Film photog bashes digital - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/26/2004 10:02:40 AM · #76

Originally posted by saintnicholas_25:

Originally posted by saintnicholas_25:

memory cards (film)
You kidding right? 256MB is sufficent and affordable < $100

Not for a professional shooting with a 6MP or more DSLR it isn't.

42 pictures at 6MP then load onto HDD (cross your fingers that it doesn't crash :p) probally buy 512MB which is 84 pictures if your trigger happy but on one occassion you shouldn't be loading onto the hard drive too much - if the hard drives is too slow and you take a few hundred pictures - save the $400 don't buy a hard drive just buy a large compacity memory card

You've never shot a wedding properly right ? :) 84 pictures...

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/26/2004 10:07:12 AM · #77

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Here are the specs on my epson 2200 inkjet printer:

Water resistant
Light resistant:
Up to 108 years Premier Artâ�¢ Matte Scrapbook Photo Paper for Epson
Up to 92 years on Epson Watercolor Paper Radiant White
Up to 85 years on Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper
Up to 77 years on Epson Premium Semigloss Photo Paper
Up to 76 years on Epson Enhanced Matte Paper
Up to 71 years on Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper
Up to 61 years on Epson Velvet Fine Art Paper

Remember that these are all estimates based on "accelerated aging" tests. No one has actually had one of these pictures around for even 50 years to see if these claims are true.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/26/2004 10:16:40 AM · #78

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by ericlimon:
Here are the specs on my epson 2200 inkjet printer:

Water resistant
Light resistant:
Up to 108 years Premier Artâ�¢ Matte Scrapbook Photo Paper for Epson
Up to 92 years on Epson Watercolor Paper Radiant White
Up to 85 years on Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper
Up to 77 years on Epson Premium Semigloss Photo Paper
Up to 76 years on Epson Enhanced Matte Paper
Up to 71 years on Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper
Up to 61 years on Epson Velvet Fine Art Paper

Remember that these are all estimates based on "accelerated aging" tests. No one has actually had one of these pictures around for even 50 years to see if these claims are true.

And also it is worth realising that those specs are for a properly stored print.

That is, in a humidity controlled, temperature controlled environment, stored in the dark for the majority of that time, looked at, at most, for 1 hour per day, in a non direct sunlight environment, under UV protective, conservation quality glass and framed/stored in totally acid-free, archival quality materials throughout.

If you aren't doing all these things, you can expect somewhere from 6 months and up. If you frame it on a wall, with decent materials and not conservation glass (personally I can't afford $200 or $300 for a 20x30 sheet of glass) in a shaded area of a room you can expect maybe 10 years if you are lucky.

Message edited by author 2004-11-26 10:17:56.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

11/26/2004 10:20:40 AM · #79

Originally posted by Gordon:

How does this compare to film?

-Terry

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/26/2004 10:36:15 AM · #80

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

How does this compare to film?

-Terry

Film typically does better, even though it also does best under more carefully controlled conditions.

The best current option is chromeria (sp?) or lightjet prints from digital that use real photographic processes.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

11/26/2004 10:54:59 AM · #81

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

How does this compare to film?

-Terry

Film typically does better, even though it also does best under more carefully controlled conditions.

The best current option is chromeria (sp?) or lightjet prints from digital that use real photographic processes.

The controlled conditions are important for any emulsion based image, film or print. Film and print emulsions WILL support mold and mildew growth if there is moisture present. Trying to restore a neg that has mildew growing in the emulsion layer is largely a futile exercise in frustration.

jxpfeer

Nikon D70

11/29/2004 11:05:33 AM · #82

i have to agree with what others have said... would be nice if he knew what he was talking about
i don't know what he thinks "matrix dot" printing is... and what a "DPI printing" process is.... cuz those terms are umm.. well wrong.
bah

11/29/2004 11:47:26 AM · #83

Fact1

Film is still better quality than digital

Fact 2

Printing on home DM printers is poor and doesn't last.

End of facts

Too many people here to quick to judge the poor guy.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/29/2004 11:58:17 AM · #84

Was watching an interview with Ctein yesterday (//ctein.com/) who Kodak have claimed as one of the greatest colour printers, ever.

His opinion was that there has been a steady decline in colour printing options from dye transfer, through the chroma processes traditionally used for colour film prints. This decline has been driven by a need for convenience, speed, cost etc - the price and difficulty has gone done but the quality of colour printing has been in a steady decline since the 1930s.

Interestingly he felt that there has finally been a turnaround in this with the introduction of archival quality, pigment based inkjet printing.

The control available over the print quality is unsurpassed.

