Is digital reducing the cost of photography ?
Alfred Molon
have gone down or are going down as a consequence of the digital
photography "revolution".
On the one hand costs in photography should be going down overall,
because there is no longer the expense of film (material, development,
digitalisation) and on the other hand competition should increase as the
cost of entering the business is getting down (with a digital camera
anybody can quickly improve his/her skills as it costs nothing to shoot
images). Any thoughts ?
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405060/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
Roland Karlsson
news:5c7115c533f16879...@news.meganetnews.com:
> Just wondering if the licence fees professional charge for their images
> have gone down or are going down as a consequence of the digital
> photography "revolution".
That would be higly unlikely. Professional charges are seldom
dictated by the machines the professionals use.
> On the one hand costs in photography should be going down overall,
> because there is no longer the expense of film (material, development,
> digitalisation) and on the other hand competition should increase as
the
> cost of entering the business is getting down (with a digital camera
> anybody can quickly improve his/her skills as it costs nothing to shoot
> images). Any thoughts ?
It will not be easier to enter the business. You have to start
a company, rent a shop, hire people, etc, etc, ... Thats the
real costs - not film - if you are professional.
But - maybe digital will remove the need for professionals.
Then we will se fewer of them and they will probably be
even more expensive for those that still want to hire one.
Just guesses of course. may be totally wrong :)
/Roland
camera critter
silver halide films) should have any significant effect upon the
licensing fees.
Does a professional photographer lower his licensing fee for a
particular image if he was able to buy its film at sale prices? <grin>
So many other factors (some tangible, some intangible) are rolled up
into the licensing fee, that the choice of tool used for acquisition
is of no importance because all images will be digitized somewhere
during processing. Digitization is a relatively trivial commodity
expense.
In short, licensing fees are strictly what a specific market will bear
(supply and demand) at a particular point in time.
----------
----------
The global market for images is expanding, probably related to the
increasing global literacy. With the increased literacy comes
increasing editorial and advertising need for pictures. Everyone is
attracted to pictures.
Some rhetorical questions:
- Just what is so special about what a professional photographer
brings to the table to justify his expenses? Are clients exerting
downward pressure on his expenses? How much fat are clients willing
to accept in return for the supposed value added by a particular
photographer?
- Does the pro have obviously greater skills/knowledge than his
competition, or is he of the same skill level as the other fish in the
pool? How big is his pool of competition for the same job?
- Is the pro hired because of the coattails of who he knows (or of who
knows him)? Does he get much repeat business from the same clients?
- Did the consumer's cost for an automobile drastically come down when
automatic robots took over the assembly line?
- Can a lower-cost studio in India or China use Photoshop skills to
produce a similar product? Can the overseas studio cheaply fly its
photographer to New York City to acquire the image, or have the
subject cheaply flown to the studio? (Can a photographer in Arkansas,
New Mexico, Tennessee, Canada, Ireland, Spain, Mexico, et cetera,
compete with a photographer in New York?)
_________________
_________________
Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<5c7115c533f16879...@news.meganetnews.com>...
Tom Monego
alfred_mo...@yahoo.com says...
>
>Just wondering if the licence fees professional charge for their images
>have gone down or are going down as a consequence of the digital
>photography "revolution".
>
>On the one hand costs in photography should be going down overall,
>because there is no longer the expense of film (material, development,
>digitalisation) and on the other hand competition should increase as the
>cost of entering the business is getting down (with a digital camera
>anybody can quickly improve his/her skills as it costs nothing to shoot
>images). Any thoughts ?
>--
>
>Alfred Molon
Use fees are getting higher if you just want a stock image, was looking at the
fees for stock photography, and they had more than doubled in the last 10
years. But that is a stock agency.
You now get more for your day fee photography, more images, no scanning, no
mark up fee for printing (if the photographer is so equipped). Some
photographers are charging other fees to make up for the fee loss from
processing and printing mark ups. These are image processing fees (for opening
RAW files and some color correction).
Customers are being more savy too, asking about fees etc. Then there are the
ones that say "I bought a digital camera and don't need you anymore". More
than 50 percent of those are back in a year.
Tom
Roger Halstead
<alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Just wondering if the licence fees professional charge for their images
>have gone down or are going down as a consequence of the digital
>photography "revolution".
>
Costs going down?
You have been looking at different equipment than I.
I have a complete color dark room with a professional color
analizer/densiometer.
Although the dark room equipment may have cost slightly more than the
computer and software, the equivalent digital camera is 3 to 5 times
more expensive than the professional 35 and about twice the cost of a
really nice MF SLR.
>On the one hand costs in photography should be going down overall,
>because there is no longer the expense of film (material, development,
>digitalisation) and on the other hand competition should increase as the
The cost of the disposable stuff has gone down while the equipment
costs are tremendous when it comes to the higher quality, or
professional grade compared to film cameras.
>cost of entering the business is getting down (with a digital camera
>anybody can quickly improve his/her skills as it costs nothing to shoot
>images). Any thoughts ?
I'd argue the "anybody can quickly improve their skills" part. Volume
brings skill to very few people. Skills do not come from the number
of photos shot, but rather from careful study and in some cases an
inate sense of art and composition. What is really needed is a good,
basic, photography class. One that deals with Theme, form, rythm, and
repetition. Rule of thirds, lighting fundamentals, posing, and the
list goes on... Some people have a sense or feeling for composition,
but they are rare so very few are going to shoot good photos by
shooting more except by accident.
The photography classes at college had the highest dropout rate of any
class. The reason was, everyone thought they were a photographer
until they found out just what was involved in becoming a true
photographer. It was more than most who signed up could hack.
At the beginning of the term it was standing room only. By the end of
the second week (when you could still get your money back if you
dropped a course) the room was less than a third full.
One thing I really liked about the basic (introductory) class was they
did not allow cropping. You got close and filled the frame. That by
itself improved the average individuals photography greatly. There
were *no* point and shoot cameras allowed. Manual settings were
required. We learned the zone system. IOW we learned the *art* of
photography. THEN we were allowed to use what ever we wanted for
cameras. You went through three courses using B & W before any color
work was done. They had courses on lighting, portraiture, color
slides, color printing, advanced B & W. You could receive a minor in
art by taking nothing except photography classes. You also found out
that the art classes were not "blow off" classes. They have added
digital photography classes, but they are still art classes and very
time consuming. Introductory classes are still based on theme, form,
rythm, and repetition with no cropping allowed. I don't know if
they allow color or not, but I'd be surprised if the introductory
digital wasn't still B & W.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
George Preddy
> have gone down or are going down as a consequence of the digital
> photography "revolution".
