|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/29/2004 01:06:25 PM · #101 |
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. :-) |
The computer can be used for other things.
As for costs:
For example, when I went to Africa back in 2000, I shot 50 Rolls of 24 Exp over a period of a month. That's C$300 just for the film, processing and printing cost me C$450, that's C$750 just in film and processing cost. Repeat that twice a year plus the odd family party/gathering...I've paid for my DRebel within less than a year.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 01:07:06 PM · #102 |
What future? That's the reality I'm dealing with at work right now. I have boxes full of old jobs on Syquest cartridges (44/88/135/200MB), ZIP cartridges, Magneto-Optical cartidges, Jaz Cartridges, SCSI Hard Drives, and maybe even a Bernoulli disk somewhere. For now, I still have functioning legacy drives and Mac that run them, but it takes forever to back up and catalog that stuff.
I just bought a 200GB FireWire/USB external hard drive (on sale) for $189 USD. At about $1/GB it's about as cheap as branded CD-Rs in boxes, especially if you want to make two copies.
I still try to print the best photos, especially the family photos, as a partial hedge against this problem. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 01:11:52 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Kind of leaving yourself open to attacks on your images here.. |
No problem, I'm here to learn! :) |
I have looked at his images, they are hard to attack. In fact the only ones I have an issue with are the older ones that I am guessing where done on film.
Look for yourself, check the older images like from 1999-2000 to the ones in 2004 and tell me digital can't make a good photo.
doctornick photos |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 01:12:38 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
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. |
First of all, quit being a schmuck. What I have done, what you have done, what professionals do, is completely irrelevant. What did I say. I said that high end DSLRs, like the 1Ds Mk II can capture more detail than 35mm. True. Absolutely verifiably true. Many people may not care for the manner in which the detail is captured, but true. I also said, that each has their own purpose. as the many film types had their purpose, so does digital. There is no "best", only "most suitable" So step down of your high horse, partner, and join the real world. If I don't print B2B, and don't need a print size over 16x20, I'm great with digital. Digital is better. If I want to go out and shoot 8x10, yes, I'll have better detail and better pictures. Of course, at, what, $40 a sheet, I'd better be good, or I'll be bankrupt from film cost. I said digital can, with the right equipment, capture more detail than 35mm. And you argue???? Where are your facts? the D1X is a 5.3 MP cam. the 1Ds Mk II is 16.7.... little weak there.
P.S. I have shot film. Prefer, for my taste, digital. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 01:38:47 PM · #105 |
I ordered 2 20x30 Prints (From DPCPrints) of  and let me tell you that the quality at that size blows anything I've ever shot on film and blown to the same size. The print is Flawless, not one iota of grain, amazing detail I never saw on the film equivalent. See for yourself, buy a 20x30 print of that Lion and you will be convinced ;)
PS: And that's from my measly 8MP Camera...imagine how big a Print you could get with the 1Ds Mark II...
Message edited by author 2004-11-29 13:40:12.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:46:13 PM · #106 |
I would start out by saying that I only recently acquired a digital camera, and that I know nothing about photography. Having said this, I would point out that I did go to this gentleman's web site and viewed his photographs. I and can only say that to the untrained eye, his photos pale in comparison to those I have seen on this site.
Stated succinctly, I would say this. There is no hope in hell that I would avail myself of this gentleman's service, particularly when I consider the absolutely outstanding photographs I have had the good fortune to view here.
I may not be knowledgeable, but I do know what I like, and what he proffers as being the product of a "Master Photographer" is not what I want. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 03:17:04 PM · #107 |
| What really amuses me about this guy is that he has a website to advertise his trade. Which means that regardless of the technology used to capture the images, he is after all displaying digital images. He shouldn't bash the technology too much. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 03:20:09 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by vontom:
Originally posted by jonpink:
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. |
First of all, quit being a schmuck. What I have done, what you have done, what professionals do, is completely irrelevant. What did I say. I said that high end DSLRs, like the 1Ds Mk II can capture more detail than 35mm. True. Absolutely verifiably true. Many people may not care for the manner in which the detail is captured, but true. I also said, that each has their own purpose. as the many film types had their purpose, so does digital. There is no "best", only "most suitable" So step down of your high horse, partner, and join the real world. If I don't print B2B, and don't need a print size over 16x20, I'm great with digital. Digital is better. If I want to go out and shoot 8x10, yes, I'll have better detail and better pictures. Of course, at, what, $40 a sheet, I'd better be good, or I'll be bankrupt from film cost. I said digital can, with the right equipment, capture more detail than 35mm. And you argue???? Where are your facts? the D1X is a 5.3 MP cam. the 1Ds Mk II is 16.7.... little weak there.
P.S. I have shot film. Prefer, for my taste, digital. |
Your missing the point totally - I am saying - with regard to QUALITY - that digital is not as good as film. End of fact. That is all.
I am not knocking digital and i am not saying that one camera is better than the other or that the xxx digital camera takes better pictures than xxx film camera. I am not on about 35mm, or the Canon...
It's a debate about film and digital, not manufacturers.
Simply stating that the best digital camera is no match for film, be it taken with medium and large format film cameras.
