Interesting pro-digital business issue
jjs
Our most sucessful local (well, nearby) professional photographer/studio
sold out several months ago. The original owners were a couple with thirty
to forty years experience and they were hugely sucessful. While their kind
of work is not what I'd like to do, it was a joy to watch them work - not a
motion wasted, very graceful and hard working. And they had _lots_ of work
(weddings, all the schools' team photos, yearbook work, studio and
environmental portraits, studio product work, passports, copy work,
restoration and more.)
And they used strictly film.
Then a young entrepeneur bought the business. He was 100% digital. The good
news was that the business he was buying was worth a bunch - well
established clientel, a lot of scheduled work. The bad news was he
completely missed the scaling factor of Being Digital in this area. He
worked day and night until he flamed out after several horrible months.
With film the previous owner simply handed over bulk processing to the
commercial processor who picked up and delivered (sometimes to the site).
The pro did photography, the processor made the negs and prints, his wife
managed the schedule and they shared the paperwork.
The young digital fellow was up all night "waiting for computer processing,
printing, messing with digital retouching, storage, backup,
computer-agonies, going crazy without enough help." And he burned out, sold
out. Now it is true that he basically eliminated the
hundred-thousand-dollars (plus) a year the previous photographer outsourced
to his processor and printer, but a little math showed that there was no
possible way he could afford the computer power and talent he needed to be
digital with the volume of work he had. Yeah, talent to run the computer
printing? Yep. Rare around here.
I feel for the guy, but it's maybe a lesson. Me thinks he would have been
better off using film and gently migrating to digital, but there also might
be the Bank Factor - banking on the $100,000 or so he would "save" to
finance the first couple years of hardware, and so-forth. You can't buy more
hours for the day.
Mxsmanic
> You can't buy more hours for the day.
Digital doesn't save time so much as it shifts it around. Remember, the
only thing that changes in digital is the image capture device.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
MikeWhy
news:10hsgbb...@news.supernews.com...
> The young digital fellow was up all night "waiting for computer
processing,
> printing, messing with digital retouching, storage, backup,
> computer-agonies, going crazy without enough help." And he burned out,
sold
> out. Now it is true that he basically eliminated the
> hundred-thousand-dollars (plus) a year the previous photographer
outsourced
> to his processor and printer, but a little math showed that there was no
> possible way he could afford the computer power and talent he needed to be
> digital with the volume of work he had. Yeah, talent to run the computer
> printing? Yep. Rare around here.
$100k buys a lot of talent. You seem far from stupid. What do you think the
real problem was here? Digital? or just no business sense?
Anyway, it reads more like a child's fairy tale. A parable for the learning
disabled.
Mike
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qulsh0964h4423350...@4ax.com...
> jjs writes:
>
> > You can't buy more hours for the day.
>
> Digital doesn't save time so much as it shifts it around. Remember, the
> only thing that changes in digital is the image capture device.
>
is the learning curve of most any good image manipulation software, IF the
photographer wishes to tackle it himself.. Based on what I have heard
talking to my MF customers, those who are making the switch to digital are a
little surprised on the cost (material and time) to ramp up for all digital.
One guy is having a problem with clients not wanting to pay his current film
rate; the clients says there is no film cost and after all ANYONE can shoot
digital.
WIll be interesting to see how digital shakes out.
Gordon Moat
> Posting here because MF (and LF) is what the pro used.
>
> Our most sucessful local (well, nearby) professional photographer/studio
> sold out several months ago. The original owners were a couple with thirty
> to forty years experience and they were hugely sucessful. While their kind
> of work is not what I'd like to do, it was a joy to watch them work - not a
> motion wasted, very graceful and hard working. And they had _lots_ of work
> (weddings, all the schools' team photos, yearbook work, studio and
> environmental portraits, studio product work, passports, copy work,
> restoration and more.)
>
> And they used strictly film.
>
> Then a young entrepeneur bought the business. He was 100% digital. The good
> news was that the business he was buying was worth a bunch - well
> established clientel, a lot of scheduled work. The bad news was he
> completely missed the scaling factor of Being Digital in this area. He
> worked day and night until he flamed out after several horrible months.
Just out of curiosity, in what city was this business?
>
>
> With film the previous owner simply handed over bulk processing to the
> commercial processor who picked up and delivered (sometimes to the site).
> The pro did photography, the processor made the negs and prints, his wife
> managed the schedule and they shared the paperwork.
Fairly common concept actually. I talk with a few of the pro lab reps around
where I live, and they report some change in business. The greatest impact has
been from a reduction in advertising spending, meaning less work for
photographers, and the labs. However, that is different from the business you
describe. Anyway, the basic idea of the photographer placing emphasis and
effort on capturing the images is a good working situation, though there are
some photographic businesses that can benefit from being totally in house.
>
>
> The young digital fellow was up all night "waiting for computer processing,
> printing, messing with digital retouching, storage, backup,
> computer-agonies, going crazy without enough help." And he burned out, sold
> out. Now it is true that he basically eliminated the
> hundred-thousand-dollars (plus) a year the previous photographer outsourced
> to his processor and printer, but a little math showed that there was no
> possible way he could afford the computer power and talent he needed to be
> digital with the volume of work he had. Yeah, talent to run the computer
> printing? Yep. Rare around here.
Shame really, since a graphic design, or printing specialist might have been
able to keep his business model going. There was an article in a recent issue
of Picture magazine about Digital Assistants. Basically, there is a changing
speciality amongst assistants, the type of gear they bring to a shoot, and how
they accomplish the end results. Not surprisingly, there is a learning curve
here, and like your unfortunate example, people will make some bad mistakes.
>
>
> I feel for the guy, but it's maybe a lesson. Me thinks he would have been
> better off using film and gently migrating to digital, but there also might
> be the Bank Factor - banking on the $100,000 or so he would "save" to
> finance the first couple years of hardware, and so-forth. You can't buy more
> hours for the day.
That is largely the complaints I have heard from advertising and editorial
photographers going to direct digital image capture. The drop off at the lab
routine has been replaced by time on the computer. While film and processing
were billed out in the past, the new digital model changes the charge structure
to the client, with a need for some creative wording. The client can often have
an illusion of direct digital being low, or no, cost; thus the photographer is
left again with educating the client, and justifying expenses.
I do think film and digital are complimentary in many professional situations.
Sometimes there may be more advantage to using film, and other uses might
favour direct digital (catalogue shooting comes to mind as an obvious digital
only choice).
In the future, those who want to remain in some professional photography realms
will need to know digital image processing (either scanned film, or direct
digital capture) in addition to all there other skill sets. Additionally, they
will either need a digital assistant, graphic designer, or printing specialist,
or they will need to learn to do that.
