Will digital photography ever replace regular photography?
Flip69
Does anybody really think that digital photography will ever replace
conventional silver based photography?
Flip
Marc Rochkind
Yes, I do.
When the resolution approaches 100 dots per mm, or around 2500 dpi, AND the
price for such equipment is about what 35mm equipment costs AND the size and
weight are around the same AND the quality of the picture is around the same
(color saturation, sharpness, contrast, etc.).
(Translate my parameters to audio, and those would be the conditions for
digital audio (i.e., CDs) replacing analog.)
I believe that this will happen someday.
But not very soon. WHEN it will happen I have no idea, but that wasn't your
question, was it? :-)
Flip69 wrote in message ...
WAC
>Does anybody really think that digital photography will ever replace
>conventional silver based photography?
>
I strongly believe it will. Imagine if you are 'newspaper' people, you may
need to rush sending your pictures to the headquater on the other side of
the world. With a good interface with a moble phone, digital form allows
you to do that right away. You won't get headache finding a lab. Consider
an Olypic games or World Cup soccer, digital camera could be useful.
Just a thought.
WAC
Barry Twycross
In article <flip-ya02408000R...@news.tiac.net>,
fl...@pego.tiac.net (Flip69) wrote:
>Does anybody really think that digital photography will ever replace
>conventional silver based photography?
Yes. If you extrapolate current trends its inevitable. My prediction is
that digital will be the most popular consumer format by 2002. It will be
better than film in most respects 5-10 years later and be the preferred pro
format.
I expect my next camera system will be digital. Imagine a digital SLR
system which has 3kx4k resolution and costs under $1000 (including lens).
It'll probably look a lot like a Minolta Vectis S-1 and be available
sometime 2002-2004.
--
Barry
Ba...@netbox.com <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
------
(Obsolete sig deleted).
ChuckSchuh
> Will digital photography ever replace regular photography?
Not in your lifetime
James Keivom
In the newspaper photojournalism business, the trend is increasingly
digital. It started with the shift from darkroom printing to negative
scanning and inevitably will lead to digital cameras. When done right,
digital cameras(DCS series) are amazing. I was looking at stuff from an
AP shooter who shoots digital only. Even though I knew this, I still had
to look to see if the stuff he had submitted on the AP wire was marked
"Electronic Image." It looked really good even full screen.
Most of the photographers I know don't even mess with copy slides from
prints anymore. They make slides from digital files for their portfolio.
It's a lot easier, cleaner, and you can control the results.
I look forward to the day when we can all afford high quality digital.
--
o-------------------------------o-------------------------------------------o
|James Keivom - Photojournalist | To see my portfolio, set your browser to: |
|Boulder, Colorado | http://rtt.colorado.edu/~keivom/Home.html |
o-------------------------------o-------------------------------------------o
James Keivom
I realized how far digital has come when I had to photograph the Sears
Portrait studio. People could come in, get their photos taken(and retaken
until the right expression was captured), proofs made, photos selected on
screen, and a copy made instantly. Quality was amazing.
There's more to consider than just image quality(that will sort itself out
as technology gets better). People could choose what they want on the
spot(and delete bad photos), they could add graphics/illustrations
instantly....
I would love to have a dit cam, 3-4 PCMCIA cards and a
laptop/modem/cell-phone.
ke...@rjfm2.demon.co.uk
On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 08:25:54 -0800, Ba...@netbox.com (Barry Twycross)
wrote:
>Yes. If you extrapolate current trends its inevitable. My prediction is
>that digital will be the most popular consumer format by 2002. It will be
>better than film in most respects 5-10 years later and be the preferred pro
>format.
And I would predict, that like hifi buffs, they will still be people
claiming that chemical flim is better...
Rob.
Larry Granger
Current industry reports claim that by the year 2001 35% of all images
will be filmless. From that point the trail will probably taper a bit,
but keep on climbing. I think it will be a long time before we see the
end of silver based film... but the trend is definately happening.
Larry
Larry Granger
Digital Sales & Website Admin.
__________________________________________
NORMAN CAMERA & VIDEO
Toll Free (800) 900-6676
Web Site http://www.normancamera.com
Email ad...@normancamera.com
Cyber Ghost
Chemical is still better. And is actually unlikely to be surpassed.
However, digital is already good enough and it is the spirit to keep
the old ways alive that will become a preserve of the few.
Anyway there is nothing like the thrill of snapping with a chepo £250
digo and emailing the thing directly to your girlfriend or you
brother's girlfriend etc.
Soon no one will remember the chemicals, the dishes, the stains,
fumes, mess, frustration, thousand reprint to get colour balance
........................ Ah! Well it was good!
To a new beginning!
Hail the new digo!
On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 20:03:17 GMT, ke...@rjfm2.demon.co.uk wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 08:25:54 -0800, Ba...@netbox.com (Barry Twycross)
>wrote:
>And I would predict, that like hifi buffs, they will still be people
mathison
ke...@rjfm2.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> And I would predict, that like hifi buffs, they will still be people
> claiming that chemical flim is better...
>
> Rob.
And I predict that like hifi buffs, they will be right - but the masses
won't care.
j
James Keivom
Amen. I haven't made a print in a (blessed) while. On occasion, i do,
but i make enough prints of a certain photo so i don't need to go back
into the dungeon. Call me lazy.
I first touched digital at an AP workshop. It was amazing to shoot, and
immediately see the results. you can delete files etc. you can change
film speed. sure it's not perfect, but its better than daguerrotypes
were.
In article <34a9690...@news.indigo.ie>,
Cyber Ghost <spi...@nonet.com> wrote:
>Chemical is still better. And is actually unlikely to be surpassed.
>
>However, digital is already good enough and it is the spirit to keep
>the old ways alive that will become a preserve of the few.
>
>Anyway there is nothing like the thrill of snapping with a chepo Ł250
>digo and emailing the thing directly to your girlfriend or you
>brother's girlfriend etc.
>
>Soon no one will remember the chemicals, the dishes, the stains,
>fumes, mess, frustration, thousand reprint to get colour balance
>........................ Ah! Well it was good!
>
>To a new beginning!
>
>Hail the new digo!
>
>On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 20:03:17 GMT, ke...@rjfm2.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 08:25:54 -0800, Ba...@netbox.com (Barry Twycross)
>>wrote:
>
>>And I would predict, that like hifi buffs, they will still be people
>>claiming that chemical flim is better...
>>
>>
>>Rob.
>
Jim MacKenzie
WAC wrote in message <68b320$17t$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
>
>
>>Does anybody really think that digital photography will ever replace
>>conventional silver based photography?
>>
>
>I strongly believe it will. Imagine if you are 'newspaper' people, you
may
>need to rush sending your pictures to the headquater on the other side of
>the world. With a good interface with a moble phone, digital form allows
>you to do that right away. You won't get headache finding a lab. Consider
>an Olypic games or World Cup soccer, digital camera could be useful.
I'm not convinced. Traditional gear has a big advantage: you can buy
versions that
are not battery dependent. Digital cameras are really awful in poor weather
(and
by poor, I mean below freezing, not the extreme cold that you find less
commonly).
Battery technology is many years away from dealing with this problem. Even
if
you use a battery-dependent 35mm system, it is going to use batteries a lot
less than
a digital system does.
Also, I see conventional photography continuing for a very long time after
that, even
if digital gear does equal silver-based technology in quality. Why?
Craftsmanship. Making your own fine 35mm image is a lot of fun. Taking it
a step further and
creating your masterpiece in the darkroom is wonderful, too. Just as some
people
still make ceramics by hand instead of buying plastic stuff to do the same
job, some
people will always shoot traditional film, and I plan to be one of them.
Digital gear has huge advantages for documentary photography, news, sports,
etc.
but magnetic media has a finite lifespan, which is only around ten years in
normal
storage (yes, you can do better in optimal circumstances but it's still a
lot less than
with traditional silver materials). You also have the problem of
technological
obsolescence. I'd be pretty wary of having all my baby pictures on
videotape because
do we really know how long VHS and 8mm videotape are going to be around? 20
years? 30? Not that long, when you're talking about heirloom images. Even
if you
couldn't find a Super 8 projector, you can still get the images off Super 8
film,
and slides and negatives will last for a century in good storage conditions,
maybe
longer, and need no special equipment.
Jim
Ken Janik
Chicknpiza wrote:
>
> With the incressing trend toward Digital, what would you say to someone
> if he/she was thinking of going into "The Science Of Photography?" Is it a bad
> idea for long term prospects?
>
> please e-mail your responses because i dont get on here to much. Also post
> them for others to learn too
>
> Adam
>
> If i'm crazy, then I belong in an institution next to Albert Einstein and
> Ghand.
As long as they consider digital also, I wouldn't think it would
make much of a difference. The science of it will change, but
the field will still be there.
Later,
- Ken
speedsk8
as a former kodak employee,i'm glad i'm a former employee....
Steve
Flip69 wrote:
>
> Does anybody really think that digital photography will ever replace
> conventional silver based photography?
>
Will silver based photography ever replace tin-types?
Steve
DGRTEK
My $.02 worth.... When printing your digital "image" is cost effective, and of
high quality, then digital photography will take off. Just like people like to
"hold" a book, instead of reading a novel on a palm pilot.... there is
something to be said about opening up that old photo album. I would go digital
in a second, if I could get hard copies easily. As for the old darkroom
experience....... it's an experience that I feel sorry for future generations
not having. I will always cherish the memories of being 14 and spending
endless hours locked in a bathroom breathing in stop bath and watching the
magic happen.
Douglas
"When we set out on a journey, we never know where we will end up. Looking
back however, the path is always crystal clear."
Chicknpiza
By the time I have kids and they are old enough/responsible enough to have
a camera, they will start teasing me by saying, "Dad, you used a light
sensitive material, had to process it, then print it on another light sensitive
material and process that and hope it all came out right? Well, I bet you got
some good pictures of thoes dinosoures didn't you?" Now I regret ever using
that line with my parents.
Chicknpiza
With the incressing trend toward Digital, what would you say to someone
if he/she was thinking of going into "The Science Of Photography?" Is it a bad
idea for long term prospects?
please e-mail your responses because i dont get on here to much. Also post
Alexis Hadjisoteriou
I had my first cigarette (and my first kiss - not on the same day!) at the
school darkroom. The kids of today being brought up "digitally" will never
know what they are missing.
Long live silver-based, chemical-based photography,
Larry Granger wrote in message <34a95ac8...@nntp.net-link.net>...
Bob Zwarick
Not sure... Think we ought to wait and see :-))
Bob
Regards,
Bob
Before you sign anything, ask an Indian.
SPLiNTeR
Think of it like this: Years ago there was probably a debate as to whether
or not photography would ever replace drawings.
Alan...@compuserve.com
In article <flip-ya02408000R...@news.tiac.net>,
fl...@pego.tiac.net (Flip69) wrote:
>
> Does anybody really think that digital photography will ever replace
> conventional silver based photography?
I do.
The first fall will be the most spectacular: 35mm (and APS) will be
overcome by digital for price/quality/convenience within the coming 3
years, mainly on the output side (prints), the input side being already
quite effective today. 35mm chemical photography will become a niche for
some specific applications (high quality b/w mainly, sophisticated
amateurs aiming for big enlargements, etc), even though the installed
base is so enormous that it will take time to disappear, and it will also
survive in countries and circles where personal micro-computing remains
unaffordable.
I would bet more on medium and large format as main competitors in the
high end (posters, art catalogues, high end advertisement), The pixel
wave will take longer to get to the same quality level, though, even
today, studio photographers are investing in very expensive digital
solutions (Leaf, etc).
Reminds me of film against magnetic video tape: 70mm/35mm is still
(temporarily) the main media for high end cinematographic productions,
but Super8/16mm has become the margin of the margin a long, long time
ago....
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Marc Lundberg
Alexis Hadjisoteriou <ale...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
<68c7og$sdm$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>...
>
> I had my first cigarette (and my first kiss - not on the same day!) at
the
> school darkroom. The kids of today being brought up "digitally" will
never
> know what they are missing.
> Long live silver-based, chemical-based photography,
And in a few years some 15 year old kid will have his first smoke at the
keyboard of a 500 Mhz RISC based workstation processing digital images
from Photoshop 9.0 for the school paper. It may be nostalgic, like a 55'
Chevy BelAir, but that doesn't mean it's better. Film is great, but if
digital image making offers significant benefits that film can't, which it
is already starting to do, then in all probability the darkroom will become
obsolete to all but the hobbyist. Even then though, some of the "digital
kids" will be passionate enough to study the humble beginnings of the
digital world that owes its existence to film. Some of them at least WILL
know what they missed.
Mac Breck
Flip69 wrote:
> Does anybody really think that digital photography will ever replace
> conventional silver based photography?
Yes, but not for a long time. I just saw the prices.
E2N DIGITAL CAMERA: $7995.00
E2Ns DIGITAL CAMERA: $10699.95
Ouch! I'm sticking with good ol' film.
Mac
Anthony
It will eventually be superior to film in all respects. It is already
superior to film in most respects, but it will be some years before the
resolution aspect catches up with film (at least outside the category of
extremely specialized applications, many of which are already full-digital).
--
Anthony
James Keivom wrote in message <68buf4$c...@peabody.colorado.edu>...
Anthony
But the hi-fi buffs aren't _right_--just _stubborn_.
--
Anthony
mathison wrote in message <34A96B...@ix.netcom.com>...
>ke...@rjfm2.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>>
>> And I would predict, that like hifi buffs, they will still be people
>> claiming that chemical flim is better...
>>
>> Rob.
>
B.J. Major
Yes, it will obviously replace regular photography for the masses. And
it will only improve with time--and the technology (especially the
resolution) will catch up to the best 35mm cameras, but it will take a
while. The hobbyists, historians, and such will always want their full
dark room (and that's fine with me), but personally I look very much
forward to the day when I see no more "1-hour photo lab" signs on
everything from drug stores to malls and everything in between!
Hail digital!
--
--bj Auto reply will not work; please remove "black" to reply.
Proudly owning/using "all types" of Apple Computers since 1984.
Member, Assoc. of Macintosh Trainers & 100% Microsoft-free.
