NOTICE: Wednesday I sell off my cameras...
Steve Kramer
Nikon F100 and battery pack plus remote release, Contax G2 with it's
45mm, 90mm, and 21mm lenses and dedicated flash, plus all Contax filters
for these lenses.
I will only keep an FE and an F80 for backup purposes. Maybe just
nostalgia. But EVERYTHING that I have sold during the last year has been
shot digitally. And it's been a very good year.
When I bought my Nikon D100, I bought it thinking I was buying a toy to
play with when not actually working. Since that day more than a year
ago, I haven't shot 5 rolls of film. And everything that I have sold
during the last year has been shot with that 'toy.' Magazine covers,
feature magazine articles, photos for other peoples articles,
advertising photos, studio shoots, assignment shoots to tropical islands
and remote jungles, and several art photos. All shot digitally. With my
new 'toy.'
I'm a working photo journalist, studio photographer, as well as
photography teacher, so I used to shoot about 20-60 rolls of film a
week. Sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on shooting assignments.
There was a lot of money used for bracketing to insure an exposure I was
satisfied with. Now I just look at the LCD. Studio work that used to
take me an hour now takes me 10 minutes. Post processing that used to
take me two days now takes me two hours. Balancing studio lights for
just the right effect is no longer a problem. I just shoot once, look at
the histogram and the LCD, twist the rheostats, and take one more to be
sure, and shoot the subject. Finished. And as far as I am concerned, so
is film.
I never thought I'd be saying that.
But yesterday a young tourist stopped me on the street and asked me if I
knew where she could sell her old used Pentax. She wanted to upgrade her
equipment. I looked at the Pentax that she fished out of the bottom of
her backpack and realized that no shop in the world would give her much
for it. I felt badly for her, as she really wanted the money to buy some
new gear. But she won't be able to get more than a couple of bucks for
that camera. Nor would she even if it were in good condition. It was
old, used, and obsolete. I realized that within a couple of years, most
film cameras will be obsolete too. Even mine. As I said, in the past 12
months I haven't shot 5 full rolls of film, but have taken thousands of
shots.
So Tuesday I'll fly down to Bangkok and sell off almost all my film
equipment. Before the shelves are overloaded with used film cameras and
the prices drop through the floor.
For "me," digital simplified life, takes photos that sell just as well
as film, and is a lot cheaper to work with. Your mileage might vary.
Steve Kramer
Chiang Mai, Thailand
http://www.photoenvisions.com
--
"The voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new horizons,
but in seeing with new eyes." - Marcel Proust
David J. Littleboy
"Steve Kramer" <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote:
> Wednesday I will sell off my cameras...
> When I bought my Nikon D100, I bought it thinking I was buying a toy to
> play with when not actually working. Since that day more than a year
> ago, I haven't shot 5 rolls of film.
Hey! I'm about to (maybe) buy a 35mm film camera<g>. If the new Sigma 12-24
is in the stores, that and the cheapest Canon Kiss (Rebel to you Yanks)
ought to be an amazing blast.
David J. Littleboy
dav...@ass.backwards.com
Tokyo, Japan
Bill Martin
same thing. I keep reading and hearing arguments to the effect that digital
isn't as good as film, and it may not be ( strictly speaking ), but it seems
like every picture I really like lately has been made with a digital camera.
It may have something to do with, as you said, being able to look at the
LCD. It will be a traumatic decision, because I've been using film since
1938, but reality has a way of setting in, doesn't it?
"Steve Kramer" <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote in message
news:3F9BB466...@seatraveler.com...
Simon Stanmore
suppose are 'nostalgic' reasons. They're 2 Nikon FM's, worth very little
should I ever sell, but neither as had a single shutter press since April.
I'd be very surprised if *35mm* film being used by any full-time pro's at
all in the near future (2-4 years)
Simon
Rafe B.
<st...@seatraveler.com> wrote:
>Wednesday I will sell off my cameras... I will sell my Nikon F5, my
>Nikon F100 and battery pack plus remote release, Contax G2 with it's
>45mm, 90mm, and 21mm lenses and dedicated flash, plus all Contax filters
>for these lenses.
>
>I will only keep an FE and an F80 for backup purposes. Maybe just
>nostalgia. But EVERYTHING that I have sold during the last year has been
>shot digitally. And it's been a very good year.
I suspect we'll be hearing more testimonials like this one
in the coming months & years.
Eventually we'll even hear it from the die hards over in
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format. At least those with
open minds.
Dunno what it is, but when I come back from a shoot with
my 10D, there's a lot more keepers than with either my 35
mm gear or MF gear. I can't explain it. But I'm not
complaining.
My old Nikon FE is on its last legs anyway. Kind of sad.
The 8008 does a good job, but I never had an "emotional
bond" with it like I do with the FE.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Timothy O'Connor
Ive had a similar experience. When the process of getting an image from my
F100 to a printable file in photoshop became more of a chore than a labor of
love, I knew it was time to switch. The digital rebel release was the
moment I was waiting for, and so far Im having more fun with photography now
than I ever have - except perhaps when I was 12 :-)
Tony Parkinson
> I will only keep an FE and an F80 for backup purposes. Maybe just
> nostalgia. But EVERYTHING that I have sold during the last year has been
> shot digitally. And it's been a very good year.
>
Ford Pick-Up
--
The next new technology from Microsoft . . . . . .
NNBTGNDHI: Not Necessary, But The Guy Next Door Has It
Steve Kramer
>
> Well, coming from you that's impressive. I've been thinking of doing the
> same thing. I keep reading and hearing arguments to the effect that digital
> isn't as good as film, and it may not be ( strictly speaking ),
It's those last two words, "strictly speaking," that really control the
issue. Yes, if you measure the difference in an optics laboratory you
can easily see a difference. And it's a large difference.
But "in real life" the photo editors who purchase the pictures for
magazines, the clients who purchase the pictures for brochures,
calendars, and advertising, and the neighbors who purchase the pictures
for their living room wall do NOT measure them in an optics lab! They
just look at them with their eyes. And the majority of them do NOT see
any difference, just as the majority of us do NOT hear the difference
between a CD and a LP. Yes, there IS a difference that can be measured,
and YES there are some people who can hear this difference, but they are
few and far between. Most of us will never notice, even if we are told
to look or listen for it.
> but it seems
> like every picture I really like lately has been made with a digital camera.
And why not? So many of the pros are using them today. As are the
serious hobbyists. There are a lot more digital cameras being sold, even
at the higher end, than ever before, and the numbers are growing
geometrically. It stands to reason that we will be seeing more and more
good photos shot with them.
> It may have something to do with, as you said, being able to look at the
> LCD.
For teaching purposes, that little LCD had made it so much easier for a
student to understand and internalize exactly how depth of field can
affect a photo, how hyper focal distancing can be used, and how exposure
compensation of just half a stop can be the difference between a good
photo and an ordinary one. They can SEE that DURING the class (instant
feedback) and it's a lesson never forgotten. Granted, I do miss the
expectation of waiting to see my slides. I'll get over it. I'm tough.
For shooting assignments, it means not having to bracket every shot and
throw away '2/3 of the slides' (read: 'throw away 2/3 of the money') It
means ALWAYS coming home with marketable shots, keepers, call them what
you will but you've got 'em! And you've got 'em because you KNOW without
a shadow of a doubt that your exposure and composition was EXACTLY what
YOU wanted it to be. The entire photo may stink, but at least it stinks
correctly according to what YOU want! *grin*
> It will be a traumatic decision, because I've been using film since
> 1938, but reality has a way of setting in, doesn't it?
It is VERY traumatic! That's why I didn't put anything humorous into
that first post. It's rocked me in my boots! I bought that damn camera
as a toy!!! I was film to the core right up until I started shooting
with it. But that was all it took.
Think about this: three years ago if you wanted to buy a couple of
CR123A lithium batteries you had to go to a camera store or photo
department to buy them. Very few other shops carried them. Today, every
7-11, Circle K, Spar, etc. convenience store sells them. I can even find
them in the small village markets along the Laotian border. But just
three years ago you could only find them in larger camera shops...
Or think about the reverse. I live in northern Thailand's largest
tourist area. There are Kodak 1-hour shops, Fuji 1-hour shops, and
Konica 1-week shops on just about every other street. Film can be bought
in almost every temple, corner market, grocery store, etc.. But less and
less tourists are buying film. Many ask where they can get their media
cards burned onto CD's, and most of the Internet Cafes (there must be
over 200 internet cafes just within the city limits here,) all of the
hotels and guest houses offer this service already.
Almost all of my students are tourists and 3 out of 4 of them have been
using digital cameras. The shops are selling less and less film and that
number will continue to fall until it's no longer profitable to carry it
at all because it will simply expire. People will have to go to camera
shops to find film that isn't past expiration! Now, I don't see that
happening in the next year or two, but I do see it coming. And it's
coming fast.
Leicaddict
your lead. At least go into their favorite camera shop and look around,
because in another 12-24 months, 90% of the film cameras will be gone.
Although, if you can afford it, some film equipment should be saved because
of its collectable status, like the Contax G. But there's a million F5's and
F100's out there that will be going for penny's on the dollar.
--
Leicaddict
drhowarddrfinedrhoward
>>at the higher end, than ever before, and the numbers are growing
>>geometrically.
The Wall Street Journal last week said less than 25% have purchased digital
cameras and since Kodak has said they're going to spend more on digital
their stock price has dropped like a rock.
>>It was old, used, and obsolete. I realized that within a couple of years,
most
>>film cameras will be obsolete too.
And how much do you think you'll get for your d100 in 4 or 5 years? How
much did you pay for it? I paid $250 for my film camera new in 1977, still
use it, and read I could get $180 for it today.
Super Mario Sunshine
years.
film digital it doesnt really matter...
most of all i will argue that the people who will benefit from digital
cameras are those
who shoot alot and do extensive image manipulation.
so for those of you who think you can shoot a straight digital image and get
away with
selling it... good luck... because now not only do you have to shoot your
images, you are
also in charge of manipulation... eliminating trash, blemishes, etc. you
are simply out of your league if you think you can sell straight prints with
no extensive photoshop skills.
that said... photography will never cease to be a "cheap" hobby, whether you
do digital or film.
and least of all you've forgotten almost half of the photographer that still
shoot silver.
mario.
"drhowarddrfinedrhoward" <drhowar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qpRmb.92$hN6...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
Rafe B.
<drhowar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>There are a lot more digital cameras being sold, even
>>>at the higher end, than ever before, and the numbers are growing
>>>geometrically.
>
>The Wall Street Journal last week said less than 25% have purchased digital
>cameras and since Kodak has said they're going to spend more on digital
>their stock price has dropped like a rock.
Kodak's stock has been declining for a long time now,
for any number of reasons unrelated to digital cameras.
Besides which, this topic has been beaten to death by
now.
>>>It was old, used, and obsolete. I realized that within a couple of years,
>most
>>>film cameras will be obsolete too.
>
>And how much do you think you'll get for your d100 in 4 or 5 years? How
>much did you pay for it? I paid $250 for my film camera new in 1977, still
>use it, and read I could get $180 for it today.