>
> On the one hand costs in photography should be going down overall,
> because there is no longer the expense of film (material, development,
> digitalisation) and on the other hand competition should increase as the
> cost of entering the business is getting down (with a digital camera
> anybody can quickly improve his/her skills as it costs nothing to shoot
> images). Any thoughts ?
OTOH, fees could be justifiably increased. Since the product is
generally a fixed tangible entity, lower operating costs simply
increase the quality level obtainable within the same absolute cost.
George Preddy
> have gone down or are going down as a consequence of the digital
> photography "revolution".
>
> On the one hand costs in photography should be going down overall,
> because there is no longer the expense of film (material, development,
> digitalisation) and on the other hand competition should increase as the
> cost of entering the business is getting down (with a digital camera
> anybody can quickly improve his/her skills as it costs nothing to shoot
> images). Any thoughts ?
OTOH, fees could be justifiably increased. Since the product is
Mxsmanic
> Just wondering if the licence fees professional charge for their images
> have gone down or are going down as a consequence of the digital
> photography "revolution".
License fees are going down, but I don't think it is directly related to
digital photography.
> On the one hand costs in photography should be going down overall,
> because there is no longer the expense of film (material, development,
> digitalisation) ...
Digital photographers often spend a lot more time in front of a computer
than film photographers ever did, and this adds enormously to their
expenses. Unfortunately, clients often refuse to acknowledge this and
expect digital photographers to charge less, when in fact they may have
to charge the same, or perhaps even more, in order to cover all the
"hidden" costs.
> ... and on the other hand competition should increase as the
> cost of entering the business is getting down (with a digital camera
> anybody can quickly improve his/her skills as it costs nothing to shoot
> images). Any thoughts ?
Good photography is a matter of talent more than practice, so digital
photography has no effect on the ranks of talented photographers. It
does make it easier for hacks to get into the business, though. There
isn't much money to be made in photography professionally, however, so
people who think they can pay for their new digital cameras by selling
photos are in for a rude awakening (that was a dangerous assumption even
with film).
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Paul J Gans
Thanks Roger, that was very interesting.
Did you have to use a fixed focal length lens at the start?
I learned (not that I claim any great skill) with a Minolta
SRT 101 a fair number of years ago. I shot slide film (which
of course meant no cropping or whatever) and all I had was
a 50 mm f/1.8 lens. If I wanted closer, I had to move closer.
If I wanted farther, I had to move back.
I learned tons that way. So much so that I really don't
like zooms even though they are convenient. Since moving
to them I never really get a feel for any one focal length
and my photography has deteriorated as a result. I don't
move any more. I think this is bad.
---- Paul J. Gans
Mxsmanic
> I learned tons that way. So much so that I really don't
> like zooms even though they are convenient. Since moving
> to them I never really get a feel for any one focal length
> and my photography has deteriorated as a result. I don't
> move any more. I think this is bad.
There isn't any particular reason why a zoom would cause your
photography to deteriorate, provided that you know exactly what a zoom
actually does.
A zoom cannot replace camera movement, and camera movement cannot
replace a zoom. Moving the camera changes perspective; adjusting the
zoom changes the width of the field of view in the frame. Two entirely
different things, and they are not interchangeable.
Paul J Gans
>Just wondering if the licence fees professional charge for their images
>have gone down or are going down as a consequence of the digital
>photography "revolution".
>On the one hand costs in photography should be going down overall,
>because there is no longer the expense of film (material, development,
>digitalisation) and on the other hand competition should increase as the
>cost of entering the business is getting down (with a digital camera
>anybody can quickly improve his/her skills as it costs nothing to shoot
>images). Any thoughts ?
>--
It should, but I'm not sure it does. I used to shoot
slide film (Kodachrome back in the old days) and the only
expense was in film, development and in new slide projector
bulbs.
Now I spend a small fortune on printer ink cartriges....
And the investment in computer, image manipulation program,
and photograde print paper is not small.
So I don't know if things have gotten cheaper. I'm afraid
to do the calculation.
----- Paul J. Gans
John Navas
In <bkfa501bt8cpl8n2p...@4ax.com> on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 06:29:14
+0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Alfred Molon writes:
>> On the one hand costs in photography should be going down overall,
>> because there is no longer the expense of film (material, development,
>> digitalisation) ...
>
>Digital photographers often spend a lot more time in front of a computer
>than film photographers ever did, and this adds enormously to their
>expenses. Unfortunately, clients often refuse to acknowledge this and
>expect digital photographers to charge less, when in fact they may have
>to charge the same, or perhaps even more, in order to cover all the
>"hidden" costs.
It's actually the other way around -- for those with experience, digital
darkroom work is lots faster than real darkroom work.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
Mxsmanic
> It's actually the other way around -- for those with experience, digital
> darkroom work is lots faster than real darkroom work.
Many photographers used to have a lab do the darkroom work. Now they
are constrained to do the digital work themselves. So far more of their
time is being taken up outside of actually shooting photographs, and
they aren't necessarily being paid for all that extra time. At least
this is what I've heard many of them complain.
Mxsmanic
> Now I spend a small fortune on printer ink cartriges....
You can probably get better prints at a lower overall price by taking
your image files to a lab. Even garden-variety Fuji Frontier prints
whip any ink-jet prints you might make yourself.
John Navas
In <mkka501hkjfq2sgth...@4ax.com> on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:52:53
+0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Paul J Gans writes:
>
>> Now I spend a small fortune on printer ink cartriges....
>
>You can probably get better prints at a lower overall price by taking
>your image files to a lab. Even garden-variety Fuji Frontier prints
>whip any ink-jet prints you might make yourself.
The latest inkjets produce images as good or better.
MarkH
news:bgia50pj6glss71r0...@4ax.com:
> A zoom cannot replace camera movement, and camera movement cannot
> replace a zoom. Moving the camera changes perspective; adjusting the
> zoom changes the width of the field of view in the frame. Two entirely
> different things, and they are not interchangeable.
There is much truth here.
I have seen photos I didn’t like where I thought: Hmmm, the photographer
should have used a longer lens and moved back a bit. The framing was good,
but the perspective was bad. I like zooms because you can move yourself to
where you like the perspective and zoom to frame what you want.
--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Mxsmanic
> I like zooms because you can move yourself to
> where you like the perspective and zoom to frame what you want.
Exactly. That's the proper way to do it. You still move the camera
until you have the composition and perspective you want. Then you use a
zoom to narrow the viewing angle to cover only what you want to record.
Zoom lenses, and indeed all but the shortest focal lengths generally,
are just compromises made necessary by the fact that lenses and film do
not have infinite resolution. If you had film or a sensor with
unlimited resolution and a 5-mm rectilinear lens of similar super-duper
performance, you wouldn't ever need any other lens, since you could
shoot from whatever position gave the perspective you wanted, and then
crop the final image to get the viewning angle that you wanted to see.