C. J. Morgan
: >Does anybody really think that digital photography will ever replace
: >conventional silver based photography?
There was a time when photography meant mixing up your own film emulsions
and painting them on glass plates. That went the way of the dinosaur when
a better, cheaper, more efficient solution came along. These days, we
have silver based photography, but it doesn't take a visonary prophet to see
the evolution that's already beginning to happen.
I imagine it wouldn't be long now before the quality of digital photography,
even for the home consumer, will reach a level where shooting conventional
silver based films will truly become a thing of the past. The best of
digital isn't yet better, but it's almost there. The best of digital
isn't yet cheaper, but the unit price continues to fall, and again, it just
seems a matter of time. As for efficiency, well that's been the
leading draw card of digital photography all along.
Beyond using the camera, as a photographer, I'm concerned about how my
images are output, and how they might best be archieved. And if the
digital medium hasn't solved these problems yet, I have little doubt that
they will be solved in relatively short order.
In other words, conventional silver based photography might still be
around for a while, but my bet is that is that we're witnessing another
major transformation of the photographic medium, and that the conventional
silver based system will soon find itself in the same museum as those
earlier glass plates.
C.J.
--
C.J. Morgan
ch...@torfree.net
Mac Breck
I agree. Now if only the Nikon Digital that could make use of all my
existing Nikkors didn't cost about half the price of a car! My '97
Cherokee was "only" $22000.
Mac
Rob Landry
Barry Twycross wrote:
> In article <flip-ya02408000R...@news.tiac.net>,
> fl...@pego.tiac.net (Flip69) wrote:
>
> >Does anybody really think that digital photography will ever replace
> >conventional silver based photography?
>
> Yes. If you extrapolate current trends its inevitable. My prediction is
> that digital will be the most popular consumer format by 2002. It will be
> better than film in most respects 5-10 years later and be the preferred pro
> format.
>
> I expect my next camera system will be digital. Imagine a digital SLR
> system which has 3kx4k resolution and costs under $1000 (including lens).
> It'll probably look a lot like a Minolta Vectis S-1 and be available
> sometime 2002-2004.
>
> --
> Barry
> Ba...@netbox.com <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
> ------
> (Obsolete sig deleted).
Hi,
To all who think that film is dead. Try doing true black and white or infared
photography on a digital camera; don't think
so. And while we're at it, try taking your digital camera out in cold weather
or to the top of
Everest or the North pole and see how it stands up. I'm afraid you won't be
bringing home many shots. And by the way, I DON'T think you'll ever see a
digital camera that doesn't need batteries. So when your thousand dollar paper
weight is sitting in your camera bag at minus forty below zero, I be merrily
shooting away with my old Nikon F2 and using the good old sunny sixteen rules.
Oh, and don't even think of dropping or mishandling a digital camera cause
they can't take any abuse. I believe film and digital will live side by side
and will have different applications. Years ago when photography hit the
scene, people believed that the day of paint and canvas were gone, but lo and
behold, people still paint with a brush and paint. Same goes for e-mail and
snail mail. Another thing, people are so ready and willing to embrace new
technologies with open arms, they fail to see that these new advances bring
with them almost as many problems as they create. Like todays advanced
auto-focus cameras, the're marvels of technology, but they are much more
complicated than their manual counterparts and are much more prone to
failures, and being reliant on batteries, they are limited in their range of
operating environments. You take a Leica, and you'll have a hard time trying
to find a place on this planet it can't withstand. Another fear of mine is
that being digital and being at the whims of large computer corperations,
you'll quickly realize that the digital arena will have no set standard. There
will be no standardized storage medium, no standardized file formats; most of
these formats will change every couple of years or so in order to keep the
profits rolling in for these companies and the consumer struggling to keep up
to date. Christ all you have to do is look back at the short history of
computing to see that trend. At least with film, you'll always have standards,
which means security for your images and not always having to worry about
keeping up with the trends. So if you feel like shooting away with your
vintage Leica M2 rangefinder while other people shoot with Canon EOS-1's and
Nikon F5's, shoot away!
Rob
Stan Kazmiruk
In a dusty box in a closet, I have a truly fine super-8 movie camera. It
was the top-of-the-line in its day. Today, I can't buy film for it, and why
would I want to? Twenty-five years ago, I used to pay around $12 for three
and a half minutes worth of film, and it was so slow that I had to use
powerful flood lamps for any indoor shooting. Technology has moved on, and
video technology far surpasses the super-8 cameras we once had to use..
No doubt it will take much longer for silver-based films to disappear, but
when (not if) digital photography surpasses chemical photography in every
respect, your Nikon (and mine!) will join the super-8 in the closet. We
won't be able to buy film for it!!
Stan
B.J. Major
Rob Landry <spit...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> To all who think that film is dead.
Uh, we never *said* it was dead. The question was "will digital
photography ever replace regular photography?"
> Try doing true black and white or infared
> photography on a digital camera;
Black and white shooting is *indeed* possible with the Sony Mavica FD7
(the model w/the zoom lens). It's possible to also take photos in
Sepia, Pastel, and Negative with the same camera. Others may need the
infrared ability; I personally don't.
(snip)
> And by the way, I DON'T think you'll ever see a
> digital camera that doesn't need batteries.
Every current 35mm camera needs a power source of some kind, does it
not? All the ones I've seen do. Ours right now simply needs more juice
than standard cameras, and that problem is easily solved by keeping your
rechargeables recharged.
> So when your thousand dollar paper
> weight is sitting in your camera bag at minus forty below zero, I be merrily
> shooting away with my old Nikon F2 and using the good old sunny sixteen rules.
> Oh, and don't even think of dropping or mishandling a digital camera cause
> they can't take any abuse.
I would respectfully suggest that any decent camera equipment also plays
by these rules. Anyone who mishandles any expensive photographic
equipment simply shouldn't be handling that kind of equipment!
(snip)
> Another fear of mine is
> that being digital and being at the whims of large computer corperations,
> you'll quickly realize that the digital arena will have no set standard.
This is not necessarily true and may be an unnecessary fear on your
part. Everything else that is currently digital (CD players, laser disk
players, etc.) has standards set, and there is no reason to think that
the digital camera world will not also have standards set.
> There
> will be no standardized storage medium, no standardized file formats; most of
> these formats will change every couple of years or so in order to keep the
> profits rolling in for these companies and the consumer struggling to keep up
> to date.
But, this occurs in industries other than the computer industry as
well--although the computer industry is certainly more guilty than most
of having a tendency to have products that become obsolete in about a
six month window.
All your points are well taken, and no one is forcing you to go digital
if you don't want to--that's certainly your choice. But having worked
full-time with computers since 1983, it's extremely exciting to me to
work with such a medium of such convenience and such potential.
--
--bj Auto reply doesn't work; remove "black" to reply.
Proud owner/user of *all types* of Apple Computers since 1984.
Member, Assoc. of Macintosh Trainers & proud to be Microsoft-free.
Ken Janik
Rob Landry wrote:
> To all who think that film is dead. Try doing true black and white or infared
> photography on a digital camera; don't think
> so.
You can do black and white just as easily with a digital camera as you can
color.
It is possible to make sensors that detect in the infrared range. I'll have
to get back to you on the spectral response of CCD cells, but if I remember
correctly they do have some near infrared response as well as some
near ultraviolet response. If not, there are other technologies which
do. (I did my Master's degree on silicon based imaging technology of
a sort) It's not impossible to make a digital camera that will do infrared
or ultraviolet photography, but that's such a small market that it doesn't
really matter and you can feel free to argue that people will stick with
traditional photography for this small niche.
> And while we're at it, try taking your digital camera out in cold weather
> or to the top of
> Everest or the North pole and see how it stands up.
Technology has a way of coming up with advances if there is money tobe made. At
the very least, for everest and north pole expeditions, it
is not unreasonable to have a battery pack worn under the user's
clothing with only the camera body outside.
> Oh, and don't even think of dropping or mishandling a digital camera cause
> they can't take any abuse.
That's a silly generalization. Eventually you will have digital cameras
the size of these little APS cameras and there is no reason they can't
be as robust as any other camera.
> Same goes for e-mail and
> snail mail. Another thing, people are so ready and willing to embrace new
> technologies with open arms, they fail to see that these new advances bring
> with them almost as many problems as they create.
Welcome to life. :-) Everything has advantages and disadvantages.
I send almost nothing via snail mail anymore. Before email, I had
no choice, now I can do whichever is better for the specific situation.
> Another fear of mine is
> that being digital and being at the whims of large computer corperations,
> you'll quickly realize that the digital arena will have no set standard. There
> will be no standardized storage medium, no standardized file formats; most of
> these formats will change every couple of years or so in order to keep the
> profits rolling in for these companies and the consumer struggling to keep up
> to date. Christ all you have to do is look back at the short history of
> computing to see that trend.
The internet levels the playing field a lot. Try buying a computer nowadays
that can't communicate on the internet. There are certain standard formats
that everyone on the internet can use, especially in images. GIF, JPEG being
the main ones. I doubt that any digital camera companies will put out a
camera that will not in some form or another get their images to GIF or
JPEGs. No one will have enough of a market share that they can go off
on their own.
I think it's becoming apparent as we head into the 21st century that there
is always going to be change and that the rate of change is speeding up.
For me, the reason to switch is based upon having complete control over
my photos. Not having to buy film, not having to pay for developing,
relatively unlimited #'s of photos (as the amount of memory increases),
being able to directly manipulate the photos, and convenient archiving.
If those reasons aren't enough for you and digital doesn't do it for you, then
stay where you are. Just make sure you are doing it for the right reasons
and not just out of fear of change.
Later,
- Ken
Ken Janik
B.J. Major wrote:
> But, this occurs in industries other than the computer industry as
> well--although the computer industry is certainly more guilty than most
> of having a tendency to have products that become obsolete in about a
> six month window.
I personally don't think the word "guilty" is appropriate. Technology is
advancing incredibly fast. Faster than it ever has in the past, and I don't
think it is going to slow down. People want their games to run faster,
they want their files to download faster, and they want to crunch
numbers in their spread sheets while reading e-mail and downloading
files off the internet. If one company doesn't come out with a faster
computer, it's competitors will. Anyone who stands still in this business
gets run over very quickly. It's just the way the market works.
Just my $0.02,
- Ken
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily represent those of
my employer.
Fred Whitlock
> : >Does anybody really think that digital photography will ever replace
> : >conventional silver based photography?
Without any question whatsoever. Good shooting.
Fred
TANKIE
who cares? The printing industry has been changing film to digital for years.
Anything you can put on film you can digitalize cheaply. So now what are the
digital camera advantages?
1. No film to buy or develop.
2. Complete privacy.
3. Almost instant hookup to PC and web stuff.
I own 3 35 mm cameras and enjoy them, but I,d like a SOny disc camera too.
Would I put away my Pentax? NO.
Digital is cheaper to handle commercially like doing a web page for
Realtors.... it`s always simpler faster and cheaper if the picture is in
digital format. (the Sony disc camera will revolutionize this field). Same for
printing industry.... if we pull a digital proof of customer copy it all looks
the same, but we charge more and take longer for the customer who brings us
film as opposed to those that send it to us digitally. (note that digital
transfer is at least 1 day faster, and not needing to digitize the film saves
at least another day....so digital saves minimum 2 days in the publishing
process.
Sure, digital works here, but it cannot do what my Pentax can do, so I guess
they will co-exist. HAPPT NEW YEAR!!
Cyber Ghost
Actually the high end advertising is already digital.
Most of those lovely car adds have been shot on 5X4 with digital backs
and are already being processed on 500MHz Alpha workstations.
And have been for around five year now.
Interlopation to fill the pixels give the printed shot more bite,
definition and a clarity that look almost hand drawn rather than the
grain structure of film.
Anthony
Rob Landry wrote in message <34AAE415...@nbnet.nb.ca>...
>To all who think that film is dead. Try doing true black and white or
infared
>photography on a digital camera; don't think so.
It works just fine. There are digital cameras for both B&W shots and
infrared. You can use a color digital camera for B&W by simply desaturating
the resulting image; for infrared use, you need a camera that does not
filter or process out the infrared image data from the CCD (CCDs are quite
sensitive to infrared, so they can easily photograph in that light).
Digital cameras that handle both B&W and infrared have been around for
years. Ask the astronomers.
>And while we're at it, try taking your digital camera out in cold weather
>or to the top of Everest or the North pole and see how it stands up.
Digital cameras don't care too much about temperature; only the moving parts
are likely to suffer, and there are very few of those compared to a
conventional camera. CCDs actually like cool weather, as they produce less
thermal noise when they are cool.
>I'm afraid you won't be bringing home many shots.
What results did you obtain the last time that you used a digital camera at
the North Pole?
Digital cameras can even be used in the cold vacuum of space. They don't
care about the presence of air.
>And by the way, I DON'T think you'll ever see a digital camera that
>doesn't need batteries.
And by the way, I don't think you'll ever see a conventional camera that
doesn't need film. So what?
>So when your thousand dollar paper weight is sitting in your camera
>bag at minus forty below zero, I be merrily shooting away with my
>old Nikon F2 and using the good old sunny sixteen rules.
Try it and see.
>Oh, and don't even think of dropping or mishandling a digital camera cause
>they can't take any abuse.
Sure they can. It is possible to build a digital camera that can be hit by
a train without damage. The lack of complex moving parts makes it easy to
harden a digital camera mechanism.
You should not assume that the faults of consumer digital cameras reflect
any defects in digital photography itself. You are comparing consumer
digital cameras to professional conventional cameras and trying to claim
that the differences between them reflect inherent disadvantages to digital
photography, when in fact they actually reflect the disadvantages to cheap
consumer cameras, and have nothing to do with the type of photography.
Surely you must see this, no?
>I believe film and digital will live side by side
>and will have different applications.
Digital will gradually replace conventional photography. There are
essentially no fundamental advantages to conventional photography, so it
will eventually disappear, replaced entirely by digital photography, except
among hobbyists and historians. This has already happened in some domains,
e.g., astronomy.
>Years ago when photography hit the scene, people believed that the day
>of paint and canvas were gone ...
And they were right. Except for deliberate "artistic" effects, nobody
paints anything on canvas anymore.