This matters only if you regard the camera as a collectors item,
rather than as a tool for making photos.
I have a great deal of affection for my ancient Nikon FE, but it's
on its last legs and I suspect it's not worth fixing again.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Michael Benveniste
<drhowar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>The Wall Street Journal last week said less than 25% have purchased digital
>cameras and since Kodak has said they're going to spend more on digital
>their stock price has dropped like a rock.
Kodak's strategy is admittingly risky, but most of the concern I've
seen in the business news is because Kodak, like Polaroid before it,
is entering the market too late and without a significant competitive
advantage.
>And how much do you think you'll get for your d100 in 4 or 5 years? How
>much did you pay for it? I paid $250 for my film camera new in 1977, still
>use it, and read I could get $180 for it today.
Pros have to look at both income and expense. If a piece of gear
costs $2000 but let's someone like Steve net an extra $1000 a year,
even if he pitches the gear after three years, he gets around a 29%
return on investment. That net gain can come from extra sales,
reduced expenses, or both.
For a hobbyist shooting a couple of rolls a week or less and getting
little or no income, the equations work out quite differently, at
least for now. Although for most hobbyists, the primary importance of
resale value appears to be as a justification for buying more gear.
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-...@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Dennis O'Connor
use... My hold up is not wanting to spend the time and learning curve on
Photoshop, etc... I may spring for a D1X in place of the F5 yet, who
knows...
I strongly doubt that I will change to digi for MF/LF though... Still
slopping fixer on my shoes, though I only started in '49 not '39 (I'm still
a kid, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa)
Denny
"Steve Kramer" <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote in message
news:3F9BCFC0...@seatraveler.com...
> Bill Martin wrote:
> >
McLeod
got laughed at. I haven't put a roll of film through my F90x in 2 years and
I have access to free film processing and minilabs and custom colour
darkrooms. I use my medium format equipment still, but I have an Epson
scanner that scans medium format film. I hope you can still get good prices
for your bodies.
On another note, an opportunity to move to Thailand has presented itself to
me. I am due to retire from my first career in 2 years and my wife is a
teacher here in Canada with lots of experience in the curriculum that
Thailand has adopted. I realize this newsgroup isn't the place for this so
you can e-mail me directly. How do you like Thailand? What are the pros
and cons? My wife would have a guaranteed job and I wouldn't have too much
trouble finding one either, I have an adult instructor certificate and 20
years as a professional photographer, plus a pension. Any information you
can provide would be appreciated, if you have the time. Thanks.
"Steve Kramer" <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote in message
news:3F9BB466...@seatraveler.com...
Jeff Schneider
grew up with film, but who now need to invest in digital gear and learn
about digital manipulation, it's a great time to be a 35mm amateur camera
collector/photographer.
I photograph and collect for pleasure. I never intend to sell any of my
cameras or lenses, and I don't care what anyone says they are worth. I
bought them to use and enjoy.
With such a huge number of film cameras in the world, I believe that I'll be
able to get decent film and processing for the rest of my life (though
perhaps mail order only, and almost certainly more expensive than it is
now).
So, I look forward to picking up some top-quality used 35mm cameras
dirt-cheap, the way I picked up manual focus lenses ten years ago. But
there's no way I'd INVEST anything in film gear now if I had to make a
living from photography.
Jeff
"Leicaddict" <leica...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i86dnQ4gzco...@comcast.com...
Kenneth Chou
option.
as digital isnt quite affordable to work with shifts and tilt.
k.
"Jeff Schneider" <jps...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gTSmb.5511$FI2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Patrick L.
"Bill Martin" <wcma...@vnet.net> wrote in message
news:mL6dnciHw9w...@ctc.net...
> Well, coming from you that's impressive. I've been thinking of doing the
> same thing. I keep reading and hearing arguments to the effect that
digital
> isn't as good as film, and it may not be ( strictly speaking ), but it
seems
> like every picture I really like lately has been made with a digital
camera.
> It may have something to do with, as you said, being able to look at the
> LCD. It will be a traumatic decision, because I've been using film since
> 1938, but reality has a way of setting in, doesn't it?
>
I have only a Oly E-10 only 4 megapixels, and my 11x14s are sharp as a
tack with no noticeable noise, and this is with 1:8 compression. The only
time I shoot film is when I want to shoot with 3200 black and white film or
infrared, for that particular effect, or sometimes medium format for
formals.
Patrick
Skip Middleton
the digital user that option, coupled with manipulation in PS. And there
are adapters to use the Canon lenses on Nikons.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Kenneth Chou" <ken@****kennethchou.ca> wrote in message
news:y%Smb.15499$7B1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Meryl Arbing
much and delivered mediocre results, I sold off ALL of my digital cameras
and went back to film. Once I saw the results from even a simple 35mm SLR
and compared them to the best that digital was able to deliver, that was the
end of digital for me! Looking at the images side by side was an amazing
revelation...as such my digital cameras began to gather dust and be used
less and less. It was amazing NOT having my camera batteries die after a
hour or two and in the middle of a shoot.
I can't imagine anybody going the other way! It is a terrible mistake that
you will regret!
"Steve Kramer" <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote in message
news:3F9BB466...@seatraveler.com...
Meryl Arbing
waiting.
"McLeod" <cerve...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ztSmb.595$Tf.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Tony Parkinson
news:odTmb.83$9j3....@news20.bellglobal.com...
> We are still waiting for digital to kill APS format...and we are STILL
> waiting.
>
professional 35mm users are increasingly switching to digital and making a
satisfactory living from it
Are you really so full of shit, or do you just like being a rebel without a
clue ?
Martin Francis
> waiting.
Not sure how the California market for APS is, but over here it is virtually
game over. We stock two Canon APS compacts, which have been sat on the shelf
for months if not a year. I haven't seen an APS SLR at all in 2003. The only
time I see customers with APS cameras they are asking to get their flims
washed, trying to part-ex for a dijjicul, or wondering why the bargain
basement point and shoot they bought from Boots Pharmacy has broken after
six weeks. It's a similar story in D&P- since the introduction of our Kodak
"Moses" memory card -> CD-R unit digital processing has outstripped APS
completely. Yesterday I didn't book in a single developed APS film, and
wasn't handed a single undeveloped roll until 5 o' clock.
--
Martin Francis
- "Argh! My hard drive crashed and I lost everything!"
jriegle
and have shot hundreds of digital photos. I did not go on a vacation this
year or the film camera would have gotten much more use.
I still respect the 35mm film format and I will still use it for slide and
slow print film use in copy work. Compared to 6mp digital, film still has
the resolution advantage. With ISO 100 film rated at 50 or 64, using my best
primes stopped down, the enlargements look so crisp.
For everyday shooting, digital is the clear choice for me. I don't print
everything I shoot so the cost is nil.
John
"Steve Kramer" <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote in message
news:3F9BB466...@seatraveler.com...
MG
> After several years of being ripped off by digital cameras that cost too
> much and delivered mediocre results, I sold off ALL of my digital cameras
> and went back to film. Once I saw the results from even a simple 35mm SLR
> and compared them to the best that digital was able to deliver, that was
the
> end of digital for me! Looking at the images side by side was an amazing
> revelation...as such my digital cameras began to gather dust and be used
> less and less. It was amazing NOT having my camera batteries die after a
> hour or two and in the middle of a shoot.
>
> I can't imagine anybody going the other way! It is a terrible mistake
that
> you will regret!
Damn, I guess I should be filled with regret after 2 years of primarily
digital and 1 year of totally digital. I guess I should regret the wait for
processing (free at my wife's lab), wait the couple of hours over the light
box to get the ones I think are keepers, regret the interminable scanning
and then the photoshopping to find I don't want to keep some of the ones
that made it past the light table. I guess I should regret not having to
get out the projector, fill the trays, set up the screen so I can see the
slides. I also regret all the books and trays of slides and the books of
negatives which seem to never be where I want them and I guess I will regret
getting good digital equipment rather than point and shoots so I could then
throw them all away. Yep I am filled with regret as I smile and look at my
images which have been sent by FTP to my wife's lab for Fuji Frontier prints
at an amazingly low cost. Damn, I regret selling my F5 and F4,-----not!!!!
MG
Deathwalker
"drhowarddrfinedrhoward" <drhowar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qpRmb.92$hN6...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> >>at the higher end, than ever before, and the numbers are growing
> >>geometrically.
>
> The Wall Street Journal last week said less than 25% have purchased
digital
> cameras and since Kodak has said they're going to spend more on digital
> their stock price has dropped like a rock.
This would be the same mob that told us all to buy stocks in anything with
.com in the title and said things like "profits are so yesterday man".
Deathwalker
A long time ago one of my teachers used a video camera to show how our eyes
compensated for things, colour balance and darkness of shadows. Not only
does the human brain do the colour balance trick it will open up one eye and
keep the other small so you don't see the true contrast and can consequently
see details of shadows that you don't get when metering on the bright parts.
Kenneth Chou
its also very hard to change focal plane in post processing... especially
when commercial
work demands the best quality negs. when you set up an extensive studio, a
few polaroids and a 4x5 or 8x10 neg is worth it... you'll want the full
control of focal and
film planes.
k
"Skip Middleton" <shadow...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:tmTmb.34395$gi2.4858@fed1read01...
Tony Spadaro
the same thing from every pro I know in the past year or two. I'm still
shooting film -- what little I shoot at all these days, but after I have my
cataracts operated on this winter, I'll probably start planning for a
digital SLR.
Furthermore, my lab is moving out of town in December - out to where the
rents are lower - instead of a 5 mile round trip it will be over that one
way. This is the only lab I use and even now, slide film is sent to Raleigh
for processing --- a 48 hour turnaround.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Steve Kramer" <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote in message
Kenneth Chou
maybe you should consider another career.
k.
"Tony Parkinson" <nospamne...@photoshot.com> wrote in message
news:bnh0qu$qv4$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Deathwalker
> After several years of being ripped off by digital cameras that cost too
> much and delivered mediocre results, I sold off ALL of my digital cameras
> and went back to film.
You jumped in too early and jumped out too early. You were one of the many
guinea pigs. Now the digital renaissance proper is starting you are leaving
again.
I've waited this long for a price performance point that suits my modest
budget and haven't regretted it. AS far as investments go digial cameras
drop in value 4x faster than film. So i went the sensible route and bought
a scanner for half the price of even a digital rebel. Personally i'd much
prefer b+w d=p in my own dark room. Such fun! But logistically
(dermatologically) impossible and as for colour forget about it. However i
can print colour 8x10 at home that smash the highstreet labs quality and
beat the pro ones on price. I also restore alot of old black and white
using clone and healing tools. Even removed two unpolpular nephews for a
lady and an ex son inlaw from a beloved family photo. yay digital.
As others have said i can't wait to buy an almost new eos1 for a pittance.
Unfortunately the lenses will still be a shocking price. 35mm sensors will
arrive and eventually be affordable so eos fit lenses will still command a
fortune.
Kenneth Chou
4 friends to
look over prints... having an image to hold, possibly write and throw in a
back
pocket is nice... you simply wouldnt want to do that with digital... it is
time consuming and
expensive.
i guess im just old fashioned.
k.
