What is best for magazine covers?? Slides or negs??

[Christine Holzmann]

Hi all,
I have been away from a design shop for the last six years since I have been dealing only with newsprint having changed to working at the newspaper where I am now....so I have lost track with a lot of things...even things that should be of most common knowledge:(
We are starting a new magazine here at the paper and I want to know what the best medium would be to use to scan the photos from for the cover.....slides or negatives?? This is so I can tell the photographer what format I would like his photos in. I had assumed that slides would be the best, but it seems that most nearby prepress shops I have spoken with will only accept negatives. I am also assuming that prints will just not be good enough for the cover (unless I was desperate!!:). (The scanner I have here at work for scanning negatives & slides just doesn't cut it unfortunately, which is why I have to send it out to prepress)
Any helpful advice you can give me would be much appreciated:) Thanks in advance for your help:)

[Phosphor]

Nothing wrong with using a good photographic print, as long as the scanner captures all the data you need.

[Todie]

Most pre press scanners are better at scanning slides.
Times are changing though. You'd be smart to ask the pre press shop.

[Buko]

Slides are best if you are having somebody else do the scanning. there can be no question as to what the finished picture should look like. Negs are real subjective, I use negs but they are my pictures I know what they should look like. If the print is a good print I don't see a problem with that either.

[Christine Holzmann]

Thanks everyone. My initial preference is slides for the very reasons you mentioned Buko. I think second best is using prints then......at least you know what you are aiming for (as with the slides), as long as you start off with a very good print of course:)) I have just had a hard time getting local prepress departments to accept slides....they seem intent on getting negatives instead.
What happened is that for the first issue of the magazine, the photographer gave us slides. We had been expecting negatives, so of course we both had different assumptions prior to the job.....shows why communication is always so important:) It really is not a terribly big deal ..... but we had to send these slides out to a prepress place that is much further away than what we had planned on initially. I just wanted to be sure of what medium we should use from now on. Some people I have spoken with have been very adamant that slides & negs are the best way to go. Perhaps we shall just continue using slides for the cover and continue to use the prepress place we found......

[Lundberg02]

The workflow at our local newspaper is entirely digital, from capture to ready to print. Ventura County Star, Scripps. They went digital when they built a new printing plant last year. The graphics in the delivered paper are almost like a good quality inkjet.

[Doug Katz]

Christine, is digital photography out of the question? Except when an image is "not suitable" for digital capture (unusually harsh lighting, fast action, panoramic landscape, sharp-edged diagonals), I've been going digital to avoid the pitfalls described above. Three A3 magazine covers over the last four months... all digital. Fast, clean, and the clients' have been thrilled. Honest, it's the best way to go if your photographers have the equipment and inclination.

[n levenson]

I used to always go with film. But I'm finding in my work (high end catalog covers) that the digital files are actually cleaner.
Plus, in this little burg where Tony Bennett left his heart, we had a hard time finding anyone to even scan film! I had a hard time believing that one.

[Pieter Owen]

Don't know what kind of magazine you have or how your photographers work over there, but down here most fashion photographers prefer neg, but the rest will shoot to transparency (ie slides) – preferably large format. And, yes, if it works for you digital can be the ideal solution.

I guess it depends on whether your prepress company should right themselves after the photographer (who chooses a film for a certain look as part of the creative process) or vice versa.

I've found most prepress companies are adept at scanning transparencies, but very few do a good job at negatives. For negs, try to locate a lab that deals particularly with fashion photographers and you'll be on the right track.

Pieter

[Thurgood]

Pieter makes a lot of sense and states the true nature of what your options are in an intelligent, concise and thoriughly professional way.

[Jimmy P]

"thoriughly professional"

geez,, doo yoo ever spelk cheek? ; )

[Thurgood]

Yes I do, I have people like you Jimmy doing it for me.

Thanks again.

[Christine Holzmann]

Hi again everyone,
Due to tons of deadlines, I had not been able to check back here sooner. I think everyone's advice about going digital for the covers is GREAT!! For our newspaper we have already gone completely digital and the quality of the pictures are exceptional!! (Now WHY did we not even consider that for the magazine, I ask myself??) Thanks for reminding me about that:)) I think this will definitely be the direction we will be taking as it REALLY saves a LOT of hassle as well as having a lot of additional benefits (which I will not go into right now.....:)

[Allen Wicks]

8x10 *approx.*

San Francisco Magazine 8.125 x 10.875 + trim.
Tahoe Quarterly Magazine 9.0 x 10.875 + trim.
San Francisco City Guide 8.125 x 11.125 + trim.
Sierra Sun 8.0 x 10.5 + trim.
Wedding Affair 8.611 x 11.125 + trim

[Peter Figen]

...and remember that most magazines are printed at 133 line screen, even the covers, which further enlarges the image size when you drop the resolution to 266. Digitally captured image CAN be rezzed up considerably more than scanned ones with little or no apparent loss in image quality.

[Richard Rose]

Peter,

Magazine cover printing seems to have reached a uniform high level of excellence. Heat set offset predominates, it's gorgeous when done right and I've noticed an awful lot of printing done at 200 linesceen. (I'm a real geek about such things. I carry my loupe wherever I go.)

Rich

[Peter Figen]

Maybe some specialty mags print at 200 ls, but none of the fifty or so that I send send files do, including Rolling Stone, Wired, MacWorld, Peterson's Photographic, just to name a few. Every single one of them, covers and all are still at 133. I do agree that magazine printing in general is much higher and more consistant in quality than ever. I still have the ten year anniversary issue of Rolling Stone in a drawer. It's amazing to see how far they've come.

The real point I was making, is that most (not all) are printed at 133, making the use of a smaller file all the more viable.

[Richard Rose]

cclapper,

My experience is that transparency is the medium of choice by an overwhelming margin. In a lot of places, it's transparency or nothing. If the AD can't look at a medium format transparency on the light table, you needn't show up.

I agree that 150 linescreen is the most common. I don't dispute Peter regarding the magazines he named. I'm surprised that they are still at 133.

Rich

[cclapper]

I thought most quality mags were printed at 150. And what every happened to transparencies? I was always told they were better than slides. No?

[cclapper]

Yeah, we print newsletters here for the general public and they are not what I would consider high quality and WE print 150 linescreen. But I don't know about the mags Peter mentioned either. The average person would not be able to detect the difference between 133 and 150 anyway!

As I get older, I'm having trouble detecting the difference!

[g ballard]

>Peter) Digitally captured image CAN be rezzed up considerably more than

scanned ones with little or no apparent loss in image quality.

Peter,
Can you expound this point -- if you please?

I would think pixels are created equal, regardless of where they came
from...so how can one set of pixels be rezzed up any better than another
set?

PS, some neg-scanning threads:
g ballard "Nikon CoolScan 8000 Negative Scans" 9/23/02 3:28pm </cgi-bin/webx?14@@.1de5db4a/0>

[Thurgood]

Alan Wicks thoose are examples of aproximately 8X10 size magazines?

Man are you guys screwed up.

Richard carries a loop with him, just in case he has to inspect a magazine cover when shopping at the supermarket?

You're a bunch of mad man.

So long!

[Doug Katz]

g ballard, Peter will come along to speak for himself. My experience has been that a RAW image from my Olympus E-20 opens in PS at just over 6" x 8", around 14mb. This file -- uncannily -- can be resized 150%, 200%, 250%, depending on the image properties close to 300% with so little degradation that I assure you it's either imperceptible or at least entirely satisfactory for commercial (offset) output and even better for inkjet output. When I first started experimenting, when I first started presenting these enlargements to clients, I was stunned and incredulous, primarily because I, like most of us, have been humbled by the unforgiving limits on uprezzing scans, even top quality scans.

Now some will declare that this can only be because my quality standards and visual expectations are no higher than sea level... that my eye must be unrefined and simply unable to discern inferior resolution and color breakup... that my lupe isn't as strong as it should be and in no case as strong as Richard Rose's. No reason to argue this here one way or the other. Perhaps it's true of me and my clients. Perhaps not. Doesn't matter. All that matters is that you do your own experiments for and with your own clients. See for yourself what the limits on uprezzing are for your images and your purposes.

The intriguing question is WHY digital captures are so much more "elastic" than scans. I'll defer to the scientists on this, but one thing is excitingly clear, even to a pixel illiterate like myself: These captures are virtually NOISELESS. This fact has got to be a substantial piece of the uprezzing puzzle.

[Doug Katz]

Remarkably yes, BUT I have determined beyond a shadow that this is the case ONLY if you capture in TIFF or RAW format. The JPEG formats still suffer in the blue channel in precisely the way you'd expect (at least with my 5.1 mp Olympus... perhaps the newer, higher quality digicams are tackling this in superior ways).

[Doug Katz]

Well g, I didn't REALLY mean you -- personally -- have to experiment. I meant ONE has to do the trials oneself and never ever trust the claims of others (especially me) about the miracle of digital capture.

[Ann Shelbourne]

Doug:

The "noiseless" aspect is especially interesting.
Do you find that this holds true for the blue channel too?

[g ballard]

I don't have a digital camera to experiment on.

I have uprezzed 20mb scans to 100mb plus (GenFact).
At 100% on screen they look pretty scary, but print nicely...

[Ann Shelbourne]

Doug:

That is so nice of you.

I am thinking of setting your message in 72-point Bickham (now there is a glorious typeface!), framing it and hanging it above my desk.

Thank you.

:-)

[Doug Katz]

Ahhh Bickham. Glorious indeed. Like the lone Olympic ice dancer making the most graceful 3-turns on fresh ice. But you must be sure to use liberally the Alternates and Ligatures and Beginning and End fonts! And you must be sure to set far more eloquent words than mine.

[Doug Katz]

Ann, the flipside of noiseless is grainless. Digital images don't have that sensuous, almost palpable texture that I've seen, for example, in your beautiful pictures here on this forum (it's evident even in your JPEG versions on screen). Filters and plugins simply can't satisfactorily impersonate the grain of film in my humble opinion. (Personally, I love the grain of film. It's the visual equivalent of the fragrance of ink when you first open a new, high quality printed piece.)

[Ann Shelbourne]

I have a book showing examples of Bickham's penmanship (on which the font was based).

He could draw the most marvelous swans and things -- full of flourishes and swirls -- most of them in one continuous pen-stroke. As you say, the magic of that font is in the alternates, beginnings and endings.

Your prose is eloquent enough for me and it made my day.

[g ballard]

>Doug) flipside of noiseless is grainless. Digital images don't have that
sensuous, almost palpable texture that I've seen...Filters and plugins

simply can't satisfactorily impersonate the grain of film in my humble
opinion.

Interesting...kinda sends my curiosity reeling into the video-v-film debate. Film for "the look and feel" of the media...?

[Doug Katz]

Ann, one day... some day... I would be thrilled to see those examples of Bickham's hand. I imagine they're breathtaking. Who is/was this person Bickham, do you know?

And are you by any chance a fan of Hirschfeld, the Broadway theatre illustrator?

[Ann Shelbourne]

Doug:

George Bickham (1684 - 1769) was an English penman and engraver.
His book, "The Universal Penman", has been reprinted and Amazon have it.

This hopefully gets you to the right page <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0486206165/qid=1036198718/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7203310-6040843?v=glance>

I adore Hirschfeld's drawings -- just wish that i owned an original!

[Doug Katz]

I've ordered the book. Can't wait for it to arrive. Betcha I'm gonna be disappointed with the digitized version once I see his natural hand.

(I own an original Hirschfeld, "Fred & Ginger" and a limited run of "Chaplin." I let several other originals at remarkable prices slip through my grimy little hands because I thought their purchase would be frivolous and dissolute... regrettable decisions. Of course my self-restraint has allowed me to buy important things like my network cabling which, incidentally, is working perfectly, thank you very much.)

[Ann Shelbourne]

If your eye-to-hand co-ordination is good you will be able to create your own lettering in Bickham's style.

Unfortunately, mine is NOT -- so thank heavens for digitized fonts.

Glad the network worked out and enjoy the book.

[Allen Wicks]

FILM camera:
Analog image --> lens [lossy]
--> photosensitive, temperature sensitive, age sensitive film [lossy]
--> film grain [lossy]
--> lab processing [lossy]
--> processed film surface dirt, etc. imperfections [lossy]
--> scanner glass [lossy]
--> scanner CCD [lossy]
--> digitized image imported into PS

DIGITAL camera:
Analog image --> lens [lossy]
--> camera CCD [lossy]
--> digitized image imported into PS

[Ann Shelbourne]

So, by that reckoning, until the genesis of digital cameras, not a single first-class image was ever printed?

There are different degrees of "lossy" -- it depends on the competence of the operators.

[Allen Wicks]

No, it is just an example of some theoretical benefits of digicam images versus scanned film images. And perhaps a reason why 35 mm film scans uprez so poorly in comparison to SLR digicam images.

Obviously almost all quality images produced to date have been created on film. Unfortunately all those great film images had to include the horrid work flow processes of film processing and scanning, both of which are pure drags on the creative and production processes.

[g ballard]

I can feed back on the grain issue -- and uprezzing scanned negs.

Coolscan 8000 -- sharpening unchecked in Nikon software -- images come into PSD with obvious (not objectionable) grain pattern.

I can't seem to apply any sort of percievable sharpening in PSD without making the grain more noticable.

Further, the scan doesn't appear to need sharpening, nor does it seem to take sharpening well (because of the grain issue).

These are 100mb-plus scans, Fugi NPS 645 format.

MY POINT:
I can _now_ see that all pixels are not created equal (the grainless digital original vs film original)...I can now see how the film's grain pattern can make for a less-clean uprezz over the grainless digital original.

[Richard Rose]

g,

To be fair, "professional" Unsharp Masking involves sophistocated methods of eliminating sharpening in low contrast areas of images (open sky, etc) where grain and noise are most visually apparent. Due to the nature of digital image creation (scanner or camera) it is correct to also apply blurring in such areas to enhance the visual quality.

Such image enhancement is done in all digital camera firmware to eliminate noise. This is one of the reasons that digital camera images look so noise free. It's true that they don't have film grain to contend with, but sensor chips are not noise free themselves. Their processing circuitry cancels the noise. The noise cancellation is not accessable by any camera or software settings.

Because such image enhancement is already in the image, USM can be applied to digital camera images with little or no need for the smoothing methods in the USM applied to film images.

If equally good enhancement is applied both to 35 mm film scanning and digital camera capture, film should and DOES beat digital in image quality at the limits of enlargement up to about 8MP to 10 MP digital capture resolution. Within and beyond that range, digital wins going away very rapidly.

That means that PERFECTLY exposed, fine grained 35 mm film like Provia, Velvia or Ektachrome, scanned on a DRUM and EXPERTLY sharpened BARELY beats out D60 and D1 images in sharpness, and detail (but NOT grain/noise and NOT contrast smoothness) at high print magnifications (16 x 20).

Rich

[Ann Shelbourne]

If you change to Lab mode and sharpen ONLY the L channel and then save that History state, you can undo and then use the History brush to paint in the sharpening at varying intensities in only the parts of the image that require it.

Thank you Richard for confirming that film beats digital for sharpness and detail.
I suggest that you will still do best if you start with large-format film.

[Richard Rose]

You didn't read very carefully. It was a VERY back-handed compliment to film.

[Ann Shelbourne]

Maybe. But resolving detail is why one uses a camera in the first place.

Grain is of no significance if you choose the right emulsion, and the right-size format, for your intended print size.

This is truly a case of one size does NOT fit all.

[Richard Rose]

Ann,

Once again, you chose to read what you want, and to ignore the actual words and facts.

Image quality is the result of several factors. Sharpness/image detail is only one. Since the dawn of photography, lens makers have demonstrated superb images vs poor images and the factors that influence the visual perceptive process. Time and again it has been shown that camera systems with high resolving ability can produce images vastly inferior in quality to systems with modest resolution, but high marks in other image charcteristics (smoothness, contrast, low noise, etc.)

Don't take my words to mean that film can produce consistently better images than a D60 or 1D.

I said that under EXCEPTIONAL conditions, it is possible for film to deliver BARELY better resolution than those 6 MP cameras. In other areas of image quality the digitals routinely beat film and their printed images are visually superior. The barely better resolution of the film image does not contribute enough to the image quality equation to win the battle.

Beyond the 6 MP format, digital cameras outperform 35 mm film in EVERY image quality category. Right now There are 2 digital "35 mm" cameras that perform beyond 6 MP - the "small" sensor Fujifilm S2 at 12 MP and the "full 35 mm" frame Canon D1s at 11 MP. The Kodak 14n will be released before the holidays. All digital "professional" class camera production will now be on 11 MP and greater. "Medium format" quality is well within these camera's sights (645 quality is already possible) and will be a reality in another year.

You can believe what you want and keep reassuring yourself with misunderstanding of the facts, for whatever it's getting you. It doesn't matter.

You really ought to stop beating that horse. It ain't getting back on its feet, and you're really looking silly.

[Ann Shelbourne]

I am NOT talking about 35mm or even of 6 x 7.

You are stuck on the 35mm format because that is apparently where your experience lies.

I am talking about choosing the best tool for the job which means using the 4" x 5'' format -- and larger -- if you want to create BIG prints.

And by big, I mean 20" x16" and upwards. In fact I consider 30" x 40" to be about the limit from 5 x 4 -- and tht's assuming that the selected image fills the whole film-area.

You are hell-bent on forcing all photographs for all purposes out of your half-pint digital camera.
Because you can get some sort of result by uprezzing, you think that is the answer to everything. A smoothed mush, with badly resolved detail, is not acceptable for most subjects.

You are looking at this from a purely amateur viewpoint and THAT is what is both myopic and silly.

[Ann Shelbourne]

Richard:

My education, training, knowledge, and experience, in the field of professional photography is obviously very different from your limited, and amateur, dabbling in the subject.

These cameras that you are promoting so heavily are indeed suitable for many (but not ALL) fields in which the 35mm format (and, at a stretch, the 645) would be the format of choice.

There are many OTHER fields where small format cameras would be the LAST tool of choice; and this is what you are either unable to comprehend, or are unwilling to accept.

Your immediate response is to hurl invective at all who have the temerity to point out that you are NOT a professional and have no experience or understanding of the reasons for using large format cameras and, therefore, are not in a position to postulate on what equipment is suitable, or not suitable, in the professional environment.

For reasons that I am unable to fathom, you are promoting Canon Cameras and Luminous Landscape as if your livelihood depended upon it. Indeed, you seem to post a daily Link to LL's website.

And when you are challenged on the tenets of what has obviously become a personal religious quest, your only response is to sink to using the language of the gutter.

Even the manufacturers of these cameras do not make the exaggerated claims for their efficacy for all purposes, all branches of photography and all photographers, that you (and a few of your fellow amateurs) do.

The very fact that you get so rattled when people, with a lot more training and experience than you apparently have, point out the current limitations in the products that you are promoting; raises big questions in my mind to both your integrity and your financial disinterest in how many units are sold.

[Richard Rose]

Ann,

"You are hell-bent on forcing all photographs for all purposes out of your half-pint digital camera.
Because you can get some sort of result by uprezzing, you think that is the answer to everything. A smoothed mush, with badly resolved detail, is not acceptable for most subjects."

You just stupidly keep repeating the same distortions of what I have said and what others have said. You make value decisions based on no knowledge or experience with the systems you're talking about.

Ann, you simply don't know squat about this and you prefer to keep your head firmly up your butt. Enjoy the view.

[Bruce Fraser]

Ann,

You're doing exactly what you're (falsely, I may add) accusing Richard of doing. By your own admission, your experience of digital photography is confined to a brief period of use of the Nikon CoolPix 950.

Even the most rabid proponents of digital have fallen far short of claiming that digital is suitable or appropriate for all purposes, all branches of photography, and all photographers.

You really, really, need to get out and look at some serious prints in the 30x40 to 40x60 range. Hiding behind some bs notion of "professionalism" while spouting factually incorrect statements based on a total ignorance of the subject, and claiming that people who have done the work necessary to make real comparisons are amateur dabblers, really makes you look like a total bozo. Why are you so threatened by this?

[Ann Shelbourne]

Richard Rose is one of the most "rabid proponents of digital" and he IS currently << claiming that digital is suitable or appropriate for all purposes, all branches of photography, and all photographers. >>

That is my objection to his stance.

I am not in the least "threatened" Bruce but, as you say the better informed and more intelligent writers do NOT make such claims.

I would just like to see this subject discussed dispassionately, objectively and without the excessive evangelizing and intolerance to other viewpoints that now seem to permeate this Forum.

[Richard Rose]

Ann,

I guess it is appropriate that in this election period people can broadcast all manner of lies and mistruths. You seem to be a master of the genre.

"Rabid proponent of digital." What the hell does that mean? Does the fact that I use only Kodak 4 x 5 film because I have standardized on it make me a "Rabid proponent" of that film?

I have reported the results of tests by others, my own and have agreed with others as to the beautiful and professional results that we can now obtain from digital cameras. Enthusiastic? you bet. As enthusiastic as I was about the advantages of a drum scanner over a CCD flatbed when I bought my first drum. Rabid?

"(he is) claiming that digital is suitable or appropriate for all purposes, all branches of photography, and all photographers"

Totally untrue.

To your twisted thinking, enthusiasm that anyone shows toward digital camera results, based on factual data is the equivalent of, "He's a rabid proponent, he probably has a vested financial interest in that technology. He's trying to force it down our throats!!!!!"

No one has tried to force you to do anything. No one cares about your narrow minded inability to simply discuss technology without getting up on your soapbox to defend your personal view of the world.

Use all the film you want. Process it yourself to your heart's desire. But don't try to put word's in my mouth and don't dare categorize me with those same distortions.

Your method is to insult and demean to try to diminish the importance of others' contributions here. You've attempted it with me and others who have contributed regarding this topic.

If you want to add information, that's just fine. If you want to present logical reasons to disagree with something that's been said, fine. But your personal attacks and misrepresentations are counter to the rules of the forum.

You are being untruthful and dishonest and divisive without any justification.

[Bruce Fraser]

-->I would just like to see this subject discussed dispassionately, objectively and without the excessive evangelizing and intolerance to other viewpoints that now seem to permeate this Forum.

Then I strongly suggest that you try doing so yourself.

I've read every post in this thread. I didn't see the one where Richard claimed that digital is suitable or appropriate for all purposes, all branches of photography, and all photographers. He has made some statements about the capabilities of various digital capture technologies that are empirically testable by anyone who wants to do the work. He hasn't said ANYTHING about their suitability for ANYONE'S work.

You, on the other hand, keep coming back with fatuous (and incorrect, I may add) nonsense like "Thank you Richard for confirming that film beats digital for sharpness and detail." (When it comes to sharpness, the biggest limitation is the camera mount, followed by the optics, with the capture medium a very distant third. Scanning backs like the BetterLight and PhaseOne easily outresolve 4x5 film, and typically outresolve 8x10 film. Scanning backs have other major limitations, but they give the lie to idiotic blanket statements like the one of yours quoted above.)

Digital is a whole family of technologies with different strengths and weaknesses. You seem to be hellbent on treating it as a single thing. That makes about as much sense as lumping Fujicolor 1600 and Velvia 50 into a bucket called "film."

Richard has been fairly scrupulous about qualifying his statements -- the one you distorted was a very specific comparison between 35mm film and a couple of 6MP cameras. If you want dispassionate, objective discussion, try being objective and dispassionate. If you want less intolerance in the discussion, try being tolerant.

But most of all, if you want to be taken seriously, try gaining some actual experience of what you're talking about. I've never pretended to be a professional photographer -- I make photographs because I have to, and seen what people who are much better at than I am have to go through to earn a living, including in some cases completely losing touch with whatever impulse made them pick up a camera in the first place.

"Professional" just means that you get a check. It doesn't mean that you make better images than people who don't get paid. As a pro, you certainly have requirements that people who make photographs for fun or therapy or vocation don't have, but they generally have sod-all to do with image quality.

There are many reasons to prefer shooting film over digital -- I listed quite a few of them in a previous post -- but the peurile straw men you keep throwing into what started as a technical discussion simply don't exist outside your imagination. I know this because I have both done the work myself, and assisted much better photographers than I who have also done the work. It's painfully clear that you haven't done the work.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on anything, but I personally do not find very strong opinions that are formed without any acquaintance with the facts particularly useful. I'd even go so far as to suggest that if you discarded your blinkered prejudices, you might learn something even from an amateur dabbler like Rich. Anyone in this business who thinks they have nothing left to learn is simply delusional.

[Ann Shelbourne]

<< "Rabid proponent of digital." What the hell does that mean? >>

You had better ask Bruce -- it was his phrase!

I thought that it fitted some of the attitudes that you have displayed rather well so I quoted it!
[Don't know if you are actually frothing at the mouth -- but I can easily imagine that you are.]