I don't think your example showed direct digital vs. film as much as it showed
not understanding all aspects of getting the final results. Maybe we will see a
mini boom in "direct digital only" photographic places, much like when web
design places popped up everywhere a few years ago. As that example of history
showed, only a few companies survived after the initial enthusiasm wore off,
and reality set in. The maker of digital cameras did a disservice to
professional photographers by making the general public believe in "free"
photography, but hopefully that will change.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com> Updated!
jjs
news:XluTc.824$qr5...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> $100k buys a lot of talent. You seem far from stupid. What do you think
the
> real problem was here? Digital? or just no business sense?
You didn't read the thread to the end.
> Anyway, it reads more like a child's fairy tale. A parable for the
learning
> disabled.
As I said...
Nick Zentena
> not understanding all aspects of getting the final results. Maybe we will see a
> mini boom in "direct digital only" photographic places, much like when web
Maybe aimed at the pro market but I wouldn't want any part of one aimed at
consumers. One local place was advertising 20 (25?) free 4x6 prints from
digital for just walking into the place. That's how little printing they're
getting. I think they are in the process of signing a contract with one of
major local cell phone companies. The hope being that will keep the machines
running.
Nick
MikeWhy
> > Anyway, it reads more like a child's fairy tale. A parable for the
> learning
> > disabled.
>
> As I said...
And what was that?
MikeWhy
news:411E794B...@attglobal.net...
> I don't think your example showed direct digital vs. film as much as it
showed
> not understanding all aspects of getting the final results. Maybe we will
see a
> mini boom in "direct digital only" photographic places, much like when web
> design places popped up everywhere a few years ago.
Exactly. Trying to hold down two full-time jobs was the fictional
character's downfall.
> As that example of history
> showed, only a few companies survived after the initial enthusiasm wore
off,
> and reality set in. The maker of digital cameras did a disservice to
> professional photographers by making the general public believe in "free"
> photography, but hopefully that will change.
I think it might be worst than that. The common person -- that would include
me -- believes he can do the shooting and processing himself, using the 5 MP
digicam he picked up at Best Buy. The real problem is that we're not doing
enough to elevate their understanding and appreciation of all that goes into
a simple shoot.
Mxsmanic
> $100k buys a lot of talent.
Perhaps 60 days or so, not more.
> What do you think the real problem was here? Digital?
> or just no business sense?
Digital as a consequence of no business sense.
Gordon Moat
I think you mean the kiosks, though if not that is another issue. The kiosks get
very little to no use in San Diego amongst consumers. The regular one hour places
look to be doing fairly well locally.
With the professional labs, they have seen an increase in their high quality
printing services, especially at larger print sizes. While I only talk to a few
places, they all know and talk to each other, so a local viewpoint is easier to
discern. JJS wrote of a consumer targeted professional business, though I have
little interest in that sort of direction for my work. Unfortunately, those that do
want the portrait and event direction for their work will have to contend with
places marketing "digital only" work.
At least in San Diego, the idea that the bigger camera implies professional portrait
photographer still prevalent amongst consumers. There are lots of RB/RZ67 cameras
and film still in usage on the beaches, and the more picturesque areas. Obviously,
this area is unlike other urban areas, so no conclusions to put onto other places,
but the reality is that high end digital is not taking hold amongst consumer
oriented professionals here. I'm still glad I am not doing that sort of work.
Mxsmanic
> Maybe aimed at the pro market but I wouldn't want any part of one aimed at
> consumers. One local place was advertising 20 (25?) free 4x6 prints from
> digital for just walking into the place. That's how little printing they're
> getting. I think they are in the process of signing a contract with one of
> major local cell phone companies. The hope being that will keep the machines
> running.
Photo labs have quite a nice future ahead of them. They still provide
the best prints on paper at the lowest cost, and most of the ones I've
seen are running at capacity. The only thing digital changes is that
customers bring in memory cards instead of rolls of film.
Gordon Moat
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:411E794B...@attglobal.net...
> . . . . . . . .
>
> > As that example of history
> > showed, only a few companies survived after the initial enthusiasm wore
> off,
> > and reality set in. The maker of digital cameras did a disservice to
> > professional photographers by making the general public believe in "free"
> > photography, but hopefully that will change.
>
> I think it might be worst than that. The common person -- that would include
> me -- believes he can do the shooting and processing himself, using the 5 MP
> digicam he picked up at Best Buy. The real problem is that we're not doing
> enough to elevate their understanding and appreciation of all that goes into
> a simple shoot.
That was my contention in a few threads several months ago. I really think
there is a lack of education amongst the general population. Too much of
photography beyond direct digital and 35 mm is completely transparent, with
some of that transparency at the college level amongst art students. Surprising
how many people think that any view camera must be an antique, even one that is
brand new.
If just the graphic design and art students would learn more about medium
format or large format, then they might be more inclined to use this type of
gear. Unfortunately, too many of the students can barely get away from the
computer monitor often enough to learn something different. Nearly all the
medium format companies offer student and educator discounts in the US, yet I
would be surprised if those programs sell many cameras nor lenses.
Stacey
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:411E794B...@attglobal.net...
>> I don't think your example showed direct digital vs. film as much as it
> showed
>> not understanding all aspects of getting the final results. Maybe we will
> see a
>> mini boom in "direct digital only" photographic places, much like when
>> web design places popped up everywhere a few years ago.
>
> Exactly. Trying to hold down two full-time jobs was the fictional
> character's downfall.
>
He should have researched if there was anyone locally who could do with his
digital capture what the old lab did with film. If not he needed to either
hire this out somehow or stick with film until he found a solution. It does
appear people expect to not have to pay the same for digital since there is
no film cost, like the time to "process" the digital file isn't worth
anything?
--
Stacey
Gregory Blank
wrote:
> He should have researched if there was anyone locally who could do with his
> digital capture what the old lab did with film. If not he needed to either
> hire this out somehow or stick with film until he found a solution. It does
> appear people expect to not have to pay the same for digital since there is
> no film cost, like the time to "process" the digital file isn't worth
> anything?
Walmart 24 cents a 4x6.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Gregory Blank
Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Surprising how many people think that any view camera must
> be an antique, even one that is brand new.
Almost every single person by my experience (as well).
Udie Lafing
"MikeWhy" <mik...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>A parable for the learning disabled.
It suits you well then.
Sandy
processing,
> printing, messing with digital retouching, storage, backup,
> computer-agonies, going crazy without enough help." And he burned out,
sold
> out.
Sounds like he didn't know what he was doing. People who don't usually fail
regardless of the particular endeavor.
"jjs" <jo...@mychain.stafford.net> wrote in message
news:10hsgbb...@news.supernews.com...
Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee
at the time.
In other areas where not having to have something developed is a boon, it is
an advantage. I am a hospital surgical pathologist and digital imaging is
terribly useful in my business, being able to lug a laptop with loads of
digial images to a surgical meeting to show them, rather than relying on
slide, or worse the original glass slides.
However, those advantages apart, film is better. It makes you more
deliberate, has better exposure latitude, better resolution, despite what
some people persist in believing, and scanned gives you the best of both
worlds.
I've done weddings as presents for people, mostly relatives and use digital
and film. The digital takes a bit of work.
Mxsmanic
> The REAL advantage of digital photography is that you can see what you have
> at the time.
It's only an advantage if you don't really know what you're doing.
Digital photographers miss about half their shots because they spend 50%
of the time looking down at the screen to see what they've shot the
other 50% of the time. You'd think that if digital shooting is really
so cheap, they'd just shoot away and sort it out later, but they can't
resist looking at what they've just shot, after every shot. Even
professional press photographers do this. It's a waste of time, but
it's amusing to watch.
Neil Gould
> The REAL advantage of digital photography is that you can see what
> you have at the time.
>
That's not an advantage to a REAL photographer. We know what we have right
after the shutter button is pressed (interestingly, except for still life,
that's not true of direct digital).
Neil
Nick Zentena
>
> I think you mean the kiosks, though if not that is another issue. The kiosks get
> very little to no use in San Diego amongst consumers. The regular one hour places
> look to be doing fairly well locally.
No it's a rather large consumer chain. With film you would drop off a
roll of film and get 24 prints even if you didn't want them. With digital
you print only the ones you want. Worse a certain percentage of users are
home printing. I guess I should say they are getting less printing then they
had hoped for. I can't see the current consumer setup lasting without a
major shake out.
Nick
jjs
> Exactly. Trying to hold down two full-time jobs was the fictional
> character's downfall.
Hello, Gordon. It is a true case, but when you (I think it was you) asked
where this was it occured to me that the world is now very small and I
dearly do not want to hurt the individual. Sometimes it's best to let a
lesson be learned.
Most people missed two points of the post. I accept blame for not using BIG
TYPE. The issues are 1) the Banking thing - where a bank was probably
similarly deluded by the Digital Promise and let an individual 'save'
$100,000 on his investment by going digital. Yes, he ended up having two
(or more) full time jobs. The other issue is that there is so very little,
if any, reliable digital expertise here; there is noone who can become the
man's digital darkroom _even if he could afford it_, which he probably could
not because of the error in the business plan.
Now I hope the case is a bit clearer.
Gregory Blank
"Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
> >
> That's not an advantage to a REAL photographer. We know what we have right
> after the shutter button is pressed (interestingly, except for still life,
> that's not true of direct digital).
>
> Neil
Their are quite a few factors that make your assertions in these contexts
questionable.
MikeWhy
news:Bugs_trapped-28AA...@news.verizon.net...
> In article <2o81ioF...@uni-berlin.de>, Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > He should have researched if there was anyone locally who could do with
his
> > digital capture what the old lab did with film. If not he needed to
either
> > hire this out somehow or stick with film until he found a solution. It
does
> > appear people expect to not have to pay the same for digital since there
is
> > no film cost, like the time to "process" the digital file isn't worth
> > anything?
>
> Walmart 24 cents a 4x6.
Hmmm. As I said before, we're not doing a very good job educating the masses
about quality. Not even ourselves, it would appear.
MikeWhy
I wrote that, actually. I don't think anyone missed the point. It's what
we've been saying all along: the costs don't go away. They're just
different. They might be less; they might even be more; but they're still
there. Remoteness isn't the issue in this age of instant communication. Just
the same, it's difficult to imagine a locale so off the beaten track that
enough money couldn't induce "talent" to setup shop. The problem, of course,
was that there wasn't enough money.
His mistake is fundamental to all businesses: his facilities didn't scale to
keep up with volume, with no provision for relief. The investors screwed up
too, and showed their own lack of experience. There's little like being in a
fifty foot deep hole with only twenty feet of rope to climb back out to
teach a man about hubris. I hope to never be there myself.
Gordon Moat
Okay, so that is the kiosks and one hour chains. I am shopping in Target probably
twice a week, and I always go by their one hour photo set-up. They have a direct
digital printing option they will do, and also a kiosk in both stores I frequent. The
kiosk gets almost no usage, and the drop off you digital printing service gets only a
little usage. I imagine that this usage pattern could be the same in many other
places, at least going by industry comments (like PMAI and others).
A few years ago, PMAI figures showed less than 11% of direct digital camera users
actually printed anything. Now the latest figures are around 22% of all direct digital
camera users printing images. The largest usage remains e-mail. Manufacturers have
tried to make easier printing options for consumers, yet it really have not made much
of a difference, and the majority are still not printing anything. Direct from camera
to printer choices, and even kiosks, have failed to make much of a change in the
market.
I agree with the major shakeout. Unfortunately, the next step, according to PMAI
reports, is that manufacturers will be going after the camera phone market to get
those users to print their images. I think that is an even worse direction, but
obviously those in the industry hope it will generate large profits. To back this up a
bit, the same PMAI figures indicate that of the about 22% printing from digital
images, less than a fifth of those people reported using commercial businesses, or
kiosks.
These direct digital cameras, and similar devices, largely serve as devices for
sending images electronically, and I don't see that pattern changing much at all in
the future. While there are people printing images, using high end gear, or even
professionals using this direct digital gear, they are all the minority of the overall
market. The largest volume sellers are currently circa 3 MP P&S digital, and camera
phones, devices few of us here would consider using.
A professional really just needs to improve on the quality that the average consumer
can achieve. That is not really a difficult endeavour, especially with so many small
direct digital imaging devices in the majority. The other aspect which will never
change is that a professional should provide a unique vision not obvious to the
average individual; what I mean by that is that a photographer gains recognition for
their work by presenting unique and compelling imagery.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html> Updated!
Mxsmanic
> I agree with the major shakeout. Unfortunately, the next step, according to PMAI
> reports, is that manufacturers will be going after the camera phone market to get
> those users to print their images.
Are there really people that stupid in the industry? People with camera
phones don't even bother to keep their images, much less print them.
Maybe the oil-paint manufacturers should go after the digital camera
market, on the theory that users will eventually demand oil paintings to
duplicate their ink-jet prints.
Gordon Moat
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> > Exactly. Trying to hold down two full-time jobs was the fictional
> > character's downfall.
Not my quote, that was Stacey's comment to me . . . but anyway . . . . .
>
>
> Hello, Gordon. It is a true case, but when you (I think it was you) asked
> where this was it occured to me that the world is now very small and I
> dearly do not want to hurt the individual. Sometimes it's best to let a
> lesson be learned.
Fair enough. I was mostly interested if it was a city, or a more rural
environment, since I think that the reality of many cities in the US provides a
different business approach, which could provide some different realities (like
competition, public perception, etc.).
>
>
> Most people missed two points of the post. I accept blame for not using BIG
> TYPE. The issues are 1) the Banking thing - where a bank was probably
> similarly deluded by the Digital Promise and let an individual 'save'
> $100,000 on his investment by going digital. Yes, he ended up having two
> (or more) full time jobs. The other issue is that there is so very little,
> if any, reliable digital expertise here; there is noone who can become the
> man's digital darkroom _even if he could afford it_, which he probably could
> not because of the error in the business plan.
>
I think that is an easy, though unfortunate, mistake. The promise given in the
marketing of these devices has pounded the idea into people that the instant
feedback prevents one from taking any "bad" images. The other marketing flaw
has been to make the general public believe that it is easier to take images
with direct digital than with film, which again relates to the instant
feedback. A lesser issue is many people thinking that direct digital is higher
quality because it is newer technology, and only for that reason.
>
> Now I hope the case is a bit clearer.
Definitely. I am reminded of several articles I have read about product and
studio photography. Some well known names have commented in articles about
loosing clients to sudden in-house digital set-ups. Basically, the idea is that
these former clients suddenly think they can do it themselves, because direct
digital image capture is so much easier. I have even seen some of these places
expand to provide, and advertise, "digital imaging" services to others. They
are quite numerous at the printing industry, and graphic design, trade shows I
attend. The equipment does not make one a photographer, though it seems that in
your example, both the bank, and that individual forgot that.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html> Updated!
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat writes:
>
> > I agree with the major shakeout. Unfortunately, the next step, according to PMAI
> > reports, is that manufacturers will be going after the camera phone market to get
> > those users to print their images.
>
> Are there really people that stupid in the industry? People with camera
> phones don't even bother to keep their images, much less print them.
Scary stuff . . . unfortunately, this is one direction being pursued. I even see some
financial analysts writing praise for these ideas. Of course, when one large company
tries it, all the rest will do the same. Even Verizon and Sprint are making deals to
get this going.
>
>
> Maybe the oil-paint manufacturers should go after the digital camera
> market, on the theory that users will eventually demand oil paintings to
> duplicate their ink-jet prints.
I like that. :-)
I think a similar idea was started a few years ago with Giclée prints onto canvas. Now
it is somewhat common to walk into a Thomas Kinkaid type of place, and see
"embellished" prints. These are basically inkjet prints onto canvas, in which some
"highly trained" individual places some dabs of real oil paint to "enhance" the print.
The idea, I think, is to mimic the texture of an oil painting. My opinion is they
barely look better than paintings on velvet (like Elvis, or dogs playing poker), but
people do buy that stuff.
Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee
"Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
news:rtITc.25783$Jp6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Recently, Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee <gl...@iol.ie> posted:
>
> > The REAL advantage of digital photography is that you can see what
> > you have at the time.
> >
> That's not an advantage to a REAL photographer. We know what we have right
> after the shutter button is pressed
I'm sure you do.
Have you never left exposure compensation on by mistake, or double exposure,
or had the flash not fire, or had the wrong sync speed, or the wrong film,
or a malfunctioning shutter which only partly exposed the frame???
Of course you hadn't, you clever chap, but I have, and I'll bet everyone
else reading this has had most or not all of these.
Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee
Bill Hilton
>>> you have at the time.
>>"Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
>>
>> That's not an advantage to a REAL photographer. We know what we have right
>> after the shutter button is pressed
>From: "Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee" gl...@iol.ie
>
>I'm sure you do.
>Have you never left exposure compensation on by mistake, or double exposure,
>or had the flash not fire, or had the wrong sync speed, or the wrong film,
>or a malfunctioning shutter which only partly exposed the frame??
Not Neil, not ever. He's so sure he got it right he only takes one shot and
ships it to the client without even bothering to look at it :)
Mxsmanic
> Have you never left exposure compensation on by mistake, or double exposure,
> or had the flash not fire, or had the wrong sync speed, or the wrong film,
> or a malfunctioning shutter which only partly exposed the frame???
Almost never--certainly nowhere near enough to justify a move to
digital. Digital won't fix some of these things, anyway--a
malfunctioning shutter won't start to function just because the
photographer notices that it's malfunctioning.
> Of course you hadn't, you clever chap, but I have, and I'll bet everyone
> else reading this has had most or not all of these.
Not often enough to be worth worrying about.
Gregory Blank
"MikeWhy" <mik...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Walmart 24 cents a 4x6.
>
> Hmmm. As I said before, we're not doing a very good job educating the masses
> about quality. Not even ourselves, it would appear.
I stated that tongue in cheek, but the marketing wizard that I am
if I can turn that 24 cent print into a 3$ sale and its on Crystal
archive paper,.....well it beats inkjeting the image and I can do other
stuff whilest the prints are made.
Nick Zentena
>
> I agree with the major shakeout. Unfortunately, the next step, according to PMAI
> reports, is that manufacturers will be going after the camera phone market to get
> those users to print their images. I think that is an even worse direction, but
> obviously those in the industry hope it will generate large profits. To back this up a
I don't think the goal is profits. It's more market share grab. Sooner or
later we'll get to the point that people won't have enough volume to run the
machines. The cell phone deals will channel volume to the companies
involved. It won't generate much in the way of profits. The cell companies
get a cut off the top. You've still got all the other costs. But by having
the volume it lets the machines run with an overall profit.
Nick
Paul Friday
<mo...@attglobal.net> writes
>They
>are quite numerous at the printing industry, and graphic design, trade shows I
>attend. The equipment does not make one a photographer, though it seems that in
>your example, both the bank, and that individual forgot that.
As someone else quoted - "buy a camera and you are a photographer, buy a
piano and you are a piano owner". There's a difference between playing
chopsticks and Mozart on a camera.
(speaking as a chopsticks player myself)
--
----------------------------
Paul Friday
Paul Friday
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> writes
>but they can't
>resist looking at what they've just shot, after every shot. Even
>professional press photographers do this. It's a waste of time, but
>it's amusing to watch.
