodak put it out of business in the US by the
1930's with its 16mm and then 8mm formats. It survived in wide use in
Europe until the1950's. In many ways the Pathe format was better than the
Kodak formats, because the maximum amount of film was used to make the
picture, an a minimum was used on sprocket perforations. This was not a
case of the better format winning, just better marketing and more financial
muscle. I understand that Kodak eventually bought the Pathe movie business
(or some portion of it, perhaps just the US subsidary Pathex) and
discontinued the 9.5mm film because it competed with 16mm and 8mm.
And you are wrong that you can't get Pathe 9.5mm film anymore. The film is
availabe in England and France and can be processed in the US by John
Schwind:
UK Film: http://www.pathefilm.freeserve.co.uk/
US Processing: http://members.aol.com/Super8mm/Super8mm.html
The moral of the story: Even when large multinational companies drop a
product, if there are enough people out there who want it, someone else will
pick it up and it will remain available.
Jim
PS: Many old Eupopean and US movies for which 35mm prints were lost were
rediscovered because they had been distributed as home movies on the 9.5mm
format and were found in someone's basement or closet.
Marshall
clearly is not. As a long-time 35mm photographer, I've looked forward to
digital photography for at least ten years. I think that the calculations
you made don't quite wash out, and here's why:
1) With digital photography, I can instantly share and send pictures
around the world at no cost. My wife, who stays at home with our 8 month-old
daughter, sends a "picture of the day" to her friends at work. You cannot
easily do that with a 35 mm camera.
2) With digital photography, the computer display becomes the primary
display for our pictures. We didn't realize this when we bought the camera,
but it's true. We have a very nice 17" monitor, which means that we can look
at all of our pictures at 16x20 size! (Landscape, of course).
3) With digitial photography and CD-R technology, I can create archival
backups of my entire photography collection which won't fade, tear, smear,
etc.
4) Digital photography leverages existing technology investments I've
already made (computer, laptop, Internet connection, etc.). So the "added
costs" you mentioned don't apply to many people. But I agree that digital
photography is much more expensive than film, especially since all of
today's digital cameras will soon be obsoleted by better ones, whereas a 15
year-old Nikon can still take pictures as well as a brand-new camera. One
inherent cost weakness of digital is that the "film" is built into the
camera. If your 15 year-old Nikon could only use the films available 15
years ago, then it would be considered obsolete.
For professional print photography, it will take several years for digital
to beat film. I'm not an expert on CCD technology, but I believe that some
day, a CCD will be made which can equal or better film. Now that there's a
consumer market for both video and still cameras, a powerful economic
incentive exists to develop such a CCD.
Marshall
Roderick Stewart
> And you are wrong that you can't get Pathe 9.5mm film anymore. The film is
> availabe in England and France and can be processed in the US by John
> Schwind:
I'm sure everything is available somewhere or other, but 9.5mm film is
definitely not "available" in the same way as 35mm stills film or VHS
cassettes, i.e. in supermarkets and corner shops. Eventually I think 35mm
film will only be supported by enthusiast societies, and the corner shops
and supermarkets will sell whatever type of disks or memory cards that turn
out to be the most popular for digital cameras.
Rod.
J. Clarke
debate.
Bottom line is that right now film is a mature technology capable of
producing results of very high quality. Digital is still developing rapidly
and any digital equipment you buy now is going to seem pretty crappy
compared with what's on the market two years from now. If there is a
digital camera available right now that does everything you want to do for a
price you are willing to pay, then by all means go for it. If not, then go
for the 35mm and when digital finally does mature and stabilize, then get
the digital body to go with the rest of your system.
It is likely that there will come a time when digital supplants film for
just about everything. When that time comes is anybody's guess. A year?
Not likely. A century? Almost certainly.
--
---
---John
reply to jclarke at eye bee em dot net
"Bryan Cady" <bobc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:geoknssl01lbh9be4...@4ax.com...
> I'm sure this question will bring alot of responses but let me tell
> you why I ask it.
>
> I am considering gettting a Nikon N90s..maybe even an F100. I pretty
> much plan to use it for family and some..not alot hobby shooting. I
> shot alot when I was younger and now I want to get a camera that is
> good that has good lenses. Quality of the picture is very important
> to me.
>
> I asked a friend now if the N90s and F100 might be overkill for what I
Robert Maclellan
make a difference but since it actually would cost that much for 24 4x6
prints then it becomes a much different story. I'm not sure where you get
your shots processed but you are getting ripped off!! I can get a 36 shot
roll processed for $1.90 which will work out to about 5 cents per image.
But it certainly gives one pause to know that for the cost of a single Nikon
D1 you can get TWO Hasselblad 501C kits (with lenses and backs) or you could
get only one Hasselblad and a 180mm/f4 lens. Most people don't even consider
a Hasselblad within their price range but actually do consider the D1. Of
course, if we consider USED film cameras (which are quite usable) then the
price differences widen considerably.
For the price of a Nikon 950 you can get TWO Nikon N60s (with lenses, AND 3
rolls of film).
It is true that you don't get to see your film images as quickly as you do
with digital but there are still plenty of 1/2 hour photoshops around which
is about as long as most people take having to digitally adjust every shot
they take and it all equals out in the end. It would certainly take at least
that long to print out 36 digital images. But then I don't print every image
I take. I look at them on my monitor before I decide if I want or need to
print it....sounds like digital doesn't it?
I simply have a film scanner which reads the film strips from my $150 35mm
Yashica T4 point and shoot with a Zeiss lens and produces a 2400dpi (20Mb)
3120x2080 digital image. The results are DEFINITELY worth the trouble. A
more expensive film scanner can do even higher resolution and it is no
problem for me to scan prints, 35mm slides as well as film. And I can do the
same thing with my 35mm Contax SLR which also uses Zeiss optics and the
results are even more spectacular. Before I spent money on the scanner, I
had PhotoCDs produced when I developed the roll. It was cheaper to do the
scanning myself and I even see the image on my screen in the high quality
pre-scan to decide if I even want to scan it (NOW) or not.
So, I can see digital having their place, I have to think that or I wouldn't
own 3 of them...but if my concern is top image quality then there is no
doubt that film still holds the lead and will for some time. Technology is
not only moving forward in the digital realm...film technology is advancing
as well and we are getting faster and faster film with less grain and
specialized film for whatever job the photographer needs to do. Some film
cameras have the option of allowing you to rewind a partially exposed roll;
allow another speed to be put in the camera and then the partially exposed
roll reloaded and continued.
Film offeres a lot of flexibility and, for the moment, digital is attempting
to simulate what film does. It does a pretty good job but it will not make
film any more obsolete than television killed radio.
"Roderick Stewart" <rj...@crosby.u-net.com> wrote in message
news:VA.0000180...@crosby.u-net.com...
Robert Maclellan
work and benefit from the advances in film technology. Also, there are
advances in camera body design that add features such as the Canon focus
system that follows your eye as you look through the viewfinder. Right now,
35mm is the most cost efficient format. It offers cameras with an extensive
range of lenses, film speeds and automation options from fully manual/no
electronics to completely computer controlled and battery dependant... and
all of this is 1/4 the price of digital.
Maclellan
> wrote:
>
> > The reason that your 9.5mm camera is no longer supported is because it
was
> > made obsolete and orphaned by technical advances. That is happening to
> > digital cameras all the time as the technology advances.
>
> Of course it is. It's happening to everything, but you seemed to imply in
> your previous posting that it won't happen to 35mm still cameras. Why not?
>
>
Robert Maclellan
the film world and one in the digital. I use a film scanner or PhotoCD to
"create archival backups of my entire photography collection which won't
around the world at no cost" as well.
I am able to use all of the editing, storage, transmission and archival
benefits of digital photography and still have the less expensive, higher
resolution, more artistically flexible world of film photography.
I certainly don't think I am missing anything by returning to film. The
equipment is cheap enough that I have an SLR (Contax with a good collection
of Zeiss lenses) and a 35mm point and shoot (with Zeiss lens as well) for
travelling light. You are certainly correct that it is the ability of the
analog camera to take advantage of the advances in film technology that has
allowed it to maintain its viability
"Marshall" <marsh...@REMOVETHIShome.com> wrote in message
news:qxif5.59829$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
Techlab
>
>Today, you can get more 35mm SLR for the money than EVER before.
>Eye-control focus and depth of field settings, matrix metering, high speed
>drives, you name it.
>
>similar problem: film is getting expensive, processing is expensive and
>there is a time lag from when the shot is taken to when it can be seen.
I wonder why people think the processing is expensive? It's far LESS
expensive than ever before!
The prices in my store haven't been raised in more than 10 years.
I can assure you that my paper costs have more than tripled, chemistry
is more than double what it was 10 years ago.. but still the prices
are lower.
On a national average, film processing is about $2 less now than it
was 13 years ago.
13 years ago a dollar bought a lot more than it does now.. I figure
that when you factor in the cost of living and inflation, film
processing is about half the cost of 13 years ago.
(and believe me.. the profits are much less than half of what they
were then..)
13 years ago, we didn't have every drug store and mass merchant doing
photofinishing on-site. (usually fair to poor quality, but that's
another story.)
Often customers will tell me that they get their finishing done at
Walgreens or CVS or Costco because it's cheap. Then they come to me
for reprints, because they like our quality better.
It makes me want to scream, of course..
And to most of them, I'll say "If you would promise to buy a bottle of
aspirin from me at Walgreen's prices every time you get a roll of film
processed, or spend $500 in other merchandise like you would at
Costco, I'll match their film prices. No problem!"
People don't understand how loss leaders work. but hey.. I'm rambling
again..
>I still like film for certain archival images, usually black and white.
Definitely. Even color (on certain papers) can match B&W permanence.
> > The film cameras may die some day, but it is not tomorrow.
>
>You're right. But watch out! The Tsunami is coming! :)
It is.. but it's got a few breakwaters and sand bars in it's way.. :-)
Robert Maclellan
technology that you do. It depends on how you look at it. I think I have
saved money with every picture I have taken by NOT having to spend big at
the beginning. Each shot with my SLR costs me 5 cents and if I had gone with
a Nikon D1 instead of my Contax SLR I would have paid 10x as much and had
fewer and poorer quality lenses. At .05 per image I figure that I can take
50,000 shots before the cost of ownership of the two camera setups becomes
equal!
Also, my shots end up scanned at 3120x2080 which is quite a bit higher than
the 2012x1324 of the D1 or the 2048x1536 of 3.3Mp cameras or the 1600x1200
of the 2.1Mp cameras.
If I want a simpler camera for "standard family/holiday snapshots" my 35mm
Point and shoot costs less than $150 and takes pictures with the same
3120x2080 resolution.
"Ross Clement" <cle...@westminster.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:397d...@ant.wmin.ac.uk...
Roderick Stewart
wrote:
> There are still 35mm cameras that are a quarter of a century old that still
> work and benefit from the advances in film technology.
I don't dispute this, but you're missing the point. There are still steam
engines 100 years old and still capable of working - except that they aren't
being used because technology has progressed to other things, as it will
surely continue to do. Eventually it won't be possible to buy a roll of film
for a still camera in a supermarket, garage, or corner shop, as we can now,
even if the cameras are still in perfect working order.
And this may happen sooner than many people realise - look how long it took
for home movie film to disappear - less than a generation - in favour of VHS
of all things!
Rod.
Roderick Stewart
> I wonder why people think the processing is expensive? It's far LESS
> expensive than ever before!
It still takes several days instead of several minutes, and I have to
trust someone else to do it exactly the way I want it done, or accept
their judgement in the interests of economy.
Rod.
Roderick Stewart
wrote:
> If it ever cost me close to $3.00 for a single 4x6 print then that would
> make a difference but since it actually would cost that much for 24 4x6
> prints then it becomes a much different story. I'm not sure where you get
> your shots processed but you are getting ripped off!!
I don't - for the last few years, except for the negatives, I've handled
the whole process myself. Now that I'm taking digital photographs, even
that has gone, along with most of the retouching that used to be necessary.
Rod.
Mike Russell
In fact, the opposite is true: film owes its survival to the fact that it is
able to insert itself into the digital domain.
On the Internet (and almost always now for publishing), film photography
relies on scanners as a crutch to emulate digital photography, effectively
"faxing" itself into the digital domain.
Were it not for this crutch, film images would scarcely exist at all. They
would be stuck in the old world of photography, in some small bit of real
estate in someone's album, on a wall, or in a drawer.
Film, in the way of many old, extremely successful institutions, is flirting
with decadence and has already begun to force the hand of its own
obsolescence. To give a specific example: incompetent, slow, and expensive
lab work - which I think each of us has experienced at one time or another -
may be doing more to promote digital camera technology than any amount of
advertising by the camera manufacturers.
Fade to a visionary photo lab technician, dreamily looking up from his work
and musing: "Imagine if we cut our prices in half, and offered to deliver a
customer's prints to his or her door instead of making them take a second
trip. Or offered to email their images to them , or allowed them to use
PhotoShop to crop and print their pictures at no extra charge. Imagine
offering a larger print size for the same price, or offering to deliver a
second set of prints to a designated snail or email address. Suppose we
made a REAL effort to control dust, as never before ..... NAAAAAAH." The
lab tech gets out a dirty squeegee and gives an extra long, strong pull to a
strip of ("develop only, do not cut negs") film, still wet from the tank.
Take THAT! (result - an hour of PhotoShop clone tool for some cheap schmuck
with a scanner who won't pay for prints - AIEEEEEE!).
My point is, given the complacent bungling of many, perhaps the majority of,
film processors, it's no wonder digital cameras are flying off the shelves
as fast, or faster, than they can be manufactured, even though very little
is being spent to advertise these cameras. IMHO, fine, the sooner these
knuckleheaded labs are out of the "picture" the better.
Digital *has already*, in the ways that matter, turned the big wheels that
will make film obsolete. But those wheels still have one more slow
revolution to go before a roll of FUJI 400 Gold goes for 150 US Dollars on
ebay, why?
The big player, big mamma Film-with-a-capital-F Industry, that gave 35mm its
initial economic boost 75 years ago, will still provide demand for enough
color film manufacture to keep prices down, and provide enough film to keep
analog snail-pix possible for another 5 or 10 years, maybe more.
Eventually, after that last turn of the wheel is done, the Movie Industry
will finally react by going to digital projectors. There will then be no
likelihood that film can scale itself down economically, as radio did when
TV took it's audience away. Film photography will die because it simply
cannot be physically performed. Perhaps individuals will continue to
manufacture small lots of black and white film indefinitely, and
photochemical art will retain a permanent, high art, niche.
Even before film physically dies, it will fall into disuse for technical,
and functional reasons.
Technically digital will prevail because pixel sensors will exceed film's
dynamic range and spatial resolution. I would not be surprised if
multichannel sensors become commonplace, and infra red and UV are included
in a standard image. Lab may become a common image format for cameras,
making it possible to represent real light sources in an image - imagine
reading by the light of a photograph of a lamp! There are already hexagonal
LCD arrays, and the next step is randomly scattered ones that mimic our
retinas. When will this happen? Email me a copy of this in 5 years - it
will be sitting safely archived in deja.com.
Functionally, digital will prevail because its goal is fundamentally
different from that of photochemical photography. Digital photography makes
its final product more or less immediately available to the Internet, and is
therefore performing a fundamentally different, almost magical, function
that transcends simply putting images on a piece of paper. As in a fairy
tale, anyone who can utter the name of the person in a photograph, and
another arbitrary magic word or two, can cause that photograph to appear.
Digital images are more alive than film images, and that is the real reason
film is disappearing into that great hypo bath in the sky..
jw&a inc.
> will make film obsolete. But those wheels still have one more slow
> revolution to go before a roll of FUJI 400 Gold goes for 150 US Dollars on
> ebay, why?
gosh, i better keep that EKTAR-25 i have in the freezer then. i ought a be
able to retire with that!! ;-)
bob
Techlab
>In article <39914f77....@news.erols.com>, Techlab wrote:
>
>> I wonder why people think the processing is expensive? It's far LESS
>> expensive than ever before!
>
>It still takes several days instead of several minutes,
It doesn't have to.. I can turn around negs in 8 minutes, prints in
5-6 minutes. Go have a cup of coffee and come back, it'll be done if
you really need it that fast. The fact is that 99% or more of the
public doesn't need it that fast. (But the ones who do can get it..)
> and I have to trust someone else to do it exactly the way I want it done, or accept
>their judgement in the interests of economy.
And why would this bother you? You're accepting someone else's color
judgement when you buy a digital camera, too.
Go out and look at sites that do comparisons between various cameras.
There's a world of difference in the colors they produce.. and the
fact that people prefer different cameras means that the color is
subjective anyway. A photo lab is no different..
I have customers who prefer that certain people print their work,
because their tastes are the same. Not better/worse .. just the same.
I think I mentioned this a few weeks ago, but at a trade show for
professional photofinishers, the finishers were presented with a test.
They were sent identical negatives and asked to make their BEST print
from this negative.
They all brought (and displayed) their *best* prints.
Were they all good? For the most part, yes.. they were all great.
Did they all look the same?
NOT EVEN CLOSE!!! Some looked like they weren't even the same photo.
The point? It's all subjective. There is *no* such thing as a
'correct' photo.
Techlab
>This topic makes me laugh because it always turns into a silly religious
>debate.
I'd have agreed that it was silly 5 years ago..
But the technology is growing SO fast that it's not so silly any more.
>Bottom line is that right now film is a mature technology capable of
>producing results of very high quality. Digital is still developing rapidly
>and any digital equipment you buy now is going to seem pretty crappy
>compared with what's on the market two years from now.
Not necessarily. I have a printer (10 years old now.. or maybe 9 ..)
that's STILL state of the art for a digital printer. The only one
I've found that's better is it's newer counterpart that prints larger,
but not better.
> If there is a
>digital camera available right now that does everything you want to do for a
>price you are willing to pay, then by all means go for it. If not, then go
>for the 35mm and when digital finally does mature and stabilize, then get
>the digital body to go with the rest of your system.
Or, do what the pros do. Shoot film, scan it, edit/retouch it and
export the digital file to a high end output device.
>It is likely that there will come a time when digital supplants film for
>just about everything. When that time comes is anybody's guess. A year?
>Not likely. A century? Almost certainly.
It certainly won't be either one.
But I can see digital giving 35mm a good run for it's money in the
next two years. Medium format might not even be a consideration
except for the pros.. but they're already doing just fine with scanned
films or some of the higher end digital cameras. 6 million pixels can
be resized with good software to a decent print size..
Roderick Stewart
> >> I wonder why people think the processing is expensive? It's far LESS
> >> expensive than ever before!
> >
> >It still takes several days instead of several minutes,
>
> It doesn't have to.. I can turn around negs in 8 minutes, prints in
> 5-6 minutes. Go have a cup of coffee and come back, it'll be done if
> you really need it that fast.
In the middle of a field? Or a hotel? Or somebody else's house? I can visit one lot of
relatives and email pictures to the others the same day, which I could never do before,
and the A4 size prints I can make when I get home aren't bad either. I'd have to have a
darkroom already set up to do the things you describe.
> > and I have to trust someone else to do it exactly the way I want it done, or accept
> >their judgement in the interests of economy.
>
> And why would this bother you? You're accepting someone else's color
> judgement when you buy a digital camera, too.
Not entirely, because I can change this if I want. And I'm certainly no longer accepting
someone else's choice of framing, cropping and retouching, all of which I can do at my
leisure to exactly my requirements, instead of giving elaborate descriptions to someone
else and hoping they get it right.
Rod.
Mxsmanic
news:VIrf5.39905$Gh.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> For the price of a Nikon 950 you can get TWO
> Nikon N60s (with lenses, AND 3 rolls of film).
But you pay bucks for each additional roll of film, and you just keep
paying, and paying, and paying.
> Film offeres a lot of flexibility and, for
> the moment, digital is attempting to simulate
> what film does. It does a pretty good job but
> it will not make film any more obsolete than
> television killed radio.
Radio is already dead, for everything except news and music. When was
the last time you saw a family huddled around a radio in the living
room?
Mxsmanic
"Mike Russell" <ge...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:vnxf5.131$kf3.2...@news.pacbell.net...
> I don't buy the premise that digital photography
> is simply emulating film. In fact, the opposite
> is true: film owes its survival to the fact that it is
> able to insert itself into the digital domain.
<many cogent arguments snipped>
Mxsmanic
news:snu2sd4...@corp.supernews.com...
> gosh, i better keep that EKTAR-25 i have in the
> freezer then. i ought a be able to retire with that!! ;-)
This post will be _especially_ interesting twenty years from now!
Mxsmanic
news:VA.0000180...@crosby.u-net.com...
> Within a year, I guess, portable disk drives that
> take high capacity removable disks, e.g. Zip or LS120,
> will start to appear, designed specifically to plug
> into digital cameras or to accept their memory cards.
Not needed. Solid-state technology will simply increase in capacity
instead.
Mxsmanic
news:39914f77....@news.erols.com...
> I wonder why people think the processing is expensive?
Probably because they compare it to the per-shot cost of digital, which
is very nearly zero.
> It is.. but it's got a few breakwaters and sand
> bars in it's way.
Ever seen what a tsunami does to breakwaters and sand bars?
Clyde
that make the TV valid and "alive"? Just in case you haven't noticed, that
news and music is huge business.
However, it's a mute point. What I think Robert was trying to say was that a
new media in art does not obsolete older media. That has been the case
throughout the history of art. That doesn't mean that the forms of art for
that media doesn't change. Painting changed a lot when photography came along,
but it didn't die. Radio changed too when TV came along, but is listened to by
hundreds of millions of people everyday. 35mm color photography changed what
large format B&W art was doing, but didn't kill it. So, digital photography
will change film photography, but won't kill it either.
Then again, who cares? The media isn't the art. The technology is only a tool
to do your art. Find the tools that best help you communicate through your art
and use it. Ignore everything else.
Clyde
Judith Nicholls
You're either rich or never stray far from your computer with your camera
if you think it's "not needed." This newsgroup loves to ignore the problem
of "memory" vs "media" and makes fun of people who buy cameras that they
can actually take on a trip (without also buying a notebook computer and
lugging it and protecting it too)!
Judy
Mr. Wratten
Available means available, not convenient. The Internet and fast,
convenient global parcel shipping will make it easier and easier for groups
of people around the world to follow their passions and join in groups large
enough to support technologies that are out of the mainstream. I (and many
other people) don't care if I have to mail order film (many of us mail order
35mm and 120 film just because it is cheaper). I don't care if most people
stop using 35mm film. I know most people have stopped using Standard 8mm
movie film, but I still use it, and I can still buy it in many variations
(Kodachrome 25 & 40, Ektachrome 125 and B&W 50, 100 and 160).
My point was that, even if the majority of people stop using a technology,
if there are enough people left who are interested, it will still exist.
And that's what I care about, that film still exists for as long as I want
to use it. And it will.
Jim
jw&a inc.
> the last time you saw a family huddled around a radio in the living
> room?
about three days ago in my living room. don't remember what we were
listening to, but i remember thinking, "gee, just like in the old days."
bob rogers
south carolina
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
>mxsm...@hotmail.com (Mxsmanic) wrote
>>"Roderick Stewart" <rj...@crosby.u-net.com> wrote in message
>>news:VA.0000180...@crosby.u-net.com...
>>
>>> take high capacity removable disks, e.g. Zip or LS120,
>>> will start to appear, designed specifically to plug
>>> into digital cameras or to accept their memory cards.
>>
>>Not needed. Solid-state technology will simply increase in capacity
>>instead.
>
>You're either rich or never stray far from your computer with your camera
>if you think it's "not needed." This newsgroup loves to ignore the problem
>of "memory" vs "media" and makes fun of people who buy cameras that they
>can actually take on a trip (without also buying a notebook computer and
>lugging it and protecting it too)!
It must suck being so strapped for cash that you can't afford $150 for
storage. I bought 2 32M CF cards, enough for 130 pictures and have yet to
come even close to filling both up.
That 130pictures == about 300 w/ film since you can delete pictures that
don't come out. W/ film, you need to take 3 or 4 pictures of every place
if you want at least one to be decent.
J. Clarke
news:slrn8o0msi.a7a.TheCe...@C298344-A.arvada1.co.home.com.
..
> On 27 Jul 2000 14:37:47 GMT, Judith Nicholls <nich...@fnal.gov> wrote:
> >mxsm...@hotmail.com (Mxsmanic) wrote
> >>"Roderick Stewart" <rj...@crosby.u-net.com> wrote in message
> >>news:VA.0000180...@crosby.u-net.com...
> >>
> >>> Within a year, I guess, portable disk drives that
> >>> take high capacity removable disks, e.g. Zip or LS120,
> >>> will start to appear, designed specifically to plug
> >>> into digital cameras or to accept their memory cards.
> >>
> >>Not needed. Solid-state technology will simply increase in capacity
> >>instead.
> >
> >You're either rich or never stray far from your computer with your camera
> >if you think it's "not needed." This newsgroup loves to ignore the
problem
> >of "memory" vs "media" and makes fun of people who buy cameras that they
> >can actually take on a trip (without also buying a notebook computer and
> >lugging it and protecting it too)!
>
>
> It must suck being so strapped for cash that you can't afford $150 for
> storage. I bought 2 32M CF cards, enough for 130 pictures and have yet to
> come even close to filling both up.
130 12 megapixel pictures? I don't _think_ so.
> That 130pictures == about 300 w/ film since you can delete pictures that
> don't come out. W/ film, you need to take 3 or 4 pictures of every place
> if you want at least one to be decent.
>
--
Roderick Stewart
wrote:
> > Within a year, I guess, portable disk drives that
> > take high capacity removable disks, e.g. Zip or LS120,
> > will start to appear, designed specifically to plug
> > into digital cameras or to accept their memory cards.
>
> Not needed. Solid-state technology will simply increase in capacity
> instead.
Maybe it will. That would be a much more technically elegant solution
(i.e. no moving parts) but it is the cost that will decide the matter.
At the moment, the clear winner in terms of cost per megabyte is the
CD-ROM by several orders of magnitude, so any other method has a bit of
catching up to do.
Rod.
J. Clarke
Not quite. A CD-ROM goes for about a buck and holds 650 meg. In high
volume, 8mm videotape goes for about $5 and can hold 60 gig--much cheaper.
Heck, even at 50 bucks a pop it's cheaper. Also more convenient
dimensionally.
Guy Bloomfield
Guy
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:krVf5.154327$t91.1...@news4.giganews.com...
> "Robert Maclellan" <rmacl...@bufallo.com> wrote in message
> news:VIrf5.39905$Gh.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > For the price of a Nikon 950 you can get TWO
> > Nikon N60s (with lenses, AND 3 rolls of film).
>
> But you pay bucks for each additional roll of film, and you just keep
> paying, and paying, and paying.
>
> > Film offeres a lot of flexibility and, for
> > the moment, digital is attempting to simulate
> > what film does. It does a pretty good job but
> > it will not make film any more obsolete than
> > television killed radio.
>
Techlab
>"Techlab" <Tec...@Photo-Rescue.com> wrote in message
>news:39914f77....@news.erols.com...
>
>> I wonder why people think the processing is expensive?
>
>Probably because they compare it to the per-shot cost of digital, which
>is very nearly zero.
Well, sure.. if compared that way, it is expensive. But consumers
weren't complaining about the prices when it was a lot more than it is
now. That was my point.. maybe I didn't make it as well as I should
have.
>> It is.. but it's got a few breakwaters and sand
>> bars in it's way.
>
>Ever seen what a tsunami does to breakwaters and sand bars?
I should have been specific. Not Microsoft sand bars.... :-)
Techlab
>In article <3980a7e7....@news.erols.com>, Techlab wrote:
>
>> >> I wonder why people think the processing is expensive? It's far LESS
>> >> expensive than ever before!
>> >
>> >It still takes several days instead of several minutes,
>>
>> It doesn't have to.. I can turn around negs in 8 minutes, prints in
>> 5-6 minutes. Go have a cup of coffee and come back, it'll be done if
>> you really need it that fast.
>
>In the middle of a field? Or a hotel? Or somebody else's house?
You're now talking about digital, which I didn't realize you were
limiting the discussion to.. different story. I agree.
> I can visit one lot of
>relatives and email pictures to the others the same day, which I could never do before,
Oh, sure you could. Just not as conveniently as with strictly digital.
>and the A4 size prints I can make when I get home aren't bad either. I'd have to have a
>darkroom already set up to do the things you describe.
Naah.. those services were always fast if you really needed them.
I can crank out A4's in 4-5 minutes if you really need them that fast.
>> > and I have to trust someone else to do it exactly the way I want it done, or accept
>> >their judgement in the interests of economy.
>>
>> And why would this bother you? You're accepting someone else's color
>> judgement when you buy a digital camera, too.
>Not entirely, because I can change this if I want.
Ah.. so NOW more work is OK with you.. Hmm.. ;-)
> And I'm certainly no longer accepting
>someone else's choice of framing, cropping and retouching, all of which I can do at my
>leisure to exactly my requirements, instead of giving elaborate descriptions to someone
>else and hoping they get it right.
I know what you're saying .. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here..
You may well know exactly what you want.. but most people really
don't. They NEED the photo pro to read their minds or extract enough
info from the customer to make an informed decision. Most of the time
this works.. sometimes it doesn't.
But honestly.. I'm right in the middle of BOTH fields. and so I'm
forced to see it from several sides every day. (traditional
photofinishing, digital photography, digital printing, composition,
consumer, reseller, retoucher, retailer.. etc.. )
I'd say that this newsgroup is NOT the norm when it comes to imaging.
THere are more people in this group who know exactly what they want
and need than in the general public. So when I make blanket statements
that say 'most people' I'm not talking about the people here.
Yet even in this group, I see people's knowledge growing while they
leave behind lots of statements they'd like to take back later.
(I never remind them, as I've left behind a few myself..)
People come here and look at someone like me (a traditional
photofinisher) and pretty much take on the attitude that "I don't need
YOU anymore! I can do better all by myself!! HAH! "
After a few months, many come to realize that the services I've been
providing for people like them were under-appreciated all along.
Yes, you can get some good images from digital cameras, but to do it
right, it isn't easy .. and it isn't cheap. The people who thought I
was a highway robber for charging the prices I did .. suddenly find
that they wouldn't do that work for me at those prices themselves..
You can go to Walgreens and get a dye sub print for $6 .. but then
why do some of those customers come to me and pay $12 when the
Walgreens is just up the street and they just CAME from there?!?
I've offered the work to some of these customers.. especially in
scanning work. I've been told countless times "You're charging too
much!" and so I offer THEM the work and tell them I'll pay THEM that
much to do the work. Three people have taken me up on the offer, and I
paid them all. (two of them I paid even though the work wasn't
acceptable. I paid them, then told them how it should be done. Both
returned the work saying it wasn't worth the money.. even though
they'd already been paid!)
Retouching was even worse. I went through close to a hundred Photoshop
'experts' in two and a half years to find two who were OK. One was
fairly good, one was just OK. Nobody was great.
Then again, I wasn't paying the same rates the professionals are
paying. I can't afford $100 per hour to do work that my customers
think should be all but free.