> ... but lo and behold, people still paint with a brush and paint.
Only in very specialized circumstances. Nobody would use brush and paint
for photojournalism, for example. People paint mainly because they enjoy
it, or because the result is so quaint.
>Same goes for e-mail and snail mail.
E-mail will replace snail mail for most purposes in the next century. Snail
mail will survive and thrive for package delivery, however.
>Another thing, people are so ready and willing to embrace new
>technologies with open arms, they fail to see that these new advances bring
>with them almost as many problems as they create.
Actually, they do not bring that many problems--if they did, they would not
replace older technologies.
>Like todays advanced auto-focus cameras, the're marvels of technology,
>but they are much more complicated than their manual counterparts and
>are much more prone to failures, and being reliant on batteries, they
>are limited in their range of operating environments.
Perhaps you have not noticed that blurry pictures with consumer cameras have
pretty much become a thing of the past since autofocus systems have become
available. The overall trend has been substantial improvement.
>You take a Leica, and you'll have a hard time trying
>to find a place on this planet it can't withstand.
The same is true for any good camera, be it digital or conventional. That
has nothing to do with the technology. However, in the most extreme
situations, digital cameras are more resistant than conventional cameras.
Conventional film emulsions are terribly fragile.
>Another fear of mine is that being digital and being at the whims of
>large computer corperations, you'll quickly realize that the digital
>arena will have no set standard.
Your fear is unfounded. There are already well-established standards, and
they are independent of any company: JPEG is the classic example of this.
Furthermore, computer companies have little to say about digital
photography, since digital photography is mostly independent of any given
computer or software product.
>There will be no standardized storage medium, no standardized
>file formats ...
You don't need standards for either of these for digital photography. You
seem to not fully understand what "digital" means. It has nothing to do
with storage media or file formats; in fact, one of its great advantages is
its total independence of such things.
>Christ all you have to do is look back at the short history of
>computing to see that trend.
Computing and photography are two different domains.
>At least with film, you'll always have standards ...
You always have standards in every industry.
Which film format is "standard" film format, by the way?
> ... which means security for your images and not always having
>to worry about keeping up with the trends.
Security is in digital imaging--digital technology provides the only means
for preserving an image for an infinitely long time. Analog images will
always deteriorate, from the very first day they are created.
>So if you feel like shooting away with your
>vintage Leica M2 rangefinder while other people shoot with Canon EOS-1's
and
>Nikon F5's, shoot away!
I'm sure it will attract attention, more and more so as time goes on.
Rather like commuting back and forth to work on horseback.
--
Anthony
B.J. Major
Ken Janik <kin...@ichips.intel.spamno.com> wrote:
> B.J. Major wrote:
>
> > But, this occurs in industries other than the computer industry as
> > well--although the computer industry is certainly more guilty than most
> > of having a tendency to have products that become obsolete in about a
> > six month window.
>
> I personally don't think the word "guilty" is appropriate. Technology is
> advancing incredibly fast. Faster than it ever has in the past, and I don't
> think it is going to slow down. People want their games to run faster,
> they want their files to download faster, and they want to crunch
> numbers in their spread sheets while reading e-mail and downloading
> files off the internet. If one company doesn't come out with a faster
> computer, it's competitors will. Anyone who stands still in this business
> gets run over very quickly. It's just the way the market works.
>
Yes, all true. But at what price all this "advancement"? I know lots
of folks who go broke constantly at just trying to keep up with computer
technology (I'm one of them). I read once that computer technology is
just about the biggest consumer ripoff ever to hit the marketplace.
Why? Because software companies are writing bloated revisions of their
software (many companies spend lots of time including "features" most
people will never use) at least once per year, then the hardware
companies have to respond because these ever-increasing-in-size
softwares require more RAM--and many require faster processors and need
even bigger hard drives, faster CD rom drives, etc. etc. And there
doesn't seem to be an end to this cycle as one is driving the other.
Mac Breck
Rob Landry wrote:
> Hi,
> To all who think that film is dead. Try doing true black and white or
> infared photography on a digital camera; don't think so. And while
> we're at it, try taking your digital camera out in cold weather or to > the top of Everest or the North pole and see how it stands up. I'm
> afraid you won't be bringing home many shots. And by the way, I DON'T
> think you'll ever see a digital camera that doesn't need batteries.
> So when your thousand dollar paper weight is sitting in your camera
> bag at minus forty below zero, I be merrily shooting away with my old
> Nikon F2 and using the good old sunny sixteen rules.
> Oh, and don't even think of dropping or mishandling a digital camera
> cause they can't take any abuse. I believe film and digital will live
> side by side and will have different applications.
Right. Each has it's own applications. No one system
(digital/electronics vs. film/mechanical) can do everything. Each has
it's own strong points, but cannot replace the other in all areas.
> Another thing, people are so ready and willing to embrace new
> technologies with open arms, they fail to see that these new advances
> bring with them almost as many problems as they create.
It's called jumping to conclusions, and thinking that "someone else" has
thought of everything *for* them. They believe the advertising guys
without ever having researched the subject. Then they're surprised when
their new electronic whiz-bang camera gives them an ERROR when it's
cold. "Gee, how could this happen? They'd have told me about this,
right? You mean I have to READ the Instruction Manual?" I can't stand
these people who know only how to push a button! Yet, the industry is
driven by these lowest common denominators, because, THEY'RE the "the
masses". Having descriminating tastes, and being able to appreciate a
fine, precision mechanical device is a real P.I.T A., when the industry
is driven by plastic fantastics bought by "the masses". How many new
manual focus lens designs have you seen produced lately? None. How
many new manual focus/manual exposure body designs have you seen
produced lately? None. I get the feeling I may have to retreat to
larger format (6x7cm, or 4x5") just to escape the auto-everything crowd.
> Like todays advanced auto-focus cameras, the're marvels of technology,
> but they are much more complicated than their manual counterparts and
> are much more prone to failures, and being reliant on batteries, they
> are limited in their range of operating environments. You take a
> Leica, and you'll have a hard time trying to find a place on this
> planet it can't withstand. Another fear of mine is that being digital
> and being at the whims of large computer corperations, you'll quickly
> realize that the digital arena will have no set standard. There will
> be no standardized storage medium, no standardized file formats; most
> of these formats will change every couple of years or so in order to
> keep the profits rolling in for these companies and the consumer
> struggling to keep up to date. Christ all you have to do is look back
> at the short history of computing to see that trend.
BINGO! You just hit the nail on the head. The industry (PC and Digital
Photography) is in constant flux. Stability and competition are at odds
with each other here. Just look at removable hard drives. Jaz Drives (1
GB, 2 GB) & Zip Drives (100MB) from Iomega are incompatible with the
drives from Sysquest (1.5 GB). I bought Jaz (1GB) and Zip Drives
(100MB). Somebody else buys Sysquest. Do you think I can take my Jaz
or Zip cartridge over to their house and share the data, or vice versa?
Nope! Compared to film, the PC people don't know the meaning of the
word "standards". Gees, could you be talking about Microsoft's .01
version upgrades here? You think Bill Gates is greedy, or wants to take
over? Sat it ain't so! :)
> At least with film, you'll always have standards, which means security
> for your images and not always having to worry about keeping up with
> the trends.
More like fads.
> So if you feel like shooting away with your vintage Leica M2
> rangefinder while other people shoot with Canon EOS-1's and Nikon > F5's, shoot away!
Me too, with my F2AS, FM, and FM2's, manual focus Nikkors, practicing
Zone System, and making fine B+W prints in my darkroom. Never had any
problems down to -24 degrees F (-60F wind chill).
You'd be surprised how many people don't know that exposure meters are
calibrated to deliver 18% grey. Whenever I bring it up, a glazed look
comes over their eyes! Then, if I bring up exposure latitude of various
films, or the concept of depth of field, I can really put their brain on
"TILT".
Mac - A 40 yr.old "old fogie" who started 35mm in 1975.
Barry Twycross
In article <#jQt3kqF9GA.239@upnetnews03>, "Anthony" <now...@bitbucket.nil>
wrote:
>Rob Landry wrote in message <34AAE415...@nbnet.nb.ca>...
>>Years ago when photography hit the scene, people believed that the day
>>of paint and canvas were gone ...
>
>And they were right. Except for deliberate "artistic" effects, nobody
>paints anything on canvas anymore.
>
>> ... but lo and behold, people still paint with a brush and paint.
>
>Only in very specialized circumstances. Nobody would use brush and paint
>for photojournalism, for example. People paint mainly because they enjoy
>it, or because the result is so quaint.
Paper and pencil does seem to be used for "photojournalism" still. I see
quite a few courtroom sketches on the eveing news. This of course is a very
specialised application.
Mac Breck
B.J. Major wrote:
> > Another fear of mine is
> > that being digital and being at the whims of large computer
> corperations,
> > you'll quickly realize that the digital arena will have no set
> standard.
>
> This is not necessarily true and may be an unnecessary fear on your
> part. Everything else that is currently digital (CD players, laser
> disk
> players, etc.) has standards set, and there is no reason to think that
> the digital camera world will not also have standards set.
Wrong. Take DVD. The standards are currently in flux. Backward
compatibility may NOT be preserved. Circuit City and a manufacturer
(Magnavox, I think) are the culprits here. The DVD disc and DVD Player
manufacturers don't care. YOU'LL just have to buy another machine.
They make more money that way.
> > There
> > will be no standardized storage medium, no standardized file
> formats; most of
> > these formats will change every couple of years or so in order to
> keep the
> > profits rolling in for these companies and the consumer struggling
> to keep up
> > to date.
>
> But, this occurs in industries other than the computer industry as
> well--although the computer industry is certainly more guilty than
> most
> of having a tendency to have products that become obsolete in about a
> six month window.
>
> All your points are well taken, and no one is forcing you to go
> digital
> if you don't want to--that's certainly your choice. But having worked
> full-time with computers since 1983, it's extremely exciting to me to
> work with such a medium of such convenience and such potential.
>
Me too. And it's frustrating when you get to be an expert in dBASE
III+/Foxpro 2.0, 2.5, 2.6, you build large applications that save lots
of time and money, and then instead of switching to Visual FoxPro 5.0,
they switch to ACCESS. Then, they don't understand why it's going to
take any time at all to rewrite the applications! The trouble is that
the people who control the money and make the spending decisions are not
technically competent. There is a huge knowledge gap between the true
software experts and "management". It ends up with management not
understanding, and buying the mass market software (Office), and not
understanding why it won't make things easier. They say things like "It
had Access which is a database, right?" Then when you show them your
FoxPro program which is ALREADY written, is PROVEN, and walks talks and
makes change, their eyes glaze over. The software industry is very bad
when it comes to standards. Just look at how Word 97 can't save a file
as a Word6/Word95 file, let alone Word 2! They're NOT binary compatible
UNLESS you get Service Release #1 of Office 97. Do you think
"management" is aware of this, or even understands it when you explain
it to them? NO! When you do try to explain it to them, it's like
you're talking 30,000 feet above their head.
The bottom line is that the market is being driven by the lowest common
denominators, the plastic fantastics and Office 97. This does NOT mean
that all advanced users must be saddled with this junk. I agree digital
is nice, convenient, and has it's applications, but it does not HAVE TO
replace film in all applications. Also, the digital cameras that can
use my existing lenses (to protect my investment in optics) are
EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE (~$8000 to $10,700).
Mac
Ken Janik
B.J. Major wrote:
> Yes, all true. But at what price all this "advancement"? I know lots
> of folks who go broke constantly at just trying to keep up with computer
> technology (I'm one of them). I read once that computer technology is
> just about the biggest consumer ripoff ever to hit the marketplace.
And I read once that someone had built a monolith of Kermit the Frog's
face on Mars. People who write things aren't always right and sometimes
they have ulterior motives. Most of the time however, they are just
rather clueless. :-)
> Why? Because software companies are writing bloated revisions of their
> software (many companies spend lots of time including "features" most
> people will never use) at least once per year,
Software companies are businesses. They have to sell their productsto pay their
shareholders and employ their workers. They add more
bells and whistles to their programs to have something new to sell.
For example, there is very little reason why a word processor from
five years ago is unsuitable for writing most documents. However, I
downloaded the new version of Netscape that has a built in word
processor that outputs documents as HTML as well. VERY COOL!!!
I also use vi, a 20 year old text editor, extensively. Use whatever works
for you.
> then the hardware
> companies have to respond because these ever-increasing-in-size
> softwares require more RAM--and many require faster processors and need
> even bigger hard drives, faster CD rom drives, etc. etc. And there
> doesn't seem to be an end to this cycle as one is driving the other.
Hardware companies are businesses too. If software were sitting still,the
hardware companies would be moving along just as fast. With
the exception of one company who is nearing extinction (sorry couldn't
resist the jab :-).
Most people I know upgrade their computers because it doesn't run
the new top of the line games. Or their OS is so outdated that it's
become a pain compared to the improvements available. Me, I upgrade
whenever there is a real reason to upgrade. I bought an 8086 about
seven years ago, it ran DOS 3.3, had no hard drive, and had 2MB of
memory and ran at 10MHz. Last year I upgraded to a Pentium(R) Pro,
it runs Windows NT, has a 4GB hard drive, and 32 MB of memory and runs
at 200MHz. I don't play games, so I had no real reason to upgrade until
Windows NT came out and modem speeds had increased to a "reasonable"
rate so that I could get enough information across to keep the computer
busy.
If you don't like it, don't buy new software or hardware until there is
something worthwhile to upgrade to. As this has wandered WAY off
the topic of rec.photo.*, this is my last post on this. Reply if you like, but
I have said my piece.
Best wishes and Happy New Year,
- Ken
The opinions expressed above to not necessarily reflect the opinions of my
employer.
Mac Breck
Cyber Ghost wrote:
> Actually the high end advertising is already digital.
> Most of those lovely car adds have been shot on 5X4 with digital backs
> and are already being processed on 500MHz Alpha workstations.
>
> And have been for around five year now.
Digital backs for 4x5? How may $$$$$$ are these backs?
> Interlopation to fill the pixels give the printed shot more bite,
> definition and a clarity that look almost hand drawn rather than the
> grain structure of film.