Mxsmanic
> The latest inkjets produce images as good or better.
At what cost for the printer, and for each print?
I haven't seen any ink-jet prints that look better than chemical prints
thus far. Only black-and-white ink-jet seems to compete effectively
with wet processes.
Ron Hunter
It's amazing to me how many people totally ignore the name of this
newsgroup. Look at it again, and then tell me why so many assume that
everyone needs/wants to be a 'professional'. Hint, it saye
'rec.photo.digita'. The 'rec.' for those who don't know stands for
'recreational'. I don't care if I ever sell a picture. It isn't the
purpose. Advanced hobbiests, newbies, and everyone else but
professionals. Pros need their own group.
Ron Hunter
Did you learn NOT to start by taking pictures of bears? Grin.
Ron Hunter
Well, the incremental cost of taking each picture is MUCH less for me.
I can snap away on vacation, knowing that the only cost comes at that
point where I fill all my flash cards and need a new one. I have
approx. $500 invested in my current digital, with camera and cards. At
present, that is about $1 an image. Every time I take another, that
cost goes down as I print very rarely. If I printed everything, then
the cost would be about the same as film, but the hassle and time
consumed (I rarely do post-processing except for panoramas) are greatly
reduced.
Digital has flaws, but it is about perfect for my needs. I doubt I will
ever willingly take another picture with a film camera.
mark_digital
"It's amazing to me how many people totally ignore the name of this
newsgroup. Look at it again, and then tell me why so many assume that
everyone needs/wants to be a 'professional'. Hint, it saye
'rec.photo.digita'. The 'rec.' for those who don't know stands for
'recreational'. I don't care if I ever sell a picture. It isn't the
purpose. Advanced hobbiests, newbies, and everyone else but
_______________________________________________
Never could figure why a real pro would come here in the
first place.
Mxsmanic
> It's amazing to me how many people totally ignore the name of this
> newsgroup. Look at it again, and then tell me why so many assume that
> everyone needs/wants to be a 'professional'. Hint, it saye
> 'rec.photo.digita'. The 'rec.' for those who don't know stands for
> 'recreational'. I don't care if I ever sell a picture.
Many avid photographers fantasize about living off their photography, so
quite a few amateurs are aspiring pros. The only thing that really
distinguishes the two, after all, is that one pays money, and the other
costs money.
> It isn't the
> purpose. Advanced hobbiests, newbies, and everyone else but
> professionals. Pros need their own group.
There isn't any hierarchy in USENET for "pros."
Mxsmanic
> Well, the incremental cost of taking each picture is MUCH less for me.
Unfortunately, that's often only the tip of the iceberg. This is
especially true for professionals, but it is also often true for
amateurs.
> I can snap away on vacation, knowing that the only cost comes at that
> point where I fill all my flash cards and need a new one.
Which is good, because that leaves you more money to pay off the
credit-card debt that you went into to acquire all the digital gear.
zbzbzb
>
>At what cost for the printer, and for each print?
>
>I haven't seen any ink-jet prints that look better than chemical prints
>thus far. Only black-and-white ink-jet seems to compete effectively
>with wet processes.
>
>--
I agree. While current best photo inkjets are impressive they are still
obviously not as good as a chemical print. I sold off my Epson because as nice
as prints could be they were no match against 14 cent prints from the local
Costco. The smaller the prints on the inkjet the more obvious the differences
were as the dot pattern started to closely match and therefore affect the size
of the pics smaller detail.
Mxsmanic
> I sold off my Epson because as nice
> as prints could be they were no match against 14 cent prints from the local
> Costco.
I still have my nice Epson, but I can get better prints at lower cost
from the Fuji Frontier at my local one-hour lab.
> The smaller the prints on the inkjet the more obvious the differences
> were as the dot pattern started to closely match and therefore affect the size
> of the pics smaller detail.
Yes. Very large prints (poster-sized) can look very nice when printed
by ink-jet, and of course ink-jet can go much larger than wet processes
(there's a limit to how large a print can be practically dipped in
chemical solutions, and the limitations of ink-jet are very small in
comparison to the scale of very large prints).
zbzbzb
>> as prints could be they were no match against 14 cent prints from the local
>> Costco.
>
>I still have my nice Epson, but I can get better prints at lower cost
>from the Fuji Frontier at my local one-hour lab.
I sold mine as it was a wide format model and much to big to keep around for
the little bit of color printing I would need. Most of my printing is to a very
fast and inexpensive laser. Besides, I got disgusted with the whole inkjet
process.
>
>> The smaller the prints on the inkjet the more obvious the differences
>> were as the dot pattern started to closely match and therefore affect the
>size
>> of the pics smaller detail.
>
>Yes. Very large prints (poster-sized) can look very nice when printed
>by ink-jet, and of course ink-jet can go much larger than wet processes
>(there's a limit to how large a print can be practically dipped in
>chemical solutions, and the limitations of ink-jet are very small in
>comparison to the scale of very large prints).
>
>--
>Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Costco does 12x18 for $2.80 I'm pretty sure. My wide format Epson would not go
much bigger. If you go above the size of the typical wide format inkjets then
the price shoots up dramatically to outsource it in that format. I think you
can get chemical prints of 20x30 for like $17 without much problem. Besides the
convenience of being able to quickly print out something I don't see how the
inkjet manufacturers will be able to compete as time goes on. Unless they can
provide continuous tone, universally acceptable longevity of inks and paper,
ease of use, and at a cheap price, then I don't think they will will do as well
as they do now or used to.
Ron Hunter
I can see you never did any wildlife or rough terrain photography.
Unless you have some anti-gravity boots in your closet, there are
physical constraints on the 'move the camera' approach.
Ron Hunter
Well, some might want to help others learn the mechanics of photography,
which is important, but I suspect there are several other reasons:
1. To show how much better they are than those of us who aren't pros.
2. To inflate their egos by telling others how incompetent they are.
3. To push their personal approach to photography/camera brand/battery
choice, etc.
To be sure, they aren't likely to learn much.
Ron Hunter
> Ron Hunter writes:
>
>
>>It's amazing to me how many people totally ignore the name of this
>>newsgroup. Look at it again, and then tell me why so many assume that
>>everyone needs/wants to be a 'professional'. Hint, it saye
>>'rec.photo.digita'. The 'rec.' for those who don't know stands for
>>'recreational'. I don't care if I ever sell a picture.
>
>
> Many avid photographers fantasize about living off their photography, so
> quite a few amateurs are aspiring pros. The only thing that really
> distinguishes the two, after all, is that one pays money, and the other
> costs money.
>
>
Well, given how much pros spend on their craft, I sometimes wonder if
they make enough to put up with the grief. Surely the majority don't.
>>It isn't the
>>purpose. Advanced hobbiests, newbies, and everyone else but
>>professionals. Pros need their own group.
>
>
> There isn't any hierarchy in USENET for "pros."
So, they can be started....
>
Ron Hunter
> Ron Hunter writes:
>
>
>>Well, the incremental cost of taking each picture is MUCH less for me.
>
>
> Unfortunately, that's often only the tip of the iceberg. This is
> especially true for professionals, but it is also often true for
> amateurs.
>
>
>>I can snap away on vacation, knowing that the only cost comes at that
>>point where I fill all my flash cards and need a new one.
>
>
> Which is good, because that leaves you more money to pay off the
> credit-card debt that you went into to acquire all the digital gear.
>
True, but in my case, it was factored into the cost of the vacation.
Ron Hunter
I beg to differ. The smallest size of the combined dots on the newest
inkjets is smaller than the chemical print's resolution these days.
John Navas
In <m42b50liokoiu05s9...@4ax.com> on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:43:21
+0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>John Navas writes:
>
>> The latest inkjets produce images as good or better.
>
>At what cost for the printer, and for each print?
Printers are quite affordable, but prints are more expensive (ignoring the
value of convenience and more precise control).
>I haven't seen any ink-jet prints that look better than chemical prints
>thus far.
Then you need to look at the better inkjet printers.
>Only black-and-white ink-jet seems to compete effectively
>with wet processes.
B&W is actually harder than color.
zbzbzb
>> obviously not as good as a chemical print. I sold off my Epson because as
>nice
>> as prints could be they were no match against 14 cent prints from the local
>> Costco. The smaller the prints on the inkjet the more obvious the
>differences
>> were as the dot pattern started to closely match and therefore affect the
>size
>> of the pics smaller detail.
>>
>>
>I beg to differ. The smallest size of the combined dots on the newest
>inkjets is smaller than the chemical print's resolution these days.
>
If that were the case then they would have an equally continuous tone which
they obviously do not. Inkjet is nice but not nearly as good as a traditional
chemical print.
zbzbzb
>>thus far.
>
>Then you need to look at the better inkjet printers.
>
I have and they are still not as good as a traditional print and certainly not
better.
George Kerby
"mark_digital" <XXX...@comcast.com> wrote:
For the laughs...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
st...@temple.edu
> The photography classes at college had the highest dropout rate of any
> class. The reason was, everyone thought they were a photographer
> until they found out just what was involved in becoming a true
> photographer. It was more than most who signed up could hack.
Tell me about it! I have a Masters degree in education and a BA in
math with a concentration in computer science. I ocassionally take
photography courses and the work involved is mind blowing! For the
fine art digi photography course I took last semester, I spent far
more time working on photography projects than I did on any computer
programming assignment I ever had. I enjoyed the course a lot and I
did well in it, but it sure was a major time suck. This is why I
decided to not take any photo courses this semester, but I do intend
to return to the classroom/lab next semester to take an advanced course.
mark_digital
*Never could figure why a real pro would come here in the
first place*
"For the laughs..." - George Kerby
____________________________________________
Any other career I'd believe it. Typical pro photog are
wound too tight. I ask one's wife "Is he always this
way?" Yep, even in his sleep.
George Kerby
"mark_digital" <XXX...@comcast.com> wrote:
Actually, this place is funny as hell. There is SOOOO much misinformation in
here that if one was looking for advice to make a living and use this group
as a source of advice, they would be utilizing food stamps in short time.
Great entertainment!
bob
news:QSi5c.8744$_3.11...@typhoon.sonic.net:
>>I haven't seen any ink-jet prints that look better than chemical
>>prints thus far.
>
> Then you need to look at the better inkjet printers.
I have not looked at inkjets in a year or two. Can you point me to one that
has the Dmax of a chemical print.
--
remove the backwards "SPAM" to reply.
mark_digital
misinformation in here that if one was looking for advice to
make a living and use this group as a source of advice, they
would be utilizing food stamps in short time.
Great entertainment!" - George Kerby
_____________________________________________
Guy walks up to the wedding photographer and says
can I look at your camera. Sure, go ahead. The guy
points it at the bride and groom and snaps a picture.
Geeze, he says, that wasn't difficult.
LOL!!
Ron Hunter
You are either not looking at current printers, or your bias is clouding
your observations.
George Kerby
"mark_digital" <XXX...@comcast.com> wrote:
That's what I was telling that guy named Tom the other day.
Mxsmanic
> I can see you never did any wildlife or rough terrain photography.
> Unless you have some anti-gravity boots in your closet, there are
> physical constraints on the 'move the camera' approach.
Then those same constraints will limit your choice of perspective.
Having a zoom won't change that.
Mxsmanic
> To be sure, they aren't likely to learn much.
Pros don't necessarily know any more than amateurs. Think of the
Olympics.
Mxsmanic
> Guy walks up to the wedding photographer and says
> can I look at your camera. Sure, go ahead. The guy
> points it at the bride and groom and snaps a picture.
> Geeze, he says, that wasn't difficult.
Then the wedding photographer says, "It gets more complicated if you
remove the lens cap."
Mxsmanic
> I beg to differ. The smallest size of the combined dots on the newest
> inkjets is smaller than the chemical print's resolution these days.
It takes a lot more than one dot to make a pixel. And there are other
problems with depositing inks as opposed to superimposing transparent
dyes.
Dye sublimation _does_ look like a chemical print, but hardly anyone
uses that anymore. It looks like a chemical print because it is the
same basic process.
Mxsmanic
> You are either not looking at current printers, or your bias is clouding
> your observations.
Or you simply disagree with him, but you don't want to admit it.
Alfred Molon
>I'd argue the "anybody can quickly improve their skills" part. Volume
>brings skill to very few people. Skills do not come from the number
>of photos shot, but rather from careful study and in some cases an
>inate sense of art and composition. What is really needed is a good,
>basic, photography class. One that deals with Theme, form, rythm, and
>repetition. Rule of thirds, lighting fundamentals, posing, and the
>list goes on... Some people have a sense or feeling for composition,
>but they are rare so very few are going to shoot good photos by
>shooting more except by accident.
Well, in my opinion talent plays a great role and photographers need
first of all to have a good eye and a sense for esthetics.
The rules you mention are helpful in certain situations, but I have seen
once a guy taking a bad photo because he was stubbornly trying to apply
the rule of thirds which he had learnt in a photography class.