"jriegle" <jri...@att.net> wrote in message
news:raUmb.194837$0v4.15...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Tony Spadaro
burnt. You went on a witchhunt and have stayed on it for several years.
makling you the most consistant of the losers, Meryl. I'll watch with great
interest as the photography world follows you back to film. What a banana!
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:cbTmb.81$9j3....@news20.bellglobal.com...
Tony Spadaro
few years ago. Seems the place he gets his film developed stopped processing
the stuff. He went back to a 35mm point and shoot. APS was dead before
digital was even a major player.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:odTmb.83$9j3....@news20.bellglobal.com...
Deathwalker
"Martin Francis" <removethisbefore...@btinternet.com> wrote in
message news:bnh0tq$lhn$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> "Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:odTmb.83$9j3....@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > We are still waiting for digital to kill APS format...and we are STILL
> > waiting.
aps was meant to kill 35mm or at least take over the common consumer end.
But it turns out normal film can give you index prints too. I don't think
the magnetic strip part of the film was ever used properly. exif 2.2 is
doing what it supposed to so there was potential lost. They were talking of
dissolving all the halides and using magentic couplers to produce a sort of
digital print of sorts. Also these 1 off print labs that never fixed the
film but managed to print in 20 mins but no chance of reprints. aps just
cost too much more in standard machines (cameras and minilabs) let alone the
all bells and whistles equipped ones. Thing is simple consumer use but
heavy price. Might as well buy a similar priced super compact. I still rue
the day my canon compact superzoom 105 was killed by my nephew. Mind you
that was a huge monster compared to the latest 105. That isn't an aps
format either.
Comparing all these failed initiatives with digital is unwise. Its being
done properly this time. First the techy guys were hooked with bleeding
edge technology. Then the pro users found it useful. Then the consumers
got their affordable point and shoots. basically the pro technology and
resolutions have percolated down to consumer level. 3megapixels were
strictly pro sumer now they are becoming entry level. with 4 in the middle
and 6 at the top of the prosumer line. Full size 35mm chips for a grand
will come within 5 years probably less.
Finally the contrast and shadow detail problems of digital will be dealt
with. Fuji put tiny sensors above the main sensors to collect this
previously missing information. eventually the others will find a way too.
Again the pros will use this first then the consumers.
Kodak is wise to invest in digital. There are cameras, sensors and papers
to do. There are also minilabs that print from cds and chips to consider.
So not every consumer will need to learn photoshop and spend fortunes on
ink. They seem to be more light fast than inkjet for the moment.
Alan Browne
Meryl Arbing wrote:
> We are still waiting for digital to kill APS format...and we are STILL
> waiting.
>
APS? Pretty dead already.
Tony Spadaro
guess they are old fashioned too.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Kenneth Chou" <ken@****kennethchou.ca> wrote in message
news:1AUmb.75972$h61....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
drhowarddrfinedrhoward
you are going. And buy a $500 scanner and a computer with a DVD or CD drive
plus Photoshop and a photo capable printer. Then spend hours searching
through those hundreds of "click, click, click" images of yours or burn 'em
all and bore everyone to death with them.
drhowarddrfinedrhoward
to a lab, and in a couple of days get your prints. What a concept!
Lewis Lang
>From: Steve Kramer st...@seatraveler.com
>Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2003 11:47 AM
>Message-id: <3F9BB466...@seatraveler.com>
Hi Steve:
On a totally? different subject (well almost totally different), how do you
archive/file your (I'm assuming, massive amounts of shots)? What kind of
indexing/file numbering system, programs, and media do you use and what is your
work flow like? I have heard that post-processing (read filing and typing
captions as well as Pshop kind of work) is the Faustian bargain one pays for
the convenience of digital - do you find yourself spending less time waiting
for the images to be developed and more time at the computer trying to catalog
and/or in post-manipulation work in Pshop? What if anything do you miss about
film and why? - there must be some other reason(s) besides nostalgia that
you're keeping the N80 ;-). Do you miss not having wide angle or have you
gotten either a 14mm/2.8 or Nikon's new 12-24/4 digital zoom to make up for
this? When you need super large enlargements do you rent MF? Any problems w/
battery power or durability on the D100? Even though what you do seems mostly
geared to commercial/PJ-type work - what do you do for those extra special
images (personal/fine art or commercial or otherwise) that you don't want to
have to keep transferring from disk to disk every few years and want to last
beyond your lifetime - make pigment prints or Crystal Archive prints or have
them outputted on a film recorder to film (longer lasting)? Any problems with
media (hard drive/etc.) failure or readability (of whatever media you use)
failure (ie. some Cds written at a certain speed a few years back may not be
compatable w/ present/future CD readers? Do you feel/experience you're now tied
into a cycle of continuous obsolescence/upgrading? - next year or two will it
be a 9 or 12MP camera that replaces your 6MP, newer computer and/or with bigger
HD and more RAM, etc.? If so, do you regret this or (I'm assuming) your
business profits cover these future expenses?
TIA
Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: NOTICE: Wednesday I sell off my cameras...
>From: "David J. Littleboy" dav...@gol.com
>Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2003 12:08 PM
>Message-id: <bngdfg$cff$1...@nnrp.gol.com>
>
>
>"Steve Kramer" <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote:
>
>> Wednesday I will sell off my cameras...
>
>> When I bought my Nikon D100, I bought it thinking I was buying a toy to
>> play with when not actually working. Since that day more than a year
>> ago, I haven't shot 5 rolls of film.
>
>Hey! I'm about to (maybe) buy a 35mm film camera<g>. If the new Sigma 12-24
SNIP
I've heard of Nikon's 12-24/4, other than the focal length range, wahat are the
specs on the new Sigma 12-24?
Deathwalker
> if you consider digital as a way of cost saving as a photographer...
> maybe you should consider another career.
>
> k.
????
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2003 6:24 PM
>Message-id: <fjUmb.2235$hP5.22...@news-text.cableinet.net>
This I've never heard of before (this each eye reading a different exposure, it
may be possible, but...). Do our eyes actually function like that? - I was more
under the impression that, whether it be focus or exposure that the eyes scan
reality built up an image _over time_ which gives the impression of more
sharpness than there really is or greater dynamic range as the mind doesn't pay
notice to this since it happens on a borderline conscious level... So while
there may be little delay between what the eye sees and what the brain
registers, the mind is a "laggard" and what we see as an image is built up from
the best bits/scans. Akin to this is when we read, we (well, at least, I) am
not conscious of my eye movements across the page or how much area my eyes scan
in or the focus of my eyes changing i the book is read at a slight angle to me,
I'm just aware of the words/overall process of reading (and the ideas/emotions
I glean from it ;-)) - something to think about, or at least something to scan
over ;-).
MG
photoshop with film and had a photo capable printer. Searching those click,
click, clicks is easy in either breezebrowser or Nikon View, which by the
way, allows you to delete before burning. What's your point?
MG
"drhowarddrfinedrhoward" <drhowar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1UUmb.438$FG7...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
Deathwalker
sense of light is complicated. Close one eye even in bright light and the
others iris will open more (learnt this in shooting. Some shooters have a
white eye guard so they can see bright light but aren't distracted. This
means the eye looking through the sights don't widen so you get more visual
acuity (stopped down) ). On the other hand flash a bright light in one eye
the iris will close down but the other won't. Think about it. opticians and
doctors do that to for different reasons. Also when you turn your attention
to the shadowed area you eye will open up. between two eyes and your brain
you have more lattitude than film. Using a video camera shows an
aproximation of what the film will see. This is useful in seeing how evenly
lit your subject is and especially the use of reflectors and fill in flash.
Deathwalker
> Great! So all you have to do is take out your memory or burn a CD, take
it
> to a lab, and in a couple of days get your prints. What a concept!
erm actually i upload via broadband to a mail order company and get my stuff
back within 24 hours. How many film processing mail order companies do that
outside of a pro service using despatch riders. I also get to choose the
ones i send not simply all of them. I can also clean up as necessary before
sending. All for 15pence per print. Not only that but true format for
digital and 35mm is 6x4.5 inch. No cropping at all needed.
Deathwalker
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20031026153244...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> >Subject: NOTICE: Wednesday I sell off my cameras...
> >From: Steve Kramer st...@seatraveler.com
> >Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2003 11:47 AM
> >Message-id: <3F9BB466...@seatraveler.com>
Well for me lzw compressed tiffs mean i can get a roll of film scanned onto
a blank cd costing 30pence. I have two huge folders full of negs that i
used to catalogue just as carefully. Now i can rename a file or folder
without damn tipex. I can store cds without their cases in a fraction of
the space of a4 ring binders. The neg sleeves cost me more than that. then
they are negs so i can't check thumbnails without printing them off with
contact prints or having a batch of wallet size ones done. I tried mounting
them next to the negs sleaves on card using mounting spray but they always
fell off. You do have to catalogue film too ya know.
Kenneth Chou
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:UTUmb.22551$fl1.7...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Gordon Moat
> you fergot to mention the replacement of computers and printers in that 4-5
> years.
> film digital it doesnt really matter...
>
> most of all i will argue that the people who will benefit from digital
> cameras are those
> who shoot alot and do extensive image manipulation.
>
> so for those of you who think you can shoot a straight digital image and get
> away with
> selling it... good luck... because now not only do you have to shoot your
> images, you are
> also in charge of manipulation... eliminating trash, blemishes, etc. you
> are simply out of your league if you think you can sell straight prints with
> no extensive photoshop skills.
I hear this quite a bit locally from advertising based photographers. Many have
found that more time is spent in digital editing, or adjustments for printing.
While some clients or publications will take RGB images, the trend is shifting
towards colour accurate CMYK submissions, with 300 ppi at the final printed
dimensions.
The extra time is the issue, since it is tougher to incorporate that into the
final billing. With scanning film, most of the editing and image choices is
finished prior to scanning, and can often mean less time on the computer.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Lewis Lang
>From: "Patrick L." nice...@ifyoucangetit.com
>Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2003 5:08 PM
>Message-id: <0cTmb.3056$RQ1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
>
>
>"Bill Martin" <wcma...@vnet.net> wrote in message
>news:mL6dnciHw9w...@ctc.net...
>> Well, coming from you that's impressive. I've been thinking of doing the
>> same thing. I keep reading and hearing arguments to the effect that
>digital
>seems
>> like every picture I really like lately has been made with a digital
>camera.
>> 1938, but reality has a way of setting in, doesn't it?
>>
>
>
> I have only a Oly E-10 only 4 megapixels, and my 11x14s are sharp as
>a
>tack with no noticeable noise, and this is with 1:8 compression. The only
>time I shoot film is when I want to shoot with 3200 black and white film
>or
>infrared, for that particular effect, or sometimes medium format for
>formals.
>
>
>Patrick
Hi Patrick:
I have an Olympus ("Nothing's Impossible") (signed) poster by the U.N./etc.
photographer John Isaac. The dimensions are 24 7/16 inches by 18 1/4inches
(measure to the best/nearest of my measuring ability). Yes, its sharp, but you
can definitely tell its lacking in detail/resolution, especially within the
whites and iris of the eyes and , possibly the face, though larger areas of
detail/texture in her pink wrap around seem ok. (It seems to be a shot of a
black African? lady, a vertical portrait, in her native pink and gold garb).