The archival quality is potentially as good, though still unproven and with a whole mess of gotchas if you using off brand ink or off brand paper etc (as the archival ratings are for a set of inks, on a set of papers, kept in the right conditions - vary any of these and expect the prints to last a few years at best)

and the print quality is getting to be as good as it has ever been.

To the point that he stated he no longer prints slides using traditional printing processes.

There is still a lot of potential improvements on the digital capture side and certainly there are areas where different techniques have advantages but a lot of the complaints seem to stem from a desire to protect skills already learned and/or an unwillingness to want to be a beginner again.

vontom

Canon EOS-20D

11/29/2004 11:59:25 AM · #85

Originally posted by jonpink:

Fact1

Film is still better quality than digital

Fact 2

Printing on home DM printers is poor and doesn't last.

End of facts

Too many people here to quick to judge the poor guy.

fact 1: not necessarily true. certainly a 35 mm P&S for $20 will exceed the image quality of a digicam p&s for the same, but high end digital exceeds 35mm. Compared to medium format, it's a toss up still. the high MP cams (1Ds Mk II comes to mind) rival medium format. Digital SLRs (quality ones) shoot much better in low light and tend to capture more shadow detail. As has been iterated previously, film is better in some situations, digital in others. Please, make sure your facts are correct.

Fact 2: absolutely true. But, I cannot begin to think of the last time I saw a "matrix dot" printer. So his fact is essentially, irrelevant.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/29/2004 12:04:31 PM · #86

Originally posted by vontom:

Digital SLRs (quality ones) shoot much better in low light and tend to capture more shadow detail. As has been iterated previously, film is better in some situations, digital in others.

I agree with the gist of what you are saying here, though I'd disagree about the low light. digital does well in lowish light, but film will do better in really low light - I haven't seen many 6 hour+ digital star trail shots - though some of the really high end Canon DSLRs will work quite well for an hour or so. Digital does in general give reasonable shadow detail (though with pretty bad SNR there) the highlight detail is the real problem with digital - catchlights are horrible without being edited compared to film, for example.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/29/2004 12:09:13 PM · #87

Originally posted by jonpink:

Film is still better quality than digital

As clearly documented by this guy's work. So, by that blanket statement I should dump my DSLR and go get a disposable Kodak? Riiiight!

Originally posted by jonpink:

Printing on home DM printers is poor and doesn't last.

Printing on Polaroid film is poor and doesn't last. Get a real, film emulsion print and the quality/longevity is exactly the same regardless of source.

Originally posted by jonpink:

Too many people here to quick to judge the poor guy.

Who are we to judge the Master? Can we judge his poor work instead? How about his poor grasp of reality?

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/29/2004 12:13:07 PM · #88

I couldn't resist and emailed them at their address beachportrait@beachportrait.com the following letter:

Message edited by author 2004-11-29 21:10:53.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/29/2004 12:18:56 PM · #89

Originally posted by doctornick:

I couldn't resist and emailed them at their address beachportrait@beachportrait.com

I doubt you'll get a response anytime soon because regular mail is still "more superior" to email. Most master writers still use a typewriter.

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

11/29/2004 12:20:21 PM · #90

Nick,

Please share his reply if he is so brave as to provide you with one. I bet it would be a hoot.

scottwilson

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 28mm f/2.8

11/29/2004 12:23:37 PM · #91

Originally posted by doctornick:

Whereas I think the guy is off base and out of touch, and whereas I agree that his photos in general look like crap, I don't think sending him hate emails will serve any good purpose.

11/29/2004 12:41:17 PM · #92

Originally posted by vontom:

Originally posted by jonpink:
Fact1

Film is still better quality than digital

Fact 2

Printing on home DM printers is poor and doesn't last.

End of facts

Too many people here to quick to judge the poor guy.

fact 1: not necessarily true. certainly a 35 mm P&S for $20 will exceed the image quality of a digicam p&s for the same, but high end digital exceeds 35mm. Compared to medium format, it's a toss up still. the high MP cams (1Ds Mk II comes to mind) rival medium format. Digital SLRs (quality ones) shoot much better in low light and tend to capture more shadow detail. As has been iterated previously, film is better in some situations, digital in others. Please, make sure your facts are correct.

Fact 2: absolutely true. But, I cannot begin to think of the last time I saw a "matrix dot" printer. So his fact is essentially, irrelevant.

Film.. It's still much better. No getting my facts straight.

Do you know any professionals? Do you know the rates they get if they shoot digital versus film?
Do you know anything about consumer / high end B2B publishing and what they accept and discard? Do you know the process they take to scrutanise their photographs?

In fact, have you ever shot film?

Please, make sure your facts are correct. As you so nicely put it. :D

I think with a little learning and less bias towards digi digi digital, you would see that there is still a long way to go with digital.

