| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/15/2008 06:02:58 AM · #26 |
Ah true true, I always forget about that little detail.
Lets see I took about 8000 photos with my G2. Figuring a fair price of 25 cents per image (10 cents for development and 15 cents for the film), that comes to $2000! That paid for my D300 and the lens. :) Wow free D300s, tell everyone you know!
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by togtog:
to spend so much when there is film SLRs for less. |
Bear in mind that with film, the hardware is only part of the cost - you have to add in film and developing costs to get a true comparison.
One of the major reasons we got our first digital SLR in 2004 was that it worked out cheaper than just the film and development for an upcoming (admittedly, very long!) trip. It would be interesting to sit down and do the sums, but I suspect that we're still better off despite having gone through a few more digital bodies since then! |
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 07:00:59 AM · #27 |
I have a book just called Photojournalism. It's a great book. 90% of the guys in there use a Canon 1ds mk2 (or 2 of them), one guy uses 2 5d bodies, one guys uses a 20d and a Nikon f5 and 1 of the guys shoots Nikon digital but ALWAYS has his film body and 6 rolls of film ready to go in case "something happens".
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 07:14:33 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by tcmartin:
Elliot Erwitt said the following:
âDigital manipulation kills photography, Itâs enemy number 1.â
|
I have to disagree. Baudelaire famously said pretty much the exact same thing in the 1860's--he believed that photography would kill painting. The line "Photography is for bad painters" sticks out in my mind. His critique was the essential traditionalist response to the advent of new technology: 'too accessable', 'pedestrian', 'low art', and (gasp) it allowed the masses to capture images.
Digital manipulation is a different song and dance, and that's about it. Back in the 1930's, Stalin was having people removed from photographs made of good 'ole silver nitrate. Jerry Uelsmann (//www.uelsmann.net/)has been doing some crazy (and, frankly, amazing) work with film. The medium does not validate artisitic vision or achievement--that is a purely technical choice. Eugene Smith warned us against getting too obsessed with the technical particulars of image making, believing that it would eventually overshadow photography as a form of art. Anyone who has done work with the zone system knows what I mean (nothing like developing your film with different dilutions of HC-110 to bring out the shadow, mid, and highlights).
Drawing isn't 'worse' than lithography, which isn't a lower form of art than a painting, which isn't any 'higher class' than photgraphy. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 07:50:36 AM · #29 |
not sure who said it but it made me smile - "film isn't dead, it just smells funny"
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:21:22 AM · #30 |
I you look at working professionals today I'm sure you will find that digital dominates and is not seen as non-professional.
I think some of us that stared with film and printed in darkroom miss that era and maybe lash out on digital on occasion. If you look back to the days when a Canon F1 or Nikon F3 was king, the photographer had to know how to use their equipment and that initial learning curve created a bit of a club. The feel of a mechanical body and film as well as the sounds and smells or a darkroom were also much different. This is NOT to say that digital photographers don't know how to use their equipment, a good digital photographer is every bit as knowledgeable and skilled as a good film photographer. I think the only frustration is the encounter with someone that shows up with dSLR in program mode and a pop up flash proclaiming themselves as 'photographer'. Sure there are times for program mode and maybe even a pop up flash but there are also those who have no understanding and feel the price of entry was the price of the camera and some editing software. Of course the days of film are pretty much gone unless you are doing some fine art where you chose the medium for artistic reasons.
Sorry for going on... just wanted to point out that people missing film may try to reduce the discussion to technical reasons, but it's probably about a lot of other things as well. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:29:32 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Publications like National Geographic, Architectural Digest and other high end magazines still use film, at least that's what I knew up to a year ago. |
I spoke to Bob Krist and Bruce Dale, photographers for National Geographic, in September and they both swithched to digital a long time ago.
Originally posted by Tim:
not sure who said it but it made me smile - "film isn't dead, it just smells funny" |
You'll find it here
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 09:32:40. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:48:12 AM · #32 |
Digital photography isnt the problem it is extreme digital manipulation. With enough time and knowledge of photoshop, etc you can take even a terrible picture and make it into something great. I think digital photography, in essence, has made everyone a photographer.
But, when it comes to the end of the day and you have an assignment to do for a newspaper and you hand them your work, they are going to take the best image regardless of film or digital. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:58:18 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by cstein96:
Digital photography isnt the problem it is extreme digital manipulation. With enough time and knowledge of photoshop, etc you can take even a terrible picture and make it into something great. I think digital photography, in essence, has made everyone a photographer.
But, when it comes to the end of the day and you have an assignment to do for a newspaper and you hand them your work, they are going to take the best image regardless of film or digital. |
I see it as having gone full circle. Before photography, the only way to get a picture was to draw it. In essence, manipulating a white canvas with paint until an image appears. Some were good at it, some stunk, and others excelled. With film photography, the skill was in putting light on film in such a way as to capture a representation of a scene. Additional skills were learned over the years such as dodging, burning, and eventually cloning and masking.