Sharpness/resolution are two different things. And what you might be able to
get away with at smaller sizes becomes moot (or at least less adequate, if not
inadequate) at larger ("fine art" print and) poster sizes. He used an Oly 10 or
20 (I forget which at the moment) too. And at even larger sizes (I saw some
roughly 30x40"? photographic? prints, also made from the same Oly digi camera)
at the same Photo Expo show I got this signed poster at) the image definitely
does break down due to noise/artefacting/lack of resolution in skin tone areas,
etc. Though I have no doubt your 11x14" prints look decent enough (though even
here, at this size, film has much much better resolution). For Joe Schmoe (who
rarely needs anything beyond a 4x6" print or an 8x10" print) or the commercial
photographer who never goes above double truck, 4-6 MP may be fine but for fine
art I've even seen 11MP (EOS 1Ds) that didn't come anywhere near film in
tonality/resolution. As a fine art photographer I'm still waiting for the
longevity of the media to increase (I don't know if I could be satisfied w/
merely long-lasting inkjet or photographic prints as my "substitute
'originals'"), the price to go down even more ($4-500 range) and the quality to
go up... way up. In the mean time I'll shoot film and keep my eye on digital to
see where its going.
Regards,
Gordon Moat
> Like you Steve I've kept 2 film SLR's and a few manual lenses for what I
> suppose are 'nostalgic' reasons. They're 2 Nikon FM's, worth very little
> should I ever sell, but neither as had a single shutter press since April.
> I'd be very surprised if *35mm* film being used by any full-time pro's at
> all in the near future (2-4 years)
>
> Simon
The current trend in many lifestyle magazines has been towards small cameras,
and even P&S cameras. These have been popularized by some of the current
professionals. Another trend is publishing photos showing the frame edges, or
sprocket holes, though that can be faked digitally.
Trends can have more to do with fashion, and emulating a few, than other
factors. Technology in and of itself rarely has ever driven change. Wireless
imaging is challenging direct digital, and may become the dominant new
technology very soon.
Tony Parkinson
> "Tony Parkinson" <nospamne...@photoshot.com> wrote ...
> > Well, I guess while you're sitting there waiting, the majority of
> > professional 35mm users are increasingly switching to digital and making
a
> > satisfactory living from it
> >
> > Are you really so full of shit, or do you just like being a rebel
without
> > a clue ?
> >
>
> maybe you should consider another career.
>
as a photographer" ? I've even left my comments above for you to point it
out
Or were you just trying to get a nomination for the "Meryl Arbing award for
outstanding stupidity in a photography newsgroup" ?
Simon Stanmore
"Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3F9C38CC...@attglobal.net...
>
> I hear this quite a bit locally from advertising based photographers. Many
have
> found that more time is spent in digital editing, or adjustments for
printing.
> While some clients or publications will take RGB images, the trend is
shifting
> towards colour accurate CMYK submissions, with 300 ppi at the final
printed
> dimensions.
>
> The extra time is the issue, since it is tougher to incorporate that into
the
> final billing. With scanning film, most of the editing and image choices
is
> finished prior to scanning, and can often mean less time on the computer.
>
> Ciao!
>
> Gordon Moat
> Alliance Graphique Studio
> <http://www.allgstudio.com>
If you're aiming for absolute tip-top quailty - exhibition prints - then
individual and lengthy processing is pretty much 'required'with a
digi-capture. Same goes with a darkroom job too of course. Otherwise custom
RAW profiles and PS actions demand just the initial investment in time to
create them. Once you have them, the files are simply automatically batch
processed and auto saved. It's a case of making proper use of the facilities
available to us with our photo software
Simon
Alan Browne
drhowarddrfinedrhoward wrote:
> Great! So all you have to do is take out your memory or burn a CD, take it
> to a lab, and in a couple of days get your prints. What a concept!
>
>
All I have to do is edit an image and upload it to a lab site. A phone
call tells me when it is ready (usually same afternoon if in by 12:00)
or have it (them) mailed to my house. Charged to my MC.
Alan.
Tony Spadaro
no film costs, and of course no prints that you don't want -- and don't give
me that "you don't have to buy the ones you don't want" business about film.
I've spent enough time at labs to know most people don't even open the
package in the shop.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Kenneth Chou" <ken@****kennethchou.ca> wrote in message
news:qNWmb.76751$h61....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Tony Spadaro
catalog my film without making scans so there is more work involved with
film -- save for those who use the "I have a good memory" method -- which is
also called the "I was sure that shot was somewhere in the 1997 books,
unless it was late 96 or early 98. Maybe it got mixed in with..."
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20031026153244...@mb-m07.aol.com...
Deathwalker
"Simon Stanmore" <nom...@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:10672060...@echo.uk.clara.net...(In my case apply barrier cream fit latex gloves remove afterwards and put
on eczema cream on day afterwards anyway.)
Mixing up solutions and getting to temp. 15 mins. dev time 7 mins. empty
out and wash. 2 mins. stop bath. 1 min. fix 5 -10. wash 20mins. Drying
time day if drip dry 30 mins to hour in dryer. Then mix up stuff for
printing and getting temps. strip tests for rough contact print. then
select negs exposure. adjust filters. print. process 90 secs dev 30 secs
stop 5-10mins fix 20 mins wash then dry. then do the cropping burning in
holding back etc. Double the difficulties if you are doing colour and
adjusting filtration affects exposure, critical temperatures thermostats.
Safely dispose of chemicals not down drain but in a more eco friendly manor
(pour all stuff together hoping that they neutralize each other then pour
down drain). Alternative is £1500 loft conversion then plumb in running
water, with drainage or slop bucket of used chemicals down ladder into
bathroom. 2nd alternative freeze your arseoff in outdoor shed in middle of
winter. + plumbing light proofing heating electricity ventilation.
Come out smelling of fixative and adjust eyes back to daylight. Let kids
hopping up and down on one leg back into bathroom. Bump into wife "excuse
me have we met before?"
as opposed to insert usb cable to camera. 5 secs. download images. 2- 3
mins. view thumbnails or view each frame that fills a 17" monitor, coupla
minutes. pick one. print. 4 mins on canon 25 mins epson. minor colour
adjustments. a few layers to hold things back or burn by adjusting opacity
of each layer half to one hour or simply using the (amateur only ) dodge and
burn tools, a few minutes. crop a bit and print again. nother 4 mins or 20
mins.
.
Deathwalker
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
A wise move. no need to pledge undying allegiance to one format rather than
other.
Inkjets aren't the only thing to produce prints ya know. ask what the
local reprographics firm use. Then there are the fuji frontier machines and
their ilk. laser precision 300dpi (not need more than 150 for the humble
inkjet though that is changing) onto real photopaper. even have your stuff
put onto trannies. just a matter of money. I doubt any serious pro will be
exclusively one or the other. The firm i worked at poo pooed 35mm but still
kept one handy cos "the client knows best" 120 for the cheaper clients and
plate cameras for the serious boys. I went back after a few years and the
entire floor of the art dept was empty and instead one girl with an apple
mac doing the lot. Another machine in the admin office handling all the
other reprographics.
Deathwalker
roll of film 3 exposures £4.50. processing and set of prints in 48
hours£5.99 1 hour £7.99. Mail order £3.99 and 1 week to 10 days.
total cost 7.49 -12.49 for unedited un sharpened and treated 6x4 enprints
including the one of the carpet whilst you were loading.
"Kenneth Chou" <ken@****kennethchou.ca> wrote in message
news:qNWmb.76751$h61....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
drhowarddrfinedrhoward
Digital is fine for the p&s crowd that own their own computer and want to
email photos to their friends.
Gordon Moat
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:3F9C38CC...@attglobal.net...
> >
> > I hear this quite a bit locally from advertising based photographers. Many
> have
> > found that more time is spent in digital editing, or adjustments for
> printing.
> > While some clients or publications will take RGB images, the trend is
> shifting
> > towards colour accurate CMYK submissions, with 300 ppi at the final
> printed
> > dimensions.
> >
> > The extra time is the issue, since it is tougher to incorporate that into
> the
> > final billing. With scanning film, most of the editing and image choices
> is
> > finished prior to scanning, and can often mean less time on the computer.
> >
> > Ciao!
> >
> > Gordon Moat
> > Alliance Graphique Studio
> > <http://www.allgstudio.com>
>
> If you're aiming for absolute tip-top quailty - exhibition prints - then
> individual and lengthy processing is pretty much 'required'with a
> digi-capture.
Really a very separate scenario than preparing work for publication. With
individual prints, the extra time spent using any method could be thought of as
an investment in future sales, and price each individual print accordingly.
> Same goes with a darkroom job too of course. Otherwise custom
> RAW profiles and PS actions demand just the initial investment in time to
> create them. Once you have them, the files are simply automatically batch
> processed and auto saved. It's a case of making proper use of the facilities
> available to us with our photo software
>
> Simon
Or with other photographic projects as well. I have came up with a pricing
figure for my fine art Polaroid work. Basically, the final price is computed on
how many pieces of film I destroy before I have the final piece finished.
The fine art work is a side line to my usual work. Most of my work is strictly
intended for publication, brochures, posters, or other printed materials
produced in quantity. I realize this is very different from the hobby
photographer who only wants one or two prints, or from the requirements of
producing fine art imagery. I do spend more time on the fine art imagery than
what I get back financially, but part of that effort is getting my name out . .
. so it is somewhat promotional.
Editing images on a light table is non-linear. No matter what software you use
for organizing and sorting images, the majority of people would find editing on
a light table faster. Increase the size of the transparency, and it can be
quicker still.
The cool aspect of current choices is that any choice is now valid. With the
publications, and editors, when you send them a CD-R with images, few of them
care how those originated.
David J. Littleboy
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
> >"Steve Kramer" <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Wednesday I will sell off my cameras...
> >
12-24
>
are the
> specs on the new Sigma 12-24?
You need to learn how to use St. Google<g>.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03101801sigma1224.asp
The street price in Japan should be in the $900 to $1000 range, since the
Yen's been strengthening against the dollar since that page was written.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2003 10:54 PM
>Message-id: <%gYmb.2520$BV7.24...@news-text.cableinet.net>
What kind of (digital, I'm assuming) equipment does she use along w/ her mac?
Lewis Lang
>From: "Tony Spadaro" tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com
>Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2003 10:40 PM
>Message-id: <c3Ymb.10507$IA2.6...@twister.southeast.rr.com>
>
>That entire Faustian bargain is true of film too, Lewis. I can't even
>catalog my film without making scans so there is more work involved with
>film -- save for those who use the "I have a good memory" method -- which
>is
>also called the "I was sure that shot was somewhere in the 1997 books,
>unless it was late 96 or early 98. Maybe it got mixed in with..."
Not having a scanner, if there is a Faustian bargain for film its not
applicable to me right now. I'd probably (as before) make slide dupes or prints
to send in, so I guess its a matter of workflow/style.