I only pay $20 per hour for that type of work. Unfortunately, for the
work I'm getting I might be paying a bit too much.
I guess that I should stop rambling now and get to my point.
It's only the last few years that high end software came to the
consumer level. It's only the last few years that digital became
affordable to the consumer.
It takes years to develop the skills to be able to produce
consistently good work from photos that the average consumer shoots.
What makes the average consumer think they've got the skills to
produce a good photo without the bnefit of all this experience (both
in shooting and in editing/printing?)
The fact that someone spent $800 on software does NOT make them a
professional.. and with each image, most of them prove this point.
Don't get me wrong.. I'm not saying that consumers can't do it..
I'm saying that 99% of them can't do it right.
Eventually, most of them come back to someone like me..
.. but they come back with an atitude like *I* was the one who
'did-them-wrong' in the first place! It's a phenomena I just don't
understand..
..and then there's the consumers like the people in this group.. a bit
different in that they're very aware of the technology and what the
software can provide..
That's a whole different story.
I had a great experience with someone yesterday and today .. I gave
him the info on this newsgroup and I hope he'll start
reading/contributing here soon.
He takes photos of flowers (orchids in particular) and does some work
on them in Photoshop. He came to me for prints.
I explained that I'm not the cheapest option, I even referred him to
Walgreens for dye sub prints. He'd already been there and made prints
at half my price.
I gave him a freebie, as I usually do. I also gave him a good price
(at least a good price according to my cost-per-print.. which is high)
and he ordered a ton of prints. When he picked them up, he indicated
that he's going to bring back many more images for a lot of prints.
I think that's my point. You can do it good enough, or you can do it
the best you can. But now that the control is in the hands of the
consumers, do they know enough to care about the best? Do they know
enough to know what the best is? Do they care enough to pay for the
best? Or is "what I can do myself is good enough for me". ?
Or, will they come back to me (or someone like me) 6 months from now..
resentful that they bought a product they weren't fully trained to use
properly, or didn't have the knowledge to take full advantage of it's
strong points.. and somehow try to make this MY fault?
OK.. I was rambling before and I promised to stop.. now I'm doing it
again.
I'll shut up..
Mxsmanic
news:39806...@news3.prserv.net...
> 130 12 megapixel pictures? I don't _think_ so.
Yes, that's quite possible. A nine-megapixel image can be compressed to
about a megabyte with moderate JPEG compression. With minimal
compression, it will be about four or five megabytes. With very
aggressive compression, it can be only 250 KB or so.
And twelve megapixels is more than really necessary for images that will
be viewed as a whole. Six megapixels would be the minimum, nine would
be plenty.
Mxsmanic
news:Sr1g5.2535$Jda8.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Printing, power, disk storage etc are not free either!
However, all of these have multiple uses beyond photography--like
electricity.
Mxsmanic
> But consumers weren't complaining about the prices
> when it was a lot more than it is now.
In the past, they had no choice.
In any case, I've rarely heard people complaining about the price of
development and printing. What I actually see is that people take
pictures with their film cameras, and then forget them--they never
develop or print at all. The main reasons for that are cost and
inconvenience. Some people have dozens of rolls of exposed but
undeveloped film sitting around.
Roderick Stewart
> >> >> I wonder why people think the processing is expensive? It's far LESS
> >> >> expensive than ever before!
> >> >
> >> >It still takes several days instead of several minutes,
> >>
> >> It doesn't have to.. I can turn around negs in 8 minutes, prints in
> >> 5-6 minutes. Go have a cup of coffee and come back, it'll be done if
> >> you really need it that fast.
> >
> >In the middle of a field? Or a hotel? Or somebody else's house?
>
> You're now talking about digital, which I didn't realize you were
> limiting the discussion to.. different story. I agree.
Maybe we've been at cross-purposes, but I thought this was "rec.photo.digital",
and we were discussing the relative merits of film versus digital photography.
I've dabbled with photography as a hobby for more than 40 years, and electronics
for more than 35 years, and for much of that time it has been unquestionable that
film gave the best quality pictures I could make - but it did require a dedicated
workspace and a lot of messing about with chemicals in the dark if I wanted to
do it myself, otherwise I would have to trust the judgement of the shop.
Recently, a definite turning point has been reached in that electronic cameras
have improved so much that I can now produce pictures electronically that are
as good as the ones I can produce by scanning negatives, which is what I have
been doing recently because I can crop, retouch and adjust to my preference
without relying on anybody else, and without having to black out a room to do it.
Additionally, I can send pictures to friends and relatives within minutes of
taking them, a procedure which would have been possible before, but hopelessly
impractical. The camera *can* be set to point-and-shoot mode, and produce quite
good results most of the time, but has numerous adjustments with which I can
experiment, and see the results immediately.
> It takes years to develop the skills to be able to produce
> consistently good work from photos that the average consumer shoots.
Yes, I'd rather do my own, but have copied/retouched a few things for friends
too. Either way, it's learning how to do it better that gives most of the fun.
Rod.
Frank DuPont
A short comment to your long rambling email.
I have learned over my many years that people that are good at what they
do make it look easy. So the average person looks at what they do and
they wonder why they should pay them so much to do something so easy! It
is only when they try it themselves that they see how skilled that you
are or how all thumbs they are.
In this day of fastfoods and cheap everything you get what you pay for,
cheap you pay and cheap you get!
Frank
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
Oh puleeze! If you have a 12MP camera, then spending 1/5 the price of the
camera on memory would give you a budget of about $1500 for memory.
Robert E. Williams
"The ease of performing a task is inversely proportional to the
probability that you will have to do it." Regards .....Bob Williams
J. Clarke
news:slrn8o3429.d0q.TheCe...@C298344-A.arvada1.co.home.com.
..
And this will be the case when 12MP cameras are going for $300 at Wal-Mart?
Michael Cox
>
> The big player, big mamma Film-with-a-capital-F Industry, that gave 35mm
its
> initial economic boost 75 years ago, will still provide demand for enough
> color film manufacture to keep prices down, and provide enough film to
keep
> analog snail-pix possible for another 5 or 10 years, maybe more.
>
> Eventually, after that last turn of the wheel is done, the Movie Industry
> will finally react by going to digital projectors.
It's already happening; Disney's Dinosaur was shot digitally, stored
digitally, and (at some theaters) projected digitally.