According to an intelligent radio programme here, it's called
'chimping'.
Thought to be because they look at the little screen going "ooh, ooh,
ooh".
--
----------------------------
Paul Friday
jjs
> In article <rtITc.25783$Jp6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > That's not an advantage to a REAL photographer. We know what we have
right
> > after the shutter button is pressed (interestingly, except for still
life,
> > that's not true of direct digital).
> >
> > Neil
>
> Their are quite a few factors that make your assertions in these contexts
> questionable.
No there aren't. Professionals who do this all day know when, for example,
someone blinks. Regardless, they make another shot or two. It ain't rocket
science; it's all about experience.
jjs
news:cfog41$ce1$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> Have you never left exposure compensation on by mistake, or double
exposure,
> or had the flash not fire, or had the wrong sync speed, or the wrong film,
> or a malfunctioning shutter which only partly exposed the frame???
No. What professional photographer of any worth makes such mistakes? It's
ludicrous to bring in amateur, part-time "photographers'" mistakes into this
discussion.
Real volume pros don't live on Usenet so you won't be trampled as you should
be. Get friggin real.
John J
exposure/balance, colour, whatever, can not possibly be allowed to call
themselves a REAL photographer. I wonder if clip testing renders a
photographer "unREAL". And what if I bracket, is this also poor practice
which disqualifies me from possibly calling myself a REAL photographer?
The real advantage of digital is that every image is effectively also a
polaroid...
JJ
jjs
news:cfot7f$9hi$1...@arachne.labyrinth.net.au...
[ replying to JJS]
> > No there aren't. Professionals who do this all day know when, for
example,
> > someone blinks. Regardless, they make another shot or two. It ain't
rocket
> > science; it's all about experience.
> >
> So on that basis anyone who uses a polaroid to test lighting,
> exposure/balance, colour, whatever, can not possibly be allowed to call
> themselves a REAL photographer.
You won't get anywhere trying to stretch the argument to extremes. We were
not talking aobut those issues.
> The real advantage of digital is that every image is effectively also a
> polaroid...
We don't need instant-previews for everything. If you have to preview
everything, you aren't a pro. You may be an artist, or a dillitante, or a
rank poor wannabe, but you ain't a pro.
Neil Gould
> "jjs" <jo...@mychain.stafford.net> wrote in message
>>
>> "Gregory Blank" <Bugs_t...@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Their are quite a few factors that make your assertions in these
>>> contexts questionable.
>>
>> No there aren't. Professionals who do this all day know when, for
>> example, someone blinks. Regardless, they make another shot or two.
>> It ain't rocket science; it's all about experience.
>>
> So on that basis anyone who uses a polaroid to test lighting,
> exposure/balance, colour, whatever, can not possibly be allowed to
> call themselves a REAL photographer.
>
That is absurd. Set design, setup, and all other preparatory work is in
support of taking the shot. It has no bearing on the media used.
> I wonder if clip testing renders
> a photographer "unREAL". And what if I bracket, is this also poor
> practice which disqualifies me from possibly calling myself a REAL
> photographer?
>
If one just shoots willy-nilly, then perhaps not. If one doesn't know what
they're going to get once they've pressed the shutter button, then they
simply lack experience. It's not anywhere near a random outcome to the
experienced photographer.
Neil
Neil Gould
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
> news:rtITc.25783$Jp6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Recently, Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee <gl...@iol.ie> posted:
>>
>>> The REAL advantage of digital photography is that you can see what
>>> you have at the time.
>>>
>> That's not an advantage to a REAL photographer. We know what we have
>> right after the shutter button is pressed
>
> I'm sure you do.
> Have you never left exposure compensation on by mistake, or double
> exposure, or had the flash not fire, or had the wrong sync speed, or
> the wrong film, or a malfunctioning shutter which only partly exposed
> the frame???
>
> Of course you hadn't, you clever chap, but I have, and I'll bet
> everyone else reading this has had most or not all of these.
>
Equipment failures, errors, and such are unavoidable. And, when you've
worked with digital long enough, you'll have media failures, calibration
errors, and files that just plain don't work for reasons that nobody
figures out. So, if you get "warm fuzzies" by seeing the shot on your
camera's tiny screen and think you're home safe, think again. Accidents
and errors do not make one medium superior to another, and are therefore
just straw men in this context.
Neil
Bob Monaghan
are digital failures harder or easier to detect on the scene than film
camera failures? I have discovered some problems with mechanical cameras
using some simple tests during film loading (check lens stops down quickly
etc.). Simply fix (swap lenses or switch to backup camera body,
replace batteries etc.).
Clearly some digital camera failures would be easy to detect as well. But
a corrupted drive or card might be undiscovered until returning from a
shoot or trip? Batteries not charged (power turned off at night in some
resort locations I've been at ;-)? etc.
How does digital camera problems stack up against film camera problems?
--
***********************************************************************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
jjs
A person who swears that digital is fool-proof has just given proof he's a
fool. But we all know that.
Mxsmanic
> The real advantage of digital is that every image is effectively also a
> polaroid...
That's also a real disadvantage of digital.
Mxsmanic
> are digital failures harder or easier to detect on the scene than film
> camera failures?
That depends on when they occur.
MikeWhy
> In article <HzOTc.1202$DT5...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
> "MikeWhy" <mik...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > Walmart 24 cents a 4x6.
> >
> > Hmmm. As I said before, we're not doing a very good job educating the
masses
> > about quality. Not even ourselves, it would appear.
>
> I stated that tongue in cheek, but the marketing wizard that I am
> if I can turn that 24 cent print into a 3$ sale and its on Crystal
> archive paper,.....well it beats inkjeting the image and I can do other
> stuff whilest the prints are made.
Of course you can. Even my bearded Aunt Jane can do that. A 4x6 hardly
challenges her 5 MP digicam, which was rather my point. What in heck does
she need you for?
MikeWhy
> If one just shoots willy-nilly, then perhaps not. If one doesn't know what
> they're going to get once they've pressed the shutter button, then they
> simply lack experience. It's not anywhere near a random outcome to the
> experienced photographer.
I don't bracket *every* shot, but I suppose I should take lessons from such
as yourself. The histogram is an extraordinarily useful tool, on par in
importance with a good metering system. Tools are good, even if some can be
used as crutches.
How did we get here from talking about a business that failed from poor
planning?
Stacey
> In article <2o81ioF...@uni-berlin.de>, Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> He should have researched if there was anyone locally who could do with
>> his digital capture what the old lab did with film. If not he needed to
>> either hire this out somehow or stick with film until he found a
>> solution. It does appear people expect to not have to pay the same for
>> digital since there is no film cost, like the time to "process" the
>> digital file isn't worth anything?
