Ready for the digital "leap" yet?
John S
pro-digital cameras. Is the price-quality point been reached yet for you?
At what point do you think it might be the time?
Thanks
John
Gene
aren't sure if they are ready to make the total work flow changes necessary.
I speculate that 14 of those will before the end of this fiscal year. The
rest need the swings and tilts. Nice troll.
Gene
"John S" <js19...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e0M9a.7372$eI2.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Gordon Moat
be fantastic. I am glad that someone else paid for them, though I never
liked the results. The colour quality was an issue then, and has still some
ways to improve. They can be very useful for high volume work, or for
newspaper intended output. In the advertising and corporate photography
world, the deadlines are more realistic than news gathering, so scanning
works well for digital file delivery.
Interestingly, Sinar and Horseman make digital adapter bodies that take 35
mm lenses and use medium format digital backs. The MF digital backs often
have cooled chips and are capable of file sizes over 100 MB in single shot
mode (more on scanning backs). The colour quality and resolution with less
noise easily beat digital SLR bodies. However, I see few sports
photographers, nor other direct digital photographers using those. Cost may
be one issue.
I think that the quality of image in some digital medium format backs will
be matched in digital SLR 35 mm sized cameras. Battery life, weight, size,
file storage, and writing the file to storage (delay between shots for large
image file sizes) could all be improved, and I would guess that will happen
sooner than later. When the manufacturers start talking more about colour
quality than resolution, then this may be a reality.
Price to quality is still better with film scanning. Even drum scanning has
dropped in price greatly. It is easier to judge image and colour quality on
a calibrated computer screen, than on a 1.5" LCD. Besides, if I was any good
at all as a professional, I would not need to immediately see if I took a
good shot. I have used Polaroid proofs under difficult lighting set-ups, so
that may be a different possibility for digital, though the small LCD is
still a problem.
I have been scanning film, and preparing image files for output since 1994.
During that time, I have seen great advances in scanning gear, with large
drops in price. This is still the price to quality leader, and will remain
that way until scanner development stops. I have delivered digital files for
college assignments, and later for clients during that time period. When I
drop off that digital file at a print shop, or with a client, I have never
been asked what camera was used to produce the image files.
Film is available in many colour response varieties. With direct digital
SLRs, there are only a few chip makers, and these are fixed response. The
results are fixed to the chip type, even though software manipulation
afterwards can change the results. Getting a true B/W image from digital RGB
type of sensors could also do with improvements, though I expect that will
happen in the near future.
One area I have gone digital is videography. The price to quality arrived
about three years ago with this. Unfortunately, the next push is HD, with
very high digital costs. Some friends of mine are making the switch to Super
16 film acquisition to future proof their productions. Oddly enough, Super
16 production is actually more cost effective than digital for HD
production, though often lesser digital video is mixed with the film footage
in post.
As for when it will be time, my guess is about three years. This will be a
supplement to my film gear, and likely because some clients may want it on
location. Already, many clients ask about digital, but when I explain that
their images can go from film to CD-R, that currently satisfies their
digital cravings (amazing how few people know about film scanning). The
cameras that come out this year should be very low cost used in three years,
and some of the full frame versions (like new Kodak) would be good to buy
then. For me to buy or lease a medium format digital back, those will need
to become full frame (at least 6 by 4.5), and drop substantially in price
before I consider anything other than renting.
In closing, I am glad that many non pros are buying these. The continued
investments should improve future products, but only if profit can be made
by the companies turning them out. These get better all the time . . . the
future looks good.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html>
Annika1980
>I am curious on how many pros are seriously considering moving to using
>pro-digital cameras. Is the price-quality point been reached yet for you?
>At what point do you think it might be the time?
A better question might be, "Are there any pros who haven't yet switched or are
not in the process of switching?"
Salts2001
>are
>not in the process of switching?"
