| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/25/2004 12:32:59 PM · #1 |
Came across this today while browsing photographers websites...
thought I would share...
//www.beachportrait.com/ink.html
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 12:35:14 PM · #2 |
I am the suck and can't afford to experiment with film :(
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 12:35:26 PM · #3 |
It'd be nice if he had his facts straight.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 12:37:01 PM · #4 |
I wouldn't call that bashing, more like 'educating'. I didn't read anything that I could outright disagree with. Digital prints may very well be inferior. We already know that the 'negatives' (ie disc) don't last nearly as long as traditional film negatives.
It's really about phasing out film photographers so that clients won't have a choice ;-)
j/k
Message edited by author 2004-11-25 12:37:31. |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 12:42:19 PM · #5 |
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? |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 12:44:06 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I wouldn't call that bashing, more like 'educating'. I didn't read anything that I could outright disagree with. Digital prints may very well be inferior. We already know that the 'negatives' (ie disc) don't last nearly as long as traditional film negatives |
I have to disagree. Many digital prints are now produced using a photographic process as opposed to ink-based printing. In these cases, the life of prints from a film or digital original is identical.
Digital also offers the distinct advantage of being able to create infinite copies of the original, all identical. Unlike film, the file is the original, not the media on which it is stored. With adequate backup procedures (a must for any business) your originals can jast just about forever.
-Terry
Message edited by author 2004-11-25 12:45:02.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 12:44:52 PM · #7 |
I don't know about anyone else here, but I don't print my photos for clients on my inkjet - I take them to a professional printer that uses the same Fuji heat emulsion printer that they use for their negetive prints. Same high-quality prints. and it's more expensive. not less. $0.55 a print versus $0.42. It's cheaper for reprints only, because the reprints jump up to $0.79 for negetives since they've been cut.
Add to that the cost of a good digital camera body being well over a $1,000.00, and digital photography is actually MORE expensive. Not less.
End of rant.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 12:46:17 PM · #8 |
Educating? 'DPI printer'? Dot matrix? He has no idea what he's talking about. Saying something is worse because it's 'digital' is illogical. 'Digital' is merely a way of representing data and is no way tied to issues of quality or permanence or print output. If you go to a molecular level EVERYTHING could be considered 'digital'.
A Leaf 22mp digital back would crush anything 35mm film could produce, for example. Does that mean digital is always better than film? No.
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I wouldn't call that bashing, more like 'educating'. I didn't read anything that I could outright disagree with. Digital prints may very well be inferior. We already know that the 'negatives' (ie disc) don't last nearly as long as traditional film negatives.
It's really about phasing out film photographers so that clients won't have a choice ;-)
j/k |
Message edited by author 2004-11-25 12:47:33.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 12:52:25 PM · #9 |
That little "article" is actually humourous. It made me laugh:)
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 12:56:40 PM · #10 |
there are quite a few photographers out there who share this belief. They just aren't up to date on todays technologies. This guy just doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 12:57:17 PM · #11 |
Film is dead. Maybe not today, maybe not 5 years from now, but how long will it be? Any film photographer can argue right now that better quality can be had from a large format camera, sure. No real disagreement here. But how long is that going to last?
A couple of years ago, 6MP digital SLR's were thousands and thousands of dollars and top of the line. Mamiya just introduced a 22MP dSLR. Like it or not, the film photographers have to realize that technology is advancing at record speed, and that pretty soon we'll all be holding a dSLR camera in our hands with enough MP to show as much detail as a medium or large format film camera.
As far as prints go, anyone has the option to take their file to a lab, and even now their are printers, papers and inks that have an expected life of 100 years or more.
Film has been with us since photography began so its a guarantee you'll see people cling to it until the very last roll is used up, but I think any serious photographer has to come to terms with the fact that in the future there will probably only be one way to shoot photographs. |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 01:00:50 PM · #12 |
My photography professor at a college here in Calgary is a film user but has said that it's because he alreaday owns all his equipment and can't justify spending the cash to update to digital. We also discussed the fact that many popular films aren't being produced anymore..as well as I think it's Kodak that doesn't produce new films PERIOD. They've cancelled all development.
So yeah, film is going to say bye-bye. |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 01:08:07 PM · #13 |
While the arguments in the article are silly, I think that saying that film is 'dead' is not a good enough reason to promote digital as being 'better'.
Quality, patience and artistry are quickly being replaced by quantity, expediency, and efficiency in this consumeristic world. That is why digital is catching on.
Fortunately, I think we're finding that digital will be up to the challenge whether your values fall in the first group or the second.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 01:13:31 PM · #14 |
Funny really...I'm asking for a film body for Christmas. It's the only way I'm going to get really wide angle shots with the 17-40.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 01:15:23 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Funny really...I'm asking for a film body for Christmas. It's the only way I'm going to get really wide angle shots with the 17-40. |
I'd like to have a film body. I don't even know how to load film. How ridiculous is that? I know that digital makes me lazy that's for sure.
Plus, it's a cheaper way of having a back up. A decent film body would run you half of what a digital would. |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 01:27:50 PM · #16 |
I'm not promoting digital as being better. What I'm saying is that the film photographer's arguments that better results can be achieved by film cameras such as medium and large format may be very valid, but for how long? We would have to assume that the great leaps in technology we've seen over the last few years are suddenly going to stop, and that film will always have the upper hand.