By the way... the "Faustian bargain" is more of a reference/concern not only to
computer time spent catalogueing but to archival longevity, and as one of my
favorite self-quotes refers to "trading tommorrow for today" - in other words,
being locked into continually copying and recopying your work whereas w/ film I
could be dead 50-200 years and they'd still be able to read the image off of
the slide (through a slide scanner or optically or whatever passes for a
viewing/printing device then. Despite the copying, digital media are a lot less
archival and the standards are constantly shifting. This becomes irrelevant if
you have a foundation or heirs willing to make copies and re-copies forever
onto new media, but not everyone is so blessed. I'm not of the "print as
original fan club" so I'm hoping for some kind of both standardization of
media/file formats (for longevity/readability) as well as some major advances
in the storage life w/o degradation/w/o re-copying necessary of digital media
and/or whatever supplants digital. I'm not against digital per se, it just
doesn't meet my needs in areas that are very important to me. Hopefully, this
will change... Until it does, both I and my wallet and my slide files will
sleep well at nights. I find it relatively easy to find my work, so that is not
really a consideration for me as my filing system is shaping up quite well.
ChrisPlatt
>I went back after a few years and the
>entire floor of the art dept was empty and instead one girl with an apple
>mac doing the lot. Another machine in the admin office handling all the
>other reprographics.
MY OLD MAN
(Ewan MacColl)
My old man was a good old man
Skilled in the moulding trade
In the stinking heat of the iron foundry
My old man was made
Down on his knees in the moulding sand
He wore his trade like a company brand
He was one of the cyclops' smoky band
Yes, that was my old man
My old man wasn't really old
It's just that I was young
And anybody over twelve years old
Was halfway to the tomb
He was loyal to his workmates all his life
Gave his pay packet to his wife
Had a few jars on a Saturday night
Yes, that was my old man
My old man was a union man
Fought hard all his days
He understood the system
And was wise to the boss' ways
He says, you want what's yours by right
You have to struggle with all your might
They'll rob you blind if you don't fight
Yes, that was my old man
My old man was a proud old man
At home on the foundry floor
Until the day they laid him off
And showed him to the door
They gave him his card, said, things are slack
We've got a machine can learn the knack
Of doing your job, so don't come back
The end of my old man
My old man he was fifty-one
What was he to do?
A craftsman moulder on the dole
In nineteen thirty-two
He felt he'd given all he could give
So he did what thousands of others did
Abandoned hope and the will to live
They killed him, my old man
My old man he is dead and gone
Now I am your old man
And my advice to you, my son
Is to fight back while you can
Watch out for the man with the silicon chip
Hold on to your job with a good firm grip
'Cause if you don't you'll have had your chips
The same as my old man
Copyright Stormking Music, Inc.
McLeod
gross resolution, can easily be duplicated by anyone skilled in Photoshop.
Anything you can do with tilts, swings, and shifts are easily duplicated.
Short depth of focus? No problem. Correcting converging vertical lines in
architectural images? No problem. For a long time the control of the
images after being exposed had left most photographer's (even
professional's) hands. Now, creative control is coming back to every
photographer. I, for one, am in favour and applaud the new digital
revolution.
"Kenneth Chou" <ken@****kennethchou.ca> wrote in message
news:y%Smb.15499$7B1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> if you intend to shoot commercial products then film will be your only
> option.
> as digital isnt quite affordable to work with shifts and tilt.
>
> k.
>
>
> "Jeff Schneider" <jps...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:gTSmb.5511$FI2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > While this might be a difficult transitional period for professionals
who
> > grew up with film, but who now need to invest in digital gear and learn
> > about digital manipulation, it's a great time to be a 35mm amateur
camera
> > collector/photographer.
> >
> > I photograph and collect for pleasure. I never intend to sell any of my
> > cameras or lenses, and I don't care what anyone says they are worth. I
> > bought them to use and enjoy.
> >
> > With such a huge number of film cameras in the world, I believe that
I'll
> be
> > able to get decent film and processing for the rest of my life (though
> > perhaps mail order only, and almost certainly more expensive than it is
> > now).
> >
> > So, I look forward to picking up some top-quality used 35mm cameras
> > dirt-cheap, the way I picked up manual focus lenses ten years ago. But
> > there's no way I'd INVEST anything in film gear now if I had to make a
> > living from photography.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > "Leicaddict" <leica...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:i86dnQ4gzco...@comcast.com...
> > > Steve, I really think you're making a smart move. Everyone should
follow
> > > your lead. At least go into their favorite camera shop and look
around,
> > > because in another 12-24 months, 90% of the film cameras will be gone.
> > > Although, if you can afford it, some film equipment should be saved
> > because
> > > of its collectable status, like the Contax G. But there's a million
F5's
> > and
> > > F100's out there that will be going for penny's on the dollar.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Leicaddict
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Lewis Lang
>Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2003 12:11 AM
>Message-id: <bnhnr6$n2p$1...@nnrp.gol.com>
>
>
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>> >"Steve Kramer" <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Wednesday I will sell off my cameras...
>> >
>> >Hey! I'm about to (maybe) buy a 35mm film camera<g>. If the new Sigma
>12-24
>>
>> I've heard of Nikon's 12-24/4, other than the focal length range, wahat
>are the
>> specs on the new Sigma 12-24?
>
>You need to learn how to use St. Google<g>.
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03101801sigma1224.asp
>
I've googled my ass off David (when I go in dpeth I Yahoo and Google and
Boolean search my ass off, I have no more ass ;-)) - since you brought it up, I
asked you since I believe its the first I've heard of it. Alternatively, if I
were incredibly interested I might go to photo.net or
www.photographyreview.com. But since it was mentioned by you...
>The street price in Japan should be in the $900 to $1000 range, since the
>Yen's been strengthening against the dollar since that page was written.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
What is that in "real money"? (U.S.. $) ;-)
Lewis
P.S. - Thanks for the URL
Lewis Lang
>From: "David J. Littleboy" dav...@gol.com
>Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2003 12:11 AM
>Message-id: <bnhnr6$n2p$1...@nnrp.gol.com>
>
>
>> >"Steve Kramer" <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Wednesday I will sell off my cameras...
>> >
>> >Hey! I'm about to (maybe) buy a 35mm film camera<g>. If the new Sigma
>12-24
>>
>> I've heard of Nikon's 12-24/4, other than the focal length range, wahat
>are the
>> specs on the new Sigma 12-24?
>
>You need to learn how to use St. Google<g>.
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03101801sigma1224.asp
SNIP
Never mind, I went to the link and it told me all I needed to know... $901 for
a lens w/ an aperture of f/4.5-5.6? What are they gearing this at, the P&Sr who
only shoots in bright sunlight or I.S.O. 800 and above. At least the Nikon is a
constant f/4, nothing great, but usable. I know this lens is supposedly usable
for both fil and digi cameras, which makes it's focal length range a first in
this regard (the Nikon version only covers their digi sn\ensor and that's it),
but... Why can't they bring out an f/2.8 version? - for a digital only area of
coverage zoom lens this would be more than possible, but at its f/4.5-5.6 its
way too dark (especially for film cameras)!!!
What's next 10-20mm zooms, 5-15mm zooms, 1-5mmm zooms or the ultra retrofocus
super duper uber Krypton aspherical glass wide angle -8 (yes, that's right,
negative 8mm)-3mm zooms which actually blast a hole when mounted through your
film plate or digi sensor and not only sees behind you but through the wall
behind you?, LOL :-)
Lewis
David J. Littleboy
> >
> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03101801sigma1224.asp
> >
>
> I've googled my ass off David (when I go in dpeth I Yahoo and Google and
> Boolean search my ass off, I have no more ass ;-)) - since you brought it
up, I
> asked you since I believe its the first I've heard of it.
Searching for _Sigma "12-24"_ turned up that page as the
first hit.
> >The street price in Japan should be in the $900 to $1000 range, since the
> >Yen's been strengthening against the dollar since that page was written.
>
> What is that in "real money"? (U.S.. $) ;-)
Real money here is Yen, and the magazines say 99,000 Yen. I've already given
the US$ equivalent.
Bob Sull
> After several years of being ripped off by digital cameras that cost too
> much and delivered mediocre results, I sold off ALL of my digital cameras
> and went back to film. Once I saw the results from even a simple 35mm SLR
> and compared them to the best that digital was able to deliver, that was the
> end of digital for me! Looking at the images side by side was an amazing
> revelation...as such my digital cameras began to gather dust and be used
> less and less. It was amazing NOT having my camera batteries die after a
> hour or two and in the middle of a shoot.
>
> I can't imagine anybody going the other way! It is a terrible mistake that
> you will regret!
I tend to agree with you, to a point.
Digital will not, IMHO, replace film 100%. There is a place for digital
and Steve showed it to us, photojournalism. Sports photography may be
another. In both cases the quality of the image is not as important as
the story the image is telling.
> "Steve Kramer" <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote in message
>>I'm a working photo journalist, studio photographer, as well as
>>photography teacher,
Bob
Deathwalker
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> >Subject: Re: NOTICE: Wednesday I sell off my cameras...
> >From: "Deathwalker" ian-l...@blueyonder.co.uk
> >Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2003 10:54 PM
> >entire floor of the art dept was empty and instead one girl with an apple
> >mac doing the lot. Another machine in the admin office handling all the
> >other reprographics.
>
> What kind of (digital, I'm assuming) equipment does she use along w/ her
mac?
it was a while ago. like i said she took over the art dept not the
photographic one. all that cutting and pasting with real paper, scissors
etc. then arranging on a board and processing in a sort of darkroom. even
a photocopier that printed on transparency film in the 3 primary colours.
Scores of people. Then just one mac. You see the agency did the whole
advertising bit not just the photographs. Even the design of the packaging
when necessary.
Anway one recession later and its one mac and sell off that office space.
So probably not a complete substitute for all that talent and manpower cost
cutting was involved.
next visit the place shrunk again, kitchen taken over by processing lab.
Then only doing processing and one of main photogs starts own shop doing
weddings.
Then place has gone and shop owner got a minilab.
The guy put in charge of the hand printed colour work was getting £135 per
week but hadn't been paid. Boss still found cash for new porche though.
Morale low others don't know how long jobs last. During the early 90s
recession when first thing cut back on was advertising. Which is when i
thought i'd try I.T as a career instead. My teachers were ex pros who
sought teaching as it was the only steady work. Most wedding pros are part
timers.
Annika1980
>Never mind, I went to the link and it told me all I needed to know... $901
>for
>a lens w/ an aperture of f/4.5-5.6?
>Why can't they bring out an f/2.8 version?
They probably will, but you can bet your sweet ass it won't be for $901.
More like $3K, I'd say.
Deathwalker
"McLeod" <cerve...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:TqZmb.1147$Nm6....@news20.bellglobal.com...
> The fact is most of the advantages of using large format film, other than
> gross resolution, can easily be duplicated by anyone skilled in Photoshop.
> Anything you can do with tilts, swings, and shifts are easily duplicated.
> Short depth of focus? No problem. Correcting converging vertical lines in
> architectural images? No problem. For a long time the control of the
> images after being exposed had left most photographer's (even
> professional's) hands. Now, creative control is coming back to every
> photographer. I, for one, am in favour and applaud the new digital
> revolution.