Also, in my opinion these courses generate photographers who tend to
have the same or a similar style of photography.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
Mxsmanic
> Printers are quite affordable, but prints are more expensive (ignoring the
> value of convenience and more precise control).
Prints are ruinously expensive.
> Then you need to look at the better inkjet printers.
They are probably right next to those apocryphal better-than-film DSLRs.
> B&W is actually harder than color.
The results look better.
zbzbzb
>> they obviously do not. Inkjet is nice but not nearly as good as a
>traditional
>> chemical print.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>You are either not looking at current printers, or your bias is clouding
>your observations.
>
>
I am talking about the latest 2 picoliter Canon and Epson models. Sorry but
they are not continuous tone despite their initially impressive appearance.
John Navas
In <105be1d...@corp.supernews.com> on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:05:32 -0600,
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
Teaching is one of the best ways to learn..
John Navas
In <105b2l7...@corp.supernews.com> on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 04:51:18 -0600, Ron
Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>> Roger Halstead <Delete-Inva...@tm.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 11:41:07 GMT, Alfred Molon
>>><alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Just wondering if the licence fees professional charge for their images
>>>>have gone down or are going down as a consequence of the digital
>>>>photography "revolution".
>>>>
>>>
>>>Costs going down?
>>
>>
>>>You have been looking at different equipment than I.
>>>I have a complete color dark room with a professional color
>>>analizer/densiometer.
>>
>>
>>>Although the dark room equipment may have cost slightly more than the
>>>computer and software, the equivalent digital camera is 3 to 5 times
>>>more expensive than the professional 35 and about twice the cost of a
>>>really nice MF SLR.
>>
>>
>>>>On the one hand costs in photography should be going down overall,
>>>>because there is no longer the expense of film (material, development,
>>>>digitalisation) and on the other hand competition should increase as the
>>
>>
>>>The cost of the disposable stuff has gone down while the equipment
>>>costs are tremendous when it comes to the higher quality, or
>>>professional grade compared to film cameras.
>>
>>
>>>>cost of entering the business is getting down (with a digital camera
>>>>anybody can quickly improve his/her skills as it costs nothing to shoot
>>>>images). Any thoughts ?
>>
>>
>>>I'd argue the "anybody can quickly improve their skills" part. Volume
>>>brings skill to very few people. Skills do not come from the number
>>>of photos shot, but rather from careful study and in some cases an
>>>inate sense of art and composition. What is really needed is a good,
>>>basic, photography class. One that deals with Theme, form, rythm, and
>>>repetition. Rule of thirds, lighting fundamentals, posing, and the
>>>list goes on... Some people have a sense or feeling for composition,
>>>but they are rare so very few are going to shoot good photos by
>>>shooting more except by accident.
>>
>>
>>>The photography classes at college had the highest dropout rate of any
>>>class. The reason was, everyone thought they were a photographer
>>>until they found out just what was involved in becoming a true
>>>photographer. It was more than most who signed up could hack.
>>
>>
>>>At the beginning of the term it was standing room only. By the end of
>>>the second week (when you could still get your money back if you
>>>dropped a course) the room was less than a third full.
>>
>>
>>>One thing I really liked about the basic (introductory) class was they
>>>did not allow cropping. You got close and filled the frame. That by
>>>itself improved the average individuals photography greatly. There
>>>were *no* point and shoot cameras allowed. Manual settings were
>>>required. We learned the zone system. IOW we learned the *art* of
>>>photography. THEN we were allowed to use what ever we wanted for
>>>cameras. You went through three courses using B & W before any color
>>>work was done. They had courses on lighting, portraiture, color
>>>slides, color printing, advanced B & W. You could receive a minor in
>>>art by taking nothing except photography classes. You also found out
>>>that the art classes were not "blow off" classes. They have added
>>>digital photography classes, but they are still art classes and very
>>>time consuming. Introductory classes are still based on theme, form,
>>>rythm, and repetition with no cropping allowed. I don't know if
>>>they allow color or not, but I'd be surprised if the introductory
>>>digital wasn't still B & W.
>>
>>
>>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>
>> Thanks Roger, that was very interesting.
>>
>> Did you have to use a fixed focal length lens at the start?
>> I learned (not that I claim any great skill) with a Minolta
>> SRT 101 a fair number of years ago. I shot slide film (which
>> of course meant no cropping or whatever) and all I had was
>> a 50 mm f/1.8 lens. If I wanted closer, I had to move closer.
>> If I wanted farther, I had to move back.
>>
>> I learned tons that way. So much so that I really don't
>> like zooms even though they are convenient. Since moving
>> to them I never really get a feel for any one focal length
>> and my photography has deteriorated as a result. I don't
>> move any more. I think this is bad.
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>>
>>
>Did you learn NOT to start by taking pictures of bears? Grin.
John Navas
In <ed5c50hf4oe43mtgg...@4ax.com> on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:44:45
+0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ron Hunter writes:
>
>> You are either not looking at current printers, or your bias is clouding
>> your observations.
>
>Or you simply disagree with him, but you don't want to admit it.
Pot ... kettle ... black.
John Navas
In <20040315094325...@mb-m02.news.cs.com> on 15 Mar 2004 14:43:25
GMT, tor...@cs.comzbzbzb (zbzbzb) wrote:
Then you're still not looking at the better inkjet printers.
John Navas
In <0p3b50139m9hqvok8...@4ax.com> on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:11:31
+0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ron Hunter writes:
>> I can snap away on vacation, knowing that the only cost comes at that
>> point where I fill all my flash cards and need a new one.
>
>Which is good, because that leaves you more money to pay off the
>credit-card debt that you went into to acquire all the digital gear.
I've spent much less on digital than on film.
mark_digital
> can I look at your camera. Sure, go ahead. The guy
> points it at the bride and groom and snaps a picture.
> Geeze, he says, that wasn't difficult.
"Then the wedding photographer says, It gets more
complicated if you remove the lens cap." - Mxsmanic
________________________________________
At that point the priest says, Would both of you mind
taking your conversation outside please. Thank you.
Hehehe
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans writes:
>> I learned tons that way. So much so that I really don't
>> like zooms even though they are convenient. Since moving
>> to them I never really get a feel for any one focal length
>> and my photography has deteriorated as a result. I don't
>> move any more. I think this is bad.
>There isn't any particular reason why a zoom would cause your
>photography to deteriorate, provided that you know exactly what a zoom
>actually does.
>A zoom cannot replace camera movement, and camera movement cannot
>replace a zoom. Moving the camera changes perspective; adjusting the
>zoom changes the width of the field of view in the frame. Two entirely
>different things, and they are not interchangeable.