:-)

And let those who instigated the personal attacks against forum regulars (whose opinions differ from yours) realise that their behaviour was even more "counter to the rules of the forum".

Continue that way if you must … but don't be surprised when I retaliate.

It's a two-way street Richard.

[Ann Shelbourne]

Two-way street…

[Richard Rose]

Ann,

All you do is retaliate. You think that this forum is your personal domain.

Your hostilty and bad manner is evident to everyone.

[Thurgood]

Ha, Richard is now claiming he is a victum!

Poor guy!

Now you don't think the Forum Host are going to be fooled by this tactic, give it a break!

You know Ann it is curious that canon only plans to release a limited number of their new D1 Camera, Do you think it is becuase they know it has so many problems that they don't want to risk a largfe scale recall and probably figure that they can sell it to a few hobbyist collectors and a few professionals that have only the need for it's limited use.

Without the wide angel what good is this piece of junk anyway. It is also curious that they did not have the wide angel zoom lens designed for this camera available at the show. I bet they are hiding something like chromatic aberration with the use of even the wide angle zoom lens designed for this camera.

And what's up with Kodak didn't even present it for review with anyone. Somethings wrong for sure.

I think they have to rethink this digital thing altogether.
And I was really hoping for some good news.

Well I wish them better luck next time around.

[Ann Shelbourne]

My guess is that there are still problems to be ironed out -- and wide-angle lenses could well be one of them.

They probably also are not sure that the price-point is viable under current market conditions. It would make sense to, in effect, test-market these cameras to determine the demand before putting them into large-scale production.

Maybe we are seeing the first public beta testing of HARDware?

[Thurgood]

It's a sad day when it comes down to this.

I was shooting in New England the other day and my client said he felt that he was being had the the company that made his digital camera about a year and half ago he bought the camera for a little over $500. It takes good pectures outdoor.
he can take really good landscapes with it but indoors it's nightmare if he uses the flash everything is washed out, and he can see what he is shooting on theLCD but when he gets it on the computer well it's a real crap shoot he never knows what he is going to get.

He really feels like he his paying for the manufacturers R&D efforts and that they taking advantage of him.

Now $500.00 may not seem like a lot of money for a camera but consiidering that this is a consumer product and that it is quite obsolete already after a year and a half. I certainly understand how he must feel.

Imagine the poor person who buys one these highend cameras thinking that it is going to make them sometying special when it is just going to be money thrown down the drain.

Maybe Richard will tell us all about it when he get's his $4,500 Kodak camera.

By the way Richard it is a Kodak camera the body is Nikon.

This should be fun.

[colorfulbird <colorfulbird]

No camera is going to take the picture for you. Whether its film or a digital capture, if you don't take the time to understand your equipment you'll have c%@p.

If everyone got exactly what they envisioned when they picked up film-they wouldn't need the pros.

A quote, "If it were easy and fun, everyone would be doing it".

[Peter Figen]

Hey Wade,

Maybe you ought to ask me. I've been told I'll have one of the first 14n's in L.A. As soon as I get it, I'll tell you all about it. I personally can't wait, but I'm not getting rid of film cameras either. Just another tool, but an indispensible one at that.

The time has come for commercial photographers to use digital whenever it's the best applicable tool for the job, and all the more often, it IS the best tool. Every one has to come to in their own time and on their own terms, but the sooner you embrace it, the sooner you work out the kinks in the workflow, of which there can be many. When these two new cameras start shipping in any sort of meaningful quantity, which should be early next year, you're going to see photographers by the thousands taking the plunge. The pre-sales deposits on these cameras are surpassing any expectations the retailers might have had.

[Ann Shelbourne]

Colorfulbird has got it right.

One of my main complaints about the way that these digital cameras are being hyped and marketed, is that the consumer is being "sold" the idea that these cameras are foolproof -- and that any user will become an instant expert.

Like Wade's client, they are being "had"; certainly with any of the products that are sold below the $1,000 level -- and that represents a not-inconsiderable slice out of the average family's budget.

[PShock]

Well, if Wade's client can't get good results with his $500 point and shoot, that's proof enough for me ... DIGITAL SUCKS!

Rich, you interested in this POS D60 I just bought?

Phil

[colorfulbird <colorfulbird]

Ann:

You missed my point. If Wade's client had photographic skills, he wouldn't be hiring someone else.

No-one is being "had". If you don't have basic skills, you won't have good photographs. Check the dumpsters behind one hour photo shops.

If you don't know why a camera shoots great outdoors and not indoors..well, you've got some homework to do.

I've seen some amazing digital imagery. And obviously, film imagery as well. It's all equipment-that's it. And the photographer will make it work to whatever he or she needs.

[Bruce Fraser]

-->Like Wade's client, they are being "had"; certainly with any of the products that are sold below the $1,000 level -- and that represents a not-inconsiderable slice out of the average family's budget.