Apart from short depth of focus are am in relative agreement. I trust you
don't infer that unsharp mask is any substitute for having sufficient depth
of field in the first place.
Deathwalker
"drhowarddrfinedrhoward" <drhowar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JdZmb.772$An3...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> Ohhh....you guys are talking amateur stuff, not pro. Different situation.
> Digital is fine for the p&s crowd that own their own computer and want to
> email photos to their friends.
or wedding photogs who want to sell prints at the reception. or sports and
news photogs who want to send the stuff straight to the editor to make the
next edition......
Deathwalker
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
Well providing your prints are hemetically sealed in some container and
never looked at then maybe they will last 200 years. In a dusty cupboard
lost and forgotten. Many of my grandads slides have gone green or magenta.
early prints on tin plates have corroded. Prints are going brown dog eared
and creased. In all cases digital restoration is the answer. The digital
media it is saved on is irrelevant. Each new format seems to have
exponentially more capacity so i will need fewer and fewer media to save my
work. The digital signal itself is easily passed from one to the other
error free. If precious then distributed to several people and backed up in
more than one location. Safe from fire flood etc. In the face of this
lesser beings would start getting insulting on your bold statement.
Fortunately for you i shall just sit back and grin.
Annika1980
>Digital will not, IMHO, replace film 100%. There is a place for digital
>and Steve showed it to us, photojournalism. Sports photography may be
>another. In both cases the quality of the image is not as important as
>the story the image is telling.
Go look at the full-page pics in Sports Illustrated and then comment on the
quality of the image.
Bob Sull
> "Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:cbTmb.81$9j3....@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>>After several years of being ripped off by digital cameras that cost too
>>much and delivered mediocre results, I sold off ALL of my digital cameras
>>and went back to film. Once I saw the results from even a simple 35mm SLR
>>and compared them to the best that digital was able to deliver, that was
>
> the
>
>>end of digital for me! Looking at the images side by side was an amazing
>>revelation...as such my digital cameras began to gather dust and be used
>>less and less. It was amazing NOT having my camera batteries die after a
>>hour or two and in the middle of a shoot.
>>
>>I can't imagine anybody going the other way! It is a terrible mistake
>
> that
>
>>you will regret!
>
>
>
> Damn, I guess I should be filled with regret after 2 years of primarily
> digital and 1 year of totally digital. I guess I should regret the wait for
> processing (free at my wife's lab), wait the couple of hours over the light
> box to get the ones I think are keepers, regret the interminable scanning
> and then the photoshopping to find I don't want to keep some of the ones
> that made it past the light table. I guess I should regret not having to
> get out the projector, fill the trays, set up the screen so I can see the
> slides. I also regret all the books and trays of slides and the books of
> negatives which seem to never be where I want them and I guess I will regret
> getting good digital equipment rather than point and shoots so I could then
> throw them all away. Yep I am filled with regret as I smile and look at my
> images which have been sent by FTP to my wife's lab for Fuji Frontier prints
> at an amazingly low cost. Damn, I regret selling my F5 and F4,-----not!!!!
>
> MG
>
It is strange how people look at things. You waited for the free
processing at your wife's lab and look at that as a bad thing. But you
don't consider downloading from the camera to the computer as time lost.
OK, it may be a shorter time, but it still has to be done.
Then sorting at a light table is a waste of time. What about looking at
every shot on the display of your computer? Isn't that just about the
same thing? Then when you delete the non-keepers, you don't get a
second chance to review them again. The keepers get reworked in
Photoshop or some other software. This isn't done my magic, you are
spending time doing it. Oh yeah, Photoshop isn't free.
OK, you got me on the projector and screen. But if you want to show
them to a large crowd.....
And now you have CDs or diskettes or a full hard drive containing your
photos rather than books and trays. I hope your hard drive never dies
or that today's CDs get replaced by some other storage medium. Remember
8" and 5.25" floppies? If you're using Windows, you better check
today's security updates or make sure your anti virus protection program
is up-to-date so a virus doesn't take them away from you.
Then, as you mentioned, you send them to a lab for printing. Sort of
like taking a roll of film to the lab.....
Digital has a place, but it doesn't replace film 100% for everybody.
Bob
A chemical photographer in a digital world.....
Bob Sull
> Most had a computer, you need a scanner for film but not digital, I had
> photoshop with film and had a photo capable printer. Searching those click,
> click, clicks is easy in either breezebrowser or Nikon View, which by the
> way, allows you to delete before burning. What's your point?
I can see the point..... Say you are on vacation, or on location as a
pro, in Mulefart..... Drop your film at a lab, you'll find one
somewhere and everywhere, or drag your computer, and if you want hard
copy output, your photo quality printer with you.
When I went to Las Vegas last month, I shot some stuff at Red Rock
Canyon. While the lab was processing it I was out having fun. Then
when got my stuff back I was still near RRC if I wanted to redo
anything. I got my shots and had fun too.
Bob
>
> MG
> "drhowarddrfinedrhoward" <drhowar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1UUmb.438$FG7...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Yeah. Now you only need to drag a computer with you. Or hope one is
>
> where
>
>>you are going. And buy a $500 scanner and a computer with a DVD or CD
>
> drive
>
>>plus Photoshop and a photo capable printer. Then spend hours searching
>>through those hundreds of "click, click, click" images of yours or burn
>
> 'em
>
>>all and bore everyone to death with them.
>>
>>
>
>
>
Steve Kramer
>
> We are still waiting for digital to kill APS format...and we are STILL
> waiting.
I doubt anything will kill film completely.
You will just have to travel further to find it.
Like;
8-track tape players
Metal Ice cube trays with levers
Skate keys
Vacuum tubes for radios
Slide rules
You can still get all these things... if you look hard enough.
Times change.
Steve Kramer
Chiang Mai, Thailand
http://www.photoenvisions.com
--
Steve Kramer
>
> You've started the biggest d vs f war yet, Steve,
It would appear so! Wasn't my intention but I figured it might happen.
C'est la guerre! :o)
> but I've head essentially
> the same thing from every pro I know in the past year or two.
Somehow I doubt the Leica shooters will switch over, but then, they
aren't pros. *grin*
> I'm still
> shooting film --
I was too... right up until I bought my 'toy.' Man, was I in for a
surprise! Now I realize that I should have put in the extra bucks for
the next model up. But even so, I had a repeat client from London who
booked a three day shooting trip with me in the northern jungles. Last
trip here he was shooting a D1X. This time he showed up with the top of
the line Canon. He sold off all his Nikon gear and bought the 11
megapixel Canon and three lenses. Said the difference was night and day.
And several thousand dollars...
> what little I shoot at all these days, but after I have my
> cataracts operated on this winter,
Best of luck with that! I'm sure it will go smoothly.
> I'll probably start planning for a
> digital SLR.
Remember, there is a big difference between models. I tried all of them
'in my hand' at a digital photo show and with "my" sized hands, only the
Nikon fit "me" comfortably enough to want to shoot all day. It's not
only about megapixels, controls, and lenses. You have to be able to hold
the damn thing too. I got lucky on that point as I never even considered
it before I bought my camera.
> Furthermore, my lab is moving out of town in December
'My' projection is that they ALL will be moving out of ALL the towns
within a couple of years.
But, that being said, I am keeping two film cameras, and I'll keep some
Velvia, Provia, and Portra NC in the freezer. Who knows? All I'm sure of
is that right now, for the work I'm doing, and the ease and convenience
of that work, digital works best for me. And damn it, I do love that
instant gratification of seeing a good photo as soon as I press the
shutter! I actually find myself giggling like a schoolgirl when I'm in
some great shooting venues!
Leicaddict
easily adoptable to digital than one may guess.
--
Leicaddict
"Deathwalker" <ian-l...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jc_mb.2625$2L.25...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Mark M
"Super Mario Sunshine" <supermarioRE...@rogers.com> wrote in
message news:WzRmb.14058$7B1....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> you fergot to mention the replacement of computers and printers in that
4-5
> years.
> film digital it doesnt really matter...
The cost savings for wasted film alone will more than cover SEVERAL
computers EVERY year.
Steve Kramer
> Digital has a place, but it doesn't replace film 100% for everybody.
And THAT is the plain truth!
Everyone is different. Everyone has different needs and wants.
In my post I stated that for "ME" digital worked best. I shoot several
thousand images a week. Most people do not. I used to spend a LOT of
money on film. Most people do not. I used to throw away 90% of my
slides. Most people do not. I said that digital works for 'me,' not that
everyone should shoot digitally. But I believe that soon 'most' people
will be...
David J. Littleboy
"Steve Kramer" <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote:
> > I'm still
> > shooting film --
>
> I was too... right up until I bought my 'toy.' Man, was I in for a
> surprise! Now I realize that I should have put in the extra bucks for
> the next model up. But even so, I had a repeat client from London who
> booked a three day shooting trip with me in the northern jungles. Last
> trip here he was shooting a D1X. This time he showed up with the top of
> the line Canon. He sold off all his Nikon gear and bought the 11
> megapixel Canon and three lenses. Said the difference was night and day.
> And several thousand dollars...
We're in the midst of a Sigma/Foveon flame war on the digital group, but
here's 3 shots that show the difference. Spend a bit of time looking closely
at the Sigma and 10D shots, and only then look at the 1Ds. It blew me
away...
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/sd9/samples/IMG00128n.jpg
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/10d/samples/IMG_0082.JPG
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/eos1ds/samples_new/507S0333.jpg
> Remember, there is a big difference between models. I tried all of them
> 'in my hand' at a digital photo show and with "my" sized hands, only the
> Nikon fit "me" comfortably enough to want to shoot all day. It's not
> only about megapixels, controls, and lenses. You have to be able to hold
> the damn thing too. I got lucky on that point as I never even considered
> it before I bought my camera.
I've been shooting a Mamiya 645, which I refer to as my "Jumbo Martian Death
Ray". It's a lightweight compared to the Canon 1Ds.
Steve Kramer
Only 20 different questions? OK... I'll try to tackle them one at a
time...
> On a totally? different subject (well almost totally different), how do you
> archive/file your (I'm assuming, massive amounts of shots)?
I save all work onto hard drives and DVD's. I have three computer towers
networked together. Each has two 80G internal hardrives and two 80G
external drives. All raw files are stored as raw files by subject and
date shot in one computer on two hardrives (one main/one backup synced
each night.) Processed files are stored as .tif files by subject in
another computer and backed up automatically on external hard drives.
The best images are also backed up on DVD's.
> what is your
> work flow like?
At first, horrendous! Now, a under control!
> I have heard that post-processing (read filing and typing
> captions as well as Pshop kind of work) is the Faustian bargain one pays for
> the convenience of digital - do you find yourself spending less time waiting
> for the images to be developed and more time at the computer trying to catalog
> and/or in post-manipulation work in Pshop?
Yes and no. When I first began, and didn't have a real system in place
or really understand how to use PhotoShop, it was very time consuming.
Now it takes me less than two hours from start to finish to process
several hundred photos. One of the biggest time savers was starting to
shoot in the RAW mode. I can adjust a RAW image almost as if I haven't
pressed the shutter yet with just single mouse clicks! No balancing or
working with multi adjusters for a single correction. Just one click and
it's done.