When the grain of film (and I use the slow stuff) is matched by the
pixels on a CCD sensor (and I'm not talking software interpolation
here), AND it doesn't cost a fortune, I'll get digital.
Mac
B.J. Major
Ken Janik <kin...@ichips.intel.spamno.com> wrote:
> B.J. Major wrote:
>
> > Yes, all true. But at what price all this "advancement"? I know lots
> > of folks who go broke constantly at just trying to keep up with computer
> > technology (I'm one of them). I read once that computer technology is
> > just about the biggest consumer ripoff ever to hit the marketplace.
>
> And I read once that someone had built a monolith of Kermit the Frog's
> face on Mars. People who write things aren't always right and sometimes
> they have ulterior motives. Most of the time however, they are just
> rather clueless. :-)
I don't the person who wrote that WAS clueless, though. In fact, I
rather agree with him. Gee, do you have an endless, bottomless budget
to spend from? I don't, and my work pays pretty decently. All computer
stuff is *very* expensive when it first hits the scene.
>
>
> > Why? Because software companies are writing bloated revisions of their
> > software (many companies spend lots of time including "features" most
> > people will never use) at least once per year,
>
> Software companies are businesses. They have to sell their productsto pay
> their shareholders and employ their workers. They add more bells and
> whistles to their programs to have something new to sell.
This has *little* to do with the actual functionality of the program,
though.
(snip)
> If you don't like it, don't buy new software or hardware until there is
> something worthwhile to upgrade to.
I don't.
Mac Breck
Anthony wrote:
> Ask the astronomers.
Ever check the SBIG prices? Expensive!
> >And while we're at it, try taking your digital camera out in cold
> weather
> >or to the top of Everest or the North pole and see how it stands up.
>
> Digital cameras don't care too much about temperature; only the moving
> parts
> are likely to suffer, and there are very few of those compared to a
> conventional camera. CCDs actually like cool weather, as they produce
> less
> thermal noise when they are cool.
He was talking about complete reliance on batteries here. Mechanical
cameras can survive quite well in the situations described.
> Digital cameras can even be used in the cold vacuum of space. They
> don't care about the presence of air.
The problem is the temperature extremes caused by the lack of air's
insulating properties. I seem to remember they took Nikons and
Hasselblads on NASA missions. Film was used. It worked. What's your
point?
> >And by the way, I DON'T think you'll ever see a digital camera that
> >doesn't need batteries.
>
> And by the way, I don't think you'll ever see a conventional camera
> that
> doesn't need film. So what?
Again, what's your point? A mechanical camera can be used without
batteries. And by the way, not all meters need batteries. A selenium
meter generates it's own current.
> It is possible to build a digital camera that can be
> hit by
> a train without damage.
A little over the top here, aren't we???
> You should not assume that the faults of consumer digital cameras
> reflect
> any defects in digital photography itself. You are comparing consumer
> digital cameras to professional conventional cameras and trying to
> claim
> that the differences between them reflect inherent disadvantages to
> digital
> photography, when in fact they actually reflect the disadvantages to
> cheap
> consumer cameras, and have nothing to do with the type of photography.
> Surely you must see this, no?
Consumer digital cameras may drive all the rest to extinction because of
the market weight the consumer mass market has.
> >I believe film and digital will live side by side
> >and will have different applications.
>
> Digital will gradually replace conventional photography.
Probably true, but not because of technical merit. It will be because
of economics and market pressure for cheap & fast.
> There are
> essentially no fundamental advantages to conventional photography,
Not true. Currently conventional photography is able to produce a
higher quality print than digital photography for anywhere near the same
price (I'm talking the price of the equipment needed to make the print,
not the cost charged for the print itself.). Advances are happening in
both arenas. Who's to say where they'll be in the future?
> so it
> will eventually disappear, replaced entirely by digital photography,
> except among hobbyists and historians.
Not true. Market pressure will force manufacturers to abandon the
hobbyists and historians. Too small a market.
> This has already happened in some
> domains,
> e.g., astronomy.
Again, this is BIG BUCKS.
> Nobody would use brush and paint for photojournalism, for example.
Silly example. I doubt anybody EVER did use brush and paint for
photojournalism.
> E-mail will replace snail mail for most purposes in the next century.
> Snail mail will survive and thrive for package delivery, however.
Maybe. Now if I could only convince my Aunt to get a PC, and get an
ISP. I'd write to her more often.
> >Another thing, people are so ready and willing to embrace new
> >technologies with open arms, they fail to see that these new advances
> >bring with them almost as many problems as they create.
>
> Actually, they do not bring that many problems--if they did, they
> would not replace older technologies.
Not true. Stupid ideas that are well marketed have a way of thriving in
the mass market. The average consumer is lazy AND an idiot. Companies
don't care. They'll just make more money on the replacement technology.
> >Like todays advanced auto-focus cameras, the're marvels of > >technology,
> >but they are much more complicated than their manual counterparts and
> >are much more prone to failures, and being reliant on batteries, they
> >are limited in their range of operating environments.
>
> Perhaps you have not noticed that blurry pictures with consumer
> cameras have
> pretty much become a thing of the past since autofocus systems have
> become
> available. The overall trend has been substantial improvement.
Perhaps you've noticed that the AF doesn't always work as well as manual
focus? Some brochures/instruction manuals for AF cameras even admit
this. AE still doesn't know it's not photographing grey cards.
There's no substitute for having a brain (not one in a AF/AE induced
coma) behind the camera.
> >You take a Leica, and you'll have a hard time trying
> >to find a place on this planet it can't withstand.
>
> The same is true for any good camera, be it digital or conventional.
> That
> has nothing to do with the technology. However, in the most extreme
> situations, digital cameras are more resistant than conventional
> cameras.
> Conventional film emulsions are terribly fragile.
At -24F I had no problems. Any colder than that, and I'm staying
inside!
> >Another fear of mine is that being digital and being at the whims of
> >large computer corperations, you'll quickly realize that the digital
> >arena will have no set standard.
>
> Your fear is unfounded. There are already well-established standards,
> and
> they are independent of any company: JPEG is the classic example of
> this.
> Furthermore, computer companies have little to say about digital
> photography, since digital photography is mostly independent of any
> given computer or software product.
Then why do some JPGs open in Netscape Communicator 4.01 but not in
Micrografx Picture Publisher for Windows 95?
> >There will be no standardized storage medium, no standardized
> >file formats ...
>
> You don't need standards for either of these for digital photography.
> You
> seem to not fully understand what "digital" means. It has nothing to
> do
> with storage media or file formats; in fact, one of its great
> advantages is its total independence of such things.
It is not. You have to save the file as something, some file format. It
still has to be supported.
> >Christ all you have to do is look back at the short history of
> >computing to see that trend.
>
> Computing and photography are two different domains.
They used to be, but not anymore, the way things are going.
> >At least with film, you'll always have standards ...
>
> You always have standards in every industry.
> Which film format is "standard" film format, by the way?
There are several. 35mm, 6x4.5cm, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5", 8x10"
The thing is, they all co-exist. What we're talking about here is the
replacement of all of these with digital. I want them to co-exist.
> > ... which means security for your images and not always having
> >to worry about keeping up with the trends.
>
> Security is in digital imaging--digital technology provides the only
> means
> for preserving an image for an infinitely long time.
As long as the file formats don't change or conversion programs are
available. Archived photos can last over 100 years. How many file
formats and compatible conversion programs do you thing will still be
around in 5 years???
> Analog images
> will
> always deteriorate, from the very first day they are created.
True, but they'll be usable longer.
Mac
Mac Breck
Jim MacKenzie wrote:
> WAC wrote in message <68b320$17t$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
snip
> Even
> if
> you use a battery-dependent 35mm system, it is going to use batteries
> a lot
> less than
> a digital system does.
Probably not true. I suspect the biggest battery drainer in the AE/AF
film cameras is the film wind/rewind. When'r the last time you saw a
manual wind crank and manual rewing knob on this type of camera. Those
motors take a lot of juice. In low temps, the batteries don't have it
to give. Then there's the LCD susceptibility to hot/cold....
> Also, I see conventional photography continuing for a very long time
> after
> that, even
> if digital gear does equal silver-based technology in quality. Why?
> Craftsmanship.
God, I hope you're right.
Mac
Don Baccus
In article <redgate-0101...@aux123.tulsa.oklahoma.net>,
Kirk Kerekes <red...@tulsa.oklahoma.net> wrote:
>It is not necessary for digital media to have film-grain size resolution
>in order to match film's performance -- indeed, once you get beyond the
>resolution of the _lens_, further resolution enhancement is pointless.
Actually, this isn't quite true. Bob Atkins, who organized the rec.photo
hierarchy before splitting for the more sane climes of photo.net, posted
the math showing it a year or two ago. With his PhD in optics, he finds
this stuff interesting.
In short, resolution of the final image is a function dependent on the
resolution of lens and film. The lens has to have considerably greater
resolution than that of the film before it ceases to become a limiting
factor.
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
MDDESKEY
There are some "purists" who object to APS discussions on 35mm section.
Could not the same comment be made for digital being here? And after reading
32 postings, I ask : will sex ever replace night baseball
Cyber Ghost
The backs cost something like $90,000 but it is an entire system. I am
a little out of touch myself but it was this news that spurred me to
abandon my own processing line and get a film scanner.
About three years ago I got a few samples and there were real
knockouts. Frightening at the time but now I have joined in, in my
small way.
On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 15:03:06 -0500, Mac Breck <macb...@timesnet.net>
wrote:
George Ou
> school darkroom. The kids of today being brought up "digitally" will never
> know what they are missing.
> Long live silver-based, chemical-based photography,
Sounds like your fondness of chem-photog is based on emotion rather than fact.
You don't need a dark room to kiss a girl. Kissing a girl is good anywhere
anytime.
Bottom line is, when they get an SLR that is compatible with the big 3 mounts.
4X3 K pixels, 800ISO equivalent, $500-$1000. It will be all over for
chemical.
B.J. Major
Mac Breck <macb...@timesnet.net> wrote in reply to:
> > Digital will gradually replace conventional photography.
>
> Probably true, but not because of technical merit. It will be because
> of economics and market pressure for cheap & fast.
Why not on technical merit as well? These cameras are an absolute
technological marvel. The description "Cheap & fast" to me belongs to
the one-time disposable camera available at your local drug store.
>
> > There are
> > essentially no fundamental advantages to conventional photography,
>
> Not true. Currently conventional photography is able to produce a
> higher quality print than digital photography for anywhere near the same
> price (I'm talking the price of the equipment needed to make the print,
> not the cost charged for the print itself.).
(snip)
But, you *can't* just count the cost of the equipment because that alone
does not make the photographs. The film has to be taken out of the
camera and developed, and this cost MUST be calculated in the total cost
of having a traditional camera. This is yet another savings in using a
digital camera.
> Not true. Market pressure will force manufacturers to abandon the
> hobbyists and historians. Too small a market.
This will not happen for some time to come, even if the entire world
went digital tomorrow. There are simply too many traditional cameras
out there and in use for the market to dry up that quickly.
> > > ... which means security for your images and not always having
> > >to worry about keeping up with the trends.
> >
> > Security is in digital imaging--digital technology provides the only
> > means
> > for preserving an image for an infinitely long time.
>
> As long as the file formats don't change or conversion programs are
> available. Archived photos can last over 100 years.
I heard that a traditional photo can start to deteriorate badly in as
little as 30 years.
> How many file
> formats and compatible conversion programs do you thing will still be
> around in 5 years???
I'll take my chances on this one; I'd still rather keep my images
digitally. And I love having to say good-bye to photo albums that weigh
a ton. Once they are all scanned into my system, the albums themselves
are history.
Rob Landry
Ken Janik wrote:
> I think it's becoming apparent as we head into the 21st century that there
> is always going to be change and that the rate of change is speeding up.
> For me, the reason to switch is based upon having complete control over
> my photos. Not having to buy film, not having to pay for developing,
> relatively unlimited #'s of photos (as the amount of memory increases),
> being able to directly manipulate the photos, and convenient archiving.
>
> If those reasons aren't enough for you and digital doesn't do it for you, then
> stay where you are. Just make sure you are doing it for the right reasons
> and not just out of fear of change.
>
> Later,
> - Ken
I think digital is a good medium, what I'm saying is that it will not completely
replace film in the foreseeable future. And why should it, they're two entirely
different mediums. I shoot 35 mm on a limited basis now, as I enjoy doing mostly
scenic photography. For that type of photography I use an 8x10 field camera. The
quality of the transparencies is simply AMAZING. Technology is great, don't get me
wrong, but none of the new 35 mm auto everything, "think for you", super
technologically advanced, cutting edge cameras will ever equal the quality I can get
from my 8x10. And I don't believe digital will either for a while. The concept and
design behind a view camera hasn't changed in the last hundred years, and yes
they're slow and antiquated by today's fast paced throw away society, but when it
comes down to what's really important, the final image, technology hasn't solved
every problem. I still have to take the time and effort to get the final image. Sure
I could pull out my 35 mm and take the shot, but if I want the quality, there's no
easy, quick way out, so I live with the inconveniences of my 8x10. Besides there is
something to be said about making an image, and having to WORK to make it. There is
a lot of satisfaction in seeing your final print, when you know you made all the
decisions and had all the control, throughout the entire photographic process.
Rob
Rob Landry
All the points you mentioned are valid, just like the paper less office that we
were supposed to see. Well I haven't seen it yet. Walk in to you doctor's office
or the local hospital and ask them why they still use paper and don't simply
just keep everything electronically, because computers are simply not 100%
reliable and when it comes to important documents, they simply can't take the
risk of losing that kind of irreplaceable information. Sure they make back-ups
so don't give me that line, point is that an electronic medium is simply not
100% reliable. And the chances of having a major fire is a lot less likely than
a power failure, virus, or some other problem you can routinely have with a
computer. So when it comes to my images, I won't take the risk of having all my
photos stored electronically, no matter how many back-ups I make. My father has
Kodachromes stored in the safety deposit box at the bank, and they look as good
as the day they were taken over twenty years ago.
I do play with digital imaging but I still want my hard copy transparencies.
My digital images are stored on Iomega Zip disks. Now do you think that when
Iomega discontinues the Zip drive, I'll still be able to get disks for mine.
NOPE. So I'll be down at the computer store looking for the newest storage
medium that's compatible with my local service bureau, and I'll have to transfer
all my images onto the new media, until something else down the road replaces it
as well. No, I'll stick to using my 8x10 camera for a LONG time to come because
I know they'll still make film for it.
When you think of it, very few new technologies actually completely replace
the things before it. CD's did not completely replace cassettes, Video tape did
not replace film, cause all the Hollywood films, nature documentaries and any
high quality TV programs are still all shot using film stock, and video tape has
been around a long time, but still hasn't approached the quality or longevity of
film. We still use snail mail for a lot of things and will continue; satellite
didn't replace cable; jet powered aircraft did not replace propeller driven
aircraft; power tools haven't replaced hand tools; computers haven't replaced
pencil and paper, so why in hell would you think that digital will replace film.
As long as a very few people want to shoot with it, companies will still produce
it, and there are alot more people who want film to remain than you think, same
as there are far more people in the world without computers than there are with
them, and they don't know the first thing about most digital technologies. You
can't buy a disk camera anymore, but kodak still makes film for the few people
that have them, 126 film is still available, as is 110, both of which has been
discontinued for years. And you can still get those little flash cubes for old
cameras; and view cameras haven't changed for over a hundred years, but they're
still popular and will be for a long, long time. All these so called
"technologically challenged" devices need film so companies will continue to
make it, and I bet Kodak and Fuji and the other film companies will make SURE of
it. They're not simply going to let film go the way of the dinosaur. With every
advance in digital quality, they'll be right there making sure that film
emulsion technology is advancing just as fast. So I don't think I'll have to
retire my view camera any time soon, I'll be long in the ground before that
happens. Rest assured, that like many technologies, they'll simply live side by
side, giving people the freedom to choose what they want, not having it forced
upon them.
Happy shooting - not computing!
Rob Landry
Me too, with my F2AS, FM, and FM2's, manual focus Nikkors, practicing
> Zone System, and making fine B+W prints in my darkroom. Never had any
> problems down to -24 degrees F (-60F wind chill).
>
> You'd be surprised how many people don't know that exposure meters are
> calibrated to deliver 18% grey. Whenever I bring it up, a glazed look
> comes over their eyes! Then, if I bring up exposure latitude of various
> films, or the concept of depth of field, I can really put their brain on
> "TILT".
>
> Mac - A 40 yr.old "old fogie" who started 35mm in 1975.
Hey Mac,
I'm glad you agree with me, and by all means DO try retreating to a larger format, you'll definitely escape the auto everything "masses" and
enjoy truly superior image quality in the meantime. I have an 8x10 camera and an older 4x5. If you read the Large format newsgroup, you
certainly will be dealing with a more informed crowd, and you won't read all this digital vs. film crap, cause we know where the quality is. The
35 mm newsgroups are over-run with equipment junkies! Anyway, film isn't going anywhere so happy shooting, not computing.
Rob
George Ou
> But the hi-fi buffs aren't _right_--just _stubborn_.
>
> --
> Anthony
>
I slightly disagree, they only think they are hi-fi. Stubbornness,
ignorance, and emotion are all factors. Digital is only 10-20 years old and
not quite mature yet, but in time there will be no argument, only emotion.
Not that emotions are bad, there is a time and place for that. Its just
that emotions and technical superiority do not mix.
mathison
They are. In my stereo collection CD never sound as good as identical
recordings on CD. Just one example of many: Compare the drum solo Moby
Dick on Zeppelin 2. My boxed set special edition sounds pathetic
compared to my run of the mill, picked up for 4 bucks LP version. Sad
isn't it. Oh - to do this test you need a good stereo, audiophile
quality, and each drum, snare, and cymbal will be placed exactly in the
correct place in the soundstage image.
Note: after you do that test go to a museum and take a good look at a
great photographic print. Then explain to me how any modern printing
process can duplicate the depth of either a gelatin silver or platimum
print.
j
Anthony wrote:
>
> But the hi-fi buffs aren't _right_--just _stubborn_.
>
> --
> Anthony
>
> mathison wrote in message <34A96B...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >ke...@rjfm2.demon.co.uk wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> And I would predict, that like hifi buffs, they will still be people
> >> claiming that chemical flim is better...
> >>
> >> Rob.
> >
> >And I predict that like hifi buffs, they will be right - but the masses
> >won't care.
> >j
--
Bob Mathison - Curator,
Museum of Woodworking Tools. http://www.antiquetools.com
Geo
In article <Barry-ya02408000...@nntp.netgate.net>,
Ba...@netbox.com (Barry Twycross) wrote:
Yes. If you extrapolate current trends its inevitable. My prediction is
that digital will be the most popular consumer format by 2002. It will be
better than film in most respects 5-10 years later and be the preferred pro
format.
---------------
And I predict that prediction will be as accurate as Psychotic Friends
Network. You can get a better print from an $8. disposable than a $5000.
digital. Quite a gap. Maybe in another 15 years.
Michael Greer
I've read this thread with much interest and I just can't help myself
but to jump in.
Rob Landry wrote:
Very good and interesting points. However, I feel that one must separate
the capturing of the image from the storing of the image. Today's SLRs
are incredible machines. I just spent $1,000 on a Canon Elan IIE QD, a
28-200 mm Tamron zoom, and a 75-300mm Canon IS USM zoom. I love it.
NOTHING in the digital world can touch it for that price, today.
However, I would have gladly spent twice as much for a digital solution
that offered the same flexibility and capability. The film development
process IS A MAJOR PAIN to me. Taking multiple shots and hoping that you
get the right exposure/shutter speed setting for the given film and
lighting conditions is also a pain. The immediacy of digital for me is
simply too inticing in the image capture stage.
However, I do agree that the image capabilities of film has major
advantages over digital. Namely, its stability. With digital technology
moving so fast, storage solutions continuously change. And the
dependency on electrical power is another problem. So, the way I figure
it, when the resolutions get high enough (i.e. ~3k x 4K), the best
solution for me is to capture digitally, but utilize film recorders to
store traditionally. That way I get my immediacy and on the spot
inspection of shots, but I can still store shots the way they've been
stored for years. I simply end up exchanging my film scanner, for a film
recorder.
> When you think of it, very few new technologies actually
> completely replace
> the things before it. CD's did not completely replace cassettes,
No, but they have practically eliminated vinyl records for which there
is a much better direct comparison. With LPs, you bought a record, then
you played it. With CDs you bought a CD, then you played it. Cassette
tapes could be used to record. There a CD to cassette tape is not a
direct digital to analog comparson the way a CD to LP comparison is.
> Video tape did not replace film, cause all the Hollywood films, nature
> documentaries and any
> high quality TV programs are still all shot using film stock, and
> video tape has
> been around a long time, but still hasn't approached the quality or
> longevity of
> film. We still use snail mail for a lot of things and will continue;
> satellite
> didn't replace cable; jet powered aircraft did not replace propeller
> driven
> aircraft; power tools haven't replaced hand tools; computers haven't
> replaced
> pencil and paper, so why in hell would you think that digital will
> replace film.
It's simple. In most of the examples you site, the "new" technology is
more expensive to implement than the traditional technology. Snail mail
will be replaced more and more each year as more and more people get
inexpensive acces to it and people get more and more confident in its
security. Obviously package delivery can't be done by any other means.
But I see many things that we get today being dramatically reduced over
time. We'll see.
If by satellite you satellite TV vs. cable TV, the issue is up front
costs for the consumer. If the costs were the same, then satellite would
easily win out.
Jets and propellers? Same issue. Cost. If it wasn't a factor, prop jobs
would be relegated to air museums.
Power tools vs. hand tools? Once agian cost and dependency on electrical
power. Even though mechanical cameras do exist. At leasst 95% of the
people taking pictures today rely on powered units.
Computers vs. pencil and paper? Once again cost AND convenience.
The theory is that as digital cameras become more capble, while also
dropping in price, there will be a point where the features offered by
digital will surpass the premium one has to pay. The only questions
that remain are what are the key features (resolution, SLR,
interchangable lenses, etc.) vs. what is an acceptable premium over 35mm
(i.e. $100, $200, $500) for the same features. It will happen. the
question is when.
The most appropriate comparison is the audio CD vs. the vinyl record.
Vinyl records are only available in specialty shops now. They were
direct competitors. But the ability to precisely go to any cut on the
disc, the ability to program the CD player, the smaller storage space,
and many other features of the CD audio system, so far outpaced the turn
table that with a period of about 4-6 years the vinyl record had been
virtually eliminated from the horizon.
Digital cameras and film cameras are direct competitors just like just
like LPs and CDs. One is an analog device and one is a digital device.
Just like LPs and CDs. The benefits are different, but just as
significant. The benefit of digitally capturing an image vs. capturing
it on film is huge in my opinion. Many people will point to the benefit
of not havng to buy film. But as I've stated, to me the BIG bang is
immediate, on location feedback. If a manufacturer made a film based
camera that integrated some kind of display system that allow you to
immediately and confidently preview the image (a hybrid kind of
machine), then for me, film based cameras would fare better in
comparisons with DCs.
> As long as a very few people want to shoot with it, companies will
> still produce
> it, and there are alot more people who want film to remain than you
> think, same
> as there are far more people in the world without computers than there
> are with
> them, and they don't know the first thing about most digital
> technologies.
Your making an assumption. I computer is not necessary to utilize a
digital camera. As a matter of fact, I think the main benefit of digital
cameras to most comsumers is that they won't have to buy film. I still
see a photo lab in the picture. But instead of taking in your rool of
film to be developed, you'll drop off a memory card for the "lab" to
print.
> You can't buy a disk camera anymore, but kodak still makes film for
> the few people
> that have them, 126 film is still available, as is 110, both of which
> has been
> discontinued for years. And you can still get those little flash cubes
> for old
> cameras; and view cameras haven't changed for over a hundred years,
> but they're
> still popular and will be for a long, long time. All these so called
> "technologically challenged" devices need film so companies will
> continue to
> make it, and I bet Kodak and Fuji and the other film companies will
> make SURE of
> it. They're not simply going to let film go the way of the dinosaur.
They may not have a choice. Is certainly isn't going to happen
overnight, but it will happen.
> With every
> advance in digital quality, they'll be right there making sure that
> film
> emulsion technology is advancing just as fast.
But they are fundamentally different photo capturing technologies. It
not just about advancing emilsion technology. The flexibility of digital
capturing and previewing simply can't be matched by film. Period. As
long as one is dependant on having film developed, the advantages of
digital capture/preview can't be technologically engineered in film.
> So I don't think I'll have to
> retire my view camera any time soon, I'll be long in the ground before
> that
> happens. Rest assured, that like many technologies, they'll simply
> live side by
> side, giving people the freedom to choose what they want, not having
> it forced
> upon them.
CDs weren't forced on people. The early adopters paid dearly for the
advantages. But the advantages, in conjuction with price drops (in
players and discs), and increased availability of discs, won over the
marketplace. And the market was won over relatively quickly.
I don't believe they will live side by side in the general market place
once camera resolutions are high enough at competitive prices and
support systems (digital photo labs) are in place. The advantages to the
average user are just too great.
>
>
> Happy shooting - not computing!
--
Mike Greer
"Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision."
Michael Greer
Rob Landry wrote:
You are destined to end up like the audio purists who insist that one
can gear the difference between linyl records and CDs. Maybe they can,
but I surely can't. They now meet in small groups all over the country
exchanging LPs and discussing the superiority of "their" medium. I used
to meet with just groups because they were music lovers as am I, but I
found their attitudes to not be reflective of my experiences. I thought
CD quality exceeded that of LPs, especially over time.
You can be a satisfied digital shooter with no interest in computers,
and recognize the features and flexibility that DCs offer over film
cameras simply on their own individual merit. Your snobby, nose in the
air, I know more than these pitiful no nothings attitude is not very
becoming. If they are so much more "knowlegable" over in the large
format newsgroup, then why are you here? This IS after all a DIGITAL
photo newsgroup.
By the way, if digital cameras are not dominating the camera scene in 10
years as far as camera sales are concerned, then I'll be shocked. We'll
just have to wait and see.
>
>
> Rob
DFStein
Interestingly, the introudction of new color and B&W films is still strong,
maybe even accelerating. Look at all the new entries from Kodak (E100S and
E200, refinements of the Gold series), Fuji (Astia, Superbia, Sensia II), even
Agfa and Konica.
Geo
>>Another fear of mine is that being digital and being at the whims of
>>large computer corperations, you'll quickly realize that the digital
>>arena will have no set standard.
>Your fear is unfounded. There are already well-established standards, and
>they are independent of any company: JPEG is the classic example of this.
I'm so reassured. JPEG? That that the one that's soon to be replaced by the
superior wavelet compression?
>You don't need standards for either of these for digital photography. You
>seem to not fully understand what "digital" means. It has nothing to do
>with storage media or file formats; in fact, one of its great advantages is
>its total independence of such things.
Really? How exactly does a digital camera work without storage? Storage is
everything. There is no image without storage.
>Security is in digital imaging--digital technology provides the only means
>for preserving an image for an infinitely long time.
Really? Tried reading a 5 1/4 floppy lately? CD has the longest expected
lifespan of current storage media. That's 15-50 years depending on
conditions and who you believe. Do you really think your CD-ROMs will be
readable 15-50 years from today even if they haven't crumbled.
>Analog images will
>always deteriorate, from the very first day they are created.
Is that why we have photos from 150 years ago?
Anthony
Geo wrote in message ...
>I'm so reassured. JPEG? That that the one that's soon to be replaced by the
>superior wavelet compression?
So what if it is? Standards change over time.
You're still overlooking the most obvious fact here: Digital photographs
are independent of any storage medium or file format. Analog photographs
are _entirely_ dependent on their storage medium--the two are one and the
same. This is one reason why digital is superior to analog.
>Really? How exactly does a digital camera work without storage? Storage is
>everything. There is no image without storage.
The written word is a digital form of information representation, and this
is why stories are independent of the paper upon which they are written.
This is why people refer to Shakespeare's work without the need to mention a
specific book, a particular binding, or a particular grade of paper. The
works of Shakespeare, like all forms of human language, and indeed like all
digital representations of information, are entirely independent of the
"storage media" used to hold them.