Today, we see extreme digital manipulation (stuff that canât even be imagined on film) and many people frown. But really, I see this as nothing more than a blending of traditional art and photography. Some of the works I have seen are flat out amazing. Is it pure photography? Not at all. It is more.
That being said, for journalistic purposes, digital manipulation is a violation of trust. I am speaking of fine art photography here.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 10:33:19 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by togtog:
I know I've heard that digital doesn't have the IR response, clarity, nor the dynamic range of film. |
I can't comment on the others, but it's simply not true that film has digital beat in terms of dynamic range. Slide has even less range, and yet was (is?) considered 'more professional' than film. |
I think typically when the comparison is made in terms of dynamic range, film has a much better non-linear response at the ends of the dynamic range than digital. That hasn't really been addressed very well yet and film has a distinct, visible advantage. Consider how the sun clips in a sunset (look at all those 'sun in frame big white hole' shots) or how catchlights look typically nasty and hard edged in digital and often need to be retouched, compared to film catchlights.
Same general effect in the shadow ranges too.
Film has a smoother tail off to the highlights and shadows because it is a non-linear response, unlike a digital sensor. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 10:53:40 AM · #35 |
I think that Gordon is spot-on with his assessment of what probably is the last area where film can be regarded as having an advantage. Digital sensors *are* linear devices, and they clip harshly, whereas film "rolls off" more gently.
Where I disagree with Gordon is that it's not being addressed. It is, but not directly. The very high dynamic range of the image data coming off modern sensors makes it possible to produce smooth transitions to highlight and shadow clipping, and as we move from 12-bit RAW to 14-bit and eventually 16-bit, and as sensors become even more capable, we will have the data necessary to greatly exceed film in this regard. We will, however, need software to keep up. It is a challenge to represent current RAW data in an 8-bit output format, and this task will get more difficult. A true 16-bit image is an HDR image, and needs special treatment to represent it on a screen or in print. Software developments in the HDR world will need to migrate to mainstream RAW conversion software. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 11:07:56 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Where I disagree with Gordon is that it's not being addressed. It is, but not directly. The very high dynamic range of the image data coming off modern sensors makes it possible to produce smooth transitions to highlight and shadow clipping, and as we move from 12-bit RAW to 14-bit and eventually 16-bit, and as sensors become even more capable, we will have the data necessary to greatly exceed film in this regard. We will, however, need software to keep up. It is a challenge to represent current RAW data in an 8-bit output format, and this task will get more difficult. A true 16-bit image is an HDR image, and needs special treatment to represent it on a screen or in print. Software developments in the HDR world will need to migrate to mainstream RAW conversion software. |
FWIW, I didn't say it isn't being addressed, just that it isn't being addressed very well. What you describe is just that, it being addressed, but not very well. Increased precision and 16-bit dynamic range still doesn't really address it very well. Floating point image representation makes a better stab at it, but that isn't going to be part of a digital capture device any time soon from what I've seen.
Lots of dynamic range still doesn't address the fact that it clips rather than rolls off for ranges that are well beyond the dynamic range (spectral highlights, directly visible light sources etc) |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 11:26:56 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Lots of dynamic range still doesn't address the fact that it clips rather than rolls off for ranges that are well beyond the dynamic range (spectral highlights, directly visible light sources etc) |
Well, it does if properly interpreted prior to converting to 8-bit. It's quite possible today to produce smooth highlight roll-off with proper processing, but at this writing, the user needs to know what they are doing to avoid the nasty artifacts you mention. Specifically, they need to retain 16-bit data depth, adjust curves to obtain the desired transitions, and only then convert to 8-bit. I'd maintain that it's entirely possible today to obtain results equal to or better than film in this regard, with attention to workflow. It's just far from automatic. An out-of-camera JPEG should show this smooth transition... many cameras are "almost there" with their in-camera RAW conversions, but many fall woefully short on this.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 11:38:40 AM · #38 |
Well, it does if properly interpreted prior to converting to 8-bit.
This is a large part of the problem right there. You can not produce film like highlight roll-off with or without proper processing.
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'd maintain that it's entirely possible today to obtain results equal to or better than film in this regard, with attention to workflow. |
No, you can't. Partly because you can't capture it and partly because you can't display it. Almost all digital sensors exhibit blooming. That is what has to be addressed to address the capture part. Then you need a non-linear display device that doesn't clip to 8-bits to even be able to see it.
Floating point precision displays are one option, but that would require floating point capture devices.