And a few well chosen books later, (knowledge, plus fast computers,
really was the secret,) I now come home from a shoot and immediately
upload everything to my working computer. This computer has 1000M of
RAM, a video card with 128M on it, and works as twin processors. A 50M
file moves very smoothly. All files are uploaded and oriented via Nikon
5. I then use Nikon 3 to batch correct exposure and white balance. (All
this takes place while I am working on other photos.) After the batch
work is done, I use Nikon 5 as a light box to eliminate all the garbage
and reduce the numbers of photos that I actually have to hand
manipulate. This is done using PhotoShop7, a lot of "actions" that I
have written to speed up the work, and minor batch corrections. Then
comes the process of individually working each photo to eliminate any
remaining noise, telephone lines, birds flying past, acne on faces,
brightening teeth, reducing wrinkles, unsharp mask, add my name (another
"action,") etc., I'm usually finished before 8pm, having begun at 6. If
I need to print out anything, I use QImage to arrange them on the paper,
set up the print queue press the start button, and go watch some TV. If
I need to laminate those prints, (often necessary here in the jungle due
to humidity) I do that the following morning when I get up, before I go
out shooting for the day.
> What if anything do you miss about
> film and why?
The idea. Some how, I feel I'm getting too high tech. So to compensate
for that, I now carry a flint and steel firebox in my pocket. (No joke.
I do) When ever I think the world is moving to fast, I just take it out
and strike some sparks. Brings me right back down to my roots.
> - there must be some other reason(s) besides nostalgia that
> you're keeping the N80 ;-).
It's just insurance. Besides, I do need back up bodies when I go out on
assignments.
> Do you miss not having wide angle or have you
> gotten either a 14mm/2.8 or Nikon's new 12-24/4 digital zoom to make up for
> this?
Miss it terribly!! So Wednesday, after I sell the bodies, I'll buy the
new 12-24 zoom. On the other hand, it's nice having a 600mm VR lens
(80-400VR becomes 120-600!)
> When you need super large enlargements do you rent MF?
I have never needed to print anything large than A3 size (11.7"x16.5")
and I do that here in my office on an Epson PHOTO 1290. This is what I
sell as art prints in my studio. If someone wants a larger image, I sell
them the CD and let them print it however they wish to.
> Any problems w/
> battery power or durability on the D100?
The Nikon seems to be the best on the market for battery life. I use two
batteries in the battery pack, and can shoot more than 1000 images per
charge (unless I'm using VR lenses which drops it down to about 850.
However, I ALWAYS carry two extra batteries. I also carry a total of 7g
of media cards in both 1G and 512M form. I can get 102 images onto a 1G
card.
> Even though what you do seems mostly
> geared to commercial/PJ-type work - what do you do for those extra special
> images (personal/fine art or commercial or otherwise)
Nothing different.
> and want to last
> beyond your lifetime -
I have no need to make anything last beyond my lifetime except my wife
and my son. If my photos last, well, that's nice. But not something I
think about. My contribution to life is today. I tell everyone who buys
my photos for their wall that these are NOT archival prints. They might
fade over time, but if they do I will reprint them for free for them.
> Any problems with
> media (hard drive/etc.) failure or readability (of whatever media you use)
> failure
Of course I've have had hard drive failures. But everything is at least
doubly saved. I haven't lost a single image due to equipment failure.
> (ie. some Cds written at a certain speed a few years back may not be
> compatable w/ present/future CD readers?
This is why I am now saving everything on DVD's. When something newer
looks as if it will make DVD's obsolete, I'll transfer then. I did that
with my diskettes too. Not a problem, just a weekend's work.
> Do you feel/experience you're now tied
> into a cycle of continuous obsolescence/upgrading?
Certainly. If I want to be able to compete in the marketplace, I need to
be able to do so at a profitable rate. That seems to require upgrading.
But isn't that pretty much true of everything today? As long as I can
earn enough to do the things we want to do, have the toys we want to
have, and have the time to enjoy them, I need to stay current with the
latest technology. I held off buying a cell phone for years, but now I
get new business several times a day via one. Without it I'd miss
publishers needing instant responses. Think about letter writing. How do
we feel about waiting a week for a letter to arrive from abroad, when we
know we can communicate almost at real time via e-mail? The world is
changing regardless of our opinion of that fact. We do have a choice. We
can chose to be dinosaurs and let evolution pass us by, or we can evolve
along side of it, and perpetuate the species.
> If so, do you regret this or (I'm assuming) your
> business profits cover these future expenses?
Right now, I can not keep up with business offers. I have to turn down
more than I accept, or else hire people to do the shooting. I didn't get
into this work for the money. In fact, I'm actually retired from
university teaching. (I think I need to go back to the university just
so I can get some rest!) So with money NOT being my motive, but enjoying
the work yet wanting it to be profitable, I need to upgrade. Yes, the
profits DO cover the expenses more than adequately. Thank God. That
keeps my ego together. But as a serious photographer I'd make the
upgrades anyway, even if I wasn't turning a profit, just to improve my
craft as a photographer. I may be old, but I ain't dead yet. That only
happens when we refuse to adapt to a changing environment.
Lewis Lang
>From: "Deathwalker" ian-l...@blueyonder.co.uk
>Message-id: <fj_mb.2630$lw.25...@news-text.cableinet.net>
>
>
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>news:20031026192540...@mb-m01.aol.com...
>
>Well providing your prints are hemetically sealed in some container and
>never looked at then maybe they will last 200 years.
Forget about hermetically sealing, its not necessary and accelerates
deterioration via "the vinegar syndrome" (base of the film vinegarizes) unless
stored under, possibly, very cold conditions which slow down chemical
processes. I was talking about the figures/years for room temp archival storage
conditions. 200+ years is for Kodachrome, that's _slides_, 120 years for
Ektachrome, 40 years for Fujichrome. These are Wilhelm's dark storage data,
and, except for the Fujichrome, they will outlast any prints or digital media
by a long, long shot.
In a dusty cupboard
>lost and forgotten. Many of my grandads slides have gone green or magenta.
What was he shooting, Anscochrome, Agfachrome, old E-4 Ektachrome? Todays slide
films and development processes are in a different league and will last several
generations w/o significant fade or color shift when dark stored at room
temperature, longer if kept in the dark at cooler temperatures.
>early prints on tin plates have corroded. Prints are going brown dog eared
>and creased.
Although I am sorry your prints/plates are in such disrepair, I have no idea
about the temperature, humidity and other environmental conditions they were
stored under. Dog ears and creasing doesn't sound like they were handled with
very much respect either...
In all cases digital restoration is the answer.
Digital restoration is _not_ the answer to long term digital original
file/media storage of non-prints (ie. the original TIFFS/RAWS/JPEGS or
whatever. You can't restore what's not there in the first place. That's my
point. No matter how well backed up you are, digital requires constant
re-copying to new media and/or formats, when that stops, 20 or 50 or whatever
years down the line, you can kiss bye bye to your (or whomever's) images. You
may find a Van Gogh or a Rembrandt in your attic (in the former's case, very
little changed from the day it was painted) but in 50 or 100 years, as far as
CDs or zip disks go you'll only find an unreadable coffee coaster or a pile of
magnetic dust.
The digital
>media it is saved on is irrelevant.
It is totally relevant, see above...
Each new format seems to have
>exponentially more capacity so i will need fewer and fewer media to save
>my
>work.
Capacity is not the issue, longevity of the media you copy on, _is_.
The digital signal itself is easily passed from one to the other
>error free.
Until through some intentional or unintentional person or means someone forgets
or doesn't care anymore. Then 20 or so years past your demise the files and/or
the media may become unreadable as hardware obsolesces itself, media changes
and/or becomes extinct, file formats change and/or just the file itself becomes
unreadable due to lack of copying onto the new/next media. Once that file is
gone, the original is dead, then you better hope you've made a pigment print or
a long lasting black and white silver gelatin print or some other long-lived
print for when/if somebady actually does find the image and restore it. People
don't think about longevity/archivability, they only think of what lasts for
today and become fools for tommorrow. Digital doesn't cut it for longevity.
If precious then distributed to several people and backed up
>in
>more than one location.
You can do the same with film. That's only "disaster insurance" not longevity.
Stop recopying the file/media and it doesn't matter if you have the image in 50
locations as it will be unreadable in only a matter of less than half a
century. In the meantime, Kodachrome I? movies from the late 30's?/early 40's
of my mother as a child in the Bronx were used for a documentary. I'd love to
see any un-recopied DVD last that long. What a joke! And a sad one at that on
people who believe that mere copying is the answer - it isn't - longevity and
lack of obsolescence of the storage media are. This is where digital sorely
lacks for those who don't want to rely on prints/copies of their images to
survive several generations w/o the need for constant upgrading of
media/recopying. Digital is not an answer to longevity - it is a problem
delayed, "trading tommorrows for today". Once you get over the convenience
factor and look at longevity you see a whole 'nother picture - or in digital's
case, a whole 'nother picture is what you wont see 50+ years down the line.
Safe from fire flood etc.
But not safe from the ravages of time or obsolescence.
In the face of this
>lesser beings would start getting insulting on your bold statement.
>Fortunately for you i shall just sit back and grin.
That grin will turn to a frown once you see, ahem, don't see those family
portraits or masterpieces as they get swallowed in the vortex of
time/decay/disrepair. A film based image has a lot better chance surviving many
deacdes if not many generations beyond neglect, digital doesn't stand a pixel
of a chance.
Lewis
This post is...
Š 2003 Lewis Lang
All Rights Reserved
P.S. - I should have recorded this post on film or paper as it is doubtful it
will last through the next EMP or computer virus, hard drive failure, power
failure, neglect, etc. regardless of how many electron copies. it exists as
Lewis Lang
>From: "Deathwalker" ian-l...@blueyonder.co.uk
>Message-id: <ka_mb.2623$eT.25...@news-text.cableinet.net>
>week but hadn't been paid. Boss still found cash for new porche though.
>Morale low others don't know how long jobs last. During the early 90s
>recession when first thing cut back on was advertising. Which is when i
>thought i'd try I.T as a career instead. My teachers were ex pros who
>sought teaching as it was the only steady work. Most wedding pros are part
>timers.
I remember that recession well, seems like they tend to come at 10 year periods
(roughly) here in the U.S. Depending on who you ask and what time of day it is,
it seems like we're just coming out of one now so set all your watches for
another 10 years... ;-)
Lewis
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <bnhqfu$nlg$2...@nnrp.gol.com>
>
>
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>> >From: "David J. Littleboy" dav...@gol.com
>> >
>> >You need to learn how to use St. Google<g>.
>> >
No, I don't <BG>, I just choose when its appropriate and/or desirable for me to
use it. :-)
>> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03101801sigma1224.asp
>> >
>>
>> I've googled my ass off David (when I go in dpeth I Yahoo and Google and
>> Boolean search my ass off, I have no more ass ;-)) - since you brought
>it
>up, I
>> asked you since I believe its the first I've heard of it.
>
>Searching for _Sigma "12-24"_ turned up that page as the
>first hit.