You must understand the distinction between the medium and the message in
the digital realm, otherwise the huge advantage of this distinction will not
be apparent to you.
>Really? Tried reading a 5 1/4 floppy lately?
No need. I transferred all the digital information I require to more recent
storage media long ago. See?
>Is that why we have photos from 150 years ago?
We don't have any photos from 150 years ago that look exactly as they did
when they were made. It's a physical impossibility. We do have, however,
innumerable examples of literature that still contain exactly the same words
that they contained when they were written. Do you see the difference?
--
Anthony
Robert Chin
Maybe there should be a rec.photo.equipment.digital and a
rec.photo.equipment.aps
David Dentry
Of course digital has (and will continue to) replaced film in many markets
already! Many of our customers use only digital to produce catalogs, repro
prints, etc. I am quite sure that you would be surprised to know how many
of the commercial images you see have never touched silver halide.
--
David Dentry
Support Manager, Phase One U.S. Digital Cameras
dav...@phaseone.com
888-PhaseOne ext110
http://www.phaseone.com
Alan...@compuserve.com
In article <eKastf1...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>,
"Anthony" <now...@bitbucket.nil> wrote:
>
> Geo wrote in message ...
>
> >I'm so reassured. JPEG? That that the one that's soon to be replaced by the
> >superior wavelet compression?
>
> So what if it is? Standards change over time.
First, I would like to thank you for a rich, provocative, stance in this
thread. But, second, your dialectics fail to provide a straight answer to
the storage format problem: if Shakespeare's words had not been written
to paper and printed on paper, they would have vanished, however
'digital' they may have been. But some of his manuscripts are still
readable today, and they will be used by art historians to control the
validity of current re-issues of his pieces.
If bytes of image data are saved on a marginally supported media and if
the maker of the media disappears, there is a high probability that the
data will be lost or that the transfer of the data to more common media
will be very expensive. I have seen a lot of different magnetic-optic
formats come and go during the last 15 years, and you can query the Web
to find hundreds of companies who live from selling that service: media
to media transfer.
In my personal experience, I have lost track of most of the articles and
letters I have typed on different generations of IT equipment (Tandy,
Atari 520, Apple II, etc) or different generations of word processing
software (in particular those articles encrypted through forgoten
passwords or saved in marginal formats). Only the paper proves they have
existed...
Some formats may seem ubiquitous today, but they could be marginalized
very fast, which means the user will have to manage (in the full sense of
the term) the archiving of his works, making sure his files from 10 years
ago are still viewable today. This entails tranfer after transfer after
transfer, with the hope that none of media are ever physically damaged,
and files made unrecoverable (check out your current floppies, you might
be surprised...). This does not seem to me a very user-friendly or cost
efficient perspective.
Paradoxically, 50 year old microfilms of 50 year old data are much easier
to browse today than taped data from Sixties, Seventies or Eighties
minis, even if film, like paper, suffers from the action of time, with an
intensity directly related to the choice of grade of each media. Some
films will still be "almost" intact in 200 years...
The way the IT industry (mis)manages the transition between one
technology and the next explains why so many governement bodies worldwide
are reluctant to allow a digital only archiving of sensitive data
(contracts, deeds, official papers, etc) : everybody knows digital is
more convenient but nobody is in a position to guarantee the lifetime of
any media or file format. OTOH some paper makers and some film suppliers
offer specialized grades with guaranteed (and tested) lifetimes.
This will not prevent digital from becoming the main technology to
capture and disseminate images, but I'm convinced some pionneer users
will be very unhappy in 15 years when they will want to show their 1998
work to their kids...
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
mathison
Anthony wrote:
>
> >Is that why we have photos from 150 years ago?
>
> We don't have any photos from 150 years ago that look exactly as they did
> when they were made. It's a physical impossibility. We do have, however,
> innumerable examples of literature that still contain exactly the same words
> that they contained when they were written. Do you see the difference?
>
same as they did when they were made. Why would it be a physical
impossibilty. Platinum prints are dead stable and archival. Even the not
so stable alterntvie processes that were used then have impages that
survived and havn't faded much.
j
TEAShea
> Yet, the industry is
>driven by these lowest common denominators, because, THEY'RE the "the
>masses".
Unfortunately true for the most part.
- TEA
Rob Landry
Michael Greer wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I don't believe they will live side by side in the general market place
> once camera resolutions are high enough at competitive prices and
> support systems (digital photo labs) are in place. The advantages to the
> average user are just too great.
>
> >
> >
> > Happy shooting - not computing!
>
> --
> Mike Greer
>
> "Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
>
> Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision."
I think it will be a long time before a digital generated print will be
able to equal the sharpness and tonality range of a contact printed 8x10
from my 8x10 camera. Now when you decide to enlarge from an 8x10 negative or
transparency, you can enlarge to pretty near sky's the limit without
noticing any loss in sharpness. I'm talking 48x60 inch prints here or
larger. I think you'd need a tad more than 3Kx4K resolution to get a print
that large. Sure it's easy to compare digital to 35mm film but someday if
you ever shoot with something as big as an 8x10, you'll never think of
digital again. I even have a hard time using my 35mm cameras unless the shot
absolutely requires it. The one thing I notice about this digital discussion
it that it's proponents use words like: "convenience", "quick", "ease",
"simplicity" etc. It's like these people are afraid to use their brains and
actually think while they're behind the camera. Not everything that's good
comes easy and conveniently, and so it shouldn't. If you want to make good
photographs, truly superior photographs, you have to take the time and
effort and suffer the inconveniences to make them. That's part of the beauty
of photography as an art. We're not all photojournalists who want to see
their images as soon as they're shot. The process that's required to get the
shot is in my mind just as exciting as the final shot itself. And it's a
hell of a lot more rewarding knowing you did all the work to get that shot
than simply letting an auto everything camera or digital camera do it for
you. And no I do not want or think I will ever see a digital 8x10 back for
my camera. Sure it may be usable in the studio, but I'm not gonna start
carrying a battery back to power my field camera.
Rob
Michael Greer
mathison wrote:
> > We don't have any photos from 150 years ago that look exactly as
> they did
> > when they were made. It's a physical impossibility. We do have,
> however,
> > innumerable examples of literature that still contain exactly the
> same words
> > that they contained when they were written. Do you see the
> difference?
> >
> We most certainly have photos from 150 years ago that look EXACTLY the
>
> same as they did when they were made.
Not to be combative, but how do you know this? You may be right, but how
can you be so sure that they look EXACTLY the same?
Matt Dillon
You know, George Lucas made an interesting comment on the remastering
of the Star Wars trilogy. He said, basically, that after 20 years the
original star wars masters were beginning to fall apart and if they
didn't remaster it now they wouldn't get another chance. Even so, they
had to do a hellofalot of fixing up in the digital domain to recover
the film. They even had to 'age' many of the newly added effects so they
wouldn't stand out on the old print.
-Matt
--
Matthew Dillon Engineering, BEST Internet Communications, Inc.
<dil...@best.net>, include original article w/ any response.
do not under any circumstances send email to joe...@bigspender.idiom.com
and, for gods sake, don't email buck...@popserver.idiom.com
Matt Dillon
:In article <34ACFB...@ix.netcom.com>,
:mathison <math...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:>Anthony wrote:
:>>
:..
:>We most certainly have photos from 150 years ago that look EXACTLY the
:>same as they did when they were made. Why would it be a physical
:>impossibilty. Platinum prints are dead stable and archival. Even the not
:>so stable alterntvie processes that were used then have impages that
:>survived and havn't faded much.
:>
:>j
Black & White certainly lasts longer then color, but I think you are
stretching it a bit by infering that they remain nearly perfect even
after 150 years. I have seen very few old prints look as good as that.
Only a very small percentage.
B.J. Major
Rob Landry <spit...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> All the points you mentioned are valid, just like the paper less office
> that we were supposed to see. Well I haven't seen it yet. Walk in to you
> doctor's office or the local hospital and ask them why they still use
> paper and don't simply just keep everything electronically, because
> computers are simply not 100% reliable and when it comes to important
> documents, they simply can't take the risk of losing that kind of
> irreplaceable information. Sure they make back-ups so don't give me that
> line, point is that an electronic medium is simply not 100% reliable. And
> the chances of having a major fire is a lot less likely than a power
> failure, virus, or some other problem you can routinely have with a
> computer. So when it comes to my images, I won't take the risk of having
> all my photos stored electronically, no matter how many back-ups I make.
> My father has Kodachromes stored in the safety deposit box at the bank,
> and they look as good as the day they were taken over twenty years ago.
> I do play with digital imaging but I still want my hard copy
> transparencies. My digital images are stored on Iomega Zip disks. Now do
> you think that when Iomega discontinues the Zip drive, I'll still be able
> to get disks for mine.
You should only have them on Zip disks as the *backup*. The main
storage should be on a hard drive.
> NOPE. So I'll be down at the computer store looking for the newest storage
> medium that's compatible with my local service bureau, and I'll have to
> transfer all my images onto the new media, until something else down the
> road replaces it as well. No, I'll stick to using my 8x10 camera for a
> LONG time to come because I know they'll still make film for it.
Don't be too sure about that. There is no guarantee that film for
traditional cameras will be made *forever*. For a while to come, yes.
But after that, digital will replace it all.
> When you think of it, very few new technologies actually completely
> replace the things before it. CD's did not completely replace cassettes,
> Video tape did not replace film,
It sure did as far as movie cameras for *consumers* are concerned.
There are no consumer movie cameras that use film sold today on the
market. Try buying 16mm or super 8 film at your photography store and
see for yourself.
> cause all the Hollywood films, nature documentaries and any high quality
> TV programs are still all shot using film stock, and video tape has been
> around a long time, but still hasn't approached the quality or longevity
> of film.
Film (especially motion picture film) is also very fragile if it's not
taken care of the right way. Even when it IS taken care of responsibly,
it can still develop problems. If it had the longevity you purport,
Disney would not have to go through the "restored to its original
magnificience" process every time they need to rerelease one of their
classic animated films. That's a *very* tedious process to do as each
frame has to be cleaned, color restored, etc. etc. Motion picture film
has a great tendency to fade and become washed out over time (50 yrs. or
less).
Digital videocameras are also the wave of the future for consumers.
They are still way too expensive right now, but that will change as time
goes on.
> We still use snail mail for a lot of things and will continue; satellite
> didn't replace cable; jet powered aircraft did not replace propeller
> driven aircraft; power tools haven't replaced hand tools; computers
> haven't replaced pencil and paper, so why in hell would you think that
> digital will replace film.
Because once the medium gets the attention of the general public
(instead of just us computer-philes), people are going to want this
medium which takes no film to process and you see the results almost
instantaneously on your computer or tv. Who WOULDN'T want this?!
Paper and pencil may indeed still suit you, but anyone who isn't
computer literate will eventually be left behind.
> As long as a very few people want to shoot with it, companies will still
> produce it, and there are alot more people who want film to remain than
> you think, same as there are far more people in the world without
> computers than there are with them, and they don't know the first thing
> about most digital technologies. You can't buy a disk camera anymore, but
> kodak still makes film for the few people that have them, 126 film is
> still available, as is 110, both of which has been discontinued for years.
> And you can still get those little flash cubes for old cameras; and view
> cameras haven't changed for over a hundred years, but they're still
> popular and will be for a long, long time. All these so called
> "technologically challenged" devices need film so companies will continue
> to make it, and I bet Kodak and Fuji and the other film companies will
> make SURE of it. They're not simply going to let film go the way of the
> dinosaur.
Everything you mention above will disappear from the market place *once*
there are no consumers to buy those older products for those cameras
anymore. Devices break down over time--none of those older cameras like
the disk and the 110/Instamatic are going to last forever! Once there
is no market demand for something--parts, accessories, film, for those
things will disappear. It's only a matter of time.
Anthony
mathison wrote in message <34ACFB...@ix.netcom.com>...
>We most certainly have photos from 150 years ago that look EXACTLY the
>same as they did when they were made.
No, we do not. The mere act of looking at the photos causes them to
deteriorate, and even if they are not looked at, they will gradually
deteriorate on their own.
Since I presume that you are not 150 years old, how do you know that these
photos have not changed at all since they were made?
>Why would it be a physical impossibilty.
That's just the way laws of physics (particularly thermodynamics) work. The
tendency is always towards disorder, and so things always deteriorate over
time. Since analog recordings consist of physical models of the things they
represent, and since physical objects cannot remain unchanged over time,
analog recordings deteriorate continuously over time.
>Platinum prints are dead stable and archival.
No analog recording is dead stable.
>Even the not so stable alterntvie processes that were used
>then have impages that survived and havn't faded much.
If they have faded _at all_, they are no longer exactly like they original
were, are they?
--
Anthony
Anthony
Rob Landry wrote in message <34AD17BB...@nbnet.nb.ca>...
>I think it will be a long time before a digital generated print will be
>able to equal the sharpness and tonality range of a contact printed 8x10
>from my 8x10 camera.
It will be some years before that becomes affordable and easily available,
yes. However, very few people have any need for 8x10 negatives. If I
follow your reasoning, I could just as easily say that 8x10 negatives are
unacceptably blurry because 6-foot by 8-foot negatives are so much more
detailed.
>I think you'd need a tad more than 3Kx4K resolution to get a print
>that large.
I've seen digital photos used as advertising posters of roughly 20x15 feet.
>Sure it's easy to compare digital to 35mm film but someday if
>you ever shoot with something as big as an 8x10, you'll never think of
>digital again.
Why would anyone shoot with 8x10? You would not even be able to print the
results with resolution high enough to justify the size of the negative.
>The one thing I notice about this digital discussion
>it that it's proponents use words like: "convenience", "quick", "ease",
>"simplicity" etc.
Yes. Those are the principles that drove conventional photography to where
it is today. Notice that most people use 35mm negatives, not 8x10
negatives. An 8x10 negative is overkill for virtually all applications.
--
Anthony
Mark Anderson
In article bjbla...@ibm.net says...
> > I do play with digital imaging but I still want my hard copy
> > transparencies. My digital images are stored on Iomega Zip disks. Now do
> > you think that when Iomega discontinues the Zip drive, I'll still be able
> > to get disks for mine.