Talking about current high dynamic range imaging is entirely missing the point. It isn't about extending the linear dyanmic range response of the sensor (which is what HDR can help with, via multiple exposures). The issue is in the non-linear response regions of film, vs the clipping/blooming response of a digital sensor when it saturates the photo site.
It is a relatively simple concept - the response curves of film was fairly heavily researched to provide pleasing toes and curves towards saturation. Digital sensors currently only exhibit a linear then cliff-like saturation response. The only potential solution out there is to move away from integer pixel information.
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 11:41:19. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 12:20:03 PM · #39 |
Gordon, I disagree; Floating-point color or luminosity information is no solution at all. The sensor is still linear and will still clip harshly, no matter how the data is expressed. Blooming is a separate but of course related issue, and you are correct that sensors that bloom badly will be problematic no matter what you do. Today's high-quality sensors do not bloom to such a degree.
You *can* reproduce a film-like roll-off with digital, and dynamic range *is* the key. Given that the clipping point of the sensor is beyond the DR of the output device (print or display) then it is in fact possible to transform the data such that a non-linear approach to clipping is reproduced.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 12:54:21 PM · #40 |
I don't laugh when i see someone shooting digitial.
I laugh when I see a pro shooting film.
At least for any work that requires a quick turn around. I feel like its a matter of time before people stop shooting it all together. All the top pros listed here most certainly started with film. Nowdays, I and most others, begin shooting digital. I only shot film during college for class and I enjoyed it but, it can't beat digital in my opinion. Plus I'm a photoshop nerd. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 01:54:58 PM · #41 |
If anyone gets the Ovation channel they have a show called Photographers at Work that gets replayed a lot. Some of the photographers still use film and some of them explain why. Ovation
As far as photojournalism goes, digital is the preferred way. It takes way less time and in the world of news that's very important. As far as digital vs/film in the art world, that's tricky. I had college professors that would argue that photography isn't even art, they referred to it as a crutch. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 03:28:34 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by togtog:
Ah true true, I always forget about that little detail.
Lets see I took about 8000 photos with my G2. Figuring a fair price of 25 cents per image (10 cents for development and 15 cents for the film), that comes to $2000! |
And what do you pay for a hard drive, and a backup hard drive, and a DVD burner, and the time you spend burning the DVDs? And remember, you'll have to keep "refreshing" all your backups as the technology changes every few years
I figured out that by the time you amortize in the cost of the memory cards, hard drives, etc. it still costs 5-15 cents (at least) per digital image, and I have only 2-4MB JPEGS -- start saving 16MB RAW images and your costs gor up even more.
A while ago, some agency in the movie world compared the cost of archiving a feature-length movie shot on film vs. digitally; the estimate was that the film archives cost something like $1-2000/year, while digital archives were estimated to cost hundreds of thousands per film to maintain. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 03:34:19 PM · #43 |
"Asked about tips for starting out, he said, âStart rich..... The field is very crowded and you should be aware that itâs not likely you will succeed.â
BULL SHIT
if you have an utmost passion for it and you costantly work at it it is acheiveable...im not the person who says you can be whatever you want, an astronaut etc... but a living in photography is totally possible. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 04:00:05 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
I you look at working professionals today I'm sure you will find that digital dominates and is not seen as non-professional. |
Anyone think that when you license a stock image from Getty or Corbis that they still send you a 4x5 negative to scan? Printed images -- newspapers, magazines, billboards, whatever -- have been "digital" images for years, whether they were digitized directly by a camera sensor or scanned from film/print. Only an original print exposed drectly from a negative is not reduced at some point to a series of several million ones and zeroes ...
Remember that film has a resolution limit too, related to the size of the grains of gelatin which carry the photo-sensitive chemicals. I was told once by an AGFA technician that for their ISO100 slide film that was at best around 6000/inch; to make a 35mm slide (we made 35mm slides from digital files) their recommended file size was about 2600 x 4100 pixels. As sensors reach and surpass this resolution I think the argument for film will no longer be able to use resolution/detail as a consideration... |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 04:04:48 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I figured out that by the time you amortize in the cost of the memory cards, hard drives, etc. it still costs 5-15 cents (at least) per digital image, and I have only 2-4MB JPEGS -- start saving 16MB RAW images and your costs gor up even more. |
Today's hdd storage costs are approximately $0.20/GB. I can therefore store my 14MB RAW files at a cost of $0.008 (8/10ths of a penny) per image, and that is assuming that I store in triplicate! In other words, I have a main hdd, a backup hdd, and another backup hdd off site.
My digital files are more secure than my film negatives, given that I have not gone to the extreme to copy my film negs for off-site storage.