--
Michael Cox (remove "Z" to respond)
Posted via Newton MessagePad "Ink different"
http://www.lp.org Enough is enough. Vote different!
jam
God, I hope not. What would we have left to cat-fight about here on RPD?
Most other RPD discussions are tame by comparison.
Don't think it wouldn't be just the threads with provocative
film-versus-digital or digital-versus-film barbs in the subject field
we'd all miss. Many, many other threads degenerate into
film-versus-digital debates, often quickly so. Why, half of all RPD
tonnage might just dry up and blow away with no trespassing film zealots
or stalwart digital defenders to kick around. ;^}
Actually, I hope film stays--provided we can somehow ditch the tiresome
winner-take-all film-versus-digital tag-team matches. Open-minded
relative strength discussions will always be welcome.
--
Jeremy McCreary (remove 0 before .com)
jer...@cliffshade0.com
http://www.cliffshade.com/dpfwiw
"Michael Cox" <co...@Zqni.com> wrote in message
news:Y0qg5.1082$vM.1...@news1.primary.net...
Techlab
>Techlab
>
>A short comment to your long rambling email.
Guilty.. I admit it. (why do I get that way? I dunno..)
>I have learned over my many years that people that are good at what they
>do make it look easy. So the average person looks at what they do and
>they wonder why they should pay them so much to do something so easy! It
>is only when they try it themselves that they see how skilled that you
>are or how all thumbs they are.
I couldn't agree more, Frank. Of course this doesn't mean they CAN'T
learn it .. or that they DIDN'T learn it.. but why is it that people
who HAVE learned it are the first ones to downplay the value of what
they have learned?
This part is totally beyond my grasp.. Those people should be here
offering HELP to the others!
>In this day of fastfoods and cheap everything you get what you pay for,
>cheap you pay and cheap you get!
I couldn't have said this better. You want good quality? PAY for it!
You want bargain basement prices? You'll get bargain basement quality.
But... I think I finally saw right through you!
You KNOW I have more I can share. You KNOW you aren't saying
everything. You KNOW that with some prodding, I will expound.
(You also know that if you push my ego buttons, I'll teach.)
You're a clever dog, Frank..
Yeah.. I'll still help anyone who needs help.. in spite of Frank's
obvious button pushing..
Frank! You Bastard!!
(oh Shit!! You Killed Kenny!!)
mark_digital©
Techlab wrote in message <398962bb....@news.erols.com>...
> Frank DuPont <fdu...@netonecom.net> wrote:
>
>>Techlab
>>
>>A short comment to your long rambling email.
>
>Guilty.. I admit it. (why do I get that way? I dunno..)
>
>>I have learned over my many years that people that are good at what they
>>do make it look easy.
You mentioned in a previous post that you spend about a hour teaching new
employees basic fundamentals. What do you do afterwards? Do you man the
security monitors in the back room? Stock shelves? Do price checks? Greet
people as they walk in? I'm just being curious Charlie :)
FredBillie
>Date: Fri, Jul 28, 2000 8:59 PM
>Message-id: <wUqg5.65516$i5.10...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
>
>>> Are Digital Cameras going to make film obsolete??
>
>God, I hope not. What would we have left to cat-fight about here on RPD?
>Most other RPD discussions are tame by comparison.
>
>Don't think it wouldn't be just the threads with provocative
>film-versus-digital or digital-versus-film barbs in the subject field
>we'd all miss. Many, many other threads degenerate into
>film-versus-digital debates, often quickly so. Why, half of all RPD
>tonnage might just dry up and blow away with no trespassing film zealots
>or stalwart digital defenders to kick around. ;^}
>
>Actually, I hope film stays--provided we can somehow ditch the tiresome
>winner-take-all film-versus-digital tag-team matches. Open-minded
>relative strength discussions will always be welcome.
>--
>Jeremy McCreary (remove 0 before .com)
>jer...@cliffshade0.com
>http://www.cliffshade.com/dpfwiw
Don't worry, when the film versus digital discussion dies off we can argue
about whether laser or CCD (CMOS) imaging will be better. Or maybe by that time
it will be some bio imaging process.
Frank DuPont
remember Lori, he will forget so I'll just go back into hiding for
awhile.
Frank
Techlab wrote:
>
>SNip
Mxsmanic
news:slrn8o3429.d0q.TheCe...@C298344-A.arvada1.co.home.
com...
> Oh puleeze! If you have a 12MP camera, then spending
> 1/5 the price of the camera on memory would give you
> a budget of about $1500 for memory.
True. The ratio will probably still hold even after prices drop.
Mxsmanic
> And this will be the case when 12MP cameras are
> going for $300 at Wal-Mart?
Yes. The cards will cost perhaps $20 by then.
jam
about, resourceful pugilistic devils that we are.
--
Jeremy McCreary (remove 0 before .com)
jer...@cliffshade0.com
http://www.cliffshade.com/dpfwiw
"FredBillie" <fredb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000729055151...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
David Albrecht
pick up a digital camera for <$10 and take the camera and
get double prints of the pictures you've taken for <$10.
I would bet that the disposable camera market probably uses a
substantive portion of the film sold in the camera marketplace.
Cameras so cheap you can pick one up on a whim on vacation
or put one on every table at a wedding reception. Even special purpose models that are
water resistant enough to
go snorkeling with that aren't much more expensive. Processing
and printing to film that is simlarly easy and cheap at any
1 hour place.
Like many devices that are in rapid evolution, every year what
a $1 buys you in a digital camera gets better. The lowest price
that you can get into the camera marketplace with doesn't move
as fast. Digital cameras are already good enough for most people's
picture taking that never gets larger than a snapshot. It most likely
won't be too many years before digital cameras are as good or better
than film. However, until they can bring models that have sufficient
quality to take decent snapshots to the <$10 market and services
that take the tedium of putting those pictures to paper are as
ubiquitous as film processing huts are now, film will still have a
place.
Note that when digital cameras approach the quality of film cameras
then you can expect the same endless discussions of optical lens
quality that currently are applied to SLR lenses. Won't that be fun.
Dave
Techlab
>Oh shit he figured it out! Oh well I know that with his faulty memory,
>remember Lori, he will forget so I'll just go back into hiding for
>awhile.
>Frank
Forget what? can you refresh my .. Oh, Hi Frank! What's your name
again?