>
> You should only have them on Zip disks as the *backup*. The main
> storage should be on a hard drive.
A hard drive is the worst place to archive anything. All hard drives
will fail and you will eventually lose all data on it. A PC's hard drive
should only be used as a temporary holding place for digital files.
Unfortunately many consumers of digital cameras will be shocked to find
out all the other supporting computer equipment they'll need (PC, CD-R
burners, ZIP drives, colour photo printers etc.), new software to learn
(Photoshop, Thumbs+, PSP, SCSI, etc.) and new concepts to understand
(dpi, ppi, etc.). So instead of buying a P&S a shooting away with
everything on automatic (and most users of P&S rely on auto everything),
they'll have to learn a myriad of new things. Not good.
Digital cameras might be fine for the technodweebs and professionals who
need fast turnaround times but for the average person, the 1 hour photo
shops to a fine job turning out prints. In the future, perhaps, instead
of developing film these 1 hour shops may process PCMIA cards and
perhaps provide some archiving services. People will want prints and
reprints and they're not going to want to become a system administrator
for all the photo files they generate. A negative sitting in a shoebox
in a closet will last a lifetime without a worry. I'd be worried about
anything stored digitally on any media currently available with today's
technology.
Don Baccus
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.98010...@rigel.oac.uci.edu>,
R. McPherson <rjmc...@rigel.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Fri, 2 Jan 1998, Michael Greer wrote:
>:mathison wrote:
>:> > We don't have any photos from 150 years ago that look exactly as
>:> they did
>:> > when they were made.
>:> We most certainly have photos from 150 years ago that look EXACTLY the
>:> same as they did when they were made.
>:Not to be combative, but how do you know this? You may be right, but how
>:can you be so sure that they look EXACTLY the same?
>:Mike Greer
>Interesting thread. When you are discussing a photo "looking the same" I was
>struck with the notion that objectively if a machine were to measure contrasts
>levels and densities and empirically establish how a photo "looks" and then we
>wait 150 years and measure it again to see if the data match, that is still very
>different than how people might perceive the image.
Many historical photographs have been damaged or lost, there's no doubt of this.
You can't exactly dupe a traditional photo. You can come close, but no dupe
will be exact. An E6 dupe of a Kodachrome slide, for instance, will have a
different color palette.
Dupes of digital photographs are exact.
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
Don Baccus
In article <MPG.f1724685...@news.tezcat.com>,
Mark Anderson <m...@tezcat.com> wrote:
> A negative sitting in a shoebox
>in a closet will last a lifetime without a worry.
Actually, until quite recently color negatives stored in a shoebox
in a closet faded quite rapidly. Still without a worry, though,
being non-sentient bits of film :)
Even B&W film stored haphazardly can be a problem, because accidents
happen. And most shoeboxes aren't archival, this leads to problems,
too.
B.J. Major
Mark Anderson <m...@tezcat.com> wrote:
> In article bjbla...@ibm.net says...
>
> > > I do play with digital imaging but I still want my hard copy
> > > transparencies. My digital images are stored on Iomega Zip disks. Now do
> > > you think that when Iomega discontinues the Zip drive, I'll still be able
> > > to get disks for mine.
> >
> > You should only have them on Zip disks as the *backup*. The main
> > storage should be on a hard drive.
>
> A hard drive is the worst place to archive anything. All hard drives
> will fail and you will eventually lose all data on it.
Hello, anyone home? That's what BACKUPS are for. You won't have lost a
thing if you backup on a regular basis. I've been using computers since
1983 and not one hard drive has failed me yet, sorry. Nonetheless, I
backup on a regular basis with Zip and Syquest cartridges.
> Unfortunately many consumers of digital cameras will be shocked to find
> out all the other supporting computer equipment they'll need (PC, CD-R
> burners, ZIP drives, colour photo printers etc.), new software to learn
> (Photoshop, Thumbs+, PSP, SCSI, etc.) and new concepts to understand
> (dpi, ppi, etc.). So instead of buying a P&S a shooting away with
> everything on automatic (and most users of P&S rely on auto everything),
> they'll have to learn a myriad of new things. Not good.
It's not good to learn new things? Since when??????! As the market
stands right now, most buyers of digital cameras *already own* most of
what you list above. Owning computer equipment is pretty much a
pre-requisite to owning a digital camera. In fact, I'd venture to say
that they owned THAT stuff before they went out and bought the digital
camera (at least I did--with exception of a CD-R burner & the photo
printer, which I do not need because I do not print my digital images).
> Digital cameras might be fine for the technodweebs and professionals who
> need fast turnaround times but for the average person, the 1 hour photo
> shops to a fine job turning out prints. In the future, perhaps, instead
> of developing film these 1 hour shops may process PCMIA cards and
> perhaps provide some archiving services. People will want prints and
> reprints and they're not going to want to become a system administrator
> for all the photo files they generate.
Oh, really? I don't know of any such archiving service currently for
people who take conventional pictures. Don't these folks have to keep
their own negatives and prints?!
> A negative sitting in a shoebox
> in a closet will last a lifetime without a worry.
It will become brittle at the very least, over time...And a shoebox is
not exactly fire-proof nor does it provide any security against damage.
> I'd be worried about
> anything stored digitally on any media currently available with today's
> technology.
And I worry about storage of photos that are based on paper. You are
yet another person who fears computer technology....pity.
--
--bj Auto reply will not work; please remove "black" to reply.
Proudly owning/using "all types" of Apple Computers since 1984.
Member, Assoc. of Macintosh Trainers & 100% Microsoft-free.
mathison
them out you've got the same problem everyone else has. This is why pre
press work in the printing industry is so damn hard. inks, paper, the
combinations are endless.
j
> --
>
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
> Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
--
mathison
Michael Greer wrote:
>
> mathison wrote:
>
> >
> > We most certainly have photos from 150 years ago that look EXACTLY the
> >
> > same as they did when they were made.
>
> Not to be combative, but how do you know this? You may be right, but how
> can you be so sure that they look EXACTLY the same?
becasue when the medium itself is dead stable and I'm looking at the
original (not a printed copy of some unreadable version somewhere) but
the actual thing touched by the artist so if it not exact is
increditably close Also, since it is first generation there is no chance
of someone cleverly manipulating it undetectably.
interestly the important part of a picture isn't the negative (it should
be but it isn't) it's the print signed by the artist. When the artist
dies or even alive wants more prints made they use a reference print and
notes to figure out what the final print should look like. Even with a
digital original you would do this. The artist may like the HP printing
inks not the epson inks etc. The paper will be a major consideration.
All the negative or the file is is a starting point
j
mathison
Matt,
read what I said. Platinum prints DO NOT FADE at all. Negatives might
fade but can be compensated for in printing. Paper made 150 years ago is
acid free and pretty damn archival also.
j
Matt Dillon wrote:
>
> :In article <34ACFB...@ix.netcom.com>,
> :mathison <math...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> :>Anthony wrote:
> :>>
> :..
> :>We most certainly have photos from 150 years ago that look EXACTLY the
> :>same as they did when they were made. Why would it be a physical
> :>impossibilty. Platinum prints are dead stable and archival. Even the not
> :>so stable alterntvie processes that were used then have impages that
> :>survived and havn't faded much.
mathison
> >same as they did when they were made.
>
> deteriorate, and even if they are not looked at, they will gradually
> deteriorate on their own.
that cannot be measured isn't relevant to the discussion and platinum
doen't fade period. If you don't know what a platinum print is please
take the trouble to find out.
I won't even bother commenting on the rest of the post.
j
>
> Since I presume that you are not 150 years old, how do you know that these
> photos have not changed at all since they were made?
>
> >Why would it be a physical impossibilty.
>
> That's just the way laws of physics (particularly thermodynamics) work. The
> tendency is always towards disorder, and so things always deteriorate over
> time. Since analog recordings consist of physical models of the things they
> represent, and since physical objects cannot remain unchanged over time,
> analog recordings deteriorate continuously over time.
>
> >Platinum prints are dead stable and archival.
>
> No analog recording is dead stable.
>
> >Even the not so stable alterntvie processes that were used
> >then have impages that survived and havn't faded much.
>
mathison
You're right of course. But most of the people reading these threads has
never seen a good print of anything and don't even discuss an 8x10
contact print from an large format negative. You're way out of their
league. You're talking a forign language. Quality isn't what this change
is about. It's about cost and convience.
have fun
j
Rob Landry wrote:
>
> Michael Greer wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > I don't believe they will live side by side in the general market place
> > once camera resolutions are high enough at competitive prices and
> > support systems (digital photo labs) are in place. The advantages to the
> > average user are just too great.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Happy shooting - not computing!
> >
> > --
> > Mike Greer
> >
> > "Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
> >
> > Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision."
>
> I think it will be a long time before a digital generated print will be
> able to equal the sharpness and tonality range of a contact printed 8x10
> from my 8x10 camera. Now when you decide to enlarge from an 8x10 negative or
> transparency, you can enlarge to pretty near sky's the limit without
> noticing any loss in sharpness. I'm talking 48x60 inch prints here or
> larger. I think you'd need a tad more than 3Kx4K resolution to get a print
> that large. Sure it's easy to compare digital to 35mm film but someday if
> you ever shoot with something as big as an 8x10, you'll never think of
> digital again. I even have a hard time using my 35mm cameras unless the shot
> absolutely requires it. The one thing I notice about this digital discussion
> it that it's proponents use words like: "convenience", "quick", "ease",
Mac Breck
Kirk Kerekes wrote:
snip
> You
> only need about 3K pixels across the sensor to match the information
> capabilities of 35mm, you need more to match larger formats.
Here's what's needed:
2400x3600 pixels for 35mm.
6000x7000 pixels for 6x7cm
10160x12700 pixels for 4x5"
>
OK. I'll rephrase it. When a CCD sensor in 24x36mm size, can do 100
pixels/mm (and I'm not talking software interpolation here), AND it
doesn't cost a fortune, I'll get digital. I *really do* want to be able
to use all my Nikkors on a digital body. However, this doesn't mean
I'll sell any of my Nikon film bodies. I'll use 'em both.
Mac
Mac Breck
Rob Landry wrote:
snip
> No, I'll stick to using my 8x10 camera for a LONG time to
> come because
> I know they'll still make film for it.
> When you think of it, very few new technologies actually
> completely replace
> the things before it. CD's did not completely replace cassettes, Video
> tape did
> not replace film, ...
snip
> As long as a very few people want to shoot with it, companies will
> still produce
> it, and there are alot more people who want film to remain than you
> think,
snip
> All these so called
> "technologically challenged" devices need film so companies will
> continue to
> make it, and I bet Kodak and Fuji and the other film companies will
> make SURE of
> it. They're not simply going to let film go the way of the dinosaur.
Thanks. I feel better now.
> With every
> advance in digital quality, they'll be right there making sure that
> film
> emulsion technology is advancing just as fast.
That's what I said.
> Rest assured, that like many technologies, they'll simply
> live side by
> side, giving people the freedom to choose what they want, not having
> it forced
> upon them.
Hope so!
Mac
Mac Breck
Matt Dillon wrote:
> Black & White certainly lasts longer then color, but I think you
> are
> stretching it a bit by infering that they remain nearly perfect
> even
> after 150 years. I have seen very few old prints look as good as
> that.
> Only a very small percentage.
Ever hear of Cibachrome?
Mac
Mac Breck
Matt Dillon wrote:
> You know, George Lucas made an interesting comment on the
> remastering
> of the Star Wars trilogy. He said, basically, that after 20 years
> the
> original star wars masters were beginning to fall apart and if
> they
> didn't remaster it now they wouldn't get another chance. Even so,
> they
> had to do a hellofalot of fixing up in the digital domain to
> recover
> the film. They even had to 'age' many of the newly added effects
> so they
> wouldn't stand out on the old print.
If they'd done it digitally 20 years ago, how good do you think it would
have been? How much do you think it would have cost to make?
Must have been some really sloppy processing!
Mac
Barry Twycross
In article <34AD872A...@timesnet.net>, macb...@timesnet.net wrote:
>Kirk Kerekes wrote:
>> You
>> only need about 3K pixels across the sensor to match the information
>> capabilities of 35mm, you need more to match larger formats.
>
>Here's what's needed:
>2400x3600 pixels for 35mm.
[snip]
I think this may be off by a factor of 2-4. I've scanned a few negs at
2700-2800 dpi. They definatly have a little more detail that could be
squeezed out of them. One paicular photo had writing on it which could be
read on an 8x10 print, but not when scanned at 2700dpi (Nikon Coolscan). I
have some 2820dpi scans on my web pages (Minolta QuickScan 35), you can
only just see the grain.
I reckon you could get 5k-10k pixels out a 35mm neg with the right
equipment. Having said that, I think I'll settle for a 3kx4k digital camera
when I can afford one. Thats enough to print a 10x13 at 300dpi, or 30x40 at
100pdi. That should look quite reasonable.
--
Barry
Ba...@netbox.com <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
------
(Obsolete sig deleted).
Mac Breck
B.J. Major wrote:
> You should only have them on Zip disks as the *backup*. The main
> storage should be on a hard drive.
If you keep 8x10 film resolution images on your hard drive, you
obviously have one helluva hard drive!!! [An 8x10 image at even 300dpi
and 256 colors takes about 30MB, and that's pretty poor resolution and
color depth. It can't even compare to a 8x10 color neg or
transparancy!] A server full of a half dozen or so 9GB hard drives
would be stressed by this! Then, where would you keep the applications
(Word Procesor, Database, Spreadsheet, Image Manipulation Programs,
etc)? Remember, the apps take more room with each succeeding rev.
Visual C++ takes 65MB just for the program. Then there's swapfile space
(Win95 still uses it, even it it hides it's usage. Just see how much
your hard disk light flickers.
I shuffle the images off the hard drive onto Jaz disks (1GB). Hard
drives are for applications and short term storage of/rapid access to
data that's being manipulated by them. When perfected, it goes onto Jaz
disks. I back up a Jaz disk with another Jaz disk. All that stuff
being of the hard drive is clutter!
Mac
Rob Landry
Anthony wrote:
> Rob Landry wrote in message <34AD17BB...@nbnet.nb.ca>...