PS: More pixels doesn't always equate to better images BTW
D1X is a 5.3 MP cam. the 1Ds Mk II is 16.7.... little weak there
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 03:22:59 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Originally posted by jonpink:
From National Geographic
National Geographic rates the Nikon D1X images for 1/2 page images, while film (slides) are still useful for a double page spread, a 4:1 difference at their quality standards. Mr. Puts notes that this corresponds with his own tests, confirming National Geographic's standards. While slides can often achieve resolutions of 100-120 lpmm (at least, with Leica lenses ;-), most digital cameras run in the 30 to 40 lpmm resolution range. This difference is inherent in digital cameras which require anti-aliasing filters (which are low pass filters) to reduce the high frequency data which contains fine contrast and high resolution data from the lens. |
You might want to check out this link N.G. on digital
Talking about the Digital Rebel they say "The image quality is so good (better than 35mm) that the only problem you'll face is not knowing where to hang all your prints." |
Again I take that as true, although I am referring to medium format and large format.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 03:31:18 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Originally posted by jonpink:
From National Geographic
National Geographic rates the Nikon D1X images for 1/2 page images, while film (slides) are still useful for a double page spread, a 4:1 difference at their quality standards. Mr. Puts notes that this corresponds with his own tests, confirming National Geographic's standards. While slides can often achieve resolutions of 100-120 lpmm (at least, with Leica lenses ;-), most digital cameras run in the 30 to 40 lpmm resolution range. This difference is inherent in digital cameras which require anti-aliasing filters (which are low pass filters) to reduce the high frequency data which contains fine contrast and high resolution data from the lens. |
You might want to check out this link N.G. on digital
Talking about the Digital Rebel they say "The image quality is so good (better than 35mm) that the only problem you'll face is not knowing where to hang all your prints." |
Again I take that as true, although I am referring to medium format and large format. |
But National Geographic use 35mm, from the FAQ page regarding equipment used What types of cameras do they use?
"It̢۪s up to the photographers, and their most popular choices are Canon and Nikon 35mm SLRs and the Leica M6 range finder."
FAQ Link
The 1Ds Mark II seems to be taking the place of medium format cameras, for those who can afford it. I would think most professional photographers would be moving to either the 1Ds or the 1Ds Mark II. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 03:33:53 PM · #111 |
I have been told by a few people to do this, and I also read it today whilst search for the funny Digital V's film debates.
To your / my eye, the prints from digital cameras are great - i loved my 2MP Fuji FinePix 2800z a while back, and the quality of my 6x4's and 8x10s was (as i said myself) equal to that of film.
The TV, Newspapers and manufacturers keep telling us that they are as good as film even then.
I was happy for 1 and a half years, then at a wedding my friend was shooting on a compact camera (cheap plastic thing) and afterward I asked to see his efforts.
To my surprise, there was more detail, and it kind of just felt better in film. (Both were printed professionally)
Then some time later I upgraded to an Oly E20 - 5MP I think, and thought - well here comes some even better prints. This time the 6x4's were very good - as good as film.
I got out my old negatives, my old prints and my old film Oly, and compared - brilliant stuff.
Then a few months later I get a photo of the Thames blown up to A3 and the results are superb, but again once I compared it to a likewise shot on film it was not quite so good.
Now I have the D100. A good camera. Much better A3, to everyone they are 'film quality' 'flawless' 'perfect'. To me also.
But go into a decent art gallery and look at the film prints - they have a much nicer feel to them - more detail and slightly better repro.
My point is - go to a gallery and see for yourself the quality of a large format print. Chances are you'll enjoy it.
But then we all differ in tastes, some like the digital look. I like grain for example.
And also, even if the above were not true. My point would stand. I enjoy to view black and white photography - now that certainly isn't as good in digital as it is in film.
Message edited by author 2004-11-29 15:36:46. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 09:01:42 PM · #112 |
You guys that attacked this guys work should be ashamed. As far as I can tell he hasn't done a single thing to anyone. He is just trying to make a living. Your slandering of him could actually cost him money. And you harrass him with e-mails to boot?
Tim |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 09:10:23 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by Niten:
You guys that attacked this guys work should be ashamed. As far as I can tell he hasn't done a single thing to anyone. He is just trying to make a living. Your slandering of him could actually cost him money. And you harrass him with e-mails to boot?
Tim |
I don't think anyone is slandering anyone, just discussing his photography skills (or lack there of).
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 09:51:29 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by cbeller:
Originally posted by Niten:
You guys that attacked this guys work should be ashamed. As far as I can tell he hasn't done a single thing to anyone. He is just trying to make a living. Your slandering of him could actually cost him money. And you harrass him with e-mails to boot?
Tim |
I don't think anyone is slandering anyone, just discussing his photography skills (or lack there of). |
I do think sending an email was going too far. The guy is pretty full of himself and his photos are pretty bad, makes it hard not to poke a bit of fun at him. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 01:24:25 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by Niten:
You guys that attacked this guys work should be ashamed. As far as I can tell he hasn't done a single thing to anyone. He is just trying to make a living. Your slandering of him could actually cost him money. And you harrass him with e-mails to boot?
Tim |
The web is for infromation, and he is obviously not correct in his. Is it wrong to attempt to educate him, also? As for for his work, people buy it, good for him. But to make claims against digital being worse than film and then putting up some rather uncomplimentary shots...anyway. Maybe he did all the scanning and adjustments (for the web) himself and knows nothing about it, so they look like crap, AND that is why he puts down digital. (C:
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 07:37:36 PM  |
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: 08/09/2025 07:37:36 PM EDT.
|