I know that. The difference is that a zoom lens offers a
solution, and not always the best solution, for a number
of things that are problems when you have a fixed focal
length lens. It also allows for shortcuts. And it often
introduces problems with depth of field. My 50 mm was
at f/1.8. No zoom I could then afford even came close.
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>In <mkka501hkjfq2sgth...@4ax.com> on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:52:53
>+0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Paul J Gans writes:
>>
>>> Now I spend a small fortune on printer ink cartriges....
>>
>>You can probably get better prints at a lower overall price by taking
>>your image files to a lab. Even garden-variety Fuji Frontier prints
>>whip any ink-jet prints you might make yourself.
>The latest inkjets produce images as good or better.
Ok. I'll ask the obvious. What photoprinter would
folks recommend. I'd be primarily interested in the
cost of consumables. The printer itself, unless very
costly, would not be an issue.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans writes:
>> Now I spend a small fortune on printer ink cartriges....
>You can probably get better prints at a lower overall price by taking
>your image files to a lab. Even garden-variety Fuji Frontier prints
>whip any ink-jet prints you might make yourself.
That's a thought. I'll see what other folks think too.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>> I learned tons that way. So much so that I really don't
>> like zooms even though they are convenient. Since moving
>> to them I never really get a feel for any one focal length
>> and my photography has deteriorated as a result. I don't
>> move any more. I think this is bad.
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>>
>>
>Did you learn NOT to start by taking pictures of bears? Grin.
<grin> Actually I think some of my best early shots were
of animals. Behind bars, of course. Learning how to get
the bars to be either not obtrusive or gone while still
getting the shot was one of my early accomplishments... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Mxsmanic
> At that point the priest says, Would both of you mind
> taking your conversation outside please. Thank you.
At which point the rabbi says, "Would you all please be quiet?"
Mxsmanic
> Then you're still not looking at the better inkjet printers.
Nothing that uses opaque dots is going to match chemical prints. Dye
sublimation can do it, though.
Roger Halstead
wrote:
>Ron Hunter writes:
>
>> It's amazing to me how many people totally ignore the name of this
>> newsgroup. Look at it again, and then tell me why so many assume that
>> everyone needs/wants to be a 'professional'. Hint, it saye
>> 'rec.photo.digita'. The 'rec.' for those who don't know stands for
>> 'recreational'. I don't care if I ever sell a picture.
>
>Many avid photographers fantasize about living off their photography, so
>quite a few amateurs are aspiring pros. The only thing that really
>distinguishes the two, after all, is that one pays money, and the other
>costs money.
I always look at the word amateur and use the Latin derivation and not
the general way people tend to look at it now days.
Amateur is one who does something for the love of doing it. So an
amateur photographer is one who does photography for the love of doing
it. The professional does photography as work, or a way of making
money.
You can also use the words, vocation and avocation which are even more
direct.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>> It isn't the
>> purpose. Advanced hobbiests, newbies, and everyone else but
>> professionals. Pros need their own group.
>
>There isn't any hierarchy in USENET for "pros."
John Navas
In <s8jc505g576kb6pcs...@4ax.com> on Tue, 16 Mar 2004 01:41:25
+0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>John Navas writes:
>
>> Then you're still not looking at the better inkjet printers.
>
>Nothing that uses opaque dots is going to match chemical prints. ...
We'll just have to agree to disagree (as in so many other things:).
John Navas
In <c359u9$ngf$1...@reader1.panix.com> on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:15:37 +0000 (UTC),
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>The latest inkjets produce images as good or better.
>
>Ok. I'll ask the obvious. What photoprinter would
>folks recommend. I'd be primarily interested in the
>cost of consumables. ...
Not image quality?
Ron Hunter
> Ron Hunter writes:
>
>
>>I can see you never did any wildlife or rough terrain photography.
>>Unless you have some anti-gravity boots in your closet, there are
>>physical constraints on the 'move the camera' approach.
>
>
> Then those same constraints will limit your choice of perspective.
> Having a zoom won't change that.
>
It will make pictures possible.
Ron Hunter
> Roger Halstead <Delete-Inva...@tm.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I'd argue the "anybody can quickly improve their skills" part. Volume
>>brings skill to very few people. Skills do not come from the number
>>of photos shot, but rather from careful study and in some cases an
>>inate sense of art and composition. What is really needed is a good,
>>basic, photography class. One that deals with Theme, form, rythm, and
>>repetition. Rule of thirds, lighting fundamentals, posing, and the
>>list goes on... Some people have a sense or feeling for composition,
>>but they are rare so very few are going to shoot good photos by
>>shooting more except by accident.
>
>
> Well, in my opinion talent plays a great role and photographers need
> first of all to have a good eye and a sense for esthetics.
> The rules you mention are helpful in certain situations, but I have seen
> once a guy taking a bad photo because he was stubbornly trying to apply
> the rule of thirds which he had learnt in a photography class.
> Also, in my opinion these courses generate photographers who tend to
> have the same or a similar style of photography.
The difference between art and craft. Talent.
Ron Hunter
> [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <105be1d...@corp.supernews.com> on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:05:32 -0600,
> Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>mark_digital wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi! You're on the air...
>>>"It's amazing to me how many people totally ignore the name of this
>>>newsgroup. Look at it again, and then tell me why so many assume that
>>>everyone needs/wants to be a 'professional'. Hint, it saye
>>>'rec.photo.digita'. The 'rec.' for those who don't know stands for
>>>'recreational'. I don't care if I ever sell a picture. It isn't the
>>>purpose. Advanced hobbiests, newbies, and everyone else but
>>>professionals. Pros need their own group." - Ron Hunter
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>Never could figure why a real pro would come here in the
>>>first place.
>>>
>>
>>Well, some might want to help others learn the mechanics of photography,
>>which is important, but I suspect there are several other reasons:
>>
>>1. To show how much better they are than those of us who aren't pros.
>>2. To inflate their egos by telling others how incompetent they are.
>>3. To push their personal approach to photography/camera brand/battery
>>choice, etc.
>>
>>To be sure, they aren't likely to learn much.
>
>
> Teaching is one of the best ways to learn..
>
Ahhh, but most don't want to teach, just point out that the picture is
lousy, without offering constructive information about how to improve
it. Surely, A few do, and they are appreciated.
Ron Hunter
Interesting, you just preserved that same quoting.
Ron Hunter
IF I have a lot of prints, the Fuji route is preferable for the time
element, and the pain of trimming from full sheets. For a 'one off'
8x10, the printer is the way to go, even with the high cost of ink.
Ron Hunter
Much snipped to make John happy!
>>Did you learn NOT to start by taking pictures of bears? Grin.