>
I either research the hell out of something or, if something is mentioned, I'll
just ask for the info or a link. Its not something I was intensely curious
about, just a little bit/very mildly interested in, like the time.
>> >The street price in Japan should be in the $900 to $1000 range, since
>the
>> >Yen's been strengthening against the dollar since that page was written.
>>
>> What is that in "real money"? (U.S.. $) ;-)
>
>Real money here is Yen, and the magazines say 99,000 Yen. I've already given
>the US$ equivalent.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
As I've said in my other post, it goes for about $901 U.S. and at eve at half
the price, used in a year or three, I'll be in no rush to get it because of its
poor specs (aperture wise) and for even me, a wide angle (film) man, 12mm is
not a necessity, more of a novelty.
Thanks for the link, though.
McLeod
"Deathwalker" <ian-l...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jc_mb.2625$2L.25...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
don't infer that unsharp mask is any substitute for having sufficient depth
of field in the first place.
No, I meant intentionally shallow depth of field, a characteristic of large
format cameras. Due to the image sensor sizes, this has to be recreated in
Photoshop if using a dslr (or 35 mm camera for that matter).
Gordon Moat
> Word has it that on Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:11:26 -0800, in this august
> forum, Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> said:
>
> >Super Mario Sunshine wrote:
> >> so for those of you who think you can shoot a straight digital image and get
> >> away with
> >> selling it... good luck... because now not only do you have to shoot your
> >> images, you are
> >> also in charge of manipulation... eliminating trash, blemishes, etc. you
> >> are simply out of your league if you think you can sell straight prints with
> >> no extensive photoshop skills.
> >
> >I hear this quite a bit locally from advertising based photographers. Many have
> >found that more time is spent in digital editing, or adjustments for printing.
>
> Eh? For those sorts of markets, surely you have to do all that with film
> shots as well?
Editing done on a light table, compared to editing done on a computer monitor. This
is only the image selection time, deciding which images to keep. Revue on a
computer is more linear, compared to a light table where non consecutive images can
be placed side by side for comparison. I suppose there are some people that are
faster on a computer, but I have yet to meet one.
> Why would images from digital cameras require /more/
> post-processing than film images?
With the non-linear image selection done on a light table, the images are selected
and then scanned. The time savings is only having the digital image files you
selected, as opposed to surfing through all the images on a card, and deleting ones
not felt appropriate.
> If anything, I would've thought it'd
> be the other way around, based on all the hassles people seem to have to
> go through to get good slide/neg scans.
The other issue I should mention has more to do with work habits. Often direct
digital shoots will result in many more images than would have been taken with
film. I am specifically addressing advertising based photographers, since this is
not really an issue with photojournalists (as far as I know). Anyway, the higher
volume gives more images to review prior to final image selection.
As for colour issues, most scanners do a better job of staying within a CMYK
printing gamut. Many digital SLRs are capable of generating out of gamut images,
making for lots more time colour correcting for printing. Colour issues in final
printing are of much more concern than resolution. leave an image out of gamut, and
grey splotches usually result on the final prints (assuming GCR usage).
Another thing to consider is that many pros will use a narrow range of films. Once
a scanner profile for a film is built, that profile is saved and reused. That
allows for very quick scans, and easier transition for CMYK printing.
Sorry if I did not explain myself better in my earlier post. These statements are
of limited scope, and obviously different professional realms will dictate other
work flows. I would have thought direct digital to be easier, but so far, I have
only seen that in practice for photojournalists and product photographers.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Gordon Moat
Lots of the images for the swimsuit issue are done medium format. Most of the
cameras in use on the latest were the Mamiya RZ67. Even Sports Illustrated is
not fully direct digital.
Alan Browne
David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/sd9/samples/IMG00128n.jpg
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/10d/samples/IMG_0082.JPG
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/eos1ds/samples_new/507S0333.jpg
>
>
>
> I've been shooting a Mamiya 645, which I refer to as my "Jumbo Martian Death
> Ray". It's a lightweight compared to the Canon 1Ds.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
Indeed, but for nearly $8K I would hope to be amazed. I would still
think that a drum scan of a 6x4.5 would outdo this?
Alan.
Tony Spadaro
your head too far up it to notice?
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"drhowarddrfinedrhoward" <drhowar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Tony Spadaro
you cannot truly archive it. It cannot exist in original condition and
quality in two places at once. Film is neither archival nor archivable.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20031026192540...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: NOTICE: Wednesday I sell off my cameras...
> >From: "Tony Spadaro" tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com
> >Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2003 10:40 PM
> >Message-id: <c3Ymb.10507$IA2.6...@twister.southeast.rr.com>
> >
> >That entire Faustian bargain is true of film too, Lewis. I can't even
> >catalog my film without making scans so there is more work involved with
> >film -- save for those who use the "I have a good memory" method -- which
> >is
> >also called the "I was sure that shot was somewhere in the 1997 books,
> >unless it was late 96 or early 98. Maybe it got mixed in with..."
>
> Not having a scanner, if there is a Faustian bargain for film its not
> applicable to me right now. I'd probably (as before) make slide dupes or
prints
> to send in, so I guess its a matter of workflow/style.
>
> By the way... the "Faustian bargain" is more of a reference/concern not
only to
> computer time spent catalogueing but to archival longevity, and as one of
my
> favorite self-quotes refers to "trading tommorrow for today" - in other
words,
> being locked into continually copying and recopying your work whereas w/
film I
> could be dead 50-200 years and they'd still be able to read the image off
of
> the slide (through a slide scanner or optically or whatever passes for a
> viewing/printing device then. Despite the copying, digital media are a lot
less
> archival and the standards are constantly shifting. This becomes
irrelevant if
> you have a foundation or heirs willing to make copies and re-copies
forever
> onto new media, but not everyone is so blessed. I'm not of the "print as
> original fan club" so I'm hoping for some kind of both standardization of
> media/file formats (for longevity/readability) as well as some major
advances
> in the storage life w/o degradation/w/o re-copying necessary of digital
media
> and/or whatever supplants digital. I'm not against digital per se, it just
> doesn't meet my needs in areas that are very important to me. Hopefully,
this
> will change... Until it does, both I and my wallet and my slide files will
> sleep well at nights. I find it relatively easy to find my work, so that
is not
> really a consideration for me as my filing system is shaping up quite
well.
>
> Regards,
David J. Littleboy
"Alan Browne" <"Alan Browne"@videotron.canospam> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> >
> > http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/sd9/samples/IMG00128n.jpg
> > http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/10d/samples/IMG_0082.JPG
> >
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/eos1ds/samples_new/507S0333.jpg
> >
> > I've been shooting a Mamiya 645, which I refer to as my "Jumbo Martian
Death
> > Ray". It's a lightweight compared to the Canon 1Ds.
>
Historically, the $8K dSLRs have reappeared as under $3K (now $1.5K) cameras
exactly two years later. So next September...
> I would still think that a drum scan of a 6x4.5 would outdo this?
I dunno. My best sharpest slides, scanned on a Nikon 8000, edge the 1Ds out
slightly, I think. On the other hand, the 1Ds flies at ISO 200 (or even 400)
and has faster sharper lenses and a full extra stop of DOF. (All the usual
advantage of 35mm over 645 (except weight<g>)), so an affordable liftable
camera with that sensor technology would get a lot more keepers, at least
for shooting hand held.
William Graham
"Kenneth Chou" <ken@****kennethchou.ca> wrote in message
news:y%Smb.15499$7B1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> if you intend to shoot commercial products then film will be your only
> option.
> as digital isnt quite affordable to work with shifts and tilt.
>
> k.
>
Its kinda tough to make stereo slides with it too............
Tony Spadaro
shooting (I started in the fall of 1966). Eisie, Capa, and Cartier-Bresson
are inactive - in fact HCB is the only pure Leica pro I know of who is even
alive.
Leicas are those things that hang around the necks of the old guys who
hang out in the camera stores talking about how good the old days were
before all these kids got involved and spoiled photography for everyone.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Steve Kramer" <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote in message
news:3F9C7924...@seatraveler.com...
William Graham
>
> "Martin Francis" <removethisbefore...@btinternet.com> wrote
in
> message news:bnh0tq$lhn$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...> > news:odTmb.83$9j3....@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > We are still waiting for digital to kill APS format...and we are STILL
> > > waiting.
>
> But it turns out normal film can give you index prints too. I don't think
> the magnetic strip part of the film was ever used properly. exif 2.2 is
> doing what it supposed to so there was potential lost. They were talking
of
> dissolving all the halides and using magentic couplers to produce a sort
of
> digital print of sorts. Also these 1 off print labs that never fixed the
> film but managed to print in 20 mins but no chance of reprints. aps just
> cost too much more in standard machines (cameras and minilabs) let alone
the
> all bells and whistles equipped ones. Thing is simple consumer use but
> heavy price. Might as well buy a similar priced super compact. I still
rue
> the day my canon compact superzoom 105 was killed by my nephew. Mind you
> that was a huge monster compared to the latest 105. That isn't an aps
> format either.
>
> Comparing all these failed initiatives with digital is unwise. Its being
> done properly this time. First the techy guys were hooked with bleeding
> edge technology. Then the pro users found it useful. Then the consumers
> got their affordable point and shoots. basically the pro technology and
> resolutions have percolated down to consumer level. 3megapixels were
> strictly pro sumer now they are becoming entry level. with 4 in the
middle
> and 6 at the top of the prosumer line. Full size 35mm chips for a grand
> will come within 5 years probably less.
>
> Finally the contrast and shadow detail problems of digital will be dealt
> with. Fuji put tiny sensors above the main sensors to collect this
> previously missing information. eventually the others will find a way
too.
> Again the pros will use this first then the consumers.
>
> Kodak is wise to invest in digital. There are cameras, sensors and papers
> to do. There are also minilabs that print from cds and chips to consider.
> So not every consumer will need to learn photoshop and spend fortunes on
> ink. They seem to be more light fast than inkjet for the moment.
>
>
I don't see how you can beat digital for photojournalism....One can take a
picture on the street in most any foreign city, download it into his
portable computer, bring it back to his hotel room, email it to his editor
in New York, (or wherever) and get it into print within a couple of hours or
less....There is no way in hell you could ever do that with film.....
Steve Kramer
inks and films, and how to make our photos last hundreds of years, but
we do we really NEED?
I make a good living from photography, but if my photos aren't around
when the sun grows cold, I won't mind. In fact, I won't mind if they
aren't around 50 years from now. I don't need that. For that matter,
will WE (humanity) be here 50 years from now? My photos sell, but I need
them to sell today, not 50 years from now. I want to enjoy them today.
If other can enjoy them 50 years from now, that's nice. But it's not
really important in the grand scheme of things.
Michael Benveniste
<st...@seatraveler.com> wrote:
>Like;
>8-track tape players
>Metal Ice cube trays with levers
>Skate keys
>Vacuum tubes for radios
>Slide rules
Kodak Disc film?
I keep a slide rule handy just in case we lose power and run out of
batteries for calculators. Here's a picture of it.
http://webwhat.home.comcast.net/rulesRulez.jpg
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-...@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.