Actually, despite what we might read on the internet, there are many who have
not and are not yet planning to switch. In my local association of wedding and
portrait photographers, only about 20% are doing digital work. This may be
higher or lower depending on the location, but film is still predominant in
many markets.
Sports and journalism are digital markets, but film remains on top when image
quality is required.
Thomas E. Witte
> pro-digital cameras. Is the price-quality point been reached yet for you?
> At what point do you think it might be the time?
Several thousand journalists have done it. I don't have solid numbers
but it's safe to say that less than 20% of newspapers are film
anymore. A recent pole on Sportsshooter.com has 77.85% of 158 voters
doing a MAJORITY of their work digitally.
Personally I wish I had done it sooner. I bought a digital body in
March of last year and over just 9 months saved $14,000 in film and
processing costs though I still used provia up until the present.
This week two more 1D's and two 1Ds' will arrive and I'll be 99.5%
done with film at a professional level. All of my doubts were cleared
up with last weeks Sports Illustrated cover (March 3, 2003) which was
done on a 1Ds.
Mathematically, I pay off a $3500 camera in no time flat.
Thomas E. Witte
GO Photography
www.mindspring.com/~photoj
John S
Looks like there is a strong movement towards digital for better or worse
depending on the individuals point of view. Saving and making money seem to
be the key elements. Nothing like success that makes converts of most of
us.
There will aways be a place for film that digital may never be able to
completely replace. However, I think that the masses are moving to save
$$$ and instant gratification that digital provides. To each his/her own.
There is room enough for everybody as long as film is still available.
"Thomas E. Witte" <pho...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7a7e0cba.03030...@posting.google.com...
Pierre L
read on the Internet, the impression is going to be skewed somewhat by
people who are both computer and photo enthusiasts.
Pierre
"John S" <js19...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BGW9a.15281$wA2.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Salts2001
>read on the Internet, the impression is going to be skewed somewhat by
>people who are both computer and photo enthusiasts.
Excellent observation!
Bandicoot
news:20030306182334...@mb-mv.aol.com...
I haven't, although most of my film gets scanned so it becomes digital in
the end. I could see going digital for a small part of my stock work and
the odd event, but it will be a long time before it makes sense for the
landscape and garden work.
I passed on a job the other week that I could have done with digital, just
because of the deadlines - but this was really a press type job and I do
this so seldom that it really isn't worth my buying a DSLR just for those
rare ocassions.
All that doesn't mean I won't _want_ to buy the Pentax DSLR when it comes,
just that if I am sensible I probably won't...
Peter
John S
represent a very small portion of the photographer base and are probably
also more computer orientated. I am merely trying to get opinions and views
and they are as diverse the sand grains on the beach.
There will always be the hardcore film people that will thumb their nose at
anything on silicone. I am trying to look at what's going on with an open
mind. Some subjects will work better and faster on silicone and some will
for the foreseeable future work much better with film.
There is probably an element of fear that "digital revolution" will lessen
photog's of the "art" of photography which really is in the person taking
the picture and not in any particular hardware or media.
"Salts2001" <salt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030307113025...@mb-ch.aol.com...
Salts2001
>photog's of the "art" of photography which really is in the person taking
>the picture and not in any particular hardware or media.
Actually there is some validity to fears that digital is lessening the "art".
This is true for original digital images as well as scanned film work. It's
called Photo Shop (or what ever brand your prefer).
Don't like the exact placement of something in the final product...move it or
why not just erase it. Forgot to check clothing or hand placement in a
portrait...cover it up. Two years ago I was in a group shot and was asked to
leave some space between me and the next person. When I received the photo
there was some guy standing next to me...and he wasn't there on picture day. I
found out later that one of the ladies in the front row had her slip
showing...now she has a hem line 1 inch lower.
Composing and setting up the photo is a big part of the art. Now we don't have
to be so picky. I'M NOT bashing digital...I own two digital cameras for
internet and media work, they are wonderful and have their place. However,
digital is to some degree lessening the necessary skills required for
excellence in the end product.
When I display my work in chemically processed print form from 35mm or 645, I
have great pride in what I accomplished. With digital...if it's really good,
everyone will always wonder if I doctored the image.
Merrill
Per Inge Oestmoen
> Strong movement? Obviously, if you're basing your impression on what you
> read on the Internet, the impression is going to be skewed somewhat by
> people who are both computer and photo enthusiasts.
Yes, but what so?
The heart of the matter is the factual performance of the respective
techniques. Only realistic analyses and comparisons between the
different ways of capturing images can give us the information we need
to make informed choices.
If digital SLR's have reached a level where they do deliver what
serious photographers need, then that is the case whether or not the
participants of this forum are computer freaks.
If film is going to live on in the future and continue to be used by a
large number of photographers, this should happen by virtue of its own
merits.
--
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/
Pierre L
photography was invented a century and a half ago. It has always been
possible to "change" a picture. All digital does is to make it much easier,
such that anyone can do it. If you subscribe to the idea that if anyone can
do it without really acquiring any skill or having any talent, then it is
indeed a lesser art.
Pierre
"Salts2001" <salt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030307131851...@mb-dh.aol.com...
Gordon Moat
scanning was where it was at. They did the colour correction in the scan, and
gave you a press ready CMYK image file. The need for PhotoShop knowledge was
lessened to knowing how to composite images.
When prices of film scanners finally lowered, and the quality approached drum
scanning for smaller sized works, many of these became more common in
photographers and designers work. The need for drum scanning was reduced, but
replaced by a knowledge need for colour correction, and pre-press preparation.
In house scanning meant more time in PhotoShop.
Those with graphic design training and experience, and a knowledge of printing,
adapted. Some photographers teamed up with designers, though many were left
jumping into PhotoShop, and learning the hard way. Currently, lack of PhotoShop
knowledge would be a great deterrent to being a successful photographer . . . I
think it is now as important as understanding cameras and lighting.
Direct digital holds some promise of delivering image files not in need of
colour correction for CMYK printing. This may save some pros who struggle with
PhotoShop. One down side of direct digital is the often higher volume of
images, making the photographer now a Photo Editor. Sending the client too many
images, or noticeably not good images, is a real possibility. As with any
change in technology, a new skill set needs to be acquired.
Understanding light is probably the most important aspect of all photography.
Realizing your vision through creativity involves an understanding of the tools
required to share that vision.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
P.S. - I think this has been the best, and most productive, and objective
discussion on digital imagery so far in this news group. Thanks.
Per Inge Oestmoen
> Believe it or not, this is a debate that started about the same time
> photography was invented a century and a half ago. It has always been
> possible to "change" a picture. All digital does is to make it much easier,
> such that anyone can do it. If you subscribe to the idea that if anyone can
> do it without really acquiring any skill or having any talent, then it is
> indeed a lesser art.
Digital does _not_ make the art of photography much easier. Not at all.
Can anyone, without time, dedication, skill and patience, make great
pictures? Can anyone without training and experience compose a truly
interesting and original picture?
No. Neither Photoshop nor GIMP can create a brilliant picture. Nor can
any digital camera, be it a cheap compact or a SLR, guarantee
excellent results. Have a look at the literally billions of pictures
on home pages on the Net, and you will see what I mean.
Nothing has actually changed. The required skills and "eye" for the
composition and the right moment are what they have always been.
If anything, digital has made it vastly more demanding to be a good
photographer. The digital photographer needs to be knowledgeable
within the fields of color theory, color correction, contrast,
resolution and gamut, and he or she needs to be able to judge each and
every image in order to apply the correct amount of sharpening. The
latter is almost a science in itself, and many photo enthusiasts
create nice compositions but then spoil the potential results through
improper post processing.
Gordon Moat
it was discovered that he had manipulated some images in PhotoShop. That may get
less notice today, than five years ago, since digitally altered images are
numerous. It was possible before computers, but much less common.
I graduated in 1998, and I remember that when we were working with PhotoShop in
college, the feeling was that you could almost take bad photos, and make them good
in PhotoShop. This was that new euphoria, and not reality. Some of us got lazy
about our photos, though eventually most of us realized that it is better to have
the best image possible before going into PhotoShop.
Digital creates a perception of needing less skill. Marketing is partially
responsible, since many people believe that it easy, or easier. The reality is
that the thought processes for creating good images cannot be substituted with
technology. Concentrate too much on the technology, and the resulting images will
suffer.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html>
Lisa Horton
Salts2001 wrote:
>
> digital is to some degree lessening the necessary skills required for
> excellence in the end product.
Or could you look at it from another angle, and say that digital is
changing the relative importance of various skills required for
excellence? IOW, things that you used to deal with one way (slip
showing below the hemline, say) can be dealt with a different way with
digital. Another example might be the way that Photoshop skills can
replace darkroom skills for many operations.
I would even go so far as to equate this change to another prior
change. When progress allowed photographers the option of not having
to prepare their own glass plates immediately prior to shooting, the
skill required to properly prepare glass plates started to decline in
importance.
Lisa
Lisa Horton
Gordon Moat wrote:
>
>
> Understanding light is probably the most important aspect of all photography.
> Realizing your vision through creativity involves an understanding of the tools
> required to share that vision.
>
Man Gordon, you just keep coming up with these gems. You're really
good at summing up essential concepts of photography in short, simple
terms.
Lisa
McLeod
photos of imaginary occurrences. Specifically, Galen Rowell blasted him in
print for producing images of an African animal (jackal or hyena, or
something) with a large litter of puppies. He had added animals suckling to
make the image stronger, but the animal did not normally have that many
pups. I'm sure the information is on the internet somewhere.
"Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3E68EF32...@attglobal.net...
Pierre L
actual scene, unless it's obviously meant to be a manipulated image. Someone
who doesn't take a good photograph, but then takes that photo and improves
it in Photoshop is acting more as a computer graphics artist than as a
photographer. It may be the norm the days, but that doesn't make it
photography. It's the same way that I consider movies with significantly
computer-generated scenes or background to be live-looking cartoons more
than real films (like Gladiator, for instance). If I'm watching a film that
is really more of a computer-generated cartoon with some live actors
superimposed, I want to know that's what I'm watching.
Similarly, I take photos with filter-darkened skies for what they are:
manipulations on the part of the photographer. But in this case, at least
it's obvious that this was done. We all know there's no such thing as a dark
sky with bright white clouds.
I realise these are more philosophical ideas, but someone has to do it :)
Pierre
"Lisa Horton" <Li...@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:3E68F64F...@lisahorton.net...
Per Inge Oestmoen
> When I look at a picture I like, I expect it to be a reproduction of the
> actual scene, unless it's obviously meant to be a manipulated image. Someone
> who doesn't take a good photograph, but then takes that photo and improves
> it in Photoshop is acting more as a computer graphics artist than as a
> photographer. It may be the norm the days, but that doesn't make it
> photography.
1. Have you ever seen a photograph that was not good to start with
become really good through being manipulated in Photoshop? (By the
way, there are other capable image editors in existence too) The basic
photographic skills are as indispensable today as they have always
been. That has not changed, and it is something not likely to change
either.
2. All photographs that are digitized, whether by means of a scanner
or with a digital camera, must be post processed in an image editor in
order to become presentable.
Bandicoot
[SNIP]
> There will always be the hardcore film people that will thumb their nose
at
> anything on silicone. I am trying to look at what's going on with an open
> mind. Some subjects will work better and faster on silicone and some will
> for the foreseeable future work much better with film.
>
[SNIP]
Silicone (with an "E")? Now that's something altogether different - but I
don't, and won't, do that sort of photography....
;-)
Peter
John S
Thanks again everyone for your input!
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:104708403...@damia.uk.clara.net...