>
>
> <grin> Actually I think some of my best early shots were
> of animals. Behind bars, of course. Learning how to get
> the bars to be either not obtrusive or gone while still
> getting the shot was one of my early accomplishments... ;-)
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
I sure hope you aren't going to tell me you stuck the camera between the
bars!
Or is that the reason the call you 'lefty'?
Ron Hunter
> [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <s8jc505g576kb6pcs...@4ax.com> on Tue, 16 Mar 2004 01:41:25
> +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas writes:
>>
>>
>>>Then you're still not looking at the better inkjet printers.
>>
>>Nothing that uses opaque dots is going to match chemical prints. ...
>
>
> We'll just have to agree to disagree (as in so many other things:).
>
The issue gets pretty subjective. I still know people who believe that
the sound from a tube type amplifier is better than that from a rock
steady across the frequency range solid state amp. It isn't,
technically, but it is what the hearer WANTS to hear.
Mxsmanic
> I still know people who believe that
> the sound from a tube type amplifier is better than that from a rock
> steady across the frequency range solid state amp. It isn't,
> technically, but it is what the hearer WANTS to hear.
I understand that the advantage of tube amplifiers is that they sound
better than solid-state amplifiers when overdriven, which apparently is
important for use with guitars.
John Navas
In <avmc505u73p02hnnq...@4ax.com> on Tue, 16 Mar 2004 02:44:54
+0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ron Hunter writes:
>
>> I still know people who believe that
>> the sound from a tube type amplifier is better than that from a rock
>> steady across the frequency range solid state amp. It isn't,
>> technically, but it is what the hearer WANTS to hear.
>
>I understand that the advantage of tube amplifiers is that they sound
>better than solid-state amplifiers when overdriven, which apparently is
>important for use with guitars.
Your knowledge of digital photography is matched by your knowledge of hi-fi.
;-)
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope, 1688-1744]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain, 1835-1910]
John Navas
In <105cm9m...@corp.supernews.com> on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:32:36 -0600,
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>> How about less quoting for a one line reply?
>Interesting, you just preserved that same quoting.
Only to make my point. Surely that was obvious.
zbzbzb
>>>
>>>Nothing that uses opaque dots is going to match chemical prints. ...
>>
>>
>> We'll just have to agree to disagree (as in so many other things:).
>>
>
>The issue gets pretty subjective. I still know people who believe that
>the sound from a tube type amplifier is better than that from a rock
>steady across the frequency range solid state amp. It isn't,
>technically, but it is what the hearer WANTS to hear.
>
In this case it is not what the viewer wants to see. There clearly is a
difference between chemical prints and todays better inkjets. For the average
person it isn't even an issue. But if you are serious about ultimate quality
and have experience with the latest inkjets and possibly even doing your own
darkroom work you will notice the differences in quality. Like I also said the
differences are more noticeable the smaller the picture is because then the
small details of a picture starts fighting with the dot pattern of the inkjet.
Roger Halstead
<alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Roger Halstead <Delete-Inva...@tm.net> wrote:
>
>>I'd argue the "anybody can quickly improve their skills" part. Volume
>>brings skill to very few people. Skills do not come from the number
>>of photos shot, but rather from careful study and in some cases an
>>inate sense of art and composition. What is really needed is a good,
>>basic, photography class. One that deals with Theme, form, rythm, and
>>repetition. Rule of thirds, lighting fundamentals, posing, and the
>>list goes on... Some people have a sense or feeling for composition,
>>but they are rare so very few are going to shoot good photos by
>>shooting more except by accident.
>
>Well, in my opinion talent plays a great role and photographers need
I think I said that with "inate sense of art and composition". <:-))
>first of all to have a good eye and a sense for esthetics.
>The rules you mention are helpful in certain situations, but I have seen
>once a guy taking a bad photo because he was stubbornly trying to apply
Because one student never goes beyond the basics taught in beginning
art classes is no reason to condemn the whole.
>the rule of thirds which he had learnt in a photography class.
>Also, in my opinion these courses generate photographers who tend to
>have the same or a similar style of photography.
Don't blame the classes, blame lack of creativity and talent in the
individual. Certainly these people would gain nothing from shooting
more images if they can only parrot the class material.
Photography is no different in that respect than most any discipline.
There will be those who parrot the classes and those who build on
them.
The classes give the photographer a whole bag of tools to use. Whether
they use them and how they use them is... well... Up to them.
If what you say were true then most students would do nothing more
than what they had been taught in class, be it painting or
photography, yet we see many who become true artists. OTOH even if
they never move beyond the basics they still have far more working for
them than someone who has never been introduced to the fundamentals of
art. That by itself improves their chances of getting good photos.
Roger Halstead
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <0p3b50139m9hqvok8...@4ax.com> on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:11:31
>+0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ron Hunter writes:
>
>>> I can snap away on vacation, knowing that the only cost comes at that
>>> point where I fill all my flash cards and need a new one.
>>
>>Which is good, because that leaves you more money to pay off the
>>credit-card debt that you went into to acquire all the digital gear.
>
>I've spent much less on digital than on film.
I can't say that and I'm not even including the computer and printer.
Paul J Gans
>[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>In <c359u9$ngf$1...@reader1.panix.com> on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:15:37 +0000 (UTC),
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>The latest inkjets produce images as good or better.
>>
>>Ok. I'll ask the obvious. What photoprinter would
>>folks recommend. I'd be primarily interested in the
>>cost of consumables. ...
>Not image quality?
I didn't ask for the printer with the lowest price
consumables.
Let me spell it out. I'd like recommendations for
a quality photoprinter and (since I assume that folks
will be recommending what they've used) the cost
of consumables for that printer.
Is that better?
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
That's why I went to zooms. When I need a shot of the gargoyle
on the roof of the Church, I can't exactly climb up there. And
then when I want to show the gargoyle in context, I don't have
to change lenses.
So the zoom is very handy. But every lens has its own foibles
and they vary with aperture. Using a zoom multiplies the foibles
since now they also vary with focal length. Thus the lens is
harder to "learn".
But as you say, it *is* useful, especially when you don't want
to back pack a ton[*] of glass.
---- Paul J. Gans
[*] A ton is a slight exaggeration. It doesn't feel like
a ton for the first three hours... ;-)
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
[snip]
>> That's a thought. I'll see what other folks think too.
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>IF I have a lot of prints, the Fuji route is preferable for the time
>element, and the pain of trimming from full sheets. For a 'one off'
>8x10, the printer is the way to go, even with the high cost of ink.
Thanks.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Strange that you ask. In fact I am a lefty. And yes, the
between the bars bit was done, but not with any animal
nearby. I did not want to lose the camera.