Techlab
First.. when I said I spend an hour teaching then basic fundamentals,
I only meant that within an hour or so I can get an employee up to
speed on some basic principles in Photoshop so that they can produce
work. Obviously, this doesn't make them experienced or highly
qualified. It just gets them started.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that I can teach photofinishing
basics in an hour.
Hell, I taught that stuff in the classroom for years.. and it was a
40+ hour class, followed up by 40+ hours with a technician at
installation. And still, that didn't teach them all of the basics.
That hour I mentioned was only the basics in Photoshop.
(scanning, basic color/density/contrast correction .. and depending on
the studen't ability to learn, a few more items.)
And a prerequisite for that training is that they've been printing
well and doing quality control (rejecting bad prints) for several
months.
(Quality control is a big point in my lab.. I can almost hear people's
skin prickle when I say "WHO let this work get by? You were going to
give a customer THIS print??" Everyone signs the work at every stage
of development. Everyone is accountable. Unsigned work is grounds for
termination. Poor prints or negatives means something needs to be
fixed or someone re-trained or the equipment adjusted. Unsigned work
means someone can't or won't be bothered solving the problem, so
frankly I don't need those people.)
I do all you mentioned during the course of the day.. as well as
keeping up the books, (more time consuming when you're a franchisee..)
printing, loading film, quality control, doing the E-6 and B&W work
(those take longer to teach) and all of the restoration. I go out to
the usual Chamber of Commerce meetings, Rotary, Kiwanis etc.. pick up
and drop off commercial work, solicit new commercial customers,
ordering supplies and stock, cleaning the bathroom, shooting out on
location, most of the equipment maintenance, advertising, sweeping
the floors, .. there isn't anything in the store I don't do. This
doesn't mean I do it all myself.. just that I jump in anywhere it's
needed.
But more and more often, I seem to be teaching customers who are new
to digital imaging. These customers are much like many of the new
people who come to this newsgroup.. they've got some new equipment,
but don't have the necessary training to get the most out of what
they've purchased. Unfortunately, time is scarce. and while I try to
take the time with each one, other duties suffer. I refer most of them
to this group, but I'm beginning to think it might not be a bad idea
to run a few classes a month after store hours for those who might be
interested.
. but.. back to your question..
After the store is closed, I run two training sessions a week for
whoever wants the training. It might be on how to use the register
(for new people) or it might be how to scan a roll of APS and put it
onto CD.
Before I decided to buy the store, they were one of my long-time
customers.. I was their technician. There was a manager in place who
did most everything herself, secure in the knowledge that if nobody
else knew how to do these things, she could bank on this as job
security. Not only didn't she teach, she didn't have many of the basic
expected skills that most of my other customers did. She had (for 10
years) bamboozled the owner and staff into thinking she knew it all,
and whatever she didn't know required a technician. In effect, she had
'dumbed down' the staff to the point that while they were able to
operate, they weren't able to deal with ANY of the day to day problems
that occaisionally creep up. (HD-LD to high on the film processor?
Call a tech! Paper jam? Call a tech!)
The FIRST thing I did when getting there is set up training sessions
so that everyone could get the basics.
Most of the staff were amazed at how much information the
manufacturers EXPECT them to know .. that they didn't!
Now, when there's a problem, they pick up a screwdriver and the manual
.. and they're not terrified any more. They go looking for the problem
and it's cause. Needless to say, this does a lot for their confidence,
as well as getting them to think beyond the surface of the machine, as
they had been thinking for so long. Now, things make more sense and
they put them into perspective. They'll still page me if I'm not there
when a problem comes up.. but at least now they've got some
information for me to work with and help them solve it over the
phone.. rather than shutting down the lab and sitting on their hands
till I can get there and take out that little tiny piece of paper that
shouldn't be where it is.. and costing me hundreds in lost business..
and costing the customers in patience and good humor.
I know this is a long answer to a short question, but you've hit the
hottest button I have when it comes to imaging..
TRAINING IS ESSENTIAL!!! I can't overstress that!
Most people don't have enough information.. and most of the time they
don't know quite where to look to FIND that information. They're
certainly not getting it from the manufacturers in any sort of
meaningful way.. And I can only refer one person at a time to this
newsgroup (which is a virtual wealth of information! )
The manufacturers are somewhat cagey when it comes to answering the
call of customer's requests. Customers always want more if they can
get it. The Mfg's give it to them, but don't tell them how to USE it!
My own feeling is that they have a moral responsibility to do so.. but
I can't force that on them. So .. I attempt to be a sort of stop-gap
solution. People like me (and tons of others in this group and on the
outside) have been following this stuff since it was in it's infancy.
We've read the trade mags, gone to the seminars, bought the 'toys' and
figured out how they work, talked to others more knoledgeable and
picked their brains.. and then we attempt to disseminate the
information in our own way.
I've seen you do the same on countless occaisions, so I know this
rings 100% true with you.
Anyway.. this was (yet another) long winded reply I didn't need to
make.. :-)
Best to you, Mark..
glad to see your name here again!
Take care,
Charlie
J. Clarke
> "J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:39820...@news3.prserv.net...
>
> > And this will be the case when 12MP cameras are
> > going for $300 at Wal-Mart?
>
> Yes. The cards will cost perhaps $20 by then.
You think so do you? Project the price trend in digital cameras and the
price trend in memory and you may get a surprise.
Roderick Stewart
> Film will not be obsoleted by digital cameras until you can
> pick up a digital camera for <$10 and take the camera and
> get double prints of the pictures you've taken for <$10.
>
> I would bet that the disposable camera market probably uses a
> substantive portion of the film sold in the camera marketplace.
> Cameras so cheap you can pick one up on a whim on vacation
> or put one on every table at a wedding reception.
What makes you think it won't happen? Look what happened to electronic
calculators. The first one I ever saw was a Hewlett Packard one costing
180UKpounds at a trade exhibition sometime in the early 70's, but now
they can be made so cheap they can be incorporated into advertising
giveaway items.
Rod.
Stormin
ago.
My initial feelings are that while there are pros and cons about cost,
storage, creativity and function, the state of digital TODAY does not
compare with film for quality. Its great for a web cam and printed snapshots
where image quality doesn't need to 100%.
Will digital make film obsolete? For general use I believe it will in the
future by pressure of marketing and trends in status. But where quality
really counts I hope film will be here for a while yet.
If photography is about saving money then don't buy any camera. You will
save a fortune.
Stormin.
> While my camera cost (to me) a fair bit, I've probably already saved
> 10% of the purchase price not having to have film developed.