>
> Walmart 24 cents a 4x6.
>
Wow and they "process" the digital files before they print them, color
balance and sharpen etc? What a deal!
--
Stacey
zeitgeist
> Posting here because MF (and LF) is what the pro used.
>
> Our most sucessful local (well, nearby) professional photographer/studio
> sold out several months ago. The original owners were a couple with thirty
> to forty years experience and they were hugely sucessful. While their kind
> of work is not what I'd like to do, it was a joy to watch them work - not
a
> motion wasted, very graceful and hard working. And they had _lots_ of work
> (weddings, all the schools' team photos, yearbook work, studio and
> environmental portraits, studio product work, passports, copy work,
> restoration and more.)
>
> And they used strictly film.
>
> Then a young entrepeneur bought the business. He was 100% digital. The
good
> news was that the business he was buying was worth a bunch - well
> established clientel, a lot of scheduled work. The bad news was he
> completely missed the scaling factor of Being Digital in this area. He
> worked day and night until he flamed out after several horrible months.
>
> With film the previous owner simply handed over bulk processing to the
> commercial processor who picked up and delivered (sometimes to the site).
> The pro did photography, the processor made the negs and prints, his wife
> managed the schedule and they shared the paperwork.
>
> The young digital fellow was up all night "waiting for computer
processing,
> printing, messing with digital retouching, storage, backup,
> computer-agonies, going crazy without enough help." And he burned out,
sold
> out. Now it is true that he basically eliminated the
> hundred-thousand-dollars (plus) a year the previous photographer
outsourced
> to his processor and printer, but a little math showed that there was no
> possible way he could afford the computer power and talent he needed to be
> digital with the volume of work he had. Yeah, talent to run the computer
> printing? Yep. Rare around here.
>
> I feel for the guy, but it's maybe a lesson. Me thinks he would have been
> better off using film and gently migrating to digital, but there also
might
> be the Bank Factor - banking on the $100,000 or so he would "save" to
> finance the first couple years of hardware, and so-forth. You can't buy
more
> hours for the day.
>
>
There are many factors that make or break a studio. I notice that few
studios survive transition to new owners, even when its employees that buy
out the owner.
being saddled with a mortgage for the business doesn't help.
the problem with blaming digital workflow issues (yeah I miss the dropping
off and picking up finished orders done right 3 days later with my local
lab) and spending a day processing images.
However, my local lab closed, from what I hear about other labs, chem
processing has gone to hell. There is NO investment in new machines, hardly
any maintenance, turn over is high and wages haven't kept up.
Used to be that a portrait studio made most of their income in the holiday
period. With digital, people are expecting prints same or next day,
compare that with the typical first week of December cut off for work
orders. That's three four weeks of portrait sessions going to the digital
lab.
John J
I agree that "chimping" is a bit ridiculous and generally a waste of time
but there are many real situations where instant feedback is a real benefit.
I regularly use portable flash gear on location to shoot shiny objects
(cars) and would normally need to shoot 'roids' to test and be certain of
the result I will get on film. This has not changed because I still shoot
medium format film on a daily basis, but I also shoot digital, and find that
I can use complex or elaborate lighting setups more often with digital than
I could with film ONLY because I have very little time to achieve these
effects and would normally not have the time to shoot 'roids' (even though I
have a polaroid back for my 35mm gear). The digital feedback allows me to
adjust lighting to get the effect I want or minimise flare or reflections
which I might miss as my flash gear does not have modelling lights.
JJ
MikeWhy
> I can use complex or elaborate lighting setups more often with digital
than
> I could with film ONLY because I have very little time to achieve these
> effects and would normally not have the time to shoot 'roids' (even though
I
> have a polaroid back for my 35mm gear). The digital feedback allows me to
> adjust lighting to get the effect I want or minimise flare or reflections
> which I might miss as my flash gear does not have modelling lights.
Now you're getting somewhere. Digital's instant feedback, a polaroid
essentially, shot alongside MF and LF is pretty handy for light setup. But
that's a whole different topic from this simple knee jerk film-forever
sentiment.
Neil Gould
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
> news:D1UTc.23264$nx2...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> If one just shoots willy-nilly, then perhaps not. If one doesn't
>> know what they're going to get once they've pressed the shutter
>> button, then they simply lack experience. It's not anywhere near a
>> random outcome to the experienced photographer.
>
> I don't bracket *every* shot, but I suppose I should take lessons
> from such as yourself.
>
The salient question is not *whether* to bracket, but *why* one brackets
in the first place. As I was taught decades ago, and as I practice
bracketing, the purpose is not to get around a lack of knowledge about the
outcome. ;-)
> The histogram is an extraordinarily useful
> tool, on par in importance with a good metering system. Tools are
> good, even if some can be used as crutches.
>
The ability to use relevant tools is important in any endeavor.
Understanding those tools is more important. There would be no point in
having a histogram on a film camera, for example. And, there's no
advantage to a histogram if you don't have either the time or the access
to color balance control on a digital.
> How did we get here from talking about a business that failed from
> poor planning?
>
I think we're still talking about poor planning by those likely to fail at
a photographic business; it's just taken a different perspective. ;-)
Neil
Gregory Blank
"MikeWhy" <mik...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Of course you can. Even my bearded Aunt Jane can do that. A 4x6 hardly
> challenges her 5 MP digicam, which was rather my point. What in heck does
> she need you for?
Does your bearded Aunt Jane understand portrait lighting or know how to
color balance the files ? Those things will probably challenge even
"cough" some of you "pros". Cheap is cheap why not use it for what its
worth or is your nose too high in the air to fathom that?
Gregory Blank
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> John J writes:
>
> > The real advantage of digital is that every image is effectively also a
> > polaroid...
>
> That's also a real disadvantage of digital.
Why?
Gregory Blank
rmon...@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan) wrote:
> are digital failures harder or easier to detect on the scene than film
> camera failures? I have discovered some problems with mechanical cameras
> using some simple tests during film loading (check lens stops down quickly
> etc.). Simply fix (swap lenses or switch to backup camera body,
> replace batteries etc.).
>
Exposure failures are easier, and faster to correct if your shooting
weddings.
> Clearly some digital camera failures would be easy to detect as well. But
> a corrupted drive or card might be undiscovered until returning from a
> shoot or trip? Batteries not charged (power turned off at night in some
> resort locations I've been at ;-)? etc.
>
> How does digital camera problems stack up against film camera problems?
On par if you think ahead and have back up equipment.