But of course what I meant was manipulating depth of field
and framing to get things where the eye would not automatically
seek them out.
---- Paul J. Gans
zbzbzb
>>element, and the pain of trimming from full sheets. For a 'one off'
>>8x10, the printer is the way to go, even with the high cost of ink.
>
Only if speed is an issue. Immediacy is the only advantage over a traditional
print.
Ron Hunter
> Ron Hunter writes:
>
>
>>I still know people who believe that
>>the sound from a tube type amplifier is better than that from a rock
>>steady across the frequency range solid state amp. It isn't,
>>technically, but it is what the hearer WANTS to hear.
>
>
> I understand that the advantage of tube amplifiers is that they sound
> better than solid-state amplifiers when overdriven, which apparently is
> important for use with guitars.
>
the point is that some people just LIKE the distortion, and the hum.
Ron Hunter
I know people who have far more invested in film cameras than I have in
the digital, even if you INCLUDE the computer and printer... Lots of
guys spend more money on a lens than my whole computer setup cost.
Ron Hunter
Yes, and when you want to take a picture of something on the other side
of the river and the bridge is 10 miles south.... Grin.
Ron Hunter
Well, convenience/immediacy, and flexibility. I can print a size that
fits into something not a commercial size, for instance.
Ron Hunter
Oh NO! NOT my ROLEX!
Grin.
zbzbzb
You can easily do the same with a chemical print. Simply place whatever size
image you have on an appropriately sized background that matches a typical
print size. It is very simple and quick to do. I've done it for old Polaroid
scans and other custom print sizes. You actually have more versatility with the
chemical prints doing that because you can utilize all sizes of traditional
paper to place your custom prints on. For example if you have a smaller format
inkjet you are stuck with 8.5 inch wide paper.
Mxsmanic
> the point is that some people just LIKE the distortion, and the hum.
That's not my understanding. My understanding is that tube amplifiers
produce more pleasing harmonics when they are driven to distortion, and
they move into the distortion more smoothly than transistor amplifiers.
So a transistor amplifier is superior up to a certain point, but then it
distorts, and it does so with irritating harmonics; whereas a tube
amplifier begins to distort even before it is overdriven, and its
harmonics are more pleasing to the ear. Since guitar players often
overdrive their amps (from what I understand), this is important to them
in order to get the "right" sound.
Mxsmanic
> Lots of guys spend more money on a lens than my whole computer setup cost.
Well, digital can't help you there: good lenses cost a lot no matter
what type of camera you mount them on.
Ron Hunter
2x6. Then trim for no border. You won't do that at Wal-Mart.
The largest print I have ever had made was 8x10. Not into posters, or
wall art.
Ron Hunter
> Ron Hunter writes:
>
>
>>the point is that some people just LIKE the distortion, and the hum.
>
>
> That's not my understanding. My understanding is that tube amplifiers
> produce more pleasing harmonics when they are driven to distortion, and
> they move into the distortion more smoothly than transistor amplifiers.
> So a transistor amplifier is superior up to a certain point, but then it
> distorts, and it does so with irritating harmonics; whereas a tube
> amplifier begins to distort even before it is overdriven, and its
> harmonics are more pleasing to the ear. Since guitar players often
> overdrive their amps (from what I understand), this is important to them
> in order to get the "right" sound.
>
Distortion is distortion. I don't want it. I keep ALL amps below
audible distortion levels, so this feature is complete lost on me. ALL
distortion is irritating to me.
Ron Hunter
> Ron Hunter writes:
>
>
>>Lots of guys spend more money on a lens than my whole computer setup cost.
>
>
> Well, digital can't help you there: good lenses cost a lot no matter
> what type of camera you mount them on.
>
Yep, and since most digital sensors are smaller than film, a better lens
is required to get the same quality. Sometimes you can't get around the
realities of physics, and materials technology.
bob
news:105cmmp...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> The issue gets pretty subjective. I still know people who believe
> that the sound from a tube type amplifier is better than that from a
> rock steady across the frequency range solid state amp. It isn't,
> technically, but it is what the hearer WANTS to hear.
Recordings (CDs, LPs, whatever) are hardly accurate reflections of reality.
Once you get past that truth, you will come to understand that "better" is
what the listener prefers. "Accurate reproduction," whatever that means, is
irrelevant.
Same thing is true with prints. If you like it better, it doesn't really
matter if it isn't as accurate.
bob
--
remove the backwards "SPAM" to reply.
Ron Hunter
true to the real, original sound as technically possible, and the same
goes for things like color and lighting in a photo. This renders much
of what programs like Photoshop can do irrelevant for me.
bob
news:biod505pvtmvbevmj...@4ax.com:
> Ron Hunter writes:
>
>> the point is that some people just LIKE the distortion, and the hum.
>
> That's not my understanding. My understanding is that tube amplifiers
> produce more pleasing harmonics when they are driven to distortion,
> and they move into the distortion more smoothly than transistor
> amplifiers. So a transistor amplifier is superior up to a certain
> point, but then it distorts, and it does so with irritating harmonics;
> whereas a tube amplifier begins to distort even before it is
> overdriven, and its harmonics are more pleasing to the ear. Since
> guitar players often overdrive their amps (from what I understand),
> this is important to them in order to get the "right" sound.
>
Pretty much all electric guitar is overdriven. That's why they sound
like electric guitars.
Actually though, in the last few years, "they" have gotten pretty good
at emulating tube distortion. To the point where you can plug an
electric guitar into a mixing board, record it, and then simulate a wide
variety of tube amps through plugins.
That doesn't negate the point you were making though. Transistor
distortion is nasty. Tube distortion is more rounded and odd harmonics,
just like string and brass instruments.
Bob
bob
news:c35v28$2vq$2...@reader1.panix.com:
>
> Let me spell it out. I'd like recommendations for
> a quality photoprinter and (since I assume that folks
> will be recommending what they've used) the cost
> of consumables for that printer.
I've asked that question a number of times, but not many people keep the
sort of records you need to be able to answer the question accurately.
If you buy a printer that accepts bulk ink (pint or quart bottles), and
if you buy paper by the case, then you can get the costs pretty low.
If you buy the manufacturers inks, and if you buy paper at the office
store, then your costs will be about equal to, or somewhat higher than
getting the prints made at a discount photofinisher (like Wal-mart or
Costco).
bob
@corp.supernews.com:
>
> IF I have a lot of prints, the Fuji route is preferable for the time
> element, and the pain of trimming from full sheets. For a 'one off'
> 8x10, the printer is the way to go, even with the high cost of ink.
But only if you print a lot of 'one offs'. The Fuji 8x10 is like $1.25, so
you need to make a lot of them before you come close to paying for the
printer.