Thomas E. Witte
> I am very impressed by your web site.
>
> Looks like there is a strong movement towards digital for better or worse
> depending on the individuals point of view. Saving and making money seem to
> be the key elements. Nothing like success that makes converts of most of
> us.
> There will aways be a place for film that digital may never be able to
> completely replace. However, I think that the masses are moving to save
> $$$ and instant gratification that digital provides. To each his/her own.
> There is room enough for everybody as long as film is still available.
Thanks John-
I really need to update with some basketball and hocket images, but
c'est la vie.
Now then, you need to keep in mind that myself and the voters on that
pole are freelance sports photographers. For us, it's not so much
instant gratification for us personally, but instant gratification for
our editors. Gone are the days of shooting a game and rushing the
film to the airport to have transported "air cargo" to NYC. Now we
just run back to the hotel and transmit over the ubiquitous T1 lines.
Amongst the journalists, digital has been here since the NC2000. It
allows us to stay at assignments longer since we don't need to worry
about 20 minutes of soup time.
As for money saving, it's a push. I may save X amount of dollars a
year from buying film, but I also now spend X amount more hours in
front of my computer editing and burning CD's. If I'm sitting here
editing, I'm not out shooting, and you have to calculate that in to
the mix.
Don't get me wrong, I still love film for all the wrong reasons.
There's nothing I love more than getting a portrait assignment and
cross processing a roll of 64T. You can just not do that with digital
yet, but it's simply a matter of time until someone creates a
photoshop plugin for it.
Thomas E. Witte
GO Photography
www.mindspring.com/~photoj
Gordon Moat
> The problem with Art Wolfe was that he was a nature photographer taking
> photos of imaginary occurrences. Specifically, Galen Rowell blasted him in
> print for producing images of an African animal (jackal or hyena, or
> something) with a large litter of puppies. He had added animals suckling to
> make the image stronger, but the animal did not normally have that many
> pups. I'm sure the information is on the internet somewhere.
That is a new one for me. The one I had read about concerned a migrating herd
(zebras or wildebeests . . . something). Apparently, he digitally cloned
several to make the pack seem more dense. His excuse was that it made the image
more interesting, and complimented other images in the book. Aesthetic rather
than authentic . . . though I still think that was a misuse of technology.
Gordon Moat
Thanks Lisa . . . maybe I should put that phrase in my CV . . .
Tom
Look up Art's book "Migrations". The photo is on the cover and is one of
his most famous.
In the intro/forward of the book, he clearly states it is an "Art" book. He
never at any time passed it off as a documentary, yet he was roasted by some
of his peers because they thought their precious area of photography
(nature/wildlife) was virginal and should not be touched in any way.
If I remember correctly, this was at the very dawn of the 'digital' age
anyway. Art used his art training to produce a picture the way he wanted it
to look in order to express the idea he was presenting. He never intended
to represent "nature" but to represent "patterns".
It could as well have been cars in a parking lot. He WAS NOT shooting a
Zebra documentary.
Tom
McLeod
admitted to a number of other "digital illustrations".
"Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3E6A4CF8...@attglobal.net...
stan
Annika1980 wrote:
> >From: "John S" js19...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com
>
> >I am curious on how many pros are seriously considering moving to using
> >pro-digital cameras. Is the price-quality point been reached yet for you?
> >At what point do you think it might be the time?
>
> A better question might be, "Are there any pros who haven't yet switched or are
> not in the process of switching?"
Right here. Sorry i don't need to. Nobody is forcing me into it and I don't plan on
giving my F-3s away in the near future. In fact I plan on buying an af nikon cause
my eyes aren't focussing as well as they used to. I have a printer PS 7 and can use
them as well as anyone. But I have no intention of switching to Digital. And so far
clients aren't leaving me.
Stan
Visual Arts Photography
Tom
"McLeod" <wmcle...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:bfvaa.200874$Zr%.56699@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Yes, that was the initial controversy. Since his "Migrations" book he has
> admitted to a number of other "digital illustrations".