Storage costs are dropping as fast as image sizes are growing, perhaps faster. Bottom line, it's *much* cheaper to store digital images, and easier/faster to ensure they survive. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 04:06:14 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Jib:
"Asked about tips for starting out, he said, âStart rich..... The field is very crowded and you should be aware that itâs not likely you will succeed.â
BULL SHIT
if you have an utmost passion for it and you costantly work at it it is acheiveable...im not the person who says you can be whatever you want, an astronaut etc... but a living in photography is totally possible. |
Depends on the area of expertise. Photojournalism is very tough to make a good living these days. For freelancers, the cost to get into the game is very high, especially if you want to shot sports. The pay is low beciase there are always a fresh crop of young people with high-end equipment that will shot for next to nothing. Newspapers are run by writers, not photographers. Writers in general are loathe to give up any column inches that could be used for their words. Staff photographers at major newspapers don't make compatively what they used to. The number of major newspapers in the US is going down, not up. The means there are lots of talented people chasing fewer and fewer postions. Penny stock site have all but destroyed a once lucrative area to sell pictures for a decent profit.
And to a person that loves photojournalism, any other area of photography just isn't the same.
I'm not griping, I make a very good living and enjoy what I do. It's just not in photojournalism anymore. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 04:45:42 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by tcmartin:
âDigital is so simple. An image without effort.â |
Yeah, right. Excuse me while I run out and snap a few blue ribbon photos.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2008 08:49:56 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by tcmartin:
âDigital is so simple. An image without effort.â |
Yeah, right. Excuse me while I run out and snap a few blue ribbon photos. |
This looks like I said that - just for the record, that didn't come from me, rather Elliot Erwitt. Just getting the camera in and out of the bag is challenging for me! |
|
|
|
05/16/2008 11:59:05 AM · #49 |
"Asked about tips for starting out, he said, âStart rich..... The field is very crowded and you should be aware that itâs not likely you will succeed.â
Originally posted by Jib:
BULL SHIT
if you have an utmost passion for it and you costantly work at it it is acheiveable...im not the person who says you can be whatever you want, an astronaut etc... but a living in photography is totally possible. |
Umm....
Utmost passion and constanly working at it will leave you exhauseted and unfulfilled in the real world.
Marketing, skill, determination, equipment, and most importantly, some decent luck will get you there.
Having a passion and working at it if you have no skill or equipment cannot possibly net you a living.
I do know people that are not necessarily spectacular photographers, merely competent, who are very successful because they have great business acumen, yet I know good photographers that haven't made a dime because they're abysmal at marketing themselves.
I made a great living as a British car mechanic because I was skilled, and it is a specific niche that has very little competition......this is NOT the case with photography.......there are WAY too many decent photographers that will work for recognition and/or very little money, plus there is photo stock all over the 'Net.....it's simply not a seller's market.
I am (theoretically) a professional photographer, I have a state tax license and an established business, but after almost a year and a half, once you take what I've spent in materials that I can legitimately justify for my business, I am functioning at a loss.
I have gotten my name out there, I am slowly becoming known in my area, I have some work displyed at various locations, but realistically? I don't see myself as being able to make a living at it for some time, if ever.
I do know that were I willing to make a full court press, do sports events, and weddings, that I could accelerate my potential for income, BUT......I'm not willing to put my family life on hold indefinitely for every weekend of the year.....and who gets married or schedules sports events for Tuesdays?
So, once again, just "constantly working at it" isn't quite right......a supreme sacrifice may be called for as well. And.....if you already have a family, it's neither sensible, nor responsible to just up and quit your job on the HOPE that you can make your photography business fly.
Don't get me wrong, some of what has come my way because of my own passion and work is awesome.......the gallery where I have some of my work sold one of my pieces for $650!!!! That's awesome!!!
BUT....by the time that the enlargement and framing processes were figured in, I netted less than $100.....can't buy much gas or groceries for that!
I have also gotten the unduying gratitude and admiration of the moms of my daughter's cheerleading team for some of the thousands of images I took and processed.......that misty-eyed look and the "Awwwww!" that I'd get when I gave them a print is priceless......but after two seasons, I am just now starting to get some portrait work from them......yet I consider the prints I handed out here and there an investment to promote myself.
The gym where I work out has contracted me to do some portraits work of their trainers.......but again, that's work that I solicited, and worked to get by marketing myself.
Just be prepared to devote time effort and money......that quote is dead-on accurate, IMNSHO. |
|
|
|
05/16/2008 12:56:40 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by tcmartin:
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by tcmartin:
âDigital is so simple. An image without effort.â |
Yeah, right. Excuse me while I run out and snap a few blue ribbon photos. |
This looks like I said that - just for the record, that didn't come from me, rather Elliot Erwitt. Just getting the camera in and out of the bag is challenging for me! |
Oh, I knew it wasn't from you. It was just too good to pass up. :)
|
|