Gregory Blank
is a real photographer regardless of the gear one choses to use.
In article <FaUTc.23270$nx2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
> Equipment failures, errors, and such are unavoidable. And, when you've
> worked with digital long enough, you'll have media failures, calibration
> errors, and files that just plain don't work for reasons that nobody
> figures out. So, if you get "warm fuzzies" by seeing the shot on your
> camera's tiny screen and think you're home safe, think again. Accidents
> and errors do not make one medium superior to another, and are therefore
> just straw men in this context.
>
> Neil
--
Gregory Blank
take your digi pix to you have to work with them just like if you
were scanning them or printing them yourself. No matter were you go
some amount of photographer input is needed,....I guess you've
never gone to a one hour lab, and gotten back poorly "CC'd"
prints that quite frankly sucked.
In article <2ob40pF...@uni-berlin.de>, Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
--
Mxsmanic
> The digital feedback allows me to
> adjust lighting to get the effect I want or minimise flare or reflections
> which I might miss as my flash gear does not have modelling lights.
One of my fondest hopes is that either film will eventually become
sensitive enough to make artificial light unnecessary or hot lights will
become affordable and cool enough that they can be used in place of the
hated flash. Modelling lights are okay but I'd prefer to see everything
lit exactly as it will be lit in the final photo.
Mxsmanic
> Why?
For much the same reasons that Polaroids are not usually the final
product. Convenience vs. quality.
Mxsmanic
> However, my local lab closed, from what I hear about other labs, chem
> processing has gone to hell. There is NO investment in new machines, hardly
> any maintenance, turn over is high and wages haven't kept up.
Sheesh ... where do you live? I see nothing like that where _I_ live.
MikeWhy
> > The histogram is an extraordinarily useful
> > tool, on par in importance with a good metering system. Tools are
> > good, even if some can be used as crutches.
> >
> The ability to use relevant tools is important in any endeavor.
> Understanding those tools is more important. There would be no point in
> having a histogram on a film camera, for example. And, there's no
> advantage to a histogram if you don't have either the time or the access
> to color balance control on a digital.
At a much more simple level, I'm looking for blown highlights and sometimes
to see if I can't open up another half stop to take better advantage of the
highlight resolution. That's all. No complex processing; no deep thinking.
Just seeing if I can grab a few more iota of value separation. I could just
bracket blindly...
MikeWhy
> In article <YYWTc.1271$RS....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
> "MikeWhy" <mik...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Of course you can. Even my bearded Aunt Jane can do that. A 4x6 hardly
> > challenges her 5 MP digicam, which was rather my point. What in heck
does
> > she need you for?
>
> Does your bearded Aunt Jane understand portrait lighting or know how to
> color balance the files ? Those things will probably challenge even
> "cough" some of you "pros". Cheap is cheap why not use it for what its
> worth or is your nose too high in the air to fathom that?
Yeah, I'm a bit snootish about it. If you're happy with a 4x6 print, you
wouldn't know enough to notice. A simple reflector and window lighting will
do just fine. I can show her how in five minutes using small words and
simple sentences.
Back on track, though, would you color balance the files for your $2.76 mark
up? How will you make your rent, and pay back the banker?
Gregory Blank
"MikeWhy" <mik...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Back on track, though, would you color balance the files for your $2.76 mark
> up? How will you make your rent, and pay back the banker?
Why wouldn't I? No one is talking major art work though,....I am
thinking selling cards using some stock imagery or gasp digi cam stuff
at flea markets and volume lots of volume.
Btw card included its more like 1.50 mark up.
MikeWhy
> What do you mean process? We both know regardless of what lab you
> take your digi pix to you have to work with them just like if you
> were scanning them or printing them yourself. No matter were you go
> some amount of photographer input is needed,....I guess you've
> never gone to a one hour lab, and gotten back poorly "CC'd"
> prints that quite frankly sucked.
Duh! That was the point of the thread. The actual print cost is small,
whether you print it yourself or drop it at the deli counter, compared to
the other costs. Processing takes time and some not insignificant know-how.
It gets to be a fulltime job, as it did in the anecdote that started this.
MikeWhy
> In article <wObUc.1401$vz...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
> "MikeWhy" <mik...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Back on track, though, would you color balance the files for your $2.76
mark
> > up? How will you make your rent, and pay back the banker?
>
> Why wouldn't I? No one is talking major art work though,....I am
> thinking selling cards using some stock imagery or gasp digi cam stuff
> at flea markets and volume lots of volume.
>
> Btw card included its more like 1.50 mark up.
That's fine. jjs started off on a different business problem. Peace.
Gregory Blank
In article <mQdUc.1584$_q6....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
"MikeWhy" <mik...@my-deja.com> wrote:
--
Stacey
> What do you mean process? We both know regardless of what lab you
> take your digi pix to you have to work with them just like if you
> were scanning them or printing them yourself. No matter were you go
> some amount of photographer input is needed,....I guess you've
> never gone to a one hour lab, and gotten back poorly "CC'd"
> prints that quite frankly sucked.
>
Duh? Exactly my point. With a good pro lab you drop off the film and they
deliver good prints without you having to "process" them first. With
digital going to walmart, it's going to suck unless -you- spend the time to
fix the digital files yourself. I doubt the old bussiness owners took their
film to walmart! And taking digital files straight from the camera to a
printer is going to suck too unless someone "processes" them first.
If there is no good digital pro lab, around like I said in the post you
responded with the "wallmart" coment, it's better to stick with what works
until you find a solution.
--
Stacey
Gregory Blank
wrote:
>
> Duh? Exactly my point. With a good pro lab you drop off the film and they
> deliver good prints without you having to "process" them first.
Must be nice to live in a perfect world. Answer what you mean process.
I doubt even the best labs spend much time fixing the Joe consumer
pictures, unless they know the photographer and are willing to cater
to the photographers desire to have good images,....in other words
whatever they can get away with.....if its biz as usual for the mini
labs.
>With digital going to walmart, it's going to suck unless -you- spend
the time to fix the digital files yourself.
Fixing them?
> I doubt the old bussiness >owners took their film to walmart! And taking digital files straight from
>the camera to a printer is going to suck too unless someone "processes"
>them first.
No one especially me thought they would, why even make that correlation?
Well if all the images were similarly shot and improperly exposed on
could batch the corrections and let one's computer make the corrections
and save the files etc,etc, etc.
> If there is no good digital pro lab, around like I said in >the post you responded with
>the "wallmart" coment, it's better to stick >with what works until you
>find a solution.