>
Rather disingenuous to say he "admitted" to later digital manipulation after
"Migrations".
You make it sound as if he were "caught" in some dastardly act and a
confession was finally beaten out of him, forcing him to "admit" to the
error of his low down ways.
When in fact he has taken pains in books subsequent to "Migrations" to
annotate every picture that has had digital manipulation. He also addresses
(and has NEVER dodged) the issue in lectures, interviews and in print.
Tom
zilun
any skilled photographer/printer could do the same, just that the digital
has made it less time consuming, and requires less skill.
When you said that the digital photographer need to be be knowledgeable
within the fields of color theory, color correction, contrast, don't you
think photographer using films need to know these too? I myself have never
been in the darkroom, my darkroom is Photoshop. With my color correction in
levels, its always easier to go back and adjust. Color dodge and color burn
is only a click away, far less time consuming and requires less skill. Light
information is laid out for us, with histogram showing us where the exposure
range is, graphs shows us if the colors are in the lights or in the shadows,
and where each R,G, and B colors are. I'd say it's much easier than post
processing with a sharp eye. Even cropping is easier.
But it's good that everyone agrees that digital can't do anything *for us*,
in the end, we have to have the know-how and do the work.
"Per Inge Oestmoen" <pi...@coldsiberia.org> wrote in message
news:3E68F02F...@coldsiberia.org...
zilun
represent all photographers, but photographers who use computers.
"Per Inge Oestmoen" <pi...@coldsiberia.org> wrote in message
news:3E68EAFE...@coldsiberia.org...
Gordon Moat
> Look up Art's book "Migrations". The photo is on the cover and is one of
> his most famous.
I briefly remember that book. Probably a chance that the local Border's still
has one.
>
>
> In the intro/forward of the book, he clearly states it is an "Art" book. He
> never at any time passed it off as a documentary, yet he was roasted by some
> of his peers because they thought their precious area of photography
> (nature/wildlife) was virginal and should not be touched in any way.
I doubt the majority of people buying it were zoologists . . . though I
remember that the images were interesting.
>
>
> If I remember correctly, this was at the very dawn of the 'digital' age
> anyway.
Not so sure about that, but it was a time when digital editing was becoming
more common, and more affordable. This was the PhotoShop 3 era, with big
changes to that software by the addition of layers at that time (1995 if I
remember that correctly).
> Art used his art training to produce a picture the way he wanted it
> to look in order to express the idea he was presenting. He never intended
> to represent "nature" but to represent "patterns".
We studied his book in a design class. Part of the assignment was to design a
promotional piece for his book "Migrations" using other images from his work,
including other books that he did prior to that one.
>
>
> It could as well have been cars in a parking lot. He WAS NOT shooting a
> Zebra documentary.
What I find humorous about the issues of that time is tied to the assignment I
had in that design class. My rendition of a promotional piece image involved
some birds flying in formation. I felt that the image would have been more
interesting, so I added more of them by resampling the image. Then when the
text was not flowing as well, I moved the birds, leaving the background the
same.
What makes it somewhat humorous, was that all this was before the article
criticizing him for digitally manipulating his images. At the time I handed in
my assignment, my design instructor never said anything was wrong with my
manipulation of the image I choose to use. Today, similar work and digital
manipulation would likely not get noticed at all.
NickC
Stimulating thoughts Lisa. I can say without reservation, my photo habits
have changed since the introduction of digitization. While I feel I can do
without a digital camera, I have come to make ample use of scanned
digitized pictures being processed and printed through a computer.
I have found that there are things I much rather do to a picture through
using a computer and various associated programs that are available for
computer processing. But there also are things I would much rather do
through using an enlarger and associated chemistry because of the selection
of papers available and the use of special toners.
Fortunately for me, photography is a hobby and not a profession. That way I
can do what I chose to do when I chose to do it.
Nick