That has not been my experience. Both my brothers-in-law and all their kids have digital cameras in the $500 range. Before that, they used point-and-shoot film cameras in the $150-$250 range (which were, I note, also hyped as being foolproof). They'd buy film at the supermarket, and get prints from a one-hour bottom-feeder photo lab. Figure about $12-$15/roll for film, processing, and prints. On a good day, maybe half of what they shot would be keepers. On a bad day, or indoors with on-camera flash, much less.

Now, they shoot digital, and simply delete the non-keepers in-camera. Zero film and processing costs. They email the keepers to friends and family (including granny, who has an iMac), and upload the "really good ones" to Ofoto, where everyone can order prints as they wish.

They're all extremely happy with their cameras. They REALLY like the fact that they can see the pictures right after they've taken them. Since processing costs are zero, they shoot more pictures, and hence get more keepers. They interpret that as getting better results from digital than they did from film. They rarely get prints larger than 4x6, but they've managed to get some 8x10s from Ofoto that are on a par with what they would have got shooting 400-speed color neg in a point and shoot and getting an 8x10 at Joe's One-Hour Photo and Bait.

Looking at the relative sales of consumer digital cameras and consumer film point-and-shoots would suggest that their experience is the rule rather than the exception.

[Thurgood]

Peter I definitely would not ask you. I think asking some one who tells you this is a great camera I can't wait to get my hands on it is not going to yeild an objective evaluation. I will wait for my colleagues here in New York to look it over.

I will then ask the magazines I contribute to how they feel about digital capture as opposed to film. If there is positive feedback from both those sources I will then ent the camera
for a couple of scouting assignments. If that works out I have a client who would go for digital capture. Use it for one of their shoots and see if under working conditions it is of value with such a client.

That particular client never related to the technical requirements of photography so digital migth be the answer for them.

Digital as far as I can see does suck. In one aspect it can perhaps save me time in another it forces me to do more work and spend more time. At a darkroom I can print ten images in three hours with relatively ease and excellent color. If I need ten prints of each image it would only take me a couple of minutes extra for each image.

The processing of the film is done by a lab. I need no equipment for it, the lab has all the equipment that is needed.

It is a pretty cut and dry procedure.

Digital however requires a lot of work on the computer after capture, and that would be my responsibility and so after shooting a job for three days I now have to take between 15 and 20 images load them onto the computers hard drive, start to sharpen and ehance each fileÉhey my work has just begun!

You're right PhilÉDIGITAL SUCKS!

You brought me luck the last time Phil I think it's going to work out again. Another magazine is interested in the project of this client as well. And they'll even pay me to go back with their stylist to shoot the project for their layout.

I have agood feeling about this one tooÉ

[PShock]

One of my main complaints about the way that these digital cameras are
being hyped and marketed, is that the consumer is being "sold" the idea
that these cameras are foolproof -- and that any user will become an instant
expert.

Explain how this is different for film-based point and shoots.

[Thurgood]

HmmÉnot one person I know personally has had a clean expereince with digital except my niece who is delighted with her digital camera, but she was delighted with her point and shoot as well.

However she is in the computer business and her husband is a computer trouble shooter so they know all about computers.

She did however send me a few jpegs from camera by e-mail and though they were small files I was able to easily print a very good 8x10 print on the Epson 1270. And it gave good color however compared to a photographic image the color was kind of flat. And kind of artifical. Does not compare to a photgraphic print.

True it is only a point ans shot camera, but on the other hand if given a neg from a point and shoot film camera, I would make it sing when printing it in a darkroom. Ther would be no comparison.

I love taking a crummy negative and turning it into a work of art.

[Philo Calhoun]

My experience echos Bruce's. I have a Nikon D1x with assorted Nikon lenses, and my children have a Sony consumer digital 3.something megapixel. They love the Sony and their consumer film cameras seldom get used. The instant feedback seems to actually help them learn to take better pictures. The cost in film for four children was pretty high before they got their digital camera. I shoot both digital and film, but over the past year use film less and less. Scanning slides was never fun anyway. Waiting for expensive drum scans was even less fun.

[Bruce Fraser]

Wade,

All that indicates is that your darkroom skills are a lot better than your Photoshop skills. I too love taking crummy negatives -- god knows I make enough of 'em -- and turning them into works of art. I just use different tools to do so. There's nothing wrong with preferring analog to digital when it suits your skill sets so much better. But you keep generalizing your very limited knowledge and experience of digital into some kind of absolute law, and you simply don't know enough to make those kinds of calls.

Editing on an uncalibrated monitor and printing to a 1270 through the Epson driver using the color sliders or Epson's canned profiles is as far away from editing on a color reference system and printing through a custom profile as getting a print from a one-hour photo lab is from making your own custom prints in the darkroom. But you don't know that because you simply haven't had the experience.

[Mike Ornellas]

so they know all about computers. <

really?

hmm..

[Peter Figen]

" I think asking some one who tells you this is a great camera I can't wait to get my hands on it is not going to yeild an objective evaluation."