>
> >I think it will be a long time before a digital generated print will be
> >able to equal the sharpness and tonality range of a contact printed 8x10
> >from my 8x10 camera.
>
> It will be some years before that becomes affordable and easily available,
> yes. However, very few people have any need for 8x10 negatives. If I
> follow your reasoning, I could just as easily say that 8x10 negatives are
> unacceptably blurry because 6-foot by 8-foot negatives are so much more
> detailed.
>
> >I think you'd need a tad more than 3Kx4K resolution to get a print
> >that large.
>
> I've seen digital photos used as advertising posters of roughly 20x15 feet.
>
> >Sure it's easy to compare digital to 35mm film but someday if
> >you ever shoot with something as big as an 8x10, you'll never think of
> >digital again.
>
> Why would anyone shoot with 8x10? You would not even be able to print the
> results with resolution high enough to justify the size of the negative.
>
> >The one thing I notice about this digital discussion
> >it that it's proponents use words like: "convenience", "quick", "ease",
> >"simplicity" etc.
>
> Yes. Those are the principles that drove conventional photography to where
> it is today. Notice that most people use 35mm negatives, not 8x10
> negatives. An 8x10 negative is overkill for virtually all applications.
>
> --
> Anthony
An 8x10 negative is overkill? Yeah probably, but I like to be a purist. Anyway,
this digital vs. film discussion is getting old and won't sway the way things
develop anyway. I'll say this, you techno-weenies, who think that everything
that's digital is good are forgetting one thing, less than 1% of a percent of
all the people on planet earth actually own a computer or know how to use one.
I think that it will be a LONG LONG time before everyone who wants to take a
picture will run out and buy a computer first; it's just easier and more
affordable to buy a stupid disposable and snap your kid's birthday party. You
all forget that computers and this high tech crap you're talking about is just
techno babble to most common lay people out there. I don't know where you think
that it's catching on like wildfire. I don't think my 70 year old grandmother
is gonna want to learn how to use a computer to take a lousy snapshot; and
you'll find that most common people won't either. Technology, in this case,
just serves to complicate things so much that it becomes unreachable to all,
except those select few who are willing and are financially secure enough to
afford it. All I know is that since I bought a computer two years ago, I've
grown sick of it every day, almost to the point of not using it at all, except
to reply to this thread lately. Computers are just a lot of bloated hype!
Another point, any form of electronic storage is NOT secure and is always
reliant on electrical power, and as long as that's the case you'll never see me
putting all my "eggs" in one basket by completely trusting an electronic
medium; there is simply too many variables that could go wrong. For example:
crashes, power outages, magnetic disruptions, piracy, viruses, hackers,
obsolete file and storage formats, incompatibilities between hardware and
software etc., etc.; need I go on!!! So, don't hold your breath waiting for
film to go obsolete.
Well, like I said, I think this thread is getting old. This is my last
reply, I'm retreating to the comfort of the large format newsgroups, where
people actually use their cameras to make images, and where photography is
still an art, not computer hype.
Rob
B.J. Major
Mac Breck <macb...@timesnet.net> wrote:
> B.J. Major wrote:
>
> > You should only have them on Zip disks as the *backup*. The main
> > storage should be on a hard drive.
>
> If you keep 8x10 film resolution images on your hard drive, you
> obviously have one helluva hard drive!!! [An 8x10 image at even 300dpi
> and 256 colors takes about 30MB, and that's pretty poor resolution and
> color depth. It can't even compare to a 8x10 color neg or
> transparancy!] A server full of a half dozen or so 9GB hard drives
> would be stressed by this! Then, where would you keep the applications
> (Word Procesor, Database, Spreadsheet, Image Manipulation Programs,
> etc)? Remember, the apps take more room with each succeeding rev.
> Visual C++ takes 65MB just for the program. Then there's swapfile space
> (Win95 still uses it, even it it hides it's usage. Just see how much
> your hard disk light flickers.
We're obviously talking apples and oranges here. I never made ANY
reference to 8x10 film images--I don't even HAVE 8x10 images OR
equipment--I'm only talking about my own *digital* images, which range
in size anywhere from 59K to 78K! Trust me, even several hundred of
these don't take up that much room on a 1.6 gig hard drive.
>
> I shuffle the images off the hard drive onto Jaz disks (1GB). Hard
> drives are for applications and short term storage of/rapid access to
> data that's being manipulated by them. When perfected, it goes onto Jaz
> disks. I back up a Jaz disk with another Jaz disk. All that stuff
> being of the hard drive is clutter!
But with removeable carts having the flaws that they have (and they have
them), I like my data stored in EACH place--both hard drive and a
removeable backup or two.
P.S. I read this group as often as I read my email, so no need to email
me replies of your message--just post here.
B.J. Major
Rob Landry <spit...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> An 8x10 negative is overkill? Yeah probably, but I like to be a purist.
> Anyway, this digital vs. film discussion is getting old and won't sway the
> way things develop anyway. I'll say this, you techno-weenies, who think
> that everything that's digital is good are forgetting one thing, less than
> 1% of a percent of all the people on planet earth actually own a computer
> or know how to use one. I think that it will be a LONG LONG time before
> everyone who wants to take a picture will run out and buy a computer
> first; it's just easier and more affordable to buy a stupid disposable and
> snap your kid's birthday party. You all forget that computers and this
> high tech crap you're talking about is just techno babble to most common
> lay people out there. I don't know where you think that it's catching on
> like wildfire. I don't think my 70 year old grandmother is gonna want to
> learn how to use a computer to take a lousy snapshot; and you'll find that
> most common people won't either. Technology, in this case, just serves to
> complicate things so much that it becomes unreachable to all, except those
> select few who are willing and are financially secure enough to afford it.
> All I know is that since I bought a computer two years ago, I've grown
> sick of it every day, almost to the point of not using it at all, except
> to reply to this thread lately. Computers are just a lot of bloated hype!
Then please *get rid* of yours and stop ranting on and on about how much
you hate technology. Sheesh!
> Well, like I said, I think this thread is getting old. This is my last
> reply, I'm retreating to the comfort of the large format newsgroups, where
> people actually use their cameras to make images, and where photography is
> still an art, not computer hype.
Here's a news flash for you: I also use my *digital* camera to make
images. And then I can manipulate those images any way I want on my
computer. And create quite a bit of art with your image in Photoshop.
Oh, sorry--I forgot I shouldn't have mentioned "computer" in your
presence......
Please spare us enthusiastic digital users any more of this "elitist,
a-*real*-photographer-doesn't-use-digital photography" crap!!
Mac Breck
Michael Greer wrote:
snip
> However, I would have gladly spent twice as much for a digital
> solution that offered the same flexibility and capability.
Twice as much? Maybe. Ten to twenty times as much? No way!
> The film development process IS A MAJOR PAIN to me.
...to me too, sometimes.
> Taking multiple shots and hoping that you
> get the right exposure .... for the given .... conditions is also a pain.
So, who does this? Not me. If you study the craft, there is a
predictability to your results. Get a book on Zone System and read it.
Fred Picker's "Zone VI Workshop" book is nice and consise, really. It's
published by Amphoto. Then there's "The Practical Zone System" by Chris
Johnson, published by Focal Press. After this, check out Ansel Adams'
series (The Camera, The Negative, and The Print).
If you bother to check out the "Zone VI Workshop", I think you'll find
it a rewarding experience.
snip
> So, the way I figure
> it, when the resolutions get high enough (i.e. ~3k x 4K), the best
> solution for me is to capture digitally, but utilize film recorders to
> store traditionally. That way I get my immediacy and on the spot
> inspection of shots, but I can still store shots the way they've been
> stored for years. I simply end up exchanging my film scanner, for a
> film recorder.
Agreed, for 35mm only. For medium and large format, 3k x 4K is nowhere
near acceptable.
snip
> Your making an assumption. I computer is not necessary to utilize a
> digital camera. As a matter of fact, I think the main benefit of
> digital cameras to most comsumers is that they won't have to buy film.
That's not much of a benefit. The main benefit to consumers is
convenience/speed (not having to take it out for processing, wait, and
pick it up from being processed). They'll still need to buy hard drives
or CDs to store the stuff on. CDs/hard drives vs. negatives, it's all
storage media.
The main benefit overall IS being able to manipulate/touch-up the image
on a PC. However, it's also a drawback, because how do you know what's
real anymore? It's easier to make an undetectable fake now. I don't
see this as a positive thing. The political propagandists of WWII would
be jumping for joy if they'd had the ability to digitally manipulate
images.
snip
> But they are fundamentally different photo capturing technologies. It
> not just about advancing emilsion technology. The flexibility of
> digital capturing and previewing simply can't be matched by film.
Which is why they should exist side-by-side.
snip
> I don't believe they will live side by side in the general market
> place
> once camera resolutions are high enough at competitive prices and
> support systems (digital photo labs) are in place. The advantages to
> the average user are just too great.
We're not all average users. There's the Point & Shooters, the Serious
Hobbyists, and the Pros.
Mac
Mac Breck
Rob Landry wrote:
> Hey Mac,
> I'm glad you agree with me, and by all means DO try retreating to a
> larger format, you'll definitely escape the auto everything "masses"
> and
> enjoy truly superior image quality in the meantime.
Maybe I will, with a 6x7 rollfilm back. 6x7 is at least a lot better
than 35mm, imagewise. The added advantage is that *all* my lenses will
be tilt & shift.
snip
> If you read the Large format newsgroup, you certainly will be
> dealing with a more informed crowd, and you won't read all this
> digital vs. film crap, cause we know where the quality is.
> The 35 mm newsgroups are over-run with equipment junkies!
More like "Point & Shoot, I Don't Want To Have To Think" junkies. 35mm
isn't bad, as long as YOU KNOW how to properly expose, develop, and
print.
Mac
Mac Breck
Michael Greer wrote:
> Rob Landry wrote:
> > Me too, with my F2AS, FM, and FM2's, manual focus Nikkors,
> practicing
> >
> > > Zone System, and making fine B+W prints in my darkroom. Never had
> > any
> > > problems down to -24 degrees F (-60F wind chill).
> > >
> > > You'd be surprised how many people don't know that exposure meters
> > are
> > > calibrated to deliver 18% grey. Whenever I bring it up, a glazed
> > look
> > > comes over their eyes! Then, if I bring up exposure latitude of
> > various
> > > films, or the concept of depth of field, I can really put their
> > brain on
> > > "TILT".
> > >
> > > Mac - A 40 yr.old "old fogie" who started 35mm in 1975.
> >
snip
> You are destined to end up like the audio purists who insist that one
> can hear the difference between vinyl records and CDs.
Hmmm. I guess you've never seen a fine print made from a large format
negative, have you? If you ever do get to see one, you'll notice that
as you look at it, you keep seeing more and more detail. If you look at
a 35mm enlargement (say 11x14), you can take in all the visual
information quickly. Do the same with an 11x14 made from a 4x5
negative, and it'll take a lot longer to take it all in. There's more
info there. It's more like real life, like a window, not a picture.
The audio comparison is not valid.
> You can be a satisfied digital shooter with no interest in computers,
> and recognize the features and flexibility that DCs offer over film
> cameras simply on their own individual merit.
This is true only if your interest is very superficial. This is for the
Point & Shooters and photojournalists. The former are not familiar with
high quality. The latter NEED speed and have the big bucks for
acceptable quality.
> Your snobby, nose in the
> air, I know more than these pitiful no nothings attitude is not very
> becoming. If they are so much more "knowlegable" over in the large
> format newsgroup, then why are you here? This IS after all a DIGITAL
> photo newsgroup.
It's also in the 35mm newsgroup. It's a cross-over subject. Besides,
the digital people are *more than happy* to denounce film.
> By the way, if digital cameras are not dominating the camera scene in
> 10
> years as far as camera sales are concerned, then I'll be shocked.
> We'll
> just have to wait and see.
Maybe by then, there will be an affordable digital body to use with my
Nikkor optics. I hope so. Still, digital does not have to completely
replace film in all applications.
Mac
Ken Janik
Mac Breck wrote:
> B.J. Major wrote:
>
> > You should only have them on Zip disks as the *backup*. The main
> > storage should be on a hard drive.
>
> If you keep 8x10 film resolution images on your hard drive, you
> obviously have one helluva hard drive!!! [An 8x10 image at even 300dpi
> and 256 colors takes about 30MB, and that's pretty poor resolution and
> color depth. It can't even compare to a 8x10 color neg or
> transparancy!] A server full of a half dozen or so 9GB hard drives
> would be stressed by this!
A CD holds over 500MB and they cost about $8 a piece retail. Even withthese
HUGE images, you can get about 17 of them per disk. Anyone who
is doing things of this magnitude will be able to afford a lot of CDs. DVDs
have higher storage capacities.
Picking a more useful size image, what most people will be using, gives
photo storage of approx 200Kb. I keep all my images as JPGs since they
are compressed. TIFFs are huge in case anyone didn't know.
This allows you to hold 2500 images per CD for a cost of about
0.32 cents per image. That's not 32 cents, that's 0.32 cents!!!
Almost EVERYONE is going to like this!!! And hopefully even you
can see why. :-)
If you take a lot of 8x10 negative images then maybe this isn't for you,
but in all reality it's probably still more economical.
Later,
- Ken
David Rosen
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Flip69 <fl...@pego.tiac.net> wrote:
: Does anybody really think that digital
photography will ever replace
: conventional silver based photography?
Unless something else replaces digital
before digital replaces chemical, yes.
In those places where digital already
*has* replaced chemical, your question
is in the wrong time frame.
In those places where digital is at
this very moment replacing chemical,
yes again.
Nobody really wanted photography to be
the chemical mess that it currently is,
but that is just the way it went given
the areas of industrial research that
were active in the times involved, up
until lately.
Even in chemical imaging, there has
been some success over the years in
eliminating silver from the equation.
David Rosen go...@capital.net
go...@acmenet.net
HOOTYisBlowingHisFish
Canon Eos users can relish the fact that it has plans to at some
future date release a consumer cost digital camera with slr
adjustments at a cost prosumers can afford. And we can still use our
existing eos lenses and flash. Best of both worlds at no risk of
getting stuck with out moded units.