I for one, am betting on technology and assume that before we know it, it will be impossible to tell the difference between a huge enlargement from a 8x10 view camera and digital SLR.
You say "quality, patience and artistry are quickly being replaced by quantity, expediency, and efficiency in this consumeristic world. That is why digital is catching on." Where does it say that just because you have a digital camera you have to snap off 1000 pics a day with no thought to artistry?
I think any of the great photographers out there are still going to be deliberate with thier photos, taking the time to try to create something special just as carefully as they did with film.
And let's fact it, digital is also catching on because it's helping your average Joe become a better photographer. When people always shot film, they had no feedback until the film got back from Wal-Mart and they found out that 23 out of 24 pictures sucked. Now without having to pay all that money for film and developing, it encourages people to shoot more often, and like anything else, the more you do it, the more you improve.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 01:40:59 PM · #17 |
| My friend has just had a porfolio of prints accepted by the Royal society for his succesfull A.R.P.S submission All were taken on film on an old RB67 and the quality of them is breath taking, all of them are 20 x 16 mounted on white matte board. I for one haven,t seen any digital file that resolved the detail or had the gradation these prints do. |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 01:44:32 PM · #18 |
It sounded like a film user, who is disgruntled that all his customers are going for digital photographers... .. or someone who knows that the industry is going digital and doesn't want to admit it...
there WILL always be film... but i imagine just not the variety that we find today... people will still be interesting in 'playing' with it..
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 01:54:18 PM · #19 |
Well, this particular photographer could really use some digital help for almost all of his photographs as shown here. I followed the link on the home page...If he is going to bash something, he should at least be producing fine prints himself, or something to compete and show how film is better.
Jeffrey Aaronson, Nels Israelson, Francis Hills, etc. probably could teach this guy on how to adapt to digital...These guys are remarkable, and very high end, all are also very digital...
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 02:03:54 PM · #20 |
" This is a quick and inexpensive way of introducing on the spot photos. The cost difference between digital and film photography is quite substantial. Keep in mind the huge savings of digital photgraphs are not usually passed on to the customer by the professional photographer."
LOL
This guy doesnt sound like a good businessman at all. If the industry norm is to charge so much for pictures and a digital photographer realizes he can cut down on costs and increase profits then that is fantastic from a business point of view.
So far he knows nothing about:
technology
and
business
Message edited by author 2004-11-25 14:48:57.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 02:10:58 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Damian:
" This is a quick and inexpensive way of introducing on the spot photos. The cost difference between digital and film photography is quite substantial. Keep in mind the huge savings of digital photgraphs are not usually passed on to the customer by the professional photographer."
LOL
This guy doesnt sound like a good businessman at all. If the industry norm is to charge so much for pictures and a digital photographer realizes he can cut down on costs and increase profits then that is fantastic from a business point of view.
So far he knows nothing about:
technology
and
business |
Very good post...Touché.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 02:12:10 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Damian:
So far he knows nothing about:
technology
and
business |
Or "matrix dot" printers, apparently. |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 02:30:13 PM · #23 |
Depends what you are after. In many ways film is vastly superior to digital - but a whole lot less convenient.
Skin tone reproduction is a prime example where digital results, particularly end prints, are really unpleasant.
Dynamic range is a whole lot more limited with digital. In addition, the performance towards the ends of the dyanmic range is a lot nastier with digital (look at any catchlight in a digital portrait for a prime example)
Convenience, repeatability and ease of editing mean that digital is fantastically better in the commercial space.
Instance feedback means digital is a great way to learn quickly.
There are pros and cons of any format, just like what ever replaces digital capture will have pros and cons. Blind adherence to any technology just represents a total misunderstanding about what photography is about - technology is a means to the end, not the end in itself. You just need to use the tools that give you the best result for what you are trying to achieve.
Message edited by author 2004-11-25 14:30:53.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2004 02:35:40 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by kiwinick:
My friend has just had a porfolio of prints accepted by the Royal society for his succesfull A.R.P.S submission All were taken on film on an old RB67 and the quality of them is breath taking, all of them are 20 x 16 mounted on white matte board. I for one haven,t seen any digital file that resolved the detail or had the gradation these prints do. |
How hard have you been looking? Did you see any, for instance, of the World Press photo competition exhibition that's been around the world a few times this year? Prints generally at 30" x whatever, and some of them absolutely outstanding ... and how many photojournalists do you know (of) who still restrict themselves to film only? A large proportion of those shots are digital, and they're outstanding.
That said, one of my hero photographers uses only medium-format film.
I think there may be room for all of us :-)
E |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 02:39:03 PM · #25 |
Digital can be printed onto 'real paper' too besides that, what he has to say has little bearing on reality these days.. DOT MATRIX printers...lmao .. aint seen one of them since i left ICL in the 80's.
Someone needs to show the guy the light but he would probebly just turn his deaf ear on you anyway. I think it is very sad when you need to knock others to try to get business and I agree he needs a better website too. I suck at building sites but I think mine comes up way better than that thing he done. anyway Im not gonna knock the guy I wish him all the best. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 12:26:34 PM EDT.