Trust me Wade, I'm going to be the harshest of critics. You're right, I can't wait to get my hands on one, but judging from my past experience with digital cameras ranging from $500 point and shoots to a $23K H20, I fully expect this camera to exceed my expectations. In my past comparison tests, which include the DCS ProBack vs. E100SW and the DCS760 vs. Velvia, film scanned on my Howtek easily surpassed the digicams in sharpness. Studio shots where the lighting was easily controllable also went to film. The 760 had a better contrast range in bright sun than Velvia, but then, almost anything is better than Velvia in that situation. Sharpness again went to film.

"I will wait for my colleagues here in New York to look it over. "

Whatever suits you.

"I will then ask the magazines I contribute to how they feel about digital capture as opposed to film. If there is positive feedback from both those sources I will then ent the camera for a couple of scouting assignments."

Magazines don't care where their files come from. They only care that they print well. Most of the time they wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

"Digital as far as I can see does suck. "

Then it's obvious you can't see very far.

"In one aspect it can perhaps save me time in another it forces me to do more work and spend more time. At a darkroom I can print ten images in three hours with relatively ease and excellent color. If I need ten prints of each image it would only take me a couple of minutes extra for each
image. "

You still need to scan the print in order to reproduce it. More time. More money, plus, since you're scanning a second generation, less quality. Might as well just scan the original neg/tranny and skip the print.

"The processing of the film is done by a lab. I need no equipment for it, the lab has all the equipment that is needed. It is a pretty cut and dry procedure. "

I actually prefer my film uncut and processed wet.

" Digital however requires a lot of work on the computer after capture, and that would be my responsibility andso after shooting a job for three days I now have to take between 15 and 20 images load them onto the computers hard drive, start to sharpen and ehance each fileÉhey my work has just begun! "

Your absolutely right that there is more work involved, and that it's a big responsibility, but for me and a bunch of other photographers, that becomes a very lucrative profit center.

[Thurgood]

My photoshop skills are pretty excellent as well. And I make some pretty good prints on the Epson 1270 I also compared the digital capture file with scanned images and I would say with the same or similar results results.

But of course I would not expect that a comsumer camera would compare to a professional camera.

Oh and of course you don't know what my experience really has been.

But it was a good try there Bruce.

[Bruce Fraser]

Wade,

You've expressed your level of sophistication with regard to color management many times. You may think that the prints you've made on the Epson 1270 (which you've previously characterized as "fatally flawed technology") are "pretty good," but since you've also said that they aren't comparable to a photographic print, I have a very clear idea of what your experience has been. And having seen your work, I also have a pretty clear idea of the accuracy of your judgement of your skills.

Consumer camera vs professional camera (though I was unware that cameras got paid) didn't enter into it. We were talking about point and shoot neg printed analog vs point and shoot digital printed digital.

[Thurgood]

HmmmÉyou don't sayÉ

[Mike Ornellas]

Wade.

I could go about cifering your thought process, but why.

What's your MO to all of this?

Is it, some things suck, all digital sucks, you suck?

Everyone sucks at some point, with a topic.

I'm just trying to figure out what you suck at.

One thing we both suck at is spelling, but I at least make a feble attempt at correcting it.

You on the other hand, I just don't know...........

[Mike Ornellas]

Wade.

I could go about cifering your thought process, but why.

What's your MO to all of this?

Is it, some thinks suck, all digital sucks, you suck?

[Mike Ornellas]

It seems that I suck at posting as well......

[Thurgood]

No you just suck, and Imeanthat in the bestr possible way!

[Mike Ornellas]

Thaks Dude.

Now I can have a great day knowing that I suck.

BTW.

You think I suck? na. Come to SF, I'll show you some boys who can really suck. They'll clean your head out so you can think clearly for once.

[Mike Ornellas]

Come to think of it, why don't you be more proactive in your quest for knowledge instead of whining.

Be an asset and not an ass ache.

<http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?57@@.1de67c2f>

[g ballard]

Geez, you guys...

[Christine Holzmann]

Wow.....I came back to read the updates on this thread.....some quite surprising updates I must add:)).....All because of a simple question.......:) I MUST say tho' that it has been a very informative thread!!

[Richard Rose]

Christine,

Often the original question is just a springboard from which the thread may get to a totally different topic.

Such is communication in cyberspace.

Rich

[Christine Holzmann]

Well,
I am certainly glad that happens, because that is also what makes these forums such a comprehensive wealth of valuable information:) The information I have absorbed from perusing thru here over the past few years has truly been of immense value.

[Linda Blane]

Mike,

The In Design link is a great idea. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[Richard BRackin]

This is so much like the VHS vs. Beta debate that happened years ago.

Beta was first. Beta was best. Pros swore by it.
Along came VHS...better for consumers. Pros scoffed at it.
VHS got better. Beta didn't. Pros continue to use Beta.
VHS surpassed Beta but many pros still cannot be convinced.

Of course DV came along and changed our entire perception.

Something is inevitably going to come down the pipe and blow our little film niche to pieces. What is it? I don't know.

But in the mean time, I can still say I enjoy dusting off my old Kowa Super 66 and snapping away but I know its time and usefulness is limited.

my 2 cents
Richard

[Mike Ornellas]

The greatest invention I've ever seen is the adaptor that allows you to play casette tapes in your 8-track deck.