Just go out shoot the sky and look at it on an A3 print.

11/29/2004 12:42:02 PM · #93

Originally posted by doctornick:

I couldn't resist and emailed them at their address beachportrait@beachportrait.com the following letter:

Hi,

I just had a look at your website and I'm sorry to say that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

I quote "The prints for these digital photographs are printed out on photo quality paper with a Matrix Dot Printer." What are you talking about???? Matrix Dot Printer??? It's Dot Matrix Printer and these haven't been around since the 80's, have you been in a photo store lately?? Have you seen prints made on a Canon i9900 inkjet printer?

I quote "Recent studies have determined that the dry ink used in this process is very unstable. One of the biggest negative factors is the fading process of the dry ink only after a short period of time." Have you seen a "traditional" photo 10 years after being framed and exposed in a sunlit room?? The colour shifts and fading are definitely there.

I quote "Its color saturation is far more superior to that of a DPI printed photo" DPI printed photo??? What are you talking about??? You obviously haven't seen anything printed on an inkjet printer...

Just had a look at your "portfolio" //www.beachportrait.com/page1.html

Ahem, blown highlights, magenta colour cast, direct flash use...on and on and on...master photographer??? My 6 year old nephew can take better photos than that...

Verify your facts before blurting out nonsense if you are going to call yourself a "master Photographer"...and get better photos for your site.

Nick an "amateur photographer"

Kind of leaving yourself open to attacks on your images here..

11/29/2004 12:46:46 PM · #94

The digital lovers and film haters may find this funny

YOU MAY BE BETTER OFF SHOOTING DIGITALLY IF ...

1. You have a computer, and you enjoy working with it.

2. You need to be able to view photographs within minutes after taking
them.

3. You have young children or grandchildren whom you photograph
frequently.

4. You have a need or desire to be able to send photographs quickly and
easily to other people by e-mail.

5. You have a need or desire to be able to post photographs to a Web
site quickly and easily.

6. You're willing and able to invest a significant sum up front,
especially if you can enjoy greater long-term savings as a result.

7. You rarely have your photographs printed on paper.

8. You like to retouch or adjust your photos, or you like to prepare
composite photos or other visual art from photographs you've taken.

9. You are interested almost exclusively in color photography (as
opposed to black and white).

10. You are interested in the latest technological developments.

11. You need to be able to shoot large numbers of photographs over short
periods at minimal cost (e.g., to cover constantly changing product
lines, changing real-estate properties, etc.).

12. You have a need for strict confidentiality (nude photos, undercover
investigative work, etc.).

13. You take lots of pictures around your house and home.

14. You prefer--or at least you don't mind--viewing photos on a computer
monitor or television screen.

15. You want to be able to check your photos, at least approximately,
immediately after taking them, instead of waiting for them to be
developed.

16. You do not take very long exposures (as in astrophotography).

17. You cannot stand any hint of grain in your photos.

18. You prefer a camera with just one lens that you can use for
everything.

19. You don't mind--or you prefer--looking at and perhaps purchasing a
new camera every so often, just to keep up with developments.

20. You enjoy taking pictures very casually, looking at them with
friends, and then discarding them, at minimal cost (e.g., parties and
other social gatherings).

11/29/2004 12:47:15 PM · #95

YOU MAY BE BETTER OFF SHOOTING FILM IF ...

1. You don't have a computer.

2. You don't like to use computers.

3. You can wait an hour or two to see your photos, or longer.

4. You routinely have your photos printed on paper or projected on a
screen (like slides).

5. You prefer very large prints (11x14 and up).

6. You cannot afford to spend a lot of money up front, or you'd prefer
not to, even if it means paying a bit more as you go over time.

7. You enjoy having extensive manual control over your photography
(shutter speeds, aperture, etc.).

8. You rarely if ever send photographs to anyone by e-mail.

9. You rarely if ever post photographs to a Web site.

10. You shoot only a small number of photographs over a long period
(less than one thousand per year, for example).

11. You want or require the very highest image quality obtainable in
your photos.

12. You like to take pictures in black and white.

13. You travel often and enjoy photographing your trips.

14. You hate to look at images on a monitor.

15. You have no desire or need to retouch or adjust your photos after
you take them.

16. You want to set up your own wet darkroom.

17. You need instant response when you press the shutter button, and/or
the ability to take a very large number of exposures at very high speed.

18. You need interchangeable lenses, very wide angles, or very
restricted depth of field.

19. You prefer to buy a camera once, and then keep it until it wears
out, no matter what else comes out.

20. You work with a tripod, in a studio, or in other situations where
you spend far more time setting up the shot than actually pressing the
shutter.

11/29/2004 12:48:48 PM · #96

A view in to the future...

//www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm