| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/25/2004 02:45:59 PM · #26 |
If I am going to print out a lot of shots I go to Costco where cost of $0.19 per 4 x 6, cheaper then I can print them at home, and on the same stable photographic paper I would get if I brought in a roll of film.
We are watching film photography in its last few years. It is getting hit by both the high end and the low end. At the high end are cameras like the 1Ds Mark II. If you are a processional photographer and you don't have either a 1Ds or a 1Ds Mark II it will be hard to compete. At the low end are cell phones with built in cameras. For $100 you can get a Kodax CX 7300 with 3.2 MP. I would think that in two more years a 3.2 MP camera will be going for around $50, at that point the cost is so low that cost saved in film cost will pay for the camera even for a person who does not take many photos.
Most people shooting film don̢۪t get enlargements, for 4 x 6 inch a digital print will look better then a print made from 35mm film, under almost conditions.
In the end arguing about what will happen with film will not make any difference one way or the other what will happen will happen.
What makes this interesting to watch is that the film industry is huge, at the peak film sales were $6.2 billion in the USA. It is hard to believe that and industry this large can completely collapse but it is looking more and more like that is what is going to happen. Kodak has said that film sales are dropping faster then they anticipated.
The film vs digital battle is essentially over. The new battle is for who is going to be making the prints from digital cameras. For a good article on this see this link [/url]artical
For an very good report of the dynamic range of digital vs film see this link.
D Range
Message edited by author 2004-11-25 14:47:07. |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 03:10:42 PM · #27 |
so digital is cheaper eh??
Computer: $1000.00
Postprocessing software: $500
memory cards (film): $300
Portable storage: $400
digital archiving or backup...
cds....
I think we can justify our fees quite well. :-)
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 03:15:18 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
For an very good report of the dynamic range of digital vs film see this link.
D Range |
The results certainly are interesting and show the problems with most 8bit JPEGs and also the advantage of 12 bit capture. It is a shame though that the tests are biased heavily in favour of digital capture. He appears to have made no study at all of the region that digital is bad at - where the highlights are slightly overexposed and hence clip, removing all detail. This is just the same region that slide/ positive film capture fails too. |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 03:25:49 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scottwilson:
For an very good report of the dynamic range of digital vs film see this link.
D Range |
The results certainly are interesting and show the problems with most 8bit JPEGs and also the advantage of 12 bit capture. It is a shame though that the tests are biased heavily in favour of digital capture. He appears to have made no study at all of the region that digital is bad at - where the highlights are slightly overexposed and hence clip, removing all detail. This is just the same region that slide/ positive film capture fails too. |
In the past roger has been a bit beased against digital, he is a 4 x 5 shooter. Film is very good at not losing detail in the highlights,even when overexposed, but to really make use of this you need to do your own printing. It wasn't until I began scanning my negitives that I got the full use of the dynamic range of film, when I was just getting prints made it was worse then slides. |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 04:28:09 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Film is very good at not losing detail in the highlights,even when overexposed, but to really make use of this you need to do your own printing. It wasn't until I began scanning my negitives that I got the full use of the dynamic range of film, when I was just getting prints made it was worse then slides. |
Absolutely. The same is clearly true for digital as well. If all you are doing is shooting JPEGs, the results are a lot worse than very carefully exposed, carefully processed RAW files.
The real digital problem is when you don't have a perfectly exposed shot though - what looks overexposed on a negative can be recovered somewhat, unlike a digital capture. It is similar but reversed for shadow detail - it is more useful in a RAW digital capture than in a film scan, or digital JPEG.
It goes back to the point I tried to make earlier, neither format is clearly better than the other for everything. You need to pick the tools you are going to use carefully, to suit your needs. There are obvious strengths and weaknesses for any given format - digital, negative, positive, large format, rangefinder, and 35mm. The question of which is better needs to be preceeded by an understanding of what you are trying to do and what features are neccessary.
Message edited by author 2004-11-25 16:28:36. |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 04:34:35 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
It'd be nice if he had his facts straight.
-Terry |
And it would be terrific if he spelled "professional" one way on that page instead of three. Could he not make up his mind or something?
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 07:44:31 PM · #32 |
That dude should sell his pics by showing great work, not by trying to bash what most other photographers are doing. Unfortunately, I did look at his work.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 08:05:42 PM · #33 |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 08:08:39 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
That dude should sell his pics by showing great work, not by trying to bash what most other photographers are doing. Unfortunately, I did look at his work. |
DUDE!!! He Rocks!
Message edited by author 2004-11-25 20:09:34.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 08:10:29 PM · #35 |
What a great thread! Made my night! If I ever post any photos that even resemble the stuff that that guy passes off, please kick me in the head!
He has such great surroundings for great portraits, and shoots snapshots? Poor fella!
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 08:13:21 PM · #36 |
I wish that guy could meet Pat Little. I sat at a local photo club meeting two weeks ago and listened intently to this man. He has been a professional photographer for over 20 years. He teaches at Penn State sports photography and has now started selling art prints at shows.
//www.patlittleimages.com
He switched from 35mm to digital and has used various programs to increase the pixels in his images in order to create larger prints. I've seen all 3 prints he has on his home page and after 90 minute lecture with him the only advantage that film has over digital is pixel size. A 35mm negative can be scanned on a special drum scanner to produce a 20 megapixel image compared to the average dslr of 6mp thats the only advantage left to film.
I did go back to 35mm for a photo class I have been taking and I really hate FILM!!!! It's a pain in the butt to get developed.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 08:40:09 PM · #37 |
My bad, looks like I missed that page :) Love the direct flash look.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by Jacko:
That dude should sell his pics by showing great work, not by trying to bash what most other photographers are doing. Unfortunately, I did look at his work. |
DUDE!!! He Rocks! |
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 08:57:49 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
My bad, looks like I missed that page :) Love the direct flash look.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by Jacko:
That dude should sell his pics by showing great work, not by trying to bash what most other photographers are doing. Unfortunately, I did look at his work. |
DUDE!!! He Rocks! |
|
like a dear in your headlights.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 09:05:12 PM · #39 |
Wait,
check out his wedding page!
Master Photographer Carl DeFelice
[sarcasm]
Maybe I should I start calling myself,
"Eric Limón, Master Photographer"
And I expect everyone else to start addressing me that way too!
[/sarcasm]
(please don't really, this is just sarcasm)
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 09:15:53 PM · #40 |
*I* have better images than some of this guy's "portfolio" material after THIRTY YEARS! WTF.
M
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 09:30:18 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
*I* have better images than some of this guy's "portfolio" material after THIRTY YEARS! WTF.
M |
*You* have better images than *all* of this guys portfolio images.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 09:36:18 PM · #42 |
Is this guy for real? I saw so many crappy shots/bad scans I could't take any more; I could only look at two galleries.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 09:39:18 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
*You* have better images than *all* of this guys portfolio images. |
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 09:41:41 PM · #44 |
the images all looked very amerture and very candid too. I think if he was on this site he would score in the 4.0's.
Its total crap though. Film and Digital both have advantages and they both have their place in the world.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 10:03:20 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by colda:
What a website, a great way to portray himself to the world, looks a little like a real one - wouldn't he rather have the real thing? ;)
I wonder if he has passed on his savings in not getting a professional web site on to his customers? |
Lmao when I read this by colda.
But the guy on the website is really just talking about the printers and paper that digital is printed on. Digital to me is tons of feathers better than film concerning the handling and processing. If we can all find a way to make some ink and paper that lasts he'll be lost. I was thinking of lamination. it would hold the ink on and not dry it out. Anyway I think the digital frames are going to be flying off the shelf in the years to come. I've only seen them right now for $300.00. Then you won't have to buy prints at all. And what will he say then? Just buy a memory card with the photographers work on it and plug it in your frame. Reminds me of a negative political add. Bad mouthing the other candidate so he can sell his stuff with consumer fear on there minds, or something.
Message edited by author 2004-11-25 22:04:47. |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 10:21:43 PM · #46 |
i'd like to see this guy take a photo like this
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 10:25:08 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by longlivenyhc:
i'd like to see this guy take a photo like this
|
No, I'd like to see me take one like that. Still one of my fave wedding pix ever.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 10:30:10 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by ssodell:
Originally posted by colda:
What a website, a great way to portray himself to the world, looks a little like a real one - wouldn't he rather have the real thing? ;)
I wonder if he has passed on his savings in not getting a professional web site on to his customers? |
Lmao when I read this by colda.
But the guy on the website is really just talking about the printers and paper that digital is printed on. Digital to me is tons of feathers better than film concerning the handling and processing. If we can all find a way to make some ink and paper that lasts he'll be lost. I was thinking of lamination. it would hold the ink on and not dry it out. |
Maybe if you only consider inkjet printing done at home, but most commercial digital printing processes are just as archival as any conventional photo prints.
"Matrix Dot" printers LOL
It's pretty evident from reading his little manifesto that when it comes to digital photography the guy doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 10:52:40 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Spasmo99:
Maybe if you only consider inkjet printing done at home, but most commercial digital printing processes are just as archival as any conventional photo prints.
"Matrix Dot" printers LOL |
I didn't know that. I sent some prints to Walmart over the internet and they came out pretty nice concerning the paper quality. Just like a film picture. But I know I have to learn a lot about matching my monitor color to my printer color. Which is all fine cause I like to learn new things. I still have to buy one of those color matching tools that go on the screen or that I can scan the colors printed by my printer.
Message edited by author 2004-11-25 22:54:58. |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 11:55:56 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
so digital is cheaper eh??
Computer: $1000.00
Postprocessing software: $500
memory cards (film): $300
Portable storage: $400
digital archiving or backup...
cds....
I think we can justify our fees quite well. :-) |
Computer
most people buy before there even know what to do with it
Postprocessing software
Can find good ones for free usally come with camera or get an illegal version ;)
memory cards (film)
You kidding right? 256MB is sufficent and affordable < $100
Portable storage
If your comparing directly with film you don't have any backup with film
and if you do use a HDD - thats more securer than film
Film SLR are cheaper (body) but the lenses cost exactly the same amount- digital and analog cameras use the same lenses and accessories /eg Flash
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 04:13:24 PM EDT.