My comment was "again stated" tongue cheek, however if one spends enough
time working to get goods results at Walmart, surely one could do so
(All nose in the air snobbery aside).
jjs
news:8xbUc.1397$nt5...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> At a much more simple level, I'm looking for blown highlights and
sometimes
> to see if I can't open up another half stop to take better advantage of
the
> highlight resolution. That's all. No complex processing; no deep thinking.
> Just seeing if I can grab a few more iota of value separation. I could
just
> bracket blindly...
Is film more predictable in that regard? Experienced film photographers
don't need to see a preindicator of blown highlights, missing shadows.
MikeWhy
news:10i43tu...@news.supernews.com...
I could shoot it and leave it, and perhaps bracket blindly if I were
uncertain. This is no different from shooting film, which cannot give you a
preview no matter how badly you want or need it.
To answer your question more fully, because you asked and not because I'm
pounding a drum for any technology... Digital is not much different from
shooting slides. It's somewhat unforgiving of overexposure; and
underexposure also, for that matter. I check the histogram when I'm
concerned about highlight detail. Keep in mind that this is a personal
quirk, not a requirement for taking acceptable pictures. I could just let
the matrix metering do its thing, and get a reasonable shot almost
everytime. However... The sensor's linear response makes the contrast curve
an exponential: flattish in the shadows, and steeper in the highlights. The
higher up on the curve, the better the separation in values. Blowing
highlights off the top of course destroys the detail. I want the highlights
as close to the clipping limit as possible without actually bumping it. The
shadows will then have as much separation as possible, without sacrificing
the highlights.
The trade off? There isn't one. I'm using the camera as a very high
resolution, recording spotmeter. It's no different from me peering through
the spotmeter, twiddling with its dials, and then peering some more.
Chimping is something altogether different. I frankly can't get excited
about an unprocessed image on the tiny LCD screen.
JJS
> "jjs" <nos...@please.xxx> wrote in message
> > Is film more predictable in that regard? Experienced film photographers
> > don't need to see a preindicator of blown highlights, missing shadows.
> To answer your question more fully, because you asked and not because I'm
> pounding a drum for any technology... Digital is not much different from
> shooting slides. It's somewhat unforgiving of overexposure; and
> underexposure also, for that matter. I check the histogram when I'm
> concerned about highlight detail. Keep in mind that this is a personal
> quirk, not a requirement for taking acceptable pictures. [...]
The Canon XL-1 that I use on the job has an option to superimpose a zebra
pattern over those parts of the image (through the eyepiece) that are
blooming, or close. Of course, it is not always correct, but it seems a fair
solution for point-n-shoot semipro still cameras. Dunno.
Neil Gould
That's the same method that pro video field cameras have used for decades.
But, in a point-and-shoot, it would probably be just as easy to
auto-expose the scene.
Neil
David J. Littleboy
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> zeitgeist writes:
>
> > However, my local lab closed, from what I hear about other labs, chem
> > processing has gone to hell. There is NO investment in new machines,
hardly
> > any maintenance, turn over is high and wages haven't kept up.
>
> Sheesh ... where do you live? I see nothing like that where _I_ live.
You've got on-site quality MF processing at a lab close to you. I'd think
that that would be the exception, rather than the rule, amongst most MF
users.
Even in Tokyo, getting decent MF developing is hard.
The local Fuji Frontier shop here used to send out to a decent lab, but they
changed labs. Processing went from 4 days to 7 days and the new lab leaves
clamp impressions on the middle of 220 rolls (and they cut 645 in strips of
4 leaving the edges of 1/4 of my frames exposed and can't be asked to cut in
strips of 3). Fortunately, I've found a shortcut (through a baseball
stadium) that gets the walk to the nearest real pro lab to closer to 15
minutes than the 30 minutes it takes by going out to the main street. Still,
it's an inconvenient pain, especially in the over 100 degree (F) Tokyo
summer.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Mxsmanic
> The local Fuji Frontier shop here used to send out to a decent lab, but they
> changed labs.
The same machines that develop 135 can also develop 120, as a general
rule.
Gregory Blank
do here in the US.
In article <cfugjo$2o9$1...@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> The local Fuji Frontier shop here used to send out to a decent lab, but they
> changed labs. Processing went from 4 days to 7 days and the new lab leaves
> clamp impressions on the middle of 220 rolls (and they cut 645 in strips of
> 4 leaving the edges of 1/4 of my frames exposed and can't be asked to cut in
> strips of 3). Fortunately, I've found a shortcut (through a baseball
> stadium) that gets the walk to the nearest real pro lab to closer to 15
> minutes than the 30 minutes it takes by going out to the main street. Still,
> it's an inconvenient pain, especially in the over 100 degree (F) Tokyo
> summer.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
--
David J. Littleboy
"Gregory Blank" <Bugs_t...@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:
> Why not courier your film to the lab like city photographers
> do here in the US.
Even with the shortcut, it's an hour round trip walk to the local pro lab
that does 120 in 2 hours (3 hours for 220). I haven't a clue how much two
bike couriers would cost, but normal next day delivery is about US$8 or so
here. So that's a US$16 surcharge: not acceptable for one roll. If I can
overlap one of the trips to the lab with an otherwise required shopping
expedition in that direction, it's not too painful.
My real problem here is scanning time: I wouldn't really mind a week
turnaround if they'd cut the film the way I want it and not leave clamp
marks.
Chris Brown
>
>The local Fuji Frontier shop here used to send out to a decent lab, but they
>changed labs. Processing went from 4 days to 7 days and the new lab leaves
>clamp impressions on the middle of 220 rolls (and they cut 645 in strips of
>4 leaving the edges of 1/4 of my frames exposed and can't be asked to cut in
>strips of 3). Fortunately, I've found a shortcut (through a baseball
>stadium) that gets the walk to the nearest real pro lab to closer to 15
>minutes than the 30 minutes it takes by going out to the main street. Still,
>it's an inconvenient pain, especially in the over 100 degree (F) Tokyo
>summer.
I'm most fortunate here in Cambridge, in that I live almost directly across
the road from a lab that will do process-only 120 E6 on a 4 hour turnaround.
Can drop the film in on my way to work, and pick it up on my way back.
jjs
area that has 120, 220 color film processing. They showed me the machine and
it's a straightforward commercial processor suitable for 126, 35mm, and
2.25" roll film.
Mxsmanic
Most _machines_ will do it; it's a matter of the lab being willing to
accept the work.
The excuse I usually here is that 120 and its ilk are so rare that the
borders of the rollers of the machines get dirty between rolls, and it's
not cost-effective to keep them clean just for the occasional roll of
120 that might pass through.